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

221–230 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#221

Post by kashkhan »

abfan1127 wrote: post #111
bnralt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be fa…

you're argument is more that American force has been misused, not that it has not place. I'd agree it has been misused for 70 years.

The US has far superior military now than 70 years ago, and military power imbalance is more in favor of US than ever before.

But the world has changed faster. All use of military now is misuse and futile.

We don't look at veterans now and say wow what heroes. We just thank them for their service. We don't celebrate them for "Mission Accomplished". Thanking is like a participation trophy.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#222

Post by ineedasername »

wyldfire wrote: post #208
dragontamer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. What's the latency for the turret to pivot to the target angle? I suppose it's pretty fast but let's say in worst case 180deg? How long does that take? 1s? 10s?

T72 is about 3 seconds for 180 degrees. But it also takes time for a human in the tank to notice the incoming AT round, trace it back to the source, acquire a target lock, and then swing the turret over.

I can only guess at how long the full return fire process takes, but you only need to be pointing a javelin AT at the tank, it will do the rest. You can be sprinting away pretty much as you launch and get 50 meters away. Safe? Hell no, but it's not as bad as the "2 seconds" comment makes it out to be.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#223

Post by int_19h »

themadturk wrote: post #199
int_19h wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A draft takes a long time to ramp up, and soldiers take a lot of time to train, so we're unlikely to start up a draft unless we expect a conflict to be protracted. The United States is unlikely to invade China and vice versa. A war pitting the US against China is likely to be largely naval- and air-oriented, with ground action (if any) concentrated on Taiwan, and will probably take at most a few weeks or months. We m…

If only all the wars that were deemed "unlikely" before they began never happened, we'd all be much better off.

The problem is that once shots are fired, things can escalate very quickly, and decision-making is often not rational.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#224

Post by ninkendo »

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.

I'm going to avoid the quippy sarcastic response and try my best to be curious:

How would you occupy a city with only drones? What would it look like? Would they issue orders to civilians to stay in their homes? What sort of objectives that humans do now in war [0] do you think drones can fully replace?

[0] establishing forward bases for further logistical support, "securing" areas, including searching through rubble for humans and making sure they're not a threat, etc. I've never been in the military so I don't know from experience but I'm pretty sure there's tons of other examples here.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#225

Post by kashkhan »

paganel wrote: post #183
brokencode wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost…

The Talibans are the Afghanistan, or a bit part of it.

"Afghanistan" is a western colonial construct made up of many groups. Most states are western colonial constructs. We might need to move past that.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#226

Post by hinkley »

paxys wrote: post #172
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.

The Abrams A1 got like half a mile to the gallon didn't it? How many miles can they move before you have to park them next to a giant, unarmored gas can?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#227

Post by imtringued »

horsawlarway wrote: post #50
prometheus76 wrote: post #7

Judging by the current situation, it seems that there are more resources for building tanks than there are for building anti-tank weapons. Once the anti-tank weapon stocks have been depleted, tanks still play a devastating role in warfare. EDIT: I'm just relaying what I read in several articles about the difficulties in making anti-tank weapons because they rely on rare-earth minerals and because they rely on silicon…

I don't understand this comment. The anti-tank weaponry is an order of magnitude less expensive than the tank (some is several orders). The M1A2 Abrams has a unit cost of around 10 million USD (numbers from 2016, so likely higher now). The drones currently destroying tanks in Ukraine (Bayraktar TB2) had a unit price of around 5 million, although some estimates are as low as 1-2 million per unit delivered to Ukraine a…

Tanks can also destroy more stuff than they cost.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#228

Post by hinkley »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #189
paxys wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic b…

> and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times

and missed the moral of the story...

> This whole argument is stupid and predicated on a vast misunderstanding of how combined arms operations work. Systems are not discard because they're vulnerable, if they can be employed in a way that min/maxes their impact vs vulnerability.

The mythology of the board game Go is that it was invented by a Chinese general in an attempt to teach his son strategy and tactics. In that domain there is a concept called Aji, in which you should not write off pieces on the board that are doomed. The fact that they are still on the board makes them useful, even if they can't possibly be saved, saved only by gross error by the opponent, or saving them is possible but devastating to your overall prospects.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#229

Post by scrose »

whimsicalism wrote: post #142
cestith wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Many of your statements are outright false.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#230

Post by [deleted] »

moffkalast wrote: post #86
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.

I think the guy has a point in tanks being useful, but nobody's saying it can't be satelite controlled drone tanks.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN