Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
12
-
8
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
3
-
Spoiler alert: Iowa mauls the Yamato from long range with accurate gunfire. Battle is over within less than an hour. The US ships were faster, and their advanced radar and fire control systems gave them a huge advantage in naval gunnery.
The Yamato was a formidable warship, but it relied on outdated and flawed technology, and while it was more conventionally powerful than the Iowa class battleship, it was generally less effective. It's guns were only marginally more powerful, but had hugely inferior accuracy at range. It's armor, although thick, was of much lower quality, and it's torpedo protection in particular was weak for such a large ship due to poor quality construction. The Iowa had some of the best anti aircraft defenses in the world at the time, and while the Yamato did have a large number of AA guns, they were less effective than the Iowa's guns.
The Yamato's main advantage is it's stronger armor. It is, despite it's shoddy (by comparison) construction, a very large, heavily armored and durable warship that could survive powerful weapons fire for an extended period of time. However, durability alone would not be enough to carry the day against such a technologically superior opponent under most circumstances. Luck, crew experience and any supporting fleets would play a significant role, but the Iowa was simply a better equipped ship overall, and in a one on one engagement (or in a fleet setting,) the Iowa is the superior ship in most respects.
3
-
3
-
@belteshazzarbenyakovleib1071 Yeah, it's called a tandem warhead. They are relatively effective against ERA. They're not perfect, and sufficiently thick composite armor can still stop them. There's a reason newer Javelin models are top attack, because no matter how advanced your warhead, sufficiently thick modern armor can still stop it, so they design top attack missiles to target a common weak point on most modern tanks: the turret roof armor.
Also, one thing to note, the vast majority of the Russian tanks confirmed knocked out in Ukraine were not equipped with a modern APS system. A handful have older, less effective soft-kill systems.
Finally, just because a cheaper weapon has the potential to defeat a more expensive weapon in theory does not automatically make the more expensive weapon obsolete. In the early days of steam powered warships, the British were worried that the relatively new concept of torpedo boats would make their battleship fleet obsolete overnight by providing a cost effective way of combatting them. While torpedo boats, and later destroyers did prove to be effective at fighting larger warships, said larger warships such as battleships stayed relevant for many decades due to the evolution of tactics, weaponry and doctrine. Quick firing small caliber guns provided effective defense against torpedo boats, and battleships rarely sailed without escorting smaller ships such as destroyers and cruisers. In a similar respect, the rising threat of ATGMs on the modern battlefield will threaten especially older tanks, but modern militaries will adapt by equipping their tanks with APS systems, improved top armor, and being much more careful to keep tanks supported by infantry at all times (which is generally advisable anyways, but much more important now.)
3
-
2
-
2
-
@belteshazzarbenyakovleib1071 Dones and Javelins are great, but they don't make tanks obsolete. Any vehicle, even an armored vehicle, is vulnerable to ambush if it's alone and unsupported in enemy territory. This has been the case since WWII. Just because a military misuses an expensive piece of equipment and loses it to enemy action doesn't make that piece of equipment obsolete.
Modern APS provides a high degree of protection against even modern ATGMs. Newer tanks may begin incorporating better top armor to resist top attack ATGM fire, and this can be seen in some cases with tanks having ERA bricks on the turret roof.
As long as a big mobile armored gun is a useful asset to have on the battlefield (which seems to be the case for the forseeable future,) the tank will continue to be an integral part of any modern military, and it will adapt over time to the changing battlefield. It's very often in history that a new piece of technology comes out, or proves itself, and everyone immediately assumes that this piece of technology is the death knell for another piece of weaponry. While this has been true in some cases, much more often, the existing weaponry simply adapts to the altered battlefield and says relevant for some time.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
knoahbody69 That's... kind of a strange comparison to draw, but I suppose it works. An arrow fired from a longbow may have a fair chance of penetrating poor quality armor plate, the same as an ATGM or RPG may damage or disable a modern MBT, depending on the hit location. Even if an outright kill isn't guaranteed, multiple non-penetrating impacts from missile weaponry is likely to damage the vehicle (or man at arms).
I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with middle ages battles, but yes, armor vs. firepower in some respects pre-dates even gunpowder weaponry. Swords and axes may struggle against plate and chain armor, but a spear may, like an AP round, pierce through thinner armor through kinetic force, and a warhammer may damage the armor's wearer without penetrating through sheer force of impact, not unlike a HESH or high explosive round.
1