Canada's tanks

[Fishbone Jones]

Bloggtns walks.

Death before dismount.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lack of a choice in that respect.
I am not fully against autoloaders, I do want some sort of viable manual backup though, and I still believe that 4 is the better number for crew.

Is there a manual back-up on an RWS?

 

[PrairieFella]

Is there a manual back-up on an RWS?

They can be fired manually if you release the motors but it isn't easy.

 

[FJAG]

Fair, but three burn out a lot faster in a 24/7 environment. Even if your running 1 crew member for turret watch, that doesn't leave a lot, considering the needed preventative maintenance, commander needing to go for orders (or taking orders via data), basic routine etc.

I'm also a guy who wants a two man turret - simply for greater SA - even if buttoned up.

We always want more folks for 24/7 and LOBs and now HLTA leave and a hundred other reasons. At the end the equipment manufacturers will design these systems based on their understanding of what the largest number of customers are looking for unless a specific nation comes at them with a bag of cash and an SOR for a bespoke system. The trend currently is to reduce crew size, in part, because everyone who has a professional army is feeling the tyranny of annual PY pay envelope sustainment.

I'm actually of two minds. On the one hand my experience with M109s has me as a great believer in manual systems over autoloaders for all the reasons that you state. On the other hand, the role of small UAVs and Russian tanks blowing their turrets off makes me wonder if there isn't a higher survivability rate for both tank and SP crews if the turret, with all the crap that goes boom in them, become unmanned and the crew remains in lower down in a more protected environment. One no longer needs to sit in the turret to get the SA that multiple redundant cameras (and UAVs) can give.

 

[Maxman1]

I'm also a guy who wants a two man turret - simply for greater SA - even if buttoned up.

So, bow machine gunner?

 

[KevinB]

On the other hand, the role of small UAVs and Russian tanks blowing their turrets off makes me wonder if there isn't a higher survivability rate for both tank and SP crews if the turret, with all the crap that goes boom in them, become unmanned and the crew remains in lower down in a more protected environment. One no longer needs to sit in the turret to get the SA that multiple redundant cameras (and UAVs) can give.

I do share that concern, but tempered by another concern that a manned turret also has vision blocks if the various sensors around the vehicle get battle damaged. Furthermore - the turret basket is going to take up a lot of room - sure it can get shrunk a bit not accommodating people - but then how does one have manual control - and maintenance access will generally mean there needs to be room for at least one.
So then where does the crew go? You can't scrimp on turret armor as then something will blow it sky high and the crew is toast - unless you have some sort of giant firewall/blast wall between them.

Tanks and other AFV's are generally limited in size by what can fit on rail cars - so we are at a basic width and length limit as far as MBT's go.
If we fully trust in sensors and the like - it would be possible to push the turret forward behind the engine, pulling the driver back behind the turret basket. Having all the crew in a cocoon area near the rear.
However it seems everyone wants the driver to have a vision port - which leads me to believing that the EO/IO sensor faith isn't as heavy as people portray for other activities.

 

[quadrapiper]

No but my point is that other nations, to include every single one that runs Russian tanks (a non zero number of our allies) are able to operate in three man crews.

How many of those; the ones with reliable tanks, at least; are running them in ways more akin to aviation, or doing something akin to the French, or not particularly concerned with long-term work in the field as they expect to advance directly from hangar to contact with invading Russians?