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

71–80 of 282 posts

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

#71

Post by formerly_proven »

ejolto wrote: post #59
dreen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these articles seem to mention WHY the tanks are designed this way (although I admit I just searched for keywords). As far as I know, it is because the current gen of Russian tanks were designed for how they envisioned WW3 40 years ago [1]. Basically the tanks would follow nuclear strikes, and making humans load the ammunition would make them die a lot quicker from radiation, so they made an autoloader. [1] h…

How does loading ammunition make humans die quicker from radiation?

It doesn't, the autoloader is right in the crew compartment (which is the whole problem with munition cook offs killing the crew and ejecting the turret). The thing that keeps NBC out while the breech is open for loading is positive air pressure inside the tank.

This argument only makes sense if the turret is entirely unmanned.

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

#72

Post by Pelic4n »

csours wrote: post #6

Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q Chieftain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 Bernard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite…

$4M tanks are defeated by a $40K NLAW. Much like cuirassiers cavalry who were rendered obsolete by muskets becoming rifles with increased penetration, it's not because tanks don't works, it's because it's so cheap to kill one and so expensive to make one.

Until very recently, 2 guys hiding in a bush couldn't kill a tank, you needed a predator drone, an helicopter or some other advanced system requiring heavy logistics. Now behind every bush and every road corner is a potential enemy able to defeat you. With >90% kill ratio for javelins, the tanks needs to be lucky for weeks on end to survive, and the ATGM needs to be lucky only once.

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

#73

Post by dreen »

ejolto wrote: post #59
dreen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these articles seem to mention WHY the tanks are designed this way (although I admit I just searched for keywords). As far as I know, it is because the current gen of Russian tanks were designed for how they envisioned WW3 40 years ago [1]. Basically the tanks would follow nuclear strikes, and making humans load the ammunition would make them die a lot quicker from radiation, so they made an autoloader. [1] h…

How does loading ammunition make humans die quicker from radiation?

The article I read it in (in independent Polish press, cannot find it now) said physical exertion makes you more susceptible to radiation, and cited figures around the weight of shells which are apparently quite heavy.

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

#74

Post by simion314 »

zteppenwolf wrote: post #38
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike in Russia, there is no singular "media" in the west. There are "western media s ", plural, and you have the luxury of choosing your bias. There are plenty of idiots in the west who will sell you re-furbished Russian propaganda, if that's what you want. (Is CNN stupid? Yes, it is, it's the same crap hysterical entertainment-news it has always been, mostly laughable to non-Americans and Americans alike. But ther…

Quoted post unavailable.

>Do you understand that what you are saying makes no sense? The general western media follows a coordinate coverage and provides basically different versions of the same content.

This is your authoritarian thinking, at least in Europe there are political parties that are kissing Putin's ass hard and deep, so there are groups that have media control that you can chose to follow. But even those can't pretend that the reality before their eyes is fake and instead try different tactics,

The Russian trol army is as pathetic as their real army, those destroyed tanks are real so you need some other bullshit excuse then west propaganda, I seen more competent trolls blaming NATO, Putin should ask you for a refund, then give you his favorite tea, really low quality trolling.

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

#75

Post by irrational »

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…

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

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

#76

Post by dghlsakjg »

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.

Maybe the f-22, although that isn’t in production anymore

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

#77

Post by Narretz »

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…

The second gulf war started almost 20 years ago. Surely you can't use it as an example when anti tank weapons have progressed so much in that time.

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

#78

Post by lm28469 »

zteppenwolf wrote: post #70
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "general western media" in this era, because coverage is no longer centralized. There are dominant ideologies, which the "western media" reflects because the population has that bias already . You can stare at CNN or MSNBC and see a bias, of course. They largely repeat Pentagon or White House talking points. But that is no longer where people get the bulk of their information. Spend 20 minutes clicking th…

You can't justify the lack of commitment to truth with "its the bias of the population". First of all: its not. Its the bias of the media itself; however, the population often manifests much richer judgement than simply reducing this complicated struggle to "good vs evil". And even if it was: the media should impartially cover events. It should not manipulate numbers in favor of cherry picked narratives. edit replyin…

Good luck impartially covering world events, the mere action of choosing to talk about an event is already biased. There are more "events" in a day than you could cover in a year worth of journalism

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

#79

Post by thriftwy »

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.

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

#80

Post by swader999 »

zip1234 wrote: post #36
hef19898 wrote: post #29

>> The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver. Doctrine and training are paramount, together with command and control that's what enabled the early German successes in WW1. And in the case of France a ton of luck. The article asks the right question: is the role of the tank still needed? A Javelin neutralizes a tank, under the right conditions, it doesn't replace it.

I saw some tanker on twitter explaining just how bad the Russian tactics with their tanks are. Poor training, poor logistics, and undermanned. Tanks get such poor gas mileage that they need tons of support. Extremely effective weapons when used properly but clearly Russia is not doing that.

On the note of logistics, the turrrets on these lose their rifling after a few hundred rounds, they need to be replaced in field after this or they just become much less precise. Same with artillery.
Post reply on HN