Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Why no more Heavy Tanks? @TheChieftainsHatch" video.

  1.  @selfdo  It still had not all the features like the 20mm cannon and the ability to shoot missiles.
    3
  2.  @sevenproxies4255  They made the M163 VADS that is literally an SPAA with a Vulcan as the main weapon.
    2
  3.  @chefchaudard3580  They are second generation MBTs. Since the development of anti-tank missiles meant you couldn’t rely on any level armor for protection they put on the amount needed to protect against small arms.
    2
  4. It wasn’t engines only. It also armor got lighter. By the time anti-tank guided missiles became practical enough for service, it was seen as the end of the heavy tank at least in the Soviet Union and because they figured you were dead if you got hit no matter how much you put on your tank, they decided to put the protection of first generation MBTs as the lowest priority and focused on mobility and firepower.
    1
  5.  @baronvonslambert  But one of those designs has been retired long ago and there are more Strike Eagles in service than Warthogs. But the Warthog having blue on blue incidents isn’t a problem with design but with command and control. The Gulf War had many Bradleys lost to blue on blue but that doesn’t make the Abrams a bad design.
    1
  6.  @PaulVerhoeven2  No the actual question who gets to shoot first.
    1
  7.  @neurofiedyamato8763  They are tank destroyers as they are intended to be used against tanks as a secondary role to their main infantry support role. This is most clear with the M1128 MGS which was designed so we could finally retire the Sheridan which was designed to fire anti-tank missiles.
    1
  8.  @selfdo  It wasn't meant for infantry but for anti-aircraft use.
    1
  9. First Generation MBTs is the post-war designs up to the end of the 1950s.
    1