Are Tanks Obsolete?

[@Cris-xy2gi]

At a fundamental level, tanks are probably never going to become obsolete, but they will (and have already) changed form many, many times. Like how medium tanks and heavy tanks have sort of merged into what we now call Main Battle Tanks.

[@generalaccount6531]

Wars are usually a wake-up call for tank development to go in the most effective direction. Kinda like how before WW2 they were messing around with multi-turret designs for example. But they were proven to be ineffective fast into the war

[@cosmicdistortion4350]

it's just a cycle, there'll be a counter to tanks and then something that improves the tanks vs infantry and so on i think

[@captain-unknow5293]

Would you say that most light tank became some kind of apc cause most apcs have 20mm guns, as well have the capability of moving fast as light tank and able to drop and go troops or am I wrong please to answer?

[@foods3019]

@@captain-unknow5293 Many modern IFVs perform similar roles to what light tanks of the past did. So in a sense, yes.

[@TakNuke]

The thing with mbt is that with each new generation the weight of it has only risen. Mbt's have adopted to counter it by making themselves smaller with autoloader Or have new crew layout ie T14 or have modular armour package ie Type10. Even then they are still heavy for some terrain and armies understand the value of putting armour where your enemy can't. So arouse the new generation of light tanks. As such a smaller gun is needed in some cases since you are not expecting mbt to face off and aps so you can protect your selves initially to gain some time so that you can uparmour to face mbt later or you're facing fire as you enter ao.

[@jailbotmark1379]

The issue in September 2020 was that Armenia failed to divert any of its modern SAM systems from the Turkish border fearing their overt support of the Azeris meant a second front in the west was a real possibility, leaving the T-72s dug in at Artsakh completely vulnerable to Turkish-Azeri air dominance, whereas in Ukraine Russia seems to have no problem rolling their MBTs into built up areas with no infantry support to inevitably get stomped by concealed AT. But the first example just goes to show that even with correct employment the usefulness of heavy armor is far too interdependent on contesting multiple domains at once for a lot of poorer countries fighting asymmetrically to really make full use of them.

[@Ugurcan191]

@@isyourboyzafirakys7127 COPE Harder bro.

[@virgilio6349]

@@isyourboyzafirakys7127 Well maybe if Armenia hadn't pushed away all their allies in the region they would've atleast gotten support from say, Georgia.

[@filmandfirearms]

@@virgilio6349 Russia is doing all it can without provoking all out war with Turkey, which would likely lead to a war with NATO

[@filmandfirearms]

Russia is supporting their tanks quite well. The reason you see so many videos of tanks getting knocked out unsupported in urban areas is because the Ukrainians can't really knock out anything else. Russian doctrine ever since WW2 has allowed for stragglers to get lost from the main formation without supporting elements. That's how a German Tiger commander in late 1942 was able to kill a T-34 crew with his pistol. He didn't even know they were Russian until he knocked on the hatch. Most of these stragglers do eventually return to the main force, but some will get ambushed and knocked out

[@fulcrum2951]

@@filmandfirearms bit of a cope to call tanks getting lost a 'doctrine'

[@CobraDBlade]

The Chieftan brought up a bunch of good points in his recent videos where he points out that the majority of the tanks getting knocked out lack any real infantry support that would help to protect them from these man portable anti-tank weapons. Not to mention that thanks to propaganda you'll never see the attacks that don't result in a kill of some sort.

[@Colonel_Overkill]

Yea, the RPG team running up and immediately painting the closest building courtesy of a hi ex shell doesent inspire proper anti enemy sentiment in your side. Would really be interested in numbers of attacks against armor vs successful executions of the objective. Javelins are a bit different but RPGs and most manpats are in general a too close for comfort weapons.

[@h.cedric8157]

@Foxtrot.2Nov if a Ukrainian AT team gets killed, well, they couldnt upload their videos while dead right? But yeah, what we have are mere estimates, some base on photographic confirmation. But of course, over claiming kills has been a thing since wars started.

[@Colonel_Overkill]

I have personally felt the dud rate on javelins was a bit high, but also understand the more complex a piece of equipment the more chances for something to go wrong. Some of the Kontakt 5 ERA and thicker portions of the composite arrays may be able to eat a javelin, especially if its a bad hit, oblique angle, etc that doesent hit center turret roof for whatever reason. Honestly wouldn't be surprised to see ERA of some type covering the top of at least portions of the deck or roof as a field mod. Really depends on how threatened they feel about javs as to if we see it. The cage armor seems to do pretty well against top strike RPG warheads so theres no real concern of the ERA killing the crew instead of the missile for a roof mount.

[@h.cedric8157]

@Foxtrot.2Nov you're still expecting that anyone with a camera in a battlefield will prioritize good plates and shots and uploads, over fucking up the enemy

[@Colonel_Overkill]

NERA blocks replating the roof may work but would have to be like a foot thick or more. You are right that there is no good solution to top attack tandem HEAT warheads, everything is makeshift attempts but save a redesign of the entire entrance points to an Israeli style hatch and making the roof a meter thick I agree there isnt really a good off the shelf solution save a hard kill APS that would work.

[@MM-zg4wu]

For 50 years, there has been talk of tanks becoming history, and they are still fighting. In 100 years, it will also be said when looking at sci-fi tank fights.

[@kamilszadkowski8864]

Even longer. Talks about tanks being obsolete started practically with tanks appearing on the battlefields. First claims of tanks being obsolete appeared with the invention of AT rifles.

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@kamilszadkowski8864 aye, infantry being obsolete was also thrown around when the tank came out.

[@DeltaAssaultGaming]

Nah, we’ll have Mechs by then

[@moosiemoose1337]

@@DeltaAssaultGaming there's literally nothing a mech can do that a tank can't do better

[@ozan1234561]

Back then there were dive bombers and primitive anti tank weapons and enviromental factors that were sorta effective at taking tanks out then there came guided munitions and rather sophisticated anti armor weapons that could take a tank out with a single hit, sometimes, but were greatly effective at stopping them for a while Nowadays with anti tank missiles that can be carried on someones back and be set up within minutes, drones that can hit tanks right under anti air systems noses and guided precision missiles that can hit weakpoints down to centimeters and take tanks out completely, with great reliability, they look like they could be out of conventional warfare Against unconventional warfare however, its great to have some extra protection against someone that can attack with anything, from anywhere, at anytime

[@jackknall9966]

"Infantry is obsolete since everyone is running around with cheap anti-infantry weapons which can take out infantry with only a since hit"

[@coatofarms4439]

I guess the howitzer has always been the best weapon.

[@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial]

But the thing is infantry are the most extendable of combat units. They can get rid of tanks, aircraft, ships, and other infantry. Tanks can really only get rid of other tanks

[@cynicalfox190]

@@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial if you think tanks are only capable of dealing with or are only designed to fight other tanks you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what a tank is let alone it’s role in combat

[@shadowraven3253]

@@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial Well a single soldiers will probably not be able to do that and so a single tank can't. Like with infantry you will have specialized tanks that fullfill the role more effective but also expensive.

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@LockheedC-130HerculesOfficial they can also get rid of fortifications, aircraft, supply vehicle, trains and sometimes infantry, tanks were invented to destroy fortifications while providing cover for infantry in WW1.

[@1248-f8u]

It’s amazing how much media can warp a perspective of an item or idea.

[@supremesnake4297]

Agreed. But I still don't think the consensus is wrong per say. Because the tank changes it's roll and adapts drastically, we can see that over the last century. The purpose of the tank has changed from, pushing over trenches and no man's land, to using speed to exploit weak points in the enemy, to heavy, slow extremely tough and powerful platforms etc. The idea that the tank is dead may be bit extreme, but it might not be completely wrong in that, the way we see tanks now, compared to what they might become will be different. It also has to be said, that just because you can put aps, and other systems in place, doesn't make it necessarily "worth" it, if the cost per unit gets to expensive, then countries will look elsewhere for alternatives.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Ulternatives? What Ulternatives? Tank are such a broad concept that anything that could possibly do their job is arguably a tank, unless you go to the extreme and just have dismounts which would be too slow and even more vulnerable or air support which is even more expensive but MORE vulnerable (more aircraft were last in Iraq than tanks, which is interesting as no ones screams about planes being obsolete weapons. The media just don't like tanks)

[@supremesnake4297]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 the air campaign was also huge in comparison, (if I remember correctly) and it's also a priority target. And a plane getting hit is much less likely to be recovered. Although that last part is more speculation on my part than anything. Tanks as how we mean it here, is the conventional idea and concept, high firepower, relatively heavy armour etc. Large calibre gun. The tip of the arrow for the ground force. The idea of alternatives is a massive conversation. It could be drone combat vehicles. Up armoured ifvs perhaps. Or a modular system, a bit like we are used to nowadays, but which is able to field a bigger gun/turret, able to penetrate those more armoured units, if they are around.

[@awesomehpt8938]

Tanks aren’t obsolete. They’re just not suited to every kind of war and location. Tanks do very well in deserts and open fields where you need to have mobile firepower with a long range but lack any kind of cover. Tanks are terrible however in dense forests and urban areas where the advantages they add to any military can be easily neutralised by portable anti tank systems used by nearby infantry and which have the element of surprise. Tanks in a combined arms war also need the protection provided by infantry and aircraft.

[@kommandantgalileo]

The invasion of France disagrees

[@Riceball01]

I wouldn't say that, tanks can and do perform well in just about all types of terrain and environments is used correctly. People area always saying that tanks are useless in X type of environment and history has constantly proven these people wrong. For instance, when the Korean War broke, people were saying that tanks would usedless because Korea was too hilly/mountainous for tanks yet both sides employed tanks quite effectively throughout the war. Later on, a similar thing was said about Vietnam and how tanks would be useless in the forests of Vientnam yet the US did deploy and use tanks throughout the war and later, after we withdrew, the NVA in turn used their own tanks in the final days of the war.

[@nguyenlequockhang4101]

@@kommandantgalileo but the german tanks didn't fought in the forest, they just moved through it.

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@nguyenlequockhang4101 it was a joke.

[@butspan7618]

​@@Riceball01 it dose not mater what kind of environment you're in a tank will always be a cannon. and a cannon is always useful. its that a tank is a lot more flexible than a cannon allowing it to have additional perks depending on the environment you're in.

[@Polygon-yug-9581]

_Just as much as infantry. ;D_

[@dedneyder3586]

“He solved the puzzle” The secret cod

[@avsbes98]

I absolutely agree with the Director of the German Tank Museum on this question: Tanks are not obsolete, but the current form of tanks and doctrine probably is. The Tank, as well as doctrine will adapt as it has done multiple times in the past. In the '20s Tanks were thought to be obsolete, as they were only meant to solve an issue of the First World War. '45 Tanks were thaught to be obsolete, because now Nukes were the future. In the '60s and '70s Tanks were thought ot be obsolete because of ATGMS. In the '90s Tanks were thaught to be obsolete because now nobody needed huge armies anymore as the USSR was gone. In the 2010s Tanks were thought to be obsolete because the West wasn't waging huge Wars anymore, only "Policing Actions" in which Tanks worked rather poorly. Now in the 2020s Tanks are thought to be obsolete due to Drones. The Tank has changed to overcome these issues in the past and so has doctrine. The Tank and Doctrine will change again. I assume that for example Dronetanks will become Standard, among other changes. You don't need to design a tank to protect the Crew, if the Crew is thousands of Kilometers away, so you can design the tank in a way to keep its components combat capable as long as possible. Dronestanks would probably also make Tanks quite a bit smaller and lighter.

[@corporalcorgi4948]

Those dronetanks must have a great resistance to electronic warfare/communication disruption then, or else it just becomes an RC car without a controller.

[@avsbes98]

Also one thing i'd like to add about why i think we are seeing a lot of images of destroyed tanks out of Ukraine (and partially also Syria etc.): A Tank has a very specific meaning to the average person. A destroyed Tank does as well. A Tank is a Symbol of Power and when it is destroyed, that is a sign of power being crushed, of failure. Thus we obviously see a lot of Pictures of destroyed Russian Tanks out of Ukraine, because it keeps the Fighting Spirit of the Ukrainians high and the rest of the Western World close, to root for (and actively support) David (Ukraine) in the (relatively successfull) fight against Goliath (Russia). That's why we see a high percentage of picture of destroyed tanks. (IIRC something along the lines of every second tank that Ukraine claims they have destroyed is backed up by photographical evidence) What we don't see a lot of Pictures of (which i have to say i'm thankfull for) are pictures of dead humans. We see a lot of Pictures that imply that Humans died, like destroyed Buildings, Vehicles etc. but we only see a handfull of corpses or corpse-parts. This is happening because we don't like to see dead or mutilated people and spreading pictures of those would make people, probably including a decent portion of the Ukrainian public and a significant portion of the Public in Western Countries somewhat sympathetic to the people that died - even if they were Invaders, who probably themselves killed people who did nothing to deserve it. It is easy to see a destroyed tank as a symbol of an oppressor being beaten back, even though it implies that multiple people died a horrible death - it is far harder to see a mutilated corpse the same way.

[@avsbes98]

6:24 This is also something that isn't only true for Tanks but for other Weapons of War as well. The best example in my opinion is how the F-104 in Germany becameknown as the "Widow Maker" because so many of its pilots died, because it was simply used incorrectly (however iirc it was marketed as being able to fullfill the roles it was used for, even though it wasn't designed for them and thus completely failed in them)

[@pax6833]

Drone tank will never be a thing, armies are still even reluctant to adopt autoloaders because having a crew is just too useful to keeping a tank maintained in combat zone. Just the fact of having an extra pair of hands to help deal with breakdowns/damage is viewed as that useful that loaders are not ditched (among other reasons). Tank crews in the future may be downsized but never eliminated. Drones are fine being remote controlled because of the principles of weight ratio when flying, because they are very cheap/disposable, and because they operate high up away from the ground which can interfere with tanks much easier.

[@dsjaks6983]

Drone tanks will never work. For a tank to be effective, it needs constant maintenance and repairs. If your tank throws a track 50 km away, the tank is effectively a pillbox until you can send out another team to repair it.

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

Most of the tanks being killed that I've seen were either from airstrikes, which means the unit AA has failed, or in urban/point blank ambushes, which means the unit's infantry has failed, or that the tanks have outrun their support. You don't want to get too far ahead of the rest of your troops, but you also don't want the enemy to retreat unhindered and regroup.

[@zyakemk4]

It may be almost true, but IMO, tank's survivability is also very important. Both of good operation and tank's survivability should be combined.

[@commanderstorm8874]

Tanks arnt ment for urban environments it’s like trying to put a square peg in a round hole what do you think is going to happen to the tank

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

@@commanderstorm8874 In urban combat, they're supposed to fight alongside infantry and blast any strong points the infantry can't handle. The frontal armor can take most return fire. If the enemy gets a shot at the sides, rear, or top, the tank is in serious trouble, and it's the infantry's job to make sure that doesn't happen. Ideally, the infantry will suppress the enemy before the tank enters the line of sight of the strongpoint and blast it before they have a chance to sent any ATGMs or HEAT rounds their way. Hell, if there's no infantry you can just run up onto to the tank and throw blankets over the optics. The tank will be effectively knocked out unless the crew comes out, and you'll be there waiting for them. For a textbook case in how not to use tanks in urban warfare, see Grozny. To see it done' right, look at Fallujah.

[@commanderstorm8874]

@@tickticktickBOOOOM but still nowadays we’ve got the Bradley and IFV that have tow missiles and other heavy stuff so they’ve kinda taken the role of tanks in urban combat

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

@@commanderstorm8874 HE shells are a lot cheaper than TOWs, and IFVs are only proof against small arms and autocannons at best. Things like the MGS Stryker can provide good fire support, but as with other APC-based systems are very vulnerable to enemy fire. Abrams have taken over a dozen RPG hits without being knocked out. As long as they're not flanked, it takes a high end ATGM to kill them and those usually have to be exposed longer than a potshot from cover you can pull off with lighter systems like AT-4s. That makes them vulnerable to return fire. Add in active protection systems are getting better and more widespread, and I say the age of the tank is far from over.

[@brandonl8039]

The never ending fight between armor and weapons has swung to favor weapons. It will swing back, a new technology will come along, like APS that will change the dynamic.

[@Rokaize]

The issue with that is now you are adding even more of a cost to tanks. Which have already skyrocketed in cost. Which in turn means you’re spending tens of millions of dollars on one tank which will go up against some cheap ATGMs. APS will never stop everything 100% of the time. Infantry can’t be nearby either or they risk shrapnel from the APS hitting them. I don’t really see APS as the solution that changes the dynamic. It’s more of just one factor in a larger series of factors.

[@davidmccormick7419]

@@Rokaize their is also Laser defences like what the USA is trialing with its modern warships. and as nations and economies get bigger the cost of a tank gets less and less significant even though it gets more expensive per dollar. the US spends less than 5% of its GDP on its military and if everyone else did roughly the same the cost per tank would go down as more where bought.

[@cynicalfox190]

@@Rokaize same can be said for the early Cold War period, yet armour advancements put protection back in front in the late Cold War and even up to modern day. We may see a switch back to lightly armoured vehicles (still probably capable of stopping 30mm cannon from all angles, just not armoured to stop any round from a main gun be it 75mm 50mm 125mm ect) which cuts down on the cost in favour of putting that money into APS or systems that haven’t even been developed yet. There is no way the role of the tank can be left empty on the battlefield and IFV’s and missile carriers can’t fill that role The design of the tank may change but the role it fills will not hence why it will always be a tank

[@gaychampagnesocialist7213]

@@Rokaize Tanks are a quality over quantity weapon in what warfare is currently moving towards, so having a smaller core of really advanced and expensive tanks would probably fit doctrines better than the Russian million tank rush blyat.

[@jonathanallen3688]

APS is not a great system. It doesnt stop the core issue that tanks always run into. Poor infantry support in urban environments will lead to APS system being overwhelmed quickly. Tanks by themselves will always be obsolete its what we've learned 80 years ago in WW2.

[@horusmorus5588]

5:24 “use artillery and other assets to suppress anti-tank teams” Russian High Command: My goodness, what an idea! Why didn't I think of that?

[@WolfeSaber]

Just proves that Russia is not ready for war anymore.

[@socomgaming1014]

Russian commanders: Comrades, were not cavemen, *we have technology* *bombs cities into oblivion, Ukrainians still destroy their tanks* Russians: it didn’t work

[@blackwood4734]

@@socomgaming1014 they still have plan to rebuild Ukr after the war, unlike the US commit genocide onto those poor bastard with uranium bomb and forget about them

[@xxch1coriaxx]

@@socomgaming1014 > be Ukrainian military > Make bases in schools, hospitals and hide among civilians > Be bombed by Russians > Moan about Russians bombing residencial buildings > Keep getting ass whopped and major civilian loses > Get massive support of international community > Act like you're winning the war in the peace talks > President gets his nobel of peace and gets to keep fortune in offshores > Profit

[@hemendraravi4787]

@@socomgaming1014 they are not doing it cus they don't want to wipe out the civilians lol and later the same guy will be like omg Russia is bombarding everything warcriminals and shit .

[@tyray3p]

"Tanks get killed by AT infantry with rocket launchers, they're obsolete" "AT Infantry get killed by planes and helicopters, so they're also obsolete" "Planes and helicopters get hard countered by SPAA and SAMs, so they're out too" "But SPAA and SAMs can't do much against a tank, so I guess we're back at square one"

[@LuisSilva-nn2ex]

These types of videos are amazing, very insightful. I believe that the newer version of "tanks" will start to become lighter and less armored, rely more on advanced APS to survive, and be used in a way to mainly support infantry units instead of being a type of "spearhead" or "cavalry" units like they were before.

[@TheSchultinator]

The biggest reason I see for tanks not dropping too much in weight is APFSDS. As far as I'm aware, no APS developed yet is truly effective against it, and so for the near-term, tanks will still need the armor (and therefore the weight)

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

APS doesn't handle massive automatic fire or barrage. Armor will always remain a thing for the obvious reality that hard stats are forever, and roles have specific intent. Cutting out a role to have progress for the sake of progress is when you get donkey punched by reality. Your mistake to make, but not one I will choose to endure for you.

[@Dracorex235]

I think both roles of infantry support and "spearhead" are going to remain as roles for the tanks, because there´s still not another weapon system that lets you do that the way the tank does yet. But who knows, the tank concept and role could evolve to be ground drones acompaning the main tanks as "wingmans" and taking the heavy losses while being comanded from the more protected tank that advances alongside or behind them, depending on mission.

[@Willsr14]

The thing about the MBT is that if the enemy doesn't have something to destroy it, it does dominate a fight. It can cover most terrain, provide cover, storm a position, destroy said position, and cause harm to everything else on the battlefield. The problem is when the opponent has the tools to destroy them easily, such an launchers, missiles, drones, artillery, aircraft etc. I think tanks are a tool that works when everything else in your army is doing its best to protect and support them. Russia hasn't demonstrated this, they've not achieved air superiority, ground dominance, and have simply lined up tanks into lethal weapons without reservation. Not to mention their awful supply line issue. I think the Ukraine war shows us how bad tanks are when they're used poorly, which doesn't disprove the notion that tanks are very effective when used correctly.

[@quentinspaeth1757]

yes, but this can apply to almost any unit (like aircrafts), maybe only the infantry are indeed capable of "adapt" a bad scenario

[@Tomardes]

Im not gonna say that you saying thigns thats simply not true, but i will mention words, that Chieftain said. Judging by small pieces of video information is not enough to make a objective point of view

[@binaryshark5965]

what each of these wars have taught anyone who studies modern warfare is that combine arms warfare is the best way to fight.

[@jackwalters5506]

@@binaryshark5965 which means it hadn't taught anything. Basic combat theory still hasn't fundementally changed since late ww2

[@binaryshark5965]

@@jackwalters5506 and yet people keep on Insisting on relearning the same bloody lesson ever since.

[@ThePereubu1710]

The tank isn't obsolete, but the tank that is sent into a contested zone without air and ground cover is.

[@bigbadlara5304]

🤫 Don't tell a certain Russian.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. It's just a shame it takes so long to train the reserve man power to make the ejected turrets dent the Russian economy harder.

[@csirke9822]

Why would they need air cover? Ukraine barely has any planes left

[@Crosshair84]

This was always true for tanks.

[@pedrolucan4006]

@@csirke9822 Air support and artillery are used to suppress infantry and static emplacements so they can't mount a proper defense against an incoming armored column. I'm sure the VDV at hostomel would have liked it. Might have reduced the staggering amount of casualities.

[@tedtarrant7375]

I simply recommend to exist in the ethereal plane beyond conventional warfare

[@representativeofthedidistu2804]

It's still going to play a big role in the morale of troops. Many fighters gain a sense of relief and proudness whenever they see giant armored vehicles on the field. *As long as it's on their side of the fight*

[@An0beseGiraffe]

i honestly think The Chieftain went into this really well on his recent video regarding the Ukranian war, great video Spook o7

[@999Phiro]

One thing to add to your dude's comments, from the perspective of someone who was in the Infantry. He makes a point that Tanks are meant to exploit openings in enemy lines, and support a combined arms team. I was a grunt who was in Strykers for my time in service. I've been at every position at the squad level, including specialty positions such as machine gunner/assistant gunner in the weapons squad. If you try to employ infantry the way tanks are currently supposed to be used, it simply won't work. It's no secret that a Bradley or Stryker can't shrug off hits from 125mm or other large bore weapons. And if you try to use infantry dismounted to cover the same distance it gets even worse. Tanks have worked and will continue to work because of their ability to focus on attacking in areas with little cover, with the speed to seize the initiative and dictate the tempo of the engagement, and the ability to have direct effective fires. Helicopter Assaults can't replicate that because eventually the helos have to leave. Airborne assault doesn't have the kind of armor and equipment to have the same kind of ability to rapidly assault or defend positions after their initial deployment. Motorized Infantry are unable to aggressively assault and seize locations because our vehicles have to be employed more defensively. That leaves Mechanized Infantry and Armored formations (which tbh is just a mix of whether it's more tanks or IFVs) to launch offensive operations with much less support requirements than the above formations. There is no substitute, and to have the same effect as Tanks on the ground is to try and replace them with even more support assets such as air, artillery, or helo. TLDR: I agree with the dude, just trying to provide a more in depth explanation as to why it's a huge point. Good video all around.

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

Do you think the heavy armour of MBTs is becoming obsolete though? Since it seems an IFV could fill their role in combined arms for less cost

[@999Phiro]

@@jimbothegymbro7086 Right now it's a balancing act. Heavier armor is the name of the game without sacrificing against mobility, because an IFV is no use if the enemy can knock it out easy. I think with new materials technology that's coming through the pipeline armor will get stronger and lighter, allowing for more of it. Because APS is great until the system that is a machine fails. So where IFVs sacrifice armor for other capabilities tanks can be focused on purely being a combat vehicle. It's why they're so effective because there is zero wasted space. Plus with super light armor you're putting a lot of trust in other areas of overall protection, in don't be seen/don't be hit. Armor forces the enemy to commit heavier or more costly assets to counter that they could be using elsewhere. Case in point, M1s aren't invincible but when properly maintained they take a lot to knock out. That's resources that your enemy has to deploy to fix and counter your armor. And in a battle space where your sight lines extend for miles (Jav's max range is 2 kilometers), main guns with mobility and armor to back them will win unless presented against an enemy with an overwhelming support advantage. 120s and 125s will out range TOWs and hit their targets before the missiles reach theirs. So short answer I think heavy armor won't go away. The materials will get lighter, construction will get better, but the concept won't go away for a MBT designed to be the backbone of an armored force.

[@jordansmith4040]

What we see in Ukraine is tanks advancing down roads, unable to spread out due to muddy fields and extremely limited logistics. We also see that ERA and APS is either not equipped, or otherwise poorly supplied. I don't think tanks are dead, but what we are seeing is how anything that isn't "top of the line" is completely obsolescent, much like in the conflicts in Iraq, where better equipment, training, and logistics won very one sided engagements.

[@DzinkyDzink]

So basically Chechenya 2.0?

[@jordansmith4040]

@@DzinkyDzink to some extent, yes. But we also see they aren't shelling indiscrimitely like they did in Chechnya. Whether that is due to morality or lack of supply is another matter.

[@tuananhhoang7113]

@@jordansmith4040 is more about the Russian still trying to salvage some image to the Ukranian masses seeing how they are still uploading media of them offering humanitarian aid to the local residents . It's kind of strange seeing how the Russian command were unwilling to utilize their air superiority; artillery ;recon assets in the opening week of the fight which only give time for the Ukranian army to reorganize and regroup to inflict more casualty upon them in the coming weeks .

[@jordansmith4040]

@@tuananhhoang7113 I suppose you're right, though I feel there is a level of incompetence and corruption on the Russian side that has been surprising.

[@tuananhhoang7113]

@@jordansmith4040 indeed there was some situation where the Russian army showed remarkable incompetency . Right now, with more asset like drone and heavy artillery rolling in then the Russian forces is doing much better except for some sporadic Ukranian strike on their back line.

[@Silentst0rm5]

The things we are seeing out of ukraine with tank kills I think has more to do with doctrinal issues from Russia, most videos show unsupported tanks getting taken out by drones or manpats, a tank with no Infantry/Air support is dead no matter what war you look at

[@DatBoi_TheGudBIAS]

Both irl and in game

[@Tales41]

Well most kills from Ukraine are false. They either use old footage or literal arma 3 shit. So I wouldn't believe anything coming from the Ukraine war in kills and casualties

[@Tales41]

Besides Russia is obviously doing a combined arms warfare there.

[@Silentst0rm5]

@@Tales41 Nice blanket deniably statement, Ive seen enough geo-located videos and photos to think that if your right then we missed both the last time Russian Armour was destroyed en-mass in The Kyiv Oblast and the Kharkiv Oblast or arma 3 released a the most epic Ukraine and Russian skins

[@Tales41]

@@Silentst0rm5 lol ok

[@hideshisface1886]

There is this thing... From what I see - pretty much every case we see in the modern footage, when modern tanks are being wrecked left and right, they are wrecked in the same exact scenarios that would get them wrecked in WW II. Basically - we see tanks misused. A lone tank without infantry support barging into city? Death sentence. Same for tank ambushed from the woods on the road, or stuck in the mud. Thing is - while modern tanks enjoy far greater visibility than their WW II counterparts, they are still comparatively blind. These are machines that need support, that need proper combined arms operations to be effective. An aircraft or ambushing AT team can be effective on their own - tank... not so much. And what we have seen here - entire armoured groups, buttoned and exposed, driving around, bunched and not expecting and/or underestimating the threat. That is a deadly scenario for any vehicle or any force. Second thing - tank is not invulnerable - never was, never will be. Even the very first tanks could still be pierced by machine guns with tungsten rounds - and we are talking about a moment in history when there was no specifically designed counter. Another thing is the nature of counter itself - a counter to something is designed not to "barely deal with it" - but to deal with the issue well.

[@NonsenseFabricator]

Find someone who looks at you the way Spookston's discord icon looks at HAL.

[@MrAcuta73]

The Chieftain (Nicholas Moran) had a GREAT video recently about just this topic. I'd say he has a pretty good grasp of armor in the modern maneuver unit. Was a very interesting video. The MBT is no more dead than putting cannon on fighters, even in the age of BVR hyper-sonic missiles.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

They thought the gun on planes was obsolete until they did that with the F-4 and realized their mistake.

[@SayakMajumder]

At the end of the day, you need boots on the ground, to hold/secure a piece of land. And the troops need armor for protection, in 1 way or another. Now for a dense urban environment you can do away with armor to some degree. But for a sparse environment, you'll always need the armor security. You'll always need a mobile armored fire support platform.

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

Yes an IFV can fill that role though, most MBTs are really there to fight other MBTs

[@shorewall]

@@jimbothegymbro7086 MBTs school IFVs.

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

@@shorewall that's why you have infantry with anti armor that can kill the MBT, rock paper scissors type of situation

[@imgvillasrc1608]

@@jimbothegymbro7086 And the IFV has to stop first to unload the infantry, the infantry will have to bug out of their IFV, then find a good shooting position, then they can shoot the tank. The MBT meanwhile can shoot the IFV even on the run thanks to modern FCS and gun stabilizers. In short, MBT has the initiative advantage.

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

@@imgvillasrc1608 until they make effectively a light tank that's pretty much an IFV without the troop transport feature Since MBTs are really only there to fight other MBTs and their armor is becoming redundant on top of their immense cost and logistical needs it's only a matter of time before we start seeing lighter non IFV vehicles used similarly to how MBTs are used now

[@Darkrunn]

*sees a SAM* "Look! The era of military aviation is nigh!"

[@rogue__agent5884]

Plane destroyed by SAM Yea plane are obsolete

[@mekingtiger9095]

Ironically, the same can be said about drones as they can also be shot down quite easily by either dedicated physical munition AAs or just jamming devices as evidenced by the several images of drones from both Russia and Ukraine being shot down. Yet no one bats an eye about drones being obsolete. Why?

[@richiestang78]

I think the days of 40+ ton MBTs tanks is done. I see more IFVs and light tanks with active protection becoming the new norm where speed and mobility is the key to survivability. edited Heavy tanks to MBT for clarification. I'm aware heavy tanks are long obsolete but the Abrams is 60+ tons

[@captainfactoid3867]

Heavy tanks have been done for like 50 years now…

[@bro3217]

@@captainfactoid3867 I think he means tanks like the abrams and Leo that weigh 60 tons

[@kommandantgalileo]

@@bro3217 those are called medium tanks/MBTs.

[@namesurname624]

American Light Tanks weight as much as Russian MBTs

[@mathew0172]

@@namesurname624 thats called doctrine

[@BotNickz]

US tanks have been incredibly effective when deployed in real combat in the Middle East. Why decommission those assets during a current real fight because you think they won’t be as useful in a future theoretical fight with Russia or China. Imagine if everyone stopped using machine guns the first time one was overrun in WW1. We didn’t throw away the asset, we adjusted the tactics and doctrine.

[@MareWT]

Because they never encountered real threat. They never fought drones or infantry with most modern AT weapons

[@cypressquack7178]

@@MareWT They have in fact. Various groups opposing NATO has been supplied with AT weapons and vehicles from China and Russia. In this case, It's NATO supplying Ukraine fighting Russia. Pretty much every insurgency war has had weapons supplied from either Russia or the US and often times both.

[@Tanker000]

@@MareWT never encountered real threat you say lol we've used Abrams in Iran and in the middle East and we never lost that much tanks [99% was friendly fire to avoid capture] if the United States was fighting a modern country we wouldn't lose this many than Russia right now because we got all the experiences from Soviet Union while the Soviet Union sits there while USA/Some NATO countries go fight communist country that Soviet Union set up for us

[@BotNickz]

@@MareWT You're proving my point. Why would we throw away things that are effective in real battles that have actually happened because they may not be effective against 'real threats' in fake theoretical battles?

[@sniperfi4532]

@@MareWT it’s called combined arms warfare and was mentioned in the video. Your tanks encounter enemy infantry with modern AT WEAPONS? You outrange them with artillery or use your infantry support your tanks are assigned to. Enemy drone peppering your tanks with missiles? Well get your infantry’s man-pads, use dedicated air denial like a linebacker or in the case of the US use your overwhelming airforce to dominate the skies.

[@Gerwulf97]

Probably the one example i can think of of something becoming obsolete in terms of a whole vehicle class is the battleship. But thats actually entirely untrue. The Alriegh Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers we field today are literally longer than pre-war and mid-ww2 battleships. Think about that, our destroyers are longer than battleships before WW2. So in reality the battleship has lived on.

[@shanweeboy]

What I'm hearing is, "Ticonderogas are pocket battleships." and I like it.

[@FoxElliott]

Yeah, but we haven't actually gotten to see them in combat yet against a real nation- so just so we're clear, many of these things haven't gone obsolete because no first world nations have gone to war with each other in a long time to see what actually works. Battleships are probably going to become less relevant and get outphased by smaller coastal ships that can shoot cruise missiles and deploy helicopters. MBT's will likely be outweighed by Strykers and other light-armored vehicles because of the cost effectiveness. Paratroopers are pretty much a thing of the past because modern AA weaponry would rip them to shreds in a real conflict, and that goes the same many helicopters. Now of course, you can always make the claim "but they'd be useful if they were used correctly with good tactics" but that's just the problem- the tactics of war have changed drastically- and today's doctrines won't allow these technologies to exist within them. The Russian Generals who have had all of their vehicles destroyed aren't being incompetent- they're using modern military doctrine with outdated equipment and vehicle roles. Why use a tank when you could just have an IFV with several ATGMs carried onboard and with infantry? Why deploy a column of MBTs into a country that doesn't have that many MBTs to fight against? What exactly is the purpose of the MBT if every other role can do what it can but cheaper?

[@sharkquark6252]

@@FoxElliott an IFV can’t withstand a good old APFSDS round, some can’t even withstand 20mm rounds, a modern tank can. An IFV has maybe a 20-30mm gun and like 2-3 missiles. A tank has a 125mm gun with dozens of HE rounds, which are way way cheaper than the missiles of the IFV. A tank can support infantry in a way an IFV could never. Why deploy an MBT when the enemy has no MBTs? Cause it’s still highly effective against infantry….

[@shanweeboy]

@@FoxElliott No, they're using bad tactics. They're sending their tanks into areas with no infantry screens. This is how tanks get deleted by shoulder fired AT ambushes. Tanks have crap visibility and depend on supporting units to not run blind into trouble, especially in wooded areas and urban areas where all it takes is some jerk in a window with a rocket launcher. In open fields they dominate because there's nothing but long sight lines and no cover. The russians are trying to just run death stacks over the ukrainians like they're playing civ 4.

[@colers2366]

At its core, a tank is a tracked platform with a good fuckoff direct fire gun. It is unlikely to ever be obsolete. Depending on technological changes, contemporary designs might favor armor, speed or technology more, but at its core, this is what a tank is and what its good for. And because it is direct fire, it must be protected.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Like how an aircraft carrier work, never send it alone.

[@benjaminparent4115]

What really muddy the debate is the term of Tank, yeah if youy take the concept as its core, a vehicle with a gun and maybe some armor, this will never die, as long as we have open ground to cover, the only hypothetical scenario where tank would truly be obsolete that I can imagine, is a Giant Dyson swarm, if all habitable land is space station maybe tank will be obsolete, then again you just need to put a big gun on a golf cart and you would have corridor adapted tank, but if you define Tank as the modern MBT concept, then well yeah that concept will probably die one day, maybe it will be fast maybe it will be slow, maybe in 20 years maybe in 2 centuries, but it will happens.

[@boerne_ben]

One of my good friends is an American TC in an Abrams. Recently, they had a simulator battle between 6 dug in T-80's crewed by good American tank crew, and 10 M1A2's crewed by random tank commanders in his company. The T-80's had 1 disabled, and all 10 Abrams tanks were destroyed. Goes to show it's not about the technology most of the time, it's about the crew that are using the vehicle and the tactics used.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Technology is meant to help, not to replace.

[@ey7290]

Depends... Do they have infantry support? No? Then yes they are What do 95% of the videos of Russian tanks being ambushed have in common? There is no infantry supporting the armour which makes the tanks a turkey shoot for guerillas

[@stormeaglegaming5395]

Exactly

[@goa141no6]

Plus the awful land force them to go true narrow easy to target paths.

[@kommandantgalileo]

Says a lot about the Russian high command

[@nick4506]

whats the point of them being fast and exploring the holes in defensive lines if they have to go walking speed. maybe their intelligence was wrong and that hole wasn't really a hole.

[@jackwalters5506]

@@kommandantgalileo not really, the only videos we're seeing are the successful ones, since the videos are released for propaganda purposes. Attacks on tanks which are supported by infantry are much more likely to fail, so we won't see footage of them until the war is over. We really have no clue what's going on since Russia isn't saying much, and Ukraine is censoring everything that makes it seem like they are losing

[@verden2323]

A armored box with a deadly gun wilk always be useful

[@originalpastaman5470]

A big problem is that many people, particularly policy makers and high up staff are very VERY risk averse and don’t accept losses as acceptable. This is why concepts such as light tanks have fallen to the wayside in the US Army because they cannot fathom an armored vehicle who’s survivability is dependent on crew skill, speed/mobility, and not being seen. Rather than good old fashioned “slap some more armor onto it” tactic.

[@IgnisDomini97]

I've been bringing this up everywhere I see the subject pop up, but an interesting case study in the way tanks are adapting to modern conflict is the new model Chinese Type-99A MBT. It's less heavily armored than most earlier MBTs, and much more mobile (not just raw speed, it has the same top speed in both forward and reverse); it is stuffed with just about every active countermeasure tech the PLA has access to (multiple, redundant smoke-screen generators, LSDW systems, designed specifically to allow ERA composite to cover as much of the tank as possible, etc.); and it's got a very sophisticated communication and positioning suite for enhanced tactical awareness. It's almost like a light tank that's been scaled up to fit an MBT's cannon on it.

[@Joshua_N-A]

JSDF Mitsubishi Type 10 also have the same speed as in forward and reverse and have better protection and firepower than the Type 74 and Japan is highly urbanized where Type 90 is too large and too heavy for urban operations while being the best armored vehicle in Japan's inventory. Prior to the Type 10, only Type 74 can manuveur in urban areas without much obstruction.

[@leto428]

A weapon system usually is not rendered obsolete because something could destroy it, but something that could replace it. For example, cavalry became obsolete because light armored vehicles could do their job of rapid mobilization much better, not because machine guns could kill them easily. If that is the case, light infantry should have been obsolete since WWI since machine guns could mow them down like grass. The current generation of MBTs is the combination of large-caliber direct firepower on a well-protected platform with excellent mobility. So unless something completely surpasses the three aspects mentioned, tanks would not be rendered obsolete. Plus if something is truly created that does absolutely better than the tank in these abilities, wouldn't it just be a better tank?

[@arcticequine7084]

Never get tired of the way Spookston’s discord profile pic looks approvingly toward Thinkie’s pic.

[@coatofarms4439]

Tanks are obsolete! We only need infantry, trenches and artillery just as Marshall Haig intended.

[@Joshua_N-A]

*Launches mustard missiles*

[@ju8_hiugo]

Aircraft's are obsolete because they get destroyed by anti-aircraft weapons!!!

[@wellingtonrodrigues7654]

Don't forget about the horses

[@coatofarms4439]

@@wellingtonrodrigues7654 M3 Abrams? T-14? Leopard 2A7? USELESS HUNKS OF METAL! Lancers! They are the future of mobile warfare!

[@S4LeagueTBKing]

This is a great video that helps defuse somewhat of the arguments I have seen floating around.

[@strate6002]

First of, Interesting Video and good idea. Now to my point, I will shorten it because i could go on about that for at least 45min. In my opinion many people dont think about the fact what a tank essentially is. Yes we all know the modern Tanks and the ones of WW2 etc. but the concept of going into battle with cover and protection(Armour) and doing that mobile while bringing a big gun to the field wont ever run obsolete. Yes Tank-Designs may run obsolote but the concept wont. So if you look between WW1 and WW2 you see alot of different tank designs because they didnt knew what a tank should look like and what it would be. A tank that was used in WW1 was a specific design for a specific pourpuse: the trench fighting and breaking through. So we can then see the tank shape changes but the concept doesnt, and it will keep on going like that. Tanks shapes will change and no one knows how they will look like in the future but the concept stays. Now many people think there was always that a Tank is builed to counter Tanks but as i stated that wasnt the first intention and furthermore many people think of Iraq as an example of modern tank combat but you have to keep in mind the Abrams was way superior to the T72 used by the Iraqs. In conclusion the Tank-Concept wont get obsolete but the shapes of tanks will eventually and as you two already stated the tactics. I apologies for my poor english and wish everyone a great day! Oh and you guys focusing so much on the Iraq-War is well yeah it gets the point across but i think its a bad example because of what i said above. Edit: That the tanks are used incorrectly in Ukraine is an assumption i would like to have proven tbh. because if you see the russian doctrins on tank combat its more safe to assume that they do work as intended but as the doctrins of the USSR those tanks are meant to be spend like a tool they will go over them with a second wave and recover the vehicles that broke down and where abandoned...and that doesnt seem to work that could also be an explanation. (If you want me to explain it further more im up for talking on discord or whatever lol just reply to the comment then :D)

[@mutazalmatani162]

bit late can we talk together about such topic?

[@cnlbenmc]

There is probably a reason why the US didn't implement hardkill APS systems yet; they were waiting for one that works reliably against top attack missiles.

[@revolverswitch]

it's strange, I always thought that APS with 360 coverage could easily prevent a top attack munition from reaching the tank. I assumed in the case of recent events, Russia doesn't have any 360 coverage APS.

[@rheinm1209]

wtf? you have Trophy on the newest Abrams SEPv3

[@HansensUniverseT-A]

@@rheinm1209 Lol the Abrams, I've seen all i need to see from the performance they delivered up here in the north of Norway, they're big very heavy fuel guzzling monsters that gets bogged in anything that isn't freshly paved roadway, if i were the US military i would be scrambling for something else.

[@rheinm1209]

@@HansensUniverseT-A Yeah USMC operated Abrams in Norway, now they retire them to focus more on traditional amphibious warfare. Even Army looks for a new light tank for infantry brigades.

[@HansensUniverseT-A]

@@rheinm1209 Yeah honestly good riddance, we're going to see main battle tanks continue to morph into lighter options which makes sense, Norway do not have many tanks but honestly i would rather move away from that concept and implement far lighter and mobile vehicles.

[@qwizqwoz4215]

I think a good follow up video would be to define what the role of a tank is in modern warfare or how the role of tanks changed over time.

[@ВикторФирсов-е9ф]

Infantry isn't going anywhere -> IFVs aren't going anywhere -> tanks aren't going anywhere

[@xivkya6882]

I feel like one of the most important parts of tanks is the fear they can cause in civilians and GI's. They still carry that shock value that CAN hit morale drastically, but not always of course.

[@FoxElliott]

Apparently not since Ukrainians are climbing on them, towing them in fields, knocking them out in the streets and absolutely bullying tf out of them everywhere they go. If anything, the morale and shock factor is going to be on the tank drivers, not the people facing them.

[@sharkquark6252]

@@FoxElliott this stuff already happened during the Second World War and even the First World War, they still had their fear factor against the civilians. The only thing making the Ukrainian civilians not fear the Russian tanks yet, is because the russian tanks haven’t shot at seemingly unarmed civilians yet. As soon as they will do, Ukrainians will fear tanks. (I’m pro-Ukrainian tbh, not pro-Russian)

[@simonbarsky6959]

Hey Spookston! I really appreciate the video, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who disagreed with me on this topic, I hope this spreads some sees sin his mind about the use of tanks in combat!

[@Tai1g]

I feel a big difference between most NATO and RUS vehicles is that NATO tanks (Abrams, Challenger, Leopard) have more effective base armour and are beginning to employ effective hard-kill and soft-kill systems. Barring the hard-kill APS which can be disabled manually by the operators, this allows them to be used effectively and closely with infantry support, as they're not dependent on what are essentially claymores acting as armour. The Russian doctrine of armour tends to lean more heavily towards the usage of ERA, and while they've made great advancements in this area, the base armour of their vehicles begins to lack - due to the use of ERA (discluding the Armata), it's much harder to employ them around infantry for support as each vehicle is basically a self-propelled anti-infantry mine. As soon as those ERA blocks go off, they may do their job, but they also put any infantry within close vacinity in massive danger. This makes them much harder to use with proper support (Which is what we're seeing in Ukraine), as you cannot have infantry close to these tanks in a high-engagement-chance enviroment, meaning you cannot effectively work with them or if you do, it's only in very specific environments where the terrain allows, which Ukraine is not turning out to be. Not an expert, hopefully haven't tried to make myself out to be one - just the thought has rolled around my head a few times and it makes sense, though I couldn't call it factual thinking.

[@someoneinthecaucasus3232]

You shouldn't be hanging around too much around a tank in general. Even if you don't have ERA, it's not like a HEAT round hitting a tank next to you won't affect you. Armor pieces like sideskirts or the explosion of a chemical round hitting a tank would still be dangerous, not even including the tank firing itself (the discarding sabot of an APFSDS projectile, for instance). ERA is a smart idea, as long as it's good enough, covers enough, and is strong enough to protect the albeit weak base armor.

[@bruman182]

Loved the in depth talk. I love the effort you put into this video.

[@georgekostaras]

The Chieftain said this on his channel, tanks are meant to be part of a combined arms doctrine. Tanks work best when they support and are supported by other units

[@M4A3Sherman]

I was asked this question recently and I talked about how the solution to all the dangers a tank may face is combined arms warfare. Back in WWII the Germans used the panzerfaust and the US countered this by having infantry pin down the panzerfaust teams so the M4s could operate.

[@devanbarr8472]

This is just a thought that I’ve not researched at all but maybe there is a conversation to be had about the way tanks are designed in the modern world. Currently, modern tanks take huge amounts of money and time to produce, it seems production would never be able to keep up with losses in the case of a long, large-scale conflict. Modern tanks are incredibly impressive machines but maybe there is still a place for tanks that are cheaper and easier to produce and are designed with only the basic criteria for a tank in mind. This may be an outdated analogy by now but the most effective armored vehicles of WW2 were not germany’s big cats or stalin’s IS tanks but rather simple and reliable designs that could be produced quickly like the stugs, shermans, t-34s, etc… I’m not sure what that would look like in the 21st century but it seems like the general idea is worth a thought.

[@nolanmosher4433]

This is what the russians are trying to do but advanced technology like rockets which are cheaper and can be more reliable, anti-tank weapons can be produced more than even the most cheapest MBTs

[@Joshua_N-A]

Something akin to a Leopard 1 or Type 74 but made with basic modern manufacturing, power plant, firepower and off-the-shelf systems. Basic FCS and sights. No autoloader as an autoloader would increase manufacturing cost. Base armor would be RHA and kevlar. Speed is its best chance of survival. The tank would be low and sloped in design, driver would be almost lying when seated. Can be produced en masse, 2 or 3 tanks for the price of one advanced MBT yet still look formidable. That's the best of what I can think of.

[@nolanmosher4433]

@@Joshua_N-A hell even something like a smaller abrams almost like how they had the XM-1

[@realAndysan]

Seeing old soviet cold war tanks getting destroyed shouldn't convince you that the idea of tanks are obsolete.

[@markedforstrike]

If tanks are obsolete - remove them from the battlefield. Now you need something armored and capable of carrying around good firepower over hard terrain. So you create a new concept - a tank

[@SteppingRazor762]

I enjoy these vids with the back and forth with your buddy Keep up the good work chief 👍

[@duncanmcgee13]

I feel like tanks will never be obsolete. The ability to destroy vehicles and structures is too important in warfare. Being able to force the enemy into diverting resources into stopping your ability to do that is quite useful.

[@alehop333]

It has been "the end of the tank" for longer than most people saying it nowadays have been alive

[@DerpsWithWolves]

We had the same argument in Canada during the war in Afghanistan of "Do we *need* tanks?" spearheaded primarily by people who wanted to spend less money, or had no military experience except for their own egos. Which is to say, politicians, of course. Unsurprisingly, those arguments failed after we shipped a few Leopards over there and just how useful they were became impossible to refute. I could also see this as just a tiny part of a broad pattern of behavior. The post-WWII "Revolt of the Admirals" caused by some in the US govt. thinking that nuclear weapons made the Navy obsolete, or a more recent example with the British infantry dropping belt-fed machineguns at the section level. If you're trying to cut the budget, these sound like 'great' ideas, but those things all serve a purpose, and you can't just shoe-horn in a completely different piece of gear to handle the extra job it was never meant to do. I'm sure people made the same argument of "the spear is obsolete" when the English longbow came about, but nothing is ever really obsolete until something else that fulfils the same function comes along and does it better while fitting into logistical, economic, and the contemporary needs of battle better than its predecessor; else there will simply be too much resistance to its adoption.

[@AlexLee-dc2vb]

I just rewatched your original video on the subject lol. It's definitely a timely topic

[@montieluckett7036]

Whenever I hear this question or statement, I'm always reminded of the "Get Smart" sequence about the anti-anti-anti missile missile missile missile. Same thing when I hear about the Aircraft Carrier obsolescence, If they're so vulnerable and out of date then why're so many countries trying to build them and have as many as the US.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Yep, even PRC with anti-ship ballistic missile that touted to make aircraft carrier obsolete has its own aircraft carrier program. Had it think that way, then there's no reason for China to build a carrier.

[@raizencore]

Definitely make more of these, there's so much stuff that we can learn it freaking awesome!

[@r4y256]

while i dont think that the "tank" wouldnt go away, i believe time has come for the tank to evolve for once more

[@FoxElliott]

MBTs are going to be phased out or evolved into lighter, cheaper, models. My best guess is something similar to a Bradley, Stryker or T14. They won't be as well armored, but they don't really have to be since ATGM is evolving faster than measures against it are.

[@sharkquark6252]

@@FoxElliott an APFSDS cant be stopped by APS, not even 30mm or 20mm rounds of this type can be stopped. Most IFVs can’t stop rounds of 20mm or higher with their armour and APS are obsolete against them. Heavy armour will always be important.

[@HansensUniverseT-A]

@@FoxElliott This is already happening, just look how many new light armored vehicles that have been introduced world wide, the tank will end up like the battleship did, or the traditional bomber for that matter. Tanks are nothing more than a liability.

[@ChrisPsneakers]

More videos like this please! It’s nice to take a game and apply it to everyday situations. “Smarter Everyday”

[@wolfht9146]

Every kind of weapon has it's own place and own weakness, tanks are one of them. Tanks are best utilized in open fields, with not much cover and long lines of sight. These are where a long range, mobile weapon system is needed. However, tanks suffer in urban combat and in forests, these are locations infantry really shines. If you roll your precious tank to an urban enviroment without infantry support and/or ground dominance, it's going to suffer

[@madkabal]

Something being destroyed in a WAR "TaNkS aRe ObSoLeTe"

[@marty4286]

Horse cavalry became obsolete by WW1. It wasn't because it took us that long to find a counter for them. Everything has killed infantry for the entirety of our existence, and they're not obsolete. "Able to be destroyed" isn't what determines what's obsolete or not. Battleships didn't become obsolete because carriers could destroy them--battleships became obsolete because carriers got better at doing battleship missions than battleships. Tanks, at the most basic level, are tactically and operationally mobile (thanks to tracks), provide direct fire support (thanks to their large main gun), and are protected against their own equivalents from the frontal aspect (thanks to their armor, and increasingly, APSs). There are many other systems that can do one of each of these things well in some circumstances (sometimes better than tanks), but not all three together, and that's why tanks aren't obsolete yet. A unit of Javelin gunners can lay waste to a field of tanks, but they can't conduct breakthroughs deep into the enemy rear and destroy C&C and logistics nodes to make the enemy front collapse. They (tanks and ATGMs) are all needed, not one over the other.

[@killamacow851]

this video format is nice, keep it.

[@karlyo6937]

Honest question, anyone wondered what happened to ukraine's tank fleet? Many of their counter attacks have almost no armor support/tanks. They did not even try to breach mariupol. Did they just vanished? All updates I hear is of ukraine winning but I never see them attacking with their tanks. The one time i saw t64 bv ukraine tanks is when the russian forces used them to siege mariupol.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Weird. Many news outlets shows wrecked Russian tanks but never Ukraine's. There should be footages of Ukrainian tanks mobilize in masses. When a foreign military invade en mass then, the defenders should be shown mobilizing the same way. Also, Ukrainian tanks would've engage the convoy easily even without air support as no Russian planes were present.

[@xybly1636]

I like their propaganda this is my first in my life, when losing show civilians being killed and cities being bomb while holding/winning show enemy loses

[@pauld6967]

A very good conversation. Good statements to remember: A) tanks are not and never will be completely invulnerable. B) it all comes down to *how* you use your tools. Harkening back to my time in service, RPG-7 team known to be in a particular treeline threatening your armor column's road march route? Pick a new route OR call in a napalm strike and burn down the team and the foliage they had been using for cover.

[@Bread-kun]

I think in Ukraine everyone was expecting a much more technologically and overall much more competent Russian force to show up because... Well why wouldn't they? They've always historically had a strong military and they have been aggressive for a while now, it's not like they are new or under-equipped for the war game. So to see their armor and air forces getting blasted like we are seeing a sequel to the winter war kinda took a lot of people by surprise. I'll be honest I sorta expected Ukraine to fall in a few days, every important military installation blasted in the first day, cities encircled, Russian air dominance, the works. Strike and cripple Ukraine on day 1 to force them to surrender. And it seemed likely too but here we are with Russian forces getting slapped much harder then anyone expected. I have no idea how Ukraine will ultimately turn out however even if it's a full Russian victory it seriously will look like another Winter War.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Possible CIA on the ground. They also give weapons to the mujahideen.

[@anastraykiwi]

Good video, enjoyed the content and the pointing out that anything if used incorrectly will fail

[@Predator20357]

Obsolete to me is when even when you have something performing at it’s best, it’ll still be continuously outclassed by something way more efficient and is used by someone who has less experience.

[@frankxu2321]

Yep. How many countermeasures have been field to against a weapon is irreverent to obsolete or not. A weapon only becomes obsolete when something else can do its job way better.

[@Predator20357]

@@frankxu2321 Yah, a Tank is also a very broad concept so it’ll most likely change like how Calvary changed from using Horses to Armored Vehichles

[@user-gx6tu3mf4k]

So basically IFVs, cheaper and can fit all these modern counter-counters just as well.

[@Predator20357]

@@user-gx6tu3mf4k IFVs are still just tanks with a more focused role of fighting infantry. Sure they aren’t MBTs but a Treaded Vehicle with a 360 degree turret that has armor that resists or stops small arms fire is a Tank.

[@user-gx6tu3mf4k]

@@Predator20357 except they don't always have tracks, nor do they always have a high calibre gun. For example, the South African success during the boarder war was almost unanimously contributed to it's various IFVs and armoured cars, not the centurions even when facing T-55's and T-54's. It was to me very clear that the tanks were obsolete in thier role at the time... not to say that can't change but I don't see what tanks have started employing over these IFVs to make that change yet.

[@fartoficial8776]

You always know it’s a spookston video when it’s him playing wt with music playing and him talking about random topics

[@seanbruce8294]

The US military thought that fighter aircraft didn’t needs guns and that guns were ‘obsolete’ when missiles came into service. Then comes the Vietnam War and it wasn’t until guns were added to the Phantoms when enemy Migs were going down when the missiles failed. So no, tanks aren’t obsolete but the way we use them has to reflect the military hardware coming out.

[@cookiecraze1310]

This is incorrect. The Scottish Koala did a video on it. The guns did nearly nothing when it came to air to air combat, the big improvement was that they got new missiles. The guns were added because they needed them for ground support. But your point is correct. Just because they can be destroyed, it doesn't mean that tanks are useless.

[@Alloy682]

THANK YOU. I've said it before. The future has always been guns and always will be. You can shoot a missile but can you shoot a bullet?

[@seanbruce8294]

@@cookiecraze1310 The 25-30 enemy aircraft shot down via guns speaks otherwise.

[@Alloy682]

@@cookiecraze1310 it was actually a multitude of reasons including the fact that they werent trained in dog fighting. Yes they still used missiles but they had to re train them to be evasive

[@Spookston]

Here's a pretty good video that goes over that topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nF6aaYGdg6emi9U

[@afif8472]

Tanks used to be dominant in WW1 and WW2 where they cant be countered by infantries all that much, but now time has changed and more anti-tank weapons have been made like TOW, Javelin and NLAW making tanks less effective without infantry support or IFV not to mention that TOWs have an effective range of 3km and infantry support cant really do much from that far. In urban combat is where tanks will performed the worst, infantries can be anywhere without visual confirmation and infantries can bring an RPG or NLAW and shooting them from above where it is less armored, top cages might stop the rockets. But having infantries or IFV might help tanks in urban areas.

[@janchovanec8624]

Not quite right. Majority of tanks in WW1 and WW2 were destroyed by infantry, then artillery, then anti tank gun, etc. Their purpose was accomplishing a breakthrough and then exploit it. German tank doctrine outright stated to avoid bogged down fighting with other tanks, best to avoid them and let infantry deal with it.

[@stralegaming2597]

Something i got to say is: You are seeing only the successfull attacks, no one is gonna show their misses, and don't draw conclusions from the war yet don't pick a side too early wait for it to be over. Something also I've seen but it makes literally 0 sense is tanks being killed by molotovs, Russian tanks got fire protection systems in them and tanks are made to be molotov proof, i tried researching and giving it the benefit of the doubt but from my research molotov is too dangerous and useless against tanks to be worth it, it's only use is propaganda now.

[@reonthornton685]

A Molotov can still cause a mobility kill even on Modern tanks with a bit of luck and a direct hit on the engine deck. It's how the Molotov was used against Russian tanks all the way back in the 1930's. They are better protected now and won't blow up from it but it can certainly mission kill tanks still.

[@stralegaming2597]

@@reonthornton685 actually I've looked at non modified Russian tanks in Serbian military (BTR, BRDM and T72B), they are all equipped with automatic FPE should the molotov somehow find something to set on fire, but that's unlikely considering that the tanks got nothing really exposed that's flammable, so molotov can kill a tank only under these specific circumstances: Tank has been shot and is leaking fuel in the engine deck, 2 bottles of 5 liter FPE are used up and they manage to leak into the engine deck

[@reonthornton685]

@@stralegaming2597 Again, a Molotov can still kill the tanks engine even with the automatic systems. It just prevents the fire from spreading and allowing the entire tank to blow up.

[@stralegaming2597]

@@reonthornton685 fire suppression on T72 is meant to stop the engine from being destroyed by a molotov, the tank even gets its air from the side not the top preventing it from being caught fire

[@reonthornton685]

@@stralegaming2597 There's a difference between avoiding an engine being destroyed and actually keeping it operational.

[@dirtnapready4738]

I like how you brought a professional instead of just pretending u where all of a sudden a 5 star general

[@icyfox8558]

The tank is not obsolete by any means

[@VarenvelDarakus]

this brings up quite good points what hearts of iron 4 quite also nails , that it does not matter that your tank is worse or equipment is worse then the enemy , its how you use said assets in doctrine and operational level. because thats how it always worked.

[@RIP_Greedo]

I'd like to know the breakdown of tank kills in Ukraine. What share are a total loss? What share is tanks that were just damaged enough to be knocked out, but could be repaired? What share were cases where the crew bailed out and ran?

[@mrwhatever9025]

I doubt any statistics from this war at present would be factual atm because propaganda from both sides will be at play for many reasons. Misinformation is very important in wartime and during peacetime.

[@Mark-es7bn]

If tanks are obsolete then humans are beyond out dated

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

This sort of "is obsolete" happens time and time again... "Battleships are obsolete" aircraft carriers "rendered" battleships "sort of" obsolete. In truth we COULD see battleships returning as a cost/counter to aircraft carriers. Picture a battleship equipped with 9 304mm Rail guns, able to toss unguided, semi guided, or gps guided shells up to 120 nautical miles. allowing for deep shore bombardment. With that kind of range, a battleship again would be "useful". and being able to drop 9 tons of explosives on targets, backed by a strong missile defense system, its own cruise missiles, and such... it would serve the purpose to run escort with and provide long range fire for marine task forces. We hear time and time again, tanks are obsolete. No, even in ww2, tanks had huge losses. Their point isn't and wasn't to sit and slug things out, it was break through and exploit. Urban combat has never been the prime choice of armor. And even if we invented combat powered armor, able to mount the firepower of a "tank" on a person, tanks would still exisit, as said units would still likely lack the flat out speed and long range shelling ability of a tank. remember, tanks are based on 3 things, Armor... Speed... and firepower. other things can bring speed to the battlefield but not armor or firepower, some can bring firepower, but lack the armor to stop small arms, and lack the speed to exploit a breakthrough.. Its those three things, the armor to keep the crew safe and keep the vehicle fighting from small arms hits, grenades, and shell fragments. The speed, to exploit breaches in enemy lines and push behind to strike artillery, command, and other points... and the firepower to inflict meaningful damage, at long ranges both in their breakthrough roll and as "light artillery support" of ground forces... is why armor exists and still exists.

[@Mitokori]

I'll admit, when I saw the title, I thought it was a reference to how crazy IFVs were getting in War Thunder

[@rhetoricalbro4106]

i agree with the guy about the issue being more about proper application and doctrine. But i would also argue that the design is also an issue. russian MBT's do little for crew protection, they are too tiny and offer little space for improvement, most hardly have any reverse speed to escape, their speed is also moderate, they've had a policy of no gun depression on tanks since WW2 and lastly the ammo carousel they have for an auto-loader is a 360% "shoot here" sign. The russians could take a page out of western designs and make something that wouldn't have all these issue's. seriously...

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

Soviet design and construction has always been an issue few people will admit to being as costly as it is. You can look at the design changes they failed to make and lessons they failed to learn since WWII and feel a sense of autism to fix them for them. Many interesting ideas, worst nation to have them. I see the IS-7 as the point that proved the problem. They had a design they could keep for decades into the future, but failed to capitalize on it, then continued to print shitbucks in pancake form. They would have gained legit NATO tier gun depression with the 1957 model 122 smaller breach and had awesome working space for the loader, plus blow-out panel bustle rack space for charges.

[@rhetoricalbro4106]

@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 absolutely, the IS-7 was a great design to be improved upon. they could have made such a beautiful machine that would have been on par with modern day machines. but stubborn russian bear only learns new tricks through pain, lot and lots of pain.

[@Quodergo]

Loved this. Thinky (I think that's his name?) has an excellent level of insight and an incredibly effective method of vocalizing history and general armored doctrine. This, of course, was matched by Spookston's general knowledge of armored warfare, guiding us through the prompts and questions that Thinky would talk about is an amazing and intriguing combo. If Thinky does not have his own channel, I would recommend for him to start one.

[@Bilate07]

No

[@maplearrow1842]

Agreed

[@I_am_looking_for_GF]

Agreed

[@GodBidoof]

Agreed

[@unitedstates4990]

Agreed

[@sekersehzade110]

Agreed

[@BlxxdySin]

For the german folks. Ralf Raths also uploaded a video about this topic wich is really worth to look at

[@Winter-Solst1ce]

I have a question, how effective would a Maus be if it had modern armor? Like to remake one with the same measurements but with modern armor. My friends and I have been debating this for a little while now.

[@squishyynate8793]

Good question but wont the Maus be too slow and unreliable in a since, unless you redesign it in some ways and make improvements to it, those are the things you have to think about sometimes as well.

[@DatBoi_TheGudBIAS]

Unless u find a magic engine to power it to at least 50 km/h it will be killed by lack of maneuverability

[@Appletank8]

Its still too heavy. No modern MBT has side or rear armor as thick as found on a Maus. AT weapons are strong enough, that the only way to survive is to min-max your armor layout, which is to stack as much armor you can on the front, and only put enough on the sides to stop basic stuff an infantryman could carry.

[@beemy.6923]

It would not be good because of it's weight, impracticality and new air to ground and missile systems. In the end you're just going to have a big target for every single asset on the battlefield.

[@Winter-Solst1ce]

@@squishyynate8793 yeah maybe give it abrams engines but idk the power to weight ratio they have

[@freedomphoenix1671]

Informative as always thank you for the extremely interesting and entertaining video's, you truly are a 10/10 channel.

[@DOSFS]

People like to compare tanks to battleships and said they will be obsolete just like battleships. But the point is if no other systems can do what the tank can then tanks will never be obsolete, weapon system became obsolete when something that can do it job better take it over or said job becomes obsolete. Battleship became obsolete because other ship can do their job as capital ships better. Maybe, in the future, drone tank takes over all of the tank roles but they still do the same job.

[@sapphyrus]

Ukraine is using the most modern anti-tank weapons and air assets against Cold War designs and equipment. Any tank without APS is outdated for a decade now. Even if you check back the progression of Medieval and Renaissance armor, you'll see that designs were improved and changed at most every 50 years. And that was when arms technology was advancing extremely slowly. It's unreasonable to imagine in the rapid technology development of this century that 40-year old defense can withstand a new weapon. It has to be improved and countries like Israel, Turkey, Russia all experienced this over the last 15 years. The armies should mount APS on their fleets today or suffer tomorrow. Not having is like having a warship without point defense in today's situation.

[@videogamestutorial]

Tanks are proven to be trash

[@sapphyrus]

@@videogamestutorial Said for longer than you are alive but infantry walking towards enemy is obsolete for over 100 years now. Tank will keep leading because nobody wants to star in sniper headshot or RCWS torn apart body videos.

[@Aden_III]

Immediately after the deployment of the atomic bomb, think pieces went on to call conventional armies period “obsolete.” The fact of the matter is that everyone calling tanks obsolete are idiots, end of discussion.

[@kommandantgalileo]

Aye

[@Lynxium_]

The example you gave in your previous video sums it up, If infantry is allergic to bullets, doesn't mean they are useless

[@TolerablyInterested]

I'd definitely say no, as a direct fire support weapon they fulfil the roll extremely well, but unfortunately they are a rolling target for infantry anti tank system without infantry support in urban environments, like we see now in Ukraine, and we have seen through history (imparticularly the battle of grozny. how Russia didn't learn from that, I don't know.). My point is that they need to be employed in a combined arms approach to reduce the risk posed by infantry and aerial threats. When it comes to weapons like javelin and other atgm systems, hard kill APS systems seem to be quite effective from the testing, so I see that as a potent counter that will most likely be employed in the future.

[@emperorkane317]

In the Korean War, after 1951, tanks were used as mobile artillery. Their roles can easily change depending on the situation

[@lupisvolk2420]

To be fair there were some built in WW2 for that role.

[@kommandantgalileo]

Answer is no, we've been through this before when people started using older antitank weapons, what is obsolete is the Russian high command and doctrine, tanks should always be deployed with infantry.

[@hansgruber3064]

These videos are great, keep them coming

[@purplenurp5590]

Yes but the difference today compared to the 1960s chemical weapons is the ease, accuracy and cheapness of modern AT drones as we saw in the armenia Azerbaijan war. Us doctrine is moving away from heavy armor doctrine to ifv's, heavy ifv's and a deadlier infantryman. When you can build 1000s of cheap suicide drones that can loiter for hours and annihilate entire tank battalions comprised of million dollar tanks and expensive hardware to replace crews, yeah tanks are going to go away and be replaced with more light skined autocannon vehicles. Edit: Now will tanks go away in the next 50-100 years? No, but will you see super powers or advanced modern nations use them? Also no, but if tanks become fully autonomous drones, then yeah the tank won't be replaced.

[@Meuduso1]

As soon as someone says "Tanks are obsolete" I instantly know that even if they might know the military and parts of doctrine, they clearly don't understand ground warfare, especially vehicle ground warfare and the actual role of tanks. As an IRL tanker it's one of the most annoying things to see online. Be it people confusing tanks with those from movies, thinking we're still fighting like we did in WW2 or the early Cold War or the worst offender, if they think they get tanks because they played some video games and even War Thunder and Arma generally do a fucking horrible job at portraying what actual MBT combat is like. It's fucking annoying because if you try to explain them, you gotta work against their imagination and basically need to build up their understanding from the ground up

[@blagojpejov4155]

Are You Kidding me The Tank is not obsolete to me

[@AdmiralJT]

When you are sending tanks in with little to no infantry support, down a road that is flanked by muddy ground controlled by your opponent, youre gonna take loses.