What are the benefits of having an automatic loader?

It applies to more than tanks of course.

Having humped 100+ llb artillery shells in the past, I'll go with an automatic loader when available. Hand ramming has its advantages no doubt, but it can sure wear you down.
 
Charge_7 said:
It applies to more than tanks of course.

Having humped 100+ llb artillery shells in the past, I'll go with an automatic loader when available. Hand ramming has its advantages no doubt, but it can sure wear you down.
Click to expand...

Having a auto-loader on arty is great but tanks where is that tank loader when the auto-loader fails, if a arty auto-loader fails theres always or most of the time a loader to fill in for it if it breaks.
 
Hmm, 22 years in artillery. I think I know what it can and can't do, son. I was making a point about an automatic loader's uses. It wasn't an attack on your beliefs about tanks.
 
Charge_7 said:
Hmm, 22 years in artillery. I think I know what it can and can't do, son. I was making a point about an automatic loader's uses. It wasn't an attack on your beliefs about tanks.
Click to expand...

I think you misread my post, I was saying auto-loaders on arty, arty units usually 5-20 miles of support area, the auto-loader on the arty peice can be replace by another or a human loader, the auto-loader in a tank can't be replaced by another or by a human until brought to a maintnace unit and can't be fixed during a battle.

I know what I'm talking about when I say that tanks shouldn't have auto-loaders, my dad's got 21 years in armor, he's an M1A1 Master Gunner.
 
I read your post fine. I don't need instruction from a 16 year old - son of a tanker or not - on artillery. I commented on automatic loaders. That's the topic. I was not commenting on tanks at all.
 
texasrebel211 said:
I personally really can't see any other than having on less person having to be on the tank. But then that is also one less person to do repiars and the such after battle. Also, a trained loader can always load faster than an automatic. LOL but hey, the ruskies usually don't make sense.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that we are talking about tanks.
 
Look, I'm not going to argue with you, but look at the topic title again. It says "What are the benefits of having an automatic loader". It doesn't say a damn thing about tanks. Because YOU were talking about tanks doesn't mean the topic was closed to anything BUT tanks. I think you better check that attitude of your's before you seriously consider a life in the military.
 
if a t80u or t90 battles out with m1, then definetly the t-80 u would win if the ranges were smaller than usual

the autoloader allows tanks to reload faster than normal, and that is important when both are ownage tanks and the second shot would count very badly
 
The advantages of having an autoloader are mainly logistical. You don't need to feed, clothe, house, and train that extra crewmember. For a army with a shitload of tanks, like Russia, this makes sense. They're also smaller, allowing for a reduced internal volume.

Other then that, there is no autoloader out there with performence that even comes close to a human loader.
 
true, good point

russia use to have mass armored divisions with very good tanks and good tactics

such scale was a dream that german generals often had

anyways, enough said, autoloaders save money, training and feeding

but is it that hard to load a shell and fire, it sound like a pretty stupid job i fu ask me, anyone unstumped or handicapped can do it
 
Chinaman said:
if a t80u or t90 battles out with m1, then definetly the t-80 u would win if the ranges were smaller than usual

the autoloader allows tanks to reload faster than normal, and that is important when both are ownage tanks and the second shot would count very badly
Click to expand...

Wrong. Russian autoloaders on both the T-80 and 90 have a minimum cycle time of 6 and 6.5 seconds respectively. Pretty much all loaders on Abrams tank can slam a round in 3 seconds while stationary and 5 seconds while moving, some quicker then that.

Not to mention there wouldn't often be a 2nd shot in a battle between a T-80,90 and an M1A1,A2. The M289A2,A3 can penetrate both tanks over the front turret at 2km. While the T-80,90 cannot.
 
both use the same round sabot

t90 t80u versions have 125mm guns, that makes a bit of a difference

m1 abram has no reactive armor, while t80 and t90 has loads of it

m1 abram has a hot heat signature

t80u especialy could fire heat seeking missiles from its gun, thus it could desory the m1abram engine and trigger an explosion

t80 and t90 also has chopbam armor, i thought u knew about it

many russian weapons are superior than us weapons, while some us weapons are bette rthan russian made ones, depends on what ur going for

dont get stereotypical that russians cant make good tanks, weird since they are the ones with the msot tank experience
 
Chinaman said:
both use the same round sabot

t90 t80u versions have 125mm guns, that makes a bit of a difference

...there is no T-80,90 ammo that can penetrate any western tank at 2km

m1 abram has no reactive armor, while t80 and t90 has loads of it

So? T-80,90 are still less protected then western tanks

m1 abram has a hot heat signature

Yes it does, like most tanks with their huge friggin engines.

t80u especialy could fire heat seeking missiles from its gun, thus it could desory the m1abram engine and trigger an explosion

They cannot fire heat seeking missiles. They can fire the AT-11 which is a laser beam riding missile. These have significant disadvantages compared to conventional ammo. Not to mention the only heat seeking ground missile is the Javelin.

t80 and t90 also has chopbam armor, i thought u knew about it

No, they don't. They use something called Combination K. Chobham is British, why would they give it to the Russians?

many russian weapons are superior than us weapons, while some us weapons are bette rthan russian made ones, depends on what ur going for

Yes, correct. The T-80,90 is not one of these better weapons

dont get stereotypical that russians cant make good tanks, weird since they are the ones with the msot tank experience

Since WWII, what major tank engagement have Russians gotten into?
Click to expand...

In between your claims, which are just plain false. Check your facts.
 
EOD said:
It is less the projectiles then the propellant and the arrangement of the ammo inside the turret in a circle on the "outer inside".
Once a charge goes off it will iginte all others and tha is quite a lot of propellant - propelling not only projectiles but also turrets and the crew in it.

That's why the German Leopard 2 has its ammo all in single metal containers, if something is gonna burn or hit the fire extinguising sytem will take care of it - in the best case before it becomes more serious.the Russians gave away this chance and pay with the lifes of their crews.
The M1 Abrams has its ammo in the rear of the turret in a blast resistant compartment, when ammo is set afire tehre it will blow away the top cover on top of the roof and the crew and crew compartment will stay unharmed and it has prooven to be effective in Iraq.
There is an article with images in the internet by John P. Conway.
Do not have the URL anymore and do not know how to upload the file here. Propably someone finds it in the net again.
Click to expand...


Found the link again:

http://strategypage.com/gallery/articles/abrams_lessons_learned.asp
 
not that its on toppic, but Russia dose not have the most experiencein modern tank warfare, Israel dose. And the autoloader is infrior to the human loader(in my eyes) for the following reasons:

*The juman loader is about twise as quick.
*The human loader dose not jamn :D
*The human loader can replace the gunnger if he is injured, and allow the tank to continue to operate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top