Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does the Tank Have a Future?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#31

Post by dageshi »

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.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#33

Post by londons_explore »

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…

I think the shortage is mostly due to a lack of a desire to make big changes to resolve the issue.

If a meeting was called of 10 big tech/manufacturing companies and they were each told they'd be hansomely rewarded if they managed to make large volumes of a missile design, and that all IP/Patent laws would be suspended for the purpose, I guarantee you that there would be massive stockpiles within the month.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#35

Post by hermitdev »

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…

When was the last time the US even produced a new tank hull? Pretty sure they haven't produced a new Abrams hull since the 80s (yes, they've been rebuilt and upgraded a few times, but no new hulls to my knowledge). I'm not even talking about a new design, I'm talking about production of an existing design.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#36

Post by bombcar »

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.

> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war.

However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#37

Post by brokencode »

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…

That’s probably because anti-tank weapons aren’t all that important for the US military. The US military has guided missiles from planes and ships that serve this role much more effectively.

If we actually needed infantry anti-tank weapons, I don’t think we have any problem building them in huge quantities.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#38

Post by prometheus76 »

dsr_ wrote: post #23
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.

I'm not speaking about cost. I'm talking about the scarcity of the parts and the manufacturing capability required to make anti-tank weapons.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2022/04/26/managing-the-dod-s...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#39

Post by the_af »

secondcoming wrote: post #25
prometheus76 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree tanks seem to be very vulnerable in the current Ukraine war.

That said, drones cannot replace tanks. Maybe something else will, but drones cannot make breakthrough advances, nor accompany and shield advancing infantry. Drones may be cheap tank killers, but I don't think they can replace tanks.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#40

Post by kashkhan »

msla wrote: post #26
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.

> We've had enough of the european way of war. So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?

Not many continents imposing war on europe past millennium. Europe imposed war on everyone and tried to exterminate everyone else. Do better.
Post reply on HN