What are some arguments against autoloaders on tanks?

What are some arguments against autoloaders on tanks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    one less guy to affect field repairs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      By making them better you mean? There's no reason to put that guy in the tank where he has to learn tanker shit and be in danger of being killed when you can put him in the supply truck and only teach him tank repair stuff instead of all tanker stuff.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I see what you're saying but bringing the motor pool to the front probably isn't wise

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        no

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What can you actually repair in the field on a modern tank?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tracks and related parts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      One less crew member which is a problem for maintenance, and (at least in the past) slower rate of fire than a human loader

      There are also potential drawbacks depending on the design of autoloader. Some older ones required the barrel to be at a certain angle. Soviet carousel loaders are deathtraps. Etc.

      you lose jobs which is bad for the economy

      https://i.imgur.com/uFSvSYM.jpeg

      You have one less crewman to perform maintenance and one less set of eyeballs peaking out of the hatch

      4th guy becomes the drone/electronic systems operator

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can't think of any. Negatives come from design choices overall.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One less crew member which is a problem for maintenance, and (at least in the past) slower rate of fire than a human loader

    There are also potential drawbacks depending on the design of autoloader. Some older ones required the barrel to be at a certain angle. Soviet carousel loaders are deathtraps. Etc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Some older ones required the barrel to be at a certain angle
      Do you mean when the cannon resets its position to a neutral angle after firing?
      They still do this and it frankly does not have any affect on combat performance, the gun will re-reset its position after loading
      Some crew loaded tanks like Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 do this as well to make loading easier iirc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      next gen tanks are likely to replace the loader and they will likely become instead a drone operator or secondary gunner

      Slower than a well trained loader.

      >type 90b 4 second reload
      autoloaders are lighter than having a loader which is much needed because western tanks are getting heavy as shit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >they will likely become instead a drone operator or secondary gunner
        lmao even

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wouldn't a drone operator make more sense in a FIST role, using an IFV or APC?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >pic related
        I remember being in some pog warehouse getting high with my friends and imagine this type of tech, it makes me very happy that my moronic pot head was ahead of the curve back in 2012.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the t-55 having the side effect of castrating the loader...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        is this some kind of accident that actually happened

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you lose jobs which is bad for the economy

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You have one less crewman to perform maintenance and one less set of eyeballs peaking out of the hatch

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You don't need to have one less crewman.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks are gay and unnecessary when you have an air force.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Machinery breaks. Humans are more easily field replaced. An autoloader adds unnecessary complexity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are a luddite with no idea what you are talking about

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shit works better on the proving grounds.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you shoot a tank 7 times with RPGs it breaks
          Very interesting information, tell me what happens when you shoot a human loader 7 times with an RPG

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When human loader dies, likely the rest of the crew is fricked to the point tank is knocked out, as well.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              In this scenario the tank with an autoloader is cheaper btw

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Same thing except the tank keeps firing until the seventh rpg.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          T-64 is a beast.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Trust me bro it really happened

          I don’t even see but possibly 2 impact zones visible in that photo.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is firing rate actually a thing that is relevant metric?

        I'd assume you'd have to aim between shots.

        Besides, do all tank guns return to low position during reload?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It can be less reliable than human. Some Soviet autoloaders are real pain in the ass if they jam, to the point some crews are cutting them out from SPA's

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      More importantly, they ignore the fact that heat rises, and put the ammo directly underneath the crew, rather than behind them with plenty of space to safely vent flames.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I often hear people say that there's one less person for repairs and one less pair of eyes to watch out; if you are in the situation where you need to field repair you should really be having a support unit or you're fricked & imo if a tank needs an extra pair of eyes to keep look out then why are you not paired with other tanks/inf/armoured cav to help keep look out

    explain to me as I am a moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Non-support personnel requiring jobs and maintenance while also performing other tasks (adding foliage on the tank, pitching tent, getting food, pulling security...) is easier with 4 people than 3. No reason why it couldn't be done with 3 though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        simple example: adding friction pads (image) to the track is a task that just requires less physical effort with 4 people. And saving some energy can be vital if you expect your men to keep fighting for weeks on end

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/AzypRz7.jpeg

        simple example: adding friction pads (image) to the track is a task that just requires less physical effort with 4 people. And saving some energy can be vital if you expect your men to keep fighting for weeks on end

        The simple answer (simple, not necessarily *easy*) is to used mixed platoons. Armored Cav used to do that, for example. Then you cross-train your 11Ms to help out (since they already have to maintain their own tracks as well).

        The reason the Army keeps going back to line battalions is because maintaining mixed formations at lower levels is less efficient in peacetime; line battalions are cheaper in both money and time (because of different training schedules needed for each branch). Thus, the Army prefers to chop units up into task forces and teams as-needed, rather than all the time.

        Ideally, though, a mixed platoon that trains together all the time would take care of any problems arising from reducing a tank's crew count.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          need multiple vehicles operating together to tow away a disabled vehicle, otherwise you are just abandoning anything that loses a tread

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because it's nonsense. You don't see any of these countries with autoloaders complaining about losing an extra man and clamoring for a change. It is exactly as you say, a tank will never be in a situation where just the crew has to handle repairs anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This holy shit. 3rd world monkey armies use vatnik style 3 man tanks for decades and where is all the complaining? If those morons can do it fine 5x better trained armies somehow wouldn't?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >countries which never fight or lose all their wars use 3 man tanks this means they're good
          anon...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a reason why tank commanders ride with their heads out as much as possible, and it's because there is no substitute for situation awareness. Some tanks (Abrams, Centurion, Panther) even have hatches with a half-open position to let the commander stay head out during combat. The advantage of having a fourth crewman who can do the same isn't just something you can dismiss out of hand.

      Because it's nonsense. You don't see any of these countries with autoloaders complaining about losing an extra man and clamoring for a change. It is exactly as you say, a tank will never be in a situation where just the crew has to handle repairs anyway.

      Tanks require multiple man-hours of maintenance for every hour of operation. Performing the equivalent of changing a tire involves a stunning amount of physical labor. Resupply takes 3 guys just to pass ammunition. The sheer number of things that need lubrication is staggering. Guns need cleaning, filters need changing, and shit breaks all the time. Some of the Abrams that rolled into Baghdad were short-tracking it or missing road wheels. Support units can't perform routine maintenance on tanks and you can't rely on them for minor repairs, especially in the field. Can you maintain tanks with just three crewmen? Sure. But it drastically increases their workload when compared to four man tank crews.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s faster to just give the loader meth

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reliability autoloaders can break or jam, crew takes up less space than an autoloader.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Slower than a well trained loader.

      absolute peak fuddlore

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Slower than a well trained loader.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >OI, THE CHIEFTAIN COULD FIRE A ROUND EVERY 3 SECONDS
      >DUE TO THE SUPERIOR BRI'ISH TRAINING
      >TWO STAGE AMMO IS BETTER THAN ONE PIECE BECUASE....REASONS

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Two stage ammo due to the autoloader is why 125mm underperforms compared to 120mm.

        Yes, yes we know Norktards not your 125mm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kek, maybe for the first 5 rounds if that even.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, even on ru mil boards they acknowledge that a "Black-loaded" (their name for it) in an M1 is faster for the first 10 shots or so

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The T-72 autoloader is not that fast.
          Modern bustle loaders can spit out the entire magazine at 12-15 RPM which is completely impossible for human loaders to keep up with beyond a lap loaded round or two.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no more jobs for Black folk

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most importantly? Gun depression.
    Everyone ITT who mentions fire rate as being particularly important for a tank is a moron.
    What's important is seeing your enemy, not being seen yourself, and hitting what you're fricking aiming at.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Auto loaders do not inhibit gun depression, Leclercs 8 degrees is fine and the Type 10/K2 get over 10 with suspension geometry assistance

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        and the Russian t-72 has 6 degrees.
        T-80 has 5.
        T-90 has 4

        Do you understand what I'm getting at, here?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          T-62 (no autoloader) has 6.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What I'm saying is that we're designing tanks to fight our enemies, not the fricking French or the South Koreans.
            We have tanks that are designed to kill their tanks, and they do that by being able to shoot them from further away and from places they can't be shot at from.
            The question of "why not autoloaders" only makes sense when you think of who your enemy is.
            Does it matter if you shoot 10 rounds a minute over 8 when your actual rate of fire in combat is going to be barely 2 rounds a minute?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Lets take OUR circumstances into account
              Well every western military has a massive recruitment shortage and is over-qualified at building complicated systems like auto loaders
              >Well lets take OUR ENEMIES into account
              Russia fights 24/7 land battles rushing IFVS infantry brigades all hours of the day, a loader is going to get physically tired long before an auto loader breaks

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >>all hours of the day

                what's wrong with you? Do you have actual brain damage?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not the loader problem, but tank design problem.
          You could design tank with the same carousel autloader, that would have -10 gun depression.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >russian auto loaders are fine

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Yes they literally are fine for the time that they were made for which was the mid 60s to early 70s. The tanks had enough armor for their time that getting penetrated wouldn't happen and atgms, missles and tank sights were inaccurate that having a very small siluete helped a lot. Of course now in this time where you have 4k monitors and crystal clear sights plus insanely accurate targeting systems with missiles that can penetrate everything on this earth, the design is shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            its their version of a blowout panel.
            its an intentional soviet design used to protect the crew

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          T-62 had -6
          T-55 had -5
          T-44 had -4
          T-34 had -5

          I dont understand what you're getting at, you dont seem to know anything about Russian tanks or tanks in general

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not the loader problem, but tank design problem.
          You could design tank with the same carousel autloader, that would have -10 gun depression.

          Actually, now after wrote it, I remembered. M1 TTB had the same style autoloader, and -10 gun depression.
          Again, not autoloader problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you check out OP's image there's a perfect example of an autoloader increasing the height of a tank. Left is Abrams with 10 degrees gun depression, right is Leclerc with 8 degrees.
            Leclerc's gun is taller than the Abram's entire turret and the top of the gun mantlet sticks out a good foot taller.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Leclerc
              k2

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Leclerc
              k2

              actual picture of lelerc and abrams next to eachother
              >abrams gun is a foot taller than the leclerc not the other way around
              okay

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                jesus christ the leopard is one ugly tank

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >K2 height: 2.4M
              >Abrams height: 2.44M
              K2s also got 16 degrees gun depression vs abrams 10

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Are you actually blind? That's K2 and it has barrel lifted a bit higher.

              In reality K2 has 20/-11 depression. Much better than Abrams. They literally have NLOS shells.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's because they put a huge gun on a really short turret. The autoloader isn't the problem; the meager depression was a design choice made from the beginning, and was viewed as a necessary compromise in order to get some of the features Soviet generals wanted.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Autoloader delete gives you better gun depression, makes the turret less tall, frees up room on the inside of the tank, makes it weigh less.
      So the tank is smaller, faster, lighter, more maneuverable and ultimately more survivable, it's just better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Most importantly? Gun depression.
      That's not a thing. Every bustle autoloader system lowers the gun for loading, and then realigns it back with gunsight.
      Frick, even normal tank guns will automatically lower the gun to assist human loader with loading.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another disadvantage is that tank crews often aren't a full strength. Somebody is going to be sick, injured, on leave, or otherwise unavailable. In a four-man tank, the gunner can double as the loader without losing too much combat capability. If a three-man tank is down a crewman, the commander also has to serve as the gunner which is a much greater workload.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's more expensive and more difficult to design. Pretty much reason US abonded MBT-70 and went cope taken Abrams design.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Its more expensive

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Woah the brochure said it
        >Nobody has ever lied in a brochure so its gotta be true!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Training another crewman several times over a tanks lifetime (wich at this point is probably 50 years) is gonna be more expensive then installing some mechanical equipment at the factory when its built.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Years ago cost and reliability were good arguments, these days an uncrewed turret offers so many advantages it's all just cost cutting cope because you need a clear page design to take advantage of it.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reducing crew with a autoloader is idiotic when future designs need a dedicated Drone/AA position, in the field that guy will usually not be available for field repairs not to mention only two current designs can fit him.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Reducing crew with a autoloader is idiotic when future designs need a dedicated Drone/AA position
      What kind of moronic logic is this? You can have an autoloader and still have a 4th crewman.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        he cant load drone and gun at same time anon
        they will kill themselves 3x as hard

        The problem is that the more you need that extra crewmember (drone/anti drone/AA) to do field repairs the more likely it is that they are not available because they have to man their post.

        Anywhere you would need to do those repairs is within enemy drone range, especially since they probably already know where you are. There is damn good chance that the situation that requires the repair was caused by a drone, it would be suicide to not have those systems manned.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          With AI they would be autonomous, both drone and AA.
          However I believe the 4th crewmember would only be there for directing fire like changing the role of the secondary gun from AA to infantry fighting. and directly seeking targets via the tanks drone camera.
          A drone in a tank would also be connected by wire to a battery inside the tank, like a balloon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ECM and the amount of 'man in the loop' decisions needed would require a manned position.

            https://i.imgur.com/K4ZIUSU.jpeg

            Non-support personnel requiring jobs and maintenance while also performing other tasks (adding foliage on the tank, pitching tent, getting food, pulling security...) is easier with 4 people than 3. No reason why it couldn't be done with 3 though.

            Because it's often done with two, the commander isn't there if you are behind the front and if you are in a grey zone you need as many hands as possible.

            It is not an immediate issue if only because there are only two nations with current designs that could accommodate a extra man (or even two) and they both are unique.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              idk man I'm used to doing it with 3 to 4 people. The TC spents only proportion of his time away. During these times the crew has 3 people to do the maintenance, sometimes the 3rd guy goes to do platoon-related tasks or to help another crew. Or to pull security. Imagine if this couldn't be done? Well that's the burden of losing the 4th guy.

              There are of course ways to combat this, for example the company may have an extra truck that hauls supporting personnel around, or you can keep the 4th crew member and have him operate a drone or something.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'll write an example from personal knowledge
                >4 tank platoon, 16 soldiers
                >1 officer, 5 NCOs (Platoon leaders tank has NCO loader)
                >10 enlisted men
                Their task is to go get warm food from company HQ area and then continue attack in about an hour and half. Some men go get food, others stay behind to maintain combat readiness, to stock ammo, to prepare foliage.
                >1 - 2 of these pull side security
                >1 listens radio and mans the anti-air machinegun.

                After getting food they walk back and eat it by their tanks. It's a 10 minute walk through the forest. You need between 1 and 2 men to carry the food per tank crew. The platoon sergeant also comes, but doesn't carry anything as he will be busy relating maintenance and ammunition related information forwards. The Platoon leader also comes, but he doesn't carry shit, as he will be busy at CO's brief. You also need someone to pull security for the patrol. How many men do you use for the patrol, how many do you have available at the vehicles?

                So security + carry patrol = 1 + 4*1.5 = 7. The platoon leader and platoon sergeant are also busy, so out of the 16 people 9 are away from the tanks.

                This leaves 7 people to stay with the vehicles. We can minus 2 of these for security and radio monitoring. That leaves 5 people, or little over 1 per tank, to do the tasks outlined before. If you lose the 4th guy you can't do any of these while getting food, so you force the crew to select between eating, or using MREs, implementation of which also lose some time.
                In the end you introduce fatigue to the crews and that can, in combat, be deciding factor.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So 5th guy would effectively double the amount of available manpower.

                Literally every nation plans on implementing auto-loader in their tanks/next gen tanks US included. And reducing crews will be an overall trend, especially with falling birthrates and difficulties in finding people willing to join military. Auto-loader besides getting rid off one tank member (which saves space and therefore weight) also allows faster shooting rate not dependable on some ammo monkey getting tired of loading ammo. The only con is that there is always that 0.1% failure rate in auto loader of something getting stuck and needing time to fix compared to failure free hand loading but it's still worth it. You can even see on the picture how lower and smaller K2 is compared to ambrams.

                There are a few who actively reject them.

                Because it's nonsense. You don't see any of these countries with autoloaders complaining about losing an extra man and clamoring for a change. It is exactly as you say, a tank will never be in a situation where just the crew has to handle repairs anyway.

                They complain constantly and those nations (ie Russian equipped) are the ones with massive maintenance and logistics problems, not to mention that they are constantly abandoning vehicles. Reality says you are a dummy head.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Tanks are not supposed to operate alone with only other tanks. Muh extra pair of hands is pure cope. You always have support troops or IFV crews around.

                Hell one less person per tank means you can have more people in other roles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Except in the real world they do due to evolving tactics and weapons.

                This holy shit. 3rd world monkey armies use vatnik style 3 man tanks for decades and where is all the complaining? If those morons can do it fine 5x better trained armies somehow wouldn't?

                You mean the armies with laughable operational readiness, that die like flies and constantly abandon their broken down vehicles? Your argument is literally 'our guys lose our garbage tanks all the time so everyone else should as well'

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Then you need to train the dismounts to help with maintenance and tasks. This may be away from other training time. They also need their own tent, own security, own vehicle...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we have to have a manual loader because..... training is impossible and tanks move solo, also i need a slave to go get me food from the chef which apparently happens in a war...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It really boils down to the fact that having a fourth crew member brings both advantages and disadvantages, but you can establish procedures to minimize the negative effects of their absence.
                /thread

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't address the 5th crew member question, a dedicated drone operations/AA/information specialist is extremely likely so the question isn't 3 or 4 it is 4 or 5.

                Besides the small number of tanks (2-3) that can fit 5(or 6) already you will need more hull space.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes the drone operator is a good reason for 4 guys autoloader tank, he can help with pulling security too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Drone operator is security, he probably could take the place of two because of greater situational awareness.

                Wouldn't a drone operator make more sense in a FIST role, using an IFV or APC?

                Yes it would, however tanks are going to need anti drone/AA options and eventually that will include AA missiles. Even with a autoloader it is too much for the existing crew.

                Note that the one current tank that this might apply to is one of the few that could fit a extra guy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes that is what I meant by pulling security, flying the drone

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Couldn't AA be handled by the TC and gunner with the aid of F-35-style sensor fusion? They're not going to really be able to spot incoming drones in time with the Mk 1 eyeball anyways. Yes, a combined-arms attack (drones leading in enemy tanks, distracting or even killing the crew right when they need to be prosecuting targets) is a thing, but it can partially be countered by having an Aegis-style "full automatic" mode that prosecutes anything in the air within a set range.

                Plus, the US at least really needs to consider making enough DEW vehicles to chop one per company (or even platoon). That would force incoming drones to stay low or risk getting zapped out of the sky.

                My concern is that technology--not *technically* AI, but things that will be lumped together as AI--will change faster over the next 10-20 years than doctrine or procurement can possibly keep up with. Even weak Autonomous Target Recognition will allow drones to decouple from their electronic tethers and make dealing with them much harder, and if coupled with good INS for geo-fencing in a satnav-deprived environment, you'd get a weapon that really only an automated AA systems with human "safety switch" can defend against. Thus, having a 4th crewman in a tank for that purpose could become somewhat irrelevant. And for operating offensive recon/attack drones, I agree with Chieftain: you're better off having a crew just behind the lines focusing entirely on that rather than trying to merge it in with all of the other duties that a tank is trying to perform.

                I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying that you're wrong--you might not be. I just think that technology may make your position somewhat moot before we get to the generation of armored vehicles after this next one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gunner can't really maintain awareness for his primary job and scan for air threats at the same time, he looks forward not up and behind. The TC can't devote his full attention either. TOWs/ATGMs can be operated by the gunner since they are fired in the same direction as the gun, AA missiles often will go in the opposite. Add drones and it's too much.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nothings perfect
                With actually modern systems and high resolution screens they'll be able to see fine

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its not about being able to see per se, its about where to look at with your eyes and to what pay your attention to

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that's not the job of the tank, it's for dedicated vehicles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I agree but tanks are being used alone now and will be doing so for the foreseeable future.

                Yesterdays clown show might very well look like tomorrows prescience.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A better question is, "Will the US assign a tank (or even a platoon) to operate independently on a drone-rich battlefield without AA support?" That might yield a different answer than for other nations, especially given the lead time involved with procurement.

                Note also that with the threat of high-speed drones (upwards of 100mph at below-treetop altitude and packing EFPs that can kill you from 50' away), there simply won't be enough *time* for a crewman to look at a display and decide what to do; at the first sign of drones, the TC would have to decide whether to activate the CIWS and if so, which mode and settings to use (assisted by training, doctrine, and a judgement of the circumstances). How much value would a designated drone wrangler add to that environment?

                Again, it's not guaranteed that technology will go that way, but I would suggest that it's a non-trivial possibility.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The US? Never. Other nations? Absolutely.

                >How much value would a designated drone wrangler add to that environment?

                Without other means of information awareness a drone operator adds massive survivability from many threats, offers a indirect fire capability and can suppress enemy drone operators or at least signal relay drones. We don't have radar guided micro CIWS with a 'bezerk' button yet but we will soon and that's part of his job.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How the hell is AA support supposed to deal with alibaba drones? Anti drone systems are a necessity and everybody is seeing that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We will see mini CIWS systems, imagine a tiny .17 rimfire minigun (copper jacket tungsten rounds) that uses basic radar, electro optical sensors and pattern recognition to shred anything that moves above a certain speed or altitude within 200 meters. It would need a man in the loop to assign fire sectors and to prevent things like The Great Donbass Pidgeon Slaughter of 2026.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                US AA support is about to include 50KW and 300KW laser cannons. If the 50KW Stryker version can be mass-produced at a reasonable cost and schedule, it becomes a question of how many and how far down the chain of command they get pushed. Could we see a laser cannon or two chopped to each company of tanks? That would make life very difficult for the command-line-of-sight drones that make up the majority in Ukraine, because if they fly low, they have trouble maintaining a signal back to the operator.

                Also, I'm not arguing that there's no need for tank-based AA; read the rest of my post. I'm arguing that in another decade, by the time US procurement and doctrine have caught up to the issue, tank-based AA will have to be largely automated, and that there might not be sufficient benefit to having a 4th crewman in a tank just to run the AA and drones if the TC just sets the AA to automatic and friendly drones are controlled by a FIST-type specialized vehicle just out of LOS of the enemy that is constantly updating a mesh network like BFT with the targets it detects. There are options other than insisting that each tank has to have a 4th crewman, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                would it also be useful as an anti-atgm vehicle?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Only within LOS of the ATGM, and the fire-control system would have to be able to detect, track, identify, and prosecute autonomously in a matter of seconds (even the fastest drones tend to top out at ~100mph with tiny payloads, whereas most ATGMs are high-subsonic). Note that this may require you to expose your valuable laser cannon to a considerable degree of risk, as if it can see ATGMs, the enemy in most cases will be able to see and target *it*. It's probably safer to keep the laser cannon one or two terrain features back and let it swat RAM and drones that fly high enough to reach into its LOS. Meanwhile, a mostly-automated CIWS (probably 30x113 in the US, possibly some form of APS with a deep magazine) on each tank would still be necessary to defend against low-flying drones (and possibly subsonic ATGMs).

                Ideally, the laser cannons would eventually be shrunk to the point that they could be placed in a mini-turret on top of (or sticking through) the main turret, allowing each tank to have a proper fly-swatter. However, one anon who claimed to know some of the systems involved recently pointed out that the Stryker-based laser cannon takes up essentially the entire troop compartment, so it looks like no laser CIWS for tanks for the foreseeable future.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                why do you need dedicated anti-drone vehicles when its just another bolt on addition

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this moron brings up amazing points and likely concepts to be added into next gen tanks and then brings up rhetoric on why thats not true
                frick him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Here's what they're talking about
                >This is what I think of it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So add a fifth tank to the platoon and you have the right number of people again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                With 4 tanks that had a 5th drone guy two drone operators (or even one) could do all the security (plus AA if you had a CROWS/went full Nork) so you would have 4-5 more guys available, it would have more available manpower than a traditional set up so more isn't needed.

                Full moron mode: Merkava, T-55, T-62, Choma-hos, ist gen Songuns and early PRC tanks could all fit 6 crew if you really wanted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                As a interesting note after watching a few videos and going down a few rabbit holes i found out that the only nation to explicitly reject autoloaders (North Korea) has dedicated support and maintenance units at a two to one ratio.

                So for ever tank platoon like this there is two squads of guys who do nothing but help them, in some units the support is pretty formidable themselves. In the 105th those two squads are a two trucks, a 323 and four Chunmas.

                So manpower isn't a reason to reject them in that case.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Squad organization as far as i can tell:
                >VTT 323 APC carries ammo, squad/platoon leader and driver. May have 107mm MLRS
                >Chunmas can theoretically carry everyone, in practice they are security vehicles which they seem good at. Basically tough and shooty armored cars that have tracks and water jets instead of wheels.
                >Trucks carry all your stuff.
                >Company commanders have a light vehicle to drive around in, however they seem to zip around in Chunmas probably because they are fun and highly mobile. But mostly because they look awesome. Probably just showing off their swag ride.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Having one extra guy or not is not gonna matter in the least on a front that is saturated with ATGMs and landmines. MBT battlefield doctrine is obsolete in the current era, unless you are fielding them against a country that does not have tens of thousands of super cheap ATGMs and landmines or fielding them outside the range of drones (outside of the tanks own effective firing range). It would even be better to have one less operator when you get stranded in drone range (one less KIA).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yup. add drone with ai add aa with ai add ai so they can all get and enjoy their foood whilst commander watches the tanks through drone like ring doorbell. yup

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Literally every nation plans on implementing auto-loader in their tanks/next gen tanks US included. And reducing crews will be an overall trend, especially with falling birthrates and difficulties in finding people willing to join military. Auto-loader besides getting rid off one tank member (which saves space and therefore weight) also allows faster shooting rate not dependable on some ammo monkey getting tired of loading ammo. The only con is that there is always that 0.1% failure rate in auto loader of something getting stuck and needing time to fix compared to failure free hand loading but it's still worth it. You can even see on the picture how lower and smaller K2 is compared to ambrams.

                4th guy becomes drone/electronic systems operator.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      he cant load drone and gun at same time anon
      they will kill themselves 3x as hard

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you really need 4 drone operators per platoon, or 14 per company?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Normally no but with tanks often operating alone and with the drone numbers always increasing its better to have extra capacity opposed to not enough. Over the long term having uniform capabilities is better than trying to save a little with specialist vehicle variants so it should be a standard design.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Breaks up the 2 man crewing 2 man resting dynamic for holding in a static position. Which is like 99% of what a tank does.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't buy the "one less crew member" argument. You could easily find tasks for the not-loader crew member.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But that's not an argument against autoloaders.
      You can have autoloader and 4 crewmen.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I'm 100% if favor of autoloaders. It's possible the optimal design isn't fully automatic though for every caliber and purpose.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    An extra set of hands is always welcome. And with the autoloader comes another point of failure, not to say the loader isnt a point of failure but at least if the loader is injured, he can be replaced with someone else instead of having the entire tank deadlined because of an autoloader malfunction.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure the bustle style autloaders allow you to load by hand.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    only weak pussies use them.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why not belt feeders though?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not a rotary cannon?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not a rotary cannon?

      Hear me out here, we just make this but bigger.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Perfect, full auto clips fed tank cannon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Great idea, it would be a true Warrior of a design if you did that.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Literally every nation plans on implementing auto-loader in their tanks/next gen tanks US included. And reducing crews will be an overall trend, especially with falling birthrates and difficulties in finding people willing to join military. Auto-loader besides getting rid off one tank member (which saves space and therefore weight) also allows faster shooting rate not dependable on some ammo monkey getting tired of loading ammo. The only con is that there is always that 0.1% failure rate in auto loader of something getting stuck and needing time to fix compared to failure free hand loading but it's still worth it. You can even see on the picture how lower and smaller K2 is compared to ambrams.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are some arguments against autoloaders on tanks?
    The French use them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      not an argument

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't any other than 1 less crew member but like the Abrams X demonstrator you can still have him in the hull.
    The only argument people will make is because LE RUSSIA USES AUTOLOADER AND IT GO KABOOM LOLS to own le putler.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whatever the downsides are will not matter as once we move to 130-140mm+ ammunition an autoloader will be a must since a human will not be able to keep up due to the weight.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Black personloader is cheaper.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You need four people to have a decent game of cards.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are some arguments against autoloaders on space shuttles?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

      https://i.imgur.com/2ReoTRf.png

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure if that tank had a manual loader, they'd have been fine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I mean, crew survivability is what we in the west do best. I'm sure you would totally prefer being dead to having ringing ears and a concussion.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they break, the main gun becomes essentially useless until repaired.

    You can replace a human loader relatively easily.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >1 week repair job
      🙁
      >22 weeks training a loader
      😀

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Something i've never heard mentioned: Wouldn't a autoloader be vastly easier to implement on a oscillating turret?

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It adds a lot of complexity. Machines and parts fail. It takes a person out. You want more people in the tank. It’s surrounded in metal. They can do repairs or set up things. It’s heavy as frick. You are adding a lot of weight. In battle they keep getting fricked by minor damage or shocks. They are complex. They are expensive. A lot of designs are death traps or slow or weigh a lot or use a lot of power to run or my favorite dangers to be around in a moving metal box going 40 kph. The tank goes over a bump while reloading and shatters some ones arm or their shit gets caught and it breaks their ribs or arms or legs.
    Most of all. Tanks are meant to protect a bunch of people as they use heavy weapons fast or transport people. Most autoloaders mean you can move 3 less people total. So if you have a tank helping carrying an assault squid to a pre set up that sucks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically, most tanks than have autoloaders tend to be smaller in stature, and lighter than those with human loaders. Crewmen getting injured by banging off the autoloader is just a moronic argument, as they are surrounded by pieces of equipment that can cause a concussion, also the fact that the breachblock can smash a human loaders arm if they aren't paying attention. If anything, the autoloader is built in a way that would be safer for the crew. The argument as transport is nonsensical because a tank is a fighting vehicle and only morons (Russia) use it as an impromptu troop carrier, which not only restricts the ability for the turret to scan and fire, but also typically results in the death/injury of the riding infantry.

      Basically the only argument against autoloaders is crew work/rest cycle, and maintenance. People say human loaders are faster, but this is only true for the first couple of rounds of sustained fire. Loaders get tired of flipping rounds, and even seen dudes get fricked up from the exertion and fumes in the turret. As cannons will likely trend upward in caliber to 130/140, these will absolutely require autoloaders, which safe designs and munition storage exists.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So for a modernized T-62/T-55 based design that has turret bustle storage the easiest place the extra guy would go is next to the driver right? It isn't that much ammo and is badly located so that should be the first to be relocated.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You need four guys to change the tracks.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's all about the way you design the auto-loader and the tank itself.
    The way soviet auto-loaders were designed, not only they had a ton of reliability issues which took years and years to overcome, but they've also made the tank inherently more weak in terms of catastrophic detonations. Could the auto-loader and tank be designed in a different way? Sure, but then it would be a different auto-loader and different tank.
    Also, the soviet auto-loaders inherently limit the types of ammunition used by tank and all that.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The extra pair of eyes argument doesn't really hold up very well, because tank situational awareness has improved drastically since the the time that the Leopard 2 and Abrams were developed back in the 1970s.

    There is way more difference in situational awareness between an M60 and M1A2 than there is between an M1A2 and a K2.

    Battle management systems, powerful thermal optics, independent viewers and even distributed sensor systems that use image recognition.
    This has all led to a revolution in tank awareness, having an extra guy to peep through periscopes doesn't make as much of a difference anymore.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We really need something like Aegis or the F-35's operating system, but built from the ground-up for ground vehicles. Unfortunately, both of the former took many years and many billions of dollars to develop, and the last time the Army tried to make one... well, that was FCS, and it was specifically the software development that was blamed for its failure.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if an extra pair of eyes did matter, there is nothing that prevents you from having both four crewmembers and an autoloader.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Autoloaders are what vatniks do. We don't want to be like the vatniks

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To parrot what I've heard about autoloaders
    >expensive
    >can fail, hard to repair
    >doesn't give critical capacity
    >takes up space
    >the operator is far more useful

    We're going to see more of them with automated fighting vehicles, especially where the gun is externally loaded.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Americans and the Germans did not put an autoloader on the Leopard and Abrams because their previous tank project, the MBT-70, was seriously over budget and one of the major issues was the autoloader, which had major cost and reliability issues.
    It was dropped from their new tanks mainly to reduce 'technological risk', the Abrams and Leopard were in many ways less ambitious than the MBT-70 was from a design perspective.

    The US military was seemingly fine with the idea of operating a 3 man tank otherwise.
    If they designed a new MBT today, or even in the last 30 years, it would likely have had an autoloader; the technological risk argument is no longer valid.
    When your tanks are pushing 70 tons, you have to make them smaller if you want them to have better armor protection.
    The best way to do that is to that is to eliminate a crew member and the loader takes up the most space and does the dumbest job.

    When people argue for a 4th crewman for the sake of crew workload they are mostly arguing out of doctrinal dogmatism, nobody complains about the excessive crew workload of the T-64 or T-72 compared to the leopard or Abrams in Ukrainian service, in fact they tend to have much better availability rates in large part due to better access to spares.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We shouldn't need tanks anymore now that the war is over. We can dismantle all of them and use the parts in computers to build a space colony on Mars. We need to escape the earth or else. That's really important. Pay attention to this part here. This next part is vital. This space network I've been constructing can instantly transport something significant. It's home base is in Peru. I will be expecting sex for all my labor.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For the M1 Abrams, it was that the autoloaders at the time were slower than manual loaders with a strong back. Within the last 20 years autoloaders have gotten faster than manual loaders so we might see the M1's successor with an autoloader.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no real reason not to use an autoloader, the excuses are boomer cope to justify not changing their ways. You would never design a modern tank without an autoloader, but that would require admitting that the existing tanks we have are somewhat anachronistic which would hurt some feefees.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's another part that can fail and requires compromises to implement. If you're using a 120mm gun the reality is you just don't need an autoloader.
    Now if we ever see a shift towards 130mm and beyond it'll be more compelling.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lacks cool factor

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whats so cool about having a Black person in your tank anon?

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To every pro autoloader gay in here. I want you to ask yourself some questions:
    >Why has the largest military on the planet never switched over to autoloaders?
    >Why has said military that also has the most combat experience in the era of tanks stuck with a loader?
    >Why the only autoloaders that have actually all seen combat are piles of shit? I am even including shit like the Stryker MGS
    Now you have your answer as to why autoloaders are a meme and any military that is actually serious about warfare (or doesn't have a manpower shortage) has stuck with a human loader.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>Why has the largest military on the planet never switched over to autoloaders?
      Because the M1 Abrams was developed in the 1970s and the MBT-70 had major issues with its autoloader. There later was a working autoloader created for M1s in that the Army tested, it was only rejected because the cost of rebuilding a shitload of tanks is way higher then equipping it from the start, and the Army alredy had a training pipeline for loaders.
      >Why has said military that also has the most combat experience in the era of tanks stuck with a loader?
      Because the main benefit of having an autoloader is reduced weight and size of a tank, something that is impossible as long as the Army sticks to the M1
      >Why the only autoloaders that have actually all seen combat are piles of shit? I am even including shit like the Stryker MGS
      Third world nations tend to be at war a lot more then first world nations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it was only rejected because the cost of rebuilding a shitload of tanks is way higher then equipping it from the start, and the Army alredy had a training pipeline for loaders.
        Yet the Army's new light tank (a new design if you didn't notice) has a loader.
        >Because the main benefit of having an autoloader is reduced weight and size of a tank, something that is impossible as long as the Army sticks to the M1
        Yet other, non-Slavshit, autoloading MBTs weigh nearly as much as the Abrams and are practially just as big.
        >Third world nations tend to be at war a lot more then first world nations.
        Nice non-answer.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Yet the Army's new light tank (a new design if you didn't notice) has a loader
          Thats probably down to the shite experience they had with the 105mm on Stryker MGS, wich is basically the same argument that was made for not equipping the M1 with one. Another factor could be that M10s is gonna go to

          But im not gonna argue, if you want to keep a Black person in you tank, go ahead I guess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      god damn the abrams just looks so cool

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Next US MBT will 100% use autoloader and magically your opinion will shift.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I doubt it will. Autoloaders have been proven time and time again to be costly to maintain, take longer to load the tank, and takes a fourth person away from service and just being a set of eyes to look around, and only offer benefits on paper. Only time an autoloader makes sense is a nation has a manpower shortage or some niche need like trying to make a low profile tank or airborne capable vechicle etc. The end of the day in a traditional MBT there is no replacement to the old mk.1 meatloader.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >costly to maintain
          Even russoids and arabs can afford to maintain their rube-goldberg carousel loaders
          >take longer to load the tank
          lol lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even russoids and arabs can afford to maintain their rube-goldberg carousel loaders
            Can they? The compromise seems to be them being a discount space program.
            >lol lmao
            Overpriced Nip box. Also I was talking about loading the tank at a depot. You know, like you shoot all of your ammo and are trying to put ammo back into the tank.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >The compromise seems to be them being a discount space program.
              Irrelevant, if the most impoverished backwaters on Earth can maintain and acquire tanks with autoloaders their cost is a non-issue.
              >Also I was talking about loading the tank at a depot. You know, like you shoot all of your ammo and are trying to put ammo back into the tank.
              It can be reloaded in mere minutes through the blowout panels with 2-3 men, another non-issue.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Irrelevant, if the most impoverished backwaters on Earth can maintain and acquire tanks with autoloaders their cost is a non-issue.
                Given their performance in combat I wouldn't really call this a win anon.
                >It can be reloaded in mere minutes through the blowout panels with 2-3 men, another non-issue.
                Same can be done on the Abrams, in theory. The plan was to put ammo on racks that could be loaded as modules. Went nowhere because of costs. Much in the same vein as to why the Nip tanks are so comically overpriced.

                I know you haven't talked about it, but I always found it funny the Type 90 was so heavy that it cannot go over most bridges in Japan so all Type 90's are stationed on Hokkaido, proving wrong to some other anons I have seen in here trying to say autoloaders save on weight. Also as a point of reference the K1 that was made right across the Sea of Japan weighs basically the same as the Type 90 and the K2 weighs more than both the Type 90 and K1 and it has an autoloader.

                Speaking of the K2 I will be curious to see what the Poles will prefer in a few years since they will be using both the Abrams and the K2.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Also as a point of reference the K1 that was made right across the Sea of Japan weighs basically the same as the Type 90
                holy shit, you're moronic anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >4 tons
                woah.

                https://i.imgur.com/p1eB8b4.png

                Yeah, you can save a lot of weight with a 105mm gun and Russian-tier ammo stowage.

                Looks no different than your typical Euroid tank from the Cold War.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >glorified XM-1 vs. Leopard 2A4 equivalent

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Looks no different than your typical Euroid tank from the Cold War.
                pretty much every western tank up to and including Leo 1 and M60's had that type of storage, rounds all over the place

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, you can save a lot of weight with a 105mm gun and Russian-tier ammo stowage.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These days no one in the right state of mind would accept a manually loaded medium caliber gun for something like an IFV, and in the future the same will go for tank rounds and artillery.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it impossible for /k/ to grasp that different countries has different requiments when they design equipment and therefore get different results?

    No such thing as "this is the best thing ever for every military in the world"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there are universal truths
      seatbelts save lives
      helmets do too
      autoloaders save 1 life

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >seatbelts save lives
        If you are driving on ice, and it cracks you might not have time to undo it and open the door, aka you drown
        helmets do too
        Not if you are shot from above because your helmet restricted your vision/hearing and you didnt spot the guy
        autoloaders save 1 life
        Not when your dumb ass TC gets stuck in it because he is a moron

        There are ALLWAYs the rare exception

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          reliabilism defeats u

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Refitting the current fleet is impractical and too expensive. You just wait until you introduce a new model of tank that is designed to include an autoloader.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are some arguments against autoloaders on tanks?
    No turret space program.
    No dank turret-toss /k/ webms.
    Nuff' said.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    god damn thats a cool pic, do you guys have a high res version of it?

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Autoloaders are like bullpups. They sound great on paper or to morons, but in reality you are better with a traditional option.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cooks the fricking crew when it gets hit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No it doesn't. They have blow out panels, like your normal bustle stowage.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >No it doesn't, they have blowout panels
        >You can literally see hundreds of videos of T-90s blowing turrets sky-high from an ammo rack
        Strange flex but alright

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And it was at this moment, that anon realized autoloaders are not made equal.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    American tank doctrine relies on the crew being the mechanics and experts in their vehicles. having another guy around means that there's five people for maintenance, for de-tracking or re-tracking, and five pairs of eyes.

    soviet doctrine was to have morons drive the tank, and when it wasn't effective, abandon the tank because with the glorious march to Berlin there would be infinite tanks the crews could jump into while an expert crew of mechanics would take care of issues and salvage it.

    With the advent of this war, I wonder how they feel that direction of doctrine went. Russia's strapped personnel issue outside of WW2 mobilization led to them to push for autoloaders and even 2 crew systems like the Armata or whatever.

    On the contrary, we've seen how untrained morons given western equipment has worked out.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    less crew mechanics to do the work

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You do not need to have less crewmen.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *