Hacker News Reader

Comment by Avalaxy | Hacker News Reader

Are tanks the new battleship? It seems to me that the heavily armored, heavily armed, slow vehicles are no longer a match for the fast-paced and dynamic modern warfare. They are sitting ducks for attack helicopters, jets and well-coordinated infantry teams.

Interesting read by the way. It's crazy to see what sort of smart inventions are created in this arms race between David and Goliath.

View on HN

Yes and no. I'd argue that just because there are good counters to a particular weapon system doesn't necessarily mean the system is obsolete: jets aren't made obsolete by SAMs for example. It will change the dynamic, though. The US seems to bank on achieving air superiority, so the vast majority of helicopters or jets would be intercepted. The other option, favored by Soviet doctrine, is to have lots of short range air defense vehicles deployed alongside the tanks. As for infantry teams or ATGM-equipped vehicles, there are options. You've got active protection systems, which could develop all the way to some sort of mini-CIWS. But there's also a question of targeting. Sure, those ATGMs can engage tanks at 8+km, but you need to find and target the tank first. I think you'll start to see a cat-and-mouse game: vehicle stealth, better optics and sensors, active radar, ISR teams and drones, anti-UAV weapons, etc. I think tanks will still play a major role, but that role may shift and they will likely need to work in tandem with other vehicles.

Actually, on that note I think in the next decade we'll see work on developing unmanned tanks, which I personally think will be a major game changer. A large portion of the internal volume of a tank is for the crew. Remove the crew and you can significantly reduce the volume of the tank, reducing the surface area, so you can provide the same amount of protection with much less armor by weight. You can get an unmanned vehicle with the same armor and firepower of a main battle tank with half the weight and significantly reduced size. There would be some trade offs (an unmanned system will necessarily have worse situational awareness, so the tank would probably need to operate alongside infantry teams or a manned vehicle) but I think that will help keep tanks on the battlefield for decades to come

>unmanned tanks

The Russian T14 Armata[1] is a strong nod in that direction. The turret is unmanned and fully automatic; the crew of 3 is hosted in a well protected capsule in the front hull.

This ensures both low top weight & visibility, just as well as improved survivability for the crew.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

Very true, Soviet (and now Russian) doctrine has long prioritized a lower weight and size. The Soviets were (I believe) the first to use an automatic loader for the gun to reduce the crew size from 4 to 3, and thus reduce the tank's size and weight. Soviet tanks are consistently in the 45 ton range as a result, while Western tanks tend to be over 60 tons, and tend to lack autoloaders (a notable exception is the French Leclerc). Soviet doctrine called for tanks to be smaller to present a smaller target, and provide better operational mobility. For example, there were many bridges in Warsaw pact countries designed so that a T-72 tank could cross, but a heavier Western tank would cause the bridge to collapse. Western doctrine, on the other hand, tends to eschew the idea of an autoloader for a variety of reasons. Historically, the problems with an autoloader are reduced survivability (having all the tank rounds together in a carousel or conveyor system means if the tank is penetrated all the rounds could cook off and kill everyone) and I believe earlier autoloaders offered worse performance than a skilled human loaders. Autoloaders have since improved in performance and survivability, but the other reason Western doctrine has discouraged the idea of using an autoloader is the reduced situational awareness from losing a crew member. Whenever the loader isn't actually loading, they are an extra pair of eyes that can be looking for targets or potential threats. There's a decent explanation of all this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E

I think that will be the biggest challenge with unmanned armored vehicles, the reduced situational awareness. You can put all the cameras you want on the tops of the tank, a remote operator will have to deal with the limited bandwidth (can't have full 60fps 4K resolution in 360 degrees simultaneously on a satellite link) and increased latency. At first this can be helped by using it as a fire support vehicle for infantry, where the infantry can be their eyes and ears. Eventually there can be enhanced automation to help reduce the workload of remote operators (not automatically firing, but having the system continuously scan around it and tracking the movement of all visible people and vehicles so the operator doesn't have to) and fusing that data with that of other tanks and even UAVs overhead.

Swedish S tank had an autoloader, which came out a few years before the first T-72.

Keith Laumer did some interesting takes on this in his Bolo stories.

A M1A2 main battle tank can travel at 40mph or 30mph offroad. If you know where one is and then lose track it can be 600 miles away from where you thought it was within 24 hours. If you saw the tank in Paris it could show up as far away as Prague or Madrid the next day.

They aren't that slow.

1000km (600m) is a long way to go in a metal box. And you’d need to carry fuel, spare parts, and ammo. Tanks are vulnerable without infantry, so better have them there too. Tracks are very inefficient (and can tear up roads), so it’s better to load them on to trains or lorries.

It’s not just a tank. It’s all the logistics that go in to supporting one.

One of SOE's achievements around D-Day was introducing abrasive materials into the axle bearings of the trank transporters for the SS Das Reich division - they were stationed in the south of France and had to try to make their own way there rather than using transporters - which fortunately didn't go well.

An entire division of experienced and well equipped troops pretty much neutralised with some gritty powder in the right places....

A tank is not just the individual tank like it was in ww1 - its the complete weapon system plus its supporting arms

Um I suspect that's the official speed the actual speed would be classified I know people who where passed by chieftains on Salisbury plain going >50mph in the 70's

With the M1A2 engine governor removed, speeds of around 60 mph (97 km/h) are possible on an improved surface; however, damage to the drivetrain (especially to the tracks) and an increased risk of injuries to the crew can occur at speeds above 45 mph (72 km/h).

But what is the MTBF? What is the chance that a unit can keep all of its tanks running without stopping for 600 miles?

Helicopters are a bit fragile and don't forget that tanks will engage at 1k plus yards.

Using tanks for COIN and FIBU is quite different

But those are the only types of war now!

Do I have to quote the line about preparing for the last war - you cant assume that there will never be a nearpear /pear fight

> tanks will engage at 1k plus yards

More like 3 km. They've had kills out to 4 km.

COIN = counter-insurgency?

FIBU = ?

FIBUA = Fighting In Built-up Areas

Apparently that's the official British Army term. The unofficial term is FISH, which stands for Fighting In Someone's House.

Should also be called a war crime.

Opps I should have said - its also known as Fish And Chips in the UK.

Fighting In Someone's House, and Causing Havoc In Public Spaces.

Fighting In Built Up areas?

APS has given tanks a new lease on life. Not sure whether it would work against aerial threats/projectiles though.

A case has been made for lightly armoured vehicles (like the Jackal) to be fitted sith TOWs and Javelins.

It would run circles around any MBT, easier to maintain, and cheaper.

Not that I would want to sit in an urban ambush, but as a tank killer, why not?

You're thinking of infantry fighting vehicles. During the first Gulf War M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi tanks than Coalition tanks did.

> It would run circles around any MBT, easier to maintain, and cheaper.

That's the idea, but in practice lightly armored IFVs were too vulnerable to guerrilla warfare tactics or technicals, so they have mostly evolved to be more like tanks or in some cases literally based on tank chassis.

I mean even lighter than IFVs. Literally something like a Jackal (MWMIK).

War is Boring, The War Nerd or some other outlet expanded upon this idea a few years back. Based on long range desert patrols used by the Brits in WW2, later in Oman, and then in the Gulf Wars. Only works in mostly symmetrical theatres and in specific environments. Hunting Desert Foxes for example.

> too vulnerable to guerrilla warfare tactics or technicals

Yes. Probably not for clearing a Baghdad street. Of course, some genius will apply the same tactics to Urban areas. Because it's cheap and readily available. And see his soldiers shredded. A bit like the Land Rover Snatch.

(literally a story about how a light personnel carrier became a pseudo-MBT)

A well trained tank crew in a modern tank that is part of a layered defense or offense is going to be a useful tool for a very long time.

Remove any one of those components, and tanks are sitting ducks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com