One claimed advantage of autoloaders is that they help make tanks smaller and lighter by eliminating the interior space needed for a human loader. Indeed, if you compare modern MBTs with an autoloader (K2, Leclerc, T-14, T-72 derivatives, T-80 derivatives, Type 10, Type 90) to those with a manual loader (Abrams, Arjun, C1 Ariete, Challenger 2, K1, Leo 2, Merkava), the former tend to be lighter than the latter. But, correlation does not imply causation. It should also be noted that an autoloader would still take up space in the tank and is probably heavier than the meatbag that it kicked out of the tank. And most autoloading tanks can’t just get rid of the turret armor because they put the gunner in the turret.
All things considered, do autoloaders really make the tank lighter?
>autoloaders really make the tank lighter
once the tank has been penned, yeah. the turret weighs a lot.
>penned
opinion instantly discarded
It depends. Drop an autoloading turret onto a tank that wasn't designed around it and the answer is often not. You save weight by capitalising on the decreased volume you need to enclose with one fewer person. One less person means less volume, even if you move where the remaining people are. Less volume which means less surface area which means less armor for the same protection which means less weight.
Then again you can argue that an autoloaded tank won't be lighter because max weight is as much a product of logistical limitations as combat considerations and you've now just freed up weight to put in other systems, more armor, whatever.
>Drop an autoloading turret onto a tank that wasn't designed around it and the answer is often not.
Depends what tank.
Abrams stores most ammo in turret bustle. So it very suited for drop in of autoloader turret. And such turret would be much shorter and lighter than current turret because now TC would be sitting on the other side of the gun not behind gunner, so you can cut turret length.
How do you fix the autoloader when it inevitably fricks up and drops something or picks something up wrong and just jams everything? Can you do it from inside the tank? Do you have to get out of the tank and fix it. Machines frick up. Especially with poor maintenance and rough environment. Looking at those autoloaders in action just make me nervous.
I've got more trust in an rough/solidly built autoloader than in an human loader.
I suspect the autoloader would keep working even if something managed to punch shrapnel inside
As another anon said, the most important part is to build the tank to reduce the size of the autoloader.
>meat-based autoloader cause that's all I have
I could’ve sworn this was a Russian tank for a minute.
Jesus. What happens if the warhead blows up in his face?
It doesn't hit the ammo rack and completely blow up the tank.
But seriously, US tanks are going through a push for APFSDS so no warhead to blow up.
Also the shaped charges tend to have special fuses with a minimum arming distance for safety.
>inb4 safety fuze specifics
this aint warthunder forums.
Decent bait, made me reply
>Jesus. What happens if the warhead blows up in his face?
You can see it's happened before, the dude is actually white under the soot
Hopefully death
It'd be extremely painful
>How do you fix the autoloader when it inevitably fricks up and drops something or picks something up wrong and just jams everything?
Someone's never worked with machinery that can get jammed before...
>Can you do it from inside the tank?
Well the autoloader is sitting there in the fighting compartment next to the gunner and commander, so obviously the best way to access it so that you can fix things is to get out of the tank first. Because as we all know the best way to fix malfunctioning machinery is to just give it some time alone in peace and quiet.
>that they help make tanks smaller and lighter by
That is principle mistake.
Autoloader tank protected volume has less area that need to be protected. But it is BIG mistake always go light. Why light why not more armor? That's principal mistake if design think light. It's peace time thinking. During war tanks always get more armor so they were clearly underarmored during peace time phase.
A carousel autoloader allows a lower profile than a turret autoloader/manual loading, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. Soviet tanks have problems with gun depression which means they have to expose more of the tank to fire from hull down anyway, where a higher profile would mitigate this substantially
If you want a talk with actually mobility and flexibility with sub-60 ton weight along with decent enough protection you need autoloaders. Just pook at type 90 and k2 and you would know why. They removed the autoloader from the Turkish version of the K2 (Altay) and that's now crossing 60ton+ so it's basically useless in every terrain that's not flat and moist and loose. It's going to be so fun yl when we see Abrams drowning in Ukrainian mud.
>they help make tanks smaller and lighter
Because you can only carry half as much ammunition
Even with a human loader you could make a tank much smaller by carrying only 20-something rounds instead of 40+
Also one less person to maintain and take care of the tank, spot enemies and help around
Autoloaders are a dead end.
Autoloaders are a necessity for guns larger than 120mm.
balls are inert
Know how i know that is wrong?
No, I don't, actually.
The tank in question has a 125mm but no autoloader.
I'm rather surprised to learn the Leopard 2 don't have an autoloader
?t=121
and the Leclerc have
I feel like the only reason why burgers shit talk autoloaders is because they still don't have them. Just as with towed artillery vs SPGs. Imagine shitting on Glocks and claiming single action revolvers are superior, because the automatic pistol is less reliable. Or muh real wood and metal instead of matek toy in Wietnam.
>Or muh real wood and metal instead of matek toy in Wietnam
That doesn't make any sense considering they made and used the matel toy there.
I shouldn have written the early Wietnam when ordinary troops were seething at guys testing the first batch of AR-15s
Why would they WANT them if they don't believe in them? The benefits of having extra crew in lieu of a loading system are understood and a trade off we're willing to make. The only real benefit for autoloading going forward would be in use on an autonomous or semiautonomous tank, which we are working on. But then you still have the issue of what the frick you're going to do when your gorillion ton robot jams and there's no crew to fix it. You just have to drive it all the way the frick back to the depot to unfrick it.
autoloaders don't panic, get concussed or require dilation. also I doubt that tanks get designed around the idea of said tank breaking and needing to be fixed. the greatest advantage of a meatbag loader is that a malfunctioning one is easily replaced, since any moron could load shells. when the autoloader breaks, the tank becomes useless. it is a trade off in deed
>I doubt that tanks get designed around the idea of said tank breaking and needing to be fixed.
Planning for nothing to go wrong is a good way to get fricked in the ass when shit goes wrong.
For all the shit that gets rightfully thrown at the Russian carousel, the one thing you virtually never hear is it chronically breaking.
Logistical reasons will continue to exist even in war. What kind of trailer/railcar/shipping container/bridge you can use is hugely dependent on weight class. To say nothing to say nothing of requiring larger engines, beefier transmissions, and the reduced fuel economy that will come with hauling more weight.
>don’t design tanks expecting them to break
Yeah but they do design tanks that way, because they do break all the fricking time. It’s a complete chore changing and maintaining tracks with 4 men let alone 3.
>T-14
Have you seen how big that thing is?
it's big but not heavy
I think this is partially because the turret is remote-controlled and thus they didn't feel much of a need to give it heavy armor
All modern tanks have autoloaders.
Only 50 year old relics like the Abrahams and Leopard 2 don't have autoloaders.
>All things considered, do autoloaders really make the tank lighter?
You should ask after the Ukraine war i doubt these morons will genuinely try to answer your post.
There are actually many other advantages to a functioning, reliable autoloader. Not least of all being consistent rate of fire. A loader gets slower as he gets tired from loading consecutive rounds, an autoloader loads at the same speed no matter what.
And the Type 10's autoloader is stupid fast. It'll have a shell ready to go in three seconds flat.
The main reason the Soviets used autoloaders was so they could field more tanks. If you use an autoloader, and eliminate one crew member from four tanks, you just created one more fully-crewed tank.
It was a cost-efficient method of ballooning their available tank crew manpower by 25%. Smaller silhouettes/over dimensions was just a secondary benefit.
>T-72 derivatives,
>T-64 isn't mentioned
R u moronic, anon?