Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SHERMAN I hate to be conservative, espcially when i feel my self sounding like a cavalry officer in 1916....("These funny looking metal boxes can never replace the shock of cold steel).
However, as a tank commander in the IDF i have to say a few things...
1. Thoguh all out wars with massive tank fleets seem a thing of the past, i wouldent put my money on it... After WWI all out war in europe with millions of soldiers seemed a thing of the past. When big players decide to play against each other(Russia Vs China, India Vs. Pakistan, Israel Vs. Egypt/Syria...) one of the weapons of chice will have to be the tank. Nothing takes the fight to the enemy like an armoured brigade, nothing.
2. Unamanned turrets scare me. As a tank commander i am taught to use my eyes to locate the enemy, and see the terrain. I dont see how and opics will allow me to see as well as with my head outside.
3. Autolaoders... I feel the same about them as i feel about unmanned turrets. I dont know about loaders in your army...But my loader is preetey fast, and dose good work with his MG. Not to speak of the 60mm mortar. And when you have 3 men to maintain your tank, it takes more time than a 4 men crew...
just my thoughts. |
Sherman
1. But doesn't eliminating the 4th crewman mean you can theoretically put more tanks onto the battlefield?
2. The thing about autoloaders, its weird some guys I have spoken to hate them others don't. Its true that the early Soviet autoloaders would "attempt to load the gunner into the gun" (quote Cadet Seaman) but you take a tank like the French Leclerc which as had a very good record with its autosystem. Seems it depends on the actual tank. In theory at least reducing the number of crew is a good thing.