Autoloaders, Yay or Nay?

[dejawolf]

actually, the type 90 turret is 10cm lower than the leopard 2 turret to the turret roof.

the front armour slabs are 10cm lower as well,

thats about.. 0.17 cubic meters less armour volume, for front and side turret armour encompassing the crew area.

about a ton of solid block of steel armour there.

 

thinking about it.. i think i know why the french went for a native gun design. the rheinmetall gun extends too far into the turret,

limiting the tanks design to a longer turret. AKA the japanese, who decided to use the rheinmetall.

thats why the turret is so large.

french had a shorter breech area.therefore they get a shorter turret.

thats why russian turrets are so short. the gun breech is almost right up with the front armour slabs,

while the breech extends 2 breechblock lengths behind on the leopard.

if the japanese had had one of those ukrainian guns, they could have taken full advantage of a crew decrease.

Edited February 11, 2007 by dejawolf

[Exel]

thinking about it.. i think i know why the french went for a native gun design. the rheinmetall gun extends too far into the turret,

limiting the tanks design to a longer turret. AKA the japanese, who decided to use the rheinmetall.

thats why the turret is so large.

french had a shorter breech area.therefore they get a shorter turret.

thats why russian turrets are so short. the gun breech is almost right up with the front armour slabs,

while the breech extends 2 breechblock lengths behind on the leopard.

if the japanese had had one of those ukrainian guns, they could have taken full advantage of a crew decrease.

 

That's true. With a more compact gun you can make the turret ring smaller to the extent that it no longer has room for more than 2 people, thus indirectly meaning that 3 men would make the turret larger than 2 men with an AL. So in that way the autoloader can help to reduce size and weight, but it doesn't produce truly significant savings alone.

 

As for the Type 90, its turret roof has a heavier slope towards the front which cuts some interior volume (though this space wouldn't be required by the loader in any case) but as far as I have been able to measure the maximum turret height (from hull top to turret top, not the total vehicle height) is the same as on Leo 2 or so close that it makes no real difference. However, even if it were some 10cm lower internally one should note that the Japanese are on average shorter so they could probably fit a human loader in there quite comfortably.

 

Now then, another matter worth debating is whether or not a weight difference of 5 or even 10 tons makes any practical difference as far as mobility, reliability or speed goes. The Leopard 2A5 is some 7 tons heavier than 2A4 but is no less reliable or mobile. The Swedes added 3 more tons to that in their upgrade to Leopard 2S, still without losing mobility or causing technical problems. Strategic mobility (bridges, train carts, etc.) may of course be affected, but as far as tactical mobility goes a few tons here or there don't really matter.

[gorf]

oh and if you even fucking try to argument that these models are "not an accurate representation of the real vehicles" i'm going to hit you, beucase i spent a month minimum on each vehicle to make SURE they are.

It is not so correct since Abram's bustle contains 34-36 rounds, while Leclerc's only 22. I.e. 1.6 times more.

 

 

Interesting how Leclerc's armour is passing through gunner's sight.

 

[EchoFiveMike]

5-10 tons weight doesn't make a difference until you collapse a bridge or road, dumping you into a canal. Less weight is good, as long as you don't compromise protection. S/F....Ken M

[Sailor Lars]

Dejawolf. You know. when you got this feeling... bite the shield rim. that's what i do. it helps. when it's about.. IT.

[dejawolf]

It is not so correct since Abram's bustle contains 34-36 rounds, while Leclerc's only 22. I.e. 1.6 times more.

Interesting how Leclerc's armour is passing through gunner's sight.

 

 

the GPS is not passing through the front armour. its passing over it.

[Guest pfcem]

and what about froggy?

you completely ignored his posts.

he's a french leclerc tanker...

and antti eilola? he's a finnish T-72 tanker.

What about froggy & antti eilola? I have replied to the posts I felt needed to be replied to. Have they posted anything to prove your BS assertion that an autoloader "saves" 5-15 tons?

 

 

 

and now you assume "ultimate superposition of supreme power" of being correct.

That is not an assumption on my part.

 

 

 

and why should i be suspended for using rough language, when PFCEM is being hypocritic, bending discussions in his favor, etc.

I am not being hypicritical.

 

Showing the flaws in your posts & showing the truth is not bending the discussions in my favor, it is debunking your arguments.

 

 

 

did you know the danes doesn't have a loaders machine gun on their tank?

they certainly have "battle proven" their tactics, having been to various areas in conflict.

So. How does that support your case in any way?

 

 

 

PFCEM is argumenting that removing the loaders station doesn't decrease the size and weight of the vehicle, which is ludicrous at best.

No, removing a human loader from a tank design & replacing him with a autoloader in an otherwise similar tank design does not save 5-15 tons. More like 2 tons.

 

 

 

anyways, numbers provide absolut truth.

Only if the numbers are both correct & accurately represent the differences between what you are using the numbers to compare.

 

 

 

decreasing internal volume decreases the volume that needs to be protected.

as an example, you can provide a lot more armour for a mouse, than you could for a human,

because a mouse requires less space , you can concentrate more of the armour.

No agrument there but that does not help your case at all. We are not talking of mice & men.

 

 

 

a human loader requires a lot of volume, or space to move around.

to grab a round from the ammunition bunker, and slam it into the breech, he's going to have to sit sideways. to sit sideways, he'll need to sit upright, because legs under the gun isn't a very good idea. following me?

ok. sitting upright requires more roof space. unlike russian MBTs, where the TC and gunner sits with their legs outstretched in front of them.

if the loader was sitting with his legs outstretched, while sitting sideways, he'd get his legs squished by the gunbreech.

an alternative is to put the loader into a fetal position, also something that simply is not going to work, because then the loader cannot load.

so basically you'll need snake-man in the turret for him to be able to load like that, and those people come in a limited supply, and would rather want to work in a circus than drive around on the battlefield in a tank.

 

 

 

anyways, people here can post all the undisputed facts around here they want, and there PFCEM with his band of religious fanatics would come hollering and babbling, disputing them, and being a hypocrit in general.

What undisputed facts? And how do these supposedly undisputed facts you are takling about indicate that an autoloader tank design "saves" 5-15 tons over an otherwise similar human loader tank design?

 

I, and others who know that replacing a human loader with an autoloader does not "save" 5-15 tons but does remove combat capabilities from a tank design are not religious fanatics.

 

Note to MODERATOR: I received a very stearn warning more than a year ago for calling someone a hypocrite.

 

 

 

and i still rest my case after reading the 1st post.

the BMP-1 vs BMP-2 is a valid example of how reducing the amount of crewmembers in the turret , and utilizing an autoloader is going to reduce the weight of the vehicle.

doubly so because the BMP-1 provides more space for soldiers in the back with its autoloader design.

[gorf]

the GPS is not passing through the front armour. its passing over it.

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2007 by gorf

[Daniel Papp]

Considering the tanks developed after the 1980s (Chally 2, Leclerc, Ariete, Ukrainian/Russian prototypes, Type 90 (J), Type 96 (Ch), K2, K1, Arjun, Merkava 4) 5 has human loader and 5 has autoloader the armies and tank designers are divided on the issue.

[Rocky Davis]

and what about froggy?

you completely ignored his posts.

he's a french leclerc tanker...

and antti eilola? he's a finnish T-72 tanker.

and now you assume "ultimate superposition of supreme power" of being correct.

and why should i be suspended for using rough language, when PFCEM is being hypocritic, bending discussions in his favor, etc.

 

did you know the danes doesn't have a loaders machine gun on their tank?

they certainly have "battle proven" their tactics, having been to various areas in conflict.

 

You all can argue about saving weight, saving height, making tanks lighter, speedier etc. all you want. That's not my argument, nor has it been. Obviously, if a turret only needs to have two crew members, it needs less space.

 

This thread is entitled "Autoloaders - Yea or Nay". I have posted the reasons that the human loader concept has superiority over the reduced crew size. Neither you or anybody else has been able to come up with an argument that makes a three-man crew with autoloader every bit as efficient (in all of the aspects of the human loader's realm) as a four-man crew tank.

 

That nations do use three-man tank crews means nothing. The crews were designed to fit the equipment. While the autoloader may be able to load (on a sustained rate) faster than a human, it is a non-thinking machine that could break down . . . PLUS it cannot do all of the other things I mentioned that a human loader does. Obviously, some nations have decided to try and "outflank" some of these lost human loader capabilities by supposedly following the MBTs with extra soldiers to take on those tasks. But, all that does is increase the need for additional vehicles and personnel in the unit.

 

That some of the nations using three-man crews are battle tested means nothing as well. It just means that they found a way to overcome the loss of one human per tank, however cumbersome that "way" is.

 

I have not been posting directly at anybody unless I have been addressed first. Only two people here decided to try and counter my arguments for a human loader - you and Akhe100. Therefore, you two are the only ones I engaged.

 

You should feel special in that regard!

[Exel]

Out of curiosity, Rocky Davis, what do you think about the concept of having a 4-man crew with an autoloader if it results in no other sacrifices? Personally I can envision that the 4-man crew without a human loader would be especially useful in command vehicles where the one man would double as the TC for the CO/XO/PL.

[Rocky Davis]

Out of curiosity, Rocky Davis, what do you think about the concept of having a 4-man crew with an autoloader if it results in no other sacrifices? Personally I can envision that the 4-man crew without a human loader would be especially useful in command vehicles where the one man would double as the TC for the CO/XO/PL.

 

I would be all for it. The "extra crew member" could continue to do all of the duties a loader on a four-man crew has, except loading the main gun. However, he could be trained to apply immediate action to the autoloader in the event of an autoloader breakdown and could aslo be trainined to load manually in emergency situations - such as during a firefight when the autoloader has mechanical problems.

[atst]

Considering the tanks developed after the 1980s (Chally 2, Leclerc, Ariete, Ukrainian/Russian prototypes, Type 90 (J), Type 96 (Ch), K2, K1, Arjun, Merkava 4) 5 has human loader and 5 has autoloader the armies and tank designers are divided on the issue.

 

If you start counting from the 90s AL win.

 

 

Now here was a discussion about shortening abrams turret by removing one man. Now I don't think it makes sense. Sure, the turret will be somewhat smaller but it's would be a relatively small change and hardly justify the costs. Autoloader-Upgrade advantages are generally not that effctive as a tank being already designed with an AL.

 

Now when a new tank is developed it's not only possible to shorten the turret, but to make the side sections of the turret smaller (the central section which contains the breech don't change it's height to ensure sufficient gun depression). Those approaches are currently very popular and implemented on Leclerc, K2, Black Eagle but the most consequent solution is jordanian falcon-turret. Now that really saves weight since it lowers the sides to the turret ring level and eliminates the heaviest armored plates of the turret (most of the both frontal plates, over 50% of the roof, most of rear turret armor).

Additionally since the crew is in hull, the protection of turret's sides can be decreased (sure there's still a certain level of protection necessary but in this case it protects only the breech and AL, not lives). That's already a two-digit number of saved tons.

 

And now we have to consider that a weight decrease has exponential effect:

lighter turret->smaller engine which additionally saves weight->less consumption->smaller fuel tanks (again less weight)-> less load on suspension->lighter tracks, lighter torsions,lighter (or less) wheels. Now we have already a very significant decrease in weight.

 

Consequences: higher speed, lower consumption (-> less fuel convoys->less support troops die in convoy ambushes), can cross more bridges (->again increase in mobility->less combat engineers die under air attacks while building bridges), can handle softer terrain, more tanks can be transported by an aircraft, LCAC, LPD etc)

Parallel to these improvements falcon turret offers: crew under turret ring-> far smaller silhouette->far better probability to make the first shot, crew almost invulnerable in hull-down position (only the gun is in enemie's LOS AND is far harder to spot)

 

Those are VERY significant advantages which allow increase of crew protection AND decrease of weight (with the mentioned dozens positive consequencs on the tank itself and on support infrastructure). Infact Falcon turret is the last step before a completely unmanned turret and it's advantages can't be ignored. Of course such a turret demands an AL and don't need a 4th man since he both don't fit AND would be limited on a half-lying position like all other crew members without possibility to perform the tasks today loaders can.

[Exel]

Parallel to these improvements falcon turret offers: [--] far better probability to make the first shot

 

Assuming you can see the enemy first, which is a huge assumption considering the reduced capabilities in situational awareness and observation. Might work well in the deserts or wide open plains, but if you get into any more obstructed terrain you'll be severely handicapped simply by not being able to stick your head out and use the good old mark I eyeball. Periscopes always leave blind spots and dead angles and systems like CITV are very slow when compared to turning your eyes and head.

 

Infact Falcon turret is the last step before a completely unmanned turret and it's advantages can't be ignored.

 

No, but it seems you can conveniently ignore all the disadvantages. Well the world militaries haven't, as I can't name one nation that would have Falcon-esque turrets in operational use. There's only the T-95 that probably hasn't if ever will leave the drawing board, and not even Jordan produced the Falcon beyond a few test specimen.

 

Btw, according to DefenseNews.com the "the turret currently weighs in at 17 tons fully loaded [--] said they can shave at least another 4 tons off the turret by reducing the armor". Not that much lighter after all, is it? Well, not really surprising considering that the only external surface reduction is in the front and back plates and smaller bustle roof.

[irregularmedic]

And now we have to consider that a weight decrease has exponential effect:

lighter turret->smaller engine which additionally saves weight->less consumption->smaller fuel tanks (again less weight)-> less load on suspension->lighter tracks, lighter torsions,lighter (or less) wheels. Now we have already a very significant decrease in weight.

 

 

lighter tracks? How is that?

 

Is that the case? If so, can someone enlighten me?

 

I wouldn't have thought that no matter how much weight could be potentially removed from the turret that it would call for a different design of tracks or that it could possible to save any significant amount of weight by somehow designing/using less robust tracks.

 

The only way I could see the tracks being lighter would be if the powerpack were being replaced by a unit so much smaller that the engine compartment was shortened enough to shorten the overall length of the running gear, thereby saving a few links...

 

But I'm just one of those tank 'dreamers'...

Edited February 13, 2007 by irregularmedic

[Akhe100]

We could say that tanks used in conventional warfare would have an AL to increase speed, protection, etc, but vehicles used in LIC and urban operations where all around vision and secondary weapons are more important, and speed isn't so much of a factor (you can only move so faster through a city), we could have a 4 man crew.

[Guest pfcem]

Now here was a discussion about shortening abrams turret by removing one man. Now I don't think it makes sense. Sure, the turret will be somewhat smaller but it's would be a relatively small change and hardly justify the costs. Autoloader-Upgrade advantages are generally not that effctive as a tank being already designed with an AL.

It was not really a discussion. Just someone showing off their graphics manipulation skills.

 

 

 

Now when a new tank is developed it's not only possible to shorten the turret, but to make the side sections of the turret smaller (the central section which contains the breech don't change it's height to ensure sufficient gun depression). Those approaches are currently very popular and implemented on Leclerc, K2, Black Eagle but the most consequent solution is jordanian falcon-turret. Now that really saves weight since it lowers the sides to the turret ring level and eliminates the heaviest armored plates of the turret (most of the both frontal plates, over 50% of the roof, most of rear turret armor).

Additionally since the crew is in hull, the protection of turret's sides can be decreased (sure there's still a certain level of protection necessary but in this case it protects only the breech and AL, not lives). That's already a two-digit number of saved tons.

Yes & all that is a matter of design which can be done with a 3-man (human loader) turret as well. The only real difference being ~1' in turret length & that does not save 5-15 tons (not even close).

 

 

 

And now we have to consider that a weight decrease has exponential effect:

lighter turret->smaller engine which additionally saves weight->less consumption->smaller fuel tanks (again less weight)-> less load on suspension->lighter tracks, lighter torsions,lighter (or less) wheels. Now we have already a very significant decrease in weight.

 

Consequences: higher speed, lower consumption (-> less fuel convoys->less support troops die in convoy ambushes), can cross more bridges (->again increase in mobility->less combat engineers die under air attacks while building bridges), can handle softer terrain, more tanks can be transported by an aircraft, LCAC, LPD etc)

Except that can only occur if the weight saving you begin with (lighter turret) is significant. Unfortunately for the pro-autoloader crowd the weight difference between a 3-man turret design with a human loader vs essentially the same 2-man turret design with an autoloader (or vice versa) is only on the order of 10%, not the wildly over estimated difference being claimed.

 

 

 

Parallel to these improvements falcon turret offers: crew under turret ring-> far smaller silhouette->far better probability to make the first shot, crew almost invulnerable in hull-down position (only the gun is in enemie's LOS AND is far harder to spot)

 

Those are VERY significant advantages which allow increase of crew protection AND decrease of weight (with the mentioned dozens positive consequencs on the tank itself and on support infrastructure). Infact Falcon turret is the last step before a completely unmanned turret and it's advantages can't be ignored. Of course such a turret demands an AL and don't need a 4th man since he both don't fit AND would be limited on a half-lying position like all other crew members without possibility to perform the tasks today loaders can.

Nobody is denying that the crewless Falcon turret saves a significant amount of weight but it does so by removing all three crew from the turret & removing 2/3-3/4 of the entire turret structure.

 

But removing a human loader from a tank turret design & replacing him with an autoloader does not result any anything close to that.

[Guest pfcem]

We could say that tanks used in conventional warfare would have an AL to increase speed, protection, etc, but vehicles used in LIC and urban operations where all around vision and secondary weapons are more important, and speed isn't so much of a factor (you can only move so faster through a city), we could have a 4 man crew.

Sure, you could say that. But it would'nt make it true.

Edited February 13, 2007 by pfcem

[Akhe100]

Check your grammar or something because I have no idea what you just said.

[Exel]

I don't know where you get the idea that you need to make tanks go faster, but you really don't. There really are few places where you'd need or even could go over 70 km/h with a tank. And even if you did, the vehicle mass really isn't the limiting factor for speed.

[Rocky Davis]

But I'm just one of those tank 'dreamers'...

 

Yep . . . I know how is is to see people wistfully eyeing the tank convoy as it rumbles past . . . being secretly jealous of the crewmembers protruding from the hatches as a cloud of dust follows immediately behind . . .

[Exel]

Yep . . . I know how is is to see people wistfully eyeing the tank convoy as it rumbles past . . . being secretly jealous of the crewmembers protruding from the hatches as a cloud of dust follows immediately behind . . .

 

And after having crewed one, it'll turn into wistfully eyeing the tank convoy, being secretly spiteful of the crewmembers protruding from the hatches, thinking "those guys are going to go through the same shit I did" and then proceeding to enjoy the luxuries of civilian life.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Exel

[Rocky Davis]

And after having crewed one, it'll turn into wistfully eyeing the tank convoy, being secretly spiteful of the crewmembers protruding from the hatches, thinking "those guys are going to go through the same shit I did" and then proceeding to enjoy the luxuries of civilian life.

 

Which I am doing at this moment!

[atst]

Except that can only occur if the weight saving you begin with (lighter turret) is significant. Unfortunately for the pro-autoloader crowd the weight difference between a 3-man turret design with a human loader vs essentially the same 2-man turret design with an autoloader (or vice versa) is only on the order of 10%, not the wildly over estimated difference being claimed.

 

As I already said I'm not talking about shortening the turret, but lowering it's side segments. Falcon is the most consequental approach in this direction since it lowers it to the turret ring level. However it's NOT a crewless turret (turret's basket is it's integral structure, not the hull's), the crew ist still there, just lowered to fit completely in the basket. Yes, the TC and Gunner can see only 180° to each side when they stick their heads out BUT riding israeli-style in the combat was not a good idea already in yom-kippur-war and today with more sophisticated panorama sights even less. I agree that it wil be a sacrifice, but there ain't no wonders, a better protection is a trade-off.

 

Assuming you can see the enemy first, which is a huge assumption considering the reduced capabilities in situational awareness and observation. Might work well in the deserts or wide open plains, but if you get into any more obstructed terrain you'll be severely handicapped simply by not being able to stick your head out and use the good old mark I eyeball. Periscopes always leave blind spots and dead angles and systems like CITV are very slow when compared to turning your eyes and head.

No, but it seems you can conveniently ignore all the disadvantages. Well the world militaries haven't, as I can't name one nation that would have Falcon-esque turrets in operational use. There's only the T-95 that probably hasn't if ever will leave the drawing board, and not even Jordan produced the Falcon beyond a few test specimen.

 

Since we are talking about a new-designed tank here why to stick to the old CITV. The target is to increase protection AND reduce size (also a positive effect on protection) and this is to be ensured by using modern technologies. Why not a helmet mounted device like on Apache Helicopter, or helmet-cued IRST-sights on aircraft? The TC turns his head, and the sight on turrets roof does it too. with a powerful and sesitive electromotor it can follow TC head's movement pretty fast. Modern electronics are permanently decreasing in price while improving protection by traditional methods (more armor, more weight, more sophisticated armor package) will be more expensive.

 

 

Btw, according to DefenseNews.com the "the turret currently weighs in at 17 tons fully loaded [--] said they can shave at least another 4 tons off the turret by reducing the armor". Not that much lighter after all, is it? Well, not really surprising considering that the only external surface reduction is in the front and back plates and smaller bustle roof.

 

"only the front" are the heaviest armor plates of the whole vehicle.

 

Now here's a question what are they counting as turret weight and what not (gun, systems, AL?). Let's look at the turret:

 

 

And compare to that

 

 

I would say the difference is significant, and it's not just "size reduction" but "size reduction at the right spots", the spots where most weight is spend on traditional tanks.

[Sailor Lars]

Out of curiosity, Rocky Davis, what do you think about the concept of having a 4-man crew with an autoloader if it results in no other sacrifices? Personally I can envision that the 4-man crew without a human loader would be especially useful in command vehicles where the one man would double as the TC for the CO/XO/PL.

 

Thank you Exel. That was my original point in a more clear form in the first place The battlefield changes, the future vehicles will likely change more or less as well