Tank Armor Is Overrated 

Careful, Arbiter. What you say is heresy.

Spookston: "Tank armour is overrated" Maus: _My goals are beyond your understanding_

theres a common saying among soldiers: we wear 100 lbs of the lightest stuff possible.

Wait, you’re telling me that tank design is a mix of compromises and trade offs, that is constantly developing?

This will be lost, but I think there's a factor that is being overlooked. This isn't the first time that armour has been declared useless or impractical on vehicles. The invention of armour piercing shells in naval warfare caused many to say that the Ironclad ships of the day were obsolete, and that armoured ships would cease to be important. Instead, the invention of Harvey nickel steel, later Krupp Cemented steel, proved that wrong. Later still, more powerful guns proved it right. The point is, that armour and firepower have been rivals for centuries, and today firepower has the edge. No doubt that in time, better active protection systems etc. Will give armour the edge. We'll have to wait and see. There are just my thoughts, hope you like them.

Tank survival philosophy sounds like it can be applied to walking in the hood.

Tanks: Ok it is time to loose weigth. Logisticians: *happy panting* PS: you can also mount more stuff inside since now it is gonna be much more spacous without all that thicc armour around or just make the tank smaller. Witch is better I will let the Armie's decide.

Phly "no armour is best armour" daily would agree. On a serious note he actually wouldn't and while armour is the one of the last layers of the "protective onion" of a vehicle, until it's no longer cost effective it's better to have some.

"Tank armour is over rated." Challenger 2 crew: *rolls up sleeves* Hold my tea.

I recall the Germans thinking the same thing with their Leopard 1. They realized that having some armor is better than having practically none.

Real world meta: A tanks best armor is the infantry. WT meta: your best armor is the idiot who rushes ahead of you :D

This is something that seems to get ignored in sci-fi. Sci-fi tanks often opt for the biggest damn tank they can build, trying to just eat shots that would annihilate a modern tank in a single hit. Instead, they should make use of sci-fi materials that are lighter and stronger than modern materials and use those to increase the mobility of their tanks without sacrificing protection.

Strap a bunch of the enemy’s civilians to your tank. Invulnerable.

As Heinz Guderian (i think he was the one to tell that) once said, "For tanks, first fire power, second maneuverability, and last armour".

Same as a lot of armour, really. It CAN stop a lot of firepower but it probably won't. The best defence isn't having a stone jaw, it's to not get hit in the mouth in the first place.

There's some more you can add to the survivability onion (i think that's the proper name) than the ones you mentioned in the video. Although what you said is much simpler to understand. 1) Don't be there: This is basically politics, win without any troops on the ground. Tank designers or crew can't help with this. 2) Don't be detected: Stealth, making your tank quieter, better camouflaged, radio silence, etc. 3) Don't be targeted: Make yourself a really bad target so enemies won't target you. Long ranges, smoke cover, movement, terrain to hide most of your tank. 4) Don't be hit: Similar to the last point (A bad target is hard to hit). But this also includes things like point defence systems, jammers, or anything to screw with a weapon systems ability to target/track you. 5) Don't be penetrated: Armour, ERA, etc. 6) Don't be killed: Spall liners, safe ammo stowage, blowout panels, easy exit hatches, etc.

from what I was able to read about it, the reason the Japanese Type 90 had difficulty in a lot of japan is because it was too heavy for a lot of japans bridges except the ones in Hokkaido

It's the ping-pong of weapons vs defense that has often fascinated me. Knights wore thick steel plate armor, until bullets came along. Then for a long time, no one wore armor because it didn't stop bullets enough to be worth it. Then we had a period where thick armor plating could take a hit and remain in tact, thus the rise of tanks like the Tiger, and of course the massive battleships. Then missiles and anti-armor weapons made such lumbering beasts vulnerable, which is why the biggest ship that isn't a carrier is a cruiser, most are subs and destroyers, and tanks have to be fast even if they still have thick armor. We're still on the weapons side of the ping-pong table right now. While modern armor is not worthless enough to ditch entirely, there's a reason battleships aren't around anymore. Like you said, mechanized armor is (or should be) mostly about defending against small arms. Tank v tank is all about who hits first. The armor at best will deflect the energy enough to let the crew survive. It'll be interesting to see what technology brings us back to the armor side of the table. Assuming it happens in my lifetime.

Overall I agree, in the same way we pile on ever more weight to the average soldier, the vehicles of today are too heavy for their own good. All the protective armor has long reached a point of diminishing returns and brought more problems instead.

Yo, I'm loving the inclusion of the Mechanicus soundtrack in these vids, just so you know. One of the dankest videogame OSTs out there. Noosphere puts me in a sort of way.

It was a slap to the face when I first tried playing War Thunder with the "I'm in a muthafockin tank" mindset, and I just kept getting sniped from across the map by an enemy in spawn. After that I slowly started learning the do's and dont's. *Don't* expose yourself if the enemy is looking. *Don't* rely on armor, even if you're in a heavy tank, to be able to take multiple shells to the face and not get penned, if it does, you're an idiot, if it doesn't, you're a lucky son of a bitch and you better locate that enemy before he get's his second shot off. I know War Thunder is not as accurate as they try to portray it as, but if there's one thing they were accurate in (it seems) is that armor is a last resort, not your go to.

Spookston: talks about some of the most interesting topics ahout tanks Also spookston: five minutes of someone talking in a deadpan tone with generic gameplay in the background

It must pointed out that unmanned turrets can alleviate weight problems to a extent.

0:54 I learned that as the protection Onion, and as I remember it has 2 more layers: Don't go there (an allusion to avoiding unwinnable conflicts), don't stay there (making reference to mobility).

Well, in russian case they always wanted and still want to conserve weight. Even in soviet times more emphasis was put on tank weight (T-64 development and things it had to drop to conserve wieght and have good armour), T-14 thanks to it somewhat revolutionary (for a mass production tank) layout of fully unmanned turret and crew located in one comparment in front, allowed for reducing the weight heavily thanks to turret no longer being needed to feature heavy armour. Only the crew capsule in front is heavily armoured and to a degree capable of stopping modern tank rounds. Add to that the new Monolit ERA/NXERA which is even more capable than Relikt and the Afganit APS capable of shooting down APFSDS and you get a very safe but light design. But what is not true for this tank, is the size aspect. T-14 is a massive vehicle by all standards. It is longer, taller and wider than M1. Imo the age of heavily armoured tanks is not ending, it is changing. From protecting the entire frontal arc of the tank to protecting just the most important part (in this case crew capsule) with addition of active protection systems of all kinds.

It makes sense, I remember hearing a couple of old Sherman tank guys from world war 2 and a German tiger tank guy talking about what it was like! And one of the Sherman guys said pretty quickly that the Sherman’s got a bad reputation for being crap with no armour, but he explained that the tiger gun was a full on beast, and having enough armour to bounce them reliably, would mean being so slow and heavy that you’re a sitting duck and much easier target for just about everyone else as well as they could just shoot your tracks and disable you, and he said he preferred that the Sherman could move a lot better than a tiger meaning a lot of the time it could avoid even getting hit rather than taking a hit! And apparently he fought in I believe 15 Sherman tanks, each time the enemy shot his tank he ran back to get put in another one, he said a few crew died but not as many as you’d think for being in 15 destroyed tanks which he survived all of them! On the other hand the German guy said the tiger was basically a beast when it worked, but all that armour etc put a lot of stress on the engine and drivetrain meaning they broke down a lot, particularly when it actually mattered, when you’d suddenly have to push the tank to its limits etc during an attack, and said fairly soon his tiger tank broke down and they were told to basically wait for a crew to fix it and then the war ended before they even got there to fix it! Personally I’m not saying that no armour is best armour, but clearly tank design didn’t go the way of the Maus and such, because the logistics alone are a nightmare as well as bridge crossings etc, and no matter how big and thicc your tank is, there are plenty of ways for a jet fighter and so on to take you out and these days particularly, there’s missiles strong enough to wipe out any tank no matter the armour, so clearly being unspotted and too hard to hit etc is a much better option than relying on armour! In purely tanks vs tanks then maybe they’d be a place for crazy armoured tanks, but in reality there’s just not these days! Same with battleships, they basically became obsolete because no matter how thicc and juicy your armour is, someone will make a torpedo or AP round strong enough to go through, meaning being a big fat slow easy to hit target is bad! The only real exception to that concept these days, is aircraft carriers and in particular super carriers, they’re big fat relatively slow easy to hit, high priority targets, meaning only the wealthiest countries can really consider operating them because you’ll also need an entire fleet of destroyers and cruisers etc to support the ship, but given the level of firepower and air power that can be unleashed if you can get your super carrier in range is worth the costs for global powers, but I think right now the only people who have them are the US and the U.K.! But yeah that’s like a floating military, that has another military escorting it everywhere, tanks don’t get that personal level of protection!

Bruh, is that Mechanicus soundtrack in the background?! I was just playing that as the video notification popped, and thought I was tripping balls :D

Spookston:"tank armour is overrated" Ratte: my goals are beyond your understanding

Being a (unpublished) Sci-fi author, I have been designing several high speed infantry support tanks that were like more than armored cars with hybrid-electric drives, tyres rather than tracks, light plastic-based electric-reactive armor, rail or coil-guns (depending on the role of the tank. Railgun for direct fire, coilgun for inderect support). They would support marine platoons (3 tanks and a command tank, operating alongside two infantry sections and a command group make up the platoon) Sadly, there's no current plan for them to appear onscreen, but I at least have the tanks and command structure worked out if they do. P.S. There is an orbital drop variant, designed to be deployed from orbit, crewed and battle ready. Landing much like the curiosity Rover.

I think you underestimate how much overlap between resistance to tank guns and resistance to many atgms and RPGs there is

The Chieftain mentioned in a recent Q&A that armour was the least important thing for him in tank design - quite relevant given that he used to be a tanker himself and he'd be the one being shot at. He pretty much gave the same reasons as you. We can't discount the emergence of new super amazing composite armour, but we shouldn't count on it. As a matter of fact, I believe firepower will still outpace armour development. There's a bunch of interesting developments in experimental tank guns, but armour is reaching some limits, there's no way to make an armour composition that's light, small and can absorb that much kinetic energy. Of course some people will say "but we've already seen points in which armour was declared useless and new developments have made it relevant again", but I believe this will probably not be the case again anytime soon: our knowledge of materials physics is really advanced, and we're starting to see limits on how strong materials can be. Tank armour has some specific requirements (there's a maximum total thickness and weight) and it'll reach a point in which we won't be able to make it stronger. I still see the possibility of new synthetic materials that are even stronger, but the production costs of these is prohibitive. Making billion dollar tanks is just impractical. But that's just my opinion.

It would be funny if future military's ditch the concept of a main battle tank all together and go back to having a small fleet of heavy tanks for breakthrough operations, and a large fleet of light tanks to serve as the general workhorse of the Army.

armor will never be totally abandonned, and here's few reasons: -as optronics evolve, it's easyer and easyer to see, track, aim, hit. what was insinsible above 100m one century ago can now be accurately detected and engaged at 2000m -as pure firepower evolves, the amount of destruction an foot soldier can bring does evolve (an modern infantry group equiped with RPGs and assault rifles has far more firepower than an medium tank from the 1920's) and since thoose man-portable weapons can be smuggled illegally (or by a state turning a blind eye to it) some terrorist/insurgeants will always be able to get them. -explosives still exist, and they don't need a direct hit to inflict damage. an lightly armoured target can be teared apart quite easily by such things. (spoiler: you cannot dodge shockwaves and spalling, video-games/moovies aren't reality, do not underestimate the lethality radius of an explosive ammunition/an explosive device) -in asymetrical warfare, the ennemy has the advantage of the non-formal-military-status, wich often guarantee him to give you the first strike by surprise, so, no matter how efficient you think you are, you ll always get striked without knowing from where it came from and when you expect it the least. thoose factors make that there will always be a need for something that can engage a large group of entranched/hidden infantry without enduring too much losses, and that is still a ground unit (cuz an air unit cannot stay forever and cannot keep an area under-control) also, to back up my points, look at history: -before WWI: infantry had little to no protection, personnal protection was seen as an useless mass, when armies began to figure out how easy it was, without direct hit, to simply crush thousands of soldiers like it's nothing (the human body is far more fragile than what we like to think: unlike in hollywood moovies or anime, we cannot perform matrix-like-dodge, and we cannot get back on our feet once there's too much metal stuck into our flesh) , steel helmets did an coming back, some personnal protections appeared, tanks made their beginning. -the late 20s and 30s: anti tank shells became common, did tanks disapeared? no, quite the opposite in fact, design evolved, and ways to make tanks more armoured without becomming fat whales where found (also true for WWII: look at an soviet T34 from WWII, and compare it with an WWI british mark 1 : similar total weight, but the T34 is more compact and armored) -in the 50s and 60s, everyone was like "meh, RPGs, ATGMs, shaped charges....tank = obsolete, no armor, armor is futile" and then....T-64 happened ---> a tank that wasn't particularly heavyer than leopard 1 or pattons, but that was on a whole other level in term of protection, thanks to an compact design and new armor technology. -when tandem charges apeared on ATGM, everyone was thinking "ERA is now obsolete" and then, new types of ERA protecting against tandem-charges apeared -after cold war, everyone was thinking about relying more on light AFVs and getting rid of fat MBT, then, they discovered, with terorrism and insurgents, what "IED"' means. and big, fat, expensive, and impratical armored whales continued to be used. -theese last decades, we have seen an massive improvment of personnal protections for infantry: first flack jackets, then, heavy plates carrier became far more common, and helmets became more effective too, the body coverage increased also (we begin to cover throat, shoulders, groin area). also, keep in mind that with automation, some task will be performed by an mechanism + an computer that take far less space than an human being, meaning it will be possible to reduce the internal space inside the tank (reducing the volume to be armoured, alowing to put even more armor without increasing the mass, and to proove this point: just compare leopard 1/AMX30/type 74 with T64A/T-72 ural ) take also into account that engines do evolve, so, less and less space required to have the same output (and if an tinier engine gives you the same work, you can reduce the volume of your tank, and so, reduce weight without reducing armor) yes, mobility and logistics must not be overlooked (don't build 75 + tons things that constantly break down, get stuck in mud, cannot be quickly fixed and that cannot be transported anywhere) but neglecting armor is the best way to just endure catastrophic looses against anything, even some apes in the desert armed with equipment as old as your grandparents.

Sorry ask Spookstons, but you could make videos redesigning and fixing ww2 tanks ? I would like to see your version of the panther.

I want to ask your thoughts on the American Optionably Manned Combat Vehicle program? 50mm Bushmaster autocannon, Active protection, and room for upgrades. Meant to replace the Bradley.

This actually reminded me about something I heard from The Chieftain about the US Army looking into a new light tank this past year. Both tanks in the competition are under 30 tons, armed with either a 105mm or 120mm gun and need to be air transportable. The General Dynamics Griffin II is one of the two, and and updated BAE M8 Buford from the earlier 1990's competition are the main competitors. Both would be plenty quick and nimble and are relatively small in size compared to modern MBT's, though they still are fairly large.

While I agree with the video overall, (gr8 vid btw) tank crews essentially fight to the death for their tank, as that's their life on the battlefield anyways, they don't and can't really just 'become infantry', tanks deploy in twos or threes Minimum! And they stick together and try as hard as possible to repair a tank if it gets hit/damaged to get outta there and RTB.

Hey Spookston, I have a "Everything Wrong With" Suggestion, there is this game called "Just Cause 4" and it has some pretty cool Tanks, with a lot of them looking like they are functional, can you perhaps check them out?? Thanks, much love - Me

Your outro music surprised me; it brought back many nostalgic memories.

What about the idea of addon armour packages such as the Challenger 2’s TES? as this can adapt the tank based on the likelihood of what it will fight, whether that’ll be infantry or tank

Here a good video idea: Everything wrong with Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare's vehicles

Me, shoving more s**t onto my fantasy tank designs: "what did you say? I can't hear you."

I feel reasonably confident in saying this will prove wrong. Prior to the Ukraine invasion the perception was that defence has the edge right now. People were suggesting the ATGM will become extinct with active protection. We saw huge improvements to composite arrays and ERA with the advent of computer modelling, and both were rolled out en mass. On the flip side the HEAT threat had barely improved, it was already almost as good as its getting and we were still using the same diameter cannons and the same missiles of 20 years ago. Likewise the KE threat had arguably gone backwards, we were still limited by length, still using the same cannons, but so many nations opted to move to tungsten projectiles with far worse performance against composite arrays. Of course that all changed with the invasion of Ukraine, people had a rude awakening that the threat still had the extreme advantage it had held since mid WW2. Even if the tanks destroyed were largely outdated, had rudimentary composite arrays, used pure steel in the areas usually penetrated, had an incredibly poor design against damage, had terrible tactics, usually lacked active protection systems, it was still an awakening. With that designers now have to decide if they want to defend against the top attack threat with more ERA, composite arrays, cope cages, whatever else. And if they want to finally step up the cannon diameter to again pose a threat to next generation tanks. Both cost weight. As will defending against a larger cannon and future AT threats. Ultimately your choice is to defend against the threat or to not. If the former, it costs more weight. If you're not defending against the threat why not run IFV armour with whatever weapon you like. That would still defend against the autocannon and other common threats with a 25 ton footprint. There's absolutely no point in making a tank 50+ tons if its not able to manage anything beyond what the 25 ton fire support vehicle can. Perhaps in 3 years when the next generation is designed I can eat my words, perhaps I can be proven right. But even with weight saving methods like autoloaders and better technology I'd be very surprised if we aren't seeing a weight increase now people are aware the threat is still real. And possibly an increase in fire support vehicles so you don't need a 70 ton tank shooting 3 miles away at a rifleman in a tower (or masses of helicopters vulnerable to MANPADS as Ukraine also demonstrated, albeit more quietly).

*A great analogy I head recently is like this:* Tank armor stopping projectiles is like a sandcastle at the beach stopping a wave from the ocean. One wave will ruin the sandcastle. It may take 2 or 3 waves for the water to get past the sandcastle, but it only takes 1 wave for the sandcastle to be ruined and need replacing. Tank armor may stop 1 round. May even stop 2 rounds. But getting hit even once means the armor's effectivness has been reduced significantly. The idea of 40 tonne or 30 tonne tanks isn't so unreasonable when even 60 tonne tanks can only really be hit once before they are out of the fight.

i'd never want to be a tanker. i could just imagine a platoon of soldiers outside with welding equipment sealing the hatches shut so i can't get out and have to live off of my own recycled farts until i finally suffocate.

did you know that 5 hour energy wants to take YOU to the tropics

hey can you explain to me why atgm will take over guns when atgms are slower, limited in ammo capacity compared to conventional tank gun rounds? slower as in, in a head to head tank combat, gun will always hit atgm user first? ive always found it odd that russian counterpart always has the atgm munition as part of their tank ammo choice compared to western MBTs which had none. not to mention its laser guided too (or at least last i remembered it was) meaning, user has to stay on target and cant move until it hits, when a tank shooting its gun can just pop out and back in. (not talking about in game use by the way. talking about real life scenarios) thank you for your entertaining insights!

Err, I thought that it was obvious that offensive firepower generally outstrips defensive armour, I mean when the Mk.1 tank first appeared in world war I, K-bullets and grenade bundles appeared as counters almost immediately. As time went on and armour got better, more powerful anti-armour weapons were developed, even modern reactive armour is being counter acted by top attack missiles or tandem charge warheads fired by infantry and overwhelmed entirely by artillery and aerial weapons like JDAMs and air launched ATGMs. I can't remember where I read this but someone quoted "No matter how thick you build your walls, when someone determines that they want you dead, they will find a a way through", I think that summarises the idea that you can always make a bigger gun but you can't make armour impenetrable.

partial disagreement on how much to armor a tank up by: there is value in armoring a tank to force the enemy to expend their newest and most expensive weapons, at least in its strongest zones. This means they are forced to expend their best on you rather than simply being able to rely on cheap reservists and equipment they've been stockpiling for years

Since a more heavier tank would become a pain in the arse burden for the recovery units, for the crew and the tank itself, the U.S still hadn't looked to this problem

Interested in your thoughts on using technology like hover/anti-grav to not actually lift the tank but instead make it functionally lighter. That the Wraith from Halo, instead of leftwing it fully from the ground, instead have it a tracked vehicle with heavy armor, or higher speed with that massive gun?

Can you do a video on the ground vehicles of the Rebels, Galactic Empire, and the Zann Consortium from Star Wars Empire at war Forces of Corruption?

I am suprised you never talk about the _PL-01 even_ though it follows the exact same design of no armor, active protection systems, a big gun and even haveing that anti thermal camera camelion heat invisibility skin.

Definitely you are one of the most unique and underrated RU-vidrs out there

Would there ever be an electric IFV or tank or any other armoured, or would batteries have to advance more to a have more power in a smaller package.

True about crews bailing out after one hit. A long time back I used to get a Magazine about wargaming called Wargamers Digest the Founder and Editor was Gene McCoy a WWII Tanker European Theater. One of the stories he told was that a lot of the time they would battle carry smoke shells means load a smoke shell, as most German tanks where as good if not better armored and Gunned as them. So that they may think O bang and lots of smoke we are on fire while the Sherman would then load AP what ever and move for a better shot. If I remember he started a a Tank Commander and ended as a Company commander.

Me at the beginning: interesting Me at the middle: got a point man Me at the end: I CAME TO LEARN NOT TO FEEL DAMNIT.

Boomers and Xoomers in the MIC: **blocks your path to practical, American tank design**

It makes sense from the perspective of the crew to have the most armor possible, but I'd say current levels of armor would be completely vestigial by the time we switch to remote or autonomous operation since overall effectiveness is never achieved by designing for the unstoppable force that only rarely appears.

Could you do a video/segment on pros and cons of wheels vs treads? The biggest that comes to mind is that treads can carry heavier loads, but something more in depth might be interesting.

The classic "No armor is the best armor"

"Don't be seen, don't be shot, don't be hit, don't be *killed.*" Ima stop ya right there furry bud.

So would you say that tanks should only be protected from 15-20mm gun fire, as any other would be useless?

This all depends on the tactics and doctrine of the force that is using the vehicle. Even in the context of Warthunder. If you have a very low survivability tank where being seen and shot at is almost guaranteed death, you approach combat by lurking in relatively safe areas and try to flank the enemy. However survivability starts to matter when you just need to be a spearhead and get to an objective. A tank that is just a fast gun platform, might be amazing at fighting a defensive war. Spotting the target from a hiding place, driving up to the ledge, shooting, and retreating back with a fast reverse to reload. That is going to be very effective... in a defensive engagement. If your army is not going to use tanks to lead an assault it's fine. They will be great at stopping an advancing enemy. But you need heavy armor protection and survivability if you want your tanks to charge the enemy position. Not being seen or shot at is not an option. You go in knowing you will get fired upon. Which is of course why you don't go alone, you bring lots of friends. In that scenario it is really not overrated to trust your armor to save your life if your tank gets disabled in the charge. I guess that is why Russian tanks are designed with really really good frontal armor, because Russian attack doctrine is pretty much sending a wave of tanks after waves of artillery.

This whole thing reminds me of a quote from the builder and driver of "Little Sister" from battlebots. "I have two layers of armor, an inner layer of plate to protect the internals, and an outer layer. In between is nothing. Air is the best armor you can have, it weighs nothing, costs nothing, can't be broken, and your enemy has to go that much farther to get in." (paraphrased) I mean, isn't that the whole point of Chobham spaced armor? it has layers of air to force the opponent to go that much farther, while not weighing the tank down any more? In addition, if you remember, the original tanks' armor was not for defending from other tanks, but from the tanks' greatest enemy infantry.

You know a lot about tanks it’s impressive. You must be a 19K in the army

What are your views on energy shielding

Based on what you said about not being seen, would you say that the best sci fi ability a tank can have is invisibility?

Give this man a medal. But only because I would choose an M5 Stuart over a Tiger I everyday.

"The use of dynamic protection like active protection systems, explosive reactive armor and slat armor allows the tank to be well protected without needing heavy armor." No, first of all there is still the threat of IEDs, second of all slat armor is basically useless against modern ATGMs, and explosive reactive armor is worthless without a layer of composite armor to completely stop the jet. Active protection systems are are enough on their own, but there is so much they can do, and relying on active protection only is not ideal.

What do you think of unmanned tanks?

Hi Spookston. Love to know your view on 2 my (kinda crazy) futuristic tank visions: 1) Tank design based on articulated tracked vehicles, like udes XX 20, DT 30 Vityaz, Magnolia, or bronco, - powered by extra powerpack, or small reactor located in the unmanned second segment of the vehicle (distributing the power into the manned segment by strong powerline(s) between the two segments). - could power electric shielding and/or weaponry. Another small pro, might be strategic mobility (modules can be transported as separated parts). 2) Swarm tactics, where the manned tank will proceede as second wave after unit of UGCVs (like ripsaw M5, or russian drones, but with added firepower, using autoloaded high calibre recoilles rifles, loitering munition drones, or kinetic missiles to be threat to the regular tanks.) Few UA(C)Vs would be a great help in this tactics too - at least as spotters. What do YOU think spook? Are those ideas more on the crazy side, or more on the feasible side?

Where did you get the diagram at 0:48 from?

0:32 reminds me of a case where a German anti-tank gun bounced 30 or so shots off a t-34 and it’s often sighted as the strength of a t-34s armour however as the chieften said “why did a t-34 crew let them self’s get shot 30 times?”

I wonder if we'll see a tank not rely on armor but on a mini plasma or electromagnetic shield to stop top attack and slow SABOT rounds to an ineffective velocity. A shield doesn't have to stop a round, only mitigate it's penetration factor by delaying blast formation or blunting/slowing KE shells.

That graphic showing the four stages of protection "don't get hit but, etc." was the single most important graphic I've seen in months by far. So many professionals saying the first layer of protection is avoid being hit without anything like that chart to clarify and demonstrate their point.

So how much should you reduce the armor?

Would forgoing tanks in favour of IFVs with ATGM launchers be a viable option in the future?

So as I thought. Smaller tanks are usually better. However, if I may ask, what would the use of heavier tanks be then?

My guess with the abrams is we will get one more variant in the M1A3 but then will begin work on an entirely new design based around a bigger and longer gun.

The issue with tank armour and size is always the powersource first and maneuvrability second. So I would argue that you could see heavier armoured tanks in the future if either a: the armour fulfills a secondary function e.g. accumulator cells as armour units or b: an immensly powerful energy source that is rather big and/or heavy like a stellarator fusion reactor where due to the sheer side a lot of armour is necessary. Another possibility may be that the concept of a MBT will be outdated in the future due to drone warfare or such and as a result every tank more the role of a land-battleship fulfills. Because if every tank has to be an AA, AT, APERS and Anti-drone weapons-plattform just to prevent it from getting swarmed, heavier designs may become more reasonable.

So are IFVs like the Bradley or Warrior much better for today’s warfare?

So the Tanks will move to stronger and more of armor if ETC guns will be prevelant?

So how do you armor a tank in an urban setting from an anti tank round shot at elevation? And why would you need tanks if armor is not the important aspect?

Would deflector shields be useful for vehicles?

This is very good vid! I just love all that knowledge flowing right into my head!

What kind of display is that At 0:55?

hey Spookston i was wondering if you plan on making a video on Future of tank design. the focus on future tanks should be: optical/infra red camouflage for tanks,Active protection systems,hybrid electric and hydrogen engines for tanks and on metal foam armour and graphene armour for tanks.

Can you link the 3:25 video part? pls?

I might be a little late for the party but please note: As a former tank platoon commander, i agree with your overall assessment. However the one factor that does NOT get recognized is the reason for adding weight / armor within the last versions of modern western MBTs and that is their deployment within an irregular warfare environment. Tanks deployed within such a scenario can seldom rely on mobility to avoid getting hit, facing less and less enemy tanks - which they were designed to fight - but more and more anti tank weapons in different levels of sophistification. That means avoid getting hit becomes tenfold more difficult, putting more emphasis on "do not get penetrated / killed". The sames goes for mineprotection, adding serious weight to mine protected variants of the Leopard, to a point where the suspension needed to be replaced since it could not handle the extra. I fully agree, the tank of the future will look more like the T14 Armata, but the trend to add more armor will not dissapear as long as irregular warfare is a real deployment scenario. Just look into the development of MRAP Vehicles and the trend to weld armor to anything that drives.

With the introduction of active protection systems that can stop most low velocity threats. it can help reduce the need for super heavy armour. I wonder what the specs are for the new Panther KF51. And how it balances the mobility to armour ratio and how much reliance it places on it's APS.

I'd argue that in the case of the Japanese MBT, the Type 10, they actually went more into armor than you'd think. A lot of what's happening is that we are getting newer and more capable materials than the old composites ceramics, and steels that composed the armor and structure of last generation vehicles. A case in point is the Type 10. She ways 60% that of an Abrams in her base configuration yet has extremely similar front-aspect armor and offers superior protection to the Type 90 that preceded her. This is due to the use of nanocrystal steel and nanoceramic armor plates that the Type 10 employs that offer the exact same level of protection for previous armors yet with only 38%(!) the weight penalties and 30% less volume. What's happening here isn't that the weapons have finally beaten armor, but that armor is actually coming back around to beat the weapons. Nanomaterials as used in the Type 10 have already proven themselves an order of magnitude more capable for less weight and less space. I'd argue that, while the Type 10 may be the first of followup MBT designs built from the ground-up to use the armor materials now available, she certainly won't be the last. Consider if you will that if the Type 10 can in 48 tons meet the protection of the 70 ton Abrams, what a 70 ton Abrams would be able to do if built in the same method. That alone may very well allow vehicle designers to offer sufficient protection against top-down attack missiles, as an example, or at the very least render the vehicle impossibly resilient against man-portable anti-tank weaponry. Far from the future you envision of ETC-sledgehammer armed eggshell tank destroyers dispatching each other left and right in singular blows, I'd like to put forward that we may very well see the potential for relatively light vehicles with the capability to take multiple shots from their own weapons without being mission-killed. I'd heavily recommend checking out carbon nanotube metal matrix composites (CNT-MMP) and some of the other wild stuff done with the Type 10. It's straight-out-of-novel scifi stuff.

the extent to which a tank should be armored is that it can resist most infantry anti-tank weapons and that it doesn't significantly hamper mobility. the abrams, at least the earlier lighter ones, were quite well armored but still very mobile so they could be strategic enough. the main thing with mobility is in the case your fighting an equal opponent, such as russia or European nations, is that you want to be fast enough to not be susceptible to air attacks, which when facing a first world nation is usually the biggest threat to any ground vehicle

What are your tought on the Israeli tank the Merkava. It is a heavy tank but but they mostly face guerilla warfare. Why dont they go for lighter tank?

Agreed, take an example from my gameplay: BT-7: 4 kills Kv-1: 1 kill Fought in the same match which means my BT-7 was pretty much 2 ranks below each enemy

what if you make a tank so fast, it can dodge shells from farther than like 1 to 2 miles away?

I’m just gonna put the point across to take a look at Abrams losses, Leopard losses and Challenger 2 losses. The Challenger 2 was designed with a bit more importance of armour over mobility and you’ll see why this has benefitted it well

What is with Hard kill Systems ?

Are you using the music from Warhammer40k Mechanicus?

I love the fact that you use the mechanicus music, it makes me think that you want to send a tank on mars