5 ms·

These work by sound right. So in theory the same principle could be used to triangulate artillery with cellphones by sound?

dredmorbius 3y ago
Radar-based counter-battery fire already exists and would be far more accurate, as radar tends to propagate more predictably (and faster) than sound. Though yes, that's an option, it's called artillery sound ranging: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_sound_ranging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_sound_ranging> A subset of acoustic location: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location> Audio-based range-finders were used extensively in WWII: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=04F5osXK4vw https://yewtu.be/watch?v=04F5osXK4vw> (Tom Scott: "Testing the sound mirrors that protected Britain") Also: <https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/german-world-war-ii-aircraft-sound-detector-or-acoustic-news-photo/526929302 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/german-world-w...> Optical rangefinders were also used: <https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding> (I've tried but failed to find large audio/sound based naval rangefinders, which essentially consisted of gigantic ear trumpets, roughly the size of a human. Used in WWII by both US and Japanese navies as I recall.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 3seashells 3y ago
  Topography + weather+ cellphones = cheap sound detection network, non detectable by harm (yet)
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Cellphones are not exactly nondetectable.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    I'm realising belatedly that you likely meant HARM, not harm. As in high-speed anti-radiation missile: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile> I don't know how vulnerable counter-battery radar is to radiation-seeking missile attacks, though suspect that's a risk. Wikipedia mentions the risk, and links a reference for further information, though I'm not finding information there based on a quick skim: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar> <https://web.archive.org/web/20141226051243/http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_09x12.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141226051243/http://armypubs.a...> (PDF)
red-iron-pine 3y ago
Acoustics would also struggle to determine friend from foe, if tanks or arty, and then you'd have to deal with dissipation and echoes and other weird effects. with a radar you actually can spot the the shell trajectory and turn that into a parabolic arc. then make some rough guesses as to how far they've traveled since then ("shoot and scoot"), and you can map out a firing solution that covers most of a given area. MLRS/rocket arty is great for that since it can fire off a lot of ordinance quickly, at the cost of long reload times. saturate the grid square before their artillery can get away. Radars get you into the EW cat-and-mouse game, tho.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  Actually, if every friendly tank records his sounds and transmit that to sensor fusion..

dredmorbius 3y ago

Radar-based counter-battery fire already exists and would be far more accurate, as radar tends to propagate more predictably (and faster) than sound. Though yes, that's an option, it's called artillery sound ranging: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_sound_ranging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_sound_ranging> A subset of acoustic location: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_location> Audio-based range-finders were used extensively in WWII: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=04F5osXK4vw https://yewtu.be/watch?v=04F5osXK4vw> (Tom Scott: "Testing the sound mirrors that protected Britain") Also: <https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/german-world-war-ii-aircraft-sound-detector-or-acoustic-news-photo/526929302 https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/german-world-w...> Optical rangefinders were also used: <https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding https://www.navalgazing.net/Rangefinding> (I've tried but failed to find large audio/sound based naval rangefinders, which essentially consisted of gigantic ear trumpets, roughly the size of a human. Used in WWII by both US and Japanese navies as I recall.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
3seashells 3y ago
Topography + weather+ cellphones = cheap sound detection network, non detectable by harm (yet)
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Cellphones are not exactly nondetectable.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  I'm realising belatedly that you likely meant HARM, not harm. As in high-speed anti-radiation missile: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile> I don't know how vulnerable counter-battery radar is to radiation-seeking missile attacks, though suspect that's a risk. Wikipedia mentions the risk, and links a reference for further information, though I'm not finding information there based on a quick skim: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar> <https://web.archive.org/web/20141226051243/http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_09x12.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20141226051243/http://armypubs.a...> (PDF)

red-iron-pine 3y ago

Acoustics would also struggle to determine friend from foe, if tanks or arty, and then you'd have to deal with dissipation and echoes and other weird effects. with a radar you actually can spot the the shell trajectory and turn that into a parabolic arc. then make some rough guesses as to how far they've traveled since then ("shoot and scoot"), and you can map out a firing solution that covers most of a given area. MLRS/rocket arty is great for that since it can fire off a lot of ordinance quickly, at the cost of long reload times. saturate the grid square before their artillery can get away. Radars get you into the EW cat-and-mouse game, tho.

3seashells 3y ago
Actually, if every friendly tank records his sounds and transmit that to sensor fusion..