Will IFVs Replace Tanks?

[@Spookston]

Sponsor: apexpartner.app/redirect/Spookston Sorry for the voice and bad gameplay, feeling really sick right now

[@desserted5446]

It’s okay fur man get well soon

[@greyhoundman8389]

Where do you find the information and footage for your videos? Do you have any specific sources you use?

[@WoofyMcDoodle]

@@greyhoundman8389 it was revealed to him in a dream

[@armymanaka360]

It’s alright the audio isn’t bad

[@pauld6967]

I hope you feel better soon. I too was under the weather this past weekend. Anyway, your ammo citation is true for the M2 Bradley. However, my preferred version, the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle has a capacity of 12 (2 in the tubes and 10 reloads). So that might be a better contender to "replace" light tanks. Something I don't think will happen. Light tanks continue to have a role to play on the battlefield.

[@whyjay9959]

The basic concept of a heavily-armed, heavily-protected ground vehicle seems very enduring.

[@hoovyzepoot]

Sword-wielding infantry also seemed very enduring until the musket proved it otherwise.

[@phunkracy]

@@hoovyzepoot bayonet endured well into 18th century, 200 years into the introduction of the musket, so did heavy cavalry. One could argue that the tank was simply reimagining the role of heavy cavalry. The time is a flat circle.

[@MK_ULTRA420]

@@hoovyzepoot Even back then armies used wagon forts, and before that they used armored cavalry or war elephants.

[@termitreter6545]

@@hoovyzepoot Not really a good comparison imo. First of all because pikes/speers/sharp sticks generally beat swords. But at least later, fast firing rifles clearly outclass melee weaponry. Rifle>sharp stick>sword, the range advantage combined with increased lethality is obviously on a different level. I dont see how the tank can be outclassed like this, in the forseeable future. The biggest argument against tanks is "they are not cost-effective anymore". Nobody would claim that tanks are useless. Even those shitty T-72s are still scary enough.

[@caralho5237]

@@termitreter6545 tanks are situational, just like every weapon i imagine they're gonna be doing much better in situations where the enemy is severely outgunned, making the tanks semi indestructible. in a war between 2 technologically advanced nations, i IMAGINE IFVs and purpose tank destroyers are gonna be more effective, since you're gonna be losing tanks anyways so its better to start mass producing light armored vehicles

[@Foreign0817]

Perhaps in role, but not name. They'll probably become mobile assault guns.

[@86pp73]

I know Sweden looked at slapping a 120mm smoothbore onto a CV90, and there's that Stryker variant with the 105mm gun, so we're already somewhat there. Although, I doubt this will replace conventional IFVs entirely, bringing a big assault gun to a small firefight is like trying to repair your phone with a sledgehammer.

[@Foreign0817]

@@86pp73 Imagine artillery battalions just become 155mm tank battalions.

[@86pp73]

@@Foreign0817 That's called an SPAG with actual armour

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@86pp73 These vehicles can utilize canister rounds and HE to deal efficiently with infantry. So no they are not a sledgehammer but a scalpel

[@jolioding_2253]

@@Foreign0817 oof think of the pzh 2000 but with proper armour, that'll be one chonky boy, also not very mobile.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

I don't necessarily think IFVs will replace MBTs. However I think they will increasingly start to share parts or even the entire platform. Using a dedicated weapons platform for both the IFV and MBT variant. Another difference would be the censors used and the level of additional armor. I think a good example for that would be the Armata Platform which supports an MBT, IFV and SPG. I think wheeled AFVs might replace the concept of the light tank though, due to them being faster to deploy. The Type-16 and B1 being the best examples. Fast deployment in difficult terrain is after all a big deal for current light tanks. I also wonder if the Boxer will eventually feature a 105mm or even 120mm main armament. Something I ask myself though is if SPAAG will ever make a come back. A combined armament of Flak and Missiles might be reasonable, one for low flying threats and self defense while other is for fast flying jets out of reach for the canons.

[@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev]

SPAAGs don’t need to make a comeback, because they’re already in service with non-NATO countries around the world, Russia with the 2S6 and Tor systems, China with it’s PGZ-09, both using a composite missile/gun air defense system. It’s just that NATO (and the US in particular), have simply just not developed any new SPAA designs because you (supposedly) don’t need them when you have air superiority. Of course, this claim disregards the increase of low-observable drones and aircraft in CAS, both of which can easily slip through a fighter patrol.

[@mage3690]

The SPAAG will absolutely make a comeback, and IMO will be one of the most ubiquitous vehicles on the future battlefield. The reason I believe this, is because the SPAAG is all but guaranteed to become the IFV of AA systems, an incredibly multi-role system that can remove not only CAS aircraft from the sky as was it's original purpose, but capable of providing a cost-effective defense against drones, missiles, and artillery fire as well. We've already seen a fixed version of it with the US's C-RAM system and the Israeli Iron Dome. Just put that on tracks and you've got a SPAAG, or at least the modern variant. It may even lead the charge along with tanks in future combat, rolling along right behind them to provide protection from ATGMs. Bonus points if you manage to stuff an EW package in them.

[@butspan7618]

@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev us has the most modern spaa. as the C-ram is capable of intercepting artillery shells

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@butspan7618 It's not SPAA though, it's not self propelled. Self propelled would be, if you out it on a Bradley or Abrams.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@AUsernameWeShallMarchToKiev Can't wait for the Leopard 2 MANTIS with AS-Missiles xD Edit: although the Puma or Boxer might be the better candidates

[@Rio-tl1hw]

Remember now IFVs stand for (infantry fighting vehicle), they support infantry combat, tanks are more armored and can deal with more threats than a light IFV, IFVs can usually be defeated by most handheld AT launchers, planes and tanks too. Era and aps help but are not invincible, there’s certain reasons why tanks and IFVs differ and have they uses

[@johnbenoy7532]

Mobile at launchers can destroy mbts just as easily. A good aps on a ifv and a mbt would be equally effective

[@emilsinclair4190]

Sure but one could argue that you could armor an ifv like an tank or build a tank that has only an small caliber weapon like an ifv. In fact this has been done during the first World War.

[@meepy546]

@@emilsinclair4190 pretty sure an ifv with tank armor is just the israeli namer

[@emilsinclair4190]

@@meepy546 ...as stated in the video yes

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@meepy546 Or the T-15

[@ignacioalmiron7187]

Here in Argentina we found another solution, a blitzkrieg style solution. We chose speed, firepower, and a small footprint over armor; plus we have a universal chasis. The TAM, if you swap the turret, can be both a MBT, an IFV, (with the heavy chasis which is a bit longer, wider, and had an extra wheel) a SPG, an ammo carrier, a command center, a MRLS, and we even planned an SPAAA but that ended in nothing. The TAM is truly a really versitile combat vehicle, and if it had enough founding it could be even better.

[@osmacar5331]

"Don't ask what the tank will do to you, ask what the tank will do to them." - Nicolas Moran.

[@CrazyDutchguys]

Time and time again do tanks/MBTs face extinction due to some advancement in technology. The very first tanks got shat on once AT rifles became common. Then they managed to make tanks better armoured so that they could resist AT rifles from most angles. Then the rise of HEAT/HEATFS going through unheard of mm of armour, so once again, tanks faced going out of style, untill ERA and NERA were invented. Now once again with top attack missiles and drone weapons, untill APS was invented. We will probably be seeing something new in time again in the next few decades. I dont think a well protected vehicle with a big gun wont be going out of style any time soon.

[@tianhaoju4634]

You are right. A tank will go extinct when something that is fundementally intended to replace it is introduced, not something to stand against it. Yeah in Ukraine many tanks were lost, but as we previously discussed, for both sides it was more significant to propaganda enemy tank losses Another example could be the Israeli counterattack on Sinai during the fourth middle east war. The IDF 81st BDE lost 80% of its tank under 12 hours, due to the shear numbers of Egyptian AT weapons. However, the IDF still stuck to armored counteroffensive and barely stood the line.

[@CrazyDutchguys]

@@tianhaoju4634 Tank losses in Ukraine are so bad because outdated doctrine. Almost every single video you see of Russian tanks getting destroyed is a tank either in a city (where its basically fucked anyway) or out in the open with no infantry support ANYWHERE near it. The role of MBT's will change from general purpose to specifically anti armour role and breakthrough.

[@tianhaoju4634]

@@CrazyDutchguys Indeed, and if we highlight the fact that weapons like the javelins are used at in practice around 2km range, which is inside the range of the Russian tanks, we can see its just a problem with the Russians: there are no infantry to eliminate enemy ATGM units. Even NATO tanks doing the same thing wont help much.

[@Strait_Raider]

Since the pinnacle of the tank in the 50s and 60s, every time this has happened the operating envelope of the tank has shrunk. Modern guided weapons created powerful anti-tank threats from infantry, fast air, helicopters, guided artillery, and now drones and loitering munitions which enclose a smaller and smaller battlespace in which the tank is meaningfully more survivable than an IFV. At the same time, the creation of more numerous and more advanced fire support platforms (man-portable AT, grenade launchers, and thermobaric rockets, guided and unguided ordnance from fast air and helicopters, guided artillery, drones, loitering munitions, missile, cannon, and autocannon armed IFVs) have steadily reduced the number of scenarios where a tank's cannon is the best or only option for fire support. The question is when does this space where the tank is the best system for the role become so small that it no longer makes sense economically or logistically to maintain a separate vehicle? The US Marine Corps has decided that that time has passed - before they ever saw the battles in Ukraine. You may say the Marine Corps has different operational requirements than the US Army, and that is true, but it is on its own still one of the largest military forces in the world, expected to hold the field and win against a near-peer adversary equipped with a full range of battlefield threats.

[@CrazyDutchguys]

@@Strait_Raider MBT's have definitely shrunk in their purpose, they will go from their previous general purpose assault vehicle to fill a much smaller niche. Most likely in the form of breakthrough (with IFV support) and the tank destroyer role. 1v1 a tank is still much more likely to win against an IFV. Not to forget protection and armament is changing for MBT's too. Look at the new German Panther especially, able to carry 4 long distance loitering drones with AT capabilities. While having anti drone systems in return as well.

[@Just_Adrian_]

If you want your military to have the capabilities for every situation, you simply can't rely on only a single type of vehicle like only having ifv's or only using mbt's, etc.

[@mimicnutria18]

I was the master driver for a stryker brigade and let my tell you that they are the worst, especially the non mgs version because you at least have a cannon that can engage targets bigger than a pickup. But strykers are massive and so poorly armored that 50 call will go through it. They can be quick but they get stuck alot and the wheels pop all the time. It was crazy to see how fragile they can be but also sometimes take a beating.

[@INeoliteI]

Is it true that the MGS gun malfunctions if you look at it the wrong way?

[@phunkracy]

Yeah this sheds some light on why BTRs are used the way they're used in Ukrainian war

[@phunkracy]

I'd bet a lot that US Stryker brigades would ride these UAVs just like Ukrainians and Russians do in a high intensity conflict. If a 7.92 can pen your IFV someehat reliably you don't want to be in one when shit hits the fan. You'd want to be as far from it as possible as quickly as possible, IFVs are bullet magnets

[@tigerbesteverything]

that's not ifvs in general, just american tech that is inferior in quality for the sake of superior quantity and availability.

[@justarandomtechpriest1578]

@@tigerbesteverything .... Bruh that's Russia not America

[@steammanx]

At the end of the day it is doctrine, IFV will use in war with different doctrine for each country. Example like the M2 Bradley, not powerful like the BMP 2 but effective if you use them right depending on the doctrine that the US military have.

[@Evirthewarrior]

I remember in the early 2000s people were thinking that the Stryker would replace the Abrams and the Bradley. That did not happen.

[@Predator20357]

Oh right the Stryker, the thing I thought was a Tank Destroyer until I later learned it was meant to support infantry instead.

[@chesterlynch9533]

No one mentioned that the Strykers would replace the Abrams and Bradley's. The Strykers were initially intended to fill the capability gap between heavier and heavily armed, but not easily deployable, vehicles, such as the M2 Bradley, and easily deployable vehicles that are lightly armed and protected, such as the Humvee. These vehicles was intended as an interim vehicle until light air-mobile vehicles from the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles program came online, which was cancelled. Now, the Strykers have their own category as medium weight brigade combat teams. A median between the larger ABCT that employs the heavier M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley and the IBCT's which are mostly airborne infantry forces that uses light vehicles.

[@josephahner3031]

I'm sure some civilians did, but that was never the Army's intention. Take one close up look at the Stryker and you'll instantly see some flaws in that plan, try driving it around the block a little, especially after driving Brads and Abrams and you'll ask what the hell the Pentagon was thinking. I was fortunate enough during my time at the 316th cavalry brigade to get to drive Bradleys and Strykers as this is not particularly common for Abrams crewmen especially once the 19Ds took over the MGS and Bradleys were until very recently driven only by infantrymen and cavalry scouts.

[@Evirthewarrior]

@@josephahner3031 I defiantly saw several people in uniform on documentaries about the Stryker in the early 2000s talking about how it would replace Abrams and Bradleys, they did renderings of Strykers with 120mm cannons and Bradley turrets. They finally tested them later and realized it would not work but there were several that thought Strykers were the universal vehicle.

[@thealmightytigor5308]

Thanks for another informative and interesting video spookston can't wait for the next one, perhaps a video on the strv103 or some weird swedish vehicle?

[@apo11o38]

An Abrams can take an absolutely monstrous beating. I highly doubt such a capable and tested platform will go anywhere without a more capable replacement coming.

[@spamhonx56]

If IFVs ever replace tanks, some military designer is going to have the smart idea of an IFV with a bigger gun, more armour, less room for infantry, more room for those bigger shells, and the 3 or 4 infantry it can carry can perform tasks like driving, loading, that kind of thing...

[@theimmortal4718]

Unless they give it a foot of armor on the top, it will die to a top attack missile as if it doesn't have any armor at all

[@agentkaos1768]

@@theimmortal4718 APS, anti ATGMs technology and lasers, those can help tanks and other armored vehicle against missiles

[@theimmortal4718]

@@agentkaos1768 Help. It's not a cure. Those things don't suddenly make an armored vehicle impervious to missiles. The other large threat is laser guided 155 shells.

[@agentkaos1768]

@@theimmortal4718 Lazer guided 155 shells? Never heard of this before, and the APS is another layer of protection, it isn't meant to make tanks invincible to missiles, never said it. It helps to provide protection when it's being shoot at with ATGMs, just another armor that doesn't make the tank weight more, also the armor of the tank meant to be last line of protection in the survivability onion, it's there to protect against Autocannons and explosives, not dedicated and advance Anti tank missiles.

[@theimmortal4718]

@@agentkaos1768 Never heard of laser guided artillery? They've been used for decades. Every major army uses them. NATO uses the 155mm M982 Excalibur, which replaced the M712 Copperhead. The Russians use the 152mm Krasnopol. Rounds like these have gotten the majority of armored vehicle kills in Ukraine.

[@Salamandra40k]

I really want someone to make a video like this, "are tanks obsolete?" And then the video is 5 seconds of the narrator asking the question to the audience, and then saying "No." And the video ends without elaboration

[@BjorgKooi]

Concusion: we need them both, MBT's and IFV's.

[@TheKenji2221]

If you can afford both

[@Stalkergames916]

Concussion?

[@divinehatred6021]

@@TheKenji2221 Americans can, and no other country really does create wars as often as US did and still does

[@carlmikell2292]

@@divinehatred6021 Probably because those nations are busy fighting amongst themselves. Or fighting their neighboring countries. If the opportunity was presented to them,they would do the same thing as the US.

[@goc4Yourself]

Explained beautifully, thank you its a question I've had in the back of mind for a while

[@SD78]

No. A modern MBT can only be directly killed by another modern MBT or a modern ATGW system (or an assload of HE). An IFV will get lit up by 30mm cannon fire or even heavy machinegun fire from the side and rear.

[@Abdullah-mn6sw]

2:45 looks like a child walking with it's parents.

[@fredhercmaricaubang1883]

VERY SOUND & RATIONAL ANALYSIS! GOOD JOB!

[@chanman819]

Speaking of the differences between IFVs and APCs, I would suggest that in addition to the weapons are the sensors and optics that allow for more effective use of those weapons. The manually operated machine gun on top of an M113 is useful for defending the vehicle up close, but the track commander isn't going to be laying down precision fire at a target a 1000m away, unlike that same machine gun when mated to a stabilized fire control system with high magnification optics...

[@phunkracy]

You don't want to be in a M113 under enemy fire, ever. This thing can be penetrated by an assault rifle

[@justarandomtechpriest1578]

@@phunkracy only of the rifle is using AP or quite close

[@phunkracy]

@@justarandomtechpriest1578 both are extremely common, the former in the age of body armor is especially prevalent

[@Stefan-xu5nd]

Can you consider making a video on some possible Yugoslav tanks like M-84 M-55 IGMAN, M4 Sherman 122mm etc

[@lockpinos]

I think there are going to be some kinda Hybrid betteween IFV and MBT in the future like the Front-engine with rear door troop carrier Merkava

[@chaosagent_0106]

Not gonna happen, unless someone is happy combining two vehicles meant to compliment each other, not be one entity. And the size alone for that kind of vehicle is gigantic

[@grahamstrouse1165]

I think you might be right. Israeli tanks & HAPCs have heavy roof armor because they can do away with top hatches. Remote weapons stations with HMG or cannons + ATGMs can deal with most danger-close theats. You can even turn your APC/IFV into a drone carrier for ISR & combat. Modern SPGs will likely be the cannon carriers of the future. PGMs and drone scouts make it much easier to locate and destroy enemy tanks with indirect fire at ranges of 25-50 klicks.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Will IFVs replace tanks? Before watching this vid, id say NO! I mean, lets say they do. No more MBTs. People just field IFVs. Then later on down the road, someone decides they want a vehicle that has more durability and staying power than an IFV as well as a bigger punch to counter the swarms of IFVs and thier low caliber guns. You wind up with something resembling an MBT......thick armor to resist the IFVs small caliber weapons and a big gun to blow said thinnly armored IFV into next year......sooooo, no, MBTs are not going away.

[@theimmortal4718]

The roof armor is just as thin on a tank, so it's not any harder to kill with a top attack missile than an IFV.

[@cyberdroid2300]

Are you unwell? Sounds like a cold/sore throat to me. Take some Ginger & Lemon tea (like actual grated ginger) and add some honey to mellow the bitter lemon's taste. Get well soon (if you're unwell) (ah, just read the description lol)*

[@TheAzureNightmare]

The IFV can only replace the Tank if it can reliably do what a Tank can, and withstand as much as a Tank can, along with everything else. Especially Economically... The Tank and the IFV both are different classes of Chariots of this age, and they're complex weapons devised by complex societies, requiring complex components to fight often complex wars. Should Systems Collapse come about this age of society, odds are both weapons systems will eventually fail, one way or another. Hence, the problem of what our conception of warfighting is may change palpably. Same goes for Aircraft. Even many specialized Infantry doctrines.

[@AdmiralJT]

Feel like with most things, they will keep wanting to add into the IFV that they just end up being tanks again

[@zaner5005]

tracked tanks is one of those things that just makes sense and i see no need to try and change

[@YukarisGearReviews]

I have had this exact conversation SO MANY TIMES with individuals on a certain Tibetan basket-weaving forum: "So you want an armored vehicle with a cannon of its own that is armored against 30mm autocannons from the front and sides? You want a tank?"

[@impguardwarhamer]

I think it comes down to why IFV's exist in the first place. APC's are needed to give armoured transport for the troops. When you have an armoured vehicle in a combat zone, you may as well arm it and make it also useful as a tank. You *could* go all the way and make this vehicle and your MBT the same vehicle, but then your MBT has to make many compromises to function as a troop carrier. MBT's are always struggling to counter new and emerging threats, so such a compromise is not acceptable. Hence, 2 different vehicles are needed.

[@RGC-gn2nm]

Chieftan himself said it in his video. Gunfire is immediate, cannons are faster than a missile, incoming rounds are extremely hard to intercept and the ammo is extremely long lasting.

[@n.a.4292]

Strategic and tactical doctrines will change, but tanks will still be used in the forseeable future, I think...

[@silasknie9326]

To be honest, i think this discussion is a lot like rock, paper, scissors: If somebody takes rock all the time, you better try paper, but chances are, he will respond with scissors. So everything has a place, but in a specific and short period times you might want to focus on one thing, to exploit a weakness of your opponent.

[@ballbender9thousand944]

Why dont we took a M1 Abram hull , make the engine Frontally mounted , make it longer and slap a few Seat in Them

[@Treblaine]

I bought into a lot of the "reformers" nonsense about the Bradely as it's "hard factors" like cannon caliber, fire rate and troop capacity seemed less than impressive but its soft factors made it an outstanding. The 25mm cannon is extremely accurate for a cannon, 50% hit rate on a 2.3x2.3m target 1.2km away with a laser rangefinder and fully stabilized makes it a devastating weapon, what are infantry supposed to do against that? Without heavy weapons their only chance is to run. And I think the good old SACLOS guided missile has been hugely under-rated, they can reliably put a large warhead on target from miles away for a relatively low cost. Sure, there are better missiles like Hellfire but their advantage in range you tend to need an aerial platform to have such a long line of sight that would need to greater range of Hellfire. I think I bought too much into explanations of the limitations of ATGM against tanks.

[@phunkracy]

What is infantry supposed to do about that? They'll send an ATGM and that's it, like in Ukraine.

[@djraythefurry0420]

Faster atgms and a 57 mm auto gun is probably like the only two things that would really change along with even more high explosive atgms and shells to use from the main caliber

[@chesterlynch9533]

US Army is currently looking at a TOW missile replacement while using the same missile launchers. Basically, a new missiles using the same launchers.

[@Treblaine]

​@@chesterlynch9533 There's lots of areas to improve: Replacing the wire communication with a secure datalink would improve the range and make it more reliable. No wire could also allow the missile to be much much faster, twice as fast on average. It can also be designed to have a top-attack warhead (this has been tried before in prototypes) It could also use inertial guidance like NLAW for terminal stages such as if the tank pops smoke or goes full defilade. But the US is overwhelmingly going to have to deal with relatively low armour threats, they may need a cheaper missile that can be used to deal with occupied buildings, bunkers, suicide vehicles and other strongpoints.

[@chesterlynch9533]

@@Treblaine The newest tow missile doesn't have any wire anymore. But US Army wants the new missile to have 8-10km range, fire and forget capability (probably with EO/IR seeker or millimeter wave radar), lock on after launch capability and a two way data link (Basically very similar to Rafael Spike ER II). There's also a chance that they would want it to have top attack capability like Javelin itself while having a direct fire mode to deal with bunker/fortified positions and they want to have a faster missile (Not sure how they can do it but even currently TOW is much faster than Rafael Spike ATGM). Either way, it's a tall order especially since they want to use the same launchers.

[@winterierfan1672]

Please make a video on the insane repair costs of tanks like the Chieftain MK 3 (8300 silver lions) compared to the disgustingly low cost of their same BR counterparts like the PTL02 (4000 silver lions) (Which gets thermals, APFSDS and laser rangefinder) or the T55A (4200 silver lions) or even the leopard A1A1 (3800 silver lions).

[@mr.nobody6059]

IFV and tank, both are built for different role and purpose. both are cannot replace each other but can support each other.

[@okobongdinko]

I do think you should cover wheeled Vs tracks. Cause during the Mali emergency france used thier wheeled vehicles like the 10rc to great effect by having to stop less and being able to travel faster. And it isn't just french doctrine which prefers wheeled vehicles as the South African doctrine also prefers this too. While tracks have thier merits I think wheels also do have thier merits and it would be very interesting to see a video of you comparing the two

[@griffinfaulkner3514]

Africa has a lot of dry, hard-packed terrain where ground pressure isn't really an issue, so having wheeled vehicles there makes sense. The second you start to run into deep sand or wetter climates, tracks gain a massive advantage in mobility. There's a rather amusing account from the Falklands of a British light tank commander dismounting to scout ahead, only to immediately sink up to his hips in mud. Even an Abrams, which is the heaviest MBT in use, has lower ground pressure than your average infantryman.

[@crocidile90]

@@griffinfaulkner3514 there was a few accounts where the Soviets would park their T-34s on ice beds and the germans tried it only to have a few of theirs sink. It turns out that the T-34 had the lowest ground pressure of any tank in WW2

[@AndyViant]

Head to head comparisons on this are really difficult, since it's pretty clear offroad mobility heavily favours the tracks and most engagements are going to be far enough away that track noise isn't going to be an issue. But, that's all based on ignoring logistics. Wheeled vehicles are much cheaper to maintain, more mobile for deployment in most scenarios, use far less fuel, have far greater range and can be transported in much greater numbers. They're far easier on the infrastructure too. Which is going to be better, there is going to be an effective combat range where tracks have an advantage, and a change over point beyond which the wheeled vehicles have more advantages. That change over point depends on your supply and logistics, and any natural geographic or infrastructure barriers. As such, it's dependent on too many variables. I firmly believe my nation needs far greater range and mobility more than massed armour. We've not used our battle tanks in combat since WW2, but deploy our IFV's and AFV's time and time again. We do still need a heavy armoured contingent, but it should be a smaller portion of our forces than say Poland or Germany would require.

[@okobongdinko]

@@AndyViant what country are you from, if you don't mind me asking

[@okobongdinko]

@@griffinfaulkner3514 yes which is an issue, french wheeled tanks most likely won't work that well in the harsher wetter conditions of eastern Europe where the next conflict looks set to be

[@thepolishnz]

troop capacity is a funny topic. we use the NZLAV essentially identical to the LAVIII and AUSLAV except we fit 8 fully kitted troops in the back but the aus and can put 9.

[@XMysticHerox]

I feel like if an IFV replaces a tank it is not an IFV but essentially a light tank.

[@yagdtigercommander]

Every afv has a role with some over lap and is evolving. But at their core each member still has a specialized however said specialized roles are bit more flexible these days. Instead of 20 differently insanely specialized vehicles like in WW2 as an example. Modern militaries have reduce that number significantly removing excessive redundancy. Still have specialized vehicles that can still be decent enough in a role it wasn't intended for incase you don't have the vehicle handy meant to do that role. Wheeled Tank Destroyers and fire support vehicles can bring the fire power of light or even mbt but are highly mobile and are good reactionary units to support allied infantry in intense fire fights that an MBT can't get to easily or the MBT is unable to arrive in time. So have a light weight fire support vanguard of sorts to help dictate the course of the fight and buy more time for MBTs to show up and secure the combat zone forcing the enemy to retreat. Or allow the light armoured fire support vehicles to retreat back to allied lines for repairs and resupply before being sent out on the next mission. Or good at shoot and scoot tactics ambushing enemy tank formations in a reactionary defense style tactics stalling the enemy armoured advance giving more time for your own tank columns to counter and smash the enemies armour in large counter offensive. Fire support vehicles and ifvs don't have the endurance of and robustness but mbts give some speed for armour and fire power. But they are great a being effective mobile weapons platforms when every second counts and time is not on your side. They are good buffer and time saver when swiftness is most important and can get out when shit gets too much for them or afvs that are better suited to the current situation arrive to the fight.

[@Marth667]

Great video but I suspect that tanks are in need for a change, their sky high costs both for initial purchase but also ongoing maintenance is what will 'price' them out of many countries armies in the future. You still need dedicated armour to engage armoured threats no doubt, but the size and cost of tanks means the 'tank' will changed. The future armour might be a multi-role vehicle sporting modular weapon and sensor packages for the country in question. The possible future of tanks might be a tracked LAV-AD, auto cannon with dumbfire rockets and multi-purpose missile systems hooked up to a rapid reload system to engage all threats. Harder targets or formations will be left to other combine arms elements to degrade or destroy. These vehicles will effectively reduce the complexity, cost, logistical and service overheads of any army.

[@Schnittertm1]

Short answer: "No!" Long answer: This video

[@Bread-kun]

The only counter point I'd make is that with top attack missiles becoming more and more normal it's a struggle for MBT's right now. Of course it's really hard to judge because MBT's haven't really been used in an "equal fair fight" between 2 powers, by the time MBT's became a thing most of the fighting was between two forces where one vastly out matched the other militarily and things became more guerilla warfare for one side. A fight where MBT's really don't shine in, where they aren't likely to encounter another enemy armored vehicle and infantry in hidden positions becomes much more common. In those situations I'd argue IFV's offer a lot more purpose and MBT's can mostly serve as fire support against fortified structures because that's something that IFV's just won't be able to deal with. It's starting to go back to the early cold war where munitions have crept past armor considerably, where being light and fast is much more beneficial because being slower n more armored doesn't really matter, your armor can easily be penetrated by things lighter vehicles carry, or even infantry. Inevitably we will probably have advancements in counter measures and stopping tanks from getting blasted by the current more advanced missile systems and then the cycle will repeat.

[@Marth667]

Its also a cost dynamic, if you want conventional tanks to endure you need to increase their defence yet again. That means APS or composite top armour, that means increase cost and weight on already stupidly expensive and heavy weapons platform. IFV's are significantly cheaper to initially buy but also maintain and whilst spook does mention how expensive some ATGM's are it's still a significant saving compared to a multi-million dollar tank. I suspect that you'll always need a dedicated armour asset to engage other armour but the current forms of tanks are untenable from a cost, size and role aspect. They're too expensive, too big and heavy and once a proper war breaks out rather then in a third world shithole they're reduced to watching the artillery work as they try to exploit break throughs. So if their role is to provide fire superiority and be fast they don't need to be as expensive and heavy as they are now. I image the future of armour might be a tracked LAV-AD, a multi-role vehicle with auto cannons, dumbfire rockets and multi-purpose smart missile systems hooked up to a rapid reload system to engage all targets but with no troop compartment. Harder targets they struggle to defeat can be engaged by other combined arms elements to either degrade or destroy them.

[@Raptor747]

Yeah, IFVs are a compromise of different capabilities that make them extremely useful but still quite limited. They can do a lot of things pretty well, but lack staying power or enough protection to be safe against any kind of heavier weaponry. Also, one of the key capabilities tanks bring to a fight is the heavy fire support--that big gun is there for much more than just shooting enemy tanks, and the entire concept of the assault gun is based around the need to bring a big, direct-fire cannon to bear on targets rather than a vehicle meant for killing tanks.

[@Brandon34098]

i wonder how deployable armor would work in protecting passengers, it would only need to be enough to stop heavy mg fire and protect the troop compartment from handheld launchers as well as general HE effects expected from the battlefield and preferably from environmental conditions such temperature, water and dust while being comfortable enough to drive quickly, the armor could obscure the tanks combat ability while deployed if it can collapse the armor remotely after the passengers deploy

[@PlumSack79]

Will Spookston ever be replaced

[@dankuspanku4650]

no

[@DeepVeinThrombonus]

I doubt that IFVs will ever replace MBTs, but light tanks might be a different story. The direction that IFVs seem to be heading in is packing greater fire power, a great example of this being the Bradley up gunning to a 50mm auto cannon. This generally will allow them to tackle heavier targets with their guns for cost efficiency but still retain the ability to go after the really heavy stuff with their missiles. So in many regards they can match the offensive capability of light tanks and they both run light armor so there is a lot of overlap. Additionally, if you want to run an IFV in the role of a light tank then you stick ammunition in the carry compartment (will probably take some modification but will end up costing a lot less than developing, field and maintaining a whole new vehicle, not to mention the simplification of logistics). And yes, we see light tanks that can take a hit and run 105 or 120mm guns, but they end up weighing almost as much as MBT most of the time so can we really call them light tanks then. Also, APS seems to be coming along nicely to the point where it can start off setting some of the armor limitations on lighter vehicles.

[@Domsenik22]

An interesting fact i kept in memorie from my time as tanker is that the leo 2s ground preasure/cm² is less than a adult woman with heels/cm²

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

Wirklich?

[@Domsenik22]

@@DefinitelyNotEmma ja fand ich auch spannend deswegen versinkt man mit Stöckelschuhe im Schlamm und der Leo kann drüberfahren.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@Domsenik22 Ich versink in allen Schuhen im Schlamm und der Leo nicht xD

[@Domsenik22]

@@DefinitelyNotEmma ja ein kleines einsinken ist nicht zu vermeiden :p

[@tigerbesteverything]

@ Spookston just talking about the title. A tracked ifv is by essence a tank. Title should be more "will ifv be the next MBT?" or "will it replace mbts?"

[@4G12]

Short answer: No. Long answer: NOOOOOOOO!!!!

[@hyperdimensionbliss]

I'm of the stance that the IFV completely usurps the MBT. The only thing it lacks is a large-calibre cannon, which is hardly enough of a drawback to keep it from being the centerpiece of any mobile infantry unit. They're better at anti-infantry support, can carry any protection systems an MBT could, cost less to produce and field, don't bog themselves down with "armour" meaning less strain on running gear, are able to take out enemy MBTs via ATGMs, and can transport anywhere from a fireteam to a full squad without being vulnerable to small arms fire.

[@specialagent1868]

Tanks are likely going to stick around as drone vehicles controlled via IFVs. I could see a modified IFV that functions as a pure command and control vehicle running various light and heavy drone tanks.

[@lucusloc]

With regards to WT, the issue with IFVs is the lack of I in the game, as that is pretty integral to the functionality of the unit. Granted modern doctrine also has a lot of Is fighting with the MBTs too, but not nearly so integrated as I is supposed to be with IFVs.

[@maverick740]

I made this type of Thread on my Twitter explaining why MBTs are not obsolete and again.. i mentioned a few aspect regarding combined arms.. and that including IFV. Again MBT and IFVs are part of the Chain in the Combined Arms System, you erase them.. the Combined Arms itself wasn't going to work properly because they had their own intended roles and they fill every gap, downsides, and limitation that others have and in turn the other things that they protect will do the same.. such as MBT would help you destroy structure and other enemy vehicles, while in turn.. you protect them from Infantry with the IFV. It's basically the link of chains that made combined arms worked properly

[@pennycarvalho1223]

Could you talk about tank suspension? It’s a rather special but forgotten subject of military vehicles, they require them to move properly and also to having good suspension means better weight that can be carried and extra Armor as well as making crew members more comfortable while the vehicle is riding

[@oompa3268]

I think it’ll slowly transition to a middle point between the ifv and mbt. As more complex measures are taken to defeat the mbt the doctrine (or at least the western doctrine) will shift even more so than it already is toward the infantry support side. I can picture a 50-60mm auto cannon with antitank missiles.

[@furiousredeem1207]

Also because IFVs use atgms as their way of combating tanks more use of hard and soft kill aps makes the atgms not as reliable as something like apfsds.

[@coppycop9556]

There is just no replacement for a big gun thats hard to kill

[@lolbitgamingii4912]

Idk about others, but i kind of see light tanks and IFVs as the same type of vehicle, seeing that their roles (as far as i know) as similar, if not the same

[@jackblaisdell4097]

I think the m10 booker with a 50mm auto cannon would be a great addtion to infantry squads and armor squads alike

[@catosicarius6175]

Opinion of type 15, or the light mbt concept? Seems contrary to primary trend of light tanks being basically light assault guns with a big gun but ifv armor.

[@Kminek246]

Is there a vehicle like IFVs but without the ability of carrying soldiers. Like IFV that would be more focus on fighting. Able to carry more ammo. Like if you took the extra room for soldiers i think the size of the vehicle could have been reduce. It just really big shot in dark but i think maybe, maybe it would be a interesting concept.

[@noahezer9295]

About armored cars I could see them rolling across a massive desert like an ATV with ease however I'd think the engine's gonna heat up a lot...

[@Dovahkiin520]

It's this topic that makes me love the Bradley even more lol the M2 is the IFV and the M3 is the cavalry support for the M1's. Both are able to bring troops into battle but their roles entirely different when it comes to supporting infantry and supporting armor.

[@josephahner3031]

Now the M2 is both. The Army recently replaced their M3s with M2s because the M2 can carry more dismounted scouts and supplies for them than the M3 which has missile racks in the way. Turns out 12 missiles are more than enough for the Cav mission, and you don't need 24 when you've got friendly tanks and precision guided artillery on speed dial.

[@DevVexus]

I think stealth and automation will take the lead. No need for armor if they will never see you.

[@iansmith3406]

You are just assuming the stealth can outpace the detection systems which is probably not going to be the case.

[@Invizive]

@@iansmith3406 and armour doesn't outpace penetration capabilities of peer opponents, yet it is still used

[@jamegumb7298]

@@iansmith3406 It depends. As usualy it probably is a rock paper scissors game. Plasma can absorb almost 100% of radar waves, which they are trying to deploy now, which if course comes with obvious problems. So then coatings, tye can only do so much. So use long wave radar, easy detection, but only direction forget about height. So use a radar rotated 90°. That means 2 really big radars to get a good idea of where a stealth plane is. And long wave means no precise location, so no target lock. Enter quantum detectors, shown promise, but if you think current tech is expensive, oh boy. So what is the threat and is that worth it?

[@nicojokelin5547]

@@Invizive depends on the weapon you need pretty large caliber AT to destroy a mbt

[@Brandon34098]

volume of fire would be able to land a close enough hit in response to it firing and if it moves then it would be detectable

[@theamazing2435]

Honestly if he's with main Canon level calibers are just light tanks and especially things like the bmp3 they can't even carry troops anymore are literally just light tanks and I'm smaller countries where the country can inherently afford to make light tanks and ifv it just makes more sense to make an IVf cuz it acts both as an armored personnel carrier and it's an important component in modern-day fightin

[@silkyz68]

I think IFVs are going to become the preferred armored vehicle when it comes to urban combat. You can't swing a large barrel around in some tight roadway, but an IFV could. IFVs also provide enough mobile cover to troops in building search roles, providing a useful fallback point. In open combat, IFVs will still serve roles in support and transport, but less in terms of actual fighting. Will they replace tanks, no because tanks fill a niche for anti-emplacemnet, while IFVs are flexible support.

[@Limescale12]

Great, great video

[@nomcarver4436]

Love your content

[@wojszach4443]

btw about ifv being more effective: just to visualize, every round from autocannon is about as deadly as hand granade, if we are talking high explosive, now let's talk about rate of fire

[@xt6wagon]

Light tanks built on ifv platforms is gaining some traction on the manufacturing side, we will need to see if it translates to the buyers buying. If the mbt dies because no one wants to pay for a mbt I think they will take off. If mbts are around more optimized light tanks seem a better option as a low recoil 105 on a low profile hull is just that much better.

[@yoshineitor]

Even if IFVs get "nigh indestructible", heavier platforms will be needed to carry heavy and long guns

[@arya31ful]

I think IFV might better be redefined as a "Tank Support/Escort Vehicle" ala BMPT, since it could provide cover against ATGM teams while using obsolete or production chassis could cut cost slightly. Alas there's still no combat report about BMPT despite that this war would be an ideal environment to test out the concept.

[@jfd9616]

Light tanks and wheeled vehicles as well IFV's are a great concept, but I think they should have more armor. Sure some have good armor, but most modern MBTs will be able to make them vanish as well the crew. Especially the odd landmine. More armor could make them classified as not a light tank anymore though but there could be some work arounds.

[@徐晃-b6s]

armor or the ablilty to transpot infanty, u cant get both

[@BacnManYT]

Nice video, I don't know much about IFVs so this video helped. Vehicle request | V Could I request you play the Warrior IFV, I think it's a really cool IFV and want to know your opinion on it!

[@otdewiljes]

Tank-IFV's already exist. The Merkava is basically a tank which carries a squad of infantry.

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

At the end of the day, IFVs are called IFVs for a reason, they are made to try to fulfill every form of support for infantry and fellow armoured units in some margin or another while also transporting said infantry, not the main assaulting vehicle against hard targets such as fortified areas or tanks that have it outgunned or outprotected as that is where the tank shines with its mighty cannon that decimates buildings and armoured vehicles alike and its mighty armour that soaks up hits from at least most weapons from the concepts beginnings, all the way to today.

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

>>>IFV are "gap fillers" left by MBT's capacities.

[@whatisalifeihavenone4708]

Day 6 of Asking Spookston can you talk about an idea I have based off something you said in a past video (think it was the lend lease one). Sweden's tree should be turned into a "Nordic" Tree, which would have a Norwegian and Finnish tree, for the following reasons Sweden lacks heavies, and premiums. Plus they have a general lack of creative tanks as most are similar or copy pastes Norway made multiple tanks, concepts, and experimental designs. Finland made some tanks, modified certain soviet tanks (BT-42, KV-1B), and also captured multiple tanks Finland already exists within the Swedish tree with some vehicles, plus it could be an excuse to add Heavy Tanks to the Swedish trees like the IS-2, plus maybe even a T-34 This is in general, but remove the KV-1B from the German tree (they already have a KV-1) and move it to Sweden.

[@andyfriederichsen]

They won't replace main battle tanks. IFVs and MBTs serve completely different roles and have different levels of protection.

[@gardnert1]

New MBTs will feature the kind of cannons IFVs use. This will make the tank MUCH better than an IFV in any situation.

[@einar8019]

no, the big gun is why you want a mbt if you give it a autocannon you just got a ifv that cant carry infantry

[@danielharrison6484]

Shit how many of the combined arms infantrymen remember being 8-9 or more in the back of a Bradley.

[@last_dutch_hero258]

You should make a video on the Merkava heavy IFV project that Isreal is putting up, pretty intresting stuff

[@GoldRider4265]

The only hard requirement of a tank is big gun and hard to kill. The first part is outpacing the second part by leaps and bounds. Unless something big happens that bring armor back to the same level as weapons, or at least within the same zip code, then the MBT in my opinion will be eventually phased out for smaller and more mobile killing machines. The whole combined arms argument in support of tanks is also just as easily made against them. Need a structure atomized? Call in the flyboys, the seamen, or the arty if you cannot get an infantry squad with plastic explosives close enough to do the job. is there a field of fire you need to cross but have no cover? Bring in the IFV that's rated to not get pin-cushioned by autocannons and .50s then push. There a huge threat that just won't go away like an enemy tank regiment? Between TOWs, Javelins, RPGs, drones, and even field guns your infantry alone could handle the entire problem, let alone calling for backup from literally any other branch of the military. Weaponry is just way too good at this stage for armor to be a contender, and at best it'll be a niche or at worst wholly obsolete. To answer the question though, I don't think IFVs will replace tanks wholesale. They simply have overlaps that will make it appear as if they have.

[@darklordchinchin3736]

Well as the grim darkness of the 41st millenium has shown us IFVs and tanks will evolve to huge bulky WW1 style multi-turreted war machines, therefore the answer Spookston gave about IFVs getting as heavy and performing the same roles as tanks is clearly wrong.

[@thiccthighssavelives5866]

How the fuck does a fictional universe count as proof?

[@TheArklyte]

Nope, IFVs will just be viewed as infantry tanks(whose niche they have taken) at best. They haven't shown an ability to spill other niches covered by MBTs and other tank types.

[@realhyperhamster]

me: expecting a normal video I can enjoy with factual information. Spookston: *I AM PARTNERED WITH APEX GAMING*

[@512TheWolf512]

If IFV's can have the same effective firepower and protection, then yes, of course they will replace tanks

[@WynnofThule]

1:34 "They've also been lighter than Main Battle Tanks" 2:47 "And of course, in order to keep the weight of such a large vehicle at an acceptable level, that means it cannot be fitted with very thick armor." *Laughs in GCV program*

[@Strait_Raider]

Much of this may depend on how effective Active Protection Systems become in the near future. If current and near-future APS can render a vehicle nearly invulnerable to HEAT projectiles, and break up kinetic projectiles enough that their penetrating power is reduced to be on par with a modern autocannon, then there is no reason to armour a vehicle against more than the most powerful or most common enemy autocannon. This would allow lighter tracked or wheeled vehicle to even more confidently fulfill the direct-fire-support role which is the tank's only remaining niche. I call it the tank's only remaining niche because... I think the tank's role of exploitation mentioned in this video is obsolete. Certainly against a near-peer adversary it should be impossible and against a below-peer adversary it's unnecessarily risky. The prevalence of powerful AT platforms and modern C3I means that any attempted breakthrough should be identified and contained or destroyed by more-mobile AT assets before it can accomplish its exploitation goals. And even if it could accomplish those goals... the intelligence required to pull off a strike like that means you had the intelligence necessary to hit the same target with precision drone or artillery munitions for a fraction of the cost and no risk to human life. *Maybe* if a high-caliber (75/90mm) autocannon race happens as the result of APS dominance in the next decades and *maybe* if C-RAM systems because efficient and widespread enough to neuter air/artillery threats near the frontline there might be a role for some ungodly high-autonomy direct-fire platform encased in heavy NERA to defeat autocannons and APS to defeat missiles and high-caliber KE... but at that point it really sounds like we're writing fantasy just as much as the people envisioning future air-to-air gun kills are.

[@kousand9917]

I think in the Future things will look more like the T72 Moderna with a main cannon and a secondary ifv cannon

[@emilsinclair4190]

I would say it depends. If there will be less fortified structures or easier ways to deal with them than ifvs can replace them. If not mbts will continue to exist.

[@NotQuiteAllHere]

Class 3 (P) seems like the closest thing to a ‘wheeled tank.’

[@nil981]

I have noticed that many wheeled armored vehicles almost never exceed 40 tons in mass.

[@phunkracy]

That's because beyond 30 tons wheeled vehicles hit the wall of ground clearance. A 8x8 vehicle Goldilocks zone is around 30 tons. Beyond that it's incapable of cross country mobility

[@maxo.9928]

Forgive me if my limited understanding into the functionality of Recoilless Rifles means this is quite wrong, but, would it be at all possible with modern technology and design techniques (additive manufacturing [3d printing] etc.) to develop a recoilless/low recoil auto-reloading rifle capable of firing standard tank ammunition such as 120mm HE-T or even AMP rounds and fit such a rifle to a launcher system similar to the TOW ones found on the Bradley? I could see being able to use the autocannon for direct fire on troops/vehicles and a standard issue 120mm HE-T round on structures/fortifications, while holding proper ATGMs in reserve for heavy armour, as an attractive combination of ideas. If especially fitted to a *smaller* 3-4 crew infantry support vehicle (i imagine it as basically similar to XM-800T with more ammo capacity) to accompany the Bradleys and Dismounts - or develop new tactics to integrate such a system into the force structure. These vehicles *wouldn't* carry infantry, but would be basically light tanks with an autocannon, atgms, and recoilless/low-recoil 120mm for fortification destruction.

[@connormclernon26]

Careful, you’ll attract Mike Sparks

[@AveragePootis]

Would IFV's be closer actually to the old infantry tanks? considering they stay close and support the infantry they dismount? Or perhaps a mix between a infantry tank and an APC, albeit they lack the armor of tanks like the churchill and such

[@WardenWolf]

The only thing IFVs do is increase your casualty count when they inevitably get taken out. The whole APC / light tank hybrid concept is inherently flawed because, with modern weaponry, they have the same offensive threat as a full-on tank and thus warrant the use of heavy weapons to destroy, but don't have the armor to survive against the firepower they attract. If you're going to have a light tank, don't put extra people in it who will just get killed if it's destroyed. You want your troop transports to be heavily armored but low-threat so they're less of an attractive target for the enemy's limited supply of heavy weapons. The Israeli Namer APC is a prime example of the ideal troop transport.