No, The Tank Is Not Dead.

[@PerunAU]

Thanks so much for making this video. When I declined to answer the question on whether anything could ever effectively replace the doctrinal role of the tank (which is the only way you'd ever actually eliminate the things) I remember saying it was a question I wasn't equipped to answer, and that an expert in the use of tanks would be better suited to speak on the point. I didn't expect that KZbin's favourite tanker would be the one to do so. I suspect that as long as armies continue to need and value the capability provided by these things, Defence Departments around the world will keep finding the budget for the logistical support, training, and maintenance programs necessary to support them.

[@mattblom3990]

What's happened to your channel is surreal since "All Bling..." suddenly appeared in our feeds a month ago. Algorithm lottery, you won (deserved so, your work fills an excellent niche RE: military economics).

[@SWPIGWANG]

It should be noted that the battleship was never fully replaced in its doctrinal role as naval gun fire support, which provides fast response, high volume, low cost, accurate fires not replicated by other systems. It is merely that the warfighting concept of opposed amphib landings becoming simply generally impractical that the idea really retires. Tank like vehicles would remain until the warfighting concept become equally impractical. For a example of what that would look like, one can look to Douhet for inspiration. What is happening now in the short term is that MBT is practically a more specialized vehicle than modern IFVs but without dramatic improvement in practical capability. The MBT as normally understood is a product of direct fire gun-armor arms race that is increasingly irrelevant as another tank is a rare threat compared to the infantry that is orders of magnitude more common, or aircraft or artillery that is orders of magnitude faster and thus at point of decision at greater mass, or UAVs that can be both. IFVs being a bastard combat vehicle with no singular concept enable the designs to evolve with the threat environment (and nothing conceptually prevents 84tons of armor as seen in GCV, or 100mm gun as in BMP3), while the MBT have evolved into tank destroyers, if one looks at the direct extrapolation into next gen tanks with 140mm/155mm tier guns that would have little ammo for fighting the orders of magnitudes more common battlefield targets that is not a super armored tank.

[@fabiogalletti8616]

@@SWPIGWANG that battleship thing is interesting: I went for a simple "carrier's planes could sink enemy ships better", but in that niche use of beach bombardment planes or missiles aren't that great. It is the whole doctrinal request for shore bombardment that went down in priority so much. And I remeber in the Falkland wars sometimes RN had so send two ships to fire one cannon in support of ground troops. One ship had the gun, the other ship had the AA missiles to protect both.

[@TheLoachman]

I was hoping to see you post here. I have thoroughly enjoyed your videos, and the discussion that they have generated - including The Chieftain's response here. The planet's collective IQ has risen slightly as a result.

[@boobah5643]

@@SWPIGWANG Dude, tanks have never had other tanks as their primary, designed-in target. Yes, tank v. tank is certainly part of the job description... but that's more an outgrowth of their actual job of bringing large-caliber direct fire artillery to the front lines. Your upgunned, uparmored IFV is just a shittier tank. If you want to keep the mobility that is the core of what makes a tank worthwhile you _also_ need to put on wider, more durable tracks to spread the extra mass, you need a new, stronger suspension, a tougher transmission/drivetrain, and a more powerful engine. On a chassis that wasn't designed for it, so it's got compromises that don't make sense for the new role and leads to the obvious question: why didn't you just build a tank in the first place? You don't even get to keep the simplified logistics train you were presumably aiming for because you had to replace damn near all the components.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Thank you for the mention and link!

[@JamesBond-ns8di]

Good evening sir

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@JamesBond-ns8di Hello James :)

[@ProvidenceNL]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Just wanted to say, Love your videos!

[@lordbyron8927]

This is why I love the internet. 2 well known and knowledgeable professionals able to collaborate while being continents apart. You both have amazing and educational content.

[@brianreddeman951]

Alas no Hellbore or mass driver micro nukes.

[@maxkronader5225]

To be fair, if Belgium shared a border with Russia instead of 1,000km worth of friendly nations, Belgium would instantly rediscover the relevance of the Main Battle Tank.

[@F4Wildcat]

as a belgian i would explain how corrupt goverment has degraded our military to breaking point, but i realize that would take an hour & probaly degrade my temper to bitterness and insanity. However, with the happening of the ukraine conflict, suddently our goverment feels it should invest again in our military. Tanks are part of the debate. So we will see where the future brings us. Keep in mind tough, our Leopard 1's and all other tracked vehicle's, were removed from service because our minister of defense, so darn hated the idea of a tracked vehicle and believed a wheeled vehicle could do everything as good as a tracked vehicle. Pieter de crem's succesor, Vandeput, continued that change. Both of these having zero military experience. All my friends and family members in the belgian land component, were ofcourse against this decision.

[@maartencautereels1206]

@@F4Wildcat volledig gelijk. The complete elemination of our armored forces, leopards, howitzers, armored recon... It saved them money they could pay to more politicians jobs, social programs, and even more politicians jobs...

[@maartencautereels1206]

@@F4Wildcat our guys have to buy their uniforms and bad weather gear from the internet or surplus stores.. The only real armor we have left is well maintained an serviceable in the museum in Brasschaat and the rest will not hold up for one week against a Russian force. But heyy.. With the money they could install more politicians boards, more EU functions, and import all fighting aged men of northern Africa, Syria and Afganistan.. So it's a trade off...

[@F4Wildcat]

@@maartencautereels1206 Yep, they were all cost cut to keep this bloated, corrupt putrid messhole of a country going. We have more ministers than france and they are paid more. We have twice the amount of overpaid goverment workers per 100 000 than most westren countries. I dont support the idea of splitting belgium, but a confederacy like the swiss is something i do support.

[@stevewhite3424]

@@F4Wildcat I truly hope that your government or more importantly your people don't have to fall into the panic that the Germans have as they realized that their underfunded military but socially comfortable population is at risk to a madman in Russia.

[@garyk.nedrow8302]

Anyone who has spent time in the military knows that every weapon has its uses and its limitations. Knowing how and when to use tanks is as important as having them. Tanks are not obsolete, but the optimal way to use them is evolving.

[@ComradeOgilvy1984]

What the smart missiles are doing is opening up other platforms that can do some of the jobs of a tank. I do not see it as a matter (yet) of calling the MBT dead, but whether you can reduce your costs and gain flexibility with new platforms like, say, a truck hauling missles loitering a few miles in the rear, to be targeted by drones and infantrymen up front. I think the real question is whether our mix of expenditures is right. Fewer tanks may be better.

[@Morristown337]

swarm drones capable of carrying bombs in large cheap numbers at a fraction of the cost. 1-10 TB2 vs each tank should do the trick as if 1,000 tanks blitz against 10,000 drones made at a cheaper cost then the 1000 tanks may do the trick in ending the tank. Aircraft (jets) have very limited flight time along with heavy expense vs Loitering drones can fly and cover the same spot for 12+ hours. For offense it will be automated cars with a gun on it or a self driving or remote driving cannons leading apcs with a swarm hive vehicle may replace a tank unit one day really soon. These are ideas for that new 100 billion dollar german army. We can make driverless "Teslatanks" with loitering swarm drones covering the Teslatanks which cover the armored personal vehicle and the apc protects the Hive which controls the manless flying swarm and has a backup control for Teslatanks if sat link is lost.

[@taylorc2542]

For tanks to work they will need to be supported by massive electronic warfare (stop the drones) and active protection to stop the ATGMs.

[@Spaced92]

I think the question is not whether they are obsolete, but is the cost worth it for most militaries compared to being able to spend more on electronics warfare, UAV and so on. These discussions always focus on what the US is doing but the US military has the money to play it safe and go basically every direction. I'm Australian, I can't justify why we have tanks, we've been in every US conflict and haven't used one since Vietnam, we bought 120 for billions from the US recently when we only need lighter, cheaper infantry support vehicles. How is that justified when a tank is too heavy for any local theatre? Tanks aren't necessarily around because they are the most useful or efficient, they are around because armies want them and it's a powerful idea in terms of force projection. That's the problem.

[@StrikeNoir105E]

​@@Spaced92 For nations that don't do force projection or invasions, tanks wouldn't really be that useful. But for those nations that are expected to do so, or expected to fight other enemy tanks, having tanks of your own only makes sense. Also, as multiple nations have learned in the past century, the possibility of a conflict where you need to engage in combat against a peer power is ever present, and thus a military needs to have certain capabilities within its capability to support them to essentially prepare for the worst.

[@flask0390]

"I sent the script to Perun for comment" A civilised exchange between two KZbinrs with somewhat different opinions. Now I have seen everything. But seriously: Nice to see professionals having a discussion based on rational arguments.

[@WJS774]

It happens a lot in the historical weapons community too, I guess they aren't lying when they say an armed society is a polite society.

[@neilwilson5785]

This is the way

[@willworkforfood7028]

Perun was a gaming channel until about a month ago. (Which I do highly recommend if you like the obscure complex strategy games he likes to cover.) He is a very intelligent man who is open to learning more but I don't think he has a lot of experience in defense. There are many facts and information he collects that he cannot make sense of or understand the true implications.

[@StoutProper]

@@willworkforfood7028 he’s got a degree in military history and economics 😊

[@Pieregov2.0]

@@willworkforfood7028 he is just an amateur

[@weeb3244]

I swear the tank has "died" like 5 times now People really don't understand how useful/necessary mobile armor is

[@h1tsc4n40]

tanks are going to surpass cats for number of lives at this rate

[@FirstDagger]

@@h1tsc4n40 ; Leopard 2: But I am a cat!

[@h1tsc4n40]

@@FirstDagger lol

[@Sir.Craze-]

I'd rather hide behind something then nothing, if it came down to JUST that.

[@brandonclark435]

Yeah, they said that after WWI. Then after WWII. Then when the Israelis faced AT-3. Then when attack heloes we're equipped with ATGMs. And on and on and on.

[@Billfish57]

Once again, the man with the coolest hat on the planet tells it like it is. Well said, as always. Why carry a gun, when a gun can carry you?

[@allangibson2408]

I would argue the biggest driver for the Ukrainian request for ATGM’s is to simply ensure all the Ukrainian combat teams actually have ATGM’s. You can’t use what you don’t have to hand. More missiles means more teams have missiles when they are needed, not more missiles actually fired. Just like a tank without fuel and ammunition is almost useless (refer Soviet armor in 1941), infantry facing a tank is defenceless without appropriate weapons.

[@vonschlesien]

From photographic evidence, we are indeed seeing insane densities of anti-tank weaponry deployed - one man-portable anti-tank and one man-portable anti-air per squad. The Ukrainians seem to want to make sure that there's a missile ready to take advantage of every freak opportunity, even if that means their soldiers carry a lot of missiles around that they never end up firing.

[@teytreet7358]

500 a day seems a bit excessive

[@darrenvanderwilt1258]

@@teytreet7358 500 a day, with far less than average results, causes the suspicion of black market or hoarding.

[@Spartan0430]

@@teytreet7358 it is excessive, which is the point. if you ask for more than you need then as the negotiations go on that number will go down but hopefully more in your favor. if ukraine needs 100 a day and simply asks for 100 a day, they're not getting that many unless the US is feeling generous. if they start out at 500 then 100 seems a lot more reasonable in comparison, and maybe they'll wind up with more than 100.

[@dustindubbo2892]

If an infantry squad has the choice they will blow up anything they think is an enemy instead of having to close in with small arms; it’s just safer, easier, and more effective.

[@edwardstd52]

As a retired tanker, I couldn't agree with you more, however as a retired tanker that turned into a logistician before said retirement, I think that a country's ability to also have a logistical support system capable of keeping those metal boxes fed and fixed will determine the future of their armored forces. When the USMC divested themselves of their tanks, they also freed up lots and lots of money that would have been spent on parts, fuel, mechanics, etc... I loved the commentary! Keep it up! I would love to see the after action reports on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

[@HANKTHEDANKEST]

Thanks for the perspective on your time in the service, Tom--always cool to hear from the folks who were there. I'm *very* curious to see how the Army and Marines continue to diverge in the coming decades. They've always been their own domains, of course, but the USMC getting away from tanking is quite a leap. This century, much like the last, will definitely be "interesting" to say the least.

[@512TheWolf512]

This is a war of extermination. So, expect thousands of destroyed tanks, even some t-55s and maybe even fucking t-34s. If you believe the official Ukrainian numbers, the fásçísts have already lost 940 tanks.

[@aaronthebarbaric7733]

The sad thing about the abrahms is that any small device detanated at the back of the tank near the exhaust causes the entire tank to ignite. And also the batteries at the rear of the tank are only protected by a 5mm plate. Even a 50 caliber from a building fired into that plate renders the tank 99 percent useless. Espwcially as all the controls are electronic aside from a hand crank that the turns the turret 2 degrees per full rotation. Other than those two weaknesses the tank is a beast. But the exhaust and battery protection make it extremely vulnerable from air and sneak attacks.

[@Morristown337]

swarm drones capable of carrying bombs in large cheap numbers at a fraction of the cost. 1-10 TB2 vs each tank should do the trick as if 1,000 tanks blitz against 10,000 drones made at a cheaper cost then the 1000 tanks may do the trick in ending the tank. Aircraft (jets) have very limited flight time along with heavy expense vs Loitering drones can fly and cover the same spot for 12 hours or 2 can non stop watch the same spot 24/7. Layer your drone army with drone loitering bombers in the front and behind enemy lines with survelience drones to sight for Artillary in ambush locations. For offense it will be automated cars with a gun on it or a self driving or remote driving cannons leading apcs with a swarm hive vehicle may replace a tank unit one day really soon. These are ideas for that new 100 billion dollar german army. We can make driverless "Teslatanks" with loitering swarm drones covering the Teslatanks which cover the armored personal vehicle and the apc protects the Hive which controls the manless flying swarm and has a backup control for Teslatanks if sat link is lost.

[@Crosshair84]

@@Morristown337 We're talking about the real world. Not StarCraft. Stop throwing "Swarm" like you're a Dilbert boss who recently found the latest fad terms. A TB2 is not a "Swarm Drone". Also, where in gods name are you going to be maintaining those 10,000 TB2s anyway? TB2s, while very useful, are also proving to be extremely vulnerable in contested air space. NOBODY is going to give automated control to an armed mobile ground vehicle. The idea is laughable on its face with such primitive technology. I'm slightly embarrassed to even respond to this post, but some people are going to look at that and think it's something practical.

[@FreddyRangel85]

Perun is an unexpected gem to come out of this whole conflict. I’m sure he’d be happy for the mention

[@Talon3000]

I had never heard of him before the ukrainian war andd suddenly he popped up in my proposed videos xD and yeah, he actually makes really good videos.

[@roger5555ful]

I really like his economic take on the conflict

[@Mahbu]

I think at this point people assumed long form power point presentations were. . dead? At the very least, too boring to make youtube videos out of. So far he has managed to stay engaging and interesting. His voice isn't offensive to the ears. He has balanced humor with seriousness. But, at least right now, he also seems less interested in blowing up his channel ("hit like and subscribe, put a comment down below, tweet that tweet button and ring that bell") and just puts out videos he feels like making. Seems, anyway.

[@FreddyRangel85]

He’s a damn great presenter that’s for sure. He has to be in order to make PowerPoint freaking interesting. Plus, I think his skepticism combined with his need for strong evidence and nuanced argument to believe something is super appealing. Seems like everyone is trying to sell you something, and he’s straight up calling bullshit when he sees it

[@BaronVonHobgoblin]

Perun strikes me as something of a pretender. I'm thankful in ways few would understand that he's a KZbinr and not a Government Official.

[@krisvires]

"Ask not what they can do to the tank, ask what the tank can do to them." You are my hero Chieftain.

[@sir_vix]

I was trying to come up with some other play on a classic American speech and all I could think of was: "Ich bin ein gepanzerter-berliner..." Somehow, "I am an armoured jam-donut" doesn't have quite the same ring to it... (P.s. Yes, I am aware the donut thing is apocryphal)

[@andrewallen9993]

First, find the walking man 2 kilometers away with the anti tank missile, then after your tank is brewed up the next tank in the line can try to shoot him.

[@mandowarrior123]

@@andrewallen9993 Interesting point, on a lot of the engagements i've seen of ukrainian success see single tanks or less protecting advancing columns. They don't even usually get taken out, either tracked or external fire or timing puts them out of the combat window and ukraine goes ham on the column. If russia considered... 2 tanks at the front, they'd have likely moped up quickly. But on a serious note, ukraine isn't the desert. They're at 100 feet. Probably. You haven't slept from the shelling. Each street could be your last. Ivan with his ibd shat himself by your left ear 2 days ago and its only smelling worse. Maybe if you close one eye at a time you can rest for a bit? Its just a long, straight road... And then your tank is on fire.

[@ret7army]

@@sir_vix Berlin 86-88, I do get the reference, and also have to agree

[@ret7army]

@@andrewallen9993 Thermal sights are rather a bit of a game changer

[@fluffly3606]

The ATGM vs. tank debate is much more analogous to the late 19th century torpedo vs. battleship debate than aircraft carrier vs. battleship, in fact eerily so. Torpedo boats were cheap and definitely dangerous to battleships, but could be countered by a protective screen of smaller ships with high rate of fire guns and in no way could replace their function. Ironic.

[@womble321]

Especially as battleships have been replaced by small warships. Bigger than torpedo boats but they are not battleships.

[@fluffly3606]

@@womble321, Battleships have been replaced by a combination of many things because sea control and power projection in the modern world are much more complex than simply having a powerful fleet.

[@fluffly3606]

@@lostalone9320, "The torpedo boats never had their moment against capital ships." I seem to recall that U.S. Navy PT boats were notably effective at Surigao Strait and that there were a number of incidents in the First World War. Minor and debatable nitpick though, you put it very well.

[@womble321]

@@lostalone9320 btw my Grandfathers Brother was involved with torpedoes during ww1 they were regarded as absolutely top secret. Bit like the F22. He didn't even tell them till after the war.

[@imjashingyou3461]

@@fluffly3606 Port Arthur in the Russo Japanese war as well.

[@Sebastian-yl7nq]

*A bullet is so cheap and yet so effective at disabling a soldier, is the infantry dead?*

[@imgvillasrc1608]

Heck with that argument you don't even need bullets, just a sling and a rock would do.

[@ysesq]

yes. you seen the terminator movies ?

[@hrishabkumarsharma1355]

No but infantry doesn't cost millions dollars to build and mentain

[@anonymoususer3561]

@@hrishabkumarsharma1355 It takes about twenty years and about half a million dollars to produce an infantryman.

[@TheHesseJames]

@@anonymoususer3561 Nonsense. Maybe a top of the notch trained and equipped US infantry man. Depending on the battlefield infantry can be effective, deadly and much cheaper than tanks. Just pit, let's say, 10 tanks against 200 determined and somewhat infantry men. Nobody in the tanks will survive if they have no room to retreat.

[@Gozerthegozarian1984]

To : “The Chieftain” / Nicholas Moran THANKS! I appreciate your calm, logical, data driven approach. I also greatly appreciate, to use two corny words, your politeness and manners. I enjoy observing respectful discussions between reasonable people who disagree. We are bombarded with propaganda, click bait, and content designed to manipulate our emotions. It’s become a rare and refreshing experience listen to people like you thoughtfully explain and logically debate. Thanks again for the content you produce.

[@genek8630]

I remember, about 40 years ago I went to the ordinance museum at Aberdeen and spoke to a technician. He told me basically the same thing you touched on. We develop an armor that is proof against the latest tank round or a/t rocket, they develop something that can defeat it, and it just keeps going on. The tank will not "disappear" from the battlefield any time soon.

[@yonghominale8884]

The flaw with that argument is WEIGHT. The Abrams is 70+ TONS. Increased weight means higher procurement costs and higher support costs. Everyone said that the Abrams weighs too much to be useful. How can you justify a Tank that will probably weight MORE.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

@@yonghominale8884 no one said the M1 is too heavy to be useful. The M1 is an important piece of the combined arms doctrine.

[@phaeronseherekh1754]

@@yonghominale8884 I'd wager they were saying the same things many decades ago, centuries if you want to start thinking of things that aren't directly tanks

[@v4skunk739]

@@yonghominale8884 Challenger2 has something like a 90 tonne bridging weight fully armoured and loaded up ready to go.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

@@v4skunk739 aye Challenger 2 TES kit added is the heaviest modern tank if My knowledge is correct.

[@999Phiro]

So for the short version, I completely agree with everything said in this video. Chieftain once again encompasses all points and delivers with accurate and relevant data points. Only thing I could add is the view point from a infantry perspective. His major point that I agree with is that tanks are not, and never will be catch alls that do anything. As an infantryman if I know I've got lots of terrain with many points of concealment, cover, and otherwise the ability to move around to negate a tank's ranged advantage I will win that fight every time. However if I've got wide open swathes of terrain that I either have to cross or defend and I know the enemy has armor and I have none I am in serious trouble. This is why you don't use tanks as the driving force for urban combat, but as showcased with the Iraq Invasion, maneuver warfare on open deserts and similar terrains allow for tanks to pummel and outmaneuver enemy formations. Tanks have always been a part of combined arms, and just like every other part, alone they are weaker. But when it comes to offensive capabilities no other system compares. Air Power has to return to base and can miss. Helicopters are easy targets because you can see it plainly and shoot most things at them. And as Chieftain pointed out "Infantry is quite susceptible to little sharp stabby bits" (sorry if I messed that one up). Nothing has the ability to accurately and directly effect fires on targets in front of them and be in the fight as long as a tank. Nothing that I can carry as a grunt, has the ability to accurately hit targets at extreme ranges with as high of a probability First Shot/Kill. This is why I've looked at Ukraine as the blunder of combined arms warfare (or in that particular case the lack thereof), not the blunder of the tank. So TL;DR from the infantry perspective (that is my own), I agree with Chieftain. There is nothing that offers the capabilities to replace it, and we've seen its effectiveness proven every time it is used properly. Tanks may change over time, but I don't believe we'll ever see a time where tanks no longer exist on the modern battlefield.

[@iainbaker6916]

Most dangerous thing to a tank - the enemies’ effective use of Combined Arms. Best thing to keep a tank safe - friendlies’ effective use of combined arms.

[@anasevi9456]

also air superiority, every conflict of the last 30 years.. the side with air superiority, even slightly; had effective tanks.. The side without it they were usually picked off before they could help much. Despite what the media is saying, it's panning out again now too. for every dead R's 72, there are about 4-5 dead 64bv's, and that's not even counting the fact U's has a lot of 72's as well that are often painted as R's losses. NLAWs help, but they are not the wunderwaffe media says. You still have to be in a very dangerous position to fire them effectively, and even then they might be mitigated.

[@topiasr628]

Well said

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

that's true, but also kind of pointless to say: it's like saying 'most deadly thing to a tank: the enemy fighting well; most helpful thing for a tank: your own side fighting well '

[@mikeandhev]

I agree with you. Also consider this- effective use of combined arms with tanks = victory. Effective use of combined arms without tanks = certain defeat. 'Nuff said.

[@Tk3997]

@@anasevi9456 No it's not. There is no objective data to support the ratio you're claiming, in fact we can dismiss it outright because there are something like 500 visually confirmed Russian tank kills and if Ukraine actually was losing four or five tanks per enemy loss they literally would not have ANY tanks left already, this can be seen as objectively false. Actually effectively all modern engagements dispute this, post war analysis always shows that claims by aircraft for vehicle kills are grossly inflated. Weeks of some of the heaviest bombing to a degree that is no longer really possible given the reduction in aircraft numbers in Desert Storm failed to produce more then marginal attrition on Iraq formations, they still had fully capable formations with hundred of AFV when engaged by allied ground units. And this was in pretty much the most favorable conditions imaginable for aircraft due to the terrain and weak opposition. Attempts to destroy ground forces in Serbia in less optimal conditions were laughably ineffective, virtually no reduction in Serbian arms was accomplished at all. These were also highly permissive environments with little threat to attackers, who were well trained, and supported with large stockpiles of weapons. Russia has an Air Force that it's increasingly clear exists probably 75+% on paper it's serviceability rates HAVE to be cataclysmicly poor to explain the piss weak effort it's managed to effect and it's clear that it's stockpiles of PGM were tiny in comparison even to that reduced force. It's lacking training and system integration also means it has not suppressed Ukraine Air Defense into irrelevance and even the Ukraine Air Force remains a factor. There are very real threats at all altitudes to Russian aircraft operating in the frontline areas. Furthermore as in other areas it's focus on bling over basics means that it's poorly positioned to exploit what control it does have in non-kinetic ways. The proliferation of comparatively lightweight drones also means that 'air superiority' in terms of fighter aircraft and expensive long range SAMs does a very poor job of countering means that some of the advantages of 'control' of the air are diluted now. It's now very possible to continue a having good air recon and some attack capability even if you don't nominally 'control' the air now, so the advantage the attacker might have previously enjoyed with such control is mitigated. Even beyond that and despite advances being on the defense by and large remains a MAJOR force multiplier between being able to make use of much more extensive camouflage and concealment, prepared defenses and firing zones, and usually having advanced warning of enemy approach, etc being the defener is a major advantage. If anything being on the defensive and lavishly supplied with defensive weaponry we actually ought to expect that the ATTACKERS are the ones taking higher rates of attrition and indeed pretty much all evidence that's coming from somewhere besides Russia seems to support that. The best estimates are that Ukraine has definitely lost fewer tanks then Russia has, although it certainly has sustained significant losses and as a proportion of it's available pool is somewhat worse then Russia (though not much worse, because Russia also doesn't have 10,000+ tanks as some people claim, visual verification alone of around 500 kills places their current losses at around 20 to 25% of their TOTAL active tank force)

[@NonyaDamnbusiness]

I was a 19K M1 Armor Crewman for a decade on the M1A1 Heavy both in the 3rd ACR at Ft. Bliss when it still existed as well as in the RFCT, 1AD in Germany. Have both Tank Weapons and Track Driver badges as well, aka the "I shot well and didn't run the tank into anything" badges. Deployed with tanks to Egypt, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We did shitloads of gunnery and maneuver exercises at both platoon and company levels (TT XII FTW!) as well as the occasional CALFEX whenever budget would allow. In the 3rd ACR we pretty much lived in White Sands Missile Range and learned to drive all out while maneuvering between the sand dunes. You drive any tracked vehicle long enough and you develop a sixth sense of where all 4 corners of the vehicle are at in relation to everything around you making moving it around in battle/exercises without hitting anything easier. Well, at least good drivers with their heads in the game do that. The one thing we *never* trained on or even fired were the smoke grenade launchers on any tank. Ever. For an entire decade. Never even trained on it. Knew they were there but they were never, ever loaded and not even on Real World Deployments(tm) were tank smoke grenades ever loaded or even issued to us. Why? Simple - they were never put in the budget or if they were they were one of the first line items axed in favor of something else. Sure, we made sure they were good to go when doing PMCS on the tank itself but not once were they ever used. The only use the smoke grenade boxes on the sides of the M1A1 turret saw were to hold cans of soda with a little ice spread on top to help keep our cans of Mountain Dew and Pepsi somewhat cool. And yes, that was even when I was in Dragon Company, 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment where our motto was "Recon By Fire". Our mission was always to go out and find the enemy for the main forces behind to come up and destroy. And not once - NOT ONCE - did we ever "pop smoke" to snake back out of a bad situation. We were to keep firing until killed. And not once was any commander from the company level up to squadron to Regiment or up to BN, BDE, or Division ever "dinged" for never training on them or using them at all. And yes, I consider that really damn stupid to never train on popping smoke and every armor commander should have been reamed out for not using it. Fun fact: 1AD deployed to Iraq in '04 with M1A1 Heavy tanks. They're not really that old and still useful which is why we're selling them left and right to other countries. Tanks are also not deprecated at all. Sure, DOD tried to "experiment" with replacing them with Strykers aka "The MGS" but the MGS is dead in all but name now and both the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (note the lack of the word "Armor") and 1AD are quickly replacing all their Strkyers with - SURPRISE! - M1A2 tanks. They'll keep a few Strykers on as fancy infantry trucks, but the old DOD brass idea that they were just as good as MBTs is as dead as disco and now that DOD is seeing what's happening to Russian BMPs, BTRs, and BRDMs in Ukraine, they're quickly ditching the idea that anything like them will work in a main ground forces push as a combined force of Apaches and M1A2s providing direct fire while being backed up by artillery and Air Force CAS. When we were working closely with the Russians in the Balkans (ha!) in the 90s and 00s they were absolutely terrified of pissing us off and seeing what that could do. Especially after we invited Russian Army leadership to come see one of our CALFEX exercises once. M1A2 Heavies on line firing, Apaches flying overhead launching missiles and firing their chain guns, artillery pounding the hell out of the enemy's prepared positions. It was glorious to behold and I had fun in my M1A1's gunner seat - ON THE WAY! [BOOM!] They left that range completely terrified of what we could bring to the fight and they wanted no part of being on the other end of our pointy sticks. Fun fact: The difference between the M1 and the M1A1/M1A2? Simple. The 105mm main gun goes "BANG!" while the 120mm main gun goes "BOOM!" I've fired both. And spent 120mm aft caps are easier for the loader to deal with than spent 105mm shell casings. Been there, done that.

[@fathead8933]

This is my experience as a Stryker VC. We NEVER had smoke. I did opnet gunnery and never popped the smoke grenades. To be honest, I to this day don't know if they are the cool explode in the air ones or the junky fall on the ground ones. I can literally explain how the entire vehicle works, with the exception of the smoke grenades. Lol On the MGS role, it was designed as an assault gun not a tank. Basically I take shots from stuff I can't kill with .50 or 40mm, I call you in an MGS to pump a heat round into it. It was kinda a hunter killer system, but for structures.

[@Ubique2927]

I too have been present at a fire demonstration frequented by generals of East Germany and the USSR… The demonstration was combined arms of the BAOR and its reinforcements from the UK and a few artillery units from Denmark and The Netherlands. O put It into a few words, it was f#####g frightening, wonderful and awe inspiring at the same time. The Warsaw Pact generals present were visibly shaken. Knowing that there armies would have been funneled into the very few very narrow kill zones between the Inner German border and Belgium. Hey knew that they would have been murdered. We also now know that the vaunted T72, BMP and rocket artillery were actually close to useless, we can now guess at the result of an attack by the WP.

[@altergreenhorn]

Can completely believe that Russians were terrified because they were aware how Clinton budy namely Jelzin destroyed Russia almost to the ground, for shure Russians were aware back then that they need a lot of work to stand again.

[@DiggingForFacts]

"Recon by fire". Ahh...House Steiner would approve.

[@RodWick]

I used to keep my Dr. Pepper in the smoke grenade launchers. Great boogie bait holders. I never once trained with them anywhere, NTC, Graf, not even for a mad minute.

[@jimbo9305]

There are also the economics of human lives. How many lives are lost on average to defeat a tank? Do the anti-tank weapons generally result in killed crew, or do they tend to survive and get back to the battlefield in a new vehicle? Tanks are easier to replace than good tankers.

[@Revy8]

the nlaw uses complex technology to blow up above the tank. the russians have started welding metal cages above their tanks to trick the nlaw to explode too high. $40k weapon just got beat by $40 worth of scrap metal

[@Fulcrum205]

That is very much a function of the AT weapon used. I worked next door to an MRAP repair depot in Afghanistan and saw the after effects of numerous RPG, IED, Recoilless rifle, HMG hits. IEDs (AN-FO or AN-AL filler not EFP types) generally buckled or bent the hull but didn't kill anyone inside unless it was big enough to physically crush the hull like a beer can. RPGs generally made a hole a little bigger than my finger and killed anyone in the jet path but the rest of the crew would be Okay unless there was a secondary explosion (like stored cratering charges in a combat engineer vehicle I saw that was gutted). Bear in mind the grunts would have been wearing body armor which tank crewman do not. Also these MRAPs all had bar armor screens or RPG netting so that may have reduced the RPG lethality if it was detonating at a suboptimal standoff distance. Worst hits I saw were recoilless rifle hits that punch clean through and detonated inside the vehicle. I don't know the exact caliber but they were likely 82mm or 73mm HEAT. Entire inside of the MRAP was fragged. Big stuff like a Hellfire or Maverick probably kills or wounds the entire crew. Tanks complicate matters as their crews are crammed in tighter next to a lot of main gun ammo that is not inside an APC. Russians tanks store their ammo exposed below the turret instead of in the bustle behind and armored door like western MBTs. My guess is that a turret hit from a modern man portable ATGM kills the turret crew at least with the driver probably surviving. Hits on the rear hull likely don't kill anyone. Front hull gets the driver for sure

[@joshuaortiz2031]

@@Fulcrum205 yeah but the armor of an MRAP is a joke compared to an Abrams. MRAPS dont have composite armor with a layer of DU. That probably makes up for the crammed crew compartment. Every weapon you mentioned in your comment beside the hellfire missile and maverick missile wouldnt do shit to an Abrams. Maybe bust the tracks or disable some of the exterior equipment on the turret. RPGs and HEAT rounds from a recoiless rifle would never get through into the crew compartment in a modern MBT. An IED with enough explosives like the explosive equivalent of a 155mm artillery shell can kill an abrams but the tank literally has to be driving over the IED when it goes off. How are ground troops going to disable future main battle tanks when active defense systems with a kill rate of 99% reach maturity. I can see something like a miniaturized iron beam laser and 2 or 3 trophy systems, and maybe some new type of electronic warfare radar jammer that throws inbound missiles off course mounted on a Merkava would make it almost impervious to incoming ATGMs especially if they are massed together and their active defense systems overlap each other. What would you be able to do to realistically defeat that?

[@Fulcrum205]

@@joshuaortiz2031 his question was about crew casualties when things do get through the armor. Obviously an MBT has a much lower chance of being penetrated. We lost several Abrams in Iraq to RPGs and even 14.5mm HMG fire. Usually it was the APU in the bustle getting hit and then burning and dripping burning fuel into the engine. The Abrams does have excellent armor but a side or rear hit from a lot of light AT weapons is going to knock it out

[@Fulcrum205]

@@joshuaortiz2031 well we can look at how air defenses have been dealt with to get some ideas #1 Jam it. Anything that uses active sensors to detect an incoming round is jammable. That may involve a missile with a built in jammer or some other ECM emitter to cause active defenses to fire early or simply not be able to acquire the incoming bogey, #2 decoy. Have a missile that fires off a small projectile on front of it just before it enters the defensive envelope. Ahead of the missile. B-52s used to carry an air launched decoy to get SAM sites to engage the decoy while it dashed in once they switched to tracking mode. #3 saturate it. Launch multiple missiles at once. Active defenses are only going to be able to engage a finite number of targets #4 avoid it's engagement envelope. Attack from above. Attack with a slow mover that the system doesn't see as a missile (quadcopter drone with a CBU97 skeet comes to mind) or go low. The Brits developed a skipping bomb called Highball in WW2 to attack ships. Something similar could be developed to skim under a tank. Or just go fast. The US was working on a hypervelocity AT missile that could be fired from a 70mm hydra pod when the Cold War ended and it was dropped. #5 Break it: All these systems are going to have exposed bits that by nature can't be armored. The Germans learned the hard way that while the armor stops most anything a tank still has lots of important bits that are vulnerable to weapons like the PTRS and it's 14.5mm rounds. Attach a sniper with a heavy rifle to your AT team. He plinks the radome/sensor and then you launch your missile. Those are just my 5 minute bar napkin ideas. Likely some DARPA eggheads are already working on cracking active defenses

[@gabiejae3616]

I guess one example of how important the tanks is, is the issue that the Philippine Army faced in Marawi Siege back in 2017. The Philippine Army have an armored force that only consisted of APCs, IFVs, and small number of FSVs. The army have long retired their cold war era tanks like the M41 Bulldog so they were unable to penetrate concrete walls in which enemy insurgents are positioned. Despite of the M113 mounted with the scorpion turret, armed with a 76mm gun ,and the Philippine Marine Corps' LAV 300 armed with a 90mm gun, it wasn't enough in penetrating the concrete walls. Because of this issue the army was forced to use a 105mm howitzer to provide direct fire support. With the lessons learned from the siege, the Philippine army's requirement on tanks was changed from a tank armed with a 90 mm gun to at least a 105mm gun. I believe they are going to receive the first batch of tanks this year. My point here is that it shows that tanks are important in a military's doctrine and that it has an important role to play in an army. And in the context of the Philippines, despite having poor to ok infrastructure and being an archipelago, there are scenarios in where light tanks would be the best type of asset to use.

[@Galdenberry_Lamphuck]

The issue with fortifications is that a modern force would have numerous missiles and cannons to counter them. The only way a tank could operate as a siegebreaker type vehicle is if it was 1: heavily armed enough to destroy fortifications. 2: heavily defended enough to defeat the wall of firepower arrayed against it. Like battleships Forts just aren't defended enough to face down modern firepower

[@Commander_35]

A 105mm tracked chassis and make sure it's light lmao. Philippines terrain is a big fuck you to tanks.

[@gabiejae3616]

@@Commander_35 The upcoming Sabrah light tank of the Philippine army weighs between 30 - 35 tons which is the same with the M4 Sherman which also served in the Philippine Army. So the tank's weight is suitable for the Philippine's terrain.

[@Commander_35]

@@gabiejae3616 cool, i should enlist in the future as a tanker if they're still around

[@egoalter1276]

More concentrated firepower was arrayed against the fortress at verdun than there exist precision munitions in the world, yet it did nothing to reduce its effectiveness as a fighting position. As a matter of fact, it is not possible to capture a fortified position, without clearing it out on foot, and this has been proven dozens of times in history. So yes, static fortified fighting positions, even if only as elements of a strongpoint based collapsing defense are completely viable, and will remain so presumably forever.

[@themecoptera9258]

The tank will not become obsolete because it can be killed easily or cheaply. It will become obsolete either when the capability is no longer required or another system come along which can fulfill that capability at lesser cost.

[@madensmith7014]

They like to compare it to horse cavalry that became obsolete but when you actually look into history, your statement sums it up. There were a lot of weapons and tactics that were effective at killing horses ever since the middle ages, but they never went obsolete until mechanized units were invented. If we were going by their shallow logic even more, infantry and foot soldiers should have been obsolete when machine guns were invented.

[@szkoclaw]

Mobile artillery with terminal guidance shells that can be quickly and effectively targeted by the infantry at the front line. Similar firepower, far less exposure. It's all a matter of electronics, somebody will get there in a few years.

[@themecoptera9258]

@@szkoclaw it would probably have to be smart, able to select and strike its own targets, lest the enemy just shell the infantry with faster mortars while they sit and wait for the artillery to fall. In which case we’re basically talking about an artillery shell with similar cost to a missile but a much more expensive launcher. There is also the question of robust communications requirements which might be jammed or broken. Time to target also weighs in favor of direct fire weapons, if a tank is available the infantry can count on immediate fire support within a few seconds, the artillery shell might take 30 or more seconds from muzzle to target. Granted fewer tubes could cover more troops with protective fire so you would definitely win on cost effectiveness, but half a minute is a long time to wait, and that doesn’t even include delays due to chain of command, targeting, elevating, and other tasks which are required to set such a system moving. There are probably solutions to most of these problems, some technical and others doctrinal, but it probably isn’t something which will be sorted in the next decade, and even when it is sorted, the rapid nature of direct fire will probably still have a place in some situations.

[@c3aloha]

@@szkoclaw unmanned long range precision strike. People are mad at Gen Berger but he’s trying to advance looking at 20 years from now.

[@01Bouwhuis]

@@szkoclaw that is a tank.......

[@coaxill4059]

The thing people seem consistently not to realize is that: No matter how effectively an advanced device like a tank can be countered by another advanced device like a Javelin in ideal circumstances, the tank still forces you to deal with it, and circumstances won't always be ideal. The tank will not be obsolete until the infantryman is a match or near match for a tank. If we get to the point where it would be trivial for a single man to kill a tank from over a kilometer away, and challenging for the tank to effectively respond in time, then tanks will be ineffective.

[@Killerduck0213]

This. If I have tanks, then I force my enemy to spend time and money on weapons and tactics to deal with them. On top of that, most of the arguments I'm seeing revolve around taking something like a Stryker and bolting on more weapons and countermeasures to fill the void of the MBT (something you COULD also do to an MBT) but if you're at the point where you are constantly up-arming and up-armoring these things eventually they are just going to be a tank by a different name.

[@JainZar1]

If you look at Sci-Fi books, like "The Lost Fleet" or "Starship Troopers" it's easy to see, why tanks aren't in use. In the Lost Fleet series, you have overhead coverage by space ships as an attacking force, those can shoot "Rods from god" at an appreciable amount of the speed of light. So those can replace the direct firepower of the tank pretty easily. In Starship Troopers you have Infantry that has long reaching firepower, is more mobile and just as heavily armoured as a tank could be.

[@fredmdbud]

How much does a Javelin (or a NLAW, or a even a Hellfire) cost? And how much does a tank cost? And mobility - how rapidly can they be deployed?

[@basedeltazero714]

​@@JainZar1 If you're willing to deploy WMD casually, you don't really need infantry, either. Police, maybe, but after the second time you respond to a protest by RKV'ing a planet to slag... Starship Troopers Mobile Infantry are hardcore but are also somewhat survivable in a way that suggests even more armor could have benefits. There are also a lot of 'Tank Plus' possibilities where the result doesn't meaningfully resemble a modern tank in appearance, but performs a similar role. The 'ideal battlemech', where we ignore the disadvantages of such a platform being an example. It has better capabilities than a tank in some ways, but is ultimately a heavily armed and armored ground platform that performs the same sort of role as a tank. More like the change from ironclads to dreadnaughts than battleships to aircraft carriers. Does the same thing in the same way, but better, rather than doing the same thing in a totally different way. To render the tank redudant as a protective platform, you need a weapon against which there is no feasible defense - or at least no feasible defense that can be meaningfully improved by having more mass of it. To obsolete the tank as an offensive platform you need a weapon capable of overcoming all threats that does not benefit from scaling up. Oh, and while we're at it, let's throw in maneuverability and sensors and whatnot. These are... somewhat unlikely characteristics to have. Even in sci-fi (probably because The God Weapon That Makes Everything Irrelevant is boring). Also, the fact, we have to resort to basically magic (or technology indistinguishable from) to get it is... telling.

[@JainZar1]

@@basedeltazero714 Yeah, completely unfeasible for anything reasonable, where you actually want to hold infrastructure instead of graves. Similar to the Soviet/Russian doctrine of using "tactical" nukes. My guess for the next AFV development is, that the buddy drone concept gets tested. 2 identical tanks with one tank having crew in it. Though I see problems with maintenance.

[@xthetenth]

Honestly considering how good sensors have gotten in tanks, I think the deadest the tank has been was the early Yom Kippur war, except for maybe WWI and interwar, where they had a very hard time doing half of what modern tanks are expected to do.

[@jliller]

The tank was half dead the day it was introduced in World War I. Germans could penetrate their armor with existing artillery, and they were prone to getting stuck and breaking down. Even when the British realized they needed to mass them and achieved a big success at Cambrai, the Germans counterattacked a few days later and rendered the gains moot. When interviewed for the The Great War series, the director of the German tank museum told Indy Neidell the Germans weren't particularly impressed with the tank once the initial surprise wore off and the limitations discouraged the Germans from investing much in designing and building their own. It wasn't until the Entente developed combined arms tactics that really started to make a difference: tanks to take out barbedwire and machine guns, aircraft to identify (and sometimes attack) anti-tank guns, and artillery for counterbattery fire and creeping barrages, all supported by infantry to protect the tanks and hold the ground. I think Blitzkrieg really skewed people's conception of what tanks could accomplish under normal circumstances. And even then Blitzkrieg was more combined arms than probably most people realize.

[@genericpersonx333]

Even Yom Kippur proved tanks were perfectly fine, just had to be used differently. I say this as a friend of a man who was in an Israeli tank during that war. It was a T55 captured from the Egyptians that he helped hose the former crew out of. He then proceeded to use that tank, with an Israeli hole providing welcome ventilation, to help drive the Egyptians back, even despite the many RPGs and missiles the Egyptians were still firing at his comrades. Only thig Yom Kippur showed is Egyptians could devise tactics and strategies that Israelis didn't have good plans for to start with. Nonetheless, the Israeli tanks continued to contribute to Israel eventually winning because they learned how to use their surviving tanks better, not by giving up on tanks altogether.

[@victorfinberg8595]

Regarding Oct.6, 1973, it's only on the Suez front that Israeli tanks (unsupported) performed poorly. On the Golan Heights, Israeli tanks performed very, very well.

[@mrvwbug4423]

@@victorfinberg8595 If I recall in the Golan heights, the Centurion tanks the IDF had were able to take hull down positions above the Syrian advance and shoot down at the Syrain T-55s without return fire because the T-55s couldn't elevate their guns enough to shoot up at the IDF tanks.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

@@mrvwbug4423 Very rare Circumstance, not just that the Syrian commander should of had Support and Recon before sending in waves of tanks. I know the situation and id have to Re-Read upon it again. But was no fault of the T55 but the commander of the OP

[@swaghauler8334]

If you want to know how to determine if a weapon is effective on the battlefield, you simply count the number of systems developed to counter that specific weapon. The greater the number of "countermeasures" for a given weapon system, the more effective that weapon is.

[@arenio]

couldn't have said this any better! what a quote.

[@mekingtiger9095]

Very nice observation, but counterpoint to that: That is mostly only the case if the weapons meant to counter a given threat can *only be used against said threat* and lack the versatility to accomplish any other role effectively. SAMs can pretty much only be used against aircrafts and air missiles, for example, and thus their very existence and presence on the field is bound by the existence and presence of aerial threats. An ATGM, on the other hand, can easily be turned into a man-portable fortification buster on a moment's notice. Although that by itself is not a lot, I'm pretty sure there can be other creative uses for ATGM's out there. In any case, an extreme but real example of this is how the *G U N* completely erased body armor from existence in warfare altogether and it is such a basic and omnipresent on the field in the Age of Gunpowder and yet so effective at taking down early srmored targets that it made your Armored Knight trying to do his classical shock tactic with cavalry nothing but a VERY minor inconvenience if even one at all (well, that and the pike at first. But then it only became the gun and the gun alone). The point here is that the chances of a situation where the tank will have the opportunity to fulfill its intended role and be decisive on the battlefield at any level ever arising are becoming are becoming smaller and smaller as time passes and when you realize it, it has become such a niche thing for such a niche purpose that it might aswell be gathering dust for centuries inside its warehouse before such opportunity arises. Kinda like how infantry often still carries melee weapons in the form of knives or the occasional bayonet "just in case" but almost never end up ever using them because melees just aren't a thing anymore for obvious reasons. Except combat knives and bayonets don't cost 4 million dollars.

[@TheRareFirel]

Pretty sure I remember reading articles claiming "the tank is dead" when the German Empire first fielded the T-Gewehr in 1918. The tank's looking pretty good for having, apparently, been dead for over a century.

[@Bird_Dog00]

As Bernard said, given how often it supposedly died the tank must by now be a zombie.

[@walterm140]

I'm pretty sure you don't.

[@myparceltape1169]

Just like I read about 'drone swarms' last century.

[@DarkDutch007]

Quite funny that they claimed "the tank is dead" right after the birth of it.

[@myparceltape1169]

@@DarkDutch007 Not really. Often people given a new tool will use it once, without reading the instructions, and say This b#$! thing doesn't work.

[@markfryer9880]

"The Tank is Dead!" Argument strikes me as being of a similar vein to the "Carrier is to big of a Target!", something that I and many other Australians will have heard about since the days of the paying off of HMAS Melbourne, our last true Aircraft Carrier. The British were about to sell us HMS Invincible when a certain little event cropped up in the South Atlantic called The Falklands War. Well the whole world got to see just how vital Aircraft Carriers could be in that war, except for the people who would have had to vote for the funds for a replacement Carrier for Australia. So we never got one, until we got a pair of slightly oversized Helicopter Carriers. The British have been through similar issues when the time came to replace the Invincible Class of Carriers and have only recently begun using the two Queen Elizabeth II Class vessels. Both ships and tanks are vulnerable to missile attacks and need layered defence in order for them to survive in the modern battlespace. Indeed the last few days have shown what can happen to a Missile Cruiser should it be operating as an individual rather than as a group member. Does the sinking of the Moscow mean that the day of the Cruiser is dead? Only the hasty would draw such a conclusion!

[@Minigoat_92]

To be fair, Australia does not have the strategic requirements that require an aircraft carrier. We have a predominantly defensive Navy, with a good part of it's purpose being to provide large scale international aid missions after natural disasters in the Asia/Pacific regions. In that context, our LHD's make alot of sense. And to fulfil the defensive role, our navy is prioritising nuclear submarines, very large and potent ASW frigates, and AEGIS destroyers. As well, our military in general is transitioning towards a system more in line with the US Marines in size and makeup, and the LHD's fit this role quite nicely as well. An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon system, and requires an enormous amount of supporting systems/vessels, as well as a requirement to have at least 2 carriers and their attendant task forces (ideally 3, 1 active patrol, 1 training/work up, 1 rest/overhaul at any time) in order to be most effective in their role, not to mention the high cost of manning all those carriers with aircraft (a single Ford class carrier carries roughly as many fighters as the RAAF currently has in total). This is a very costly investment for a primarily defensive force, especially when we operate so closely with the US navy and it's 11 (20 if you include marines) carriers.

[@termitreter6545]

FWIW, there was no battle ever fought over a modern aircraft carrier between major powers. The battleship was also considered really important, until they got wrecked by bombers and submarines in WW2.

[@MLaak86]

Personally, like with the Tank, I'd hold that the doctrine of how any Capital Ships - especially Carriers given their relative lack of point defences - are now used needs to be under revision given the advancement and proliferation of anti-ship weapons that can kill or disable almost any class of ship in one hit. They still have a role, it just has to be updated given they're now more vulnerable and there's really only so much more we can feasibly do in terms of up armouring them before they become too ponderous to fulfil the desired role.

[@Fulcrum205]

Although the Moskva was classed as a cruiser and roughly the size of a light cruiser it's absolute lack of meaningful armor and covering it's deck with several tons of unarmored explode-y missiles meant it was essentially a giant PT boat. To me it actually highlights the need for a large armored warship that stores it's ammunition in a large armored magazine below the waterline where it can't be detonated by relatively small missiles. It could maybe even be equipped with large caliber cannon that could engage shore targets outside the range of aforementioned small missiles

[@Minigoat_92]

@@Fulcrum205 that falls into the dilemma that its relatively easy to produce a missile warhead that can penetrate several metres of armour plate without much issue, or utilise a top down explosive formed penetrator to go through from above. This is the primary reason that armoured ships no longer exist, at least in ground combat you have the complication that any weapon system to fight a tank needs to be air/vehicle/man portable, which places an upper limit on size and penetration ability (the primary limitation of HEAT penetration being the diameter of the warhead cone) allowing tanks to be armoured in a way to prevent penetration from these weapons if hit, in certain areas and directions at least. Against ships though, now you are looking at weapons that can weigh several tons, explosive mass being a significant portion of that weight, with warheads in the 500cm+ diameter range. It's not feasible to armour a ship against this kind of weapon, which is the primary reason modern ships have gone away from armour and rely on intercepting/jamming or using decoys agaonst incoming weapons. Consider that even the most heavily armoured battleships only had around 300-400mm armour belts at their thickest, which any modern HEAT warhead would penetrate like a knife through butter, not to mention the potential of things like railguns or large calibre explosive formed penetrators.

[@DerKiesch]

Two things to consider that were not touched in the video directly: 1. If the new developments would lead to more medium to lightly armored vehicles with active armor, these would make good targets for classical tanks (meaning the effectiveness of tanks would be further increased). In essence: The thing you would replace the tank with is exactly what tanks would like to see on the battlefield. 2. To be actually effective with NLAW and Javelin etc. you will need a lot more of them plus a supply infrastructure, since you will have to deploy them to your infantry units in high enough mass to have effective amounts ready for battles against multiple tanks. While tanks can be quickly redeployed (locally) infantry doesn't have this luxury to the same extent. This also means that you start piling up these for replacement etc., so in essence they will be vulnerable against being destroyed before they even arrive in combat.

[@SkunkdMonk]

Wonderfully made argument. You hit every point, and more that I would have hoped for and expected. I have two personal favorite points that you mention, and I mention whenever someone says the tank is dead. First, most of the times infantry have overtaken armor, is when the armor was not being properly supported. People like pointing at times in Vietnam, ten you look at them, and look at that, there was no air support, there was no infantry support. I suspect what is happening to Russian tanks has a lot to do with this as well. Second, weapons and armor are always evolving because the other. This has happened since the first weapon was used " Cant penetrate skin with fist, Ill use a pointy stick", not to even mention the insanity of this seen in the medieval age and the cold war. So when people are looking towards the death of the tank, I'm looking forward with excitement of what's coming next for the tank

[@coltpiecemaker]

Most of the time, when people argue that "the tank is obsolete," I like to ask what should replace it? You can usually come to the conclusion that the military needs some sort of cannon-armed vehicle, as nothing on the modern battlefield can supplement the capability that a 120mm cannon brings to the battlefield. The vehicle also needs at least some armor, preferably able to withstand some autocannon fire. Also, while wheels are a better option these days than they were in the past, treads offer more mobility in many circumstances as well as other some other advantages. So, with all of this considered, to replace the tank you are going to need some sort of armored, cannon-armed vehicle with treads. That's a tank.

[@boymahina123]

@@thors3532 still doesn't beat the time-to-target that a high-velocity direct fire cannon provides

[@coltpiecemaker]

@@thors3532 While modern artillery is great, and even can be pretty accurate with drones assisting them, they still have a fairly long response time, and struggle to deal with a mobile enemy. They also lack the ability to aggressively take ground along side the infantry. Overall, tanks are a part of a combined arms force that cannot stand on its own, just like airpower, infantry, artillery and so on. Everything should work together to a unified end.

[@killchicken123]

Why do you put 4 men in it? Why ~70t of passive armor instead of 1/3 the cost? Why direct fire gun that weighs 3t+ by itself and way more expensive than any recoilless weapon launch system especially if you consider it as a driver of overall system cost? Time of flight is cited as a reason, but realistically how often does 5~10s matter? 5%? 10%? of the time? Again is it worth the cost? If it really mattered why is kinetic energy missile demonstrated decades ago not adopted? And when algorithm does at one point drive the OODA loop down to seconds beyond human capability who's to say gun is preferable to hypervelocity missile? DE weapons so you achieve mission kill anyways? BTW if you buy one today you're betting assumptions about "tanks" to be true for the next 40 years, that's a lot to put at stake.

[@yonghominale8884]

Behold the Griffin II "light tank" kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYO0Z3uVeJmFidU In actuality its a tank destroyer that weighs about the same as a WWII M4 Sherman

[@fobusas]

What are you talking about, there's plenty of alternatives. Mortar + drone proved a deadly combination for Ukrainians. Artilery, loitering munitions, flooding infantry with ATGMs, heck, even AC130 has a 105mm cannon. Have you seen ukrainian drone armed with old soviet anti tank munitions with 3d printed fins destroy tank after tank? Drones don't need threads, neither does the infantry. And good luck trying to shoot a drone out of a sky with an autocannon... What's the cannon's maximum angle again?

[@majormoolah5056]

As Michael Kofman often points out, a military is context-dependent. Its capabilities cannot be measured in a vacuum. When it comes to the war in Ukraine, it should be noted it is in many ways a perfect storm for the defenders. They have prepared for this invasion for years. So they knew Russians have a very vehicle-heavy land force. They also received anti-tank systems and training from NATO members. Russians also deployed their tanks in a very haphazard manner. Ukrainians also receive tremendous amounts of military intelligence from USA and other NATO members. But what happens if the attacker achieves strategic surprise and manages to blind the defender? And uses tanks in a combined arms manner, as should be? I would suspect tanks to be a tremendous force. Also, I have yet to see what will replace tanks when it comes to advancing, taking territory and maintaining momentum. If Ukraine has to attack with infantry and shoulder-mounted missiles, we are going to have a terrible massacre then. Tanks and anti-tanks are a seesaw in which one is always up and the other is always down... until the roles reverse.

[@Miketar2424]

Yup, if an army knows how to use them, and doesn't send them blundering into clusters of high rise buildings with no infantry in sight like the Russians, they have value.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

There was a similar war - Azerbaijan vs Armenia Tanks performed poorly there too. How many more dead people do you people need before you see that in current day's combat a tank is a death trap? IFV's are the future. They can do everything a tank can do for half the price while carrying troops. SABOT loaded autocannon? Check. Speed, armor and heavy guns? Check, you can add heavier guns on your IFV'S if you want like the Lithuanian "Vilkas" which could shred Soviet Tanks to bits since they can't even hit shit. So what else? Why are you people defending this with such a huge bias?

[@crocidile90]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 all the Azerbaijan-Armenia war did was reinforce the concept of air supremacy winning everything. AA crews shooting down retard magnet drones just to get killed by SEAD, Armenia having no true Fighter aircraft force, and no drone support of their own doomed their ground forces to death by 100 stabs. IFV's will be knocked out by tanks so unless everyone goes full r-tard and make the vehicle armor penetrate-able by auto cannons, tanks will have a future.

[@Miketar2424]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 Because it isn't the tanks performing poorly, its their incompetent commanders and generals using them.

[@FranciscoPartidas]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 so a tank is perfect In places without strategic value. Great to cruise lands where anybody lives. Yes, useful. Ha!

[@becauseimbatman5702]

When you mentioned battleships being obsolete, I perked up. Drachinifel has mentioned this several times. Basically, battleships became obsolete because carriers could but weapons on target at longer ranges, with more precision, and at lower risk to the primary asset than battleships. It wasn't because of vulnerability. If anything, they were the least vulnerable. Cruisers and destroyers had less armor/protection than battleships did. The onion diagram fits well here. Armor and other defenses to avoid taking damage and the ability to keep going even if hit and penetrated.

[@jliller]

And battleships were always vulnerable to other battleships. Dreadnoughts were vulnerable to torpedoes, and the later predates the former. The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal demonstrated battleships are even vulnerable to gunfire from cruisers and destroyers at short range (i.e. sneaking up in the dark). Battleship superstructures were always essentially unarmored and 8" shells will penetrate battleship armor if you get close enough.

[@robertmarsh3588]

@@jliller I think that logic just makes a better case for abandoning the tank. Surely the point is that the tank or battleship has a capability that another weapon system didn't? Both the battleship and the tank were more survivable than other relevant weapon systems and remain so.....however the battleship became obsolete when other naval force elements (aircraft/aircraft carriers or other ships with missiles) exceeded the battleship's ability to destroy an enemy or project force. That hasn't yet happened for the tank.

[@becauseimbatman5702]

@@robertmarsh3588Edit: TLDR @jliller's point appears to be that if the "battleship" is exposed without proper support it's very vulnerable. Original reply: Not exactly. To the point that @jliller was making, the engagement in question involved Hiei which was a WW1 Era battlecruiser that had been modernized. Contemporary battleships like Fuso's up to 12 in. of belt armor while the Kongo class battlecruisers like Hiei only had up to 8 in. But most importantly, Hiei and Kirishima were being use for shore bombardment in confined waters. In other words, not in its designed role. The Japanese command hadn't wanted to send them in but the cruisers doing shore bombardment weren't successful enough. (Side note: similar situation with Halsey ordering Washington and South Dakota into the same waters a couple of nights later since there weren't any cruisers available.)

[@dessertfoxo4096]

I would contest that and say your miss quoting Drach. He's explained often that the Carrier did not kill the Battleship, the cruise missile did. All though carriers had a massive range advantage a carrier the Battleship was still queen in close defence and close air defense. The cruise missile kills the battleship by allowing smaller ships to carry much longer range munitions that can do equivalent damage to a battleship over time. A pair of Iowas in Korea did more fire missions and explosives on target then 2 carrier battle groups.

[@becauseimbatman5702]

@@dessertfoxo4096 Fair point. In my head, I was thinking of battleships being supplanted by aircraft carriers as capital ships.

[@davidfinch7407]

I've been hearing "the death of the tank" since the 1970s, after the Israelis lost a bunch of tanks during one of the Arab-Israeli wars to guided missiles. There's always been a technological competition between weapons and armor; one improves, and has an edge for a while, and then the other gets better in response. We will see new tank armor and tactics. Plus, most Russian tanks I see getting whacked are sitting still by the side of the road, either from lack of aggression or fuel making them sitting ducks. American tanks in the Gulf Wars were almost invulnerable, and missile tech hasn't gotten that much better since then.

[@themightykv-5410]

"Death of the Tank" has been talked about since the end of World War 1... Just because the tank isn't invincible doesn't mean it's obsolete..

[@azynkron]

The Sputniks lost almost all their armoured vehicles when Hitler invaded, yet, they didn't think "Nah.. no point in building more of these..". Instead they deployed better tanks and better tactics.

[@carlnebrin]

>American tanks invulnerable They were literally rendered combat ineffective by Bradley 25mm friendly fire.

[@davidfinch7407]

@@carlnebrin This is from Wikipedia about the Persian Gulf War: (As for the M1 Tanks), "none were destroyed as a direct result of enemy fire, with no fatalities due to enemy fire". This isn't entirely due to the M1's armor, but because they were able to destroy enemy tanks at a greater range then they could be engaged. It was actually quite rare for an M1 tank to even be hit, let alone penetrated, for that reason. But firepower range is also a form of defense, so I stand by my statement that M1 tanks were almost invulnerable during these wars; that's not an opinion, it's based on the actual facts of what happened.

[@carlnebrin]

@@davidfinch7407 It is well established, even by the Untied States military industrial complex, that the only reason for the M1 Abrams superiority was it's possession of all-weathers-capable thermal sights and the enemy's lack thereof, read "73 Easting Battle Replication -- A Janus Combat Simulation". In the modern battlefield all of the United States' peer and near peer adversaries equip their combat vehicles with thermal sights rendering any advantage the M1 Abrams had in the Gulf War null.

[@MoraleIsHigh]

A tank will always be better than something else trying to do a tank's job, because making an object with the capabilities of a tank will just turn it into a tank.

[@richardprice5978]

the heavy battle ships like the NJ still has a place in 2022 so no he's got it wrong and horse 🐴 /pack animals are still used in ruff terrain and or scanning duties more so if you need quick and quiet ( as robotic dogs and mules people-humanoid aren't a thing yet darpa is trying but it's the battery that is stoping that and or not technical ready ) but old school calvary charge/picketing lines no probably will not see that anymore on the battlefield

[@marguskiis7711]

dozens of helicopters, drones, gyroplanes can easily kill eny tank.

[@richardprice5978]

@@marguskiis7711 never understand the power of breaking the enemy by showing up in a well equipped tank as the potential power of the mind/scare tactics

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

@@marguskiis7711 you need air domininance for all of those things. Once again, combined arms tactics has more impact on tank performance than the specific tank. Edit: keyboard fails.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Like levitating platform with force-field shielding and small proton torpedo launcher?

[@jeremybrowand5941]

Glad seeing folks with a larger audience commenting on Perun's videos. They have been entertaining and informative. I hope more people check out his content.

[@stevewhite3424]

I really do like his content. His heart really is for the Ukraine, but he has not allowed cheerleading to blind him to realities and being able to report on them accurately and concisely. Unfortunately his Australian compatriot has now gone full on Ukraine cheerleading.

[@topiasr628]

@@stevewhite3424 Animarchy? Lol

[@vortimer2351]

It's nice to get another content creator, who puts out well reasoned, thought provoking arguments, on my subscription list.

[@blogsfred3187]

Agree best analyst around

[@Werrf1]

@@stevewhite3424 There's room for both. Perun's has been by far the best at predicting the course of the war; Animarchy has helped me understand exactly what has happened thus far in the war better than anyone else. And let's face it - if you're not full-on pro-Ukraine at this point, you're probably being paid by Russia.

[@Karathos]

The Finnish Defence Forces bought a hundred Leopard 2A6's from the Netherlands in 2014, with the last deliveries being completed in 2019. There were some murmurings at the time, that after the Crimea invasion there were some in the Netherlands who wanted to cancel the deal. Maybe they suddenly realised they might need some of those tanks themselves... :P

[@MrFinnishFury]

With the benefit of hindsight, the deal that saw the 100 Dutch Leopard 2A6's (plus spares) bought for 200 million euros happened at a perfect moment. The deal was signed only a month before the Russian takeover of Crimea.

[@bjornnilsson1827]

@@MrFinnishFury To be fair, if the Russian forces that the Dutch had envisioned fighting with those Tanks end up spread out as burned out wreaks all over Karelia, the need for Tank units decreases. There are things to be said for having someone else fight your enemy/enemies for you...

[@asmo1313]

we (the dutch) lease em now ..... hurray for politics, right?

[@cartrips9263]

They would anyway if they ever dared to try an American in the Hague. I guess they know for a fact that they never will..........

[@alantoon5708]

And when the German Army decided that it needed more tanks, it had to buy them back from the manufacturer.

[@crazy031089]

A small explanation about Belgium's lack of tanks and the Piranha 90mm's: - The Belgian army has gone trough a lot of budget cuts and downsizing, wich meant we had to let go of a lot of capabilitys, and some wich we remained where getting difficult to keep because the size was so small it started to get uneconimical to keep certain capabilitys. Keep in mind that some capabilitys where specificaly chosen to remain because they where good for national or internation PR or which had an more daily use(search and resque, bomb defusal, airial transport, heavy burn treatment hospital,..) - In 1994 10 paracommando's got executed in Rwanda. This caused a lot of turmoil at home, and since that moment no politician has dared to send anyone to a high risk assignment. Since that moment we tried to do mostly peace keeping missions, and keep away from the more dangerious assignements. So basicaly the armored force had difficultys explaining why they where still around when the politicians didn't want to be in a conflict where tanks could be usefull. The Piranha 90mm is also very controversial. If i am not mistaken, the ammunition for the gun is not NATO standard and is only produced in 2 places in the world. One of wich is in the hometown of the defence minister that aproved the sale,.. Actualy, they where made available for sale some time ago, but i think nothing came off it. Also, in the very recent plans for a huge re-investement in the military, it was decide to join a multinational MBT developement program, but it was not yet decided if we would buy tanks again.

[@crazy031089]

@JoozdontliketheTruth off course. Belgium has one off the highest gdp per capita in the world, we also have one off the highest taxes in the world, yet somehow there is not enough money for many things,...You can only explain that trough corruption, incompetence or stupidity and the like.

[@willyvereb]

@@crazy031089 Or geopolitics. Belgium long ceased to be a colonial power and they have little interest to project military forces practically anywhere. This is also the reason why before this was not the case you had hundreds of (then) modern tanks in the ready. Military power is not made in vacuum. Hungary sorts of had a similar episode from the 1990s to late 2010s. Granted their budget was abysmal to begin with so it's slightly different. Still, in the 2000s they basically dropped the army from 200k+ to barely 20k and the tanks and artillery similarly was reduced to barely tenth of its previous value. Why? Because Hungary was surrounded by countries generally friendly to them and they had no stakes in practicing military beyond retaining capability. Hungarian military capability is increasing now due to various factors, including the first Ukraine conflict but also Hungarian politicians' desire for the army to participate more in foreign NATO missions. Still not much but that's what happens when somebody doesn't have Germany's GDP and can just douse a hundred billion euros on military expansion immediately.

[@baron2062]

@JoozdontliketheTruth every country is full of corruption

[@baron2062]

@@willyvereb exactly, whos going to invade belgium, but not be immediately killed by the three European powers basically right next door? And if they cant defeat the enemy, how is belgium going to do any better? Belgium doesnt really need 400 leopards, they just want a small military capable of peacekeeping

[@rossnelson8433]

hmmm. "..why they where still around when the politicians didn't want to be in a conflict where tanks could be usefull.". Unfortunately someone else's politicians may decide they do want your countries tanks in a conflict, against them. Belgium of all places should know that small countries dont necessarily get to pick and choose when and who they get to defend themselves against.

[@brianhickey5949]

Being Navy, I can offer a small corollary: The tank provides a way to kill the enemy while protecting its crew to the extent possible. A ballistic missile submarine provides the same - kill the enemy while protecting the crew. Once the submarine begins firing, there is a high probability that it will be destroyed by an enemy as it has now become a target and the enemy has various technologies to apply in doing so. This result also applies to the tank with the proviso that the tank can be seen and targeted before it has a chance to fire, so armor is the equalizer. Both weapons systems remain valid and in use.

[@TeddyKrimsony]

and if you have decoys to attract tank fire revealing their location along with stealthy guided glide bombs the tank is pretty much ineffective. Stealthing a 60ton machine is exceptionally costly and complicated, on the other hand stealthing a glide bomb is affordable and simpler.

[@bluemarlin8138]

I’m not even sure a US/NATO ballistic missile sub is all that vulnerable in the post Cold War era. There aren’t exactly swarms of Soviet nuclear subs out there anymore (and most of the Russian/Chinese subs today are either coastal diesel subs or old and noisy nukes), so it’s rather unlikely that one would find a NATO missile sub in the 10-15 minutes it would take to fire its missiles. They just don’t have the numbers or the tech except maybe on a very few subs. By the time an enemy like Russia or China figured out what was going on and where the missiles were coming from and got a missile with a nuclear depth charge to that location, the sub would be high-tailing it out of there, and could be anywhere in a couple hundred square mile area. They’d have to saturate that whole area with nukes to be relatively sure they got it, and that seems like a waste of resources after it has already launched. Now, a Russian of Chinese sub would be in a world of hurt, since the US still maintains ~50 attack subs plus whatever the rest of NATO has and can track all their boomers. I know NATO could and did track most Soviet missile subs during the Cold War, so with a likely even larger technical gap and now a huge numerical advantage, I’d imagine a Russian/Chinese boomer would be lucky to get a launch off, much less survive afterwards.

[@SteveWray]

A ballistic submarine is protected by concealment more than armor. You can't really conceal a tank in the same way. Tanks are more comparable to battleships. As a navy guy perhaps you could tell us why navy's around the world don't really use these so much any more..?

[@brianhickey5949]

@@SteveWray What? You don't think there are ballistic missile submarines patrolling the world's oceans? That's a good chuckle. The US cut back based on the end of the Cold War just like they cut back on military size and materiel after each World War. There are plenty of Chinese missile subs in the water and in the making and Russia has enough to start a real war. Then you have France and England added to the mix. Don't fall prey to the propaganda - the world has plenty of nukes and a lot are on subs.

[@SteveWray]

@@brianhickey5949 Sorry, I don't see how you could read that into what I wrote...

[@greyfells2829]

I think that people generally tend to misinterpret "tank" as something that's supposed to survive every hit it takes, as opposed to an decently armored weapon platform that can move cross country. Did the phalanx or cohort hark the end of the horse? No, cavalry just had to adapt.

[@yonghominale8884]

But helicopters and armored vehicles replaced the horse.

[@genericpersonx333]

@@yonghominale8884 But as Chieftain notes, that is because those technologies could replace the existing technology; until they existed, there was no alternative. If you wanted to move faster than a man could walk or run on a terrestrial battlefield before the age of automobiles, your only option was on the back of an animal like a horse. Once you had enough advance in automobile technology, it became possible to consider replacing horses, but until then, you really had no choice.

[@mrdoge9508]

It took me way too long to realize that no, you weren't trying to claim that horsemen are viable against modern CIWS systems.

[@heirofaniu]

@@genericpersonx333 And even then there is still a place for the horse in certain extreme environments where land vehicles simply cannot go, such as extremely steep mountains.

[@genericpersonx333]

@@heirofaniu Very true! Everything has its trade-offs and even the "obsolete" technologies of the past can indeed be better for many special roles for the cost. Horses can do some things better than trucks, but in turn, trucks can do some things better than horses. Ideally, you have both options.

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

NLAWs and Javelins don't grow on trees. There was a Challenger 1 in Iraq I think that got shot up a dozen or so times with RPGs. It drove back to base for repairs. Quality still means a lot. Cheers Chief

[@johanj3674]

But would it withstand one, or five NLAWs or Javelins.?

[@andrewallen9993]

The Rhodesians had armoured VW hippie kombis that were RPG and boosted anti tank land mine survivable!

[@liammarra4003]

@@johanj3674 depends. What's the top armor on a challenger 1 or 2? If it's like other and all MBTs. It's paper thin, so, no. Fortunately I don't think Challys have ever had to go up against opfor with top attack/guided indirect fire, munitions. Lucky them.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

@@johanj3674 exactly, Entirely different munitions

[@teeanahera8949]

Obviously no one in this thread listen to the video. He clearly mentions that tank and how many times it was hit and not just by RPG’s, I think he said repairs took 6 hours and how another tank survived 70 RPG hits and stayed in the fight.

[@phillipmele8533]

“A tank is not a Bolo.” The fact that folks need to be reminded of that is depressing, but I was very happy to hear that sentence.

[@Commander_35]

What does it mean?

[@phillipmele8533]

@@Commander_35 It’s a reference to a fictional franchise called the “Bolo Universe” created by Keith Laumer. In it, these massive (the standard one is 32k tons) autonomous AI-driven tanks called Bolos have starship cannons for primary weapons, every conceivable ballistic weapon for secondaries, onboard ammo manufacture fueled by metal the Bolo recovers in the field, and enough armor to make the energy shields on the thing almost redundant. It’s basically an army in a box. The exact thing that modern day tanks *are not.*

[@Commander_35]

@@phillipmele8533 oh, now i know what the "bolo" means. I thought you were talking about the bolo a type of huge knife used in the Philippines.

[@BeKindToBirds]

@@chooseyouhandle That's what I thought too lol

[@mekingtiger9095]

Weird... "Bolo" literally means "cake" in Portuguese. So every time I hear or read that name, I think of cake.

[@michaeljohnston6811]

I had the fortune to watch the other two videos (Perun first and then Military History Visualized) as they came out and it has been wonderful to see the level of debate on this and the cerebral commentary from all 3 of you on the subject. Thoughtful people saying thoughtful things. Thank you!

[@elektrotehnik94]

Porun, he's THE King of the Ukraine war on YT. Undisputed. Overview (geo-strategy): "Caspian report" is brilliant. Good Times Bad Times, RealLifeLore, Military Aviation History. More specific: LazerPig, hypohystericalhistory, Chieftain, Mark Felton, Animarchy: The Military History & Anime Channel Intense daily coverage: youtuber »War in Ukraine« So-so channels: Task & Purpose "WW2" for Ukraine's historical context in depth. Plenty of goodies also on Twitter (if you "build the algorithm", Jomini of the West, ISW, OSINTtechnical) & some wisdom on Reddit as well. I'm still adding channels of info (from you) as I go, thanks for sharing

[@thomaskwei9119]

I imagine that the Marines might be interested in that new Light Tank that the Army swears they are buying this time. It would make more sense for their new style of operating.

[@harrywilliamson7043]

Oh they are actually calling it a light tank this time? When I was in they were looking at a "Don't you dare call it a Light Tank" Armored Gun System.

[@abcdedfg8340]

Lol light tank never went away, it just turned into perun, and other light armoured vehicles that arose after doctrine changed after cold war i think. Light tanks were really useful during the pacific war from what i read.

[@Bird_Dog00]

"that new Light Tank that the Army swears they are buying this time" Déjà vu?

[@harrywilliamson7043]

@@abcdedfg8340 Oh I know, I was just making fun of the US Armies allergy of actually CALLING them Light Tanks at the time.

[@IdleDrifter]

I see the Marines fielding variants of their new ACV. Replacing the AAVP-7A1 and LAV-25. The 30mm Canon, vehicle mounted Javelin and Hellfire missiles and 120mm mortar system for appropriate targets.

[@alanburke1893]

Surely given the cost of a tank as an individual weapons platform, each MBT deserves a short-range drone as an essential accessory available to the crew?

[@Jason-iz6ob]

I don’t see why each tank would need one. Tanks never operate alone, or even close to alone. A tank will usually be operating as part of at least a platoon+ type organization. With at least 2 tanks and a bunch of Bradley’s. Which means FISTer support too. Why wouldn’t they just have the drones? Let them do that instead of having some guy in the tank crew screwing around with the drone instead of doing his job.

[@Feiora]

@@Jason-iz6ob I could technically see the commander operating a tiny recon drone as a temporary eye-in-the-sky getting an overview of the battlefield from an unobstructed view, pinpointing targets at perhaps can't be seen through thermals due to terrain and then setting about the task of killing said targets and calling in strikes on the targets the tank can't hit...

[@domaxltv]

@@Feiora I believe that is actually a technology under development by atleast a few nations, and I suspect the adoption of such measures will be hastened by current events

[@Jason-iz6ob]

@@Feiora From a “could it be done” view, with as automated as they can be these days, it wouldn’t be that inconvenient. He could just keep it up there doing other things then refer to it when needed. The problem I see with it though is that tanks never operate alone. You have a mech infantry company with FISTers and a tank platoon rolling along how many drones are going to be up? EVERY tank? What about the IFVs, do they get them too? You have your own little mini swarm of UAVs hovering above your formation? And with the networking ability that’s already working into armored vehicles you could have 1 UAV up and every vehicle in the formation could access the info. Obviously you wouldn’t just want 1 UAV per company or whatever. In case it was lost. I’m just saying the idea that every single tank needs one doesn’t really fit in with how tanks are deployed. And I still think it’s something that would be better suited to having a dedicated operator. Who isn’t in a tank. But let the tank crews benefit from the intel without having to be distracted with operating the thing. Every rifle platoon has 2 FISTers attached. Then the company HQ has even more attached to it, and in mech units they’re in their own vehicle. It’s currently a Bradley variant when I was in it was an M113 version. There’s room in there to have a dude manning the UAV. And it would help them do their artillery spotting job a lot better than it would help the tank crew. Though they could also benefit from it.

[@istvansipos9940]

C&C Generals, 'Muricah

[@CloneDAnon]

I thought that the Lebanese used AT-13 Metis-M ATGM missiles in 2006. They are slightly worse than basic model Kornets, but not by much. According to the Israeli Northern Command their losses were in 2006 Lebanon war: Out of 370 tanks deployed, 52 tanks were hit by enemy fire (enemy fire encompassing anything from ATGMs, RPGs, IEDs, etc) 21 of those tanks hit received enough damage to be pulled out of combat (19 resulting from an ATGM hit and 2 from IEDs) 5 of those tanks were deemed irrecoverable losses (2 Merkavas MkII, 1 Merkava MkIII, 2 Merkavas MkIV). One of the destroyed MkII and one of the destroyed MkIV were hit by IEDs, the rest were lost due to ATGM fire. 23 Israeli tankers died during the War (18 by ATGM fire, 5 by IEDs).

[@taylorc2542]

We need data on peer state users of ATGMs, and the failure of the MBT in Ukraine does not bode well for it's future.

[@CloneDAnon]

@@taylorc2542 Except it is not MBT's that have been wrecked in Ukraine, it is mostly IFV's. Secondly it is mostly old tanks that have been operated by both sides there (Russia has modern upgrade package on its T72's, but they are the minority of the total tanks present and the T72 itself is still old).

[@KaoKacique]

@@taylorc2542 Especially in this new phase of the war, where even the old russian T-55 and T-62s are finding a use and Ukranian armor rolled through Kharkiv defenses like paper, the idea that MBTs failed in Ukraine aged very poorly

[@megabrout]

The Belgians are now reportedly regretting their switch away from main battle tanks, worth mentioning

[@crazy031089]

We do, for a number of reasons. It actualy all comes down to politics. Every time the governement had to reduce expenses the military was one of the victims. Also, after what happened in 1994, we only wanted to do low intensity stuff, peacekeeping and the like. We also decided to keep the stuff that had some use or was good for PR, both nationaly and internationaly. So there was not much use for heavy armor, it wass not planned to use it anyway and there where more interessting things to spend money on. Add to that that the replacement (the Piranha 90mm) is very controversial since the ammunition is not NATO standard and can only be manufactored by 2 companys in the world (or at least at that time) one of wich was in the hometown of the defence minister that approved the sale,.. The Piranhas have also been made available for sale some time ago because the military wanted to get rid off them, but nobody bought them.

[@k995100]

No, despite what is said below here, every army needs to make choices and the simple fact is belgium is too small to have an actual modern tank force. The decision to move away to that and focus on selected task was a correct one, the way they didit handeled very badly.

[@koyaanisqatsi78]

@@k995100 Heck where are you gonna manoeuvre here, couple of miles in any direction and you're in another country or the sea. Belgium should have focused on hi-tech, wardisruptive tech, maybe some cloaked battalions & choppers. And heck it's small how about an iron dome.

[@mattblom3990]

Perun is a fantastic newcomer to the scene, he's too humble to even realize how good his analysis is.

[@tracekornegay3790]

Apparently he's fighting in Ukraine or will be. *Edit Wrong KZbinr.

[@terrywarner8657]

Perun's videos are long, and he could use an editor to tighten up the scripts by about 20%.

[@mattblom3990]

@@terrywarner8657 Yeah I mean. I can't argue, what you say is reasonable. But I also haven't noticed his videos having a lot of fat to trim. They are long though.

[@jeremiahwaller2636]

Perun for the algorithm

[@StuartWalker1]

@@terrywarner8657 perun's videos are made for a thinking audience that have a longer attention span than the average KZbin viewer. There are other less detailed videos out there for those that demand brevity.

[@IThinkAndIWonder]

I enjoyed this breakdown of the value of tanks in the current technological environement. Thank you!

[@jordanryan2497]

Love seeing the community come together on this. And Perun is a great new addition!

[@Kaiserland111]

I commented on Perun's video, and I think it applies here as well: there is an eternal battle between offense systems and defensive ones, and at various times the pendulum swings to one or the other. While offensive systems like ATGMs, suicide drones, and missiles are all very capable of taking out modern tanks, advancements in, and the proliferation of, defensive countermeasures such as active protection systems will swing the pendulum back in favor of defensive measures. Lasers are likely to become more common for active protection systems as laser and battery technologies improve, and I foresee the introduction of loitering countermeasures drones that give coverage for an area against artillery shells, other drones, or missiles from helicopters/airplanes. Even traditional active protection systems utilizing kinetic hard-kill measures will become increasingly common and capable as their technology matures and economies of scale take hold. This is all in ADDITION to the points the Chieftain made about the armor, smoke launchers, and use of cover providing layers of protection. So in my opinion, neither ATGMs nor drones will cause the death of the tank.

[@soonerfrac4611]

There’s a similar argument that the A-10 and similar CAS aircraft are now useless. It’s just as incongruous with reality.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@soonerfrac4611 I don't think that is really the same thing, since with that debate there are actually plenty of other platforms that can perform the same role. The debate is literally just over which plane should do it.

[@acarrillo8277]

"A medium tank is not a Bolo, it can't do everything." Oh man but if we did have Bolos! I love those stories

[@nunyabidness3075]

I remember the one where the Bolo told the technicians it stayed in the fight for the honor of the regiment. That was one of the best lines in modern literature.

[@nilo70]

DYNACHROME BRIGADES !!

[@sarajenkins3485]

Lord bless us with a battery of 120 cm hellbores

[@Dennis-vh8tz]

About the battleship admirals: they were _right_ when they actually existed. Most of them saw aircraft as a promising technology, even acknowledged they were probably the future of naval warfare; however, the aircraft available at the time of the arguments left _a lot_ to be desired. On one hand you had aircraft fanboys demanding that the navy bet everything on this new (and at the time not yet practically useful) technology, while on the other "battleship admirals" argued the necessity of building new battleships as a hedge against aircraft technology either failing or taking longer than hoped to develop. Only in hindsight are the aircraft admirals correct, based on what they knew at the time their arguments were incredibly reckless - like the admirals who threw evermore money into the LCS program instead of waiting to see whether or not it actually worked.

[@jochentram9301]

Relatedly, no lesser person as then-General Foch famously said, "l'avion, c'est zero (the airplane is nothing)". People forget that Foch said this *prior* to WWI, was arguably right at that time, *and* that he changed his mind when airplanes demonstrated that they had their uses.

[@looinrims]

That’s maybe fine in the 1920s, but by the mid 1930s…nah

[@Axterix13]

@@looinrims Even in the mid-1930s it is true. Think of the issues with air launched torpedoes that every nation experienced. Many of the torpedo bombers were also on the low end, technology-wise. The British were using bi-planes. The slightest bit of air cover and some of their biggest wins wouldn't have happened. Meanwhile the US had a cutting edge one... that got wiped out at Midway a mere seven years later, being outdated,, among other reasons. Dive bombing had only just become a thing, and one of the leading carrier powers was only using 500 lb bombs even in the 1940s. This, they deemed ineffective to destroy battleships, so they modified AP battleship rounds for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Also worth noting that, when it came to sinking ships, it generally took aircraft specifically armed and trained for it to be successful. Just look at how much trouble the British air force had with sinking stationary German ships, or how ineffective the USAF was at the Battle of Midway. Beyond that, look at carrier doctrine. The US was using waves of planes from a single carrier at the time. So planes would have to loiter waiting for that single carrier to launch its entire strike. It was only supposedly because the Japanese saw pictures of two US carriers sailing in tandem from an exercise and wondered, "Why are they doing that?" that they came up with their method of pairing two carriers together to work as a unit, so that a full strike complement could be put together quickly. So at that time, carrier doctrine wasn't great. Heck, in 1935, the iconic Japanese carrier planes didn't even exist. The Zero, Kate, and VAl all first flew in 1937. And the carriers themselves were still mostly converted ships, not purpose built, and many lessons were still being learned.

[@davidgillon2762]

If memory serves, Cunningham, as First Sea Lord, was still arguing that carriers were a temporary aberration at the end of WWII, and many of his other procurement decisions showed he remained firmly a 'gun club' admiral. However the nature of the Med campaign, with significant input from land-based air,may have diluted any chance for the Med Fleet carrier force to change his mind.

[@davidgillon2762]

Remember the Pearl Harbor raid was basically a Japanese repeat of the Taranto raid and the Taranto raid was basically a rather smaller version of the attack the RN planned for the High Seas Fleet in the Jade Estuary in 1918. It wasn't aircraft technology that stopped that going ahead, the Sopwith Cuckoo was fully capable of a carrier launched torpedo attack, or even really carrier technology given Eagle was on the stocks, but rather production rates for the Cuckoo and available decks to launch 100 of them. WWI ended before either was there, but the attack was fully feasible using 1918 technology.

[@PNWOverland]

Great analysis, Subscribed. As a ex M60A3 and M1A1 tanker I appreciate the in depth knowledge presented here, especially the application of the survivability onion from a armor perspective.

[@maxkronader5225]

I like the mention of the basic fact that's often disregarded in the discussion of the relevance of tanks. Weapons systems are primarily fielded for what they can do, not for what happens to them if they get shot. As was pointed out, if vulnerability to enemy fire were the only yardstick by which one measures combat systems we wouldn't have infantry, cargo resupply trucks, or anything else that could be taken out by a burst of small arms fire.

[@aidenhall8593]

right but it’s also the logistical, training, and combat capabilities that have to be weighed against the actual utility of a vehicle in a war zone. I fail to see how even modern tanks differ from IFVs or AFVs in utility, and have a much larger cost and logistical burden.

[@aidenhall8593]

@@rhedges9631 It is true that the modern Abrams is about the same speed or slightly faster than the modern Bradley, but this is an exception across armed forces as the Abrams has a freaking jet engine in the back which is a nightmare to maintain and supply. The downfall of this can be seen in operational range, which on road is significantly less than the Bradley and off road is like a half or a third of the Bradley's. The worst fault for mobility though is the weight of the Abrams, which makes it impossible to cross all but the best bridges, and even then only a few at a time. This severely limits its ability to support infantry at vital moments. Additionally, the load time in an Abrams is typically 6-7 seconds, with the fastest loaders known to be able to reload rounds in as little as 3-4 seconds. Compared to a Bradleys 25mm main gun which fires 200 rounds per minute, or 3 a second. This severely limits the Abrams ability to provide suppressive fire for infantry assaults, not to mention that Infantry can dismount from the back of a Bradley to assault an already suppressed position. The Bradley is also armed with TOW missiles which are more than capable of destroying any armor or bunkers, in addition to its very capable 25mm Sabot rounds. So the Bradley has equal speed, greater range, can actually cross a lot of bridges, can carry infantry, is easier to supply, has greater suppressive capabilities, and being smaller can actually operate feasibly in cities. Oh and it is perfectly capable of destroying enemy armor as demonstrated in desert storm. The only situation where the Abrams out classes it is in an all out tank battle, where the Bradley would run out of TOW missiles faster and is far more vulnerable to enemy fire. However, even in this situation given the comparative ease in transporting Bradleys to the front it would be likely that they would outnumber an opposing tank force, and on open ground would outrange them with their TOW missiles. Not saying that the Abrams is bad by any means, just that for what a modern war calls for it is largely out classed.

[@BoomerZ.artist]

@@aidenhall8593 The turbine engine is only a nightmare to maintain for countries not called America. America does not have a cost, durability, range, or performance problem as the logistics of the US is massive.

[@aidenhall8593]

@@BoomerZ.artist It is not about the cost or even specifically the difficulty of the maintenance of the engine. Its that if the tank were to happen to be in a situation where logistics were weakened or where maintenance was weakened or unavailable, then the tank becomes practically useless. Even in Iraq when we were fighting an enemy completely inferior to us there were moments like this, so can you imagine if there ever was a conventional war against a competent military power?Tanks would become even less viable.

[@aidenhall8593]

@@rhedges9631 Most potent I would agree, with the 105mm Stryker being a close second because of obvious armor limitations. Its just that most of the time you don't need the most potent infantry support weapon, the alternatives achieve the same goal at a fraction the cost and logistical burden. You could make the argument that in the few moments you do need it, it is worth keeping it around, but again at that logistical burden I am not quite sure. I suppose you could make the argument for keeping a few of them around in reserve just in case, but for the most part they seem overkill.

[@Xumak525]

I think, the large demand for javelin could also be for use on static targets. I.e bunkers, fire lines Happens regularly on line-of-control b/w Pakistan and India.

[@mitchelloh3840]

I agree. Assuming they are all being used on tanks is a little ridiculous. I know for a fact they are being used on trucks and light armored vehicles which in some senses is a waste of a javelin, but it is a guaranteed hit and if it is all you have then it makes sense.

[@csec95]

The reason countries try to divest themselves of tanks is cost, even then they still have trouble justifying the idea.

[@TheDiner50]

Maybe also countries today do not like spending money on weapons just sitting in a shed since going to war over land/oil is not a thing anymore. Not only is the constant upgrading and buying the machines expensive. But to keep the tanks in working or even battle ready conditions cost allot. It is easy to justify not having 300 tanks to upgrade and have personal and service cost just for the 300 tanks to sit in a shed year after year on end. Keeping 300 crews trained and regularly exercises for what? Invading Italy? Or to have tank parades in the city? (and the population watching it is paying for war machines in sheds) Wait what year is is agen? O.. I see. This is why we can not have nice things. Or rather spend allot of money on stuff just in case we need to deal with other humans having to be forced to do the dirty work of others. And we got to spend our people to fight it out. Really wonderful use of the planet and our time on it. Really. It is the money. But it is a bit deeper then that. You need the people flipping the bill to have a reason to allow it. In theory.

[@SentaDuck]

@@TheDiner50 Even conventional forces act as a deterrent. The fact that those tanks have never needed to be used may be due to their very existence which leads to a paradox. Its a lot cheaper to have 300 tanks sitting in a shed than to fight a major war, that you are unprepaired for, because some dictator sees you as an easy target.

[@RobertLewis-el9ub]

One comment I think may have been overlooked - 'Shock Effect' on enemy force caused by tanks. The realization that a tank force is about to overrun your position can have a significant morale and impact 'the will to fight' effect of the enemy. If you have ever been in a foxhole at night with tanks rumbling around your position (even for a training event) it can be a frightening experience. For poorly trained troops and conscripts the appearance of tanks can be enough to send them into flight as opposed to fight mode.

[@maduyn]

Looking at the need for so many javelins i think the historical analogy of the french desire for anti-tank guns for X many for Y meters of frontage could be the reasoning behind the request. While the Ukrainian forces may not need to fire that many per day they may need that many to be sure that they have a javelin in the area where an armored threat is present and in the quantity needed. This is a core flaw with infantry capability that was true in WW2 as well and as such created the need for tank destroyers and attack helicopters, Infantry is not at its core does not have the fast response to massed enemy armor on the strategic level that something like a Russian battle of the Bulge would require.

[@FreddyRangel85]

There could be a number of explanations. AT weapons would be lost or destroyed. Or perhaps they are used to his the same vehicle more than once. I saw a video where it took several missiles to knock out a Russian tank. Or maybe missiles are used to hit targets that are already knocked out. And of course there’s always friendly fire incidents.

[@lewcrowley3710]

I think Chieftain's maths are a bit wonky. Not every javelin will be fired in combat. Many are lost from enemy fire, abandoned, used in training, etc. He is probably correct that manufacturing/stocks can not keep up with such a 'use' rate.

[@maduyn]

@@thors3532 While I agree they can react they must then move into position and take the tactical risks of not already being in an entrenched or otherwise prepared defensive/ambush position that they would be if they were already in position in the first place. Additionally a Tank or in the specific example of WW2 a tank destroyer as the response to a massed armored assault also allows a more effective exploitation and advance should the enemy be forced to retreat which is much more difficult for IFVs who must advance and then dismount troops to fight to their full effectiveness while a TD or tank can advance as fast as the enemy retreats with no degradation in capability.

[@sietuuba]

@@lewcrowley3710 Yeah, I suspect it's down to other factors like logistics. In order to ensure enough of them will end up in the particular groups on the various locations really needing many, _all the fronts_ expected to possibly be needing them have to have them in sufficient quantities... even those that end up not needing them, or needing only some of them. Can't really count all that much on being able to send them on demand from one place to another in the middle of a shooting war on short notice.

[@88porpoise]

That is probably part of it. But the kill rate of the weapons is almost certainly far lower than the theoretical effectiveness. This is the case for essentially all weapons systems in essentially all conflicts. 1) You have losses of missiles not fired. Ammo dump gets blown up? Those are gone. Soldier carrying one gets killed in an inconvenient location or the weapon gets shot? It is gone. Position gets over-run? Any missiles there are lost. 2) Human error is going to crop in. No matter how skilled you are, getting shot at by machineguns and 120mm cannons is likely to mke you a bit jumpy and greatly increase the rate of failed shots due to operator error. And with mass mobilization, many of the users won't be the best trained and most experienced at staying and operating calmly under fire. 3) Not every one is going to be shot at a tank. You need something blown up and all you have is a Javelin? Well you are going to shoot a Javelin at it even if it is way overkill. And that assumes that the theoretical effectiveness is accurate and not stacked in the system's favour either conciously or unconciously by things like assuming enemy actions.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Great vid as usual, many thanks. I saw this somewhere the other day. "Tanks are like dinner jackets. You don't need them very often but when you do nothing else will do!"

[@jeroylenkins1745]

8:30 about the javelins I do think there is one thing not taken into account here. A large number of them will end up not actually being fired. Many are being lost in transit and storage to air and artillery strikes or other combat losses. Many more are being lost in combat on the front lines before they have a chance to be used. I would even suspect that this accounts for a larger number than are even fired at the enemy. The attrition factor is going to be one of the reasons why they need such a large supply of anti-armour weapons.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I am sure this is true of most weapon systems eg how many tanks are destroyed before they come on the battlefield.

[@alphanomad511]

many have been captured

[@imrekalman9044]

Rumour says the DPR has more Javelins by now than Ukraine. Though I personally file it in the same folder as claims that Ukraine has more thanks than 2 months ago.

[@rosecityrower]

Many are being used against APC and IFVs as well.

[@OneLeatherBoot]

Adding to this, when you have threats across a large geospatial area from multiple enemy thrusts, then you probably need to split up where they go. Maybe 2/3rds (for example) are going to a particular front due to threat, yet maybe that front stalls tying down those systems. Relocating them might be far more problematic and time consuming than requesting more. I'm not going to even trying guess where Ukr sent the various systems, or to which units. I do suspect that possibly quite a few of the earlier delivered systems might have been destroyed by Russian air/ missile strikes in the opening weeks. Ukr also tends to be running small unit tank hunter teams, which means multiple missiles per team. Once you start spreading missiles across teams like this throughout the country, then the number required adds up quickly. Plus you still need to provide missile for the main military units. There are so many "what ifs" and unknowns. The 500 AT/ AA units a day does appear to be very high without knowing how the number is derived.

[@erickottke9673]

His most important point is the observation is that the purpose of the tank is not to take hits, it is to allow the crew to move the weapons around and hit the enemy. I remember an instructor at Ft Knox saying the best piece of armor on the tank is the gun, and that statement stuck with me. I think it's time to develop capability for tanks to engage targets beyond visible range (guided indirect fire) at targets identified by drones, scouts, etc. We basically have the technology already and we could develop this capability for existing tanks, let alone create a new vehicle. He mentioned battleships and that is a very important comparison...carriers did make the battleship mostly obsolete, but surface ships now have the same effect as a carrier using guided missiles, beyond visual range.

[@MoraFermi]

When all you have is an ATGM, everything starts looking like a tank. I suspect that a lot of these "500 a day" missiles were unguided and aimed at things quite different than tanks. This again speaks about the need of heavier weaponry in Ukrainian hands: it might be actually cheaper for everyone involved in the long run.

[@henryrollins9177]

What ukraine needs is getting rid of that puppet president, the nazzis and clear up their minds.

[@Karathos]

As the saying goes: To hammers, everything looks like nails.

[@texasslingleadsomtingwong8751]

Empowering Ukraine with a lot better much more powerful weapons would be cheaper in the long run , for everyone around the world . This assumes Ukraine absolutely smashes Russia and does so quickly. And even more ominous, is that Putin doesn't go absolutely stupid and drop even tactical nukes . If that bridge gets crossed , well it was nice to have chatted with you .

[@chevinbarghest8453]

@@Karathos To a tipsy divorced guy, every woman looks like Susanna Hoffs. Side stepping the original necessities result in less drink driving convictions, jealous husbands, hangovers and eventual PTSD

[@MrDoggo23]

@@texasslingleadsomtingwong8751 I'd still say Putin isn't stupid enough to use actual nukes. Well, most did say he would'nt invade, yet here we are... But to use nukes? That would mean going down and taking most of the world with him...

[@johnd2058]

The difference, from an infantry perspective, is that I still have to carry some special and not at all light equipment just for anti-tank work. Horse cav stopped being a thing when the infantry's anti-infantry weapons and tactics were perfectly sufficient against horsemen.

[@BountyFlamor]

Dragoon-style horsemen were replaced only later, though. And that was probably due to better accessibility and cost-effectiveness of vehicles on the ground and in the air.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

After WWI, the largest cavalry battle in the world was fought since 1813 at Komarów. Tactics aren't enough, resources play a role as well. The Soviets and Polish didn't have a sufficient mechanized force in 1920 to even consider abandoning cavalry altogether despite their apparent obsolesces in trench warfare.

[@mnk9073]

@@Edax_Royeaux THIS. Red cavalry supported by Tachankas is a great counter to white cavalry in the vast grass sea even if it's the 1920s. A T-72 is a wonderful tank if you fight some islamists armed with crappy RPGs even if it's the 2020s. You're equiptment isn't really obsolete so long as OpFor can't field anything more modern.

[@primeunit3381]

It is 1955. The first ATGMs are introduced. People are claiming that the tank is obsolete due to them not being survivable on the modern battlefield. It is 1973, during the Yom Kippur War. People are claiming that the tank is obsolete due to them not being survivable on the modern battlefield. It is 2022, during the Russo-Ukrainian War. People are claiming that the tank is obsolete due to them not being survivable on the modern battlefield.

[@pacientKashenko]

Except Russia is fighting with USA and their cronies in Ukraine. Ukraine is just a fodder in a proxy war.

[@ozan1234561]

During a conventional war maybe, every little bit helps out, but during these times where human life and cost effectiveness is the number 1 priority tanks are kinda lacking

[@michwoz]

@@ozan1234561 It's opposite. Tanks have very high effectiveness when it comes to human life or even a cost. It was mentioned in this video that tanks require 4% of manpower and provide 40% of firepower and offensive capabilities. Of course, you won't use tanks in all scenarios but when taking or controling territory is at stake you will.

[@kaletovhangar]

Yes,people are jumping at this suposed great Javelin massacre of Russian tanks,but they are unaware that majority of Russian tank/APC losses weren't due to AT weapons but being abandoned on the roads or stuck in the mud without fuel,and Ukrainians throwing satchel charges into them when finding them when being unable to extract them safely.

[@warbrain1053]

You forgot three dates HEATFS Introduction Panzerfaust/bazooka introduction (ww2) AT rifle/gun introduction (ww1)

[@00yiggdrasill00]

That was a brilliantly made argument and a joy to hear.

[@schmetterling4477]

Some bullshit is. ;-)

[@przemog88]

@@schmetterling4477 Yes, all your comments are bs, we can agree on that.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@przemog88 And there is the little kid who needs attention but can't tell me how to defend a tank against a modern anti-tank weapon. :-)

[@nicholasconder4703]

Problem is that people forget that the tank is a weapon for exploiting breakthroughs. It is to be used in conjunction with infantry, artillery and air support, not as a weapon system to be used on its own. The German WW2 doctrine was to use tanks against infantry, infantry against AT guns, and AT guns against tanks, with artillery supporting offensive and defensive operations. This is the combined arms doctrine. This has not really changed. If you forget this, like the Russians obviously have, you will suffer major losses. Rather like the French knights at Crecy and Agincourt, or the British Army during Crusader and the Battle of El Gazala.

[@michil75]

Exactly

[@Predator20357]

Who would’ve thought that you’ll get bad examples when you use tanks being used poorly?

[@TeddyKrimsony]

and if the battlefield is littered with anti-personnel mines along with well camouflaged snipers who also have ATGMs then the infantry are not going to be doing any protection for the armor.

[@nicholasconder4703]

@@TeddyKrimsony That is why you try to identify infantry positions beforehand through various means (binoculars, scouting, aerial photography, etc.) and prepare an attack plan. You also identify possible ambush locations. The infantry positions and ambush sites are then plastered with artillery, you use smoke to cover your movement, etc. There are many tactics you can use to handle this sort of situation. Let's face it, if you replace the ATGMs with AT guns, the situation you just described is basically what the British faced at El Alamein. Or the Allies on D-Day on the assault beaches. In other words, a lot has changed technologically, but very little has changed tactically.

[@maartencautereels1206]

Rush reactions from the Ukraine war. Obsolete and poorly upgraded T72's are a different thing than Leo2 or Abrams with active protection added. Also count in that Russia still has not achieved air or battlefield monitoring, let alone superiority. That again enables the use of ATGM and Bayraktar.. It would not be possible if the Russians had did their job...

[@Pechenegus]

I am not sure if in engagement like that leo 2 would do better, roof armor and side armor thin on both.

[@jakepeat690]

@@Pechenegus with APS it would Even without, gaining air superiority and deploying the vehicles with proper infantry support would make it much harder to ambush to begin with

[@skriv0in0navn]

any tank would suffer when used like russia had currently done. the worlds best tank can still get stuck in mud, or be swarmed by at infantry

[@Pechenegus]

@@killdizzle I wonder if it is because all who learned anything just faded away from military since then. 24 years after all, and russia didnt saw any significant actions since then.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

@@Pechenegus More probably it's simply classic Russian arrogance. This isn't the first time this happened mind you. Throughout Russia's history they had multiple wars they could've won easily but instead turned to defeat. The Seven Year's War, Russo-Japanese War, WWI Eastern Front, Polish-Soviet War, Winter War, First Chechen War, etc.

[@Mati_Panzer]

I feel that the only thing that might 'replace' the tank is unmanned tanks, and even that might still be a long way into the future before being anywhere near viable

[@wazza33racer]

that in itself introduces new problems...........remember how the Iranians hijacked that US stealth drone and landed it intact in Iran?????????

[@skulldozer1462]

You know even if Ace Combat isn't realistic it can give you an understanding on why you shouldn't really over rely on unmanned vehicles like Osea's super weapons getting hacked and turned against them. When the time unmanned vehicles become a majority then you should probably do everything you can to prevent them from getting hacked

[@joewelch4933]

@@wazza33racer It wasnt hacked if I remember right, it was jammed. The Iranians just had the great fortune in that the software for the drone, in the event of loss of contact, was to loiter until low fuel then land at the nearest air field. No one thought to program it to avoid certain airfields.

[@wazza33racer]

Yes, because the US military would program IRANIAN airfields into its software, that's absurd

[@wazza33racer]

@@skulldozer1462 the more complex the system, the more things can go wrong.

[@Phixeon]

In nearly two years of PL time in a Stryker anti-armor/heavy weapons unit, primarily on ATGM variants, I was never issued a single smoke cartridge to train with. They were captured in the doctrine, but completely ignored as a capability.

[@ExUSSailor]

If I had a nickel for every time an "expert" said that tanks were obsolete, I'd be a rich man.

[@lonesurvivalist3147]

Ikr

[@logicbomb5511]

I dont think the tank such as it encompasses the total of armored warfare is obsolete but the MBT of the post ww2 and cold war has been going the way of the battleship sense Yom Kippor. As the chief points out the direct fire big cannon doctrine of IFVs isn't quite dead either but its dominance on the field of battle has waned in favor of a tool box of force multipliers. The future of armored war is going the way of its inspiration naval warfare. Manned tanks are going to be lighter armored and more modular armed traditional low tech high risk direct fire and scouting armor missions will be preformed by light remote unmanned systems like we see in the air and at sea. Instead of a big gun something smaller with a higher rate of fire and missiles to make up the difference.

[@Chopstorm.]

@@logicbomb5511 Like Bradley and BMP? He already points out the advantage of having a large caliber gun in comparison to missiles and autocannons.

[@FrantisekPicifuk]

So would I every time I hear when someone says their latest Abrams or Merkava is indestructible

[@stevewhite3424]

@@FrantisekPicifuk Well since especially in KZbin comments, neither poster probably has any direct or theoretical experience whatsoever both opinions are worth exactly what you paid for them.

[@lynxfirenze4994]

Honestly, from the perspective of a random person on the Internet with no experience: recent conflicts have demonstrated more that you need to properly support and maintain your tanks than that the tank is a useless piece of equipment.

[@BeKindToBirds]

It isn't even recent conflicts. It's soviet era tanks and soviet era tank doctrine again and again. It's the exact same tanks and users!

[@ThorneyedWT]

Problem that we Ukrainians have with russian tanks is that we can be attacked from north, east and south at almost 2000 km border and active frontline. Army of Belarus is still a threat, as well as russian forces in Transnistria on the west. If russians lined up their tanks in one place, we could do with what ATGMs we already had no problem. But this war requires to have strong defense basically everywhere, even in deep rear (remember how russians tried to capture Hostomel and Vasylkiv airports around Kyiv with air drops to have them as landing spots for heavy transport aircrafts with tanks). And of course some ATGMs get lost before they meet tanks to artillery and air strikes.

[@ponchoremerize5508]

As a U.S. Army Engineer, I totally agree with you Chief. The Tank brings so much to the tabled in regards to maneuver and infantry support.

[@ryszakowy]

pinned down infantry will always cherish the moment when armor rolls up and shwacks hostiles just as much as tank crew will love the feel of having infantry support especially in the city

[@jacksonquinn8744]

Thankyou for this very reasonable and practical break down. It's almost annoying to see people on comments stating how tanks are already impractical and not effective. Tanks are effective and there's no hardware that does a tanks job better than a tank. We have to adapt new doctrines to get the most out of equipment but that doesn't necessarily mean we completely remove them from the table. All this talk about drones and aircraft and AI being the sole proponents of effective warfare strategy is just cringe and naive

[@chris_hisss]

Fascinating! Thanks so much, Chief! I hadn't thought of the situation so holistically, really an eye opener! From what I was guessing it was more related to how the need arose, there just isn't a better way to traverse earth, much less in a refined way, to give troops a mobile wall and fast transport at the very least. If a force is restricted to roads or seriously hampered otherwise there just isn't a better system than the tracked system and nothing has better survivability than a tank. I could see tanks surviving being remotely controlled saving human life way before the need for tanks are outdated. Though if we do get tanks with robot horse legs, well then the jig might be up. Maybe one day the next generation chieftan will be talking about how the reluctance to leave horses, calvary gets their legs back with mech armor, and how the current tracked tank meta military's reluctance to replace the abrams, or better yet replace the soldier will cause someone's army to have a significant disadvantage.

[@zoperxplex]

Of course one thing that needs to be taken into account is that the Marine Corp still retains an airborne component, which consumes invaluable resources, whereas the Army lost it's Air Force when that became a military service on its own.

[@ret7army]

points, but the US Army actually has more aircraft than the US Air Force. Just that most of them are helicopters

[@zoperxplex]

@@ret7army The Marine Corp also deploys helicopters so on that score they are about equal.

[@geodkyt]

The Marine Corps has a better justification for fixed wing fighters than the Army. Basically, the Army *can't* sustain a major operation anywhere the USAF cannot operate in strength. If you can operate large US Army formations in theater, you can support a USAF wing in the same theater because you *have* to have a large, fairly secure, ground base reasonably nearby, just for the logistics. Usually in a neighboring friendly country. Which means you can base your fighters out of their air bases or civilian airports. The options for the Marines are often either provide their own fighter and strike aircraft, or rely on the Navy being willing to commit floating a carrier group with a CVN off the hostile shore and leaving it there as long as the Marines are doing Marine things. There may not be a friendly and reasonably secure land base near enough (and often if there is, not enough *time* to move a USAF fighter wing there without giving the enemy too much advance warning of your intentions).

[@mrvwbug4423]

@@geodkyt USMC operates in a totally different manner than the Army. US Army and USAF basically always operate in tandem, USAF is critical to the Army's support and logistics. USMC needs to handle a lot of combined arms roles all in house, USN's first priority is defense of the fleet, supporting Marine ops is secondary as a dead CVN helps no one except the enemy. The USMC also seems to be transitioning from fighting a land war in the middle east (where they just became a second army) back to their original role in amphibious warfare, likely training to prepare for the eventual Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Tanks won't help the Marines much fighting the PLA in the littoral zone of Taiwan.

[@geodkyt]

@@mrvwbug4423 Yeah, that's basically what I said.

[@tonyaughney8945]

The reason why the israeli tank crews didn't deploy smoke screens was because none of the crews knew how to load the smoke discharges. The fact that a regular army unit, 9th battalion, 401st Armour Brigade (not 460th Armour Brigade, thanks ShikukuWabe 😜) didn't know the basics shows how standards in the IDF had fallen. I read about it and had it confirmed by a tanker from the 188th brigade when I served in UNDOF.

[@weir-t7y]

Don't need discipline when you're usually just killing civilians

[@ShikukuWabe]

What a load of nonsense, that shit just needs to be placed in the tube it doesn't even need training, we used all our smoke canisters, there's only 6 charges (6x2, shoots one each side), there were a lot more than 6 missiles fired at us over a day's length.. Also 9th is 401st, 460 is the training school

[@kahvaimuri2824]

@@ShikukuWabe Missile, projectile.. a rock tied into a stick?

[@RasmusDyhrFrederiksen]

Victory Disease?

[@scintillam_dei]

Zionism is heresy. Godwill destroy Israhell. It is anti-Christ. Repent of supporting it or burn forever.

[@christopherwilliams2092]

Sounds like training and professionalism are key ingredients to employ tanks is essential. Combined arms strategies and solid logistics too.

[@peternystrom921]

Exactly and every one except the West and Israel know How to.

[@ne4azcats]

“Seeing eight of your accompanying vehicles dead when they were alive two breaths ago is a significant emotional event” 🤣🤣🤣

[@Perfusionist01]

Very well said. How many times since the 1950's has the tank been declared "dead"? As you state, it's an active area of measure and counter-measure.

[@jochentram9301]

At least twice. RPGs at the tail end of WWII (Bazooka, Panzerfaust), 1970s, when the public realised ATGMs were a thing that existed (notably, early MCLOS ATGMs were introduced into service around 1955).

[@DrownedLamp]

Saw you in Perun's comments so I'm swinging over. Thanks for tge alternat view without firing shots.

[@slash196]

Very helpful framing of the issue that helps me understand why battleships went extinct: it wasn't their VULNERABILITY to aircraft that killed them, it was the fact that aircraft could replace their CAPABILITY and in fact improve on it.

[@laisphinto6372]

its simply Evolution the same way infantry and cavalry didnt die . infantry has now guns and cavalry has motorcycles, cars or tanks

[@quakethedoombringer]

Doesn't help that battleships are notoriously expensive and manpower intensive. Unlike tanks which are much cheaper to produce, maintain, and most importantly can be used on most land terrains; battleships are only useful if you are doing force projection in blue water environment on a extremely high budget with enough manpower to field one. Problem is that its projection power is completely inferior to that of CV for obvious reasons (+ planes can do shore bombardment more effectively). Modern supercartiers are practically battleships with more range and versatility when you think about it

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

Except battleships vulnerability to aircraft is what killed them off.

[@atfyoutubedivision955]

​@@thunberbolttwo3953Incorrect.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

@@atfyoutubedivision955AWWWWW I trigred you with the truth LOL good.

[@sebastianriemer1777]

It helps if you use the tanks excellent view range and ability to shoot far. Everything I have seen lately was the warhammer "drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword" approach on tank tactics.

[@filmandfirearms]

Here's how I see it. If the enemy feels the need to dedicate an entire specialised weapons system solely for taking out a specific piece of equipment, it's an effective piece of equipment. If it were useless, they wouldn't put that burden on their logistics

[@novatopaz9880]

Indeed. Why have an anti-tank weapon(Or I guess anti-armor at this point) if the tank is not effective? It's a waste of money if the weapon does not have a place on the battlefield.

[@pootyting3311]

A couple years late to this video, but EXACTLY. A great additional point to the video, that maybe ChieftainsHatch would agree with too. Even when fighting a top of line man-portable AT weapon fielded, the military with armor may be forced to hold back tanks in a supporting role. That may still be a great choice. The opposing military is forced to carry that weapon system on any offensive maneuver, replacing something like additional grenade launcher kit that would be helpful taking hardened infantry positions. Also, unpredictable events happen in a battle or a war where maybe the military that put all their eggs in the sophisticated ATGM basket are temporarily without the ability to field those ATGMs in an area or theater. Well, the well-balanced military with armor just behind the frontlines is poised to take advantage of that opportunity. The folks seeing 1v1 examples of a weapon system destroying a tank with apparent ease and then concluding "the tank is dead" are forgetting a principle that good military officers keep in mind for planning. Plans rarely survive the practical reality of combat. A military that is as reasonably diversified as a nation can afford has the ability to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves in a war, and hopefully finish it quickly. ✌️

[@rustykilt]

My understanding is that a tank is a part of joint combat Strategy which utilises a number of military arms to create an effective force. Since WWI, it was realised a tank is very effective when working in conjunction with other forces, as in Infantry and later with Aircraft. That would still hold true today.

[@shok24199]

"A challenger II in Iraq took 14 RPGs and a Milan ATGM hit. It was back in action in 6 hours." Yes, but did you account for the damage done to the crew's underwear?

[@dsdy1205]

That was covered under significant emotional event training

[@Pete292323]

Non of those were top down firing ATGMs, otherwise that tank and crew wouldn't be in action ever again.

[@baron2062]

@@Pete292323 well yeah, but the point was, if that hadnt been a tank, if that had been replaced by an IFV It would have died as soon as a second, or even the first missile had connected

[@PompeyMagnus487]

@@baron2062 True. people assume that just because the armor was pierced a few times, it makes it totally useless.

[@allangibson2408]

That’s what field washing facilities are for…

[@The_Viscount]

Regarding Battleships: I would personally argue that there are a few roles that battleships remain unparalleled in: shore bombardment, hit survivability, and raw intimidation factor. The problem is that, for the cost of a battleship, you could buy a carrier, and both require similar crew numbers. Comparing the Battleship to the Carrier, the Carrier can do many of the jobs the battleship already does, while adding capabilities that the Battleship lacks. The carrier is an inferior surface combatant, but the aircraft extend her range so far, why are you in surface action range with a carrier? For the majority of the missile age, active defenses have provided the ability to defeat missiles with less tonnage spent than heavy plate. This allowed tonnage to be allocated to other areas of the ship. So, while the carrier can't survive as many hits, it doesn't need to. And while a carrier isn't as effective in a shore bombardment role, the bombing runs are often sufficient to do the job. So yeah, I don't see the Battleship as useless on the modern field of war. Rather, it's become relegated to a specialized role for which it simply isn't cost effective. Will the advent of hypersonic change this? Maybe. Without a way to shoot down hypersonic missiles, an argument can be made that we may need to re-introduce armor to warships. In such a situation, an arsenal ship armed with hypersonic missiles, and a few large gun turrets and heavy armor may become more cost effective and less vulnerable than the unarmored carrier. But that won't make the carrier obsolete or useless either. So too we may see the role of the tank change and evolve. For now, I think the tank is too versatile to be rendered obsolete.

[@_Mentat]

Putin could do with some battleships in the Black Sea. Ships with armor several feet thick whose main job would be to bombard coastal cities from over the horizon. Aircraft carriers are too technological. They need crew who have trained for years (eg pilots) and equipment full of microprocessors. First trimester conscripts can load, point and fire a big gun, and if they are slightly off target it doesn't matter provided the gun is big enough. The shell is nearly all HE, compared with a missile which is 2/3rds engine and fuel.

[@The_Viscount]

@@_Mentat Unfortunately, making thick warship armor is a lost art. Anyone seeking to armor warships would need to relearn how to buld armor on that scale efficiently and effectively. That means building facilities capable of forging 400mm thick armor plate in panels the size of barn doors or larger. Not to mention designing ships that, while academically understood, nobody alive today has any experience building (i.e. armored warships). It would be interesting to see if hypersonic bring back the armored ship in some form.

[@orlock20]

I could still see the battleship as a missile truck meant carry a massive amounts of cruise missiles and attack from beyond current shore defenses. The Silkworm anti ship missile has a range of 130KM. The U.S. has several cruise missile that have a longer flight distance.

[@soonerfrac4611]

Shore bombardment is a glaring weakness in our naval systems. They seem to think they can effectively destroy emplacements from hundreds of miles away with multimillion dollar missiles that are neither timely enough, often too much collateral damage to surrounding troops, and far too expensive for use. This is why I believe the Corps was far wrong to write off their organic heavy armor.

[@kennethferland5579]

Battleships are not an efficient means of shore bombardment even if your going to do it by gunfire alone, parked off the coast you don't need speed or armor. Specialized small ships with battleship calibur guns but none of the other cost drivers are what you use if all you wish to do is shore bombardment. The guns of such a vessel would be at nearly fixed high elevation and with little or no traversal, you aim said gun by moving the whole ship. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)#Twentieth_century The US ended up using battleships for shore bombardment in WW2 because their was little else of use for them to do, not because it was ideal, indeed almost no class of ships was performing it's original intended role by the end of WW2 but people have become fixated on these class-role combinations without properly understanding them.

[@Nabjab94]

As a lebanese who lives in south Lebanon, this is the first time I have heard such an interesting analysis of the "Wadi al 7jeir" battle which we call the Merkava's graveyard, usually reports of this (or at least the ones I've come across) are extremely biased to either side... Hezbollah claims that they started this battle by striking the first and last tank in the column when they entered deep into the valley. This battle was an important milestone in the 2006 war and it tremendously increased the morale and support for hezbollah in Lebanon (but that doesn't change the fact that our country got bombed back to the dark ages and the war was started by hezbollah, not the Lebanese government).

[@skydog22]

That crazy little midget guy is a real trouble maker!

[@feltwedge]

Good video. Combined arms warfare requires the different arms in concert and in my experience in the Gulf War and Iraq there are times when nothing in the world is as effective as a tank. Also, the shock value is second to none.

[@laisphinto6372]

also people forget that the germans didnt really have tank Superiority in ww2 all that simping for tigers and panthers were late war tanks the early war nearly all german tanks were in inferior against french and british however the game changer was combined arms warfare

[@deriznohappehquite]

@@laisphinto6372 what’s funny is that the Heer did most of its winning with Panzers II and III. The tanks that people simp for were the ones that lost the war.

[@ATownDown32]

Something about the marines too is that with island hopping , naval support can do the work of a tank and then some. Don't really need to risk several smaller platforms up close to the enemy when you can have dozens of ships with missiles.

[@ScottKenny1978]

Or just 5" guns. The real issue behind the Marines ditching the Abrams is that the modern Abrams is heavier than the landing craft can really transport. The Marines were still running M1A1s, because the A2s are too heavy. And that created issues with the Army, because the two tanks have few internal systems in common.

[@warriorwolf77]

The marine's ideal platform is also already in service through amphibious assault ships, a number of guns, air and amphibious assets to acquire a beachhead, beyond that what would be the difference between soldier and marine. Of course I say that when not knowing the percentages on effectiveness for landings of an abrams vs an aav.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@warriorwolf77 the AAV only carries Marines, it doesn't bring a 120mm direct-fire gun to the party.

[@mandowarrior123]

I disagree, direct fire is important still but ah is often quite different. The navy can take out the anti air and the air forces can often make up the tank gap, and islands don't tend to be tank heavy. They can make a difference if you have them of course, They don't help with stealth missions or defensive ones either, with stuff that floats 120mm is usually either too big or no way near big enough. Defending a coast you'd rather air defence, sea skimming missiles, drones, radar systems, most everything else before a tank. Stealth missions something that'd fit in your submarine. But yeah, even with all that, naval support provides great artillery and air support, but direct fire is still the tool for the job- but they can cope without.

[@warriorwolf77]

@@ScottKenny1978 Yeah that's what I mean, on paper it'd be useful but I don't know how often they're used in landings if at all. And is the effectiveness gained worth the space in the ship

[@cybrpypr]

I must say this was a fantastic video and the plain facts and truths you demonstrated regarding the prevention of armor damage and how to properly operate armor in theater is really good. Thank you for this video sir.

[@Ben-fk9ey]

I imagine the tank will continue to evolve as it has since its inception. What people in WW1 thought of as a tank is pretty different to what we think of a modern tank. I expect that in the future/near future "tanks" will be pretty similar to what we have now except automated like drones. That will allow them to be smaller and maybe cheaper as you don't have to mess about with safety stuff for the crew. Who knows by 2122 maybe America will reveal their newest model of killer robot, a well armoured, mobile machine with a big gun on it. Kinda sounds like a tank right?

[@The0spetsnaz0]

THIS is why the tank is "dying/dead." Think about how much space and weight is saved simply by not having a crew compartment. Suddenly the vehicle is lower profile with the same capability AND the crew is no longer ever in danger... Unless they fall out of their office chair.

[@davidmunro2077]

@@The0spetsnaz0 they will be racing the office chairs on breaks

[@The0spetsnaz0]

@@davidmunro2077 Nah, they'll be arguing on the best way to "emote" with their unmanned tank to the squad they're supporting-- "nah bruh, you gotta waggle your cannon up and down at them--It's like the lean wiggle in tarkov."

[@Crosshair84]

What is going to be driving that drone tank and prevent it from firing a 120mm HE shell into a group of 9 year old children carrying cardboard tubes? Gonna be a lot of bad PR having a drone that can't differentiate between combatants and civilians. It's already hard enough when there are humans looking with a zoom lens.

[@aidenhall8593]

@@Crosshair84 Drone means piloted by a human remotely man

[@costiqueR]

This is what I name "professional presentation". Thanks!

[@williamlloyd3769]

Interesting comments re smoke; wonder if Russian cruiser Moskva used passive systems chaff and flare launchers or jamming systems? PS - best discussion on this topic so far, thanks for laying out the information for us to think through.

[@knusern666]

It was reportedly very bad weather in the area when the Moskva was hit. Storm conditions will negatively impact the use of smoke, probably chaff and flare systems also.

[@myparceltape1169]

@@knusern666 Thank you. That would obviate the need for having several types of detectors.

[@mrvwbug4423]

It's highly likely Moskva's air defenses were saturated by a drone swarm, allowing the ASMs to slip through. Moskva's radar would've been good enough to easily defend against ASMs on their own, but it was possibly trying to shoot down dozens of drones, the search radar might not even have seen approaching ASMs if they were focused on high flying drones. Also modern ASMs are nearly impossible to jam once they go terminal and Moskva was a BIG target with no stealth of any kind, plus Russian ECM is mostly optimized to jam NATO radar not Russian radar which operate on different frequencies.

[@looinrims]

@@mrvwbug4423 ah yes, Ukraine, a nation poorer than Russia in every single way with technology found maybe in the 80s Known for drone swarms against naval forces of course Talking out of your ass should be a crime

[@Crosshair84]

@@mrvwbug4423 Based on what evidence?

[@alantoon5708]

And it was dead after the Yom Kippur War, too. Combined arms tactics have to be applied to the modern battlefield.The current Russian Army is not doing that...

[@SlappyTheElf]

They weren't doing that when they rushed to Kyiv as they were very strung out and vulnerable to attack and not expecting a fight, in the Donbas I expect they are working more effectively.

[@looinrims]

That’s not true, unless you think rocket artillery supporting mechanized infantry and tanks isn’t combined arms

[@tonedeaftachankagaming457]

@@looinrims In the most basic sense, sure. But communications, navigation, and command structure are far more important than being able to do a rolling barrage on day one, or blow up a bunker after an hour of wait time. The Israeli story in the video is a great example of combined arms failing for these reasons, and in a much more modern military. Russian leadership and support equipment could not support true combined arms even if their doctrine tried to incorporate it.

[@looinrims]

@@tonedeaftachankagaming457 is that why they took 25% of the country in a few weeks?

[@nathanbrown8680]

@@looinrims With the manpower and military budget disparity, a wide land border, and a target as flat as Ukraine I'd have expected Russian troops to be patrolling the Polish border to suppress arms smuggling to the Ukrainian insurgency by now so I'm not impressed by holding 25% of the country.

[@joeadams1225]

As an Armoured Crewman/Gunner, smoke-throwers were primitive dangerous feature on the vehicle. Dangerous to fuse the thrower and a little scary to extract the misfires. Very effective however.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

The "Tank" as we know it - is in fact dead. IFV's are the future. Again - What's the POINT of a TANK if an IFV can do the same things FOR HALF THE PRICE? While carrying infantry with Javelins to boot?????

[@ardantop132na6]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 How about other IFVs. Or, more generally, medium caliber guns, including autocannons. On most armoured vehicles, and even attack helicopters. Also, you can't rely on autocannons and missiles to even most targets. Heavy caliber guns are no exception either.

[@joeadams1225]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 Yeah, you've got a point however Indirect Fire is handy. Combined Arms is the crucial factor in conflict. IFV's are the way to go Recce and Probe.for sure. Cavalry rules !

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@joeadams1225 Well... for indirect fire you have - you know - actual artillery lmao Thanks dude, nice to see someone else whose also smart enough to see the truth instead of clinging on to "Shiny big toy goes boom"

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@ardantop132na6 Define "medium caliber gun" The BMP-1 had a "medium caliber gun" but apparently they thought it was useless. So yeah.

[@Kurochana]

Very interesting and informative, thanks Chief! Enjoying these wide scope podcast style videos a lot, keep em coming.

[@michaelneuwirth3414]

Let me explain it this way: people are still being stabbed to death today, even though better things have long been available. As long as guns have a use on the battlefield, people will get the idea that it is even better to put them on a mobile platform. No matter what you call it.

[@junsengjs]

And as long as it takes expensive specialised anti-armor equipment to defeat armor, people will put armor on a mobile platform. Maybe when handheld railguns(that can penetrate through a tank's armor easily) exist and is standard issue in the modern army will the tank be obsolete, and even then someone will probably figure out armor/APS that can resist shots from a railgun.

[@hookybrickshooky9529]

#Question for the Chieftain: I agree that the tank itself isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but how strong is the case that topnotch tanks of the future will have to be manned vehicles? With drone technology advancing I see drones in the air supporting armored tank-drones on the ground. Do you think this is a possible future for the tank?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Optionally manned vehicles, with half being crewed, seems to be the most likely mid-term choice, or unmanned small wing-tanks. You still need eyes on the ground, and to hook up tow cables.

[@patnolen8072]

I'm surprised that autoloaders haven't had wider acceptance in MBT designs.

[@hookybrickshooky9529]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for your assessment on this topic. I very much appreciate it.

[@ret7army]

from the Signal Corps perspective ... all that reliance on drones is wonderful ... wonderful opportunities for the ECM/ECCM battles. Jamming radio directed weaponized combat systems may actually be the least of the worries, hacking comes to mind. Supporting note: In 2 different tests a fellow hacked his friends car in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In the first he was in another car nearby, in the second he stayed at his home. He was able to control the windshield washer and wipers, the air conditioning, lights, turn signals, IIRC the brakes and such forth. In at least one of the tests he was able to cause the subject vehicle to go into the ditch. He presented the results of his tests to a group dealing with the auto manufacturers here in the US, but I don't think they've really paid it much attention.

[@Derna1804]

The first remote controlled device was invented in 1898 by Nikola Tesla and remote controlled devices have played a role in warfare since at least WW2, but unmanned vehicles have a very particular weakness; they can be defeated by electronic warfare. Interference with signals can cause the loss of a device, a continuous signal between the device and the operator can be traced back to the operator, and in the future I suspect that someone will eventually hack an unmanned vehicle and turn it back on its master.

[@Roadghost88]

I remember when Canada went to light armor in Afghanistan. A few land mines later they were out and the Leopards were back in. Then they quickly upgraded to the Dutch Leopard 2s. I see what is happening in Ukraine and its pretty clear that a new age has donned. Although tanks are not going to disappear, they're definitely all going in for a ground-up redesign. Tanks were the thing that defeated the machine gun, but the machine guns have been replaced by drones et. al. You can't get across a battlefield without armor, but we can't just send it out there if it's going to be clocked the minute it appears. Not sure where this will end up. Titanium tanks? Who knows.

[@eskeline]

Stronger SPAA. If the SPAA can shoot down the drones, then the drones need to evolve. If the SPAA can't shoot down the drones, then the SPAA needs to evolve. i see everyone who thinks the tank is dead talking about drones and helicopters and missiles and the such, yet missiles can be shot down by APS, helicopters by SPAA, and drones could be shot down by drones or other SPAA.

[@jamesespinosa690]

Bring your own drones to cover the tanks??? That is my gut instinct?

[@egoalter1276]

The tank didnt defeat the machinegun. The infantry mortar, light field gun, and grenadier did. Open order autonomous tactics did. Tanks were merely a tool to more relyably apply those weapons and tactics, by providing the infantry with mobile cover, by providing a motorised carrige to move the gune easier over broken terrain and make it able to fire quicker. Amd that is all the tanks still needs to do to remain relevant. Get a large concentration of firepower shooting at a fortified position faster and more safely than if it was being moved by infantry in the open.

[@deriznohappehquite]

Drones have not replaced the machine gun.

[@gregowens6165]

When I was on tanks (1980s to 2000s) we were never allowed to use smoke launchers because the STRAC manual did not allow for expenditure of smoke.