Tell me about autoloaders? Do they worked? Why? Are they effective

you lose a crewman, you gain a bit more vesatility, you also turn your tank into a giant game of mousetrap that is actively trying to eat your limbs.

>>33947667

Old Autoloaders where notorious for ripping arms off

New system are pretty safe and id say they are becoming more and more on par with the crew based system

>>33948794
automation always wins in the long run

File: Soviet autoloader reliability.png (126KB, 382x534px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 382x534px

>>33947667

File: 3036_67_225-bofors-57mm-gun-ammo-feed.jpg (200KB, 2704x1117px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 2704x1117px

>>33947667
If you're wondering about how autoloaders will perform in the long run, check with the navy. Most of their guns have been autoloading for decades.

Pic related, Bofors 57mm. 120 round capacity, can be load from below deck in about 3 minutes, 3 40 round mags, takes about 2 seconds to reload a mag. 210 rpm fire rate.

>>33947667
>What are the drawbacks?
Occasionally they autoload an arm, because people do stupid things around heavy machinery.

>>33947667
>What are the drawbacks?
You don't have a loader to do all the manual labor tasks your loader would normally do.
Gives the tank an additional weapon to kill its crew with.
The lowest ranked member of the crew is now the driver, and you can't really use him as a gopher because driver.

>>33949626
Driver was always lowest ranking member in my organizations

>>33947667
>auto loaders
cuck

>>33949551
Naval gun systems also tend to be very large and heavy compared to their land based counterparts.

>127mm mk45 mod4 gun
>~30 tons

>>33947667
>What are the drawbacks?
Notice how the old Soviet tanks pop the turret off and barbecue the crew if they get hit?

It's because the ammo is all in the autoloader inside the tank, rather than being in a separate compartment like it is in the Abrams.

>>33950495
Why don't they just make the turret+autoloader a separate compartment?

>>33950709
That sounds like French design philosophy. Do you want to be a frog?

>>33950495
That has nothing to do with autoloaders.

>>33950709
They're trying that with the armata

>>33950709
Because it was done from the beginning. Ammo explosions and flying turrets have nothing in common with autoloaders, just like he
>>33950737
mentioned. T-72 have only HALF of its ammo in autoloader. And that half, is at the bottom of the hull, well protected, and completely safe. What IS dangerous, that is a spare ammo, carried inside the combat compartment. Easy way out - don`t carry spare ammo in combat. There were cases of T-72, receiving more than 20 hits from RPG-7, several penetrations, and after that, returning to base on its own (Second Chechnya campaign). More advanced way out - place spare ammo in protected compartment (Abrams style), but that leads to the larger turret design, and generally, eats all benefits of autoloader (smaller profile, lighter tank). The way around - put the spare ammo outside of the armored space entirely. That was done on T-90MS.
The most complex and advanced way to solve the riddle - remove crew from combat compartment, and use extra space to store all ammo in autoloader. That was done in T-14 "Armata" design.

>>33951318
Good post