No, The Tank Is Not Dead.

Comments · 5.1K

• PE

  @PerunAU · 4 years ago (edited) · pinned

  Thanks so much for making this video.<br><br>When I declined to answer the question on whether anything could ever effectively replace the doctrinal role of the tank (which is the only way you&apos;d ever actually eliminate the things) I remember saying it was a question I wasn&apos;t equipped to answer, and that an expert in the use of tanks would be better suited to speak on the point. I didn&apos;t expect that YouTube&apos;s favourite tanker would be the one to do so.<br><br>I suspect that as long as armies continue to need and value the capability provided by these things, Defence Departments around the world will keep finding the budget for the logistical support, training, and maintenance programs necessary to support them.

  3.8K

• MA

  @maxkronader5225 · 4 years ago

  To be fair, if Belgium shared a border with Russia instead of 1,000km worth of friendly nations, Belgium would instantly rediscover the relevance of the Main Battle Tank.

  1.3K

• WE

  @weeb3244 · 4 years ago

  I swear the tank has &quot;died&quot; like 5 times now<br><br>People really don&apos;t understand how useful/necessary mobile armor is

  1.5K

• GA

  @garyk.nedrow8302 · 4 years ago

  Anyone who has spent time in the military knows that every weapon has its uses and its limitations. &nbsp;Knowing how and when to use tanks is as important as having them. &nbsp;Tanks are not obsolete, but the optimal way to use them is evolving.

  539

• SE

  @Seba-g5j · 4 years ago

  <b>A bullet is so cheap and yet so effective at disabling a soldier, is the infantry dead?</b>

  483

• FL

  @flask0390 · 4 years ago (edited)

  &quot;I sent the script to Perun for comment&quot; A civilised exchange between two YouTubers with somewhat different opinions. <br><br>Now I have seen everything.<br><br>But seriously: Nice to see professionals having a discussion based on rational arguments.

  663

• MI

  @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized · 4 years ago

  Thank you for the mention and link!

  2.8K

• AL

  @allangibson2408 · 4 years ago (edited)

  I would argue the biggest driver for the Ukrainian request for ATGM’s is to simply ensure all the Ukrainian combat teams actually have ATGM’s. You can’t use what you don’t have to hand.<br>More missiles means more teams have missiles when they are needed, not more missiles actually fired.<br>Just like a tank without fuel and ammunition is almost useless (refer Soviet armor in 1941), infantry facing a tank is defenceless without appropriate weapons.

  337

• IA

  @iainbaker6916 · 4 years ago

  Most dangerous thing to a tank - the enemies’ effective use of Combined Arms. Best thing to keep a tank safe - friendlies’ effective use of combined arms.

  286

• BI

  @Billfish57 · 4 years ago (edited)

  Once again, the man with the coolest hat on the planet tells it like it is.<br>Well said, as always. &nbsp;Why carry a gun, when a gun can carry you?

  197

• KR

  @krisvires · 4 years ago

  &quot;Ask not what they can do to the tank, ask what the tank can do to them.&quot; &nbsp;You are my hero Chieftain.

  279

• FL

  @fluffyboi999 · 4 years ago (edited)

  The ATGM vs. tank debate is much more analogous to the late 19th century torpedo vs. battleship debate than aircraft carrier vs. battleship, in fact eerily so. Torpedo boats were cheap and definitely dangerous to battleships, but could be countered by a protective screen of smaller ships with high rate of fire guns and in no way could replace their function. Ironic.

  282