Rupert replied to John:
You can't see nearly as well from inside a tank. It's much harder to
acquire and retain situational awareness. That's the commander's job.
There's a lot more stuff on the ground to run into, fall into, or get
stuck in. Avoiding that is the driver's job. He can't see all that
well.
[...]
None of these guys are selected as fiercely as fighter pilots, or get
nearly so much spent on their training.
John
[...]
On top of this, fighters operate with a *lot* of
ground/AWACS support that tanks simply don't have, though if we spent ~50M per
tank on electronics and networking, plus extra for real-time drone feeds to
command
centres that then pipe out the intell in near-real-time, like an AWACS does, a
tank might
have something similar - but it still wouldn't find those pesky infantry dug in
with
LAWS and such. However much the fighter pilots might like to claim otherwise,
the
ground combat environment is more complicated than the air combat environment.
More cluttered, more different kinds of threats, and worse (tactical) intel and
situational awareness. Yet, due to numbers and perceived value, we train
aircrews far
more extensively than tank crews and infantry.
So even with fighter-level automation and training, I wouldn't want a
single-operator ground AFVs? With two crew, would it be commander/gunner
and driver or commander/driver and gunner?
* Attack helicopters tend to put the pilot in command, right?
* Ground AFV with small crews would combine the commander and gunner
role. They don't do well, but I don't recall any which do it the other way.
Regards,
Onno
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
