TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

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

111 点作者 therealchiggs大约 3 年前

23 条评论

simonh大约 3 年前
The tank isn&#x27;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.<p>Lighter wheeled gun armed vehicles can be cheaper, but they don&#x27;t have the survivability. They also can&#x27;t go everywhere a tracked tank can go, such as jungle busting or just driving right through many kinds of buildings or cover. Missile have much longer flight times to target than gun rounds. A tank can move into position, fire, destroy it&#x27;s target and be back in cover before a missile gets anywhere near it&#x27;s target. The missiles are also vastly more expensive than tank rounds.<p>Yes tanks are vulnerable when not properly integrated with air support, artillery and infantry. They&#x27;re still a lot more survivable than pretty much anything else that can provide the same capabilities though. One tank in the second Gulf War shrugged off 14 RPG hits, and overall tanks in that conflict amply proved their value, when used effectively.
评论 #31082853 未加载
评论 #31082731 未加载
评论 #31082742 未加载
评论 #31083091 未加载
csours大约 3 年前
Perun<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mUyAPQEb01Q</a><p>Chieftain<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lI7T650RTT8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=lI7T650RTT8</a><p>Bernard<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY</a><p>Extreme summary, blame me if I missed something obviously important - unsupported tanks will die to infantry or artillery and have done so since shortly after the inception of the tank. Tanks are actually pretty cheap compared to replacing a human, it costs quite a lot to raise a modern human. The tank role still exists, but ratios of tanks to other fighting vehicles may change.
评论 #31082722 未加载
评论 #31082413 未加载
评论 #31083759 未加载
评论 #31083024 未加载
cm2187大约 3 年前
On that topic: why Russian tanks are so vulnerable to these missiles and explode spectacularly [1]. Basically the canon auto-loads shells, and the shell storage is not in a different compartment than the turret.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;davidhambling&#x2F;2022&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;why-do-russian-tanks-explode-violently-when-hit&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.forbes.com&#x2F;sites&#x2F;davidhambling&#x2F;2022&#x2F;04&#x2F;01&#x2F;why-do...</a>
评论 #31082462 未加载
评论 #31082642 未加载
评论 #31082751 未加载
评论 #31082382 未加载
mothsonasloth大约 3 年前
&lt;armchair_opinion meta=&quot;some non-combat reserve experience&quot;&gt;<p>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 &quot;smart&quot; weapons. Essentially they will be multi role armoured vehicles with high manoeuvrability e.g. (British Ajax Scout Vehicle)<p>Or my sci-fi&#x27;ish theory of a &quot;drone tank&quot;<p>Why?<p>* Governments have high demands from defence and at the same time want low costs.<p>* Military doesn&#x27;t want an infantryman any more; they want a soldier who can perform several other roles. Same goes for vehicles.<p>* The concept of modular vehicles with the same chassis is becoming popular.<p>* Everyone who was taught or believed cold war military tactics is retiring or will be soon. So new doctrines will emerge.<p>&lt;armchair_opinion&#x2F;&gt;
评论 #31082654 未加载
评论 #31082903 未加载
评论 #31082581 未加载
评论 #31082785 未加载
评论 #31082572 未加载
inglor大约 3 年前
Lots of outdated information here. I served in the IDF on something related and (obviously) can&#x27;t disclose anything of military importance but do you really think for the last 16 years tank armor hasn&#x27;t gotten (much) better to deal with these threats?<p>Do you (honestly) believe the US doesn&#x27;t have tank armor that can withstand a (from the top) hit from a Javelin?<p>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&#x27;t see anything like in desert storm or the Yom Kippur war again).
评论 #31082895 未加载
hef19898大约 3 年前
&gt;&gt; The Russian Army has shown that it is not competent in combined arms fire and maneuver.<p>Doctrine and training are paramount, together with command and control that&#x27;s what enabled the early German successes in WW1. And in the case of France a ton of luck.<p>The article asks the right question: is the <i>role</i> of the tank still needed? A Javelin <i>neutralizes</i> a tank, under the right conditions, it doesn&#x27;t replace it.
评论 #31082481 未加载
评论 #31082837 未加载
rozab大约 3 年前
I think this article downplays the ludicrous effectiveness of anti-tank weapons in ww2.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;QPJRd_XiDGg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;QPJRd_XiDGg</a><p>Tanks have always been vulnerable to very cheap infrantry weapons if used badly.
SEJeff大约 3 年前
Is it really though? There are some really good active protection systems like Israel&#x27;s TROPHY which do a pretty good job taking out incoming sabot style (tank shell, javelin, RPG) warheads. The modern incarnation[1] (M1A2 SEPv2) of the US Abrams tanks all have it<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Trophy_(countermeasure)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Trophy_(countermeasure)</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;asc.army.mil&#x2F;web&#x2F;portfolio-item&#x2F;abrams-main-battle-tank&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;asc.army.mil&#x2F;web&#x2F;portfolio-item&#x2F;abrams-main-battle-t...</a>
评论 #31082944 未加载
jdougan大约 3 年前
Good essay. I would like to have seen a little history of Soviet&#x2F;Pact&#x2F;Russian thought besides American and Israeli. After all the Soviet Army was probably the most all in on tanks in the Cold War.
k__大约 3 年前
It&#x27;s a bit like with the knights armor and the invention of the gun powder.
评论 #31082780 未加载
exabrial大约 3 年前
The way _Russia_ uses tanks has been dead... basically since 1972 and the advent of the A10. Here a $23 munition, fired quickly, could chew up an armor column. Don&#x27;t forget the Javelin is still $250k, it&#x27;s not exactly cheap.<p>Tanks must be supported by infantry teams. Without capable mortar teams, rifle teams, automatic weapons teams, they are sitting ducks, as Russia has proven.
评论 #31083643 未加载
throwawayffffas大约 3 年前
The gist of the article which I agree a lot seems to be.<p>Nothing has significantly changed since the 80s-90s, ATGMs have gotten better but they were still a huge problem back then and the solution seems to be the same, better recon, more artillery.<p>Drones don&#x27;t represent something new but really precision strikes at a discount, capabilities only available to major powers once are now &quot;buy off the shelf&quot;.<p>The TB-2 with a couple of MAM missiles does the same job as an f4 with a couple of walleyes.<p>The only difference being the f4 cost 2 million dollars in 1965 while the TB-2 costs 2 million dollars now.
评论 #31083596 未加载
bobowzki大约 3 年前
Something I&#x27;ve been thinking about is that with the emergence of weapons like the NLAW and Javelin, the Secret Service probably will have to rethink the security of the US president.
评论 #31082629 未加载
评论 #31082805 未加载
评论 #31082272 未加载
评论 #31082365 未加载
bjourne大约 3 年前
I think the article should have mentioned the first Gulf war too. There US attack helicopters more or less obliterated the Iraqi tank-based army.
评论 #31082628 未加载
chernevik大约 3 年前
I don&#x27;t think the article pays enough attention to drones. It does mention their importance, and the possibility that they will do away with armor altogether -- and then says, &quot;well, we don&#x27;t yet know if that&#x27;s right, so tanks are probably still important.&quot; Seems to me that whether or not that is right is the big question.
jcmontx大约 3 年前
&gt; The 1967 Arab-Israeli War was the first conflict since World War II that saw the large-scale employment of tank formations on a mobile battlefield<p>Anyone with a mild knowledge of history knows about the huge tank battle that took place between India and Pakistan in 1965. Hard to take the article without any reference to that conflict.
formerly_proven大约 3 年前
People conclude that tanks (sometimes, armour in general) are obsolete because the most modern anti-tank weapons defeat exactly the 70s tanks they were designed to defeat in the 90s. If anything, when someone makes this point, it tells you they are clueless.
评论 #31083057 未加载
评论 #31082344 未加载
评论 #31082977 未加载
SQL2219大约 3 年前
now you know why the USMC got rid of all their tanks about 2 years ago.
评论 #31082278 未加载
mensetmanusman大约 3 年前
You still need something to move troops though, this just means that every tank will soon have lasers to target and destroy missiles fired at it.
kkfx大约 3 年前
Modern war is no longer military show, resemble more criminal-based guerrilla. Traditional military technique can work or not much depending on combatant motivation more than mere material superiority.<p>Given that modern war should be centered toward war crimes, witch means using civilian stuff to disguise forces, mass kill people with poisoned water without damaging significantly the infra, use and abuse modern IT crap vulnerabilities do disable infra (like electric grid, connected vehicles etc) without physical damage, spread disinformation with the best possible ability etc.<p>That&#x27;s why, for instance, in Ukraine Russia can&#x27;t really arrive to a quick victory. Such immoral and criminal pattern is nothing new: WWI was a combat between armies, civilians are evacuated before combats, non-combatant on the front line was a bit respected etc, WWII change the game hitting civilians without any morale, hitting ambulances, putting military in hospitals etc. Now we do not even use State&#x27;s official army preferring mercenaries with formally no flag and no code of conduct, engaging rule: &quot;do what you want but win&quot;.<p>In such scenario try to be civil is not doable, the sole option is show equal behaviors, not encouraging criminals and violence per se, but mastering it to crush enemy forces and push civilians of all sides against the combatant because being unable to distinguish between them any unknown human being can be an enemy so a legit target for all sides.<p>Reaching such level of brutality means creating just bloodbaths where public opinion will rise at a certain point against the war itself. At that point no gear will work, the force of the crowd could not be stopped.<p>That&#x27;s the modern strategy no one admit of course, but many practice shamefully.
pirate787大约 3 年前
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.
评论 #31082868 未加载
评论 #31082866 未加载
评论 #31082437 未加载
评论 #31082432 未加载
评论 #31083454 未加载
评论 #31082374 未加载
S_A_P大约 3 年前
The tank is now an unmanned flying drone- so it is just a change of form factor.
Ambolia大约 3 年前
It will be interesting times if all those weapons spill into the European Union.
评论 #31083410 未加载
评论 #31082890 未加载
评论 #31082841 未加载