Tank Lovers Group
Hobbies & Interests
This group is for everyone who like tanks, sci-fi tanks, real tanks, funny tanks, you can put here tank mods, tank maps, simply everything with straps, armor and gun :D
M1 Tank TestBed
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
In the 80s & 90s the US military had good ideas then threw them out.
The new Eurotanks(Russia T14,Germany & France MGCS) will have auto loaders. The MGCS will also have a 130mm cannon.
While the DODs idea of a new tank is adding crap to the M1. The A3 won't arrive until sometime after 2030.
what a shame as we all know we could do better if it weren't for those dam sub contractors taking tax payer money and pumping out sub standard products .... basically fraud on a mass scale >_>
This is why we are better off nationalizing out entire military industrial complex to remove the corruption and reformat the system to make it more efficient and cost effective.
It's good a idea, but the business degree cranks at the Pentagon, & the Corporate Welfare Complex will decry it as Socialism.
I've talked with someone who worked for Lockheed.
According to him he witnessed 5 ex-generals giving a morning meeting on a mature product line that includes a couple dozen people. In his own words “Pathetic.”
There's a reason we don't have an autoloading mechanism in our MBTs. A human loader is far more useful than an autoloader. Not only do you have an extra pair of eyes to help the commander spot targets, friendly forces, etc. But that extra crew member can alleviate the weight of maintaining the tanks various components. For starters, its engine, transmission, crew hatches, main gun, secondary guns, turret, suspension, road wheels and bearings, drive sprockets, idler wheels, track tension system connected to the idler wheels, the suspension system, the track itself, and so on. In combat, the loader can also man the pintal-mounted machine gun to address foot-slogging threats to the tank in a quicker manner than the main turret, this is far more useful in urban areas. In the event of emergencies, the loader can substitute for an injured crew member or have an extra set of hands to administer first aid to said injured crew member. One more benefit is that with that 4th crew member, the rest of the crew can do their respective jobs more efficiently Especially the commander as he'll be allowed to do his primary job without having to worry so much about everything that I've previously mentioned.
The Merkava has an autoloader and they perform fine.
MBTs hardly go into combat alone these days, i.e a Striker,Bradly or Humvee isn't too far away.
So a manual loader isn't necessary.
Also you don't need another gunner with remote weapons stations. Something the Army has been slow to adopt.
In the days where even the most poorly equipped terrorists have Snipers. Those extra set of eyes go back to three if they can pick off exposed crew members.
Using MBTs in tight quarters is a bad idea anyways. There is little room to maneuver and without an APS an MBT is more vulnerable.
One reason of many the Army started the Mobile Protected Firepower RFP. Most Light Tanks have no room for a fourth crew member.
MBTs may not go into combat as often as they used to but they still do because there are situations where an IFV, APC and gun truck either are not well equipped or suited for the situation at hand.
A manual loader is necessary because of how useful that 4th crew member is for the entire crew of the tank. Often times the loader mounts the Co-ax on top for when it is necessary. If there are infantry supporting the tank the the loader doesn't need to go up top. If the infantry aren't there or need support then the loader mounts the co-ax on top. Even when it's a remote weapons station, that 4th crew member is still useful because while he's manning the co-ax gun or reloading it, the commander is free to his primary job which is to... you know... COMMAND.
Yes, generally it is a bad idea to send a tank into a city unless that tank is properly supported and if it isn't, it's still an armored weapons platform that already has the tools it needs to hold off enemy infantry. Besides, right now there's no real need for an active protection system because our tanks armor is durable and thick enough to withstand most handheld AT weapons and that's good enough.
For the last part, you're arguing about a program concerning light tanks and tank destroyers. I'm arguing about the usefulness of a 4th crew member in a Main Battle Tank.
Still MBTs aren't that great for mobility. The tilt towards the Pacific is not going to be favorable towards full sized MBTs.
Autoloaders offer lower tank profiles. Which means less weight and less surface area to shoot at.
The recent operations in Gaza have proven that active protection systems are necessary as most insurgents these days have some of AT missiles that can take out an MBT. Against a peer adversary or terrorists supported by one they will most likely use top attack missiles.
The Co-ax gun doesn't require a dedicated user. The fourth man at the Remote Station is reduced to an additional "drone operator". Tanks don't fire all their guns at once. Even the commander has more then one job inside a tank. The additional guns don't need to be reloaded that often.
With the future small arms favoring caseless bullets. Manually reloading the other guns should be the last thing on the minds of a tank crew.
Though if one needs need a mobile .50 caliber gun, the MBT is doing a job less complex vehicle should do.
The Europeans want a larger cannon for their future MBTs. In fact Rheinmetall is proposing a plan too upgrade the cannons on the Leopard 2.
Even with caseless munitions an additional crew member won't be all that useful.
At 125mm+ the autoloader will pretty much be the defining attribute as to who gets the second, third and maybe fourth shot first.
Although you have a point i met allot of the M1 abrams tankers they all prefer the loader rather then the auto loader because one the auto loading system is crap and 2 they can load the gun faster then an auto loader. main reason why we dont have auto loaders in US tanks. with my experience in our vehicles they brake down more often due to hydraulics to begin with so i dont blame them.
An MBT may not go 40-60mph and turn on a dime but that doesn't excuse the fact that there will be situations where lighter vehicles won't cut it and well armored, mobile weapons platform will. Just because then next possible combat environment will have denser terrain, doesn't mean the tank wouldn't be needed when the situation calls for and when air power isn't available.
I should've clarified that hard-kill APS measures are not necessary to take care of AT missiles but you're implying that they are when they're not. Soft-kill measures such as smoke are good enough. If an AT missile (unguided or not) hits the tank turret's top then an APS wouldn't matter as it would have to attack the incoming projectile nearly vertically which, depending on the system, it either can't do or would have trouble doing in the first place.
An autoloader may lower the tanks profile and reduce the wight but as far as the crew is concerned, it is another complicated piece of equipment that has to be maintained in a complex vehicle of moving parts. The weight of maintenance is also compounded when thet crew is reduced from a driver, loader, gunner, and commander to a driver, gunner and commander. It also reduces the situational awareness of the crew as only the commander would be looking around for threats. When a loader isn't doing his primary job, he would be helping the commander look for threats.
The commander may have more then one job but so does the rest of the crew but their primary job comes first. As I've typed before, a commanders primary job is to be commanding the tank, support the infantry (when available), and look out for threats against the tank. The loader can help the commander spot targets, and warn of credible threats against the tank; when the situation calls for it. When the loader is mounting or controlling his co-ax on top, when the situation calls for it, the commander is free to do his primary job. If the commander (and only the commander) is mounting the co-ax on top to suppress a target(s), he's not doing his primary job, which is to command the tank. The loader also doubles as the comm specialist and while the commander can take care of the communication systems, his main focus is to command the tank crew. When that responsibility is becomes the commanders responsibility, then it becomes harder for the commander to do his primary job of command the crew as his attention is split between looking out for threats, commanding the tank, and listening to radio chatter. Also, the manual loader is responsible for keeping the parallel co-ax gun next to the main gun loaded while the gunner is tracking the target in front. If the gunner is busy reloading the parallel co-ax when it runs out then he's not tracking the target in front and when the target moves, he'll have to be looking for it again. A benefit the loader has over an autoloader is the he can switch between shells immediately to handle the threat that's in front of the main gun. Where with an autoloader, you have to fire the shell that has been loaded into the barrel.
Caseless ammo isn't going to be replacing conventional ammo anytime soon but that is a different subject for another time. Stay on track. Also, manually reloading the guns won't be a priority until it runs out and that is the main responsibility of the loader. Not the entire crews.
This comes down to a fundamental principle of war which is that "war is the realm of uncertainty"- Major General Carl von Clausewitz. An autoloader comes with a predetermined set of shells in its ammo carousal while a manual loader can pick and choose, and switch out shells on the fly. Yes there are autoloading systems out there that can switch out ammo now but they're not that common and a manual loader can still do the same thing but faster. An autoloader can also be a safety hazard to the gunner because the system is automatic and the gunner has no control for when to seal the cannon. If his sleeve or worse, his arm, gets caught in the autoloaders strong mechanical systems. That three man crew will become a two man crew and then the tank will be combat ineffective as there's no gunner and no immediate replacement to fire and load the main gun and that has happened.
One more thing about autoloaders, they may not get fatigued nor require provisions but they're specialized from one purpose only while a manual loader can do far more for the crew of the tank and do more around the tank than an autoloader. Also, autoloaders are not any faster, maybe slower depending on the type,than a proficient manual loader and that person will get there through training and time. with only one type being faster than a manual loader, belonging to a french tank that I can't remember the name of. even a fast machine won't be faster that is significant in real time. Why? Because the tank is a mobile unit, it's a heavily armed, heavily armored weapons platform going 40-60mph. It's efficiency and survivability are dependent on maneuvering and operational discipline, not on half a second bought here or there. And yes, an autoloader may be better for loading larger shells but the ones that we're using right now still work and still do the job well.
A 125mm cannon with it's corresponding shells isn't much better than a 120mm cannon with it's shells. Just because it's bigger it doesn't always mean it's better. But again, that is a different subject altogether.
This goes back to the cold war, where the Soviets and, consequentially, Warsaw pact countries began using autoloaders because they want to field more tanks, at a cost effective price in money and resources, to achieve fire superiority through numbers by getting as many guns down range as possible. While in NATO's case, it is to achieve fire superiority by having a gun fire as many rounds as possible down range, hit as many targets as possible, in the least amount of time, with other guns in conjunction. It creates the situation where one side will outnumber the other by having more guns to bear but the other can punch above it's weight by taking out more than what would be suggested. This is however, a different matter.
So at the end of the day, I'll take the extra crew member, the loader, over an autoloader because a manual loader can do more for the crew of the tank and do more in the tank than what an autoloader can do as a tank is only as good as the crew handling it. The human factor wins wars, not technology alone. Technology is a means to an end and that end is to augment the human factor in war not replace it.
With the LSAT program .Case-less ammo is going to be a thing sooner rather then later.Everyone other major power also want Caseless ammo asap. Larger payloads are going to be fifty percent of what wins a battle or loses it.
Laser/radio guided missiles ignore smoke. So softkill are are of limited to almost none at all point of usefulness.
The Javelin isn't unique in that regard. Top attack munitions are one hit kills for just about any tank. Unless you want a heavy top armored MBT.
It seems you have outdated knowledge about how guided AT missiles work. Their not as luck based as TOW missiles were decades ago.(they had a range problem in the Gulf War)
It wouldn't be surprising for insurgents to have their own ways with dealing with non APS tanks. (i.e. stuff we abandoned, or Russia or China gave it too them)
The Merkava has an Autoloader that allows the crew to select shell types. So that myth has been debunked.
It's only US and certain NATO countries who still use their tanks like it's still the Cold War.
Wouldn't be the first time we stuck with an outdated armor doctrine that gets crew/troops killed.(ie pre.76mm Sherman vs the less capable 75mm Sherman.)
The value of Coaxel guns smaller then 7.62x51, maybe even smaller then 8mm are diminishing. Insurgents are carrying the much longer range 7.62x54 more often.
So anything smaller then 8mm will be firing at a target it can't hit.
An 8mm coax gun plus the cannon will add a lot of busy work for the 4th man. It may as end up that is basically all he is doing, just reloading two weapons between firing them. While everyone else has to pick up the slack when a potential emery is trying too snipe out the optics for a mobility kill.(can't see, you can't fight)
The real solution there is either removing the Coax gun or a smaller profile turret with an autoloader.
I've yet to read anything that tells me why having an autoloader is a downside and reasons I've already seen post on other forums.
The "Human factor" isn't all that useful if it isn't a force multiplier. We've lost battles due to outdated combat doctrines before. The fourth man is fine for a tank created on Cold War tactics like the M1. But our allies and fellow superpowers don't train that away anymore.
The "Human factor"(sometimes outdated technology) is also limited when the enemy gets a vote. With their own weapons.
Either you're pointing things out that I've already addressed, trying to make me go in circles, or divert the core argument in different directions that may or may not concern the core argument. So we're sticking to the main argument of the tank itself and the autoloader. Not what-ifs, maybe's, and experimental gadgets, gizmos, and munitions that may or may not be in production.
First of all, a soft-kill APS measure isn't limited to just smoke and there's different kinds of smoke for military use. The main purpose of smoke is to provide CONCEALMENT not cover, there's a difference. Cover blocks a shot from hitting you, concealment hides you from being shot. Smoke, especially thick smoke can disrupt lasers, because lasers are just concentrated beams of light that will be reflected, scattered or both by the particles in the air of the area and that's not counting distance. There's also IR smoke which does what you'd expect; hides whatever is in it or behind it from infrared. Also smoke disrupts the AT operators sight of the area. If he fired a guided missile that relies on the operator keeping line of light on the target (laser or wire-guided) and the tank in question pops a smoke screen. The laser guided missile will have a greater chance of missing since the laser is disrupted by the smoke and the wire guided will miss because the operator will aim for the last known place of the tank which the tank wouldn't be there because it moved under the smokes cover. This is what I've meant about taking care of AT missiles by doing so in otherway, not outright destroying them; that what hard-kill APS measures do. Which, as I've typed before, are not that necessary nor entirally essential. So no, a soft-kill APS measure say...smoke, actually, all other soft-kill measures are not useless nor near useless.
I don't believe that there are manned radio guided missile systems as they're usually used by aircraft and they don't use those all that often anyway because there are better options out there.
Come to think about it, I don't remember where I've mentioned or implied any sort of specific kind AT missiles or systems that use the top-down attack approach nor said anything about how TOWs work these days. So either you've read the lines too hard or you're project so hard you can show off powerpoints. Again, if a missile or rocket, guided or not, hits the top of the tank, It won't matter if the damn thing has a hard-kill APS because it either can't angle itself to intercept it or the missile will come in too steep for it to be intercepted. That can happen from about any elevated position and it doesn't have to be a top-down missile launching system to do it.
I've already typed that there are autoloading systems out there that can switch out shells now. But not when a shell is already loaded into the main gun. The shell in the main gun has to be fired out in order for the appropriate shell to be loaded in. Which can be a fatal situation when you're expecting infantry but encounter another tank and have an HE shell loaded in. A manual loader can take out the shell that's loaded in and switch it for the appropriate shell for the target that's in front.
This is off topic but I'll educate you on what a doctrine is. A doctrine is a set of guidelines that and organization operates on. A military doctrine is similar as it's a set of guidelines that a military believes to be the best way to conduct military affairs based on it's military scientific theory. Not, what a piece of equipment or vehicle can do or can't do. For example, the 75mm Sherman wasn't any less capable of taking out tanks than the 76mm Sherman just because the gun was one millimeter smaller. The reason why it was like that at first because our doctrine then specialized regular tanks as infantry support only and tank destroyers to do what it says on the tin. When the 75mm Sherman got the M61 APCBC SHELLS it needed. Then it was able to take on heavier tanks.
Back on topic. I don't remember ever mentioning bullet calibers when I was typing about the co-ax guns nor saying X caliber is better than Y caliber. Also, you're argument about them is all over the place. I can't tell if you're saying they should be gone from the tank or universally replaced with one that fires a bigger caliber. So I'll tell why they're there. The main purpose of a top co-ax and parallel co-ax is suppression, the killing part is secondary and for when using the main gun is too excessive and to conserve shells. The parallel co-ax can also be used as a cheaper and more reliable rangefinder through tracer fire and the gunner is responsible for it. But the loader is the one often reloading it because it allows the gunner to keep his eyes on the target he was shooting or the area he was finding the range of. The loader's job isn't just listening to communications and reloading weapons. He's is also in charge of other weapon systems in the tank. The top co-ax is the loader's and he'll, like I've said before, operate it when the situation calls for it and it's for suppression and security of the tank on a 360 degree swivel, that he can quickly swing around where as the parallel co-ax is fixed next to the main gun. The gunner wouldn't be able to turn the turret. Or would be cumbersome to move around in tight spaces. It is the loader's job main job to load in shells, listen to the comms, and operate the other weapon systems he's in charge of. In other words, no. The mounted guns are still valuable for what their intended purposes are which are suppression, engaging soft targets, range finding for the parallel co-ax, and security for the top co-ax.
On the part about "Insurgents are carrying the much longer range 7.62x54 more often." Is debating about long range engagements, and what kind of ammunition they would be carrying as they're raggedy ***, militiamen who can't be picky about what to use and they will take what they can get. Plus, the co-ax weapons have the range to match what ever range the 'insurgents' are firing from. Because mounted weapons are typically 1-2 GPMGs and 1 HMG. Also on the other part: "So anything smaller then 8mm will be firing at a target it can't hit." Is saying that just because it's bigger it's overall better when that isn't always true. I'll repeat: "Just because it's bigger it doesn't always mean it's better." There are more factors that go into bullets than just size. Also, a tank's sights are not limited to it's digital monitors and sensors. There are periscopes around the hatches, the driver has a hatch to look through, and there's the classic scope for the main gun. Even then, it is difficult to hit the small sensors at long range on a moving target, hell even at close range you wouldn't be thinking about those. These points veer off the main argument and is debating about what-if's, might be's, and probable situations that are more of a concern about what happening around the tank instead of the tank.
The main point I was arguing was that a manual loader can do more for the tank and the crew of the tank than what and autoloader can do. Because the loader is more consistent, reliable, and flexible where as an autoloader is a specialized, complicated mechanical device in a armored platform of complicated mechanical devices that only does one thing, and that is loading shells into the main gun. I've previously typed the downsides and upsides of an autoloader already. The upsides are that, it requires no provisions for it to function unlike a manual loader. It can load in heavier shells more easily that a manual loader, it doesn't get fatigued over time though most battles don't last long enough for a loader to get badly fatigued anyway. I forgot to mention that it does simplify some of the logistics in deploying the vehicles. Allows the turret to be smaller thus reducing some weight, lowering the profile, and would cost fewer resources in the turrets construction and engineering requirements. Finally, it allows the possibility for the construction of unmanned turrets by having it isolated from the rest of the vehicle.
Now the here are the downsides, It's another complicated device that compounds the burden of maintenance for the now 3 man crew, the gunner has no control over the loading mechanism of most autoloaders, and again, they have a nasty tendency to grab things and if the gunners sleeve or worse, his arm is snagged by the autoloaders mechanical systems. The tank will be combat ineffective since there's no more gunner and no immediate replacement to man the turret. Most autoloaders require the main gun barrel to return to a resting position in order to load another shell. Which the gunner then has to re-align the gun back to the position he had it and that has the chance of reducing the rate of fire. Tanks or other vehicles with a a multi-position reload ability cost more time and money and makes the device more complex to maintain and it, ironically, raises the vehicles profile. For the profile, the BMP-3 is a good example as it has a multi-position autoloading device and it's profile is higher than the previous models. If or when autoloader jamms, breaks down, or is damaged, the tank immediately turns into a mobile pillbox. The tank would be combat ineffective and would need to leave the battlefield or have one of the 3 crew members repair it; and repairing it would take the 3 crew members focus away from their primary jobs. If it's the gunner doing the repairs he'll won't be able to use the parallel co-ax to deal with soft targets in front. If it's the driver doing the repirs, then the tank would just be a steel pillbox. If it's the commander then he's not directing the crew and looking out for threats AND communicating with other units, since he's also the comms officer; and if the top co-ax isn't there, as you've said it should be removed, then he won't be able to provide security to the tank as effectively as he could have with one. It becomes more likely for the autoloader to be damaged due to the turret being smaller. This becomes a major issue for unmanned turrets as they maybe smaller, one the autoloader is damaged then the tank can't fight anymore since the turret is isolated from the tank and the crew will have to retreat to have it either repaired or replaced.
Since you've said that what I've said you saw in other places and forums. Maybe there's some truth to what and if these statements are coming from actual tankmen, then you need to pay attention because they know what they're talking about since they've experienced what it's like to operate a tank.
Your last part debates about philosophy and is off topic but I can't help point out what I've said about the human factor I've said: "the human factor wins WARS, not technology." Your statement implies that wars are won through battles and technology when that has proven to not be the case every war. But this is a different matter for another time.