The Two-man Crew

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[Rick]

A one-man crew idea, and I will state up front that I have no experience with any armor of any type save for wearing a "flak jacket" while being a corpsman in the early '80's. Since we now have U.A.V.'s (unmanned arial vehicales) why not try a few R.A.W.'s(robotic armored vehicales). I'm thinking-- -- of a mobile mine that is sent via remote control to a target and detonated. Such a vehicle could be armored against machine gun calibers. Germany produced a tracked, metal vehicale called a Goliath during W.W.2. It was 1.5 meters long x .6 meters high and similar width. It weighed 370kg(816lbs) which included a 60kg(132lb) explosive charge. It had a top speed of 10 k/hr with a range of 1.5 km using two batteries with wire control. All Goliath data from George Forty's German Tanks of World War Two, page 146. Replace the tracks with wheels, metal with plastic, and with today's batteries I think you could have a smaller, lighter, and much faster, usefull option. The operator could be behind cover and guide such a vehicale using t.v. cameras on said vehicale or with a command wire option. While such a robot cannot replace an infantryman or a tank, I think it does have a role as a weapon or reconnaissance device.

[Marek Tucan]

As a weapon I believe you'd be better off with SMAW/RPG/Carl Gustaf/Whatever or short-range ATGM, as a recon with the small hand-launched UAV's USMC uses

[toysoldier]

Since we now have U.A.V.'s (unmanned arial vehicales) why not try a few R.A.W.'s(robotic armored vehicales).

387850[/snapback]

 

quick! Samson incoming!

[Rick]

As a weapon I believe you'd be better off with SMAW/RPG/Carl Gustaf/Whatever or short-range ATGM, as a recon with the small hand-launched UAV's USMC uses

387858[/snapback]

Another brilliant theory ruined by facts and reality.

[dejawolf]

i believe the driver to be far more expendable than the TC.

if the tank can be driven from the top of the turret, all the better.

all the driver does anyways is take orders such as "move out" "stop" "drive to that bush over there" etc.

[Guest JamesG123]

I hope you were trying to be funny.

 

Real life isn't a Steel Beasts game.

[DKTanker]

i believe the driver to be far more expendable than the TC.

if the tank can be driven from the top of the turret, all the better.

all the driver does anyways is take orders such as "move out" "stop" "drive to that bush over there" etc.

387886[/snapback]

Never driven a tank outside of computer simulation I take it.

[Sven Arvidsson]

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]

Interesting. The Swedish army conducted test in 1970-something, comparing strv 103 and strv 102 (Centurion Mk III) - the crews in Cents spotted more targets that the crews in 103's (80% vs 50%). Crew training is more important than optics?

 

Strv 103 did recieve some severe criticism on that little trick of cheapskating out on crew, in particular combining driver-gunner. While the TC and gunner-driver had identical sights (which indeed was quite good), the driver had plenty enough to do with watching terrain and driving, decreasing his efficiency as a gunner once the "Halt! Target!..." command came. According to the critics, at least (who have, of course, recieved some critisism for the critisism).

[Exel]

i believe the driver to be far more expendable than the TC.

if the tank can be driven from the top of the turret, all the better.

all the driver does anyways is take orders such as "move out" "stop" "drive to that bush over there" etc.

387886[/snapback]

 

The driver needs more brains than the gunner. Not the way that he'd need to be smarter in any way, but in the sense that a gunner could be replaced by a machine while a driver could not.

 

And I say this as a gunner.

[Catalan]

What do you guys think about the current view of the FMBT? I.E. the light 40 tonne or less tank armed with a very light cannon and very light active protections.

[Exel]

With the current state of the art correct, as a blanketed ever I wish I had your crystal ball.

387943[/snapback]

 

Don't understanding half of what you are saying, but there's no crystal ball needed. Driver needs to use independent judgement, machines can't do that. Gunning, apart from targeting, could at least in theory be automated.

[Guest JamesG123]

What do you guys think about the current view of the FMBT?  I.E. the light 40 tonne or less tank armed with a very light cannon and very light active protections.

387952[/snapback]

 

A bloody joke (and not a funny one).

[Catalan]

Tis' what I expected.

[Hans Engstrom]

As a member of the Swedish Army I tend to have to trot out this little nugget everytime someone comes down with the "definitive argument" that 3 men (or 2 men) are too few to maintain a tank.

 

The structure of a Swedish Strv-103 company included 2 extra crewmembers on every tank platoon, and 18 extra crewmembers in the company as reserves (in other words, a company which requires 36 crewmembers to fully crew its tanks has an extra 27 tankers ready to pull duty and maintenance). This above and beyond the 8 men of the maintenaace squad. I fail to see the problem.

[KingSargent]

As a member of the Swedish Army I tend to have to trot out this little nugget everytime someone comes down with the "definitive argument" that 3 men (or 2 men) are too few to maintain a tank.

 

The structure of a Swedish Strv-103 company included 2 extra crewmembers on every tank platoon, and 18 extra crewmembers in the company as reserves (in other words, a company which requires 36 crewmembers to fully crew its tanks has an extra 27 tankers ready to pull duty and maintenance). This above and beyond the 8 men of the maintenaace squad. I fail to see the problem.

388103[/snapback]

When we debated reduced crews years ago, the US vets were adamant that any "spare" or reserve crew would be hijacked by brass and/or REMF to do important things like paint rocks. I take it this was not the Swedish experience?

 

BTW, I understand the 103 could be operated from the TC or driver station with no other crew. Did anyone ever try this on a range or in maneuvers?

[KingSargent]

If you are going to shrink down the crew for some sort of small assault support vehicle why not just go the full remote operations route. Tech demostrators have already been put out with limited capabilities and there are various CEV vehicles that already can do it.

If the only situational awareness the crew has comes from TV screens (as in Merk IV), then I fail to see that it matters where the TV screen and operating controls are located. Make vision artificial and you pave the way for remote operation to look good.

 

That sort of thing of course ignores the realities of all of the things a crew has to do on the tank on top of operating it in combat.

Things that a crew does NOW to the tank. In a remotely-operated situation there would be servicing stations of some sort where the steel beast could eat and eliminate. These stations could be manned by people whose ONLY job is to service the beast.

 

Making a change such as going to remote operation would require major organizational changes.

[Exel]

Remote operation would only be viable against asymmetric threats. Who in their right mind is mad enough to assume that those are the only threats one will ever face in the future? In a conflict where the opposing sides have at least some level of parity, remote controlled war machines become liability for interference, jamming and even hijacking. It would be a major suck to see your remote controlled toy with a big gun to suddenly stop responding to your commands, then turn 180° and steamroll your command station where you were supposed to be out of the harms way.

[Jim Martin]

Having served on LAV-25's, I'd have to say that 2 man crews would be a nightmare, having had to work on 2 man crews a few times. Not only is workload increased in the turret--VC has to navigate, communicate, command the driver, coordinate with other platoon elements AND employ the weapons--but as mentioned, watch standing becomes truly a bitch when there's not a 3rd person to split the watches with. There goes your sleep plan. Maintenance? Forget it. TC/VC is off with the Platoon SGT or Platoon Cmdr half the time briefing/debriefing, or off at S-4 schmoozing the supply dudes for replacement parts, or schmoozing the mech's trying to get them to do some long-needed work on the hog, or has collateral duties as an NCO which he's trying to fulfill. Plus you always have someone down with the flu or something, so you're always going to be below-strength anyway. This ends up meaning that if you have a 3 man crew, it's usually 2 guys pulling maintenance, or even just one because Admin always has some paperwork or other BS for another guy to fill out down at the CP. PM'ing a 14 ton fighting vehicle and running it through the washrack alone, after a long weekend in the field is just an abslute joy. NOT.

[Richard Lindquist]

As to driving, there is a big difference between a plane and a tank, just as there is a difference beween my boat and my car. Most of the miles on the boat, i can set the course, turn on the autopilot, and with occasional glances at the radar and the area around me, tie fishing rigs or schoomze with my friends while running. In the car, constant attention is required even with cruise control on the interstate. Yopu just can't equate piloting a plane with driving a vehicle.

[Ken Estes]

There is also the political dimension. A W German defense minister in late70/early80s wanted a two man tank to economise personnel and pushed development. The army was glad to see him go, but the project became one of those two-gun Leopard concept designs. I am not making this up.

[Hans Engstrom]

King, well, it's one of the advantages of having a conscript army which only mobilizes for exercises (in the field) or for war. No other bullshit going on (well, some, during training, but not with a combat unit).

 

As far as handling the tank singlehandedly, certainly possible, and I have met a guy who claims he did a full qualifying exercise (something lika shooting a tank table as I understand it, driving a set course and engaging targets which appear at random) without his driver/gunner in the tank and the radiooperator/reardriver twiddling his thumbs. Whether bragging or not, I can't say.

[Harold Jones]

It makes more sense to me that you keep the 3 man crew and put all three in the hull than it does to go to a two man crew. At least that way you have enough people on the tank to do most of the maintenance or basic repairs. With two you'd almost always be waiting for the maintenance team or backup crews to get moved to your location to help with the repairs.

[Wobbly Head]

There is a slight problem with these uber robotic tanks. Maintenance, even now the education for normal technicians for tanks is approaching a university grade education. Even with box changing the level of experience is still high now you have to compete with the Air Force, Navy for the highly educated recruit and in a conscript army where the technician might have to go through a 18 month training course on a two year commitment.

 

Thats not the only problem tanks and AFV's are not known to be the best vehicles to put electronics in they have little enough room for the crew let alone camaras and electronics everywhere and things break down easly in a AFV.

The robot tanks sound good but I would put them being in the maintenace bay more than the feild even more than the tanks are today.

[KingSargent]

Remote operation would only be viable against asymmetric threats. Who in their right mind is mad enough to assume that those are the only threats one will ever face in the future? In a conflict where the opposing sides have at least some level of parity, remote controlled war machines become liability for interference, jamming and even hijacking. It would be a major suck to see your remote controlled toy with a big gun to suddenly stop responding to your commands, then turn 180° and steamroll your command station where you were supposed to be out of the harms way.

388155[/snapback]

Instead of anti-missile missiles we could have anti-hacking hacks.

 

I agree it wouldn't work without very secure communications, but in symmetric warfare both sides would be in the same boat*.

 

* So Sink That Boat!