Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

warontherocks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 282 posts

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#161

Post by kitrose »

inglor_cz wrote: post #117
kitrose wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tank can engage at similar distances.

If it knows what/where exactly to engage... The point is that a soldier with a Javelin is a much less visible target than a big vehicle. Even if he runs just 40 meters away between the firing of the missile and its impact, any return fire aimed at the original site will likely miss him. And there can be a hundred of such Javelin-equipped soldiers in range.

I was an armored vehicle officer in the USMC. ATGMs are a long standing threat.

There’s no scenario where hundreds of Javelins are sitting in one infantry company. It’s the type of thing that only makes sense on paper.

Would be much more worried about evolution of loitering fires with drones.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#164

Post by notakio »

newsclues wrote: post #10
SQL2219 wrote: post #3

now you know why the USMC got rid of all their tanks about 2 years ago.

Because they rely on the army for heavy tanks and focus their resources on other platforms.

Rah. USMC austerity is fundamental to the corps, from what is supplied to individual Marines, all the way up to expenditures on larger tactical equipment, with the notable exception of the Osprey.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#165

Post by tablespoon »

patleeman wrote: post #24
Kuinox wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the tanks always store a dozen of rounds in the turret for faster reloads.

The American Bradley stores rounds in a separate armored compartment behind the loader. If the compartment gets hit and the rounds cook off, the blast is redirected out the top of the tank away from the crew compartment which makes the vehicle much more survivable.

Don't you mean the Abrams tank?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley: "The use of aluminum armor and the storage of large quantities of ammunition in the vehicle initially raised questions about its combat survivability."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams: "The M1 Abrams...introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blow-out compartment"

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#166

Post by throwawayffffas »

The gist of the article which I agree a lot seems to be.

Nothing has significantly changed since the 80s-90s, ATGMs have gotten better but they were still a huge problem back then and the solution seems to be the same, better recon, more artillery.

Drones don't represent something new but really precision strikes at a discount, capabilities only available to major powers once are now "buy off the shelf".

The TB-2 with a couple of MAM missiles does the same job as an f4 with a couple of walleyes.

The only difference being the f4 cost 2 million dollars in 1965 while the TB-2 costs 2 million dollars now.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#167

Post by greedo »

sofixa wrote: post #148
greedo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here come the F-35 haters... The F-35 is fine. It's designed to be a replacement to the F-16 with a good level of stealth. NO fighter is 100% immune to SAMs, but the F-35 can survive on the modern battlefield against S300/S400 etc just fine. It would be cleaning up in Ukraine right now as long as the airbases it flew from were protected. And what "unmanned fighters" are out there right now? Some low performance d…

> but the F-35 can survive on the modern battlefield against S300/S400 etc. just fine I don't think you could possibly know this. NATO countries have S-300s and the F-35 was probably tested against it, but it's highly unlikely it was tested against an actual latest gen S-400 in fighting condition ( if such a thing even exists, Russian military readiness is dubious at best).

Any SAM can shoot down any stealth fighter or bomber given the right conditions. Stealth isn't 100% invisibility. The US lost an F-117 in Bosnia due to both poor operational tactics and a clever foe.

You do realize that the S400 is just an upgraded S300, right? Hence it's original name of S300 PMU-3?

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#168

Post by hef19898 »

greesil wrote: post #116
SEJeff wrote: post #100

Is it really though? There are some really good active protection systems like Israel's TROPHY which do a pretty good job taking out incoming sabot style (tank shell, javelin, RPG) warheads. The modern incarnation[1] (M1A2 SEPv2) of the US Abrams tanks all have it [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) [2] https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-t...

No way it can take out sabot rounds. It's got to much kinetic energy and moves much faster than an ATGM

And SABOTs are usually fired from other tanks, so...

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#169

Post by bena »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #44
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support. A single soldier with an ATGM can take out a tank, but a single soldier with a gun can take out that single soldier and their ATGM. It's easy to forget that reality isn't a third-person shooter. When you're sitting in a steel box with an engine in the back and a cannon on the top, situational awareness will inevitably suffer to some degree, and n…

>I think people vastly underestimate the importance of infantry support Do you now what's funny? Even RTS videogames like the Command and Conquer series or Star-Craft made this point clear early in our childhoods. Tanks will be eaten alive by hoards of cheap disposable units, so you always had to support them with anti-infantry units if you wanted them to be useful in battle.

Yeah, you don't make units, you make battalions.

Siege tanks are grouped with marines and firebats for protection, Marines and medics run with medics for assistance. Have your infantry out front. Move to a location, plant your troops, put your tanks in siege mode, rain hellfire down upon aerial defenses and approaching units so your Battlecruisers can come in with their Vulture and Wraith support to decimate a base.

It takes a village. You know, to destroy the other guys village. But still. Villages.

Re: The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?

#170

Post by chrisco255 »

Pelic4n wrote: post #147
simonh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers don't add up. The US has sent 7,000 javelins to Ukraine and overall they're been sent 30,000 anti-tank weapons and Ukraine is asking for hundreds more per day. It seems unlikely those javelins have killed 6,510 (.93 * 7000) Russian tanks, or that they will be destroying hundreds more per day. Many of the drone videos released by the Ukrainians show tanks hit by ATGMs but not actually being destroyed. For…

Source for the 93% figure: https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr/status/1499470411964235781 On the video, the ukrainian tank is of course performing an effective ambush. I don't pretend I have the answers, but I wonder how would perform a bunch of infantry with NLAWs striking the column from multiple places at once, for cheaper than the tank, able to engage multiple targets at once, much less spottable, and so on.

This source is a second hand account of second hand information. It is not reliable.
Post reply on HN