Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
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: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.
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: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.
What's that in response to? I don't remember saying anything of the sort.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.
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: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.
True. Like I said, strategy would play an important part in operating a cloaked tank (or other vehicle/weapon).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.
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: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.
Yes?Vox Dei said:
Thanks, I couldn't tell.Vox Dei said:This isn't Hollywood.
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: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.
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.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.
Oh and I think Avenger just said it wrong, and meant that the projectors would have to be placed along the road.