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

431–440 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#431

Post by nradov »

thriftwy wrote: post #418
ogogmad wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What sort of compromise would you suggest? How much territory should Ukraine cede to Russia this year? And how much more next year when Russia manufacturers some new fake complaint?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#432

Post by [deleted] »

thriftwy wrote: post #418
ogogmad wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#433

Post by the_af »

int_19h wrote: post #110
the_af wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree tanks seem to be very vulnerable in the current Ukraine war. That said, drones cannot replace tanks. Maybe something else will, but drones cannot make breakthrough advances, nor accompany and shield advancing infantry. Drones may be cheap tank killers, but I don't think they can replace tanks.

Not every weapon system has a direct and obvious replacement when it becomes obsolete - the nature of the combat itself changes around what's viable given the tech.

Agreed. I meant the role of tanks cannot be fulfilled by drones, and therefore they cannot be a replacement. The tech is irrelevant, the role is relevant.

Even an evolution of the tank's role, because all roles change, will not be fulfilled by drones.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#434

Post by dsr_ »

mr_toad wrote: post #326
dsr_ wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But we already know that tanks are vulnerable to relatively cheap small vehicles, so this is not a comparative disadvantage.

Also consider that tanks are dispatched in small groups; they need to be able to defend themselves. But a swarm of buggies could have weapons optimized to defend each other -- a shotgun is pretty effective against small suicide drones, and nothing defends against a laser-guided bomb anyway.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#435

Post by mattnewton »

MrRiddle wrote: post #232
mattnewton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many years will it take to replace the 700 or so tanks lost in Ukraine? Russia is estimated to have 3,000 or so tanks currently operating, they are closing in on losing 1/4th their number. It’s unclear how many of their roughly 10k in storage are still working and whether making new tanks or repairing those will have the same chip shortage problems.

There is absolutely no chance Russia lost 700 tanks. Ukrainian sources are pure garbage.

Ukrainian sources put the number lost at nearly double that last time I checked. I am using a number from oryx, who claims to have counted tanks out of commission or being towed from photographs taken in front lines or publicly released arial photography and de-duping them, as they have done for other conflicts like the war in Afghanistan. They actually have the count now at Tanks 774 (of which destroyed: 438, damaged: 21, abandoned: 53, captured: 262), and host all the images used to make their count. I’m sure there are problems with this approach but it seems like the closest thing to an unbiased estimate available to the public right now.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#436

Post by ladyattis »

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…

I think the biggest issue facing the Russian armed forces is that their branches don't operate well with each other. There's little inter-branch training, the command staff don't seem to know what the others are doing in the same theater, and the like. Plus, I think the fact that their logistics system is based around the train means their ability to project forces further and/or faster is limited. It's easier to just destroy a rail bridge than it is to make every dirt road impassable. It's clear, that the Russian military is suffering from multiple dysfunctions.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#437

Post by dragontamer »

chrisseaton wrote: post #398
dragontamer wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://imgur.com/tk10YHN.jpg Do you think you would be able to see this tank if it were 3000 meters away? Because the tank commander, with his set of night vision / thermal vision binoculars sees you. --------- If that tank commander closes the hatch and ducks down, you wont see him at all. In full hide position, the tank commander will only reveal himself and his tank when a nearby infantry asks for support. Of cou…

That tank squadron will have spent 24 hours digging into that position, if the engineer support was even available! An infanteer achieves the same level of concealment much more easily.

Or maybe the tank used its 50km/hr engine *finding* a suitable, natural defilade.

When you're on the attack, you often don't have time to dig in and instead have to make due with the natural terrain. Tanks will reach those natural slopes and enter hide position faster than infantry.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#438

Post by stonemetal12 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #248
stonemetal12 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RPGs have existed for along time. How does using a drone to deliver the grenade instead of a rocket really change the scenario?

Would you rather take on a tank with an RPG in hand, or be safe in a bunker and remote control your attack? If you made a misstake in the first scenario, there is no second try. But if you have a second drone, there is. (ukraine has more men than drones, though)

Drones are slow and not heavily armored. It seems like a shot gun would be good enough to take them down before they got close enough to hurt your tank. While they are doing a good job now it wouldn't surprise me if anti drone counter measures are easy\quick to develop.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#439

Post by cestith »

thriftwy wrote: post #310
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…

Russian-speaking citizens don't really want to study Russian as an "elective subject". They want to study in Russian. You have confirmed that it was getting no longer possible. That's like forcing all Canadians to be only taught in French and subsequently losing Vancouver to the US. So you have just confirmed everything that propaganda was talking about and were quite efficient at that.

The thread started by whimsicalism stating that Russian was banned in Ukraine, and I replied that it had a status similar to French or German in the US.

Nobody has ever banned a language by allowing printing in it, allowing grades up to 4 to be taught in it, allowing secondary schools to teach it as a subject, and allowing private groups to continue teaching it as a primary language.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#440

Post by cestith »

whimsicalism wrote: post #330
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…

> 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-…

You said the Russian language was outright banned.

Show me that law.

Post reply on HN