early autloaders werent reliable enough
the reduction in physical size wasnt worth the loss of a crew member or having to deal with the machine
modern autoloaders are much better, which is why the soviets and then the russians, went with them but the loader still has enough of an advantage in US tanks to warrant it
though you may see future US tanks equipped with an autoloader
it will mostly because potential future calibers may simply be too big to handle manually and your only option will be an autoloader rather than any saving on space
Nobody mentioned the benefits of having an extra crewmember yet?
>Nobody mentioned the benefits of having an extra crewmember yet?
This is cope on the same level as the anti-MG42 video we've all seen.
25% greater (1.25x)crew space volume turns into 50% greater armor mass, with all the extra demands on engine power, suspension, etc that weight will require. All for 2 extra hands doing maintenance, when the USA is best known for providing adequate tail-to-tooth ratio anyway. Those 2 extra hands don't need to be in the tank, they can be back at the TOC.
I dont know about the historical reasons, but after the War on Ukraine, I think the autor loader is either done for ever, or they will have to re-drawn the thing.
The ammount of T-72 having its tower shoot in the sky is not even funny.
because western MBTs carry their ammunition in separated compartments with blowout panels, an autoloader that can pick up ammunition from these compartments would be mechanically very complex resulting in lower reliability, higher maintenance requirements while taking up a lot of space inside the hull. And while you would lose the loader crew member, you would probably need an engineer just to keep the system running.
>an autoloader that can pick up ammunition from these compartments would be mechanically very complex resulting in lower reliability, higher maintenance requirements while taking up a lot of space inside the hull.
This is the most moronic statement posted on here in some time. Modern autoloaders are extremely reliable, feeding from turret bustle is very straightforward hence their use on Western MBTs like Leclerc, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, Type 90, Abrams X.
Autoloaders take up LESS space in the tank than a fourth crewmen. It's the entire point of an autoloader. moron.
>Why did the US abandon autoloader?
obviously OP isn't talking about modern MBTs, since he mentions the US abandoning autoloaders on their MBTs (which happened back in the 60s)...a coldwar autoloader would have been a mechanical nightmare, unless you get a relatively simple feeding system like a carroussel (with all the drawbacks of storing ammunition in the hulll).
With modern machining tools and CAD, producing an MBT with a reliable autoloader is a no brainer.
>..a coldwar autoloader would have been a mechanical nightmare, unless you get a relatively simple feeding system like a carroussel (with all the drawbacks of storing ammunition in the hulll).
No Black person. A cold war autoloader is mechanically extremely simple and has been used on the popular amx-13 light tank.
The main drawback is that for it to be mechanically simple it requires an oscillating turret which comes with its own challenges for armoring, hence why it was only successfully used on a light tank design.
>Brrrrring >Bob? Yeah it's me, Dan >Uhm yeah, that's why I'm calling >Ehrm... Fernando went a little too far with the primer >Uhm... we covered the lower hull >Uh, yeah, we need more primer >Bob I know you gave us 400 Gallons. But what am I supposed to do now? >No I was there the entire time and prepared the spare paint guns, Fernando did not steal a single ounce of primer >Well it doesn't look too bad. I mean you can still see a difference between the roadwheels and the hull, there's still a step left >Moving as in driving? Well yeah... I guess these roadwheels won't turn anymore unless someone removes the hundreds of primer layers >I think if you gave us another 400 gallons we could make it work >Hello? Bob? Bob can you hear me?
Cost, you will hear lots of opinions but the real reason is cost.
When the USSR fielded the T-64 the US did an study on the cost of a "high" tank vs the risk they posed and decided that the US was far enough ahead that they didn't need a "high / low" mix in tanks and could produce cheaper tanks that still had the advantage thanks to better options.
It has lead to some other advantages like longer rods but the real reason was cost.
As for the future of tanks I think everything is going to end up with an unmanned turret because it offers a huge weight saving with no real disadvantage.
Tanks weren't going to have guns by 1960 or if they were they were going to have liquid fueled guns. Autoloaders were a pointless intermediate step because (predicate) future developments
Tanks with autoloaders will probably replace manually loaded tanks for most military powers by the late 2030s. The weight savings with a smaller form factor are going to be crucial in developing new AFVs going forward.
I can't remember where I read it but I remember reading something about whichever side strikes first in a tank on tank battle having a high correlation with being victorious. I imagine the thinking is why invest in something considered non essential.
I think autoloaders will make a comeback when they start adding drone tech to tanks. You could offload the shooting to ai and have a driver + commander crew with maybe an extra set of hands to act as mechanic if it's really necessary. No military unit is really meant to move unsupported anymore so keeping all necessities onboard isn't as much of a requirement even now
Copper wires will be the cope cage of the future.
I just hope some great power forgets to properly protect their bazillion dollar terminators with all encompassing EM protection
>copper wire
I can provide you with high quality copper ingots! I am reliable marchand from magnificient city of Ur. You can just deliver your silver in my name to the nearest temple of Šamaš, and I will welcome your trusted messenger with good copper ingots.
- Ea-nāṣir
Autoloaders are for tiny malnourished steppe gremlins and asians. We're big and strong and like to show it off. Every time we fire a shell, the enemy is forced to reckon with the fact that a jacked sweaty western man is getting his lifts in while he sends your boys to hell.
Autoloaders are untermensch technology.
The Westerner prefers to manually load his weapon.
To feel the weight and power of the destruction he brings to bear on the unwashed goat herder who opposes him.
Have you seen how many fricking Russian tanks throw their turrets the moment you look at them wrong? An 18 year old loader hopped up on rip fuel is way more adaptable and resilient than any fricking autoloader.
early autloaders werent reliable enough
the reduction in physical size wasnt worth the loss of a crew member or having to deal with the machine
modern autoloaders are much better, which is why the soviets and then the russians, went with them but the loader still has enough of an advantage in US tanks to warrant it
though you may see future US tanks equipped with an autoloader
it will mostly because potential future calibers may simply be too big to handle manually and your only option will be an autoloader rather than any saving on space
>wasnt worth the loss of a crew member
>Nobody mentioned the benefits of having an extra crewmember yet?
This is cope on the same level as the anti-MG42 video we've all seen.
25% greater (1.25x)crew space volume turns into 50% greater armor mass, with all the extra demands on engine power, suspension, etc that weight will require. All for 2 extra hands doing maintenance, when the USA is best known for providing adequate tail-to-tooth ratio anyway. Those 2 extra hands don't need to be in the tank, they can be back at the TOC.
>This is cope on the same level as the anti-MG42 video we've all seen.
so perfectly logical and reasonable?
ie. not cope at all
I dont know about the historical reasons, but after the War on Ukraine, I think the autor loader is either done for ever, or they will have to re-drawn the thing.
The ammount of T-72 having its tower shoot in the sky is not even funny.
because western MBTs carry their ammunition in separated compartments with blowout panels, an autoloader that can pick up ammunition from these compartments would be mechanically very complex resulting in lower reliability, higher maintenance requirements while taking up a lot of space inside the hull. And while you would lose the loader crew member, you would probably need an engineer just to keep the system running.
>an autoloader that can pick up ammunition from these compartments would be mechanically very complex resulting in lower reliability, higher maintenance requirements while taking up a lot of space inside the hull.
This is the most moronic statement posted on here in some time. Modern autoloaders are extremely reliable, feeding from turret bustle is very straightforward hence their use on Western MBTs like Leclerc, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, Type 90, Abrams X.
Autoloaders take up LESS space in the tank than a fourth crewmen. It's the entire point of an autoloader. moron.
>Why did the US abandon autoloader?
obviously OP isn't talking about modern MBTs, since he mentions the US abandoning autoloaders on their MBTs (which happened back in the 60s)...a coldwar autoloader would have been a mechanical nightmare, unless you get a relatively simple feeding system like a carroussel (with all the drawbacks of storing ammunition in the hulll).
With modern machining tools and CAD, producing an MBT with a reliable autoloader is a no brainer.
>..a coldwar autoloader would have been a mechanical nightmare, unless you get a relatively simple feeding system like a carroussel (with all the drawbacks of storing ammunition in the hulll).
No Black person. A cold war autoloader is mechanically extremely simple and has been used on the popular amx-13 light tank.
The main drawback is that for it to be mechanically simple it requires an oscillating turret which comes with its own challenges for armoring, hence why it was only successfully used on a light tank design.
>A cold war autoloader is mechanically extremely simple
>turret crashes into the Sputnik
two completely unrelated statements
extremely limited ammo capacity and having to get out of the tank to reload the revolvers from the hull is a bad combination
Red ones reload faster.
>Brrrrring
>Bob? Yeah it's me, Dan
>Uhm yeah, that's why I'm calling
>Ehrm... Fernando went a little too far with the primer
>Uhm... we covered the lower hull
>Uh, yeah, we need more primer
>Bob I know you gave us 400 Gallons. But what am I supposed to do now?
>No I was there the entire time and prepared the spare paint guns, Fernando did not steal a single ounce of primer
>Well it doesn't look too bad. I mean you can still see a difference between the roadwheels and the hull, there's still a step left
>Moving as in driving? Well yeah... I guess these roadwheels won't turn anymore unless someone removes the hundreds of primer layers
>I think if you gave us another 400 gallons we could make it work
>Hello? Bob? Bob can you hear me?
Cost, you will hear lots of opinions but the real reason is cost.
When the USSR fielded the T-64 the US did an study on the cost of a "high" tank vs the risk they posed and decided that the US was far enough ahead that they didn't need a "high / low" mix in tanks and could produce cheaper tanks that still had the advantage thanks to better options.
It has lead to some other advantages like longer rods but the real reason was cost.
As for the future of tanks I think everything is going to end up with an unmanned turret because it offers a huge weight saving with no real disadvantage.
Tanks weren't going to have guns by 1960 or if they were they were going to have liquid fueled guns. Autoloaders were a pointless intermediate step because (predicate) future developments
Nobody mentioned the benefits of having an extra crewmember yet?
Tanks with autoloaders will probably replace manually loaded tanks for most military powers by the late 2030s. The weight savings with a smaller form factor are going to be crucial in developing new AFVs going forward.
I can't remember where I read it but I remember reading something about whichever side strikes first in a tank on tank battle having a high correlation with being victorious. I imagine the thinking is why invest in something considered non essential.
Its just optics and nightvision, they gun will do its job, anything else is 2nd priorety
>webm. number 9001 of the russian army space program
What did he mean by this???
what did you mean by this
not all autoloader toss turret
some toss salad
Cao chi fa chai! Shin yen quen leh!
I think autoloaders will make a comeback when they start adding drone tech to tanks. You could offload the shooting to ai and have a driver + commander crew with maybe an extra set of hands to act as mechanic if it's really necessary. No military unit is really meant to move unsupported anymore so keeping all necessities onboard isn't as much of a requirement even now
Copper wires will be the cope cage of the future.
I just hope some great power forgets to properly protect their bazillion dollar terminators with all encompassing EM protection
>copper wire
I can provide you with high quality copper ingots! I am reliable marchand from magnificient city of Ur. You can just deliver your silver in my name to the nearest temple of Šamaš, and I will welcome your trusted messenger with good copper ingots.
- Ea-nāṣir
Autoloaders are for tiny malnourished steppe gremlins and asians. We're big and strong and like to show it off. Every time we fire a shell, the enemy is forced to reckon with the fact that a jacked sweaty western man is getting his lifts in while he sends your boys to hell.
Can't find a better quality pic.
Autoloaders are untermensch technology.
The Westerner prefers to manually load his weapon.
To feel the weight and power of the destruction he brings to bear on the unwashed goat herder who opposes him.
Why get an autoloader? Black guys are cheap and all you need to tell them is that eventually they'll become gunner
Have you seen how many fricking Russian tanks throw their turrets the moment you look at them wrong? An 18 year old loader hopped up on rip fuel is way more adaptable and resilient than any fricking autoloader.
Not all autoloader toss turret, see