Tank carry capacity

[Imp]

But I think that the turret design of most modern MBT is a factor you must take into account. Most turrets are relatively "short" in the vertical but quite sizeable in length and width. They cover most of the upper surface of the tank's hull. Add some "slopping" here and there and I think that you'll find that "riding" a tank isn't so easy as older tanks with smaller turrets and more available "space" on "deck".

Okay that actually makes a lot of sense & had not thought of, theres more room on top of Leos turret than anywhere else if you were going to ride it.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Imp

Leos & M series are used by a lot of nations so if they can carry why cant others is what my point was.

BESIDES the Abrams just exactly which tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?


I've made a note to look at the issue when I have time but I know it's been looked at before . You may note that carry cap still exists with the Challenger 1 but not the Chally 2 becasue of it's active protection systems. ( I have also made a note to check this as well as some tanks like the Chally 2 with VIRSS have no carry capacity but the Swiss Leos with the same system do and I'm betting the Swiss OOB is in error on this issue )

AFAIK the reason the Abrams doesn't have a carry cap even though it has no active defense systems is do to training doctrine. The point is in the case of the Abrams tank riding is not done in RL and why it's not done in the game even though the normal reasons it's not done in the game don't apply and in the day of the M48/M60 this COULD BE accepted pracitce it stopped being so with the Abrams. ( something to do with the blow out roof panels on ammo storage on the turret ? )

Don

[Suhiir]

I suspect it's more a matter of :

A) More infantry transports being available.
B) The new "safe" military.

Many things that were standard practice up till the 70's became "too dangerous" in the 80's for many western nations (notibly the USA).

Much like the current trend toward trying to turn HMMWV's into armored cars.

Originally Posted by DRG

BESIDES the Abrams just exactly which tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?

Don

May want to change this to "which non engineer/mine clearing tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?"

*gives a cute smile and bats her eyes*

[Imp]

Don
Okay so the Abrams is the exeption due to training the criteria for not having a carry capacity are missile defence or reactive armour. It was the fact the Abrams cant & the Leo can that first struck me as why.

Finland MBT (15) T-55MS has VIRSS & carry capacity is only one I know of that does not conform.

[Wdll]

Doesn't the VIRSS cost more than a T-55? lol

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

May want to change this to "which non engineer/mine clearing tanks that do not have an active defence system don't have a carry capacity?"

*gives a cute smile and bats her eyes*

The reason "engineer/mine clearing" tanks are NOT given a carry capacity should be obvious to anyone with an imagination and that is why I didn't include that in my comment.

Don

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Imp

Don
Okay so the Abrams is the exeption due to training the criteria for not having a carry capacity are missile defence or reactive armour. It was the fact the Abrams cant & the Leo can that first struck me as why.

Finland MBT (15) T-55MS has VIRSS & carry capacity is only one I know of that does not conform.

I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

I have the seating diagram for an M1 somewhere in the US Army PDF field manuals. I cannot find it but recall several problems, which may be why it is only used non-tactically.

- The engine exhaust causes problems with possible cooked troops. Thus loading and unloading requires care, and not to be done over the rear. So probably only at the halt (no turning tracks to eat troops limbs).

- The M1 has to disengage turret traverse while carrying.

- the section had to sit in a set pattern on the turret top - not the rear engine decks.

Cannot recall if any discussion of the blow out ammo panels not being sat on - as if they had suffered a catastrophic hit that caused the blow outs to pop then the infantry section would likely already be strawberry jam a few milliseconds before that event happened!.

In reality - M1s in combat have enough kit tied all over the turret that the clean configuration required to give some guys a lift is not available. And US formations will have enough APCS and Humvees that administrative lift perched on top of the turret is not needed.

Tactically - the requirement to halt for mounting, take extrem care from exhaust heat, disengagement of the gun turret, and the highly exposed position of the grunts all sat around the rim of the turret, are all bad. Tank riding is just not needed.

Andy

I do remember (unless memory is playing tricks) reading it was actually done in Iraq early in the war, though only few times. It was along the lines of what you describe, 4-5 guys riding on the turret top, to act as extra eyes and tank desant if needed. Note that this was done at the beginning when there were not enough APCs (and, in some cases, even rifles) for everyone anyway.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Marcello

I do remember (unless memory is playing tricks) reading it was actually done in Iraq early in the war, though only few times. It was along the lines of what you describe, 4-5 guys riding on the turret top, to act as extra eyes and tank desant if needed. Note that this was done at the beginning when there were not enough APCs (and, in some cases, even rifles) for everyone anyway.

The section is in Appendix B - Integration of Heavy, Light, and Special Operation Forces (at B-11) in this document:

FM 71-123
TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES FOR COMBINED ARMS HEAVY FORCES: ARMORED BRIGADE, BATTALION TASK FORCE, AND COMPANY TEAM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...123/index.html

Andy

[Mobhack]

Well - B11 was the page in my PDF version - the HTML one does not have pages, but look for a picture of an M1 and Tank-Mounted Infantry heading.

Andy