The Chieftain is going to come to your house and give you your own personal Significant Emotional Event for saying that the tank is obsolete. Simply put, as long as the role of tank (armored direct fire support) exists, the tank will remain no matter what counters to it are developed.
I always like to think of it as. Would you rather be the person with the tank or the person without, as well as by the logic that a much cheaper weapon can kill it, you would have to make Aircraft obsolete, as one can be taken down with a few canon rounds, or an air to air missile or any ground defence, which i can guarrantee is cheaper. Ships can be taken down with ship to ship missiles.
Yes, modern tank guns are more powerful. But they also have night vision, laser range finders, stabilizers, for getting weather sensors, and all managed by computers to achieve great accuracy. Also, modern ammunition. Giving them a major advantage over WW2 tanks. Giving modern t as tanks a much greater first round hit possibility. Well-equipped modern tanks also have an independent commanders sight, FLIR heat imaging and other advantages. Most modern MBTs also have point-blank armor protection. Against a Tigers 88mm guns.
Yeah. The age of the tank as the STARS of wars may be over, but their role is still valuable. Hence the US Army resurrecting the concept of the Light/Infantry Support Tank with the M10 Booker (not a tank under modern classifications, but absolutely would've been under WWII-era understanding) but still keeping the Abrams as its Medium/Main Battle Tank. Because there are still roles only a modern MBT can perform.
I’d argue tanks aren’t obsolete, but rather the view that tanks are the primary combatant has caused many many tank casualties that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. People are not using their tanks correctly.
A small correction, technically most tanks from ww2 could take down most modern tanks. Assuming medium to close distance from the side with a shot to the hull. But most big ish guns could do that
It is entirely possible for a Tiger to take out an Abrams. You just need to air-drop it from 30,000 feet. The trick is getting the needed accuracy to score a direct hit, as Tigers aren't known for their aerodynamic stability...
I like the at-te, but to make it practical we would need to develop material strong enough to support the weigh, including situations where 1 or 2 legs are damaged, and software to handle the walking. Unfortunately we have not reached that point for a military vehicle yet. For a robot the size of a horse or donkey, we have, but not an elephant and larger.
The problem with height is that you cant really hide, and in war the tank that can spot and fire first usually wins. When fighting mines, height is great that said. Also numbers do indeed mater true in a battle......but i mean if you fight like the zulu and plan to lose massive numbers for every outpost......at some point you are going to run out of dudes if your pop isn't that much greater vs your enemy/even if you do get ready for a demographic crash if you can steal other peoples for your effort (russia today)
The "2 russian teenagers and a log" bit reminded me of a bit from either my grandma's brother's or my grandpa's Winter Wars era diary. In it there's a bit where a squad of FInnish soldiers take downa KV tank. First they jammed the logs in the treads, then two climbed atop the tank and literally hammered at the barrel so it couldn't fire. Finally they pried oipen the hatches, threw a grenade or two in and shut the hatch. These days dudes can just yeet AT munitions from half a mile, and I bet they prefer that over pulling the short straw and crawling next to a tank to do this type of shit.
your take on walkers to me is questionable, as you lose a few things to be a bit better against mines. 1. Ground Pressure so your going to sink super quickly 2. Cost, Price will sky rocket seeing how complicated walkers would be 3. Ease or Repair, repairing a leg would be a pain in comparison to a track. 4. High profile, Something with legs that high up is going to become a Super large target for literally everything 5. Stabilisation, if you have ever watched a walker move, in star wars, you will note they are not stable. 6. Speed, legs are slow. 7. Armour, Because of higher ground pressure you are going to need less armour to even try to alleviate the sinking problem, 8. Infrastructure of everything. walkers are large bulky specifcally the At-te are far to big to operate effectively in urban environments. 9. Gun Depression, Since the tank or walker in this case is so high up your gun depression will be limited, and cannot aim unless it bent down, which would be a nightmare for the crew inside seeing how much it would have to do so. 10. More vulnerabilities, despite the higher resistance to mines, you gain a worse vulnerabilities, and it goes by the name of Infantry, unlike a tank, you could use an Old RPG to shoot it from below, meaning you would need to cover every single bit of the tank in ERA, and armour, which would increase ground pressure. 11. You made a comment about well its lost 1 leg it has 5 more, thats not exactly a good thing, a walker needs its legs to be stable, and having something that can readjust perfectly to be balanced with a missing leg quickly will not be easy, not to mention that once they take out a few more, you are going to have no hope of repairing it unless you brought a mobile factory with you, which would become the target of artillery.
Hence, why the only military to use walkers is the Empire. The Republic mostly used levitating heavy tanks in their armored divisions, with the only things being walkers being lightly armored scout and supporting vehicles. The AT-ATs are much bigger than even the Republics heavies and much flashier. Keep in mind that the Empire featured units created for the propaganda cameras (holos in this case) rather than practicality. Which ultimately led to their failure as a military power. Their lack of practical, logistically sound units and equipment contributed to their collapse as it paired itself with arrogant and strategically brain-dead officers and the fact that the Empire was fighting guerrillas conventionally.
Here's the thing. Tanks on Ukraine are mainly *SOVIET ERA* tanks. Those with carousel type autoloader. Meaning they explode when hit by pretty much anything that penetrates the armor. Western tanks aren't like that. Using anti-tank weapons and drones on those will not guarantee destruction of a tank. In many cases such a hit will barely even slow those tanks down. Because anti-tank weapons in most cases don't explode inside the tank. Also Ukrainians mainly use mines to stop Russian tanks. Here's the thing: polish Rosomak IFV already can withstand the explosion of such mine directly under the hull. It's only a matter of time before tanks get manufactured the same way. Meaning mines will be useless against tanks. Also no, AT-TE is a *FAILED DESIGN.* Why? Simple. *FUCKING JOINTS!* You merely need to hit those joints with anti-tank missiles. Joints get damaged and stop working and AT-TE is frozen in one place. Meaning it's dead meat because any plane can blow it up from above the clouds. Sorry Joe. This ship have sailed long time ago and it's already well explained why literally no machine with legs can ever survive on the battlefield.
I kind of dislike the entire "don't use Wikipedia" spiel. The sources at the bottom tend to be worth checking out. So DO use Wikipedia to check the sources at the bottom and start from there. The summary above is what you should skip. Not Wikipedia.
Playing War Thunder I once encountered a mad lad trying to uptier WW2 German tanks into the modern age. Given the fact I killed him three times I suppose it kind of worked, but 120mm APFSDS to the upper front plate do a fairly competent job at deleting Wehraboos.
The Tiger could get a decent chance when he shoots the Abrams side form a few hundred to 1000m distance. Modern MBTs have awfull side armor. Of course the Abrams would spot and shoot the Tiger on a much bigger distance first ^^ You see such stunts all the time in for example Warthunder which claims to be historically accurate.
As a Brit I'm more inclined to the Sherman Firefly. People seem to forget the British Centurion exists while it balanced movement, firepower and protection it concept was to take out Tigers and Panthers. Personally the Ukrainian war is piss poor example of MBTs because obsolete I mean its fucking Russia advance armies will always get their teeth kicked in when it comes to gorilla warfare here in Britain Challenger is getting it MK3 upgrade but we are also putting alot money in IFVs like the Boxer.
i mean theres a good chance that the tiger would kill the abrams, if the abrams turned onto its side 0 degrees while being closer then 1 KM (important note: NOT hull-down) also assuming that the abrams would deliberately wait for the tiger to shoot first. only THEN and only THEN is there a good chance that the tiger is taking out the abrams. if however the abrams crew isnt suicidal and aint stupid to get closer when they obviously dont have to, then well... i can imagine a nice 5 Km shot exploding the tiger in 1 try without the tiger ever knowing that there was an enemy.
the stryker has no chance to replace the abrams due to its terrible performance. it is very unreliable and the gun was to big for such a small vehicle. the cv90120 is probsably the best light tank design in the world. not having tracks is also an issue for the sryker since even ww2 american tanks could climb up a 60 degree incline hill
Walkers are far too slow to be practical. And yes, tanks exist to support infantry. That has not changed. They are still needed for that until something better is created (Not walkers. I'm sorry, but that's a dumb idea). Russian tanks are getting killed by Ukranian infantry because of bad tactics. If Russia had fielded dismounted infantry with their tanks, the war would have gone much differently. Likely they would have been able to take Kiyv. At least partially. If they had properly supplied their forces as well, then Ukraine would have already lost. So bad tactics and poor logistics is losing Russia the war. Also corruption and "Vranyo" kinda bit Russia in the ass, so here we are. Also; nobody ever argues that infantry is obsolete because machineguns exist. So saying tanks are obsolete, because; Javelin, is not a good argument. I realize that's not exactly what you're saying, but close enough. Tanks were first declared obsolete in 1919 and several times since then, but here we are. The reality is that militaries will continue to use tanks for as long they need Direct Fire Support or until something else comes along that does DFS better. So, no: Tanks are not obsolete yet and will probably be around for a few more decades. With my rambling over I will say that I like your content even though I disagree with you on quite a few things. God bless.
So, tanks are obsolete because Russia isn't using them properly and their tanks are at best at parity with the '80's? That's a terrible argument. You're not going to be the first to leave their tanks at home.
No what I’m saying is that war has changed to a far more flexible way of fighting where the standard soldier can destroy tanks. The US had the same problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion (which can be wrong) the way tanks are currently being built is still based on old tank v tank doctrine. What I’m saying is tanks need to evolve into a more infantry supporting vehicle rather than be a sole tank killer, mostly today we are not facing well trained armies but insurgents
@@Schluge96 What are you talking about? Standard soldiers have pretty much always been able to destroy tanks. What do you think a bazooka is for? There will always be a role for the tank being a sole counter for a tank. After all, while we are fighting more insurgents, it's not like state actors in conflicts have gone away. We'll need to deploy tanks against them.
