[pcl]

From the end of the article:

> “Giorgio Licciardi, an expert on collecting hyperspectral data from orbit at the Italian Space Agency, in Rome, says the technology even detects buried anti-tank mines. (Soil on top of them is typically drier.)”

[mrtnmcc]

Maybe in a controlled setting they can detect mines, but there are plenty of other reasons for dry soil, i.e. hard to detect consistently without false positives. For tank camouflage that's all you need, something that blends in with false positives.

[XorNot]

No you need enough false positives that your adversary won't find it cost-effective to just commit a missile to all of them.

[snovv_crash]

Wouldn't a 50cal round be more cost effective?

[ale42]

Yes but you can't launch it from far away...

[Tommstein]

No, that won't even tickle a tank.

[hutzlibu]

It could destroy some sensors and even the tracks if lucky, but I think parent poster meant the burried mines.

[1letterunixname]

Before the M2 Bradley, US APCs generally lacked meaningful armor. 50 BMG would sail right through.

[Tommstein]

Ancient APCs (the Bradley has been in service for over 40 years) ain't tanks though.

[rbanffy]

IIRC, the Bradley got armour because it looked too much like a tank and that made it a more valuable target.

Isn’t targeting APCs considered a faux pas in war, a little less bad than hitting an ambulance, but still not nice?