From: email@example.com (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Assault Guns
Date: 3 Jan 2001 01:03:57 -0800
Yevgeniy Chizhikov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 4) I don't think that a turretless tank is the way to go: limited
>> offensive capability (difficult to shoot on the move), very limited
>> span of target acquisition and engagement, much more difficult to do
>> rapid, accurate gunnery.
>I would disagree with that. Everything I read indicates that
>"turretless tanks" are just tanks with VERY small turret which only
>mount gun. Crew is inside the hull. There is no problem with either
>accuracy or other stuff.
Uh, that would be unmanned or remote turrets, not turretless.
The S-tank is a turretless tank (fixed hull mounted gun).
The Panzerkampfwagen (?sp) self propelled 90mm gun was a
turretless tank with a non-fixed mount (gun has some traverse
and elevation capability). The SU-100, SU-85, ASU-85, SU-125
ex-Soviet self propelled guns are turretless like the Pkfw.
The issue with unmanned or remote turrets as you describe is
that the commander's below the turret top. If they're riding
in their seat, they can't see over the turret to their side or rear
through vision blocks, though you might have another independent
commanders' sight of some sort elevated on the turret.
If they're riding head out of the tank, they have to keep
their torso more exposed to have their head at or above
the level of the top of the turret, and you have to avoid
slewing the gun with the commander's head up there or you
end up whacking them with the gun and injuring them.
In some designs (the Expeditionary Tank, for example) the gun's
in an elevated pod which you can see *under*, but you can't
effectively get on top of. The gun therefore is the tallest
part of the tank, and an enemy may well sight the gun pod
before the commander sights the enemy. Big tactical disadvantage
-george william herbert