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

261–270 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#261

Post by diordiderot »

bergenty wrote: post #250
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.

Tanks are no match for drones. Anything that slow moving will get taken out and cheaply. Reactive armor is good for one maybe two hits and that’s only a couple of thousand in drones.

One or two hits _in the same spot_.

The bigger threat is dual charged ammunition like the javelins

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#262

Post by whimsicalism »

scrose wrote: post #229
whimsicalism wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For radio: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-37908828

For schools, businesses and public services: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210401-new-law-stoke...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#263

Post by sixstringtheory »

bergenty wrote: post #250
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.

Tanks are no match for drones. Anything that slow moving will get taken out and cheaply. Reactive armor is good for one maybe two hits and that’s only a couple of thousand in drones.

This is assuming there wouldn't be a swarm of drones deployed alongside the tanks. Tanks could be used analogously to aircraft carriers, which would be sitting ducks vs jets/subs/battleships, if it weren't for their own jets they're carrying, or the battleships sailing with them.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#264

Post by whimsicalism »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #235
scrose wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of your statements are outright false.

Evidence beats a bare denial. (Of course, the original claim didn't have any evidence, either...) "Yes it is" "No it isn't" is a really uninteresting conversation. Somebody supply some evidence , not just claims.

I've provided some media reports in another comment. Evidence for everything I've said is also very available on Google.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#265

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #244
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> an active protection system specifically for top attack munitions like Javelin Worth noting: The western-made MANPADs are designed to exploit a serious design flaw in Soviet-era tanks. The ammunition is stored in the turret where it is easy to ignite externally. That's why we have so much youtube of Russian tanks blowing their turret sky-high. Long story short, design failure can't be remedied by anything they can…

Yeah, that's an issue too, though frankly speaking, partitioned ammo rack and blow out panels be danged, I don't think I'd want to be inside an Abrams that got hit by a Javelin or equivalent.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#266

Post by jeffdn »

YarickR2 wrote: post #249
jeffdn wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sure, they can wantonly kill civilians, but that doesn't mean they are in charge. Until and unless autonomous drones with general artificial intelligence can be mass-produced and deployed on the scale of infantry brigades, massed infantry will be required. Even t…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#268

Post by whimsicalism »

thraway11 wrote: post #191
whimsicalism wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a link for this? I hadn't heard about the Russian language being banned. I did know about this from 2019: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-langua... "The new legislation requires TV and film distribution firms to ensure 90 percent of their content is in Ukrainian and for the proportion of Ukrainian-language printed media and books to be at least 50 percent." It also says civil servant…

It is illegal for any business to offer services or communicate in Russian unless the customer explicitly asks. It is illegal to have Russian language newspapers or schools, all of which existed before the crackdown.

Turkey has done the same thing to Kurdish speakers and most of the West has rightfully condemned their attempts to crack down on the language.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#269

Post by hinkley »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #253
aaronblohowiak wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the abrams had a 500 gallon tank, so... pretty far?

Sounds like a pretty big explosive to carry on hand.

TIL that the energy content of 33k gallons of gas is equivalent to a 1 kiloton bomb. I am probably on a list now for trying to figure out the explosive power of a Javelin missile, which I did not find.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#270

Post by 323 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #234
russellbeattie wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet. Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.

A carrier costs $10 billion. Without considering the crew and stuff in it. You can fire 50 $100 mil missiles simultaneously at it would still make a lot of sense, especially considering the morale aspect.
Post reply on HN