I'm just thinking (too dangerous, I know); is there a way to eliminate tanks without killing the crew? (Pretty horrendous death.)
So, it goes like this: a tank to be dangerous needs an optics and needs to be able to move its turret. If the gunner cannot see, he cannot shoot. If you use a "cluster bomb"-type weapon that's able to cover the top of the tanks with a quick-hardening thick paint or foam, the tanks would be blinded for a good while, rendering them useless.

BUT it could also potentially trap the crew Inside!!!

Non Lethal weapon = oxymoron- Why would you use a non lethal weapon on the tank that just killed your comrades?

Sure...

I'm not going to type it since who knows who is reading thes posts. But just look in history books where (unarmed) civilians and resistance went up against tanks. Why, the WW2 movies show some scenes pretty well (and so does the TV News too).

Sometimes it worked, sometimes it doesn't.

Yep, RPG to the tracks followed by Tamiya matt black sprayed on the sights and vision blocks. Job done, home for tea and medals.

Still gotta kill all the tankers when they come out - I like the way Eastwood did it in Kelly's Heroes gasoline and a zippo will get a tank crew out in a hurry!

that would be pointless.for example: tank with big gun vs nerf bazooka. I say the tank wins

Not with an EM pulse "bomb"....... that'll fry ALL of the electronics......
Anyone remember "Dark Angel" on Fox From about 2000? The basis was a EM Pulse knocked out alot of the North American Infrastructure......

Why? They crew would sill be combat effective.

You can't produce, to the best of my knowledge, an EMP without airbursting a nuke. If you are going to do that, killing a tank is pretty academic.

And, I thought most of our stuff was hardened against EMP?

Shaun

That's not the attitude you want to go to war with. This usually leads to the "why take prisoners. Those guys killed our comrades"... Genova conventions.
Anyway, non-lethal weapons are not oxymoron, use google and see for yourself.

About the crew: a tank crew is usually dangerous if in a tank. Unless they are all clones of Arnold and Sly they won't pose a problem by picking up M60s and mowing down helicopters, infantry, heck, even satelites. Once their weapon is rendered useless, they will abandon them. They are not armed and trained as infantry; and most likely they will not perform well in this role. (If you think it through your philosophy would lead to the killing of ejected/bailed-out pilots as well. Frequently done by both US and German pilots in WWII, it's not something to be proud of.)

I am going to guess the last post is not from a veteran - ALL american soldiers are proficient with thier rifle - As a sailor I would probaly be most dangerous if removed from my ship and still armed. These tank crew are not sitting in some video game - if they have to abandon thier tank in a battle situation they are coming out armed and pissed. American soldier do not "give up" because our equipment is broken.
"That's not the attitude you want to go to war with"- been there done that -twice-thank you all the same

You stop the tank- the grew gets out they get into an other tank- where would it end! Shoot them all, let God sort them out!
throw a couple of "pro" into the tank, that should put it out of the battle! and no lose of life!

A Nuke is the Main "cause" of a EM pulse But they can be created other ways........ Yes there are some Sheilding theories But testing them on a Large scale is well... Kinda difficult to do...... Too many Risks.......

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-terror.htm


http://superconductors.org/emp-bomb.htm

Suomilista technologia
In Parola Tank Museum in Finland there is a display of infantry anti tank weapons. One of these is a birch log a couple of feet long. The Finns would sneak up to the tank, jam it in the wheels and tracks thereby immobilising the tank and then deal with the crew when they got out.

I'm a proud biologist who, by doing medical research, on the long run helps to save people I really like tanks up to 1/4 scale.
(I honestly thought that people don't go wars to kill, but to achieve specific goals. It really scares me to hear otherwise.)

Let me tell you a story (a friend of mine told me who served in M1A2 during Desert Storm). he was on the shooting ground during training and his M-16 got stuck. Because he didn't want the drill instructor to shout at him, he just pretended to shoot -and got assigned as a tanker when the DI saw he was shooting for 30 min, but never hit anything...

So, back to the original question: is there a reason why not to employ non-lethal weapons on the battlefield? Are they feasible? Were there serious efforts made? (I know, I know many would prefer piling up dead bodies, because it's so manly, but for the sake of argument.)

Tank traps and dragon's teeth stop tanks without necessarily harming the crew. Streams and ditches are also pretty good.

War and policework are two very different things - thats why soldiers are bad at police work, and cops don´t work as soldiers (simplification )

The main differense is, that police wants to catch them alive, soldiers wants to take ém out of bussines ..

No-leathal weapons therefor is most relevant to police, and less relevant for soldiers unless you want prisoners for interogation.

But ... politically. a less bloody war is a better chance for reelection.

Back to the original question, please (let's say we all are nice guys with very high moral standards). Is there a chance for development of these weapons for the military in the future? (In the near future it seems they are kind of irrevelant, as "conventional" warfare is out and guerilla war is in, but who knows? WWI was the "war to end all wars" and look how that turned out.)

:-) I think you're confusing ability to fire a rifle with proficiency. I've met many soldiers (Americans included) who couldn't hit an elephant in the [auto-censored] with a shotgun at ten paces. And in spite of the stories, most tankers (or KFCs as we call them in the infantry) usually head back from their dead tank (if they survived) to get a new one. I would, if I were them, rather than try to fight it out with enemy tanks or infantry who will usually be better armed.

Which brings me to the original question. Ultimately, the idea is to kill the enemy, not knock out his weaponry. The idea of crippling a tank is to get the crew to dismount so that you can kill them.

Sure, it's not nice to shoot at pilots who've bailed out, but most jet jocks would probably try to nail pilot and plane in one if given the choice. I never knew the courtesy was extended to tankers though.