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

321–330 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#321

Post by mr_toad »

lumost wrote: post #314
dgb23 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon. This reads like the gist of it. I imagine them getting lighter, heavier, more sophisticated/expensive, cheaper, slower or faster. But the basic archetype seems to be almost timeless as long as there is some utility for armor, mobility and projectile weapons.

Is there going to be value in projectile weapons in the future? An autonomous quad copter with a grenade attached seems like a much more dangerous weapon than an automatic rifle. An armored truck may have equivalent ability to defend itself using active systems with much greater mobility and firepower than a tank. A converted autonomous econovan might be even more effective, bypassing the need for defense entirely.

> Is there going to be value in projectile weapons in the future

They’re cheap. One of the reasons the Russians use so much conventional artillery is that it’s cheaper than missiles or air strikes.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#322

Post by throwawaylinux »

bergenty wrote: post #315
throwawaylinux wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Way more expendable, can overwhelm with sheer numbers and can be much more reactive than something that has to be aimed and fired from far away.

I mean has it changed the calculus on the battlefield for tanks?

Ukraine are pleading for, and using, mostly anti tank missiles to destroy Russia's tanks, aren't they? Why if swarms of expendable drones are better and cheaper?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#323

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

lumost wrote: post #314
dgb23 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the basic concept of combing firepower, mobility, and protection is not going away any time soon. This reads like the gist of it. I imagine them getting lighter, heavier, more sophisticated/expensive, cheaper, slower or faster. But the basic archetype seems to be almost timeless as long as there is some utility for armor, mobility and projectile weapons.

Is there going to be value in projectile weapons in the future? An autonomous quad copter with a grenade attached seems like a much more dangerous weapon than an automatic rifle. An armored truck may have equivalent ability to defend itself using active systems with much greater mobility and firepower than a tank. A converted autonomous econovan might be even more effective, bypassing the need for defense entirely.

The typical generic tank round is 120 mm and around 50 lbs. This is interestingly mostly the result of the intersection of ergonomics (soldier needs to be able to hurk the round around) and metallurgy/engineering of the barrel. Anyhow, that's a whole lot of pain for any vehicle that's not a peer tank, any sniper/hmg/rpg team set up in a strong point, etc, for a very reasonable price. A good tank crew can fire these at a rate of about one every 10 seconds including overlapping recognition of new targets. This is what tanks are built to do, and it's not equivalent to what drones or man portable smart missiles/munitions can do, as interesting and increasingly novel as those latter are.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#324

Post by whimsicalism »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #303
cestith wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, esp…

The result of the invasion does seem to be a huge increase in anti-Russian language and anti-Russian "ethnicity" feeling among Ukrainian-speakers though. Which was pretty minimal before. Which is pretty terrible. I'm not saying it was a cause or justification of the invasion. I'm saying things are getting worse. As they usually do as a result of war. It's horrible.

> A 2012 law, called the law "On the principles of the State language policy" gave the status of regional language to Russian and other minority languages. It allowed the use of minority languages in courts, schools and other government institutions in areas of Ukraine where the national minorities exceed 10% of the population .... > The bill was adopted amid fistfights in the Ukrainian Parliament building on 3 July 2012, and the opposition said that the procedure of adopting the law was not respected.

Doesn't seem all that minimal to me.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#325

Post by mrep »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #41
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.

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'd be fine with stepping in an m1 Abrams equipped with trophy [0] which

"Since 2011, the system has achieved 100% success in all low and high-intensity combat events, in diversified terrain (urban, open and foliage). The system has intercepted a variety of threats, including the 9M133 Kornet ATGM, RPG-29, etc. the U.S Army has reported similar success in tests. “I tried to kill the Abrams tank with ATGM 48 times and failed, despite the fact that some of them were supersonic,” said US Army Col. Glenn Dean."

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#326

Post by mr_toad »

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?

> If it doesn't have to carry people, it can carry much less armor, which makes it more maneuverable

But it will be vulnerable to smaller weapons on smaller cheaper vehicles.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#327

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

nradov wrote: post #284
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…

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…

I think the comparison is very apt.

Practical APS is going to require a full sphere LPI radar of some sort. Given you already have to build that, it's logical to leverage it as a sensor for sensor fusion in general. Same goes with IR, both distributed aperture systems and telescope/periscope. EW equipment is going to require antenna apertures that can cover DC to 6ghz. If you gotta build those might as well aggregate all the needs into a common set of apertures.

The logic here is straightforward, and it does directly lead to thinking of future MBTs as like the mini land version of multi role naval frigates, imo.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#328

Post by Ducking_Insane »

dragontamer wrote: post #82
echelon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.

Video games. https://www.matrixgames.com/game/armored-brigade Armored Brigade is probably a good start. 4 minutes for artillery to aim, 1 to 2 minutes for shells to actually arrive, 10 minutes for air-support to fly in. 1 to 2 minutes to deliver commands to any particular squad (depending on how good their radio contact is). Roughly realistic levels of arms, armor and penetration. Angle of shots and type of weapon (k…

An interesting game that addresses a very similar conflict is Combat Mission:Black Seas [1]. This simulates a hypothetical 2011 conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This game was made before the 2014 invasion. Versions of the game are used to train officers in the British Army. A youtuber, Usually Hapless [2] covers a lot of combined arms warfare stuff on his channel using Combat Mission as a base. It's worth looking at.

[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1502380/Combat_Mission_Bl...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9egpHJiRis89uHkeyJiEug/vid...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#329

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#330

Post by whimsicalism »

cestith wrote: post #281
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…

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, esp…

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

I never did - please don't accuse me of doing so.

1. On the school claim, it is now illegal to have exclusively Russian preschool or elementary school. Your own point concedes that it is illegal to teach other subjects in Russia - students will only be able to study their language as a "subject." That is not a "Russian-language school."

It is also illegal for private schools to teach in only Russian.

2. On Radio: As I said, it is now illegal to have an exclusively Russian language radio and for news subject, it is illegal for the radio to be even Russian majority.

This lines up with both of my claims.

Post reply on HN