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

81–90 of 282 posts

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

#81

Post by fork1 »

hef19898 wrote: post #43
zip1234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thr Turkish army lost a couple of top of the line Leopard 2s in Syria some years ago for the exact same reason: lack of infantry support. Seems that the "West", spearheaded by the US, has the most experienced military in the world at the moment. 20 years of counter insurgency warfare and some more conventional wars before that seriously helped a lot. Just how much is at display in Ukraine, first by the, so far, Russi…

There is an issue with that, being efficient in conter insurgency warfare doesn't necessarily translate into High Intensity warfare. Infantry support for armor is one, but things like maneuvers, operating under contested skies, EW, etc. When were NATO troops under heavy sustained artillery barrages?

I m quite impressed by the attrition in both troops, ammo, and material. More than Wunderwaffen, i think the lesson is more in trained personel reserves, as well as stockpiles.

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

#82

Post by simonh »

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.

In the west we have access to all the media, from pretty much everybody. I don't follow it much these days, but for example Al Jazeera was a useful source during the Gulf War. You can still get RT if you want to, and their reporting is actually covered in western media too. Back when I was a student in the 80s you used to be able to get the English Language edition of Pravda at a local news agents.

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

#83

Post by inglor »

Lots of outdated information here. I served in the IDF on something related and (obviously) can't disclose anything of military importance but do you really think for the last 16 years tank armor hasn't gotten (much) better to deal with these threats?

Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn't have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin?

The tank is not dead (well, not any more than large tank charges are probably dead and ww2 style combat is dead? We likely won't see anything like in desert storm or the Yom Kippur war again).

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

#84

Post by swader999 »

zip1234 wrote: post #31
pirate787 wrote: post #13

The truly obsolete weapons platform is the $1.2 trillion manned F-35 program. A multi-role fighter that is too expensive to fly in this new combat space and cannot survive the multitude of anti-air missiles. The drone air war is a numbers game and unmanned fighters are both cheaper and have better operational specs.

F-35 would do exceptionally well in this conflict. It is designed for contested airspace.

Let's hope we don't find out for real.

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

#85

Post by mcv »

zteppenwolf wrote: post #16
formerly_proven wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum... > This bs from western media has no commitment to truth Western media tends to use Ukrainian claims, generally saying so.

Quoted post unavailable.

That's more the state of Russian media. They're not even allowed to call this a war.

Obviously Ukrainian news is also biased, but so far, it seems to be a lot more rooted in truth than anything from the Russian media. And Ukrainians do excel at grassroots propaganda in ways nobody in the west has ever done.

But many western media seem to be doing a pretty good job of distilling the truth from these reports. Not all obviously, but good journalism absolutely does exist.

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

#86

Post by fork1 »

swader999 wrote: post #80
zip1234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do not know for tanks, but for artillery, it tends to be much higher (few thousands) It is quite variable depending on if you re firing full charges, firing when the tube is hot, etc.

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

#88

Post by usrbinbash »

mothsonasloth wrote: post #19

I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle) Or my sci-fi'ish theory of a "drone tank" Why? * Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low…

> I think we will see the tanks in future battlefields still but rather than cannons they will be using more electronic warfare and will be providing indirect fire with "smart" weapons.

But why would such capabilities need to be installed on the heavy chassis of a tank?

Electronic warfare and smart weaponry benefit alot from mobility and redundant systems that can operate even when front-line-logistics are interrupted. Tanks offer neither, they are slow, hard to repair, and burn fuel like noones business.

The only advantage a tank offers is, well, being tank-y, and as modern ATGM systems have demonstrated in Ukraine, that advantage isn't what it used to be.

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

#89

Post by inglor »

Narretz wrote: post #77
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.

The problem with this logic is both that Russia's tank building philosophy is very different than the US's (or Israel's) and that tanks and defensive systems have also improved (significantly) in the last 20 years but the article glosses over that and uses a conflict from 16 years ago and the Ukraine invasion as "proof" that Javelins can kill modern tanks.

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

#90

Post by metadat »

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.

Yes, the Warcraft II and III tank units get scrapped real quick if you don't protect them!
Post reply on HN