Playstation Controller Runs Syrian Rebel Tank

SternisheFan writes "As Syria's rebels work to overthrow the tank-equipped Assad regime, they've learned that it helps to have tanks of their own. They deserve bonus points for integrating video game technology. This is no exaggeration. Have a look at the opposition forces' "100 percent made in Syria" armored vehicle, the Sham II. Named for ancient Syria and assembled out of spare parts over the course of a month, the Sham II is sort of rough around the edges, but it's got impressive guts. It rides on the chassis of an old diesel car and is fully encased in light steel that's rusted from the elements. Five cameras are mounted around the tank's outside, and there's a machine gun mounted on a turning turret. Inside, it kind of looks like a man cave. A couple of flat screen TVs are mounted on opposite walls. The driver sits in front of one, controlling the vehicle with a steering wheel, and the gunner sits at the other, aiming the machine gun with a Playstation controller."

Comments

Novel

[Dan East]

Novel, but let's hope there's no electrical failure or a single wire in that video system that comes loose, otherwise they are sitting in a dark metal box without a single port or window. Military tanks have multiple methods the driver can see outside in addition to any electronic systems - optical periscopes, a hatch directly above the driver that they can raise their seat and literally stick their head out while driving, etc.

Re:Novel

[vlm]

There's an interesting battlefield trend over the decades where if they can see you, you're pretty much dead.

Re:Novel

[pkthunders]

Modern combat rely on increasingly longer distances of detection and engagement so this won't do a damn there. This is more of an armored car/transport that probably won't be used to bust through fortification. And view ports might compromise the design as someone could just stick their gun in there or just shoot through it.

Re:Novel

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They still presumably have access to the door(hopefully placed somewhere not-too-wildly-dangerous-to-bail-out-through).

Re:Novel

[Savage-Rabbit]

There's an interesting battlefield trend over the decades where if they can see you, you're pretty much dead.

Try the last century or so, the British learned the lesson about what happens when you loose air superiority and show your ass in open country the hard way at the battle of Cambrai in 1917, entire battalions and even regimental sized units were badly torn up by German attack aircraft during the British retreat. Mind you, on this same occasion, the Germans them selves learned a few painful things about the massed use of armor from the British who them selves learned that Tanks can be knocked out by aircraft and that anti aircraft guns with their flat trajectories and high muzzle velocity are good for shooting at more things than aircraft. One has to give the Taliban and the rest of these Middle Eastern guerrilla forces credit for being very, very good at not showing their ass in open country and when they do they usually distribute their forces to the point where airstrikes boils down to the USAF hosing off a $100.000 PGM to kill 6 guys carrying a $150 Khyber Pass AK47 copy and maybe 30 bucks worth of grenades and ammo each.

Re:Novel

[i kan reed]

Yeah, and if this were a tank developed for a modern military force with an American military budget, it would have those things. Mother of invention and all that.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

or better yet, it might look cool, or dangerous, but what about the scrap grade steel is made out of, how ballasticly sound is it?

This "hillbilly armor" is the same welded on cheap steal armor that the humvees started using when they first when to armor. It wasn't that great and it really didn't stop bullets all too well.

This is not a "tank", but a ghetto version of an armored humvee, without the protection that modern ones have (will stop all rounds short of .50 BMG).

Its not much of a "tank" by todays standards, more like an armored car. Tank implies 360 degree turret, think armor and decent sized cannon for main armament.

MBTs, or main battle tanks, the only real tanks left (there are no more light, medium and heavy tanks in the modern age), are heavily armored, tracked vehciles, with large main gun cannons, designed as anti-vehicle weapons, and quick moving mobile guns.

Yes, I know my shit on tanks. Yes its first hand. This is not one.

Re:Novel

[Opportunist]

You know that we're talking a hodgepodge-jury-rigged device, not a device built by a company specializing in military hardware after a bidding war with other companies and having been chosen as the "best" (read: the one with the biggest kickbacks), yes?

It's one of those things where cheap trumps reliable. If that crate fails, it is probably already done for. Get out while you can, climb into the next and continue the game. In their game, "winning" means "making the enemy spend more on warheads than us on stuff they blow up".

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever watch that old video of the "Killdozer" taking out half of a small town?

He just simply filled his armor with concrete. On the other hand, only a bulldozer like his could handle the extra weight.

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

For the same weight or volume, concrete armor is pretty terrible compared to steel, which in turn is terrible compared to the special composites that modern tanks use.

The Soviets would usually export tanks with concrete armor and save the good stuff for themselves, which is one of the reasons that Iraqi T-72Ms didn't stand a chance in the first Gulf War.

Re:Novel

[swb]

I think you give OPFOR too much credit.

The dependence on PGMs is more about politics than tactics. Iron bombs or unguided rockets could easily accomplish the same thing, but the US is always trying to hit those three guys standing in some courtyard without killing the 14 kids in the adjacent building.

Like in Viet Nam, we're trying to win at politics harder than we're trying to win at war, and using overwhelming force against a guerrilla force embedded in the civilian population results in too much collateral damage for the political leadership.

We could fight a war of conquest instead of counter-insurgency and treat civilians as enemy support resources. With enough civilian losses, they might stop providing aid and comfort to the guerrilla forces and instead resist them, further diluting the effective strength of the guerrillas if they choose to try to maintain control of a hostile population. The good news is that if the opposite occurs and the civilians join forces with the guerrillas, it doesn't really matter -- you're already willing to treat them as hostile forces.

Re:Novel

[mrstrano]

I am surprised nobody mentioned radio jamming yet. Military communications are usually highly resistant to jamming using sophisticated spread spectrum techniques and high powered radios. This thing could be probably halted with a microwave.

Re:Novel

[amicusNYCL]

Hold on, are you trying to suggest that a vehicle that took a month and $10k to design and build doesn't have the same capabilities as an M1A2? Have you notified the author?

Seriously though, cut the guys some slack. It might not fit your definition of a "tank", but it's pretty impressive that these guys are able to design, build, and field vehicles like this. If the fighting goes on for too much longer then I'm sure we'll see version 3 of this vehicle. I doubt they are trying to put these things up against T90s, but it's a novel idea when they need a machine gun out there and an advantage against the other troops. It's like an IFV without the I.

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

p>Seriously though, cut the guys some slack.

Their enemies won't.

And advantage? That'll be minimal right up to the point someone slaps it with an RPG. Then the only advantage it'll have is that keeps the chunks of their corpses contained in one location for easy cremation.

Re:Novel

[craigminah]

Looks more like a metal coffin...or, if I'm being more politically correct it's a metallic enemy body parts containment vessel which is great as it makes for easy cleanup.

Re:Novel

[TheLink]

Yeah. For USD10k I'd prefer to have 20 x RPG-7s and extra ammo. Or 10 x RPG-29s plus extra ammo.

Whether I was on foot, in a tank or in a helicopter, the enemy having plenty of RPGs would scare me more than enemies in mobile metal coffins.

Getting those RPG-7s might be tricky, but supplies and logistics is part of winning wars. If you really had the cash, I'm sure you could find someone willing to sell you the RPGs even near a warzone.

Re:Novel

[gknoy]

While you're correct that the US's military (and other) policies don't do a lot to prevent people from hating us, and that treating civilians as "enemy resources" is the way to Very Bad Things, please don't call us Nazis. We're not. Calling us Nazis dilutes the descriptive power of the word.

Re:Novel

[swb]

"To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility."

â" William T. Sherman , Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.

This is how you conquer a people.

Re:Novel

[jellomizer]

It is better than nothing.
While say a "real" tank could probably take some direct hits, this thing could probably survive a barrage of fragments from a nearby explosion, as well against normal bullets. It may not stand up to a real tank, But it would be good against ground troops.

Re:Novel

[g1zmo]

Seeing as how the previous iteration was something like this, I'd say it's a fair engineering improvement.

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

MBTs, or main battle tanks, the only real tanks left (there are no more light, medium and heavy tanks in the modern age), are heavily armored, tracked vehciles, with large main gun cannons, designed as anti-vehicle weapons, and quick moving mobile guns.

I agree that the vehicle displayed in TFA looks pretty useless and I don't know enough of US military jargon to know what vehicles you call "tank" (in Germany we are very liberate with use of the designation "Panzer") but you do omit a very wide range of armored vehicles that fall between an armored Humvee and an actual battle tank - ranging from very light ones (e.g. Fennek), over heavily armored wheeled vehicles (e.g. the Boxer platform) up to the tracked vehicles used by the mechanized infantry (e.g. Marder and Marder 2). That last one (Marder 2) actually shares many parts with the German MBT Leopard 2.

Then there are all the special purpose vehicles (armored howitzers, mobile bridges, flak guns, recovery vehicles, engineering vehicles, ...) which are often designed on top of a MBT platform.

Re:Novel

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Calling us Nazis dilutes the descriptive power of the word."

What, because our Blitzkrieg has the rhetoric of 18th century enlightenment?

Re:Novel

[icebike]

Modern combat rely on increasingly longer distances of detection and engagement so this won't do a damn there. This is more of an armored car/transport that probably won't be used to bust through fortification. And view ports might compromise the design as someone could just stick their gun in there or just shoot through it.

That's exactly my read on it as well.
This might be sufficient against small arms fire from small caliber weapons. But the first PRG that hits it or goes under it renders it useless scrap metal.

Props for ingenuity. But against anything other than unmounted under-armed ground troops it is useless.

Re:Novel

[StuffMaster]

The general public considers all of those things to be "tanks", but militarily, most of them are armored personnel carriers or armored fighting vehicles. I think some of the heavy, turreted models would rightly be called tanks if not for their modular platforms.

Re:Novel

[petsounds]

Well, it's not a 'tank' by definition either because it's not a tracked vehicle. It's more of an APC. The designers admit that its armor will only stop small arms fire. But for certain situations -- avoiding sniper fire, transporting wounded in a battle area, flushing out infantry -- it has its use. The Libyan freedom fighters were building similar armored vehicles. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Re:Novel

[pnutjam]

Sherman destroyed property to spare lives.

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

should have called it the Allah Carte

jr

Re:Novel

[hairyfeet]

This is why I don't understand why all the superpowers keep building tanks as opposed to just building armored troop carriers with a big remote gun like the Bushmaster or like the 105mm on the Stryker, because with the astounding accuracy of missiles you can take a Vietnam era Cobra and just wipe out all the tanks with little to no risk to your troops. heck with UAVs you can bring the risk down to zero as the most they can do is waste a drone while you waste their tanks.

So I really don't get it, the Bradley and Stryker can deal with ground forces, heck so can the old M113 with some extra armor on the bottom to protect from IEDs and mines, while any enemy that is gonna have a tank capable of fighting on the modern battlefield is also gonna have planes and choppers that can take out the enemy tanks from longer distances than any tank. So for what reason other than they look big and scary are all the superpowers building tanks for?

And I agree about the drone strikes being a waste which is why I never understood why they just don't mount a Gatling or even a couple of 50 cals like we did in WWII to the UAVs so you don't have to blow million dollar missiles on a couple of guys carrying $50 AK47s. I think it was an episode of Dogfights talking about gun kills where an F-4 pilot that was one of the first to get the gun pod said it best, he said something like "Shot down 4 MiGs on last sortie, first 2 with missiles, cost $39,000 for each downed MiG, the last 2 with the gun, cost $1100 total for the ammo".

Re:Novel

[Alex Belits]

Calling us Nazis dilutes the descriptive power of the word.

You are not extreme Nationalists?

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

Spending money on weaponry isn't a problem, it's a feature. We don't waste money on these kind of things because we're shortsighted, we waste money on these kinds of things because there are powerful interests at play who fund the campaigns of the decision makers. The purpose of buying tanks is not so that we have useful weapons, it's so that the makers of those tanks can continue to feed off the government teats.

We could cut our military expenditures by 90% without losing effectiveness by simply evaluating which implements of war still apply to a modern battlefield and axing everything that doesn't. But the military industrial complex doesn't like being more efficient and doesn't care one bit about having the most effective and appropriate military.

Re:Novel

[Synerg1y]

Yep, a missile from just about anything would spell the end of this "tank". If it stopped .50 rounds, I'd be impressed. Not sure if I'd even want to park one on my drive way, might make the neighbors think less of me.

Re:Novel

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the bad summary. The article just calls it an armored vehicle, which is more or less correct. As to effectiveness, it all depends on what they'll be facing.

Re:Novel

[styrotech]

It seems to me that its main intended use would be in helping to pin down snipers (which are a major problem in urban areas) and cover other rebels as they advance on the snipers position.

Re:Novel

[hey!]

Engineering is about balancing costs and benefits, and in a revolution, rebel life is cheap.

Re:Novel

[khallow]

"Minimum advantage" still might justify the effort. As propaganda, it has value. Engineeringwise it's a mixed bag. Yes, the vehicle is likely a deathtrap, but so were a lot of early tanks. Being able to shoot without exposing yourself is an interesting development. I could see value in that by itself, say for setting up remotely operated sniper posts or machine gun nests.

Re:Novel

[pkthunders]

Sniper rifle rounds (e.g. .50 BMG) pierce armor. Not a good idea tbh.

Re:Novel

[Elldallan]

Well that's because using unguided munitions and accidentally killing civilians is a war-crime under the Geneva conventions if you have munitions available that might have prevented those casualties. The US is a signatory of the Geneva Convention and therefore bound to follow it.
The Geneva Convention also explicitly forbids treating the civilian population as "enemy resources", they are civilians and every possible care should be taken not to injure them even to the point that when you're acting in high civilian density areas you're explicitly forbidden from initiating a firefight, you are permitted to return fire but not initiate it.

I do however agree that while the US military may be a lot of unasvory things they are not Nazis and we should try not to overuse the word.
But the US military are explicitly war-criminals on dozens of occasions and those responsible ought to be brought before the war-crimes tribunal at Hague. But since the US has threatened that if that ever happens they will invade the Netherlands and free any accused service members by armed force, and as such it is unlikely that will happen.
It is unfortunately blatantly obvious that the UCMJ of the US armed forces is woefully insufficient since both the pilot and the AWACS operator of the Apache attack in Iraq went unpunished.

Re:Novel

[Elldallan]

The Nazis were much much more than extreme Nationalists.

Re:Novel

[Elldallan]

That does not make it any less of a war-crime, if the US armed forces ever acted in such a way I think that the US should be embargoed with twice as severe embargoes as the EU and US is currently leveraging against Iran.
The Geneva Convention did not exist in 1864, it does now and it explicitly forbids this sort of behavior, anyone who violates it is a war-criminal regardless of the reason you violate it.

Re:Novel

[toddestan]

Yeah, but on the other hand the guy who built the killdozer didn't have to worry about anything larger than small arms fire either.

Re:Novel

[shutdown -p now]

Not all snipers use a caliber that big. In fact, I'd bet that most snipers on both sides of that conflict are armed with SVDs.

Re:Novel

[pkthunders]

True, true. Still I feel like this "tank" needs to be compared to real (modern) tanks because the media wanted to portray it as such. That's pretty much why I made that comparison xD.

Re:Novel

[Crosshair84]

(I was going to respond to a bunch of posts, but Slashdot decided to go down for me last night, so I'll just have to go with yours for now.)

A series of honest questions, to which I will attempt to provide honest answers.

This is why I don't understand why all the superpowers keep building tanks as opposed to just building armored troop carriers with a big remote gun like the Bushmaster or like the 105mm on the Stryker, because with the astounding accuracy of missiles you can take a Vietnam era Cobra and just wipe out all the tanks with little to no risk to your troops. heck with UAVs you can bring the risk down to zero as the most they can do is waste a drone while you waste their tanks.

First, you are assuming that UAVs like the Predator can operate against a modern army. They can't. Even Saddam's military in 2003 blew them out of the sky with little difficulty They have neither the aggressive flying ability, sacrificed for endurance, nor the response times to avoid hostile fire.

Not to mention that they are expensive. A Predator drone costs $4 million, carries 2 hellfire missiles, and can reach the breathtaking speed of 135 mph, and on a good day can reach 25,000', A Reaper Drone costs $36 million each, though it has significantly better performance. Unfortunately, that is enough to buy you a tricked out MIG-29, and have money left over, that can destroy half a dozen or more UAVs on one flight. So you'll have to escort those drones......with manned fighters, defeating the whole purpose of the UAV in the first place.

Then you get boondoggles like the Global Hawk. $104 million each and costs more to buy an operate than ann SR-71 (Adjusted for currency debasement.).............I don't think I need to go beyond that. The purpose of a drone is to be cheap and expendable.

You then have to factor in jamming. Jam the signal for a minute, fire at the drone, and there's nothing the pilots on the ground can do about it. Heck, you don't even have to jam it given their limited maneuverability.

In a war against a competent and reasonably modern military, those drones will have little use as far as combat operations. They are too expensive and lack the survivability that would make them useful for anything other than bombing people that can't shoot back at them.

The problem with RWS on ground vehicles, and why nobody uses them for anything other than MGs on APCs, other than the US military of course, is that they have no degraded mode. When, not if, the RWS breaks, you are a sitting duck, unable to shoot back. Every Russian T-series tank with an autoloader can have malfunctions cleared and even be reloaded manually while under armor. Same with the M8 Buford, the breech and autoloader are accessible from under armor in the event of a malfunction. the lack of, or failure of, a degraded mode usually results in instant disqualification from a competition.

The 105mm RWS on the Stryker is horrifically unreliable and when it jams you have to have some poor soul standing on top of it to clear the autoloader. How more soilders don't get killed while doing that I have no idea.

You don't HAVE to have a remote gun, just mount a one-man "Sharpshooter" turret on your M113 and call it a day. You can mount an ASP-30 autocannon, most mount a 25mm, with a 7.62mm coax with both weapons accessible while under armor and it has 2 plane stabilization. The turret can be manually traversed and elevated if power fails.

As for a 1970's Cobra, it will be blown out of the sky by a Tunguska, Shilka, Osa, etc. (Not counting small arms and autocannons from BMPs or other APCs.) Iraqi tank crews neutralized the Iranian Cobras by adopting appropriate tactics. The Cobra of that era had to hover to fire a TOW. So, rather than shooting at every Cobra they saw, they held fire until one started to hover in preparation to fire a TOW. Once those tactics were adopted, Iranian Cobras were largely ineffective against Iraqi armor. Hellfire? IR smoke gr

Re:Novel

[Johann Lau]

Where did I call all Americans Nazis? And I'll call the ones who deserve it just that. There are 2 facets of Nazism, smug power and deluded, mislead bootlickers. Since the NSDAP stopped existing 1945 and not even the most right-wing extremists you could find are *real* Nazis, there is no real descriptive power anyway.

All this (squirming and moaning, instead of taking out the trash) reminded me of a quote I looked up real quick, and look who I basically paraphrased without knowing:

[Q: Isn't there a certain calculus that someone who is sitting in the shoes of a Condoleezza Rice can make, that they're responsible for the best outcome for American citizens, and there's an upside of going into Iraq which is we get one of the greatest material possessions in world's history, and there're downsides which are: we upset the international community, and maybe there's more terrorism. Couldn't you envision a calculus where they say, sure, that's the reason, and it's a good reason, let's do it. What's the flaw in the calculus?]

Oh, I think that's exactly their calculus. But then we ought to just be honest and say, "Look, we're a bunch of Nazis." So fine, let's just drop all the discussion, we save a lot of trees, we can throw out the newspapers and most of the scholarly literature, and just come out, state it straight, and tell the truth: we'll do whatever we want because we think we're gonna gain by it. And incidently, it's not American citizens who'll gain. They don't gain by this. It's narrow sectors of domestic power that the administration is serving with quite unusual dedication...

-- Noam Chomsky

Does he mean anti-semites? NO, HE ASSUMES ANY ADULT INTERESTED IN NOT BEING A CRIMINAL/MURDERER WILL PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION AND GET THE POINT.

Flamebait my ass; certain cunts wish it was. Tip of the iceberg, more like.

Re:Novel

[uninformedLuddite]

Impressive? Don't make me laugh. Any idiot with a welder could make this.

Re:Novel

[amicusNYCL]

Any idiot with a welder could make this.

So what's your excuse, you don't have a welder?

Really though, go out there and spend a month and $10k designing and building a vehicle driven by camera sight with a functional remotely operated turret, then at the end of one month we can compare your effort with what these guys did and you can point out everywhere they went wrong. I'm sure they would appreciate your constructive criticism.

For extra credit, do it in a place that has an ongoing civil war and start with nothing but the cash.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

which is ghetto composite armor, like found on real tanks. He most likely used higher grade steel in better condition.

I know what killdozer was, and this is far below killdozer. There is no composite armor.

Its also not using anything like a torqy bulldozer, as a base.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

"Hold on, are you trying to suggest that a vehicle that took a month and $10k to design and build"
killdozer had far less, and did far better.

"Seriously though, cut the guys some slack. It might not fit your definition of a "tank""
it doesn't fit my definition of armored car.

"but it's pretty impressive that these guys are able to design, build, and field vehicles like this."
no its not. any idiot with a welder could make this.

" I doubt they are trying to put these things up against T90s,"
it wouldn't go up against an infantry squad with a medium machine gun, for example the Russian PKM, which is wideley in use in that reigon of the world.(equiv of NATO M60)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PK_machine_gun

making it just about worthless.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

I was just thinking this. LOL

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

"So what's your excuse, you don't have a welder?"
I can't speak for uninformedluddite, but since I said the exact same thing as a response

MY excuses are:

1. no where to park it.
2. no need for an armored fighting vehicle where I live.
3. I don't wanna be put on a list.(someone is going to think I am a terrorist, criminal, etc...)
4. If I wanted an FV(for arguments sake, I don't), I wouldn't bother with such a crap design, I'd do something more like killdozer.
5. Combine points 1,2, and 3, with I don't have 10 grand to waste.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

actually no. the unarmored trucks with turrent mounted machine guns are a big step up, as they are very fast and agile compared to typical battlefield vehicles. they also act as troop transports.

the armor on this "tank" won't stop modern rifle rounds.

Re:Novel

[hairyfeet]

Yeah I had the same problem, /. must have really shit the bed.

But that still don't explain about the tanks crosshair, i mean lets take out remote systems all together, no UCAVs, no remote guns, hell just a handful of F15s at 35k feet with today's missiles could scrap your entire tank corp with little to no risk to themselves, thanks to our missiles and JDAMs.

So I still don't get the "why?" when it comes to the tank. It sucks a shitload of gas, heavy as hell so hard to drag across the planet, i just don't see why you can't just mount a 105mm main gun to the top of an APC and call it a day. I mean other than the battle of 86 easting (IIRC, not sure the exact title) most of our tanks were doing jobs that frankly a modern APC could handle just as well. Slap some reactive armor on the front, give something like the Stryker or Bradley a regular cannon as opposed to a RWS and Bob's your uncle. Hell between the cannon, the TOWs, and a 20mm gatling you've got pretty much every major role of a ground vehicle covered and according to the "great tank battles" video on 86 easting there were several times where a Bradley with TOWs just slaughtered the MBTs of the Iraqi republican guard, the only real problems they had were the limited number of TOWs that could be loaded.

So I just don't get the "why?" when it comes to tanks, other than to cut really big checks to defense contractors, because like the battleship it seems more like a relic of WWII than a really useful modern battlefield instrument. Hell I can see arguments for the carrier (although I still think we don't need more than 6, that is 3 times more than anybody else and 3 carriers worth of aircraft pack a hell of a punch) better than I can see the tank, at least we can point to times in the past where countries have refused to let us use bases on their soil or fly over their country like Libya in the early 80s where a carrier could come in handy, but with the incredible accuracy of modern missiles between the APCs with TOWs, the choppers with hellfires, and of course the F-Teen series with missiles they can launch from insane distances I honestly don't really see a need for a tank on the modern battlefield.

I will give you that depending on drones and RWS is a dumb idea, but I have to wonder how much of our drone costs are just bill padding as from what i understand the Israeli drones don't cost a tenth of what ours does and is just as good. To me the whole point of the drone was supposed to be a "cheap weapon platform" that took the risk of losing pilots out of the equation, but like every defense program we've had for decades its because another black hole of money. Honestly what we need is a remote controlled Avenger or Skyraider, something tough, long loiter times, able to carry any combo of bombs, rockets, missiles AND with a couple of guns, and most of all cheap and reliable. Sadly like everything else we get today what we'll end up with is a fussy over-engineered POS, but that is the MIC for you.

Re:Novel

[davydagger]

"which is one of the reasons that Iraqi T-72Ms didn't stand a chance in the first Gulf War."
I think you are talking about the battle of 73 easting. The most lopsided tank battle in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

There are a few reasons the Americans won.:

1. They were a full generation, if not two generations behind in tank development. The Russian T72s could probably hold their own against American M60 tanks. The Russian T80 was a good equiv of the M1 and the M90 the M1A1. There is no T72 that could hold its own against M1 abrams with equally skilled crews on both sides.(T80s and T90s should however)

The Americans fielded M1A1s in gulf storm. Faster, modern FCS, better armor, better gun. More manueverable. a good solid 30 years of inhead of the T72(litterally)

2. American tank guns had longer range....in the desert, where there is nowhere to hide, range is big. the T72 needed to get within 800m to kill an M1. The M1 could kill a T72 at 3200m.

3. The Americans had GPS, which allowed them to traverse open desert where traditional land navigation is impossible. Not only did the Iraqis not have GPS, they had no idea the Americans had GPS, or even what it was. (this is 1991, GPS was still pretty new, and very exclusive).

Number 3 was probably the biggest factor here. The republican guard actually planned adequate defenses with traditional tank strategy. The Americans hit their flanks and bypassed their carefully laid defenses, using GPS to navigate through the desert and caught the Iraqis by suprise.

Re:Novel

[Crosshair84]

I'll do my best to answer these.

But that still don't explain about the tanks crosshair, i mean lets take out remote systems all together, no UCAVs, no remote guns, hell just a handful of F15s at 35k feet with today's missiles could scrap your entire tank corp with little to no risk to themselves, thanks to our missiles and JDAMs.

No they can't, the tactics you describe were suicide way back in the 1960's, as aircraft stupid enough to fly that high were easily picked off by SAMs. In Vietnam US aircraft were typically confined to medium altitudes. High altitude flights were easily intercepted by SA-2 SAMs and low flights were intercepted by small arms and AA gun batteries.

Aircraft flying at 35K are easily within range of mobile SAMs like the Osa 9K33 and Kub 2K12.

The only way the tactics you describe work is when you are flying against an opponent whose most advanced weapon is the RPG-7. Against a reasonably equipped foe, those F-15 pilots are going to get very constipated very quickly.

So I still don't get the "why?" when it comes to the tank. It sucks a shitload of gas, heavy as hell so hard to drag across the planet, i just don't see why you can't just mount a 105mm main gun to the top of an APC and call it a day.

First problem is Newton's second law of motion. A M68A1 105mm cannon has about 4.2 million foot pounds of muzzle energy. For a graphic demonstration, have a 5 year old fire a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 3" shells. About the lightest you can get a vehicle that can mount a full powre 105mm or equivalent is about 20 tons. The Stryker can only fire half power shells.

Second problem. A tank needs to be able to take incoming fire and survive to return fire. Light tanks like the M8 Buford have their uses, as they sacrifice protection for mobility, thus they can go places that heavier tanks cannot. However, a 50 ton T-90 still has VERY good mobility and, with the heavy ERA it can mount, there is only a very limited number of weapons that can pose a serious threat to them.

I mean other than the battle of 86 easting (IIRC, not sure the exact title) most of our tanks were doing jobs that frankly a modern APC could handle just as well. Slap some reactive armor on the front, give something like the Stryker or Bradley a regular cannon as opposed to a RWS and Bob's your uncle.

Neither of those vehicles can mount the heavy ERA necessary nor can they mount a cannon. Not to mention we were fighting an opponent with equipment decades obsolete and even their "best" training was sub-standard. Their ammunition was also garbage and their C&C was effectively destroyed.

Hell between the cannon, the TOWs, and a 20mm gatling you've got pretty much every major role of a ground vehicle covered and according to the "great tank battles" video on 86 easting there were several times where a Bradley with TOWs just slaughtered the MBTs of the Iraqi republican guard, the only real problems they had were the limited number of TOWs that could be loaded.

As I pointed out before, those vehicles can't mount a tank cannon (howitzers can be, though they are not that great for AT work.)

The TOW is EXTREMELY limited and quickly becoming obsolete. The biggest problem is that it cannot be fired on the move. Countermeasures like Shtora automatically jam the guidance system of a TOW, rendering them useless. It takes 20 seconds for the TOW to reach max range, so the firing vehicle could take up to three shells from a T-series before the missile hits. (Or it could just pop smoke.)

Shtora also jams laser rangefinders and laser target designators. It also locates the source of the laser within a few degrees, so the guy with the designator better hope his kevlar is proofed against 125mm HE-FRAG.

20mm Gatling? That's about 700 pounds just for the gun and feed system, not to mention the mount. Most APC heavy up armor kits protect against

Re:Novel

[hairyfeet]

But the problem with that kind of thinking is this Crosshair...any enemy that has tech good enough to smack out F-Teens out of the sky with our modern countermeasures? is gonna have nukes so its game over anyway, one EMP and most of the stuff is gonna be scrap (since last I checked most of our stuff ain't built for NBC wars) and what isn't is gonna be taken out by the incoming tactical nuke strikes.

I mean there is a REASON why we have never had another WWII since the 1940s, where we have gone up against a technological equal, its because they all got nukes now and nobody wants WWIII. Because of this the ONLY wars we are gonna get is proxy wars or goat herders, nobody is gonna risk a war between nuclear powers. hell even China whose behind Russia and the USA on nuke tech can make the entire west coast glow in the dark, so other than proxy fights and saber rattling we ain't gonna do shit to them and they ain't gonna do shit to us.

So if you are gonna plan for WWIII, then plan for WWIII and make everything NBC and be ready to hand out nuclear artillery and bombs, because if you look at the map the ones we have any chance of fighting today? no damned different than what we ran into in Iraq, 30+ year old Soviet junk that has been patched and upgraded piecemeal with frankly piss poor tactics and pilots. Iran, Syria, Africa, hell I doubt we'd even risk a fight with NK for fear the Chinese might get pissy or NK might lob a nuke at Seoul.

So it seems to me that when you look at actual likely targets we have the game plan down cold WITHOUT needing the tanks. You send in the stealths to blind the C&C and make their SAMS into scrap, which thanks to sats we know weeks in advance where all that shit is, you send in the wild weasels along with the first bombing runs after the stealths are done to take out any stragglers,, then once that is done between the APCs and air power any heavy tanks they try to move are just gonna be sitting ducks. Then the APCs do what they do best, which is mopping up the ground troops and crowd control.

So I would agree with you IF this was still the cold war and it looked like we may be rolling tanks across EU to face down the T-90s which are backed up by kick ass mobile SAMS, but the odds are better that you win the powerball 3 times in a row than that ever happening. Instead the biggest threats are the same thing we saw in desert storm I, a bunch of old Soviet shit backed up by a creaky as hell C&C that can be taken out with a single flight. I mean look at Iran Crosshair, their newest "big bad" plane is nothing but a knock off of the F-5s we sold them in...what? 1972? Just as their new gunships are nothing but home built knock offs of the cobras we sold the Shah.

at the end of the day unless we get a POTUS that is frankly batshit we just aren't gonna risk a nuclear nightmare by picking on somebody that could give us a fair fight, and the targets that this leaves simply isn't up to the challenge of even our 30 year old tech.

Re:Novel

[Alex Belits]

This is exactly what I mean by "extreme Nationalists" -- people who believe that everyone who does not belong to the "master race", owes something to their country.

A-Team jokes

[havana9]

in 3... 2... 1...

Re:A-Team jokes

[sheehaje]

I was actually thinking of Stripes ...

Man I wanted that bad ass RV when I was a kid.

You know ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if they made boxier and put a fake lid on it to make it look like a dumpster, they could do some really heavy damage to the enemy in the urban environment they're fighting in.

Re:You know ....

[detritus.]

Worked for Snake. The Playstation Controller was essential to make it happen.

Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[ninjacheeseburger]

Judging by the buttons 1,2,3,4 I'd say this is a generic pc gamepad not a playstation controller.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[glueball]

Does pressing up up down down left right left right B A start give any additional protection?

Oh. That's the Nintendo tank. Nevermind.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[Anonymous Coward]

Konami tank, video game nerd fail.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[Opportunist]

And it needs that additional protection, considering it comes in an odd shape and in neon bright flashy colors. The only thing that might save it is that it's far too cute to blow up.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[ifrag]

Unless you happen to be playing Gradius 3, where the code causes the ship to blow up. Based on the design here, that also seems the most likely.

(Note : The code will work using the top flapper L/R buttons on the game, giving near max power-ups)

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "Konami Tank" you insensitive clod.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller

[Anonymous Coward]

*clears throat.* Konami. Get it right, or get off my lawn.

Not a Playstation controller

[AAWood]

Umm, that's not a Playstation controller, or at least not an official first-party one. Give how many PC controllers have used that style, it's more likely just some generic PC controller.

Re:Not a Playstation controller

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Umm, that's not a Playstation controller, or at least not an official first-party one. Give how many PC controllers have used that style, it's more likely just some generic PC controller.

These guys are out to smash the state; but they aren't the sort of depraved nihilists who violate EULAs!

Re:Not a Playstation controller

[Nerdfest]

If they're freedom fighters, it's unlikely they'd buy anything from Sony anyway.

Re:Not a Playstation controller

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know they were French!

Re:Not a Playstation controller

[Eberlin]

Of course it's not a first-party PS1 controller. You wouldn't want to show off your real weaponry to the public. In the future we'll hear about the mythical SHAM-alamadingdong Tank that was used to Dual-Shock and Awe the Syrian government and totally pwn those n00bs. It's all about the plans within plans, man.

Re:Not a Playstation controller

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny (except its not)....Only America and its lapdogs call the armed thugs trying to take over Syria 'rebels'.....they are mostly non-syrian jihadis streaming in from whats left of Libya....Assad said he'd happily step down, but he will NOT hand power to a bunch of armed thugs.....geez, for a supposed bunch of net geeks that traditionally shun the mainstream news and are supposedly able to get the 'real' story from the net, I am always astounded at how politically ignorant virtually all American/British /.ers are...I hardly think any /.ers source their news from the net any more( more like from their huge flatscreen), judging by the attitudes here, you'd think most /.ers get their news from FOX. 10 points to the armed thugs for embracing their geekness, but they may wanna level it up a bit first....maybe get a save game modder......but in the REAL world, a tank round is gonna leave a smoking hole in the ground where that vehicle was....even a standard RPG will punch a 1inch hole clean through that steel.....I'm kinda happy that the next pics will be of this civilian mincer burnt out.

Vin, in his Mancave, Oz

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Sham indeed. I think you've been had.

I KEEP THROWING...

[Anonymous Coward]

...MONEY AT THE SCREEN! But I still don't have one in my drive way.... I think the interwebs are broke....

it's a

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a phony!

and ps2 run there missile guidance systems

[Joe_Dragon]

and ps2 run there missile guidance systems

Re:and ps2 run there missile guidance systems

[Opportunist]

They would have used PS3s but sadly they only found ones that were updated and stripped of their ability to run Linux.

Does this mean that gaming controllers

[jenningsthecat]

are going to be on the ITAR list?

Seriously though, the gap between technology available to consumers and that available to the military only has narrowed drastically over the last decade or two. And I think it's a good thing - it helps to level the playing field between oppressive regimes, (or would-be oppressive regimes), and citizens.

Anything that puts power into the hands of the otherwise disenfranchised is probably, on the whole, a good thing.

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Patch86]

"Military grade" equipment has rarely been about capabilities- it's about reliability. The reason a military walkie-talkie costs 20x what the ones they give to shopping centre security staff cost is not because they have much by way of extra features (although they might have some, that's not what costs the money); it's because they expected to work faultlessly for years in deserts and swamps and to never unexpectedly stop working when you're in the middle of calling in the cavalry.

A hand-held controller is a hand-held controller is a hand-held controller; there's nothing special, in terms of what it can do, between the ones that cost £9.99 on Amazon and the ones that the military probably pays £5000 a piece for. What's special is that if that "tank" gets shaken up a nearby explosion (or a speed-bump), what's the guarantee that the analogue stick isn't going to snap off in your hand, or some little wire is going to get shaken loose and the things going to get stuck on "left arrow button"?

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually seen some "mil-spec" motherboards at computer stores in the last while. Thought that was interesting. The price wasn't outrageous either really.

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually seen some "mil-spec" motherboards at computer stores in the last while. Thought that was interesting. The price wasn't outrageous either really.

Found it, this is the one: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1155/SABERTOOTH_P67/

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[argStyopa]

"Anything that puts power into the hands of the otherwise disenfranchised is probably, on the whole, a good thing."

I've heard that a few places now. Unfortunately the term 'disenfranchised' (as you call them) depends strongly on whether they are 'poor victims of oppression' (if you agree with them) or murderous, brutal, desperate thugs and terrorists (if you don't).

By and large, I'm not terribly fond of weapons in the hands of anyone 'motivated' enough to murder with them, 'correctly' motivated or not.

FWIW, Mohammed Atta would certainly agree with you.

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

The TUF series delivers a “tough” image. With the unique design & high quality components (military-standard), TUF series is born for pursuing the preeminent stability, all-round compatibility, and extreme durability.

(emphasis mine)

welp

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

The Taiwanese military maybe... (lol)

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

The military walkie talkie I had to use during my military service did not even work properly on a mild sunny autumn evening (or any other weather), so I figure the reason a military walkie talkie costs that much is basically because the military pays that much...

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[Jonner]

It does look like an interesting design, but making an armored vehicle surive enemy fire is a lot harder than mounting cameras on it. This vehicle has slabs of steel, not the composite or reactive armor found on truly state of the art vehicles. That's what costs the big bucks.

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers

[drinkypoo]

I've actually seen some "mil-spec" motherboards at computer stores in the last while. Thought that was interesting. The price wasn't outrageous either really.

That doesn't mean much. A crappy camo fabric hat (I mean, it's not a bad hat, but aside from the tag it's indistinguishable from something that costs $2.99 shipped from China) will have a MIL-SPEC tag on it. Anything that the military is buying more than one of has a MIL-SPEC number.

If you disable the cameras...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shine an IR laser at the cameras and you disable the vehicle. Hope they have a periscope on the thing or they are sitting ducks.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[vlm]

Why shine a IR laser when you can launch a RPG?

On the modern battlefield if they see you, you're dead. This is not the era of wooden ships and iron men, or even WWII battleships.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Ginger Unicorn]

Why shine a IR laser when you can launch a RPG? On the modern battlefield if they see you, you're dead

Which is why not launching an RPG, which gives away your position, would be advantageous.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market. Maybe if it's got first class licensed material and is connected to a top notch company, but wasn't there a LOTR MMO that died recently?

I think action-adventure is the way to go in the current market. Maybe even something pure adventure with a more in-depth storyline. What was the budget behind the Walking Dead game, anyway? Makes me wonder what other first-rate games are out there this year that aren't based on just shooting things.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Opportunist]

Oh please. Could you leave the world of high-tech warfare and come down to the trenches of middle east reality?

Unless you're facing the Israelis (and even then...) you're dealing with equipment where the recommended form of debugging is rebooting it. I.e. hitting it with your boot 'til it works. Yes, they do have "better" equipment, too, but it's in rather short supply, what the average grunt used to fight these "rebels" will get is far from it.

The thing you will most likely see being used against it is an RPG-7 or equivalent.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> "Not includng from the gun, the vehicle costs about $10,000," he said.

"The gun was actually phat loot from a raid."

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a video game, RPGs don't have smoke trails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na-BtfkGEF4

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[vlm]

I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market.

Maybe no DRM would be good marketing. Oh wait you're talking about that other RPG. Oddly enough its a pretty good feature for either.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Anonymous Coward]

"lol thats a hunter weapon"

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[betterunixthanunix]

I have tried blinding cameras with lasers. It's hard.

It's not hard, however, to shoot something the size of a camera from 100 yards away using a hunting rifle. I suspect that the weakness of this vehicle, assuming that the rusty armor can withstand assault rifle fire (I doubt it will survive a helicopter strike), will be those cameras. The Syrian army will not need a long time to figure out that they should aim for the cameras, then run up to that thing and kill the occupants.

Or they could just fire an RPG at it.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[TheCarp]

> It's not hard, however, to shoot something the size of a camera from 100 yards away using a hunting rifle. I
> suspect that the weakness of this vehicle, assuming that the rusty armor can withstand assault rifle fire (I doubt
> it will survive a helicopter strike), will be those cameras. The Syrian army will not need a long time to figure out
> that they should aim for the cameras, then run up to that thing and kill the occupants.

What I find strange is the need for occupants.

10k to produce? You mean they can build armor, install cameras etc, but they can't make it wireless control?

That may be a shitty coffin of a tank....but as an unmanned ass-kicker.... They could easily have the drivers sitting in the back of a different, less conspicous vehicle, or in a nearby building.

Of course, if thats your plan, who needs armor at all? Can probably fit several cars with remote control and guns for the same 10k.

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[Zordak]

I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market. Maybe if it's got first class licensed material and is connected to a top notch company, but wasn't there a LOTR MMO that died recently?

I think action-adventure is the way to go in the current market. Maybe even something pure adventure with a more in-depth storyline. What was the budget behind the Walking Dead game, anyway? Makes me wonder what other first-rate games are out there this year that aren't based on just shooting things.

But this one has a special "hardcore" mode. You have to play through to the end without dying. No extra lives, no save states. In fact, if you get killed, you don't even get to start over.* If you want to win, you must win on the first play-through. Kind of a niche market, but for those who go for that kind of thing, nothing beats SHAM II.

*(Unless you install the "reincarnation" mod, which is pretty popular in India.)

Re:If you disable the cameras...

[mjwalshe]

I think Team Tank or anyone running top of the line MBT's might disagree Abrams and Challengers are quiet hard to take out

Otherwise known as

[Dyinobal]

Call of Duty: Duct Tape Ops

Re:Otherwise known as

[DiEx-15]

Call of Duty: Duct Tape Ops

You know what they say: If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

Your driving I'm watching.

[zippo01]

WOW, this is not a tank, its a death trap. An old diesel car with light steel construction? I wouldn't drive this to my local geto grocery store much less a war zone with real tanks and explosives. Nice try, but fail...

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[zippo01]

So I did some more looking and it really is a death trap. The wheels are still exposed, and the steel is at most 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick, which would easy be penetrated by an AK-47 or an Nato 556 round. It is really just a death trap.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that it's rusted metal which is much weaker.

Camera based system which can easily get dirty and hard to see in battle or even broken with no other way to see the outside.

As you said, exposed wheels (probably air based making it easy to puncture but is cheaper and easier to get) with no redundant wheels either.

At best, this is a weak armored anti-personal car.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Talderas]

The armor, from the front, does still provide additional protection since it's unlikely to take a bullet head on. Bullets hitting that portion are going to be hitting closer 6/10-7/10" of steel and the angle itself may make a deflection more likely. That said, it's still a death trap.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[BcNexus]

A-la the Granby bulldozer, it needs metal-concrete-metal composite armor and tank treads. Also, protect the cameras with acrylic cases to prevent damage to them and fit compressed air guns onto them to clear off debris. Imagine how much more protected it would be then!

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Slopped armor has proved to be exceptionally effective against light AP rounds since WWII.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Anonymous Coward]

which would easy be penetrated by ... an Nato 556 round

If it is then there's probably going to be more than a few questions asked.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Sperbels]

Seriously? 1/2 inch thick steel is easily penetrated by common rifle ammunition? That doesn't sound right. 1/2 inch?

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[davydagger]

bullets at a far range might be deflected.

reality is, probably save the weight from the armor, just use a lighter vehicle and rely on speed for a troop transport, to transport light infantry, before speeding away.

If this thing comes under concentrated fire, from even small arms, it, and its drivers are fucked. This is a death trap, and whoever designed it has delusions of graunder.

6/10-7/10" of rusted mild steel armor is nothing and won't do shit, except made stop shrapnel/debris.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Opportunist]

Don't worry, before the cameras get dirty that thing's already blown sky high.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[gman003]

I actually read TFA, and they're saying it will withstand 23mm autocannon fire. I imagine they're exaggerating a bit, but I also imagine they at least tested it with the weapons they had on hand, like the 7.62mm LMG they mounted on it.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Anonymous Coward]

M855 should be able to get close to 1/2" on mild steel.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[kumanopuusan]

One minor problem is that the exposed tires won't withstand fire from a .22 or, say, small pieces of battlefield rubble.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[mapuche]

The steel is 1 inch thick.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[amicusNYCL]

How do you get 1/4 - 1/2 inches from 2.5cm? 2.5cm is .98 inches. Both articles cite 2.5cm as the thickness of the steel.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[mjwalshe]

23MM AP rounds your aving a laugh. I doubt they have easy access to case hardened Armour plate and why no Schürzen skirts on the sides to detonate RPG's before it hits the main armour plate.

Not that having an up armored technical with protection for the DHSKA crews makes does not make sense.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[systemeng]

Half inch mild steel might stop lead. Even .308 AP will go straight through without even slowing down. I have a whole box of such plates in my shop.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[mjwalshe]

well at least its not a petrol (gas) engined car as the base vehicle - the petrol fueled Sherman where not called "Tommy Cookers" by the Germans for no reason.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Time_Ngler]

The article states the walls are 2.5 cm thick, which is almost an inch

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Jesus_666]

On the other hand, this is version 2 so they obviously had a version 1 and decided that one wasn't obviously useless enough to entirely scrap the concept of homemade tanks. This may not be a terribly good design but apparently they think it's worth fielding.

Given that they have more experience getting shot at in Syria than anyone on Slashdot I'm inclined to assume that it adds at least some value over just sending out two guys with assault rifles.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[jittles]

I'd be willing to bet that you could easily shoot into the cabin of this with a .50 BMG. You might even be able to penetrate from the back into the engine compartment with .50BMG. There is no way this thing can withstand 23MM AC fire. And don't get me started on the Particle Projectile Cannons (PPCs) that the Syria mechs have been using...

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[wierd_w]

Given the weight on top, I find it hard to accept that they are air filled tires.

Since it doesn't go fast anyway, solid rubber tires, (or tires filled with an inert solid of some sort) would make much more sense.

In which case, a .22 round is only going to either get lodged in the tire, or bounce off. Simply because the tire is exposed doesn't mean the tire is air filled. (In fact, an air filled tire would be beyond the critical limit for sidewall pressure with that much improvised armor on top. They would pop.)

A cheap trick would be to fill the tires with dry, fine sand, THEN inflate to pressure. Doesn't solve the "guns make holes in the tires" problem, but also prevents the "hole in tire causes immediate immobility" and "tires suffering too much sidewall pressure" problems.

Again, such tires would NOT be capable of highway speeds. 20mph would be pushing it to the point of melting the tires. This is a heavy, gun carrying metal turd. It won't be driving that fast anyway.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Odin's Raven]

How do you get 1/4 - 1/2 inches from 2.5cm? 2.5cm is .98 inches.

He probably thought they were using Imperial centimeters - they're a lot smaller than the metric version.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Jonner]

So I did some more looking and it really is a death trap. The wheels are still exposed, and the steel is at most 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick, which would easy be penetrated by an AK-47 or an Nato 556 round. It is really just a death trap.

You may be right about it being a death trap, but TFA says it has 25mm armor (about one inch). That would certainly not be easily penetrated by most small arms.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[shutdown -p now]

Regular 5.56mm ammo, like the one issued to US soldiers with M16 or M4 ("green tip") will not. Armor-piercing rounds ("black tip") can, supposedly, barely penetrate steel that thick at 100m, however.

Since we're talking about Syria here, though, it's more likely to be regular (non-AP) 7.62x39mm, which is the usual AK-47 type rifle caliber. That would penetrate about 3/8 of an inch, so getting pretty close - an AP bullet of the same caliber would definitely penetrate. There was a story when some guys decided to test the old Soviet army folk lore that AK can shoot through a railroad rail (the neck of it), and they managed to do it with standard Soviet military AP ammo (7N23) - the shot was made at 25 meters, and penetrated 18mm of steel with ease.

AP bullets would probably be relatively rare, though, even in the hands of loyalist forces.

However, there's also machine guns sniper rifles to consider - in Syria that probably means PK and SVD, both chambered in 7.62x54mm. I don't know the exact numbers for that, but it's a heavier and faster bullet. I wouldn't be surprised if a non-AP bullet of that caliber could penetrate half an inch of steel.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[kumanopuusan]

Given the weight on top, I find it hard to accept that they are air filled tires.

There are standard passenger vehicle tires rated to 1650 kg. With 4 tires, that's a total load of over 6000 kg. You started on a misconception and wandered off into fantasy. How are they going to fabricate solid tires when they're using scrap steel for armor and salvaged parts for everything else?

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[wierd_w]

Solid rubber tires come on all manner of industrial transports.

Scrap solid tires are a very real prospect.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Talderas]

I would expect that it would provide a false sense of security.

Re:Your driving I'm watching.

[Jesus_666]

In other words it provides a morale boost (and potentially intimidates the enemy if they don't happen to have an RPG around). Might be worth the resources.

Game ON

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you have only 1 life :/

Re:Game ON

[Opportunist]

But there's a plenty of players wanting a turn, so it evens out.

I, for one,

[pkthunders]

would still like to see an 120mm HEAT shell going through that cute little "tank".

Re:I, for one,

[TWX]

"going through" is probably more accurate than you intended...

My guess is that something would penetrate, keep on going, penetrate out the other side, then explode. Hell, the occupants might be safer for that...

Re:I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

would still like to see an 120mm HEAT shell going through that cute little "tank".

Bashar, is that you? How did you ever get on /. after taking your country's Internet infrastructure down?

I guess it's good to be the prez.

Re:I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

Achmed, we have air conditioning now!

Re:I, for one,

[davydagger]

overkill. .50 BMG ball rounds will do the trick, far less an API round.

I don't think this thing will stand up to bursts from a 7.62x51 nato machine gun. Like the FN FAL

Re:I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

FAL is a rifle, not a machine gun.

Re:I, for one,

[mjwalshe]

er 7.62x51 is the round used in GMPG's and there are full auto versions of the FAL with bi-pods and thicker barrels designed for the squad LMG role.

Re:I, for one,

[rgbrenner]

What? you have an overactive imagination. How you got to +4 with speculation, I have no idea.

Mythbusters: RPG 101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6KdHfP_0x8

Watch until the end when they show the high speed.. notice the rpg penetrates the trailer (which has thinner steel that this tank), and explodes before exiting the other side.

Re:I, for one,

[cpghost]

So no more WAMs overheating?

Re:I, for one,

[TWX]

Lighten up, Francis... I was making a joke....

Re:I, for one,

[pkthunders]

Sure... What you're saying is like shooting a paper target with a gun and expecting it to get lodged in it... It's more for a show of force. And the explosion should still happen in the cabin after penetration... It's not expensive weaponry without reason.

More of an AFV...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You'd probably be safer on foot than inside that box if a real tank shows up for a fight... Even some rusty export-grade T-34 stolen from a museum and bodged back into shape.

That said, it could prove to be quite a nasty surprise for any infantry caught without RPGs or anti-armor ammunition.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Scutter]

1/4" (or even 1/2") scrap steel won't stop a rifle round. They'll hardly need anti-armor munitions to punch finger-sized holes all over it. This isn't even an armored car, let alone a tank. It's got barely more steel in it than a regular automobile.

Re:More of an AFV...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

For my edification, how much punch will it have left for the lucky driver after heading through a 1/4 or 1/2 inch plate? Is that "why did you even bother?" territory or "Congratulations! You've received an upgrade from 'fatality' to 'casualty'"?

Re:More of an AFV...

[Scutter]

Here's 3/8" steel scrap at 50 yards with 7.62x39 fired from an AK47. I recommend muting the volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zke2JLYWlMc

It'll go right through it and then proceed to shred the occupants of the vehicle, incidentally also spraying whoever is missed with molten steel.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it penetrates the steel it'll have plenty of punch left for a lethal wound. It might change it from "through-and-through" to "no exit wound" but not much else would change.

That said, mild steel in the 1/4" to 1/2" range /could/ provide /some/ protection in this configuration for two reasons: 1. It /may/ deflect bullets since it's at an angle. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. 2. It /may/ stop a round from penetrating and only deform the steel armor. This is unlikely with mild steel though.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Anonymous Coward]

As you can see, steel core FMJ, AK47 against 90' is effectively stopped by 1/2" plate. Its stopped by 1" plate. Add slopped armor and suddenly 1/2+" armor becomes reasonably effective against the vast majority of rounds fired from AK47s. Now, an RPG, tank round, or mortar is an entirely different story.

I think people tend to forget the effectiveness of slopped armor against traditional rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqfRlSoK60

Re:More of an AFV...

[davydagger]

bullshit.

a medium machine gun, should rip this thing apart.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Opportunist]

And I guess that's the idea behind it. It forces the enemy to bring along heavier guns and spend more time, money and personnel. Military-wise it sure ain't the latest and greatest, but it forces your enemy to react. It's already an advantage if you force your enemy to use full metal instead of hollow point (Hague convention? What's that?) because they might get to shoot at something but "soft" targets.

Re:More of an AFV...

[X0563511]

Still, it's better than what they had before. From the description I gather it's just a car with some armoring for the driver (only).

Re:More of an AFV...

[amicusNYCL]

While that's a nice video, both articles cite the thickness at 2.5cm, or 1 inch.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Dunbal]

Casualties cause more problems than fatalities. If they're dead you can leave them there for days. If your friend is screaming for help, you'll risk your life to save him and get him out of the line of fire. Then you'll need a good 2-3 guys to carry him to the equivalent of a field hospital. Said hospital needs to be staffed and protected. Etc. Logistically speaking dead soldiers are a lot easier to deal with than injured ones, so long as they're not dying faster than you can train them up.

As for the "armored car", I'm sure the bullet will have enough punch to kill you. Flesh and even bone are much, much "softer" than steel. If that thing has a 20mm or 30mm anti-aircraft gun pointed at it, everyone inside is dead.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Dunbal]

Umm not really. Now it's a magnet for bullets. It's a lot harder to conceal. It can be easily spotted from the air. Yeah you can't kill it with a rock or a bottle, but even WW1 tanks were more heavily armored than this. Against real military equipment it will fail instantly.

Re:More of an AFV...

[Time_Ngler]

The article states it's 2.5 cm or about 1 inch thick

Re:More of an AFV...

[jittles]

While that's a nice video, both articles cite the thickness at 2.5cm, or 1 inch.

Yes but those were hollow point bullets used to penetrate that steel, not ball ammunition. I don't know if it would penetrate 25mm of rusted steel, but even if it will not, an RPG will easily.

Re:More of an AFV...

[amicusNYCL]

That's correct, they say the vehicle is vulnerable to RPG fire and anything larger than a 23mm cannon.

Re:More of an AFV...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Umm not really. Now it's a magnet for bullets. It's a lot harder to conceal. It can be easily spotted from the air. Yeah you can't kill it with a rock or a bottle, but even WW1 tanks were more heavily armored than this. Against real military equipment it will fail instantly.

Based on the popularity of "technicals" in assorted horrid little bush wars, I'm forced to assume that there is a significant market for nearly-unarmored vehicles mounting machine guns or light-ish cannon, despite the fact that armies with actual money can crush them like insects. This appears to be the geek-friendly version.

Re:More of an AFV...

[shutdown -p now]

As you can see, steel core FMJ, AK47 against 90' is effectively stopped by 1/2" plate. Its stopped by 1" plate.

It would be interesting to see how the same fares against 7.62x54 round, which is also pretty common (from machine guns and sniper rifles).

Re:More of an AFV...

[deimtee]

That actually might be useful in an urban low-tech fight. If you can pull the aimed fire while supporting infantry you could reduce your own caualties while pushing the enemy into revealing their positions.
1 inch sloped armor is going to stand up to a lot of rifle fire. You could say, (puts on sunglasses) it's going to "tank" damage.

Re:More of an AFV...

[subreality]

Note that scrap mild steel is almost an order of magnitude weaker than hardened armor plate. Steel plates thinner than that (half) in a ballistic vest can reliably stop bullets going faster than that (7.62x51 has a lot more punch than 7.62x39).

By the looks of that vehicle....

[rwyoder]

...I'd say it was designed and built in Granby, Colorado.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle....

[TWX]

The Heemeyer Bulldozer was arguably a much more potent vehicle than this little steel-plated car. He wasn't stopped until a combination of a blown radiator and getting stuck high-centered on a basement wall got him- I think that ramming this little steel-plated car with a pickup truck would take it out of commission. Heemeyer took out numerous buildings and vehicles and despite being shot at repeatedly managed to keep going. Had he done a more thorough job armoring his radiator (yes, I know that it needs airflow and that one can only armor it so much) and knowing his environment (not getting stuck in the basement) then he might have managed to continue his rampage until military forces with a portable rocket launcher showed up.

I have a friend that owns a WWII Ford M8 Greyhound and has several other WWII-era light armored vehicles, like a half-track armored truck. The designer of this car seems to have missed the important part that too much open interior is not necessarily an advantage. That half-track doesn't have a lot of interior space, literally enough for the soldiers and their equipment, and because of that, the same amount of mass for the vehicle can accommodate thicker armor where it matters, around the people. The vehicle isn't meant to survive a pounding, it's meant to keep its occupants alive when hit, so that they can get out and counterattack. This little car doesn't strike me as designed with that in mind.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or taking tips from the A-Team (dah da daaaaah) :)

Those guys always had access to large sheets of sheetmetal....

Re:By the looks of that vehicle....

[davydagger]

"The Heemeyer Bulldozer was arguably a much more potent vehicle than this little steel-plated car."

that man understood "composite armor", a ghetto but effecient/effective versions. steel-concrete-steel. It also used a more potent starting vehicle better suited for the task, and fresh, unweathered steel(arguablly thicker).

he also had the resources of a first world nation, and all the time in the world to built it, with no pressure from lets say, a government attacking him instead of vice versa.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle....

[Jonner]

The Heemeyer Bulldozer had a very different purpose, which was to allow Heemeyer to continue destroying buildings while the police tried to stop him. Neither offensive firepower nor maneuverability was a priority, but protection was. This vehicle is probably meant to protect those inside while it's going somewhere, implying a need for more maneuverability at the cost of protection. It is also apparently intended to be used against enemy soldiers. It's clearly far from an ideal design, but even an ideal one likely wouldn't be as well-protected as the Heemeyer Bulldozer.

Controller, phooey!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows you use a mouse and keyboard! This choice of input devices has doomed the rebels to failure!

The Sham II?

[TechieRefugee]

*insert pun about the tank being a sham here*

Re:The Sham II?

[CanHasDIY]

*insert pun about the tank being a sham here*

I'm still reeling from the shock of learning that Vince Offer is in Syria...

Not a tank

[Andy Dodd]

Light Armored Vehicle maybe, but not a tank... Tanks have a heavy caliber main gun with machine gun as backups. A vehicle with only a machine gun isn't a tank... Probably well within the category of LAV though.

Re:Not a tank

[Scutter]

I wouldn't even call it an armored car. That looks like scrap steel, which won't even stop a rifle round. They won't need an RPG to shred the driver. If they're extremely lucky, their attackers will be coming head-on, so the angled front plate will help slightly, but any flank attack with small arms is going to decimate it.

Re:Not a tank

[davydagger]

barely qualifies as an armored truck

Re:Not a tank

[davydagger]

"The armor is definitely insufficient to handle modern tanks, but it would have been enough for 20's and '30s tanks (or perhaps WW2-era Italian or Japanese tanks), so you could probably squeeze it in."
outclassed by M1151 armored Humvees you mean.

this would barely hold up with armored cars of the 1930s, and certainly not tanks of any era.

"but it *might* stand up to an RPG-7 or so."

it might stand up to 9mm pistol rounds.

Re:Not a tank

[Anonymous Coward]

It would definitely count as a "tank" on a paintball field. But then again, so would an old second hand golf-cart covered with plywood. I guess that's not saying much.

Re:Not a tank

[REggert]

Many early tanks (up through WW2) had anti-tank capabilities (indeed, the first tanks had no reason to have anti-tank capabilities - there were no other tanks to fight against). The main distinguishing features of a tank are its armor (which need not necessarily be very heavy - just enough to deflect small arms fire), its tracks, and the fact that it has some sort of weapon mounted on a turret.

The Panzer I was classified as a light tank but was armed only with MG13 machine guns. The British Vickers Light Tank Mk VI likewise only had .50cal and .303cal machine guns.

Re:Not a tank

[REggert]

Dammit! That should have read "had NO anti-tank capabilities".

Re:Not a tank

[Nimey]

You're right that this is an armored car and not a tank.

However, a tank need not have a turret-mounted gun. Early British tanks (such as the Mark IV from WWI) had no turrets, using instead sponson-mounted cannon and/or Vickers machine guns, depending on the model. Some other tanks didn't even have cannon and mounted only rifle-caliber machine guns.

A tank need not have heavy armor. Some of the light tanks from WWI through the '40s had just enough armor to stop small-arms fire, especially (as someone else noted) Japanese and Italian models, but also the Panzer I & the Vickers 6-ton and its derivatives.

Under certain circumstances, a tank need not even have tracks. Some tanks from the '30s and '40s had what's called a Christie suspension, for example the Soviet BT-7. Said tanks could remove their tracks and run on good roads using just the wheels.

Re:Not a tank

[ddd0004]

No way that would stand up to a RPG-7. The typical warhead on a RPG-7 is a HEAT warhead, which focuses the blast through a cone shaped cavity at the end of the explosive material. HEAT warheads typically make short work of homogeneous armor. In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7 states the penetration of the basic RPG-7 round as 260 mm. Over 10 times the thickness of their armor.

Re:Not a tank

[Jonner]

That is not a tank. That's an armored car.

A tank requires three things: heavy armor, a turret-mounted gun capable of anti-tank combat, and the use of tracks instead of wheels.

This arguably fails all three. It's a wheeled vehicle, and that 7.62mm gun may as well be paintballs to other tanks - it's a common caliber for the coax gun on modern tanks, for use when you don't want to waste your expensive ammo against mere infantry. The armor is definitely insufficient to handle modern tanks, but it would have been enough for 20's and '30s tanks (or perhaps WW2-era Italian or Japanese tanks), so you could probably squeeze it in.

That said, as long as the rebels use it intelligently, an armored car is a very useful tool. Keep it in the cities, where tanks have difficulty maneuvering, but use its mobility to outflank infantry. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts - it doesn't look like it could handle modern anti-tank missiles, but it *might* stand up to an RPG-7 or so.

It's certainly true that this does not come close to the commonly accepted definition of "tank" since the 1930s. However, it's interesting to note that the term evolved quite a bit from its first use. The original tanks in WWI did have tracks, but they did not have turrets, anti-tank guns or thick armor. There were designed to protect the crew from enemy machine gun and artillery fire, which is probably all this vehicle is intended for. The RPG-7 can penetrate at least 260mm of steel, more than ten times the thickness on this vehicle.

Taken out of commision....

[kryliss]

by a common spike strip.

Re:Taken out of commision....

[Anubis IV]

Not to mention that the only protection for the cameras are little tiny roofs made out of the same metal armor as the rest of the thing (you can see them clearly in the video included with the article). A simple concussive blast on the face of it would probably knock out both front cameras, or else come darn close to doing so, and that's assuming that the RPG or whatever else you were using didn't just punch a hole right through the front of the vehicle outright.

It's not a tank

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more of a light infantry support vehicule. Useless against real armor but could shift the tide in an infantry struggle for a street, for example.

Not a tank

[gman003]

That is not a tank. That's an armored car.

A tank requires three things: heavy armor, a turret-mounted gun capable of anti-tank combat, and the use of tracks instead of wheels.

This arguably fails all three. It's a wheeled vehicle, and that 7.62mm gun may as well be paintballs to other tanks - it's a common caliber for the coax gun on modern tanks, for use when you don't want to waste your expensive ammo against mere infantry. The armor is definitely insufficient to handle modern tanks, but it would have been enough for 20's and '30s tanks (or perhaps WW2-era Italian or Japanese tanks), so you could probably squeeze it in.

That said, as long as the rebels use it intelligently, an armored car is a very useful tool. Keep it in the cities, where tanks have difficulty maneuvering, but use its mobility to outflank infantry. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts - it doesn't look like it could handle modern anti-tank missiles, but it *might* stand up to an RPG-7 or so.

Controllers VS Mouse and Keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Dudes are getting get owned by all the mouse and keyboard users. There is a reason they don't allow console users to go against PC FPS playesr

4 Words....

[Anonymous Coward]

Duck Dynasty.... Just saying.

Sham

[seyyah]

No, not a joke about "real" vs "sham" tanks...

Just wanted to point out that Sham is also the Arabic name for Damascus.

IGNORE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking news! Japan is enabling the enemy by providing military hardware used to gun down our troops.

[ Picture fades to show a North Korean military march. ]

Experts agree: we must inv^Wliberate their suppressed population of their anti-American pedophile regime.

[ Waving flag in background. One-eyed bald eagle soars into view. ]

More at 11.

Sham me I

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a shame on you..Sham me II ..wise man can't get fooled a second time

Nice effort but..

[na1led]

They might as well paint a big bulls-eye on the side, because that tank will be the first thing that blows up once it gets rolled out.

No treads

[mattr]

Tires+caltrops=hot day in the sun

if you go

[circletimessquare]

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start

you get an antiaircraft SAM

N00bs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows you get more precision with a mouse and keyboard....

looks familiar

[slashmydots]

I think I saw one of those in Fallout: New Vegas, lol.

Contra Code

[broginator]

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start

Look at its name. Re:Not a tank

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That is why they called this thing sham. It ain't real tank. It is a sham.

Consoles'll be the death of us.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> and the gunner sits at the other, aiming the machine gun with a Playstation controller.

No no no!!! They should go mouser.

Heh.

[Westwood0720]

Its like a Twisted Metal 2 flashback.

Re:time for a cuppa

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet the first real tank they pick a fight with they will be brewing up.

It's a sham [Re:hmmm]

[Geoffrey.landis]

I'm amazed that it took almost ten minutes for somebody to say "it's a sham." Doesn't anybody jump on the obvious anymore?

They're gonna get pwned. . .

[JSBiff]

. . . by the guys using a mouse and keyboard. Everyone knows the accuracy and response time of an optical mouse is an order of magnitude greater than a d-stick.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Press "X" to win.

I have to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You came in that thing-- you're braver than I thought..."

Re:I have to say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You came in that thing-- you're braver than I thought..."

Ah the curse of beer goggles ....

mouse and keyboard controller

[locopuyo]

Everyone knows Mouse and Keyboard provide far superior control. These noobs are going to get pwned when it comes to a real fight.

Mil-spec: Yah right. . .

[systemeng]

Wake me when it meets MILSTD 810-G.

Re:Mil-spec: Yah right. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wake you it will be because I'm been drafted and you won't like my method. >:)

Re:Mil-spec: Yah right. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Motherboards meeting that spec already exist, so consider yourself awoken.

Re:Mil-spec: Yah right. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

haha. For some reason I doubt that will matter to any of these strangely buthurt nerds.

Toys

[roguegramma]

You don't give toys to soldiers just to make them win their battles, but also to raise their morale and make them move into dangerous areas.

Re:Toys

[xhrit]

They call it 'psychological armor'.

Crappy sherman?

[Bensam123]

They'd be better off hijacking some old shermans then driving that thing around. All I could do is look at it and laugh. One RPG and that thing is toast. They'd be better off with no armor all together or simply buying a humvee and putting a 7.62 on top. Heck some WW2 armored cars were better off then this thing. I'm surprised they don't simply buy some russian surplus... I'm sure there are plenty of t-80s for sale.

I wonder what kind of achievments you can earn?

[HPHatecraft]

Nerves of Steel
- Didn't crap pants first time out in field

Freewheeling
- Finished patrol with one tireless rim

Auto Gourmet
- Cooked felafel on engine

Summer Breeze
- Installed Little Tree (tm) car freshener

 

*sign* US tanks also have PS controllers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fairly common knowledge.

More propganda ...

[Anonymous Coward]

for the latest recipients of the US' greatest gift - democracy at the end of a barrel. All hail the dead Syrians who have done their bit to raise profits for the US MIC.

Why?

[detritus.]

Why is the ingenuity of Islamic extremist Syrian rebels praised but when the Islamic extremist Palestinians do it, it's an outrage?

Re:Why?

[shutdown -p now]

Not all Syrian rebels are Islamic extremists. Yes, there are many units fighting there that are basically under the aegis of al-Qaeda, but Free Syrian Army is mostly secular. In fact, there have already been clashes between the two.

Over stated protection.

[jklovanc]

A .50 Caliber SLAP round will penetrate 34 mm at 500 meters. I doubt very much that 25 mm of steel will stop a 20mm AP round when it won't stop a .50 cal.

Re:Over stated protection.

[ddd0004]

My thoughts exactly. When I looked at the pictures my first thought is that this thing won't stand up to a .50 caliber or 12.7mm, especially multiple hits in the same area. There are just too many variables to the protection such as the weld quality, steel hardness, angle of impact, etc to make the blanket statement that it can resist up to 23mm cannon file. Seems like that, plus the reduced vision, high profile and most likely reduced mobility, would make that vehicle a death trap.

It's not a tank

[whitroth]

IIRC, from the earliest ones that showed up in WWI, tanks were self-propelled mobile cannon. This is more like an armored fighting vehicle (think cheap hummer or a Bradley), given that it only has a machine gun.

But didn't we see its like every week in the early eighties, about quarter of the hour, after Mr. T had welded steel onto a vehicle? Maybe it should be called the Mr. T Fighting Vehicle.

                mark

Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

The next world war will be fought over technology

So, what?

[unixguy98]

So, what? They are good terrorists? Rebels torture pro-Assad people, kill them by hundreds of Ak-47 bullets. Watch this please. Considering active position of Al-Qaeda between rebels, they're far from being guys who deserve sympathy.
They even have Stinger missiles, so pretending their firepower comes from garbages in junkyard and playstations morphed into next generation warefare is total hypocrisy. Let's hope CIA does not create another Taliban, this time in Syria.

Re:So, what?

[shutdown -p now]

Not all Syrian rebels are Islamic extremists. Yes, there are many units fighting there that are basically under the aegis of al-Qaeda, but Free Syrian Army is mostly secular. In fact, there have already been clashes between the two.

Stop Raining on the Parade

[Anonymous Coward]

So what it doesn't meet modern design specifications for an armoured vehicle?

It is being designed by people in the middle of a war zone with extremely limited resources for crying out loud, of course it isn't going to be on the cutting edge.

The fact that they are being told to get back to the drawing board is laughable...They don't need a weapon in 6 months times after some trial runs and refinement, they need what they can get right now.

Beside all of that, the most important point isn't so much that this is an effective weapon but a symbol. It shows that the rebels are prepared to cobble together an armoured vehicle out of scrap to topple an oppressive regime equipped with what is relatively modern technology.

Ingenuity under adversity, I tip my hat to them.

Joystick options?

[quadelirus]

Sure but can you invert the Y-Axis on the joystick?

Discount D&G shoes,LV shoes,Women Boots,sale

[iueyuqru]

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16, New era cap $12, (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25, free shipping, Accept credit card and (PAYPAL), ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ =====