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

331–340 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#331

Post by 323 »

nradov wrote: post #300
323 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You only need general location data. The missile can do the final approach itself.

It's hard to hide a strike group. Even civilians are tracking them these days with commercial sattelites:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/07/the-realiti...

US itself talks about sending out hundreds of cheapish drones in a swarm (5 km spacing) to seek out all naval assets over an area.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#332

Post by int_19h »

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.

It's legal to use Russian as the primary instruction language in schools for the first 5 years. After that, they have to switch to Ukrainian, but they can still continue to teach Russian as a foreign language class (same as English etc).

On the whole, I'd say that Ukrainian language policies are more akin to Quebec. OTOH Turkey has been packing its prisons with Kurds until recently for crimes such as "insulting Turkishness", so no, it's not really a valid comparison. I don't like the laws on this subject in either Ukraine or in Quebec (or really any place that tries to force cultural cohesion), but specifics do matter.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#333

Post by znep »

smsm42 wrote: post #256
moffkalast wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Probably not with the current level of technology. Especially given that the lifetime of the tank is not only "drive forward and shoot" - it needs to be fueled, oiled, repaired, restocked, pulled out of the mud, etc. Fully automating this would be a very complex task. Especially achieving it on a battlefield where there are people who are present there, unlike the remote controller, and do their best to try and not l…

Indeed. I am sure there are lots of things under development, I have little knowledge in the area but I ran across this video the other day which suggests refueling and rearming via drone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNLCa6isqJA

No idea how far between concept and reality that is and obviously this is a whole different class of vehicle than a tank.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#334

Post by [deleted] »

dsr_ wrote: post #197
jacquesm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still need to protect the ammunition, otherwise a nearby explosion will set it off (this also happens at the moment but less so than I would expect it to happen with less armor, which also would make penetrating the wall much easier and which would make the tank a softer target altogether).

Sure, but you might not care as much because: - you can airlift 25 2-ton dune-buggies instead of 1 50-ton tank - you can buy 25 $2 million dune-buggies for the cost of 2 $25 million tanks - if you sent 2 tanks, losing one is half of your force projection. If you sent 25 dune-buggies, losing one is 4% of your force. - maintenance on an unmanned 2-ton dune-buggy has to be easier, faster and cheaper than maintenance on…

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#335

Post by nradov »

323 wrote: post #331
nradov wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You only need general location data. The missile can do the final approach itself. It's hard to hide a strike group. Even civilians are tracking them these days with commercial sattelites: https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/07/the-realiti... US itself talks about sending out hundreds of cheapish drones in a swarm (5 km spacing) to seek out all naval assets over an area.

Bullshit. The missiles have only limited sensors and maneuvering capability. Commercial satellites don't provide real-time targeting data. And cheap drones lack the range for this mission. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#336

Post by lapsed_pacifist »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #202
metabagel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an article with no paywall. https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/rheinmetall-unveils-new-...

For profit, "for export" weapons systems are morally reprehensible.

Without for profit, for export, weapons, smaller entities that cannot support the industrial base to produce the means for their own defense would be at the mercy of any power who could. Self defense is a right, and the means of self defense should be widely available. Ensuring the vulnerability of the weak is morally reprehensible.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#337

Post by ggm »

duxup wrote: post #243
openasocket wrote: post #176

The war in Ukraine doesn't provide sufficient evidence that modern combined arms operations are outdated. Russia deployed combat troops significantly short on man power, leading to a situation where attacks had far more armor than infantry. See https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-... for example. It's been known since the Spanish Civil War that tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank teams when not…

It’s hard to get a feel for what is happening overall, but the amount of video of Russian armor of all types operating alone ( no infantry support) has been pretty shocking.

Circumstantially, its possible these are semi-abandoned and what we're seeing is attrition of the b-grade troops sent to try and recover them.

I suspect like all the other armchair experts this is actually a massive russian doctrine failure, but if I was being charitable I'd say we're not seeing the FEBA in play, this is post-fight or side-fight mop-up stuff.

And, they've been let down by spares, failure to do tire rotations in the last 5 to 10 years, fake parts, fuel quality, you-name-it. A lot of the materiel we see in the videos could be the class of stuff you would also have seen post D-Day: Dang: the duce is bust: ok, drive it off the road for later and move to another truck...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#338

Post by seoaeu »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #287
paganel wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, 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.

No idea if your impression is true or not. But if I was in charge of Ukrainian propaganda, I can’t think of a better story to tell allied nations so they’d donate lots of weapons

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#339

Post by _carbyau_ »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #113
int_19h wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.

Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.

"Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things"

I'd go further and say that unless you achieve the perception of global equality in all things it is futile.

The grass is always perceived as greener, even when it actually isn't.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#340

Post by tlear »

baud147258 wrote: post #296
thereisnospork wrote: post #291

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. 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?

I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it?

I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo.

There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?

Post reply on HN