49 replies to this topic

[Waroch]

Tuccy, on 30 December 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

Burst RoF is higher with human loader usually, atleast comparing say 120mm to 125mm, OTOH autoloader doesn't tire and works better when the ride is bumpy (OTOH when the ride is bumpy you usually do not need to load, so...). Autoloader of course cannot stick head out of hatch and man another machinegun (point of interest: In Merkava MkIV, loader's hatch was originally considered to be used only in training for instructor, in combat it was covered by add-on armor so that it cannot be opened, after combat experience the add-ons were reconfigured so that it can be opened and a MG mount was provided)

Yet in Afghanistan the trend was more about remotely controlled MG, well that sort of thing.
If a new generation of MBT was to be develloped (so that's a big "if" ) wouldn't they try to build a completely automated pseudo-turret, and have all the crew inside the hull? Ambitious, but it doesn't seem impossible... And it would make it much easier to protect the tank imo

[Chillin1248]

Waroch, on 31 December 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

Yet in Afghanistan the trend was more about remotely controlled MG, well that sort of thing.
If a new generation of MBT was to be develloped (so that's a big "if" ) wouldn't they try to build a completely automated pseudo-turret, and have all the crew inside the hull? Ambitious, but it doesn't seem impossible... And it would make it much easier to protect the tank imo

As was said in another thread, several countries experimented with this but found the downsides too much to be worth it. The only country still experimenting with it is Jordan.

Advantages:
-Slimmer profile turret
-Crew not situated in vulnerable area

Disadvantages:
-Loss of situational awareness
-If auto-loader becomes jammed or damaged, then there is no way to access it and repair it or feed the gun
-Crew evacuation; if the tank is hit the turret can block the escape hatches and prevent the crew escaping a burning tank
-Limited ammo load
-Now the crew is further down in the hull, the biggest threat these days to modern MBT's is IED's, putting the crew inside the hull increases the chances of an IED injuring or killing them.
-Disorientation; this is a big one as you no longer rotate with the turret. Same thing was found on most people operating RCWS's


All in all, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in modern warfare, especially with the introduction of APS systems.

[Tuccy]

Chillin1248, on 01 January 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

-Now the crew is further down in the hull, the biggest threat these days to modern MBT's is IED's, putting the crew inside the hull increases the chances of an IED injuring or killing them.
-Disorientation; this is a big one as you no longer rotate with the turret. Same thing was found on most people operating RCWS's

Then there was of course the other extreme called MBT-70, that put all the crew members in turret to concentrate protection. Driver had independently rotating seat+controls... From what I've heard it was rather hard to stomach when driving  

[Schwarzie]

Tuccy, on 02 January 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Then there was of course the other extreme called MBT-70, that put all the crew members in turret to concentrate protection. Driver had independently rotating seat+controls... From what I've heard it was rather hard to stomach when driving  

But it was a marvelous piece of engineering in best tradition of some German WWII tanks. And the immense cost of the project was its undoing in the end

@OP
With the currently used Autoloaders, which are all older models there is a paritiy between autoloaders and manual loading. and in that case a 4th Crewman adds more then the slighly smaller sice of the tank might gain you.
For the next generation of MBTs (not only updates, but a truly new development) i think all will go with autoloaders. Todays engineering should easly be able to produce something that is more reliable and much faster then any human in realoading. And as already statet in this Thread, the 4th Crewman might still be needed, now just as a EW guy to use all the fancy toys todays technology puts into combat vehicles.

[Yamaxanadu]

Waroch, on 31 December 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

If a new generation of MBT was to be develloped (so that's a big "if" ) wouldn't they try to build a completely automated pseudo-turret, and have all the crew inside the hull? Ambitious, but it doesn't seem impossible... And it would make it much easier to protect the tank imo

USSR even built two or three no-man-turret tank prototypes at the end of 80s. But technology for such tanks were unreliable at that time.

[xRatas]

I would guess further we go, less crew is inside the tank. Western countries are really worried about casualties, so why risk more lives than is neccessary. So I think autoloader is going to be the way to go in the future. And it is hard to imagine why loading cannon would be more efficient when done by human when every other simple manual labour is made by robotics nowdays.

I'd wonder, how much other duties in tank could be made computer operated already. I'm guessing not too far in future we see tank with only commander inside, confirming targets the tank is about to engage and making manual corrections to driving directions if a link to HQ is broken and situation changes.

At least common computer game AI would beat half the WoT tankers any day...

[TheDOD]

Manpower. Don't see how 1 Autoloader can surive 1000 men

[migrater]

Manpower gets a 50% bonus on all chinese tanks!

[Altermann]

Aqarius, on 28 December 2011 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not politically.

Not politically Correct...That's another thing. But true.

[DoctorDetonator]

Man power : an injured man is quicker and easier to replace, a knackered auto-loader can keep a tank out of the frontline for days

[Apocalypse89]

Waroch, on 31 December 2011 - 05:21 PM, said:

If a new generation of MBT was to be develloped (so that's a big "if" ) wouldn't they try to build a completely automated pseudo-turret, and have all the crew inside the hull? Ambitious, but it doesn't seem impossible... And it would make it much easier to protect the tank imo

That's pretty much what Jordan is doing with their Challenger 1s, moving all the crew down to the hull and slapping an indigenously designed "Falcon turret" on top.

http://www.military-...lcon_turret.htm

[Chillin1248]

Apocalypse89, on 05 March 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

That's pretty much what Jordan is doing with their Challenger 1s, moving all the crew down to the hull and slapping an indigenously designed "Falcon turret" on top.

http://www.military-...lcon_turret.htm

There is a reason why no other country is doing this even though they experimented, the cons outweigh the pros.

[Rvatina]

I thin kautoloading is future

[LGrum]

More crew equals smaller division of the maintenance duties.
A single tank crewman is more flexible than an autoloader

Autoloaders don't need rations nor water nor sleep.
Autoloaders offer new ways of configuring turrets and hulls

[Brazilski]

Aqarius, on 28 December 2011 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not politically.

But in the kind of wars for which we still need tanks, politics are much less of an issue. It is in asymetric wars that loss of men becomes less and less acceptable to the public and it also in asymetric wars that tanks have proven less and less usefull. This is of course very unnuanced, but you get the point.

Tuccy, on 29 December 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Actually Israel reached the "tanks cheaper than crews" after literally decades of "real wars" - the groundwork for Merkava projecrt was laid already before Yom Kippur war.

Israel is not a good example. Put bluntly: they're a small bunch of rich leftover (rest was dead remember) colonists/zionists who created a modern country out of a pile of sand. The manpower money balance is tipped towards money to the extreme in Israel.

Again, this was put bluntly, no offense intended to anyone.

[Tigger3]

Less crew in an armoured vehicle means more work for those that are left, increase the automation and you increase the maintenance load per man.

Sentry duties etc are shared between fewer bodies meaning less rest for the crew.

[Schiltron]

I guess it depends mainly if we see a increase in gun calibre size, taking into account that tank development is currently only ideling at a verry very low rate and that no big modern nation like USA, Germany, France or UK which realy can boost development plan to come up with a new tank we will have the current situation like it is in the future...

Most top tanks will be human loaded (M1, Leo2 and Challenger) the only wester tank with autolader the Leclerc ...

If they switch to a gun size over 120mm they need autoloader as for example for the 140mm tested at the Leo2 years ago.. . the sheels simple become to big to get handled quickly by a human loader...

[Waroch]

Schiltron, on 05 June 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I guess it depends mainly if we see a increase in gun calibre size, taking into account that tank development is currently only ideling at a verry very low rate and that no big modern nation like USA, Germany, France or UK which realy can boost development plan to come up with a new tank we will have the current situation like it is in the future...

Most top tanks will be human loaded (M1, Leo2 and Challenger) the only wester tank with autolader the Leclerc ...

If they switch to a gun size over 120mm they need autoloader as for example for the 140mm tested at the Leo2 years ago.. . the sheels simple become to big to get handled quickly by a human loader...

well, they could upgun the tanks without too much of a problem (not too sure about the Challenger though, because of ammunition racks made for two-parts munitions). The thing is that no one wants to launch a new race to heavy armament - it's too expensive and wouldn't bring anything to national safety.
But several countries have already developped 140mm guns which are now  ready for use. France has developped one about 15 years ago but it never got mounted on the Leclerc; i'm pretty sure Rheinmetall has one too.

[Zenith]

Manual loading is virtually as fast as auto-loading (faster if your loader is very good), and carries none of the risk associated with the latter. In my opinion, the only advantage auto-loaders bring is a smaller vehicle, and in every other respect I believe a fourth crew member will remain viable well into the future.

I cannot see any Western nation going over the current 120mm calibre, as modern penetrator rounds do not really need anything larger; upgrading now would be waste of resources, for rather minimal gain.

[gruntcruncher]

I recall watching the autoloader in use on the Leclerk. It had been in development for years and was riddled with problems. They got most of them sorted and went ahead with full production models. This was back in 2000 so I imagine its been made even more reliable now. However, when it broke, it realy broke. It made the entire tank utterly useless and there was no quick fix. Also as mentioned the reduction in manpower has some nasty drawbacks. Self repairs and maint on the tank were made that much harder. Its a pain in the arse to replace the tracks on a MBT even with a full crew. Anyway, loaders main job is to get the brews on (make tea, coffee). No self respecting commanders going to want to have to do that job as well as his own.

Even so, armies are looking at reducing the size of thier combat vehicles, including the guns. It only makes sense, reduce the size = reduce materials, reduce manpower. Its both a financial and political good thing. Costs less and less manpower required to recruit, train and pay, or declare lost in action. Many nations are looking at having an AFV that can carry troops into battle, engage any armour deployable on the field and survive. So beefier versions of the bradly/Warrior AFV's are currently being viewed/trialed. Challenger 2 is Britans last MBT as we define a MBT today. What comes next is probably going to be a lot smaller, made of plastic and will be generic with a troop carrying version.

I do not ever see any of the top 5 tank producing countries ever going beyond 120mm. More like they will try to downsize, relying on better materials and munitions to provide same or better penetration than we have with todays guns. The yanks are working hard on the railguns. If they ever get that thing downsized, they could fire a 30mm round that would do the same as current 120mm rounds do. Already tanks now have missles systems fitted to them as well as having the main gun. It could be that someone will decide  a tank firing multiple missles is better than a traditional gun type.