Essentially a daytime television camera with a crosshair that could be locked onto objects, there's a great China Lake documentary on its development.Does anyone know what principle this 60's bomb worked on?
How could it track moving targets such as tanks in those days?
Unfortunately, but English is not my language and I do not have time to translate and watch this video.Essentially a daytime television camera with a crosshair that could be locked onto objects, there's a great China Lake documentary on its development.Does anyone know what principle this 60's bomb worked on?
How could it track moving targets such as tanks in those days?
Rather simple. The analog TV system worked, by scanning the image line after line. The movement of scanning beam was controlled by very precise electronic timer (the time base). During each scan period, each pixel of the image was scanned at precise time, determined by time base. So the position of each pixel could be easily determined by the time base signal.Does anyone know what principle this 60's bomb worked on?
How could it track moving targets such as tanks in those days?
Do you speak Russian? I have an article about "Walleye" made by me in my LiveJournal:Unfortunately, but English is not my language and I do not have time to translate and watch this video.
Unfortunately not :/Do you speak Russian? I have an article about "Walleye" made by me in my LiveJournal:Unfortunately, but English is not my language and I do not have time to translate and watch this video.
https://fonzeppelin.livejournal.com/102550.html
Ok, to put it simply - optical contrast seeker track the contrast spot on monotonous background. Like tank on road.Unfortunately not :/
Ok walleye can track moving targets on desert etc.. but on jungle/ green areas?Ok, to put it simply - optical contrast seeker track the contrast spot on monotonous background. Like tank on road.Unfortunately not :/
Ok but it doesnt mean that it cant track moving targets like tanks.Walleye was not generally used to target small moving targets. It was used mainly against static high-value structures were you could be confident that there would be good contrast, and where you got good value for the money. It was not a cheap weapon -- roughly $35000 in the late 1960s, compared to about $3000 for a Paveway in the same timeframe.
Ok but it doesnt mean that it cant track moving targets like tanks.Walleye was not generally used to target small moving targets. It was used mainly against static high-value structures were you could be confident that there would be good contrast, and where you got good value for the money. It was not a cheap weapon -- roughly $35000 in the late 1960s, compared to about $3000 for a Paveway in the same timeframe.
And can you back up your claims with some evidence?Ok but it doesnt mean that it cant track moving targets like tanks.Walleye was not generally used to target small moving targets. It was used mainly against static high-value structures were you could be confident that there would be good contrast, and where you got good value for the money. It was not a cheap weapon -- roughly $35000 in the late 1960s, compared to about $3000 for a Paveway in the same timeframe.
It was not used like that, in large part because it would not have been very good at it. It needed strong and consistent contrast. A tank driving around would likely have changing contrast as it moved.
In the long video above, you can see a tank used as a target, but it is stationary, not moving.
To the extent that your game is showing Walleye as an anti-tank weapon it is mostly ahistorical.
So one can assume so. Unless you have some evidence that he couldn't track moving targets.
It's not necessarily a safe assumption, though. (I'm also a bit skeptical of Israel's reported success rates -- they look way too high compared to US experience.)
But ships are bigger, a lot bigger than tanksIt's not necessarily a safe assumption, though. (I'm also a bit skeptical of Israel's reported success rates -- they look way too high compared to US experience.)
Well, Walleye was originally designed as anti-ship weapon (cue shaped-charge warhead), so it obviously have a capability of tracking moving targets.
But ships are bigger, a lot bigger than tanksIt's not necessarily a safe assumption, though. (I'm also a bit skeptical of Israel's reported success rates -- they look way too high compared to US experience.)
Well, Walleye was originally designed as anti-ship weapon (cue shaped-charge warhead), so it obviously have a capability of tracking moving targets.
I see that u are russian. Can u might tell something about kab-500kr?It's not necessarily a safe assumption, though. (I'm also a bit skeptical of Israel's reported success rates -- they look way too high compared to US experience.)
Well, Walleye was originally designed as anti-ship weapon (cue shaped-charge warhead), so it obviously have a capability of tracking moving targets.
It's not necessarily a safe assumption, though. (I'm also a bit skeptical of Israel's reported success rates -- they look way too high compared to US experience.)
Well, Walleye was originally designed as anti-ship weapon (cue shaped-charge warhead), so it obviously have a capability of tracking moving targets.