invisibility cloak

Cunning as Zeus
Banned
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
All it would take is a single downed tank to put that technology into their enemy's hands. They'd better add some kind of self-destruct mechanism to the cameras.
 
Active Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
1,876
Best answers
0
*flips on heatvision*

sup
 
New Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
If you heard someone talking for real about this kind of thing not 10 years ago they'd be laughed off the stage. Obviously this type of camo is only effective on the side the enemy sees, unless you use multiple cameras, but imagine just how close you could get to the enemy in a vehicle like that before anyone noticed anything. Talk about tactical advantage. In a decade, Predator can kiss our shiny reflective metal asses :)
 
Active Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Thermal optics: the downfall of this new development. Unless you can find an effective way of "heat cloaking" a tank, any army with enough money to do so will simply issue a set of thermal goggles to every soldier. Problem solved.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Yes, the enemy will spend billions of dollars it doesn't have to outfit their soldiers with thermo goggles, only to find out being able to see a bright red spot in the desert doesn't make the tank any less dangerous.

If you think this technology is going to be used to attack while remaining completely camouflaged, predator-style, you're sorely mistaken. This kind of technology would be good for moving convoys from place to place. Add the Israeli force field to the tank and you're good to go.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
Technically, it wouldn't be so hard "heat cloaking" a tank like this. You'd need liquid nitrogen and a few sprayers. I doubt "heat cloaking" something would be more advanced than this technology itself.
 
Freelance Mappzor
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Wasnt something like this posted about a year or more ago.

In any case i think using an electromagnetic generator to bend lightrays also sounds realistic. The only problem would be how to power that bizatch XD

(and make it not fry every chip round itself)
 
Active Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Avenger said:
Technically, it wouldn't be so hard "heat cloaking" a tank like this. You'd need liquid nitrogen and a few sprayers. I doubt "heat cloaking" something would be more advanced than this technology itself.
That wouldn't work. The tank (or other object) would need to have a temperature consistent with the surrounding environment. Make it too cold and you'll still see it, only you'll see a big cold object tearing ass across the desert instead of a big hot one.

I've put more thought into it, and I don't think we can heat cloak something as large as a tank with our current technology. The tank would end up being too bulky, limiting it's mobility severely. It might still be combat-operational, but it would likely have to stop to fire.

Vox Dei said:
Yes, the enemy will spend billions of dollars it doesn't have to outfit their soldiers with thermo goggles, only to find out being able to see a bright red spot in the desert doesn't make the tank any less dangerous.
I said armies that could afford it should do it. Perhaps not to every soldier, but to at least one in every squad. You're right, being able to see it doesn't make it any less dangerous, but it ruins the element of surprise on the tank's behalf. Look back at your use for cloaking. It can be used to hide convoys moving supplies or troops (for example). Well, what good is all of that if someone can just put on a set of thermal goggles? I'll give you a hint: it's not good at all. That's why I brought up the possibility of heat cloaking, which you either missed or didn't care to address.

Also, why wouldn't it still be able to attack while cloaked? Please elaborate on your point.
 
Freelance Mappzor
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Deoends on how the cloak is made. If it is in fact a coat then youd have to take it off before you could use the gun or youd punch a hole through it. If there was a hole for the gun it wouldnt be invisible.

As for your heat cloak. It wouldnt be any good cause there would be a burst of heat as soon as the gun fires. Ofcourse the first hit would be a suprise. But that would give away its position for about 3 seconds.
 
Active Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
It's not a coat. Well, not the one on the tank anyway. Heat cloaking would be an overall good idea. You're right, there's a downside, but nothing is perfect. That's why we use our heads. If you place that first shot just right, you should be able to get done whatever you need to get done. Otherwise, you were stupid to have opened fire.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I said armies that could afford it should do it. Perhaps not to every soldier, but to at least one in every squad. You're right, being able to see it doesn't make it any less dangerous, but it ruins the element of surprise on the tank's behalf. Look back at your use for cloaking. It can be used to hide convoys moving supplies or troops (for example). Well, what good is all of that if someone can just put on a set of thermal goggles? I'll give you a hint: it's not good at all. That's why I brought up the possibility of heat cloaking, which you either missed or didn't care to address.

Also, why wouldn't it still be able to attack while cloaked? Please elaborate on your point.
Any army able to afford thermo goggles for every soldier isn't going to fight the UK because they're already allied with them. What good is moving your supply line if the enemy knows exactly where you're coming from in the first place? How bad is your intelligence and how bad is theirs if you don't know that they know you're coming and have already prepared to ambush you? This kind of optical stealth technology is perfect for moving unexpectedly. Send one decoy convoy one way, send the convoy you actually need equipped with the cameras in a different direction. The enemy tries to ambush the decoy convoy, only to find they've been had.

Randomly flipping on your thermo goggles isn't going to thwart any plans unless your enemy is going for a killing blow or trying to move as closely to your position as possible without being sighted. Unless you know where they're coming from, a set or 10 sets of goggles isn't going to help you. Using your logic, stealth fighters are pointless because all you have to do is look up at the sky and you'll know they're there.

Yes, let's heat cloak a giant tank driving through a desert at night. That's an awesome, and completely impractical idea unless the tank was created with heat cloaking in mind. Otherwise spraying it with water and nitrogen isn't going to do very much, especially when you have the commander pop his head out of the tank to take a look. Oh noes. A floating head. It's a ghost. It has to be.

Attacking while cloaked pretty much defeats the purpose of being cloaked in the first place unless you're randomly attacking an unsuspecting enemy. Why? A giant flash, lots of smoke, and sound of an explosion kinda gives your position away. Even if they didn't see where the first shot came from, you can always look at where the shell hit and trace it back to the enemy. That's also where your dandy thermo goggles come into play. Now the enemy knows where the tank is, and now your stealth capabilities don't matter.

Yeah, if you place that one shot just right, you'll hit a canister that will explode into a truck which in turn will also explode, causing missiles to explode, leading to the deaths of all of your enemies.

No.

This isn't Hollywood. If you're going fire off a few tank rounds, you'd better have a good enough number of tanks to suppress your enemies, allowing ground forces to move in or, if the enemy camp wasn't surrounded by nothing but aa batteries, you could have called in an airstrike.

Optical camouflage would be great for moving unseen, not for attacking, unless you're able to do so from quite a ways off, in which case you probably don't need the camo in the first place unless you're hiding from aircraft, though they'd probably be equipped with thermovision unless you're fighting bandits.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
Now I'm too lazy to read what everyone is typing, so I just went with the best route there is. I'm going with the person with the wall of text. So far Vox Dei is winning. So I agree with him.
 

sub

Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
I agree with whatever Cosaga said.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
1,572
Best answers
0
I see people are forgetting that one requires a camera for this specific technology to work. That means you have to set up cameras all along the path. What good is cloaking technology if you have to get out of the tank and place a camera a bit away from it every thirty minutes or so?

Honestly, I don't see what good could possibly come from this, as all it would lead to is more sophisticated forms of warfare. We as a species should not have the technology to cloak ourselves. At least not before we stop going to war with each other every few months.

What concerns me is that if the British gets this technology, they are likely to share it with the US. If they share it with the US, it will be used for war (not to say that the British won't use it for war, but history has shown the US to be more inclined to do so).
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
The camera is mounted on the tank. I'm not sure where the projector needs to be placed since the picture has it mounted elsewhere. A soldier might be carrying it, or they could put a projector on each tank facing each other so that they cloak one another.

The entire point of the cloaking system is to use it in warfare, and limit potential losses. It has no civilian applications as of yet, and it's being designed to hide UK tanks so unless they're going to drive them around without the intention to use them, it's supposed to make killing without being killed easier and safer.

Don't worry about the UK sharing this technology with the US. We're already way ahead of them.
 
Freelance Mappzor
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Actually japs are ahead of both ^^

In any case. Kill without getting killed sounds OK. But something sound better.

No need to kill at all.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
@Avenger: Do a search on our optical stealth research.

@ Grega: The Japanese are as far ahead of us in stealth capabilities as they are in robotics. In other words, they're not. I'm sure watching little toy cars turn into robots or watching Asimo walk around is somehow impressive to some of you, but our robots actually, you know, have a purpose other than to show that we're capable of making them. Last I heard we were working on optical stealth technology for our soldiers, humvees, apc's, tanks and speedboats. In any case, I still think that kind of technology needs to have a self-destruct mechanism. All it takes is one stolen device to change everything. I'm sure our enemies would be more than willing to hand that kind of technology over to Russia or China.

I know you're into pacifism, Grega, and that's great. It really is. But saying stop fighting all the time isn't going to make it happen, so unless people actually start doing something other than talking, nothing is actually being done. In the meantime, I think I'll take lower casualties over empty words.
 
Lost in space
Banned
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
2,497
Best answers
0
...You know this how?
the U.S. have been studying cloaking technology for years, and ive actually seen far more impressive videos of their examples than what the japanese had shown.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top