Ukraine & T-72: The death of the tank? | The Tank Museum

Tank Museum Curator, David Willey explores the current conflict in Ukraine and the performance of the T-72 tank; putting it into historical context and exploring other times during the last hundred years when the death of the tank has been predicted.
Consider becoming a Patreon Supporter today: www.patreon.com/tankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:40 | Wider context
11:01 | Tanks in History
With thanks to the sources, we’ve used in this film. We’ve tried our best to credit where we’ve been able, but please do comment if you see something we’ve missed.
Credits:
warontherocks.com, autoevolution.com, oryxspioenkop.com, Ed Cumming - Daily Telegraph, mvs.gov.ua., US National Archives, Ukrainian 25th Airborne, army.inform.com.ua, Wikicommons
#tankmuseum #Ukraine #DavidWilley

[@thetankmuseum]

Let us know your thoughts on this week's content.

[@Masada1911]

It’s unexpected for me to see you guys do something from current events.

[@truckerallikatuk]

Excellent video. As Chieftain said, there's nothing out there that can do what a tank does. Remember that the PanzerGrenadier briefings from WWII concentrated on how vulnerable tanks can be. They've never been invulnerable, and people who think they are will always call tanks obsolete when a soldier with an anti-tank weapon blows them up. Tanks still have a place, because no gunship or NLAW can do what a tank does, and a tank can kill a tank quicker than a Javelin can.

[@l3w1scal11]

Tanks aren't obsolete. Just the Russians aren't using them right in Ukraine. You need infantry to support the tanks someone Russia isnt doing.

[@tacomas9602]

As always, your content is GREAT!

[@ZuluFoxtrotBEAR]

Tanks haven't even reached their zenith yet! Proper training and tactics is key. Remember, it's complacency that kills. Well, that and Saint Javelin and Saint NLAW...

[@iuliandragomir1]

Hello! I am from Romania. In 1982 i was in the army . We had T55 tanks but was a special battalion with T72. I understand that this tank was upgraded but is like my grandmother dressed in bikinny

[@aritakalo8011]

Also they are doing really basic mistakes. That clip in this video in the beginning of the tank getting completely blown up. That seems to just be simple track mine or something like that. Sure big load out track mine (probably a satchel of multiple track mines, since just the initial blast is so huge even before the tank explodes). However who in their right mind... drives over clearly predictable and clearly constrained stream crossing without expecting it to be mined. The tank had no rollers, no mine plow, no infantry sappers checking the choke point. Like ofcourse one is going to lose lot of tanks, if one just ..... drives forward and expects enemy to not do all the dirty tricks and ambushes. Instead expecting "we drive forward, they present themselves at other end of this field with their tanks, we at this end, we have gun on gun shoot out. Strongest tanks win". Ehhh... why would anyone send a tank or present themselves, if invader is just stupid enough to drive straight into mines and get their tanks destroyed that way. In that case even having good supply of fuel and ammunition doesn't help. Just means enemy will drive into the mines faster and it has more rounds to secondary explode inside. It also isn't exactly rocket science to demine. Rollers, flails, plow, line charges. However it is slow going ofcourse, but well so is losing every columns first tank as mine stomper every few miles. Not that I mind nor will the Ukrainians. Every tank destroyed on cheap mine is one not needed to be dealt otherwise.

[@hgr.7857]

That is a hilarious analogy, thank you for making my day 1😂😂%

[@Moggy471]

Great comment.

[@shaider1982]

The B52 is one grandma that looks very good in a bikini. 🤣

[@Gary-Seven-and-Isis-in-1968]

Nice.. Does Grandmother have Instagram?

[@johnwest7993]

I drove old M47 tanks that I turned into autonomous vehicles for advanced weapons tests. I watched Hellfire missiles shot right down open hatches. When I was back home I told my dad, an old WWII tanker who had fought Rommel's tankers in N. Africa all about the complete death of tanks due to modern technology. He listened to my descriptions of the rapid, remote destruction of my tanks. Then he said to me, "John, in a real war, a lot of the fancy stuff breaks down after the first week, and a good rain or snow. War always comes down to one man trying to kill another. And that's when you really don't want to hear the sound of clanking tracks coming up over the hill."

[@Cristi323]

Well... your dad really changed my perspective on things. I never though about it this way.

[@AndyMc1952]

I actually can visualise this comment somehow.

[@peterdolan3506]

There are many Russians who wish that they had never ever seen the inside of a tank-if they had another chance at this life they would most definitely choose to sit on top of the hill and wait for clanking tracks especially if they had a harpoon handy

[@brentparks3669]

Your dad was a wise man that analogy couldn’t be more true! The Russians are using outdated tactics and clearly haven’t trains against modern battlefield technology.

[@toprob20]

Your dad is a wise man. Tank is always better than no tank. There's always a place for a big boom.

[@pjrebordao]

What surprises me frequently in the videos available online, is the sheer number of times that an MBT or a people carrier is caught alone without any support either from other armoured vehicles and/or infantry.

[@zokikostadinov7061]

those are probing units..they go to scout ..thts why theres no infantry ..sometimes they get destroyed during that sometimes they dont

[@rdg665]

@@zokikostadinov7061Politically correct term for canon fodder

[@Stompedinthenuts]

@@rdg665 And that is the reason why no one likes probing operations

[@paullakowski2509]

​@@Stompedinthenuts isn't that what mini drones would be for?

[@jac1207]

@@zokikostadinov7061 you recon with MBT's?

[@SuiLagadema]

I'm speaking from my experience as a former infantry man in Chile. No, the tank is not dead; it's the tactics the russian forces use for them. We work under the combined arms doctrine and having a tank supporting you it's a HUUUGE force multiplier. What's cheaper and faster, having a forward air controller guide an F16 or your platoon leader telling a tanker "I need an HE round on the blue house"?

[@12sleep23]

You are sounding like a Soviet general

[@Mandrak789]

@@12sleep23 he is right, though... only some of us who were (un)lucky to find themselves in war as common duster, know to appreciate heavy armor watching your back

[@demonmonsterdave]

All the thousands of generals in Russia for the past century have never even considered what you know from experience. That's why they send their one tank alone without any support every time. Now tell me what is wrong with this picture?

[@TheBob3759]

Wish Chile could be in a war to test your theory.

[@Ozaron]

@@TheBob3759 Especially just for science, that isn't the kind of thing you wish on a group of people.

[@silentotto5099]

"The Chieftan" made a video addressing this point. His take was that doctrine will dictate the continued use of the tank. For an army to take ground, it needs the ability to overcome certain types of defenses and the tank is currently the only weapons system which can provide that capability. He pointed out that infantry are vulnerable to almost everything on a battlefield and that hasn't make infantry obsolete because there are certain things on a battlefield that only infantry can do. He suggested that the increased vulnerability of tanks to current weapons systems will likely result in improved tank designs and tactical doctrine that takes the greater risk of man portable anti-tank systems into account. But, unless something is developed which can do the job tanks are currently tasked with doing, they'll remain on the battlefield even at an increased risk of destruction. I find it difficult to find a flaw in his reasoning.

[@yonghominale8884]

Flaw 1 The Doctrine of holding ground. That's just not true anymore. The Taliban and the NVA never held much ground but they still won. The US easily invaded Iraq but they couldn't stop the insurrection. It's easier and cheaper to break the enemies will to fight. Flaw 2 Improper comparison. The US army is the smallest it has been in decades. To survive, infantry has to be extremely specialized. They are no longer main punch of an army for over a hundred years. Also politics NOT tactics means infantry still has to be used. It's easier to kill infantry with chemical weapons or cluster munition but left leaning bleeding hearts don't want to use those weapons (think of the children my behind). Why are Russian trying to conqure Kviv when they can Nuke it without any additional consequences. Also a replacement is in the works, Drones. Flaw 3 Building a better tanks. Tank have hit a wall thanks to their weight. M1A1 SepV3 weighs over 70 tons. It's nearly impossible to send it anywhere quickly. Most bridges can't support that much weight. Also rockets may be more expensive but they are simple and lightweight. For the weight of 1 M1A1 you could send 1000 Javelins.

[@Valorius]

@@yonghominale8884 the US did stop the insurgency.

[@Valorius]

@@yonghominale8884 An m1 with an autoloader would shed 10 tons.

[@reubensandwich9249]

It's not the end of the tank, it just feels like it's the end of it being a super weapon mentality. Add to the fact it's been 30 years since the last conventional warfare conflict ('92 Gulf War) and 50 years from the last major conventional warfare conflict (October war), doctrines, weapons, and adaptations change.

[@Valorius]

@@reubensandwich9249 it has never been a super weapon to professionals. It is one tool in the toolbox. When used properly it has no peer when used incorrectly it is extremely vulnerable and prone to destruction. Just like every other combined-arm.

[@juhall]

As a college history professor, the old saying about Russia still seems to be true. Russia is never as strong as it appears, but, at the same time, Russia is never as weak as it appears. Good video

[@JohnYoo39]

Don't invade Russia. Don't invade, Russia. Both true phrases.

[@allanmartin1216]

Alot of their power, comes from the image of their power.

[@TheBob3759]

Hitler found that out.

[@ared4579]

@@JohnYoo39 nice one

[@DavidtheNorseman]

The Russians have depth of geography and lots of difficult terrain so defense is easy unless your enemies are familiar with great distances and quick movement combined with cutting the head off the beast rather than reducing every town/hamlet/city. The Mongols understood how to deal with it. Neither the French nor the Germans every really understood the geographical size of Russia. Right now Russian leadership corruption combined with fairly catastrophic demographics weaken them. No one has any interest in invading Russia, they just don't want to be Russian slave states which infuriates the Imperialistic side of Russia....Alex Stubb, former Finish PM has some interesting thoughts on Russia today kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4Ldo5-bgLpseJI&ab_channel=STGSeries

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

If you have an impressively large tank force, you need an even more impressive logistics and repair force.

[@alamore5084]

Well said!

[@walt_man]

Yup!

[@Seelenverheizer]

and anti air support and Helicopters. Combined arms is what is needed nowadays.

[@paulmurgatroyd6372]

@@Seelenverheizer Yeah, I was just thinking logistically about basic support for the tanks, and it ends up being a hell of a lot of vehicles and men.

[@jenifferschmitz8618]

you need training programs for technicians both military and civilian

[@masaukochitsamba7808]

I liked the fact that you quoted one of the best modern generals to have lived, "Iron" Mike Tyson, in this documentary. "Everyone has a plan until their punched in the face"😂

[@travispluid3603]

There will never really be an end of the tank. There will only ever be an end of a specific style of tank tactics, or a specific design philosophy.

[@travispluid3603]

@Gorgeous George Possibly. I have a feeling that they'll become at least more automated. Perhaps one commander will be able to operate an entire tank, either remotely or in-situ. At least, that'll be the case for the nations that are advanced enough to progress. It's obvious that Russia won't be.

[@kenoliver8913]

I think armour-led offensives are at an end. They're just too conspicuous a target and massed tanks require massive and very vulnerable logistics - Russian logistic failure would not have mattered nearly so much if they had not tried a traditional blitzkrieg. The tank is still useful as infantry support though, especially in urban combat. You just don't need a lot of them.

[@stefanguels]

This is not the end of the tank, but the end of the Blitzkrieg Doctrine associated with any armoured force from the 1930's to the 2000's. Desert Storm was probably the last time that you could send in a large tank army to exploit the preparation by the Air Force in the Blitzkrieg manner. The open flanks of quick unaccompanied tank advances have gone far too risky , so tanks have to become mobile bunkers again.

[@jmusicca7779]

@Gorgeous George and then well take unmanned vacations in a drone and live the holiday on google streetview

[@jmusicca7779]

also.. i honestly think this war teaches us nothing about tank warfare, i would get the hell away too if i was sent to invade an independent democratic country for no damn reason.

[@martinjacobsen2992]

After 1919 it was stated that the tank was Obsolete, as the conditions that made it nessecary would never come to pass again, and litteraly after every war since then, people have called it Obsolete, and in 100 years, they will continue to call it obsolete. Yet the fact remains, a tank is a powerful weapons system that will likely remain for a long while yet.

[@shaider1982]

I read that in Military History Visualized video on this topic.

[@scratchy996]

Networked AI ground and air drones will replace the tank. There is only so much you can do to add armor and weight to a tank until it becomes too big, too heavy and too expensive to be practical.

[@petrkubena]

Yet you are making the same mistake - you are generalizing something that is very uncertain. It really may be that this time it IS different (or maybe tank will stay here for another century as you are saying). Maybe few reasons, why this time it's different: in the past tank defences always grown and tank got heavier and heavier. This path can't continue, ground can't hold any more. Shoulder fired weapons can outrange tank (not in the past). Shoulder fired weapons are now able to strike the weakest point - be it top or anywhere else. That makes heavy frontal armor less useful or even useless. It's no longer feasible to mass produce tank in thousands as it was in the past (tank got super expensive). Tank can no longer hide from a technologically advanced adversary and it became target for long range precision guided artillery and other long range weapons.

[@tanner1111]

Yes... Because in 1919 they had a $30,000 man portable ATGM launcher that could destroy a $3,000,000 machine in one hit. Crushing middle eastern famers who are equipped with AK's and HE RPG's in a tank is one thing, but against well funded militaries with Drones, Attack heli's and the sort is completely different. A tank doesn't survive them scenarios, regardless of ''doctrine'', strategy or infantry support.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@tanner1111 They actually did. There have been multiple points in history including then, where weapons technology outclassed defensive technology for a time. After WW2, with the advent of HEAT weapons that could pen any points of existing tanks while being man portable and long range, the same thing was said. This is another time of that. It will probably be mitigated by the advent of APS. But you realize that having cheap weapons that can destroy something doesn’t make it obsolete. That would be like saying a soldier is obsolete because it costs tens to hundreds of thousands to train them and they can be killed by a bullet that costs cents to make. Something becomes obsolete when another thing can do it’s job better.

[@Brendissimo1]

The integration of all this archive footage is great! Keep it up, please!

[@r0498]

I think people forget that during wars...equipment gets destroyed by the "enemy" regardless of how advanced it is. That's why many are made. It's as if people think it should be absolutely indestructible, otherwise it is inferior.

[@MTBIKEACTION]

Totally agree and also the casualties of the Russian tanks have been exaggerated something very normal in times of war between countries.

[@Br1cht]

Hush now, the BritBongs in UK-istan gets very triggered by the truth these days.

[@smallpenis266]

iirc around 400 something of the tank losses half been captured or abandoned

[@rhino015]

Completely agree. People get caught up in specific technological advancements that they think make something invincible or impossible to shoot down or detect or whatever. And in reality all that really happens is it gives an edge in certain scenarios. But then all the propaganda comes out and people refuse to believe that neither propaganda is correct. It has to be black and white yes or no, winner or loser. War is messy and anything can and will be shot down, or detected, or destroyed, regardless of whatever marketing their side says about it. Like you said, it doesn’t help that numbers for things are completely exaggerated in war by both sides, making the propaganda seem more real if you believe it.

[@Szmiber]

Factful and professional as well. One more reason why I became the friend of the museum

[@tamlandipper29]

Thank you for being a sponsor

[@PrimarchX]

Also, I think the evolution of drones with enhanced-range NLOS antitank weapons will be the next hurdle the tank needs to defend against.

[@jonsouth1545]

true but just like all previous threats they can be countered by combined arms warfare and infantry+artillery integtration. I can easily see a return of gun biased SPAA systems to counter the drone threat.

[@PrimarchX]

@@jonsouth1545 I hear you there. Just as fighter aircraft initially evolved to counter enemy recon flights, we'll see something similar develop for counter drone warfare - be it ground-based, air-based or both. Initial systems are already in limited service...

[@wolfrainexxx]

As soon as Laser Defense Systems become more capable, and affordable, you'll find that aircraft, missiles, and drones are suddenly restricted in the same way that helicopters were when AA became more widespread, and affordable.

[@SoloRenegade]

there is no such thing as an invincible tank

[@thekinginyellow1744]

Directed energy weapons (laser and microwave transmitters ) to soft kill drones already exist and are currently deployed by the US Army in it's Stryker based M-SHORAD vehicle. But the real way to deal with drones is going to be other drones. Drone swarms are already a thing, and soon they will be commonplace on the battlefield, defending against enemy drones.

[@ginne7268]

As a former tanker i always say the tank is as good as his crew.

[@badgerattoadhall]

Or the infantry screening for atgm.

[@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836]

Thats not really true. No matter what, if you have old technology, you cant win. Put 2 of the greatest fighters on earth in an arena. Give one a spear, a shield, and a gambeson. Give the other a modern infantry kit. A rifle, body armor, a helmet, grenades. Guess who will win

[@Justarandomguy492]

@@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836of course the one with the modern equipment wins that’s too far back to compare

[@justandy333]

A very interesting take. I too got swept up with the media reports, thinking this was the end of the tank as we know it. But seeing it pointed out that this has happened many times in the past I've been swung back around to thinking its not the end of the tank afterall. Very well presented argument making us see it from another angle. Well done tank museum, loving your videos.

[@Aetrion]

Units don't become obsolete when someone comes up with something that destroys them. They become obsolete when someone comes up with something that does their job better. Battleships didn't disappear because someone invented torpedoes, they disappeared because carriers and missile cruisers could drop munitions on targets from further away and with more precision. Heck, soldiers haven't disappeared just because someone invented bullets. So until someone invents a thing that has better direct fire capabilities than a tank there will always be some version of the tank. Might look a bit different, but at the end of the day, military units are defined by their capabilities not their defenses, and the tank offers something no other unit does right now.

[@derbasierte4194]

You obviously have a good point, however, even though Im not an expert, I think you're not entirely right. Armour for infantry for example disappeared because of guns and the Armour being far too expensive for large scale use. This comparison makes even more sense due to tanks being a bit kinda like armour. Armour wasn't replaced by anything better. Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.

[@Asbjoern]

@@derbasierte4194 mate you are spewing rubbish. Armour disappeared because bullets could penetrate. But then armour that could withstand hits from bullet was invented and used from the early adoption of guns till today. Tanks don't just offer armour for a few people. They offer the uppertunity to kill anything in a huge radius, and basically lock down several kilometers of frontline. For this nothing beats a tank. Yes they can be defeated but a properly defended tank (combined arms) is very hard to hit.

[@Aetrion]

@@derbasierte4194 My point is that having armor is not the mission critical element of a tank. Having powerful direct fire capability on a highly mobile platform is. If armor becomes irrelevant to that equation because there are too many weapons that defeat traditional armor but you still need a mobile cannon then the tank isn't obsolete, it's just more vulnerable and needs to update its defenses and tactics.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@derbasierte4194 The word "Bullet Proof" comes from steel breastplates that were shot with firearms to PROVE that they could stop a bullet. Armor has always been kind of rare on the battlefield due to cost, but it NEVER went away. In the 20s in the US, you could buy a bulletproof vest for $25.

[@tamlandipper29]

Good point, but you can also have a utility deadlock, where the capability is unable to act decisively. Vis cavalry in 1915.

[@Thekalllllllll]

Seems to me, that the problem has always been lack of infantry support around the tanks - is what caused them to be ineffective in these examples. A tank is easy to flank without it being supported by infantry

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Yes and no. The videos we see are knocked out tanks, which ARE tanks that did not have good infantry support. Those that DID see good infantry support are NOT knocked out video opportunities, because they are not knocked out. A variation of survivor bias.

[@32shumble]

Infantry support was a practical thing when the range of hand-held AT weapons was 200 meters max.

[@32shumble]

@@princeofcupspoc9073 Or, conversely, infantry support simply doesn't work when the hand-held AT weapon has a range of a kilometre or more...

[@johnbox271]

Infantry support as now tactically conceived will not save tanks. A Russian BTG has around 200 infantry men to protect it from the opposing Javelin armed infantry men (approximately 2 miles range). The effective range of man portable AT missiles will increase and leave your own protective Infantry deploying far out side the effective range of your tank support. (and you will need a much large proportion of Infantry to armored vehicles). A Russian BTG has limited ability to protect the vehicle (all around defense), lacking ability to recon an opposing force, or should the find the ability to suppress them.

[@danielmocsny5066]

Yes, it will be hard to send an infantry screen far enough ahead of your tanks to counter a concealed enemy armed with Javelins having a 4,000 m range. It will be virtually impossible for infantry to screen out to the 40,000 m range of an enemy armed with Switchblade 600s. Infantry won't protect friendly tanks from enemy infantry with the latest anti-tank weapons. Only some sort of active defense to shoot down incoming missiles and suicide drones might do that. Tanks may require protection from accompanying vehicles that specialize in that sort of small-scale air defense.

[@markus717]

We can simplify greatly: tanks CANNOT be used without infantry. Simple. The tanks protect the infantry, take out machine gun nests and everything else for the infantry. In return, the infantry must be IN FRONT of the tanks to protect them from anti-tank weapons. Any questions?

[@ClockworksOfGL]

In urban areas, yes. In the wide open deserts, tanks ARE the army - Infantry is pretty much irrelevant.

[@markus717]

@@ClockworksOfGL of course, there is absolutely no cover in a desert. I was talking about the cities, fields and forests of Ukraine. the balance swings to tanks the more open the field.

[@aeroscout7595]

In the desert, tanks are targets. Unhidden video game targets for missiles fired from stand-off range. But only if you have the missiles.

[@aeroscout7595]

@Aqua Fyre I remember. It's the difference between the US Armour sweep into Iraq / Kuwait and the Iraqi withdrawal along the highway north.

[@ClockworksOfGL]

@@markus717 - What’s happening in Ukraine isn’t a problem with tanks, it’s a problem with Russian tanks. They suck. The armor is decades out of date and they’re notorious for exploding at the drop of a hat. Sorry, the T-72 is a lousy tank to field in 2022, and that’s assuming they’ve actually been equipped properly. But who knows how many ERA blocks are actually working, since crooked generals and oligarchs have skimmed the Russian military dry for years.

[@tadget0566]

Just finished reading about a British Tank regiment from June 1944 to May 1945 their casualty rate within a year was 150% and their main enemy was German infantry with Panzerfausts 🤔 people in the modern era see tank’s especially in movies as invulnerable but they have always had there weaknesses

[@huwtindall7096]

No surprise The Tank Museum has the best breakdown of the use (misuse?) of armour in Ukraine. Very well done guys. Glad to see my donations and purchases going to great content!

[@kidmohair8151]

I too, have found that the military history channels have been the most valuable, if that is the right word, sources on the present invasion mounted by tsar vlad.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

The Chieftan's video was more accurate.

[@henryrollins9177]

@@kidmohair8151 Its a nazzi hunting raid. Do you support nazzis?

[@roderickbeck8859]

@Сергей Захаров You are a Russian troll spreading propaganda.

[@MrJC1]

Its also just great to see a T72 in its natural habitat... where it belongs - the museum. :D.

[@lkjh861]

I served in the Balkans in 1994 with the United Nations and we had a good laugh every time we saw some (already by then) archaic T-34 putter by, pulled out of a museum or off its plinth in front of an army base, because it seemed so utterly useless and suicidal on a battlefield with T-72s and T-55s - that is, right up until we realised, that even a (then) 50 year old T-34 with a couple of blown cylinders was still impervious to bullets, if the other side only had AK-47s and handguns ~ and that is how they were frequently used, against villages that refused to take sides. Heck, even a homemade armored tractor (plenty of those around at that time and place) was as mighty as a King Tiger in WW2 - if the other side only had decency and compassion to defend themselves with. What civilians and armchair generals often forget is, that there is simply not enough tanks, planes, artillery pieces, missiles, drones and so on, to cover every square mile of a frontline, much less warzone - both tactics and strategy is almost always the art of mastering sparse resources to best effect. That's precisely why competent command is so important. The entire rest of the world can be equiped with laser firing hover tanks, for all it matters, but if you are the only one with a pointed stick on your section of frontline and the other side only has a slice of cheese to defend themselves with - you win. A T-72 is plenty fierce against only semi-trained Ukrainian home defense units - if no Javelins are around on that particular day or front section, make no mistake.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

The Israeli used in the war of independence buses with metal plates.

[@Deno2100]

Russian tanks are effective against Ukrainians with javelins as well. The Javelin is completely overrated. All the media coverage around the Javelin and the Turkish drones are just free advertising agendas. Most Russian vehicles that have been destroyed have been destroyed by Ukrainian artillery, not by Javelins or NLAWs. At the same time most Ukrainians that have been getting killed have been being killed by Russian artillery, not by Russian tanks. However the disparity is much smaller on the Russian side. They have been killing Ukrainians with a wider array of weaponry. Whereas the Ukrainians only have hit and run tactics with mortars and artillery at their disposal. Either way it's a wash. The guy in this video does not know what he's talking about, he has taken Ukrainian and NATO propaganda bait hook and sinker. The open source intelligence that he's referring to and that social media war that he is referring to is the only war that the West is winning right now. The economic and physical war is being won by Russia. The US is not trying to bluff its way and lie its way to victory in Ukraine, The strategies just to keep the truth buried long enough that the Ukrainians can be sacrificed on the altar and the US military industrial complex can get paid. Even now the Western media is starting to spoon feed Western populations the new narrative, and it's a stark contrast to the "Ukraine is about to make a push on the Kremlin" nonsense that they've been selling.

[@mcnally211]

@@Deno2100 well said buddy, I was gonna make the same points. This guy is delusional off the NATO kool aid.

[@sirshootalot6400]

That's is why I say the future belongs to "hovertanks" AKA helicopters. They can be where they need to be in minutes while tracked vehicles may need hours if not days depending on terrain and distance. The idea will remain, only the means of transporting the weapons will change.

[@lkjh861]

@@sirshootalot6400 You can't hold land with helicopters - that very much requires boots and/or tracks on the ground, or you have lost control over that territory the moment you fly back to refuel. Tanks are still very much major pivot points for not just conquering territory, but also holding it.

[@andyc280081973]

An excellent tank chat thanks. I remember the Gulf War and events like the Battle of Medina Ridge - and I wonder if tanks will continue but in more specific situations. I'd be interested in a talk about the influence of environments on modern (and historic!) tanks, there's surely a fair bit of influence in the Ukraine war, and there's also recent history that recorded iconic footage of M1's driving in urban areas for example.

[@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836]

Man idk what you tried to say this comment was chaotic

[@fritsmosselman4597]

This is a good analysis in my opinion, thanks. Maybe a chat on the vulnerabilities of the T-72 would do nicely as well, I know I'd watch it ;)

[@jamieknight326]

Extremely insightful and interesting. David is such a great communicator. Adapt at explaining the concepts but also brilliant at conveying the historical and contemporary context.

[@roderickbeck8859]

His argument is that the tank has been predicted to be obsolete before, so don't believe it. It's a weak argument. There are good examples of weapons systems like the aircraft carrier that are clearly obsolete. In every war game over the last 30 year the US aircraft carrier goes to the bottom of the sea along with most of its escorts. An aircraft carrier is simply too big and slow and missiles too good and fast for the former to be viable. A tank may be the terrestrial analogy.

[@jz7692]

If the tank was taken off the battlefield, the first lesson would be, 'we need an armoured vehicle with protection against the amount of shrapnel flying about'. Then it would be 'we need a decent gun'. The add hoc drone threat can be countered with ad hoc add-ons, that's with the knowledge that it will gain in electronic sophistication. A great difficulty, is the production of a well designed tank. If you already have them, for god sake keep them. Look at the adaption's of the Centurion, that supported in First Gulf War etc & what tank crews achieved in their tanks. Are we not going to be able to bridge lay because of drones or anti tank? Find counter measures but don't lose the advantage of having a tank. We were lucky to get the Challenger!

[@KrolKaz]

Yea we need fast mobile troop carriers, basically new versions of the old Strykers. If they run into a tank then have infantry get out and blow the tank up with Javelin, or deploy a UAV drone to take it out, or call in an airstrip, or artillery, or just go around it since you're faster and more mobile.

[@romeobringas1522]

.

[@emile1365]

@@KrolKaz In my opinion it will be the end of the tank once someone figures out how to shrink and keep the power of the railgun which are soon(?) to mounted on US battleships. It would make urban warfare even more hellish. Either vehicle mounted or infantry carryable. Edit 2.

[@Willopo100]

you missed one glaring fact. the tanks in Ukraine are being taken out by shoulder launched missiles. not drones....

[@yonghominale8884]

Future infantry soldier will fly like Iron Man. Don't need bridges then. Honestly this is about the end of TANKS not heavy vehicles in general. I'm sure if we needed it, John Deere or Caterpillar could convert one of their vehicles to be a bridge layer.

[@pablodiazdebrito8735]

Excellent overview of the subject. However, I think the example of a very recent war is missing: the Second Lebanon War, 2006. There the Merkava IVs proved their resilience against Hezbollah's Russian missiles (Kornet, among others). No one in the Israeli army thought of eliminating the tanks but of equipping them with the Trophy system. A real MBT resists missiles, a light and old tank like the T72 does not.

[@Briselance]

The T72 sure is old (yet not harmless, eh), but light? :-D

[@quicktoevil]

Since I was a child I've had a fascination with tanks. Maybe it was the M103 Heavy Tank parked in front of my schools's public library or that tanks just speak to something deep inside of me but my love for them will never wane.

[@christophersmith5691]

Russian failures in the use of armour reminded me of the early stage of the 1973 Yom Kippur war in Sinai, when Israeli armour attacked Egyptian infantry near the Suez canal and met ATGMs like Sagger for the first time, in large numbers. The Israelis had divided their forces, diluting their efforts fatally and lost heavily

[@richardque4952]

Environmemt quite different,in ukraine you got thick forest and mud,ideal for defense and ambush.think of soviet invasion of finland,where soviet lost 220000 died.

[@JP-qb3ny]

Same with the early years of the iraq invasion in 2004. Plenty of abrams were taken out of the fight by anti tank weapons in urban combat situations

[@pietrostavastano2356]

@@JP-qb3ny plenty of Abrams? How many?

[@JinKazama92]

@@JP-qb3ny that's complete bs...

[@JP-qb3ny]

@@JinKazama92 I was there and saw plenty of abrams tanks taken out by kornet missiles. My buddy who was in the 1st cav said the same thing. They might not have been completely destroyed like the Russian tanks but they were definitely taken out of the fight.

[@tbert9739]

I think the tank still holds a vital place on the battlefield, as Chieftain put it "If things were removed from the battlefield because of their vulnerabilities, the infantryman would have been replaced a long time ago". The tank can do things that other military power cannot, the T-72 itself when used in more capable hands has been effective in this war, Ukraine are using them to great effect. and not once in any of the footage ive seen has a russian crew deployed smoke from their dischargers or performed any kind of SAGAR dance. This leads me to believe that the Tank is capable when used appropriately, but the russians just dont know how to use them properly

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Trust Chieftain to use emotion instead of logic. Well done! No. The cost of an infantryman is a bushel of potatos. The cost of a tank is 30 tones of steel and 10,000 hours of skilled labor. I'm willing to lose a few potatos. (OK, hyperbole, but come on. The original quote is ridiculous.)

[@tbert9739]

@@princeofcupspoc9073 the vast amount of your army and therefore expenditure is always infantry, therefore they will always make up most of the expense between their training and their equipment. The quote is not ridiculous, items are removed because of a lack of capability, not because of a vulnerability, tomahawks replaced level bombing because it offers better capability, missile destroyers replaced battleships because of their increased capability, the tank is fast, armoured fire support that can do things no other vehicle can, SPGs lack the protection, and IFVs lack the firepower, the tank will not disappear because it is weak to ATGMs, not until something better comes along

[@JamesWilson-sg7im]

Thank you for a well presented and informative video. Long live the Tank Museum.

[@WarthogARJ]

Another question/suggestion, is it would be interesting to have you look at the social media photos/video, and try to assess how much the Russian tanks were getting stuck in the mud in the first part of the war. That would really slow down any large advances, because it would tend to make them keep to the better roads.

[@JohnBeebe]

My uncle served for 20+ years, he once told me the people afraid of the Russian military was the media, he also quoted a book he recommended to me "The KIller Angels", Amateurs talk about tactics, Professionals talk about logistics, that the Russians never had a good logistical backbone

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

USSR would've lost against Germany without lend lease, their industrial strength has always been grossly overestimated

[@PlacidDragon]

@@IgnoredAdviceProductions As would the UK :)

[@DraconX3]

@@IgnoredAdviceProductions This, so much this. And ALL OF THE BOMBING the WEST did against Germanys Industrial capacity. You're welcome Soviet Union. GJ taking the initiative WE gave you.

[@TheQuantumPotato]

He sounds like a very wise man. Tactics only become important when the force in question has food, fuel, and ammunition to fight with. As the saying goes, "soldiers win battles, logistics win wars."

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

@@DraconX3 Not just that, we gave them so much fuel, clothes, food, weapons, etc, 1/3 of the Red Army was sustained on material shipped from the West. Stalin himself acknowledged, as did Kruschev, that the USSR would've lost without the US or Britain.

[@JimFortune]

Tanks without infantry support. Against infantry with missiles. Without proper logistics. I don't think the tanks are the problem.

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

Please see the comments thread underneath TheKal's comment.

[@Nik-jq4tx]

How could infantry support help against antitank missiles with a range of 4 km? We are not in WWII any more.

[@blackdeath4eternity]

@@Nik-jq4tx not all the missiles have that range. some had been taken out from much closer with old munitions.

[@mvfc7637]

@@Nik-jq4tx artillery

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@Nik-jq4tx They wouldn’t, this is just a case of telephone where people repeat what they have heard without it actually being right. Infantry support is crucial in urban environments and during ambushes, it won’t help against javelin type missiles. The only thing that would help with that is development of better APS, which is already happening.

[@justanotherarmchairgeneral4240]

Yeah, it turns out if you carelessly throw a cheap emergency tank design that was outdated 20 years ago into prepared defensive positions without infantry support it doesn't go very well. The only thing that's proven to be wildly obsolete here is the Russian Army's tactics and equipment. Properly used and supported a tank in an invaluable military asset, but just like any other type of vehicle it is vulnerable, especially when used carelessly. So why do we only see these type of articles about tanks and not anything else? I suspect it is entirely due to the general populace's perception of how a tank works. Everybody knows that aircraft can be shot down, and infantrymen can die, and that softskin vehicles can be easily destroyed so no one is shocked when that happens to them. But the average person tends to think a tank is a nigh immortal metal gunbrick that you can unleash unsupported on the enemy and they'll be absolutely helpless to do anything about it. So when they are destroyed everyone is shocked and immediately begins thinking it's outdated.

[@generalripper7528]

I think the key take-away here is that the general populance isn't very bright.

[@robashton8606]

Indeed. I've been utterly bewildered to see the number of videos showing Russian armoured columns being sent into built up areas without any dismounted infantry to protect them at all. It seems, too, that there often hasn't been even the most perfunctory reconnaissance effort made either. Result: yet another batch of T-72 turrets flinging themselves fifty feet into the air. It's doubly perplexing because these columns always have the requisite number of BMPs (or BTRs or whatever) with them, so an infantry screen is available. They just sit in their AFVs and get immolated along with the tanks though. Who the hell is in charge of these units, and where are the buggers?

[@marcusyoung2870]

@@generalripper7528 Well that's been known for some time now lol

[@robertkubrick3738]

Why no mention in the video of where the Ukrainian tanks are? Are all of them combat loss?

[@tommygun5038]

I've been arguing your points for along time. They said the same things about stealth aircraft after one f117 got shot down.

[@TarmanTheChampion]

Tank you for such an interesting video. Really enjoyed it!

[@Ypog_UA]

Oh, the classic "Death of the tank" again. A similar problem happened in the middle of the Cold War when it seemed like missiles would be the unmatched killer of vehicles. They adapted then, and will adapt now.

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

Similar to how the US believed after the Korean War that fighter planes of the future would no longer need guns... only missiles. The days of dogfighting were over. Wrong.

[@captainhurricane5705]

The Panzerfaust was the death of the tank too.

[@dougjb7848]

@@captainhurricane5705 The anti-tank rifle was the death of the tank before the Panzerfaust was the death of the tank.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

The Anti Tank rifle, The Anti Tank gun, the panzerfaust, the recoiless rifle, the anti tank grenade, anti tank mines, tank busting aircraft, wire guided missiles, and now the NLAW and Javelin. As long as the tank has existed there have been weapons that people have pointed at and said "Aha! Now tanks are obsolete!". Well they're still around somehow!

[@dougjb7848]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe The roster of weapons designed to defeat tanks-some of which are themselves no longer used-is itself a testament to the success of the tank. While many tanks have been destroyed by many different weapons, no single weapon has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time. And since “whatever doesn’t kill it makes it stronger” is just as true for machines as for men, as weapons to defeat tanks have been introduced, but none has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time, the tank has had an opportunity to improve, and often the capacity for improvement to the tank is greater than the capacity for improvement to that weapon.

[@tedferkin]

100% agree with the point on training and motivation. I saw an interview where the only person with a map was the commander of the column (I think possibly a regiment, maybe only a company, tbh the guy being interview was as confused about what was happening as we have been trying to figure out Soviet tactics.), and the guy being interviewed was supposed to be a recce officer. Another interview the guy was a clerk, he was a contract soldier, never held a gun until they entered Ukraine. It beggars belief how the commanders thought their campaign could possibly be a success

[@josephahner3031]

The most dangerous thing a soldier is likely to encounter in combat is a junior officer with a map and compass.

[@JinKazama92]

Before Russia invaded, the claim was that 190000 Russian troops were at Ukraine's border preparing to advance. This claim is starting to look like it was actually all a lie because if this was true, Russia would never have needed to even think about mass mobilization.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@josephahner3031 A standing joke in the US Army is that all those homeless people you see standing on street corners are actually "Butter Bars" who got lost on the Land Nav course.

[@H0kram]

Well, I wouldn't say that the campaign failed, because it's a fact that it's not over and nobody can say how long it will last. The first russian offensive, did fail, that's rather safe to say ( unless we're unaware of some plan to fail in the north to capture the south, but that'd be very sketchy to me ). There is a tremendous amount of arrogance out there. We don't look at the ukrainian forces as they are but as they want to be looked at, I know who my heart favors but there's no point to me to be that much biased, and I find it dangerous, if not disrepectful, towards the daily casualties, to basically call it a day ( as the russians did in the first place, when it began ). That's the benefit of not being directly involved in the war.

[@JinKazama92]

@@H0kram We know which side is losing more because the war is being broadcasted for us every day by the troops themselves (both sides). Both sides have people who disregard their own Opsec and still share the sitrep on the internet.

[@Mucologist]

Excellent commentary and analysis. Spot on! The current Ukraine conflict is the Winter War all over again. The Molotov cocktail didn't spell the end of the tank then, either. BUT... you better have the Queen of Battle out and about chasing down the drone and anti-tank teams before you go sauntering down the road. Combined Arms is the key doctrine after all.

[@mrapierwit]

Thank you Tank Museum for this dispassionate review of the tank in current modern combat, and the history lesson - Fascinating! It just proves the point that without good tactics and logistics the tank is just so much scrap metal.

[@nebelwerfer199]

They are so quick to talk about the demise of the tank because of anti-tank weaponry, but nobody talks about the demise of aviation. There are just as many strides in anti aircraft weaponry that make flying over the battlefield just as dangerous.

[@Holztransistor]

We've never seen the things we are seeing now because there never were armies at war lately which were equipped in a similar way. Heavy air defense makes the airspace largely inaccessible. NATO would have the same problem against a foe that is equipped with long range missile defense and a myriad of MANPADs. The battlefield in Ukraine is not comparable to the vast desert in Iraq. Every bush, every forest is offering cover and camouflage. There is no open field battle. That makes it much much more difficult for an attacker. It seems drones and artillery are the key here. But at some point the "smart weapons" will be exhausted. The US is making 2100 Javelins per year. Ramping up production could take months or years (according to the manufacturer).

[@nebunezz_r]

Because you see everyday that aviation product flew people from one to the other side of the globe. Not the same happened to tank.

[@obelic71]

@@nebunezz_r tracked vehicles can be also seen daily. Just look at construction vehicels like buldozers cranes diggers etc. etc.

[@mrbadguysan]

They do talk about the end of close air support. People are opining that the A-10 is now truly, inescapably obsolete.

[@nebunezz_r]

@@obelic71 do we see them used en masse like airplane for transport purpose? Don't lie

[@melvinjohnson2074]

The tank will be around for many more years if for no other reason that they made so many of them. The issue IMO is the Shtora protection system and ERA on these Soviet tanks has not performed as designed. It's time to issue a safety recall while they still have some around.

[@CraneArmy]

in the US especially. we tend to overstate a military threat when there are extant weapon counter capabilities "if only we just had another $50m of these we'd be set" and when there is a capability with no answer, like hypersonics, youre not going to hear much about it, an asymmetry in force structure that will be mostly unacknowledged for its lack of a western analogue.

[@thegodofhellfire]

Brilliant video. Loved the " France in 1940 " part, did a spit take on that one. 😅

[@thomasknobbe4472]

Thank you, Mr. Willey, for your reasoned analysis of the current situation regarding the effectiveness of armored fighting vehicles in the Ukrainian conflict. And may I say, it is so refreshing to see a presenter of your skill and experience using paper notes in a pinch in order to guide your presentation. I guess those forecasts of the death of paper were also premature. Repping the old school!

[@holmes6171]

Absolutely agree, highly informative and succinct with enough room for self thought, no wonder there's so much talk and deliberation in the comments!

[@andrewthomas695]

There is a reason why this video has over 1 million views. Mr Willey at his best.🙂

[@kachala]

@@holmes6171 stupid propaganda

[@gerardfreeman8784]

Excellent,very informative.Well presented

[@daijoboukuma]

Nicholas Moran (Chieftain) pointed out that as long as tanks fulfill a doctrinal role, they'll still be used. He also observed that videos may indicate the tanks are being used in unsupported roles/actions.

[@CorruptKamikaze]

That has to be one of my favorite quotes I've ever heard on this channel. "Like Mike Tyson said, 'Everyone has a plan until you get knocked in the mouth.' lol.

[@CFox.7]

google the exact quote if you want to go around using it

[@themightymo3491]

Nicholas Moran made an excellent point in his video on this same topic, when he said that the tank will really only disappear from the battlefield when a new weapons system comes about that can do what a tank is designed to do better than the tank can. Tanks are designed to get a big, direct-fire gun to where that direct fire is needed, and then be durable enough to employ that firepower. The Russians seem to be trying to use their tanks for things other than that particular mission, assuming that big guns and heavy armor can just roll in and sweep all before them; that is not the case, obviously. When used as intended, tanks are still a devastating weapon. When used for other tasks, they generally seem to not fare as well. As long as the need for heavily armored, mobile direct firepower is there, tanks will be adjusted and adapted to be able to carry out that mission. When a new weapon comes about that does that mission better, or when that mission no longer ever needs to be carried out, that's when tanks will become obsolete.

[@user-gl9gs8vq4t]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3jKYWp8pdKWgcU

[@roderickbeck8859]

Not necessarily the case. Missiles and heavy mobile artilery dominate now. Tanks are extremely vulnerable unless you control the skies. The balance of power has shifted. Time to stop letting nostalgia guide your thinking.

[@nathanhardin8530]

I was in the Army as a infantryman and I always remember fellow infantryman commenting that they wouldn't go near a tank because it was a large target and a death trap. I don't know the stats off the top of my head but I do know that losses during ww2 were in favor of tanks crews compared to infantry. I have also watched alot of videos with crew members exiting the video after being hit which makes me think that while being any type of soldier on the battlefield is less than optimal for survival, I think I would rather be in a tank than nothing if rockets, mortars, or any other type of weaponry is coming my way.

[@Sghoch]

Which one do you prefer? Sitting behind 10" of armor,move fast, shooting and seeing your enemy before they can shoot back or be vulnerable To a 9mm round? Most anti tank weapons are effective before 500 ms but a tank gun and heavy machine-gun are at least capable of shooting behind 2000m of range. Tanks are not obsolete they only need to adapt to current warfare scenario's

[@jesperbecker6412]

Funny fact: I called Russian BS on the Armata long before the war started. This goes for almost everything they put out, new submarines etc. In Soviet times the Russian army was state funded and had to produce stuff that was working, maybe not the best but It was working. In Russian times they show you clips of super torpedos, new submarines, aircraft carriers and the Armata. Russia of today is plundered from within by greedy private persons who has no interest of producing the stuff they show. Because building it will cost enormous amount of money they rather stuff in their own pockets.

[@CatEatsDogs]

Tell this to ukrainians. Whose cities now being destroyed with not interceptable rockets created by "greedy people with no interest of producing the stuff they show".

[@OtterMusician]

The Armata is a better direction than the T-72, but I agree that it’s definitely not as good (or as functional) as they would wish for us to believe.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Russian state TV said they have the ability to detonate an invincible nuclear torpedo in the sea next to UK which "will create a huge tsunami of radioactive water". But maybe it was just propaganda & their nuclear weapon capability's been badly limited from within by greedy private persons?

[@jkausti6737]

Also those T-14's we see in the parades are literally the only one's the Russians have at the moment. It hasn't gone into real production yet and is years behind. Which kinda means there must be something wrong with it in the basic level. Or some Putins buddy stole all the rubles that were meant for that.

[@jesperbecker6412]

@@alwaysdisputin9930 yea becuase a nuclear torpedo is a new and revolutionary invention, think the west abandoned the idea during the 60/70s because it was retarded from the start.

[@figmo4227]

I think its very important that our intelligence perception of the Russian Armed Forces failed at least in a wider context. It would set a dangerous precedent for analysts to take the opposite approach in the coming years. And the point made here about the social media aspect to this war is absolutely critical - we are seeing a very sanitised view of the war curated for us by the Ukrainian government.

[@roderickbeck8859]

I disagree. Allied estimates - not Ukrainian estimates - suggest devastating losses of Russian soldiers and vehicles and tanks

[@roderickbeck8859]

@Сергей Захаров You wasting this board's time with silly statements. Western military analysts would laugh at your statement, Boris.

[@roderickbeck8859]

@Сергей Захаров No one takes your comments seriously, Boris.

[@roderickbeck8859]

Your comment sounds like a bit too sympathetic to the Russians.

[@roderickbeck8859]

@Сергей Захаров Do you expect to be taken seriously?

[@lightanddark2673]

Another excellent talk David, thank you.

[@pj-vu3cn]

One of my favourite lines from games: Big guns and heavy armour, what else is there? Well, quite a few more things actually: 1- powerful cannon 2- lethal ammunition 3- plentiful horsepower 4- homogeneous steel base armour 5- modular inert composite armour blocks 6- modular reactive explosive armour blocks (optional imo) 7- active protection (also optional) 8- secure radio communications 9- digital information networking 10- 360 deg. visual feed with software assisted threat identification*** 11- the usual stuff: smoke device, nightvision & infrared, fast accurate firing computer, firing on the move (gun stabilizer), higher gun elevation, low profile, machine gun, snorkel, laser/radar warning system (if practical) Wow quite a package. No wonder these things are SOOOO expensive. To think there are 3-4 soldiers in each one that is a potential 1-hit kill by enemy guided weapons (especially top-down or rear attacks) is worrisome.

[@chubmonkey78]

Agree with previous comments, that armour without infantry or air support is always likely to fail. Let's not forget, unmanned armour could also play a huge role in future. Sadly from a human perspective, the need for tanks remains, but the tactics and technology will adapt as required to ensure they still play a pivotal role in protecting us from aggression in the future.

[@EuroS50]

It seems Russia's entire plan with their armor was to enact a "blitzkrieg", capture Kiev (and more importantly the airfields), reinforce with infantry relatively quickly, and deliver a decisive and quick strike. That's where armor is king - quick strikes before the enemy can organize. The problem in Ukraine, is that when the Russians failed to capture Kiev and its airfields, they should have tucked tail and ran. Especially once the Ukrainian gov signaled they will NOT capitulate. Even more so one western weapons started flooding in. Russia's continued pressure and response is nothing but sheer stupidity on their part. They have literally doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their stupidity and absolute disregard for.... anything. Part of me hopes they keep this up and lose their entire military for this stupidity, the other part of feels for the lives they're wasting. But then again, Russia has always indicated life is cheap to them. They are after all nothing but a nation that can be described of as trailer park trash but with nukes. If it weren't for nukes the world would have rid themselves of them decades ago.

[@pauledwards7074]

They did in the infantry carriers and trucks that also got burned, and those carriers are tight space to squeeze out of in a hurry. Many of the infantry carriers just retreated quickly or the troops fled when the tanks got burned, Orc roasters. They simply don’t have enough boots on the ground. They needed 1 million to take Ukraine and secure their rear lines, they only had in total 200,000 men.

[@edwardhumphries8806]

Your onto it unmanned ,better cameras,sensors, every 10 years will keep changing massively may well just come down to civilians killed

[@jamesrowlands8971]

This is a misinformed perspective in light of the clear success of artillery in suppression of infantry, during the Ukraine conflict.

[@jdg9999]

@@pauledwards7074 dehumanization of the enemy is done by sociopaths as a prelude to genocide. Amazing that you think you're one of the "good guys" you neocon psycho.

[@normmcrae1140]

The same people have also predicted the end of manned combat aircraft (since the 1950's), and the end of guns on fighter aircraft (since the 1960's). They were both wrong because, like the tank, they are all useful in battle in ways that can not be carried out by any other system.

[@irvhh143]

That was before the invention of the microchip.

[@roderickbeck8859]

Well, the aircraft carrier is obsolete as every war game in the last 30 years has shown. They always go to the bottom.

[@irvhh143]

A primary factor in the US failure in Vietnam was the increasing presence of SAMs. This was made worse by the political goal of reducing troop numbers, which lhey tried to make up with technology. But, they took away the wrong lesson. It was that they needed better aircraft with better defenses.

[@iuliandragomir1]

@@roderickbeck8859 Just ask Turks to let a aicraft carrier in Black Sea and you will see the russian fleet hiding

[@roderickbeck8859]

@@iuliandragomir1 No, a missile would sink the aircraft right away.

[@beigegaming9905]

Create tank drones and this addresses many of the issues you addressed here. Also tanks can be made smaller and the ammo and operating system can be the most protected thing about the tank. Give it a fail safe that self destructs it so it can't fall into enemy hands.

[@teekay_1]

A tank by itself isn't a very effective weapon on the modern battlefield. The key in the 21st century is to combine armor, artillery, soldiers, helicopter and attack airplanes in a combined strike force that communicates in real time and support each other in real-time. That's why videos on KZbin that talk about various weapon systems that treat each element separately misses a key point of modern warfare. Russia has not mastered this, they simply can't afford to build this combined force concept.

[@biomechannibal8888]

As the was in Ukraine rages, I have had this thought myself. The advent of drones against tanks, is like when the aircraft carrier became the center of the naval battlegroup in WWII. Battleships had seen their day because they couldn't really defend against the planes. This is the same thing, but on land, and with smaller planes. And while you could argue that the tanks would be more effective if they had proper air support; that air support itself isn't going to be effective against drones that are nearly impossible to hit and flying below radar level.

[@PappyGunn]

Measures bring about counter measures. There are anti drone systems coming online. Drones have their own vulnerability such as short range and fragility, etc. You can spot by radar and shoot down a mortar round. Drones are not too small point defence systems

[@littlekong7685]

@@PappyGunn Yes, the Moskva was sunk by 2-3 cruise missiles, but those only got through because 2 dozen missile drones were sacrificed to distract its AA. But a great example of using combined arms to overcome defences. Those drones would likely not have been able to severely damage the Moskva, but the Missiles that could were big radar pictures that needed time to cross the defensive envelopes to hit home, so a good trade overall.

[@the7observer]

Tanks improperly used will always perform poorly. Russians are using them without infantry support or air support and I wouldn't be surprised if many russian tanks have lack of thermal sights which are essential to spot ATGM teams. Also training and communication are essential for tank usage. Tanks carry a huge gun capable of hitting targets at 2-3Km within seconds while a ATGM will take longer to reach it. The ammo caroussel at the time that it was developed was a good design as most hits were to the turret, so it made sense moving the ammo to the hull considering standard warfare. But Ukraine uses a mix of standard and guerrila warfare which allows them to hit the side of tanks or use camouflaged ATGM teams with Javelin or NLAW which can hit the top, penetrate it and hit the ammo. Ukraine has also been using small comercial drones that can drop RPG grenades on top of tanks at the very least damaging the optics Many Russian vehicles use imported optics so in the long term the Russians may be able to repair their tanks but not be able to replace their optics and a tank wihtout good optics are just a glorified coffin

[@trevorhart545]

I agree we are talking FAILED Russian Tactics and a lack of any Strategy. Vlad is acting like Hitler with interference on individual units, dreaming of formations that do not exist except on paper. That is the result of corruption, false data and a lack of maintenance. NOT a good PR Stunt to maintain Military sales by Russia. I think that Putin is showing us all that he IS and always was an ADMINISTRATOR in totality. Vlad is Russia biggest enemy, politically, militarily and economically.

[@vivekp4854]

@Azurie Tanks are needed for taking back territory from Russia.

[@andrewtibbetts2695]

He actually said that the ATGM would take longer to reach a tank a conventional tank round, he never said that an ATGM has no long range

[@andrewtibbetts2695]

100% agree. If used correctly with air and infantry support, the tank will dominate every time. And you also need men trained to use the tank and the right equipment or else that you are more likely to lose many more tanks taking the objective.

[@Valorius]

Russia has been using commercial drones to drop bombs on Ukrainian positions too. Lots of video of that online.

[@georgetaylor4202]

I’m no tank expert but from what I’ve scene and heard you say the auto-loader is a jack-in-the-box lethal weakness.

[@thairnethairnson8047]

This aged very well, actually...

[@theblitz6794]

I like when the experts, ya know, get it right.

[@captrodgers4273]

just because the russians forgot how to use tanks does not mean tanks are useless. they are a vital part of combined arms operations for forces that actually know how to use tanks and constantly train with them

[@the.parks.of.no.return]

Oh no The russians are literally days away from surrendering to NATO - haven't you read the sun ?

[@danielmocsny5066]

So was the horse, and the battleship, until they weren't.

[@Nik-jq4tx]

Dude, how would you train against the modern antitank weapons? In WWII both Germany and Soviet Union lost most of their tanks. Tanks were and are very vulnerable.

[@uegvdczuVF]

@@Nik-jq4tx Why just antitank weapons? Most Russian tanks are destroyed by artillery. What training is there for getting hit with a 152mm shell or a Grad rocket fired from 20km away?

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

@@danielmocsny5066 yeah, about horses, some goat farmers in Afghanistan have proven that conclusion to be utterly wrong.

[@Minh-Tran-04]

The moment the tank die will be when an infantry can go through No Man’s Land without any scratches , destroy a bunker while moving at 70 km/h

[@moritamikamikara3879]

Or when something else turns up that can do what a tank can do but... somehow isn't a tank.

[@mvfc7637]

absolutely correct, show me the day when infantry can assault an entrenched poisition and not suffer heavy losses from machine-gun and artillery fire and then advance at a rate of 100km per day to exploit their breakthrough and I’ll happily proclaim the tank is dead.

[@stkk7186]

I think you have to see it from a different perspective: A MB-tank is the biggest thread from the ground in a war. That is the reason these anti-tank weapons exist. And as long it stays this way, we won't see the end of the MB-tank. As military experts of my country say I also think that the russian army is using them wrong. They use tactics that are obsolete. Tanks have to be protected by infantry. Or they have to operate fast on a wide area with other tanks.

[@MazeFrame]

7:40 In the 2nd World War, ships were faced with planes being quite good at taking them out. So AA was added to their arsenal. Size wise, Ship↔Plane, I'd say Tank↔Drone is about the same ratio.

[@1Wilful]

Good analogy. Battleships are completely superseded.

[@JH-lo9ut]

Good point. As said, battleships went the way of the Dodo but a battleship is such an enormous investment. They take years to build and they take crews of a few thousand to operate. To risk losing a tank or ten is nothing like losing a battleship in terms of cost. As the Battleship was succeeded by carriers, maybe we'll see mobile drone carriers in the form of a truck that can launch a swarm of drones to survey a battlefield and spot for artillery. I don't know how far away we are from a drone that can carry an Nlaw or Javelin, but I'm sure engineers are working on it right now.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

One of the things we have to remember is that it is Russian/soviet union equipment vs Russian/soviet union equipment, the idea both would have high loses is logical as both train with these vehicles all the time. I don't think saying it can be transcribed elsewhere works. Especially with different equipment being used and the fact Ukraine uses different tactics to NATO and Russia, in fact the complete opposite tactics to Russia and the USA. Edit : someone claimed NATO made these tactics they didn't. NATO has trained some forces but mainly worked with special forces, but is definetely not who trained the Ukrainian army. Seen as there tactics are completely different to NATO tactics and Ukraine know their equipment a lot better than any NATO countries.

[@SMGJohn]

Cause Ukraine uses old school Soviet guerrilla warfare tactics, its similar to how Chechens fought, Russian Army wants to reinvent itself as non-Communistic, going as far as abandoning EVERYTHING the Soviets built on, I hope Putin and the Oligarchs are skinned alive.

[@Reactordrone]

Soviet equipment. Don't conflate the Soviet Union with Russia. The T-64 and T-80 were developed in Ukraine.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

@@Reactordrone I said Russian as a catchall. They were developed in Ukraine for the whole soviet Union and came under soviet Union flag

[@Charners]

Just an observation of your comment. We have been training them since 2014 and they now use Nato standard communications ( instead of the 3g network like Russia ) . That's the massive part of how they can effectively and efficiently conduct what is in short a mix of counter & insurgency warfare.

[@grandayatollah5655]

@@Reactordrone false, they were only built in Ukraine

[@georgedalgleish6384]

Very well written script and editing. Last week was the.best I had seen from David and the museum but this was a different sort of film and was also a first date video. I would have been even more.happier if it had run another 10/15 minutes longer. Thank you to David and the team at Bovi.

[@salvagedb2470]

A Tank is like having a good set of Tools , you just need to know how to use them and also what your doing , David Willey great job.

[@jimmyohara2601]

YOU'RE 😐

[@spritbong5285]

Every action has a reaction. The evidence of successful "Top down" NLAW and Javelin attacks helps to improve research into tank protection from this threat.

[@bofoenss8393]

I know this may sound crazy, but the first two months of the war seemed to me like one giant recreation of the Battle of Villers-Bocage. Single file armour (due to weather partly) being sent along roads with plenty of cover for enemy ambushes, neither scouted nor secured by infantry, getting hit, stuck and taking heavy casualties.

[@littlekong7685]

Apparently around half the units sent in had not been briefed that they were at war. Part of the issue was units going along at road safe speeds in column, open topped, close together as a movement exercise. Many infantry units and transports didn't even receive guns or ammo before they crossed the border. So for a few weeks we saw police cars detaining and confiscating tank units, and farmers with a shotgun literally outgunning a BTR. There isn't much excuse in the later weeks, but dam, that is some poor command and communication.

[@thePronto]

You make a good point. But what they have been doing in Ukraine were what we expected in the Cold War: pushing forward on the axis of a road/highway; attacking from the line of march; overwhelming the enemy with local superiority; outrunning the enemy's withdrawal; devastating the rear echelons. But what happens if that doesn't work? They look like idiots...

[@Livlifetaistdeth]

Tanks or Mega Yachts, they both cost a lot to maintain and I think we're all witness to where the money went. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. It's so important to understand situations in context.

[@Cam-sl8ve]

@Сергей Захаров Spambot copypasta?

[@WarthogARJ]

Excellent video and discussion! I'd be interested on your comments about how the Russian tanks have been killed. As in the root cause. The photos don't necessarily show that: like how does one know that the tank with the big hole in it, and maybe missing its turret, was actually operational before it got hit? Sure, you can usually tell from the videos, but in most cases it's just a photo. If the tank had broken down, run out of fuel, or maybe its crew deserted it, then it's not really the same kill as one that was operational, and trying to evade being targeted. A related point, is it possible to assess how many tanks have been killed by top-attack mode? The Russians seemed to have been worried about that, because they started putting screens over lots of tanks. But maybe they watch KZbin as well, and saw all the talk about Javellin attack-mode etc etc.

[@plkngtun]

Funny. I remember reading quite a few years ago (don´t remember where), that military experts believed that the age of the infantry man was over. This was because vehicles represented a far better platform to place longer ranging and more effective fire control systems on, which would undoubtedly make infantry obsolete in any scenario except for perhaps cities. Welp...

[@josephahner3031]

A couple of fascinating gentlemen put that thought to paper in the interwar period between WW1 and WW2. John Fuller and J.F.C Liddel Hart were probably the men you're thinking of but Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, and one George S. Patton Jr. flirted with the idea as well.

[@plkngtun]

@@josephahner3031 While that is probably very fascinating reading, and I will have to look it up in the near future, whatever I read was much more recent, as it pointed towards thermal imagery and automation of target acquiring as some of the elements making infantry redundant. But thanks for the tip!

[@dflatt1783]

@@plkngtun As a former infantryman, there are roles the infantryman fills that cannot be done by a vehicle. Period.

[@plkngtun]

@@dflatt1783Sorry in case i was unclear. I share your belief in that respect. I am former infantry myself, although not a very long career. My comment was just a statement about how funny i find it, that people now judge the tank as obsolete because of infantry, and some years ago, the infantry was judged obsolete because of the tank. I personally believe that both armored vehicles and infantry both still serve a vital role in any competent military.

[@dflatt1783]

@@plkngtun ahhh I gotcha, completely agree. I wouldn't judge the tank based on a 50 year old design operated by incompetent Russians.

[@Deltarious]

Something that is more important to consider than the losses of tanks is unfortunately something that you did not touch on: You *must* come at the issue from the angle of *why* the tank exists in the first place, if this role is still needed or obsolete and what will replace it if not tanks. Ultimately the existence or not of tanks is not driven by the threats to tanks, but by the need for their purpose. Tanks on the battlefield are mobile, armoured, direct fire platforms that put rounds on targets immediately. When you go through the motions of analysis it turns out this is still very much needed on the battlefield. Ok so then you're left with at least needing the gun. Do we need the armour, or what makes a 'tank' a tank? Well again when you go through the motions it turns out that actually in a lot of cases it's better to have it then not to have it, and it seems like having it is even worth the cost in most cases because it makes you highly resistant to so many other systems and increases survivability. Thus even with increased threats the conditions are still not met that would obsolete the tank because currently nothing can replace it's role better- and that's without getting into all the various countermeasures being developed and the combined arms strategies to protect them.

[@protonneutron9046]

bingo and on the nose.

[@chuckjones7092]

Another thing that makes the Tank useful is that, simply by having tanks in your arsenal, you are forcing your enemy to match or beat your tank in some way. Even if it is a relatively simple system, like an anti-tank gun or grenade, the presence of a tank is forcing the enemy to spend time and resources on those systems. If the enemy doesn't spend that time and resources then the tank is able run relatively free on the battlefield. the same can be said if they don't have the resources. A key part of the Ukraine war is that the Ukrainian Army, despite lacking the resources and equipment themselves, has been receiving Billions of dollars worth of military equipment of all types and training their troops to use it.

[@Havok0159]

This kind of argument is made by The Chieftain in his video on the topic. The tank needs a replacement to be obsolete and a replacement it does not have.

[@keithammleter3824]

There seems to be a flaw in your argument, Deltarious. Ukraine has shown that simple low cost methods (eg man portable rockets) can now be used to prevent the tank from getting anywhere near where its' big gun is useful. And there is a replacement - surface-to-surface rockets, which the Russians have used with deadly effect, cruise missiles, and armed drone aircraft. In WW2 there were tank vs tank battles - that is unlikely to ever happen again. Most damage in WW2 was done by airborne bombers. Since WW2, the main effective use of the tank has been (by the Soviets and by China) to intimidate demonstrators and untrained trouble makers. That doesn't work against a well led and coordinated military force.

[@protonneutron9046]

@@keithammleter3824 No. Those methods are mostly effective when tanks are incorrectly used without the correct combined arms doctrine. The same weaknesses have existed since WW 2. They were in play in the Gulf war but the US army knows this and used its tanks accordingly. BTW there have been MANY large tank v. tank battles since WW 2. YOU are just uneducated in military matters.

[@Pratt_]

An other point that may also explain the return of the "tank is obsolete" thing is the fact that tanks are at a sweet spot where it's kind of one of the only military asset that is that expensive but is still way too often manned by poorly trained personnel (Russian in Ukraine, but also valid for at least one side of every war in the Middle East). Like if you go slightly more expensive assets it's immediately people that have usually a better standard of training (even though Russia seems to try to be the exception that confirm the rule). And if you go to that level of training or below it's reserve and conscript infantry.

[@michaelkepes6125]

That poorly trained side was the Arab side which lost every conflict from 1948 thru the 2000's that is against the Israeli's and against the US and Coalition forces there is one more factor that led to a half century of defeats for the Arabs besides inferior training and that was poor motivation

[@Pratt_]

@@michaelkepes6125 exactly.

[@bahbus]

Great commentary sir, as someone who has been following conflicts from Canada I certainly do believe the MODERN tank still will play a role. As you put very well the Russian supply and logistics have been terrible. From the moment they entered into Ukraine as if having a Sunday stroll any well equipped force would have shredded their columns from the air and ground. But having said that I have been hearing rumours even in the 80's and early 90's that most of the tank forces in East Berlin would not even start due to lack of maintenance. So massive numbers mean nothing if you cannot supply or maintain. Excellent series. Robert.

[@quantum340]

Curious how after the Moskva was sunk, no articles came out discussing if surface warships were obselete.

[@davidurban7346]

Tone down the hyperbole. Your logic means that not only are they asking if tanks are obsolete but all land vehicles.

[@quantum340]

@@davidurban7346 Nonsense. The argument is always 'tanks can easily be destroyed by an ambush weapon with a fraction of the cost'. Well, guess what, so can warships. And aircraft for that matter. Yet tanks are always singled out as being obsolete since the same people calling their obsolesence think they should be imperious moving bastions or whatnot. I bet the moment a fifth-gen stealth fighter is shot down we will get articles arguing stealth is obsolete since it failed to make a fighter untouchable.

[@longyu9336]

Or how helicopters are obsolete despite them being blown up in big numbers too.

[@TheIceland2000]

Dear David Willey, thank you for your presentation on this interesting topic. By the way, some years ago I had a chat with an Israeli soldier from the 401st Brigade who took part in the 2006 war. The Russian army might improve as quickly as the IDF from lessons learned in times of conflict.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

After a bad showing, the Russian army historically reformed. This happened after the Crimean war and the Russian-Japanese war too.

[@your_waifu_hates_you]

As ive said multiple times. Getting their asses kicked then later comming back stronger with a vengence has been a patern in russian history

[@tordsteiro9838]

The end of the tank? Probably not. But a change of role, change of numbers, and change of doctrine is almost certainly. The tank fills multiple roles, as a heavy weapons platform, as a platform for sensorics, as a highly mobile unit, and as a unit that protects it's soldiers and is hard to kill. Some of these roles will probably be better fulfilled by something else, but you can't fill all of them. And then there's one more thing: Relative costs and logistical footprint. That is what will ultimately kill the tank, when the reltive cost in no linger worth it, and when the relative logistical footprint is untenable. Fuel is one such obvious factor, because I can simply not imagine an electrical tank, and providing fuel will, at some point, become a prohibitive logistical challenge.

[@hemelinger7792]

Unfortunately, KZbin has stopped putting the upload date on the video pages so it is almost impossible (at least I have not found where yet) to find out exact date of upload. While this seems to have been uploaded two weeks ago (actually the most precise info I have found on upload date) Mr. Willey mentions that he is in April? So, two suggestions: As this is channel of museum, it would be good that you put information of creation and upload in information text or if it is optional to show upload date on the video page (I believe I might have seen it still on some videos) then set that so that it shows at least. Second, if the video is from April, then I would like to have an update on this topic. There has been a lot of discussion about what weaponry to send to the Ukraine and which not and tanks have always been in the discussion as well. Maybe you could find a historical parallel to the pocket situation that exists in the Donbass and talk about what role tanks play in that sort of situation. This is a great video. Really enjoyed it.

[@jamtin3977]

Excellent narration of tank history to present usefulness in modern conflicts. Interesting, thankyou.🖐🇦🇺

[@derbasierte4194]

Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.

[@davidjones6389]

Armored vehicles will skew the line between tank and armored platforms. Question, can a Land drone hold territory? If not, the APC will morph, but not disappear.

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

I've heard it argued that the ways that Russia is using their tanks (without air superiority, without infantry support to screen for threats, etc) are the reasons why they're suffering such a high attrition rate. That's not to say that armor is going to be nullified in future conflict, but the way it's employed will likely be modified.

[@stsk1061]

@@davidjones6389 Or territory will be held by infantry, just like in the old times.

[@davidjones6389]

@@stsk1061 That's my point, some kind of armor will always be needed.

[@stsk1061]

@@davidjones6389 Armor will only be used if it works. Just like the musket ended full plate, shaped charges are ending heavy tank armor.

[@ferfromla]

The most important part of this was that great equipment without soldiers trained to effectively operate it renders it useless. Also, I can see a time when the tank is used remotely, much like drones, so that no soldiers are put in harm's way. But even there, someone will have to program the tank and guide it. Again, there is no getting around training. Putin and the Russian military bet that a mere display of force would make the Ukrainians cower and let them have the country. The Russians were unprepared for this conflict, which explains why they lost so many of their best troops and equipment in weeks. Parading your army on May 9th is much different from sending them into combat. The entire world needs to take note.

[@johnmurphy4864]

Outstanding assessment on a much discussion issue.

[@maxkronader5225]

As man-portable antitank weapons become deadlier, it becomes even more critical that well coordinated combined arms action be the center of planning and training. The fighting in Ukraine has amply proven that if you emulate the Russians and violate every idea of modern mechanized warfare, you suffer tremendous losses.

[@Seth9809]

Wasn't that the case like 27 years ago?

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Watch Full Metal Jacket, 3rd act. Infantry with one job, protect the tanks. It's said ironically, but this has been the case for a LONG time.

[@daz1598]

It's not limited this tank alone, its the whole Russian design process. All thier tanks and IFVs need redesigning. Sitting on top of Ammo just does not cut it and it's catastrophic when hit.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

Every one has tanks that are 40+ years old in design but unlike russia most army's have updated there tanks and trained the crews.

[@brulecap1413]

@Daz That’s the thing I’ve been thinking. T72 and even T80 tanks seem to be poorly designed blowing the turret off when hit in the correct place. Has to be scary for tank crews.

[@littlekong7685]

@@brulecap1413 I am not sure the crews really understand the risk. They are shown the propaganda videos of their machines being invulnerable, and nothing else. There was a video of Russian tank column coming into the Kiev outskirts, filmed by one of their crew, they passed a line of destroyed Russian tanks and transports and mocked the dead Ukrainian machines and praised their artillery... They had no idea these were Russian tanks knocked out and they were the Second or third wave in, not the first. I think their first experience is when half their unit is suddenly on fire.

[@daz1598]

@@brulecap1413 totally agree. While we have not seen the Armata in action, I bet it goes up the same way. That protective box is not going to do absolutely nothing when that thing cooks off. Look how catastrophic the T72s, T80s have gone up. The tank is literally, in pieces everywhere.

[@Nik-jq4tx]

Already redesigned: Armata T-14.

[@AndyMc1952]

Looks like a training video on the tecnologies needed to expand a countries borders. Really good information.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

the chieftain made a great point about how there's only one weapon system that can drive a 105mm gun up to the enemy, fire and back into cover before anyone reacts and thats a tank. until we get battlemechs (someday...) there's nothing more mobile, armored and upgunned like a tank for the battlefield

[@verliebt3465]

there wont be battlemechs, ever. they're much too tall, and the taller you are the farther away the enemy can see you and they'l be able to aim their own big guns at you. there will always be a fixed artillery piece with a bigger calibre than anything that's mobile. same goes for mobile suits like Gundams even if you ignore the G-forces and ridiculous fuel consumption to maneuver like that.

[@chuckjones7092]

In my personal opinion, the tank is currently in a similar position that the heavily armored mounted knight was towards the end of the medieval era. it was becoming possible for other soldiers to deal with them and the mass charge was becoming obsoleted as the power of the defender rose. The rise of gunpowder and the restoration of infantry as the primary arm of an army did not eliminate the need for cavalry or even the need for heavy cavalry, but it did shift their role. I find it likely that going forward tanks will become smaller and lighter and take more scouting or mopping up roles, like the cavalry of the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, perhaps delivering crucial attacks at key moments. I believe that they will be shifted away from the primary thrust of the offensive as they were during the world wars. Again, much how like Cavalry took precedence in Gothic and Roman armies and became the back bone Europe's armies during the middle ages before sliding back into more auxiliary roles.

[@ElZilchoYo]

This is the answer. Tanks are just the modern day version of heavy infantry of medieval and ancient warfare. Heavy infantry was never unkillable either it was just tougher to kill, like tanks. I think the heavy armour will become less important whereas anti missile systems will become more important. We may again see a diversification of tanks between light medium and heavy

[@ihategooglealot3741]

There were instances in ww2 when an armoured force without adequate support was slaughtered. Same goes for infantry. Where Tornado aircraft were used suicidal in 1991 they took heavy losses. Adequate use of support, smoke, air cover, deployment in appropriate conditions are essential with any weapons system. In WW2 only the colossal allied shipments of transport equipment kept the USSRs forces moving ( and damned Germany's) For the west our arms industry and media accepting Russian claims was a profitable decision, for our generals it was the safe option and helped with budget negotiations. Remember that there was technology on shermans that crews weren't trained in. Where tanks have been used effectively ( by Canada, USA, UK in Iraq and Afghanistan) they have been extraordinary. In 1967 and 1973 the good tank commanders were devastating, Hobart, Rommel, the matildas in PNG, Centurion in Korea, India's use of centurion. Good tanks with good commanders and well trained crews are worth it.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

indeed

[@cliffbird5016]

Germany had nothing to take out the matildas in WWII and they were obsolete by the time the war started. It wasnt till North Africa when a German 88mm anti air gun unit was attacked by tanks and they lowered the guns to fire at the tanks they found the perfect anti tank weapon do deal with british tanks. Up to that point Britian and France didnt lose any tanks to German troops. But Germany was losing tanks left right and centre. Even British and french light tanks had more armour than the German medium tanks did. It wasnt til the US started supplying tanks to britain when Britian using US tanks started getting blown to bits. they got knicknamed tommy boilers cause a heavy machine gun could take them out. Even the 88mm gun couldnt take out the later British tanks as they had even thicker armour than the tiger II.

[@ihategooglealot3741]

@@cliffbird5016 are you aware where PNG is? Germany had nothing to do with PNG any any troops withing 4,000 miles of there

[@olafkunert3714]

@@cliffbird5016 That is nonsense. The first use of 88s against tanks was in France and BTW the fact that they had useful ammunition should tell you something....

[@Jrichards30]

Great video. Also anti tank weapons now are so superior now along with being designed to be so simple and designed to destroy Soviet armor

[@mrajrussell]

the question is "What do you replace the tank with?" Everything stays needed until something better comes along. Think saddles, riding spurs, buggy wipes, typewriters, and fax machines. It doesn't matter who made the best or made the most money. Until you replace it with something better, no matter what it is that particular piece of equipment will stay needed and continue being manufactured. So far now, tans are here to stay. Patton's troops hated their new tanks, not as good or advanced as the other US Army. British or German Tanks. Patto said it's not the tank itself it's the way you use it. Patton made that particular tank work.

[@schmetterling4477]

It doesn't matter how you use a tank as long as people have long distance weapons to destroy it.

[@andrewholdaway813]

The problem is not the tank losses, it's the catastrophic nature of so many of them taking their crews with them.

[@thedausthed]

The Ru BBQ!

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Sounds a lot like the WWII era M4 Medium "Sherman." The US had depots full of tanks without trained soldiers to crew them.

[@catlee8064]

The conflict in UKr shows the importance of training, training, training. Training not just the lowest soldier, but mid to high level officers aswell. You cant take tanks into urban combat without close infantry support. you cant have a logistics train move around a hostile country without protection.

[@Reddsoldier]

Russia doesn't have a formal NCO corps and most decisions are made high-up and directed to the ground level which is likely why nobody is stopping senior officers and going "er maybe we should wait for the infantry" or "maybe we should protect our supply lines" because there isn't a feedback loop, orders go down and feedback and resentment of those decisions stays with the units and doesn't reach command to shape future choices. It's also probably why so many high ranking COs in the Russian Military have been killed so far. The only way they are able to get an idea of the realities of their battles is to go and watch them... and then get blown up because they are using unsecured communications and are STILL grouping units together despite themselves clearly knowing artillery and PGMS are a very real threat.

[@ifv2089]

Op Orbital

[@brianschlicher59]

It should be pointed out that due to fire and forget manportable AT systems Russian vehicles no longer have dominance in open terrain historically the domain of MBTs. Also the fact Russia does not control the skies has been detrimental to say the least.

[@brianschlicher59]

@@killdizzle The big advantage of fire and forget is the operator does not have to continue to expose themselves after firing. My cousin as an Air Force SF guy in the 80s. With the very effective TOW launchers the operator had to keep sight on target while the missle closed in. He told me upon firing your position is blow and it was expected Soviet armor (this was training in 80s Europe) would begin dumping fire on the operator making dispersion vital. And it goes without saying combined arms is necessary. In Iraq we never let a Bradley hold a position without getting dismounts in the buildings on both sides of the street.

[@colbeausabre8842]

@@brianschlicher59 I'm inclined to think that air power is dead. The US had absolute air SUPREMACY in Korea, Vietnam, Post-Invasion Iraq and Afghanistan. Results 1 tie, 3 losses.

[@dflatt1783]

The turret ejection system works marvelously on these machines.

[@tarasbulba3190]

1st time here. Great video. Subscribed. TANKS ALOT!!! 😄👍🇺🇦

[@zerstorer335]

One issue I see that may be a big reason why the question keeps coming up is that a lot of people think that what a tank brings to the table is invulnerability. Then, when they see tanks getting knocked out, they conclude that means the tank no longer has anything to contribute. But this forgets that the tank still provides a source of mobile firepower that also provides significant protection to the crew (even if it’s not perfect protection against all possible threats). Yes, there are more things on the battlefield that can knock out tanks than before. But humans remain vulnerable to pointed sticks and rocks thrown at high speeds that tanks don’t worry about. So there’s still something for them to contribute if their vulnerabilities can be mitigated.

[@yonghominale8884]

Tanks need enough protection to shoot their big gun. If you can't do that than a tank is useless.

[@zerstorer335]

@@yonghominale8884 True; but it's never been a requirement that the protection be flawless, even though flawless protection would be highly desirable. And that's been good news for the tank, because there's always been something out there, ranging from ditches to antitank rifles, shaped charges, and even crummy weather that will stop a tank from doing its job.