Does the Tank Have a Future? • Hacker News Board

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#21

Post by the_af » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

prometheus76 wrote: post #14

metabagel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say it the other way around - once the tank stocks are depleted, anti-tank weapons can still play a devastating role (against other armored or unarmored vehicles).

You could say it the other way around, but the complexity of the electronics in the anti-tank weapons have proven to be difficult to produce in large quantities because of the chip shortage, but also because of the high level of experience and knowledge required to continue to make them. Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield. The US…

> Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield.

I don't disagree with your overall comment, but note the modern main battle tank is a really complex beast, both in sensors, gun control, and also defensive systems. Even Russian tanks are very complex (their current high losses notwithstanding), but Western tanks are incredibly complex. They are not meant to sustain heavy losses, they are designed to survive.

If modern weapons strongly reduce the survivability of tanks, at least the future of Western tanks may be in question.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#22

Post by mike-the-mikado » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #19

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#23

Post by dsr_ » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:43 PM UTC

prometheus76 wrote: post #7

Judging by the current situation, it seems that there are more resources for building tanks than there are for building anti-tank weapons. Once the anti-tank weapon stocks have been depleted, tanks still play a devastating role in warfare. EDIT: I'm just relaying what I read in several articles about the difficulties in making anti-tank weapons because they rely on rare-earth minerals and because they rely on silicon…

A tank is 15-75 tons of armor, engine, chassis and gun. It costs millions of dollars per tank.

An antitank weapon is 6-120 lbs of propulsion, controller and warhead. It costs between a thousand and tens of thousands of dollars per weapon.

Economics refutes you.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#24

Post by malwrar » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #19

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

What do you propose instead?

A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#25

Post by secondcoming » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

prometheus76 wrote: post #14

metabagel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say it the other way around - once the tank stocks are depleted, anti-tank weapons can still play a devastating role (against other armored or unarmored vehicles).

You could say it the other way around, but the complexity of the electronics in the anti-tank weapons have proven to be difficult to produce in large quantities because of the chip shortage, but also because of the high level of experience and knowledge required to continue to make them. Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield. The US…

Have you watched any of the Ukraine footage? Tanks are being blown up from bombs dropped from COTS drones. Longer range semi-autonomous drones seem to be the future.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#26

Post by msla » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #19

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

> We've had enough of the european way of war.

So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#27

Post by echelon » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere?

I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#28

Post by the_af » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

mike-the-mikado wrote: post #22

kashkhan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.

It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue!

I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#29

Post by echelon » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #19

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them.

The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war.

What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another.

Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport.

Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI.

It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain.

Our comfort comes at great cost.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#30

Post by aetherson » Wed, Jun 15, 2022, 4:47 PM UTC

kashkhan wrote: post #19

breadloaf wrote: post #16

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?