Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The Brief Rise and Long Fall of Russia's Robot Tank

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the pew-pew-pew dept.

The Military 79

malachiorion writes with this report from Popular Science"Seventy-four years ago, Russia accomplished what no country had before, or has since: it sent armed ground robots into battle. These remote-controlled Teletanks took the field during one of WWII's earliest and most obscure clashes, as Soviet forces pushed into Eastern Finland for roughly three and a half months, from 1939 to 1940. The workings of those Teletanks were cool, though they were useless against Germany, and Russia proceeded to fall behind the developed world in military robotics."

cancel ×

79 comments

In Soviet Russia, (4, Funny)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 4 months ago | (#46436997)

Tanks, er, ah... I got nuthin...

Re:In Soviet Russia, (4, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 4 months ago | (#46437261)

In Soviet Russia robot tanks you!

Re:In Soviet Russia, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437297)

From TFA:

The Finns, by all accounts, were vastly outnumbered and outgunned, with exponentially fewer aircraft and tanks.

Did the fins experience an exponential decay in the number of aircraft and tanks, or did the author just think it means "really" ? Could just have easily have said they had "literally fewer" instead...

Re:In Soviet Russia, (1)

ppanon (16583) | about 4 months ago | (#46438157)

Maybe he meant as on "order of magnitude" difference. But yeah, it's not an obvious thing.

Re:In Soviet Russia, (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#46441437)

Maybe he meant as on "order of magnitude" difference.

Which it doesn't mean either.

Re:In Soviet Russia, (1)

malachiorion (1205130) | about 4 months ago | (#46446995)

I meant way, way fewer. Like dozens of tanks and over a hundred planes for the Finns, versus thousands of both on the Russian side.

Re:In Soviet Russia, (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46437417)

In Soviet Russia, attacking robots help defend you.

Re:In Soviet Russia, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437987)

In Soviet Russia, war ends YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia, (2)

bkmoore (1910118) | about 4 months ago | (#46438243)

Tanks, er, ah... I got nuthin...

Tanks, but no tanks.

Re:In Soviet Russia, (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 4 months ago | (#46438883)

...tank drives you!

Perhaps the first but... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437013)

By no means not quickly followed. In 1942, the Germany military fielded the Goliath tracked mine (basically a remote controlled bomb on treads.)

Military robotics is by no means new, its just that brutal battlefield conditions meant that the military shelved it knowing that it would be a VERY long time before it ever became battlefield useful (in spite of UAVs, we're still a long ways off from robotic tanks)

Re:Perhaps the first but... (2)

peragrin (659227) | about 4 months ago | (#46437565)

This is it exactly. Up until the 1990's we really didn't have bandwidth and control systems that could really do something like drive a tank remotely.

Look at it this way up the until the 1980's In order to course correct a missile or torpedo after it had fired that weapon had to trail a wire all the way behind.

Digital remote control took a long time coming, only in the last 20 years has it taken off. Still there is not enough battlefield bandwidth for a column of tanks to be remotely operated and be effective.

Re:Perhaps the first but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437833)

You're a dumbass, Beavis.

Re:Perhaps the first but... (3, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#46438029)

There is enough bandwidth, our control systems are still a bit off though. We use laser communications in some situations and radio in others but tanks have since the 90's been able to communicate and coordinate their weapons systems for a while now. This makes them more effective in picking targets so 4 out of 5 tanks aren't shooting the same target and invalid targets can be eliminated before a shot is fired.

The biggest problem is the automation of the drive units. We can't seem to get a real time terrain picture in a way that the tanks can auto pilot around on or relay to an operator. This is an enormous task compared to flying a drone that doesn't have to deal with obstacles in or on the ground that can change in a matter of seconds in a combat situation.

Of course that is changing a bit with work done by DARPA and their autonomous challenges but as of now, it makes them a sitting duck to often trying to negotiate terrain. But the weapons systems have had the bandwidth for a while now and can pretty much pick the target, aim and fire while moving at great speeds with little assistance from a human. It's quite amazing really.

Re:Perhaps the first but... (2)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 4 months ago | (#46438219)

(Apache) AH64D, millimeter wave radar, radar hellfires and preferential fire zones. Ouch. Each missile is like a little robot. Drag a rubberband around clusters of targets on the display, unleash several missiles, each missile finds a target and boom, next missile, next target. That was so cool.

('Janes Longbow' was a way cool game yay)

I always wondered why my mechs didn't have these missiles :( (in the Mech warrior games).

Re:Perhaps the first but... (1)

malachiorion (1205130) | about 4 months ago | (#46447025)

I probably should have clarified, but if you read the piece, I was talking about armed the unprecedented—and still unique—use armed UGVs, like ground bots with guns. No one else has done that. The Goliath, on other hand, was a rolling bomb. You could call that an armed UGV, but, to me, that's like calling a Tomahawk an armed UAV.

In Short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437043)

Panzerfaust > Communist Teletankies

Re:In Short (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 4 months ago | (#46438467)

Panzerfaust means never having to say "many tanks".

In Short (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46452297)

BAH, Panzershrek FTW

Did they say (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437051)

"Exterminatesky! Exterminatesky!"?

Re:Did they say (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438071)

"Voisiko joku ystävällisesti kutsua Tohtorin?", the Finns lamented, watching the tanks rolling in the snow and occasionally colliding with the pines.

Re:Did they say (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438529)

Daleks aren't robots.

Re:Did they say (2)

bkmoore (1910118) | about 4 months ago | (#46439261)

"Remember, you must think in Russian..."

Runner up? (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46437081)

Re:Runner up? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46437807)

An interesting bit of synchronicity here. If you go to the link above you'll see this as to where the Goliath was used:

First Battle: Sevastopol

Sevastopol is in Crimea, Ukraine, where Russian troops have recently moved in as they did in Finland. In both cases, Finland and Ukraine, the Russians (nee Soviets) said they were there to fight fascism. That would be so much more convincing if they didn't have this going on:

Russia: Far-Right Nationalists And Neo-Nazis March In Moscow [huffingtonpost.com]

I doubt that the Ukrainians will give the sort of bloody nose to the Russians that the Finns did in the Winter War.

The Soviet-Finnish Winter War [youtube.com]
Battlefield Scandinavia the Forgotten Front Finnish Winter War [youtube.com]

Re:Runner up? (2)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#46437903)

If I remember what I read somewhere, the Russian/Soviet side lost something like 2500 tanks in the Winter War, mainly due to the Finns figuring out how to interfere with the treads to immobilize the tanks before setting them on fire...

A tank without a crew would go a long way in explaining how that happened, as there wouldn't be personnel to see the attack on the tank or to repel it while clearing whatever was used to jam the treads.

As a side note, that war explains why Biathlon is so culturally significant to the Scandinavian countries...

Re:Runner up? (2)

tragedy (27079) | about 4 months ago | (#46438067)

As a side note, that war explains why Biathlon is so culturally significant to the Scandinavian countries...

No kidding. That's the war in which the White Death, Simo Hayha [wikipedia.org] was personally responsible for around .4% of Soviet deaths through his skill as a marksman and outdoorsman.

Re:Runner up? (2)

CptPicard (680154) | about 4 months ago | (#46440305)

As a side note, that war explains why Biathlon is so culturally significant to the Scandinavian countries...

Well, I am Finnish and I'd like to point out that the Winter War is historically and culturally very much specifically a Finnish thing. The Scandinavians (Nordic countries west of Finland) had nothing to do with it, they don't consider it "their" war and they do not remember it as a substantial part of their history. The cultural image of "skiing and shooting" is equally as much Finnish.

Re:Runner up? (1)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#46440677)

Ah. My apologies, I assumed that the Scandinavian label applied to the Finnish.

Re:Runner up? (1)

CptPicard (680154) | about 4 months ago | (#46440747)

It's a somewhat vague label; even some Finns who have a very "Nordist" political inclination insist that we should be called "Scandinavian" even though even the Scandinavians themselves have never done that. The more appropriate geopolitical term is "Nordic".

But, as we might share a lot historically and culturally, the Winter War we definitely don't :-)

Re:Runner up? (0)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 4 months ago | (#46438259)

While I'm not disputing Russia should do more against its violent domestic extreme right wing fringes, nor that Putin and his cronies would think twice about cynically overstating the fascist element active in Ukraine in support of their own despicable handling of this affair, nor that Yanukovitch and his pals were highly corrupt and sycophantic toward Russia...

But that does not change the fact that far right hooligans did, as a matter of fact, make up a considerable part of the "revolutionary" forces on that square, or that they continue to enjoy material and moral support of our beloved West. That they have (or think they have) found a common enemy in Russia should not be sufficient grounds for arming and funding these lunatics. We might like post-revolution Ukraine even less than before, and minorities -- Russians and otherwise -- will pay the price.

Oh and I know you like to point at those evil Russians whenever someone criticizes the US, but quite apart from the fact that calibrating ones moral compass to the worst excesses of ones adversaries will predictably lead to a race to the bottom with nothing but losers in the end... I can't help but notice that the practice of lying and fabrication to justify military action against a sovereign nation is not exactly a Russian invention, and the US have long since list the right to credibly accuse others of such antics.

Re:Runner up? (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#46441453)

If the Ukrainians were intending to massacre the Russians, they'd have done it straight away before the Russians got their goons in. They didn't.

Russia is secretly attempting to provoke what it's publicly claiming to prevent.

Re:Runner up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46442759)

That would be so much more convincing if they didn't have this going on: Russia: Far-Right Nationalists And Neo-Nazis March In Moscow [huffingtonpost.com]

Because there's no nazis in the US? Oh and what about these guys here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org] What an idiot.

Re:Runner up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46443075)

The US didn't invade Ukraine because of "fascism," did it? The KKK isn't really a factor in the Russian invasion either. You've just thrown out red herrings.

Re:Runner up? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46443081)

The US isn't the one invading Ukraine, is it?

Re:Runner up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46443739)

The US isn't the one invading Ukraine, is it?

No, not yet anyway.

Link no longer there. (5, Informative)

dov_0 (1438253) | about 4 months ago | (#46437127)

Couldn't find the story the article originally linked to, but here's the wikipedia article on the teletanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Link no longer there. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 months ago | (#46437345)

Give popular science a big miss, they are weird ass copyright freaks, articles not available in other countries, articles deleted at random intervals etc. Just give them a big miss and go somewhere else and never ever link to them, really rather pointless to attempt to do so.

Re:Link no longer there. (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | about 4 months ago | (#46438427)

Give popular science a big miss, they are weird ass copyright freaks, articles not available in other countries, articles deleted at random intervals etc. Just give them a big miss and go somewhere else and never ever link to them, really rather pointless to attempt to do so.

The link was pop-sci Australia. I'm in Australia, can read all the other articles, but it says that one isn't there. Strange. It was however while reading my first article on the main page that I realised that I didn't want to bother with any more...

Re:Link no longer there. (1)

malachiorion (1205130) | about 4 months ago | (#46447085)

Guessing you've moved on, but the link above is location-specific. You could try this one: http://www.popsci.com/blog-net... [popsci.com]

Re:Link no longer there. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46437399)

The linked article is still there.

Re:Link no longer there. (2)

Tubepunk (3568899) | about 4 months ago | (#46437439)

Okay, here's a link to the blog [blogspot.com] cited by the PopSci article. The blog appears to contradict the summary that the Russians were alone in developing these primitive robotanks:

There were similarly designed tanks also in the German army. There was the teletank V-4, there were small anti-tank “torpedoes” such as the radio-guided “Springer” and the “Goliath”, which would unwind an electrical control lead behind itself. A “Goliath” is found in the armoured vehicle museum at Kubinka. It is difficult to consider all of these designs as being successful. It was very difficult to direct a “Goliath” up to a tank even from a distance of 100 meters. The battery had a charge, which allowed for only eight minutes of movement, and the low clearance did not provide for sufficient mobility. Equipping these tankettes with a petrol engine did not save the situation. Nevertheless, they were able to carry out certain functions – including mine clearing and attacking fortifications.

The Russians tanks had the advantage in having a longer autonomous range, as the German tanks appear to be wired ("unwind an electrical control lead") rather than radio-controlled.

Re:Link no longer there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438647)

The Russians tanks had the advantage in having a longer autonomous range, as the German tanks appear to be wired ("unwind an electrical control lead") rather than radio-controlled.

Some Goliaths had radio remote control, as can be seen in this youtube video [youtube.com]

Re:Link no longer there. (1)

malachiorion (1205130) | about 4 months ago | (#46447103)

I mentioned this in another response, but I don't necessarily think the Goliath is in the same league as the Teletank, as far as gun-toting ground bots go. I should have specified that, though, in the piece.

Robot? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437171)

It was remote controlled. The V1 and V2 are much closer to a "robot" in the sense of a self-guided machine.

Re:Robot? (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 months ago | (#46437387)

I agree, anything piloted by a human, even if remotely, doesn't really qualify as a robot.

Article is a Definition Fail (2)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 4 months ago | (#46437871)

^^ We have a winner. A robot is self controlled.

A remote control plane or a remote control tank is not a robot.

Re:Robot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438943)

Pretty much this.

This is just an unmanned ground vehicle / unit (UGV, UGUu [youtube.com] ), a lesser used tech for god knows what reason considering it is likely considerably cheaper than an equivalent UAV and would result in far less deaths.

Oh well, cyborg suits are going to be the next big thing it seems with, uh, DARPA was it(?) working on them.
RIP UGVs, we hardly knew ye.

thats nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437175)

How about the rise and fall of the US?

Or, the rise, fall, and rise of Russia?

Grooming propaganda for Google's Robot Tank (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437191)

Google is spending billions attempting to build autonomous robotic tanks for America's future wars of aggression. Google's 'pitch' when meeting generals, senior politicians and other significant figures in the West is "what would allow the US to choose to take out Iran TODAY".

Before US drones were commonly used to slaughter every Muslim attending some funeral in the Middle East, US movies depicted exactly the same scenes. Tom Clancy would specifically include events and ideas in his ultra right wing masturbation fantasies with the express and stated goal of having the USA implement such ideas for real. The vile neo-fascist director from South America who made the recent 'reboot' of Robocop chose to depict Google's wet-dream of a US robotic holocaust of Iran at the beginning of his movie. Unlike the anti-war, anti-fascist director of the original, satire was not a motivation of the reboot.

The owners of Slashdot have been previously grooming you by constantly promoting the nonsense of 'self-driving' cars - the first stage of Google propaganda to prepare the way for their robotic killing machines. The self-driving algorithms, while utterly useless for a vehicle that could tolerate not even one mistake, are perfect for robot tanks that can crush and slaughter a bus full of the 'other' without a murmur of complaint from the sheeple of the USA. By self-driving, the LAST thing Google means is 'safe' for civilians.

But this article is about 'Russian' tanks, you dribble, if you an unusually dim specimen of sheepleness. YES, but that is how grooming propaganda works. You NORMALISE an idea in the minds of the sheeple, so when it becomes actual, it seems as if that is a consequence of inevitability, NOT permission. So, previously on Slashdot it was ANY excuse to push the nonsense of coming self-driving cars on our roads. Now Google is buying up every available military robot research company, even the owners of Slashdot think hiding the truth from you i hopeless, so the second stage begins.

Re:Grooming propaganda for Google's Robot Tank (2)

WarJolt (990309) | about 4 months ago | (#46437263)

The owners of Slashdot have been previously grooming you by constantly promoting the nonsense of 'self-driving' cars - the first stage of Google propaganda to prepare the way for their robotic killing machines. The self-driving algorithms, while utterly useless for a vehicle that could tolerate not even one mistake, are perfect for robot tanks that can crush and slaughter a bus full of the 'other' without a murmur of complaint from the sheeple of the USA. By self-driving, the LAST thing Google means is 'safe' for civilians.

Tin foil hats are pretty fashionable, eh?

Car companies are investing millions in this stuff.
Without the DARPA we wouldn't have ARPANET, the precursor to the internet.
Of course this technology is going to emerge out of defense research, but it doesn't mean it won't be used for automobiles.

Re:Grooming propaganda for Google's Robot Tank (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 4 months ago | (#46437413)

Robots to replace troops. Two big problems with people as soldiers, most of them don't want to kill people and avoid it even when commanded to do so, especially unarmed people. Those all to happy to pull the trigger quite often end up pulling the trigger when they aren't order to do so or at inappropriate targets. Training can exacerbate the problem especially when you fail to promote honour and integrity, then killing becomes all too much fun especially when you start enrolling all to inappropriate narcissists and psychopaths.

Robots eliminate the emotion on the battlefield, problem is it now takes much fewer personal and selecting those most willing to send those robots out to slaughter human beings means you are far more likely to end up with narcissists and psychopaths at the controls. Who when they start seeking to feed their ego and lusts, will cause a hell of a lot more carnage, especially when they are safe from the battlefield and believe they can blame everything on the robot.

Then of course that might be exactly what those who are willing to deploy robots to slaughter people are after, massive population reduction in targeted zones with no witnesses, either those idiots who want to brag about their slaughter activities or those soldiers with honour and integrity who oppose. I would never ever trust a country willing to deploy robots in the battlefield to slaughter people, whether it be airborne drones that fire at mobile phones with missiles or ground based killing devices. Their measure of contempt for human life pretty much equals my contempt for them as individuals, not as human beings of course, I would never ever condone their and their families random execution.

Re:Grooming propaganda for Google's Robot Tank (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#46441475)

you are far more likely to end up with narcissists and psychopaths at the controls.

It'll be damned quiet round here if that ever happens.

citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437581)

...or, as I suspect, you just fabricated this idea.

And the USSR trained "Anti-Tank Dogs" (1)

jayveekay (735967) | about 4 months ago | (#46437219)

A cruel and useless Soviet WW2 tactic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

Re:And the USSR trained "Anti-Tank Dogs" (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46437357)

A few Russians that got promoted under Stalin spent a bit of time in exile in Australia and would have come across this story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loaded_Dog

However it's not unexpected from the sort of regime that drew inspiration from the defeat of the Tutonic Knights on a frozen river by sending in swarms of poorly armed peasants until the ice broke.

Re:And the USSR trained "Anti-Tank Dogs" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437443)

Except that poorly armed peasants had armor, maybe not as fancy, but left it behind on purpose to be much lighter and not break the ice. Where as heavy armored men with equally armored horses had ice collapse under them and drowned. Important to note that the ones that "drew inspiration" where children of those that didn't drown, while kin of those who did drew inspiration not to f... with Russia.

Badly wrong (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46437675)

They all drowned. Please don't make up shit about such a famous part of history.

Re:Badly wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437951)

Try asking someone from Lithuania about that and hearing of how the Strva River is not that big or deep to cause such loses. It was a much more boring military situation one would expect between heavy cavalry and soldiers that couldn't manage the tactics necessary to hold back calvary.

Re:Badly wrong (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#46438273)

Fair enough - your gut feeling can trump very famous and oft repeated details of history in your own mind. Just don't expect me to listen to your gut.

Re:And the USSR trained "Anti-Tank Dogs" (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#46441493)

Were the peasants standing on different ice? Because usually when it breaks everyone standing on it goes in.

Re:And the USSR trained "Anti-Tank Dogs" (1)

MXB2001 (3023413) | about 4 months ago | (#46440765)

Indeed they did. Of course they also liked to use infantry to clear minefields by marching them over them. You know, so the tanks could follow and not get blown up. Not too useful considering anti tank and anti personnel mines have different triggers. But while we're on the subject of abusing animals let's not forget the US Navy and it's suicide Dolphins. Sure they were supposed to swim away after attaching the mine... but I suspect the Porpoise was clear. Or not clear of the blast. It probably didn't matter.

Tubepunk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437353)

It's a bit too modern to be Steampunk, but a sci-fi world where vacuum tubes rule? Let's call it Tubepunk.

Re:Tubepunk? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#46437411)

It's a bit too modern to be Steampunk, but a sci-fi world where vacuum tubes rule? Let's call it Tubepunk.

That would be enough for the internet, which as we know is tubes.

Tubes are good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437489)

Like the Shamen said "Tubes are good, tubes are good, he's Ebenernubes are good" classic 90s rave tastic acid boing hardcore underground overground wombling free house techno psytrance.

Re:Tubepunk? (1)

chthon (580889) | about 4 months ago | (#46438801)

Tuberpunk?

Re:Tubepunk? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 4 months ago | (#46439085)

Tuberpunk?

No, I think that would mean strange gadgets covered with, or made out of, potatoes.

Re:Tubepunk? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#46441505)

Anything by the Pogues.

Re:Tubepunk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46437465)

That was called the 1950s. You can even include the first half of the 1960s as tubes were still used in the space program in the radio bits. Hell, TWTs were used all the way through the '80s on probes.

Not a Bolo? (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | about 4 months ago | (#46437839)

But according to future history the first robot tanks were Bolos made by General Motors. The Russians have screwed up another timeline. (Dang Putin)

Re:Not a Bolo? (1)

RobertinXinyang (1001181) | about 4 months ago | (#46438079)

Somehow I doubt that the T-26 Teletank was self aware.

Re:Not a Bolo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438561)

If a robot needs to be "self-aware" very few robots do qualify as a robot.

Re:Not a Bolo? (1)

RobertinXinyang (1001181) | about 4 months ago | (#46439303)

The reference was to the Bolo was this on (from Wiipedia) "A Bolo is a fictional type of artificially intelligent superheavy tank. They were first imagined by Keith Laumer, and have since been featured in science fiction novels and short story anthologies by him and others."

I doubt that the person I was responding to was thinking of the Douglas B-18 "Bolo" medium bomber.

Fake. POPSCI misguided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438367)

Original article http://www.mosoblpress.ru/odincovo/show.shtml?d_id=4247 absent.
You should understand Russians better.
Tank crew is significantly cheaper than 2 hydraulics and radio receiver-transmitter.

Re:Fake. POPSCI misguided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46438669)

Tank crew is significantly cheaper than 2 hydraulics and radio receiver-transmitter.

And a lot more flexible and adaptable when things don't go exactly as planned.

Re:Fake. POPSCI misguided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46441623)

Debatable. Most Russians are as thick as two short planks.

Safe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46439073)

"if it wandered out of radio range, the tank would come to a stop after a half-minute"

I have a hobby robot that is approx. the size of an A4 piece of paper. I programmed it to stop if it receives no command for 1 second, then shutdown if it receives none after 5 seconds. How on earth did they come up with 30 seconds being in anyway safe?

RUSSIA VS SOVIET UNION (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46439607)

Subby needs to learn the difference between 'Russia' and 'the Soviet Union'. yes, there is a difference and the difference matters. for example, koryolov was a ukrainian.

stop playing into putin's narratives, submitter.

Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...