Tank Classes Explained - What actually is an MBT?

Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3QldhCr Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free: 500 doubloons, 1.5 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a ship! Applicable to new users only.

Ah yes, light, medium, heavy, MBT, TD, and british, my favorite tank types

Great video for a casual armour enthusiast like me. As everything, a tank is developed for a specific purpose, with design priorities in line with that specific purpose. It makes a lot of sense that you can't have it all, and the triangle visualises that nicely. But as you mentioned, it kind of falls apart when evaluating WWII tank destroyers, and modern MBTs, the latter of which kind of does have it all. The usefulness of the triangle is ultimately limited by its oversimplification - as any 3 axis system is, really. I would propose maybe a pentagon, with the axes 'tactical flexibility' and 'monetary cost' added. This way the applicability of the system is expanded to cover tank destroyers, and it can also be used to explain how the modern MBT still leaves room for AFVs like the M1128 Stryker and maybe even vehicles like the PzH 2000 to exist.

Next, evolution of german AA tank (or maybe world AA tank)

A small correction for the stug, because it wasn't actually a tank destroyer. It was an artillery piece. Though it would be used as a tank destroyer it was more by placing them for ambushes and when initially fielded they would be moved behind the infantry and were even an arm of the artillery regiment

Sprocket players that didn't heard about "sacrifice one to get another stat": 100 ton unpenetrable tank with ultra powerful canon and mobility that light tanks will be jealous of.

So an important thing to include is that "MBT" isnt necesarily a classification of tank but more a definition of role. A country can have a light tank as an MBT, or a country can have a medium tank as an MBT. As long as it is "The" dedicated battle tank of a country. (Hence the word "Main") I totally see why you didnt go into this though since it is a considerably more modern take on tanks and trying to use it in regards to the second world war would make this whole conversation needlessly complex. Great video as always, perhaps it would be interesting to make a similar video but about amored vehicles in general or helicopters!

I feel like the Iron Triangle has a major weakness in that it doesn't take into account how well a crew can use it to it's potential. Having a big gun seems nice until you realize the optics are garbage, the commander can barely see outside, and it takes a minute to manhandle the ammo into the breach. All the horsepower in the world won't help you if you keep shredding your transmission, or it gets stuck in 2nd. Thick angled armor looks nice until it gets in the way of crew space or escape hatches. Crew potential neutered the early French tanks of what on paper looked like very good stats for their time. But a decent gun and armor became massive problems when the commander had to practically do everything in the turret, and communication/coordination was awful. This makes some tanks in War Thunder feel more capable than what they really were since they only look at hard stats.

May i add that the british classification of Infantry Tanks and Cruiser tanks do not easily fit into the triangle nor the common perception of Light, Medium, and Heavy, as their roles in the wider context of the British doctrine is far more important (though i don't really have a great grasp of) As this video is for dummies, i wouldn't blame anyone if this is any way confusing, also there may be Literary errors so do correct me on those. you would have Light (Valentine) /Medium (Matilda, Churchill) Infantry Tanks, and Light (Stuart, likely Tetrarch) /Medium (Cromwell) Cruiser Tanks i introduce the 3Ds, Doctrine Dictates Design British Infantry tanks in Doctrine filled similar roles like that of the US and German Medium Tanks where they are there to provide greater firepower and protection with sufficient mobility to withstand contemporary weaponries without requiring heavy logistical equipment to Maintain, Deploy, and Recover. British Cruiser Tanks on the other hand were performing more like the common perception of Light Tanks, in that they are primarily for lighter and more maneuverable cavalry groups suited for Reconnaissance and Flanking maneuvers, without requiring significantly greater logistical support to Maintain, Deploy, and Recover than that of the common AFV. Weight too can be a factor for designations but not the main deciding factor, a Heavy Tank would require heavier logistical support and heavier equipment to maintain, deploy, and recover, although this depends heavily on the equipment used and being procured by the Armed Forces employing AFVs (Armored Fighting Vehicles) as Doctrine dictates Design, different armed forces facing different factors that shape their doctrine, will have different Designs for their own AFVs. in the case of Casemate Tank Destroyers, i raise that Tank Destroyers in design were mostly because of the lack of Technological advancements sufficient to mount even more powerful guns of the time to a turret without sufficient and if not heavy modifications with significant downsides, case in point the early US TDs which were basically Shermans that went on Diets and coming out with Body Dysmorphia. This has been my depressingly un-caffeinated Ted Talk, if you've gotten here reading it, Thank you.

No way you got a world of warships sponsor in a video about tanks. World of tanks would've been on point

Love how you included the Wiesel tankette. I love playing it in War Thunder with the ATGMs. Feels like a hamster tumbling around on the battlefield with a rocket tube

The thumbnail explained it perfectly! Light, medium, heavy, mbt, tank destroyer, and finally: British

0:40 You have me with " will this intro ever end"

The Chieftain made a video not to long ago saying that the Tank Triangle simplifies things to much. there are other components of a tank that are important, Ergonomics, Fire Controls, observation equipment etc. all components that are honestly a lot more important in todays day and age.

the steel hexagon as an evolution of the iron triangle is a great idea, just needs some refining.

This was a concise presentation. You explained the obsolete tank classes better than I could. You even split the "light tank" into air-transportable and troop carrying, with or without merging into the tank destroyer. I would have gone back to the days when tanks first crawled across the battlefield, were split into large tanks with lots of firepower (breakthrough siege engines) and the tracked replacement for the armored car, the Whippet and FT-17 light tanks. That would only confuse the issue because the FT-17 was not really any faster than the heavy Mk VIII Liberty tank -- and there were efforts to put an infantry section or half-platoon on the heavy tanks.

I love how I’m the thumbnail it’s all the different classes then it’s just Britain. When you look at it, British tanks just seem like somebody dared a tank designer to do something, like make a backwards tank in the case of the archer, or make a giant barn in the case of the fv4005, or make a tank that suits its name in the case of the tortoise.

Other reason why tank destroyers faded away (which did touch on with the Panzerjagers) is that, especially in Germany, the tank destroyers were built as a way to reuse materials in an ongoing war. An issue that is not present nowadays since we haven't had to fight a war like WW2 and so are not desperate to make use of everything we have.

Rather than using “classic” and “modern” to label tank destroyers I would class them more as the ones with armor being “assault guns” with the thin armored ones being classed more as “tank destroyers” rather than looking at what they’re red with. Things like a StuG or an ISU-152 can and often did act as tank destroyers but they were intended to support attacks, thus them having armor. Sturmgeschutz literally means “assault gun” after all. The thin armored vehicles like the M18 Hellcat, Nashorn, or even modern ATGM carriers like the M901 can help on the attack but they’re designed more to act as ambusher on the defense against tanks. None of them are as flexible as a true tank and so do need to be classed as something else.

I can't remember where I heard/read it but I remember the MBT being described as the armour of a super heavy, the firepower of a heavy, the maneuverability of a medium and the speed of a light all in one package