If you have an autoloader and retain the 4th crewmen i can live with it...but wont that take up a lot of room in the turret?

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

If you have an autoloader and retain the 4th crewmen i can live with it...but wont that take up a lot of room in the turret?

it will take up some room but the mass majority of it will be placed in the bustle position and directly behind the maingun, and as you already know that this area of the gun is not where a loader wants to be anyways, unless he wants his bell rung.

I imagine it's like taking a right jab from a seven ton fist. Am I close?

Originally Posted by Damien435

Autoloader: Thousands of moving parts.

Well they are designed to survive various stresses and impacts.

Loader: One moving part.

I afraid human loader can be taken out more easily than autoloader. Since human loader at first need to remain standing, even when tank is driving over hard terrain and swinging. What happens, if human loader fell and twist his ankle? Or broke his arm? Moreover, human loader must be able not only to keep his equilibrium, but also to handle projectiles from stockpile to cannon bolt. And if trained loader will succeed both to keep equilibrium and carry projectiles, turning for 180° for each projectile, than substitution of human loaders in case of high casualties will be a problem. Another problem is that human loader must be quite a `big guy`, since not every man can easily move 120mm projectiles fast and accurate enough.

Another benefit of autoloader is less space needed for it. Less space to protect means less volume of interior room and less projections of silhouette, as well es more effective use of armor. Which eventually allows to make vehicle smaller, lower and lighter, while armored not less than vehicles with human loader.

Another problem is that human loader must be quite a `big guy`, since not every man can easily move 120mm projectiles fast and accurate enough.

I can't answer for other army's, but our Army has regular PT to ensure soldiers get/stay in proper physical condition. The four best tanks in the world (according to a survey done on MilForums by your's truly) all use manual loaders and the only two auto-loaders of the top-six were crushed in the opening rounds of the competition.

Originally Posted by Damien435

The four best tanks in the world (according to a survey done on MilForums by your's truly) all use manual loaders and the only two auto-loaders of the top-six were crushed in the opening rounds of the competition.

Well all those `tank tops` are only theoretical meditation, since only credible criteria of quality of combat ability of tank is its performance in battlefield. What is important - in battlefield against other tanks of the same generation.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

However, as a tank commander in the IDF i have to say a few things...

1. Thoguh all out wars with massive tank fleets seem a thing of the past, i wouldent put my money on it... After WWI all out war in europe with millions of soldiers seemed a thing of the past. When big players decide to play against each other(Russia Vs China, India Vs. Pakistan, Israel Vs. Egypt/Syria...) one of the weapons of chice will have to be the tank. Nothing takes the fight to the enemy like an armoured brigade, nothing.

I think the US/UK offensive operations in 2003 spelled the end of massed armoured and armoured infantry divisions swarming 'blitzkrieg-style' into the enemy. The main issue, as I'm sure you know, is the stupendous amounts of fuel a modern tank brigade, never mind a full division or even an corps, takes for any kind of sustained operations. The US and British armoured advance into Iraq in 2003 was stalled not because of enemy action but simply because they ran out of fuel. So in future we might see armoured brigades with very high tooth to tail ratios that can perform operations that required full divisions in the past. We won't see an operation like Desert Storm again though because even the richest nation in the world, i.e. the US, can no longer afford them.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

2. Unamanned turrets scare me. As a tank commander i am taught to use my eyes to locate the enemy, and see the terrain. I dont see how and opics will allow me to see as well as with my head outside.

It seems to me that modern technology is far superior to the human eye for observation and detection purposes but as I'm not a tank commander and you are, I'm sure what you say has to be considered very seriously.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

3. Autolaoders... I feel the same about them as i feel about unmanned turrets. I dont know about loaders in your army...But my loader is preetey fast, and dose good work with his MG. Not to speak of the 60mm mortar. And when you have 3 men to maintain your tank, it takes more time than a 4 men crew...

just my thoughts.

My feeling is that because armies are downsizing the number of tanks they have, autoloaders are less of a priority than they were before. The Soviets liked them because they had massive tank fleets but the future is small and I think one of the main arguments for them, namely to free up trained men, is disappearing to an extent.

I think the US/UK offensive operations in 2003 spelled the end of massed armoured and armoured infantry divisions swarming 'blitzkrieg-style' into the enemy. The main issue, as I'm sure you know, is the stupendous amounts of fuel a modern tank brigade, never mind a full division or even an corps, takes for any kind of sustained operations. The US and British armoured advance into Iraq in 2003 was stalled not because of enemy action but simply because they ran out of fuel. So in future we might see armoured brigades with very high tooth to tail ratios that can perform operations that required full divisions in the past. We won't see an operation like Desert Storm again though because even the richest nation in the world, i.e. the US, can no longer afford them.

Well, i dont think that the price of the oil should be the problem. Tank engines, like most(all of the as i know) diesel engines can run on verious oils, including bio-diesel and other such stuff. As to the logistics, i would thing getting the diesel to the tanks should be getting easier over the years, am i wrong?

It seems to me that modern technology is far superior to the human eye for observation and detection purposes but as I'm not a tank commander and you are, I'm sure what you say has to be considered very seriously.

Perhaps if i was trained by a diffrent military, i would think diffrently. but the way i command my tank just seems impractical with cameras. You have to look at least in 2 directions(gun and hull), and actually in 4(gun, hull, crew compartment, other tanks in the unit).
as far as detection, that kind of equipment dose not replace the human eye but is added to it(as in systems that locate ATGMs and thermal imaging devices)

My feeling is that because armies are downsizing the number of tanks they have, autoloaders are less of a priority than they were before. The Soviets liked them because they had massive tank fleets but the future is small and I think one of the main arguments for them, namely to free up trained men, is disappearing to an extent.

That is a good point.