I find it amusing here those that seemingly disparage modern sensors and the like whilst forgetting that platforms such as the M1A2C (M1A2 SEP V3) are all about new electronics, sensors and the like - giving both improved capabilities (including better situational awareness and thus ability to see the target first and thus shoot first) whilst at the same time actually giving improved reliability. The yearning for simplicity (something I see regularly in other discussions - dare I say A-10 - just to stir people more
) is admirable but often totally lacking in any basis in reality.
Logistics tails are a risk but have always been so (going back centuries I would argue) and there are also ways to overcome these without compromising capabilities.
Programs such as Israel's Carmel are pointing the way to the future of armoured vehicle development. They rely on sensors to give greater abilities. Things like degrees of AI will go further. The tank of tomorrow is not going to be about who has the best armour or biggest gun but rather who has the best match for the real world battles and the use of sensors and the like. It comes back to understanding the real battles to be fought (I doubt tank-vs-tank slug outs are the area most tanks will be used, or indeed have been used in the past) as well as the good old OODA loop.
So to my mind, the vast majority of the technology is already there to decrease the manning level of tanks and AFV's.
BUT
As people here are pointing out though, it seems to me like they don't know they're pointing this out but they are, without fairly sweeping doctrinal, policy, and administrative changes the technology is worth dickall and will actually be a hindrance!
This is the Crux of the needing an APC to bring along spare crews arguments, which are both correct and incorrect at the same time.
In order for these new technologies to be leveraged effectively you MUST have officers willing to let afv drivers sleep in their seats while moving between positions and not under fire. You MUST have officers willing to let the computer systems stand radio and sensor watches when appropriate. There's a bunch of other stuff that follows in this same vein that all boils down to a situation where if policies and "traditions" and whatnot don't chwnge, all the new technology and enhanced capabilities in the world are useless.
I'm also very sympathetic to the very on point position that, if we keep the existing practices in place, the increased techno gizmos and complex systems will only imcrease maintenance burdens on already smaller crews and worsen the dependence on civilian contractor technicians having to go to war zones to fix broken stuff.
And there's quite a lot of merit to this in some ways. As a shining example of this we have the West's love affair with chainguns which are extraordinarily expensive, hard on vehicles, hard on vehicles systems, consume prodigious amounts of parts, require civilian technical staff to keep running, and etc cetera ad nauseum.
They represent the absolute worst in the western defense world's tendencies to over engineer and over complicate which has the consequences we are arguing about here in this thread.
We now see people wanting to stick these multi hundred thousand dollar guns onto nearly everything, Don't get me wrong I'm onboard with the urgent need for much higher proportions of our force having something better than an m2 or mk19, but the technical path they've chosen to go down to accomplish this is absolutely ruinous.
More importantly though, it doesn't have to be this way. I'm attaching a picture of the colt cr-26 cannon design from the 1960's originally intended to be submitted for the Bradley gun competition. It's specs can be found online at smallarmsreview.com by searching for colt I the search bar on their homepage. You can download a free nonprintable PDF version of it's spec sheet there for more information.
Colt cr26 key performance specs:
Caliber: 26.5mm
Rounds available APFSDS and HE
Muzzle energy: (almost exactly halfway between 30x113 and 25mm Bushmaster)
Cyclic rate: 550 rpm
Mounting requirement: (any mount rated for m2/mk19 as long as it's mounted in included soft recoil cradle) similar peak trunnion force to m2 machine gun.
Features: dual selectable feed, single shot and full auto capable, very low system weight (all up well under 200 pounds including feed system which is not included in m230 weight spec manual and power charger/triggers etc)
When you find out that things like this have been available since the 60's and would cost an order of magnitude less per gun while also not requiring the onerous hardening 30*113 chaingun installations REQUIRE to keep them from beating themselves their RWS and the vehicle they're mounted to into scrap it's quite frustrating.
Note: please bear in mind when looking at especially the ammo specs that this is a late 60's design and modernized ammunition could substantially improve it's performance.
Note 2: Yes this is a Russell s. Robinson design. Yes I have a bunch more Robinson information and pictures including a PDF of his two articles in fighting firearms magazine. Yes I will add whatever the mods will allow in the relevant army systems and other threads. If people need copies of the articles etc for their research I will gladly oblige. Just shoot me a PM.
www.armytimes.com
