First, this is no force field, just force field like cover. Someone should really teach FOX reporters to report. http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf The main advantages of this here thingy are that: A. It appears to have 180 degrees cover. and B. It doesn't shred nearby friendly ground troops when used.
First hitch : there had better be nobody outside the vehicle when it's in use, because whatever's shot at it keeps going at the same speed... The explosive may be gone, and the tank would resist, but nothing less plated than the tank would... Next hitch : Um... This is going to sound stupid, but... how does the tank fire outwards ? Yeah, it probably calculates the distance and angle and all that, or maybe they even switch it off when firing (which would be hitch 3) but hands up to be the one to test it ? Oh well, I'll go back to reading my article on the latest means to deter youths from hanging around MacDonalds by using special lamps to make their acne glow... Humans... **sigh**
Roman, they did say that it was "like" a force field". Since they have no idea what blows up the RPGs they just say that it acts like a forcefield and destroys whatever comes within range. After they described it as being like a forcefield they began calling it as such.
I bet it's just a little machine gun that fires loads more rounds per minute than a normal gun at the the incoming missile.
I just posted this on another board and a couple of people there, who say the topic is a bit old now, say for sure that it's actually a shotgun.
I'm inclined to agree that it's a shotgun - admittedly a [i:d21dd94578]big[/i:d21dd94578] one - not something I'd like to put to my shoulder - the films/simulations shown in the report show a single burst with smoke - not consistent with machine guns or lasers (of course this could be misdirection). I am not sure that any missile whose warhead had been exploded prematurely would continue on its aimed course, except by exceptional bad luck. From the views of the few tank crew/commanders I have spoken to over the years, what they would prefer in any battle situation where there is cover for enemy infantry is their own infantry advancing with them (or slightly ahead) - a variant on the somewhat older "skirmisher" principle - to root out the grenadiers.
One major problem with this is that if your own troops are placed in the direction the rpg or missile comes from they're going to get shot in the face with a high powered shotgun.
No, Mal, you're missing the point - the infantry go in to root out the hidden hi-tech snipers, so that the armour can advance to hit the well fortified positions - if the so-called "force-field" defence is needed, it will almost certainly be where the infantry have missed a grenadier - they either aren't there or have ducked in time - and anyway, if they get shot in the [i:bc7ddf2036]face[/i:bc7ddf2036] by the tank they are supposed to be shielding - aren't they going in the wrong direction? Infantry will never go out of fashion - cities and towns need to be conquered in war - tanks, bombers and nukes can only supply mass destruction - tanks without infantry support especially, since in urban conditions without infantry support they have to level everythng in sight if they want to win - or even survive. It takes the infantry to capture/secure rather than destroy a town or city - after all - those places are designed to be navigated by people, not tanks!
If a soldier is in the way of the anti-RPG defense, he's probably in the way of the RPG. Frankly, this is a bigger problem for him than the defense system.
Okay they wont get shot in the [i:253de95e42]face[/i:253de95e42], but there is a good chance of getting shot, with shot, in the back or head or legs. I guess it depends on the range of the shotgun, how far out the projectile is hit, and we have to hope the troops aren't deployed within that range radius.
I don't agree, we don't know what the range is. Unless you're assuming that every single shotgun shot/pellet is going to hit the granade, I don't see how you can think no one can get hit?
[quote:570e80a001="Katcal"]Next hitch : Um... This is going to sound stupid, but... how does the tank fire outwards ? Yeah, it probably calculates the distance and angle and all that, or maybe they even switch it off when firing (which would be hitch 3) but hands up to be the one to test it ?[/quote:570e80a001] I'm afraid I don't really understand your question, Katcal. Please explain? If you mean that the tank would have to stop to interpect the RPG missile, I would say that that's doubtful. [quote:570e80a001="redneck"]Roman, they did say that it was "like" a force field". Since they have no idea what blows up the RPGs they just say that it acts like a forcefield and destroys whatever comes within range. After they described it as being like a forcefield they began calling it as such.[/quote:570e80a001] With all their references to science fiction and amazing technology, their one and only mention that it's not a force-field kind of gets lost. [quote:570e80a001="Maljonic"]I just posted this on another board and a couple of people there, who say the topic is a bit old now, say for sure that it's actually a shotgun.[/quote:570e80a001] Doubtful, though the concept would be a little familiar. This would be more like a flak gun, methinks. There was a Russian project along these lines back in the 70's which *was* mainly a shotgun. It failed and tended to kill lots of people in the nearby vecinity. The US has attempted to convert the naval Phalanx anti-missile defence system to land use, but it would be all too lethal against RPG's, too. Unless the target's coming from above, the Phalanx system (which is basically a Vulcan cannon on a mount) will not just destroy the RPG, but any nearby people, buildings, and light armor units. [quote:570e80a001="Maljonic"]I don't agree, we don't know what the range is. Unless you're assuming that every single shotgun shot/pellet is going to hit the granade, I don't see how you can think no one can get hit?[/quote:570e80a001] From what we can see in the film, the burst of whatever from the defence system travels in a relatively tight cone. I.E, it doesn't expand much. This is good for hitting the missile, but also very lethal for anyone who happens to be in the path. On the other hand, as Ba said, if you're between the rocket and the tank, and within what appears to be the four-meter effective radius, you're already dead as it is. As for afterwards? I would assume these fragments/pellets/etc are not built to be aerodynamic like a bullet is, which is why their usefullness is limited to the radius. Also, they could be built to shatter. The land-based Phalanx uses high-explosive self destructing ammo, which does just that. It explodes, and lets the shrapnel do the job. If this ammo here works in the same manner, then that's that. Avoiding a 90 degrees with the ground when possible (I.E, shoot a little up or down, not across) would also help to limit possible friendly casualties. Or it could just be some kind of short-ranged laser burst, which would lose energy quickly.
It fires fragment, it is a shotgun. The range for interception is 10 to 30 metres, I would say that's plenty of space to cause casualties where there otherwise might not be any outside the tank - especially as it's most likely to be used in an urban environment, such as Iraq in the near future. I'm not saying it's a totally bad idea, just that it's not the perfect, no casualties, force field that Fox makes out. In fact, if he's unlucky, the guy that fires the RPG might even get shot. P.S. I think Katcal was assuming it was a Star Trek like forcefield, wondering how you would be able to fire out.
[quote:d78ab1de78="Maljonic"]P.S. I think Katcal was assuming it was a Star Trek like forcefield, wondering how you would be able to fire out.[/quote:d78ab1de78] Well, kindof, except that of course the ones in Star Trek are perfect What I meant was if the thing detects explosive devices and targets them, then it'll have to also take into account the direction, or it'll explode your ammo too on its way out... But yes, the idea of the tank trying to shoot and having a shell bounce inwards off the shield was quite funny... in a Tex Avery kind of way.
Okay, I shall never again assume or try to guess what Katcal is thinking - I don't understand at all.
[quote:d4a999b576="Maljonic"]Okay, I shall never again assume or try to guess what Katcal is thinking - I don't understand at all. [/quote:d4a999b576] Now THAT is a wise decision In fact, that should be rule 0 : never try to understand the thoughts of anyone who assimilates themself to a plastic bunny.
[quote:854252000b="Maljonic"]The range for interception is 10 to 30 metres, I would say that's plenty of space to cause casualties where there otherwise might not be any outside the tank - especially as it's most likely to be used in an urban environment, such as Iraq in the near future.[/quote:854252000b] 10 to 30? Read that as 5 to 15. Heck, read that as 5 to 10. Military statistics get overblown on the media. This is done both on purpose, and because it's TV, so you end up getting the standard TV overblowing and the military overblowing, all in one go. [quote:854252000b="Katcal"]What I meant was if the thing detects explosive devices and targets them, then it'll have to also take into account the direction, or it'll explode your ammo too on its way out... [/quote:854252000b] Targeting computer. Anything that comes out of a friendly target, at very high speed too, will be marked as a friendly target. That's that, really. Or it could just ignore anything that doesn't target the tank until set otherwise.
Did anyone mention the debris caused by something like this. Cos if that thing explodes stuff over my town theres going to be a raining fire of burning ex-explosives and crap coming down. WHich is sure to get the home fires burning but horribly mame, disfigure and kill people anyway... But there aren't enough real life Star Trek gadgets yet so let the defence boffins figure it out. WHo knows what damage they could cause if left unattended.
