Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?

[Olas]

tanks are cool, and very good fun to blat around in, however remotely controlled drones are the future.
its safer to sit in an underground bunker with a joystick and a screen so less of our troops will be killed, and the fact of being 'removed' from the theatre gives rise to a feeling of playing a computer game which makes killing easier - many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles.

also;
aircraft cover ground faster than tanks
aircraft are harder to hit than tanks

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that tanks were invented in 1915 as one possible solution to trench warfare. Seriously outdated tech.

[eccles]

Olas said:

tanks are cool, and very good fun to blat around in, however remotely controlled drones are the future.
its safer to sit in an underground bunker with a joystick and a screen so less of our troops will be killed, and the fact of being 'removed' from the theatre gives rise to a feeling of playing a computer game which makes killing easier - many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles.

also;
aircraft cover ground faster than tanks
aircraft are harder to hit than tanks

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that tanks were invented in 1915 as one possible solution to trench warfare. Seriously outdated tech.

Drones are fine until someone cuts your data link..

[Hedobot]

That may be but some fecker has to stick a flag in the ground which cannot be done remotely.

[gazapc]

Olas said:

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that powered aeroplanes were invented in 1903. Seriously outdated tech.

EFA as planes are even older.

[DuncsGTi]

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

[borcy]

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

I think it was a study carried out in ww2 by the US Army. I think they found lots just fired to scare the enemy rather than actually aim at them.

[s2art]

borcy said:

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

I think it was a study carried out in ww2 by the US Army. I think they found lots just fired to scare the enemy rather than actually aim at them.

I sort of remember that too. But that was mainly a conscripted army, I doubt it applies to the pros.

[DuncsGTi]

borcy said:

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

I think it was a study carried out in ww2 by the US Army. I think they found lots just fired to scare the enemy rather than actually aim at them.

Well, I can say with absolute certainty any time I've been under "effective enemy fire", the last thing on my mind was scaring them and hoping that'll change their minds about shooting me.

At the end of the day, self preservation trumps the unpleasant thoughts of having to actually shoot someone.

[anonymous-user]

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

There’s a good article in Reddit here

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/b6k528/p...

Sure it’s reddit but there are some references.

Seems to be a statistic that’s in question.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 3rd March 14:11

[mikal83]

Olas said:

tanks are cool, and very good fun to blat around in, however remotely controlled drones are the future.
its safer to sit in an underground bunker with a joystick and a screen so less of our troops will be killed, and the fact of being 'removed' from the theatre gives rise to a feeling of playing a computer game which makes killing easier - many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles.

also;
aircraft cover ground faster than tanks
aircraft are harder to hit than tanks

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that tanks were invented in 1915 as one possible solution to trench warfare. Seriously outdated tech.

And to expand on that, why do we have an air farce when the Fleet Air Arm can do both, land and sea!

[Agammemnon]

Olas said:

tanks are cool, and very good fun to blat around in, however remotely controlled drones are the future.
its safer to sit in an underground bunker with a joystick and a screen so less of our troops will be killed, and the fact of being 'removed' from the theatre gives rise to a feeling of playing a computer game which makes killing easier - many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles.

also;
aircraft cover ground faster than tanks
aircraft are harder to hit than tanks

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that tanks were invented in 1915 as one possible solution to trench warfare. Seriously outdated tech.

Ever see that scene in one of the Star Wars films where the controller loses communication & the entire droid army becomes lifeless?

[stevesingo]

There is a lot of evidence to suggest this is the case.

Even dating back to the American civil war where soldiers were found dead next to their muzzle load rifles which contained multiple unfired loads with the hammer still to the rear. This implied that the soldier loaded the rifle, held it in the aim and when the order to fire came did not fire, using the cover of the other firers in the ranks to mask the fact. Once the volley was released, the solder went through the motions of loading again.

I read somewhere that 90% of the killing in WW2 ground combat was done by 10% of the soldiers.

One of the findings was there were three types of soldiers doing the killing;

Kill or be killed
Kill in order to prevent comrades being killed
Psychopaths

Post WW2 the US army instigated change to training to battle inoculate solders. One such measure was to replace bulls eye targets with images of enemy soldiers.

[anonymous-user]

Might be different with conscripts and professional soldiers also.

[stevesingo]

Quite likely, but more to do with the amount and levels of inoculation (indoctrination) than the distribution of psychological traits in the populace.

[s2art]

stevesingo said:

There is a lot of evidence to suggest this is the case.



Post WW2 the US army instigated change to training to battle inoculate solders. One such measure was to replace bulls eye targets with images of enemy soldiers.

That may have been true here too. Spent several weekends on Salisbury plain shooting cardboard cutouts of ww2 German soldiers.

[RizzoTheRat]

El stovey said:

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

There’s a good article in Reddit here

https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/b6k528/p...

Sure it’s reddit but there are some references.

Seems to be a statistic that’s in question.

Edited by El stovey on Tuesday 3rd March 14:11

There's plenty of evidence that "participation rates" at its known is well below 100%, but I don't know what current quoted rates are. David Rowlands book The Stress Of Battle is probably a good place to start but I no longer have a copy. There's also a huge difference between rounds fired and rounds which are effective, both due to participation rates and sub par marksmanship skills due to lack of training.
A lot of studies though are based on pretty old data going back as far as WW2.

[RizzoTheRat]

mikal83 said:

And to expand on that, why do we have an air farce when the Fleet Air Arm can do both, land and sea!

Do the Fleet Air Arm have any fast jets yet?

[mikal83]

RizzoTheRat said:

mikal83 said:

And to expand on that, why do we have an air farce when the Fleet Air Arm can do both, land and sea!

Do the Fleet Air Arm have any fast jets yet?

F35 and Hawks

[Evanivitch]

Olas said:

tanks are cool, and very good fun to blat around in, however remotely controlled drones are the future.
its safer to sit in an underground bunker with a joystick and a screen so less of our troops will be killed, and the fact of being 'removed' from the theatre gives rise to a feeling of playing a computer game which makes killing easier - many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles.

also;
aircraft cover ground faster than tanks
aircraft are harder to hit than tanks

Things change and we have to adapt - remember that tanks were invented in 1915 as one possible solution to trench warfare. Seriously outdated tech.

Spoken like a true armchair General!

[Ayahuasca]

borcy said:

DuncsGTi said:

Olas said:

many troops in combat deliberately shoot high to avoid the feelings associated with ending a life but this phenomena does not present itself with remotely operated vehicles

I'd love to know your source for this nugget

I think it was a study carried out in ww2 by the US Army. I think they found lots just fired to scare the enemy rather than actually aim at them.

A similar study was carried on weapons (muzzle loading) recovered from the Gettysburg battlefield. An astonishing proportion had been loaded more than once, some half a dozen times, without being fired! A theory was that soldiers went through all the motions of shooting, without actually shooting. Other theories are available.