How has modern Tank warfare changed? 

Ray guns invented.

Then Ray Shields invented

@@echonova3125 plasmic shields invented

endless tug of war

@@merlotingreigory3606 PLASMA SPEAR SHIELDS INVENTED!

Same goes for Turkey

@@MrBandholm Turkey needs the Syrian Shaft.

I don’t understand why because Saudi officers go to US and UK officers schools to learn tactics and best practices etc.. so they must just come over and when they come back forget everything that they learn. However I had a friend who was a master gunner at the RSA (Royal School of Artillery) He had officers from a Middle Eastern country on the YO’s course. They in his words were not to the standard as a whole however as they were paying a lot of money and there was the diplomatic and political factors they were passing or just scrapping by with a few exceptions

​@@bigjohn697791 A large part of the reason, is because the officers are not allowed to lead. In middle eastern countries (with a few exceptions, Israel as the most obvious one) it is generally believed that higher command is fighting the battle, so platoon, company and even battalion commanders are purely there to make sure the troops gets pushed into the right positions. Initiative, trust in local and junior commanders, is not something that is happening, meaning those officers does not care to learn those tactics and skills that Western (and Russian) officers do... Interesting the same appears to be the case for China. Take the French as a point of comparison, they work in Mali, with the concept of ‘sous-groupement tactique interarmes’ or ‘SGTIA’s’... What is that? Well it is roughly a 200-man unit compromising of four platoons of mixed infantry and armour, a logistical support group and a command and control group. A SGTIA is controlled by two Captains, one an infanteer or armoured officer, the other an artillery officer. This force of organisation has been extremely effective, in a way Middle Eastern battalions and brigade units cannot match. So a French battle group of roughly brigade size, will be more fleksible, agressive and be able to cover greater areas than a Middle Eastern brigade or even division unit. Its down to lack of trust in the local commander, and the follow effects of said officers no longer carring to do their jobs.

@@bigjohn697791 in the book "Why Arabs Lose Wars" it shows that the generals are selected based on their loyalty, not their actual skills

Fucking good on you. I lost five stone back when I wanted to join the army, it can be done.

Toma tu like, échale ganas amigo.

same boat man same boat , good luck on your journey!

Speak to a recruiter, and see what'll it take to get you in the required weight range.

good luck bro, I need to follow this, too. the getting better part anyway.

No. 5**

Me too.

Spot on!

I enjoy his Chanel bag as well.

Well there's a saying, if the tactic still works and is still effective, perhaps it won't be replaced. And if it is flawed, then the military has stubborn staff. :P

@@bluenightfury4365 well, steppe horse archers, steppe tank gunners. Same difference I guess

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, unless you have friends in high places at defense contracting companies.

I will let you on to a pretty relevant saying .. “ you’ve got to move / look back to go forward “

If it hurts, it works.

@@Jan_372 😂👌

Then theres Stalinium

Inside of a certain envelope, yeah. Outside of it, it's a slugfest.

Exactly

It's "war... Has changed" from MG

@@franciscoguinledebarros4429 Still doesn't surpass metal gear

Everyone seems to forget the South African border war. Probably the perfect example of a modern war, and the usefulness or uselessness of modern armour. The most important method to battlefield success was artillery, not so much the tank. If $3 million buys a tank, why not train 30 special forces?

AND, deploying tanks like sniper. Might as well switch them to mobile artillery, or larger guns at the back of a Toyota pick up truck.

It's better ride tank carousel rather then syrian shaft

i only came here to do better arma missions

A good tank but a giant flop considering Japans terrain and bridge capacities.

@@bryanmartinez6600 Stop talking Bullshit. The type 90 is a very light MBT, similar to the Russian tanks in weight, it can drive on most Japanese bridges. Besides Japan doesn't even need tanks to begin with, since it's an island nation it can not get invaded by land. Japan has one of the most powerful navy and air force in the world and that's what matters most for an island nation like Japan

​@ZonTheDon You are talking so much nonsense. No, Japan can not easilly get invaded at all. It is one of the hardest country to invade. In fact, it has only been invaded once in histroy, and that was by the most powerful military in the world, the USA. No other country has ever invaded Japan except the US. By comaprison, Russia and China have been invaded lots of times by much weaker countries. Obsolete air force? Japan has one of the best and most modern air force in the world, with one of the best fighter aircraft the F-2 Mitsubishi which was the world's first aircraft with an AESA radar (even before the F22 Raptor). Just because it isn't as powerful as China, doesn't mean that it's obsolete. By this same logic, China's air force is obvsolete too, because the US Airforcer is better than China. The Type 90 is good enough for a small island nation like Japan. At the time it was put into service (1990's), it was one of the best tank in the world and certainly much better than anything the Soviets had at tat time! And now the Type10 is even better and much lighter too. Japan will not get invaded by Russia nor China any time soon, I'm sorry to burst your wet dream bubble. Even if they wanted to, they simply couldn't do it.

If China want to war against Japan,they could just simply nuke them and Japan don’t have anything to answer back.China military is not a joke now,Japan tanks might have superiority over Chinese tank but they have sheer number. Type 90 is indeed still hard to operating in Japan due to the weight of the tank despite the tank is somewhere lighter than most other western tank,that’s why they need even more lighter tank like type 10 and type 16. F2 was a good aircraft in the past but now Japan have bought F35 because China have modern stealth fighter like J20 which would make F2 completely obsolete. However if China really try to invade Japan,most of the NATO members would support Japan include US hence Japan be won’t fighting China alone. I do like Japanese military force as well as did some research on them,and anime too!😊😊also no wars,weaponly are just to discourage enemy to invade our lands,not to invade others.

yea. the Type 90 and the Type 10

Except you wouldnt control them they would control themselves.

Also this isn't entirely foolproof, it's not like equipment made to jam the signals you use to control your drone doesn't exist.

Where you left the god of war??, artillery, tanks won battles but artillery won wars

pussy warfare

*nuclear missiles

and not even that. we saw how T72B3, T62M T90 managed to survive direct TOW hits. T72s that coalition fought in Iraq was Iraqi made replica of T72M, which hardly could be called a tank. In Syria we saw totally oposite, when Syrian tankers got trained by Russians , and showed them pretty much okay comparing to Iraqis. I saw some pretty good battles there, where they obviously knew how to cover each other, crews comunicating and coordinating each other . We also saw cookoffs of Abrams and Leopard tanks the same way old T72s got destroyed years ago in Iraq and other places. Today in Yemen we see Houthis with floppies mauling dumb Saudis with most expensive equipment from all NATO countries. Its not up to tanks, its the crews as everyone kept saying since first Iraq war 1991 when everybody was laughing how T72s were destroyed.

@@uroskostic8570 Indeed. Badly trained crews are the biggest ordeal. Turkish Leopard 2A4s became sitting ducks before YPG TOWs or Kornets. The Syrian T72s are being proven just as effective as M1 Abrams. And Saudis are complete idiots, frequently deploying tanks without air or infantry support or having no concept of an IBG. It seems like India with their God awful Arjun Mk1 has a higher chance of winning wars than Saudis with M1 Abrams.

The American Javelin missile can 1-shot any tank in the world, as it hits the tank directly from above with a multi-staged shaped charge. Also there are various artillery shells specifically meant for killing the crew inside a tank (bypassing the armor, since the human brain is still vulnerable to concussive forces). And then there is the updated version of the American CBU-105 cluster bomb, that can swiss-cheese an entire field of modern main-battle tanks. And lets not forget the A-10s 30mm super-sonic depleted uranium rounds that can destroy any tank on Earth.... or how any nation can simply create swarms of suicide drones to disable and destroy tanks. But if you wanted an honest side-by-side comparison of tank vs tank... it would really come down to who saw the other tank first & got a clean shot off. Even if you were to take the fully-modernized Abrams tank with its Tusk II (or other add-on reactive-armor variants), versus Russia's latest & greatest fully upgraded main-battle tank, it would really come down to whomever got the shot off 1st... would get the kill.

@@ericmcquisten No the A-10 cannot "destroy any tank on Earth", declassified live fire tests show it struggled to kill old surplus M-47s and M-48s they used for range targets. Only a handful of short term mission kills, even a smaller number of crew or vehicle losses.

@@Tuberuser187 . Try again kiddo. Depleted Uranium rounds from A-10 have never been stopped by enemy tank on Earth. Get your facts straight dumbass.... even a few Abrams tanks have been shredded by A-10s, in mistaken friendly-fire incidents, in both 1990 (Desert Storm) and again in 2010 (Iraqi Freedom).

RGC2005 if they fight via war of attrition but some don’t fight that way like the German blitzkrieg even though they did overextend their supply lines.

war is comprised of 3 components logistics logistics logistics Location Location Location Money Money Money

How did the US lose in Vietnam then? The Russians in Afghanistan? There's much more than just math.

There's a term for this, actually; Lanchester's laws. The square law helps accommodate this concept.

@@mattmccartney5996 What was the one thing the US tried to do, but failed to, in Vietnam? Cut off the Ho Chi Minh trail. What was that? Oh, just a Logistics route that supplied their forces... How were the Soviets winning in Afghanistan? Overwhelming logistics. Why did the Soviets start to lose in Afghanistan? Compromised supply lines when the Mujahadeen gained logistical support from the CIA/US.

@@komradearti9935 *"Late RPGs with inertial fuzes or ATGMs which can straight up push the slat armour apart"* Uuuummm, ok???....first of all, what's the point of inertial fuzes, if they are going to be destroyed by the cage armour in the first place, and prevent detonation? Also ATGMs can't push apart slat armour BEFORE detonation. The ONLY TIME THEY can push apart slat armour apart (and only small sections) IS WHEN THEY EXPLODE, but like as I said before slat armour is pretty good at preventing warheads from detonating. *"or detonate anyway due to having different fuzes don't really care most of the time"* ......ok, I don't know what you mean. Could you give me an example, and why it's less vulnerable to cage armour?

@@komradearti9935 *"The original TOW for example has a full width crush fuze. That's gonna detonate no matter what."* Ok, I am a bit confused. By "full width crush fuze", are you talking about the pointy bit on the TOW missile? *"The DM12 HEAT round for example can penetrate ~60mm of RHA before detonating, rendering light ERA like Kontakt 1 useless)"* I am a bit skeptical about this. Do you have a source for this?

Shilka ZSU-23-4 with an increased amount of ammunition and removed radar was used back in Afghanistan in the 80s to protect against ambushes. There were many prototypes of tanks pre-equipped with 20-30mm cannons and unguided missiles, additional remotely controlled machine guns. T-72M2 Modern topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2011-07/1311562860_2007_sahara_238_136.jpg And a series of BMPT prototypes armed with 30mm guns. And as a result, the modern BMPT-72 Terminator (Divider) and BMP-3 (lightweight and devoid of additional turrets) but having excess armament is precisely why.

During 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, India’s primary tank was the Soviet PT76 export version, as woefully underequipped tank compared to M48 Pattons and M26 Chaffeys used by the Pakistani forces. India managed to win the war in 13 days in a blitzkrieg because of better tactics, just saying - www.historynet.com/indias-blitzkrieg.htm medium.com/war-is-boring/indias-armored-cavalry-rolled-and-swam-into-bangladesh-90b3281b2099

They also don’t have the chobham armor British and American tanks have

Crap armour or not doesn't change the idea that the royal family in KSA keeps the training and tactical capabilities of its army relatively low in fear of a military coup. :D And now the ice cream licks back! Btw if I remember correctly the main tank used by Iraq was domestic, slightly downgraded copy of a Warsaw pact licence-built already downgraded export variant of the basic T-72, using ammunition the Soviets withdrew from front line service and declared "for training only" around 1973.

@@jagannathbarman6712 good shit. I shall take a look.

@@imrekalman9044 they were that bad? Wow. I did not know they were basically using training rounds!

Although technical specifications and superiority definitely helps , again training and an effective doctrine can effectively counter technical shortcomings, just like Tank warfare. Not exactly a battlefield situation, but remember when India beat USAF consequently so badly they decided not to continue any more war games exercise with India for a long time? nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-jet-fighters-are-back-india-wargames-last-two-times-indian-air-force-won-38232 theaviationist.com/2014/05/02/cope-india-2004-results/

At least we know that a top of the line stirling D/E sub has no problem with infiltrating the USN carrier groups with the level of complacency they had in the early '00s to well within rifle ranges, take pictures through the periscope and exfiltrate undetected.

@@Gridlocked First of all, I don’t know much about operation mole cricket, so I would refrain commenting on it. Now, as far as I recall, of the 4 times, India and Pakistan have gone to conventional war, 1965 and 1971 were the only times IAF and PAF faced each other, (deliberately not talking about 1948 here cause the homogeneity of training, doctrine and equipment is too similar for such an analytical framework), both times as far as I know, IAF emerged victorious, and India won the war (65 can be deemed a draw,71 decisive Indian victory). Now if you claim that PAF defeated IAF, I would ask you to provide proof. In IAFs defense on 1965, I provide you these articles- www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/iaf-defeated-paf-in-1965-war/ www.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2015/09/14/war-of-attrition-how-the-outgunned-iaf-beat-the-paf_396591 www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/defence/1965-india-pakistan-war-how-iafs-heroes-slayed-pafs-superior-sabre-fighter-jets/287642/amp/ Even though IAF indeed lost more aircrafts, most of them were lost in bombing runs by PAF, and are not exactly called air-losses, cause by that logic Russian air force lost to Luftwaffe in WW2. As for 1971, yeah Bangladesh exists and that's enough validity for these articles - www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/1971-air-war-battle-for-air-supremacy/ nationalinterest.org/blog/indias-disappointing-marut-jet-fighter-proved-itself-combat-21875 So, do you have proofs that counter my claims? Feel free to share.

@@dragonstormdipro1013 One has to remember that during the excercises between India and the US, the rules of engagment were very stacked in India's favor or else it would not even have been a competition. The F-15s were not allowed to engage the enemy aircraft beyond visual range where their vastly superior radars would've given them an enormous advantage and they were outnumbered 2,3,4,5 to 1. They basically had to fly into the engagement area. Wait to be ambushed by a large number of enemy jets, and then try to dogfight their way out. The F-15 is a pretty good dogfighter but its not going to win against 5 other, smaller, jets. If there is a take away it's that the USAF should expect opponents to be crafty in a real war. The Indian pilots used some really sneaky tactics like having all the planes except one turn off their active radara to be harder to detect. However, in a real war the US has more jets than anybody else and will fly them all in, some of which will be stealth, and then use their very powerful radars and new missiles (new long-range AMRAAM just came out) to blast anything out of the sky from 100+ miles away. Sure the US has been saying this is how air combat will go since Vietnam and it has not always been the case (especially during Vietnam) but the missiles and radars being used now are extremely advanced and nobody except the US and its allies have large numbers of stealth jets to hide counter that.

@@Rampant16 Indeed.

Not entirely true. Modern tanks can engage helicopters with the main gun effectively due to modern fire control systems. Apart from the AA machinegun they can not engage fixed wing aircraft though. That is why it is always a good idea to have armored tracked anti-aircraft vehicles going along with them. However depending on the terrain tanks are very difficult to detect from the air. The higher an aircraft is the less likely it will detect a tank. The only effective way of engaging tanks is flying low and slow (like A-10 or Su-25) but at low altitude an aircraft is also very vulnerable to ground fire.SAMs, autocannons and if the plane is not armored even machine guns. Or if you have ground forces laser designating the tanks on the ground. Ground forces can also deploy decoys and use camoflage. Serbs lost only 13 tanks by the massive NATO air strikes, which bombed mainly decoys. Some terrains allow tanks to hide and camouflage very well. Serbs used decoys as simple as putting a big tube into a car so that from high altitude it looks like a tank. Today tanks also carry more countermeasures. IR blocking smoke, flares (like those on aircraft, to stop heat seeking missiles), missile jammers and even missile kill systems. Although they have little means to destroy the attacking aircraft (that is the role of anti-air vehicles) they can intercept the incoming missiles. So while it is always a good idea to have mobile AA escort them. Tanks are not as vulnerable to air strikes as often thought.

I believe you are correct. Anti-tank weapons are a lot more effective in destroying tanks, and cheaper. But this is not the point. Tanks is not supposed to be deployed as a static anti-tank weapon, it is meant as a mobile strike force or counter-strike force, movement, not static. I understand the need for infantry fire support which is most suitable using Stryker or equivalent. In fact, a Toyota pick up truck with a big gun is just as about useful, and a lot cheaper too.

@@cyrilchui2811 I KNOW. I was just talking about weapon systems that are better at killing tanks as an example. I never said ONCE that tanks should primarily be used statically in a fixed position (although they can go hull down if the need arises)

In other news, I finally found that statistic about tank casualties inflicted by various weapon systems (during WW2). HOORAY!!!! ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/ Ok, so tanks are responsible for around 15% of all tank kills. Also self-propelled guns, and towed AT-guns are responsible for around 50% of all tank kills (indvidually, SPGs, and towed guns are responsible for around 25% of all tank kills)

@@andrewlee-do3rf pinch of salt here. Comparing with the French 1940 figure is incorrect. German was the offensive side back in 1940, no way AT mines could be used. As for self-propelled guns Vs Tigers, I believe I read it from somewhere that late in the war, Germany produced more non-tank due to production constraint, which might also coincide with late Germany doctrine on tactics, more ambush/defensive than offensive.

trust me i go this early. When he said the situation was fluid i know what he means 🤣🤣

ThatDutchguy for now, infantry killing tanks are so mobile and cheap and easy to maintain, and now with recent drones that have anti tanks that are also cheap and small, and then robotic machines of anti tank capabilities that any nation can get, this is the future. Unmanned warfare of machine against machine, better in my opinion

i'm not mad I'm disappointed totally agree, it will take us back to the old slaughter of urban warfare of hand to hand (or gun to gun) combat without a tank that would make an enemy flee (from experience)

m1 Abrams with CWIS

William the butchers son productions too much freedom

Active protection works because the systems attacking them are old tech. For example, the heavy infantry squad I lead back in 2000 had 3 types of anti tank weapons in their squad (M72, RFK84 and Eryx ATGM). Meaning if we were ever faced with attacking a tank that had active protection. We could use the RFK84 airburst or high explosives first to try to knock out the active protection system sensors before we flew in the tandem heat Eryx missile. Point is, all the tech we had access to was already old at that point in time. New warheads or tandem like setups can make active protection system less viable in the future.

wrong, there are already missiles developed to counter this. They are just expensive. Active protection also poses a risk to nearby infantry.

@@mohammedhersi5774 that's not always the case with APS