Commander's Machine Gun

[Rick]

To me, it appears that the machine gun by the commader's hatch is exposed and possibly hard to use in a 360 degree circle on many/most afv. Is this true? Is this gun often used? In actual battle, is the commander often a causality when he uses this weapon?

[Exel]

In our Leos we don't even have a commander's MG. The hatch wouldn't allow a very convenient 360 degree use for it for one, but also it would distract the commander from his primary duties. The loader's hatch has an MG and he's expected to use it when not loading the main armament. It works okay for its purpose, but I would much prefer an RCW setup that could be operated by the loader, commander, or both. As I understand it that's how they've done it in some of the more recent Leopard variants.

[commander]

Conqueror, Chieftain, Centurion and Challenger 1 all had mgs that could be fired from under cover Conq being the best as it was power traversed. CR2 has moved it to loaders side, in which he has to be exposed to fire, unless they have to RWS fitted. Always found cmdrs mg shoots fun.

[shep854]

M1s were/are equipped to fire the TC's .50 under armor. I had read that this feature was discontinued, but there was a bit on the 'Tanks' episode of "Lock & Load" showing the TC of a current USMC M1 firing his MG head-down.

[Max H]

M1s were/are equipped to fire the TC's .50 under armor. I had read that this feature was discontinued, but there was a bit on the 'Tanks' episode of "Lock & Load" showing the TC of a current USMC M1 firing his MG head-down.

 

The commander lost that feature when he got the independent TI sight on the M1A2

[shep854]

M1s were/are equipped to fire the TC's .50 under armor. I had read that this feature was discontinued, but there was a bit on the 'Tanks' episode of "Lock & Load" showing the TC of a current USMC M1 firing his MG head-down.

 

The commander lost that feature when he got the independent TI sight on the M1A2

That's what I was thinking. In fact, I thought it went away even sooner, but then I saw that brief clip on "Lock & Load". I presumed the show is fairly new.

[Damian]

Currently M1A2SEP's are equipped with CROWS.

 

 

So commander can still use hist MG under armour, and it is better than any other solution. I seen CROWS capabilities in optics (amazing), how fast it is responding to commander actions, and some other capabilities.

 

While M1A1;s are reciving upgraded CWS to SCWS with full stabilization and new optics (thermals included).

[rmgill]

Why didn't they just slave the Cmdr's MG to the Independent Thermal sight? I mean, if they can control a couple of MG turrets on a B29 with 1940s tech can't they control one independent MG mount with another viewing device?

[JW Collins]

Yeah, it does seem rather pricy to have the entire CROWS setup and the CITV.

[Exel]

It seems to me that with the CROWS and the loader's gun shield the field of view of the CITV to anywhere but the frontal arc is rather obstructed, is it not?

[Tomas Hoting]

Why didn't they just slave the Cmdr's MG to the Independent Thermal sight?

 

They did that on the Leclerc Tropicalisé in service with the United Arab Emirates: here the remotely operated MG mount is slaved to the commander's TI sight.

 

[demosthenes]

Would getting rid of the CITV altogether and using the RWS for everything be a valid decision?

[Exel]

Would getting rid of the CITV altogether and using the RWS for everything be a valid decision?

 

It would require the turret to be slaved to the RWS, which I don't think is done at the moment (although I don't know). Certainly there is no technical reason why it couldn't be done, but I imagine it would require quite a major redesign and rewiring of the FCS and turret controls. I'm also not sure if the optics on the CROWS match those of the CITV (although they could even be better, given they're much newer tech).

 

Technically the Leclerc setup seems much more refined. There's less clutter on the turret roof and thus the commander has a better field of view. It's also simpler in that the commander doesn't have to operate two separate systems for what is basically the same task.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Exel

[Damian]

CROWS on the M1A2SEP is already connected with CITV display as far as I know, and technically CROWS acts like a second CITV, although I think it is still not connceted with FCS.

 

Optics of CROWS are really great, I think it also have maximum 50x zoom like gunner primary sight and CITV + good thermal sight and own laser range finder.

 

There are other nice features of CROWS, like ammo counter. So yeah, in the end they might get rid off CITV, we should wait what they will come up in 2014 when ECP1 upgrade for M1 series will be presented in more details.

[rmgill]

 

 

Those dinky little straps seem awfully optimistic for holding up the large towbar.

[Exel]

What's with the wooden (?) plates on the turret front of the Abrams, btw?

[Tomas Hoting]

What's with the wooden (?) plates on the turret front of the Abrams, btw?

 

Those are Combat Identification Panels (CIPs), non-magnetic metallic panels covered on one side with a special low emissivity thermal tape:

 

"(...) The concept for CIP employment is to affix thermal tape-covered panels to vehicles, thereby changing the vehicle's appearance when viewed through thermal sights. The CIP operates as a thermal mirror. It reflects temperature from a cooler area, such as the sky. This reflection is only visible to thermal sights, which detect the unique cold spot created by the CIP (...)."

 

The flat panels are mounted on the turret front, while the louvred panels are mounted on the sides and at the rear of the turret (Challenger 2s during Operation Telic also had them).

Edited November 25, 2012 by Tomas Hoting

[JW Collins]

I have no doubt that CROWS has an excellent optics setup, but so does the CITV and that is already integrated into the tanks fire control system. I think slaving a simpler RCWS to the CITV would be a better solution.

 

Could a version of the M1A1's new SCWS be developed for the revised commanders cupola on the M1A2?

[Damian]

Could a version of the M1A1's new SCWS be developed for the revised commanders cupola on the M1A2?

 

Perhaps, although I seen only two photos of single tank from USMC that had SCWS mounted. It probably will take time to field them, and priority to get them have M1A1's.

[JW Collins]

I can't remember the source, but I read somewhere that the CWS was replaced by the manually operated M2 not because of the redesigned cupola, but because the space where the motor had been was taken up one of the new displays and computer systems for the tank commander.

[DavidDCM]

In classic symmetric warfare one of the advantages of having a standalone TC periscope is that it is not as easily entangled by branches etc. when the tank is in the thick of some bushes. Also one could argue that on a camouflaged tank when in ambush/observation position, a small cylindrical periscope turning and looking around is not as easily recced by enemy troops (if the rest of the tank remains immobile) as a clunky RCWS.

 

€dit/ 'Turret down' was the term that slipped my memory

Edited November 26, 2012 by DavidDCM

[Damian]

I can't remember the source, but I read somewhere that the CWS was replaced by the manually operated M2 not because of the redesigned cupola, but because the space where the motor had been was taken up one of the new displays and computer systems for the tank commander.

 

This is truth, the technology demonstrators of M1A2... or prototypes had CWS and I think CITV mockup, later it was changed.

 

Well to be honest what I would want to see, would be some sort of bastard child between SCWS and ICWS, so it would have a good optics and stabilized mount for MG from SCWS with these big, nice periscopes from ICWS.

[rmgill]

At some point we're going to be able to get inferometry to provide data to a single viewer from multiple sensors. Anyone know if this is being worked on for US vehicles?

[m1a1mg]

I saw a version of CROWS back in 1997. Everything costs money. What you may want may not be what will be paid for.

[Mr King]

At some point we're going to be able to get inferometry to provide data to a single viewer from multiple sensors. Anyone know if this is being worked on for US vehicles?

 

Well its not a tank, but isnt that like what they are working on for the F-35 Lightning?