Why do modern tanks still use cupolas as the driver's main line of sight? It seems like it would make a lot more sense to have a 15 inch LCD with cameras positioned around the tank to see instead of direct sight. Of course, you could still have the cupola as a backup, but still; why not use cameras? Or... do we already and I missed the memo?
>>30645658
Cameras are more prone to failure and are more expensive then glass. The "new" Abrams has a remote .50cal turret, but that's about it.
>>30645695
Why not have both?
I believe the Armata uses multiple cameras in addition to the traditional cupola/periscopes for the driver
>>30645729
Well cost is one. People want the military budget down.
>>30645729
Canada's Leo 2A4s have cameras with screens.
Is this is the one example of our gear not being total shit?
>>30645658
You've provided zero viable reasons to use cameras. Meanwhile, cameras have worse resolution and frames per second than real life.
>>30645658
Because they are not so modern. Not many tanks have entered in service in the last 10-5 years.
>>30645658
Why would you want something else that can fail at random or leave you as a blind duck in the case of an EMP?
I understand the cupola being a backup, but still, going full digital isn't always better.
>>30645764
We could also cut cost vastly by not making so many tanks that the military literally can't do anything with them.
>>30645658
>Why not use cameras???
Because the drivers periscope will survive when the tank takes a HEAT round from a T-80, a series of cameras around the tank won't.
>>30646448
The US has not built a new Abrams for itself since the 90's.
>>30645908
Your eye can only see around 24 fps
And I'm sure a 4k monitor is pretty close to as good as the eye can see
>>30646585
Other than that being entirely false, otherwise there would be no reason to develop monitors with 144hz refresh rates
>>30646632
high refresh rates is about alieviating eye strain.
You can't actually see the difference
>>30646638
>>30646585
kill yourself
Because the driver has the fucking commander with an entire suite of sensors telling him where to go.
Someone correct me on this, but I thought the mil didn't use cameras as main ways of seeing due to the psychological disconnect that can form in a driver or pilot's brain that would cause him to put himself or the equipment at more risk. Something about the brain not seeing things as being as dangerous due to not seeing them in real life.
This has only gotten worse with the new generation of recruits playing more violent and realistic video games before joining up. Again, something about the brain not seeing things as being as dangerous.
>>30646638
Other than that being again, untrue. the myth of 24hz eyesight is because that is what is required at minimum to make a light seem constant in an open room.
In real world examples however the human eye can seem multiples higher than that if focused on a smaller area
The reason is the human brain has no refresh rate, this is why if you start at a strip light you will slowly become aware that is if flickering, that flicker is 50hz
>>30645908
This is a MILITARY vehicle we're talking about, I'm pretty sure we could find some decent cameras to use for daytime driving. Also, 30 fps is just fine for DRIVING the tank. I never said anything about the Commander, Gunner, or Loader having anything similar; just the driver, who doesn't need to spot targets.
>>30647228
>implying the driver doesnt need to spot tank traps, hidden ditches, less than opvious signs on recent mine laying, cross narrow bridges at speed while possibly taking fire and generally react to attackers as promptly as any other crewman, French Special forces for example train to try roll infront of oncoming armor from roadside ditches to attach charges to the hull as the tank rolls over them
>I'm pretty sure we could find some decent cameras to use for daytime driving.
And if the tank takes a large hit from explosives that shakes the mountings and you have no fall back
>>30645908
>>30647588
>And if the tank takes a large hit from explosives that shakes the mountings and you have no fall back
Yeah, because this is such a huge problem with all the other screens mounted on combat vehicles, including those already used in the exact same tank and others like it. The TUSK already has adds a thermal back-up camera for the driver.
>Meanwhile, cameras have worse resolution and frames per second than real life.
You can make cameras and monitors record and display at higher and lower than 24fps. Any loss in resolution is obviously countered by the option of giving the driver thermal imagining, night vision, and a tremendously better field of view.
The reason we haven't done it yet is because the hulls are a 40 year old design and periscopes are already there. Even if it makes sense, it would be a hugely expensive overhaul that wouldn't really improve the capability of the vehicles against current threats, unless it went hand in hand with a total improvement of the hull armor.
>>30647848
>Yeah, because this is such a huge problem with all the other screens mounted on combat vehicles,
You seem to be mistakenly thinking I meant the screens. I meant the camera itself would take more room and have magnitudes higher failure points than a reinforced cupola.
A thermal camera to help the driver in night driving would no doubt be an advantage as you can drive with no lights, however this is a support system not the primary.
>>30648162
>I meant the camera itself would take more room and have magnitudes higher failure points than a reinforced cupola.
It's no different than all the cameras mounted on the top of the Abrams
>>30646750
That's retarded.
>>30648796
Two high end gun sights in armored boxes are not comparable to a 360 degree panoramic view system.
>>30646448
>Economy of scale.
It's actually cheaper in the long run to make 10k and put 5k in storage for spare parts or an out break of war.
>>30648940
That's literally what the CITV does. The commander can rotate the CITV fairly quickly.
Instead of half-assing it, the next step for tanker situational awareness is probably a less capable version of the F-35's EODAS system, where each crew member has a helmet mounted display that lets them see through the tank.
Would also be very useful as part of the APS, to give a means of passively detecting incoming projectiles.
However that shit isn't cheap, and generates heat that's much harder to get rid of on a tank.
>>30648940
>Two high end gun sights in armored boxes are not comparable to a 360 degree panoramic view system.
How is it not comparable? You'd put the drivers cameras in armored boxes just like the cameras on the turret.
It doesn't have to be a stabilized 2-axis mount. It can be a simple array of 3 armored cameras covering the front 180 degrees and then a rear-facing camera.
Destroying that is literally no different than peppering the drivers periscopes as they currently are.
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
>muh 24hz
look at this retard
>>30645658
The driver in the Abrams has a thermal rear view camera. Anything more than that would be relatively redundant and/or not cost effective because we already have the citv, crows, dve and a multitude of other sights. Generally a human eye is better than a camera that needs upkeep and maintenance anyway.
>>30649268
>>30649407
I made the mistake of not realizing the OP was talking about the drivers periscopes instead of the commanders cupola.
Abrams already have forward and rear thermal cameras for the driver.
http://www.drs.com/products-and-services/abrams-driver-s-vision-enhancer-dve-a/
>>30650049
That's not your mistake, the OP is a retard for calling vision blocks "cupolas".
I saw cupola and immediately thought commander. The driver doesn't have one.
