|Bort - 2014-02-23 |
Awesome, those are the basic tanks from "Battle Zone".
Are stealth tanks that loud in the game?
|Nominal - 2014-02-23 |
Some war nerd tell me the point of a stealth tank. How would this protect it from mines, RPGs, IEDs, or A-10s?
Got to use up that military budget somehow, otherwise it might get cut for next year.
Also according to the arm-chair generals and ex-servicemen in the youtube comments a lot of tanks today are destroyed by aircraft with radar and whatnot so I guess this would help in that regard.
"Target locked. Arming missile."
"Negative. Do not fire, repeat, do not fire."
"It clearly says 'concept' on the side. It's just from a trade show or something."
"Oh, wow. Thanks for noticing that. I would've looked like an idiot for blowing that up."
"Do they all have that marking?"
"Yeah, even the ones blowing stuff up."
"Huh. Guess I'll return to base, then."
no clue if radar is a threat to tanks, but that machine gun and launcher on top of the turret would give a decent radar signature.
also looks like the body work leaves about 3 inches of travel for the suspension...so paved roads only tank?
|Meerkat - 2014-02-23 |
The best part is the guy's head is not radar invisible so on imaging radars it looks like a floating disembodied head wandering loose.
Not if he wears a stealth helmet.
|gammon - 2014-02-23 |
5 stars for the degradation of industrial design aesthetics. That looks like shit.
It looks like something straight out of Battlefield 2142.
I'd really have to see this tanks performance in a realistic shooter like Modern Warfare to judge it's usefulness.
Pretty much every vehicle designed after CAD showed up looks like shit. I remember the year after the Rhino 3d beta went live all of the cars got curvier but even blander.
Anyone interested in the shittiness of modern, mainstream design should check out the book Living With Complexity. You'll probably like it as much as I did.
|Kabbage - 2014-02-23 |
Call me when every tank is this: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=32754
Ok, Mr. Heinlein.
|Old_Zircon - 2014-02-24 |
This looks like a prop from After the Fall of New York except even shoddier, but apparently it isn't.
Well I think it looks cool, so to hell with all of you.
Let's see... do I prefer cool or combat effectiveness in my military hardware? Let me think...
HEARTS AND MINDS.
Tanks are obsolete anyway, particularly when you consider the kind of fighting Poland is likely to be doing during the lifespan of this vehicle. The only practical use this thing could possibly have is driving around, looking cool.
Stick some beer coolers and a boombox on this, and it could Poland's answer to the Tops In Blue!
The tank being obsolete has been called going on 50 years now. I don't think it will be going away anytime soon as a viable weapons platform.
What might end up happening is the systems becoming lighter and smaller, with protection changing from simple solid armor to more elaborate measures to defeat anti-tank missiles.
Maybe huge 70-ton monsters will be a thing of the past, but not the tank itself.
Tanks are still around because, in the absence of a truly serious war, the military-industrial complex is notoriously reluctant to change it's ways. We haven't had a real, honest-to-god symmetrical war in nigh on fifty years now (thank God), which goes a long way towards explaining why people have been bitching but nothing has changed.
I mean, IFVs can do pretty much anything tanks can do, plus so much more, and they're effective in a much wider variety of environments and conditions. Even during the Second World War, tanks were generally only useful when supporting infantry anyway, so screw it, why not say to hell with the concept of a main battle tank and just focus on mechanized infantry and air support?
But this looks more like something from Solarbabies. Which means it is vulnerable to inline skating.
I was always kind of confused about the IFV thing. It seems more like a general term for an APC with a turret on it than anything truly groundbreaking. And what makes an IFV different from an armed APC, or a tank that can carry troops inside it like that stupid Merkava?
In terms of armament tho a cannon on a MBT is pretty awesome to have in an urban combat situation, so goes the observances of some of my 0311 buds that I knew. They described it a giant bullet proof death spewer that would distract the enemy and provide massive fire support.
As an 0811 (field artillery) I was taught that in a direct fire situation you can take on an IFV if you're fast enough with the howitzer, you can blow it to pieces with an HE round, but if you see a tank, run for the hills; a cannon will fire faster and more accurately, and will most likely take HE rounds without any real damage save for a mobility kill.
Well, terminology is always kind of muddy. What is a tank? What is an IFV? Definitions vary, but I think the key for an IFVs is, they're much more heavily armed than an APC, and have the internal transport capacity that tanks lack. The Bradley is basically just a light tank with space to transport and deploy infantry.
It's true that IFVs aren't really beefy enough to withstand serious anti-tank fire, at least not to the same degree as a proper tank, but there's two things to remember. One, who the hell is using howitzers against us anymore? Again, warfare is becoming increasingly asymmetric and urbanized, and you just don't see that many situations where a really big gun is going to be firing at our armored units over open terrain at a very long distance; the few times this does occur, it's usually faster and easier to smoke his ass from the air. Now that could change, of course, but that leads us to Two, you can always add better armor to your IFVs. There's no law that states IFVs CAN'T have advanced tank armor. And yeah, as a former 35F (Intel, i.e. Chairborn Ranger) I can't really speak from experience on MBTs in urban environments, I'm certainly willing to concede that they're a massive morale booster*, but I do know that tanks are actually quite limited in urban environments, and are absolutely dead unless they've got the infantry guys there to support them. It's an essential, symbiotic relationship. So why not have your tank pull double-duty as a transport?
Basically, if I were one of the brass, which I'm not so none of this actually matters, but if I were one of the brass, I'd be pushing for the elimination of dedicated battle tanks, in favor of a collection of light and heavy IFVs, the largest (for use in more traditional tank situations) being only slightly smaller than the Abrams.
* - in regards to the morale boosting effects of heavy armor, see my previous comments about the practical utility of tanks looking cool and having onboard beer coolers.
Actually, forget that, if _I_ were one of the brass, I'd be pushing for Mecha suits and city-sized flying hover carriers! Maybe also some low-altitude aerial artillery platforms with Cho Aniki style gay dudes carved all over them.
The more sensible staff officers would want to get rid of me, but I'd be raking in the big bucks so who cares.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2014-02-24 |
Why make a tank in this age? I thought that we would never need tanks again.
|OxygenThief - 2014-02-24 |
If they set these things up at every input/output junction it's going to be hard to defeat Sark and Master Control.
|RockBolt - 2014-02-24 |
This is the step directly after the "make an awesome photoshop of it" design phase
|infinite zest - 2014-02-24 |
Unlike the helicopter, this tank's ejection seat puts the driver under the tank, so nobody can see them eject.
|Old_Zircon - 2014-02-24 |
| Register or login To Post a Comment|