invisibility cloak

Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Vox Dei said:
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.
Yeah, that's pretty much common sense. Oh, and sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm not talking just about the UK, but the technology itself, as I assumed that's what this thread was about.

Vox Dei said:
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.
Again, common sense. You're right, it might not help much, except to be prepared. I never said more goggles would be necessary either. I merely said that those select few armies with the funds to do so could benefit from having more. Could, as in, you know, could, meaning possibly.

Vox Dei said:
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.
What's that in response to? I don't remember saying anything of the sort.

Vox Dei said:
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.
I already pointed that out when Avenger said it. You're right though, heat cloaking would be completely useless if the commander is simply going to stick his head up, which is why I suspect that something similar to a submarine's pariscope would be used for looking round and about. Fiber optics might work.

Vox Dei said:
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.
True. Like I said, strategy would play an important part in operating a cloaked tank (or other vehicle/weapon).

Vox Dei said:
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.
You're trying your hardest to make me sound like an idiot, aren't you? It could be a small unit just as easily as a large one, so that one shot may be all you need if carefully placed. Even if you miss or don't get all of your enemies, a smart person would have a contingency plan before engaging the enemy. Even after that first shot, does it mean you're no longer operating a tank? No. So as long as you know what you're up against and how to counter it as you would even without cloaking technology, you're fine (unless the enemy is smarter than you).

Vox Dei said:
Yes?

Vox Dei said:
This isn't Hollywood.
Thanks, I couldn't tell.

Vox Dei said:
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.
At this point, I'm convinced you're simply avoiding the question I asked, because all of this is completely irrelevant to what I asked you. I asked you to elaborate when you said it wouldn't be able to attack while cloaked. Everything you've just said seems to be in support of attacking while cloaked. So what's with the sudden contradiction?

Vox Dei said:
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.
Sorry. I assumed that (this being a thread on cloaking and whatnot) you assumed I meant optical cloaking in conjunction with heat cloaking. Most of the discussion has been on optical cloaking and it's numerous advantages and disadvantages, as well as how to improve it. Not heat cloaking by itself.

Oh and I think Avenger just said it wrong, and meant that the projectors would have to be placed along the road.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
Yeah, that's pretty much common sense. Oh, and sorry, I forgot to mention that I'm not talking just about the UK, but the technology itself, as I assumed that's what this thread was about.



Again, common sense. You're right, it might not help much, except to be prepared. I never said more goggles would be necessary either. I merely said that those select few armies with the funds to do so could benefit from having more. Could, as in, you know, could, meaning possibly.



What's that in response to? I don't remember saying anything of the sort.



I already pointed that out when Avenger said it. You're right though, heat cloaking would be completely useless if the commander is simply going to stick his head up, which is why I suspect that something similar to a submarine's pariscope would be used for looking round and about. Fiber optics might work.



True. Like I said, strategy would play an important part in operating a cloaked tank (or other vehicle/weapon).



You're trying your hardest to make me sound like an idiot, aren't you? It could be a small unit just as easily as a large one, so that one shot may be all you need if carefully placed. Even if you miss or don't get all of your enemies, a smart person would have a contingency plan before engaging the enemy. Even after that first shot, does it mean you're no longer operating a tank? No. So as long as you know what you're up against and how to counter it as you would even without cloaking technology, you're fine (unless the enemy is smarter than you).



Yes?



Thanks, I couldn't tell.



At this point, I'm convinced you're simply avoiding the question I asked, because all of this is completely irrelevant to what I asked you. I asked you to elaborate when you said it wouldn't be able to attack while cloaked. Everything you've just said seems to be in support of attacking while cloaked. So what's with the sudden contradiction?



Sorry. I assumed that (this being a thread on cloaking and whatnot) you assumed I meant optical cloaking in conjunction with heat cloaking. Most of the discussion has been on optical cloaking and it's numerous advantages and disadvantages, as well as how to improve it. Not heat cloaking by itself.

Oh and I think Avenger just said it wrong, and meant that the projectors would have to be placed along the road.
This thread is about the UK's advancement in optical camouflage technology, as that is the subject of the article; not anyone else's or else I would have brought up how the American brand of optical camouflage can't be seen by using night vision or thermo vision and is an established fact. They're basically undetectable, although it's obviously not flawless at this juncture. We don't know what the UK brand is capable of and what it isn't capable of.

You prepare for what the military has, and how those weapons are going to be used and deployed. It helps to have thermogoggles if you're at a base (or if the UK tech is completely useless and didn't take this into consideration beforehand). It doesn't really help if you're in the city, just doing your thing, which is where most future battles are going to take place (urban warfare). The camo would be used to move the tanks (and apc's and other transport vehicles) around or into position, not to actively engage the enemy. This is where I addressed your question regarding "not being able to fire while cloaked", which I never said. I said it doesn't make sense to fire when cloaked. It's a defensive measure, not an offensive one. Rather than retype my response, I'll just quote myself since you chose to overlook it while taking everything I said personally:

Vox Dei said:
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.
Attacking while cloaked makes you a target, and the purpose of being cloaked in the first place is to avoid that, and keep you and your crew safe and undetected.

Sure, buying thermo goggles for your entire army could benefit them. Giving every soldier a tank could also benefit them, but like the former idea, it's impractical, and just doesn't make sense to do so. Yeah, let's totally use thermo goggles during the day, under the blazing hot sun, while staring at hundreds of vehicles and people. Since I can't believe you wouldn't have taken this into consideration, I'll assume you are trying to trick our enemies into killing themselves.

You basically said having thermo goggles makes the optical camouflage useless. This is what I referred to when I said stealth aircraft must be useless since they can be detected using other means of detection. You have to realize we, and our allies, are not fighting Russia or some kind of superpower. Not being able to see your enemy during the day is as bad as not being able to see them during the night (LOL WHY DON'T THEY GET NIGHT VISION GOGGLES?!).

You're still trying to get the tanks to attack while cloaked (which might work if used in the way I describe at the end, although it's admittedly different from what you're describing). Awesome, now we can see using hi-tech optic fiber periscopes. Unfortunately, attempting to hide after firing in an enclosed area (remember, urban warefare) is a no go. Now you're a target for every guy wielding an ied or rpg (everyone). I'll explain how I'd use this technology offensively at the end.

Yes, strategy plays an important role...which is why I'm saying it's a defensive tool. Knowing when to attack and when not to or when do play a passive role is a part of strategy.

If you're using a tank against a single unit, be it large or small, you're wasting resources. You send ground forces after a unit, or a helicopter, or fire off a laser-guided missile. You don't send a tank.

No.

Obviously.

Re-read the post where I addressed your question, then re-read this post.

Most of this discussion is random people saying random things without having any knowledge of what the technology is capable of, yourself included. You don't know what it is and isn't capable of, so you're basically just guessing. Does this technology hide a tank's heat signature? It doesn't say. Can night vision see through the "mirage"? We don't know. The article doesn't say. To come out of nowhere and say "LULZ THERMO GOGGLES > OPTICAL CAMO. IM SO SURPRISED PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE MILITARY LONGER THAN IVE BEEN ALIVE HAVENT TAKEN THIS INTO CONSIDERATION" is uneducated.

The "sudden contradiction" arose when I envisioned a giant open desert and a small defenseless base in the middle of the desert. Tanks and apc's roll in from all sides, and surround the base. The tanks fire an opening volley, soldiers and marines pop out of the apc's, ready up, and assault the base.

Then I remembered we're fighting civilians and insurgents, so I thought of a true to life scenario. Park tanks around a city block, have soldiers and marines assault the apt complex or the building housing insurgents and terrorists. Some of them try to escape and run down the street, only to find an invisible wall in front of them, and a smiling tank gunner with an lmg pointed at his face. You get the idea.

In either scenario, tanks take a defensive role. They clear a way for the troops and then stop firing (because killing your own men makes winning hard), or cover them from behind. They don't "roll up" with a guy running on either side holding a projector, hoping the tank is invisible.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top