1. The stupid. It burns.

   4

2. Might have worked in WWII. Modern tanks have a sight in both daylight and thermal that is slaved to the turret stabilization and ballistic computer. And they also have a Gunner’s Auxiliary Sight which is a glass telescope mounted coaxially with the main gun and uses an old fashioned ranging reticle. And the two systems are on different parts of the turret. Make that two water ballons.

   5

   1. This wouldn’t have worked on a WWII era tank… Hell, it wouldn’t have worked on a pre-WWI tank prototype.

      “Oh no! The periscope is dirty. Guess I’ll just have to look out the hatch. Oh no! There is a soy-latte in human form nearby holding a water balloon… Should I use my sidearm, a hand grenade, or just run him over with my tank? Decisions, decisions.”

      4

      1. Can’t aim the main gun or the coax by sticking your head out the hatch. It’s akin to covering the scope on a rifle and looking over the top of the scope to aim.

         3

         1. It’s perfectly possible to fire a rifle that has a covered scope.

            Is it as accurate? No.

            Is it still do-able? Yes.

            A tank with a dirty periscope is not disabled, it’s mildly inconvenienced.

            4

         2. Ever fired a machine gun? Don’t have to have sights, simply walk the impacts to the idiot throwing paint balloons at you. On a handheld weapon, more accurate than trying to see the sights during high speed recoil.

            3

            1. I have, including tank mounted machine guns. By the way, at least on American tanks, the tank commander’s machine gun has its own sight that allows the TC to engage without sticking his head up.

               2

   2. And…what do you figure is the chance that all of that stuff WORKS on a Russian tank?

      2

      1. More relevantly, what are the chances that you tag the only system that is working?

         3

      2. Thermal sights have been used on American tanks since the 80’s it isn’t new technology. And the optical sights on tanks have been around since WWII. And Russian armor beat the Nazis.

3. I’m sure Ukrainians are feverishly logging into Twitter, looking for advice on how to attack the Russians. My goodness, if there is ever a major war or collapse in Western nations, people like this guy would be dead in a week.

   3

   1. Yeah, first thing that came to mind was the range. Before you can paintball (or -balloon, or whatever) the tank, you need to get close enough to do so.
      .
      Even without infantry support, the tank’s onboard weaps have the range.

      4

4. Gosh, Paddy, I’m not sure what you mean.

   Howzabout you show me. In Ukraine.

   2

5. I am unaware of Mr. Tomlinson’s sci-fi writings.

   Possibly because he applies the same rigor of fact and scientific accuracy to his fiction as he does to his military tactical analysis.
   I would imagine that his stories are as rife with ‘unobtanium’, ‘magical tech’ and cardboard caricature ‘heroes’ as any 7th grader’s.

   3

   1. I’ve never heard of him either.

      Now that I have, he’s on my “don’t bother’ list.

      3

   2. In “Footfall”, Niven and Pournelle have a group of partisans ambush a tank using a ruse from the Czech uprising. They at least gave the source.

      There were no balloons, but there were Molotovs.

      2

6. If one is close enough to throw water balloons at the periscopes their close enough to throw a Molotov cocktail at the engine air intake. At least that might do something. There is a reason tanks are suppose to play with infantry if they are spending time in confined areas like cities. Which is why no one is going to get close enough to throw anything unless the Russians screw up.

   2

7. Seriously, every Spaceball knows that trick only works with razzberry jam…

   1

8. I don’t think that tactic rises even to the level of a “soft kill” or “mission kill.”

   1

9. I did a quick search on his name. He doesn’t seem to be too connected with reality.

   1

Comments are closed.