>1964 >Washington, DC Colonel, the Soviets got a tank that

>Retards who think you can't just have a fourth crewman doing useful things PLUS an autoloader

File: k2_black_panther_mbt_l3.jpg (67KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x682px

>>31925510
>larger profile and extra 15 tons for literally no reason
manually loading was outdated years before M1 Abrams began testing.

>rotating driver in the turret
That design choice probably killed the project by itself.

>>31925539
>implying autoloaders make the tank less complicated, they easier to maintain, have a faster re-stock time and are faster than a well trained crew

File: type 10.jpg (700KB, 1920x1055px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1920x1055px

>>31925682
>implying it's a coincidence every 21st century tank has been autoloader based
>implying implications

>>31925502
Problem that it was 152mm autoloader. German 120mm version worked fine. US really should took more from Kpz-70.

I literally say the same thing in every single thread. Tanks are incredibly complicated machines and the overwhelming majority of a tanker's time is spent on maintenance. And that's not rinky dink shit like painting a barn, it's knocking track pads out with a sledgehammer, one by one, in the middle of an Iraqi summer. The fourth man is worth his weight in gold in every conceivable scenario.

There's a reason the majority of major military powers have decided autoloading tanks are a meme.

>>31925812
That, and they just had to have GLATGMs because they were all the rage in the '60s. I'd argue that if they didn't have to worry about either of those issues the MBT-70 would have entered service.

>>31925825
>There's a reason the majority of major military powers have decided autoloading tanks are a meme.

not really

File: Mbt3000.jpg (109KB, 1032x581px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1032x581px

>>31926260
Everybody other than the British and America codevelopers (Leopard 2) have decided autoloaders are better.
French, Koreans, Russians, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, have opted for 3 man crew. And those are just the ones that have developed their own tank in the past 20 years.

>>31925825
Which brings up the point that running a army with tanks in it requires tankers that are good at maintaining tanks. Tracked vehicles require a shit ton of upkeep and logistical tail.

>>French, Koreans, Russians, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis...

Who?

>>31925825
Well said. Would a better protected/ lower profiled tank be worth it if you *had to use an auto-loader? I don't know shit about tanks, I just think they're cool.

>>31926596
Hmmm, wonder which tabks have actually seen a battlefield?

Do mercs have an autoloader?

>>31925539
this thing is so fucking sexy it's unbelievable

File: 1428681978284.jpg (58KB, 640x560px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x560px

don't old soviet auto-loaders have the problem where there are constantly shells inside the turret unlike a manual loader where they only take the shell out of the magazine right before loading? isn't that why T-72s in Syria kept having so many turret explosions?

have the russians solved this problem or is the T-90 equally as likely to *tip* its turret at you after a chechan fires an RPG-18 at it?

>>31926669
Merkavas are inherently worse protected by their engine forward design

>>31925502
what a shit thread

File: good goy.gif (2KB, 105x128px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 105x128px

>he believes the Pentagon propaganda that having a loader is better than an auto-loader

>>31926685
This is fixed now in the t-14 armata and newer versions of the t-90, the autoloader 'carousel' is kept in a closed compartment that only opens before loading.

>>31926698
>he believes propaganda from poor countries and commies

>>31926701
that is still in middle of the hull and will still exploded, kill crew and blow turret off if hit

File: 342b845a6044d91c5d6fe59b85d110f6.jpg (62KB, 632x402px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 632x402px

>>31926260
>>31926596
Look. One thing everyone keeps forgetting about, is that tank is a high-maintenance tool.
The more the crew - the easier it is for them (and faster), to keep it in good running condition.

I remember detailed articles about M3 Lee.
It gets a lot of undeserved hate, but at the time, compared to other tanks of that era, it was a pretty decent tank.
AND, the 5-men crew really, really made the field service of the tank much more comfortable.

Soviets pushed for the 3-man crew because they already knew in the early 70-s (and I know this from interviews & memoirs of Jaruzelski) that should they ever had a chance against the West, they could only count on speed, low silhouette, and ZERG RUSH tactic - in their own analysis, they calculated that it's like, 7 eastern tanks against 1 western, in terms of kill-death ratio.
One crew member less - gigantic save on training.
So stop fapping to autoloaders.

>>31926685
The soviet/russian autoloaders are so bad crewmen have literally been maimed and killed by them in training exercises, And they've even malfunctioned and caused fires and explosions.

>>31925502
Wrong you made shitiest tank.

M1 and M1IP are crap and even t55 can fuck there shit up.
No protection fro. Atgm or heat at all.

The l7 105 at that time underpowerd.


Get your infos rigth before posting such claims.

>>31926728
Pretty much this.

70's-80's Soviet armored doctrine is very interesting purely because of its differences with what would be considered 'normal' when it comes to advancing.

It emphasized speed and concentration of firepower over anything else. Very general attack plans were essentially 'Find a road heading in the direction you want, column up and move out until contact. Then spend a few minutes reorganizing into a line and advance.

Reinforcing failure was considered a waste and instead successful breakthroughs were considered top priority. So units along a front that ended up getting stalled and needed support to achieve their objective were considered to be failures and were provided only enough support to fall back and regroup whereas those that either encountered little resistance or smashed through it were given priority for reinforcement and support.

It generally makes sense as a defender, by its very nature, has an advantage over the attacker.

>So units along a front that ended up getting stalled and needed support to achieve their objective were considered to be failures and were provided only enough support to fall back and regroup whereas those that either encountered little resistance or smashed through it were given priority for reinforcement and support.

Yes. This. I read about it as a kid. Unit that brakes through gets all the support it needs, while the ones that get blocked are neglected.
It's not a bad tactic, they just copied it from the Germans. And it's the only tactic that makes sense when your economical factors are much worse than those of the enemy - fast victory or defeat.
Just like the Germans. They KNEW that if they don't win the war n 2 year, they are fucked economically.

YFW retards dont realize the soviet autoloader design was such a handy cap that to increase gun output past or equivalent to western guns they had to pull the armata and remove the crew from the autoloader and make the autoloader take up more than a third of the tank

>>31926857
Yeah it's so retarded everyone who's made a tank since the 80s has used autoloader.

>>31926884
you clearly don't understand i'm talking about the carousel style autoloader. go home schoolboy. modern autloaders will also be challenging without making the turret bustle stupid long as we move to greater than 1 meter long shells

>>31926896
>you don't understand
>go home
>School boy
For a thread about breakthrough weaponry you are sure using a lot of defensive tactics.

>>31926685
The old soviet autoloader had the frankly unkind behavior where it could take the gunners right arm and ram it into the breech if he wasn't careful.

>>31926920
sorry das ruskkie if the schoolboy comment hurt your fee fee's

>>31926934
you're just abandoning substance now

Manual loading and auto loading was presented to a number of nations in the development of new main battle tanks. Every one of them elected for the autoloader, because autoloader is smaller than a dude.
The only reason the M1 has a crew of 4 is Americans are largely unable to collate requirements with engineering fundamentals; the M1 as with many other products of American engineering relies on greater size and posses less efficiency with not only regards to size, but fuel economy and material cost.
If you created a version of the T90 with the sophisticated electronics and material sciences of the American empire, you would have a better tank than the M1 Abrams.

>>31927035
So just let the americans be inferior. Why help them by making them want autoloaders?

>>31927035
>Manual loading and auto loading was presented to a number of nations in the development of new main battle tanks. Every one of them elected for the autoloader, because autoloader is smaller than a dude.

Not true, only recently has this happened, and its an extremely small sample size.

The Osório, arjun both used manual loadings.

>>31927080
>only recently
>Arjun - 1974
>Osorio - 1985
For someone that believes the Earth is 5000 years old you sure don't think 50 years is a long time.

>>31926786
Funny, the americans stationed in germany considered themselves to be "speed bumps", pretty much their to be a nuisance until the US fully mobilized a counter attack.

But then again, I doubt any officer will ever admit that congress has given them enough money and resources to get the job done. The enemy is always going to be beating us until its time to fight.

File: kurds.jpg (117KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 620x349px

>>31927137
Americans on this board are like Rhodesians.
They win every battle then lose because they forgot war is politics.

>>31926596
Israel also decided they don't want autoloaders.

>>31926690
>inherently worse protected
Not really. Differently protected against different expected threat environments. A Merk wouldn't last long in the Fulda gap slugging it out with the commies, but it's tailor-made for defending the Golan from Syrians.

>>31927106
Name the next new build tank after the osorio, with the date.

Reminder that the current version of the arjun was also only accepted in 96, having been "redone" many times.

File: 12631444_561566010676550_6277668434208272389_n.jpg (13KB, 234x206px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 234x206px

>>31926920
>For a thread about breakthrough weaponry you are sure using a lot of defensive tactics.

>>31927077
The goal is to make them feel bad. Then somehow /k/ loses.

File: merkava troop.jpg (38KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x600px

>>31927191
They also decided they wanted 6 dudes in the back of their tank and the engine in the front. Pretty good bet they're doing their own thing and aren't really comparable.

>>31927137
>Funny, the americans stationed in germany considered themselves to be "speed bumps", pretty much their to be a nuisance until the US fully mobilized a counter attack.

Depends on the year you ask interestingly enough. Morale in the 60's wasn't bad, in the 70's and early 80's it tanked hard. Active Defense doctrine was notoriously hated as it was considered by many to be exactly what you said - acting as a speed bump and nothing more for REFORGER. AirLand Battle combined with the modernization cycle of the 80's changed that drastically. The entire mindset was changed from "Just do what you can and wait it out" to "The first few battles will be utterly decisive to any war that happens and we plan on winning them." The 80's were a very interesting time for NATO as a whole as the US finally undergoing a modernization cycle after missing it in the 70's spurred a procurement boom throughout NATO.

This resulted in V and VII Corps becoming the best trained organizations in the US Army in the 80s. VII Corps performance in the Gulf War in 91 is directly attributable to this focus - and no, I'm not referring to K:D or any other nonsense that can be chalked up to standard arab incompetence. VII Corps performed spectacularly when it came down to command and control, logistics and operations.

>I doubt any officer will ever admit that congress has given them enough money and resources to get the job done.

Most of the time they do not. Take a look at the infamous Ready Rate controversy of the B-1B in the 80's and what happened when they funded it for the trial period.

>>31927289
Fuck, I miss good command and control. These last few years have been hard on most organization's morale. There used to be a mission, now it just covering your ass and making sure everyone attended the anti-suicide/anti-rape briefings.

>>31927287
>They also decided they wanted 6 dudes in the back of their tank
This is a meme that needs to die. The Israelites can only carry troops in the back in discomfort instead of carrying ammo there- reducing the tank to the ready ammo only.
The engine was put in front for a few extremely good reasons, which however are relevant mostly for Israel and not other western countries, so
>Pretty good bet they're doing their own thing and aren't really comparable.
Is an accurate statement.

File: merkava-medevac.jpg (23KB, 400x255px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x255px

>>31927386
>This is a meme that needs to die
It's not a meme
they built a 120mm direct fire armed ambulance.
may have turned out to be as impractical as the Hind's troop capacity, but they did it. in fact the merkava with its little troop compartment came out around 1970, whereas the hind came out in 1969. during that time the concept of heavily armed troop carriers was in its nascence, and mistakes were made. mistakes like the manual loading paradigm on the M1 Abrams main battle tank and its brother the Leopard II. The design of those tanks likely influenced later manually loaded tanks as other nations would respect the design choices of the Western leaders in armoured technology, the US and Germany.

>>31926920
kek

>>31925502

>omitting the fact this gun could shoot missiles out of its barrel as well

The only logical reason why anyone would use autoloaders on a tank is when the gun and ammo becomes too large and long for a human loader to handle.

The M1 Thumber hand an autoloader developed around its 140 mm gun, the turret was elongated so even bigger guns could be mounted. Too bad the cold war ended.

In fact I'm pretty sure the 120mm autoloader is just an offshoot of the 140mm autoloader on the Thumper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rsML92PLbU

>>31925756
oh look, a tank built by a country that hasn't into war in 70+ years

File: k2_firing.jpg (559KB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 1600x1060px

>>31928103
>brazenly ignores the K2 right above it
South Korea has been in a state of war for 70 years
Guess what
Autoloader

so what about my suggestion
Have the 4th crewman manning an spotting drone and other cameras/machine gun.
While an autoloader loads the ammo

>>31928319
Technically been in a state of war with 0 blood shed and 0 application of modern weapon systems against one another

File: 2013 North Korea.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>31928352
North Korea's military technology is advanced, for the 1950s.
As it happens, they had some pretty potent weaponry in the 50s.

>>31928369

....till they got their shit shoved in by the Americans

>>31927748
You've missed the same point twice. The "troop compartment" is where the ammo would go. The "tankbulance" has only the ready ammo-around 10 rounds. They were used for this role not because of the armament but rather the armor.
What the Merk does have is the ability to carry 2 lightly equipped (with almost no gear) guys when fully loaded- hence capable of recovering crews of stricken tanks back to safety.
It's not the equivalent of the Hind but of the cargo variant of the Grumman Avenger-sacrificing fighting power to fill a niche requirement.
As for the loader issue, Israel decided it prefers the advantages of human loaders.
1. As has been mentioned in this thread, one extra guy for maintenance, lookout duty, and workload management is an advantage.
2. Having a 4 man crew allows you to function after losing one. Crew members are cross-trained to do each other's jobs, and if the tank is hit and one killed the tank can function (with reduced efficiency) by having the commander act as gunner from his position.
With a 3 man crew under similar conditions, running a 2 person crew is far less effective, and if the autoloader is hit the whole tank is mission-killed until it can be repaired.
TLDR the merchants have some very good reasons for doing what they do in the field of armored vehicles and are less influenced by American thought than you might think.

>>31928340
That's actually been suggested to the US army. There are autoloader designs available for production to fit into the existing turret, leaving room for the 4th man, who could be a spotter/mechanic/WSO/RCWS operator/whatever.
These have gone nowhere as they aren't cost-effective upgrades to the Abrams when compared to the M1A2SEPvN series.

File: 1422099611-merkava-iv-ammunition-stowage.jpg (839KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1152x2048px

>>31927287
BTW this is what the rear of the Merk looks like when loaded- lotsa ammo (in this case a mk3 with 120mm) and just enough room for a couple of dudes without large loads.

>>31926857
>handy cap

>>31927899
Pretty much this.

The main reason so many other countries have opted for auto-loaders is because the malnourished manlet conscripts inside lack the physical strength and stamina quickly, reliably and sustainably load shells larger than 100mm.

When rearming the japs after WWII the US found that their little bodies couldn't move anything bigger than a 90mm.

The US and others will probably adopt an auto-loader if and when they upgun to 130+mm but not because they'd prefer to.

File: AK47ANIMATION.gif (2MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x225px

This is not even an argument. The loader will be automated when we come up with a decent design. Actually, it already is automated. Just like how the radio operator was automated when they could make proper radios.

>Autoloader is more complex
True and irrelevant. Image related. An assault rifle is more complex than a bolt action rifle. An entire tank is also more complex than a piece of stone. A trained crew can reload a piece of stone faster than they can reload a tank.

>extra crewmember is so good
It is not. Implying bolt action rifles should be assigned an extra soldier whose job is to pull the bolt. Implying the BMP3 is the best "tank" because it has 7 extra crew. An extra crewman is just more useless space wasted, more meatbags to protect, and more space taken away by teacups in British tanks.
Also, drones are a thing because they have no crew at all. This is the direction we're going.

File: ohshit.jpg (43KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 514x536px

>>31930753
>those terribly unrelated analogies

>>31930753
>comparing handheld weaponry to mechanized ordnance

We could compare horse cavalry and elephant cavalry and spout bullshit with confidence as well, but that doesn't mean because your analogy sounds good, it's actually good

Yeah the horse is low fucking maintenance in comparison to a tank, but that doesn't mean strapping a fancy autoloading 155mm and having one crewman will make it the weapon to end all weapons

>>31928373
well if we look on battle maps, not really, this war was almost never ending

>NK push deep into SK
>SK push back while NK retreat in russia
>NK come bakc again pushing SK back deep to the south
>allied forces with major american troop landing, help SK pushing back north
>NK hold their position real hard
>UN decide to call it a cease fire and draw a fuckign line on the map, both NK and SK agree while giving each other the angry eye

it could have been a flawless victory for US and allies if there wasn't the cold war

>>31930753
>ruskies literally jumping back over the lessons they learned in ww2 and removing people from the tanks turret.

come on now, more eyes are always a good thing.
soldiers in the field actually think the rws is a shitty deal, it removes the situational awareness of the topcover.

another thing is that the hull guys always die first in excercises, harder to get out

>>31925502
you can't make the autoloader faster when you need to but you can always make the loading neger hurry up.

File: 1431854555776.png (34KB, 505x800px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 505x800px

>>31931046
>loading neger

>>31925756
>tanks designed by countries that haven't seen a land war in 50+ years

>>31925502
I think what is curious is the complete disregard for the fact that Germany also went with a human loader in the Leopard 2.

>>31930998
If US presidents weren't a buncha closet commies*