×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Playstation Controller Runs Syrian Rebel Tank

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-b-a-start dept.

PlayStation (Games) 232

SternisheFan writes "As Syria's rebels work to overthrow the tank-equipped Assad regime, they've learned that it helps to have tanks of their own. They deserve bonus points for integrating video game technology. This is no exaggeration. Have a look at the opposition forces' "100 percent made in Syria" armored vehicle, the Sham II. Named for ancient Syria and assembled out of spare parts over the course of a month, the Sham II is sort of rough around the edges, but it's got impressive guts. It rides on the chassis of an old diesel car and is fully encased in light steel that's rusted from the elements. Five cameras are mounted around the tank's outside, and there's a machine gun mounted on a turning turret. Inside, it kind of looks like a man cave. A couple of flat screen TVs are mounted on opposite walls. The driver sits in front of one, controlling the vehicle with a steering wheel, and the gunner sits at the other, aiming the machine gun with a Playstation controller."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

Novel (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about a year ago | (#42241983)

Novel, but let's hope there's no electrical failure or a single wire in that video system that comes loose, otherwise they are sitting in a dark metal box without a single port or window. Military tanks have multiple methods the driver can see outside in addition to any electronic systems - optical periscopes, a hatch directly above the driver that they can raise their seat and literally stick their head out while driving, etc.

Re:Novel (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42242043)

There's an interesting battlefield trend over the decades where if they can see you, you're pretty much dead.

Re:Novel (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#42242287)

There's an interesting battlefield trend over the decades where if they can see you, you're pretty much dead.

Try the last century or so, the British learned the lesson about what happens when you loose air superiority and show your ass in open country the hard way at the battle of Cambrai in 1917, entire battalions and even regimental sized units were badly torn up by German attack aircraft during the British retreat. Mind you, on this same occasion, the Germans them selves learned a few painful things about the massed use of armor from the British who them selves learned that Tanks can be knocked out by aircraft and that anti aircraft guns with their flat trajectories and high muzzle velocity are good for shooting at more things than aircraft. One has to give the Taliban and the rest of these Middle Eastern guerrilla forces credit for being very, very good at not showing their ass in open country and when they do they usually distribute their forces to the point where airstrikes boils down to the USAF hosing off a $100.000 PGM to kill 6 guys carrying a $150 Khyber Pass AK47 copy and maybe 30 bucks worth of grenades and ammo each.

Re:Novel (1, Flamebait)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#42243037)

I think you give OPFOR too much credit.

The dependence on PGMs is more about politics than tactics. Iron bombs or unguided rockets could easily accomplish the same thing, but the US is always trying to hit those three guys standing in some courtyard without killing the 14 kids in the adjacent building.

Like in Viet Nam, we're trying to win at politics harder than we're trying to win at war, and using overwhelming force against a guerrilla force embedded in the civilian population results in too much collateral damage for the political leadership.

We could fight a war of conquest instead of counter-insurgency and treat civilians as enemy support resources. With enough civilian losses, they might stop providing aid and comfort to the guerrilla forces and instead resist them, further diluting the effective strength of the guerrillas if they choose to try to maintain control of a hostile population. The good news is that if the opposite occurs and the civilians join forces with the guerrillas, it doesn't really matter -- you're already willing to treat them as hostile forces.

Re:Novel (2)

pkthunders (2777383) | about a year ago | (#42242123)

Modern combat rely on increasingly longer distances of detection and engagement so this won't do a damn there. This is more of an armored car/transport that probably won't be used to bust through fortification. And view ports might compromise the design as someone could just stick their gun in there or just shoot through it.

Re:Novel (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42242417)

Yeah, and if this were a tank developed for a modern military force with an American military budget, it would have those things. Mother of invention and all that.

Re:Novel (4, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42242523)

or better yet, it might look cool, or dangerous, but what about the scrap grade steel is made out of, how ballasticly sound is it?

This "hillbilly armor" is the same welded on cheap steal armor that the humvees started using when they first when to armor. It wasn't that great and it really didn't stop bullets all too well.

This is not a "tank", but a ghetto version of an armored humvee, without the protection that modern ones have (will stop all rounds short of .50 BMG).

Its not much of a "tank" by todays standards, more like an armored car. Tank implies 360 degree turret, think armor and decent sized cannon for main armament.

MBTs, or main battle tanks, the only real tanks left (there are no more light, medium and heavy tanks in the modern age), are heavily armored, tracked vehciles, with large main gun cannons, designed as anti-vehicle weapons, and quick moving mobile guns.

Yes, I know my shit on tanks. Yes its first hand. This is not one.

Re:Novel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242941)

Ever watch that old video of the "Killdozer" taking out half of a small town?

He just simply filled his armor with concrete. On the other hand, only a bulldozer like his could handle the extra weight.

Re:Novel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42243001)

For the same weight or volume, concrete armor is pretty terrible compared to steel, which in turn is terrible compared to the special composites that modern tanks use.

The Soviets would usually export tanks with concrete armor and save the good stuff for themselves, which is one of the reasons that Iraqi T-72Ms didn't stand a chance in the first Gulf War.

Re:Novel (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42242609)

You know that we're talking a hodgepodge-jury-rigged device, not a device built by a company specializing in military hardware after a bidding war with other companies and having been chosen as the "best" (read: the one with the biggest kickbacks), yes?

It's one of those things where cheap trumps reliable. If that crate fails, it is probably already done for. Get out while you can, climb into the next and continue the game. In their game, "winning" means "making the enemy spend more on warheads than us on stuff they blow up".

Re:time for a cuppa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42243025)

Bet the first real tank they pick a fight with they will be brewing up.

You know .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42241995)

You know, if they made boxier and put a fake lid on it to make it look like a dumpster, they could do some really heavy damage to the enemy in the urban environment they're fighting in.

Gamepad not Playstation Controller (5, Interesting)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | about a year ago | (#42242003)

Judging by the buttons 1,2,3,4 I'd say this is a generic pc gamepad not a playstation controller.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller (4, Funny)

glueball (232492) | about a year ago | (#42242375)

Does pressing up up down down left right left right B A start give any additional protection?

Oh. That's the Nintendo tank. Nevermind.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242605)

Konami tank, video game nerd fail.

Re:Gamepad not Playstation Controller (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42242621)

And it needs that additional protection, considering it comes in an odd shape and in neon bright flashy colors. The only thing that might save it is that it's far too cute to blow up.

They're gonna get pwned. . . (5, Funny)

JSBiff (87824) | about a year ago | (#42243143)

. . . by the guys using a mouse and keyboard. Everyone knows the accuracy and response time of an optical mouse is an order of magnitude greater than a d-stick.

Not a Playstation controller (2)

AAWood (918613) | about a year ago | (#42242017)

Umm, that's not a Playstation controller, or at least not an official first-party one. Give how many PC controllers have used that style, it's more likely just some generic PC controller.

Re:Not a Playstation controller (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#42242301)

Umm, that's not a Playstation controller, or at least not an official first-party one. Give how many PC controllers have used that style, it's more likely just some generic PC controller.

These guys are out to smash the state; but they aren't the sort of depraved nihilists who violate EULAs!

Re:Not a Playstation controller (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#42242495)

If they're freedom fighters, it's unlikely they'd buy anything from Sony anyway.

Re:Not a Playstation controller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242757)

I didn't know they were French!

Re:Not a Playstation controller (2)

Eberlin (570874) | about a year ago | (#42242821)

Of course it's not a first-party PS1 controller. You wouldn't want to show off your real weaponry to the public. In the future we'll hear about the mythical SHAM-alamadingdong Tank that was used to Dual-Shock and Awe the Syrian government and totally pwn those n00bs. It's all about the plans within plans, man.

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242033)

Sham indeed. I think you've been had.

It's a sham [Re:hmmm] (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#42243045)

I'm amazed that it took almost ten minutes for somebody to say "it's a sham." Doesn't anybody jump on the obvious anymore?

I KEEP THROWING... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242053)

...MONEY AT THE SCREEN! But I still don't have one in my drive way.... I think the interwebs are broke....

Speaking of video game controllers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242081)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RqA94Xak8

1:45

and ps2 run there missile guidance systems (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#42242087)

and ps2 run there missile guidance systems

Re:and ps2 run there missile guidance systems (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42242639)

They would have used PS3s but sadly they only found ones that were updated and stripped of their ability to run Linux.

Does this mean that gaming controllers (5, Interesting)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about a year ago | (#42242097)

are going to be on the ITAR list?

Seriously though, the gap between technology available to consumers and that available to the military only has narrowed drastically over the last decade or two. And I think it's a good thing - it helps to level the playing field between oppressive regimes, (or would-be oppressive regimes), and citizens.

Anything that puts power into the hands of the otherwise disenfranchised is probably, on the whole, a good thing.

Re:Does this mean that gaming controllers (2)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year ago | (#42243033)

"Military grade" equipment has rarely been about capabilities- it's about reliability. The reason a military walkie-talkie costs 20x what the ones they give to shopping centre security staff cost is not because they have much by way of extra features (although they might have some, that's not what costs the money); it's because they expected to work faultlessly for years in deserts and swamps and to never unexpectedly stop working when you're in the middle of calling in the cavalry.

A hand-held controller is a hand-held controller is a hand-held controller; there's nothing special, in terms of what it can do, between the ones that cost £9.99 on Amazon and the ones that the military probably pays £5000 a piece for. What's special is that if that "tank" gets shaken up a nearby explosion (or a speed-bump), what's the guarantee that the analogue stick isn't going to snap off in your hand, or some little wire is going to get shaken loose and the things going to get stuck on "left arrow button"?

If you disable the cameras... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242109)

Just shine an IR laser at the cameras and you disable the vehicle. Hope they have a periscope on the thing or they are sitting ducks.

Re:If you disable the cameras... (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#42242263)

Why shine a IR laser when you can launch a RPG?

On the modern battlefield if they see you, you're dead. This is not the era of wooden ships and iron men, or even WWII battleships.

Re:If you disable the cameras... (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about a year ago | (#42242351)

Why shine a IR laser when you can launch a RPG? On the modern battlefield if they see you, you're dead

Which is why not launching an RPG, which gives away your position, would be advantageous.

Re:If you disable the cameras... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42243079)

This isn't a video game, RPGs don't have smoke trails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na-BtfkGEF4

Re:If you disable the cameras... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242445)

I don't think it's prudent to be launching a new RPG in this over-saturated market. Maybe if it's got first class licensed material and is connected to a top notch company, but wasn't there a LOTR MMO that died recently?

I think action-adventure is the way to go in the current market. Maybe even something pure adventure with a more in-depth storyline. What was the budget behind the Walking Dead game, anyway? Makes me wonder what other first-rate games are out there this year that aren't based on just shooting things.

Re:If you disable the cameras... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42242685)

Oh please. Could you leave the world of high-tech warfare and come down to the trenches of middle east reality?

Unless you're facing the Israelis (and even then...) you're dealing with equipment where the recommended form of debugging is rebooting it. I.e. hitting it with your boot 'til it works. Yes, they do have "better" equipment, too, but it's in rather short supply, what the average grunt used to fight these "rebels" will get is far from it.

The thing you will most likely see being used against it is an RPG-7 or equivalent.

Your driving I'm watching. (4, Insightful)

zippo01 (688802) | about a year ago | (#42242127)

WOW, this is not a tank, its a death trap. An old diesel car with light steel construction? I wouldn't drive this to my local geto grocery store much less a war zone with real tanks and explosives. Nice try, but fail...

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (2, Informative)

zippo01 (688802) | about a year ago | (#42242159)

So I did some more looking and it really is a death trap. The wheels are still exposed, and the steel is at most 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick, which would easy be penetrated by an AK-47 or an Nato 556 round. It is really just a death trap.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242295)

Not to mention that it's rusted metal which is much weaker.

Camera based system which can easily get dirty and hard to see in battle or even broken with no other way to see the outside.

As you said, exposed wheels (probably air based making it easy to puncture but is cheaper and easier to get) with no redundant wheels either.

At best, this is a weak armored anti-personal car.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a year ago | (#42242297)

The armor, from the front, does still provide additional protection since it's unlikely to take a bullet head on. Bullets hitting that portion are going to be hitting closer 6/10-7/10" of steel and the angle itself may make a deflection more likely. That said, it's still a death trap.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242429)

Exactly. Slopped armor has proved to be exceptionally effective against light AP rounds since WWII.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42242611)

bullets at a far range might be deflected.

reality is, probably save the weight from the armor, just use a lighter vehicle and rely on speed for a troop transport, to transport light infantry, before speeding away.

If this thing comes under concentrated fire, from even small arms, it, and its drivers are fucked. This is a death trap, and whoever designed it has delusions of graunder.

6/10-7/10" of rusted mild steel armor is nothing and won't do shit, except made stop shrapnel/debris.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (2)

BcNexus (826974) | about a year ago | (#42242319)

A-la the Granby bulldozer, it needs metal-concrete-metal composite armor and tank treads. Also, protect the cameras with acrylic cases to prevent damage to them and fit compressed air guns onto them to clear off debris. Imagine how much more protected it would be then!

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242535)

which would easy be penetrated by ... an Nato 556 round

If it is then there's probably going to be more than a few questions asked.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42243105)

M855 should be able to get close to 1/2" on mild steel.

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (2)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year ago | (#42242549)

Seriously? 1/2 inch thick steel is easily penetrated by common rifle ammunition? That doesn't sound right. 1/2 inch?

Re:Your driving I'm watching. (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#42242735)

I actually read TFA, and they're saying it will withstand 23mm autocannon fire. I imagine they're exaggerating a bit, but I also imagine they at least tested it with the weapons they had on hand, like the 7.62mm LMG they mounted on it.

I, for one, (1)

pkthunders (2777383) | about a year ago | (#42242143)

would still like to see an 120mm HEAT shell going through that cute little "tank".

Re:I, for one, (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#42242207)

"going through" is probably more accurate than you intended...

My guess is that something would penetrate, keep on going, penetrate out the other side, then explode. Hell, the occupants might be safer for that...

Re:I, for one, (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242507)

Achmed, we have air conditioning now!

Re:I, for one, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242219)

would still like to see an 120mm HEAT shell going through that cute little "tank".

Bashar, is that you? How did you ever get on /. after taking your country's Internet infrastructure down?

I guess it's good to be the prez.

Re:I, for one, (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42242633)

overkill. .50 BMG ball rounds will do the trick, far less an API round.

I don't think this thing will stand up to bursts from a 7.62x51 nato machine gun. Like the FN FAL

More of an AFV... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#42242151)

You'd probably be safer on foot than inside that box if a real tank shows up for a fight... Even some rusty export-grade T-34 stolen from a museum and bodged back into shape.

That said, it could prove to be quite a nasty surprise for any infantry caught without RPGs or anti-armor ammunition.

Re:More of an AFV... (1)

Scutter (18425) | about a year ago | (#42242331)

1/4" (or even 1/2") scrap steel won't stop a rifle round. They'll hardly need anti-armor munitions to punch finger-sized holes all over it. This isn't even an armored car, let alone a tank. It's got barely more steel in it than a regular automobile.

Re:More of an AFV... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#42242357)

For my edification, how much punch will it have left for the lucky driver after heading through a 1/4 or 1/2 inch plate? Is that "why did you even bother?" territory or "Congratulations! You've received an upgrade from 'fatality' to 'casualty'"?

Re:More of an AFV... (4, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | about a year ago | (#42242449)

Here's 3/8" steel scrap at 50 yards with 7.62x39 fired from an AK47. I recommend muting the volume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zke2JLYWlMc [youtube.com]

It'll go right through it and then proceed to shred the occupants of the vehicle, incidentally also spraying whoever is missed with molten steel.

Re:More of an AFV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242481)

If it penetrates the steel it'll have plenty of punch left for a lethal wound. It might change it from "through-and-through" to "no exit wound" but not much else would change.

That said, mild steel in the 1/4" to 1/2" range /could/ provide /some/ protection in this configuration for two reasons: 1. It /may/ deflect bullets since it's at an angle. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. 2. It /may/ stop a round from penetrating and only deform the steel armor. This is unlikely with mild steel though.

Re:More of an AFV... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242623)

As you can see, steel core FMJ, AK47 against 90' is effectively stopped by 1/2" plate. Its stopped by 1" plate. Add slopped armor and suddenly 1/2+" armor becomes reasonably effective against the vast majority of rounds fired from AK47s. Now, an RPG, tank round, or mortar is an entirely different story.

I think people tend to forget the effectiveness of slopped armor against traditional rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqfRlSoK60

Re:More of an AFV... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#42243145)

Still, it's better than what they had before. From the description I gather it's just a car with some armoring for the driver (only).

Re:More of an AFV... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#42242813)

And I guess that's the idea behind it. It forces the enemy to bring along heavier guns and spend more time, money and personnel. Military-wise it sure ain't the latest and greatest, but it forces your enemy to react. It's already an advantage if you force your enemy to use full metal instead of hollow point (Hague convention? What's that?) because they might get to shoot at something but "soft" targets.

By the looks of that vehicle.... (2)

rwyoder (759998) | about a year ago | (#42242163)

...I'd say it was designed and built in Granby, Colorado.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle.... (3, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#42242339)

The Heemeyer Bulldozer was arguably a much more potent vehicle than this little steel-plated car. He wasn't stopped until a combination of a blown radiator and getting stuck high-centered on a basement wall got him- I think that ramming this little steel-plated car with a pickup truck would take it out of commission. Heemeyer took out numerous buildings and vehicles and despite being shot at repeatedly managed to keep going. Had he done a more thorough job armoring his radiator (yes, I know that it needs airflow and that one can only armor it so much) and knowing his environment (not getting stuck in the basement) then he might have managed to continue his rampage until military forces with a portable rocket launcher showed up.

I have a friend that owns a WWII Ford M8 Greyhound and has several other WWII-era light armored vehicles, like a half-track armored truck. The designer of this car seems to have missed the important part that too much open interior is not necessarily an advantage. That half-track doesn't have a lot of interior space, literally enough for the soldiers and their equipment, and because of that, the same amount of mass for the vehicle can accommodate thicker armor where it matters, around the people. The vehicle isn't meant to survive a pounding, it's meant to keep its occupants alive when hit, so that they can get out and counterattack. This little car doesn't strike me as designed with that in mind.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle.... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42242715)

"The Heemeyer Bulldozer was arguably a much more potent vehicle than this little steel-plated car."

that man understood "composite armor", a ghetto but effecient/effective versions. steel-concrete-steel. It also used a more potent starting vehicle better suited for the task, and fresh, unweathered steel(arguablly thicker).

he also had the resources of a first world nation, and all the time in the world to built it, with no pressure from lets say, a government attacking him instead of vice versa.

Re:By the looks of that vehicle.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242583)

Or taking tips from the A-Team (dah da daaaaah) :)

Those guys always had access to large sheets of sheetmetal....

Controller, phooey! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242173)

Everyone knows you use a mouse and keyboard! This choice of input devices has doomed the rebels to failure!

Not a tank (4, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | about a year ago | (#42242209)

Light Armored Vehicle maybe, but not a tank... Tanks have a heavy caliber main gun with machine gun as backups. A vehicle with only a machine gun isn't a tank... Probably well within the category of LAV though.

Taken out of commision.... (4, Insightful)

kryliss (72493) | about a year ago | (#42242231)

by a common spike strip.

Re:Taken out of commision.... (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#42242719)

Not to mention that the only protection for the cameras are little tiny roofs made out of the same metal armor as the rest of the thing (you can see them clearly in the video included with the article). A simple concussive blast on the face of it would probably knock out both front cameras, or else come darn close to doing so, and that's assuming that the RPG or whatever else you were using didn't just punch a hole right through the front of the vehicle outright.

It's not a tank (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242247)

It's more of a light infantry support vehicule. Useless against real armor but could shift the tide in an infantry struggle for a street, for example.

Not a tank (5, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#42242265)

That is not a tank. That's an armored car.

A tank requires three things: heavy armor, a turret-mounted gun capable of anti-tank combat, and the use of tracks instead of wheels.

This arguably fails all three. It's a wheeled vehicle, and that 7.62mm gun may as well be paintballs to other tanks - it's a common caliber for the coax gun on modern tanks, for use when you don't want to waste your expensive ammo against mere infantry. The armor is definitely insufficient to handle modern tanks, but it would have been enough for 20's and '30s tanks (or perhaps WW2-era Italian or Japanese tanks), so you could probably squeeze it in.

That said, as long as the rebels use it intelligently, an armored car is a very useful tool. Keep it in the cities, where tanks have difficulty maneuvering, but use its mobility to outflank infantry. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts - it doesn't look like it could handle modern anti-tank missiles, but it *might* stand up to an RPG-7 or so.

Re:Not a tank (1)

Scutter (18425) | about a year ago | (#42242355)

I wouldn't even call it an armored car. That looks like scrap steel, which won't even stop a rifle round. They won't need an RPG to shred the driver. If they're extremely lucky, their attackers will be coming head-on, so the angled front plate will help slightly, but any flank attack with small arms is going to decimate it.

Re:Not a tank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42243125)

It would definitely count as a "tank" on a paintball field. But then again, so would an old second hand golf-cart covered with plywood. I guess that's not saying much.

Re:Not a tank (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#42242749)

"The armor is definitely insufficient to handle modern tanks, but it would have been enough for 20's and '30s tanks (or perhaps WW2-era Italian or Japanese tanks), so you could probably squeeze it in."
outclassed by M1151 armored Humvees you mean.

this would barely hold up with armored cars of the 1930s, and certainly not tanks of any era.

"but it *might* stand up to an RPG-7 or so."

it might stand up to 9mm pistol rounds.

Controllers VS Mouse and Keyboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242309)

Dudes are getting get owned by all the mouse and keyboard users. There is a reason they don't allow console users to go against PC FPS playesr

4 Words.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242413)

Duck Dynasty.... Just saying.

Sham (1)

seyyah (986027) | about a year ago | (#42242427)

No, not a joke about "real" vs "sham" tanks...

Just wanted to point out that Sham is also the Arabic name for Damascus.

IGNORE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242473)

Breaking news! Japan is enabling the enemy by providing military hardware used to gun down our troops.

[ Picture fades to show a North Korean military march. ]

Experts agree: we must inv^Wliberate their suppressed population of their anti-American pedophile regime.

[ Waving flag in background. One-eyed bald eagle soars into view. ]

More at 11.

Sham me I (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242511)

it's a shame on you..Sham me II ..wise man can't get fooled a second time

Nice effort but.. (1)

na1led (1030470) | about a year ago | (#42242557)

They might as well paint a big bulls-eye on the side, because that tank will be the first thing that blows up once it gets rolled out.

N00bs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42242743)

Everyone knows you get more precision with a mouse and keyboard....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...