Jump to content


The Chieftain's Hatch: 100-year icon


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

stalkervision #21 Posted Sep 16 2016 - 19:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 15 2016 - 16:29, said:

 

EMPs and other forms of signal disruption say nope.

 

​sorry Charlie emp pulses only affect un-hardened electronics and communications. This effect has been know since the early a bomb era, corrected for and military equipment and many important civilian systems are emp hardened for a long time now. It's required where applicable.

 

http://everyspec.com/

 

 http://file:///C:/Users/JOANMA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/MIL-STD-464C.pdf



WulfeHound #22 Posted Sep 16 2016 - 20:37

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Sep 16 2016 - 13:04, said:

 

​sorry Charlie emp pulses only affect un-hardened electronics and communications. This effect has been know since the early a bomb era, corrected for and military equipment and many important civilian systems are emp hardened for a long time now. It's required where applicable.

 

http://everyspec.com/

 

 http://file:///C:/Users/JOANMA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/MIL-STD-464C.pdf

 

EMPs were the first thing that came to mind, but I see you didn't read the other part of my statement. Other forms of signal disruption include satellite destruction, hacking, jamming, and so on.

Walter_Sobchak #23 Posted Sep 16 2016 - 23:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

To Wulfie and Stalkervision - 

 

Predicting the future is always a risky business.  If you look through old issues of ARMOR or declassified government reports, you will find all sorts of failed predictions regarding tanks.  I would not be so quick to dismiss the notion of drone tanks, nor would I say it's a certainty.  Probably the most surprising thing about tank development in my lifetime has been how little has changed.  I was a ten year old kid when the M1 Abrams was introduced.  Now I am 43 and the Abrams is still the primary MBT of the US Army.  Working prototypes of the AGT-1500 turbine engine were on the test stand in 1967.  Think about that.  The turbine engine powering the Abrams is the same age as the Beatles Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band LP.  I don't think anyone predicted these systems would stick around so long.  



zloykrolik #24 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 03:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29588 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 16 2016 - 14:30, said:

To Wulfie and Stalkervision - 

 

 

If you want to get into a discussion about Signals and jamming etc, please don't muck up this thread. Take it to PM please.

 

 

Oh, and I still have my tanker boots, they could use a bit of polish, but I still have them with range dust on them from Gowen Field.


Edited by zloykrolik, Sep 17 2016 - 03:14.


AlasdhairM #25 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 04:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 579 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    07-19-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 16 2016 - 23:30, said:

To Wulfie and Stalkervision - 

 

Predicting the future is always a risky business.  If you look through old issues of ARMOR or declassified government reports, you will find all sorts of failed predictions regarding tanks.  I would not be so quick to dismiss the notion of drone tanks, nor would I say it's a certainty.  Probably the most surprising thing about tank development in my lifetime has been how little has changed.  I was a ten year old kid when the M1 Abrams was introduced.  Now I am 43 and the Abrams is still the primary MBT of the US Army.  Working prototypes of the AGT-1500 turbine engine were on the test stand in 1967.  Think about that.  The turbine engine powering the Abrams is the same age as the Beatles Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band LP.  I don't think anyone predicted these systems would stick around so long.  

 

Turbines are a beautiful thing! World War Two-era steam turbines had a service life expectancy of 100 years of operation. The engines on N106US, the A320 involved in the Miracle on the Hudson, had 19,182 and 26,466 hours on them (port and starboard, respectively), and they were nowhere near the end of their expected lifespan. I think the decision to stick with a gas turbine is probably the correct one, although a more modern one would probably be best; GE's T408/GE38 produces 7,500 SHP in a 55"x27"x27", 1,100lb engine, versus the AGT1500's 66.5"x39"x31.8" and 2,500lbs. I dpubt one could realistically make that happen, or build a transmission that could take those loads, but it'd be a helluva way to one-up the Armata's supposed 2,000 horsepower. 

 

I dunno where I was trying to go with that, but gas turbines are sweet, and they've only become even more superior to piston engines since the AGT1500.



stalkervision #26 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 13:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 16 2016 - 14:37, said:

 

EMPs were the first thing that came to mind, but I see you didn't read the other part of my statement. Other forms of signal disruption include satellite destruction, hacking, jamming, and so on.

 

​jamming is pretty darn hard now with advanced frequency hopping technology being so prevalent. A simple form is right in your wireless home phone. hacking these communications and signals is near impossible.

 

so on and so on and so on..?   I didn't address these other items because they were pretty lame and I won't fill in your usual unspecified speculations for you.



stalkervision #27 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 13:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Sep 16 2016 - 17:30, said:

To Wulfie and Stalkervision - 

 

Predicting the future is always a risky business.  If you look through old issues of ARMOR or declassified government reports, you will find all sorts of failed predictions regarding tanks.  I would not be so quick to dismiss the notion of drone tanks, nor would I say it's a certainty.  Probably the most surprising thing about tank development in my lifetime has been how little has changed.  I was a ten year old kid when the M1 Abrams was introduced.  Now I am 43 and the Abrams is still the primary MBT of the US Army.  Working prototypes of the AGT-1500 turbine engine were on the test stand in 1967.  Think about that.  The turbine engine powering the Abrams is the same age as the Beatles Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band LP.  I don't think anyone predicted these systems would stick around so long.  

 

​unmanned fighter aircraft are being developed as we speak. We use military drones to attack terrorists every day. The army and our civilian police use small drone vehicles right now. I am very sure somewhere in Darpa they are working with the army civilian contractors on a remote control tank.  The reason we have so much old military technology still being used is budget quite frankly and that it still is viable.

 

That is why the B-52 is still around.

 



Walter_Sobchak #28 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 17:26

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Sep 17 2016 - 07:12, said:

 

​unmanned fighter aircraft are being developed as we speak. We use military drones to attack terrorists every day. The army and our civilian police use small drone vehicles right now. I am very sure somewhere in Darpa they are working with the army civilian contractors on a remote control tank.  The reason we have so much old military technology still being used is budget quite frankly and that it still is viable.

 

That is why the B-52 is still around.

They have been working on remote control tanks for over 60 years (Chieftain even did a cool article about it)  My point was not that remote control tanks are, or are not viable.  My point was that its really hard to predict what will actually come into service down the road.  It's not just about technology, but also military doctrine, funding, potential threats and a whole bunch of other issues.  

 

For example, back in the 1950's/1960's, people would probably look at you funny if you said that there was no future in MBTs whose main armament was a missile launcher.  And yet look how that turned out.



aethervox #29 Posted Sep 17 2016 - 19:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 24861 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Sep 15 2016 - 22:00, said:

remote control tanks and aircraft are the future of warfare

 

View PostWulfeHound, on Sep 15 2016 - 22:29, said:

 

EMPs and other forms of signal disruption say nope.

 

Yes to Stalkervision and No to Wulfehound on this particular topic - remotely controlled ground vehicles and aircraft is/are the future (no human body means faster speeds and manouevers)

BTW, Wulfie, finally you have a decent Avatar image, lol



The_Chieftain #30 Posted Sep 18 2016 - 00:18

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,456
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I think it'll be a very long time before an unmanned tank can make a judgement call over whether or not a piece of ground is traversable, and even longer before an unmanned tank can hop out and hook up a tow cable to its wingman when the judgement call is wrong. The air environment is so much simpler than land, and we're not really going unmanned there either

heavymetal1967 #31 Posted Sep 18 2016 - 03:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 57665 battles
  • 13,608
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 17 2016 - 19:18, said:

I think it'll be a very long time before an unmanned tank can make a judgement call over whether or not a piece of ground is traversable, and even longer before an unmanned tank can hop out and hook up a tow cable to its wingman when the judgement call is wrong. The air environment is so much simpler than land, and we're not really going unmanned there either

 

Good point as unmanned doesn't necessarily mean self or AI piloted or operated.  And nice post in the opener.

stalkervision #32 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 02:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 17 2016 - 18:18, said:

I think it'll be a very long time before an unmanned tank can make a judgement call over whether or not a piece of ground is traversable, and even longer before an unmanned tank can hop out and hook up a tow cable to its wingman when the judgement call is wrong. The air environment is so much simpler than land, and we're not really going unmanned there either

 

​ Forward looking ground penetrating radar to automatically gauge soil resistance or a track/soil resistance gauge and a reward hydraulic tow attachment designed to fit the tow hooks that those cables fit into.  a bit like what repo men and repair guys use on their trucks every day. It would be very easy indeed to design a adapter to specially attach to a extendable hydraulic tow system. Front mounted adapter and rear mounted hydraulic tow system.

 

nasa and the soviets have done automatic docking for ages.  Hell there are cars that will automatically parallel park for you now. Your still living in the stone age chief ! :P

 

 



SafariJohn #33 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 04:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15850 battles
  • 723
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

This cool video talks some about how the Mars Rover can analyze the terrain in front of it and do its own pathfinding.

 

 



CapturedJoe #34 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 09:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,914
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Guys,  we already had unmanned tanks.

The T-26 Teletank!



stalkervision #35 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 12:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostCapturedJoe, on Sep 19 2016 - 03:25, said:

Guys,  we already had unmanned tanks.

The T-26 Teletank!

 

​we already had drone aircraft in the 1940's but the technology was still too primitive to use them. Now they fly daily attack missions again't ISIS.

CapturedJoe #36 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 17:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,914
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View Poststalkervision, on Sep 19 2016 - 12:33, said:

 

​we already had drone aircraft in the 1940's but the technology was still too primitive to use them. Now they fly daily attack missions again't ISIS.

 

The T-26 Teletank was used in action against the Finnish though, it wasn't that primitive.

WulfeHound #37 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 17:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
And on top of that, the Navy and Army drones in WWII were used in combat, albeit unsuccessfully. That's why Joseph Kennedy Jr died, when the PB4Y drone he was in exploded prematurely over England

stalkervision #38 Posted Sep 19 2016 - 18:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 48361 battles
  • 7,550
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostCapturedJoe, on Sep 19 2016 - 11:04, said:

 

The T-26 Teletank was used in action against the Finnish though, it wasn't that primitive.

 

​It is pretty darn primitive to what we have now. In those days it was cutting edge though. :P

Shanzival #39 Posted Sep 21 2016 - 20:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9298 battles
  • 557
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011
One would think that concepts such as latency and reaction time would be obvious to people on an online game forum. Drones only really work in a highly permissible environment. Channel hopping works if the person trying to jam you isn't just blanketing an entire spectrum. And the Mars drones moves along at a speed that would make the Mark I look fast.

There's a long while to go before autonomous ground combat vehicles see active service.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users