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

291–300 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#291

Post by thereisnospork »

ufmace wrote: post #257
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.

Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate supp…

> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it.

What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun.

*as we are seeing in Ukraine.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#292

Post by CamperBob2 »

kcb wrote: post #132
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.

How could you figure? How would they be controlled while under communication jamming? Until autonomous AI exists we'll need people on the ground.

That's a problem, but it's one that exists already, in that a tank crew with a broken or jammed radio is pretty much useless.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#293

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #268
thraway11 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#295

Post by na85 »

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…

I know it's cool to throw acronyms around but MANPADS stands for MAN-Portable Air Defence Systems.

They're for shooting down aircraft. The Javelin and NLAW are not examples of MANPADS.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#296

Post by baud147258 »

thereisnospork wrote: post #291
ufmace wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate supp…

> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms…

> What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better?

Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#297

Post by dredmorbius »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #15

I never understood why the tank tracks weren't targeted. They look easy to immobilize.

That's a tactic used where immobilising makes a kill attack easier.

But you still ultimately want to take out the tank (and crew, and munitions) itself. And that requires defeating the armour.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#298

Post by scrose »

whimsicalism wrote: post #264
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The two articles you linked to show that Ukraine set a minimum 30% quota for songs to be played in Ukrainian, and that people should be greeted in Ukrainian by default and switch languages if asked. Neither of which backs up your outrageous claims.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#299

Post by remarkEon »

yks wrote: post #279
remarkEon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of our (US + NATO) current Ukraine policy, but that isn't because I'm an isolationist. I think it's just dumb policy, on several different dimensions. The version of the criticism you're leveling right now can be inverted very easily. That the people arguing for escalation in Ukraine, that it's "the exact same thing [that] happened in 1938" (it isn't), and that unless we do things like a NFZ it leads to…

You either accept a moral responsibility to protect sovereign nations from elimination, and elimination at this point was stated by Russian officials and media as a goal numerous times, or you accept the Russian position of "lands and peoples belong to the strong men" and we're back to the age of conquest, but now with nukes. Not only the former position is morally right, but it also prevents or at least postpones th…

I don't recall the United States and Ukraine signing a mutual defense pact, or a treaty that designates the United States as the guarantor of Ukrainian independence. The former position you are advocating for literally amounts to "the United States is the Global Empire, and all changes in state arrangements must be approved by Her". That's fine, but just make that your argument. Trying to morally guilt trip people is pointless because there's at least a dozen other conflicts around the world right now where you can make the same argument, about some country's sovereignty being violated.

>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe, and literally about post WW2 order that you seem to be enjoying the fruits of, if only by hanging out on Hacker News.

I'm not sure what purpose you think this sentence serves. If your argument is, again, the United States is the Global Imperial Power and, because I post on HN, I am balking in my responsibility to sufficiently support this Empire, then got it. I'll make sure to "do better".

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#300

Post by nradov »

323 wrote: post #270
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regardless of missile cost, the hard part is getting an accurate targeting track and then data linking that back to a launcher. Satellites, aircraft, and submarines can all potentially accomplish that mission, but they only exist in limited numbers and are in turn vulnerable to the defensive weapons available in a carrier strike force.
Post reply on HN