Small size matters

C

chimera

New Member
The Electric Armour Protection thread discussed problems. Big hits from bombs are not good for tanks. Is there another approach? Could very thick armour be formed into a small, domed hull as a propelled gun without turret?
Is it impossible to have several shells in a self-loading clip , swung on a small hydraulic boom which the driver could control, and also fire? If it was designed to the smallest usable size, the 1-man "tank" would be hard to target and could carry the maximum thickness of armour that allowed it to move. It would be slow, but perhaps indestructible.
chimera
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest, a 1 man tank sounds nice, but it's an economy of scale.

Why spend 100's of 1,000's of £, developing a tank, testing it, then trying to market it, when anybody with half a brain sends 2 infantry soldiers, & a couple of Milan or any other anti-tank weapon, forward to knock it out.

Cost of x2 Milan's & a couple of soldiers £50 - 70,000 ??

Why re-invent the wheel, when the wheel is perfectly ok?

If it aint broke DON'T fix it !

Hope this helps.

Systems Adict
 
C

chimera

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
SA,
Do you walk past words without reading them? My point was that the small size allows maximum thickness of armour, possibly being indestructible. Tanks are being "broke" in streets in Iraq. A hemisphere of great thickness might not get "broke".
chimera
 
F

Falstaff

New Member
Armour is one thing but I don't think a single person tank would be of any operational value. Tanks operate in a very complex, multi-threat environment. Many tank operation experienced armies even have problems to try it with 3 man crews (US, Germany). And that's not because they couldn't build a 3-man vehicle.
Keeping a bigger crew means you have more people to operate the tank and observe the environment.
E.g. you have one who concentrates on driving a 60 ton steel monster through complicated terrain, perhaps even cities (much more difficult than for fighter pilots for example). You have one who does the firing once a target is identified. You have one who can observe the environment while a target is engaged. One has to take care of the tactical situation and lead the tank accordingly. One has to do the communication. One has to deal with countermeasures. And so on and so on. And: when the tank breaks down or gets stuck, you have more helping hands.

Your points are good ones, but I think the minimum tank crew is 3.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
We had a very interesting thread here about reducing tank crews some time ago.

Interesting to see was that every guy here with experience in armored warfare said that one guy cannot perform all the tasks (driving, area scanning, firing, commanding, radio operations, navigation, etc.) with the current technology. :)
3 is minimum and while it reduces personal costs it also reduces situational awareness and your ability to take care of your broken tank compared to a 4 man crew.
 
D

DoC_FouALieR

New Member
I think that in urban combat, with a tank possessing specific urban combat modifications such as RCWS, 360° camera, etc etc.. and with the growing potentiel of BMS, a crew of 4 is the absolute minimum.
 
C

chimera

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Of course, a self-propelled gun with a closed dome is virtually blind. The gun is not manoueverable, and the idea is for a very heavy, slow moving vehicle. So it would operate as auxiliary to standard tanks, with the purpose only of moving to a located target and not get itself destroyed. The massive armour would be its only, and crucial, feature.
chimera
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
So, something with the ability to break heavy defended enemy position with good firepower (A big mortar comes to my mind instead of a high pressure gun) and the ability to withstand heavy incoming fire from the defenders.
And with no real need for maneuver warfare cabability.

Did I get it right? :)
 
C

chimera

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Ja und ja.
It would be a maths. problem to combine minimum size / maximum thickness-weight of armour / engine HP.
chimera
 
F

Falstaff

New Member
Mmm... I'm sorry for asking instead of answering. Just to get it straight, I must confess that right now I can't see the tactical value of such a vehicle. What exactly would you use it for?
As I understand you, it would not be mobile nor flexible enough to keep up with mechanised troops. And against which targets would you use it? Targets that can't be dealt with using ATGMs, MBTs or arty easier and cheaper?
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In the end I think this vehicle is supposed to break enemy strongpoints in MOUT environments.
For this it doesn't need to be very mobile but it needs lots of protection especially as it is supposed to face heavy enemy fire.

But Fallstaff is bringing some important points.
You already have tanks and IFVs which are not that bad (Not as bad as it is said sometimes) in MOUT when used properly as supporting elements especially with new MOUT upgrades.
The sutuational awareness of such a 1 man tank would be awfull and you cannot use it for anything else than MOUT spearhead missions.

And infantry has also some nice toys to break enemy defense. The mentioned ATGMs, as well as special RPG/Bunkerfaust rounds. And with the introduction of thinks like guided arty rounds, GMLRS, LGBs/JDAMs.
In my eyes it is not necessary.
What is necessary for the US is to get their ass up and develop (or, oh my god I said it, buy it off the shelf ;) ) a usefull HE round, go forward with the TUSK upgrade and develop the cheap HE/thermobaric round for Javelin and buy something like the Bunkerfaust.
 
F

Falstaff

New Member
Exactly my point. Perhaps complement the conventional vehicles with dedicated MOUT vehicles like that recently unveiled russian whatsitsname...

BTW did you know this one MOUT= FISH and CHIPS (Fighting in Someone's House and Causing Havoc in People's Streets) :D
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Merkava Mrk.4 is not any better armored for urban combat than other MBTs. But it is right that it features some interesting items. Integrated mortar, all around camera system and the ability to carry infantry during short missions or emergency situations.
But unlike many people think this ability is not normally regularly. The room there is very cramped for fully loaded infantry and the Merk loses its reserve ammo when carrying something else in the back. So this ability is not a substitute for real mech inf.

As to the israeli HAPCs. They are still APCs and so have not the firepower or optics/situational awareness to be used during heavy combat. They are battle taxis.
 
A

augreich

New Member
The idea of a super armored one man tank would be a strategic and tactical nightmare. MOUT situations are highly fluid and require vehicles that are: armed, well protected, and fast. They need the ability to escape and evade quickly. Recently, a new type of APC was created. It is a four wheeled, V-hull shaped, enclosed turret, with weapon inter-changability, 6 to 8 passenger, and moves quickly.
-The V-hull directs the shock wave of an explosion underneath out ward.
In my opinion this is the optimal vehicle for most combat situations.

SLOW = DEATH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top