The Tank with No Driver | Project Crazy Horse

[@garomcfbgdd3211]

Drone tanks? 35 years ago! Working out of a shed!?!? God bless you mad Britt lads.

[@daredemontriple6]

Give it a few years and we'll be learning about how the first inter-planetary fighter concept came to be because of 2 blokes who'd had a few too many pints of Butcombe and we're pissing about with some model aircraft and some liquid deuterium (sourced who knows where) in one of their sheds

[@shaider1982]

90 actually: see the soviet teletanks

[@maxcleveland3446]

The US military used remotely controlled fighters, bombers and tanks during several nuclear weapon tests...

[@parrotcraft7503]

That's not impressive. What IS impressive is the T-26 remote control experiments

[@antontsau]

RC flying fortress? In 1945, 80 years ago? No, never heard...

[@TexasSpectre]

Okay, the period-styled video theme was an excellent idea.

[@metrikmechanik]

Love those oldschool graphics, keep it up👍

[@davidhollenshead4892]

I found them & the sound track to be rather annoying...

[@trance_trousers]

@@davidhollenshead4892 agreed, and the use of two presenters instead of one.

[@Vague05]

Soundtrack was a bit grating. But nevertheless glad they’re making videos!

[@SonsOfLorgar]

There's also the Swedish equivalent project for making a radio remote control mine clearing vehicle out of a Strv103. It's named Glufsglufs after a gluttonous giant in a Swedish childrens comic and currently sits at a museum in Skillingaryd along the E4 highway😊

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

It was deployed to Bosnia where it became a 60 ton paperweight. Parked up at Mostar airfield it was ultimately successful in preventing the airstrip from blowing away in a strong wind…

[@francescocantoni5665]

Since I watched an episode of "Starblazers" featuring an remote controlled tank, the idea of an unmanned tank has always catched my fantasy. I'm really glad to know Crazy Horse story! I think tank-drones will have a role in the future warfare

[@82726jsjsufhejsjshshdjso]

“If this goes into Amesbury it’s gonna come out the other side” is such a great line 😂😂 😂

[@theemporersnewclothes]

Many tanks For documenting a missed opportunity

[@Spartan902]

You would think with today's technology that it could definitely be done. Sounds like a no brainer to me to keep the crew safe behind the lines on remote controls.

[@anumeon]

I would imagine that a lot of people are starting to look into said idea given the state of the Ukraine war and the role that remote controlled vehicles has there. (Including a machine gun equipped remote controlled tiny tankette) Of course, then you have the problem of remote jamming.. For every action there is inevitably an equal and opposite reaction and all that.

[@Spartan902]

@banned0404 Really! Drones. Of course I know all about drones. They have made tanks pretty much obsolete so it's a waste of time and money to do it although I still would like to see it.

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

No, will never happen. Not just because of sensors unable to give a full picture of what's arround the tank, it's also EW that can knock remote controlled vehicles out without a shot fired. On top of that: repairs. A tank without crew is lost as soon as something breaks.

[@RonOhio]

I suspect the hacking and counter hacking battle would be continuous.

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

@@Spartan902 tanks will never become obsolete as long as there is a need for protection, mobility and firepower on a battlefield.

[@gamingbigfats3934]

Those (target) drivers had balls bigger then the tank.

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

Or a way for the CO to get rid of the regimental disaster “Right Trooper Baldrick, I’ve got exactly the right job for you…”

[@kevinsullivan3448]

I went to a gunnery in Yakima, Washington in 1992; I was support and security for the range. I had never been to a 'modern' tank range and I was surprised to see that all the targets were on railroad cars. The cars were on rails behind massive berms and the targets on elevated platforms. They had at least one 'engine' that towed the target carriers on the rails and hydraulics that raised and lowered the targets. Some were parallel to the shooting stations and others at various angles so simulate moving targets approaching or departing armored vehicles. The tankers in my unit were training on M1 Abrams, having just replaced the M-60s in inventory. The idea of a remote controlled target tank seems, to me, to provide better and more realistic training for armor and anti-armor crews as well as testing new systems. In the table top role playing game Twilight 2000 there were reduced crew vehicles based on existing vehicles. Today, a crew-less combat vehicle for area security, patrolling, or infantry seems like a no brainer, considering how UAVs and even civilian aerial drones in combat have taken off. The technology could be used in UAVs (Unmanned Armored Vehicles) just as easily.

[@WayFastWhitey02]

I can not express how thankful I am that this channel exists. A heart felt thanks to all involved in making these fascinating videos!

[@bob_the_bomb4508]

“It would be a Para, wouldn’t it?” Never a truer word… :)

[@FieldMarshalFry]

3 brain cells between the Regiment!

[@luvtruckin]

Chris and Paul can pair up on any video and smash the viewer numbers both of you excel at teaching so thank you.

[@h.a8681]

the quality of your videos has been excellent recently :)

[@jd-vz8cn]

It's a good idea, but at the same time, you can't jam a human crew, a human crew won't stop working if you losse signal, a human crew has better situation awareness and can help fix the tank when it breaks... Maybe take a leaf out of the t26's book an use it as a giant 'wingman' for a manned tank? (So they can keep an eye on it)

[@pan2aja]

What about fiber optic?

[@mr.cogwheel]

@@pan2aja that also would not be good, during D-Day the Germans had their Goliath tracked mines set on the beaches but the wires used to control the mines were cut from coastal bombardment and air dropped bombs.

[@no1DdC]

@@pan2aja Russia is using fiber optic drones against Ukraine - and Ukraine has successfully been countering them by using their drones to cut the wire.

[@jd-vz8cn]

@@pan2aja Wire guided drones are a thing, but present the problem of range (you can only have cable so long). Also the wire can get broken, or sabotaged or just stuck on some terrain. It would be very difficult and probably impactable to armour the cable, making it vulnerable to damage. The Germans had some wire guided demo tanks (converted from captured French ones I believe) with were wire guided, but as it was slow and vulnerable to damage, so they were driven by a crewmember as close as possible to the enemy from inside the tank, which kind of defeats the point.

[@DerLoladin]

These are all issues from yesterday and have been outdated for years. Autoloaders like ones in the Type 10 for western vehicles show that jamming is a non-issue in modern systems. Situational awareness is also questionable, considering that looking out of a vision block is not going to make or break any engagement - but having access and the mental capacity to access drone feeds, check potentially different vehicle camera feeds are all amazing combat enhancers which a regular crew simply won't have the capacity to do in a life-or-death situation. Lastly, any tank is going to get fixed and serviced, crewed or not...and no crew is going to hop out and put some spare track on under fire if it comes to that. There are good arguments to be made for and against crewed and crew-less vehicles, but with modern technology the arguable largest one is loss of signal and jamming which raises the biggest questions.

[@robert-trading-as-Bob69]

I recall watching the gunners practice at a shooting range at School of Armour in 1989. An Olifant (ex-Centurion) was parked, a specially modified .22 caliber rifle affixed atop the 105 mm gun barrel in a mounting. The gunner would be in his usual seat in the tank, operating the standard controls, aiming to hit small rubber vehicles similar to Dinky Toy size, pulled along a set course in sand by a rotating line. Picture a NASCAR track with two pulleys at either end, dragging vehicles along. Computer technology had not caught up to the tank gunner course in 1989 just yet, but it had for the Rooikat AFV. There was a single prototype Rooikat simulator with shoddy 1980's graphics that housed the gunner and crew commander. The sound system in there was good though, as you REALLY heard the recording of the 76 mm Naval gun going off, and the ejection of the empty shell casing!

[@trainchugger53]

Finally! I first saw this tank in The History Guy's Top 5 list and was curious about, so this is way way anticipated!

[@thetankmuseum]

Nice! We hope you enjoy :-) Have a great weekend!

[@johnanon6938]

Hopefully the tank museum can ask some contemporaries in USA about the 1980s .50 cal sentry gun test basically it was just a large rudimentary computer aided aiming system. It was just a prototype that could detect vehicle and human targets, could set a minimum range when it'd start firing and a maximum for when it'd stop and it was super accurate at ranging. One issue was it would open fire on targets that reached its minimum range but would often ignore further targets even though the element of surprise was then lost. However it needed someone to load ammo and clear jams but more importantly they never figured out how to have it determine friend or foe.

[@rupertpoole8927]

The increase in production values on these videos is really commendable, they must be bringing in so much money for tank conservation. Here’s to hoping that means more tanks at the tank museum!

[@2ndhendrix631]

Absolute banger of a vid gents. The quality is getting better and better! Cheers to the whole team!

[@yolanda231000]

When I was in Bosnia in 1996 I watched a M60A3 Panther remotely clear a road of mines.

[@nachoolo]

It seems that Crazy Horse is a great example of the Brits being extremely talented while also not having the goverment support needed for this great talent to be fufilled.

[@mstevens113]

That's the story of life in the UK unfortunately

[@christopherneufelt8971]

It was always the Englishman that was creating inventions and the politics that was destroying them. The Brits were the second after the Germans in drone technology and currently the last.

[@harryflower1810]

Bean counters and politicians the bane of the military

[@Appletank8]

Gas turbines could've probably been implemented into WW2 fighters 2 or so years early if it was properly funded too

[@christopherneufelt8971]

@@Appletank8 I regret to inform you that the british elites at the time where more interested to use the populace as a cannon fodder than to accelerate the ending of war. The evidence of such behavior goes back centuries...

[@TheArklyte]

There was an anecdote I heard once about border between FRG and GDR. It said that at some time between late 60's and early 80's, "the West™" was testing a remote controlled tank, a very heavily protected one, bristling with antenna as if it was a hedgehog. First day it appears rushes to the border, scares the guards, runs over a some electric poles and at full speed retreats. Everyone is puzzled. They phone higher ups, those call it a provocation and order to shoot it next time. Next day it appears, they shoot at it with all they have, but it just continues and retreats as if nothing happens. Higher ups send tanks to stop it. Next day everything repeats and nothing changes. They ask the soviets for help and we sent newer and bigger equipment. But story repeats. There are insults, calling it a disgrace of soviet army, threats of demotions and court martial. Some old sergeant asks base commander to open the warehouse with mothballed equipment. Commander doesn't care anymore as he believes he'll lose his job tomorrow so he allows it. Sergeant grabs a dozen soldiers, disappears for half a day and drag out a giant duck off AA gun(likely 130mm, but story claimed 150+mm). They prepare it and wait. Tank appears in the morning. It rushes to the border, gun shoots and the tank de facto vanishes. No reaction from other side, no second tank next day, nothing. Officials arrive, give medals to soviet officers, who did nothing and they all leave. The story is clearly made up, but maybe someone knows how it was born.

[@kenbrown2808]

sounds like one of those wild stories someone makes up. it reminded me of a firefighting story: a grass fire was raging, and all the neighboring fire crew had already been called out, but couldn't get it stopped in desperation, they called out the one small volunteer crew that nobody ever relied on. their to their amazement, the volunteer engine went barrelling straight into the middle of the worst part of the fire, and the entire crew jumped out and started battling the blaze with everything they had and topped it grom spreading further. after the the fire was put out, the chiefs of the professional crews brought the chief of the volunteers and congratulated him on the bravery of his crew, and told him they were going to be contributing $10,000 to their funding. the volunteer chief said, "hey, that's great. now we can get the brakes and steering fixed on that truck."

[@JimmySailor]

Modern applications are numerous but I think at the top of the list has to be de-mining vehicle. Take a tank hull, remove the turret, add a mine/plow/roller, add additional top and bottom armor. A RWS would be useful for self protection from infantry as well. The lead vehicle in every tank formation would be an de-mining vehicle, driven remotely and followed by drones for situational awareness. The really interesting thing is that you could also make the vehicle much more resistant to drones because there is no crew/crew hatches/main gun ammo. Basically the top 2 things that cause a working tank to stop are removed by default. So in theory the vehicle could be made to survive serious punishment. For example, a tungsten penetrator that enters the “crew” compartment doesn’t have crew or ammo to hit at all. Maybe some MG rounds or electronics is it. The engine itself is the only real remaining vital point, and without the weight of the turret the engine protection could be easily increased. Electronics can be doubled and tripled to provide redundancy and with drone following it you don’t even need the onboard cameras to survive to stay functional. Basically every AT weapon is designed to kill crew not machinery so the vehicle could have a huge advantage.

[@OliverXRed]

It is always interesting to hear about some of the "What If" projects, that ended up failing for one reason or another. It would be interesting to hear more about other "What If" projects, one in particular that i have found interesting, is the trial of the Meteor engine inside the Crusader tank.

[@UberAllez]

Thank you for what you are doing greatly. And keeping all the vehicles from being lost to history. Not only keeping history alive but readable for all no matter the generation.

Signal jamming was a low cost countermeasure against it... That's why it was scrapped completely and lessons learned used in other projects. You can often times learn very important things from failures and apply this positively.

[@thebookeeper8173]

Fantastic video-editing!

[@MattJones675GR9]

You're production quality just gets better and better !

[@brandonschultz3262]

How does Bovington keep coming up with compelling tank videos. Hats off gents.

[@TTXV]

Nice to see the tank museum back for their Friday drop

[@thetankmuseum]

Great to see you back here enjoying the videos :-) Have a great weekend!

[@ChullsterOG]

There's a young American called Whistling Diesel who also has a remote controlled Chieftain and has also used it for target practice. As well as other things.

[@davidk6269]

Unmanned tanks will almost certainly be the norm in the foreseeable future.

[@no1DdC]

More likely however, they'll be fully or at the very least partially autonomous instead of remote controlled. There are already autonomous "killer drones" being used in Ukraine, like a large batch of heavy German drones that can fly up to 40 km behind Russian lines to select and then engage targets on their own.

[@HellbirdIV]

When people talk about unmanned tanks they always expect them to be replacing frontline battlefield vehicles but it's pretty clear from this that the remote-controlled system for Crazy Horse was aimed at support and training roles, where none of the usual problems with an unmanned vehicle come into play. There's no need for an autoloader if your gun isn't going to be used (or even real), there's no need to worry about jamming or loss of control because, well, who's jamming their own tank on a training course? etc. This concept should absolutely be a mainstay of NATO training and support units. Converting old tanks is one step, but you could also just build dedicated range-target tanks that are built like brick shithouses because there's no need to fit people inside it, same for a mine-clearing vehicle.

[@mikejfranklin7000]

Government bean counters have us all by the short hairs.

[@stco2426]

Crazy good video. Well done and so much 'could have been'. Thank you Tank Museum.

[@LillyRocket]

Making a MBT remote controlled today, is a piece of cake. Its no exaggeration. Even range isnt a big issue with a drone overhead acting as a relay - or several. As long as it doesn't have to shoot or the tank has an autoloader. Or the enemy can implement signal jamming.

[@timgosling6189]

I can see two hurdles to putting this into actual combat, both of which would be more open to solution today. The first is situational awareness. The operator needs to have the big picture of where he is, the terrain, where are the friendlies, where is the enemy. Sensors on the tank are now much improved and the utility of drones working with armour is currently demonstrated daily. The second would be the integrity of the control link. EW is a major feature of modern combat so you need something that is robust in the face of jamming or hijack, and preferably isn't going to be detectable. So low probability of intercept will be important. There is also a potential role for AI as long as the rules of engagement can be made to work. Oh, and I love the Hitchhiker's Guide graphics.

[@SingleMalt2]

Third, what happens if it breaks in the field or sustains battle damage? No crew to troubleshoot and conduct field repairs.

[@Appletank8]

Or you drive behind a building and lose signal

[@stuc734]

Rumours abounded about the Heath Robinson contraptions being tested at the RAC Research and Development unit at Bovington when I was in 4 RTR IN 1980s.

[@thisisaduck]

Loving the custom graphics

[@GrzegorzBrzeczyszczykiewicz123]

Love the 80s vibe in the video!

[@thetankmuseum]

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed!

[@Getpojke]

Excellent episode, thank you.

[@ausnorman8050]

Wonderful presentation TTM team! In today's digital word and having drive by wire* as standard. Remote conversion would be a breeze for unmanned ammo resupply to the front, mine clearing etc etc. But until you get an auto loader you'll still need currently the gunner/loader as commander would probably just be a drone (eye in the sky) giving relay.

[@martindice5424]

Fascinating- heard of Crazy Horse and seen it at Bovvie. Just shows what a bit of common sense and ingenuity can achieve on a rubbish budget. However, I cannot help but think about how things have turned out with regard to remote vehicles in the 21st century.

[@Niinsa62]

Ah, a new video from The Tank Museum! Always great! Never heard of Crazy Horse before! Well, I knew of the original Crazy Horse, of course. Back in 19th century America. But not this one.

[@tomcardale5596]

Glad to see Chris is getting some gilet sponsorship 🤣 4:42 for anyone that didn't notice.

[@thegodofhellfire]

Excellent video! Very informative, great production and soundtrack!

[@stevenbrown8857]

Brilliant episode. Very interesting. Another British own goal. Thanks for telling the story 😊

[@chrispearce9486]

WhistlinDiesel claims he did this too.

[@MrHewes]

I can confirm this

[@Wookie120]

Always enjoy the videos on this channel.

[@harryflower1810]

A great bit of history and brilliantly told

[@dansmith4077]

Great video

[@thetankmuseum]

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed!

[@HerbertTwack]

Great video, very interesting vehicle. You two make a great presenting team too.

[@theworkshopwhisperer.5902]

I did see that there was a job opening at NASA a while ago for a remote control tank that really hates tyres. I guess Crazy Horse was too chill for that position.

[@jeremyl862]

Please keep up the wonderful content!

[@timwhite4301]

Imagine the tank museum getting this up and running again. They could sell tickets to drive on the army providing ground next door that would be awesome at a tank fest

[@agile-heliuk1801]

I remember while I was working at APRE / RADRE in the late 1989 /1990 we had a fully autonomous Tank test bed. it was based on a Stormer Chassis. It would be given its instructions / Mission tasks. it would then go off and trundle around Salisbury Plain doing what ever it was asked to go do. with no further input from a human crew. always wondered what ever happened to it

[@duncanmcallister7932]

I love this style of video

[@nojorising7129]

Amazing channel

[@thetankmuseum]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed! Have a great weekend!

[@pavarottiaardvark3431]

- Tank gets it's big chance to do something - On TV no less - Control System fails - Kill Switch fails Ah yes, this is clearly the fault of the people with spreadsheets.

[@mbak7801]

Obviously yes. It needed more development and more money. Someone wanted the project to die so underfunded it. I have worked in this sort of area. The waste, shenanigans, and destructive politics in MOD procurement is stunning. All will cost countless lives but the spreadsheet warriors care less about British soldiers lives than a Russian general does about his own soldiers. Both cut from the same cloth.

[@mbr5742]

The germans solved those problems with the Keiler mine clearing tank - they used a crew compartment that when closed up has no vision slits and a guy on a radio yelling "LINKS nein das ANDERE LINKS" to the driver in the tank

[@etherealbolweevil6268]

Sir, your Girman is impeccable.

[@kenbrown2808]

glad to know, "no, the other left" is universal.

[@andybreadley429]

This is the first time I see Chieftain deep wading. As far as I know a rail that goes around its turret is supposed to be an attachment point but I've never came across any footage of any Chieftain outfitted with this equipment. Is there any more of it?

[@TX-biker]

I never considered a remote controlled tank… What a “why not” idea🤠

[@thetankmuseum]

Glad to hear that you found it interesting!

[@jeremywells9019]

They brought in one of the remote-controlled tanks converted into a mine-clearing vehicle while we were in Bosnia. First thing it did was get stuck it was a couple of days before they recovered it off the side of that mountain. Hill 562 lolz.

[@AirLancer]

I'd imagine purpose-built unmanned tanks would be much smaller than current manned vehicles because you don't need to include space for the crew, don't need hatches to get in/out, and you probably wouldn't bother with as much armor because there's no crew to protect (or you can armor it even more because of weight savings by not needing to account for a crew). Given what we're seeing in Ukraine, remote-controlled mine clearing vehicles sound like they'd be extremely useful.

[@TheMrFu]

5:18 wow the russians are even fielding Matilda tanks now

[@douglasparkinson4123]

Oh this is very well produced.

[@AN-nt3uv]

13:59 Yes, the times, when Robocop came in the movies. Great project. P.S. I like the combination of two generations of narrators from the Museum, great tennis, so to say. P.P.S. How was the communication between Stormer and Crazy Horse protected vs. electronic warfare.?

[@mbak7801]

During early development probably no protection. They had frequency hopping and very short bursts of signals so life could have been made very difficult for a jammer.

[@billpugh58]

Being a test it almost certainly wasn’t protected.

[@Dumbrarere]

I think the development notes and lessons learned from Project Crazy Horse are going into the XM30 program (the program to select the Bradley IFV's replacement), because the competing designs are to be "optionally crewed" as per the XM30's former program name.

[@DaintyCanadian]

Wait..they were firing live rounds at the tank with a driver inside? Thats wild.

[@zimms87]

Inert rounds.

[@theromanorder]

THEY ARE BACK!!! i know your unlike to do it, but please do more videos on tank doctrine.. (and to other comments yes im aware of the centurion.. but i significant prefer the tank museum)

[@the-primered-thumb]

Drone AFV's is a brilliant idea 😉👍

[@martinhawley2401]

Dad army had the same problem with that remote control system put down to pike having his radio on

[@arvidgahsche516]

Really cool cutting of the video. I like it very much and it made the video more interesting to watch 😃

[@dob1662]

You answered all your questions and doubts in the report, what arms company would want to get involved without a multi million pound R&D budget, all these decisions involve personal benefits,

[@dennisswaim8210]

Th US Air Force had remote control tank targets in 1982. Our F-16's and A-10's were blasting the hell out of them on the range at Eglin AFB. They were using surplus M-47's and M-48's.

[@SingleMalt2]

As someone who has experience in procurement and military R&D projects, I had to rewind three times to make sure I heard the project costs correctly. I'm not sure people understand just how laughable the amount of money they used to accomplished this task with. Today, at least in the USA, I would expect a similar project to cost around $20M - in large part because the big wigs would dramatically expand the scope and capabilities mid way through, particularly if it was showing itself to be successful.

[@mattduncil]

Where was this episode of Myth Busters that would have been right up there alley for a build and battlebots, and the limited budget would have made it more likely TLC would have let them do it.

[@anticarrrot]

"Hello, robot wars? do you have a weight limit?"

[@widowpeak6142]

I just realized the irony of calling a small remote-controlled bomb 'Goliath'.

[@The-Clockwork-Eye]

Excellent, thank you.

[@thomasrotweiler]

A RC mine clearing vehicle would be useful. The M160 was developed in Croatia in the early 1990s and used by US military among others.(The Russian military uses a licence built version.) The manufacturers Dok-king also produce the more recent MV-4 Scorpion multi-role platform.

[@IsaacKuo]

Given the state of the remote control technology available at the time, it's hard to see Crazy Horse leading to a practical system for battlefield use. And Desert Storm would "prove" that the new main battle tanks had good enough armor to keep the crews in the tanks, putting an immediate end to interest in the technology. And truthfully? Placing the crew inside the tank would be safer for them than trying to find some "safe" place for the remote control command vehicle, in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Going forward, though, we have a lot more robust technology available.

[@Inucroft]

I've seen a bigger remote controlled tank in 2003. It was a (40k) Baneblade at the GW/Forgeworld stand at the Telfod show

[@Electronzap]

Very cool!

[@simonmarsden66]

The music is like on the old SSVC training videos we had to watch

[@linnymiddy]

I was always interested about Crazy Horse, and now, would you be making a video on the Chieftain SID?

[@m8ss1]

Thanks -very interesting. Surely unmanned warfare will evolve - which rises the question of secure communications. And besides an ethical debate involving matters of AI...

[@glocksp80smd]

Whats funny is now it's so easy to make anything remotely controlled.

[@dushmanextreme...2564]

Whistling diesel has a remote controlled Chieftain

[@SMlFFY85]

The MOD probably thought it was far too cost effective and better to get foreign defence contractor to design a specialist vehicle from scratch that does the same thing for about 1000x the cost.

[@spandecker727]

I think unmanned tanks will be the future - combining drone technology with a heavily armed tracked vehicle, why not!

[@emmabird9745]

Think, with modern computers, the controller could send a code signal at intervals and the remote vehicle could receive it to confirm its connection. If it didn't get the signal it would stop, a bit like a dead mans handle. Note modern drones have a return to base on loss of signal feature. It could also benefit from modern comms, after all if Global Hawk can operate on the other side of the world why not crazy horse on the other side of the hill. Jamming might be a challenge.

[@guidor.4161]

The main issue with using tank-UGVs seems to be logistics and field maintenance. Where are the crew who need to perform daily service and maintenance? Plus of course the possibility of jamming , so it would need to be drive-by-wire?

[@matt8145-d4d]

We had RC M60s in Bosnia to do mine clearing. One had Tyco RC spray painted on the side.

[@pmgn8444]

Feasible project with lots of promise for test and trainint. But bad timing with the end of the Cold War. Definite possibilities, but I doubt the tech was ready for wide-scale or combat deployment.

[@jaanikaapa6925]

Instead of this, we now have the Ripsaw M5. I also believe that Finland was making robotic or remote controlled mine clearing vehicles in the late eighties or early nineties.

[@CrazyKitBuilder]

Whistlin Diesel converted full size chieftain to be radio controlled about a year ago for his KZbin channel

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting.

[@TexasSpectre]

I wonder how many of the problems with Crazy Horse losing comms were caused by using British (specifically Lucas) made electronics. As someone who has owned several 80s vintage British vehicles (I still have one) and is very familiar with the failure and shame that often is British automotive (and other) grade electronics in this era, this is something that always comes to mind - how a British vehicle is constantly let down by the Lucas, Prince Of Darkness electronic components. Were the electronics in question British made? And were American, German or Japanese equivalents available? If so, it might be that the unwillingness or inability to use non-British electronics, more than the accountants, could have been responsible for the project coming to an abrupt end.