4 vs 5 man crews,




 
--
 
November 13th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 

Topic: 4 vs 5 man crews,


In tank design on the basis of past designs such as Panzerkampfwagen V Panthers with 5 man crews up to today, with iterations of 3 man T 90's using automation to make this possible.

Is there anyone out there who can shed light on the benefit of 5 man crews and why so many machines today field less crewmen in their layouts?

Also with 4 man crews don't some crewmen have to double up ? Or is modern automation negating this issue with past machines.

Regards,

- Yo.
November 13th, 2014  
crazytanker
 
 
In a four man version (such as the M1 or the M1A1), you have the commander, gunner, loader, and driver of the tank. Obviously the commander (usually a SFC, MSGT or higher) commands the tank and sometimes platoon. Your gunner aims the main gun of the tank, loader loads rounds into the bore, and the driver drives. Working together, a four man team is all you really need. Five man teams are not used in modern tanks, simply because it's not needed. In a 3 man team situation, usually someone performs double duty, so to speak. In some models, the driver acts as the gunner, having the fire controls on the joy sticks. Whereas if it's meant to have a 4 man team and one is removed in combat ((M)KIA) then the remaining three would need to compensate for the lose.
November 13th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytanker
In a four man version (such as the M1 or the M1A1), you have the commander, gunner, loader, and driver of the tank. Obviously the commander (usually a SFC, MSGT or higher) commands the tank and sometimes platoon. Your gunner aims the main gun of the tank, loader loads rounds into the bore, and the driver drives. Working together, a four man team is all you really need. Five man teams are not used in modern tanks, simply because it's not needed. In a 3 man team situation, usually someone performs double duty, so to speak. In some models, the driver acts as the gunner, having the fire controls on the joy sticks. Whereas if it's meant to have a 4 man team and one is removed in combat ((M)KIA) then the remaining three would need to compensate for the lose.

I ask this from researching two time periods and two philosophies. I understand technology has progressed however here is my interest in a nutshell:

The Eastern front in 1944, German Panther and Tiger crews were manned by 5 man crews, each crew member assigned to a certain task. Two thing worked in the Germans favor for tactical victories in combat, 1: Better communication, each machine under ideal circumstances had a designated radio operator. And this was regulated to a single man, back then off course I assume radio technology was not as it is today, apart from Germany many countries still fielded tanks where every crew member did not have a headset, or if he did could not use two way communication, only listen from orders from the commander.

2: The Germans did not always drive buttoned up, many historians argue that the Russians always driving with hatches furled could not survey and read the flow of combat around them, thus suffered for this "blindness". But as a counter point I argue with the T 34 for example, Russian Tank commanders performed "double duty". It would make sense to understand a Commander who was also aiming and manning the main gun to feel the need to button the tank down while in combat. He simply had so much on his plate.

This revaluation partnered with curiosity as to modern machines, with two way communication equipment now common place, I kinda see why many modern MBT's don't have a radio man, technology has filled the gap. Also you don't think of it much, with automated systems the benefit of surveying your surroundings, do modern crews in professional armies still use this method of poking your head out ever now and again?

On that further note, how does that work in a nuclear/chemical/biological condition in MBT's rated for this?

Or am I wrong?

Thanks again.

-Yo.
--
November 13th, 2014  
crazytanker
 
 
Well now-a-days each crew member issued a tactical helmet, which has both internal and external communication capabilities. It's the same as being in the seat of a fighter jet. It increases communication between tanks, which is useful for coordinating movement and fire efforts. Remember, 2 rounds fired at the same target will always get the job done. And yes, commanders still will take a peek out of the tank every now-and-again. It's not common for the tank to ride around unhatched, simply because it exposes vulnerabilities. But it does happen to get air inside. Yes, the tank can be sealed against NBC. It has it's own built in filtration system.
November 13th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytanker
Well now-a-days each crew member issued a tactical helmet, which has both internal and external communication capabilities. It's the same as being in the seat of a fighter jet. It increases communication between tanks, which is useful for coordinating movement and fire efforts. Remember, 2 rounds fired at the same target will always get the job done. And yes, commanders still will take a peek out of the tank every now-and-again. It's not common for the tank to ride around unhatched, simply because it exposes vulnerabilities. But it does happen to get air inside. Yes, the tank can be sealed against NBC. It has it's own built in filtration system.

It's amazing how far things have gone, from what I gather, if you drove around buttoned up, you drove with huge disadvantage back in the "analog" days, many accounts I go over reference it as an almost must, binoculars and standard Eyesight doing wonders give awareness to a commander and what was around him. For I do understand they couldn't hear a incoming high velocity round before it's impact, so eyesight must have been critical. With AT guns being so much a threat back then.


Guess the Russians did not figured that as quickly as the Germans. However I do ask, looking at the T 90 MBT's 3 man crew, it has it's crew members in the fighting compartment relatively isolated, they can't exit through each others hatches and only have their own. Due mainly to an automatic loader and self setting wireless set ( If I am not mistaken).

From an outside perspective this seems to be pushing your luck, do you feel the Russians have their reasons for this layout?
November 13th, 2014  
crazytanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
It's amazing how far things have gone, from what I gather, if you drove around buttoned up, you drove with huge disadvantage back in the "analog" days, many accounts I go over reference it as an almost must, binoculars and standard Eyesight doing wonders give awareness to a commander and what was around him. For I do understand they couldn't hear a incoming high velocity round before it's impact, so eyesight must have been critical. With AT guns being so much a threat back then.


Guess the Russians did not figured that as quickly as the Germans. However I do ask, looking at the T 90 MBT's 3 man crew, it has it's crew members in the fighting compartment relatively isolated, they can't exit through each others hatches and only have their own. Due mainly to an automatic loader and self setting wireless set ( If I am not mistaken).

From an outside perspective this seems to be pushing your luck, do you feel the Russians have their reasons for this layout?
You will find that in many designs of war machinery, not only do Russians do out-of-the-box things, but they work. We have a saying in the Sappers "If it's working, keep it the hell away from the Looey." Now-a-days you can see essentially completely around the tank, X,Y,Z due to the equipment. But, most will tell you there's nothing that beats a pair of eyes and ears.
November 13th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytanker
You will find that in many designs of war machinery, not only do Russians do out-of-the-box things, but they work. We have a saying in the Sappers "If it's working, keep it the hell away from the Looey." Now-a-days you can see essentially completely around the tank, X,Y,Z due to the equipment. But, most will tell you there's nothing that beats a pair of eyes and ears.

That is what I felt from the onset of this post, the Russians do have a in theory efficient design, less work load on the crew, but obvious drawbacks. However, with the disaster at Grozny and the successes in Georgia under their belt they have a thing or too to go off of in Post Cold War Philosophy.

Thank you for your insight.
November 13th, 2014  
crazytanker
 
 
If you ever get the chance to check out one of the Army's venture programs. Alot of the time they'll let you get inside of the tank, and possibly even drive it, which is incredibly easy.
November 13th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
I ask this from researching two time periods and two philosophies. I understand technology has progressed however here is my interest in a nutshell:

The Eastern front in 1944, German Panther and Tiger crews were manned by 5 man crews, each crew member assigned to a certain task. Two thing worked in the Germans favor for tactical victories in combat, 1: Better communication, each machine under ideal circumstances had a designated radio operator. And this was regulated to a single man, back then off course I assume radio technology was not as it is today, apart from Germany many countries still fielded tanks where every crew member did not have a headset, or if he did could not use two way communication, only listen from orders from the commander.

2: The Germans did not always drive buttoned up, many historians argue that the Russians always driving with hatches furled could not survey and read the flow of combat around them, thus suffered for this "blindness". But as a counter point I argue with the T 34 for example, Russian Tank commanders performed "double duty". It would make sense to understand a Commander who was also aiming and manning the main gun to feel the need to button the tank down while in combat. He simply had so much on his plate.

This revaluation partnered with curiosity as to modern machines, with two way communication equipment now common place, I kinda see why many modern MBT's don't have a radio man, technology has filled the gap. Also you don't think of it much, with automated systems the benefit of surveying your surroundings, do modern crews in professional armies still use this method of poking your head out ever now and again?

On that further note, how does that work in a nuclear/chemical/biological condition in MBT's rated for this?

Or am I wrong?

Thanks again.

-Yo.
The radio operator of the German Panther and Tiger tanks was also the machine gunner
Can I Assume CT this job is done by the commander in the modern MIA2?
November 13th, 2014  
crazytanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
The radio operator of the German Panther and Tiger tanks was also the machine gunner
Can I Assume CT this job is done by the commander in the modern MIA2?
Generally yes. Or on rare occasion you'd get someone who'd jump on.
 


Similar Topics
USMC cadences
New to this Forum - Hello from Stateside Man Goods - Help Us Support The Troops!
The Homeless Man
Boondock Saints
What is Retrosexuality???