Vehicle questions

[kcdusk]

A few vehicle questions

1. What sort of observation modifiers do you consider when looking at a buttoned up tank/AFV? Difficult?

2. What sort of observation modifiers do you consider for a tank/AFV with exposed crew?

3. With the Abrams tank, who fires the main gunner (the gunner?), the coaxial MAG MG (the gunner again?) and the M2HB (the exposed commander?)?

4. Would any weapons be remote controlled in T2K?

5. Separate question on remote weapons (more for a Merc setting) if a vehicle fired a weapon remotely (ie buttoned up) would any penalty apply to hit? I’d also consider an observation check being necessary to locate a target via TV, sound reasonable?

[Targan]

The commander or gunner can fire the main gun and coax MG of an Abrams as far as I know. I've heard many times descriptions of the commander being able to override the turret traverse to bring the main gun in line with his preferred target. I'm sure afew members of this forum have actually done that job and can give a much more accurate answer than me though.

[dragoon500ly]

As far as tanks go, the Tank Commander (TC) is responsible for spotting targets and laying the main gun in the general direction of the target, the gunner is responsible for final laying on the target. While the gunner can scan for targets he is restricted by the narrow field of view of the Gunner's Periscope (he does have the highest power optics). The Driver and Loader are also responsible for spotting for targets, in their own fields of views. During combat however, the Loader is often forced to button up and focus on the loading of the main gun. This is why the TC has several periscopes in his coupola and often fights the tank with his hatch in the partially open position (it increases his field of view). This is alo why the tank commander will often lay the gun in the general direction of the target, and then resume scanning for other targets and calling his observations of the fall of shot to the gunner.

US Tank Gunnery tables often require that the TC closely supervises the gunner (this is a safety measure, but it is a very bad habit). Numerous WWII/Korean/Vietnam veterans that I've talked to over the years often tell important it is that the TC has his head out of the hatch so that he can observe what is going on around the tank, spot for antitank fire, etc. A second pair of eyes watching the same sight picture as the gunner is, at best, unnecessary.

[dragoon500ly]

The main gun and co-axial machine gun are controlled by the gunner, the tank commander can override as neccessary, but he does not have direct access to the fire control computer or weapon selection panel. This has often led to the "TC's Dance" where he fires w/o a gunner and tries to keep watch through his scopes, and kick the selector from main gun to co-ax, while also trying to lay on the target though his sight extension.


As for the top side machineguns, only the .50 can be fired from within the turret, the sight is, at best, useful only for pointing in the general direction and spraying the area. To reload the .50, the TC has to expose his upper body and switch out a one hundred round can of ammo (during the M-1 development program the TCs begged for a larger capacity ammo box of at least 300 rounds, but this was overruled). The loader's machinegun is a M-240C (the co-axial version of the M-240), it was intended as a replacement gun in case of the co-axial failing (lingering experience of the thrice-accursed M-219). There was always a calling out for this weapon to be replaced by a M-240G (the ground mount version) incase the crew had to bail out. The Army response was to rely on the four M-9 pistols and the M-16A2 stowed under the commander's seat.

To make tings even more fun, the loader's mount is the primary anti-aircraft weapon, the mount is a lot more flexible than the TC's mount.

[Panther Al]

The main gun and co-axial machine gun are controlled by the gunner, the tank commander can override as neccessary, but he does not have direct access to the fire control computer or weapon selection panel. This has often led to the "TC's Dance" where he fires w/o a gunner and tries to keep watch through his scopes, and kick the selector from main gun to co-ax, while also trying to lay on the target though his sight extension.


As for the top side machineguns, only the .50 can be fired from within the turret, the sight is, at best, useful only for pointing in the general direction and spraying the area. To reload the .50, the TC has to expose his upper body and switch out a one hundred round can of ammo (during the M-1 development program the TCs begged for a larger capacity ammo box of at least 300 rounds, but this was overruled). The loader's machinegun is a M-240C (the co-axial version of the M-240), it was intended as a replacement gun in case of the co-axial failing (lingering experience of the thrice-accursed M-219). There was always a calling out for this weapon to be replaced by a M-240G (the ground mount version) incase the crew had to bail out. The Army response was to rely on the four M-9 pistols and the M-16A2 stowed under the commander's seat.

To make tings even more fun, the loader's mount is the primary anti-aircraft weapon, the mount is a lot more flexible than the TC's mount.


That being said: Thats for the M1 and M1A1 series as far as the MG's go. On the M1A2, the M2 is on a flex mount, and can not be remote fired from under armour. It is however, much more flexible, and can be brought to bear quickly on a target pretty much in any direction. IE: The mount itself swivels, and the mount is on a slew ring that can be unlocked with one hand in about a second, and relocked in another, giving a pretty quick reaction time to about any angle of fire.

Now days, or rather, when I was on them a few years ago, there was a pair of dismount kits for the Coax and the Loaders MG's, which added a hand guard for the 240, a buttstock, bipod, and a mount to hang an ammo can off the side so that it can be used pretty much as a 240G. Couple that with the provision of 2 M4's, you got a pretty firepower heavy dismount capability.

And yes. You can, with a surprisingly small amount of work, mount a Mk19 in the TC spot on an A2.... not that I ever did so... *whistles innocently*

[dragoon500ly]

That being said: Thats for the M1 and M1A1 series as far as the MG's go. On the M1A2, the M2 is on a flex mount, and can not be remote fired from under armour. It is however, much more flexible, and can be brought to bear quickly on a target pretty much in any direction. IE: The mount itself swivels, and the mount is on a slew ring that can be unlocked with one hand in about a second, and relocked in another, giving a pretty quick reaction time to about any angle of fire.

Now days, or rather, when I was on them a few years ago, there was a pair of dismount kits for the Coax and the Loaders MG's, which added a hand guard for the 240, a buttstock, bipod, and a mount to hang an ammo can off the side so that it can be used pretty much as a 240G. Couple that with the provision of 2 M4's, you got a pretty firepower heavy dismount capability.

And yes. You can, with a surprisingly small amount of work, mount a Mk19 in the TC spot on an A2.... not that I ever did so... *whistles innocently*

Ya got me Tex! Should have stated that was for the M-1/M-1A1.

When the Abrams first came out, I can still remember, the begging, pleading, knashing of teeth and back-stabbing for a dismount kit for the M-240s.

For more entertainment....

The M-60A1 had its M-85C mounted in a manually powered coupola. That required (shall we say) an impressive act of physical agility in order to engage anything moving faster than 30 miles per hour. It had a capacity of roughly 130 rounds (the manual says 150, but I've never seen that much loaded and NOT have a jam in the feed chute). To load, you had to crank the machine gun down to max depression, stand up in the hatch, open the armored cover and then load your belt into the magazine, pausing to go back into the coupola to feed the belt into the ammo tray. Not a fast process under any conditions!

For the M-48s (the early series), the coupla was even smaller than than the M-60s, but the ammo box was often just the standard 105rd belt, or, in some models a 50-round belt that just dangled from the machine gun. Reloading was just as much a PITA as with the M-60 series.

Something intresting about the two coupola designs, the M-48s were always considered to be the more accurate of the two. In the Vietnam War, there are several instances of a TC, cranking his timing down to single shot and then using the M-48 optics to "snipe" out to 2,000 meters. Something that the M-60 just could not do.

[dragoon500ly]

So what is the ideal smalls arm mix for a tank crew?

Never had any issues with a pistol, face it, trying to come out of a hatch, a pistol had several advantages over a rifle. The M-4 carbines are perhaps the best mix with the M-240s fitted with their ground mounts being an ideal addition.

I've always felt that a better weapon for a TC was a shotgun, an automatic by choice. During my tours in Germany, I've done many arms room inspections and in the personnel weapons lockers, there was always an intresting mix of magnum revolvers and shotguns...and the First Sergeants BAR was looked upon with envy.

[Panther Al]

While there was a story in "Armour" about, oh, a decade ago, that talked about this.

The guy that wrote it was pushing for MP5K PDW's. Not a bad idea, but I think he was a little off base. Some very good arguments for a P90, after all, it was designed for armour crews to actually keep them *on* them whilst in the tank, so bailing out would leave them with a pretty decent small arm.

Now, I love the P90 - Had a PS90 for a bit and wish I still had it - and can see a lot of plusses for them. But while its better than a pistol calibre weapon, I think in the end, everyone with a pistol and have stowed outside the armour a dismount kit for the Loaders MG, and a trio of bullpups. Bullpups allow the rifles to have a full length barrel and still be small enough figuring out stowage won't be an issue. I would further recommend - as crazy as this might sound - that the bullpup be the same calibre as the dismount MG: This way you won't have problems with finding plenty of ammo. So, say the tank is mobkilled, or that the crew has to perform dismount ops, you have a pretty decent little fire team that can hold its own under ordinary conditions.

[Tegyrius]

Slight tangent, but the more I read about the P90, the more convinced I am that the terminal ballistics on the 5.7x28mm cartridge don't justify its capability to pierce soft armor. I've handled PS90s and I love the ergonomics (until I have to reload), but I wouldn't want to rely on one to stop someone who was trying to kill me.

- C.

[Panther Al]

I think it all comes down to the question of *why* you are arming your tankers:

Is it so that they have enough firepower to move away from a dead track to a safer location, or is it so that should the need arise, they can perform dismounted operations?

Ifs a break contact reason, then the P90 is perfect: Lots of rounds in the magazine, easy to control, easy to use, and reasonably effective over its designed range gate. Enough to keep the other guys at bay long enough to, well to be frank, run away.

If its a dismount capability, then you would want dismount kits for the MG's and full up rifles.

[DigTw0Grav3s]

Can anyone talk about the more specialized types of M1 ammo, like MPAT?

I've also heard that HEAT was a preferred round against enemy armor over the sabot, under certain circumstances. Any truth to this?

[Panther Al]

Can anyone talk about the more specialized types of M1 ammo, like MPAT?

I've also heard that HEAT was a preferred round against enemy armor over the sabot, under certain circumstances. Any truth to this?

Heh.

I don't think I ever saw a live MPAT round in the wild ever. Only rounds I've fired outside of gunnery was a trio of DU's and almost a dozen HEAT - and one glorious Canister. Good gravy 1400 quarter inch balls made a mess. In general though, there was very little call for DU overseas outside the first month of operations. Past that, all we was shooting at was buildings and pickup trucks.

Now for the really oddball stuff, thats pretty much all Israeli. They have come up with some neat things, but when you get down to it, nothing much to say really. You have 4 basic types: Those that go boom when they hit (HEAT), those that don't - go boom or stop going (APDS), those that go off when they get close to or hit something (MPAT), and the 1/12 gauge shotgun shell (Canister).