Robo-tank

Posted on December 3, 2007 | Comments Off on Robo-tank

Calling this thing "a tank" when it clearly has no high-velocity weapon is beyond ridiculous. Do words have no meaning anymore? Just slapping on a gun isn’t the way it’s done, either. Ask the guys who built the Stryker.

This entry was posted in The War and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 responses to “Robo-tank”

  1. SnoopyTheGoon's avatar SnoopyTheGoon | December 4, 2007 at 1:55 am |

    Dunno. A university developing a battle strength weapon…
    Re Stryker: I had my share of sitting in an APC, and hate the mere idea. False comfort.
    Brits are right in this regard: take a jeep, slap a 0.5 on it and four riflemen. Then just go.

  2. SnoopyTheGoon's avatar SnoopyTheGoon | December 4, 2007 at 1:55 am |

    Dunno. A university developing a battle strength weapon…
    Re Stryker: I had my share of sitting in an APC, and hate the mere idea. False comfort.
    Brits are right in this regard: take a jeep, slap a 0.5 on it and four riflemen. Then just go.

  3. Dick Stanley's avatar Dick Stanley | December 4, 2007 at 7:56 am |

    Well, if the air forces can seriously consider man-sized robot aircraft, i.e. an F-15, say, and they are, then I suppose a robot tank isn’t far off. But it could be even harder to develop than a robot fighter plane.

  4. Dick Stanley's avatar Dick Stanley | December 4, 2007 at 7:56 am |

    Well, if the air forces can seriously consider man-sized robot aircraft, i.e. an F-15, say, and they are, then I suppose a robot tank isn’t far off. But it could be even harder to develop than a robot fighter plane.