Topic discussion video on why tank armor probably isn't as important as you think it is. Or at least, tank armor's importance is heavily overrated. I am talking about physical armor, not dynamic protection like active protection systems or ERA.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
WH40K Mechanicus - Dance of the Cryptek
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=2750276
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#tankhistory #tankarmor #mainbattletank
Careful, Arbiter. What you say is heresy.
Is it?
yes
@@awesomehpt8938 No
Oracle, the sacred rings. What are they? Weapons of last resort built by' Uhhh NOT ANOTHER WORD!!! Don't shake the light bulb. if you wanna keep your brain inside your head, ill tell your boys to chill. Go ahead do your thing. Oracle, what is halo purpose? Weapons of last resort built by the forerunners to contain potential flood hosts thus rendering the parasite harmless. Those who made the rings, what happened to the forerunners? Those who stayed in 3 radius of the galactic centre died as planned, would you like to see the relevant data? Tartarus, the prophets have betrayed us. No Arbiter, the brutes, not the elites will be the prophets escort!
@@tomparker9757 I didn't just hear this in my head, I heard it in my very soul
Spookston: "Tank armour is overrated" Maus: _My goals are beyond your understanding_
Ratte: I am four parallel universes ahead of you
Engine to Maus: Let me introduce myself.
@@ArteriusSaren then you travel 10 miles and the transmission fails.
@@merma9042 the maus disnt have Transmission problems like the king tiger because the maus had improved on the problems of the tiger 1,2 and the panther
@@Ivan-yc4cj it had It was so heavy that NO TRANSIMITION COULD WISTAND THE WEIGHT
Wait, you’re telling me that tank design is a mix of compromises and trade offs, that is constantly developing?
noo waay
But I thought we were supposed to be making land battle ships the size of Luxembourg?
n o o w a y
I'm just here for the h'ordeuvres you mean the size of Murica remember the bigger the better
Bruh why would there be so many damn patons and pz 3s and 4s
theres a common saying among soldiers: we wear 100 lbs of the lightest stuff possible.
i have nothing but 100 ibs of crackers on my person at all times
@@andreasmaurstad7227 same tbh
"100lb of ultra-lightweight equipment is still 100lb. "
I am a European, so I have no idea if 100 lbs is similar to 100 kg because if so, poor guys
N1 the captain A pound is about half a kg, for reference
Tank survival philosophy sounds like it can be applied to walking in the hood.
because the government is solely responsible for turning those communities into welfare reliant, fascistically impoverished, black market rampant warzones... just like the rest of the world they touch 🤔🤭😎🤗
@@poptartmallshart5323 Less of a government and more of a traditionally Racist party that's spawned a platitude of anti-black groups and movements
@@poptartmallshart5323 Of course the quality of the people has nothing to do with their conduct. Somehow giving them free money doesn't give them breathing room to show their true nature either right? Of course fascistically is a word and clearly leads to poverty instead of subsidized labor and housing. Also you definitely know what black market means.
@Ralph bro...😂😂😂😂
@Rogue Shadow Bruh Gary Indiana can fuck off
This will be lost, but I think there's a factor that is being overlooked. This isn't the first time that armour has been declared useless or impractical on vehicles. The invention of armour piercing shells in naval warfare caused many to say that the Ironclad ships of the day were obsolete, and that armoured ships would cease to be important. Instead, the invention of Harvey nickel steel, later Krupp Cemented steel, proved that wrong. Later still, more powerful guns proved it right. The point is, that armour and firepower have been rivals for centuries, and today firepower has the edge. No doubt that in time, better active protection systems etc. Will give armour the edge. We'll have to wait and see. There are just my thoughts, hope you like them.
It wasn’t overlooked; at the end he briefly mentioned maybe there will likely still be heavily armored tanks in the future, if advances in armor are made
Firepower doesn't have much of an edge. Most high quality tanks are impervious to current apfsds shells across most of their frontal arch. The areas that aren't are usually limited because of the initial design of the vehicle not allowing the armor to be upgraded to face newer ammunition
TL:DR Shield vs spear. Always against each other, never finding a stalemate.
@@alexdunphy3716 tank shells from the front may not, but a missile coming from the top will most definitely kill it. Firepower does have quite an advantage in finding weakspots now. Even the best defense, the active kind, uses offensive weapons defensively.
Agreed. Armor versus firepower goes beyond even the invention of gun powder. Cities used to have walls, but catapults made walls ineffective, so walls became limited to castles. Trebuchets made castles ineffective. Now we have fortified our vehicles, and weapons are making the fortifications yet again ineffective. There will always be better armor followed by better weapons.
"Tank armour is over rated." Challenger 2 crew: *rolls up sleeves* Hold my tea.
It is going to be even crazier when metal foam composites are introduced. Battletech style armor might become a thing...
@@TheTrueAdept Foam was introduced in trials by BAE in 2013 maybe the next gen Chobahm will have it
@@TheTrueAdept I can see how they would be useful in construction but i'm not sure if they'd make for good armor.
@@msimmons1385 it would probably be true next-gen armor than simply an improved version of Chobham armor.
And what's with C2? Was there any causes of long and grueling TvT or TvI combat, where C2 got multiple hits from heavy AT weapons?
Phly "no armour is best armour" daily would agree. On a serious note he actually wouldn't and while armour is the one of the last layers of the "protective onion" of a vehicle, until it's no longer cost effective it's better to have some.
That's why I said that tanks should be protected from infantry anti-tank weapons and autocannons. They just shouldn't need to resist tank guns.
@@Spookston I think the crews would disagree when they get whacked by another tank, artillery, or something of the sort.
@@Spookston I still consider resistance to autocannons and infantry weapons to be bound to armour, just of a more specialised kind. But I agree with you on what a tank design should focus on avoiding penetration from, and so apparently do most tank designers since the beginning of the Cold War.
@@izaicslinux6961 As he said most tanks get destroyed by IFVs or infantry AT weapons, and it's impossible to defend from artillery. A 155 mm HE round or more specialised anti-tank rounds WILL destroy a tank regardless of how much armour it has through pure kinetic and chemical energy or by hitting the impossible to well armour roof.
@@izaicslinux6961 Yes, except that a heavier tank is more likely to be whacked by artillery, since it's less mobile. Getting whacked by missiles isn't avoidable except with more armor than is remotely practical - especially for hatches.
This is something that seems to get ignored in sci-fi. Sci-fi tanks often opt for the biggest damn tank they can build, trying to just eat shots that would annihilate a modern tank in a single hit. Instead, they should make use of sci-fi materials that are lighter and stronger than modern materials and use those to increase the mobility of their tanks without sacrificing protection.
lol, you think anyone makes science fiction anymore? lmao, science fantasy has been the it since the death of Isaac Asimov and the rise of Star Wars.
Pop Tart Mall Shart _Points to Star Trek, Halo, Mass Effect, Babylon 5, Stargate, The Expanse, Battlestar Galactica..._
@@brokenursa9986 Halo best in my mind
@@brokenursa9986 I wouldn't really put Star Trek there
I always thought 2300 AD did a decent job with this. Their really big tanks were built mostly as a ceremonial role. Something the government would have a company or a battalion of at the capital for parades and such. Most of the tanks were small, light, fast, and had limited jump jet capability of about 10 minutes up to 100 m in elevation.
Real world meta: A tanks best armor is the infantry. WT meta: your best armor is the idiot who rushes ahead of you :D
*the idiot who rushes ahead in an M18 **Idiot may or may not have been me
Lol me who is in an m4a3 105
@@dannymiller3315 A wise choice.
@@ToshioThunder loved it when i was blasting self propelled aa guns with he then i loved it even more when i got heat shell it is my main us tank and it takes a hit unlike most Shermans
It's not much, but it's honest In all seriousness, I don't appreciate you calling me out like that lol
Tanks: Ok it is time to loose weigth. Logisticians: *happy panting* PS: you can also mount more stuff inside since now it is gonna be much more spacous without all that thicc armour around or just make the tank smaller. Witch is better I will let the Armie's decide.
Let´s just get back to the quick light boys, like the BT-42, amirite ?
No, armor is going to be even more useful because we're getting into the era of genuine lasers. All the mobility in the world can't stop a laser (and all the stealth in the world can't stop a LIDAR from finding you unless you have rather specific metamaterials). Artillery and missiles are going to be either made spamable (a certain page from the webcomic 6-Commando comes to mind, where the entire SKY is filled with missiles) or practically useless. Add to the fact that we've discovered EndoSteel back in 2017 (that composite metal foam that was all the talk back then, Battletech outlined the properties via EndoSteel when they introduced the Clans back in 1990)... ... have fun with that reveal.
@@TheTrueAdept >All the mobility in the world can't stop a laser Unless you rise the dust from the ground, yeah.
I still say the front of the tank along with the side of the turret are to be the strongest part of a fighting vehicle. Just to give it some edge.
@@student8136 What about Particle lasers? They're basically a stream of plasma with a Laser to guide them to the target. They can't be stopped with a Wad of Dust, matter of fact, a clump of it just may make the bolt erupt and he even more dangerous!
I recall the Germans thinking the same thing with their Leopard 1. They realized that having some armor is better than having practically none.
@Carnivorus lmao no
Carnivorus And your point is proven when Leopard 2 came along with armor that definitely wasn’t no armor, and other tanks like Russians and Americans who had tanks that can stop tank rounds.
It's a light MBT, good for maneuver warfare, not for prolonged engagement with the enemy. Leopard 2 was developed because of the prohibitive costs of the german-american Kampfpanzer 70.
@Carnivorus Actually a modernization of Leopard 1 (Project Golden Leopard) was considered before development of Leopard 2. And the last upgrade Leo 1A5 made use of the Leopard 2 fire control system and it was possible to mount the 120mm gun. The Leopard 1 is still in use in foreign countries, because it's cheap and reliable. Modern conflicts which are asymetric in nature, and against insurgents lacking armor, don't show the need for MBTs as a whole. The focus shifted away from tanks to smaller infantry fighting vehicles.
@Carnivorus = idiot
As Heinz Guderian (i think he was the one to tell that) once said, "For tanks, first fire power, second maneuverability, and last armour".
notice how if you switch the order, you have a portable barricade for riot control instead of combat... which is where most governments are going 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
@@poptartmallshart5323 Well, except the armour, for riot control you only need a little of maneuverability for the city and for fire power, with a water canon you have more than enough. You don't expect civilians to fight back with anti-armour weaponry.
Eyrik Valkland well, don’t give protesters any idea.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 Considering how armoured vehicles are taken out by concentrated molotov cocktail barrages... They already got the ideas.
Isn't that like the Leopard 1s?
Same as a lot of armour, really. It CAN stop a lot of firepower but it probably won't. The best defence isn't having a stone jaw, it's to not get hit in the mouth in the first place.
having a stone jaw is actualy good offence, can hurt ur oponent fist.
@@iMost067 That isn't what offence is...
@@duncanmcokiner4242 passive offence
@@RoyaltyFreeOnlineAnimeMusic Not really even that.
@@duncanmcokiner4242 but If I slam his fist with my jaw intentionally?
Strap a bunch of the enemy’s civilians to your tank. Invulnerable.
Unless you're going up against a dictatorship. Which y'know is whom these tanks are going up against most of the time.
You incorrectly assumed who’s side I was on
@@locomotivefaox In any case, if both sides use the other side's people as armour, then it won't matter now will it?
@@stylesrj free food atleast
@@andreasmaurstad7227 that's true. Hopefully they're very big people
There's some more you can add to the survivability onion (i think that's the proper name) than the ones you mentioned in the video. Although what you said is much simpler to understand. 1) Don't be there: This is basically politics, win without any troops on the ground. Tank designers or crew can't help with this. 2) Don't be detected: Stealth, making your tank quieter, better camouflaged, radio silence, etc. 3) Don't be targeted: Make yourself a really bad target so enemies won't target you. Long ranges, smoke cover, movement, terrain to hide most of your tank. 4) Don't be hit: Similar to the last point (A bad target is hard to hit). But this also includes things like point defence systems, jammers, or anything to screw with a weapon systems ability to target/track you. 5) Don't be penetrated: Armour, ERA, etc. 6) Don't be killed: Spall liners, safe ammo stowage, blowout panels, easy exit hatches, etc.
Armour is a component of 3). If your armour is sufficiently strong your oponent will likely not shoot at you unless forced to.
Inner composite armour is effective in a tank on tank but almost useless against say a dude with a rpg or a artillery shell that blasts tracks off tanks are flawed and have always been
@@dannymiller3315 Composite armour is actually more effective against HEAT warheads (like those in RPGs) than kinetic penetraotrs. Tracks are still a weakpoint though, but hitting them isn't easy.
@@Sir_Budginton in terms of armour you have to choose kenitic protection or heat and other propellants heat is more common and there is still kenitic protection
@@Sir_Budginton tracks are easy to hit have you ever seen the front side or rear of a real mbt composite in war thunder has two very similar numbers stating the use of the armor against kenetic and other types of armor
Overall I agree, in the same way we pile on ever more weight to the average soldier, the vehicles of today are too heavy for their own good. All the protective armor has long reached a point of diminishing returns and brought more problems instead.
At least Tanks don't have ankles lol
@@thejonathan130 At least torsion bars and wheels can be replaced easily. Ankles, knees and backs never heal right if ever.
until we get synaptic responsive, hydraulic/ air based/ electromagnetic exoskeletons, you're absolutely correct.
@@poptartmallshart5323 and even if you get them, they would be useless on a battlefield. Some electronic component breaks and you are done for.
@@GreatOldOne999 unless you could cost effectively, mass produce and maintain them as easily as a service weapon, which is why I included all 3 types of assisted strength technology: hydraulic for combat, air compression for support, and EM for special purpose
It's the ping-pong of weapons vs defense that has often fascinated me. Knights wore thick steel plate armor, until bullets came along. Then for a long time, no one wore armor because it didn't stop bullets enough to be worth it. Then we had a period where thick armor plating could take a hit and remain in tact, thus the rise of tanks like the Tiger, and of course the massive battleships. Then missiles and anti-armor weapons made such lumbering beasts vulnerable, which is why the biggest ship that isn't a carrier is a cruiser, most are subs and destroyers, and tanks have to be fast even if they still have thick armor. We're still on the weapons side of the ping-pong table right now. While modern armor is not worthless enough to ditch entirely, there's a reason battleships aren't around anymore. Like you said, mechanized armor is (or should be) mostly about defending against small arms. Tank v tank is all about who hits first. The armor at best will deflect the energy enough to let the crew survive. It'll be interesting to see what technology brings us back to the armor side of the table. Assuming it happens in my lifetime.
Knight plate armor wasn't thick and is far more maneuverable then modern plate carrier vests. The overall weight is slightly less to what a soldier in the modern day typically carries fully kitted. We have regressed heavily since then in regards to the concept of armor. If we were to apply the designs of 15/16 century plate armor and modern metal ergy soldiers would be incredibly hard to kill.
@@cvi4057 Thing is, a knight would be bulletproof... for the first few shots. But in a big volley of bullets and frontline combat, that knight is going to be knocked on his ass (bulletproof isn't physics-proof), his horse dead and then someone with a dagger is going to open up that faceplate and stab him while he's trying to recover... or worse... struggling under the weight of his dead horse on top of him. Plus, it was expensive to kit out a knight and train them in that heavy armour. That's why they ditched the shields. A modern-day soldier with fancy hi-tech armour would have the same problem. Best not to get shot in the first place and have a little something for when you do. But considering how combat works these days, you're not going to walk into a hail of bullets.
Due to changes in ship design (and therefore ASM design), a battleships designed in WW2 would be nigh invulnerable to sinking. Modern ASMs are designed to punch through the thin hulls of modern ships at the waterline, they do have the energy to theoretically penetrate thick belt armor due to speed. The problem being that the missiles in question would not penetrate in a functioning manner, there wouldn't be an explosion, just people having a really bad day in that compartment. Thick armor on ships isn't used because it is simply not cost effective compared to other means of active and passive defense.
@@stylesrj I understand that. That's why I said incredibly hard to kill. Their armor wouldn't make them invulnerable to concussive forces, and even plate carrier vests are only good for about a magazine's worth of standard NATO calibers. I also don't think this concept of a modern knight would be horse bound. Knights were highly trained highly skilled weapons of war, so I agree it wouldn't be cost effective to fit out your standard regiment. It would be more confined to officers, commanders, and special forces. The entire basis relies on the fact humanity now has access to a surplus in resources, significant advances made in mechanized suits, and the need for further specialized units or shock troops. The design of plate armor already distributes the weight to the hips, but combined with a mechanized indo suit the weight would be non existent. Allowing for a variety of suits. Tactically speed oriented suits. Heavy blast and riot suits. Suits that allow for heavier weapon systems, or even just to make an ammo runner or engineer between lines exceptionally hard to kill. Again it would be dependent on these three circumstances, and entirely confined to specialized units. Not the bulk of military force.
@@johannaldbrecht1594 Not quite. They suffer the same issue tanks do; lacking top armor. You wouldn't attack a battleship from below or the sides. You'd come in from above. A lot of good your thick armor does you there. Also, modern torpedoes don't so much punch through as they create a void the ship falls into. A true battleship would suffer more damage to that BECAUSE of its heavy armor. Fact is, that amount of weight makes them too slow and inefficient to deploy. At least a carrier provides mobile air power that can turn the tide of a battle. The smaller cruisers and destroyers are much faster, and carry enough firepower to be a threat. As I said, we're on the weapons side of the table. It's all about damage, which we can do quite well. Until we can build a surface vessel with true 360 degree armor plating that works, that will remain true.
It was a slap to the face when I first tried playing War Thunder with the "I'm in a muthafockin tank" mindset, and I just kept getting sniped from across the map by an enemy in spawn. After that I slowly started learning the do's and dont's. *Don't* expose yourself if the enemy is looking. *Don't* rely on armor, even if you're in a heavy tank, to be able to take multiple shells to the face and not get penned, if it does, you're an idiot, if it doesn't, you're a lucky son of a bitch and you better locate that enemy before he get's his second shot off. I know War Thunder is not as accurate as they try to portray it as, but if there's one thing they were accurate in (it seems) is that armor is a last resort, not your go to.
You see comrade, don't rely on armor wouldn't be an issue if you're in a T-34, as it's made of Stalinium
@incinerator950mech destroyed just a metal pile of garbage huge giant waste trash too much
Yep, that was world of tanks for me, and they're even more generous in survivability. (I definitely prefer War Thunder now that I understand this concept though)
@Carnivorus jumbo maybe, panther no, I'm constantly penned in the panther, hetzer maybe though
@Carnivorus which, is also the part that gets exposed the most to enemy fire
from what I was able to read about it, the reason the Japanese Type 90 had difficulty in a lot of japan is because it was too heavy for a lot of japans bridges except the ones in Hokkaido
Yo, I'm loving the inclusion of the Mechanicus soundtrack in these vids, just so you know. One of the dankest videogame OSTs out there. Noosphere puts me in a sort of way.
research tech or life or maybe both?
It must pointed out that unmanned turrets can alleviate weight problems to a extent.
Sorry but how?
@@benayakeenanhutagalung9798 by not using armor on your tank turret and instead focusing on protecting the crew inside the hull. this is what the armata does. its not in any way less protected that your regular tank but the focus on protection is somewhere else and it does that even better than a regular tank.
Not to mention you no longer have to create space for a gunner and commander in the turret. Less space to protect means you get more protection/added weight.
yeah, any armour put on the unmanned turret is so its not the weapon system easily disabled by IEDs, AT grenades like 40mm HEDP, anti-material rifles and autocannons. IIRC, unmanned turret allows one to save at least a dozen tons because its smaller and not needing much armour.
@@samuelmendoza9356 and it's always gonna be easier to mass produce turrets than train new crew members
Spookston: talks about some of the most interesting topics ahout tanks Also spookston: five minutes of someone talking in a deadpan tone with generic gameplay in the background
That’s like people who are interested in tanks and War Thunder vs. someone who isn’t interested in either.
0:54 I learned that as the protection Onion, and as I remember it has 2 more layers: Don't go there (an allusion to avoiding unwinnable conflicts), don't stay there (making reference to mobility).
Well, in russian case they always wanted and still want to conserve weight. Even in soviet times more emphasis was put on tank weight (T-64 development and things it had to drop to conserve wieght and have good armour), T-14 thanks to it somewhat revolutionary (for a mass production tank) layout of fully unmanned turret and crew located in one comparment in front, allowed for reducing the weight heavily thanks to turret no longer being needed to feature heavy armour. Only the crew capsule in front is heavily armoured and to a degree capable of stopping modern tank rounds. Add to that the new Monolit ERA/NXERA which is even more capable than Relikt and the Afganit APS capable of shooting down APFSDS and you get a very safe but light design. But what is not true for this tank, is the size aspect. T-14 is a massive vehicle by all standards. It is longer, taller and wider than M1. Imo the age of heavily armoured tanks is not ending, it is changing. From protecting the entire frontal arc of the tank to protecting just the most important part (in this case crew capsule) with addition of active protection systems of all kinds.
No, not with the fact that we're entering the era of lasers (and LIDAR) and the advent of composite metal foams (which, oddly enough, Battletech foretold the properties of back in 1990 when metal foams weren't even that well known yet via EndoSteel) is going to make armor a requirement again.
I think calling T-14 a mass produced vehicles is a bit of a stretch. It is an expensive tank, especially for a nation that relied on a principle of 80% of efficiency at 40% of the cost. Russia has a GDP of something like Canada. Despite throwing a huge part of their budget on their military, they still can't compete with USA
@@SirNyanPanda Who says about comparing with USA? Also lol, 80% efficeny at 40% cost? Soviet era designers would like to disagree. As for "mass produced" i said this in a sense that it is first design of this kind to get adopted into service and actually ordered. There were prototypes like it before, M1 TTB being an example of that. Also when did 69.2 billion out of 1.578 trillion became a huge chunk?
@@Volke_ I don't know why Soviet era engineers would disagree when they engineered vehicles with the intent of being cheap. Just look at a modern T-90 and M1. T-90 is more or less inferior in any category, especially gun, but it's also significantly cheaper. Also, yes, T-14's were ordered. 100 of them if i am not mistaken. But god only knows when they will be produced. At this rate the T-14 is more of a morale boost than an actual important part of Russian military
@@Volke_ The US' military spending is about 700 billion dollars, not not trillions, that's 10 times of Russia's military spending. But US' economy is also about 10 times larger, so military spending as a percentage of GDP is actually similar. If you're buying a Ferrari, it'll take a huge chunk out of your savings than when Bill Gates buy the same car.
It makes sense, I remember hearing a couple of old Sherman tank guys from world war 2 and a German tiger tank guy talking about what it was like! And one of the Sherman guys said pretty quickly that the Sherman’s got a bad reputation for being crap with no armour, but he explained that the tiger gun was a full on beast, and having enough armour to bounce them reliably, would mean being so slow and heavy that you’re a sitting duck and much easier target for just about everyone else as well as they could just shoot your tracks and disable you, and he said he preferred that the Sherman could move a lot better than a tiger meaning a lot of the time it could avoid even getting hit rather than taking a hit! And apparently he fought in I believe 15 Sherman tanks, each time the enemy shot his tank he ran back to get put in another one, he said a few crew died but not as many as you’d think for being in 15 destroyed tanks which he survived all of them! On the other hand the German guy said the tiger was basically a beast when it worked, but all that armour etc put a lot of stress on the engine and drivetrain meaning they broke down a lot, particularly when it actually mattered, when you’d suddenly have to push the tank to its limits etc during an attack, and said fairly soon his tiger tank broke down and they were told to basically wait for a crew to fix it and then the war ended before they even got there to fix it! Personally I’m not saying that no armour is best armour, but clearly tank design didn’t go the way of the Maus and such, because the logistics alone are a nightmare as well as bridge crossings etc, and no matter how big and thicc your tank is, there are plenty of ways for a jet fighter and so on to take you out and these days particularly, there’s missiles strong enough to wipe out any tank no matter the armour, so clearly being unspotted and too hard to hit etc is a much better option than relying on armour! In purely tanks vs tanks then maybe they’d be a place for crazy armoured tanks, but in reality there’s just not these days! Same with battleships, they basically became obsolete because no matter how thicc and juicy your armour is, someone will make a torpedo or AP round strong enough to go through, meaning being a big fat slow easy to hit target is bad! The only real exception to that concept these days, is aircraft carriers and in particular super carriers, they’re big fat relatively slow easy to hit, high priority targets, meaning only the wealthiest countries can really consider operating them because you’ll also need an entire fleet of destroyers and cruisers etc to support the ship, but given the level of firepower and air power that can be unleashed if you can get your super carrier in range is worth the costs for global powers, but I think right now the only people who have them are the US and the U.K.! But yeah that’s like a floating military, that has another military escorting it everywhere, tanks don’t get that personal level of protection!
Bruh, is that Mechanicus soundtrack in the background?! I was just playing that as the video notification popped, and thought I was tripping balls :D
Being a (unpublished) Sci-fi author, I have been designing several high speed infantry support tanks that were like more than armored cars with hybrid-electric drives, tyres rather than tracks, light plastic-based electric-reactive armor, rail or coil-guns (depending on the role of the tank. Railgun for direct fire, coilgun for inderect support). They would support marine platoons (3 tanks and a command tank, operating alongside two infantry sections and a command group make up the platoon) Sadly, there's no current plan for them to appear onscreen, but I at least have the tanks and command structure worked out if they do. P.S. There is an orbital drop variant, designed to be deployed from orbit, crewed and battle ready. Landing much like the curiosity Rover.
You have a bunch of fast tanks and don't know how to use them? You should be Blitzkrieging along time ago
@@simonsenaviev7541 oh, I'm sure I'll find a use for them sometime 😁
How will you publish it and when?
@@benayakeenanhutagalung9798 unknown! It's currently in first draft, and stuck behind a full length fantasy novel😀 still, I have hopes!
It would be funny if future military's ditch the concept of a main battle tank all together and go back to having a small fleet of heavy tanks for breakthrough operations, and a large fleet of light tanks to serve as the general workhorse of the Army.
IFVs are kinda like light tanks, but with infantry compartments.
@@typehere6689 Nowadays IFVs are pseudo-medium tanks with some having 40mm and 57mm guns.
@@archvilethe87th60 During the Gulf War, IFVs are proven to be a good tank destroyer when armed with ATGMs. From what I heard, an average Bradley have better tank kill per vehicle than the M1.
Sorta. Some carry 9cm cannon, weapons typically found on medium and heavy tanks long ago. I would not be surprised if a new IFV model with a short 15cm howitzer comes out.
@@typehere6689 There's a variant of Stryker with a 105mm gun.
Spookston:"tank armour is overrated" Ratte: my goals are beyond your understanding
Your outro music surprised me; it brought back many nostalgic memories.
The Chieftain mentioned in a recent Q&A that armour was the least important thing for him in tank design - quite relevant given that he used to be a tanker himself and he'd be the one being shot at. He pretty much gave the same reasons as you. We can't discount the emergence of new super amazing composite armour, but we shouldn't count on it. As a matter of fact, I believe firepower will still outpace armour development. There's a bunch of interesting developments in experimental tank guns, but armour is reaching some limits, there's no way to make an armour composition that's light, small and can absorb that much kinetic energy. Of course some people will say "but we've already seen points in which armour was declared useless and new developments have made it relevant again", but I believe this will probably not be the case again anytime soon: our knowledge of materials physics is really advanced, and we're starting to see limits on how strong materials can be. Tank armour has some specific requirements (there's a maximum total thickness and weight) and it'll reach a point in which we won't be able to make it stronger. I still see the possibility of new synthetic materials that are even stronger, but the production costs of these is prohibitive. Making billion dollar tanks is just impractical. But that's just my opinion.
I think you underestimate how much overlap between resistance to tank guns and resistance to many atgms and RPGs there is
ATGM and RPG uses shaped charges, and the means to stop this is widely developed. Meanwhile, for tank guns, long rod penetrator is *way different*, and often, needs *very heavy* armour modules. AFAIK, stopping long rod penetrators/APFSDS is something akin to eroding it. Also, ATGM and RPG is mostly slower compared to thsoe tank gun munition(1km/s above). Infantry ATGM can go around, IIRC, Mach 3 at best, while RPGs are mostly subsonic since they are used practically up close(
Sorry ask Spookstons, but you could make videos redesigning and fixing ww2 tanks ? I would like to see your version of the panther.
Maybe I could do that at some point
In b4 it just gets turned into T54/Centurion hybrid.
This actually reminded me about something I heard from The Chieftain about the US Army looking into a new light tank this past year. Both tanks in the competition are under 30 tons, armed with either a 105mm or 120mm gun and need to be air transportable. The General Dynamics Griffin II is one of the two, and and updated BAE M8 Buford from the earlier 1990's competition are the main competitors. Both would be plenty quick and nimble and are relatively small in size compared to modern MBT's, though they still are fairly large.
I want to ask your thoughts on the American Optionably Manned Combat Vehicle program? 50mm Bushmaster autocannon, Active protection, and room for upgrades. Meant to replace the Bradley.
armor will never be totally abandonned, and here's few reasons: -as optronics evolve, it's easyer and easyer to see, track, aim, hit. what was insinsible above 100m one century ago can now be accurately detected and engaged at 2000m -as pure firepower evolves, the amount of destruction an foot soldier can bring does evolve (an modern infantry group equiped with RPGs and assault rifles has far more firepower than an medium tank from the 1920's) and since thoose man-portable weapons can be smuggled illegally (or by a state turning a blind eye to it) some terrorist/insurgeants will always be able to get them. -explosives still exist, and they don't need a direct hit to inflict damage. an lightly armoured target can be teared apart quite easily by such things. (spoiler: you cannot dodge shockwaves and spalling, video-games/moovies aren't reality, do not underestimate the lethality radius of an explosive ammunition/an explosive device) -in asymetrical warfare, the ennemy has the advantage of the non-formal-military-status, wich often guarantee him to give you the first strike by surprise, so, no matter how efficient you think you are, you ll always get striked without knowing from where it came from and when you expect it the least. thoose factors make that there will always be a need for something that can engage a large group of entranched/hidden infantry without enduring too much losses, and that is still a ground unit (cuz an air unit cannot stay forever and cannot keep an area under-control) also, to back up my points, look at history: -before WWI: infantry had little to no protection, personnal protection was seen as an useless mass, when armies began to figure out how easy it was, without direct hit, to simply crush thousands of soldiers like it's nothing (the human body is far more fragile than what we like to think: unlike in hollywood moovies or anime, we cannot perform matrix-like-dodge, and we cannot get back on our feet once there's too much metal stuck into our flesh) , steel helmets did an coming back, some personnal protections appeared, tanks made their beginning. -the late 20s and 30s: anti tank shells became common, did tanks disapeared? no, quite the opposite in fact, design evolved, and ways to make tanks more armoured without becomming fat whales where found (also true for WWII: look at an soviet T34 from WWII, and compare it with an WWI british mark 1 : similar total weight, but the T34 is more compact and armored) -in the 50s and 60s, everyone was like "meh, RPGs, ATGMs, shaped charges....tank = obsolete, no armor, armor is futile" and then....T-64 happened ---> a tank that wasn't particularly heavyer than leopard 1 or pattons, but that was on a whole other level in term of protection, thanks to an compact design and new armor technology. -when tandem charges apeared on ATGM, everyone was thinking "ERA is now obsolete" and then, new types of ERA protecting against tandem-charges apeared -after cold war, everyone was thinking about relying more on light AFVs and getting rid of fat MBT, then, they discovered, with terorrism and insurgents, what "IED"' means. and big, fat, expensive, and impratical armored whales continued to be used. -theese last decades, we have seen an massive improvment of personnal protections for infantry: first flack jackets, then, heavy plates carrier became far more common, and helmets became more effective too, the body coverage increased also (we begin to cover throat, shoulders, groin area). also, keep in mind that with automation, some task will be performed by an mechanism + an computer that take far less space than an human being, meaning it will be possible to reduce the internal space inside the tank (reducing the volume to be armoured, alowing to put even more armor without increasing the mass, and to proove this point: just compare leopard 1/AMX30/type 74 with T64A/T-72 ural ) take also into account that engines do evolve, so, less and less space required to have the same output (and if an tinier engine gives you the same work, you can reduce the volume of your tank, and so, reduce weight without reducing armor) yes, mobility and logistics must not be overlooked (don't build 75 + tons things that constantly break down, get stuck in mud, cannot be quickly fixed and that cannot be transported anywhere) but neglecting armor is the best way to just endure catastrophic looses against anything, even some apes in the desert armed with equipment as old as your grandparents.
gamecube-king/ devon3 agreed
People seem to overlook a fact that modern mbts have alot more in common with WW2 heavy tanks than early mbts and WW2 medium tanks. It's just done better, with new technology. Biggest difference would be mobility but back then they didn't have powerfull enough engines to carry alot of weight with decent speed.
@@southweststrangla9591 yes, + the fact that logistics have evolved and most countries does nowadays have better roads and better bridges, wich allows for fatter stuff. (and add on that the fact that a bigger proportion of fight occurs in urban area, and in urban areas, a tank is like trapped in a cage, so he cannot freely moove, wich means mobility loose a large portion of it's use, and protection become more important since the ennemy will hit you anyway)
@@shuffler1577 heavy tank not about size footstep feet and ant insect small
Hey Spookston, I have a "Everything Wrong With" Suggestion, there is this game called "Just Cause 4" and it has some pretty cool Tanks, with a lot of them looking like they are functional, can you perhaps check them out?? Thanks, much love - Me
I feel reasonably confident in saying this will prove wrong. Prior to the Ukraine invasion the perception was that defence has the edge right now. People were suggesting the ATGM will become extinct with active protection. We saw huge improvements to composite arrays and ERA with the advent of computer modelling, and both were rolled out en mass. On the flip side the HEAT threat had barely improved, it was already almost as good as its getting and we were still using the same diameter cannons and the same missiles of 20 years ago. Likewise the KE threat had arguably gone backwards, we were still limited by length, still using the same cannons, but so many nations opted to move to tungsten projectiles with far worse performance against composite arrays. Of course that all changed with the invasion of Ukraine, people had a rude awakening that the threat still had the extreme advantage it had held since mid WW2. Even if the tanks destroyed were largely outdated, had rudimentary composite arrays, used pure steel in the areas usually penetrated, had an incredibly poor design against damage, had terrible tactics, usually lacked active protection systems, it was still an awakening. With that designers now have to decide if they want to defend against the top attack threat with more ERA, composite arrays, cope cages, whatever else. And if they want to finally step up the cannon diameter to again pose a threat to next generation tanks. Both cost weight. As will defending against a larger cannon and future AT threats. Ultimately your choice is to defend against the threat or to not. If the former, it costs more weight. If you're not defending against the threat why not run IFV armour with whatever weapon you like. That would still defend against the autocannon and other common threats with a 25 ton footprint. There's absolutely no point in making a tank 50+ tons if its not able to manage anything beyond what the 25 ton fire support vehicle can. Perhaps in 3 years when the next generation is designed I can eat my words, perhaps I can be proven right. But even with weight saving methods like autoloaders and better technology I'd be very surprised if we aren't seeing a weight increase now people are aware the threat is still real. And possibly an increase in fire support vehicles so you don't need a 70 ton tank shooting 3 miles away at a rifleman in a tower (or masses of helicopters vulnerable to MANPADS as Ukraine also demonstrated, albeit more quietly).
Err, I thought that it was obvious that offensive firepower generally outstrips defensive armour, I mean when the Mk.1 tank first appeared in world war I, K-bullets and grenade bundles appeared as counters almost immediately. As time went on and armour got better, more powerful anti-armour weapons were developed, even modern reactive armour is being counter acted by top attack missiles or tandem charge warheads fired by infantry and overwhelmed entirely by artillery and aerial weapons like JDAMs and air launched ATGMs. I can't remember where I read this but someone quoted "No matter how thick you build your walls, when someone determines that they want you dead, they will find a a way through", I think that summarises the idea that you can always make a bigger gun but you can't make armour impenetrable.
did you know that 5 hour energy wants to take YOU to the tropics
While I agree with the video overall, (gr8 vid btw) tank crews essentially fight to the death for their tank, as that's their life on the battlefield anyways, they don't and can't really just 'become infantry', tanks deploy in twos or threes Minimum! And they stick together and try as hard as possible to repair a tank if it gets hit/damaged to get outta there and RTB.
True about crews bailing out after one hit. A long time back I used to get a Magazine about wargaming called Wargamers Digest the Founder and Editor was Gene McCoy a WWII Tanker European Theater. One of the stories he told was that a lot of the time they would battle carry smoke shells means load a smoke shell, as most German tanks where as good if not better armored and Gunned as them. So that they may think O bang and lots of smoke we are on fire while the Sherman would then load AP what ever and move for a better shot. If I remember he started a a Tank Commander and ended as a Company commander.
This is very good vid! I just love all that knowledge flowing right into my head!
i'd never want to be a tanker. i could just imagine a platoon of soldiers outside with welding equipment sealing the hatches shut so i can't get out and have to live off of my own recycled farts until i finally suffocate.
Wont happen as long as you can drive
Here a good video idea: Everything wrong with Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare's vehicles
I'd like him to rip on that one quad walking tank
It’s got a walking mode, not sure how effective that is. However, it also has its normal tracked mode. I think the walker mode was meant for peeking over large debris or something.
Can you do a video on the ground vehicles of the Rebels, Galactic Empire, and the Zann Consortium from Star Wars Empire at war Forces of Corruption?
This all depends on the tactics and doctrine of the force that is using the vehicle. Even in the context of Warthunder. If you have a very low survivability tank where being seen and shot at is almost guaranteed death, you approach combat by lurking in relatively safe areas and try to flank the enemy. However survivability starts to matter when you just need to be a spearhead and get to an objective. A tank that is just a fast gun platform, might be amazing at fighting a defensive war. Spotting the target from a hiding place, driving up to the ledge, shooting, and retreating back with a fast reverse to reload. That is going to be very effective... in a defensive engagement. If your army is not going to use tanks to lead an assault it's fine. They will be great at stopping an advancing enemy. But you need heavy armor protection and survivability if you want your tanks to charge the enemy position. Not being seen or shot at is not an option. You go in knowing you will get fired upon. Which is of course why you don't go alone, you bring lots of friends. In that scenario it is really not overrated to trust your armor to save your life if your tank gets disabled in the charge. I guess that is why Russian tanks are designed with really really good frontal armor, because Russian attack doctrine is pretty much sending a wave of tanks after waves of artillery.
Me, shoving more s**t onto my fantasy tank designs: "what did you say? I can't hear you."
180mm L75 main gun, plus 76mm and 30mm cannon AA protection, radar, reactive armor, composite armor, claymore based infantry defense for urban scenarios, ATGM/SAM launchers. Cant remember anything else off of the top of my head for my King Cobra tank design. 😂
partial disagreement on how much to armor a tank up by: there is value in armoring a tank to force the enemy to expend their newest and most expensive weapons, at least in its strongest zones. This means they are forced to expend their best on you rather than simply being able to rely on cheap reservists and equipment they've been stockpiling for years
He's saying that Tanks should be armored enough to protect against small arms fire and outdated shoulder mounted AT weapons. Weaponry is so powerful now that having enough armor to survive a direct hit from another MBT of similar weight is becoming unfeasible. While the advantages brought upon by being lighter are becoming more apparent by the day.
@Carnivorus I don't know where you got those numbers and I don't know where to do such research myself, so I am unable to offer useful discourse on that subject. I was simply reiterating what was said in the video as he didn't seem to understand the point the video was trying to make.
@@bloodtypeinfinity5143 can be destroyed by person holding 3000 degree chainsaw
Hi Spookston. Love to know your view on 2 my (kinda crazy) futuristic tank visions: 1) Tank design based on articulated tracked vehicles, like udes XX 20, DT 30 Vityaz, Magnolia, or bronco, - powered by extra powerpack, or small reactor located in the unmanned second segment of the vehicle (distributing the power into the manned segment by strong powerline(s) between the two segments). - could power electric shielding and/or weaponry. Another small pro, might be strategic mobility (modules can be transported as separated parts). 2) Swarm tactics, where the manned tank will proceede as second wave after unit of UGCVs (like ripsaw M5, or russian drones, but with added firepower, using autoloaded high calibre recoilles rifles, loitering munition drones, or kinetic missiles to be threat to the regular tanks.) Few UA(C)Vs would be a great help in this tactics too - at least as spotters. What do YOU think spook? Are those ideas more on the crazy side, or more on the feasible side?
Could you do a video/segment on pros and cons of wheels vs treads? The biggest that comes to mind is that treads can carry heavier loads, but something more in depth might be interesting.
Me at the beginning: interesting Me at the middle: got a point man Me at the end: I CAME TO LEARN NOT TO FEEL DAMNIT.
Definitely you are one of the most unique and underrated KZheadrs out there
hey can you explain to me why atgm will take over guns when atgms are slower, limited in ammo capacity compared to conventional tank gun rounds? slower as in, in a head to head tank combat, gun will always hit atgm user first? ive always found it odd that russian counterpart always has the atgm munition as part of their tank ammo choice compared to western MBTs which had none. not to mention its laser guided too (or at least last i remembered it was) meaning, user has to stay on target and cant move until it hits, when a tank shooting its gun can just pop out and back in. (not talking about in game use by the way. talking about real life scenarios) thank you for your entertaining insights!
So ATGM do have a far better rangr than APFSDS; secondly even if the ATGM is "slow" it dont mean that the ennemi will see it comming and moreover if it does the chance that it see the operator that fired it (from a soldier or tank) is very low; and actuel atgm are very powerful
The issue with tank armour and size is always the powersource first and maneuvrability second. So I would argue that you could see heavier armoured tanks in the future if either a: the armour fulfills a secondary function e.g. accumulator cells as armour units or b: an immensly powerful energy source that is rather big and/or heavy like a stellarator fusion reactor where due to the sheer side a lot of armour is necessary. Another possibility may be that the concept of a MBT will be outdated in the future due to drone warfare or such and as a result every tank more the role of a land-battleship fulfills. Because if every tank has to be an AA, AT, APERS and Anti-drone weapons-plattform just to prevent it from getting swarmed, heavier designs may become more reasonable.
Since a more heavier tank would become a pain in the arse burden for the recovery units, for the crew and the tank itself, the U.S still hadn't looked to this problem
I think it's something to do with the Cold War doctrine. Western tanks tend to be heavier as they expected them to "hold the line" when the USSR starts rolling west. The US doctrine didn't rely that all that much on tanks, because strike fighters, attack helicopters, and ATGM-armed AFVs served as both infantry support weapons and tank destroyers.
@Carnivorus Modern Western MBT weighs around 60-70 tons, equivalent to Tiger II. But the armor protection is several times greater due to the improvement in protection per unit of weight. Modern Russian tanks are also heavier than back during the WW2. Even with autoloader, average modern Russian tank still weighs nearly twice as much as a T-34.
@Carnivorus My point is that tanks didn't get lighter after WW2.
I am suprised you never talk about the _PL-01 even_ though it follows the exact same design of no armor, active protection systems, a big gun and even haveing that anti thermal camera camelion heat invisibility skin.
Wasn't the idea scrapped?
It wws just an unrealistic concept
It is just a carboard concept ontop of CV-90 chassis, noone needs to talk about concepts that gone nowhere.
please no, you're brining even more shame to Poland. I'm Polish, and agree PL-01 was a tragedy.
@@Volke_ Could still talk about CV90-105 and CV90-120.
0:32 reminds me of a case where a German anti-tank gun bounced 30 or so shots off a t-34 and it’s often sighted as the strength of a t-34s armour however as the chieften said “why did a t-34 crew let them self’s get shot 30 times?”
With the introduction of active protection systems that can stop most low velocity threats. it can help reduce the need for super heavy armour. I wonder what the specs are for the new Panther KF51. And how it balances the mobility to armour ratio and how much reliance it places on it's APS.
This whole thing reminds me of a quote from the builder and driver of "Little Sister" from battlebots. "I have two layers of armor, an inner layer of plate to protect the internals, and an outer layer. In between is nothing. Air is the best armor you can have, it weighs nothing, costs nothing, can't be broken, and your enemy has to go that much farther to get in." (paraphrased) I mean, isn't that the whole point of Chobham spaced armor? it has layers of air to force the opponent to go that much farther, while not weighing the tank down any more? In addition, if you remember, the original tanks' armor was not for defending from other tanks, but from the tanks' greatest enemy infantry.
Boomers and Xoomers in the MIC: **blocks your path to practical, American tank design**
about time someone pointed this out. and is that mechanicus music i hear?
My guess with the abrams is we will get one more variant in the M1A3 but then will begin work on an entirely new design based around a bigger and longer gun.
The classic "No armor is the best armor"
Unless it’s your life on the line
The video's thesis is "armour is overrated" not "armour is unnecessary". Time and time again people have created doom prophesies about tank armour, time and time again they return to the tank when their light vehicle army gets trashed.
"Don't be seen, don't be shot, don't be hit, don't be *killed.*" Ima stop ya right there furry bud.
He's not a furry though
@@glassofwater1792 why the pfp then?
@@TheRibbonRed He has explained it a few times, he doesn't engage in the furry community and just uses his character as a channel mascot
He said in a video awhile back that he just liked the particular picture but doesn't have any interest in being a furry
Huh, good to know. Keeping that pfp would still lead to future misunderstandings though.
Where did you get the diagram at 0:48 from?
What about the idea of addon armour packages such as the Challenger 2’s TES? as this can adapt the tank based on the likelihood of what it will fight, whether that’ll be infantry or tank
rotate and stable crazy as possible fast
You know a lot about tanks it’s impressive. You must be a 19K in the army
Wanted to, but couldn't get a waiver for my kidney disorder. Entirely self-taught.
@@Spookston I know the feeling, having a heart condition...
Spookston that’s a darn shame. With the amount of knowledge you know you’d definitely make sergeant within a couple years. Good luck for your future though. you’ll probably design the next US armored vehicle or get accepted to an engineering program!
@@Spookston shit if that wasn't such a huge issue you could've joined the french foreign legion armor division. They always let guys with medical conditions in as long as they weren't affected by itseverely.
"The use of dynamic protection like active protection systems, explosive reactive armor and slat armor allows the tank to be well protected without needing heavy armor." No, first of all there is still the threat of IEDs, second of all slat armor is basically useless against modern ATGMs, and explosive reactive armor is worthless without a layer of composite armor to completely stop the jet. Active protection systems are are enough on their own, but there is so much they can do, and relying on active protection only is not ideal.
I don't think the point was "Just remove all the armor", the point was that increasing armour thickness isn't inherently good.
@@siraethelwulf8914 so kinda like why composite armor was used in the first place?
does scene monitor people watch to learning anything inside tank
It makes sense from the perspective of the crew to have the most armor possible, but I'd say current levels of armor would be completely vestigial by the time we switch to remote or autonomous operation since overall effectiveness is never achieved by designing for the unstoppable force that only rarely appears.
I wonder if we'll see a tank not rely on armor but on a mini plasma or electromagnetic shield to stop top attack and slow SABOT rounds to an ineffective velocity. A shield doesn't have to stop a round, only mitigate it's penetration factor by delaying blast formation or blunting/slowing KE shells.
Give this man a medal. But only because I would choose an M5 Stuart over a Tiger I everyday.
I wouldnt
To be fair in the comparisson, i would take 20 M5 Stuart over 1 Tiger 1, and even then i prefer the Tiger, what can I say, i love that tank.
@@Defsould It's ok, but personally I don't like to be shot at, I like to drive at 40 mph in the desert all the while scouting for enemies. Recon and speed is more important than firepower and armour for me! P.S. "I can't hear you over the sound of your hydraulic engine trying to rotate an eleven tonne turret"
@@BioshockFan91 Well, than the german Wiesel tank should be perfect for you. ;D They even strapped an experimental 30 mm recoilless revolver cannon on it. God, i wich they would implement it in Warthunder. :D
@@BioshockFan91 I reckon the Tiger is shit designed in the mechanical level, but it's soo beautiful...
hey Spookston i was wondering if you plan on making a video on Future of tank design. the focus on future tanks should be: optical/infra red camouflage for tanks,Active protection systems,hybrid electric and hydrogen engines for tanks and on metal foam armour and graphene armour for tanks.
He kinda does that, just not everything at once, and hydrogen engines are a terrible idea for tanks as the hydrogen is incredibly volatile
I'm planning on doing a video centered around my take on a scifi tank.
So there will be a compilation of all the videos about future tank tech
Thing about the top attack weapons is that you have 2 kinds of them. First is the likes of TOW-2B and RBS56- they are the “fly over” type and are easy enough to defeat since they only penetrate about 100-200mm of armor, simply slap ERA on your roof and you are good to go. Then there is the hellfire and maverick types-the airborne, huge, direct impact top attack missiles. In that case you are boned either way because that missile will split your tank apart even with a HE warhead. No ERA will save you from that. Javelin is a interesting mix and quite unique. It is a direct impact top attack missile, with tandem warhead. 600mm of penetration means if you have advanced ERA slapped on your roof AND additional roof armor like the STRV122, you might just survive the 600mm pen of the missile. But there is always a chance the missile hitting the commanders hatch and kill you anyway.
Are you using the music from Warhammer40k Mechanicus?
i disagree in some ways, with top attack munitions and atgms becoming obsolete with APS, armor is not loosing value until APS systems can stop kinetic projectiles. in the future i can see tanks becoming more armored (most likely ERA) on the backs and sides, for infantry anti tank protection (to prevent damage to components) and the kinetic armor protecting the crew in an unmanned turret configuration such as the armata. just my take
Interested in your thoughts on using technology like hover/anti-grav to not actually lift the tank but instead make it functionally lighter. That the Wraith from Halo, instead of leftwing it fully from the ground, instead have it a tracked vehicle with heavy armor, or higher speed with that massive gun?
If that existed then overnight tanks and aircraft would more or less become the same thing, as seen in Schlock Mercenary
@@dsdy1205 Being stationary and on the ground has the massive benefit from traction. So you can have a gun and don't need the counter thrust to fire something like a cannon. That and you are on the ground and can hide behind a hill.
A good video, I"m enjoying your channel. Though I feel like playing the devil's advocate and arguing the other side tonight. On a tactical level, tank armor is of limited use - and the best defense is to not get hit. On a strategic/operational level though - it becomes rather more important. Those top-attack warheads were difficult and expensive to develop - and still not quite universally available. Infantry anti-tank weapons have gotten heavier and more costly as well. For forcing an arms race and changing the enemy's behavior - super tanks have a habit of catching their attention.
Also the weight and volume if armor can instead be used for troop transport, better weapon systems, or other valuable features.
Agreed, take an example from my gameplay: BT-7: 4 kills Kv-1: 1 kill Fought in the same match which means my BT-7 was pretty much 2 ranks below each enemy
I understand from lagistical and strategic points that the idea of shedding armor in favor of lower silhouette smaller and general and higher maneuverability and possibly upgrades and Firepower I must say that from a crew Soldier and basically for lack of a better term moral standpoint shedding armor on a main battle tank that is designed to be your front-line toe-to-toe vehicle seems like it would be counterintuitive. Well I can also agree that the Abrams is way too heavy for it's all good what we are attempting to do right now is make it lighter but not compromise its armor protection. The idea of basically keeping armor is only a second or third line of thought have been tried before. A lot of early NATO tanks had the same Concepts such as the leopard 1 and AMX 30, and arguably even things like the Centurion. Sacrificing armor over speed and maneuverability is it partially defeats the purpose of the tank, where the tank is fully capable of moving and shooting there are Vehicle Systems especially now that could take the place of a fast mobile gun platform that are not even tanks. Not exactly the best example but something like the striker with the 105 millimeter gun it's very lightly armored it has decent nobility and its Firepower is very amazing and yet it's not an MBT. Another example would be something like the AMX 10rc with its enhanced mobility and even neutral Traverse capability due to its unique drivetrain and transmission. These vehicles are capable of carrying heavy Ordnance and moving very fast with enough protection to stop auto Cannon and Small Arms Munitions as well as possibly even using era and other Composites to allow for protection against Infantry born antitank measures. The problem with these is that they are not in BT's, they are not designed to do the same job as an MBT. I do agree that those types of vehicles are very useful and can fill roles that were traditionally filled with tanks tanks still need to be defended and capable of withstanding hits. There are a few reasons as to why I believe this to be the case. The first reason would be that tanks as a whole are in and of themselves their own niche of vehicle. They lighter vehicles cannot. The second reason is that the modern Fire Control and stabilization systems of today well not exactly foolproof would make these high Mobility vehicles with low Silhouettes not quite as hard to hit as one would hope. Couple that with the idea that even though it's still technically supposed to be proof against autocannon and Infantry Bourne anti-tank measures it is still more vulnerable in the long run. The third and maybe not the most important but in my opinion one of the more poignant reasons, is that it's more or less a factor of being able to have some form of morale behind it the idea of protection The General..."Placebo"... being the best word I can use to describe what I'm trying to get across. Even if it's not a 10 hits result in a full penetration of the vehicle those four times that it doesn't in the Infantry sees it means that they are more likely to keep fighting as they know that their vehicle is going to stop the threats that are before them even if the one that it's facing is a little more than it should be facing. the mind is more at ease when you know that your vehicle can potentially save your life even if it isn't quite as likely as you would like as opposed to something that will absolutely positively be destroyed if it's struck. It's kind of like asking if you want to be in a Hummer or an mrap. Sure the Hummer is probably a little faster and is smaller oh, but a Hummer is a lot more likely to be destroyed than an mrap if it hits something. one thing I also wanted to mention is that though I do agree top attack weapons are very dangerous there are a lot of new measures being put into place that are making top attack weapons not nearly as "absolute" as they used to. Surely there will be some form of resurgence of lighter vehicles and I do believe that tanks might take on a different role as opposed to what they do now but the idea of all together abandoning armor while I can see some Merit in it just does not have enough Pros to outweigh the cons.
What kind of display is that At 0:55?
Personally i think the fighting compartment will still be amroured but that it will be smaller, just look at the t14 armata. Also i'd say that MBT will most likely be protected but with active defence systems rather than passive armour. Also it's important to remember that a method of graphene production have been invented, it's the roll to roll cvd (by mit i think). My best guess is that MBTs will have unmanned turrets, graphene will be incorporated into the armour scheme that will mainly cover the front side of the fighting compartment and that the primary defence of a tank will be active rather than passive.
Would there ever be an electric IFV or tank or any other armoured, or would batteries have to advance more to a have more power in a smaller package.
I'd argue that in the case of the Japanese MBT, the Type 10, they actually went more into armor than you'd think. A lot of what's happening is that we are getting newer and more capable materials than the old composites ceramics, and steels that composed the armor and structure of last generation vehicles. A case in point is the Type 10. She ways 60% that of an Abrams in her base configuration yet has extremely similar front-aspect armor and offers superior protection to the Type 90 that preceded her. This is due to the use of nanocrystal steel and nanoceramic armor plates that the Type 10 employs that offer the exact same level of protection for previous armors yet with only 38%(!) the weight penalties and 30% less volume. What's happening here isn't that the weapons have finally beaten armor, but that armor is actually coming back around to beat the weapons. Nanomaterials as used in the Type 10 have already proven themselves an order of magnitude more capable for less weight and less space. I'd argue that, while the Type 10 may be the first of followup MBT designs built from the ground-up to use the armor materials now available, she certainly won't be the last. Consider if you will that if the Type 10 can in 48 tons meet the protection of the 70 ton Abrams, what a 70 ton Abrams would be able to do if built in the same method. That alone may very well allow vehicle designers to offer sufficient protection against top-down attack missiles, as an example, or at the very least render the vehicle impossibly resilient against man-portable anti-tank weaponry. Far from the future you envision of ETC-sledgehammer armed eggshell tank destroyers dispatching each other left and right in singular blows, I'd like to put forward that we may very well see the potential for relatively light vehicles with the capability to take multiple shots from their own weapons without being mission-killed. I'd heavily recommend checking out carbon nanotube metal matrix composites (CNT-MMP) and some of the other wild stuff done with the Type 10. It's straight-out-of-novel scifi stuff.
I agree with your points Spook. Its kinda the same as the Battleship, weapons out pace the armor. and the Tank is the same, but it wont get relegated to history books and museums unlike the battleship. I dont think the US will give up on its Heavier MBT's until later, but will acquire something lighter to supplement current forces. sort of how we used Light Tanks for a while during the cold war. I think we will come to a Light Weight Battle Tank/ Light Battle Tank or something similar. It'll probably be something like the Stryker MGS, keeps the gun, ditches the unneeded armor. Relies on Active protection, Skirts, ERA and such to keep it alive and it'll probably be for more urban warfare.
This is one of the reasons I like vehicles like the Sd.Kfz. 234 and modern Puma. They're mobile, and have good armaments. - as to future armor though.. I think Non-Newtonian fluids could be used in future armor designs. Maybe plates containing the fluids would be inserted underneath the traditional plating, similar to how plates are laid inside of ballistic vests. So it'd have the mainline armor that'd take the punches, but once that's broken through, the Non-Newtonian gel would disperse the energy outwards to minimize the impacts energy and felt vibrations upon the crew.
Well explained point, I agree, although I do think that some sort of ultrastrong alloy might come into play with generations of MBTs designed in the early/mid 2030s, if not earlier. Seems inevitable.
bit late but in elite dangerous the SRV (Surface Reconnaissance Vehicle) is potentially an evolved tank design it has a small profile it dosnt have big guns but ED tends to favor auto cannons and pulse lasers as it has dual auto cannons and thin but effective armor (VS infantry weapons and small ship weapons) and is pretty much a mix of a recon vehicle and MBT or rather an IFV
What are your views on energy shielding
That graphic showing the four stages of protection "don't get hit but, etc." was the single most important graphic I've seen in months by far. So many professionals saying the first layer of protection is avoid being hit without anything like that chart to clarify and demonstrate their point.
Can you link the 3:25 video part? pls?
Based on what you said about not being seen, would you say that the best sci fi ability a tank can have is invisibility?
I love the fact that you use the mechanicus music, it makes me think that you want to send a tank on mars
What do you think of unmanned tanks?
Hard kill APS systems are ostensibly able to reduce the effectiveness of even kinetic penetrators, which I could see keeping tank armor relevant, question is if they even still need as much.
I've noticed in world of tanks new Frontline game mode where people are engaging each other at large distances and many different angles slow heavily armored vehicles are almost completely pointless. The best tanks are small enough fast enough to avoid getting shot in the first place
I was wondering if you could do a series where you would compare, or pit against each other our earth tanks and military equipment from anywhere between ww1 - now, against tanks/mechs from fictional worlds or different timelines. Example: T14 Armata against the predator from WH40K, Abrams m1a2 against the fallout heavy tank, the wolf-tank from Wolfenstein against the Panther
That’s why I think the most well rounded tank in the world are the T Series tanks like the T-72/90. They are a smaller and lighter tank which eases logistics in comparison to absolute units like Abrams as well as being a smaller target to hit. They still have a hard hitting main gun for their weight and have an autoloader which when maintained correctly allows for consistent loading of munitions into the main gun, the use of advanced ERA and APS Systems doesn’t mean good protection comes with the detriment of high weight, though the autoloader is cited by some as a weakness it’s not as big of a deal considering it’s located in the hull away from the place most likely to be hit which is the turret of a tank. Also better fuel efficiency compared to gas turbines sure they are called whispering death but what about the clanking of the tracks and the distinct sound profile that befalls a gas turbine. What is also overrated are ATGM’s chemical munition are laughed at by tank armor and all it takes is a HE-FRAG shell to land close to a ATGM crew to knock them out. The thing is with armor is this question: would you like to be at risk killed by a lot of different weapons or only a handful of very specific anti tank weaponry.