Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Extruded? Are you sure?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                         

Single man tank.

All this armor talk.
  (+7, -5)
(+7, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

The idea runs off the complexity of today's video games. There are any number of battle simulations where a single person is in control of a very complex machine. Take for instance Mech Warrior. Tons of functions, targeting, fire control and so forth. Since its clear that one person can be highly effective when in lone command, the plus side of a single man main battle tank should be the focus. Auto-loaders have replaced the gunners in french tanks. So no real need for that guy. The greatest flaw in any command is the old grapevine affect. Not so if it is one person in control. There would be one operating position buried under the turret of the gun. This would save a lot of space, doing away with the 3-5 man crew compartment common in most tanks. So there is room for much more armor, more systems, a bigger engine or a larger gun.
10clock, Jun 26 2005

A flying sollution http://www.missiles...oduct-tadspnvs.html
Which could be incorporated to a tank. [Susan, Jun 27 2005]

[link]






       If everyone applied their creativity to build things that CREATE instead of destroying, this would be a better world.
Pericles, Jun 26 2005
  

       This would probably create some dandy explosions.   

       Beyond that, it's hardly original and the mention of the "grapevine [e]ffect" seems to me to have little to do with the reason for such a vehicle. There's still a need for a chain of command.
bristolz, Jun 26 2005
  

       There's also the issue of redundancy.
AbsintheWithoutLeave, Jun 26 2005
  

       weird category.
po, Jun 26 2005
  

       If I was driving this highly automated tank, I think I'd prefer I'd prefer to be doing it from 500 miles away. Put in remote control, and you get my vote.
DrCurry, Jun 27 2005
  

       //There are any number of battle simulations // I think you mean "games".
coprocephalous, Jun 27 2005
  

       If it's not possible to concentrate on the road while talking on a mobile phone, how do you suggest we communicate effectively with the rest of the chain of command while driving a 50-ton tank and operating a 120mm cannon?   

       That is to say, games like mechwarrior are possible because everything is one-touch and predictable. You have one button which says "form on me" or "fire at will". This is fine within the confines of a game, but doesn't allow for the complex interactions necessary in the real world. Reality is less predictable, less clean-cut, and having three minds to focus on three jobs is probably better.
david_scothern, Jun 28 2005
  

       It might be good for the mental health of the soldiers to have more than one person in the tank.
bungston, Jun 28 2005
  

       If everyone applied their creativity to build things that CREATE instead of destroying, being eaten would still be a leading cause of death
theircompetitor, Jun 28 2005
  

       The military now relies in part on "video games" to train soldiers. Advanced radar systems mean that the pilot does not have to physically look behind him.
10clock, Jun 29 2005
  

       // Advanced radar systems mean that the pilot does not have to physically look behind him.//
Or you could fit it with wing-mirrors.
Loris, Jun 29 2005
  

       Perfectly logical and likely to be baked soon enough. Dunno what those bones are all about.
wagster, Jun 29 2005
  

       She waited several weeks for the delivery to arrive: A perfectly packaged single man!
bristolz, Jun 29 2005
  

       /Since its clear that one person can be highly effective when in lone command/ No. Which is better, three pairs of eyes looking for a man with a rocket launcher, or one?
david_scothern, Jun 29 2005
  

       Why does it have to be a 50 ton tank? If only one man is needed for it, shrink the design to meet the same specs just minus the room for the additional crewmembers. This would reduce cost. If you could field five 1 man 10 ton tanks as opposed to one 1 man 50 ton tank you can use squad tactics via radio between tanks and swarm opponents.
Not to mention if you used an identical engine as the 50 ton tank wouldn't you gain a lot in acceleration and maneuvability which would also add to the swarm effect?
Also along the same lines as what [david_scothern] said, you'd have more eyes out looking for anti-tank threats.
scott_r_uber, Sep 12 2005
  

       You have one man flying a 100 million dollar aircraft, I think this is a good idea. I have played the mechwarrior, I think one person could do a much better job. Advanced systems are replacing loaders and other personel. I bet you could make a pretty badass 60 ton single man tank. Or lighter ones in larger numbers.
Antegrity, Feb 13 2007
  

       I thought the Swedes had already almost done this (with a two-man tank).
pertinax, Feb 13 2007
  

       On rereading this, I thought it might be like a think tank, except full of single men, doing stuff that single men do, in a tank.
bungston, Feb 14 2007
  

       Actually, they're doing something like this. The Future Combat Systems concept is remotely controlled mini-tanks, one operator per tank.
Voice, Apr 03 2008
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle