If an extra pair of eyes was so important, then MBT designs would have retained the Radio Operator's position solely for that purpose.
Except that in that case that crew member was in the worst position to observe the battle or surroundings. The hull. And had no other real function depending on National Army they were the BOG, Radioman or assistant driver. The position that they had in the hull was generally lost in the first generation MBT for ammunition. As the assistant driver or BOG already had a poor visibility point they really couldn’t navigate the tank and as the radio became more easily operated from the turret.
We are arriving back at the earlier point wherein passive advantages are ever diminishing against active advantages. To keep focusing on the narrow view range of the gunner's sight is to forget the fact that the gunner has way more better equipment that more than makes up for it, this is not WW2 where a gunners sight is basically a x3 or 6 magnification scope and in an age where MBTs and anti tank weapons can engage a MBT beyond human eye sight and perception it is highly doubful that a loader even with binoculars can make much of a difference and again, why can't the extra person removed from the loader's position be assigned as a scout unit? The extra man isn't dead or gone.
It seems like I have to point this out but I am
Not actually a proponent of the extra man theory as much. Having that individual assigned to an APC makes a lot of sense to me.
the function of the gunner is to engage the target not find them. Originally. This is the soda straw I keep pointing to. The gunner operates with the weapons sights. That limits his frame of reference to what he is able to see though the optics available he is isolated to those. They are excellent make no mistake far superior to those that came before but limited like wearing blinders.
Having that second extra set of eyes can help maintain situational awareness. But in combat that individual is not involved in sighting it’s mostly in patrol. In this way the extra eyes of the loader are more for navigation or spotting potential trouble. If in battle the loader is servicing the weapons as job one.
Also a gunner can also attend to fixing the gun in case if there is any marginal errors that occurs, what I find frustrating is the idea that people seem to think that the designers of autoloaders are so daft as to not design them to be accessible in the case emergency repairs or maintenance are needed,
All machines need repairs and maintenance those who make the pro four man crew argument however do have a point. The automatic loader system is another complex machine in a complex of complex machines. The crew of the tank has to do most of the repairs and maintenance of the tank. You can’t go calling on the Recovery vehicle for every issue. Tanks are built heavy and a lot of the maintenance is heavy labor having a extra set of biceps around makes it a little easier. This is one of the lessons of German tanks in world war 2 by the way.
that the idea that once a round is loaded there is no way to remove it other than firing the gun. Just because we have not seen it happening does not mean it does not exist. Since the gun is non functional there is no reason for the gunner to be at his post, besides the TC can pick up where the gunner left off.
It can be done in most tanks but for T14 which you pointed to a number of times it’s more of an issue.
Because the turret is unmanned and the crew are encapsulated. Getting to the breach to clear an issue becomes a problem.
However you did forget something here.
If the main gun is down for whatever reason the TC has there commanders weapon usually a 50 cal. The Gunner has the coaxial normally a 30 cal.
If you have infantry in the mix it’s hard to pull one of those two off to try and clear an issue if they are both now fighting. The Coaxial is the second weapon under the control of the gunner, although the gunner’s station can be slaved by the TC he can only attack one target at a time.
The inescapable as I see it is this,
Abrams, Challenger 2, Ariete, Altay, Leopard 2, Merkava IV are never going to change from crews of 4 to crews of 3 as standard.
It would take far to much of a system change and resources. The tanks that follow them may drop to crews of 3, the Israelis Carmel and US FCS have even looked at crews of 2 using AI and computers to take the place of the gunner. But that’s still some time off.
I know that the late cold war period saw the design and plans for many uprated tank guns and I also know that the end of the cold war shelved these plans.
Shelves but they have been dusted off.
K2 is what I consider a roadmap to the Abrams successor and its built to convert to 140mm by dropping in the tube and the ammo.
Farther more despite having been “Shelved” of late a number of similar products have come back the 40CT gun of the British French, the US 50mm are both systems form IFV programs that began that same time.
But I consider the T14 and the new 130mm Rhm tank gun to be the start of a new thread in the 20th century.
21st century?
L51 is an interesting gun but is it all it’s cracked up as? First it’s actually a compromise between the 120mm and 140mm. That said where the performance increase is coming from isn’t the that 10mm increased diameter but the length. A very long rod penetrator. The aim being to increase pressure and length of penetrator. It’s the second most simple form of upgrade a tank gun can get. After the L55 which was basically the same compromise.
The 130mm was developed by Rheinmetall as a product seeking a costumer not by NATO or any National Army. It’s also very heavy the L55 barrel weighs 3 tons the L51 weighs 3.5 tons. That’s a huge mass to be pointing at targets. The reason the US never adopted the L55 was during testing of it the gun showed a considerable oscillation and stabilization issues. The large weight demanded a heavier mount. A larger round even heavier loader and magazine demanding a larger heavier turret meaning a larger heavier... you get where this is going.
The US was looking at off and on a lightweight gun the XM360 that had similar caliber and could fire the same rounds as the M256 variant of the L44 but only weighed a little over 2 tons.
That gun by the way was last seen on the MPF Griffin Light tank in September 2016 at AUSA. Yet still got increased performance because of the materials used allowed higher pressures than the L44.
There are still other potential means. South Korea was said to be looking at a Electrochemical technology gun. It was also looked into among the technologies trailed off and on since those 90s programs. The aim being to achieve a more controlled propellant burn by electrical ignition with plasma. It achieved in tests an increased impact performance from 120mm guns in demonstrations almost equal to 140mm guns.
As to T14, the numbers don’t pan. This seems like another T64. It will be small numbers for very elite units. Unless something changes like a major export buy. The main Russian tanks will likely remain those we know improved T72, updated T80, and T90 for a considerable time period. They may acquire more of the secondary vehicles but T14 is the unicorn.
And while the T-14 has weaker side armor and rear, it is not as if the Abrams is expected to be executing cunning and stealth flanking maneuvers on a regular basis. If that be the case then the 105mm royal ordanance would still be the premier tank gun of NATO as it can still pen the sides and rear of existing Russian tanks just fine.
The 120mm should be able to engage the turret and knock that out and there goes the tank as a weapon. Again impressive frontal armor on the hull but thiner on the turret. 120mm isn’t dead yet just as neither is the 125mm used by Russia and China. It’s only a question of upgrades.
