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

81–90 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#81

Post by phillc73 »

kashkhan wrote: post #59
skylanh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm "Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm

A government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.

Dispense with the government?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#82

Post by dragontamer »

echelon wrote: post #27
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.

Video games.

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/armored-brigade

Armored Brigade is probably a good start. 4 minutes for artillery to aim, 1 to 2 minutes for shells to actually arrive, 10 minutes for air-support to fly in.

1 to 2 minutes to deliver commands to any particular squad (depending on how good their radio contact is).

Roughly realistic levels of arms, armor and penetration. Angle of shots and type of weapon (kinetic energy, such as APFSDS, or Chemical energy, such as M47 Dragon or HEAT rounds) are factored in.

Guided missiles, top-down missiles, fire-and-forget missiles. Etc. etc. Its not every weapon, but its a solid set of important weapons that probably cover a wide variety of possible combat situations.

Line-of-sight is simulated on an incredible degree: height maps matter, but so do trees (partially obscured), houses, and smoke grenades even. Line of sight is best at 12noon. Line of sight is worst at night, unless your squads are equipped with thermal vision. Weather (foggy conditions especially) can change things dramatically.

-------

The simulated soldiers/tanks aren't the best, but they're smart enough to run away during artillery barrages and hunker down. They'll seek cover on their own (and if you tell them a direction to defend against, they'll look for cover on their own too against that direction). Tank commanders "button up" during enemy fire (reducing their vision but likely saving the commander's life). Covering fire is therefore effective.

------

The AI is okay. The AI runs into traps and ambushes, and never really figures them out. Still, good enough to get you the basics of strategy of each of these weapons.

Seeing the 3000m range of a tank vs the 150m range of a M72 LAW really demonstrates the bravery that those unguided anti-tank bazooka squads have.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#83

Post by dragontamer »

kashkhan wrote: post #80
bnralt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be fa…

Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.

So do what Russia does.

Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine.

Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat.

---------

USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that.

When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe).

Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people.

----------

Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes.

They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen.

Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#84

Post by vel0city »

kashkhan wrote: post #75
brokencode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost…

Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the local…

> My point is that we should all be fighting against war.

By what, asking nicely?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#85

Post by pasabagi »

kashkhan wrote: post #75
brokencode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost…

Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the local…

In the specific case of Ukraine, a people's war of national liberation is a pretty classic form of nation building. That's how a lot of nations came about. The Taliban are a particularly bad analogy, because they represent regionalist resistance against central government in Afghanistan. Countries like Italy, the USA, or Vietnam were formed in this manner.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#86

Post by moffkalast »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #41
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.

The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.

I think the guy has a point in tanks being useful, but nobody's saying it can't be satelite controlled drone tanks.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#87

Post by moffkalast »

vorpalhex wrote: post #51
CamperBob2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.

You can't occupy an objective with a drone or a missile. You can't control a city with a drone. Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.

Oh yes you can. Just not a flying drone and not just one.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#88

Post by CamperBob2 »

moffkalast wrote: post #86
CamperBob2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.

I think the guy has a point in tanks being useful, but nobody's saying it can't be satelite controlled drone tanks.

I think that's a potentially useful idea. At this point, putting people in tanks is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be used as remotely-operated vehicles.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#89

Post by mrguyorama »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #15

I never understood why the tank tracks weren't targeted. They look easy to immobilize.

Why do you think tank tracks aren't targeted? Unless you can directly pen/destroy a tank in one shot, in which case why would you not do that, "tracking" a tank is a common tactic to make it combat ineffective.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#90

Post by jopython »

pclark wrote: post #60

It seems like the future of warfare is longe range (eg: firing missiles at tanks from across the horizon) or hyper short range (eg: troops clearing cities block by block) — anything else seems like it'll get wrecked by either the precision of long range or the precision of short range stuff. A tank isn't hyper mobile, isn't hyper accurate and isn't hyper long range. I don't get it's role — especially when it costs te…

Long range missiles are expensive. ATGMs require you to be closer (2 miles or less) to the target which means the operating crews are vulnerable to the same tanks and other mortar fire which they are trying to kill.

I think long range artillery (> 50kms) is the solution.

Post reply on HN