Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

BMS burden?

More simply : every battle day life. 

You can work efficiently during a short period of time with a tinny crew, but you work better over long period with a 4 men crew.

 

In France, we are lucky because of our specific troop organization. But, it’s simply crazy to think it’s possible to work with a 2 men crew tank, whatever the technology considered. I can’t imagine a 8 or 6 men troop (cost effective BTW).

If doctrine makers are only considering borders patrol duty, it’s ok. But, this is not the real life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serge said:

More simply : every battle day life. 

You can work efficiently during a short period of time with a tinny crew, but you work better over long period with a 4 men crew.

 

In France, we are lucky because of our specific troop organization. But, it’s simply crazy to think it’s possible to work with a 2 men crew tank, whatever the technology considered. I can’t imagine a 8 or 6 men troop (cost effective BTW).

If doctrine makers are only considering borders patrol duty, it’s ok. But, this is not the real life. 

Tanks with crews of 2 will still be manned by 3 men. So it's going to be just as effective as any existing 3-man tank. It's just that the gunner is relegated to another duty and no longer controls the tank's core systems, rather he operates support elements.

 

The reduced manpower is thus moved to specialized maintenance works, which makes the overall maintenance of the tank easier, and the serviceability rates higher.

 

Having a 4th crewman may be helpful when the tank is hit or when you have a lot of maintenance work. But new automotive technologies have been reducing the workload tremendously over the years and will continue to do so.

And let's not kid ourselves. When the tank's hit and a crewman is dead, the tank stops in its tracks and becomes easy bait for quite a while. There's even statistics about it. All tanks that were penetrated in the crew compartment in the Yom Kippur War, were considered mobility kills and were inoperable for a relatively considerable amount of time on the battlefield.

 

IFVs have already made the move. They went for robotized loaders. At some point, and I think they will be first to make the move en masse, will be to relegate the gunner to drone operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serge said:

A vehicle is a 2 or 3 men crew vehicle, not a 2 and 3 men crew one.

 

Israel loves plasma leadership. 

 

Remember the Carmel tech promo video (with really, really shitty quality) from a while ago?

Spoiler

 

 

Well as you can see there are 3 men inside the vehicle. But only 2 are actually operating the vehicle and the other is a force commander or a drone operator depending on whether it's a standard vehicle or command version. This is what I meant.

 

In 2016 we got these news:

US Army To Demo Robotic Wingman Vehicles in 2017.

Recently, in March 2018, we got follow-up news on the same project:

First Next Gen Combat Vehicle (NGCV) and Robotic Wingman Prototypes To Emerge in 2020.

 

Their train of thought was replacing the loader with an automatic loading system, but not removing the loader - They re-tasked him, let him operate drones. So for all intents and purposes, when you're looking at the operation of the vehicle itself, they basically tested an Abrams driving, acquiring, and shooting with only 3 men. That 4th man was operating drones, and these have direct influence on the acquisition of targets, engagement, and possibly even protection if we'll start looking into mobile, semi-autonomous APS stations.

Apparently it worked and they liked the idea, and are proceeding with a full project on the agenda.

 

When it comes to maintenance, again, you have the same capabilities. When it comes to survivability, it's then all a matter of whether you teach the drone operator to also operate crewmen's systems, and a UI design. 

 

Don't be close minded, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In the publicized annual report of OJSC "Kurgan Machine Building Plant" for 2017 it is reported that the enterprise concluded state contracts for
the supply in 2019-2021 of pilot/test vehicles on the "Kurganets-25" platform.

/.../

OJSC "Kurganmashzavod" concluded state contracts for the supply of AFVs in 2019-2021. In the end, these works should be completed in 2021 by adopting (into service) the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of combat vehicles (such as BMP and BTR on unified light armored tracked platforms (6 and 7 rollers)) for the subsequent creation and production on their basis of a family of lightly armored vehicles for various purposes. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time after T-14 was revealed, i looked at T-14 layout vs Object 299-based MBT layout and i think T-14 have less optimal placement of crew during movement. 

image001.jpg

 

   Object 299 MBT variant placed crew in the middle of the chassis, where oscillations of the hull is minimal in a tracked vehicle during movement on rough terrain. T-14 crew is located in most forward position possible, where crew will feel higher accelerations from bumps. I don't know how this will affect working conditions of crew in combat (i think it will be not noticeable as they will not drive at high speeds), but during long distances off-road driving that may result in higher/faster fatigue and amplification of spacial disorientation because of lacking direct view on enviroment outside of the vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By LoooSeR
      Well, we have thread about Yemen conflict and Ukrainian war, so in light of recent changes in situation in Syria, this thread became relevant enough, IMO.
       
       

       

×