5 ms·

I'm not in any armed forces so I am clueless when it comes to this. Why do we still use tanks in modern times? They seem useless in anything urban. They are e

I'm not in any armed forces so I am clueless when it comes to this. Why do we still use tanks in modern times? They seem useless in anything urban. They are easy targets for aircraft and jawlines. They need support vehicles for fuel and ammo. The only positive thing I see is that they can traverse unpaved terrain. Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? Human lives cheaper than the tech required? They don't even need to be autonomous, just remote controlled.

periphrasis 5y ago
A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into a small essay: Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, very deadly for vehicles. Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk. As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by having both working together, they are able to compensate for the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire. The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for months/years than with people you met two weeks ago. I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles.
- xoa 5y ago
  Right, a key phrase here is "combined arms": nothing for capturing/holding at all on the modern battlefield combines speed, survivability, scale and effectiveness into a single package. It's all about each piece reinforcing the others, constantly making use of their own strengths and covering for the weaknesses of other pieces (and being covered in turn) and shifting to react to the opponents. Having all the various forces well trained together, with the autonomy to react fast to changing events at their own level, a good regular supply of information/theater oversight, and with a solid logistics chain behind them is vital. Without logistics, intel and trained, smooth combined arms effectiveness plummets no matter what else there is.
dragontamer 5y ago
> Why do we still use tanks in modern times? Because a 120mm gun blows everything up. 120mm guns can do things such as: 1. High-explosive rounds (Chemical Energy, or CE) -- 50lbs of high-explosives delivered to a target will kill almost anything, even if that "thing" is hiding behind a tree, concrete, or even behind tank-armor. 2. Discarding Sabot / Kinetic Energy rounds (KE for short) -- 50 lbs of depleted-uranium darts flying at Mach 1.6 destroys a lot of things, in ways that are complementary to #1. You can shoot through entire houses with these darts. 3. Canister rounds -- 50lbs of "shotgun pellets" can clear 500+ meters. Yes, an entire-football field can be covered by a *SINGULAR* "tank shotgun" blast. Kinetic-energy rounds travel faster but have higher-penetration at short-distances (because KE rounds have more room for explosives to "launch" the shell). However, KE-rounds are supersonic and therefore get hit by a lot of air-resistance/drag. CE-rounds in contrast, travel much slower, but pack a lot of "explosives" at the end of their shot. As such, CE-rounds start off with much less penetration (bad at short-distances), but can be lobbed 3000 meters and still have just as much deadliness (since most of the "damage" of CE-rounds comes from the explosive, air-resistance literally doesn't matter aside from being computationally-difficult to aim. But modern computers can compensate easily these days) --------- These are the three main-types of ammo that a 120mm gun uses (aka, a tank gun). Now some questions. 1. 120mm guns weigh something like 10-tons -- How do you move them? With a big engine. 2. But a big engine + the gun itself is a sitting duck against even a 50-cal sniper rifle. We should cover the engine + gun in armor, to protect the crew and equipment. 3. But armor weighs a lot (especially depleted uranium armor). So we need a *bigger* engine. But the bigger-engine needs more armor to protect it. Etc. etc. etc. Eventually, we end up putting a LOT of armor, to cover the HUGE engine and the HUGE gun all together. That's about it. You need tanks to destroy enemy bunkers (what else are you going to shoot? AT4 / Javelins? Those heavy and slow weapons only have 1 or 2 shots. Tanks have *40* shots, more than enough to overrun any bunker you come across). ------- Tanks are your biggest gun on the battlefield. They have armor as minor amounts of protection, not to actually be immune to enemies (though in practice, the armor is so thick they're immune to many smaller weapons). But the #1 purpose of any tank is to fire its big 120mm gun as often as possible on the front lines. Tank crews are __NOT__ used as "cover" or "shields" in the modern battlefield. They are just grounded large-gun platforms. ------- > They seem useless in anything urban. Wrong. Tanks are the only weapon large enough to damage enemy houses, bunkers, or other fortifications. If the enemy is hiding behind a concrete wall, the Tank-gun can shoot right *through* it and kill everyone on the other side. Buttoned up tanks don't know where the enemy is however. (Tanks have night-vision and thermal-vision sensors, but can only focus those sights on a narrow line of vision) Tank crews rely upon friendly infantry to search for enemies. Tanks have awful visibility, but their big-gun is unparalleled on the battlefield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ Turns out that in practical urban combat, a lot of enemies hide behind concrete walls. What exactly is your battle-plan for that? Tanks can provide air-burst (shoot over the wall, explode, rain fragments DOWN upon the enemy), or *THROUGH* the wall. Tanks are exceptionally flexible weapons.
chiph 5y ago
An armor officer can answer this better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 If you're watching the videos from Ukraine - the Russians are pretty much doing it all wrong. You do not send tanks into cities unless they're following infantry who are clearing houses & rooftops. You do not leave your tanks parked in a nice neat line on a country road. When your unit comes under fire, you do not just sit there. Why are the Russians doing these things when they know it's bad for their health? They don't have much of an NCO cadre. In a modern military, the NCOs have the experience and the authority to make sure stuff happens rapidly and correctly. They will have made sure the junior enlisted know how to operate and maintain their weapon & gear, and are able to do the mission without fucking up.
- deepsun 5y ago
  They move in lines because that's a mine-cleared path. And they move on roads at the north because other terrain is mud that even tanks get stuck on.
  - Taniwha 5y ago
    They're also sticking to higher roads in many areas because the fields around them have been flooded by the defenders
    - lupire 5y ago
      Are the tanks useful or should they just not bring tanks at all? Or are the tanks the best choice now because they utterly failed at preparing useful vehicles?
      - Taniwha 5y ago
        they shouldn't be there at all, I'm not going to provide advice on how they could be any more evil
      - topspin 5y ago
        Yes, tanks are useful; a well integrated force can use them to great effect. But Russia's military has no concept of how to do that. They're doomed whether they bring tanks or not. Putin is pulling Russian troops out of Syria[1], and obviously those troops are going to Ukraine. That's one of several signs that Russia is committed; they aren't going to stop. I expect to see large scale Russian mobilization soon, possibly starting in earnest on Monday with "victory" day. It's going to take between 1-2 months for that mobilization to yield men in the lines. By then much of the advanced heavy weaponry that Ukraine is receiving will be operational with trained crews and ample ammunition. The scale of Russian casualties will be catastrophic. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal...
smiley1437 5y ago
While tanks are still necessary, your observations are not wrong - the US Marine Corps decided to get rid of tanks fairly recently: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-... Quite prescient considering what we are seeing in Ukraine a couple years later with tanks being vulnerable especially when deployed so haphazardly by Russian Federation. Bottom line - war games in 2018 showed that tanks and other armored vehicles in-range of near-peer drones, Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) were quite vulnerable - exactly like we're seeing in Ukraine. There were other factors but the top marine decided no more tank battalions and greatly reduced artillery (among other changes). Instead, these divestitures will be replaced by: 1. Precision long range fires (Naval Strike Missile\Joint Strike Missile (NSM\JSM), and possibly Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA)) 2. Unmanned lethal air and ground systems. That tells you what the war games revealed as being effective in future combat.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Marines got rid of tanks because Marines are focusing on a China vs Taiwan hypothetical conflict, where tanks would be nearly useless. China vs Taiwan would be largely about establishing control of islands, and maybe a few beach-assaults. Tanks don't work well on sand, and the 80-ton M1 Abrams is too heavy to fit on an assault-boat. ------ US Army has constantly developed tanks (and anti-tank weapons) because the tank remains a major battlefield player in Europe (Hypothetical... no wait... the now real Russia vs Ukraine situation)
- derbOac 5y ago
  So it's all human ground personnel, missiles, and aircraft basically now (for land)?
- jmchuster 5y ago
  > The Corps says heavy ground armor will still be provided by the Army. That sounds more to me like the US Military decided it'd be more cost-efficient to only have the Army be responsible for tanks, and have the Marines be more focused on an amphibious role.
zokier 5y ago
I would argue that tanks have already been de-emphasized in western military doctrine from their heydays. That can be seen for example in programs like the M8 tank getting perpetually cancelled and instead more mobile platforms like Stryker getting preferred.
gherkinnn 5y ago
As others have put it, it isn’t about a tank’s vulnerabilities but its capabilities. A vital distinction. Horses were made (mostly) superfluous by lorries because the latter proved more capable. Humans are excessively vulnerable. Anything will put us out of action. And we’re expensive to replace too. But because there’s nothing more capable than a human at certain things, so we’re still expected to face flying pieces of metal. So far nothing can project force and hold terrain on land quite like a tank does. Javelin teams in buggies can’t. Neither can a drone. But a fast and protected box with a fearsome boomstick on one end does. Especially when used by well trained personnel and employed in a sane manner.
323 5y ago
> Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? They are working on that - remote controlled ground vehicle with customizable upper part, one option with a cannon turret, another option with launch tubes for suicide drones: https://inf.news/en/military/c1587c15c63e5b9801ebb4e49a7fe2f8.html https://inf.news/en/military/c1587c15c63e5b9801ebb4e49a7fe2f...
- nradov 5y ago
  Remote control isn't going to work reliably at any significant range in a hostile electromagnetic environment.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  AFAIK, the US military assumes that in combat with near-peers, the electromagnetic spectrum will be a battleground itself and units will not be able to use it. Everything must be able to operate offline, autonomously, and that includes soldiers who can't reach commanders for orders.
jltsiren 5y ago
As a layman with some interest in military history due to decades of playing strategy games: That sentiment has been popular since the Gulf War, at least. I think the public perception has been shaped by American doctrine. It emphasizes throwing massive amounts of money and technology at the enemy, in order to avoid casualties that could make the war unpopular at home. When the US goes to war, it tends to spend more money than the entire economy of the other side. If the war drags on, that level of spending may continue for years. Almost nobody else can afford that. Cheap(ish) drones and missiles have worked great for Ukraine in defense. However, Ukrainian forces have not had similar success in offensive operations. Ukraine continues asking for boring old-fashioned tanks and artillery, probably because their generals believe that can help them take back lost territory. They could probably achieve similar results with aircraft and precision munitions, but that would require outspending Russia, which is not happening even with all the military aid from the West. Tanks are still cost-effective, but they are also vulnerable. You can lower casualties by using less cost-effective weapons systems, but only if you are economically superior to the enemy and willing to spend the money. That option is out of the table if you are in an all-out war against an economic peer or a superior enemy.
- topspin 5y ago
  > Ukraine continues asking for boring old-fashioned tanks and artillery, probably because their generals believe that can help them take back lost territory. Ukraine has explicitly asked for Western aircraft, F-15s and F-16s in particular, and UAVs such as Reapers. Those requests were public knowledge 5 weeks ago. Ukraine's command believe tanks and artillery will conquer territory because that's actually happening on a daily basis, most recently around Kharkiv. They believe better artillery will enable offensive operations in late May or June, and they're correct. Right now Russia has an indirect firepower advantage they're using to advance slowly in Donbas. When that advantage vanishes because the enemy has longer range, more mobile and accurate weapons they will fold and territory will be ceded back to Ukraine.
  - jltsiren 5y ago
    In the short term, Russia has the military advantage. In the medium term, Ukraine will probably gain the advantage, but it's unclear if it will be sufficient to drive the Russian forces out quickly enough. Because in the long term, Ukrainian economy and infrastructure are collapsing, and they still have something like 35 million civilians to feed. Fossil fuels are particularly problematic. If Ukraine can't import energy from Russia, Belarus, or over the Black Sea, the only remaining choice is Europe. But Europe is facing a shortage of its own, because most countries are trying to phase out energy imports from Russia. If they can't buy enough for their own needs, they may not share enough with Ukraine.
chernevik 5y ago
> Why do we still use tanks in modern times? Actually not clear that we should be. The Ukraine experience is raising a lot of questions about the survivability of tanks against modern anti-tank missiles.

periphrasis 5y ago

A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into a small essay: Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, very deadly for vehicles. Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk. As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by having both working together, they are able to compensate for the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire. The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for months/years than with people you met two weeks ago. I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles.

xoa 5y ago
Right, a key phrase here is "combined arms": nothing for capturing/holding at all on the modern battlefield combines speed, survivability, scale and effectiveness into a single package. It's all about each piece reinforcing the others, constantly making use of their own strengths and covering for the weaknesses of other pieces (and being covered in turn) and shifting to react to the opponents. Having all the various forces well trained together, with the autonomy to react fast to changing events at their own level, a good regular supply of information/theater oversight, and with a solid logistics chain behind them is vital. Without logistics, intel and trained, smooth combined arms effectiveness plummets no matter what else there is.

dragontamer 5y ago

> Why do we still use tanks in modern times? Because a 120mm gun blows everything up. 120mm guns can do things such as: 1. High-explosive rounds (Chemical Energy, or CE) -- 50lbs of high-explosives delivered to a target will kill almost anything, even if that "thing" is hiding behind a tree, concrete, or even behind tank-armor. 2. Discarding Sabot / Kinetic Energy rounds (KE for short) -- 50 lbs of depleted-uranium darts flying at Mach 1.6 destroys a lot of things, in ways that are complementary to #1. You can shoot through entire houses with these darts. 3. Canister rounds -- 50lbs of "shotgun pellets" can clear 500+ meters. Yes, an entire-football field can be covered by a *SINGULAR* "tank shotgun" blast. Kinetic-energy rounds travel faster but have higher-penetration at short-distances (because KE rounds have more room for explosives to "launch" the shell). However, KE-rounds are supersonic and therefore get hit by a lot of air-resistance/drag. CE-rounds in contrast, travel much slower, but pack a lot of "explosives" at the end of their shot. As such, CE-rounds start off with much less penetration (bad at short-distances), but can be lobbed 3000 meters and still have just as much deadliness (since most of the "damage" of CE-rounds comes from the explosive, air-resistance literally doesn't matter aside from being computationally-difficult to aim. But modern computers can compensate easily these days) --------- These are the three main-types of ammo that a 120mm gun uses (aka, a tank gun). Now some questions. 1. 120mm guns weigh something like 10-tons -- How do you move them? With a big engine. 2. But a big engine + the gun itself is a sitting duck against even a 50-cal sniper rifle. We should cover the engine + gun in armor, to protect the crew and equipment. 3. But armor weighs a lot (especially depleted uranium armor). So we need a *bigger* engine. But the bigger-engine needs more armor to protect it. Etc. etc. etc. Eventually, we end up putting a LOT of armor, to cover the HUGE engine and the HUGE gun all together. That's about it. You need tanks to destroy enemy bunkers (what else are you going to shoot? AT4 / Javelins? Those heavy and slow weapons only have 1 or 2 shots. Tanks have *40* shots, more than enough to overrun any bunker you come across). ------- Tanks are your biggest gun on the battlefield. They have armor as minor amounts of protection, not to actually be immune to enemies (though in practice, the armor is so thick they're immune to many smaller weapons). But the #1 purpose of any tank is to fire its big 120mm gun as often as possible on the front lines. Tank crews are __NOT__ used as "cover" or "shields" in the modern battlefield. They are just grounded large-gun platforms. ------- > They seem useless in anything urban. Wrong. Tanks are the only weapon large enough to damage enemy houses, bunkers, or other fortifications. If the enemy is hiding behind a concrete wall, the Tank-gun can shoot right *through* it and kill everyone on the other side. Buttoned up tanks don't know where the enemy is however. (Tanks have night-vision and thermal-vision sensors, but can only focus those sights on a narrow line of vision) Tank crews rely upon friendly infantry to search for enemies. Tanks have awful visibility, but their big-gun is unparalleled on the battlefield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ Turns out that in practical urban combat, a lot of enemies hide behind concrete walls. What exactly is your battle-plan for that? Tanks can provide air-burst (shoot over the wall, explode, rain fragments DOWN upon the enemy), or *THROUGH* the wall. Tanks are exceptionally flexible weapons.

chiph 5y ago

An armor officer can answer this better than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 If you're watching the videos from Ukraine - the Russians are pretty much doing it all wrong. You do not send tanks into cities unless they're following infantry who are clearing houses & rooftops. You do not leave your tanks parked in a nice neat line on a country road. When your unit comes under fire, you do not just sit there. Why are the Russians doing these things when they know it's bad for their health? They don't have much of an NCO cadre. In a modern military, the NCOs have the experience and the authority to make sure stuff happens rapidly and correctly. They will have made sure the junior enlisted know how to operate and maintain their weapon & gear, and are able to do the mission without fucking up.

deepsun 5y ago
They move in lines because that's a mine-cleared path. And they move on roads at the north because other terrain is mud that even tanks get stuck on.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  They're also sticking to higher roads in many areas because the fields around them have been flooded by the defenders
  - lupire 5y ago
    Are the tanks useful or should they just not bring tanks at all? Or are the tanks the best choice now because they utterly failed at preparing useful vehicles?
    - Taniwha 5y ago
      they shouldn't be there at all, I'm not going to provide advice on how they could be any more evil
    - topspin 5y ago
      Yes, tanks are useful; a well integrated force can use them to great effect. But Russia's military has no concept of how to do that. They're doomed whether they bring tanks or not. Putin is pulling Russian troops out of Syria[1], and obviously those troops are going to Ukraine. That's one of several signs that Russia is committed; they aren't going to stop. I expect to see large scale Russian mobilization soon, possibly starting in earnest on Monday with "victory" day. It's going to take between 1-2 months for that mobilization to yield men in the lines. By then much of the advanced heavy weaponry that Ukraine is receiving will be operational with trained crews and ample ammunition. The scale of Russian casualties will be catastrophic. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/14/world/russia-syria-withdrawal...

smiley1437 5y ago

While tanks are still necessary, your observations are not wrong - the US Marine Corps decided to get rid of tanks fairly recently: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-... Quite prescient considering what we are seeing in Ukraine a couple years later with tanks being vulnerable especially when deployed so haphazardly by Russian Federation. Bottom line - war games in 2018 showed that tanks and other armored vehicles in-range of near-peer drones, Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) were quite vulnerable - exactly like we're seeing in Ukraine. There were other factors but the top marine decided no more tank battalions and greatly reduced artillery (among other changes). Instead, these divestitures will be replaced by: 1. Precision long range fires (Naval Strike Missile\Joint Strike Missile (NSM\JSM), and possibly Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA)) 2. Unmanned lethal air and ground systems. That tells you what the war games revealed as being effective in future combat.

dragontamer 5y ago
Marines got rid of tanks because Marines are focusing on a China vs Taiwan hypothetical conflict, where tanks would be nearly useless. China vs Taiwan would be largely about establishing control of islands, and maybe a few beach-assaults. Tanks don't work well on sand, and the 80-ton M1 Abrams is too heavy to fit on an assault-boat. ------ US Army has constantly developed tanks (and anti-tank weapons) because the tank remains a major battlefield player in Europe (Hypothetical... no wait... the now real Russia vs Ukraine situation)
derbOac 5y ago
So it's all human ground personnel, missiles, and aircraft basically now (for land)?
jmchuster 5y ago
> The Corps says heavy ground armor will still be provided by the Army. That sounds more to me like the US Military decided it'd be more cost-efficient to only have the Army be responsible for tanks, and have the Marines be more focused on an amphibious role.

zokier 5y ago

I would argue that tanks have already been de-emphasized in western military doctrine from their heydays. That can be seen for example in programs like the M8 tank getting perpetually cancelled and instead more mobile platforms like Stryker getting preferred.

gherkinnn 5y ago

As others have put it, it isn’t about a tank’s vulnerabilities but its capabilities. A vital distinction. Horses were made (mostly) superfluous by lorries because the latter proved more capable. Humans are excessively vulnerable. Anything will put us out of action. And we’re expensive to replace too. But because there’s nothing more capable than a human at certain things, so we’re still expected to face flying pieces of metal. So far nothing can project force and hold terrain on land quite like a tank does. Javelin teams in buggies can’t. Neither can a drone. But a fast and protected box with a fearsome boomstick on one end does. Especially when used by well trained personnel and employed in a sane manner.

323 5y ago

> Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? They are working on that - remote controlled ground vehicle with customizable upper part, one option with a cannon turret, another option with launch tubes for suicide drones: https://inf.news/en/military/c1587c15c63e5b9801ebb4e49a7fe2f8.html https://inf.news/en/military/c1587c15c63e5b9801ebb4e49a7fe2f...

nradov 5y ago
Remote control isn't going to work reliably at any significant range in a hostile electromagnetic environment.
wolverine876 5y ago
AFAIK, the US military assumes that in combat with near-peers, the electromagnetic spectrum will be a battleground itself and units will not be able to use it. Everything must be able to operate offline, autonomously, and that includes soldiers who can't reach commanders for orders.

jltsiren 5y ago

As a layman with some interest in military history due to decades of playing strategy games: That sentiment has been popular since the Gulf War, at least. I think the public perception has been shaped by American doctrine. It emphasizes throwing massive amounts of money and technology at the enemy, in order to avoid casualties that could make the war unpopular at home. When the US goes to war, it tends to spend more money than the entire economy of the other side. If the war drags on, that level of spending may continue for years. Almost nobody else can afford that. Cheap(ish) drones and missiles have worked great for Ukraine in defense. However, Ukrainian forces have not had similar success in offensive operations. Ukraine continues asking for boring old-fashioned tanks and artillery, probably because their generals believe that can help them take back lost territory. They could probably achieve similar results with aircraft and precision munitions, but that would require outspending Russia, which is not happening even with all the military aid from the West. Tanks are still cost-effective, but they are also vulnerable. You can lower casualties by using less cost-effective weapons systems, but only if you are economically superior to the enemy and willing to spend the money. That option is out of the table if you are in an all-out war against an economic peer or a superior enemy.

topspin 5y ago
> Ukraine continues asking for boring old-fashioned tanks and artillery, probably because their generals believe that can help them take back lost territory. Ukraine has explicitly asked for Western aircraft, F-15s and F-16s in particular, and UAVs such as Reapers. Those requests were public knowledge 5 weeks ago. Ukraine's command believe tanks and artillery will conquer territory because that's actually happening on a daily basis, most recently around Kharkiv. They believe better artillery will enable offensive operations in late May or June, and they're correct. Right now Russia has an indirect firepower advantage they're using to advance slowly in Donbas. When that advantage vanishes because the enemy has longer range, more mobile and accurate weapons they will fold and territory will be ceded back to Ukraine.
- jltsiren 5y ago
  In the short term, Russia has the military advantage. In the medium term, Ukraine will probably gain the advantage, but it's unclear if it will be sufficient to drive the Russian forces out quickly enough. Because in the long term, Ukrainian economy and infrastructure are collapsing, and they still have something like 35 million civilians to feed. Fossil fuels are particularly problematic. If Ukraine can't import energy from Russia, Belarus, or over the Black Sea, the only remaining choice is Europe. But Europe is facing a shortage of its own, because most countries are trying to phase out energy imports from Russia. If they can't buy enough for their own needs, they may not share enough with Ukraine.

chernevik 5y ago

> Why do we still use tanks in modern times? Actually not clear that we should be. The Ukraine experience is raising a lot of questions about the survivability of tanks against modern anti-tank missiles.