Great Military News! Invisible Tanks!

Headhunter 2007-10-31 16:11:39 UTC #1

Now, they now can't even see us coming. Tehran, here we come!! Yeah baby, you fuckers are toast!!

British Defense Researchers Create Invisible Tank
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

What the British cloaking device might look like if it were applied to an Israeli tank.
British defense researchers have invented an invisible tank ï¿½?? or at least a way to make a tank invisible.

London's Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Sun all report on tests conducted by the Ministry of Defence last week in which a tank rolled across a field, completely invisible to observers standing at a certain point.

"This technology is incredible," an unnamed soldier was quoted by the Daily Mail and Sun. "If I hadn't been present I wouldn't have believed it. I looked across the fields and just saw grass and trees ï¿½?? but in reality I was staring down the barrel of a tank gun."

Headhunter 2007-10-31 16:17:04 UTC #2

Damn link is bad.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS 2007-10-31 16:26:52 UTC #3

Hmmm....it looks visible to me.

Loose_Tool 2007-10-31 16:54:35 UTC #4

Good thing tanks aren't very noisy.

Zap_Branigan 2007-10-31 17:15:13 UTC #5

It is a parlor trick.

orion 2007-10-31 17:19:32 UTC #6

And there is no dust cloud or anything.

CrewPierce 2007-10-31 17:28:15 UTC #7

Because you would notice the dust cloud and noise at over a mile right? Damn man you got some great eyes!

Huh come'on guys tanks can fire at a distance remember? At the distance they can fire from you can see them with the naked eye, but just a dust cloud?

Headhunter 2007-10-31 17:28:34 UTC #8

If we can hide a tank, will we be able to hide a dust cloud?

"The drawback at the moment is the dependence upon cameras and projectors," the Sun quoted Pendry, who did not confirm an implied connection with the defense project. "The next stage is to make the tank invisible without them ï¿½?? which is intricate and complicated, but possible."

lixy 2007-10-31 17:34:18 UTC #9

This is neither new nor innovative. It might work on asphalt, but as pointed out, the dust will give it away otherwise.

Sensationalist journalism.

jlesk68 2007-10-31 17:46:39 UTC #10

Fox at its usual best...

Headhunter 2007-10-31 18:16:58 UTC #11

Are the roads into Tehran paved?

lixy 2007-10-31 18:22:39 UTC #12

Probably not. But what makes you think the Brits will go along?

hedo 2007-10-31 18:28:23 UTC #13

Tanks are noisy. The Abrams uses a turbine engine that is very loud. They also create a huge volume of dust.

Here is the interesting part. Camo and deception will always give you an advantage.

Tanks are noisy and dusty. Don't cloak a few of them. The lead tank can make all the dust and noise and the ones behind it can still hide. You also can't hear the noise of another tank if yours is running, especially if you are buttoned up and inside. In addition, the noise on a battlefield can be deafening. Especially during an armor battle.

Any good commander can hit a postion with a well coordinated attack and if he is smart you will not see part of his force till he strikes. Imagine if you also had invisible tanks to use. Given time the tactics will follow.

You might be able to see a cloaked tank with the thermal imaging sight on the Abrams but they don't have that hardware on the handheld stuff you are likely to face fighting Arabs or Iranians.

All things I considered I can outshoot and manuever you in an M-1 or Challenger already. No matter what Russian tank you are in. I can also survive anything your main gun shoots and pretty much most of your AT stuff. Now your telling me I can be invisible too! The deck is already stacked but this would be an incredible advantage if it works.

Headhunter 2007-10-31 19:18:35 UTC #14

hedo wrote:
Tanks are noisy. The Abrams uses a turbine engine that is very loud. They also create a huge volume of dust.

Here is the interesting part. Camo and deception will always give you an advantage.

Tanks are noisy and dusty. Don't cloak a few of them. The lead tank can make all the dust and noise and the ones behind it can still hide. You also can't hear the noise of another tank if yours is running, especially if you are buttoned up and inside. In addition, the noise on a battlefield can be deafening. Especially during an armor battle.

Any good commander can hit a postion with a well coordinated attack and if he is smart you will not see part of his force till he strikes. Imagine if you also had invisible tanks to use. Given time the tactics will follow.

You might be able to see a cloaked tank with the thermal imaging sight on the Abrams but they don't have that hardware on the handheld stuff you are likely to face fighting Arabs or Iranians.

All things I considered I can outshoot and manuever you in an M-1 or Challenger already. No matter what Russian tank you are in. I can also survive anything your main gun shoots and pretty much most of your AT stuff. Now your telling me I can be invisible too! The deck is already stacked but this would be an incredible advantage if it works.

If you go over there, be safe and good hunting!!

orion 2007-10-31 19:23:27 UTC #15

hedo wrote:
Tanks are noisy. The Abrams uses a turbine engine that is very loud. They also create a huge volume of dust.

Here is the interesting part. Camo and deception will always give you an advantage.

Tanks are noisy and dusty. Don't cloak a few of them. The lead tank can make all the dust and noise and the ones behind it can still hide. You also can't hear the noise of another tank if yours is running, especially if you are buttoned up and inside. In addition, the noise on a battlefield can be deafening. Especially during an armor battle.

Any good commander can hit a postion with a well coordinated attack and if he is smart you will not see part of his force till he strikes. Imagine if you also had invisible tanks to use. Given time the tactics will follow.

You might be able to see a cloaked tank with the thermal imaging sight on the Abrams but they don't have that hardware on the handheld stuff you are likely to face fighting Arabs or Iranians.

All things I considered I can outshoot and manuever you in an M-1 or Challenger already. No matter what Russian tank you are in. I can also survive anything your main gun shoots and pretty much most of your AT stuff. Now your telling me I can be invisible too! The deck is already stacked but this would be an incredible advantage if it works.

Great.

Now that the US army has finally overcome its technological disadvantage on the battle field people will open their hearts and minds everywhere...

hedo 2007-10-31 19:24:08 UTC #16

Headhunter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Tanks are noisy. The Abrams uses a turbine engine that is very loud. They also create a huge volume of dust.

Here is the interesting part. Camo and deception will always give you an advantage.

Tanks are noisy and dusty. Don't cloak a few of them. The lead tank can make all the dust and noise and the ones behind it can still hide. You also can't hear the noise of another tank if yours is running, especially if you are buttoned up and inside. In addition, the noise on a battlefield can be deafening. Especially during an armor battle.

Any good commander can hit a postion with a well coordinated attack and if he is smart you will not see part of his force till he strikes. Imagine if you also had invisible tanks to use. Given time the tactics will follow.

You might be able to see a cloaked tank with the thermal imaging sight on the Abrams but they don't have that hardware on the handheld stuff you are likely to face fighting Arabs or Iranians.

All things I considered I can outshoot and manuever you in an M-1 or Challenger already. No matter what Russian tank you are in. I can also survive anything your main gun shoots and pretty much most of your AT stuff. Now your telling me I can be invisible too! The deck is already stacked but this would be an incredible advantage if it works.

If you go over there, be safe and good hunting!!

Been out of the Army for 13 years.

hedo 2007-10-31 19:25:51 UTC #17

orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
Tanks are noisy. The Abrams uses a turbine engine that is very loud. They also create a huge volume of dust.

Here is the interesting part. Camo and deception will always give you an advantage.

Tanks are noisy and dusty. Don't cloak a few of them. The lead tank can make all the dust and noise and the ones behind it can still hide. You also can't hear the noise of another tank if yours is running, especially if you are buttoned up and inside. In addition, the noise on a battlefield can be deafening. Especially during an armor battle.

Any good commander can hit a postion with a well coordinated attack and if he is smart you will not see part of his force till he strikes. Imagine if you also had invisible tanks to use. Given time the tactics will follow.

You might be able to see a cloaked tank with the thermal imaging sight on the Abrams but they don't have that hardware on the handheld stuff you are likely to face fighting Arabs or Iranians.

All things I considered I can outshoot and manuever you in an M-1 or Challenger already. No matter what Russian tank you are in. I can also survive anything your main gun shoots and pretty much most of your AT stuff. Now your telling me I can be invisible too! The deck is already stacked but this would be an incredible advantage if it works.

Great.

Now that the US army has finally overcome its technological disadvantage on the battle field people will open their hearts and minds everywhere...

Nah on the battlefield we open their hearts and minds for them. Sometimes chest cavities too.

Beowolf 2007-10-31 21:02:30 UTC #18

And THIS is why I hate FOX. I don't LIKE the conservativeness, but that's not why I hate it.

Sensationalist CRAP like this shit makes me want to strangle the media.

lucasa 2007-10-31 22:17:24 UTC #19

One of the dumbest invisibility ideas ever. It must be convenient knowing where your enemies are and what their point of view of you is.

Also, aren't a good portion of anti-tank weapons based on thermal/IR? I assume it makes things more difficult when you actually emit the radiation rather than just absorb/reflect it.

And considering you become "ultra visible" if the electronics breaks down I don't know how great this would be. If you just returned to visible, it'd be okay, but it's the reflective surface that they paint stop signs and other reflectors with. You would go from being invisible to being unable to hide.

Headhunter 2007-11-01 11:46:24 UTC #20

Its from 3 British newspapers. I thought Britons were all objective and fair while American media is all slanted and everything.