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

181–190 of 282 posts

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

#181

Post by hef19898 »

greedo wrote: post #153
gonzo41 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple though, If you fired a a few Javelins against an Abrams with a Trophy system you'd still be at risk from one of the multiple shots over time. And even if the rounds don't cook off, if the EFP goes through the crew compartment, everyone is toast from blast wounds. I think the main gun on an MBT will be replaced by rocket systems on smaller lighter, faster vehicles like the Boxer CRV family. Edit j…

The secret has been out for 40+ years. The Sagger decimated Israeli tanks in the Sinai in 1973 until the IDF started using combined arms tactics. The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe. The Hellfire (and to a lesser extent, the TOW) dominated Iraq during the Desert Storm, and during the Iraq invasion in 2003. The Javelin itself is almost…

>> The TOW (and to a much lesser extent, the Dragon) gave NATO the ability to blunt a potential Soviet invasion of Europe

That's what I call over simplification.

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

#182

Post by greedo »

lumost wrote: post #140
simonh wrote: post #63

The tank isn't dead because armies still need the capabilities the tank gives them. You need a long range direct fire weapon, capable of engaging armoured targets and infantry (canister or airburst rounds), with rapid engagement of multiple targets, low time to target, rapid reloads and follow up shots, and high survivability. Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don't have the survivability. T…

What we're seeing is that low cost precision guided munitions can engage tanks from beyond their direct fire range. Within direct fire range they can be engaged by even lower cost munitions fielded by light infantry and light vehicles. The tank also suffers from requiring large amounts of fuel, making supply line strikes more dangerous to armored advances. The first point is the big one, the future of ground forces m…

Armies will start deploying jamming effectively, cutting off the ability to control the drones. For some reason, the Russian army (which had a reputation for excellence in ECM/ECCM) has been completely ineffective in this area during it's invasion of Ukraine.

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

#183

Post by hef19898 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #115
pjc50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how and why would that happen?

Look at the former Yugoslavian countries. The German right-wing terror group "NSU" is suspected to have used weapons from that area [1], the Charlie Hebdo and Paris terrorists did the same [2]. It is entirely reasonable that, similar to the aftermath of the 90s wars, weapons from Ukraine will turn up in every major conflict zone - especially because the current supply from the Balkan is all 30 years old decrepit shit…

The stuff the NSU was using can be bought either at Munich main train station (if you know who and how to ask) or just across the Polish border. They used a single Makarov, mostly. And those were basically available for a 5 DM back when the Soviets retreated from the former DDR.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

hef19898 wrote: post #53
formerly_proven wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

F-35 unit prices are not high and keep getting lower due to the sheer scale of production. Many 4.5 gen fighters are actually more expensive yet less capable than the F-35. Most anti-F-35 arguments are "informed" by the likes of Pierre Sprey.

Which systems are out there that are actually comparable to the JSF? Both the Eurofighter and the Rafale are one gen older (not sure if that actually matters that much so). Which leaves the Russian and Chinese planes, for which cost is hard to come by.

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by greedo »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #166

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 wit…

Not even $2M. Have you seen the footage of the UA/TDF using civilian quadrotor drones to drop anti-tank hand grenades on vehicles? As long as the radio spectrum is open, these type of attacks will be very hard to stop.

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

#186

Post by throwawayffffas »

a_crc wrote: post #141
alexvoda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usefulness of long range missiles depends on the rules of engagement. If the F-35 will be allowed to shoot targets over the horizon based only on instruments, it will most probably work as intended. If visual confirmation will be required, it will be a boondoggle.

Could you expand on this? I'm struggling to imagine a realistic scenario where visual confirmation of a target would be a requirement. I also don't see why an F-35 is at a major disadvantage inside visual range of a target. (FYI Visual range is farther than short range air to air missiles and much farther than gun range.)

The AIM-54 Phoenix was used 2 times with exactly zero kills, because of ID concerns[1]. You don't just go around firing missiles to radar tracks you can't identify.

[1] by the US, Iran has used it more with more success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix#U.S._combat_exp...

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

#187

Post by cm2187 »

thriftwy wrote: post #79
cm2187 wrote: post #2

On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/04/01/why-do...

It depends on who you watch - on Russian telegram channels there's also an endless supply of videos where Ukrainian stuff blows up by missile, drone or captured intact. It's a large-scale conflict so one can cherry-pick enough footage to support any narrative.

The Ukrainian tanks are Russian made, so would have exactly the same vulnerability. But the Ukrainians being mostly on the defensive and vastly outnumbered, I don't know that they rely on them as much Russia does.

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

#188

Post by ethbr0 »

nimbius wrote: post #98
irrational wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, this doesn’t address his points from the end of the article about cheap drone swarm attacks on the top side of tanks.

s/drones/air support/ imho the failures observed caused by manpad in the ukrane theatre were directly attributable to an almost comically poor systems integration on the part of the aggressor and an unwillingness to commit longer range artillery and missile strikes to soften what were hardened infantry targets equipped with sixth generation anti-air and anti-tank weaponry.

> almost comically poor systems integration on [Russia's part]

Russia's BTGs were explicitly designed to (a) consume minimal manpower (they were composed of non-coscript troops from their parent units), (b) consequently, to maximize lethality:person (tank co + 3x mech inf co + 2 AT co + artillery/anti-air), and (c) to minimize logistical support requirements (by deploying smaller units).

Essentially, they were built to win small-scale conflicts at a price Russia could afford.

Ukraine is not a small-scale conflict.

Consequently, the following chain of events (predictably) occurred: (1) Putin proposes 2003 military reforms [0], (2) Serdyukov realizes many of these in 2008 reforms [1], (3) optimistic appraisal of capabilities vs Ukraine leads to Army grandstanding, little strategic integration with different branches (e.g. VVS, VMF), (4) utter failure of real political intelligence mistakenly assumes Ukrainian population (esp urban) will not support government & defense, (6) infantry-light, manuever-oriented assault predictable bogs down in urban areas, without necessary troop count in assaulting units, (7) strategic approach is locked in, as a consequence of previous choices, (8) everyone involved at a command level scrambles to cover their ass and blame others.

If Russia had wanted to win the war they ended up getting, they should have never assaulted urban areas with BTGs.

They would have manuevered south from western Belarus, bisecting the country, and forced Moldova to declare neutrality and forbid weapons shipments. Then pick key infrastructure apart at leisure. Because that's the sort of thing the BTGs were built to do.

But presumably Russia didn't want to do that because it betrays the "this is all about Donbas (and the criminal Ukrainian government)" talking points, and it didn't think it would need to. Hindsight is 20/20.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces#Reform...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_military_reform

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

#189

Post by chernevik »

exabrial wrote: post #138

The way _Russia_ uses tanks has been dead... basically since 1972 and the advent of the A10. Here a $23 munition, fired quickly, could chew up an armor column. Don't forget the Javelin is still $250k, it's not exactly cheap. Tanks must be supported by infantry teams. Without capable mortar teams, rifle teams, automatic weapons teams, they are sitting ducks, as Russia has proven.

The A10 probably couldn't survive in the Ukraine airwar environment.

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

#190

Post by usrbinbash »

hef19898 wrote: post #146
usrbinbash wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if a military investment worth several million dollars (a tank) can be neutralized by something that is an order of magnitude cheaper to produce (an ATGM), then how can it fulfill its intended role?

Read the submitted article for details, but it comes basically down to the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank) to get infantry close enough to engage the target. Without said tank, the infantry will be eliminated by enemy artillery and static defenses. So the trick is to protect the tanks. That is done by suppressing enemy positions with artillery and air support. And to protect your air assets, yo…

> the need of protected offensive destructive power (a tank)

Offensive destructive power can be provided by air support, long range self-guiding weapons and drone weaponry as well.

I also don't believe that ATGMs mean "Tanks are already obsolete". But I do think they are under threat of becoming so, because: ATGMs will get better, as will drones. Meanwhile, a tank will always be a big hunk of metal moving comparatively slowly on the ground.

Post reply on HN