Slashdot Mirror


British Army Looking For Gamers For Their Smart-Tanks

concertina226 writes The U.K. branch of global defense firm General Dynamics is working on a futuristic state-of-the-art smart-tank to replace the British Army's aging armored vehicle fleet, to be delivered to the Ministry of Defense in 2020. The Scout SV armored vehicle is the first fully-digitized armored fighting vehicle to have been built for the British Army, and is far bigger and more durable than any of its existing tanks, which are now at least 20 years old. The tank comes in six variants that can be customized with a tools for different missions, and has numerous sensors, cameras, and sights to offer real-time intelligence on weather conditions, target acquisition, and reconnaissance — all crucial battlefield data required by commanders to access and direct situations. "With the capability in the Scout SV, we're really looking for the type of people who play Xbox games – tech-savvy people who are able to take in a lot of information and process it in the proper way," says Kevin Connell, the vice president for General Dynamic UK's Land Systems Regiment.

163 comments

  1. Sign me up by Tyr07 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I consider myself capable of flying or driving anything from remote aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, and tanks in a remote setting.

    1. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do understand that it isn't the Slashdot editors that are recruiting for this position don't you?

    2. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Recruit me for a gay sex position. Fire in my hole!

    3. Re:Sign me up by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh god how embarassing. I totally thought that if I made a random post online to slashdot that British military personal would come to Canada, knock on my door and recruit me.

      How do you even keyboard?

    4. Re:Sign me up by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Of course, as a Canadian citizen you're actually perfectly eligible for the British Army. Don't think they recruit so much in Canada but they certainly take on plenty South Africans and Australians (never mind the Fijians & Tongans).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Sign me up by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      That was not made clear in any way in the article. I was actually preparing my curriculum!

      (No harm done. I barely got to "Mario Kart Legendary driver.")

    6. Re:Sign me up by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      You play a lot of video games with just one life?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day they'll learn it isn't a game. And you and (unlikely) your kids will feel it.

    8. Re:Sign me up by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1

      Ever had the feeling something just went past you so fast as to leave you confused as to what it was exactly?!

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    9. Re:Sign me up by Tyr07 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I don't actually enjoy games that have respawn nearly as much as ones that don't, or have expensive consequences.

      E.G I love Eve online, losing a ship is expensive, it doesn't respawn, you have to buy another one, full cost. Except if your alliance helps you out.

      Or games like diablo 3, hard core mode only.
      Simulation mode in war thunder, planes and tanks get a single life.

      I wish there were more games that had that consequence that makes you really not want to die or lose your assets, but a lot of people don't go for it.

    10. Re:Sign me up by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      You do understand that it isn't the Slashdot editors that are recruiting for this position don't you?

      Of course not -- it's their Dice overlords.

    11. Re:Sign me up by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      20K+ battles in world of tanks, one life per battle. Why anyone would WANT to play for real is beyond me.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Sign me up by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I got myself a pretty nice ship in EVE. Tanked-to-hell Hyperion for use in PvP - it would have been able to take a severe beating, and dished out a decent DPS too.

      It was so expensive, I could never risk actually taking it out the hanger.

    13. Re:Sign me up by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Yet not New Jerseyans. We were a colony too y'know!

    14. Re:Sign me up by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Diablo 3 Hardcore is a fundamentally broken mode, I wouldnt use that as an example. The only way hardcore could possibly work is in offline mode only.

      --
      Good-bye
    15. Re:Sign me up by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Because...internet can get you killed?

    16. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a good setup for movie.
      "yer a tank driver Mike!"

    17. Re:Sign me up by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Simply swear allegiance to Her Majesty and I'm sure we'd welcome you back with open arms ;)

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    18. Re:Sign me up by camperdave · · Score: 1

      One life? Tanks usually have a crew of three or four people: commander, driver, gunner, and ammo-jockey.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... just wow. Not a whoosh, more like a sonic boom.

    20. Re:Sign me up by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, I don't actually enjoy games that have respawn nearly as much as ones that don't, or have expensive consequences.

      I've played games where you don't respawn, for example Nethack. Can't say the no-respawn trait is either good or bad; it is a trade-off. Battles can be much more exciting when you know that it's game over if you lose. Except when that makes you so paranoid that you fight the weakest of creatures because you'll never win if you seek challenging fights. So when you can't afford to lose, the winning strategy is to refuse challenging fights.

      Whereas when there's no consequences to losing a battle, you go for whatever is funnest, or most challenging, or has the best effort/reward ratio. But it could lead to apathy.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    21. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You be careful here; We are not going to accept any responsibility for telling them how to deal with their debts without them first accepting an HM Governor as their highest authority. Oh, and they have stop the silly french/freedom fries thing and change to calling them chips before we'll even consider opening negotiations.

    22. Re:Sign me up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would recommend Path of Exile hardcore. That game was designed with hardcore in mind. There are daily hardcore races and number of interesting modes of play so you might want to give it a shot.

      For those who don't know Eve online ships have insurance which does make your life quiet a bit easier depending on the ship.

  2. remember when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when games were entertainment, instead of blatant propaganda for military recruitment?

    Thanks for ruining an art form, fascists.

    1. Re:remember when by captjc · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I miss the wholesome arcade games of the 80's, like Battlezone, Red Barron, Scramble, Rush 'N Attack, and Missile Command. No military propaganda there. Nope.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    2. Re:remember when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last. Star. Fighter.

    3. Re:remember when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed all those, as I was mass killing aliens in space invaders and popping pills in pac man.

    4. Re:remember when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Greetings, Starfighter. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan armada.

    5. Re:remember when by westlake · · Score: 1

      Remember when games were entertainment, instead of blatant propaganda for military recruitment?

      Back in the day, Doom wads were used for Marine training and recruitment. America's Army was first released in 2002.

  3. Great by fleeped · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's increase the mental distance between killing people. "With the capability in the Scout SV, we're really looking for the type of people who play Xbox games – tech-savvy people who are able to take in a lot of information and process it in the proper way," AKA: "With the capability in the Scout SV, we're really looking for the type of people who play Xbox games – trigger-happy twitchy gamers who are able to follow commands, complete objectives, ask no questions, question no commands. No critical thinking required"

    1. Re:Great by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Actually, modern full scale combat is going a long way towards reducing the number of people who will be killed in conflict. The point of ground warfare is to take and dominate ground and systems like this make it happen more quickly and efficiently. That's a good thing.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Civilizans.Always.Die.Horribly

      You can't ever forget that.

      All war, in all cases, by any nation, for any reason, results in the murder of innocents.

      Always.

      It will NEVER be clean, and pretty, and nice. It's war. War is death.

    3. Re:Great by fleeped · · Score: 1

      Uhm yes, and when your enemy is not as technologically advanced, you can blast them in the old fashioned way.
      Even if they are, it's not like they're gonna have a huge arrow pointing at the command center or whatever. Of course in such cases, you can always do pre-emptive strikes.
      What do you think? It's gonna be a team deathmatch, and the losers move away from the computers? Dream on.

    4. Re:Great by fleeped · · Score: 1

      You can always incapacitate rather than destroy/kill. A rocket is not selective. But I guess tech for incapacitating people is reserved only for civil unrest/disorder. Those bloody foreigners? Yeah, oops sorry, our rocket missed.

    5. Re:Great by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      Actually, modern full scale combat is going a long way towards reducing the number of people who will be killed in conflict. The point of ground warfare is to take and dominate ground and systems like this make it happen more quickly and efficiently. That's a good thing.

      No, it's reducing the number of combatants killed in conflict. The amount of 'collateral damage' (aka civilian deaths) continues to increase exponentially.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    6. Re:Great by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "That's a good thing".....for the hyper-dominant side.

      BTW "Modern full scale combat" is a nuclear holocaust, and yes, it would almost certainly put an end to human conflict forever.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Great by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Not really. Armies today usually go to a lot of trouble to avoid killing civilians, if only because it's really bad politically. Compare to WW2, when Nazi and Allied forces alike were eager to carpet-bomb entire cities in order to diminish the enemy's manufacturing capability. America went further, and droped nuclear bombs.

      I imagine though that, in the event of a truly existance-threatening war like that, the 'no civilian deaths' ideal would be swiftly abandoned. If your country is at stake you can't afford to hold back, you do whatever it takes to gain an advantage.

    8. Re:Great by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, it'd put an end to human conflict for about four hours. That's how long it would take for the survivors to form into groups and start shooting each other over supplies.

    9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiroshima - 80K killed in a day.
      Afganastan 21K killed in a decade.

    10. Re:Great by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Estimates of civilian casualties from the 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath vary significantly, but many are of the same order of magnitude as the deaths caused at Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the nuclear weapons were used.

      I'm not sure modern warfare is as good at avoiding collateral damage as you seem to be suggesting. The causes of those civilian deaths might not be the same mechanically, but it's no less a tragedy if an innocent person dies as a side effect of some military action rather than directly by taking a bullet.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    11. Re:Great by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Maybe in terms of raw numbers, but only because there are more people now.

      Look up how many civilian casualties there were when the Mongols under Genghis Khan were invading neighboring countries. If anything there's a tendency for modern civilizations to be far less cruel in terms of harm to civilians. Yeah, it still happens, but most aren't going out of their way to run up the body count.

      One could also point out that a lot of these civilian deaths are needless because one side of the conflict often refuses to fight conventionally (not that it's in their interest to do so) and hides amongst civilians or otherwise launches military operations from civilian-inhabited areas hoping that this will prevent retaliation.

    12. Re:Great by juanfgs · · Score: 0

      Bonus: they not only kill enemies but they tell them how they fucked their mom last night too.

    13. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? Do you really believe that? Try googling something along the lines of "predator drone civilian casualties," and have your mind blown. Because that's what modern war looks like. We've never fought a ground war against another major power since Korea, only countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Bosnia. "Modern full scale combat" isn't going to happen between any major countries, because if it does, best hope your fallout shelter is well stocked and ready to go. Even countries like North Korea and Iran are getting nukes lately.

      The invasion of Iraq is probably going to be the biggest and most fair war that will be fought from here on out. At the rate things are going, the "lower casualties" will be on the superpower's side, the little third-world countries' armies will be getting slaughtered by merciless robot soldiers for what resources they have the misfortune to own.

    14. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said Iraq and you know it. 130k
      https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    15. Re:Great by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Well it'd soon calm down, at least temporarily.

      Anyone wandering around in the open 4 hours after a can of instant sunshine has landed is going to literally shit their arse inside out in very short order.

      I see what you're getting at though. I forget the exact quote, but it was along the lines of WW4 will be fought with bows and arrows.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Great by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      ger-happy twitchy gamers who are able to follow commands, complete objectives, ask no questions, question no commands.

      Don't forget Achievements!

  4. No respawns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Driving a tank is probably the stupidest thing you can do in a war, short of being an infantryman.

    1. Re:No respawns by u38cg · · Score: 1

      In this day and age? Who do you think the British Army is going up against with anything comparable? Last time they fought a serious tank war they had to take it slowly so the rest of the army could keep up. It can be stressful at times, and shitting in a bucket in front of your mates isn't great, but it's certainly not the worst gig a soldier can get into.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:No respawns by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

      Except maybe for the head wounds (commanders), severed hands/fingers (loaders and gunners), and the occasional hand-held ATGM.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    3. Re:No respawns by RenderSeven · · Score: 2

      Best job I ever had.

    4. Re:No respawns by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How the fucking hell would the gunner get severed hand or fingers? He's nowhere near the sodding breech, you pillock.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:No respawns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving a tank is probably the stupidest thing you can do in a war, short of being an infantryman.

      I think in Vietnam the shortest time of survival was for helicopter pilots. I knew someone who started the training and then dropped it for that reason.

    6. Re:No respawns by matfud · · Score: 1

      In british callenger 2 tanks he is. It is manually loaded.

      But I have no idea if that can cause fingers to get stuck and severed.

  5. What they are really looking for is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xbox gamers who would like to die a really horrible death trapped in a metal box.
    I guess that is one way of reducing the number of peasants in this world.

    1. Re:What they are really looking for is... by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Xbox gamers who would like to die a really horrible death trapped in a metal box.

      As I understand it, very few have died inside a tank in recent history.

      As far as I can see on my quick Googling, the British Army has never lost a Challenger 2 tank, despite being battered in various warzones. Some US Abrams tanks have been lost in Iraq, however. (According to this page at least.)

  6. People who play xbox are not tech savvy by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

    Both because there is no direct relation between being able to operate a machine designed to be as intuitively to operate as possible and actually having tech skills and because if they were they would be playing the PS4, which is technologically superior.

    1. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      By your logic, people who drive Ferraris are better mechanics.

    2. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      No, because the price differential between ferraris and other cars is vastly greater than that between xbones and PS4s.

    3. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by dave420 · · Score: 0

      Your logic: you have none.

    4. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, if they had technical skills they would be playing on a PC.

    5. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      If I had no logic, then this sentence could not contain a conditional.

    6. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Just because you can write a conditional like, if(1=2), it doesn't mean you have any logic.

      Or my personal favorite, if pineapple then kangaroo.

    7. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by camperdave · · Score: 1

      No, if they had technical skills they would be playing on a PC.

      No, if they had technical skills they would be playing on a linux or BSD box, with an arduino project on the side. FTFY

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:People who play xbox are not tech savvy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaming on BSD? Really?

      I guess if all you want to play is nethack that might work.

  7. Mech warrior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "comes in six variants that can be customized with a tools for different missions"

    Sounds like mech warrior.

    1. Re:Mech warrior by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Well hell, now I'm in.

  8. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    A recoil effect from a 40mm barrel on a 30+-ton vehicle? That can't possibly be so extreme that mere inertia couldn't handle it.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  9. Ambiguity, or change one word by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    British Army Looking For Gamers For Their Smart-Tanks

    Well they can't have my smart tank. They can build their own!

    British Army Looking For Gamers With Their Smart-Tanks

    Now that's a headline.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Ambiguity, or change one word by dasacc22 · · Score: 1

      British Army Looking For Gamers With Their Smart-Tanks

      Now that's a headline.

      Indeed it is, smart-tanks roaming the UK streets looking for gamers would certainly headline most anywhere.

    2. Re:Ambiguity, or change one word by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Ambiguity, or change one word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I read that they wanted gamers for a think-tank....

  10. Civilian like typing detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a tank, it's an APC. It's replacing Warrior not Challenger II. I assume it's the Media version of "any automatic weapon = AK47" translated to "any military vehicle with tracks = tank".

    1. Re:Civilian like typing detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your're complaining about pedantry on Slashdot? You must be new here.

  11. PWNED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breaking News : ISIS noob pwned by BritGod994

  12. Maybe in a year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll wait for the PC port.

    1. Re:Maybe in a year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Port? This is the army, not the navy! We don't do ports.

  13. No they're not by duplo · · Score: 4, Informative

    They say they want creative soldiers, but they will not achieve this.

    The minute they join recruit school, they will have all creativeness beaten out of their brains. The only way to do things correctly in the military is to follow a procedure.

    By the time they are in a position of making a decision to use their creativity, they are too old and now there is 8 ranks beneath and 2 above them acting to inhibit their creativity.

    It won't happen.

    1. Re:No they're not by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your experience of fighting forces is, and maybe that's the experience you had if you did serve, but it certainly is not mine. The larger part of soldiering is solving problems under constraints.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:No they're not by dltaylor · · Score: 2

      Being wildly creatvie is, however, still discouraged. The men (in the infantry), vehicle commanders, wingmen (in the air) must have some idea what you're going to do, or just you trip over, or kill, each other. Don't know where you're from, but think Amercan football: the defence is typically the more "creative" side of the line of scrimmage; but there are still "plays" (coverage for pass receivers, stunts in the line, blitzes by linebackers and/or defensive backs); yes, it is necessary to adapt to what the offeense is trying to do, quickly and on-the-fly, but missing your assignment while being overly creative more often than not results in good things for the offence.

    3. Re:No they're not by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      You're confusing Enlisted personnel for the entirety of the military. They hope for creatives to join the officer corps.

    4. Re:No they're not by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      That's why smart enlistees go into the Navy or the Chair Force. Officers (mainly pilots) do the lion's share of the dying.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  14. Stone age? by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

    the tank can carry six men each up to 6'6" (198cm) tall and weighing up to 16 stone (101kg, 224 pounds)

    For such a modern tank the measurement units seem like they came from the stone age.

    1. Re:Stone age? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      the tank can carry six men each up to 6'6" (198cm) tall and weighing up to 16 stone (101kg, 224 pounds)

      For such a modern tank the measurement units seem like they came from the stone age.

      Exactly. Tanks containing men? I thought they were all ROVs and UGVs these days.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Stone age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish at some the UK would bite the bullet and convert to metric.

      During some combined military exercise here in Canada, we had much fun with them converting weight allowance on vehicules.

      Its the 21st century for fudge sake!

  15. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So you are asserting that on soft mud, the recoil effect won't cause a 1% error for subsequent shots?

  16. Surely not the "largest" tank? by tomalpha · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    the largest and smartest tank ever designed for the British Army

    So my first thought was surely not - the Challenger 2 is a main battle tank and must be bigger. But it turns out I was wrong. The Challenger 2 is still 20 tonnes heavier, but significantly shorter in height:

    Challenger 2: Length 27ft 3 x Height 8ft 2 x Width 11 ft 6
    Scout SV: Length: 25ft x Height: 9ft 10in x Width: 11ft

    Crudely multiplying those numbers to get an approximation of volume gives the Scout SV the edge (just).

    1. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Also, the Challenger 2 isn't 20 years old yet. It's been in service only since 1998.

      The Challenger 2 is still 20 tonnes heavier, but significantly shorter in height:

      I thought that was the point with tanks? They tend towards short to reduce the frontal area (harder to hit) and to make it easier to hide behind bits of terrain.

      Given the look of this thing it looks like it's more designed to replace the Warrior.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by tlambert · · Score: 2

      From TFA:

      the largest and smartest tank ever designed for the British Army

      Surely, instead of spending money on smart tanks, they should have all those former Nokia employees laid off by Microsoft build them feature tanks instead?

      PS: I'm still wondering why they need soldiers *inside* then, rather than having them be drive-by-wire, just like airborne drones?

    3. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by tomalpha · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. It just seemed counter intuitive to me. I had a (perhaps naive) belief that things like the Challenger or Abrams were the largest armoured vehicles on the battlefield.

    4. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Why larger at all? Why not make it remote controlled, small, but have a big gun on board with a handful of shots loaded in it. Then, instead of using just 10 of them, you use a couple of hundred. Sure, each one is 'easily' neutralised by relatively small weapons, but the fleet would be hard to stop, and any one member of the fleet would be sufficiently deadly to cause your enemy problems.

    5. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      1. The Scout SV is not a tank.
      2. The size of a tank is not measured by volume but by weight.
      3. The article is just flat out terrible as far as accuracy.

      Since the two item are no where near a cube in shape going for L,W,H is just not a good plan.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Carrier Fleet like Starcraft. Very powerful swarming tactics.

    7. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Tracked vehicle, rotating turrent with big gun on it. It may not actually be a tank by the technical definition, but the mistake is understandable.

      It looks from the pictures like the turret is optional.

      I don't know why it has space for a crew of six. I'd have thought one of the big advantages of the digital control system would be allowing a reduction in crew size. Maybe they want it to double as a very-armored personel carrier?

    8. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it has space for a crew of six. [...] Maybe they want it to double as a very-armored personel carrier?

      They don't want it to have a crew of six, they want it to carry six infantry. This is an IFV, a replacement for the Warrior. It is not a tank.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    9. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Talderas · · Score: 2

      A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.

      IFV vs APC is a function of the purpose of the armament on the vehicle. For something to be classed as an IFV is must have a 20mm armament and its armament must be used in a direct fire support role. APCs are unarmed or have armament for self-defense.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    10. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I thought that might be the case. The article doesn't make it clear - it says there is space for six, but not if all six are required. It's the name again - tanks aren't usually considered as a means of transporting people around, but this isn't really a tank.

    11. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Archtech · · Score: 1

      That's because Scout SV isn't a tank - as someone already pointed out, it's essentially an armed personnel carrier. (Otherwise known as a "tank target" - one shot from a real tank and it dissolves in a ball of fire).

      I was surprised at first when I read TFA, then I quickly realised this is just the "facts don't matter" school of journalism - in which writers use technical terms in any way they fancy, and don't bother to do any research. As in the recurrent use of "battleship" to mean "warship", or "warplane" to mean "a fighter, bomber, or ground attack aircraft but I couldn't be bothered to find out which".

      If anyone is old enough to remember the Falklands War, it was either hysterically amusing or very annoying (depending on your temperament) to see the media for months on end describing "Belgrano" as a battleship. (In fact, she was a war-surplus WW2 US light cruiser, similar to HMS Belfast which is parked in the River Thames near the Tower of London to this day).

      And before the usual suspects start calling me a "pedant" - as if that were a bad thing - just remember that experts in any field have specialist terminology, and misusing it is a sure-fire way to create confusion and error. Imagine if it were software that was being discussed. "Sure, Mr Pedant - constant, variable, whatever".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    12. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      A crew of 6 for an IFV is bizzare. 3 is usually sufficient (commander, driver, gunner) but they contain room for usually 6 soldiers as well for 9 men in the vehicle.

      I heard they were going to automate away two of those three crew, but the lefties complained about the loss of jobs, so they kept them and added three more.

    13. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      rotating turrent with big gun on it.

      A 40mm gun is not "big" considering the Challenger2 has a 120mm gun. Please note that the difference is not 3 times but, because the barrel is round, the difference in size is closer to 9 times. A 40mm round would bounce of the front side and rear of any main battle tank in use today. But what about aircraft that use 20mm and 30mm rounds? They penetrate the top of the tank where there is much less armour than the sides they also fire much faster which chews through the armour.

    14. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      27 times.

      Unless higher calibre shells are shaped like discs, which they aren't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      They also have not been shaped like spheres for a long time.

    16. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At least it's got the right number of dimensions.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Surely not the "largest" tank? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "It may not actually be a tank by the technical definition, but the mistake is understandable."
      For a commentor on slashdot yes. For an average person on the street yes. For a journalist no, they get paid for accurate reporting.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  17. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    No, I'm asserting that with an actively stabilized turret, if the firing computer can't deal with these perturbations, there's a design error somewhere in it.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  18. Recruiting puff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "With the capability in the Scout SV, we're really looking for the type of people who play Xbox games"

    The British Army - finding jobs for grunts since before the Battle of Hastings

    1. Re:Recruiting puff by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There was no such thing as the British Army until about 6 centuries later, you fat twat.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. General Hammond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if you are selected. Will they beam you up to their spaceship?

    1. Re:General Hammond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good God, SGU was the C Team. No wonder they needed some fat lazy gamer to save their asses.

  20. Any else thinking of Gary Larsen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember this one: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QMuDihPPyPA/TFBCC4Wv0qI/AAAAAAAANpU/qiFZoulx9cU/s1600/farside-hopeful-parents.gif ... parents watching kid playing nintendo and dreaming of a well-paid career as a result. Now it's not just pro-gamers in Korea, but the army :-)

  21. I Suggested systems like this years ago by NicholasGlendening · · Score: 4, Funny

    And the tanker I was talking to said that a tank was far too complex for one person to control. To that I replied "Fighter jet." He got rather angry for some reason...

    1. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Well, he wasn't wrong. In a fighter jet, the task of driving/flying is vastly simpler than on land, so it's easier to combine driving and targeting. When you're flying, all you have to do is a. not hit the ground and b. point the aircraft in the general direction of the enemy. Weapons are mostly fire-and-forget to minimize pilot workload.
      On the ground, there's lots of micromanagement in steering around obstacles, reading the soil to make sure you don't get stuck in a bog etc. In a tank, you have the added complication that the main gun points in a different direction than the vehicle which makes is hard to combine driving and targeting. And the main weapon is unguided, so targeting is manual.

    2. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by Archtech · · Score: 1

      "He got rather angry for some reason..."

      I can't imagine why - it was your own ignorance you were exposing. Fighter aircraft are too small to carry more than one (or, at most, two) crew. Otherwise they are big, slow, unmanoeuvrable, and shot down. The F-14 Tomcat featured in "Top Gun" is a 2-seater, mainly because it was designed for naval use and flying long distances over featureless ocean is difficult and dangerous for a lone pilot. WW2 demonstrated that 2-seater "heavy fighters" like the Me110 didn't fare at all well in combat with smaller, more responsive planes like the Spitfire. That conclusion has never changed since.

      Tanks, by contrast, weigh many times more and function rather more slowly. Hence the tradeoff is different, and usually favours a crew of around 3-5. Again, at the start of WW2 some (otherwise very good) French tanks suffered badly because the commander also had to load and fire a main gun. While doing that, he generally lost track of the tactical situation with often disastrous results. The T-34/76, too, had only 2 men in its turret which left the commander to handle the gun - a failing which was remedied with the T-34/85.

      Apart from anything else, in most tanks the driver sits in a compartment in the front of the hull, while other crew members are in the turret.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      WW2 demonstrated that 2-seater "heavy fighters" like the Me110 didn't fare at all well in combat with smaller, more responsive planes like the Spitfire. That conclusion has never changed since.

      It totally has changed, ever since dogfights with guns became a last resort rather than the normal method of engagement.

      With modern BVR weapons, manoeuvrability is far outshadowed by the usefulness of a second brain to deal with radar, targeting, navigation etc.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you, both the French and the Russians came up with another solution as well - autoloaders. Modern tanks have automated the fire control as well. Since the aiming and driving is still decoupled, you probably will continue to have a driver/commander setup, but 2-man operation should be the norm. The fact that tanks are slower and weigh many times more was (partially) caused by the need for a large crew inside a lot of armour plating. With less volume to protect, there's also less need for armor, which decreases weight, which allows for a smaller engine, etc - the costs of a third crew member really are quite high.

    5. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was the A10. A plane designed around a gun.

      30mm but fing huge.

      The closest I can get are ww2 aircraft that had 40mm cannon. Nothing like the 120mm long rod penitrators or even HESH that MBT use.
       

    6. Re:I Suggested systems like this years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain is a bit of an oddity.
      The callenger 2 has a rifled barrel unlike most NATO countries (smooth bore). It is also manually loaded with 2/3 part amunition.
      I'm not sure why they have done this.

      The scout is an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) not a tank. I think the swedish CV90 (even old) is probably a better replacement for a warrior. But then I am not paying for it.

  22. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I thought the vehicle in question had an unstabilized turret.

  23. You forgot one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does Contra not make this list?

  24. Perfect! by Dreth · · Score: 2

    If they get pwn3d they can blame it on lag.

    --
    All glory to Arstotzka!
  25. Re: Last Starfighter all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But...but Ender's Game!

  26. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    A real tank from 1940, maybe.

    A current real tank firing solution makes movement (including momentum, terrain influence and recoil) of tank, turret and weapon, completely transparent for the gunner.

  27. Bigger??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have thought bigger was equivalent to dead on a modern battle field.

    1. Re:Bigger??? by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      Yeah... what about swarms of small autonomous/remote controlled tanks. They could work something like they do in Starcraft 2.

  28. What gaming is really about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Training the soldiers of the future? Who would have known? Just like patriotism was the root cause of WWI, will gaming be the root cause of WWIII?

    1. Re:What gaming is really about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WW3 started over a decade ago.

  29. xbox gamers only? by danknight48 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I drove tanks, flew planes and helicopters, even had control of power sources.

    Urban Assault http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    Wasted talent sitting here, wasted.
    If only i had an Xbox with ultra realistic autoaim/autopilot gameplay (sarcasm)....

    1. Re:xbox gamers only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah really what is with the Lamebox requirement. There are wargames on other systems as well.

  30. SJWs and ISIS by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Hey, if it keeps them out of 8chan and harrassing women on the internet, I'm all for it.

    Maybe this is the ideal job for #GamerGaters. They'd get to kill people by remote control.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  31. You are sooo right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I played Red Baron, I BEGGED the West German Air Force to take me! I imagined fighting Russian MIGSwith my Red Triplane.

    Missile Command.? You bet! I BEGGED my senator to be appointed to the Air Force Academy so that I could eventually get into NORAD and defend America and Canada from Russian nukes. On my entrance essay, I said so? I am a 'C' student but just look at my score on Missile Command!

    My stupid senator passed me over and sent some dork who got a 1500+ on his SATs (back when 1600 was the top score) and was quarterback on his HS football team. And pfft! He ended up working on the Thunderbirds - a fucking puppet show!!

    Life is unfair and they pass over exceptional talents such as me.

    Next up, I'll explain how IBM passed me by for Lou Gerstner for CEO even though I kicked his ass BIG time at Packman!

  32. The Last Starfighter by coldsalmon · · Score: 1
  33. Childish level of Journalism by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    The International Business Times should be ashamed. This is not a Tank it is an Armored Fighting Vehicle. They even start off calling it that and then just start calling it a tank.
    This is actually more of a scouting vehicle and would have a pretty short life span if it had to fight a tank in the open.
    This is a tank
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
    Notice the much larger main gun.
    As you can see it is also much larger aka heavier than the Scout SV.
    I mean really do they not check any facts at all? Do they not bother to ask an expert in the subject before the publish?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Childish level of Journalism by rossdee · · Score: 1

      " This is not a Tank it is an Armored Fighting Vehicle."

      Tank is a subset of Armoured Fighting Vehicle

      This appears to be a Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle (another subset of Armoured Fighting Vehicle

      They carry a number of infantry who can fire from withting the vehicle, have a smaller gun than a tank (which is designed to engage other light Armoured Vehicles and fortifications, and the troops can also get out and go and break the door down.

      A modern western army is unlikely to have to fight other tanks since they would be taken out by aircraft or helicopters.

    2. Re:Childish level of Journalism by Talderas · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be pedantic us proper terms. Tanks are armored fighting vehicles. The specific vehicle in the article is an infantry fighting vehicle which is also an armored fighting vehicle. Armored fighting vehicles basically include anything that is motorized and used in combat so tanks, IFVs, APCs, armored cars, self-propelled artillery, and others.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:Childish level of Journalism by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      True and it would be just fine for an average person to use tank for this.
      It is not okay for a journalist to put it into print.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Childish level of Journalism by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "A modern western army is unlikely to have to fight other tanks since they would be taken out by aircraft or helicopters."
      The US did in both gulf wars.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  34. Unfortunately gamers are dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read Gawker and Gamasutra and I know this to be so. Killed because they were a bunch of misogynist neck-bearded fascists, apparently. Even the female ones.

  35. Recruiter Bait. by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2

    This sounds like the garbage that any military recruiter will spew to entice you to sign up. "Oooh! You're really good! We need your hawt leetness! What? You didn't get a position in the Scout SV playing real life video games. Eat it soldier, you'll serve where you're told."

  36. My answer is Koreans. by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    They need to recruit Starcraft playing Koreans.... these dudes lay smackdown on the rest of the world. Over 1/2 of the worlds top 100 players are Korean I believe.

  37. Fine by me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As long as nobody gets the bright idea to treat them for PTSD with "Depression Quest".

  38. Re:We regret to inform you... by fleeped · · Score: 1

    Incapacitate en-mass, kill the ones that are *actually with intention to kill you*. Choice quote for you: Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

  39. I assume they protected the sensors against EMP by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    As a recent article in IEEE Spectrum discusses, Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapons, such as those depicted in the movie Oceans Eleven, have become more capable. They can wipe out electronics with no visible signature. EMPs might be deployed either as portable weapons, dropped from a plane or fixed booby traps

    1. Re:I assume they protected the sensors against EMP by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The article is so full of errors, I'm not even going to bother pointing them all out.

      You can't fry a tank with a portable EMP system. The most you could do would be to jam the radio with an old-fashioned transmitter - certainly a concern, but not a new one,

    2. Re:I assume they protected the sensors against EMP by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should probably consider keeping it safe, by, I don't know, building a big metal cage around it.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  40. So Hard Finding Tanks by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Now if they were looking for DPS, they'd have recruits coming out the ass!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  41. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well we pretty much programmed the population to accept this form of entertainment...Enders Game?

  42. Tea! by Sqweegee · · Score: 2

    I was relieve to see that the tank still comes with the ability for the crew to make tea. An important armored fighting innovation the British have had in all their tanks since WWII! (background about 20s into the video)

  43. Not a tank by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    This is not a tank, it's an IFV.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  44. It's not a tank by plsuh · · Score: 1

    Geez how the press gets this sort of thing so wrong. It's not a tank, it's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). It's lightly armored against small arms and small-bore auto-cannon rounds, not against ATGMs, tank main guns, or RPGs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The weight at 34 tonnes is much less than that of any current front-line tank (according to Wikipedia the Challenger 2 is 62.5 tonnes, almost double the Scout SV). It is a lot heavier than most current IFV's (e.g., the German Marder at 28 tonnes or BMP-3 at 18.7 tonnes), but that may not be such a good thing. It makes strategic mobility more of a problem and ensures that the Scout SV can't swim across rivers by itself.

    Some reporter just cut and pasted from the press release. Feh!

    --Paul

  45. Recruit professional gamers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of professional gamers are making >100K/year, it may be investigating if they are worth hiring for remotely operating these vehicles. If someone can beat out millions of gamers with high paced actions per second and micro and macro coordination, they would seem to be a good fit.

  46. Arming the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we really want halo jumping, dolphin diving mouth breathers wielding real weapons. Just when I thought war couldn't get any worse.

  47. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    The Bofors 40mm AA gun of WW2 vintage was commonly mounted on a trailer - much lighter than a tank.

    It would have been useless as an AA weapon if it was bouncing around all over the place when it was fired.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  48. This will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, it did help defeat the Ko-Dan Armada

  49. I Suggested systems like this years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Find me a Fighter Jet that can mount the tank's main gun on a turret. And has the *potential* to survive a direct hit from said main gun.

  50. Toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Toys is an even closer analog: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105629/

  51. They better rethink this by random+coward · · Score: 1

    They better rethink this before the SJW's destroy gaming and dry up their recruiting pool.

  52. Actually no..... by BellyJelly · · Score: 1

    The SV is definitely not "far bigger and more durable than any of its existing tanks", being quite a bit lighter than the Challenger 2's 60+ tonnes. It's is certainly bigger and heavier than the CVR(T) series vehicles it is intended to directly replace, although there are many who say that a vehicle who's primary mission is reconnaisance should not be a 40 tonne tank.

  53. its a hybrid light tank / micva by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    no way can this do the MBT role the image is of a recce vehicle with some 30mm pop gun - and 6 man crew wtf the dropped the 5th man after ww2

  54. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you notice the huge legs the trailer had?

    Anyway a much different weapon and its choice has been criticised.

  55. Re:Last Starfighter all over again by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Nonetheless, recoil control is a solved problem since anyone alive can remember.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."