this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
74 points (98.7% liked)

Ukraine

8306 readers
617 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW

Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam
  6. No content against Finnish law

Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia converted a captured Ukrainian tank into a remote controlled vehicle that uses a similar FPV control concept as many kamikaze drones.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tal 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

My kneejerk response when I saw this was "it probably doesn't make a lot of sense", in that a tank is designed for human use.

Like, a lot of the constraints that tanks are built to are because they need to have humans onboard.

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.

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.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 22 points 5 months ago

RF interference to disable tank, infantry trooper jumps in, rips out rc electronics, now has a new ride.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 months ago

Don't you need to have tanks for that?

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Great! Another job AI will take over

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Warfare is also always a technical competition on who can build the next ultimate deterrent. Remote and AI controlled weapons are soon the big advantage