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

451–460 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#451

Post by thriftwy »

nradov wrote: post #450
thriftwy wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe none. Is "NATO" a territory of Ukraine? Is "no limiting of Russian language usage" a territory of Ukraine? How about "not overthrowing legitimately elected president, twice"?

So are you claiming that Russia should be allowed to veto internal Ukrainian political decisions, or prevent them from voluntarily joining other alliances? Wouldn't it be better to just keep killing Russian soldiers until they run out and retreat?

Well they are trying that now. It looks like the tide of war is not on their side at the moment.

And yeah, you should've got by now that the position of your neihbours is the most important factor in the policy of most, if not all, countries.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#452

Post by ogogmad »

thriftwy wrote: post #449
ogogmad wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, and Russia caused the pogroms and a genocidal famine in Ukraine. It's not a good idea to learn your country's history in an overly rosy way. In fact, being kind to nationalists may have caused the present war. Russians should know that their country has had a sordid history.

Soviet regime has caused famine in present day Ukraine, southern Russia, Volga region and Kazakhstan . Most of those who starved (arithmetically) were in what is present day Russian Federation. Are you sure you can tell propaganda from history? "Russia caused the pogroms" (sic) is another gem of same quality. I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a…

> I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others.

Indeed. And the problem is nationalism. Every country has had a shameful past. But Putin, that fascist and crackpot, who Russians largely admire, is in denial about that.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#453

Post by thriftwy »

ogogmad wrote: post #452
thriftwy wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet regime has caused famine in present day Ukraine, southern Russia, Volga region and Kazakhstan . Most of those who starved (arithmetically) were in what is present day Russian Federation. Are you sure you can tell propaganda from history? "Russia caused the pogroms" (sic) is another gem of same quality. I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a…

> I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others. Indeed. And the problem is nationalism. Every country has had a shameful past. But Putin, that fascist and crackpot, who Russians largely admire, is in denia…

It can be said of Ukraine. Its nationalistic desire to be a solid Ukrainian nation ("above everything else"), instead of a federation comprised of very diverse parts for whom just being together requires a lot of searching for a middle ground and compromises.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#454

Post by [deleted] »

vorpalhex wrote: post #51
CamperBob2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't occupy an objective with a drone or a missile. You can't control a city with a drone. Infantry and AFVs that support them will never go away. They may change but war isn't just about destruction.

[deleted]

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#455

Post by zardo »

thrwy_meta wrote: post #347
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.

We airlifted M777 howitzers to them in the blink of an eye, by the standards of government/military bureaucracy. Meanwhile out here in the First Island Chain we've been begging for reinforcements/gear/funding for the inevitable fight with China and THAT shit is definitely being slow-walked in comparison. There are also larger issues to consider beyond just "we want the help the Ukrainians". The best stuff we can send…

> Do we want to risk that gear falling into Russian hands (and by extension probably getting shared with China)?

More concerning (imo) is gear, particularly man portable anti-air weapons, sold to terrorist groups either via corruption in the Ukrainian forces, or a Russian op to supply NATO arms to such groups.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#456

Post by TulliusCicero »

brutusborn wrote: post #409
TulliusCicero wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you get everyone to decide this, yes. But if you do this and your aggressive neighbor doesn't, your decision to forgo military spending can make the world less safe. Some parts of Europe are remembering this now.

The cost would be negligent compared to existing defence costs. World military budgets are on the order of trillions, so even a 1% spend on prevention would get you billions in funding. With that you could fund a research institution with thousands of people, and have billions left over to implement any policies they come up with.

What do you think existing diplomatic and political institutions are, at this point?

There's no diplomacy hack that would've stopped Russia from invading Ukraine, and major projects that people thought would've stopped them -- including major trade infrastructure like Nordstream (2) -- were ineffective.

On the other hand, if Ukraine had been part of NATO, there was no chance Russia would've invaded. Almost like having more military power on their side would be the correct answer.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#457

Post by TulliusCicero »

wildmanx wrote: post #412
aliswe wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 recomm…

> 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.

Yes, and people thought this would work with Russia too, hence Nordstream and other trade.

Turns out, only more military power would've stopped Putin from invading. Economic interdependence can certainly be a good thing, but it's not all-powerful. Sometimes the answer really is having enough military power to deter your enemies. Democracies generally don't invade other democracies, but not every place is a democracy.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#458

Post by halffaday »

vba616 wrote: post #360
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.

If the US is not a "credible security partner" then what the media thinks about a Ukrainian surrender is utterly irrelevant. Even if is is a credible security partner, the same is true. It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to e…

It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you conclude anything I wrote means the US is a totalitarian monolith.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#459

Post by ufmace »

latch wrote: post #377
ufmace wrote: post #257

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. 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…

I suppose it's possible that might happen at some point in the future, but I don't think that's ever happened.

Humans are about the most vulnerable thing out there. Yet nobody suggests that we should get rid of the infantry because they're too vulnerable. Instead, we give them camouflage gear, some armor, train them to stay behind cover and move carefully, and work on better medical care if they get hit.

FWIW, hypersonic weapons are likely overrated. The hard part has always been finding an active deployed carrier and tracking it well enough to guide a weapon into it. If you can do that, there's no shortage of weapons that can sink it. The carrier's tactics are to use its air wing to stay outside of radar range from any targets while still being able to strike, and using airborne radar as needed to monitor the area without revealing the precise position of the actual carrier.

Foreign militaries are just as prone to exaggerations about how effective their weapons are as American military contractors. Results of well-run tank divisions against anti-tank teams, some of which are documented in the GP's video, show that the kill rates against tanks are often underwhelming even in situations where the tanks are at a disadvantage.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#460

Post by webmaven »

ckozlowski wrote: post #97
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.

Came here to post this, so glad to see you did! I'll add a complimentary link for others' benefit from Military History Visualized: "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overloo…

> In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.

The modern Combined Arms Warfare is so similar to the medieval "Infantry, Archers, and Cavalry". Infantry is still infantry. Archers are now air support. Cavalry is armour.

History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. Tanks won't be obsoleted by anything currently deployed, but if you manage to squeeze an a antitank munition (like some sort of armour piercing super-RPG) into a weapon an infantryman (every infantryman) carries, that might do it.

Post reply on HN