The Two-man Crew

[DKTanker]

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

 

NTM

387309[/snapback]

Maybe, except that Sweden did, as I recall, build an experimental tank with an exterior mounted gun on an independent mount, and thus having the capability of being stabilized.

[whyhow]

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?

387301[/snapback]

 

Yes, I have been on a tank I'm not claiming to be an expert here.

 

more to do with the fact that they don't want to spend the money to develop a new generation of tanks with similiar configuration.

[whyhow]

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

387305[/snapback]

 

So better optics is more important than extra MK I eyeballs when it comes to situational awareness. This is likely to be more the case in the future with improvement in EO technologies.

[Guest JamesG123]

Yeah, an S-Tank type, er... tank would be about the only configuration where a 2 man crew would be workable.

Ideally you would have two identical "work stations" each with driving and gunnery controls. One crewman acts as the driver while moving and then the gunner once in position to fire. The other plays TC scanning for targets and making sure no one is sneaking up on the vehicle from behind, etc.

 

But the S-tank was a pretty specialized machine that really doesn't have much of a place on a modern battlefield outside of its defensive niche. And you would still have all the non-combat workload problems...

 

For those of you who have never ridden a tank outside of a computer sim and are wondering about the magnitude of the problem of driving in real life, take your car down a (hopefully deserted) dirt road, try to drive normally, but keep your vision everywhere but out the front windshield. You can look down, or out the side windows, anywhere but forward. See how fast you get into trouble...

[whyhow]

For those of you who have never ridden a tank outside of a computer sim and are wondering about the magnitude of the problem of driving in real life,  take your car down a (hopefully deserted) dirt road, try to drive normally, but keep your vision everywhere but out the front windshield. You can look down, or out the side windows, anywhere but forward.  See how fast you get into trouble...

387320[/snapback]

 

so you are saying the driver optics on the present generation tanks suck, but sufficient for the purpose because the driver only have worry about driving right now. if we go for a two men crew on a future tank, the whoever is driving would of course get better optics for all around vision.

[Guest JamesG123]

Missed my point. It doesn't matter how good the view is, if the driver isn't paying attention to where the tank is going and making the minute corrections nessissary, the tank is going to wind up stuck or otherwise in trouble.

Manuvering thru the air is alot simplier than on the ground. Aircraft, be it a fighter or even a helecopter flying NOE usually has enough room between him and other things (like the ground) that the pilot is able to do other things like fiddle with his weapon systems or look at navigational displays.

[whyhow]

okay, your point taken. How about the S-Tank configuration of dual controls for two man crew? Let them take turn play TC/gunner and driver. Give it external gun or turret for better fire on the move. Is the primary issue is situational awareness or maintance and security.

 

Missed my point. It doesn't matter how good the view is, if the driver isn't paying attention to where the tank is going and making the minute corrections nessissary, the tank is going to wind up stuck or otherwise in trouble.

Manuvering thru the air is alot simplier than on the ground. Aircraft, be it a fighter or even a helecopter flying NOE usually has enough room between him and other things (like the ground)  that the pilot is able to do other things like fiddle with his weapon systems or look at navigational displays.

387333[/snapback]

[Exel]

As many have said, three man crew is an absolute minimum at least with current technology. You need driver, gunner and commander and can't do with any less without taking a serious hit to your combat performance.

 

It's a little pointless in starting to speculate 2-man crews when even the 3-man crew hasn't yet managed to replace the 4-man crew as the "optimal" solution.

[Argus]

So better optics is more important than extra MK I eyeballs when it comes to situational awareness. This is likely to be more the case in the future with improvement in EO technologies.

387319[/snapback]

 

??

 

Providing I was right in the first place about the optics on the S-Tank.

 

All it sugests, is that better optics can be an advantage over an extra pair of eyes looking through inferior optics.

 

Big deal

 

The question is can three men see better than four men with the SAME optics? Or are two people watching survailance monitors more capable than one person with the same task load?

 

shane

[whyhow]

well, the S-Tank also had the advantage of smaller profile. which is also a likely advantage of any future tank with a smaller crew.

my point is that having better optics is more important than have more eyes. fighting hatch down with superior optics doesn't have to mean decreased situational awareness compare to fighting hatches open while replying on MkI eyeballs.

is four men better than three man with the same optics? yes. does it mean a four men tank will spot a three man tank earlier? not necessarily. smaller profile to the smaller tank. is a four men tank as well armored as a two men tank with the same logistics requirements? almost certainly not.

 

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm not convinced two men tank is the way of the future either.

 

  ?? 

 

Providing I was right in the first place about the optics on the S-Tank.

 

All it sugests, is that better optics can be an advantage over an extra pair of eyes looking through inferior optics.

 

Big deal

 

The question is can three men see better than four men with the SAME optics? Or are two people watching survailance monitors more capable than one person with the same task load?

 

shane

387339[/snapback]

[Exel]

The question really boils down to nothing more than "Can you command the tank while engaging a target?". The simple answer is no. The gunner can in no way at the same time instruct the driver while he is putting the sights on a target, let alone coordinate with the rest of the platoon / company. For 2-man crews to become feasible we need a LOT more automation in targeting and gunning.

[EchoFiveMike]

2 man crews are just too much workload on too few people. I did it with HUM-V's and it sucked, trying it with tanks would be borderline insane.

 

3 man crews OTOH, make sense given autoloaders. Yeah, there's all the issues of routine workload and security but that just reinforces the need for mixed units with APC/IFV's for security. Guys outside the vehicles. We had savages lay IED's within 100m of tanks that were supposedly on watch. The security has to be outside of the tank unless you have Prussian levels of discipline to avoid the assholes falling asleep in the cans.

 

Which leads me into the asshat comments on shifts....

Sure, you can fight until you drop, those last 12-24 hrs before you pass out are going to be a mixed up furball of shit you're not even going to remember come the court martial after you kill a metric shitload of non-combatants due to insane decision making. BTDT. For extended combat you must, as a leader, establish a sleep plan and stick to it as rigorously as possible. We had some dickheads who tried to go 100% for a 7 month tour and win the war all by themselves and it was really seriously ugly with crazy wild eyed decisions. When you're looking at a squad leader who's going out on another patrol and he looks exactly the same as a OTR meth tweaker who's been awake for 72-96 hrs that's a hugely Bad Thing Situational awareness: zero. Leaders should be court martialed for that shit. S/F.....Ken M

[commander]

UK toyed again with 2 men crews duirng the research that led to Chieftain, the theory being that for one MBT (Centurion prices) we could have 4 or 5 little ones and we could thern field regiments of 100+ would thta not scare the enemy. Went into this in Chieftain and thankfully it died a death.

 

Shifts on tanks! damm looks like we have missed out again.

[m1a1mg]

Shifts? Shifts????

 

I can only imagine the reaction if I tried to sell that to the US Army Armor force.

[EchoFiveMike]

"Shifts" can also be called tactical halts, operational bounds, whatever. If you're talking hot seating a vehicle, that doesn't make sense IMO. When do you perform maintainance? S/F....Ken M

[Guest JamesG123]

Shifts? Shifts????

I can only imagine the reaction if I tried to sell that to the US Army Armor force.

 

I donno, the Armor Branch has rolled over and taken it quite a bit recently....

[Richard Lindquist]

If you have a two man crew, you have a driver and a TC/gunner. Might be workable for a single tank, but how about when the TC is the section leader of a two tank section or when the TC is the section leader of a two tank section plus the platoon leader of a two section platoon?? Then you have the company commander, battalion commander, and S-3 trying to do their jobs as well as TCing and gunning a vehicle.

 

As to "saving" the extra guys for security, when we went from five man crews (M46, M47, M4A3E8) to four man crews (M48), the extra guys (bow gunners) were formed into a "security section" in the company HQ. Thant lasted for a while, then the Scty Sec became a TOE "augmentation", then it dissappeared altogether in another TOE manpower cut.

[George Wallace]

All I can say, is this is a topic that has been thought up by someone who has absolutely no experience on Tanks. It is an idea that would only work in the Video Gaming world.

 

Tanks are large machines that require a lot of relatively easy, but heavy work to keep them maintained. When in Garrison, it is simple to set up maintenance schedules with a minimum number of personnel, but there is no such luxury in the Field. A crew must carry out a multitude of tasks and do shifts on sentry and radio watch. Two man crews would not be employable for more than a few days, before they would be 'burnt out'.

 

Currently the Crew Commander, even in a four man crew, must be able to multi-task and carry out several tasks at once: controlling the Driver, commanding the Gunner, supervising the Loader, using the radio, navigating with his map, as well as looking for routes to take, looking for enemy, watching for other friendly troops and his location in that organization, etc. Situation awareness cannot be replaced by a video monitor. A Commander uses more than his eyes, he uses all his senses; eyes, ears, smell.....

 

A Loader, besides loading the interior guns, also maintains them along with the radios. The Loader, like the commander, also has vision blocks to see outside of the tank.

 

Making this a two man crew only places more work on the Driver and the Commander/Gunner. Having a follow on crew for Maint and Security, only adds more vehicles to the mix, which means more vehicles requiring security, maintenance and more.

 

Having sat on a 'Gate Guard' and played video games does not give one much in the way of knowledge on the workings of Armour. It is a shame that so many such types, are making decisions affecting the direction Armour is headed.

 

Three or four man crews are a minimum. Anything less takes away from SA. Technology cannot be relied upon to replace them. Nothing will replace the man and his brain.

[whyhow]

The question really boils down to nothing more than "Can you command the tank while engaging a target?". The simple answer is no.

387414[/snapback]

 

Why not? We already have autonomous missiles like the Javelins. Why can't we incorporate the same type of pattern recognition software to the tank's FCS? Just assign targets. that should significantly simplify the gunner's job, leaving him for other duties.

[Guest JamesG123]

Just read Mr. Wallace's last post again and accept it.

[DKTanker]

Why not? We already have autonomous missiles like the Javelins. Why can't we incorporate the same type of pattern recognition software to the tank's FCS? Just assign targets. that should significantly simplify the gunner's job, leaving him for other duties.

387543[/snapback]

Conceive it, design it, engineer it, sell it. If it's such a great idea you should have boatloads of customers lined up to take deliveries. Right now you're in the sell it mode without a clear conception as to what you want. IOW, it isn't we with the experience that have to justify our positions, it is you that has to justify yours.

[George Newbill]

From an engineering point of view the 2 man tank can be done.

 

The US Army however would be unable to mentally shift gears in to changing tactics and doctirine to best use such radical new weapons which is why the FCS is doomed.

[Guest JamesG123]

From an engineering point of view a single crew member, bipedal, anthropomorphic, armored vehicle (known as a "Mech") is possible too.

 

That doesn't mean its a good idea.

[Junior FO]

....

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[BansheeOne]

The Wiesel seems to work well enough with a 2 man crew (anybody around with any experience?).

 

No experience of my own, but the Wiesel is of course a light self-propelled infantry support platform, not a tank. It's area of effect is also just plus/minus 55 degree off vehicle axis for the 20 mm armed variant and plus/minus 45 degree for the TOW variant (which has a three-man crew), so the gunner/commander will always be observing more or less the front sector.