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?

 

[markppcli]

How many of those; the ones with reliable tanks, at least; are running them in ways more akin to aviation,

What does this mean.

or doing something akin to the French,

No one does anything the way France does.

or not particularly concerned with long-term work in the field as they expect to advance directly from hangar to contact with invading Russians?

I don’t think there’s a military on the planet that doesn’t expect to work “long-term” in the field and instead expects a single meeting engagement.

 

[Kirkhill]

What does this mean.



No one does anything the way France does.



I don’t think there’s a military on the planet that doesn’t expect to work “long-term” in the field and instead expects a single meeting engagement.

At risk of hyperbole...

Back in the 80s, when we were planning for our 10 day war, we were given to expect that we would hold for three days and destroy three times our number of Warsaw Pact forces.

Our divisions were vastly superior to the Soviet ones because we had 3 days of supplies and they only had one. When their division became combat ineffective after 24 hours they would send another fresh one our way.

And 10 days later we would employ magic neutron bombs and take over the undamaged Russian tanks from their dead crews.

 

[OldSolduer]

No one does anything the way France does.

They are especially good at taunting - even the second time,,,,,

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pretty good comparison. I'll say off the top, some of the crewman here are some of the slowest loaders I have ever witnessed. Other than that, it's pretty good making comparisons. I offer no comment so you can decide for yourselves.

 

[quadrapiper]

What does this mean.

A fairly hard operator/maintainer split, possibly not organic to the armoured unit proper.

No one does anything the way France does.

Never know.

I don’t think there’s a military on the planet that doesn’t expect to work “long-term” in the field and instead expects a single meeting engagement.

Though there's shadings between that, and North Africa or Ukraine: something akin to Kirkhill's description, for example.

Or budgetary decisions driven by an understanding the force will be spent before a given form of maintenance becomes relevant, and that by that point V Corps will have shown up.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Ken Giles enters the chat


"The 75(mm gun) is firing. The 37(mm gun) is firing, but it is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning (machine gun) is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance" on the A set, and the driver, who can’t hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away . . . . someone hands me a cheese sandwich."

 

[ueo]

Pretty good comparison. I'll say off the top, some of the crewman here are some of the slowest loaders I have ever witnessed. Other than that, it's pretty good making comparisons. I offer no comment so you can decide for yourselves.

Ever loaded inside a turret!

 

[GR66]

The loader/auto-loader question might be answered by the main gun selection on our next tanks.

From what I understand the 130mm rounds are significantly larger and heavier than the current 120mm tank rounds (1.5m long and 30-38kg depending on type for the 130mm vs around 1m long and 21kg for the 120mm round).

The 130mm L/51 round is specifically designed for an autoloader due to the weight and space constraints. Manually loading a 130mm round would be significantly slower than a 120mm round, result in much greater loader fatigue and require a larger turret due to the greater length of the round.

The South Korean K2 Black Panther uses an autoloader for its 120mm gun but apparently there is a limited (very slow and awkward) ability to manually load the gun if the auto loader fails (either the commander or gunner has to leave their position and ROF is only 1-2 rounds per minute.

 

[NavyShooter]

 

[GR66]

See? Proof that a 3-man crew can be effective!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ever loaded inside a turret!

Is that a question?

The answer would be yes. Hundreds of rounds.

You?

 

[ueo]

Is that a question?

The answer would be yes. Hundreds of rounds.

You?

Same,76 to 105

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The loader/auto-loader question might be answered by the main gun selection on our next tanks.

From what I understand the 130mm rounds are significantly larger and heavier than the current 120mm tank rounds (1.5m long and 30-38kg depending on type for the 130mm vs around 1m long and 21kg for the 120mm round).

The 130mm L/51 round is specifically designed for an autoloader due to the weight and space constraints. Manually loading a 130mm round would be significantly slower than a 120mm round, result in much greater loader fatigue and require a larger turret due to the greater length of the round.

The South Korean K2 Black Panther uses an autoloader for its 120mm gun but apparently there is a limited (very slow and awkward) ability to manually load the gun if the auto loader fails (either the commander or gunner has to leave their position and ROF is only 1-2 rounds per minute.

As I asked elsewhere, given the number of actual tank vs tank engagements in the latest peer-peer conflict, is there any driving need for this upgrade? I think the weight involved could be better used to protect tanks from other threats.