Originally Posted by masterblaster

It don't. In a live loader tank, the loader loads what the gunner tells him too. In an auto loader tank, you have to use what is in the spout. They can be dangerous too. the early soviet ones tended to load the gunner. Tank crewmen wore loose coveralls and the machine would grab them. Also, a fourth crewman is very handy for guard duty, maintenance, and general fatigues. Auto loaders have been around for forty years but most armies still don't use them. must be a reason.

Ditto.

When running fast,Auto loader is advantageous.
Shaking make loading difficult.
catalogue spec of Leclerc's can destroy a target 3000m away with moving 50km per hour.
I think that
United States tank will adopt the automatic loader.

Originally Posted by sandy

When running fast,Auto loader is advantageous.
Shaking make loading difficult.
catalogue spec of Leclerc's can destroy a target 3000m away with moving 50km per hour.
I think that
United States tank will adopt the automatic loader.

The French millitary has a history of "innovative" design that turns out to be very poor in reality. Not knocking the French, just the Sho-Sho gun and the Aircraft Carrier Charles DuGaulle are two prominant flops.

Mabe the French have it working perfectly but I'm not on-board until we see the Leclerc in the same degrees of combat as the M1 Abrams.

Originally Posted by sandy

When running fast,Auto loader is advantageous.
Shaking make loading difficult.
catalogue spec of Leclerc's can destroy a target 3000m away with moving 50km per hour.
I think that
United States tank will adopt the automatic loader.

The M1 can destroy a target at three miles, while going 45 MPH, in a dust storm, while jumping off a small embankment, while under small arms fire.

The US will not adopt an auto-loader because of the loss of the forth crewman, who can provide extra sercurity, manpower, and can load rounds faster than a auto-loader.

Not to mention the need for extra man hours spent for fixing broken or destroyed loaders and the money spent on teaching mechanics how to fix them and the money spent reconfigerating of the tank and then what do you do with the human loader?

I'm also going to add that the M1 has been around for 26 years, praticipated in five conflicts and also the same platform has kept up with the times.

Originally Posted by Koz

This doesn't change the fact that autoloaders are slower, less versatile, and reduce situational awareness.

I am curious how the autoloader reduces situational awareness?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

I am curious how the autoloader reduces situational awareness?

Very interesting.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

I am curious how the autoloader reduces situational awareness?

When the loader is not loading shells he's observing along with the TC and gunner. Three observers>two.

Originally Posted by sandy

When running fast,Auto loader is advantageous.
Shaking make loading difficult.
catalogue spec of Leclerc's can destroy a target 3000m away with moving 50km per hour.
I think that
United States tank will adopt the automatic loader.

US Army loaders have no trouble loading a shell every 5 seconds on the move.

But it takes up more space and therefore less ammunition, more wieght, heavier tank, easier target, more power consumption, and possible failures of jamming, and more cramped space

I would say that from a tactical point of view it does not make sense to replace a human loader with an autoloader. BUT from a political viewpoint it does to many people in power now. The US Department of Defense is pursuing programmes that remove humans from the danger of combat as much as possible. For a soldier on a personal level this is a wonderful thing as no one wants to be sent into harms way. I would offer though that they are not doing this for an altruistic reason but for a more sinister and far more deadly reason. The logic of Rumsfeld and others of his ilk follows that if fewer soldiers are in harms way, fewer soldiers are killed and if fewer soldiers are killed, then the opposition to military actions will be lessened as a result. I think it is extremely dangerous to our society and world as a whole although it is wonderful for the individual in uniform. So I would think that it is premature to think we won't see an autoloader on American tanks when ultimately THAT decision falls to the politicians and not to the generals.