Poland’s Futuristic Stealth Tank PL-01

Future Tank

This is so cool looking. It looks like something out of a video game. It will have thermal camouflage and radar absorbing material to make it stealth. The infrared camouflage technology applied to this tank is very exciting. It is armed to the teeth and has modular armor. Did I mention it looks awesome?
Check out more info over at Foxtrot Alpha



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • FourString

    Yes pls

  • Solid Snake

    Metal Gear!

    • noob

      metal gear is down there.

    • FourString

      wisely chosen Disqus name

  • noob

    Where do we paint the Brotherhood of Nod logo?

    • Mazryonh

      Yeah, how long before one of those is able to do this from the first Stealth Tank to enter pop culture?

      http://youtu.be/XiMR77_ARFk

  • Andrey Martim

    Where do we paint the Empire logo?

  • noob

    with the ability to depress the turret all the way down and 360 degree cameras, looks like somebody is gearing up for urban combat

  • Hikerguy

    Game changer…..

  • noob

    getting closer to the thermoptic camouflage from Ghost in the Shell

    http://youtu.be/J6fQ4umUW4Y

    • BattleshipGrey

      We’re still a little ways off from complete visual camo. Still, one of the best set of movies ever made.

  • Giolli Joker

    OK.
    I take two!
    Nice Lamborghini touch in the design. 🙂

  • guest

    It will cower and hide as soon as it sees a mercedes-benz from the 80’s crossing the polish-german border.

  • Dong Blak

    Nice Merkava 5.

    • bbmg

      One can certainly see some parallels with the Israeli tank.

      Since the thermal camouflage and active protection systems and sensors are not really mature technologies, I doubt they will be appearing on the battlefield any time soon.

      Also, I wonder how well the sensors would be protected against a sniper’s bullet, in an urban situation a coordinated attack could first knock out these systems and then attack with conventional RPG style weapons. I would also imagine that all that technology adds weight, which means less passive armor.

      • Joe Schmoe

        Actually, Active Protection Systems are mature technology (they’ve been around for decades) and the Israeli’s already mass fielded an APS called Trophy on all their Merkava 4M tanks. (which is 2/3’s their main tank force).

        • bbmg

          True, and some quick research shows that it seems to have been successful operationally.

  • bbmg
    • Wosiu

      You are idiot.

      • bbmg

        … and ignorance is bliss, so smiles all around 🙂

    • wojtekimbier

      You (hopefully) know that the polish cavalry charges against german tanks were a nazi propaganda. Funny comic other than that lol.

      • bbmg

        Definitely, and the Polish people I have the pleasure of knowing are lovely, my post was of course in jest.

    • Yellow Devil

      “Hope springs eternal, but reality perpetually crushes.”

  • mikewest007

    Also, the bullpup version of MSBS has reached the stage of fully functional production prototype, and the production lines for MSBS are already set up and getting started.

  • iksnilol

    It is a tank.

    I am pretty sure you are going to notice it.

    Supersonic jets at night are really only visible with radar. So that makes sense there.

    Though I do like it.

  • Zugunder

    Looks “cool” and stuff… Is it necessary though? I can accept concept of flying high moving fast stealth plane, but this… I don’t know.

  • Jacqueshacques

    Does the radar-absorbing skin and cooled exhaust hide it from a dude with a cell phone, a soldering iron, and an old 155 round? Because for the last 10 years, it seems like that’s been more of a problem than thermal-equipped attack helicopters.

    • bbmg

      In the Middle East, perhaps, but if things kick off in Europe I think it’s fair to say that it will be the Polish resistance with cellphone in hand.

    • n0truscotsman

      …or to go more hypothetical, will its armor hide it from an alert T90 tank crew or tank hunter team with a RPG29?

  • Pete Sheppard

    It’s hard to imagine that the heat of the engine can simply be handwaved away. It has to go somewhere.

  • DiverEngrSL17K

    The PL-01’s modular, balanced medium-weight concept incorporating the ability to easily field add-on upgrades ( such as advanced optronics, reactive armor and high-caliber firepower ) in a compact chassis with a low ground-pressure footprint reminds me of the earlier, though less technologically-advanced attempts from the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s at achieving the same sort of balance. The AMX-30, AMX-32, AMX-40, Vickers Mk. 1 37-ton MBT ( which was adopted in modified form as the Indian Army’s Vijayanta ) and Thyssen-Henschel TAM all come to mind.

    The Soviet ( and now Russian ) Army has always adhered to this general concept, and with considerable success, for it’s MBT’s beginning with the T-34 medium tank of World War Two, and culminating in today’s T-90, although the latter, at 48 tons, admittedly leans toward the heavier, more comprehensively-equipped and more heavily-armored end of what one might call the “medium-sized MBT” scale.

    The PL-01’s resemblance to the Israeli Merkava MBT ( and the TAM ) is probably only coincidental, and is really driven more by design and engineering requirements needed to meet stipulated specifications.

    By the way, Tyler Rogoway’s article on the Foxtrot Alpha website concerning the PL-01 is both informative and well -written. In a related FA post on the T-90, he also makes a very strong and convincing argument for a more balanced, cost-effective approach to MBT design in the form of a reliable and mechanically simple chassis combined with modern armament, ammunition, and sophisticated fire-control and protection systems utilizing proven existing technology.

    • dp

      Hello DiverEng! As I mentioned above, I believe this is NOT a MBT and it does not make that pretence. It is something ‘new’ in a way and it ought to be viewed with respect to that. Any resemblances are probably just skin deep.

      • DiverEngrSL17K

        Very good point, dp — thank you! If anyone reads my post carefully, I did not at any point imply the PL-01 itself could be considered a true MBT in the generally accepted sense of the word as we define it today. It is a new-generation compact medium tank that expands upon previous concepts of a fast, well-armed, well-equipped lightweight medium tank that still has decent armor protection against smaller-caliber battlefield weapons, much like the old AMX-30. AMX-32 and TAM. It should be borne in mind, however, that the AMX-30 and AMX-32 ( and even the Vickers Mk. 1 37-tonner / Vijayanta ) were classified as MBT’s by their designers and end users, not because they necessarily had the armored protection of true, heavyweight MBT’s ( they certainly did not ), but because of the combat role they were expected to fulfill in actual service relative to the end users’ defined TO & E and armored warfare doctrines. Other than the lack of additional armor, they generally matched the firepower, mobility and fire-control technology of the “true” MBT’s of that time period.

    • T-34 was not conventional, or even all the same configuration. the T-34/76 gun had a 2 man turret, and the tank commander was a very busy man indeed. The T-34/85 had a 3 man turret, with the gun duties removed from the commander, putting in in the same rough class as the Pzkw-IV F2, but with better armor.

      • DiverEngrSL17K

        Quite so, especially when one considers the now well-known integrated sloped armor design mass-produced at a time when most contemporary rivals were still being built as armored boxes with all-vertical or mostly vertical armor. The T-34/85 was a vast improvement over the earlier T-34/76, mainly because it had a larger, roomier, more ergonomically-friendly turret for the commander, gunner and loader with ( as you have rightly pointed out ), a separation of operational duties that placed less of a load on each individual, thus enabling said individual to concentrate and function that much more efficiently in his designated role. The 85mm ZiS high-velocity gun was another distinct improvement too.

    • n0truscotsman

      “In a related FA post on the T-90, he also makes a very strong and convincing argument for a more balanced, cost-effective approach to MBT design in the form of a reliable and mechanically simple chassis combined with modern armament, ammunition, and sophisticated fire-control and protection systems utilizing proven existing technology”

      The most successful tank designs (T-55, T72, M60, Chieftain, Merkava, Leopard to name a few examples) coincidentally all have those attributes 🙂

      The most troublesome tanks and failed prototypes (T62, T64, T80, MBT70, American T95) all have a common attribute: they rushed various immature technologies and untried concepts in a single package.

      • DiverEngrSL17K

        Well said, n0truscotsman, well said! The T95 was quite an ambitious project for it’s time, wasn’t it? And we all know about the cost and technology debacle surrounding the otherwise promising MBT-70 programme. “Too much, too soon” comes to mind.

        • n0truscotsman

          I hate seeing the same failed ideas being brought up again, such as remote-operated turrets and crews “protected” within the hull.

          The Russians apparently did this with their own T95, and quickly moved on to a different design that will undoubtedly use a more conventional turret design.

          All of this expense just to deal with radar and thermal signature, which does nothing to address within visual range by a trained tank crew.

          Either way, it seems to be a heavily modified CV90-120 and Im curious as to what happened to the Anders?

  • Dick is a Dick

    ahahahaha
    oh wait these guys are serious
    let me laugh even harder

  • badTFB

    THEFIREARMBLOG.COM

    Tanks, not firearms.

    Scraping from the bottom of the barrel today, are we?

    • iksnilol

      Tanks are firearms.

      Really big firearms on threads so it counts.

    • bad TFB using a fake ID—goodbye—

      • badbadTFB

        Disquis allows guest accounts – it’s not a “fake ID”.

        Or is TFB staff not aware of their own comment system? Or maybe that’s just your excuse for removing my comment which is critical of your choice to cover a “stealth tank” on a website for firearms?

        Bad, bad TFG

        • No I didn’t care about the comment. Using these types of ID’s has been discussed several times before. It’s frowned upon since some characters use them to hide behind and make insulting comments to other readers. That and some have attempted to run ads for products in the same way.
          Disquis may allow it be we really don’t. If you want a guest account pick something a bit more appropriate.
          I won’t delete your comment this time but I hope you understand our position on it.
          If people like the post and comment on it a good deal then it’s appropriate for TFB.
          Besides have you ever seen a tank without a big ol gun. We’ve covered the super sized German WWII railroad mounted weapons.
          TFB has also greatly increased the number of post each which gives us the ability to cover a wider variety of topics without taking away from the bread and butter gun reviews.

  • avconsumer2

    Wow. Hawt tank.

  • bbmg

    Looking at the specs, there is no way you can call this a Main Battle Tank.

    It is based on the CV90 chassis and weighs 30 tons with standard armor – that’s half the weight of an M1A2 – which means that without its active protection systems the armor can stop fire from an APC autocannon but not much else.

    In a way, it seems tanks are going the way of the battleship – anti tank firepower has increased to the extent that simply making armor thicker and thicker is no longer viable if the vehicle is to be mobile, so there is more emphasis on active protection.

    The Iron Curtain for example is impressive stuff, fight fire with fire!

    • dp

      In a coarse way of my understanding of this concept I feel this is NOT really a tank in conventional sense of the word. It is a transition in between armoured vehicle and main battle tank with addition of innovative features to augment its survival. I do not pretend to have deeper technical understanding of it, but I grasp the outline. It seem to make lot of sense.

    • Zugunder

      reminds me Arena in some way.

    • stimr2

      bbmg is correct more countries are developing active protection systems for their tanks and armored vehicles. South Korea’s APS is pretty impressive as well. They’re already testing their system on their K2 main battle tank.

      • bbmg

        Fantastic… it really is amazing how rapidly this technology is progressing. I wonder how long before they develop one for aircraft?

        • Phil Hsueh

          They already do, sort of, it’s called chaff & flares although they’re more decoys than a proper active defense. The problem with doing something similar with aircraft is that anti-aircraft missiles generally don’t kill by explosive force directly contacting the aircraft, AA missiles are typically proximity fused so they don’t have to get a direct hit and kill by fragmentation. So for an aircraft mounted version of something like Iron Dome to work for aircraft it would have to be able to kill the incoming missile outside the fragmentation radius of the incoming missile. In order to do something like that you’d practically need an anti-missile missile and that technology is good bit ways away, at least in a compact enough for to be carried by anything short of a cargo plane.

          • bbmg

            Chaff and flares will have little effect on missiles using optical guidance like the Python 5.

            An anti-missile missile is probably a viable proposition today. The

            RIM-116 RAM is a decades old design currently in service on US Navy ships in such a role and the missile itself weighs less than 200 lbs, surely using today’s technology a much smaller missile could be built that would engage incoming missiles. It would not take a massive motor to engage a missile at say 1 kilometer, well out of range of the warhead’s kill radius.

          • Some have proximity fuses so when they detonate they fire a large number of ball bearing shaped projectiles into the target shredding it.

          • bbmg

            You would think in some cases you would not need explosive at all.

            The Skyshield air defense system for example uses the AHEAD shell which uses a small charge to simply release submunitions which rely on their existing kinetic energy to cause damage, just like the shrapnel shells in days of yore: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a393758.pdf

            I don’t see why this couldn’t be applied to a rocket.

            Going on a flight of fancy and playing with some numbers, let’s say you have a surface to air missile and you replace its 100 kg explosive warhead with 4,000 x 25 gram darts. Let’s say the impact velocity is around 5,000 fps (some missiles can reach in excess of 6,500 fps…) your target is faced with a cloud of 4,000 subprojectiles each with twice the kinetic energy of a 50 BMG bullet…

            Of course whether or not this would be more effective than explosives is debatable, aircraft are sensitive to blast damage and a fragmenting warhead acts in all directions.

        • Not long if they don’t already. There are rumors the Russians have a sidewinder type system in the back of one of the bomber types. I don’t recall which one.

          • bbmg

            Anyone remember the “backwinder” missiles in F29 Retaliatior 😀

        • n0truscotsman

          The better question is: how long before they develop a laser-based system that can defeat missiles for both tanks AND anything else?

      • stimr2

        Here’s another cool video.

        • stimr2

          I’m a idiot I forgot to link the video.

      • I believe the Israelis were the first to put autonomous defense systems similar to this on the Merkava.
        Cool video

        • stimr2

          Phil your correct and I believe their Trophy APS is the first combat proven APS.

          http://youtu.be/n46uJyfD69k

        • Aybars

          After the defeat in Lebonan 🙂

    • n0truscotsman

      I disagree.

      The heavy armor and protective features of a main battle tank will be even relevant in 4th generation warfare and future hypothetical conventional conflicts, if not more so.

      Protection will undoubtedly be more sophisticated, though. I can agree with that. Perhaps the age of energy shield will make IFVs more viable?

      • bbmg

        Current APFSDS rounds can go through more than half a metre of hardened steel at a range of four kilometres, and there is every reason to believe that this performance will get better and better. My point is that the days of simply making the armor thicker are over, short of major breakthroughs in materials that are both extremely resistance to kinetic impacts, light weight and dense.

        • MrDakka

          You forget that materials technology is a double edged sword, what could be used to increase weapon effectiveness can also be used to increase armor effectiveness. The whole bulk nanotech materials is about to hit the market in force. Stuff that existed in labs are finally seeing the light of day, such as nanolaminated alloys and nanostructured steels.

        • n0truscotsman

          Rolled homogenous steel, of course.

          Tanks are no longer made of just rolled homogenous steel, with multi-layered armor comprised of alloys and composites being the standard since the 1970s for any respectible main battle tank. Such armor substantially increases the efficiency against shaped charges and sabot rounds.

          Any advancements in gun technology will result in advancements in armor and protection. It has been a conundrum since the age of bronze.

          I understand your point though.

        • mrsatyre

          I believe the peace-loving Ruskies came up with a brilliant countermeasure to reactive armor a few years ago, too. They have RPGs which fires off a round with a small charge, and a much larger shaped charge directly in line with the first a few milliseconds after. The first charge explodes the reactive armor on the target, leaving exposed armor beneath for the second round to easily penetrate.

    • At that weight it could be classed as a medium tank. Kinda like a comparison between the Sherman and Stuart tank of WWII

    • patrickiv

      This is F-ing awesome.

    • LCON

      well if we let the Japanese Type 10 get away with it…Still the tech features could easily be fitted into a true MBT like I hope the M1E3

  • dp

    This is a politically oriented message, but it may be helpful in understanding Polish situation for the readers. As far as I know, their government is trying to act realistically and it is arguable to what degree their sensibilities are right or not.
    They happen to have on both sides powerful neighbours – Germany which is more pertinent to think about since polish border is mere 70km form German capital – in huge paradox to pre WWI border. Further, on eastern side they have border with Belorussia which is in close relation to Russia herself. Historically, Poles had ongoing struggles with Russia and with Ukraine, to some degree.
    This all should lead to understanding why Poland is acting defensively – and I believe any nation in that situation would do similarly. Now – the big question to ask: is Poland capable to afford this stance economically and in long term? Based on my knowledge of central-European current situation – I doubt it. Poland’s economy is not doing very well as is the case with many other nations of former Eastern Europe. So, in order to do this, they must indebt themselves in long term with all the negative effect to life of ordinary citizens.
    Personally, I wish them well: Polska jeszcie nezgynela!

    • dp

      I missed one important detail: they DO have border directly with Russia proper and it is with Kaliningrad region. Those who have deeper knowledge of European history know how this came about – it is remnant of portion of former East Prussia (Germany) being taken over after WWII by Soviets. Oh yes, and it is very helpful to look at maps from both 1918 and 1938 Polish state of borders. To really come to closer understanding it is best NOT to take side end put yourself into their shoes. Thanks!

      • bbmg

        Well, it is next on Russia’s list…

        http://hugelolcdn.com/i460/251943.jpg

        • dp

          Tell ya something ‘bbmg’, I have respect for your views on technical matters, but do not believe this a bit. This is part of anti-Russian psychosis which is being whipped out in media lately.
          Yes, Soviets (WP actually minus Romania) entered once country where I originate militarily and unwelcome. However, with bit of knowledge picked up here and there and mainly with life-time experience, I understand it now and do not hold any sour feeling any more. It just needs to learn a bit and think a bit and it comes by itself.

          • bbmg

            I was of course joking, there is absolutely no reason to believe Russia has any plans to invade Poland!

            I just love these little “polandball” comics and try to find even the feeblest excuse to wedge them into the conversation 😀

            http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/polandball

          • dp

            That’s ok bb, I know we are on friendly footing. I hate to mention this stuff, it is really out of place at TFB, but we have a god time, right?! Take care man!

    • Wosiu

      As I replied to Lance post:

      Poland is now the sixth biggest European Union economy. And only one of the big EU economies which is still growing since 2008 economic crisis.

      • dp

        Errr, that is news to me and I appreciate you do not call me a ‘moron’. Thank you very much sir for updating my general knowledge. I happen to be originally from country just south and as such I know a bit (actually quite a bit) about Poland; yet my feelings are essentially friendly ones, as mentioned before. By he same token I do not give a hoot to hot-breathing nationalism.

        • He was talking to Lance I think.

          • dp

            I think so too Phil. I was just giving little bit of backup to Lance. I like the fella, he is so tireless. Actually I like whole local bunch. We all have fun, right?!

  • Lance

    a lot better than the crappy T-72 it uses now. But I doubt they can afford such a tank for a while yet. They are one of the more poorer countries in Europe.

    • Wosiu

      You are uneducated moron.

      Poland is now the sixth biggest European Union economy.

      Apart of abt. 540 T-72 tanks, Poland have also 232 PT-91 tanks (probably most advanced T-72 modernisation in the world) and 128 Leopard A4 tanks (soon it will be 142 Leo 2A4 and 105 Leo 2A5 tanks which will be modernised to Leo2PL standard, equivalent to Leo2A6).

      • FourString

        yup. their infantry rifles are newer than ours too, i might add.

      • The Leopard is also the equal of just about any tank in the field.

      • n0truscotsman

        Leo 2s are awesome tanks. Excellent protection, firepower, and reliability with a superior endurance and power-per-ton ratio for a vehicle of their protection level.

        The US is actually flirting around with using the Leos MTU powerplant (licensed by General Dynamics and already produced for the Israeli Merkava) to retrofit the Abrams’ gas turbine and far superior Diehl tracks. Don’t know if we will or not.

        Either way, if you are afraid of T-series tanks, the Leo is a good counter (and was designed exclusively to kill them).

  • 2d Lt. Stanislaw Wiœniewzcski

    This tank has actually been built, I’ve seen it, and it’s amazing. The design really satisfies the Polish army’s age-old quest to stop easy radar detection of their heavy tanks. For too long, main battle tanks have been easily detected using naval or air defense radar sets.

    Also, this thing integrates thermal diffusion with a vengeance, and from the front it looks ice cold in the IR wavelength. The way they accomplish this is low-tech, clever, and also assists with the low radar signature–the entire rear panel of the tank is made from a high tech chrome-moly 2.5″ chain link screening previously developed by the Polish Navy for use in submarines. They successfully keep the engine and crew from falling out, and diffuse the engine’s thermal signature by leaving it wide open to the elements. It’s a bit loud, and the crew has to wear winter gear at all times, but the thermal results are amazing. (The animation isn’t accurate, perhaps the chain link rear panel was considered a state secret by the Polish Army?)

    This thing really shows what 21st Century Polish engineering can accomplish!

    • Wosiu

      Stupid provocation.

  • n0truscotsman

    Technology porn. Pure technology porn.

    The remote turret with a autoloader has been tried before, and numerous times, even back to the Cold War, and failed miserably (see the Expeditionary Fighting Tank). What if the gun jams? How will the coax be accommodated? Are the sensors and cameras sophisticated enough to be equivalent in spatial orientation and visibility as a human buttoned out? (LOL okay that was being facetious. Of course it is NOT, unless they plant a set of human eyeball equivalents on top)

    No matter how much technology advances, you cannot replace a crew inside a turret and the idea that they are safer inside the hull is wishful thinking to begin with (hasn’t anybody heard of anti-tank mines?). With a loader absent, the tank is also deprived a crew member, which increases the maintenance burden between three tankers (a bad idea with westernized tanks and extremely sophisticated technology such as this; were not talking about a Russian T-series tank here).

    Thermal camouflage is interesting, although, will Russia and any foreseeable foe employ sophisticated optics primarily to hunt and kill tanks? probably NOT, unless of course, the tank is trying to counter UAV and other new surveillance means (which will become increasingly important).

    The advantages I can say is that the CV90 is a excellent chassis. But I see this as a heavily modified CV90-120.

    History has not been kind to tanks featuring a plethora of prototype technologies, thats all im saying.

  • Michael

    They would all disappear if the Russians headed West.

  • Wosiu

    Some explanations:

    – PL01 Concept is private project of PHO (former Bumar) and BAE, in which BAE is responsible for hull based on hull of CV90, ADAPTIV camouflage system and some other things and PHO is responsible for unmanned turret and integration.

    – Target of this project is replacement of T-72 tanks by some kind of “Light Tank” or “Fire Support Vehicle” loosely planned by present Polish MoD.

    – If this project is realistic, is another thing, but theoretically can be.

    BTW. FB Radom just registered own company in Texas named FB Radom USA LLC. From the next year you should be happy to buy all US legal variants of Archer (Beryl) rifles and maybe MSBS 5,56 rifles.

    As to the MSBS 5,56 all final versions have to be unveiled in June.
    These are:
    – conventional assault rifle,

    – conventional assault rifle – grenade launcher,

    – conventional carbine,

    – conventional designated marksman rifle,

    – conventional light machine gun (magazine fed),

    – conventional ceremonial rifle with wooden buttstock,

    – bullpup assault rifle,

    – bullpup assault rifle – grenade launcher,

    – bullpup carbine,

    – bullpup designated marksman rifle,

    – bullpup light machine gun (magazine fed),

    Additionally there will be shotgun based on conventional rifle.

    http://www.altair.com.pl/news/view?news_id=13031

    http://www.equipped.pl/msbs-556-bull-pup-live-fire-demo-fb-radom/

  • MrDakka

    For the love of dakka, stop calling it an MBT. Its protection level even with an active protection system (APS) can never hope to cope with armament of actual MBT’s. It armor level is rated at STANAG 4569 Annex A at level 5+. That’s more or less withstanding 25/30/40 mm APDS-T rounds from 500 m. That’s not going to stop 120 mm APFSDS fielded by most MBT’s today.

    However, it could very well replace MBT’s in certain situations, such as urban warfare, where being more nimble, agile and smaller is advantageous. If anything, the PL-01 is a light tank based on an IFV chassis.

    While certainly technically impressive, it essentially is a shiny new cover for a rehash of BAE’s tech demonstrator from a couple of years back. They even kept the CV90 chassis from the original prototype and wrapped it up in a cool, new package.

  • Mazryonh

    How long before they make like Batman (from The Dark Knight version) and start using Echolocation to try and detect infrared-camouflaged and low-radar observable tanks? I would think that those forms of concealment wouldn’t disguise the differing sonic properties reflecting from those tanks compared to the ground. Besides, even keeping a tank engine on “standby” while it tries to hide means it has to dump the waste heat somewhere.

    How about dispensing explosives via mortars or cluster bombs mixed in with decoys that give off the same signatures as the real ones (i.e., the old WWI “creeping barrage” or “exploratory bombing”)? The moment the APS fires to try and engage what it believes to be an incoming munition, the tank gives away its position, stealth or no stealth. “Ping-ponging” a wide area would also give away a low-observable tank since a ping-pong ball or similar bouncing thing would bounce off snow or dirt much more differently than combat-worthy tank armour, but now I’m just throwing ideas around.

    There’s still also the good-old-fashioned searchlight from above. Unless they make these stealth tanks have the outlines of rocks and boulders and other innocuous things, they’ll still cast a distinctly tank-like shadow, and I do suppose these stealth tanks (like stealth aircraft) will normally be deployed at night..

  • 101nomad

    Does it have turn signals?

  • A7D

    They better get the production lines moving if they don’t want Putin vacationing there.

  • Mazryonh

    Why was my comment here removed? Others here have posted up relevant youtube vids and my comment had one as well.

  • JT

    How many of them are they going to field though? And when is somebody going to build a “super-sheridan” light tank?

  • Jeremy

    I saw the Polish in Afghanistan… they weren’t allowed to even have a round in the chamber of their rifles on patrol and their APC’s main guns were in the same condition…

  • Secundius

    No all you need to do is put-on a green Active Cloaking-Device System, and then you truly a Smart Stealth Tank. But, I wonder if marine radar will pick-it-up?