End of the Tank? - ATGMs and shoulder fired anti-tank weapons in Ukraine 

Good video. However, whilst you do acknowledge that there is a doctrinal reason why tanks are going to stay around, I feel you hand-wave away just how important that doctrinal reason is, and even the economic viability of an expensive, survivable system capable of dealing much greater death and destruction much faster, and in both offense and defense. I sense a response video coming on my channel next week to give that tanker's perspective. Not necessarily to counter anything you said, I disagree with little, but to provide that little extra food for thought to re-balance things.

"They won't destroy T-14s..." Well yeah, that's because T-14s pretty much don't exist. Russia has like 5 of them total.

As a former tanker who was part of the Iraq invasion and occupation I think your coverage was very fair. Urban warfare sucks for tanks.

Finally, someone actually using logic when publicly talking about modern warfare. I like that you present the ambiguity and shades of gray that are missing in most outlets that claim either side of an argument as if there's no doubt or conditions

Based on your video view counts, the internet likes your military analysis more than game commentary. I've only seen your Ukraine videos and they're good enough that I'd expect you to blow up if you stick with it. You're one of the best I watch, more thorough than any others.

Sincere compliments on this comprehensive and balanced video! As a once ATGW operator (armored infantry) who used to operate in close coordination with MBTs and a military analyst later on, you have taken into account most relevant factors. One small factor I'd like to highlight here that is somewhat overlooked is the apparent absence of Russian (armored) recce in their - obviously failing - combined arms approach. Most western forces that deploy MBTs have recce forces scan ahead for possible threats that use long range/high resolution sensors and which cooperate closely with artillery, air support and infantry. Their data usually contributes to how tanks, infantry and fire/air support is deployed ahead of contact with enemy forces. Today (armored) recce forces also deploy drones and deploy dismounted troops to scan for hostile infantry and sometimes can operate as or with Joint Terminal Air Controllers (JTAC) or Fire Support Teams (FST) to coordinate fire control. All of that seems lacking in the Russian approach. And that tells more than anything else I suppose that the Russian ground forces are ill prepared for whatever engagement they end up in. The mud for example seems to have them surprised completely, when most recce troops could have conveyed information on the terrain conditions well in advance. This all shows one thing more than anything else to me. The Russian military leadership is there only to satisfy the need for the Kremlin to have obedient subordinates, not effective ones.

I think the way to frame it is "tanks are in need of a recontextualization". The B-52's original role no longer exists, and they'd last about 30 seconds in that role, but they're very effective at lobbing large numbers of standoff weapons. Something similar will have to happen with the MBT. My personal take is that situational awareness will be the main future thrust. Having drone feeds data linked into tanks could prevent a large number of these sorts of attacks while giving them a huge advantage in tank on tank fighting.

I believe that tanks will always have a place on the battlefield. The problem with Russia is that they keep playing rock-paper-scissors and always select rock. ATGMs are vulnerable to infantry and quick responding mortars. A column of tanks driving down the road into enemy territory without infantry or scouting elements has almost always been a bad idea.

When I was in the army 35 years ago, we referred to the armored personnel carriers as "group coffins". Knowing what I did about the anti-tank weapons that we had, even back then, I was terrified with the prospect of being inside of one. We had 81mm rockets that could make a roast dinner out of the occupants of these vehicles. I assumed an enemy would have something similar.

Great video! My two cents worth (as an ex-mechanized infantry soldier) is the critical role of the environment. As you mentioned, built-up areas are no-go zones for tanks, even with infantry support. The infantry will just spend most of their effort in protecting the enticing target that is the tank, while the tank is not able to offer much value in return. Tanks do better in open country and fighting at longer ranges. In short, tanks belong in the countryside and not in the city. Unfortunately for the Russians, the Ukrainian countryside is also proving inhospitable to their tanks, and a major underestimated factor is the mud. From first-hand experience I can tell you that operating in heavy sticky mud is a nightmare for armored vehicles. I've trained in those conditions and had days when I spent two hours actually training and ten hours extracting vehicles from mud. Look at the sheer numbers of abandoned Russian tanks that were captured by the Ukrainians. Yes, some of the Russian crews abandoned their vehicles because of mechanical breakdowns and lack of fuel, but I would bet that simply getting stuck in mud is also a major reason. The mud is also acting as an area denial weapon to the Russian armor, much like a minefield would. The mud forces the Russian vehicles to use the roads, which makes them much easier targets for Ukrainian hit-and-run ambushes. Almost every video I've seen of Russian tanks getting destroyed had the tanks on a road, not spread out in an open field. I cannot over-emphasize how important this factor is. Ambushing a tank driving across a wide-open countryside is far more difficult that ambushing one that you know has to come down a certain road. One of the lessons drilled into mechanized infantry is to avoid roads whenever possible. Always travel unpredictably across open country if you can. My prediction is that if this conflict continues for long enough for the ground to dry up, then the Russian tanks will perform better (assuming there are any left by then). The tanks will become much more difficult to take out once they can travel cross-country rather than use roads.

I’ve never seen your gaming videos, but I’ve gotten addicted to these analyses. You have a fresh perspective on the pre-conflict logistics and supply chain issues that I’ve seen very little of in other content that covers this war, and you explain it incredibly well. Which is crazy because these are essentially “just” recorded PowerPoint decks - no fancy graphics, no music, no animations. It just goes to show you how the quality of the content itself can drive interest compared to slick production values. I don’t know if you would ever be interested in doing these types of analyses for past conflicts, but I bet you would get a lot of interest in them. One of my favorite aspects of American Civil War history is understanding how Ulysses Grant‘s expertise as a quartermaster played directly into his successful strategies against Confederate forces. I’d love to see your take on historical conflicts.

I'm not a military expert by any means, but; isn't it fair to say that ATGMs are a defensive weapon essentially? And that to capture territory on the offense, you will still need heavily armed and armoured vehicles? Dismounted infantry as main offensive arm without armour support would still be horribly vulnerable to all forms of fire, no? Therefore some form of tank will still be necessary for the offensive.

Thanks for the video. Next potential topic - the Russian military's allergy to pallets, forklifts and logistics in general.

As a 19K, our weaknesses are well known. It's worth noting the anti-warhead defensive systems are not rapid-fire and usually not very good at defending against multiple attacks. They're designed to defeat the golden BB, not beat off a concerted push. Further, anti-tank weapons don't have to blow the turret off or destroy the interior to mission-kill a tank. Simply knocking the sprockets or road wheels off, or breaking the track itself (seen that a few times in some of the city fighting) means the tank cannot move. And tanks that cannot move are short-lived unless your units are advancing past the casualties. The biggest thing I've seen the defenders doing in Ukraine that's working so well is getting in multiple attacks on a single target. One video I saw showed no less than five different hits on the same tank, with the left track coming off on the fourth hit, resulting in a mobility kill. As mentioned in the video, unsupported vehicles (armor or not) are easy pickings for infantry, especially when they have ready access to modern anti-materiel weapons. But how else is an army that is badly coordinated and badly supplied supposed to take ground? Poor coordination in the laager means not all tanks end up fully fueled before the road march. Poor coordination on the march means armor sometimes outruns the infantry vehicles, with expected results. Poor training in reaction to contact means you end up with a bunch of tanks stuck in the ditch or in a muddy field like I saw in one video. Poor morale means almost nothing works the way commanders think things are going to work, so the least little bloody nose and the formation breaks down resulting in far too many avoidable casualties. On top of that we have the staggering intelligence failures of Russia in estimating what they were going up against -- Ukrainians ain't a bunch of mountain goat-herds with a few RPGs and AKs, and they should have known better, especially after the Donetsk fighting. It's almost like the Russian command staff has been training to try and win the next Afghanistan, and this is not that. My worry is not whether tanks are going to become obsolete -- it's what Putin and his ego will do when he thinks he is cornered and about to lose to an outnumbered and outgunned foe. He cannot afford to have all his other thinly-contained satrapies decide the Kremlin has become weak and decide to secede, costing them more strategic assets.

After watching and reading some comments I'd just like to point out a couple of interesting tidbits. In my country "armour" has largely been replaced by two vehicles, (1) a 155mm self propelled howitzer with an on road top speed of 90kmh and a maximum firing range of +70kms, and (2) a recon/anti tank vehicle with a 76mm AT gun, top speed of 120kmh on and 60kmh offroad. Both of these use large wheels instead of tracks. The idea behind them were to maximize mobility, i.e. they were specifically designed to get to and between conflict zones themselves, not via trains or other means, are specifically protected against landmines (and I presume therefore IEDs) and in the case of (2) doctrine dictated that they would be used as static AT weapons once at a conflict zone. (There were also versions built with 105mm NATO barrels, AA types and SAM types)

Every since the earliest days of the "Tank" there have been weapons for killing them that could be transported and used by either 1 soldier, or a 2 soldier team. Survival of MBTs and all other forms of armored combat vehicles on a modern conventional battlefield depends upon the coordinated effort of a "Combined Arms Combat Team" that utilizes Aviation assets (both fixed wing and rotary), Artillery, Reconnaissance elements, and of extreme importance, almost as much as Aviation assets (in some cases more) is the need for a proper balance of Mechanized Infanyry traveling with the MBTs in vehicles that can not only keep up with the MBTs but also have a level of survivability that allows them to transition through the MBTs when needed for engaging dismounted enemy Infantry with their own dismounted Infantry. Commanders of Armored and Mechanized forces must follow certain guidelines about movement of these units like not moving them during daylight unless you have Air Superiority ( without it you cannot reliably keep Close Air Support on station ready to react as needed) and the terrain that MBTs can be used in. Every since WW1 we've known tanks don't do well in deep muddy fields, densely populated urban areas, steep mountains or very heavily wooded areas. They should not travel down roads in convoys to avoid muddy fields and heavily wooded areas, especially not if those roads traverse unsecured areas or if you don't have effective Close AR Support or effective and rapid Counterbattery Artillery fires. Modern tanks come with smoke generators, multiple smoke grenade launching systems, and are capable of relatively fast speeds, but where do we see most of the tanks being destroyed in Ukraine? Static positions, convoys on roads, urban areas, or in assaults against dug in Ukrainian defensive positions that the Russians know exactly where they are, they know that they are full of Infantry dismounts with tons of ATGMs and yet we don't see dismounted Infantry assaulting those positions under covering Artillery or Close Air Support with their IFVs moving close by giving supporting fires with their auto cannons and coaxial machine guns. We see tanks killed after sitting in the same poorly camouflaged positions for days ( evidenced by the tables, chairs and other "hooch" setups soldiers create anytime we sit in one place over 24 hours). We see them destroyed or captured where they ran out of fuel or where their crew abandoned them. We see them killed when being committed into battle in a piecemeal fashion (and once again without effective Close Air Support or Artillery Support/effective Counterbattery Support. By the 2nd time tanks were used on the battlefield in WWI these lessons were being learned, it's almost like a lot of Russian Officers/Commanders never really spent much time reading the history of Armored Warfare. Combine that with, from all appearances a significant portion of Russian soldiers not wanting to be there, and apparently poorly trained, undisciplined, and unmotivated (by looking at uniforms and gear, watching how they handle their weapons ( poor muzzle discipline and a lot of unaimed spray and pray shooting) and the fact that so many vehicles, and so much equipment and ammunition being abandoned in completely usable condition with little to no attempt to prevent the Ukrainian forces from being able to use it tells us a lot about the Russian military that has entered Ukraine. I'm sure there are some really good quality Russian units involved in this war, and I'd bet we just aren't hearing much about them. Probably because they still have most of their MBTs, IFVs, and other vehicles and equipment in their possession and in working order because those leading these units actually spent their training time awake, alert, and sober.

Another note. The premise that ‘old cheap tanks’ can flip the economics on using Javeline is laughable, because old tanks are very vulnerable to the old trusty RPG-7. There is a reason nobody uses these old tanks anymore except in very poor third world countries. Heck, even modern tanks are vulnerable to RPG rockets. In Ukraine for example they target tank tracks with RPGs. Yes, it requires good hit, but a tank with broken tracks becomes very vulnerable and often abandoned by crew.

When my father was tankist in Czechoslovak army in 80s, they believed that tanks are outdated already in that time. They were learning that if they see radar of Apache heli over trees, they should leave tank and run as far as possible because they can't do anything with that. 🙂 We are small nation and surviving of crew is priority, but on other hand, due to political situation, we had to use soviet tanks which really didn't (and still don't) guarantee you that you survive, there was enough tanks, but not enough experienced crews, so just leave the tank was not a big deal I guess. I think this was unofficial strategy, my father said that there were 2 types of military leaders - type 1 was commie who knew nothing about military but he was good member of party, and second was real military leader who didn't care about politics much, these 2 types of officers were very often in conflict and were saying things which are going directly against each other. 🙂 Type one was saying propagandistic shits about how they are the best and immortal and second type told you that you will survive 5 minutes in tank battle, that was really positive motivation. 🙂

I have seen several videos depicting Ukrainian troops in action. With the exception of the squad machine gunner, every troop had some kind of anti armor capability. You might not completely kill a tank with one shot, but damage adds up. If you just slow a tank down, it's less capable of offensive action and can be taken out later. Combine that, with the effect of the rasputitsa, the tanks will not be as effective as they could be until the mud solidifies.

Measure and Countermeasure ! The tank starting in WW1 was an answer to the trench warfare and barbed wire of the Western Front trenches, and the beginning of mobile warfare as seen in Nth Africa in WW2. Combined operations are now the go, but with helos and missiles, a new paradigm has evolved.

Well presented. I’m an old M1A1 tanker in the US Army. Before 911 we spent all our time training in combined arms to fight the Russian hoard. Most of the time in MOPP 2 or MOPP 4. I agree older tanks are a waste of resources. Modern tanks with well trained crews, active protection systems and a clear well executed combined arm doctrine can still decide a battle.

ATGM's, especially the Javelin and NLAW, have changed things but this particular war just seems to be the reality of facing a defense in-depth which is always going to be a costly affair.

This was implied, but older ATGM systems are likely to be cycled out of use fast (per your comments on ammo use) leading to cutting edge systems in front line hands fast and at scale. Countries must pay heavily for an AFV generational upgrade, while an ATGM generational upgrade costs 'only' the current stock of ATGMs and the phase-out still yields significant value. Phasing out a generation of AFVs appears to primarily create value for local farmers and interested bystanders. Let's hope we continue to support Ukraine in demonstrating the power of international collaboration over tearing up treaties and that Russia fails to escape this doctrinal trap they have walked into.

Throughout history there's been a constant back and forth between arms and armor. Cavalry killed the Chariot, Muskets killed the Knight, and now ATGMs are killing the Tank. The modern tank may soon become obsolete, but it will be replaced at some point in the future with some other form of highly mobile armored unit.

"Killing a truck worth it, let alone a tank" Indeed: don't under-rate trucks. If a row of fifty trucks have all of the food and fuel that the invaders can lay hands on for two hundred miles, then they're more valuable than twice the number of tanks. "But if you're on a budget, do those legacy tanks provide you value?" Alas, probably yes: wars tend to be fought against civilians.

It seems to me that the crew space and survivability systems occupy a significant portion of a tank’s volume. Might we see unmanned or autonomous tanks in the near future? Edit: perhaps one way to counter the threat of jamming, in addition to or instead of an autonomous mode, would be to allow line of sight remote control by the accompanying manned combined arms force?

6 years in US Marine Recon and you couldn't pay me to get in a tank. 10 times out of 10 I would rather walk in or drive a fast attack vehicle. Tanks just feel like they are giant signs saying "shoot me!"

Considering this was one of the longest pieces of research I have watched this year , it was extremely well researched and most of all, very interesting . One,of those books you can’t put down. So to speak. And, in my case 4/22 no adverts. I am now tempted to watch the reservists one which I had originally decided could , in no way, be interesting, I also look forward to working through the remainder.. Many thanks and keep up the good work.

One disclaimer and one post-recording thought on this one: Disclaimer first: I get "Skiff" and "Sagger" mixed up at one point in this recording when talking about the Stugna vs the much older Malyutka ATGMs. I also make typos that got missed. Second just a closing thought on why I'm not prepared to outright call time on the tank: The invention of gunpowder weapons didn't immediately kill the previously dominant knights and armoured cavalry of the European battlefields. At first, they thickened their armour to resist early projectiles, then when that was no longer possible they began to reduce their armour and change their role. Heavy cavalry remained, albeit with a different look and new tactics, for centuries to come. Until armies are confident that they can do without the role filled by the tank, I believe it's far more likely that tanks and their associated tactics evolve rather than go extinct in the near term. As to what that evolution is likely to look like, I'd rather leave to the experts with experience in the field. All I can say is that powers observing the Ukraine conflict are likely to ask questions about whether or not they really get value out of older and more vulnerable vehicles, and whether they can get more bang for their buck from mobile ATGMs and shoulder fired ordinance.

Great video! As a naval officer, the concept of relying on mobility and active protection over armor is an interesting one…it basically encapsulates the philosophy of warship design since the advent of anti-ship missiles.

Azerbaijan used Russian tanks very effectively in 2020 war, while Armenian tanks became scrap metal or war trophies for Azerbaijanis. It really depends on your war concept. Tanks are still useful, especially if they are equipped with active protection.

This reminds me intensely of chariots at the end of bronze age civilization. Expensive training for operators, expensive maintenance, situationally deployable and counterable in urban environments, yet terrifying and indispensable on open planes. Possibly a weapon of empires, not of city-states?

I have really appreciated these videos on this topic. So many videos seem to be way too enthusiastic about killing and how "cool" weapons are. This is the kind of thing I can learn from and have an interesting discussion with people after. Thank you for doing these.

I really like your analysis. As a former tank soldier in the Australian Army (1988 - 1996), I have long been waiting for the development of specialised armoured vehicles designed specifically around countermeasures for anti tank weapons, perhaps, even to the point of not having any main armour, much as the tracked AA guns of the Cold War period. Ideally, these would be sprinkled at the troop, or squadron level. So there would be one of these dedicated vehicles for every three to 12 standard tanks. However, I do fear that the "queen of the battlefield" is currently failing in its primary role, namely penetration and exploitation of enemy defensive lines. Edit: I would also point out that I was trained to successfully use a Carl Gustav 84mm Anti-Tank recoilless rifle in the space of two days. I will admit that I was in the top 5-10 percent of my regiment, with regard to small arms fire, having learnt how to shoot, prior to joining the Army. (Even during my time with the Navy Cadets, as a teenager with TS Melbourne", I was one of the few who obtained the marksman badge - which was a hugely watered down version of the real thing. But hey, we were kids, so lacked both the time and experience to even consider any of us even remotely close to a regular soldier with the marksmanship badge, let alone even the worst soldier from any Australian infantry regiment.) Out of my squadron, we only had enough Gustav rounds for two soldiers to fire real round, as opposed to .22 calibre sub rounds, which adequately mimicked the flight path of the of real weapon. And I hit my tank sized target at a range of about 300 - 400 metres, with both the practice and later on with the live round. But my tank sized target was a stationary steel water tank, so If they'd been moving I almost certainly wouldn't have hit with either shot. What takes time, however, is teaching the bush skills that an infantry man requires in order to conduct fire and movement. All Australian soldiers are also trained in infantry minor tactics' it is literally (Seriously, if we handed out medals like the US do, we'd all be stooped to the left with the weight, because the Aussie soldier is trained on a wider variety of weapon systems and able to easily transition our modes of war, knowing our soldiers already have the basics a significant part of ALL NCO training, where there is a generic leadership course, as well as another course that is directly related to your job. By way of example, all Australian Corporals are trained to lead a section in the field, irrespective of whether their day job is counting blankets. By the end of my service, I had not only fired the Tank main gun, but been trained and fired the following weapon: The SLR rifle, of the Vietnam era, he 30 and 50 calibre machine guns, the 40 mm "wombat gun", or percussion grenade launcher, the M60 machine gun, the MG3 the F1 submachine gun, the 9mm Browning pistol. Probably missed the point, but you get what I mean. I recall having a conversation with an American Private, who couldn't believe that I was not only trained in multiple tank crew positions, but could also drive an army truck and was a fully qualified "B" vehicle (land Rover) and a few other things. He just knew infantry minor tactics and if another job needed to be done, his unit had people to do that job. So, yes, you can easily train soldiers to use the weapons. But against a well trained force, that knows how to engage in fire and movement, I'd expect less success. For whatever stupid reason, Russia attacked Ukraine at exactly the wrong time of the year. Everybody knows that during spring and autumn the plains of Ukraine turn into mud. FFS, this was what saved Moscow during the 1942. Tanks do best on open terrain, where they can easily move, shoot and scoot and engage in other traditional tank tactics. I once had my entire troop of tanks (3 at the time) bogged in the same swamy area on Puckapunyal range. We subtlety contacted the spanners to come and get us out and that cost us several slabs of beer. But our Squadron OC didn't fine out, so all was good! :-) Had the Russians invaded during either the height of winter, or in May, once the ground has dried out, it would have allowed tanks to do what they do best, namely engage in overwhelming manuver warfare across a wide front (as opposed to a single road with its "40 mile convoy"), where if you advance at pace, you'll easily overrun the infantry on the ground. Infantry can't move as fast as armour, so if you can gain the mobility advantage and the tanks can very quickly close the distance between infantry ATGMs and the extreme target range of those systems. A Modern Tanks Thermal vision can easily see the heat radiating off a recently used weapon, so hiding would be hard. I can tell you from personal experience, being charged by a tank, as an infantryman, is a terrifying experience. When on exercise, we would do demo runs against infantry positions and while we knew that a tank can go from full speed to a dead stop within its own length, assuming dry ground. On one exercise in the Northern Territory, we "charged" a group of infantry attempting to infiltrate our defences. One of our tanks charged towards them at full speed and halted about 20 metres from there. The tank driver had night vision gear, so could easily see the infantry. The infantry didn't, so all they heard was the very loud noise of a 36 litre diesel engine as it approached them, followed by the emergence the tanks headlight at about 50 feet (because the drive didn't want to run them over). Simply on the basis of that charge, the section of infantry became combat ineffective. By the time that I rocked over in the troop leader's vehicle, the section commander was engaged in a highly heated argument about how dangerous the charge was. His troops were medevac'd an even the next day, some members were reported to be displaying what we'd now call "Combat Stress Reaction". Given just how badly one solder responded, I wouldn't be surprised if he went on to develop PTSD over the event. So tanks, when deployed properly have an incredible shock value that simply should not be under-estimated. In Australia, we went from over 100 leopard tank variants, to only 56 and our supposition was that the halving of the numbers was largely for us to retain "armoured capability", so that if we ever got into a shooting war, we'd still have a well trained cadre of troops upon which to build a larger tanks force. Basically, 1st Armoured Regiment would have largely merged with the School of Armour to train thousands of new troops on how to not get themselves killed in batle. Tanks without infantry support is Modern Combat is pure silliness and opens you up to being taken out by a single Molotov Coctail on the engine deck. We've known that since WW1, but someone has to learn it about every generation, or so. Long term, I see tanks becoming much, much heavier as these missiles become more accurate and dangerous. This extra weight will allow for more robust passive armour, at the cost of mobility. But this has been a back and forth for years. The Leopard 1 that I crewed, was designed at a time when the even an unguided HEAT round was king of the battlefield and been able to get out of the line of sight of these lumbering beasts was vital. The best defence against such a weapon is mobility, so the tank sacrificed armour, for mobility. This kind of "arms race" has been going on for years, but given the slowness of the missile, if we were attacked in a hull up, or turret down position, we could easily break line of sight, rendering the missile pointless. Problem is that these days they chase you down. As an aside, by the early 1990s Australian tanks, no longer carried HEAT rounds, because APDS and HESH were an easier combination and greatly streamlined our logistics. So as with all warfare, I see an evolution (much like the T-14 Amarta), that prioritises crew survivability, but in which tanks are no longer the speedy, 42 ton, wonders of my day, but rather slower (although not lumbering) behemoths that are built specifically to overcome the threat of missile, because of their better armour and active protection systems. We've seen a lot of what I expect with the Abrahms tank, which is about ten tons heavier, in today's modern variant, than it was during the initial release. I don't expect tanks to start carrying ATGMs themselves (although Russian designs can), but wouldn't be surprised to see the Australian Army (for example) finally begin to include larger artillery pieces for infantry suppression roles, being that the biggest danger to enemy artillery is often a good, old fashioned dash of artillery, which is guaranteed to leave the survivors less capable fighters and your mobile forces a much greater sense of success. The idiocy of the Russians bot using their artillery to support their combat troops astounds me. WTF are they thinking, when they take a valuable combat resource out of the line, so it can waste its rounds against civilian (AKA : militarily useless) targets? Idiocy. As I said, I am an old school tank soldier. I haven't even stepped inside an Australian Abrams, so much of what I've said is probably hugely out of date, but I handle criticism well and would love for anyone to tell me if I'm on the right track, or simply a tank soldier out of time and out of his depth. :-)

Another historical example is the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006. Merkava units got hammered pretty hard by ATGM crews. Estimates vary from 20 to 50 tanks, which is relatively big for the IAF.

"The less controversial topic of drones" is a phrase maybe no one else has ever said

You hit the nail on the head. The way to win war is combined arms warfare. It doesn't matter if its 1942 or 2022, the side that has their different units effectively communicate and work together tend to win. Tanks + infantry + air strikes + artillery + drones + logistics + intelligence + proper training + competent leadership = winning.

Combined arms has always been the way to go. Our resident you tube tanker put out a video today too, where he comes to a lot of the exact same conclusions.

Hey man, love your content. As a suggestion, it would be interesting to know about the failures of the VDV, and how air assault / airborne units might have to rethink their usage given how MANPADs can relatively cheaply defeat helicopters / low flying airborne troop transports, given how much of an issue the Russian military has had conducting SEAD

Your analysis is always detailed and spot on. The Stugna-P is a great system. I've seen it take out tanks, trucks, machine gun nests, and other targets. The only downside is that it was designed by Ukraine, but they outsourced manufacturing to none other than Belarus. So they gave away their intellectual property and can't resupply.

You speak the language pretty well for someone who isn’t/wasn’t in the military. Plus your PowerPoint flex’s like a retired O4 teaching at war college

I would recommend people go see the video that The Chieftan put out about this today. Cliff notes version...tanks are not dead, active protection is going to become bigger, combined arms is a must.

Excellent content Perun. Exceptionally well articulated, your intellect and sense of details shine through. Many folks are looking for “alternate” info on this Ukraine situation. I think many people look elsewhere from mainstream and biased sources at this point. Great work mate, keep it up. Cheers!

The category of ATGMs spans the aviation and air force: the AH-64D Apache Longbow and AC-130W Stinger II come to mind. Both can wreak havoc on even large tank formations, especially the '64' operating as wings and squadrons. Each platform carries 16 Hellfire ATGMs.

The Russians are failing massively because of lack of combined arms, lack of communication/cooperation and choosing to attack right at the start of the mud season, limiting your vehicles to the asphalt roads. Non-supported tanks were punished already in WW2 in 1940-1941, with anti-tank guns. You don't need bazookas and late WW2 era to learn these lessons about combined arms warfare. Actually, you don't even modern industrial warfare to learn the lessons of combined arms warfare. That the Russians are failing so horribly means we cannot draw any conclusions about the value of the tank in adequate combined arms warfare. We can only confirm what the Germans already knew in 1940: tanks need infantry support (combined arms) to be successful.

One stat that was given by a tanker a couple of years ago was that in all wars that tanks have been used in, their casualty rate were far lower than infantry casualties. By something like 1-to2. As vulnerable as a tank may be to a top-attack missile, think how vulnerable infantry is to artillery air-burst and MLRS cluster bombs.

This was a great discussion. Tanks are far from obsolete. Even older tanks can absolutely crush infantry that lack adequate number of ATGMs. For poorer countries that have less concern about casualties this might win the day against a poorly prepared enemy. But against a competent defender with sufficient ammo, ATGMs will make the attacker pay a heavy price. Also we must not forget that Ukraine is firing a ridiculous number of these things and by the volume of fire alone, some are bound to get kills. All we can really learn from the available data is that if a sufficient number of ATGMs are available to the defender, then poorly supported tanks on the attack will suffer heavy losses.

Back in the '80's, I played on a tank simulator for the M1A1. It was a lone unit with no infantry support or other armour units , other than the escort missions where the other units were hopelessly obsolete. It gave me a very distorted view of what a lone armour unit could do. You make very good points about logistical support and supporting military units. Tanks are terrifying weapons, but they do need help to protect them from fast moving capable defensive fire.

Even in WW2 it was understood that tanks could not operate effectively without air and infantry support. Russia has neglected this. There will always be utility in a self-propelled gun with immunity to small arms and autocannons, and resistance to artillery. The problem is that countries like Russia keep using them comically badly.

Perun, I am so incredibly happy to have come across your content. Some of, if not the most well put together presentations on the Ukraine war and modern conflict. Keep at it. Never heard of you through gaming but I hope you'll continue being thorough and not succumb to trying to pump content out seeing how successful these videos seem to be. Ace job, keep at it.

I watched your Terra Invicta games, which helped me defeat the alien threat as the resistance. To my delight I discovered that you also make videos covering IRL military analysis that are with minimal bias. Is very bueno. Keep up the amazing work!

this reminds me of the discussion in the early 80s when an Exocet missile sank the Sheffield. i remember that it's price tag went from ~$100k to $1m after it was proven in war.

I think that what we are seeing is the modern-day "Infantry Revolution." The Infantry Revolution was during the 14th century when weapons like pikes were invented specifically to counter knights. All of the supply problems with tanks now were similar problems with knights and their horses during the medieval era. Once infantry was able to actually take down knights, the knight (and assorted light cavalry) became much less popular. The tank will follow a similar path as cavalry did up until WWI; it will be used, but only for specific roles like breaking through a line, flank charging, or pursuing fleeing enemies.

I suggest creating a standalone channel for this. I predict huge growth.

“Sagger” is the nato nomenclature for that early wire-guided Malyutka. From a former intel analyst, I love the content you’re producing - its well thought out and avoids popular western (and eastern!) biases. The Aussie defense ministry would do well to put you on as a contractor. Cheers!

I very much appreciate how you state your perspective strengths and weaknesses and provide well balanced and based comparisons to create an easy to follow and hard to argue explanation of recent events and possible conclusions.

Ohhhhhhhhhh this was my comment!!!! Thank you for listening 👂🏻!

Seems like there’s going to be a massive emphasis on active protection systems. Their effectiveness could keep the tank’s role secure.

A big reason so many nations rely on legacy tanks is because the primary purpose of their armed forces is not state to state conflict. Instead, most of the legacy tanks are used for the suppression of poorly armed an organized internal opposition, a role at which even the oldest tanks excel.

LOVE your analysis, content and style! your format is great and the commentary is insightful and humorous while staying respectful, which is a thin line that's difficult to balance, so i appreciate your ability to do so even more! please please please keep it coming! you are probably my favorite youtuber covering this conflict along with goodtimesbadtimes. THANK YOU!

The tank can only effectively be used in conjunction with skilled infantry, with out that skilled infantry the tank is merely an expensive target. Infantry needs tanks, but the tank also needs that infantry. If you try to use a tank as a mobile fortress it will not survive...

All of these videos have been absolutely wonderful. Well research, well explained, and very well argued. I sent them to my family and now we watch them together, which is pretty cool seeing as they’re not normally defense policy minded people. (it’s mostly energy policy and healthcare law with them). Anyways I hope to see more, great job!

I have zero knowledge of tanks and limited knowledge of this stuff in general, but I must say that following through this video was an absolute pleasure. This kind low key and matter of fact way of presenting stuff is just a joy to follow. I can see how the target is in actual understanding of a complex issue rather than presenting an pre-selected dogmatic idea. Much appreciated, this was great!

I have a background in Economics (now working as a data engineer) and had a thing for defense economics. Did spend some time in my college's library reading the Handbook of Defense Economics volume 1 by North Holland. Your videos are sober, well produced, authoritative and with a dry, meme-ish sense of humor which I appreciate. Never checked your gaming stuff out, but I'd definitely would if you've played stuff like WARNO or Wargame Red Dragon. Anyway, just passing by to say I do like your stuff a lot. I leave a couple of videos on queue and play chess while listening to them, which works just fine because you have solid technical presentation skills. Wouldn't mind a few more ads if the revenue were significant to you, always happy to support high quality content.

I'm impressed that Russian engineers had the foresight to design ejection turrets for their tanks.

I’d love to see your take on how this affects the defence of Taiwan. ATGMs would probably do a real good job on landing craft, as well as tanks. Since China will start with a saturation missile barrage, large assets, like tanks and planes, will be way more vulnerable than a stash ofATGMs or MANPADs. Since this is on our side of the world, I thought it would be of interest to you, too.

Another great video. In times of emergency, cost and time to train will be dominant factors. The debate about tracked vs wheeled vehicles becomes more pertinent with the destructive power of ATGMs.

Clancy also predicted the effectiveness of ATGMs in Red Storm Rising. The politburo member's kid mentions something about "two reservists in a Jeep" being able to stop a whole column dead, a lot like what we saw on the northern flank where the column moved on Kyiv during the initial opening of this war.

From another analyst perspective, this was solid and objective. My critique would be in the area of potential doctrinal impacts, but as you clarify up front, you’re staying out of that because it’s not your expertise. So that’s perfectly legitimate IMO. Well done. I would argue the best use of obsolescent tank hulls is repurposing them to another combat support mission. An aviation example: B52 has flexed from high altitude penetration, to low altitude penetration to stand-off missile truck. It also retains earlier mission capabilities in more permissive environments, of course, and is likely going to be unmatched for its useful life for a very long time. What does that mean for armored hulls? American M-60 hulls saw extended service as armored recovery vehicles, bridgers, etc. Combat engineers like to have some survivability too, but don’t need to take the same quality and quantity of fires as front line tanks. Other uses for old armored hulls can include artillery support: They’re quite easy to convert to a heavy mortar carrier. Although that’s a function that has fallen out of favor in US doctrine, I would argue it’s a very useful capability for forces that cannot count on overwhelming air dominance from day 1. Of course that assumes an operator has sufficient quantity to justify maintaining production of spares and so forth. When that becomes prohibitive, off to the target range… 😆🤷‍♂️

please keep making Ukraine analyses and war analyses in general. I watched everything to completion

46:17 the discord notification sound got me But as to not portray that a meme moment was my defining takeaway of this video: i think that you're really good at presenting this. This is the 3rd or so Ukraine conflict lecture that I've listened from you

G’Day from Oregon, USA. Listened (more than watched) a few hours of your Ukraine analysis. Think you got the RU-vid config’d right as no ads at all! Thank so much for the week or more of work you put into this.

The end of tanks was also predicted when the Egyptians defeated the initial Israeli counterattack during the Suez crossing of the Yom Kippur war. The Egyptians employed Sagger ATGMs at a density never before seen, with each of the five attacking Egyptian divisions allocated about 1,500 missiles for three days worth of fighting. While the fighting in Ukraine does not have such density, the effectiveness of modern ATGMs will only spur the development of countermeasures (whether passive or active) just as the usage of the Sagger spurred the development of ERA and the ubiquity of the RPG spurred the usage of cage and slat armor.

Anyone proclaiming tanks are outdated/dead/vulnerable....very likely went to the same school that the Russian generals who allowed their armor/mech units to be exposed and unsupported. Congratulations.

while I totally understand the thinking, considering the amount of tank losses Russia has taken, they haven't been exactly tactical about it. I'm no military expert but I've always heard that tanks work when they've got infantry support. I haven't heard/seen much of that with the war in Ukraine, surely this will be a factor as I can't see many well trained militaries making this kind of mistake, especially on the scale Russia has done in Ukraine.

There is a series on RU-vid called "Soviet Storm" and in one of last episodes there was a trial of putting wire mesh (It looked like the fire guard on the gas fire that we had to stop the children burning themselves) on a T34 and firing a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck at the tank as there were a lot of losses to infantry shaped charge weapons at that time. Unfortunately the warhead went through and put a tiny little hole in the side of the turret which would have killed the crew. Again an excellent presentation.

First of all, more absolutely stellar work. Really well done. Former tanker here: this war yet another opportunity for system and doctrine evolution. Remove the tanks and something else will have to assume that role. I find it slightly amusing to suggest the death of the tank without suggesting the end of pretty much all armored vehicles. If a tank is too vulnerable, where does that leave thinner skinned things like armored personnel carriers? All of this means years of new theories, new developments, new training, and everyone will be ready to refight this war when the next one comes, most likely with a different scenario we aren’t ready for.

I can see drones becoming a crucial aspect of tanks in the future -- one of the most crucial issues of drones will be wide scale jamming, which it seems to be feasibly to counter by having C&C of said drones in closer proximity. Similarly, tanks have a crucial issue of situational awareness, due to being a steel box, which drones, by virtue of having cheap and effective eyes in the sky, can counter. I can easily envision a future where a tank's primary anti-vehicle weapon becomes an ATGM with indirect-fire capability that drones will guide, and where the direct-fire capability of the main gun becomes more of an infantry support weapon. Not sure that this *will* be the role that tanks take in the future, but I can certainly see it as a strong possibility.

Another point that you almost touched on is systems for armored vehicles that are already in development, designed specifically to counter the threat of atgms and drones.

What a wonderful series of videos on the Ukraine war. Thank you so much for explaining it all in such clear terms.

Before I watch the video, I expect the answer to be "no". If we look at only say the Iran-Iraq war, or US invasions in the Middle-East, we get a skewed picture of modern warfare that does not favour the use of armour. Battle tanks have overwhelming firepower and are great at penetrating enemy lines and securing positions at high speed and cutting off positions. They must be properly supplied, maintained, supported by infantry and work in mostly flat areas where targets can't hide in buildings, forests or mountains easily. Russian armour did literally none of these things. They drove single-file, in poorly maintained and supplied tanks without support or intel straight into Ukrainian tractors. Not to take away from the Ukrainians, but in theory, if the Russian vehicles were actually properly supplied, etc. they could have easily completely restricted the Ukrainians' ability to maneuver East of the Dnieper within a few days. A complete death sentence for any cities and forces caught behind the advance. In a conventional war between armies, armour is still extremely useful as a strong and maneuverable firepower platform. But they are a force multiplier. You still need competent infantry, logistics, intelligence, etc. for them to be effective. At least, this is my opinion before watching the video. We will see if it changes!

The defensive strategy of the "savage rabbit" will become very very common. Letting the armored spearhead roll by while hiding your army and then popping out to blow away teh logistics train with its soft skinned vehicles is a way to blunt or destroy the blitzkrieg battleplan.

It also comes down to armor modernization. Most heavy armor in the west relies on infantry spearheads for support and IFV's to support or screen in the front. Think naval tactics. You have the destroyers to screen for the battleship. Most US armor has actually began to install point-defense systems to protect from these targeted launches. This is one thing I have to chalk up to the US Army. We haven't always been effective, but COIN tactics taught us a lot about how to defend our armor from light foot-mobiles with LATA and HATA loadouts. It's a suite now that I think about it. Lack of aerial intelligence begets operational flexibility to a small insurgency, lack of infantry sweeps and screening forces means these guys can get right up on your big guns, and lack of modernization begets cook-offs. It's a domino effect that really exemplifies how modern offensive warfare requires so many pieces to work in conjunction.

Land /air drone firepower could be the future. Designing the armor to protect the weapon and not the people inside an unmanned "tanks" could become more effective. Lighter, faster, easier to hide.

Thanks for your insightful presentation. Just one thing, there’s a difference between ordinance and ordnance - Ordinance: a law. - Ordnance: military weapons and ammunition.

I am a US Air Force veteran. In the late 1960's the US realized it could never match Soviet tanks one to one. We chose a smaller number of tanks but introduced the A-10 to make up the difference. Now Turkey came up with the TB2. It did a number on the Armenian tanks. Mobile armored vehicles vehicles still have a valuable role to play when combined with infantry, but the days of main battle tank have past.

I think your three most strongest points that you made was one ) the arms race between shoulder arm weapons that can defeat most tanks 2) combine arms training that is properly done and efficient and three3 logistics, those who talk about tactics are amateurs,those who talk about logistics are professionals. I think you had a great presentation that ass lotta questions and people need to think about the answers because it’s a matter of life and death for the individuals and for the nation itself many times.

“The T-14 will NEVER be destroyed by ATGMs!!!!” Well yeah because the T-14 won’t be able to make it to the front...

I've watched several of your videos on various aspects of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and each has been excellent. I'm quite impressed with how much quality content you can put together in a short amount of time. Well done! Very well done, indeed!

I'm not someone who's qualified to be able to state these are accurate summaries of what's actually going on but besides that, these summaries are great! Thankyou for the hardwork you putin (get it?) in research and presentation! *edits for grammar

I think this channel is great, well articulated and informative without being preachy. I really look forward to seeing another of your video keep up the good work

I foresee the refinement and proliferation of active protection systems (APS), including those using lasers, changing the calculus of tank relevance in a significant way. A very expensive tank can be killed by a moderately expensive ATGM, but that ATGM can be killed by a relatively inexpensive APS. Additionally, although I haven't yet seen this technology demonstrated, the future might include loitering drones that provide a "bubble" of active protection to a larger area of ground forces by including the APS on the drone instead of, or in addition to, an APS mounted to a tank. Either way, more/better APS are likely to increase the survivability of tanks against ground-based ATGMs, air-to-ground missiles, suicide drones, tank shells, and other ballistic threats, thus prolonging the usefulness of tanks for decades to come.

If you are a pure defensive force like my home country Switzerland, I think we can completely scrap all tanks and insted get more armored infantry combat vehicles with anti-tank weapons, drones and manpads. Plus tractors, because with these, you get tanks for free ;)

Some of my thoughts on this video: - Wonder how systems like those of Rheinmetal will change this, ive seen some videos of them and they look quite capable. Although those videos are by the makers of those systems soooo.... - Stocking up on atgms sounds good, but i seems to recall that they have a quite limited shelf life, something to do with volatile gasses being used for sensor cooling, idk - If the prevelence of atgms means the amount to tanks drops, then the amount of carried atgms could drop and make tanks more useful again, so there is probably some balance point there. - and lastly: These videos are really fucking informative, if you end up reading all these comment, thank you so much.

Thanks for the thoughtful insights in this series. I am receiving better information from this channel then I can ever hope to find in traditional media.

I think the drone is the next evolution in defense. Take that toward an offense seems likely as well. Thank you for this informative video.

From a 2 time Iraq veteran, your information is very well done and informative! Keep up the great work.

The South African military knew the weaknesses of tanks vs well armed infantry back in the 80's. The South African Defence Force spearheaded its attacks with infantry and fast moving wheeled vehicles and left the heavy armour in the reserve and only brought it in as a final line of defence/offence. Our Soldiers gave russians and cubans and other communist block soldiers hell throughout the war with fast mobile warfare but still used tanks during battles such as Cuito Cuanavale, the largest tank battle in Africa since WW2. Tanks will always have a place in warfare although it will switch from the spearhead to a more supportive role

Don't worry about the ads - this is nothing compared with the value of your analyses. These videos are very informative. From checking my other sources of information, there is a consistency of the evidence you are presenting. Thank you.

This seems analogous to the situation in Europe towards the end of the Middle Ages, when heavily armored cavalry was neutralized by massed archers, pikemen, and then massed firearms and mobile artillery. There remained a limited shock role for heavy cavalry, but the battlefield was dominated by infantry and artillery. Heavy cavalry was no longer the dominant force that it was in the early Middle Ages.