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

131–140 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#131

Post by zoomablemind »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #53
sokoloff wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to occupy territory, you've got to do that on the ground.

Tanks and soldiers are used to occupy territory, but in the face of a well-equipped enemy and/or a motivated populace, they can't hold it. Not everybody likes wars of attrition. Russia is an outlier in that regard. Copying their doctrine and tactics is a bad idea, as is citing them as a successful example of how to accomplish anything. They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed forc…

>... They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance...

...modern armed force and which is willing and allowed to fight. It's an increasingly important factor of modern day engagements.

Let's not forget the political aspects of the battlefield, as we are continuing to witness.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#132

Post by kcb »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #88
moffkalast wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How could you figure? How would they be controlled while under communication jamming? Until autonomous AI exists we'll need people on the ground.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#134

Post by ckozlowski »

throwaway1492 wrote: post #126
aerostable_slug wrote: post #108

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 armore…

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of…

To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere.

ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can.

When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#137

Post by [deleted] »

ckozlowski wrote: post #134
throwaway1492 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of…

To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they…

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#138

Post by usrn »

int_19h wrote: post #96
CamperBob2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see. We have an all-volunteer military here in the US, and that won't change, at this point. The idea, as always, is to get more done with fewer people.

It'll change very fast once US gets into a major war. Say, with China.

Unless it's a land war we're more than able to defeat China with what we've got now and their future looks very dim due to the demographic bomb they've created so that's unlikely to change.

I'm not too sure it would be motivating to people either. Usually what motivates people is the fear of being overrun by some other group but with immigration the way it is that's happening anyway.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#139

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway1492 wrote: post #126
aerostable_slug wrote: post #108

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 armore…

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of…

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#140

Post by eftychis »

ckozlowski wrote: post #134
throwaway1492 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of…

To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they…

Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?
Post reply on HN