Rumor-Kitchen: Leopard 2A8

[Ssnake]

There's still the option of augmented reality/helmet integrated displays.

[zaarin7]

I'll believe that when we see home based affordable VR gear. And by affordable I mean at the price point of less than 3000 UDD for top of the line gear.

[Simon Tan]

What sort of awesome FOV and depth of view does one get from a episcope? How much more well protected is an episcope than a solid state camera? How do you get gunk off your episcope? I must have missed out on the uberepiscopic revolution. Unlike a Drone, the crew can open a hatch and revert to Mk1 eyeball....like how they do it now. Shock. Horror.

 

Incidentally, why would a tank not have it's own drone? Which obviously can be flown by Mk1 eyeball.....

[TTK Ciar]

Image distortion can be software-corrected in real-time, nowadays.

[sunday]

Image distortion can be software-corrected in real-time, nowadays.

 

Or, even better, introduced.

 

Let's say human vision has an horizontal FOV of 120º, one could "compress" the 360º of an all-around panorama into the human FOV, so you practically have eyes on the back of your head. And using VR goggles with holographic projectors could provide depth perception also.

 

This could be an intrusion on la-la land (or MBT70 land from a 1970s POV), however, I reckon.

[Simon Tan]

Simplest depth perception is the use of stadia type indicators like on a reversing camera. I dont see any such bitching about commander's viewers or gunner sights. Tell me about the 360 situational awareness without 2 heads out.

Affordable camera tech thanks to smartphones means we can run gazing arrays that can be stitched together. It also allows views to be switched almost instantly.

[Mr King]

Pardon my unworldliness, but what is an "organized pacifist"?

[Thonar3]

VR-Helmets or Vision Systems (like Oculus Rift) have the problem of controls.
When you have just a mouse and a keyboard in a calm Environment to control blindly, everything is fine, but you don't have "only" a mouse and a keyboard and when you drive over rough terrain, good luck hitting the correct button without looking in a stressful situation that may cost your life.

 

Depth-of-Field is also not properly addressed so far IMO.
Despite the existence of lightfield-cameras, which aren't so far developed yet.
I mean, you want to have a camera being small, but also being sharp from 1m to 4000m otherwise you would need to work with auto-focus which may cause problems, thus you need to work with manual focus in probably several instances which causes further problems.

[lastdingo]

I mean, you want to have a camera being small, but also being sharp from 1m to 4000m otherwise you would need to work with auto-focus which may cause problems, thus you need to work with manual focus in probably several instances which causes further problems.

 

No, that's nonsense. Human vision isn't sharp past a few hundred metres at most either.

Anything at longer ranges requires binoculars, or one of the daylight/thermal sensors with a few ° field of view and thousands of metres identification range that are common already.

 

Folks, the nature's laws apply for eyes just the same as for digital optical sensors. There are few differences in design that matter much:

(1) Eye receptors are not on a plan, but on a curved background.

(2) Eye receptors have a higher density and thus higher resolution in a small area

(3) Eyes have a blind spot.

(4) Eyes cannot zoom.

(5) Eyes have a great variance of performance, even after correction by glasses or laser.

 

It is possible to emulate the higher density/resolution thing, but nobody seems to think it's that big of a deal to actually emulate it other than for experiments.

Electro-optical sensors have other strengths, strengths that an exposed Mk 1 cannot emulate at all.

Quite importantly, such sensors can tirelessly search for suspicious things, and can present a zoomed sharp image or video of it on a screen for judging by a human almost instantly. Even in the rear sector of the turret, which gets neglected by humans in practice.

Electrooptical also leave no blind angles; the typical relative blindness of a tank crew at close range can be avoided.

[Simon Tan]

Tell me what depth of field you get on a commander's viewer or gunner's sight?

[Thonar3]

 

No, that's nonsense. Human vision isn't sharp past a few hundred metres at most either.

Anything at longer ranges requires binoculars, or one of the daylight/thermal sensors with a few ° field of view and thousands of metres identification range that are common already.

 

That is not quite correct. The focus of the human eye is fast enough to adjust according to the view distance without further input, which a camera can't do properly. At the same time the human eye, or better brain, is able to concentrate on small objects for better identification even over long distances.

(Ever stood on a mountain and watched cars passing by kilometers away?)

 

 

Folks, the nature's laws apply for eyes just the same as for digital optical sensors. There are few differences in design that matter much:

(1) Eye receptors are not on a plan, but on a curved background.

(2) Eye receptors have a higher density and thus higher resolution in a small area

(3) Eyes have a blind spot.

(4) Eyes cannot zoom.

(5) Eyes have a great variance of performance, even after correction by glasses or laser.

 

It is possible to emulate the higher density/resolution thing, but nobody seems to think it's that big of a deal to actually emulate it other than for experiments.

Electro-optical sensors have other strengths, strengths that an exposed Mk 1 cannot emulate at all.

Quite importantly, such sensors can tirelessly search for suspicious things, and can present a zoomed sharp image or video of it on a screen for judging by a human almost instantly. Even in the rear sector of the turret, which gets neglected by humans in practice.

Electrooptical also leave no blind angles; the typical relative blindness of a tank crew at close range can be avoided.

 

 

Tell me what depth of field you get on a commander's viewer or gunner's sight?

 

 

This argument turns to much into an "Eye vs Camera/ Optic"-dispute, which is not the orginal statement.

Cameras and Eyes have both their place, but a crewless turret pretty much "sacrifices" the eyes for an "only-camera"-view.

Or do people here really doubt that there are moments, when it is simply better to stick your head out to analyze the situation?

This isn't about are cameras better than eyes, but about the question: Can cameras completly replace the human eye without while retaining the same combat effectiveness?

Edited June 24, 2015 by Thonar3

[Simon Tan]

Sorry....but what century are you describing?

[Chris Werb]

Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Simon Tan]

Riding high in the hatch is not going to fly anymore. That will just result in lots and lots of TC KIA.

[Thonar3]

Sorry....but what century are you describing?

 

No matter how advanced technology get, as long as you need to control it, it means an increase in workload on the crew and thus reduces the effectiveness of the crew, especially when you reduce the crew-size even further.

[Simon Tan]

So by your logic, we really should be operating M24 Chaffees. Low logistical footprint, simple engineering and bugger all electronics. And a 5 man crew.

 

How episcopes are better for situational awareness, fiddly knobs and a rack of switches as improved interface or separate data and voice communications are superior is really beyond me.

 

We can in fact see said logic in action in Saada province where the Houthis and Saudis are duking it out. The Saudis have reasonably simple tanks you are espousing in the form of a M60s and AMX30s while the Houthis are generally coming at them with infantry and some technical but well provided with AT weapons like the Metis-M and RPG-7VR. Mk1 eyeball just isn't serving the Saudis well at all, since their TC are all buttoned up thanks to the threat from marksmen.

[Thonar3]

So by your logic, we really should be operating M24 Chaffees. Low logistical footprint, simple engineering and bugger all electronics. And a 5 man crew.

 

How episcopes are better for situational awareness, fiddly knobs and a rack of switches as improved interface or separate data and voice communications are superior is really beyond me.

 

We can in fact see said logic in action in Saada province where the Houthis and Saudis are duking it out. The Saudis have reasonably simple tanks you are espousing in the form of a M60s and AMX30s while the Houthis are generally coming at them with infantry and some technical but well provided with AT weapons like the Metis-M and RPG-7VR. Mk1 eyeball just isn't serving the Saudis well at all, since their TC are all buttoned up thanks to the threat from marksmen.

 

It is astonishing how well you use "exaggeration" as stilistic art in rhetoric..

 

1. Yes, I'm in favor of 5 men crews, when a loader is still in the tank, but as a matter of fact, autoloaders are the future, so I stick with 4 men + autoloader designs

2. "episcopes are better for situational awareness" as what? Never said something along these lines, what I actually stated and you refuse to address is the point that having the ability to use the Mk1 eyeball is better than not having this ability.

[TTK Ciar]

No matter how advanced technology get, as long as you need to control it, it means an increase in workload on the crew and thus reduces the effectiveness of the crew, especially when you reduce the crew-size even further.

As someone who develops automation for a living, I'd posit that this is only true for poorly-designed technology. Automation should unburden the human component, either allowing them to control the system in a more powerful way (small effort for large effect) or allowing them to exit the control loop to pay attention to other things.

 

I'd be the first to admit, though, that there's a lot of bad technology out there.

[Simon Tan]

I point out that sticking your head out will likely get it blown off these days.

 

The best Mk1 eyeball actually is off the tank, talking it in, like the Syrian RG does.

 

Tell me about the 4 man + autoloader tank.

 

Thank you for the compliment. One must always make an effort.

[Simon Tan]

*echo*

Edited June 24, 2015 by Simon Tan

[lastdingo]

That's not exaggeration, but a flat-out straw man.

___________________

 

I'm confused about your 5 or 4 men statement, Thonar:

 

crew configurations (with examples)

2 (old): One driver, one in turret (T-60, FT-17)

2 (modern): 2 men sitting behind screens in the hull (test vehicles only)

3 (modern): driver in hull, turret with commander, gunner and autoloader (T-64, -72, -80, -90)

4 (old): driver and bow machine gunner in hull, turret with commander and gunner/loader (early T-34)

4 (modern): driver in hull, turret with commander, gunner and loader (Leopard 1+2, M1 Abrams, Challenger)

5 (old): driver and radio/bow machine gunner in hull, turret with commander, gunner and loader (Panther, Tiger)

 

The modern choice is between 3 and 4, not between 4 and 5.

[Simon Tan]

3(Russian): 3 men sitting behind screens in the hull (Armata)

[JasonJ]

Japanese, French, Russians, Koreans and their silly 3 man tanks

 

Not to bash the 4 man crew with no auto loader. Abrams, Chally, Leo, etc.

 

Even though the type 10 has the auto loader, the new MCR (Manuever Combat Vehicle) will have a crew of 4 without the autoloader. Japanese wiki says that the reason for no auto loader in the MCV was due to layout design and weight savings. In addition to those IIRC, the lower caliber, and thus lighter weight for the loader, of 105 as opposed to the 120 on the Type 10 may have been another factor. Meaning that the benefit of a machine loading a smaller is less beneficial as the 105 is less work for a loader.

Edited June 24, 2015 by JasonJ

[Thonar3]

I point out that sticking your head out will likely get it blown off these days.

 

The best Mk1 eyeball actually is off the tank, talking it in, like the Syrian RG does.

 

Tell me about the 4 man + autoloader tank.

 

Thank you for the compliment. One must always make an effort.

This is so far off the reality... sure you don't stick your head out, when you drive through a city... but on an open field, during an attack, after a break-through... as battalion commander who coordinates his forces.

There are so much instances, when it is advicable to stick your head out, as there are instances when must keep it within the tank.

 

 

crew configurations (with examples)

2 (old): One driver, one in turret (T-60, FT-17)

2 (modern): 2 men sitting behind screens in the hull (test vehicles only)

3 (modern): driver in hull, turret with commander, gunner and autoloader (T-64, -72, -80, -90)

4 (old): driver and bow machine gunner in hull, turret with commander and gunner/loader (early T-34)

4 (modern): driver in hull, turret with commander, gunner and loader (Leopard 1+2, M1 Abrams, Challenger)

5 (old): driver and radio/bow machine gunner in hull, turret with commander, gunner and loader (Panther, Tiger)

 

The modern choice is between 3 and 4, not between 4 and 5.

 

4 (hypermodern): Driver, Gunner, TC and Modul-Operator/ Co-TC (+Autoloader)

 

Driver sits in the hull, Gunner, TC and Modul-Operator sit at best in the turret, but to save place, the gunner or MO could also get into the hull.

There is no such design yet, despite the possibility.

 

The idea is that the MO controls a in-field changeable modul, depending on mission, that could be everything: From a top-mounted weapon, to a drone-start-landing-system, to a radar-system, to enhanced radios, to enhanced optical devices, loud-speakers, water-cannons (with reduced capability)... + doing all the work along the radio/ modern IT (maps, radioing on "big circles",...).

 

This way the MO supports the TC by helping to assess the situation, with the further ability to get everything the TC also gets (own optics,...) the MO could also support the commander in classical roles and the Hunter/Killer-Ability finally reaches a level of being able to engage targets faster than before. Not to mention the modularity depending on the mission is a huge plus, which is needed to support the infantry in modern scenarios (like the idea of Three-Block-Warfare)

 

Now I hear you: Too much to fit into a turret.

Not necessarily. Sure, the new design would be bigger, except someone would go with a "all-or-nothing"-design: Soft-Kill + Hard-Kill-Systems as the main armor, classical-armor only against Autocannons up to 40mm or 50mm, speed and enhanced first-strike capability (by higher situational awareness) as main-defense.

But this would have needed to be tested.

[Simon Tan]

*K-Kill* from the hypermodern tank.