Morning guys, back to the debate ;D
I feel like getting beaten up again so I am going to take another run at my 3+1 proposal.
Tom says, and I am pretty sure everyone agrees with him, there is no room for "self loading cargo" in a tank. Lance continues to make a strong case for the viability of the 3-man tank. A number of successful vehicles have been designed on that principle and have been accepted into service in a variety of armies. Admittedly not all 3-man vehicles are tanks, more of them are recce or fire support vehicles, but even allowing for blurring of tasks, a number of them are tanks.
So bear with me and allow me to stipulate Lance's position and say that the next tank is going to be a 3-man vehicle, with driver, gunner and CC (either loading [as in the 76mm turret], assisting an autoloader [as in a 25-40mm turret] or having a fully capable autoloader [as in a 60-90mm turret]). Gnr and CC have separate optics, both can fire the main gun, Gnr handles the main and coax, CC has own high angle MG in remote station. Both have hatches.
That takes care of the Tank as a fighting vehicle.
Now give a bit more thought to the command of a formation of tanks.
Shared risk and leadership seems to demandsthat the TL/SC/BC/CO be up front with the troops. As it stands, and as I understand it, the options to allow that to happen are that the Leader operates in a Tank (preferably identical to the rest of the vehicles in the field) or in a separate Command vehicle. If he/she operates in a common tank then it seems likely that the performance of the tank will be degraded because even armoured types have only so many eyes and brain cells and the Leader's primary task seems to me to be fighting the formation assigned, whether it is two tanks or 57 tanks + attachments. If the leader is engaged in fighting the formation then isn't the individual tank he/she is riding in put at risk? If the attention shifts to the survival of the tank then isn't the formation putat risk?
If a 3-man tank can fight and survive effectively, then why is a fourth man with an additional machine gun necessary? On the other hand we know that we can squeeze four people into a tank.
Taking a different tack for a moment, if the Comd is put in a different vehicle type, or even a tank with degraded capabilities because the comd can't pull his wt while attending to comd duties then that vehicle becomes a liability on the field. Adjustments need to be made to protect that vehicle, or the vehicle needs to be kept to the rear reducing that shared risk critical to leadership.
On the other hand, putting a command seat into a 3-man tank would mean that: the formation leader would be right up with the forward edge sharing the risk; the vehicle crew would not be put at additional risk because of having the commander unavailable to contribute to their survival; comd would be able to focus entirely on fighting the formation, enhancing the probability of mission success at least cost.
The Navy has had to deal with this for generations, carrying Commodore's and Admirals on board their ships. They too think their ships are big targets that would benefit from being smaller and have no room on board for passengers. The issue is do you create space for the Commander or do you give him a separate ship which you have to defend?
Perhaps I could ask this another way. Which is best going to guarantee that you survive an engagement with the enemy? Having your Tp Ldr and Tp Sgt/WO man another machine gun or have them fight the formation using all the weapons at their disposal to best effect? As to the "vacant" command seats in a 4 tank troop, how about them being occupied by a FOO/MFC and an Inf LO from the attached inf forces?
Cheers
