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

411–420 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#411

Post by brutusborn »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #396
dotancohen wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason. [1] http…

Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...

My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated.

Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#412

Post by wildmanx »

aliswe wrote: post #394
wildmanx wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the "investment into peace research and conflict prevention" part of my post. Ironically, that's the part that you quoted.

> investment into peace research and conflict prevention What would this even mean?

If you find out why conflicts and wars have broken out in the past, that could enable you to devise strategies to avoid them in the future.

Just like post-mortems in other areas. A plane crashed? Investigators go find out why, amend protocols and technical safeguards so that root cause won't bring down another plane in the future. Too many bad side effects of some drug? Investigation into why and adjustment of recommendations to doctors. You had a prod network meltdown? The responsible team does an ideally blame-free investigation to find the root cause and re-structures their setup to prevent it next time. Fight with your wife? Find out what caused it and then improve communication or expectations or whatever contributed to it. A war broke out? THOSE GUYS ARE EVIL AND WE NEED MORE SPENDING ON WEAPONS!!!1

Since WW2, all those former world-power countries in western Europe have lived in peace with one another, not because they built weapons for mutually assured destruction, but because they built economic interdependence and mutual understanding. That's a start and proper research into this could take things much further.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#413

Post by chrisseaton »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #286
chrisseaton wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> utterly valueless semantic quibbling

They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions. You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.

If you asked someone to screen and really you mean cover or guard, you've fucked up.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#414

Post by fractallyte »

robertlagrant wrote: post #403
lmm wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there? Well they can carry their own Stugna or Javelin. Isn't that an argument for more dismounted infantry, not less?

I don't think they work on people.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 [Ukrainian Stugna-P ATGM strike on Russian troops]

Warning: combat footage, people die...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#415

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

tlear wrote: post #340
baud147258 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tha…

APS protects against ATGM, not cannon fire.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#416

Post by thriftwy »

ogogmad wrote: post #372
thriftwy wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I think that's Bulgaria, Romania and Moldavia, but maybe more. And, of course, Ukraine and Belarus. Maybe some of Balkan states as well if you count them as eastern european.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#417

Post by thriftwy »

zoomablemind wrote: post #348
thriftwy wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>...What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat". Present day russia as state pro…

Sanctions are not going to deter anyone from anything. Sanctions is anti-diplomacy.

Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful.

The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#418

Post by thriftwy »

ogogmad wrote: post #378
thriftwy wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't remember any "intense diplomacy" other than more threats of sanctions, more public humiliation of Russia, no compromise on any question being discussed. In 8 years I remember Ukraine botching its obligations on Minsk agreements and Steinmeier formula.

With such strength of diplomacy, no wonder it didn't work.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#419

Post by Gatsky »

russellbeattie wrote: post #210
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.

And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Is there actually an independently confirmed useful hypersonic weapon?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#420

Post by [deleted] »

thriftwy wrote: post #416
ogogmad wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that's Bulgaria, Romania and Moldavia, but maybe more. And, of course, Ukraine and Belarus. Maybe some of Balkan states as well if you count them as eastern european.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN