Equation
Lieutenant General
What if the commander can be the gunner as well since the loading will be automatic anyway. Think of it as a two person in fighter jet or an attack helicopter tandem in a tank crew. Why not?
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
What if the commander can be the gunner as well since the loading will be automatic anyway. Think of it as a two person in fighter jet or an attack helicopter tandem in a tank crew. Why not?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
there already is a M3 in US Army service. The M3A3 Bradley Cavalry fighting vehicle.
Right now the PLA seems more to be looking to ground it's self on Type 99. I think that they are looking at possible alternative gun systems that could be retrofit to the T99 or eventually a successor tank. But scraping Type 99 is some time away and they are not that badly placed with T99 most of the worlds MBTs at likely not to be scrapped tomorrow morning. There are still issues to be worked and technologies that can game change yet to appear.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Fighter jets are operating with computer assistance, but attacking in a singular direction, forwards Attack helicopter are also computer assisted and primarily attacking to the forefront as well. They also operate across a 3D environment with the option of bugging out.
Both have the automatic high ground advantage. They also have weapons that track onto there own targets.
A tank is a ground vehicle, and intended for battle across multiple environments including urban.
The vehicle has to be able to engage enemy vehicles and defend itself against attack by infantry and enemy vehicles in unison. To do this MBTs use a combination of two turrets the main turret with it's large gun and coax as well as a secondary turret in the form of either the commanders copula or remote weapons station which is used to defeat infantry and prevent flanking the commander also acts as the spotter choosing the targets for the gunner.
The gunner has to ensure the accuracy of his shots and operates the main gun as well as the coax.
The two operate in different scopes intentionally as the Commander is supposed to be keeping his head on a swivel looking for the next kill well the gunner is to make the kill from a narrow focus.
By lumping the commander with the gunner role now he is trying to search for targets well aiming to make a kill. Trying to engage infantry with two MGs pointing at different targets.
The commander is forced to multitask on very demanding jobs. And studies have shown that when you multitask your slower to React, operating at poorer quality and more apt to make errors.
Now others might now try and ask why not give the gunner rle to the driver? Again multitasking for a job that requires the drivers absolute attention. How many tanks have been lost because a driver made a wrong turn or misjudged his speed? Lots.
Imagine ( please for the love of god don't actually try to) playing a video game well driving. Not a pretty picture.
Both have the automatic high ground advantage. They also have weapons that track onto there own targets.
A tank is a ground vehicle, and intended for battle across multiple environments including urban.
The vehicle has to be able to engage enemy vehicles and defend itself against attack by infantry and enemy vehicles in unison. To do this MBTs use a combination of two turrets the main turret with it's large gun and coax as well as a secondary turret in the form of either the commanders copula or remote weapons station which is used to defeat infantry and prevent flanking the commander also acts as the spotter choosing the targets for the gunner.
The gunner has to ensure the accuracy of his shots and operates the main gun as well as the coax.
The two operate in different scopes intentionally as the Commander is supposed to be keeping his head on a swivel looking for the next kill well the gunner is to make the kill from a narrow focus.
By lumping the commander with the gunner role now he is trying to search for targets well aiming to make a kill. Trying to engage infantry with two MGs pointing at different targets.
The commander is forced to multitask on very demanding jobs. And studies have shown that when you multitask your slower to React, operating at poorer quality and more apt to make errors.
Now others might now try and ask why not give the gunner rle to the driver? Again multitasking for a job that requires the drivers absolute attention. How many tanks have been lost because a driver made a wrong turn or misjudged his speed? Lots.
Imagine ( please for the love of god don't actually try to) playing a video game well driving. Not a pretty picture.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
There's also the communication piece. The commander has to think, sometimes split second decision, gives orders to the rest of the crew and also to coordinated with other friendly tanks. In the heat of battle it would be quite impossible to give orders, assess situation all while trying to aim and shoot. Think of it as trying to text, wear makeup and eat while driving. Can it be done? Sure but you may get into an accident.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I agree that the demands of the tank is too much at present to reduce the crew to less than 3, but I think the driving while doing XYZ examples are little misleading.
That is because all of the XYZ examples involve someone trying to split their attention between something inside the vehicle and the outside environment, whereas for a well trained fighting tank crew, they should hardly need to even glance down at their controls, since those should all be down to muscle memory and second nature by the time they are cleared for combat.
And instead will be focusing all or at least the overwhelming majority of their attention externally rather than internally, as opposed to someone texting, eating or putting on make up, who will be splitting their attention between the outside and the internal task they are trying to do.
One of the key skills a good tank driver needs to learn is how to read the terrain and immediate environment, to know at a glance what he can safely pass on, what he can ram, what he can run over and what he must avoid.
That is the key difference between a tank and a fighter or attack helicopter.
In the air, so long as you avoid the ground and protruding obstacles, you are good, that is why fighter and attack helicopter pilots can multitask between combat and piloting, as you can easily see flight path dangers at a glance or just in your periphery vision.
As such, the most appropriate example I could think of to best describe the challenges of trying to roll the driver's role into the gunner or commander would be like someone trying to play tennis over rubble.
You need to keep your eyes on your opponent and the ball, but also mind where you put your feet least you loose your footing or worse.
As such, until such time as they invent a hovertank, or a bipedal or multiple legged walker tank with almost unfaultable auto-stabilisation systems, you need a dedicated driver to keep on eye on where your tank is going to make sure you don't immobilise yourself.
That is because all of the XYZ examples involve someone trying to split their attention between something inside the vehicle and the outside environment, whereas for a well trained fighting tank crew, they should hardly need to even glance down at their controls, since those should all be down to muscle memory and second nature by the time they are cleared for combat.
And instead will be focusing all or at least the overwhelming majority of their attention externally rather than internally, as opposed to someone texting, eating or putting on make up, who will be splitting their attention between the outside and the internal task they are trying to do.
One of the key skills a good tank driver needs to learn is how to read the terrain and immediate environment, to know at a glance what he can safely pass on, what he can ram, what he can run over and what he must avoid.
That is the key difference between a tank and a fighter or attack helicopter.
In the air, so long as you avoid the ground and protruding obstacles, you are good, that is why fighter and attack helicopter pilots can multitask between combat and piloting, as you can easily see flight path dangers at a glance or just in your periphery vision.
As such, the most appropriate example I could think of to best describe the challenges of trying to roll the driver's role into the gunner or commander would be like someone trying to play tennis over rubble.
You need to keep your eyes on your opponent and the ball, but also mind where you put your feet least you loose your footing or worse.
As such, until such time as they invent a hovertank, or a bipedal or multiple legged walker tank with almost unfaultable auto-stabilisation systems, you need a dedicated driver to keep on eye on where your tank is going to make sure you don't immobilise yourself.
And that you mentioned "flanking" by enemy infantry carrying anti-tank weapons. When I saw the Armata, I have been contemplating about these two points (multitasking and risk of being flanked by enemy infantry) as well. Maybe the Armata and PL-01 are designed purely to engage enemy tanks on the Eastern European steppes (and deserts), not for urban or jungle warfare. So a Chinese Armata might be useful in Inner Mongolia (maybe Xinjiang and Tibet), but when it comes to Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Korean Peninsula, traditional three-crewed tanks are still more effective.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
here is one of the issues of the comparison farther. Drivers of armored vehicles have virtually No peripheral vision the armor prevents it. Fighter pilots and helicopter pilots have a more or less bubble canopy that is intended to grant a large field of view. Tank crews are restricted to periscopes and electro optics displayed on flat screens.
This is not a immersive display and crews working from such can easily loose perspective on where the turret is pointed. So its not playing tennis, unless you play tennis from behind a wall seeing the ball through a opening little bigger then a few bricks across and a brick or two in height.
PL 01 has a all the features of a modern MBT in mind including modular architecture for additional armor eastern European terrain very from woodland to urban to plains. PL01 and T14 both as such feature Active defense systems for protection against infantry Antitank weapons and remote weapons stations to defend themselves against infantry. And everything I have seen on both says that they are crewed by 3 men. Sure we only saw 2 in the parade but that is because the gunner likely shares there hatch with my guess being the commander . Due to space considerations. If you look at the hull of T14 you can see the vision blocks of the gunners station directly behind the drivers station.
As to the locations you list. Frankly all of them are better suited for a 3 man crewed vehicle then a 2 man. But the high plateau is better suited to light tanks and vehicles
kwaigonegin
Colonel
T.E you may know this but I'm not sure what the tech is call however latest armored prototypes have a bunch of cameras providing full 360 deg angle of viewing externally but what's diff is the person inside wears some sort of goggles or optical contraption interfacing with all the cameras and allows him to 'see' through the walls outside.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
the Oculus rift tested by Norway.
I know it. It's a tech that is yet to see employment on fielded armored vehicles yet when it is.
( And I feel that is a When) The problem is the System will alleviate some of this but not enough to make a 2 man crew, also it's not ready for prime time.
First the lenses in that system trial are not yet mil spec. as you and I know Kwai there is a world of difference between the glass in a civilian vehicle and that used by the military. it needs to take the extremes of sand, dust, snow, rain, ballistic threats and worse. that demands armored glass which is not so much glass as armor it needs to be at least about UL 752 Level 8 ( able to take 5 shots of 7.62mm rounds be for failure. the Rift demo was civilian lenses. best would be a Aluminium oxynitride base which might get UL 752 level 10 or a single shot of .50 cal.
next the goggles are not perfect. there is eye strain, vertigo and weight issues. headaches are common this means that the crewmen using the system is more likely to be rotating on and off, On For Areas of known Threat. Off for long hauls.
I think the best crewmen for the rift are the driver and the Commander but not the gunner role.
driver as the input would allow for navigation seeing what is where and if there is a compact car pulling out into the road, commander as it would allow him to virtually stand up in the turret and direct and spot.
the gunner however acts more like a sniper his vision is meant to oriented around the main gun and it's reference. this makes him better suited to the existing flat screen displays. but The Commander and Gunner might be able to trade off with each other on using the Rift for keeping watch. One will use it for a set period well the other rests his eyes and brain for a few moments. That would not be a option for a 2 man crew.
I know it. It's a tech that is yet to see employment on fielded armored vehicles yet when it is.
( And I feel that is a When) The problem is the System will alleviate some of this but not enough to make a 2 man crew, also it's not ready for prime time.
First the lenses in that system trial are not yet mil spec. as you and I know Kwai there is a world of difference between the glass in a civilian vehicle and that used by the military. it needs to take the extremes of sand, dust, snow, rain, ballistic threats and worse. that demands armored glass which is not so much glass as armor it needs to be at least about UL 752 Level 8 ( able to take 5 shots of 7.62mm rounds be for failure. the Rift demo was civilian lenses. best would be a Aluminium oxynitride base which might get UL 752 level 10 or a single shot of .50 cal.
next the goggles are not perfect. there is eye strain, vertigo and weight issues. headaches are common this means that the crewmen using the system is more likely to be rotating on and off, On For Areas of known Threat. Off for long hauls.
I think the best crewmen for the rift are the driver and the Commander but not the gunner role.
driver as the input would allow for navigation seeing what is where and if there is a compact car pulling out into the road, commander as it would allow him to virtually stand up in the turret and direct and spot.
the gunner however acts more like a sniper his vision is meant to oriented around the main gun and it's reference. this makes him better suited to the existing flat screen displays. but The Commander and Gunner might be able to trade off with each other on using the Rift for keeping watch. One will use it for a set period well the other rests his eyes and brain for a few moments. That would not be a option for a 2 man crew.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Oh I agree.. it's not prime time ready.. I was just throwing that out there. I think the days of 2 men crew is still a ways off.
Loader was easy to replace because his job was very mechanical in nature but the 3 remaining guys left in there requires a lot more than mechanical replacement. You require A.I of some sort for sure and other advanced technological solutions.
Also there is the cost factor. You need to make tanks relatively cheap otherwise the ROI and effectiveness is simply not there. It may be possible to make a $100M dollar tank with a 2 men crew but would it be effective in real world? not to mention logistical effectiveness.
Unlike aircraft, tanks can go 50 mph on a good day. You need a LOT of them to be easily deployable and in place already.
If you only have 50 super duper tanks and the other guy has 5000 'regular' tanks he will have the upper hand because he can fight on multiple fronts and you can't.