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

101–110 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#101

Post by bpodgursky »

dragontamer wrote: post #93
bpodgursky wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simplified the argument for brevity, but drones are critical to the artillery war right now because of spotting and fire-correction. Artillery is far more lethal in 2022 than it was in 1945 because you can spot and kill individual infantry units from ten miles away.

That's just drones serving the role of forward-observer though. The underlying tactic of someone, or something, out in the field, issuing radio messages back to home-base to coordinate artillery has been around since WW2, maybe earlier. Drones represent an evolution to the forward-observer paradigm, not a revolution. In WW2, those were paratroopers, commandos, or other scouts who were performing those forward-observe…

I think there's a meaningful difference here, and it's very incorrect to consider it an incremental change.

An infantry squad dug into foxholes in some forest in WWII was really quite safe against artillery. A forward observer can maybe spot a tank or artillery battery (sometimes). A drone can scan an entire battlefield and identify infantry 10 miles behind a line of trenches, and coordinated artillery strikes can wipe them out.

That's hugely difference! It vastly changes the lethality per unit of artillery, and the relative risk for infantry units who aren't in obviously-fortified positions.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#102

Post by int_19h »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#103

Post by int_19h »

trhway wrote: post #100

Russian tanks aren't a representative of a modern tank as among other things they have crappy active defense - it is all about electronics. Israel's is a good one, and their tanks survive multiple shots by actively killing incoming RPG warheads and the likes. Also Russian tanks are on the light side as they can't manage a powerful enough engine required, ie gas turbine of 1500hp+. The best they have so far managed is…

Have Israeli tanks ever faced Javelins tho?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#105

Post by dilyevsky »

mattnewton wrote: post #44
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…

How many years will it take to replace the 700 or so tanks lost in Ukraine? Russia is estimated to have 3,000 or so tanks currently operating, they are closing in on losing 1/4th their number. It’s unclear how many of their roughly 10k in storage are still working and whether making new tanks or repairing those will have the same chip shortage problems.

The ones in storage are like t-62s so no chips required =)

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#106

Post by int_19h »

jopython wrote: post #90
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.

There's also drones to consider.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#107

Post by dilyevsky »

bpodgursky wrote: post #6

A lot of people are asking whether tanks are survivable anymore, but nobody is asking whether unarmored infantry are any more survivable in the era of small-drone warfare. It's all relative.

The truth is they never were. I think i heard somewhere that avg battlefield lifetime of a tank in ww2 was less than 20 minutes

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#108

Post by aerostable_slug »

Tanks used correctly and in sufficient mass produces something called the Shock Effect of Armor. Smart munitions are getting more and more effective, but it's really hard to calmly lob missiles at a charging unit of tanks supported by artillery, infantry, CAS, etc.

"Principle: armor in strength produces decisive shock effect

The psychological shock effect that comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armored assault is terrific. This effect radiates from the point of attack in concentric semi-circles, as do the waves from a stone dropped in the water near the edge of a millpond. If the attack is in strength, these shockwaves reach to the enemy division, corps and army headquarters. Shock effect gives armor part of its protection and hastens the disintegration of the enemy force attacked. The shock effect of the mass employment of armor varies as the square or cube of the number of tanks used. Attacking with armored strength too small to produce decisive shock effect often results in great losses and inconclusive results."

https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/Historical...

Simply put, they are pants-soiling terrifying spectacles of death and they prove overwhelming. Once significant momentum of a well-executed armored attack has been gained, they are difficult to slow or stop. Drone swarms may make this tactic obsolete, but we're not there yet.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#109

Post by cestith »

the_af wrote: post #28
mike-the-mikado wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#110

Post by int_19h »

the_af wrote: post #39
secondcoming wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not every weapon system has a direct and obvious replacement when it becomes obsolete - the nature of the combat itself changes around what's viable given the tech.
Post reply on HN