Hey man! Just got recommended your gem of a channel through this video. I think the algorithm likes this new type of thumbnail with a blueprint design over your older photographic ones 🤔
The turret of the Austrian 🇦🇹 Jagdpanzer „Kürassier“ was similar to the AMX. I had the opportunity to shoot with it‘s 10,5 cm cannon. Greetings from Linz 🇦🇹 Austria 😎👍🐺 Europe!
Another issue with the oscillating turret is wear and tear. Having the large, heavy gun and loader etc. so far from the turret ring puts a LOT of extra stress on the ring when driving on broken ground just due to simple leverage. I think the oscillating turret has enough benefits to be very useful in certain situations, but it becomes a specialty vehicle in a world that REALLY tries to minimize variation. In WW2, every nation had dozens and dozens of different vehicles (for various reasons) but these days militaries try to really minimize the number of different frames and engines and guns. Supply and support become far easier when you do this.
I've heard it said that French engineers rarely imitate other countries... and other countries rarely imitate them. They do their own thing for better and worse and there tends to be a very unique flavor to french military equipment.
@@HumbleFoxGaming Not really, that's my point. Sometimes it means you get innovations ahead of their time (like the Renault F1), and sometimes you get completely unusable crap (like the Chauchat). If you average it out, france is not better or worse, they're just different.
@@simonbarabash2151 - The Renault FT-17 was widely imitated. Indeed, it was the basis for pretty well all tank design that followed. Also, the Panhard 178 armoured car seems to have spawned a number of near copies.
@@EARTHKEENING man, I really like the ARL 44, but of all the post-war French tanks to mention, I'd say the ARL 44 is actually iconic for being rather old-fashioned than futuristic. The French had so many futuristic designs on the way, but the ARL 44 was not one. It was merely a way to reactivate their tank industry after the war. Still, they look so cool, even if outdated. They made very few of them, which is a sensible choice, but I would have liked to see more of them in museums. My rationale for this: The hull looks just like a B1 flipped upside down. The tracks are in fact from the B1. The entire suspension is something you'd expect from the very first WW1 tanks such as the Mark I, with small road wheels and vertical coil springs (when everyone was moving towards torsion-bar suspensions at the time). The engine was underpowered and this suspension limited the speed to 30kmph--an unpopular choice in an era of high availability of HEAT (Leo1 and AMX30 would later favour mobility over armour). The turret is actually decent and the most modern-looking thing on the tank, but not futuristic or modern even for WW2 standards. Considering the Centurion and the initial production of the T-54 had been adopted 3 years before the ARL-44, the turret design is not revolutionary. It was, in fact, a makeshift solution. They were built from welded plates recovered from the Dunkerque battleship wreck. The armour and armament, however, were actually pretty good, though not really useful at the time (hence their move towards lighter armoured vehicles until the LeClerc). The 90mm gun is probably the best part, better than the Panther's from their tests, and likely had better performance than the Russian D-10T on the T-54 and the American M3 (T15) on the Pershing (1000m/s vs 895 m/s and 975 m/s), though probably worse than the British 20-pounder (1,020 m/s). However, note that we are comparing the ARL 44 (classified a heavy tank at 50 tons) to only medium tanks (30 ~ 40 tons). The 120mm frontal plate angled at 45 degrees (effectively 170mm) also looks really nice and would be the most armour on any French tank until the LeClerc. However, consider that the T-54 had already been adopted by then (the hull is even older: the T-44-100 had 120mm hull at 60 degrees, effectively 240mm) and had better power-to-weight, weighed 20 tons less, and had better turret armour, 200mm+ vs 110mm. I'd give it to you that the ARL 44 actually looks "retro-futuristic". Like some steampunk anachronistic alt-history tank. And that's because it kinda is exactly that. After the liberation of France, they wanted to quickly restart tank production. They chose a so-called "char de transition" (transitional tank) to fill that gap. Their starting point was the Char B1 (to reuse old stocks of components) and whatever they had designed so far for the G1 and the FCM F1. So they were basically working with 1920s stuff; hence anachronistic: it's like a what if 1920s tanks were inspired by the Panther. They could have gone for a modern suspension system (and maybe made the ARL 44 a competitive design for late 1940s), but they would have had to use disgusting foreign designs that couldn't make use of their sweet 1920s obsolete stock.
@@wogelson Oh defintley the British. I still cling to that joke lazerpig made about the british. Throughout the 20th centry they kept on trying to wallce and gromit themsleves through wars.
I can give you an 'in a nutshell' version of that. When tanks first came about, they were an evolution of cavalry (as in horses) and so their main mode of use was to travel in pack and clear the way through a battlefield. This roughly covers WWI and WWII. Tanks, largely, fell out of favour during the Vietnam war due to the dense nature of the jungle, which is where APC's got their start. As we evolve beyond Vietnam and come back to more open space in battlefields, tanks fell into favour again. This would be the desert wars. The change however was the rapid sword and shield arms race between anti-tank weapons and tank defences like those grid mesh RPG detonation shields and those defensive chaff launching things. The mode of use changed from leading the charge, to 'run and gun' artillery support. Of course, as well as a useage change with tanks, there was also a significant design change from a heavily armoured vehicle (relatively speaking) to a lighter armoured vehicle with more agility. This modern use case saw tanks used, tactically, as platoon support weapons which would hide behind terrain features and move quickly in order to secure their safety, whilst providing fire power from quite some distance, kind of like a mortar. In the most recent evolutions of war, i.e. urban combat, tanks have tactically become almost worthless. Not entirely, but almost. In patrols, tanks serve to act as a distraction and a magnet for enemy fire, predominantly. Tanks in modern urban warfare have lots of weaknesses and very few benefits. Their armour is only good for small arms fire, they're slower than a humvee or APC, they're still susceptible to IED attack and an urban environment provides ample cover and concealment to coordinate an attack on a tank with anti-tank weapons (RPG's etc). There's obviously a psychological component to patrolling the streets with a tank in company, or having 2 tanks come and get you for casevac, but tactically speaking, the main gun does not provide significant benefits and there isn't a huge tactical advantage to tanks... In the current battlefield. That could change though.
4:18 Gotta point out, modern tank sights aren't enslaved to the gun, it can stay on target when the gun is away while the loader is doing his or its job
Yes but mechanic laws just Say that it wont return exactly at initial position. There is Always a difference and this Comes to be an issue with the distance of the target. Remember that in practice, the precision of the shot at 2000m is about 4m.
@@tricosteryl Yeah, but that isn't an issue as just firing the gun will change the position of the gun at least as much as bringing it to the index position and then back to firing position. Recoil dampeners aren't perfect as well.
@Retired Bore currently working as an engineer I confirm returning at the same position id impossible. It is mechanical fact. And the precision required hère is very high, so this may be satisfacting if the target is really close, but we dont anticipate that a tank fight will be like in wot.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Sure but changing one thing is going to affect accuracy, doing two is going to affect it more (likely by the square - not just the sum of the two things). It's like saying "jump up and land in exactly the same place you're standing now". Well, the act of jumping will slightly change where you end up, but running around in a circle before you you jump will change it a LOT more. Point is, don't compound the problem.
Considering that many new tanks are moving to unmanned turrets and either choosing or being forced (on account of the weight of 120mm+ shells) to move to autoloaders there may be a chance of oscillating turrets making a comeback
That same weight and size of the ammo works against it though. Moving all of the ammo to elevate or depress the gun is more work, and the bustle size gets in the way more too. It will be interesting to see where the competing ideas end up.
@@llamatronian101 While not on a tank, an oscillating turret for a 155mm gun has been built and used. It is the Swedish Bandkanon I. If an oscillating turret is mounted at the very rear of the vehicle, then excellent elevation angles are achievable over the frontal firing arc. The downside is that any rear mounted turret struggles with gun depression in the frontal firing arc. For the Bandkanon I, depression was deemed unnecessary.
I don’t know if that’s really the bottleneck or reason for the disappearance of autoloading oscillating turrets . The primary reason for them was the difficulty in loading the gun at angles above or below 0. With modern technology and modern fire control systems tanks can fire the gun depressed, move the gun to a neutral position, reload, and return to the original position. All while keeping the gunners sight on target the whole time. There are also plenty of vehicles and spgs with guns that are bigger than 120mm that are hand loaded or assisted hand-loaded. Not saying your prediction is wrong but having people in the turret and large shells were not the reason for oscillating turrets disappearing. So I don’t think these factors matter either way.
I kind of agree. The problem is if the terrain is already that hilly you might be better off with artillery style systems with a tank for line of sight protection.
@@ES1976-3 What are you saying ? oscillating turret didn't have any difficulties with auto loaders (that's why all oscillating turret had an autoloader) it is the conventional turret that has problems since the gun is independant and when angled the autoloader couldn't load proprely where as in oscillating turrets the gun, autoloader and upper part of the turret were all fixed together and the alignement between the breach and loader always neutral.
Another good one, well done! Thinking of the S tank, oscillating the entire vehicle Swedish engineers solved the auto loader issues by mounting the gun rigidly to the chassis thereby eliminating alignment problems. Maybe an idea for a future film? I’m always looking forward to your films, keep ‘em coming! 👍
and you can't put much armor on oscillating turrets, because if the armor is too heavy it will need more power to move the actual turret, that is the main reason why you dont see MBT with oscillating turrets. a tank needs at least be capable to resist being hit on the front armor. oscilating turrets are VERY easy to penetrate.
@@Primarkka no. A gun a) is MUCH less heavy than for example the turret of an amx50, b) even if it was similar, the mechanism is completely different, the gun is horizontally fixed in the turret, there is much more space in there. Compare that to oscillation whwre the turret moves, its cramped as fuck
Even stabilizing just a gun is quite difficult, that's why most tanks guns aren't even 100% stabilized. They're "mostly" stabilized but still have a bit of sway, with the FCS programmed to fire the gun when the sway lines up with the aim point. Naval guns, at least in WWII, work the same way too. Whenever the plotting or central fire control room pulls the trigger, the ships FCS will wait until the ships rolls is level before firing all the guns.
Amx13 had a "rubber" skirt around the joint between the 2 turret parts, making it NBC protected accordingly to standards of its time. But this was vulnerable and also had to be replaced frequently because of Wear.
@@anonimoqualquer5503 i think you're talking about the M1128, and the flaw wasn't because of the seal, it was because of bad reliability of the turret system. They are safe from NBC, and it wasn't the reason why it failed
The gap in the oscilating turrets actually might not be an issue nowadays, if your able to control the turret remotely, while the crew is actually in a safe sealed off in another part of the tank.
Excellent video, however, quick note about aiming the gun away from the target after firing. most modern tanks are capable of delinking the sight from the end of the gun tube. example, the M1 Abrams' loader has a switch he can flip. Doing so will move the gun to a more favorable position to reload(if the gun is at max depression the breach block is near the roof of the turret), at the same time delinking the gun tube with the gunner's sight. During loading the gunner can continue to track the target due to ballistic computer being linked to the optic and not the gun. When loading is done the switch can be flipped off for the gun tube to relink with optic. with powered elevation the gun tube moving from index position to where the sight is pointed takes a second at most. so having the gun index is not as significant of an issue as stated in the video.
Absolutely - modern systems make it a more trivial issue. Back in the day it was more of a concern when the sight couldn't be delinked - for early autoloaders like the IS-7 it was much more of a disadvantage and the gunner had to manually relay the gun I believe. Maybe I should've made that distinction more clear! Glad you enjoyed the video.
The first few turrets were from the same manufacturer (Fives Lille) and the manufacturer sent engineers to help set lines in Austria for local production of the local variant
The big benefit of oscillating turrets is with full stabilisation, which means the crew gets fully stabilised with the gun, it also makes automatic loading a lot simpler. But it means a lot more decisions need to be made in the design phase.
The oscillating turret's carriage is basically the same design as has been used for artillery for many years; the older artillery gun barrels had trunnions (pivot pins that would allow for gun or howitzer elevation & depression) that would attach directly to a cradle mounted on the gun carriage.
Not really. It is only likely if it's with a smaller gun, if you use such an oscillating turret you'll end up with a higher profile. Together with the fact that it will strain the motors more to pivot the turret up/down with all the ammo and equipment And if it's a smaller gun or autocannon it will be mounted in a different sort of turret which would be smaller
@@qlum I‘d say the massive increase in gun depression makes up for that. You can have your hull with the crew hide safely behind a hill while only your automated gun turret with blowout panels is visible. If the turret is designed to be modular you could simply put a new turret on and send your tank back into the fight.
With the increasing interest in unmanned turrets, I think this kind of turret would came back in popularity. The crews are safe in a highly armored compartment in the hull, the turret is not even manned so you could get away with even bigger guns like how the M1128 did it and have the option of swapping out new turrets in the field by replacing the upper turret with something like a missile battery for AA duty, auto cannons, laser weaponry, etc while still keeping the lower turret (collar). The problem I can think of with this design is that it is very difficult to reload new ammo into the bustle in the field without exposing the crew, so we could also use an ammo carrier similar to how the K9 howitzer has its own dedicated reloading vehicle based on the same chassis. So a modern oscillating turreted tank, with full NBC protection, smaller hull and turret as well as a bigger gun and reloadable bustle, very interesting concept indeed.
We can always make modern oscillating turrets with electric motors, and add ERA, so there is still improvement and hope in the future for this to come back. :) Thanks for the video.
4:20 Every modern tank, even the ones without autoloaders, have their guns move to a loading position after each shot. It doesn't matter at all, because the sights are desynchronized from the gun orientation.
I appreciate your concise explanation of the turret. Even more your equipment video clips are actually indicative of your topic. So many posters would show some military vehicles and action scenes that have nothing to do with the actual topic.
i like to think that another reason for the discontinuation of oscillating turrets is that one of the reasons for their creation is to have an autoloading mechanism and "magazine" that wouldnt fit in the smaller turrets and turret rings that were common in tanks from WW2 and prior, but afterwards, they decided that this whole mechanism can instead just be fit in a conventional turret large enough, and tanks from 1950 onwards usually have much larger turrets compared to their hull when compared to WW2 and prior tanks.
I feel like the oscillating turret could make its comeback in unmanned ground vehicles. You could make the whole vehicle smaller and put a 30mm gun in the oscillating turret and it could support infantry in urban environments.
Also in the USA there was an experimental light airborne tank, the T92, it almost got in service, but there were some concerns about it's flexibility (it wasn't amphibian), so it was rejected.
Very interesting and insightful video. Although someone correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve heard that Oscillating Turrets tend to be more difficult to stabilise than conventional turrets, reducing fire on the move capability. Can’t remember where I heard this but seems reasonable given the greater amount of mass the fire control system has to keep stable.
It may explain why the amx 50 never went in production. Amx 13 and Panhard were used for asymmetric wars and were perfect to have a lot of punch without having a MBT. This was the French school, that you retrieve in the AMX 10RCas it packs the same caliber as the MBT of its time but in a fast 14 tons vehicle,.
Mass means nothing, though. Properly designed oscillator has ammo in the rear balancing weight of the gun in front, making pivot incredibly easy, like a seesaw...
@@KuK137 It indeed balances well (which provides good passive stability) but mass doesn't mean nothing, it means greater inertia. Any active stabilization system still needs to contend with much higher inertia than if it was operating on just the gun alone. It will be harder to make the small but relatively rapid adjustments required for high precision.
oscillating turrets have greater mass and much more of a pain to stabilize, not only that, you'd have very little internal space (even with AMX 50) due to the hemispheres that covers the bottom part of the upper turret. stabilization on an oscillating turret would have to add a big enough motor to counteract the intertia of the heavy upper turret just to chase the gunsight lay, even worse if the rear bustle autoloader rack is empty as now that would have to be compensated for.
I understand too expensive for the striker, but I feel like an aggressive positive pressure air filtration system would sufficiently protect the crew with air just being forced out around the less sealed turret areas, or am I missing something?
Best explanation I've seen of this concept in a very neat and concise manner. Interestingly there's a Belgian company in preliminary talks to sell some old SK-105s - an Austrian light tank that uses the exact same turret as the AMX-13 - to Ukraine. Would be quite a plot twist to see the oscillating turret on a 21st century battlefield, but with the ability to fire twelve 105mm rounds per minute, plus very good mobility and thermal gunner optics it could end up being quite useful to Ukraine, and they'd be very cheap so all 112 in storage could be easily bought. It would depend on neutral Austria's approval though, unfortunately.
Nice that it has 12 rpm but how long can it sustain that? Yea.. not long, it's only 12 rounds, and I doubt it would do much against Russian armor, maybe older soviet armor like T-64 and T-72A (or light vehicles like BTR/BMP/etc) , but those are fielded by the Ukrainians themselves Next to that, the Russian mbt's have a auto-loader which has 20 something rounds. And when the auto-loader is empty they can reload it from inside, whereas with the SK-105 you would have to leave the vehicle and load it from the outside. The thermals may be nice, but if these are the older SK-105's it won't help much since the gun is unstabilized, and every Russian vehicle has a stabilizer The SK-105 is also pretty slow despite being lightly armoured and it also has thin tracks which isn't going to be pretty with the Ukrainian mud They could better send parts or other vehicles tbh
@@evo3s75 Top speed of 70kph, upwards of 360mm of RHA penetration at close range. The cannon is similar to the one used on the AMX-10RC provided to Ukraine. They wouldn't be taking on MBTs (well, they could actually destroy a T-62, frontally) but I feel they could be genuinely useful for hit-and-run, which is an art the Ukrainians have perfected with light vehicles like Humvees and Bushmasters so far. It's not meant to be fired on the move. You quickly nip to a good firing position, lay twelve rounds into the enemy before they know what's going on, and then run away. Defensively you would dig in ahead of time and then run away when things get hairy. Light tank tactics, still relevant today. With the state of the Russian army we're seeing older equipment become more and more viable for Ukraine. And with the asking price and quantity of these SK-105s I see little reason not to grab them, really.
I don’t find oscillating turrets that weird as you said at the start of the video. I actually like the sleek design and like to draw these more then other turrets.
Excellent rundown which covers everything. The oscillating turret could be a good design for a 155 mm mobile artillery gun but to get the elevation needed would require the turret to be mounted right at the rear leaving no room for the auto loader and ammo. Oh well. My topic suggestion would for the Stug type casemate gun AFV, the pros and cons for a modern version..
the egyptians had a combination of m4 sherman and amh-13 turret and it seems that due to the rear of the M-4 being tilted, they had no problem with the oscillation of the turret although they could do with lowering the rear of the tank with hydraulics
Hold on, you mentioned that it has a major flaw of being more vulnerable to NBC’s. But what if you make one with autoloaders which I believe means that it is unmanned and then put the crew in a separate airtight part of the tank, should it not be the same as sealing a regular tank in terms of sealing the crew in? Having the oscillating turret and the crew in separate parts of the tank should resolve this major flaw, right?
That's precisely how modern systems do it. The Puma IFV, despite its struggles in recent exercises, has a single one piece cabin with the turret just sitting on top. And while "struggle" may be a nice way to describe the absolute shitshow that happened in that maneuver late 22 I'm confident KMW will get it sorted. It is a sensible prediction that turrets will not continue to have weapons manually operated indefinitely. There are just too many gains to be had by sealing the turret off from the crew.
Man youtube will give the me dumbest recommendations for videos for weeks, just crap from TV, and then finally goes "ok fine, here's another channel like the ones you're subbed to" I hope your channel really blows up , you've been screwed by the algorithm
Today oscillating turrets are "limited" smaller guns, but for the same reason. automatic cannons, their ammo box, feed systems, sensors, and such will all be mounted in the oscillating part, while the bottom part simply handles rotation. This is important in remote weapon stations, where the gun and sensors need to stay aligned... and the ammo feed needs to be as smooth and self contained as possible. A perfect example of this is the CWIS.
@@elchjol2777 the only issues I see with our ideas (mind you I am far from an expert) is that if the auto loader malfunctions the crew will have no way to fix it without leaving the tank. My flaw is that if the crew won't be able to interact with each other and the design would also make leaving the tank difficult. But conceptualizing as someone who has no qualifications is fun anyways
I think it’s possible if the turret is either much larger (to be able to hold a man) or if the tank is unmanned. But the problem of fixing any loading issues or any other issue with the gun or turret would mean that the crew would have to fully leave the tank to fix it.
@@azariahprice4788 aside from locomotion, the turret would become its own tank, which can cause issues with weight and stress on the parts connecting the turret to the body
French. The answer is The French. More specifically, the French seem to look at what everyone else does, go "naw, they aren't speaking french" and do the opposite.
Oscillating turrets seem popular in modern self propelled howitzers with autoloaders. I’m thinking in particular of the Swedish Archer system recently purchased by the UK.
I was in the Dutch army in 1977 and they still had this AMX 13 but with a standard 120mm Nato gun. It was forbidden to shoot with the gun at 90 degrees on the chassis as the whole tank could roll over because of the recoil. Some tank! They where faced-out after a few years for the Leopard. Also they where notorious unrelaible engine wise.
I definitely can see this having used in large scale mobile artillery with auto loaders. It wouldn’t have worries like NBC like the striker. However it wouldn’t need to worry about insane fire-rate as it’s purpose is really big gun, which would have uses in specialty ammo. Something an army can pull up to deal with very specific issues like heavily fortified and dug in bunkers that it’s destruction is vital, but air support is unavailable due to various potential issues. Basically a couple tanks for big problems.
I don't understand why they didn't just use a double articulated joint with 2 solid 12 degree offset rings. It would allow for 24 degrees of elevation and depression, while keeping the turret as low as possible while mounting the GUN as HIGH as possible, allows for a full NBC seal, still allows normal turret rotation, carries all but 1 benefit of the oscillating turret, and you can overlap the joints internally for added protection. The design is even conducive to having sloped sides. I understand why they don't use the design NOW; because it's substantially slower to alter the gun elevation, so it would be really incompatible with gyroscopic stabilization. Regardless of how fast you can make the rings rotate, it comes down to intertia. It's just too much rotating mass to reverse direction to allow for quick elevation changes. But it would make a LOT more sense to have used a double articulating joint over an oscillating turret. And I disagree with the implication that gun height is a bad thing. A high mounted gun is a very GOOD thing, *especially* when the rest of your tank isn't elevated along with it. You *NEED* your gun to be exposed, because it's the thing that's shooting at the enemy. What you *DONT* want to be exposed is any other part of your tank. The reason gun height is considered a bad thing in conventional turrets is because the rest of the turret gets elevated WITH the gun, thus exposing more of the tank to fire. Imagine being able to sit an entire foot lower in a tank ditch with only your gun and sight being exposed to shoot.
5:00 FYI, the acronym NBC was changed to CBRNE in the 2000s, at least in the USA. It stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and (High-Yield) Explosive.
Singapore 🇸🇬 Military SAF ARMY Armour Units had bought these Old French made AMX-13 light Tanks in the 70s era and modernised with Pneumatic Suspension and Diesel Engine by Singapore 🇸🇬 Technologies Kinetics by Ministry of Defence then. Singapore 🇸🇬 Military operated these Old Light Tanks for 35 years and Eventually chosen the German Made Leopard 2A4 Main Battle Tank to Replace these AMX-13SM1 Tanks.
Very good analysis. Oscillating turrets are also weaker than the much stronger rotating ring turret, as a well placed shot at the pivot will separate the turret from the tank, leaving the vehicle a "Sitting Duck" with no main gun to defend itself.
I feel like a drone tank would make an excellent oscillating tank. Without a crew it can just have everything exposed. If it was made to be as small as possible with a big gun it could pose as a decent threat. If it was cheap to mass produce, large numbers could easier defend positions
A wonderful explanation, a current technology, might bring this system back with an encapsulated firing system with autoloader seperated from the crew system. Thereby permitting isolated systems permitting NBC capable operation. And limited crew allowing a more minimal threat system
Post war french tanks are just so cool looking, I love these turrets, and while it's not stabilized and comes with many other disadvantages, it's still my favorite type of turret
4:55 some designers and I even think the idea is pretty cool. would include a tarp like material that would stretch between both turret pieces to seal it from NBC threats while not impacting the apression or depression
These oscillating turret vehicles look more like SPGs and mobile artillery than a main battle tank. I think if they were deployed in that position, they might have been pretty effective.
I think it is still a valid design, because we don't need NBC protection in most conditions. Giving 1/2 of all tanks bigger punch on smaller body makes sense. And keep the other 1/2 NBC sealed in case war gets worse. But again if we go into NBC war, if only tanks survived, it's not gonna make much difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong but index position is NOT a disadvantage of an autoloader. Manually loaded guns also are brought back to an index position for loading by the human loader.
That was interesting. I’d like a video explaining why tracks are not made wider to better support their weight. In WWII I maybe misunderstood the T34’s wider tracks allowed it to travel without sinking as much as the German and American tanks. If they can’t be made wider, please explain why not.
Cost/weight/need wide tracks cost more to engineer & make plus are more susceptible to damage, wide tracks weigh more and so make track changing much more difficult, heavier wide tracks put more stress on transmissions and finally designers couldn't see an advantage with all the disadvantages to fitting wide Tracks.
"The Tank Museum" channel has a couple of good videos on the T62 & T72, and "Military History Not Visualized" has a couple of videos with The Chieftain that explain why Russo-Soviet tanks *seem* more vulnerable to AT weapons.
@@patriotenfield3276 The Soviets wanted the tank as small as possible, so a bustle autoloader might have made the turret a tad bigger. None of their T54/T55/62/64/72 etc tanks had/have bustles either.
4:24 One thing to note is that this is really only a problem with gun sights fixed the gun assembly itself. Sights that are aimed independently of the gun don’t have this problem. I am surprised you didn’t mention one major issue with oscillating turrets, being how difficult it is to stabilize. Because the entire turret is moved, this means that the stabilizer needs not only to handle the weight of the gun assembly but also the entire turret itself, which makes them difficult (albeit not impossible) to stabilize. 5:08 One last thing, although I am aware of the sealing issues with oscillating turrets, I assumed this was primarily a problem with fording and maintenance. I although I cannot confirm this, being that the turret is a self contained assembly I would assume that oscillating turrets would do just fine with NBC protection. I know it would be a major pain in the dick to sterilize if exposed to NBC elements, but I don’t see how the crew would be at risk. If anything, it would seem like oscillating turrets would be easier to seal (crew compartment wise) given that you don’t need to tightly seal moving parts like you would with a conventional turret ring. Again, I cannot confirm this but I find it a bit difficult to believe. If there are anything official to support or deny this I like to know about it.
If you watch the end of the video you can actually get an example of a sealed oscillating turret vehicle, thing is the turret needs to be unmanned in order to seal it off from the rest of the tank. Back in the cold war, you still needed gunners and loaders usually in the turret, which in this case would have been very hard to seal compared to a conventional design. These days, turrets can be entirely automated, allowing for designs such as the one at the end of the video.
using a unmanned turret with an autoloaded and using some sort of sighting system would make it more feasable, but then your stuck with a more complex system than a traditonal tank.
Thank you so much for 10k subs! Best place to chat to me if you’ve any questions/suggestions is the Discord -
discord.gg/WJzJXkjH3Q
Hey man!
Just got recommended your gem of a channel through this video.
I think the algorithm likes this new type of thumbnail with a blueprint design over your older photographic ones 🤔
The turret of the Austrian 🇦🇹 Jagdpanzer „Kürassier“ was similar to the AMX. I had the opportunity to shoot with it‘s 10,5 cm cannon. Greetings from Linz 🇦🇹 Austria 😎👍🐺 Europe!
Another issue with the oscillating turret is wear and tear. Having the large, heavy gun and loader etc. so far from the turret ring puts a LOT of extra stress on the ring when driving on broken ground just due to simple leverage. I think the oscillating turret has enough benefits to be very useful in certain situations, but it becomes a specialty vehicle in a world that REALLY tries to minimize variation. In WW2, every nation had dozens and dozens of different vehicles (for various reasons) but these days militaries try to really minimize the number of different frames and engines and guns. Supply and support become far easier when you do this.
those "flim type"" images left and right are really flickering and add nothing.
Is there any issue with a small shell raising a burr that prevents elevation changes?
I've heard it said that French engineers rarely imitate other countries... and other countries rarely imitate them. They do their own thing for better and worse and there tends to be a very unique flavor to french military equipment.
you are right, we try other designs to see if it would work better because the design of others might have problems too.
Indeed being unique does not mean that you are ill equipped. It means that you are cleverer
Sounds like Saab to me 😂
@@HumbleFoxGaming Not really, that's my point. Sometimes it means you get innovations ahead of their time (like the Renault F1), and sometimes you get completely unusable crap (like the Chauchat).
If you average it out, france is not better or worse, they're just different.
@@simonbarabash2151 - The Renault FT-17 was widely imitated. Indeed, it was the basis for pretty well all tank design that followed. Also, the Panhard 178 armoured car seems to have spawned a number of near copies.
French post war tanks are peak transitional period aesthetics, Amx-50's just look so cool and futuristic for the time
But can it work in reverse? Just in case german panzers cross the border again.
Merci, cher ami esthète !
Vive la France 👍🇨🇵 ❤️
The ARL44 also looked so futuristic.
@@EARTHKEENING man, I really like the ARL 44, but of all the post-war French tanks to mention, I'd say the ARL 44 is actually iconic for being rather old-fashioned than futuristic. The French had so many futuristic designs on the way, but the ARL 44 was not one. It was merely a way to reactivate their tank industry after the war. Still, they look so cool, even if outdated. They made very few of them, which is a sensible choice, but I would have liked to see more of them in museums.
My rationale for this:
The hull looks just like a B1 flipped upside down. The tracks are in fact from the B1. The entire suspension is something you'd expect from the very first WW1 tanks such as the Mark I, with small road wheels and vertical coil springs (when everyone was moving towards torsion-bar suspensions at the time). The engine was underpowered and this suspension limited the speed to 30kmph--an unpopular choice in an era of high availability of HEAT (Leo1 and AMX30 would later favour mobility over armour).
The turret is actually decent and the most modern-looking thing on the tank, but not futuristic or modern even for WW2 standards. Considering the Centurion and the initial production of the T-54 had been adopted 3 years before the ARL-44, the turret design is not revolutionary. It was, in fact, a makeshift solution. They were built from welded plates recovered from the Dunkerque battleship wreck.
The armour and armament, however, were actually pretty good, though not really useful at the time (hence their move towards lighter armoured vehicles until the LeClerc). The 90mm gun is probably the best part, better than the Panther's from their tests, and likely had better performance than the Russian D-10T on the T-54 and the American M3 (T15) on the Pershing (1000m/s vs 895 m/s and 975 m/s), though probably worse than the British 20-pounder (1,020 m/s). However, note that we are comparing the ARL 44 (classified a heavy tank at 50 tons) to only medium tanks (30 ~ 40 tons).
The 120mm frontal plate angled at 45 degrees (effectively 170mm) also looks really nice and would be the most armour on any French tank until the LeClerc. However, consider that the T-54 had already been adopted by then (the hull is even older: the T-44-100 had 120mm hull at 60 degrees, effectively 240mm) and had better power-to-weight, weighed 20 tons less, and had better turret armour, 200mm+ vs 110mm.
I'd give it to you that the ARL 44 actually looks "retro-futuristic". Like some steampunk anachronistic alt-history tank. And that's because it kinda is exactly that. After the liberation of France, they wanted to quickly restart tank production. They chose a so-called "char de transition" (transitional tank) to fill that gap. Their starting point was the Char B1 (to reuse old stocks of components) and whatever they had designed so far for the G1 and the FCM F1. So they were basically working with 1920s stuff; hence anachronistic: it's like a what if 1920s tanks were inspired by the Panther. They could have gone for a modern suspension system (and maybe made the ARL 44 a competitive design for late 1940s), but they would have had to use disgusting foreign designs that couldn't make use of their sweet 1920s obsolete stock.
@@jesuizanmich 🤓🤓
I think an explanation on how tank designs and roles changed during WW2 or even in the 20-21st century would be interesting to see
Especially how the introduction of Anti-Tank missiles caused different militaries to rethink or look at armored warfare in a different perspective.
@@aspielm759 yeah like the British
@@wogelson
Oh defintley the British. I still cling to that joke lazerpig made about the british.
Throughout the 20th centry they kept on trying to wallce and gromit themsleves through wars.
No, i wouldn't like that.
I can give you an 'in a nutshell' version of that.
When tanks first came about, they were an evolution of cavalry (as in horses) and so their main mode of use was to travel in pack and clear the way through a battlefield. This roughly covers WWI and WWII.
Tanks, largely, fell out of favour during the Vietnam war due to the dense nature of the jungle, which is where APC's got their start.
As we evolve beyond Vietnam and come back to more open space in battlefields, tanks fell into favour again. This would be the desert wars. The change however was the rapid sword and shield arms race between anti-tank weapons and tank defences like those grid mesh RPG detonation shields and those defensive chaff launching things.
The mode of use changed from leading the charge, to 'run and gun' artillery support. Of course, as well as a useage change with tanks, there was also a significant design change from a heavily armoured vehicle (relatively speaking) to a lighter armoured vehicle with more agility.
This modern use case saw tanks used, tactically, as platoon support weapons which would hide behind terrain features and move quickly in order to secure their safety, whilst providing fire power from quite some distance, kind of like a mortar.
In the most recent evolutions of war, i.e. urban combat, tanks have tactically become almost worthless. Not entirely, but almost. In patrols, tanks serve to act as a distraction and a magnet for enemy fire, predominantly.
Tanks in modern urban warfare have lots of weaknesses and very few benefits. Their armour is only good for small arms fire, they're slower than a humvee or APC, they're still susceptible to IED attack and an urban environment provides ample cover and concealment to coordinate an attack on a tank with anti-tank weapons (RPG's etc). There's obviously a psychological component to patrolling the streets with a tank in company, or having 2 tanks come and get you for casevac, but tactically speaking, the main gun does not provide significant benefits and there isn't a huge tactical advantage to tanks... In the current battlefield.
That could change though.
4:18 Gotta point out, modern tank sights aren't enslaved to the gun, it can stay on target when the gun is away while the loader is doing his or its job
Yes but mechanic laws just Say that it wont return exactly at initial position. There is Always a difference and this Comes to be an issue with the distance of the target.
Remember that in practice, the precision of the shot at 2000m is about 4m.
@@tricosteryl Yeah, but that isn't an issue as just firing the gun will change the position of the gun at least as much as bringing it to the index position and then back to firing position. Recoil dampeners aren't perfect as well.
@Retired Bore currently working as an engineer I confirm returning at the same position id impossible.
It is mechanical fact.
And the precision required hère is very high, so this may be satisfacting if the target is really close, but we dont anticipate that a tank fight will be like in wot.
@Retired Bore the story is that terrain performance is Always worse than theory
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Sure but changing one thing is going to affect accuracy, doing two is going to affect it more (likely by the square - not just the sum of the two things). It's like saying "jump up and land in exactly the same place you're standing now". Well, the act of jumping will slightly change where you end up, but running around in a circle before you you jump will change it a LOT more. Point is, don't compound the problem.
Considering that many new tanks are moving to unmanned turrets and either choosing or being forced (on account of the weight of 120mm+ shells) to move to autoloaders there may be a chance of oscillating turrets making a comeback
That same weight and size of the ammo works against it though. Moving all of the ammo to elevate or depress the gun is more work, and the bustle size gets in the way more too. It will be interesting to see where the competing ideas end up.
@@llamatronian101 While not on a tank, an oscillating turret for a 155mm gun has been built and used. It is the Swedish Bandkanon I. If an oscillating turret is mounted at the very rear of the vehicle, then excellent elevation angles are achievable over the frontal firing arc. The downside is that any rear mounted turret struggles with gun depression in the frontal firing arc. For the Bandkanon I, depression was deemed unnecessary.
I don’t know if that’s really the bottleneck or reason for the disappearance of autoloading oscillating turrets . The primary reason for them was the difficulty in loading the gun at angles above or below 0. With modern technology and modern fire control systems tanks can fire the gun depressed, move the gun to a neutral position, reload, and return to the original position. All while keeping the gunners sight on target the whole time. There are also plenty of vehicles and spgs with guns that are bigger than 120mm that are hand loaded or assisted hand-loaded.
Not saying your prediction is wrong but having people in the turret and large shells were not the reason for oscillating turrets disappearing. So I don’t think these factors matter either way.
I kind of agree. The problem is if the terrain is already that hilly you might be better off with artillery style systems with a tank for line of sight protection.
@@ES1976-3 What are you saying ? oscillating turret didn't have any difficulties with auto loaders (that's why all oscillating turret had an autoloader) it is the conventional turret that has problems since the gun is independant and when angled the autoloader couldn't load proprely where as in oscillating turrets the gun, autoloader and upper part of the turret were all fixed together and the alignement between the breach and loader always neutral.
Another good one, well done! Thinking of the S tank, oscillating the entire vehicle Swedish engineers solved the auto loader issues by mounting the gun rigidly to the chassis thereby eliminating alignment problems. Maybe an idea for a future film? I’m always looking forward to your films, keep ‘em coming! 👍
Thanks Phil :)
You mean the cheese wedge Strv 103 ?
@@quakethedoombringer totally a MBT!
@@quakethedoombringer the master of aerodynamics
Thanks for calling it a tank and not something it wasn't
Another big issue probably also is the fact that its quite difficult to stabilize the entire turret and not just the gun
and you can't put much armor on oscillating turrets, because if the armor is too heavy it will need more power to move the actual turret, that is the main reason why you dont see MBT with oscillating turrets. a tank needs at least be capable to resist being hit on the front armor. oscilating turrets are VERY easy to penetrate.
A poorly balanced gun has the same issue. I doubt that stabilization of an entire turret is any harder if it's well balanced.
@@Primarkka no. A gun a) is MUCH less heavy than for example the turret of an amx50, b) even if it was similar, the mechanism is completely different, the gun is horizontally fixed in the turret, there is much more space in there. Compare that to oscillation whwre the turret moves, its cramped as fuck
Even stabilizing just a gun is quite difficult, that's why most tanks guns aren't even 100% stabilized. They're "mostly" stabilized but still have a bit of sway, with the FCS programmed to fire the gun when the sway lines up with the aim point.
Naval guns, at least in WWII, work the same way too. Whenever the plotting or central fire control room pulls the trigger, the ships FCS will wait until the ships rolls is level before firing all the guns.
i could imagine that it gets easier to balance since you can counterweigh the barrel with the autoloader and shells
Amx13 had a "rubber" skirt around the joint between the 2 turret parts, making it NBC protected accordingly to standards of its time. But this was vulnerable and also had to be replaced frequently because of Wear.
i know its weird but why is so hard to protect the crew if you dont need a person in the turret? cant you know,, seal the crew in the lower part?
@@anonimoqualquer5503 i think you're talking about the M1128, and the flaw wasn't because of the seal, it was because of bad reliability of the turret system. They are safe from NBC, and it wasn't the reason why it failed
The gap in the oscilating turrets actually might not be an issue nowadays, if your able to control the turret remotely, while the crew is actually in a safe sealed off in another part of the tank.
thats what i am saying, inst weird because you dont need the loader in the turret, so you can seal the crew in the lower part
AMX 13 are some of the prettiest tanks ever made
Excellent video, I only vaguely understood ocelating turrets before this and know I see why it was such a interesting and clever idea
So glad to hear this!
Excellent video, however, quick note about aiming the gun away from the target after firing. most modern tanks are capable of delinking the sight from the end of the gun tube. example, the M1 Abrams' loader has a switch he can flip. Doing so will move the gun to a more favorable position to reload(if the gun is at max depression the breach block is near the roof of the turret), at the same time delinking the gun tube with the gunner's sight. During loading the gunner can continue to track the target due to ballistic computer being linked to the optic and not the gun. When loading is done the switch can be flipped off for the gun tube to relink with optic. with powered elevation the gun tube moving from index position to where the sight is pointed takes a second at most. so having the gun index is not as significant of an issue as stated in the video.
Absolutely - modern systems make it a more trivial issue. Back in the day it was more of a concern when the sight couldn't be delinked - for early autoloaders like the IS-7 it was much more of a disadvantage and the gunner had to manually relay the gun I believe. Maybe I should've made that distinction more clear! Glad you enjoyed the video.
The Kürassier tank of Austria is also a notable oscillating turret tank still in use. They have the same turret as the AMX 13 and look just as iconic
The first few turrets were from the same manufacturer (Fives Lille) and the manufacturer sent engineers to help set lines in Austria for local production of the local variant
Are they sending them to ukraine?
No?
Then stick a sock in it.
Pointless answer.
Would make the russian tanks look viable.
The big benefit of oscillating turrets is with full stabilisation, which means the crew gets fully stabilised with the gun, it also makes automatic loading a lot simpler. But it means a lot more decisions need to be made in the design phase.
The oscillating turret's carriage is basically the same design as has been used for artillery for many years; the older artillery gun barrels had trunnions (pivot pins that would allow for gun or howitzer elevation & depression) that would attach directly to a cradle mounted on the gun carriage.
Given that unmanned turrets seems to be the future it's quite likely it will become default design.
we could probabaly make it adaptable, having the ability to switch from a big gun to a twin 30mm or some AA missile launcher
A bolt on turret with gun + autoloader + optics that you can put on top of just about anything seems like a good idea to me.
It still increases the profile of the tank by quite a lot which is a significant downside.
Not really. It is only likely if it's with a smaller gun, if you use such an oscillating turret you'll end up with a higher profile.
Together with the fact that it will strain the motors more to pivot the turret up/down with all the ammo and equipment
And if it's a smaller gun or autocannon it will be mounted in a different sort of turret which would be smaller
@@qlum I‘d say the massive increase in gun depression makes up for that. You can have your hull with the crew hide safely behind a hill while only your automated gun turret with blowout panels is visible. If the turret is designed to be modular you could simply put a new turret on and send your tank back into the fight.
With the increasing interest in unmanned turrets, I think this kind of turret would came back in popularity. The crews are safe in a highly armored compartment in the hull, the turret is not even manned so you could get away with even bigger guns like how the M1128 did it and have the option of swapping out new turrets in the field by replacing the upper turret with something like a missile battery for AA duty, auto cannons, laser weaponry, etc while still keeping the lower turret (collar).
The problem I can think of with this design is that it is very difficult to reload new ammo into the bustle in the field without exposing the crew, so we could also use an ammo carrier similar to how the K9 howitzer has its own dedicated reloading vehicle based on the same chassis.
So a modern oscillating turreted tank, with full NBC protection, smaller hull and turret as well as a bigger gun and reloadable bustle, very interesting concept indeed.
We can always make modern oscillating turrets with electric motors, and add ERA, so there is still improvement and hope in the future for this to come back. :) Thanks for the video.
That would be cool! My pleasure
4:20
Every modern tank, even the ones without autoloaders, have their guns move to a loading position after each shot. It doesn't matter at all, because the sights are desynchronized from the gun orientation.
This is mostly done in peacetime, to help the loader.
I always loved French tanks, this design of turrets is so unique and lovely
Exactly what I wanted. To the point and informative. No bloat and good pacing. Good job!
Excellent presentation. Also a perfect length video without repetition of filler 👍
Thank you very much!
amazing vid as always and very nice blueprint style drawings!
I appreciate your concise explanation of the turret. Even more your equipment video clips are actually indicative of your topic.
So many posters would show some military vehicles and action scenes that have nothing to do with the actual topic.
i like to think that another reason for the discontinuation of oscillating turrets is that one of the reasons for their creation is to have an autoloading mechanism and "magazine" that wouldnt fit in the smaller turrets and turret rings that were common in tanks from WW2 and prior, but afterwards, they decided that this whole mechanism can instead just be fit in a conventional turret large enough, and tanks from 1950 onwards usually have much larger turrets compared to their hull when compared to WW2 and prior tanks.
An excellent presentation with excellent graphics and narrative. Clear, to the point, and with a logical flow. Many thanks.
I feel like the oscillating turret could make its comeback in unmanned ground vehicles. You could make the whole vehicle smaller and put a 30mm gun in the oscillating turret and it could support infantry in urban environments.
Great video! very educational, oscillating turrets have always been one of my favorites
Thanks Hannah!
With robotics and AI and autonomous vehicles this tank will probably be the most popular design in the future
Also in the USA there was an experimental light airborne tank, the T92, it almost got in service, but there were some concerns about it's flexibility (it wasn't amphibian), so it was rejected.
I’ve a video on the T92! It occupies that grey area of sort of being an oscillating turret.
Thanks for making this video. It was really cool to learn. Keep up the great work!
Thanks, will do!
Very interesting and insightful video. Although someone correct me if I’m wrong, I’ve heard that Oscillating Turrets tend to be more difficult to stabilise than conventional turrets, reducing fire on the move capability.
Can’t remember where I heard this but seems reasonable given the greater amount of mass the fire control system has to keep stable.
It may explain why the amx 50 never went in production. Amx 13 and Panhard were used for asymmetric wars and were perfect to have a lot of punch without having a MBT. This was the French school, that you retrieve in the AMX 10RCas it packs the same caliber as the MBT of its time but in a fast 14 tons vehicle,.
Mass means nothing, though. Properly designed oscillator has ammo in the rear balancing weight of the gun in front, making pivot incredibly easy, like a seesaw...
@@KuK137 It indeed balances well (which provides good passive stability) but mass doesn't mean nothing, it means greater inertia. Any active stabilization system still needs to contend with much higher inertia than if it was operating on just the gun alone. It will be harder to make the small but relatively rapid adjustments required for high precision.
oscillating turrets have greater mass and much more of a pain to stabilize, not only that, you'd have very little internal space (even with AMX 50) due to the hemispheres that covers the bottom part of the upper turret.
stabilization on an oscillating turret would have to add a big enough motor to counteract the intertia of the heavy upper turret just to chase the gunsight lay, even worse if the rear bustle autoloader rack is empty as now that would have to be compensated for.
I understand too expensive for the striker, but I feel like an aggressive positive pressure air filtration system would sufficiently protect the crew with air just being forced out around the less sealed turret areas, or am I missing something?
Best explanation I've seen of this concept in a very neat and concise manner. Interestingly there's a Belgian company in preliminary talks to sell some old SK-105s - an Austrian light tank that uses the exact same turret as the AMX-13 - to Ukraine. Would be quite a plot twist to see the oscillating turret on a 21st century battlefield, but with the ability to fire twelve 105mm rounds per minute, plus very good mobility and thermal gunner optics it could end up being quite useful to Ukraine, and they'd be very cheap so all 112 in storage could be easily bought. It would depend on neutral Austria's approval though, unfortunately.
Nice that it has 12 rpm but how long can it sustain that? Yea.. not long, it's only 12 rounds, and I doubt it would do much against Russian armor, maybe older soviet armor like T-64 and T-72A (or light vehicles like BTR/BMP/etc) , but those are fielded by the Ukrainians themselves
Next to that, the Russian mbt's have a auto-loader which has 20 something rounds. And when the auto-loader is empty they can reload it from inside, whereas with the SK-105 you would have to leave the vehicle and load it from the outside.
The thermals may be nice, but if these are the older SK-105's it won't help much since the gun is unstabilized, and every Russian vehicle has a stabilizer
The SK-105 is also pretty slow despite being lightly armoured and it also has thin tracks which isn't going to be pretty with the Ukrainian mud
They could better send parts or other vehicles tbh
@@evo3s75 Top speed of 70kph, upwards of 360mm of RHA penetration at close range. The cannon is similar to the one used on the AMX-10RC provided to Ukraine. They wouldn't be taking on MBTs (well, they could actually destroy a T-62, frontally) but I feel they could be genuinely useful for hit-and-run, which is an art the Ukrainians have perfected with light vehicles like Humvees and Bushmasters so far.
It's not meant to be fired on the move. You quickly nip to a good firing position, lay twelve rounds into the enemy before they know what's going on, and then run away. Defensively you would dig in ahead of time and then run away when things get hairy. Light tank tactics, still relevant today.
With the state of the Russian army we're seeing older equipment become more and more viable for Ukraine. And with the asking price and quantity of these SK-105s I see little reason not to grab them, really.
Thanks so much! Would definitely be interesting to see SK-105s in action.
It's a stupid idea to say that separating the turret into two parts implies it cannot be sealed
I think it is a thing that may be used a lot in eventual semi-autonomous tanks
I don’t find oscillating turrets that weird as you said at the start of the video. I actually like the sleek design and like to draw these more then other turrets.
Oh I like them too! But they’re certainly uncommon.
Excellent rundown which covers everything. The oscillating turret could be a good design for a 155 mm mobile artillery gun but to get the elevation needed would require the turret to be mounted right at the rear leaving no room for the auto loader and ammo. Oh well.
My topic suggestion would for the Stug type casemate gun AFV, the pros and cons for a modern version..
Thanks :) the StuG will appear very soon...
I like the AMX 13 because the French CAN just slap on M24 Chaffee turret, 75mm, 30 cal coax and an mounted 50 cal on top lol
This seems similar to one of my suggestions...
Great video as always, keep it up!
the egyptians had a combination of m4 sherman and amh-13 turret and it seems that due to the rear of the M-4 being tilted, they had no problem with the oscillation of the turret although they could do with lowering the rear of the tank with hydraulics
Funny how the oscillating turret was the perfect solution to a problem used to be real but stopped existing when the concept was fully realized.
Good video as always, can you make a video on the AMX-50? since you have one on the M103 and the Conqueror
Which amx50 though? There was a ton of different prototypes. Unless you mean the entire project itself
Could be done! It’s a very interesting project.
Hold on, you mentioned that it has a major flaw of being more vulnerable to NBC’s. But what if you make one with autoloaders which I believe means that it is unmanned and then put the crew in a separate airtight part of the tank, should it not be the same as sealing a regular tank in terms of sealing the crew in? Having the oscillating turret and the crew in separate parts of the tank should resolve this major flaw, right?
That's precisely how modern systems do it. The Puma IFV, despite its struggles in recent exercises, has a single one piece cabin with the turret just sitting on top.
And while "struggle" may be a nice way to describe the absolute shitshow that happened in that maneuver late 22 I'm confident KMW will get it sorted.
It is a sensible prediction that turrets will not continue to have weapons manually operated indefinitely. There are just too many gains to be had by sealing the turret off from the crew.
That's exactly what the end of the video talks about with the M1128 :)
Man youtube will give the me dumbest recommendations for videos for weeks, just crap from TV, and then finally goes "ok fine, here's another channel like the ones you're subbed to"
I hope your channel really blows up , you've been screwed by the algorithm
Oh I don't think so at all :) I'm just glad UA-cam recommended me to you!
Today oscillating turrets are "limited" smaller guns, but for the same reason. automatic cannons, their ammo box, feed systems, sensors, and such will all be mounted in the oscillating part, while the bottom part simply handles rotation.
This is important in remote weapon stations, where the gun and sensors need to stay aligned... and the ammo feed needs to be as smooth and self contained as possible.
A perfect example of this is the CWIS.
Are you psychic? I was just looking into the American oscillating turreted-tanks (T54, T57, T69)
Keep knocking it out of the park man.
This is channel's content is on par with million subscriber channels, really good quality content and very well explained, you earned a new sub bro
Really appreciate that - here's to hoping!
I'd like to know how Object 906 and similar autoloaders work.
@RedWrenchFilms We switched from NBC to the CBRN acronym some time ago.
What if the oscillating turret was a separately sealed from the main hull
I know that makes o2 a bit more difficult but it's an idea
If the turret itself is unmanned,it could be sealed off from the rest of the vehicle,in theory anyway.
@@elchjol2777 the only issues I see with our ideas (mind you I am far from an expert) is that if the auto loader malfunctions the crew will have no way to fix it without leaving the tank.
My flaw is that if the crew won't be able to interact with each other and the design would also make leaving the tank difficult. But conceptualizing as someone who has no qualifications is fun anyways
I think it’s possible if the turret is either much larger (to be able to hold a man) or if the tank is unmanned. But the problem of fixing any loading issues or any other issue with the gun or turret would mean that the crew would have to fully leave the tank to fix it.
@@azariahprice4788 aside from locomotion, the turret would become its own tank, which can cause issues with weight and stress on the parts connecting the turret to the body
French. The answer is The French. More specifically, the French seem to look at what everyone else does, go "naw, they aren't speaking french" and do the opposite.
The tank took “I need more boolets” to a whole other level
If their is no one in the turret, you can have a perfect seal with an oscillating turret
With the rise of unmanned turrets in recent years, it might be worth taking another look at this concept.
it's not impossible to seal it really, but the upper part of the turret and the hull would have to be sealed separately
you can imagine that not long from now you will have tank drones. Then a oscillating turret makes sense from size, gun power and cost.
Oscillating turrets seem popular in modern self propelled howitzers with autoloaders. I’m thinking in particular of the Swedish Archer system recently purchased by the UK.
Seems ideal for an automated or AI robotically controlled gun. None of those negatives apply.
I was in the Dutch army in 1977 and they still had this AMX 13 but with a standard 120mm Nato gun. It was forbidden to shoot with the gun at 90 degrees on the chassis as the whole tank could roll over because of the recoil. Some tank! They where faced-out after a few years for the Leopard. Also they where notorious unrelaible engine wise.
I definitely can see this having used in large scale mobile artillery with auto loaders. It wouldn’t have worries like NBC like the striker. However it wouldn’t need to worry about insane fire-rate as it’s purpose is really big gun, which would have uses in specialty ammo. Something an army can pull up to deal with very specific issues like heavily fortified and dug in bunkers that it’s destruction is vital, but air support is unavailable due to various potential issues. Basically a couple tanks for big problems.
look at the sweedish SPG bandkanon ;)
I can see this being used extensively if/when tanks go the same way as drones. Need less armor, no crew to keep safe, more space for other things.
The Stryker seems like the kind of system that is only a couple design iterations from being an absolute world beater.
It would fall over if fired to the side while it was on any down slope. Doohh!!
I don't understand why they didn't just use a double articulated joint with 2 solid 12 degree offset rings. It would allow for 24 degrees of elevation and depression, while keeping the turret as low as possible while mounting the GUN as HIGH as possible, allows for a full NBC seal, still allows normal turret rotation, carries all but 1 benefit of the oscillating turret, and you can overlap the joints internally for added protection. The design is even conducive to having sloped sides.
I understand why they don't use the design NOW; because it's substantially slower to alter the gun elevation, so it would be really incompatible with gyroscopic stabilization. Regardless of how fast you can make the rings rotate, it comes down to intertia. It's just too much rotating mass to reverse direction to allow for quick elevation changes.
But it would make a LOT more sense to have used a double articulating joint over an oscillating turret.
And I disagree with the implication that gun height is a bad thing. A high mounted gun is a very GOOD thing, *especially* when the rest of your tank isn't elevated along with it. You *NEED* your gun to be exposed, because it's the thing that's shooting at the enemy. What you *DONT* want to be exposed is any other part of your tank.
The reason gun height is considered a bad thing in conventional turrets is because the rest of the turret gets elevated WITH the gun, thus exposing more of the tank to fire.
Imagine being able to sit an entire foot lower in a tank ditch with only your gun and sight being exposed to shoot.
5:00 FYI, the acronym NBC was changed to CBRNE in the 2000s, at least in the USA. It stands for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and (High-Yield) Explosive.
theoretically, I could see the return of this concept, but with fully automatic ones
Love how he showed a soviet T34 85, a tank with almost no gun depression as an example how to utilize gun depression xD
More precise manufacturing and technology has made this type of tank possibly worth revisiting.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that it's now fairly simple to make joints against moving parts, making this type of turrent possible with NBC standards
I've just saw this channel, it's interesting, I'll wait for a video on italian tanks
Thanks!
Coughs in John Browning autoloading tilted barrel. A big difference between a tank and a self propelled howitzer
Singapore 🇸🇬 Military SAF ARMY Armour Units had bought these Old French made AMX-13 light Tanks in the 70s era and modernised with Pneumatic Suspension and Diesel Engine by Singapore 🇸🇬 Technologies Kinetics by Ministry of Defence then.
Singapore 🇸🇬 Military operated these Old Light Tanks for 35 years and Eventually chosen the German Made Leopard 2A4 Main Battle Tank to Replace these AMX-13SM1 Tanks.
I'd like to bring up that the Mobile Gun Stryker turret was a legacy weapon based on that used by the Teledyne Expeditionary Tank.
Great video. Could you please do one about smooth bore v rifle on tanks. Thank you.
Great Idea actually!
Very good analysis. Oscillating turrets are also weaker than the much stronger rotating ring turret, as a well placed shot at the pivot will separate the turret from the tank, leaving the vehicle a "Sitting Duck" with no main gun to defend itself.
I feel like a drone tank would make an excellent oscillating tank. Without a crew it can just have everything exposed. If it was made to be as small as possible with a big gun it could pose as a decent threat. If it was cheap to mass produce, large numbers could easier defend positions
That USA T54 prototype tank looks so cool
Excellent video, thank you. I have always had a soft spot for the AMX-13
A wonderful explanation, a current technology, might bring this system back with an encapsulated firing system with autoloader seperated from the crew system. Thereby permitting isolated systems permitting NBC capable operation. And limited crew allowing a more minimal threat system
Excellent explanation, thank you
Glad you liked it
Post war french tanks are just so cool looking, I love these turrets, and while it's not stabilized and comes with many other disadvantages, it's still my favorite type of turret
4:55 some designers and I even think the idea is pretty cool. would include a tarp like material that would stretch between both turret pieces to seal it from NBC threats while not impacting the apression or depression
It's still peak design in gaming era, in game the virtual crews don't care about NBC protection.
These oscillating turret vehicles look more like SPGs and mobile artillery than a main battle tank. I think if they were deployed in that position, they might have been pretty effective.
Interesting and fascinating. I had no idea of the technology. Thanks for that
Very good Video. I wish I had your Illustration skills :)
Oscillating turret we’re also providing a passive way to stabilize your canon
Normal tanks: oh no, its not depressed enough
Oscillating turrets: i have no such weaknesses.
First M1128 had so much dust on it, it created a 2nd hull when its firing.
I think it is still a valid design, because we don't need NBC protection in most conditions. Giving 1/2 of all tanks bigger punch on smaller body makes sense. And keep the other 1/2 NBC sealed in case war gets worse. But again if we go into NBC war, if only tanks survived, it's not gonna make much difference.
Great Info! Very Interesting! Oscillating turrets are so cool looking 😮
Thank you!
Correct me if I'm wrong but index position is NOT a disadvantage of an autoloader. Manually loaded guns also are brought back to an index position for loading by the human loader.
That was interesting. I’d like a video explaining why tracks are not made wider to better support their weight.
In WWII I maybe misunderstood the T34’s wider tracks allowed it to travel without sinking as much as the German and American tanks. If they can’t be made wider, please explain why not.
Cost/weight/need wide tracks cost more to engineer & make plus are more susceptible to damage, wide tracks weigh more and so make track changing much more difficult, heavier wide tracks put more stress on transmissions and finally designers couldn't see an advantage with all the disadvantages to fitting wide Tracks.
Very well explained, keep going
Glad you liked it
Please explain the concept of Bustle autoloader , bustle vs carousel and why Russian tank doctrine prefer the latter?
"The Tank Museum" channel has a couple of good videos on the T62 & T72, and "Military History Not Visualized" has a couple of videos with The Chieftain that explain why Russo-Soviet tanks *seem* more vulnerable to AT weapons.
@@thhseeking I mean the Russians did prefer autoloader and i also know why , but why not in the bustle and why the carousel?
@@patriotenfield3276 The Soviets wanted the tank as small as possible, so a bustle autoloader might have made the turret a tad bigger. None of their T54/T55/62/64/72 etc tanks had/have bustles either.
4:24 One thing to note is that this is really only a problem with gun sights fixed the gun assembly itself. Sights that are aimed independently of the gun don’t have this problem.
I am surprised you didn’t mention one major issue with oscillating turrets, being how difficult it is to stabilize. Because the entire turret is moved, this means that the stabilizer needs not only to handle the weight of the gun assembly but also the entire turret itself, which makes them difficult (albeit not impossible) to stabilize.
5:08 One last thing, although I am aware of the sealing issues with oscillating turrets, I assumed this was primarily a problem with fording and maintenance. I although I cannot confirm this, being that the turret is a self contained assembly I would assume that oscillating turrets would do just fine with NBC protection. I know it would be a major pain in the dick to sterilize if exposed to NBC elements, but I don’t see how the crew would be at risk. If anything, it would seem like oscillating turrets would be easier to seal (crew compartment wise) given that you don’t need to tightly seal moving parts like you would with a conventional turret ring. Again, I cannot confirm this but I find it a bit difficult to believe. If there are anything official to support or deny this I like to know about it.
If you watch the end of the video you can actually get an example of a sealed oscillating turret vehicle, thing is the turret needs to be unmanned in order to seal it off from the rest of the tank. Back in the cold war, you still needed gunners and loaders usually in the turret, which in this case would have been very hard to seal compared to a conventional design. These days, turrets can be entirely automated, allowing for designs such as the one at the end of the video.
@xiphosura413 Nowadays, you can control tank turrets remotely, this wouldn't be an issue in modern tanks.
Great quality content! Keep it up
New sub now. I was fascinated hooked and enjoyed this video
Correct me if I'm wrong, but M1 Abrams guns also return to loading position to reload to make it easier for human loader to load.
using a unmanned turret with an autoloaded and using some sort of sighting system would make it more feasable, but then your stuck with a more complex system than a traditonal tank.