Live data from Hacker News

Does the Tank Have a Future?

economist.com

461–470 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say the weak should remain vulnerable. That is putting words in my mouth. How are the weak going to protect themselves with this German tank, they can't afford it.

If we cared about the weak, we would ensure they aren't harmed. The world isn't interested in that. For profit weapons systems aren't interested in the weak, they are interested in the well funded.

How much conflict has the low cost AK47 (7$ on the world market) enabled?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#462

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…

>...But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war...

As opposed to the war ...indeed.

Here it goes again, everyone still needs to learn how to treat russians.

Well, finally, the world has figured it out and summarized it succintly in the manner russia treats the rest of the world:

"Russian ship go f...!"

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals Whether they do that as a democratic government, a dictatorship, a paragovernamental entity, or a set of mobs makes all the difference in the world.

Anyone pointing a gun at me is not my friend. Anyone that chooses a gun to get their way is not my friend. I don't trust people with guns. They are the same because they all choose violence to get their way. "Democratic" gun holders point more guns at me today than mobs.

The nature of the entire thing is that usually there is exactly one of those entities pointing their guns at you. So yeah, that one will have "most guns pointed at you".

You can have more than one, but it's a huge life vs. death issue. You can't have zero.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#464
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what you have mentioned are inherent shortcomings of tanks in a modern battlefield. They are fuel intensive. They need massive logistical support. They are vulnerable to targeted attacks, like from drones. None of this is unique to the Ukraine situation. It is very hard for tanks to be effective in the age of cheap UAVs.

Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic b…

> Infantry are vulnerable to literally everything, and yet no one besides some dingbats that watched terminator too many times are suggesting the age of infantry is over. Aircraft are vulnerable to missiles. Is anyone suggesting the age of aircraft are over? Drones, particularly consumer quadcopter adopted out of convenience are vulnerable to missiles, autocannons, and electronic warfare. Does not the very same logic being offered as proof of the end of tanks apply to drones as well?

Being armoured is the tank's core value proposition in a way that it isn't for those other examples. The thing that a tank can do that a self-propelled gun can't is survive on a battlefield where small arms fire is overwhelmingly common and armour-penetrating munitions aren't. If we get to a point where that situation is no longer relevant, the tank's reason to exist disappears.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#465

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…

>...But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war... As opposed to the war ...indeed. Here it goes again, everyone still needs to learn how to treat russians. Well, finally, the world has figured it out and summarized it succintly in the manner russia treats the rest of the world: "Russian ship go f...!"

That's the gist of it. Human history is war.

Even Fukuyama has now retracted his paradigm that the history is over.

Prepare for a lot of war, hope you enjoy it. And not even with Russia.

> "Russian ship go f...!"

I think that phrase is a fake. However, these guys were captured, then declared dead, then surrendered and kept in captivity for some time. To put that in perspective. And that is real.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#466

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.

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

“War is the continuation of politics by other means.”

Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics.

(Unless it’s a crusade.)

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former US Army 19k here. Tanks are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate, hard to transport and require certain levels of infrastructure to operate in theater (bridges to support their weight). With current threats they are bound to become even heavier (and require more fuel). While I am all for seeing the rise of Bolo's, and I love shock effect as much as the next enthusiast, the ability of…

The Trophy Weapon System can intercept and defeat anti-tank missiles and grenades and has been proven in combat. Both US and Israeli tanks have those mounted on them. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss tanks as dead. Just older tanks without active countermeasures are dead.

Those active countermeasures can be fitted to lighter armoured cars or self-propelled guns. At some point the costs of carrying 50 tonnes of passive armour outweigh the benefits.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never the "same exact thing", but parallels are obvious and numerous. What more, Russia is already openly talking about some of the things they want to "reintegrate", and if you are familiar with the finer details of Russian internal politics, you can easily name a few more that aren't necessarily floated often (such as North Kazakhstan, which is "South Siberia" in irredentists' parlance). So yes, even if you do…

I appreciate the perspective. It does conflict a bit with that of Russian friends I have here in the US, but that's probably to be expected (no one familiar with this should assume that Russians have a uniform distribution of views on politics). I'd tell you that I've walked patrols in some of the same mountains that Soviet soldiers did in Afghanistan, and have read some (but obviously not all, who can) of the materi…

Putin did not expect it to be a fight at all. The most damning evidence of this is that those columns that were blitzing towards Kyiv early in the war had Rosgvardia units in them, the whole purpose of which is to suppress street protests etc - and they even packed their riot gear! This is the kind of thing you do if you expect the city to fall right away, and your sole problem then is simmering dissent.

Comparison to Germany in 1930s is fairly straightforward. Both Germany and Russia believed that they have suffered considerable humiliation in the last major conflict (cold war for Russia), lost "their" lands in the process, and were plunged into an economic black hole. In both, this triggered an embrace of irredentism and the overall ideology that can be summed up as "we'll be back, and then you'll be sorry". Both produced increasingly authoritarian regimes that, as they solidified their rule, started to look more and more at "their" lands among their neighbors. Both accused one of their neighbors of persecution of "their" ethnic minority, and justified the invasion and occupation of said neighbor on those grounds.

As for WW3 - no, I don't think it'll start over Kazakhstan. But if you wait long enough, it might start over, say, Latvia. The problem is that, with every country that the collective West allows Russia to overrun, NATO Article 5 is perceived as less of a real deal and more of a bluff. Basically, if US is unwilling to fight for Ukraine for the fear of escalating into nuclear, why would it fight for e.g. Latvia when the likelihood of that escalation would be even higher? Because Latvia is a NATO member? American isolationists will say that NATO isn't worth getting nuked over anymore so than Ukraine. So if you "draw the red line" there, you might find that line rather faded by the time Russia comes close to crossing it. They might cross it simply because they don't believe you have the guts to do anything about it by then.

Adding to the problem is the overly rosy picture of Ukraine successes in this war so far. Don't get me wrong - they are doing very well, exceeding all expectations by a large margin, and have plenty to show for it. But, at the end of the day, this is still a country of 50 million people with a $6 billion defense budget (2021) fighting against a country of 150 million with a $66 billion defense budget. Ukraine has had several mobilization waves since the beginning of the war, while Russia is still relying mostly on contractors and PMC. Ukrainian industry - which is largely in the east - is already devastated, while Russian manufacturing capacity is still fully intact, limited only by sanctions. If Russia were to truly switch to war footing to the same degree that Ukraine already did, Ukrainians won't be able to hold the line - not because they're bad at it, but because Russia can afford to overwhelm them with bodies and munitions. So you can't just assume that if we sit and wait long enough, the Russian advance will stall indefinitely, and that'll solve the problem long-term because all forces will remain tied in Ukraine.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#469
post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I really should just pull up my notes from college and when I was in, but I am very much unconvinced by the arguments that take the form of "the free market solves this military staffing problem and technology made the draft obsolete, so whatever". I realize that what you're saying is more nuanced than that, but after witnessing how contractors behaved in Afghanistan I'll just say I'm not convinced of their c…

None of that matters. If there's a major war with, let's say China, it's all going to be over one way or another before any conscripts could be drafted and trained to a useful level. And even if they could be trained, there aren't enough stockpiles of advanced weapons systems for them to use.

The premise here is that a major war would automatically escalate into nuclear right away. That premise is disputed by many, however.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.

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…

> Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes.

What is that based on? What good outcomes has Russia had from a war, in centuries?

Post reply on HN