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

231–240 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#231

Post by stonemetal12 »

throwaway1492 wrote: post #126
aerostable_slug wrote: post #108

Tanks used correctly and in sufficient mass produces something called the Shock Effect of Armor . Smart munitions are getting more and more effective, but it's really hard to calmly lob missiles at a charging unit of tanks supported by artillery, infantry, CAS, etc. " Principle: armor in strength produces decisive shock effect The psychological shock effect that comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armore…

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…

RPGs have existed for along time. How does using a drone to deliver the grenade instead of a rocket really change the scenario?

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#232

Post by MrRiddle »

mattnewton wrote: post #44
prometheus76 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say it the other way around, but the complexity of the electronics in the anti-tank weapons have proven to be difficult to produce in large quantities because of the chip shortage, but also because of the high level of experience and knowledge required to continue to make them. Tanks are much less reliant on complex electronics and manufacturing capability in order to be effective on the battlefield. The US…

How many years will it take to replace the 700 or so tanks lost in Ukraine? Russia is estimated to have 3,000 or so tanks currently operating, they are closing in on losing 1/4th their number. It’s unclear how many of their roughly 10k in storage are still working and whether making new tanks or repairing those will have the same chip shortage problems.

There is absolutely no chance Russia lost 700 tanks. Ukrainian sources are pure garbage.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#233

Post by chrisseaton »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #189
paxys wrote: 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 disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#234

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

russellbeattie wrote: post #210
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.

And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet.

Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#235

Post by AnimalMuppet »

scrose wrote: post #229
whimsicalism wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison with the US is disingenuous - it is not illegal to open a French language school in the United States, it is in Ukraine. Previously, Russian was allowed to be taught in schools in Ukraine. It was then banned from being taught in schools even in regions where the majority of people speak Russian. Furthermore, it is illegal in Ukraine to have a Russian language radio station. I encourage you to read up o…

Many of your statements are outright false.

Evidence beats a bare denial. (Of course, the original claim didn't have any evidence, either...)

"Yes it is" "No it isn't" is a really uninteresting conversation. Somebody supply some evidence, not just claims.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#236

Post by dragontamer »

ineedasername wrote: post #213
dragontamer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when a tank fires its APFSDS gun, the muzzle velocity is 1500 meters-per-second. In contrast, a drone flies at 25 to 50 meters-per-second. ------ To put it in concrete terms, a tank 3000 meters away will hit its target in 2 seconds. A drone 3000 meters away will take 1.5 minutes. In contrast, the Javelin you launch will take 12 seconds before it hits the tank at that range. That's more than enough time for th…

That 2 seconds is the projectile. Unless you're already aimed directly at the AT firing point it's going to take more than 2 seconds for the tank to acquire a target lock and swing the turret into place. Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total…

> Assume the turret is 90 degrees off target and it will take 2 seconds just to swing the turret around. Assuming it takes 2 seconds to notice the AT round fired, 2 seconds to target lock, that's still 8 seconds total for the tank shell to hit.

That's a lot of "assumptions" that still leads to a virtual tie situation: both parties kill each other.

There's also the situation where the tank commander emerges out of hide-position, fires a shell, and kills the enemy infantry before they even know where the tank is, and the tank then retreats back into hide-position before any enemy even knows that a tank is there.

A tank in turret-down position is still exceptionally difficult to spot. And that tank commander looking out, waiting for the ideal time to ambush with his main tank gun, will have night-vision, thermal vision, and loads of other equipment.

See this screenshot of the Chieftan's discussion: https://imgur.com/tk10YHN.jpg

In "turret down" position, pretty much only the tank commander is visible. They can spot you 3000m away in this kind of position thanks to modern binoculars.

----------------

Given that the tank moves at 50km/hr, and has more expensive equipment (thermal vision / etc. etc.), the tank honestly has the advantage in most of these fights.

Infantry might (?) have the advantage of surprise and hiding. But tanks also might have that advantage. There's no guarantee that the infantry always ambush the tanks. Especially when you consider how much faster a tank travels, and the shear size / distance that these weapons cover (a tank can choose any point with 3000m line-of-sight to attack the enemy infantry, knowing that the infantry is too slow to keep up with the tank's movement).

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#237

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

chrisseaton wrote: post #233
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.

Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#238

Post by chrisseaton »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #237
chrisseaton wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infantry disperse and hide. Tanks really struggle to do either.

Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.

Not sure what you think a screen is... but it doesn't hide anything. A screen is about finding, not hiding.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#239

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

chrisseaton wrote: post #238
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you screen tanks with infantry.

Not sure what you think a screen is... but it doesn't hide anything. A screen is about finding, not hiding.

Yes, exactly. The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry ATGM groups. Everything that makes enemy infantry with ATGMs more effective tank hunters makes infantry screening the tanks more effective at countering them.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#240

Post by aaronblohowiak »

hinkley wrote: post #226
paxys wrote: 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.

The Abrams A1 got like half a mile to the gallon didn't it? How many miles can they move before you have to park them next to a giant, unarmored gas can?

the abrams had a 500 gallon tank, so... pretty far?
Post reply on HN