6 ms·

That is a take I see often on Twitter and HN but actual military experts tend to disagree [0]. The truth is the tank was never meant to be invulnerable piece o

That is a take I see often on Twitter and HN but actual military experts tend to disagree [0]. The truth is the tank was never meant to be invulnerable piece of military hardware but one that can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet and will continue to be used. [0] https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-and-other-observations-about-the-future-of-combat/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/the-tank-is-not-obsolete-a...

chrisseaton 4y ago
> can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet But an AFV can do this.
- gigaflop 4y ago
  A modern tank can measure its weapon range in kilometers, and explosive shells can be used to destroy buildings or other cover. In my opinion, AFVs are better suited for situations where speed is more important than the absolute firepower of a tank.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  Its not comparable, a tanks armor and main gun are several classes above.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    ...and several classes heavier, more expensive, harder to disperse, harder to hide... I (like a lot of people) don't see it adding up at the moment and are interested where they'll have to develop to add up again. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial opinion amongst experts?
    - greedo 4y ago
      Actually, (comparing an M1 vs an M2 Bradley), IFVs are often equal or larger than tanks. Israeli IFVs are often built from Merkava chassis (into Namer). And in this day and age of surveillance, both vehicles are easily spotted by UAVs etc. Most experts actually believe that tanks are still valuable and that Russia's army is using them like idiots.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        They are valuable - but some people with a well-informed opinion like myself, are interested in how valuable they are and how they're going to stay valuable as a core part of a division.
- breischl 4y ago
  But... a tank _is an_ AFV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle You may have meant an IFV, and in some cases those work. But that's like saying that a rifle and a machine gun both shoot bullets, so why would you want a machine gun?
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Any AFV can do it - it doesn’t need to be a tank for what the person I was replying to said they thought they needed. https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoured-vehicles-and-tanks https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoure... Yeah many AFV are undergunned compared to a tank, and we can always want more firepower and more armour, but trade-off on support and things like that starts to break down. The point is if you say you want ‘protected mobility and direct fire to support infantry’ then you don’t need a tank, you just need any AFV. People normally want tanks for anti-tank - well that may well be better done by infantry for the foreseeable future - and for shock action, but that doesn’t seem to work brilliantly in the current environment either as in most environments it’s going to be the tank getting the shock not you.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion... Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability. I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
- balderdash 4y ago
  To the extent you meant IFV, while they are largely impervious to small arms fire, they are susceptible to heavy machine gun fire (especially if directed at anything others than the front arc of the vehicle)…
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
CamperBob2 4y ago
Who uses small-arms fire against tanks? I'm sure tanks can withstand arrows and crossbow bolts too, but that won't help in an environment where the enemy has a healthy supply of Javelins. When your weapon costs >10x more than the weapon needed to eliminate it with near-100% certainty, your weapon is obsolete. Tanks for the memories.
- DeWilde 4y ago
  Nobody will use small-arms against a tank because it has no effect. That is the point. Humans are also vulnerable to bullets yet we still use them on the battlefield. Cost of bullet vs human is probably a bit more than 10x. There are no perfect weapons, tanks are vulnerable to ATGMs but if used correctly will overrun an ATGM positions. Ita a game of rock papper sciscors but with more than three options :D.
- newsclues 4y ago
  People (insurgents) who lack RPGs and other ATGMs. There are cases within the the last few years such as the siege of Marawi where small arms attacking armoured vehicles sensors disabled the vehicles.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> can withstand small and medium calibre arms and shrapnel/fragmentation while also delivering direct fire to a front line location. In that regard there is nothing that can replace it yet But an AFV can do this.

gigaflop 4y ago
A modern tank can measure its weapon range in kilometers, and explosive shells can be used to destroy buildings or other cover. In my opinion, AFVs are better suited for situations where speed is more important than the absolute firepower of a tank.
DeWilde 4y ago
Its not comparable, a tanks armor and main gun are several classes above.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  ...and several classes heavier, more expensive, harder to disperse, harder to hide... I (like a lot of people) don't see it adding up at the moment and are interested where they'll have to develop to add up again. I don't think that's even a particularly controversial opinion amongst experts?
  - greedo 4y ago
    Actually, (comparing an M1 vs an M2 Bradley), IFVs are often equal or larger than tanks. Israeli IFVs are often built from Merkava chassis (into Namer). And in this day and age of surveillance, both vehicles are easily spotted by UAVs etc. Most experts actually believe that tanks are still valuable and that Russia's army is using them like idiots.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      They are valuable - but some people with a well-informed opinion like myself, are interested in how valuable they are and how they're going to stay valuable as a core part of a division.
breischl 4y ago
But... a tank _is an_ AFV. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle You may have meant an IFV, and in some cases those work. But that's like saying that a rifle and a machine gun both shoot bullets, so why would you want a machine gun?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Any AFV can do it - it doesn’t need to be a tank for what the person I was replying to said they thought they needed. https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoured-vehicles-and-tanks https://www.forces.net/news/whats-difference-between-armoure... Yeah many AFV are undergunned compared to a tank, and we can always want more firepower and more armour, but trade-off on support and things like that starts to break down. The point is if you say you want ‘protected mobility and direct fire to support infantry’ then you don’t need a tank, you just need any AFV. People normally want tanks for anti-tank - well that may well be better done by infantry for the foreseeable future - and for shock action, but that doesn’t seem to work brilliantly in the current environment either as in most environments it’s going to be the tank getting the shock not you.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    What critique of tanks on the modern battlefield doesn't also apply to any other armored vehicle? The same weaknesses and weapons apply to all of them, and the payloads, troop carrier, big gun, etc, can also be supplied by other means if that works out. So I can't see why distinguishing tanks, AFVs, and IFVs helps this discussion... Anti-tank can't be the only role for anti-tank, by the way, or they never would have been invented. I don't buy that line of argument at all.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Most AFV have some kind of integral infantry support (literally in the back) while a tank needs to be battle-teamed to do that. Battle-teaming is hard to do because inevitably the two vehicles don’t quite match capability. I didn't say tanks only did anti-tank - I said they also do shock action. It's the only reason they exist in that it's the only thing that they are needed for that you couldn't do with another AFV.
balderdash 4y ago
To the extent you meant IFV, while they are largely impervious to small arms fire, they are susceptible to heavy machine gun fire (especially if directed at anything others than the front arc of the vehicle)…
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

CamperBob2 4y ago

Who uses small-arms fire against tanks? I'm sure tanks can withstand arrows and crossbow bolts too, but that won't help in an environment where the enemy has a healthy supply of Javelins. When your weapon costs >10x more than the weapon needed to eliminate it with near-100% certainty, your weapon is obsolete. Tanks for the memories.

DeWilde 4y ago
Nobody will use small-arms against a tank because it has no effect. That is the point. Humans are also vulnerable to bullets yet we still use them on the battlefield. Cost of bullet vs human is probably a bit more than 10x. There are no perfect weapons, tanks are vulnerable to ATGMs but if used correctly will overrun an ATGM positions. Ita a game of rock papper sciscors but with more than three options :D.
newsclues 4y ago
People (insurgents) who lack RPGs and other ATGMs. There are cases within the the last few years such as the siege of Marawi where small arms attacking armoured vehicles sensors disabled the vehicles.