Tank-commanders and the open-hatch...

In all the advances made to benefit tanks... and tankers, it seems when the lead starts flying, the first reflex for a tank-commander is to pop his hatch for a quick look-see... and expose himself to shrapnel and small-arm's fire.
The Israeli's lost a lot of commanders in the six-day war as a result... just as countless Allied and Axis tank-commanders in WW2 were wounded or killed when they felt the need to expose their heads to see what was happening around them.

I'm wondering why some savvy designer hasn't come-up with a bullet-proof clear bubble that would enable a commander to scope-out the scene with a measure of small-arms/shrapnel protection.

I don't think you can fault the commander for wanting situational awareness, and let's face it, buttoned-up in a 65ton monster doesn't give one a clear view of what's happening as the battle develops.

Any thoughts?

Tim

 

Nice question.
Problems as I see them:
It has to be of a material that is clear enough to not obscure vision at all,
it has to be tough enough to withstand being shot at (small arms because the guy with his head up will be a target, HE-proof from near misses and anything else coming past)
it has to be HARD enough to resist scratching from small arms impact, shrapnel and foliage/ brickwork etc. otherwise it becomes impossible to see through properly and the commander is back to having himself exposed again.
It has to be easily removed when damaged and small enough to carry spares, not interfere internally in the turret, not get in the way of closing the hatches.
The closest I've ever come across a material that would do this in 30+ years of engineering is called unobtanium
As the suppliers say, weighs next to nothing, 10 times stronger than steel and half the price. But none in stock at the moment and not sure when the next delivery is.
Seriously I think there have been proposals for a sort of "rising tube" that moves up to surround the commander when he's head out and could be fairly quickly replaced. But it took up too much room inside the turret when hatches were closed and was too restrictive around the commander when up.
A multi-camera system has also been proposed for all-round vision without sticking your head out (cheap CCD easily-replaceable types) but,
IIRC from studies I've seen on such devices (from tests with externally-mounted gun vehicles) people still vastly prefer a Mark 1 eyeball view.

 

Oli:
It seems like such a simple thing to rectify, but fact is, most TC's value those MkI eyeballs above all-else.
In todays' fighting in Iraq, the same problem faces TCs as their grandfathers in WW2. I modeled a Bradley for a commander who took an AK-round in the head when he peeked out of his hatch for a sit-rep during a firefight.
I see lots of testing of personal body-armor these days. One of the materials that fascinated me was the clear-plastic polymers. They were stopping all small-arms calibers, and shotguns. Seems to me a clear, ballistic bubble hinged at back to flip out of the way would enable a TC to add a valuable measure of situational awareness, and be relatively imperious to the snipers' bullet.
The only drawback I can think might be the issue of it being a possible hindrance when bidding a hasty bail-out of said MBT.
I just can't believe some solution hasn't been found. Lord knows, when the battle's raging, the TC wants to see for himself and looking through a vision block or periscope is not even close to 'them MkI eyeballs.

Tim

 

Yeah there are a good number of plastics that are "bullet proof" to one extent or another (Lexan for one) but the problem is that, although it's impact resistant, it's not particularly scratch-resistant. So although a cover would provide some protection for a while it would become less and less worth looking through - and most likely at the most inconvenient moment. At which point it would be discarded and the TC would be back to being exposed.
I haven't really looked at more modern/ high-impact variants of Lexan so far. But I do agree - it should be a simple fix. I'll have to do some Googling. Presumably it will have been looked at by various militaries, but their reasons for not adopting such a system... who knows? Maybe there'll be something on the net.

 

Not to long ago, I saw two military Humvees on the highway, one of which had what looked like a bullet steel backing with two pieces of bullet proof glass/plastic curved round the sides to the front.
Though there was an open slit between the to two ends to make room for the gun, and there was no top part.

Seems like something you mentioned is in the works

 

Does not the M1 Abrams have on covering the 50cal on the turret?

 

I think that the ultimate answer will be all-round cameras (including thermal imaging to give good visibility at night and in other situations where the naked eye can't see much). The technology exists to merge the views from several cameras dotted around the tank to give a clear 360 degree view, which might be projected onto a visor on the commander's helmet. The motion sickness currently experienced with such devices could be countered by a helmet sensor which responds to the wearer's head movements, so if he turns his head around the view will move exactly as if he was seeing it with his naked eyes. The technology all exists, it's a matter of putting it together and fitting it into a tank.

This would be one element of my own design for a 'future manned tank' (if there ever is such a thing!). The fact that the crew wouldn't need to put their heads out means that they could be buried deep in the tank's hull, towards the back, where it's safest. There would be an externally-mounted gun with an autoloader in the middle, and the engine and drive at the front like the Merkava. You would only need two crew - commander and driver - either of whom could act as the gunner (or drive - via an aircraft-stle joystick). They would both have the all-round-view helmets I described above, with the ability to project a gunsight over the view (and to zoom in at high magnification as required). To permit the maximum cross-country speeds, they would sit in special seats separated from the tank by hydraulic mountings controlled by a stabiliser, so as the tank jumped around they would suffer much less (think flight simulator in reverse). This would also provide excellent anti-mine protection.

However, I suspect that the next generation of tanks may be unmanned...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Another big problem with an external clear bubble is that it will get dusty. Might not sound very damaging but it would certainly degrade the view.

How about tackling the problem from a different angle. Instead of providing an external armoured bubble or shield for the TC, why not just give the guy a full set of upper-body armour and a bulletproof helmet with visor? Ok, so it is clunky, and could be limiting in his movements, but it offers almost as much visability as an unarmoured man would get with a heck of a lot more protection. The only issue is that you might need to make the hatch slightly bigger so he can get out in a hurry...

 

Whilst such body armour would provide reasonable protection against shrapnel and debris kicked up by HE (which apparently is the most common cause of injury on the battlefield) but how effective would it be against a direct hit from an AK47 round at 150 yards or less?

I was led to believe that personal battlefield armour wasn't massivly effective against directed rifle fire and simply wasn't desgined to stop such hits in any event.

FNG

 

My, they were quick to respond to my suggestion!

From defense-aerospace.com:

"BAE Systems will develop a situational awareness capability for U.S. Army combat vehicles. BAE Systems' Distributed Aperture System (DAS) will enable the vehicle driver, crew members, and soldiers riding inside to "see" through the armor of the vehicle, providing enhanced situational awareness for driving and before dismounting.

DAS will be developed and demonstrated for the U.S. Army's Research, Development and Engineering Command's Night Vision & Electronic Sensors Directorate. The two-year program will culminate with BAE Systems' installation of the DAS on an M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle modified to simulate a notional vehicle crew station.

The DAS provides independent, simultaneous, closed-hatched hemispherical views of the area surrounding the vehicle. It can function day or night, and when the vehicle is moving or stationary.

"DAS answers a dire need for our mounted war fighters by giving them situational awareness they need right now -- in both urban warfare settings and in open terrain," said Jim Bob Bryant, Tactical Decision Systems Director for BAE Systems at Austin, Texas.

Camera pods mounted around the vehicle will provide a combined field of view that covers 360 degrees and a view from the horizon to directly above the vehicle. The cameras operate in both visible and long-wave-length spectral bands. The real-time images from the vehicle's exterior are seamlessly merged so war fighters inside can easily, safely, and effectively view the entire environment around them.

BAE Systems will use the company's uncooled long-wave infrared cameras for its imaging capability."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

My prediction - we will end up having a big ECM reaction to these systems, ranging from the simple (shoot the cameras) to the high-tech (jamming devices, something designed to screw up IR sigatures etc), so in about 5-10 years we'll be back with the Mk1 eyeball again.

Call me a cynic if you wish...

 

Well, anything that can take out several small camera lenses, poking through very small holes in the armour in various places, can take the head off anyone who pokes it over the top, so I can't see that being a factor. Nor can I see a closed-circuit optical-fibre system being jammed. And screwing up IR signatures is a hell of a lot more difficult than just camouflaging something so the naked eye can't see it...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

But you can get cammo nets that also help conceal IR signatures...

And who knows what fancy gadgets they'll invent in the next few years, especially if they have this as something to work against.

btw - would having a series of (admittedly small) holes in the armour weaken it at all? Is it compatable with Chobham? How would it be effected if the plate of armour took a hit?

 

True, but the human eye looking through optronics which have the ability to scan a far wider frequency range than the unaided eye is always going to see through camouflage better than the eye alone.

I doubt it - there are holes in the turret front already for the coax MG and the gunsights.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to have computer controlled tanks? Half the bloody thing is already computerized. Target locking, machine guns on the tankcan be shot thru a remote, vision computer aided, etc etc.

 

Are you talking about a remote controlled tank or a tank controlled entirely by artificial intelligence?

The latter is not feasible by 2006.

 

And the main gun of course!

 

Panzerman I beleive the first is possilbe since some tanks have a self-reloading system.

 

Google for PROWLER - Programmable Robot Observer With Logical Enemy Response. A wheeled remote-control vehicle that selects what weapons to fire (7.62mm MG, 40mm grnade launcher) on its own if not under direct control.

 

Protection verus degraded senses has been a trade off since ye-olden-days. I would guess that a flak jacket and helmet that could stop small arms fire even at short range is probably the easiest way to go. It would be bulky but since a tanker isn't required to run around like an infantryman it would probably be an acceptable trade off.