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

371–380 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#371

Post by CamperBob2 »

seoaeu wrote: post #338
CamperBob2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A simple reading of 1930s world history is all the "story" we should need. When a Hitler or a Putin tells you what they intend to do, believe them.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#372

Post by ogogmad »

thriftwy wrote: post #305
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…

> The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments. Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government. That narrative will really have to go in favor of much more granular approach to post-WW2 history.

> Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government.

Which ones?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#373

Post by ogogmad »

kashkhan wrote: post #220
dragontamer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because…

Transporting wins in the short term. Extermination wins too. The europeans exterminated the natives on many lands and took over. They have many lands for centuries now. Not many Ohlone on hacker news. The US tried exterminating the Taliban, but failed.

What do you think the Ukrainians should do?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#374

Post by grey-area »

thrwy_meta wrote: post #349
yks wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>>You either accept a moral responsibility to protect sovereign nations from elimination And yet we've been arming the Saudis while they starve and bomb the Yemenis into oblivion for the past 10 years. >>>This is not only about Ukraine, this is about the whole Eastern Europe https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Wars-are-only-evil-when-West... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili... I find the degr…

So don’t do that either. I agree there is rampant hypocrisy and that should stop too. That is not an argument against supporting Ukraine.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#375

Post by Jataman606 »

halffaday wrote: post #357

The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met. The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.

> that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met

Their objective was to overthrow Ukrainian goverment and take half a country. So no, their objectives definietly will not be met.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#376

Post by jotm »

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…

The tank can carry a bigger gun, but that's about it. Most of it is armor that it has to haul for 100-300 miles at a time (before it runs out of fuel).

Also, lol at "Ukrainian tractors". Their biggest (only?) tractor plant was destroyed in Kharkiv. Most of their tractors are... John Deere. Probably why they got so good at modifying them that Americans are buying their software :D

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#377

Post by latch »

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…

There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, despite being the best at its job, it still wasn't good enough.

As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#378

Post by ogogmad »

thriftwy wrote: post #308
zoomablemind wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. This is an understandably myopic view. Especially now, as the whole charade of justification and "objectives" of russia's invasion in Ukraine is in full swing. Perhaps, remembering that in putin's view, Ukraine is not an independent state, its existence is a mistake…

> it has long been clear that no amount of pacifying or "non-irritating" is to alter such policy. This represents the total failure of diplomacy present in today's discourse. We no longer think diplomacy affects the outcome and we think that any compromises from our side is just "free stuff" for the other one. What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation…

There were 8 years of diplomacy. There was maybe 1 year of intense diplomacy before the invasion on the 24th of February? Don't listen to Russian disinformation, it'll make you stupider.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#379

Post by wildmanx »

It's clear that this is an exciting topic for techies.

But keep in mind what this all is made for: Destroying and killing. We are talking about war machinery, and technical discussions about those tend to romanticize all that technology much too often.

If we'd only pour 10% of the investments that today goes into war machinery into peace research and conflict prevention, then this world would be a much safer place.

There would be less toys to play with and less "fascinating" discussions about tanks and guided missiles and strategy and artillery and infantry and fighter planes, which may sadden the technically inclined, but in the end these are not toys. These are devices to destroy and kill, and designing, building and maintaining them has enormous costs even in peacetime.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#380

Post by citizenpaul »

A comically silly question. I bet 99% of HN has played a game with Class called or refered to as "tank." Its not a matter of do tanks have a future just what the format will be. Even in a made up fantasy games the concept of a military unit with heavy armoring is always going to have a place. Same as real life.
Post reply on HN