I'll dig it up but i'm against any thin skinned vehicle to be used in direct fire support, Buford has 3 armor packages, the thickest gives frontal protection against 30mm, you go out with something like that you get screwed by the first RPG round that gets lucky.
Any direct fire support system thats not at least 2nd gen tank protection in respect to armor is a death trap since you'll be coming up against tanks, ATGMs and the like whether you like it or not, there's no need to see it in combat, we know its parameters.
I've seen the M8's stats sheet, and Level III armor is guaranteed against light ATGM's, additionally the US possess the ability to make additional armor packages for it. If we can take a civilian make truck, slap armor plate and a V hull on it, and make it worth enough to withstand IED's, I am sure we can modified the M8.
Granted we (Poland) use our own autoloaders which are better than Russian ones but even the oldest T-72s in our service are more likely to lose a thread, autloaders are pretty idiot proof and reliable by now and with a high mechanical culture of US army its even less likely to get bumpy, also you can still load from the inside, even in an unmanned turret (see austrian kuirrassier).
There are major design differances in US and older Soveit armor. So when an auto-loader jams, who unjams it? Gunner? Driver? TC? Every other position has a job to preform. The US has a loader, who's job is totally devoted to the gun and loading it, minus a loader, you lose that man to preform position specific jobs. Also, the kurassier doesn't have an unmanned turret, it just has an autoloader. And armor protection for the kurassier is only garunteed against 20mm rounds.
As for those few tons, you dont get a few tons, a turret comprises depending on the tank between 30 and 45% total weight, by unmanned you cut that by half and can put it into armor which basically means you get a vehicle thats almost an MBT in armor protection.
With an unmanned turret you lose weight, autoloaders add weight. And with your example with the Kurassier you don't gain any protection, if you want a light tank you don't add armor protection on par with a MBT's, you armor it to it's specfici threats (Light ATGM's, other light tanks, ect...). You do realize an MBT like the Abrams weigh's 70 tons, which requires a 1500hp engine. That's alot of weight to throw on a light vehicles chassis.
Myth, they do break down in Russia but its because Russian army has maintainance procedures that comprise mainly of kicking stuff till it works, if you abuse your hardware it will fail no matter how reliable.
It can't be myth if it's true. For some reason I don't see a tank crew kicking an auto loader. I'm going more along the lines that the Russian's produce cheap crap, because they don't plan on it being around long. As shown with past conflict, both man and machine are expendable to the Russian military. Umm, all hardware is abused, it is abused in normal operation. I'm sure if the Russian's built more reliable, and better hardware and preformed preventive maintenance on it regularly they'd be better off.
I've seen and heard more than one persons account on autoloaders, personnel loaded into the gun, loss of fingers, mechanical failure leading to injuries. Rounds damaged upon loading, damage upon unloading spilling powder in the turret.
Neither can ships, plains, tanks, lights, radios ... You get the point, besides if the tank lost power loading your gun will be the last of your problems.
That wasn't my point. I was saying unless you have a UAAPU, you can't run an autoloader if you vehicle is off or damaged. In US designed tanks, they're designed to fight in NBC conditions. If EMP knocked out an M1's electo-system's it can still operate. If my vehicles power was disable, my one of my main concern's is vehicle and crew defense/safety, so yes for me loading my tanks gun would be a priority.
Thats true, initially human loader is faster however he's also completely unable to keep the rate of fire for long, they get tired, can get wounded or killed, in respect of efficiency both auto and human loaders have their pros and cons.
As for the weight, i'm not going to go in depth you've got Sherman for that, suffice to say that using autoloaders saves about 10 tons of weight in soviet tanks.
In an MBT an autoloader is arguable due to various issues such as smaller ammo capacity but in a light tank its a must in order to provide free weight for the armor, otherwise you get an M8, a deathtrap.
With proper training, and doctrine a loader can keep up his job with ease. Especially in today's armor warfare, tank on tank is less and less, and more on anti-infantry and light skinned targets. And yes each has it's pro's and con's, but for the US military the autoloader had too many con's.
Taking an MBT and adding an autoloader adds weight, unless that MBT was designed from the ground up to have an autoloader in it, such as the Merkava. You can't add something like that without adding weight. Now how do you configure that? Soviet armor has always been lighter than Western armor, autoloader or not, we just tend to have more armor, which in turn adds weight. How does having a human loader add weight?
Well yes, you diminished ammo capacity, crew space, and avaible upgrade space. Well I would agree an auto-loader, would be a good choice on a light tank, but it's not the vehicles focal point, armor and speed are. FYI the M8 has an cylinder drum autoloader.
Did you know in 04' the Army was looking for an AFV to be put into service with the 82nd Airborne Division to replace the M551, due to the need for of a rapidly deployable, sustained, AFV with appropriate firepower. The M8 Buford has been being used as a intermittent solution to the issue, and has been considered as a permanent solution.