invisible tanks ???

[BetterDeadThanRed]

I think we are all forgetting one important aspect of this whole thing:

















IT'S A TANK!

We are talking about an object that is made to get the living bajesus beat out of it and survive only enough for the crew to walk away. This kind of technology would make the tank too fragile. Your little cameras and projectors are all well and good, until they get covered in mud, dust and debris, shot at, smashed through buildings, rained on, submerged when fording a river, and lets not even forget that fact that ITS A TANK and other tanks and men with RPGs are trying to kill you.

I don't care how awesomely leet your stealth tank is, you've got one chance to fire and then your position is compromised. Not to mention that the tank could be seen by any other tank/soldier/aircraft/news crew with a infrared camera, and this is assuming that this technology works flawlessly and as advertised, and when in military history has this ever happened?

No thank you, give me the camo netting any day of the week.

[[R-DEV]Falkun]

Sweet. Only thing next is a tank that shoots fire and can burrow through the ground.

[Krawkfaagel]

Originally Posted by BetterDeadThanRed

I think we are all forgetting one important aspect of this whole thing:

IT'S A TANK! ..//cut//..
No thank you, give me the camo netting any day of the week.

Cammo netting? What for? It will just get torn of, blasted away or covered in mud. Covering your tank in whitty slogans in bright orange neon is the way to go

[pasfreak]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Falkun

Sweet. Only thing next is a tank that shoots fire and can burrow through the ground.

lol they have had those since WWII

[[R-MOD]Wasteland]

Originally Posted by BetterDeadThanRed

I don't care how awesomely leet your stealth tank is, you've got one chance to fire and then your position is compromised. Not to mention that the tank could be seen by any other tank/soldier/aircraft/news crew with a infrared camera, and this is assuming that this technology works flawlessly and as advertised, and when in military history has this ever happened?

Well in a standoff situation fragile invisibility would be worthwhile. You set it up and wait. Then when you see an enemy, you take your time with aiming and everything.

Also, an IR camera would only help if the system could only put out strictly visible light. IR light isn't hard to put out as well.

[Harrod200]

A sheet of glass blocks IR, I'm sure something could be knocked up easily enough from more advanced stuff...

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by BetterDeadThanRed

I think we are all forgetting one important aspect of this whole thing:

and ur missing one important point aswell , camo is ment to make it so u dont get shot ! thought i do agree that it will be fragile , but if it can stop the tank from getting shot in the first place then who cares if the active camo is vragile they wont be able to see it in the first place , and they are still keeping the armor aswell so its only adding to the tank.

tank with camo > tank with no camo , simple.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

and ur missing one important point aswell , camo is ment to make it so u dont get shot ! thought i do agree that it will be fragile , but if it can stop the tank from getting shot in the first place then who cares if the active camo is vragile they wont be able to see it in the first place , and they are still keeping the armor aswell so its only adding to the tank.

tank with camo > tank with no camo , simple.

I beg to differ. Stronger armor > weaker armor. Reread my original post please. You can't make a tank invisible in combat situations given the current technology, too many external variables. Its far easier, far more effective, and far cheaper to break up the outline of the tank with netting. You don't have to make an object invisible, case in point: snipers. All you have to do is break up an objects outline enough that the brain will not recognize the shape for just long enough for the eyes to pass over it. That's the concept behind stealth, not making it invisible. Frankly, it has worked pretty damn well.

Let's not forget that this kind of thing involves a huge amount of computing power, and any gamer that has learned this the hard way can tell you, computers do not hold up well to shock.


Sorry gentlemen, not for the foreseeable future.

And for god sake, it's spelled YOU and YOUR.

[gazzthompson]

Originally Posted by BetterDeadThanRed

I beg to differ. Stronger armor > weaker armor. Reread my original post please. You can't make a tank invisible in combat situations given the current technology, too many external variables. Its far easier, far more effective, and far cheaper to break up the outline of the tank with netting. You don't have to make an object invisible, case in point: snipers. All you have to do is break up an objects outline enough that the brain will not recognize the shape for just long enough for the eyes to pass over it. That's the concept behind stealth, not making it invisible. Frankly, it has worked pretty damn well.

And for god sake, it's spelled YOU and YOUR.

1. "stronger armor > weaker armor" , i said nothing about strength of armor i said and i quote "tank with camo > tank with no camo". this system , or atleast i think so , dose no remove the armor , so it will be;

tank with good armor + active camo > tank with no active camo.

it can only be a good thing , so what if its fragile , if it breaks we still have the best armor in the world , it can only give U the advantage .

also i never implied about using it in current combat situations so don't go there.

2. who gives a FUCK if its 'u' or 'you' , what is this projectspellcheck.com , u u u u u u u ur ur ur ur ur u u u ur ur ur ur ur ur . maybe if its its spelt wrong so U cant read it , but something like that , is UR head so far up UR own ass that U cant read it ?!?!?!?!

people like U piss me off on this forum , this technology can only be a good thing , yet U still try and make it sound shit , it can only improve and get better , and it sounds amazing as it is.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

Originally Posted by gazzthompson

2. who gives a FUCK if its 'u' or 'you' , what is this projectspellcheck.com , u u u u u u u ur ur ur ur ur u u u ur ur ur ur ur ur . maybe if its its spelt wrong so U cant read it , but something like that , is UR head so far up UR own ass that U cant read it ?!?!?!?!

I love it when people show their maturity so openly.