Whither the Autoloader?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- I am dipping my toe into the Great Autoloader Debate. What are the pros? Are the cons all that bad? Where do we go from here?
For those who missed the three T-shirt campaigns, they are on re-issue right now, here. everpress.com/...
Autoloaders are just unreliable because nobody is using properly sanctified lubricants and performing the rites of reloading during the firing, how can you expect proper function without calming the machine-spirit?
Don't forget leaving the open can of WD-40 when you go out for a beer.
Cog Boy has a point. And don't forget reams of Scripture stuck everywhere with wax. Maybe paint it red...
Don't forget to light your incense candles too.
I'm having problems repairing the aircrafts for my fighter squadron, what proper sanctified lubricants and ritual rites should i use and do?
*autoloader broke down*
crewman: WHERE IS THE DAMN TECHPRIEST?
The other advantage to most Tankers is that an autoloader wont drink your Beer
unless your company handles it as the Chieftain showed with additional crewmen trailing along in APCs.
In that case, they will be in the prefect spot to drink all your beer while you are buisy fighting the tank...
Or your tea. Not even if the additional crewmen trail along in APCs since unlike beer, the tea is kept in the tank.
That will be fixed with the new M1029 beer canister round.
Can't buy you beer either tho.
Or Jodie your wife.
13:00 it seems that one set of the crews hasn't even finished evolving yet.
Those are Dinotankers ;)
in Germany those are referred to as Panzergrenadiers
@@rlosable not just in germany, i have heard the sentence.... "Halb Mensch, halb Tier.... ein Panzergrenadier"
@@nirfz I know it as "Es ist kein Mensch, es ist kein Tier, es ist ein Panzergrenadier" :)
@@nirfz There are a lot of "jokes" about Panzergrenadiers like "Tritt nie auf nen grünen Stein, denn es könnt ein Grennie sein" oder "Was ist der größte Feind des Panzergrenadiers? Der Rasenmäher, zerstört Deckung und Nahrung zugleich" ^^
Chieftain, I always find it hilarious that you are named for a British tank, are Irish, and drove American.
maskedmarmoset
And his fav tank is a swedish cold war tank that people misstake for a self propelled anti tank gun.
@ Because it is! If it has no turret, it's no a tank.
@@pmp1337 nope
@@pmp1337 An MBT is an all-target direct-fire vehicle produced after WWII which is armored and has battlefield mobility.
Strv 103 ("S Tank") is an MBT. This is what Strv (Stridsvagn) means: if it had been a self-propelled anti-tank gun it would have been designated as Pvkv 103 (Pansarvärnskanonvagn).
@@peterlewerin4213 And that definition is so fuzzy it is basically useless. They call it a tank, so it's a tank. That's it.
Mildly amused by the spontaneous evolution of crewmen at 13:00 ; Since we're losing the human in the right image, does that mean the loader is the peak of the tanker species?
damnit you beat me to it. I removed my similar comment.
No. It's just a machine taking over an automated task. The human still has to make the critical decisions.
Yes. No one can blame loader when shit goes wrong.
@@MarktheRude always blame the loader :)
When I saw that, I had to pause the vid just to check if someone has already made mention of it in the comments!
Great Easter egg!
"Hey, dudes we can use elsewhere!"
Reminds me of my time in the army, then the officers didn't like medics sitting at the field hospital "not doing anything" and wanting to put them to work. I mean, sure, but what good are the medics when something goes wrong and they're miles away on guard duty or digging a ditch?
Go to three, and soon you will be running with two.
@@yankee1376 Nah soon we will go to 0 . Fully automated systems controlled by an AI. I give it 20 years max.
@Proctain Darkward Well, there is one observation which seems to be true for every military force: when men are unoccupied and not tired to death, they get bored and start doing bullshit. Including the bullshit the officer will be called responsible for. Hence officers always have to keep men busy. Preferably with something to tire that men to the point they would only want to crash out.
@@kwichzwellbreck3567 AI ain't gonna fix thrown tracks.
Infantry are the Army's free labor corps, change my mind.
The loader is the bass player of the tank crew. He exists to pay for the pizza, drink your beer, and hold up the entire band without thanks.
Well there is a critical diffrence between the loader and thw bassist, when bass is removed almost nobody notices, but when the loader is removed everybody cares,
I say this as a bassist, with my guitar in my lap
@@cursedcliff7562 On the other hand, if the bassist is replaced with a computer that does the exact same job but better, no one really cares, but if anyone even suggests replacing the loader with an autoloader, which is faster and more consistent than a human could ever be, somehow the entirety of the US loses their shit and starts coming up with excuses for why it's impossible and/or a bad idea
@@filmandfirearms,
I can't speak for a general audience but as an enthusiast I would be decidedly critical of an ensemble that willingly ditched the bass player(s) for any reason other than artistic license or the genre as a whole not using bass instruments.
The there was John Entwistle who at time seem to forget he was the bassist and not the lead guitar.
@@cursedcliff7562 I think Geezer Butler would disagree, and so do I.
One thing that might make a move to autoloaders necessary is the rise in the weight and dimensions of the ammunition. When Rheinmetall unveiled the 130mm l51 gun, they themselves said that the ammunition would be too large and heavy for a manual loader to load effectively, and that an autoloader would be required for any tank mounting the new gun.
And with the merger of GIAT and Krauss-Maffei, and the Leopard 2 with Leclerc turret demo tank, it is reasonable to assume that Leopard 3 might have an autoloader.
@NukeBunny
That might actually be the strongest argument for eventual universal adoption of autoloaders.
I have heard/read that the amunition for the Rheinmetall 120mmL55 is more or less the limit of what a loader can reasonably handle. Not just because of weight, but also because of the lengh of the cartrige and its fragility.
The longer the thing gets, the more likely you'll bump it against something. And with the casing being combustible/smi-combustible, it's probably not as sturdy as a good ol' brass casing.
@@FirstDagger Leclerc, not LeClErC
Even the soviets concluded that 122mm was the limit of reasonable human capability.
The 152mm guns were a bitch to load even with two loaders, and even worse in an enclosed casemate
Thats why the last soviet tank to have a loader had a 115mm cannon
@@lsq7833 ; Thanks for the notice, corrected my earlier comment.
"Put the manpower to other uses....." yes......as long as there are Sgts Maj in the Army there will never be 14 guys idle in a tank company.
There is a hell of a difference between a Sgt Maj and an MOD or Department of Defence Beancounter. The former has to actually fight with the unit, so while he may find extra things for idle tankers to do he is NOT going to drop them from the unit. The MOD or Department of Defence beancounters really do not give a toss about that, they will see an extra 14 'idle' men in a Tank Company and either delete them from the companies strength entirely or move them to other units with a manpower requirement....
The point is at some point the beancounters WILL look at those extra men, ignore the actual tankers and move that manpower elsewhere because it saves money. It has been done time and time again in modern (and not so modern) militaries and is probably as inevitable as the Politicians (who constantly cut the militaries budgets) blaming the militaries for their own fuckups and budget slashes....
@@alganhar1 if anything, the Sgt. Maj. Would put the idle men in THEIR tank company to work preparing tank pits, sanitation and resupply stations for the coming rest stop or lull in the fighting, before trying to snatch up even more idlers they can find to boost the effort.
Can always use more privates to paint rocks and sweep motor pools !
@@alganhar1 Sort of like how the military finds ways of lightening the load of a grunt's gear only to find ways of adding more gear to the grunt's loadout so that their net weight loss is 0.
@@Riceball01 Yeah, you know the irony of this? In Afghanistan it was/is not uncommon for an infantryman to carry up to 200lb. If we just look at the body armour alone, this can, when the plates are in, weigh in at 70lb or more, this weight is centred on the shoulder and the chest/stomach area. By all accounts modern infantry body armour is sucky to wear, it is uncomfortable, it is heavy, it is ergonomically lacking. Straps supposed to distribute weight more are generally inadequate, shoulder straps are more often than not too wide (restricting mobility and shouldering the weapon) or too thin (cutting into the shoulder) etc etc.
I am a medieval re-enactor, something I have been doing for some two and a half decades. I have a suit of reproduction 14th Century English Plate, while it is a reproduction suit it is made to the exact specifications of an existing suit of armour in the collection at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. In other words, unlike most Hollywood armour, this stuff is accurate. It weighs in at a shade under 70lb. This weight is superbly distributed over the entire body by a phenomenal set of straps, meaning that the armour is comfortable (as armour goes!). In this armour I can do anaything I can do without armour with the possible exception of swim (though even that is possible even if only for a short distance). This includes, despite what Hollywood says, mounting a horse!
In other words, armour made over 600 years ago is more comfortable, lighter, and ergonomically superior to modern ballistic armour worn by modern infantry troops... probably why most infantrymen hate wearing the stuff despite the fact that it *might* save their lives.... And there is an important caveat, modern infantry armour *might* save your life, depending on the direction the round comes, where it hits, or what its calibre is.
And this is a little over 25% of the top load a modern infantryman is asked to carry, with a medieval Knight it would be around 75%, the remainder being his shield and his weapons. Put's things into perspective doesn't it?
If you get rid of the loader/operator who brews the Tea and the Pot Noodles. British tanks dont run on diesel they run on boiling water
you could have an automated tea brewer and dispenser. if the british make autoloders for cannons they can make autoloaders for tea cups
@@matthiuskoenig3378 not even chaos condones that level of heresy...
Then the British dont get to have tanks! ^.^ Its that simple! :D
The Brits name the tank "Tank" because they need a guaranteed hot water supply for their tea in WW1. Making them armored (to prevent the tank from leaking due to enemy fire) and able to cross trenches (we have some extra tea, let's share 'em hot with ze Germans) supported that purpose. The fact that those armored "tanks" also carry guns is just a convenient feature.
I present to you... The 120 mm Keurig
Two advantages to autoloaders often overlooked:
- autoloaders can work with bigger rounds than human can handle
- smaller crew means lower maximum casualties in case of catastrophic tank explosion
I don't think the first point there is a net positive, having a bigger round means less rounds overall in a given space, and bigger =/= better anymore.
Sometimes you can't overcome bigger rounds. In other way someone would try to fight with his 3" against T-72.
@@Zadlo14 What?
So how do you fix a malfunction on a tank like a t14 while in combat ? The crew is entirely separate compartment from the turret .
@@ozzy7763 what kind of malfuntions could be worked around in a, lets say, an abrams that couldnt be fixed in a T-14 (even if we have no clear picture of the inside of its turret)?
OR , you have a dedicated crew member that makes the Tea
conclusion , autoloaders are bad for crew morale
Well if you shove the Loaders of a platoon into APC's they could also spend their time preparing Chow and Tea whilst not fulfilling other tasks,
I'd say it'd be a brilliant boost of morale, the platoon rolls off the battle position into a safe position and the crew has their food directly ready as the Reserve had time to do make that
Simple: create an automatic tea maker
@@sanakhtthefatetwister9116 hahaha u beat me to it 😂
It’s another crew member to help with servicing the vehicle and weapons at the end of the day.
Every TC needs a Baldrick
*Slaps Loader on the back after his return from the APC*
"There are some tracks that need tensioning with your name on them!"
I actually quite liked the idea of rounding up all the now unemployed loaders and forming two 'panzergrenadier' squads out of them
I worked on many of the US autoloaders that you mention - TTB, Block 3, FastDraw, Compact Autoloader, Stryker MGS, FCS, et al. Your commentary is pretty accurate and I’m amazed that you know of some of the “minor” projects that only went to prototype phase. Well done.
" ... the primary weapon of a tank is its tracks" is how I will now forever refer to mobility as the tracks being the primary armament
Chieftain a couple years ago: 'If I can't even run them over with my tracks I'm packing up and going home'
I remember in his battle of France video, he mentioned one French tanker who decided to run down a company or two of German soldats with his tank.
"With blood and guts flying off his tracks" 😂😂😂😂
Depending on the quality of the tracks you can get a few track links to break off with a good 1 MOA at 100 meters. :)
@@brianreddeman951 Ah yes, especially with the newer fin stabilized tungsten pins which connects all the links with each other.
@@brianreddeman951 i don't know, demo ranch tried this a month or two ago. even the BMG didn't do much.
As a fellow Irishman I appreciate your commitment to adhering to the “farmers tan” tradition.
Now if only some of you lot had had a fisherman's tan...
*scrolls up* haha yeah
Are you implying there are other types of tans? I’ve been looking like the Chieftain my whole life!
Sweden did not really drop the autoloader. It was more that the best option availible didn't have an autoloader. For example the Leclerc was a part of the swedish trials and if Sweden had gone ahead with the Strv 2000 project - it would most likely had an autoloader.
And during the time the Strv 103 was in service it did so simultaneously with Centurion tanks (strv 81, 101, 102, 104) and the 105prototype that participated in the same trials as the M1, the Leclerc and the Leopard 2.
Afaik. The Swedish tank brigades of the cold war were equipped aboul 50/50 with either 103s or Centurions in two tank companies and two mech inf companies to each tank brigade.
S-tank was just too small for not using an autoloader. It was not a choice of automatic system. It was a choice of strategy then tactics then S-tank and then the autoloader as the only possible desing. Choice of the Leopard 2A4 and modernizing it for 4mln per each into 2A6 (more like a 2A6+ ) standard was a very sensible and very sure move into manual loading system.
@@HanSolo__ the swedish designers still like autoloaders.
the CV90105 has an autoloader, and it doesn't need to as the CV90120 doesn't (and back in 2014 they said they were developing a autoloader varient of the CV90120, this may have been cancelled due to no sales of the CV90120, as i can't find any more references to it)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes. They are going into autolader just as all the designers do. Yet in past having an auto or manual system was due to particular tactics way more than any type of favoring one over the other. That being said in 2012 they were still into manual on the havy MBT. Mostly because of a good, properly working Leopard 2 desing than the favor of 4rd man in the crew.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the CV90105-TD and CV90120-T never got further than proof of concept prototypes for export, almost like the CV90120-AMOS that the Swedish politicians pulled the funds for just as the system was getting ready for full serial production... Leaving our eastern brothers in Finland to salvage what they could and wanted from it, just like our western brothers in Norway did to us a few years later over the Volvo/Bofors SPFH77 Archer system.
And, @MrKansai1 teghe , as I stated, it wasn't a shift back to manual loading as much as streamlining logistics to a single type of MBT when two completely different types of MBT was deemed obsolete simultaneously.
After all, both the Strv 103(s) and the Strv 102/104 (Upgraded and modified Centurions)
Were essentially late WW2 designs of the same era as the soviet IS3-IS10 and the T54/T55 and then gradually improved to deal with the T64/T72.
The 103 also had a very complicated and notoriously leak-prone hydropneumatic suspension system and drive train with it's dual engine piston+turbine configuration and a gearbox with separate reverse gear allowing for using the full gear range both forward and in reverse...
If you could do a video about the invasion of Iraq. A lot of documentaries about Iraq focus more on the insurgency and not the whole journey from Kuwait to Baghdad.
Watch these two vids you will be satisfied.
th-cam.com/video/2cTiTV2B9hs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/EUZ1Bw21KdA/w-d-xo.html
Re-watch Generation Kill.
There is an amazing book about it from the perspective of the tankers called, "Thunder Run."
I prefer autoloaders. My M1 Garand is superior to my 1903A3 Springfield.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Your M1 Garand auto loads too? XD
Well, the M16 loves to jam in combat situations, so don't name it with an actual rifle. Xd
@@jasonvorhees1795 The M16 is more of a carbine then a rifle. I'll get me coat. 😳
@@jasonvorhees1795 modern m16s are very reliable.
Way back in the day, the USN found that a 5" round was just about the upper limit of what one man could wrangle repeatedly in the confines of a turret. If (when?) AFVs start pushing up to and perhaps beyond 140mm main guns, autoloaders may become a practical necessity.
Lower than that, because a naval gun has plenty of room to maneuver in, and a tank turret is critically restricted.
The USN developed and installed 8 inch autoloaders on the cruisers after WW2. There is a TH-cam video that a person transferred from the training film about it somewhere on the site.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison. The naval guns were firing two piece ammunition, and it was generally considered that a 70-80 pound shell was the upper limit for a single loader. However, naval guns were operated from a standing position and had far more space.
@@ARCNA442 I was not making a comparison, just giving info. As a 3rd class Midshipman in the summer of1975, I loaded 5 inch shells and also had turns on the gun powder canisters for one of the two 5 in 38 cal dual gun mount on the USS Bausell (DD-845) in the Western Pacific. I can still recall the weight of the rounds and the lack of space since you had about 14 sailors in a dual mount. Add to this not good ventillation for the Pacific and the smoke in the mount after firing and reloading, it wasn't a pinic either.
@@ARCNA442 the 8" automatic guns were single piece ammunition.
So today I learned that the 9th tank in each company contains the missing link. I had no idea....
It's not missing if you know where it is.
@@germanvisitor2 you know where it is by knowing where it isn't
I should add that Sweden dropped the autoloader when they dropped their indigenous designs, so it wasn't a move away from autoloaders it was only a move to a newer generation of tanks and the foreign designs they bought just didn't have them.
Arjun and Altay are their countries' first-ever indigenous designs (Altay is a washed down copy of the K2 though), so it might have been deemed that it's simply easier to stick with a human loader instead of adding the burden of designing a good autoloader for their first try at tank designing.
additionally sweden likes autoloaders in their artillery indigenous artillery. Bandkanon 1 and more recently Archer.
One thing that wasn't mentioned for the pro-autoloader side is that morale and other in battle elements can affect performance. Humans tend to perform differently when under fire, panicking, desperate, and situations where conditions are poor or the tank is being jostled around while maneuvering or taking hits. Obviously proper training and equipment can help with this, but a machine is typically much more consistent unless it has taken damage. The same could be said about a human loader as well because if the human loader takes damage it will perform worse. Plus metal is harder than flesh.
I have not been in the military myself. I do know from working around robots/automation in the auto industry, that when robots/ automation works well a human can't really compete . But when they don't you can have a disaster on your hands worse then a drunk operator can cause. Just a thought .
A lot of autoloader designs allow for manual loading, it's just it won't be nearly as convenient as in tanks that were designed for manual loading.
AI is not a good idea for critical processes or making friend/foe decisions. Former WO2 and Systems Analyst.
Except he already went through how that argument is flawed
the Abrams have an autoloader and it is called private Jones
Global trends also seem to be moving towards completing military objectives with as few human beings in the line of fire as possible. (the use of drones and such)
I'd argue that it's going to look increasingly more attractive to 'decision-makers' to be able to more or less maintain military fighting strength while reducing the number of humans in the line of fire.
Or increase the utility of their videogame training xD
Autoloader, always. Why ? People get tired, they slow down.
Not really them getting tired, it just gets harder for them to reach the ammunition after expending the easily grabbed stuff.
People have brains. Loading is monkey-work that should be automated.
If a loader would just load then yes. Automatic all the additional support would be difficult
Hell yes, autoloader! Although I have to admit a Webley .455 is a really cool, historic sidearm. So is the Colt/S&W M1917 .45 ACP revolver. I'm making a note to shop for one of them right now.... Oh, for tanks. Uh, sorry, whatever you guys think is best.
Well the entierty of russia/france/eastern bloc countries agree with you
While nato doesnt
@@cursedcliff7562 I'm not a tanker. I was making a pistol joke.
@@billdanosky i know, i was trying to play along
Another gem of a discussion Chieftain. Being ex Australian Army I have thought for a long time that a 3 man auto loader tank would be preferable to the current 4 man doctrine due to our low manning available and the French solution seems a good use with backup personnel still present. Your experience with short handed crews in Iraq demonstrates the value of having backups ready on the bench, as it were.
I sure like your straight-forward manner of imparting knowledge hedged with real experience! Keep it up.
Yes but he forgot to address the Beer hogging loader situation. As a draw back of the human loader.
OH MY LORD!!!! I have just noticed that he has a Darjeeling figure on the right of the second shelf down... so it is now proven she is best girl
I think it's funny that amidst all those military books and models, The Chieftain has what looks like the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python on his shelf.
That's because it is the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python.
@@TheChieftainsHatch excellent choice...
Killer Bunny versus Tiger Tank... No contest. Bunny wins.
I like having a loader. Generally speaking, he is 2IC. Usually a seniorish NCO too. Especially when in the troop leader's or squadron leader's tank. He can assist with nav, comms and micro management of the crew when the CC is away taking orders. Not to mention, especially with the troop leader or squadron leader, they have much more on their plate. So, showing up and being able to trust that the tank is good to go, is a weight of their shoulders.
Also, the loader is the mom. Making coffee and heating rations while everyone else is scanning or driving is a nice bonus.
And you blame the Europeans because they still drive manual transmission cars
Chieftain, you have got to have the patience of a saint to continue putting up with all these comments from people saying that the vulnerability of Russian carousal-style autoloaders invalidates the whole concept without just turning off the comments section. I suppose getting comments of that sort only every few weeks helps.
There is one more argument for an autoloader, slowly becoming evident. Nowadays a 120 mm smooth bore cannon is common in MTBs. But it seems in the future cannons will be 130 mm or even bigger. That means the weight of ammunition will increase also. The need for an autoloader becomes obvious.
Just remove all crew, put in an AI system with remote access. Job done!
A auto-loader together with other tech permits you to make a crew-less tank turret, moving the crew down to the main hull if you wish making them less exposed and allowing you to save your armor for the hull instead of the turret if you so desire.
but if the tank gets hit hard its very easy for that auto loader to be destroyed
@@unsteadyresults4533 I mean better than getting the crew dead.
@@unsteadyresults4533 were hit hard with the crew in, you would be missing a crew
Reducing the crew size perhaps a step towards remote controlled drone tanks, and ultimately full automation with AI
lol wtf
If wars are fought with robots, what's the point in participating in war? Casualties is what leads to victories or losses, so why does robot killing civilians sound better? Because if robots killed robots... when do you decide who is winning? "no one dies! excellent waste of money, now what?"
@@Bandit4557
True, but killing robots using robots can cause a real hit to a country’s economy because the robots are expensive.
@@TheCarDemotic Ok so say the strat is to just not build robots, a country then invades you with robots... well now what? The whole point was to stop casualties, so now robots from your enemy just occupy your land? I guess they could destroy stuff, but nothing is stopping people from still just killing the robots with conventional weapons. So like... what the fuck is the point, if you go far enough to stop having casualties to make robots wage war for you, what the fuck is the point? This is the same thing as saying "huge governments should play a game of chess to determine disputes." No one would agree to that. It doesn't have any casualties, but what if someone loses and they dont like that? What are they gonna do? War is just apart of human nature, and when people die for a cause is it then realized whether it was worth it or not.
@@Bandit4557 you must be special. Obviously the robots would also kill any human combatants they meet as well. The idea is to minimise casualties for your side while maximizing the other guys deaths.
Question: What happens if the auto-loader breaks or is damaged in combat? Can the gun be loaded manually?
Normally, yes, albeit slowly,
Auto loader advantage you sort of missed - auto loaders allow unmanned turrets (i.e. Armata).
And though I asked you about Armata before and you were not completely gaga about the idea...though this was a few years ago.
I am CRAZY about the idea (no - I am not Russian).
I think unmanned turrets with all the crew in a protective 'capsule' in the hull is DEFINITELY the way of the future.
Especially with engine in front, turret in middle and crew capsule in the rear.
Tank God for ending this debate pointing out bot the pro and cons of autoloaders
I had read an article a couple of years ago that talked about the Army considering switching the Abrams to an autoloader system, and using the loader as a scout drone operator instead. That could be another pro for the autoloading tank: organic short range scouting.
I have seen dozens of your videos.
And I do not know you personally at all.
But you seem like the kind of person that I would like to be led by in combat.
You seem bright, calm, open-minded, good humored with substantial, common sense.
☮
I think most ot the misconceptions and lore behind auto loaders being inferior stems from the early t-64's and how poor the reliability was on them. But the fact still remains auto loaders are the future of tank development just about every new modern MBT is utilizing an auto loading system. The only advantage Manuel loading gives you is more personel on hand for crew level PMCS but you already covered tjis topic and it's fixes by implementing a rotational crew which improves down time for the crew while maintaining readiness.
No, it stems from deliberate propaganda campaign to portray them as such.
T-64 had teething issues with some systems, but autoloader was not one of them.
They also said T-64's engine is a copy of a British engine, and that its road wheels are all-steel.
Hi Chieftain, I wonder if you have any comments
About the russian T 14 armata tank.
Cant find any videos from you on the subject
its a paper tank. its been in development for a decade and its engine breaks down during a parade, unloaded and on paved roads.
@@pyroromancer Paper tank is the tank that only exist in blueprints, and there are prototypes of Armata. Every tank had some problem in early stage that is resolved later. Also I believe it was transmission problem.
@@shawnbush1431 That is what i read in reports too. That the replacement driver was unfamiliar with the T 14 and did not realise it had a hand break system controlled from a panel.
Prototype only, has problems, is Russian. No War Thunder bias for real life.
@@mongo1137 Which tank prototype hasn't had problems? That's the whole point of building a prototype genius.
Nowadays auto loader should be mature enough to become a standard equipment for a newly designed combat vehicle.
o7 capsuleer
A lot of the time in this debate, I hear that you wouldn't want autoloaders in a tank because they're more expensive than a crewman. Firstly, is that really true when you consider the crewman needs pay, food, potentially medical care and might leave a grieving widow behind? And considering you can save money on weight, same armour for less metal volume, same hp/t for a weaker engine and so on, I think there's something to GAIN economically with autoloaders. Agree/disagree?
I'm betting you're correct. The Army's FY19 Military Personnel budget was $45 billion for 480,000 soldiers or almost $100,000 per man (and that's before you include training, infrastructure, VA benefits, etc).
I think the "cost" factor isn't meant during usage, (it should be cheaper in usage) but in development, testing and construction. You have to incorporate the costs of the humans that construct the mechanism, those who build it and those who test it ect. And for the material: maybe i'm wrong here, but the material to build the auto loading mechanism might be more expensive than to make the tank a bit bigger. (So the tank itself would be more expensive to buy)
I have been a senior design engineer in a subcontractor for the Ministry of Defense (UK). I can promise you that development is always way more expensive than unit cost. For example the public figures for the F-35 are as follows: F-35A cost roughly $90million USD. F-35 development cost? $400 Billion and counting. IE the unit price is 0,025% of the development cost. So you could have heading for 4500 of them for the cost of development. That's pretty typical too. Here in the UK we tend to do things on a shoe string budget but the Tornado was only about 4 times better than that in terms of cost to development ratio. The real issue is that to be the best you cant just use kit off the shelf because a good deal of it does not even exist yet.
@@gordonlawrence4749 just posting to point out. that the f35's cost has ballooned out of all proportions. tornado is/was a better(or more favourable)) comparison :)
@@BlueEyesGaming It's happened that way on the B-2 programme and was even worse for the B-1. The only programme I know of that went reasonably cheaply in the USA was the M-16/M4 (rifle not M4 Sherman). I suspect the Sherman was not that expensive as it used a significant amount of components from other tanks EG the volute suspension from the M3.
In Hungary we are replacing the T-72s with Leopard 2A7s so technically we are dropping the autoloader but it's due to necessity. But then again our procurement is based on government decisions and not future doctrinal changes so who knows how they'll solve it (our tank company is undermanned as it is already).
Interestingly, the Japanese Type 74 had the autoloader removed in the production marques, but had a 4(?) round magazine-hopper-thing next to the loader, which allowed him to shove the rounds into the chamber quickly with small motions of the arm.
It was also known to be very cramped even by Japanese standards, which is probably why they had that magazine-hopper-thing rather than for rate-of-fire.
Tanks are full of components that can break.
E4s we know it's fun to break them when we're bored
If you have 40 experienced tankers you can get ten tanks with four men inside or 13 tanks with three men. Assuming you have production capacity to get that many tanks. Autoloaders in Soviet tanks with their doctrine are logical inclusion.
Autoloaders are needed in Russian tanks in part because they have such tiny crewmen and so little room in which to swing rounds. The Russians build their tanks small to make them harder targets. Their tank crewmen can't be more than 5' 4" high. They simply don't have enough room in a turret for a human loader to handle big, heavy ammunition. Human loaders can be effective inside an American tank because they interiors are more open - enough that the loader can be big enough to handle large ammunition pieces more effectively.
Another advantage of auto loaders that was not mentioned is that auto loaders can handle much bigger and more heavy ammunition than humans.
Less of an issue for a tank than for self propelled artillery I'd think
@@Cal94 Eventually we will hit a point at which it will be impractical to use humans because of the bigger rounds. For example 130mm and 140mm ammunition for western armies and 152mm ammunition for Russia (the use auto loaders anyway)
@@davidreinhart373 M106 and similar use 155mm rounds and have a system to reload so fast they can by altering trajectory and charge have 4 rounds hit the target within a second. OK that's a howitzer not a tank but I would bet we see 155s before rail guns or similar in tanks.
@@davidreinhart373
I don't see this point coming son in the next century, while i get the point, based on the recent prototype history of the 130 or 140 mm Rheinmetal gun, i doubt that we really will get the need for such high caliber cannons. The only real advantage of high caliber guns is the much easier cartridge design for high energy rounds.
However, if you put enough propellant behind a 100 mm round, you would get the same penetration values as you would get with modern apfsds rounds.
The only advantages of those modern high caliber barrels are the cheaper construction, due to the lower velocity of the round and the increased rigidity compared to other barrels, wich leads to increased accuracy compared to smaller caliber guns with identical penetration value and identical barrel weight.
At the end, even those factors would not matter, when consider a missile system for massively armored vehicles. Than the gun is only a side arm and can be scaled down to an automatic cannon with maybe 30mm to 40mm rounds.
@@mandernachluca3774
The point is that Hardkill systems can intercept most rounds and missile, except for APFSDS rounds.
Penetration of APFSDS rounds base on velocity and the lenght of the projectile rod.
To lengthen the rod, you need to lenghten the casing.
To keep or encreas the velocity of the longer and heavier projectile, with the same length gunbarrel as we now have, you need to encrease the diameter of the gunbarrel or the pressure.
At the moment the pressure is pretty much at maximum of the barrel material.
So cheaper and tecnically easier is to enlarge the diameter.
Conclusion:
If you want to penetrate modern armor, use a long and large caliber APFSDS Round.
As a former Panzer crewman, aussie Leopards and M113's, the problem of going from 4 to 3 crewman in battle tanks is as I have experienced crew fatigue. Yes we ran Leopards on 3 man crews and it showed. During resupply at those dark ungodly hours thing got real slow during the resupply and increased the risk of evasive action if attacked. Even worse when you have a 2 man crew as on the M113's. Now honestly who would be responsible for making a brew on the move in a 3 man crew? Great video....with some good points brought up....and best I end this with "FIRING NOW".
That's more than a little bit different, since those vehicles are designed to work with larger crews. That would be like saying a 3 wheeled vehicle could never work after driving a Ford Focus that was missing a wheel. It was never meant to be run in that configuration, so of course it's a bitch to make work when it isn't being used as it was designed
F-22 must carry 4 pilots instead of 1 to prevent crew fatigue! Oh wait. Same dumb excuses for outdated tech over and over again.
@@Conserpov Well, than you should be able to explain why even Russian T-14 need 3 crews.
@@yangcheng-jyun8542
This is pretty easy. Elimination of a human loader is a generational leap. Elimination of crewed turret also is a generational leap, while maintaining 3 crew. Technology to reduce crew further is not there yet.
@@Conserpov in the idea of not having technology to shrink crew from 3 to lets say 2, I disagree.
In the 80"s KAMOV designed and developed KA-50 attack helicopter. Very unique, because first time attack helicopter was with single pilot instead of two.
The KAMOV automated a lot of systems, like excellent autopilot system so pilot use time to look outside, and excellent targeting system so pilot can look outside middle of attack.
The navigation system was designed so that pilot can enter new flight plan like entering address to Google maps, either by searching by city, town, landmarkb or even by street name etc.
The cockpit was made fully armored. Every window, all directions to withstand 30 mm HEI-T as used in AAA. So pilot survived from first few rounds if getting shot at (comparing this to example AH-64 or AH-1 that has only real armor rated plate between pilots and armor glass in front piece, and rest are capable being penetrated by assault rifles from side windows, side panels, even under seat. Similar with Mi-24 that has armored cockpit but only front flat glass withstand 12.7 mm API).
First time as well did pilot in helicopter get a ejection seat, so at 0 speed and 0 altitude pilot got out in emergency.
The findings on the testing it and in combat trials was that pilots workload was in intense phases less than two-seat multirole fighter pilots experienced.
It became more combat effective than Mi-24 with two crew as you have individual doing decision and reacting to threats. No communications required between pilots.
So idea was that KA-50 replace Mi-24 fleet, and every attack group is 4+1 where it is 4x KA-50 and 1x KA-52, what is two seated variant where the group commander will sit and assign targets to each member from what they spot (datalink between each, they saw each others positions on map etc)
The two seated variant came as requirement to get to sell KA-50, as to enter attack helicopter sale competitions, buyers required two seater helicopters. Not for good reason, just "as backup". Because if pilot gets hit, co-pilot needs to fly expensive Helo to base (why example real armor in Apache is between pilots).
So KAMOV built KA-50-2 first, then that as KA-52.
Point is, at the current technology era, (since at least three decades) the MBT crew could have been shrunk to two members.
Driver/commander
Gunner.
Give the driver means to use another display to utilize a rooftop, mast mounted optics to observe and scout behind cover or concealment, and to scan additional threats.
Give it a way to quickly scan nearby surroundings to find if something needs to be avoided by moving.
In attack formation gunner needs to have own idea where what is, and they need to focus to key targets.
Where driver need to focus driving and obstacle evasions. So there isn't commander to search additional threats. But you are in high speed toward enemy positions, so you don't have much time anyways, as the company needs to use number of guns, instead number of eyes to win.
In stationary fight the driver can do both duties very well, as moving vehicle to peak around corner, ridge etc is easy thing to do.
This can be experimented example in Arma 2/3 or why not even in world of tanks.
The difference is that in WoT (never have played that one) you have superior situational awareness because third person perspective and artificial detection, tracking etc.
But never i would argue that you can have just one.... As driver+gunner makes it easier and effective, but not overloaded for either.
As any given combat phase you really have mainly two pairs of eyes, commander and gunner that has FLIR and optics. And in close combat you should have infantry anyways as your protection.
As flying helicopter, targeting and observing outside near and far for incoming missiles or fire using eyes only.... Is more difficult that driving and looking around.
Chieftain have you considered New Zealand’s mighty Bob Semple tank. It’s 6 main guns were all autoloaders!
About loading speed: if you stand or fall due to how fast loading can be done, you probably have huge problems anyway. As in "my God, we need to get the %$#& away from here!" Its fairly safe to sugest you have then overstayed your welcome.
And can expect to be reciving a significantly emotional event at any second
Kursk. Operation Goodwood. Chinese Farm. Golan Heights. Mitla Pass. So far, every really big tank battle in history has eventually boiled down to a muzzle-to-muzzle slugfest where victory and survival went to the crews who could throw rounds into the breech a little bit faster. Maybe that will change and from now on all battles will be decided at ranges that allow loading to proceed at a leisurely pace. Maybe.
Holy crap that type 90 reload is insane
My question how long does it take to reload an autoloader vs. standard rack systems?
In the S tank you just open two doors at the back of the tank and slide your ammunition in and that's it. But I don't know how unique the S tank is in that reloading system.
I'm a loader for an Abrams crew. We just started our Gunnery Skills Testing. Something we have to do every year before gunnery. In the sweet spot I can load a SABOT round in 4.29 seconds. Anything above 7 seconds is a fail on my Gunnery Skills Test
@@jbone7777 , that's nice and all, but could you tell us how long it takes to load the ready rack from empty to full? That is part of the question
A couple minutes is all it takes. Usually 3 dudes are doing it. A guy on the ground to pull the rounds, he passes it to a guy on the hull, and he hands it to the loader through the hatch to store in the rack. From the semi ready rack to the ready rack takes a lot longer. It's done 1 round at a time because its behind the TC. You can only open one door at a time and the one behind the TC is opened manually. 6 rounds can be stored in the hull. The turret has to be in the correct position to get to them but it's one panel that keeps them in and is easy to remove.
Human loaders are usually faster than autoloaders
When we move to 140mm, there really will not be an option due to the size of the round. I like the French solution for keeping the 4th man as that eliminates the excessive maintenance and watch requirements. Having spent years on a Command tank which always ends up as a 3 man crew while the FGO is off doing FGO things, that need for additional help is certainly real.
Idea: Use an autoloader, but put the loader on EW/drone/information-duty
Especially if you put all four crew in the hull with the remote controlled autoloading turret. T-14 points the way here.
Is theT-14 a production tank or a concept tank that Russia just keeps bluffing about?
@@graceshiflett6526 it will be in mass production next year, currently there are only like two battalion of them
Then you would need space for both of them, which is really bad.
So it would be much easier to have that French model of reserve troops in armoured vehicles behind the tanks controlling that drone.
@@wlewisiii I think the better idea would be to put the drone operator in a separate vehicle and he controls the drone from it.
My one argument would be crew replacement but i'm pretty sure as soon as you take any sort of penetrating hit then the tank is abandoned anyways. I'm not too sure how the crews treat that situation since I'm just a simple game pleb.
I also question the weight savings since you'd be designing the tank with the autoloader in mind at that point and then you'd have a whole new tank to worry about. However other countries dont see this as an issue either so it's kind of a moot point anyways.
my biggest question is how the system selects shells cause that's what I would be curious about how that works with autoloaders as well. I would assume the gunner has a shell swap mechanism so he can directly select shells he wants but I have very little knowledge on how or if that exists.
the controls are programmable to select shells from different parts of the magazine. this allows the gun to press a button for a sabot shell and it loaded. then the next target is soft so a different button is pressed and a HE shell is loaded for example.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 That's what I figured cause it wouldnt make sense to have just a feed system and not have some kind of system to choose the right shell type.
You forgot the oldest fear of the tech generation, "what if it gets hacked?"
That's why you don't add WiFi and Bluetooth to everything.
@@Crosshair84 OH GOD THE WIFI IS DOWN WE CANT SHOOT THE GUN
The other advantage of a three man crew is that every man has his own hatch to get out of. No more gunners trying to get out through the commander.
I think the French idea is rather smart. Don't eliminate the loaders entirely, just have them follow around in APCs. And then any maintenance duty still has that extra fourth man.
It seems that technology is to the point that loading is becoming increasingly tedious. Just like we have more IVRs than human phone operators. Sure a human operator is more versatile. However an IVR can direct the call well enough for 80% of all the phone calls coming, allowing for a higher volume of calls and for the human operators to be free to do other tasks requiring critical thinking. If an autoloader is 80% as effective as human loader then put that human loader in the APC so that he can adjust the track tension and the machine does the loading.
@TEXOCMOTP And still, the Leclerc is more successful in Yemen than the Abrams.
@TEXOCMOTP No, but the Leclerc is.
The best counter to "If it is not broken why fix it" is "Do you want to fight the next war the same way you fought the last one?"
@@RobertLutece909 I am certain the old guard generals of WW1 will agree with you
There’s no example in history of geriatric reactionaries succeeding against people who embrace the future
If it ain’t broke then make it better
@@looinrims Except the taliban
@@tyroneemail succeeding means leaving the other in history, hasn’t happened
It’s like when people say Unions do something, Unions have always lost to economic progress, old reactionaries will always lose to military progress
@@looinrims Wow the indoctrination is strong in this one. look up union movements in the 30s. Lost the battles won the war.
My average load time was 4.6 to 5.1. My fastest time was 4.5. I became a tanker in my mid 30's. I loved the job but it was tough.
If the Decision-Fairy waves a magic wand and gave me the choice of Loader v. AutoLoader, I'd say keep the Loader.
1. Allows a Crewman to go to ground and conduct raids, evac,, etc. A real Force Multiplier in MOUT ops.
2. Big Armys love of 12 and 15 month Tours, SM's go on mid tour longer, and with 14 Dats per Plt, reduces crew fatigue.
3. KIA/ WIA hit my Squadron hard. Losing a TC or Gunner to IDF or IED is, again, a very significant lose to a Plt of 14 EM's. Promote with after a loss maintains continuity.
4. Because someone's gotta fill the radios, do comm check, load, PMCS, break track, fuel, run tell Chowhall not to close cause them DATs are en route after mission. Cause a TC doing all the shit!
@my name is my name I watched your instead, beta name.
Ok so people are talking about how the additional crewman could make tea for the rest of the crew. But you don't need that if your country's favourite beverage is vodka...
i think i've found the reason that it's the russians who are using autoloaders nowadays.
Um... The issue in early USSR autoloader models were that occasionally it would decide to autoload other objects which got in the way. Thankfully, when the gunner was accidentally loaded, there was nobody else to attempt to fire said "round". But they have fixed this issue long ago. At this point it is more critical on crew capacity and reliable speed.
Damn bean counters.
The one thing you will NEVER escape...
Glad you made a well argument video about the autoloaders, both pros and cons. I am curious, do you think we will see (in the foreseeable future) next generation tanks with main guns simply too big for humans loaders to even be considered ? Do you think the tradeoff for greater firepower is worth it if it means (possibly) lower amount of ammunition and radical shift from current western designs ( excluding France and Japan ) ?
Great post - a Pakistani tank officer who had served on T80s told me that they had a fourth crew member who travelled with them on the back deck to help with maintenance and to BREW TEA. This seems an excellent idea, if true.
there is always a service crew in aviation, why not to have one for tanks
Awesome video as always Chieftain. Your practical experience is always so good for videos like these. Thank you for what you do and for expounding on the answer to my question.
Question, would it be possible to use a quick change system for reloading ammunition in an Abrams or Leopard for say ? Like say through the top of the bustle where the blow off panels are.
Such a thing was already proposed, and some M1s were equipped for it, before the idea was cancelled. And yes, they used the blowoff panel location.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I should have known
The current M1 really is a fat chunky boi. They just keep slapping on more & more armour, ceramic tiles, NERA, ERA you name it.
It's a hell of a lot cheaper to do that then develop a whole new tank. Then again, the F35 exists so what the hell do I know...
The F-35 is also ludicrously advanced and essentially built around its avionics. The systems that thing has make the ones in the Raptor looks like old-gen consoles next to a fully-built PC. Not to mention the pilots' impressions are overwhelmingly positive, so it must be doing *something* right.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Exactly
@@griffinfaulkner3514 It'll also be outdated in about a decade. The problem with stealth aircraft is that radar technology always outpaces the development of methods to counter it. Not to mention the myriad of bugs and kinks they still have to work out, which they've been doing since 2009. Is it a bad aircraft? No. But is it underwhelming and disappointing when you consider the development hell and cost overruns it's had to go through? Or the competition the Chinese and Russians will probably give it in 2-3 years? Yes it most certainly is.
@@madcourier6217 Indeed. Not to mention the fact that it has many shortcomings that cannot be fixed no matter what that happened due to development hell.
So you can either man 14 tanks with 56 recruits, or 18 tanks with 54 recruits? There is that slight increase as well. And even if you do not want to increase the size of your fighting band, you have still have 25% more guns for the same manpower. Not quite true of course because you need maintenance personell etc as well for your extra tanks.
@The_Cheiftan:
Yeah, I noticed that you've had that *'Evolution'* Silouette as one of the Tank Crews! Thought we wouldn't notice, huh!?! *_:D_*
i think you should look at autoloader by another prospective. Because a tank in battle will be destroyed more soon than lather you save a crewman... and let me be a little polemic.. i think that as soon abrams adopt an autoloader the autoloader will be not criticised anymore
Generally speaking, the war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated that storing the ammunition in a carousel, inside the turret , IS an explosion risk. On the other hand, the last time western design tanks has stood against modern, determined, well equipped and quite well trained opposition was in 1982, in Lebanon.
As far as I can say - we can, and probably should reconsider some of the arguments included here, but we don't really know the other hand of the equation.
BTW, this war clearly demonstrated that APC's are much more vulnerable, on the buttle field, then yanks. Bringing in additional personal, into the battlefield, to help with maintenance is not the brightest of ideas.
Truly hope it will stay this way.
The ammo in Russian tanks is in the hull….
@xyxxanx9810: “Autloaders are just unreliable.”
Chieftain: “The TTB autoloader completed 66,000 cycles without failure”.
Reminds me of the reluctance to change from bolt action rifles to self loading rifles by Germany , Great Britain and others during WW2.
I have an interesting question but couldn't find the answer for it anywhere:
Why do calibers of small arms and tank guns so random and not always rounded to the standard of that nation's measuring units (i.e Imperials for the US and UK, metrics for others)? Also would rounding the caliber makes it easier to mass produce guns and inspect them for faults?
For example we have US 75mm ( 2.95 inches) but 80mm guns are not widely used, British 84mm (3.307 inches), German 88mm (3.46 inches), US went full metric with their 90mm, British 94mm (3.7 inches), no 4 inches gun that I know of, NATO 105mm (4.13 inches) and not 100mm, USSR 122mm (4.8 inches) and not 120mm, US 155mm (6.1 inches).... These of course doesn't include gun calibers that were rounded like 100mm, 3 inches or 120mm etc...
Well at least in case of the British "pounder" guns, and some types of 75mm. was because of the consequent diameter of a particular weight of round in ye olden field and naval artillery days.
155mm. and 122mm. are oddities that I have no explanation to.
Lovely balanced chat. Thanks. There was an 80s study on having a fifth crewman that said the same: apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a102864.pdf
The extra eyes of the 4th crew is not necessary in today's world of cheap and small cameras. There's no reason why observation tasks can't be off-loaded to remote crews or even remote computers.
My country is one of the few examples that moved from autoloaders (AMX-13) to non-autoloaders (Leopard 2), but that is probably more to do with reasons other than autoloaders.
Some countries prefer autoloaders, others do not.
...
And there is Poland that says why not use both?
Always there is Poland acting silly!!
The autoloader wont read bedtime stories to the rest of the crew and man the audiobook/music player during off-time
I honestly think autoloaders other future the reason most western countries aren't using them they are stuck with tank designs that are 30 sometimes 40 years old
I think its refit costs combined with updateing old systems
How about a video on home brewed armored vehicles ? Not that I'm planning on starting anything personally. It just looks like a fun topic.
You just want to hear about the Bob Semple dont you... -.-
Abrams already have autoloaders... they are called jews (junior enlisted warrior's) you haze it, tell it what to do and it auto loads it.
Eons ago when the engineers at General Dynamics included a few old tankers (e.g., me), we pointed out that having an auto-loader inside the tank was not nearly as important as coming up with a better means of loading ammo into the tank. The fans may not know it, but main gun rounds go in one at time, and have to be busted out of big wooden boxes two at a time (and I have done that to exhaustion more than once!).
An auto-loader than can only be replenished manually does not significantly reduce the total time required to fire and then replace one load of ammo - which is on the order of two hours! Putting in an auto loader that can be robotically reloaded by a dedicated ammo vehicle would increase the overall fire rate of the tank by a factor of 10! (nobody has done it yet) Until we get that done, auto-loaders are not really a significant advantage in overall combat capability, because shooting yourself dry takes a eon to fix.
These design features required a total departure from conventional tank design - which we merrily accomplished - and to this day remains very unlikely to be adopted in the near future by an Army that really does not like innovation in peacetime. (I outlined the system design for an APC-mounted laser AA system to knock down drones in 1987 - they just fielded the prototype!)
Nowadays only the target-practice ammunition comes in the wooden boxes. Combat ammunition comes in palletized systems that open from the side. The pallet is put on a truck, the tank pulls alongside, and the crew simply pulls the ammo out of the tubes in the pallet and passes it up to the turret. The bottleneck is the guy in the turret stowing the rounds.
Both have issues, human loaders get tired and reloads get slower. Auto loaders have a chance for the machine to jam or malfunction. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some fail safe allowing for manual loading if the auto loading system failed. Clearly what's needed is video game magic where one person can crew a tank.
Although I think I'm generally in agreement with your stance I must say that the proposal at 13:00 only adds complexity for me.
Firstly an additional vehicle type is added to the fleet with the additional training and maintenance. Secondly this vehicle is inferior in mobility to the tanks. Thirdly this vehicle is inferior in protection and armament. Sure you point out that these vehicles won't be in the thick of combat but they will invariably present a weaker target which the enemy may be able to exploit to weaken the overall capability of the tanks. Fourthly surely these men are surplus to requirement - what advantage do they have over having a regular maintenance unit which would be able to do heavier maintenance and repairs too? Additionally maintenance units can have ARV's and the like which can accompany tanks into battle and can have the same protection levels as the tanks.
One thing the Russians know best is simplicity and cost-effectiveness. I'm pretty sure they choose autoloader for a reason.
Nuclear war. Seriously. The crew loader was demed too susceptible to radiation sickness
why keep the extra personnel freed up by autoloaders when you can just have reduced crews which saves money and demands on logistics?
A bit late but; everyone in a tank maintains it. Usually fixing the tank is seperated into 2 groups. Major maintenance that requires the actual mechanics division to work on it. And general maintenance that the crew does. Replacing a guy with a massive complex machine will only increase the maintenance requirements and though the loader might no longer exist. The need for more guys fixing stuff will stay.
It depends on what you are using them for, automatic loaders are not new, 75 years ago th-cam.com/video/pX-IxiZyGRk/w-d-xo.html this was used very effectively with a mosquito, against U boats and Shipping. So it is the requirements which are key. As we move inevitably to drone type vehicles for ground warfare a vehicle with an automatic loader is inevitable. The argument for MBT, is it reduces fatigue, though I am not so sure. WW2 the Firefly crew was to be reduced from 5 to 4. However, from experience some units kept the crew to 5 because of the operation and maintenance needs required to maintain the Sherman. Whilst, modern vehicles should require less maintenance, is it significantly less to reduce the crew from 4 to 3? The other issue, is the amount of ammunition that can be carried, given the space taken by the complexity of the autoloader.
The cost of an MBT loader is 10 tons of extra armor in weight, thus making the loader the heaviest troop in military history.
The maximum logistically acceptable weight of the MBT is 55 tons. Optimal operational weight of the MBT is 50 tons.
Given the optimal weight, a manual loader adds a 20% weight penalty without providing any benefit, thus the 60 ton weight of the Abrams M1 / IPM1 vs. T-72/T-80
With necessary modernization upgrades the weight gap widens to massive 40% penalty.
When compared to next gen T-14 Armata, the weight penalty of the latest M1A2 is insane 47%, all the while Armata is better armed and armored.
The armata is the new strv 103
@@cursedcliff7562 No, Armata is the new T-95, strv 103 is not a tank by definition as it does not have a turret.
@@BigSmartArmed The Swedish beg to differ. They designed it as an MBT.
I thought all modern tanks have auto loaders. How is it then possible that reload is now 10 seconds when it was 30 seconds in ww2? (According to world of tanks)
Looking back at the one man turrets common on many French tanks of 1940, it's interesting to consider the impact if the French had developed a 37 or 47 mm autoloader gun, combined with decent periscopes and sights for the commander. Probably well beyond the technology and French finances of the time, though.
Maybe, but not by much. The P-39 Airacobra had drum magazine-fed 37mm cannon, Hispano-Suiza had their 20mm belt or drum fed cannon of Spitfire fame. The Panzer II's 2 cm KwK 30 fired from a 10 round magazine the operator loaded. You had the Oerlikon and Bofors that were drum and magazine (clip?) fed respectively. So maybe not an autoloader like we think of it today, but maybe a magazine-fed cannon would have been feasible, at least for the 37mm guns.
Tbh the Arjun is only a manual loader system because it was based on the Leopard 2 design. The Indian army has stated preference for autoloader systems due to it's 40+ years of experience with T72 & T90 platforms. They didn't like the Arjun very much because it differs significantly from the standard armour doctrine of the Indian army based on having relatively light tanks with 3-man crews (i.e. Russian tanks) while the Arjun is nearly 70 tonnes with 4-man crew & the rifled gun of the Challenger 2. Also 120mm vs the 125mm is a logistical nightmare in the field.