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

421–430 of 490 posts

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#421

Post by MezzoDelCammin »

ansible wrote: post #195
MezzoDelCammin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single place? Probably no. But You can go branch by branch. For armor, Chieftain is probably as good as it gets in English when it comes to universality (he's both a historian and an active service Lt.Col. in the US NG). For further armor sources, I'd highly recommend the YT channel of Tank Museum Bovington: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum The chap whose video Chieftain replies to ("Perun") is worth follow…

Upvote for Perun. He very recently did a video on the apparent infantry shortage that the Russian forces seem to be facing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKewF8_SiIs The short, short, short version is that the Russian BTGs (battalion tactical groups) and undermanned in general, and the conscripts are supposed to be filling most of the infantry slots. Theoretically, because this isn't a declared war, the conscripts…

Thanks. I'm still kinda new to this upvote thing ;-)

If You like Perun and want to dig a bit deeper, try checking out Kofman's articles / videos. He's used quite often as a source (and with quite some reverence) by Perun and others.

Here's one from 2019 where he basically says what everyone figured out in 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UktY0XePs0

Beware, it's not the best presentation, but his public speaking skills have seriously improved since ;-)

Here's a panel he did with West Point right at the beginning of the invasion, if You'd like to check how his stuff holds up (Col. L. Collins is a good one on his own as well). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEvbVoDiU0&t=2378s&ab_chann...

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#422

Post by yrro »

fvdessen wrote: post #387
wildmanx wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the "investment into peace research and conflict prevention" part of my post. Ironically, that's the part that you quoted.

Thousands of years of peace research have shown that some conflicts can only be prevented by the peaceful side being better prepared for war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#423

Post by aaron695 »

wildmanx wrote: post #379

It's clear that this is an exciting topic for techies. But keep in mind what this all is made for: Destroying and killing. We are talking about war machinery, and technical discussions about those tend to romanticize all that technology much too often. If we'd only pour 10% of the investments that today goes into war machinery into peace research and conflict prevention, then this world would be a much safer place. T…

No post body was provided.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#424

Post by meragrin_ »

chrisseaton wrote: post #399
meragrin_ wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with "The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry". Screening is just the act of keeping two things separated. It does not matter which side of the from they appear. Either way is correct. If you want to go the protection route, "The infantry protect the tanks from enemy infantry" is obviously intended over "The infantry protect the enemy infantry from the tanks".

> There is nothing wrong with "The infantry screen the tanks from enemy infantry". Screening is just the act of keeping two things separated. It does not matter which side of the from they appear. Either way is correct. It isn’t! I’m a professional in this field. You're confusing a screen with a guard or cover force. Different tactical actions.

> It isn’t!

It is to the average person!

> I’m a professional in this field.

Good for you! Most of us are not professionals in this field and are using average people language. Adjusting to your audience is a thing. If it is wrong in professional speak, just realize you are not likely talking to other professionals and mention that something has a specific meaning in your field. People will just take that tidbit of information.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#425

Post by sentirist »

dragontamer wrote: post #83
kashkhan wrote: post #80

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…

Everyone is far too confident we understand the war in Ukraine even though everyone knows the fog of war is thick.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#426

Post by ineedasername »

dragontamer wrote: post #236
ineedasername wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hid…

I think the assumptions are reasonable, and if you hit the tank you may only have to survive that first shot of return fire.

Don't get me wrong, it's not ideal and the fighting is more about attrition than superior tactics. I agree completely that an open field is just about the worst place to deploy the AT system.Tanks may have to travel through open areas but they do so to get to & from locations of more strategic interest, and it's best to hit them in those places, or if enroute then at a location where there's a least more natural cover. And I don't think the tank is at all obsolete quite yet.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#427

Post by nradov »

theshrike79 wrote: post #397
nradov wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taliban technicals were failures when engaging NATO forces with air support. Larger tactical aircraft can remain at medium altitude (out of MANPAD range) and smash anything that moves with precision munitions.

Taliban operated in deserts and open terrain. The situation is a bit different in forested areas. Maybe modern aircraft have thermal imaging good enough to detect heat signatures from out of MANPAD range, dunno.

Technicals can't move through heavily forested areas. Can't drive through a tree. In more lightly forested areas, aircraft targeting pods and radars can pick them up just fine.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#428

Post by meragrin_ »

chrisseaton wrote: post #413
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no point in screening the threat where there is nothing to be threatened, so in practice screening moves with the formation. But in any case, it seems you just want to double down on that fine hnews tradition of utterly valueless semantic quibbling, which I will not participate in further.

> utterly valueless semantic quibbling They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions. You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force. If you asked someone to screen and really you mean cover or guard, you've fucked up.

> They're technical terms - entirely different tactical actions.

Right here! This is so close to what I was talking about. You might refer to the specific field the are technical terms in.

> You're confusing a screen with a guard or covering force.

Nah, likely a non-professional.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#429

Post by nradov »

remarkEon wrote: post #402
nradov wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual approach is to delegate the most complex technical work to defense contractors who can pay market rates (or close enough) to civilian employees. The military doesn't even want conscripts anymore. They have discipline problems, take too long to train, and don't stay long enough. Conscription stopped being relevant when technology became more important than numbers.

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.

Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?

#430

Post by nradov »

thriftwy wrote: post #417
zoomablemind wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...What happens if Putin is not insane? What happens if there were better diplomatic outcome to this situation that the war? There're no more what ifs. The madman was amassing the troops on the border for months, dismissing any possibilities of preparing an invasion. Then invaded, and openly blackmailed the rest of the world with a nuclear strike, all spreaded by his chief "diplomat". Present day russia as state pro…

Sanctions are not going to deter anyone from anything. Sanctions is anti-diplomacy. Why do you need troops if you're not going to amass those? Still does not mean that diplomacy can't be useful. The mental health argument is weird. Was Bush a madman when he invaded Iraq?

Diplomacy was tried and failed.

The point of sanctions isn't deterrence. It's to weaken the Russian economy and slow down the rate at which they can manufacture more weapons.

Post reply on HN