Main Battle Tanks

[OzMan]

I was watching an episode of "Firepower" on the Military Channel today, and this particular episode was a comparison of the 4 top main battle tanks in the world today; the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French LeClerc, and the German Leopard 2.

I watched pretty closely when they were talking about the French LeClerc, and as it turns out, there are a lot of features that make the LeClerc truly unique. These are the ones that caught my attention:

1. Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)
2. A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside
3. A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
4. Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons.

My question is: With all of these new features (which in theory make it quite superior), how well does the LeClerc pull it off? Does it really rank up with the Abrams and Challenger? Or is this yet another case of "good idea, bad execution"?

I only ask becaue I don't have much knowledge when it comes to tanks and other mechanized forces.

What do y'all think?

[Daga]

Hmm though, it was explained to me by an ambrams tanker that an auto loader is not necessarily a better thing. Yes it deletes a crew man can lower the profile of the tank, but a dedicated human loader is actually faster for a second round kill (not to mention a simpler system). Perhaps not as fast in sustained fire, but because the barrel does not need to be lowered to reload, the ambrams can achieve a faster rate of fire, at least intially. Important at least in the Cold war days, where NATO was fastly outnumbered. Also we should not forget that an extra crewman is useful, espcially in urban combat, where u want as many of the mgs on top to be manned.
However, that being said, I like the concept of the LeClerc, but we do see improvements on the abrams like the unmanned turret coming into play. The abrams is a tad bit heavy though!
I'm surprised they didn't mention the Merkava Mk. 4.

Death before dismount!

[GazB]

Good old American doumentary quality research....

there are a lot of features that make the LeClerc truly unique. These are the ones that caught my attention:

1. Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)
2. A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside
3. A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
4. Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons.


Truely unique means on of a kind. The T-80 series has an autoloader (as did the T-64 and T-72 before it) and the current model T-80 has a remote control 50 cal HMG over the commanders cupola, the Modular armour idea is also used by the current model Leopard (2A6) and the Current model Merkava, though if you want to be pedantic the T-80 can be fitted with passive and active armour like ERA, Shtora, and ARENA, not to mention Drodz-2. And at about 46-48 tons the T-80 is lighter than a Leclerc. In fact the latest model T-80, called Black Eagle is estimated to be about 52 tons.
Not to mention gun tube fired laser seeking ATGMs, and the current new weapon... the Sokol seems to have an optical seeker that can either seek a laser spot or attack an exposed or moving tank on its own.

Yes it deletes a crew man can lower the profile of the tank, but a dedicated human loader is actually faster for a second round kill (not to mention a simpler system).

Except with modern FCS and excellent gun stabilisation systems a second shot is not often needed. Also as calibres increase the weight and length of the rounds may make autoloaders manditory.

The Bustle mounted autoloader of the black eagle is completely seperate from the crew compartment... no sliding doors etc.

I think it was Axl that mentioned to me first that any round that penetrated the rear of the turret is unlikely to be stopped by the light armoured door seperating the ammo from the crew...

[OzMan]

I only ask becaue I don't have much knowledge when it comes to tanks and other mechanized forces.


Thanks tho

[Para]

With the auto loader just how quickly can you change from HE to AP. On the manual system to can done in seconds, with auto loader well it's any one guess. Now the French tank may look good and get a good write up, but has ever been in action, for this sorts out your problems like nothing else.

[RGRBOX]

I was watching an episode of "Firepower" on the Military Channel today, and this particular episode was a comparison of the 4 top main battle tanks in the world today; the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French LeClerc, and the German Leopard 2.

I watched pretty closely when they were talking about the French LeClerc, and as it turns out, there are a lot of features that make the LeClerc truly unique. These are the ones that caught my attention:

1. Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)
2. A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside
3. A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
4. Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons.

My question is: With all of these new features (which in theory make it quite superior), how well does the LeClerc pull it off? Does it really rank up with the Abrams and Challenger? Or is this yet another case of "good idea, bad execution"?

I only ask becaue I don't have much knowledge when it comes to tanks and other mechanized forces.

What do y'all think?

You forgot the remote controled white flag raising platform on the turrent. and the extra gear for reverse.

Really.. I've read that the M1 Abrams is getting some new up-armor, this should move it out ahead of the group. I've been around the M1's on the battle field. They kick ass. Very fast and quite in comparison to other tanks. The problem with the auto loader is the speed. The Russian t82 takes 7 seconds to fire each round. A trained gunner loader can shot 2-3 round in that time. But the French can be said to have one of the best tanks out there. They developed the tank and tank warefare.

[azér]

the french have most modern tank i the whole world i think
every person in the tank has an heat/ir sight cannon loads fully outo matic
standard heavy armoured i thought the first one was produced in 1993

[Sayeret]

I was watching an episode of "Firepower" on the Military Channel today, and this particular episode was a comparison of the 4 top main battle tanks in the world today; the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French LeClerc, and the German Leopard 2.

I watched pretty closely when they were talking about the French LeClerc, and as it turns out, there are a lot of features that make the LeClerc truly unique. These are the ones that caught my attention:

1. Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)
2. A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside
3. A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
4. Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons.

My question is: With all of these new features (which in theory make it quite superior), how well does the LeClerc pull it off? Does it really rank up with the Abrams and Challenger? Or is this yet another case of "good idea, bad execution"?

I only ask becaue I don't have much knowledge when it comes to tanks and other mechanized forces.

What do y'all think?

Along with the tank itself I would say that the performance of a tank depends a lot on the crew. For example Saudi Arabia has M1A1 tanks but probably aren't going to be as effective as American crews because of lack or training and motivation.

Although the LeClerc sounds like a good tank on paper it's hard for say for sure how the tank will perform in actual combat. Often weapons sound like they work much better on paper then they do in actual combat. However in other cases the opposite goes, in which a weapon system doesn't sound to good on paper but works good in actual combat.

1) An auto-loader has advantages but so does a human loader. You don't have to worry about a person breaking down like a machine.

2) It's good to have a machine gun turret and many tanks such as urbanized version of the M1 tank and the T-90s. You could say that it's a bad thing because there’s always the chance of the turret breaking in combat.

3) Definitely a good thing, many tanks can have ERA added to them though.

4) Although it's good that the tank is lightest and probably one of the fasted as a result in a lot of cases armor is better than speed. You can only go so fast through a forest or a city.

[stephane from Paris]

Well!
The leclerc was the first Tank for which from its beginning, the concept was to have modular armor!
In early 90's , IDF do the same on the Merkava3 which is certainly the better protected tank (no need of mobility since the opposite side are non armored or uses old T72), and Germany upgrades the Leopard 2 turret front in the same way!
Leo2, M1A2 have or will have add on armor but since the basic armor stay, these tanks will be very heavy (10 to 20 tons more than a Leclerc), and it's a problem for mobillity and oil needing (a bad thing when you're in offensive phase).
On T80UD Russians uses now some active anti missile protections like the ones uses by hellicopters!

During turkey and Greece tests for their futures tanks, the Leclerc fired the same number of round than Leo2 and M1A2.

The main problem of the Leclerc is the price (800 are to be produce, 400 for France and 400 for UAE, when USA can buy several thousands of Tanks) and the fact it was do to be in front of Warsaw Pact tanks in Europe!
The engine is perhaps another problem, UAE choose the german MTU for their Leclerc which are very efficent in the desert!

Impossible to says what is the best Tank!
We'll never know what a M1A1/A2 or a Challenger could do against a T72 with good tankers or a T80, MK3/4, leclerc,Leo2 specially if there isn't the A10/Apache menace in the air!

You could have the best tank without air superiority it's bull****!

ERA bricks are only efficient against RPG but not usefull against Milan/Tow... anti tank missiles.
The Leclerc, like the M1A2, the MK3/4, the T80 have nothing to fear from RPG in their half front! Good stike at the rear will destroy all MBT!

[S'13]

In early 90's , IDF do the same on the Merkava3 which is certainly the better protected tank (no need of mobility since the opposite side are non armored or uses old T72)

Protection has a greater significance because the IDF is a defensive army and thus has less of a need for mobility that could enable an attacking army using Blitzkrieg tactics to conquer a lot of land in a short period of time.

Today, when most fighting is in an urban setting (not just by us but also by the U.S in Iraq) protection has turned more important.

To say that Israel won't have to face a well equipped army is strange to me (the same could be said about all European countries and the U.S), as countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have western equipment (yes, I know that with two of these countries we have a peace treaty yet people seem to forget that Iran had good relations with us and with the U.S 20 years ago, so? ;) ).

You can't compare Eurpean tanks to the Merkava when it comes to mobility as these tanks have been built for a different topography.

I'm sure that if you took a Leclerc to the Golan Heights, the Merkava would show it a thing or two about mobility. :)

[stephane from Paris]

Correct S13 but Egypt and Saudi have export Abrams, with a lower protection and electronic. From memory Jordania have a low level army and old M60A1 or A3.

In the same way, Irak had T55 (the gun is unable to penetrate a modern MBT) and T72! Poor motivated tank crew, and none air protection!
They could have third more tanks, they had no chance!

Same goes for arabs against israel which have more modern MBT than France+UK!!!!!!!!!!!

[S'13]

Correct S13 but Egypt and Saudi have export Abrams, with a lower protection and electronic.


Perhaps, yet we can agree that these aren't old T-72's that we are talking about.


From memory Jordania have a low level army and old M60A1 or A3

Jordan has received Challenger tanks from Britain.

[Javehn]

Too bad people in here understand about tanks as I understand about planes . Unfortunatly , there is very little - zero I know about Leclerc . But in particular I can explain some points said in here .

About Autoloader . If we put it's mechanism and reliance asside , it just take another person from tank . Person who can use a machine gun to deal with dismounts while TC busy to improve tank position to a better point . Person who can visa versa work with driver while the TC is busy engaging targets . It's just generally good to have another person with external MG and another set of eyes . And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point . Generally the speed of human loader is pretty much the same of Leclerc autoloader . When coaxial MG is jammed (which bounds to happen a lot) , loader is there to deal with misfire - otherwise , TC/gunner have to do it which is serious distraction from their jobs .
There are dual purpose shells , and single purpose shells . In autoloader , once a shell type is loaded , there is only way out from the gun - by firing it away . To my point , it's the most serious outback of Autoloader , waste of precious time (which in war means life , but then again , we are talking about French :lol: ) , waste of shells .

About the electronics in Leclerc . This damn is a spaceship . It looks good and works good . Until it gets on battlefield where tanks and ATGM fired on the tank (ok , let's keep in mind again that we are talking about French :lol: ) . Usually valuable tank systems come in dublicates . Where the backup systems are of "lower level" then the system it comes to replace on damage . But the electronic in Leclerc is too much overhelming , which makes me guess that the backup system are of much lower level then the original , which makes it much more difficult to hand then on other tanks . I remember that we got tought , after 30 minutes in battle field , not one electronic system in the tank is operational . Offcorse , it's just very general thoughts , cause I know about Leclerc just as any other members in here ;) . In hope that someone would come who actually knows what he is talking about .

[HardThunder]

Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)

Sorry the AMX-13 had an autoloader. That BTW was (and most of the tank btw) copied from the T-92, and T-95 US tank projects (I think that’s right one was a light tank, the other a heavy tank with Oscillating turret).
A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside

Everyone has a turret mounted coax, and a cupola mounted weapon. The US uses a 50 cal, others like the French a 30 cal.
A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
Actually the M-1 has the first Modular package. Unlike the IDFs form of pop off panels the US opted for using our welding technology, which is BTW very advanced.
Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons
? As if that is a good thing? But anyway I would think the Russians, Red Chinese, Free Chinese, and a bunch of other countries would take exception to that. In fact at 56 tons (is that with or without fuel, ammo, people) may just well make it the 4th heaviest MBT in use, after the M-60 if it is in fact 56 tons, make the Éclair the 6th heaviest MBT.

[James]

Death before dismount!

rofl I would rather be a grunt any day! Tanks are giant targets!

[Flagg]

Death before dismount!

rofl I would rather be a grunt any day! Tanks are giant targets!

Agreed, I'd rather be a dumb infanteer unworthy of enemy direct or indirect fire than riding inside one of those missile magnets.

The biggest target generally gets the most interested attention.

[digrar]

Same here and I'd rather be out in front of my unit in the FOFEBA, with 4 other highly motivated blokes, much safer that way. ;)

[AROUETLJ]

It's not the tank, it's the motivation.

Patton rules.

Now, regarding France and tanks, one of the very first manuals on tank warfare was written by none other than De Gaulle, whose ideas were ignored by the top echelon.

[DPGLAW]

I was watching an episode of "Firepower" on the Military Channel today, and this particular episode was a comparison of the 4 top main battle tanks in the world today; the British Challenger 2, the American M1 Abrams, the French LeClerc, and the German Leopard 2.

I watched pretty closely when they were talking about the French LeClerc, and as it turns out, there are a lot of features that make the LeClerc truly unique. These are the ones that caught my attention:

1. Auto-load system, which cuts the crew size down to 3 (Gunner, driver, Commander)
2. A 7.62mm unmanned turret-mounted machine gun, which keeps all of the crew safely inside
3. A modular armor package, allowing the armor to be updated as fast as anti-tank weapons are developed
4. Lightest main battle tank in the world at only 56 tons.

My question is: With all of these new features (which in theory make it quite superior), how well does the LeClerc pull it off? Does it really rank up with the Abrams and Challenger? Or is this yet another case of "good idea, bad execution"?

I only ask becaue I don't have much knowledge when it comes to tanks and other mechanized forces.

What do y'all think?

You forgot the remote controled white flag raising platform on the turrent. and the extra gear for reverse.

Really.. I've read that the M1 Abrams is getting some new up-armor, this should move it out ahead of the group. I've been around the M1's on the battle field. They kick ass. Very fast and quite in comparison to other tanks. The problem with the auto loader is the speed. The Russian t82 takes 7 seconds to fire each round. A trained gunner loader can shot 2-3 round in that time. But the French can be said to have one of the best tanks out there. They developed the tank and tank warefare.

Lol.....You just cant have any piece of French military equipment without an automatic surrender option..... I saw this other joke ad that was pretty funny, it was explaining how when testing new rifles, one of the French tests is the drop and run test, how quickly can you drop the rifle and run...;)

[stephane from Paris]

You like joke?
Bush and Chirac wanted to end their problem so they do a challenge:
Do a bicycle running one againts one, the winner will be the Boss!

Bush the young smile as Chirac the old guy is so tired, so old like his country!
Bush go and incredibilly Chirac win the running!!!!!!!!!

Wow
The title of Fox news:

Great and Excellent result in a running, USA with strong courage finish second, when France finish just before the last!!!!!!!!
;) ;) :D :D

[HardThunder]

First Off topic with the Grunt stuff.

Next Have been a grunt, before I got the calling to tanks I can tell you!

1. Mark 1 skin will stop nothing.
2. A Bullet has no name.
3. Some punk with a rock can hurt you.
4. I liked being both, and a tanker has to stand watch, on the ground.

I left out that all new tanks the gun returns to the load point after each round. The M-1 has the gun slaved to the sights. Key thing. The system on the M-1 re zeros its self after each round, so that it is shooting at the point the sight is aimed at. Kind of cool.

One less person in the crew, in one less person doing the upkeep, and more support time (you do not have less work with one less crew, in fact you have more. All that nice loading stuff has to be cleaned, and is harder to load). The US sold a tank not to long ago that had an auto loader because that is what they had a thing for. The US has had many designs with auto loaders.

A human loader can load the gun faster then you should fire the weapon.

The US ADF tank had the fastest autoloader in the world, and a gun that still can not be exported.

[Javehn]

It's not the tank, it's the motivation.

Patton rules.

Now, regarding France and tanks, one of the very first manuals on tank warfare was written by none other than De Gaulle, whose ideas were ignored by the top echelon.

Actually , the very first person that initiated tank warfare (armored assault , and not single tanks assigned to infantry units , without artyllery preparation that would reveal the avenue of approach and main effort of attacker) was Sir John Monash , Australian jew in WW1 . I think it was in Hamel ?

[Werewolf01]

One must igve to credit to the inter-war French and British Armored warfare advocates. Thier ideas are directly responsible for the German Blitzkrieg doctrine. It is simply unfortunate that Fance and Britain did not listen to their native sons while the Gemrns were taking notes.

[Para]

Werewolf
The first time the actual Blitzkrieg tactics were used was in the first World War in 1918. If look carefully at the British Assault on the Hindenburg line you will find all the elements in use on this attack. Fighter Bombers of the day where used to bomb and strafe the trenches. Troops and Tanks moved up together under a creeping artillery barrage. What the Germans called an unbreakable line was smashed in days, and when it was broken they sued for peace so much of these events where over looked in the Peace process, it took us a while to sort out tactics out but when we did we made a fairly good job of it.

[GazB]

The problem with the auto loader is the speed. The Russian t82 takes 7 seconds to fire each round.

The problem with comparisons with T-72s and T-80s with western tanks is that the T-72 and T-80 has two piece ammo. There is no reason why an autoloader fitted to the rear of a tank turret using one piece ammo couldn't be as quick or even quicker than manual reloading. This would also mean that the ammo and crew could be completely seperate and the length and weight of ammo could be independant of what one man can manage in the confines of a tank turret.

A trained gunner loader can shot 2-3 round in that time.

But he is also an extra person to cover with armour and a mouth to feed and supply. Sure he adds to the vehicles defence with his MG but how quickly can he load main gun rounds and fire his MG?

And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point .

But who will be loader if the loader is driving?

The M-1 has the gun slaved to the sights. Key thing. The system on the M-1 re zeros its self after each round, so that it is shooting at the point the sight is aimed at. Kind of cool.

The fire control system does that... most modern tanks have such FCS.

[Kitsune]

Werewolf
The first time the actual Blitzkrieg tactics were used was in the first World War in 1918. If look carefully at the British Assault on the Hindenburg line you will find all the elements in use on this attack. Fighter Bombers of the day where used to bomb and strafe the trenches. Troops and Tanks moved up together under a creeping artillery barrage. What the Germans called an unbreakable line was smashed in days, and when it was broken they sued for peace so much of these events where over looked in the Peace process, it took us a while to sort out tactics out but when we did we made a fairly good job of it.

Ehem...sorry but this is not quite correct. The German tactics used in WWII which are commonly referred to as "Blitzkrieg" do not just mean a combined attack by panzers, supported by airattacks. The main point is a deep penetration of enemy territory resulting in the fear of the enemy that his troops, who are still defending the frontline, will be cut off from supplies and prompting him therefore to attempt to take back his defenseline. If it works properly, blitzkrieg results in chaos and defeat, ideally without having to fight and kill each and every enemy soldier or tank. In contrast to what the French and British did in WWI (and still expected in WWII) it is not about "smashing" a frontline. THAT is avoided, which is the main point. Sry para, but if Blitkrieg has an ancestor its the Strumtruppen tactic used by the Germans in WWI. But I agree that British and French military thinkers of the inter war period, like Sir Basil Liddel Hart or Charles de Gaulle had a certain influence.

[Hadamar]

The US ADF tank had the fastest autoloader in the world, and a gun that still can not be exported.
Do you mean the M8 AGS with the XM35 105mm? I think its rate of fire is 12 rounds per minute. You wouldn't want to burn out the barrel at that sustained rate unless you were suddenly facing a horde of enemy armor.

There are dual purpose shells , and single purpose shells . In autoloader , once a shell type is loaded , there is only way out from the gun - by firing it away . To my point , it's the most serious outback of Autoloader , waste of precious time (which in war means life , but then again , we are talking about French :lol: ) , waste of shells .
The autoloader control system in the M8 AGS allows the crew to unload a round, re-stow it as a ready round and then load in a different round.

[supercontra]

And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point .

But who will be loader if the loader is driving?

Just chuck in the nearest expendble grunt. It won't be as fast as a trained loader but at least it works.
Both 3 and 4 man crews have their advantages. It's a matter of doctrine which works best in any given force.

[sergey31]

And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point .

But who will be loader if the loader is driving?

Just chuck in the nearest expendble grunt. It won't be as fast as a trained loader but at least it works.
Both 3 and 4 man crews have their advantages. It's a matter of doctrine which works best in any given force.

But what if he does not want to and says "Hell Fu*^ing No" ?

[oldsoak]

...then offer him death or glory... :)
no, seriously - it depends on the situation. If another tank has been disabled but the crew is ok, the theory is that you have a spare crew to re-assign to fill the gaps elsewhere ( although good crews are like a family - breaking them up is not good ). Spare grunts could do the job of a loader, but I reckon the commander would pick a good defensive position, load up and relay his problem to the next level up rather than pick someone off the field.

[HardThunder]

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1-systems-1.gif
The US ADF tank had the fastest autoloader in the world, and a gun that still can not be exported.
Do you mean the M8 AGS with the XM35 105mm? I think its rate of fire is 12 rounds per minute. You wouldn't want to burn out the barrel at that sustained rate unless you were suddenly facing a horde of enemy armor.
(What kind of person would even know that, beside myself? Do you have/had a MOS Haadamar, or are you a long time student of weapons? You are good, very good. It is a joy reading your observations, and comments, and very nice to post comments to intuitive questions/ observations).

The Aries Gun System likes all US, and in fact most Western systems has a quick-change barrel. I cannot recall the exact amount of wear required for replacement before going into battle, but think it is 50%. As the Ideal goal for main gun wear is 1000 rounds, I think 500 rounds of wear should take you through a few battles. And as the newer system track their own wear factor (before you only tracked it on paper), I see no problem.

There are dual purpose shells , and single purpose shells . In autoloader , once a shell type is loaded , there is only way out from the gun - by firing it away . To my point , it's the most serious outback of Autoloader , waste of precious time (which in war means life , but then again , we are talking about French :lol: ) , waste of shells .

The autoloader control system in the M8 AGS allows the crew to unload a round, re-stow it as a ready round and then load in a different round.

Actually in combat whatever you have in the tube is going to fly. It is very hard, and takes to much time to unload ammo, and if you have a hot gun your are not, going to take anything out. Auto loaders just make it that much harder to unload the round you have in there. Not a big deal. The being problem with auto loaders is they are mechanical. Mechanical things break (people break also but that’s another issue), do not work that well in many cases in the first place, are limiting, and only have one function.

As to loading the main gun, or manning the MG, that is no issue at all. A team of tanks, or even a mixed formation is just that a unit. Units Ideally do not fight larger units. The worst possible case for any unit is “The Ambush”. In a ambush against a US tank unit unless it has already been engaged by another unit the crew would be up (out in the hatches looking around). In short whenever the loaders MG would be the ideal weapon, the loader would be manning it. The only issue would be prepping the coax in older systems, like the M-60s. Another set of eyes, and a body to go with them is ALWAYS a good thing in combat units. I have never seen a case, or heard of one in Modern combat that anyone complained of having to many troops. At lest not of any American Army, or battle from our side. Even the Human wave proponents always liked having more.






And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point .

But who will be loader if the loader is driving?

Just chuck in the nearest expendble grunt. It won't be as fast as a trained loader but at least it works.
Both 3 and 4 man crews have their advantages. It's a matter of doctrine which works best in any given force.

First it is not DOCTRINE. It is mechanics, physical limitations. Doctrine would have happen before hand, like with the Hull gunner that every nation ditched in the 60s for more main gun ammo.

Even a loader has skills. A tank is not a place for someone that does not know it, just like being a modern grunt is not a job you can just put someone in.

The sad thing is that after the first few go rounds (replacements, you always have a few people around that can man a position like a loader in a tank, after some training) tank operations start to degrade at a horrendous rate, and you end up having more tanks then you can man, as like Japan/Germany with pilots you end up having people that should not be in uniform, let alone working with advanced hardware. But this is only the case, as like in a 1980 major war with the Warsaw Pack.

The problem with comparisons with T-72s and T-80s with western tanks is that the T-72 and T-80 has two piece ammo. There is no reason why an autoloader fitted to the rear of a tank turret using one piece ammo couldn't be as quick or even quicker than manual reloading. This would also mean that the ammo and crew could be completely seperate and the length and weight of ammo could be independant of what one man can manage in the confines of a tank turret.

Yes. An autoloader can load just as fast, or faster then a human, and yes an autoloader can do so with larger rounds then a human can easily do so. BUT very few do, and making a tank system do so takes either a great deal of room, or very expensive material.

A trained gunner loader can shot 2-3 round in that time.

But he is also an extra person to cover with armour and a mouth to feed and supply. Sure he adds to the vehicles defence with his MG but how quickly can he load main gun rounds and fire his MG?

And when a crue member is injured - there is a spare person to take his job and position . Very considerable point .

But who will be loader if the loader is driving?

I answered that above. Trained crew for anything is a problem. In the US army, and BTW the only one I know of. All tankers are cross-trained. In fact we have no special ID for a gunner, driver, loader, or TC. The most skilled positions should be TC, then Gunner, then Driver, and then Loader. But a gunner, and TC is a talent, just like a sniper, training only goes so far. Moving people around even in the US military will require some amount of training no mater what. But with larger crews doing so is easier as you have a greater body of skilled people to work with. I should point out that with US crews the TC can, and does “Gun the tank” He has to fire the main gun to be qualified, and do so from his position. But that is no longer necessary with the M-1A2.


The M-1 has the gun slaved to the sights. Key thing. The system on the M-1 re zeros its self after each round, so that it is shooting at the point the sight is aimed at. Kind of cool.

The fire control system does that... most modern tanks have such FCS. [/quote]


And that would be “No”. Most have something like it, but Only the M-1 has a true system, built from the get go that slaves the gun to the sights. Many tanks have a poor similar system that in fact slaves the sight to the gun, and kicks it out as the gun is reloading. It is like stabilization. Stabilization had, and has been around from before WW-2. Up until the 70s it was crap. It was not until the late 70s that the US had a break through that allowed our tanks to fire on the move with almost the same amount of probability to hit a target as it would have had if it had been stationary. This one item was a key element in the AIR LAND Battle concept. Not a great many land systems can hit things on the move.

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1-systems-1.gif

[Hadamar]

Thanks for the compliments, HardThunder. I am merely an avid student of weaponry. My experience consists of nothing except the classroom and personal reading.

The Aries Gun System likes all US, and in fact most Western systems has a quick-change barrel. I cannot recall the exact amount of wear required for replacement before going into battle, but think it is 50%. As the Ideal goal for main gun wear is 1000 rounds, I think 500 rounds of wear should take you through a few battles. And as the newer system track their own wear factor (before you only tracked it on paper), I see no problem.
I got it wrong with the 105mm on the M8 AGS. You were speaking of the 75mm ARES, which had a rate of fire of about one round per second. If it didn't have to face MBTs the 75mm ARES seemed like a great all-around cannon, its high elevation allowing it to target aircraft as well as tall urban structures.

Yes. An autoloader can load just as fast, or faster then a human, and yes an autoloader can do so with larger rounds then a human can easily do so. BUT very few do, and making a tank system do so takes either a great deal of room, or very expensive material.

Western Design of Irvine, CA has developed an autoloader for the Abrams compact enough to retain the loader/extra crewman. I suspect it would fall under HardThunder's category of "very expensive."

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/456/m1sun996407jw.jpg
The Compact Autoloader is an all-electric, fully automatic ammunition handling system designed for easy integration into the M1 weapon station. The magazine subsystem stores 34 ready rounds of 120mm ammunition in the envelope of the M1 bustle. The transfer unit resides completely behind the recoil path of the cannon. Its operational swept volume does not encroach into any useable space within the turret, thus allowing the retention of the full four man crew.

The magazine design utilizes a double-row, closed-loop chain of canisters providing outstanding volumetric storage efficiency. Rounds are brought to a designated pick-off point which eliminates the requirement for the current large bustle blast doors in favor of a solid armored bulkhead featuring a small blast port. Fratricide protection is provided for the 17 inner row canisters, and the existing pressure relief blow-off panels are retained, maintaining the M1's excellent survivability characteristics.

The transfer unit incorporates three degrees of freedom, all closed-loop control, operating in concert to extract, reorient, and load the selected round into the main gun at any weapon elevation between minus three degrees through plus 10 degrees. The Compact Autoloader provides the crew with the ability to fire 12 rounds per minute, on the move, thereby taking maximum advantage of the advances in fire control technology and the digitized battlefield.

The Compact Autoloader features automatic ammunition inventory, high system reliability, graceful system degradation, and complete manual backup.

[HardThunder]

Thanks for the compliments, HardThunder. I am merely an avid student of weaponry. My experience consists of nothing except the classroom and personal reading.


Well they are more then well deserved, I have seen skilled professionals (most in fact) that know far less, are far less intuitive, interested, and discerning then you. In fact all but two defense writers would also fall into the group of not having a clue, and not looking to get one.



I got it wrong with the 105mm on the M8 AGS. You were speaking of the 75mm ARES, which had a rate of fire of about one round per second. If it didn't have to face MBTs the 75mm ARES seemed like a great all-around cannon, its high elevation allowing it to target aircraft as well as tall urban structures.


I did say fastest. But why correct you on such a small point.

Your error was negligible at any rate, and quit commendable you pointed it out. The fact is that gun tubes, and if need be breaches are replaced before combat if need be. And can be accomplished far quicker then any would think. I myself help in replacing a number of maingun tubes in one morning (not really replacing. We got new M-60A1 Rise passive tanks without the gun tubes mounted, and had to mount them((they came on the right side of the tank, mounted on the fender)).

The autoloader looks ok. But the M-1s have way to much stuff inside them as it is.

Price is a relative issue. You have the price of the item, as in this case, the price of mounting it, the cost of keeping it working, how it will effect the overall system, and crew.

At over 12 million dollars a copy, some added cost is insignificant. What does it really add is the issue? In Kuwait they may wish to have this option, as they have a limited number of people to draw troops from, and a very larger boarder to protect. We have reactively the same needs in the US, but the added problem of moving to locations around the world we may be called to, add we have a much larger base of trained personnel to draw from. Meself I would never allow a O-3 to be in charge of an armor Company, at lest never a newly made CPT.

In the end the two major questions about any upgrade is need, and in this case what will the resulting outcome be in terms of manpower, and other fallouts. The US Army has a light view for the future; armor units have been cut back not only in numbers, but also in manpower over the last 30 years. IMOHO this is insane, and only asking for disaster. It takes year to make a good tanker. Tankers in the US are people that wish to be tankers. Without keeping a trained large body of tankers, and units I see many problems that can come about because of not having the trained people, and units to support this under appreciated combat arm. I am very concerned about keeping high levels of trained tankers, and units. Something I feel we are all ready passed a point of acceptable levels. A loader is a basic position. One a loader spends some time on a tank, around them, working on them, and in units he is ready to move up to another position. If he is a natural, or trainable gunner he can move up to that position, if not he can move to the drivers position. A driver learns some tactics, and positioning. All are very good skills for a tanker.

I just see no redeeming benefited for having an autoloader. It cannot do any work on the tank, can not be trained, and has not future for advancement. A human can stand watches, work on the tank, learn skills, and do other task.

http://mail.telebyte.com/~hardthundr/M-1-systems-1.gif