You can’t see the IR emissions from a few people through several inches of steel. You would be able to see a running engine, but you’d also be able to see a small stove inside the inflatable, simulating that engine heat.
I would think that the heat signature of an actual engine in a metal tank would be significantly different than a random heat source in a rubber one. I doubt it would fool a drone operator etc. that’s encountered one or two real ones.
With enough analysis, yes, you could distinguish. Often, in reality, you’re limited by tree cover, weather, distance, sensitivity of your equipment, and experience of the operators and analysts. And, of course, time pressure.
But if you end up spending a significant amount of time and effort distinguishing a real tank from a fake one, that’s already a win for the decoy.
That’s why every fire mission targeting a single tank gets up to date satellite images, high res thermal drone photos, and dedicated analysts reviewing the intelligence.
At least, that’s according to other users in this comment section.
And here I thought it was forward observers and drone pilots using whatever off the shelf drones they have available.
If it was the US, maybe. For a high-value target, probably. But satellite time is expensive and very limited, so maybe those people are watching too much TV. Ukraine doesn’t have anywhere near those resources. I don’t even know if their drones have IR capability.
It wouldn’t even be true for the US Army, although they would have better unit level technology i.e. military grade recon drones, but yes, also potentially access to ISR.
I was being sarcastic, because the replies I read were so ridiculous e.g. all artillery recon had analysts reviewing thermal, IR, satellites, etc. to determine if a lone tank was real, or a decoy.
You can’t see the IR emissions from a few people through several inches of steel. You would be able to see a running engine, but you’d also be able to see a small stove inside the inflatable, simulating that engine heat.
I would think that the heat signature of an actual engine in a metal tank would be significantly different than a random heat source in a rubber one. I doubt it would fool a drone operator etc. that’s encountered one or two real ones.
With enough analysis, yes, you could distinguish. Often, in reality, you’re limited by tree cover, weather, distance, sensitivity of your equipment, and experience of the operators and analysts. And, of course, time pressure.
But if you end up spending a significant amount of time and effort distinguishing a real tank from a fake one, that’s already a win for the decoy.
That’s why every fire mission targeting a single tank gets up to date satellite images, high res thermal drone photos, and dedicated analysts reviewing the intelligence.
At least, that’s according to other users in this comment section.
And here I thought it was forward observers and drone pilots using whatever off the shelf drones they have available.
If it was the US, maybe. For a high-value target, probably. But satellite time is expensive and very limited, so maybe those people are watching too much TV. Ukraine doesn’t have anywhere near those resources. I don’t even know if their drones have IR capability.
It wouldn’t even be true for the US Army, although they would have better unit level technology i.e. military grade recon drones, but yes, also potentially access to ISR.
I was being sarcastic, because the replies I read were so ridiculous e.g. all artillery recon had analysts reviewing thermal, IR, satellites, etc. to determine if a lone tank was real, or a decoy.