Jump to content


Lorraine 40t.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

Battledragon #21 Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:23 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 12362 battles
  • 650
  • Member since:
    05-04-2010
I really don't like the idea of a tank with pnumatic tires for road wheels.  You could cripple a tank like that with a pistol just by flattening all the tires on one side!

Sotahullu #22 Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 15540 battles
  • 684
  • Member since:
    10-15-2010

View PostBattledragon, on 11 November 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

I really don't like the idea of a tank with pnumatic tires for road wheels.  You could cripple a tank like that with a pistol just by flattening all the tires on one side!


Yeah right. You should know thát it wouldn't really affect the tank, it just ignores it and drives still on the vanes of the tires.  :facepalmic:

And they just happens to change the tyre also whic is a lot more faster than repairing track :P

GoldMountain #23 Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:46 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 20208 battles
  • 2,337
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Auto-cannon =/= Auto-loader
3 shots are fired in very quick succession, but with a very slow manual reload in-between shots. (possible 12 to 15 seconds in between shots)

And the tyre are just strips of high density rubber, not like car tyers

All russian tank autoloaders are crew deathtraps, many an arm have been lost in the chamber breach when the hammer is thrust forward

Vahal #24 Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:38 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010

View PostTimDogg, on 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Just as a matter of observation from someone who has done several jobs involving repeated carrying of 15-20 KG bales/cases, try doing it, I worked as a farm-hand unloading 20Kg crates of seeding potatoes onto a conveyor on the back of a tractor, four weeks, day in day out, it is knackering. It is possible, but very very hard, and the rate of work would always drop down towards the back of the day. And if you doubt my strength, 1.86m weighing 100 Kg all toned in the gym back then. (a bit heavier and far less toned now one might add!)

After this job I had lost about 10kg and gained muscle-mass. my gym-instructor was baffled.
This guy is just one who believe in Stakhanov... "the flesh is always better than steel" <_<
if a guy can reach autoloader speed in quiet and optimal physic condition (a selected guy ofc) he NEVER will be able to compete against an autoloader after one minute in combat condition.

Fantasy example? nope. It's what you can do with an autoloader and what you CAN'T with human loader. Even at 25kph the autoloader will be ready faster than human to load a shell after the tank stopped. Unreliable? Prone to jam? Some where at first time yeah. Several soviets soldier died or were injured but that was mainly due to the lack of quality of assembly and the fact that was young technology. With the time autoloader in tank like T-72 showed their reliability (If it didn't the technology would not perpetuated in russian army and be adopted on other tanks...)

Why some army don't want to use autoloader is they don't want to evolve at first, institutions evolve only on the emergency. then the fact they think a guy in a tank can be more useful than automated tool, the guy can carry a rifle, repair a broken stuff, use the MG, etc. Not cause autoloaders are less reliable than chinese counterfeit clock and will eat the entire crew instead loading shell or they believe in the human superiority on the machine.

so smaller tank with better armor/m², lighter tank with same capabilities, fire on the move ability (better with stabilisation ofc who came for example on Lorraine with the turret, brilliant right?and yes Lorraine didn't use autoloader), possibility to separate crew from the turret (for example Ciorny Oriol and its teleopered turret), less casualties in case of destruction, possibility to use big calibers with a high ROF, less expensive if we compare to human soldier cost (health, salary, retirement, food, training, etc), allow to have more tank with same amount of crewmen 20 or 25% more.
In opposite human will not be able to load a bigger shell than the actual 120mm without help (that's why US and germans are always trying to improve their rods cause they can't use a bigger caliber. human can be multitask yup, but not 24/7, can stress, can make mistakes, be injured or killed even more easily than autoloader can jamm in case of tank hit. human cant load if the tank is shaken when crosscountry and will not be able to sustain a high rate of fire like a an autoloader can.
If you really had deal with heavy stuffs like a 19kg shell you should know that you cant play with that like beach ball :rolleyes: +1 to Tim who know that.

@Celestia, trust me if you make a mistake when a Leopard or M1 or challenger 2 is firing, that could be the last one. So they are deathtrap to crew too. the urban legend of crew eater T-72 loader, is... an urban legend.

come back on topic.
what worry me is the armor thickness. Even with the AP normalization nerf, the tank is made with wet toilet paper fixed on cardboard superstructure. t-50-2 and other little bugs will love it. arty splashes will blast it even at 30m from the impact and I fear about ramming. Dying cause rammed by PzIV when you are at half life and see the PzIV keep fighting will be disappointing.

Promising a lot of "hide and pewpewpew" more than "run run pewpewpew and run"

Goetterwind #25 Posted 13 November 2011 - 01:32 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 38955 battles
  • 452
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
The real drawback of autoloaders is, that you have to store the ammunition generally in the turret. This is a huge disadvantage, as this means "one hit and dead" in a lot of cases. Also it is useless to go to higher calibers, as smaller guns carry more shells, usually have a higher muzzle velocity, a lower barrel-wear and penetrate as good as the bigger ones. Not to forget, that the gun is much lighter, too ;)

In general an autoloader increases the costs and complexity of a tank, so it must comply with the general tank strategy, if you want one or not ;)

French tanks tend to be the "big gun and agile" type on the cost of armor, for sure.

Vahal #26 Posted 13 November 2011 - 05:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
all tanks since WWII have some shells in turret neck with few exception (autoloaded T-XX soviet). You have fast loade ammorack in the turret neck and the other is usually behind the turret in the hull or on side hull under the hull (less common), no matter the tank has autoloader or not.
For example Leopard 2 have 15 shells in turret and 27 in the hull, Leclerc has 22 in the turret and 18 in the hull.
:Smile_honoring:

Deleted_User_spa_746415 #27 Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:36 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

View PostGoetterwind, on 13 November 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

The real drawback of autoloaders is, that you have to store the ammunition generally in the turret. This is a huge disadvantage, as this means "one hit and dead" in a lot of cases. Also it is useless to go to higher calibers, as smaller guns carry more shells, usually have a higher muzzle velocity, a lower barrel-wear and penetrate as good as the bigger ones. Not to forget, that the gun is much lighter, too ;)

In general an autoloader increases the costs and complexity of a tank, so it must comply with the general tank strategy, if you want one or not ;)

French tanks tend to be the "big gun and agile" type on the cost of armor, for sure.

The ammo rack on french tanks will be subject to the same conditions of damage like any other tank ingame, and most tanks have an ammo rack hitbox in the turret as well. The location of the ammo rack will probably be more obvious with the revolver autoloading tanks, however I do not think those tanks will have the same problem like the T-44 with/without a wet ammo rack equipment...

Dungbeetle #28 Posted 18 November 2011 - 04:18 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5290 battles
  • 222
  • [_NB_] _NB_
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostVahal, on 13 November 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

This guy is just one who believe in Stakhanov... "the flesh is always better than steel" <_<
if a guy can reach autoloader speed in quiet and optimal physic condition (a selected guy ofc) he NEVER will be able to compete against an autoloader after one minute in combat condition.

I am wondering how much you actually know about tank combat.  I've loaded M1 rounds in combat, and 1 minute wasn't even close to wearing me out.  This was in 50°+ heat wearing 30kg of body armor.  Real tank combat isn't half as frenetic as WoT combat.  The turret isn't constantly swiveling wildly and the driver not weaving all over the place at 50kmh.  It is also extremely rare that tanks achieve their full rate of fire over long periods of time in real combat, because real tank combat is almost always 1 shot 1 kill.  Now, I'm sure a loader would get worn out if his tank had to shoot an entire battalion by itself, but in reality, your typical loader has done a lot of work if he loads ten rounds in any given contact, and these ten rounds are almost never loaded one after the next.

The real-world difference between human and autoloader speed is minimal, while the autoloader (because the propellant is stored below the turret floor) has the serious drawback of being a deathtrap to the crew if the hull is penetrated, whereas manual loading NATO tanks are designed to "blow-out" and not kill the crew should the ammo storage rack in the back of the turret get hit.  The Russians have had a few T-80's go boom in Chechnya on hits that wouldn't have been fatal to a NATO MBT because of this problem.

Vahal #29 Posted 18 November 2011 - 05:28 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
say that to the Leopard 2 who have not securized hull ammorack... one rod well placed and tank is melted.

One shot one kill on some poor downgraded tanks with homogenous turret armor yeah I agree. try to oneshot another M1A2 with your own Abrams... promising to be interresting. Or Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 or Leclerc. they're design to have at least 90° front arc APFSDS proof. even front hull are tested to resist to KE shells.
So I'm wonder what you call combat condition. shooting on iraqi T-72 stationnary practice targets? Or iraqi oualakbar toyota? 50°C? I guess AC unit was out or you and your mates tried to lose some weight?  ;)

soviet autoloaders use separate shells yeah, but it's not the only system. K2 and Leclerc don't use that carousel system... BTW it seems that future T9X will use new feeding system.

cheers  :Smile_honoring:

Souroy #30 Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:04 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 11133 battles
  • 605
  • Member since:
    07-02-2010
Not really relevant to the original subject of the topic but still nice to see, the autoloader of the Leclerc:






To go back to the Lorraine 40t, this page show the "revolver" system of the AMX-13.
The Lor. 40t followed the same basis but with, AFAIK, only one cylinder.

Kieme #31 Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Veteran
  • 9889 battles
  • 1,077
  • Member since:
    08-31-2010

View PostTimDogg, on 11 November 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Just as a matter of observation from someone who has done several jobs involving repeated carrying of 15-20 KG bales/cases, try doing it, I worked as a farm-hand unloading 20Kg crates of seeding potatoes onto a conveyor on the back of a tractor, four weeks, day in day out, it is knackering. It is possible, but very very hard, and the rate of work would always drop down towards the back of the day. And if you doubt my strength, 1.86m weighing 100 Kg all toned in the gym back then. (a bit heavier and far less toned now one might add!)

After this job I had lost about 10kg and gained muscle-mass. my gym-instructor was baffled.

Amen brother, you also need to try getting inside a real tank and close all hatches to understand how really cramped those vehicles are in truth.

Dungbeetle #32 Posted 19 November 2011 - 09:53 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5290 battles
  • 222
  • [_NB_] _NB_
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View PostVahal, on 18 November 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

say that to the Leopard 2 who have not securized hull ammorack... one rod well placed and tank is melted.

One shot one kill on some poor downgraded tanks with homogenous turret armor yeah I agree. try to oneshot another M1A2 with your own Abrams... promising to be interresting.

Yes, of course.  NATO tanks have trouble penetrating their own frontal armor, though the penetration values of T-80's are still somewhat unknown.  Penetrating T-72s...no problem.  At any rate, much like WoT medium tankers, American tank commanders are trained not to mindlessly blast away at frontal armor.  At any rate, the "Panzerschlacht" of massed tanks duking it out with one another is no longer a reality of the modern battlefield, and has not been since Korea except for one isolated engagement (a rout) during the first Gulf War.

Quote

So I'm wonder what you call combat condition. shooting on iraqi T-72 stationnary practice targets? Or iraqi oualakbar toyota? 50°C? I guess AC unit was out or you and your mates tried to lose some weight?  ;)


I wasn't personally in a tank that engaged another tank in combat.  That only happened on a couple of occasions in 2003, and at any rate the only tank on tank combat was handled by 3rd INF or the Marine 1st Div.  I was in 1st Armored (not part of the spearhead; we came up later) and saw basically only city combat against the aforementioned Toyotas and a lot of infantry on foot.  We were fighting with the hatches open (hence the heat) because we needed to maintain 360° vision.  At any rate, this is all a bunch of theoretical hogwash, anyway, because the tank is already practically a dinosaur on the modern battlefield.

Waroch #33 Posted 19 November 2011 - 12:35 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostDungbeetle, on 19 November 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

At any rate, this is all a bunch of theoretical hogwash, anyway, because the tank is already practically a dinosaur on the modern battlefield.

For the moment. We have examples of some military equipment which was called obsolete one year and brought back in service in emergency a few years later...

Vahal #34 Posted 19 November 2011 - 02:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
heavy steel still needed due to its toughness. even if the tank isn't designed for the actions it see now (urban, asymetric warfare, crowd control) M1 Abrams was done to be scrapped at 2005 horizon just before Gulf War I, Gulf War II showed that little bug like FCS wouldn't survive at the threat the M1 met... even M1 have troubles (and not only M1) but usually if the tank is good for scrapyard, the crew is injured in worse cases. Now, M1 is soon reaching its new standard, the A3 and stay in active duty until 2030

A10 was about to be scrapped too... And due to the Joint Strike Failter program A10 will be in the sky after 2020! Same for B52 who will pass 100 years of active duty, C130... :lol:

Ok, I understand now. The urban and assymetric warfare forced countries to rethink the tank, new urban combat kit like TUSK for M1 will allow better survivability. I eared some crazy stories from some us friends about fights against the iraqies. All said that captors were perhaps good but the eyeball MK1 was the best (with some helps time to time). Pretty big mess :Smile_honoring:

The relover barillet make think on the Merkava MkIV loading system.

Scaria #35 Posted 25 November 2011 - 09:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18114 battles
  • 387
  • Member since:
    10-13-2011

View PostBattledragon, on 11 November 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

I really don't like the idea of a tank with pnumatic tires for road wheels.  You could cripple a tank like that with a pistol just by flattening all the tires on one side!

Looks like our subway here in Paris (MP59 and MP89)

we like pneumatics  :Smile-hiding:

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

RO_Cruciatu #36 Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 7646 battles
  • 570
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
very cool, kind of like a cross between a Panther and a IS3

Kyphe #37 Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:41 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostLoofah, on 08 November 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

IRL WW2 era tanks were not running around 50km/h over rough terrain. And shooting on the fast move wasn't really popular until the intoduction of more advanced stabilisers. WoT is not a sim, WoT has nothing to do with real tank use. And IRL autoloader is prone to jamming, not really reliable and its main strength is that it takes up less space and you need less crewman to train. + if you have ever visited a gym, you would know that 15kg shells aren't really a problem for a trained man. Unless you would fire for 3 minutes at maximum possible ROF, but this happens so rarely that we can totally ignore such situation. Go to a gym, train a bit and spot posting jokes about trained loader getting super-tired during RL tank encounters.

Think, you are telling me, how much difficulty it is for a loader to load a gun IRL, yet you use fantasy  scenarios that nobody has seen (50km/h on the rough terrain and firing? LOL). In game loader can go 30 76,2mm shells per minute till you run out of ammo, so in-game "reality" is not really an argument. IRL auto-loader isn't much faster, so we can stop daydreaming about french tanks firing at some crazy ROF thanks to this.+ autoloader is very prone to jamming.
EDIT: the only reason for french tanks having insane ROF is that the devs have said so :)

True firing on the move was only part of British armored Calvary doctrine, as their ww2 tanks had guns that could be manually stabilized by the gunner literally aiming the cannon like a rifle (if you have ever wondered why British turrets had funny square holes where most tanks have mantles that's why) , but the french auto loader on those types of turrets could fire incredibly fast, yet they only held 6 shells in each revolver for a total of 12 shells and could not reload them under fire as the crew had to stop and get out of the tank

BRICE #38 Posted 06 December 2011 - 05:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14536 battles
  • 370
  • [P0W] P0W
  • Member since:
    08-21-2010
Would EMP be killing the auto loading?
Would EMP be killing the loader?

Deleted_User_spa_746415 #39 Posted 06 December 2011 - 07:56 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
I have a funny feeling the auto loading cylinder system had no electronics involved...

Vahal #40 Posted 07 December 2011 - 02:15 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16075 battles
  • 16,934
  • [BIMA] BIMA
  • Member since:
    08-18-2010
and due to the heavy amount of steel and alloy, you will have better to nuke directly the tank...  :rolleyes: Faraday wins.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users