No, The Tank Is Not Dead. on HackerTube: recommended by 5 Hacker News commenters across 3 separate months, 2022.
commentary · dated
Armor expert The Chieftain explains why tanks still have a place on the modern battlefield despite drones and guided weapons. He responds to the 'tank is dead' debate, noting that tanks have been declared dead repeatedly since 1919.
Pointed to as an authoritative answer, from a former Abrams commander and tank historian, to claims that tanks are obsolete.
“I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and tank historian who presents this argument far better than I can.”
8 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
> currently completely overmatched by anti-tank weapons The Chieftan disagrees with you. ▶ this video I suspect he has more practical and theoretical knowledge on the topic than the sum total of all posters on this thread.
in “Dragon’s teeth – Stopping tanks in their tracks” · View on HN
Against an enemy with signal jamming capability remote operation is not a given. Plus tanks communicate in real time with infantry/other elements. The lag introduced by remote operation/communication would be a serious hindrance even if everything was working, which it often isn't. Tanks have to respond in real time, they don't have the luxury of seconds of delay like say an orbiting drone. There's also the case of not wanting disabled tanks to fall into the hands of the enemy. Short of rigging the tanks with a self-destruct system (which would likely just make them explode more easily when hit), you need soldiers to do that. Keep in mind that anything operating in battlefield conditions must be resilient. The entire situation is a constant stream of edge cases. Also, don't look to Russia in Ukraine for an example of how tanks are used. Tanks are generally not meant to act alone. Either they're operating with a lot of other tanks, substantial supporting infantry, or both. There are tons of other reasons as well, The Chieften, a former Tanker, has a good video on the subject: ▶ this video
in “Dragon’s teeth – Stopping tanks in their tracks” · View on HN
I really don't think that's a good comparison, cavalry didn't just fall from grace because they became easily slaughtered by infantry, they stopped being used because their role became irrelevant and were replaced. The role tanks play has not become irrelevant and while they aren't as survivable as they used to be they aren't nearly as vulnerable as clips from UA seem to imply. I'd recommend this video by a former Abrams commander and tank historian who presents this argument far better than I can. ▶ this video
in “Classified specs leaked on War Thunder forum for third time” · View on HN
Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" ▶ this video TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.
in “Does the Tank Have a Future?” · View on HN
An armor officer can answer this better than I can: ▶ this video 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.
in “When is a ‘tank’ not a tank?” · View on HN
To paraphrase The Chieftan (who's video is linked elsewhere in this thread but I'll included here: ▶ this video ), it's not about the tank's vulnerabilities, but the capabilities it provides that have yet to be provided elsewhere. ATGMs, RPGs, guided mortar rounds and switchblade drones are not offensive weapons that can take and hold ground. But infantry, supported by a tank which they can knock on the hatch of and tell to obliterate the machine gun nest pinning them down with instant 120mm fire, can. When armies find something that can replace the mobile, protected, and relatively instant firepower a tank can provide to the infantry, the tank will be dead. But nothing yet has quite come along to combine those things, and so regardless of the tank's vulnerabilities, it will remain.
in “Does the Tank Have a Future?” · View on HN
They don't offer the same level of firepower. A portable drone may be faster employed than a helicopter, large drone, or close support aircraft, but it suffers from lack of payload. It also takes longer to get on target, and has it's own set of vulnerabilities. (The vulnerability argument being that even if it is expendable, a drone disrupted or shot down does not help your unit eliminate the threat it was facing.) A large-caliber, direct-fire gun provides long range, precise, and instant effects. As The Chieftan explains: ▶ this video (timecode link provided.)
in “Does the Tank Have a Future?” · View on HN
Perun [link] Chieftain ▶ this video Bernard [link] 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.
in “The tank is dead: Long live the javelin, the switchblade, the ... ?” · View on HN