Live data from Hacker News

Does the Tank Have a Future?

economist.com

161–170 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#161
What we’ve seen in Ukraine is far from modern tanks fighting with modern tank doctrine.

Yes, technically some of those tanks are ‘modern’, but many of them appear to have fake reactive armor, are poorly built, and they are being deployed without infantry, air, or logistical support. It’s the perfect recipe to lose all of your tanks.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#162

It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it. Javelin missiles are just one thing, but cheap drones with simple rockets on them should be able to take out a moving force of numerous tanks. Imagine having an arsenal of 20 tanks storming your city. Now imagine having about 100 drones ordered from Amazon, outfitted with RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. One each. You…

Because solo tanks storming a city isn’t what tanks are for.

https://acoup.blog/2022/05/06/collections-when-is-a-tank-not...

edit: for example, I would not want to be a drone operator controlling a drone in real time anywhere near a modern army. RF direction finders are a thing.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How much ammo can a drone carry? Even if its an African ... drone or a European one, it's a simple question of weight ratios.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#164

It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it. Javelin missiles are just one thing, but cheap drones with simple rockets on them should be able to take out a moving force of numerous tanks. Imagine having an arsenal of 20 tanks storming your city. Now imagine having about 100 drones ordered from Amazon, outfitted with RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. One each. You…

Your broader point might be correct but an anti tank grenade would not be likely to knock out a modern tank.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#165

It's easier to make a weapon that takes out a tank, than it is to make a tank that can defend itself to it. Javelin missiles are just one thing, but cheap drones with simple rockets on them should be able to take out a moving force of numerous tanks. Imagine having an arsenal of 20 tanks storming your city. Now imagine having about 100 drones ordered from Amazon, outfitted with RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. One each. You…

I think every half way capable military on the planet is seeing the news and videos coming out of Ukraine and thinking, hmm, must invest in anti-drone technology.

A decade from now what's happening in Ukraine won't work against most major military powers. The drones we're seeing are very slow and very low but modern anti-aircraft systems aren't optimised to detect things this small and low so are getting away mostly untouched, but there's no significant technological hurdle against modifying existing systems or developing new ones that work against this type of threat.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but what if you want to chase the Russians out of Ukraine without killing the Russian army to the last man?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#167

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

this just makes the machine immobile it doesn't lessen its lethality. Also those tracks are pretty dang well designed as they have used across both military and industrial applications for a long time now.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"War is a continuation of policy by other means."

Political goals are always the first priority. Fighting may be exciting, but it may also be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Defeating the enemy is neither necessary nor sufficient for winning the war.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#169
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same way that airplane drones are controlled, from a satelite in orbit directly above. To jam that you'd need to get yourself above the tank, which to be fair is probably doable to some extent, so there would have to be countermeasures for it. But it's not exactly impossible.

Or you launch an anti-satellite missile.

Which is the reason why great-powers don't go to war with each other these days. Forget nukes, the first thing that will be destroyed is each other's satellite communication systems. That alone would devastate the world's economy.

Anti-satellite warfare is a huge reason why the Space Force (stupid name) came into existence.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small drone warfare? The Ukraine / Russian conflict has degenerated into trench warfare with thousands of 155mm / 152mm artillery being shot into each other's positions per day. These are the kinds of conditions where tanks excel. Humans who try to walk at 3km/hr get blown up by shrapnel, even 100m away is "close enough" to cause a significant injury and take a human out of a fight. Tanks? They pretty much ignore eve…

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.

ten? i think its closer to 30 miles.

If memory serves me correctly, my brother said the cannon he captained was capable of incredible accuracy at 30 miles.

Post reply on HN