T110's Zen-like Inner Core.
Дата: 24.08.2015 19:53:15
EmpressNero, on Aug 24 2015 - 14:28, said: A Japanese Type 10 tank threw a track in a most uncomfortable way
during maneuvers yesterday. You can actually see it happen in
the first few seconds of the video.The_Chieftain: That was not a good exercise for the JGSDF http://www.liveleak....2xPLffWvdgpT.01
So what's AW's excuse for using the "Starship" nickname?
Quote 1) Disadvantage of head-out option is obvious - being shot in the skull with just individual weapon like carabine or rifle.
The_Chieftain: Loose, maybe you're not on my FB page, but a few days ago I
posted a photo of an impact to my cupola that missed my head by
less than ten centimeters, and I never even noticed it until after
I got out of the tank. I watched another sniper round impact the
TC's stowage bin of my wing tank in an attempt to hit him.* I
assure you, that after pretty much a continuous year mucking around
in Iraq, I am personally quite aware of the potential threat to
vehicle commanders from small arms. That said, I still firmly
believe in the advantages of situational awareness which result
from being able to stick one's head out and, as mentioned, unless
there was a significant, and I mean "I only ever did it once",
threat, I never felt it advantageous overall to close my hatch to
protect against small arms. *Which, it should be pointed
out, was quite probably because it was out the corner of my eye as
I was heads-out, and provided pretty useful warning of the presence
of opposition and an approximate aspect to which they were.
Quote That video shows it very well - 2 lightly armed guys in scuba gear managed to "lock" 4 guys inside of their lumbering half-blind giant with 120 mm cannon and in total for 40 minutes just in 5-10 meters from a tank in the field. And they managed to survive for that long, despite active actions from tank crew and observation post help.
The_Chieftain: I have absolutely no idea where that
Israeli's wing-tank was. An even worse situation happened in
Najaf when a militiaman simply climbed up onto the back deck of an
M1 and fired his AK into the hatch, killing two men (Before
being killed by the driver reversing into a building). The
concluded observation afterwards was something that tankers have
known since the year dot: Tanks are part of a team, should never
fight alone, and ideally work with infantry for close-in
protection, if not another wing tank. Again, this matches up with
my own experience: Initially when in Mosul, I took great exception
to driving my tanks around without an infantry platoon for close
escort. When I was forced, by circumstance, to drive tank-pure in
the city, we never, and I mean, never, let a tank out of sight of
another tank to cover it. It's interesting how a lot of these basic
pieces of thought get lost over time. For example, when patrolling
on foot, the standard practice in the US is for the last man to
walk backwards to cover the squad's rear. The -correct- solution is
actually for the second-to-last man to walk backwards, but for some
reason, the US has forgotten this.
Quote Combat in urban area like in Syria, where opponents have a lot of weapon like a HMGs, heavy and light mortats, even MLRS and have significant numbers of orginised people/fanatics to spare are making head-out option to be not an option, at least in urban enviroment. Why even consider advantages of something, if this "something" is not an option?
The_Chieftain: Personal experience indicates that it -is- an option. I
fired more rounds in the city than in open areas: The enemy were
rarely stupid enough to engage us when we had a large field of
vision. Still, never once in a firefight did I close my hatch. I
would drop down for the engagement, but so that I could view the
gunner's sight extension and verify what he was shooting at. (Plus,
frankly, the blast from the 120mm is rather uncomfortable)
Quote That situation is what Russian designers and MoD think is much more probable for T-14 to face. Looking with your own eyes is more natural, i understand that well, and again, it doesn't matter. At open fields, when enemy is far, panoramic sight with powerfull optics is much more usefull than simple eyes.
The_Chieftain: It's a balance. Even on Abrams A2s, when the TC is using the
CITV for scanning, the loader still has his head out. Watch some
(unedited) video footage of US gunnery evolutions. (The edited
stuff usually leaves out the scanning and goes straight for the
shooting, when the loader is obviously down in the turret).
Quote If needed, T-14 TC can open a hatch and look around, but not on the frontline, where he quickly will be done.
The_Chieftain: Which is where we have the difference of opinion. I firmly
believe that the inability to open the hatch on the front line is a
Bad Thing . If it is made up for by Good Things , I reserve
opinion.
Quote 2) "React quickly to the contact" imply a detection of this threat from unknown angle? In case of Syria this is not an issue - frontline exist and location of enemies positions and fortifications is known, direction from which they will fire is also known. And our MoD thinks that this is what kind of wars Russia will be involved. When enemy know how to shoot, have rifles with thermal imagers and equipped with laser rangefinders, armed with anti-material rifles, "reacting quickly" after a shot can not happen at all, at least for TC.
The_Chieftain: Interestingly, we consider the current 'urban terrain' to be
the dominant likely form of conflict, which is characterised by a
-lack- of definable front line. I believe Stalingrad would have
been quite a teaching point on the issue. Sure, the enemy are 'over
there', but there as so many ways to get around, and so many
angles, will you bet your life on the intelligence being
correct?
Quote Saying that "heads out is better" is same as saying "Tiger/IS-2 tank is better". Better than what? Why? On what basis?
The_Chieftain: I'm not saying that heads out is better. I'm saying that
retaining the option of heads-out is better, if all other things
are equal. There are times when it is advantageous to have crewmen
inside the tank focused on their tasks or their little electronic
screens with thermal visions, zooms, and the like. And there are
times when it is advantageous to use normal, uninhibited vision.
T14's design removes that choice from the crew.
Quote here is so much on top of those latest modification of Abrams, that i am not sure about great vision from crew hatches.
The_Chieftain: We agree. Indeed, that monstrosity was the cause
of such complaint from A2 crews that the Army is now spending
lots of cash (About $140m) replacing it with the
Low-Profile CROWS. Quoting an Army publication: "This
effort improves the tank commander’s situational awareness without
compromising capability. LP CROWS significantly lowers the
profile of the weapon station, returning both open- and
closed-hatch field of vision" We believe that electronic
doohickeys are great. The US military loves them. We do not,
however, believe that they are a complete solution on their own.
United Defense / BAE have been pushing their "Everyone heads
down and using electronics" for over a decade now. I remember
crawling over their Bradley version back about 2004, the thing was
festooned with cameras, and all crew were in the hull.
https://www.flickr.c...n/photostream/ http://oi59.tinypic.com/21bko60.jpg I went 'ooh' and
'aah', with all the enhanced visibility features (And the saved
space due to the lack of a turret basket), and then I discovered
that there was no option to go heads-out. (The hatch above the
commander being just to access the weapon) Upon remarking to
the engineer in the back that I wasn't entirely comfortable with a
vehicle whose design actively prohibited me from being able to
stick my head out, he replied "You know, I've heard that a few
times today." That probably should say something, and is likely
part of the reason why that Bradley has never seen the light of day
outside of demonstrations.
T110's Zen-like Inner Core.