FA+
Shop
637 submissions
Yep, that's right people! According to the US Army Armor Magazine, you can build a tank with a 2-man crew, and it will work!
After all, it's not like anyone is ever injured or killed inside of tanks, forcing less men to do more things; or that less men means more maintenance tasks per-crewmen; or that less men means more automation, ALSO entailing more maintenance; or that history hasn't proven that 2-man tanks don't work.
After all, look at all the Main Battle Tanks with 2-man crews that have entered service since Robert Newell promoted the idea back in 1992 --- all NONE of them!
In short, it's just more "Army-Think" gone wild. I honestly *can't believe* that more people can't see through this charade.
Seriously, read it yourself and see what the Technologists once tried to dupe the US Army into spending the US taxpayer's money on; http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....Scam-210497447
And remember, the US Army's Armor School actually gave this idea enough credence to PUBLISH IT in their OWN MAGAZINE.
After all, it's not like anyone is ever injured or killed inside of tanks, forcing less men to do more things; or that less men means more maintenance tasks per-crewmen; or that less men means more automation, ALSO entailing more maintenance; or that history hasn't proven that 2-man tanks don't work.
After all, look at all the Main Battle Tanks with 2-man crews that have entered service since Robert Newell promoted the idea back in 1992 --- all NONE of them!
In short, it's just more "Army-Think" gone wild. I honestly *can't believe* that more people can't see through this charade.
Seriously, read it yourself and see what the Technologists once tried to dupe the US Army into spending the US taxpayer's money on; http://blacktailfa.deviantart.com/a.....Scam-210497447
And remember, the US Army's Armor School actually gave this idea enough credence to PUBLISH IT in their OWN MAGAZINE.
Category Story / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 216 x 216px
File Size 34.1 kB
Well, to be honest: I also had considered if it would be possible to build a modern tank with only two crew members (after all, there actually were a few 2 Man Tanks in the past, like the Renault FT-17, the AMR 33 and the Panzer I), and quite a lot of modern APCs and IFVs have a 2 man crew in addition to their passengers. But eventually I realized that there are a few problems which arise if you try to copy that concept today.
Some probs like:
- The FT-17 and comparable tanks of it's era were not designed to fight in a group, as there was no communication between the tanks available as it is today. They were designed to cruise across the battlefield and support the infantry if needed, and probably keep enemy tanks at bay if they saw one and were close enough for their weak machine guns and light cannons to cause any damage at all. When it comes to coordinating even just a battle squad, 2-man-tanks are helpless, as it was proven by the Russians with the T-70
- Both APCs and IFVs have their passengers to keep their eyes and ears out to support the tank crew, and one of the troopers can actually replace the tank's gunner if needed.
- NONE of the 2-man-tanks ever fielded a version with both crew members in the chassis, even when it already was possible to build remotely controlled turrets - I wonder why ... :V
- I can't remember that I ever read something about a 2-man-tank with anything larger than a 47 mm gun, nor did I find anything about one with something larger than a 23mm autocannon. The largest of the real autocannons, the russian ZIF-71/75, is 57mm. Obviously that's the largest caliber a single crew member can quickly and effectively fix on his own if it jams (or which requires only few extra parts to remotely unjam it). Try that with a 105 or 120. Fat chance. xD
Some probs like:
- The FT-17 and comparable tanks of it's era were not designed to fight in a group, as there was no communication between the tanks available as it is today. They were designed to cruise across the battlefield and support the infantry if needed, and probably keep enemy tanks at bay if they saw one and were close enough for their weak machine guns and light cannons to cause any damage at all. When it comes to coordinating even just a battle squad, 2-man-tanks are helpless, as it was proven by the Russians with the T-70
- Both APCs and IFVs have their passengers to keep their eyes and ears out to support the tank crew, and one of the troopers can actually replace the tank's gunner if needed.
- NONE of the 2-man-tanks ever fielded a version with both crew members in the chassis, even when it already was possible to build remotely controlled turrets - I wonder why ... :V
- I can't remember that I ever read something about a 2-man-tank with anything larger than a 47 mm gun, nor did I find anything about one with something larger than a 23mm autocannon. The largest of the real autocannons, the russian ZIF-71/75, is 57mm. Obviously that's the largest caliber a single crew member can quickly and effectively fix on his own if it jams (or which requires only few extra parts to remotely unjam it). Try that with a 105 or 120. Fat chance. xD
Thanks for the insights!
These are my thoughts on the points you raised;
- Ah yes, the "innovative" FT-17 --- as if being the first tank with a Rotating Turret to reach the battlefield somehow means it NEVER would have happened if the FT-17 hadn't come along.
It also didn't perform very well in combat, contrary to what all the hype surrounding it suggests. Expect to see a future chapter of Failed Tanks on this vehicle.
I'd also forgotten that the T-70 was a 2-man tank --- now I know why it was so poorly thought of. XD
- I've never actually seen APCs or IFVs used as a model to promote a 2-man tank, but it's good to have ammo against the argument in advance.
- Now THAT'S interesting. None of those vehicles were particularly successful even *with* the crew in both the hull and turret.
It's also worth noting that nearly every EGT (External Gun Turret) project for a battletank has met with grief, despite countless 10s of billions of $$$ invested by a dozen different countries over 50 years into developing such turrets.
Here's a few examples of such vehicles; the Hotchkiss-Rive LFU, the AMX-ELC, Sweden's UDES-series, the Strv 2000, the HIMAG, the VTS, Object 450 "Molot", Object 640, the Expeditionary Tank, the Jordanian Falcon Turret,and the Teledyne (later GDLS) "Low Profile Turret" (later fitted to the M1128 Stryker MGS --- and we all know how THAT turned out). Expect to see all of THESE in the Failed Tanks series as well.
This bad idea is awfully pervasive, showing how much money there is behind the "Empty Turret" Lobby.
- The VT-1 and VT-1 had 120mm guns, but they were mounted in the hull where the crew could conceivably have had direct access to them.
Also, note that the Strv 103 was originally supposed to be a 2-man tank. It's designers was quickly realized the same realities I talked about in this retort, and changed it into a 3-man tank. The cover story is that the change to a 3-man configuration was for "morale purposes", but this doesn't pass the smell test.
Still, that's an interesting revelation --- and something that the Half-Crewed Tank Lobby apparently never considered.
These are my thoughts on the points you raised;
- Ah yes, the "innovative" FT-17 --- as if being the first tank with a Rotating Turret to reach the battlefield somehow means it NEVER would have happened if the FT-17 hadn't come along.
It also didn't perform very well in combat, contrary to what all the hype surrounding it suggests. Expect to see a future chapter of Failed Tanks on this vehicle.
I'd also forgotten that the T-70 was a 2-man tank --- now I know why it was so poorly thought of. XD
- I've never actually seen APCs or IFVs used as a model to promote a 2-man tank, but it's good to have ammo against the argument in advance.
- Now THAT'S interesting. None of those vehicles were particularly successful even *with* the crew in both the hull and turret.
It's also worth noting that nearly every EGT (External Gun Turret) project for a battletank has met with grief, despite countless 10s of billions of $$$ invested by a dozen different countries over 50 years into developing such turrets.
Here's a few examples of such vehicles; the Hotchkiss-Rive LFU, the AMX-ELC, Sweden's UDES-series, the Strv 2000, the HIMAG, the VTS, Object 450 "Molot", Object 640, the Expeditionary Tank, the Jordanian Falcon Turret,and the Teledyne (later GDLS) "Low Profile Turret" (later fitted to the M1128 Stryker MGS --- and we all know how THAT turned out). Expect to see all of THESE in the Failed Tanks series as well.
This bad idea is awfully pervasive, showing how much money there is behind the "Empty Turret" Lobby.
- The VT-1 and VT-1 had 120mm guns, but they were mounted in the hull where the crew could conceivably have had direct access to them.
Also, note that the Strv 103 was originally supposed to be a 2-man tank. It's designers was quickly realized the same realities I talked about in this retort, and changed it into a 3-man tank. The cover story is that the change to a 3-man configuration was for "morale purposes", but this doesn't pass the smell test.
Still, that's an interesting revelation --- and something that the Half-Crewed Tank Lobby apparently never considered.
Well it WAS the first tank with a rotating turret on the roof.
But as with the everlasting argument about the russian "Buran" orbiter being nothing but a cheap rip-off of tha space shuttle: people either don't know or simply OMIT that given the designs' parameters, both orbiters actually HAD to look similar, as this is dictated by the laws of aerodynamics. So yeah, eventually someone had to come up with the turret idea, the FT-17 simply was the lucky winner in the contest. ^^
Oh, and the "Marder" actually has an unmanned turret that works - but only because it's a small autocannon (20 mm), AND it has a hatch behind the pedestral for the gunner to clear the weapon if it jammed (in theory he could also reload the MILAN starter rack attached to the weapon, but needless to say he won't do that in the open field unless he desperately wants to become sniper bait).
And the S-Tank seriously was initially designed for just 2 men, despite having an autoloader AND TWO different engines?! OMG, now we see what happens if you try to ban alcohol from a country: if they get a sip anyway, they can't stand it and come up with stupid ideas.
But as with the everlasting argument about the russian "Buran" orbiter being nothing but a cheap rip-off of tha space shuttle: people either don't know or simply OMIT that given the designs' parameters, both orbiters actually HAD to look similar, as this is dictated by the laws of aerodynamics. So yeah, eventually someone had to come up with the turret idea, the FT-17 simply was the lucky winner in the contest. ^^
Oh, and the "Marder" actually has an unmanned turret that works - but only because it's a small autocannon (20 mm), AND it has a hatch behind the pedestral for the gunner to clear the weapon if it jammed (in theory he could also reload the MILAN starter rack attached to the weapon, but needless to say he won't do that in the open field unless he desperately wants to become sniper bait).
And the S-Tank seriously was initially designed for just 2 men, despite having an autoloader AND TWO different engines?! OMG, now we see what happens if you try to ban alcohol from a country: if they get a sip anyway, they can't stand it and come up with stupid ideas.
Comments