|
evil_bunnY posted:You're a fakken weirdo FYI. I'm also short, like 5'5". Shooting is fun. Trivial but caveat for wind, and terminal as in damage to flesh instead of just being on paper at that distance. Hence I'd go to hunters for experiences beyond accuracy or shot placement. Again, gently caress if I know if it's of any value to military history new or old.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
A person can also develop an improvised solution to a problem on the spot, which is very difficult for an automated system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Just give me power armor, please and thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:A person can also develop an improvised solution to a problem on the spot, which is very difficult for an automated system. The flip side is that an administrator can roll out a patch dealing with a new enemy strategy to all the automated systems at once, while dissemination of information to all human crew is much more inconsistent and time consuming. Cessna posted:But the point is that manned tanks have already been dealing with these things since about 1916, and they've come up with all sorts of solutions - and, indeed, they will continue to do so. Unmanned vehicles are starting out from behind. Not paint throwing drones and top attack guided munitions. There's other things that are hard to apply, sure, but a fair number of lessons transfer from from manned tanks to unmanned tanks. Besides back in 1916 you could be telling me that horse cavalry have been dealing with issues for thousands of years, while who knows how long it'll take for tank technology to mature... You're not really saying much more than "new thing requires development", which is extremely obvious. To be a bit more constructive, how do you think manned tanks can improve in the next 80 years? Because I'm kinda saying that they are at a technological dead end without increased automation. There's only going to be a limited extent to which you can continue to stick on more armour and bigger (still hand loaded) guns and get return on your investment. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Sep 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Besides back in 1916 you could be telling me that horse cavalry have been dealing with issues for thousands of years, while who knows how long it'll take for tank technology to mature... the largest war in human history where the most lives, talent and treasure has been spilled for any endeavour in human history, twice, that's about what it took to "mature" tank technology. further, if we were in 1916 we of course couldn't even really understand any of the long term factors or technologies that would allow tanks to mature, and if we tried to imagine what it would look like we'd wind up with nonsensical crap a-la megaweapons as we do not understand what we are trying to imagine. CoolCab fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
i've invented a new kind of penny called the eCybo-Penny, it has a battery pack, wifi and an lcd display so you can tell the exact value of that penny whenever you spent it. sure you might say "a penny that costs thirty dollars is stupid" but how about you be constructive and try and think how penny technology can improve in the next 80 years as clearly it's at a technological dead end without increased automation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The flip side is that an administrator can roll out a patch dealing with a new enemy strategy to all the automated systems at once, while dissemination of information to all human crew is much more inconsistent and time consuming. Which will take longer, writing new update code or a quick radio message? ("Be advised the enemy is doing X, do Y.") This objection is silly. - - - You know, a few pages ago you were ridiculing the very idea of a drone throwing paint: Fangz posted:Is there any actual serious contemplation of paint throwing drones, or is this just theorycrafting? Because I'm pretty sure this idea doesn't stand up under any close scrutiny. And now you're all about them. Regarding potential threats they might face: Fangz posted:Not paint throwing drones and top attack guided munitions. You're just flailing here. Is there any reason to continue this? Cessna fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Just give me power armor, please and thanks. How far are we actually away from power armor and mechs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:How far are we actually away from power armor and mechs? Twenty years, just like lasers. Twenty years away for the last sixty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
Ultimately, the lesson I'm getting from this tank talk is that the reason we need crewed tanks isn't to move them and fire them, because you can probably do that automatically somehow. The purpose of a tank crew is to fix the tank when it inevitably breaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:How far are we actually away from power armor and mechs? It's waiting on a massive improvement in battery technology as I understand it. There's prototypes in development now if you don't need more than fifteen minutes of use out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
A mech is just a tank that can trip on things and can't hide behind a low berm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The flip side is that an administrator can roll out a patch dealing with a new enemy strategy to all the automated systems at once, while dissemination of information to all human crew is much more inconsistent and time consuming. Well, if an administrator can roll out a patch to all the automated systems at once, that means they have a reliable and safe communications channel to all the automated systems at once, which means they would have a reliable and safe communications channel to all the crewed systems at once, which means they could just tell them what to do, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
What if the drone sticks a picture of a smoking hot babe in front of the tank sights and then the commander's eyes pop out through the visor and steam shoots out of his ears and then he jumps straight out of the hatch and right into a giant butterfly net held out by another drone and then the drones throw an old fashioned bomb into the net and Can a human crew deal with THAT
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The flip side is that an administrator can roll out a patch dealing with a new enemy strategy to all the automated systems at once, while dissemination of information to all human crew is much more inconsistent and time consuming. This isn't as useful as you think it is. You would have to actually define the strategy and figure out the best way to respond. It's useful if you know exactly the right thing to do in response, but that frequently is not the case. Again, improvisation is important and valuable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Ultimately, the lesson I'm getting from this tank talk is that the reason we need crewed tanks isn't to move them and fire them, because you can probably do that automatically somehow. The purpose of a tank crew is to fix the tank when it inevitably breaks. Wisdom. And, if we're talking about comparisons to automated systems, "deal with the unexpected."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The flip side is that an administrator can roll out a patch dealing with a new enemy strategy to all the automated systems at once, while dissemination of information to all human crew is much more inconsistent and time consuming. This “tanks are at dead end” has been pushed out by doomsayers since.. well, the advent of the tank. First it was “there won’t be another trench war so trench clearing tanks are a technological dead end compared to GLORIOUS HORSES” then it was “well, if joe twat can fire an RPG from a 100 yards then tanks are dead end” followed by missiles, then helicopters. There has always been an idea that either something does the role of the tank better than tank (gunship craze) or something is so deadly to tanks that tanks cannot exist (missile phobia of 1970s) Tank is such a substantial direct ground firepower multiplier it isn’t going anywhere until a comparable multiplier arrives. Helicopters lack the survivability and presence, smaller vehicles the firepower and range. So before this supplanting system arrives, tank remains. As far as “how can tank as a system be improved” current fad is active protection. The small feature improvements are trying to reduce the tank size whilst maintaining the same amount of firepower, armor and mobility- in here the hope is APS allows peeling off some of that DU fat from the chassis, reducing size and weight. However, right now the results are pretty much against this and APS has become added protection (and weight+size) Networking is another possibility of the future. With smart munitions and datalink, indirect fires and over-the-cover fires become a possibility. A smoothbore 120 will never replace a 155 in indirect role, but allow tank formation to provide limited indirect suppression capability for themselves. Given an integrated over-the-horizon recon capability such as a launchable drone as spotter, this isn’t as much Sci-if as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Again, improvisation is important and valuable. I mean I mentioned paint-throwing ISIS drones in the first place because actual drone use by ISIS was a product of human ingenuity. They took drones any one of us could order right now (if we had disposable income anyway), combined them with some easy-to-find parts and material, and turned them into effective warfighting machines in their collective uncle's garage. It seems pretty apparent that if some online rear end in a top hat can think up a way to counter a hypothetical drone or partially-drone tank that costs millions, it'll happen. The paint-spewing drone wouldn't be a dedicated counter that the enemy's greatest minds invented, it'd show up six hours after someone noticed where the cameras on the turret are and be manufactured twelve blocks from the front line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
How do you write a software patch to deal with the sensors of all your RC tanks being covered with layers of paint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:How do you write a software patch to deal with the sensors of all your RC tanks being covered with layers of paint. If(sensorspaint)==yes then (don’t)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:the largest war in human history where the most lives, talent and treasure has been spilled for any endeavour in human history, twice, that's about what it took to "mature" tank technology. further, if we were in 1916 we of course couldn't even really understand any of the long term factors or technologies that would allow tanks to mature, and if we tried to imagine what it would look like we'd wind up with nonsensical crap a-la megaweapons as we do not understand what we are trying to imagine. point of order, we did try to imagine what it would look like and we did wind up imagining nonsensical crap like battleships on wheels, or the Ratte. FuturePastNow posted:A mech is just a tank that can trip on things and can't hide behind a low berm. What I'm getting from this is that we should make our mechs spider-like, with their bodies close to the ground. Or crawling centipedes. Phobeste posted:Well, if an administrator can roll out a patch to all the automated systems at once, that means they have a reliable and safe communications channel to all the automated systems at once, which means they would have a reliable and safe communications channel to all the crewed systems at once, which means they could just tell them what to do, right? Could be a case of Catch-22: You only have this kind of security if you use some kind of ultra-high encrypted system relying on a high level of decentralization to make sure your messages aren't intercepted and decrypted. But if you have that kind of system, most probably most of its senders and receivers are inside of your highly mobile drone army, or something similarly highly automated. And in that case, you can just do both? I mean, if your hypothetical army even has some crewed vehicle left. And if your communications channels aren't save enough, you don't have a drone army. Your enemy has one. Even if they didn't start with one. Alternatively, you don't have drones nor a secure enough channel, but at that point you're already hosed in all cases, anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Investing in paint and paint strippers because its clearly the next evolution in warfare, thanks thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
What's the problem with using a twostroke engine or something to power the power armor? I assume there is one because noone is doing it, but Idk what it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Power density I would imagine.FuturePastNow posted:A mech is just a tank that can trip on things and can't hide behind a low berm. That's why you equip them with a shovel so that they can make that low berm a higher one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
this is the milhist thread, not the milfuture thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
do we even have a milfuture thread? this one could be it, past and future mil thread. after all, the future is just history that hasn't happened yet
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
A friend was asking for a good biography on General Sherman. I don't think they're particularly obsessing over Civil War minutiae, but I'm going to guess they want some context behind the man and the circumstances that lead to the March to the Sea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Libluini posted:do we even have a milfuture thread? The Cold War/Air Power thread comes pretty close on occasion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:A friend was asking for a good biography on General Sherman. Fierce Patriot by O'Connell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Fierce Patriot by O'Connell. Looks like a slam dunk right there. Does "revisionist" here specifically mean that it's forsaking the Lost Cause myth?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Libluini posted:do we even have a milfuture thread? no but lets make a milf-future thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:A friend was asking for a good biography on General Sherman. I don't think they're particularly obsessing over Civil War minutiae, but I'm going to guess they want some context behind the man and the circumstances that lead to the March to the Sea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Ultimately, the lesson I'm getting from this tank talk is that the reason we need crewed tanks isn't to move them and fire them, because you can probably do that automatically somehow. The purpose of a tank crew is to fix the tank when it inevitably breaks. A lot of other heavy equipment is the same way. The bigger and heavier it is, the more complicated it is, the more sensitive it is to anything going wrong, and the worse the consequences get for anything breaking. When you train a new human driver for something big like a tour bus or a semi, you can teach them how to turn it on and off, steer it, make it go and stop and operate the lights and wipers. That's 20 minutes of instruction. The value of a driver comes in them noticing the coolant in the sight glass is a different color than it should be, or the left-side fan belt is frayed or an idler pulley is loose. Or that the steering seems to be pulling a little to the left. That stuff is what gets you and why you need a person- it's constantly breaking or wanting to break the moment someone stops paying attention to it. Coming from a software and gaming perspective, I'd be very wary of thinking any computer is going to present a challenge to dedicated human opponent. People learn very very quickly when their lives are on the line and the history of warfare is the history of invention and innovation, things programs simply cannot do. There absolutely would be paint-spraying drones by day 10 or so and an enemy would be constantly trying decoys to fool sensors and algorithms until they find one that works. Once you find something that tricks software you can do it over and over and every single piece of the same software will fall for it. Even the very stupidest human will figure out the 5 dudes in front of him all got shot while following the Official Method, then he will try something else, even if that's running away. Software doesn't learn or adapt. You have to find some way to keep humans around somewhere so they can contribute that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Looks like a slam dunk right there. Does "revisionist" here specifically mean that it's forsaking the Lost Cause myth? Yes. (This is why I recommend it.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Libluini posted:What I'm getting from this is that we should make our mechs spider-like, with their bodies close to the ground. Or crawling centipedes. Guess I'll just die.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Even the very stupidest human will figure out the 5 dudes in front of him all got shot while following the Official Method, then he will try something else, even if that's running away. [Luigi Cardona intensifies]
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Fierce Patriot by O'Connell. O'Connell is a giant twerp (his Sacred Vessels is one of the most godawful books about naval warfare every published) but from what I read of his Sherman biography it's passable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Once you find something that tricks software you can do it over and over and every single piece of the same software will fall for it. This is the line of argument that will be used to make sure wardrones are capable of learning, not just from their own experiences but from the experiences of their brethren. A massive networked swarm of kill-capable AIs that interpret any behavior that looks like it might be the prelude to an unauthorized attempt to stop them as a threat...
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Uncle Enzo posted:Coming from a software and gaming perspective, I'd be very wary of thinking any computer is going to present a challenge to dedicated human opponent. People learn very very quickly when their lives are on the line and the history of warfare is the history of invention and innovation, things programs simply cannot do. There absolutely would be paint-spraying drones by day 10 or so and an enemy would be constantly trying decoys to fool sensors and algorithms until they find one that works. Once you find something that tricks software you can do it over and over and every single piece of the same software will fall for it. Even the very stupidest human will figure out the 5 dudes in front of him all got shot while following the Official Method, then he will try something else, even if that's running away. I know everyone is sick of the Drone Tank discussion by now, but unless something extremely loving radical happens in AI in the next twenty years we won't ever see fully autonomous high-value, high-importance vehicles like tanks. AI is really bad at things that aren't well-defined problems within a smallish problem space. We just recently got to the point where AI can drive cars on roads - in good conditions. And roads are predictable, marked, everyone follows a certain set of rules, and the problem is well defined ("go from here to there and don't hit anything"). Combat is... none of those things. And... the predictability and exploitability of AI cannot be understated. Just one example - Computer vision algorithms kind of hate smoke, fog, and the like, so just hitting your drone tank battalion with a whole bunch of smoke rounds or setting a wildfire near it may well disable it entirely. If the enemy is bringing their drone tanks, you are going to use every trick in the book to gently caress with their AI, and that book is going to be quite extensive. I could maybe see a kind of limited autonomy were the tank is given direction where a remote human operator gives it instruction on where to go and what to engage. Being fully remote controlled would be even better, but then you run into the problem of jamming and infosec. Also as a professional software developer I am terrified of the notion of software being given the power to autonomously decide to kill human beings. Other than the horrifying ethical implications, software universally loving sucks and breaks constantly in new and exciting ways, and we want to let it end a human being's life? Geisladisk fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Sep 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Kevin DuBrow posted:Investing in paint and paint strippers because its clearly the next evolution in warfare, thanks thread Investing in strippers is a time-honored military tradition, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 00:25
|
|
