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

211–220 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#211

Post by foverzar »

vorpalhex wrote: post #42
the_af wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.

> There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.

When did that happen?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#212

Post by wyldfire »

yding wrote: post #154
eftychis wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?

If you're talking about DJI or equivalents they only have 30 minutes or so of flight time and can carry at most one bomb at a time. They can be useful in guerrilla situations but firepower wise it's not even in the same league as a tank with 40-60 cannon rounds and several thousand machine gun rounds.

What if the drone were so inexpensive and portable that you could consider it like you do ammunition? Then the flight time and payload is much less critical - it's just a pilot-able bomb.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#213

Post by ineedasername »

dragontamer wrote: post #159
eftychis wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do portable drones not offer the instant firepower?

Because when a tank fires its APFSDS gun, the muzzle velocity is 1500 meters-per-second. In contrast, a drone flies at 25 to 50 meters-per-second. ------ To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes. In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range. That's more than enough time for th…

That 2 seconds is the projectile. Unless you're already aimed directly at the AT firing point it's going to take more than 2 seconds for the tank to acquire a target lock and swing the turret into place.

Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total for the tank shell to hit.

That's not great for the AT team, but it is a survivable amount of time for shoot-and-scoot tactics, enough that it's going to be a hellish war of attrition between armor & AT teams, not a completely one-sided battle. Which seems to be roughly what we're seeing in eastern Ukraine, unfortunately. A truly shitty and hellish situation all around.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#214

Post by kashkhan »

vel0city wrote: post #84
kashkhan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My point is that we should all be fighting against war. By what, asking nicely?

Yes. Be very persuasive. But restrict yourself to persuasion.

The way is for the antiwar people to be more successful than warriors and turn war into the losers' choice.

I refuse to arm myself, refuse to serve in militaries and refuse to support war as much as i am able. If antiwar people are successful, war will evolve out.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#215

Post by imtringued »

moffkalast wrote: post #87
vorpalhex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't occupy an objective with a drone or a missile. You can't control a city with a drone. Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.

Oh yes you can. Just not a flying drone and not just one.

But your not flying drone is going to look like a tankette, aka the autonomous combat warrior weasel from Rheinmetall.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#216

Post by kashkhan »

marcosdumay wrote: post #156
kashkhan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals Whether they do that as a democratic government, a dictatorship, a paragovernamental entity, or a set of mobs makes all the difference in the world.

Anyone pointing a gun at me is not my friend. Anyone that chooses a gun to get their way is not my friend.

I don't trust people with guns. They are the same because they all choose violence to get their way.

"Democratic" gun holders point more guns at me today than mobs.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#217

Post by imtringued »

dsr_ wrote: post #94
CamperBob2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it doesn't have to carry people, it can carry much less armor, which makes it more maneuverable; it might carry so much less mass that it doesn't need tracks to handle rough terrain. If it's light and nimble enough it doesn't need a turret to point the main weapon. Is a remote-controlled dune buggy with a low-recoil rifle a tank?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TUv5xkY0wic

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#218

Post by vorpalhex »

moffkalast wrote: post #87
vorpalhex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't occupy an objective with a drone or a missile. You can't control a city with a drone. Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.

Oh yes you can. Just not a flying drone and not just one.

Maybe.

There are some experiments using turret style drones to maintain like DMZs. They still need a human operator. That is a case where you are mostly just waiting though.

Seizing a town means dealing with a ton of civilians - negotiating, handling mixed reports, etc. Drones may become part of that but cameras are imperfect and you will need people unless Drone tech has a giant leap in human interfacing.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#219

Post by vorpalhex »

foverzar wrote: post #211
vorpalhex wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.

> There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland. When did that happen?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory...

https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat...

This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#220

Post by kashkhan »

dragontamer wrote: post #83
kashkhan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.

So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because…

Transporting wins in the short term. Extermination wins too. The europeans exterminated the natives on many lands and took over. They have many lands for centuries now.

Not many Ohlone on hacker news.

The US tried exterminating the Taliban, but failed.

Post reply on HN