4 vs 5 man crews,

[Yossarian]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Yossarian]

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?

 

[crazytanker]

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.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

 

[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.

 

[JOC]

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?

 

[crazytanker]

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.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

Really ? Interesting, I haven't been in a tank since an M 60A3 I believe as a young child.

It's engrossing to see the evolution, design philosophies and approaches over the last 100 years in AFVs. Especially the crew layout.

 

[crazytanker]

Driving a tank is incredibly easy. You have two throttles. If you want to go forward, you push both throttles forward. It you want to go backwards, you pull both back to you. Of you want to go right, you hold the right throttle in neutral and push the left forward. If to m you want to go left, you hold the left throttle in neutral and push the right one forward.

 

[Yossarian]

Driving a tank is incredibly easy. You have two throttles. If you want to go forward, you push both throttles forward. It you want to go backwards, you pull both back to you. Of you want to go right, you hold the right throttle in neutral and push the left forward. If to m you want to go left, you hold the left throttle in neutral and push the right one forward.

Similar in scope to bulldozer maybe? however most modern MBT's have neutral steer to some degree. Most dozers do not. I love "walking" the treads on dozers due to this, now that is fun. But could only imagine a modern tracked AFV in terms of joyriding. Although with respect I do still understand these vehicles deathly serious mission.

 

[crazytanker]

Similar in scope to bulldozer maybe? however most modern MBT's have neutral steer to some degree. Most dozers do not. I love "walking" the treads on dozers due to this, now that is fun. But could only imagine a modern tracked AFV in terms of joyriding. Although with respect I do still understand these vehicles deathly serious mission.

Sorta but not really. This is what it looks like. See the two throttles?

 

[Yossarian]

Sorta but not really. This is what it looks like. See the two throttles?

Gearing layout must be completely different as well, different machines have had different concepts over the years undoboutly, interestingly many American tanks used to field two engines, namely each one powered on set of tracks.

Russians used lever steering linkages that were quite demanding in their older designs, Germans put their gearboxes up front (potential bad idea). But things look streamlined and at least in western tanks today similar and almost standardized in layout of the drive train. (different powerplants and components of course.)

Once again of great interest.

Kudos for the visual aid as well.:thumb:

 

[tetvet]

I'm thinking the Russian T-34 had a crew of 3 , not sure on that , but anyone that can drive a zero turn lawnmower can drive a tank .

 

[JOC]

The T-34 had a 4 man crew, the up gunned version T-34/85 had a 5 man crew. From what I understand they weren't built for comfort. Which is-was generally the case for most Russian - Soviet AFV's

 

[crazytanker]

The T-34 had a 4 man crew, the up gunned version T-34/85 had a 5 man crew. From what I understand they weren't built for comfort. Which is-was generally the case for most Russian - Soviet AFV's

Like I said, when it comes to weapons and machines of war, Russians are slightly insane. They were built to get the job done, regardless of the comfort of the crew members. Crew comfort was and still remains a secondary objective to Russian war-machine designers.

 

[Remington 1858]

The Soviets produced tanks with three man crews, the loaders position being taken by an autoloader that selected rounds from a carousel under the turret floor. How well this works, I can't say having never seen it in action, But I have inspected captured former Soviet tanks and they are very small in comparison to Western designs. The men who serve these vehicles must be small in stature.
Of course, this makes the tank a smaller target and the Soviets produced very small, powerfully armed designs that were always significantly lighter in weight than Western models.
The Swedes had the S-tank, a turretless model with an autoloading gun. The crew on that tank was three guys( I think).
Reducing crew size accomplishes some objectives, but creates other problems. Fewer men to do maintenance tasks, for security watch and other housekeeping requirements.

 

[A Can of Man]

http://mashable.com/2014/05/06/oculus-rift-helping-norwegian-army-drive-tanks/

Check it.