Ya and how many Russian gunners have lost arms due to auto loaders?

I assume you are referring to the T-72? Quite a few, but that the a trend at the time. The Soviet Union didnt exactly put crew safety as a priority on anything from tanks to submarines to rockets. I believe your comment about the auto-loader trying to load the gunner was particularily on point. But the T-72 was a 30 year old tank, I havent heard of the issue repeating itself on the T-95. Even the older T-64 was fairly reliable. Before I moved to Europe, I had a customer He a russian emigre but he had served as Tank Commander on a T-72 before the fall of the Soviet Union. He told me all sorts of horror stories about the T-72, he much preferred
the T-64.

Obviously it makes no sense to re-equip the M1 with auto loaders. The tank was designed with a human loader from head to toe. To try and equip it with one would akin to gluing on some wings and attaching a propeller and seeing if it would fly. I am refering to future designs, far future, as the Army doesnt seem willing yet to change its position. On the other hand, the now defunct Crusader programme used a autoloader so who knows?

As far as designing and testing an autoloader that will be as efficient, reliable, safe, intuitive, and space saving as a crewman, you won't see one on an American tank for many years. The reality of lack space to add a high tech system with all the sensors, motors, tracks, computer integration software, and more that doesn't immediately come to mind is hard to explain unless you've built and worked on some of the "blibbits" for the military that I have. Right now, I am still working on 1st generation CITVs for GDLS M1A2s because the cost of replacing them with Block 1 CITVs with Horizontal Technology Integration and better video is too expensive to phase in even though the Block 1 has been used since 2000. It takes less space and has better video but all the interior wiring harnesses for Gen1 has to be stripped and the new system installed. The Pentagon is in constant infighting when it comes to system integration because of time and expense. Plus, the old system works well but the electronic parts are becoming obsolete and are having to be scavenged from scrap circuit boards.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Ya and how many Russian gunners have lost arms due to auto loaders?

I assume you are referring to the T-72? Quite a few, but that the a trend at the time. The Soviet Union didnt exactly put crew safety as a priority on anything from tanks to submarines to rockets. I believe your comment about the auto-loader trying to load the gunner was particularily on point. But the T-72 was a 30 year old tank, I havent heard of the issue repeating itself on the T-95. Even the older T-64 was fairly reliable. Before I moved to Europe, I had a customer He a russian emigre but he had served as Tank Commander on a T-72 before the fall of the Soviet Union. He told me all sorts of horror stories about the T-72, he much preferred
the T-64.

Obviously it makes no sense to re-equip the M1 with auto loaders. The tank was designed with a human loader from head to toe. To try and equip it with one would akin to gluing on some wings and attaching a propeller and seeing if it would fly. I am refering to future designs, far future, as the Army doesnt seem willing yet to change its position. On the other hand, the now defunct Crusader programme used a autoloader so who knows?

I can't see the U.S. Army using auto-loaders anytime in the near future. Also your comparing a totally different classes. The Crusader or Crusader XM2001 is a Self-Propelled Howitzer, it utilizes different ammo, parts, and has more space. Also it serve's a different purpose, it sit miles behind the front lines giving arty support.