Whither the Autoloader?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2019
- I am dipping my toe into the Great Autoloader Debate. What are the pros? Are the cons all that bad? Where do we go from here?
For those who missed the three T-shirt campaigns, they are on re-issue right now, here. everpress.com/the-chieftain
Autoloaders are just unreliable because nobody is using properly sanctified lubricants and performing the rites of reloading during the firing, how can you expect proper function without calming the machine-spirit?
Don't forget leaving the open can of WD-40 when you go out for a beer.
Cog Boy has a point. And don't forget reams of Scripture stuck everywhere with wax. Maybe paint it red...
Don't forget to light your incense candles too.
I'm having problems repairing the aircrafts for my fighter squadron, what proper sanctified lubricants and ritual rites should i use and do?
*autoloader broke down*
crewman: WHERE IS THE DAMN TECHPRIEST?
The other advantage to most Tankers is that an autoloader wont drink your Beer
unless your company handles it as the Chieftain showed with additional crewmen trailing along in APCs.
In that case, they will be in the prefect spot to drink all your beer while you are buisy fighting the tank...
Or your tea. Not even if the additional crewmen trail along in APCs since unlike beer, the tea is kept in the tank.
That will be fixed with the new M1029 beer canister round.
Can't buy you beer either tho.
Or Jodie your wife.
Chieftain, I always find it hilarious that you are named for a British tank, are Irish, and drove American.
maskedmarmoset
And his fav tank is a swedish cold war tank that people misstake for a self propelled anti tank gun.
@ Because it is! If it has no turret, it's no a tank.
@@pmp1337 nope
@@pmp1337 An MBT is an all-target direct-fire vehicle produced after WWII which is armored and has battlefield mobility.
Strv 103 ("S Tank") is an MBT. This is what Strv (Stridsvagn) means: if it had been a self-propelled anti-tank gun it would have been designated as Pvkv 103 (Pansarvärnskanonvagn).
@@peterlewerin4213 And that definition is so fuzzy it is basically useless. They call it a tank, so it's a tank. That's it.
13:00 it seems that one set of the crews hasn't even finished evolving yet.
Those are Dinotankers ;)
in Germany those are referred to as Panzergrenadiers
@@rlosable not just in germany, i have heard the sentence.... "Halb Mensch, halb Tier.... ein Panzergrenadier"
@@nirfz I know it as "Es ist kein Mensch, es ist kein Tier, es ist ein Panzergrenadier" :)
@@nirfz There are a lot of "jokes" about Panzergrenadiers like "Tritt nie auf nen grünen Stein, denn es könnt ein Grennie sein" oder "Was ist der größte Feind des Panzergrenadiers? Der Rasenmäher, zerstört Deckung und Nahrung zugleich" ^^
Two advantages to autoloaders often overlooked:
- autoloaders can work with bigger rounds than human can handle
- smaller crew means lower maximum casualties in case of catastrophic tank explosion
I don't think the first point there is a net positive, having a bigger round means less rounds overall in a given space, and bigger =/= better anymore.
Sometimes you can't overcome bigger rounds. In other way someone would try to fight with his 3" against T-72.
@@piotrzbies8683 What?
So how do you fix a malfunction on a tank like a t14 while in combat ? The crew is entirely separate compartment from the turret .
@@ozzy7763 what kind of malfuntions could be worked around in a, lets say, an abrams that couldnt be fixed in a T-14 (even if we have no clear picture of the inside of its turret)?
Mildly amused by the spontaneous evolution of crewmen at 13:00 ; Since we're losing the human in the right image, does that mean the loader is the peak of the tanker species?
damnit you beat me to it. I removed my similar comment.
No. It's just a machine taking over an automated task. The human still has to make the critical decisions.
Yes. No one can blame loader when shit goes wrong.
@@MarktheRude always blame the loader :)
When I saw that, I had to pause the vid just to check if someone has already made mention of it in the comments!
Great Easter egg!
The loader is the bass player of the tank crew. He exists to pay for the pizza, drink your beer, and hold up the entire band without thanks.
Well there is a critical diffrence between the loader and thw bassist, when bass is removed almost nobody notices, but when the loader is removed everybody cares,
I say this as a bassist, with my guitar in my lap
@@cursedcliff7562 On the other hand, if the bassist is replaced with a computer that does the exact same job but better, no one really cares, but if anyone even suggests replacing the loader with an autoloader, which is faster and more consistent than a human could ever be, somehow the entirety of the US loses their shit and starts coming up with excuses for why it's impossible and/or a bad idea
@@filmandfirearms,
I can't speak for a general audience but as an enthusiast I would be decidedly critical of an ensemble that willingly ditched the bass player(s) for any reason other than artistic license or the genre as a whole not using bass instruments.
The there was John Entwistle who at time seem to forget he was the bassist and not the lead guitar.
@@cursedcliff7562 I think Geezer Butler would disagree, and so do I.
If you get rid of the loader/operator who brews the Tea and the Pot Noodles. British tanks dont run on diesel they run on boiling water
you could have an automated tea brewer and dispenser. if the british make autoloders for cannons they can make autoloaders for tea cups
@@matthiuskoenig3378 not even chaos condones that level of heresy...
Then the British dont get to have tanks! ^.^ Its that simple! :D
The Brits name the tank "Tank" because they need a guaranteed hot water supply for their tea in WW1. Making them armored (to prevent the tank from leaking due to enemy fire) and able to cross trenches (we have some extra tea, let's share 'em hot with ze Germans) supported that purpose. The fact that those armored "tanks" also carry guns is just a convenient feature.
I present to you... The 120 mm Keurig
"Hey, dudes we can use elsewhere!"
Reminds me of my time in the army, then the officers didn't like medics sitting at the field hospital "not doing anything" and wanting to put them to work. I mean, sure, but what good are the medics when something goes wrong and they're miles away on guard duty or digging a ditch?
Go to three, and soon you will be running with two.
@@yankee1376 Nah soon we will go to 0 . Fully automated systems controlled by an AI. I give it 20 years max.
@Proctain Darkward Well, there is one observation which seems to be true for every military force: when men are unoccupied and not tired to death, they get bored and start doing bullshit. Including the bullshit the officer will be called responsible for. Hence officers always have to keep men busy. Preferably with something to tire that men to the point they would only want to crash out.
@@kwichzwellbreck3567 AI ain't gonna fix thrown tracks.
Infantry are the Army's free labor corps, change my mind.
One thing that might make a move to autoloaders necessary is the rise in the weight and dimensions of the ammunition. When Rheinmetall unveiled the 130mm l51 gun, they themselves said that the ammunition would be too large and heavy for a manual loader to load effectively, and that an autoloader would be required for any tank mounting the new gun.
And with the merger of GIAT and Krauss-Maffei, and the Leopard 2 with Leclerc turret demo tank, it is reasonable to assume that Leopard 3 might have an autoloader.
@NukeBunny
That might actually be the strongest argument for eventual universal adoption of autoloaders.
I have heard/read that the amunition for the Rheinmetall 120mmL55 is more or less the limit of what a loader can reasonably handle. Not just because of weight, but also because of the lengh of the cartrige and its fragility.
The longer the thing gets, the more likely you'll bump it against something. And with the casing being combustible/smi-combustible, it's probably not as sturdy as a good ol' brass casing.
@@FirstDagger Leclerc, not LeClErC
Even the soviets concluded that 122mm was the limit of reasonable human capability.
The 152mm guns were a bitch to load even with two loaders, and even worse in an enclosed casemate
Thats why the last soviet tank to have a loader had a 115mm cannon
@@lsq7833 ; Thanks for the notice, corrected my earlier comment.
"Put the manpower to other uses....." yes......as long as there are Sgts Maj in the Army there will never be 14 guys idle in a tank company.
There is a hell of a difference between a Sgt Maj and an MOD or Department of Defence Beancounter. The former has to actually fight with the unit, so while he may find extra things for idle tankers to do he is NOT going to drop them from the unit. The MOD or Department of Defence beancounters really do not give a toss about that, they will see an extra 14 'idle' men in a Tank Company and either delete them from the companies strength entirely or move them to other units with a manpower requirement....
The point is at some point the beancounters WILL look at those extra men, ignore the actual tankers and move that manpower elsewhere because it saves money. It has been done time and time again in modern (and not so modern) militaries and is probably as inevitable as the Politicians (who constantly cut the militaries budgets) blaming the militaries for their own fuckups and budget slashes....
@@alganhar1 if anything, the Sgt. Maj. Would put the idle men in THEIR tank company to work preparing tank pits, sanitation and resupply stations for the coming rest stop or lull in the fighting, before trying to snatch up even more idlers they can find to boost the effort.
Can always use more privates to paint rocks and sweep motor pools !
@@alganhar1 Sort of like how the military finds ways of lightening the load of a grunt's gear only to find ways of adding more gear to the grunt's loadout so that their net weight loss is 0.
@@Riceball01 Yeah, you know the irony of this? In Afghanistan it was/is not uncommon for an infantryman to carry up to 200lb. If we just look at the body armour alone, this can, when the plates are in, weigh in at 70lb or more, this weight is centred on the shoulder and the chest/stomach area. By all accounts modern infantry body armour is sucky to wear, it is uncomfortable, it is heavy, it is ergonomically lacking. Straps supposed to distribute weight more are generally inadequate, shoulder straps are more often than not too wide (restricting mobility and shouldering the weapon) or too thin (cutting into the shoulder) etc etc.
I am a medieval re-enactor, something I have been doing for some two and a half decades. I have a suit of reproduction 14th Century English Plate, while it is a reproduction suit it is made to the exact specifications of an existing suit of armour in the collection at the Royal Armouries in Leeds. In other words, unlike most Hollywood armour, this stuff is accurate. It weighs in at a shade under 70lb. This weight is superbly distributed over the entire body by a phenomenal set of straps, meaning that the armour is comfortable (as armour goes!). In this armour I can do anaything I can do without armour with the possible exception of swim (though even that is possible even if only for a short distance). This includes, despite what Hollywood says, mounting a horse!
In other words, armour made over 600 years ago is more comfortable, lighter, and ergonomically superior to modern ballistic armour worn by modern infantry troops... probably why most infantrymen hate wearing the stuff despite the fact that it *might* save their lives.... And there is an important caveat, modern infantry armour *might* save your life, depending on the direction the round comes, where it hits, or what its calibre is.
And this is a little over 25% of the top load a modern infantryman is asked to carry, with a medieval Knight it would be around 75%, the remainder being his shield and his weapons. Put's things into perspective doesn't it?
OR , you have a dedicated crew member that makes the Tea
conclusion , autoloaders are bad for crew morale
Well if you shove the Loaders of a platoon into APC's they could also spend their time preparing Chow and Tea whilst not fulfilling other tasks,
I'd say it'd be a brilliant boost of morale, the platoon rolls off the battle position into a safe position and the crew has their food directly ready as the Reserve had time to do make that
Simple: create an automatic tea maker
@@sanakhtthefatetwister9116 hahaha u beat me to it 😂
It’s another crew member to help with servicing the vehicle and weapons at the end of the day.
Every TC needs a Baldrick
*Slaps Loader on the back after his return from the APC*
"There are some tracks that need tensioning with your name on them!"
The best counter to "If it is not broken why fix it" is "Do you want to fight the next war the same way you fought the last one?"
@@RobertLutece909 I am certain the old guard generals of WW1 will agree with you
There’s no example in history of geriatric reactionaries succeeding against people who embrace the future
If it ain’t broke then make it better
@@looinrims Except the taliban
@@tyroneemail succeeding means leaving the other in history, hasn’t happened
It’s like when people say Unions do something, Unions have always lost to economic progress, old reactionaries will always lose to military progress
@@looinrims Wow the indoctrination is strong in this one. look up union movements in the 30s. Lost the battles won the war.
" ... the primary weapon of a tank is its tracks" is how I will now forever refer to mobility as the tracks being the primary armament
Chieftain a couple years ago: 'If I can't even run them over with my tracks I'm packing up and going home'
I remember in his battle of France video, he mentioned one French tanker who decided to run down a company or two of German soldats with his tank.
"With blood and guts flying off his tracks" 😂😂😂😂
Depending on the quality of the tracks you can get a few track links to break off with a good 1 MOA at 100 meters. :)
@@brianreddeman951 Ah yes, especially with the newer fin stabilized tungsten pins which connects all the links with each other.
@@brianreddeman951 i don't know, demo ranch tried this a month or two ago. even the BMG didn't do much.
I actually quite liked the idea of rounding up all the now unemployed loaders and forming two 'panzergrenadier' squads out of them
As a fellow Irishman I appreciate your commitment to adhering to the “farmers tan” tradition.
Now if only some of you lot had had a fisherman's tan...
*scrolls up* haha yeah
Are you implying there are other types of tans? I’ve been looking like the Chieftain my whole life!
I worked on many of the US autoloaders that you mention - TTB, Block 3, FastDraw, Compact Autoloader, Stryker MGS, FCS, et al. Your commentary is pretty accurate and I’m amazed that you know of some of the “minor” projects that only went to prototype phase. Well done.
Sweden did not really drop the autoloader. It was more that the best option availible didn't have an autoloader. For example the Leclerc was a part of the swedish trials and if Sweden had gone ahead with the Strv 2000 project - it would most likely had an autoloader.
And during the time the Strv 103 was in service it did so simultaneously with Centurion tanks (strv 81, 101, 102, 104) and the 105prototype that participated in the same trials as the M1, the Leclerc and the Leopard 2.
Afaik. The Swedish tank brigades of the cold war were equipped aboul 50/50 with either 103s or Centurions in two tank companies and two mech inf companies to each tank brigade.
S-tank was just too small for not using an autoloader. It was not a choice of automatic system. It was a choice of strategy then tactics then S-tank and then the autoloader as the only possible desing. Choice of the Leopard 2A4 and modernizing it for 4mln per each into 2A6 (more like a 2A6+ ) standard was a very sensible and very sure move into manual loading system.
@@HanSolo__ the swedish designers still like autoloaders.
the CV90105 has an autoloader, and it doesn't need to as the CV90120 doesn't (and back in 2014 they said they were developing a autoloader varient of the CV90120, this may have been cancelled due to no sales of the CV90120, as i can't find any more references to it)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes. They are going into autolader just as all the designers do. Yet in past having an auto or manual system was due to particular tactics way more than any type of favoring one over the other. That being said in 2012 they were still into manual on the havy MBT. Mostly because of a good, properly working Leopard 2 desing than the favor of 4rd man in the crew.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the CV90105-TD and CV90120-T never got further than proof of concept prototypes for export, almost like the CV90120-AMOS that the Swedish politicians pulled the funds for just as the system was getting ready for full serial production... Leaving our eastern brothers in Finland to salvage what they could and wanted from it, just like our western brothers in Norway did to us a few years later over the Volvo/Bofors SPFH77 Archer system.
And, @MrKansai1 teghe , as I stated, it wasn't a shift back to manual loading as much as streamlining logistics to a single type of MBT when two completely different types of MBT was deemed obsolete simultaneously.
After all, both the Strv 103(s) and the Strv 102/104 (Upgraded and modified Centurions)
Were essentially late WW2 designs of the same era as the soviet IS3-IS10 and the T54/T55 and then gradually improved to deal with the T64/T72.
The 103 also had a very complicated and notoriously leak-prone hydropneumatic suspension system and drive train with it's dual engine piston+turbine configuration and a gearbox with separate reverse gear allowing for using the full gear range both forward and in reverse...
I prefer autoloaders. My M1 Garand is superior to my 1903A3 Springfield.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Your M1 Garand auto loads too? XD
Well, the M16 loves to jam in combat situations, so don't name it with an actual rifle. Xd
@@jasonvorhees1795 The M16 is more of a carbine then a rifle. I'll get me coat. 😳
@@jasonvorhees1795 modern m16s are very reliable.
Way back in the day, the USN found that a 5" round was just about the upper limit of what one man could wrangle repeatedly in the confines of a turret. If (when?) AFVs start pushing up to and perhaps beyond 140mm main guns, autoloaders may become a practical necessity.
Lower than that, because a naval gun has plenty of room to maneuver in, and a tank turret is critically restricted.
The USN developed and installed 8 inch autoloaders on the cruisers after WW2. There is a UA-cam video that a person transferred from the training film about it somewhere on the site.
It's not really an apples to apples comparison. The naval guns were firing two piece ammunition, and it was generally considered that a 70-80 pound shell was the upper limit for a single loader. However, naval guns were operated from a standing position and had far more space.
@@ARCNA442 I was not making a comparison, just giving info. As a 3rd class Midshipman in the summer of1975, I loaded 5 inch shells and also had turns on the gun powder canisters for one of the two 5 in 38 cal dual gun mount on the USS Bausell (DD-845) in the Western Pacific. I can still recall the weight of the rounds and the lack of space since you had about 14 sailors in a dual mount. Add to this not good ventillation for the Pacific and the smoke in the mount after firing and reloading, it wasn't a pinic either.
@@ARCNA442 the 8" automatic guns were single piece ammunition.
I should add that Sweden dropped the autoloader when they dropped their indigenous designs, so it wasn't a move away from autoloaders it was only a move to a newer generation of tanks and the foreign designs they bought just didn't have them.
Arjun and Altay are their countries' first-ever indigenous designs (Altay is a washed down copy of the K2 though), so it might have been deemed that it's simply easier to stick with a human loader instead of adding the burden of designing a good autoloader for their first try at tank designing.
additionally sweden likes autoloaders in their artillery indigenous artillery. Bandkanon 1 and more recently Archer.
Another gem of a discussion Chieftain. Being ex Australian Army I have thought for a long time that a 3 man auto loader tank would be preferable to the current 4 man doctrine due to our low manning available and the French solution seems a good use with backup personnel still present. Your experience with short handed crews in Iraq demonstrates the value of having backups ready on the bench, as it were.
So today I learned that the 9th tank in each company contains the missing link. I had no idea....
It's not missing if you know where it is.
@@germanvisitor2 you know where it is by knowing where it isn't
If you could do a video about the invasion of Iraq. A lot of documentaries about Iraq focus more on the insurgency and not the whole journey from Kuwait to Baghdad.
Watch these two vids you will be satisfied.
ua-cam.com/video/2cTiTV2B9hs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/EUZ1Bw21KdA/v-deo.html
Re-watch Generation Kill.
There is an amazing book about it from the perspective of the tankers called, "Thunder Run."
I have not been in the military myself. I do know from working around robots/automation in the auto industry, that when robots/ automation works well a human can't really compete . But when they don't you can have a disaster on your hands worse then a drunk operator can cause. Just a thought .
A lot of autoloader designs allow for manual loading, it's just it won't be nearly as convenient as in tanks that were designed for manual loading.
AI is not a good idea for critical processes or making friend/foe decisions. Former WO2 and Systems Analyst.
Except he already went through how that argument is flawed
Brilliant video! Exceptionally well structured and full of significant points, even by your standards. Well done!
I sure like your straight-forward manner of imparting knowledge hedged with real experience! Keep it up.
Yes but he forgot to address the Beer hogging loader situation. As a draw back of the human loader.
I have seen dozens of your videos.
And I do not know you personally at all.
But you seem like the kind of person that I would like to be led by in combat.
You seem bright, calm, open-minded, good humored with substantial, common sense.
☮
One thing that wasn't mentioned for the pro-autoloader side is that morale and other in battle elements can affect performance. Humans tend to perform differently when under fire, panicking, desperate, and situations where conditions are poor or the tank is being jostled around while maneuvering or taking hits. Obviously proper training and equipment can help with this, but a machine is typically much more consistent unless it has taken damage. The same could be said about a human loader as well because if the human loader takes damage it will perform worse. Plus metal is harder than flesh.
Chieftan Thank you . I liked the Chart showing the Crew at 12 :30 , things are still evolving .
Global trends also seem to be moving towards completing military objectives with as few human beings in the line of fire as possible. (the use of drones and such)
I'd argue that it's going to look increasingly more attractive to 'decision-makers' to be able to more or less maintain military fighting strength while reducing the number of humans in the line of fire.
Or increase the utility of their videogame training xD
I had read an article a couple of years ago that talked about the Army considering switching the Abrams to an autoloader system, and using the loader as a scout drone operator instead. That could be another pro for the autoloading tank: organic short range scouting.
Holy crap that type 90 reload is insane
Finally some excellent clarification results Chief! I finally get to go autoloaders for my MBTs!!!
Great video Nick . Always giving the facts with a bit of personal experience
Great video/content as always - keep up the good work.
I could see drawbacks for human loaders while attempting to fire on the move. Tank barrels are stabilized, but the entire turret would not be - therefore you're going to have the human loader bouncing around to some degree if you're crossing rough terrain, and that could reduce the speed in which they could move the round from the storage to the barrel - circumstances that, presumably, the autoloader isn't slowed down by. This may not be a big issue, but if the speed of loading is a determining factor in the combat effectiveness of a tank, as well as the ability of said tank to be able to fire on the move, even in rougher terrain, then a decrease in loading speed caused by a human loader being jostled around (or even just their arms being shaken around a bit, if their overall bodies are strapped in to where they don't really move) by said circumstances would be a decrease in combat effectiveness as well. Again, perhaps not enough of a decrease to matter - or maybe that extra second more than it normally takes the human loader to prep the round ends up making the difference between their round hitting you before your round hits them. I don't know.
Tank God for ending this debate pointing out bot the pro and cons of autoloaders
Know what, you convinced me. I like this feeling of new information and new viewpoints.
As a former Panzer crewman, aussie Leopards and M113's, the problem of going from 4 to 3 crewman in battle tanks is as I have experienced crew fatigue. Yes we ran Leopards on 3 man crews and it showed. During resupply at those dark ungodly hours thing got real slow during the resupply and increased the risk of evasive action if attacked. Even worse when you have a 2 man crew as on the M113's. Now honestly who would be responsible for making a brew on the move in a 3 man crew? Great video....with some good points brought up....and best I end this with "FIRING NOW".
That's more than a little bit different, since those vehicles are designed to work with larger crews. That would be like saying a 3 wheeled vehicle could never work after driving a Ford Focus that was missing a wheel. It was never meant to be run in that configuration, so of course it's a bitch to make work when it isn't being used as it was designed
F-22 must carry 4 pilots instead of 1 to prevent crew fatigue! Oh wait. Same dumb excuses for outdated tech over and over again.
@@Conserpov Well, than you should be able to explain why even Russian T-14 need 3 crews.
@@yangcheng-jyun8542
This is pretty easy. Elimination of a human loader is a generational leap. Elimination of crewed turret also is a generational leap, while maintaining 3 crew. Technology to reduce crew further is not there yet.
@@Conserpov in the idea of not having technology to shrink crew from 3 to lets say 2, I disagree.
In the 80"s KAMOV designed and developed KA-50 attack helicopter. Very unique, because first time attack helicopter was with single pilot instead of two.
The KAMOV automated a lot of systems, like excellent autopilot system so pilot use time to look outside, and excellent targeting system so pilot can look outside middle of attack.
The navigation system was designed so that pilot can enter new flight plan like entering address to Google maps, either by searching by city, town, landmarkb or even by street name etc.
The cockpit was made fully armored. Every window, all directions to withstand 30 mm HEI-T as used in AAA. So pilot survived from first few rounds if getting shot at (comparing this to example AH-64 or AH-1 that has only real armor rated plate between pilots and armor glass in front piece, and rest are capable being penetrated by assault rifles from side windows, side panels, even under seat. Similar with Mi-24 that has armored cockpit but only front flat glass withstand 12.7 mm API).
First time as well did pilot in helicopter get a ejection seat, so at 0 speed and 0 altitude pilot got out in emergency.
The findings on the testing it and in combat trials was that pilots workload was in intense phases less than two-seat multirole fighter pilots experienced.
It became more combat effective than Mi-24 with two crew as you have individual doing decision and reacting to threats. No communications required between pilots.
So idea was that KA-50 replace Mi-24 fleet, and every attack group is 4+1 where it is 4x KA-50 and 1x KA-52, what is two seated variant where the group commander will sit and assign targets to each member from what they spot (datalink between each, they saw each others positions on map etc)
The two seated variant came as requirement to get to sell KA-50, as to enter attack helicopter sale competitions, buyers required two seater helicopters. Not for good reason, just "as backup". Because if pilot gets hit, co-pilot needs to fly expensive Helo to base (why example real armor in Apache is between pilots).
So KAMOV built KA-50-2 first, then that as KA-52.
Point is, at the current technology era, (since at least three decades) the MBT crew could have been shrunk to two members.
Driver/commander
Gunner.
Give the driver means to use another display to utilize a rooftop, mast mounted optics to observe and scout behind cover or concealment, and to scan additional threats.
Give it a way to quickly scan nearby surroundings to find if something needs to be avoided by moving.
In attack formation gunner needs to have own idea where what is, and they need to focus to key targets.
Where driver need to focus driving and obstacle evasions. So there isn't commander to search additional threats. But you are in high speed toward enemy positions, so you don't have much time anyways, as the company needs to use number of guns, instead number of eyes to win.
In stationary fight the driver can do both duties very well, as moving vehicle to peak around corner, ridge etc is easy thing to do.
This can be experimented example in Arma 2/3 or why not even in world of tanks.
The difference is that in WoT (never have played that one) you have superior situational awareness because third person perspective and artificial detection, tracking etc.
But never i would argue that you can have just one.... As driver+gunner makes it easier and effective, but not overloaded for either.
As any given combat phase you really have mainly two pairs of eyes, commander and gunner that has FLIR and optics. And in close combat you should have infantry anyways as your protection.
As flying helicopter, targeting and observing outside near and far for incoming missiles or fire using eyes only.... Is more difficult that driving and looking around.
I like having a loader. Generally speaking, he is 2IC. Usually a seniorish NCO too. Especially when in the troop leader's or squadron leader's tank. He can assist with nav, comms and micro management of the crew when the CC is away taking orders. Not to mention, especially with the troop leader or squadron leader, they have much more on their plate. So, showing up and being able to trust that the tank is good to go, is a weight of their shoulders.
Also, the loader is the mom. Making coffee and heating rations while everyone else is scanning or driving is a nice bonus.
Awesome video as always Chieftain. Your practical experience is always so good for videos like these. Thank you for what you do and for expounding on the answer to my question.
Question, would it be possible to use a quick change system for reloading ammunition in an Abrams or Leopard for say ? Like say through the top of the bustle where the blow off panels are.
Such a thing was already proposed, and some M1s were equipped for it, before the idea was cancelled. And yes, they used the blowoff panel location.
@@TheChieftainsHatch I should have known
Chieftain, you have got to have the patience of a saint to continue putting up with all these comments from people saying that the vulnerability of Russian carousal-style autoloaders invalidates the whole concept without just turning off the comments section. I suppose getting comments of that sort only every few weeks helps.
the Abrams have an autoloader and it is called private Jones
A lot of the time in this debate, I hear that you wouldn't want autoloaders in a tank because they're more expensive than a crewman. Firstly, is that really true when you consider the crewman needs pay, food, potentially medical care and might leave a grieving widow behind? And considering you can save money on weight, same armour for less metal volume, same hp/t for a weaker engine and so on, I think there's something to GAIN economically with autoloaders. Agree/disagree?
I'm betting you're correct. The Army's FY19 Military Personnel budget was $45 billion for 480,000 soldiers or almost $100,000 per man (and that's before you include training, infrastructure, VA benefits, etc).
I think the "cost" factor isn't meant during usage, (it should be cheaper in usage) but in development, testing and construction. You have to incorporate the costs of the humans that construct the mechanism, those who build it and those who test it ect. And for the material: maybe i'm wrong here, but the material to build the auto loading mechanism might be more expensive than to make the tank a bit bigger. (So the tank itself would be more expensive to buy)
I have been a senior design engineer in a subcontractor for the Ministry of Defense (UK). I can promise you that development is always way more expensive than unit cost. For example the public figures for the F-35 are as follows: F-35A cost roughly $90million USD. F-35 development cost? $400 Billion and counting. IE the unit price is 0,025% of the development cost. So you could have heading for 4500 of them for the cost of development. That's pretty typical too. Here in the UK we tend to do things on a shoe string budget but the Tornado was only about 4 times better than that in terms of cost to development ratio. The real issue is that to be the best you cant just use kit off the shelf because a good deal of it does not even exist yet.
@@gordonlawrence4749 just posting to point out. that the f35's cost has ballooned out of all proportions. tornado is/was a better(or more favourable)) comparison :)
@@BlueEyesGaming It's happened that way on the B-2 programme and was even worse for the B-1. The only programme I know of that went reasonably cheaply in the USA was the M-16/M4 (rifle not M4 Sherman). I suspect the Sherman was not that expensive as it used a significant amount of components from other tanks EG the volute suspension from the M3.
Interestingly, the Japanese Type 74 had the autoloader removed in the production marques, but had a 4(?) round magazine-hopper-thing next to the loader, which allowed him to shove the rounds into the chamber quickly with small motions of the arm.
It was also known to be very cramped even by Japanese standards, which is probably why they had that magazine-hopper-thing rather than for rate-of-fire.
OH MY LORD!!!! I have just noticed that he has a Darjeeling figure on the right of the second shelf down... so it is now proven she is best girl
Former Abrams Tanker: Chieftain I appreciate your point of view and thoughts. Great pros and cons but I maintain if you can't solve your problems after 18 rounds of M829 APFDS fired from a M1A2 (or tank with similar accuracy) then you aren't going to solve them with a theoretical 4-6 more rounds in an autoloader config. As you said, a seasoned loader will cross level between engagements, likewise a seasoned loader/TC combo can grab from the semi ready rack fairly efficiently between engagements once you burn through the first 18 rounds but granted the rate of fire would be much slower. Your video had some autoloaders that were comparable or superior to manual loaders (side note: The video showed a 7.5 second load time for Abram’s loader and that was relatively slow when I was in. We had guys that could load in 4 seconds from ‘sweet spots’), but I wonder how the autoloaders in the video that were faster would handle changing different ammunition types. I believe 8.1 seconds was the qualification maximum time but it has been a while. In a fight I'd rather have a confirmed rate of fire advantage versus wondering if 18 rounds won't be enough to solve my problems 10 minutes from now. Even factoring in the tank volume of Gulf War One, I wonder how many crews actually fired 18 rounds from the ready rack and said "Shucks I'm out!" I think the answer is Zero. If they needed more rounds right away, they called their wingmen to cover, cross leveled and continued mission. Also, what is the rate of fire when you finally expend your 'extra' rounds in an autoloader? A slow rate of fire is better than no rate of fire. Additionally, I disagree on there not being a significant degradation of the tank crew by removing the 4th member. People get injured, sick, must sleep, sentry/OP duty and major labor-intensive tank maintenance (thrown track) are all more efficient with four-man tanks than three-man tanks. Other items that Tank Companies perform in the field that require manpower (refueling, general maintenance, sand box creation, camo nets, quartering parties, runners, air guard, refueling, logistics, chow servers, ground guides, CO Drivers, cross leveling crew members from other tanks that are lost, deploying chemical alarms, conducting chemical tests, recovering stuck/broken vehicles, hygiene etc., etc.) allow the company to maintain more capability long-term when there are four versus three. I wish we had data of degraded crews (battle loss/sickness/other) running 25+ year old tanks over an extended war with a degraded (3) 2-man tank crew versus a degraded (4) 3-man tank crew. A 2-man tank crew on a 3-man tank might be doable for a short period, but over time the fun would evaporate and the crew would be miserable. I think there is certainly a point in the future where auto loaders will be universally accepted, but I don’t believe the time is now to fight long-term wars on aging 20+ year old tanks with 3-man crews. I think there 'might' be some national/regional differences in this argument as well. US Tank crews are going to be deployed across an ocean for a long period of time versus say a regional nation's tank that may never deploy far from their bases in Europe or Japan, etc. For tanks that had more of a short-term or defensive-only purpose perhaps 3-man crews make sense. I think the tipping point for the US to adopt an autoloader is when the entire tank is automated...i.e., Drone Tanks. I don't disagree that the surface area of an OPEN non-auto loader ammo rank is greater than the exposed surface area of an autoloader ammo rack, but I think the odds of a round penetrating that particular area that is greater than an autoloader’s area at the exact 2-3 seconds the ammo door is open are negligible. I doubt it has ever happened before, maybe a Saudi Arabian crew had this unfortunate event occur. Lastly, I think all of the new technology concepts we are seeing coming out (30mm cannon on top (not a fan), drones, anti-drones, jammers, active protection systems, smart ammunition etc are going to require even more skilled team members initially) Sadly I think the argument is probably moot for US tanks and autoloaders as I don’t see another true new MBT being fielded again. Oh, one PRO for autoloaders that I think needs to be considered is the cost to recruit, acquire, train, equip and maintain the loader himself, i.e. having that 4th crewmember costs a lot of money over an enlistment and when multiplied by your tank fleet it is very expensive.
Obviously, I'm biased but I remember everyone being gainfully employed in four-man tank crews.
@The_Cheiftan:
Yeah, I noticed that you've had that *'Evolution'* Silouette as one of the Tank Crews! Thought we wouldn't notice, huh!?! *_:D_*
A auto-loader together with other tech permits you to make a crew-less tank turret, moving the crew down to the main hull if you wish making them less exposed and allowing you to save your armor for the hull instead of the turret if you so desire.
but if the tank gets hit hard its very easy for that auto loader to be destroyed
@@unsteadyresults4533 I mean better than getting the crew dead.
@@unsteadyresults4533 were hit hard with the crew in, you would be missing a crew
Very good video and fair comparisons. I had worked on the MGS predecessor. Back then Ares did the auto loader and Teledyne designed and built the turret. Later purchased by GDLS. We were able to drive the gun to a load position, while on the move, to auto load a round. I always expected autoloaders to become more reliable, as more were used and designed. I believe w heavier rounds and more diversified crews, and unmanned vehicles, we will see many new and reliable designs
Nice set of arguments, also...in support of the autoloader, about missing a 4th set of eyes to keep look-out, with modern camera systems atop the turret (with target/object recognition software & threat warning) this becomes less of an issue.
However, against the autoloader...have they yet sorted out the issue with removing a chambered round from the breech without firing it so that it may be returned to the magazine for later use? Ei: if an HE got loaded & another threat comes up and you want to swap it for an AP round...without wasting the one in the tube. Because I heard that the carousel loaders had to fire the round once it's in the breech...maybe that was only an issue with the older ones?
Nice vid! Keep them coming!
The way a French tank platoon was described to me was consisting of 3 Leclercs and 3 VBL "armored" cars, with the French expanding to 4 of each in the near future. The French LT in question described the VBLs being used as "hunting dogs", finding the enemy and watching the flanks of the platoon as needed. I'm not sure if those VBL crew are actually trained for tanking, although they could potentially be extra hands as needed. And yes, it's an incredible load on the platoon commander.
Seems to kind of tread on the toes of recon and maintenance units whilst not doing either job as well...
@@dylanmilne6683 It doesn't really tread on the toes of recon at all. Reconnaissance units should be much farther afield than sticking within a couple hundred meters of their one platoon at most. They should be several kilometers in depth. They don't really replace maintenance units either, they're not trained or equipped for maintenance but if you need manpower for things like night watch, conducting resupply (trying to human chain rounds along with just three guys is rather difficult), or replacing sprockets.
Thanks for that, a great discussion of all of the issues involved.
My one gripe would be your dismissal of the "doctrine and logistics" effect. The fact that bean counters will see any crew savings an opportunity to reduce costs is a very real one and one that needs to be factored in. Every large organization everywhere both military and civilian will always prioritize immediate cost savings over long term benefit. That's why training, maintenance and even R&D often suffers in peace time - over time all that matter is headline rate of tanks, IFVs and boots on the ground, it is only when the shooting starts that the long term costs of all of those cost cutting exercises come home to roost. This is best exemplified in the Arab armies leading up to the various Arab-Israeli conflicts but also applies to the US before WWII and even the US AF before Vietnam.
The other advantage of a three man crew is that every man has his own hatch to get out of. No more gunners trying to get out through the commander.
Great vid Cheiftain, my favorite tanks are my Progetto 65 and P44 Pantera 👍
Great post - if auto loaders are as functional as human loaders, it makes it one step closer to a drone or completely robotic tank (e.g. Bolo, Ogre), and as others have noted - personnel cost is probably the most expensive cost in the long run.
When we move to 140mm, there really will not be an option due to the size of the round. I like the French solution for keeping the 4th man as that eliminates the excessive maintenance and watch requirements. Having spent years on a Command tank which always ends up as a 3 man crew while the FGO is off doing FGO things, that need for additional help is certainly real.
Bravo.
Very good presentation.
Hi Chieftan!
I am hoping you could answer a series of questions regarding tank ammunition loadout.
How have militaries throughout history decided to divvy up the ammunition loadout for their tanks?
What sort of ratios of AP/HE/APDS ect. have militaries decided is best. Have different militaries come to vastly different conclusions on this question, or has a universal, best practice standard been arrived at?
Have tankers and unit commanders in the field ignored command doctrine and gone with different loadouts from the standard?
On that line of thought, are have individual units been granted the freedom to requisition the ammo loadouts they request, or have such supply questions stayed in the hands of logistics command officers?
Thanks for taking the time to look at my questions, and thanks for being such an open, accessible resource for the community to learn from.
That question probably requires more time than I have to do a thorough answer, but yes, the doctrine of the nation will likely result in a different loadout. For example, in the late cold war, a Soviet tank's loadout was some 70% HE, whilst everything in an M1A1 is an anti-tank round: HEAT or Sabot. The exact numbers in each tank are usually left to the company commander or platoon leader, subject to availability. When I was in Iraq, I had a 100% MPAT loadout, because that's all we were supplied with. We did consider trading with a neighbouring unit which had some HEAT, but never got around to it for some reason.
There is one more argument for an autoloader, slowly becoming evident. Nowadays a 120 mm smooth bore cannon is common in MTBs. But it seems in the future cannons will be 130 mm or even bigger. That means the weight of ammunition will increase also. The need for an autoloader becomes obvious.
Chieftain have you considered New Zealand’s mighty Bob Semple tank. It’s 6 main guns were all autoloaders!
I liked the "evolution" crew in the tank company graphic!
Very well reasoned. I am now a fan of autoloaders!
I think the French idea is rather smart. Don't eliminate the loaders entirely, just have them follow around in APCs. And then any maintenance duty still has that extra fourth man.
It seems that technology is to the point that loading is becoming increasingly tedious. Just like we have more IVRs than human phone operators. Sure a human operator is more versatile. However an IVR can direct the call well enough for 80% of all the phone calls coming, allowing for a higher volume of calls and for the human operators to be free to do other tasks requiring critical thinking. If an autoloader is 80% as effective as human loader then put that human loader in the APC so that he can adjust the track tension and the machine does the loading.
@TEXOCMOTP And still, the Leclerc is more successful in Yemen than the Abrams.
@TEXOCMOTP No, but the Leclerc is.
Hell yes, autoloader! Although I have to admit a Webley .455 is a really cool, historic sidearm. So is the Colt/S&W M1917 .45 ACP revolver. I'm making a note to shop for one of them right now.... Oh, for tanks. Uh, sorry, whatever you guys think is best.
Well the entierty of russia/france/eastern bloc countries agree with you
While nato doesnt
@@cursedcliff7562 I'm not a tanker. I was making a pistol joke.
@@billdanosky i know, i was trying to play along
Excellent video. With regard to the crew argument, I'm wondering if there isn't something to be said for keeping the fourth guy in the tank, but in the hull next to the driver. That way, you get a smaller turret/room for more turret armor, and you have someone to take care of all the electronic systems, communications, battle management, active/passive defence fit, and any drones or programmable ammo the powers that be see fit to include.
Basically a return to the World War 2 German crewing, but subtracting the loader. With remote control, they could even resume the machine gunner role.
I think it's funny that amidst all those military books and models, The Chieftain has what looks like the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python on his shelf.
That's because it is the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python.
@@TheChieftainsHatch excellent choice...
Killer Bunny versus Tiger Tank... No contest. Bunny wins.
Tanks are full of components that can break.
E4s we know it's fun to break them when we're bored
Glad you made a well argument video about the autoloaders, both pros and cons. I am curious, do you think we will see (in the foreseeable future) next generation tanks with main guns simply too big for humans loaders to even be considered ? Do you think the tradeoff for greater firepower is worth it if it means (possibly) lower amount of ammunition and radical shift from current western designs ( excluding France and Japan ) ?
The autoloader to a tanker has got to be like a drum machine is to a band. Good summary. Thanks.
Those graphics showing 4 vs 3-man crews about made me spit out my coffee. Someone has a delightfully dry sense of humor :-)
In Hungary we are replacing the T-72s with Leopard 2A7s so technically we are dropping the autoloader but it's due to necessity. But then again our procurement is based on government decisions and not future doctrinal changes so who knows how they'll solve it (our tank company is undermanned as it is already).
Carousel auroloaders also technically have a sweet spot for example in,the t-80 sabot rounds are stored in a line however if you need to change to a different type of round such as an atgm the autoloader has to revolve to where the atgm is stored and the loading time can go to 10+ seconds.
Thats not a huge problem practically though.
If you need an atgm its probably for a target beyond tue range of the sabot, so you have some time to get it loaded
3:02 Generally. Now the obvious case is the S-Tank. But, I think the Swiss made a few working prototypes (during the 1980s) of turreted tanks that placed their cassette loaders unto the rear of the hull. Also on the tank was a complicated turn-table based autoloader located within the turret basket. And, apparently this loading mechanism inside the bottom of the turret basket plucked ammo from the cassette loader located at the rear area of the hull. After that occurred, the shell was rotated to align with the position of the gun, and raised upwards, and then loaded (by the turn-table autoloader). I believe this Swiss tank was called the NKPz (Neuer Kampfpanzer. I think it means "New Army Tank", or "State-of-the Art Army Tank"??? :/ )
I found this interesting and very informative.
Thank you.
But I am still in a DEEP, state of depression from you not opening with 'Greeting's all!'
☮
Great post - a Pakistani tank officer who had served on T80s told me that they had a fourth crew member who travelled with them on the back deck to help with maintenance and to BREW TEA. This seems an excellent idea, if true.
there is always a service crew in aviation, why not to have one for tanks
Reminds me of the reluctance to change from bolt action rifles to self loading rifles by Germany , Great Britain and others during WW2.
Well done. I'm convinced.
I have a thought for you: It would be interesting to have, for some military over some (recent) period of time, an account of every time an AFV used its canon in action. Specifically, what was the target (tank, IFV, other vehicle, fixed position, sniper, infantry, helicopter, and whatever else) and what would have been the ideal weapon for dealing with that target.
The point being to see how often a particular weapon -- from 20mm up to 125mm I guess -- would be the right weapon for an actual engagement. I'm guessing that there must have been times for you when a 25-40mm autocanon would have been preferable to your 120mm.
Practice has shown that coaxial 100mm and 30mm works just fine, despite it used on old like mammoth sh!t BMP-3, which has totally wrong (constructive) role of IFV and battle transport. In fact, this complex would be much more useful on "light" tank with better mobility and defence.
Thank you. Loved the video
My country is one of the few examples that moved from autoloaders (AMX-13) to non-autoloaders (Leopard 2), but that is probably more to do with reasons other than autoloaders.
My average load time was 4.6 to 5.1. My fastest time was 4.5. I became a tanker in my mid 30's. I loved the job but it was tough.
LOL, I have already voiced my very personal opinion on Matsimus piece on Manual vs Autoloader and I actually appreciated your take on this matter. You have a point in many of the pros and cons you brought up and as a former fellow treadhead, I agree with you, still it is very hard to steer away from what I knew, I was familiar with and as you said, what worked in a four men crew!
- - -
To be honest, yes, like you, I worked with short crew most of my career, much of the time, throwing mechanics or scouts into the tracks to serve as loaders. As I am no longer living out of a track now, all such issues are merely academic as I only voice my opinions based on experience.
- - -
Take care and stay safe wherever you are!
- - -
If you ain't Cav, you ain't S_
Just a few points. As one who crewed on the XM-8 AGS, it was never officially named the "Buford'. That was started after the M-8 was cancelled. There was never a plan to named it. The names went to tanks was the story around the office in TSM Abrams when we were working on the M-8 AGS. So it was never going to have a name. I believe Mike Sparks started the 'Buford' name several years later when he was pitching the 'air-mech strike' idea. Two, the Autoloader on the XM-8 AGS was an improved version of the one on the CCLV which was a scaled down version of the US Navy's quick fire 6 inch naval gun. We had a test to drop the autoloader 36 feet and the requirement was for it to cycle through and load 200 rounds without failure. We stopped at over 500 rounds, it was pretty robust. Three, I echo your comments about adoption of 'new' things in the Military. The best way is top down from Leaders, but even when it is driven from the top, sometimes the old grey beards present challenges to adoption.
How about a video on home brewed armored vehicles ? Not that I'm planning on starting anything personally. It just looks like a fun topic.
You just want to hear about the Bob Semple dont you... -.-
About loading speed: if you stand or fall due to how fast loading can be done, you probably have huge problems anyway. As in "my God, we need to get the %$#& away from here!" Its fairly safe to sugest you have then overstayed your welcome.
And can expect to be reciving a significantly emotional event at any second
Kursk. Operation Goodwood. Chinese Farm. Golan Heights. Mitla Pass. So far, every really big tank battle in history has eventually boiled down to a muzzle-to-muzzle slugfest where victory and survival went to the crews who could throw rounds into the breech a little bit faster. Maybe that will change and from now on all battles will be decided at ranges that allow loading to proceed at a leisurely pace. Maybe.
Brilliant video mate 👍
One problem I have with autoloaders is jam clearing
While you mentioned troubleshooting, a fully self-contained turret could cause jams to be harder to clear.
However, if you've got a hydraulic rammer that can put a 130mm shell into a tube, it can probably also extract said shell from the aforementioned tube, so if that's handled (and I have no doubt that the proposed KF 51 and AbramsX both have solved this problem) then that hangup isn't a worry anymore
Another advantage of auto loaders that was not mentioned is that auto loaders can handle much bigger and more heavy ammunition than humans.
Less of an issue for a tank than for self propelled artillery I'd think
@@Cal94 Eventually we will hit a point at which it will be impractical to use humans because of the bigger rounds. For example 130mm and 140mm ammunition for western armies and 152mm ammunition for Russia (the use auto loaders anyway)
@@davidreinhart373 M106 and similar use 155mm rounds and have a system to reload so fast they can by altering trajectory and charge have 4 rounds hit the target within a second. OK that's a howitzer not a tank but I would bet we see 155s before rail guns or similar in tanks.
@@davidreinhart373
I don't see this point coming son in the next century, while i get the point, based on the recent prototype history of the 130 or 140 mm Rheinmetal gun, i doubt that we really will get the need for such high caliber cannons. The only real advantage of high caliber guns is the much easier cartridge design for high energy rounds.
However, if you put enough propellant behind a 100 mm round, you would get the same penetration values as you would get with modern apfsds rounds.
The only advantages of those modern high caliber barrels are the cheaper construction, due to the lower velocity of the round and the increased rigidity compared to other barrels, wich leads to increased accuracy compared to smaller caliber guns with identical penetration value and identical barrel weight.
At the end, even those factors would not matter, when consider a missile system for massively armored vehicles. Than the gun is only a side arm and can be scaled down to an automatic cannon with maybe 30mm to 40mm rounds.
@@mandernachluca3774
The point is that Hardkill systems can intercept most rounds and missile, except for APFSDS rounds.
Penetration of APFSDS rounds base on velocity and the lenght of the projectile rod.
To lengthen the rod, you need to lenghten the casing.
To keep or encreas the velocity of the longer and heavier projectile, with the same length gunbarrel as we now have, you need to encrease the diameter of the gunbarrel or the pressure.
At the moment the pressure is pretty much at maximum of the barrel material.
So cheaper and tecnically easier is to enlarge the diameter.
Conclusion:
If you want to penetrate modern armor, use a long and large caliber APFSDS Round.
Personaly I think the next generation of tank guns will make an autoloader pretty much mandatory.
As in order to increase the power of the projectile, you'll need to make it heavier and the propellant charge bigger.
So, handling those shells will be an even greater issue.
I have some concerns/questions regarding autoloaders (or more precisely the casette system):
1. How does it handle multiple types of amunition? Can the system pick and choose or does it simply take the next in line?
Afaik the Autoloader in the swedish S-Tank had to casettes and was limited to two types of amo in fixed quantity.
I have no doubt that a system that can pick and choose can work, but I would expect it to be more complex and bulky as well as possibly slower.
2. What about shaped charge warheads? In a manual system like the Leopard 2 or Abrams uses, the shells are stowed with the nose pointing back, away from the crew. So, in case of a cook-off any shaped charge sting that forms, will exit out the back and not kill the crew. In a casette system the shells are stowed nose forward (unless your system can turn the shells, which will take up more space and will be more complex and slower).
It doesn't take much space look up the meggitt autoloader video. In case leclerc have the shells with barcode and qr code which helps the system to select and keep count of the rounds.
Thorough video!
14:22 That sums up the M14 to M16 change.
Nowadays auto loader should be mature enough to become a standard equipment for a newly designed combat vehicle.
o7 capsuleer
Looking back at the one man turrets common on many French tanks of 1940, it's interesting to consider the impact if the French had developed a 37 or 47 mm autoloader gun, combined with decent periscopes and sights for the commander. Probably well beyond the technology and French finances of the time, though.
Maybe, but not by much. The P-39 Airacobra had drum magazine-fed 37mm cannon, Hispano-Suiza had their 20mm belt or drum fed cannon of Spitfire fame. The Panzer II's 2 cm KwK 30 fired from a 10 round magazine the operator loaded. You had the Oerlikon and Bofors that were drum and magazine (clip?) fed respectively. So maybe not an autoloader like we think of it today, but maybe a magazine-fed cannon would have been feasible, at least for the 37mm guns.
Brilliant, just Brilliant!!!
Has The Chieftain done a piece on the organization of various armored formations, particularly on how armored divisions are organized vs. mech infantry and other similar units? That'd be cool.
The current M1 really is a fat chunky boi. They just keep slapping on more & more armour, ceramic tiles, NERA, ERA you name it.
It's a hell of a lot cheaper to do that then develop a whole new tank. Then again, the F35 exists so what the hell do I know...
The F-35 is also ludicrously advanced and essentially built around its avionics. The systems that thing has make the ones in the Raptor looks like old-gen consoles next to a fully-built PC. Not to mention the pilots' impressions are overwhelmingly positive, so it must be doing *something* right.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Exactly
@@griffinfaulkner3514 It'll also be outdated in about a decade. The problem with stealth aircraft is that radar technology always outpaces the development of methods to counter it. Not to mention the myriad of bugs and kinks they still have to work out, which they've been doing since 2009. Is it a bad aircraft? No. But is it underwhelming and disappointing when you consider the development hell and cost overruns it's had to go through? Or the competition the Chinese and Russians will probably give it in 2-3 years? Yes it most certainly is.
@@madcourier6217 Indeed. Not to mention the fact that it has many shortcomings that cannot be fixed no matter what that happened due to development hell.
Generally speaking, the war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated that storing the ammunition in a carousel, inside the turret , IS an explosion risk. On the other hand, the last time western design tanks has stood against modern, determined, well equipped and quite well trained opposition was in 1982, in Lebanon.
As far as I can say - we can, and probably should reconsider some of the arguments included here, but we don't really know the other hand of the equation.
BTW, this war clearly demonstrated that APC's are much more vulnerable, on the buttle field, then yanks. Bringing in additional personal, into the battlefield, to help with maintenance is not the brightest of ideas.
Truly hope it will stay this way.
The ammo in Russian tanks is in the hull….
Very insightful from someone with hands on experience with them. I know you discredit your tanking experience, but for some of us arguing the specs of paper tanks because someone said so rather than researching or experiencing the facts, I value your word.
Question kinda related to this auto-loader thing. There's been the talk/development of remote control AFVs and APCs. What's your take on that? I don't think we're far enough on solid remote signals to have such a thing and having boots on the ground is sometimes the better option to have. But I remember there being talk of one that fell through, but things like sapper-bots and what have you are things. Would it be useful/practical for it to be scaled up to like a MBT?
@The_Chieftain can you make a video about NBC protection in MBTs as well as fire supression systems? Thank you sir, and thumbs up for this video about autoloaders, I enjoyed it very much.