[HN Gopher] When is a 'tank' not a tank? ___________________________________________________________________ When is a 'tank' not a tank? Author : picture Score : 75 points Date : 2022-05-06 18:54 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (acoup.blog) (TXT) w3m dump (acoup.blog) | ummonk wrote: | On a side note, the story behind the etymology of "tank" is a | funny read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Etymology | gerdesj wrote: | "If I was pressed for a hard definition, I'd say that a tank is a | heavily armored and tracked combat vehicle whose purpose is to | offer powerful direct fire capabilities against a range of enemy | targets." | | That's nice but what do you keep your tropical fish in? | master_crab wrote: | Vehicles without rotatable turrets were generally called Assault | Guns or Tank Destroyers during WW2. | | Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, tracked | platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament capable of | killing other similarly armored and armed vehicles. | dragontamer wrote: | Was the Panzer II a tank? | | Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. So the modern M2 | Bradley has more armor _and_ a bigger gun. (Panzer II has a | 20mm primary gun, M2 Bradley has a 30mm primary gun) | | -------- | | I think the issue is that WW2 had definitions for tanks (light- | tank, medium-tank, and heavy-tank). But today, armored-vehicles | are classified by their tactics. (Ex: M2 Bradley would be a | "WW2 Medium Tank", but the M2 Bradley's tactics / expected use | case is really "IFV", infantry fighting vehicle). | | Back in Ww2 days, there weren't many kinds of armored vehicles, | and the systems of classification (and tactics) were just not | very well defined yet. | | Because today's wars are more complicated and have forced a | change in military language to keep up with. | | Case in point: I'd argue that the "modern Panzer II" is maybe | something like the M113 APC (yeah... not really modern but...). | With a 20mm gun, only ~12 tons of weight, the M113 APC would be | a "light tank" in terms of WW2 terminology. | | Of course, M113 is an "APC", not a tank. Panzer 2 wasn't a | troop carrier either. But I think this example shows how the | language has changed in the past 80 years, due to the change in | armored-vehicle tactics. | lostlogin wrote: | > Was the Panzer II a tank | | Yes, but definitions change with time. If you asked someone | to describe a car, most people would probably include | features that are absent from early car design. | masklinn wrote: | > Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. | | How is that of any relevance to GP's comment? | dragontamer wrote: | Panzer II has almost no armor. 9 tons is ridiculously | small. | | The M113 APC has thicker armor than a Panzer II. If we take | the phrase: | | > Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, | tracked platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament | capable of killing other similarly armored and armed | vehicles. | | Then M113 APC "is a tank". (Big enough gun to kill other | M113 APCs, armored and tracked, rotatable turret) | | ------- | | My overall point is that "WW2 terminology sucks", | especially when describing modern vehicles. | master_crab wrote: | If you want to call a Bradley a tank, I don't think that | matters. But if it's carrying troops to disgorge at a | location then it is now no longer a tank but closer to an IFV | or APC. It doesn't change the definition of what a tank is. | ncmncm wrote: | > When Is a 'Tank' Not a Tank? | | When it was a target. | lambdasquirrel wrote: | The gamer's language for these things actually seems to be pretty | relevant. A tank needs to be able to move _forward_ into the | thick of the battle, and be able to give and _receive_ a dishing. | | A WoW warrior class is a tank. It can give and receive a dishing. | A DnD rogue class is not a tank. It would not move forward into | battle in a frontal assault, with the intent of pushing a | breakthrough. | redisman wrote: | That's a bit selective. I would say that a tanks main duty is | to draw aggro from main damage dealers and support and act as a | damage sponge. | baud147258 wrote: | though most video game tanks don't need to dish much damage, | instead the damage is done by the dedicated DPSs | periphrasis wrote: | Eh, MMO lingo presumes that a "tank" class is supposed to take | damage. Any tank crew that plans to rely on its armor to | survive hits isn't going to live very long. | mumblemumble wrote: | For what it's worth, I'd give an M1 better odds of surviving | hits than a B2. | | Being able to take unreal amounts of damage is sort of | general to video games, and not specific to tank character | classes. The medic in TF2 can survive more direct hits from a | rocket-propelled grenade than a real-world battlefield medic, | too. | pestatije wrote: | When quotes change meaning | bell-cot wrote: | This reminds me of a decades-ago conversation with a casual | friend, who called something a "battleship" - which _to her_ | meant "biggish navy ship with prominent gun turrets, that isn't | an aircraft carrier". So something like the HMS Galatia - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Galatea_(71) - would likely | qualify. (Hint - the Galatia's main gun shells massed 50kg. Real | battleships fired shells in the 500kg to 1500kg range.) | | In retrospect, my correction to her should have taken the angle | "That's kinda like calling a Chevy Cavalier a 'limo', or a | 'Rolls-Royce'. Yes, it has 4 wheels, a hood, a trunk, a motor, it | drives on roads... And the Chevy fans and salesmen are talking | about how great it is...but NO, it NOT a limo, and NOT a Rolls- | Royce." | c-cube wrote: | have you considered that, perhaps, the average person has seen | and driven many more cars (an everyday tool to billions of | people) than warships? For what it's worth, even OP is annoyed | at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles, | not at random people who have other concerns. | logifail wrote: | > even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and | similar armored vehicles | | Never mind journalists, how about the German ambassador to | the United States? | | Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and | more of the deliberate misdirection. | someweirdperson wrote: | Hanlon's Razor. | | Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero- | knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and | politicians. The war has made some to start to learn. Media | is making jokes about them. | mwattsun wrote: | I used to argue in semantic disputes, but they're really only | meaningful in a court of law. Outside of that, it's mostly | opinion (a waste of time imho) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute | curuinor wrote: | this guy put the fact that he's a gigantic pedant right up | front in the blog title, what'd you expect? let him go and do | the pedantry thing, it's instructive | mwattsun wrote: | That's why I qualified "waste of time" with "in my humble | opinion." | | What I didn't say is that's it's a giant trap that I fall | into when organizing my files and that's what I meant when I | said it was a waste of time. | mumblemumble wrote: | I'd argue it's not mostly opinion. This article is pretty | bread-and-butter Brett Deveraux. His general thing is that he | picks a topic, and gets really pedantic about in order to | motivate (and provide a framework for) explaining some | interesting aspect of military doctrine or history. | | In this article, he digs into tank/not-tank in order to fuel a | discussion of the development of military doctrine around | armored vehicles, including explaining the problems that | different kinds of them are trying to solve, and even | describing how different semantic distinctions used by other | countries helps to highlight differences in their military | thinking. | | I suppose whether or not one thinks that's a waste of time is | ultimately down to how much of an interest one takes in | military topics. But I'd be hard-pressed to concede that the | author's choice to dig into semantics is a waste of time in and | of itself. It's quite self-evidently a clever and effective | expository tactic. | coredog64 wrote: | > tank/not-tank My college roommate used to joke that in the | Air Force, gate guards would draw a picture of a tank on | their hands and that's what they're doing when they salute | people in: "Tank? Not-tank" | kergonath wrote: | Well, it _is_ a "Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry", after | all. | sschueller wrote: | I'm not in any armed forces so I am clueless when it comes to | this. | | Why do we still use tanks in modern times? | | They seem useless in anything urban. They are easy targets for | aircraft and jawlines. They need support vehicles for fuel and | ammo. The only positive thing I see is that they can traverse | unpaved terrain. | | Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? Human | lives cheaper than the tech required? They don't even need to be | autonomous, just remote controlled. | dragontamer wrote: | > Why do we still use tanks in modern times? | | Because a 120mm gun blows everything up. 120mm guns can do | things such as: | | 1. High-explosive rounds (Chemical Energy, or CE) -- 50lbs of | high-explosives delivered to a target will kill almost | anything, even if that "thing" is hiding behind a tree, | concrete, or even behind tank-armor. | | 2. Discarding Sabot / Kinetic Energy rounds (KE for short) -- | 50 lbs of depleted-uranium darts flying at Mach 1.6 destroys a | lot of things, in ways that are complementary to #1. You can | shoot through entire houses with these darts. | | 3. Canister rounds -- 50lbs of "shotgun pellets" can clear 500+ | meters. Yes, an entire-football field can be covered by a | *SINGULAR* "tank shotgun" blast. | | Kinetic-energy rounds travel faster but have higher-penetration | at short-distances (because KE rounds have more room for | explosives to "launch" the shell). However, KE-rounds are | supersonic and therefore get hit by a lot of air- | resistance/drag. | | CE-rounds in contrast, travel much slower, but pack a lot of | "explosives" at the end of their shot. As such, CE-rounds start | off with much less penetration (bad at short-distances), but | can be lobbed 3000 meters and still have just as much | deadliness (since most of the "damage" of CE-rounds comes from | the explosive, air-resistance literally doesn't matter aside | from being computationally-difficult to aim. But modern | computers can compensate easily these days) | | --------- | | These are the three main-types of ammo that a 120mm gun uses | (aka, a tank gun). Now some questions. | | 1. 120mm guns weigh something like 10-tons -- How do you move | them? With a big engine. | | 2. But a big engine + the gun itself is a sitting duck against | even a 50-cal sniper rifle. We should cover the engine + gun in | armor, to protect the crew and equipment. | | 3. But armor weighs a lot (especially depleted uranium armor). | So we need a *bigger* engine. But the bigger-engine needs more | armor to protect it. Etc. etc. etc. | | Eventually, we end up putting a LOT of armor, to cover the HUGE | engine and the HUGE gun all together. | | That's about it. You need tanks to destroy enemy bunkers (what | else are you going to shoot? AT4 / Javelins? Those heavy and | slow weapons only have 1 or 2 shots. Tanks have *40* shots, | more than enough to overrun any bunker you come across). | | ------- | | Tanks are your biggest gun on the battlefield. They have armor | as minor amounts of protection, not to actually be immune to | enemies (though in practice, the armor is so thick they're | immune to many smaller weapons). But the #1 purpose of any tank | is to fire its big 120mm gun as often as possible on the front | lines. | | Tank crews are __NOT__ used as "cover" or "shields" in the | modern battlefield. They are just grounded large-gun platforms. | | ------- | | > They seem useless in anything urban. | | Wrong. Tanks are the only weapon large enough to damage enemy | houses, bunkers, or other fortifications. If the enemy is | hiding behind a concrete wall, the Tank-gun can shoot right | *through* it and kill everyone on the other side. | | Buttoned up tanks don't know where the enemy is however. (Tanks | have night-vision and thermal-vision sensors, but can only | focus those sights on a narrow line of vision) Tank crews rely | upon friendly infantry to search for enemies. Tanks have awful | visibility, but their big-gun is unparalleled on the | battlefield. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ | | Turns out that in practical urban combat, a lot of enemies hide | behind concrete walls. What exactly is your battle-plan for | that? | | Tanks can provide air-burst (shoot over the wall, explode, rain | fragments DOWN upon the enemy), or *THROUGH* the wall. Tanks | are exceptionally flexible weapons. | H8crilA wrote: | TL;DR: don't ask what they can do to the tank. Ask what the | tank can do to them. | | Also, every single piece of military equipment can be | destroyed about as easily as a tank if it's not integrated | within some sensible mission. Maybe the method is more | expensive for aircraft and for ships, but so are those pieces | of equipment. | jabl wrote: | > Discarding Sabot / Kinetic Energy rounds (KE for short) -- | 50 lbs of depleted-uranium darts flying at Mach 1.6 destroys | a lot of things, | | Er, they have a muzzle velocity in the range of 1.6 km/s or | 1600 m/s, about Mach 5. | | As an aside, AFAIK the Rheinmetall 120mm used on the M1 and | Leo2 tanks only have sabots and HEAT shells, no canister | rounds or plain HE. | winrid wrote: | All nullified when a single drone can take out tanks AND do | most of the other things you listed. Tanks are just not the | future of urban warfare. | buscoquadnary wrote: | So I've been studying WW1 a lot recently and part of the | problem that resulted in the mass slaughters early in the | war we're the result of many of the technological advances | in warfare not being tested at any significant scale forany | years prior to the war. | | I've been wondering what it will be like when the next big | war hits and what are the technologies that will change the | battle field that haven't been considered yet and drones | are on of the biggest changes I think we'll see on the | modern battlefield the next time two sizeable opponents go | at it. | | I think you've hit the nail on the head for part of it is | the ability of drones to take out tanks is going to be | huge, tanks are expensive, bulky and hard to conceal and | have limited visibility and range. They are going to be | sitting ducks for cheap drones. | | As an aside everytime I read about the description of the | battleships of WW1 I can't help but think of the fighter | and stealth planes of our current era, massive expensive | constructions who require a massive supply chain in terms | of men and equipment to be effective, can only be deployed | in specific situations and are championed by an officers | core that doesn't realize their time has passed. After all | what good does having general air superiority do for you if | any random platoon can establish temporary tatical air | superiority by hauling around a drone with em to complete | their mission and bugger off while your Fighter is just | taking off 500 miles away. | trhway wrote: | >They are going to be sitting ducks for cheap drones. | | exactly https://youtu.be/BxaG4YdsHTg?t=31 - unspecialized | small drone (22 V at 80 A) just dumping what seems to be | like small mortar rounds onto the Russian tanks. | | To the comment below - the upper armor is much thinner. | You don't even need an RPG warhead here.It easily can be | just a small shaped charge bomblet from a disassembled | cluster Smerch warhead. Such a bomblet pierces 5 inch RMA | - well enough to take out the tank from the top. | baud147258 wrote: | I don't think the mortar rounds would have done any | damage to those tanks. A much bigger threat would be | artillery spotting though | curuinor wrote: | they're working on the drone tanks | | https://www.thedefensepost.com/2020/12/21/us-army-drone- | tank... | justsomehnguy wrote: | > Tanks are just not the future of urban warfare | | The recent events shows what the tanks is the urban warfare | machine. It is only thing what can suppress and/or | eliminate singular units operating from the high-rise | apartments. | dragontamer wrote: | > All nullified when a single drone can take out tanks AND | do most of the other things you listed. | | There is no drone that carries the same level of | explosiveness as a singular tank round. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ | | A tank can fire 40 of these at you in something like 5 | minutes. | | I'm not sure what kind of drone-platform exists to deliver | 40x 50lb shells to the enemy 3000 meters at 500+ mph like a | bunch of CE-rounds being fired from a tank-gun. | | ------- | | Drones will change warfare. But drones are *NOT* a tank. | They just don't have anything close to the destructive | potential | | You can't just "ignore" enemy concrete walls like a tank | can. See this particular timestamp of the video: | https://youtu.be/U61Hrn1JZWQ?t=67 | | Double-reinforced concrete walls / bunkers stand no chance | against a typical tank round. What is a drone supposed to | do against that? | | ------- | | That above is a CE-round. Tanks can switch-it-up and shoot | a SABOT round instead, if they need greater penetrating | power (but less explosives): | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWCLJXwtsE | | As you can see, the "tank" is a platform for a tank- | commander to sit and think about which round to use for any | given situation. The tank isn't "just" a sabot gun or a HE- | gun, its *BOTH*, with an intelligent tank-commander | choosing their loadout and firepower for every target they | come across. | | If the enemy is hiding behind 4 concrete walls, Sabot round | to punch through all of it. If the enemy is just behind one | concrete wall (but is very far away, like 3km or longer), | HE round. | | How many concrete walls can one drone get through? | https://youtu.be/GnWCLJXwtsE?t=76 | mumblemumble wrote: | > There is no drone that carries the same level of | explosiveness as a singular tank round. | | Yes. That seems to be why Ukrainian drones and Javelin | missiles are having such an easy go of popping the | turrets off of Russian tanks. You need just a small | explosion to get thing started, and then the tank's | onboard supply of explosives does the rest of the job for | you. | | > A tank can fire 40 of these at you in something like 5 | minutes. | | Once it gets into position. The major limitations of | tanks here are that they are direct-fire platforms, and | that they are big and noisy and difficult to hide. That's | a real problem if you're up against an enemy with modern | indirect fire capabilities, or effective anti-tank small | arms. | Sharlin wrote: | > You need just a small explosion to get thing started, | and then the tank's onboard supply of explosives does the | rest of the job for you. | | As mentioned in the article, the T-72/80/90 are uniquely | vulnerable to this failure mode due to their carousel | autoloader. Ammo cookoff in any MBT means you and your | vehicle probably won't go to battle today, but at least | it's not an immediate death sentence in most Western | tanks. | lazide wrote: | I think the person you were replying to is pointing out, | no one _NEEDS_ the giant gun when they can buy 20 drones | that each can take out what the giant gun can, AND a tank | for what a tank costs. | | The drone can just fly around the concrete wall and blow | up the things on the other side, it doesn't need to go | through. | | Drones aren't _going_ to change warfare. They already | have. The ones who haven't woken up to that are the | charred bodies on the battlefield right now. | dragontamer wrote: | > The drone can just fly around the concrete wall and | blow up the things on the other side, it doesn't need to | go through. | | Ukrainians are sitting inside of bunkers with 8-inch | concrete doors and 8-inch thick concrete all around. How | exactly are you "flying around" that? | | Now sure, Russians are absolute crap with tactics and | maybe drones are all you need to kill the Russians. But | I'm looking at things from the Ukrainian side as well. | Ukraine is defending so well that I'm not sure if | anything *EXCEPT* a 120mm gun can push into their | positions. | | That's the thing: Ukraine is forcing Russia to advance | with tanks. But Ukraine has a solid anti-tank strategy, | so we see a lot of dead Russian tanks. But the | alternative (ie: assaulting those Ukrainian bunkers with | lol no armor) is probably a worse idea! | | ------- | | Russian positions are just poorly dug dirt trenches right | now. Of course tanks are unnecessary (for now). But if | the Russians were actually as good as the Ukrainians (ie: | bringing in that thick Concrete to reinforce their | positions), then Ukraine would be forced to use tanks. | | Ukrainian positions in the Donbas region have so much | concrete, that they ask for artillery support and shell | *themselves*, confident that their bunkers can stand up | to the abuse. (Air-burst artillery shot at your own | bunkers will never harm the bunker, while unarmored | enemies trying to storm the bunker would all die at the | front-door.) | | This kind of defense practically requires a tank: you | need the armor to protect yourself from airburst | artillery, and you need the 120mm gun to punch through | the 8-inches of concrete that the Ukrainians are hiding | behind. Except Ukrainians __ALSO__ have anti-tank | munitions, and just blow up the tank. | | Its not exactly easy to figure out how to push into the | Ukrainian positions. But the tanks seem necessary (even | though they take high casualties). | | Its not like drones have much armor. Airburst artillery | would also destroy drones (airburst artillery covers | something like 10,000 sq-meters in shrapnel per shot). | Drones running into those positions would also be | destroyed by this simple tactic. | lazide wrote: | A drone shooting a missile at said bunker, or flying up | to the bunker and detonating a HEAT warhead it is | carrying, or flying a new drone in when the old one gets | hit by shrapnel all work great in these examples by the | way. | | Fabricating a kamikaze drone with HEAT warhead on it is a | $10k or less affair. | | Tanks are expensive, heavy sitting ducks. The only reason | they haven't been completely obsoleted is manufacturing | drones hasn't caught up yet. | | They're like horses in WW1 being used to charge machine | guns in this fight. | | In most of these cases you don't even need a drone to do | the dirty work though. Just one to find the bunker or | whatever and let artillery or a cruise middle do the | rest. | | Those drones can be less than $5k, but they do get more | expensive if you want to be able to pilot them from the | other side of the planet or whatever. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Mobile artillery with guided shells can perform many of | the tasks tanks are used for while at a standoff | distance. | dragontamer wrote: | Except tanks do the same thing with unguided shells. | | So the tank rounds are something like $500 each. In | contrast, guided artillery shells are $100,000 or so | each. | | I mean, Tomahawk cruise missiles ($1+ million bucks) | probably have more destructive potential and accuracy | than anything discussed here. But they're just too | expensive to really be used as a bread-and-butter tactic. | | ------- | | The artillery game is important for sure. But there's | advantages to a direct-fire system that directly engages | with the enemy. Besides, artillery + tanks work together | as a team, a force multiplier. Tanks can call for | artillery support after all. | | EDIT: Case in point, a tank can approach the front-lines, | and use its thermal-imaging / night-vision to be an | artillery-spotter from 3+km away from the target. The | tank can also survive "closer" to the enemy (danger | close, if you will). | gherkinnn wrote: | As others have put it, it isn't about a tank's vulnerabilities | but its capabilities. A vital distinction. | | Horses were made (mostly) superfluous by lorries because the | latter proved more capable. | | Humans are excessively vulnerable. Anything will put us out of | action. And we're expensive to replace too. But because there's | nothing more capable than a human at certain things, so we're | still expected to face flying pieces of metal. | | So far nothing can project force and hold terrain on land quite | like a tank does. Javelin teams in buggies can't. Neither can a | drone. But a fast and protected box with a fearsome boomstick | on one end does. Especially when used by well trained personnel | and employed in a sane manner. | smiley1437 wrote: | While tanks are still necessary, your observations are not | wrong - the US Marine Corps decided to get rid of tanks fairly | recently: | | https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-... | | Quite prescient considering what we are seeing in Ukraine a | couple years later with tanks being vulnerable especially when | deployed so haphazardly by Russian Federation. | | Bottom line - war games in 2018 showed that tanks and other | armored vehicles in-range of near-peer drones, Anti-tank guided | missiles (ATGMs) and Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) were | quite vulnerable - exactly like we're seeing in Ukraine. | | There were other factors but the top marine decided no more | tank battalions and greatly reduced artillery (among other | changes). | | Instead, these divestitures will be replaced by: | | 1. Precision long range fires (Naval Strike Missile\Joint | Strike Missile (NSM\JSM), and possibly Extended Range Cannon | Artillery (ERCA)) | | 2. Unmanned lethal air and ground systems. | | That tells you what the war games revealed as being effective | in future combat. | dragontamer wrote: | Marines got rid of tanks because Marines are focusing on a | China vs Taiwan hypothetical conflict, where tanks would be | nearly useless. | | China vs Taiwan would be largely about establishing control | of islands, and maybe a few beach-assaults. | | Tanks don't work well on sand, and the 80-ton M1 Abrams is | too heavy to fit on an assault-boat. | | ------ | | US Army has constantly developed tanks (and anti-tank | weapons) because the tank remains a major battlefield player | in Europe (Hypothetical... no wait... the now real Russia vs | Ukraine situation) | periphrasis wrote: | A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into | a small essay: | | Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, | if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the | open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially | more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; | they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat | offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked | Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could | just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask | "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked | supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course | is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles | provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, | very deadly for vehicles. | | Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the | terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too | low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban | operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire | from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, | which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk. | | As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more | effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on | the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a | more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by | having both working together, they are able to compensate for | the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more | effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and | forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the | main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will | be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the | tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire. | | The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in | Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their | infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if | they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization | and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably | less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion | Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means | that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never | trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference | to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for | months/years than with people you met two weeks ago. | | I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are | especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that | unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as | quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a | tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons | specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles. | xoa wrote: | Right, a key phrase here is "combined arms": nothing for | capturing/holding at all on the modern battlefield combines | speed, survivability, scale and effectiveness into a single | package. It's all about each piece reinforcing the others, | constantly making use of their own strengths and covering for | the weaknesses of other pieces (and being covered in turn) | and shifting to react to the opponents. Having all the | various forces well trained together, with the autonomy to | react fast to changing events at their own level, a good | regular supply of information/theater oversight, and with a | solid logistics chain behind them is vital. Without | logistics, intel and trained, smooth combined arms | effectiveness plummets no matter what else there is. | zokier wrote: | I would argue that tanks have already been de-emphasized in | western military doctrine from their heydays. That can be seen | for example in programs like the M8 tank getting perpetually | cancelled and instead more mobile platforms like Stryker | getting preferred. | chiph wrote: | An armor officer can answer this better than I can: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 | | 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. | deepsun wrote: | They move in lines because that's a mine-cleared path. And | they move on roads at the north because other terrain is mud | that even tanks get stuck on. | 323 wrote: | > _Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled?_ | | They are working on that - remote controlled ground vehicle | with customizable upper part, one option with a cannon turret, | another option with launch tubes for suicide drones: | | https://inf.news/en/military/c1587c15c63e5b9801ebb4e49a7fe2f... | x3iv130f wrote: | When it comes to semantics there needs to be a clear separation | between common and technical terms. | | I once had someone try to argue can't use the word bison and | buffalo interchangeably when sharing buffalo puns. | | _Bison_ is an old latin word for "wild ox". _Buffalo_ is an old | greek word also meaning _wild ox_. They 've been used | interchangeably for as long as greek and latin have been spoken | together. | | Some scientist coming along and naming some animal a "Bison | bison" doesn't overwrite thousands of years of history. | onionisafruit wrote: | Some of us take buffalo puns seriously. If a child of mine | misnamed a buffalo for a cheap pun, I would only have two words | for him, "bye son". | Symmetry wrote: | Yes, if one of my friends called a Bradley a tank that's close | enough and I wouldn't bother to correct them. But if a reporter | calls a Bradley a tank that shows that they're missing some | basic "military 101" knowledge and it'll influence how much I | trust what they're saying. | lou1306 wrote: | Or in the words of _Moby Dick_ 's Ishmael, "I take the good old | fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy | Jonah to back me". | jokoon wrote: | Today, there are two big families of armored vehicle, main battle | tanks, light armor, and everything else. | | Main battle tanks are designed to sustain a hit from ammunition | designed to defeat armor, meaning sabot, RPG, anti-tank missiles, | shells, etc. There are some classified techs related to this. | Reactive armor is one part, anti RPG measures too (the think that | shoots a RPG rocket before it lands). MBT can also land shot from | very far away with its 120mm cannon. Most tanks built before the | 80s are pretty weak against most RPG with directed charges. | | Light armors are designed to mostly sustain small arms fire | (rifle calibers carried by infantry, anything smaller that | 50BMG), and will shoot stuff like 20mm or 30mm, but carry armor | that can't really defeat 20 or 30mm. | | "Everything else" will usually not protect against small arms | fire (except those high mounted things who are designed to | survive improvised bombs). | | I think MBT are built to mostly survive 30mm shells, but "not too | many", and increase its chance or surviving shells and other | things. | | The reason there are two kinds of vehicles, is because MBT are | very heavy (50 tons or more) and can get stuck in mud, and | because it's important to transport troops quickly and safely | "enough" (unless you encounter a MBT, then you dismount and | hides). | | But you should not really read everything that I just wrote, | because I don't know what I am talking about. | choeger wrote: | Funny thing: The "not a tank" Gepard actually is essentially a | Leopard 1 MBT with a different turret. So it's the quintessential | example for the definition the author uses: The role has changed | and thus did the turret, but the rest of the car stayed the same. | dragontamer wrote: | In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank", or the M1 | Abrams. | | In Germany, "tank" is translated to "Panzer", which roughly means | armored vehicles. So "Flugabwehrkanonepanzer" (aka: Flakpanzer) | is a Panzer. | | But a German-flakpanzer is NOT a USA-"tank". | | ---------- | | I think a lot of the confusion is the difference in languages. | Panzer =/= tank, its just the closest word between the two | languages, so we kinda sorta equate them. | | USA's M2 Bradley is "not a tank", but probably would be | classified as a German Panzer. | | -------- | | The "proper name" is "Main Battle Tank", which does refer to a | very specific kind of vehicle. | | ------- | | This is reminding me very much of the "cube rule" for sandwiches. | A "hot-dog" isn't a "sandwich", its a "taco" (hot-dogs have the | starch covering 3x sides, with the "top" side open). | | Other "tacos" include hot-dogs, subs, and slice-of-pies (pies are | covered on 3 sides after all) | moron4hire wrote: | Tacos are definitely sandwiches. Or as I usually say it, | sandwiches are tacos. | dragontamer wrote: | Cube-rule is pretty funny. | | https://cuberule.com/ | | Specifically this picture: | https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg | | Of course, this rule is absurd, since it classifies hotdogs, | pie, and subs as a "taco". I think the overall point remains, | that no matter how you wish to "classify" things, you can | always find a unique counter-example that messes up your | classifications. | NineStarPoint wrote: | My main issue with the rule is that it calls pumpkin pie | bent toast, when it is obviously a missing category of type | (2) where instead of being disjoint like the sandwich, the | 2 pieces of starch are connected at an edge. Likewise there | should probably be a category of type (3) where all pieces | of starch are joined at a corner and a category of type (4) | where it's like a type (5) but with one of the sides | removed. I believe with those three additions all | rotationally-unique cube configurations would be accounted | for by the rule. | fragmede wrote: | I never got that as the overall point because there are | definitely classification systems (especially in math) that | don't have counter-examples. | | Hotdogs and tacos _are_ the same, topologically speaking. | We derive additional meaning between the two words because | they 're not the same due to bread and filling used, but | topology doesn't care about that. It's entertaining because | it's food and everyone has experience with that, but | there's some serious math once you look into it! | | I guess you could classify me as a structural purist - | ingredient rebel on the sandwich alignment chart. I'm | guessing you're a structural neutral - ingredient purist | person. | bombcar wrote: | One thing ignored is the ingredients inside - a "taco" | with one huge piece of chicken or steak would seem more | like some other type of food. | dragonwriter wrote: | > One thing ignored is the ingredients inside - a "taco" | with one huge piece of chicken or steak would seem more | like some other type of food. | | A taco with one huge piece of fish inside is typically | called a "fish taco". One with a whole frankfurter inside | is, apparently, a "taco de salchicha". | | So I'm not sure that your theory holds up. | a3w wrote: | Burgers are sandwiches. Many things are sandwiches. Earth is | a sandwich since most of the time two slices of bread touch | the ground at pretty-much-opposite sides[citation needed] | dragonwriter wrote: | > In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank", or the | M1 Abrams. | | That's not true, though the only tanks in the current inventory | in the US are MBTs. The term "tank" in the USA does encompass | light tanks, like the (retired) M551 Sheridan, (canceled just | before operational) M8 Buford, and the (in development) as-yet- | undesignated product of the Mobile Protected Firepower project, | not just MBTs. | ummonk wrote: | A taco is mutually exclusive from a sandwich, because it's made | from folded piece of bread, rather than sliced / partially | sliced which is what defines a sandwich. | | Hot dogs and subs are sandwiches for this reason, as are | burgers. | | Also, "taco" is a term for a specific kind of folded bread dish | - even quesadillas aren't considered tacos. | | A pie is not a sandwich, taco, or quesadilla. It's a pie. | gherkinnn wrote: | "Panzer" in a very general protective sense translates to | "Armour". Brustpanzer -> Chest armour. Even a turtle's shell is | a Panzer. Typically a hard enclosure protecting the main body | of a thing. But not its extremities. A "helmet" is a "Helm". | Though any element can be "gepanzert", or "armoured". | | It is important to note that Panzer mostly refers to protection | from violence. A civilian car is never "gepanzert", neither is | a padded skateboarder. Unless you're mocking something. A | Chelsea tractor is an Hausfrauenpanzer. One exception I can | think of is the Ruckenpanzer, or spine protector. | | In a contemporary military context, a Panzer is any armoured | vehicle. The definition is indeed looser than in English. The | equivalent of tank (or main battle tank, MBT) is Kampfpanzer. | Fighting tank. | | An IFV like the M2 is a Schutzenpanzer. | Shooter/gunner/rifleman's tank. | | But when using Panzer to describe a specific vehicle, as | opposed to a general category, I too would expect it to refer | to an MBT. But I could be wrong here. | a3w wrote: | There are even civilian city tanks: SUVs... ok enough with the | satire. | | I disagree with the author. What is a panzer is also a tank to | the layman, and language changes with its (incorrect) usage. See | also the last paragraph. | | Tank doctrine or tank building parts make a tank. Bergungstiger | is a tank. Not having (,,tank") tracks, but armor, wheels and | anti-tank weapons, is still a tank. ``Jagdpanzer''s (mostly front | armored, no-turret tanks) are tanks. | | There is not even a definition for ,,salad" that we as humankind | can agree on, but: if we see it, we know if it is a salad, tank, | or both. | Sharlin wrote: | Hm, I don't think you disagree with the author, whose | definition of "tank" in the article is basically "vehicle whose | primary purpose is to engage ground targets with a direct-fire | cannon while keeping the crew alive" (as opposed to, in | particular, vehicles whose primary purpose is to transport and | give fire support to infantry). | ZeroGravitas wrote: | "tank" seems like a very headline (and tweet) friendly word. | | http://www.isabelperez.com/module4_tesis/headlines.htm | | I can imagine similar nerd discussions for some of those. | | (Interesting to note the only one that seems longer than the | usual term is replacing 'strike'). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-07 23:00 UTC)