Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Tanks for the memories?   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Tank, World War II, Russian tanks, United States Army, Armoured warfare, British Army, second phase, early phase of the Ukraine war  
•       •       •

865 clicks; posted to STEM » on 07 Jul 2022 at 11:20 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



20 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-07-07 10:56:00 AM  
No. The Russians did so many things wrong doctrinally and tactically that it is no wonder they have lost as much armor as they have.

They appeased the Chinese by not invading during the Olympics, which then allowed terrain to thaw, limiting their scheme of maneuver and leaving them stuck in roads. They never used combined arms effectively at all and have not been able to maintain command and control. The result is tanks without infantry or air support being easily picked off by Ukrainian forces back by NATO supplies and intelligence.

Tanks are very much still lethal weapons systems when used properly on the modern battlefield.
 
2022-07-07 10:58:13 AM  
No, The Tank Is Not Dead.
Youtube lI7T650RTT8
 
2022-07-07 11:38:13 AM  
Short answer: yes.  I think yes because having to worry about your top armor means you've lost.  Until we make battlemechs.

The Economist had a great recent article about the T72 and how they saved a crew position by putting in a carousel shell autoloader/ crew jiffy pop system.  So add more armor plates, add more top armor.... Now your tank weighs 100 tons and has to have special bridges built for it.
 
2022-07-07 11:39:22 AM  
Not all tanks are dead. Just the ones Russia brings to Ukraine.
 
2022-07-07 11:43:44 AM  
Is the tank doomed? The Russian ones are.
 
2022-07-07 12:04:25 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Is the tank doomed? The Russian ones are.


Only when the river of free public money dries up will tanks be dead.
 
2022-07-07 12:05:03 PM  

Obscene_CNN: Is the tank doomed? The Russian ones are.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-07 12:44:02 PM  
Javelin launcher ~ $250k
Javelin missile ~ $250k
M1 Abrams ~ $9M
It's not that tanks aren't effective weapons, it's that they're not cost effective weapons. Big rich countries that can afford the latest tanks, defense systems, and training will still deploy them against much smaller poorer countries. Even then depending on the terrain and situation they may not be effective, such as a land locked mountainous country or a prolonged urban warfare/insurgency. Tanks just can't justify their costs in 90% of modern wars.
 
2022-07-07 12:49:45 PM  
 

Obscene_CNN: Is the tank doomed? The Russian ones are.



My high school just ordered two.   So far no school shooter has brought a tank.
 
2022-07-07 1:12:33 PM  

BitwiseShift: Obscene_CNN: Is the tank doomed? The Russian ones are.


My high school just ordered two.   So far no school shooter has brought a tank.


Wow

Ur school must be rolling in it
 
2022-07-07 1:14:59 PM  

Sabreace22: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/lI7T650RTT8]


Also,

Ukraine & T-72: The death of the tank? | The Tank Museum
Youtube sF_kbEWSf1M
 
2022-07-07 1:26:33 PM  

Polish Hussar: Sabreace22: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/lI7T650RTT8]

Also,

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/sF_kbEWSf1M]


And,

Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919
Youtube QPth_xqBXGY

The upshot of all these videos is that people have been predicting the death of the tank almost since it was invented.  As with every weapons system it has gone through the measure/countermeasure back-and-forth throughout its history.  As long as there is a need to deliver mobile firepower to the front line in a reasonably well protected package, there will be tanks.  It's about capability, not vulnerability.  Infantrymen are incredibly vulnerable on the modern battlefield, but armies still use loads of them.
 
2022-07-07 1:31:07 PM  
Since the upgrades to DU variants of Chobham armor, no Abrams tank has been penetrated by enemy fire (though some have suffered mobility kills and other damage) despite years of action in hostile urban environments where the enemy was being fed Russian anti-tank weapons.  Even before the DU upgrades, the only penetrations were from friendly fire in Gulf War 1.

Projecting the deficiencies of Russian armor and doctrine onto Western armies seems really premature.  If Ukraine ever gets Abrams tanks in sufficient quantity I'd expect them to smash the orcs in 73 Easting fashion.
 
2022-07-07 1:32:03 PM  

Sabreace22: No. The Russians did so many things wrong doctrinally and tactically that it is no wonder they have lost as much armor as they have.

They appeased the Chinese by not invading during the Olympics, which then allowed terrain to thaw, limiting their scheme of maneuver and leaving them stuck in roads. They never used combined arms effectively at all and have not been able to maintain command and control. The result is tanks without infantry or air support being easily picked off by Ukrainian forces back by NATO supplies and intelligence.

Tanks are very much still lethal weapons systems when used properly on the modern battlefield.


And yet they're still, albeit slowly, winning.
 
2022-07-07 1:38:24 PM  

Hate Tank: Short answer: yes.  I think yes because having to worry about your top armor means you've lost.  Until we make battlemechs.

The Economist had a great recent article about the T72 and how they saved a crew position by putting in a carousel shell autoloader/ crew jiffy pop system.  So add more armor plates, add more top armor.... Now your tank weighs 100 tons and has to have special bridges built for it.


Although, armor is not the only way to defend against missiles.  Active defense systems are another way, and according to The Economist's defense editor, Russia's most modern ones have proved to be very effective against ATGM's in direct-fire mode.  I think it's a very doable engineering challenge to improve active-defense systems' performance against overflight attack profiles to a degree that keeps the tank as a viable weapons system on the battlefield.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-07-07 2:38:12 PM  
Headline is a question. Answer is "No".

This same stupid question keeps popping up, and the answer never changes. "No. The tank is not dead/obsolete/useless/input synonym for 'failure' here."

Properly employed (IOW- as part of a combined arms approach), the tank's combination of durability, mobility, nd firepower can be critical. This does NOT mean sending tanks moving slowly down restricted roadways in hostile territory without the rest of the 'combined-arms' package. It also does not mean stopping whenever something goes 'boom' anywhere nearby and waiting until enemy fire gets more accurate. Russia has basically done EVERYTHING wrong when it comes to armor doctrine. Note Ukraine- which uses the same tanks as russia (albeit in far better repair)- has not suffered the same catastrophic losses in their armor corps. Tanks are apparently useful when used properly.

Far too many people (including far too many armor officers who should know better) tend to get intoxicated by the tank's good qualities, and assume just throwing tanks at an enemy will deal with any problems. Tanks without support are vulnerable to a wide variety of lethal threats in a modern battlefield. But loads of people- especially 3rd World dictators and their military 'leaders'- always focus on the big, shiny, dangerous boomy things in lieu of the infantry and artillery who comprise the Queen and King of Battle, respectively. Fighter jets and armor aren't enough. You have to have competent, professional troops and leadership and the appropriate military doctrine on how best to use all of those assets together.

Variations of this ridiculous headline get trotted out for public display whenever a professional military encounters a non-professional military. "OMG! <X country> tanks got slaughtered by <professional military country> troops! The tank is doomed! DOOOOOOMED!"

You could just as easily substitute "Aircraft Carrier" or "latest generation fighter jet" for "tank", because those articles come out on the regular as well. The answer is the same for these platforms, too. No, they're not doomed/obsolete/useless. None of those assets (carriers, fighter jets, tanks) can operate safely without support. Carriers need battlegroups to protect 'em and extend the carrier's sensor envelope. Fighter jets need airborne radar platforms and airborne refueling platforms to get the best use out of them, along with dedicated electronic warfare/defense interdiction aircraft. Tanks need infantry, artillery, and aircraft support. Infantry works best when supported by armor, artillery, and TacAir. Combined arms exists for a reason. It works really well- when it is actually used.

Stop giving lazy 'journalists' page clicks when they publish obvious clickbait.
 
2022-07-07 2:52:40 PM  
No, but they will change. I expect that crewed tanks will be replaced with drone tanks. They'll be smaller and cheaper, maybe faster too. And you won't lose experienced personnel if the tank is killed.
 
2022-07-07 2:59:26 PM  

Wenchmaster: Stop giving lazy 'journalists' page clicks when they publish obvious clickbait.


But then Fark would be dead.
 
2022-07-07 3:06:24 PM  
Everything on the battlefield is obsolete.

This is the terrifying future.
Slaughterbots
Youtube 9CO6M2HsoIA
 
2022-07-08 12:57:31 AM  

Sabreace22: No. The Russians did so many things wrong doctrinally and tactically that it is no wonder they have lost as much armor as they have.

They appeased the Chinese by not invading during the Olympics, which then allowed terrain to thaw, limiting their scheme of maneuver and leaving them stuck in roads. They never used combined arms effectively at all and have not been able to maintain command and control. The result is tanks without infantry or air support being easily picked off by Ukrainian forces back by NATO supplies and intelligence.

Tanks are very much still lethal weapons systems when used properly on the modern battlefield.


It all comes down to the people using the weapons. This is easily testable through absurdity.

Consider a completely incompetent bunch of fools using the latest equipment, but they barely know how to use it...versus a group of experienced veterans with antiquated stuff, but who have trained together and know both their systems and those of their opponents inside and out.

The veterans win every time...the ship of fools can't even figure out which buttons to push.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.