Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't it a little suicidal to stick your head out the top of a tank during a firefight?

If so, why not have a machine gun system similar to what Apache gunships have?

What I mean by that, is why not have 25mm Chaingun on the turret, with a lead in the mount that goes down through the armor to connect to the machine gunners helmet?

Thus the gunner can see what his gun sees and shoot things without having to stick his squishy head out?

Can anyone help me please? Thanks.

Cost. Plain and simple.

Norwegian Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS has been producing a Remote Weapon Station called Protector since 2001 that does something similar to that.
But it's mainly for APCs (Like the SISU), IAVs (Stryker), small attack boats etc. since the control/operator panel is a bit big for tanks.







http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KPS/Prod...onStation.aspx
http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KPS/Prod...ECTORM151.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M151_Protector
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_RWS

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1725.html
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio...CTOR/?pid=1568

Don't most modern MBTs have in turret machine guns?Which can be operated from the protection of as well?

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Don't most modern MBTs have in turret machine guns?Which can be operated from the protection of as well?

Most tanks have coaxial machine guns that are 7.62mm (or similar), even if some tanks may have .50Cal's there as well so that's correct.

But the top mounted HMGs also has other functions that a coax gun can't replace, like securing your rear or being used against aerial targets etc.
Other weapons like 30mm or 40mm automatic grenade launchers may also be used there.

The M1A2 Abrams will be fitted with this system (some may already have it??).
Also developed by Norwegian Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and based on the Protector system described above
Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station program, (CROWS or CROWS II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS

I see a dozen software trainers, a new MOS and two new technicians and a really big price tag.

But I guess you can't put a price on human life, stuff like this, not stealth fighters that are 20 times more stealthy than anything even close to it (thats right Northrop, and Lockheed, aiming it right at you to Congress.) for the next war that has not happened yet, this seems like a better expednitures for today's armed forces technology, stuff that directly saves lives, or at least puts less at risk.

What I agree with is the Gates idea, back funding for stuff that helps the troops in this war, and saves lives on the fronts now. And shorten the gap between the Pentagon and the troops deployed, Gates himself stated the Pentagon is at peace, while the military is at war.

Am I to young to be ranting yet?....

Quite often a tank is not in combat and the tank skipper will often stand at the top looking out using a MK1 eyeball to scan the the area. Now he might see some thing that could do with a quick burst of machine gun fire to find out if it is hostile and there is nothing like a burst of machine gun fire to upset the opposition and make them fire back, then is time to drop back under cover and sort things out

Oh yeah, when I see old WWII films, I think:
Those guys who stick their body out to man the machine guns must be either very patriotic, or insane

Thanks ya'll!

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Don't most modern MBTs have in turret machine guns?Which can be operated from the protection of as well?

Not only that but I believe these machine guns were initially used to work out how far away an enemy is. Now that tanks have a lazer to do this it really doesn't serve that purpose any more.

Something I would ask about this idea is this. The outside machine gun would normally be used by the commander however. Since it is always inside and the commander has other things to do, wouldn't you need another crew member to man the machine gun? I know I explained that awfully but do you get where I come from?