In a clear long-term trend, many users of armoured fighting vehicles are moving from crewed turrets to remote-controlled installations. What factors are driving this, and when does it still make sense to keep your commander and gunner next to their weapon?

The shift towards remote-controlled turrets (RCTs) has been justified on several grounds. One key aspect is increased survivability, as the crew are seated low down in the platform and in the case of some reconnaissance vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) the turret basket was taking up valuable space in the hull.

This analysis article originally appeared in June's Decisive Edge Land Warfare Newsletter.

Newsletter Sponsor:

Despite this, there are concerns about situational awareness with RCTs and remote weapon stations (RWS), and more than one crew member has stated to me that they sometimes get disorientated.

Direct vision can still be obtained using an old-school periscope but an increasing number of platforms use flat display screens at almost all crew stations and in IFVs and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) for the dismounts as well. Safety should be paramount, but sometimes it is still better to get a direct ‘visual’ of your target or other object of interest.

How are these trade-offs playing out in the market? Taking the most emblematic turreted AFV class first, traditionally, main battle tanks (MBTs) had a crew of four, with commander, gunner and loader seated in the turret and the driver in the hull.

To illustrate progress, Russian tanks up to the T-62 had this four-seat layout, but from the T-64 onwards through to the current T-90 only a three-person crew was needed as an autoloader was provided for the main gun. This still leaves commander and gunner in the turret.

Most recently Russia has developed the T-14 Armata MBT which has the three-person crew all seated at the front of the well-protected hull. The main armament is a 152mm smoothbore gun fed by an autoloader.

Other countries have experimented with RCTs for tanks, and Germany’s Rheinmetall and KNDS Deutschland have both shown remote-turret prototypes armed with a 130mm or 140mm main weapon.

In the US, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has promoted a variant of the M1 Abrams fitted with an RCT with the crew of three seated in the front of the hull.

This “AbramsX” has other advanced features including a hybrid powerpack and according to GDLS could bridge from the current Abrams SEPv3 and SEPv3 to a future MBT. Are RCT tanks the future? Western prototypes have not translated to orders yet, and it will certainly take a long time to replace legacy fleets, especially given how few manufacturers worldwide are still capable of developing an MBT.

Dominate the modern battlefield with DND‘s combat-proven technologies!

Moving down the scale, most armoured reconnaissance vehicles, tracked and wheeled, are normally fitted with a two-person turret armed with a cannon.

One arguably infamous example is the long-gestating GDLS UK Ajax family of vehicles (FOV) which is now finally entering service after a long and fraught development.

Ajax itself is the reconnaissance member and is a heavy and highly sophisticated platform which can undertake missions in almost all weather conditions as it has an advanced surveillance capability and can share information with other platforms. It is fitted with a two-person turret armed with a 40mm CTAS weapon.

Arguably, introducing an RCT would have added further complexity to a design that did not need it, but it may have mitigated some of the vibration problems experienced by Ajax’s crews (or not).

France looked at an RCT for its new reconnaissance platform, but in the end opted for the Jaguar 6x6 fitted with a crewed turret also armed with the 40mm CTAS and a pod of two Akeron ATGWs.

Australia is now taking delivery of the ARTEC Boxer 8x8 for the reconnaissance mission fitted with a Rheinmetall Lance two-person turret armed with a 30mm dual cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun (MG).

The Lance is also marketed in a remote version, allowing flexibility depending on the end user’s specific operational requirements. This seems sensible in terms of maximum compatibility across a fleet. Although, while much is made of modularity, the idea of re-roling platforms mid-conflict by swapping out components has yet to be seriously tested in combat.

Turning to IFVs, some are still fitted with a one-person turret that is typically armed with a stabilised 25mm cannon plus a 7.62mm MG. Examples of this are the French VBCI 8x8 and the tracked US Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

In both cases the gunner is in the turret and the commander sits in the hull behind the driver, so does not have situational awareness through 360 degrees. It seems obvious but the smaller the weapon, the smaller the turret, leaving room for less crew.

The VBCI solves the situational awareness problem with a stabilised panoramic sight mounted on the turret roof.

Taking a different approach (and arguably pushing the envelope of what an IFV is), the Russian BMP-3 is the best-armed vehicle of its class and has been produced in significant numbers, with the largest export customer being the United Arab Emirates.

It features a two-person turret armed with a 100mm main gun that can also fire laser-guided projectiles out to a maximum of 7,000m. It has a coaxial 30mm dual-feed cannon and a 7.62mm MG (almost as an afterthought?). The driver is (logically) seated at the front of the hull along with a pair of extra 7.62mm MGs operated by a dedicated gunner.

The BMP-3 carries seven dismounts in very cramped conditions who must climb over the diesel power pack at the rear of the vehicle to exit it. Somehow the design priorities do not seem quite right here!

The latest Russian IFV is the T-15 which weights around 50t with a crew of three plus nine dismounts. It has a very high levels of protection including passive and ERA elements.

This time it has an RCT armed with a stabilised 30mm dual-feed cannon and the inevitable 7.62mm MG, plus two pods of Kornet-EM laser guided missiles. This turret is also fitted to the Bumerang VPK-7829 8x8 IFV. This configuration should (in theory) offer better ergonomics for the dismounts.

What of current Western IFV design philosophy? After some delays the German Army is taking delivery of increasing numbers of PSM Puma tracked IFVs fitted with an RCT armed with a 30mm dual-feed cannon that can also fire air-bursting munitions.

It was originally supplied with a 5.56mm coaxial MG but at long last this is being replaced by a more effective 7.62mm weapon. A pod of two EuroSpike ATGWs is now being retrofitted on the left side of the turret.

Australia had a competition for a new tracked IFV and one requirement was that it must have a crewed turret, meaning the Puma was not entered into this contest.

Rheinemetall is design authority for the German Army’s long-serving Marder IFV and as a private venture designed and built the successor Lynx, with the first customer being Hungary. Budapest opted for a Lance crewed turret with 30mm cannon plus 7.62mm MG and a roof-mounted RWS armed with a 12.7mm MG, as well as an active protection system (APS).

The BAE Systems Hagglunds CV90 is one of the best-selling tracked IFVs on the market and so far all customers have opted for a crewed rather than remote turret. This preference indicates that situational awareness seems to take some priority over crew protection (and keeping the hull clear for dismounts) for many armies.

In America, things are different. After many false starts the US Army is working on the XM30 as a replacement for the veteran M2/M3 Bradley, with two contractors in the running, GDLS and Rheinmetall America. This will be a tracked vehicle fitted with an RCT armed with a 50mm dual-feed cannon from Northrop Grumman and a 7.62mm co-axial MG.

Finally, APCs in the past were normally armed with a 7.62mm or 12.7mm MG on a basic pintle mount with zero protection for the gunner. Today most designs, especially wheeled models, have a protected weapon station (PWS) armed with a similar gun or on some cases a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

These can have simple manual traverse and elevation but when the vehicle is on a slope this causes problems, so there is a trend to provide power assistance for the gunner. The main drawback is that the weapon is not stabilised, so the vehicle has to come to a halt to engage the target.

While PWS continue to be used, especially on wheeled APCs and patrol vehicles deployed for rear area work or internal security operations, the clear trend is to fit an RWS, albeit not a full turret. This would be ‘’overkill” for the task at hand and add unneeded weight and complexity.

Even RWS are not cheap, hence the persistence of the PWS for some applications and missions. A typical RWS such as Kongsberg’s Protector is normally armed with a stabilised 12.7mm MG and a sensor package of day and thermal cameras plus laser rangefinder. The latter allows for more accurate target engagement.

Taking the market as whole, while there is a clear trend to field IFVs with higher levels of protection and armament, and in some cases APS, whether they have a crewed turret or an RCT is still a matter for hot debate, with a seeming transatlantic divide.

Development of both types of system therefore continues (alongside the humble(r) PWS and RWS) meaning that operational needs and individual armies’ doctrinal preferences seem to be determining the debate rather than there being a clear technological winner.

As ever, trade-offs around risk, cost, weight and capability mean that industry needs to continue to field a sometimes bewildering range of products to satisfy all customers.

Don't want to miss out on future Decisive Edge content? Make sure you are signed up to our email newsletters.