Tanks of the Future

[@ArtypNk]

My girlfriend told me "We need to have a talk..." I got so excited, thought we were gonna discuss tanks.

[@tigershanty1217]

Ooooc

[@mrfrags6986]

Tank god it was about time

[@ericbluerose9381]

She wanted to bring more armor terminology into the bedroom, right?

[@dELTA13579111315]

@Roger partner yes.

[@sofiawaqasi5947]

i did once talk to one of my ex-boyfriends about tanks and bought him a little model T-34 which made him really happy

[@coltbolt6193]

I remember when my dad had this talk with me.

[@StaK_1980]

A U D I B L E D O T C O M ! ! ! you mean? :)

[@Apollo_1641]

tasman_devil no, it was inaudible. Can you say it again?

[@lianhector9546]

I THINK HE SAID AUDIBLE DOT COOOOM!!!!

[@Kosac07]

colt bolt My parents divorced when I was a kid so I never had this talk... Thank you Lindy, I needed it.

[@sufficient4834]

The talk about guns

[@timarchnase6405]

"there comes a point in every mans life where he has to talk about sci-fi tank design"

[@Dominooooo]

It is sor, Sir.

[@raphaelambrosiuscostco]

Truer words...

[@ramixnudles7958]

@Roger partner My buddy's girlfriend told him "Give me 12 inches and make it hurt!" So he did it three times and then punched her.

[@spook_dad]

your coment have the same number of likes as the video has dislikes

[@KCJAM1]

@@ramixnudles7958 I have a strange feeling that “your buddy” gets top billing whenever the small dick jokes are in play. Just say it’s you because it is, and claiming it makes for some good old self-deprecating humor that infers you are confident in your own statistics. Plus, there isn’t a chance in hell any females are watching this channel, save one. Sofilein I think she is named? I

[@him050]

As Jeremy Clarkson says regarding hovercraft piloting - “if you see a tree coming toward you, it’s too late you’re already going to hit it.”

[@wireflight]

The key to understanding that, of course, is “if you see a tree coming toward you." Sobriety is generally advantageous when attempting activities requiring good judgment and fine motor control.

[@him050]

Corazon del Oro right.... okay.... Thanks for the tip!

[@wert1234576]

Easy fix shoot the tree

[@JaKO-x3x]

It could be solved bij a hovercraft on wheels

[@Xc31]

@Colin Clevelandmakes me think of my work 🤣 I work for a local gov and we handle citizen complaints and we get wierd stuff like that. last week had a complaint saying "my shoes are ruined and the dogs feet are hurt. Its all over the road, Almost set the forest on fire." Without any further info or location. Like whut??

[@lackjack1969]

You have the mannerisms and style of a likeable teacher who has real passion for his subject

[@tachyon8317]

@@LegendLength Well, unions are just basically mini-mafias, after all. Money first, "job" last.

[@geeworm]

a rare occurrence, but a true gift

[@michaeledmunds7266]

When you said that the British had only one main battle tank, my first thought was "do they take turns with it?" Lol

[@mazen6446]

Mum said it's my turn on the tank

[@itsjustthatsimple628]

@@mazen6446 no it's my turn

[@Sirhc223]

@@itsjustthatsimple628 but it was your turn yesterday

[@itsjustthatsimple628]

@@Sirhc223 NO you took it yesterday

[@Sirhc223]

@@itsjustthatsimple628 but you ALWAYS get to go on the tank

[@fornsphin]

Audible no longer sounds like a word.

[@MazdaRX7007]

Yup, now it's just an app name

[@douglasparkinson4123]

you could say its..... inaudible

[@fornsphin]

@@douglasparkinson4123 You know where the door is.

[@seherarslan4399]

I didnt know audible meant something 😂

[@banako420]

@@seherarslan4399 to make it simple audible is something you can hear

[@dontcrywolf6810]

My take away from this video was that the real holy grail would be finding a way to make a tank out of some form of jelly

[@Gussyboy06]

And a table

[@seanm4095]

Actually modern tank armor is made of C4 which is close to jelly.

[@F14thunderhawk]

@@seanm4095 C-4 is more like Cake Icing or Sugar Cookie dough

[@SkippertheBart]

​@@seanm4095 The much less whimsical older brother of Silly Putty, Serious Putty.

[@csmatthew]

floating tanks, lifted by hydrogen...oh wait, I just reinvented the Zepellin.

[@Yourlocaltankgirl8375]

In my opinion that plan is gonna... Crash and burn ; )

[@safetyinstructor]

@@Yourlocaltankgirl8375 Zeppelins are actually pretty safe as long as you use helium instead of hydrogen.

[@Yourlocaltankgirl8375]

@@safetyinstructor that's very true! :D

[@flatd13tsoda56]

@@safetyinstructor it's a shame that the planet will run out of helium in 2025

[@safetyinstructor]

@@flatd13tsoda56 run out is a hard statement ... perhaps we should say it will be harder to get your hands on it. It won't dissappear but it will be harder to extract or refine

[@SeraphimKnight]

I will not rest until tanks are replaced by giant manned robots. I will paint mine red to make it go faster.

[@PestilliusVeno]

You will make a fine Mekboy.

[@ricex2]

u need the horn

[@ElectronicControl3R]

3x times as fast!

[@tgzus40oz2]

DA RED UNS GO FASTA!

[@fmjhp762]

needz more dakka

[@teaganfitzgerald9771]

General, why cant we use a rail gun on the tanks again? The damn plug would keep coming out, I've told you this 20 times Jerry.

[@kx7500]

Teagan Fitzgerald I don’t think it’s reliable enough. The barrel would need to be easily replaced enough or durable enough for the amount of ammunition we want to be able to fire out of the tank in one run

[@taithebigboy5185]

69 likes

[@tachyon8317]

Reminded me instantly of the invader Zim episode "Megadoomer". The Almighty Tallest sent Zim a mech (by comedic shenanigans), but no power cells for it, so he had to fashion a cord/plug system that was compatible with earth power outlets. The major issue being, that the plug keeps coming unplugged, and needs a new, closer outlet to power the machine. If you can find it, I suggest watching it after watching this

[@crispwhitesheets2175]

@@kx7500 We'll figure out a new material one day

[@kx7500]

@@crispwhitesheets2175 easier said than done. and if you found such a material, might as well use it to make actual armour

[@swaggio1]

This guy is the finest example of Chaotic Lawful I've ever seen

[@metatronyt]

I'm not interested in tanks, and yet I have watched this entire video until the end, well done :)

[@davidbodor1762]

WOW! Metatron, didn't expect to see you. And yeah, Lindy has this effect of being able to talk about literally anything for half an hour and make it sound interesting.

[@cadethaptor2698]

Metatron Really? I think tanks are just as interesting as HEMA.

[@nobsherc]

I've watched him talk about beds for half an hour for Gods sake

[@PianoMastR64]

I'm not interested in any of the topics he brings talks about, and I'm excited to watch most of his videos. He's just really good at making things interesting, I suppose.

[@joshmanwaring3848]

PianoMastR64 I like his points on a lot of things, he sounds like a knowledgeable dude

[@RauMichael]

There's only one youtuber who would make a video about tanks one day before christmas...still love it though

[@mikefoulds6449]

Michael Rau 2 days

[@THENUTSBIGDIRTYBASEMENT]

He could be australian.

[@derdurstbursch]

Mike Foulds depends on your country

[@chrisc1140]

Merry Tankmass!

[@joujneyarachmach9055]

its always time to talk about tanks. never enough.

[@jwhite146]

My uncle who serviced in Pacific was handed a rifle with an IR sight. He said that he did not like having a weapon with a big light on it. The sgr laughed and told him that no one would see it as it was invisible light.

[@andrewschroeder4167]

Unless they also have IR sights...

[@therecordholder]

@@andrewschroeder4167 oh yeah mounted on their 45 year old ak 47s

[@bootsontheground4913]

@@therecordholder by Pacific I think he meant WW2

[@CleoPinto4317]

One advantage of extreme speed is that a projectile creates pressure waves that pulp the crew even if the shell goes all the way through

[@Fetablue]

Not the pressure wave, the spalling, which is fragments of armor that break off at lethal speeds.

[@furrycow9263]

@@FetablueBoth. Modern tanks have internal armor to prevent spalling. However it is well documented that large high velocity projectiles can destroy a target on a near miss because of the pressure and heat generated. Even a round as small as .50 cal can turn a person into mush with a near miss.

[@lemons1559]

​@@furrycow9263a .50 can't topple a house of cards by being shot through one. Those rounds are designed to disturb the surrounding air as little as possible to maintain velocity. If it was wasting enough energy to pulp a person for each inch it flies through the air it wouldn't fly for more than a hundred meters. I don't understand where that myth comes from. It's the high velocity pieces of armour and dart that kill you, not air.

[@biscuitsalive]

Came here for tanks. Stayed for the digressions. :)

[@Chablar89]

Like listening to my Grandad talk 😅

[@Wildeheart79]

Lloyd has always made me imagine him being the school teacher I never had, such a natural educator. Kudos good sir!

[@Sammedine]

Wildeheart79 You could listen to him talk for hours.

[@tzenophile]

Just take it with a big grain of salt.

[@naohwatson854]

Wildeheart79 hi's kind of fun to listen to normally but in this video he got almost every subject wrong from physical point of view.

[@aaagagatagtgtt9656]

1:35 "You want to minimize... the number of holes you put in your tank", and the number of holes your enemy puts in your tank.

[@burnwankenobi803]

7:48 nuclear hardness

[@ShadowAkatora]

When it comes to penetration it's always a problem if you're going too fast.

[@TheMouseofdanger]

Haha, he struggled for a second to the say it with out laughing like a 12 year old 🤣

[@HatHammond]

Because it turns into a perforation, right?

[@anangrymarine9174]

I know a LOT about repulsive power! Have no idea why I'm single...

[@gnuemacs1166]

An Angry Marine! A lot of my friends have that

[@risktaker141]

Me either, you're a good bloke!

[@RoosterFloyd]

A lot of women are intimidated by us 40k guys, I think they know the Emperor has set our standards too high.

[@NikoMoraKamu]

join slanesh , 42 three boobed demons are waiting for you brother!

[@scramaseax]

"You can't shoot a jelly off the table" was my gran's favourite aphorism.

[@mikedegroff7766]

What a coincidence,, "shootin' jelly off the table" was my grandpas favorite euphemism.

[@OnlyKaerius]

I've watched enough Taofledermaus to know that you can indeed shoot jelly off the table.

[@htak2010]

Very informative and entertaining video. I was, however, expecting three things that did not get covered in the video: The first is armor, which should obviously be a part of a discussion on tanks (aka armor)? New materials, armor thickness, reactive armor, etc. The second thing is stealth capabilities. It's one of the main things that affect the visual design of "futuristic" aircraft and ships, so it might affect real-life future tanks. The third is electronics: automated targeting and driving systems, communications, jamming, the works. I suppose these might merit a second video?

[@samuelyoung1]

the first is VERY theoretical, so we can only guess. the second is also highly theoretical, with stealth capabilities being very hard to predict and to actually make that is not specialized. the third is variable not only per tank type but also per tank.

[@samuelyoung1]

how do you predict something that is so variable?

[@brianwyters2150]

Military History Visualized(often called MHV)made a video about tank armor. However, this was about historical(after WW2)armor and not really future armor. However it does mention some characteristics of armor. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGGsk419m7mai68

[@Cadadadry]

I guess the real problem of any future tank will be it's main goal : to break through (infantry) defensive lines. There will probably be no defensive lines any more, at least held by identified infantry and/or military vehicules. A more predictable future will be a mix of partisans equiped with small weapons, kamikazes using various sorts of explosives, and all sorts of robots you can imagine, all moving from one region (/country) to another and shooting or blowing up as soon as tanks will be out of sight... So old tanks will have no targets any more, except perhaps a few captured ones of their own side... I think the next generation of first line armored vehicules will be a family of small (man-sized or car-sized)) robots, remote-controlled or totally automated, followed by a couple of command-cars and helicopters receiving orders by satellite and AWACS...

[@TheStugbit]

Tandem Shaped Charges seems to be quite a problem for tanks nowadays.

[@domino52o26]

About your hovercraft setting off mines theory. Somebody tried it and found they don't set off even really sensitive mines. Little show called mythbusters.

[@Dysfunctional_Vet33]

This came out befor that episode aired

[@giupiete6536]

@@Dysfunctional_Vet33 Hovercraft didn't set off antipersonnel mines?

[@DmdShiva]

However, this is true only for direct-pressure fuzes. Tilt fuzes, where the detonation occurs if the fuze post is bent, will still trigger, because the hovercraft's skirt is in contact with the ground. Trip-wire fuzes will also trigger, for the same reason. Magnetic-disturbance fuzes will be set off by the metal in the hovercraft (at least for combat designs; light personal hovercraft may be mostly fiberglass and not have a big enough signature), and seismic or audio triggers will also be viable against hovercraft.

[@JohnyG29]

Yeah, I wouldn't try it (or risk my life) based on the results of a Mythbusters show. Not exactly conclusive proof.

[@burnwankenobi803]

JohnyG29 I would I’m trying it

[@thraxhunter1450]

We all know that tanks of the future will just be Scythe Chariots with katanas sticking out of the tracks to slice and dice all enemy machine gun barrels.

[@alexanelon]

Memerooney No no no, katana shooting katanas when you swing it.

[@ExBruinsFan]

Ninja-shooting railguns.

[@alexanelon]

ExBruinsFan So a catapult that launches guys with swords?

[@ExBruinsFan]

alex Anerlon BINGO.

[@bobsaggat]

not to hate on lindy, but I had literally never heard the word Spandau in my life until he said it, it was always just the mg42 to me

[@falsebeliever8079]

I might watch this again in forty years. Will probably be a good laugh for the 69 year old me.

[@Kratax]

Forty years is just 2 times 20 years. And those are not very long times. I mean, 20 years before it was 1997. And that is almost the year 2000. In the year 2000 people thought that in 2025 there will be cybernetics and flying cars. Well, 2025 is almost here, only 8 years to go.

[@jayceethree4538]

In the year 1997, who would've guessed that we would have computers many times more capable than the computers of the 90's in our pockets? In the year 1997, who would've guessed that we would have massive destroyers capable of producing enough power to power a good sized town, capable of using electronic railguns that fire projectiles at more than the speed of sound, and even though they're bloody massive, they're able to mimic the radar signature of a small fishing boat?

[@jayceethree4538]

In the year 1997, who would've guessed that 266,000 people could watch a video on this thing called the "internet?" In the year 1997, who would even know that mass communication IS?

[@jayceethree4538]

Lets take 1939 to 1959. 20 years. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING changed, at least for the United States. In 1939, we were a powerful nation, but nowhere near as powerful as the nations of Europe - AND the majority of the world was struggling through the Great Depression. In 1959, we were one of THE TWO SUPERPOWERS. Also, nukes exist now, in 1959. And the United States is one of the most prosperous nations on Earth. Oh, and now we're in an arms race with the Soviet Union. And the two nations have enough nukes to destroy the world two times. And TV exists. And EVERYTHING about combat has changed. Naval warfare, tank warfare, infantry tactics, air warfare... The Soviet Union and the United States are THE two most influential nations in the world. The Era of Colonialism is DONE. We have Microwaves now. We have Priminal Computers now. We have Missiles now. We put things in Earth orbit. We have a commercial airline industry, revolutionizing mass communication. We have this thing called the "Baby Boom." We're in a war in the Korean Peninsula. I could go on, but 20 years CAN change EVERYTHING.

[@jayceethree4538]

Here's a big one. In 2010, we were still launching stuff via Space Shuttle. In 2030, NASA plans to send a man to Mars.

[@Kj16V]

I didn't quite catch the name of that audio book website. Could you repeat it please?

[@redbaron2829]

Kj16V audible

[@Kj16V]

Meme Maker Audible?

[@Apollo_1641]

Kj16V It was inaudible.... :-)

[@redbaron2829]

Kj16V oooooohhhhhhh I just got the joke

[@sazm1998]

Kj16V don't worry, it's in every video anyway

[@northernzeus768]

I didn’t realize that lindy beige and I were going to have “ the talk” tonight. I’m blushing rn.

[@phoephoe795]

A hovercraft might not set of some pressure sensitive mines. But you still have tripwires, prongs, magnetic, vibration, motion sensor/infrared. Sci-Fi repulsor tanks (regardless of what the "repulsor" mechanism is) would only work for a short time, before someone builds a mine that detects the repulsor effect

[@termitreter6545]

Air pressure sensitive maybe. Depends on what kind of ground effect a hover tank would create, but It'll be pretty strong.

[@fulcrum2951]

Tactics are usually made in response to something, an inevitability in warfare

[@MilkyNep]

What about a tank that can be both repulsor and normal?

[@T0rrente18]

I remember when battlefield 4 futuristic dlc came out and people complained that tank mines were still triggerred by hover tanks, the devs pointed out that it would be plausible that the inmense thrust needed to maneuver a 20 ton machine could easily trigger a landmine because of the pressure made by the engines

[@melgross]

Gamerdept considering that there is no such thing as a repulsor, the answer is no. If you want to pretend, then anything is possible-in a game, or a movie.

[@ragenFOX]

that audible sound scared me, i was expecting the great courses

[@tohopes]

How about a tank that's carried at around shoulder-height by a couple of dozen slaves, in the style of pallbearers?

[@tohopes]

Actually, I guess you could just get a bunch of those robot dogs to carry a railgun.

[@jessegd6306]

Weapons to surpass Metal Gear.

[@brandonogden3498]

A palanquin tank? Fund it, my body is ready.

[@phreakazoith2237]

at least its design would be prepared for the time beyond fossil fuels

[@phreakazoith2237]

or Bedrock

[@StoccTube]

What about a flying tank? ... oh, hang on, A10 😂

[@CassiusGreen]

Oh you mean the IL-2 and the SU-25? They're actually called that in real life instead of your pos.

[@anger_birb]

BBBBBVVVVVVRRRRRRR

[@catcanard8585]

HS129B3

[@yackk9474]

Do you all mean Antonov A-40, a literal flying tank, you peasants?

[@kurdtcocaine0]

russian flying tanks

[@47Mortuus]

Have you not heard of Metal Gear? Rail guns on tanks are a thing since 1999.

[@stroggosaw299]

WALKING battle tanks

[@jayhill2193]

Throw a pommel and you surpassed Metal Gear

[@KarlfMjolnir]

You misspelled 1987 (Metal Gear 1, the precusor to Metal Gear Solid, set in the far-flung future of... 1995).

[@AfterlifeGames]

@@KarlfMjolnir No, he misspelled 1998. The Metal Gear TX-55 featured in the original Metal Gear didn't use a rail gun, it just launched standard ICBMs. Metal Gear REX from Metal Gear Solid, which was released in 1998 and takes place in 2005, had a railgun. Get it right.

[@Dylan_Goodboy]

METAL...GEAR?

[@temperspace]

I was looking at futuristic tank designs on the internet before my dad had this talk with me.

[@gailraby1722]

"impossible to shoot a jelly off a table" I absolutely love that.

[@simongr63]

Has he watched my man Joerg Sprave He shoots ballistic jelly straight off tables with automatic crossbows!

[@TheCompleteMental]

@@simongr63 Crossbows go slower and it's ballistics jelly which is made to be harder when hit

[@SiberianSwordsman]

The tank in your thumbnail looks like something Elon Musk would design.

[@Mini-sv9iy]

The cybertank

[@alexeysaranchev6118]

Google "polish stealth tank", you might enjoy the design that looks like a cool lego set.

[@Bryian1125]

@@alexeysaranchev6118 long boi

[@Casedilla73]

Alexey Saranchev Looks like something out of Just Cause 3.

[@vincentmuyo]

You mean "Musk would nick out of 80ies future design documents". Which is absolutely true.

[@SephShareBear]

Is there any recorded history of someone boarding an enemy tank, and tossing a grenade into it, or is that just movie folklore?

[@Sibula]

I've heard of one Finnish soldier who jumped on a soviet tank and knocked on the hatch shouting (roughly translated) "Open, open! Death is knocking!"

[@nyo117]

Not quite what you asked but I did find this gif of a guy throwing one down the barrel of a tank in the Syrian civil war. gfycat.com/SorrowfulBouncyGalago

[@mossfoster5317]

I've seen old war footage of Germans out flanking a Russian T34 and getting on top of the tank, but as tank hatches can be locked from the inside there isn't much way of getting into them. And unless the breach was open, putting a grenade down the barrel wouldn't do anything as the breach block is meant to withstand explosions.

[@SecuR0M]

There is recorded history of people boarding tanks and being bayoneted by the tank crews when they try to do exactly this. It happened on the Eastern Front in WW2 sometimes, though. Satchel charges under turrets or on engine decks turned out to be better.

[@Vahlsten]

Seph S. Finnish did this in Winter War against Russia I think.

[@spysareamyth]

Lindybeige: *talks about sci-fi tanks with an air or wrongness about them* Also Lindybeige: *Shows Ratte* Well played...

[@albertdewulf7688]

If there's ever a tank with legs then it must be named The Luggage.

[@Palocles]

The Luggage had no cannon, though. (But it was not “unarmed”.)

[@ferrousscale]

You don't need to put holes in armor just pass information through (at least not as large nor direct holes). It might be a good idea to put a lot of redundant sights and sensor packs outside of the main armour and pack spares for when they get shot off.

[@dELTA13579111315]

I own a germanium lens :D it's my germanium sample for my period table collection! That thing is THE most perfect and clearest mirror I've ever seen, I swear the image is more clear than real life

[@dangerdan2592]

Lloyd's sidetracks are the best part

[@rancon265]

Depleted Uranium has some fancy tricks against tanks.

[@red2theelectricboogaloo961]

@@allsoover depleted uranium has some fancy tricks

[@DragonHunter24]

a book depleted uranium is fancy

[@HansenSWE]

Anything "Depleted" is shit. We need to call it "Uranium X" or "Muscle uranium".

[@jtb9751]

@@HansenSWE CALL IT CILLIT BANG

[@Skiivin]

@@jtb9751 That is the most oblique reference I've seen in a while

[@meadball1]

I think having a cheaply made swarm of unmanned drone tanks that are smaller in size is the way of the future. Everything is getting more urbanized, so being able to have a tank that isn't so clunky in the city is a good thing. Plus you could have specialized modules for each of the tanks to bolt on or take off at will. You could have one that's more geared towards anti armor, one that's more for anti personnel, one that is more for electronic warfare, one for carrying or resupplying human infantry. 1 chassis may not do everything but you could have a small medium or heavy chassis version for different roles. (future talk with my son)

[@paogene1288]

I see the potential in the German Wiesel 1/2 AWC. What do you think?

[@meadball1]

@@paogene1288 Actually the French have something called the SYRANO based on the Wiesel 2 AWC. SYRANO, in French, stands for "Système Robotisé d'Acquisition pour la Neutralisation d'Objectifs". That in English translates to "Robotic acquisition system for neutralization of targets" I'm not sure if its an experimental drone or if its actually been adopted. I also don't know if its armed or if its more just for recon. Can't find much info on it! I found it very interesting!

[@paogene1288]

@@meadball1 I will look into it thanks.

[@andrewschroeder4167]

I agree. I think the future of warfare is all about high numbers of low-cost unmanned autonomous robots and systems that are hard to hit and so cheap you don't care if you lose a few. Make them small and fast and just capable enough to do their job. Imagine a swarm of land mines that fly across the battlefield and cluster around a tank before exploding, or Drone swarms that fly through a city, track people down with facial recognition, and spray people with deadly nerve gas or explode like a small grenade. Small, cheap, fast, autonomous, mass-produced kamikaze bots. A tank (as we know them today) can't shoot down a drone swarm.

[@TheCompleteMental]

There's methods against things like these called lasers, and high fire rate machine guns like the minigun. No, what the military is currently thinking of employing is close, though: focused swarm tactics. This plays into the idea, I think it was an airforce theory, that you have a large number of easy to make and replace aircraft then a few really great "silver bullets", which was shown to have the same effectiveness of a much larger force. I believe this might be employed with smaller and larger autos, supplemented heavily with humans because humans are just more reliable.

[@jamenja1887]

12:10 "And the plug would keep coming out" xD

[@TurboSphinx]

Nothing says "Merry Christmas" like discussing the future of death dealing war machines. Good show!

[@henriknykvist]

Did you know that Santa is actually Rommel.

[@charleswood4635]

Himmler was the tooth fairy --- he always crossed ditches with his hovercraft-- no problem.

[@derdurstbursch]

Henrik Nykvist santa is actually a pommel

[@turboslag]

Fuck Christmas, celebration of a religious fairy story!! Religion is the cause of most human conflict, the sooner people afflicted with religious belief realise there is no god or other supernatural being, the better mankind will be.

[@TB80231]

turboslag you must be really fun at parties

[@htomerif]

OK, I gotta stop you right there. You may know a lot about the past of tanks, but apparently very little about their current state. Infrared (near) and "light amplification" _are the same thing_. In WW2 and immediately after, they weren't, but every single night sight the US has (and I've worked on literally all the infantry ones) is a light amplification tube _and_ a switchable near-infrared LED illuminator. Thermal: thermal is the future in the sense that 1980 is the future. Our tanks and anti-tank munitions have been using high quality thermal sights for targeting since the TOW graduated to having a night sight. Hell, I have a thermal camera for my phone. The Abrams MBT currently has passive light amplification, thermal and radar-designated sight capabilities. It also has non-line-of-sight GPS and networked target acquisition and engagement capability. A Longbow Apache can acquire targets and transfer that information to an Abrams (or field artillery or MLRS) and those systems can engage the target without ever having even seen it.

[@iatsd]

htomerif Don't bother. He doesn't understand and won't want to know. He doesn't learn or engage. All he can do is rant and waffle.

[@TRAdamTM]

someones a grumpy muppet

[@p_serdiuk]

htomerif AFAIK near-infrared and image amplification are not exactly the same technologies, but it's just that most electronic cameras now are able to see into near infrared (if you remove your phone's camera lens, you can see that for yourself), and so you can use the same sensor and light amplification cascade to capture visible and near-IR light together and of course you can use an IR illuminator with this setup just as you can use a normal flashlight. But, before the development of modern cameras, infrared and Starlight scopes used to be different.

[@Peasant_of_Pontus]

He's right though.

[@Rico-oz4ct]

how can you have a thermal camera on your phone? The technology is old, but FLIR cameras still cost a lot of money for example..

[@ferdonandebull]

I used thermal imaging in an intelligence unit in the early seventies. We used it in strategic intell gathering. I could count planes that were there and those that had been moved. It was important to know the time and temperature.

[@dafoex]

I believe this is how the Russians found out about the SR-71 Blackbird - The americans would take it into the hangar every time a spy satellite was due to fly over, but neglected to think about the thermal "shadow" that was still there. After one of their spies sent back word that it was discovered, they started leaving lots of weird shaped "cardboard cutout" style aeroplanes out on the runway to cast more spaceship-shaped shadows.

[@salansar6661]

I served in the 1st Cavalry Division during my time in the army, so I have a fair appreciation for the A1 Abrams. That being said 1st Cav is phasing out the tank for vehicles like the Stryker because they are far more versatile, faster, and able to serve a similar purpose. On that note I don't think tanks are going anywhere anytime soon, they will probably just become more specialized in the future.

[@talltroll7092]

It's about picking the tool for the job. I could see MBT inventories being greatly reduced in favour of other vehicles in the future, but I doubt that the entire concept is going to go away for some time

[@n1thecaptain965]

What do you mean with more specialised? What is there to specialise? If were a soldier or had any military training I might know, but I would like to know how you could improve something that, at its best, isn't good enough

[@grizzlycountry1030]

2 things never going away...infantry and tanks.

[@jaunvonsokoloveoldchannel7215]

@N1 the captain If you cannot count on air-support, (which sometimes is a factor EVEN for super-powers for like the U.S.A?) you’re definitely going to need them. The problem with IFV’s & APC’s is that they can only hold their own for so long. Bradley’s & Warriors, though capable, can get gang-banged by 4 T-62’s. Yes, T-62’s. Everybody likes to praise the Bradley because of it’s performance against the shitty Export version of the more advanced T-72 in Desert Storm, but that was mainly because they caught them completely by surprise alongside the complete lack of Infantry support, spotters, & overall abysmal leadership of the Iraqi leadership. Had they had better leadership & strategy, they would have smoked the Bradley’s with ease. However, when you cannot rely on your IFV’s & APC’s, send in the MBT’s & you’ll give them a hard time. & that’s exactly what happened in Desert Storm & why they still service tanks now.

[@n1thecaptain965]

@@jaunvonsokoloveoldchannel7215 thanks, I didn't know that, so basically tanks are still important, but other things are more versatile? Is that correct or am I wrong again

[@AbeDillon]

What was the name of that service again?

[@ephremcortvrint2376]

Audible AUDIBLE auDIble AAUdible. com

[@insanecuckooman8342]

eau de ball

[@schibleh531]

Uwe Boll

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

no hamza that was shit

[@schibleh531]

GTX Jake Uwe Ball is shit.

[@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ]

Legs.... tanks.... please world gives us AT-ATs

[@Lumberjackk]

no, give us power armor!

[@radiantjet418]

TheMarineGamer IGGHQ Look up the mechs that are being tested! They look just like the mechs from Avatar so we might see something like it!

[@scoman91]

Silly as it sounds, Metal Gear would be a much more practical design. It's got more than just two gun, it's got a smaller visible profile, it's nuclear capable, the only thing it's lacking is in troop transport capacity and there are better vehicles for that already.

[@emikochan13]

the only troop you need is liquid snake.

[@TheMarineGamerIGGHQ]

rAdiant Jet well the ones in Avatar got rekted by indeginous blue people xD

[@sticktothewoods]

"You can't shoot a jelly off a table" Challenge Accepted.

[@Uther1313]

How'd it go?

[@timgrindley8080]

How did it go?

[@HansenSWE]

You could shoot another table on the table so everything flies away and starts spinning violently in the air. That would throw off the jelly.

[@woodyenfermo]

Actually it's really easy shooting jelly out of the table due to hydrostatic shock. I suggest any Taofledermaus video

[@mohamedelhaddade6371]

he is talking about extremely fast bullet that will have very low friction

[@peterhansmann3289]

diamonds are hard to scratch but they're easy to destroy with a bit of impact, like the one you can deliver with a hammer

[@dwwolf4636]

Peter Hansmann yeah thats lattice defects for ya.

[@thekaxmax]

laminated diamond made with no, or few, defects will do the job.

[@Wren6991]

It's not just lattice defects. High yield stress/hardness does not translate to a high fracture toughness. It's the ability of a material to deform in a ductile manner which absorbs energy and stops cracks from propagating freely.

[@TurboImpaler]

actually a diamond cant be even scratched with a hammer....since they were formed trough thousand tons of pressure.expecting a small force like a hammer hit would break it its ...meh.think it yourself.

[@Wren6991]

Hydrostatic pressure is not the same as axial stress. (And tons isn't even close to being a unit of pressure.) Look up yield criteria.

[@thenoobinator3508]

actual when the Mythbusters tested hovercraft on mines you can drive over a minefield with a hovercraft. Weight distribution doesnt trip most at mines and some ap mines

[@DamnedUsernameThing]

If it trips AP mines wouldn't the AP mines just destroy whatever you're using to hover, thus immobilizing your tank?

[@ddegn]

+DamnedUsernameThing "If it trips AP mines wouldn't the AP mines just destroy whatever you're using to hover," *IF* it trips the mine. The pressure below a hovercraft can be less than the pressure required to set off an AP mine.

[@DamnedUsernameThing]

Even then I don't think it would be very hard to make anti-hovercraft vehicles, like Lindy said in the video Those would probably be much more dangerous after the war is over though

[@Urgermane]

For a simple purpose hovercraft I got to a pressure of just 4 grams per cm². For a large military landing vessel I came to 23 grams per cm². With a 60t tank you either end up with close to 200 gram per cm² when sticking to similar dimensions or a vehicle of 17m length and width at 23 grams per cm². Buried mines can quite often exceed 100 cm²-sized pressure sensitive areas, where a hover-tank with the dimensions of a 'real' tank would affect with ca. 20kg of weight, enough for almost all AP-mines. All non-dug mines would be prone to beeing detonated by coming into contact with the skirt of the vehicle.

[@theoriginaldylangreene]

Mythbusters dropped the ball on that episode. Modern mines aren't set off by pressure, better triggers use magnetism, vibration, sound or temperature. A running hovercraft is loud, has a combustion engine, and you can feel it in the ground when it runs past you. It would easily set off a mine.

[@Apollo_1641]

Will the tanks of the future be armed with bren guns too??

[@Apollo_1641]

vipertaja It must have a REALLY good turret ring!

[@martinwagner9699]

Don't forget the pommel launcher!

[@hughneutron6104]

Yes and the main guns will be Spandau machine guns with 20ft long barrels. The katanas can be welded to the barrel support (which would be like an I-beam underneath so the barrel wouldn't flex)

[@treyriver5676]

No.. they are too accurate .. or something like that....

[@azh698]

White house gaming A bren fusion with a katana would b better. imagine the mighty Brentana!

[@candlestyx8517]

Mechs will be the armored fighting vehicles of the future. I know this because I played mechwarrior and watched gundam as a kid. *JOKE*

[@rambo8863]

The only thing is see mechs good at is jumping over opstecals. But then they land they gonna crash down into the sewer system

[@wert1234576]

Hah jokes on you we just build every thing with a high limit

[@bozenafaltynkova2259]

@@rambo8863 Scopedog and nightmare frames have 3-5 meters

[@thomaspriewasser6660]

too much problems with ground pressure, also the square cube law would make anything above a certain size problematic. If they stay fairly small like an exoskeleton, then yes, but the size of a titan in titanfall is too big.

[@badas45]

Mechwarrior was awesome Now there is Titanfall

[@AKlover]

To be fair Sci-Fi probably got it completely wrong about tanks. Simple really $2000 tandem charge rocket kills $5,000,000 tank is a problem that will only get worse.

[@wazzupbruh4578]

AKlover Tanks are becoming very obsolete you can just about open a tank hatch throw a grenade and watch

[@icthulu]

What kind of point defense? Anything can be countered. If you have lasers, then you can absorb or reflect, if it's vision, you can use other means of detection, or none at all.

[@weldonwin]

I don't think the armoured vehicle is ever going to go away, but the MBT is indeed becoming more and more obsolete with more and more threats that can kill it, especially as modern wars change. We're seeing more and more urban conflicts against insurgents, who will either avoid your heavy armour or ambush it and in open field operations, MBTs are horribly vulnerable to air attack. Like I said, I doubt we've seen the end of armoured fighting vehicles, but I think we're likely to see them getting smaller with an emphasis more on manouverability and possibly stealth, rather than survivability.

[@AKlover]

If the crew is buttoned up then NO! You can use a kinetic openetrator of some kind, a shaped charged which really needs to be tandem, or you can hit it with so much explosive you break every module in the tank rendering the crew dead and the tank inoperable. Problem with that last one is it usually requires air or arty and the leg infantry soldier seldom has a 2lb satchel charge of C4 to hand, all that before you get to placing it under the tank and clearing the blast radius before you get spayed by the coaxial MG.

[@sqike001ton]

AKlover I think that's why there going to get smaller and cheaper while keeping the big guns you send 50 tanks instead of 10 and hope you can kill the bad guys with firepower before you take too many loses excepting you will lose tanks to anti tank weapons

[@Fede_uyz]

"you would need a very thick cable and the plug would keep getting unplugged" Loved it

[@nolanturner5607]

Fun image yes, but if we're talking scifi, small, vehicle sized nuclear reactors are highly likely, so lets not dismiss railgun armed tanks

[@founoe]

Tank you for this video.

[@yaakovgrunsfeld]

"you have to keep everything really very very cold indeed" how to be British in one sentence.

[@RuSosan]

_"Tanks of the future"_ *Me:* "POWER ARMOR! I WANT IT! _T-45D!_ "

[@Lumberjackk]

give me T60, then i will beat those russian bias tanks to shit

[@RuSosan]

***** Pretty much depends on how well they'd solve the servo power output, power consumption and the required power source, armour vs. mobility, and (field) maintenance and maintenance costs. Power armour could have it's uses if it could be brought up to the effectiveness it is in the Fallout-games (especially 4). Honestly speaking armour is of course lagging so far behind firepower right now that a power armor would be far more suited to a... Hmmh, a S.W.A.T. team or heavy duty riot police, where the opposition likely won't have as deadly weapons as soldiers do, but good protection and certain "scary hulking brute" effect is required.. But then again, *COSTS* vs. actual use is kinda meh for cops regarding power armour, because the situations where one might need power armour are few and far-in-between. Maybe cops would need power armor if we'll head into a dystopic "Cyberpunk" future where stuff like food riots (or whatever riots) are the norm.. MAYBE. And then there's the whole potential "augmentation" field that may or may not show up as well.

[@FrenchLightningJohn]

i prefer the T-51B

[@DamnedUsernameThing]

Power armored soldiers are definitely not designed to fight against tanks. They are infantry, and they will stay that way. But a power armored soldier can still be practical - They have that edge of armor against other infantry! Which makes them great against y'know, terrorists and criminals who have no way of acquiring their own power armor. A soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility is going to get thrashed by an armed vehicle. But a soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility is a _soldier that has armor that makes them invulnerable to small arms without sacrificing much mobility_. Sure, it'll only be deployed for specialist usage, but something that expensive is probably going to be reserved for special operations anyways.

[@dragon12234]

Already in development for US Special Forces. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALOS_(uniform) It's more intended for close quarters combat, breaching and clearing, that kind of stuff

[@Feminismisfornobody]

Every time I see a lindybeige video about tanks in my subscription feed, i let out a little squeal

[@F1ghteR41]

The video definitely has it's perspective skewed by Lindy's explicit interest in WW2 tanks. It lacks discussion on four major issues in post-war tank design, namely 1) the extent of use of rockets (especially guided ones) as a tank weapon; 2) the extent of success HEAT warhead can get against tanks; 3) heavy ERA and the use of composite warheads (i.e. tandem-charges and more complex variants thereof) to combat it; 4) vulnerability of tanks to howitzer HE-FRAG shells and other low-tech weapons due to differential armouring.

[@pietrayday9915]

Not to mention future technologies such as orbiting particle beam platforms, neutron bombs, EMP weapons, cyber warfare (such as hacking and virus or denial-of-service attacks), and such. It's also worth noting that, even though breaking tanks was a very effective way to remove their threat from your battlefield for most of the 20th century and no doubt at least part of the 21st century, you don't have to destroy a tank to render it helpless. The toughest tank that technology can build is still only as tough as its most delicate vital component, which will probably be the human crew for quite a while. You need hit a tank only hard enough to damage that human crew to incapacitate it, even if the tank itself is undamaged. The video touches on some other delicate vulnerable points of the tank as well - the tracks/wheels are a classic one, and no doubt targeted attacks versus any future propulsion system (ground effect emitters or whatever) will continue that theme; the electronics would be a more modern vulnerability especially with artificially intelligent or drone tanks; the tank's sighting system was briefly touched upon in the video, and blinding a tank continues a classic theme of disabling bigger and scarier opponents since Odysseus blinded the Cyclops; interrupt any schoolyard bully in the middle of pulling wings off flies what to do to make a heavily armored tortoise vulnerable and he'll laugh and tell you to simply flip it over on its back.... And, of course, the tank's biggest vulnerability since the first day has always been its dependence on a supply train: tanks devour a tremendous amount of fuel, ammunition, replacement parts, and other resources, and require a trail of specialized supply vehicles to follow close behind and feed the tanks a constant supply of resources. These supplies aren't required to be replenished on a monthly or weekly basis - tanks tend to go through their fuel quickly, on a daily or hourly basis, and with tank engines struggling to move incredibly heavy pieces of equipment quickly over unpaved battlefields at the fastest practical speeds, even the best-made tanks constantly break on the field and require constant maintenance and repair. If you can't break the tank directly, break its supply train, and the tank follows within a few hours.... Tanks may well be considered the "Kings of the Battlefields" well into the future where they will, no doubt, prove their value over and over, but they are high-maintenance kings with a variety of unique and peculiar vulnerabilities and insecurities that will put these battlefield Goliaths at the mercy of their enemy's Davids....

[@karimadel4309]

LOSAT missiles

[@Muck006]

Most of the stuff you mention are only part of a MAJOR military power ... but loads of conflicts these days are ASYMMETRICAL, i.e. "regular army" vs. "terrorists/freedom fighters" (ISIS/Taliban). The latter only has low-tech stuff available ... and even in a fight against a major military power most of the stuff will be only available to the ones with AIR SUPERIORITY ... which will make tanks rather safe again, because after gaining air superiority you will be taking out artillery and other such threats with drones ... but a drone can NOT "control a street crossing" ... so you still need a tank.

[@zackarymoulsdale4654]

its*

[@DmdShiva]

HEAT warheads are limited by the ease with which they can be defended against. From the accidental protection afforded by schurzen mounted on German tanks in WWII (they were intended to provide additional protection for more lightly-armored parts of a tank against anti-tank rifle rounds) to the slat armor seen on armored vehicles to reactive armor modules, the different ways to disrupt the formation of the penetrating jet of a shaped-charge warhead are becoming increasingly effective.

[@Tinman3187]

5:15 Yeah I once tried to explain this to a platoon sargent who had covered a guard post in camo net and didn't realize that the nets radiant heat would block our thermoscope at night making the guard post useless in stopping attacks. He got angry that people were cutting holes in his net.

[@MephLeo]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

[@symmetrie_bruch]

that´s quite interesting

[@lukablaikie7119]

I will not buy this record, it is scratched.

[@cameronglenn3619]

Didn't myth busters prove you could go over a minefield in a hover craft

[@MeadyBeard]

My nipples explode with delight!

[@splo1nger909]

If i said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me

[@NMMojavePoet]

For hover tanks who travel in a frictionless movement. Guess what happens when you fire a main gun on a platform that slides? Yes your vehicle skews and slides all over the place. Binary liquid explosives used as propellants exert massive forces throughout the breech assembly. As you stated the rounds then travel at a fantastic rate of speed. Fast enough if they do not have some sort of ballistic coating the friction of their passage through air, causes them to literally vaporize shortly after leaving the barrel. So they have to slow those weapon systems down to speeds slightly faster than what we have currently. Which brings us back to a technology that might be finicky and a bit dodgy. So why use it when we have systems that actually works 98% as well at 98% of the speed? Railguns are being developed and field tested...On ships. Until such time as power generation and batteries along with capacitance discharge rates can be made faster, more efficient and much more smaller. They also have the same issues of speeds travelled causing deformation and even melting of the ballistic round. Railguns are very much still a system to be dreamed of. Laser systems have the same technological limitations as railguns. (Discharge rates, coherence/attenuation/propagation rates. recharge or how fast you can fire your weapon system.) The tanks of the future, will have active and passive systems to defend against or defeat ATGMS, and or Main Gun rounds from other Main Battle Tanks. Their propulsion systems might change. Armour plating will change and adapt. Autoloaders or even "cassette" style munition systems for an auto cannon might be developed. Here is something many forget. Tanks are machines. Complex machines designed to overcome obstacles and kill people in a variety of ways. But because they are machines, they require maintenance. Oftentimes massive amounts of maintenance. And until such time as robotics remain at the level they are at... this means people to fix the tank when it breaks. Oftentimes it can be fixing a simple thing in the field which means you can keep on fighting. But if you have Google Tank. when it breaks or is damaged it is out of the game. I don't see tanks leaving the battlefield anytime soon. I do however see fewer countries able to afford them, and an ensuing arms race to defeat all the developments currently being poured into modern tank designs.

[@peerun9984]

Are you saying that they wouldn't add breaks on a hover tank?

[@malnutritionboy]

David Baker Depleted Uranium Kinetic Penetrators

[@NMMojavePoet]

Swazi-APFSDS. Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabots. Many have DU cores. There is this little button on the Ammo Select panel to use one. :-D

[@baronunderbeit7723]

i sort of assume there are computerized stability controls to deal with stuff like that. " repulsive force stability control"

[@NMMojavePoet]

How?

[@Caldera01]

Walking tanks with a rail gun you say? *Gruffy groany voice: "Metal Gear!?"

[@pauljoman]

METAL GEAR?!?!

[@cdgonepotatoes4219]

*_METAL GEAR!!!!!_*

[@Oujouj426]

Caldera A bipedal tank?!

[@dingleberryliespewer3177]

shagohod?

[@capitantomate9014]

Caldera a walking tank???

[@captainclawlie239]

I didn't realize how old this was until I read the description and saw "My longest video to date"

[@matsv201]

infrared and thermal imagin is to words for The same thing. what you are thinking about is passive and active IR. there is also light amplification That work in The visual spectrum

[@matsv201]

rail Guns dont realy need a lot of power, but rather a lot of energi. how much power you need depens on how often The cannon should be fired. A rail Gun is fairly efficent. IF I remeber corecting about 60% compared to just a few procent of a normal cannon. The techology is all here. its really The implementation are to come

[@carltonlee17]

matsv201 engrish bruh

[@bsquared3809]

One big problem with rail guns, is the wear and tear on the magnets along the launcher. The powerful oscillating magnetic fields along with the massive recoil wreck havoc on them.

[@2ebarman]

+matsv201 You got that energy and power thing wrong way around m8

[@ddegn]

"infrared and thermal imagin is to words for The same thing." This is unfortunate because near IR and far IR require very different sensors. Infrared and thermal imaging can also be two words for completely different things. It just depends what sort of "infrared" is meant.

[@salottin]

AAH-DIBLE

[@bachanator]

Stanley!

[@antiisocial]

I heard Aah-dibble

[@neandercan]

edible??

[@PowerPAOK]

I thought I was having a stroke when the "audible" diegetic sound started.

[@leiffitzsimmonsfrey1272]

The Canadian Coast Guard has a few hovercraft. They're very fast, reasonably armored (yes, there are pirates in Canada), and are able to drive onto land, making logistics quite a bit easier.

[@bootsontheground4913]

Aye sir all up and down the Saskatchewan river

[@anisalikhan]

Where are these pirates in Canada?! I live in Canada and I haven’t seen pirate one. I feel a bit let down if I’m honest

[@leiffitzsimmonsfrey4923]

​@@bootsontheground4913 Stealing wheat, and barley... it's a right mess.

[@Ag3nt0fCha0s]

Canadian pirates?!

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

​@@anisalikhan>>> I bet Canadian pirates always say *_"SORREY."_* 😉

[@elijahtill7734]

an M1 Abrams if hovering, would evenly exert 33 psi of pressure underneath it. An anti-tank mine activates at 350 psi. Any other mine, like an APERS mine would not damage it at all.

[@sageemma]

It would still be vulnerable to magnetic mines and even an APERS mine would probably damage its skirts, which would render it immobile. Another drawback would be the dust it would kick up. However, there is no reason a "hover" version of the tank couldn't also have tracks which would make it mobile even if the skirts were damaged and would make it quite valuable in an amphibious operation...

[@ustanik9921]

@@sageemma tracks are quite heavy which you wouldn't want on a hovering vehicle. Perhaps some back-up tires would be better.

[@Kettenhund31]

If there were hover tanks active in a theatre then AT mines with a much lower triggering pressure would have been deployed negating what ever illusory advantage that the hover tank possessed.

[@Munisk52]

a small mine exploding would most likely trigger the proper anti-armour mine

[@kx7500]

Even then it could just not exert pressure on the areas where it detects mines by increasing pressure everywhere else around the tank

[@VitaminXism]

Did you get paid each time Audible was uttered? Cause if you did, i like your style B)

[@ethandsmeets]

Vitamin only if he makes the utter audible 😉

[@Afrikaans36]

6:00 Lloyd you're sort of right here. One eye is connected to both parts of the brain though. Each half of the brain only gets input from half of the visual field. Each eye gives you just a little bit of information about the other side of the visual field, right? Most nerve fibers cross over at the optic chiasm, but some stay on the same side if they encode information from the photoreceptors in one eye which are "seeing" things on the opposite side of the visual field. So, by the time you hit the level of the cortex, information is already divided neatly between halves of the visual field. Each half of the brain is getting 50% of the picture, but the eye itself is getting say 30% of what's going on on the other side of the visual field too.

[@A.Lifecraft]

"You can't shoot a jelly off a table" - lol, this sounds like a german proverb. If someone is about to start pointless and stupid work, you tell them "You could as well try nailing a jelly to the wall!". There is also a specific berlin version to this which is "You could sew a button to your cheek and turn it to tune in on RIAS" (RIAS = Radio In American Sector, allied post-war broadcast that eventually evolved into Radio-Berlin-Brandenburg or RBB).

[@KuDastardly]

Dude, you should've included a clip from the movie Sgt. Bilko in which it showed one severe flaw on a hovertank, recoil!

[@lockesnode1477]

That could probably be overcome with a balanced recoil piston located on the barrel.

[@Markle2k]

It's an issue if you aren't travelling in the same direction you are shooting, but remember that the key newtonian word is *equal*. The tank still outweighs the shell by a massive fraction and will be accelerated to a much lower opposing velocity.

[@SonnyKnutson]

If they made systems to make huge ships "anti wave" when the weather is bad. I think they can create a recoil reducing system good enough for the hovertank. You have to realize that the hovers today are really old. It's not a technology that has been greatly pursued in recent years.

[@maxmustermann-ie6ic]

Sonny Knutson Sorry but hover tanks are nonsense where is the massive benefit they bring that outweighs all the huge problems? I can't see any really apart from mines but mines can be triggered magnetically or via a radio connection with someone watching the tank and triggering the trap at the right moment

[@Markle2k]

max mustermann They make great amphibious landing craft. That's why every large army has "hover tanks" if they have amphibious assault troops or marines.

[@lewiskeats9911]

"I've looked at...penetration" sorry but this made me laugh a bit 😂

[@lordjub-jub5254]

Lewis Keats *penetration tables

[@DRsideburns]

"If youve got an *extremely* hard... erm... missile" lol poor Lloyd this video is full of this stuff. And the hand gestures just sell it xD

[@DRsideburns]

"There's still the danger that you're going so fast and so hard that you go all the way through" D: D: D:

[@davidbodor1762]

You should watch the "Using the butt" video from Scholagladiatoria. It's about bayonets, penetration and using the butt, of a weapon...

[@zakariassjobergdahlen5936]

That short pause before "penetration" was excellent.

[@Sammedine]

Maybe the tank of the future will use a pommel launcher.

[@SudsyMedusa53]

I pray the world never stoops to develop such weapons of mass destruction. Are nukes not enough? Has not enough death been wrought? The pommel launcher would truly revolutionize war, but at what cost?

[@ScienceDiscoverer]

Pommel MG Railgun!

[@sonicmik]

It would end war rightly.

[@h0lx]

what, with electric unscrewing and all?

[@brodaviing6617]

A pommel launching Spandau MG with a katana bayonet.. Oh the terror!

[@MrYTGuy1]

Imagine the recoil from firing a hover tank lol

[@ACIDRAIN2142]

Hahaha it would probably roll over lol

[@nolanturner5607]

Might have to stop and drop to fire, or have quick deploy/retract stabilizer legs/roller wheels or spheres.

[@someweeb3650]

>Image intensifiers are bad because they're big and bulky, though there are some that fit in goggles >Thermal imaging is cool, while big and bulky, you could fit some bulk into a tank.

[@amok7676]

Lindy, a few notes on (British) tank ammunition; firstly an item of ammunition that carries a payload to it's target (perhaps a high explosive filling) is called a Shell, whereas an item of ammunition that uses purely kinetic energy for it's attack is called Shot. The phenomenon of shot breaking up on striking the target is called Shot Shatter; this problem was overcome fairly quickly by the addition of a softer metal cap to the front of the Shot; this has the effect of reducing (almost completely) Shot Shatter by reducing the shock of striking the target without unduly affecting penetration, but unfortunately it reduced the velocity of the Shot because of the extra drag it introduced. So, yet another cap was added to the front of the Shot to give it an aerodynamic profice, this was called the Armour Piercing Capped, Ballistic Capped Shot (APCBC). In later Shot, such as the current in use APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot), Shot Shatter was found not to be a problem because the forward velocity of the shot is greater than the velocity of the shock wave caused by striking the target travelling rearwards through the metal of the penetrator - the shot will shatter once the rearwards travelling shockwave reaches the rear end of the shot. However, if the shot has already penetrated the target before the shockwave reaches the back of the Shot it doesn't matter. Also, these modern Anti-Tank Shot rounds do not rely on the break up of the Shot inside the target for their target effect; the high velocity of penetration causes a massive overpressure inside the target which is accompanied by adiabatic heating - anything soft inside the tank (the crew and the proppeling charges) will first be assaulted by a huge amount of pressure and what is left will catch fire!

[@saltofpetra-4502]

And then APFSDSDU was born.

[@iatsd]

Saltofpetra - DU is just a cheaper alternative to tungsten. it's nothing magical, no matter how much the fanbois want it to be.

[@iatsd]

Amok 767 You do, of course, realise that Lloyd will ignore anything that interferes with his idea of how things work? He's ~50 years behind current technology and his understanding of it just doesn't admit modern reality.

[@CpuAreStupid]

Saltofpetra - what does DU stand for?

[@warrenokuma7264]

Depleted Uranium.

[@alexanderreusens7633]

About the hovertanks: mythbusters have confirmed, Hovercraft can hover over an anti-vehicle minefield without problems

[@harveythompson3161]

yeah theres a few demos of hover vehicles going over eggs its some simple physics

[@mikesavage8793]

A heavily armoured hover tank would have a correspondingly heavier footprint, enough to set off a light vehicle mine as well as anti-personell mines. Even if it only set off the AP mines, the shrapnel would shred the skirt and ground the vehicle.

[@kimnylandmathisen]

alexander reusens I was thinking about that to... but i don't now about the heavy armor part...

[@capitantomate9014]

alexander reusens but not over a trench

[@kimnylandmathisen]

***** but they used them to. Not only anti tank

[@somnorila9913]

24:58 I'd say that those "other things", being a SF tank, are anti gravity engines or whatever. That give the effect of magnetic push only that it's gravity. So not only that we can reproduce gravity, switching it on or off, we can reverse it on a variable force that we require to hover or fly. All of this without mass fluctuation, with only a bit of energy needed and of course without affecting the crew or any other objects on the ground.

[@pillagius]

Well, tanks pretty much outlived their usefulness... TIME FOR GIANT ROBOTS!

[@Horesmi]

Alex S Jiant robots dont work. Oh, SPOILERS

[@pillagius]

AlHoresmi NOOOOOOOOO!!!!... Even Metal Gears?

[@Horesmi]

Alex S yup, none of them

[@pillagius]

But-but! Shagohod! Soviets already developed it and been testing it in 80s!.. Though there are rumors that some american spy blew it up and the project was closed... But still!

[@pillagius]

***** yeah. Wait... They also have walking tanks! :D

[@snapqueen491]

The weird thing is. The tanks we have now were Sci-Fi in the past. You know what i mean? ;)

[@RuSosan]

The tanks we have now would've been *"DEMONS"* a couple of centuries back, methinks. :D

[@snapqueen491]

RuSosan, i want too see the look on their faces when they see a tank coming from a distance in Medival time.

[@BROODxBELEG]

i somehow feel like playing civ now...

[@derptomistic]

If you went back in time and told anybody about any of the things we have today, they'd probably laugh at you. Why do I feel like I shouldn't be laughing at the idea of hover-tanks with quad railguns anymore?

[@andreibaciu7518]

They would probably think it's a dragon. The muzzle flash is the fire, it is made of metal which sort of looks like scales especially if you're considering the composite armor on an Abrams and it makes rumbling noises.

[@andorfedra]

The US Army has used (and may still use) Depleted Uranium Sabo-Darts in the M1 Abrams. the density of Depleted Uranium makes such darts a supremely effective armor piercing round, as such, that is their primary use.

[@simongr63]

They also self-sharpen on contact with armour

[@billytheshoebill5364]

Almost every tanks use the Depleted Uranium as their armor piercing rounds

[@owenkegg5608]

24:05 This "whee!" fills me with joy

[@LionofCaliban]

Eh..... kinda. There's three things I see that are going to actively improve over the next few years, next generation of tanks. Protection - It's not just going to be about armour, it's going to be a multispectrum protection package. I mean things like Active Protection systems. You won't just see passive measures or ERA, but systems that actively track, engage incoming projectiles, before the cage armour, before the ERA, all of that assuming you can even lock onto the tank in the first place. So we might also see reduced thermal profiles and signal discipline, so as not to give away their position in the first place. Firepower - the issue is that gun technology is often in competition with armour technology. If armour technology develops, so will gun technology. So the question is less method of delivery, but what the expected threat is. Theoretically, if we do see gauss/coilgun/rail guns, all of which are electromagnetic in nature, we don't notable advance any sort of protection (rounds are already inert and so they would be in railguns). I think what we are going to see in the next generation of penetrators, ie Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Disgarding Shot/Sabot rounds, is multi stage munitions, that can still strike the target after some form of protection system, such as ERA. Another option is a round that has multiple diversionary sections, to distract active protection systems from the actual penetrator. So in theory, we could see a return to chemical based explosives or some form of reactive material to penetrate. As for the too much velocity is a bad thing, well, tell that to the tank crew in Gulf War 1 who knocked out two Iraqi T72's with one shot. Again, it's about what the gun is shooting at more than anything else. Command and control - Command and control of a tank is very much the challenge of any tank designer. It's not just about the systems you use to drive it, to aim the gun or to load it. It's about how the crew can work it. Potential paths including higher degrees of automation, including autoloaders, computer assist systems, RADAR warning systems, remotely operated secondary weapons systems and again, multispectrum tools. As well as that, we might consider direct satellite interactions. Finding the target is a challenge, but if you've got an overhead view, it becomes much easier. Especially if you can co-ordinate information directly into the sighting mechanisms. Not only that, transferring this information between the crew and managing that flow of information is going to become a big issue. You don't need your driver to know the location of every target, but friendly vehicles and infantry? Certainly. If the gunner needs to co-ordinate with the platoon, or company, it needs to be a clear signal. Not only that, in the case of active protection systems, you might want to have multiple guns on target. Knowing who is aiming at who, makes this easier. I'd also consider this a way to a call in and manage divisional assets, MLRS systems, long range artillery and even close air support. Down the line, if we also considering low grade conflict against armoured, mechanised forces, we may also have access to the enemy communication channels from overhead electronic attack or strike assets. As a side note, we could also add drone intelligence feeds or the ability to control drones as part of a mobile strike force.

[@MeowMeowDeathRay]

Armour penetrator being too fast is actually a thing. Even with a ballistic cap it may still shatter upon impact if the velocity is too high.

[@MeowMeowDeathRay]

And i think your points exactly illustrate why today's generation of tanks may be the very last. All those things can be upgraded upon existing tanks. And i doubt the physical chassis design will ever get much better than the t14

[@andrewfortune804]

I have a vague mental image of something like a landbound apache. vertical launched hellfire cells ..a remote turret with a 30mm and 7.62 chaingun ,, periscope with a laser

[@LionofCaliban]

Andrew Fortune Not a bad idea, but it still has issues. Namely, all it's some software to allow the 30mm gun, or even the 7.62 to engage incoming missiles. Add in some oblique angles and odd shapes, so that homing RADAR, lasers want to 'slide' off the tank and reduce the effect of any weapon strike. I think the big issue is more going to be the nature of the tank in operations. Tank on tank combat is a given, but the question is more the how of tank on tank combat. We can't make any bets on that, especially with composite materials and more. Lobbing missiles at each other is what I think is the less likely option. Gun technology may be reduced in size, reduced in calibre. We may see experimentation in smaller calibres for main guns. More ammunition carried and less obvious blast always a good thing.

[@LionofCaliban]

+PierreDolphin The T14 still has pretty big issues for a war fighting vehicle. Fine the crew is more protected, but maintenance of the gun and autoloader systems, maintenance of other components becomes that much harder as well. A focus on electronic systems means the need to maintain and harden those systems. What it gains in some aspects, it loses in others. Like in everything, trade offs and limitations. As to answer the question of penetrators and velocity, maybe. It's a hard thing to talk about, especially in the future. We have composite material and far more technology than just to be putting hardened caps on rounds. More SABOT/APSDS shot just look plain weird, but the effect can't be doubted. Especially ones tipped with depleted uranium. That does cause fire and it does cause explosions, if propellant goes up, secondary explosions. It may simply be enough to drive a crew from a vehicle. The goal isn't to leave nothing but burning vehicles, it's to make the vehicle unfightable. Large calibre holes through it and causing the vibrating the hell of all those delicate sights, might be enough. Disabling a vehicle to prevent it from being used, is great. Stopping one gun shooting at you, is more than enough. The more you say what penetrators will do, the more you need to define. Especially when you consider that shot these days are composite materials, just like the armour.

[@Kettenhund31]

Oddly enough you never mentioned the potential for improving armour... This was the bit that I was waiting for.

[@caralhoman]

26:45 - the part about momentum and so... Yeh, that is a problem for the ball-shaped wheels for cars too. Cars that ride on balls for wheels are a fantastic idea for parking and other stuff about maneuvering slow, but once going onward fast you got a problem to change movement direction. They tend to just turn their facing and remaining with same trajectory : they spin while moving a straight line.

[@timbaumann9046]

I was in the U.S. Long Range Recon Infantry back in 1985 and I had an issued pair of personal starlight goggles from 1985-87... now today they are even better then back then but as it is even then I could see SOOOOO well while driving at night. And if a helicopter was in the area or landing I could see VERY clearly the rotor blades tips all lit up almost as if it was on "fire". It was very cool indeed!

[@Frexican54]

8:20 I'm pretty sure using lasers to blind enemy combatants is illegal in the Geneva accords or some other international agreement.

[@markgrehan3726]

Walter Johnson Yeah same here but he may have meant blind the enemy crew by aiming a laser at their vehicle sights destroying them as opposed to burning out their eyeballs, well hopefully.

[@Frexican54]

.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons?oldformat=true

[@doomjoon_zmajich]

It's only for permanent blindness though, I doubt that pointing a laser at someone's sights could really do that. Besides, the sheer fact that the tank would have optic sights means that the prohibit is invalid, as it only seems to apply for lasers used on the naked eye.

[@pantherace1000]

the Geneva convention is more like guide lines.....in every war since they where signed one or both parties involved in any given conflict either followed them only when it was convenient or out right ignored them.

[@dylang2255]

The Geneva Conventions only apply the the losers. The winners can do whatever the fuck they want because who is going to stop them?

[@Kirhean]

You may find the Hammer's Slammers series of books by David Drake to be interesting. Obviously a terrible tank design, what with ground effect hovering and plasma weapons, but fun to read nonetheless. I particularly like how gory and ugly battle is in his books, he actually saw combat in vietnam in a tank crew...so he writes from experience.

[@gwalchmai21]

Ah, I was waiting for someone to mention this, as it was my very first thought during this video! Many of his questions and suppositions have been covered thoroughly in the Drake series of books featuring the Bolo tanks. Although Drakes's big premise for all of it was the development of the straight-line plasma discharge weaponry. A near-light speed weapon of any type (so long as it had reasonable destructive force) would immediately make all aircraft obsolete and bring back the tank. Some of the other things in Drake's work, like fusion power, collapsed molecular armor, super dense projectiles, advanced electronics, AI, etc., were clearly just projecting tech we already have down the road a bit...totally believable. I also agree that the best part of his writing was the gritty realism of war, how it's fought, and what it does to people--all of which are not typical of most sci-fi. Oh, and not all Bolo tanks in Drake's writing used hover capabilities, most early ones were tracked, usually multi-tracked, but were extremely massive. The "large target" syndrome was mitigated by the electronic warfare, huge armament, and heavy armor. The hover types all had the very drawbacks that Lloyd mentioned, and Drake takes that into account. And we're already learning lots about how velocity plays into penetration and explosive power as newer generations of railguns are developed--once your projectile is going fast enough, it's going to liberate its energy on the first solid thing it hits, which is how a solid bar of tungsten can cause an impressive explosion when it's flying fast enough and hits a target. So the heavier you can make a super-fast projectile, the better results at the end, which is why we already use depleted uranium slugs in aircraft and shipboard guns, and future slugs will likely be depleted trans-uranic projectiles. It's all quite fun to consider!

[@bjornstromberg4481]

Ground effect hovering could be perfectly reasonable with the sci-fi nuclear batteries used in the series. You'll probably want wheels on hydraulic stilts though.

[@kldaly1474]

i love that series...what a great movie that would make

[@ace448]

David Weber has a good set of Bolo books. Don’t forget the Bill AI gestalt. The tactical computers in them also help.

[@jimwagner6260]

Nice to see someone else who has read his series

[@jod125]

I love the dubbing of *AUDIBLE!*

[@macbeth8393]

Lloyd I can't express the hole you briefly pull me out of when I watch your videos. But I wish I could tell you just how much good you do me. The fear and unease I experience on a daily basis is matched only by the sense of calm and joy your videos bring me on an equally frequent time frame. I don't understand how, but thoughts of suicide are reduced to a manageable humm. If I had money to offer you, it would be in your pocket, but I don't so instead I offer you my thanks. Thank you for existing. Thank you for deciding to do what you do! Thank you Lloyd, You will never understand the difference you made in my life, but understand this: It was massive! Thank you!!!!!!!!!

[@longtimber]

I've heard it said many thanks times, but never believed it. I'm convinced now quite convinced; tea does have more caffeine than coffee. Well done. Keep up the good work Mr. Beige.

[@yourseatatthetable]

Throughout history it's been a close competition. Armor vs anti-armor. Truth is, as far as I'm concerned, armored combat vehicles and the ultimate of that concept, the 'tank', in one form or another, will always exist. Their's a well documented need for heavy combat vehicles on the battlefield and that will be just as true as it was during the middle ages with it's armored knights and their massed charges, as it is in the current era. I've had this discussion with a few people over the years; sometimes rather heated discussions at that. The tank brings options to the battle commander that are rather hard to replace.

[@Mahbu]

On the topic of diamond, diamond actually isn't scarce from my understanding. The only reason it seems that way is the cartels that govern the diamond trade.

[@johnharvey5412]

Mahbu right, but it doesn't come in the sizes that we'd need it for tank rounds. We'd need to be able to make a big diamond bullet, and those just don't exist yet.

[@pantherace1000]

diamonds are one of the most common stones..... De Beers has limited the supply to the market to artificially increase the value of the stone.

[@QuizmasterLaw]

im not sure that depleted uranium, titanium, or even tungsten are that inferior to diamonds at penetrating.

[@shi01]

Actually diamond wouldn't made such good anti tank projectiles. It isn't dense enough. One of the reasons depleted uranium or tungsten carbide is used is that they have a high density. Diamond on the other hand only has density of about 3.52g/cm^3. This means it would lose it's kinetic energy really fast after the projetile has left the barrel.

[@Blox117]

great comments from +Sagrotan and +shi0, I was going to mention the same thing.

[@thegreatskinkpriest8104]

“There may come a point that you get so hard and fast that it explodes on the outside and doesn’t penetrate” 😉😉😉