Should Tanks Use Autoloaders?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 сер 2021
- When designing a tank to fit a certain armored doctrine, there are many aspects that have to be carefully considered. How the cannon is loaded is one of the most vital. Many say that automatic loaders or autoloaders are best, while others say that manual loaders or human loaders are better. Today we'll be examining both sides very briefly.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Armored Warfare Crew Voices
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory - Ігри
'Humans can't break down...'
*looks at increasing depression rates*
you sure about that chief?
They also make great snacks for the angry turret ring monster. At least on the Challenger
Mental breakdown be like
Am i a joke to you
gauge autoloader
Yeah especially in trans and LGBTQ community.
@@LaVaZ000 just a quick question, what do you think T stands for on LGBTQ?
I think autoloaders are certainly the future. I'd imagine that with improvements in technology manual loaders will become obsolete.
Especially since remote turrets seem to be the future as well.
Agreed.
The Leclerc autoloader advantage already proven itself 5 second reload and the possibility of adding a 140mm gun for insane 50% more penetration out of it witch is impossible in other tanks that need the space of a human loader
but who will take the place of the 4th crewmember to sham
future is unmanned tanks(drones) , would be hard to have human loader in unmanned tank. , it would be like , playing warthunder.
@@VarenvelDarakus Exactly this but at least maybe one pilot in far distance
I personally like autoloaders more, they remove the human error/endurance/maintenance factor. Also they're just really damn cool.
But of course they got their issues so its pointless to claim they're better for every single tank, every single cannon and in every single combat situation.
@asdrubale bisanzio well the issues are more on the "what if the autoloader breaks" or even worse "what if the computing system running the autoloader breaks" side
A human loader can be replaced quite easily and usually patched up with relative ease as well. Whereas fixing the autoloader is way more time consuming task
Same here
@@piewithmoustachepwm tanks with autoloaders usually have an option of manual loading
@@piewithmoustachepwm iirc the t72 ural has a commanders panel that allows for the commander to manually control the autoloader if the computing system fails/if anything at all fails
@asdrubale bisanzio you kinda missed the point about patching up the loader, minor injuries aren't a death sentence like they were 1700s and before. A first aid kit can't fix an autoloader.
And fixing the issues of autoloaders is specifically done via throwing warm bodies at them, unless you throw cold engineers to solve the problem, but dead engineers don't really solve problems too well...
Also equipment likes to be used, especially electronics. We Finns learnt that the hard way when we bought old NVA surplus (including a 100 T-72M-1s) after Germanies reunited and equipment of the east were sold for price of the scrap metal.
What everyone seems to ignore, that in a real conflict there are expected losses. Sometimes a big loses where entire crews are killed. The great benefit of autoloader is that its basically one less corpse on the battlefield, and there's no associated cost of training a relpacement crewman
I'm not really a fan of Russian armor however one thing is nice for autoloader.
Crew of 3 tanks with human loader can use 4 tanks with autoloader.
But at the same time, if the autoloader gets jammed, the tank is now officially out of the fight.
This.
Officer solutions for officer problems. People forget that equipment isn't selected by users but by the people responsible for those users, and they don't have the same priorities at all.
@@chuggon7595 A jammed autoloader can still be repaired, however an injured loader cannot really.
@@chuggon7595 " autoloader gets jammed, the tank is now officially out of the fight."
How's that any different than getting your loader hit? When you think of autoloader, did you think of the Soviet one or the more safer and simpler one found in Leclerc and Type 90/Type 10?
The upcoming German/French tank will feature an Autoloader and I personally think it makes more sense than having an entire crew member being dedicated just to loading the gun, which becomes hard with big calibers anyway. Theoretically you'd be able to men more tanks with the same amount of people as they could become drivers, commanders or gunners instead. Having 3 Tanks with Autoloaders gives you basically a whole additional tank crew.
Another point could also be that when a tank gets taken out, you only lose 3 instead of 4 people. I don't know how much that would effect irl situations but in a theoretical war of attrition that could may be a factor?
Or while keeping the crew count add more gunners to make shooting more reliable.
Yes, Auto loaders can be loaded manually too, and loud at anny speed. And dont drop sheels in the floor by accident. Loaders also load at any speed.
Make tank smaller, smaller less visible and Plates are less taler making those plates "lighter"
T-90 have like 250mm of RHA and 170mm at turret and hull. (this is simplified) Not including reflecting plates and suport brackets
@@barrybend7189 Thats actually prety cool, but i have thought IA would help in that.
@@76456 you could train both for gun opperation and maintenance to mitigate any issues during or after use.
In my experience with military vehicles, man loss per vehicle is not exactly a priority; crew survivability as a whole is. A dead tank crew is a dead tank crew, regardless if it was 3 or 4 men, and a lost IFV or APC dismount section is just as such, regardless if that's 4 or 6 scouts or a whole infantry squad. The tank is more expensive than the crew, but the upside of a living crew is that those crew can always get in another tank and bring with them experience: to do that, you only need a "crew", 3 or 4 irrelevant.
My opinion is that the manual loader is here to stay for a while.
Your savings on manpower is gonna be taken back in the form of man hours for your tank's maintenance and for your sleep roster during field time. It's also gonna cut into your tank's situational awareness as well as the speed at which your crew can perform other tasks, such as loading up your tank with ammunition for your autoloader to even use along with all your other basic logistical necessities. This gets worse as you add on additional tanks, as each additional tank requires servicing. To say nothing of your autoloader itself being yet another thing in need of being serviced in the first place.
Even if your autoloader is much faster than a manual loader, your manual loader helps everyone else get more shut eye, helps look for bad guys, helps lift equipment, helps perform maintenance, helps communicate, and, should one of the other members become incapacitated, helps all the other crew members perform their roles as well.
This is not to say that autoloaders are worse than a manual loader, but that your answer isn't so cut and dry and largely comes down to doctrine, and whether or not your force believes the benefits of an autoloader outweighs the benefits of a manual loader. As for why I think we'll be sticking with manual loaders (or at least should) is more due to my own predictions of the next generation battle field: continuous dispersion of units over larger areas. We saw it in afghan: platoons placed in the middle of nowhere and expected to operate while other force multipliers (artillery, air support) give them their punch. Units will continue being dispersed and force multipliers will become more accurate and lethal, so stealth and camouflage (and thus, further dispersion) becomes necessary to survival. In this kind of non-linear battlefield, logistics and supplies, and perhaps most importantly manpower density, may be hard to maintain: the crew will want that extra set of hands to do everything because they are largely on their own to do it.
Of course, I could be wrong. At the very least, one other concept is to turn the loader into a communicator rather than just dropping him from the tank: you get an autoloader and all the benefits of an actual loader and you take some stress off the commander's plate.
The French solved the "manpower" problem by just putting the extra people in an APC, have them follow behind, and go to their assigned tank when they stop for maintenance. This APC can also immediately assist with recovery, when not under fire, if the tank gets bogged down, since the APC will have lower ground pressure.
the french solution works even better since it means you can replace crew who are incapacitated (e.g. sick, injured) and not have your tanks under crewed in battle.
That will never work with bean counters.
@@PlazmaZ5 not so for the French bean counters
@@fulcrum2951 I'm talking American bean counters.
@@PlazmaZ5 I think an additional man could help if the bean counter miscounted the amount of beans.
The Chieftain did a lengthy video on this.
Autoloaders are an obligation going forward, with the move to bigger calibers.
Tanks are reaching weight classes that make them impractical, and an important way to make them lighter is to reduce the size of the armored fighting compartment by removing a crew member and using an autoloader instead.
Should Tanks Use Autoloaders?:
Spookston: Yesn't
That’s like every one of his videos
The Chieftan actually did a pretty good video on Auto-loaders as well, still nice to see this topic covered by you
Yup, matsimus too also did a video on this.
03:20
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh,
it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine.
Another benefit of autoloaders is that you can theoretically field more tanks, since there's less crew to accommodate and less materials or space per tank. For armies like the USSR or China this is a massive advantage that they actively banked on compared to Western designs.
Make them infantry men or IFV tankers
Main problem with modern russia is they can't afford them in number
@@samthemodelbuilder7797 they've got the largest number of MBTs in the world, the vast majority of about 95% if not higher with autoloaders, it's more a fact that unlike the US, the state owns the manufacturers
France, Japan, Korea. Also they have low population.
And maybe smaller countries like Portugal, Switzerland etc. Could adopt Auto loaders, since those countries dont have much population
@@teatanks6481 I meant the T-14 Armada
When people think of "Tank Autoloaders" they immediately think of just Carousel Autoloaders and either don't know or forget about the Bustle Autoloaders used in tanks like the Leclerc, Type 10, ZTQ-15, etc
if I recall correctly those are "casette" autoloaders right?
@@EyeKracker83 "casette" is basically the same as gun magazine
Leclerc has a "continuous link carrier"
@@EyeKracker83 They are called bustle loaders, because they are located in the turret bustle (the back part of the turret), they can be loaded with whole "cassetes" of ammunition to decrease out of combat reload times though
Also worth mention that tank on the move with human loader also will load much slower than in stationary position.
Yes.... A man just cant load gun when tank goes 40km/h on offrodad.......
@@adambuchta8755 He's referring to a human loader's lengthened load cycle when traversing bumpy terrain at high speeds as he's buffeted around in the tank whereas an autoloader creates a rapid load cycle that is stable under all conditions.
@@halseyactual1732 Isn’t that exactly what Adam wrote?
@@MaplePanda04 Cool story. Your point ?
@@halseyactual1732 You corrected Adam there by reaffirming exactly what he said…unless I’m misinterpreting what either of you meant.
One thing about the “autoloaders can break down” argument. While it is true that autoloaders can break down, just as the Chieftain said in his video on autoloaders, pretty much everything else in the tank can break down as well. In his words, “If you’re afraid your tank will break down, then why have a tank really”.
On paper, yes. In practice, it depends on doctrine. This is because losing the loader isn't necessarily a bonus, good autoloaders are quite expensive, and add more complexity meaning also more maintenance.
Of course, this is ignoring fully automated turrets like those of the Armata. Which likely is the future of tanks, but not a near one most surely, between the costs and the doctrinal preferences of NATO.
Is there a tank named Armada or you made an honest mistake? Either way, i agree.
@@Kumyar It was a mistake. I meant to write Armata.
About the NATO, France already has auto-loaders and the germano-french (EMBT), if it ever succeeds, will feature one too, so it seems that it’s slowly getting ground.
"good autoloaders are quite expensive, and add more complexity meaning also more maintenance."
Spooskton points this out, Loader also has to be well fed. Autoloader is expensive? so does the cost to train, maintain, and provide the loader with payment and benefits. The cost is so irrelevant that Autoloader at least has more benefit in the longer run. Sure you can replace a loader, but the psychological and logistical impact is present. You simply don't have an immediate replacement waiting for you if your loader is KIA/WIA.
Compare that to Western/Japanese Autoloader design, which is designed with modularity. It's as complex as trying to maintain those luggage conveyor belt in the airport; the autoloader only involve the revolving rack, and a horizontal rammer. Even if you managed to screw the entire module, it can be easily swapped using the rear turret access and its accessed in similar way the Abrams's turret ammo rack can be accessed from the rear from outside.
_> good autoloaders are quite expensive_
That's a fallacy.
A human loader immediately adds ~30% to the entire tank's weight and, at least in civilized countries, human life costs a lot too.
I think you missed another point : Firing on the move. When the tank is maneuvering, especially at high speeds or on cross-terrains. An autoloader is nice to have because it's fixed and doesn't suffer being shaken in all directions like a milkshake. Which a human loader would obviously be uncomfortable with, especially in combat conditions.
Leclerc has an autoloader for that advantage. Speed is part of our army's doctrine.
To be fair, NATO tanks dont really fire on the move too often.
Ah the Leclerc~
The answer: yes, but also no. It's complicated and there's a reason both are used.
Rogal Dorn: This is true.
Pretty much every major army agree auto loaders are the way to go now. The only real argument remaining is why develop a new system when the current one is not that much worse.
@@EstellammaSS that's still a very valid reason for not using an autoloader.
The main reason for a manual loader seems to be the date of design. AFAIK all tanks designed in the last 40 years have been autoloaded.
@@FearlessLeader2001 like?
Everyone is moving towards automatic
I remember discussions on the next gen american MBT and they talked about having an autoloader but keeping the 4th crew member and giving them the job of a drone controller.
I wonder if they'd put them back in the hull beside the driver, reviving the radioman/bow gunner position.
@@ausaskar thats what some of the premilinary images of america's next MBT seem to have, 2 turret crew, 2 hull crew.
personally i am of the opinion you should put drone operators in a seperate vehicle
I guess the idea is for each tank to have it's own drone that will support the tank in addition to any other drones the army would be using. The tank would be able to launch a drone and scout an area without being required to have support from a separate drone controller and would also be able link up with other drones and communications in the area. A tank could launch a drone and then relay the data to other tanks in the group.
The loader on some tanks has access to optics or sights meaning they can act as an extra eye which is good.
And that suppose to matter? Modern tanks with C4I negated that problem entirely.
4th crew as extra eye is only applied if you're the one in offensive and having the preparedness to overextend and you have to provide your own security. Nicholas Moran pointed this out as well in his autoloader video, why would you need an extra set of eyes assigned to the loader? he's already busy managing the main gun and coax.
@@erikakurosaka3734 an extra pair of eyes before battle can help you find the enemy. The loader isn't constantly loading and combat might not happen for a long time in many conflicts. Those extra eyes are useful even if he doesn't have good sights or optics.
Yea, no. Just go watch the_cheiftan video.
@@jintsuubest9331 can I get a link I would love to watch it.
what about extra eye that is automated from ai recognition? if ai algorithm can beat doctors than surely it can beat soldiers too, maybe in future more part is going to be automated because mass production of computers should be easier than a human that needs foods and morale. human also need to wait 15 years to become mature for combat, need wages, freedom etc
Sure, in a fast paced combat scenario, the auto loader has a lot of advantages, but it’s rare to be running around coming across tank after tank after tank and have those such minor advantages actually matter. It’s not a video game, minor stat boosts aren’t going to be what gets you an advantage over the opponent. So many other factors matter more in reality than making sure a hit bounces off. You’re also going to be engaging infantry or soft targets most of the time, and you forgot that the loader also has secondary roles, like manning machine guns. To counter the idea of a loader becoming fatigued overtime, they actually take some of the workload off of the entire crew, thus improving the crews stamina overall. You’ll also have more eyes, allowing for better situational awareness. Most of what a tank is going to be doing isn’t trying to outmanoeuvre tanks and pumping rounds into a single target, it’s gonna be a lot of just riding around, which means a lot of maintenance. Maintenance isn’t an avoidable thing or something that only happens after getting hit or on rare occasions, it’s an every day thing, and having an extra set of hands to help with it is immensely useful and cannot be overstated. And if a tank does get hit and the crew has to bail? An extra man is obviously going to be useful for that. There’s also the human element, which a lot of auto loader fans will say is actually a negative when it’s in fact a weakness of the auto loader for lacking it. Being able to judge which ammo you’re going to need coming up and plan multiple steps ahead is pretty damn useful, and not something an auto loader can do. It’s also a whole lot less lonely, which is just one of those things you’d never think about when playing video games or imagining them in combat, but is something I hear brought up time and time again. Overall, I’ve never heard a tanker say they would lose an extra man for such minor and niche advantages.
I believe in the future most tanks will move to autoloader but Western one will still have 4 crews for other jobs (maintenance, uav operator etc.)
Machine gunner :D
A UAV operator in practice sounds nice, but i think its going to come into question why should the battalions UAV operator be with a tank.
UAVs are a symbol of integration and information economies within armies. I dont think with that mindset going forward, its gonna really matter all too much to have a UAV operator inside a tank .
For every 4 tanks you have with an auto-loader you can crew a whole other tank. The crew of a tank aren't the only ones that maintain a tank, there are a bunch of other people that do it as well. Having one extra guy isn't going to make a whole lot of difference but having a bunch more tanks because now you have loads of more crews around is far more important. Everyone is moving to an auto-loader it's just a matter of time.
Yeah, the Warsaw Pact had less raw manpower than NATO but still needed a quantitive advantage for their offensive posture, they had no choice but to automate what they could.
This point doesn't make any actual sense. The limiting factor for the number of tanks comes from logistical and transportation reasons. Ships and trains can only carry so many tanks at a time. You will run out of space for tanks much quicker than you will run out of people to man them.
I think the french in a tank battalion have an extra light armoured vehicle just for maintenance support while having 3 in a tank
@@BulletRain100 Cost of training is important esspecially these days with budget cuts.
@@ausaskar
_> for their offensive posture_
There was no "offensive posture". The Warpac doctrine was purely defensive - it required lots of tanks precisely because Warpac was supposed to retaliate - after losing lots of tanks to NATO's first strike.
I see a lot of people claiming something like "What if the autoloader is damaged and can't function" and I just have to shake my head and ask them back "What if the manual loader is dead or injured?"
the commander or the gunner can take his place
@@mauriziogiorgino3450 Do you really think the spalling of a shell will only harm the loader?
@@panzerlite8108 No, but that's the answer if loader is dead or injured.
I'm working on an original fiction world and one of the groups in that world is a species of intelligent 12ft giants. Because their tanks and IFVs are massive to fit their size accordingly, they are fairly cramped like most Soviet vehicles and use autoloaders so that they don't have to accommodate one more crew member and add too much to their already huge proportions.
When someone asks which onenis better, my answer will be:
"In short, autoloader. For long version, check spookston's video"
For the longer version, check the Chieftain's "Whither the Autoloader?" video
Fast forward 6 months into the future, it seems that the auto loaders being deadly to the crew - seems very true...
Hindsight is always 100% !
He did mention the Leclerc that has blowout panels where the Russians don't!
And personally i like Autoloaders
@@Commander_Koyke I think when people compare the two, they are almost always looking at Abrams vs T-series tanks.
Western countries that don't rely on armour in numbers, especially the US and Britain, tend to lean toward human loaders. On the other hand. countries with experience of highly attritional wars/with not enough servicemen to cover their borders tend to lean toward autoloaders as it provides more tanks for fewer people. A great example would be Japan's type 90 and type 10, having limited number of servicemen but at the same time facing 2 of the largest armour forces in the world, they needed as little crew as possible no matter the cost.
I dont think numbers is a factor when it comes to having auto loaders or not. The amount of tanks vs enlistees is no proportional. For every tank a country has theres thousands of recruits willing to fill the rank.
Look at Japan, they dont nearly produce enough tanks to make population of soldier a concern. Japan only has about 300 Type 90 tanks, it wont be hard to find 300 fresh recruits willing to be trained as a loader.
@@Jake-dh9qk then in wartime what will you do if they all start to fall down? You gotta have reserves man. At least twice the number of equipment you have. That's what i will do.
@@gargantuanfish7187 Most reserve tanks are old cold war tanks and they already have their own crews trained for it without auto loaders.
Newer tanks like type 90 and type10 didnt include an autoloader for the purpose of requiring less men, it was made for tactical purposes.
@@gargantuanfish7187 “twice the number of equipment”?? If you are losing a tank more often than not the entire crew will not die, and if you’ve lost the tank and some crew do survive now you have 1 less tank to man and an excess of trained crew. I don’t know if you have thought this through thoroughly
One more thing to add, unloading round from a breech is doable for both design if the guns still used brass casing cartridge, but it is highly not advised with today's cartridge with their combustible propellant casing. 120mm STANAG round's propellant casing is made out of nitrocellulose fiber, kraft wood fiber, and a resin binder, which presents a hard, waterproof, but brittle protection to contain the propellant granule inside.
There's this one accident back in 2013, when a certain Merkava loader tried to unload the dud round off from the breech. In the process of unloading it, the propellant casing broke and spilled the propellant granule all over the fighting compartment. Hot brass spent from the coaxial machinegun ignited the granule and caused fire onboard.
Chieftain had a good discussion on this. For the french, the lost crewman ia compensated by a few additional dedicated mechanics that help out with maintenance issuea.
Nice, quick and to the point.
Extra crew is good, but autoloaders are the future. I think there is room to still have 4 crew and have an autoloader, with something like a drone operator/comms guy, commander, gunner, driver, to improve maintenance and still get benefits of autoloading. When done well, it's extremely useful.
There used to be radiomen in WW2 tanks. Its for a very good reason they don't have them anymore and gave that job to the commander
@@cringepog2758 There's going to be a lot more burden in that regard relatively soon, mostly on the drone operator side of things.
I like how the advantages and disadvantages of both were stacked against eachother.
What I do find funny is that one of the most important differences is not mentioned: The possible loss of a human life when the loader is taken out by a penetrating shell.
I mean, its a pretty big deal... It's also the reason why the Military is aiming to expand to 'drones'. Both in air and ground warfare.
I think realistically ur gonna want a autoloader. Imagine trying to load a 40 to 50 lb shell on the move
The best argument for Autoloaders:
Many Nations have transitioned to Autoloaders from human loaders, both in the East and the West
No Nation has transitioned back to human loaders.
"No Nation has transitioned back to human loaders." ~ Not too sure about that.
>Sweden - Strv 103 to Strv 122
>India - T-72 to Arjun before supplementing them with T-90s
>Egypt - T-62/T-80s to M60s and M1 Abrams
>Iraq - T-72 to M1 Abrams before supplementing them with T-90s
>Kuwait - M-84s to M1 Abrams
>Poland - T-72/PT-91 to Leopard 2s
@@rhemartmora7740 You make a good point there.
But none of these countries, save for India developed their own tank. They used western built designs to fill their defensive needs and in the west there is no good autoloader alternative to the Leopard or the Abrams.
India developed an Autoloader-less tank, you're right, though they seem to drop it in favour of buying more T90's.
I don't think that has anything to do with the autoloader though
@@Frontline_view_kaiser Indian tank crews prefer the T90 over the Arjun. It is a more familiar design and provides better survivability since the Arjun mbt stores ready rack ammunition exposed on a paper thin turret side with no blowout panels whatsoever.
Even barring that, the Arjun's primary gunner sight has no armour protection (something present on the Leopard 2 on which the design was based) and has horrible mileage and is extremely heavy for a modern MBT.
Until the jarring issues are fixed or a better tank design and builder emerges, I think tanks will continue to be imported, regardless of whether said imports have autoloaders or not.
@@rhemartmora7740
India never got rid of their T72s.
Poland is also still using PT-91.
Egypt never had T-80s and T-62 isn't autoloaded.
Iraq's T-72s are still in use.
Kuwait still uses the M-84 and plans to acquire T-90MS.
Really the only country is Sweden, which is a country with practically no combat record.
@@Frontline_view_kaiser as an Indian, I NEED to tell you that the T-90/T-72 upgraded version is being preferred by the army over Arjun Mk. 1 and Arjun Mk. 2 is being upgraded.
Very good video Alex
That last bit with the amx is just a perfect example of why you need to kill Shermans and amx 40s in 1 go when going light
i saw a video on the same topic a few weeks ago and commented my point as being one of money
that is, the more money you throw at it in the first place the better the autoloader looks in comparison, though it pracitcally becomes the standard as the level of technology increases in the future anyways
most cons of a autoloader can be rectified with better planning of the system, making it less likely to jam/break with a non-penetrating hit by replacing bearings/parts with higher quality material parts, adding better tools to a vehicles armor kit for repairs and the like
but one good point i feel like needs addressing is the fact that in a manual loader, the crew number sits at roughly 4 in most models and allows 2 soldiers to keep eachother awake while the other 2 can sleep, there are possible solutions to that with technology but it might just be a great point in a human aspect kinda way (actually socioalizing with someone rather than staring in a screen E.g.)
I think it was also pointed out that having the 4th crew member reduces the effect of having a crew member on leave or out with injury. With 3 crew of 4, a tank can be fully operational with less stress than having 2 out of 3, especially for maintenance tasks. I do think that autoloaders are the future, though, so greater automation and crew protection will likely be in the works to make such an arrangement even more viable.
I would somehow doubt that 3 man crews even have that issue.
I highly doubt that any military would put a 3 man crew tank down to 2 men and still allow it to go out it’s possible with western tanks and their 4 man crews but not exactly the best thing I don’t think it’s even in the question for a 3 man crew either get a replacement crew member or the entire crew goes on leave at once the in combat zones
I’d say that there’s pros and cons to both so really it’s just what you want it to do
One decisive advantage that an auto-loader has is that it allows you to use an unmanned turret like the one on T-14 Armata.
This can greatly increase crew survivability in an event of turret getting penetrated. The vehicle might be taken out of action, but the crew still lives and that's most important.
Unmanned turret also allows for a much smaller turret profile, which also helps with the "survivability onion" by making the tank a smaller target to spot, acquire and hit.
Spook should go to a tank museum and make a video
I just thought of something what if there was a tank with an autoloader and a 4th crew member but that 4th crew member doesn't do anything until they're needed to help with maintenance that way you can have the primary benefit of the human loader (that being the extra crew member for maintenance) in a tank that has an autoloader
I think taking both are the future. Either that or completely unmanned turrets.
What are load-times like on the move? If anyone has any infor, that'd be good. As far as I know human loaders are hampered while moving, and autoloaders are not. This also would make sense for the Soviet Cold War push.
I love how the thumbnail is just a t 90 stearing into your soul
Personally I think the idea that human loaders are faster than autoloaders will only be true for a while until autoloader technology improves to the point where it can eventually surpass human loaders in speed. That would have to happen considering we have designed machines that can perform day to day tasks in milliseconds tasks that would take a human hours to complete so surely we can eventually design an autoloader that can reload faster than a human
It already has, I'm afraid. The big problem is that the US Army had very bad initial experiences with the technology then blowout compartments became a thing (and a slew of engineering challenges caused _that_ to kill autoloaders).
@@TheTrueAdept Fun fact: T-84-120 Yatagan and Leclerc use autoloaders with blowout compartments.
@@caav56 the problem is that initial bad experience. It's only within the last two decades at most that blowout compartments became compatible with autoloaders.
The only time an auto-loader cant unload the gun is in the case of two part ammo. This is also a challenge faced by British tanks today as they challenger 2 uses two part ammo. I've heard they plan to change to the NATO standard that the US and Germany uses, but I can be 100% on that. Now, the MGS has an auto loader and if you know the system it can actually be some what fast. It's not effected by the movement of the vehicle like a loader can be in the Abrams. But having loaded on the move in the Abrams myself I can attest to the fact that it's not a challenge if you know what you're doing and have trained to have stable footing and use the inside to brace yourself. A trick I used on the MGS was to run the ram though a manual cycle to ensure it was calibrated. And there is also an auto-loader warm up that will actually warm up the system to optimal operating temperature and can get you load times as low as 5 seconds where the average is 7-10 depending on several factors. In the role it fills, this can either not be an issue or mean life and death. In multiple target engagements during gunnary, this time is eaten up by target acquisition and fire command time. My and my TC were that in sync with the vehicle and each other since we had both spent extensive time listening to it and operating it in Afghanistan together that it was so familiar to us. Most our engagements were perfect. We also proofed that range both day and night while keeping our scores with no adjustments for times or post engagement input to allow the other crews a better chance of scoring higher. One cocky PFC gunner wanted to talk a little trash so on the night portion I decided they would face the same course I faced. They didnt drop any engagements, as targets were warmed up and came up for them when they were supposed to at that point. One was supposed to be around 1800m, but ended up being almost 2500m and moved on a delay. I informed the tower and told them to leave it because the real world changes rapidly and Intel isnt always spot on. You can also be slower than anticipated and be further away than you intended. The delay was just long enough for the target to be spotted, and for the gunner to potentially fire with a rapid command if you are already on target when it pops. I knew that the system would initially induce to much lead and that this gunner would fire as soon as he had his retical on the target. The target also moved down a slope. Needless to say, he missed the first shot and it cost him more than just the time to reload. He became frustrated and upset by it, and his score suffered. His end score was closer to mine, and my crew dropped 2 entire engagements. We were within 100 points and if the engagements we dropped were not complete fouls they would've been perfect on time and all the calls were good but order of targets got messed up so we confused targets and used the wrong ammo type(i.e. shooting a tank with machinegun fire haha). I've never experienced an auto-loader issue and I've operated them in both extreme heat and extreme cold where there was no heat in the vehicle during my entire table IIX.
From Pay, to Family support, and size of the tank, along with death support to family, it can rack up the cost pretty high and far over time.
A pretty nasty big war would surely greatly amplify the costs with more losses as well.
Hey Spookston in the future can you make a video explaining different types of autoloaders and which one is your favourite
I like the Subnautica music in the background.
I served as a Tank Loader in the 1st armoured calvary in the Australian an one thing i can say is that when i got good at my job i would manage to be loading a shell every 2 seconds and the autoloader is 3, 4 or even 5 seconds.
Also a big factor is that the loader assists with maintaining the tank and the m1 abrams line of tank has a cover for the shell storage meaning less chance of being racked, also there is more morale in a 3 person tank which rather than a 2 making a greater friend between crew and making the job more fun.
With shrinking sizes of armies around the world autoloader will be must have because for every 3 tanks with manual loader you have 4 auto ones
Nice vid alex
Depends on the auto loader.
On one hand you have the split ammunition Soviet style carousel. Which limits the length of penetrator you can load and hence effectiveness, reduces internal crew space and is dangerous from a cook off.
Then you have the French style dual revolver auto loader located in the bussel which is behind a blast bulk head with blow out panels like an Abrams and negates most of the negatives of the carousel. The only real downside being that these type of auto loaders have a more limited capacity, like ~25 rounds if memory serves.
I don't buy the extra crew man argument detractors make. Just because the tank holds three men it doesn't mean you have to reduce the personnel complement of your tank regiment. You can still have a fourth crewman assigned to each tank that travels with the logistics and support element. That way you have a fourth man for maintenance and also the flexibility to replace a casualty per tank. All for the same personnel cost of a traditional non auto loader regiment.
Why people think they are smarter than Russian engineers, or any engineers in general... Below only apply to AZ style loader for mbt, ie 72 and 90, not applicable to mz loader for mbt, ie 64 and 80.
The problem with projectile length was not because the split design. It is mostly because the breech is getting in the way.
There are a couple solution Russian engineers talked about (but no confirmation on what was being implemented exactly, only thing known is something was implemented).
One of them is redesign the breech. Another one is modify turret in such a way the gun assembly is moved foward. One of the more interesting solution is as the elevator raised, it pulls back the projectile. A similer one mention modification to the elevator path of travel. And there are more. At no point, the engineer said that the carousel is the limiting factor, because it ain't.
Next is ammo got hit and vehicle goes boom. That's same for any vehicle that has unprotected ammo in the hull? Beside, you cannot reach the ammo without taking out the vehicle anyways, because it is shorter than the driver.
How about fragment and stuff? T-72s in general have steel sheet and anti radiation material that act like spall linear on top of the autoloader.
In some later heavily upgraded T-72s and T-90s, the steel sheet and radiation material was simply replaced with a thicker sheet steel. Those anti radiation material was deem unnecessary due to changes of construction in other location and better nbc, also nuclear fallout is basically impossible.
There is a reason why hull stowage in general don't bother with blowout protection, at most it was stuff in fuel tank.
Because if enemy had access to those location, your vehicle will be gone regardless. And you have a bigger problem as now enemy caught you in the open/flank.
Only exception being if the hull ammo is stowed after the fighting compartment (like m1 and merk 4). Those makes sense as a side hit has big chance of only compromising the stowage compartment.
Leclerc use a conveyer belt, not drum. And carry around 20 ready round iirc. Beside, if it carry 25, it only helps the autoloader more. Abrams got 17 or 18 ready depends on rack
Leo 2 got 16. And those are not all "ready" as those stowed in the sides and corners required loader to folded away some spent to be accessible. The truely immediate accessible one are about 6 to 10 rounds depending on the rack.
Oh my god imagine stamina for human loafers in war thunder sounds pretty cool
one of my only thoughts IRL on Autoloaders is the tank trying to differ between types of ammo as in order to do this you then have to make a system/sorting system for the machine to tell the difference on what shell type to load which makes the whole mechanism more complex
Rofl. Ammo sorting in autoloaders is ridiculously primitive. It's just a simple key on ammo cell
Yeah I definitely agree I, the thing is moving forward into the age of autonomy and larger cannons like the t-14 aramta or other larger guns human loaders will be removed due to necessity and just plain old advancement. Any be if it’s they have for now will get ironed out as autoloaders progress eventually no one will even have to be in the tank or turret
Could you do a video on the T14 Armada? I think it would be cool to see you analyze it’s in game potential.
Even the benefit for maintenance provided by that one extra crew member, is arguable. If your tank requires repair or maintenance, it is most likely you aren't the only tank/crew around. Your fellow tankers can still assist you in the field. And if the repair issue was really a huge one, it would be rather easy to make room for a designated engineer to sit around somewhere. But alas, making extra room for that guy is not worth it.
My only point to add is that autoloader reduces not just volume, but the amount of armour required to protect frontal cross section as well. Say you need 6 tons of frontal armour per crewman to protect the crew (4 crew=24 tons). With an autoloader and a turretless design scheme you actually make crew sit more closer to each other with the same amount of volume per crewman. This means that you spend ~5 tons per crewman instead of ~6. That saves you 14 tons of weight alone, while making balancing your tank easier. That also means less powerful engine, smaller fuel tanks, greater range etc. This also allows you to pack more tanks in the same transport aircraft. Or make it smaller with less powerful, more available engines etc etc (my aircraft designer background). Same with other forms of transport. Ultimately, you DO need an autoloader to load 152mm shells. Modern 120/125mm shells is the maximum humans can load relatively quickly.
but more internal volume mean better crew comfort thus less fatigue, additional pair of hands also help. In peer or near peer engagement the one who shoots first and hits usually wins. And fresher crew has more chances of winning the engagement. As for the weight, modern engines can easily overcome this issue, bridges - many modern bridges can easily support vehicles with weight in excess of 100t, and using existing bridges in combat is dangerous anyway, as they create an expectable choke points, and can be blown up under the tank. Army engineers are supposed to build bridges for the tanks. The only standing downside is air transportability.
The KF51 settled this: autoloader and 4th crewman can be found in one tank
I'd like to have an auto loader that can be taken out of the way so the tank can still function if the loader is taken out or just to save electricity
as i saw on the t-62 video of forgotten weapons what is better 3 tanks with a loader or 4 tanks with autoloader?
I've heard that in tank warfare in real life the winner depends on who shoots first so I'd imagine that a higher rate of fire would be beneficial for that purpose
Getting the first shot off is more of a situational awareness thing than a rate of fire thing. Second shot would be rate of fire.
Well for that argument the nail point was already stated, different doctrines approach their problems & needs differently, to put it simply, I can't imagine an Abrams with an autoloader, nor T-72/64/80/90 with manual loader.
That's not doctrine, the real reason is Abrams manufacturer's gravy train.
Human loader can assist with general maintenance, security work etc.
Also can potentially replace a wounded crewmember in a pinch. Not ideal but better than nobody.
I think the good implementation of autoloader is for tank that mainly operate in certain terrain with limitation on weight and tank dimension (eg. Archipelago, jungle etc) lowering tank size and weight by implementing autoloader would beneficial for tank combat operational in terain that not suited for conventional MBT.
Also...It is already hard enough to load a 120mm shell, now imagine loading an 125mm....
So what I am taking from this is that auto loaders are much more advantageous with increasingly higher calibre guns where the stamina of a human loader may be an issue or when dealing with small enough munitions (25mm comes to mind) where rate of fire may be a significant factor.
For the area between these two example the benefits of autoloader are less pronounced and the final decision is more up to the tank's overall design, purpose and the doctrine.
That honestly makes sense but correct me if I am reading this wrong please.
another advantage of autoloaders: one less crew per tank.
meaning that, assuming you run on a conscription based army where the state has a huge control and choose and don't let people decide what they're gonna do : all the manuals loader that you did not had to hire, you can send them do somethign else (for exemple you can either make them become crews for other tanks, increasing the amount of tanks you have, giving you numerical superiority, an advantage that is often overlooked), or you can make them work into maintenance (therefore, instead of having a "4th tank crew member to help maintain your tank" you have a fully dedicated person entirely specialised into taking care of things.
think in term of workforce: if a machine do task instead of humans, and the maching provide more work than the work needed to build and maintain the machine, then you increase your overral workforce. the more workforce you have, the most things you can do.
Just carry the 4th crewman in an APC. The tank crew will remain 3 but with the benifit of a trained spare for each tank in a APC that provide help for maintenance, night watch and sickness.
@asdrubale bisanzio The French do it this way. There are still track maintenance, engine, gun etc to do after everyday.
I think the ideal system would be a half way compromise. Maybe a system that presents the ammo to a loader and the loader has to only insert the or guide the round into the chamber. Idk exactly how this would be implemented but its just an idea. The main idea is that the loader does not become exhausted by the 3rd shot.
Merkava runs on that system but it has its flaws. You are now increasing the size of the tank 2 fold, you still have the 4th crew member but you are also adding an auto loading mechanism so your using up well over twice the room of an auto loading system and still something like 1.5 times the room of a manual loading system
@@cynicalfox190 sure. But really nothing is going to be perfect. Just different compromises. I guess the best system is dependent on user's doctrines.
@@DuinHark I’m curious as to what changes in doctrine regarding how a tank loads? From my understanding there isn’t any doctrine regarding what a loader does or doesn’t in a tank there’s doctrine regarding the seniority of the loader with British loaders being second in command whereas in American tanks the gunner is 2ic.
Just curious as to how you think doctrine is affected or affecting a tanks mechanism for loading.
This comes down to two simple questions. What happens if the autoloader fails during combat? Can you still load the cannon if the autoloader fails?
Its amiazing how autloader mechanism doesnt get damaged or destroyed in battle while manual loaders can get killed. Gaijin must make the autoloading mechanism physical
well usually when the auto loader tanks damage the tank explodes so id say they did a good job there
DA LOADER, 'EES BEEN "KNOCKED OUT"
I dread the day spoook will say "I hope you enjoyed the video and I'll see you on the next one" but we won't see him again.
This video did not appear in my subscription feed. Interesting.
The extra man for maintenance is easy to solve. The French with a standard tank company still have 4 crew assigned to each Leclerc, it's just the 4th crewmen of all the tanks are allocated into 2-4 VAB APC's that keep behind the tanks... Problem solved and they can help the unit when not needed.
furthermore as technology improves maintaince can get easier, especially if its designed with ease of maintaince in mind.
Autoloaders also mean that you could potentially have a remote turret, increasing survivability and meaning you can have less armour saving weight
Remote turrets and autoloaders are not connected...you can have a crewless autoloaded turret or a crewed autoloaded turret.
While I am for manned crews I am that way because of how the autoloader can fail. But I have to point out from even my stance auto loaders don't overheat that much which means they load at a constant rate unlike human loaders. The autoloaders could in theory make the ammo have a lower risk of damage or cook off but that is more of where the ammo is stored and how it's protected. Now days auto loaders have a more efficient pay off in the long run. Good video as always spook.
Isn’t there a risk you might chop your hand of by putting a shell in the cannon and then sealing the breach?
1:51 except on the Abrams not that it couldn't do it it just doesn't need to lots of turret space
Spookston: speak about autoloader
French tanks disigner: HOLD MY BEAR
Autoloaders are the way forward, given that in the future, if not completely, the majority of vehicles will be unmanned or semi-unmanned (unmanned turrets) anyway. Might aswell start creating assembly and logistic lines, aswell as modernizing the technology.
i don't think unmanned turrets will be the majority, you don't really save mutch. 1 manned turrets like the HSTVL are more likely (where the gunner is in the hull but the commander is still in the turret)
I am pretty sure that an auto loader is far less complex than making a human. People just forget that the military is not in the making-humans department.
Good vid
I don't really see anyone bringing up a very major point with these that was used back in the day to eliminate the bow gunner: if you take three tanks and replace the loader with an autoloader you can then crew a fourth tank.
Which in the long run is a massive saving cost on having to maintain extra crew which, as funny as it is, is one of the most maintenance-heavy parts in modern military.
What if a tank has an autoloader and two gunners, a driver and commander?
@asdrubale bisanzio not if you consider the second gunner being the former loader position of manual loading tanks.
@asdrubale bisanzio much like a sniper and artillery two shooters are better than one.
Auto loaders are super cool and tanks that feature them are some of my favorites in game
Do you think that in an indefinite future, MBTs will have a crew compartment for infantry like IFVs? IFVs seem to be getting bigger and bigger guns, and better armor over time, and MBTs are getting faster fire rates over time, so in some distant future they could eventually merge. There was a ucrainian concept that basically was a Merkava but with a carousel autoloader (I think the obj. 488), thus making that space in the back that is occupied by ammo available to some soldiers. That way you would always have some infantry support and could make tanks more independent making them more versatile.
no i don't think so, internal space is a thing. something with a passenger compartment will always have a larger surface area that needs to be armoured compaired to an otherwise identical vehicle. this means they are either:
1) slower and less fuel efficient
2) more lightly armoured
3) carry a smaller gun
4) carry alot less ammunition
5) have worse ground pressure
6) have a more obvious IR/etc signature
7) a combination of 2 or more of the above.
you might have something which looks like a large MBT, but it wouldn't be able to compete with MBTs and thus shouldn't ever (fully) replace the MBT.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 yeah, but look at the Merkava. Now that space in the back is occupied by ammo, but without that ammo there's space for like 7-8 people, Israel demonstrated that in a parade or something I think, so if you could have the ammo in a bustle autoloader like the Leclerc you could fix that issue while still having the same amount of protection, maybe the same profile since it's autoloaded now offsetting the increase in profile from the hypothetical new ammo compartment, a bit heavier maybe, but the autoloader could still offset the increase in weight since autoloaded tanks tend to be lighter than manually loaded ones, and now you have like 6 soldiers wherever you go
Hey spookston, I recently got into a convo about auto loaders and an interesting question was brought up, what’s the pros and cons of Revolving Autoloaders vs Bustle Autoloaders.
If manual loading is so good, why isn't there a manual loader 2? Checkmate, manual loader-boos.
"humans cant break down"
i guess spookston hasn't met me.
The autoloader's "4th crewman" problem can be solved by putting that extra crewman into support AFVs, which follow the tanks around and cover their weaknesses. And, of course, can provide extra hands for repairs. France already does that.
The BMP is the same idea
I mean for tanks ment to be like home defence a auto loader is better but for tanks like the Abraham that they sorta knew would be set over seas the tank sorta needed manual like the engineer said its less moving parts. And it did very well against T72s and T62s in the Gulf wars.
I feel like an autoloader should be capable of being manually operated in case it breaks down. Redundancy could come in handy at times
I'm curious to know if a swing breech autoloader can be designed to unload the gun since I have a concept for a tank that uses case telescoped ammunition that and has such an autoloader
This argument reminds me of the revolvers vs automatics argument.
Revolvers v semi-auto pistols. Bolt actions v semi-auto rifles. Bow and arrow v crossbow. Manual car v automatic car. Hand writing v type writers. It goes on as long as time. It is basically traditionalism vs unconventional or modern equipment. Ironically, most of these arguments still happen,
"I don't trust a computer telling my car when to shift, because what if I need to down shift from 5th to 3rd and the computer doesn't do it?!" when in reality, the chances of failure are drastically lower than they state.
"What if your Ar-15 gets dirty and jams the bolt? You can't shoot anymore, which is why my M40 is vastly superior because less moving parts."
In all honesty, traditionalism corrupts the ability to advance towards better equipment.
@@Korean_Crayon you're ignoring all the times tradtionalism has saved us from going to worse equipment or some other fuckup. like autoloaders in ww2 for example or the M2 .50cal replacements
not everything new is better, tradtionalism forces new stuff to actually be noticeably better and thus is a very important part of the advance towards better equipment.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Progress for the sake of progress is bad news, but super trendy in this cosmopolitan age. I say this as an M1911 enjoyer amongst a sea of modern fans.
i wouldn't mind being at war with a autoloader as long as there's a titanium cover protecting the ammo from penetrating ammunition. also a titanium hull to protect the crew would be nice.
I believe Chieftain talk about the missing manpower when doing maintenance. Unless you are doing field repair, the lack of one crew wouldn't affect much cause tank usually do maintenance in base and the spare guy would be put into something else. The problem is that when higher up see the free manpower, they would then come up with "bright ideas" to cut down the size for other stuff.
That's straight up subnautica music in the background