TheRPGSite

So, I am one of those military handicapped people who just cannot keep that stuff in my head so I thought I would see if anyone on here knew a lot about it. I am working on a setting called Future Skein and Cyber Skein where automated weapons (using A.I.) rise up and beat the crap out of humanity.

On Future Weapons last night they had a remote "cargo" carrier that had a lot of really good navigation logic allowing it to be told to go here to there and it can make all kinds of decisions along the way. They are supposedly fuel efficient using hybrid motors and still pretty powerful. There was a lot of talk about using them for recon (a driver can remote pilot them and run all the cameras and such) but no one seemed interested in slapping armor and a cannon on them and sending them into the field. Struck me as strange.

So, the questions for those in the know:

1. Are we headed towards a much more automated battlefield in the near future? 20 years? 10? 5? I am behind the curve and it was yesterday?

2. Do you think automation will ever replace the tank commander and crew? Just the crew with the commander in a remote bunker?

3. Do you think this will be a First World weapon and go against traditional troops in less developed country or will it become the type of thing that even war oriented, less developed countries would get?

4. Do you think face recognition and IFF transponders will be built into such machines so that if infantry comes along and need ammo they could have access to the sizable potential cargo space on these machines? I was just thinking that would be a cool point in a future adventure that the party could get magic codes to allow access to s defunct cargo carrier.

So, any tank experts?

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt1. Are we headed towards a much more automated battlefield in the near future? 20 years? 10? 5? I am behind the curve and it was yesterday?

2. Do you think automation will ever replace the tank commander and crew? Just the crew with the commander in a remote bunker?

3. Do you think this will be a First World weapon and go against traditional troops in less developed country or will it become the type of thing that even war oriented, less developed countries would get?

4. Do you think face recognition and IFF transponders will be built into such machines so that if infantry comes along and need ammo they could have access to the sizable potential cargo space on these machines? I was just thinking that would be a cool point in a future adventure that the party could get magic codes to allow access to s defunct cargo carrier.

1. Yes and no. Not an "autonomous" battlefield with pre-programed tanks and whatnot, but certainly much wider use of remote controlled vehicles and the like. We've entered the Era of Low Intensity Warfare, where heavy main battletanks and stealth fighters are essentially useless. There's going to be a lot more Iraqs and a lot fewer Fulda Gaps, if you catch my drift. As such, individual soldiers will have more data access from centralized command centers using RPVs and remote control mini vehicles with cameras microphones and the like. Look to the Israelis and the stuff they're developing to fight against Hamas and such in urban warfare settings.

2. Eventually, yes, but not for a long, long time. No need for it. People are still "cheaper" than robots right now, and again, Main Battle Tanks are not going to be useful in house-to-house fighting.

3. We've already seen RPVs being used by Hamas and insurgents in Iraq on a very limited basis. Remote control vehicles are getting MUCH cheaper (and really, a local hobby shop and a Radio Shack are all you need to put together a functioning aerial RPV of your own - or even a RC car with a camer) - they'll be used by whoever has the gumption to make their own. The big countries will have much BETTER, of course, but it won't be limited to them.

4. Biometric/fingerprint technology like "smartguns" have (so police officers who lose their pistols can't have them used by the bad guys) would be easy enough to do. For that matter, a good keypad and password would do the trick as well. Farther into the future, I can see implanted RFID tags in soldiers being used for all sorts of things, including restricted access and such.

So, in short - no Ogres or Bolos, not for a looong time. No need for them in the current (and I'd say next 100 years) of battle that I envision upon us. Everyone has been watching how to bring the greatest military power in human history to a grinding halt for the last 5 years, and they didn't need one tank or plane or a multi-billion dollar defense budget to do it. THAT is the future of war. So remote control and automation should be and will be based around fighting that kind of war.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Quote from: WerekoalaThere's going to be a lot more Iraqs and a lot fewer Fulda Gaps, if you catch my drift.

Agreed.  However:

QuoteSo, in short - no Ogres or Bolos, not for a looong time.

I don't ever see a really huge tank - an Ogre - as being useful under any circumstances.  I've worked as a tank crewman - huge tanks would be useless white elephants.

But smaller, more automated vehicles - say, the size of a car - that fill the role of a tank, sure.

QuoteEveryone has been watching how to bring the greatest military power in human history to a grinding halt for the last 5 years, and they didn't need one tank or plane or a multi-billion dollar defense budget to do it.

Same thing happened in Vietnam.  And the US military changed as a result, and will as a result of Iraq.  The dynamics of war are going to constantly change; they aren't static.  I remember articles in professional journals after the Yom Kippur war that predicted that tanks would be utterly useless in the future as a result of ATGMs, but they weren't.  It is entirely possible - if not probable - that there will be a situation in which tanks are useful - or even vital - in the future.

Oh, I agree we'll see a mechanized battlefield again at SOME point in the future, just not in the near- or mid-term.

Quote from: WerekoalaOh, I agree we'll see a mechanized battlefield again at SOME point in the future, just not in the near- or mid-term.

True.  But when it comes to buying or otherwise procuring military stuff, you have to cover as many possibilities as you can.  A present-day military can't reasonably dump - or vow to never buy - conventional forces (like tanks) in favor of buying 100% low-intensity-conflict stuff because of the chance that they will become a vital necessity at some point.

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, I am one of those military handicapped people who just cannot keep that stuff in my head so I thought I would see if anyone on here knew a lot about it. I am working on a setting called Future Skein and Cyber Skein where automated weapons (using A.I.) rise up and beat the crap out of humanity.

On Future Weapons last night they had a remote "cargo" carrier that had a lot of really good navigation logic allowing it to be told to go here to there and it can make all kinds of decisions along the way. They are supposedly fuel efficient using hybrid motors and still pretty powerful. There was a lot of talk about using them for recon (a driver can remote pilot them and run all the cameras and such) but no one seemed interested in slapping armor and a cannon on them and sending them into the field. Struck me as strange.

So, the questions for those in the know:

1. Are we headed towards a much more automated battlefield in the near future? 20 years? 10? 5? I am behind the curve and it was yesterday?

2. Do you think automation will ever replace the tank commander and crew? Just the crew with the commander in a remote bunker?

3. Do you think this will be a First World weapon and go against traditional troops in less developed country or will it become the type of thing that even war oriented, less developed countries would get?

4. Do you think face recognition and IFF transponders will be built into such machines so that if infantry comes along and need ammo they could have access to the sizable potential cargo space on these machines? I was just thinking that would be a cool point in a future adventure that the party could get magic codes to allow access to s defunct cargo carrier.

So, any tank experts?

Thanks,
Bill

1) Not a tank expert.

2) I think robotics have been getting better quickly; I think we'll see notable improvements and more robots on the battle field in 10 years.

My evidence:

A) We already see lots of robotic anti-tank weapons in use: mines (I am not counting command-detonated IDEs as "robotic")
B) We see remotely controlled vehicles carrying reasonable AT weapons (Predators w/ Hellfires)
C) We probably have the ability right now identify threat vehicles optically and fire on them -- but to do that reliably and take people largely out of the loop might be more trouble than it's worth (I think, at the end of the day, you'd rather have a human pushing the button than a fully-automated acquire-to-kill sequence)

If I recall correctly, the plans for the next-generation and next-next generation IFVs call for light-weight, (20-ton) vehicles with the capabilities of a modern MBT (e.g. a 65 ton M1A1). One big reason for this is to be able to airlift or otherwise move forces into an area quickly and inexpensively*

I don't think we're looking at solid state lasers or electro-magnetic / rail guns on *tanks* in 10 years, but those technologies are probably the best way to achieve that kind of firepower.

A real advancement in power generation would get us there -- and might not be totally unreasonable for a near-future world.

One question for Cessna: I've heard that automatic loaders are largely not-used because their not reliable. My guess is also that a loosing a person on a tank-crew hurts a lot in terms of maintenance and having an extra guy around to help look for bad guys.

Is that the case?

If you were really going to cut a crew member (through automation) with no loss of killing power or survivability, you might well need to compensate by engineering the vehicles to require significantly less maintenance (one trained person's less) and provide much better sensor and tracking mechanisms.

If that's true then the ability to reduce *people* would be further away since you'd need a spectrum of innovations to do so.

One other thought: one reason tanks and IFVs are so well armored is that they're protecting precious cargo (people). If you had a truly robotic battlefield, it would probably have many more, more-fragile robots -- swarms of walking / crawling AT missiles rather than giant rolling monstrosities...

Cheers,
-E.

PS: I think logistics and economics are hugely, critically important warfare -- and with armor, the rate of failure and so-on is such a factor in how battles are fought that it's worth thinking about those things if you want your game to be at all realistic.

I recommend "How To Make War" by James Dunnigan. He's a gamer. He's a damn good writer. To the limited extent I know about this stuff he seems dead-on-accurate (of course someone will come along and tell me otherwise...) In terms of getting a highly-readable, strategic overview of modern war (arms, armor, strategy, intelligence, logistics, etc.) you couldn't do better.

I also like his website //www.strategypage.com.

I was writing in a far future setting recently and I realized at one point that my view of the military strategies, while advanced and 'realistic' in space, were utterly out of whack when it came to ground based combat.  One of the considerations was, in fact, AI and automation.

For the purposes of writing I assumed that even highly advanced AI would not have the 'intuitive' grasp of battlefeilds that humans can display, or the innovative and often illogical tactics that humans employ. Two 100% automated armies would fight purely meatgrinder battles, each using optimal tactics, and able to perfectly predict the other side's 'optimal tactics'... thus the requirement for human intervention.

Tanks, in this far future, are small things. They fly, or at least 'hover' at low altitudes (higher altitudes are 'owned' by more specialized vehicles and low orbital dominance from space), and are not much more than an armored cockpit for the pilot. However, only one tank in a 'squad' is actually manned, that one pilot directs the purely AI tank formations.  Armor is a mix of Bonded Molecular Armor in laminate sheets and kinetic energy projectors to 'knock down' incoming projectiles, most of which are purely automated.  The Tanks each have a full suite of defensive nanite 'clouds', and some may carry offenisve nanite swarms to unleash on unprotected enemies. Weaponry is a mix of smallish 'antimatter missles', perhaps finger sized, nanite swarms, and powerful lasers, with missiles being the primary anti-armor.

On the other side of my 'future war' you don't have 'tanks' or automation, per se. But that's cultural. They use equivilent 'power armor' suits, where the pilot's brain is hijacked for use as the 'compter hardware' and they don't use nanites or lasers, but prefer powerful railguns and coilguns with selectively fed slugs.  But that's a bit more fantastic than the tanks.

As an aside, GURPS: Ogre has a lot of nifty high-tech weapons and ideas for such in it, including long-duration loitering missiles, smart mines, etc - alot of the stuff we've been working on, as -E pointed out, but taken to the MAX!!!!

One of my favorite GURPS supplements, fwiw.

Quote from: HinterWeltSSo, the questions for those in the know:


1. Are we headed towards a much more automated battlefield in the near future? 20 years? 10? 5? I am behind the curve and it was yesterday?

My opinion? We're a long way from having AI capable of controlling a vehicle in battlefield conditions, surviving against human opponents and being safe to be around for friendlies.

Quote2. Do you think automation will ever replace the tank commander and crew? Just the crew with the commander in a remote bunker?

I think we'll see commander and crew in the remote bunker, controlling the vehicle through telepresence.

Quote3. Do you think this will be a First World weapon and go against traditional troops in less developed country or will it become the type of thing that even war oriented, less developed countries would get?

It'll be the kind of thing that bombs made out of Coke bottles and bailing wire will blow up in less-developed countries while the country that fielded it laments the unfairness of a $2 bomb taking out a $5 million dollar machine.

Quote4. Do you think face recognition and IFF transponders will be built into such machines so that if infantry comes along and need ammo they could have access to the sizable potential cargo space on these machines? I was just thinking that would be a cool point in a future adventure that the party could get magic codes to allow access to s defunct cargo carrier.

Why when they can just blow it open to get the stuff?

Quote from: SpikeThe Tanks each have a full suite of defensive nanite 'clouds', and some may carry offenisve nanite swarms to unleash on unprotected enemies. Weaponry is a mix of smallish 'antimatter missles', perhaps finger sized, nanite swarms, and powerful lasers, with missiles being the primary anti-armor.

Have you read Scott Westerfeld's Succession (The Risen Empire/The Killing of Worlds) Spike? I think you might really dig some of his tech.

- Q

Quote from: -E.One question for Cessna: I've heard that automatic loaders are largely not-used because their not reliable. My guess is also that a loosing a person on a tank-crew hurts a lot in terms of maintenance and having an extra guy around to help look for bad guys.

Is that the case?

Very much so, especially the latter.  Maintaining a tank is a LOT of work; even if it wasn't, it is useful to be able to bring along an "extra" like a specialist mechanic or a medic.  Losing a space for another crewman/pair of hands in return for a questionable benefit is a bad trade.

Quote from: CessnaBut smaller, more automated vehicles - say, the size of a car - that fill the role of a tank, sure.

(http://www.takotech.net/mshp/media/Bonaparte_Figuresample.jpg)

(http://www.world-art.ru/animation/img/4000/3296/1.jpg)

:haw:

Quote from: JongWK(http://www.takotech.net/mshp/media/Bonaparte_Figuresample.jpg)

(http://www.world-art.ru/animation/img/4000/3296/1.jpg)

:haw:

Anime ... of the FUTURE!

Cessna's arrogant certainty aside, I could see things that might make really fucking huge tanks feasible.

Basically, if defensive tech took a flying leap forward, as in maybe a carbon 60 based material that was stronger than anything we had today, and very light as well, we could see tanks mounting very thick armor, which would make huge tanks feasible.

Likewise, if experiments with "electromagnetic armor" were to yield great results, and/or someone finally gets a room temperatore superconductor perfected, we could see tanks mounting EM armor that required huge generators but made the thing very resistant to most weapons. Hello, Bolo!

Advances in lasers could make a close in point defense laser system practical, but if it and it's power source required a lot of volume while making tanks very resistant to most projectiles, we could see huge tanks in that case too.

Now, if several of these advances came to pass and no offensive advances countered them to a great degree, any could lead to massive armored vehicles. Add in the possible development of portable fusion power and the sky's the limit.

Quote from: JongWK(http://www.takotech.net/mshp/media/Bonaparte_Figuresample.jpg)

(http://www.world-art.ru/animation/img/4000/3296/1.jpg)

:haw:

Oh god, I liked Dominion too, especially the first 4 acts and the original manga.

One thing tho, Bonaparte wasn't unmanned.

Quote from: Dominus NoxBasically, if defensive tech took a flying leap forward, as in maybe a carbon 60 based material that was stronger than anything we had today, and very light as well, we could see tanks mounting very thick armor, which would make huge tanks feasible.

Not really. They're just too everything: too easy of a target, too difficult to deploy, too expensive to build and maintain.

QuoteLikewise, if experiments with "electromagnetic armor" were to yield great results, and/or someone finally gets a room temperatore superconductor perfected, we could see tanks mounting EM armor that required huge generators but made the thing very resistant to most weapons. Hello, Bolo!

By the time we get to that point, the likelihood of Von Neumann machines that could disassemble it from the inside grows as well.

QuoteNow, if several of these advances came to pass and no offensive advances countered them to a great degree, any could lead to massive armored vehicles. Add in the possible development of portable fusion power and the sky's the limit.

This is the same argument as mecha. Big Fucking Tanks are cool. Cool != feasible.

IMHO (and take it for what its worth):

The future of warfare is a) Information war - Computer and web attacks and the like. b) Personal war - Starship Troopers / Armor type man-to-man (or bug or whatever) warfare. Not saying armored suits, per se, but its a man-on-man, not machine-on-machine type battlefield. c) WMD war - biological will be the way to go. It sucks and its scary and its evil, but if you want to win a war in the future, you do it by killing the other guys' civilians, and you pray like hell your civilians took their pills.

Quote from: WerekoalaIMHO (and take it for what its worth):

The future of warfare is a) Information war - Computer and web attacks and the like. b) Personal war - Starship Troopers / Armor type man-to-man (or bug or whatever) warfare. Not saying armored suits, per se, but its a man-on-man, not machine-on-machine type battlefield. c) WMD war - biological will be the way to go. It sucks and its scary and its evil, but if you want to win a war in the future, you do it by killing the other guys' civilians, and you pray like hell your civilians took their pills.

To me, the possibilities of battlefield networks and associated technologies are much more interesting. Why destroy enemy armor when you can hack their operating systems? Foul up their sensor systems, forge authentication and give them bad orders, make them think friendlies are bogeys, shut down motive and weapons systems. Half of any battle might well be digital, and a lot of it might occur before the armor starts to roll.

Quote from: WilNot really. They're just too everything: too easy of a target, too difficult to deploy, too expensive to build and maintain.



By the time we get to that point, the likelihood of Von Neumann machines that could disassemble it from the inside grows as well.

So does the chance of a von neuman defensive system to repel or destroy attacking VNMs. Think of a VNM based immunity system that consumes attacking VNMs and recycles them into defensive VNMs.


Also, your first argument has been used against tanks for decades: Tanks are too big, a guy wil a cheap HEAT warhead bazooka can kill one for a fraction of what it cost to make one, yadda yadda yadda. We still have tanks.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAlso, your first argument has been used against tanks for decades: Tanks are too big, a guy wil a cheap HEAT warhead bazooka can kill one for a fraction of what it cost to make one, yadda yadda yadda. We still have tanks.

Yes we do, but surprise of surprises they're getting smaller and lighter...not bigger and heavier.

EDIT: Found the FCS link I was looking for: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm

Quote from: WilYes we do, but surprise of surprises they're getting smaller and lighter...not bigger and heavier.

I would dispute that. M-1 Abrams is not small OR light. It's a beast. So is the LeClerc, Challenger, T-90, Merkava, etc. MBTs have gotten progressivly bigger and more powerful.

Quote from: WerekoalaI would dispute that. M-1 Abrams is not small OR light. It's a beast. So is the LeClerc, Challenger, T-90, Merkava, etc. MBTs have gotten progressivly bigger and more powerful.

RTFA, the next generation tanks are getting smaller.

Okay (puts on dumb hat) RTFA?

Also, which tanks are "next generation"? Who is making them?

Quote from: WerekoalaOkay (puts on dumb hat) RTFA?

Also, which tanks are "next generation"? Who is making them?

Read The Fucking Article. The one I linked to.

The U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems project has several armored vehicles under development. Lighter and smaller has several advantages:

* Increased automation reduces crew requirements
* Lower fuel consumption and increased endurance
* More manueverable and higher ground speed
* Easier to deploy
* Provides a smaller target/increased battlefield survivability

The M1 Abrams' design is 30 years old. It's production run as ended...so using it (or the T-90, or the Merkava, or the Challenger) as an example of tanks becoming smaller and lighter is disingenuous because the tanks on the drawing board are all lighter. The South Korean XK-2 is under 60 tons. The Russian T-95 is reported to be in the 50 ton range and have a smaller profile than existing Russian MBTs. Most, if not all, feature unmanned turrets (which helps reduce the tank's size).

Don't forget either that the Merkova is also designed to carry a squad of Infantry to the battlefeild.  The only MBT that does. Wacky Israelis...


I'll have to look up that author once I've gotten a chance.  Predicting 4000 years of military evolution is hard work, yo.

Quote from: SpikeDon't forget either that the Merkova is also designed to carry a squad of Infantry to the battlefeild.  The only MBT that does. Wacky Israelis...

That's a direct result of the way the Merkava is designed - the turret is moved rearward and the engine to the front, and it frees up some space at the very rear of the hull.

One thing about tanks, too - a lot of other nation's tanks are based off of hulls of tanks made by bigger nations. That means that the derivative tanks will still be big and bulky while the cutting edge tanks are small and manueverable.

Quote from: WilIt'll be the kind of thing that bombs made out of Coke bottles and bailing wire will blow up in less-developed countries while the country that fielded it laments the unfairness of a $2 bomb taking out a $5 million dollar machine.

This point interests me particularly. It was my understanding, and it may be entirely false, that such weapons killed the crew more than the tank. Is this so?

If it is, then removing the crew and sealing the hardware appropriately would make the tank much more resistant to this sort of attack.

Also, it was my understanding as well, that tanks are getting smaller. The vehicle I saw on Future Weapons was not much bigger than a humvee. It had pretty advanced pattern recognition software to get it through terrain. I think we are closer than you might think to reliable pattern recognition and expert system decision processing in AI.

Thanks for all the great input guys. Interesting stuff.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltThis point interests me particularly. It was my understanding, and it may be entirely false, that such weapons killed the crew more than the tank. Is this so?

Cessna would likely have more accurate information than I, but I would assume that the concussion from the blast does it when it comes to an IED. When it comes to an ATGM or similar projectile, what happens is the penetrator enters the crew compartment and doesn't have enough energy to get back out, so it bounces around for a while making friends with the crew.

QuoteIf it is, then removing the crew and sealing the hardware appropriately would make the tank much more resistant to this sort of attack.

Also, it was my understanding as well, that tanks are getting smaller. The vehicle I saw on Future Weapons was not much bigger than a humvee. It had pretty advanced pattern recognition software to get it through terrain. I think we are closer than you might think to reliable pattern recognition and expert system decision processing in AI.

Oh, I have no doubt we're getting damn good expert systems. We may even wind up with armored vehicles similar to Heavy Gear, where they are capable of some independent action. And I think AI will happen - it's just that true AI is a few decades out. Think of it in terms of the first tanks - they were clunky, slow and very ineffective. During WWII they matured quickly, then kind of kept improving what worked. We're due for some kind of revolution in armored vehicle design - automation, materials science, armament (electrothermal cannon and railguns, maybe), power plant. I just personally don't think bigger is part of that revolution.

Iraq War III 2027-

(http://www.vault-co.com/wp-images/images/t3.jpg)

Quote from: WilRead The Fucking Article. The one I linked to.

Ah, should've known it was something like that.

I don't think the link was there when I was writing my response, but the point that I made that the MBTs HAVE BEEN getting larger still stands. This is probably the last generation that it is the case. They are planning on making them smaller in the future, but there's nothing in service at the moment. The course of future war and even low-intensity conflict would seem to require smaller vehicles, for the very reason that stand-up tank battles are a thing of the past, for the forseeable future. We need the smaller vehicles for city fighting. So it makes sense to design and build such things.

The way an ogre is useful is that it can survive direct hits from strategic nukes.  The reason an ogre is so large is that it's got two or three metres of nuke proof armour.  However, keep in mind that ogres are built and fielded by governments that are willing to fight a nuclear war of attrition.  Yeah, that's right, it takes a seriously fucked up situation to justify ogres.

Quote from: WerekoalaAh, should've known it was something like that.

I don't think the link was there when I was writing my response, but the point that I made that the MBTs HAVE BEEN getting larger still stands. This is probably the last generation that it is the case. They are planning on making them smaller in the future, but there's nothing in service at the moment. The course of future war and even low-intensity conflict would seem to require smaller vehicles, for the very reason that stand-up tank battles are a thing of the past, for the forseeable future. We need the smaller vehicles for city fighting. So it makes sense to design and build such things.

I agree...but have been in this case is qualified as "were up until 10-15 years ago". Tank development has been relatively slow since the Cold War ended, with most of the contenders (Israelis, Germans, Russians) building on previous frames rather than develop completely new models. The Army's FCS is a significant break and considering that others, like the South Koreans and the Russians, are kind of following suit I think is significant. It's also interesting that we're going for cheaper to build, more off-the-shelf components, better tested for all kinds of technology - aircraft (even though the F-22 is an expensive beast to develop), naval ships, you name it. With the right designs and advanced materials technology the smaller tanks will probably be less expensive to build and maintain, and still wind up having protection just as good - if not better - than today's MBTs. Add a small array of autonomous or semi-autonomous UAVs and other drones controlled by the tank and then we'll have some cool shit.

I really like tanks...can you tell? :D