• NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      Generally speaking it can have an impact, but specifically with drones who knows, and some of the drones use infrared cameras which itd be useless on.

    • anuwubis@discuss.tchncs.de
      90·
      2 months ago

      it worked well back then, there are no documented destructions of warships by autonomous drones during world war 2!

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        10·
        2 months ago

        Did you ignore the V2 (rocket) because it didn’t destroy a warship (I didn’t fact check this, but it seems likely), or is your definition of an autonomous drone very restrictive?

        Torpedo also should count as an autonomous drone (some were wire guided and not autonomous) and they were sinking warships well before WWII.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 months ago

          I would rather say that your definition of “autonomous” appears rather wide? I wouldn’t call e.g. a heat-seeking or radar-guided missile “autonomous”. I would say that “autonomous” implies the drone/missile/torpedo/etc. can somehow adapt to changing conditions rather than follow a simple pre-programmed path.

          You can have very simple “autonomous” systems, for example “Move towards this GPS coordinate, unless you lose connection, in which case fall back to inertial guidance until you either reach the target or re-acquire connection”. Another example could be “Home in on the heat signature, unless you lose the signal, in which case execute some planned manoeuvres to re-acquire the signature”. Yet another could be “Move towards target, but if you detect that you’re being tracked by radar, or detect an AA launch, conduct evasive manoeuvres / move closer to the ground, etc.”

          All the above imply that the drone / missile / torpedo / whatever is capable of responding to changes in the surrounding environment. To my knowledge, there were no WWII-era weapons capable of doing that. A typical WWII-torpedo was “Start the propeller and keep going at maximum speed until the detonator is triggered or you run out of fuel and sink.” I can’t really see how that would count as autonomous.

          • bluGill@fedia.io
            3·
            2 months ago

            “Start the propeller and keep going at maximum speed until the detonator is triggered or you run out of fuel and sink.”

            That is a very simple program. Heat sinking is modifying behavior.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              The behavior stays the same during heat seeking (go towards the heat). The direction might change as it keeps to it’s behavior (since the heat moves)

              Autonomous means having the ability carry out task and adapt to new information. You are ignoring the second part.

            • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              I wouldn’t say things like proximity triggers or primitive homing tech like heat seekers are autonomous. Heat seekers don’t adapt to changing situations, but follow a completely mechanical “go towards the warmest spot” path. Being autonomous would mean the could react to the “warmest spot” either disappearing or moving in an unphysical way (suddenly appearing somewhere it’s shouldn’t be, as can happen with e.g. flares).

              Basically, if the weapon has a single thing it can do (move towards hot thing), and no way of adapting if that thing doesn’t work as expected, I have a hard time calling it autonomous.

              I wouldn’t call a simple robot-vacuum autonomous either for that matter. If the instruction set is “go forward until you hit an obstacle, then rotate 15 degrees clockwise and repeat”, I don’t really see that as “adapting to changing circumstances”.

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          2 months ago

          Torpedoes really revolutionized Naval Warfare. I remember reading about the Japanese figuring out to use oxygen as the propellant and got way better results right before World War ii.

          I believe the Russians have a nuclear torpedo. What the fucking good that is I don’t know suicide mission for the ship.

  • GuyIncognito@lemmy.ml
    14·
    2 months ago

    While many of you are shouting “Go Ukraine” or “Go Russia”, I am shouting “Go, the return of dazzle camouflage!”

    • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Next: Chameleon cars. Or maybe not. Russia doesn’t have the money or tech for it.

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        2 months ago

        With Buckyballs it could be possible to make an invisibility cloak, but prohibitively expensive, and russia treats their soldiers like cannon fodder they don’t give a fuck.

        But this type of magnetic carbon they can make, referred to as Buckyballs sometimes, is really interesting, it has so much potential. You could make a suit to reinforce your muscles and give you superhuman strength, you could make it to read the lights on one side and recreate it on the other to be invisible. Really amazing stuff. I don’t know if there’s been any developments on this in the past 20 years or whatever.

  • Ariselas@piefed.caEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    Nice of Russia to barcode their inventory for better identification. Wouldn’t the hard black and white edges make it easier for digital identification?

  • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    2 months ago

    The limeys did a bunch of shit like this on ships in World War II too confused bombers or whatever. It’s actually really cool, I saw it on Reddit I can’t find it now maybe I could I’m not going to though.

    • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.caEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      That was referred to as “dazzle camouflage” and the idea was to throw off the aim of German U-boats by making it more difficult to determine the size and orientation of the ship from brief periscope observation. They would them not be able to compute the correct fire control solution for their torpedos.