Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "Why is no one storing old tanks?" video.

  1. It shocks me how many people make this claim. Tanks are not outdated. As long as there is a need for an armored mobile gun platform, tanks will not be outdated. Tanks aren't supposed to win wars by themselves, if you send a tank alone into enemy territory without infantry support, air cover, or proper logistics, it is going to die. Tanks are not designed to operate as independent units, they are a part of a combined arms force, and they are a highly effective force multiplier to other units such as infantry.
    8
  2. That isn't even remotely true. Tanks, with proper infantry support and air cover are a critical part of an effective fighting force. Infantry aren't expected to operate on their own, and neither are aircraft. I always find it strange why everyone thinks that tanks are supposed to operate without support. If a tank is in combat alone and unsupported by friendly forces, it's combat effectiveness and odds of survival drop.
    5
  3. I disagree. Ukraine taught us that Russia has a very poor grasp of combined arms warfare, and that tank's defensive capabilities need to be improved. Proper use of infantry and air power will vastly improve the effectiveness of an armored unit.
    5
  4. Yes. Russian tanks, ships and aircraft are generally second rate. People largely over-estimate Russia's arms technology. Some of their stuff is okay, their rocket artillery and guided missiles are pretty good, but most of their equipment is not up to par with that of western powers, especially the US.
    3
  5. Tanks are not obsolete, Russia's tactics are. No piece of military equipment can win wars on its own. Tanks need to work in coordination with infantry, aircraft and other units to be effective. This has been the case for centuries. In mideval times, cavalry didn't win battles on their own, they worked with footsoldiers to be part of an effective fighting force.
    3
  6.  @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
  7. Then don't send them in without infantry and air support. Tanks are still an effective force on the battlefield if properly utilized alongside other units.
    2
  8. Yes, but they are expensive and not ideally equipped for that purpose. Any tank is really just an armored mobile gun platform, and if you have a limited pool of troops, it is best for morale and combat effectiveness to give those troops the best equipment possible with your budget. Quantity is a valuable asset in wars, but quantity of war material is no substitute for quality equipment and training. In a desperate situation where you have a surplus of troops and a shortage of equipment, it might be worth pulling the old stuff out of storage and pushing it back into service. But you might have been better off selling off or scrapping your old stuff to fund the expansion of your primary fighting force. Smaller, better equipped and better trained forces often outperform larger forces.
    2
  9.  @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
  10. Maintenance, modernization and crew training all cost money. If new vehicles perform much better than modernized older vehicles, it is often better for your combat power and budget to build the new vehicles. Even if the hulls of the old vehicles are expendable, the training, maintenance, modernization programs and crew that go into into them are not.
    1
  11. No. Tanks are an effective part of a combined arms fighting force. Ukraine is a lesson on what happens when different aspects of a fighting force fail to coordinate and support each other. The majority of destroyed Russian armor were lone units or small groups without proper infantry support being ambushed by well prepared defenders.
    1
  12. Perhaps someday drone tanks may make an appearance on the battlefield, quite possibly well within our lifetimes. But in the short to mid term, I expect to see tanks with modernized defensive systems continue to serve alongside infantry. More emphasis will be placed on effective coordination between different battlefield assets and perhaps new dedicated infantry support vehicles resembling heavy IFVs will make an appearance.
    1
  13. Active protection systems and other defensive devices will help keep tanks relevant for some time. Tanks are still an effective part of a modern fighting force. Russia's heavy losses can be attributed in large part to their very poor tactics. Lone armored vehicles are easy prey for modern anti tank weapons, but this has been the case even as far back as WWII. Tanks need to work as part of a combined arms fighting force to be effective.
    1
  14. If you lose a significant enough portion of your armored force that you're pulling out vintage armor to replace combat losses, you have bigger things to worry about than a tank shortage. Maintenance isn't free, and neither is training new crews. A smaller number of well trained and equipped units can out-perform a larger number of poorly trained and equipped units. Additionally, you can take several steps to increase the effectiveness of your fighting force and minimize losses such as using modern equipment (APS and modern armor on your tanks) and utilizing combined arms assets such as infantry and air support to coordinate and fight alongside your armored units. Lone tanks are easy prey, tanks supported by infantry and recon drones are a force to be reckoned with.
    1
  15. Ukraine is a lesson in the importance of modern equipment and emphasis on combined arms warfare. An armored unit operating independently with no support has always been a death sentence. Tanks are effective tools of war if used effectively in conjunction with other units.
    1
  16.  @belteshazzarbenyakovleib1071  It's a little more plausible that submarines would have their stealth ruined by improved sensor technology, but I'm not very familiar with submarine or sonar technology, so I can't say for sure. It's entirely possible it's just unfamiliarity with the matter that causes me to see such a thing as being plausible.
    1
  17. For now. There is a 100+ year old arms race between armor and firepower, and at the moment, firepower appears to have the edge. But we shouldn't assume that will always be the case. Besides, tanks will be relevant as long as there is a need for a mobile armored gun platform on the battlefield.
    1
  18.  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