Are Tanks Obsolete?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 มี.ค. 2022
- Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/NotWhatYo...
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
Music:
Prescient - Howard Harper-Barnes
Solve It - Max Anson
Checked In - Jay Varton
Cold Draft - Craft Case
Hunter Hunted - Farrell Wooten
Human Missile - Craft Case
What Do You Know - Enigmanic
Secret Light - Max Anson
Leaps - Jay Varton
Deeper Into the Jungle - Experia
Footage:
Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
Russian Ministry of Defense
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Videoblocks
Envato Elements
REFERENCES:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022...
www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02...
www.keymilitary.com/article/t...
www.reuters.com/world/europe/...
www.thecekodok.com/2022/03/int...
www.reuters.com/article/us-uk...
breakingdefense.com/2022/02/r...
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...
www.spectator.co.uk/article/w...
www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02...
breakingdefense.com/2022/03/c...
informnapalm.org/en/russia-la...
www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/w...
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥 con.onelink.me/kZW6/NotWhatYouThink
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
"tanks are slow as foooorty five miles per." I see what you did there.
Excuse me sir, I could you tell me what music you used at 12:00 ?
Please don't call the Ukrainians insurgents. There is a bad connotation sir.
yep, it was the wrong choice of words.
See video description. Songs are in order.
"tanks are as slow as Ffff....... orty five miles per hour." I see what you did there ;)
They also tear up roads
Was going to make this same comment haha
@@technophant right. But if they used power line cuts... or obsolete rail ways as roads. But yeah make it big it sits at home or loose ur highways.
Actually 45 mph would be the maximum speed of the fastest MBT tanks today. It is by no means slow speed. However you cannot maintain such speeds for long, even on good terrain, due to excessive wear.
@@globalcitizen8321Not to mention tanks are absolute gas guzzlers.
The Marines didn't determine tanks obsolete. The Marines decided to cede large scale ground combat to the Army and focus on amphibious warfare in the Pacific. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has stated that their doctrine depends on the Army providing tank support if they require it
Which is a bad idea! Damned, don't they know their history? The Marines were once the guys who got the good stuff last! Seriously, depending on the Army isn't good, especially since requests have to go up the chain of command to get support, while it could have stayed with the the Marines command structure if they kept tanks!
also the newer abrams variants are too heavy for the boats.
People seem to forget that these are old Russian tanks fighting modern anti tank weapons
@@garrettmiller1355 no the Russian tanks are not old some are only 5 years old yet the weapon systems we’re fighting them with are 40 year old weapon systems such as the javalin. It’s not that there tanks are old, it’s their tactics that are old
@@garrettmiller1355 The base models of the tanks are old, but like most western tanks they're cold war designs with modernization upgrades. The ATGMs aren't particularly new, either. The Javelin has been around since the 90s, and ATGMs existed when the tanks were designed.
The Russian tanks struggle because they're bad at combined arms, and unsupported armor dies quickly.
Its kind of like when firearms became accurate enough to be a real threat. Immediately big suits of armor started to disappear until nearly all soldiers were just wearing fabric uniforms. Only recently has armor started to come back in some way.
except that it didn't happen and plate armour was widely used up until the 1700s, centuries after firearms replaced all other ranged weapons. Even after that it was used by elite cavalry units all the way until World War I... which is when some people came up with the bright idea to attach an engine to the armour so that it can be even heavier and protect multiple soldiers at the same time.
armor never went away, the tank is just the next step in its continous evolution.
That's kind of inaccurate since full plate armor became a thing only to protect from firearms, it's just that at some point firearms became too powerful and even full plate wasn't able to stop bullets so instead they just ditched armor completely for better mobility
@@boonxai you meant a cuirass. And a cuirass is not “full” plate armor
@@duyhungle9375 no, he is correct. Firearms appeared on European battlefields in the 14th century - and plate armour reached its peak in 15th and 16th century. The stereotypical image we have of a knight fully armoured in thick steel ...that' not even technically medieval, that's renaissance.
@@igorbednarski8048 the problem is that heavy armor was worn for centuries before then, the armor became the best them, and this will shock you, technology was improving, armor tech coincided with that, armor never stopped being a thing, only how much and who wore it, infantry did strip it down (for the most part) once rank and file warfare began, but cav always used it, hell plate armor was used in ww1, and was pretty effective, just to costly for how useful it was, and by ww2 armor plates were still used of infantry the development of tanks started on pushing past a trench, that was WW1 tank design, ww2 tank was fitted more for a mobile war by the end of it, and in that war is more what we'd see today, However there are 2 types of war possible now in modern world powers, one where the enemy will be guerilla, and the other where you are avoiding nukes, in neither are tanks obsolete, guerilla resistance against small arms fire and IED are king, thats why Abrams can withstand anything insurgents can push out, and in a war with a nation trying not to escalate into nukes, there is no way you can have any battlefield without armored vehicle support, hand held rockets are alright, however they rely mostly on the tank not being supported, lighter tanks would be a realistic endpoint, particularly in the short range future where railguns are being looked at for actual real use, or the possibility of mobile laser systems shooting down missiles in air, where a cannon and armor would be an absolute beast, military prediction has predicted a lot of things would be obsolete, from naval assaults, to ground fighting at all, tanks are little diffrent, the only change you should expect is the name, class, and use of tanks
As the Chieftain put it: Tanks will not become obsolete until something comes along that can do a tanks job better than a tank. In the case of the battleship: it didn't become obsolete because a torpedo could sink it, it became obsolete because other vessels could do everything a battleship was needed for, but better.
It pretty much became obsolete because of aircraft carriers and missiles. So yes other things got far etter and longer reaching.
Artillery...
@@NobodyInParticular... You apparently don't understand how tanks and artillery work. Just because they both have large caliber HE rounds doesn't mean artillery can do a tanks job.
@@MberEnder tanks are increasing not able to get to where they are needed and if they are they don't last very long
In the Ukraine war tanks are quickly being phased out my artillery and drones
@@NobodyInParticular... And how do you expect artillery to fix that? You still haven't explained how an artillery piece can replace a tank.
I don't know about tanks not being able to go where they're needed, but that's irrelevant because they are still by far the best thing at getting there.
And the vulnerability argument is nearly irrelevant. If vulnerability were a deciding factor, infantry would have been obsolete centuries ago.
Former tanker here (M60A1, M60A3, M1IP). Tanks are cool, but on the modern battlefield tanks as we currently know them are becoming obsolete, however their role will remain. Something needs to exist to backup the infantry. It may be much smaller, it may not have tracks, it may be remote operated or even AI, but it will serve the same role. Something that can take hits men cannot and sustain heavy fire that single shot missiles cannot. Tanks will continue to evolve, we many not even call them tanks anymore, but something will be filling that gap.
I agree. I think the MBT may be on its way out but something will fill the gap. I think a highly mobile and slightly armored NLOS system with APS will replace the MBT.
Yeah, I was thinking you may want to put missiles, drones and infantry in a single vehicle. If these are the most effective tools, it makes sense to combine them as long as they don't work against each other.
A tank whitout tracks is no tank.
Tanks have better ground clearence and lower ground pressure
We call those IFVs.
Tanks are done.
Mobile suits :)
I always thought that the whole purpose of tanks was to protect infantry and supporting vehicles. Infantry with missiles and air support can fulfill some of those roles but a tank is more practical for many applications. For that reason, tanks aren't obsolete. Also in the event that the enemy is using artillery, helicopters, or ground vehicles, APCs can protect the troops they carry. And as long as there are APCs, there will be an unarmored logistical supply convoy to keep them running and those vehicles will need the support of tanks.
You have that backwards tanks need the support columns for oil to feed the beast
@@nlcrypto7324 do APCs count as tanks?
@@incubus_the_man no those r wheeled vehicles or cars
Tanks today and how we identifiy is having tracks and big
No, in world war 2 we realized that infantry should be support for the tanks as breakthroughs would otherwise NEVER happen. Now we’re at a point where tanks are needed for breakthroughs but don’t perform nearly as well. I don’t doubt the next war will be similar to world war 1.
Amored vehicle are here to stay sure, when people talk about the end of tank they genrally mean the end of MBT, generally to the profit of lighter vehicle, and or cheaper vehicle. Most of the time the question is Do we really need all of that armor. Not do we need armor at all.
Tanks were initially developed to break the stalemate in WW1, they needed something that could cross the no man’s land and attack people in trenches, but warfare has dramatically changed since then. I think we will always need tanks or their blue prints, but they won’t be effective against sophisticated opponents.
I disagree. Rather. Sophisticated armies are exactly the ones that will be able to make effective use of tanks. They're simply another tool in the tool box of combined arms warfare.
And even then they figure it out that tanks, like infantries, will drop dead if you start spamming artillery onto it. Doesn't really make tanks obsolete through. If anything what really changes is the doctrine and how designs are adjusted by it
I think they are always effective against enemy infantry. There was a plan back in the 40s developed by the soviets that enabled tanks to be transported by plane behind enemy lines to clip the enemy
@@gtas321 which the plan was cancelled because the soviets already broke the stalemate before developments are completed
those are some sophisticated words
"When Anti tank weapons were first developed in the 1970s."
Panzerfäust: Am I a joke to you?!
I think he said missiles,not weapons
also russian army vs ukrainian "insurgents" ???? like wtf, its an army too, in their own fucking country
@@iikkuowo6735 Yeah just dislike and unsub the guy.
The first anti tank weapon was made during ww1, "few" years older than panzerfaust
Just an observation from my years of experience in the power industry. The effect of cyber attacks on power systems is vastly overstated . Every Utility has backup plans to operate their system without computerized automation for generation control. Control systems for the grid network are distributed and not vulnerable to a "hack attack". You might lose some remote control capability, but protection from localized problems is based on local sensors and control.
Fear mongering
The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle and in different contexts. Network infiltration for intelligence gathering is probably more useful than anything else. Another possibility would be to attack the software supply chain to covertly destroy equipment which are computer controlled like what happened to Iran's centrifuges. There are many vectors for attack. Best to remain reasonably vigilant and prepare for anything.
@@robzilla730 Nah it is just fantasy, a fantasy based on the US's "smart grid" system; which is not that smart in reality.
Power industry does not rely as much on remote control automation as some might expect. yeah, maybe for metering consumption or controlling regional distribution (depending on the region) but nothing as big as controlling the whole country from a single point with full authority over all decisions. unless you can hack a good number of power plants and distribution centers (which many might not even be connected to the internet, so you have to do it from inside of their network, not to mention that many don't even use smart automation) you probably can't do much except maybe cut the power to limited areas for a couple of hours at most. The real danger is usually posed as over production or underproduction of power or to mess things with the power distribution, which is not possible due to the fact that majority of devices even when automation is concerned are analog or simply mechanical.
Maybe nuclear power plants, but then I don't think they are even connected to any remote network and are heavily guarded physically.
Very true, plant operators have to pass their license exams and stand watch shifts for a reason
yes but we are toward the future where everything is interconnected as a whole. to make it more efficient and cost less. maybe not now. but how you can train ppl to manually operating a backup system without automation if they dont even familiar with it? the only way is via special training. and you need to rely on certain men power to do the job which mostlikely gonna be a chaos.
its like showing nowadays kid to operate tape recorder. they cant even tell how to roll from A to B without machine. lmao
A small thing: The switchblade is not a "Drone". It is a loitering Ammunition.
Main difference is that you do not retreive loitering Ammunition if they run out of fuel. You detonate them into the ground or any target of opportunity.
So it's use for surveilance is extremely limited.
Sounds like "loitering ammunition" is a type of "unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone."
Ima be honest, iv always thought of why countries havent made smthing like loitering ammunition before.
Like we already think about Predators and other aircraft as just platforms, for carrying missiles. Wyh cant we just have random missiles scattered around everywhere, and then expend them when used.
@@Ilix42 would you consider the tomahawk missile a type of drone 🤔
@@apolloaero Doesn't really loiter much, more, flies directly into the target and explodes.
@@Ilix42 Except for returning drones that are caught in the air by a net most drones have wheels indicating they return thus the designation UAV. Munitions don’t return. The Switchblade is a Loitering Munition not an UAV (Unmanned Ariel Vehicle) because there is no such thing as an Unmanned Munition implying the possibility munitions can be manned.
If you think munitions can be manned your free to tie yourself to a ballistic missile or to ride a nuke bomb on its way down to detonation like in the movie Doctor Strangelove.😆😂
I don't think tanks will ever be obsolete, no matter where you are or what you're fighting, a big, moving, armoured gun that kills big shit will always be good
especially when its in a place where your enemy doesnt have one its all about if you use them correctly
Easy to destroy as many weapons exist for them
@@charleswest6372 would you say the same about aircraft? It's only easy when you make a mistake, when tanks are used correctly they are difficult to destroy, even for anti tank weapons. Are planes easy to shoot down just because surface to Air missles exist? Only if the pilot has no idea what he's doing.
Until someone uses a javelin or calls in a drone strike, which would happen almost immediately, because a tank is public enemy number one on the battlefield, except for maybe attack choppers if they linger around.
@@voler_1925 The difference, however, is that it is becoming more and more and more difficult to avoid said "mistakes" because ATGMs lock on their targets and once the button is pressed there is no way of avoiding getting hit except maybe if you're using hard kill APS systems for those missiles, but their actual effectiveness on a battlefield is kinda debated. With this in mind there is no way for a tank to survive on the field unless if it isn't there at all in the first place. You cannot just say "combined arms" and expect that tanks will never get hit by an ATGM because the margin for error is just so small it becomes impractical or even unfeasible to rely on neutralizing the enemy ATGM carrier *before* he has the chance to press the trigger. And since tanks are too expensive, it becomes even more unforgiving and punishing to lose it and have the need to send out a second one for "round 2".
At least Aircraft can dodge the SAM once it has been fired and aquired target on it under decent favorable conditions. A tank has no such tactical luxury. ATGMs have the ability to outright ignore or skip out several layers of the Survivability Onion until the "Don't be penetrated" with far more ease than SAM's.
Tanks have continued to evolve along the general lines of fighting other tanks. Tanks are not obsolete as a concept, but their design and implementation will need to evolve in response to evolving infantry capabilities.
They just fill such a precise niche that nothing much can take their place. They are obsolete but will likely be around a long time. Nothing else can really do what they do. But, I agree completely, a definitive modernisation of what a tank is today needs to done. The A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) is an obsolete aircraft. But there is nothing that can fill the niche they fill. Thus, they fly on.
@@indridcold8433 Many things can replace A-10s. The problem is will the budget be spared while there are many other issues that need to be addressed first.
As for tanks though, evolve as much as you want, there are only so much you can fit into a tank. Their misusage is what makes them vulnerable, but it seems like they are being used as expendable expensive assets to protect infantry. It only might become actually beneficial if they become something entirely else that anyone would hardly call them a tank...
The tanks in urban areas are too weak, as much as they protect the infantry, they slow down the advance. and their main gun isn't entirely needed for anything. The practical solution would be agile combat vehicles. That are less costly, therefore produced in more numbers and can basically overwhelm the treat by numbers.
@@apolloscouter I believe the original purpose of the F-35 was going to be a replacement for the A-10. But, as development proceeded, it kept being modified and instead evolved into what it is today.
Tanks rarely are supposed to directly attack other tanks (else we wouldn't have seen parallel developments of Tankdestroyers whenever tanks improved, but those are basically a mobile version of anti tank guns). That's what artillery and infantry are for. They CAN, especially when there's a big difference in technology levels like USA vs Iraq, but in general a tank is a mobile fortification buster, that needs protection against highly mobile threats like other armored vehicles due to muitiple factors like limited visibility out of the tank and thus is accompanied by a protective infantry screen and vice versa. Combined arms became so effective for a good reason.
@@Ugly_German_Truths
You stopped reading at the first sentence and then stated typing, didn't you?
Check you history of warfare, under tanks. Tanks expected to have to face other tanks in WW2 and beyond, even if the engagements are today expect to be dozens, hundreds of yards/meters even miles/klicks, apart. Even point blank engagement are still possible. BUT the real change that is forcing the Tanks to evolve in tactics, capability, function, and implementation, is Infantry weaponry. In WW2, the average infantryman did not even have the option of shooting out at tank in one or two hits to knock it out forget potentially Kill it, like today.
The mere existence of APS, Active Protection Systems (countermeasures), and the Western tank doctrine, as part of combined arms strategy, is to have soldiers walking point around and near the tank only bolsters the point.
No, sheer technological disparity can play a role, but it is not expected only a pleasant surprise or a horrible fault, depending on whose side you are on, when it does.
As it is, you IGNORED what I said in the second sentence and ran off acting like I never said anything about it. It is a common tactic of someone who either knows less, is grossly insecure about what they know, or has yet to learn to READ THE WHOLE COMMENT FIRST.
"Tanks are slow as fffffourty-five miles per hour" - hilarious. Love the channel! Keep up the good work!
That was a banger for sure
Pmsl.
They can go faster, the problem is, they have a speed regulator-on purpose. If you go faster the treads will start to melt together due to sheer friction. But, these guys obviously did not do their homework. Or ignored certain bits of info to prop up their own arguments.
Came to the comments section to find just such a comment 🤣
0:48 "... and also tanks are slow as f..........
....ourty five miles per hour"
During the Hundred Years War between England and France, the cheap English longbows defeated French armored knights. But the longbows were in turn later defeated by.......early cannons. It's a rock-paper-scissors world out there.
@J Thanks for the additional info. Even archeologists once discovered skeletal remains of former medieval archers. Most of the skeletons had bent spines.
I never meant to belittle the English longbow. I was just pointing out that all weapons have their heyday and decline. Even modern weapons of today.
The amount of resources we spend to defend our selves FROM our selves is ridiculous
Battleships aren't 100% comparable because they were only ever a strategic weapon. Jutland proved that the price of losing a battleship is much greater than the value of the ship in combat. The hunt for the Bismarck and the way the Yamato avoided combat demonstrates how their presence in a region can lock down resources needed to counter them, but navies dare not use them for fear of losing them.
Back in 1939 nad 1940, during the Winter War between Finland andthe Soviet Union, a massive number of Russian tanks were totalled or rendered useless, hundreds of them. Why? Unsuitable terrain and poor combat doctrine. After their initial losses during the first couple of months the Soviets revaluated the situation, regrouped and tried new forms of warfare using armor alongside infantry, artillery support and air support. And that forced the much smaller enemy to surrender. Tanks are still being used 80 years later, they are not obsolete, it's they way they are used that changes over time.
Exactly 💯
Except Finland didn't surrender. Accepted the peace terms spelt out by the Soviets, yes, but not surrender.
Back in 1939 you couldn't guide your artillery fire with a drone. Back in 1939 you didn't have guided weapons. Back in 1939 USSR could produce everything by themselves. Back in 1939 autocannons weren't that powerful.
Tanks nowadays don't really fit any role, other then maybe knife fighting other tanks. But that kind of combat doesn't happen in modern warfare. Tank protection has proven to be insufficient, and while it probably can be engineered away, the only purpose of a tank is to be a mobile and mostly anti tank weapon. So what's the point of investing into a weapon that can only do one unique thing, and that unique thing happens so rarely that can be considered a statistical error, and all other aspects of tank use are already covered by other, more versatile vehicles.
@Risto Kempas And the Soviets ended up with a good chunk of its army gone due to subpar equipment, troops, and leadership. Why, this is the main reason the Austrian invaded them. Because he saw the Soviets making total fools of themselves in Finland.
@@timur22993 Because of a thing called combined arms where your expected to fight it with other elements to take advantage of each others strengths and covering weaknesses.
If tanks are to have a future they need several small short range drones searching for hostiles with anti-tank weaponry nearby. Much better than irreplaceable humans. Also the drones could fire flares and chaff in case they fail but detect an incoming missile.
Everything you thought, has already been tested, fielded, or rejected by Nato bruh.
Our countries arent this incompetent.
Also why tf would a drone fire a flare when it detects a missile. Also, how would a drone actually detect a missile in the first place? Who inside teh tank would be controlling the drone? Wouldnt it be easier to just have our current arrangement right now?
That only works with aircraft and AA. If what you said worked then we would have seen them right now.
Or tank units could operate in tandem with infantry units like they're supposed to. Save a drone, send a grunt.
In Soviet Russia, drone is you!
Those drones are called infantry
Good to see you mentioned the EUtelsat hack from 14.45 on. Our Internet was taken out by it for 3 weeks, only fixed by our provider sending a new modem. Apparently it was a 'wiper' attack which remotely wiped all the operating software on our modem. It was completely dead. Quite an eye-opener to realise that this could be done.
I rate this channel as one of the best on TH-cam. Thanks for the well researched entertaining videos.
One of the biggest reasons why we transport tanks by rail is they are measured in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon
That's the same just inversed
gallons per mile made more sense tbqh, that's why some countries prefer liters per hundred kilometers over kilometers per liter.
someone’s read thinking fast and slow
@@il400 Sure. But the point is that it puts things in perspective. It's more tangible to think it costs 100 gallons to move a mile, rather than 0.01 miles per gallon.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD look, im an engineer, i guess i have to understand not everyone is like me with math-but i still beg to differ
Any tank without an active protection system that can stop anti-tank ordinance is pretty much obsolet in most scenarios. Anti-tank missiles and drones are far too proliferated now.
Yes, main battle tanks have reached stage where they need to revamp/evolve. What future MBT needs:
1) Separate crew compartment in chassis from automated turret like Armata T-14.
2) Against top down attack, they might need physical gap layer to armor like shade or umbrella
3) new sensor (IRST or MW radar) to determine incoming projectiles/missiles from top & all directions with shotgun style salvo to kill incoming ATGM.
4) possible IR guided SAM for air defence to kill enemy drones & choppers
The requirements for IFV too would change looking at how vulnerable IFV are to Javelin & modern ATGM, needed top gap armor too.
@@jayjay53313 umbrella strat didn't go great for Russians
As for the rest, I agree, but its hard to get all that effective in one vehicle, with the rose of autonomy I bet we'll see a 'squad' of armored vehicles specialized for different roles, with only a few of them with actual human crew
@@Ben-li9zb Russian tanks are fitted with lousy cheap picnic umbrella ⛱️ that javelin gravity easily punched through the useless cage. In future it will be thick gap armor giving it an aerodynamic sloped roofline that would reduce the punching power of javelin should anti-missile defense failed. its purpose is to save the automated turret and ammo stowed in back of turret. Maybe future MBT would have CIWS on roof top too that could kill missiles & air targets brrt...they might come up with urban assault MBT to suppress rooftop attack sacrificing mobility (speed) over armor like first when Merkava being made for urban warfare. To increase firepower, the CIWS turret could be paired with SMAW/RPG HE launcher. Insurgents or separatists forces that attempt to shoot RPG, javelin at tanks from upstairs would have hard time. Russian forces ZSU-23-4 quad cannon proven superior than BMP guns due to higher firing rate and gun elevation. Russians tried the ZSU-23-4 to suppress Chechen on building proven effective. Future MBT needs higher secondary weapon elevation with high rate of fire, the size of turret will surely gets bigger
@@jayjay53313 unmanned turrets can help with size, but we also must take into account electronic warfare. I f heat signatures can be concentrated and other techniques can be used to reduce the vehicles signature, then weapons can't lock on from as far. And then more active counter measures like jamming or sensor blinding could disable such munitions. Or perhaps in the complete opposite direction, what if you made autonomous vehicles cheap enough in mass production to negate the advantage of these guided AT munitions in the first place
@@Ben-li9zb Unfortunately nothing Russia designs works.
I believe tanks have two options:
Either go the way of the Bradley, and become solely used for supporting infantry so you can use cheaper armor and weapons to make overall costs less of an issue.
Or
You double down and find some way to give tanks point-defense to knock out guided munitions before they can penetrate.
That way the tank can reclaim its role as an infantry oppressor that requires other tanks and aircraft to deal with.
Active protection system on tanks is already a thing
@@jeerasaksirimongcol2288 I meant more like what some carrier ships and cruisers have, where they have high-powered lasers that literally melt incoming missiles and enemy aircraft out of the sky.
If tanks can take the same technology and somehow use it to solve the guided munitions issue, then their armor can be focused solely on dealing with other tanks.
@@GeorgeCowsert sometimes i feal like its harder than most ppl think. Or the builders are incompetent or afraid to fork out more cash, i mean they waste cash might as well use it for something better
The other problem making tanks look bad in this war is that much like the Iraqi army in the gulf war, the Russians are field a lot of outdated trash that is being torn to shred by modern AT weapons. Thats not to say that the most up to date tanks aren’t vulnerable to these say systems, but I to a much lesser degree I believe.
A drone strike will destroy any tank . Doesn't matter what year it was made. Tanks in modern warfare are just moving coffins.
Tanks definitely are not obsolete. As long as the enemy has them, we need them too. However this war definitely shows that we need to emphasize light infantry anti armor tactics more than ever before; not just for taking out tanks, but also taking out armored personel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and supply convoys.
honestly now that hardkill aps is becomming more and more prevelent tanks/armoured vehicles will become even more effective
inantry will have to increase the volume of at fire to keep up
1,500 lb Missiles like the harpoon could easily take out a tank. Or hellfires might with a good shot from the top. If you can effectively use missiles tanks are obsolete, they need to upgrade to something with no gun, more armor, and missile defenses
If our enemies have tanks then we need to have tanks is like saying, "As long as our enemies have swords, we need swords too." When a weapons platform becomes ineffective then you need to stop using it or use it differently.
I feel like they're about as obsolete as plate armor in the late 1600's.
Like, it's not obsolete.... but it's well on its way out.
Short of a revolutionary breakthrough in armor technology (like full-blown, sci-fi energy shields, or like, Titanium-A from Halo), armored units just won't make sense given what modern firepower can do.
@@kelleren4840 ever heard of active protection
No they aren't obsolete. Just like WWI and ever war onward, they just can't be used in isolation. They need to be used in specific cases where their mobility and firepower can be employed and other units make up for their weakness. Yes, open spaces with infantry and air support, and which utilize movement. Suck on a road, in a convoy through hostile terrain, without infantry well to the sides and flanking, and air cover... well... same as WW1, WW2, Korea, or the desert wars.
Tanks are fine in a line advancing towards a known element with scouting vehicles, artillery, and aircraft spotting. They don't work well going down a narrow 30km road through unsecured territory.
Yes, modern anti-tank missiles give infantry ranges of 1-2km against tanks. So... tanks need scout vehicles, drones, helicopters, better long range sighting systems, etc. Ukraine is almost the prime example of how not to use tanks.
This is the same argument used in battleships. People say they’re not obsolete if they sail with 40 escorts and only be used bombard land positions or become supersized missile batteries. Like BB’s in the 1940’s tanks are an increasingly expensive asset with diminishing usage and viability for lighter but more capable alternatives. Having them for the next few decades won’t be a con but it definitely won’t have all the pros they used to (like how the US used their aging battleships in the gulf war)
Ukraine in springtime is not good tank country - the mud off the road should not be underestimated as an antitank (or anti anything wheeled or tracked) defence. The farmers keep their tractors out of the fields until late April…
@@DontAttme The difference is that tank were far from invincibles since the beginning. Even now they are more effective that during WWI
@@DontAttme but nothing has taken the place of the tank unlike the battle ship when the carrier could do it job better
Sure no one vehicle has exceeded every single role but there is better options now in every role from IFVs, lightly armoured vehicles with artillery pieces and so on that are cheaper and can do the job better rather than trying to do everything in tanks only to be beaten by lightly armoured vehicles and anti vehicle weapons.
I usually only watch your shorts but this was a good info video.
"...tanks are slow as fff...orty miles an hour." I love the way you do those gags.
There's a show on Netflix called the "Age of Tanks" I believe and they showed the evolution of the vehicles and tactics used. They show how tanks are pretty much obsolete by the last couple of episodes and why.
They're not entirely, but the underlying concept (enough armour means safety) probably is.
Age of Tanks was really good :D
@@troutwarrior6735 In a program designed to combat obesity, when both parents and children revised eating patterns and exercised daily,
I’ll have to watch that documentary.
From what I know, I cannot disagree that tanks are obsolete in the role they’ve traditionally filled. But I also know they’re not going to disappear either.
since having a 120-125mm direct fire Self propelled gun with “some” armor is pretty dang nifty, compared to how well a 25-30mm auto cannon can destroy cover, buildings and exposed soft targets.
But unless you wanna go with tiger 1 style armor that’s almost equal thickness on all four sides, man portable shaped charges are just too cheap, effective and plentiful for tanks to ever occupy the role they used to.
The "Deutsches Panzermuseum" (German Tank Museum) made a good video about that topic and I think they really know what they are talking about. Their point is that always it is said that the tank is dead only for the tank to transform and dominate again. Maybe the tank as we now see it is obsolete but there will always be tanks in one form or another.
Hold up.
The Marine Corp isn't getting rid of their tanks because they believe they are "obsolete", they are giving them to the Army because the MC is becoming a more versatile and quick response platform for retaliatory and "in and out" missions.
@@dffndjdjd your info is wrong, and rpgs are not that cheap and an Abrams has never been destroyed by rpgs. Just saying.
@@dffndjdjd what has been destroyed by RPGs/IEDs however
Are things like:
Humvees
Bradley’s
Joe Biden’s Reputation
Soldiers
All things that are not as heavily armored as a tank
I think we haven’t even gone into double digits with Abrams casualties
But a tank can’t kill everything
Unless you throw it at them
I don’t mean figuratively I mean literally drop it on their heads
I’m in the middle of my ADF application for Armoured vehicle crew I’m starting to think of going Infantry instead
0:48
"And as well, tanks are slow AS Fffff-..fourty miles per hour"
Noticed that, love it.
2:11 Insurgent: a rebel or revolutionary.
Rebel: a person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler.
You're suggesting that Ukrainian "insurgents" are rebelling against an established government in their own land. What established government are you referring to?
Yeah we used the wrong word there.
I thought I would check the comments before I pointed this error out. Thanks Idehampster for pointing this out. The Ukrainians aren't insurgents.
His English is almost perfect, which is pretty impressive as a 2nd language.
@@IOUaUsername as indian i agree that people should understand that English is not really everyone's mother tongue, our goal should be a understandable communication, after all it's not a grammar class.
@@IOUaUsername as indian i agree that people should understand that English is not really everyone's mother tongue, our goal should be a understandable communication, after all it's not a grammar class.
"Tanks are slow a ffff....forty mph..."
I love these.
Nicely played, that's half of what I love about your content... "...and that's because tanks are as slow as fffff....
ourty-five miles per hour!" The other half... probably IS what you think 😁
High quality information, thak you!
6:19 legendary clip
Far from obsolete but future tanks and armoured vehicles will definitely look very differently to today's tanks.
Yes probably much smaller, cheaper, more nimble and unmanned. In age of missiles, getting into steel box that present a big fat target is suicidal
Unmanned lavs/tanks is inevitable
@@ChadRhat yep the next stage of tank design.
@@accountreality1988 the stage after that is Terminator
@@springer-qb4dv they’re already developing stealth tanks so they don’t necessarily need to be smaller. No doubt They are gonna be pricy and look wild asf
Very informative video. Thank you!
Wow! This is really outstanding content. Thank you for putting out such quality informative and entertaining videos. My next stop is Patreon. Please keep giving us great stuff, especially covering the war in Ukraine.
As long as there are armored vehicles, tanks will never be obsolete
They may change and evolve into something unrecognizable, but the tank niche in warfare will always be there
@@dffndjdjd the germans said that tanks are obsolete when they invented the 1918 T-Gewehr anti tank rifle in ww1. And yet we still use tanks 'till this day.
@@dffndjdjd Your stupidity is un matched modern day tanks can literally tank a RPG-7 missile why do you think they use explosive reactive armor.
@@randomgaming6118 Tank a RPG7, but not a NLAW or Javelin, that's kinda the point.
And no, a RPG7 fired through the roof of any tank kills it. Which is the crux of the issue. If tanks are going to be this useless in anything less than ideal. I.e Flat open desert, where air assets would do the job just as well. What's the point? Secondly IFV's, if we spent spent half as much as we do per tank would be able to handle the missions tanks are supposed to, as well be able to bring their screen of inf with them.
@@dffndjdjd my point is that people have been saying that tanks are obsolete whenever a new anti tank weapon has been developed for a century. Whether its the at rifle, at guns, heat shells, atgm's, helicopters, planes, etc. But everytime they are proven wrong. So how is this any different? The javelin and other atgm's may dominate the russian tanks right now, but tanks continue to evolve. Someone may develop a new type of armour or other defense systems that make the javelin obsolete. We used to think that tanks will be obsolete when the first HEATFS were developed. Then we developed the composite armour and ERA, making heat shells almost useless against modern tanks.
@@dffndjdjd Cavalry became obsolete since mechanized units replaced all their roles. They didn't become obsolete because armies developed better and cheaper ways to defeat cavalry.
The era of expensive MBTs might be ending but armies still need some armor to protect infantry. It might be a death trap to anti-tank weapons but guess what kind of death trap is waiting for infantry when armor is gone/truly obsolete. Machine guns, rifles, and artillery, WW1s most casualty producing weapons and they're even more effective today.
The pike had a reach of 2 meters, the mounted knight had a speed of 20 km/h. Time passed, the modern pike has a range of 600m - 2.5km and the modern mounted knight has a speed of 40kmh-90kmh. Ranges and speeds evolve but the human mentality to bash one another in the head has remained the same.
"War, war never changes."
-A wise guy from Fallout
Modern knights would be the air force fighters, they are as untouchable as medieval knights and also treated like one.
Someone's been playing too much Civ
Imagine a Pearl Harbour attack and its all commercial planes being shut down. Sheeesh
Reminds me of that medieval plate armor thing. Eventually mobility will be prioritized and we'll see more Hiluxes with guns on the field X)
In the video, you call the Ukraine Armed forces an insurgency. I'm not sure if that's a correct label. While there are lots of citizen-soldiers fighting for Ukraine, they do in fact have a professional army. This war isn't as asymmetrical as other recent wars in the Middle East. This is much more of a conventional war.
Yes, wrong choice of words.
@@r.m2072 look a russian disinformation bot
@@NotWhatYouThink
We are fighting (on the side of Ukraine) the Regular Army and Territorial Defense Units, consisting of trained civilians.. But still the basis is a regular army.
@@invalidcreations and its gone
That immediately caught my attention. Defenders is a better word to use here.
tanks are still good but need modern defence systems to have a chance. those can be: ads(active defence system) or even laser interference equipment (if rocket is laser guided, it will nullify where the laser is aimed at so it doesnt strike the target) but everything has it s weakness and it s okay, tanks were first made to break the stalemate of trench warfare.
Thank you that is my point
Thanks for the great insight that one can’t get elsewhere
There’s too many missile systems that can turn a tank into scrap in a second.
Just small correction, you called the Ukrainian military “insurgents” which isn’t giving them credit where it’s due. The Ukranian military is highly professional and still has an organization structure and military bureaucracy, this is a conventional war still
Hahahaha that's not even close to accurate.
Insurgent
/ɪnˈsəːdʒ(ə)nt/
Noun
Plural noun: insurgents
(1) A person fighting against a government or invading force; (2) a rebel or (3) a revolutionary.
I believe (1) is applicable in this example.
I think once drone swarms are a thing the tank will make a return. A drone swarm could protect a tank from incoming missiles while the tank does the ground work
It won't - it's a matter of cost efficiency. Only takes 1 failure to destroy the tank and the entire swarm loses purpose. Instead you could just have a bunch of attack drones of your own.
@@DmitriyLaktyushkin A single drone swarm could cover more than one tank though
I recognize you idea of a defense drone swarm might work against modern attacks, but another attack of kamikaze drones could easily bypass those defenses, so yeah, tanks are fucked
Tanks are dead, we proved that in the Middle east. Drones can take out a tank without the tank even realizing its about to be destroyed. Between drones, guided munitions, and even IED's, tanks can be disabled far too easily in today's world. They're only useful as a gun, but at that point just use artillery with guided munitions, or a Reaper drone.
Mini cwiz on tanks
Best information video I have seen in a long time 😎 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I can build a drone from off-the-shelf parts? Wow! Who knew?
The role and purpuse of tanks on the battlefield has ever evolved within the wars of history. It will further evolve and so do the tanks. NLAWs are very effictive but only when relatively close to the enemy tanks. The Ukraine soldiers have a very easy job sneaking up to russian tanks in the current invasion of Ukraine because Russia's battlefield reconnaissance and communication in this war is ABYSMAL. Also the tanks Russia uses are mostly old.
Who says that ATGMs will continue be to be short range? Guided missiles are the king and tanks are big fat sitting ducks when missiles are shot miles away.
I think it's kinda vice versa vs Ukrainian tanks
@@springer-qb4dv Tell that to Israeli tanks with Trophy systems installed. Opponents of Israel have effectively given up trying to use ATGM at this point.
I really do want to know how the roles and purposes tanks have on the battlefield have evolved, especially if that includes urban environments. How much of the purpose is still to destroy infrastructure and disable enemy equipment, and how much of it is "to kill soldiers and civilians"? I get that war is hell, and whether taking life is justified killing or just plain murder is up for debate. But while ordinance has evolved, I doubt the role or purpose of tank ordinance (not NLAWS) has evolved.
@@sugarfish The purpose of the first battle tanks was to clear trenches in trench warfare in WW1. Also the role of modern tank compared to WW2 has changed. A modern tank is also perfectly capable of cutting of and killing groups of soldiers. It hats machine guns and also a special kind of ammunition for its main turret to forfill this task. In the near future tanks will be deployed in groups, where 1 or 2 of this tanks will have a commanding role and the others will be controlled remotely without any personell in it.
We gotta remember that most tanks like the M1 abrams and T72 were made in the 70s-80s, for warfare in the 70s-80s. I think that we’ll still see tanks in the future, but tanks that will be designed for the technological wars to come
Have a good feeling tanks are gonna be obsolete like cavalry were
@@luckisluck Cavalry as in horses made for war have seen their end but cavalry as a concept will always exist, there will always be a need for a fast assault unit that exploits weak spots. Same thing with tanks as strong vehicles that can take damage as well as return it will always exist, it’s just that it’ll take time for tanks to return to their position of strength as each nation figures out how to deal with smart weapons, like russia right now
@@wert7773 I meant the horses, takes too long to make a new horse.
Yes, but what will be a value of that kind of 21st century tech tank? Problem is cost. It will be 10-20 million per unit. I think that future of warfare is not personnel on the battlefield.
Just like aircraft carriers are a 90-00s thing. With the hypersonic missiles and gliders, they are vulnerable titans.
So you're telling me the same company that made my calculator in high school is contributing parts to Russian drones. LMAO
"Drones are litterly killing it.." made me chuckle
Thanks are not obsolete, In urban environment any big vehical is a big target. You can not downgrade Needle or a sword because both have their importance depending upon where they are being used. Post WW2 ,largest tank battle was fought between India and Pakistan, both met in desert and Indian Army dessimated the Pakistani Tanks. That is desert and tanks are very good for that terrain. Tanks will rule open feilds.
This Generation Battle will take place in Urban Area. This is why we need highly accurate weapons to hit the target effective and less civs casualty
Thanks will never become obsolete, being thankful is a good quality to have.
Minor spelling mistake....I win
@@freezerfingers Feeling happy on a Typo? 😃 Nothing bad in a little humour though.
Hmmm... I wonder if the German 88mm shell would be effective today?
This is why infantry will never be obsolete. Every once in a while you hear of a new super weapon that's gonna make infantry obsolete, but then the infantry finds a new way to fight it while being a 10th of the cost. You can give an infantryman a javelin, you can give him a stinger, you can give him mines, you can give him a handheld drone, and he can hide in a hole in the ground, move across any terrain, or fight from a bombed out building for as long as he has food, ammo, and water
Maybe, until T800 killer robots start dominating the battlefield :)
Soon he won't have food, water, or ammo. What then? 😂
If they was no restraint in the war then nukes would wipe out whole infantry units in seconds. Not to mention chemicals weapons most military have now. But of course they say they don't have them.
@@philcooper9225 dead
@@philcooper9225 if you can't even provide logistics for a few infantrymen then you can't really provide logistics for anything
'Tanks are slow as f---ourty miles per hour...' good save, good save.
0:48 "and also tanks are slow as f...ourty-four miles an hour"
I think tanks won't be going anywhere they will just change into somthing else. Having a armored pillbox on a battlefield will always be useful!
Not against a modern army
I feel like future tanks will likely focus on mobility and armament, with “good enough” armor to stop autocannons and small(ish) arms, with the main line of “armor” being modern APS’ to counter things like RPGs and ATGMs.
So basically a beefier and more advanced IFV ?
@@quakethedoombringer basically a bigger beefier IFV with a larger caliber gun
Dont APC's and IVF already fill thay role
@@johnsamuel1999 APCs and IFVs are still very vulnerable to auto-cannons so their out of the question.
Well you’re wrong that was the idea most of Europe had in the 50-60s with the amx-30 and leopard 1
A well thought out documentary. Economics of wars is so important and is not included in computer games.
Pretty sure something broke when that tank landed... The barrel almost Speared the ground lol.
I think you got the wrong conclusion from the battleship/tank comparison. Battleships did not become obsolete; battleships were just a means to carry around big naval cannons. It was the cannons that became obsolete... by torpedoes. Likewise, tanks are just a means to carry around land-based cannons and are being obsoleted by small, man-portable guided missiles. Its the versatility and effectiveness of new munitions not the weapons platform that matters. You don't need battleship sized cannons to sink a ship when an air or submarine launched torpedo can do the job, frequently with one shot. You don't need a tank to take out another tank or armored vehicle when a tow or javelin can do the same job.
Javelin cannot replace the job of a tank gun, nor any of the other guided missiles with similar capability, they are way too expensive to do that. The cost of a single Javelin missile is $240,000 per missile + another $250,000 for the CLU. A tank, can usually carry about 40 main gun rounds, and each gun round is only a few thousand dollars per round. A single Javelin missile costs more than the entire ammunition loadout of an entire Abrams main battle tank. 40 javelin missiles (not counting the CLU), which gives you the same amount of potential tank killing power as an Abrams, costs more than the entire tank.
Then there is the fact that the Abrams needs only four crewmember's to run the whole tank. If you want to carry forty Javelin missiles into battle, you need to have forty Soldiers, and an average US infantry man costs the US government well over a hundred thousand dollars per year. And that's not counting all the additional logistics personnel you need to support those additional infantry, about 5 support solders per front line combat soldier. Now you can reduce the number of infantry men needed to carry spare missiles by putting them in the back of a Stryker or Bradley, but they pretty much cost the same as an MBT, so not really a cost savings there, and a single Stryker cannot fit 40 javelin missiles in the back.
and then there is the fact that infantry, no matter how hard they try cannot run at 45 miles per hour like a tank without vehicles of their own.
Now i could write a whole massive essay on why Javelins and other antitank missiles are not a replacement to a tank, but a supplement to a whole combined arms unit. but that would be very long. Simply put, tanks where never invincible, and ever since the tank has existed there have always existed of cheap methods to defeat them. But said cheap methods from way back in WW1 to modern anti tank missiles, such methods are situational dependent, and tanks have been around and been highly useful despite such methods always being there.
But the takeaway is, warfare is always a combined arms warfare. send any element of your military, whether it be tanks, infantry, aircraft or other force out alone and unsupported and it will be defeated and destroyed by its counter.
If the cannons that are used for the object are obsolete than the object itself is obsolete
So, basically a MLRS.
torpedoes didn't kill the the battleship. Missiles and Carrier Air Power did
@@ryuukeisscifiproductions1818 I would like to see sources saying that each soldier cost north of six figures, mainly to see how it's calculated.
When I think of tanks I think of the Knight and his Suit of Armor. The rifle defeated the armor, but not the man himself. NWYT is probably right in his assessment that tank protection will be de-emphasized to shift the budget towards distributed defenses ie. more soldiers, more angel drones, better ECM etc. It will be about preventing anyone from firing on the glass cannon - since the cannon itself will still be of value in the field.
But then armor came back when they finally figured out how to make practical armor that was bullet resistant. It took centuries, but they found a way.
9:10 I shouldn't be laughing but having a random 100 dollar drone acting as a bomber with a grenade just sounds funny
I once saw a train full of military vehicles from trucks all thee way up to things like mobile artillery and tanks.
Slow as " FFFForty five miles per hour" 😌 My ears were working fine It seems.👌
Something to keep in mind is that a large portion of Ukraine is very flat, the Pontic steppe. But the Russians seem to be utilising their tanks in really bizarre ways, rather than sticking to their strengths
Rasputitsa season the bane of all tanks.
That's because of mud. They have to stick to the roads otherwise they would get stuck.
I swear this has got to be the very best video that’s come from this channel so far. Incredibly well detailed and comprehensive. Also being up-to-date on the very latest events whilst looking back on history in the right way, keeping an open mind but not just being an open ended video where they never get round to the end possible answer.
Thanks very much for making this. It really does feel like the future now is either to massively improve the engines of tanks, including hybrid options, simply scaling them up and accepting that they won’t be able to fit on trains anymore or as was mentioned here, reducing the weight of the armour. It might be though that simply we have reached the end of this particular shape of tank and a new design needs to come out. Perhaps one that actually isn’t a singular brick body and one that can actually have multiple components to be more mobile. Perhaps one that has four sets of tracks on suspension extended legs that can retract and expand. But yeah, it really has been shown in this war that the age of the drone in modern warfare in all aspects has begun. No more are they big singular devices flying high in the sky. They are now truly down on the ground with the rest of the soldiers helping in every way possible.
The real question is how much damage and strategic chaos did that 7 million dollar tank do before being destroyed by a 10k anti tank weapon?
Greetings from Kyiv ! Thanks for your videos. Can confirm that non of russian cyber attacks has caused any major damage or threat. Maybe some demoralizing public messages, but not effective, mostly for russian propaganda's public. And one more fact, people here are joking (or not) that most popular names in the nearest years will be Javelina for a girl and Bayraktar for a boy ))) watching real Bayraktar strike footages is a new late night show for us )))
Brad & Angelina
Bayraktar & Javelina 😉
Prays and thoughts are with Ukraine. Love your sense of humor but not as much as your countrymen/countrywomen resolve.
Slavini Ukrain 🇺🇦
I think the future is in loitering munitions. Imagine having a small disposable drone you can drop en masse from any plane. It could loiter for hours or longer if you use solar panels and coordinate attacks within a swarm. You can find amateurs creating solar powered RC planes on TH-cam.
It would only need to carry a small explosive device. Include a camera and other sensors and an effficient compute unit and it could seek out targets, mainly infantery using trained neural nets.
The goal is not to kill but to wound as to clog up logistics of the enemy.
Or imagine a similar drone with an infrared laser to blind the enemy. If is forbidden in the Geneva convention, bit we already live in a world where governments violate basic human rights of their own population, even in the West.
Military drones doesn't use electric engine, they use gas powered engine and sometimes jet engines. Electric engines are cool and all but they're less reliable on the battlefield and can only carry little payload due their limited strength. Also no military in their right mind would try rely on solar panels or wind turbines due to the fact that they're unreliable and needs to be extremely exposed to work efficiently, not to mention if you have a solar panel attached to your drone then you'll need to have parts of your drone that is not covered by radar absorbing paint which makes your drones easy target for SAMs.
Blinding your enemy with lasers sounds like the dumbest idea I've ever heard. First of all you'll need a super accurate guidance system which will cost a lot of money, and to use those just to blind people is a huge waste. Second of all, yes governments do violate the Geneva convention but that's not to say that the Geneva convention has no effect cause if that's the case then Russia would've used way more chemical warfare and napalm more than none.
@@robbieaulia6462 I think the addition of solar panels is not relying on it but as like a 2nd gas tank for the drone
Drone attack top of tank w charge...end of tank.
Drones are vulnerable to other drones. Which removes their big advantag of offering options to destroy high value targets at comparatively low cost. You'll need drones to protect your drone swarm from attack drones aiming at destroying your drone swarm etc. You will see an enormous expansion in drone types used by the affluent nations. They all are already looking into "Dronekiller" options right now, due to what has happened in Ukraine. (and most that had drone programs of their own before would have done so already without the war happening)
Plus most "drone kills" actually destroyed already disabled tanks (like they ran out of fuel and were left uncrewed often with hatches open. Especially the attractive videos with some juryrigged drone dropping a mortarshell and making a tank burn/throw off its turret.
"We know people have been saying tanks are obsolete for forty years and they're still being used, but trust us, THIS TIME..."
Tanks were originally made to break through the static lines of WWI. But since modern conflict is significantly more mobile, and trench warfare is increasingly rare, its hard to see their direct purpose.
You can’t be serious?!
What about their usage in the 104 years in warfare since 1918?
I’d say armies have found use for tanks in pretty much every war since WW1, despite the lack of static, trenched defensive lines.
I hope you’re trolling, or this is just a facepalm-level stupid comment, sorry to say.
Heck, last time I played Arma 3 tanks sure seemed obsolete. Getting into a vehicle was practically suicidal. You stand out so much and present an obvious target that can be hit from miles away. So long as anti-tank missiles are relatively ubiquitous among the opposing infantry forces I don't really see what purpose tanks serve.
Lol, yeah. If you have a good driver though, they usually know how to hide from Titans.
yes ATGMs are improving far faster than tanks. Pretty soon you might see ATGMs which can be shot out of sight several miles away using drones as spotters. Tanks stand no chance.
I think it's designed for low-tech wars. I don't see Russia making NLAW-like weapons anytime soon, at least until those that were captured were sent to China to be reverse engineered, but I highly doubt whatever they could come up can be used in the current war. However, the reason why the west had been reluctant to provide Ukraine high tech munitions like Javelins and NLAWs until the very last minute is because of a high risk of these weapons to be captured by the enemy and its potential to be just copied and made a cheaper version of it.
fun, but video games aren't accurate reflections of real life. The most modern tanks are designed with exactly those weapons in mind.
Don't conflate the paper tiger tanks of Russia as an accurate reflection of real modern tanks. Those things only look good before the corruption and inefficiency of the Russian military does it's damage.
>plays arma 3 once
> im military expert
You also don’t drive tanks across the country because they get less than 1mpg. That would be a very expensive cost for hundreds of tanks.
Neither tanks or armored vehicles are obsolete, but their use in urban environments needs to be limited due to widespread cover and concealment hazards available to an adversary.
I saw something somewhere about "drone tanks". Much smaller than MBTs because no crew.
Autonomous truck filled with sand bags will be much cheaper. Kamikaze drones are more effective attack platform. Tanks just don't have a good role in modern battlefield.
And tanks destroy the roads they roll upon.
@@kazedcat lol, lmao, and I suppose your AI driven trucks armored with sandbags are going to be effective at literally anything, you know, besides wasting time and resources, because it wouldn't do shit to anyone with access to a ww1 field gun, let alone modern hardware needed to destoy a tank
@@calebbarnhouse496 It is cheaper than a tank. And it has no meatbags inside to cook so disposable. You can retrofit old trucks and as long as it can drive straight on a road no one cares if it run over enemy combatant. If enemy blows it up then all the sandbags is now forward cover for the infantry.
This is a great video explaining modern war.
I'll admit, I thought the title said "Are tanks obese"
Tanks armor is like infantry helmet, it can stop some low caliber threats (mostly hand gun ammo) and is kept light because of that. If it were to be armored to stop rifle bullets, it’s weight would be way to high. I think looking at the original first days of Blitzkrieg is a good place, as those tanks weren’t heavily armored and were so successful in France because of great communication and organization. Good Armament (for the time) and mainly speed. Late War Tanks speed decreased substantially.
Your comparing a 10 million dollar vehicle to a couple hundred dollar helmet. Like the Guy said, the issue with tanks is economy
They’re not light. Modern tank armor is very thick and capable of stopping most threats and munitions, only in the front. Also tanks have gotten the fastest they’ve been. Modern tanks heavily outspeed all the other tanks of previous date.
This entire comment is wrong lol
They won in france not because they were good, in fact they were shit and discarded after the invasion of france
they won because the french were following antiquated doctrine and comms. the “unstoppable” german army was absolutely garbage in practice
What? You do know that, since the British developed Chobham armour, tank armour has been a composite of a variety of different materials?
The fact that Russia cannot even produce electronics for these tiny drones tells you just how much we overestimate their power
@@vuhoang-ul8co sanctioned so hard they decided to…..import foreign made parts?
Those British challenger 3's mentioned aren't new tanks...they are upgrades to challenger 2. Once the program is complete, the first nation to use tanks in battle will have a total tank force of less than 150. Once they had thousands...you have to wonder why.
the soldiers in full kit and face paint on laptops when you begin the section on cyber warfare is hilarious.
This is a trick question. Could the US use tanks to invade all of south america? Yes. Russia could have done the same around them. What they can't do is fight against high tech countries with guided missiles and other heavy artillery which is not typically available to rebel or insurgent type groups. Had we not sent weapons to Ukraine the tanks would have worked perfectly.
Evidently not it Grozny is anything to go by. Even still Russia has lost plenty of tanks simply because they lack proper night optics and a robust supply chain.
Some countries of south america are also high tech
the tanks implementation in ukraine is what mainly caused the tank losses, not the guided anti tank missiles
I'm not not downplay US help, but Ukraine has ukrainian made Stugna anti-tank missiles which are also quite effective.
i dont think tanks would be suitable to cross the Amazon Jungle
My Opinion on the Cyberwar most fear actually isn't what a lot think, Most Military equipment mainly the US Runs on its own on independent things and not on Word wide Cyber connections, therefore making doing such Cyberattacks on military stuff is quite hard. So I'm not saying that it's impossible but rather saying I see it as a rare or unlikely chance.
Gotta love the "Tanks are slow as ffffforty miles per hour."
I see two main scenarios. Either tanks will have their role reduced to where Mechanized armor with full infantry support will fill the role of primary armor, or new anti ATGM measures will be developed that make ATGMs borderline useless.
I personally think it’ll be the first of the two. Likely mechanized assets will gain larger and more powerful weapons but maintain infantry support. But I have been wrong before.
Neither will happen.
This "Scenario" of Tanks being vulnerable to a new weapon has happened WHENEVER YOU HAD TANKS IN WAR. Since their first mission in 1916. NON STOP.
Any improved tank was always met with improved antitank weapons. (Which is basically true for all forms of protection and protection breaking since the first weapons of war thousands of years ago).
Nothing you can do will render ATGM "borderline useless" as they'll adapt to any new countermeasure too. All you can achieve is a temporary loss of effectivity, shifting the balance slightly in favor of the armor for a while, until a new technology is introduced analogue to the top down thing that now is so "invincible" for ATGM warheads.
And the weaponslabs on all sides are right now already working on the next stage of drone warfare, developing dronekiller drones to bring in a cheap method to take out any weapons that could endanger armor and infantry befor eit is even close to hitting them. Once we see that kind of drone being introduced, there will be counter-dronekiller drones and so on. Those concepts will wherever possible also include AI or "swarm intelligence" to combat the likelyhood of electronic warfare disturbing remote controll mechanisms.
That is how weapons development works, you need to find an affordable method to take out a new threat as throwing 20 times the value of your threat at it to destroy it will not be sustainable, even for a rich nation as the USA.
Also properly lead tanks ALWAYS had infantry accompanying them. A few Blitzkrieg examples non withstanding. Unaccompanied armor is just too vulnerable on its own, ambushes, airraids, tanks are limited in how well they can register such threats and even more so when rapidly on the march.
Can we all take a moment to appreciate Not what you Think for this amazing video. Man thank you very much
CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT!
In the current Ukraine war, we are seeing OBSOLETE tanks and IFVs that are UNSUPPORTED and therefore vulnerable being destroyed, which is to be expected. But don’t forget about the many vehicles which have NOT been taken out, and also remember short clips like we are seeing are removed from context and should be taken with a grain of salt.
How good a tank is, isn’t just about raw numbers.
A really shit tank can decimate the enemy if it’s well supported, used in the right way and the crew are well trained.
A really good tank can get destroyed almost instantly if it’s used badly, it’s alone and the crew are badly trained.
CONTEXT! War isn’t black and white!
Edit: Also, especially in eastern europe, most of the vehicles used are old soviet era vehicles, especially the russian ones. Truely modern vehicles are scarce in this conflict.
To answer “are tanks obsolete?”, most of the Russian tanks are, but tanks in general are not.
Exactly look at the M1 abrams used by non American forces in places such as Syria etc. combined arms is key, tanks are such a force multiplier when used properly. Defence, or offence. But ironically, Europe was exactly the theatre that all soviet era equipments was designed to be used in.
This comment is stupid, Tanks are very very out-dated that's why most countries are designing IFVS and light vehicles and not heavy MBT anymore, Just because Russia has shitloads of these lumps of metal doesn't make them as good as they were 50 years ago.
Abrams would be getting slaughtered just as quickly, except all of their systems would be actually working and not funded by the swear jar.
@@ElderWillows yes the key isn’t the a rams itself it’s the doctrine and practices that follow it when operated by the USA, which is infantry support, air support, artillery. Combined arms. The tank is one part of the puzzle but when used correctly it’s a valuable tool.
it's not how big it is, it's how you use it. lol
european colonization of africa is black and white.
Nice video! Just wanted to point out that combined arms doctrine was developed at the end of workd war 1 and submarines preceded that war
0:06:18
Skeptic:- Tanks are slow!
Tank Commander:- My tank can hold my beer!
4:30. Wrong. The Russians have been relying on unsupported tanks too much. In a combined arms situation tanks still have a significant place on the modern battlefield.
Unsupported and no active protection systems. APS have been around for well over a decade at this point. So long that they've made their way into video games.
@@Crosshair84 literal lines of them without much infantry along side and little to no recon
Drones will just take them out
they are not obsolete if used correctly . for example the modern British armour doctrine uses tanks in a supporting role , focusing on long range fire support and countering enemy vehicles and in desert storm it worked pretty well (zero combat losses). but Russian armour doctrine is about 50 years out of date. it will be some time before defences that can counter the power of inf At weapons and drones knowing your tanks location at all times , calling artillery on you . can be developed if at all , then maybe a new way of using tanks may be found . but old armour on armour warfare is long gone.
''modern British armour doctrine uses tanks in a supporting role , focusing on long range fire support and countering enemy vehicles'' Couldnt you just use artillery instead?
I imagine this comment will be shadow-blocked by YT as well, but more or less. Its pretty clear you no longer need to have a tank, to defeat a tank. It has been for ages, but now the intelligence aspect is catching up with it.
@@ytsenhiemstra626 Difficult to take ground with artillery alone. You still need boots on the ground.
@@tompiper9276 Tanks aren't designed to carry people. They're designed to be an overwhelming show of force. They're not, in a world where a few AT weapons can kill them, if they're not properly supported. You don't need boots on the ground, you need to support whatever soldiers and super-weapons you have on the ground...
@@ytsenhiemstra626 artillery is not mobile. But I think the future tank will be like a very mobile artillery with light armor that can shoot on the move.
I think we're going to start using either unmanned tanks and or unmanned ifvs such as putting a god damn 20mm vulcan and a javilen on tracks it is and isn't a tank and or ifv but it could be a possible replacement
Smaller drone tanks and some wheeled tanks are the future. Maybe even a rc technical
Historically, Russia has been one of the world’s top arms exporters. I wonder how many orders have been cancelled after seeing Russian equipment in action.
Probably very little because Russian equipment is suppose to be cheap and easy to learn and Russia and it's buyers are aware of that
Isn't the ak supoosed to be one of the most reliable gun designs
@@Poppofski AK is the most cloned gun out there. No reason to buy Russian AK over any other AK.
If they're failing that bad, I guess the world can stop crying about Ukraine now. Time to move on to the next global scare..
@@SpencerLemay oh didn't know that ^^ thank you
Just a note on the cyber warfare aspect, most infrastructure in the US is not connected to internet anymore. There is internet in the building, but for example, a reactor is not connected to the general web but to a specific network that is closed so no one is able to access it.
Correct. Most cyber attack fears are greatly exaggerated. Power systems are not hack able unless you have physical access to them. Besides in such a war I would more count on a high altitude emp being a thing to wipe out all satellites and doing massive damage to anything electrical in the opposing nation.
Thanks for another quality video!