No, The Tank Is Not Dead.
The Chieftain5 HN recommenders · recommended in 3 months, 2022-2022
942K views · 4 years ago · commentary · dated
Armor expert The Chieftain explains why tanks still have a place on the modern battlefield despite drones and guided weapons. He responds to the 'tank is dead' debate, noting that tanks have been declared dead repeatedly since 1919.
Pointed to as an authoritative answer, from a former Abrams commander and tank historian, to claims that tanks are obsolete.
1:12:19Kursk: The Epic Armored Engagement (2013)
The National WWII Museum
535K views • 12 years ago
4:40This 1970s tank simulator drives through a tiny world
Tom Scott
12M views • 4 years ago
10:181/6 F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS A LEMON
BELAIR2000
375K views • 16 years ago
14:32Why Gas Engines Are Far From Dead - Biggest EV Problems
Engineering Explained
4.4M views • 6 years ago
3:20Tank Safety: Hydrogen Tank Gunshot | Toyota
Toyota USA
122K views • 10 years ago
1:17:07Plan 9: Not dead, Just Resting, by Ori Bernstein
BSDTV
42K views • 7 years ago
3:34Gulf of Tonkin: McNamara admits It didn't happen.
compelled2283
169K views • 18 years ago
2:07Rheinmetall Air Defence – Skynex truck-mounted engaging drone swarm
Rheinmetall – Der integrierte Technologiekonzern
5.7M views • 4 years ago
19:10China's Invasion Barges, Leading Indicator Of Plans For Taiwan
H I Sutton
176K views • 1 year ago
32:23ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Medieval Myth Busting
Tod's Workshop
9.1M views • 7 years ago
28:11The Future of War, and How It Affects YOU (Multi-Domain Operations) - Smarter Every Day 211
SmarterEveryDay
2.6M views • 7 years ago
15:22Nuclear Weapons: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
LastWeekTonight
22.4M views • 12 years ago
1:36Missile defense multiple kill vehicle hover test
theworacle
1.7M views • 17 years ago
11:17[Highlight] StarCraft Remastered Rant
Day9TV
453K views • 9 years ago
1:02Rheinmetall Air Defence: Ahead - Highly effective, programmable ammunition
Rheinmetall – Der integrierte Technologiekonzern
17.2M views • 6 years ago
2:03Raytheon’s High-Power Microwave Weapon Downs Drones
AviationWeek
229K views • 9 years ago
55:08Rust: A Language for the Next 40 Years - Carol Nichols
ChariotSolutions
367K views • 7 years ago
10:40AAA THE F-35 IS A LEMON PIERRE SPREY (RUNAWAY FIGHTER) FIFTH ESTATE EXTENDED INTERVW
BELAIR2000
975K views • 13 years ago
22:24Lyle Bickley explains the PDP-1 (and we play the original Spacewar!)
CuriousMarc
431K views • 9 years ago
15:42Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040
Improbable Matter
2M views • 5 years ago
8 comments from Hacker News
Against an enemy with signal jamming capability remote operation is not a given. Plus tanks communicate in real time with infantry/other elements. The lag introduced by remote operation/communication would be a serious hindrance even if everything was working, which it often isn't. Tanks have to respond in real time, they don't have the luxury of seconds of delay like say an orbiting drone. There's also the case of not wanting disabled tanks to fall into the hands of the enemy. Short of rigging the tanks with a self-destruct system (which would likely just make them explode more easily when hit), you need soldiers to do that. Keep in mind that anything operating in battlefield conditions must be resilient. The entire situation is a constant stream of edge cases. Also, don't look to Russia in Ukraine for an example of how tanks are used. Tanks are generally not meant to act alone. Either they're operating with a lot of other tanks, substantial supporting infantry, or both. There are tons of other reasons as well, The Chieften, a former Tanker, has a good video on the subject: ▶ this video
> currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons The Chieftan disagrees with you. ▶ this video I suspect he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic than the sum total of all posters on this thread.
They don't offer the same level of firepower. A portable drone may be faster employed than a helicopter, large drone, or close support aircraft, but it suffers from lack of payload. It also takes longer to get on target, and has it's own set of vulnerabilities. (The vulnerability argument being that even if it is expendable, a drone disrupted or shot down does not help your unit eliminate the threat it was facing.) A large-caliber, direct-fire gun provides long range, precise, and instant effects. As The Chieftan explains: ▶ this video (timecode link provided.)
To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: ▶ this video ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" ▶ this video TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
I really don't think that's a good comparison, cavalry didn't just fall from grace because they became easily slaughtered by infantry, they stopped being used because their role became irrelevant and were replaced. The role tanks play has not become irrelevant and while they aren't as survivable as they used to be they aren't nearly as vulnerable as clips from UA seem to imply. I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and tank historian who presents this argument far better than I can. ▶ this video
An armor officer can answer this better than I can: ▶ this video If you're watching the videos from Ukraine - the Russians are pretty much doing it all wrong. You do not send tanks into cities unless they're following infantry who are clearing houses & rooftops. You do not leave your tanks parked in a nice neat line on a country road. When your unit comes under fire, you do not just sit there. Why are the Russians doing these things when they know it's bad for their health? They don't have much of an NCO cadre. In a modern military, the NCOs have the experience and the authority to make sure stuff happens rapidly and correctly. They will have made sure the junior enlisted know how to operate and maintain their weapon & gear, and are able to do the mission without fucking up.
Perun link Chieftain ▶ this video Bernard link Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite a lot to raise a modern human. The tank role still exists, but ratios of tanks to other fighting vehicles may change.