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

171–180 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#171

Post by etrevino »

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…

The Trophy Weapon System can intercept and defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades and has been proven in combat. Both US and Israeli tanks have those mounted on them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss tanks as dead. Just older tanks without active countermeasures are dead.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#172

Post by paxys »

happyopossum wrote: post #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.

Most of what you have mentioned are inherent shortcomings of tanks in a modern battlefield. They are fuel intensive. They need massive logistical support. They are vulnerable to targeted attacks, like from drones. None of this is unique to the Ukraine situation.

It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#173

Post by jacquesm »

usrn wrote: post #158
jacquesm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of voices that seem to believe that isolationism is the way to go and that this will protect their 'lifestyle' from being impacted by the war in Ukraine. It's interesting how apparently some of history's lessons are impossible to learn, the exact same thing happened in 1938 and the end result was a much bigger war. Also, the degree to which the world economies are now interconnected make it next to im…

I completely disagree. You can't go preemptively flattening every country you don't like (I mean, we did for a little while and all it seems to have done is made a bigger mess.)

Where did I write that you can go to preemptively flatten every country you don't like?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#175

Post by paganel »

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…

>, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance.

They seem to be doing quite well against the modern army of Ukraine, NATO-trained for 7-8 years now.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#176

Post by openasocket »

The war in Ukraine doesn't provide sufficient evidence that modern combined arms operations are outdated. Russia deployed combat troops significantly short on man power, leading to a situation where attacks had far more armor than infantry. See https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-... for example. It's been known since the Spanish Civil War that tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank teams when not properly supported by infantry, especially in adverse terrain. WW2-era tanks were effectively countered by anti-tank gun teams in entrenched positions, which is why they worked in concert with infantry, artillery, and close air support to suppress anti-tank guns and enable the tanks to advance. Or they could bypass these well-defended positions and attack at weaker points, taking advantage of the tank's superior tactical mobility.

While it is possible that drones and modern ATGM teams could effectively counter traditional combined arms operations, the evidence from the war in Ukraine is largely inconclusive at this time. If Russia were to correct their manpower issues, or at least be able to conduct traditional combined arms offensives in certain areas, then we'd have more solid evidence. Notably Ukraine still sees value in the tank, since they've been repeatedly requesting tanks (along with a variety of equipment) from the West.

Personally, I think we'll see an adjustment to the balance of military forces, but the tank will continue to play a pivotal role. Active protection systems will continue to improve, we'll see the expansion of short range air defenses and doctrine to counter drones (and even longer-ranged ATGMs), increased teaming of drones alongside infantry and armor (in doctrine acting as a sort of middle ground between artillery and air power), and the usage of novel indirect fires for tanks like the KSTAM.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#177

Post by themadturk »

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.

It's the same thing, if you think of aircraft as missiles. The point is the extension of range. Aircraft can reach out much, much further than a naval gun, and can be used to scout more effectively (many 20th century battleships had aircraft of their own for scouting/fire spotting). Even modern missile-equipped warships are less flexible in some ways than a carrier air wing, though we have yet to see warfare pitting a modern carrier battle group against anti-ship missiles.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#178

Post by Tsiklon »

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…

A tank is certainly more useful in the middle distance than at extreme range, or in tight spaces, there’s better choices of tool for those jobs guided artillery/rockets at distance and heavy auto-cannon clad infantry fighting vehicles like in the city. But not all warfare exists in either of those ranges.

Tanks are great at assaulting enemy hard points, taking fire away from supporting infantry who can move in and cleanup the position after the tank has suppressed it or broken it open. It’s a heavy weapon of mobility and manoeuvre on the field.

A tank’s role is that of heavy cavalry, designed to intimidate and break defensive lines in a charge across contested territory and to provide immediate direct fire on a target in support of advancing infantry. As the modern rifleman company is the descendant of line infantry of old, the tank is the descendant of the Cuirassier.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#179

Post by The_Colonel »

whimsicalism wrote: post #145
The_Colonel wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 excha…

> Of course people still speak Russian in Ukraine.

Then it's not banned as you claimed.

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

With 3000 out of that in 2014 and 2015. In 2021 - 18 civilian deaths, half of that caused by unexploded shells/mines - https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/Conflict-...

War in Donbas was actually dying out in the past few years, until Putin decided to escalate it and cause deaths of 10 000s.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#180

Post by mymythisisthis »

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…

What about drone tanks?
Post reply on HN