I'm an ex armoured officer, so hopefully can contribute something here. Couple of examples: When I was qualifying (in infantry) this very debate came up and I was speaker on the "pro tank" side (because I knew I was going to move to armour) . My opponents cleverly put forward that very the concept of "tank" was outdated, and what we should be thinking of is an armoured gun system, preferably on wheels (cheaper, longer range and faster). What we did on our side of the debate was play "rock soup" with them. Too vulnerable - needs more armour. OK. It's now heavier so even 8 wheels means too much ground pressure - it'll bog down, so needs tracks to spread the load OK. Do you see where this going? The gun's too small to be effective. OK, needs at least 120mm. To sum it up, what even they ended up with was...a tank. I've participated in many "sand table" war games (the real ones the Army use for teaching and force planning purposes), some involved "dissimilar" situations where one side has tanks and the other doesn't The latter lost every time, and very quickly at that. Mobility, firepower and protection won every time. You can't have ATGMs everywhere and tanks exploit weaknesses like no other platform. With mech infantry support, it poses an impossible conundrum for the poor bastards on the other side of the sand table. I do see a future though where there is a distinct possibility that the tank may be completely unmanned (a robot or remotely guided). This tech is nearly here ; cars are starting to drive themselves for example. So that "tank" will be much much smaller and lighter as a result. If that vehicle gets down anywhere near 30tonnes, then wheels will be the way to go because 8 wheel drive gives as good if not better terrain performance than tracks at < 27 tonnes. So is this thing still a tank?
All I know is we need to get rid of the Bradleys. Those things have the biggest Identity crisis in my opinion because of how messy of a development process they had. As a current cav scout I am sick of those loud, clunky, and unreliable things being a reconnaissance vehicle. However I can't argue with that chain gun and TOW...
+Mathew. Yeah I got an armoured recon background as well, but I think I'd rather be in a Bradley than a 1950's M113. The only reason we didn't get Bradley was that it's too expensive.
+7654Tom and Tariq. You brush up against a good point here. Tanks and infantry can take and hold ground, other branches of the Army or the Hair Force can't do that at all.
As he says in the video you would have alternatives to tanks, these alternatives would capture and hold ground. The way I see it playing out is the same way German tank manufacturers post WW2 saw it, Armour will become obsolete as Armour will become to heavy before it can match the thickness required to stop future guns, the use of composite materials have only delayed the inevitable. So the basis of the future vehicles will be firepower and manoeuvrability (this is what led to the creation of the Leopard 1 post WW2 as the German's already foresaw Armour obsolete ). You will eventually see vehicles such as the Stryker, Bradley and the British made Ajax with high manoeuvrability, but low armoured, firing anti-tank missiles for offence and deploying countermeasures for defence (much like fighter jets already do). There Armour would only protect against small arms and IEDs. This is where I see it going in the next 20yrs.
IED %5,000, if that Excalibur shell (1 metre scale accuracy fired from ship or "Paladin" SPG up to 70km away) $50,000 IIRC. See "Arithmetic on the Frontier" by R. Kipling "the odds are on the cheaper man" You can no longer intimidate a populace or impress tax payers.
Will MBTs continue in their current form? Probably not. Will there still be a need for a weapon system that possesses mobility, firepower and protection? Of course there will be. And don't forget that armour is an integral component of combined arms. Accurate and fast counter-battery fire didn't spell the end for artillery. They became more mobile, faster to deploy and got better survey, communications, command and logistics systems so they could receive a fire mission on the move, stop, deploy, fire the mission and be back on the move before the last round splashes. What will tanks of the future look like? Just one possibility is the tank troop of manned vehicles is replaced by a single, manned command vehicle and multiple unmanned vehicles able to act autonomously or under direct control. These vehicles may be relatively light, swapping heavy armour for active defensive systems. Their weight may allow them to be wheeled and move over terrain at speeds that would jolt a crew senseless. But if you don't think any of that matters, developed countries will continue to use tanks because it forces your adversary to expend resources to counter the threat and that's one way you defeat an enemy: never allowing them to concentrate sufficient resources and firepower to achieve victory.
Shane Rooney return of the light tank? Perhaps, but i think we'll see the emergence of uncrewed vehicles and once you remove the protection and habitability requirements suddenly you can design a vehicle that could do things you never dreamed of before. Just like taking a pilot out of a fighter and you don't have a human-induced G limit, no O2 required, no heavy ejection seat, no delicate canopy, etc. It won't be a light tank. It'll be something new.
The point is that the tank in its current form may become redundant yet the conceptual requirement will remain. So the answer is, yes, we still need tanks, but in a different form.
The scorpion is a very tall tank and only has a 90mm gun, and has four separate tracks that can be disabled and all four need maintenance. I know this comment was a joke, but still
I think at most you're see tanks, apc, and ifv mix together. But other then things becoming more mult purpose, i don't see tanks leaving the battlefield.
Yes. They will take more roles as fire support. They will probably looked upon to provide mechanical units like drones, infantry, and possibly exoskeletons in the near future as an ultra big power generator or energy storage unit. Because of energy storage is very volatile and needs to be very protected.
Indeed. Like the Armata T-14. It's not a exclusively a tank, it's a weapon system specialized for different roles and it looks to be pretty awesome at doing so.
I do think that APC's and IFV's have replaced alot of the roles of a tank, but hte tank is still useful especially to take on APC's and IFV's. The tank's primacy has been removed but the tank is still useful
I think another interesting question is; "What would replace the tank?" The DPS? Healer? Nonsense. Someone will always need to gather all that aggro and hold onto it.
Honestly, i hate the idea of drone tanks and unmanned tanks. Crewman can do more than just drive the thing. Repair it mainly. But remote operation can be hacked, signal can be lost. I just dont like the idea
Ya they wouldn't be like how airborne drones work. They would undoubtedly be completely autonomous so all decisions would be programmed and or on board thinking. So unless you want to run up to a tank and try to open it pry it as its trying to kill you.
Downsides of unmanned tanks: 1. Communications rely on satellites, which can be shot down or jammed. 2. Communications could be picked up and used to find tanks.
remote or drone tank is a very bad Idea...It'll definitely get captured and your enemy will gain the same tech. Drone plane can be used because not many can catch a plane mid air without destroying it
The problem is that people saying it's an end of tank, they do not understand that vehicles (including tanks) protection is also evolving. Majority of losses we see today when it comes to combat vehicles, is because their protection is, based on a single solution. While both in case of newest upgrades or development of new vehicles, engineers aim at protection solutions based on a system. And it's a very simple concept that can be described in a few points. 1. Don't be detected (Which means vehicles use various camouflage systems, mostly multispectral, like Saab Barracuda MCS or Intermat multispectral camouflage paints that can hide vehicles thermal signature, but also acts as conventional camouflage). 2. Don't be hit (So here we have both tactical mobility improvements like new suspension systems, new powerpacks, yeah we constantly moving forward towards diesel-electric hybrids that are more fuel efficent, quieter, have smaller thermal signatures, and are more efficent when it comes to mobility itself, and then we have another step, active protection systems, we have soft kill system jamming ATGM guidance, hard kill systems that can destroy in flight RPG's, ATGM's, various types of ammunitions fired from tank guns and similiar like HEAT, HE etc. And maybe in future also able to defeat APFSDS ammo, and then there are also active protection systems protecting against mines and IED's, there are things like electromagnetic mine ploughs, or jammers like CREW3). 3. Don't be penetrated (Here we have a constant development of new armor systems, be it new composite armors that are stronger and lighter, even today more and more armors are based on nanometric steel alloys and nanoceramics, that are lighter while at least providing the same if not greater protection than conventional armored steel alloys and ceramics. And there is more and more development in various materials, there are improvements in creating metal alloys and so on and on. Besides this there is also constant development in case of various reactive armors, we have new types of explosive reactive armor, non energetic reactive armor or non explosive reactive armor, and we will see further improvements in armor technology). 4. Don't be killed (This means that vehicle design should take in to consideration that enemy might defeat other protection layers and projectile might get inside, so it's effects must be minimized. And this is already done in some designs, what does it mean? Well the crew should be isolated from the main gun ammunition, because in majority cases the vehicle is destroyed and it's crew killed not by enemy projectile groing through armor, but by own ammo cook off caused by this. So ammunition isolation in ammo compartments with blow off panels is a must for any new design, be it with manned or unmanned turret systems. Another step are new seats for crew that can protect them from the shock caused for example by underbelly IED blast, and there is more, for example ammunition propelant charges can be made as a more safe, less prone for cook offs, new fire extinguishing systems can be implemented, and there is of ourse more possibilities). Of course there is also a question of vehicle weight, in general what we want for MBT, is to have optimal weight, which means it can't be too lightweight, but also can't be too heavy. I guess optimal weight for modern/future MBT in basic configuration (without addon armor kit) woulod be around 50 metric tons. But how to achieve this goal without sacrificing protection? Well important to realize is fact that vehicle gross weight is more determined by it's internal volume than anything else, which means the more internal volume, the more armor surface is needed to protect it, and so the vehicle gets heavier. We can reduce internal volume, by for example doing what Russians did with T-14, which means moving the crew to a separate, havy armored compartment in vehicle front, and replace manned turret with smaller, lighter unmanned turret. Because manned turrets in modern MBT's are very heavy, they can weight up to around 30 metric tons. So using unmanned turret not only allows us to reduce weight, but also distribute armor on vehicle in more logical way. And the unmanned turret if needed, can be uparmored with modular armor, and still because of smaller size, it will be uparmored lighter than manned turret, and it's protection will be equal or even greater because due to smaller size, armor can have greater density. So at the moment we are in the interesting point of history, where we see transition from conventional vehicle design, to a new design which utilizes above mentione solutions. At the moment we know about 4 countries working on next generation MBT's. Wed have Russian Federation with their T-14, Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of France working on their MGCS - Main Ground Combat System program for new MBT that will eplace Leopard 2 and Leclerc. And then we have United States of America with their FT - Future Tank program that was recently confirmed to be in development. We can assume that both MGCS and FT will be very similiar to T-14 in their general design.
Ulugbek Musinov Nope....as shown by the second line, that was a battletech inside joke. And yes in BT a 100 ton mech is totally necessary..........as it means more dakka-dakka, more lazors, more gauss, more ppcs and generally more boom! ;) Oh and PPCs totally beat lazors! Christ McCart Meh, in the damage dealing department, not in that rather important category mentioned by Matsimus.......psychological impact. ;) Although the Kingcrab comes pretty damn close, and might even be more evil looking. And the Kodiak, like the Highlander is jump capable, which makes that sucker able to appear from directions where you wouldn't expect it come from. Now if only we could do highlander burials.....or really use that kodiak claws....;)
funny enough, it is highly probably that battleships will make a come back. Already aircraft are hugely dependent upon not being seen. Stealth. Radars are out pacing stealth. Think about the environment that planers operate in.. wide open spaces with little to no cover as soon as long range stealth defeating radar is coupled with light speed or near light speed weapons you will see planes as nothing more than sitting ducks. then it will be about whoever carries the most armor and firepower... aka battleships and massive main battle tanks. think hundreds of tons tanks
i am no expert in this field, but i don't really think a vehicle capable of withstanding modern firearms with brute force (read:armor) would even be worth the money.
Donny Whisnu you are correct but the thing why we stopped using them is because they took too long to produce and we're a waste of resources not to mention anything was capable of destroying one (such as destroyers) an example of a battleship's fate was the IJN Kongo that was struck by a torpedo from an American Submarine
Messy Doge yeah, the IJN once commenced a training battle with Nagato, against Ryujo and Kaga which ended up in Nagato, their pride as one of the big 7 getting toyed with by planes helplessly. Also operation ten-go, i guess. Which is why i questioned Rick's statement
People dont seem to consider attrition. Having 10s of thousands of tank with hundreds being able to be committed to a battle you. Only giant formations of aircraft and dedicated attempt from anti tank crews and other tanks will deal with them. Along with the other part of your combined force. yeah on the individual level a single modern tank is vulnerable to a single anti tank weapons system or aircraft. but this isnt the situation a piece of military hardware that can be deployed en mass should be viewed in. Isnt a man more vulnerable to a bullet that cost penny's then a tank is to a shell that might not even disable the tank fully? Not a perfect comparison but if you tally up the amount of weapon systems that is a threat to a man on foot and tally up the weapon system that a threat to a tank and consider the amount these are seen on the battle field then it kinda looks like infantry are the system closer to needing to be retired then the tank. Id rather have 5 tanks(5 man crew) and 75 men then just 100 men in battle. Even if a tank is vulnerable from the weapons the enemy may have, Its a pretty fantastic use for 5 men on the front line to have them operating a tank with several heavy weapons then 5 men with 5 rifles.
Just because there isn't that much tank on tank combat anymore doesn't mean it will not be more of it in the future. And i don't like the idea of automating everything or alot of things.
You get to a point were the crew will be the weakness because human is only able to take so much. Also politics behind all of it will consume the doubts. example is our jets can do more maneuvers than the pilots can handle but are limited so that the pilot dons't get extreme g-force and blacks out or dies. tanks on the other hand have problems.
what if tell you we be using the the same amount of intelligence of a retarded cockroach and was a not hived to million other computers. terminators were portrait as something smarter than us and if we could make something that smart then we could make our selves just as smart.
Problem i see is that computers can learn exponentially more than humans can. Put AI charge of fighter and tell it to develop its intelligence and it will. Into point where simple, destroy hostile target can go trough its logic like this: destroy hostile, hostile is human, or AI controlled by human, to destroy hostile AI, quickest way to do that is to destroy hostile human, hostile human is same species as human controlling me, so that must make them as hostile too, lets destroy them. If that danger was not enough, mix in effects/errors of hacking and other things that most probable will happen to said AI and pretty much anything is possible and end result wont be pretty... Best part of MBT is that it will work even if all electronic systems are shut down/damaged, all manually due well trained crews that cant be hacked. Drones already have been hacked far as i recall and it would be just matter of time when drone tanks would have same fate. All security systems made by man can be preached by another man, its simple fact. It might be hard but it will be done eventually. At least in MBT case hacking wont do much, other than mess communication, but tank can still operate pretty normally.
You won't always need Heavy armour to hold ground. The entire principle behind the invention of the Tank, dating all the way back to Swinton in 1916, is the Offensive. There is no vehicle on the planet better at punching holes in an enemy's discrepancies. Armour is absolutely horrible for a consolidated Defensive entrenchment. You need trucks in that case, not Tanks. You won't be moving as much, you can replace tanks with much cheaper Anti-Tank and Anti-Infantry positions. Tanks are for Attacking, not Defending, that's why Emplacements exist.
its hard to predict the future of battlefield since the last all out war we had between superpowers was WWII. I wont even try since even the best military analysts usually fails hard in predicting the future of warfare.
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemy pilots than not seeing the dozens of MANPADs, SPAAs and other AA weapons that follow and cover those tanks (and nevermind friendly airforce trying to achieve local air superiority and that random StA balistic missile comming in your way, have fun surviving all of them at once allong with those mildly annoying "bullet walls" from AA machine guns from the tanks etc themselves). Oh and yes its easy enough for a huge armored vehicle such as a tank or SPAAs to hide from an aircraft if it isnt moving, nevermind the MANPADs.
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemy pilots than not seeing the dozens of MANPADs, SPAAs and other AA weapons that follow and cover those tanks (and nevermind friendly airforce trying to achieve local air superiority and that random StA balistic missile comming in your way, have fun surviving all of them at once allong with those mildly annoying "bullet walls" from AA machine guns from the tanks etc themselves). Oh and yes its easy enough for a huge armored vehicle such as a tank or SPAAs to hide from an aircraft if it isnt moving and has a modern camo net and special paint, nevermind the MANPADs.
Matsimus Gaming Laser weapon system the sort they are going to be using on destroyers. Sone have been scaled down to fit on hummers so it could be on a tank for defensive measures like arena.
Cartoonman154 - I don't see that yet. Lasers have obvious advantages. Especially a light speed firing at a hundreds of meters per second target is very useful. But it has serious downsides. The capacitors these lasers need are a nightmare and they degenerate so fast. On a ship they can make them bigger and more of them and the ship itself is worth so much that it's legit to put so much effort into it. For tanks? Maybe with some serious breakthroughs. Could also imagine these things mounted on trucks as ultra high value target protection. Especially placed around Haifa and Tel Aviv for an advanced iron dome and even more between the DMZ and Seoul since they really really need a ballistic threat defense system over there. Seoul could be the worst artillery shelling in human history. As outdated as the KPA is their artillery is among the better ones for the self propelled ones and the multi missile launchers are nasty no matter how low the accuracy is. Seoul is so vast you will land a hit with every shot in the vague direction of it. Not to mention the thousands of short and medium range missiles there. Obviously the DPRK would be crushed within a few days. All those millions of soldiers wouldn't even see combat before the infrastructure is bombed back from bronze to stone age. With a surprise attack they should at least have 10 terrific minutes of chaos until the counter batteries can start to fire and air support reaches the DMZ. Not much but more than enough time to destroy billions of dollar in buildings and kill ten thousands or even way more if they dare to use "special" ammunition. Seoul really needs this protection. Even if only one of 10 shells is dodged it would save lives.
I joined the 9/12th Lancer (British Royal Armoured Corp) in 1975. Trained and drove Chieftains. MBT's are not suitable for all conflicts - I went to the Falklands in 1982 and they would have been useless. Many have suggested for a long time that they are extinct, or we need unmanned vehicles, etc, etc. They are still here, useful in certain situations. Unmanned vehicles have their place, but you can still blow them up. No crew members to get out, repair the vehicle, or disarm a land mine, etc, etc. Wars without human participation or loss are a dangerous thing - they would just escalate to total destruction. Why not just play Battlefield between hostile Countries, or factions.
Patrick Bateman I doubt they will make much ground based units unmanned. Too much to go wrong. It's hard enough making a automatic driving car let along a combat fighting over roading machine
Matsimus Gaming Wouldn't need to be automated - just give a guy on the ground a handheld console, sort of like a smartphone, and let him go to work. I'm thinking more for Urban scenarios, where it is much more deadly for tanks, but their firepower is still needed. It would be absurd to replace MBT's in tank v. tank scenarios, but in Urban fighting, I think it would be much safer and cheaper for the forces operating there. Look at some of the combat in Syria - chilling how close to death some of those T-72 crewmen come.
Yes exactly. Automatic driving is extremely difficult, requires a lot of self-learning computer and pre-embedded algorithms. Tank at a price fighter? No, too expensive. But the use of unmanned vehicles, in certain situations, it may help to solve the problem without resorting to heavy attacks (and the secondary damage) and infantry assault (with the inevitable fatal casualties from snipers and mines).
if i may say. i really think you did an excellent job in 10:18 when you talk about tanks being feared as you put the sound of the tanks higher. It makes it more inmersive the video
Gusti Firza Afrizal um not really. The Russians are very easy to kill glass cannons. Only those who are truly bad players whine about that anymore on the forums. And every game has glitches and bugs.
Shit.. if you want realistic.. you need to check out games by Battlefront.com. WoT is shit as far as realistic ballistics and TOE. Unless your a newbie and into that FP shooter crap. Battlefront games are top notch realistic war gaming simulation.
I used to believe that survivability of an individual on the modern battlefield (60's on) was better as a tanker rather than as an infantryman due to the dominance of armor and its uses in various roles. Starting around the middle 80's I began thinking that due to all of the ways being developed to kill tanks ( air - helos and tac air) (other tanks) (missiles, rockets, IED's, etc.) and their tendency to draw fire over individual infantrymen that it was better to be an infantryman. Even more pronounced today unless the armor is preceded or supported by infantry. Perhaps you could do a video addressing this issue? As USUAL, an excellent video with GREAT pictures!! Thanks.
Matsimus, great video. It's nice to see the work of a fellow military-enthusiast. A few thoughts: You are correct that anti-tank technology is growing more lethal and more "soft" targets (soldiers and soft-skinned vehicles) are utilizing them. You are also correct that tanks are increasingly vulnerable from attacks from the air. It is true that we are "not seeing tank-on-tank engagements much anymore", but that does not mean that we will not see it again. The "disappearance" of tanks is due to a temporary anomaly existing within global politics, and one that will not last. No government with a large compliment of tanks is willing to fight the United States or her allies. They cannot win, and they know it, so they won't risk using their tanks. Over the last 50 years the world, (particularly Europe) has lived within the protection of a "Pax Americana", or American Peace, in which the conventional power of the United States is, compared to all other conventional armies, virtually unstoppable. This was last demonstrated in 1990 in Iraq, when a dictator with the world's 3rd largest army dared to invade tiny neighboring Kuwait and steal her oil supplies. The following engagement, the Gulf War, saw Saddam's forces annihilated in 38 days- the shortest and most one-sided military campaign in history. Iraqi forces were devastated by a numerically-inferior (almost 2 to 1 on the ground) coalition force with virtually no US losses at all (more US troops were killed during in-theatre training accidents and mishaps than by Iraqi fire.) In barely over a month Hussein saw his entire army, navy and air force destroyed and his country left in ruins. (Although, through a great error, he was left in charge). The worlds dictators, bullies and rogue nations took notice, and no substantial army has risked US military action in the 27 years since. This is why you haven't seen large tank battles recently. No army is willing to fight them. But that may be starting to change. China, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Iran are becoming increasingly bellicose in their diplomatic postures and military exercises. The world's largest owner of tanks, Russia, has demonstrated territorial aggression and will certainly use it's large reserves of tanks if war breaks out in the Asian continent, which I believe it will. We have had a long break from tank battles -and of large-scale war itself- but the respite, unfortunately, will soon end. War will return and the tank will return with it. As you said, tanks are highly vulnerable to air attack- though this is mostly to attack by cutting-edge, horrendously expensive military air frames like the F-22 Raptor, F-18 Hornet or the F-35 JSF. I only mention these expensive aircraft because any air force that is able to get within 100 miles of a western tank will have to first survive an encounter with western (mostly US but some European) air power to do so, and currently there are no rival aircraft available in sufficient numbers that are capable of doing this. US military supremacy in the air has been even more extreme than on the ground- the most numerous air-frames, the F-16 Falcon and F-15 Eagle, boast a worldwide kill ratio of 92-0 and 150-0, respectively. That is correct- neither aircraft has ever been shot down by another aircraft (including the best soviet technology) in the over 30 years since their deployment, and these deadly aircraft are now radically exceeded in capability and lethality by to the newest line of 5th-generation US fighters. In order to attack US ground forces, enemy aircraft will have to challenge or defeat US fighters in the skies, a feat that, currently and in the near future, is a virtual impossibility. As for IED's, this is a phenomenon that the public has recently become very aware of due to the US's 15-year struggle against insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. IEDs are the highest cause of casualties in the current conflict, but only because the US is fighting a war of counter-insurgency, and Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) are not and have never been designed for military policing or urban pacification. MBT's are the equivalent of the mounted knight of ancient warfare- incredible offensive power combined with high battlefield mobility- they move fast, hit hard and are gone to the next target before the enemy knows what hit them. Though the proliferation of combat aircraft has now overtaken the mobility aspect of offensive firepower, air forces are incredibly expensive compared to armored units and, as the US military has been learning for 15 years, they cannot hold or actively control territory. Boots on the ground are required to hold territory, and there is no more powerful and cost-effective form of those "boots" than an MBT. Perhaps you're aware of this, If this is the case, I would state that the title of this video is misleading. The future of Armour is not what you are discussing here- the use of armor within in insurgency is. Given that context, I would agree that an MBT is of limited use. The pentagon is aware of this as well, which is why they have introduced OshKosh's highly-mobile MRAPs with rubber-wheels and lighter-armor but still equipped with a 120mm gun (like an MBT). Is the future tank less applicable to tactical combat? No. Is it ideally-utilized in a counter-insurgency role? No. The conflagration that is the middle-east, though deadly and prescient, is but a mere distraction for conventional military-conflict, that is, at some point, sure to come. When that day comes, we'll need tanks more than ever.
I don’t think people realize how difficult it is to knock out a tank...any tank. If you lack first rate anti tank weapons they are hard as hell to kill. Even a T-55 could be a nightmare if you aren’t equipped properly.
Tanks are still one of the best ways to hold onto ground on the modern battlefield.but still they are vulnerable in a urban environment without infantry support.
Personally i am just suprised the uk government didnt try replacing the scimitar turret/gun with an autoloader as a "mini step" to trying the concept out and as a way of stepping back from a full MBT focus, it would arguably be suited for it, a recon vehicle that doesnt get into much fighting and reduce the crew to 2 men (driver, gunner/commander helping them get that reduce army personnel size thing down). Even give it a nice size gun or an anti tank missile. Given what i have heard about operations in Mali, Afghan etc, something like that could be useful and relatively cheaper for the army to experament with, and not like there isnt enough CVRTs out there to make some money selling it on too.
Just because tanks are not fully utilized in this type of asymmetric warfare i.e. when facing terrorist threat, it doesnt mean they're obsolete by any means. We'll always need MBTs. If you're planning conventional war against other country, you'll need a tank.
Main Battle Tanks are here to stay. Because you while you can conquer an area with aircraft initially, you can't hold it with them. That's where tanks come into play.
Like nanolamenite and e-carbon. Jokes aside. I think using new, lightweight and ultrastrong materials like graphite is key in upgrading whole armorpackage without going over 65-70 ton weight.
Ya well kinda. carbon isn't really good for armor sense it has a lot of tensile strength and not much compression strength. what is really looked after for armor is tungsten and depleted uranium because their density is extremely high. this means they are heavier but have lots of compression strength or are just more solid.
Ah, yes. The death of the tank, yet another prediction I've been hearing since I first got into all thing military in the mid 70's. My bother in law, a tanker, at the time, had said " in an age where a man with what appears to be a suitcase can set it down and deploy a missile that can destroy a tank there is no room for a MBT on the battlefield anymore." Of course what he overlooks in that being ready for war is a game of leap frog, first anti tank systems are developed that make current tanks vulnerable, then the technology put into tanks is advanced to defeat the ATMs, then better ATMs, better armor, and on and on. It's the same with every other system, for example combat aircraft and SAMs, warships and anti ship missiles, etc...
The armored tank will always be desired. Just because armies are focused on making anti-tank munition, doesn't make it any less feared or great to use.
Advances in materials and active protection systems will keep the tank philosophy alive. Immediate and reliable direct fire on demand is a big deal for commanders. Mass that advantage and you have a game changer!
Every tank has to worry about refueling. It's not something unique to the Abrams, it's just typically supported by the nation most able to maintain the supply lines to keep them going.
you're right bro..i agree tank aren't going further anyway unless the upgrade a new tank which able to stand and auto-eliminate the threat from the anti tank bomb automaticaly before it reach up the target.
Tanks being susceptible to anti armour weapons is nothing new. In WW2 it was anti-tank guns and anti armour mines. Now its ATGMs and IEDs. So what? In war you will take casualties - even if some western forces appear to have forgot this. Some of those casualties will be tanks and their crews. But a hellava lot more will be infantry. We will always need tanks, and IFVs, and APCs, and self propelled arty, and MLRS, and spaags, and the poor bloody infantry. The threats against them will become greater, so we will make better versions of them, like we have done since WW2. So too will potential opponents. (T-14 anyone?) There is no such thing as an invincible weapon - never has been, never will be. Nor is there one 'War winning weapon.' It about combined arms and how you use them. And if your talking land warfare, those combined arms had better include tanks. Tanks can be considered the air superiority fighters of land warfare. Other AFVs may be more versatile, but in an open one-on-one engagement of tank against any other type of AFV, the tank will win most of the time (all other things being equal.) And when its tank-on-tank, the best tank will win. So it's good that we have woken up and started upgrading our tanks at last.
As long as there are APCs (Which arnt going anywhere) there will be demand for vehicles designed to take them and echother out, they can also provide rapid response hi-ex, tanks arnt going anywhere
Tanks don't need thick armor to perform their function. Just enough to be bullet proof, shrapnel proof. mobility and firepower, doctrines and communications are utmost importance to tanks. see blitzkrieg, hordes of light tanks being used properly vs. superior anti tank weapons. see Bargration, the T34 may as well have been unarmored when standing up to the pakfronts of German infantry. Still did the job. see Israelis tank tanks during any of the levant wars. Russian anti tank weaponry was deadly as was the tank mounted canons. Still crushed those arab armies
As long as great powers don't go to war, the tank is here to stay. I'm US Army infantry and the sight of armor rolling through the desert is quite a sight to see. It strikes fear in the hearts of the enemy because unless you have some serious anti-tank weaponry, the things are just unstoppable.
this argument has been going on pretty much since after World War II that Tanks would die off and would not be needed in future warfare. but this is a never-ending struggle and it's been that way since long before the tank existed a new weapon emerges in completely changes the battlefield so then people spend boatloads of money to research and develop ways to counteract that new weapon and then that weapon becomes more advanced to stay ahead then it keeps on going In that circle this is how it's all ways been
we've spent 100 years with these Tanks from WW1 all the way to the modern age, i think they'll be with us for a really long time, great video had me thinking
ghostdog688 they just want to save money. No point painting training tanks. It's just the way it is. It's like when BATUS tanks come home in BATUS camp and they are in the thick woodland of Germany and the UK lol. It looks crazy
The reason why there will always be manned tanks and aircraft is because it is very hard to hack a person. As secure as you may think a drones control is, there will always be someone if given enough time will hack it.
The issue is that infrantry NEEDS combat vehicles supporting them. Tanks are ill suited for this role. Stugs are perfect. Cars are good too. Anything that gives an edge over enemy would be highly appreciated by the infantry, but that is not that wins wars. Tanks are too useful in independent formations to let them being bogged down by infantry.
in ww1 tanks were created to help soldiers in the war. for example it provides covers for soldiers from the enemy soldiers. today's context tank are still needed to practice for targets
What role and if any the tank will have depends on how the battlefield of the future looks like. If we move on to a world where there is more of a war on terror, when most fighting is done against insurgents I think we will move to a more light weight army, and rely more on drones and air superiority. But if the future has WW3 in mind with superpowers fighting each others, then the Tank will grow and get fat. It will be more like a movable fortress. Meant to hold taken land. With more modern jet fighters you will need a tank to carry your air-defence since the SAM:s will be to heavy to carry.
Depends entirely on the cheapness of tandem charged rockets. But for the most part no. Tanks too heavy and too expensive. $2000 rocket kills $5,000,000 tanks is a problem.
Weight doesn't matter anymore. Rockets are a problem, yes-- how affordable and quick they are-- but that's why we have infantry. I think people are thinking too narrow, JUST tank VS. AT. What about the troops and the air force that protect the tank? War is a sort of strange rock-paper-scissors scheme. What, you want to take out the rock and let the scissors get to the paper?
Otter of Toast Whoever is on the AT weapon WILL MOVE IMMEDIATELY AFTER FIRING probably even before it strikes the target. Limited exposure targets are called that for a reason. Also helpful to remember some of the dumbest fucking people you will ever meet can still qualify for "Combat Arms", Throw in constant discomfort, high stress, and sleep deprivation.........infantry cover is not the cure all you think it is. Anyone with a brain is not going to stand and fight against a western military unit for more time than it takes to cook off a few mg belts and fire a few rockets because if they stay still the air cover will arrive shortly. Also if you are fighting someone with less hangups about "Civilian Casualties" they will just level 3 city blocks to kill 2 or 3 "insurgents".
AKlover I think you're overcomplicating this. Troops protect the tank, the tank protects the troops. Nothing more to it, ultimately. AT, whether it relocates or not, can be found and destroyed before the tank is even in danger. Calm the hell down, padre.
Otter of Toast I'm perfectly calm. Simply pointing out targeting and destroying something that never intends to give you a straight fight is difficult. Covering and canvasing every inch of an area is also dangerous as hell for the infantry. Double that when the Politicians limit your ROEs meaning your support (Tank) is prohibited or delayed in engaging. Nevermind the other guys with a brain who are engaging the soft targets rather than trying to pick a fight with a tank.
it will be interesting to see how the latest active anti tank rocket systems will perform. you have to understand though, that by there very nature AT will be parceled out along a front where as tanks can quickly be massed thanks to their superior mobility and used to charge a narrow front. They will take losses but the survivors will outnumber the defending AT.
Tanks will still have a roll on the battle field of the future. The tank is an assault platform . The tank is also the defender of the grunt. The tank is also a highly mobile Form of artillery. Personally I think the tank will continue to make its presence known on the field of battle. Tactics play a large roll in the survival of armored units. Technology has caught up and given the infantry an ability to destroy tanks. But even the infantry is limited on there ability to carry anti-tank systems. They can only carry so many rounds. Warfare is a complex thing to execute. But if you can use all your assets properly you can minimize the loss of life. If you use your air force to dominate the sky you can support tanks and infantry. My whole point is that tanks still have a future. Unlike the battleship I think the tank will continue to be used as a major asset in future conflicts.
Bipedal "MECHS" have all the same issues as person does. So think about all the weak joints on the human body. now imagine that you remove our nimbleness and are bones pliability.
Yet, but yeah building such complicated (more complicated, more things to break down) machine to stand around most of the time, that turns into extremely expensive pillbox when one join breaks, towering high, lacking any actual hard cover and with its mass lacking maneuverability to dodge anything.. (also its not like many things can dodge 120mm HEAT round coming towards them, at supersonic speeds...) more over if and WHEN ground is wet, muddy.. that thing would sink in and ruin what there was any mobility.... Maybe in far far future something like that could have some use, but in current battlefield there is no practical use for one. How ever something in form of exo suit for fire teams to carry heavy support weapons could be useful, where vehicles cant get.
The only way I can see a mech workign realisticaly is as a light support vehicle designed specificaly for rough terrain and maybe urban combat. Probably something more akin to an exosuit like in Avatar, Aliens or The Matrix (except with the pilot being properly armored.) If you were to go for an "arm based" weapon system I could see them being easily refited to perform different tasks, not necesarely combat oriented. You need to fight in an urban area against mostly infantry with maybe light vehicles like "technicals"? A minigun or 50 cal on 1 arm and a grenade launcher on the other. Need to fight in mountainus terrain and the enemy might have armor? Guided anti tank missile system on 1 arm and a 15-20 mm autocannon on the other. Need to move some gear around? "Grapling" attachments ot both arms. Need to dig some trenches or foxholes? Earth movign equipment on the arms. ETC.
I think the MBT is going to be even more relevant in the years to come. Battles are going to be centred around urban areas. Gone are the days in which armies duke it out in a convenient field. With urban warfare you need a mobile assault gun. Heavy armoured with a fair amount of flexibility. I like the Merkava because it has the ability to carry troops. My favourite is the Challanger2 though. That rifled gun has more flexibility since it can fire HE and HEP. We will need direct fire weapons in order to take cities and those weapons need good armour since they are very exposed in a built up area. Arty and air power are less effective in a big city. Take Stalingrad for an example, the Germans levelled that city and only created more fighting positions for the Russians. The led to the Germans developing the Brumbard and the Strumtiger. The Russians had the SU152. These assault guns were always vulnerable to real tanks. This I think led armies to build what we now call Main Battle Tanks. Most important though is armour needs to work with infantry in order to be most effective.
Man dont listen to all of these ppl/kids nearly all of them do not really know nothing of what they talk about. Your words are accurate though its importance is not as less as you think. Apparently most ppl think that a low intensity war, a war against terrorists, a war against rebels and a full scale war between "1st world" countries is nearly the same thing. I can tell you that atleast one tank's model frontal turret armor we put to a test suffered nearly 40 hits with no penetrations (no we are not producers, yes we test tanks from many countries to see what we buy, no this wasn't a normal turret it was an "upgraded" one, the 1st got penetrated after about 20something shots). Missiles are too slow, Missiles are easier to notice, Missiles are easier to disrupt, Missiles are larger and heavier, Missiles are like x30 more expensive compared to a shell (and a tank's shell provides better penetrative potential and accuracy nevermind so high velocities that the target is hit "near instantly"). Whoever talks about speed etc i dare him to put on data and compare the faster tanks with the faster apcs/ifv (on "uneven" ground) and prove to me that the tanks are in a real disadvantage (5-10km/h wont make any difference and btw higher speeds are rarelly used on the battlefield even if you can achieve them). Whoever talks about maneurability i dare him to show data about obstacle traverse comparing tanks and lighter vehicles (against not 1 vs 1 example). The only real disadvantage the tanks have is the weight causing problems under specific circumstances eg SOME bridges and transportation by ship or especially air. About bridges: some bridges can handle MBT weight, and most of those who dont well.... here is what i did: i just went through the river. Oh and most bridges are trapped (if you are the aggressor) so yeah you would rather avoid them anyway.
Cavalry charges with lances and sabers lasted well into the advent of machine guns, artillery barrages and chemical weaponry... I imagine main battle tanks would go just as quickly in a conflict where both sides have modern tank defeating equipment.
The modern battlefield is getting decentralized, and the more it will be the more tanks and heavy weapons will play a lesser role in combat. Swarm tactics are getting real on the sea and in the air and the swarm will get on land too in the next 50 years and I don't see how a tank could be usefull when for the same price you could get 10 or 100 small vehicule armed to destroy tank and infantry. If you can get a light vehicule with the weapons (20mm anti inf/AT missiles) and the acquisition tools to match current tanks for 10 times less money and good communications between each unit, I don't see how a tank could be competitive.
CXVII MMDLII To defeat APS on the sea you need swarm tactics or stealth (even speed) to your missile to penatrate the defences of a ship or group of ships. Still better to loose some missiles than a ship, or a tank here. You could posibly have 10 drones carrying 1 AT missiles each dessignated by 1 unit on one tank and defeat the best APS systems. You get a drone carrying 100kg, you fit it with a tow launcher, an IR camera and a small computer, and for less than 100k you got a weapon that can attack a tank with ease. I mean I can get a drone that can lift 40kg on the internet for 16k capable of following the ground. Obviously I can't fit it with an AT missile but with some work I'm sure that some engineer could build a more capable drone for a low cost compare to the target it has to engage.
I have personally believed that main battle tanks, specifically medium tanks will be the future. I think that the old Hitler and Stalin way of thinking, that tanks will just get BIGGER with BIGGER GUNS is a very elementary but not wrong idea. I think that the technology for the armor as well as the arms will increase to a level where can can have amazing medium tanks. I think that heavy tanks still will have a role but smart weapons and new armor should be able to keep size down.
I would not say that the main battle tank is obsolete yet. with improvements in lighter, stronger, and cheaper forms of armor, tanks could potentially become lighter. Active protection systems will definitely play a major role in the future of armored warfare. modular armor systems will also be more commonplace in the future. Another trend i'm noticing in the development of armored warfare is newer, and more exotic reactive armor types that may show up in the coming years. Hybrid-electric drivetrains and electronic cyber warfare cabablility may become standard in the coming years also. All in all i dont see the main battle tank becoming obsolete soon due to these technologies.
wrong... no matter how much armor you have... or how advanced it is... There will be something to match and over come it. tanks are expensive to build, maintain... look at the abrams.. russia has rounds thatll go through our frontal armour..
There is no tank that can penetrate front plate of any other modern MBT. I am serious right now. Also as for now "armor" beats anti armor weaponry, fully equipped Merkava or Leo 2 (after it get its active protection kit) is capable of destroying classic KE shells and HEAT rounds mid-air (Rockets are easier to counter measure) and can take a more than one direct hit thanks to reactive armor and the way how its composite armor is made.
Marek Sandomżski I'm a marine gunner on a m1a1. I've seen what a rpg29 does to the front of a turret. 85% that's how far it made it. Considering the newer munitions.. I'm glad I'm getting out in a year.. Fuck tanks. It's also not about the tank. It's about the rounds. The m829a1 rounds will go through frontal armor of any known tank
mach533x i am aware of the rpg-29's ability to penetrate really thick modern armor. My point is that newer tanks have more technology available to them to counter rockets and tank shells. The only thing i can think of that could defeat any kind of modern armor today would be an electromagnetic railgun or coilgun. however, i dont see these weapons being mounted on tanks any time soon due to the enormous power requirements of the weapon. As far as i'm aware no nation currently has the technology to mount railguns on tanks yet.
mach533x M829A1 has an estimated armor penetration of 600+mm. It is not enough to get trough the front plate of most of MBTs and I'm talking mostly about older versions of Leos, M1 Abrams, Challangers 2, T-90. etc because armor of those tanks is known to the publicity. Also it is not even the most powerfull round US Army has (as far as speaking about KE ammo goes) there are A2 and A3 variants as well as an WIP variant A4. You were driving in an 'classic' M1A1? Then it is true, an RPG from 1989 (m1a1 is from 1985) with its default HEAT warhead could get trough ERA armor (if your front turret even had some there) and then penetrate 600-700 RHA, but I still bet that it was less than 85%. RPG-29 is comparably new so don't get too scared here. Also an HV variant of abrams should take a hit significantly better, an M1A2 with TUSK would also just shrug it off.
I definitely think tanks are here to stay for as long as there exist intense ground battles against technologically equal forces, provided the defense-offense balance is not skewed too much towards the latter; I.E we develop so amazing weapons that none of our defense technologies can stop it. If we got mech warriors, I doubt they would supersede tanks. Given the design principles of a tank, I think a tank is still going to be the main-go-to for people who want a pure package of firepower and resilience for a straight up, no-holds barred firefight.
Stick with the games. or learn history. Abrams was tank on tank battles. Well, Gulf war? Iraq? Well, there are no Abrams in Syria. In Iraq yeah operated by Iraq forces.
Abrams was a tank-on-tank machine in the 80s (when it was produced) and the 70s (when it was designed). Gulf war? Iraq ? That's asymetrical combat. Any half decent western tank could defeat an export t-72. It's not at all symetrical combat. No Abrams tank is going to fight modern enemy tank any time soon. You stick with games, or start looking at the big picture.
CPTANT Flat, barren desert. The Arabs didn't think the US tanks would cross some massive, terrible, featureless desert and flank them form the East. Thanks to GPS, we crossed that desert and flanked them from the East. What have we learned? Prepare for EVERY contingency. Never say "They will *never*...." because they *will*, lol.
Drones have one main drawback: the signal can be jammed. That's why if there will be drone tanks in the future, they will only be there to supplement manned tank crews and not replace them.
Wit hall due respect, I disagree. Nothing can replace the intuition of a good crew. I think the same goes for fighters-- there's just something about a manned war that you can't replace. Computers malfunction too often and it takes the pilot out of the scene. It could be as immersive as possible-- yet you'd eventually get complacent. "Oh no- my drone is down. Better get a new one!" That adds up. I'm open to discussion, here, just so you know I'm not being hostile.
Otter of Toast A.I. is getting better and better. If a pilot A.I. can already defeat the best human pilots easily, how much longer till A.I. tank crews can preform better than human crews. www.popsci.com/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight A.I.s are constantly improving and preforming simulations to get even better. Self-Learning A.I. can perform simulations against itself thousands of times per day and through a process of digital evolution, it will get better and better at defeating enemies.
MBT's are evolving.... As for now yes we need them for infantry support... In the future we're going to see remote controlled...or even lighter hovercraft AFV types as infantry back-up in the future.
The m1 and m1a1 Abrams uses Burlington composite armor. The m1a1ha and m1a2 uses depleted uranium armor. The depleted uranium is very effective and increases the protection. The tank models that iraq have should have had depleted uranium, but they have the Burlington armor. This means that the iraqi tanks have an armor is less effective that the one on the american m1a1ha and m1a2, but AS EFFECTIVE AS THE ARMOR ON THE AMERICAN M1 ABRAMS AND M1A1 ABRAMS. American tanks are over estimated, they have very poor side and back armor, which results in that even a RPG 7 can pierce it.(every tank is poorly armored at the sides, maybe beside Merkava 4 and one or two more) The Abrams is great at fighting other tanks, but it is bad at fighting against enemies that use guerrilla tactics, resulting in very high numbers of tanks penetrated and cooked.
merkava can be knocked out by the metis which is a very light ATGM. 5kg rockets you can carry a lot with a small team 4 people each carrying 2 to 3 tubes...
Risto Mladich The Metis m has a penetration of 900mm of RHA, which is pretty high. Although that, it cannot penetrate the side of the Merkava 4 easily. From some pictures of the armor, It can be assumed that the side armor of the Merkava is equal to ~1350 mm of RHA at its thickest point, meaning that it can stand even against the Kornet. This is while the most armored point of the side armor of the Abrmas is probably no more than 400-600~ RHA. The average of the side armor of the Merkava 4 is about 900 RHA, enough to stop the metis. The weak spots have an armor that is equivalent to about 400mm of RHA. For comparison, the leopard 2a6 has parts that probably have 0 armor at the sides. All of those lengths are assumed based on only pictures that can be found on the web. And I didn't mention the trophy, that didn't failed even once, with 100% of successful interceptions of both RPGs and ATGMs. The size of the Metis M is small because it has a short range, the warhead is big.
ori kojokro Dorchester armour on chally 2 is still undefeated I really don't understand Abrams good electronics and ammo stowage but man she's got a weak butt. All for what a few more rpm.s.They should just stick a mtu power pack and armour the rear it just seems like madness to me.ide feel very vulnerable in a urban setting in a m1.
RPG-7 never did penetrate the Abram's thank. With regards to tanks in general it is currently a universal concept for tanks to have the strongest armor in the front, as that is where they were most likely to be hit. Therefore there is that frontal arc. With regards to guerilla warfare in urban environments any tank is vulnerable and is at risk of being disabled or even destroyed. Now, there is also a difference between a tank being disabled and being destroyed.
Richi fantastic The challenger 2 faced mostly RPG 7s that have very low penetration capabilities. A Kornet to the side would easily penetrate. Evan an RPG 29. And a challenger was cooked due to friendly fire. When Merkava 4 tanks operated in the Gaga strip, the IDF had no loses, because the Hamas mostly uses RPGs, less ATGMs. If I would send a challenger 2 to Lebanon, they will get penetrated, and a lot. 0 Merkava 4 tanks were destroyed due to ATGMs or RPGs. And remember that now, unlike in 2006, the Merkava 4 has the Trophy.
I love gaming and I love tanks [I also served as an Infantryman for 10 years], it is great to see an average person out there making quality videos! Keep it up brother.
In the case of a conventional warfare, Tank will always be useful. Although, if we consider the question we can't say that the Tank is an asset against as you said, one of the main tank producing countries(China, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, United Kingdom of Greay Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of america, for the same questions you already mentioned in your video; air superiority/strike, modern ''anti-vehicles'' infantry armament and tactical/strategic nuclear armament. For the same reasons, A conventional war between one of these nation and a ''minor'' one will always result in a tactical victory from the greater power. The cost of modern armament create the circumstance which makes ''minor nations'' mostly equipped with the previous generation of armored vehicle. a fine example of this would be both Iraq war. If I am correct, although I might be wrong, the Iraq forces were mostly equipped with non-upgraded T-72 and T-62 as MBT. As for the rest, Armored warfare in unconventional warfare is basically useless. Unless you take in consideration the dissuasive effect of a tank on a battlefield. It's then a very costly dissuasive platform. I love tanks, I love their history, but I don't think that it is a weapon platform very adapted for modern ''geostrategy''. In my opinion, we are at a stage equivalent to the one we were between the late '20's and early 40's. We know tanks work, but we are arguing how to use them or if they are really needed on the battlefield. At the time, It was found that it was needed...
At 12:29 those are CAF Infantrymen! Note the C7's, CADPAT camouflage, and Canadian flag @13:00. Always great to see these two nations working alongside each other.
What you will see is cheap,low cost stealth scouts,reporting enemy positions,then artillery and air power dominating.It's about cost,a $100,000 or cheaper missile can take out a $4.5million tank,imagine 100 tanks rolling across the battle field and then a volley of missiles just destroys them,that's $450million dollars gone up in smoke,plus the crew.
$4.5 million dollars divided by $100,000 = 45 45 missiles per tank. can the anti-missile systems survive 45 missiles? if no, then the tanks can be destroyed cost effectively.
Hello. I think we will see course change to lighter more mobile vehicles with active defenses and solid firepower. Today's motto of western armies is high mobility and ideally air transportability. So we will probably see vehicles with new light composite armor that can withstand fire from "low" caliber guns and for anything bigger it will have active defense system. You just can't put armor on something indefinitely. Germans tried this at 2. WW. There will be always weapon that can kill it. Better is not being shot at or not get hit.
tanks are here to stay simply because they make so much money for whom ever sells them. here is how this business model works it starts with a tank. the problem the tank causes is armour and transportation of large caliber weapons. solution high tech high pen missiles that can get through the armour. here is where this whole story keeps looping. counter measures, once you create a counter measure to the missile what will happen is a new weapon will be made or a counter measure to the counter measure will be made for example a heat shell exploding once before getting to the armour to destroy the impact of the counter measure on the tank. now you need another counter measure on the tank and now you need another counter measure on the missile. seeing a pattern here? imagine how much money and industry would make if they made missiles and then made the counter measure to that missile as well and basically just kept adding counter measures to the missile and the counter measure. it would be an infinitely growing business, so yes you're right the tank is here to stay but it might not be for the reason you thought.
B8m8 Wuts america didnt sell their tanks they used them in their own military during the war. if america did just simply sell their armour to the brits and maybe loaned them a couple hundred thousand american soldiers then we would be looking at a much different world today. once the war ended though everything collapsed because you cant maintain a country by using all its resources to build nothing but military supplies which every country attempted to do after the war ended because suddenly they thought they had a huge supply of resources when they forgot to step down and check on their populations and after all the money and resources was spent on research and military advancements guess who came knocking on the governments door asking for money.
'Tanks are still being built, so clearly the MBT isn't going anywhere soon." BS, pal. Look at WWII battleships. Being built right through the war, and their main contribution? Land battery. Look at the two biggest BBS's, Yamato and Musashi - never fired a shot at another ship (just airplanes). Only ONE even fired their huge main armament in anger, also at aircraft (to no effect, Leyte, Taffy 3). BBS's were shown to be useless, though they continued to be built (in relatively tiny numbers) right through WWII. Next big war? Bye bye, MBT's.
There's somewhat of a difference there though. Battleships were made completely and utterly obsolete by the introduction of the aircraft carrier. Tanks haven't really hit that point yet, and we haven't had a war were fighting has gone on in the conventional sense. Most of the conflict in the Middle East is fought between guerilla fighters and a standing army, a situation that places the standing army at a disadvantage in general. I just don't see why militaries would remove tanks from their inventory. What's going to replace them in their role? What happened with battleships was that the role they served, long range anti-ship firepower and naval bombardment, was overtaken by aircraft carriers and missile cruisers that could do their job, but cheaper and more effectively. The APC can't replace the tank. It doesn't have the firepower, or the armor.
Even now, I think, the US Army has said that they don´t need any more MBTs, and the reason they are still recieving new Abrams tanks is because Congress wants to keep that industry going. So saying that, because MBTs are still being built, there must be a need for them on the battlefield is maybe a fallacy.
AncientRaig" Battleships were made completely and utterly obsolete by the introduction of the aircraft carrier. Tanks haven't really hit that point yet" Arguably true. "guerilla fighters and a standing army, a situation that places the standing army at a disadvantage in general." Dead wrong. Our standing armies beat Hell out of their guerillas regularly. " What's going to replace them in their role?" APC's will indeed replace them in their role. As will AFV's with less armor, no giant cannon but lots of rockets and high speed. As it stands now, in relative peacetime, there are many weapons systems - many man portable and shoulder fired - that can destroy a MBT. It is just going to tajke a big conventional war between states to show the MBT school what WWII showed the BBS school. A giant, slow, ridiculously expensive vehicle vulnerable to two guys with, for instance, a Javelin - and in a war tech will take off and God knows what will appear to destroy those dinosaurs. The future is cheap, fast, relatively small AFV's/APC's. Drones, mebbe?.
Jeremy Mine "Dead wrong. Our standing armies beat Hell out of their guerillas regularly." And yet we still can't defeat a bunch of guys with t-shirts wrapped around their heads and homemade bombs strapped to their backs. The point I'm making here is that a tank is not an ideal weapons platform to fight an enemy that blends in with a civilian population, so until we actually fight another war where we're not fighting an enemy that can simply use its own civilians as meat shields, we can't make a claim that the MBT is obsolete. That would be like saying our navy is obsolete because ISIS doesn't have fleets to engage. "APC's will indeed replace them in their role. As will AFV's with less armor, no giant cannon but lots of rockets and high speed." But they don't fit the same role. The MBT brings a large amount of firepower to bear in a mobile, well protected package that an APC or IFV can't match without becoming an MBT. Rockets are nice and all, but you're limited by ammunition due to the sheer size of each round. "and in a war tech will take off" Exactly. We're already seeing the development of countermeasures to ATGMs and RPGs that go beyond ERA. AMS and ECM systems that either shoot down or prematurely detonate incoming ATMs are already in service, and they're only going to get better. If the development of the anti-tank rocket launcher was going to kill off the tank, the tank would've died in WW2. "The future is cheap, fast, relatively small AFV's/APC's. Drones, mebbe?." I highly doubt it. IFVs and APCs will serve a role, but they won't be able to replace the tank completely. Drones still have a long ways to go before replacing a human operator in something as complex as a tank, and someone sitting behind a computer screen doesn't get the same kind of situational awareness as someone actually on the field.
how do I tell youtube not to see your channel? seriously you are not qualified to ask or answer these questions and it seems like a very cheap click-bait.
Do we need tanks? YES! You can fly things over the ground. You can beat the ground as hard as to be. But until you put forces on the ground you can't change the conditions on the ground. And without tank on the battlefield. Forces got less survivability on the battlefield.
No weapon is perfect. Each weapons has strengths and weaknesses. So we have combined arms warfare. As weapons develop we still have combined arms warfare and it has existed for thousands of years. Giving the infantry on the ground the support they need to win the battle. 120mm guns are still deadly and versatile weapons. We need vehicles that can cross rough battlefields. We have advanced technologies to keep tanks effective and well protected. Tanks can stay with the infantry on the ground. Even during bad weather. If used properly in combined arms warfare then tanks will remain effective in the foreseeable future. If they are kept up to date with modern technologies and materials. Combat has proven that tanks can be used effectively in most environments. Including urban warfare. Urban warfare is difficult. But it is the way combat is going. Urban combat can be very dangerous to infantry as well. And tanks can give infantry powerful and very accurate fire support. The accuracy of tanks guns can reduce collateral damage. Tanks remain highly effective if used properly. Helicopters are not always an effective option to move infantry. They can be very dangerous to use. So we still need ground vehicles to move and support infantry. In computer games we have many weapons to chose from. And we use particular weapons for different reasons. So if you play combat games with various weapons then you should be able to understand the basics of combined arms warfare.
I'm an ex armoured officer, so hopefully can contribute something here. Couple of examples: When I was qualifying (in infantry) this very debate came up and I was speaker on the "pro tank" side (because I knew I was going to move to armour) . My opponents cleverly put forward that very the concept of "tank" was outdated, and what we should be thinking of is an armoured gun system, preferably on wheels (cheaper, longer range and faster). What we did on our side of the debate was play "rock soup" with them. Too vulnerable - needs more armour. OK. It's now heavier so even 8 wheels means too much ground pressure - it'll bog down, so needs tracks to spread the load OK. Do you see where this going? The gun's too small to be effective. OK, needs at least 120mm. To sum it up, what even they ended up with was...a tank.
I've participated in many "sand table" war games (the real ones the Army use for teaching and force planning purposes), some involved "dissimilar" situations where one side has tanks and the other doesn't The latter lost every time, and very quickly at that. Mobility, firepower and protection won every time. You can't have ATGMs everywhere and tanks exploit weaknesses like no other platform. With mech infantry support, it poses an impossible conundrum for the poor bastards on the other side of the sand table.
I do see a future though where there is a distinct possibility that the tank may be completely unmanned (a robot or remotely guided). This tech is nearly here ; cars are starting to drive themselves for example. So that "tank" will be much much smaller and lighter as a result. If that vehicle gets down anywhere near 30tonnes, then wheels will be the way to go because 8 wheel drive gives as good if not better terrain performance than tracks at < 27 tonnes. So is this thing still a tank?
I hope this doesn't start a wheels Vs tracks argument. Well actually I do. My opening shot is 8 wheel drive is better than tracks at
All I know is we need to get rid of the Bradleys. Those things have the biggest Identity crisis in my opinion because of how messy of a development process they had. As a current cav scout I am sick of those loud, clunky, and unreliable things being a reconnaissance vehicle. However I can't argue with that chain gun and TOW...
+Mathew. Yeah I got an armoured recon background as well, but I think I'd rather be in a Bradley than a 1950's M113. The only reason we didn't get Bradley was that it's too expensive.
You're right, sir! Hardly possible to say better.
Tanks and machine support will eventually be automated robotic systems.
I didn't actually say that, but thanks anyway
During the fight for air supriority, the tanks move foreward and take over airfields, because of this you need some damn tanks
7654Tom yeah eventually we would need to take a position on the ground and the infantry would need firesupport.
7654Tom
+7654Tom and Tariq. You brush up against a good point here. Tanks and infantry can take and hold ground, other branches of the Army or the Hair Force can't do that at all.
What happens when those airfields are 100's of miles deep inside Russia?
As he says in the video you would have alternatives to tanks, these alternatives would capture and hold ground. The way I see it playing out is the same way German tank manufacturers post WW2 saw it, Armour will become obsolete as Armour will become to heavy before it can match the thickness required to stop future guns, the use of composite materials have only delayed the inevitable. So the basis of the future vehicles will be firepower and manoeuvrability (this is what led to the creation of the Leopard 1 post WW2 as the German's already foresaw Armour obsolete ). You will eventually see vehicles such as the Stryker, Bradley and the British made Ajax with high manoeuvrability, but low armoured, firing anti-tank missiles for offence and deploying countermeasures for defence (much like fighter jets already do). There Armour would only protect against small arms and IEDs. This is where I see it going in the next 20yrs.
We need more love.
Towards tanks. ❤_❤
large cannons just don't arouse me.
Shane Rooney :(
+Shane Rooney, but size does matter right?
Trench warfare is more my style.
Just out of interest as to the ..er..unusual banner you have. Do you know who Fegelein was? I'm not making a statement here, just interested.
Tank = 2 Million $
fighter jet = 100 Million $
Tanks will stay. Just to secure the area
jhgjhgj hgjhgdj B-29 Heavy bomber project= 3 billion $
Manhattan project= 2 billion $
C4 strapped to a a remote control truck?
Zack Lee Kamikaze 100
IED %5,000, if that
Excalibur shell (1 metre scale accuracy fired from ship or "Paladin" SPG up to 70km away) $50,000 IIRC.
See "Arithmetic on the Frontier" by R. Kipling "the odds are on the cheaper man"
You can no longer intimidate a populace or impress tax payers.
Explosive-Formed Projectile built in Iran = $2,000.
Will MBTs continue in their current form? Probably not. Will there still be a need for a weapon system that possesses mobility, firepower and protection? Of course there will be. And don't forget that armour is an integral component of combined arms. Accurate and fast counter-battery fire didn't spell the end for artillery. They became more mobile, faster to deploy and got better survey, communications, command and logistics systems so they could receive a fire mission on the move, stop, deploy, fire the mission and be back on the move before the last round splashes. What will tanks of the future look like? Just one possibility is the tank troop of manned vehicles is replaced by a single, manned command vehicle and multiple unmanned vehicles able to act autonomously or under direct control. These vehicles may be relatively light, swapping heavy armour for active defensive systems. Their weight may allow them to be wheeled and move over terrain at speeds that would jolt a crew senseless. But if you don't think any of that matters, developed countries will continue to use tanks because it forces your adversary to expend resources to counter the threat and that's one way you defeat an enemy: never allowing them to concentrate sufficient resources and firepower to achieve victory.
Your point about the arty is great.
So do you see a return for the light tank?
Shane Rooney return of the light tank? Perhaps, but i think we'll see the emergence of uncrewed vehicles and once you remove the protection and habitability requirements suddenly you can design a vehicle that could do things you never dreamed of before. Just like taking a pilot out of a fighter and you don't have a human-induced G limit, no O2 required, no heavy ejection seat, no delicate canopy, etc. It won't be a light tank. It'll be something new.
Tony Holly, yes, you've reinforced what I said two days ago.
The point is that the tank in its current form may become redundant yet the conceptual requirement will remain. So the answer is, yes, we still need tanks, but in a different form.
Tony Holly, yes, you've reinforced what I said three days ago. Thanks
I like big tanks, I cannot lie.
ExperimentalDesigns you other brothers cant deny!
Like the maus?
That when the crew jumps in that itty bitty hatch an' a round shot in yo face. You get BANG!
*should've started with: "oh...my..God. Staff Sargent, look at her Gun. It's so big."
We'll build a scorpion from halo
Emperor Doge lol
The scorpion is a very tall tank and only has a 90mm gun, and has four separate tracks that can be disabled and all four need maintenance. I know this comment was a joke, but still
@@thefish6123 actually the Halo 5 version has a 120
I say we build an MBT from COD AW
@@TheFlyingTater you want to build a tank with legs the anti mech gang are going to beat the s*** out of you
I think at most you're see tanks, apc, and ifv mix together. But other then things becoming more mult purpose, i don't see tanks leaving the battlefield.
Yes. They will take more roles as fire support. They will probably looked upon to provide mechanical units like drones, infantry, and possibly exoskeletons in the near future as an ultra big power generator or energy storage unit. Because of energy storage is very volatile and needs to be very protected.
In the ukranian war ivf have become to soft. Artelery like grad is wrecking Them.
Indeed. Like the Armata T-14. It's not a exclusively a tank, it's a weapon system specialized for different roles and it looks to be pretty awesome at doing so.
So basically what the US had been doing in the last decade or so?
I do think that APC's and IFV's have replaced alot of the roles of a tank, but hte tank is still useful especially to take on APC's and IFV's. The tank's primacy has been removed but the tank is still useful
I typed in wank bank and war tank came up what a violent world we live in
HAHA! thats awesome lol! Thanks for watching... sorry if I let you down lmao!
if tanks aren't a good source of wank material you've clearly nearly seen one first hand. :D
New to this channel, 1st hand you say? I take it by your accent you were in the British Army?
Макиавелли принц Its called a Joke mate. Id love to with a challenger 2 and a leopard 2 spit roasting a merkava oh yeah cream pie
.....now I've seen everything 😂😂😂
I think another interesting question is; "What would replace the tank?"
The DPS?
Healer?
Nonsense. Someone will always need to gather all that aggro and hold onto it.
makes no sense since tanks in games are hp based, IRL tanks can get "one shotted"
Honestly, i hate the idea of drone tanks and unmanned tanks. Crewman can do more than just drive the thing. Repair it mainly. But remote operation can be hacked, signal can be lost. I just dont like the idea
I'm not crazy about it either.
Ya they wouldn't be like how airborne drones work. They would undoubtedly be completely autonomous so all decisions would be programmed and or on board thinking. So unless you want to run up to a tank and try to open it pry it as its trying to kill you.
Downsides of unmanned tanks: 1. Communications rely on satellites, which can be shot down or jammed. 2. Communications could be picked up and used to find tanks.
remote or drone tank is a very bad Idea...It'll definitely get captured and your enemy will gain the same tech. Drone plane can be used because not many can catch a plane mid air without destroying it
Aaaaannnddd AI taking over
it's a tool to be used in the right situations.
Don't worry about the rivers and bridges, the Germans solved that with their 188 ton Maus. :D
***** We have the technology!!!
or russia and their flying tanks
USA-ISRAEL!!! NCR-ENCLAVE!!! they didn't have avbl and c5 and c17 and trains and ships
if you like the maus you'll love the ratta.... to bad it was never built lol
@@crwydryny
Brits cannot sink our fleet if it is on land.
The problem is that people saying it's an end of tank, they do not understand that vehicles (including tanks) protection is also evolving.
Majority of losses we see today when it comes to combat vehicles, is because their protection is, based on a single solution.
While both in case of newest upgrades or development of new vehicles, engineers aim at protection solutions based on a system. And it's a very simple concept that can be described in a few points.
1. Don't be detected (Which means vehicles use various camouflage systems, mostly multispectral, like Saab Barracuda MCS or Intermat multispectral camouflage paints that can hide vehicles thermal signature, but also acts as conventional camouflage).
2. Don't be hit (So here we have both tactical mobility improvements like new suspension systems, new powerpacks, yeah we constantly moving forward towards diesel-electric hybrids that are more fuel efficent, quieter, have smaller thermal signatures, and are more efficent when it comes to mobility itself, and then we have another step, active protection systems, we have soft kill system jamming ATGM guidance, hard kill systems that can destroy in flight RPG's, ATGM's, various types of ammunitions fired from tank guns and similiar like HEAT, HE etc. And maybe in future also able to defeat APFSDS ammo, and then there are also active protection systems protecting against mines and IED's, there are things like electromagnetic mine ploughs, or jammers like CREW3).
3. Don't be penetrated (Here we have a constant development of new armor systems, be it new composite armors that are stronger and lighter, even today more and more armors are based on nanometric steel alloys and nanoceramics, that are lighter while at least providing the same if not greater protection than conventional armored steel alloys and ceramics. And there is more and more development in various materials, there are improvements in creating metal alloys and so on and on. Besides this there is also constant development in case of various reactive armors, we have new types of explosive reactive armor, non energetic reactive armor or non explosive reactive armor, and we will see further improvements in armor technology).
4. Don't be killed (This means that vehicle design should take in to consideration that enemy might defeat other protection layers and projectile might get inside, so it's effects must be minimized. And this is already done in some designs, what does it mean? Well the crew should be isolated from the main gun ammunition, because in majority cases the vehicle is destroyed and it's crew killed not by enemy projectile groing through armor, but by own ammo cook off caused by this. So ammunition isolation in ammo compartments with blow off panels is a must for any new design, be it with manned or unmanned turret systems. Another step are new seats for crew that can protect them from the shock caused for example by underbelly IED blast, and there is more, for example ammunition propelant charges can be made as a more safe, less prone for cook offs, new fire extinguishing systems can be implemented, and there is of ourse more possibilities).
Of course there is also a question of vehicle weight, in general what we want for MBT, is to have optimal weight, which means it can't be too lightweight, but also can't be too heavy. I guess optimal weight for modern/future MBT in basic configuration (without addon armor kit) woulod be around 50 metric tons. But how to achieve this goal without sacrificing protection?
Well important to realize is fact that vehicle gross weight is more determined by it's internal volume than anything else, which means the more internal volume, the more armor surface is needed to protect it, and so the vehicle gets heavier.
We can reduce internal volume, by for example doing what Russians did with T-14, which means moving the crew to a separate, havy armored compartment in vehicle front, and replace manned turret with smaller, lighter unmanned turret. Because manned turrets in modern MBT's are very heavy, they can weight up to around 30 metric tons.
So using unmanned turret not only allows us to reduce weight, but also distribute armor on vehicle in more logical way.
And the unmanned turret if needed, can be uparmored with modular armor, and still because of smaller size, it will be uparmored lighter than manned turret, and it's protection will be equal or even greater because due to smaller size, armor can have greater density.
So at the moment we are in the interesting point of history, where we see transition from conventional vehicle design, to a new design which utilizes above mentione solutions.
At the moment we know about 4 countries working on next generation MBT's. Wed have Russian Federation with their T-14, Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of France working on their MGCS - Main Ground Combat System program for new MBT that will eplace Leopard 2 and Leclerc. And then we have United States of America with their FT - Future Tank program that was recently confirmed to be in development.
We can assume that both MGCS and FT will be very similiar to T-14 in their general design.
We need advanced 50 ton robots ))))
You may get them.
But they won't weigh 50 tonnes.
Why not 100 ton ones? ;)
Yeah I'm Thinking Atlas or Kodiak here! ;)
Dashi is better
LupusAries your like saying why not 100 ton tanks? It's not necessary.
Ulugbek Musinov Nope....as shown by the second line, that was a battletech inside joke.
And yes in BT a 100 ton mech is totally necessary..........as it means more dakka-dakka, more lazors, more gauss, more ppcs and generally more boom! ;)
Oh and PPCs totally beat lazors!
Christ McCart Meh, in the damage dealing department, not in that rather important category mentioned by Matsimus.......psychological impact. ;)
Although the Kingcrab comes pretty damn close, and might even be more evil looking.
And the Kodiak, like the Highlander is jump capable, which makes that sucker able to appear from directions where you wouldn't expect it come from.
Now if only we could do highlander burials.....or really use that kodiak claws....;)
Remember battleships? :^)
Tired Sloth yes we stopped using them because anything could take out a battleship and they were a waste of resources
funny enough, it is highly probably that battleships will make a come back.
Already aircraft are hugely dependent upon not being seen. Stealth. Radars are out pacing stealth. Think about the environment that planers operate in.. wide open spaces with little to no cover
as soon as long range stealth defeating radar is coupled with light speed or near light speed weapons you will see planes as nothing more than sitting ducks.
then it will be about whoever carries the most armor and firepower... aka battleships and massive main battle tanks. think hundreds of tons tanks
i am no expert in this field, but i don't really think a vehicle capable of withstanding modern firearms with brute force (read:armor) would even be worth the money.
Donny Whisnu you are correct but the thing why we stopped using them is because they took too long to produce and we're a waste of resources not to mention anything was capable of destroying one (such as destroyers) an example of a battleship's fate was the IJN Kongo that was struck by a torpedo from an American Submarine
Messy Doge yeah, the IJN once commenced a training battle with Nagato, against Ryujo and Kaga which ended up in Nagato, their pride as one of the big 7 getting toyed with by planes helplessly. Also operation ten-go, i guess. Which is why i questioned Rick's statement
People dont seem to consider attrition.
Having 10s of thousands of tank with hundreds being able to be committed to a battle you. Only giant formations of aircraft and dedicated attempt from anti tank crews and other tanks will deal with them. Along with the other part of your combined force.
yeah on the individual level a single modern tank is vulnerable to a single anti tank weapons system or aircraft. but this isnt the situation a piece of military hardware that can be deployed en mass should be viewed in.
Isnt a man more vulnerable to a bullet that cost penny's then a tank is to a shell that might not even disable the tank fully? Not a perfect comparison but if you tally up the amount of weapon systems that is a threat to a man on foot and tally up the weapon system that a threat to a tank and consider the amount these are seen on the battle field then it kinda looks like infantry are the system closer to needing to be retired then the tank.
Id rather have 5 tanks(5 man crew) and 75 men then just 100 men in battle.
Even if a tank is vulnerable from the weapons the enemy may have, Its a pretty fantastic use for 5 men on the front line to have them operating a tank with several heavy weapons then 5 men with 5 rifles.
There were tanks with 5 crew members? For only three.)
Джо Неуловимый KV 2 had 6 crewmembers tho..
Thunder Cloud "In the production of the T-35 the number of crew members ranged from 11 to 9 people, depending on the design of a particular series.")
I'll take 3 trucks with a cwis strapped to the back trained to shoot the enemy. It Won't miss and mass murder
Just because there isn't that much tank on tank combat anymore doesn't mean it will not be more of it in the future. And i don't like the idea of automating everything or alot of things.
You get to a point were the crew will be the weakness because human is only able to take so much. Also politics behind all of it will consume the doubts. example is our jets can do more maneuvers than the pilots can handle but are limited so that the pilot dons't get extreme g-force and blacks out or dies. tanks on the other hand have problems.
ThePyroRussian
Okay well i really don't like the idea of a smart AI that controls alot of things. I guess i have Terminator to ''thank'' for that :P
what if tell you we be using the the same amount of intelligence of a retarded cockroach and was a not hived to million other computers. terminators were portrait as something smarter than us and if we could make something that smart then we could make our selves just as smart.
+ThePyroRussian Oh okay well yeah if it's "retarded" and individual i guess i got no problem with it. And yeah i guess you are right about that.
Problem i see is that computers can learn exponentially more than humans can. Put AI charge of fighter and tell it to develop its intelligence and it will. Into point where simple, destroy hostile target can go trough its logic like this: destroy hostile, hostile is human, or AI controlled by human, to destroy hostile AI, quickest way to do that is to destroy hostile human, hostile human is same species as human controlling me, so that must make them as hostile too, lets destroy them.
If that danger was not enough, mix in effects/errors of hacking and other things that most probable will happen to said AI and pretty much anything is possible and end result wont be pretty...
Best part of MBT is that it will work even if all electronic systems are shut down/damaged, all manually due well trained crews that cant be hacked.
Drones already have been hacked far as i recall and it would be just matter of time when drone tanks would have same fate. All security systems made by man can be preached by another man, its simple fact. It might be hard but it will be done eventually. At least in MBT case hacking wont do much, other than mess communication, but tank can still operate pretty normally.
you will always need heavy armor to hold ground whether its tanks or giant robots
Riad Haidar not necessarily, it's really a terrain dependent kinda thing..
You won't always need Heavy armour to hold ground. The entire principle behind the invention of the Tank, dating all the way back to Swinton in 1916, is the Offensive. There is no vehicle on the planet better at punching holes in an enemy's discrepancies. Armour is absolutely horrible for a consolidated Defensive entrenchment. You need trucks in that case, not Tanks. You won't be moving as much, you can replace tanks with much cheaper Anti-Tank and Anti-Infantry positions. Tanks are for Attacking, not Defending, that's why Emplacements exist.
White Knight Of the Internet
Giant biedal robots? Nah, you need tracks...
Liberty prime?
Another advantage MBTs have over CAS, is that the infantry can walk up to the tank and ask them to fire a shell into a particular building.
its hard to predict the future of battlefield since the last all out war we had between superpowers was WWII. I wont even try since even the best military analysts usually fails hard in predicting the future of warfare.
Awesome channel man! US Army, 1/143rd of the 173rd ABN. Thanks for doing what you do
Ice27076 and thanks for your service to our country o7
Thank you for your support brother!
RexXflash Thank you for your well worded critique of my nations current geopolitical orientation. I wish you nothing but the best my friend
Ice27076 Hahah must say I do fancy your response
Ice27076 if only other people online were as civil as you are.
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemies when they see a MBT with a bunch of infantry around it
RedMoWarrior Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemies than not seeing the warplane that blew them to pieces.
Also white phosphorus bombs.
Gabriel Engram
We are in a tank related video, I like keeping it relevant.
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemy pilots than not seeing the dozens of MANPADs, SPAAs and other AA weapons that follow and cover those tanks (and nevermind friendly airforce trying to achieve local air superiority and that random StA balistic missile comming in your way, have fun surviving all of them at once allong with those mildly annoying "bullet walls" from AA machine guns from the tanks etc themselves). Oh and yes its easy enough for a huge armored vehicle such as a tank or SPAAs to hide from an aircraft if it isnt moving, nevermind the MANPADs.
Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of enemy pilots than not seeing the dozens of MANPADs, SPAAs and other AA weapons that follow and cover those tanks (and nevermind friendly airforce trying to achieve local air superiority and that random StA balistic missile comming in your way, have fun surviving all of them at once allong with those mildly annoying "bullet walls" from AA machine guns from the tanks etc themselves). Oh and yes its easy enough for a huge armored vehicle such as a tank or SPAAs to hide from an aircraft if it isnt moving and has a modern camo net and special paint, nevermind the MANPADs.
I'd be more scared of a metal gear
Hover tanks for all. lol
Cartoonman154 haha maybe in the future who knows
Matsimus Gaming would like to see LaWS system on tanks.
What is that?
Matsimus Gaming Laser weapon system the sort they are going to be using on destroyers. Sone have been scaled down to fit on hummers so it could be on a tank for defensive measures like arena.
Cartoonman154 - I don't see that yet. Lasers have obvious advantages. Especially a light speed firing at a hundreds of meters per second target is very useful. But it has serious downsides. The capacitors these lasers need are a nightmare and they degenerate so fast. On a ship they can make them bigger and more of them and the ship itself is worth so much that it's legit to put so much effort into it. For tanks? Maybe with some serious breakthroughs. Could also imagine these things mounted on trucks as ultra high value target protection. Especially placed around Haifa and Tel Aviv for an advanced iron dome and even more between the DMZ and Seoul since they really really need a ballistic threat defense system over there. Seoul could be the worst artillery shelling in human history. As outdated as the KPA is their artillery is among the better ones for the self propelled ones and the multi missile launchers are nasty no matter how low the accuracy is. Seoul is so vast you will land a hit with every shot in the vague direction of it. Not to mention the thousands of short and medium range missiles there. Obviously the DPRK would be crushed within a few days. All those millions of soldiers wouldn't even see combat before the infrastructure is bombed back from bronze to stone age. With a surprise attack they should at least have 10 terrific minutes of chaos until the counter batteries can start to fire and air support reaches the DMZ. Not much but more than enough time to destroy billions of dollar in buildings and kill ten thousands or even way more if they dare to use "special" ammunition. Seoul really needs this protection. Even if only one of 10 shells is dodged it would save lives.
I joined the 9/12th Lancer (British Royal Armoured Corp) in 1975. Trained and drove Chieftains. MBT's are not suitable for all conflicts - I went to the Falklands in 1982 and they would have been useless. Many have suggested for a long time that they are extinct, or we need unmanned vehicles, etc, etc. They are still here, useful in certain situations.
Unmanned vehicles have their place, but you can still blow them up. No crew members to get out, repair the vehicle, or disarm a land mine, etc, etc.
Wars without human participation or loss are a dangerous thing - they would just escalate to total destruction. Why not just play Battlefield between hostile Countries, or factions.
I wonder if it would be cheaper and safer to replace tanks with unmanned platforms that can carry a variety of weapons for different situations.
Patrick Bateman I doubt they will make much ground based units unmanned. Too much to go wrong. It's hard enough making a automatic driving car let along a combat fighting over roading machine
Matsimus Gaming Wouldn't need to be automated - just give a guy on the ground a handheld console, sort of like a smartphone, and let him go to work. I'm thinking more for Urban scenarios, where it is much more deadly for tanks, but their firepower is still needed. It would be absurd to replace MBT's in tank v. tank scenarios, but in Urban fighting, I think it would be much safer and cheaper for the forces operating there. Look at some of the combat in Syria - chilling how close to death some of those T-72 crewmen come.
Yes exactly. Automatic driving is extremely difficult, requires a lot of self-learning computer and pre-embedded algorithms. Tank at a price fighter? No, too expensive. But the use of unmanned vehicles, in certain situations, it may help to solve the problem without resorting to heavy attacks (and the secondary damage) and infantry assault (with the inevitable fatal casualties from snipers and mines).
Latency will kill it.
but it can be hacked.
If not with tanks we will back to the WW1-like trench warfare
Precision air strikes would say otherwise
Drink lead you idiot.
if i may say. i really think you did an excellent job in 10:18 when you talk about tanks being feared as you put the sound of the tanks higher. It makes it more inmersive the video
Businesss as usual, tanks mostly don't fight tanks unless in WOT
Adamast eh AW is a far better simulator for that, and WT is the most realistic.
Gusti Firza Afrizal um not really. The Russians are very easy to kill glass cannons. Only those who are truly bad players whine about that anymore on the forums. And every game has glitches and bugs.
Gusti Firza Afrizal lol tanks go flying in WoT and they are invisible xD
Shit.. if you want realistic.. you need to check out games by Battlefront.com. WoT is shit as far as realistic ballistics and TOE. Unless your a newbie and into that FP shooter crap. Battlefront games are top notch realistic war gaming simulation.
JuergenGDB Are you saying first person is not realistic? In real life my eyes aren't behind me.
I used to believe that survivability of an individual on the modern battlefield (60's on) was better as a tanker rather than as an infantryman due to the dominance of armor and its uses in various roles. Starting around the middle 80's I began thinking that due to all of the ways being developed to kill tanks ( air - helos and tac air) (other tanks) (missiles, rockets, IED's, etc.) and their tendency to draw fire over individual infantrymen that it was better to be an infantryman. Even more pronounced today unless the armor is preceded or supported by infantry. Perhaps you could do a video addressing this issue? As USUAL, an excellent video with GREAT pictures!! Thanks.
Matsimus, great video. It's nice to see the work of a fellow military-enthusiast.
A few thoughts:
You are correct that anti-tank technology is growing more lethal and more "soft" targets (soldiers and soft-skinned vehicles) are utilizing them. You are also correct that tanks are increasingly vulnerable from attacks from the air.
It is true that we are "not seeing tank-on-tank engagements much anymore", but that does not mean that we will not see it again. The "disappearance" of tanks is due to a temporary anomaly existing within global politics, and one that will not last. No government with a large compliment of tanks is willing to fight the United States or her allies. They cannot win, and they know it, so they won't risk using their tanks.
Over the last 50 years the world, (particularly Europe) has lived within the protection of a "Pax Americana", or American Peace, in which the conventional power of the United States is, compared to all other conventional armies, virtually unstoppable. This was last demonstrated in 1990 in Iraq, when a dictator with the world's 3rd largest army dared to invade tiny neighboring Kuwait and steal her oil supplies. The following engagement, the Gulf War, saw Saddam's forces annihilated in 38 days- the shortest and most one-sided military campaign in history. Iraqi forces were devastated by a numerically-inferior (almost 2 to 1 on the ground) coalition force with virtually no US losses at all (more US troops were killed during in-theatre training accidents and mishaps than by Iraqi fire.)
In barely over a month Hussein saw his entire army, navy and air force destroyed and his country left in ruins. (Although, through a great error, he was left in charge). The worlds dictators, bullies and rogue nations took notice, and no substantial army has risked US military action in the 27 years since. This is why you haven't seen large tank battles recently. No army is willing to fight them.
But that may be starting to change. China, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Iran are becoming increasingly bellicose in their diplomatic postures and military exercises. The world's largest owner of tanks, Russia, has demonstrated territorial aggression and will certainly use it's large reserves of tanks if war breaks out in the Asian continent, which I believe it will. We have had a long break from tank battles -and of large-scale war itself- but the respite, unfortunately, will soon end. War will return and the tank will return with it.
As you said, tanks are highly vulnerable to air attack- though this is mostly to attack by cutting-edge, horrendously expensive military air frames like the F-22 Raptor, F-18 Hornet or the F-35 JSF. I only mention these expensive aircraft because any air force that is able to get within 100 miles of a western tank will have to first survive an encounter with western (mostly US but some European) air power to do so, and currently there are no rival aircraft available in sufficient numbers that are capable of doing this. US military supremacy in the air has been even more extreme than on the ground- the most numerous air-frames, the F-16 Falcon and F-15 Eagle, boast a worldwide kill ratio of 92-0 and 150-0, respectively. That is correct- neither aircraft has ever been shot down by another aircraft (including the best soviet technology) in the over 30 years since their deployment, and these deadly aircraft are now radically exceeded in capability and lethality by to the newest line of 5th-generation US fighters.
In order to attack US ground forces, enemy aircraft will have to challenge or defeat US fighters in the skies, a feat that, currently and in the near future, is a virtual impossibility.
As for IED's, this is a phenomenon that the public has recently become very aware of due to the US's 15-year struggle against insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. IEDs are the highest cause of casualties in the current conflict, but only because the US is fighting a war of counter-insurgency, and Main Battle Tanks (MBT's) are not and have never been designed for military policing or urban pacification.
MBT's are the equivalent of the mounted knight of ancient warfare- incredible offensive power combined with high battlefield mobility- they move fast, hit hard and are gone to the next target before the enemy knows what hit them. Though the proliferation of combat aircraft has now overtaken the mobility aspect of offensive firepower, air forces are incredibly expensive compared to armored units and, as the US military has been learning for 15 years, they cannot hold or actively control territory. Boots on the ground are required to hold territory, and there is no more powerful and cost-effective form of those "boots" than an MBT.
Perhaps you're aware of this, If this is the case, I would state that the title of this video is misleading. The future of Armour is not what you are discussing here- the use of armor within in insurgency is. Given that context, I would agree that an MBT is of limited use. The pentagon is aware of this as well, which is why they have introduced OshKosh's highly-mobile MRAPs with rubber-wheels and lighter-armor but still equipped with a 120mm gun (like an MBT).
Is the future tank less applicable to tactical combat? No. Is it ideally-utilized in a counter-insurgency role? No.
The conflagration that is the middle-east, though deadly and prescient, is but a mere distraction for conventional military-conflict, that is, at some point, sure to come. When that day comes, we'll need tanks more than ever.
I don’t think people realize how difficult it is to knock out a tank...any tank. If you lack first rate anti tank weapons they are hard as hell to kill. Even a T-55 could be a nightmare if you aren’t equipped properly.
Tanks are still one of the best ways to hold onto ground on the modern battlefield.but still they are vulnerable in a urban environment without infantry support.
Richi fantastic agreed :-) tanks for watching!!
Would mechs like in Battletech or Titanfall be just as vulnerable in an urban environment without infantry support?
@@eitkoml more vulnerable mate they seem good on paper but theres a reason for armies nit using them
Personally i am just suprised the uk government didnt try replacing the scimitar turret/gun with an autoloader as a "mini step" to trying the concept out and as a way of stepping back from a full MBT focus, it would arguably be suited for it, a recon vehicle that doesnt get into much fighting and reduce the crew to 2 men (driver, gunner/commander helping them get that reduce army personnel size thing down). Even give it a nice size gun or an anti tank missile.
Given what i have heard about operations in Mali, Afghan etc, something like that could be useful and relatively cheaper for the army to experament with, and not like there isnt enough CVRTs out there to make some money selling it on too.
Just because tanks are not fully utilized in this type of asymmetric warfare i.e. when facing terrorist threat, it doesnt mean they're obsolete by any means. We'll always need MBTs. If you're planning conventional war against other country, you'll need a tank.
Main Battle Tanks are here to stay. Because you while you can conquer an area with aircraft initially, you can't hold it with them. That's where tanks come into play.
we only need giant humanoid mech and space battleship:) like armore core or mobile suit in gundam series
and maybe in future we will build some sort nano armor who know
Like nanolamenite and e-carbon. Jokes aside. I think using new, lightweight and ultrastrong materials like graphite is key in upgrading whole armorpackage without going over 65-70 ton weight.
WindHaze10 yeah strong armor and high maneuverability and lightweight
Ya well kinda. carbon isn't really good for armor sense it has a lot of tensile strength and not much compression strength. what is really looked after for armor is tungsten and depleted uranium because their density is extremely high. this means they are heavier but have lots of compression strength or are just more solid.
Red Bear those things would destroy every road and sunk into every terrain..., any bipedal device larger than a normal car is impractical
Ah, yes. The death of the tank, yet another prediction I've been hearing since I first got into all thing military in the mid 70's. My bother in law, a tanker, at the time, had said " in an age where a man with what appears to be a suitcase can set it down and deploy a missile that can destroy a tank there is no room for a MBT on the battlefield anymore."
Of course what he overlooks in that being ready for war is a game of leap frog, first anti tank systems are developed that make current tanks vulnerable, then the technology put into tanks is advanced to defeat the ATMs, then better ATMs, better armor, and on and on.
It's the same with every other system, for example combat aircraft and SAMs, warships and anti ship missiles, etc...
The armored tank will always be desired. Just because armies are focused on making anti-tank munition, doesn't make it any less feared or great to use.
can you maybe do a video about tank concepts like the old fashioned tank destroyer ?
Advances in materials and active protection systems will keep the tank philosophy alive. Immediate and reliable direct fire on demand is a big deal for commanders. Mass that advantage and you have a game changer!
Abrams absolutely has to worry about refueling.
Quite a lot too. 300 gallons every 8 hrs. At .6 miles per gallon. Keeping that monster in the field is quite a logistical challenge.
Every tank has to worry about refueling. It's not something unique to the Abrams, it's just typically supported by the nation most able to maintain the supply lines to keep them going.
you're right bro..i agree tank aren't going further anyway unless the upgrade a new tank which able to stand and auto-eliminate the threat from the anti tank bomb automaticaly before it reach up the target.
Tanks being susceptible to anti armour weapons is nothing new. In WW2 it was anti-tank guns and anti armour mines. Now its ATGMs and IEDs. So what? In war you will take casualties - even if some western forces appear to have forgot this. Some of those casualties will be tanks and their crews. But a hellava lot more will be infantry. We will always need tanks, and IFVs, and APCs, and self propelled arty, and MLRS, and spaags, and the poor bloody infantry. The threats against them will become greater, so we will make better versions of them, like we have done since WW2. So too will potential opponents. (T-14 anyone?) There is no such thing as an invincible weapon - never has been, never will be. Nor is there one 'War winning weapon.' It about combined arms and how you use them. And if your talking land warfare, those combined arms had better include tanks. Tanks can be considered the air superiority fighters of land warfare. Other AFVs may be more versatile, but in an open one-on-one engagement of tank against any other type of AFV, the tank will win most of the time (all other things being equal.) And when its tank-on-tank, the best tank will win. So it's good that we have woken up and started upgrading our tanks at last.
cocopud
How isn't your vids and channel more popular? Your content is pure awesomeness.
Thank you 🙂
@@_Matsimus_ Your welcome.
Tank on tank on massive level, we've seen it in the first gulf war.
As long as there are APCs (Which arnt going anywhere) there will be demand for vehicles designed to take them and echother out, they can also provide rapid response hi-ex, tanks arnt going anywhere
Tanks don't need thick armor to perform their function. Just enough to be bullet proof, shrapnel proof.
mobility and firepower, doctrines and communications are utmost importance to tanks.
see blitzkrieg, hordes of light tanks being used properly vs. superior anti tank weapons.
see Bargration, the T34 may as well have been unarmored when standing up to the pakfronts of German infantry. Still did the job.
see Israelis tank tanks during any of the levant wars. Russian anti tank weaponry was deadly as was the tank mounted canons. Still crushed those arab armies
As long as great powers don't go to war, the tank is here to stay. I'm US Army infantry and the sight of armor rolling through the desert is quite a sight to see. It strikes fear in the hearts of the enemy because unless you have some serious anti-tank weaponry, the things are just unstoppable.
What is your intro song? (the one under the animation) :D
On Life Support by calling all rebels. Instrumental .
What is the very first song (sounds a bit like a modernized version of tubular bells)?
On Life Support? Get out, sounds more like it came from this mix, no problem btw: /watch?v=bdxpzVD6qr4
Danny Olson - If I Lose Myself Tonight (Epic Orchestral Rendition)
Thanks to you guys, I found it. :D
this argument has been going on pretty much since after World War II that Tanks would die off and would not be needed in future warfare.
but this is a never-ending struggle and it's been that way since long before the tank existed a new weapon emerges in completely changes the battlefield so then people spend boatloads of money to research and develop ways to counteract that new weapon and then that weapon becomes more advanced to stay ahead then it keeps on going In that circle this is how it's all ways been
I love this guy!
we've spent 100 years with these Tanks from WW1 all the way to the modern age, i think they'll be with us for a really long time, great video had me thinking
it really grinds my gears seeing M1 tanks on excercise in woodland and green terrain... in desert camo. (sigh)
ghostdog688 they just want to save money. No point painting training tanks. It's just the way it is. It's like when BATUS tanks come home in BATUS camp and they are in the thick woodland of Germany and the UK lol. It looks crazy
A US observer for our high command in north Africa during ww2 said it best. "The only thing that can reliably defeat a tank is a better tank"
Short answer: Yes, until we finish perfecting the Power(ed) Armor concept.
Indeed.
Yeah.....clearly we need even more technically complex mechanical vehicles that can be destroyed by missiles a fraction of their cost to produce.
The reason why there will always be manned tanks and aircraft is because it is very hard to hack a person. As secure as you may think a drones control is, there will always be someone if given enough time will hack it.
The issue is that infrantry NEEDS combat vehicles supporting them. Tanks are ill suited for this role. Stugs are perfect. Cars are good too. Anything that gives an edge over enemy would be highly appreciated by the infantry, but that is not that wins wars. Tanks are too useful in independent formations to let them being bogged down by infantry.
REgamesplayer totally agree. Thanks for watching!
REgamesplayer STUG SUPERIORITY
You mean that if enemy uses tanks in infantry support then you need to do that also?
in ww1 tanks were created to help soldiers in the war. for example it provides covers for soldiers from the enemy soldiers. today's context tank are still needed to practice for targets
I think that tank will become smaller liter and will rely less on main cannons and more on missiles lasers
And lasers
Missile lasers AND lasers
that would be overkill
Isn't that just what IFVs are?
An IFV is an APC with a mounted gun larger than 20mm. So technically the IFV wouldn't need either missiles or lasers in order to be an IFV.
ThePyroRussian Lol
What role and if any the tank will have depends on how the battlefield of the future looks like. If we move on to a world where there is more of a war on terror, when most fighting is done against insurgents I think we will move to a more light weight army, and rely more on drones and air superiority. But if the future has WW3 in mind with superpowers fighting each others, then the Tank will grow and get fat. It will be more like a movable fortress. Meant to hold taken land. With more modern jet fighters you will need a tank to carry your air-defence since the SAM:s will be to heavy to carry.
Depends entirely on the cheapness of tandem charged rockets. But for the most part no. Tanks too heavy and too expensive. $2000 rocket kills $5,000,000 tanks is a problem.
Weight doesn't matter anymore. Rockets are a problem, yes-- how affordable and quick they are-- but that's why we have infantry. I think people are thinking too narrow, JUST tank VS. AT. What about the troops and the air force that protect the tank? War is a sort of strange rock-paper-scissors scheme. What, you want to take out the rock and let the scissors get to the paper?
Otter of Toast Whoever is on the AT weapon WILL MOVE IMMEDIATELY AFTER FIRING probably even before it strikes the target. Limited exposure targets are called that for a reason. Also helpful to remember some of the dumbest fucking people you will ever meet can still qualify for "Combat Arms", Throw in constant discomfort, high stress, and sleep deprivation.........infantry cover is not the cure all you think it is. Anyone with a brain is not going to stand and fight against a western military unit for more time than it takes to cook off a few mg belts and fire a few rockets because if they stay still the air cover will arrive shortly. Also if you are fighting someone with less hangups about "Civilian Casualties" they will just level 3 city blocks to kill 2 or 3 "insurgents".
AKlover I think you're overcomplicating this. Troops protect the tank, the tank protects the troops. Nothing more to it, ultimately. AT, whether it relocates or not, can be found and destroyed before the tank is even in danger. Calm the hell down, padre.
Otter of Toast I'm perfectly calm. Simply pointing out targeting and destroying something that never intends to give you a straight fight is difficult. Covering and canvasing every inch of an area is also dangerous as hell for the infantry. Double that when the Politicians limit your ROEs meaning your support (Tank) is prohibited or delayed in engaging. Nevermind the other guys with a brain who are engaging the soft targets rather than trying to pick a fight with a tank.
it will be interesting to see how the latest active anti tank rocket systems will perform.
you have to understand though, that by there very nature AT will be parceled out along a front where as tanks can quickly be massed thanks to their superior mobility and used to charge a narrow front. They will take losses but the survivors will outnumber the defending AT.
Tanks will still have a roll on the battle field of the future. The tank is an assault platform . The tank is also the defender of the grunt. The tank is also a highly mobile
Form of artillery. Personally I think the tank will continue to make its presence known on the field of battle. Tactics play a large roll in the survival of armored units.
Technology has caught up and given the infantry an ability to destroy tanks. But even the infantry is limited on there ability to carry anti-tank systems. They can only carry so many rounds. Warfare is a complex thing to execute. But if you can use all your assets properly you can minimize the loss of life. If you use your air force to dominate the sky you can support tanks and infantry. My whole point is that tanks still have a future. Unlike the battleship I think the tank will continue to be used as a major asset in future conflicts.
ITS TIME FOR MECHS!
Bipedal "MECHS" have all the same issues as person does. So think about all the weak joints on the human body. now imagine that you remove our nimbleness and are bones pliability.
kutkuknight Fuck No Mechs are inefficient and useless on the battlefield
well ya we can't make them as good as our ability to walk which is extremely complicated.
Yet, but yeah building such complicated (more complicated, more things to break down) machine to stand around most of the time, that turns into extremely expensive pillbox when one join breaks, towering high, lacking any actual hard cover and with its mass lacking maneuverability to dodge anything.. (also its not like many things can dodge 120mm HEAT round coming towards them, at supersonic speeds...) more over if and WHEN ground is wet, muddy.. that thing would sink in and ruin what there was any mobility.... Maybe in far far future something like that could have some use, but in current battlefield there is no practical use for one. How ever something in form of exo suit for fire teams to carry heavy support weapons could be useful, where vehicles cant get.
The only way I can see a mech workign realisticaly is as a light support vehicle designed specificaly for rough terrain and maybe urban combat. Probably something more akin to an exosuit like in Avatar, Aliens or The Matrix (except with the pilot being properly armored.) If you were to go for an "arm based" weapon system I could see them being easily refited to perform different tasks, not necesarely combat oriented.
You need to fight in an urban area against mostly infantry with maybe light vehicles like "technicals"? A minigun or 50 cal on 1 arm and a grenade launcher on the other.
Need to fight in mountainus terrain and the enemy might have armor? Guided anti tank missile system on 1 arm and a 15-20 mm autocannon on the other.
Need to move some gear around? "Grapling" attachments ot both arms.
Need to dig some trenches or foxholes? Earth movign equipment on the arms.
ETC.
well in a conventional warfare tanks are a huge assets to have while in a asymmetrical warfare on the other hand tanks are a liability
I think the MBT is going to be even more relevant in the years to come. Battles are going to be centred around urban areas. Gone are the days in which armies duke it out in a convenient field. With urban warfare you need a mobile assault gun. Heavy armoured with a fair amount of flexibility.
I like the Merkava because it has the ability to carry troops. My favourite is the Challanger2 though. That rifled gun has more flexibility since it can fire HE and HEP. We will need direct fire weapons in order to take cities and those weapons need good armour since they are very exposed in a built up area. Arty and air power are less effective in a big city. Take Stalingrad for an example, the Germans levelled that city and only created more fighting positions for the Russians. The led to the Germans developing the Brumbard and the Strumtiger. The Russians had the SU152. These assault guns were always vulnerable to real tanks. This I think led armies to build what we now call Main Battle Tanks. Most important though is armour needs to work with infantry in order to be most effective.
You win a war by occupying territory, how do you do that, tanks and troops. Tank has a psychological effect against an enemy.
I'm not a expert but I would say the importance of tanks is lesser than it was but they definitely seem important to modern warfare still.
Man dont listen to all of these ppl/kids nearly all of them do not really know nothing of what they talk about. Your words are accurate though its importance is not as less as you think. Apparently most ppl think that a low intensity war, a war against terrorists, a war against rebels and a full scale war between "1st world" countries is nearly the same thing. I can tell you that atleast one tank's model frontal turret armor we put to a test suffered nearly 40 hits with no penetrations (no we are not producers, yes we test tanks from many countries to see what we buy, no this wasn't a normal turret it was an "upgraded" one, the 1st got penetrated after about 20something shots).
Missiles are too slow, Missiles are easier to notice, Missiles are easier to disrupt, Missiles are larger and heavier, Missiles are like x30 more expensive compared to a shell (and a tank's shell provides better penetrative potential and accuracy nevermind so high velocities that the target is hit "near instantly").
Whoever talks about speed etc i dare him to put on data and compare the faster tanks with the faster apcs/ifv (on "uneven" ground) and prove to me that the tanks are in a real disadvantage (5-10km/h wont make any difference and btw higher speeds are rarelly used on the battlefield even if you can achieve them).
Whoever talks about maneurability i dare him to show data about obstacle traverse comparing tanks and lighter vehicles (against not 1 vs 1 example).
The only real disadvantage the tanks have is the weight causing problems under specific circumstances eg SOME bridges and transportation by ship or especially air. About bridges: some bridges can handle MBT weight, and most of those who dont well.... here is what i did: i just went through the river. Oh and most bridges are trapped (if you are the aggressor) so yeah you would rather avoid them anyway.
Cavalry charges with lances and sabers lasted well into the advent of machine guns, artillery barrages and chemical weaponry... I imagine main battle tanks would go just as quickly in a conflict where both sides have modern tank defeating equipment.
The modern battlefield is getting decentralized, and the more it will be the more tanks and heavy weapons will play a lesser role in combat.
Swarm tactics are getting real on the sea and in the air and the swarm will get on land too in the next 50 years and I don't see how a tank could be usefull when for the same price you could get 10 or 100 small vehicule armed to destroy tank and infantry.
If you can get a light vehicule with the weapons (20mm anti inf/AT missiles) and the acquisition tools to match current tanks for 10 times less money and good communications between each unit, I don't see how a tank could be competitive.
One word: APS.
CXVII MMDLII To defeat APS on the sea you need swarm tactics or stealth (even speed) to your missile to penatrate the defences of a ship or group of ships.
Still better to loose some missiles than a ship, or a tank here.
You could posibly have 10 drones carrying 1 AT missiles each dessignated by 1 unit on one tank and defeat the best APS systems.
You get a drone carrying 100kg, you fit it with a tow launcher, an IR camera and a small computer, and for less than 100k you got a weapon that can attack a tank with ease.
I mean I can get a drone that can lift 40kg on the internet for 16k capable of following the ground. Obviously I can't fit it with an AT missile but with some work I'm sure that some engineer could build a more capable drone for a low cost compare to the target it has to engage.
Well, we'll see what the future holds.
technically APS is three words
Fine - *One acronym.
I have personally believed that main battle tanks, specifically medium tanks will be the future. I think that the old Hitler and Stalin way of thinking, that tanks will just get BIGGER with BIGGER GUNS is a very elementary but not wrong idea. I think that the technology for the armor as well as the arms will increase to a level where can can have amazing medium tanks. I think that heavy tanks still will have a role but smart weapons and new armor should be able to keep size down.
I would not say that the main battle tank is obsolete yet. with improvements in lighter, stronger, and cheaper forms of armor, tanks could potentially become lighter. Active protection systems will definitely play a major role in the future of armored warfare. modular armor systems will also be more commonplace in the future. Another trend i'm noticing in the development of armored warfare is newer, and more exotic reactive armor types that may show up in the coming years. Hybrid-electric drivetrains and electronic cyber warfare cabablility may become standard in the coming years also.
All in all i dont see the main battle tank becoming obsolete soon due to these technologies.
wrong... no matter how much armor you have... or how advanced it is... There will be something to match and over come it. tanks are expensive to build, maintain... look at the abrams.. russia has rounds thatll go through our frontal armour..
There is no tank that can penetrate front plate of any other modern MBT.
I am serious right now.
Also as for now "armor" beats anti armor weaponry, fully equipped Merkava or Leo 2 (after it get its active protection kit) is capable of destroying classic KE shells and HEAT rounds mid-air (Rockets are easier to counter measure) and can take a more than one direct hit thanks to reactive armor and the way how its composite armor is made.
Marek Sandomżski I'm a marine gunner on a m1a1. I've seen what a rpg29 does to the front of a turret. 85% that's how far it made it. Considering the newer munitions.. I'm glad I'm getting out in a year.. Fuck tanks. It's also not about the tank. It's about the rounds. The m829a1 rounds will go through frontal armor of any known tank
mach533x
i am aware of the rpg-29's ability to penetrate really thick modern armor. My point is that newer tanks have more technology available to them to counter rockets and tank shells.
The only thing i can think of that could defeat any kind of modern armor today would be an electromagnetic railgun or coilgun.
however, i dont see these weapons being mounted on tanks any time soon due to the enormous power requirements of the weapon. As far as i'm aware no nation currently has the technology to mount railguns on tanks yet.
mach533x M829A1 has an estimated armor penetration of 600+mm. It is not enough to get trough the front plate of most of MBTs and I'm talking mostly about older versions of Leos, M1 Abrams, Challangers 2, T-90. etc because armor of those tanks is known to the publicity.
Also it is not even the most powerfull round US Army has (as far as speaking about KE ammo goes) there are A2 and A3 variants as well as an WIP variant A4.
You were driving in an 'classic' M1A1? Then it is true, an RPG from 1989 (m1a1 is from 1985) with its default HEAT warhead could get trough ERA armor (if your front turret even had some there) and then penetrate 600-700 RHA, but I still bet that it was less than 85%. RPG-29 is comparably new so don't get too scared here.
Also an HV variant of abrams should take a hit significantly better, an M1A2 with TUSK would also just shrug it off.
I definitely think tanks are here to stay for as long as there exist intense ground battles against technologically equal forces, provided the defense-offense balance is not skewed too much towards the latter; I.E we develop so amazing weapons that none of our defense technologies can stop it.
If we got mech warriors, I doubt they would supersede tanks. Given the design principles of a tank, I think a tank is still going to be the main-go-to for people who want a pure package of firepower and resilience for a straight up, no-holds barred firefight.
Stick with the games. or learn history. Abrams was tank on tank battles. Well, Gulf war? Iraq?
Well, there are no Abrams in Syria. In Iraq yeah operated by Iraq forces.
YouCLTube lol it was a error. People make mistakes. Thanks for being so blunt about it lol. Thanks for watching
Matsimus Gaming
no worries. ;)
YouCLTube ;)
Abrams was a tank-on-tank machine in the 80s (when it was produced) and the 70s (when it was designed).
Gulf war? Iraq ? That's asymetrical combat. Any half decent western tank could defeat an export t-72. It's not at all symetrical combat.
No Abrams tank is going to fight modern enemy tank any time soon.
You stick with games, or start looking at the big picture.
KRaikkonenSF
Who cares? It was tank battle. Yeah, Abrams was superior in all ways to T72's no doubt about that, but still it was tank warfare.
I bet tank on tank action is the future.
M1 Abrams were in tank on tank combat in 1991 and 2003 Iraq.
And they wrecked!
John Connor Get with the times, China. We have reactive armor, now.
Otter of Toast Chinese tanks also have ERA.
They also had the most favourable terrain they could have to exploit their superior range and fire control......
CPTANT Flat, barren desert. The Arabs didn't think the US tanks would cross some massive, terrible, featureless desert and flank them form the East.
Thanks to GPS, we crossed that desert and flanked them from the East.
What have we learned? Prepare for EVERY contingency. Never say "They will *never*...." because they *will*, lol.
A big point of tanks is the moral boost it gives to the crew, if they feel save, they will perfrom better and move forward
This video was not informative at all - just an opinion and no new information.
Михаил Найденов that's great to know. Thanks for watching.
Matsimus nigga wot?
Drones have one main drawback: the signal can be jammed. That's why if there will be drone tanks in the future, they will only be there to supplement manned tank crews and not replace them.
Unmanned ground vehicles are the future.
HumanRights4Everyone Fuck.
Wit hall due respect, I disagree. Nothing can replace the intuition of a good crew. I think the same goes for fighters-- there's just something about a manned war that you can't replace. Computers malfunction too often and it takes the pilot out of the scene. It could be as immersive as possible-- yet you'd eventually get complacent. "Oh no- my drone is down. Better get a new one!" That adds up. I'm open to discussion, here, just so you know I'm not being hostile.
Otter of Toast
A.I. is getting better and better. If a pilot A.I. can already defeat the best human pilots easily, how much longer till A.I. tank crews can preform better than human crews.
www.popsci.com/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight
A.I.s are constantly improving and preforming simulations to get even better. Self-Learning A.I. can perform simulations against itself thousands of times per day and through a process of digital evolution, it will get better and better at defeating enemies.
+Otter of Toast Unmanned doesn't mean not-man-operated.
A radio controlled car is unmanned. Most of the time.
and then you get some guy with a funky suit driving a pink tank with spikes and the AI just can't see it anymore
MBT's are evolving.... As for now yes we need them for infantry support...
In the future we're going to see remote controlled...or even lighter hovercraft AFV types as infantry back-up in the future.
The m1 and m1a1 Abrams uses Burlington composite armor. The m1a1ha and m1a2 uses depleted uranium armor. The depleted uranium is very effective and increases the protection. The tank models that iraq have should have had depleted uranium, but they have the Burlington armor. This means that the iraqi tanks have an armor is less effective that the one on the american m1a1ha and m1a2, but AS EFFECTIVE AS THE ARMOR ON THE AMERICAN M1 ABRAMS AND M1A1 ABRAMS.
American tanks are over estimated, they have very poor side and back armor, which results in that even a RPG 7 can pierce it.(every tank is poorly armored at the sides, maybe beside Merkava 4 and one or two more) The Abrams is great at fighting other tanks, but it is bad at fighting against enemies that use guerrilla tactics, resulting in very high numbers of tanks penetrated and cooked.
merkava can be knocked out by the metis which is a very light ATGM. 5kg rockets you can carry a lot with a small team 4 people each carrying 2 to 3 tubes...
Risto Mladich
The Metis m has a penetration of 900mm of RHA, which is pretty high. Although that, it cannot penetrate the side of the Merkava 4 easily. From some pictures of the armor, It can be assumed that the side armor of the Merkava is equal to ~1350 mm of RHA at its thickest point, meaning that it can stand even against the Kornet. This is while the most armored point of the side armor of the Abrmas is probably no more than 400-600~ RHA. The average of the side armor of the Merkava 4 is about 900 RHA, enough to stop the metis. The weak spots have an armor that is equivalent to about 400mm of RHA. For comparison, the leopard 2a6 has parts that probably have 0 armor at the sides. All of those lengths are assumed based on only pictures that can be found on the web.
And I didn't mention the trophy, that didn't failed even once, with 100% of successful interceptions of both RPGs and ATGMs.
The size of the Metis M is small because it has a short range, the warhead is big.
ori kojokro Dorchester armour on chally 2 is still undefeated I really don't understand Abrams good electronics and ammo stowage but man she's got a weak butt. All for what a few more rpm.s.They should just stick a mtu power pack and armour the rear it just seems like madness to me.ide feel very vulnerable in a urban setting in a m1.
RPG-7 never did penetrate the Abram's thank. With regards to tanks in general it is currently a universal concept for tanks to have the strongest armor in the front, as that is where they were most likely to be hit. Therefore there is that frontal arc. With regards to guerilla warfare in urban environments any tank is vulnerable and is at risk of being disabled or even destroyed. Now, there is also a difference between a tank being disabled and being destroyed.
Richi fantastic
The challenger 2 faced mostly RPG 7s that have very low penetration capabilities. A Kornet to the side would easily penetrate. Evan an RPG 29. And a challenger was cooked due to friendly fire.
When Merkava 4 tanks operated in the Gaga strip, the IDF had no loses, because the Hamas mostly uses RPGs, less ATGMs. If I would send a challenger 2 to Lebanon, they will get penetrated, and a lot.
0 Merkava 4 tanks were destroyed due to ATGMs or RPGs. And remember that now, unlike in 2006, the Merkava 4 has the Trophy.
I love gaming and I love tanks [I also served as an Infantryman for 10 years], it is great to see an average person out there making quality videos! Keep it up brother.
unmanned vehicles are the future
In the case of a conventional warfare, Tank will always be useful. Although, if we consider the question we can't say that the Tank is an asset against as you said, one of the main tank producing countries(China, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, United Kingdom of Greay Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of america, for the same questions you already mentioned in your video; air superiority/strike, modern ''anti-vehicles'' infantry armament and tactical/strategic nuclear armament.
For the same reasons, A conventional war between one of these nation and a ''minor'' one will always result in a tactical victory from the greater power. The cost of modern armament create the circumstance which makes ''minor nations'' mostly equipped with the previous generation of armored vehicle. a fine example of this would be both Iraq war. If I am correct, although I might be wrong, the Iraq forces were mostly equipped with non-upgraded T-72 and T-62 as MBT.
As for the rest, Armored warfare in unconventional warfare is basically useless. Unless you take in consideration the dissuasive effect of a tank on a battlefield. It's then a very costly dissuasive platform.
I love tanks, I love their history, but I don't think that it is a weapon platform very adapted for modern ''geostrategy''.
In my opinion, we are at a stage equivalent to the one we were between the late '20's and early 40's. We know tanks work, but we are arguing how to use them or if they are really needed on the battlefield. At the time, It was found that it was needed...
I want a tank to go to the mall :C they're so sexy
At 12:29 those are CAF Infantrymen! Note the C7's, CADPAT camouflage, and Canadian flag @13:00.
Always great to see these two nations working alongside each other.
yep they are cost efficient vs nude peasants with ak's. and thats all they are fighting over there.
Thank you for your service, Sir.
What you will see is cheap,low cost stealth scouts,reporting enemy positions,then artillery and air power dominating.It's about cost,a $100,000 or cheaper missile can take out a $4.5million tank,imagine 100 tanks rolling across the battle field and then a volley of missiles just destroys them,that's $450million dollars gone up in smoke,plus the crew.
Just spam tanks with APS's and you will be fine.
oy vei
stabilisedchaos
This is why there are the Trophy, Iron Fist, and other active protection systems.
$4.5 million dollars divided by $100,000 = 45
45 missiles per tank.
can the anti-missile systems survive 45 missiles? if no, then the tanks can be destroyed cost effectively.
Hello. I think we will see course change to lighter more mobile vehicles with active defenses and solid firepower. Today's motto of western armies is high mobility and ideally air transportability. So we will probably see vehicles with new light composite armor that can withstand fire from "low" caliber guns and for anything bigger it will have active defense system. You just can't put armor on something indefinitely. Germans tried this at 2. WW. There will be always weapon that can kill it. Better is not being shot at or not get hit.
just because there isn't much tank on tank combat right now... doesn't mean there isn't going to tank on tank combat in the future
we need Gundam robot to replace tank
As a 19E10B8, I really love these tank vids. I dig them even more when you show footage of "The Planet"....aka Ft.Irwin,Cali. Keep this stuff coming.👍
tanks are here to stay simply because they make so much money for whom ever sells them. here is how this business model works it starts with a tank. the problem the tank causes is armour and transportation of large caliber weapons. solution high tech high pen missiles that can get through the armour. here is where this whole story keeps looping. counter measures, once you create a counter measure to the missile what will happen is a new weapon will be made or a counter measure to the counter measure will be made for example a heat shell exploding once before getting to the armour to destroy the impact of the counter measure on the tank. now you need another counter measure on the tank and now you need another counter measure on the missile. seeing a pattern here? imagine how much money and industry would make if they made missiles and then made the counter measure to that missile as well and basically just kept adding counter measures to the missile and the counter measure. it would be an infinitely growing business, so yes you're right the tank is here to stay but it might not be for the reason you thought.
Has Amanda yeah and? Like we haven't noticed that WW2 brought America out of the Great Depression
B8m8 Wuts america didnt sell their tanks they used them in their own military during the war. if america did just simply sell their armour to the brits and maybe loaned them a couple hundred thousand american soldiers then we would be looking at a much different world today. once the war ended though everything collapsed because you cant maintain a country by using all its resources to build nothing but military supplies which every country attempted to do after the war ended because suddenly they thought they had a huge supply of resources when they forgot to step down and check on their populations and after all the money and resources was spent on research and military advancements guess who came knocking on the governments door asking for money.
Great video bro what do you think about the new 152mm gun there going to put on the t14 armata don't know when but I heard something about it.
Supra Swap Modern 152mm Armata cannon too weak.
Soviet era ISU-152 Howitzer more stronk and more glorious
Iz made ov Stalinium and blessed by Stalin.
'Tanks are still being built, so clearly the MBT isn't going anywhere soon." BS, pal. Look at WWII battleships. Being built right through the war, and their main contribution? Land battery. Look at the two biggest BBS's, Yamato and Musashi - never fired a shot at another ship (just airplanes). Only ONE even fired their huge main armament in anger, also at aircraft (to no effect, Leyte, Taffy 3). BBS's were shown to be useless, though they continued to be built (in relatively tiny numbers) right through WWII. Next big war? Bye bye, MBT's.
There's somewhat of a difference there though. Battleships were made completely and utterly obsolete by the introduction of the aircraft carrier. Tanks haven't really hit that point yet, and we haven't had a war were fighting has gone on in the conventional sense. Most of the conflict in the Middle East is fought between guerilla fighters and a standing army, a situation that places the standing army at a disadvantage in general. I just don't see why militaries would remove tanks from their inventory. What's going to replace them in their role? What happened with battleships was that the role they served, long range anti-ship firepower and naval bombardment, was overtaken by aircraft carriers and missile cruisers that could do their job, but cheaper and more effectively. The APC can't replace the tank. It doesn't have the firepower, or the armor.
Even now, I think, the US Army has said that they don´t need any more MBTs, and the reason they are still recieving new Abrams tanks is because Congress wants to keep that industry going. So saying that, because MBTs are still being built, there must be a need for them on the battlefield is maybe a fallacy.
erdem k No, just fired 'Shuriken' rounds at aircraft - to no effect.
AncientRaig" Battleships were made completely and utterly obsolete by the introduction of the aircraft carrier. Tanks haven't really hit that point yet"
Arguably true.
"guerilla fighters and a standing army, a situation that places the standing army at a disadvantage in general."
Dead wrong. Our standing armies beat Hell out of their guerillas regularly.
" What's going to replace them in their role?"
APC's will indeed replace them in their role. As will AFV's with less armor, no giant cannon but lots of rockets and high speed. As it stands now, in relative peacetime, there are many weapons systems - many man portable and shoulder fired - that can destroy a MBT. It is just going to tajke a big conventional war between states to show the MBT school what WWII showed the BBS school. A giant, slow, ridiculously expensive vehicle vulnerable to two guys with, for instance, a Javelin - and in a war tech will take off and God knows what will appear to destroy those dinosaurs. The future is cheap, fast, relatively small AFV's/APC's. Drones, mebbe?.
Jeremy Mine
"Dead wrong. Our standing armies beat Hell out of their guerillas regularly."
And yet we still can't defeat a bunch of guys with t-shirts wrapped around their heads and homemade bombs strapped to their backs. The point I'm making here is that a tank is not an ideal weapons platform to fight an enemy that blends in with a civilian population, so until we actually fight another war where we're not fighting an enemy that can simply use its own civilians as meat shields, we can't make a claim that the MBT is obsolete. That would be like saying our navy is obsolete because ISIS doesn't have fleets to engage.
"APC's will indeed replace them in their role. As will AFV's with less armor, no giant cannon but lots of rockets and high speed."
But they don't fit the same role. The MBT brings a large amount of firepower to bear in a mobile, well protected package that an APC or IFV can't match without becoming an MBT. Rockets are nice and all, but you're limited by ammunition due to the sheer size of each round.
"and in a war tech will take off"
Exactly. We're already seeing the development of countermeasures to ATGMs and RPGs that go beyond ERA. AMS and ECM systems that either shoot down or prematurely detonate incoming ATMs are already in service, and they're only going to get better. If the development of the anti-tank rocket launcher was going to kill off the tank, the tank would've died in WW2.
"The future is cheap, fast, relatively small AFV's/APC's. Drones, mebbe?."
I highly doubt it. IFVs and APCs will serve a role, but they won't be able to replace the tank completely. Drones still have a long ways to go before replacing a human operator in something as complex as a tank, and someone sitting behind a computer screen doesn't get the same kind of situational awareness as someone actually on the field.
This reminds me of this comment section where one guy was trying to suggest that all navies were obsolete.
how do I tell youtube not to see your channel? seriously you are not qualified to ask or answer these questions and it seems like a very cheap click-bait.
Phantom Apprentice hahah why did you watch it then? How do I tell TH-cam to stop sending grumpy, triggered trolls like you to my channel :-)
I didn't really watch it, I just seen the annoying click baity title on my youtube feed, and then I realized its a gaming channel.
Phantom Apprentice haha good good :-) move along then. Don't let the door hit you on the way out lol
Don't worry man your channel is awesome!
Phantom Apprentice U do u know gaming is his secondary content right? And also he does have experience with tanks right?
Do we need tanks?
YES!
You can fly things over the ground.
You can beat the ground as hard as to be.
But until you put forces on the ground you can't change the conditions on the ground.
And without tank on the battlefield. Forces got less survivability on the battlefield.
No weapon is perfect. Each weapons has strengths and weaknesses. So we have combined arms warfare. As weapons develop we still have combined arms warfare and it has existed for thousands of years. Giving the infantry on the ground the support they need to win the battle. 120mm guns are still deadly and versatile weapons. We need vehicles that can cross rough battlefields. We have advanced technologies to keep tanks effective and well protected. Tanks can stay with the infantry on the ground. Even during bad weather. If used properly in combined arms warfare then tanks will remain effective in the foreseeable future. If they are kept up to date with modern technologies and materials. Combat has proven that tanks can be used effectively in most environments. Including urban warfare. Urban warfare is difficult. But it is the way combat is going. Urban combat can be very dangerous to infantry as well. And tanks can give infantry powerful and very accurate fire support. The accuracy of tanks guns can reduce collateral damage. Tanks remain highly effective if used properly. Helicopters are not always an effective option to move infantry. They can be very dangerous to use. So we still need ground vehicles to move and support infantry. In computer games we have many weapons to chose from. And we use particular weapons for different reasons. So if you play combat games with various weapons then you should be able to understand the basics of combined arms warfare.