Excellent video. As Chieftain said, there's nothing out there that can do what a tank does. Remember that the PanzerGrenadier briefings from WWII concentrated on how vulnerable tanks can be. They've never been invulnerable, and people who think they are will always call tanks obsolete when a soldier with an anti-tank weapon blows them up. Tanks still have a place, because no gunship or NLAW can do what a tank does, and a tank can kill a tank quicker than a Javelin can.
Tanks haven't even reached their zenith yet! Proper training and tactics is key. Remember, it's complacency that kills. Well, that and Saint Javelin and Saint NLAW...
Hello! I am from Romania. In 1982 i was in the army . We had T55 tanks but was a special battalion with T72. I understand that this tank was upgraded but is like my grandmother dressed in bikinny
Also they are doing really basic mistakes. That clip in this video in the beginning of the tank getting completely blown up. That seems to just be simple track mine or something like that. Sure big load out track mine (probably a satchel of multiple track mines, since just the initial blast is so huge even before the tank explodes). However who in their right mind... drives over clearly predictable and clearly constrained stream crossing without expecting it to be mined. The tank had no rollers, no mine plow, no infantry sappers checking the choke point. Like ofcourse one is going to lose lot of tanks, if one just ..... drives forward and expects enemy to not do all the dirty tricks and ambushes. Instead expecting "we drive forward, they present themselves at other end of this field with their tanks, we at this end, we have gun on gun shoot out. Strongest tanks win". Ehhh... why would anyone send a tank or present themselves, if invader is just stupid enough to drive straight into mines and get their tanks destroyed that way. In that case even having good supply of fuel and ammunition doesn't help. Just means enemy will drive into the mines faster and it has more rounds to secondary explode inside. It also isn't exactly rocket science to demine. Rollers, flails, plow, line charges. However it is slow going ofcourse, but well so is losing every columns first tank as mine stomper every few miles. Not that I mind nor will the Ukrainians. Every tank destroyed on cheap mine is one not needed to be dealt otherwise.
I drove old M47 tanks that I turned into autonomous vehicles for advanced weapons tests. I watched Hellfire missiles shot right down open hatches. When I was back home I told my dad, an old WWII tanker who had fought Rommel's tankers in N. Africa all about the complete death of tanks due to modern technology. He listened to my descriptions of the rapid, remote destruction of my tanks. Then he said to me, "John, in a real war, a lot of the fancy stuff breaks down after the first week, and a good rain or snow. War always comes down to one man trying to kill another. And that's when you really don't want to hear the sound of clanking tracks coming up over the hill."
There are many Russians who wish that they had never ever seen the inside of a tank-if they had another chance at this life they would most definitely choose to sit on top of the hill and wait for clanking tracks especially if they had a harpoon handy
Your dad was a wise man that analogy couldn’t be more true! The Russians are using outdated tactics and clearly haven’t trains against modern battlefield technology.
What surprises me frequently in the videos available online, is the sheer number of times that an MBT or a people carrier is caught alone without any support either from other armoured vehicles and/or infantry.
I'm speaking from my experience as a former infantry man in Chile. No, the tank is not dead; it's the tactics the russian forces use for them. We work under the combined arms doctrine and having a tank supporting you it's a HUUUGE force multiplier. What's cheaper and faster, having a forward air controller guide an F16 or your platoon leader telling a tanker "I need an HE round on the blue house"?
@@12sleep23 he is right, though... only some of us who were (un)lucky to find themselves in war as common duster, know to appreciate heavy armor watching your back
All the thousands of generals in Russia for the past century have never even considered what you know from experience. That's why they send their one tank alone without any support every time. Now tell me what is wrong with this picture?
"The Chieftan" made a video addressing this point. His take was that doctrine will dictate the continued use of the tank. For an army to take ground, it needs the ability to overcome certain types of defenses and the tank is currently the only weapons system which can provide that capability. He pointed out that infantry are vulnerable to almost everything on a battlefield and that hasn't make infantry obsolete because there are certain things on a battlefield that only infantry can do. He suggested that the increased vulnerability of tanks to current weapons systems will likely result in improved tank designs and tactical doctrine that takes the greater risk of man portable anti-tank systems into account. But, unless something is developed which can do the job tanks are currently tasked with doing, they'll remain on the battlefield even at an increased risk of destruction. I find it difficult to find a flaw in his reasoning.
Flaw 1 The Doctrine of holding ground. That's just not true anymore. The Taliban and the NVA never held much ground but they still won. The US easily invaded Iraq but they couldn't stop the insurrection. It's easier and cheaper to break the enemies will to fight. Flaw 2 Improper comparison. The US army is the smallest it has been in decades. To survive, infantry has to be extremely specialized. They are no longer main punch of an army for over a hundred years. Also politics NOT tactics means infantry still has to be used. It's easier to kill infantry with chemical weapons or cluster munition but left leaning bleeding hearts don't want to use those weapons (think of the children my behind). Why are Russian trying to conqure Kviv when they can Nuke it without any additional consequences. Also a replacement is in the works, Drones. Flaw 3 Building a better tanks. Tank have hit a wall thanks to their weight. M1A1 SepV3 weighs over 70 tons. It's nearly impossible to send it anywhere quickly. Most bridges can't support that much weight. Also rockets may be more expensive but they are simple and lightweight. For the weight of 1 M1A1 you could send 1000 Javelins.
It's not the end of the tank, it just feels like it's the end of it being a super weapon mentality. Add to the fact it's been 30 years since the last conventional warfare conflict ('92 Gulf War) and 50 years from the last major conventional warfare conflict (October war), doctrines, weapons, and adaptations change.
@@reubensandwich9249 it has never been a super weapon to professionals. It is one tool in the toolbox. When used properly it has no peer when used incorrectly it is extremely vulnerable and prone to destruction. Just like every other combined-arm.
As a college history professor, the old saying about Russia still seems to be true. Russia is never as strong as it appears, but, at the same time, Russia is never as weak as it appears. Good video
The Russians have depth of geography and lots of difficult terrain so defense is easy unless your enemies are familiar with great distances and quick movement combined with cutting the head off the beast rather than reducing every town/hamlet/city. The Mongols understood how to deal with it. Neither the French nor the Germans every really understood the geographical size of Russia. Right now Russian leadership corruption combined with fairly catastrophic demographics weaken them. No one has any interest in invading Russia, they just don't want to be Russian slave states which infuriates the Imperialistic side of Russia....Alex Stubb, former Finish PM has some interesting thoughts on Russia today th-cam.com/video/EQzrleKU9B0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=STGSeries
@Gorgeous George Possibly. I have a feeling that they'll become at least more automated. Perhaps one commander will be able to operate an entire tank, either remotely or in-situ. At least, that'll be the case for the nations that are advanced enough to progress. It's obvious that Russia won't be.
I think armour-led offensives are at an end. They're just too conspicuous a target and massed tanks require massive and very vulnerable logistics - Russian logistic failure would not have mattered nearly so much if they had not tried a traditional blitzkrieg. The tank is still useful as infantry support though, especially in urban combat. You just don't need a lot of them.
This is not the end of the tank, but the end of the Blitzkrieg Doctrine associated with any armoured force from the 1930's to the 2000's. Desert Storm was probably the last time that you could send in a large tank army to exploit the preparation by the Air Force in the Blitzkrieg manner. The open flanks of quick unaccompanied tank advances have gone far too risky , so tanks have to become mobile bunkers again.
also.. i honestly think this war teaches us nothing about tank warfare, i would get the hell away too if i was sent to invade an independent democratic country for no damn reason.
Extremely insightful and interesting. David is such a great communicator. Adapt at explaining the concepts but also brilliant at conveying the historical and contemporary context.
His argument is that the tank has been predicted to be obsolete before, so don't believe it. It's a weak argument. There are good examples of weapons systems like the aircraft carrier that are clearly obsolete. In every war game over the last 30 year the US aircraft carrier goes to the bottom of the sea along with most of its escorts. An aircraft carrier is simply too big and slow and missiles too good and fast for the former to be viable. A tank may be the terrestrial analogy.
After 1919 it was stated that the tank was Obsolete, as the conditions that made it nessecary would never come to pass again, and litteraly after every war since then, people have called it Obsolete, and in 100 years, they will continue to call it obsolete. Yet the fact remains, a tank is a powerful weapons system that will likely remain for a long while yet.
Networked AI ground and air drones will replace the tank. There is only so much you can do to add armor and weight to a tank until it becomes too big, too heavy and too expensive to be practical.
Yet you are making the same mistake - you are generalizing something that is very uncertain. It really may be that this time it IS different (or maybe tank will stay here for another century as you are saying). Maybe few reasons, why this time it's different: in the past tank defences always grown and tank got heavier and heavier. This path can't continue, ground can't hold any more. Shoulder fired weapons can outrange tank (not in the past). Shoulder fired weapons are now able to strike the weakest point - be it top or anywhere else. That makes heavy frontal armor less useful or even useless. It's no longer feasible to mass produce tank in thousands as it was in the past (tank got super expensive). Tank can no longer hide from a technologically advanced adversary and it became target for long range precision guided artillery and other long range weapons.
Yes... Because in 1919 they had a $30,000 man portable ATGM launcher that could destroy a $3,000,000 machine in one hit. Crushing middle eastern famers who are equipped with AK's and HE RPG's in a tank is one thing, but against well funded militaries with Drones, Attack heli's and the sort is completely different. A tank doesn't survive them scenarios, regardless of ''doctrine'', strategy or infantry support.
@@tanner1111 They actually did. There have been multiple points in history including then, where weapons technology outclassed defensive technology for a time. After WW2, with the advent of HEAT weapons that could pen any points of existing tanks while being man portable and long range, the same thing was said. This is another time of that. It will probably be mitigated by the advent of APS. But you realize that having cheap weapons that can destroy something doesn’t make it obsolete. That would be like saying a soldier is obsolete because it costs tens to hundreds of thousands to train them and they can be killed by a bullet that costs cents to make. Something becomes obsolete when another thing can do it’s job better.
Seems to me, that the problem has always been lack of infantry support around the tanks - is what caused them to be ineffective in these examples. A tank is easy to flank without it being supported by infantry
Yes and no. The videos we see are knocked out tanks, which ARE tanks that did not have good infantry support. Those that DID see good infantry support are NOT knocked out video opportunities, because they are not knocked out. A variation of survivor bias.
Infantry support as now tactically conceived will not save tanks. A Russian BTG has around 200 infantry men to protect it from the opposing Javelin armed infantry men (approximately 2 miles range). The effective range of man portable AT missiles will increase and leave your own protective Infantry deploying far out side the effective range of your tank support. (and you will need a much large proportion of Infantry to armored vehicles). A Russian BTG has limited ability to protect the vehicle (all around defense), lacking ability to recon an opposing force, or should the find the ability to suppress them.
Yes, it will be hard to send an infantry screen far enough ahead of your tanks to counter a concealed enemy armed with Javelins having a 4,000 m range. It will be virtually impossible for infantry to screen out to the 40,000 m range of an enemy armed with Switchblade 600s. Infantry won't protect friendly tanks from enemy infantry with the latest anti-tank weapons. Only some sort of active defense to shoot down incoming missiles and suicide drones might do that. Tanks may require protection from accompanying vehicles that specialize in that sort of small-scale air defense.
Units don't become obsolete when someone comes up with something that destroys them. They become obsolete when someone comes up with something that does their job better. Battleships didn't disappear because someone invented torpedoes, they disappeared because carriers and missile cruisers could drop munitions on targets from further away and with more precision. Heck, soldiers haven't disappeared just because someone invented bullets. So until someone invents a thing that has better direct fire capabilities than a tank there will always be some version of the tank. Might look a bit different, but at the end of the day, military units are defined by their capabilities not their defenses, and the tank offers something no other unit does right now.
You obviously have a good point, however, even though Im not an expert, I think you're not entirely right. Armour for infantry for example disappeared because of guns and the Armour being far too expensive for large scale use. This comparison makes even more sense due to tanks being a bit kinda like armour. Armour wasn't replaced by anything better. Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.
@@derbasierte4194 mate you are spewing rubbish. Armour disappeared because bullets could penetrate. But then armour that could withstand hits from bullet was invented and used from the early adoption of guns till today. Tanks don't just offer armour for a few people. They offer the uppertunity to kill anything in a huge radius, and basically lock down several kilometers of frontline. For this nothing beats a tank. Yes they can be defeated but a properly defended tank (combined arms) is very hard to hit.
@@derbasierte4194 My point is that having armor is not the mission critical element of a tank. Having powerful direct fire capability on a highly mobile platform is. If armor becomes irrelevant to that equation because there are too many weapons that defeat traditional armor but you still need a mobile cannon then the tank isn't obsolete, it's just more vulnerable and needs to update its defenses and tactics.
@@derbasierte4194 The word "Bullet Proof" comes from steel breastplates that were shot with firearms to PROVE that they could stop a bullet. Armor has always been kind of rare on the battlefield due to cost, but it NEVER went away. In the 20s in the US, you could buy a bulletproof vest for $25.
I served in the Balkans in 1994 with the United Nations and we had a good laugh every time we saw some (already by then) archaic T-34 putter by, pulled out of a museum or off its plinth in front of an army base, because it seemed so utterly useless and suicidal on a battlefield with T-72s and T-55s - that is, right up until we realised, that even a (then) 50 year old T-34 with a couple of blown cylinders was still impervious to bullets, if the other side only had AK-47s and handguns ~ and that is how they were frequently used, against villages that refused to take sides. Heck, even a homemade armored tractor (plenty of those around at that time and place) was as mighty as a King Tiger in WW2 - if the other side only had decency and compassion to defend themselves with. What civilians and armchair generals often forget is, that there is simply not enough tanks, planes, artillery pieces, missiles, drones and so on, to cover every square mile of a frontline, much less warzone - both tactics and strategy is almost always the art of mastering sparse resources to best effect. That's precisely why competent command is so important. The entire rest of the world can be equiped with laser firing hover tanks, for all it matters, but if you are the only one with a pointed stick on your section of frontline and the other side only has a slice of cheese to defend themselves with - you win. A T-72 is plenty fierce against only semi-trained Ukrainian home defense units - if no Javelins are around on that particular day or front section, make no mistake.
Russian tanks are effective against Ukrainians with javelins as well. The Javelin is completely overrated. All the media coverage around the Javelin and the Turkish drones are just free advertising agendas. Most Russian vehicles that have been destroyed have been destroyed by Ukrainian artillery, not by Javelins or NLAWs. At the same time most Ukrainians that have been getting killed have been being killed by Russian artillery, not by Russian tanks. However the disparity is much smaller on the Russian side. They have been killing Ukrainians with a wider array of weaponry. Whereas the Ukrainians only have hit and run tactics with mortars and artillery at their disposal. Either way it's a wash. The guy in this video does not know what he's talking about, he has taken Ukrainian and NATO propaganda bait hook and sinker. The open source intelligence that he's referring to and that social media war that he is referring to is the only war that the West is winning right now. The economic and physical war is being won by Russia. The US is not trying to bluff its way and lie its way to victory in Ukraine, The strategies just to keep the truth buried long enough that the Ukrainians can be sacrificed on the altar and the US military industrial complex can get paid. Even now the Western media is starting to spoon feed Western populations the new narrative, and it's a stark contrast to the "Ukraine is about to make a push on the Kremlin" nonsense that they've been selling.
That's is why I say the future belongs to "hovertanks" AKA helicopters. They can be where they need to be in minutes while tracked vehicles may need hours if not days depending on terrain and distance. The idea will remain, only the means of transporting the weapons will change.
@@sirshootalot6400 You can't hold land with helicopters - that very much requires boots and/or tracks on the ground, or you have lost control over that territory the moment you fly back to refuel. Tanks are still very much major pivot points for not just conquering territory, but also holding it.
I think people forget that during wars...equipment gets destroyed by the "enemy" regardless of how advanced it is. That's why many are made. It's as if people think it should be absolutely indestructible, otherwise it is inferior.
Completely agree. People get caught up in specific technological advancements that they think make something invincible or impossible to shoot down or detect or whatever. And in reality all that really happens is it gives an edge in certain scenarios. But then all the propaganda comes out and people refuse to believe that neither propaganda is correct. It has to be black and white yes or no, winner or loser. War is messy and anything can and will be shot down, or detected, or destroyed, regardless of whatever marketing their side says about it. Like you said, it doesn’t help that numbers for things are completely exaggerated in war by both sides, making the propaganda seem more real if you believe it.
true but just like all previous threats they can be countered by combined arms warfare and infantry+artillery integtration. I can easily see a return of gun biased SPAA systems to counter the drone threat.
@@jonsouth1545 I hear you there. Just as fighter aircraft initially evolved to counter enemy recon flights, we'll see something similar develop for counter drone warfare - be it ground-based, air-based or both. Initial systems are already in limited service...
As soon as Laser Defense Systems become more capable, and affordable, you'll find that aircraft, missiles, and drones are suddenly restricted in the same way that helicopters were when AA became more widespread, and affordable.
Directed energy weapons (laser and microwave transmitters ) to soft kill drones already exist and are currently deployed by the US Army in it's Stryker based M-SHORAD vehicle. But the real way to deal with drones is going to be other drones. Drone swarms are already a thing, and soon they will be commonplace on the battlefield, defending against enemy drones.
No surprise The Tank Museum has the best breakdown of the use (misuse?) of armour in Ukraine. Very well done guys. Glad to see my donations and purchases going to great content!
I too, have found that the military history channels have been the most valuable, if that is the right word, sources on the present invasion mounted by tsar vlad.
If the tank was taken off the battlefield, the first lesson would be, 'we need an armoured vehicle with protection against the amount of shrapnel flying about'. Then it would be 'we need a decent gun'. The add hoc drone threat can be countered with ad hoc add-ons, that's with the knowledge that it will gain in electronic sophistication. A great difficulty, is the production of a well designed tank. If you already have them, for god sake keep them. Look at the adaption's of the Centurion, that supported in First Gulf War etc & what tank crews achieved in their tanks. Are we not going to be able to bridge lay because of drones or anti tank? Find counter measures but don't lose the advantage of having a tank. We were lucky to get the Challenger!
Yea we need fast mobile troop carriers, basically new versions of the old Strykers. If they run into a tank then have infantry get out and blow the tank up with Javelin, or deploy a UAV drone to take it out, or call in an airstrip, or artillery, or just go around it since you're faster and more mobile.
@@BoleDaPole In my opinion it will be the end of the tank once someone figures out how to shrink and keep the power of the railgun which are soon(?) to mounted on US battleships. It would make urban warfare even more hellish. Either vehicle mounted or infantry carryable. Edit 2.
Future infantry soldier will fly like Iron Man. Don't need bridges then. Honestly this is about the end of TANKS not heavy vehicles in general. I'm sure if we needed it, John Deere or Caterpillar could convert one of their vehicles to be a bridge layer.
I liked the fact that you quoted one of the best modern generals to have lived, "Iron" Mike Tyson, in this documentary. "Everyone has a plan until their punched in the face"😂
Russian failures in the use of armour reminded me of the early stage of the 1973 Yom Kippur war in Sinai, when Israeli armour attacked Egyptian infantry near the Suez canal and met ATGMs like Sagger for the first time, in large numbers. The Israelis had divided their forces, diluting their efforts fatally and lost heavily
Environmemt quite different,in ukraine you got thick forest and mud,ideal for defense and ambush.think of soviet invasion of finland,where soviet lost 220000 died.
@@JinKazama92 I was there and saw plenty of abrams tanks taken out by kornet missiles. My buddy who was in the 1st cav said the same thing. They might not have been completely destroyed like the Russian tanks but they were definitely taken out of the fight.
Thank you, Mr. Willey, for your reasoned analysis of the current situation regarding the effectiveness of armored fighting vehicles in the Ukrainian conflict. And may I say, it is so refreshing to see a presenter of your skill and experience using paper notes in a pinch in order to guide your presentation. I guess those forecasts of the death of paper were also premature. Repping the old school!
Thats not really true. No matter what, if you have old technology, you cant win. Put 2 of the greatest fighters on earth in an arena. Give one a spear, a shield, and a gambeson. Give the other a modern infantry kit. A rifle, body armor, a helmet, grenades. Guess who will win
Agree with previous comments, that armour without infantry or air support is always likely to fail. Let's not forget, unmanned armour could also play a huge role in future. Sadly from a human perspective, the need for tanks remains, but the tactics and technology will adapt as required to ensure they still play a pivotal role in protecting us from aggression in the future.
It seems Russia's entire plan with their armor was to enact a "blitzkrieg", capture Kiev (and more importantly the airfields), reinforce with infantry relatively quickly, and deliver a decisive and quick strike. That's where armor is king - quick strikes before the enemy can organize. The problem in Ukraine, is that when the Russians failed to capture Kiev and its airfields, they should have tucked tail and ran. Especially once the Ukrainian gov signaled they will NOT capitulate. Even more so one western weapons started flooding in. Russia's continued pressure and response is nothing but sheer stupidity on their part. They have literally doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their stupidity and absolute disregard for.... anything. Part of me hopes they keep this up and lose their entire military for this stupidity, the other part of feels for the lives they're wasting. But then again, Russia has always indicated life is cheap to them. They are after all nothing but a nation that can be described of as trailer park trash but with nukes. If it weren't for nukes the world would have rid themselves of them decades ago.
They did in the infantry carriers and trucks that also got burned, and those carriers are tight space to squeeze out of in a hurry. Many of the infantry carriers just retreated quickly or the troops fled when the tanks got burned, Orc roasters. They simply don’t have enough boots on the ground. They needed 1 million to take Ukraine and secure their rear lines, they only had in total 200,000 men.
@@pauledwards7074 dehumanization of the enemy is done by sociopaths as a prelude to genocide. Amazing that you think you're one of the "good guys" you neocon psycho.
@@Nik-jq4tx They wouldn’t, this is just a case of telephone where people repeat what they have heard without it actually being right. Infantry support is crucial in urban environments and during ambushes, it won’t help against javelin type missiles. The only thing that would help with that is development of better APS, which is already happening.
Funny fact: I called Russian BS on the Armata long before the war started. This goes for almost everything they put out, new submarines etc. In Soviet times the Russian army was state funded and had to produce stuff that was working, maybe not the best but It was working. In Russian times they show you clips of super torpedos, new submarines, aircraft carriers and the Armata. Russia of today is plundered from within by greedy private persons who has no interest of producing the stuff they show. Because building it will cost enormous amount of money they rather stuff in their own pockets.
Tell this to ukrainians. Whose cities now being destroyed with not interceptable rockets created by "greedy people with no interest of producing the stuff they show".
Russian state TV said they have the ability to detonate an invincible nuclear torpedo in the sea next to UK which "will create a huge tsunami of radioactive water". But maybe it was just propaganda & their nuclear weapon capability's been badly limited from within by greedy private persons?
Also those T-14's we see in the parades are literally the only one's the Russians have at the moment. It hasn't gone into real production yet and is years behind. Which kinda means there must be something wrong with it in the basic level. Or some Putins buddy stole all the rubles that were meant for that.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 yea becuase a nuclear torpedo is a new and revolutionary invention, think the west abandoned the idea during the 60/70s because it was retarded from the start.
We can simplify greatly: tanks CANNOT be used without infantry. Simple. The tanks protect the infantry, take out machine gun nests and everything else for the infantry. In return, the infantry must be IN FRONT of the tanks to protect them from anti-tank weapons. Any questions?
@@ClockworksOfGL of course, there is absolutely no cover in a desert. I was talking about the cities, fields and forests of Ukraine. the balance swings to tanks the more open the field.
@@markus717 - What’s happening in Ukraine isn’t a problem with tanks, it’s a problem with Russian tanks. They suck. The armor is decades out of date and they’re notorious for exploding at the drop of a hat. Sorry, the T-72 is a lousy tank to field in 2022, and that’s assuming they’ve actually been equipped properly. But who knows how many ERA blocks are actually working, since crooked generals and oligarchs have skimmed the Russian military dry for years.
My uncle served for 20+ years, he once told me the people afraid of the Russian military was the media, he also quoted a book he recommended to me "The KIller Angels", Amateurs talk about tactics, Professionals talk about logistics, that the Russians never had a good logistical backbone
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions This, so much this. And ALL OF THE BOMBING the WEST did against Germanys Industrial capacity. You're welcome Soviet Union. GJ taking the initiative WE gave you.
He sounds like a very wise man. Tactics only become important when the force in question has food, fuel, and ammunition to fight with. As the saying goes, "soldiers win battles, logistics win wars."
@@DraconX3 Not just that, we gave them so much fuel, clothes, food, weapons, etc, 1/3 of the Red Army was sustained on material shipped from the West. Stalin himself acknowledged, as did Kruschev, that the USSR would've lost without the US or Britain.
Nicholas Moran made an excellent point in his video on this same topic, when he said that the tank will really only disappear from the battlefield when a new weapons system comes about that can do what a tank is designed to do better than the tank can. Tanks are designed to get a big, direct-fire gun to where that direct fire is needed, and then be durable enough to employ that firepower. The Russians seem to be trying to use their tanks for things other than that particular mission, assuming that big guns and heavy armor can just roll in and sweep all before them; that is not the case, obviously. When used as intended, tanks are still a devastating weapon. When used for other tasks, they generally seem to not fare as well. As long as the need for heavily armored, mobile direct firepower is there, tanks will be adjusted and adapted to be able to carry out that mission. When a new weapon comes about that does that mission better, or when that mission no longer ever needs to be carried out, that's when tanks will become obsolete.
Not necessarily the case. Missiles and heavy mobile artilery dominate now. Tanks are extremely vulnerable unless you control the skies. The balance of power has shifted. Time to stop letting nostalgia guide your thinking.
I think the tank still holds a vital place on the battlefield, as Chieftain put it "If things were removed from the battlefield because of their vulnerabilities, the infantryman would have been replaced a long time ago". The tank can do things that other military power cannot, the T-72 itself when used in more capable hands has been effective in this war, Ukraine are using them to great effect. and not once in any of the footage ive seen has a russian crew deployed smoke from their dischargers or performed any kind of SAGAR dance. This leads me to believe that the Tank is capable when used appropriately, but the russians just dont know how to use them properly
Trust Chieftain to use emotion instead of logic. Well done! No. The cost of an infantryman is a bushel of potatos. The cost of a tank is 30 tones of steel and 10,000 hours of skilled labor. I'm willing to lose a few potatos. (OK, hyperbole, but come on. The original quote is ridiculous.)
@@princeofcupspoc9073 the vast amount of your army and therefore expenditure is always infantry, therefore they will always make up most of the expense between their training and their equipment. The quote is not ridiculous, items are removed because of a lack of capability, not because of a vulnerability, tomahawks replaced level bombing because it offers better capability, missile destroyers replaced battleships because of their increased capability, the tank is fast, armoured fire support that can do things no other vehicle can, SPGs lack the protection, and IFVs lack the firepower, the tank will not disappear because it is weak to ATGMs, not until something better comes along
A very interesting take. I too got swept up with the media reports, thinking this was the end of the tank as we know it. But seeing it pointed out that this has happened many times in the past I've been swung back around to thinking its not the end of the tank afterall. Very well presented argument making us see it from another angle. Well done tank museum, loving your videos.
The same people have also predicted the end of manned combat aircraft (since the 1950's), and the end of guns on fighter aircraft (since the 1960's). They were both wrong because, like the tank, they are all useful in battle in ways that can not be carried out by any other system.
A primary factor in the US failure in Vietnam was the increasing presence of SAMs. This was made worse by the political goal of reducing troop numbers, which lhey tried to make up with technology. But, they took away the wrong lesson. It was that they needed better aircraft with better defenses.
Very well written script and editing. Last week was the.best I had seen from David and the museum but this was a different sort of film and was also a first date video. I would have been even more.happier if it had run another 10/15 minutes longer. Thank you to David and the team at Bovi.
Something that is more important to consider than the losses of tanks is unfortunately something that you did not touch on: You *must* come at the issue from the angle of *why* the tank exists in the first place, if this role is still needed or obsolete and what will replace it if not tanks. Ultimately the existence or not of tanks is not driven by the threats to tanks, but by the need for their purpose. Tanks on the battlefield are mobile, armoured, direct fire platforms that put rounds on targets immediately. When you go through the motions of analysis it turns out this is still very much needed on the battlefield. Ok so then you're left with at least needing the gun. Do we need the armour, or what makes a 'tank' a tank? Well again when you go through the motions it turns out that actually in a lot of cases it's better to have it then not to have it, and it seems like having it is even worth the cost in most cases because it makes you highly resistant to so many other systems and increases survivability. Thus even with increased threats the conditions are still not met that would obsolete the tank because currently nothing can replace it's role better- and that's without getting into all the various countermeasures being developed and the combined arms strategies to protect them.
Another thing that makes the Tank useful is that, simply by having tanks in your arsenal, you are forcing your enemy to match or beat your tank in some way. Even if it is a relatively simple system, like an anti-tank gun or grenade, the presence of a tank is forcing the enemy to spend time and resources on those systems. If the enemy doesn't spend that time and resources then the tank is able run relatively free on the battlefield. the same can be said if they don't have the resources. A key part of the Ukraine war is that the Ukrainian Army, despite lacking the resources and equipment themselves, has been receiving Billions of dollars worth of military equipment of all types and training their troops to use it.
This kind of argument is made by The Chieftain in his video on the topic. The tank needs a replacement to be obsolete and a replacement it does not have.
There seems to be a flaw in your argument, Deltarious. Ukraine has shown that simple low cost methods (eg man portable rockets) can now be used to prevent the tank from getting anywhere near where its' big gun is useful. And there is a replacement - surface-to-surface rockets, which the Russians have used with deadly effect, cruise missiles, and armed drone aircraft. In WW2 there were tank vs tank battles - that is unlikely to ever happen again. Most damage in WW2 was done by airborne bombers. Since WW2, the main effective use of the tank has been (by the Soviets and by China) to intimidate demonstrators and untrained trouble makers. That doesn't work against a well led and coordinated military force.
@@keithammleter3824 No. Those methods are mostly effective when tanks are incorrectly used without the correct combined arms doctrine. The same weaknesses have existed since WW 2. They were in play in the Gulf war but the US army knows this and used its tanks accordingly. BTW there have been MANY large tank v. tank battles since WW 2. YOU are just uneducated in military matters.
Excellent overview of the subject. However, I think the example of a very recent war is missing: the Second Lebanon War, 2006. There the Merkava IVs proved their resilience against Hezbollah's Russian missiles (Kornet, among others). No one in the Israeli army thought of eliminating the tanks but of equipping them with the Trophy system. A real MBT resists missiles, a light and old tank like the T72 does not.
They are so quick to talk about the demise of the tank because of anti-tank weaponry, but nobody talks about the demise of aviation. There are just as many strides in anti aircraft weaponry that make flying over the battlefield just as dangerous.
We've never seen the things we are seeing now because there never were armies at war lately which were equipped in a similar way. Heavy air defense makes the airspace largely inaccessible. NATO would have the same problem against a foe that is equipped with long range missile defense and a myriad of MANPADs. The battlefield in Ukraine is not comparable to the vast desert in Iraq. Every bush, every forest is offering cover and camouflage. There is no open field battle. That makes it much much more difficult for an attacker. It seems drones and artillery are the key here. But at some point the "smart weapons" will be exhausted. The US is making 2100 Javelins per year. Ramping up production could take months or years (according to the manufacturer).
Oh, the classic "Death of the tank" again. A similar problem happened in the middle of the Cold War when it seemed like missiles would be the unmatched killer of vehicles. They adapted then, and will adapt now.
Similar to how the US believed after the Korean War that fighter planes of the future would no longer need guns... only missiles. The days of dogfighting were over. Wrong.
The Anti Tank rifle, The Anti Tank gun, the panzerfaust, the recoiless rifle, the anti tank grenade, anti tank mines, tank busting aircraft, wire guided missiles, and now the NLAW and Javelin. As long as the tank has existed there have been weapons that people have pointed at and said "Aha! Now tanks are obsolete!". Well they're still around somehow!
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe The roster of weapons designed to defeat tanks-some of which are themselves no longer used-is itself a testament to the success of the tank. While many tanks have been destroyed by many different weapons, no single weapon has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time. And since “whatever doesn’t kill it makes it stronger” is just as true for machines as for men, as weapons to defeat tanks have been introduced, but none has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time, the tank has had an opportunity to improve, and often the capacity for improvement to the tank is greater than the capacity for improvement to that weapon.
Since I was a child I've had a fascination with tanks. Maybe it was the M103 Heavy Tank parked in front of my schools's public library or that tanks just speak to something deep inside of me but my love for them will never wane.
Tanks improperly used will always perform poorly. Russians are using them without infantry support or air support and I wouldn't be surprised if many russian tanks have lack of thermal sights which are essential to spot ATGM teams. Also training and communication are essential for tank usage. Tanks carry a huge gun capable of hitting targets at 2-3Km within seconds while a ATGM will take longer to reach it. The ammo caroussel at the time that it was developed was a good design as most hits were to the turret, so it made sense moving the ammo to the hull considering standard warfare. But Ukraine uses a mix of standard and guerrila warfare which allows them to hit the side of tanks or use camouflaged ATGM teams with Javelin or NLAW which can hit the top, penetrate it and hit the ammo. Ukraine has also been using small comercial drones that can drop RPG grenades on top of tanks at the very least damaging the optics Many Russian vehicles use imported optics so in the long term the Russians may be able to repair their tanks but not be able to replace their optics and a tank wihtout good optics are just a glorified coffin
I agree we are talking FAILED Russian Tactics and a lack of any Strategy. Vlad is acting like Hitler with interference on individual units, dreaming of formations that do not exist except on paper. That is the result of corruption, false data and a lack of maintenance. NOT a good PR Stunt to maintain Military sales by Russia. I think that Putin is showing us all that he IS and always was an ADMINISTRATOR in totality. Vlad is Russia biggest enemy, politically, militarily and economically.
100% agree. If used correctly with air and infantry support, the tank will dominate every time. And you also need men trained to use the tank and the right equipment or else that you are more likely to lose many more tanks taking the objective.
Funny. I remember reading quite a few years ago (don´t remember where), that military experts believed that the age of the infantry man was over. This was because vehicles represented a far better platform to place longer ranging and more effective fire control systems on, which would undoubtedly make infantry obsolete in any scenario except for perhaps cities. Welp...
A couple of fascinating gentlemen put that thought to paper in the interwar period between WW1 and WW2. John Fuller and J.F.C Liddel Hart were probably the men you're thinking of but Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, and one George S. Patton Jr. flirted with the idea as well.
@@josephahner3031 While that is probably very fascinating reading, and I will have to look it up in the near future, whatever I read was much more recent, as it pointed towards thermal imagery and automation of target acquiring as some of the elements making infantry redundant. But thanks for the tip!
@@dflatt1783Sorry in case i was unclear. I share your belief in that respect. I am former infantry myself, although not a very long career. My comment was just a statement about how funny i find it, that people now judge the tank as obsolete because of infantry, and some years ago, the infantry was judged obsolete because of the tank. I personally believe that both armored vehicles and infantry both still serve a vital role in any competent military.
100% agree with the point on training and motivation. I saw an interview where the only person with a map was the commander of the column (I think possibly a regiment, maybe only a company, tbh the guy being interview was as confused about what was happening as we have been trying to figure out Soviet tactics.), and the guy being interviewed was supposed to be a recce officer. Another interview the guy was a clerk, he was a contract soldier, never held a gun until they entered Ukraine. It beggars belief how the commanders thought their campaign could possibly be a success
Before Russia invaded, the claim was that 190000 Russian troops were at Ukraine's border preparing to advance. This claim is starting to look like it was actually all a lie because if this was true, Russia would never have needed to even think about mass mobilization.
@@josephahner3031 A standing joke in the US Army is that all those homeless people you see standing on street corners are actually "Butter Bars" who got lost on the Land Nav course.
Well, I wouldn't say that the campaign failed, because it's a fact that it's not over and nobody can say how long it will last. The first russian offensive, did fail, that's rather safe to say ( unless we're unaware of some plan to fail in the north to capture the south, but that'd be very sketchy to me ). There is a tremendous amount of arrogance out there. We don't look at the ukrainian forces as they are but as they want to be looked at, I know who my heart favors but there's no point to me to be that much biased, and I find it dangerous, if not disrepectful, towards the daily casualties, to basically call it a day ( as the russians did in the first place, when it began ). That's the benefit of not being directly involved in the war.
@@H0kram We know which side is losing more because the war is being broadcasted for us every day by the troops themselves (both sides). Both sides have people who disregard their own Opsec and still share the sitrep on the internet.
Which one do you prefer? Sitting behind 10" of armor,move fast, shooting and seeing your enemy before they can shoot back or be vulnerable To a 9mm round? Most anti tank weapons are effective before 500 ms but a tank gun and heavy machine-gun are at least capable of shooting behind 2000m of range. Tanks are not obsolete they only need to adapt to current warfare scenario's
I think its very important that our intelligence perception of the Russian Armed Forces failed at least in a wider context. It would set a dangerous precedent for analysts to take the opposite approach in the coming years. And the point made here about the social media aspect to this war is absolutely critical - we are seeing a very sanitised view of the war curated for us by the Ukrainian government.
Ongoing analysis of tanks in the real world, Ukraine or otherwise, would be a welcome type of video for this channel! I bet they would do quite well, view-wise.
Those are challenging to be of any real value since the outlook of the conflict is based on incomplete and often biased sources. The short version is - "no, tank is not dead, it's how you employ it" Most losses were sustained either as mobility kills (mines of just ran out of fuel), ATGM kills, or artillery. Tank duels are seldom. The main thing for Russians in the opening weeks was - no one expected any real opposition so they just went for a "cannon ball run". It's a different war now...You'd need real data and an understanding of the context to make an analysis. Doubt anyone there has kind access/experience to do it publicly. We'll just get - this is the "winning" side and this is the "loosing" side (based on media hype) + "Evil" side is trash because so and so type of things.
just because the russians forgot how to use tanks does not mean tanks are useless. they are a vital part of combined arms operations for forces that actually know how to use tanks and constantly train with them
Dude, how would you train against the modern antitank weapons? In WWII both Germany and Soviet Union lost most of their tanks. Tanks were and are very vulnerable.
@@Nik-jq4tx Why just antitank weapons? Most Russian tanks are destroyed by artillery. What training is there for getting hit with a 152mm shell or a Grad rocket fired from 20km away?
Just finished reading about a British Tank regiment from June 1944 to May 1945 their casualty rate within a year was 150% and their main enemy was German infantry with Panzerfausts 🤔 people in the modern era see tank’s especially in movies as invulnerable but they have always had there weaknesses
An excellent tank chat thanks. I remember the Gulf War and events like the Battle of Medina Ridge - and I wonder if tanks will continue but in more specific situations. I'd be interested in a talk about the influence of environments on modern (and historic!) tanks, there's surely a fair bit of influence in the Ukraine war, and there's also recent history that recorded iconic footage of M1's driving in urban areas for example.
As the was in Ukraine rages, I have had this thought myself. The advent of drones against tanks, is like when the aircraft carrier became the center of the naval battlegroup in WWII. Battleships had seen their day because they couldn't really defend against the planes. This is the same thing, but on land, and with smaller planes. And while you could argue that the tanks would be more effective if they had proper air support; that air support itself isn't going to be effective against drones that are nearly impossible to hit and flying below radar level.
Measures bring about counter measures. There are anti drone systems coming online. Drones have their own vulnerability such as short range and fragility, etc. You can spot by radar and shoot down a mortar round. Drones are not too small point defence systems
@@PappyGunn Yes, the Moskva was sunk by 2-3 cruise missiles, but those only got through because 2 dozen missile drones were sacrificed to distract its AA. But a great example of using combined arms to overcome defences. Those drones would likely not have been able to severely damage the Moskva, but the Missiles that could were big radar pictures that needed time to cross the defensive envelopes to hit home, so a good trade overall.
I don't care about its performance, I will always love the T-72, especially the older ones. Small and sleek with a massive gun, I just love the way it looks.
I'm with you the T-72 has always been one of my 2 favorite tanks the other being the Chieftan. Ever since I saw it in a Soviet Military book I got in 1983 I've been hooked. Love it's look as to it looks Menacing. I saw one at night at a dock in Texas at night and it's Meancing to see. Wish I'd gotten on it and in it but no such luck. Will remain my favorite till I die.
There are several models of cars from the 60's and 70's I love the way they look. But to drive cars that old are dangerous and can get you killed. They are full of rust and the drive and suspension components can break while in operation. Be content to see them in a museum but depend on safer newer cars.
@@wadejones4791 Cars Trucks Do Not Rust in the Desert. I live in New Mexico (USA). No rain, No snow, NO SALT. Tell me what you want. Remember transportation cost, is much cheaper than replacing the bottom half of a car with new aftermarket Chinese junk.
Yeah, it turns out if you carelessly throw a cheap emergency tank design that was outdated 20 years ago into prepared defensive positions without infantry support it doesn't go very well. The only thing that's proven to be wildly obsolete here is the Russian Army's tactics and equipment. Properly used and supported a tank in an invaluable military asset, but just like any other type of vehicle it is vulnerable, especially when used carelessly. So why do we only see these type of articles about tanks and not anything else? I suspect it is entirely due to the general populace's perception of how a tank works. Everybody knows that aircraft can be shot down, and infantrymen can die, and that softskin vehicles can be easily destroyed so no one is shocked when that happens to them. But the average person tends to think a tank is a nigh immortal metal gunbrick that you can unleash unsupported on the enemy and they'll be absolutely helpless to do anything about it. So when they are destroyed everyone is shocked and immediately begins thinking it's outdated.
Indeed. I've been utterly bewildered to see the number of videos showing Russian armoured columns being sent into built up areas without any dismounted infantry to protect them at all. It seems, too, that there often hasn't been even the most perfunctory reconnaissance effort made either. Result: yet another batch of T-72 turrets flinging themselves fifty feet into the air. It's doubly perplexing because these columns always have the requisite number of BMPs (or BTRs or whatever) with them, so an infantry screen is available. They just sit in their AFVs and get immolated along with the tanks though. Who the hell is in charge of these units, and where are the buggers?
Tanks or Mega Yachts, they both cost a lot to maintain and I think we're all witness to where the money went. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. It's so important to understand situations in context.
Great factual information. I can't even begin to imagine how the Russian tankers would fare against the highly trained U.S and NATO tanks. The latest French, German, British and U.S machines and their crews are a lethal combination of power on the battlefield when supported correctly.
@@ianfleming9475 seen as the only two types of NATO equipment to go up against modern-ish russian equipment and very old Russian equipment are Turkish Leopard 2's and Saudi Arabian Abrams tanks and they have done extremely poorly and that's rated as two of the best tank in the west, I would caution against such embarrassing hubris. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are okay trained as well.
Seen as Ukraine is the only western country that has been in a modern war since 2014, and Ukraine uses tactics that are specifically anti-tank i.e. fortress cities something the USA and NATO know less about than Russia does now, the performance of NATO would be worse than Ukraine. It's that simple.
@@Alex-cw3rz Turkish crews had horrible training using export Leopard 2A4s from the 80s. NATO doctrine of a defense first, then counter attack pretty much guarantees a NATO victory. Not to mention the *far* superior NATO air forces.
Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.
Armored vehicles will skew the line between tank and armored platforms. Question, can a Land drone hold territory? If not, the APC will morph, but not disappear.
I've heard it argued that the ways that Russia is using their tanks (without air superiority, without infantry support to screen for threats, etc) are the reasons why they're suffering such a high attrition rate. That's not to say that armor is going to be nullified in future conflict, but the way it's employed will likely be modified.
Excellent commentary and analysis. Spot on! The current Ukraine conflict is the Winter War all over again. The Molotov cocktail didn't spell the end of the tank then, either. BUT... you better have the Queen of Battle out and about chasing down the drone and anti-tank teams before you go sauntering down the road. Combined Arms is the key doctrine after all.
@@davidurban7346 Nonsense. The argument is always 'tanks can easily be destroyed by an ambush weapon with a fraction of the cost'. Well, guess what, so can warships. And aircraft for that matter. Yet tanks are always singled out as being obsolete since the same people calling their obsolesence think they should be imperious moving bastions or whatnot. I bet the moment a fifth-gen stealth fighter is shot down we will get articles arguing stealth is obsolete since it failed to make a fighter untouchable.
Dear David Willey, thank you for your presentation on this interesting topic. By the way, some years ago I had a chat with an Israeli soldier from the 401st Brigade who took part in the 2006 war. The Russian army might improve as quickly as the IDF from lessons learned in times of conflict.
I know this may sound crazy, but the first two months of the war seemed to me like one giant recreation of the Battle of Villers-Bocage. Single file armour (due to weather partly) being sent along roads with plenty of cover for enemy ambushes, neither scouted nor secured by infantry, getting hit, stuck and taking heavy casualties.
Apparently around half the units sent in had not been briefed that they were at war. Part of the issue was units going along at road safe speeds in column, open topped, close together as a movement exercise. Many infantry units and transports didn't even receive guns or ammo before they crossed the border. So for a few weeks we saw police cars detaining and confiscating tank units, and farmers with a shotgun literally outgunning a BTR. There isn't much excuse in the later weeks, but dam, that is some poor command and communication.
You make a good point. But what they have been doing in Ukraine were what we expected in the Cold War: pushing forward on the axis of a road/highway; attacking from the line of march; overwhelming the enemy with local superiority; outrunning the enemy's withdrawal; devastating the rear echelons. But what happens if that doesn't work? They look like idiots...
That has to be one of my favorite quotes I've ever heard on this channel. "Like Mike Tyson said, 'Everyone has a plan until you get knocked in the mouth.' lol.
absolutely correct, show me the day when infantry can assault an entrenched poisition and not suffer heavy losses from machine-gun and artillery fire and then advance at a rate of 100km per day to exploit their breakthrough and I’ll happily proclaim the tank is dead.
The conflict in UKr shows the importance of training, training, training. Training not just the lowest soldier, but mid to high level officers aswell. You cant take tanks into urban combat without close infantry support. you cant have a logistics train move around a hostile country without protection.
Russia doesn't have a formal NCO corps and most decisions are made high-up and directed to the ground level which is likely why nobody is stopping senior officers and going "er maybe we should wait for the infantry" or "maybe we should protect our supply lines" because there isn't a feedback loop, orders go down and feedback and resentment of those decisions stays with the units and doesn't reach command to shape future choices. It's also probably why so many high ranking COs in the Russian Military have been killed so far. The only way they are able to get an idea of the realities of their battles is to go and watch them... and then get blown up because they are using unsecured communications and are STILL grouping units together despite themselves clearly knowing artillery and PGMS are a very real threat.
It should be pointed out that due to fire and forget manportable AT systems Russian vehicles no longer have dominance in open terrain historically the domain of MBTs. Also the fact Russia does not control the skies has been detrimental to say the least.
@@killdizzle The big advantage of fire and forget is the operator does not have to continue to expose themselves after firing. My cousin as an Air Force SF guy in the 80s. With the very effective TOW launchers the operator had to keep sight on target while the missle closed in. He told me upon firing your position is blow and it was expected Soviet armor (this was training in 80s Europe) would begin dumping fire on the operator making dispersion vital. And it goes without saying combined arms is necessary. In Iraq we never let a Bradley hold a position without getting dismounts in the buildings on both sides of the street.
@@brianschlicher59 I'm inclined to think that air power is dead. The US had absolute air SUPREMACY in Korea, Vietnam, Post-Invasion Iraq and Afghanistan. Results 1 tie, 3 losses.
The trend in tanks in the most recent decades has been to get heavier with complicated armor schemes to defeat missiles and larger anti tank rounds. Sensor technology also gave tank crews better awareness. Much of the failures of tanks recently are the result of poor tactics or training. As active protection systems improve, I think we’ll see tanks become lighter, more mobile, carry a greater array of sensors, and heavier secondary weapons to deal with infantry and aviation at greater distances.
The US marines disagrees. The corps has abandonned tanks. Perhaps the Marine Corps is wrong, but the fact is that tanks are slow relative to missiles and easy targets because of their size. No armor no matter how good can stop the crews from shock and concussion. You folks are rooting for tanks out of nostalgia and ignoring what the Ukraine war suggests.
No doubt that active protection systems is the way forward with tanks. But I don’t think it will be widely deployed in armies due to the fact that active protection systems are very very expensive and since drones are becoming a thing of modern warfare it would be pretty pointless to build a very expensive tank to defeat any anti tank missile if it’s gonna be destroyed by an inexpensive drone.
@@roderickbeck8859 The USMC is not wrong in its assessment that Tanks no longer fit its mission. The Marines purpose, as the name implies, is first and foremost to spearhead amphibious assaults and operate in fast mobile offenses. They are transferring their M1's and any crew who want to, to the Army. They are keeping their Armored troop carriers and looking for replacements that can operate at the desired pace. The Marines don't see Tanks as obsolete, so much as not fitting their mission anymore. Russian Tanks in Ukraine are getting chewed up bc of organizational, logistic, and strategic mistakes. Russians don't have adequate air cover to operate with or ahead of their armor. They can't keep the main columns supplied, much less recon units to spot and clear ambushes. Their unit morale is so low that rather than engage and clear ambushes, they retreat at the first sign of resistance. Russia believed its cake walks in Georgia, Crimea, and Syria would be repeated in larger Ukraine. Tanks aren't obsolete, just need to adapt, and be properly supported
@@ericepperson8409 Respectfully I disagree with some points you raise. Yes Russian army has been making mistakes but imho they are not as bad as propaganda makes them out. Problem is in shift in key technologies like safe reliable almost instantaneous communication which is almost universally available to every asset on ground in the form of smartphone and reliable fast sat com to slightly larger groups in the form of starlink. Secondly we see affordable and in huge quantities drones used for short range forward reconnaissance married to these comms giving almost near real time battlefield info to decision makers in all levels. There is almost no “fog of war” add into this mix working short range reliable and effective manpads for anti air which take out fast CAS missions availability by attack helicopters and planes which allow small tactical groups to operate almost with impunity and you have situation which turns into ground operations nightmare. In this environment modern manpad atgm will decimate any country armoured force pretty quickly. This old adage that you need ground troops to screen armour is outdated and stupid. You need fully functioning in sync combined arms operations to protect armoured forces not just boots on the ground. Either you have everything or nothing at all, going in half way is recipe for disaster.
@@rkriiskInteresting theory that there is no fog of war, bc drones never get lost or crash or people operating them get confused. Thats why the USAF never bombed a group on the wrong side of a border. Your last bit though actually makes my point. Tanks need infantry, infantry needs armor, and it all needs air cover. The Russians actually developed this as a strategy right after WW2 and called it Combined Arms (Please don't say blitzkrieg. You may want to look up how many "original" N@zl German sources there are of this as a strategy .) Western militaries picked it up in the 80s and put it to test in the First Gulf War. Ukraine is doing a great job of not only embarrassing Russia's obviously incompetent military. More importantly they are doing a great job of cutting and editing videos for propaganda. The truth is, Ukraine will need to start using its own armor at some point to take the initiative and begin recapturing what they have lost in this war.
Absolutely brilliant Tank Talk. Key point, T14 not deployed. Makes things very obvious. Thank you for the video and the in depth explainations. I'd enjoy more videos on the topic David, please do more : )
I was in the Army as a infantryman and I always remember fellow infantryman commenting that they wouldn't go near a tank because it was a large target and a death trap. I don't know the stats off the top of my head but I do know that losses during ww2 were in favor of tanks crews compared to infantry. I have also watched alot of videos with crew members exiting the video after being hit which makes me think that while being any type of soldier on the battlefield is less than optimal for survival, I think I would rather be in a tank than nothing if rockets, mortars, or any other type of weaponry is coming my way.
Was waiting for like ages for Mr. Willey to do a video on the subject. Was worth the wait. He is for the tanks, like David Attenborough is for animals.
It's not limited this tank alone, its the whole Russian design process. All thier tanks and IFVs need redesigning. Sitting on top of Ammo just does not cut it and it's catastrophic when hit.
@Daz That’s the thing I’ve been thinking. T72 and even T80 tanks seem to be poorly designed blowing the turret off when hit in the correct place. Has to be scary for tank crews.
@@brulecap1413 I am not sure the crews really understand the risk. They are shown the propaganda videos of their machines being invulnerable, and nothing else. There was a video of Russian tank column coming into the Kiev outskirts, filmed by one of their crew, they passed a line of destroyed Russian tanks and transports and mocked the dead Ukrainian machines and praised their artillery... They had no idea these were Russian tanks knocked out and they were the Second or third wave in, not the first. I think their first experience is when half their unit is suddenly on fire.
@@brulecap1413 totally agree. While we have not seen the Armata in action, I bet it goes up the same way. That protective box is not going to do absolutely nothing when that thing cooks off. Look how catastrophic the T72s, T80s have gone up. The tank is literally, in pieces everywhere.
One of my favourite lines from games: Big guns and heavy armour, what else is there? Well, quite a few more things actually: 1- powerful cannon 2- lethal ammunition 3- plentiful horsepower 4- homogeneous steel base armour 5- modular inert composite armour blocks 6- modular reactive explosive armour blocks (optional imo) 7- active protection (also optional) 8- secure radio communications 9- digital information networking 10- 360 deg. visual feed with software assisted threat identification*** 11- the usual stuff: smoke device, nightvision & infrared, fast accurate firing computer, firing on the move (gun stabilizer), higher gun elevation, low profile, machine gun, snorkel, laser/radar warning system (if practical) Wow quite a package. No wonder these things are SOOOO expensive. To think there are 3-4 soldiers in each one that is a potential 1-hit kill by enemy guided weapons (especially top-down or rear attacks) is worrisome.
In my personal opinion, the tank is currently in a similar position that the heavily armored mounted knight was towards the end of the medieval era. it was becoming possible for other soldiers to deal with them and the mass charge was becoming obsoleted as the power of the defender rose. The rise of gunpowder and the restoration of infantry as the primary arm of an army did not eliminate the need for cavalry or even the need for heavy cavalry, but it did shift their role. I find it likely that going forward tanks will become smaller and lighter and take more scouting or mopping up roles, like the cavalry of the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, perhaps delivering crucial attacks at key moments. I believe that they will be shifted away from the primary thrust of the offensive as they were during the world wars. Again, much how like Cavalry took precedence in Gothic and Roman armies and became the back bone Europe's armies during the middle ages before sliding back into more auxiliary roles.
This is the answer. Tanks are just the modern day version of heavy infantry of medieval and ancient warfare. Heavy infantry was never unkillable either it was just tougher to kill, like tanks. I think the heavy armour will become less important whereas anti missile systems will become more important. We may again see a diversification of tanks between light medium and heavy
Thank you Tank Museum for this dispassionate review of the tank in current modern combat, and the history lesson - Fascinating! It just proves the point that without good tactics and logistics the tank is just so much scrap metal.
I’ve had a think and we thought fighter planes would become pilotless. That’s been an idea for decades, if not a century. Drones are pilotless fighter planes, but nothing like we expected. I have to conclude that the same thing happens to tanks. Maybe they can be driven or be robots? Maybe the question is; how big will tanks be in 20 years?
Good question, the trend is making them unsustainably huge and expensive. Once jet engines became standard a jet fighter had a cost of 5-7 MBT's. Today "an F-35A will cost $77.9 million in Lot 14" while Poland is getting M1 Abrams tanks at 35 million dollars a piece. So 2-3 (old) tanks for 1 most modern jet? Same goes for IFV's. Something has to change.
@@teamidris The need for an orbital clean up, will drive the creation of tech to get it done. There are already debris capturing satellites in the works.
@@Awsimilate That’s great news because it is a bit full up there. Well not full, but the speeds are so high they might as well be in the same county:o)
Personally I think the thinking that says 'These man portable missiles are the death of the tank' is the same line of thinking that says 'The pike or spear is the death of heavy cavalry.' Yes it is a counter, with some caveats. It's not a perfect counter and there is still a battlefield need for the capabilities a tank provides that cannot be filled through other means. The tank will continue with additional soft and hard kill counters to guided missiles.
@@matztertaler2777 I recommend watching Perun's video on this subject and Ryan Macbeth's videos on missiles Vs tanks. Mr. Macbeth is a former US anti-tank infantryman and explains from first hand experience and using videos some of the issues and hazards that especially minimally trained militia encounter fighting tanks. Perun does an amazing detailed breakdown; but to paraphrase the number of missiles Ukraine claims to have used is far more than the number of kills they've claimed to make (which are ofc doubtlessly inflated, especially as not all kills are irrecoverable, etc). The missile remains an imperfect counter to tanks. To continue the cavalry analogy, gunpowder (namely manportable, not cannon as early cannon couldn't track and engage moving targets) did render heavy cavalry obsolete...to a point. Heavy cavalry then changed from plate armoured lancers to cuirassiers with their own firearms and a heavy breastplate that could withstand a musketball... hopefully. Cavalry remained in use because there was a battlefield use for their mobility over all terrain through to the end of the first world war as even armoured cars couldn't perform as well on broken terrain. They were finally replaced by the light tank. We've already seen the tank change in response to counters and battlefield conditions, light tanks are a rarity but increasingly coming back due to the need for rapid deployment in strength by air; the heavy tank is obsolete and the MBT is the current king. The tank may change in response to guided missiles but much as the helicopter gunship didn't mark the death knell for the tank, I don't think drones and NLAWs will either. I strongly suspect we'll simply see the platform evolve and mounting soft and hard kill AMS will no longer be optional.
It was always the vested interest of the Military Industrial Complex to vastly overestimate everything the Russians had, and the reason for this was ultimately what John C Calhoun liked to refer to as the 'consensus of the plunder of the public purse." But, on the plus side, the Russian military "delenda est."
I used to really support autoloaders for tanks. But the war in Ukraine has really changed my mind on the matter. They seem to only be a liability in the majority of scenarios, at least the Russian ones are.
It's not the autoloader, it is the position of the ammuntion within the vehicle. You can have an autoloader that feeds from a bustle in the back of the turret with blast doors like the K2, Leclerc, and the XM8. The Russians decided they wanted a low profile and put the ammo around the turret ring in a carousel
If two army clashed against one another and one side has tanks but the other side doesn't then the battle is concluded. The side without tanks can only win defensive and guerilla style battles; However, this doesn't mean they have any way to push back and win offensive battles if the opposing enemies has gain territory from the defenders. Tanks are really just offensive siege machine that can really push the defensive line and enable ground troops a form of counter against fortified machine gun crew or sniper nest. They are also used defensively when dug in and entrench. A tank is just a cog within the army. Without them you would still have trench warfare, and soldiers charging up hill battle as human bullets against machine gun that will mow them down.
The tank will be around for many more years if for no other reason that they made so many of them. The issue IMO is the Shtora protection system and ERA on these Soviet tanks has not performed as designed. It's time to issue a safety recall while they still have some around.
who would of thought Russia with 1 million personnel with a budget of $62 billion may have made compromises to training and logistics. British Armed Forces has made compromises with 150,000 personnel with a budget of $72 billion
@@Truth_Hurts528 Yeah, maybe if the Russians had spent more money making their conscripted minorities feel more welcome in the army morale wouldn't be plummeting so hard, you raise a good point about how important diversity training is, the western armies can fight much more cohesively since they dont hate each other.
@@connorbranscombe6819 Yes nothing boots moral more than been overlooked for a promotion because of your skin colour. But hey gotta meet those diversity quotas and tick those boxes.....
@@Truth_Hurts528 I know people love to get angry at things nowadays, but you do realize the only reason they are doing that is for practical reasons? They need more recruits, and that’s the best way they can widen the net to get more. It has nothing to do with politics.
in the US especially. we tend to overstate a military threat when there are extant weapon counter capabilities "if only we just had another $50m of these we'd be set" and when there is a capability with no answer, like hypersonics, youre not going to hear much about it, an asymmetry in force structure that will be mostly unacknowledged for its lack of a western analogue.
I think what this conflict has shown is not that the end of the tank is nigh, but how important seamless, well-drilled combined arms actually is. Airpower, both fixed and rotary wing, armour, mechanised light armour, artillery and infantry as well as logistics must be deployed as a singular army in order to be effective in the modern battlefield. As the Chieftain put it; there still is no substitute for 50-70 tons worth of armoured vehicle rocking up and delivering the Significant Emotional Event that is modern high powered explosive shells with a high degree of accuracy and over pretty much any terrain. I think the big development will be the use of light drones, particularly as counter-ambush tools for spotting/attacking for armour and mechanised forces as well as directing helicopters and artillery. I think the most embarrassing thing for any professional military is this level of logistical failures. It's military 101; an army marches on it's stomach, ie if you can't supply your army, your army can't fight and the Russia army seems to have failed dismally in such a basic principle thus far.
It's not surprising that the most vehement supporters of tanks are those that have invested thier whole lives to them and are now too old to pivot into another field. Tanks are still good IF you don't have an enemy capable of stopping them, but they're just not important in modern battles and are just liabilities. You're much better off using a quick mobile force that can be deployed at a moments notice to where they are most needed. There's a reason the US marines don't use tanks anymore in favor of 4x4s.
There clearly is a substitute for 50-70 tons worth of armoured vehicle though: Top-attack infantry portable munitions. A friend of mine was a tank driver in the 80s and 90s, and his view then was that the grunt with a rocket would take out a tank within a few minutes. Not much has really changed there then.
@@SuperBobbster If nothing much has changed since then (and I would argue it hasn't, and from even longer before then, such as 1973), then obviously militaries haven't seen a need to change their position on tanks in 30 years despite this knowledge. Your first sentence also has two points of contention: 1) That top-attack infantry portable munitions cannot be intercepted, and the existence and use of active systems such as Trophy makes that a questionable assertion, and 2) that applies only to armored vehicles as targets, whilst a tank can take on pretty much anything at 2-3km range, including troops in cover or trenches, much more rapidly and precisely than indirect fires.
I think you have to see it from a different perspective: A MB-tank is the biggest thread from the ground in a war. That is the reason these anti-tank weapons exist. And as long it stays this way, we won't see the end of the MB-tank. As military experts of my country say I also think that the russian army is using them wrong. They use tactics that are obsolete. Tanks have to be protected by infantry. Or they have to operate fast on a wide area with other tanks.
I think the extensive use of drones in large army combat is the actual change that we are seeing in real-time. I suspect we are too early to get through the effects as they will play out in the long term as anti-drone weapons and tactics are very new. The biggest benefactor in all of this is the artillery branch. Artillery can have real-time excellent remote spotting and correction. This makes long range fires potentially much more lethal. I can imagine a future where a laser designator is included on a cheap spotting drone and we could add some guidance (JDAM like) to shells. Units will need low cost very portable anti-drone weapons. MANPADs could do it, but they are not built to detect drones. So, we need low cost portable anti-drone radars (or some other detector). There is also work on Electronic Warfare for anti-drone and Directed Energy weapons. I still think detection of small drones in a scalable, portable way is the big challenge. Once we get that managed, I think tanks will be fine. ATGMs have been around a long time. I think the challenge in Ukraine has been a training and tactics problem not a weapon system one.
You already have GPS guided 155mm shells. And autonomous like shells which spot vehicles from above and strike vehicles with HEAT rounds. And this already existed when I was serving in the artillery back in 2006. You can implement cameras into the shell and correct course in real time while simultaniopusly transmitting a video feed back to exactly see what you hit where. Hell I can already do thoise things with my RC drones and stuff. But again, none of this makes tanks obsolete. A tank is a vehicle with great mobility, armor and firepower. You can create good or bad, small or large, cheap or expensive, manned or unmanned tanks but the tank will always be there.
The russians underestimated the enemy and introduced very few forces into the battle. It was necessary to introduce about 500000-600000 soldiers into battle (directly into the attack) and advance with a solid front. Yes, yes, as Germany did during World War II. And then they would have managed to quickly break down the resistance and keep control of the logistics lines. And when it became clear that there were few forces leading into battle, it was too late to recruit new ones, and those that were already on the battlefield lost their combat effectiveness.
That is about 2x then the entire Russian army including conscripts. If they wanted such force they would need to mobilize which would mean Ukraine would mobilize as well. No surprise attack at all.
you are missing something??... Russia does not wish a full war scale (NUKE)with NATO charging into Ukraine all guns blazing is not smart and the Russians are smart...they are taking ground and are stopping NATO from uping the anti.... by using slice bread approach.... NATO does not want a full scale war with Russia maybe?We will al see.......Russia is getting what it wants at the moment ...it's a war things get broken in war on both sides
@@glenolsen7888 yes exactly what they wanted: - isolation - economy in ruins - Europe planning to stop buying gas and oil from Russia (their main source of income) - being swallowed by China - Sweden and Finland in NATO etc. Full success! And how about "denazification" of Ukraine (meaning changing the government)?
The tank has a future. I'm sure we'll see a rethink of the design soon. When Starlink is up and running. The design of the tank will be changed. The tank will become an unmanned semi-automated mechanism. Since there will be no crew inside, it will be possible to significantly increase the protection and make it incredibly resistant to damage. Even immobilized and damaged, such a tank will be able to continue to fight. Completely destroying such a tank will be a very difficult task. So far, such structures are only being tested, but 100% have a future on the battlefield. Any tank of outdated design can be converted into an unmanned version.
There's no way you'll ever see tanks remotely controlled by an unsecured civilian network. You'll have EW units serving as anti-tank units for crying out loud. Unmanned tanks will be controlled from just behind the front on the ground.
A tank by itself isn't a very effective weapon on the modern battlefield. The key in the 21st century is to combine armor, artillery, soldiers, helicopter and attack airplanes in a combined strike force that communicates in real time and support each other in real-time. That's why videos on TH-cam that talk about various weapon systems that treat each element separately misses a key point of modern warfare. Russia has not mastered this, they simply can't afford to build this combined force concept.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Let us know your thoughts on this week's content.
It’s unexpected for me to see you guys do something from current events.
Excellent video. As Chieftain said, there's nothing out there that can do what a tank does. Remember that the PanzerGrenadier briefings from WWII concentrated on how vulnerable tanks can be. They've never been invulnerable, and people who think they are will always call tanks obsolete when a soldier with an anti-tank weapon blows them up. Tanks still have a place, because no gunship or NLAW can do what a tank does, and a tank can kill a tank quicker than a Javelin can.
Tanks aren't obsolete. Just the Russians aren't using them right in Ukraine. You need infantry to support the tanks someone Russia isnt doing.
As always, your content is GREAT!
Tanks haven't even reached their zenith yet! Proper training and tactics is key. Remember, it's complacency that kills. Well, that and Saint Javelin and Saint NLAW...
Hello! I am from Romania. In 1982 i was in the army . We had T55 tanks but was a special battalion with T72. I understand that this tank was upgraded but is like my grandmother dressed in bikinny
Also they are doing really basic mistakes. That clip in this video in the beginning of the tank getting completely blown up. That seems to just be simple track mine or something like that. Sure big load out track mine (probably a satchel of multiple track mines, since just the initial blast is so huge even before the tank explodes).
However who in their right mind... drives over clearly predictable and clearly constrained stream crossing without expecting it to be mined. The tank had no rollers, no mine plow, no infantry sappers checking the choke point.
Like ofcourse one is going to lose lot of tanks, if one just ..... drives forward and expects enemy to not do all the dirty tricks and ambushes. Instead expecting "we drive forward, they present themselves at other end of this field with their tanks, we at this end, we have gun on gun shoot out. Strongest tanks win".
Ehhh... why would anyone send a tank or present themselves, if invader is just stupid enough to drive straight into mines and get their tanks destroyed that way. In that case even having good supply of fuel and ammunition doesn't help. Just means enemy will drive into the mines faster and it has more rounds to secondary explode inside.
It also isn't exactly rocket science to demine. Rollers, flails, plow, line charges. However it is slow going ofcourse, but well so is losing every columns first tank as mine stomper every few miles.
Not that I mind nor will the Ukrainians. Every tank destroyed on cheap mine is one not needed to be dealt otherwise.
That is a hilarious analogy, thank you for making my day 1😂😂%
Great comment.
The B52 is one grandma that looks very good in a bikini. 🤣
Nice.. Does Grandmother have Instagram?
I drove old M47 tanks that I turned into autonomous vehicles for advanced weapons tests. I watched Hellfire missiles shot right down open hatches. When I was back home I told my dad, an old WWII tanker who had fought Rommel's tankers in N. Africa all about the complete death of tanks due to modern technology. He listened to my descriptions of the rapid, remote destruction of my tanks. Then he said to me, "John, in a real war, a lot of the fancy stuff breaks down after the first week, and a good rain or snow. War always comes down to one man trying to kill another. And that's when you really don't want to hear the sound of clanking tracks coming up over the hill."
Well... your dad really changed my perspective on things. I never though about it this way.
I actually can visualise this comment somehow.
There are many Russians who wish that they had never ever seen the inside of a tank-if they had another chance at this life they would most definitely choose to sit on top of the hill and wait for clanking tracks especially if they had a harpoon handy
Your dad was a wise man that analogy couldn’t be more true! The Russians are using outdated tactics and clearly haven’t trains against modern battlefield technology.
Your dad is a wise man. Tank is always better than no tank. There's always a place for a big boom.
What surprises me frequently in the videos available online, is the sheer number of times that an MBT or a people carrier is caught alone without any support either from other armoured vehicles and/or infantry.
those are probing units..they go to scout ..thts why theres no infantry ..sometimes they get destroyed during that sometimes they dont
@@zokikostadinov7061Politically correct term for canon fodder
@@rdg665 And that is the reason why no one likes probing operations
@@Stompedinthenuts isn't that what mini drones would be for?
@@zokikostadinov7061 you recon with MBT's?
I'm speaking from my experience as a former infantry man in Chile. No, the tank is not dead; it's the tactics the russian forces use for them. We work under the combined arms doctrine and having a tank supporting you it's a HUUUGE force multiplier. What's cheaper and faster, having a forward air controller guide an F16 or your platoon leader telling a tanker "I need an HE round on the blue house"?
You are sounding like a Soviet general
@@12sleep23 he is right, though... only some of us who were (un)lucky to find themselves in war as common duster, know to appreciate heavy armor watching your back
All the thousands of generals in Russia for the past century have never even considered what you know from experience. That's why they send their one tank alone without any support every time. Now tell me what is wrong with this picture?
Wish Chile could be in a war to test your theory.
@@TheBob3759 Especially just for science, that isn't the kind of thing you wish on a group of people.
"The Chieftan" made a video addressing this point.
His take was that doctrine will dictate the continued use of the tank. For an army to take ground, it needs the ability to overcome certain types of defenses and the tank is currently the only weapons system which can provide that capability.
He pointed out that infantry are vulnerable to almost everything on a battlefield and that hasn't make infantry obsolete because there are certain things on a battlefield that only infantry can do.
He suggested that the increased vulnerability of tanks to current weapons systems will likely result in improved tank designs and tactical doctrine that takes the greater risk of man portable anti-tank systems into account. But, unless something is developed which can do the job tanks are currently tasked with doing, they'll remain on the battlefield even at an increased risk of destruction.
I find it difficult to find a flaw in his reasoning.
Flaw 1 The Doctrine of holding ground. That's just not true anymore. The Taliban and the NVA never held much ground but they still won. The US easily invaded Iraq but they couldn't stop the insurrection. It's easier and cheaper to break the enemies will to fight.
Flaw 2 Improper comparison. The US army is the smallest it has been in decades. To survive, infantry has to be extremely specialized. They are no longer main punch of an army for over a hundred years. Also politics NOT tactics means infantry still has to be used. It's easier to kill infantry with chemical weapons or cluster munition but left leaning bleeding hearts don't want to use those weapons (think of the children my behind). Why are Russian trying to conqure Kviv when they can Nuke it without any additional consequences. Also a replacement is in the works, Drones.
Flaw 3 Building a better tanks. Tank have hit a wall thanks to their weight. M1A1 SepV3 weighs over 70 tons. It's nearly impossible to send it anywhere quickly. Most bridges can't support that much weight. Also rockets may be more expensive but they are simple and lightweight. For the weight of 1 M1A1 you could send 1000 Javelins.
@@yonghominale8884 the US did stop the insurgency.
@@yonghominale8884 An m1 with an autoloader would shed 10 tons.
It's not the end of the tank, it just feels like it's the end of it being a super weapon mentality. Add to the fact it's been 30 years since the last conventional warfare conflict ('92 Gulf War) and 50 years from the last major conventional warfare conflict (October war), doctrines, weapons, and adaptations change.
@@reubensandwich9249 it has never been a super weapon to professionals. It is one tool in the toolbox. When used properly it has no peer when used incorrectly it is extremely vulnerable and prone to destruction. Just like every other combined-arm.
As a college history professor, the old saying about Russia still seems to be true. Russia is never as strong as it appears, but, at the same time, Russia is never as weak as it appears. Good video
Don't invade Russia.
Don't invade, Russia.
Both true phrases.
Alot of their power, comes from the image of their power.
Hitler found that out.
@@JohnYoo39 nice one
The Russians have depth of geography and lots of difficult terrain so defense is easy unless your enemies are familiar with great distances and quick movement combined with cutting the head off the beast rather than reducing every town/hamlet/city. The Mongols understood how to deal with it. Neither the French nor the Germans every really understood the geographical size of Russia. Right now Russian leadership corruption combined with fairly catastrophic demographics weaken them. No one has any interest in invading Russia, they just don't want to be Russian slave states which infuriates the Imperialistic side of Russia....Alex Stubb, former Finish PM has some interesting thoughts on Russia today th-cam.com/video/EQzrleKU9B0/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=STGSeries
There will never really be an end of the tank. There will only ever be an end of a specific style of tank tactics, or a specific design philosophy.
@Gorgeous George Possibly. I have a feeling that they'll become at least more automated. Perhaps one commander will be able to operate an entire tank, either remotely or in-situ. At least, that'll be the case for the nations that are advanced enough to progress. It's obvious that Russia won't be.
I think armour-led offensives are at an end. They're just too conspicuous a target and massed tanks require massive and very vulnerable logistics - Russian logistic failure would not have mattered nearly so much if they had not tried a traditional blitzkrieg. The tank is still useful as infantry support though, especially in urban combat. You just don't need a lot of them.
This is not the end of the tank, but the end of the Blitzkrieg Doctrine associated with any armoured force from the 1930's to the 2000's.
Desert Storm was probably the last time that you could send in a large tank army to exploit the preparation by the Air Force in the Blitzkrieg manner. The open flanks of quick unaccompanied tank advances have gone far too risky , so tanks have to become mobile bunkers again.
@Gorgeous George and then well take unmanned vacations in a drone and live the holiday on google streetview
also.. i honestly think this war teaches us nothing about tank warfare, i would get the hell away too if i was sent to invade an independent democratic country for no damn reason.
If you have an impressively large tank force, you need an even more impressive logistics and repair force.
Well said!
Yup!
and anti air support and Helicopters. Combined arms is what is needed nowadays.
@@Seelenverheizer Yeah, I was just thinking logistically about basic support for the tanks, and it ends up being a hell of a lot of vehicles and men.
you need training programs for technicians both military and civilian
Factful and professional as well. One more reason why I became the friend of the museum
Thank you for being a sponsor
Extremely insightful and interesting. David is such a great communicator. Adapt at explaining the concepts but also brilliant at conveying the historical and contemporary context.
His argument is that the tank has been predicted to be obsolete before, so don't believe it. It's a weak argument. There are good examples of weapons systems like the aircraft carrier that are clearly obsolete. In every war game over the last 30 year the US aircraft carrier goes to the bottom of the sea along with most of its escorts. An aircraft carrier is simply too big and slow and missiles too good and fast for the former to be viable. A tank may be the terrestrial analogy.
After 1919 it was stated that the tank was Obsolete, as the conditions that made it nessecary would never come to pass again, and litteraly after every war since then, people have called it Obsolete, and in 100 years, they will continue to call it obsolete. Yet the fact remains, a tank is a powerful weapons system that will likely remain for a long while yet.
I read that in Military History Visualized video on this topic.
Networked AI ground and air drones will replace the tank.
There is only so much you can do to add armor and weight to a tank until it becomes too big, too heavy and too expensive to be practical.
Yet you are making the same mistake - you are generalizing something that is very uncertain. It really may be that this time it IS different (or maybe tank will stay here for another century as you are saying). Maybe few reasons, why this time it's different: in the past tank defences always grown and tank got heavier and heavier. This path can't continue, ground can't hold any more. Shoulder fired weapons can outrange tank (not in the past). Shoulder fired weapons are now able to strike the weakest point - be it top or anywhere else. That makes heavy frontal armor less useful or even useless. It's no longer feasible to mass produce tank in thousands as it was in the past (tank got super expensive). Tank can no longer hide from a technologically advanced adversary and it became target for long range precision guided artillery and other long range weapons.
Yes... Because in 1919 they had a $30,000 man portable ATGM launcher that could destroy a $3,000,000 machine in one hit. Crushing middle eastern famers who are equipped with AK's and HE RPG's in a tank is one thing, but against well funded militaries with Drones, Attack heli's and the sort is completely different. A tank doesn't survive them scenarios, regardless of ''doctrine'', strategy or infantry support.
@@tanner1111 They actually did. There have been multiple points in history including then, where weapons technology outclassed defensive technology for a time. After WW2, with the advent of HEAT weapons that could pen any points of existing tanks while being man portable and long range, the same thing was said. This is another time of that. It will probably be mitigated by the advent of APS.
But you realize that having cheap weapons that can destroy something doesn’t make it obsolete. That would be like saying a soldier is obsolete because it costs tens to hundreds of thousands to train them and they can be killed by a bullet that costs cents to make. Something becomes obsolete when another thing can do it’s job better.
The integration of all this archive footage is great! Keep it up, please!
Seems to me, that the problem has always been lack of infantry support around the tanks - is what caused them to be ineffective in these examples. A tank is easy to flank without it being supported by infantry
Yes and no. The videos we see are knocked out tanks, which ARE tanks that did not have good infantry support. Those that DID see good infantry support are NOT knocked out video opportunities, because they are not knocked out. A variation of survivor bias.
Infantry support was a practical thing when the range of hand-held AT weapons was 200 meters max.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 Or, conversely, infantry support simply doesn't work when the hand-held AT weapon has a range of a kilometre or more...
Infantry support as now tactically conceived will not save tanks. A Russian BTG has around 200 infantry men to protect it from the opposing Javelin armed infantry men (approximately 2 miles range). The effective range of man portable AT missiles will increase and leave your own protective Infantry deploying far out side the effective range of your tank support. (and you will need a much large proportion of Infantry to armored vehicles). A Russian BTG has limited ability to protect the vehicle (all around defense), lacking ability to recon an opposing force, or should the find the ability to suppress them.
Yes, it will be hard to send an infantry screen far enough ahead of your tanks to counter a concealed enemy armed with Javelins having a 4,000 m range. It will be virtually impossible for infantry to screen out to the 40,000 m range of an enemy armed with Switchblade 600s. Infantry won't protect friendly tanks from enemy infantry with the latest anti-tank weapons. Only some sort of active defense to shoot down incoming missiles and suicide drones might do that. Tanks may require protection from accompanying vehicles that specialize in that sort of small-scale air defense.
Units don't become obsolete when someone comes up with something that destroys them. They become obsolete when someone comes up with something that does their job better.
Battleships didn't disappear because someone invented torpedoes, they disappeared because carriers and missile cruisers could drop munitions on targets from further away and with more precision.
Heck, soldiers haven't disappeared just because someone invented bullets.
So until someone invents a thing that has better direct fire capabilities than a tank there will always be some version of the tank. Might look a bit different, but at the end of the day, military units are defined by their capabilities not their defenses, and the tank offers something no other unit does right now.
You obviously have a good point, however, even though Im not an expert, I think you're not entirely right. Armour for infantry for example disappeared because of guns and the Armour being far too expensive for large scale use. This comparison makes even more sense due to tanks being a bit kinda like armour. Armour wasn't replaced by anything better. Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.
@@derbasierte4194 mate you are spewing rubbish.
Armour disappeared because bullets could penetrate. But then armour that could withstand hits from bullet was invented and used from the early adoption of guns till today.
Tanks don't just offer armour for a few people.
They offer the uppertunity to kill anything in a huge radius, and basically lock down several kilometers of frontline. For this nothing beats a tank. Yes they can be defeated but a properly defended tank (combined arms) is very hard to hit.
@@derbasierte4194 My point is that having armor is not the mission critical element of a tank. Having powerful direct fire capability on a highly mobile platform is. If armor becomes irrelevant to that equation because there are too many weapons that defeat traditional armor but you still need a mobile cannon then the tank isn't obsolete, it's just more vulnerable and needs to update its defenses and tactics.
@@derbasierte4194 The word "Bullet Proof" comes from steel breastplates that were shot with firearms to PROVE that they could stop a bullet. Armor has always been kind of rare on the battlefield due to cost, but it NEVER went away. In the 20s in the US, you could buy a bulletproof vest for $25.
Good point, but you can also have a utility deadlock, where the capability is unable to act decisively. Vis cavalry in 1915.
I served in the Balkans in 1994 with the United Nations and we had a good laugh every time we saw some (already by then) archaic T-34 putter by, pulled out of a museum or off its plinth in front of an army base, because it seemed so utterly useless and suicidal on a battlefield with T-72s and T-55s - that is, right up until we realised, that even a (then) 50 year old T-34 with a couple of blown cylinders was still impervious to bullets, if the other side only had AK-47s and handguns ~ and that is how they were frequently used, against villages that refused to take sides. Heck, even a homemade armored tractor (plenty of those around at that time and place) was as mighty as a King Tiger in WW2 - if the other side only had decency and compassion to defend themselves with.
What civilians and armchair generals often forget is, that there is simply not enough tanks, planes, artillery pieces, missiles, drones and so on, to cover every square mile of a frontline, much less warzone - both tactics and strategy is almost always the art of mastering sparse resources to best effect. That's precisely why competent command is so important.
The entire rest of the world can be equiped with laser firing hover tanks, for all it matters, but if you are the only one with a pointed stick on your section of frontline and the other side only has a slice of cheese to defend themselves with - you win.
A T-72 is plenty fierce against only semi-trained Ukrainian home defense units - if no Javelins are around on that particular day or front section, make no mistake.
The Israeli used in the war of independence buses with metal plates.
Russian tanks are effective against Ukrainians with javelins as well. The Javelin is completely overrated. All the media coverage around the Javelin and the Turkish drones are just free advertising agendas. Most Russian vehicles that have been destroyed have been destroyed by Ukrainian artillery, not by Javelins or NLAWs. At the same time most Ukrainians that have been getting killed have been being killed by Russian artillery, not by Russian tanks. However the disparity is much smaller on the Russian side. They have been killing Ukrainians with a wider array of weaponry. Whereas the Ukrainians only have hit and run tactics with mortars and artillery at their disposal. Either way it's a wash. The guy in this video does not know what he's talking about, he has taken Ukrainian and NATO propaganda bait hook and sinker. The open source intelligence that he's referring to and that social media war that he is referring to is the only war that the West is winning right now. The economic and physical war is being won by Russia. The US is not trying to bluff its way and lie its way to victory in Ukraine, The strategies just to keep the truth buried long enough that the Ukrainians can be sacrificed on the altar and the US military industrial complex can get paid. Even now the Western media is starting to spoon feed Western populations the new narrative, and it's a stark contrast to the "Ukraine is about to make a push on the Kremlin" nonsense that they've been selling.
@@Deno2100 well said buddy, I was gonna make the same points. This guy is delusional off the NATO kool aid.
That's is why I say the future belongs to "hovertanks" AKA helicopters. They can be where they need to be in minutes while tracked vehicles may need hours if not days depending on terrain and distance. The idea will remain, only the means of transporting the weapons will change.
@@sirshootalot6400 You can't hold land with helicopters - that very much requires boots and/or tracks on the ground, or you have lost control over that territory the moment you fly back to refuel. Tanks are still very much major pivot points for not just conquering territory, but also holding it.
I think people forget that during wars...equipment gets destroyed by the "enemy" regardless of how advanced it is. That's why many are made. It's as if people think it should be absolutely indestructible, otherwise it is inferior.
Totally agree and also the casualties of the Russian tanks have been exaggerated something very normal in times of war between countries.
Hush now, the BritBongs in UK-istan gets very triggered by the truth these days.
iirc around 400 something of the tank losses half been captured or abandoned
Completely agree. People get caught up in specific technological advancements that they think make something invincible or impossible to shoot down or detect or whatever. And in reality all that really happens is it gives an edge in certain scenarios. But then all the propaganda comes out and people refuse to believe that neither propaganda is correct. It has to be black and white yes or no, winner or loser. War is messy and anything can and will be shot down, or detected, or destroyed, regardless of whatever marketing their side says about it. Like you said, it doesn’t help that numbers for things are completely exaggerated in war by both sides, making the propaganda seem more real if you believe it.
Also, I think the evolution of drones with enhanced-range NLOS antitank weapons will be the next hurdle the tank needs to defend against.
true but just like all previous threats they can be countered by combined arms warfare and infantry+artillery integtration. I can easily see a return of gun biased SPAA systems to counter the drone threat.
@@jonsouth1545 I hear you there. Just as fighter aircraft initially evolved to counter enemy recon flights, we'll see something similar develop for counter drone warfare - be it ground-based, air-based or both. Initial systems are already in limited service...
As soon as Laser Defense Systems become more capable, and affordable, you'll find that aircraft, missiles, and drones are suddenly restricted in the same way that helicopters were when AA became more widespread, and affordable.
there is no such thing as an invincible tank
Directed energy weapons (laser and microwave transmitters ) to soft kill drones already exist and are currently deployed by the US Army in it's Stryker based M-SHORAD vehicle. But the real way to deal with drones is going to be other drones. Drone swarms are already a thing, and soon they will be commonplace on the battlefield, defending against enemy drones.
No surprise The Tank Museum has the best breakdown of the use (misuse?) of armour in Ukraine. Very well done guys. Glad to see my donations and purchases going to great content!
I too, have found that the military history channels have been the most valuable, if that is the right word, sources on the present invasion mounted by tsar vlad.
The Chieftan's video was more accurate.
@@kidmohair8151 Its a nazzi hunting raid. Do you support nazzis?
@Сергей Захаров You are a Russian troll spreading propaganda.
Its also just great to see a T72 in its natural habitat... where it belongs - the museum. :D.
If the tank was taken off the battlefield, the first lesson would be, 'we need an armoured vehicle with protection against the amount of shrapnel flying about'. Then it would be 'we need a decent gun'. The add hoc drone threat can be countered with ad hoc add-ons, that's with the knowledge that it will gain in electronic sophistication.
A great difficulty, is the production of a well designed tank. If you already have them, for god sake keep them.
Look at the adaption's of the Centurion, that supported in First Gulf War etc & what tank crews achieved in their tanks.
Are we not going to be able to bridge lay because of drones or anti tank?
Find counter measures but don't lose the advantage of having a tank.
We were lucky to get the Challenger!
Yea we need fast mobile troop carriers, basically new versions of the old Strykers.
If they run into a tank then have infantry get out and blow the tank up with Javelin, or deploy a UAV drone to take it out, or call in an airstrip, or artillery, or just go around it since you're faster and more mobile.
.
@@BoleDaPole In my opinion it will be the end of the tank once someone figures out how to shrink and keep the power of the railgun which are soon(?) to mounted on US battleships. It would make urban warfare even more hellish.
Either vehicle mounted or infantry carryable.
Edit 2.
you missed one glaring fact. the tanks in Ukraine are being taken out by shoulder launched missiles. not drones....
Future infantry soldier will fly like Iron Man. Don't need bridges then. Honestly this is about the end of TANKS not heavy vehicles in general. I'm sure if we needed it, John Deere or Caterpillar could convert one of their vehicles to be a bridge layer.
I liked the fact that you quoted one of the best modern generals to have lived, "Iron" Mike Tyson, in this documentary. "Everyone has a plan until their punched in the face"😂
First class Presentation as always David .
Russian failures in the use of armour reminded me of the early stage of the 1973 Yom Kippur war in Sinai, when Israeli armour attacked Egyptian infantry near the Suez canal and met ATGMs like Sagger for the first time, in large numbers. The Israelis had divided their forces, diluting their efforts fatally and lost heavily
Environmemt quite different,in ukraine you got thick forest and mud,ideal for defense and ambush.think of soviet invasion of finland,where soviet lost 220000 died.
Same with the early years of the iraq invasion in 2004. Plenty of abrams were taken out of the fight by anti tank weapons in urban combat situations
@@JP-qb3ny plenty of Abrams? How many?
@@JP-qb3ny that's complete bs...
@@JinKazama92 I was there and saw plenty of abrams tanks taken out by kornet missiles. My buddy who was in the 1st cav said the same thing. They might not have been completely destroyed like the Russian tanks but they were definitely taken out of the fight.
Thank you, Mr. Willey, for your reasoned analysis of the current situation regarding the effectiveness of armored fighting vehicles in the Ukrainian conflict. And may I say, it is so refreshing to see a presenter of your skill and experience using paper notes in a pinch in order to guide your presentation. I guess those forecasts of the death of paper were also premature. Repping the old school!
Absolutely agree, highly informative and succinct with enough room for self thought, no wonder there's so much talk and deliberation in the comments!
There is a reason why this video has over 1 million views. Mr Willey at his best.🙂
@@holmes6171 stupid propaganda
As a former tanker i always say the tank is as good as his crew.
Or the infantry screening for atgm.
Thats not really true. No matter what, if you have old technology, you cant win. Put 2 of the greatest fighters on earth in an arena. Give one a spear, a shield, and a gambeson. Give the other a modern infantry kit. A rifle, body armor, a helmet, grenades. Guess who will win
@@archmagosdominusbelisarius8836of course the one with the modern equipment wins that’s too far back to compare
Agree with previous comments, that armour without infantry or air support is always likely to fail. Let's not forget, unmanned armour could also play a huge role in future. Sadly from a human perspective, the need for tanks remains, but the tactics and technology will adapt as required to ensure they still play a pivotal role in protecting us from aggression in the future.
It seems Russia's entire plan with their armor was to enact a "blitzkrieg", capture Kiev (and more importantly the airfields), reinforce with infantry relatively quickly, and deliver a decisive and quick strike. That's where armor is king - quick strikes before the enemy can organize.
The problem in Ukraine, is that when the Russians failed to capture Kiev and its airfields, they should have tucked tail and ran. Especially once the Ukrainian gov signaled they will NOT capitulate. Even more so one western weapons started flooding in.
Russia's continued pressure and response is nothing but sheer stupidity on their part. They have literally doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their stupidity and absolute disregard for.... anything. Part of me hopes they keep this up and lose their entire military for this stupidity, the other part of feels for the lives they're wasting. But then again, Russia has always indicated life is cheap to them. They are after all nothing but a nation that can be described of as trailer park trash but with nukes. If it weren't for nukes the world would have rid themselves of them decades ago.
They did in the infantry carriers and trucks that also got burned, and those carriers are tight space to squeeze out of in a hurry. Many of the infantry carriers just retreated quickly or the troops fled when the tanks got burned, Orc roasters. They simply don’t have enough boots on the ground. They needed 1 million to take Ukraine and secure their rear lines, they only had in total 200,000 men.
Your onto it unmanned ,better cameras,sensors, every 10 years will keep changing massively may well just come down to civilians killed
This is a misinformed perspective in light of the clear success of artillery in suppression of infantry, during the Ukraine conflict.
@@pauledwards7074 dehumanization of the enemy is done by sociopaths as a prelude to genocide. Amazing that you think you're one of the "good guys" you neocon psycho.
Tanks without infantry support. Against infantry with missiles. Without proper logistics. I don't think the tanks are the problem.
Please see the comments thread underneath TheKal's comment.
How could infantry support help against antitank missiles with a range of 4 km? We are not in WWII any more.
@@Nik-jq4tx not all the missiles have that range. some had been taken out from much closer with old munitions.
@@Nik-jq4tx artillery
@@Nik-jq4tx They wouldn’t, this is just a case of telephone where people repeat what they have heard without it actually being right. Infantry support is crucial in urban environments and during ambushes, it won’t help against javelin type missiles. The only thing that would help with that is development of better APS, which is already happening.
Funny fact: I called Russian BS on the Armata long before the war started. This goes for almost everything they put out, new submarines etc. In Soviet times the Russian army was state funded and had to produce stuff that was working, maybe not the best but It was working. In Russian times they show you clips of super torpedos, new submarines, aircraft carriers and the Armata. Russia of today is plundered from within by greedy private persons who has no interest of producing the stuff they show. Because building it will cost enormous amount of money they rather stuff in their own pockets.
Tell this to ukrainians. Whose cities now being destroyed with not interceptable rockets created by "greedy people with no interest of producing the stuff they show".
The Armata is a better direction than the T-72, but I agree that it’s definitely not as good (or as functional) as they would wish for us to believe.
Russian state TV said they have the ability to detonate an invincible nuclear torpedo in the sea next to UK which "will create a huge tsunami of radioactive water".
But maybe it was just propaganda & their nuclear weapon capability's been badly limited from within by greedy private persons?
Also those T-14's we see in the parades are literally the only one's the Russians have at the moment. It hasn't gone into real production yet and is years behind. Which kinda means there must be something wrong with it in the basic level. Or some Putins buddy stole all the rubles that were meant for that.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 yea becuase a nuclear torpedo is a new and revolutionary invention, think the west abandoned the idea during the 60/70s because it was retarded from the start.
We can simplify greatly: tanks CANNOT be used without infantry. Simple. The tanks protect the infantry, take out machine gun nests and everything else for the infantry. In return, the infantry must be IN FRONT of the tanks to protect them from anti-tank weapons. Any questions?
In urban areas, yes. In the wide open deserts, tanks ARE the army - Infantry is pretty much irrelevant.
@@ClockworksOfGL of course, there is absolutely no cover in a desert. I was talking about the cities, fields and forests of Ukraine. the balance swings to tanks the more open the field.
In the desert, tanks are targets. Unhidden video game targets for missiles fired from stand-off range. But only if you have the missiles.
@Aqua Fyre I remember. It's the difference between the US Armour sweep into Iraq / Kuwait and the Iraqi withdrawal along the highway north.
@@markus717 - What’s happening in Ukraine isn’t a problem with tanks, it’s a problem with Russian tanks. They suck. The armor is decades out of date and they’re notorious for exploding at the drop of a hat. Sorry, the T-72 is a lousy tank to field in 2022, and that’s assuming they’ve actually been equipped properly. But who knows how many ERA blocks are actually working, since crooked generals and oligarchs have skimmed the Russian military dry for years.
My uncle served for 20+ years, he once told me the people afraid of the Russian military was the media, he also quoted a book he recommended to me "The KIller Angels", Amateurs talk about tactics, Professionals talk about logistics, that the Russians never had a good logistical backbone
USSR would've lost against Germany without lend lease, their industrial strength has always been grossly overestimated
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions As would the UK :)
@@IgnoredAdviceProductions This, so much this. And ALL OF THE BOMBING the WEST did against Germanys Industrial capacity.
You're welcome Soviet Union. GJ taking the initiative WE gave you.
He sounds like a very wise man. Tactics only become important when the force in question has food, fuel, and ammunition to fight with. As the saying goes, "soldiers win battles, logistics win wars."
@@DraconX3 Not just that, we gave them so much fuel, clothes, food, weapons, etc, 1/3 of the Red Army was sustained on material shipped from the West. Stalin himself acknowledged, as did Kruschev, that the USSR would've lost without the US or Britain.
Nicholas Moran made an excellent point in his video on this same topic, when he said that the tank will really only disappear from the battlefield when a new weapons system comes about that can do what a tank is designed to do better than the tank can. Tanks are designed to get a big, direct-fire gun to where that direct fire is needed, and then be durable enough to employ that firepower.
The Russians seem to be trying to use their tanks for things other than that particular mission, assuming that big guns and heavy armor can just roll in and sweep all before them; that is not the case, obviously. When used as intended, tanks are still a devastating weapon. When used for other tasks, they generally seem to not fare as well.
As long as the need for heavily armored, mobile direct firepower is there, tanks will be adjusted and adapted to be able to carry out that mission. When a new weapon comes about that does that mission better, or when that mission no longer ever needs to be carried out, that's when tanks will become obsolete.
th-cam.com/video/eGg07FpmcKc/w-d-xo.html
Not necessarily the case. Missiles and heavy mobile artilery dominate now. Tanks are extremely vulnerable unless you control the skies. The balance of power has shifted. Time to stop letting nostalgia guide your thinking.
I think the tank still holds a vital place on the battlefield, as Chieftain put it "If things were removed from the battlefield because of their vulnerabilities, the infantryman would have been replaced a long time ago".
The tank can do things that other military power cannot, the T-72 itself when used in more capable hands has been effective in this war, Ukraine are using them to great effect. and not once in any of the footage ive seen has a russian crew deployed smoke from their dischargers or performed any kind of SAGAR dance.
This leads me to believe that the Tank is capable when used appropriately, but the russians just dont know how to use them properly
Trust Chieftain to use emotion instead of logic. Well done! No. The cost of an infantryman is a bushel of potatos. The cost of a tank is 30 tones of steel and 10,000 hours of skilled labor. I'm willing to lose a few potatos. (OK, hyperbole, but come on. The original quote is ridiculous.)
@@princeofcupspoc9073 the vast amount of your army and therefore expenditure is always infantry, therefore they will always make up most of the expense between their training and their equipment.
The quote is not ridiculous, items are removed because of a lack of capability, not because of a vulnerability, tomahawks replaced level bombing because it offers better capability, missile destroyers replaced battleships because of their increased capability, the tank is fast, armoured fire support that can do things no other vehicle can, SPGs lack the protection, and IFVs lack the firepower, the tank will not disappear because it is weak to ATGMs, not until something better comes along
A very interesting take. I too got swept up with the media reports, thinking this was the end of the tank as we know it. But seeing it pointed out that this has happened many times in the past I've been swung back around to thinking its not the end of the tank afterall.
Very well presented argument making us see it from another angle. Well done tank museum, loving your videos.
The same people have also predicted the end of manned combat aircraft (since the 1950's), and the end of guns on fighter aircraft (since the 1960's). They were both wrong because, like the tank, they are all useful in battle in ways that can not be carried out by any other system.
That was before the invention of the microchip.
Well, the aircraft carrier is obsolete as every war game in the last 30 years has shown. They always go to the bottom.
A primary factor in the US failure in Vietnam was the increasing presence of SAMs. This was made worse by the political goal of reducing troop numbers, which lhey tried to make up with technology. But, they took away the wrong lesson. It was that they needed better aircraft with better defenses.
@@roderickbeck8859 Just ask Turks to let a aicraft carrier in Black Sea and you will see the russian fleet hiding
@@iuliandragomir1 No, a missile would sink the aircraft right away.
Brilliant video. Loved the " France in 1940 " part, did a spit take on that one. 😅
This aged very well, actually...
I like when the experts, ya know, get it right.
Very well written script and editing. Last week was the.best I had seen from David and the museum but this was a different sort of film and was also a first date video.
I would have been even more.happier if it had run another 10/15 minutes longer.
Thank you to David and the team at Bovi.
Excellent narration of tank history to present usefulness in modern conflicts. Interesting, thankyou.🖐🇦🇺
Something that is more important to consider than the losses of tanks is unfortunately something that you did not touch on: You *must* come at the issue from the angle of *why* the tank exists in the first place, if this role is still needed or obsolete and what will replace it if not tanks. Ultimately the existence or not of tanks is not driven by the threats to tanks, but by the need for their purpose. Tanks on the battlefield are mobile, armoured, direct fire platforms that put rounds on targets immediately. When you go through the motions of analysis it turns out this is still very much needed on the battlefield. Ok so then you're left with at least needing the gun. Do we need the armour, or what makes a 'tank' a tank? Well again when you go through the motions it turns out that actually in a lot of cases it's better to have it then not to have it, and it seems like having it is even worth the cost in most cases because it makes you highly resistant to so many other systems and increases survivability. Thus even with increased threats the conditions are still not met that would obsolete the tank because currently nothing can replace it's role better- and that's without getting into all the various countermeasures being developed and the combined arms strategies to protect them.
bingo and on the nose.
Another thing that makes the Tank useful is that, simply by having tanks in your arsenal, you are forcing your enemy to match or beat your tank in some way. Even if it is a relatively simple system, like an anti-tank gun or grenade, the presence of a tank is forcing the enemy to spend time and resources on those systems. If the enemy doesn't spend that time and resources then the tank is able run relatively free on the battlefield. the same can be said if they don't have the resources. A key part of the Ukraine war is that the Ukrainian Army, despite lacking the resources and equipment themselves, has been receiving Billions of dollars worth of military equipment of all types and training their troops to use it.
This kind of argument is made by The Chieftain in his video on the topic. The tank needs a replacement to be obsolete and a replacement it does not have.
There seems to be a flaw in your argument, Deltarious. Ukraine has shown that simple low cost methods (eg man portable rockets) can now be used to prevent the tank from getting anywhere near where its' big gun is useful. And there is a replacement - surface-to-surface rockets, which the Russians have used with deadly effect, cruise missiles, and armed drone aircraft.
In WW2 there were tank vs tank battles - that is unlikely to ever happen again. Most damage in WW2 was done by airborne bombers.
Since WW2, the main effective use of the tank has been (by the Soviets and by China) to intimidate demonstrators and untrained trouble makers. That doesn't work against a well led and coordinated military force.
@@keithammleter3824 No. Those methods are mostly effective when tanks are incorrectly used without the correct combined arms doctrine. The same weaknesses have existed since WW 2. They were in play in the Gulf war but the US army knows this and used its tanks accordingly. BTW there have been MANY large tank v. tank battles since WW 2. YOU are just uneducated in military matters.
Excellent overview of the subject. However, I think the example of a very recent war is missing: the Second Lebanon War, 2006. There the Merkava IVs proved their resilience against Hezbollah's Russian missiles (Kornet, among others). No one in the Israeli army thought of eliminating the tanks but of equipping them with the Trophy system. A real MBT resists missiles, a light and old tank like the T72 does not.
The T72 sure is old (yet not harmless, eh), but light? :-D
They are so quick to talk about the demise of the tank because of anti-tank weaponry, but nobody talks about the demise of aviation. There are just as many strides in anti aircraft weaponry that make flying over the battlefield just as dangerous.
We've never seen the things we are seeing now because there never were armies at war lately which were equipped in a similar way. Heavy air defense makes the airspace largely inaccessible. NATO would have the same problem against a foe that is equipped with long range missile defense and a myriad of MANPADs. The battlefield in Ukraine is not comparable to the vast desert in Iraq. Every bush, every forest is offering cover and camouflage. There is no open field battle. That makes it much much more difficult for an attacker. It seems drones and artillery are the key here. But at some point the "smart weapons" will be exhausted. The US is making 2100 Javelins per year. Ramping up production could take months or years (according to the manufacturer).
Because you see everyday that aviation product flew people from one to the other side of the globe.
Not the same happened to tank.
@@nebunezz_r tracked vehicles can be also seen daily.
Just look at construction vehicels like buldozers cranes diggers etc. etc.
They do talk about the end of close air support. People are opining that the A-10 is now truly, inescapably obsolete.
@@obelic71 do we see them used en masse like airplane for transport purpose? Don't lie
Oh, the classic "Death of the tank" again. A similar problem happened in the middle of the Cold War when it seemed like missiles would be the unmatched killer of vehicles. They adapted then, and will adapt now.
Similar to how the US believed after the Korean War that fighter planes of the future would no longer need guns... only missiles. The days of dogfighting were over. Wrong.
The Panzerfaust was the death of the tank too.
@@captainhurricane5705
The anti-tank rifle was the death of the tank before the Panzerfaust was the death of the tank.
The Anti Tank rifle, The Anti Tank gun, the panzerfaust, the recoiless rifle, the anti tank grenade, anti tank mines, tank busting aircraft, wire guided missiles, and now the NLAW and Javelin. As long as the tank has existed there have been weapons that people have pointed at and said "Aha! Now tanks are obsolete!". Well they're still around somehow!
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe
The roster of weapons designed to defeat tanks-some of which are themselves no longer used-is itself a testament to the success of the tank.
While many tanks have been destroyed by many different weapons, no single weapon has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time.
And since “whatever doesn’t kill it makes it stronger” is just as true for machines as for men, as weapons to defeat tanks have been introduced, but none has killed every tank it was aimed at, every time, the tank has had an opportunity to improve, and often the capacity for improvement to the tank is greater than the capacity for improvement to that weapon.
Excellent analysis and considered thoughts as always David. Balanced and interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Since I was a child I've had a fascination with tanks. Maybe it was the M103 Heavy Tank parked in front of my schools's public library or that tanks just speak to something deep inside of me but my love for them will never wane.
Tanks improperly used will always perform poorly. Russians are using them without infantry support or air support and I wouldn't be surprised if many russian tanks have lack of thermal sights which are essential to spot ATGM teams. Also training and communication are essential for tank usage.
Tanks carry a huge gun capable of hitting targets at 2-3Km within seconds while a ATGM will take longer to reach it.
The ammo caroussel at the time that it was developed was a good design as most hits were to the turret, so it made sense moving the ammo to the hull considering standard warfare. But Ukraine uses a mix of standard and guerrila warfare which allows them to hit the side of tanks or use camouflaged ATGM teams with Javelin or NLAW which can hit the top, penetrate it and hit the ammo.
Ukraine has also been using small comercial drones that can drop RPG grenades on top of tanks at the very least damaging the optics
Many Russian vehicles use imported optics so in the long term the Russians may be able to repair their tanks but not be able to replace their optics and a tank wihtout good optics are just a glorified coffin
I agree we are talking FAILED Russian Tactics and a lack of any Strategy. Vlad is acting like Hitler with interference on individual units, dreaming of formations that do not exist except on paper. That is the result of corruption, false data and a lack of maintenance. NOT a good PR Stunt to maintain Military sales by Russia. I think that Putin is showing us all that he IS and always was an ADMINISTRATOR in totality. Vlad is Russia biggest enemy, politically, militarily and economically.
@Azurie Tanks are needed for taking back territory from Russia.
He actually said that the ATGM would take longer to reach a tank a conventional tank round, he never said that an ATGM has no long range
100% agree. If used correctly with air and infantry support, the tank will dominate every time. And you also need men trained to use the tank and the right equipment or else that you are more likely to lose many more tanks taking the objective.
Russia has been using commercial drones to drop bombs on Ukrainian positions too. Lots of video of that online.
Funny. I remember reading quite a few years ago (don´t remember where), that military experts believed that the age of the infantry man was over. This was because vehicles represented a far better platform to place longer ranging and more effective fire control systems on, which would undoubtedly make infantry obsolete in any scenario except for perhaps cities. Welp...
A couple of fascinating gentlemen put that thought to paper in the interwar period between WW1 and WW2. John Fuller and J.F.C Liddel Hart were probably the men you're thinking of but Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne, and one George S. Patton Jr. flirted with the idea as well.
@@josephahner3031 While that is probably very fascinating reading, and I will have to look it up in the near future, whatever I read was much more recent, as it pointed towards thermal imagery and automation of target acquiring as some of the elements making infantry redundant. But thanks for the tip!
@@plkngtun As a former infantryman, there are roles the infantryman fills that cannot be done by a vehicle. Period.
@@dflatt1783Sorry in case i was unclear. I share your belief in that respect. I am former infantry myself, although not a very long career. My comment was just a statement about how funny i find it, that people now judge the tank as obsolete because of infantry, and some years ago, the infantry was judged obsolete because of the tank. I personally believe that both armored vehicles and infantry both still serve a vital role in any competent military.
@@plkngtun ahhh I gotcha, completely agree. I wouldn't judge the tank based on a 50 year old design operated by incompetent Russians.
100% agree with the point on training and motivation. I saw an interview where the only person with a map was the commander of the column (I think possibly a regiment, maybe only a company, tbh the guy being interview was as confused about what was happening as we have been trying to figure out Soviet tactics.), and the guy being interviewed was supposed to be a recce officer. Another interview the guy was a clerk, he was a contract soldier, never held a gun until they entered Ukraine. It beggars belief how the commanders thought their campaign could possibly be a success
The most dangerous thing a soldier is likely to encounter in combat is a junior officer with a map and compass.
Before Russia invaded, the claim was that 190000 Russian troops were at Ukraine's border preparing to advance. This claim is starting to look like it was actually all a lie because if this was true, Russia would never have needed to even think about mass mobilization.
@@josephahner3031 A standing joke in the US Army is that all those homeless people you see standing on street corners are actually "Butter Bars" who got lost on the Land Nav course.
Well, I wouldn't say that the campaign failed, because it's a fact that it's not over and nobody can say how long it will last. The first russian offensive, did fail, that's rather safe to say ( unless we're unaware of some plan to fail in the north to capture the south, but that'd be very sketchy to me ).
There is a tremendous amount of arrogance out there. We don't look at the ukrainian forces as they are but as they want to be looked at, I know who my heart favors but there's no point to me to be that much biased, and I find it dangerous, if not disrepectful, towards the daily casualties, to basically call it a day ( as the russians did in the first place, when it began ).
That's the benefit of not being directly involved in the war.
@@H0kram We know which side is losing more because the war is being broadcasted for us every day by the troops themselves (both sides). Both sides have people who disregard their own Opsec and still share the sitrep on the internet.
Which one do you prefer? Sitting behind 10" of armor,move fast, shooting and seeing your enemy before they can shoot back or be vulnerable
To a 9mm round? Most anti tank weapons are effective before 500 ms but a tank gun and heavy machine-gun are at least capable of shooting behind 2000m of range. Tanks are not obsolete they only need to adapt to current warfare scenario's
I think its very important that our intelligence perception of the Russian Armed Forces failed at least in a wider context. It would set a dangerous precedent for analysts to take the opposite approach in the coming years. And the point made here about the social media aspect to this war is absolutely critical - we are seeing a very sanitised view of the war curated for us by the Ukrainian government.
I disagree. Allied estimates - not Ukrainian estimates - suggest devastating losses of Russian soldiers and vehicles and tanks
@Сергей Захаров You wasting this board's time with silly statements. Western military analysts would laugh at your statement, Boris.
@Сергей Захаров No one takes your comments seriously, Boris.
Your comment sounds like a bit too sympathetic to the Russians.
@Сергей Захаров Do you expect to be taken seriously?
Great video! I like this type of content. Many thanks to all working at the tank museum.
Ongoing analysis of tanks in the real world, Ukraine or otherwise, would be a welcome type of video for this channel! I bet they would do quite well, view-wise.
Those are challenging to be of any real value since the outlook of the conflict is based on incomplete and often biased sources.
The short version is - "no, tank is not dead, it's how you employ it"
Most losses were sustained either as mobility kills (mines of just ran out of fuel), ATGM kills, or artillery. Tank duels are seldom. The main thing for Russians in the opening weeks was - no one expected any real opposition so they just went for a "cannon ball run".
It's a different war now...You'd need real data and an understanding of the context to make an analysis. Doubt anyone there has kind access/experience to do it publicly.
We'll just get - this is the "winning" side and this is the "loosing" side (based on media hype) +
"Evil" side is trash because so and so type of things.
@@OK-1K1 thank you internet pedant
just because the russians forgot how to use tanks does not mean tanks are useless.
they are a vital part of combined arms operations for forces that actually know how to use tanks and constantly train with them
Oh no
The russians are literally days away from surrendering to NATO - haven't you read the sun ?
So was the horse, and the battleship, until they weren't.
Dude, how would you train against the modern antitank weapons? In WWII both Germany and Soviet Union lost most of their tanks. Tanks were and are very vulnerable.
@@Nik-jq4tx Why just antitank weapons? Most Russian tanks are destroyed by artillery. What training is there for getting hit with a 152mm shell or a Grad rocket fired from 20km away?
@@danielmocsny5066 yeah, about horses, some goat farmers in Afghanistan have proven that conclusion to be utterly wrong.
‘Like Mike Tyson said: Everyone has a plan until they get kicked in the head’ had me in stitches😂
Except that's not what he said in the video. He said "hit in the mouth".
@@arudegesture potato potatoe
@@ButchE30M3S14 Tyson is a boxer, so very unlikely to be getting kicked in the head. And _probably_ won't be kicking anyone else in the head either.
Just finished reading about a British Tank regiment from June 1944 to May 1945 their casualty rate within a year was 150% and their main enemy was German infantry with Panzerfausts 🤔 people in the modern era see tank’s especially in movies as invulnerable but they have always had there weaknesses
An excellent tank chat thanks. I remember the Gulf War and events like the Battle of Medina Ridge - and I wonder if tanks will continue but in more specific situations. I'd be interested in a talk about the influence of environments on modern (and historic!) tanks, there's surely a fair bit of influence in the Ukraine war, and there's also recent history that recorded iconic footage of M1's driving in urban areas for example.
Man idk what you tried to say this comment was chaotic
As the was in Ukraine rages, I have had this thought myself. The advent of drones against tanks, is like when the aircraft carrier became the center of the naval battlegroup in WWII. Battleships had seen their day because they couldn't really defend against the planes. This is the same thing, but on land, and with smaller planes. And while you could argue that the tanks would be more effective if they had proper air support; that air support itself isn't going to be effective against drones that are nearly impossible to hit and flying below radar level.
Measures bring about counter measures. There are anti drone systems coming online. Drones have their own vulnerability such as short range and fragility, etc. You can spot by radar and shoot down a mortar round. Drones are not too small point defence systems
@@PappyGunn Yes, the Moskva was sunk by 2-3 cruise missiles, but those only got through because 2 dozen missile drones were sacrificed to distract its AA. But a great example of using combined arms to overcome defences. Those drones would likely not have been able to severely damage the Moskva, but the Missiles that could were big radar pictures that needed time to cross the defensive envelopes to hit home, so a good trade overall.
Would be nice a video on the Saudi M1A2 Abrams and Turkish Leopard 2A4 losses, as well.
Video on the A3 are on youtube.
Once again poorly employed tactics.
I don't care about its performance, I will always love the T-72, especially the older ones. Small and sleek with a massive gun, I just love the way it looks.
I'm with you the T-72 has always been one of my 2 favorite tanks the other being the Chieftan. Ever since I saw it in a Soviet Military book I got in 1983 I've been hooked. Love it's look as to it looks Menacing. I saw one at night at a dock in Texas at night and it's Meancing to see. Wish I'd gotten on it and in it but no such luck. Will remain my favorite till I die.
There are several models of cars from the 60's and 70's I love the way they look.
But to drive cars that old are dangerous and can get you killed. They are full of rust and the drive and suspension components can break while in operation. Be content to see them in a museum but depend on safer newer cars.
@@wadejones4791
Cars Trucks Do Not Rust in the Desert.
I live in New Mexico (USA).
No rain, No snow, NO SALT.
Tell me what you want.
Remember transportation cost, is much cheaper than replacing the bottom half of a car with new aftermarket Chinese junk.
Yeah it's got an aggressive look for sure, respectable. Many of the western tanks look cool too but just more business like if that makes any sense.
I just think it looks cheap
Yeah, it turns out if you carelessly throw a cheap emergency tank design that was outdated 20 years ago into prepared defensive positions without infantry support it doesn't go very well. The only thing that's proven to be wildly obsolete here is the Russian Army's tactics and equipment. Properly used and supported a tank in an invaluable military asset, but just like any other type of vehicle it is vulnerable, especially when used carelessly.
So why do we only see these type of articles about tanks and not anything else? I suspect it is entirely due to the general populace's perception of how a tank works. Everybody knows that aircraft can be shot down, and infantrymen can die, and that softskin vehicles can be easily destroyed so no one is shocked when that happens to them. But the average person tends to think a tank is a nigh immortal metal gunbrick that you can unleash unsupported on the enemy and they'll be absolutely helpless to do anything about it. So when they are destroyed everyone is shocked and immediately begins thinking it's outdated.
I think the key take-away here is that the general populance isn't very bright.
Indeed. I've been utterly bewildered to see the number of videos showing Russian armoured columns being sent into built up areas without any dismounted infantry to protect them at all. It seems, too, that there often hasn't been even the most perfunctory reconnaissance effort made either. Result: yet another batch of T-72 turrets flinging themselves fifty feet into the air. It's doubly perplexing because these columns always have the requisite number of BMPs (or BTRs or whatever) with them, so an infantry screen is available. They just sit in their AFVs and get immolated along with the tanks though. Who the hell is in charge of these units, and where are the buggers?
@@generalripper7528 Well that's been known for some time now lol
Why no mention in the video of where the Ukrainian tanks are? Are all of them combat loss?
I've been arguing your points for along time. They said the same things about stealth aircraft after one f117 got shot down.
Tanks or Mega Yachts, they both cost a lot to maintain and I think we're all witness to where the money went. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. It's so important to understand situations in context.
@Сергей Захаров Spambot copypasta?
Great factual information. I can't even begin to imagine how the Russian tankers would fare against the highly trained U.S and NATO tanks. The latest French, German, British and U.S machines and their crews are a lethal combination of power on the battlefield when supported correctly.
Against modern NATO armour it would be a turkey shoot. No comparison and your point about crew training is very accurate.
@@ianfleming9475 seen as the only two types of NATO equipment to go up against modern-ish russian equipment and very old Russian equipment are Turkish Leopard 2's and Saudi Arabian Abrams tanks and they have done extremely poorly and that's rated as two of the best tank in the west, I would caution against such embarrassing hubris. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are okay trained as well.
Seen as Ukraine is the only western country that has been in a modern war since 2014, and Ukraine uses tactics that are specifically anti-tank i.e. fortress cities something the USA and NATO know less about than Russia does now, the performance of NATO would be worse than Ukraine. It's that simple.
@@Alex-cw3rz Turkish crews had horrible training using export Leopard 2A4s from the 80s. NATO doctrine of a defense first, then counter attack pretty much guarantees a NATO victory. Not to mention the *far* superior NATO air forces.
We'd crush them. The only thing stopping us are their nukes
Maybe the whole discussion about tanks being relevant or not still only exists because they were so good in the past. Thus in order to actually see if tanks are obsolete, several "new tactics" have to be tried in which tanks don't exist and other weapons take over the tank duties.
Armored vehicles will skew the line between tank and armored platforms. Question, can a Land drone hold territory? If not, the APC will morph, but not disappear.
I've heard it argued that the ways that Russia is using their tanks (without air superiority, without infantry support to screen for threats, etc) are the reasons why they're suffering such a high attrition rate.
That's not to say that armor is going to be nullified in future conflict, but the way it's employed will likely be modified.
@@davidjones6389 Or territory will be held by infantry, just like in the old times.
@@stsk1061 That's my point, some kind of armor will always be needed.
@@davidjones6389 Armor will only be used if it works. Just like the musket ended full plate, shaped charges are ending heavy tank armor.
Excellent commentary and analysis. Spot on! The current Ukraine conflict is the Winter War all over again. The Molotov cocktail didn't spell the end of the tank then, either. BUT... you better have the Queen of Battle out and about chasing down the drone and anti-tank teams before you go sauntering down the road. Combined Arms is the key doctrine after all.
Curious how after the Moskva was sunk, no articles came out discussing if surface warships were obselete.
Tone down the hyperbole. Your logic means that not only are they asking if tanks are obsolete but all land vehicles.
@@davidurban7346 Nonsense. The argument is always 'tanks can easily be destroyed by an ambush weapon with a fraction of the cost'.
Well, guess what, so can warships. And aircraft for that matter. Yet tanks are always singled out as being obsolete since the same people calling their obsolesence think they should be imperious moving bastions or whatnot. I bet the moment a fifth-gen stealth fighter is shot down we will get articles arguing stealth is obsolete since it failed to make a fighter untouchable.
Or how helicopters are obsolete despite them being blown up in big numbers too.
Dear David Willey, thank you for your presentation on this interesting topic. By the way, some years ago I had a chat with an Israeli soldier from the 401st Brigade who took part in the 2006 war. The Russian army might improve as quickly as the IDF from lessons learned in times of conflict.
After a bad showing, the Russian army historically reformed. This happened after the Crimean war and the Russian-Japanese war too.
As ive said multiple times. Getting their asses kicked then later comming back stronger with a vengence has been a patern in russian history
I know this may sound crazy, but the first two months of the war seemed to me like one giant recreation of the Battle of Villers-Bocage. Single file armour (due to weather partly) being sent along roads with plenty of cover for enemy ambushes, neither scouted nor secured by infantry, getting hit, stuck and taking heavy casualties.
Apparently around half the units sent in had not been briefed that they were at war. Part of the issue was units going along at road safe speeds in column, open topped, close together as a movement exercise.
Many infantry units and transports didn't even receive guns or ammo before they crossed the border. So for a few weeks we saw police cars detaining and confiscating tank units, and farmers with a shotgun literally outgunning a BTR.
There isn't much excuse in the later weeks, but dam, that is some poor command and communication.
You make a good point. But what they have been doing in Ukraine were what we expected in the Cold War: pushing forward on the axis of a road/highway; attacking from the line of march; overwhelming the enemy with local superiority; outrunning the enemy's withdrawal; devastating the rear echelons. But what happens if that doesn't work? They look like idiots...
The concept of "the ground battlefield" doesn't even exist anymore. Drone and space warfare changed everything.
That has to be one of my favorite quotes I've ever heard on this channel. "Like Mike Tyson said, 'Everyone has a plan until you get knocked in the mouth.' lol.
google the exact quote if you want to go around using it
The moment the tank die will be when an infantry can go through No Man’s Land without any scratches , destroy a bunker while moving at 70 km/h
Or when something else turns up that can do what a tank can do but... somehow isn't a tank.
absolutely correct, show me the day when infantry can assault an entrenched poisition and not suffer heavy losses from machine-gun and artillery fire and then advance at a rate of 100km per day to exploit their breakthrough and I’ll happily proclaim the tank is dead.
Look up the "No, the tanks is not dead"- video by Chieftain.
👍
1st time here. Great video. Subscribed. TANKS ALOT!!! 😄👍🇺🇦
The conflict in UKr shows the importance of training, training, training. Training not just the lowest soldier, but mid to high level officers aswell. You cant take tanks into urban combat without close infantry support. you cant have a logistics train move around a hostile country without protection.
Russia doesn't have a formal NCO corps and most decisions are made high-up and directed to the ground level which is likely why nobody is stopping senior officers and going "er maybe we should wait for the infantry" or "maybe we should protect our supply lines" because there isn't a feedback loop, orders go down and feedback and resentment of those decisions stays with the units and doesn't reach command to shape future choices. It's also probably why so many high ranking COs in the Russian Military have been killed so far. The only way they are able to get an idea of the realities of their battles is to go and watch them... and then get blown up because they are using unsecured communications and are STILL grouping units together despite themselves clearly knowing artillery and PGMS are a very real threat.
Op Orbital
It should be pointed out that due to fire and forget manportable AT systems Russian vehicles no longer have dominance in open terrain historically the domain of MBTs.
Also the fact Russia does not control the skies has been detrimental to say the least.
@@killdizzle The big advantage of fire and forget is the operator does not have to continue to expose themselves after firing.
My cousin as an Air Force SF guy in the 80s. With the very effective TOW launchers the operator had to keep sight on target while the missle closed in. He told me upon firing your position is blow and it was expected Soviet armor (this was training in 80s Europe) would begin dumping fire on the operator making dispersion vital.
And it goes without saying combined arms is necessary. In Iraq we never let a Bradley hold a position without getting dismounts in the buildings on both sides of the street.
@@brianschlicher59 I'm inclined to think that air power is dead. The US had absolute air SUPREMACY in Korea, Vietnam, Post-Invasion Iraq and Afghanistan. Results 1 tie, 3 losses.
The trend in tanks in the most recent decades has been to get heavier with complicated armor schemes to defeat missiles and larger anti tank rounds. Sensor technology also gave tank crews better awareness. Much of the failures of tanks recently are the result of poor tactics or training. As active protection systems improve, I think we’ll see tanks become lighter, more mobile, carry a greater array of sensors, and heavier secondary weapons to deal with infantry and aviation at greater distances.
The US marines disagrees. The corps has abandonned tanks. Perhaps the Marine Corps is wrong, but the fact is that tanks are slow relative to missiles and easy targets because of their size. No armor no matter how good can stop the crews from shock and concussion. You folks are rooting for tanks out of nostalgia and ignoring what the Ukraine war suggests.
No doubt that active protection systems is the way forward with tanks. But I don’t think it will be widely deployed in armies due to the fact that active protection systems are very very expensive and since drones are becoming a thing of modern warfare it would be pretty pointless to build a very expensive tank to defeat any anti tank missile if it’s gonna be destroyed by an inexpensive drone.
@@roderickbeck8859 The USMC is not wrong in its assessment that Tanks no longer fit its mission. The Marines purpose, as the name implies, is first and foremost to spearhead amphibious assaults and operate in fast mobile offenses. They are transferring their M1's and any crew who want to, to the Army. They are keeping their Armored troop carriers and looking for replacements that can operate at the desired pace. The Marines don't see Tanks as obsolete, so much as not fitting their mission anymore.
Russian Tanks in Ukraine are getting chewed up bc of organizational, logistic, and strategic mistakes. Russians don't have adequate air cover to operate with or ahead of their armor. They can't keep the main columns supplied, much less recon units to spot and clear ambushes. Their unit morale is so low that rather than engage and clear ambushes, they retreat at the first sign of resistance. Russia believed its cake walks in Georgia, Crimea, and Syria would be repeated in larger Ukraine. Tanks aren't obsolete, just need to adapt, and be properly supported
@@ericepperson8409 Respectfully I disagree with some points you raise. Yes Russian army has been making mistakes but imho they are not as bad as propaganda makes them out. Problem is in shift in key technologies like safe reliable almost instantaneous communication which is almost universally available to every asset on ground in the form of smartphone and reliable fast sat com to slightly larger groups in the form of starlink. Secondly we see affordable and in huge quantities drones used for short range forward reconnaissance married to these comms giving almost near real time battlefield info to decision makers in all levels. There is almost no “fog of war” add into this mix working short range reliable and effective manpads for anti air which take out fast CAS missions availability by attack helicopters and planes which allow small tactical groups to operate almost with impunity and you have situation which turns into ground operations nightmare. In this environment modern manpad atgm will decimate any country armoured force pretty quickly. This old adage that you need ground troops to screen armour is outdated and stupid. You need fully functioning in sync combined arms operations to protect armoured forces not just boots on the ground. Either you have everything or nothing at all, going in half way is recipe for disaster.
@@rkriiskInteresting theory that there is no fog of war, bc drones never get lost or crash or people operating them get confused. Thats why the USAF never bombed a group on the wrong side of a border. Your last bit though actually makes my point. Tanks need infantry, infantry needs armor, and it all needs air cover. The Russians actually developed this as a strategy right after WW2 and called it Combined Arms (Please don't say blitzkrieg. You may want to look up how many "original" N@zl German sources there are of this as a strategy .) Western militaries picked it up in the 80s and put it to test in the First Gulf War.
Ukraine is doing a great job of not only embarrassing Russia's obviously incompetent military. More importantly they are doing a great job of cutting and editing videos for propaganda. The truth is, Ukraine will need to start using its own armor at some point to take the initiative and begin recapturing what they have lost in this war.
Absolutely brilliant Tank Talk. Key point, T14 not deployed. Makes things very obvious. Thank you for the video and the in depth explainations. I'd enjoy more videos on the topic David, please do more : )
does not make things "very obvious". It is not deployed yet for a reason. Because they don't need to.
I was in the Army as a infantryman and I always remember fellow infantryman commenting that they wouldn't go near a tank because it was a large target and a death trap. I don't know the stats off the top of my head but I do know that losses during ww2 were in favor of tanks crews compared to infantry. I have also watched alot of videos with crew members exiting the video after being hit which makes me think that while being any type of soldier on the battlefield is less than optimal for survival, I think I would rather be in a tank than nothing if rockets, mortars, or any other type of weaponry is coming my way.
Great video. Also anti tank weapons now are so superior now along with being designed to be so simple and designed to destroy Soviet armor
Was waiting for like ages for Mr. Willey to do a video on the subject. Was worth the wait. He is for the tanks, like David Attenborough is for animals.
It's not limited this tank alone, its the whole Russian design process. All thier tanks and IFVs need redesigning. Sitting on top of Ammo just does not cut it and it's catastrophic when hit.
Every one has tanks that are 40+ years old in design but unlike russia most army's have updated there tanks and trained the crews.
@Daz That’s the thing I’ve been thinking. T72 and even T80 tanks seem to be poorly designed blowing the turret off when hit in the correct place. Has to be scary for tank crews.
@@brulecap1413 I am not sure the crews really understand the risk. They are shown the propaganda videos of their machines being invulnerable, and nothing else. There was a video of Russian tank column coming into the Kiev outskirts, filmed by one of their crew, they passed a line of destroyed Russian tanks and transports and mocked the dead Ukrainian machines and praised their artillery... They had no idea these were Russian tanks knocked out and they were the Second or third wave in, not the first.
I think their first experience is when half their unit is suddenly on fire.
@@brulecap1413 totally agree. While we have not seen the Armata in action, I bet it goes up the same way. That protective box is not going to do absolutely nothing when that thing cooks off. Look how catastrophic the T72s, T80s have gone up. The tank is literally, in pieces everywhere.
Already redesigned: Armata T-14.
One of my favourite lines from games: Big guns and heavy armour, what else is there?
Well, quite a few more things actually:
1- powerful cannon
2- lethal ammunition
3- plentiful horsepower
4- homogeneous steel base armour
5- modular inert composite armour blocks
6- modular reactive explosive armour blocks (optional imo)
7- active protection (also optional)
8- secure radio communications
9- digital information networking
10- 360 deg. visual feed with software assisted threat identification***
11- the usual stuff: smoke device, nightvision & infrared, fast accurate firing computer, firing on the move (gun stabilizer), higher gun elevation, low profile, machine gun, snorkel, laser/radar warning system (if practical)
Wow quite a package. No wonder these things are SOOOO expensive. To think there are 3-4 soldiers in each one that is a potential 1-hit kill by enemy guided weapons (especially top-down or rear attacks) is worrisome.
In my personal opinion, the tank is currently in a similar position that the heavily armored mounted knight was towards the end of the medieval era. it was becoming possible for other soldiers to deal with them and the mass charge was becoming obsoleted as the power of the defender rose. The rise of gunpowder and the restoration of infantry as the primary arm of an army did not eliminate the need for cavalry or even the need for heavy cavalry, but it did shift their role. I find it likely that going forward tanks will become smaller and lighter and take more scouting or mopping up roles, like the cavalry of the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, perhaps delivering crucial attacks at key moments. I believe that they will be shifted away from the primary thrust of the offensive as they were during the world wars. Again, much how like Cavalry took precedence in Gothic and Roman armies and became the back bone Europe's armies during the middle ages before sliding back into more auxiliary roles.
This is the answer. Tanks are just the modern day version of heavy infantry of medieval and ancient warfare. Heavy infantry was never unkillable either it was just tougher to kill, like tanks. I think the heavy armour will become less important whereas anti missile systems will become more important. We may again see a diversification of tanks between light medium and heavy
Thank you Tank Museum for this dispassionate review of the tank in current modern combat, and the history lesson - Fascinating! It just proves the point that without good tactics and logistics the tank is just so much scrap metal.
I’ve had a think and we thought fighter planes would become pilotless. That’s been an idea for decades, if not a century. Drones are pilotless fighter planes, but nothing like we expected. I have to conclude that the same thing happens to tanks. Maybe they can be driven or be robots? Maybe the question is; how big will tanks be in 20 years?
In 20 years, wars will be fought and won from orbit !
Good question, the trend is making them unsustainably huge and expensive. Once jet engines became standard a jet fighter had a cost of 5-7 MBT's. Today "an F-35A will cost $77.9 million in Lot 14" while Poland is getting M1 Abrams tanks at 35 million dollars a piece. So 2-3 (old) tanks for 1 most modern jet? Same goes for IFV's.
Something has to change.
@@Awsimilate in 20 years space could be lost to us due to debris. And I mean probably.
@@teamidris The need for an orbital clean up, will drive the creation of tech to get it done. There are already debris capturing satellites in the works.
@@Awsimilate That’s great news because it is a bit full up there. Well not full, but the speeds are so high they might as well be in the same county:o)
Tank you for such an interesting video. Really enjoyed it!
Personally I think the thinking that says 'These man portable missiles are the death of the tank' is the same line of thinking that says 'The pike or spear is the death of heavy cavalry.'
Yes it is a counter, with some caveats. It's not a perfect counter and there is still a battlefield need for the capabilities a tank provides that cannot be filled through other means. The tank will continue with additional soft and hard kill counters to guided missiles.
The tank is the death of buildings in contested areas. The tanks roll in a town and all the houses are blown up and people are living underground.
@@matztertaler2777 I recommend watching Perun's video on this subject and Ryan Macbeth's videos on missiles Vs tanks. Mr. Macbeth is a former US anti-tank infantryman and explains from first hand experience and using videos some of the issues and hazards that especially minimally trained militia encounter fighting tanks.
Perun does an amazing detailed breakdown; but to paraphrase the number of missiles Ukraine claims to have used is far more than the number of kills they've claimed to make (which are ofc doubtlessly inflated, especially as not all kills are irrecoverable, etc). The missile remains an imperfect counter to tanks. To continue the cavalry analogy, gunpowder (namely manportable, not cannon as early cannon couldn't track and engage moving targets) did render heavy cavalry obsolete...to a point. Heavy cavalry then changed from plate armoured lancers to cuirassiers with their own firearms and a heavy breastplate that could withstand a musketball... hopefully. Cavalry remained in use because there was a battlefield use for their mobility over all terrain through to the end of the first world war as even armoured cars couldn't perform as well on broken terrain. They were finally replaced by the light tank.
We've already seen the tank change in response to counters and battlefield conditions, light tanks are a rarity but increasingly coming back due to the need for rapid deployment in strength by air; the heavy tank is obsolete and the MBT is the current king. The tank may change in response to guided missiles but much as the helicopter gunship didn't mark the death knell for the tank, I don't think drones and NLAWs will either. I strongly suspect we'll simply see the platform evolve and mounting soft and hard kill AMS will no longer be optional.
It was always the vested interest of the Military Industrial Complex to vastly overestimate everything the Russians had, and the reason for this was ultimately what John C Calhoun liked to refer to as the 'consensus of the plunder of the public purse." But, on the plus side, the Russian military "delenda est."
Yeah, everyone also over estimated US when they invaded Vietnam and fell to guys with AK-47s.
The auto loader seems to be a huge failure for the T72, T80, and the T90. Too many explosives in the crew compartment is not a good idea.
I used to really support autoloaders for tanks. But the war in Ukraine has really changed my mind on the matter. They seem to only be a liability in the majority of scenarios, at least the Russian ones are.
It's not the autoloader, it is the position of the ammuntion within the vehicle. You can have an autoloader that feeds from a bustle in the back of the turret with blast doors like the K2, Leclerc, and the XM8. The Russians decided they wanted a low profile and put the ammo around the turret ring in a carousel
@@erwin669 hence why I said the *Russian* ones were probably a bad idea.
@@erwin669 Spot on.
Does it matter anyways? Does the crew survive in case only the Anti Tank Missile hits and no ammo explodes?
If two army clashed against one another and one side has tanks but the other side doesn't then the battle is concluded. The side without tanks can only win defensive and guerilla style battles; However, this doesn't mean they have any way to push back and win offensive battles if the opposing enemies has gain territory from the defenders. Tanks are really just offensive siege machine that can really push the defensive line and enable ground troops a form of counter against fortified machine gun crew or sniper nest. They are also used defensively when dug in and entrench. A tank is just a cog within the army. Without them you would still have trench warfare, and soldiers charging up hill battle as human bullets against machine gun that will mow them down.
The tank will be around for many more years if for no other reason that they made so many of them. The issue IMO is the Shtora protection system and ERA on these Soviet tanks has not performed as designed. It's time to issue a safety recall while they still have some around.
who would of thought Russia with 1 million personnel with a budget of $62 billion may have made compromises to training and logistics.
British Armed Forces has made compromises with 150,000 personnel with a budget of $72 billion
And the British army can afford to waste vast sums on a legion of "diversity and inclusion" commissars.....
@@Truth_Hurts528 That's why the Russians laugh at it.
@@Truth_Hurts528 Yeah, maybe if the Russians had spent more money making their conscripted minorities feel more welcome in the army morale wouldn't be plummeting so hard, you raise a good point about how important diversity training is, the western armies can fight much more cohesively since they dont hate each other.
@@connorbranscombe6819 Yes nothing boots moral more than been overlooked for a promotion because of your skin colour. But hey gotta meet those diversity quotas and tick those boxes.....
@@Truth_Hurts528 I know people love to get angry at things nowadays, but you do realize the only reason they are doing that is for practical reasons? They need more recruits, and that’s the best way they can widen the net to get more. It has nothing to do with politics.
in the US especially.
we tend to overstate a military threat when there are extant weapon counter capabilities "if only we just had another $50m of these we'd be set"
and when there is a capability with no answer, like hypersonics, youre not going to hear much about it, an asymmetry in force structure that will be mostly unacknowledged for its lack of a western analogue.
I think what this conflict has shown is not that the end of the tank is nigh, but how important seamless, well-drilled combined arms actually is. Airpower, both fixed and rotary wing, armour, mechanised light armour, artillery and infantry as well as logistics must be deployed as a singular army in order to be effective in the modern battlefield.
As the Chieftain put it; there still is no substitute for 50-70 tons worth of armoured vehicle rocking up and delivering the Significant Emotional Event that is modern high powered explosive shells with a high degree of accuracy and over pretty much any terrain.
I think the big development will be the use of light drones, particularly as counter-ambush tools for spotting/attacking for armour and mechanised forces as well as directing helicopters and artillery.
I think the most embarrassing thing for any professional military is this level of logistical failures. It's military 101; an army marches on it's stomach, ie if you can't supply your army, your army can't fight and the Russia army seems to have failed dismally in such a basic principle thus far.
It's not surprising that the most vehement supporters of tanks are those that have invested thier whole lives to them and are now too old to pivot into another field.
Tanks are still good IF you don't have an enemy capable of stopping them, but they're just not important in modern battles and are just liabilities. You're much better off using a quick mobile force that can be deployed at a moments notice to where they are most needed. There's a reason the US marines don't use tanks anymore in favor of 4x4s.
There clearly is a substitute for 50-70 tons worth of armoured vehicle though: Top-attack infantry portable munitions. A friend of mine was a tank driver in the 80s and 90s, and his view then was that the grunt with a rocket would take out a tank within a few minutes. Not much has really changed there then.
@@SuperBobbster If nothing much has changed since then (and I would argue it hasn't, and from even longer before then, such as 1973), then obviously militaries haven't seen a need to change their position on tanks in 30 years despite this knowledge. Your first sentence also has two points of contention: 1) That top-attack infantry portable munitions cannot be intercepted, and the existence and use of active systems such as Trophy makes that a questionable assertion, and 2) that applies only to armored vehicles as targets, whilst a tank can take on pretty much anything at 2-3km range, including troops in cover or trenches, much more rapidly and precisely than indirect fires.
The problem is not the tank losses, it's the catastrophic nature of so many of them taking their crews with them.
The Ru BBQ!
Sounds a lot like the WWII era M4 Medium "Sherman." The US had depots full of tanks without trained soldiers to crew them.
I think you have to see it from a different perspective: A MB-tank is the biggest thread from the ground in a war. That is the reason these anti-tank weapons exist. And as long it stays this way, we won't see the end of the MB-tank. As military experts of my country say I also think that the russian army is using them wrong. They use tactics that are obsolete. Tanks have to be protected by infantry. Or they have to operate fast on a wide area with other tanks.
The turret ejection system works marvelously on these machines.
I think the extensive use of drones in large army combat is the actual change that we are seeing in real-time. I suspect we are too early to get through the effects as they will play out in the long term as anti-drone weapons and tactics are very new. The biggest benefactor in all of this is the artillery branch. Artillery can have real-time excellent remote spotting and correction. This makes long range fires potentially much more lethal. I can imagine a future where a laser designator is included on a cheap spotting drone and we could add some guidance (JDAM like) to shells. Units will need low cost very portable anti-drone weapons. MANPADs could do it, but they are not built to detect drones. So, we need low cost portable anti-drone radars (or some other detector). There is also work on Electronic Warfare for anti-drone and Directed Energy weapons. I still think detection of small drones in a scalable, portable way is the big challenge.
Once we get that managed, I think tanks will be fine. ATGMs have been around a long time. I think the challenge in Ukraine has been a training and tactics problem not a weapon system one.
Funny thing is, with the proliferation of missiles, rockets, drones, etc, I read at least one study that argued that artillery should be phased out.
You already have GPS guided 155mm shells. And autonomous like shells which spot vehicles from above and strike vehicles with HEAT rounds.
And this already existed when I was serving in the artillery back in 2006. You can implement cameras into the shell and correct course in real time while simultaniopusly transmitting a video feed back to exactly see what you hit where. Hell I can already do thoise things with my RC drones and stuff.
But again, none of this makes tanks obsolete. A tank is a vehicle with great mobility, armor and firepower. You can create good or bad, small or large, cheap or expensive, manned or unmanned tanks but the tank will always be there.
The russians underestimated the enemy and introduced very few forces into the battle. It was necessary to introduce about 500000-600000 soldiers into battle (directly into the attack) and advance with a solid front. Yes, yes, as Germany did during World War II. And then they would have managed to quickly break down the resistance and keep control of the logistics lines. And when it became clear that there were few forces leading into battle, it was too late to recruit new ones, and those that were already on the battlefield lost their combat effectiveness.
If they could not equip and feed 150. 000 army how will they do it with a half a million army?
@@MichalKaczorowski This is all and the problem. There was nothing to try. Now a defeat in the war.
That is about 2x then the entire Russian army including conscripts. If they wanted such force they would need to mobilize which would mean Ukraine would mobilize as well. No surprise attack at all.
you are missing something??... Russia does not wish a full war scale (NUKE)with NATO charging into Ukraine all guns blazing is not smart and the Russians are smart...they are taking ground and are stopping NATO from uping the anti.... by using slice bread approach.... NATO does not want a full scale war with Russia maybe?We will al see.......Russia is getting what it wants at the moment ...it's a war things get broken in war on both sides
@@glenolsen7888 yes exactly what they wanted:
- isolation
- economy in ruins
- Europe planning to stop buying gas and oil from Russia (their main source of income)
- being swallowed by China
- Sweden and Finland in NATO
etc.
Full success!
And how about "denazification" of Ukraine (meaning changing the government)?
The tank has a future. I'm sure we'll see a rethink of the design soon. When Starlink is up and running. The design of the tank will be changed. The tank will become an unmanned semi-automated mechanism. Since there will be no crew inside, it will be possible to significantly increase the protection and make it incredibly resistant to damage. Even immobilized and damaged, such a tank will be able to continue to fight. Completely destroying such a tank will be a very difficult task. So far, such structures are only being tested, but 100% have a future on the battlefield. Any tank of outdated design can be converted into an unmanned version.
There's no way you'll ever see tanks remotely controlled by an unsecured civilian network. You'll have EW units serving as anti-tank units for crying out loud. Unmanned tanks will be controlled from just behind the front on the ground.
Very good. Well said! A good review.
Russian failure in Combined Arms is an eye opener to West. Really think this is one of your best vlogs.
You are another victim of NATO disinformation....try other sources......
Russians are cracking good at fighting people who can't or don't shoot back.
A tank by itself isn't a very effective weapon on the modern battlefield. The key in the 21st century is to combine armor, artillery, soldiers, helicopter and attack airplanes in a combined strike force that communicates in real time and support each other in real-time.
That's why videos on TH-cam that talk about various weapon systems that treat each element separately misses a key point of modern warfare.
Russia has not mastered this, they simply can't afford to build this combined force concept.