[mattress]

It seems kind of ridiculous that it took that long to realize getting out of the armor left them open to attack. Did everyone have to take a break at the and time? 37% of casualties from soldiers outside of their armor. Really Brits? Really?

[noir_lord]

Tanks of the time where cramped and crews often had to be outside for other tasks, if you think about it it makes senses that casualties would be higher outside armoured vehicles since small arms fire would be effective, this wasn't just a British problem as the article implies.

[sliverstorm]

As I understand it, they were a lot like early subs- spending most of the time cruising with all the hatches open, crew hanging out on top, only clambering inside, closing hatches, and diving when the enemy was spotted. Neither early subs nor early tanks could be lived in sealed up all day, and visibility was poor from inside to boot so scouting happened with hatches open..

[noir_lord]

Exactly that, they also carried supplies and fuel externally as their simply wasn't space internally.

They where much smaller than modern tanks and didn't have autoloaders so they where incredibly cramped.

Modern armoured warfare is largely a battle of logistics as keeping a tank in the field requires a huge amount of resources and manpower.

Comparison to submarines of the era is a good one, submarines have been one of my enduring fascinations especially WW1 and WW2.

[sliverstorm]

One has only to look at tanks like the M3 Stuart with people around them:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m3stuart.jpg

It has a crew of 4. I believe you can see the driver & codriver through the viewports under the turret.

Then compare to an M1:

http://www.cybermodeler.com/armor/m1/images/m1_002.jpg

I wish I could find a photo of them side by side

[noir_lord]

Yup not to mention the modern stuff is climate controlled and has better ride quality all important for endurance especially when sealed up or in a NBC situation

[chillydawg]

Spot the non-Brit over here.