1KM1KT Free RPG Community

What's the point of an invisible tank if they can strike at each other over the horizon with missiles using radar or IR for targeting? I think 5 years might produce a technology demonstrator but not production combat vehicle.

Interesting that they don't mention the EMP armor that uses an electric charge between plates to disrupt shaped charges. That was a big thing five/ten years ago.

That's odd, I don't see any invisible tanks...

Invisibility or stealth for tanks seems like its a losing proposition. For one, modern composite armor (ie Chobbham on the M1A2 Abrhams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2) does not lend itself to stealthy forms. The ceramic fillers are best taking perpendicular rather than oblique impacts while the sandwiched/honeycombed layers mean adding curves to the armor is nigh impossible. Compare the rounded cast steal turret of a (production beginning about 1949) to the flat slabs of the . Ignoring these factors,the simple fact that a tank invariably kicks up mud and dust would soon mean the stealth is compromised by the crud sticking too it.

On the other hand, its rather hard to predict the direction tank development will go. Landships divided into infantry support and scout units, then light/medium/heavy, then aggregated into a single "main battle tank" which was pronounced dead in the 50s due to shaped charge warheads, dead in the 70s due to helicopters, and dead in the 90s due to top-attack or self-forging warheads. Even now, there seems to be some question due to a) the lack of major tank on tank battles, and b) gas prices - an M1 gets 3 gallons to the mile (approx 11 liters per 1.6 km) at best!

I could at the least see movable shelters/tarps that help cut down the Infrared signature combined with fuel-cells to run electronic systems without the engine running to help hide the tank from aerial detection. (IR is how many Iraqi tanks were found in 1991) And maybe small electromagnets that can be switched on and off so changing camouflage is like putting decals on a model rather than paint.

In the opposite direction we have things like the jamming system combined with Active Protection. Although shooting down the missile seems more likely than hiding the tank, this strikes me as something that works a lot better on the testing range than the battlefield.

Then of course, there is the allure of the and the ...

A shelter that will render a tank invisible to heat and visible spectrum? Even if it takes 20 years, that's still in my lifetime.

Maybe a new arms race will ensue, between developers of stealth and developers of sensor technologies. Some people want to be able to move tanks through a desert without being observed from orbit. And some people want to observe from orbit.

Warfare would go back to Napoleonic era tactics. The battle would go to the people who could get to the battlefield first and set up all their invisible tanks in the best positions.

Then all we need are robotic tanks. I want a pet tachikoma.

And let it be recorded for public record that I welcome our robotic overlords, just in case my neighborhood is filled with invisible robotic tanks at some point in the future.

unbelievable technologies are in development at the moment, it wiol be interesting to see where they go in generations to come.

Actually, I'm rather surprised we have drone fighters and helicopters but not drone tanks. Tanks have more internal space and less weight concern than in the air so computer size isn't much of a problem. Something on the order of the sentient vehicles of Masamune Shirow fame probably not - but individual combat tactics for a tank are not that hard. Determine where enemy is, and keep the front/thickest armor pointed in that direction whenever possible.

Heck, the Russians have beloved men are the weak-point of tanks since the late 50s. The T-64 used a three man crew with an automatic loader so the tanks profile could be made smaller and harder to hit. These vehicles (and their t-72/t-80 cousins) average about 20 tons lighter than their Western adversaries. Not needing to accommodate five foot tall people also means smaller tank - which can result in thicker armor for same weight, or lighter weight to transport quickly, and is overall harder to see.

Another problem is that unlike ships - tanks aren't really compartmentalized - so one penetrating hit often ruins the whole thing.

The original Command and Conquer introduced game control elements as part of a new satellite linked interface program that gave the commander a bird's eye view and could direct individual units at a moments notice. This seems to have at least in part become a reality, and will be an expected part of "network centric warfare" for the foreseeable future. Of course, anyone who has played an RTS knows how annoying AI path-finding can be -but with GPS and internal navigation that might not be so tough soon.

There was a tv show that asked why we don't have drone tanks way back in the nineties. The general they asked said that the US army will not consider drone tanks because of the massive collateral damage that would occur with two drone tank divisions fighting. He said that in their simulations the devastation was worse than if they dropped a nuke.

Current wars are more geared toward a single drone scout driving around gathering data and engaging the enemy if it can find them. So that might not be as big a deal.

I am partial to the tank Bonaparte in the Dominion manga. It was a little too compact, but something like that with actual space for an engine would be useful as a one man vehicle (almost Daleck like) for urban combat.