Ukraine & T-72: The death of the tank? | The Tank Museum 

Let us know your thoughts on this week's content.

Hello! I am from Romania. In 1982 i was in the army . We had T55 tanks but was a special battalion with T72. I understand that this tank was upgraded but is like my grandmother dressed in bikinny

I drove old M47 tanks that I turned into autonomous vehicles for advanced weapons tests. I watched Hellfire missiles shot right down open hatches. When I was back home I told my dad, an old WWII tanker who had fought Rommel's tankers in N. Africa all about the complete death of tanks due to modern technology. He listened to my descriptions of the rapid, remote destruction of my tanks. Then he said to me, "John, in a real war, a lot of the fancy stuff breaks down after the first week, and a good rain or snow. War always comes down to one man trying to kill another. And that's when you really don't want to hear the sound of clanking tracks coming up over the hill."

What surprises me frequently in the videos available online, is the sheer number of times that an MBT or a people carrier is caught alone without any support either from other armoured vehicles and/or infantry.

I'm speaking from my experience as a former infantry man in Chile. No, the tank is not dead; it's the tactics the russian forces use for them. We work under the combined arms doctrine and having a tank supporting you it's a HUUUGE force multiplier. What's cheaper and faster, having a forward air controller guide an F16 or your platoon leader telling a tanker "I need an HE round on the blue house"?

"The Chieftan" made a video addressing this point. His take was that doctrine will dictate the continued use of the tank. For an army to take ground, it needs the ability to overcome certain types of defenses and the tank is currently the only weapons system which can provide that capability. He pointed out that infantry are vulnerable to almost everything on a battlefield and that hasn't make infantry obsolete because there are certain things on a battlefield that only infantry can do. He suggested that the increased vulnerability of tanks to current weapons systems will likely result in improved tank designs and tactical doctrine that takes the greater risk of man portable anti-tank systems into account. But, unless something is developed which can do the job tanks are currently tasked with doing, they'll remain on the battlefield even at an increased risk of destruction. I find it difficult to find a flaw in his reasoning.

There will never really be an end of the tank. There will only ever be an end of a specific style of tank tactics, or a specific design philosophy.

If you have an impressively large tank force, you need an even more impressive logistics and repair force.

As a college history professor, the old saying about Russia still seems to be true. Russia is never as strong as it appears, but, at the same time, Russia is never as weak as it appears. Good video

Extremely insightful and interesting. David is such a great communicator. Adapt at explaining the concepts but also brilliant at conveying the historical and contemporary context.

No surprise The Tank Museum has the best breakdown of the use (misuse?) of armour in Ukraine. Very well done guys. Glad to see my donations and purchases going to great content!

The integration of all this archive footage is great! Keep it up, please!

A very interesting take. I too got swept up with the media reports, thinking this was the end of the tank as we know it. But seeing it pointed out that this has happened many times in the past I've been swung back around to thinking its not the end of the tank afterall. Very well presented argument making us see it from another angle. Well done tank museum, loving your videos.

Factful and professional as well. One more reason why I became the friend of the museum

First class Presentation as always David .

I liked the fact that you quoted one of the best modern generals to have lived, "Iron" Mike Tyson, in this documentary. "Everyone has a plan until their punched in the face"😂

An excellent tank chat thanks. I remember the Gulf War and events like the Battle of Medina Ridge - and I wonder if tanks will continue but in more specific situations. I'd be interested in a talk about the influence of environments on modern (and historic!) tanks, there's surely a fair bit of influence in the Ukraine war, and there's also recent history that recorded iconic footage of M1's driving in urban areas for example.

After 1919 it was stated that the tank was Obsolete, as the conditions that made it nessecary would never come to pass again, and litteraly after every war since then, people have called it Obsolete, and in 100 years, they will continue to call it obsolete. Yet the fact remains, a tank is a powerful weapons system that will likely remain for a long while yet.

Seems to me, that the problem has always been lack of infantry support around the tanks - is what caused them to be ineffective in these examples. A tank is easy to flank without it being supported by infantry

Tank you for such an interesting video. Really enjoyed it!

I think people forget that during wars...equipment gets destroyed by the "enemy" regardless of how advanced it is. That's why many are made. It's as if people think it should be absolutely indestructible, otherwise it is inferior.

Also, I think the evolution of drones with enhanced-range NLOS antitank weapons will be the next hurdle the tank needs to defend against.

Thank you, Mr. Willey, for your reasoned analysis of the current situation regarding the effectiveness of armored fighting vehicles in the Ukrainian conflict. And may I say, it is so refreshing to see a presenter of your skill and experience using paper notes in a pinch in order to guide your presentation. I guess those forecasts of the death of paper were also premature. Repping the old school!

This is a good analysis in my opinion, thanks. Maybe a chat on the vulnerabilities of the T-72 would do nicely as well, I know I'd watch it ;)

Excellent,very informative.Well presented

Units don't become obsolete when someone comes up with something that destroys them. They become obsolete when someone comes up with something that does their job better. Battleships didn't disappear because someone invented torpedoes, they disappeared because carriers and missile cruisers could drop munitions on targets from further away and with more precision. Heck, soldiers haven't disappeared just because someone invented bullets. So until someone invents a thing that has better direct fire capabilities than a tank there will always be some version of the tank. Might look a bit different, but at the end of the day, military units are defined by their capabilities not their defenses, and the tank offers something no other unit does right now.

Brilliant video. Loved the " France in 1940 " part, did a spit take on that one. 😅

Thank you for a well presented and informative video. Long live the Tank Museum.

Excellent commentary and analysis. Spot on! The current Ukraine conflict is the Winter War all over again. The Molotov cocktail didn't spell the end of the tank then, either. BUT... you better have the Queen of Battle out and about chasing down the drone and anti-tank teams before you go sauntering down the road. Combined Arms is the key doctrine after all.

If the tank was taken off the battlefield, the first lesson would be, 'we need an armoured vehicle with protection against the amount of shrapnel flying about'. Then it would be 'we need a decent gun'. The add hoc drone threat can be countered with ad hoc add-ons, that's with the knowledge that it will gain in electronic sophistication. A great difficulty, is the production of a well designed tank. If you already have them, for god sake keep them. Look at the adaption's of the Centurion, that supported in First Gulf War etc & what tank crews achieved in their tanks. Are we not going to be able to bridge lay because of drones or anti tank? Find counter measures but don't lose the advantage of having a tank. We were lucky to get the Challenger!

Very well written script and editing. Last week was the.best I had seen from David and the museum but this was a different sort of film and was also a first date video. I would have been even more.happier if it had run another 10/15 minutes longer. Thank you to David and the team at Bovi.

Another excellent talk David, thank you.

Excellent overview of the subject. However, I think the example of a very recent war is missing: the Second Lebanon War, 2006. There the Merkava IVs proved their resilience against Hezbollah's Russian missiles (Kornet, among others). No one in the Israeli army thought of eliminating the tanks but of equipping them with the Trophy system. A real MBT resists missiles, a light and old tank like the T72 does not.

Nicholas Moran made an excellent point in his video on this same topic, when he said that the tank will really only disappear from the battlefield when a new weapons system comes about that can do what a tank is designed to do better than the tank can. Tanks are designed to get a big, direct-fire gun to where that direct fire is needed, and then be durable enough to employ that firepower. The Russians seem to be trying to use their tanks for things other than that particular mission, assuming that big guns and heavy armor can just roll in and sweep all before them; that is not the case, obviously. When used as intended, tanks are still a devastating weapon. When used for other tasks, they generally seem to not fare as well. As long as the need for heavily armored, mobile direct firepower is there, tanks will be adjusted and adapted to be able to carry out that mission. When a new weapon comes about that does that mission better, or when that mission no longer ever needs to be carried out, that's when tanks will become obsolete.

I served in the Balkans in 1994 with the United Nations and we had a good laugh every time we saw some (already by then) archaic T-34 putter by, pulled out of a museum or off its plinth in front of an army base, because it seemed so utterly useless and suicidal on a battlefield with T-72s and T-55s - that is, right up until we realised, that even a (then) 50 year old T-34 with a couple of blown cylinders was still impervious to bullets, if the other side only had AK-47s and handguns ~ and that is how they were frequently used, against villages that refused to take sides. Heck, even a homemade armored tractor (plenty of those around at that time and place) was as mighty as a King Tiger in WW2 - if the other side only had decency and compassion to defend themselves with. What civilians and armchair generals often forget is, that there is simply not enough tanks, planes, artillery pieces, missiles, drones and so on, to cover every square mile of a frontline, much less warzone - both tactics and strategy is almost always the art of mastering sparse resources to best effect. That's precisely why competent command is so important. The entire rest of the world can be equiped with laser firing hover tanks, for all it matters, but if you are the only one with a pointed stick on your section of frontline and the other side only has a slice of cheese to defend themselves with - you win. A T-72 is plenty fierce against only semi-trained Ukrainian home defense units - if no Javelins are around on that particular day or front section, make no mistake.

Unfortunately, RU-vid has stopped putting the upload date on the video pages so it is almost impossible (at least I have not found where yet) to find out exact date of upload. While this seems to have been uploaded two weeks ago (actually the most precise info I have found on upload date) Mr. Willey mentions that he is in April? So, two suggestions: As this is channel of museum, it would be good that you put information of creation and upload in information text or if it is optional to show upload date on the video page (I believe I might have seen it still on some videos) then set that so that it shows at least. Second, if the video is from April, then I would like to have an update on this topic. There has been a lot of discussion about what weaponry to send to the Ukraine and which not and tanks have always been in the discussion as well. Maybe you could find a historical parallel to the pocket situation that exists in the Donbass and talk about what role tanks play in that sort of situation. This is a great video. Really enjoyed it.

As a former tanker i always say the tank is as good as his crew.

Excellent analysis and considered thoughts as always David. Balanced and interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Excellent narration of tank history to present usefulness in modern conflicts. Interesting, thankyou.🖐🇦🇺

Outstanding assessment on a much discussion issue.

Another question/suggestion, is it would be interesting to have you look at the social media photos/video, and try to assess how much the Russian tanks were getting stuck in the mud in the first part of the war. That would really slow down any large advances, because it would tend to make them keep to the better roads.

Agree with previous comments, that armour without infantry or air support is always likely to fail. Let's not forget, unmanned armour could also play a huge role in future. Sadly from a human perspective, the need for tanks remains, but the tactics and technology will adapt as required to ensure they still play a pivotal role in protecting us from aggression in the future.

Great video! I like this type of content. Many thanks to all working at the tank museum.

Absolutely brilliant Tank Talk. Key point, T14 not deployed. Makes things very obvious. Thank you for the video and the in depth explainations. I'd enjoy more videos on the topic David, please do more : )

We can simplify greatly: tanks CANNOT be used without infantry. Simple. The tanks protect the infantry, take out machine gun nests and everything else for the infantry. In return, the infantry must be IN FRONT of the tanks to protect them from anti-tank weapons. Any questions?

Russian failures in the use of armour reminded me of the early stage of the 1973 Yom Kippur war in Sinai, when Israeli armour attacked Egyptian infantry near the Suez canal and met ATGMs like Sagger for the first time, in large numbers. The Israelis had divided their forces, diluting their efforts fatally and lost heavily

I think the tank still holds a vital place on the battlefield, as Chieftain put it "If things were removed from the battlefield because of their vulnerabilities, the infantryman would have been replaced a long time ago". The tank can do things that other military power cannot, the T-72 itself when used in more capable hands has been effective in this war, Ukraine are using them to great effect. and not once in any of the footage ive seen has a russian crew deployed smoke from their dischargers or performed any kind of SAGAR dance. This leads me to believe that the Tank is capable when used appropriately, but the russians just dont know how to use them properly

1st time here. Great video. Subscribed. TANKS ALOT!!! 😄👍🇺🇦

Since I was a child I've had a fascination with tanks. Maybe it was the M103 Heavy Tank parked in front of my schools's public library or that tanks just speak to something deep inside of me but my love for them will never wane.

Something that is more important to consider than the losses of tanks is unfortunately something that you did not touch on: You *must* come at the issue from the angle of *why* the tank exists in the first place, if this role is still needed or obsolete and what will replace it if not tanks. Ultimately the existence or not of tanks is not driven by the threats to tanks, but by the need for their purpose. Tanks on the battlefield are mobile, armoured, direct fire platforms that put rounds on targets immediately. When you go through the motions of analysis it turns out this is still very much needed on the battlefield. Ok so then you're left with at least needing the gun. Do we need the armour, or what makes a 'tank' a tank? Well again when you go through the motions it turns out that actually in a lot of cases it's better to have it then not to have it, and it seems like having it is even worth the cost in most cases because it makes you highly resistant to so many other systems and increases survivability. Thus even with increased threats the conditions are still not met that would obsolete the tank because currently nothing can replace it's role better- and that's without getting into all the various countermeasures being developed and the combined arms strategies to protect them.

My uncle served for 20+ years, he once told me the people afraid of the Russian military was the media, he also quoted a book he recommended to me "The KIller Angels", Amateurs talk about tactics, Professionals talk about logistics, that the Russians never had a good logistical backbone

Very good. Well said! A good review.

It is a pleasure listening to you... still not sure about the future of the tank though!

100% agree with the point on training and motivation. I saw an interview where the only person with a map was the commander of the column (I think possibly a regiment, maybe only a company, tbh the guy being interview was as confused about what was happening as we have been trying to figure out Soviet tactics.), and the guy being interviewed was supposed to be a recce officer. Another interview the guy was a clerk, he was a contract soldier, never held a gun until they entered Ukraine. It beggars belief how the commanders thought their campaign could possibly be a success

Tanks without infantry support. Against infantry with missiles. Without proper logistics. I don't think the tanks are the problem.

7:40 In the 2nd World War, ships were faced with planes being quite good at taking them out. So AA was added to their arsenal. Size wise, Ship↔Plane, I'd say Tank↔Drone is about the same ratio.

these are always so informative, a lone tank is always a dead tank, i don't know what the Russians were thinking. thanks again, always love the tank museum vids!

Oh, the classic "Death of the tank" again. A similar problem happened in the middle of the Cold War when it seemed like missiles would be the unmatched killer of vehicles. They adapted then, and will adapt now.

The same people have also predicted the end of manned combat aircraft (since the 1950's), and the end of guns on fighter aircraft (since the 1960's). They were both wrong because, like the tank, they are all useful in battle in ways that can not be carried out by any other system.

Very good debate and presentation - the tank vs infantry seesaw reminds me of the infantry vs Cavalry seesaw throughout the centuries. Bravo Zulu sir.

I'm really impressed. Thank you.

Dear David Willey, thank you for your presentation on this interesting topic. By the way, some years ago I had a chat with an Israeli soldier from the 401st Brigade who took part in the 2006 war. The Russian army might improve as quickly as the IDF from lessons learned in times of conflict.

Funny. I remember reading quite a few years ago (don´t remember where), that military experts believed that the age of the infantry man was over. This was because vehicles represented a far better platform to place longer ranging and more effective fire control systems on, which would undoubtedly make infantry obsolete in any scenario except for perhaps cities. Welp...

*Excellent David.*

in the US especially. we tend to overstate a military threat when there are extant weapon counter capabilities "if only we just had another $50m of these we'd be set" and when there is a capability with no answer, like hypersonics, youre not going to hear much about it, an asymmetry in force structure that will be mostly unacknowledged for its lack of a western analogue.

Would be nice a video on the Saudi M1A2 Abrams and Turkish Leopard 2A4 losses, as well.

They are so quick to talk about the demise of the tank because of anti-tank weaponry, but nobody talks about the demise of aviation. There are just as many strides in anti aircraft weaponry that make flying over the battlefield just as dangerous.

Another epic Tank Chat!

The tank will be around for many more years if for no other reason that they made so many of them. The issue IMO is the Shtora protection system and ERA on these Soviet tanks has not performed as designed. It's time to issue a safety recall while they still have some around.

Tanks or Mega Yachts, they both cost a lot to maintain and I think we're all witness to where the money went. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. It's so important to understand situations in context.

Funny fact: I called Russian BS on the Armata long before the war started. This goes for almost everything they put out, new submarines etc. In Soviet times the Russian army was state funded and had to produce stuff that was working, maybe not the best but It was working. In Russian times they show you clips of super torpedos, new submarines, aircraft carriers and the Armata. Russia of today is plundered from within by greedy private persons who has no interest of producing the stuff they show. Because building it will cost enormous amount of money they rather stuff in their own pockets.

One of my favourite lines from games: Big guns and heavy armour, what else is there? Well, quite a few more things actually: 1- powerful cannon 2- lethal ammunition 3- plentiful horsepower 4- homogeneous steel base armour 5- modular inert composite armour blocks 6- modular reactive explosive armour blocks (optional imo) 7- active protection (also optional) 8- secure radio communications 9- digital information networking 10- 360 deg. visual feed with software assisted threat identification*** 11- the usual stuff: smoke device, nightvision & infrared, fast accurate firing computer, firing on the move (gun stabilizer), higher gun elevation, low profile, machine gun, snorkel, laser/radar warning system (if practical) Wow quite a package. No wonder these things are SOOOO expensive. To think there are 3-4 soldiers in each one that is a potential 1-hit kill by enemy guided weapons (especially top-down or rear attacks) is worrisome.

Excellent video and discussion! I'd be interested on your comments about how the Russian tanks have been killed. As in the root cause. The photos don't necessarily show that: like how does one know that the tank with the big hole in it, and maybe missing its turret, was actually operational before it got hit? Sure, you can usually tell from the videos, but in most cases it's just a photo. If the tank had broken down, run out of fuel, or maybe its crew deserted it, then it's not really the same kill as one that was operational, and trying to evade being targeted. A related point, is it possible to assess how many tanks have been killed by top-attack mode? The Russians seemed to have been worried about that, because they started putting screens over lots of tanks. But maybe they watch RU-vid as well, and saw all the talk about Javellin attack-mode etc etc.

Great Video, so true, thanks for posting 👍

I think its very important that our intelligence perception of the Russian Armed Forces failed at least in a wider context. It would set a dangerous precedent for analysts to take the opposite approach in the coming years. And the point made here about the social media aspect to this war is absolutely critical - we are seeing a very sanitised view of the war curated for us by the Ukrainian government.

Just finished reading about a British Tank regiment from June 1944 to May 1945 their casualty rate within a year was 150% and their main enemy was German infantry with Panzerfausts 🤔 people in the modern era see tank’s especially in movies as invulnerable but they have always had there weaknesses

That has to be one of my favorite quotes I've ever heard on this channel. "Like Mike Tyson said, 'Everyone has a plan until you get knocked in the mouth.' lol.

Curious how after the Moskva was sunk, no articles came out discussing if surface warships were obselete.

Create tank drones and this addresses many of the issues you addressed here. Also tanks can be made smaller and the ammo and operating system can be the most protected thing about the tank. Give it a fail safe that self destructs it so it can't fall into enemy hands.

Very informative.

One of the things we have to remember is that it is Russian/soviet union equipment vs Russian/soviet union equipment, the idea both would have high loses is logical as both train with these vehicles all the time. I don't think saying it can be transcribed elsewhere works. Especially with different equipment being used and the fact Ukraine uses different tactics to NATO and Russia, in fact the complete opposite tactics to Russia and the USA. Edit : someone claimed NATO made these tactics they didn't. NATO has trained some forces but mainly worked with special forces, but is definetely not who trained the Ukrainian army. Seen as there tactics are completely different to NATO tactics and Ukraine know their equipment a lot better than any NATO countries.

Yeah, it turns out if you carelessly throw a cheap emergency tank design that was outdated 20 years ago into prepared defensive positions without infantry support it doesn't go very well. The only thing that's proven to be wildly obsolete here is the Russian Army's tactics and equipment. Properly used and supported a tank in an invaluable military asset, but just like any other type of vehicle it is vulnerable, especially when used carelessly. So why do we only see these type of articles about tanks and not anything else? I suspect it is entirely due to the general populace's perception of how a tank works. Everybody knows that aircraft can be shot down, and infantrymen can die, and that softskin vehicles can be easily destroyed so no one is shocked when that happens to them. But the average person tends to think a tank is a nigh immortal metal gunbrick that you can unleash unsupported on the enemy and they'll be absolutely helpless to do anything about it. So when they are destroyed everyone is shocked and immediately begins thinking it's outdated.

A Tank is like having a good set of Tools , you just need to know how to use them and also what your doing , David Willey great job.

There were instances in ww2 when an armoured force without adequate support was slaughtered. Same goes for infantry. Where Tornado aircraft were used suicidal in 1991 they took heavy losses. Adequate use of support, smoke, air cover, deployment in appropriate conditions are essential with any weapons system. In WW2 only the colossal allied shipments of transport equipment kept the USSRs forces moving ( and damned Germany's) For the west our arms industry and media accepting Russian claims was a profitable decision, for our generals it was the safe option and helped with budget negotiations. Remember that there was technology on shermans that crews weren't trained in. Where tanks have been used effectively ( by Canada, USA, UK in Iraq and Afghanistan) they have been extraordinary. In 1967 and 1973 the good tank commanders were devastating, Hobart, Rommel, the matildas in PNG, Centurion in Korea, India's use of centurion. Good tanks with good commanders and well trained crews are worth it.

Ongoing analysis of tanks in the real world, Ukraine or otherwise, would be a welcome type of video for this channel! I bet they would do quite well, view-wise.

Looks like a training video on the tecnologies needed to expand a countries borders. Really good information.

I see tanks easily turning into Boxer like IFVs with missiles and just very scary SPGs. Direct fire is a kind of artillery in a way, so get some nice drones and fire your medium range artillery tank from way back. And if needed use them as the usual role of cavalry punch just turn that canon down. Its not the same but its kinda like what happened to naval warfare, battleships turned into different kind of vessels with different systems.

In my personal opinion, the tank is currently in a similar position that the heavily armored mounted knight was towards the end of the medieval era. it was becoming possible for other soldiers to deal with them and the mass charge was becoming obsoleted as the power of the defender rose. The rise of gunpowder and the restoration of infantry as the primary arm of an army did not eliminate the need for cavalry or even the need for heavy cavalry, but it did shift their role. I find it likely that going forward tanks will become smaller and lighter and take more scouting or mopping up roles, like the cavalry of the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, perhaps delivering crucial attacks at key moments. I believe that they will be shifted away from the primary thrust of the offensive as they were during the world wars. Again, much how like Cavalry took precedence in Gothic and Roman armies and became the back bone Europe's armies during the middle ages before sliding back into more auxiliary roles.

Tanks improperly used will always perform poorly. Russians are using them without infantry support or air support and I wouldn't be surprised if many russian tanks have lack of thermal sights which are essential to spot ATGM teams. Also training and communication are essential for tank usage. Tanks carry a huge gun capable of hitting targets at 2-3Km within seconds while a ATGM will take longer to reach it. The ammo caroussel at the time that it was developed was a good design as most hits were to the turret, so it made sense moving the ammo to the hull considering standard warfare. But Ukraine uses a mix of standard and guerrila warfare which allows them to hit the side of tanks or use camouflaged ATGM teams with Javelin or NLAW which can hit the top, penetrate it and hit the ammo. Ukraine has also been using small comercial drones that can drop RPG grenades on top of tanks at the very least damaging the optics Many Russian vehicles use imported optics so in the long term the Russians may be able to repair their tanks but not be able to replace their optics and a tank wihtout good optics are just a glorified coffin

Great commentary sir, as someone who has been following conflicts from Canada I certainly do believe the MODERN tank still will play a role. As you put very well the Russian supply and logistics have been terrible. From the moment they entered into Ukraine as if having a Sunday stroll any well equipped force would have shredded their columns from the air and ground. But having said that I have been hearing rumours even in the 80's and early 90's that most of the tank forces in East Berlin would not even start due to lack of maintenance. So massive numbers mean nothing if you cannot supply or maintain. Excellent series. Robert.

Subscribed. A superb analysis, probably the best I've seen since the "Special military operation" (Translation: Invasion/War) began. I can't think of anything else to say. Thank you!

just because the russians forgot how to use tanks does not mean tanks are useless. they are a vital part of combined arms operations for forces that actually know how to use tanks and constantly train with them

One issue I see that may be a big reason why the question keeps coming up is that a lot of people think that what a tank brings to the table is invulnerability. Then, when they see tanks getting knocked out, they conclude that means the tank no longer has anything to contribute. But this forgets that the tank still provides a source of mobile firepower that also provides significant protection to the crew (even if it’s not perfect protection against all possible threats). Yes, there are more things on the battlefield that can knock out tanks than before. But humans remain vulnerable to pointed sticks and rocks thrown at high speeds that tanks don’t worry about. So there’s still something for them to contribute if their vulnerabilities can be mitigated.

Great Discussion!

Nicholas Moran (Chieftain) pointed out that as long as tanks fulfill a doctrinal role, they'll still be used. He also observed that videos may indicate the tanks are being used in unsupported roles/actions.

As the was in Ukraine rages, I have had this thought myself. The advent of drones against tanks, is like when the aircraft carrier became the center of the naval battlegroup in WWII. Battleships had seen their day because they couldn't really defend against the planes. This is the same thing, but on land, and with smaller planes. And while you could argue that the tanks would be more effective if they had proper air support; that air support itself isn't going to be effective against drones that are nearly impossible to hit and flying below radar level.

5:03 - We also haven't seen much of the Su57, but that could also be down to the following: A - Lets not let our newer tech, because it might fall into enemy hands B - Lets make use of these thousands of older tech tanks (made in the 70s) before they become completely useless (we have so many in stock and our population numbers are dropping etc) C - They might not be combat ready yet (look how long the F-35 took to become combat ready) The only really new tech I've seen them use was KA-52 helicopters and hypersonic missiles (T-90 tanks I don't really count, because they are in large part a T72) Looking from the outside in you can speculate and make observations, but to truly know the intent you'd have to be inside their heads.

Thank you Tank Museum for this dispassionate review of the tank in current modern combat, and the history lesson - Fascinating! It just proves the point that without good tactics and logistics the tank is just so much scrap metal.

Very credible. Thank you.

The trend in tanks in the most recent decades has been to get heavier with complicated armor schemes to defeat missiles and larger anti tank rounds. Sensor technology also gave tank crews better awareness. Much of the failures of tanks recently are the result of poor tactics or training. As active protection systems improve, I think we’ll see tanks become lighter, more mobile, carry a greater array of sensors, and heavier secondary weapons to deal with infantry and aviation at greater distances.