Combat Vehicle crew numbers - what's your take?

[Terrace]

In any hypothetical BT story I'd write, I'd par down the crew members of any combat vehicle down to two or three, regardless of how much they weigh. My reasoning is thus:

1. Access to fire control systems similar to Battlemechs means you only need a single gunner for any vehicle, regardless of how many guns it carries.

2. Autoloaders copied from Battlemechs means you don't need a dedicated loader position.

3. Communications technology is at a level that a Mechwarrior can handle his communications on his own, barring dedicated command 'Mechs that cover large units. Thus, the average combat vehicle does not need a Comms operator.

So, with these tech advantages in mind, any combat vehicle really only needs to fill three positions, two on smaller vehicles (which would require a single crew member taking on two roles). Commander, Gunner, and Driver.

Obviously the official rules say differently, but that's something I personally ignore.

How do you resolve the issue of crew sizes, assuming you don't go with the canon explanation?

[Iceweb]

Tanks are cheap, life is even cheaper. 
If your cutting costs using a lower tech unit instead of a mech, you are likely looking to save where you can, and manual labor is likely cheaper than that expensive autoloader. 

Basically an offshoot of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeWillUseManualLaborInTheFuture   
Not every tank will use this.  It would be more common on a Quikcell Hetzer than on a shiny Alcorn, but do I really want to automate the comms officer with an expensive wunderlands system as opposed a guy with a radio who I don't have to pay anymore if he doesn't come back? 

[snewsom2997]

I think it really depends on the number of weapons.

My Take is Commander/Gunner and Driver for small Vehicles, VTOL, with only a single turret
On larger Vehicles, Commander, Driver, one Gunner for Turret Weapons, and an addition gunner each side, front and back weapon, and a person for any extra comms equipment. Maybe the Driver handles the front facing weapons, and the Commander can handle the Side and back facing weapons, but I believe dedicated folks would be better.

[Daryk]

I usually stick to Goblins or lighter, so it's not a problem...

[Terrace]

Tanks are cheap, life is even cheaper. 
If your cutting costs using a lower tech unit instead of a mech, you are likely looking to save where you can, and manual labor is likely cheaper than that expensive autoloader. 

Basically an offshoot of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeWillUseManualLaborInTheFuture   
Not every tank will use this.  It would be more common on a Quikcell Hetzer than on a shiny Alcorn, but do I really want to automate the comms officer with an expensive wunderlands system as opposed a guy with a radio who I don't have to pay anymore if he doesn't come back?

Yes, because we've never seen any comm system in Battlemechs that can't be used by the pilot while in the midst of operating the rest of the 'Mech outside of Command 'Mechs that are specifically carrying extra communications gear. This implies the Communications System is user-friendly enough that it can be an afterthought, and thus it's operation in Combat Vehicles can simply be rolled into the Commander's duties.

Second, the weapons are the same as those found on Battlemechs, and I personally assume autoloaders are built into each weapon. They need autoloaders anyway. Would you trust someone to lug a 125kg nickel-iron cannonball into place to fire a Gauss Rifle at a rate fit for combat? And then there's energy weapons that don't need to be reloaded. Thus, I would be shocked to find a dedicated loader, even for a Hetzer.

[Dayton3]

In Hammer's Slammers,   the huge (170 ton) hovertanks routinely operated with a commander/gunner and a driver.

In real life,   tanks have operated in combat with the same setup even though most are made for 4 man crews.

[Kovax]

You've got a driver, a dedicated commander, and a dedicated gunner.  Anyone beyond that is there for maintenance and repair duties, and can also operate a weapon against a secondary target if it's more convenient to do so than to have the gunner divide his/her attention.  If you've got that big vehicle with lots of guns and equipment that takes a team of 5 to maintain, it kind-of makes sense to let one of those spare crewmen handle one or two of the defensive weapons to give them something "useful" to do during combat, rather than just sit there and feel helpless.

[Col Toda]

A combat vehicle with 3 gunners only start to take multiple targeting penalties starting on target # 4 . This is the biggest advantage a combat vehicle has.

[marcussmythe]

“How many people does it take to change a track?”

Thats your minimum.  If the vehicle cannot support itself in day to day maintainance, your deployment may have problems.  A little frew redundancy isnt bad either.

For unitary primary armament I prefer 3-4.  Driver, Gunner, Commander, and maybe a 4th for loader/Comms/EW Specialist/etc.  If you have separate armament, relaistically you may want an extra gunner.