Sensors vs. Counters.... the pain continues...

3 posts ยท Feb 4 2000 to Feb 5 2000

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:41:06 -0500

Subject: Sensors vs. Counters.... the pain continues...

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 17:45:03 -0000
From: "Steve Gill" <Steve@caws.demon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Tank vision systems

[Sensors]
> Sure, you might take out 15% of them with an artillery barrage.

Somehow I think I'd exceed 15% with a mass barrage of supersticky radar
reflecting paint.

** Hmmm. I think if I were you I'd load that paint with some toxins. Then
you'll smoke the dope with his head out the top of his tank too. If I can do
this to the tank, plug up its air intakes. If I can do this to the tank, make
them metal eating nanites instead. If this is a viable threat, your tank
better have a good defence for it. And that won't be just having your
commander topside.

** Roger has the meet of this issue: Fox the Mark I without foxing the human
eye? In some cases, I might believe it. But in *more* cases, I can fox the
human eye without foxing a sensor. As a rule, the eye will be as easy or
easier to fox or destroy (if you expose it) than a hardened sensor suite.

From: RWHofrich@a...

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:13:32 EST

Subject: Re: Sensors vs. Counters.... the pain continues...

In a message dated 2/4/00 5:41:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:

> Fox the Mark I without foxing the human

Uhhmmm--pardon me for intruding on this one, but I always thought the
Mark I WAS the human eye...

...but point taken nonetheless.

All this arguing going on about this topic is getting silly--especially
when it appears people are purposefully misinterpretting each other!

C'mon guys! I think we can all agree that in today's environment you NEED the
Mark I working as much as possible, but frankly, who is to say for 100 years
from now? I would have to guess that a passive broadband receptor

system that pipes its info into a VR system for the tanker MAY indeed reduce
(if not eliminate) the need to "take a peek." It still won't eliminate the
need to "take a pee" though ;-)

Rob

ps--I am defintely NOT a tanker--I just read a lot about military
history (past, current, and future).

From: Popeyesays@a...

Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:24:32 EST

Subject: Re: Sensors vs. Counters.... the pain continues...

In a message dated 2/4/00 10:14:20 PM Central Standard Time,
> RWHofrich@aol.com writes:

<< I would have to guess that a passive broadband receptor system that pipes
its info into a VR system for the tanker MAY indeed reduce (if not eliminate)
the need to "take a peek." It still won't eliminate the
 need to "take a pee" though ;-)
> [quoted text omitted]

Which is why old tankers in the US army miss the M60 -it had a floor
hatch through which one COULD take a pee, without using a relief tube