Jump to content


Unmanned Patton


  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

JohannRSA #21 Posted Aug 16 2015 - 13:29

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3566 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postdcfan, on Aug 16 2015 - 04:14, said:

This article reminded me of the US Army Air Corps and US Navy's program to use remote controlled bombers. As always, Chieftan, good job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite

 

That's why you will always need guns on fighter planes. I don't know who started the trend in the US that rockets and missiles are the only weapons that fighters needed but, they needed a swift kick the back-side.

They only finally got rid of this stupid idea after the Vietnam war.


Edited by JohannRSA, Aug 16 2015 - 14:18.


MisterLeeD #22 Posted Aug 16 2015 - 14:07

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 52933 battles
  • 102
  • [REJEX] REJEX
  • Member since:
    04-11-2011

USAF:0

Hellcat:Free day of premium

They were lucky the Hellcat had no ordinance!!



JasonLeeStrickland #23 Posted Aug 16 2015 - 18:30

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13589 battles
  • 355
  • [SHIRE] SHIRE
  • Member since:
    09-20-2014

View Postdrlag, on Aug 15 2015 - 19:09, said:

Its a specialized variant w/ the M1 Abrams Hull.

 

Operating with hatch open -unadvised

shapeshifter #24 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 02:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,874
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

They have been toying with this since world war 2. T1E1 heavy started, then they were testing it more on the medium tanks.

 



WulfeHound #25 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 07:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostJohannRSA, on Aug 16 2015 - 07:29, said:

 

That's why you will always need guns on fighter planes. I don't know who started the trend in the US that rockets and missiles are the only weapons that fighters needed but, they needed a swift kick the back-side.

They only finally got rid of this stupid idea after the Vietnam war.

 

They realized that partway through. The F-4 got guns by 1964-1965 with the E model and gun pods used on both Navy aircraft and AF aircraft prior to the E

A_Hornblower #26 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 08:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13719 battles
  • 56
  • Member since:
    06-04-2012

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 16 2015 - 22:56, said:

 

They realized that partway through. The F-4 got guns by 1964-1965 with the E model and gun pods used on both Navy aircraft and AF aircraft prior to the E

 

The Navy never put guns on its Phantoms.
And even of the Air Force models with internal guns, only a tiny number of air-to-air kills involved use of the gun. The overwhelming majority of kills were with missiles.
The big difference was in fighter tactics and pilot training.

WulfeHound #27 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 09:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostA_Hornblower, on Aug 17 2015 - 02:13, said:

 

The Navy never put guns on its Phantoms.
And even of the Air Force models with internal guns, only a tiny number of air-to-air kills involved use of the gun. The overwhelming majority of kills were with missiles.
The big difference was in fighter tactics and pilot training.

 

Could have sworn Navy Phantoms got guns. I know that RN Phantoms didn't due to clearance issues. 

The_Chieftain #28 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 14:10

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10032 battles
  • 9,556
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The T1 remote appeared to be a visual line of sight setup, like most RC toys today. (Offhand, I can't recall if it was radio or tethered). I have't seen the details on the T25 remote control that I can recall.

t8z5h3 #29 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 16:25

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 33116 battles
  • 835
  • [DI-FI] DI-FI
  • Member since:
    04-23-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Aug 17 2015 - 14:10, said:

The T1 remote appeared to be a visual line of sight setup, like most RC toys today. (Offhand, I can't recall if it was radio or tethered). I have't seen the details on the T25 remote control that I can recall.

 

there was some testing of stuff like a remote controlled B-17 but it was supper unsuccessful because it had to be flown into the air by men then they would jump, the plane it's self would walk out of range and go crazy.

Germany had some remote controlled stuff two?

 

at any case it was mostly ineffective.

 

 



kamikazekirb #30 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 20:38

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34215 battles
  • 95
  • [GRID] GRID
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

Nice article.


 

Thanks.


 

You said that you came upon a remote mine destroyer in Iraq, as you say in the last photo shown. was the mine destroyer effective?  TYIA...!!



kamikazekirb #31 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 20:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34215 battles
  • 95
  • [GRID] GRID
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

the unmanned patton would have been used if the war lasted  longer.. i mean.. blow up Pattons?? so what??


 

 tax payer.. no..??


 


 

lol/../.



kamikazekirb #32 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 20:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34215 battles
  • 95
  • [GRID] GRID
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013
Korean war That izz.......humph.

tweetpuke #33 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 21:34

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 40160 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011
I attended AFROTC summer camp at Eglin AFB, FL, following my sophomore year in 1971. The AF weapons development center is at Eglin and we received quite a number of briefings and tours of their facilities over our four weeks there. One particularly memorable briefing included test footage from the first generation of LGB, the Paveway 1. One sequence of high speed film showed a moving tank, I can't remember for sure the designation but I seem to remember it was described as an M-60, with the shape of an Mk. 84 configured with the Paveway 1 kit rapidly entering the frame for a direct hit on the roof of the turret. The picture was quickly filled with blast and debris before moving to the next test sequence. It was pretty amazing stuff. At the end of the film the briefer asked if we remembered the tank being hit by the 2000# bomb and being obliterated. Who could forget? Of course we all remembered. "Well," he said, "it didn't really happen like it appeared to." What? No way. He then put up a film in slow motion and you can see the weapon disappear behind the tank followed by the explosion. He said the laser that guided the weapon had locked onto a large ant hill beside the tank due to operator and TV camera contrast issues in the launch aircraft system. He said it really ruined the ant colony's day and created a huge problem for the range and test crew. The blast, only 20' away and beside the 15 mph tank, completely removed the remote control antennas and failed to provide so much a mobility kill ie detracking. The tank went merrily on it's way for over 5 miles off the range before as he said "it met a tree bigger and tougher than the tank". He added that this incident goes to show that not everything you see is exactly what you might think you see and that even very bright engineers and testers don't always think through all of the potential problems. He said he wished he had film of the test of a 20,000# reinforced concrete shape (mostly round it would seem) they'd dropped from a C-130 to test the ballistics of what would be know as the "instant LZ" fuel-air weapon a precursor to the MOAB. Apparently it bounced, skipped and rolled nearly 10 miles through the pine forest of one of the Eglin ranges. Totally unexpected.

Gustav_Kuriga #34 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 21:35

    Private

  • Players
  • 6748 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    12-05-2013
Considering the Germans in WWII had remote controlled tanks, I think it is more a matter of execution than the idea being faulty.

WulfeHound #35 Posted Aug 17 2015 - 22:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostGustav_Kuriga, on Aug 17 2015 - 15:35, said:

Considering the Germans in WWII had remote controlled tanks, I think it is more a matter of execution than the idea being faulty.

 

The Goliath was a tracked mine, not really a tank. The Soviets were planning teletanks in 1935. 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/10/remote-control.html?m=0



tim2327 #36 Posted Aug 18 2015 - 04:42

    Private

  • Players
  • 19179 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

hey Chieftain.  It took a while to get dad to talk but he was in an engineering battalion in the late 50's.   He got talking about his stint in 3rd armored. he laughed and said something about Elvis [not nicely] or the Michigan National Guard in 1961 when he got called out of inactive reserve a month before coming off the books.  The MNG was just looking to get their college paid for and was insulted that they had to be mobilized.  6 months at Ft. Riley and they were still mad  in 1961[ cuban crisis.].He said the most fun he had was when they brought in new tanks and his unit had to fire 10 rounds from the gun before they would be allowed to go to the units.  I could tell that was fun for him by his eyes.  They were almost laughing.

 



Red_Ensign #37 Posted Aug 18 2015 - 04:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 6420 battles
  • 5,650
  • Member since:
    02-14-2013
from the title I thought patton was neutered.

shapeshifter #38 Posted Aug 18 2015 - 06:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,874
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Aug 17 2015 - 08:10, said:

The T1 remote appeared to be a visual line of sight setup, like most RC toys today. (Offhand, I can't recall if it was radio or tethered). I have't seen the details on the T25 remote control that I can recall.

 

  Tethered for the T1 I think, they tried both in the T23 series of tanks if I recall (which could be incorrect on my part as well, could have still been only tethered)

 

Tethered let them stand outside the tank and drive it around, or it could be used by the commander in the turret to take control.


Edited by shapeshifter, Aug 18 2015 - 06:34.


KrasnayaZvezda #39 Posted Aug 18 2015 - 11:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10239 battles
  • 2,629
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

These seem to be relevant, too. I don't have details, but it seems that they're from 1961.

 

 



LSID #40 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 11:37

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 7229 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

It is going to be awhile before there is large scale use remote control combat vehicles in a contested signals environment.

The signals are to easy to jam. Most control systems are limited by line of site. Satellite bandwidth is expensive and limited.

Use of ROVs will probably be limited to small scale short range applications when you are talking about use on a battlefield.

The stuff is seriously cool though.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users