Can manually operated HMG be used effectively against a tank or true IFV? Of course not. Mounting of those guns was originally for antiaircraft and infantry roles but as prop planes became turboprops and then jets the armor they were going against and the speed of the attack made that redundant. Against infantry the copula mounted MG is still very effective and needed.
Yes, absolutely, HMGs are effective against infantry, but how many occasions will a tank be facing infantry in the field?
The coaxial MG is limited as its only ever capable of being used in conjunction with the main gun and turrets ability to traverse. If the turret is jammed the coax is fixed and the tank is open. In combat operations tanks can be killed by infantry if they can get to the tank. ATGMs, Mines and IEDs, even a well placed hand grenade at a in opportune moment can kill the crew.is it rare? Yes is it possible absolutely. Hence the guns are there. Hence nations are looking to RWS on there tanks
No, nations are looking to RWS for tanks because they intend to operate tanks in urban environments.
Infantry are only threats to tanks either in close proximity in urban environments, or at longer distances when armed with effective ATGMs. In the open field, infantry only armed with small arms and RPG-7s will be slaughtered by an armoured force of tanks and IFVs, and they don't even need RWS for that. Autocannons, coaxial guns, and simply running infantry over will be more than enough. Fact is, no one will be stupid enough to send out infantry on foot against an armoured force in the field.
The chances of a turret jamming and rendering the coaxial MG inoperable is miniscule and not sufficient motivation for a RWS, and the chances are so small it can more or less be ignored, considering the whole point of a tank's ability to fire its main gun is for its turret to remain traversable.
If the tank is attacked by infantry the crew has to respond and MGs are the best option.
Yes, but like I've repeatedly stated,
when will a tank supposedly be attacked by infantry? They will never be attacked by dismounted infantry in the field during combat between oppposing armoured forces.
Attacks by infantry in the field will only occur via long range ATGMs, which RWS will be useless against anyway given the limited range of RWS mounted weapons and the stealthy nature of anti tank infantry teams.
Attacks by infantry will only otherwise occur in urban environments when they can flank tanks and use building rooftops to their advantage -- that is when RWSs earn their usefulness by allowing the crew to stay inside.
But by moving to a manually operated MG the crew becomes open to attack. A remote weapons station counters this by allowing the crew to engage safely from inside the tank. It completes the tanks armor. So that all offensive operations can be performed in the safety of the tank. It protects the crew from exposure to infantry and antitank weapons fire by putting them in the hull where they should be. Now are remote weapons stations expensive? Yes the best ones are but we have already seen make shift systems also introduced in conflicts like Libya and Syria. As APS and ERA also become widespread we have more issues to add. When ERA is fired because of a RPG or ATGM it can be lethal to the crew if they are exposed the same for a hard kill APS countering attack. Urban is the most likely for this yes. But Urban and suburban are expanding. Look at the cities china is building in the Gobi.
So basically you just admitted that urban warfare is the biggest reason for RWS.
Look, we clearly both understand the threats which make RWS useful, if not vital for MBTs; and that is attacks by infantry, particularly those of a surrounding, flanking type. But I'm not sure why you don't appreciate that such a threat is only ever seriously viable in urban environments, which is why I've said repeatedly that RWSs are only really useful to tanks that intend to fight in urban environments.
By far in recent combat tank on infantry has been far more prevalent then tank on tank. This takes us less from the WW2 mindset of tank on tank and back to ironically the WW1 mindset of tank on trench, tank on infantry. The IFV was meant to support the infantry and the tank. But recently they have also found themselves under fire most IFVs are thin skinned. The RPG and ATGM are more and more prevalent and more and more sophisticated. So tanks have to become more and more capable of killing infantry and countering attack by kill systems causing the outside of tanks to become more and more dangerous places.
Yes, tank vs infantry has been far more prevalent of late, because the wars that have been fought recently are usually national armies versus insurgencies, not national army versus national army.
Thing is, the PLA are not planning to fight an insurgency in urban environments with MBTs anytime soon. The PLA are expected to face national armies who have their own armoured forces, with battles between such forces fought in plains and fields rather than cities or villages.
Just look at the armies today who have tanks and are not planning on fighting insurgencies or having tanks in MOUT. None of them are bothering to stick RWSs on their MBTs. Only armies who throw their tanks into urban environments bother with RWSs.
Manufacturers also promote RWSs on their products to make them look more "advanced" as well.
