Ryan said:
> 4: Go to an autoloader (it's about time).
Tankers generally hate the idea of an autoloader because if it caughs up=20
during a battle you are screwed.=20
Another bigger consideration is that an autoloader can't drive the tank=20 if
the driver gets injured, it can't help repair a track or help=20 retension it,
it cannot sit out at an OP during a lull and chat on the=20 sound powered
telephone with the Platoon LT about the 4 BTRs it sees 2=20 kliks away at the
crossroads. Loaders (the human kind) are critical in=20 daily life of keeping
the tank healthy and performing duties other than=20 pulling a sabot round
from the ammo bin and shoving it into the gun's=20 hungry mouth.=20
The addition of an Auto loader would require a major amount of rethinking= =20
general tanker doctrine and operations from day to day.=20
=============
Which apparently some nations have done as some do use autoloader technology.
Plus I think you underrate the capacity of modern sensors (and those in the
future). They'll spot better and faster than a human, and
pre-planned evasion or engagement software engines will allow a rapid
engagement of threats in a flexible manner with minimal human decision loop
intervention. As for retensioning etc, I'd have to agree there is a
maintenance issue, but it seems to me MBTs as a whole should be getting easier
to maintain (by plug and play and COTS components). They are complex, but a
broken gun guidance board isn't repaired in the field, its
replaced-in-place and sent to the tech shop. As for sitting around
chatting on the phone, I don't see why a decent AI couldn't equally make that
notification.
I'm not saying techonology can fix every problem, but I do strongly believe
(since I make it happen on a daily basis for people who never thought it
could or would) that technology can (given the proper context - time in
history, economic viability, etc) actually solve most problems of limited
scope. Many of them far better than an equivalent human intervention.
Today it might not be quite time to can the loader. 200 years from now, not
that we'll even see a tank (I hold with the robot RPV combat vehicle
scenario), if we did, you can bet it likely won't have 4 crew. I'd put money
on it if either of us would be around to see the result...
In a message dated 2/1/00 4:32:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:
<< =============
Which apparently some nations have done as some do use autoloader technology.
Plus I think you underrate the capacity of modern sensors (and those in the
future). They'll spot better and faster than a human, and
pre-planned evasion or engagement software engines will allow a rapid
engagement of threats in a flexible manner with minimal human decision loop
intervention. As for retensioning etc, I'd have to agree there is a
maintenance issue, but it seems to me MBTs as a whole should be getting easier
to maintain (by plug and play and COTS components). They are complex, but a
broken gun guidance board isn't repaired in the field, its
replaced-in-place and sent to the tech shop. As for sitting around
chatting on the phone, I don't see why a decent AI couldn't equally make that
notification.
> [quoted text omitted]
GEnerally speaking there is no replacement for the Mk I eyeball and human
perception. There is one other thing - for the first 10 or 15 rounds in
an engagement the human loader is FASTER!
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> Which apparently some nations have done as some do use autoloader
GeeWizzes will help, but it will be a good idea to have a human monitoring the
system, which means there will still only be three bodies
per tank for general standing watches during halts and stuff while everyone
else sleeps. A difference of 16 men to 12 men when the plt sgt and the plt ldr
are both off planning strategy for the next days advance.
> intervention. As for retensioning etc, I'd have to agree there is a
True, however, there are still lots of big things on a tank that requre
multople people. Tracks and power packs are two of the most back breaking
areas. Changing tracks and changeing power packs are hard work. There has been
some speculation that one could build tanks up to the point where they have a
dedicated ground crew to take care of it, I fear further increases in the size
of the logistical tail with the use of auto loaders.
> As for sitting around chatting
We are still far away from getting ai's to make complex descisions. Ala the
Bolo concept, a human is always necessary to make the really tough decisions
not covered by the program.
> We are still far away from getting ai's to make complex descisions. Ala
Than you have a one man tank. One man -- providing a bit of judgment,
pattern recognition and the ability to improvise. That a least gets rid of the
problem of the auto loader loading the gunner.
Andy
> At 09:31 PM 2/1/00 -0500, Andy wrote:
Ala
> the Bolo concept, a human is always necessary to make the really tough
Not to mention, that one man is very important as the tank can send him off to
harvest trees, lay mines, build fortifications and pillboxes, and all the
rest.
<sigh>
I love that game. (Bolo, for the uninitiated....) It, and it alone, is almost
enough for me to get a Mac, barring the fact that I have *more* than enough
stuff on my plate as it is without spending ungodly hours on a computer
game....
In a message dated 2/1/00 8:34:30 PM Central Standard Time,
Maybe not, but loading the gunner's head could be counterproductive.
(eeecchhhh. ;-)
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> At 10:19 PM -0500 2/1/00, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
It is reputed that the autoloader on the T-64 provided teh Red Army
Chorus with its soprano section...
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> << Than you have a one man tank. One man -- providing a bit of
It doesn't have to load the WHOLE gunner. Loading an arm or the privates
before the breach closes has pretty much the same effect on
the crew morale - and those things it can do, and has done.
Regards,
> Which apparently some nations have done as some do use autoloader
> pre-planned evasion or engagement software engines will allow a rapid
GeeWizzes will help, but it will be a good idea to have a human monitoring the
system, which means there will still only be three bodies
per tank for general standing watches during halts and stuff while everyone
else sleeps. A difference of 16 men to 12 men when the plt sgt and the plt ldr
are both off planning strategy for the next days advance.
** I'll give you that, but why don't I have GSR and such things for doing
watches around the bivouac? ** And have I abandoned my infantry support?
> intervention. As for retensioning etc, I'd have to agree there is a
True, however, there are still lots of big things on a tank that requre
multople people. Tracks and power packs are two of the most back breaking
areas. Changing tracks and changeing power packs are hard work. There has been
some speculation that one could build tanks up to the point where they have a
dedicated ground crew to take care of it, I fear further increases in the size
of the logistical tail with the use of auto loaders.
** I'm sure the first people who saw tanks made comments about their logistics
too. ** Also, why couldn't we give our tankers some light PA to wear? Safer if
they get hit. Great for doing that heavy muscle work. And if we go to
something like a grav tank which may use solid state propulsion, there may be
a lot fewer moving parts prone to breakage.
> As for sitting around chatting
We are still far away from getting ai's to make complex descisions. Ala the
Bolo concept, a human is always necessary to make the really tough decisions
not covered by the program.
** We're still far away from 2185. Remember where we were in 1815? Hardly...
it bears so little resemblance to today. And change has accelerated a lot in
the last 50 years too. I imagine if we can fight battles with lightspeed
weapons (FT) and cross the stars, a high level of computer intelligence will
not only be likely but possibly necessary. ** As for the comment made
elsewhere about autoloaders being slower... that's TODAY's autoloaders which I
equate to the muzzle loading musket. We eventually developed the repeating
rifle then a number of nasty autofire variants. How about a G11 like rotating
breech? I bet a big version of that could load very quickly.
** I guess my point is one should (if playing SF) try to forsee the direction
technology is going in terms of increasing capability and its force multiplier
effects. It serves to help do more with less. You can't do everything with
nothing (yet) but you can certainly see that technology will change our lives
and the lives of soldiers by automating many tasks that otherwise would be
done manually and by simplifying (if the armies are smart like they'd have to
be to operate over interstellar space) systems to produce more reliability.
Like the space program, they'll probably use a few older but robust systems so
that you don't have to ship a new Framboozle drive out to your tank 30 ly
away.
** Speaking of which, it would be an interesting thing to work into DS3 to
have a reliability factor. Let people build older tech not because it is
bigger or clunkier, but because it is proven and breaks down less. In campaign
games, this could be a major consideration for a force with a long logistics
tail (like across the galaxy...).
T.
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> It doesn't have to load the WHOLE gunner. Loading an arm or the
Not to mention the unenviable location of the ammo storage on the Russian
Tanks with autoloaders. They are under the floor of the turret and are not in
protected ammo bins like on the Abrams or Leopard IIs. When the ammo gets set
off, its good by tank crew.
In a message dated 2/1/00 11:58:27 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
It doesn't have to load the WHOLE gunner. Loading an arm or the privates
before the breach closes has pretty much the same effect on
the crew morale - and those things it can do, and has done.
Regards,
> [quoted text omitted]
Yes, they have - which was the source of my quip - sorry it offended.
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> ** I'll give you that, but why don't I have GSR and such things for
Well, you still want the mark one eyeball there to watch over things.
> ** And have I abandoned my infantry support?
Tank doctrine includes it where its available, but the crunchies aren't always
there to help watch for Red Force scouts.
> ** I'm sure the first people who saw tanks made comments about their
It'd be really bulky and uncomfortable? I have a big car, I feel pretty damn
uncomfortable wearing one of my motorcycle jackets inside it. Just operating
the controls (steering wheel, gear shift, etc).
> ** As for the comment made elsewhere about autoloaders being slower...
Big fast auto loaders exist, its just that the linkage and such needed to make
them work are really bulky. The auto loaders I think of are the kind
that are onboard naval vessels and feed the 5" guns. Those turrets _do
not just_ mount on the deck. They go several decks through and are quite
bulky. The few other tanks that have auto loaders that take little space
are those that have a revolver style arrangement. Thats, great for fast
followup shots, however, they are short on loads (8-10 ready use rounds
as I recall) and they must be replenished from outside the tank. Not the
best thing to do with a main battle tank in the middle of a pitched battle.
> ** I guess my point is one should (if playing SF) try to forsee the
True, but if you can make a self healing and tensioning track, a power pack
that is easy to change out with 2 guys, computers that aren't fooled and are
100% reliable, and an auto loader that needs little work to keep
it humming (not to mention space and is fast) then it will be all rosey and
cheerful.
> have to ship a new Framboozle drive out to your tank 30 ly away.
If you are smart, you've taken more than enough along with you and your force.
You did bring field repair kit right? You are going to be able to
recover and repair damaged tanks and AFVs right?
> ** Speaking of which, it would be an interesting thing to work into
Yep, if you can easily repair an IC engine on Delta Tau 4, from locally
obtained spares then you are far better off than if you need to have a shuttle
(COD flight?) deliver a fusion powerpack from the sterile production floors of
New Bremen...
In a message dated 2/1/00 11:58:27 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<<
> << Than you have a one man tank. One man -- providing a bit of
A one man tank crew is a BAD idea. One set of eyes hands, and one attention
span is woefully insufficient. If the option is to eventually go to an auto
loader, the best idea would be a semi-remote turret The autoloaders
system is locked away from the gunner and commander by partition and cannot
injure
anyone - though a malfunction will make the whole tank a "tech
casualty".
Semi-remote rather than truly remote because while the gunner can be
tucked awy in the hull away from the auto loader problems, the commander
really
NEEDS to be able to unbutton and stand up where he can actually SEE what is
going on around him. From the hull he cannot get tall enough - he can't
unbutton and holler across the intervening hundred yards to another tank in
the platoon - the adjutant's Hummer can't pull up next to him and give
orders verbally across the distance where they can see eachother's faces and
evaluate the reality behind the words - there are way TOO MANY reasons
for not letting the tank commander seal himself away inside the tank where he
can
get truly tunnel-visioned and forget the complexities of his
responsibilities by focusing on fighting his tank, to the exclusion of
surviving the battle.
If you go to tiny tank crews, the platoon can no longer tend to their own
maintenance, security and scouting and you will have to permanently assign an
IFV and squad to the tank platoon. This means it is no longer an armor
platoon at all and while task-forcing the company level is an asset, I
am not in any way sure that it is a good concept for the platoon. The grunts
will also get stuck with helpin maintenance on the other three vehicles in the
platoon besides their own - whil volunteering to do such with one a
nother is
a good thing - it is still a dirty job to be assigned routinely. They
would also get stuck with security and scouting routinely which would not
promote the idea of cooperation in the platoon very much at all. There's is
simply too much for a tank crew to do in 24 hours in the field and still
insist on reducing the size of that crew.
> On 2-Feb-00 at 16:03, Popeyesays@aol.com (Popeyesays@aol.com) wrote:
> If you go to tiny tank crews, the platoon can no longer tend to their
This makes absolutely no sense. Stick in an autoloader, it should be fast and
as reliable. Then you are left with fewer potential casualties. So you need to
have someone help with maintenance, he is in the jeep further back. You have
tank maintenance crews just like you have aircraft maintenance crews. Even
better, the tank maintenance crew (5 guys with special equipment) can take
care of the tanks better by leveraging training, experience and equipment.
If you want to argue extra eyes I will keep my mouth shut. If you want to tell
me the tank cdr gets lonely and needs someone to talk to I'll pretend short
range SS doesn't already exist. You want to tell me we need someone in the
tank hefting big pieces of metal, come on, strength based manual labor has
gone the way of the dinosaur everywhere else, you only put humans where
intelligence is necessary.
> On 2-Feb-00 at 16:08, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:
> > ** Speaking of which, it would be an interesting thing to work into
> shuttle (COD flight?) deliver a fusion powerpack from the sterile
What does Crashing On Deck have to do with anything?
> At 04:17 PM 2/2/2000 -0500, you wrote:
I'm pretty sure that he meant "Cash On Delivery" - which is what COD
means
to all of us non-military types. :-)
If you want to argue extra eyes I will keep my mouth shut. If you want to tell
me the tank cdr gets lonely and needs someone to talk to I'll pretend short
range SS doesn't already exist. You want to tell me we need someone in the
tank hefting big pieces of metal, come on, strength based manual labor has
gone the way of the dinosaur everywhere else, you only put humans where
intelligence is necessary.
How about the extra eyes in the extra tanks, More automation = less men
driving each target smaller tanks with same protection and fire power and less
tonnage to haul to deploy the force. Giving you more maneuver units.
Andy
In a message dated 2/2/00 3:17:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
<<
If you want to argue extra eyes I will keep my mouth shut. If you want to tell
me the tank cdr gets lonely and needs someone to talk to I'll pretend short
range SS doesn't already exist. You want to tell me we need someone in the
tank hefting big pieces of metal, come on, strength based manual labor has
gone the way of the dinosaur everywhere else, you only put humans where
intelligence is necessary.
> [quoted text omitted]
Hefting the rounds is only part of it - he's also learning how to man
other
positions in the tank - driver, gunner eventually track commander. And
Yes,
face to face - see it with your own eyes - get out and look from over
the next hill is still part of crewing a tank and wilol be into the forseeable
future - I know tankers, do you?
In a message dated 2/2/00 3:26:10 PM Central Standard Time,
> mshurtleff1@uswest.net writes:
<<
I'm pretty sure that he meant "Cash On Delivery" - which is what COD
means
to all of us non-military types. :-)
> [quoted text omitted]
Carrier On-board - Delivery
which if you've ever done a carrier landing sitting in a seat facing backwards
not able to see out a port deck landings quickly becomes Crash on Deck.
In a message dated 2/2/00 3:38:54 PM Central Standard Time,
> andya@speechsolutions.com writes:
<<
How about the extra eyes in the extra tanks, More automation = less men
driving each target smaller tanks with same protection and fire power and less
tonnage to haul to deploy the force. Giving you more maneuver units.
> [quoted text omitted]
More units - each one less efficent than tanks with larger crews.
> On 2-Feb-00 at 16:50, Popeyesays@aol.com (Popeyesays@aol.com) wrote:
You know those in tanks, so the question I would pose is this, you are in
combat going at it hot and heavy. What does the loader do? If he, while being
ready at an instants notice, loads ammo AND looks around, BS's with the boss,
communicates with local tanks, etc, then I'll give that you need a loader.
If all he does is loads then, if you can build an autoloader as fast that
takes up as little or less space, then it is an unnecessary position.
Just because you the position is unnecessary IN THE TANK doesn't imply the
person is not needed elsewhere or shouldn't be there in
a different capacity. If a tank group needs spotters/scouts/whatever
they should be there in that capacity. If our loader is being used as you say
shouldn't he really be equipped as a footsoldier so when the indigenous
personnel take a shot at him he isn't burnt toast? I know if it were me I
would want decent firearms and body armour, IR enhancement,...
> More units - each one less efficent than tanks with larger crews.
That has more to do with training time than crew size. The real problem with
piloting a tank vs crewing a tank is information overload. Just like with an
attack aircraft the smallest functional crew will depend on how the weapons
system interface with the crew. Will the tank drive itself wile I look around
or not, are weapons fire and forget, do I have to monitor 30 systems or just a
few idiot lights?
Here is another fun one:
How do you differentiate a one man tank from an infantry man in combat armor
or a mech-walker. Do you lose the spirit of the tanker? How important
is that?
In a message dated 2/2/00 4:15:10 PM Central Standard Time,
> andya@speechsolutions.com writes:
<<
How do you differentiate a one man tank from an infantry man in combat armor
or a mech-walker. Do you lose the spirit of the tanker? How
important is that?
> [quoted text omitted]
There's even more to it than that - history shows that the average
infantryman is fasr more concerned with keeping his own skin intact and reac
ting to the horrors ofwar that sometimes he is less likely to actually fire
his weapon and engage the enemy. Crewed weapons are entirely different
psychologically. When acting as part of a crew "serving" a weapon system
-
you are one more step removed from the concept that you are killing fellow
sophonts. Ship weapons, artilery and missile units and TANKS are much more
liely to service targets and not immediately face the situation that they are
killing. This can get a man through his combat initiation and allow him to
function as a soldier - noit a human. He'll pay for that later on in
life, but he will tend to the business of fighting your war right now, instead
of balking at the act.
In a message dated 2/2/00 4:03:19 PM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
<< You know those in tanks, so the question I would pose is this, you are in
combat going at it hot and heavy. What does the loader do? If he, while being
ready at an instants notice, loads ammo AND looks around, BS's with the boss,
communicates with local tanks, etc, then I'll give that you need a loader.
> [quoted text omitted]
He loads the weapon, learns the family business, mounts his SAW on his turret
ring and acts as one more set of eyes out of the dark room, helps maintain the
vehicle and adds to the commanders "combat awareness", occasionally mans an
outpost, takes his turn at guard duty, helps maintain the vehicle, knows
exactly how many rounds of what he has on hand right now - watches
gauges, can switch radio frequency and listen in on different bandwidths, and
helps remind the other crew men that they have one more guy to watch their
back. All in all and considering that he is so much smaller, lighter and
easier to maintain than an auto loader would put him right up there on the
list above an auto loader for me
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
> What does Crashing On Deck have to do with anything?
Thats basically what it would amount to for getting large critical stores to a
far flung task force with Amphib assets on planet. The thing tha COD can do is
get the power pack for a F14 to the carrier when there are non
on deck. You can't exactly get one on an unrep unless you can vertrep it
(can you vertrep a GE F-114? Am I getting my acronyms correct? Am I
confusing anyone yet?).
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> He loads the weapon, learns the family business, mounts his SAW on his
This is what I've been driving at. There are so many things to do in RL when
fighting your tank that reducing the crew to three will reduce combat
effectiveness drastically.
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
> This makes absolutely no sense. Stick in an autoloader, it should be
You've already got a large tail as it is with a mechanized force. Currently 2x
M88 (the Armoured Recovery Vehicle) help the tank company with recovery and
repair of damaged and disabled vehicles.
When a tank needs a power pack repair in the field, the tank crew is
repsonsible for getting most of the prep work done before the M88 arrives with
a 2.5ton and a spare pack. The M88 crew change the pack out
and then the tank crew finishes the job. Since a tank crew has been inside the
engine compartment and knows what things do, they take better
care of their tank (thier lives depend on it) and the tank crew functions
better as a team.
Knowing how your systems work and being able to troubleshoot problems is
so much better than dumb users who don't care about their system and could
give a rats ass if it breaks because someone else will come and fix it for
them.
> further back. You have tank maintenance crews just like you have
This will result in less combat time. And less up time.
Go read US Army FM 17-15 to get an idea of what a Tank Platoon needs to
do to keep fighting.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/17-15/cont.htm
Pay particular attention to chap 7 with regards to logistics and maintanance
operations.
> If you want to argue extra eyes I will keep my mouth shut. If you
Its far more complex than the way you paint it.
In a message dated 2/2/00 5:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
<<
This is what I've been driving at. There are so many things to do in RL
when fighting your tank that reducing the crew to three will reduce combat
effectiveness drastically.
- >>
Amen! Brother
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Amen! Brother
:)
In further poking around (I had read this a year ago cursorily so I was foggy
on the duties) I found some more specifics on Loader duties.
When a Tank platoon is going to occupy a battle position some tank crewmen
will dismount and scout the area ahead of time to figure the best position for
the tanks (less time spent mucking about for the enemy spotters to note).
Typically the tanks will take an over watch positiona
and the Pltn ldr and the loaders from the wingman tanks will go with him
to scout around. In the case of the AGS (Armoured Gun System with a 3 man
crew) the gunners were to do this, leaving the tanks with fewer crewman
capable of operating.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/17-15/chp4.htm
see the section on Deliberate Occupation...
Naturally Infantry are good in this case, but there will still need to be an
individual from the tank platoon to go with who ever is scouting. (remember,
OddBall got out of his tank to go with Kelly to see where he was to go, when
you need to sneak, you must get out and look with your own eyes...blundering
about gets you killed).
A respected listite with whom I may somewhat disagree spake thus:
A one man tank crew is a BAD idea. One set of eyes hands, and one attention
span is woefully insufficient. If the option is to eventually go to an auto
loader, the best idea would be a semi-remote turret The autoloaders
system is locked away from the gunner and commander by partition and cannot
injure
anyone - though a malfunction will make the whole tank a "tech
casualty".
** Or at least require the gunner and commander to hop out and take a look.
But yes, I'd favours such a system.
Semi-remote rather than truly remote because while the gunner can be
tucked awy in the hull away from the auto loader problems, the commander
really
NEEDS to be able to unbutton and stand up where he can actually SEE what is
going on around him.
** Hmmm. This hinges on the belief the Mark I eyeball is magical. Simply put,
there is no reason synthetic vision aides inside the tank and RPVs over the
battlefield and combat datalink between the tanks can't give a FAR better
picture than a tank commander has by looking. If we took your theory, planes
would not be heading (as they are....) to closed cockpits with synthesized
vision which composites FLIR, TI, Radars, and other sensor suites together
with some AI and fancy graphics.
** I think in the long run the human being will still *want* to take a look,
but it will give him, if anything, less information about what is going on.
> From the hull he cannot get tall enough
** I'm thinking his RPV (linked to his tank by a fiber optic - about the
size of a pie plate - stealthed) will let him see a heck of a lot. Or
whatever analogous system is installed.
- he can't
unbutton and holler across the intervening hundred yards to another tank in
the platoon -
** We invented comms for a reason. And I assume he always COULD do this if he
had some reason to.
the adjutant's Hummer can't pull up next to him and give orders verbally
across the distance where they can see eachother's faces and evaluate the
reality behind the words
** Interestingly enough, you CAN see body language and a lot of the
intangibles through vid. Especially hi-res vid. A fact most folk may not
know is that AT&T tested vidphones of various types and concluded that many
were *too good*. The reproduction of sound and video let the receiver pick out
all the nuances of tone, of facial expression, etc. and thus made the person
called kind of more "immediate" than a normal
phone call - almost to the point of being there - something you might
not want in a home phone but you might well want on a battlefield squad data
net.
- there are way TOO MANY reasons for
not letting the tank commander seal himself away inside the tank where he can
get truly tunnel-visioned and forget the complexities of his
responsibilities by focusing on fighting his tank, to the exclusion of
surviving the battle.
** Not saying this can't happen, but there is no reason why it has to. The
idea that wearing a bulletproof vest makes cops supercops has long gone out of
vogue, and the same would be true here. At first, people would worry about
this, but then it would be old hat and everyone would know that the tank is
still vulnerable. I don't think a modern tank commander would expose himself
to sniper fire if he had equal or better sensory data available.
If you go to tiny tank crews, the platoon can no longer tend to their own
maintenance, security and scouting and you will have to permanently assign an
IFV and squad to the tank platoon.
** If my tanks are built well enough, maintenance is minimized. I'll put in
motors like detroit claims to be building that don't require service for
100,000 km. I'll put in drive units that fail 1 time out of 1,000,000 instead
of 1 time in 1,000. If an extra 200 years doesn't make our technology more
robust, some engineers are snoozing.
** And if my tanks are on their own - I'm a very unhappy formation
commander!
This means it is no longer an armor
platoon at all and while task-forcing the company level is an asset, I
am not in any way sure that it is a good concept for the platoon.
**? It is till a platoon of tanks. Can they run without fuel today? Without
food brought up by supply? No. This only changes (and not all that much) the
role of the logistics train. Don't try to make it sound like today's armoured
force can survive without infantry (thanks Harold Coyle...) or without
support. That's nuts.
The grunts will also get stuck with helpin maintenance on the other three
vehicles in the
platoon besides their own - whil volunteering to do such with one
another is
a good thing - it is still a dirty job to be assigned routinely.
** Sure. It might not be choice, but OTOH if the equipment is built right,
that isn't so big an issue. If I had a choice between spending an extra 30% on
my tank, or paying for an extra 2 crew and their logistics over the vast
ranges of space, I'd spend the money on a more reliable, less maintenance
intensive MBT. Plus it helps minimize losses of trained crew when a tank IS
lost.
They would also get stuck with security and scouting routinely which would not
promote the idea of cooperation in the platoon very much at all.
** No, of course shared duty would be a bad idea...?!?
There's is simply too much for a tank crew to do in 24 hours in the field and
still insist on reducing the size of that crew.
** Do you think maintaining an F-14 is analogous to a Spad-IV? The tank
of 2180 will have about the same commonality. It'll either A) have been built
real robust to require not much attention, thus limiting interstellar supply
or B) be built super tech complexo in which case there WILL be a logistics
train of some size.
** But everyone is welcome to have a divergent opinion.
> Ryan wrote:
> ** I'll give you that, but why don't I have GSR and such things for
Well, you still want the mark one eyeball there to watch over things.
** I work in computers. I trust computers with lives on a daily basis because
our modern society requires it. I'm fairly certain that at some point, we'll
be superflous for many tasks. It might not be by 2185... that is debatable,
but it will probably happen.
> ** And have I abandoned my infantry support?
Tank doctrine includes it where its available, but the crunchies aren't always
there to help watch for Red Force scouts.
** True. But then again a good AI and sensor net can offset such a lack to a
large extent.
** It is a matter of balance. If it costs me to send guys to space and losing
them is politically expensive and costs a lot of retraining and replacement
bucks, then maybe just maybe one looks at other ways to do the same job.
> ** I'm sure the first people who saw tanks made comments about their
> if they get hit.
It'd be really bulky and uncomfortable? I have a big car, I feel pretty damn
uncomfortable wearing one of my motorcycle jackets inside it. Just operating
the controls (steering wheel, gear shift, etc).
** A lighter version without much armour - call it a powered muscle
amplifier or exoskeleton.
** If it was air conditioned and whatnot, it might not be so bad. It might
also let you "chip in" to your tank, and thus working the controls might cease
to be an issue.
> ** As for the comment made elsewhere about autoloaders being slower...
> that's TODAY's autoloaders
Big fast auto loaders exist, its just that the linkage and such needed to make
them work are really bulky.
<TODAY>
The auto loaders I think of are the kind
that are onboard naval vessels and feed the 5" guns. Those turrets _do
not just_ mount on the deck. They go several decks through and are quite
bulky.
<TODAY>
The few other tanks that have auto loaders that take little space are those
that have a revolver style arrangement. Thats, great for fast
followup shots, however, they are short on loads (8-10 ready use rounds
as I recall) and they must be replenished from outside the tank
<TODAY>
** Let us further presume that we can develop for example a high speed
autoloader and feed system like a G-11. Or what about tanks mounting
HELs? No reloads. Or DFFGs? maybe or maybe not reloads. Mass Drivers? You
don't load the smaller MDCs by hand, so why the heck would you do it with the
bigger ones? I doubt it would work without a viable autoloader.
. Not the best thing to do with a main battle tank in the middle of a pitched
battle.
** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds at one
time before 1) dying or 2) ending the fight. But that's mostly simulation
talking so I'm willing to here other evidence...
> ** I guess my point is one should (if playing SF) try to forsee the
True, but if you can make a self healing and tensioning track, a power pack
that is easy to change out with 2 guys, computers that aren't fooled and are
100% reliable, and an auto loader that needs little work to keep
it humming (not to mention space and is fast) then it will be all rosey and
cheerful.
** Dispense with the track. (an option). I think Grav drives would be solid
state. They are supposedly (according to canon) common. Depot
maintenance only probably - maybe some simple tuning. maybe not.
** Power pack? FGP. If you do that, you change fuel rods every.... five years?
five months? not enough to worry about in some ways. ** 100% reliable? Wow.
You want a gaurantee. I'll offer you that if you convince me your human
occupants that it replaced were 100% reliable. I'll give you as good or better
performance of vision and AI systems in
30-40 years, let alone 200. I may even be able to give you near 100%,
which might be a LOT better than the humans could manage. ** Autoloaders may
become irrelevant with HELs, with DFFGs, or with some other weapon types. For
others, they are a must. Only for CPR guns are they an issue and if we can't
solve this in 200 years, then Henry Ford should have not bothered with mass
production nor Thomas Edison with electricity because we're a bunch of clods.
> have to ship a new Framboozle drive out to your tank 30 ly away.
If you are smart, you've taken more than enough along with you and your force.
You did bring field repair kit right? You are going to be able to
recover and repair damaged tanks and AFVs right?
** Sure, but I'd rather have a list of 1000 parts, rather than 10,000. And if
my tank has an MTBF of 10 weeks rather than 10 hours, that'd be
pretty swell too - you can see the advantage of that given a long supply
chain?
> ** Speaking of which, it would be an interesting thing to work into
Yep, if you can easily repair an IC engine on Delta Tau 4, from locally
obtained spares then you are far better off than if you need to have a shuttle
(COD flight?)
<We don't take checks!>
deliver a fusion powerpack from the sterile production floors of New Bremen...
** Agree. Or else that FGP must be so much more reliable and powerful than the
IC that the trip is worth it.
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:45:47 EST
From: Popeyesays@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tanks
In a message dated 2/2/00 3:17:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
<<
If you want to argue extra eyes I will keep my mouth shut. If you want to tell
me the tank cdr gets lonely and needs someone to talk to I'll pretend short
range SS doesn't already exist. You want to tell me we need someone in the
tank hefting big pieces of metal, come on, strength based manual labor has
gone the way of the dinosaur everywhere else, you only put humans where
intelligence is necessary.
> [quoted text omitted]
Hefting the rounds is only part of it - he's also learning how to man
other
positions in the tank - driver, gunner eventually track commander. And
Yes,
face to face - see it with your own eyes - get out and look from over
the next hill is still part of crewing a tank and wilol be into the forseeable
future
** What? I've seen some work out of DoD think tanks about equipping EVERY tank
with a small RPV with sensors. Why debark the vehicle, make
yourself vulnerable, and your vehicle mission-dead, to look over a hill
when it can be done by something smaller than a human with more visual acuity
and that can work in spectrums a human can't?
- I know tankers, do you?
** Please introduce to one from 2183. I'd like to meet him. There is a *world*
of difference between today and 2183. it's like me saying "I know how infantry
will work in 1999 because I know an 1815 Grenadier Gaurd". Someone with a
narrow view of the world and no larger view of technology (not saying it is
that way with your friends mind you) will have an impossible time predicting
future developments. If you said you knew someone in DoD think tanks and I
knew their hit rate on what the future will look like is more than about 60%
and extended more than
about 2-3 decades, then I *might* consider knowing them to be a huge
asset in this discussion. Otherwise.... its all speculation. I realize
that - but I can also see what we've done with technology over the last
185 years and can at least suggest that it will have an impact. I may be wrong
about the directions of the impact, but saying it is unlikely to change things
in the forseeable future just strikes me as silly. It's changing the world by
the second.... give it 20 years, a lot will be different. Give it 200 and we
probably won't recognize it. You can say those of us championing smaller,
robust, advanced tanks are wrong about the details, but I'd say we at least
have a 1 in n (some big number) change of being right because we're suggesting
one option for change. If you suggest it won't directly impact workflow (which
is what you are basically talking about) for a tank crew, then I can almost
gaurantee you're not going to be right. Change it will. How is only the
question.
**:) (No I'm not the most vocal proponent of technology... it has its
shortcomings).
<<
How do you differentiate a one man tank from an infantry man in combat armor
or a mech-walker. Do you lose the spirit of the tanker? How
important is that?
> [quoted text omitted]
There's even more to it than that - history shows that the average
infantryman is fasr more concerned with keeping his own skin intact and reac
ting to the horrors ofwar that sometimes he is less likely to actually fire
his weapon and engage the enemy. Crewed weapons are entirely different
psychologically. When acting as part of a crew "serving" a weapon system
-
you are one more step removed from the concept that you are killing fellow
sophonts. Ship weapons, artilery and missile units and TANKS are much more
liely to service targets and not immediately face the situation that they are
killing. This can get a man through his combat initiation and allow him to
function as a soldier - noit a human. He'll pay for that later on in
life, but he will tend to the business of fighting your war right now, instead
of balking at the act.
** you don't just suspect this has something maybe to do with A) The fact the
infantryman is feeling pretty vulnerable while the tanker is fairly cocooned
in his vehicle? I've heard of tankers feeling pretty vulnerable when they
realized they were against an enemy that could kill their weapons system (the
tank) relatively often and doing things like backing up, turning tail, running
away, bailing out of a perfectly good tank, etc? B) The fact the infantryman
is more likely to kill his targets where he can see them and the tanker is
only killing other weapons systems? and C) The fact the infantryman is kiling
his targets at closer range ergo its a far more personal experience? I assume
tankers getting close assaulted by limpet mines, AT ordinance, and molotovs
and with infantry aswarm their vehicle are more likley to deal with those
threats than go out to "engage targets".
The further you put a man from the direct feel of combat, the more likely he
is to do his job without looking at what it is exactly (killing other people).
Confronted with that immediacy, he can't deny it. Mind you, the downside is a
fantasy sense of the situation which *might* get out of sync with reality. But
you get the good with the bad. So plane crews, tank crews, arty crews, etc.
are more likely on a per capita basis to engage the enemy. But put any of them
in the same situation the average grunt was in (stress wise, and in terms of
seeing the foe) and they'd perform about the same I expect. And making a tank
a two man crew or even a one man crew won't remove their disconnection
from the outside world - if anything, it'll heighten it (I don't think
so... but it could) and that (according to my best guess) would make them MORE
likely to engage a target and MORE likley to fulfill their primary role rather
than worrying about saving their own ass.
In a message dated 2/2/00 8:48:55 PM Central Standard Time,
kaladorn@home.com writes:
<<
** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds at one
time before 1) dying or 2) ending the fight. But that's mostly simulation
talking so I'm willing to here other evidence...
> [quoted text omitted]
You'd be surprised - in the Gulf tankers occasionally got shorted rounds
in their reloads because supplies did not keep up.
In a message dated 2/2/00 8:57:46 PM Central Standard Time,
kaladorn@home.com writes:
<< Please introduce to one from 2183. I'd like to meet him. There is a *world*
of difference between today and 2183. it's like me saying "I know how infantry
will work in 1999 because I know an 1815 Grenadier
Gaurd". >>
For one thing we don't know that it WILL be one wit different than it is now.
unmanned RPV's are great - they also make terrific targets and are
downed by small arms fire. I think the best bet for an RPV for an AFV in the
next couple hundred years is a little ducted fan dome with sensors that is
attached to the vehicle by a datalink cable - you can fire it up and let
it
peek over the hill allowing you to stay hull down (or reverse-slope
which is a truly favorite tactic for British fighting forces in 1815 by the
way
-
the calendar may change but the nature of war doesn't much. We can be
absolutely sure that the primary concern of a soldier in any new dawn will be
to stay alive, do his time, do his job and get home someday. You do all that
by keeping your head up and aware the eyeball will never be replaced.
In a message dated 2/2/00 9:08:06 PM Central Standard Time,
kaladorn@home.com writes:
<<
** you don't just suspect this has something maybe to do with A) The fact the
infantryman is feeling pretty vulnerable while the tanker is fairly cocooned
in his vehicle? I've heard of tankers feeling pretty vulnerable when they
realized they were against an enemy that could kill their weapons system (the
tank) relatively often and doing things like backing up, turning tail, running
away, bailing out of a perfectly good tank, etc? B) The fact the infantryman
is more likely to kill his targets where he can see them and the tanker is
only killing other weapons systems?
and
C) The fact the infantryman is kiling his targets at closer range ergo its a
far more personal experience? I assume tankers getting close assaulted by
limpet mines, AT ordinance, and molotovs and with infantry aswarm their
vehicle are more likley to deal with those threats than go out to "engage
targets".
The further you put a man from the direct feel of combat, the more likely he
is to do his job without looking at what it is exactly (killing other people).
Confronted with that immediacy, he can't deny it. Mind you, the downside is a
fantasy sense of the situation which *might* get out of sync with reality. But
you get the good with the bad. So plane crews, tank crews, arty crews, etc.
are more likely on a per capita basis to engage the enemy. But put any of them
in the same situation the average grunt was in (stress wise, and in terms of
seeing the foe) and they'd perform about the same I expect. And making a tank
a two man crew or even a one man crew won't remove their disconnection
from the outside world - if anything, it'll heighten it (I don't think
so... but it could) and that (according to my best guess) would make them MORE
likely to engage a target and MORE likley to fulfill their primary role rather
than worrying about saving their own ass.
> [quoted text omitted]
couldn't agree with you more.
In a message dated 2/2/00 8:35:43 PM Central Standard Time,
kaladorn@home.com writes:
<< A) have been built real robust to require not much attention, thus limiting
interstellar supply or B) be built super tech complexo in which case there
WILL be a logistics train of some size.
** But everyone is welcome to have a divergent opinion.
> [quoted text omitted]
True enough - but the one thing you can count on to stay the same is
human
nature - people will either still react the same way they always have to
being in harm's way or MORE than the technology has changed.
The further you put a man from the direct feel of combat, the more likely he
is to do his job without looking at what it is exactly (killing other people).
So the ultimate tanker is a young Ender playing vidio games in an armored egg?
In a message dated 2/2/00 9:44:56 PM Central Standard Time,
apter@prodigy.net writes:
<<
So the ultimate tanker is a young Ender playing vidio games in an armored egg?
> [quoted text omitted]
So some would think - though he had his problems dealing with the
reality of combat when he realized he had been deceived.
It's getting hard to figure out who's saying what.....
> > ** I'm sure the first people who saw tanks made comments about their
Safer
> > if they get hit.
Just
> operating the controls (steering wheel, gear shift, etc).
Tankers already wear that crap inside of tanks. They train and fight in MOPP4
like the rest of us and I've seen them wearing body armor. (actually works
pretty good against spalding.) Heck it's a million times easier for them to
wear the shit than it is for us. And by the way ever see a fighter pilot? He's
bound up and greared down to where it's a pain in the ass to move, and often
over a dry suit!
> Big fast auto loaders exist, its just that the linkage and such needed
Yes the T64 comes to mind, 3 man crew and auto loader. (Yes I know about teh
amr thing, porbably happened once or twice...) As does the T80 and the latest
Russian tank the T90 also uses an autoloader and a three man crew. The
Russians have been using auto loaders and three man crews for years. (Maybe it
helps field larger forces?)
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:
> ** I work in computers. I trust computers with lives on a daily basis
I like high tech thing, but high tech things fail. Is it easier to carry
50 RPVs or a grunt that can fight and also call artillery? Can you provide
parts for those RPV's on planet?
> ** It is a matter of balance. If it costs me to send guys to space and
It costs you to send anything into space. We are still talking about having
people here in combat right? This is because they are still flexible and
mobile enough to fight. The ai's are great for giving the human extra input
but your human is the one that fights.
> ** A lighter version without much armour - call it a powered muscle
Even then. You are adding an additional piece for the grunt to take care of.
> ** Let us further presume that we can develop for example a high speed
The rotating bolt of the G11 was designed to create a different manner of
transporting ammo from a vertical magazine to a breech. It makes the weapon
more compact overall but doesn't reduce the size of the mechanism
needed to transport the ammo. In a tank you are probably going to need the
ability to transport and select multiple types of ammo. Your transport
mechanism isn't going to get much smaller unless you can make
servos that don't need tracks/raceways/bearings to operate. Modern
Autoloaders are still the same size they were 50 years ago on the 5" guns the
USN used. Things have scaled down a little bit but not much.
A self loading pistol from 1900 isn't much smaller than one of the more modern
designs (based on caibre size). 100 years hasn't made a huge difference in
this.
> ** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds
Are you kidding me? Yom Kippur mean anything to you?
> ** Dispense with the track. (an option). I think Grav drives would be
five
> years? five months? not enough to worry about in some ways.
What about battle damage? Rough handling? Murphy?
> ** 100% reliable? Wow. You want a gaurantee. I'll offer you that if
> ** Autoloaders may become irrelevant with HELs, with DFFGs, or with
Then, I'd rather have that Loader, stay around and do other things, a
secondary gunner or something. The Swedish S tank kept the #3 guy around
as an alternate driver/radio operator.
> ** Sure, but I'd rather have a list of 1000 parts, rather than 10,000.
Well, you take major components.
> ** Agree. Or else that FGP must be so much more reliable and powerful
If you can make it that way. I'll bet your grav drive system will have other
things that need channging then. Field coils perhaps?
In a message dated 2/2/00 10:29:29 PM Central Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<< As does the T80 and the latest Russian tank the T90 also uses an autoloader
and a three man crew. The Russians have been using auto loaders and three man
crews for years. (Maybe it helps field larger forces?) >>
And NATO tanks with four man crews and human loaders have outperformed WP
tankers for years.
> ** I work in computers. I trust computers with lives on a daily basis
I like high tech thing, but high tech things fail. Is it easier to carry
50 RPVs or a grunt that can fight and also call artillery? Can you provide
parts for those RPV's on planet?
=====================================================
Depends. How bigs my RPV? What does it cost me sitting in transport packing?
Do I need to bring air, food, doctors, dentists, etc. etc. to support it? Can
I provide spare parts for my grunt on the planet? I lose 1 grunt, I lose the
whole show. I lose 1 RPV, I uncork the other 49. And *my* RPV can call
artillery:)
=====================================================
> ** It is a matter of balance. If it costs me to send guys to space and
It costs you to send anything into space. We are still talking about having
people here in combat right? This is because they are still flexible and
mobile enough to fight. The ai's are great for giving the human extra input
but your human is the one that fights.
=====================================================
Right, but there is every balance here from 1 guy to lead a robotized force to
an army with no tech and all soldiers. All we're arguing about is where the
balance lies. Where the human input exists.
=====================================================
> ** Let us further presume that we can develop for example a high speed
The rotating bolt of the G11 was designed to create a different manner of
transporting ammo from a vertical magazine to a breech. It makes the weapon
more compact overall but doesn't reduce the size of the mechanism
needed to transport the ammo. In a tank you are probably going to need the
ability to transport and select multiple types of ammo. Your transport
mechanism isn't going to get much smaller unless you can make
servos that don't need tracks/raceways/bearings to operate. Modern
Autoloaders are still the same size they were 50 years ago on the 5" guns the
USN used. Things have scaled down a little bit but not much.
A self loading pistol from 1900 isn't much smaller than one of the more modern
designs (based on caibre size). 100 years hasn't made a huge difference in
this.
=====================================================
Point taken. This alone might make CPR guns unviable in the long run.
=====================================================
> ** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds
Are you kidding me? Yom Kippur mean anything to you?
=====================================================
My fault. I meant in any moderately even fight where tank on side A has some
parity with tank on side B. I do not necessarily count Yom Kippur though it is
a good case study. The Gulf I call a turkey shoot. In such a scenario, ammo
will be in short supply. But if we had M1s clashing, one could fire 8 rounds
reasonably quick, the other 4 rounds in the same time period with the same
accuracy, I'd choose the one that could fire 8 rounds. It depends on your
situation.
=====================================================
> ** Dispense with the track. (an option). I think Grav drives would be
five
> years? five months? not enough to worry about in some ways.
What about battle damage? Rough handling? Murphy?
=====================================================
How about me having my guy around to repair it as a tech rather than dead
because he was exposing himself peeking over a hill and got sniped? I'm not
saying there aren't situations where another guy is useful. But a lot of
battle damage probably can't be repaired by even 4 guys. By your argument (or
that line of thought anyway), I'd ideally like a 20 man tank crew as
maintenance would be easier, there'd be more people to scout, etc. We know
that isn't done for many reasons. The point is is the balance going to shift
over the next few centuries? If I were a betting man, I'd put money on it
moving somewhere... probably in favor of fewer guys in harms way.
=====================================================
> ** 100% reliable? Wow. You want a gaurantee. I'll offer you that if
> ** Autoloaders may become irrelevant with HELs, with DFFGs, or with
Then, I'd rather have that Loader, stay around and do other things, a
secondary gunner or something. The Swedish S tank kept the #3 guy around
as an alternate driver/radio operator.
=====================================================
Well, if you have enough weaponry to make a second gunner viable, rather than
as a backup, I don't think he's a loader anymore. I'm not saying you can't
justify a 4 man crew in some aspect but having a man doing the job of shell
chucking seems rather silly.
Here is some more fuel for the fire:
What about a beam or rail gun as main gun? There is nothing for the loader to
load with a beam, and the rail gun penetrater gets rid of propellant (you may
have a 20 round magazine).
What happens if you have a more reliable system than tracks and internal
combustion engine?
What about force fields instead of armor?
What about better armor?
Stealth? "If this thing is so high tech why can't I get the intercom to work?"
"Plug in your head set."
> Los wrote:
> Yes the T64 comes to mind, 3 man crew and auto loader. (Yes I know
It's happened more often than that, I'm afraid. Well, not all of the
accidents were arms - certain other parts have gone too.
> As does the T80 and the latest Russian tank the T90
Um... I'd've said the T84 variants were later/more modern than the T90,
but I won't bet on it <shrug>
> also uses an autoloader and a three man crew.
<chuckle> I doubt that :-/ It helps them build their tanks very low
compared to Western ones though, and about 20 tons lighter as well, and still
have similar armour protection and speed.
Later,
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> =====================================================
Perhaps, their simplicity might make them nice to have though.
> =====================================================
Yom Kippur was not a turkey shoot. Neither was the 6 day war. (air war aside)
I recall on battle on Gaza where the IDF was taking back lost ground and was
running tanks into action with bare minimums of ammo. There was a lot of cross
leveling.
> How about me having my guy around to repair it as a tech rather than
I'm not
> saying there aren't situations where another guy is useful. But a lot
True, but he's not going to go stumbling around and just stand there, he's
trying to find a covered route his tank can take from point to point. Did you
know that alternate defensive fighting positions are usually marked with
engineer tape by the commander so the driver can quickly get into the prepped
position with a minimum of bother?
> (or that line of thought anyway), I'd ideally like a 20 man tank crew
We arent' talking about WWI german tanks here...We are talking about the
balace in tank design that has existed for 50 years of their existance. France
tried 2 man tanks, commanders were very poorly equipped to fight and command
at the same time.
> =====================================================
In the IDF, he uses his Pintle mount MG a lot. There is a reason IDF tanks
have 4 MGs (1coax 7.62mm a.50 over the main gun, and loader 7.62mm and a
commander 7.62mm) plus a 60mm mortar.
> =====================================================
Granted, there is a reason some forces use Wheeled vehicles over tracked.
However the Wheeled vehicles don't carry nearly the same armour that the
tracked vehicles do.
[Mike Wikan] Umm there is a SERIOUS difference between Soviet
Armor
and Western Chobham-Delta type armor. The Current Rev of Frontal Slope
armor on an M1 is damned near impervious to everything short of a Nuke (I've
seen 120 mm Sabot rounds test fired at it at a range of 500m go bouncing off)
> <chuckle> I doubt that :-/ It helps them build their tanks very low
> << As does the T80 and the
Re: All these Nato vs WP tanker(with autoloader) battles occurred? If you're
talking about the Gulf war, where's the correlation about autoloaders being
inferior to anything? There were a lot of factors involved in the defeat. That
was more an issue of operational and tactical excellence, and crew quality
than anything else. We would have won those tank fights if both sides had got
out an swapped tanks. Having worked very closely with mideast forces for many
year, I've yet to be impressed by very many of them. Sure they can generate
violence but when it comes to successfully conducting modern warfare, tank or
otherwise, Nah.
The fact is, (And Tom already made this point) that if auto loaders and three
man crews are already to day present in potentially 40-50% of the
world's tanks, then it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that 200 years
from now, auto loaders will be a common an item in AFV design as are automatic
rangefinders.
> Mike Wikan wrote:
> [Mike Wikan] Umm there is a SERIOUS difference between Soviet
And how many test shots have you seen against T-84s or T-90s?
Regards,
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> <chuckle> I doubt that :-/ It helps them build their tanks very low
Screws the rate of fire too. The Gun has to depress/elevate (depends
where its at at the time) to allow the autoloader to function for each
reaload.
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
> Re: All these Nato vs WP tanker(with autoloader) battles occurred? If
I don't know how happy our boys would have been trundling around in a T55.
There were engagements that were not one sided, had our boys not had the
better tanks with the faster rate of fire, I think things would have
been worse. Realize that a faster rate of fire means you can kill your
opponent faster.
> The fact is, (And Tom already made this point) that if auto loaders
Just because the russians are doing it in their MBT's (Kurassier's and
AMX-13's don't count as the Bustle mounted autolaoder (with the
occilating turret to keep the autoloader inline with the breech) doesn't
mean everyone else will too. All of the Western MBTs (Leopard,
Challenger/Cheiftans, Abrams, and Merkava don't use autolaoders). The
Leclerc has an auto loader and I don't think the french have won a tank battle
in 50' years (the french also have a rotating crew concept for this tank, I
don't see this being the best thing in a sustained operation and the write ups
I've seen indicate this).
In a message dated 2/3/00 6:08:28 PM Central Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
<<
Screws the rate of fire too. The Gun has to depress/elevate (depends
where its at at the time) to allow the autoloader to function for each
reaload.
> [quoted text omitted]
Takes the weaponoff line so it has to be reaimed - another bad mark for
the autoloader.
In a message dated 2/3/00 4:49:49 PM Central Standard Time, los@cris.com
writes:
<< Re: All these Nato vs WP tanker(with autoloader) battles occurred? If
you're talking about the Gulf war, where's the correlation about autoloaders
being inferior to anything? There were a lot of factors involved in the
defeat. That was more an issue of operational and tactical excellence, and
crew quality than anything else. We would have won those tank fights if both
sides had got out an swapped tanks. Having worked very closely with mideast
forces for many year, I've yet to be impressed by very many of them. Sure they
can generate violence but when it comes to successfully conducting modern
warfare, tank or otherwise, Nah. >>
The Gulf - the Israelis for many more years than you have probably been
around - they've been fighting T72's for a while - and even though they
have captured large numbers of them the tank is only used by guard and militia
units in Israel - Why? because it is an inferior tank and a large part
of the reason is the dependence on an auto loader.
In a message dated 2/3/00 11:33:56 PM Central Standard Time,
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com writes:
<< And how many test shots have you seen against T-84s or T-90s?
Regards,
> [quoted text omitted]
There's a guy who posts on AOL who is atanker and has pretty up to the moment
info on various composite and reactive armors try respectfully dropping a
> Los wrote:
> From what I have heard, the T90 is not going mass production. It's
They might look at a different powerplant, but last I heard, they were
planning to maintain and upgrade previous versions for now.
> The Russians have been using auto loaders and three man crews for
A friend of mine who was a tanker told me about how some of the Soviet
autoloaders had a bad habit of accidentally ramming the gunner's arm into the
breech or catching his clothing. They also jammed a lot and were subject to
failure. Of course this was as late as the 70's so I'm not sure they are that
bad today.
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> <<
Istn't that what I said??? *scratches head*
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> > <chuckle> I doubt that :-/ It helps them build their tanks very low
Usually elevate. Due to the low turrets, they can't depress the guns more than
about 5 degrees (half of what a Western tank manages)... This
hurts in hasty reverse-slope defences (ie, where they haven't had time
to dig fighting positions for the tanks), since they have to expose themselves
far more than a Western tank to be able to hit targets on the other side of
the crest. Doesn't matter that much in prepared positions, though.
'Course, Soviet tank doctrine emphasised the attack far more than the
defence, so they'd have to expose themselves anyway - that's why they
went for the lower silouette when not in cover.
Later,
In a message dated 2/4/00 3:21:39 PM Central Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
<< Istn't that what I said??? *scratches head* >>
Not argui9ng but what you were describing movement of the breech - I
thought someone might forget that the muzzle moves to.
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> << Istn't that what I said??? *scratches head* >>
Heh, not to mention the middle part too (like the bore evacuator and the
gun barrel and thermal sleeve?)
:P
> Michael T Miserendino - I think - wrote:
> From what I have heard, the T90 is not going mass production.
255 T-90's ordered by India in 1998, and JAA lists it as being in
production and in service with the Russian army (no numbers given). If
it is in *mass* production I don't know :-/
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
It is just a trial run of about 1000 units, just to knock out some of the
bugs!
:-)
Bye for now
In a message dated 2/2/00 3:49:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> Popeyesays@aol.com writes:
<< <<
How about the extra eyes in the extra tanks, More automation = less men
driving each target smaller tanks with same protection and fire power and less
tonnage to haul to deploy the force. Giving you more maneuver units.
> [quoted text omitted]
More units - each one less efficent than tanks with larger crews.
> [quoted text omitted]
I'm sorry, we're talking about 2185, we're probably going to have computers
that can handle most of what we're talking about in 50 years, much less 185...
with much more solid state equipment than we have today, the track
maintenance, and power plant duties will probably be able to be handled
automatically, or at the very least by a minimum of crew. If you want to
argue about near future combat, that is, within the next 20 to 50 years, i can
see some of your arguments, but saying that tanks will require the same number
of crew as today in 185 years is like someone from the early 1800's saying
that the future of warfare belongs to massed ranks of infantry. The future
tanks we're talking about will be far different than we imagine, if they still
use tanks at all.
> -----Original Message-----
That may well be....if you have the Service Support on the ground, the
capabiity will still need to be there to do a lot of manual work too.
Anyway, I play in the GZG-verse, and unfortunately most of the military
ground forces seem to be either not issued with the latest tech or supply is
short - maybe due to enemy interdiction :-(
Mind you, technology doesn't always progress as fast or as far as we
wish....look at the adds from the early Sixties that said that we'd be driving
on automated freeways bu 1999? Yeah, we have the technology to do this but we
don't seem to actually be doing it, even on a reasonable trial basis yet...
my 2cents again...