5 ms·

Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable be

by ufmace 4y ago

Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate support. They'll blast anything in their path and charge right through all but the toughest and most concentrated defenses. As long as you can see those really concentrated defenses in advance and go around, they're pretty tough to stop.

thereisnospork 4y ago
> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun. *as we are seeing in Ukraine.
- baud147258 4y ago
  > What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
  - tlear 4y ago
    I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it? I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo. There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?
    - lmm 4y ago
      > Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there? Well they can carry their own Stugna or Javelin. Isn't that an argument for more dismounted infantry, not less?
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        I don't think they work on people.
        fractallyte 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 [Ukrainian Stugna-P ATGM strike on Russian troops] Warning: combat footage, people die...
    - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
      APS protects against ATGM, not cannon fire.
      - tlear 4y ago
        Well that is the big question, is it worth trying to protect from kinetic penetrator or not.
- trashtester 4y ago
  T-72's are 50 year old tanks. It's like fielding WW1 tanks in the Vietnam war. A T-72 is both easy to detect and easy to kill for someone with a Javelin, while the Javelin-man is hard to detect and non-trival to kill (at range) with the T-72. The arms race between protective equiment (armor, shields, etc) and anti-armor weapons has been going on for over a thousand years, arguably longer (like when Roman pila would get stuck in enemy sheilds, making the shields useless, even if the pilum didn't kill the enemy soldier). In our current age, the previous generation of tanks has been made obsolete by ATGM, just like Cuirassiers were obsolete at the outbreak of WW1 and WW1 tanks were obsolete at the outbreak of WW2. Modern tanks with state-of-the art sensors and APS are much better protected against ATGM's. While still not the ideal platform for use against anti-tank weapons, at least they don't get slaughtered on first contact. If the enemy has a high concentration of ATGM armed infantry in an area, it's probably better to take them out with infantry, artillery and/or aircraft. Given the cost of ATGM's, this is cost-efficient. And if the ATGM's are spread out, a tank formation with good protection systems can affort to smash through, even if it comes at the cost of a few casualties, to maintain momentum.
  - mediumsmart 4y ago
    Maybe HQ could triangulate the javelin man when he is googling "Javelin makes strange noises" or "Javelin not functioning" on his smartphone. And then give the coordinates to the tank crew to even the odds a little.
29athrowaway 4y ago
Occasionally, weapons make a comeback. Like the turtle ships of Admiral Yi Sun-sin.
latch 4y ago
There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, despite being the best at its job, it still wasn't good enough. As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-Bush-(CVN-77)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970663 https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated. Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).

by ufmace 4y ago

thereisnospork 4y ago

> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun. *as we are seeing in Ukraine.

baud147258 4y ago
> What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
- tlear 4y ago
  I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it? I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo. There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there? Well they can carry their own Stugna or Javelin. Isn't that an argument for more dismounted infantry, not less?
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I don't think they work on people.
      - fractallyte 4y ago
        https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1534472563681812482 [Ukrainian Stugna-P ATGM strike on Russian troops] Warning: combat footage, people die...
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
    APS protects against ATGM, not cannon fire.
    - tlear 4y ago
      Well that is the big question, is it worth trying to protect from kinetic penetrator or not.
trashtester 4y ago
T-72's are 50 year old tanks. It's like fielding WW1 tanks in the Vietnam war. A T-72 is both easy to detect and easy to kill for someone with a Javelin, while the Javelin-man is hard to detect and non-trival to kill (at range) with the T-72. The arms race between protective equiment (armor, shields, etc) and anti-armor weapons has been going on for over a thousand years, arguably longer (like when Roman pila would get stuck in enemy sheilds, making the shields useless, even if the pilum didn't kill the enemy soldier). In our current age, the previous generation of tanks has been made obsolete by ATGM, just like Cuirassiers were obsolete at the outbreak of WW1 and WW1 tanks were obsolete at the outbreak of WW2. Modern tanks with state-of-the art sensors and APS are much better protected against ATGM's. While still not the ideal platform for use against anti-tank weapons, at least they don't get slaughtered on first contact. If the enemy has a high concentration of ATGM armed infantry in an area, it's probably better to take them out with infantry, artillery and/or aircraft. Given the cost of ATGM's, this is cost-efficient. And if the ATGM's are spread out, a tank formation with good protection systems can affort to smash through, even if it comes at the cost of a few casualties, to maintain momentum.
- mediumsmart 4y ago
  Maybe HQ could triangulate the javelin man when he is googling "Javelin makes strange noises" or "Javelin not functioning" on his smartphone. And then give the coordinates to the tank crew to even the odds a little.

29athrowaway 4y ago

Occasionally, weapons make a comeback. Like the turtle ships of Admiral Yi Sun-sin.

latch 4y ago

There must have been _some_ intersections of time/technology and/or cost/efficiency where this didn't hold? Where a weapon system became _so_ vulnerable that, despite being the best at its job, it still wasn't good enough. As an example, is there a point where hypersonic weapons become so effective that aircraft carriers are [temporarily?] retired? Surely the cost (time, money, human lives) that goes into the weapon system is part of the equation.

dotancohen 4y ago
With Russia fielding hypersonic weapons now, could you imagine if they threaten the US with "Send arms to Ukraine, we sink your aircraft carriers"? In that sense, hypersonic missiles may replace much more costly to maintain and much harder to deploy nuclear weapons. In fact, it looks like the US has 11 active aircraft carriers [1]. It seems that they are all near port right now [2], this might be the reason. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_t... [2] https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-Bush-(CVN-77)/CURRENT-POSITION/1/369970663 https://www.marinevesseltraffic.com/vessels/USS-George-H.W.-...
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Still don't understand the value proposition. Mobile air support is pretty important but supersonic missiles and modern submarines could sink or severely damage an aircraft carrier. Perhaps a sub getting away again would be almost impossible but the damage of the carrier would be much more costly, worst case you also lose all the planes. So I would place them in shallow waters near ports too...
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    My naive understanding is that carriers are not designed for use in conflicts where your enemies are those who can develop hypersonic missiles. Think about Iraq / Afghanistan; the carriers sitting nearby provided support for the invasion. They could easily stay far enough away that they don't have to worry about their safety because their opposition military was not very sophisticated. Simple: carriers are for power projection against weaker enemies with low tech militaries. Thus their vulnerability against high tech miliraries is a moot point since wars between high tech powers == World war == unlikely (hopefully).