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?
Well they are designed to survive various stresses and impacts.Autoloader: Thousands of moving parts.
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.Loader: One moving part.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, the main problem for the US is that the Abrams has a gas turbine engine which is hideously expensive to run. Starting up the engine alone supposedly takes 11 gallons of fuel - I don't know if anyone can confirm whether that's true or not. Even diesel tank engines though are still quite thirsty although nothing like as bad as a gas turbine.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?
The auto loader, now what if you want to change to a different type of ammunition, say from HE to AP at a moments notice how is the Automatic loader going to deal with that
Yes, in 1946(!) and every single rifle they made up t o7 years ago was based on it. Dont get me wrong I love the AK-47(I have one and i prefer it to most rifles). But still, 62 years ago...Come on SHERMAN, be nice toward the Russians ^^ they arent that bad. They know their stuff when it comes to weapons... They made the AK-47 afterall...
Yes, they have a foolish doctrine, and it only works in Russia in the 1950s. You need a massive army and endless room to retreat if your screwed. oh, and a deadly winter. The problem is they sold that garbage to people like Syria and Egypt, and that screwed those people over seriously. In 1973 Egyptian tank commanders charged with their hatches closed, passed the israeli tanks with out noticing, and got shot in the rear side.It's just that they have a different doctrine. In the West we want elite professional troops with advanced weapons. We aim at superiority in everything... Superior training + superior firepower + Air superiority etc etc...
We look bad when we attack the Taliban, Saddam Hussain and others of their kind. Screw that, I think we look beautifull.We look like the bad guys when we attack poor countries with inferior forces. Etc...
I take personel offence to that and i suggest you apologize. I havent met a single person who was at war and wanted to do it again. Yes its their proffession, but they love their country and they fight for their comrads. Trust me its not a good way to make money.This is why I somehow respect the Soviet Doctrines because I see it like a popular battle... the population fighting for itself.
While most modern armies look like armies of mercenaries... Who love battle because it's their job. And that they would hate to see peace.
Unfortunatly the russians and their clients cant afford superior noumbers.And this balance of power is important. When you use superior equipement to compensate against superior numbers. I can understand that.
who dose? soldeirs are only arrogant untill the first guy gets hit.but when you have superior force + superior numbers... you become arrogant.
No they dont. look at it really long and hard. half the equippment is in disrepair. troops are drunk or deserting, they bearaly have fuel to train.I think that the Russian army is quite balanced. they have numbers...
should we say "with bad optical sights" or sold to countries with a poor level of education and poor training?They make fast, lightly armored, uncomfrtable tanks with bad fire control.
...
In 1973 Egyptian tank commanders charged with their hatches closed, passed the israeli tanks with out noticing, and got shot in the rear side.
Easy sir. that's not what I meant.We look bad when we attack the Taliban, Saddam Hussain and others of their kind. Screw that, I think we look beautifull.
I'm sorry if you felt offended. I mean no disrespect. but I just never said that. I'm talking about potential image. When you are the strongest sherif in town, you have to be ready to be called an imperialist tyrant.I take personel offence to that and i suggest you apologize.
It's not the best exemple... but you see what I mean. War isnt a game. it's not funny. we dont go to war to prove that we are a man or to impress a girl. we dont go to war to prove anything... we go to war to defend ourselves. when we have no other way around...And even some of those who have seen combat, and therefore probably ought to know better, say they'd prefer more "excitement."
For who? If I was selling tanks/aircrafts/bombs... believe me, war is a perfect way to make money.I havent met a single person who was at war and wanted to do it again. Yes its their proffession, but they love their country and they fight for their comrads. Trust me its not a good way to make money.
the Russians actually cant afford a luxuous army... and their clients cant afford quality nor number.Unfortunatly the russians and their clients cant afford superior numbers.
I can imagine that. I'm just a little mad these days... I saw videos on the Internet. I'm pissed off when I see people going to war listening to rock music while they shoot people. And these videos of people getting killed with metal music. like if killing people was fun.who dose? soldeirs are only arrogant untill the first guy gets hit.
their economic model failed, their socialist model failed etc etc... I'm not surprised if there is repercussions on their military forces...No they dont. look at it really long and hard. half the equippment is in disrepair. troops are drunk or deserting, they bearaly have fuel to train.
The problem wasent their tanks. The T-62s were equal to the M48s. They were superior to the Centurion. The problem was the russians told them to charge with hatches closed, so they did. like idiots, which they are not, they are very brave man. But the russian doctrine allowed for zero improviztions.I'm sure that even if they had modern Merkavas at that time, they would still loose the war.
I dont believe in "evil people"...
what I meant is that when you see these videos where you see Apache helicopters shooting people in the desert, by night... while they dont even know that there is some deadly machine looking at them and engaging them... You feel sorry for them. They dont have a chance. I know that it's not a sport, and that there is no such thing as a fair advantage in war... but come on...
So this is why these wars are unpopular. Am I the only one not believing that Irak was EVER a threat to the US?
It's not the best exemple... but you see what I mean. War isnt a game. it's not funny. we dont go to war to prove that we are a man or to impress a girl. we dont go to war to prove anything... we go to war to defend ourselves. when we have no other way around...
For who? If I was selling tanks/aircrafts/bombs... believe me, war is a perfect way to make money.
I'm pissed off when I see people going to war listening to rock music while they shoot people. And these videos of people getting killed with metal music. like if killing people was fun.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.