What are the benefits of having an automatic loader?

T

texasrebel211

Active member
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.
 
It just means that your tank will have 1 less crew member.
This is practical if you are expecting your side to sustain a lot of losses.
 
it gives the builder one more item to charge for... :D

on the serious side..makes the tank easier to eqquip for remote or humanless operation :?
 
Personal costs. Russia is a good example. It had a huge number of tanks and cutting that one extra crewmen is a wonderful way to cut costs.

Less space. Auto-loaders take up less space then a human, allowing for the tank to be smaller and more armor in place
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Personal costs. Russia is a good example. It had a huge number of tanks and cutting that one extra crewmen is a wonderful way to cut costs.

Less space. Auto-loaders take up less space then a human, allowing for the tank to be smaller and more armor in place
Click to expand...
lol yup but russians didn't have armor in some places they should have cough fuel tanks cough
 
egoz said:
it also makes for one more thing to fail in a combat situation.[/i]
Click to expand...

Exactly, with a crew of 2, what happens when you lose 1 more...you either gun or drive, take your pick but not both.
 
CavScout said:
I agree that the only one true assest would be...one less crewman and more room for ammo.
Click to expand...

Because of that Soviet tanks always did carry a bit more ammo than their NATO equivalents. Also, in the event of a European conventional war, I believe the Soviets had thousands of obsolete T-55's and T-10's that they were going to use as strategic reserves so having 3 crew members per tank would definately have helped out there.

Those T-10 tanks were pretty formidable for the time and worried the hell outa NATO Commanders, possibly even as much as the (at the time) current T-72s.
 
brits, us, israel dont use em... thats eneugh for me. probably auto loader isnt as effective as a well trained loader ATM.... but in the future...
 
To somewhat collate the responses

A tank with an autoloader has these advantages . . .

- One less crewman to feed, clothe, train. In a large force, such as the former Soviet Union/Russia, this can really add up to a huge savings in cost.

- The ability to make a smaller tank (And therefore a smaller target). Notice that Soviet/Russian tanks are traditionally smaller than their Western counterparts. This can also be transfered into more of the weight of a given-sized tank being dedicated to armor, fuel, equipment, etc.

A tank with an autoloader has these disadvantages . . .

- It would appear that they have a slower rate of fire than manually-loaded guns. This is due to the ammo type having to be selected, on earlier designs the gun tube had to be elevated, the carousel spun around, and the shell (and on some designs the propellant casing) mechanically shoved into the breech.

- Although I believe the newer designs have addressed this, autoloading designs must have the ammuntion in a position easily accessed by the mechanism. This lead to the deadly carousel arrangement where the ammo was stored in the floor of the tank, exposed to the fighting compartment.

- An autoloader is a mechancal device devised by man, and therefore just as likely to fail/break down as any other mechanical device.

- One less crewman also means there's one less crewman to help maintain the tank. I believe if you ask a tanker, he/she'd say that a good portion of their day is spent working on the tank itself. 3 instead of 4 crewmembers means the work must be spread among less people.

- Undoubtedly addressed in newer designs, but it's my understanding that the earlier versions of the Soviet/Russian autoloader could easily grab the hand, arm, or clothes of anyone who happened to be too close.
 
Re: To somewhat collate the responses

f14peter said:
- Undoubtedly addressed in newer designs, but it's my understanding that the earlier versions of the Soviet/Russian autoloader could easily grab the hand, arm, or clothes of anyone who happened to be too close.
Click to expand...

From what i have learnt that is pretty mutch considered a myth, unless a crewman is really stupid of course. The bigges weakness of the carousel autoloader is that a projectile is always exposed in the turret. This leads to interesting side effects, like flying turrets when penetrated by rounds.
 
Re: To somewhat collate the responses

Animal Mother said:
f14peter said:
- Undoubtedly addressed in newer designs, but it's my understanding that the earlier versions of the Soviet/Russian autoloader could easily grab the hand, arm, or clothes of anyone who happened to be too close.
Click to expand...

From what i have learnt that is pretty mutch considered a myth, unless a crewman is really stupid of course. The bigges weakness of the carousel autoloader is that a projectile is always exposed in the turret. This leads to interesting side effects, like flying turrets when penetrated by rounds.
Click to expand...
Yup, during the first gulf war whenever we had a hit on one of their tanks with an Abrams the turret might fly 50ft up into the air.
 
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.
 
I was in an Iraqi T-62 at Quantico captured by the Marines during the Gulf War, the auto-loader is an advantage and a disadvantage, on one hand you have one less man the other what happens when the round is caught and crush into the auto-loader, or your engine power is cut, or the gunners arm gets caught in it. Plus the tank is crowded with it and you must have an opening with a door, the door on the T-62 was 1 1/2 in. thick, what happens when a HEAT or HESH round hits the door?
 
well...some new tanks use that auto loader and it works well..

i think the only problem of auto loader i ve known is that u got to adjust ur cannon back to straight line of ur tank body when u want to reload..

that is damn wasting time on the battlefield
 
i think that can be solved with a larger body hull of tank,
or different design of auto loader...
the one japan produced Type-90 did a good job...despite the auto loader on it is said to be not too durable...5% of chance to have some sort of problem..
 
Sexybeast said:
i think that can be solved with a larger body hull of tank,
or different design of auto loader...
the one japan produced Type-90 did a good job...despite the auto loader on it is said to be not too durable...5% of chance to have some sort of problem..
Click to expand...
The MGS has an auto-loader and is having jamming and rounds caught in the loader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top