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

111–120 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#111

Post by abfan1127 »

bnralt wrote: post #74
malwrar wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose instead? A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.

What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be fa…

you're argument is more that American force has been misused, not that it has not place. I'd agree it has been misused for 70 years.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#112

Post by Melatonic »

I am still waiting for when we get individual tank like things or tank suits. Lots of SciFi and Anime has talked about it for years but I feel like there has to be some efficient middleground between a bunch of dudes in a modern tank vs just running around as infantry with body armor. I am not necessarily talking about an Iron Man like thing - just something much more nimble.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#113

Post by Mountain_Skies »

int_19h wrote: post #98
phillc73 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dispense with the government?

Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.

Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#114

Post by cestith »

whimsicalism wrote: post #52
the_af wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this.…

If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.

Russian is as banned in Ukraine as French, Hindi, or German are banned in the United States. That is, they are not the primary language taught in schools nor the language in which government business is conducted but nobody's being jailed for speaking it.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#115

Post by int_19h »

the_af wrote: post #47
dragontamer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small drone warfare? The Ukraine / Russian conflict has degenerated into trench warfare with thousands of 155mm / 152mm artillery being shot into each other's positions per day. These are the kinds of conditions where tanks excel. Humans who try to walk at 3km/hr get blown up by shrapnel, even 100m away is "close enough" to cause a significant injury and take a human out of a fight. Tanks? They pretty much ignore eve…

In support of your statement, I'm impressed that Russian doctrine seems to rely so much on good ol' trusty massive artillery, of the dumb kind. I guess, if it works...

Said massive artillery fire is directed from the drones. You hear a lot about Ukrainian Bayraktars, but the most mass-deployed combat drone in Ukraine right now is actually Mavic 2 & 3 - on both sides! In fact, it got to the point where there's a shortage of them in Russia because DJI stopped importing them, but units fighting in Ukraine constantly demand and get more via crowdfunding.

(For the curious, here's a blog post from the Donbas separatist side that talks about drones and their combat use and maintenance, among other things: https://kenigtiger.livejournal.com/2140772.html)

However, Ukrainians have learned to embrace the drones in 2014-15 already, and have had a lot more experience with them since. Russia is still learning that lesson in the field.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#116

Post by aerostable_slug »

int_19h wrote: post #103
trhway wrote: post #100

Russian tanks aren't a representative of a modern tank as among other things they have crappy active defense - it is all about electronics. Israel's is a good one, and their tanks survive multiple shots by actively killing incoming RPG warheads and the likes. Also Russian tanks are on the light side as they can't manage a powerful enough engine required, ie gas turbine of 1500hp+. The best they have so far managed is…

Have Israeli tanks ever faced Javelins tho?

They have faced formidable ATGMs including Kornet E, and have suffered losses. Time will tell how effective their hard-kill countermeasures will prove to be.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#117

Post by jacquesm »

dragontamer wrote: post #82
echelon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.

Video games. https://www.matrixgames.com/game/armored-brigade Armored Brigade is probably a good start. 4 minutes for artillery to aim, 1 to 2 minutes for shells to actually arrive, 10 minutes for air-support to fly in. 1 to 2 minutes to deliver commands to any particular squad (depending on how good their radio contact is). Roughly realistic levels of arms, armor and penetration. Angle of shots and type of weapon (k…

There are some very interesting developments in this field:

https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1523791050313433088

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#118

Post by cestith »

dibujante wrote: post #34

Yes, it's still valuable to be able to move a heavily armored computer onto the battlefield, even if you need to be more cautious about exposing it to direct fire now.

They're cheaper and making them quite so heavily armored is less important if there are no humans in them, too. That's a whole different can of worms when the calculus changes from blood and treasure to just treasure though, especially if only on one side.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#119

Post by jacquesm »

dsr_ wrote: post #94
CamperBob2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a potentially useful idea. At this point, putting people in tanks is irresponsible. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be used as remotely-operated vehicles.

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?

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).

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#120

Post by jacquesm »

int_19h wrote: post #96
CamperBob2 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see. We have an all-volunteer military here in the US, and that won't change, at this point. The idea, as always, is to get more done with fewer people.

It'll change very fast once US gets into a major war. Say, with China.

Never say never, but you really don't want that to happen.
Post reply on HN