Invisible Tanks by 2012?

[JSLTIGER]

Given that Crysis is set in 2020, I see no reason why this technology would not be possible by then. The real trick will be creating the power source to keep it running...contrary to what Duracell would have you believe, battery technology has not come all that far in the last twenty years, without a substantial breakthrough, it seems unlikely that things will change anytime soon.

[P_Funk]

Yes that does seem to be the case. Usually ideas for technology far outstrip the availability of necessary materials. A good example is railguns. Those things are insane (using electrical current like in electro-magnets to propel projectiles to really high speed without a conventional propellant). The only problem is that one or two shots wears out the rails!

Just think of all the secret half-finished designs in the bowels of agencies and development firms all over the world. I might be a lefty-pascifist-america-hating-uponfreedomshatting-bolshevik, but this stuff still turns my crank (to borrow from my grandpa's nomenclature).

[Chock]

What would actually be more funny, is if you could project the image of one of your own tanks onto an enemy one from a satellite; that way you wouldn't even have to bother turning up on the battlefield, you could just let the enemy destroy himself:rotfl:

Chock

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Yes that does seem to be the case. Usually ideas for technology far outstrip the availability of necessary materials. A good example is railguns. Those things are insane (using electrical current like in electro-magnets to propel projectiles to really high speed without a conventional propellant). The only problem is that one or two shots wears out the rails!

No, the real problems are recoil, cost effectiveness and an enegry source.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

No, the real problems are recoil, cost effectiveness and an enegry source.

Are you sure?
Energy sources shouldn't be a problem for any rail gun. With a large enough compasitor bank you can get extreemely high voltage
from just a few small batterys if you only need it for a fraction of a second.

I don't know about millitary projects, but in amature rail gun projects (there are plenty)
the big problem is that the projectiles try to fuse with the rails so you get nasty weld
scars all along the rails.

I belive the millitary is looking at "one shot" rail guns for very heavy projectiles as an
alternative to cruise missiles.

[baggygreen]

As i understood it, there was no recoil, but the problem lay with the energy source as you mentioned. Id not heard of rails wearing out, tho i suppose it is logical..

[P_Funk]

Well if you take into consideration the speeds which the projectile is going to reach as it runs along the rails and then the subsequent friction caused you can imagine that finding a metal that is highly conducting but also heat and wear resistant can be tough.

[Skybird]

1.) It remains to be visible on thermal scanners, infrared, radar.
2.) Moving in dust and mud makes the hull being visible by the dirt on it.
3.) Sounds like a very sensible, easily malfunctioning technology.
4.) Camera projections remain to depend on the viewer's position, and so slight changes in angles will produce visual artifacts.

In the SB forum, a guy, an ex-tanker, just commented with this: "It's useless."

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ad.php?t=11012

Active camouflage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage (thanks for the heads-up, JAS39! )

It probably makes more sense for aircraft, than for ground combat vehicles.

[STEED]

It's bound to breakdown in 3 days.

[CptSimFreak]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1.) It remains to be visible on thermal scanners, infrared, radar.
2.) Moving in dust and mud makes the hull being visible by the dirt on it.
3.) Sounds like a very sensible, easily malfunctioning technology.
4.) Camera projections remain to depend on the viewer's position, and so slight changes in angles will produce visual artifacts.

In the SB forum, a guy, an ex-tanker, just commented with this: "It's useless."

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ad.php?t=11012

Active camouflage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage (thanks for the heads-up, JAS39! )

It probably makes more sense for aircraft, than for ground combat vehicles.

I was thinking exactly same thing.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Well if you take into consideration the speeds which the projectile is going to reach as it runs along the rails and then the subsequent friction caused you can imagine that finding a metal that is highly conducting but also heat and wear resistant can be tough.

Originally Posted by baggygreen

As i understood it, there was no recoil, but the problem lay with the energy source as you mentioned. Id not heard of rails wearing out, tho i suppose it is logical..

It's not the friction thats the problem, its the high voltage that runs through the projectile.

The electricity runs up one rail, through the projectile and down the other rail. If there is
any tiny amount of resistance between the projectile and the rail then you will get
ultra hot sparks and metal welding.

In short:
Electrical resistance causes heat. Heat causes metallic melting.
There is always lots of electrical resistance between the rails and the projectile.
The rails and projectile will melt and weld.

To fix this you can either:
1) try to drop the temperature of the rails to just a few kelvin.
This requires a large setup and is not efficient. It also limits the power you can use.
It is never 100% effective.

2) try to reduce resistance between the rail and projectile.
there are many ways to do this, but they all increase kinetic friction.
It is never 100% effective.

The only alternative is a "one shot" weapon.

Regarding recoil:
There is plenty of recoil, but this isn't a big problem as long as the gun is fixed to the
ground or a large ship. It might be a problem with metal fatigue on smaller railguns.

Regarding friction:
It is theoretically possible to make a rail gun with zero friction because the projectile
does not need to touch the rails, so this isn't a problem.


Regarding energy source:
Again, not a big problem. As long as you have enough time than you can get as
much energy as you want into a bank of compasstours.


Whats so good about rail guns?
If you can make a rail gun that wont weld it's projectile to the rails, then a 1lb non-explosive
projectile could impact with enough speed to cause highly explosive force equivalent to
several tonnes of conventional explosive.
Range is limited by the curve of the earth.


What isn't so good about rail guns?
They are very big, immobile, hard to target over range, can only be used a few times
and they are somewhat unproven.