The Two-man Crew

[Catalan]

I'd especially appreciate replies from actual tankers to get some oral evidence from people who have actually experienced the life of a crew member; as opposed to theory.

 

The two-man crew has become more a possibility as I understand from the various articles I've read. To my surprise, I've learned that it has been a possibility since the 70s according to Tank Warfare, by Richard E. Simpkin! From what I've gathered the purpose would be to reduce weight by reducing the crew from either four men or three men, depending on the tank in question, by merging crew jobs by integrating them with better electronics that can make each job easier. For example, merging the gunner and the tank commander and giving both jobs simply to the tank commander. The ultimate aim would be to collectively reduce vehicle weight by a very substantial number, and this would reportedly save a lot, given that you can reduce the volume of the turret by quite a bit, especially if you place the crew in the chassis. The advantages of a lighter tank are well known, and so don't need reviewing here.

 

That said, according to Richard Simpkin there are some problems concerning a two-man crew. For one, it would reduce the amount of men in the tank which would reduce the ability to fix small problems in the tank, without having to rely on a logistics vehicle. Second, it would reduce the amount of men available to guard the tank and therefore increase guarding shift time and decrease rest time. Another problem, according to an article published in Armor, is that despite the evolution of technology you reduce the tank's tank commander's ability to 'see' by burying him in the tank's chassis.

 

How do actual crewmen feel about a two-man tank?

[Paul G]

If you think about it 2x man tanks are nothing new. Most Early war Light tanks and tanketts had two man crews.

 

Combat expericence has shown that a tank's effectiveness is greatly increased if you have a dedicated crew member for "target servicing" and an overall commander to direct the driver, maintain situational awareness, communicate, and hunt for other targets.

 

All can be made easier by technology but never negate the need. All the other issues raised are no different from what 1930s era 2-man crews faced.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Paul G

[Guest JamesG123]

Bad idea. IMO Three men crews are pretty much the ideal number to be able to operate a tank. Can't eliminate the driver. Even the most sophisticated automated driving systems can just barely keep a vehicle on a clearly defined road, much less manuver across difficult terrain. The gunner *could* be eliminated, pattern recognition software is getting good enough for an automated fire control system to be reliable. But what happens when it gets spoofed, the computers (or any of a dozen FCS components) goes down? Of the three crewmembers, the "TC" is probably the most expendable, replaceable by technology. Though I guess that really just merges the TC and Gunner. Sensors can scan 360 and provide situational awareness, alerting the crew to theats. Radio work can be handed off to the driver.... But really you are greatly expanding the work load on both remaining crew members and decreasing their combat effectiveness, endurance, and surviveability.

 

As for the Q about TC in the hull or other wise burying him where he can't see? Yes, its not a good idea to have him where he can't see 360 or one or the other sides of the tank. One of the hardest things for a tank to do, is not combat manuvers, but trying to negotiate thru tight terrain like trees or buildings and the TC needs to see how close the tracks and sides of the hull are, and that is best done from atop the turret. Its overcome-able with really good synthetic vision system (VR goggles that let the TC have a unobstructed view) but you run into what happens in a degraded mode again. Also, you need to be able to quickly perform immediate action on the weapons systems, be it a machine gun stoppage, or the main gun's autoloader tried to feed a round sideways. And that really can't be done unless you are in the turret with the weapons.

[whyhow]

is it correct to think of a two man tank crew in terms of two man strike aircraft crew? the driver assumes the command function and getting the tank to the optimal position, while the weapons operator concentrates on selecting and aiming the appropriate weapon system? maintaince and security for vehicle would be the responsibility of a support crew. One problem would be situational awareness in complex terrain. combat aircrafts can rely on ground radar direction, AWACS, or forward air controller. doesn't a two man crewed tank need something similiar?

[Guest JamesG123]

The problem is that driving requires alot of attention, even in simple terrain like going down a road. A good driver can be trusted to pick the best route thru terrain and cover, but making him also try to scan for targets, run the radios, and other TC duties is asking for alot of thrown track and tanks in ditches.

[whyhow]

The problem is that driving requires alot of attention, even in simple terrain like going down a road.  A good driver can be trusted to pick the best route thru terrain and cover, but making him also try to scan for targets, run the radios, and other TC duties is asking for alot of thrown track and tanks in ditches.

387198[/snapback]

 

You may be right. Old two crew tank (tankette) designs all had the driver only drive and the TC serve as gunner, loader and commander. But that maybe simplely due to fact that in those designs the driver had to be in the hull and the TC had a better situational awareness in his higher turret position. Any future two-crew tank would probably have both crew buried deep in an armored capsule and rely on electro-optic to give vision and drive by wire to steer, so the position of the crew wouldn't dictate their function.

 

Going back to the aircraft analogy, who is usually the commander in an attack helicopter? The pilot or the weapons officer? I'd imagine fly a helicopter closer to the ground is no less demanding of the pilot's attention then driving a tank.

[DKTanker]

Going back to the aircraft analogy, who is usually the commander in an attack helicopter? The pilot or the weapons officer? I'd imagine fly a helicopter closer to the ground is no less demanding of the pilot's attention then driving a tank.

387228[/snapback]

The pilot is the commander of the aircraft; you're still not seriously comparing flying with manuevering on the ground, are you?

[whyhow]

The pilot is the commander of the aircraft; you're still not seriously comparing flying with manuevering on the ground, are you?

387238[/snapback]

 

I don't know. I'm asking. I'm also interested to know how difficult it is for the TC to get the driver to go exactly where he want to be. Would merging the two functions be an advantage in that sense?

Edited November 3, 2006 by whyhow

[George Newbill]

Yes you can reduce the crew to 2 men. The combat effectiveness would go down and the mechanical availability for the vehicle would also go down.

 

Now that being said I beleive that the trade-off would be worth it.

 

I beleive that a 2-man tank could do as well in combat as a 4 man tank but over a long period of time say 3 days they would begin to degrade from lack of sleep and vehicle maintenance from that of a 4 man unit. But if you changed out crews every 12 hours then the 2 man tanks would do BETTER than a baseline 4 man tank.

 

All right what is the point then? Vastly reduced size and weight for a given level of protection.

 

You could take a 40 ton/2 man tank with M-1A1HC level of protection places where a 70 ton tank could not go sea/air lift wise.

Edited November 3, 2006 by George Newbill

[Catalan]

If on the Leclerc a standard shift is 6 hours, and on newer Russian tanks it's 8 hours (I think?), then what is the standard shift for the Leopard 2, M1A2 and Challenger 2?

 

Thanks,

 

Jon

[SILL2]

Having lead a HMMWV TOW Plt (and CO) with 2 man crews it really doesn't work. A major issue being pulling security, maint/support time, sleep plan. Partial solution is very tight wingman pairs (2x vehicles stay together) so have 4 men/2 vehicles. But hardly achieves the desired objective of modern tanks. Take one casualty (if you even start at MTOE strenght) and you abandon a vehicle?

 

Add in the maintenance and logistics work required for a track and in my opinion a pipe dream .

[DKTanker]

If on the Leclerc a standard shift is 6 hours, and on newer Russian tanks it's 8 hours (I think?), then what is the standard shift for the Leopard 2, M1A2 and Challenger 2?

 

Thanks,

 

Jon

387251[/snapback]

Shift? There are shifts in combat?

[George Newbill]

Current US Army doctrine is that you just leave the crew on the vehicle 24 hours per day 7 days per week. I reality you can get 20 hours per day at a reduced level of effectiveness forever.

[Catalan]

Shift?  There are shifts in combat?

387255[/snapback]

 

AFAIK, French doctrine is to replace the Leclerc's tank crew every six hours. IIRC, there are three crews trained for two tanks.

[whyhow]

What about re-allocating your saved crewmembers to support roles of keeping the tanks running?

 

Or better yet if you are going to be fighting an extremely protracted battle, multiple 2 man crews for a single tank.

387256[/snapback]

 

how do you get the 2 man replacement crew to your tank on the front line? how do they keep up with the tank?

I'm thinking keeping them in cryogenic freezer towed behind the tank. armored freezer of course.

[whyhow]

extra crew also means extra crew served weapons and extra eyeballs which cant be underscored given that tanks arent always killing tanks and are increasingly stuck in urban combat.

 

i do wonder if additional situational awareness (i'm thinking like 360 camera with monitor coverage) in a new tank design would help with crew loading and allow you to cut down on crew members.

387249[/snapback]

 

Don't we have a consensus now that fighting hatch open in urban combat is a bad idea? Isn't that why we added the remote weapon station to the TUSK upgrade?

[Manic Moran]

The S-Tank was originally designed to operate with a 2-man crew. "Psychological reasons" were cited for adding the third guy. (i.e. Keep the two guys in there from killing each other with boredom)

 

NTM

[DKTanker]

Don't we have a consensus now that fighting hatch open in urban combat is a bad idea? Isn't that why we added the remote weapon station to the TUSK upgrade?

387269[/snapback]

Umm, not all combat is in urban areas yet situational awareness still remains a requirement.

[DKTanker]

AFAIK, French doctrine is to replace the Leclerc's tank crew every six hours.  IIRC, there are three crews trained for two tanks.

387260[/snapback]

Rinnnggg. That was the timeout bell. All combat will cease for 10 minutes while the French Team swaps out crews.

[whyhow]

Not to mention there is no requirement that the extra eyeballs be looking at stuff open hatch and not through some sort of weapon station

387289[/snapback]

 

what's stuff open hatch? by extra eyeballs you mean the loader right? so the poor loader is still expected to stick his neck out while the TC is safely tuck hatch down?

[whyhow]

The S-Tank was originally designed to operate with a 2-man crew. "Psychological reasons" were cited for adding the third guy. (i.e. Keep the two guys in there from killing each other with boredom)

 

NTM

387271[/snapback]

 

probably a valid reason having lived with roommates. any S-tankers here? can they comment on the situational awareness issue?

[whyhow]

Umm, not all combat is in urban areas yet situational awareness still remains a requirement.

387284[/snapback]

 

according to wikipedia S-Tank page,

"In 1967 Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard."

 

so in closed hatch situation, the number of crew doesn't seems to effect situational awareness. given this was pre-TI days, I'd imagining what ever advantage the extra crew member gives in opened hatch situation would be lessen as well.

[DKTanker]

according to wikipedia S-Tank page,

"In 1967 Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard."

 

so in closed hatch situation, the number of crew doesn't seems to effect situational awareness. given this was pre-TI days, I'd imagining what ever advantage the extra crew member gives in opened hatch situation would be lessen as well.

387299[/snapback]

Well gee, that might actually carry some weight if Norway or Sweden were still using an S-type tank...but oddly, they've reverted to tanks with turrets and 4 crewmembers. How do you figure that?

 

On a tangent, have you ever been on a tank much less crewed one?

[Argus]

according to wikipedia S-Tank page,

"In 1967 Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard."

 

so in closed hatch situation, the number of crew doesn't seems to effect situational awareness. given this was pre-TI days, I'd imagining what ever advantage the extra crew member gives in opened hatch situation would be lessen as well.

387299[/snapback]

 

Might this have had something to do with the very large (wide angle)) vision devices on the S-tank? IIRC the had 12"+ wide periscopes for the driver and 'gunner'.

 

shane

[Manic Moran]

Well gee, that might actually carry some weight if Norway or Sweden were still using an S-type tank...but oddly, they've reverted to tanks with turrets and 4 crewmembers.  How do you figure that?

 

I think it's more an issue of the S-tank not firing on the move than an ability to spot targets.

 

NTM