Originally Posted by SHERMAN

As Elad put it with out noticing, some of them are indeed meat for the more advanced 6. I count 6- M1A2, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Merkava Mk IV, Leclerc, T-90.

And Elad human loader can load around 12 rounds per minute. Maybe 15 if he is really good and really really pupmed up. It also depends on the tanks way of ammo storage.

Will next gen tanks go for automatic loader, wouldn't them? Seems to be a logical step on tanks development.

Eventually I would think so, but as it remains now their are reasons to keep the loader. Relablity for one. We had a member here named Cadet Seamen, he was a US tanker and though he was very knowledgeable he was steadfast against autoloading tanks, due to the early Russian (T-80)autoloaders attempt to load the gunner into the gun.

However there have been massive improvements in this area from the early generations. The Leclerc for example has a working and reliable auoloader.

Autoloaders have many issues to resolve. I am anti auto-loader my self for the following reasons:

1) Most auto loaders store ammo in the turret unsafely and thats why you see so many T-72s with their turrets disconnected after being hit.

2) Most(read all) autoloaders do not alow a 4th member of the crew to be on the tank, which means less work force for maintanance and if the driver is injured you automatically loose your gunner as well, because he has to replace the driver. I rather loose a loader and load the gun my self(speaking as a tank commander).

3) Tanks already have so much that can brake down, why add another thing to it...


There are more cons and of course pros to autoloaders.

i think that a shell loading is a Human Job! because i would trust a loader in my Tank more than i would trust an ignorant machine,that,as SHERMAN,said can brake down,there is not replamnet for a Human capability.
also the loader takes part on the Machine gun firing on the top of the turet isent he? so it is an added fire power against Infantry

not all armies use a loaders machinegun. The Merkava Mk 4 had no loader machinegun in the first production models.

K1/2/Leclerc/Ariete - all need to be treated equally, while they might be superior or inferior in some regards their overall performance is so similar there's no practical difference on the battlefield.

They're at the top along with laters M1,2A4 and Challenger 2.


Arjun - despite being built along western patterns it has its lacks, there's rumors about weaker armor and inferior optics, its apparently weaker than the Russian T-90 given that India purchases it instead.

I dont know much about the North Korean pingpong but it looks like a glorified T-72.

Degman looks like an upgraded M-84 so its more like a 2nd gen tank (just like pingpong).

PT-91 is basically an improved version of T-72, its closer to T-64 in performance but also no big whoop here.

I wouldn't include the K1. It's a basic M1 with a diesel engine and some other changes.
K1A1 is roughly equivilent to an M1A1.
K2 is a much improved MBT.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I wouldn't include the K1. It's a basic M1 with a diesel engine and some other changes.
K1A1 is roughly equivilent to an M1A1.
K2 is a much improved MBT.

Specifically K1A1 which is the variant to which all K1 are being upgraded is superior to M1A1, the K1 was superior to the original M1 by having superior optics (commanders panoramic sights if i recall, gotta recheck though) and hydropneumatic suspention.

So in both variants K1 is superior to its american equivalent.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Autoloaders have many issues to resolve. I am anti auto-loader my self for the following reasons:

1) Most auto loaders store ammo in the turret unsafely and thats why you see so many T-72s with their turrets disconnected after being hit.

2) Most(read all) autoloaders do not alow a 4th member of the crew to be on the tank, which means less work force for maintanance and if the driver is injured you automatically loose your gunner as well, because he has to replace the driver. I rather loose a loader and load the gun my self(speaking as a tank commander).

3) Tanks already have so much that can brake down, why add another thing to it...


There are more cons and of course pros to autoloaders.

Oks, all clear.
Seems that mainly are technical reasons, for example, 1) unsafely stored ammo, could get better protection with a new design, 2) saving a member would be a way to save personal, and for maintenance is a matter of reliability, 3) better reliability again.

But as you say for nowadays applications, the cons are more important still.

By the way, I'm very ignorant in this field, so surely this kind of developments need more time.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying autoloaders are useless, I just dont like them. Other people can argue the opposite of what I argue on this topic.