/k/ what is it with the cult of human loaders? As far as I know,

>>34085943
Don't really know much about tanks but I've always wondered, what happens when your autoloader fucks up and jams?

File: 1466731428141.jpg (62KB, 600x663px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x663px

>gun jams
>gets fucked

>>34085983
Lots of blyats and shrieking

>>34085943
Autoloaders and human loaders have their tradeoffs, it really just boils down to doctrine, which is why countries usually stick with one of the two. Also, the US experimented with autoloaders and decided they weren't worth the tradeoffs.

File: T-64 autoloader and storage.png (126KB, 382x534px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 382x534px

>>34086008
>>34085983
I have never heard anyone with experience complaining about it jamming. After 50 years of continuous improvements to the autoloader systems, you'd expect them to be pretty reliable even though they were always fairly reliable, this is not a complex mechanism.

>>34086029
US planned a needlessly complex autoloader and decided it was expensive above all else, France follows NATO doctrine in every aspect, but still chose to get autoloaded Leclerc tank, No country who has ever used autoloaded tanks have ever gone back to manual loaders no matter their doctrine.

>>34086054
Human loaders do have advantages. Autoloaders are prone to jamming and you have one less extra crew, which is a bad thing. With a human loader you have an extra set of hands for maintenance or as a replacement for other crew, although the latter is unlikely. Humans also load faster in bursts, but autoloaders don't tire like humans.

>>34086009
KEK

>>34086097
Yeah you say they are prone to jamming, but they aren't. And despite the maintenance being probably the most common given reason i encounter, i think it's silly. All armoured units have maintenance companies, and other people than those in the tanks to help out the tanks. If you are in actual combat away from those support units, you probably aren't going to stick around to fix it with ATGMs flying around your ears anyway.

ITT: Vatnik trying to justify greater mechanical complexity, greater weight, ammunition storage that is fundamentally less safe, and less tactical flexibility regarding the crew

>So if manually loaded tanks are better than autoloaded tanks, how come nobody with actual experience producing and operating both thinks so?

Yeah, because all of countries using those tanks have had their justification for doing so through all of the real combat experience their armored units have accrued, right? Oh wait.

>>34086143
Spoken like someone who has never operated a tank. Day to day maintenance is hell and you want as much help as you can get. not to mention you gain 1 more set of eyes for 360 security

>>34086033
That's becuase pretty much every real engagement they've been involved in they've either been destroyed before it jams or the battles over before it arrives.

>>34086233
Well educate me, how many different types of main battle tanks have you operated?

>>34086029
Fairly much, people tend to either look at it as a machine or a combat team.
Nothing really wrong with technology in the tank, but as a combat team you've got a bit of redundancy if someone gets injured, sick or dead and an extra set of hands when it comes to effecting field repairs, maintenance and getting un-stuck.

File: FB_IMG_1466303387747.jpg (118KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1280x960px

>>34086249
Only 1, and we repaired it under fire after an IED strike in OIF. Our loader was paramount to our survival as he provided cover with the 240 while the 3 other cre repaired the track... Snapped this pic and a few more with my shitty digital camera before we started taking small arms fire

File: FB_IMG_1466303382505.jpg (37KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1280x960px

>>34086303
The other shot I took just before they laid into us

>>34086327
>>34086303
So can you say your experience is representative of tanks in general, or just the machine you operated?

File: humdumdrum.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>34086365

While all countries which has produced both manually loaded tanks and autoloaded tanks now only produce autoloaded tanks.

The US experimented with autoloaders sometime around the 60's and decided they weren't worth it.

>>34086365
I'de say his actual combat experience is a hell of a lot more applicable than your experience using a cellphone on a toilet.

>>34086365
I spent a total 32 months in combat 2 deployments to Iraq, my loader was 100% iresplaceable. We averaged 1 shot every 4 seconds, and not once did I wish my loader was a machine.

>>34086407
That's great, and all power to you, so is the M1 Abrams representative of all tanks in the world, do they all function the same way and require the same amount of maintenance or is it a weak induction to claim that from 1 machine, knowledge of all machines can be derived?

>>34086452
Not that guy, but regardless of how much maintenance any type of tank needs, every tank will eventually need maintenance.

>>34086452
>no other tank in the entire world has ever thrown or lost a track during combat
>I also forgot to mention I love being cucked

>>34086452
That's some pretty weak game trying to throw generalisations into the mix vs actual practice
Theory-Practice are completely different things.

>>34086480
Naturally, so how many maintenance hours do the T-72, Leclerc, Type 10, K2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 require respectively?

>>34086490
>memes
>dodging the question
Not that I expect much from the cult of manual loading, but it's 5 meme posts to a straight forward question about the validity of argument from anecdote.

>>34086513
Theory and practice are very much supposed to work together. Making a theory from practice usually requires inductive logic, and that usually requires more than one example.

>>34086452
Every tank on earth requires loading, maintenance, security, quicker emergency medivac, radio maintenance, vision, ect... An autoloader can only load.... A human loader can provide all of those advantages amd more.

>>34086546
So how many hours do autoloaded crews spend on maintenance, and how many do manually loaded crews spend on maintenance?

>>34086577
The manual loading crew will spend 3/4 the time on maintenance, and less time loading munitions, tbey will have an easier time re fueling while pulling security as well.

Why not both? Install an auto loader and keep the 4th crewman with a different job title.

>>34086632
Tanks have limited space, and weight requirements

>>34086609
Assuming that they operate exactly the same tank with less crew.
Protip: that isn't how it works.

They are operating a different tank, with a different amount of crew.
You can't translate time spend on an M1 Abrams into the time spend on any other tank. Based on your personal experience. That makes no sense. I think what you meant to say is that you don't know, but you will definitely speculate about it.

>>34086632

But that might require changing the entire design of the tank's interior to accommodate the extra crewman, autoloaders feed system takes up space, and it's also essentially having one more soldier at risk without a real purpose besides sitting there in case he's needed

>>34086452
well, in this case, it's at least representative of the Leo 2, considering they use the same gun.
and because ruskis gonna ruski, I doubt the data is there for the T72/T90, leaving really only the leclerc, type 10, K2, and chally.

>>34086661
since you're gonna shit all over his experience, granted, it is an anecdote and isn't hard evidence, what's your experience?
why exactly do you feel the expertise or capability to disregard such an experience?

>>34086632
>maximize cost while minimizing efficiency
t. Government contractor

>>34086661
Your time on ZERO tanks means you will never know the advantage of a human loader. I did spend time on auto loading strykers (not tanks) in Hawaii for my last duty station with 3 man crews (no dismounts) the workload was massively increased and our combat effectiveness severly limited. If you want to know if human loafers are supperior take the battle of 73 easting into consideration.

>>34085943
Your post is worded like a riddle.

Can you re word what you are asking?

File: 1493714290760.webm (3MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x640px

>>34086452

Not saying your arguments lack merit, but there is zero chance of you recovering with a compelling counter to >>34086303 unless you can find another tankbro from a nation with autoloaders and a winning armored doctrine

>>34085943
I have this feeling that the rabid auto-loader fanboys including the likes of OP are the kind of shut in autists that proselytise for auto-loaders because it reduces the number of people in a tank they'd have to be awkward around in the fantasy in their head where they actually join an army and don't get medically invalidated for their spectrum disorder.

File: FB_IMG_1491727058603.jpg (52KB, 720x486px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 720x486px

>>34086731
Or he is too weak to sling 120mm shells and is sad because he will never be a tanker

>>34086678
My argument was never based on a fallacy of anecdote, and saying my argument is less logical because i don't have my own fallacy to put against another is silly. As stated in the OP, my question is that if the engineers of countries that have experience with both types of tanks choose autoloaded tanks, they may actually be unto something.

I merely reject logical fallacies, why do you push for them as being acceptable evidence of anything?

>>34086709
If I want to know what it's like fighting much older tanks using much older ammunition, with much greater numbers against a much less educated foe, I'll look at the battle of 73 easting.

And deduct newer technology, better training and superior numbers matter.

>>34086714
I consider it a reasonable to conclude, that if everyone who has experience in both types of main battle tanks as a country consider one type superior there may be something to it.

If manuals were superior everyone would just switch back to them, but they aren't. This phenomenon is not explained.

>>34086722
Why counter one fallacy with another? I'd much rather see the actual statistics on the subject or at least some kind of survey or study, rather than one biased dude vs another biased dude.

>>34086782
The only reason autoloaders exsist is it its cheaper in the long run to replave a shitty loading mechanism than it is to retrain and house and feed a new tanker... Autoloaders exsist as a cost saving method not as a superior weapon system.

>>34086782
>If I want to know what it's like fighting much older tanks using much older ammunition, with much greater numbers

> In the battle, four of the 2nd ACR's armored cavalry troops, Troops E, G, and I with Troop K contributing to I Troop's fight (totaling about 36 M1A1 tanks), defeated two enemy brigades, the Tawakalna Division's 18th Brigade and, later in the day, the 9th Armored Brigade.

I don't think "much greater numbers" means what you think it means

>>34086798
But they don't save on manpower, they just move some of it to support sections instead of inside tanks.

Also how are you going to make fully compartmentalised tanks without autoloaders?

>>34085943
AUTOLOADERS ARE FOR SILLY TANKS, FROM SILLY ARMIES, FROM SILLY COUNTRIES, THAT SPEAK A SILLY LANGUAGE, THAT SUCK AT WARS.

>>34086033
The second point is negated by the fact that the propellant is stored on top of the turret floor, so anything that penetrates the turret tends to drop hot metal right on top of the charges...

>>34086813
You don't want a fully compartmentalized tank. You want communication and access to weapons and radios for safe repairs.... Also i was talking more about replacement support troops dont typucally get injured tank crews do. An auto loader is cheaper to replace... BUT its also almost impossible to replave without nearby protected maintenanve crews. A man loader, can be replaved by another crew member. In the Abrams for example both the gunner and commander have full weapons controls so one can replave the loader if hes out of action... In really bad cases you can pick up a grunt amd quickly teach him how to load... He will be slow but he will out load a broken auto loader. But eventually you will have to replave the loader with a very pricey new tanker

>>34086846
You don't need to teach an autoloader how to load. And if your tank is penetrated and someone in the crew is injured, you probably won't be continuing that fight anyway. Particularly not if your turret isn't place that securely in the hull anymore.

>>34086678

>since you are going to shit all over his experience

because it's only relevant to his point of view. You seem to be stuck on doctrines and figures being identical between entirely different models of tanks.

>why exactly do you feel the expertise or capability to disregard such an experience?

Because I wouldn't trust a truck engineer to repair my car or motorbike. He could do it because the basic fundamentals of a combustion engine are there but his expertise isn't with that specific area.

His experience is entirely relevant if you are talking about M1 Abrams but utterly irrelevant when talking about non-M1 Abrams. You seem to be struggling to understand the difference between the two things.

4 man crew in a non-autoloading 65 tonne tank with a turbine.
3 man crew in a autoloading 40 tonne tank with a traditional engine.
3 man crew in an autoloading 44 tonne tank with a direct drive engine.

All 3 have different operational and maintenance requirements and the only crossover you can claim is 'I was part of a tank crew' because all tanks operate differently with different doctrines and issues.

>>34086866
If your autoloader gets damged its damn near impossible to improvise and fix it, if your loader gets damaged the commander or gunner can render aid and or take his place... Even a grunt can hop in and take his place... But in your happy little auto loader you need to halt and move back well behind your lines to a maintenance bay for repairs. Dont forget if your vehicle gets disabled you also have one less person pulling security and one less person helping with the wounded

I can shed some light on this subject.

First off, post-WW2 tanks haven't seen much head to head combat between each other. I really am curious to know the percentages of tanks produced that actually made it to combat and fought another tank. The ones that came to mind were the tanks of the Six-Day War:

Egypt, Syria and Iraq used T-34/85, T-54, T-55, PT-76, and SU-100/152 World War II-vintage self-propelled guns. Jordan used M-47, M-48, and M-48A1 Patton tanks. Panzer IV (used by Syria)

vs

M50 and M51 Shermans, M48A3 Patton, Centurion, AMX-13.

Iran-Iraq War:
Iran used M43 Pattons and Chieftans vs Iraq's T-62. Iraq crushed them.

Nowadays, the Russians & Chinese are leaning towards autoloaders. I think the Swedes and French adopted an autoloader too. The French were always proponents of the concept of autoloaders as tank doctrine since the 1950s. I think the results were meh. I can't remember if the AMX 30 had an autoloader. The other industry standards of tanks from the Western nations (Abrams, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2) use the manual loading.

Its too early to tell which is the best concept until we really start mixing it up with other military superpowers Its been a long time since warring countries have thrown hundreds of tanks at each other. That's a good thing for us.

>>34086886
Glorius news comrade! If Auto-Loader damaged then no worries! You most likely dead!

File: Human Dimension of 3 man tanks - US army 1994.png (154KB, 776x574px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 776x574px

The Americans actually wrote something about the maintenance in their own discussion of 3 man tanks.

It seems to me like they are just saying that American units simply doesn't have enough mechanics. And this is only an issue because that is the reality of American cutbacks of manpower.

>>34086873
Dont forget you have ZERO experience in any kind of combat and have litterally no idea what you are talking about. If you think your opinion matters at all VS someone who has actually rode a tank into battle your an idiot.

>>34085943
With the exception of Pact Countries which countries have actually fielded more than one auto-loading MBT?

>As far as I know, no country which has produced and adopted autoloaded tanks have ever switched back to manually loaded tanks.
AMX-13 and AMX-30. But I figure we're mainly talking MBTs here so it doesn't count.

Sweden also is in a weird position as the S-Tank had an autoloader and the Leopard 2 does not, but the S-Tank was also fielded alongside the Centurion which is manually loaded.

>>34086811
>four tank companies destroy two tank brigades
lrn2 force structure. that is a shitload of tanks

File: leopard 2 jack in the box 2.jpg (870KB, 2404x1516px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 2404x1516px

>>34086886
>Thank god we had a 4 man crew, now help me put this turret back on so we can keep fighting. Good thing the fighting compartment being filled with molten copper isn't really a problem for the continued operation of this vehicle thanks to our loader.

>>34086900
Dont forget its difficult for a bunch of soft target mechanics to stay close to an Armored spearhead traveling 45 mph through the desert straight through an enemy Brigade... If they atay too close they risk attack from artillery. So US doctrine emphises quick field repairs done by intelligent well trained crewmen.
Other nations are more defensive so they dont have to worry about a bunch of mechanics following armored spearheads into glorious battle... So they have way deeper mechanical units

File: army-ar.gif (76KB, 640x556px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x556px

>>34086918
> 36 tanks is more than 120

I'm sorry about your spectrum disorder.

File: 1494164228321.gif (3MB, 222x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 222x400px

>>34086782

Hey man I'm just trying to do you a favor because most others here are gonna look at the anecdotes of an experienced tank operator and then call you funny names for sticking to your guns this hardily.

If you wish to put aside fallacy and anectdote why not just look for metrics on militaries with autoloaders in use? You probably wouldn't because the results don't look so pretty in comparison to say, the US army with the M1. But the comparison isn't apples and oranges because the US doctrine is based on near infinite funding and easy access to manpower. Autoloaders don't have appreciable savings here...hence the reason why anectdotes from a professional tank bro bear so much weight in a complex comparison. Tank bro was an appeal to authority, sure...but he is just that--an authority on the subject.

>>34086912
Japan

>>34086932
The Russians aren't more defensive, they just acknowledge that when not fighting under equipped Iraqis, you should consider any damaged tank as out of action for the remainder of the operation. As jumping out in a zone where the enemy is able to shoot you, to fix a track is pretty much suicide.

>>34086942
Assuming that the Iraqi brigade was full strength, and no other unit bu M1 Abrams contributed to the fighting.

File: FB_IMG_1466303396404.jpg (92KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x960px

>>34086927
Yea my loader provided cover fire with his 240 while we repaired pur tank under fire and we all made it back alive... We needed 3 men to repair the track if we had an auto loader we would of had no cover and we would have been killed... So yea 1 more gun in the fight is advantageous.

>>34086365

Quit being a cunt. He served you. Say something along the lines of "I stand corrected" or "well, I have my misgivings but must defer to your experience" and shut the fuck up.

>>34086946
I hesitate to call Japan relevant regarding tank design.

>>34086944
He is an authority on M1 Abrams, but M1 Abrams isn't the subject.

>>34086961
>Fighting an enemy which can be defended against with a 240.

Do you think your loader would be able to fight against regiments of tanks, rocket artillery and multiple layers of long range ATGMs with his 240? Or are we still using the sad remnants of the Iraqi military after the Iraq-Iran war as an indicator of what combat between two forces approaching parity looks like?

>>34086993
No but if we were planning on fighting against that large of an enemy force we wouldn't be the lone tank guarding a fucking convoy would we? My loader pinned down insurgents with a recoiless gun and multiple RPGs for 15 minutes while we repaired the track. It took the up Armored humvees forever to advance along side the convoy because huge ditches to either side of the road were impassable. If we didnt have a loader to provide security we wpuld have ended up like the russian Auto loading tanks in afganistan

I think China is going to debut a very well built autoloader of original design soon. They have enough intel from spying on people, and they have been a proponent of autoloaders ever since they decided to modify Russian tanks. That was always like the first thing they would change.

>>34087022
Good job, your loader is a true hero of convoy protection duty against civilians with guns.

Now how about talking about what tanks are actually made for, breakthrough and exploitation against an actual army?

Also, most Russian tanks in Afghanistan were T-62s which in case you did not know, were in fact not autoloaded.

>>34087062
Lmao you still think having an extra set of eyes and an extra machine gun in the fight is a bad thing.... Tell me what can an auto loader do that a human loader cant

>>34087080
Tell me what a loader can do that a supporting infantry company can't do.

>>34087080

>what an autoloader can do that a human can't

Allow a single gunner to provide main gun support while his crew repairs a tread. Or follow USSR doctrine and have TWO tanks provide main gun support while both crews solve the issue faster than if a single tank crew had to do so.

Doctrine is everything.

>>34087080
Have a BMP provide fire support along with a full squad of eyes and guns while your crews fix the problem.

>>34085943
>So if manually loaded tanks are better than autoloaded tanks, how come nobody with actual experience producing and operating both thinks so?

Notice how besides the Soviets, who used autoloaders on their 125mm gun to make their tanks as small as possible, every country that uses an autoloader has minimal experience in tank combat since WW2?

>>34087087
Ok. Provide a tank with expert maintenance, help a tank driver by driving in shifts to allow for longer operations, opperate radios and provide security on the tank, quickly load a multitude of different shells AND manually remove and swap shells if a different shell is needed (autoloaders have a very hard time at that) they can help with day to day tasks so the crew doesnt get as tired.they make 4 person card games way better. Really a human loader is rather nice... Now how many of those things can an auto loader do?

>>34086927
Your picture of a Turkish tank destroyed by a Turkish F-16 is proof of what?

File: 297WS9w.jpg (73KB, 470x512px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 470x512px

>>34087101
Oh yea non tankers dont know about the commamders ammo stowage... The commander can load and fire in a pinch

>>34087022
>russian Auto loading tanks in afganistan
No such thing.

>>34087119
>Provide a tank with expert maintenance
You already have that in the crew.

>help a tank driver by driving in shifts to allow for longer operations
You're thinking of lone tanks doing stupid shit that would get them killed fighting a real army again i assume.

>opperate radios and provide security on the tank
You're fucking retarded if you don't understand that a squad of infantry is better at this than a single guy.

>quickly load a multitude of different shells AND manually remove and swap shells if a different shell is needed
It's faster to fire a shell that is loaded than it is to swap it, autoloader or no autoloader.

> they can help with day to day tasks so the crew doesnt get as tired
So you think that 1 person can help more than 7, that's not how manpower works is it famalam?

Perhaps you were unable to read that were we talking about that BMP full of infantry that follows the tank around and not the autoloader, try read the post you replied to again carefully this time.

File: 1474556999400.png (225KB, 480x361px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 480x361px

>>34086993

With all your rejection of fallacies and anecdotal experience, you seem to be very stuck to your own argument. I doubt you'll be changing your mind even if someone provides info up to your standards.

But anyhoo...the US has demonstrated how well a manual loading tank can operate given the proper support and doctrine. But the US doesn't have problems with training, feeding and equipping replacement loaders. If the US were a small European nation or Soviet era military concerned with conserving manpower or working with a pinchpenny budget, autloaders would seem like an attractive bargain.

Now the question should be.. Would a poorly equipped nation with autoloader tanks be enough to stand up to the might of a world power with massive economic and military advantage. Would the autoloader make a difference? When taking to account for differences in doctrine and economic capabilities, does the autoloader even have enough advantage to matter?

>>34087146
I look forward to seeing this revolutionary new information that I am sure you possess that somehow gives a better explanation for the phenomenon that i pointed out. Not that anyone has even tried to do that yet.

You're making the argument about US vs some third world country, that isn't the case. It was the technology of autoloaders vs human loaders. Italy isn't a world power, or have a huge budget, but they still make manually loaded tanks, but that is probably because of their extensive experience with armoured combat they have.

>>34087145
Lmao we used to roll tank companies for 72 hours switching out driving to keep constant pressure on key location.

Also no silly grunt will be willing to work on a tank nor will the military PAY to train them how.

Grunts on the ground do not help tanks communicate....

Loaders are great, auto loaders do 1 job loaders do many...

>>34086782
You ever consider the fact that there's more to the adoption of military equipment than "this is better?" (That's assuming the autoloader is, indeed, better.)
Tanks are enormously expensive. I'm sure all the bureaucrats, tax payers, and politicians would be happy to hear "sorry, we need brand new tanks because turns out this even more expensive autoloading mechanism sucks..."
And even ignoring that, maybe countries like France, who piss away no where near the amount of money the US does on their military, might find it more important to reduce the number of crewmembers they have to pay for, than to have a better loader?

Autistic fixation on small details and "this system is better on paper" syndrome don't always reflect decision making in the real world.

>>34086054
>No country who has ever used autoloaded tanks have ever gone back to manual loaders no matter their doctrine.

It is intellectually dishonest at best to make this argument given there are only 3 types of autoloaders in active service and none of them have needed to be replaced.

Russian 125mm with vertical storage. Used in the T-64, T-80 and Oplot.
Russian 125mm with horizontal storage. Used in the T-72, T-90, ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99.
French 120mm turret bustle carousel. Used in the Leclerc, Type 90 and Type 10.

>>34087171
>not having a doctrine that determines cooperation between infantry and tanks.
Sounds like a personal problem, and not a technological one. If the US military is too retarded to enforce supporting units help tank units, I don't know what to say other than you have much greater issues than autoloaders.

>>34087172
Sounds like a US procurement problem, not an autoloader problem.

>>34087198
Reread what was said until you understand it.

File: 8.jpg (52KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 852x480px

>>34087192
You do know that the United States Army is the best in the world at a combined arms attack right? ... We have the asvantage of supportung infantry AND human loaders. We believe in having as many guns, pointed at the enemy as we can afford. We get the best of both worlds. Great infantry support and intelehent loaders that serve many important roles

>>34087101
>repairing a track with only 2 people

That sounds like a hell of a good time.

File: 1494890374746.webm (3MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x640px

>>34087169

There's one commonality. All countries that have autoloader and have not returned to manual loading are countries with smaller defense budgets that lack the resources, manpower, infrastructure, and logistics to compete with a world power class military, so they do what they must--compete on price.

Italy still operates a manual loader because...lol italy. Theres no scenario where they don't get buttfucked without the rest of NATO committing enough resources to make Italy's decision on autloaders so insignificant its impact is smaller than a rounding error.

>>34087220
Most keyboard warriors cant change a tire i dont think he understands what fixing a track entails

>>34087192
This.
Working in an Australian Government department fortified with stubborn retards, I know the problems at hand and have no answers...

>>34086977
There's nothing to indicate that the Type 90 and Type 10 are anything but sound designs.

But I was just offering them as an example of a country which has employed more than one autoloading MBT

>>34087022
>wpuld have ended up like the russian Auto loading tanks in afganistan

They used T-55s and T-62s, dumbass

>>34087256
Then why the fuck did i find like 50 T64s with auto loaders when i was there fuck nut?

>>34087220
>>34087234

Again with the illiteracy.

>>34087265
When you lose an argument about auto loaders and get pissy lmao

>>34087080
You have 24 men divided into two sides. The US gets 3 tanks, the Soviets get 4 tanks - both are fully crewed. If one tank is out of the fight on the US side there are only 2 tanks: half of the Russian force. If one tank is out of the fight on the Soviet side, the Soviets still have parity in vehicle numbers.

The US puts emphasis on every single tank because each tank has a larger tactical investment in it. The Soviets don't have to worry as much for a single tank because there are more to replace it. The US wants to keep a unit in the fight as long as possible by reinforcing, repairing, and refitting a unit in the field as much as possible, while the Soviets were quite fine with sending the unit back for refit and rotating a fresh unit in.

The US doctrine is especially fit for defense, and ironically the anon's anecdote quite perfectly illustrated that - his tank was in charge of defending something. The Soviets never really had any plans for large scale defense. If your tank was out of the fight because of needed repairs your peers would simply just continue ahead in accordance with the order of advance and you would do what you could in order to follow the order of advance or be sent to the rear if unable.

Secondly even if the Soviet doctrine is in a particular case in charge of defense they have more tanks to cover each other anyways, so having a single tank is not going to happen.

>>34087262
I would think that you misidentified them because the 40th Army didn't use T-64s

>>34087279
I mean I craweed into like 4 looking for loot and shit and they all had auto loaders... Best I found was a russian porno mag folded and stuffed into a crevice.

>>34087275
The problem is 1 abrams operate in playoons of 4 and russian doctrine calls for platoons of 3. Also abrams will have about 20 billion dollars worth of carrier support somewhere because America

>>34087146
>Soviet era military concerned with conserving manpower or working with a pinchpenny budget
>Brezhnev-era until pre-collapse
>conserving manpower or working with a pinchpenny budget
choose one, the Soviet armed forces reached their zenith after 1965. The move to autoloaders was most definitely a choice based on doctrine.

>>34087291
Post proof then

However, the fact that the Soviet 40th Army operated T-55s and T-62s in their order of battle leads me to believe that you misidentified a T-62, or are completely bullshititng

File: Old_Russian_tanks_960x640.jpg (153KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 960x640px

>>34087323

You need proof try this. Join the United States Army, go to mother fucking Afghanistan crawl into the tank we dragged out to COP Chaos and climb the fuck in and see for your damn self you nugget... We used to crawl all up in these vehicles looking for shit... And you know what a 64 looks different than 62 inside... Its weird that a TANKER someone who is expressely trained in vehicle ID would know what fucking tank hes in ...

>>34087318

Those were two separate thoughts, sorry if I may have misconstrued it. I meant it to be the Soviets, OR, a pinch penny government.

>>34087302
And how many more armored corps did the Soviets have? There wasn't a single place in the European theater at any point in the cold war where the Soviets wouldn't have outnumbered. In actual attacks on NATO forces the initial battles would have been something like 3:1 or even up to 10:1 tanks in the Soviet favor.

>>34087344
>Its weird that a TANKER someone who is expressely trained in vehicle ID would know what fucking tank hes in
I see imagery analysts fuck it up all the time. The fact is that only T-55s and T-62s were in Afghanistan.

>>34087344
I don't see any T-64s in that picture

>>34087354
Kinda hard to fuck it up when your INSIDE the tank reading the fucking ID plate for inventory but ok im sure your vast wikipedia searches matter more than the hours i spent in old hot ass russian scrap

>>34087345
ah, my mistake.

>>34087344
unless you have actual proofs of a T-64 being in Afghanistan, I'm inclined to agree with the other anon. It's pretty common knowledge that T-64s were never exported outside of the Soviet bloc, let alone sent to Afghanistan.

>>34087364
Different fag here. Crawling in that scrap was fun, wasn't it? Like, 4 year old on the monkey bars fun? Be honest, its only a Swahili potato stamping forum.

>>34087361
Its a photo of a vehicle graveyard... Sadly mine was a no go zone for any recording devices. Thats why i said join the Army and go there

>>34086767
But thats the fun part, no? You get a work out and you come out in the end with more strength.

>>34087377
It was neat wjen we found shit but hadji would strip those bitches clean

>>34087381
Its just fun to beat your compamy loading record... We had a 5 foot tall black gorrilla man that could load heat in 3.22 seconds. Our average was 4 he was a beast

File: 1462985773716.jpg (736KB, 1913x1174px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1913x1174px

>>34087364
>needing to go inside to ID a T-62 vs T-64

Did it read something like?
>ID PLATE
>TONK: TEE SIGSDY BOUR!

>>34087370
Pretty sure they had T-64's in Red Army units stationed in East Germany.

>>34086532
>How many hours
Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: You're always working on your tank, the more complex or rugged the mechanism (i.e. track feet), the more maintenance it takes.

>>34085943
If the autoloader breaks from a bolt or some shit falling out, you're fucked.
If your loader dies, you're probably dead too.
Human loaders are less likely to break.

>>34086303
I'm not that autoloader shill but I have questions.

You say your crew were attempting to repair the track of your vehicle?

>>34087398
Lmao dingus we had to gp inside every vehicle to take inventory some were 55s some 62s a few where 64s. We had to inventory monthly. Ive spent more time in soviet tanks than the silly dead russians that left them

>>34087398
>T-64s were never exported outside of the Soviet bloc
Soviet bloc meaning WARPAC. IIRC they also had them stationed in Hungary as well but I could be wrong.

>>34087410
We did not attempt we succeeded fortunately only one track bad broke so we used a spare out of the bustle rack

File: Leo-Astan.jpg (162KB, 1395x1042px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1395x1042px

>>34086303

I find it rather hard to believe you guys operate tanks without support.
So your loader on the 240 being "paramount to your survival" seems rather unlikely.

You also need to understand that when we're talking about other western nations using autoloaders, they have far less manpower than the US army does and they are forced to do more with less.

While you can obviously argue that cutting out the loader is a bad thing, it does lower cost and support while maintaining combat effectiveness. Obviously you'll need to make up for it on the maintenance side, but that's what support companies are for and they are far more flexible than "one extra loader per tank" since they can be allocated when and where needed.

File: 1462837969697.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34087411
>Ive spent more time in soviet tanks than the silly dead russians that left them

>>34087413
My bad I just realized that right after hitting post.

>>34087231
There's another. With the exception of France every country that went autoloader is known for being small in stature and an autoloader helps overcome the strength difference smaller loaders would encounter.

>inb4 Russian huge stronk bear
Russia long mandated that its tanks be crewed by manlets so it fits. Also they loved large caliber guns compared to the West compounding the issue.

>>34087426
I explain in a later post we were providing convoy security and suffered a daisy chain IED... This was earlier on in the Iraq war... Unfortunately they hit us perfectly on a skinny road and the humvees farther back in the convoy had a tough time reaching us for a while. We had to get out of there as the enemy was getting within kill range with RPGs and we were blocking the entire convoy.

>>34087431
>no Enchantment of the Leaf
that shitpost would be a doozy but it would still fall far short of its true potential.

>>34087445
So why did they only have a single tank in a convoy escort with only armored humvees as additional protection? Secondly why weren't you operating at least in pairs?

>>34087421
I assume you also fixed the obvious defect in your first photo which is not a track.

>>34086873
Are you retarded?
He is saying that the extra crewman is invaluable for maintenance duties and keeping watch. The type of tank has nothing to do with it at all, the same holds true for any tank because they are all maintenance heavy and have small crews where a one man difference can have a huge impact when taking turns on watch.
You are the most pedantic fuck I have ever experienced on this site

>>34087468
Early oif was retarded our wingman was 26 vehicles back pullimg rear security. The other half of our platoon was with another comvoy they split us tankers thin

File: lets all enjoy this.gif (1MB, 284x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 284x207px

>>34087468
are you questioning the strategy Mattis laid out for them?

>>34087470
No we left the roadwheel fucky until we limped back.... It was soooo loud

>>34087370
>>34087361
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

Says some might of made it to Afghanistan

>>34087509
The fact they where there is pretty well known in the ARMY

>>34087499
I was wondering, considering you are talking about busted tracks but that photo shows hubs bleeding and like half the roadwheel gone.

>>34087522
Yea the busted track is below the frame... We limped it home with that fucked road wheel. Also the interior got some minor damage... We got hit by an aluminium EFP according to my TC pretty kuch ruined our whole week

>>34086993
For a guy who complains about logical fallacies you sure are good at moving goalposts
Also, you say that anecdotal evidence is unnaceptable, stating that you prefer to deal with "statistics", yet you have posted no sources of your own.
Others in the thread are using anecdotal evidence as it shows where they are getting their information from, which is considered the least reliable source of information, but it is still better than you because you have NO sources.
Keep sitting on your high horse though pal, dont forget to pat yourself on the back before bed time

>>34086054
>No country who has ever used autoloaded tanks have ever gone back to manual loaders no matter their doctrine.
With the exception of AMX-13s, which are too lightly armored to be considrred tanks.

>>34087509
on the off chance they were there, they would have been under constant supervision and they certainly wouldn't have been left behind after the withdrawal. They certainly wouldn't have been left for the Afghanis to care for.

>>34087543
Sounds like too much fun.

>>34087426
I'm sure you have crunched the numbers on what is cheaper.

>>34087566
They where pretty totaled

>>34087119
I wouldn't bother, he's fixated with on paper performance. He's the kind of retard who'd scoff at a Sherman because on paper it has a mediocre armour and gun (for arguments sake) whilst completely forgetting that it crew comfort and ergonomics meant crews were more combat effective.

>>34085943
>>34086888
>I think the Swedes and French adopted an autoloader too.
Swedes use Leo2s now, so no.
The S-tank did have an autoloader though, so there you have it OP, a country that did abandon autoloaders.
Also 4 man crews make for much easier day to day life with daily maintenance and watch duty spread over more people.

>>34086912
Amx-30 didnt replace the amx-13, they worked side by side with the amx-13 being a light recon tank.

Because contrarily to all some of the bullshit spread around here, ultimately an autoloader means savings on internal space and savings on weight.
Autoloader MBT's are all on the lighter end of the spectrum, even if you disregard the slav tanks.

>>34085943

Autoloaded tanks like the T-72 have had a worse combat record: 8% of the 25000~ produced have been destroyed (about 2000) versus the less than 1% of all produced Abrams (less than 100), even including the ones which have been totaled under the command of arabs.

Autoloaded tanks are less durable than their non-autoloaded counterparts due to the increased complexity of their machienry. The LeClerc has the least protection of all the modern western MBTs, and this along with its hightened production costs makes it less popular than non-autoloaded western tanks like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams. For something that is meant to take direct fire, this is a bad thing.

>>34087698
>The LeClerc has the least protection of all the modern western MBTs
>LeClerc
>because I said so
What are you basing yourself on to say such a thing?

Holy shit this fucking thread is pure autism. Its one guy with what is very likely to be actual experience with the question at hand with a few people respecting that experience and then a bunch of asshat armchair generals spouting a bunch of bullshit they know nothing about.

>AXTSHUALLY GUISE THA AUTALOADAS ARE MORE BETTERER BCAUSE IFE READ ON THA INTREWEBS ABUYT THEM!

>>34087698
>Autoloaded tanks are less durable than their non-autoloaded counterparts due to the increased complexity of their machienry.
What. The fuck. Am I. Reading.

>>34087791
That's why we're still using muskets, anon.

Any sensible operator brings his loading-boy with him for increased manpower.

>>34087771
>what is anecdotal evidence

>>34087771
It's just one guy questioning him.

>>34087852
Better than no evidence.

>>34087692
Waiting for someone to point this out.

The game is up OP, go jug dicks somewhere else

>>34087145

>i can't hold to much chairforce the post.

>>34087426
Shit happens in war, and things that should not happen as a tank without support for a while is one of them i suppose.

>>34086767
I am regretful of many things, but I will never not be glad that I am not a tanker.

File: Kek.jpg (475KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1024x681px

>>34086033

>That 3rd point about "increasing crew survivability because the ammo is stored below the turret

Do we turn this thread into a soviet turret throwing competition?

I found this t-72, landed too short maybe half a meter.

>>34087887
>, but I will never not be glad that I am not a tanker.

But have you never not ever do what more like?

>>34087863
>Better than no evidence.
Actually not, because there is no guarantee that wasn't atypical.

>>34086952
And staying in a crippled tank while being overrun by infantry is actual suicide.

Remember: autists aren't real people.

>>34087145
Infantry know fuck all about armor. Infantry know fuck all about anything that doesn't involve shooting brown people or getting blown the fuck up. Not knocking the rifle companies, it's just a completely different job. Even if they actually try to help with day to day maintenance/dismount duties/whatever the fuck else heavy armor claims to do, which they won't because they already have their own jobs and fuck you if you think a grunt is going to add to that, they'll just fuck things up and get in the way.

File: Goliath-Tracked-Mine-51.jpg (58KB, 550x421px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 550x421px

>>34085943
/k/ what is it with the cult of humans?

As far as I know, no country which has produced and adopted drone tanks have ever switched back to crewed tanks.

Pic unrelated

>>34086384
yep, anybody with combat experience should have their word taken with no question. For example, when a CIB-holding veteran of 2003 Iraq told me, "changing barrels is pointless and you shouldn't do it in combat" I never changed a barrel again. Didn't matter how many rounds I fired. Or how little rifling I had. Never again.

>>34087905
Atypical is better than no data at all.

>>34087954
Uhhh.... I mean, assuming your bog standard rifleman, you should not change barrels in combat.

File: strv2000-modeller[1].jpg (406KB, 1134x440px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1134x440px

>>34085943
>As far as I know, no country which has produced and adopted autoloaded tanks have ever switched back to manually loaded tanks

Sweden did, the Strv 103 had an autoloader but the Strv 121 and 122 (leo 2) which replaced it didnt.

Would the military had gotten proper funding however we would have ended up with a 140mm autoloader, so the leo 2 was more of a budget option.

>>34087895
I understand that reading the white man's language must be an awe inspiring experience for you, but please try to contain your innate shitskin chimpery and do not reply until you can more convincingly ape your genetic superiors.

t. a white man

>>34087964

>wrong data is better than no data

>>34086961
were you literally driving around alone?

>>34087979
Atypical data is not wrong.

>>34087968
what was that supposed to mean?

File: mobilitykill.jpg (260KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x960px

>>34087889

That's a T-54.

Look at the road wheel spacing, the bore evacuator on the end of the gun, and the turret shape.

On a thread related note, pic related is what used to be a T-64. Who even knows where the fuck the turret went.

>>34088004
It means a rifleman, i.e not a saw/mmg gunner should not be changing barrels in combat.

>>34087968

>what is an m249

>>34088014
Something a saw gunner uses.

>>34088022

Are you seriously dense enough to suspect that the original guy was talking about swapping out the barrel of an M16 in combat?

It's not exactly a chore to figure out he meant a light machine gun.

>>34088032
That's absurd though, hence it's logical to assume he was contextually talking about rifles.

>>34088037
no logical person would ever even consider switching a rifle barrel in combat. and to what? another rifle? logically, you are an idiot. I never would have guessed I would have to clarify I was talking about machine guns with extra barrels.

>>34086942
that TOE is fucking ancient

File: 125mm_handover.jpg (97KB, 1000x677px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1000x677px

>>34087027
any new news on the Chink 125mm L/60?

>>34085943
>Sweden
They had autoloading tanks, now they have tanks with manual loader.

>>34088075
>no logical person would ever even consider switching a rifle barrel in combat

Exactly, hence that being the logical choice of context for his statement

>logically, you are an idiot.

Wrong. I made the logical assumption based upon known variables.

>I was talking about machine guns with extra barrels.

Your claims are highly suspect then.

>>34088162

Is it summertime already?

>>34088167
I would ask the same of you, being as how you lack basic logical deduction.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x640px

>>34085943
This one guy. Jesus

>>34086303
Cool story man, that's pretty intense
Do you have any idea how many of them were attacking you, elaborate on the story

>>34088169
That's not deduction but induction. And you're an idiot if you thought he was talking about a rifle.
The context of the conversation was someone advising him not to switch barrels. You can induce from the fact that switching barrels was even option that they are talking about LMGs.

>>34087192
You do realize that tanks are faster than people on foot carrying 70lbs of gear, right? Beyond that, there is a doctrinal benefit to having a unit that is capable of operating without combined arms support; while combined arms is the ideal, it is not always a possibility in war--particularly when one considers that the American Army is far less mechanized than our Russian counterparts.

>>34088397
>That's not deduction but induction.

Incorrect. We are given a logical choice between a rifle and a lmg/mmg for changing barrels in combat. One is clearly more absurd than the other, thus that is the one you assume when the person in question is talking about absurdity of an action.

>And you're an idiot if you thought he was talking about a rifle.

Incorrect, it was the logical assumption.

>The context of the conversation was someone advising him not to switch barrels.

Correct. I assure you that you can change barrels on pretty much every modern rifle.

>>34088423
You don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

>I assure you that you can change barrels on pretty much every modern rifle.
This is true. But in the context of someone in the military discussing switching barrels it's clear they are not discussing a standard service rifle. Because they wouldn't even consider switching barrels on a standard service rifle and wouldn't be issued extra barrels to carry into the field.
Idiot.

>>34088010
T-55 actually, there's no ventilator dome on the roof of the turret.

>>34088431
>You don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

Au contraire....

>the inference of a general law from particular instances.

Is not what is happening due to a logical clear choice between objects, rifles or mmg/lmgs.

>Because they wouldn't even consider switching barrels on a standard service rifle and wouldn't be issued extra barrels to carry into the field.

Hence why you would describe such a scenario as "stupid". Which is what happened.

You are making my point. Thanks!

>>34086912
South Korea fielded 34 T-80s so technically qualifies.

File: Challenger Falcon.jpg (167KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x960px

>>34085943

Autoloaders are unreliable and too complex to repair in the field.

>>34087988
It isn't wrong, but is not very useful especially if it's also anecdotal.

Ok so since the thread has been shit up anyway I'm gonna use the tank discussion to ask a question I've always wondered;

What do tankers do when they need to poopoo/peepee? Do they just hold it in or stop and do it behind a rock or something?

>>34088167
This is what happens when you close state mental institutions and cut special ed funding.

>>34088524
If at all possible it's best to hold it in or do it outside. Otherwise you can piss in a bottle, and take a plastic bag, wrap it inside a helmet and take a dump in it. Then you simply empty the bottles and reuse them and get rid of the poo.

>>34088505
Atypical data can still be useful, and by default it is useful due to being atypical.

Furthermore, just because it's anecdotal does not mean it's atypical, just means that it can be. Thus, it is still much more useful than non data due to the possibility of being correct.

>>34087509
>Wikipedia
>Wikipedia with a "citation needed" about the very claim you are using wikipedia to back up

Fuck off, retard

>>34087413
While USSR units stationed outside the Soviet Union had T-64s in some cases, T-64s were never exported to communist states outside the Soviet Union

>>34088701
Uhhh, no?

The citation is https://books.google.com/books?id=NubtDf2T3cAC and it is clearly labeled.

>>34088524
If you're OP you save that shit in various bottles and plastic bags to increase your bargaining power when your desired number of tendies exceeds your current available GBP.

>>34086233
>you gain 1 more set of eyes for 360 security
Wait, you actually believe that a niggerloader will ever be high enough in the turret to be able to see outside during combat?

File: m1a1-980127-M-4124M-001.jpg (88KB, 1085x704px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1085x704px

>>34088803

Commander on the left loader on right... Effectively 3 machine guns in the fight and 4 sets of eyes scanning for enemies granted the drivers visability is minimal

>>34088524
We frequently shit in ammo cans limed with plastic, or we would shit into MRE bags and throw them out (kids loved to reach their hands into an mre bag lookkng for treats) as for piss we typically pissed into a gatorade bottle

>>34088832
So who loads the cannon now? Oh wait, the barrel is plugged, now basically you have an armored car.

>>34088849
>implying the gun is not already loaded

>in b the plugged barrel will explode

>>34087791
Thats basic mechanical principle. An autoloader has more shit to break than a falling breach block. Simplicity = durability

>>34087982
Convoy of about 26 vehicles (28 if you count the trucks that were being towed). The only other tank was the last vehicle in the convoy. We had some humvees but they were incapable of moving up to support due to the road being skirted on both sides by deep irrigation trenches... So much bad planning happened early in the war. Imagine a road like this minus the grass and replace that nice water with 6 foot deep trenches of shit

>>34088379
Numbers where varied, intel suggested any wjere from 20-200 hundred... Hemce why military intel is an oxymoron my guess would be a few groups of 16 men

They where spaced out in palm groves with good cover

>>34086927
Fucking turks

>>34088849
Lmao you roll with a heat round in the barrel and you can with 4 sets of eyes until you see a target, if its a tank you all button up amd emgage if its infantry the loader commander and gunner all open up with machine guns until it gets to hairy to stay out of the turret. Pretty simple concept

>>34086993
Dude just shut the fuck up already

>>34087087
Always be there when needed?

>>34087468
"Single tank" wish we had a single tank we ran fuel convoys protection with only thin skins.

Tanls have a finite amount of space... An autoloader can only perform one task, where a human can perform many... There for a human loader is a better use of that space, pretty simple

>>34088963
We had 2 tanks but yea 1 tank is better than a like a company of soft skins especially early on when they had numbers

>>34088481
>technically qualifies
It qualifies outright since the K2 features an autoloader.

>>34086993

You need to fuck off, Jesus christ. Autism overload.

>>34086873
Anon, you're truly a jackass. Your entire, I don't know what to call your ramblings, an argument? Your ridiculously asinie bullshit is all based on the assumption that your (very) basic debate skills somehow make up for the fact that you have NEGATIVE experience driving a tank compared to OP- you are actually retarding what would otherwise be good information.

Your arguments about the nature of the components in a tank are fucking retarded as well, the fact of the matter is an auto loader can ONLY load, and ONLY until it breaks. Not only can a human keep loading after they break sometimes, they can do OTHER THINGS, holy shit what an idea.

>>34088089
That TOE applies to the Iraqi army in the lead up to Gulf 1, which is the point discussed - and either way, is not going to be out by a factor of ten which would be necessary for the US tanks to have outnumbered the Iraqis at 73E

Read a book.

>>34087791
Are you retarded?

File: 2000ydstare.jpg (235KB, 468x490px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 468x490px

>>34087979
>No t-64s in Afghaniland
>"Hey, I saw a few diving through the wrecks during my deployment"
>your eyes are wrong, your memory is wrong, your synapses lied to you

I thought shareblue was supposed to stay on /pol/

>>34087954
Is there more context to this? I feel like this is a strawman setup.

>>34086054
1.Except they weren't very common until recently. Not long enough to switch back with the next generation.

2.Militaries stick with stupid shit that doesn't work all the time. Think of how many times an inferior weapon system was adopted and stuck with.

File: 1427508938704.jpg (52KB, 900x574px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x574px

>>34087730
Leclerc and K2 have questionable turret side armor (including the raised tunnel for the gun to allow good depression) and lack geometry to make up for it in the forward 60 degree arc.

File: Leclerc bustle composite armor.jpg (93KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 800x600px

>>34089643
>questionable turret side armor

Nope mon ami

File: 8 rmat mourmelon leclerc tank mbt tank char français french régiment de matériel (5).jpg (237KB, 1476x1600px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1476x1600px

>>34089686
Your picture is the turret face, not the turret side.

File: 8 rmat mourmelon leclerc tank mbt tank char français french régiment de matériel (3).jpg (943KB, 1528x994px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1528x994px

>>34089686
>>34089722
Sorry I was looking at the wrong picture, yours is the 6G box from the rear.

>>34085943
>As far as I know, no country which has produced and adopted autoloaded tanks have ever switched back to manually loaded tanks.

AMX-13 -> AMX-30

>>34088089
>No you see, brigades are actually smaller than companies!

File: low profile turret advantages.jpg (178KB, 1047x816px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1047x816px

>>34086846
>An auto loader is cheaper to replace... BUT its also almost impossible to replave without nearby protected maintenanve crews.

>>34086886
>If your autoloader gets damged its damn near impossible to improvise and fix it, if your loader gets damaged the commander or gunner can render aid and or take his place

>>34087409
>If the autoloader breaks from a bolt or some shit falling out, you're fucked.
>If your loader dies, you're probably dead too.
>Human loaders are less likely to break.


The same happens if the ammo rack of your manually-loaded tank is damaged....


>>34087698
>The LeClerc has the least protection of all the modern western MBTs, and this along with its hightened production costs makes it less popular than non-autoloaded western tanks like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams. For something that is meant to take direct fire, this is a bad thing.

This has nothing to do with the mass allocated to the armor, the Leclerc is lighter (it weighs as much as the older Leopard 2A4) because it features a smaller two-man turret and a one-meter shorter hull.


>>34087119
>AND manually remove and swap shells if a different shell is needed

You cannot remove a shell once it is loaded except by firing it.

>>34089810
>The same happens if the ammo rack of your manually-loaded tank is damaged....

Having an autoloader makes your ammo rack immune from damage?

>This has nothing to do with the mass allocated to the armor, the Leclerc is lighter (it weighs as much as the older Leopard 2A4) because it features a smaller two-man turret and a one-meter shorter hull.

The Leclerc is ~ 5 tons lighter than a Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 primarily due to its compressed hull.

>You cannot remove a shell once it is loaded except by firing it.

False.

>>34089761
Amx 30 didnt replace the amx 13.

>>34090199
It was however designed and put into service years afterwards.

>>34088867

A human loader is very much breakable. If it comes to the point where the hull is penetrated, it doesn't really matter anymore.

Autoloader allow for a reduced crew compartment and a sturdier design.

One big argument I didn't see on this thread is money. It's not really a problem for the US but countries like France really benefit from having a 25% cut on their crew requirement.

>>34086303
>>34086327

What was the ied like? Rattle your brain, or was it more like that flat tire feeling?

Any other units nearby for support?

>>34090657
It wasn't a "switch back to manually loaded tanks" since they served alongside, and fulfilled completely different roles for which the autoloader design of the 13 was simply not suitable.

The only thing you could argue about the difference from amx 13 to 30 is that the concept of the oscillating turret was definitively abandoned.

>>34090699
France has a population of over 60 million, getting another 400 crewmen for their Leclerc fleet isn't difficult.

>>34090828
The AMX-13 was replaced with wheeled vehicles like the AMX-10RC, which has a human loader.

>>34090864
>The AMX-13 was replaced with wheeled vehicles like the AMX-10RC
AMX-10RC replaced older panhard AML-90 and part of the ERC-90.
The main reason was the abandonment of the oscillating turret, upon which the 13's autoloader was reliant. However is was practically impossible to NBC-proof, not to mention it caused problems in terms of protection consistency.

>>34086577
Different anon here, non-tanker, but 20 years experience pulling maintenance on complex military machinery in hostile environments.

All tanks consist of groups of functionally identical components and assemblies; hull, turret, armament, weapons, and so on. These items will have similar maintenance requirements.

My understanding is, tank crews perform their own field-level maintenance. So, with a 4 man crew each member would carry 25% of the maintenance load, in theory. In reality, percentage of maintenance load per member would vary due to experience/skill level of each member, as well as position and seniority within the crew.

Now, lets look at an autoloader-equipped tank. Eliminating 1 crew member means that each crew member carries 33% of the maintenance load. The autoloader itself is also an added mechanism with maintenance requirements. Thus, autoloader tanks have greater maintenance requirements than manually loaded tanks. Autoloader tank maintenance will also take longer because fewer people doing maintenance means more tasks have to be done serially instead of sequentially.

Post is getting long, to be continued-

>>34086873
>Because I wouldn't trust a truck engineer to repair my car or motorbike. He could do it because the basic fundamentals of a combustion engine are there but his expertise isn't with that specific area.

you dont know jack shit about things mechanical.

>>34090979
Imma let you finish here, but here is how the French manage it.
They doctrinally pair each tank with a VBL recon vehicle. Each crewmember of both those vehicles are trained tankers and able to do maintenance.

Poof: you now have 6 crewmembers able to carry out maintenance.

It all depends on doctrinal use, but asking /k/iddies to even think one step above the squad level, or hell, one step above the lone combattant, is notoriously difficult.
Which is also why we always see those retarded posts about how Germany could have won WWI if they had ak-47s.

>>34090979
Continued-

For autoloader tanks, maintenance time per crew member can be brought back down to par by shifting more maintenance tasks to support elements. This brings its own problems, since support elements might not be available due to scheduling issues, location, or interdiction. It also has the effect of limiting the strategic and tactical mobility of the supported tank units, who will not want to outrun their support. Support echelon units tend not to have the same mobility as combat units. There will also be limitations on how close to the forward edge of the battle area they can approach.

It would appear that autoloader tanks are more appropriate in a defense-centric doctrine, where the systemic shortcomings can be offset by interior lines of communication and pre-staging of packaged assets.

>>34090777
It was like getting T boned by a semi. Our qrf was 30 mins away

>>34089810
You still havent told me what other crew tasks the auto loader performs. A human loader can perform dozens of usefull tasks... An auto loader can only load

>>34090979
>>34091191

The problem with this assertion, as has been explained before, is that 2 different tanks absolutely do not have the same maintenance requirements.

Repairing tanks in the middle of a battle is also highly unrealistic if you are facing a real army and not a few goat fuckers with no training or heavy weapons. You can recover damaged tanks, after a battle is over.

>>34091269
Your dumb ass knows nothing abput forward operations... Do research before making yourself look more retarded

>>34090910
>the AMX-30 didn't replace the AMX-13 because it was used in a different role
>vehicles that replaced the AMX-13 in its role don't count because they also replaced other vehicles used in that same role

ITT: OP is right and this board is full of retards.

Make a fucking flinstone tank you push if you are worried about 'mechanical complexity'

>>34091191

This is pants on head retarded. A unit of T72 with fuel tanks would outrange the fuck out of something like an abrams with 'muh turbineeee'.

This is some finely distilled autism.

>>34091287
Auto loader can only load... The space in the turret is better occupied by a human loader than can perform dozens of useful tasks

>>34091287
>I will declare victory and take my ball home!

>>34086972
>He served you

Oh come off it.

>>34091316
>The space in the turret is better occupied by a human loader
That's the thing... an autoloader actually takes up less place.
No shit, you can shave off nearly 10 tons of armor just by being able to reduce the size of the turret> reduced turret ring> reduced hull.

>>34086903
This guy gets it.

>>34091338
Ok so you have less space AND you lose the dozens of advantages you get from a human loader. Sounds great

>>34091061
>They doctrinally pair each tank with a VBL recon vehicle. Each crewmember of both those vehicles are trained tankers and able to do maintenance.

Which is not a bad approach although it has its own downsides. I like the idea of each tank effectively having its own support element. Maintenance and security in one package. The additional vehicle brings its own maintenance and logistics penalty, but it's smaller/simpler so that shouldn't be a deal breaker.

The crew training requirement makes the concept more expensive to scale, in the event France has to gear up for a big war. Also makes the replacement pipeline take longer. Tradeoff is, greater flexibility at the individual unit level.

>Germany could have won WWI if they had ak-47s.

Spencer repeating carbines.

>>34091351
>Ok so you have less space
I think you meant
>you need less space
And you get dozens of advantages from a reduced profile/ weight, meaning better strategic mobility on top of the discretion advantage, and a loader that will load in any condition at a dependable rate, that in the case of the K2 is better than what you'd get with a well trained loader, with the exception that it will not tire and it will be able to sustain the RoF until ammo is exhausted.

File: mqqIbpr.jpg (49KB, 520x399px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 520x399px

>>34086365
>So can you say your experience is representative of tanks in general, or just the machine you operated?

I suppose if you're operating a Bob Semple tank with an 8-man crew, you can afford to lose a crewman in terms of repair operations.

As for the functionally-identical range of modern MBTs, however... yeah, you know what? shut the fuck up.

File: N-GuerreGolfe-6.jpg (14KB, 280x191px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 280x191px

>>34091381

An autoloader sure lets a tank be smaller and cheaper. But its on paper advantages where proven to be far less succesful in actual combat. The upgraded t72s of the iraqi republican guard, in defensive positions had no chance against a tank designed in 1980 with a 105mm manually loaded gun. Autoloaders are cheap human loaders are better in every other way

>>34085943
autoloaders make the tank crew more racially homogeneous. that helps a lot to avoid friction.

File: image.jpg (275KB, 900x592px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 900x592px

Autoloaders are shit.

https://youtu.be/aBG_G678Trg

>>34091431
There were a lot of reasons why the Iraqis got their asses handed to them in GW1, and I'm willing to bet the t-72's autoloader was not even in the top 10 of those.

>>34091459
If auto loaders where so amazing wouldnt they have given an entire brigade a chance against 9 tanks?

>>34091386
That was a good shit post.

>>34091478
>grade school level strawman.

>>34091478

Autoloaders doesn't equal good crew

>>34090199
It did. It came with a change in French doctrine from tanks being cavalry and being used as such, to being more like how armor was used in WWII

>>34091478
so you are saying 19 t90 with russian crews would have been blasted away the same way because of the manual loader advantage?

>>34091478

>>34091494
>>34091490
this
And also: t-55's and t-62's don't have an autoloader anyway.

>>34091490
Why didnt the 28 amazing autoloaders in dug in defensive positions destroy the 9 tanks? I would think such amazing tech would cause at least 1 casualty. Especially seing as the Iraqi republican guard was one of the most experienced Tank forces in the world amd part of the 4th largest army on earth

>>34091521
monkey models

>>34091521
Did you know autoloaders aren't cannons, so they can't actually destroy anything, they can only perform ammo moving operations.

The moar you know!

>>34091521
dude they had t72s it's like if the murricans were riding m60a3s or xm1s.

>>34091542
But they had autoloaders

>>34091269
> is that 2 different tanks absolutely do not have the same maintenance requirements.

You missed the key concept in my previous post. Functionally identical assemblies will have remarkably similar maintenance requirements. Maintenance time requirements will vary due to differences in design/construction, but the overall necessary maintenance will stay the same. This is a very well known phenomenon, that has been exhaustively documented in both military and industrial applications.

>Repairing tanks in the middle of a battle is also highly unrealistic

US tank crews have been doing exactly that since Vietnam. Establish security, re-establish mobility and head for the repair element.

If a tank is damaged, self aid is always the first method attempted. The second attempt is having a second tank tow the damaged tank to safety. Ideally, the tow tank would also be a damaged unit. In Vietnam it was not uncommon for a tank with a damaged gun to tow a tank with a blown engine. Again, this has been exhaustively documented.

>>34091501
AMX-30s. Did. Not. Replace. amx-13s.
They replaced m-47s.
amx-13s were upgraded with a 90mm gun and SS-11 SACLOS missiles and continued to serve as the recon/antitank platform they were designed to be well into the 80's, when the Leclerc was well into development.
>It came with a change in French doctrine from tanks being cavalry and being used as such, to being more like how armor was used in WWII
What kind of an asspull is that?

>>34091548
>knows nothing of French armor doctrine pre 1960
>thinks anything that challenges his preconceived notions is a "asspull"

K. Keep me posted

>>34091539
Human Loaders can cause casualties boom another point for human loaders

>>34091536
Upgraded t72s vs stock M1s only 8 years of design difference

>>34091316
Then What happens when Nations who use auto-loaders get them to a point they are firing like Auto-Cannons.

>>34091568
>amx 30 replaced amx 13
>amx 30 replaced amx 13
>amx 30 replaced amx 13
>amx 30 replaced amx 13
>amx 30 replaced amx 13
This is patently, verifiably wrong, and has nothing to do with a doctrinal change.

>>34091608
K2 is reportedly getting there... 3 seconds sustained reload time in any conditions.

>>34091608
They will be wasting money that should be spent on better Air weapons and comunications

>>34091431
>The upgraded t72s of the iraqi republican guard

>>34091602
>Upgraded t72s
What's so "upgraded" about a T-72M compared to a T-72B of the time?
It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

>>34085943
Loader gets shot, someone else can take over

Autoloader gets shot... youre fucked.

Ofc, only when you still can do anything after getting hit, which would be close to a miracle.

>>34091602
look up what monkey model means you uncultured swine

>>34091626
If the gun is firing level with the loader. at any incline the gun must be moved off target and inline with the loader than be moved back towards the target... Lots of moving parts and less accurate.

>>34091545
you are a special kind of moron aren't you?
i think the murricans would have had losses in that situation if the t72s were not crewed by irakis, but the abrams had better gun better ammo better armor and way better fire control system. if the abrams had autoloader it would have been the same result exactly.

>>34091638
Lmao you think nations dont upgrade their exports hahahahahahaha omg please go buy a plant to replace the oxygen you are wasting

>>34091315
> A unit of T72 with fuel tanks would outrange the fuck out of something like an abrams with 'muh turbineeee'.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I wasn't talking about fuel range, you fucking sperg hamster. I was talking about tactical and strategic mobility as limited by availability of support elements to do required maintenance and repair activities.

Pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass, turn off the fucking video game, and actually learn something before you decide to post about something which you clearly don't understand.

I hope like hell you're signed up for summer school, because you sure as fuck didn't learn anything during the regular school year. Shouldn't have spent all that time smoking a bowl out behind the gym, that shit makes you null and void.

Now, shut the fuck up until you know what you're talking about.

>>34091631
Either get with the time or get left in the dust retard. May not be the best now but that's why you invest in it for later.

>>34091678
plants use as much oxygen at night as the produce by day if not more.

>>34091643
>If the gun is firing level with the loader. at any incline the gun must be moved off target and inline with the loader than be moved back towards the target...
Yes
>Lots of moving parts and less accurate.
No
You do know modern fire control systems take into account everything, including gun oscillation frequency and amplitude? Correcting for moving the gun is piss-easy in comparison.

>>34091653
Lmao the republican guard was the most experienced tank division on earth after the Iran Iraq war. And they where in defensive dug in positions. They out numbered the Americans, had a defensive advantage, and had years more experience and their silly autoloafers were no help.

>>34091638
T-72A and T-72M were in frontline use of the Warsaw Pact at the time, 'monkey model' has never been a good excuse for how badly Soviet trained Iraqi forces got blown the fuck out.

>>34091691
Their tanks were also overall shittier, not just autoloader or "le slavshit" meme. a T-72 with no sort of upgrade but autoloader is not of the same class as M1A1 especially when the M1A1s sights meant it would shoot them from so far out of range they didn't know what was happening.

>>34091718
But this thread is about how Autoloaders are so amazing they make every tank they grace unbelievably powerful.

>>34091729
it's like this with tanks:
you give a guy a full auto ar platform assault rifle and the other guy has a 9mm semi auto glock in a roni frame.

which one is more powerful? but there is one tiny kicker the ar dude is night-blind and the showdown is right before dawn. so which one will win?

>>34091761
No its like 9 manually loading tank out performed and destroyed 28 Autoloaders in dug in pisitions in 23 minutes

>>34091701
Iraq had 3BM9 and 3BM15 if they were lucky for their APFSDS. Which went out of service in the soviet union 5 years before the first M1 Abrams was made.The T-72M were basically equivalent to the T-72Ural from the early 1970s in most ways, with only minor upgrades.

>>34091771
comparing apples to oranges. unless you want to say that they would have destroyed the same amount of autoloaders of their own technological level as easily. in which case you are an utter moron. there is the slight problem that the iraki tanks didn't had the du ammo for the t72 which was the only one able to frontally penetrate the abrams. it would be interesting to see the same matchup if they also had the ruski era packages and proper training.

i would say the murricans would have been hard pressed and probably bloodied badly even against t72s.

>>34091771
Did you mean 9 trained crews with full support, out performed 28 untrained crews, with no support?

>>34091828
Untrained? The entire republican guard was battle hardened during the iran Iraq war and they had an entire divisions qorth of support

>>34091771
well field 9 m1a2 sep against 19 t90ms and try to recreate that miracle...
the abrams would likely be obliterated by that force with nothing left of them.

>>34091862
so 28 not 19, but 19 would be enough in all honesty.

>>34086033
>caseless ammunition
Oversized G11 with engine and armor. Prove me wrong.

>>34091851
Retards throwing themselves at you, and you at them does not make you battle hardened. Same goes for the united states in Afghanistan.

>>34091876
>caseless tank ammo is somehow exceptional
I have news for you. All modern tank ammo is technically caseless.

File: 145301674120.jpg (248KB, 1281x638px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1281x638px

>>34091862
9 M1 A3 Sep v4 tusk 2s could absolutely compete with 19 t90s. Especially considering the electronic warfare assets and active defence systems

>>34091910
uhm no that's not right.

>>34091851
The republican guard was mostly dead desu farm, just like the Iraqi-airforce and all other aspects of the Iraqi military. There wasn't much left.

>>34091936
yeah well they would have to compete with 19 armatas if you want to be fair.

>>34091946
you just have to wait a bit for the ruskies to have 19 of them.

>>34091946
Even better those fuckers cant survive a parade

>>34091946
>>34091957
Armatas are a prototype, they are building a next gen of tanks based on that model. Even then It's not like they will go to war right now, they will plan this shit out if their going to fight not run in dick first with no plan, thats Americas thing after all.

>>34091819
Thank you for reaffirming Iraqi T-72's were on par with the bulk of Soviet tank forces of the time.

>>34087145
>It's faster to fire a shell that is loaded than it is to swap it, autoloader or no autoloader.
I know I'm falling into a troll, but life is not a video game. You do not have unlimited ammo. Also giving away your position is not helping you survive.

>>34091936
>T-90s fire INVAR-M at maximum range against advancing abrams.
> M1A3 Sep V4 Tusk2 turns on active defence systems
>is hit with 2 INVAR-M ATGMS at 5km range
>Abrams crew suddenly realise M1A3 Sep V4 tusk 2 is not a real tank, and they are just driving in a regular M1A2.
>most optics are probably destroyed even if the tanks them selves are not penetrated
>as the blind Abrams reach 3km they are hit with a volley of HE-FRAG which destroys any remaining front optics and probably the gun too.
>By the time the Abrams reaches their effective APFSDS range, they are having an emotional event and existential crisis with all their optics out they consider the superiority of 1970s design and doctrine as they more sense than hear the rain of APFSDS disintegrate what ever remains of the tank.

File: 1493171809080.jpg (62KB, 393x428px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 393x428px

>>34091972
>Soviet forces in 1991 uses ammo the soviets stopped using in 1972, they used export tanks they never used from 1979 to replace their more modern 1985 tanks.

Wow

>>34091972
they still are, the bulk of the soviet tank fleet is much older than slovakia.

File: bL71Aph.jpg (374KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1280x960px

>>34092005
>Soviet forces in 1991 uses ammo the soviets stopped using in 1972

They never stopped using them (image related, look at those delicious steel rounds with tungsten cores), hell that shit is still being used in the eastern Ukraine fighting.

>they used export tanks they never used from 1979 to replace their more modern 1985 tanks.

The bulk of Soviet tank forces were not T-72B's and T-80's in 1991.

Sorry that reality had to dick punch your fanboyism.

>>34091991
>T-90s fire INVAR-M at maximum range against advancing abrams.
>While the missiles are in flight the T-90's are hit with M830A1, as the abrams can actually accurately fire at 4-5km
>Having most of their optics destroyed, if they were not outright disabled, they lose the ability to guide ATGM's and are forced to charge.
>The last thoughts in the crews minds as they are torn to shreds by DU APFSDS are curses at their tanks manufacturer for not having the ability to accurately fire on the move.

>>34092130
>T-90 fire INVAR-M in an arc over terrain, well beyond their maximum range.

>>34091315
that turbine, which I hear is going to be replaced by a diesel pp if the A3 variant goes through, allows an abrams to completely outmaneuver enemy forces of similar weight and maintain the speed of a rapid advance while bringing all the overkill in firepower and protection it's associated with- that the cost is a massive fuel train is irrelevent

>>34091608
when they start mounting them on giant robots

>>34091542
>it's like if the murricans were riding m60a3s
M60s were deployed during DS1 by the Marines and performed decisively against Iraqi tanks including T-72's, though.

>>34091608
Then we stop having this discussion because they no longer perform their primary job in rough parity.

>>34091617
Objectively it doesn't matter that one didn't replace the other. The French abandoned the concept of an autoloader and reverted to manual loading on their next tank.

>>34092903
M60s were decisively ass rekt by T-62s in the Iraq-Iran war. I think uncritically believing 100% of kill claims from one side without verifying it is pretty silly though.Whether it's American or not.