Want AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, which also helps making trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
I love all the discussion about the topics. Russia made a similar blunder in Chechnya many years ago and showed they didn’t learn much from it. These blunders are only exasperated by the fact Ukraine has a large amount of aa weapon systems. Where I think this war truly can give insight on fighting in the future is the importance of sead and dead operations by air-forces. I have been reading and some have expressed Russia’s inability to gain true air domination due to this failures in these operations. Not that the importance of these operations is a new idea but I think it has very much highlighted its importance. Apologies on the tangent but your point on combined warfare is very much what I am attempting to express. The most logical statement to make is this war like many others has shown the tank suffers at close range. But mostly this war has shown how corruption has degraded the fighting ability of a world power.
Buddy, I'd be telling you about depths of cuts and speeds and feeds and material removal rates all day and you'd be like SHUT UP DUDE WTF YOU TALKING ABOUT
And you have to feed infantry give them a place to sleep keep them warm so they don't freeze have to supply them potable water sometimes they die and you have to write a long letter to their loved ones that they died? like what? it's all so tiresome, just get rid of infantry
I'm sure people have had the same arguments since the first weapons were invented. Swords can't slash through bronze breastplates, so they're clearly obsolete! A spear has shorter reach than a bow and arrow, so clearly sharp blades attached to the end of long things are obsolete.
@@alltat But... loads of weapons have been made obsolete. Swords are obsolete today, and so are spears, and bows also. Muskets are obsolete, the cavalry is more or less gone.
@@xifel72 Cavalry never went obsolete. They traded their light cav for trucks and heavy cav for IFVs. Cavalry still plays a part on the modern battlefield.
The issue with using The DOOM Slayer as an alternative to tanks is that he is unlikely to obey commands from higher ups and will likely fight whatever enemies he wishes to fight, which might not be the enemies who the military high command wishes he engage. At no point do we see evidence of The DOOM Slayer shooting at human enemies for instance. He will likely disregard the modern battlefield and return to hell to fight demons.
The DOOM Slayer has never harmed a human in any of his games unless they were past the point of exorcision, and I don't think political differences counts as that. You're right, he would never fight in a war between humans.
Although the DOOM Slayer had been demonstrated to provide US, NATO, and AUKUS up to a 300% mobility and firepower advantage over standard armor packages (when equipped with Raytheon BFG-9000), it has been found that the subject will repeatedly go off-mission at first Portal detection. Due to this apparently uncorrectable feature, the Committee does not recommend widespread genetic farm cloning and unit replacement at this time. A small testing program will remain in place to gather data from behavioral modification program according to DARPA defense paper #0666 at the direction of the Majestic-12 Committee.
@@BoleDaPole but again, in a time being manpower are limited, what if your country cant affort to lose manpower because it would be hard to replace. Infarntry can die from many things, or just not die at all but not in combat capability, like got hit by a shell fracment or caught decease And you need to teach them how to fight before throw them into combat. For 1 infantry man to grow is 19 years and no conflict is that long Plus you cant just conscript everyone into combat, or els your economy will be destroyed, theres alao unqualified men that cannot be conscript, and dont say you can conscrpit women and child or unqualified people if needed. Because at that point your country is already doomed While tank, yes they also need man to man the tank that need training. But tank takes only a few month to build and replace the lost one, and during war when you shift into full war economy the cost of the tank is not the concern compare to industry and resourse While tank can be ambush by anti tank weapon and got destroyed, a squad can be ambush by machinegun position and killed The whole point of Mobile protection platform is for the infarntry to suffer at least as possible support by direct fire power and armor. in both offence and defence War is not just Infantry vs tank, its Infarntry+tank+other support vs Infantry+tank+other support
@@BoleDaPole and dont say we can affort losing more infantry than losing a tank Because no shit. Thats the whole point why they invent a tank, because infantry keept got mold down by machinegun trying to attack
What is forgotten is way the tank was developed in WWI; to provide infantry with mobile, direct fire support in the assault. Even in WWI tanks were part of a combined arms package. Successful WWI tank attacks were actually well planned combined arms attacks even if the technology was primitive by modern standards.
@N Fels that just simply means they failed in their combined arms attempt. If the enemy did such a good job at doing what you just said, then it's their problem with their attempt, not because the concept is useless.
@N Fels So... exactly how you would deal with cavalry then? I'm sure you appreciate this, but it's amazing how many people just don't understand that tanks are literally cavalry - they work in exactly the same way; best used en masse to break enemy lines and quickly exploit gaps, but are vulnerable to being overwhelmed by infantry if left unsupported.
Plus ww2 infantry support only had to extend 100 meters out to protect their tanks. Today infantry and air support needs to extend 3km ahead and to the sides of the tanks.
@@edwardcullen1739 I think people are really not emphasizing that the anti-tank infantry weapons that Ukraine is being suppplied with is state of the art, current gen technology. Tanks are honestly not even tanky against NATO anti-tank weaponry lol its too good. Tanks protect from small arms fire and autocannons I guess. Abrams can take rpg HEAT but maybe be a technical kill. Meaning any other tank (adversaries) is gonna explode in the same situation. They have there uses, but in modern warfare you are not safe in a tank. And we mean MODERN WARFARE, nato nation vs adversary.
I think one of the factors that lead to the massive misconception that "tank forces don't normally experience these types of combat losses" was that the last major tank war was the Gulf War. The fact that the US led coalition forces lost so few tanks while destroying so many was an extremely rare event caused by a severe overmatch in combined arms tactics and training, a qualitative technological edge, and rapidly gained air supremacy. In fact, our original estimates were potentially up to TWENTY THOUSAND DEAD coalition personnel ON THE FIRST DAY. That would have included alot of tanks, of course. But again, the Gulf War is NOT the way wars usually go. Neither was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter. Both of those wars were also outliers as far as combat losses go. These successes have led to a very warped view of what normal combat losses look like in America and Europe. People need to be more realistic about what losses are really going to look like, especially if NATO gets in peer conflict with Russia and China. It won't be pretty. And the tank is far, far from "dead".
@@Mal101M I completely agree with you man. I spent part of every year growing up on an American military base. Back then, even the AVERAGE soldier was fairly intelligent, well-equipped, and VERY well trained, as opposed to Sadam's conscript troops who were handed last generation tanks. Most wars are not going to be a walkover like that one was.
A death rate that high? Look, we couldn't work out any reason for Zero casualties. But 20000 people! That planner should have been dropped in Iraq and told to negotiate while he remained alive.
I'll hazard a guess why people say tanks are obsolete -- until I stated watching your videos, I had little appreciation for ground warfare. I didn't have enough interest to realize that even a defensive line needs to maneuver, to counter attack, to reposition, to retreat and advance. I bet a lot of people think the same, and to them a static defensive line doesn't need tanks, all it needs to do is stay put and kill tanks. IOW, if your infantry is always only in a static defensive line, it doesn't need tanks. This idea falls apart the instant that static line has to fall back, recover lost ground, set up ambushes, etc -- anything mobile.
This connects with how people say that, by the late Middle Ages, heavy infantry and archers/gunman "killed" cavalry as a useful force in European Warfare, despite the fact that they were an essential and often huge portion of european armie up until the first world war
I think the question here isn't for US, France or Russia. The question is whether your 50 old Leopards are worth the hassle when you're talking netherlands or other smaller countries
As Ukrainian military analyst put it: " We are conducting mobile defence against superior enemy forces. Any static defence line would be destroyed with PGMs, artillery or superior numbers of armoured units. Our units, who didn't constantly manuever are the ones, which suffered highest losses. The most effective units are those, which are always on the move." He also added that there was an exception to this rule in Sumy region. 50 young military cadets were ordered to defend a spot. They were commanded by 22 y.o. inexperienced lieutenant. 32 russian tanks were approaching their position. As analyst said: "More experienced or smarter soldiers would have tactically retreated or found some way to harass tanks without engaging in a direct combat." Those boys stood their ground and took out 4 tanks outright. It may seem like a small loss, but it was enough to make other russian tankers reconsider their decision to attack on that direction. Tanks retreated to avoid further losses. But this is an exception, not a rule. I just remembered this story after finished response to your comment.
Immediately after the Yom Kippur war, an Israeli general was asked this exact question. He replied that as losses of men were much less in tanks, Israel cannot afford the manpower losses involved in getting rid of tanks. Also if you notice Israeli battle formations in battle, often if the men are not in tanks they are in armed troop carriers.
In the long run israel got rid of most the tanks. They were replaced with missiles, armed drones and attack helicopters. Today a tank without good active defence is just a big target for any modern army.
@@asafb1984 A quick search suggests the Israeli's still field several hundred Merkava MBT's, could you clarify what you mean by 'Israel got rid of most of tanks'?
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 During and after the Yom Kippur war israel had a few tousands tanks. This days the number is much smaller. The reason for the smaller number is also because of the peace with Eygpt and Jordan and the degradation of the syrian army, but moderm missile tech also played large part. Today the smart way to kill a tank is from a missile from a large distance. There is also the use case for a tank - if you don't plan on offensive operation in large open land, tanks are not that usefull relative to alternative options.
@@asafb1984 In the past Israel depended on a front force of modern tanks with old often ww2 surplus tanks as auxiliaries. New tanks cost, which maybe a factor too.
Every time you try to imagine a substitute for a tank, you almost always make a circle back to what a tank is: a mobile, well-protected, heavy weapons platform that supports infantry and can eliminate other mobile, well-protected heavy weapons.
Right so we get a car, upthe enineand add armour to it, to protect it, and allow to move with the added armour. Then we should make it tracked as it will be going over mud thats possibly been bombed. Add a gun so it can shoot people Add another gun thats bigger to kill other cars with armour and tracks Add a turret so the gun can be moved further and faster Add more armour to the turret so when in defensive positions, the turret can take a hit Make gun and armour better We shall name this invention, the armoured, long range projectile shank firing car with tracks
Those are two separate roles and 'well armored'. Given enough fire power, you can drop well armored; this leaves you spg and anti-armor. No reason they need to be the same vehicle; if you are using drones they work better as two different platforms.
@@samuelskinner7704 your comment is both completely confusing and without much desernable logic, that if I could understand; What I would still ask is, why are you are comparing selp propelled artillery and tanks? Two different weaopn systems that do not fit the others roles nor origin from the same concepts or ideals, despite a few, vey common armoured vehicle similarities.
I mean, If you do not know how and when to use it - any weaponry can be considered obsolete. Just like without ammo and fuel any heavy vehicle becomes useless, no matter how good it's design is.
Just like people who make case that Soviet weapons suck basing on current war and fact that Russia is supposed to be loosing, conveniently forgetting that Ukrainians are using Soviet weapons as well.
Artillery is king of the battlefield. But needs trainloads of ammunition delivered to keep the battery firing. One artillery gun is worthless. One artillery shell is insufficient. It takes concentration and stable stockpiles to enable artillery to strike from afar without warning at any target they choose. Tanks supply artillery in direct fire roles. Unsurprisingly they need protection, mobility, and supplies to be able to point their gun at targets. And no amount of protection can ensure invulnerability. World war 2 battleships had guns more than big enough to kill tanks. And we don't bother building more of those.
@N Fels actually. Random soldiers felt they were utterly terrifying loud and dangerous. Elite troops noticed they were less dangerous than Bows and slower to shoot than Crossbows. Aiming the things was difficult! But their effect on the inexperienced was horrific! Like mortar raids on green troops, it's very unlikely to actually hurt you. So the veterans stand and watch amused as new arrivals duck and hide for cover due to one or two incoming rounds.
@@billbergmann7840 not really my cup of tea. Also define "elite", see my generals video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L6PtPEYOGJw.html
@@billbergmann7840 "elite" was less of an objective standard but more like a marketing term to further the esprit du corps of certain units. It was often attached by propaganda to especially dangerous jobs like tanker or Submariner to get more exciteable youths to join. Especially the latter were, if you look behind that "flower of german warriorhood"-elite badge, glorified greasemonkeys, living in a dark tube, dealing with insane physical and mental conditions during depth charge hunts that could take dozens of hours. 75% of them died. That's "elite" for you.
I feel like all these "obsolete this, obsolete that" are dumb. We've reached a point of war that everything is needed and relies on each other so much that if one fails, it all does. It's like a big game of rock paper scissors
The funny part? Armchair generals are arguing whether the rock, the paper, or the scissors is the best weapon to use (There can only be one!) or they try to combine two or three of them into one failed or mediocre multitool to do mutiple things.
It plays to politicians' desire for cutting costs and certain sectors of the public's fascination with buzzwords like "technology" or "lighter, nimbler," shit like that. To them the future is robots and light infantry brigades. Of course the first country to fully go that way will get immediately rinsed by less foolish nations.
Eh I wouldn’t go so far the other way, as militaries around the world have shown for decades, the battleship for example is totally obsolete, heavy long rifles are generally obsolete for standard infantry, etc
i wouldnt say that battleships are obsolete more likely they advance to a point that arent called that anymore. whats stopping a Battleship with being armed with long range missles for example?
The only replacement for tanks I can imagine is a giant robot. However, a two-legged robot would be more expensive, more complex, and require larger terrain for concealment. Everything a giant robot can do, the tank can do cheaper and more reliable. But... giant robots are pretty cool.
what about a giant robot with the same structure as the tank, or basically just a tank but remote controlled? I can see it happen. Nothing is as valuable as a human life, not judt in a figurative/ethical sense, but especially in a economic sense. Having uncrewed tanks would be a major game changer.
The combat helicopter is in many ways a tank replacement. But of course it has its own drawbacks. For starters, one helicopter tends to be more expensive than one tank.
If they took all the tanks away tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before the infantry men would strap the biggest gun they could fit onto their most mobile vehicle and cover it in whatever armor they could find?
You don't even need to phrase it as a hypothetical, when there are civil wars where neither side has true purpose built vehicles, up-armored trucks and bulldozers with recoiless rifles and shit on them are pretty much immediately built. The reality is that even shitty AFVs are better then NO AFVs.
See also: the constant reintroduction of armed guntrucks or technicals in any conflict that hasn't had them provided by state actors. From the World Wars to Vietnam to Syria.
@@mvfc7637 Generally they don't, but for some reason every soldier in every conflict since the introduction of mechanisation has discovered that they want more direct fire capability to deal with ambushers than the state provides. Vulnerable as they are, guntrucks and technicals keep popping up as a way moving a lot of lead around and throwing it down-range quickly. People will literally weld rocket pods to a Hi-Lux in the absence of proper missile artillery.
People in general, even more so the armchair generals out there, are basing their assumptions on a flawed basis. They assume that just because A) can destroy B), it means B) now defaults to useless. Reality is like so many other things in life, far more complex and intricate. The tank is a tool, one that has to be used during the right circumstances, with the right know-how and lead by competent officers. Its not some invincible juggernaut of destruction but rather a fine cog in a much greater machine, a machine that relies on the sum of all its parts to function properly. That is the foundation of modern day combined arms maneuver warfare, each portion or element must function correctly for it to work. You wouldn't expect a car to run without its drive-train or if it was missing its engine, fuel pump or steering wheel?
It's pretty silly since by their logic, since pointy and hard objects can kill people, then humans have been obsolete on the battlefield since the invention of swords and spears.
It reminds me of helmets. A helmet never made anyone invincible, but they are still an essential part of personal equipment, and have been so even before we had metal. Machine guns mow down infantry, therefore infantry and cavalry must be obsolete. Yet, Japanese infantry and cavalry put up amazing performances in the Russo-Japanese war, which was basically WW1 without tanks
@N Fels Actually no, Battleship obsolescence had nothing to do with its armor or the ability of torpedoes to deal with them. It had everything to do with striking distance. A battleship could only attack targets up to 20-30 kilometers away accurately. A carrier could attack targets at hundreds of kilometers. In fact the vast majority of modern antiship missiles would be fairly useless against battleships, as simply put, antiship missiles came around when the only armored ships left where a handful of holdover WW2 era cruisers and battleships, thus anti ship missiles are largely optimize for maximum payload against unarmored ships. Even your average WW2 era heavy cruiser has sufficient armor to stop most antiship missiles out there, except for the large Russian and Soviet supersonic ones. The reason ships stopped carrying armor is because sensor and radar installations is because most modern ships are evolution's of destroyers and frigates, which where never armored to begin with, which due to square cube law, a smaller ship cannot be armored to the same degree as a larger one. Ship armor also doesn't protect radar and sensor systems, which these days represent a good half the cost of the overall warship. And although it wouldn't be that difficult to make an armored version of an Arleigh Burke or a Tico, those ships are only about the size of a WW2 era light cruiser, and thus its not that difficult to make a missile to defeat cruiser armor. Building a ship with battleship level protection basically requires a battleship sized ship with all the expense that entails (albeit it wouldn't be as much as people think since steel is shockingly cheap in comparison to anything else on a ship).
I’ve heard the argument “It’s useless in urban environments and guerrilla tactics” but I don’t think that’s what the tank was designed for in the first place?
The roles that UAVs (drones) play in modern warfare aren't new. But one might think after listening to some self-appointed "experts" that they are revolutionizing warfare. As an example, I've seen some people who should really know better act astounded by watching UAVs direct artillery file in Ukraine. This has been a standard task in US Army Training Circular TC 1-600 (UAS Commander's Guide And Aircrew Training Manual) for a very long time. Well before this even, the Artillery Corps tested and fielded the L-4 Grasshopper for this same role prior to the US entry into WWII. The only new things that UAVs bring to the battlefield are a reduction in cost and complexity compared to manned aircraft. This allows them to be fielded to lower echelons than traditional manned systems.
Even during napolen wars they tried to use ballons for better observation and the ballons were heavily used during american civil war and even more in the WW1
Tanks and planes weren't new in spain either, but their critical mass in that conflict revolutionized war. Low level drone saturation has had a profound effect to that extent as well, even if they don't actually replace any " traditional" combat arms. Just think of all the high quality drone footage we are seeing coming from this conflict. We've never been able to see a war happen this clearly in front of our eyes. Now think of the implications this has on reconnaissance.
@@JWZ1001 Drones are simply more tools at the dispozition of military commanders.Each weapon system has is role in a combine arms strategy.Drones cannot carry the amount of weapons a fighter can bc they need to get bigger and such lose their main advantage,a small siluete.Also they are more vulnerables to conventional AA weapons like cannons and heavy MGs. And if an enemy spots a small drone they will most probable get alerted to the fact that there are enemy close by or that the enemy knows where they are and an attack will most likely follow. Also a drone cannot offer the same amount of aerial support a manned plane can and the moral impact of a drone is lower then that of a manned fighter both on the one using them and on the ones they are used against.What will you be more glad to see,a A10 doing a strafing run or a drone droping a bomb or launching a missile?
After the establishment of US Air Forces, the ONLY fixed wing aircraft US Army is legally allowed to field is a artillery spotter plane that's a magnet to enemy AAA fire. These drones spotter really help out.
The Switchblade 600 will be the death of massed armored attacks within the decade. These could be launched from a modified MLRS 20 or more at a time that's basically 20 dead tanks plus crew. If you add AI into the mix they are unstoppable as no amount of electronic warfare is going to stop an autonomous weapons system short of a targeted EMP or an active protection system.
I was once in an exercise and an armoured personnel carrier was coming towards me from about 350 meters and opened fire with the mounted machine gun. The ground was shaking under my feet from that big calibre machine gun at each shot even at that distance. We were on a flat and dry field, and as I look down I was surprised how flat it was and lacking any significant bumps to hide behind one. About digging there was no chance although I had the mini shovel at my belt, because that vehicle was moving so fast that in some 10 seconds was already so close that basically I would had been minced meat if it was for real instead of an exercise. A regular rifle would had been completely useless against that 12 tones steel. Just guessing that a 60 tones tank is much uglier to encounter :)
One could argue, that the types of conflicts that have taken place semi recently haven't really favored the type of arms and tactics that have been prepared. With more urban/guerilla warfare, main battle tanks might be someone out of place. There's also always the risk of tailoring your battle plans to the last battle you had, kinda like thinking about what you would have said in that argument you got in 5 days ago. while we may not see large scale tank vs tank battles like we did in WWII anytime soon, I think tanks will be a part of the ecosystem for quite a while.
I recommend looking at the 2nd battle of Fallujah. It's a genuinely interesting study into how an MBT can be/was used in urban combat. it was pretty impressive.
Even without open field warfare, a tank remains a mobile armored bunker with a heavy field cannon and serious intimidation value. An MBT is cavalry, direct fire support, heavy cover, a line breaker, a battering ram, and (if your British) a tea kettle as required. It can change roles on the fly and do all these jobs well. Why dedicate specialist vehicles when one does the job "well enough?"
Unfortunately, too much of the media can't tell a tank from an IFV. As you stated so well in the video & as others have done here, combined arms is the only way to run a tank batalion correctly.
Doesn't really help when both (tanks and IFV) get massacred by missiles and drone swarms tho... tanks without APS are useless (and a threat to their own crew more than to the enemy). Only APS can make the tank effective on the battlefield again, which is why more countries are starting to upgrade their tanks with it. But Russia still doesn't have it in any meaningful numbers.
@@AquaNomad34 This is nonsense, tanks are plenty effective already without APS, are you forgetting that Ukraine themselves are employing tanks to great effect? APS is obviously the next step in tank protection but it's not needed to "save" them because they are plenty effective already. The way you have always dealt with AT weapons is not by increasing the protection on the tank but by working in combined arms formations where mechanized infantry will flush out anyone wielding AT weapons while the tank provides direct fire support. The point is to not let anyone shoot at you in the first place and if you actually manage to do that, like NATO has done, then you don't really need APS.
@66Block What, exactly, _is_ the difference between an IFV and a (light) tank? 🤔 Like, where do you draw the line, and why there instead of slightly differently?
Also a reminder that media in general will always go for flashy headlines and "The End of the Tank !" will sell a lot more and get more clicks than "Complex set of factors contribute to logistical problems !"
'Has the current war shown the uselessness of the tanks?' 'On the contrary, it has only proved that the tanks still play a key role on a battlefield.' Answered by a Ukrainian army officer.
Yeah and Russia proved once again that sending tanks without infantry will lead to the death of your crewmen. It's all about how you use your tools, if you don't know how to saw and you apply downward pressure you are going to fuck up.
@@teaser6089 if tanks were death traps not suited to modern warfare then why do Ukrainians capture russian tanks and use them? surely it would be better to dump them because they are nothing but a burden. actions speak louder then words.
@@accountreality1988 I didn't say tanks are death traps. I said that without infantry tanks are very venerable and using tactics that result in tanks fighting on their own, will and always has resulted in tanks getting destroyed.
Thank you for making this video. As someone who doesn’t have much knowledge of the military it’s nice to hear a very detailed essay video on the subject.
Something the critics of the tank should consider: Having a weapon that destroys your enemie's tank is a problem for them. I'd argue being in the path of a tank without having the weapon at hand, is even more of a problem for you though
@@JohnQuiggin But against a car your chances are way better to survive. Taking cover behind a concrete wall should be enough to get rid of the car. A tank will blast this wall with its cannon or it might just drive through it.
@@JohnQuiggin If you use a passenger car, every gun can stop your car or kill you. What is the enemy more likely to have, a gun or an anti tank weapon? The less armor you have the more weapons can be lethal to you and the more likely your enemy is to have that weapon at hand. If only a handful of weapons can actually kill you, there is a good chance that the enemy struggles to bring that weapon to the place where it's needed. But if you give the enemy the chance to know where your tanks are and if you have no idea where the enemy AT weapons are, then you will get caught just like the Russians. That's why you have to combine intelligence, infantry protection, air reconnaissance and air support with your tanks. Just imagine a war game in your head where you know that the enemy has forces in the next village. You dismount infantry and let them advance with the tank further back. Suddenly the tank can't be ambushed by infantry weapons and the infantry has artillery support right there, ready to engage. You will have losses but just imagine what a formidable weapon your tank becomes right there. And before someone says that an ATGM can still kill from range: In all videos of this conflict, what anti tank weapon do you see more often, a NLAW or RPG or a Javelin? If course you mostly see the short range weapons because they are much cheaper and much easier to handle. Of course that doesn't mean that high tech tanks are the only viable option. Sometimes cheaper vehicles can do the job. It's always a spectrum. I wouldn't want to attack a village in a passenger car but if it's only about moving troops that's fine with me.
And a commonly disregarded fact is that an attack helicopters carry at most 16 missiles and a thousand autocannon rounds. Tanks carry 5x that ammo. How long can a helicopter loiter over a battlefield? Hours? Half a day? How long can a tank? Turn off its main engine and use its APU and it can sit in a location for days if not weeks, moving every so often to throw off enemy intelligence. If infantry need immediate fire support, how fast can a helicopter react all the way from base compared to a tank that is ideally operating directly next to the infantry? Helicopters fulfill a different role, it is a great fast reaction force, a great 'tank destroyer' and a great CAS platform. But it isn't a tank. A decade ago too many people were claiming the attack helicopter made tanks obsolete and i just facepalm every time.
Well, problem is different - these are called 'assault helicopters' when they were ment to operate above OWN forces and constitute ultra fast plug-the-gap force. As such there were not 'flying breakthrough tanks' but rather defence helicopoters, 'flying AT guns'.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 It's really funny how armchair generals without historical knowledge are unknowingly making the same theories that their military counterparts made and canned generations ago. Attack helicopters made tanks obsolete? Yeah the US military in the 50s thought the air force is the only thing needed for war until Korea and Vietnam made them realize otherwise. Tanks are obsolete? Many generals thought so after WWI, but looked where we are now.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 I don't understand why Russians use there attack helicopters like they used em in Syria. Strafing with rockets and the gun, like wtf? Meanwhile we got Apache IR footage online where there literally just sniping insurgents at will with any thing they please. Autocannon will suffice, or if need be guided hellfire. We learned Russia does without such tech? lmao
@@piotrd.4850 Truth be told no tank acts as a break trough tank in most circoumstances as no tank is actually designed to take a hit from another comparable tank, at best they are designed to save the crew but get disbled by only a signle round. What they are meant to take a hit from is everything that's weaker. when the enemy has no anti tank capabilities or IFV's, Artirelly and Machineguns are doing their job and supress them then the tank can actually act as a breaktrough weapon, using the cannon to blow up the cover of the enemy. Otherwise tank's role are usually long range direct fire support, they have more range than any infantry but less than artirelly they are also relatively accurate compared to artirelly.
I think the real piece of the puzzle people are missing is just how much benefit a tank really gives. 1. They can completely deny large open areas with powerful optics and the best direct firepower, while they themselves are the best weapon system to advance through such open areas where few weapons can challenge them. At long ranges, even very potent ATGMs struggle against a well lead and positioned tank unit, which has the optics and firepower to destroy infantry as soon as they peak out of cover. 2. The enemy needs very specific weapons to stand any chance at all. You can no longer take direct fights without having just the right weapon system. 3. If they ever break through into a rear area, they can cause damage and destruction far faster and greater than any other weapons systems. A single tank in the right spot can demolish a regiment worth of troops and vehicles in a mere minute, and also move on at rapid speed to find more prey. Imagine you and your enemy move a battalion worth of infantry into a small town. One enemy tank in the wrong position and you might lose half of your troops before you can even react to it. One vehicle going up in flames, with few survivors, every few seconds. Your people better dismount and find strong cover instantly. Even if you have everything you need to hold back the enemy armour in 90% or even 99% of cases... those 1-10% where it goes wrong can cause tremendous damage.
I think that there are 2 discussions about tanks being obsolete and MBTs being obsolete. MBTs have become very heavy, meaning they are limited in what terrain they can operate in, and as far as engagement they are the kings within the range 1500-3500m, however anti-tank warfare is usually done with the infantry (mines, ATGMs, blown bridges etc.). A weapon is only effective if it can arrive on the battlefield, which is where the issue comes in with the modern MBT, just like the German WW2 complaints about heavy tanks, the soil in Europe haven't really changed since then. Many bridges aren't strong enough to support the weight, which limits options. Most of the issues could be solved with lightening it up to something around 50 tons, instead of the 70-80 tons that many modern MBTs weigh. Maybe it is time to automate a lot of it, so the internal space gets smaller and you need fewer crew (western usually have driver, gunner, loader, commander), maybe you could get this down to 2 with a driver and commander, just like bombing planes reduced their crews. It is just something to consider. Although I agree the death of the tank has been proclaimed too soon.
@@yonghominale8884 a tank can drive out into the open and win a direct confrontation with an ATGM vehicle. The reverse is not true, the ATGM vehicle relies on stealth.
I agree. As a Naval Historian, I think of the Battleship. Contrary to popular conception, the Battleship didn't die due to obsolescence. The battleship is unrivaled in the realm of passive survivability, intimidation, and shore bombardment even today. In a surface action engagement, a battleship built with state of the art technology, heavy guns, heavy armor, and missiles would absolutely be the king of shore assault and surface action. The reason the battleship died wasn't because she stopped being useful. It wasn't because she became too expensive. It's because she lost cost effectiveness. For the same price of a battleship, you can build a large carrier. That carrier can provide anti-submarine escort, air defense, anti-shipping work, shore bombing, reconnaissance, and more. Does it do as well as the battleship in surface actions? No, but with aircraft you shouldnt have to get that close. Is it as survivable when hit? No, but with an active airgroup, you should be out of range from most threats. Is the carrier as good at shore bombardment? Maybe. But it has a similar crew size to the battleship, and does more things "well enough." Now, with the advent of hypersonic missiles, there may be cause to consider bringing back heavy armor on ships, but the verdict is still out. That said, between 1950 and 2010, it was simply becoming more cost effective to have a "jack of all trades" than more specialist ships. For the moment, the tank remains a vehicle that is too useful as a general unit to be worth replacing, in my opinion. Maybe there will come a day when the Tank truly becomes too vulnerable. Maybe when we have troops in T-51b armor powered by micro-fusion cores. Maybe when we have squads of troops armored with power armor and each able to carry their own heavy weapon and associated ammo. But until you can replace an armored, maneuverable, field cannon with serious intimidation value, I expect the tank will persist.
Its funny you say that for the Battleship's obsolence as for a brief period in the 80s and 90s they had a brief resurgence, and had a not bad combat record to show for it! The Missouri was one of the unexpected stars of the Gulf War.
@@MikoyanGurevichMiG21 They were brought back into service and modernized, yes, but it's telling we didn't resume production of similar armored warships. I think the performance they had actually proves my point. Battleships shifted from general purpose combatants to specialized ones. And, in the end, they were too specialized to be worth either building more, or undergoing a major engine overhaul. By the time they left the service, their engines were in dire need of replacing from wear and tear. Typically, you need to replace a warships engines after a few decades of active use. The on again, off again nature of the Iowa Class's service careers meant that, despite being nearly 60 years old (edit: i mean by the Gulf War), they had seen only a few decades of active service. They'd be used, mothballed, and called up again as needed. You don't do that for ships that aren't superfluous to requirements. I don't see the tank as being in this situation, at least not yet. It would take a major paradigm shift to cause this to happen. I bring up power armor because the idea of a smaller combat unit with smaller size, similar survivability, and similar firepower would be required to relegate it to a more specialized role, in my opinion.
Nice to see a fellow kiseki/trails fan on this channel's comment section. Personally I do miss battleships and heavy cruisers, a lot, from the modern battlefield. It may be a childish opinion, but I don't find the modern maritime battlefield is "as cool and exciting " as the battlefield of something like WW1 and WW2 .
To quote a very wise man, me: The only thing that will make tanks obsolete is something that does the tank's job better. Also, comparing costs between a system and its counter is a fallacy. The costs people should be comparing are the cost of the counter and the cost of not destroying the system.
If tanks, by the laws of physics, were required to be made of gold and encrusted with diamonds before even being able to function, and they could effectively and reliably be countered with smart $50,000 missles, would you still be saying that comparing costs of the actual units is an invalid argument?
What do you think a tanks job is? I think it's taking ground and honestly I'm struggling to think how you would take ground on the modern battlefield without tanks.
@@ReddoFreddo Yes, absolutely. Ultimately the point of the missile isn't to cause losses to your enemy, it's to prevent you from suffering them. It might seem counter-intuitive eg. to throw a sophisticated missiles that costs hundreds of thousands at an unguided rocket that costs just a couple of thousand, but you're doing it to protect other assets.
In Germany, why now not only have 80 Million soccer trainers and also the same amount of virus specialists, we are now having the same number of military and foreign policy expects... 🤣
Any tank is better than no tank. Simple as that. If the tank is integrated like a schizophrenic mule into a lion's den, don't wonder that you are left pulling your cart on your own.
No not really. If the tank is a bigger harm to its own crew than to the actual enemy than, in this case no tank is better than any tank. Seriously at this point most tanks are a bigger threat to their own crew trather than to the enemy. If a 50k missile can destroy a multi million dollar expensive tank and kill the crew on top of that, then it is probably better leave the tank or do something about it. The only way to make the tank effective on the battlefield again is with the addition of APS that can stop missiles. Anything else is just a waste of material, resources, money and human life LOL
If you're talking about a tank that magically appears on the field of battle, maybe. If you're talking about military planning and doctrine, that doesn't seem necessarily true. Tanks are expensive, tank training is expensive, tank logistics are even more expensive and easy to disrupt. And since the cost to effective counter tanks is decreasing so rapidly, you better be spending that money on good tanks that stand a chance rather than wasting all that money and resources on something more effective.
To say the conflict in Ukraine shows the tank is obsolete would mean the Russian army would have faired better if they had dismounted their tank crews and sent them at the Ukrainian lines as infantry.
I think what people mean is that Russia should have occupied Ukraine by deploying an army of hackers to take ground via electronic warfare.... somehow.
It would be more accurate to say that if Russia scrapped 80% of the tanks 20 years ago and used the money saved to equip,train and mechanise their infantry to a much higher standard then they would be doing better in Ukraine. I'm not saying that's true but it is a better argument
Everyone's mechanis(z)ed. Most destroyed "tanks" talked about in Media are actually just troops transports aka IFV etc and not actual MBT. Russian Army failed in Logistics. They ran out of fuel. The conflict is not over yet, it can hang on for months or even years to come. Already several million civilians are refugees inside and outside Ukraine, and thats just Ukraine, now top that with Syria, Yemen and Mali etc.
Unqualified opinions by the masses will never go away either. They may be irritating, but you might as well get used to them. What is rare, is such a well researched and thoughtful analysis.
The KF51 Panther tank shown just a few days ago seem to show the future of tanks: active,reactive, & passive protection optimised with it's power pack. Also solves the problem of autoloader vs 4th crew memeber with having the autloader while an extra crew can be added. Drones are also integrated with it. Doesn't go with the Armata layout and has the Leo 2 power pack, likely making this more reliable than the Panthers in Kursk. Hopefully, it will peform as advertised if it goes into full production.
It's kind of crazy how the whole point of tanks is to be big, rangy guns that can run around fast in all kinds of terrain, and are too well armored to easily take out without getting real close to them - then people immediately drive their tanks RIGHT up to the stuff that can kill them. :(
Yes. Tank losses in Ukraine are happening in the absolute worst environment for any armored vehicle. Urban warfare. This has been known since Stalingrad. Tanks like to fight in the open field, like the cavalry they displaced.
A Javalin ATGM can engage a tank from over 4km, well outside the engagement envelope of a tanks main gun.... i guess the infantry is supposed to sweep every location within 4 kilometers of a tank 😂.
@@ecognitio9605 Exactly, their is no way infantry can protect a tank from modern fire and forget ATGM threats, only tank mounted anti-missile systems can do that, but that hugely incresses the tanks cost and such systems have limited numbers of anti-missiles making them vulnorable to saturation fire.
@@ecognitio9605 But the tank would have noticed the missile and moved from 4 km away.To reliably achieve a kill you must reduce the time the tank has to react to a minimum,i.e. you must get close.
And all of this does not take into consideration the fact that many militaries across the globe are not expected to fight against NATO or some other first-rate power. It doesn't really matter if the Javelin has made your tank forces obsolete if your enemy doesn't have any. Which is why there were videos of M4 Shermans driving around the battlefields of Syria just a few years ago.
There's valid arguments on why countries should keep old tanks... and also very real arguments on why you should have a leaner but more advanced force instead. I think the truth lie somewhere in the middle and depends on circumstances. What I'm saying is... having M4 shermans and T-55s may or may not be better than having none at all. Videos show their use but it may not be in the country's best interest to keep them. For having old tanks: They can still act as infantry support platform, stop small arms etc. It is better than nothing and still a threat to pretty much anything but a modern tank. Modern major European armies have about 200-300 tanks. Russia so far has lost more tanks than that in Ukraine. If we replace Russia with Britain, then Britain would have lost their entire tank force two times over. Ignoring operational, and technological differences, this may encourage countries to bolster its tank force by keeping older vehicles in anticipation of such losses. Why you may not want to keep old tanks: They require practically the same logistics as a modern tank but doesn't have anywhere near the same capabilities. if ATGMs are already a major threat to modern tanks, old tanks are even more vulnerable, possibly to the point where it can't fulfill its role. It may also be incompatible with newer equipment, something Russia is apparently suffering with its communication systems. Older vehicles can't talk to newer vehicles resulting in their reliance on insecure comms and that is costing them far more than what fielding old T-72As are getting them. There is also the fact that these older tanks may lack spare parts, and have no night fighting capability. If your armor can't move at night, even if your infantry and artillery can, they may be forced to stay back too, holding everyone back.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Russia did not lose more than 200 tanks in ukraine so far, nor even close to it. You're no doubt referring to the oryx blog with this number. That website is a data mill set up by western intelligence to feed claims to the media. Independent verification showed that between 70 and 90% of vehicles of various types oryx claims to be russian loses in ukraine, can't be attributed to be Russian, photographed in ukraine, or lost at all. They use everything from anonymous grainy photos, to unmarked vehicles common with both sides, regular pictures of working equipment down to outright shopped pictures at their worse, to beef up claims of Russian losses. There's no sources or analysis for any photo they have on the site.
I was an AT-shooter in our AV group. Every AV group had a tank. Our job was to protect “our” tank in nearby area, and the tank protected us from far distance. Example: We are hiding in a forest, and there is an open field to the next forest where the enemy are. The tanks are shelling the forest in front, while we (the AV’s) advance on the open field with protection from the shelling from the tanks. When we arrive we go out from the AV and “secure that area”, so the tanks can safely join with us again. Tanks are great if they are used as supposed to. I’m happy though that Russia have no clue how to use those😁
that's the way the French used them in WW2 (dispersing armor throughout the infantry). The Germans tried something new - they massed the tanks and used the mass to break through. It made the trench warfare of WW1 obsolete. The Soviets developed a countermeasure - the "defense in depth" used at Kursk in 1943. Ironically, the "defense in depth" was used against the Russians (the successor army of the Soviets) around Kyiv. Russian planners weren't intelligent enough to realize their own strategy could be used against them.
@@S0ulinth3machin3 russian planners have to deal with russian politicians, the deadliest enemy. This is trafitional problem of all post-soviet area, "manual control" from people without expertise and hudge misundestanding of what the reality is🤷♂️
Exactly, the tanks SUPPORT the infantry and the infantry SUPPORTS the tanks, in modern warfare you are dependent on each other, wunderwaffen don't exist. Lol
Watched this and went “where has this been the last few months?” Then remember this is actually researched and thought through, not just clickbait to get views.
its probably due to our pop-culture understanding of warfare (specifically of lots of the media surrounding world war 2), where we think tanks are what kill tanks, which simply has never been true. Elaborating on this point, much of this misconception comes from romanticised accounts of the "Panzeraces" in German memoirs, where the tanks and their crews were depicted as equivalent to medieval knights, dueling each other in pure tests of skill and tactical prowess.
@@TheBasil36 On the other hand, HE rounds haven't been issued to a lot of Abram's tanks in the Middle East due to not expecting to fight anything else than a tank.
The natural target of tank forces *is not other tank forces* . The natural prey of armor forces are the *artillery batteries and logistics trains* of the enemy. Their preferred dessert is enemy HQ units. Their preferred snack food is poorly armed infantry in fairly.open positions. Becoming a "tank ace" is cool, but ripping through the division support trains like a Hollywood maniac with a chainsaw is far more useful.
The people predicting the death of the tank are the same ones that watch that video where someone said that wearing no armor was better than wearing plate armor in medieval times.....
I roll my eyes whenever people say the tank is obsolete. A tank fulfills a unique role that no other weapon system does. So no its not until something can better fulfill that role. Same reason for why the aircraft carrier is not obsolete despite some people like to claim it is.
The Issue in Ukraine is that Russia doesn't understand how to use Tanks effectively. Sending Tanks without infantry support into urban warfare is tantamount to suicide.
People forget the tank basically replaced calvary and line of sight artillery. If something is going to replace the tank, it has to replace those assets (as you said, speed, protection, firepower). Yes, the NLAW, ect. can kill the tank. But opposing infantry can kill the NLAW grenadier. So it's kind of a cat and mouse game with these different forces. They all have to be used effectively to secure a victory. I.e., combined arms.
I really hate the: "Tanks are too expensive" argument, because most people who use it don't even compare the cost of a tank to anything, they don't even know how much it costs, they just assume that it's expensive. And somehow not one of them seems to have thought about how much it costs to destroy a Tank, it's not like you just buy a Javelin/RPG 31/Panzerfaust III/Spike and the enemy looses a Tank, you also have to use that Anti-Tank weapon, and i don't think anyone will be able to irrecoverably destroy a Tank with a single AT missile, at least not consistently.
"i don't think anyone will be able to irrecoverably destroy a Tank with a single AT missile" wait, maybe missing something but arent weapons like javelin and NLAW doing that? Just point shoot and forget weapons that require minimal training and disable "at least russian" armor pretty consistently on the first hit?
@@Immerteal Under ideal conditions, yes. From a position of ambush especially, the idea is to maximize the chance of first-shot-kill with such weapons. Still, you'd be surprised what a tank can survive. My personal fave is an M1 taking a Maverick to the frontal array and being recoverable.
@@DuraLexSedLex which conditions are not ideal? They can shoot from inside buildings which rpgs cannot. They can shoot over long distances out of small arms range with pinpoint accuracy because they dont "aim". They lock onto the target and adjust mid flight. They can even hit tanks behind cover.
To be frank, it has - like firearms. No breakthrough, no fundamental concept change - just incrementally better designs and manufacturing. Late Panthers even had Night Vision equipment, poor as it was ( Uhu variant ).
@5LAMPO7 Yes. The politicians told us the T-72 and Sagger-armed BMP's were going to destroy us (USA). This was about the time that we suspected the WW2 German generals' memoirs were biased.
Well the reality speaks for itself. The fact is most tanks without APS are pretty much useless on the modern battlefield, because they are too vulnerable. Not only are they vulnerable and useless, in fact they are a bigger threat to their own crew than to the actual enemy. Because chances are the tank will be destroyed before it even gets a chance to shoot at the enemy at all... Only APS can make the tank effective on the battlefield again, which to this day not many tanks have. Only M1A2 Abrmas, Merkava4, M60T Sabre (Leopard 2 and Challenger 3 will be upgraded with it soon)
@@AquaNomad34 I was in particular referring to the fact that he wasn't engaging in political propaganda against Russia by simply arguing that they are losing to the sheer strength of Ukrainian will.
@@AquaNomad34 that said frankly I'm going to need some sources backing the claim that they are useless. You may argue obsolete, but the only useless tank is one that didnt make it to the battlefield.
@@bigchungus711 if a tank is a bigger threat to it sown crew than to the enemy then it's not only useless (that would be an understatement) but in fact a hazard to its own forces At this point the Ukrainians aren't even fearing or afraid of the Russian tanks anymore, in fact they are happily hunting for them with joy everytime they get to shoot at one, because it makes them happy to just kill Russians inside the tank... I know it sounds brutal but that's what it really is. I don't like sugarcoating everything so I speak what the reality is. Without APS tanks are completely pointless. One 100k cheap missile can easily destroy a muti million dollar expensive tank and kill the crew on top of that... At this point the tank is harming the own army more than the actual enemy. Only with APS can the tank still be effective on the modern battlefield, which is why Israel and the USA and Germany (and many more counties) began to upgrade their tanks with APS. But Russian tanks still don't have APS so they are easy target practice for Ukrain missile teams.
@@AquaNomad34 yeah but do you have any actual evidence of this? Are you in ukraine right now taking note of all the ukrainian casualties caused by armored fighting vehicles? I really don't think you have any concrete evidence to back any of the claims up, it's all theoretical as of now.
It’s always annoyed me that people are claiming Ukraine is proving armor is obsolete when tanks from the 60-80s are taking on modern anti-tank weapons 40-50 years ahead of those tanks
Javelins are 80s weapons. The russian tanks are about as obsolete than Javelins on paper: they're not. They have supposedly been modernized many times. That's until you start seeing pics of Kontakt bags full of egg boxes because corrupt officials pocketed a bit too much money on the way...
I really enjoyed the humour in this video. It was refreshing. All the channel's videos are interesting and informative, but this was also really fun to watch
Heinlein also thought in his book Starship Troopers that Tanks would be obsolete. In the 90s they said Drones would make fighter planes obsolete. And still they are flying.
Yes but in his book they had power armour who had all the characteristics of a tank in a smaller and cheaper package,so his statement is true in his universe.
I do believe unmanned fighters will eventually replace manned fighter planes, as they will be able to out-perform them. At the moment manned planes still out-preform on decision making capabilities and the ability to operate without continuous communications. It will be a long time before that is false, but once they are unmanned fighters would rapidly replace manned as they'll be able to out-maneuver and out-perform at a lower cost per unit.
@@DanStaal I dont think UAVs will be completly replace manned fighters,maybe they will act in tandem,a manned fighter coordinating a group of UAVs.After all jamming and other types of technology will also evolve to deal with UAVs and in those curcumstances a manned fighter can act as a control hub for a group of UAVs increasing the resistance to counter measure and also increasing the fighter range of capabilities and options on the battlefield.
While your point about drones is valid, I recommend NOT to use Heinlein as a source for anything military, even as counterpoint. Heinlein was decent at eriting social commentary, but horrible at military scifi. E.g. his 'power armor made Tanks obsolete' hinged on power armor beeing increadibly powerfull with super futuristic technology, while for some reasons tanks didn't get such upgrades.
@@reappermen Do you also ask why everybody uses MBTs and superheavy tanks didn't receive the same upgrades the supertech of the 80s offered that MBTs did? SST Power Armor combines firepower, protection, and mobility, i.e. it fits the definition of a tank used in this video. And like our world, ability to carry more did not outweigh ease of targeting or mobility or availability of cover, etc for specific size categories.
Something I'd also like to consider given the sudden influx of overnight experts (the kind of experts who can't tell the difference between an IFV and an MBT) now entering our field is that mass media has always cultivated this image of "The Tank" as this near indestructible steel beast of war. Tanks in media are always portrayed as being far FAR sturdier in combat than they really are, deflecting shots and absorbing hits left and right. I mean, in every team oriented RPG video game, what do they call the class of character who draws fire, eats tons of damage, and shrugs it all off indefinitely? "THE TANK!" No wonder normal people think a tank is supposed to be invincible! We have created in our entertainment media a warped view of tanks relative to the reality. When that fantasy is finally shattered, this kind of response, (tanks are useless!) is honestly to be expected. Like said here: "Either people don't know what armored warfare is really like, or..." That's the thing: the everyday laymen, they don't. Just, something to keep in mind whenever some overnight expert starts making wild claims, tanks or otherwise.
Very true. Moreover, using the RPG definition of "tank" only considers the _resilience_ of the tank. It doesn't consider the tank's *firepower* or *mobility* which are its main assets, perhaps even more so than its resilience against damage. Tanks in RPGs tend to be characters that are often slower, and with poor damage output compared to DPS classes. The MBT, however, combines speed, resilience, and 'DPS.' In a video game, that would be very unfair and unbalanced. But neither war nor real life are balanced or fair, and nobody who wants to win in life-and-death combat will fight fair (unless its a judicial duel, perhaps). If we designed actual MBTs with the design principles behind MMORPG characters, you'd see things like an M1 Abrams with 3 metre-thick armour, an M134 minigun as its main armament (and perhaps a flamethrower as a secondary weapon), and a top speed of around 30 kph on roads. Of course, such tanks would very quickly end up as randomly scattered spare parts courtesy of attacking aircraft ;).
Agreed that tanks are not supposed to be invincible nor be these damage soaking juggernauts that the popular media portrays them to be. In fact, using the term "tank" to designate damage sponges in RPG classes has always made me feel unconfortable and annoyed and has driven me nuts. But if MBTs are one shot by "anything" that includes the wide spectrum of AT guns, then why bother armoring it at all and not just simply make a direct fire SPG or a Light Tank with a big gun (which even then wouldn't hinder its mobility as much given how cost and weight effective firepower is compared to armor and protection nowadays and ever since the advent of gunpowder as a whole) instead? Like, of course tanks are not supposed to have Minecraft obsidian block levels of durability or something of that matter. But if they have _no_ effective durability on the battlefield at all and are _never_ able to make use of the "don't be penetrated"/"don't get killed" layers of the Survivability Onion at any point against any random dedicated AT, then what is the heavy armor beyond the bare minimum necessary to stop small arms fire and autocannons for in the first place??? If they cannot fight back after receiving the first hit on them and have the time to deliver the utility to the rest of its forces or trade back some damage before its final demise, then how does it fare any better than if it had comparatively very little armor to begin with while still retaining their big guns and powerful engines to begin with? Resilience is not everything, but we sort of have a term for a vehicle that completely neglects it while having its role uniquely focused on firepower and mobility and its called _the Self-Propelled Gun._
Make sure you don't go the extreme opposite direction though with the thinking that tanks are just paper-mache machines that can be taken out with a slight breeze. Actual modern tanks (and not the rustbuckets the Russians are sending out) have incredible resilience to damage, to the point where scuttling NATO tanks is considered a hilariously difficult exercise since as it turns out modern tank armor is highly resistant to damage.
The future of the tank is pretty clear, actually. The tank of the future will possess a combination of active protection systems (e.g. Trophy), ERA, passive armor and onboard light automatic/laser weapon AAA to complement its passive armor and defeat enemy drones. It will possess an advanced electronics suite enabling advanced sensing (thermal, visual, radio spectrum, audio), AI-enhanced target acquisition, integration with other systems in a combined arms environment (target handoff, designation, etc), improved battle command (e.g. Torch), improved situational awareness (e.g. "transparent hull" camera systems) as well as NLOS and BLOS engagement with specialized rounds (e.g. bore-launched missiles and LAMs). It will possess an autoloader in order to free up a fourth crewman, who will become the drone systems operator. It will retain a powerful main gun, which will increasingly use a combination of chemical and electromagnetic propulsion to enhance the velocity of the projectile far beyond what is currently possible. It will move faster than ever before, use less fuel than ever before and be more lethal than anything that has come before it. In addition to the main guns and coaxial weapons systems, the future tank platoon will be armed with a combination of aerial drones and ground robotic armored vehicles. These will, increasingly, carry ample heavy weaponry of their own. As time passes, the number of robots per manned vehicle will increase. Engagements will be fought beginning at ranges of some 40km or 50km. "Close combat" will be classed as anything under 10km. And no, the tank is not dead, except in the minds of deadhead amateurs. The tank is just getting started.
@@ngut5915 The antitank weaponry of the future will move faster than ever before. It will fly complex trajectories, perform evasive maneuvers, use multi-stage warheads and deploy swarm attacks in order to defeat the tank's active and reactive defense measures. It will rely on teaming and multi-vector simultaneous assault to overwhelm both the crew's capacity for situational processing and the target tracking/resolution capacity of automated data fusion in order to ensure a successful hit. A substantial effort will increasingly be placed into electronic assault, seeking to degrade, spoof or destroy the tank's complex information processing, sensor and communications systems. The platforms that deploy said weaponry will themselves be stealthier than ever before, deploying advanced visual, thermal and radar spectrum camouflage. Rather than forcing close combat, they will often seek to engage the tank in a BLOS or NLOS fight, deploying their munitions and displacing before the tank crew can find them and kill them. Alternatively, especially in the case of dismounted infantry systems, they will thoroughly conceal themselves until the enemy comes all but within knife fight range, before suddenly launching a devastating swarm attack. Like the tank crew, the antitank crews will rely on teamwork, advanced communications, networked data processing and human-robot teaming to accomplish the task. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The battle between spear and shield, cavalryman and infantryman, has gone on for centuries. It will never stop. The notion that the tank of the future will be somehow invulnerable to everything save another tank is as laughable as the notion that the tank is obsolete.
One of the main problems with the internet experts is that they always just consider what they see most, and since drones have a camera and armies love to upload their successful attacks on internet now everyone just keep seeing the successful hits on tanks. Just the fact that every army spends a lot of money to counter enemy "tanks" proves how dangerous and effective they are.
I'm currently accepting any tanks from any army that feels tanks are obsolete. If I get any offers for said obsolete tanks I will gift several to some people I know. So far I haven't been offered any in the past couple decades.
Just because something can be destroyed on the battlefield does not make it obsolete. It has to have something do its job better than it. For instance the horse was obsolete due to the, Tank, truck and APC. The battleship is obsolete due to the Aircraft carrier. Tanks will be with us until we find something better that delivers direct fire in support of infantry.
Excellent coverage. Your use of the best available statistical data for comparisons makes this consistently the best military history analysis channel, by far.
I'll admit I almost fell into that trap when the Ukraine war started. I thought "oh I watch military and history things, I'll give my opinion because I know things". Well I may know more than the average person, I had to stop and look at myself and acknowledge I'm no expert and don't really know much. It's ok to give opinions but I always like to say I'm no expert and I could be completely wrong. Videos like this are great, unfortunate those who are "experts" all of the sudden probably wouldn't care to watch the whole thing and learn something
I tend to say "in my opinion" or "from what I can tell." My English/writing teachers and professors have said I use too much of a passive voice but sometimes I feel it is better to make it clear it is one's own speculation and hopefully a well reasoned one rather than a fact. There is probably a better way of making it clear it is from a 'non-expert' opinion without being too passive. Although I am personally pretty adamant on the tank and aircraft carriers not being obsolete... Even though a lot of people like to claim the latter, especially after China's "carrier killer" missile entered service.
I am an engineer and I am fond of the statement … every complex problem has a simple easy to understand wrong answer…. Thank you for identifying yet another simple easy to understand wrong answer to what is a crazy complex problem….. I.e. Russia
I struggle mightily to change my company's culture from reactive to preventative solutions. There are myriad simple and easily understood wrong answers to wade through daily.
The same argument exists chapter and verse in "Achtung! Panzer!" regarding anti-tank options, trying doggedly to talk the German army about to become famous for its panzers into even looking at panzers. Tanks are also far too dangerous to be allowed to roam. They can destroy anything they encounter. They demand a response, directly affecting military outcomes at all levels. It's no coincidence that the Ukrainians put so much effort into countering them. That's the best argument for tanks, even allowing for sloppy unsupportive Russian Soviet-style tactics, lack of basics like APS, and obsessively roadbound tactical imbecility. Consider the Merkava 4, a generational tank specifically designed for just about all these threats. It's the thinking that becomes obsolete, not the tanks.
The fighter plane did change with the birth of the missile, air combat is very different now than back in the 1940s. I think the issue is not the tank as a concept but the "main battle tank"[MBT] that some officers and military analysts have issues with. In doctrines you usually see effective distance of a tank being said to be 1500-4000 meters. The weight of the tank being in excess of 70 tons, meaning you are limited on which bridges you can use to cross rivers and water ways. You can't easily transport them by plane either (R.I.P. AN-225), which is a huge factor in the wars that the US often fights far away from it's own shores. The controversy about the MBT is that it is tactically predictable, as it easy for a commander with a good map to predict where they will come from. Getting the weight down to something like 45-50 tons would give a major advantage (however that's a lot of armor lost, but a Leclerc is almost there), as they would be able to use almost all civilian bridges. Extending the range would require a bigger canon or a missile system mounted to it. While a MBT is an important piece in the puzzle of modern units, it is maybe time to come up with newer concepts, as the evolution of the current MBT concept is resulting in heavier and heavier tanks (probably because politicians on defense committees thinks more armor is a safer choice) .
Just come back to say that you really put word on what my thought couldn't put a name on. Saying "tanks are dead because they die in 1 attack" is not totally true but it still show the weakness of today design : build with many heavy armored tool that wont be efficient once hit. At some point speed and easier logistic from lighthing the armor grant better survivability. We'll still follow the canon, track and some armored conpound of the MBT, but it should probably tweak it's core design without alteralting it entirely tank are not obsolet but the doctrine of tanks as the core compound of ground battle with very heavy armor might be Just my thought at this end
Quite frankly, let's push the dates even _much_ further by putting the tank back into its larger context and legacy in historical warfare: what is a tank but a modern iron chariot? In the Bronze Age armed forces were already using powered vehicles combining protection, mobility and firepower as part of combined arms tactics and maneuvers. Heck, these weapon systems even predated the use of horses in the form of cavalry... It's possible to keep track of war chariots throughout history and notice how these systems came and go, adapting to new circumstances, from war chariots to wagon forts, then modern tanks, the concept has evolved greatly, but the basics are the same. If millennia of technological evolution did not render them obsolete, it is unlikely armored vehicles such as tanks will go anywhere.
Excellent video as always and even made me laugh out loud a couple times...and I always get a kick out of seeing what graphics you have pop up for each subject that comes up. Always well done and entertaining, thank you.
Thank you so much, Bernhard, for bringing information and data to shine light against emotion and the selling of advertising by the media. I like the combination of overwhelming evidence and solid references. If it were not for people like you we would all be educated by CNN or Fox.
Imagine you are in a convoy. The lead vehicle gets hit and is out. You realise you have just driven into an ambush. You can now choose which vehicle you are in: a tank, an IFV, truck, jeep, or on foot with an NLAW+rifle. I think par the option of not being there most would choose the tank. If you are receiving fire you want maximum protection, a big enough gun to hit anything that is a threat and the mobility to get out as fast as possible. And tanks would propably be the first vehicles to get invisibility if it were possible.
Actually ironically specifically in that situation you're wrong, maybe being in a tank from the start is preferable but if you're an infantry man you actually want to get out of and get as far away from your infantry vehicles as quickly as possible because being near or in them is more dangerous than not. This is because said vehicles will tend to draw fire and at the same time if they get hit it's likely to create a dangerous explosion, at the same time infantry that actually fan out and destroy the attackers have a much greater chance of survival due to doing exactly that. This is really just about basic combined arms doctrine.
@@hedgehog3180 Except you don't need to "ambush" infantry at all, cheap mortars or artillery, or air burst anything will literally make mincemeat out of infantry. You ambush tanks because they are tough. In industrialised war, infantry are just targets for heavy weapons. In ww2, less than 10% of causalities were caused by small arms, infantry were targets/victims, while heavy weapons did the killing. Firepower is 100x what it was ww2. You'd rather be in a tank, let's face it, if infantry gets hit by heavy weapons, they die.
As anyone who has ever played Panzer General (or any one of dozens of other war games) well knows, the key to success is "rock, paper, scissors" i.e. combined arms, combined arms, combined arms! A very good and timely video thanks for posting this.
The solution is to move everyone to space habitats, leaving no room for tanks and thus rendering them obsolete. Also, we get to float around all the time and that seems cool.
This very topic has been on my mind the last few weeks seeing , Ukraine knock out so many Russian tanks, I knew the discussion had happened at least once before, I didnt realize it has basically been constant since tanks arrived to begin with
its almost as if russian tanks have never really been that effective hell look up the Iraqi defenses in the 2001 invasion, t72's dug entrenched in the sand to be made harder to hit and they where still massacred by m1 abrams. Its almost as if bad tank designs mixed with corruption = dead crew
"This is sci-fi" is just an excuse at this point. Everything can be invented if funded enough. Though things like mechs would be unpractical, since blowing up a mech's leg would be enough to stop one.
not really, to move, a mech will need way more moving parts and complicated systems to move around, so it will probably take itself out due to mechanical failures
@@houjisaifeddine5524 We have many humanoid robots that can even walk upstairs with ease, and it wouldn't be so hard to scale them up, though I don't see the practicality of it, and it would also require a lot of money to be built.
@@epistimonkapetanios there is a limit to how much you scale them up before the weight would become a serious issue, andthe ones we have currently are still not as good as tanks when it comes to traversing difficult terrain. perhaps in the far future, the technological progress can make them better, but currently, they are not a viable option, both financially and strategically
Good video. I'd say to "the tank is too expensive" people, tank rounds cost about $4k, vs. nearly $80k for a Javelins. 3 Javelins ($232k) cost more than a full load of 55 120mm smoothbore rounds for one M1 tank.
Also add here couple dozens (if not hundreds) of artillery shells as a preparation of every attack, and tank costs fade away. War is a very expensive thing
@Red Star it's not a fait accompli. " I'm just saying the argument of those people have merit. " No, because they are basing it on one data point. (and a bad one at that) "but i view them as moving metal coffins in this climate of modern anti-tank technology" We can shoot down planes with shoulder-fired surface to air missiles. Does that make planes flying coffins? We can destroy armored personnel carriers with even cheaper ordinance. (M72 LAW costs $2,000. 30mm AP costs about $20, will take a few dozen to do it) We can destroy trucks with even cheaper ordinance still. (.50 cal rounds are about $6.00, will take a few dozen to do it) We can destroy an infantryman with super-cheap ordinance. How much does a .223 round cost? (spoiler alert, $0.38. Only takes one well placed shot). Sorry, but it's just a bad argument When we can destroy a 6 million dollar tank with 38 cent ordinance, the argument will skyrocket in relevance
@Red Star in US service, you'd be infantry, protecting the tank that was protecting you. An infantry person is VERY vulnerable to pretty much anything. The US has had a total of 14 tanks damaged, only 9 destroyed. In 4 decades. And 7 of those destroyed were by friendly fire..... (the other two were destroyed in place on purpoase to avoid enemy capture) I'll be in that tank.
This was great, thanks. I think the following point is also telling: after mauling Russian armor in the battle of Kyiv and prompting this discussion, what do the Ukrainians want a lot more of? Tanks.
My main question regarding the efficacy of tanks in Ukrainian hands: Do they have sufficient trained personnel to man them? (I have the same question regarding supplying them with aircraft.) If they lack the trained personnel, then tanks and aircraft are a waste of materiel. If they have the trained personnel, that's a different story.
@@oohhboy-funhouse They won't, don't worry. Tanks do not run on promises or ambitions. They run on fuel. What have Russian effectively been targeting since the beginning? Yupp. Ukraine's oil-dry, it's bridgeless, and it's bound to miss the harvest. It's running out of railroad as well. As a citizen of a European country, I just wish Ukraine to surrender and accept the military neutrality deal. USA will join the war, triggering WW3: not because it'd be a noble act --- but because it's filled with domestic political instability, the inflation is 8.5% (highest since the 1980s), and the massive recession is predicted to impact starting somewhere between November 2022. and November 2023.
In my opinion the Ukranians are looking for tanks not for defense right now, but for the future counter attack and expulsion of Russian forces they expect to conduct in the Summer when the ground is dry. They know it will take time to train these forces so getting the tanks now will let them start and be ready in time.
@@oohhboy-funhouse What lines has "Putin crossed" that the west hasn't a thousand times? I mean, it is ridiculous: most of the so-called "Azov battalion" that has been butchering civvies for 8 years: has been reduced to NATO-only participants. Ukraine has been getting armed for 8 years back when there were pro-NATO Ukrainians calling in Su-25 strikes on anti-NATO Ukrainian civvies, before Russians even moved to Crimea and this ordeal became a Russian issue. For 8 years Ukraine and NATO have been breaching the Minsk agreement. The only 2 countries in the entire world that still refuse to ban Nazi symbols at the UN vote --- every year --- are the USA and Ukraine. Do you not see that this issue, aside from the nuclear apocalypse, can only be resolved peacefully by Ukraine demilitarizing itself, Russia pulling back and NATO fking off --- the deal that Ukraine is actively refusing? The more weapons the west ships out, the longer the war (and thus suffering) will last. Westerners so fond of this war should take up the rifle and go to Ukraine instead of shipping weapons to Ukrainians. They're basically sending Ukrainians to die. I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Ukraine if you wish to prove that NATO superiority.
@@kennethferland5579 What counter attack? Ukrainians have lost all people educated enough to work and maintain the country. People fled, nobody wants to live in a country incapable of maintaining peace, breaching Minsk agreement for 8 years, stooping so low as to lick NATO's boots and send its people to die in a pointless war of global powers (which Ukraine is not one of). Ukraine has a shortage of civil engineers to provide the basic infrastructure for the country's existence. They are bound to miss an entire harvest. Their oil storage and production facilities have been getting battered down into nothing since February. Their ports are blockaded, airspace became a no-fly zone, most bridges are history (especially problematic with railroad bridges). Russians did to Ukraine what USA did to Yugoslavia, except that one had no justification. Even if Ukrainians had the capacity to strike, USA wouldn't allow it because --- the only side currently winning this war is the USA. It couldn't care less for Ukrainian people, but by keeping Ukraine at war: it's forcing its NATO-slave countries (like most of EU) to maintain embargo on Russia and buy several times more expensive products from the USA. This war isn't between Ukraine and Russia. This war was started in Washington and Moscow, and transferred onto Ukraine.
An argument regarding about the cost argument regarding tanks. Looking at the mobile protected firepower program or "Light Tanks" of the US army, its actually cheaper than operating an MBT. Same considerations are being drawn by some smaller south east asia countries, namely Indonesia's Harimau and Philippines Sabrah armoured vehicles. They fill the mobile protected enough (up to auto cannons) direct fire requirement for ground armies on a significantly lower cost
Light tanks? Like armored personal carriers? The Ukrainians claim that they have already destroyed over 2300 of them. If you multiply that with two or three crew and six infantry soldiers, that alone would be close to the 20,000 Russian losses that are being claimed. In all likelihood many of them were already abandoned or had fewer soldiers in them, but still. That's just another death trap.
Really drove home how silly some of these get rid of the tank comments are. some of the arguments against tanks as we know them did seem compelling. Do you think the War in Ukraine shows design flaws in modern tank? do you think this could move armored warfare more towards lighter armored tanks or to a APCs in the style of Strikers?
@@pancytryna9378 no doubt but the Russians are using a lot of modern or modernized equipment as well. Pre-war estimations of Russian equipment was very positive I don't think outdated or poor quality equipment is to blame for Russia's failings.
Maybe people who think tanks are obsolete could be categorized into 3 groups: 1. Those who think big battle mechs are cool while watching too many anime to get a good ideas of what they're talking about. 2. Those who think they are Doom Guy and see no needs to have a big moving metal piece to provide cover and firepower in a gun fight and 3. Those who talk out of their ass.
The battle of Agincourt although completely different shares many similarities here. Heavy cavalry just like heavy armour being the main spearhead suddenly suffering by the hands of foot soldiers carrying long range and accurate weapons. It changed how war was made yet cavalry still remained a component of warfare for hundreds of years. But it must be noted after this battle the decline of heavy cavalry started as it did become cheaper to hire large numbers of skilled permanent troops than few heavily armoured yet vulnerable knights. So if history repeats itself, as it always does, then this will not be the extinction of tanks but rather the decline of tanks.
Really, it's more likely that it's a prelude to a new method of protection (likely upgrades to APS) that will make anti-tank methods less effective, like how ERA defeated HEAT warheads, and to an extent, sabot rounds, so the tank protection was ahead. Then we got tandem warheads, so now anti-tank is ahead of tank armor. It's been back and forth, and I'll likely continue on. APS will make tandem less effective, so some new method will be used, maybe some kind of multiple missile/round method, or something to fake out APS. Then that will be countered, and so on, likely for a long time. Having a moving bunker with a heavy gun is awful useful in warfare.
I have been decently amused by the latest resurgence of the 'end of the tank' myth, as well as the latest iteration of the 'weapon of the future' myth, applied to combat drones. And I also had this sort of conversation with my own mother the other week and I had to explain the very same things to her. One interesting argument you also could have used is the anti-tank capability: one 2-men team with javelin or NLAW can destroy one armored vehicle at a range of 1-2km. They only have one shot and are vulnerable to all kinds of fire, be it small arms from enemy infantry, the tank's own weaponry, artillery etc. One Javelin costs about 100.000$. The tank, while employing 4 soldiers and much more expensive and supply intensive from the start, carries 40 rounds of main gun ammunition. Under ideal circumstances it can knock out 40 armored vehicles at ranges exceeding those of hand-held ATGMs, while being much less vulnerable and in some cases immune to counter-fire. One tank round costs about 1.000$. You can do the math...
you need some serious reality check. If tanks are as effective as you said, Kyiv would have been taken. Infantry do not need a Javelin to take out THE FUCKING TANK. WHy does every pro tank argument always revolve around the javelin? ffs
As always you present a well thought out viewpoint to all the EOT Statements which just goes to show that they lack knowledge and understanding in the evolution of combined arms warfare. This dates back to the beginning of man from sword and shield to spears and bows to muskets and cannons, cavalry, rockets, airplanes and on and on. As a life long student of history I have always enjoyed and much respect for you and your content and attention to details.
I love it when you employ satire. As usual, you provide excellent analysis. There are a couple points that you might want to consider. Nobody seems to be considering them. 1) Russian/Soviet armies have typically employed poor tactics, even back so far as Napoleon. They have always focused on the operational level and higher, where they have done rather well. 2) Hand in hand with the previous point, Russian/Soviet armies have been little concerned with heavy casualties. This "loss avoidance" has generally been of little concern to any army throughout the course of history. In modern times, Western armies have tried to limit losses, but they could do that because they had the luxury of superior technology. eg. Apparently, the Union was unable to win the American Civil War until they switched to a policy of attrition warfare.
“They’ve done operations extremely well” No, don’t suck Russian wieners Politicians and civilians care about heavy losses and every major nation does care far more about that stuff
I will say that tanks as a concept are most definately not obsolete. But Modern Tanks need some very serious changes to be be competitive on modern battlefields.
