4 vs 5 man crews,

I am a fan of the 4 man crew without the auto loader. I'm sorry, I just think there is too many things that can go wrong with an auto loader and that is a big problem in combat. Not to mention an added maintenance load for all those additional parts it would require and a smaller crew to execute that maintenance...
 
brinktk said:
I am a fan of the 4 man crew without the auto loader. I'm sorry, I just think there is too many things that can go wrong with an auto loader and that is a big problem in combat. Not to mention an added maintenance load for all those additional parts it would require and a smaller crew to execute that maintenance...
Click to expand...

Agreed. Personally four men can get it done. Five is too much. And after seeing one of the auto loaders fail in combat, forget that. The autoloader fails, you're dead in the water.
 
crazytanker said:
Agreed. Personally four men can get it done. Five is too much. And after seeing one of the auto loaders fail in combat, forget that. The autoloader fails, you're dead in the water.
Click to expand...


Just for an example, I've spent quite a lot of time on the M2A2/M2A3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle and it has an auto loading 25mm chain gun. Now, when that gun is working, it is a thing of beauty...but when it fails...well, let's just say the mechanics are going to be busy for a while. I had my gun mount come out of alignment with my aiming reticle by about 30 degrees at a Table 5 gunnery one time. It was the night time portion of the practice qualification. The first target was a troops one and when my gunner fired, I couldn't see any impact around the troops at all. I just happened to see a ricochet from a tracer bounce from where the bullets were impacting towards the direction of the target. I gave the correction to the gunner, he re-lased thinking that would help and it was more of the same...I corrected again and told him "Kentucky windage" but by the time the rounds started to impact around the troop targets they went down and we didn't hit anything. I thought to myself "that's weird..."(We had literally just done a verification shoot prior to our run to ensure everything was calibrated correctly on both the co-ax and the main gun) The next target was a truck over 800 meters which meant that I needed to engage with HE 25mm...we went through the spotting procedures and then the fire commands...I told my gunner to fire while I observed to either spot corrections or verify hits...all of a sudden my driver is screaming and I see nothing but massive sparks going off in front of my track about 50 meters...the gun was depressed 30 degrees lower than aiming devices and it had somehow got that way from the test firing area to the 100 meter movement to the battle position. The rounds were bouncing off the road we were on and my driver was watching the whole thing through his thermals. I had to check fire and take my gun out of action...If that would have been a combat situation...I would have been dead in the water.
 
I was in a combat zone when that happened to me. The sights on the main gun of the tank got thrown off some how. Possibly from the vibrations of the tank, or the RPG round we took to the side. Thank god we were A. already pulling out and B. were able to adjust manually to still be effective. It's a very worrisome situation to be in when you think you're firing at 30 degrees when you're actually shooting 45 degrees. It doesn't sound like much bit depending on the range, even a degree is alot.
 
It's bad enough in the Bradley during combat just keeping the spent casings clear, especially in the co-ax...They pile up so fast you have to constantly keep clearing up those casings to they don't pile all the way up the feeding mechanism. Doesn't help either that the 25mm casings can pile up in front of the 7.62 casings which just exacerbates the problem.

I didn't have this problem overseas since I was a crunchy on every trip, needless to say, just based off my field time, I would imagine it can become a real problem when you're in "oh shit oh shit oh shit" mode lol.
 
Naw oh shit oh shit oh shit is when you go to fire an anti tank weapon, the weapon jams, and you're now holding a primed tank-killer. THAT outs an oh shit mode.
 
Entertaining how military enthusiasts who never bothered to spend 5 minutes walking the walk have long complicated theories on how things should be based on their readings.

Then guys who have the experience and examples set things straight.

I talked to a new vet recently and he spent most of his time in a vehicle and talked about the masses of ammo they sent downrange.
Good if you have a way to carry it.
That house clearing does not look like fun. The lightweight body armour appears a good idea. It saved the guy I talked to a couple times.
Personally I prefer a nice jungle, but that's me.

I read that a Russian tanker has to be shorter than 5'6"
 
MikeP said:
Entertaining how military enthusiasts who never bothered to spend 5 minutes walking the walk have long complicated theories on how things should be based on their readings.

Then guys who have the experience and examples set things straight.

I talked to a new vet recently and he spent most of his time in a vehicle and talked about the masses of ammo they sent downrange.
Good if you have a way to carry it.
That house clearing does not look like fun. The lightweight body armour appears a good idea. It saved the guy I talked to a couple times.
Personally I prefer a nice jungle, but that's me.

I read that a Russian tanker has to be shorter than 5'6"
Click to expand...

Sorry I have no idea what your 1st statement means?

My background includes the use and testing of various weapons-weapons_system's in and out of the service. Working for 15 years in the defense industry and 2 years in the service at the weapons testing zone at Fort Bliss. Unlike others, I've never been in combat. I'm grateful to my fellow veterans that have risked life and limb. I'll tell you one thing I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a Vulcan.

It sure does sound like those Russian tanks are cramped.

Cheers
 
MikeP said:
Entertaining how military enthusiasts who never bothered to spend 5 minutes walking the walk have long complicated theories on how things should be based on their readings.

Then guys who have the experience and examples set things straight.

I talked to a new vet recently and he spent most of his time in a vehicle and talked about the masses of ammo they sent downrange.
Good if you have a way to carry it.
That house clearing does not look like fun. The lightweight body armour appears a good idea. It saved the guy I talked to a couple times.
Personally I prefer a nice jungle, but that's me.

I read that a Russian tanker has to be shorter than 5'6"
Click to expand...

My reasoning ( if you direct your aim towards my posting of the thread) was the translation from an engineering standpoint to functionality, I always make great effort to show lack of grounding in these types of topics. And always defer to actual experience. I never claim to be knowledgeable about the implementation of these types of tools nor how I could be better in their use, I don't wish to use them. I have never used them.

It's with respect to the topic at hand, and those throughout the past century in all types of AFV's over the years that I ask for insight. For I know I cannot provide it on my own. And as you spoke, I do wish to "be set straight".

Both national manufacturing history, private industry history and the foundations of the modern arms industry as a whole and it's many impacts on modern society both on and off the battle field intersect at this junction. There are many ways of researching this topic and the design of the systems being one of them. One topic such as this can shed light on other areas of a country's economic heartbeat during times of war even today.

Looking at the tools is a great way to do this. The relationship between that history and those who used them is inseparable.

And once again, for the engineers and the war fighters who used them, I hold only respect. Not necessarily "enthusiasm". How can one be enthused over the idea of armed conflict?
 
Yossarian don't feel bad I've have never operated a Armored Fighting Vehicle either. I have operated weapons and weapons systems but never a tank, or the like and I have always found them extremely interesting from WW2 to the present. I think CT had a good idea about having a visit with one. Unless you are in that place where you are either using or testing the weapons at hand how would one be expected to operate military hardware and gain that insight?
 
I don't ever seriously intend too. Even under peace time and if offered I don't know if I would accept, seems interesting and maybe even a little fun but for me I would not want to lose focus. These are war machines, designed for war. It's not my profession and it would feel unsettling trying to fill shoes that are only appropriately filled by either a designer who has gone through engineering school to build such a machine. Or a trained service member who has the credentials to operate one.

It would feel like trying to perform brain surgery almost without spending a day in med school.

As for restoring and preserving such a machine. That would be of great interest, keeping history alive as more than a static display and maybe making a veteran smile in the process. Even from national standpoint, these machines are a part of my nation's modern history that cannot forgotten.

Once more thanks for all those who posted in my reply. For you cannot ever gain any insight if you first don't but ask.

-Yo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top