NationStates Jolt Archive

I've proved detail explination of how an invisible tank is possible in the terms of modern technology.

No one person has proven it to be impossible to date.

They'll poke holes at it (and I continue to obliterate those arguments as well with minimal research) and throw hissy fits about this technology, but the fact is, 'invisible' tanks are feasibly possible in the modern world with our current technology.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6635633&posted=1#post6635633

Stealth tanks are generally frowned upon, in fact anything above stealth fighters/ bombers are frowned upon (because it's still possible to detect and destroy them, they are not 100% stealth).

How interesting would a story line be if you're driving stealth tanks around?

Someone in a war RP says:

The infantry moved forward under massed artillery strikes and surgical hits from the aircraft that soared above. Breaking into smaller ranks, the infantry began a massive blitzkreig assult on the eastern and western flanks, while at the same time sending a large driving force up the center.

Then you say:

My stealth tanks that are parked throughout the battlefield silently kill all your men, remaining undetected by anyone.

Sorry dude, stealth tanks, soldiers, and the like (witht the exception of planes, because they are able to be destroyed) are all bad RP. From the way you're rabidly defending the fact that your tanks are unstoppable, I think I'll just avoid interacting with you.

If modern technology is frowned upon and that is the official ruling, then that is the official ruling.

But juding from your rate of illiteracy, I suggest learning the complexities of the alphabet a bit more. I am disproving the false assumptions made by 13 year olds with respectable links to scientific and military reserach. I have already stated the tank isn't completely invisible. But, the volumes of illiteracy that take place on this board, I wouldn't expect you to have come across this any time soon.

The RP would be more like:

The infantry moved forward under massed artillery strikes and surgical hits from the aircraft that soared above. Breaking into smaller ranks, the infantry began a massive blitzkreig assult on the eastern and western flanks, while at the same time sending a large driving force up the center.

My tanks would not be parked in the middle of a massive shelling or bombing attack launched by me.

First off, calm down. Your other thread was already locked for flaming, and if you keep this up the mods will surely ban you.

Take a look around NS. Find a good RP, then read it. Then look at your tanks, which in all aspects are nothing more than n00b weapons that are used to supplement for poor RP skills.

And as far as your statement about how the IR sensors on the M1A2's don't work, then how about these?

http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=RAH66&cat=a&lev=2

http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=AH64&cat=a&lev=2


Pay special attention to the part where it states:

The Apache has state-of-the-art optics that provide the capability to select from three different target acquisition sensors. These sensors are

- Day TV. Views images during day and low light levels, black and white.
- TADS FLIR. Views thermal images, real world and magnified, during day, night and adverse weather.
- DVO. Views real world, full color, and magnified images during daylight and dusk conditions.

But let me guess, your tanks are invulnerable to that?

The flaming was made by the flamers, not I. They got the answers they saught and it was returned in the same manner it was given.

Take a look around NS. Find a good RP, then read it. Then look at your tanks, which in all aspects are nothing more than n00b weapons that are used to supplement for poor RP skills.

Again, literacy is a valueable tool. How can people RP on this board when they can't even read? Is this a wide spread problem? I have already discussed the flaws within the initial article of the Phantom Steed, yet, no one has done the proper research (IE reading the initial post) to discover this.

And as far as your statement about how the IR sensors on the M1A2's don't work, then how about these?

I am not a member of Military.com.

The Apache has state-of-the-art optics that provide the capability to select from three different target acquisition sensors. These sensors are

- Day TV. Views images during day and low light levels, black and white.
- TADS FLIR. Views thermal images, real world and magnified, during day, night and adverse weather.
- DVO. Views real world, full color, and magnified images during daylight and dusk conditions.

Okay, so we have one weapon in the whole world that can see the A-4i. Does this mean that the A-4i is now allowed since it has a balanced counter?

The flaming was made by the flamers, not I. They got the answers they saught and it was returned in the same manner it was given.



Again, literacy is a valueable tool. How can people RP on this board when they can't even read? Is this a wide spread problem? I have already discussed the flaws within the initial article of the Phantom Steed, yet, no one has done the proper research (IE reading the initial post) to discover this.



I am not a member of Military.com.



Okay, so we have one weapon in the whole world that can see the A-4i. Does this mean that the A-4i is now allowed since it has a balanced counter?

Ironic how you claim you aren't flaming and then call him an illiterate.

Since when has flaming been considered revealing the truth? If a person can't read, why are they even responding? What is given is returned.

Well, none the less, these things are still for sale since no one can really disprove the science behind it.

Again, literacy is a valueable tool.

learn to spell before you comment on other's literacy

learn to spell before you comment on other's literacy
No kidding.

I'm very literate, thank you very much. I know how to spell and read, so I don't see how calling me illiterate holds water.

As far as those links go, one of them was for the RAH-66:



Function: Fire support and security for forward and rear area forces, point target/anti-armor, anti-helicopter, armed escort, supporting arms control and coordination, point and limited area air defense from enemy fixed-wing aircraft, armed and visual reconnaissance.

Description: The Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche is the Army's next generation armed reconnaissance helicopter. It also is the first helicopter developed specifically for this role. The Comanche will provide Army Aviation the opportunity to move into the 21st century with a weapon system of unsurpassed warfighting capabilities crucial to the Army's future strategic vision. The Comanche is intended to replace the current fleet of AH-1 and OH-58 helicopters in all air cavalry troops and light division attack helicopter battalions, and supplement the AH-64 Apache in heavy division/corps attack helicopter battalions.

The first Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche prototype was rolled-out at Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, Connecticut, May 25, 1995. The prototype's first flight was made on 04 January 1996. The second prototype is scheduled to fly in late March 1999. Six early operational capability aircraft are scheduled to be delivered 2002 to participate in an Army field exercise in 2002-2003, or possibly later in "Corps 04." The Comanche is powered by two Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Co. (LHTEC) T800-801 engines. These advanced engines and a streamlined airframe will be enable the Comanche to fly significantly faster than the larger AH-64 Apache.

The RAH-66 Comanche helicopter's primary role will be to seek out enemy forces and designate targets for the AH-64 Apache Attack helicopter at night, in adverse weather, and in battlefield obscurants, using advanced infrared sensors. The helmet has FLIR images and overlaid symbology that can be used as a headup display in nape-of-the-earth (NOE) flight.

The aircraft has been designed to emit a low-radar signature (stealth features). The Comanche will perform the attack mission itself for the Army's light divisions. The RAH-66 will be used as a scout and attack helicopter to include an air-to-ground and air-to-air combat capability. The Comanche is slated to replace the AH-1 Series Cobra light attack helicopter, the OH-6A Cayuse, and the OH-58A/OH-58C Kiowa light observation helicopters.

The Comanche mission equipment package consists of a turret-mounted cannon, night-vision pilotage system, helmet-mounted display, electro-optical target acquisition and designation system, aided target recognition, and integrated communication/navigation/identification avionics system. Targeting includes a second generation forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor, a low-light-level television, a laser range finder and designator, and the Apache Longbow millimeter wave radar system. Digital sensors, computers and software will enable the aircraft to track and recognize advesarys long before they are aware of the Comanche's presence, a key advantage in both the reconnaissance and attack roles.

Aided target detection and classification software will automatically scan the battlefield, identifying and prioritizing targets. The target acquisition and communications system will allow burst transmissions of data to other aircraft and command and control systems. Digital communications links will enable the crew unparalleled situational awareness, making the Comanche an integral component of the digital battlefield. The armament subsystems consist of the XM301 20mm cannon, and up to 14 Hellfire anti-tank missiles, 28 Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS) anti-aircraft missiles, or 56 2.75 inch Hydra 70 air-to-ground rockets carried internally and externally. Up to four Hellfire and two Air-to-Air Stinger (ATAS) missiles can be stowed in fully-retractable weapons bays and the gun can be rotated to a stowed position when not in use. This design feature reduces both drag and radar signature.

Mission management, status, and control information is provided over the MIL-STD-1553B databus between the mission equipment packages and the Turreted Gun System. The Comanche will have enhanced maintainability through it's modular electronics architecture and built-in diagnostics.

Features:

Sensors and avionics. In the reconnaissance role, the Comanche will be equipped with a new generation of passive sensors and a fully integrated suite of displays and communications. Advance infrared (IR) sensors will have twice the range of OH-58D Kiowa Warrior and AH-64 Apache sensors. The Comanche will be equipped with the Apache Longbow fire control radar and the Helmet Integrated Display and Sight System (HIDSS). The fully integrated avionics system will allow tactical data to be overlaid onto a digital map, allowing the crew to devote more time for target detection and classification. A triple-redundant fly-by-wire system can automatically hold the helicopter in hover or in almost any other maneuver, reducing workload, allowing the pilot to concentrate on navigation and threat avoidance. A hand-on grip permits one-handed operation.

Stealth characteristics. The Comanche incorporates more low-observable stealth features than any aircraft in Army history. The Comanche radar cross-section (RCS) is less than that of a Hellfire missile. To reduce radar cross-section, weapons can be carried internally, the gun can be rotated aft and stowed within a fairing behind the turret when not in use, and the landing gear are fully-retractable. The all-composite fuselage sides are flat and canted and rounded surfaces are avoided by use of faceted turret and engine covers. The Comanche's head-on RCS is 360 times smaller than the AH-64 Apache, 250 times less than the smaller OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, and 32 times smaller than the OH-58D's mast-mounted sight. This means the Comanche will be able to approach five times closer to an enemy radar than an Apache, or four times closer than an OH-58D, without being detected.

Noise suppression. The Comanche only radiates one-half the rotor noise of current helicopters. Noise is reduced by use of a five-bladed rotor, pioneered by the successful Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-500 Defender series of light utility helicopters. The fantail eliminates interaction between main rotor and tail rotor wakes. The advanced rotor design permits operation at low speed, allowing the Comanche to sneak 40% closer to a target than an Apache, without being detected by an acoustical system.

Infrared (IR) suppression. The Comanche only radiates 25% of the engine heat of current helicopters, a critical survivability design concern in a low-flying tactical scout helicopter. The Comanche is the first helicopter in which the infrared (IR) suppression system is integrated into the airframe. This innovative Sikorsky design feature provides IR suppressors that are built into the tail-boom, providing ample length for complete and efficient mixing of engine exhaust and cooling air flowing through inlets above the tail. The mixed exhaust is discharged through slots built into an inverted shelf on the sides of the tail-boom. The gases are cooled so thoroughly that a heat-seeking missile cannot find and lock-on to the Comanche.

Crew Protection. The Comanche features a crew compartment sealed for protection against chemical or biological threats, an airframe resilient against ballistic damage, enhanced crash-worthiness, and reduced susceptibility to electromagnetic interference.

Maintainability. Comanche will be easily sustained, will require fewer personnel and support equipment, and will provide a decisive battlefield capability in day, night and adverse weather operations. Comanche has been designed to be exceptionally maintainable and easily transportable. Through its keel-beam construction, numerous access panels, easily accessible line-replaceable units/modules and advanced diagnostics, the RAH-66 possesses "designed-in" maintainability. Comanche aircraft will be able to be rapidly loaded into or unloaded from any Air Force transport aircraft.

So, no one can disprove what has been stated, and they have to revert to tactics of yelling at people for insignificant typos.. a tactic they fine-honed during the pubescent days of 7th grade while hanging around in AOL chat rooms.

I mean, all I want is an official "yes" or "no".

If you hate your parents, don't reply.

If you don't understand science, don't reply.

If you're under the age of 13, don't reply.

Very simple conditions.

The RAH-66 project was decommissioned quite some time ago, Demise.

That's not really a n00b weapon, either. Hell, half the weapons in the US military are n00b weapons. (Paladins, for example)

What is the RAH-66's relation to the A-4i?

So, no one can disprove what has been stated, and they have to revert to tactics of yelling at people for insignificant typos.. a tactic they fine-honed during the pubescent days of 7th grade while hanging around in AOL chat rooms.

I mean, all I want is an official "yes" or "no".

If you hate your parents, don't reply.

If you don't understand science, don't reply.

If you're under the age of 13, don't reply.

Very simple conditions.

Alright, my own invisible tank turns and fires a salvo of IGNORE shells. Have a nice day. You can sell your invisible tank all you want now, I don't care.

Superior. I have successfully implimented my own heat-reduction design by removing one flamer from my genital region.

I'm tired of reading so I will paste this. I don't know what you want for proof, but you are proving you are less and less intelligent as time passes.

First off I want to berate Ghettalion or whatever your name is for wasting all of our time.

Is this ABABABABA the real idea behind this? You think that you can squeeze the transmitters between the recievers and not lose any of your beloved resolution?

Anyway thats not the most important thing here, considering the tank is entirely made up of fiber optic cables. I don't think you understand the simple fact that every fiber's tip is followed by a fiber of equal diameter. If you somehow cover the entire tank with these magical fiber tips that means that you will need more than the volume of this tank to pass your fiber optics through. You can't just bundle the fiber optics and put them to the side. Every displaced cable will need more cable to cover it. I see no chance of carrying out your flawless technology over the entire surface area of this tank. I will not reiterate the difficulty of covering the more detailed parts of the tank. Please explain your fiber optics again, and without insulting my poor, poor lack of intelligence and automatic understanding of your fictional invention.

You talk of infrared technology as if it were... too expensive for this world. Yet your fiber optics are not? IR is tried and true, and if it is not "stock" on any of these war machines you know everything about, it is readily available in a pod or other accessory easily attached to the vehicle. PLEASE LEARN TO READ. I KNOW IT'S A CRAZY CONCEPT. Almost as crazy as IR being common these days... could you imagine? Just to add credibility, although it is not necessary: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lantirn.htm

I'm glad you mentioned flash "supressors," considering there is no way to eliminate the flash from a cannon. And not every shot will be a kill. The moment you shoot, there is a possibility, no matter how much you try to hide the flash, that it will be seen. And obviously the shot will be heard, any supression of the sound lessens the cannons effectivity.

Friendly fire is always a problem, invisibility or no. If the person firing doesnt know you are there, there is a chance you will be hit. This is not necessarily the tank's fault.

Also about radar. I have never in my life seen a tank taken out by a radar-guided missile. Radar may be used to locate the tanks presence, and jamming will only verify that. Other comments about stealth shaping I believe were to try to help you, but I think you shot them down for some reason. Anyway all the tank busters I have ever seen have been infrared, because tanks are natural heat traps.

Why the heck did I just write this? What a waste of time.

The RAH-66 project was decommissioned quite some time ago, Demise.

Then please provide a source.

That's not really a n00b weapon, either. Hell, half the weapons in the US military are n00b weapons. (Paladins, for example)

But those can easily be destroyed by planes, smaller ground artillery, and guided weapons.


What is the RAH-66's relation to the A-4i?

It's on board systems can render your cloaking ineffective.

Fibre optic cables are required to feed a TFT matrix and all-over camouflage would in themselves be very bulky.They would require some manner of lens on each tip, and would need to be distributed across the entire girth of the object being cloaked. Not very practical. TFT LCD displays, as with all LCD systems, are fragile and sensitive to heat and pressure - further making them highly unsuitable for aircraft and tanks, and completely unsuitable for clothing. LCD is, furthermore, a monochrome system - Black & White - requiring a matrix of Red, Green and Blue panels to acheive a color image. It requires a layer of Polarising material for it's image to be visible - the enemy could just slap on a pair of polaroids and see you! It is also a non-reflective material, so a 'cloaking' system would not function unless there was a powerful light emission under the LCD - an aircraft or tank would require enormous and consistent light output over it's entire body for the system to work. Needless to say, the additional weight considerations, never mind the additional heat signature, would render any 'invisibility' advantage futile. Unless you have a nuclear powered tank, I don't think your on board energy systems would be sufficient enough to power everything. Not to mention the way tanks suck fuel.....To put it simply, you don't have an adequate power source to not only drive your tank and power it's on board systems, but also power all those LCD panels.

I'm tired of reading so I will paste this. I don't know what you want for proof, but you are proving you are less and less intelligent as time passes.

First off I want to berate Ghettalion or whatever your name is for wasting all of our time.

Is this ABABABABA the real idea behind this? You think that you can squeeze the transmitters between the recievers and not lose any of your beloved resolution?

Wave-Particle Duality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality) + Light Diffraction via Double-Slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) = A complete annihilation of your argument.

-merked-

Anyway thats not the most important thing here, considering the tank is entirely made up of fiber optic cables. I don't think you understand the simple fact that every fiber's tip is followed by a fiber of equal diameter. If you somehow cover the entire tank with these magical fiber tips that means that you will need more than the volume of this tank to pass your fiber optics through. You can't just bundle the fiber optics and put them to the side. Every displaced cable will need more cable to cover it. I see no chance of carrying out your flawless technology over the entire surface area of this tank. I will not reiterate the difficulty of covering the more detailed parts of the tank. Please explain your fiber optics again, and without insulting my poor, poor lack of intelligence and automatic understanding of your fictional invention.

Wave-Particle Duality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality) states light is a wave AND a particle! You are under the assumption of curving, bending, and all this nonsense that doesn't even happen. You have fiber optics acting as the medium with simple fiber optic recievers at the end parsing up what frequencies and intensity it was, passing that information to a copmuter, and then redupicating that same photon via the same computer that sends electrons to another fiber optic cable on the other side of the tank!

They wouldn't be cables, per say... they would be more like fiber optic snippets.

But again, logic and science.. so very hard for the stupid.

You talk of infrared technology as if it were... too expensive for this world. Yet your fiber optics are not? IR is tried and true, and if it is not "stock" on any of these war machines you know everything about, it is readily available in a pod or other accessory easily attached to the vehicle. PLEASE LEARN TO READ. I KNOW IT'S A CRAZY CONCEPT. Almost as crazy as IR being common these days... could you imagine? Just to add credibility, although it is not necessary: [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lantirn.htm

FLIR is generally an 86 pound device that is attached to each vehicle that requires massive remodeling of the control instruments. Each FLIR unit is $1.5 million.

Miniture fiber optic cables? You tell me. www.fiber.com

I'm glad you mentioned flash "supressors," considering there is no way to eliminate the flash from a cannon. And not every shot will be a kill. The moment you shoot, there is a possibility, no matter how much you try to hide the flash, that it will be seen. And obviously the shot will be heard, any supression of the sound lessens the cannons effectivity.

People hear sniper shots all the time and generally have no idea where it came from.

http://kellerconsulting.home.mindspring.com/FACTOR4.html

*snicker*

I love killing the uneducated.

Friendly fire is always a problem, invisibility or no. If the person firing doesnt know you are there, there is a chance you will be hit. This is not necessarily the tank's fault.

Majority of friendly fire with tank incidents come from the inability to determine if the target is friendly or enemy. The changes of a tank hitting an friendly invisible tank is the same as a solder killing an unseen friendly sniper. Again, I have already disproven all of these arguments time and time again.

Also about radar. I have never in my life seen a tank taken out by a radar-guided missile. Radar may be used to locate the tanks presence, and jamming will only verify that.

Already discussed.

Other comments about stealth shaping I believe were to try to help you, but I think you shot them down for some reason. Anyway all the tank busters I have ever seen have been infrared, because tanks are natural heat traps.

Stealth Shaping is potential, but cross-sectioning isn't really going to do much.

Then please provide a source.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw040223_2_n.shtml

But those can easily be destroyed by planes, smaller ground artillery, and guided weapons.

So can an A-4i. I didn't say the tank was invulnerable. I said it was invisible.

It's on board systems can render your cloaking ineffective.

Great... how many of them are being made since... it's been decomissioned? Of course, for RP reasons, it can be brought back, but still. A tank can see my AT sniper! I better decommission the entire AT sniper program!

Fibre optic cables are required to feed a TFT matrix and all-over camouflage would in themselves be very bulky.

ummm... fiber optic cables wouldn't be feeding any matrix.

The cables carrying commands to the individual cables would be feeding the optics.

Why is this SO fucking hard for people to conceptualize? Drop the emotional rabble and start reading!

They would require some manner of lens on each tip, and would need to be distributed across the entire girth of the object being cloaked.

Ummm... Fiber optics usually have all of that crap already covered.

And I have already stated their design structure.

Not very practical. TFT LCD displays, as with all LCD systems, are fragile and sensitive to heat and pressure - further making them highly unsuitable for aircraft and tanks, and completely unsuitable for clothing.

LCD is a liquid. Fiber optics are a solid. Try again.

LCD is, furthermore, a monochrome system - Black & White - requiring a matrix of Red, Green and Blue panels to acheive a color image. It requires a layer of Polarising material for it's image to be visible - the enemy could just slap on a pair of polaroids and see you! It is also a non-reflective material, so a 'cloaking' system would not function unless there was a powerful light emission under the LCD - an aircraft or tank would require enormous and consistent light output over it's entire body for the system to work. Needless to say, the additional weight considerations, never mind the additional heat signature, would render any 'invisibility' advantage futile. Unless you have a nuclear powered tank, I don't think your on board energy systems would be sufficient enough to power everything. Not to mention the way tanks suck fuel.....To put it simply, you don't have an adequate power source to not only drive your tank and power it's on board systems, but also power all those LCD panels.

Thank you for that talk about LCDs which have nothing to do with fiber optics.

So if I just bundle myself in fiber optics I will be invisible? Uh huh.

And please, cut the sarcastic "holier-than-thou" crap.

Please, cut the "Holy Hell, illiteracy is my primary function" crap.

Wave-Particle Duality states light is a wave AND a particle! You are under the assumption of curving, bending, and all this nonsense that doesn't even happen. You have fiber optics acting as the medium with simple fiber optic recievers at the end parsing up what frequencies and intensity it was, passing that information to a computer, and then redupicating that same photon via the same computer that sends electrons to another fiber optic cable on the other side of the tank!

They wouldn't be cables, per say... they would be more like fiber optic snippets.

But again, logic and science.. so very hard for the stupid.

Ghetalion, you're on thin ice. Go take some percasets and lie down.

Please, cut the "Holy Hell, illiteracy is my primary function" crap.

Wave-Particle Duality states light is a wave AND a particle! You are under the assumption of curving, bending, and all this nonsense that doesn't even happen. You have fiber optics acting as the medium with simple fiber optic recievers at the end parsing up what frequencies and intensity it was, passing that information to a computer, and then redupicating that same photon via the same computer that sends electrons to another fiber optic cable on the other side of the tank!

They wouldn't be cables, per say... they would be more like fiber optic snippets.

But again, logic and science.. so very hard for the stupid.

Look, I know how to read. I wouldn't be replying to you if I couldn't.

As far as your concept goes, I have found nothing on it on either science sites or military related sites. The only thing I have found mention the use of LCD displays that project the image.

If you wouldn't mind calming down for a second, please provide some links on this system that you are flaming me over.

That must be quite a computer to run all your light processing. I do think you are at least as much of an idiot as I am.

Oh yes adding these nearly-100-pound objects to aircraft is so painful! I mean, that almost dwarfs thousand pound bombs and other things they also carry! And when they drop the bombs, they have to redo the entire airframe so it will fly better. Honestly, this amound of weight can be the difference between the size of your pilot. I don't think it cripples your plane. And what does money matter? I think the equipment that can destroy all the invisible tanks you throw at it would be so much cheaper than the tanks themselves...

Also you limit your tank to one shot, if you have to go by your brilliant sniper idea. Once you take that shot, the IR should come in and find your tank without trouble. But that's not the argument is it.

Saying you can make this tank, and somehow make it efficient and feasible, it is not my job to show how effective it would be in combat. I think I will put my insulated heating duct on your tank, which will snake out behind the tank for a mile or so, put the cable on it so its invisible as well, and then there's nothing you can do to stop me. It may be impractical, but it's science, just like what you are evidently using. We should join forces. I will put my fuel cell power plant in this tank, and then we can even put a rail gun on it too.

I've proved detail explination of how an invisible tank is possible in the terms of modern technology.

No one person has proven it to be impossible to date.

They'll poke holes at it (and I continue to obliterate those arguments as well with minimal research) and throw hissy fits about this technology, but the fact is, 'invisible' tanks are feasibly possible in the modern world with our current technology.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6635633&posted=1#post6635633

Let's see you say that it is possible, because no one can prove it's impossible? While it IS possible with modern technology to produce the illusion the invisibility of film, with cameras using technology similiar to blue-screen technology , there is still no actual invisibility, just the illusion of it on film. Case in poinr are the Japanese scientists that took the photo of the 'invisible' student. It is worthy to not that while the student in the picture looks as though he is actually transparent , to bystanders and anyone there live, he is actually wearing a green jacket, and only looks invisible when photographed. Scientists claim that it is only a short step from photographic invisibility, to invisibility to the human eye, so far no one has done it.

The type of 'invisibility' that various militaries have been exploring is by using light. The theory is that if you make a tank luminous, and you adjust the luminosity to match the back ground light that the tank will appear to the naked eye to be invisible. This does work. This technology has severe limitations , which is why of course no military in the world to date has created a tank with these capabilities. The problems with this technology are as follows: the technology only works from a distance of 4 miles or more, the closer you get the better your eye can pick out the 'background light' that is making the object invisble, night vision equipment can pick out the tank or whatever as if it had no 'invisibility' , despite being 'invisible' tanks are still very loud and leave wide unmistakeable tracks. Any of these 1 limitations cause this technology to be next to useless in a battlefield enviroment, all of them put together make it what it is, a good theory, but useless in practice.

If there are other types of 'invisibility' I have not heard of them, although it is a subject that I do not keep tabs on. To simply say it's possible because no one can disprove it, is a blatant god-mod. I can say that my tanks can fly like airplanes and dive like submarines and be normal tanks whenever I wish and then reason that it works until someone disproves it, is patently unfair.

Dude(s)...

There are no 'official rulings' for the RPG part of nationstates, since it, is, err... free form.

You cannot force others to accept your tech, no matter how realistic it is.

Others cannot force you to give up on your ideas because they don't like it.

You just go, errr... Different ways and stop caring about each other.

So, no one can disprove what has been stated, and they have to revert to tactics of yelling at people for insignificant typos.. a tactic they fine-honed during the pubescent days of 7th grade while hanging around in AOL chat rooms.

I mean, all I want is an official "yes" or "no".

If you hate your parents, don't reply.

If you don't understand science, don't reply.

If you're under the age of 13, don't reply.

Very simple conditions.

Dude, be civil. It gets you more respect.

It -is- possible to have a modern tech tank that is 'invisible'. What you do is take video cameras and have them project their image onto the other side of the tank.

However, even with the best thermal suppression technologies, your tank would show up rather nicely on infrared.

It would also be as loud as any other tank. And I mean LOUD.

The camera lenses would get rapidly damaged by shrapnel or covered in dirt after even an hour of fighting.

The sensitive skin that projects the images [you can use organic plastics, but that doesn't make them any less brittle] would get destroyed by shrapnel or covered in dirt. Watch invisible man. It's an old film based on a novel where the protagonist becomes invisible. He then finds that dirt and snow will settle on him and make him quite visible.

----------------

Now, RP-ing an invisible army is very annoying, because of many difficulties. First, it’s –very- hard to identify friend from foe. Unlike in games, you’re not going to be looking at an Automap displaying friends and enemies. It’s very easy to slip into godmod.

Basically, stick with conventional forces. Aside from that, your nation is in no way capable of researching or producing something as complex as invisible camo fatigues or vehicles.

Again, you are an imbecile.

I highly suggest learning quantum physics before attempting this argument.


I love that, calling someone an imbecile because they havent learned quantum physics, well fuck me i can write A* grade Eng Lit. degree essays but im an imbecile because i found physics boring.

Anyway, my opinion on the tank.

Fair enough, you can have as much anti-detection stuff in your tank as you like so that any radar/richter/whatever detectors cant find you. Fair enough, i suppose thats possible.

But, the light optic things.... quick question, are they the normal fibre opitc cables where the light going in one end is beamed out through the other end after making its way down the little fibre optic tube? Its just that i'd find it difficult to understand just where you'd have room for the cables around the tank. Even if there was room, what if some of the cables got damaged/dirty?

I think a lot of people are getting mixed up by the term 'invisible'. If you can see things on it, then it isnt 'invisible' in the true sense of the word because, basically it is visible. If you can see something, then it is visible, no matter how far away you are from it. Basically what you're selling is a fucking-hard-to-see tank, which is feasible, but in no way practical in value-for-money terms, and in no way deserving of the title 'invisible'

Its like calling a huge-great-big-fuckoff-tank-with-big-guns-everywhere 'The Indestructible (sp?) Tank'. It isnt indestructable, as it could probably be killed by, i dont know, an asteroid or something (bear with me), but if it was called the 'The-really-hard-to-destroy-unless-you-have-hordes-of-asteroids-and-youre-very-good-at-throwing-tank' it would sound shit and no one would buy it.

No matter what the technology is, the tank isnt invisible, therefore it isnt an invisible tank, no matter what range your coming over it from. However, this doesnt mean your contraption isnt feasible.

please dont tell me i cant read, ive read BOTH these godforsaken threads whilst at the same time gagging for a piss

Please forgive me if someone mentions anything I cover while I was typing.

Phosphorus smoke is very caustic. Exploding smoke grenades close enough to cover your heat signature would erode your fiber optics. Exploding them far enough away would render them useless for covering the heat signature.

Don't most tanks in this day and age have IR technology? Russian and Chinese tanks do, not to mention American. IR can be used during the day; as a matter of fact, one of your sources http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm says "In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight.". And wouldn't fiber optics show some kind of distortion, visible to the eye?

If the tank moves at all, there is the problem of exhaust or tread marks. Plus there is the possibility of damage from environment (rock, plants, etc.) which would render the fiber optics useless. If it doesn't move, it builds up heat (even with any kind of heat spreading technology); IR once more comes into play.

Flash suppression is to reduce the glare to the crew, not to hide the flash when fired. Anything that reduces that flash also reduces range and accuracy.

I'm going to quote a friend of mine, please forgive any repetition:

"3) Far worse in the visible, the fibers don't allow for spread,
dispersion, and other real light effects. This is not all that obvious,
but think of light that comes into one thread on one side of the tank. By
the time it gets to the other side of the tank, it should be coming out of
many threads (since light spreads as it moves), but the fibers don't allow
that. They also don't allow for a number of other real world light
transmission effects.

4) More geometry included. The light that enters the thread on one side of
the tank is coming from a cone that opens from the end of the thread, with
an angle determined by the internal reflection angle of the material used
for the thread (say ~20 degrees or so). That light will be effectively
randomly rearranged and mostly collimated at the far side. This is
something astronomers are very familiar with, and the end result of it is
that the image produced has reduced clarity. In short, the image would be
blotchy and unfocused. Not hard to spot at all if you know what to look
for."
"Even if you assume a well-working optical bypass system, it won't work when
spotting from the air. You may be able to use fiber optics to route a
picture of the ground up to the top of the tank, but it's still darker
under the tank, so your topside image will be darker than the ground
surrounding it. Modify a set of night-vision goggles to enhance contrast,
and you'd see a moving dark spot."

Please forgive me if someone mentions anything I cover while I was typing.

Phosphorus smoke is very caustic. Exploding smoke grenades close enough to cover your heat signature would erode your fiber optics. Exploding them far enough away would render them useless for covering the heat signature.

Don't most tanks in this day and age have IR technology? Russian and Chinese tanks do, not to mention American. IR can be used during the day; as a matter of fact, one of your sources http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm says "In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight.". And wouldn't fiber optics show some kind of distortion, visible to the eye?

If the tank moves at all, there is the problem of exhaust or tread marks. Plus there is the possibility of damage from environment (rock, plants, etc.) which would render the fiber optics useless. If it doesn't move, it builds up heat (even with any kind of heat spreading technology); IR once more comes into play.

Flash suppression is to reduce the glare to the crew, not to hide the flash when fired. Anything that reduces that flash also reduces range and accuracy.

I'm going to quote a friend of mine, please forgive any repetition:

"3) Far worse in the visible, the fibers don't allow for spread,
dispersion, and other real light effects. This is not all that obvious,
but think of light that comes into one thread on one side of the tank. By
the time it gets to the other side of the tank, it should be coming out of
many threads (since light spreads as it moves), but the fibers don't allow
that. They also don't allow for a number of other real world light
transmission effects.

4) More geometry included. The light that enters the thread on one side of
the tank is coming from a cone that opens from the end of the thread, with
an angle determined by the internal reflection angle of the material used
for the thread (say ~20 degrees or so). That light will be effectively
randomly rearranged and mostly collimated at the far side. This is
something astronomers are very familiar with, and the end result of it is
that the image produced has reduced clarity. In short, the image would be
blotchy and unfocused. Not hard to spot at all if you know what to look
for."
"Even if you assume a well-working optical bypass system, it won't work when
spotting from the air. You may be able to use fiber optics to route a
picture of the ground up to the top of the tank, but it's still darker
under the tank, so your topside image will be darker than the ground
surrounding it. Modify a set of night-vision goggles to enhance contrast,
and you'd see a moving dark spot."

First, on the optics presented here. Completely correct, note I have a degree in image processing and deal with fiber optics on a regular basis. (Although the contrast part can be patially delt with...) But then the fiber optics could not be used on such things as the gun barrel, tank treads, turret mount, bogies, and drive wheels.

Now let's get to the power requirements for this whole enterprise, you've got a ton of power consuming equipment loaded into this tank. Where is the power comming from, the engines?

Then what are you doing with the massive amout of waste heat generated by the desiel engines driving this bugger. You've muffled the sound (adding weight needing more energy) but what of the waste heat generated?

An invisible tank? I just don't see the point.

Ignoring whether the technology is possible, it is not practical for tanks.

Major problem 1) You can't cover the entire tank.

Yes you can cover the sides, but what about the canon? What about the projectiles that fires from the canon? A tank that you can't fire from isn't very dangerous now is it?

Major problem 2) The technology isn't bullet proof.

The technology needs to be just right to work. Shrapnel, bombs and random fire is going to damamge, or misalign the fibers. And never mind that the moment you get real stealth you become hidden to your own forces as well. Now you have a good chance of getting hit by friendnly fire. All of this will damage the advanced technology you are using for stealth.

Major problem 3) The technology gets in the way of other technology.

Since it seems people like to talk technical, here is something technical that is the cornerstone of most tank/anti tank weaponry. All mediums display fluid bahaviors to objects that travel beyond the speed of sound in that medium.

Since stealth systems are not based on materials denser than depleated uranium, most depleted uranium supersonic anti-tank shells will go through it as though the fibers were literally liquid, in the process messing up the fibers considerably. The fibers would probably not slow the round much either allowing for easy peetration into the tank's insides.

The general cost effective method to prevent this is to slow down the round to a speed slower than the speed of sound of the armor. This is accomplished by pro-active armor. (You literally wrap explosives that are designed to explode outward only, slowing the shells velocity by the force of the reaction.) Stealth technology is incompatible with reactive armor.

This and other obvious reasons makes it impractable for a tank to use such technology. Large naval vessels, on the other hand, can better use this technology, but not anything that has to move into the hostile front line environment. As you state in your initial argument, this technology doesn't make the tank land mine proof.

(I don't need land mines, all I need is a line of weight/magnetic sensors and I'll know exactly where and when your invisible tank entered my border.)

So as you can see (or perhaps not) there is nothing to see in an invislble tank.

I probably should have read all the previous posts, but, you see one post with whinging on a topic you've seen them all. On a basic level, your suggesting a tank covered in cameras that show the image of whats behind them using fibre-optics on the other side. I think. That would make your tank have an !X-treme! power consumption when stealth'd, also have a thin armour(pierced by heavy machine guns or lucky shots). Otherwise people will hear it coming and see where it is from tracks. On the whole I don't see a problem with it, tanks invisible to being spotted by satalites, planes and cursory scouts. Either way, I'd expect the stealth to run for a very limited time unless you want to power them with some ridiculous power supply, like nuclear power. Though that would make you easy to spot and kinda spoil the effect.

Modern day transparency technology does not render objects transparent to the eye but rather translucent. Radars can still pick up stealth objects. There is no way to mask the heat of it so ir sensors will work also

Look, I know how to read. I wouldn't be replying to you if I couldn't.

As far as your concept goes, I have found nothing on it on either science sites or military related sites. The only thing I have found mention the use of LCD displays that project the image.

If you wouldn't mind calming down for a second, please provide some links on this system that you are flaming me over.

http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0700/68/main.shtml

That must be quite a computer to run all your light processing. I do think you are at least as much of an idiot as I am.

[X,Y,plate,r,g,b] x 18-20 plates.

I think a 286x could handle such a feeble packet.

Oh yes adding these nearly-100-pound objects to aircraft is so painful! I mean, that almost dwarfs thousand pound bombs and other things they also carry! And when they drop the bombs, they have to redo the entire airframe so it will fly better. Honestly, this amound of weight can be the difference between the size of your pilot. I don't think it cripples your plane. And what does money matter? I think the equipment that can destroy all the invisible tanks you throw at it would be so much cheaper than the tanks themselves...

I'm glad you hyperfocus on a single element of the argument thaht had no bearing on what the original topic was! Your mother must be so proud!

I see... so by this argument, since IR can detect snipers, then snipers have no purpose in combat anymore, either.

Also you limit your tank to one shot, if you have to go by your brilliant sniper idea. Once you take that shot, the IR should come in and find your tank without trouble. But that's not the argument is it.

At 2,000 meters, (well over a mile) the tank can get off as many shots as it wants. They might confuse it as a stray artillery shell.

Saying you can make this tank, and somehow make it efficient and feasible, it is not my job to show how effective it would be in combat. I think I will put my insulated heating duct on your tank, which will snake out behind the tank for a mile or so, put the cable on it so its invisible as well, and then there's nothing you can do to stop me. It may be impractical, but it's science, just like what you are evidently using. We should join forces. I will put my fuel cell power plant in this tank, and then we can even put a rail gun on it too.

You're, what? 13? 14? Come back when you understand the complexity of word and what it means when they are concurrent of each other and then we'll talk, k? I think it's nap time for Ceylon!

Let's see you say that it is possible, because no one can prove it's impossible? While it IS possible with modern technology to produce the illusion the invisibility of film, with cameras using technology similiar to blue-screen technology , there is still no actual invisibility, just the illusion of it on film. Case in poinr are the Japanese scientists that took the photo of the 'invisible' student. It is worthy to not that while the student in the picture looks as though he is actually transparent , to bystanders and anyone there live, he is actually wearing a green jacket, and only looks invisible when photographed. Scientists claim that it is only a short step from photographic invisibility, to invisibility to the human eye, so far no one has done it.

Thank you for covering something that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

The type of 'invisibility' that various militaries have been exploring is by using light. The theory is that if you make a tank luminous, and you adjust the luminosity to match the back ground light that the tank will appear to the naked eye to be invisible. This does work. This technology has severe limitations , which is why of course no military in the world to date has created a tank with these capabilities. The problems with this technology are as follows: the technology only works from a distance of 4 miles or more, the closer you get the better your eye can pick out the 'background light' that is making the object invisble, night vision equipment can pick out the tank or whatever as if it had no 'invisibility' , despite being 'invisible' tanks are still very loud and leave wide unmistakeable tracks. Any of these 1 limitations cause this technology to be next to useless in a battlefield enviroment, all of them put together make it what it is, a good theory, but useless in practice.

I love picking apart the same argument 100 times just because people can't read:

The technology range of effectiveness increases LOGARITHMICALLY to the size of the transmitter! I don't know where people pull this crap out of there head. (only effective at 4 miles)

Night vision works by amplification of light. Next time you look at a computer monitor or a fiber optic light pipe with night vision, you let me know if it gives away "tale tell" signs.

I've already discussed engine properties to decrease audibility in the idle and the movement form idle states.

If there are other types of 'invisibility' I have not heard of them, although it is a subject that I do not keep tabs on. To simply say it's possible because no one can disprove it, is a blatant god-mod. I can say that my tanks can fly like airplanes and dive like submarines and be normal tanks whenever I wish and then reason that it works until someone disproves it, is patently unfair.

It is not a blatent god-mod if it is actual technology. I've provided link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link after link and everyone else provides complaint after whine after accusation after illiteracy after complaint after whine after accusation after illiteracy after complaint after whine after accusation after illiteracy after. So... when someone actually provides proof "Why this tank is not possible" and not an easily disproven 7th grade argument on "why this tank is not worth making", you folks let me know.

It's called vectors. It's not enough to simply put fiber optics onto a tank, yo have to know exactly where and when to move the image. The computing power is there, but you still have not answered the problem of how to get rid of the heat, magnetic, and track signatures. Nor have you dealt with how to prevent dust and particulate from covering your imaging tech.

Yes, an invisible tank is possible. No, it's not practical.

Dude(s)...

There are no 'official rulings' for the RPG part of nationstates, since it, is, err... free form.

You cannot force others to accept your tech, no matter how realistic it is.

Others cannot force you to give up on your ideas because they don't like it.

You just go, errr... Different ways and stop caring about each other.

Fence-riders. They're everywhere.

Logic can force anyone. No matter how much you pretend an artillery round to the head doesn't kill a soldiers, the logical truth remains that it can.

I have yet to see one argument disproving the scientific principles behind this tank, thus, it stands as logical truth.

Dude, be civil. It gets you more respect.

I give what I get. Tell them to be civil.

It -is- possible to have a modern tech tank that is 'invisible'. What you do is take video cameras and have them project their image onto the other side of the tank.

However, even with the best thermal suppression technologies, your tank would show up rather nicely on infrared.

Again, everyone flocks to the IR argument, under the religious doctrine that everything comes standard with IR these days.

It would also be as loud as any other tank. And I mean LOUD.

Already described. Reading is essential

The camera lenses would get rapidly damaged by shrapnel or covered in dirt after even an hour of fighting.

Fiber optics, not camera lenses. BIG difference.

The sensitive skin that projects the images [you can use organic plastics, but that doesn't make them any less brittle] would get destroyed by shrapnel or covered in dirt. Watch invisible man. It's an old film based on a novel where the protagonist becomes invisible. He then finds that dirt and snow will settle on him and make him quite visible.

Again, fiber optics, we're not using sci-fi here. We are using real technology.

Now, RP-ing an invisible army is very annoying, because of many difficulties. First, it’s –very- hard to identify friend from foe. Unlike in games, you’re not going to be looking at an Automap displaying friends and enemies. It’s very easy to slip into godmod.

But but but but what about IR what about IR what about IR? How is IR not a God Mod since it can magically see everything? One of the most valuable components to the military is stealth! Stealth of preparation, stealth of execution, and striking fast enough to prevent an accurate counterattack. This is how you gain advantage over the enemy! I don't care if IR can detect the A-4i! The point is, not everything has IR and stealth, that ancient component of battle, has been returned to combat!

Basically, stick with conventional forces. Aside from that, your nation is in no way capable of researching or producing something as complex as invisible camo fatigues or vehicles.

These are conventional forces. And how is my nation not capable of it?

I LOVE these 7th grade knee-jerk arguments.

I think a 286x could handle such a feeble packet.
:rolleyes:
based on the number of plates your using (or based on the math you just did...) your tank is going to be very low resolution in the detail it can 'transmit' across the tank. Which says if you roll infront of a bush, tree or rock. Well it will look like a big block on your tank. Sort of a dead giveaway.

edit: Oh, now I understand, except that the code should be

[x,y,plate,r,g,b] or (100 x 100 x 18 x 256 x 256 x 256)x2 which would be the correct number of processes to detect and transmit 18 to 20 plates of data assuming a pixel number of 100 by 100 per plate. Or 6.03x10^12 proccesses per surface update.

Oh, and the amount of heat radation that a human gives off for the amount of power he or she uses is quite minimal, not having to obey the laws of thermodynamics (being humans are electrochemical entities)

Oh, and I haven't quite figured out what you think your doing with the fiber optics yet. Are you using some passive system, just bending light around to the otherside? Or are you detecting it and then reproducing it? (My reading was the latter) But you haven't indicated what the actual 'sensor' is (and before you go blathering about it being fiber optics, all fiber optics are are optics, you need some sensor system to convert the photons into computer readable data.)

I love that, calling someone an imbecile because they havent learned quantum physics, well fuck me i can write A* grade Eng Lit. degree essays but im an imbecile because i found physics boring.

They are imbeciles because they attempt these 7th grade arguments without doing a shread of research and then get their pussy juices in a stir when I disprove them with a single link.

Fair enough, you can have as much anti-detection stuff in your tank as you like so that any radar/richter/whatever detectors cant find you. Fair enough, i suppose thats possible.

But, the light optic things.... quick question, are they the normal fibre opitc cables where the light going in one end is beamed out through the other end after making its way down the little fibre optic tube? Its just that i'd find it difficult to understand just where you'd have room for the cables around the tank. Even if there was room, what if some of the cables got damaged/dirty?

I've already described the process in full detail almost 5 times now. You are the one with the Eng. Lit. degree. I suggest putting it to use by reading what has been presented.

Do I really need to make pictures and pop-up books? I am starting to worry about the intellectual integrity of this community.

Obviously, cable damage from small arms fire and other crap is covered in obvious polycarbonate material of a dual-surface thickness to reduce light difraction entirely.

I think a lot of people are getting mixed up by the term 'invisible'. If you can see things on it, then it isnt 'invisible' in the true sense of the word because, basically it is visible. If you can see something, then it is visible, no matter how far away you are from it. Basically what you're selling is a fucking-hard-to-see tank, which is feasible, but in no way practical in value-for-money terms, and in no way deserving of the title 'invisible'

Did I say Invisible Tanks or 'Invisible' Tanks? Did I explain the entire concept within the post or did no one read this at all?

I seriously am convinced people cannot read; they see the word invisible, and their gentials just start flaring out of control.

Its like calling a huge-great-big-fuckoff-tank-with-big-guns-everywhere 'The Indestructible (sp?) Tank'. It isnt indestructable, as it could probably be killed by, i dont know, an asteroid or something (bear with me), but if it was called the 'The-really-hard-to-destroy-unless-you-have-hordes-of-asteroids-and-youre-very-good-at-throwing-tank' it would sound shit and no one would buy it.

The difference between cheesy GodMods and hte A-4i is that the A-4i can exist and I have proven it's feasbility, and I have done the research required to make it real.

Please, I have higher standards then that.

No matter what the technology is, the tank isnt invisible, therefore it isnt an invisible tank, no matter what range your coming over it from. However, this doesnt mean your contraption isnt feasible.

IR, maybe. But on the visible sprectum, you ain't seeing shit.

1st: This is bordering on flaming and I'll ask the Mods to lock it if you go any further.
2nd: How old are you? You're the only one here that throws around kiddy insults . . .

Right.

Organic plastics already exist. I can't help it if you don't keep up with the technology.

Fiberoptics are just as easy to damage as any other optical tech.

You STILL have not answered how to counter something as simple as dust and particles settling on your equimpent.

Infrared is possible to counter, but everything -does- show up on it. ESPECIALLy if you've got a tank that produces lots of heat from having to produce power for all that 'invisibility' gadgetry. Try sending a tank through mud or desert sand.

An immobile tank is useless. it may be silent when it's standing still, but it's damn loud while it's in motion. To strike fast, you'd have to move your tanks, thereby making noise.

Counter please:
-tank tracks
-infrared signature
-shapnel damage
-counter-battery fire
-particulates settling on tank chassis
-sound while in motion

The one thing that keeps coming up in my mind about this project Is; How will you effect the treads? They will be going in and out of dirt, mud, blood, and anything else on the ground while still being clean and transmittable? secondly how will you maintain a restricted fiber conection with the other side while both sides are rotating constantly?

Now if the idea is that theres some kind of flexible cover that drops down while its stopped thats one thing... but even if you do that you cant reduce the mass of the cables.. even hair thin cables put over several square meters will quickly bundle up into a massive problem, tanks are allready cramped for space.

Im not really going to comment on wether the technology is totally feasible, as I havent done the calcs personally, but NOTHING is fool proof. I dont see too much problem with it... if he wants invisible tanks let him, dont agree, dont RP with him... thats the beauty of NS

What I do have a problem with is you taking every disagreement with this project as a personal attack on yourself... which is ridiculous... you asked for public opinon, and so you got it. No one just came out and said you were an idiot or anything like that, and if thats how you normally act I dont really think this forum is for you, as you obviously havent matured enough to handle it...

Oh and go ahead, call me Illiterate, I could really give a damn...

Please forgive me if someone mentions anything I cover while I was typing.

Phosphorus smoke is very caustic. Exploding smoke grenades close enough to cover your heat signature would erode your fiber optics. Exploding them far enough away would render them useless for covering the heat signature.

The fiber optic erosion would not occur. Again, simple polycarbonate lamination would protect against dirt and small arms fire.

Don't most tanks in this day and age have IR technology? Russian and Chinese tanks do, not to mention American. IR can be used during the day; as a matter of fact, one of your sources http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm says "In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight.". And wouldn't fiber optics show some kind of distortion, visible to the eye?

There is no "special" photon being released by the tank that would make it appear "special" on nightvision.

IR is not NV, btw.

Distortion occurs when you are close enough. But, thus isn't WW1, and you can acutally be more then 10 feet away from your target when you shoot at it.

If the tank moves at all, there is the problem of exhaust or tread marks. Plus there is the possibility of damage from environment (rock, plants, etc.) which would render the fiber optics useless. If it doesn't move, it builds up heat (even with any kind of heat spreading technology); IR once more comes into play.

Again, Polycarbonate lamination. Exhaust suppressant is insanely easy to accompish...come on, man. Again, this boards obsession with IR as a last ditch attempt doesn't mean that every unit in every military has IR.

Flash suppression is to reduce the glare to the crew, not to hide the flash when fired. Anything that reduces that flash also reduces range and accuracy.

It has already been calcuated in the equations. And I have already provided a link for tank round flash supressant.

I'm going to quote a friend of mine, please forgive any repetition:

"3) Far worse in the visible, the fibers don't allow for spread,
dispersion, and other real light effects. This is not all that obvious,
but think of light that comes into one thread on one side of the tank. By
the time it gets to the other side of the tank, it should be coming out of
many threads (since light spreads as it moves), but the fibers don't allow
that. They also don't allow for a number of other real world light
transmission effects.

4) More geometry included. The light that enters the thread on one side of
the tank is coming from a cone that opens from the end of the thread, with
an angle determined by the internal reflection angle of the material used
for the thread (say ~20 degrees or so). That light will be effectively
randomly rearranged and mostly collimated at the far side. This is
something astronomers are very familiar with, and the end result of it is
that the image produced has reduced clarity. In short, the image would be
blotchy and unfocused. Not hard to spot at all if you know what to look
for."


I'm glad your friend and I came to the same conclusion. You should have explained the full project to your friend instead of pretending that the fiber optics were simply transporting light from one side to the other. Maybe he would have given a answer that had something to do with the A-4i.

"Even if you assume a well-working optical bypass system, it won't work when
spotting from the air. You may be able to use fiber optics to route a
picture of the ground up to the top of the tank, but it's still darker
under the tank, so your topside image will be darker than the ground
surrounding it. Modify a set of night-vision goggles to enhance contrast,
and you'd see a moving dark spot."

How many times do I have to copy and paste how this thing works?

HOWEVER EVERYONE IS ASSUMING HOW THE A-4I OPTIC/COMPUTER NETWORK RUNS IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG!

I have already describved 5 times how this thing works, and everyone runs off to their own fairy tale world full of conviction, even though they have yet to understand what I have presented.

First, on the optics presented here. Completely correct, note I have a degree in image processing and deal with fiber optics on a regular basis. (Although the contrast part can be patially delt with...) But then the fiber optics could not be used on such things as the gun barrel, tank treads, turret mount, bogies, and drive wheels.

If you see the inside of a gun barrell, then it's already too late.

I have already provided in simplified detail how to cover the treads.

Turret mount is easily covered.

Now let's get to the power requirements for this whole enterprise, you've got a ton of power consuming equipment loaded into this tank. Where is the power comming from, the engines?

The packet is this:
[x,y,plate#,R,G,b]

And that's all that is being handled. It doesn't require a nuclear powerplant to repeat that command to thousands of fiber optic strands.

Then what are you doing with the massive amout of waste heat generated by the desiel engines driving this bugger. You've muffled the sound (adding weight needing more energy) but what of the waste heat generated?

I've muffled the sounds when the engine is idle and when it starts up from idle, not while it moves.

Heat can only be reduced so much. But the good thing is: IR does not come standard with every soldier in every military in the world.

An invisible tank? I just don't see the point.

Not only is the tank invisible, but so are my 130 posts describing why arguments like these do not hold weight!

Ignoring whether the technology is possible, it is not practical for tanks.

The signal flare for a 7th grade argument that I've already disporven has been fired!

Major problem 1) You can't cover the entire tank.

Yes you can cover the sides, but what about the canon? What about the projectiles that fires from the canon? A tank that you can't fire from isn't very dangerous now is it?

Yes, all sides can be covered! Yes, the cannon can also be covered! Amazing!

Major problem 2) The technology isn't bullet proof.

The technology needs to be just right to work. Shrapnel, bombs and random fire is going to damamge, or misalign the fibers. And never mind that the moment you get real stealth you become hidden to your own forces as well. Now you have a good chance of getting hit by friendnly fire. All of this will damage the advanced technology you are using for stealth.

*cough* Polycarbonates... Polycarbonates... *cough*

Accidental friendly fire is not as dangerous as being unable to distinquish if the target is friendly or an enemy.

Major problem 3) The technology gets in the way of other technology.

Since it seems people like to talk technical, here is something technical that is the cornerstone of most tank/anti tank weaponry. All mediums display fluid bahaviors to objects that travel beyond the speed of sound in that medium.

Since stealth systems are not based on materials denser than depleated uranium, most depleted uranium supersonic anti-tank shells will go through it as though the fibers were literally liquid, in the process messing up the fibers considerably. The fibers would probably not slow the round much either allowing for easy peetration into the tank's insides.

The general cost effective method to prevent this is to slow down the round to a speed slower than the speed of sound of the armor. This is accomplished by pro-active armor. (You literally wrap explosives that are designed to explode outward only, slowing the shells velocity by the force of the reaction.) Stealth technology is incompatible with reactive armor.

This and other obvious reasons makes it impractable for a tank to use such technology. Large naval vessels, on the other hand, can better use this technology, but not anything that has to move into the hostile front line environment. As you state in your initial argument, this technology doesn't make the tank land mine proof.

Massive detail towards armor plating is not required IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE TARGET.

Thus, pro-active armor is not needed.

Spectral invisibility is it's primary armor, not massive uranium depleted plates.

(I don't need land mines, all I need is a line of weight/magnetic sensors and I'll know exactly where and when your invisible tank entered my border.)

Great. Does this mean that the A-4i is now possible since it has counters?

I probably should have read all the previous posts.


Stop right there. I've already covered your entire argument about 6 times now. You are not original. You are not clever. You have already been destroyed. Why? You've already pointed out the problem.

Modern day transparency technology does not render objects transparent to the eye but rather translucent. Radars can still pick up stealth objects. There is no way to mask the heat of it so ir sensors will work also

Unlike te popular lore around here...

... not everything comes with IR ...

*cough* Polycarbonates... Polycarbonates... *cough*

Polycarbonates scratch, And such scratches will show up as distortions to anyone with anything other than the naked eye.

Oh, and tanks don't hide from infantry. They hide from aircraft and other tanks.

Unlike te popular lore around here...

... not everything comes with IR ...

Let me put it to you this way: everything on NationStates comes with IR.

I never said anything about a 'special' photon. And, as it says on the Abrams Tank site you quoted: The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Apparently, thermal (or IR) was what they used as 'night vision'. Therefore your argument about IR not being NV is, in this case, untrue.

And I did mention the whole project to my friend. As a matter of fact, I linked your original threat in my email; he read your post and responded accordingly. So perhaps in this case you are showing your illiteracy when you assumed he was talking about something else when he was, in fact, disputing your tank precisely.
Perhaps the fairy tale world is your particular delusion. We have repeatedly told you how such a tank is, however feasible from a logical standpoint, practically impossible. Insults and attitude doesn't change that fact.

And FYI...I'm a 32 year old female who belongs to Mensa, so please don't show your ignorance by insulting my intelligence and/or age.

"Don't heckle the supervillian."-Justice League
8)
Anastasia

What are you talking about? I just realized that the moment anyone thinks these things are around they can be nailed with a few crop dusters, talc powder, and hell even a civil war cannon.

1) Polycarbonate scratches, but talc powder attachs to the surface and is a b**** to clean. So when you think the enemy has 'invisible' tanks just fly over the war zone with a few crop dusters dropping talc powder, fertilizer or what have you.

Follow up by shooting the 'unarmored tanks' (that now appear as white objects on the feild of battle with whatever is handy, a material rifle, a civil war cannon, your armored tanks. In reality these things are only good when the enemy doesn't know you have them.

So they are 'one battle wonders' that really are quite a waste of money.

I am not seeing what would save this tank from an few soldiers with antiarmor weaponary. All they have to see is the light distortions, the dust cloud around it from moving especally in an desert or dry areas, if its raining you can find where the tank is from the way the rain is hitting it and the mud that will get on it not to mention other facters like the impressions in the ground from something that heavy moving. Even without IR an enemy could find this tank and take it out. It would be cheaper to use more traditional light, medium and Main Battle Tanks.

I've read the arguements and did some reserch. I've only found one article
that even remotely suppoerts this idea.



http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project042.html

Would you provide a link to any site that supports your argument that the tank would not be covered in fiber optic cable but "fiber optic snippets"? I have been looking for a while and have yet to find any kind of fiber optics that don't need cable to transmit information.

I now must quote another friend:
From reading the thread, the guy has failed to take into account the view of the tank from above. His "fiber optic" explanation works unless he is trying to
project the view from the dark underside of the vehicle to the top of the tank. He would need to somehow light the bottom of the tank and transfer the image to the top side of the vehicle, or it is visible from above and readily distinguishable from the surrounding landscape.

Even with lighting below, the image would show up wrong due to the differential lighting of the surrounding "naturally lit" surface and the "artificial" lighting conditions of the transferred underside of the tank. Also the lighting would give away the tank with reflected light from trying to illuminate the underside.

A simple fly over with a view to the differential light frequencies looking for variations should defeat this weapon....

So basically, the A-4i can be easily detected with IR, easily spotted if covered by something, i.e. dirt, talc powder, etc, and since it "does not need proactive armor" once its spotted, it is easily disposed of. What a great, practical and effective weapon.

Not to mention seeing tank tracks leading up to one point but not continuing, with prior knowledge of the existence of such a tank would lead any logical thinker to believe that there would, in fact, be an invisible tank sitting there, waiting to be destroyed. Motion? What would you think if you saw tracks being made by nothing?

Your invisible tank idea is slightly creative, and it is slightly impressive, if not sad, that you have put so much thought into it, however, it is not practical in any way, shape or form..that is unless youd be taking over an underdeveloped voodoo nation ;)

Brick wall,

There are many flaws, especially transferring the light from beneath the tank as was just mentioned. I assume you will fiber optic the bottom of the tank as well, projecting the natural light to the... wait, you can't project natural sunlight. If the fiber optics were complete cables you could channel it, but you've added the computer step which means you will now have to project it.

Anyway all the other flaws, the exhaust you say you can mask, the tracks, the dirt which covers everything in combat. Can you imagine keeping this tank clean so the fibers would work? Keep the treads clean? All these things have been mentioned, we just all feel the need to recap them for you because you don't remedy them or disprove them like you say you do.

The fact is, you have failed to sell this idea to your fellow 7th graders. None of us have bought them, even if we believe your invisible idea would work, we all laugh at how impractical this tank would be.

So my official ruling is: Fine, somehow you get this thing to work, I don't buy them anyway.

Stop right there. I've already covered your entire argument about 6 times now. You are not original. You are not clever. You have already been destroyed. Why? You've already pointed out the problem.

Man, and all I ever did was agree with the guy. If only I was more Original, or not destroyed.....

Oh well.

Since this whole argument is going back and forth about the feasibility of IR scopes and there acceptance as a standard package on military equipment I just pulled up a few links from a basic google search on the availibility of IR goggles, nightvision/IR goggles and Nightvision Goggles with an IR illuminator.

So far just by going to the sites on the first page I have found dozens of places civilians can purchase goggles with IR illuminators with prices ranging from 400 dollars to 4000. Now I think if I as a private person can purchase goggles with IR capabilites for as little as 400 dollars the government surely should be able to give every person in the field an IR/nightvision goggle set.

Also for the record the only Stealth Plane to be shot down was shot down by an IR missiles over Yugoslavia, because theres no way to completely mask your IR signature because a machine will always produce more heat then the background.

http://www.binoculars.com/products/Night_Owl_Goggles_283.html?AID=12216&PID=177778&SID=109096684762372804

http://www.binocularsmart.com/night-vision.shtml

http://www.binoculars.com/products/GSCI_Mono-Goggles_wFace_Mask__IR_Illum._6105.html

http://www2.shopping.com/xPP-Night_Vision--price_range_310_600~PG-5~OR-~V-

http://www.spy-equipment.co.uk/Night_Vision/night_vision.html

The last one is very very important because it shows how every pair of nightvision goggles has IR illuminators on it to bring in IR light.

FLIR is generally an 86 pound device that is attached to each vehicle that requires massive remodeling of the control instruments. Each FLIR unit is $1.5 million.

There are hand-held FLIR units...they weight about 4lbs and look like binocs...they're not even several hundred dollars and are released for special civilian use.

FLIR systems are also included on many ATGM targeting and firing units...including the Javelin, Spike/Gil series, and other first-world systems. Many modern western tanks also have FLIR standard.

Additionally, FLIR is not day-blind. NVDs work by 2 means. One type is IR and can work in any environment at any time of the day, although the images tend to be somewhat hazy at night. The second is image-enhancement, which cannot work during daylight hours.

FLIR systems don't see things like the Predator in fancy colors...most FLIR displays look like a slightly distorted reality...where surfaces are given different white/gray/black hues based on their ambient temperature. Even if you have some suppression of the exhaust systems, the barrel, and the drive train components (which will be warmer than the rest) then the rest of the unit remains at a different ambient temperature than any surroundings.

Majority of friendly fire with tank incidents come from the inability to determine if the target is friendly or enemy. The changes of a tank hitting an friendly invisible tank is the same as a solder killing an unseen friendly sniper. Again, I have already disproven all of these arguments time and time again.
Unless your friendly tank doesn't see the other tank in the way and tries to fire shots /through/ the friendly position.

Additionally, your tank's computer will have to function at a very high level to process all of the information. This bank of supercomputers will be vulnerable to vibration, dirt, rain, heat, and power supply issues. You will need to have, under your revised explanation of the fiberoptics system (which was never provided on the old thread), computer banks or relays that are as widely spaced as the fiberoptic intake-output systems. As simple as the software packet is (and it isn't as simple as you say, since your system has to work in on at least 5 planes, not counting the barrel, and the code needs to account for that) the computer or rathe supercomputers will require cooling systems. All of these make the system vulnerable to suddenly shutting off or malfunctioning. Based on the area covered...you're talking hundreds of thousands of points, at very least. This /does/ require a great deal of power...it may not require a nuclear power source but it will be a serious drain on your resources and will have to come out of the engine, which means more fuel consumption.


As far as muffling goes, the most sound comes from tanks when they're just getting started (ie, when they're moved from idle to speed). This means that the least sound suppression (although it is still quite a bit) is needed in tactical idle and while the tank is underway (most of the sound while underway comes from the treads and transmission instead of the engine, anyways). If you were to use a muffler system such as is found in cars, you reduce the energy production ability of your engine...and have only covered a small fraction of the problem. Other noise sources are from the vibration and shaking of the pistons, which usually escapes by transmission through the body of the tank and vent spaces (which must be held open to prevent the engine from overheating due to strain); the noises associated with the transmission system; and the tread system. Each of those would have to be dealt with...and each behaves differently on paved ground and offroad (on paved ground a rubber-based track system prevents damage to the ground and also reduces the noise, but offroad the rubber is likely to snap and leave your tank crippled).

As things go, I would recommend that you look at globalsecurity.org rather than FAS.org, since GS tends to update and maintain its information while FAS is at least 5 years out of date in most cases...if it was ever accurate in the first place. FAS hired GS's originator to do their site and he later went on to make his own site that has the latest military projects.

I would also advise you to bring caution to your claims, such as that a Radar scrambler designed for CW-type radar-homing missiles would have an effective blocking capability on VW and pulse-type ground-scanning radars from observation units overhead...the automatic radar jammer you spoke of cannot adapt to block those signals as it is meant to disrupt specific and descrete bands of radar.

One might also caution the use of insulting terms and claims (flaming) to those that are more experienced, more understanding, and who may well have a greater technological knowledge base than you do. Some of us understand that your system will fail because your "equations" that relate wave-particle duality to your success are flawed. The nature of fiberoptics can allow two (or actually many more, I believe it's up to 16 now) signals to share a single line going in opposite directions on different frequencies...but this works only in transmission between two computer terminals and is much less effective when used to collect and transmit photonic information from the real world...and your computer and related support requirements make this system unstable, and demanding, at best.

Thank you for providing hte link, Aries.

You are all now dead.

Ideas that aren't from bogus GeoCities or News of the World sites:

Nanotech soldiers with near-invisible suits:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/14/army-uniform.htm

And here is the U.S. Patent for the very device I am talking about.

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=5,307,162.WKU.&OS=PN/5,307,162&RS=PN/5,307,162

Everyone is dead.

Theres a huge difference in making someone who is 6 foot tall and 2 feet wide near invisible then making a huge tank invisible. A soldier using a ghilie suit is near invisible if in the right type of terrain.

Also I read about the soldier 2025 active camo in Pop Sci ill try to find the link if possible. But its not a "cloaking device" the way they are portaying it in that concept art sketch on that website but its more of a system where say if a soldier was fighting in a forest then was forced to go into an urban environment.
With current armor he would stand out because he was equipped for forest combat and not urban combat. The active camo armor would detect the change in background and the armor would change color to an urban environment of combat. Its not going to be morphing for every wall the person passes by because that would require a huge amount of technology.

Also cost is going to be a massive consideration. It will probably cost hundreds of grand to equip a soldier in a suit like that, the cost for a tank would be astronomical.

*Sigh*

Your [Ghetalion's] failure to provide an effective counter to a number of points raised above leads me to say one thing:

IGNORED

You are all now dead.

Ideas that aren't from bogus GeoCities or News of the World sites:

Nanotech soldiers with near-invisible suits:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/14/army-uniform.htm
.


Note how it says several times in the article that the technology in question is still under devlopment.....

Your patent says the idea works, which none of us dispute. What we dispute is the way you deploy it, which is impractical to say the least.

The other link which "kills" us all says itself, "We're not there yet, but it's not science fiction." Which is why we all, once again, claim you are being impractical.

Maybe one day it will be on tanks, then you can come back and create your tank again without "all of our genitals erupting in flames."

The only reason you complain it's impractical is because you haven't the technological aptitude to understand how it works... even though I have provided multiple links on the subject.

The fact remains, they are technologically possible and since I have now provided the instructions on how it is so, direct all of your unsettled teenage angst to the inventor.

The only reason you complain it's impractical is because you haven't the technological aptitude to understand how it works... even though I have provided multiple links on the subject.

Sure we do. This has been discussed many times before you even found NationStates.

The fact remains, they are technologically possible and since I have now provided the instructions on how it is so, direct all of your unsettled teenage angst to the inventor.


Um...alot of us aren't teenagers.....

Sure we do. This has been discussed many times before you even found NationStates.

Again, refere to the DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO CREATE THIS DEVICE YOURSELF that I have provided.

Um...alot of us aren't teenagers.....

Fooled me.

All I'll say is this....

"IT'S ON TEH INTERNUT IT MUZT BE TRU"!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111


Now then, put basically actually keep up with the argument, i do enjoy your use of Insulting the players, some of which who have replied to this thread are past their teenage years.

haven't the technological aptitude to understand how it works... even though I have provided multiple links on the subject.

The fact remains, they are technologically possible and since I have now provided the instructions on how it is so, direct all of your unsettled teenage angst to the inventor.


And what of the cost?
and the sound of the engine?
and the noise of the bloody Main Battle Cannon firing for god's sake?
oh and radio transmissions, electrical pulses, exhaust fumes.
Hmmm, methinks the project is rather easy to spot...


Put basically Invisible tanks are a rather big fat
NO

I will not argue with the technology of the 'invisibility' instead I will argue with the feasibility. The tank will still leave tread tracks in the ground, allowing anybody to see where it has gone and stopped, though a clever tank commander could confuse the enemy by driving all over the place.
The tank will still gather dust in the dessert as it drives, creating an easy way to see it, the same with snow, and rain. Especially rain, it would be extremely easy to identify the tank by the water running over it during a rainstorm.
Also, the tracks could not be covered with the fiber optics, leaving them visible, ditto with the muzzle of the barrle, and the interior of any hatches. There are many other places where it is not feasible to put the fiber optics.
All modern tanks are equiped with IR sights. As are many attack helicopters. The A10 is already set up to use FLIR technology, as are many other aircraft, so it would not be a problem to merely attach the pod, and go hunting for the 'invisible' tank.
The biggest problem with the 'invisible' tank is that any hit on it, even shrapnel from a near miss, would destroy the fiber optics where they hit, making the invisibility useless until it returns to a repair facility that has the neccessary equipment to replace the damaged optic fibers.

Thank you for providing hte link, Aries.

You are all now dead.

Ideas that aren't from bogus GeoCities or News of the World sites:

Nanotech soldiers with near-invisible suits:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/03/14/army-uniform.htm

And here is the U.S. Patent for the very device I am talking about.

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=5,307,162.WKU.&OS=PN/5,307,162&RS=PN/5,307,162

Everyone is dead.

Wow, you really must be a dead head. Okay,first of all...I believe that cloaking technology is possible...as I have said...but the fact is that your system does not work. The patented system is what WA uses...which uses a video system to record rough images (the cameras and processing equipment are limited) that are projected upon the opposite side of the vehicle...your system is not a video system but rather a non-supported fiberoptic relay system.

2ndly, I've seen the MIT thing...the first part I should say is that their "image of the planned system" was ripped off from a comic book...it was a huge embarassment to the program to have a plagarized image represent it...and secondly their program deals with shifting chromatic projection devices. These devices are more like the eInk technology...not your fiberoptic system.

IF you would listen to us, you would realize that we're not all discounting the possibility of some sort of visual cloaking system...what we're discounting is that the system would not be detectable by humans at short ranges (since humans have a greater degree of differentiation ability than video or film systems and could hence spot the difference at short ranges (<500m)) and that the system would be based on a fiberoptic relay system without regard for the background necessary.

Oh, and FYI, there is a standing mod tech ruling that "invisible tanks" are unfeasible with current technologies and so cannot be said to be modern or near-modern tech. I have used "active camo" technology many times and received no complaints because my argumentation was progressive, polite, and based on the evidence I provided. Son, you need to respect people to convince them to listen to you.

IF you would like to state that your technology is now based on video relay and thin-film projection systems then you're on the right track and I, for one, will accept that part of the 'invisibility'...so long as you properly limit the technology to realistic levels.

All I'll say is this....

"IT'S ON TEH INTERNUT IT MUZT BE TRU"!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

See this link?

http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&p=1&S1=5,307,162.WKU.&OS=PN/5,307,162&RS=PN/5,307,162

See that IP? Let's trace and resolves hat IP....
/dns 164.195.100.11
*** 164.195.100.11 resolved to pto.dwsearch.com.

Well holy crap, that's the United States Patent and Trademark Office SEARCH ENGINE!

You're dead. Be gone.

Fooled me.


Let me say this: with your belligerent attitude around here, I doubt very many people are going to want to buy your tank, or even interact with you for that matter. Learn some respect, running into NationStates and flaming people is no way accomplish anything except wasting your time.

Alright, I haven't read through this thread, just skimmed it. I read your tank's capabilities, and I read through why/how this thing works.

If it uses smoke to fool infared sensors, wouldn't the smoke give away its position?

Smoke won't entirely fool infared sensors.

Some detectors such as x-ray, ultraviolet, or even sonar can find it.

Even if you're given the ability to put these fiber-optic threads on the treads, you'd be able to see the depression of the tank on the ground.

Rain? Other weather conditions?

Most importantly: tanks are impractical when used in covert operations. That's like making a silenced bazooka.

That's like making a silenced bazooka.

SHHHHHH!!! You're gonna reveal my next uberwank...errr....uberweapon!

hmmmm
Never heard of good old propaganda huh?

I mean we are in the middle of The War on Terror, so I assume that all the AoE nations, and terrorists have no access to the internet, ever.
hmmmm.

Let me say this: with your belligerent attitude around here, I doubt very many people are going to want to buy your tank, or even interact with you for that matter. Learn some respect, running into NationStates and flaming people is no way accomplish anything except wasting your time.


I agree entirely with AMF here. Sure you MIGHT be able to build that tank, but you aren't arguing "scientifically" as you like to claim. Everytime someone tries to talk science with you it end in "You are an illiterate teenage" or "you're dead". Really in my opinion you should be deleted for the bad attitude and relentless flaming.