Civil Technology Guerilla
-
So Uncle Vladimir decided for a very outdated kind of warfare. Tanks and such crap. It’s 2022, but he behaves as if it still was 1940.
He deserves to be taught a lesson by a modern guerilla. Modern: using civil technology for fighting last millennium weapons.
Here at TDWTF, we are masters of weird ideas and weird technology. Let’s collect some thoughts how a guerilla could make use of today’s technology to tell Paleolithic warriors a lesson.
-
Tanks.
First of all: tanks. In ancient scenarios, a line of tanks arrived from the east, and a a line of tanks in the west tries to stop them. How ancient! Tanks were built for that purpose. They are expected to be hit on their front side.
Already in Syria, Islamic terrorists were cheaky guys. They just hid somewhere in the countryside, let the tanks pass, and then attacked them from behind. Boom! For that purpose, they still needed some military grade panzerfaust.
Who would ever expect a tank to be hit from below? Though still, there would be some armament because in rough offroad territory it may hit some stones. Nonetheless, I’d expect it be least protected on its lower side.
How to get there?
Think of flat skateboards. You cannot use them in an offroad scenario, but Russians are still using Ukrainian highways. Some skateboards come with electromotors. Fit them with some additional remote control so that you can move it from your home.
Next fit some payload of explosives on it (it may perhaps become necessary to couple 2 skateboards). Park it next to the highway expected to be used by the tanks soon, hidden below some common car. When the tanks are close, just drive it onto the road. The tank driver won’t understand it, until the thing is below his tank. Boom! The tank behind him will rear up, and viola, we achieved some traffic jam.
-
Anthrax
Do you remember it? After 9/11, there were some anthrax attacks. 3 of them actually, but many more pretending to be.
Take some white powder, e.g. wheat flour. Wrap it with paper.Write onto the paper:
ANTRAKS contains Bacillus anthracis spores BIOHAZARD Made in USSR by Vsesoyus Bakt, Yebatskaya ulitsa 42, Perm Keep in a cool and dry place, free from radioactive radiation Best before end 26 April 1986In Russian, of course, but for the purpose here, I’ve provided the translation.
Next, you need some drone. A common civil grade drone which can take up a little payload. Those paper wraps with “anthrax” flour are not heavy.
Transport them to the enemy’s quarter and drop them.
Enjoy their faces when reading the inscription.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Who would ever expect a tank to be hit from below? Though still, there would be some armament because in rough offroad territory it may hit some stones. Nonetheless, I’d expect it be least protected on its lower side.
Everybody who's ever seen an anti-tank mine would. That thing invented in the paleolithic about five minutes after people figured out that tanks aren't really well protected from below, which is why since then they've been.
How to get there?
Think of flat skateboards. You cannot use them in an offroad scenario, but Russians are still using Ukrainian highways. Some skateboards come with electromotors. Fit them with some additional remote control so that you can move it from your home.
There's an interesting manual compiled by a Swiss Army mayor in the 70s or so that has a lot more workable ideas that don't involve skateboards. Some are already quite outdated, too, though, like there's no such thing as a motorcycle messenger any more that you could behead by stringing steel wires across roads at night.
Regarding anti-tank mines he recommends just burying a bunch of metal soup plates. You can't easily tell a plate from a real mine from afar so you have to treat it as real and remove it with the same care, causing endless slowdowns end annoyance, just so long as you make sure to put a real one in the mix once in a while.
-
Or let them use sub-par chinesium clones of stuff ... there is one theory that the stagnant convoy is partially there because Ruskis buy cheap Chinese tires made to look like Michelin military tires but with none of the quality making them prone to punctures after the abuse of none usage
-
What we need is an ex-Navy Seal expert in gorilla warfare.
-
Just take those racing drones, put some explosives on them and run them into somewhere weak and go boom? For instance, the track wheels?
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Already in Syria, Islamic terrorists were cheaky guys. They just hid somewhere in the countryside, let the tanks pass, and then attacked them from behind.
Those Syrians were just copying the methods of soldiers in the Second World War, if not earlier.
In any case, trying to use a short-range anti-tank weapon is decidedly hazardous to a person’s health. Tanks, as a rule, don’t travel alone: they are usually accompanied by other tanks, different types of armoured vehicle, and/or infantrymen. And all of those will be keeping an eye out for anyone with a Panzerfaust, likely spraying a bunch of bullets into any location where such a person might be hiding. Never mind the amount of bullets they will spray at anyone popping up out of cover trying to aim a Panzerfaust at one of their vehicles.
Of course, all of this doesn’t rule out people like this fellow. But I suspect he preferred taking on lone tanks that got separated.
Who would ever expect a tank to be hit from below?
Everybody who designed one since ca. 1920?
I’d expect it be least protected on its lower side.
Yes and no. It’s more or less a toss-up for any given design whether the roof or floor is more heavily armoured. Generally, though, the rear floor is probably the weakest armour on any given tank — the front floor will be thicker, to protect the driver against mine explosions.
Think of flat skateboards. You cannot use them in an offroad scenario, but Russians are still using Ukrainian highways. Some skateboards come with electromotors. Fit them with some additional remote control so that you can move it from your home.
Been done already, more or less:
Drones, like @carnage suggests, may be a good alternative, except they can likely be fairly easily countered: blanket jamming of a few frequency bands should get rid of any civilian drones around.
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@BernieTheBernie said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Already in Syria, Islamic terrorists were cheaky guys. They just hid somewhere in the countryside, let the tanks pass, and then attacked them from behind.
Those Syrians were just copying the methods of soldiers in the Second World War, if not earlier.
In any case, trying to use a short-range anti-tank weapon is decidedly hazardous to a person’s health. Tanks, as a rule, don’t travel alone: they are usually accompanied by other tanks, different types of armoured vehicle, and/or infantrymen. And all of those will be keeping an eye out for anyone with a Panzerfaust, likely spraying a bunch of bullets into any location where such a person might be hiding. Never mind the amount of bullets they will spray at anyone popping up out of cover trying to aim a Panzerfaust at one of their vehicles.
Of course, all of this doesn’t rule out people like this fellow. But I suspect he preferred taking on lone tanks that got separated.
Who would ever expect a tank to be hit from below?
Everybody who designed one since ca. 1920?
I’d expect it be least protected on its lower side.
Yes and no. It’s more or less a toss-up for any given design whether the roof or floor is more heavily armoured. Generally, though, the rear floor is probably the weakest armour on any given tank — the front floor will be thicker, to protect the driver against mine explosions.
Think of flat skateboards. You cannot use them in an offroad scenario, but Russians are still using Ukrainian highways. Some skateboards come with electromotors. Fit them with some additional remote control so that you can move it from your home.
Been done already, more or less:
Drones, like @carnage suggests, may be a good alternative, except they can likely be fairly easily countered: blanket jamming of a few frequency bands should get rid of any civilian drones around.
Plenty of drones can be programmed ahead of time.
-
@Carnage but JIT theoretically offers better performance.
-
@Luhmann said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Or let them use sub-par chinesium clones of stuff ... there is one theory that the stagnant convoy is partially there because Ruskis buy cheap Chinese tires made to look like Michelin military tires but with none of the quality making them prone to punctures after the abuse of none usage
Russian military technical/maintenance culture is almost as bad as in muslim countries. Their vehicles breaking all the time is expected.
-
@BernieTheBernie The address should be Uiltsa Zvezdnaya 1, Sverdlovsk.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Transport them to the enemy’s quarter and drop them.
- 1 (one) abruptly-decommissioned Russian goods transport vehicle.
- n (lots) boxes of "anthrax" packets
Load transport with boxes. Roll over on road ahead of Russian advance to serve as roadblock. Ensure plenty of boxes spill and break open.
-
That the Metropolitan of Russia (Moscow, eff., there's no hierarchy but there is) does not excommunicate Putin is a failure upon their bishopric. Even Roman priests used to be of sterner stuff.
-
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
recommends just burying a bunch of metal soup plates. You can't easily tell a plate from a real mine from afar so you have to treat it as real and remove it with the same care, causing endless slowdowns end annoyance, just so long as you make sure to put a real one in the mix once in a while.
A cheaper version of that would be the burying of a mine in some manholes (or even bigger potholes) of a road...
-
@blek said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@BernieTheBernie The address should be Uiltsa Zvezdnaya 1, Sverdlovsk.
I did not even attempt to look that address up...
Thought ofUlitsa na khuy Putinafirst...
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Been done already, more or less:
Prior art from ancient Greece:
Both [Polyaenus and Aelian] reported that Antigonus II Gonatas' siege of Megara in 266 BC was broken when the Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants.
The tactic may have been effective in more recent times, too:
-
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
The tactic may have been effective in more recent times, too:
Poor elephant, doing that without ear defenders.
-
-
@Carnage said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Plenty of drones can be programmed ahead of time.
Is that tank going to stay put long enough for the drone to hit it, then?
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@Carnage said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Plenty of drones can be programmed ahead of time.
Is that tank going to stay put long enough for the drone to hit it, then?
Depends on when you hit it.
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Is that tank going to stay put long enough for the drone to hit it, then?
Programs are allowed to contain
ifandwhile.
-
@Carnage Sure, but it rules out using drones in actual combat situations. Also, to pre-program a drone to hit a tank parked somewhere (like for the night) would require pretty accurate knowledge of where it is exactly. A near-miss isn’t likely to hurt a tank much unless the explosion is really big.
-
@dkf Do they also have target-recognition abilities?
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@dkf Do they also have target-recognition abilities?
PRogrammable drones have all kinds of exciting capabilities. I haven't toyed with any, but they do have AI and target recognition. It's probably not a huge leap to make them into attack drones.
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Yes and no. It’s more or less a toss-up for any given design whether the roof or floor is more heavily armoured. Generally, though, the rear floor is probably the weakest armour on any given tank — the front floor will be thicker, to protect the driver against mine explosions.
Something like Saab's NLAW is designed to fly over the tank and launch a projectile downward as it passes over the tank. Roof is apparently still less protected than the sides/front in general.
-
Is it actually necessary to fly the drone into the tank?
Think of some soldiers seeing the drone. They might take their gun and try to shoot it down.So we take the next step: biomimetic flight.
Ever seen a chicken chickening out? Only one thing is sure: you cannot predict its next position. That's a common idea in animals: the predator is likely faster than you, so you can evade only when you trick it. Become unpredictable.The soldiers have likely shiltloads of bullets available for the drone. Once they saw they missed, they will re-target and try again. After some weird movements, get inbetween them...
That could become a devastating experience for them.
-
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
like there's no such thing as a motorcycle messenger any more that you could behead by stringing steel wires across roads at night
Motorcycle messengers are still a thing, for transporting papers and small objects. And if radio isn't working.
-
@Atazhaia said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
like there's no such thing as a motorcycle messenger any more that you could behead by stringing steel wires across roads at night
Motorcycle messengers are still a thing, for transporting papers and small objects. And if radio isn't working.
Which in times of spread spectrum and satellite comms is virtually never. Sure, not everything can go over radio but I'm quite sure their tactical importance is approximately zero compared to 50 years ago.
-
@LaoC There are some people that might like to disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exercise_action
Apparently to the point where they had to restart the exercises and add additional rules to prevent the wrong side from winning.
-
@LaoC I see you have not trained actual modern warfare. You'd be surprised at seeing how much is done using purely analog methods, like pencil and paper, because it's reliable and always works, something that tends to be more important than using all fancy tech.
-
@cvi said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@LaoC There are some people that might like to disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exercise_action
Apparently to the point where they had to restart the exercises and add additional rules to prevent the wrong side from winning.
Interesting, but those tactics with steel wires and soup bowls are really meant for guerrilla-style defense against an enemy whose army is way out of your league (the author is Swiss). In some situations it totally makes sense to keep radio silence, but I doubt being an occupying power with complete military supremacy is one of those.
@Atazhaia said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@LaoC I see you have not trained actual modern warfare. You'd be surprised at seeing how much is done using purely analog methods, like pencil and paper, because it's reliable and always works, something that tends to be more important than using all fancy tech.
I know US aircraft carriers run Windows NT so I can see how that comes pretty close to pencil and paper
-
@Atazhaia said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
You'd be surprised at seeing how much is done using purely analog methods, like pencil and paper, because it's reliable and always works, something that tends to be more important than using all fancy tech.
Reminds me of a story from a few years ago. Was about flight control in an airport. Question was about modernizing the flight control management in the towers. Old system used physical objects to represent flights. Passing the physical object from one person to another was a very clear handover of the responsibilities, and something that digital systems failed to replicate.
-
@dkf said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Is that tank going to stay put long enough for the drone to hit it, then?
Programs are allowed to contain
ifandwhile.I'm a little concerned about this added scope, it opens up room for all sorts of errors.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
The soldiers have likely shiltloads of bullets available for the drone. Once they saw they missed, they will re-target and try again. After some weird movements, get inbetween them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8iqRl0OqQU
Are you sure random evasive maneuvers are absolutely necessary?
(Though the video makes it seem more dramatic than it must have been IRL, because it plays the same footage twice.)
-
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Interesting, but those tactics with steel wires and soup bowls are really meant for guerrilla-style defense against an enemy whose army is way out of your league
Is that not the scenario currently being addressed?
-
@Watson said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Interesting, but those tactics with steel wires and soup bowls are really meant for guerrilla-style defense against an enemy whose army is way out of your league
Is that not the scenario currently being addressed?
Yes, and it's that context where I wouldn't expect motorcycle messengers any more. The Russians have little incentive to be quiet on the radio because advanced surveillance and radio-homing drones is not what they have to fear from Ukraine. When that manual was written, encrypted radio was still cumbersome, slow and error prone, and everything else was easily intercepted, so messengers had their place. Today it's so common that soldiers sending compromising selfies with their phones don't even realize they're using several nested layers of encrypted channels.
-
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@Watson said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@LaoC said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Interesting, but those tactics with steel wires and soup bowls are really meant for guerrilla-style defense against an enemy whose army is way out of your league
Is that not the scenario currently being addressed?
Yes, and it's that context where I wouldn't expect motorcycle messengers any more. The Russians have little incentive to be quiet on the radio because advanced surveillance and radio-homing drones is not what they have to fear from Ukraine. When that manual was written, encrypted radio was still cumbersome, slow and error prone, and everything else was easily intercepted, so messengers had their place. Today it's so common that soldiers sending compromising selfies with their phones don't even realize they're using several nested layers of encrypted channels.
Yeah, considering that Russia is using unencrypted radio communication, they are clearly not worried about someone listening in in Ukraine.
And their drones seem to be capable of going for dynamic targets, but I'm not sure if they use radio communications for pinpointing locations.
-
@cvi said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@Atazhaia said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
You'd be surprised at seeing how much is done using purely analog methods, like pencil and paper, because it's reliable and always works, something that tends to be more important than using all fancy tech.
Reminds me of a story from a few years ago. Was about flight control in an airport. Question was about modernizing the flight control management in the towers. Old system used physical objects to represent flights. Passing the physical object from one person to another was a very clear handover of the responsibilities, and something that digital systems failed to replicate.
This was actually featured here: https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The-Source-Control-Shingle
-
@LaoC Radio broadcast will still give away your location (or even just tell people that you're there). No amount of encryption will fix that.
Musk isn't entirely wrong about the keeping the starlink antennas away from where you are...
-
Not kidding, a proper bishop or even archpriest with sufficient balls and expected brain, tearing into Putin obo the Theotokos, might crack him. Mary isn't revered the same in the proper church but She's of deep influence.
-
@Gribnit said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Not kidding, a proper bishop or even archpriest with sufficient balls and expected brain, tearing into Putin obo the Theotokos, might crack him. Mary isn't revered the same in the proper church but She's of deep influence.
I mean even here, somebody seems to think humming "The Bitch Is Back" via downboat is a grand idea. Probably @Arantor, which makes sense. PHP will make you fucking stupid.
Come on, ya wee cunt.
-
@Gribnit eh? I like Elton John. The Bitch Is Back isn't one of my favourite songs but it's alright, I guess. But I think you give me too much credit.
-
@Gurth said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
Been done already, more or less:
These are listed in the Book of Heroic Failures, because the Russians tried it, but they failed to consider that they had trained the dogs to run under Russian tanks until it was too late.
-
@djls45 also, in classic Soviet style, they saved on fuel by training dogs on stationary tanks. Which later made the trained dogs unwilling to charge at moving tanks. They either waited patiently for the tank to stop (dying from gunfire in the meantime), or went back to their handler, detonating upon entering trenches.
-
@Gąska said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@djls45 also, in classic Soviet style, they saved on fuel by training dogs on stationary tanks. Which later made the trained dogs unwilling to charge at moving tanks. They either waited patiently for the tank to stop (dying from gunfire in the meantime), or went back to their handler, detonating upon entering trenches.
Stupid idea from the beginning. Correct one is children of course.
-
-
@Gribnit
This one?
https://youtu.be/KXGUYaMYqfA
-
@djls45 said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
These are listed in the Book of Heroic Failures, because the Russians tried it, but they failed to consider that they had trained the dogs to run under Russian tanks until it was too late.
There is some debate over whether or not that was the main reason for their failure, but that they were a failure is not in doubt.
@Gąska said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
dying from gunfire in the meantime
That last bit largely due to the German countermeasure to this particular problem: shoot any dog seen on or near a battlefield.
-
@Gąska said in Civil Technology Guerilla:
@djls45 also, in classic Soviet style, they saved on fuel by training dogs on stationary tanks. Which later made the trained dogs unwilling to charge at moving tanks. They either waited patiently for the tank to stop (dying from gunfire in the meantime), or went back to their handler, detonating upon entering trenches.
Sounds almost ast entertaining as the ostriches in Tom Sharpe's Indecent Exposure.
Sverdlovsk anthrax leak - Wikipedia
