Like, if you don't need people onboard, you'd build a tank differently. You could make the thing a lot smaller. Same reason that, for example, UAVs generally don't look a lot like manned aircraft.

But one thing that I did wonder about...I know that Russia has a number of really elderly tanks. They've been reactivating T-54s. Those are not going to have great protection against modern weapons on the modern battlefield. But...if they aren't great in their original role, but could be converted to be unmanned, make them more-attritable, that might make more sense.

The article also mentioned the possibility of converting "older vehicles" at the very end (though it spent more time talking about specialized unmanned vehicles, like mine-rollers).

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

but when did they care about human life before the military material? They never hesitate to send people to their death so I don't see why they would develop this, or they start getting low on meatbag?

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

They have had manpower issues. You don’t trick Cubans and people from South Asia to fight for you if you have a glut of domestic soldiers

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m pretty sure T-54s don’t have autoloaders, and that’s a significant (and likely deeply un-economical) retrofit.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Still could see some use though, in that if they're not very combat capable anyway, driving them around potentially makes one expend ammo firing at them, and any mines they might hit would be detonated without human casualty.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

Frankly, it would be more useful to just use them as short-range artillery than that. Single-shot RC tanks sound like they’d be a complete waste.