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

141–150 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#141

Post by Sakos »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #129
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.

I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.

Aircraft aren't anything without their missiles.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#142

Post by whimsicalism »

cestith wrote: post #114
whimsicalism wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.

Russian is as banned in Ukraine as French, Hindi, or German are banned in the United States. That is, they are not the primary language taught in schools nor the language in which government business is conducted but nobody's being jailed for speaking it.

The comparison with the US is disingenuous - it is not illegal to open a French language school in the United States, it is in Ukraine.

Previously, Russian was allowed to be taught in schools in Ukraine. It was then banned from being taught in schools even in regions where the majority of people speak Russian.

Furthermore, it is illegal in Ukraine to have a Russian language radio station.

I encourage you to read up on the actual policy differences.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#143

Post by nonameiguess »

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.

The US Army keeps a public repository of all field manuals approved for general release here: https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/FM.aspx

I think the closest to what you're looking for is FM 3-96 the Brigade Combat Team (https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31505-FM_3-9...). The is the smallest unit that includes effectively everything the Army can bring to bear, including infantry, armor, artillery, and rotary aviation. There might still be some fairly specialized intelligence, surveillance, and recon assets only available to divisions, but most of what the Army can deploy for fighting purposes exists in the BCTs at this point. I imagine other branches of service have their equivalents in terms of doctrine on how to employ submarines and fighter jets, but I only ever served in the Army and am most familiar with their tactics and doctrine.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#144

Post by int_19h »

jacquesm wrote: post #120
int_19h wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Never say never, but you really don't want that to happen.

I didn't say anything about wanting it to happen. But if it happens, does anyone seriously believe that US could avoid re-instituting the draft?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#145

Post by whimsicalism »

The_Colonel wrote: post #128
whimsicalism wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.

It's said to see such misinformation here. > [not] banning Russian language Russian isn't banned in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians use Russian in their day to day life just fine. You can hear Russian spoken by Ukrainians on the battlefield. > not shelling cities Check photos from Donetsk in e.g. 2020, city ~10 kilometers from the frontline. Does it look destroyed? No, it looks like any peacetime city. There were art…

> Russian isn't banned in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians use Russian in their day to day life just fine. You can here Russian spoken by Ukrainians on the battlefield.

It is illegal to have Russian language radio stations, Russian language schools, and for government to communicate officially in Russian (in addition to Ukrainian & English). Of course people still speak Russian in Ukraine.

> There were artillery exchanges between both sides targeting military fortifications. Civilian casualties in the last few years have been minimal.

Yes from both sides. 3.4k civilian casualties prior to the actual war.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#146

Post by whimsicalism »

int_19h wrote: post #99
whimsicalism wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.

Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian. Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is t…

It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#147

Post by ranger207 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #136

The USMC got rid of their tanks. The closest thing to a tank they still have is a Light Armored Vehicle.

The USMC decided it's going to fight a different kind of fight, being dropped off on small Pacific islands with antiship missiles and artillery to produce a set of distributed antiship bunkers. Their divestment of the tank is not because they thought the tank is obsolete, but because the tank doesn't fit with the fight they're planning for. Most armies, including the US's, still plan to have fights where tanks make sense. Of course the question of whether or not those kinds of fights are likely to happen is a valid question, but is orthogonal to the question of whether or not drones and ATGMs make tanks obsolete

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#148

Post by yding »

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…

Drones or no drones, I'd rather be sitting behind 35cm of hardened steel than out in the open with maybe 2cm of body armor max.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#149

Post by ranger207 »

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.

Not a single source, but old.reddit.com/r/warCollege is fantastic. It's not as strict as /r/askHistorians (for better or for worse) but there are lots of active military officers on there who know their stuff

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#150

Post by FredPret »

sokoloff wrote: post #48
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.

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

If Clausewitz is to be believed, killing the enemy army is priority 1, and territory only matters in pursuit of that goal.

Makes sense - if all combatants in the Russian army are dead, there’s no further need to defend territory for Ukraine. A boom with a border guard stamping passports would suffice.

Post reply on HN