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

281–290 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#281

Post by cestith »

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…

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-langua... does not mention banning Russian-language schools nor, in fact, mentions banning teaching it in addition to Ukrainian in the same school.

There's an education law that says that starting in 2023, all state schools must be taught primarily in Ukranian at and above the fifth grade. While imperfect, it does allow teaching in several minority languages, especially in primary school. Russian is not allowed at state schools above primary school as a teaching language for other subjects, but it can be taught as an elective subject and other organizations are free to teach it. The ECHR implications of this are mentioned specifically by the Venice Commission.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-language/criticis...

https://web.archive.org/web/20190516190140/https://www.presi...

https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?p...

From section 5 of the Venice document.:

"69. Thus, it appears that members of the Bulgarian, Greek, German, Polish, Romanian and Hungarian minorities, in addition to being able to study their language as a subject, may also study one or more other subjects through the medium of their language at the secondary education level. However, members of national minorities who do not speak an official EU language — Byelorussians, Gagauzes, Jews, and, significantly, Russians — will only be able to study at the secondary school level their language as a subject. Thus, a hierarchy is created at the secondary school level, with indigenous peoples potentially treated more favourably than national minorities which speak an official language of the EU, and national minorities which speak an official language of the EU treated more favourably than other national minorities."

There is a high quota for state-language content on radio but other languages are allowed a percentage. From section 7 of the Venice document.:

"95. With regard to the use of languages in broadcasting, Article 24 refers to the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting. At the same time, a transitional provision of the Law (Section IX, point 7.24) amends Article 10 of the latter Law, tightening the language quota requirements, by increasing the proportion of the Ukrainian language content for national and regional broadcasters from 75 to 90 per cent and, for the local broadcasters, from 60 to 80 per cent. This amendment will come into force five years after the Law’s entry into force (i.e. on 16 July 2024)."

So is the situation perfect for everyone? No. Is the EU (and Hungary and some others) pushing Ukraine to compromise? Yes. Have they promised to work on compromises? Also yes.

There's no need to go beyond the actual, documented issues and spread falsehoods and propaganda.

TL;DR: I invite you to read up on the issue.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#282

Post by yks »

jeffdn wrote: post #205
Jistern wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is extremely misleading. Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots. If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people. In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few d…

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…

Putin himself tells everyone that his goal is conquering territories, Eastern Europeans tell everyone that Russian goal is conquering territories, yet people on the internet are still parroting "NATO's fault". I wish everyone read the book Bloodlands first before supporting Russians in their cruel conquests.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#283

Post by remarkEon »

dragonwriter wrote: post #276
remarkEon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The US no longer has a draft law because the US determined that the draft was bad both from a military manpower perspective and from a domestic politics perspective as to maintaining national will to continue a conflict. Nixon got rid of the draft for reasons that had to do with the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and his presidential election. The argument was that the AVF wouldn't negatively impact force readiness…

> The argument was that the AVF wouldn't negatively impact force readiness, not that the draft was "bad" from a military manpower perspective The argument for the AVF has evolved over time; the issue wasn't once and done, and the importance of longer service terms in a wide range of specialties has been increasingly cited in arguments for maintaining the AVF. But even in the original Gates Commission report, the AVF…

That's a really charitable description. There was enormous political pressure in 1968 to find a way to end the draft since Nixon promised in the campaign that he would do it. When you tell people to go find ways to do it, especially when you're the President, they're going to find ways. The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to.

The Commission's charter wasn't "figure out how to never do a draft again". It was "figure out how to turn this draft that everyone hates off".

edit: bad grammar

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#284

Post by nradov »

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…

So we might see tank designs sort of repeat the evolution of surface warships. Such ships used to rely on armor for survivability, but the advent of submarines and aircraft (and later guided missiles) made that approach unviable. Now the armor is mostly gone, and instead ships rely on a mix of sensors, active defenses, and mobility to avoid getting hit at all. Of course they're still vulnerable, but nothing else can accomplish the same missions, so there's no other option but to keep building more.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#285

Post by SubjectToChange »

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…

MANPADS are anti-air weapons. Also, what western tank doesn't store most of its ammunition in the turret?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#286

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

chrisseaton wrote: post #245
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.

> The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry Then you mean the infantry screen the enemy infantry from the tanks. You screen the threat, not what you're protecting.

There's no point in screening the threat where there is nothing to be threatened, so in practice screening moves with the formation.

But in any case, it seems you just want to double down on that fine hnews tradition of utterly valueless semantic quibbling, which I will not participate in further.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#287

Post by CamperBob2 »

paganel wrote: post #175
CamperBob2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The impression I'm under is that the Ukraine forces have the will and the training to succeed, and maybe the manpower and intel, but not the weapons. And for some reason, we (meaning the rest of the civilized world) are dragging our feet on giving/lending them better hardware.

Frustrating to watch.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#288

Post by meragrin_ »

chrisseaton wrote: post #245
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.

> The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry Then you mean the infantry screen the enemy infantry from the tanks. You screen the threat, not what you're protecting.

There is nothing wrong with "The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry". Screening is just the act of keeping two things separated. It does not matter which side of the from they appear. Either way is correct. If you want to go the protection route, "The infantry protect the tanks from enemy infantry" is obviously intended over "The infantry protect the enemy infantry from the tanks".

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#289

Post by throwawaylinux »

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.

An anti tank missile is a "drone" (and has been touted as the end of the tank for the past 50 years or more). Has the much slower-moving propeller driven contraption changed anything significant here?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#290

Post by rubinelli »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #263
bergenty wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aircraft carriers don't have the large cannons of a dreadnought. An armored car that served as launchpad and command center for drones could be drastically lighter, faster, cheaper, and with simpler logistics.
Post reply on HN