What a long way-Away from the first WW1 FRECH"TANK",Renault FT or the British Mark 1 TO 7,the Schneider and(ST Chamond),that amazed PATTON(who was still,at the time riding a horse...!!!!Did you know that the name"TANK"was given,because they looked,like a motorcycle tank...???Wish you'd do a vid on those first WW1 TANKS....
While I agree with you and prefer human loader myself, I don't think you made a fair video. You went only through the benefits of human loader, but not the benefits of autoloader.
@@hyunjunpark679 every tank has the ability for an ammo cook off. If you have ammo it will explode when hit by a shell. Dont forget that allot of tanks not just Soviet/Russian dont have blowout pannels. Take for example the Leopard has blowout pannels for 16 rounds on the ready rack in the turret, while 28 rounds are located in the hull inside the crew compartment without any protection. What happens when it's hit? have a look i.imgur.com/R0WSuuk.jpg
@@hyunjunpark679 only abrams and i think the new versions of challenger have that. Many have blowout pannels, but 90% of them still have some ammo stowage positions witch are not protected.
Fair, he missed several important points for each type. I also prefer the manual loader, but it puts some major constraints on tank design, which is why so many tanks go with an autoloader now. For the Autoloader: 1: It enables you to store ammo somewhere other then directly behind the gun. Underneath it for instance. Those huge box turrets on western tanks are required, because a loader can't be picking up 30 kg+ shells from underneath his feet, he has to get them from someplace at least level with the breech. For a remote turret design like the T-14, this is needed. 2: It can upscale to bigger guns much easier. Most western MBTs really struggle to accommodate a gun larger then 120mm, because above that you really need two part ammunition, that slows a manual loader a lot. Western tanks have very large turret rings that should be able to handle much bigger guns, but it really isn't doable relying on a person to load. 3: It can provide a constant rate of fire for much longer. I have never heard of an autoloader that can match the short term burst rate of fire of a good loader, but over a longer period, the loader is going to get tired and slow down. If you have to sling a couple dozen rounds, the autoloader can sustain that higher rate of fire that is advertised. I would still argue the initial burst is more important, because you can't keep slinging rounds if one of the first two tanks kills you. For the Manual Loader: 1: Training. This is huge, and he didn't really talk about the value to the loader himself. It isn't just about the extra hands on the crew, it is about training new gunners. With an autoloader there is no clear path to a new gunner. The driver is in a totally separate compartment and probably asleep. A loader of today is next year's gunner, he gets to see what the gunner does, learns the priorities, and gets hundreds of hours of mentorship from the TC and Gunner both. This leads to much higher initial quality on your new gunners then you could get from some school. 2: Air guard. Typically the loader is the one responsible for keeping an eye on the sky when traveling unbuttoned. The commander is usually going to preoccupied with tree lines, and most of the time now he is going to be using the CIV for that. As great as CIV systems are, you still really need someone on top using the Mk. 1 Eyeballs to look at things like the sky, and the faces of passing farmers. Plenty of advantages to both, it isn't as clear cut as one is better then the other. Tanks can get great use out of either option if the vehicle and military is set up to benefit from the relative advantages. I think an autoloader system would be a mistake for most western powers unless it comes with a bigger gun, but it is perfect for many nations.
I was a gunner on a leopard. Everything you stated here, I agree with.... People who haven't lived on a tank don't know the effort and levels of maintenance involved. They don't know shit. The "loader" called the "helper" in my language, was MUCH more than a meat-crane. Its another human brain, a radio operator, an extra guard rotation while sleeping... The list goes on, he wears countless hats. The auto-loader is the poor mans loader... Just as with MANY robots... They are actually less impressive, but they ARE cheaper. I NEVER ONCE had to wait for my helper... There would be NO GAIN by replacing him. Except to his mum, who could keep him home.
Rik Z Two tons of metal better spent on armour or ammunition. They are not even any faster firing because the gun rings like a bell after each shot, and if you fire too quick, the shot is seriously inaccurate.
By your utterly moronic logic, a hooker is also necessary inside a tank. And a sofa. And a wide-screen TV with an Xbox. And a swimming pool too, why not? Stick it all into the tank! Wonder why they don't put loaders into fighter jets... Oh, maybe because unlike you, they are not MORONS!
I am T80U mechanic driver , my tank was equipped with auto loader - 1. tank can easily be operated with 2 people , driver and commander . commander can load , aim and shoot which is nearly impossible with manual loader. 2 Changing track usually done by 2 people as driver need to steer the tank ya you can use extra person but not critical. 3. manual load is a very hard job as you loading entire shell that about 50lb x 40 or 50 on them your rate of fire varies dramatically. 4. loading manual on the run and bad terrain is a pain in the A~~ 5. because of auto-loader Armata now have huge advantage as a modular tank. 6. I can say on and on about loader - but bottom line AUTO=>Progress=>Speed => wining time => dead or alive
now i know why russian tanks kept getting killed in the battlefield. the commander is too busy doing other things than doing his job, the job that to be always aware of the environment! always on the look out for threats and ambushes! always in search for a possible hostile target! a commander doing a gunner's job is a blind tank
US Army manual loader here. A surprising amount of training goes into lifting the 50-60lb shells and your load time ends up incredibly consistent, and US crews are literally trained specifically to outload Russian autoloaders (they load, according to US Army, in 7 seconds so we must too at slowest. I load 4.4-4.7 seconds for a APDSFS round, 4.2-4.5 for MPAT) and you don't feel nearly as much strain as you would expect. Loading on the move is more of a practice issue over a practical one. Plus, my ammos behind a 2 ton door instead of wrapped around me so in case of a hit in combat, a manual loader is safer than an auto one. In reality, it comes down to doctrine, I feel. A manual loader has more duties than just loading, which in autoloading tanks must be spread out to three crewmembers instead of four. I'm ground guide, Im in charge of maps, I do the lighter maintenance (we all do, but i do the most) and I, in combat, man both my ammo door and a roof mounted 7.62 mg. Oh, and I don't risk the gunners life more by being a massive metal, hyrdolic arm. The breech is dangerous enough, thank you.
@@stilpa1 ruclips.net/video/nA2286viUyw/видео.html Kursk was an operation. It was Operation Citadel, thus not a battle. Brody was a battle though, and thus was the largest.
From experience, the loader is usually more tired than the driver. They get the absolute shittiest guard hours since their job isn't that technically challenging.
"Autoloader will jam, and is safety hazard while crewman loader is more reliable...." *paraphrasing here* Really ? Then explain why so many crewman loaders lost their fingers ?
@@mwnciboo interesting comment, autoloaders were a pain in the ass many moons ago but today not so much. In the late 1990s or early 2000s the US got their hands on a t80 autoloader and tested it extensively- they concluded in the official report that the system had a mean time before failures of 3000 rds. For reference the barrel itself on the gun is only good for 1000-1500 depending on ammo. I’d bet a lot of money that the system has been improved by now so that failure time is less, i’d also bet that if you found a loader with more than 3000 loads they’d probably have more than just 1 failure in one way or another.
True all Navies do like autoloaders...but when you can have magazines 2 decks below your gun system with feedrings and autohoists, life is much easier than the confines of a tank. I had a team of 9 people servicing a 4.5" Gun
@@MPdude237 well with the advance of newer and newer armors shells are only going to get larger and or more dense, I mean Russia wasn't looking at a 152 for the t14 Armada for no reason there's a reason Germany is looking at a new 130 mm gun for the leopard you can only cram so much power out of 120 mm gun and already a 120 mm shell is heavy as it is at some point we're really going to have to switch completely to Auto loaders...
So you discussed advantages of a human loader and disadvantages of the mechanical one extensively. Now, where are 2 other important parts: disadvantages of human loaders and advantages of autoloaders? Are they in a separate video or something?
Egor Kaskader good points. Maybe I was a little biased. But being as though I prefer manual loaders then that's where I was siding to. Maybe in the near future I'll do another video showing the advantages of autoloaders :-) Thanks so much for watching! Have a great weekend!
As a Tanker myself, I appreciate having an extra hand on the vehicle. I'm more for a human loader, but keep in mind I'm also probably a bit biased. Having that extra crew member is an extreme help when you have to do maintenance on the fly. For instance, during our last field exercise, our tank was burning oil horribly. I'd say it was burning about five to seven quarts in an hour. That is bad, especially in a turbine driven system. We also had a road-wheel that was leaking lubricant and the hub was empty. We really didn't want to shear off a road-wheel, or have our pack melt or seize up from lack of oil. So, with a short pause, myself and my loader jumped out and got to work. He filled the road-wheel, and I set to work topping off our oil. The ordeal took about five minutes, and we had the best started back up and moving. Without my loader, that would have taken me about fifteen minutes by myself. Or, even if we did still have two people, that would mean that my gunner would have had to help out with maintenance and wouldn't be providing security. Now an autoloader that's reliable is a great thing. And there are a few countries that have really nailed it like France and Russia. However, the load times are usually much slower. As a loader on the Abrams, my usual time is around three and a half, to four and a half seconds to load. Most autoloaders that I have seen in my time take anywhere between seven to nine seconds. Seconds count. However, they will keep that steady speed whereas a human loader will get tired and start to slow up after an extended engagement. So it's a trade off. I appreciate and prefer having an extra hand, but I can understand the benefits of an automatic system as well.
Being a Tank Commander myself, I can tell you the auto loader us by far and away the best thing ever. I have been a tank commander for over 25 years and would rather have the auto loader than a slow rookie loading. Auto loaders are better in every way
I think you're a bit biased but that's ok (note: Dutchy, so Western myself, M1A2, Leo2 ftw!). I heard a few points on wich i kinda disagree, so i'm not trashing your vid, just want to point some things out. First one is: if the autoloader breaks due to an impact or shock, this would take the tank out of combat. This is true, but i wonder: what is more shock/impact resistant: a loader (or any crewmember), or a MBT autoloader. A large explosive blast (artillery/bombs) would tear up flesh, eardrums etc. putting men out of action (yes, even in a MBT), a big hardened metal autoloader, not so much. The ammount of moving parts in an autoloader is quite minimal. Taking Russian design philosofy into consideration, those things are built to last (obviously they can malfunction though). Second: So with a loader, you've got extra hands for maintanance and medical stuffs. Or a cook. Or someone that makes great coffee. And with that one man extra, you will have ''extra boots on the ground''. It's mainly the last part i disagree. If you got less men to operate a machine that is as combat effective as a machine with one guy extra, will not give you more combat efficiency. More men also means more space, that's not space in wich a dedicated machine works, no that's space in wich the loader needs to move freely and in my opinion that's wasted space. So that's a guy instead of a dedicated machine that has 1 job and thereby takes the least ammount of space: meaning, with a loader, that (''useless'') space has to be armored, increasing the total size of the tank and weight (why do you think Ruskies tanks have such small sillouettes?). I think an automatic system that is proven reliable, will be more consistant, faster (especially on the move!!) and can make the tank smaller and lighter, meaning it will be easier to manouvre, and transport, and obviously harder to hit. Also I think it's unfortunate that you didn't mention the T-14 Armata having a crewless turret, wich gives it the exact advantages i stated above. I do think the Ruskies at the moment are a ahead if the Armata can do at least 80% of what they're stating. I think that will be a design you will see in the next Western MBT's, if they will ever develop new ones that is. Cheers.
I agree 100% with you. I would add one thing though, and that is battle fatigue. Human loaders ussualy get tired quickly and make mistakes when are under stress or fear and naturaly that leads to lowered efficiency and drop in number of shells it can dish out through that barrel, and in confined spaces it can lead to some bad injuries (hand in breach, spine injuries and so on). Machines feel no fear...so yeah. cheers :D (sorry for bad English)
I am not biased. Its just my informed decision and opinion. I don't need people to agree with me. In fact I like it when people give me their own feedback. I appreciate that you have commented with some really good information and points :-) Thanks so much for watching!
Oh no mate, i love the content, i mainly watch your channel for the non-gaming vid's. Just pointing out what i think to see. Just trying to promote some critical thinking (might have chosen not to use AF).
I recall that the first generation of Soviet Autoloaders had a bad habit of grabbing crewmen who were not paying attention and trying to shove them into the breech. However, I would bet that drone tanks will be the future, and an autoloader will be required.
Nesquick Guy T-14 turret is drone mate. It can remotely control not only by the gunner who sits in the front hull but also remotely controlled from a base miles away, just like "hence" a drone....
The T-14 is still controlled by people inside the tank. Drone tanks are definitely coming, though. The US has various remote controlled prototypes, ranging from IFVs to tanks to new unique light AFVs. They are controlled by somebody who is following the vehicle from like a kilometer out. So, I'm wondering how that will work out if you want a large drone formation. But if you think about it, we are probably not too far off from having autonomous tank drones. EDIT: Apparently Russia also has similar prototypes.
My recruiter who has been on tanks his entire 15 year career thus far stated that "Auto loaders can be noticed as either an additional round or box looking part on the rear of the turrent, hit that once and you've got an expensive tractor not a tank"
Also, a point I would like to make, I have never heard of an instance of an autoloader jamming, particularly Russian or Soviet ones, all I have heard is speculation that they will jam.
Crewed an MGS after crewing an Abrams. The autoloader doesnt normally jam but when it does youre out of the fight since there are a lot of moving parts and places that it could mess up. If your traditional gun breech jams up you just beat the shit out of it with a wrench and that'll free it right up. Manual over auto any day of the week.
The key word is "normally", we are not talking here about the worst case scenario. 95 out of 100 auto wont get jammed, I cannot give you stats streight away but trust me, it is very reliable and saves heaps of time when you really need time, let alone it doesnt need crew to muck around it during the combat
Wow lol. Some serious upset people over a gun being loaded my a machine or a person. Look I am not saying the autoloader is crap like some of you are trying to make me out to be saying. I'm just giving my own opinion. I may be wrong but Guys, can you please try keep it respectful. I understand you may not agree with my points And views. Thank you all for watching :-) have a great day.
Thanks for sharing your insights and don't mind the haters, some people just don't know how to have cordial difference of opinion. I often wondered why the Soviets went with such unsafe tank designs; it is as though Ford kept making the Pinto into the 90's, and over time just added a few inches of space so that is would take a 20 mph rear impact to turn it into a fireball instead of 12 mph one. However if one keeps in mind that laser range-finders and digital fire control computers did not really start appearing till the late 70's/early 80's and these autoloading designs date to the mid-60's/early 70's, it is not crazy to think the advantage of lower profile and lighter weight would be worth taking.
Well in a nuclear war acceptable losses are stratospheric whether you are Western or Eastern. Also if they had so many people, and are not casualty averse, why bother with an auto-loader, the appeal of which is lowering crew needed? I think the main advantage the Soviets sought was that the auto-loader allowed the T-72 to be relatively short for a tank (2.2m) since you did not need to make it tall enough for a loader to stand. Prior to laser range finders/computers, being about a meter shorter than the expected adversary (M60 Patton) made a significant difference to successful hit chance at 3 or 4 km range.
i atually found this quite interesting. it introduced lot of spects i wsn't awre of. on the other hand whist today their is a debat it is mostly linked to standardiztion, the advancement of technology nd combining differente technology. i'm pretty much certain that if we designe a gun and its ammo with the idea of using an auto loader it could outperform humans concistently, the awkward thing with this would then be custom ammunition. for your point on men win war its technically true but the better the technology the more effective more the soldier the more likely they are to out perform the enemy. yes 50 untrained civilians armed with abrams tanks would not beat 50 or even 20 highly trained soldiers armed with some older inferior tank (sorry i'm not tha knowledgeable on tanks) but unless you are fighting insurgents rather than a real army that is not likely to happen,
Great video Maximums. Ten minutes in before I forget these points: An auto loader, especially like the one's in completely robotic turrets, with crewmembers in a separate compartment in the hull only, prevents the crew from getting caught in moving parts and exhaust gasses from the main gun without additional fume extraction. Not that venting out the gasses anyway would be a bad thing either. Also, ammunition isolation in expendable racks that blast out of an expendable roof reloading doors to reload a section of ammunition racks at a time by crane, and different racks for different ammunition types or a smart system that can identify what ammo is placed where is possible with just a good and innovative ammunition storage unit design, that a robot can pick ammunition from. Plus, the heaviest man many be lighter then a particular auto loader system, but requires more space asvyou mentioned, thus armor to cover said space and hence more overall weight when the additional armor is taken into account, and all the additional hassle that adding weight to a vehicle, such as a tank, creates. Also, as you mentioned also, getting an autoloader to take out a round and change it for something else, doesn't seem like it would take any more then a simple clever design idea, like a vacuum to remove the charge and a magnet to remove the projectile. As for speed of reloading, having watched how factory robots work in various documentaries, it's surly just a matter of time before you just blink and the robots reloaded the main gun and flip a switch to change ammo, and blink, and it's done. If factory robots can do it, why can't robots inside this particular war machine not do the same concept of fast, automated movement of an object, even it is an explosive charge and shell? As for the repair and maintenance. That is a valid point for now, but is the same type of argument why some people choose revolvers over magazine fed pistols. With decades of tweets and testing of maximizing reliability, semiautomatic magazine fed pistols can be basically guaranteed to work when you have to pull the trigger. So with modern computer testing, prototype testing and factory testing in a peacetime environment, wouldn't engineers worth there salt be able to iron out all of the bugs? Also repair and maintenance teams removing and replacing damaged parts could be assigned to a specific tank platoon or company... actually that's shifting the blame and inviting lazy/irresponsible crew members to get away with things they use and should share responsibly in unkeep.... we'll see what designs people come up with and the systems of how the burden of upkeep works out I'm guessing. Yes, an extra pair of eyes does make it easier for seeking urban enemies to be detected. Advanced technology can only go so far but yes, like with the T-14 Armata, can do things that crew members cannot, like be on 24/7. But then again, that's an addition to crew severance, in my amateur viewpoint, not a replacement. This begs the question of why not just have a drone operater / machine gun operator rather then a human reloader? Just a thought. Again great video content man. These are just my thoughts. This is not meant as a put down or anything like that. God bless and best wishes from Ireland. :) I'm not trying to catch you out man. I love your videos and am just sharing the thoughts I'm having while watching your great video content. :)
As an M1A1 Tanker I think a loader is essential and a four man crew is just perfect. With a four man crew you can walk track and still have a man in the TC's position to provide cover for the dismounted guys. and a fourth set of hands for general maintenance helps a lot. Considering an eight hour down time for sleep and chow that means that each crewman will be on watch for just two hours and get six hours of sleep.
1138thz yeah for those who know nothing about tank maintenance they will always say tank autoloader. Put them in a crew of a autoloader tank with a tank that has thrown a track or hit a IED and see if they want a fourth man. People just focus on the gun, it's not all about the gun. The tank has a lot more features that need extra manpower. I know life is a lot easier track bashing if you have four people. Thanks so much for watching :-)
Matsimus Gaming Thanks for the good video MG and the well executed commentary.. ...And as you know if a tank starts with a three man crew and they lose a man they will have to fight the tank with a two man crew, TC and Driver. Whom so ever is in the TC's position will have to control the tanks motion, communicate with higher, search for targets, lay the gun, fire the gun..that's a lot of work for one man and of course maintenance on the vehicle all but ends And another question is who is going to make the coffee and tea when you stop to set in for the night? Go on errands? etc etc etc etc. In any case its good to talk to another Tanker :=) Thanks for posting. Note: I've only been on a Challenger II for a quick tour but they look like sweethearts.
Matsimus Gaming Thanks for your service as well. One other problem with autoloaders is that the mechanism takes up space inside the turret and limits the amount of main gun ammunition that can be carried. The LeClercs AL seems to be the best but they can only pack around 22 rounds in the autoloaders magazine. after that they have to transfer ammunition from the hull to the magazine.
- The maintenance issue is pretty much nullified by the human loaders being converted into maintenance support personnel. They're just no longer part of the tank crew. - Manual loading suffers as the length of the battle goes on, as the human gets tired and the autoloader does not. - Autoloader performance also increases exponentially as the size of the round increases, for the same reason. Artillery firing shot after shot of 155mm has been shown to have very significant firing improvement from using an autoloader. - I saw an episode of Future Weapons where they covered a new towed 155mm artillery piece with an autoloader and they said it was very successful in testing in comparison with human loaders. Initially the human loaders were almost on par, but they quickly slowed from their original rate. - I've seen modern tank designs with autoloaders that do compartmentalize the ammunition. I saw a video of a design with the ammunition in a bustle that pushed one round through the blast door at a time onto the autoloader's conveyor tube/track. The door then closes and the autoloader loads the round. I've heard of a possible modification for existing M1 Abrams tanks that would use an autoloader like this with a 34 round bustle. Aberdeen Proving Grounds also looked at a possible 46 round version of the same design for the M1A3 (new turret).
I will also say that human loaders might be the best way for loading to the cal of 120mm and below. As they "normally" doesnt weight as much. But if it gets over 120mm then an autoloading is the best because of the weight of the shells. I dont know if you can say that the Iowa class battleships (From BB-61) having semi autoloading system in their 16 inch guns. I had seen a video when they loading one of these guns, and it isnt fully on human nor mechanicly loading. I do say it is a mix of both
A potential design that I haven't seen, but could be made is one that has a three round revolver. The autoloader would load one round of each of the three types of ammunition. This would result in an autoloader design that could change ammo types without having to fire first.
Nice comment, except your example of 155mm *artillery pieces*. I'm not in the military, but unless i'm mistaken, an 'artillery piece' is meant to shoot at targets long distances away, not fight other vehicles up close, meaning that the crew protection is less of an issue.
Leclerc tanks use auto loading with 3 crue men and the "loader can select the ammunition he want, till 3 differents ammunitions, so I think u need to check infos before
We do have round in chamber while entering engagement area, the gun would be put on safe; usually it would be a sabot round as the computer would be indexed to such. The sabot round would punch thru softer targets but it would be easier to reload a HEAT round afterward as a follow up as needed.
Main guns were fired electrically, without a current, the gun is very safe. Loader needed to flip the safety/fire switch on before the gun could be fired. So riding into combat with a round loaded would cut down the seconds needed to load and all the loader needed to do was the put the gun in fire, plaster himself against the turret ring and yell "UP!" into the CVC. More often than not, seconds would be lost because green loaders might forget the safety before calling "UP" after the gunner responded to TC's fire commands.
Being a new Tank Loader (in which I was selected but had never signed up for), watching this vid makes me feel a little more contented with my job. There's a lot to learn but at least it's a job that gets me my bread & butter. Thanks man .. you earned a new subscriber.
Btw human loader is the more convenient way in my opinion. And the autoloader has always the same reload time, whilst the human loader can give 110% if necessary. Also, autoloaders need to be maintained, whilst a human can care for himself...
Tsinjo Rasamy thats because the artillery cannons are usually stuck to the ground so the ground absorbs the shock but when ur in a cannon u feel the recoil badly plus all the sharp parts in the tank to so once the 152mm and 140mm come out I will be on the autoloader side but for now I’m with human loading.
Well, I'd like to be the devil's advocate here: The problem when comparing the two systems is that you are looking at it from a grass root angle - the human loader is great for the reasons you listed, but they are all tactical advantages, ie advantages for the tank. The autoloader came to be as a result of the prevailing Russian doctrine of overwhelming force - that is, the Russians wanted as many tanks as they could possibly muster, but they also had one problem: not enough men. To be able to be a tank crew member, you need to be quite short to just fit in and there aren't simply that many short Russians (this was emphazised by the doctrine of making the tanks as small as possible, to make them as hard to hit as they could ever be). That meant that there was a disparity between a) the wish to have as many tanks as possible and b) the relative short-age of men (pun intended). And, you shouldn't forget that the Russian tanks were considered part of a warmachine, where you could easily replace a damaged or destroyed tank and where you had forward mechanical service depots deployed. All this of course changed with the fall of the communism and the Warsaw Pact, but the doctrine kind of lived on in a smaller scale - the Russians wouldn't dream of deploying tanks one at the time in a war zone - they still go for overwhelming force- But all that said, that is why the autoloader is strategically a better choice, but tactically, a human loader is preferable.
This is amazing...I've been reading through comments on this video for the past 10 minutes or so, and I have seen nothing but respectful, well thought out, well constructed, and grammatically correct...am I still on RUclips? Anyways, as far as I can see it, a tank with an autoloader essentially has one real advantage over one with a human loader: initial fire rate. In a straight up tank battle, a platoon of autoloaders would likely win versus a platoon of tanks with human loaders (assuming all shots from both sides are capable of penetrating) simply because of how quickly and how consistently the shots can be fired. Overwhelming force, as you said. So basically, unless we start getting into conflicts again where tanks are slugging it out with other tanks, a human loader is the superior option because of the tactical benefits, and those tactical benefits also make the tank more flexible in combat, and the more flexible a machine or a force is, the more likely it is to win.
The future is autoloader robot tanks that are remotely controlled. The armata has a sealed of section for crew to control the tank and if the ammo explodes they are sealed from the explosion.
The modern tanks are much safer now but the armata has a clear mobility and fire rate advantage especially when crew uses remote control. Also tanks can be smaller and more nimble and firing off plenty of shells without a crew member in the tank. I believe the future is a composite robot and manned tank platoons which will scout and provide firepower for one another
Couldn't they make a round that cannot blow till its primed and loaded? Could also make the core round a sabot and the outer ring of the round a HE held together by 2 magnets so ammo change is possible.
The future is electromagnetic rays which is much safer and more powerful than physical projectiles. The US navy has developed a ray gun firing magnetic pulses. So tanks could revert to that as well and any shot will only perforate armor and not blow up the tank.
+Constantine Joseph How hot do you think a solid metal ball will get when it flies 12000 mph through our dense air? I predict laser, saser, plasma and electromagnetic weapons. And forcefields and electro gravitics.
Basic logic and math is still something that's eluding majority of western mentality when it comes to this issue, while age old fallacies just keep getting endlessly repeated. Manual loader adds minimum of TEN TONS of weight to the modern gun turret, and over one meter in height since the loader has to STAND, it's that simple. Increased profile increases hit probability at 1km by 30%, which forces frontal armor to be even thicker. All of this has been calculated ad nauseam by entire universities over and over again for over 70 years, and only Western propaganda is still towing the same old tired line. All comes down to percentage of hits vs penetration resistance. 1. Do NOT get hit. 2. If hit have the lowest probability of critical damage. 3. Store the ammunition as low to the ground as possible. Separation of ammunition into the rear of the turret does NOT mathematically lower the possibility of it getting hit, on the contrary it only increases it. Blow off panels do NOT "save the crew" from ammunition detonation, at best they buy time for the crew to bail in case of PROPELLANT BURN OFF. So the tank either carries only KE rounds and become entirely ineffective against infantry, or it does carry HE rounds and risks DETONATION upon ammo rack hit. If the traditional Western rear turret ammo rack is loaded predominantly with HEAT rounds, then upon breach it DETONATES just as any other high explosive warheads do, and no blow off panels or fire walls prevent total and immediate destruction of the crew compartment. Eastern tank design focuses on infantry support thus high percentage of HE rounds, while Western design focuses specifically on anti-tank role thus complete absence of specific anti-personnel HE rounds. 1991 Iraq war tank design comparison is false and has been proven so over and over again, it's empty propaganda that has been ignored by professionals decades ago. What matters is how a frontal armor of the tank takes a hit, and T-90 demonstrates that perfectly right here when a TOW smacks it from point blank range right in the sweet spot; ruclips.net/video/N9cre9GpIUs/видео.html Crew is safe tank not penetrated, and that's all the tank armor is supposed to do, provide frontal protection. Western tank provide the same approximate level of frontal protection, but at the expense of being almost TWICE as heavy, while providing NO additional protection when hit from the sides, as clearly shown again and again. If the ammo rack of this Abrams was loaded with HE, it would have detonated just as ay other HE warhead; ruclips.net/video/VWXIhXJktmM/видео.html A hit on the rear of the Abrams turret GUARANTEES a cook off, while there are numerous videos of T type tank getting hits from 360 degrees that do not result in ammo rack ignition because it's stored on the floor instead of high up in the turret. A side hit on the Abrams turret breaches ammo rack for an cook off; ruclips.net/video/UEdfCw0nsoM/видео.html A catastrophic Abrams ammo rack breach by Kornet ATGM from long range; ruclips.net/video/-ePvNlfrxfw/видео.html All of those are "good enough" hits that completely destroyed Abrams tanks with cheap ATGMs from the 70s, and that's all that's required, but if those ammo racks were actually loaded with HE rounds, they would have detonated just as any other ammo rack loaded with HE. So is all that extra weight increase battle and worth it? According modern developments such as US M1 TTB and Russian T-14 Armata, no, it does not. All tanks burn, but only the ones that carry EXPLOSIVES actually EXPLODE. Do the math you lazy bastards!
I don't think anyone will stay in the Abrams or Leopard when the bustle rack is hit and explodes, even though part of the ammunition might still be valid, and the tank might not be destroyed, the blast compartment will likely be contaminated, and any further action might risk the lives of anyone in that tank. Regardless of that, any tank that gets effectively penetrated will likely be abandoned. Throw track whilst in combat, again the tank will likely get abandoned, except if you are "in combat". Autoloaders have come a long way, you're only hinging on the Soviet/Russian designs, the French and Japanese have a faster autoloader mechanism, which is also far more isolated from the fighting compartment, with a smaller weak point towards the internal, compared to the huge blast doors of manual loading blast compartments. The Type 90 can reload in 3.0 seconds a gun at neutral elevation ~4 seconds if the gun needs to be corrected to neutral, similar for the Type 10. I'd like to see a human loader do that consistently and not lap loading, but abiding by the rules of blast doors closed. The other benefit is that the autoloader does not care about the tank moving, it will perform to specification, as long as the gun is in the correct position, even if the tank is driving 70km/h over bumps and ditches, while a human loader trying to load would be bouncing all over the turret. There are certain benefits to both, another crew member is certainly one of those, but all the designs Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger, are old designs, and I doubt we will see manual loading when the new generation of tanks that should replace those comes out. You can make tanks so much smaller with an autoloading mechanism, which is one of the benefits, and most newer designs like the aforementioned Type 90, 10, Leclerc, K-2, etc. come default with an autoloader.
I would like to add one important advantage of the autolowder over manual loading that wasn't mentioned, averege loading rate of Soviet T64/T80 is between 7 and 9 round per minute, British Challenger 2 crue during one of the exercises reached the rate of 10-11 rounds per minute, but when the the tank is on the move (off road conditions) the manual loading rate decreases down to 2-3 rounds per minute, while the loading rate of the autolowder is not affected by the type of the pavement it's moving on. Pretty important factor in strategic fast advenses.
I've had 4.5 second reloads consecutively on a battle run at 30 kph still better reload time then an auto loader, also an auto loader requires the breach/barrel to aline with the auto loader to load the next round, mean while a trained manual loader can load around in 4-5 seconds on the move without requiring the breach/barrel to move to allow the loading of the round
Another important point is that Soviet tanks were designed for a war with a specific enemy that has a lot of nukes and exposure to radiation is very likely. A human loader with radiation sickness would have loading times approaching 0 rounds per minute, while autoloader would not be affected. Driving a tank and aiming with radiation sickness is one thing, carrying almost 20 kg shells several times a minute is another.
+Panzerreichus Holzer The tanks that have autoloaders should need to have protective blast proof flooring if you had a carousel type autoloaders found on russian tanks, also if your ammunition compartment is from the rear of the turret, just like some other european tanks, you must need a protective blast proof wall that devides between the crew compartment and the ammunition compartment in order to prevent the crew from getting killed when an incoming projectile hits the ammunition compartment.
John Orven Tano armour only as good as the maker claim..the reality is they always and will fail. being in a tank, you got to accept the fact that you will be incinerated or explode into a gas if another tank round hit you.
I think autoloaders make sense for self-propelled howitzers. With 155mm guns, ammo weights upwards of over 100 pounds, while 120mm rounds typically weight 40-50 rounds. But they still need to be able to load rounds manually in the event the autoloader breaks.
I don't think the MBT is going anywhere. APCs and even IFVs aren't tanks and never will be. Railguns won't be seen on tanks until the capacitor banks can be scaled down to fit within the hull and a 30mm railgun is purely an anti-armor weapon. 120 and 125mm guns are far more versatile with APFSDS, HEAT, HEDP, HE, HE-Frag, HESH/HEP, and gun launched missiles. Electrothermal-chemical guns, of similar caliber to what is currently in use, are probably the next big thing for tank armament. There are pros and cons to reducing the crew to three with an autoloader. +A decrease in labor cost of 25% to keep the same size tank force or a 25% larger tank force for the same labor cost. (This alone makes it worthwhile in my mind.) +Turret bustle autoloaders are far more space efficient than human loaders, whose workspace can take up half the turret crew compartment. Less internal volume that needs to be armored results in dramatic weight savings. This is why the Leclerc weighs upwards of ten tons less than other Western MBTs. Alternatively, that's ten more tons of armor that can be used to protect the three member crew. +Autoloaded guns can still be manually loaded if the autoloader is out of commission. +One less smelly person to be stuck inside a metal box for days or weeks at a time with. -Reduced situational awareness from not having a fourth set of eyes. -Increased maintenance duties for the three member crew. -Manually loading the gun in a tank designed for an autoloader will be slow, as the gunner will have to get out of his seat, load the gun without much space to work in, then get back in the seat and engage the target. Alternatively, the commander can engage the target while the gunner focuses on loading, but then he isn't scanning for other targets. Either way, performance is degraded. -One less smelly person to play cards with or bounce jokes off of. Arguments that don't benefit either side: Autoloaders can malfunction but human loaders can get sick or injured. Enemy fire can disable or destroy both autoloaders and human loaders.
well I know for a fact that autoloaders can be dangerous for the crew, my fathers commander from the army lost his hand because the autoloader caught the sleeve of his uniform.This was in the yugoslavian m 84 (russian t 72) tank.
Excellent video! I'm a dessert storm Abrams tanker and I agree with your assessment completely. Thanks for the great video! Oh and I love how your maintenance point is illustrated by how terrible the autoloader and breach looks. It looks forty years old and has never been cleaned or touched in any way! Lol
in the future there will be only autoloaders. 1. 130mm -140mm shell´s will be to heavy for a human. 2. autoloaders can reload on the move(offroad), which mostlikley not possiable with human loader. 3. allows "crewless-turrets" i dont think MBT´s are outdated, i think IVF´s are outdated.
they are "economically" outdated, today´s (western) IFV´s cost almost the same like an MBT. the future lays in wheeled APC´s cheaper to maintain, better autonomy, better reliability (because most parts are comercial)... etc. +they have similiar/same weaponary today. is the IFV concept outdated when vehicle´s/tanks will have APS in the future, i gues so... it will come down then too ballstic-protection and cannons. sure u can protect an IVF like an MBT but then it will have the price of an MBT again and still cant compete/kill MBT´s. Israel is in armed-conflicts for decades and collecting combat expierience, they dont use ifv´s at all,... just "battle-taxis" the reason for that is obviously the realtive low defencebudget.
And you will learn from the WW2 and finds out that in a real world war a goverment always thinks the human life is cheaper than the machine. Expessially the big countries...
On the contrary: MBTs are outdated. (Just like battleships after WW2.) A modern IFVs like the German Puma has all the MBT's (Leo2's) armor protection and maneuverability, while 1. it has better range and accuracy against MBTs (thanks to its Spike ATGMs), 2. it's 30mm airburst autocannon is far better against infantry, helicopters and lightly armored vehicles, 3. it can be airlifted via Airbus A400m, 4. it's infantry squadron provides great situational awareness and versatility.
I served as a gunner/ driver / loader on a Leopard 1 A3 or leopard C1. 4 man crew. Believe me when I say that loader is much appreciated! He helps with weapons maint, vehicle maint, radio and sentry duties and the list goes on. I also served in a Cougar AVGP crew as a gunner/ driver. The AVGP or Armoured vehicle, general purpose with a scorpion turret equals a three man crew. The boys were overworked. The differences are obvious. Only a tanker who spent time in a tank on excersize or operations appreciates the fact that a fourth man is very much needed in that MBT. Auto loaders in my view, cant really replace that human loader. Matsimus, you are doing a fantastic job! Please dont stop. I've been out of the forces since 1996 and truly miss the camaraderie and the "toys". You keep my memories vivid. Perseverance, brother.
There are as you said trade-offs between the types. But here are the things about Manual Loading. + Loading of ammo can be quicker and ammo changed on the fly compared to autoloaders. + Easy to design separate blow-out compartments from them. + Nice one piece ammunition. + Additional crew member who can do other things and help. + Any idiot can be taught how to load a cannon. - In order to fit extra crew-member nicely, tank must be bigger. Increasing vehicle weight. - Will be more effected by vehicle moving through rough terrain and can be fatigued. - Not ideally suited for loading particularly large rounds which would be better suited to being loaded by an autoloader as a multi-piece round. It really depends on what you are looking to get from your tank, but that is generally what I see about. The Japanese Type 90 also has an autoloader with blowout compartments so that can be done and is not a thing exclusive to manually loaded tanks.
that is true. as for three piece, the mag for the igntion (cant remember the name of it) is a mag so its not like it needs as much reloading as the rounds themselves. but a very fair point! And your avatar made me laugh lol. but isnt that jabba :-/ lol
made the account like 7 years ago or some shit, I would remake my account but I have lots of videos in my favourites that I like. Another point about autoloaders is that it's less heavy.
You talked about the catastrophic exploison thingy on the T-72 in Iraq and that russian tank designes haven´t really focused on crew protection when it comes to ammo storage. Ofcoure penetrating an T-72 Monkey isn´t really an art so it can happen, even if you hit frontally, that the Ammunition in the Autoloader explodes (burns up). But do keep in min, if you have a HEAT round which can overmatch the armour this much, even in the M1 you wouldn´t be safe. (ofcourse with the Hatches closed) Also the T-72B3s and T-90s have an armoured deck on top of the autoloader, which makes it alot harder to have an catastrophic exploison. Ofcourse if you are going nuts and store extra ammunition in these tanks, you are fucked. Then procceding to the next situation. If a round doesn´t penetrate but the auto loader still gets knocked out, the Human loader also wouldn´t have a great day. But lets say the loader got hit by spall, the autoloader wouldn´t care that much if no hydraulic or electric systems got damadged. The autoloader will proceed as well as it did before but your injured gunner, he will struggle. And finally. We are all moving to bigger calibers, the germans want to upgrade their Leo´s with 130mm guns and in the Future the new German-French Tank will probably have an 140mm gun. If you have these kinda guns, the ammo will get heavy, very heavy and a Autoloader will be much better due to the fact that it will never get tired and it doesn´t care how the tank driver fuck the suspension. Also looking at the expirence the French had with their autoloader for the Leclerc, they love it, it will probably be an autoloader we will see in the next major wester MBT. sry for the bad english..
Jakob Fichtinger Absolutely correct mate! You got it right! The Westerners just want to justify their human loading system which is more ineffective in terms of harsh realities of combat...
can your autoloader be another infantryman if you leave the tank? can your autoloader help you with maintenance tasks? can your autoloader give you another pair of eyes looking for treats during non-combat situations? can your autoloader be replaced by another crewmember in case of being seriously hurt? plus the US and Germany are not moving to bigger calibers but to better ammo and longer barrels, an M829A4 can fuck 900mm of steel at 4'5 km when it's fired from a 120mm L44, the APFSDS on the russian tanks can barely do a shit over 3'5 km because the autoloader doesn't allow the cartridge to be bigger (bigger=more propellant=more energy on the projectile) due to the size limitations)
Demoblade You haven't seen the news lately, have you? Germany currently is working on an 130mm canon for intermediate reasons, because they don't want DU in their rounds. The US , for whatever reason, still sticks with the L-44. So they have to develope more sophistocated ammo. Also i want to know the Source of your magical M829A4. And with source i mean leaked documents. Also keep in mind the different standards v-50% and v-80% Well then to the fourth crewmember. I am not against it, but if you want to stay realistic, the Autoloader has a steady output and it really doesn't give a shit how rough the ground is or how heavy the projectile is. If, in an combat situation, the tank gets hit and one of your crewmembers gets injured, the crew will either bail out or put in the reverse and get the fuck out of there, the loader may take the LMG , but i doubt he will go load the round and then switch to the gunner seat or will take up any other seat in an combat situation, because he has to get the gun loaded if the crew is bold enough to fight with an injured crew member. The only possible thing i can imagine is that he takes the drivers place but well in the T-72 for example your comander could do the same. Yeah the 4th crewmember is nice in maintanance and lookoout in non combat situations but, if we look at the russians chinese and french, they manage with 3 crewmembers... But the one thing i really agree is the limited lenght of the round in an T-72 style autoloader, but even with that limitation thr russians really manage to create great rounds with very good pen. characteristics, even if the upgrade potential is more limited than for example Leopard 2A4s.
Demoblade "looking for treats" haha! I know what you meant "threats" but it just made me giggle lol. Thanks for watching man and some very very valid points there. Hope you enjoyed the video :-) feel free to share and subscribe :-) have a great day!
Russian 125 mm gun autoloader is able to load HE-FRAG shells, unlike Western tanks. 120-125 mm HE-FRAG shells are just too heavy for manual loading.Plus literally all Russian tanks should be converted into robotic tanks in the future because of autoloader ,unlike Western ones.
Yes, the program of converting Russian military vehicles into robotic ones is on the go. Just imagine how beneficial and cheap is such converting! This is a real miracle! The large fleet of Soviet era tanks is converting into robotics instead of being melted into a raw material. The limits of human protection has lost it's significance and the advantage of high mobility and low profile is thriving. Important point is that after converting vehicles into robotic ones it is still can be operated by humans. This is a major demand in Russian military doctrine. Note, that autoloader is also can be operated manually in case of failure.
Not a Miracle if the Autoloader gets hit by a Rocket or a Shell. And what's the Point of Physical Training anyway when you are replacing humans with too much Tech? I'm starting to think that Machines will replace the Human Workforce.
@@diligentone-six2688 and that same shell wouldn't kill the turret crew if it penetrate the armor? At the end of the day what do you choose, a death crew or a broken machine? What do you public opinion would like more?
@@diligentone-six2688 A lost tank is just a lost tank. But a lost crew, that's horrible. I rather loose 10 tanks instead of one crew. Human lives don't have a price tag, tanks and other weapons do.
The HE-Frag is roughly 70lbs. It's not too heavy. It's been done manually. Fuck, loaders work out with 85lb HEAT rounds filled with sand and lead here (inert shells of course) so, I mean, it's doable.
Interesting discussion. I think the biggest drawback is the fact that you have all that ammunition in the turret, which makes for a much less survivable environment if a penetrating hit occurs. As I recall, the US was experiencing some serious reliability issues with the auto-loading system they were developing and it was then scrapped. If they get the rail-gun operational, then that will be a game changer, but it will need an auto-loading system of some sort. A human won't, in theory, be able to keep up. I agree with one of the earlier comments, the loader is another body to help perform battlefield repairs and maintenance. Unless technology change really drastically in the next few years, loaders will still be needed in one capacity or another. I'm now going to have to do some research on this subject. On the bright side, this gives me something to do this weekend! :-)
When was the last time that a tank found themselves in such a target rich area that it was firing literally as fast as the crew could load it? Even in both Iraq wars, the M1A1 wasn't faced with such massive waves of Iraqi tanks that saving an extra 2-3 seconds on the reload ment the life or death of the vehicle and crew. The advantage of the autoloader, a couple of seconds faster reload versus a human loader, just doesn't seem like its that essential in modern conflicts. Especially if you consider how much versatility is being traded for a couple of seconds.
For a "modern conflict" against opponents with very old tech, you don't even need a MBT, so of course the reload difference isn't that important and manual loading perfectly do the job. However, if a conflict begin between big countries, an autoloader will be a most have. Yes, it's usefull to fight multiple targets, but must and for all it gives a huge advantage in 1v1. Even if you have the first shot, nobody hit (or at least kill the target) 100% of the time in one shot, shooting the next shot a few second faster will maybe prevent the oponent to respond, and it's only one of the advantages (fire on the move more effective...) If "big" tank battles ever happen in this type of war, this advantage could easily snowball in a crushing victory (one tank win a duel he would have lost without the autoloader, and he can help an other one to win a battle he would have lost normaly...)
When comparing a human to a machine humans are at a significant weakness physically and mentally. For example a single mishap can injure the loader or a mission that require long hours mentally humans can check out. With a machine you have none of those problems. If the autoloader breaks you can fix it within hours if not a few days. If a human "breaks" who knows who long they are out of action months if not even a year depending on the case and now you need a replacement for that crew member and the overall effectiveness is decreased significantly. Also if the trend of bigger better rounds keeps going ie. the new 130mm Rheinmetall gun then an autoloader is a must have.
I think one thing to bear in mind is that the loader choice is appropriate for the doctrine in the originating countries. In countries like USA and UK, the army is all professional, and usually has long term prospects. Therefore, you can invest in training good loaders and give them loads of experience. A rookie loader would be worse than an autoloader as they are still figuring out their job. Russia etc has a conscription-based army on an average of about 2 years. That's two years to get basic training, tank training and actual deployment to a unit for exercises/battle! You can see why removing an individual in this situation is felt to be of benefit. I'm not saying I agree this is the right way to go - a system as flexible as a human loader is still appropriate (assuming a skill and training level allowing them to match or beat an autoloader). But autoloaders are much more valued if you do not have the peopled expertise to spare.
That is a very very good point. Never even thought of it like that to be honest! But it makes sense. I would say though that the US is going to side eventually to the autoloader systems. They are already working on it with Meggit. Thanks for the input mate :-)
Your assumption is just so wrong. My country has a conscription based army ans yet many people are making the living out of it. The army has many professionals and they are paid well, very well to be exact. All students who join military universities do not have to pay tuition fee and that's is a huge plus. And we are even poorer than the Russia. Your logic is kind of uninformed but logical from the point of view of someone who doesn't have the knowledge about the system. The conscription based military doesn't mean that you force people to join because no body wants to join, in fact our military rejects many applications every year. Bad eyesight, tatoo, etc and you are out. The military system aims to do a lot of good things but it is 1AM here and I am tired and so I would conclude my comment here.
+Thịnh Nguyễn Quang yes, but I'm not talking about the conscripts who choose to stay - they become professionals and are not the ones I am referring to. I'm talking about the many many more who cycle back out as soon as the opportunity presents itself. If you have large staff turnover in any sector, you cannot provide the level of training necessary to all staff equally, simply because there's no point spending the money on folks who won't be there. I accept that the professionals who choose to stay will be better trained and probably better paid, but there needs to be enough of them to fill the ranks before you can afford to give out as many specialised roles. And if there were enough of them, there would be no need for conscription...
You make a good point, Ghost Dog. I served as gunner/commander during the Cold War in Germany where most of the men in our unit were volunteers (3 year term of enlistment). It took two years to make a man into a good soldier, so you had him for one year before he was released. He had the option of staying on for another 3yr term, but nobody would want to remain as a loader for any longer than they had to, since it was our 'entry-level' job. There are many things even a rookie loader can do that a machine cannot, such as clearing a stoppage in a cranky coax mg, or double checking your 7.62 ammo belts before feeding into the loading trays, plus he is capable of (relatively) intelligent thought when something fails in an emergency which is something these robots cannot do. In the heat of battle I don't want to have to leave my post to go clear some mg that's playing up. That said, I did have one cranky loader I would gladly have traded for a machine! BTW-- With our good loader we could fire 15 accurate rounds per .minute. 80 ] Ah, but that was 50 years ago, and I expect that robotics have come a long way since then. Ein Prosit!
Thank you for your service. If this was a manual loader, I can assume your service was with west Germany??? What tanks did you learn your trade on? What did you think of the soviet equipment of the time? What was the tank 'over there' that you were most afraid of (based on the data available at the time)
2:58 human loaders are lighter, but are **NOT** faster - to start with, and are subject to fatigue making them even slower. 3:55 they keep these blast doors open because in a battle it's too much hassle to open and close them all the time.
auto-loaders are not only efficient but also a necessity when you have LIMITED MAN POWER resource. A unit consisting of 21 trained people will fully crew 7 tanks (speaking about russian designs of 3 crew) A unit consisting of 21 trained people will fully crew 5 tanks (speaking about US designs of 4 crew) That's 2 extra guns (firepower) for the same amount of people. Also, the auto-loader allows for manual loading as well. A malfunctioning auto-loader does not mean the tank is useless, AT ALL. THAT's why the rounds are stored in the crew compartment in the earlier russian MBTs. ALSO, a loader fixing the track and so on and then getting fatigued back in the turret, loading rounds will be LESS EFFECTIVE. Not to mention if he drops the round inside the turret because of fatigue... There's so many other factors that you did not mention, at all, so i give you a dislike. You're obviously biased in this video and you're not objective. before making such videos consider ALL the facts or at least try covering them ALL.
I think tank production is more a limiting factor than available man power for most nations. Fatigue can be an issue, but usually you wont fire a massive amount of rounds for an extended time and you can also catch your breath in between firefights. You wont go fixing a track, loading all your shells in the tank and then be in a 20 minute long firefight. Manually loading when the auto loader breaks is far from ideal aswell, you take either the gunner or TC away from his job, the turret might not be good room wise to load shells manually and reaching them can be difficult aswell. And depending on the autoloader a malfunction could make the loading impossible. Not everything is perfect with either system.
For a smaller task force I agree, if you are very limited on manpower then an auto-loader will allow you to have more tanks. But then again nations such as U.S., UK, Germany and so on have lots of man power so that isn't an issue, and if your nation can't get enough people to have manual loaders then you should question your ability to fight anything. :P You can't really manually load a auto-loader (a Russian one at least, but most other nations use manual loader) if it breaks down, it uses two piece ammunition (projectile and propellant stored separately) that needs to get pushed quite deep into the gun. Not to mention it's a bigger paint in the ass because of how the ammo is stored, it's not really meant for a human to use, it's for the arm(s) that the auto-loader consists of, also either crew member is sitting down and facing forward, making it harder on top of that. So no you can't manually reload it and if you somehow can it will take FOREVER to reload, wont be getting anywhere near the 7 second loading time functioning auto-loaders have. At this point you might as well run away (if you can) and fix the auto-loader, then return to battle. With an auto-loader the crew would be even MORE fatigued after having to fix the track or something prior to an engagement, since there is not an extra helping hand, so this argument kind of goes against it self. Loaders are also physically fit and I don't think fixing the track prior is enough to make their arms give way when holding a round and putting it in.
Actually, the simple fact that an Autoloader makes the tank WAY more vulnerable already makes up for the lack of firepower. Regular Man-loaded tanks store ammo in a separated armored compartment, making it getting ammo racked way harder. Sometimes numbers just don't work with efficiency.
Mr.Fluffybutt Gaming "With an auto-loader the crew would be even MORE fatigued after having to fix the track or something prior to an engagement, since there is not an extra helping hand, so this argument kind of goes against it self." You mean that an auto-loader will be fatigued because the driver, the gunner and the commander are fatigued? Do you even logic? How is gunner, driver and commander fatigue compared to HUMAN LOADER fatigue?
Because maintenance tasks on a tank are heavily manpower intensive. Have you ever broken and replaced track? I have and it's heavy, hard work. And when you only have 3 men vs 4 to do the work, that equates to greater crew fatigue as you have one less man to help spread the work around.
The downsides of a human loader I think far outweight the upsides in a war of attrition where the human cost is weighed far more heavily in modern warfare. As such the Russians are smart to go to the T-14 Armata. Your video fails to mention that the T-14 compensates for less situational awareness by combining a huge range of advanced motion detecting sensors that can distinguish between and alart the crew to human and vehicle threats in the vicinity of the tank. This is something that the Russians have been working on for decades far more than the U.S. has. There is a famous video in Iraq for example of a insurgent low-crawling under a Bradley IFV to put an IED right under it without the crew being aware of it due to a total lack of security sensors of the type commonly equipped or dispersed by Russian tanks since the late 1980's after their experiences in Afghanistan with stationary tanks being stealthily assaulted by Mujhadin sappers. I also don't see tanks going away nor the main gun being replaced by missiles. Why? Simply because advances in active defense systems like the Trophy and later models of the Arena (still in prototype stage) indicate that ATGM's will be easily countered on the modern battlefield by either passive or active defense systems. SABOT rounds however are moving at such a velocity as to render such systems ineffective as they can not react fast enough. As such the Russians have the advantage in their later model Kaktus and Relikt ERA that are designed to also disrupt high velocity SABOT rounds. Now granted NATO forces may have some similar ERA that is still classified (I sure as hell hope so) but we overall seem to be behind the curve in that area. Likewise with passive anti-ATGM systems. Again...this may be due to excellent security measures on our defensive systems. Still.... that being said.... the T-14 Armata since the first time since the introduction of the T-72 (over the M-48/M-60 Patton series) represents a qualitative advance over current NATO armored vehicles especially regarding how this series is cost effectively transformed into heavy IFV's with similar armor and defensive characteristics but with the ability to carry infantry, use heavy ATGM's, and protect the T-14's and other tanks from infantry threats via auto-cannons and other weapon systems that can be adapted to the remote turret. The only Western forces that have adopted this theory of warfare are the Israeli Defense Force with their Centurion based Nagpadon's and Puma heavy APC's, Achzarit T-55 based heavy APC's, and their latest Merkava Mk4 based Namer Heavy IFV's fitted with even more armor protection than the Mk4 Merkava that they are based off of. The U.S. Army has taken note and is actually testing the Namer Heavy IFV/APC as a possible successor to the Bradley series of IFV's or as a specialized "heavy mechanized" IFV designed for shock troop spearheads through heavily defended points along lines defended by a modern enemy. They would include the Trophy system as extra added insurance. However....currently.....the Russians are slightly ahead and have accounted for defending against all known NATO armored threats.....thus shifting the debate over to that of artillery, air-defense, and air-superiority dominance. Currently even their export model T-90's have managed to survive a frontal hit by tandem warhead TOW-2 ATGM's in Syria (with their Shtora system turned off). That should give NATO a HUGE reason to worry given that this is older 90's era technology at work and NOT the latest generation of ERA or passive/active protection systems that the Russians are not eager to trot out quite yet.
Hmm.... these sensors are fine - provided they work, which is doubtful in a situation where several are so mad that they resort to fire real bullets at you. Not to mention they have to work and be repaired in pouring rain in mud.The reason the Armata use the reduced crew is probably more because they can't get the personel to staff even a moderate force. You can take in conscripts to work tanks, but that is generally a way to get yourself killed.Again the reliability of Russian equipment and manufacture .....? That does in itself put limitations.Two Swiss soldiers stole my Russian watch - or was it the other way round?
Thomas Borgsmidt Unless you have data to back up that assumption. it is only a theory. The Russians don't like Swiss precision. They generally make things that simply work and that are robust on the battlefield. The T-14 is going through teething stages as all new tank designs do, but from I can tell, the sensors look modular and easily replaced on the battlefield if damaged. The massive decrease in cost for such sensors and cameras (that these days can and ARE made in China dirt cheap) means a boon for Russia who has good relations with China. Granted they likely reserve the manufacturing ability to stay within Russia, but most likely they rely heavily on Chinese components. If implemented correctly into modular components, such technology CAN be very soldier-proof if it's made cheap with simplified replaceable components to maximize battlefield repair efficiency. But like your theory, mine is also just a theory.
Come on You fool! The maximum range applicable in Europe is 1 mile. There is such things as trees. buildings. hills and rocks that get in the way of the situation to be aware of! On the other hand. Increased effective range of guns etc. makes for more dispersed formations. I.e. there is much less situation to BE aware of. The Russians are caught with a medium tank as the T-72 (in various updated forms and variations): but it has little operational mobility. On the other hand Strykers (in various shapes and forms) are coming into the Nato inventory - cheaper, faster and roadworthy. They will simply outrace the Russian tanks and wait till they are stuck in the mud, then attack them from behind as they are out of supplies. The majority of the German Tigers in the West were demolished by their own crew.
supporting your comments about the benefit of an extra body - Swedish S-tank started as autoloader with Cmdr + driver (either of whom can aim & fire - no gunner) - then decided to add a 3rd crew as wireless operator for reasons you mentioned (spare hands, situational awareness, maintenance etc)
Why bother put a T-800 in a tank? Just load it up with multiple laser cannon and missile launchers, it becomes more deadly than an MBT. And it can climb stairs in urban environment whereas tanks can't.
+Pandacat80 haha are we actually doing this lol!! Ok but put it like this, the T-800 range can't be as far as a tank purely for the fact it's pea sized eyes probably can only see a couple of Km's where as a MBT can engage up to 5000m ;-) Plus lasers only work against metals and such, they would maybe fail against ceramic plates armor lol. And the Tank T-800 loader would just hold up a big mirror and reflect it back haha
Autoloaders that load from an armored magazin/bustle exist in service. Japanese Typ 90 (and Typ 10 most likely), French Leclerc. The AMX13 and IIRC Swedish Strv 103 use drums, those from the AMX are in the bustle. The loader tested in a Leo2 prototype also loaded from a bunker
This may not be a viable solution, but why not have both an autoloader, which has the possibility of working faster than a human and does not fatigue like one, AND a fourth crew member to serve as a dedicated engineer? Best of both worlds, right?.. Right?
my thinking exactly, all you then need to do is make sure to have a backup system where if the autoloader fails for some reason you can still manually reload. Best of both worlds. To be honest though, a lot of the arguments he did in the video were mostly nonsense and/or baseless assumptions. autoloaders are in general better in most cases. But you know how it is, militaries arent known for adopting new and better stuff quickly, they like to cling on to their old ways.
Im noticing at some shots of the video inside the tank that he's pushing the ammunition inside the barrel.. Cant he's hand get crushed or the ammunition slide longer than its supposed to?
Re: MultiGamerClub... That is why loaders have ALWAYS been taught to load rounds into the breech with their fists, and not open palms, so as not to have fingers accidentally caught by the quick snapping breech blocks! They were also discouraged from wearing rings and watches for fear such might get caught somewhere in crowded turrets; whether those were real dangers for crews or not I could not verify but I have smashed a couple of good watches myself simply because of being surrounded by nothing but metals inside turrets.And no, rounds could not be pushed too far into the chambers as the casings/charges are of different dimensions than the actual projectiles. BTW, on having a live loader as part of the crew, I bet you autoloaders cannot extract a misfired round like a loader could!!! I have experienced main gun misfire and such a dangerous job of extraction is best left to a human being, thank you.As to human fatigue for loaders, how many actual engagements would need 20-30 rounds to be loaded continuously!!!? If that is such a case, yes, an autoloader would not get tired like a human. But so far, multiple targets engagements would require 1-2 rounds per, and that adds up to not a whole lot of loading, with stops in between for gunners to acquire and engage. I was a unit commander and I have served in all the crew stations on tanks, and yes, we cross trains our tank crews as much as possible. The newest members to any crew would start off as a loader, then, onto being a driver and finally, gunner/TC. Try and cross train an autoloader then?My thoughts on the new Armata, the concept might be great but I feel that having all three crew inside the protective section in the belly of the vehicle eliminated one of the most important aspect of target engagement- that of situation awareness. Depending completely on electronics that could be damaged in battle leaves one without the Mark-1 eyeballs that a TC could use to scan from the much higher elevation of the turret. I could be very wrong but having been a TC, I knew nothing could beat having my head popped up over the TC hatch to scan before dropping back down.Please, don't flame me as these are just my own opinions from experience. Thanks.
@@cav1stlt922 Check out the American and British tank destroyers of WW2. They had an open top because they thought that keeping track of what was going on around them was more important than being down inside a tank. It's popular to diss the Sherman but it was never intended to go against other tanks. Even a modern tank when buttoned down has a lot of blind spots.
Re: John Kendall... that was another era, another time. We don't have tank destroyers anymore, nor do we have heavy or light tanks. Tank destroyers were lightly armored too, with thin turret sides and opting for speed and agility for protection. No overhead protections against arty, some units have fabricated make-shift turret armors because of it. There will always be blind spots on tanks, funny how German armors have rear view mirrors while we don't, and relied completely on dismounted crew to guide us in or out of positions.
@@roadhouse6999 Seriously, comparisons were made between autoloaders versus manual loading. A good human loader can average 2-3 seconds faster than an autoloader counterpart.
He made that on purpose to make NATO tanks look better. IMO Abrams, Leopard II are old, outdated and both Germany and US have no money to invest in new tanks.... The Russian Armata T14 tank is basically a Tank with a Robot turret with extremely efficient and fast autoloader. But who cares right? if its not made in the good "western civilization"
Armata is too new, not much info and experience about it anyway, moreover Abram is made to fight with T90, not Armata. Still, I think 4 people better than 3, tanks are not just about how fast you can fire with main turret.
Well, the Armata got stuck in the presentation (2015, the March for the victory of WW2). Don't get me wrong, but I think the Armata won't be that good as many People say. Only if you see that Russia is broke, even their last airplane carrier is breaking down, and in such a Situation they can't afford high tech in high Quality. Taht#s my personal opinion.
When you mention that extra crew is a bonus for maintenance, its also a hindrance when the tank gets hit and causes extra needless casualty (possibly). Its also extra mouth to feed etc. etc.
@@diligentone-six2688 and so does a manual loader suffering from injuries or enemy fire, and only a human too can fix him up. your argument isn't exactly sounding
I am pro autoloader. It is difficult to load manually when tank going on rough terrain, what if you hit something with HE round fuze. Also you need less crew member and if autoloader fails you can load manually.
Loader human: I was in Cav in the Australian army and same again with the Frenchies and often worked with tanks regiments or acted as enemy. (I was recon trooper and later life anti char with a Milan on the ground). After the military I helped rebuild Centurion medium tanks for a friend with a paint ball/team building business to run people around on and those machines need a lot of maintenance. Having that extra person on board when running tracks on and off, changing links makes life way more easy, although when with a troop you often do this together. I've always liked the auto loader concept but isolating it from the turret is a must for smaller armed forces as the crew, with their experience, is the most valuable thing on board. As you say "smaller" is what is coming and I think drone machines are likely to have a lot more presence on battlefields in the future as digitisation has meant systems have reduced to about 1/3 there size in the past 15 years. Perhaps a tank group will have only 1 human present, per 3 tanks perhaps, to control them with automated intelligent systems that learn. On the current generation of tanks my vote is for the human loader.
I liked the video, especially the interior footage from different tanks. Would be even more informative if you could add a small info label with the tank designation the first time each type is shown. I only recognised the Leo2 S interior myself from recognising the unique Swedish bdu-fractal pattern.
Most of the human loaders was inside an M1A2. It had the most room. The one with the sloooow loader was a Leo 2. The rusty looking tank with the auto-loader was a T-72.
Wesley Shirley Probably a T-72 from a Eastern Block nation other than; Russia, Poland, and Hungary . . . wait that was definitely a Asian crewing the tank we think is a T-72. That explains why it is rusty and somewhat degraded. It isn't a Russian or Eastern block T-72, or a newer/modernized T-72.
I'll tell you a little story as a US Army tanker. The human loaders are needed to load the round in 7 seconds or less or you are a NO GO in that station. Because a autoloader loads a round in around 7 seconds. On my crew, our loader was an absolute god. There is an engagement during gunnery that is a three target set up. We shot that engagement in just a hair over 9 seconds. That is a 3 second load time per round...armed and ready to fire. He was so fast that he beat the gunner from target to target, and so fast that I drove blind for most of it. When the tank fires at night, the flash shuts off the drivers sight for a second or two and then fades back on. The crazy part about it was he did all 3 rounds with one hand and holding a Monster in the other hand. Granted he might not have let the ammo door shut all the way before arming...We shot that engagement so fast, that it earned us top tank crew of my squadron and we all got ARCOM's. An autoloader would never ever be able to do something like that. Human>Tech any day in war. TV can say whatever they want...the ones actually doing it know what works and what doesn't
It's not necessarily about more tanks or anything else like that. You've also gotta look at crew progression, and the stark advantages to having a human loader. It goes way beyond load gun go boom. You have vehicle maintenance, which is constant. Also, having those extra soldiers in a platoon gives added individual combat power, added situation awareness, and added body to conduct unit details. Combat, if we ever see it, is like...1 percent of our job. The rest is maintenance, training, maneuver, and standard army tasks like extra duties for the higher unit. Such as giving up bodies to go assist the cooks, or assist supply, or assist 1 of the hundreds of other tasks needed to run a military. If you reduce the number of crewmen in a tank, reduce the number of infantrymen per squad and platoon, reduce the number of soldiers all together than you simply have less people to do all of these tasks, at the end of the day, that's what we care about. Not who, or what, or why a round gets into a gun tube faster.
I don't think you answered his question. Why couldn't you still have 4 crewmen in a tank with an autoloader, with the "loader" operating a MG, providing another pair of eyes, assisting maintenance, etc., the way tanks used to have a bow gunner and a 5 man crew?
The way I understood his question is if you had tanks with autoloaders, but the same amount of people per platoon, you could have more tanks per platoon. Like instead of 4 tanks with 4 crewmen per tank, you could have 5 tanks with 3 crewmen per. What that comes down to is US Army Armor doctrine. We moved away from the 5 tank platoons down to 4. We mostly did this to cut costs. But as it turned out maneuver formations were easier. In an autoloader tank there is practically no room for a 3rd man in the turret. the autoloader machinery takes up enormous space. I've been inside two autoloader tanks. the T72 and the Japanese Type 90 (I believe) it was a Japanese tank. Lol. Well the turret only has space for two crewmen because the autoloader takes up the rest. It was cramped as all hell compared to an Abrams. Which is cramped as it is. We eventually got rid of the bow gunner because the concept was obsolete and the bow gun weakened haul armor. Also the bow gunner was a radio operator. With advanced radio equipment you negated the need for a specific operator, with automatic transmissions you negated the need for an assistant driver who would help with shifting. The thing is manual loading will never go out of style. There are too many benefits. Not all auto systems are faster and they become especially slower if the equipment breaks. You're pretty much fucked at that point. With a manual loader if he goes down, injured, killed, what have it, The gunner can load and the TC can gun. The TC can operate most of the gun controls from his station. But with a manual loader you can get back in the fight faster. Autoloader, not so much.
I was a Abrams crewman for many years, hands down the utility of having 4 men to maintain a tank means its battle ready when its being driven a lot. Tanks fucking break a lot! I have seen a tank throw a track in waist deep mud before and it took 4 men 12 hours to fix it. 3 men just can’t do as much work as fast as 4 can. When it’s time to rest, 2 men on guard while the other 2 sleep allows a good balance of security and rest. Sleep deprivation has a very detrimental effect on proformance. A very good loader in an m1a2 Can reload the first 6 rounds in 2.5 sec’s, when I was a tank commander I drilled the loader so much they could achieve that time anytime night or day and half awake.
A human loader has more advantages, It's an extra man who can help with other tasks You bored? have a chat! Need to repair track? there! There's more but I don't want to think about them.
Mat, are you aware that there was actually ONE experimental M1 chassis fitted with an autoloader turret in its early years? They tested it out but decided to can the idea so we cannot say we have not consider adapting autoloading.On a different topic, Mat, when will you do some pieces on our ligancy tanks that heralded our own modern MBT era- the M48 and M60 series?
The first US attempt at a autoloader was with the MBT 70 which its project was shutdown and the m1 program began, it had a mishap of jamming due to them trying to use two part munitions with charge bags they tended to get caught on things or a spark in the breach would set it off of course the tank was a attempt to put the most advanced tech in the smallest vehicle and it cost way too much for the time things like composite armor, hydro suspension, autoloaders, gun launcher able to fire normal AP,HEAT, HE and guided rockets and its crew was in the turret including the vehicles driver whos viewport stayed facing forward even while the turret was turned but this caused the driver to become ill.
Most of this video is just conjecture from a preexisting bias toward manual loaders. All the of the negative aspects you listed are mostly speculation and don't have any real weight behind them.The only real argument that can be made is more hands to preform crew level PMCS which isnt so much of an issue when you consider that most auto loading tanks are pretty easy to maintain even with the reduced crew. Over the 60+ years auto loaders have been around and most of these urban myths surrounding auto loaders "unreliability" and "danger to the crew" all stem from the early model T-64 variants which had a lot of teething problems even the "exposed" ammo is and old argument at best when you consider that modern Russian designs utilize horizontal laying charges and that decrease the likelihood of a cook off as well as have an armored cover over it. Not to mention this is assuming the crew would even survive an round penetrating the turret. Also Russian tanks are pretty easy to maintain by comparison to western tanks which is why they are able to be operated by 3rd world Dindu's and Hajibob's with ease even with the "complex auto loaders". Not to mention most soviet tanks to have the ability to swap between shell type but not when a road is loaded but that is more relevant on training ranges than in actual combat because most crews would just shoot the round and load another different type of shell.Also if the auto loader was such a bad design aspect why did the Soviets and Russian federation keep the auto loader over switching back to a more conventional manual loader? >inb4 russian crews arent meant to survive rebutal Also this entire video leaves out the mention of other very successful auto loaders which have none of the historical baggage like the Russian auto loaders and have the best of both world in terms of protection and efficiency namely the bustle auto loaders on the Leclerc, Type 90, K1 and K2 tanks, Atlay, and so on.
K1 is manual. Shooting a round to clear the breech is one of the worst things I've ever heard. And it's actually cheaper to build an autoloader than train and maintain a human to do it. Turret crews generally do survive a penetration of the turret, depending on spot. In the ammo rack? On the Abrams at least, if the round is 125 or smaller, nearly always. You have a literal 2 tons of composite armor between you and that compartment, more than you have on the side of the turret (I believe) even. Cherry on top? I can outload not only a Russian outloader, but the one on the Leclerc
Autoloaders are a nightmare in every way this video describes. I actually think he’s being a little easy on the auto loader concept. And Just shoot the round and load the round type you need? You cant just expend a 125mm tank round “somewhere” in any scenario training or combat. A tank round has extreme consequences. Even the worst militaries practice some type of DFCMs and in my 9 years in Armor, expending the round in the tube just to clear the breach isn’t done anywhere on the planet unless it’s at your target (“fire, fire sabot” if you had a HEAT round in the tube) . Ask anyone who’s been on a tank anywhere in the world ever and they will tell you they’d rather have 25% more manpower than less because maintaining the beast is a majority of what you do. It’s another guy to turn wrenches, maintain weapons, and provide security.
@@mark-ti5cm citation please about auto loaders being a nightmare if they where such a nightmare then why are pretty much all next generation MBT'S going to that particular system, as for expending already loaded munitions that can be done in the rear or when the firing range goes cold with a ramrod but again this problem is only an issue with Russian auto loaders not auto loaders as a whole because Russian munitions is in two parts where as ranks like the leclerc, K2, Type 90/10 all have bustle loading auto loaders which use standard NATO shells and can be manually ejected. That being said in combat if you need to load a specific type of round innthe middle of firing which is unlikely you would likely just fire the round you already have inbthe tube at your target and just set the auto loader to select the round you want under combat circumstances fire/load/fire is still faster than eject/stow/load/fire. And again that would be a compleing arguement if Russian tanks where difficult to maintain like NATO tanks where but they arent they are able to be maintained by ISIS if that's any testimate of how dummy proof the tank is. Also most tanks now a days are maintained and worked on by the motor pool. Crews no a days have it pretty easy compared to tankers of old.
@@psychicumbreon my mistake I was thinking of the K2, for range conditions yes shooting a round to clear a round is not ideal but under battlefield conditions it IS what Russian tankers are trained to do.Fire/load/fire is still faster than eject/stow/load/fire. Also I'm sorry but your fucking full of shit the Leclerc and Type 90's governed auto loading speed is 5 seconds using auxiliary power the Type 90 and type 10 can load at 3 seconds because unlike Russian auto loaders that load projectile then propellant. The Type 90/10 and Leclerc use 1 piece ammo just like the Abrams and just shoves the whole thing in with one clean motion which is why they are so fast. That being said how fast the loader can load is kind of irrelevant anyway when you consider the time between shots is usually about 6 seconds anyways so the 3 second autoloader is kind of redundant the advantage Auto loaders provide is ironically crew survivability because a penetrating shot to either side of the turret cheeks cannot degrade or completely knock out said tank because both commander and gunner both have each others controls Not to mention that if the gunner is killed the commander can load,and fire the main gun without having to reposition themselves in the tank. If the gunner was killed in the Abrams there is a good chance the commander isnt going to make it because he would have a APFSDS hole in his groin area or it would severe his legs however if the Loader dies the commander has to crawl over the main gun to start loading and the gunner has to take over acquiring and engaging targets through his narrow field of view.
Video well thought out and objective. Any bias, if there was any, was based on observation and logic. I personally didn't detect any East vs West slant that some would like to pigeon-hole this video into. Very well done. Keep up the good work.
Everybody misses the crucial point here. The Soviets designed the T-72 with an autoloader because a tank needs 15 tons of armour per person and the human loader determines the minimum height of the tank. Consequently the T-72 is 20 tons lighter than the western tanks and more than three feet lower. And since they only need to train three crew members per tank, with 100 crew they can field 33 tanks, while NATO only 25. Add all that up, they can produce the same number of tanks from a lot less steel, and field more tanks with the same number of crew. Achieve the same efficiency in airplane, submarine and ship building and you win the war.
One thing I think you missed is that the inclusion of an automatic loader has tow benefits over a living person. No 1: the auto loader is a machine and therefore does not suffer from combat fatigue and will continue to shove rounds into the breach at the same speed over and over. A human would get tired and over time the fire rate would drop. No 2: You mentioned that humans are quicker than auto loader, in some ways I agree with what you suggest most modern auto loaders can feed a round into the breach in about 2-3 seconds providing that the ammunition in the carousel is positioned correctly. Even if it isn't the carousel is out of alignment it is still exceedingly quick. As I mentioned before they are machines not humans. Even so I do agree with your point that nations will try to downsize and autoloaders may prove more popular
Love your videos!!! The low silhouette is about survivability! Having low mass means that you can get out of places in a way that you can't be followed, or you can get into places where you are least expected. During WW2, in operation Bagration Soviets had their tanks pouring out of the swamp because T-34 was light enough. This ability to traverse such places gives you a huge advantage, and Soviet tanks were all about this ability. Soviets/Russian opinion about it is that riding in style is almost as riding dead, better cramped but alive.
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 you probably mean "wide". You are right, the wide tracks were essential for traversal for T-34. However, Tiger also had wide tracks in comparison to Panzer 3 and 4, but, it was also very heavy and its ground traversal was also difficult. The T-34 was light enough to exploit the wide tracks to the maximum. It was a huge problem for Axis powers because this tank could appear suddenly in almost any area.
My little grain against human loaders: you compare a human at his best with a machine in a relative primitive development stage. Also there hasn't been a battle where the loading speed would play any significant role. I expect robotised combat of the future to be much faster, way too fast for manual loading, aiming etc.
You kinda hit on all my points when it comes to auto loaders. I guess I'm just old fashioned, but having an auto loader, to me, is just something else to fail for "reasons" when you really need it to work. Kinda like having cars with electric windows or those flip up headlights. Sure they're convenient and neat, but when they fail they're useless.
jack5760 If people hate Russian tanks for having rounds in the hull (and for the earlier ones in the turret), it ca not be suddenly fine on western tanks. And there are documented cases where CH2s ammunition rack blew up and the whole tank with it. The only manual loading tank with actual ammunition separation is the M1. CH2, Leo2 and whatnot all have the same "problem" as the Russian/Soviet tanks.
From the mechanical labor standpoint, the auto loader will be better, for the most part. However, from the utilitarian aspect, regarding how useful a soldier is, the human will win.
Like this video????... Check out the new Challenger 2 upgrades coming to the British Army! ruclips.net/video/tK2y2dt8v38/видео.html
T-14 Armata will have a 152mm tank gun.
What a long way-Away from the first WW1 FRECH"TANK",Renault FT or the British Mark 1 TO 7,the Schneider and(ST Chamond),that amazed PATTON(who was still,at the time riding a horse...!!!!Did you know that the name"TANK"was given,because they looked,like a motorcycle tank...???Wish you'd do a vid on those first WW1 TANKS....
Elizabeth Power is all about stabilization is Main gun cant stay on target while moving ur screwed
T-14 very likely can stay on target.
Great video.
Can an autoloader make coffee ? No..? Well there's your answer :)
Márs :D Whooosh
@Márs :D r/whoosh
@@grass9465 r/whoosh
Sans Has HIV wut
Tea*
While I agree with you and prefer human loader myself, I don't think you made a fair video. You went only through the benefits of human loader, but not the benefits of autoloader.
And, it just turn into NATO manual loader vs russian autoloader. No mention of Leclerc or K2 autoloader.
@@Joseph-eh4rs I dont think that matters. They're also all allies to the US and share military technology so it should be pretty similar.
@@hyunjunpark679 every tank has the ability for an ammo cook off. If you have ammo it will explode when hit by a shell. Dont forget that allot of tanks not just Soviet/Russian dont have blowout pannels. Take for example the Leopard has blowout pannels for 16 rounds on the ready rack in the turret, while 28 rounds are located in the hull inside the crew compartment without any protection. What happens when it's hit? have a look i.imgur.com/R0WSuuk.jpg
@@hyunjunpark679 only abrams and i think the new versions of challenger have that. Many have blowout pannels, but 90% of them still have some ammo stowage positions witch are not protected.
Fair, he missed several important points for each type. I also prefer the manual loader, but it puts some major constraints on tank design, which is why so many tanks go with an autoloader now.
For the Autoloader:
1: It enables you to store ammo somewhere other then directly behind the gun. Underneath it for instance. Those huge box turrets on western tanks are required, because a loader can't be picking up 30 kg+ shells from underneath his feet, he has to get them from someplace at least level with the breech. For a remote turret design like the T-14, this is needed.
2: It can upscale to bigger guns much easier. Most western MBTs really struggle to accommodate a gun larger then 120mm, because above that you really need two part ammunition, that slows a manual loader a lot. Western tanks have very large turret rings that should be able to handle much bigger guns, but it really isn't doable relying on a person to load.
3: It can provide a constant rate of fire for much longer. I have never heard of an autoloader that can match the short term burst rate of fire of a good loader, but over a longer period, the loader is going to get tired and slow down. If you have to sling a couple dozen rounds, the autoloader can sustain that higher rate of fire that is advertised. I would still argue the initial burst is more important, because you can't keep slinging rounds if one of the first two tanks kills you.
For the Manual Loader:
1: Training. This is huge, and he didn't really talk about the value to the loader himself. It isn't just about the extra hands on the crew, it is about training new gunners. With an autoloader there is no clear path to a new gunner. The driver is in a totally separate compartment and probably asleep. A loader of today is next year's gunner, he gets to see what the gunner does, learns the priorities, and gets hundreds of hours of mentorship from the TC and Gunner both. This leads to much higher initial quality on your new gunners then you could get from some school.
2: Air guard. Typically the loader is the one responsible for keeping an eye on the sky when traveling unbuttoned. The commander is usually going to preoccupied with tree lines, and most of the time now he is going to be using the CIV for that. As great as CIV systems are, you still really need someone on top using the Mk. 1 Eyeballs to look at things like the sky, and the faces of passing farmers.
Plenty of advantages to both, it isn't as clear cut as one is better then the other. Tanks can get great use out of either option if the vehicle and military is set up to benefit from the relative advantages. I think an autoloader system would be a mistake for most western powers unless it comes with a bigger gun, but it is perfect for many nations.
"Can an Autoloader write a symphony?"
"Well... Can a loader guy do so?"
I was a gunner on a leopard. Everything you stated here, I agree with.... People who haven't lived on a tank don't know the effort and levels of maintenance involved. They don't know shit.
The "loader" called the "helper" in my language, was MUCH more than a meat-crane. Its another human brain, a radio operator, an extra guard rotation while sleeping... The list goes on, he wears countless hats.
The auto-loader is the poor mans loader... Just as with MANY robots... They are actually less impressive, but they ARE cheaper.
I NEVER ONCE had to wait for my helper... There would be NO GAIN by replacing him. Except to his mum, who could keep him home.
i not even in the good old USA Army and i agree with you completly
Rik Z Two tons of metal better spent on armour or ammunition. They are not even any faster firing because the gun rings like a bell after each shot, and if you fire too quick, the shot is seriously inaccurate.
Auto loaders are trash. Once it breaks your done if a human loader is killed you just replace him with a another crewman.
@@anubis8181 can sweep to manual if need btw no tank is invulnerable
By your utterly moronic logic, a hooker is also necessary inside a tank. And a sofa. And a wide-screen TV with an Xbox. And a swimming pool too, why not? Stick it all into the tank!
Wonder why they don't put loaders into fighter jets... Oh, maybe because unlike you, they are not MORONS!
I am T80U mechanic driver , my tank was equipped with auto loader -
1. tank can easily be operated with 2 people , driver and commander . commander can load , aim and shoot which is nearly impossible with manual loader.
2 Changing track usually done by 2 people as driver need to steer the tank ya you can use extra person but not critical.
3. manual load is a very hard job as you loading entire shell that about 50lb x 40 or 50 on them your rate of fire varies dramatically.
4. loading manual on the run and bad terrain is a pain in the A~~
5. because of auto-loader Armata now have huge advantage as a modular tank.
6. I can say on and on about loader - but bottom line AUTO=>Progress=>Speed => wining time => dead or alive
The US military had the biggest budget of any military in the world. Why wouldn't they put autoloaders in their tanks?
Sergo Pedro...What a bs
now i know why russian tanks kept getting killed in the battlefield. the commander is too busy doing other things than doing his job, the job that to be always aware of the environment! always on the look out for threats and ambushes! always in search for a possible hostile target! a commander doing a gunner's job is a blind tank
Nitono No nope iraqi tank crews were shit auto loader for me is better fuck off
US Army manual loader here. A surprising amount of training goes into lifting the 50-60lb shells and your load time ends up incredibly consistent, and US crews are literally trained specifically to outload Russian autoloaders (they load, according to US Army, in 7 seconds so we must too at slowest. I load 4.4-4.7 seconds for a APDSFS round, 4.2-4.5 for MPAT) and you don't feel nearly as much strain as you would expect. Loading on the move is more of a practice issue over a practical one. Plus, my ammos behind a 2 ton door instead of wrapped around me so in case of a hit in combat, a manual loader is safer than an auto one. In reality, it comes down to doctrine, I feel. A manual loader has more duties than just loading, which in autoloading tanks must be spread out to three crewmembers instead of four. I'm ground guide, Im in charge of maps, I do the lighter maintenance (we all do, but i do the most) and I, in combat, man both my ammo door and a roof mounted 7.62 mg. Oh, and I don't risk the gunners life more by being a massive metal, hyrdolic arm. The breech is dangerous enough, thank you.
“The most intense tank battle in history”
*looks at Kursk*
Thats the Biggest Tank Battle.
@@serenade4926 Biggest was Brody, Kursk was one of the largest, but by no means was Kursk larger.
@@whatarenames no it wasnt kursk was bigger
@@stilpa1 ruclips.net/video/nA2286viUyw/видео.html
Kursk was an operation. It was Operation Citadel, thus not a battle. Brody was a battle though, and thus was the largest.
@@whatarenames just shut up
Lol those crews inside the T-72 is having a literal fun :v
Oh yeah? #CMIIW then
Whats the name?
When it decides to eat one of the crews arms
EDWARD ROBOTNIK until they get hit . And boom goes their turret, 20 feet straight up in air
Got many time and not tired
This is age very well
Autoloaders cant fill in for the driver when he's fried and needing a break on long days and nights.
From experience, the loader is usually more tired than the driver. They get the absolute shittiest guard hours since their job isn't that technically challenging.
"Autoloader will jam, and is safety hazard while crewman loader is more reliable...." *paraphrasing here*
Really ? Then explain why so many crewman loaders lost their fingers ?
i would love to measure the Rate of Fire of a tank after an accident like that
@@jotabe1984 Probably slightly more than an autoloader when it jams.
@@mwnciboo interesting comment, autoloaders were a pain in the ass many moons ago but today not so much. In the late 1990s or early 2000s the US got their hands on a t80 autoloader and tested it extensively- they concluded in the official report that the system had a mean time before failures of 3000 rds. For reference the barrel itself on the gun is only good for 1000-1500 depending on ammo. I’d bet a lot of money that the system has been improved by now so that failure time is less, i’d also bet that if you found a loader with more than 3000 loads they’d probably have more than just 1 failure in one way or another.
Losing their finger because of how they push the shell
It's better to push by close-fisted instead of opened one
I got my fingers because I used a fist ram method, pretty simple stuff
Don't forget US Navy loves Auto loaders. It's not like we dislike them.
Yeah, for big guns auto loaders are absolutely necessary. The Russian 152mm and new Rheinmetall 130mm will definitely need autoloaders.
True all Navies do like autoloaders...but when you can have magazines 2 decks below your gun system with feedrings and autohoists, life is much easier than the confines of a tank. I had a team of 9 people servicing a 4.5" Gun
Yeah but the navy has more than one gun
@@MPdude237 well with the advance of newer and newer armors shells are only going to get larger and or more dense, I mean Russia wasn't looking at a 152 for the t14 Armada for no reason there's a reason Germany is looking at a new 130 mm gun for the leopard you can only cram so much power out of 120 mm gun and already a 120 mm shell is heavy as it is at some point we're really going to have to switch completely to Auto loaders...
So you discussed advantages of a human loader and disadvantages of the mechanical one extensively. Now, where are 2 other important parts: disadvantages of human loaders and advantages of autoloaders? Are they in a separate video or something?
Egor Kaskader good points. Maybe I was a little biased. But being as though I prefer manual loaders then that's where I was siding to. Maybe in the near future I'll do another video showing the advantages of autoloaders :-)
Thanks so much for watching! Have a great weekend!
@@_Matsimus_ Well it's not a fair comparison then, is it?
@@Xspy70 This video is literally his opinion. I know the word opinion may be knew to people like you but it's a real word
@@moussakamal1633 Really dude? Witty reply
Harris Naseem and if you send anything at an abrams you’ll get cooked. Or the leapord 4s
Autoloader sounds cool but imagen how strong you would be if you had to carry All of thos rounds
They arent that heavy tbh they have alot of weight but aftwr a while you can just chuck them about
MaB Parkour
Imagine if you were a human loader for the landkrauzer
@happy mass shooting usa Yeah they do get quite fatigued after a few reloads. Though it is very rare to shoot a lot of shots quickly in modern combat.
As a loader I defiantly prefer a Human.. I don't wan t to lose my job.
dam robots took my job
Michael C Are you going to accuse every serviceman who comments of lying?
@Nikolia Swarchiawhich word to you think he misspelled?
@Nikolia Swarchia defiantly may be what he intended. Defiance is bred in us Americans to the bone.
@Nikolia Swarchia could well be.
As a Tanker myself, I appreciate having an extra hand on the vehicle. I'm more for a human loader, but keep in mind I'm also probably a bit biased. Having that extra crew member is an extreme help when you have to do maintenance on the fly. For instance, during our last field exercise, our tank was burning oil horribly. I'd say it was burning about five to seven quarts in an hour. That is bad, especially in a turbine driven system. We also had a road-wheel that was leaking lubricant and the hub was empty. We really didn't want to shear off a road-wheel, or have our pack melt or seize up from lack of oil. So, with a short pause, myself and my loader jumped out and got to work. He filled the road-wheel, and I set to work topping off our oil. The ordeal took about five minutes, and we had the best started back up and moving. Without my loader, that would have taken me about fifteen minutes by myself. Or, even if we did still have two people, that would mean that my gunner would have had to help out with maintenance and wouldn't be providing security.
Now an autoloader that's reliable is a great thing. And there are a few countries that have really nailed it like France and Russia. However, the load times are usually much slower. As a loader on the Abrams, my usual time is around three and a half, to four and a half seconds to load. Most autoloaders that I have seen in my time take anywhere between seven to nine seconds. Seconds count. However, they will keep that steady speed whereas a human loader will get tired and start to slow up after an extended engagement.
So it's a trade off. I appreciate and prefer having an extra hand, but I can understand the benefits of an automatic system as well.
Being a Tank Commander myself, I can tell you the auto loader us by far and away the best thing ever. I have been a tank commander for over 25 years and would rather have the auto loader than a slow rookie loading. Auto loaders are better in every way
Cool story, bro.
I think you're a bit biased but that's ok (note: Dutchy, so Western myself, M1A2, Leo2 ftw!). I heard a few points on wich i kinda disagree, so i'm not trashing your vid, just want to point some things out.
First one is: if the autoloader breaks due to an impact or shock, this would take the tank out of combat. This is true, but i wonder: what is more shock/impact resistant: a loader (or any crewmember), or a MBT autoloader. A large explosive blast (artillery/bombs) would tear up flesh, eardrums etc. putting men out of action (yes, even in a MBT), a big hardened metal autoloader, not so much. The ammount of moving parts in an autoloader is quite minimal. Taking Russian design philosofy into consideration, those things are built to last (obviously they can malfunction though).
Second: So with a loader, you've got extra hands for maintanance and medical stuffs. Or a cook. Or someone that makes great coffee. And with that one man extra, you will have ''extra boots on the ground''. It's mainly the last part i disagree. If you got less men to operate a machine that is as combat effective as a machine with one guy extra, will not give you more combat efficiency. More men also means more space, that's not space in wich a dedicated machine works, no that's space in wich the loader needs to move freely and in my opinion that's wasted space. So that's a guy instead of a dedicated machine that has 1 job and thereby takes the least ammount of space: meaning, with a loader, that (''useless'') space has to be armored, increasing the total size of the tank and weight (why do you think Ruskies tanks have such small sillouettes?).
I think an automatic system that is proven reliable, will be more consistant, faster (especially on the move!!) and can make the tank smaller and lighter, meaning it will be easier to manouvre, and transport, and obviously harder to hit. Also I think it's unfortunate that you didn't mention the T-14 Armata having a crewless turret, wich gives it the exact advantages i stated above. I do think the Ruskies at the moment are a ahead if the Armata can do at least 80% of what they're stating. I think that will be a design you will see in the next Western MBT's, if they will ever develop new ones that is.
Cheers.
I agree 100% with you. I would add one thing though, and that is battle fatigue. Human loaders ussualy get tired quickly and make mistakes when are under stress or fear and naturaly that leads to lowered efficiency and drop in number of shells it can dish out through that barrel, and in confined spaces it can lead to some bad injuries (hand in breach, spine injuries and so on). Machines feel no fear...so yeah. cheers :D (sorry for bad English)
I am not biased. Its just my informed decision and opinion. I don't need people to agree with me. In fact I like it when people give me their own feedback. I appreciate that you have commented with some really good information and points :-) Thanks so much for watching!
The tone of this video is biased AF. You're not even trying to flag advantages of an autoloader.
watdeneuk if you don't like it you don't have to watch. Have a good day.
Oh no mate, i love the content, i mainly watch your channel for the non-gaming vid's. Just pointing out what i think to see. Just trying to promote some critical thinking (might have chosen not to use AF).
I recall that the first generation of Soviet Autoloaders had a bad habit of grabbing crewmen who were not paying attention and trying to shove them into the breech.
However, I would bet that drone tanks will be the future, and an autoloader will be required.
The Armata T-14 is already a Drone tank.
Well then, that proves I was correct.
T-14 is not really drone. It has 3 crewmen in it. However, Russians made it , and they are one step ahead to build robot tanks.
Nesquick Guy
T-14 turret is drone mate. It can remotely control not only by the gunner who sits in the front hull but also remotely controlled from a base miles away, just like "hence" a drone....
The T-14 is still controlled by people inside the tank. Drone tanks are definitely coming, though. The US has various remote controlled prototypes, ranging from IFVs to tanks to new unique light AFVs. They are controlled by somebody who is following the vehicle from like a kilometer out. So, I'm wondering how that will work out if you want a large drone formation. But if you think about it, we are probably not too far off from having autonomous tank drones. EDIT: Apparently Russia also has similar prototypes.
My recruiter who has been on tanks his entire 15 year career thus far stated that "Auto loaders can be noticed as either an additional round or box looking part on the rear of the turrent, hit that once and you've got an expensive tractor not a tank"
Also, a point I would like to make, I have never heard of an instance of an autoloader jamming, particularly Russian or Soviet ones, all I have heard is speculation that they will jam.
Personally, I much prefer autoloaders.
One less guy to get killed but i suppose in asymetric warfare you hardly ever lose an mbt like the abrams or challenger 2
it is usually the gun which gets jammed (the breech lock)
Crewed an MGS after crewing an Abrams. The autoloader doesnt normally jam but when it does youre out of the fight since there are a lot of moving parts and places that it could mess up. If your traditional gun breech jams up you just beat the shit out of it with a wrench and that'll free it right up. Manual over auto any day of the week.
The key word is "normally", we are not talking here about the worst case scenario. 95 out of 100 auto wont get jammed, I cannot give you stats streight away but trust me, it is very reliable and saves heaps of time when you really need time, let alone it doesnt need crew to muck around it during the combat
Wow lol. Some serious upset people over a gun being loaded my a machine or a person. Look I am not saying the autoloader is crap like some of you are trying to make me out to be saying. I'm just giving my own opinion. I may be wrong but Guys, can you please try keep it respectful. I understand you may not agree with my points And views. Thank you all for watching :-) have a great day.
Thanks for sharing your insights and don't mind the haters, some people just don't know how to have cordial difference of opinion. I often wondered why the Soviets went with such unsafe tank designs; it is as though Ford kept making the Pinto into the 90's, and over time just added a few inches of space so that is would take a 20 mph rear impact to turn it into a fireball instead of 12 mph one. However if one keeps in mind that laser range-finders and digital fire control computers did not really start appearing till the late 70's/early 80's and these autoloading designs date to the mid-60's/early 70's, it is not crazy to think the advantage of lower profile and lighter weight would be worth taking.
Because they had so many more people and their definition of acceptable loss was far different from the West.
Well in a nuclear war acceptable losses are stratospheric whether you are Western or Eastern. Also if they had so many people, and are not casualty averse, why bother with an auto-loader, the appeal of which is lowering crew needed?
I think the main advantage the Soviets sought was that the auto-loader allowed the T-72 to be relatively short for a tank (2.2m) since you did not need to make it tall enough for a loader to stand. Prior to laser range finders/computers, being about a meter shorter than the expected adversary (M60 Patton) made a significant difference to successful hit chance at 3 or 4 km range.
i atually found this quite interesting. it introduced lot of spects i wsn't awre of. on the other hand whist today their is a debat it is mostly linked to standardiztion, the advancement of technology nd combining differente technology. i'm pretty much certain that if we designe a gun and its ammo with the idea of using an auto loader it could outperform humans concistently, the awkward thing with this would then be custom ammunition.
for your point on men win war its technically true but the better the technology the more effective more the soldier the more likely they are to out perform the enemy. yes 50 untrained civilians armed with abrams tanks would not beat 50 or even 20 highly trained soldiers armed with some older inferior tank (sorry i'm not tha knowledgeable on tanks) but unless you are fighting insurgents rather than a real army that is not likely to happen,
what is your intro song? sorry its not related to your topic but this is your most recent comment from what i've seen
Great video Maximums. Ten minutes in before I forget these points:
An auto loader, especially like the one's in completely robotic turrets, with crewmembers in a separate compartment in the hull only, prevents the crew from getting caught in moving parts and exhaust gasses from the main gun without additional fume extraction. Not that venting out the gasses anyway would be a bad thing either.
Also, ammunition isolation in expendable racks that blast out of an expendable roof reloading doors to reload a section of ammunition racks at a time by crane, and different racks for different ammunition types or a smart system that can identify what ammo is placed where is possible with just a good and innovative ammunition storage unit design, that a robot can pick ammunition from.
Plus, the heaviest man many be lighter then a particular auto loader system, but requires more space asvyou mentioned, thus armor to cover said space and hence more overall weight when the additional armor is taken into account, and all the additional hassle that adding weight to a vehicle, such as a tank, creates.
Also, as you mentioned also, getting an autoloader to take out a round and change it for something else, doesn't seem like it would take any more then a simple clever design idea, like a vacuum to remove the charge and a magnet to remove the projectile.
As for speed of reloading, having watched how factory robots work in various documentaries, it's surly just a matter of time before you just blink and the robots reloaded the main gun and flip a switch to change ammo, and blink, and it's done. If factory robots can do it, why can't robots inside this particular war machine not do the same concept of fast, automated movement of an object, even it is an explosive charge and shell?
As for the repair and maintenance. That is a valid point for now, but is the same type of argument why some people choose revolvers over magazine fed pistols. With decades of tweets and testing of maximizing reliability, semiautomatic magazine fed pistols can be basically guaranteed to work when you have to pull the trigger.
So with modern computer testing, prototype testing and factory testing in a peacetime environment, wouldn't engineers worth there salt be able to iron out all of the bugs?
Also repair and maintenance teams removing and replacing damaged parts could be assigned to a specific tank platoon or company... actually that's shifting the blame and inviting lazy/irresponsible crew members to get away with things they use and should share responsibly in unkeep.... we'll see what designs people come up with and the systems of how the burden of upkeep works out I'm guessing.
Yes, an extra pair of eyes does make it easier for seeking urban enemies to be detected. Advanced technology can only go so far but yes, like with the T-14 Armata, can do things that crew members cannot, like be on 24/7. But then again, that's an addition to crew severance, in my amateur viewpoint, not a replacement. This begs the question of why not just have a drone operater / machine gun operator rather then a human reloader? Just a thought. Again great video content man. These are just my thoughts. This is not meant as a put down or anything like that.
God bless and best wishes from Ireland. :)
I'm not trying to catch you out man. I love your videos and am just sharing the thoughts I'm having while watching your great video content. :)
As an M1A1 Tanker I think a loader is essential and a four man crew is just perfect. With a four man crew you can walk track and still have a man in the TC's position to provide cover for the dismounted guys. and a fourth set of hands for general maintenance helps a lot. Considering an eight hour down time for sleep and chow that means that each crewman will be on watch for just two hours and get six hours of sleep.
1138thz yeah for those who know nothing about tank maintenance they will always say tank autoloader. Put them in a crew of a autoloader tank with a tank that has thrown a track or hit a IED and see if they want a fourth man. People just focus on the gun, it's not all about the gun. The tank has a lot more features that need extra manpower. I know life is a lot easier track bashing if you have four people. Thanks so much for watching :-)
Matsimus Gaming Thanks for the good video MG and the well executed commentary..
...And as you know if a tank starts with a three man crew and they lose a man they will have to fight the tank with a two man crew, TC and Driver. Whom so ever is in the TC's position will have to control the tanks motion, communicate with higher, search for targets, lay the gun, fire the gun..that's a lot of work for one man and of course maintenance on the vehicle all but ends And another question is who is going to make the coffee and tea when you stop to set in for the night? Go on errands? etc etc etc etc. In any case its good to talk to another Tanker :=)
Thanks for posting.
Note: I've only been on a Challenger II for a quick tour but they look like sweethearts.
1138thz Roger that man :-) have a great day and thanks for your service!!
Matsimus Gaming Thanks for your service as well. One other problem with autoloaders is that the mechanism takes up space inside the turret and limits the amount of main gun ammunition that can be carried. The LeClercs AL seems to be the best but they can only pack around 22 rounds in the autoloaders magazine. after that they have to transfer ammunition from the hull to the magazine.
I think this depends on person you talk to, 2 years ago i talked to T-72M4 CZ at NATO days in Ostrava and he told me that autoloader is always better.
- The maintenance issue is pretty much nullified by the human loaders being converted into maintenance support personnel. They're just no longer part of the tank crew.
- Manual loading suffers as the length of the battle goes on, as the human gets tired and the autoloader does not.
- Autoloader performance also increases exponentially as the size of the round increases, for the same reason. Artillery firing shot after shot of 155mm has been shown to have very significant firing improvement from using an autoloader.
- I saw an episode of Future Weapons where they covered a new towed 155mm artillery piece with an autoloader and they said it was very successful in testing in comparison with human loaders. Initially the human loaders were almost on par, but they quickly slowed from their original rate.
- I've seen modern tank designs with autoloaders that do compartmentalize the ammunition. I saw a video of a design with the ammunition in a bustle that pushed one round through the blast door at a time onto the autoloader's conveyor tube/track. The door then closes and the autoloader loads the round. I've heard of a possible modification for existing M1 Abrams tanks that would use an autoloader like this with a 34 round bustle. Aberdeen Proving Grounds also looked at a possible 46 round version of the same design for the M1A3 (new turret).
I will also say that human loaders might be the best way for loading to the cal of 120mm and below. As they "normally" doesnt weight as much. But if it gets over 120mm then an autoloading is the best because of the weight of the shells. I dont know if you can say that the Iowa class battleships (From BB-61) having semi autoloading system in their 16 inch guns. I had seen a video when they loading one of these guns, and it isnt fully on human nor mechanicly loading. I do say it is a mix of both
A potential design that I haven't seen, but could be made is one that has a three round revolver. The autoloader would load one round of each of the three types of ammunition. This would result in an autoloader design that could change ammo types without having to fire first.
Trifler500 Is that to the system that Iowa class has?
Daniel Jensen
No, that was more on my original comment and also in response to the video's concern that autoloaders can't change ammo without firing.
Nice comment, except your example of 155mm *artillery pieces*. I'm not in the military, but unless i'm mistaken, an 'artillery piece' is meant to shoot at targets long distances away, not fight other vehicles up close, meaning that the crew protection is less of an issue.
Leclerc tanks use auto loading with 3 crue men and the "loader can select the ammunition he want, till 3 differents ammunitions, so I think u need to check infos before
What he meant was: once the shell is in the barrel you can not switch (auto loader can not take the shell back)
@@hyunjunpark679 yes but we are talking before engagement
@@hyunjunpark679 they have auto eject. And are you seriosly saying you should drive around with an empty barrel?
We do have round in chamber while entering engagement area, the gun would be put on safe; usually it would be a sabot round as the computer would be indexed to such. The sabot round would punch thru softer targets but it would be easier to reload a HEAT round afterward as a follow up as needed.
Main guns were fired electrically, without a current, the gun is very safe. Loader needed to flip the safety/fire switch on before the gun could be fired. So riding into combat with a round loaded would cut down the seconds needed to load and all the loader needed to do was the put the gun in fire, plaster himself against the turret ring and yell "UP!" into the CVC.
More often than not, seconds would be lost because green loaders might forget the safety before calling "UP" after the gunner responded to TC's fire commands.
Being a new Tank Loader (in which I was selected but had never signed up for), watching this vid makes me feel a little more contented with my job. There's a lot to learn but at least it's a job that gets me my bread & butter. Thanks man .. you earned a new subscriber.
Not sure if the dislikes are for my content or for the fact they disagree with my views on the loader haha. Quite honestly, I don't give Dayum lol
A comment would do a better job of disagreeing withyou lol.
+TheKoorallchannel haha indeed. I think some people hate my channel which is fine :-) I'm not here to impress everyone lol
Btw human loader is the more convenient way in my opinion. And the autoloader has always the same reload time, whilst the human loader can give 110% if necessary.
Also, autoloaders need to be maintained, whilst a human can care for himself...
+TheKoorallchannel that's a very good point
you only have 1 dislike
0:14 that recoil punches the camera, good thing it didn't broke lol
I feel like once the 152mm and 140mm guns come into service autoloaders may become nessisary
152mm and 140mm are artillery caliber shells. And artillery currently doesn't require an autoloader
@@tsinjorasamy3852 a lot of 152mm and 155mm platforms have autoloader or are auto assisted.
@@tsinjorasamy3852 t14 is experimenting with a 152mm gun
@@shatteredstar2149 most do
Tsinjo Rasamy thats because the artillery cannons are usually stuck to the ground so the ground absorbs the shock but when ur in a cannon u feel the recoil badly plus all the sharp parts in the tank to so once the 152mm and 140mm come out I will be on the autoloader side but for now I’m with human loading.
Well, I'd like to be the devil's advocate here:
The problem when comparing the two systems is that you are looking at it from a grass root angle - the human loader is great for the reasons you listed, but they are all tactical advantages, ie advantages for the tank.
The autoloader came to be as a result of the prevailing Russian doctrine of overwhelming force - that is, the Russians wanted as many tanks as they could possibly muster, but they also had one problem: not enough men. To be able to be a tank crew member, you need to be quite short to just fit in and there aren't simply that many short Russians (this was emphazised by the doctrine of making the tanks as small as possible, to make them as hard to hit as they could ever be). That meant that there was a disparity between a) the wish to have as many tanks as possible and b) the relative short-age of men (pun intended).
And, you shouldn't forget that the Russian tanks were considered part of a warmachine, where you could easily replace a damaged or destroyed tank and where you had forward mechanical service depots deployed. All this of course changed with the fall of the communism and the Warsaw Pact, but the doctrine kind of lived on in a smaller scale - the Russians wouldn't dream of deploying tanks one at the time in a war zone - they still go for overwhelming force-
But all that said, that is why the autoloader is strategically a better choice, but tactically, a human loader is preferable.
This is amazing...I've been reading through comments on this video for the past 10 minutes or so, and I have seen nothing but respectful, well thought out, well constructed, and grammatically correct...am I still on RUclips?
Anyways, as far as I can see it, a tank with an autoloader essentially has one real advantage over one with a human loader: initial fire rate. In a straight up tank battle, a platoon of autoloaders would likely win versus a platoon of tanks with human loaders (assuming all shots from both sides are capable of penetrating) simply because of how quickly and how consistently the shots can be fired. Overwhelming force, as you said.
So basically, unless we start getting into conflicts again where tanks are slugging it out with other tanks, a human loader is the superior option because of the tactical benefits, and those tactical benefits also make the tank more flexible in combat, and the more flexible a machine or a force is, the more likely it is to win.
@@Omen_Seven,всё верно, только у нас танки измеряли дивизиями и армиями.
I found your arguments for a crewman loader being better than an autoloader thoroughly unconvincing.
Lol good for you
The future is autoloader robot tanks that are remotely controlled. The armata has a sealed of section for crew to control the tank and if the ammo explodes they are sealed from the explosion.
Yeah well, im not really a fan of USA of fucktards in Russia, but Abrams has also a sealed ammo storage to protect the crew...
The modern tanks are much safer now but the armata has a clear mobility and fire rate advantage especially when crew uses remote control. Also tanks can be smaller and more nimble and firing off plenty of shells without a crew member in the tank.
I believe the future is a composite robot and manned tank platoons which will scout and provide firepower for one another
Couldn't they make a round that cannot blow till its primed and loaded? Could also make the core round a sabot and the outer ring of the round a HE held together by 2 magnets so ammo change is possible.
The future is electromagnetic rays which is much safer and more powerful than physical projectiles. The US navy has developed a ray gun firing magnetic pulses. So tanks could revert to that as well and any shot will only perforate armor and not blow up the tank.
+Constantine Joseph How hot do you think a solid metal ball will get when it flies 12000 mph through our dense air?
I predict laser, saser, plasma and electromagnetic weapons. And forcefields and electro gravitics.
Basic logic and math is still something that's eluding majority of western mentality when it comes to this issue, while age old fallacies just keep getting endlessly repeated.
Manual loader adds minimum of TEN TONS of weight to the modern gun turret, and over one meter in height since the loader has to STAND, it's that simple.
Increased profile increases hit probability at 1km by 30%, which forces frontal armor to be even thicker.
All of this has been calculated ad nauseam by entire universities over and over again for over 70 years, and only Western propaganda is still towing the same old tired line.
All comes down to percentage of hits vs penetration resistance.
1. Do NOT get hit.
2. If hit have the lowest probability of critical damage.
3. Store the ammunition as low to the ground as possible.
Separation of ammunition into the rear of the turret does NOT mathematically lower the possibility of it getting hit, on the contrary it only increases it.
Blow off panels do NOT "save the crew" from ammunition detonation, at best they buy time for the crew to bail in case of PROPELLANT BURN OFF.
So the tank either carries only KE rounds and become entirely ineffective against infantry, or it does carry HE rounds and risks DETONATION upon ammo rack hit.
If the traditional Western rear turret ammo rack is loaded predominantly with HEAT rounds, then upon breach it DETONATES just as any other high explosive warheads do, and no blow off panels or fire walls prevent total and immediate destruction of the crew compartment.
Eastern tank design focuses on infantry support thus high percentage of HE rounds, while Western design focuses specifically on anti-tank role thus complete absence of specific anti-personnel HE rounds.
1991 Iraq war tank design comparison is false and has been proven so over and over again, it's empty propaganda that has been ignored by professionals decades ago.
What matters is how a frontal armor of the tank takes a hit, and T-90 demonstrates that perfectly right here when a TOW smacks it from point blank range right in the sweet spot;
ruclips.net/video/N9cre9GpIUs/видео.html
Crew is safe tank not penetrated, and that's all the tank armor is supposed to do, provide frontal protection.
Western tank provide the same approximate level of frontal protection, but at the expense of being almost TWICE as heavy, while providing NO additional protection when hit from the sides, as clearly shown again and again.
If the ammo rack of this Abrams was loaded with HE, it would have detonated just as ay other HE warhead;
ruclips.net/video/VWXIhXJktmM/видео.html
A hit on the rear of the Abrams turret GUARANTEES a cook off, while there are numerous videos of T type tank getting hits from 360 degrees that do not result in ammo rack ignition because it's stored on the floor instead of high up in the turret.
A side hit on the Abrams turret breaches ammo rack for an cook off;
ruclips.net/video/UEdfCw0nsoM/видео.html
A catastrophic Abrams ammo rack breach by Kornet ATGM from long range;
ruclips.net/video/-ePvNlfrxfw/видео.html
All of those are "good enough" hits that completely destroyed Abrams tanks with cheap ATGMs from the 70s, and that's all that's required, but if those ammo racks were actually loaded with HE rounds, they would have detonated just as any other ammo rack loaded with HE.
So is all that extra weight increase battle and worth it? According modern developments such as US M1 TTB and Russian T-14 Armata, no, it does not.
All tanks burn, but only the ones that carry EXPLOSIVES actually EXPLODE.
Do the math you lazy bastards!
I don't think anyone will stay in the Abrams or Leopard when the bustle rack is hit and explodes, even though part of the ammunition might still be valid, and the tank might not be destroyed, the blast compartment will likely be contaminated, and any further action might risk the lives of anyone in that tank. Regardless of that, any tank that gets effectively penetrated will likely be abandoned. Throw track whilst in combat, again the tank will likely get abandoned, except if you are "in combat".
Autoloaders have come a long way, you're only hinging on the Soviet/Russian designs, the French and Japanese have a faster autoloader mechanism, which is also far more isolated from the fighting compartment, with a smaller weak point towards the internal, compared to the huge blast doors of manual loading blast compartments. The Type 90 can reload in 3.0 seconds a gun at neutral elevation ~4 seconds if the gun needs to be corrected to neutral, similar for the Type 10. I'd like to see a human loader do that consistently and not lap loading, but abiding by the rules of blast doors closed. The other benefit is that the autoloader does not care about the tank moving, it will perform to specification, as long as the gun is in the correct position, even if the tank is driving 70km/h over bumps and ditches, while a human loader trying to load would be bouncing all over the turret.
There are certain benefits to both, another crew member is certainly one of those, but all the designs Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger, are old designs, and I doubt we will see manual loading when the new generation of tanks that should replace those comes out. You can make tanks so much smaller with an autoloading mechanism, which is one of the benefits, and most newer designs like the aforementioned Type 90, 10, Leclerc, K-2, etc. come default with an autoloader.
It's difficult to successfully penetrate an Abrams with good crewman though.
I would like to add one important advantage of the autolowder over manual loading that wasn't mentioned, averege loading rate of Soviet T64/T80 is between 7 and 9 round per minute, British Challenger 2 crue during one of the exercises reached the rate of 10-11 rounds per minute, but when the the tank is on the move (off road conditions) the manual loading rate decreases down to 2-3 rounds per minute, while the loading rate of the autolowder is not affected by the type of the pavement it's moving on. Pretty important factor in strategic fast advenses.
Fair point. Even more so with improvement of stabilizers shooting on the move in an offensive role.
I've had 4.5 second reloads consecutively on a battle run at 30 kph still better reload time then an auto loader, also an auto loader requires the breach/barrel to aline with the auto loader to load the next round, mean while a trained manual loader can load around in 4-5 seconds on the move without requiring the breach/barrel to move to allow the loading of the round
Another important point is that Soviet tanks were designed for a war with a specific enemy that has a lot of nukes and exposure to radiation is very likely. A human loader with radiation sickness would have loading times approaching 0 rounds per minute, while autoloader would not be affected. Driving a tank and aiming with radiation sickness is one thing, carrying almost 20 kg shells several times a minute is another.
it's a good point, but Soviet tanks wore all so quite advance in anti radiation equipment, filtration systems and special coatings.
to become a qualified loader you have to load quicker then a auto loader, and you get regular assessed on it
In my view, the aotuloader is what I prefer, as long as it has more armor protection from incoming rounds or even blast proof compartments.
John Orven Tano Got it right mate... Human loaders would be more hard because calibers get bigger and larger.
+Panzerreichus Holzer The tanks that have autoloaders should need to have protective blast proof flooring if you had a carousel type autoloaders found on russian tanks, also if your ammunition compartment is from the rear of the turret, just like some other european tanks, you must need a protective blast proof wall that devides between the crew compartment and the ammunition compartment in order to prevent the crew from getting killed when an incoming projectile hits the ammunition compartment.
John Orven Tano armour only as good as the maker claim..the reality is they always and will fail. being in a tank, you got to accept the fact that you will be incinerated or explode into a gas if another tank round hit you.
John Orven Tano The autoloader on the French AMX-56 and T-84M (Tropical version) are what you are thinking about, right?
Putera Usman In case of Russians tanks yes. ... But into Leclercs and Abrams tanks, shells are protected in a no oxygen hull in back of the turret.
I think autoloaders make sense for self-propelled howitzers. With 155mm guns, ammo weights upwards of over 100 pounds, while 120mm rounds typically weight 40-50 rounds. But they still need to be able to load rounds manually in the event the autoloader breaks.
I don't think the MBT is going anywhere. APCs and even IFVs aren't tanks and never will be. Railguns won't be seen on tanks until the capacitor banks can be scaled down to fit within the hull and a 30mm railgun is purely an anti-armor weapon. 120 and 125mm guns are far more versatile with APFSDS, HEAT, HEDP, HE, HE-Frag, HESH/HEP, and gun launched missiles. Electrothermal-chemical guns, of similar caliber to what is currently in use, are probably the next big thing for tank armament.
There are pros and cons to reducing the crew to three with an autoloader.
+A decrease in labor cost of 25% to keep the same size tank force or a 25% larger tank force for the same labor cost. (This alone makes it worthwhile in my mind.)
+Turret bustle autoloaders are far more space efficient than human loaders, whose workspace can take up half the turret crew compartment. Less internal volume that needs to be armored results in dramatic weight savings. This is why the Leclerc weighs upwards of ten tons less than other Western MBTs. Alternatively, that's ten more tons of armor that can be used to protect the three member crew.
+Autoloaded guns can still be manually loaded if the autoloader is out of commission.
+One less smelly person to be stuck inside a metal box for days or weeks at a time with.
-Reduced situational awareness from not having a fourth set of eyes.
-Increased maintenance duties for the three member crew.
-Manually loading the gun in a tank designed for an autoloader will be slow, as the gunner will have to get out of his seat, load the gun without much space to work in, then get back in the seat and engage the target. Alternatively, the commander can engage the target while the gunner focuses on loading, but then he isn't scanning for other targets. Either way, performance is degraded.
-One less smelly person to play cards with or bounce jokes off of.
Arguments that don't benefit either side:
Autoloaders can malfunction but human loaders can get sick or injured.
Enemy fire can disable or destroy both autoloaders and human loaders.
well I know for a fact that autoloaders can be dangerous for the crew, my fathers commander from the army lost his hand because the autoloader caught the sleeve of his uniform.This was in the yugoslavian m 84 (russian t 72) tank.
A loader can kill you too.
He can kill the commander too.
Dude...im just saying you have THE best intro ever. Everytime I see it in in more of an awe then the last time.
Excellent video! I'm a dessert storm Abrams tanker and I agree with your assessment completely. Thanks for the great video! Oh and I love how your maintenance point is illustrated by how terrible the autoloader and breach looks. It looks forty years old and has never been cleaned or touched in any way! Lol
in the future there will be only autoloaders.
1. 130mm -140mm shell´s will be to heavy for a human.
2. autoloaders can reload on the move(offroad), which mostlikley not possiable with human loader.
3. allows "crewless-turrets"
i dont think MBT´s are outdated, i think IVF´s are outdated.
You're exactly right. We'll get to the point where tanks can be controlled by one person, remotely.
they are "economically" outdated, today´s (western) IFV´s cost almost the same like an MBT.
the future lays in wheeled APC´s cheaper to maintain, better autonomy, better reliability (because most parts are comercial)... etc. +they have similiar/same weaponary today.
is the IFV concept outdated when vehicle´s/tanks will have APS in the future, i gues so... it will come down then too ballstic-protection and cannons.
sure u can protect an IVF like an MBT but then it will have the price of an MBT again and still cant
compete/kill MBT´s.
Israel is in armed-conflicts for decades and collecting combat expierience, they dont use ifv´s at all,... just "battle-taxis"
the reason for that is obviously the realtive low defencebudget.
And you will learn from the WW2 and finds out that in a real world war a goverment always thinks the human life is cheaper than the machine. Expessially the big countries...
On the contrary: MBTs are outdated. (Just like battleships after WW2.) A modern IFVs like the German Puma has all the MBT's (Leo2's) armor protection and maneuverability, while 1. it has better range and accuracy against MBTs (thanks to its Spike ATGMs), 2. it's 30mm airburst autocannon is far better against infantry, helicopters and lightly armored vehicles, 3. it can be airlifted via Airbus A400m, 4. it's infantry squadron provides great situational awareness and versatility.
1. 130mm -140mm shell´s will be to heavy for a human?
KV-2 150mm Master Race: One Minute reload.
I served as a gunner/ driver / loader on a Leopard 1 A3 or leopard C1. 4 man crew. Believe me when I say that loader is much appreciated! He helps with weapons maint, vehicle maint, radio and sentry duties and the list goes on. I also served in a Cougar AVGP crew as a gunner/ driver. The AVGP or Armoured vehicle, general purpose with a scorpion turret equals a three man crew. The boys were overworked. The differences are obvious. Only a tanker who spent time in a tank on excersize or operations appreciates the fact that a fourth man is very much needed in that MBT. Auto loaders in my view, cant really replace that human loader. Matsimus, you are doing a fantastic job! Please dont stop. I've been out of the forces since 1996 and truly miss the camaraderie and the "toys". You keep my memories vivid. Perseverance, brother.
i prefer a crewman
it doesnt let u down until gets injured/killed
but soviet mbts have auto loaders :/
Mike Lit what the fuck
**walks to factory**
the fux u duing komrads
Its a pretty genius design in the M1 round, large round and all thats left when you fire is the little end cap that falls to the floor.
Same deal with Russian tanks, only that the auto loader throws the end cap out the top of the turret
I feel like Chieftain made a pretty good and fair video about it.
There are as you said trade-offs between the types.
But here are the things about Manual Loading.
+ Loading of ammo can be quicker and ammo changed on the fly compared to autoloaders.
+ Easy to design separate blow-out compartments from them.
+ Nice one piece ammunition.
+ Additional crew member who can do other things and help.
+ Any idiot can be taught how to load a cannon.
- In order to fit extra crew-member nicely, tank must be bigger. Increasing vehicle weight.
- Will be more effected by vehicle moving through rough terrain and can be fatigued.
- Not ideally suited for loading particularly large rounds which would be better suited to being loaded by an autoloader as a multi-piece round.
It really depends on what you are looking to get from your tank, but that is generally what I see about. The Japanese Type 90 also has an autoloader with blowout compartments so that can be done and is not a thing exclusive to manually loaded tanks.
The Challenger 2 has 3 piece munition and does not have an autoloader, autoloaders do not *have* to have multiple piece amunitions.
LenChewbacca True indeed.
Which doesn't mean multiple piece munition is bad btw. Both have positives and negatives.
that is true. as for three piece, the mag for the igntion (cant remember the name of it) is a mag so its not like it needs as much reloading as the rounds themselves. but a very fair point! And your avatar made me laugh lol. but isnt that jabba :-/ lol
made the account like 7 years ago or some shit, I would remake my account but I have lots of videos in my favourites that I like.
Another point about autoloaders is that it's less heavy.
W8 w8 w8, human loaders are faster than autoloaders? That is something new to hear
Apparently its either humans are faster or on the exact same speed as an auto loader.
have you ever seen speed of t72 ub reload speed?
keep in mind nato uses smallercaliber shells
Human loader in M1A2 can load faster than AL in T-72B......but AL in Japan tank can load round two times faster
Ruslan Dimiev A2 uses 115mm instead of 125.
Also french hav AL that goes faster than human loader
Depends on the autoloader. The French Lerlec has a 13 rounds per minute autoloader.
In 2022 we learned that the autoloader doubles as a turret launcher.
You talked about the catastrophic exploison thingy on the T-72 in Iraq and that russian tank designes haven´t really focused on crew protection when it comes to ammo storage.
Ofcoure penetrating an T-72 Monkey isn´t really an art so it can happen, even if you hit frontally, that the Ammunition in the Autoloader explodes (burns up).
But do keep in min, if you have a HEAT round which can overmatch the armour this much, even in the M1 you wouldn´t be safe. (ofcourse with the Hatches closed)
Also the T-72B3s and T-90s have an armoured deck on top of the autoloader, which makes it alot harder to have an catastrophic exploison.
Ofcourse if you are going nuts and store extra ammunition in these tanks, you are fucked.
Then procceding to the next situation.
If a round doesn´t penetrate but the auto loader still gets knocked out, the Human loader also wouldn´t have a great day.
But lets say the loader got hit by spall, the autoloader wouldn´t care that much if no hydraulic or electric systems got damadged.
The autoloader will proceed as well as it did before but your injured gunner, he will struggle.
And finally.
We are all moving to bigger calibers, the germans want to upgrade their Leo´s with 130mm guns and in the Future the new German-French Tank will probably have an 140mm gun.
If you have these kinda guns, the ammo will get heavy, very heavy and a Autoloader will be much better due to the fact that it will never get tired and it doesn´t care how the tank driver fuck the suspension.
Also looking at the expirence the French had with their autoloader for the Leclerc, they love it, it will probably be an autoloader we will see in the next major wester MBT.
sry for the bad english..
Jakob Fichtinger Absolutely correct mate! You got it right! The Westerners just want to justify their human loading system which is more ineffective in terms of harsh realities of combat...
despite safety, as in this video looks like the human loaders are already difficult to handle the shell while the tank is not moving
can your autoloader be another infantryman if you leave the tank?
can your autoloader help you with maintenance tasks?
can your autoloader give you another pair of eyes looking for treats during non-combat situations?
can your autoloader be replaced by another crewmember in case of being seriously hurt?
plus the US and Germany are not moving to bigger calibers but to better ammo and longer barrels, an M829A4 can fuck 900mm of steel at 4'5 km when it's fired from a 120mm L44, the APFSDS on the russian tanks can barely do a shit over 3'5 km because the autoloader doesn't allow the cartridge to be bigger (bigger=more propellant=more energy on the projectile) due to the size limitations)
Demoblade
You haven't seen the news lately, have you?
Germany currently is working on an 130mm canon for intermediate reasons, because they don't want DU in their rounds.
The US , for whatever reason, still sticks with the L-44.
So they have to develope more sophistocated ammo.
Also i want to know the Source of your magical M829A4.
And with source i mean leaked documents.
Also keep in mind the different standards v-50% and v-80%
Well then to the fourth crewmember.
I am not against it, but if you want to stay realistic, the Autoloader has a steady output and it really doesn't give a shit how rough the ground is or how heavy the projectile is.
If, in an combat situation, the tank gets hit and one of your crewmembers gets injured, the crew will either bail out or put in the reverse and get the fuck out of there, the loader may take the LMG , but i doubt he will go load the round and then switch to the gunner seat or will take up any other seat in an combat situation, because he has to get the gun loaded if the crew is bold enough to fight with an injured crew member.
The only possible thing i can imagine is that he takes the drivers place but well in the T-72 for example your comander could do the same.
Yeah the 4th crewmember is nice in maintanance and lookoout in non combat situations but, if we look at the russians chinese and french, they manage with 3 crewmembers...
But the one thing i really agree is the limited lenght of the round in an T-72 style autoloader, but even with that limitation thr russians really manage to create great rounds with very good pen. characteristics, even if the upgrade potential is more limited than for example Leopard 2A4s.
Demoblade "looking for treats" haha! I know what you meant "threats" but it just made me giggle lol. Thanks for watching man and some very very valid points there. Hope you enjoyed the video :-) feel free to share and subscribe :-) have a great day!
Russian 125 mm gun autoloader is able to load HE-FRAG shells, unlike Western tanks. 120-125 mm HE-FRAG shells are just too heavy for manual loading.Plus literally all Russian tanks should be converted into robotic tanks in the future because of autoloader ,unlike Western ones.
Yes, the program of converting Russian military vehicles into robotic ones is on the go. Just imagine how beneficial and cheap is such converting! This is a real miracle!
The large fleet of Soviet era tanks is converting into robotics instead of being melted into a raw material. The limits of human protection has lost it's significance and the advantage of high mobility and low profile is thriving.
Important point is that after converting vehicles into robotic ones it is still can be operated by humans. This is a major demand in Russian military doctrine. Note, that autoloader is also can be operated manually in case of failure.
Not a Miracle if the Autoloader gets hit by a Rocket or a Shell. And what's the Point of Physical Training anyway when you are replacing humans with too much Tech? I'm starting to think that Machines will replace the Human Workforce.
@@diligentone-six2688 and that same shell wouldn't kill the turret crew if it penetrate the armor?
At the end of the day what do you choose, a death crew or a broken machine?
What do you public opinion would like more?
@@diligentone-six2688 A lost tank is just a lost tank. But a lost crew, that's horrible. I rather loose 10 tanks instead of one crew. Human lives don't have a price tag, tanks and other weapons do.
The HE-Frag is roughly 70lbs. It's not too heavy. It's been done manually. Fuck, loaders work out with 85lb HEAT rounds filled with sand and lead here (inert shells of course) so, I mean, it's doable.
Interesting discussion. I think the biggest drawback is the fact that you have all that ammunition in the turret, which makes for a much less survivable environment if a penetrating hit occurs. As I recall, the US was experiencing some serious reliability issues with the auto-loading system they were developing and it was then scrapped. If they get the rail-gun operational, then that will be a game changer, but it will need an auto-loading system of some sort. A human won't, in theory, be able to keep up.
I agree with one of the earlier comments, the loader is another body to help perform battlefield repairs and maintenance. Unless technology change really drastically in the next few years, loaders will still be needed in one capacity or another. I'm now going to have to do some research on this subject. On the bright side, this gives me something to do this weekend! :-)
When was the last time that a tank found themselves in such a target rich area that it was firing literally as fast as the crew could load it? Even in both Iraq wars, the M1A1 wasn't faced with such massive waves of Iraqi tanks that saving an extra 2-3 seconds on the reload ment the life or death of the vehicle and crew. The advantage of the autoloader, a couple of seconds faster reload versus a human loader, just doesn't seem like its that essential in modern conflicts. Especially if you consider how much versatility is being traded for a couple of seconds.
In my experience, pretty much every loader in my company were faster than any of the current autoloaders, by a pretty significant margin.
For a "modern conflict" against opponents with very old tech, you don't even need a MBT, so of course the reload difference isn't that important and manual loading perfectly do the job.
However, if a conflict begin between big countries, an autoloader will be a most have. Yes, it's usefull to fight multiple targets, but must and for all it gives a huge advantage in 1v1. Even if you have the first shot, nobody hit (or at least kill the target) 100% of the time in one shot, shooting the next shot a few second faster will maybe prevent the oponent to respond, and it's only one of the advantages (fire on the move more effective...)
If "big" tank battles ever happen in this type of war, this advantage could easily snowball in a crushing victory (one tank win a duel he would have lost without the autoloader, and he can help an other one to win a battle he would have lost normaly...)
When comparing a human to a machine humans are at a significant weakness physically and mentally. For example a single mishap can injure the loader or a mission that require long hours mentally humans can check out. With a machine you have none of those problems. If the autoloader breaks you can fix it within hours if not a few days. If a human "breaks" who knows who long they are out of action months if not even a year depending on the case and now you need a replacement for that crew member and the overall effectiveness is decreased significantly. Also if the trend of bigger better rounds keeps going ie. the new 130mm Rheinmetall gun then an autoloader is a must have.
I think one thing to bear in mind is that the loader choice is appropriate for the doctrine in the originating countries. In countries like USA and UK, the army is all professional, and usually has long term prospects. Therefore, you can invest in training good loaders and give them loads of experience. A rookie loader would be worse than an autoloader as they are still figuring out their job.
Russia etc has a conscription-based army on an average of about 2 years. That's two years to get basic training, tank training and actual deployment to a unit for exercises/battle! You can see why removing an individual in this situation is felt to be of benefit. I'm not saying I agree this is the right way to go - a system as flexible as a human loader is still appropriate (assuming a skill and training level allowing them to match or beat an autoloader). But autoloaders are much more valued if you do not have the peopled expertise to spare.
That is a very very good point. Never even thought of it like that to be honest! But it makes sense. I would say though that the US is going to side eventually to the autoloader systems. They are already working on it with Meggit. Thanks for the input mate :-)
Your assumption is just so wrong. My country has a conscription based army ans yet many people are making the living out of it. The army has many professionals and they are paid well, very well to be exact. All students who join military universities do not have to pay tuition fee and that's is a huge plus. And we are even poorer than the Russia. Your logic is kind of uninformed but logical from the point of view of someone who doesn't have the knowledge about the system. The conscription based military doesn't mean that you force people to join because no body wants to join, in fact our military rejects many applications every year. Bad eyesight, tatoo, etc and you are out. The military system aims to do a lot of good things but it is 1AM here and I am tired and so I would conclude my comment here.
+Thịnh Nguyễn Quang yes, but I'm not talking about the conscripts who choose to stay - they become professionals and are not the ones I am referring to. I'm talking about the many many more who cycle back out as soon as the opportunity presents itself. If you have large staff turnover in any sector, you cannot provide the level of training necessary to all staff equally, simply because there's no point spending the money on folks who won't be there. I accept that the professionals who choose to stay will be better trained and probably better paid, but there needs to be enough of them to fill the ranks before you can afford to give out as many specialised roles. And if there were enough of them, there would be no need for conscription...
You make a good point, Ghost Dog. I served as gunner/commander during the Cold War in Germany where most of the men in our unit were volunteers (3 year term of enlistment). It took two years to make a man into a good soldier, so you had him for one year before he was released. He had the option of staying on for another 3yr term, but nobody would want to remain as a loader for any longer than they had to, since it was our 'entry-level' job. There are many things even a rookie loader can do that a machine cannot, such as clearing a stoppage in a cranky coax mg, or double checking your 7.62 ammo belts before feeding into the loading trays, plus he is capable of (relatively) intelligent thought when something fails in an emergency which is something these robots cannot do. In the heat of battle I don't want to have to leave my post to go clear some mg that's playing up. That said, I did have one cranky loader I would gladly have traded for a machine!
BTW-- With our good loader we could fire 15 accurate rounds per .minute.
80 ] Ah, but that was 50 years ago, and I expect that robotics have come a long way since then.
Ein Prosit!
Thank you for your service. If this was a manual loader, I can assume your service was with west Germany??? What tanks did you learn your trade on? What did you think of the soviet equipment of the time? What was the tank 'over there' that you were most afraid of (based on the data available at the time)
2:58 human loaders are lighter, but are **NOT** faster - to start with, and are subject to fatigue making them even slower.
3:55 they keep these blast doors open because in a battle it's too much hassle to open and close them all the time.
Hell no! What is shown in this video is pathetically slow and sloppy. Keeping the blast door open, not an option
auto-loaders are not only efficient but also a necessity when you have LIMITED MAN POWER resource.
A unit consisting of 21 trained people will fully crew 7 tanks (speaking about russian designs of 3 crew)
A unit consisting of 21 trained people will fully crew 5 tanks (speaking about US designs of 4 crew)
That's 2 extra guns (firepower) for the same amount of people.
Also, the auto-loader allows for manual loading as well. A malfunctioning auto-loader does not mean the tank is useless, AT ALL. THAT's why the rounds are stored in the crew compartment in the earlier russian MBTs.
ALSO, a loader fixing the track and so on and then getting fatigued back in the turret, loading rounds will be LESS EFFECTIVE.
Not to mention if he drops the round inside the turret because of fatigue...
There's so many other factors that you did not mention, at all, so i give you a dislike. You're obviously biased in this video and you're not objective. before making such videos consider ALL the facts or at least try covering them ALL.
I think tank production is more a limiting factor than available man power for most nations.
Fatigue can be an issue, but usually you wont fire a massive amount of rounds for an extended time and you can also catch your breath in between firefights. You wont go fixing a track, loading all your shells in the tank and then be in a 20 minute long firefight. Manually loading when the auto loader breaks is far from ideal aswell, you take either the gunner or TC away from his job, the turret might not be good room wise to load shells manually and reaching them can be difficult aswell. And depending on the autoloader a malfunction could make the loading impossible. Not everything is perfect with either system.
For a smaller task force I agree, if you are very limited on manpower then an auto-loader will allow you to have more tanks. But then again nations such as U.S., UK, Germany and so on have lots of man power so that isn't an issue, and if your nation can't get enough people to have manual loaders then you should question your ability to fight anything. :P
You can't really manually load a auto-loader (a Russian one at least, but most other nations use manual loader) if it breaks down, it uses two piece ammunition (projectile and propellant stored separately) that needs to get pushed quite deep into the gun. Not to mention it's a bigger paint in the ass because of how the ammo is stored, it's not really meant for a human to use, it's for the arm(s) that the auto-loader consists of, also either crew member is sitting down and facing forward, making it harder on top of that. So no you can't manually reload it and if you somehow can it will take FOREVER to reload, wont be getting anywhere near the 7 second loading time functioning auto-loaders have. At this point you might as well run away (if you can) and fix the auto-loader, then return to battle.
With an auto-loader the crew would be even MORE fatigued after having to fix the track or something prior to an engagement, since there is not an extra helping hand, so this argument kind of goes against it self. Loaders are also physically fit and I don't think fixing the track prior is enough to make their arms give way when holding a round and putting it in.
Actually, the simple fact that an Autoloader makes the tank WAY more vulnerable already makes up for the lack of firepower. Regular Man-loaded tanks store ammo in a separated armored compartment, making it getting ammo racked way harder. Sometimes numbers just don't work with efficiency.
Mr.Fluffybutt Gaming "With an auto-loader the crew would be even MORE fatigued after having to fix the track or something prior to an engagement, since there is not an extra helping hand, so this argument kind of goes against it self."
You mean that an auto-loader will be fatigued because the driver, the gunner and the commander are fatigued?
Do you even logic?
How is gunner, driver and commander fatigue compared to HUMAN LOADER fatigue?
Because maintenance tasks on a tank are heavily manpower intensive. Have you ever broken and replaced track? I have and it's heavy, hard work. And when you only have 3 men vs 4 to do the work, that equates to greater crew fatigue as you have one less man to help spread the work around.
The downsides of a human loader I think far outweight the upsides in a war of attrition where the human cost is weighed far more heavily in modern warfare. As such the Russians are smart to go to the T-14 Armata. Your video fails to mention that the T-14 compensates for less situational awareness by combining a huge range of advanced motion detecting sensors that can distinguish between and alart the crew to human and vehicle threats in the vicinity of the tank. This is something that the Russians have been working on for decades far more than the U.S. has. There is a famous video in Iraq for example of a insurgent low-crawling under a Bradley IFV to put an IED right under it without the crew being aware of it due to a total lack of security sensors of the type commonly equipped or dispersed by Russian tanks since the late 1980's after their experiences in Afghanistan with stationary tanks being stealthily assaulted by Mujhadin sappers.
I also don't see tanks going away nor the main gun being replaced by missiles. Why? Simply because advances in active defense systems like the Trophy and later models of the Arena (still in prototype stage) indicate that ATGM's will be easily countered on the modern battlefield by either passive or active defense systems. SABOT rounds however are moving at such a velocity as to render such systems ineffective as they can not react fast enough. As such the Russians have the advantage in their later model Kaktus and Relikt ERA that are designed to also disrupt high velocity SABOT rounds.
Now granted NATO forces may have some similar ERA that is still classified (I sure as hell hope so) but we overall seem to be behind the curve in that area. Likewise with passive anti-ATGM systems.
Again...this may be due to excellent security measures on our defensive systems.
Still.... that being said.... the T-14 Armata since the first time since the introduction of the T-72 (over the M-48/M-60 Patton series) represents a qualitative advance over current NATO armored vehicles especially regarding how this series is cost effectively transformed into heavy IFV's with similar armor and defensive characteristics but with the ability to carry infantry, use heavy ATGM's, and protect the T-14's and other tanks from infantry threats via auto-cannons and other weapon systems that can be adapted to the remote turret.
The only Western forces that have adopted this theory of warfare are the Israeli Defense Force with their Centurion based Nagpadon's and Puma heavy APC's, Achzarit T-55 based heavy APC's, and their latest Merkava Mk4 based Namer Heavy IFV's fitted with even more armor protection than the Mk4 Merkava that they are based off of.
The U.S. Army has taken note and is actually testing the Namer Heavy IFV/APC as a possible successor to the Bradley series of IFV's or as a specialized "heavy mechanized" IFV designed for shock troop spearheads through heavily defended points along lines defended by a modern enemy. They would include the Trophy system as extra added insurance.
However....currently.....the Russians are slightly ahead and have accounted for defending against all known NATO armored threats.....thus shifting the debate over to that of artillery, air-defense, and air-superiority dominance. Currently even their export model T-90's have managed to survive a frontal hit by tandem warhead TOW-2 ATGM's in Syria (with their Shtora system turned off). That should give NATO a HUGE reason to worry given that this is older 90's era technology at work and NOT the latest generation of ERA or passive/active protection systems that the Russians are not eager to trot out quite yet.
Hmm.... these sensors are fine - provided they work, which is doubtful in a situation where several are so mad that they resort to fire real bullets at you. Not to mention they have to work and be repaired in pouring rain in mud.The reason the Armata use the reduced crew is probably more because they can't get the personel to staff even a moderate force. You can take in conscripts to work tanks, but that is generally a way to get yourself killed.Again the reliability of Russian equipment and manufacture .....? That does in itself put limitations.Two Swiss soldiers stole my Russian watch - or was it the other way round?
Thomas Borgsmidt Unless you have data to back up that assumption. it is only a theory.
The Russians don't like Swiss precision. They generally make things that simply work and that are robust on the battlefield. The T-14 is going through teething stages as all new tank designs do, but from I can tell, the sensors look modular and easily replaced on the battlefield if damaged. The massive decrease in cost for such sensors and cameras (that these days can and ARE made in China dirt cheap) means a boon for Russia who has good relations with China. Granted they likely reserve the manufacturing ability to stay within Russia, but most likely they rely heavily on Chinese components. If implemented correctly into modular components, such technology CAN be very soldier-proof if it's made cheap with simplified replaceable components to maximize battlefield repair efficiency.
But like your theory, mine is also just a theory.
Come on You fool! The maximum range applicable in Europe is 1 mile. There is such things as trees. buildings. hills and rocks that get in the way of the situation to be aware of! On the other hand. Increased effective range of guns etc. makes for more dispersed formations. I.e. there is much less situation to BE aware of. The Russians are caught with a medium tank as the T-72 (in various updated forms and variations): but it has little operational mobility. On the other hand Strykers (in various shapes and forms) are coming into the Nato inventory - cheaper, faster and roadworthy. They will simply outrace the Russian tanks and wait till they are stuck in the mud, then attack them from behind as they are out of supplies. The majority of the German Tigers in the West were demolished by their own crew.
wigon stop being so butt hurt
supporting your comments about the benefit of an extra body - Swedish S-tank started as autoloader with Cmdr + driver (either of whom can aim & fire - no gunner) - then decided to add a 3rd crew as wireless operator for reasons you mentioned (spare hands, situational awareness, maintenance etc)
Just put a T-800 as a loader. It's both a machine and man so both sides are happy :)
HAHAHAHA!!
Commander- "Loader, load HEAT!!"
T-800 Loader - "No problemo"
Why bother put a T-800 in a tank? Just load it up with multiple laser cannon and missile launchers, it becomes more deadly than an MBT. And it can climb stairs in urban environment whereas tanks can't.
Pandacat80 But tanks are sexy.
+Pandacat80 haha are we actually doing this lol!!
Ok but put it like this, the T-800 range can't be as far as a tank purely for the fact it's pea sized eyes probably can only see a couple of Km's where as a MBT can engage up to 5000m ;-)
Plus lasers only work against metals and such, they would maybe fail against ceramic plates armor lol. And the Tank T-800 loader would just hold up a big mirror and reflect it back haha
Autoloaders that load from an armored magazin/bustle exist in service. Japanese Typ 90 (and Typ 10 most likely), French Leclerc. The AMX13 and IIRC Swedish Strv 103 use drums, those from the AMX are in the bustle. The loader tested in a Leo2 prototype also loaded from a bunker
This may not be a viable solution, but why not have both an autoloader, which has the possibility of working faster than a human and does not fatigue like one, AND a fourth crew member to serve as a dedicated engineer? Best of both worlds, right?..
Right?
Hidden from View right!
my thinking exactly, all you then need to do is make sure to have a backup system where if the autoloader fails for some reason you can still manually reload. Best of both worlds.
To be honest though, a lot of the arguments he did in the video were mostly nonsense and/or baseless assumptions. autoloaders are in general better in most cases. But you know how it is, militaries arent known for adopting new and better stuff quickly, they like to cling on to their old ways.
Im noticing at some shots of the video inside the tank that he's pushing the ammunition inside the barrel..
Cant he's hand get crushed or the ammunition slide longer than its supposed to?
MultiGamerClub the rim on the end of the shell casing stops the shell from going too far
MultiGamerClub lol I was thinking the same thing.
Re: MultiGamerClub... That is why loaders have ALWAYS been taught to load rounds into the breech with their fists, and not open palms, so as not to have fingers accidentally caught by the quick snapping breech blocks! They were also discouraged from wearing rings and watches for fear such might get caught somewhere in crowded turrets; whether those were real dangers for crews or not I could not verify but I have smashed a couple of good watches myself simply because of being surrounded by nothing but metals inside turrets.And no, rounds could not be pushed too far into the chambers as the casings/charges are of different dimensions than the actual projectiles. BTW, on having a live loader as part of the crew, I bet you autoloaders cannot extract a misfired round like a loader could!!! I have experienced main gun misfire and such a dangerous job of extraction is best left to a human being, thank you.As to human fatigue for loaders, how many actual engagements would need 20-30 rounds to be loaded continuously!!!? If that is such a case, yes, an autoloader would not get tired like a human. But so far, multiple targets engagements would require 1-2 rounds per, and that adds up to not a whole lot of loading, with stops in between for gunners to acquire and engage. I was a unit commander and I have served in all the crew stations on tanks, and yes, we cross trains our tank crews as much as possible. The newest members to any crew would start off as a loader, then, onto being a driver and finally, gunner/TC. Try and cross train an autoloader then?My thoughts on the new Armata, the concept might be great but I feel that having all three crew inside the protective section in the belly of the vehicle eliminated one of the most important aspect of target engagement- that of situation awareness. Depending completely on electronics that could be damaged in battle leaves one without the Mark-1 eyeballs that a TC could use to scan from the much higher elevation of the turret. I could be very wrong but having been a TC, I knew nothing could beat having my head popped up over the TC hatch to scan before dropping back down.Please, don't flame me as these are just my own opinions from experience. Thanks.
@@cav1stlt922 Check out the American and British tank destroyers of WW2. They had an open top because they thought that keeping track of what was going on around them was more important than being down inside a tank. It's popular to diss the Sherman but it was never intended to go against other tanks. Even a modern tank when buttoned down has a lot of blind spots.
Re: John Kendall... that was another era, another time. We don't have tank destroyers anymore, nor do we have heavy or light tanks. Tank destroyers were lightly armored too, with thin turret sides and opting for speed and agility for protection. No overhead protections against arty, some units have fabricated make-shift turret armors because of it. There will always be blind spots on tanks, funny how German armors have rear view mirrors while we don't, and relied completely on dismounted crew to guide us in or out of positions.
It would be interesting if we came back here, say 20 years later, and read the comments again.
As a former TC and PL in an ARNG tank company, I'll pit my human loaders against ANY mechanicals any day for speed.
*John Henryness Intensifies*
@@roadhouse6999 Seriously, comparisons were made between autoloaders versus manual loading. A good human loader can average 2-3 seconds faster than an autoloader counterpart.
C Es
Damm skippy!!!! No autoloader for me.
And now compare with Armata or MSTA-S autoloaders not some post-soviet tank in China.
He made that on purpose to make NATO tanks look better. IMO Abrams, Leopard II are old, outdated and both Germany and US have no money to invest in new tanks.... The Russian Armata T14 tank is basically a Tank with a Robot turret with extremely efficient and fast autoloader. But who cares right? if its not made in the good "western civilization"
Well, Russians are not known to make advanced tech very well or be good at anything involving computers.
Armata is too new, not much info and experience about it anyway, moreover Abram is made to fight with T90, not Armata. Still, I think 4 people better than 3, tanks are not just about how fast you can fire with main turret.
Do people actually comparing Abrams to Armata? O_o
Well, the Armata got stuck in the presentation (2015, the March for the victory of WW2). Don't get me wrong, but I think the Armata won't be that good as many People say. Only if you see that Russia is broke, even their last airplane carrier is breaking down, and in such a Situation they can't afford high tech in high Quality. Taht#s my personal opinion.
When you mention that extra crew is a bonus for maintenance, its also a hindrance when the tank gets hit and causes extra needless casualty (possibly). Its also extra mouth to feed etc. etc.
An auto-loader dont suffer from fatigue, stress, injuries. Automation is always a step forward
But an Autoloader can suffer from Malfunction or enemy Fire. Only a Human can Repair that.
@@diligentone-six2688 and so does a manual loader suffering from injuries or enemy fire, and only a human too can fix him up. your argument isn't exactly sounding
I am pro autoloader. It is difficult to load manually when tank going on rough terrain, what if you hit something with HE round fuze. Also you need less crew member and if autoloader fails you can load manually.
Do you have any source of that happening? A tank being destroyed by the loader bumping the HE fuse into something? How often does such a thing happen?
Loader human: I was in Cav in the Australian army and same again with the Frenchies and often worked with tanks regiments or acted as enemy. (I was recon trooper and later life anti char with a Milan on the ground). After the military I helped rebuild Centurion medium tanks for a friend with a paint ball/team building business to run people around on and those machines need a lot of maintenance. Having that extra person on board when running tracks on and off, changing links makes life way more easy, although when with a troop you often do this together.
I've always liked the auto loader concept but isolating it from the turret is a must for smaller armed forces as the crew, with their experience, is the most valuable thing on board. As you say "smaller" is what is coming and I think drone machines are likely to have a lot more presence on battlefields in the future as digitisation has meant systems have reduced to about 1/3 there size in the past 15 years. Perhaps a tank group will have only 1 human present, per 3 tanks perhaps, to control them with automated intelligent systems that learn.
On the current generation of tanks my vote is for the human loader.
0:41 song name please?
Yeah, name of song please.
I liked the video, especially the interior footage from different tanks. Would be even more informative if you could add a small info label with the tank designation the first time each type is shown. I only recognised the Leo2 S interior myself from recognising the unique Swedish bdu-fractal pattern.
Most of the human loaders was inside an M1A2. It had the most room. The one with the sloooow loader was a Leo 2. The rusty looking tank with the auto-loader was a T-72.
Wesley Shirley Probably a T-72 from a Eastern Block nation other than; Russia, Poland, and Hungary . . . wait that was definitely a Asian crewing the tank we think is a T-72.
That explains why it is rusty and somewhat degraded. It isn't a Russian or Eastern block T-72, or a newer/modernized T-72.
@@coraline7866 Could be Syrian T-72
I'll tell you a little story as a US Army tanker. The human loaders are needed to load the round in 7 seconds or less or you are a NO GO in that station. Because a autoloader loads a round in around 7 seconds. On my crew, our loader was an absolute god. There is an engagement during gunnery that is a three target set up. We shot that engagement in just a hair over 9 seconds. That is a 3 second load time per round...armed and ready to fire. He was so fast that he beat the gunner from target to target, and so fast that I drove blind for most of it. When the tank fires at night, the flash shuts off the drivers sight for a second or two and then fades back on. The crazy part about it was he did all 3 rounds with one hand and holding a Monster in the other hand. Granted he might not have let the ammo door shut all the way before arming...We shot that engagement so fast, that it earned us top tank crew of my squadron and we all got ARCOM's. An autoloader would never ever be able to do something like that. Human>Tech any day in war. TV can say whatever they want...the ones actually doing it know what works and what doesn't
nice video , the intro tho ;))) it's so nice
World'sFame Play'z do you know what song he used?
well can't you have the same ammount of ppl man more tanks if they were autoloader?
It's not necessarily about more tanks or anything else like that. You've also gotta look at crew progression, and the stark advantages to having a human loader. It goes way beyond load gun go boom. You have vehicle maintenance, which is constant. Also, having those extra soldiers in a platoon gives added individual combat power, added situation awareness, and added body to conduct unit details. Combat, if we ever see it, is like...1 percent of our job. The rest is maintenance, training, maneuver, and standard army tasks like extra duties for the higher unit. Such as giving up bodies to go assist the cooks, or assist supply, or assist 1 of the hundreds of other tasks needed to run a military. If you reduce the number of crewmen in a tank, reduce the number of infantrymen per squad and platoon, reduce the number of soldiers all together than you simply have less people to do all of these tasks, at the end of the day, that's what we care about. Not who, or what, or why a round gets into a gun tube faster.
I don't think you answered his question. Why couldn't you still have 4
crewmen in a tank with an autoloader, with the "loader" operating a
MG, providing another pair of eyes, assisting maintenance, etc., the
way tanks used to have a bow gunner and a 5 man crew?
The way I understood his question is if you had tanks with autoloaders, but the same amount of people per platoon, you could have more tanks per platoon. Like instead of 4 tanks with 4 crewmen per tank, you could have 5 tanks with 3 crewmen per.
What that comes down to is US Army Armor doctrine. We moved away from the 5 tank platoons down to 4. We mostly did this to cut costs. But as it turned out maneuver formations were easier.
In an autoloader tank there is practically no room for a 3rd man in the turret. the autoloader machinery takes up enormous space. I've been inside two autoloader tanks. the T72 and the Japanese Type 90 (I believe) it was a Japanese tank. Lol. Well the turret only has space for two crewmen because the autoloader takes up the rest. It was cramped as all hell compared to an Abrams. Which is cramped as it is. We eventually got rid of the bow gunner because the concept was obsolete and the bow gun weakened haul armor. Also the bow gunner was a radio operator. With advanced radio equipment you negated the need for a specific operator, with automatic transmissions you negated the need for an assistant driver who would help with shifting.
The thing is manual loading will never go out of style. There are too many benefits. Not all auto systems are faster and they become especially slower if the equipment breaks. You're pretty much fucked at that point. With a manual loader if he goes down, injured, killed, what have it, The gunner can load and the TC can gun. The TC can operate most of the gun controls from his station. But with a manual loader you can get back in the fight faster. Autoloader, not so much.
The only reason the turret was cramped was not because of the autoloader but because the tanks were supposed to have a low silhouette
Oh and killing a human is probably easier than killing an autoloader
I was a Abrams crewman for many years, hands down the utility of having 4 men to maintain a tank means its battle ready when its being driven a lot. Tanks fucking break a lot! I have seen a tank throw a track in waist deep mud before and it took 4 men 12 hours to fix it. 3 men just can’t do as much work as fast as 4 can. When it’s time to rest, 2 men on guard while the other 2 sleep allows a good balance of security and rest. Sleep deprivation has a very detrimental effect on proformance. A very good loader in an m1a2 Can reload the first 6 rounds in 2.5 sec’s, when I was a tank commander I drilled the loader so much they could achieve that time anytime night or day and half awake.
A human loader has more advantages,
It's an extra man who can help with other tasks
You bored? have a chat!
Need to repair track? there!
There's more but I don't want to think about them.
Mat, are you aware that there was actually ONE experimental M1 chassis fitted with an autoloader turret in its early years? They tested it out but decided to can the idea so we cannot say we have not consider adapting autoloading.On a different topic, Mat, when will you do some pieces on our ligancy tanks that heralded our own modern MBT era- the M48 and M60 series?
The first US attempt at a autoloader was with the MBT 70 which its project was shutdown and the m1 program began, it had a mishap of jamming due to them trying to use two part munitions with charge bags they tended to get caught on things or a spark in the breach would set it off of course the tank was a attempt to put the most advanced tech in the smallest vehicle and it cost way too much for the time things like composite armor, hydro suspension, autoloaders, gun launcher able to fire normal AP,HEAT, HE and guided rockets and its crew was in the turret including the vehicles driver whos viewport stayed facing forward even while the turret was turned but this caused the driver to become ill.
+Matsimus Gaming I was wondering if you could do a follow up on what you see the future of armored warfare/combined arms.
Most of this video is just conjecture from a preexisting bias toward manual loaders. All the of the negative aspects you listed are mostly speculation and don't have any real weight behind them.The only real argument that can be made is more hands to preform crew level PMCS which isnt so much of an issue when you consider that most auto loading tanks are pretty easy to maintain even with the reduced crew. Over the 60+ years auto loaders have been around and most of these urban myths surrounding auto loaders "unreliability" and "danger to the crew" all stem from the early model T-64 variants which had a lot of teething problems even the "exposed" ammo is and old argument at best when you consider that modern Russian designs utilize horizontal laying charges and that decrease the likelihood of a cook off as well as have an armored cover over it. Not to mention this is assuming the crew would even survive an round penetrating the turret. Also Russian tanks are pretty easy to maintain by comparison to western tanks which is why they are able to be operated by 3rd world Dindu's and Hajibob's with ease even with the "complex auto loaders". Not to mention most soviet tanks to have the ability to swap between shell type but not when a road is loaded but that is more relevant on training ranges than in actual combat because most crews would just shoot the round and load another different type of shell.Also if the auto loader was such a bad design aspect why did the Soviets and Russian federation keep the auto loader over switching back to a more conventional manual loader? >inb4 russian crews arent meant to survive rebutal
Also this entire video leaves out the mention of other very successful auto loaders which have none of the historical baggage like the Russian auto loaders and have the best of both world in terms of protection and efficiency namely the bustle auto loaders on the Leclerc, Type 90, K1 and K2 tanks, Atlay, and so on.
K1 is manual. Shooting a round to clear the breech is one of the worst things I've ever heard. And it's actually cheaper to build an autoloader than train and maintain a human to do it. Turret crews generally do survive a penetration of the turret, depending on spot. In the ammo rack? On the Abrams at least, if the round is 125 or smaller, nearly always. You have a literal 2 tons of composite armor between you and that compartment, more than you have on the side of the turret (I believe) even. Cherry on top? I can outload not only a Russian outloader, but the one on the Leclerc
Autoloaders are a nightmare in every way this video describes. I actually think he’s being a little easy on the auto loader concept. And Just shoot the round and load the round type you need? You cant just expend a 125mm tank round “somewhere” in any scenario training or combat. A tank round has extreme consequences. Even the worst militaries practice some type of DFCMs and in my 9 years in Armor, expending the round in the tube just to clear the breach isn’t done anywhere on the planet unless it’s at your target (“fire, fire sabot” if you had a HEAT round in the tube) . Ask anyone who’s been on a tank anywhere in the world ever and they will tell you they’d rather have 25% more manpower than less because maintaining the beast is a majority of what you do. It’s another guy to turn wrenches, maintain weapons, and provide security.
@@mark-ti5cm citation please about auto loaders being a nightmare if they where such a nightmare then why are pretty much all next generation MBT'S going to that particular system, as for expending already loaded munitions that can be done in the rear or when the firing range goes cold with a ramrod but again this problem is only an issue with Russian auto loaders not auto loaders as a whole because Russian munitions is in two parts where as ranks like the leclerc, K2, Type 90/10 all have bustle loading auto loaders which use standard NATO shells and can be manually ejected. That being said in combat if you need to load a specific type of round innthe middle of firing which is unlikely you would likely just fire the round you already have inbthe tube at your target and just set the auto loader to select the round you want under combat circumstances fire/load/fire is still faster than eject/stow/load/fire. And again that would be a compleing arguement if Russian tanks where difficult to maintain like NATO tanks where but they arent they are able to be maintained by ISIS if that's any testimate of how dummy proof the tank is. Also most tanks now a days are maintained and worked on by the motor pool. Crews no a days have it pretty easy compared to tankers of old.
@@psychicumbreon my mistake I was thinking of the K2, for range conditions yes shooting a round to clear a round is not ideal but under battlefield conditions it IS what Russian tankers are trained to do.Fire/load/fire is still faster than eject/stow/load/fire. Also I'm sorry but your fucking full of shit the Leclerc and Type 90's governed auto loading speed is 5 seconds using auxiliary power the Type 90 and type 10 can load at 3 seconds because unlike Russian auto loaders that load projectile then propellant. The Type 90/10 and Leclerc use 1 piece ammo just like the Abrams and just shoves the whole thing in with one clean motion which is why they are so fast. That being said how fast the loader can load is kind of irrelevant anyway when you consider the time between shots is usually about 6 seconds anyways so the 3 second autoloader is kind of redundant the advantage Auto loaders provide is ironically crew survivability because a penetrating shot to either side of the turret cheeks cannot degrade or completely knock out said tank because both commander and gunner both have each others controls Not to mention that if the gunner is killed the commander can load,and fire the main gun without having to reposition themselves in the tank. If the gunner was killed in the Abrams there is a good chance the commander isnt going to make it because he would have a APFSDS hole in his groin area or it would severe his legs however if the Loader dies the commander has to crawl over the main gun to start loading and the gunner has to take over acquiring and engaging targets through his narrow field of view.
Video well thought out and objective. Any bias, if there was any, was based on observation and logic. I personally didn't detect any East vs West slant that some would like to pigeon-hole this video into. Very well done. Keep up the good work.
I laughed when I saw the bullet that had eat this written on it😂😂😂😂
Everybody misses the crucial point here. The Soviets designed the T-72 with an autoloader because a tank needs 15 tons of armour per person and the human loader determines the minimum height of the tank. Consequently the T-72 is 20 tons lighter than the western tanks and more than three feet lower. And since they only need to train three crew members per tank, with 100 crew they can field 33 tanks, while NATO only 25. Add all that up, they can produce the same number of tanks from a lot less steel, and field more tanks with the same number of crew. Achieve the same efficiency in airplane, submarine and ship building and you win the war.
Autoloader has its perks, but a human crewman is my preferred choice, extra crew means extra hands, extra cover and a extra set of eyes.
about time tanks had lasers.pew pew
Agree
ajjajjajajajjajajjajajajjajaj
No, still prefer The Tank Rounds we have today.
I like "BOOOM" style
Lasers are concerntrated, the benefits can turn to disadvantages very quick
One thing I think you missed is that the inclusion of an automatic loader has tow benefits over a living person.
No 1: the auto loader is a machine and therefore does not suffer from combat fatigue and will continue to shove rounds into the breach at the same speed over and over. A human would get tired and over time the fire rate would drop.
No 2: You mentioned that humans are quicker than auto loader, in some ways I agree with what you suggest most modern auto loaders can feed a round into the breach in about 2-3 seconds providing that the ammunition in the carousel is positioned correctly. Even if it isn't the carousel is out of alignment it is still exceedingly quick. As I mentioned before they are machines not humans.
Even so I do agree with your point that nations will try to downsize and autoloaders may prove more popular
Like I said, I wasn't trying to make comparisons so much to what is "best" it's just my take personally as to why I like and prefer manual loaders.
In most modern tanks, if not all, stored ammunition will be used up before loader fatigue becomes a factor.
+Timothy Sielbeck that is true
loader fatigue? all that means is that the loader needs to go to the gym more.
Damn straight.
Love your videos!!!
The low silhouette is about survivability! Having low mass means that you can get out of places in a way that you can't be followed, or you can get into places where you are least expected.
During WW2, in operation Bagration Soviets had their tanks pouring out of the swamp because T-34 was light enough. This ability to traverse such places gives you a huge advantage, and Soviet tanks were all about this ability. Soviets/Russian opinion about it is that riding in style is almost as riding dead, better cramped but alive.
Though the T-34 had average medium tank weight, maybe it's also for it's thick tracks to thank for?
@@EdyAlbertoMSGT3 you probably mean "wide". You are right, the wide tracks were essential for traversal for T-34. However, Tiger also had wide tracks in comparison to Panzer 3 and 4, but, it was also very heavy and its ground traversal was also difficult.
The T-34 was light enough to exploit the wide tracks to the maximum. It was a huge problem for Axis powers because this tank could appear suddenly in almost any area.
Armata overcomes every issue you have with autoloaders apart from changing ammo without firing.
Too bad the Armata is total shit. Doesnt even keep running on parades :D
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe a guy who has a anime picture as their avatar to know anything about warfare?
Fucking weeb.
Do they have redundant systems in case of a failure? Arm-chair Generals don't seem to factor in equipment failures.
@@eltouni thinks like that happen all the time for every vehicle type from every possible country.
@@kurosumomo the incident has already been cleared up, the breaks on the tank were on, took them a while to realize that.
7:32 russian tenk boi
kazakh*
My little grain against human loaders: you compare a human at his best with a machine in a relative primitive development stage. Also there hasn't been a battle where the loading speed would play any significant role. I expect robotised combat of the future to be much faster, way too fast for manual loading, aiming etc.
An auto-loader never stood watch or helped change a track/engine.
I think people have enough technology for making a rc modern battle tank
It can be expensive but it can save 4 people's life
Another great video. You always do a great job your arguments are well thought out and presented. Thank u
"Lol my tank dont have a gun."
-armored car owner.
History Teacher: we are going to learn how to load a tank! :D
Girls: ugh my hand is dirty
Bois:
QwakyTaky i wish
yeah yeah funny boys are so cool girls are girly what’s the fucking joke?
@@abramo7700 r/whiteknight
You kinda hit on all my points when it comes to auto loaders. I guess I'm just old fashioned, but having an auto loader, to me, is just something else to fail for "reasons" when you really need it to work. Kinda like having cars with electric windows or those flip up headlights. Sure they're convenient and neat, but when they fail they're useless.
Do your research! Challenger 2 does not have ammunition compartment. The rounds are scattered all over the turret, it is a complete nightmare.
net split thanks for that
all of the charges are held in armoured bins and the HE rounds are stored below the turret ring in the very bottom of the hull its not a nightmare
"very bottom of the hull" is where we store explosives. Not a nightmare at all.
jack5760
If people hate Russian tanks for having rounds in the hull (and for the earlier ones in the turret), it ca not be suddenly fine on western tanks. And there are documented cases where CH2s ammunition rack blew up and the whole tank with it.
The only manual loading tank with actual ammunition separation is the M1. CH2, Leo2 and whatnot all have the same "problem" as the Russian/Soviet tanks.
net split not a nightmare at all
From the mechanical labor standpoint, the auto loader will be better, for the most part.
However, from the utilitarian aspect, regarding how useful a soldier is, the human will win.
I don't often see a lot of Dutch footage mixed with these type of videos, nice mate!
Almost as slow as my Abrams loader in war thunder