The Two-man Crew

[KingSargent]

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.

388211[/snapback]

Why do I get the impression that tank crews spend most of theirtime fixing things?....

 

I can agree with everyone being n the hull if all the sensors are going to be electronic anyway*. I wouldn't be comfortable without direct vision, but I'm an old fuddy-duddy.

 

* Like Merk 4 was touted - does anyone know if that remote sensor thing worked in the field?

[EchoFiveMike]

Most modern trucks have color and in some cases IR back up cameras. Some are wireless. Most are now 6" or 8" flat screens. The one we have has been hassle free, something I can not say for the hydraulic system. You'd think after 100+ yrs, you'd have the technology fairly bulletproof, right?

 

The costs are so low you could carry dozens, or even hundreds of replacement cameras, much as replacement periscopes/episcopes were carried on older tanks. S/F.....Ken M

[Wobbly Head]

Most modern trucks have color and in some cases IR back up cameras.  Some are wireless.  Most are now 6" or 8" flat screens.  The one we have has been hassle free, something I can not say for the hydraulic system.  You'd think after 100+ yrs, you'd have the technology fairly bulletproof, right? 

 

The costs are so low you could carry dozens, or even hundreds of replacement cameras, much as replacement periscopes/episcopes were carried on older tanks.  S/F.....Ken M

388321[/snapback]

 

Military and low costs go together like logic and females. You seriously don't wan't to look at the price of military periscopes they arn't cheap. Camaras also have the same problem as sights they give a narrow veiw of veiw one of the reasons commanders still like to ride with their head out as aposed to buttoned up.

[EchoFiveMike]

Software can easily create a panoramic view from several cameras, and the $200-300 backup camera on a truck easily has a 40 degree FoV. If you want to drop a nice little bundle, you can slave the TC's FLIR to the display for detailed zoom/IR spectrum/etc.

 

I know TC like to ride heads up, because it's always been easier and more comfortable. That time has passed. Go into the urban fight with your head out and you're gonna get a lot of TC's shot in the face or fragged in the face. Best come up with a solution and not fighting in the cities is a non starter. S/F....Ken M

[Exel]

I was very very tired when I made that post.  What I meant to say is that is that it is foolish to assume that some sort of software or AI will never ever be able to drive a vehicle with some degree of autonomous action.

 

Maybe. But it isn't the technology of the day, and neither the technology of any foreseeable future. I said before that 2-man tanks aren't a option with the technology we have now and can expect to have in the near future. You can't start designing a two-man tank before you have the technology capable to permit it.

 

as for the jamming/hijacking of remote control vehicles alot of current comm systems and all of that digitical battlefield stuff is subject to the same sort of limitations.  Does that mean we should restrict ourselves to semaphore for close in comms and carrier pigeons for the longer range stuff? 

388451[/snapback]

 

There's a reason why radio silence and electronic silence are operative terms. Tank platoons (at least ours) frequently operate with hand signals with little to none radio chatter before contact with the enemy. Not only can your comm signals be jammed, they can't be detected. You don't want to broadcast your location to your enemy non-stop.

 

I don't see how a radio silence could be an option with remote controlled tanks. You lose comm you lose control. Manned tanks will always have an edge there - they can act autonomously.

[Jim Martin]

Why do I get the impression that tank crews spend most of theirtime fixing things?....

 

388320[/snapback]

 

Well it's not just fixing things, it's constant preventive maintenance. Heck, everytime you stop on a road march, there's a laundry list of things to check/do on an armored vehicle--on a LAV-25 for example, you had to check the tires, crawl under and check the diffs, open the engine hatch, check hydraulic reservoir, oil levels, belts...that's just the stuff I remember, and it's been years. You can divide up the tasks and whip it out pretty quickly (between 2 crewmen, because the VC will likely be off talking with the Plt. Cdr & Plt Sgt--and both the Plt. Cdr and Plt Sgt are VC's on 2 of the 4 veh's anyway), or one guy can work it and be wrapping up just about the time the company is fixing to roll again--so much for a nice relaxing dump in the bushes or highway convenience stop bathroom.

[Exel]

From my experience I can say that even a 4 man crew can be a bitch to operate at times. By no means is there an abundance of men. I was in a platoon commander's tank, so that's one out of the picture 90% of the time when not moving. He's either talking with the other platoon TCs or with the Company CO or doing other admin duties. One man (most often the loader) is a few dozen meters into the woods posting guard. So that leaves two men at the tank, one of which must remain at radio and air watch. There's only so much he can do being attached to a wire. So much of the maintenance is done by one man. Of course you can rotate duties for the three men, but on short stops there's really not much time for "R&R".

 

Now picture that with 3 men.

 

Good. We're stretching it but still managing. Did that most of my training time because our loader was usually the instructor and he either went with the platoon commander or slept on the deck.

 

Then think about it with just 2 men.

 

No, not going to happen unless you scratch some of checklist off or get external peeps help you out - not going to happen on every stop.

[CV9030FIN]

There's a reason why radio silence and electronic silence are operative terms.

388471[/snapback]

 

...and please remember that FDF's methods and tactics related to those subjects are OPSEC!

[Exel]

...and please remember that FDF's methods and tactics related to those subjects are OPSEC!

388616[/snapback]

 

Obviously I have no intention to violate opsec.

[CV9030FIN]

Come on, I was under the impression that adopting radio silence whenever possible was a relatively standard procedure across the board.

388836[/snapback]

 

Maybe, but acording to FDF manuals all info about usage and tactics of radio's and radionet's are OPSEC. I didn't make these rules. As an FDF officer I have oblication to obey these order's and manuals. End.

[BansheeOne]

Yes, we know that, because even if you hadn't mentioned it in a couple or other of threads by now, a lot of the rest of the forum is made up of active or former military personnel from various nations who are under similar rules and therefore take them for granted.

 

Geez.

[CV9030FIN]

Sorry about hijacking this thread. Lets move all back to topic?

[Wobbly Head]

Sorry about hijacking this thread. Lets move all back to topic?

389013[/snapback]

 

Making it a first for tanknet.

[George Wallace]

Is this a Gamer's Forum Topic or am I missing something?

 

Lots of ideas in this topic, but unfortunately they are not very realistic. Comparing a Wiesel to a Tank is right out to lunch. A 20/25/30/35 mm cannon is not the same thing as the 105/120 mm gun that a tank employs. Belt fed cannon rounds are not the same as single round tank ammo.

 

Tanks are tracked. Tracks cause a great deal of vibration. Vibration is very hard on electronics.

 

Remote control requires operators to transmit radio signals to their equipment. Radio transmissions are detectable by EW resources. EW can also jam radio transmissions. Radio silence would only mean that you no longer are transmitting and therefore your equipment is not doing anything. A manned Tank can still operate in Radio Silence, carrying on with its mission to detect and kill the enemy.

 

An EM Burst can fry all electronics on a Battlefield and then render all your RC equipment useless.

 

Another question on RC transmissions is the Range. What is the Range of the RC transmissions? Does it have to be LOS? Does it have to be Relayed through another source?

 

Maintenance? Who does the maint on RC tanks? Who checks the oils? Who checks the Tracks and RoadWheels? When is this done? Where is it done? How often does it get done? Does the Battle have to take 'Coffee Breaks' to allow you to do maint and parts changing?

 

What I see in this discussion/speculation is a lot of inexperience in what Heavy tracked ground vehicles with large calibre guns require to operate in extreme conditions. A total lack of knowledge in the maintenance required to keep this equipment running. A lack of knowledge in the use of electronics in the battlefield. A lack in knowledge about the differences between belt fed cannons and Tank guns and their ammunition. A total lack of knowledge and understanding in the operating skills and duties required of the various crewmembers. A lot of inexperience and knowledge of what a tank is.

 

If we are discussing a video game, this would be a different story.......but kids don't want to listen to old tankers these days.

[Catalan]

So, given the response against the 'lightweight future main battle tank' what would tankers suggest for a plausible future main battle tank that didn't weight 70 tonnes+?

[Guest JamesG123]

A future main battle tank that weights 69.9999 tonnes.

[Chris Werb]

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]

 

Presumaby the third guy could be a girl (and a Swedish one at that!) - that would make things much more interesting.

[Doug Kibbey]

My $.02 about sleep and crew/unit size: Sleep is necessary and good, for all the reasons E5M mentioned and then some.

 

My experience, which includes ARP scout and ambush missions (on foot) AND crewing an armored vehicle in combat is that on extended operations in Injun' Country, you need adequate personnel to maintain adequate awareness and security at all times. Mounted or not. That means somebody sleeps.

 

On night ambush missions in VN, we might have from 8-12 guys, of which we maintained 50% security minimum at all times (every other man). If you couldn't sleep silently, you got kicked...and you stayed awake.

 

In my Armored Cav Troop, we'd have 1-2 guys awake and at station on every vehicle all night at NDP's. This is not reliably achievable with less than three.

[Catalan]

Would some people consider responding similar questions through private messages? I'm starting a online magazine which is neither glamorous or very prestigious, but I was looking forward to some sort of interview with tankers over the topic of the future main battle tank.

[Wobbly Head]

Would some people consider responding similar questions through private messages?  I'm starting a online magazine which is neither glamorous or very prestigious, but I was looking forward to some sort of interview with tankers over the topic of the future main battle tank.

391870[/snapback]

 

Any chance of a link to the web site.

[Catalan]

Right now it's just a forum. The forum is going to be moved and replaced by a main site which will hold an image database of images I've taken, or images other people want to put up, and by the magazine itself. The forums will be moved to a subdirectory or what have you. The magazine's first issue will come up in January 2007.

 

The forums are new - they were put up in August, so activity a bit low. I was hoping that the magazine would give people something to come back to and would increase site activity. I don't want to break Tank Net rules by linking to it, but since you've asked: http://www.modernwarstudies.net