So I was watching a piece on the Military Channel tonight on tanks (thank God we've got a DISH receiver at work, otherwise these 1900-0700 shifts would be pure agony), and they briefly discussed how the autoloader in the Leclerc allowed the tank to be smaller while still having the same firepower.

Anyone know if reliability has been an issue? I mean, it'd suck to be in the heat of battle only to have your autoloader fail. Search didn't really come up with anything...

autoloader has always been seen as a compromise... one that very very few countries have been brave enough to risk their soldiers for. Americans, Germans, Italians, English, South Africans, and Israelis view it as a compromise that puts soldiers at an extremely unneccesay risk of death.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

autoloader has always been seen as a compromise... one that very very few countries have been brave enough to risk their soldiers for. Americans, Germans, Italians, English, South Africans, and Israelis view it as a compromise that puts soldiers at an extremely unneccesay risk of death.

Plus an Autoloader is generally slower than a trained loader. In saying that though, when the technology improves further I think we'll see Autoloaders in all tanks. It makes sense if you can shrink the turret and reduce the number of trained crew per tank.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

autoloader has always been seen as a compromise... one that very very few countries have been brave enough to risk their soldiers for. Americans, Germans, Italians, English, South Africans, and Israelis view it as a compromise that puts soldiers at an extremely unneccesay risk of death.

Could you be more specific? A compromise between what?

Originally Posted by AJChenMPH

Could you be more specific? A compromise between what?

It' a tradeoff of having a load of live rounds in the turret with the crew and a little gain in speed of loading. In a manual loader, the rounds are kept in a container that has outer blast panels which direct an explosion to the outside of the tank. Actually, most loaders have another round in the breech before another target is acquired anyhow.

The first production runs of the tank had a lot of reliability problems, not just with the loader but with the engine, FCS, and other things.

I believe they fixed most of them now. A Leclerc commander said he's never had any trouble with the autoloader.

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

Not to mention the fact that a human loader is going to do everything he can to get that shell in the breech because his life depends on it.

If an autoloader jams it jams. As sure as assault rifels and machine guns jam, autoloaders jam. I'd also think autoloaders could easily break if it by an RPG to ATGM whereas in a conventionally loaded tank if the loader is injured another crew member can get that round in the breach. In Iraq we've seen many situatins where tanks have been rocked by multiple hits that break equipment but the crew and the tank itself are still operational.

How does the auto loader chose between AP and HE at a moments notice

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.

That's not entirely true masterblaster. The problems with getting caught in an autoloader where because the Soviets where trying to stick an autoloader in a chassis designed for a human to be in that part. The Leclerc was specifically designed around the autoloader.

Also, the Leclerc's autoloader can switch between ammunition types.