Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I know all of this... hence my question was only on human loaders vs gun angle at loading... :(
Btw, not sure on weight... yes, the mechanism is heavy, but, afaik, it allows for a smaller turret...
Smaller turret equals fewer rounds. Also it usually mean lower gun barrel depression which reduces the options for engaging from defilade. That is one of the advantages of the M60 and M1. They can fire from defilade and expose much less of themselves than a Warsaw Pact tank. A taller turret allows more room.
I believe all of the answers I gave outweigh any possible advantages of an autoloader.
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
I know all of this... hence my question was only on human loaders vs gun angle at loading... :(
Btw, not sure on weight... yes, the mechanism is heavy, but, afaik, it allows for a smaller turret...
No, we cannot load the gun at any angle. In the Abrams the loader has a switch called the EL Uncouple. Flip the switch and the gun goes to zero elevation in relation to the turret floor. The gunner and commander are still free to hunt and computer will put the gun back on target once the round is loaded.
The big advantage of the autoloader is peacetime costs. An autloader is a fixed cost, sure there are some maintenance costs but for the most part, once you buy it, the costs are done. Say you have a tank fleet that is 1000 strong. Normally you'd need to train 4000 tankers to get the fleet operational and then X number of tankers a year to compensate for the tankers leaving military service. Each trooper has to be fed, housed, trained, provided medical care, etc... By switching to 3 man crews, you cut the personnel costs significantly. For Russia with its massive tank fleet and ruinous 25% turnover ever 6 months, a 3 man crew makes a lot of economic sense. Likewise, if you have a small technically skilled population, a 3 man tank, even in a small tank fleet makes sense.
The down side is combat... Tanks are fragile egotistical beasts, don't treat them just as you should and they will throw a tempertantrum and shut down. Now in a 4 man tank, you have 3 people to care for the beast. The commander will help out as he can, but he has other duties. So you have 3x24 hours a day (72 man hours) Lets say your average combat day on the move is 30 man hours of movement. Every other task has to fall in the remaining 42 hours, maintenance, guard mount, briefings, food, sleep, showers, refueling/re-arming. If you want each man to get 6 hours to sleep and eat (with a 2 hour guard mount), you have now used up an additional 24 hours. You now have 18 man hours left for everything else.
A 3 man crew only has 2 people for 48 man hours a day. Movement is 20 hours, sleeping, eating and guard mount uses another 16 for a total of 32. They have 16 hours left, 2 fewer than the 3 man crew. Yet they have even more moving parts to deal with and a lot of the tasks that need to be done are a lot harder because tanks are heavy and tank parts are heavy. With fewer bodies to help certain things take longer and cost more energy. Which of course begins to amplify the lack of sleep making tasks harder and longer... It also makes combat reflexes slower. See first, shoot first, win. A big if often unnoticed part of that maxim is beign in fighting trim physically and mentally.
The US Army moved 400 miles in 2 weeks in enough fighting trim to storm Baghdad. A Russian force that tried it would have fallen asleep out of sheer exhaustion by Karbala.
No, we cannot load the gun at any angle. In the Abrams the loader has a switch called the EL Uncouple. Flip the switch and the gun goes to zero elevation in relation to the turret floor. The gunner and commander are still free to hunt and computer will put the gun back on target once the round is loaded.
Ah... so that's it. I imagine others will have something similar. Thanks.
The big advantage of the autoloader is peacetime costs. An autloader is a fixed cost, sure there are some maintenance costs but for the most part, once you buy it, the costs are done. Say you have a tank fleet that is 1000 strong. Normally you'd need to train 4000 tankers to get the fleet operational and then X number of tankers a year to compensate for the tankers leaving military service. Each trooper has to be fed, housed, trained, provided medical care, etc... By switching to 3 man crews, you cut the personnel costs significantly. For Russia with its massive tank fleet and ruinous 25% turnover ever 6 months, a 3 man crew makes a lot of economic sense. Likewise, if you have a small technically skilled population, a 3 man tank, even in a small tank fleet makes sense.
The down side is combat... Tanks are fragile egotistical beasts, don't treat them just as you should and they will throw a tempertantrum and shut down. Now in a 4 man tank, you have 3 people to care for the beast. The commander will help out as he can, but he has other duties. So you have 3x24 hours a day (72 man hours) Lets say your average combat day on the move is 30 man hours of movement. Every other task has to fall in the remaining 42 hours, maintenance, guard mount, briefings, food, sleep, showers, refueling/re-arming. If you want each man to get 6 hours to sleep and eat (with a 2 hour guard mount), you have now used up an additional 24 hours. You now have 18 man hours left for everything else.
A 3 man crew only has 2 people for 48 man hours a day. Movement is 20 hours, sleeping, eating and guard mount uses another 16 for a total of 32. They have 16 hours left, 2 fewer than the 3 man crew. Yet they have even more moving parts to deal with and a lot of the tasks that need to be done are a lot harder because tanks are heavy and tank parts are heavy. With fewer bodies to help certain things take longer and cost more energy. Which of course begins to amplify the lack of sleep making tasks harder and longer... It also makes combat reflexes slower. See first, shoot first, win. A big if often unnoticed part of that maxim is beign in fighting trim physically and mentally.
The US Army moved 400 miles in 2 weeks in enough fighting trim to storm Baghdad. A Russian force that tried it would have fallen asleep out of sheer exhaustion by Karbala.
These I knew, and all make sense (and add the possibility of the autoloader breaking down in combat). I just didn't know the other part.
Tweet
Comment