Autoloaders, Yay or Nay?

[Akhe100]

Well I've noticed that this suprisingly important issue hasn't come up let me set up the pro's and cons, anyone tell me if I miss something

Pros:

Tanks can be smaller and lighter (in many models I've seen by 10-15 tons) or have more armor for the same weight

With some modern autoloaders tanks have actually been able to fire faster than human loaders

An autoloader cannot become fatigued as a person can

Cons:

Some models (such as in the T-72) can cause catastrophic internal explosions

The addition of the 4th crew member (the loader) is important as an auxillary man (in the minds of some)

Autoloaders don't get tired, but can break down.

 

 

What do you all think about this issue?

[KingSargent]

Well I've noticed that this suprisingly important issue hasn't come up let me set up the pro's and cons, anyone tell me if I miss something

Pros:

Tanks can be smaller and lighter (in many models I've seen by 10-15 tons) or have more armor for the same weight

With some modern autoloaders tanks have actually been able to fire faster than human loaders

An autoloader cannot become fatigued as a person can

Cons:

Some models (such as in the T-72) can cause catastrophic internal explosions

The addition of the 4th crew member (the loader) is important as an auxillary man (in the minds of some)

Autoloaders don't get tired, but can break down.

 

 

What do you all think about this issue?

Some autoloaders have to move the gun to position the breech to load. Then the gunner has to re-target. With a human loader the gunner can stay on target or be targetting another. And the autoloader only functions until its load runs dry, then it has to be replenished, and the tank has to be taken out of action to do it.

 

Actually lots of vehicles use autoloaders. They call them clips and beltfeeds.

[120mm]

IMHO, autoloaders for main guns are generally inferior to a human loader, unless the size of the round gets too big. As far as loaders getting "tired", how does a young guy get worn out on 40 rounds? How often do you shoot your entire basic load in one engagement? The human loaders' fatigue is a worn out excuse, imo.

 

And a fourth crewmember being essential in the minds of some? Only in the minds of tank crews that actually maintain and fight their tanks, that is .

[Delta65driver]

And Dammit you cant send an autoloader to KP or OP/Guard duty. Plus it sucks playing dominoes/Bones without that fourth guy...

[Exel]

A much more important reason for going to autoloader than any fatigue of human loader is that autoloader can keep loading the gun when the tank is moving fast over rough terrain, ie. jumping and bouncing. Human can't do that and the tank has to be fairly steady during the loading. I definitely vote Yay for a good autoloader. Now a different matter is should the autoloader replace the 4th crewmember - in my opinion it shouldn't until the vehicle and its systems can be made far more maintenance-free and automated than at present. That means of course no weight savings, but it would also mean a potentially much more effective fighting crew.

[120mm]

I disagree that a human can't reload while moving over rough terrain. The loader is down low enough that they can reload quite easily, though they may be jostled a bit.

 

Note that noone is questioning the autoloader's effectiveness in rough terrain. I would be willing to venture that autoloaders can be made to malfunction due to terrain. Human loading malfunctions due to terrain are easily corrected.

[Corinthian]

What I learned on TankNet over the years on the issue regarding human or autoloaders:

 

Pros of human loader (or things an autoloader can't do)

 

1. A human loader is useful for guarding the tank

2. A human loader is useful if he's given a MG and he can help defend the tank

3. A human loader is useful for that added pair of eyes

4. A human loader is useful for checking the route ahead (such as checking if the water is too deep to ford)

5. A human loader is useful dominoes (new)

6. A human loader doesn't break down, only tires unless he gets killed

7. A well trained human loader can load rounds faster and therefore make shooting faster.

 

Cons of human loader (or why an autoloader is better)

 

1. Expensive - feed him, clothe him, train him....

2. Gets tired of lifting round after round

3. Can cheat when playing poker

 

Hmmm... that's all I can recall.

[Exel]

I disagree that a human can't reload while moving over rough terrain. The loader is down low enough that they can reload quite easily, though they may be jostled a bit.

 

When the loader is handling the ammunition he can't hold on to anything with his hands. Ride into a bump and the loader can measure the strength of the front wall of his compartment. There's too much space around him really lean on to anything for support either. This on Leopard 2 - I don't expect Abrams be much different in this regard.

[Antti Eilola]

Some autoloaders have to move the gun to position the breech to load. Then the gunner has to re-target. With a human loader the gunner can stay on target or be targetting another. And the autoloader only functions until its load runs dry, then it has to be replenished, and the tank has to be taken out of action to do it.

 

Ummm, it's just the gun that moves, not the sight. All gunner has to do is to keep his sight on the target and wait for the 'ready' light to pop on and this doesn't just apply to tanks with autoloaders, it's the same with Leo 2 for example. As for the ammo load, same applies to tanks with human loaders. After the rounds from ready rack have been depleted, they also have to be taken 'out of action' as you put it.

[Exel]

After the rounds from ready rack have been depleted, they also have to be taken 'out of action' as you put it.

 

And Leopard 2 ready-rack for instance holds only 15 rounds, while a Black Eagle or Leclerc autoloader holds (iirc) 22 rounds.

[Rickard N]

When the loader is handling the ammunition he can't hold on to anything with his hands. Ride into a bump and the loader can measure the strength of the front wall of his compartment. There's too much space around him really lean on to anything for support either. This on Leopard 2 - I don't expect Abrams be much different in this regard.

I haven't had this experience. I had a delay of a second or two after a hard brake due to "mines" in the track, but after a quick "oommppfff" from the loader the guy shoved the round in the gun and said his slow "pil klar" (up). In my experience the ride is seldom that hard that a loader can't load. If the ride is that hard it's more common that the stab doesn't keep up and get the gun in the coincidence window hence you don't have to load.

 

(disclaimer: I admit that there are a lot of tankers with more experience than me in this field.)

/R

[CV9030FIN]

I've got training in both Russian tank with (human) loader (T-55M) and Russian tank without (human) loader (T-72M1). If you don't think age/performance differerence between those two tanks, but only (human) loader issue I take (human) loader. Most of the reasons described abow by ThomasCCT.

 

BTW T-72M1's (automatic)loader does indeed make more missfunctions in rough terrain drive, mostly due stabilators abilityes and due insufficient ejection of spend casings. I my days in T-55's our loaders used to remind drivers if they had driven not too roughly...

 

Edited: adding human/automatic may clear my thoughts...

Edited January 11, 2007 by CV9030FIN

[Akhe100]

1. Actually there are some modern autoloaders that can fire as fast as a well trained person.

2. The main point I wanted to make is that an autoloader will make a tank considerbly smaller and lighter, by a matter of tons, this can greatly increase the speed of the tank and reliability of it's suspension and tracks (less stress), look at the Leclerc, it is lighter than the abrahms and challenger by over 7 tons gives it significantly better mobility not only with ease of transport, but it's range is longer than either.

3. Can a human loader load while the tank is going 50KPH? The autoloader on the Leclerc can.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Akhe100

[Rickard N]

On #3 I say yes.

 

/R

[Stefan Kotsch]

I know the Autoloader of the T-72 also. It was at any time reliable. He works fast. It is always fast. It never grumbles.

The ammunition in the interior must have supervised by a fast fire suppression system (RADUGA). Then also no turret flies away.

 

We insert superfast ballistic computers. We have a stabilizer of highest precision. We drive extremely fast. And then we place an human loader beside the gun? That is a contradiction.

Stupid excuse. The fourth man has so many tasks. Which we want. Take out the maximum of gun, stabilizer and FCS ? Or the fourth man employ.

 

__

If the loader loads the gun accurately according to manual, then it is not faster than the autoloader.

key press; ammo door open; cartridge take; turn 180°; ammo door close; gun load; key press.

3 seconds for each shot? He he!

Edited January 11, 2007 by Stefan Kotsch

[Exel]

On #3 I say yes.

 

/R

 

On roads or flat fields maybe. Any bumps along the way and you'll seriously risk injuring your loader (if he happens to be holding the round in his arms at the moment, not getting support anywhere).

[Animal Mother]

Could it be an idea to retain the 4th man even with an autoloader, but taking care of things like extra cameras for improved situation awareness in urban fighting (watching the rear and sides), and potentally servicing an remote weapons station? Might be an idea on a future tank design?

[Blunt Eversmoke]

Could it be an idea to retain the 4th man even with an autoloader, but taking care of things like extra cameras for improved situation awareness in urban fighting (watching the rear and sides), and potentally servicing an remote weapons station? Might be an idea on a future tank design?

 

Indeed this is exactly what many seem to think, at least if we judge by what was said in the MBT-Next topic on this very board.

[Exel]

Could it be an idea to retain the 4th man even with an autoloader, but taking care of things like extra cameras for improved situation awareness in urban fighting (watching the rear and sides), and potentally servicing an remote weapons station? Might be an idea on a future tank design?

 

I've been a strong proponent of this idea as long as I've been a tanker. It wont give you any weight savings but it retains all the pros of a 4-man crew and adds a few new ones given the "loader" is free to do other tasks besides loading. Yet he's still there to act as a human loader for secondary armament (coax, RCWS) and for the main gun as well should the autoloader fail.

[Hans Engstrom]

See the CV90120T for a human loader who doesn't load much, but is very useful anyway.

[CV9030FIN]

I've been a strong proponent of this idea as long as I've been a tanker. It wont give you any weight savings but it retains all the pros of a 4-man crew and adds a few new ones given the "loader" is free to do other tasks besides loading. Yet he's still there to act as a human loader for secondary armament (coax, RCWS) and for the main gun as well should the autoloader fail.

 

2nd to that. I have sometimes acted as a CO, and I allways missed better communication conections to my tanks. I'd like to call 4th man as a "Radio-operator" and add communications to his duty list at least in Pl LDR/Co CO/Co XO -level. This will be even more important when modern C3I systems start to become every day equipment in every tank near future.

Edited January 11, 2007 by CV9030FIN

[Stefan Kotsch]

See the CV90120T for a human loader who doesn't load much, but is very useful anyway.

 

Wow, a over-qualified loader-engineer. That's perfect!

[CV9030FIN]

See the CV90120T for a human loader who doesn't load much, but is very useful anyway.

 

Hmm. I want those... F*ck the LEO's! Give me killer CV's!

[Akhe100]

at the same time the gains in speed, weight, and reliability seem to me to almost justify taking out the 4th person, I mean soviet tanks go as fast as ours with much weaker engines.

[Rickard N]

On roads or flat fields maybe. Any bumps along the way and you'll seriously risk injuring your loader (if he happens to be holding the round in his arms at the moment, not getting support anywhere).

I have done it, or... well, seen it done by my loader anyway . And no, he wasn't particulary injured. In fact, the only injury we had on a loader was the one putting his head behind the gun to check if the breech was closed while going over some rough terrain and the gun wasn't firing. Then the gun was firing... He got his jaw broken on two or three places and disloated on both sides, but he was alive.

 

/R

(again during 12 months of tank training, but still)

Edited January 11, 2007 by Rickard N