'Smart Scope'

[.pablo. 0]

...but can it aim around corners?

[DBR_ONIX 0]

I guess it´s just that people are very much afraid of the death. This is what makes people developing substitute warriors for the cause.

More the people who are in control of life/death (on such a large scale). Without life, most things anyone hass ever done becomes kinda pointless, no?

Quote[/b] ]The warfare technology is a different matter though. People certainly have no problem with drones hovering over Aghanistan or Iraq and I bet they will applaude the micro-drones as they will be replaceable and effective weapons. They just don´t think about that technology beeing used in their own countries.

But what people seem to forget is that there are people in that country thinking the EXACT same thing, but everyone is more important than the people in that country, it's just a warzone where everyone wants to blow americans up and their all evil..

Hmm, it's like people seem to want to be in wars. I am sure there are hundreds of ways to avoid going to war (Would have to be on both sides), but if people stood to what they think, that war is horrible, why do they still do things that lead to war? (This goes up in stepds, from the people that blow up buildings, to the people that cause those other people to want to blow up buildings..). If they truely didn't want it, they could avoid it, after all it's them that is acctualy invoking the war.

Yeh I know I'm looking at this from a "hippie point of view", but meh, maybe their on to something

- Ben

[Panda-PL- 0]

About drones and other sci-fi stuff.

How do You think why does a tank have a crew of three?

People are COMPLEATELY incapable to develop a system that would effectively substitute driver or gunner, not to mention a 100% Ai drved tank.

And I doubt they ever will.

And if they do? Small 50Kton boom high in atmosphere and a bunch of partisants can easily take on an entire army.

[EiZei 0]

Well, there is hell lot more machine thinking involved when you compare shooting with a T-55 cannon vs. M1A2 cannon..

Just a matter of time methinks. Humans are unreliable (tiredness, mental health, substance abuse, ideologue etc.) and expensive in the long run. Maybe future tanks will contain only 1-2 crewmembers only who would only oversee the carnage and fix possible problems.

[stgn 39]

Let me get this right this new sight is for people who havn't zeroed their rifle and preferes to alarm the enemy of his/her presens by firing a shot that might miss?

STGN

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Humans are unreliable (tiredness, mental health, substance abuse, ideologue etc.)

If Yo'd be given a choice of giving control over a M1A2 to Your friend or Your WindowsXP which one would you rather?

The problem with computers is that they can only be reliable if program which is running is simple and does not modiffy itself.

Otherwise it will fail sooner or later, will shoot Your house or run you down with the tank.

And if the program is "stiff", like calculating ballistics it won't do any good in tactics - 'cause they require learning and adaptation. If You include these features the machine gets unreliable. And so on and so on.

Humans can change their patterns in creative way, also the self-counciousness allows a human to have thoughts and reflections about what is he dooing. Machines cannot do that as they are not capable of analising their own program.

Quote[/b] ]Well, there is hell lot more machine thinking involved when you compare shooting with a T-55 cannon vs. M1A2 cannon..

Still it has aux sight, right? And still it is human who pulls the trigger.

I think the machines would take responsibility off humans' shoulders. That's not right. One less man can say STOP at the right moment - and it's the one who'd normally have the best view of situation.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe future tanks will contain only 1-2 crewmembers only who would only oversee the carnage and fix possible problems.

This won't happen soon. Going below 3 crewman might take centuries. Or before it happenes there will no longer be a need for tank (due to development of AG weapons and sensors).

There are self-proppeled AT... weapons (hard to call it that way, has a backblast that destroys the vehicle itself) like Fireant, which has a hudge copper cone fired with some C4, mounted on a small radio-controlled vehicle, which is enough to wreck a modern tank. Yet it is cable or radio controlled, which really is much cheaper then independent Ai since the whole thing goes BOOM when you pull the trigger and You won't know if the ultra-fast projectile even hit. In the end it is better not to make an AT weapon more expensive then a T72.

Oh, and I saw the tests of some AT robot on Discovery. It's cool 'cause after it entered the room it took him several secounds to rotate and fire at a target. You could simply push it out of stairs or jump to it and rip the gun of it.

Wonder how many millions it costs.

So remote controlled - Yes. (I think that human experience and prediction allways will be much ahead of proggramed patterns).

But independent - no.

[Corkey 0]

Quote[/b] ]The digital sight uses a high-resolution digital camera to zoom in on a test target and superimposes a cross-hair in the centre of the image. When the marksman aims and fires, an accelerometer detects the small shock pulse created as the pin strikes the cartridge cap and starts the camera snapping. It captures a rapid series of digital images, which record the motion caused by the gun's recoil.

An image processor then compares the aim in the original picture with an image of the where the target was hit and electronically moves the cross-hair to compensate for any discrepancy. From then on, anything seen in the scope should, in theory, be a guaranteed bull's eye.

To me it sounds like a "Self Zeroing optic" Meaning so long as you squeeze off the round "In the work zone" the way you did on "the range", it will hit. Basically this optic will in theory, Zero it's self while compensating for a "Snatcher".

As to why people just won't stick with the range card, match 2 stage adjustable trigger w/ mirror polished sears  and a good scope....... Is beyond me...

As for the jerking when you pull the trigger, Just imagine your drawing a strait line from the sight to your eye. Pull the trigger back slowly until it's almost to the breaking point, make any necessary re-adjustments to the view, and break the trigger... That's a whole lot more reliable then this computerized P.O.S.

[Jimpy 0]

The "smart 'scope" reminds me of the gyro-stabilized gun

sights that were used on Battleships during and after the

first world war. They compensated for the motion of the

sea to keep the image of a target (often many thousands

of yards away) motionless in the viewfinder.