Ask HN: Are Tanks Obsolete?
In retrospect it seems obvious that heat seeking shoulder fired missiles would wreak havoc on a tank heavy force. But the inner Civilization player in me wonders if tanks are truly obsolete in the face of drones and javelins. Discuss
13 comments
the "main battle tank" concept of armored warfare certainly appears outdated, but tactically speaking, the idea of using mobile/mechanized armor to support infantry is still super important
a mobile, armored vehicle capable of things like transporting infantry and serving as a mobile defensive position to fall back to, engaging enemies with direct or indirect heavy fire, serving as a command and control vehicle, etc
the line between "tanks" and IFV's seems to be getting blurrier, because the idea of a relatively heavily armored, big-gun, "breakthrough" tank really is a relic of cold war strategy. the past few decades have seen tank designs evolve to become more mobile and even capable of carrying infantry. at the same time, 'infantry fighting vehicles' are becoming more armored and carrying higher-caliber main weapons.
tactically, an armored vehicle appearing on a battlefield is still advantageous: you've immediately aggro'd the enemy forces and allowed your own infantry to breathe for a second while the enemy figures out how to deal with the armor. you could bait out hidden antitank elements. you could mount some powerful optics and a radio, and you can have a commander remain close to the elements they are directing, while relatively protected. you could use heavier armor as line-of-sight howitzers to clear urban environments.
what's changed is it's now a real bad idea to send in heavy armor as a 'spear tip' in an invasion, you want to support them with infantry, and at the point where you're forced to mix armor and infantry, your armor will begin to resemble more infantry-friendly designs. the example probably most familiar with folks is the israeli merkava tank - for all intents and purposes it's a 'main battle tank' but it can also carry 6 passengers in a rear fighting compartment, which i imagine allows for some really flexible fire-and-maneuvering.
in the context of the russia-ukraine thing, all of this flies out the window; i have no idea what the russians are doing. partly because of the fog of war but partly, from what i can gather, because their military was kinda dogshit going into this conflict. i swear to god it's like they've unlearned stuff since 1988.
a mobile, armored vehicle capable of things like transporting infantry and serving as a mobile defensive position to fall back to, engaging enemies with direct or indirect heavy fire, serving as a command and control vehicle, etc
the line between "tanks" and IFV's seems to be getting blurrier, because the idea of a relatively heavily armored, big-gun, "breakthrough" tank really is a relic of cold war strategy. the past few decades have seen tank designs evolve to become more mobile and even capable of carrying infantry. at the same time, 'infantry fighting vehicles' are becoming more armored and carrying higher-caliber main weapons.
tactically, an armored vehicle appearing on a battlefield is still advantageous: you've immediately aggro'd the enemy forces and allowed your own infantry to breathe for a second while the enemy figures out how to deal with the armor. you could bait out hidden antitank elements. you could mount some powerful optics and a radio, and you can have a commander remain close to the elements they are directing, while relatively protected. you could use heavier armor as line-of-sight howitzers to clear urban environments.
what's changed is it's now a real bad idea to send in heavy armor as a 'spear tip' in an invasion, you want to support them with infantry, and at the point where you're forced to mix armor and infantry, your armor will begin to resemble more infantry-friendly designs. the example probably most familiar with folks is the israeli merkava tank - for all intents and purposes it's a 'main battle tank' but it can also carry 6 passengers in a rear fighting compartment, which i imagine allows for some really flexible fire-and-maneuvering.
in the context of the russia-ukraine thing, all of this flies out the window; i have no idea what the russians are doing. partly because of the fog of war but partly, from what i can gather, because their military was kinda dogshit going into this conflict. i swear to god it's like they've unlearned stuff since 1988.
My understanding is that if a military is not protecting tanks with a screening force of infantry to counter ambushers equipped with anti-tank missiles (since, unlike video games, tanks/armored vehicles and infantry are intended to work together hand-in-hand to support each other) and if that military has not established air superiority or provided proper air defenses against drones (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb5_F4_Eod8), then yes, their tanks are going to be ineffective and vulnerable. But, as the proverbial doctor said, "If it hurts when you do that, well, then don't do that."
[EDIT] It also doesn't help if the opponent has several big friends with immense reconnaissance capabilities that are telling them exactly where the tanks are at all times, allowing them to pick the best spots for ambush to make them much, much more effective than they normally would be.
[EDIT] It also doesn't help if the opponent has several big friends with immense reconnaissance capabilities that are telling them exactly where the tanks are at all times, allowing them to pick the best spots for ambush to make them much, much more effective than they normally would be.
If you have infantry covering the ground around the tanks and air superiority, what are the tanks useful for ? It seems that you’ve already won by the time the tanks start being useful.
Infantry protects tanks and tanks protect infantry. Tanks provide mobile protected firepower(you need a ATGM to hurt one at range). Tanks can do a number on infantry that doesn't have ATGMs or tanks of their own, and are very effective at reducing bunkers.
My understanding is that, in addition to killing other tanks, tanks can be used to destroy enemy strong points and structures/fortifications both with more precision and faster response time than artillery or airstrikes, preserving the lives of friendly infantry. (Tanks usually carry more than one type of ammunition for their main gun, e.g. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/120.htm , allowing them to serve multiple roles.) They also help counter the IFVs/APCs that the enemy is using to transport and support their infantry.
Tanks are turning into a weapon that can only be used in special cases. It's likely that drones will replace tanks as the most important attack weapon on the battlefield.
Armour replaces heavy cavalry of yore. It's a halfway between a highly
mobile (light infantry) and defensible posture. But armour is itself
vulnerable. One has to remember the chess analogy is quite powerful,
each capability is _against_ some other enemy capability but _only_
within some context. Armour without infantry and anti-air support is
useless.
What Putin has used is the "Armoured Assault", not really effective since Germany's Panzerwaffe. It's the tactic not the equipment that's out of date.
From [1]
> circa 1934: "Basil Liddell Hart, now concluded that the defense had become much the stronger form of war and that armoured offensives would come to grief against a properly organized enemy."
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/The-armoured-offens...
What Putin has used is the "Armoured Assault", not really effective since Germany's Panzerwaffe. It's the tactic not the equipment that's out of date.
From [1]
> circa 1934: "Basil Liddell Hart, now concluded that the defense had become much the stronger form of war and that armoured offensives would come to grief against a properly organized enemy."
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/tactics/The-armoured-offens...
That's a good question, and I'd further like to know what the consequences would be of a battlefield where tanks aren't viable. Is it possible for an invader to hold territory any more? They might be able to destroy the defender's tanks and other military hardware, but it seems like both sides would end up hiding in civilian buildings, since those are cheaper and more plentiful than tanks.
imo tanks are highly outdated weapon platform- slow, easy to spot, slow to maneuver & expensive.
Javelin costs (according to google) 178K and 78K for rocket, while T-14 tank $3.7M.. sounds like dime on a dollar. war is about cost & time to build something and it's clear that tanks loose here.
And it's super simple to train someone to launch a missile, while a tank crews needs to be trained WAY LONGER.
yes, terrifying for civilians, but ineffective for prepared adversary on a 21st century battlefield.
Imo tank battles as in 20th century will remain only as part of World of Tanks. Battleships are next as well... because hypersonic missiles.
Javelin costs (according to google) 178K and 78K for rocket, while T-14 tank $3.7M.. sounds like dime on a dollar. war is about cost & time to build something and it's clear that tanks loose here.
And it's super simple to train someone to launch a missile, while a tank crews needs to be trained WAY LONGER.
yes, terrifying for civilians, but ineffective for prepared adversary on a 21st century battlefield.
Imo tank battles as in 20th century will remain only as part of World of Tanks. Battleships are next as well... because hypersonic missiles.
APS systems such as Trophy can give tanks some protection against ATGMs like the Javelin.
Yes