Our tank squadrons are dispersed in harbours, yet people sometimes have to move around for sentry tasks. Its not different for the French. 4 can be up on the OP, 4 on maintenance and 4 on rest, etc etc.
My assumption is that if you have 4 VBL for recce tasks they are out doing those tasks pushed out from the platoon.
Clip on Rollers and Plows yes. Other nations however make dedicated breaching tanks - t that have a significant dozer blade and fire MICLIC’s as opposed to a main gun. That is a breaching tank - not a Squadron asset but generally a Bde or Divisional one.
Yup. Engineers man those and bridgelayers. Our BLs had armour drivers.
OK. how do you sell this at the recruiting center? "you wanna be a tanker, OK 3rd team!"
That’s not what the French do. They have an organic recce element at the platoon level. I’m sure they do help with maintenance but like I was saying - if your recce is in the hide beside the tank what was the point of bringing recce along ?
thats why i keep coming back to the KF51. You can have your 4 crew members and the autoloader. Bonus starting production now
I don't think Russia is the model for success.
im sure theres complaints. But the French, Japanese and SK at least are using them on 120 plus im curious if the Italian KF51 will be 130
the first 9 KF-51 are to be delivered in 2027?There are two points that I see with three man crews and autoloaders that speak to the future.
A three man crew is easier to fit into a segregated crew pod. The current KF 51 configuration still has two men in the turret in what is essentially a Leo A4 chassis (although this will be redesigned if the vehicle goes into production.)
An unmanned/autoloader turret leads to a wider selection of configuration for the vehicle including a front engine version with the crew, in line, to the front and the turret further back. That leads to what I consider the gold standard of having one basic chassis that suits a tank, an IFV, an SP and various bespoke mission modules.
I'm not that much on a mission to save manpower. A tank squadron already has one of the lowest number of folks for an army sub unit. I appreciate @Fishbone Jones's comments and I think some of that issue can be offset by a more robust RCEME contingent in the squadron. These modern tanks will be complex. Specialized technicians are a must. And yup on the bore brush issue. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It can be a ball buster but fixed by crews doubling up when required during maintenance.
I'm also not fond of the KF-51s concept of the HERO 120 and having a systems operator in the hull. I don't think that you want tanks to be doubling up on direct and indirect missions when it's very easy to have small trucks with tons of loitering munitions and their operators just a little back from the line. Why give away your tanks signature/location with HERO 120 launches before needed with a deep fight before the close fight? Why have them take their attention off the direct fight that will be right in front of them? IMHO, it's an unnecessary complexity both technically and tactically. By all means send the sqn comd/battle captain aerial recce feeds but don't have members of the tank crews double hatted to control those; have it done by someone who's elsewhere. Two options are UAV dets working with the regiments recce elements or, organic tank squadron UAV elements operating out of the sqn's A1 echelon or both.
I think we sometimes try to cram too much capability onto the folks who will be busy fighting for their lives.
can they load a 130mm faster? a 140mm faster?
There are two points that I see with three man crews and autoloaders that speak to the future.
A three man crew is easier to fit into a segregated crew pod. The current KF 51 configuration still has two men in the turret in what is essentially a Leo A4 chassis (although this will be redesigned if the vehicle goes into production.)
An unmanned/autoloader turret leads to a wider selection of configuration for the vehicle including a front engine version with the crew, in line, to the front and the turret further back. That leads to what I consider the gold standard of having one basic chassis that suits a tank, an IFV, an SP and various bespoke mission modules.
I'm not that much on a mission to save manpower. A tank squadron already has one of the lowest number of folks for an army sub unit. I appreciate @Fishbone Jones's comments and I think some of that issue can be offset by a more robust RCEME contingent in the squadron. These modern tanks will be complex. Specialized technicians are a must. And yup on the bore brush issue. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. It can be a ball buster but fixed by crews doubling up when required during maintenance.
I'm also not fond of the KF-51s concept of the HERO 120 and having a systems operator in the hull. I don't think that you want tanks to be doubling up on direct and indirect missions when it's very easy to have small trucks with tons of loitering munitions and their operators just a little back from the line. Why give away your tanks signature/location with HERO 120 launches before needed with a deep fight before the close fight? Why have them take their attention off the direct fight that will be right in front of them? IMHO, it's an unnecessary complexity both technically and tactically. By all means send the sqn comd/battle captain aerial recce feeds but don't have members of the tank crews double hatted to control those; have it done by someone who's elsewhere. Two options are UAV dets working with the regiments recce elements or, organic tank squadron UAV elements operating out of the sqn's A1 echelon or both.
I think we sometimes try to cram too much capability onto the folks who will be busy fighting for their lives.
