/k/ why are there so many people against the autoloaded tanks?

suck my cock bro

File: 1429712511833.jpg (1MB, 1200x933px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x933px

>>34791517
Are you saying you prefer human loaders because you wish for more potential males to suck dick?

>>34791782
Kinda. Everyone in a tank is trained to do every role. So if someone gets knocked out, then they can fill a role and at the least, drive and nope the fuck out of there.

By replacing a guy with an autoloader, you loose a guy to take over for another position and if it breaks, the loader and everyone else in the tank is not as experienced at loading by hand as someone who does it as their job is. Backups and consistency

One of the biggest reasons is that having an additional crew member makes it MUCH easier to perform field maintenance and repairs, spot targets, and engage infantry in close combat.

There are lots of other reasons for and against having an autoloader, but that's the most important one that I'm aware of. That, and the complexity of the autoloading system.

File: 1487065578853.jpg (14KB, 456x456px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 456x456px

>>34791782
>Getting a blowjob in a tank

>>34791506
Some NATO countries do it right.
The 125mm autoloader is a flawed design.
With its carousel it can take several seconds 9+ when cycling through the projectile types, also consequentially, the penetrators are extra short and have less mass. With that in mind early soviet autoloaders were known to be dangerous for the crew. That being said I personally think its done right in tanks such as the Leclerc, where you have an autoloader in the turret bustle so you can get regular sized 120mm ammunition cycling through it, and its also less inherently dangerous to the crew. In my personal experience though, a human loader is optimal as it gives you another man to stand watches is, break track and do other maintenance work for the vehicle.

>>34791859
As far as I am aware, most people don't continue fighting once the inside of the turret has had a nice jet of molten copper inside it.

And if this is a problem, again, why don't everyone switch back to human loaders once they realise this?

>>34791873
Just because you don't have 4 people in a tank doesn't mean the actual unit have to be smaller, so you wouldn't have less people to do maintenance or repairs, you'd just have less people inside the tank while fighting. Also you have infantry to spot targets and engage infantry. I also don't see how a loader would help with spotting targets or fighting infantry, if he is busy loading.

Also not sure how the complexity of an autoloader is a problem, it's a pretty simple mechanical operation. Unless it's a "bolt action is better than assault rifles because it is simpler and more reliable" kind of argument.

>>34792154
>Just because you don't have 4 people in a tank doesn't mean the actual unit have to be smaller, so you wouldn't have less people to do maintenance or repairs
Yes, but having that 4th man in the vehicle is far more expedient than having rear echelon tracked vehicle mechanics.
>Also you have infantry to spot targets and engage infantry. I also don't see how a loader would help with spotting targets or fighting infantry, if he is busy loading.
The loader isn't always loading, especially if the main gun isn't actively being used. Thats why he has a medium machinegun at his hatch, especially in urban warfare, even with supporting infantry it is extremely helpful to have another set of eyes and a machinegun.

>>34791506
It's karma.

Burgers believe that Russians cannot into S-Ducts while Vatniks believe that Americans cannot into autoloaders.

In the end, only China has the best of both worlds.

>>34792205
>.25 (USD) has been deposited in your account.

>>34792188
>Yes, but having that 4th man in the vehicle is far more expedient than having rear echelon tracked vehicle mechanics.

Maybe they don't organize their units the same way that western forces do. Also depends on what you want to do.

>The loader isn't always loading, especially if the main gun isn't actively being used. Thats why he has a medium machine gun at his hatch, especially in urban warfare, even with supporting infantry it is extremely helpful to have another set of eyes and a machine gun.

This requires him to turn out to fire his machine gun though.

>>34791506
You made this thread like a month ago, acted like a fucking sperging, and REEEEEE'd your way off the board. Why are you doing it again? Did your doctor change your dosage?

>>34792137
The autoloaders are no more a danger than any other gun is. If you're dumb around a cannon you can get hurt, this isn't special for autoloaded tanks. And apart from old discovery channel documentaries I don't remember reading much about the T-64 autoloader being particularly dangerous.

>>34792276
>Someone made a thread touching on the same topic a month ago.

You rumbled me, I am in fact the only person on this website with literally millions of users who has ever thought about this.

File: thumper.jpg (147KB, 720x559px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 720x559px

>>34792261
>This requires him to turn out to fire his machine gun though.
Thats the thing though. An auto loader can't fire a machinegun, it can't scan the rooftops or the treeline looking for enemy infantry. An autoloader isn't going to pull a shift of nightwatch while the driver, gunner and TC are sleeping.
Have you considered the reason for why western tanks rely on manual loaders is because that a human loader can reliably out perform a soviet style auto loader even with 120mm ammunition? The standard for an M1 Abrams loader is 6 seconds, I'm sure leopard operators have the same. I'd consider it somewhat likely for western tanks to be seen with autoloaders in the future, however. Maybe if we adopt a 130mm gun or 140mm, as that was the plan with the M1 Thumper. Also, having a loader is another crewmember who can be trained as a gunner, or tank commander when his career progresses. Tank commanders always have to have some experience (unless he's a brand new lieutenant) which in that case, the gunner is basically in charge of the tank while the LT learns his job and is also in charge of the platoon. With a manual loader you just have more options. You have an extra mechanic, an extra watch stander, a potential gunner/commander as well as relief for the driver on long trips.

>>34792400
Well about the rate of fire, that's fine, but as far as I know this isn't really all that important, as most combat probably isn't olympic speed shooting, and that acquiring and confirming targets probably take longer than loading a round anyway. If they just wanted an autoloader that fired fast they could just have made that, but this was never an issue for them.

And again, if you're with hundreds of infantry dudes, do you really need a few extra people for watches, can't the infantry do that? Can a regiment not have extra commanders, gunners and drivers without them being inside a the tank until needed?

>>34792400
>An autoloader can't fire a machine gun
Is that a challenge? You could theoretically design a tank with a completely integrated electronic control system. Computer loads the gun, computer runs the remote weapons system, computer makes the tea.

The problem is you eventually reach the point where your tank says "I can't let you do that, Dave" and goes full killdozer with you locked inside.

>>34791506
Because 3-man turrets were a pretty significant innovation when they first came out and were among the things that allowed the Germans to outmaneuver the French, and deleting that and loading more responsiblities on the tank commander for a slight rate of fire is not worth it?

>>34791506
Because a 4 man crew is better than a 3 man crew if you're a first-world country that has a military large enough to afford a 4 man crew.

When will autoloaders be acceptable to Americans? When remote turrets are here and automated image recognition driving/gunnery is on the horizon.

The thing is, mechanics in the rear will simply never be as good as people on-site right then and there to fix track or stay awake in pairs.

>>34792482
Would you get out of your tank to fix a track if you knew the moment you do so you'll be pooped on by a machine-gun?

>>34792463
> do you really need a few extra people for watches

Yes, absolutely. Administratively, tanks and infantry don't mix below company level, and why would they?

Obviously this isn't a problem if you are Germany and getting overrun in the Fulda Gap in one night, or France and only need tanks as a nuclear tripwire, or Russian and you don't have the time (or number of experts forward) to keep the same tank and crew going for 3 days straight. Either they get raped by arty and air, or they do their job, then get raped, and the second/third echelons push past them so there is no need to have crews taking shifts.

>>34792474
That tank even had a 5 man crew, which should actually perform 25% better economically, think about all the extra drivers and commanders you have!

>>34792513
You sound like the kind of idiot who thinks that RPGs and ATGMs made tanks obsolete.

>>34792542
OP is some retard sperg

>>34792529
>Yes, absolutely. Administratively, tanks and infantry don't mix below company level, and why would they?

So that you can have 3 man tanks and do combined arms operations making your tanks more than 10 tons lighter for example.

The rest of your post is just assumptions.

>>34792542
I am seriously asking you, if you're suggesting that in the middle of a high intensity battle, it's important to have a fouth crewmember, because you're expecting to perform repairs on the outside of the tank while you're actively being fired upon.

Or do you take offence to being asked a question in a calm and reasonable manner?

>>34792513
What, and a rear echelon mechanic will?

>>34792587
I think it would be safer to repair what tanks can be repaired when the battle is over rather than during the battle it self.

>>34792469
Too bad tanks with soviet style autoloaders are barely now getting CITV.
>>34792463
OP, let me ask you something. Where you ever in the military?

>>34792542
Don't worry ops a retarded child. Grownups are talking now forget the Op tard.

>>34792586
I take offence to reading posts from people pretending everyone is as dumb they are.

Since you seem to be willfully stupid, I'll write at your level:
95% of the time in near-peer war, shooting is not going on.
When shooting is going on, 2/3 of any given unit, not excluding armor, is behind cover.
These are the times when things get fixed. Being behind cover does not mean that speed is unimportant.

File: 448px-T-28_Garage.jpg (64KB, 448x300px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 448x300px

Best medium tank of the war undisputed, most crew

>>34792610
I was not a tanker, not in the American military, nor in a Slavic one and not for very long.

Anon, let me ask you a question, do you try to silence criticism and legitimate questions by simply attacking the character of the person asking it instead of considering alternative view points?

>>34792653
95% of the time even, where did you get that number from?

>>34792561
At the cost of disrupting platoon integrity? Nah. And those "assumptions" are amateur-tier v cold-war strategy. If you don't recognize that instantly you aren't qualified to critique anything related.

I'm sure it makes sense if you've never experienced friction.

>>34792659
Shut the fuck up you little kid. I've heard arguments from both sides. You're outright arrogance is appalling.

>>34791506
>25mm autoloader = ok
basically a large machinegun. What? Are you going to find a guy who can load as fast as a 25mm can fire?
>40mm autoloader = ok
Same deal as the 25mm. You can;t find a human able to load as fast as the weapon can fire.
>76mm autoloader = ok
AFAIK, no american tank that used a 76mm cannon also employed an autoloader. IIRC, russian and some euro tanks did, but I may be mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong please.
>105mm autoloader = ok
AFAIK the only piece of armor that mounts a 105 and an autoloader is the M1128 MGS variant Striker. It should be noted that the M1128 is a POS that doesnt even have AC (the computers regularly overheat and shut tdown) and only has a crew of 3. Where the fuck would you PUT a loader crewman?
>155mm autoloader = ok
a single round for a 155mm cannon weighs ~100 lbs. Arty crews that do it by hand used 2 men to carry the shell and a third to carry the charge. Where are you goin to fit three men in a tank JUST to load the fucker? Some cannon rounds are just too damned big to be reliably and rapidly loaded by hand.

>>34792659
I think the implication the anon was trying to make is that since none of us are/have been tankers, how the fuck are we to know what occurs on or off the field, or what even is most effective for them?

All we've got to go on are field documents and AARs from people who have been in those situations. It's kind of pointless to definitively argue in any one direction because of our collective inexperience.

>>34792701
>Throwing a hissy fit is the sign of maturity.
Anon plz

>>34792695
Maybe I am not understanding you right, but are you saying that you just do not believe that combined arms units can exist, and that infantry and armour cannot help each other under literally any circumstances?

File: 170120-A-SK411-178.jpg (88KB, 825x613px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 825x613px

>>34792659
I was asking, because you seem to have very little understanding of how a military functions seeing as how you didn't address my other points. I will deconstruct my argument for ease of reading.
>loader is a candidate for becoming the tank's next gunner or commander since he has experience
>loader can share the burden of the the crew's collateral duties
>with western standards, there is literally no reason to choose an autoloader over a human
Your arguments
>computers could become so advanced they could automatically service the main gun and a machine gun (when referring to tanks as early as the T-64)
>the minute the loader gets out to break track he will be picked off by enemy fire (as opposed to the other crew members or rear echelon service troops)
>instead of our crew taking 6 hour watch shifts, lets take 8s instead because fuck sleep
>OR lets never stand sentry duty, and rely on a non organic unit to stand your watch
>Its ok that human loaders out perform soviet style autoloaders, most combat isn't olympic speed shooting
The reason why I asked if you were in a military, was because you seem to have absolutely ZERO understanding of how a military functions.

>>34792740
I would actually be very interested in real data pertaining to the problems people mention, or even just an answer as to why that people are so adamant and even angry about the notion that all the engineers and soldiers with autoloader experience over the past 50 years, may actually not be wrong.

>>34792673
Straight out of my ass. Read a couple hundred collections of historical papers like me, and you too will be able to copy-paste the generic professional consensus of the last 70 years of American MIC on military events for Congressmen and retarded children on Mongolian fish farming forums.

I suggest starting with Depuy's reactons to the Arab/Israeli wars. He loved to dumb shit down, and the junior enlisted loved him for it.

>>34792513
Men have done that exact thing pretty much since the invention of the tank.

One man MAYBE getting shot by an MG (more likely 2 men, since it takes two to replace a blown track on an M4), is a helluva lot better than ALL the men getting overrun or hulled by a german 88 or a russian 125mm. Especially when the rest of the crew is using the tank's weapon systems to stand overwatch for the guys making repairs.

>>34792769
https://www.quora.com/In-a-modern-tank-is-the-auto-loader-better-than-having-a-human-loader-and-a-crew-of-four-rather-than-three-What-advantages-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army

I'm at work, so I don't have access to any hard data, but he does cite multiple sources there, you may give it a look.

>>34792750
No, but I bet you'd love to believe that.

You're already short on personnel at all tiers. Cross-loading people between companies with different transport modes, distributed over several square km, for menial tasks, in the middle of a war, is retarded. It's much easier to...wait for it...have the extra dudes you need already there integrated into your unit down to the level of individual tanks!

>>34792757
>loader is a candidate for becoming the tank's next gunner or commander since he has experience
You can have replacements without them being in a tank, it's a mute point. Generally a tank which is penetrated to the point where the crew is heavily wounded or dead doesn't usually continue fighting anyway.

>loader can share the burden of the the crew's collateral duties
So can other people who are not in the tank.

>with western standards, there is literally no reason to choose an autoloader over a human.
You may notice that France is western, but don't agree, do you mean American?
You're mixing some things I said together with another poster I think.

>the minute the loader gets out to break track he will be picked off by enemy fire (as opposed to the other crew members or rear echelon service troops)
No, not as opposed to service troops, but as opposed to not doing the repairs while you're in battle.

>instead of our crew taking 6 hour watch shifts, lets take 8s instead because fuck sleep
Have infantry take shifts because you have infantry around you at all times when you are part of a combined arms unit.

>OR lets never stand sentry duty, and rely on a non organic unit to stand your watch
Infantry is an organic unit.

>The reason why I asked if you were in a military, was because you seem to have absolutely ZERO understanding of how a military functions.
Your military isn't all military. Your experience isn't everyone's experience.

>>34791506
Different design philosophies. T-72 was a tank built for a very specific war that was fortunately never fought.

The autoloader meant you lost only 3 men instead of 4 when your tank brewed up.

No need for a fourth man to do maintenance when rear services handled that, or your tank was just going to be destroyed before it had the chance anyway
No need for a fourth set of eyes when the nine-twelve other tanks in your suicidal charge are there to cover you
No need to look at rooftops when your suicidal doctrine emphasizes that you do not make it even more suicidal by driving into places where infantry has a massive advantage


Compared to NATO where your tank is essentially a giant infantryman who needs to worry about cover, being outnumbered, watching for flanks, being reliable and being there for when you pull back and refit

>>34792724
No modern russian tank employs a 76mm. There is the 73mm on the BMP, and it's autoloader was found to be both unreliable, slow, the actual origin of the arm-eater meme, and in future variants like the 1P and BRM it was just removed.

>>34792786
That is a fair point.

>>34792823
I have actually this one before, there are several questions like this on Quora, but most answers including this one are written by people with no experience of autoloaders, I guess slavs don't use Quora.

>>34792875
Apart from the idea of intentional suicide this is a more reasonable explanation.

>>34792894
>Apart from the idea of intentional suicide

Not in theory, but in practice it effectively would be, even if the Soviets won the war in the end.

>>34792881
>>34792724
There are autoloaded 76mm ship artillery, speaking of which the Soviets also made a 130mm autoloaded gun which fires at 35 rpm. Almost the same calibre as the 125mm guns.

>>34792918
A naval gun's parameters are helluva lot different from the requirements of a tank gun, number one being size and weight

>>34792845
>You can have replacements without them being in a tank, it's a mute point. Generally a tank which is penetrated to the point where the crew is heavily wounded or dead doesn't usually continue fighting anyway.
My point went over your head. Again it shows your lack of general military understanding.
What if your TC SFC Smith, is retiring after 20 long years serving in the army. "Oh well, guess this tank will never have a TC again" Said nobody ever. "Hey SGT Gunner, you're off to TC school, loader, you're going to gunnery school". You know that people rotate out of units right? You're not going to have some new PV2/PFC straight from tank school service the main gun or command the tank.
>So can other people who are not in the tank.
So you're going to trust some infantryman to do any sort of maintenance outside of his job description?
>You may notice that France is western, but don't agree, do you mean American?
>You're mixing some things I said together with another poster I think.
I was the one who mentioned the leclerc, however there is still the M1, Challenger, as well as every other country that uses a Leopard 2 (in which there are several countries) as well as legacy western tanks
>No, not as opposed to service troops, but as opposed to not doing the repairs while you're in battle.
Who said every field repair is done in battle? It can be simple shit like getting your vehicle unstuck from mud or performing track tension, bore sighting. The mechanics can't always be rolling up in an M88 to get your vehicle going.
>Infantry is an organic unit.
Infantry is not organic to the tank, the tank is the tanker's responsibility

File: 1492815001821.jpg (845KB, 2304x1536px) Image search: [Google]

845KB, 2304x1536px

>>34792750
>infantry and armour cannot help each other under literally any circumstances?

I was just a stupid leg, but this isn't very far off. Tanks are fucking complicated. Just about the only thing infantry are really qualified to do are:
1. Wait for something to happen.
2. Walk somewhere else.
3. Shoot motherfuckers.

You better believe I'm really fucking good at those three things. However, you will note that none of these have anything to do with a tank. I barely even know what's involved with regular maintenance of the things. You ask me to replace a hydroelectric bipolar modulator in a tank and I'll just look at you funny. You ask me to kick down a door and kill some motherfuckers? I am ALL OVER THAT.

More importantly, the Army would have to train me and everyone in the platoon on how to do that tank shit, and that's time that could have been spent training me on how to do #3 up above better. Infantry does infantry things. Tankers do tanker things. (Except when they're told to dismount and do infantry things, then they just bitch and moan.) Cross training wastes time and resources.

>>34792926
Of course, but what makes up the weight of something like the OTO Melara or the AK-130, is probably more it's massive integrated turret and magazine, which in the case of the AK-130 the magazine is 12 tons alone.

The mechanism for simply putting in the shells is probably not the heaviest part of the ship turret.

File: M88A2.jpg (38KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x400px

>>34792941
Man, I don't think this OP is going to understand. This guy is as dense as tungsten.
He's arguing in favor of autoloaders, but giving no actual argument.

>>34792941
If you have a tiny amount of tired guys in a few tanks supporting you in the field, and they ask some of your unit to stand watch while they sleep, would you just refuse and slap them across the face because they were tankers?

>>34792980
Dude, I don't think you understand how watchstanding works in the military. In the pacific campaign for example, you would have 2 man fox holes at night. No matter what, at least one man from each foxhole for the entire company would stand watch. While the loader/driver/gunner/tc are standing watch, you can bet that there is a man from each fire team also standing watch looking after his own buddies. You can't seriously expect the whole tank crew to be asleep at once in wartime, right? You didn't even address his point that infantry are in no ways qualified to look after a tank.

>>34793032
If a two man fox hole is capable of taking watches at night, why am i being told that a 3 man tank crew could not do the same?

I did not address his point about infantry not being qualified to look after a tank, because I never claimed they could, but I think they can lift shells and carry other heavy things if needed.

But if you use autoloader then that means less crew per vehicle. So you could field more vehicles and they could repair the broke things and watch the sleepy guys and why is everyone arguing with me?????

>>34793080
>why is everyone arguing with me
Because you're a retard.

>>34793092
You're not very observant.

File: hot dawg.jpg (140KB, 640x430px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 640x430px

>>34792980
Honestly? Probably. I wasn't an officer or anything, but that's not really the sort of thing that happens.

They're a different unit, and they're armor, so doctrine has them addressing different threats. Tanks fight Tanks. Infantry fights Infantry. The closest to intermingling is mech units, but they're infantry with a ride. The ride just happens to have a gun.

Some durkas start shooting at some 88M's a few klicks away and they need someone to shoot at them back, you going to send the tanks after a couple of goatfuckers? More importantly, when my unit heads out, who's watching the tanks? In the field, each combat unit is responsible for itself. You work together in a big picture sort of way, but you've also got your own AO so that you're not stepping on each other's toes. This is just how shit is done.

Maybe if it's a mech unit and the tank is part of that? But that doesn't really happen. When you get tank support as infantry, it's sort of like when a repairman shows up to fix your heater or something. You're not gonna get all up in their shit and stuff, you're gonna give them room to work (while still doing your thing by shooting motherfuckers where appropriate). They have their job, and you have yours. If we're told to give cover to a tank with a broken tread, we will, but that's one unit protecting another, and repairing the tread is on them. That, or it's on the third unit who is specialized on repairing tanks and gets called in.

>>34793147
Okay, that is interesting, "tanks fights tank and infantry fights infantry" is I guess a very big doctrinal difference.

I understand that this is how Americans are currently doing it, but other posters have argued that doing anything else is impossible, so taking that at face value, I am extremely curious about how to Leclerc, K2, Type 10, T90 crews do these things. According to >>34792757
3 Man crews apparently just don't sleep. Frogs and vatniks are just supposed to literally not sleep, or be perpetually tired.

>>34793068
8 hour night, two dudes. Each guy only gets 4 hours of sleep.
With three dudes, everyone gets about five hours of sleep.
With four dudes, everyone gets 6 hours of sleep.

4 or 5 hours is not sustainable for more than a few days under combat conditions. Hell, RIP/RASP is basically "We're going to force you to do physically exerting shit on 4 hours of sleep per night for a few weeks with some training thrown in."

It's the same reason all the instructions on shit are so simple and have pictures. After a couple days of balls-to-the-wall daytime activities and missing/bad/interrupted-by-watch sleep cycles, your brain is working on the level of a 4th grader. Simple words and pictures plus muscle memory are all you're capable of.

>but I think they can lift shells
Nope. Do not trust an infantryman to be in proximity to explosives without AT LEAST a full day of training on the platform. Plus, I'm pretty sure there's a REMF logistics MOS who that is literally their entire job.

OP, what military did you serve in and what was your role?
>>34793256
This so so much

>>34792463
>loading speed isn't important

Until it is. If I got the drop on an enemy formation during movement I was able to decimate their entire platoon before they could identify my single tank. That's a huge force multiplier when setting a defense.

Granted we were shooting miles at each other which increases the confusion, but its a reality.

>>34793256
It still leaves the question of how 3 man tank crews do it.

Also at least in the paper "The human dimension of 3 man tanks" from 1994 for the US army they say that at least some people in the US military doesn't consider it to be a problem having other people than the tank crew do mundane tasks.

>>34793304
You're not suppose to have tanks operating alone, and if you have 4 tanks and they have 4 tanks and you get the drop on them you shouldn't need an extremely high rate of fire in order to destroy them.

>>34793244
Or they sleep when they're supposed to be doing security. Or they have degraded security posture they have to plan for.

It depends on your duration and discipline.

It was fun watching a stupid argument be picked apart. Thx for being a dunce OP.

>>34793332
Maybe, but I think it's silly to assume that all these people, are just less disciplined or don't know what they are doing and have done nothing to fix it for half a century.

>>34793147
This mentality is definitely a result of the war on terror. Current day training is certainly more combined arms, at the maneuver center they're regularly training the new armor lts with infantry lts for the culminating exercise, integrating idf, and utilizing air support at tradoc. It'll take awhile to get over the "this is my ao" mentality, and I still wouldn't expect some random tank plt to just say "provide my security" without the infantry guys starting a fight that only a ltc could stop. Unless they previously had a working relationship. Case and point - my organization is directly integrating cav scouts, dismount, tanks, and FSO (bfist platform) into the troop level. That's not even talking about platoon specific field maintenance teams, and medics. The only thing a troop is missing is air support. Already have organic uav assets.

>>34793359
How often do they force on force train a perpetual war environment?

You'd be surprised. Most training is conducted in the day then at night everyone relaxes and goes to sleep in the countries I've worked with. Sleep security is a hard value to find, even though it seems so fundamental and basic.

File: 1493201557331.jpg (2MB, 2815x1845px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2815x1845px

>>34793331
It's a doctrinal thing going back to the cold war. Soviet tank doctrine was "Push like hell west until you run out of fuel." You either made a breakthrough and pushed hundreds of miles into europe and waited for logistics to catch up, or you got blown up trying. (This is also why this era of soviet tanks had those extra fuel canisters on the back.) They literally wouldn't sleep. That's their plan.

Now, if you're the US, you're more concerned about defense, so you're gonna be camped out watching for the soviets, so it's more important to keep someone on watch all the time. Also, because NATO strategy was to quickly use reserve units to counter and contain any soviet breakthrough before they got loose, you needed someone to monitor the radio all the time, even if you weren't expecting enemy contact. Can this be done with 3? Probably. However, NATO doctrine was all about maximizing each unit's power to compensate for the soviet numerical superiority. Also why the seemingly trivial fire speed and reliability issues were relevant. NATO was willing to train more crew to improve effectiveness. The soviets used autoloaders so they could function without training. If the soviets had a tank gun go down, it's no big deal. They're disposable. NATO loses a tank gun? That's a huge loss to unit effectiveness.

>>34793331
>tanks operating alone

A tank platoon is expected to cover a minimum of 4km wide, ideally 8 (your wing man is half your max effective range to your flanks. )
That's 1 km spacing at min, 2km ideal with 3 stretching it.

Terrain can effectively separate your ability to mass fires on targets of opportunity. If you had the option to fix an enemy while your wing man maneuvers to destroy, OR outright destroy the enemy yourself, you're going to want the fastest and most effective method, which is 1 tank having the capability to destroy a platoon in 14 seconds with a capable loader. My pvt was doing 3.3second loads.

>>34793406
That's actually pretty interesting seeing that organizational stuff coming to maturity. I'm gonna date myself by saying the transition to Brigade Combat Teams was during my time, but even then I could totally see this sort of stuff happening later in the lifecycle because of the move towards smaller, more independent units instead of the huge compartmentalized functional silos.

>>34793429
It's something I'd like to know. None of the people who use 3 man crew's have their literature in English, and sadly my Russian, Chinese and French isn't really good enough to know how to actually do these things or how often they exercise.

>>34793435
Well, at least that is the western perception of their plan.

You have a very good point about the defensive role of armour in NATO doctrine though, IIRC the M1A1 didn't have a 120mm dedicated HE shell, I am not even sure if it does now, because it was supposed to be so dedicated to destroying soviet armour in their grand offensive that dedicated anti infantry shells wasn't even considered, as it needed all the AT capability it could have.

>>34793496
As far as I know the 120mm just has HEAT-MP and APFSDS.
I'm a corpsman though, who happens to be an armor enthusiast.

>>34793478
You make American doctrine sound so incredibly rigid.

A tank platoon covering 4km wide area in a a high intensity conflict would be a very dead tank platoon facing down a concentrated armour force.

>>34793510
Yeah that was my understanding as well, they do have cannister shots now though.

>>34793478
That would be just 4 tanks vs half a Russian regiment, which would include a tank company and two motorised rifle companies if it was an MRR.

>>34793492
Its a nightmare in regards to logistics and distribution trains. You can't mass the proper mechanic mos or parts to have a healthy bench stock to keep the fleet supported. It's crazy to me that we're reading cold war era doctrine for how these hunter killer teams were originally used as guidance for how to go forward.

I personally am a huge fan of the task org. As a pl I had a diverse portfolio of tactics and methods at just the troop level to accomplish my tasks. I establish a screen in depth with dismount, brads, tanks, and ravens flying overhead with troop organic 120mm mortors, fire missions were rounds on target in 20 seconds, instead of going through brigade fires and waiting 8 minutes. As an xo in the organization though... shit gets weird.

>>34793496
The cost to train on your equipment is astronomical. We're talking gallons to the mile, with 450g tanks of fuel, requiring resupply every 16 hours for offensive maneuver. Its largely simulated now to be cost effective. You'll spend 8 hours for one day once a quarter in a simulator for plt mvt practice, you'll do a bunch of simulator shooting practice for gunnery, and actually roll your tanks out three times a year on a non deploy line unit in the us- the world's best funded military.
My unit is deploying, we've gotten shit loads of money and went over budget every time. We've done ntc, which simulates perpetual war for two weeks. And two lead up missions that half assed the night security portion leading up to it. I highly doubt another military would give more fucks with less people.

I like to think I know joe - and joe is a simple man. He likes booze, not reading his apr on credit cards, spending his entire paycheck at strip clubs, and shamming when possible.

>>34793582
Sounds rather chaotic, also isn't this a great case where autoloaded tanks would be easier, if for no other reason then for the considerably less amount of required fuel.

>>34793516
Absolutely not- I'm sharing doctrine but will openly admit I've never been close to that dispersion.

The idea on paper -you need that spread so the opponent cannot see both tanks while viewing through optics.

Utilizing terrain you can shrink that to make command and control easier, but until you're against a force that dispersed its hard to appreciate how effective it is. It really makes engaging targets that are doing berm drills near impossible.

>>34793601
fuel is still cheaper than parts. I can't speak because I've no experience with their systems but an auto loader sounds like a giant mess of proprietary parts that cost a shit load of money.

>>34793647
It just sounds like you were saying, that american tanks will never concentrate forces. With 500 meters between each tank, then each could should expect to face down close to 10 Russian tanks.

>>34793660
Comrade, if you can't fix it with rubber bands, it doesn't get accepted into soviet service.

>>34792659
No, but it does help determine how legitimate and trustworthy your "facts" and opinions are.

>>34793702
I have presented few facts beyond that autoloaded tanks exist in reality, I have asked people questions, and this made some people very emotional and other have calmly and patiently answered these questions.

>>34792463
>as most combat probably isn't olympic speed shooting
Try it when a Soviet tank battalion crests in line and you've got a company - to take it on with. You'll be thankful for a loader that could load a round in 4 seconds in bursts.

>>34791506
Because they eat arms when the tank is in motion and for some reason firing, because you know, fuck the rules, because you know, war and all.

>>34793719
The difference in reloading would not be enough to make up for a force ratio that different though.

I think that 48 slower firing tanks would beat 12 fast firing tanks given parity in all other aspects.

>>34793732
That's a myth.

File: WNUS_5-54_mk45_sketch.jpg (68KB, 900x687px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 900x687px

>>34792918
Yeah, and the Mk45 can do 20rpm. There's a bit of a size difference between a 5"-class ship cannon, and a 5"-class tank cannon.

>>34792529
>Obviously this isn't a problem if you are Germany and getting overrun in the Fulda Gap in one night
Actually, I'm going to say that this is exactly when you want another person for a night watch. Please remember that the Soviets generally REALLY liked disaggregated operations because they were scared of nukes. You'd have hundreds of battalion level meeting engagements, but WW2 style battles with both flanks tied in with friendly units and prepared attacks are different. Not to mention that WW3 would take days or weeks. Imagine you're a tank crew and have been fighting, rearming, falling back, or emplacing yourself for days or a week with minimal sleep. Do you want to split the night watch with three people or four? Sure, 50% or more of your unit is probably dead at this point, but you've still got to keep fighting. You want that extra sleep

>>34791859
Anon. You don't supposed to plan for things to break.
And when they break it's usually not as bad as it can be. Usually.
Not to mention tanks are pack animals, there are more tanks to cover it if it has an incredibly rare disabling loader malfunction beyond a jam.

>>34793747
Yeah, as we have already been over, tanks don't need a magazine that is 12 tons and houses more than 500 shells. Amongst other things. The autoloader itself has no real need to be different.

>>34793752
>Anon. You don't supposed to plan for things to break.
Sorry, what? That's literally the opposite of what you're supposed to do.

>>34793744
Watch literally any russian autoloader. I don't want that thing anywhere near my dick.
France seems to have it down with their lefelatio or whatever its called autloader.

>>34793768
Your doctrine should not be centered around the possible failure of a specific part that can be maneuvered around with a ramrod and a sweaty alcoholic.

>>34793769
Watch literally any human loader, omg he is standing next to a breech that is coming flying back, that is very dangerous, I don't want that thing anywhere near my dick.

>>34793776
Did I mention most modern tanks are akin to shooting a sniper rifle at whatever you're aiming at, as well. Usually one'll do er for anything that's not covered in DU and the commander can ventilate any little shitfuck bombers coming at them, as well as the humvees and other tanks as well. They simply change their position in the formation and deal with it. They basically never fire the main fun for anything besides training anyway.

>>34793734
You'd think that, but it's not always the case. There was one NTC rotation that had a company (-) of 5 tanks and a platoon and a half of mech infantry hold off a MRR and supporting tank battalion for HOURS. Sure, they were eventually overrun, but that was the power of a handful of tanks who had good ground, knew every fucking inch of it, and knew how to fight from it. They were eventually overwhelmed, but they had rendered an entire regiment (+) combat ineffective.

Now, that's an extreme case, but if you have good defensive positions, you should be able to do it. Hell, NTC rotations taught how to do it for DECADES. It's damn well possible.

>>34793797
When has US forces ever fought a Russian MRR..?

>>34791506
>I don't see anyone claiming that manually loaded anything else is better.
There's plenty of people online who will tell you why, and plenty of people offline who will tell you why too. Maybe you don't see them because you didn't take the effort to actually look.

>25mm autoloader
Generally uses a machine gun that doesn't require anything too complex. Shoots anywhere from 200 to 3800 rpm depending on vehicle and circumstance. You might as well as ask why doesn't the army use trapdoor guns.

>40mm autoloader
Same as above. Some of them had magazines that you'd manually feed in though.

>76mm autoloader
Same as above, generally on ships. Generally a lower rpm, but still far faster than people.

>105mm autoloader
Barely holds much ammo most of the time and generally in light vehicles that can't hold too much to begin with.

>120mm autoloader = nope human loader is better
Everyone explained to you why. Also, no, some NATO countries indeed use autoloaders so you're making assumptions right off the bat.

>155 autoloader = ok
Mixed. Generally specially designed for such and doesn't have a turret. Most are not autoloaders. For example, the US still has a lot of 155 cannons that are man operated. M109 and M777 do their jobs fine and are man operated.

>If the human loader was superior, how come all the countries which have operated both human loaders and autoloaders, haven't switched back to human loaders?
Because most tend to be in low-intensity conflicts or enough funding to unfuck up their mistakes.

>>34793805
>enough funding to unfuck up their mistakes.
Don't have enough*

>>34793805
>Because most tend to be in low-intensity conflicts or enough funding to unfuck up their mistakes.

This level of fantasy is amazing.

>>34793776
Ask the russian crews in chechnya in '95 the same question.

>>34791506
Because people are retarded and don't understand reasons behind putting autoloaders in a tank.

At caliber as big as 120mm, humans will, in short term perform more or less just as good as autoloaders and in normal combat conditions you don't load and fire constantly so it doesn't really matter that much. Bigger than that the crew will be tired too fast, smaller than that autoloaders will be much, much faster than men anyway.

The entire point of autoloader is that you can reduce cost and size of the tank because you don't have to accommodate the 4th crew member. The tradeoff is that you have just 3 guys in a tank. Less peripheral vision, more tiring maintenance etc. await. This is especially big problem for western tanks because very often they were using relatively maintenance-heavy designs, case in point M1 Abrams or basically every British MBT.

I'm going to go, and check on this thread later if it still exists, maybe some slavshit tanker will actually reply to this thread, who knows.

>>34793845
Luckily I am a NATO slut and we don't tend to fight countries full of intelligent and effective soliders. Thus, fuck the autoloader, I'm getting a reclining chair for my tank.

>>34793801
Are you aware of what the NTC is? The opposition was far more skilled and knew the terrain far better than any Russian would have.

File: 1482845477228.jpg (87KB, 363x1024px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 363x1024px

>>34793901
The only slavs that post on this form are paid propagandist vatniks that would say autoloaders are not only vastly superior, but they are manlier and are three times as fast as homosex gay pigdog western soldiers.

>>34793909
a roomier interior is probably much better for morale especially considering you live in the god damn thing.

File: 1456959376811.jpg (6KB, 248x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 248x250px

>>34792137
Everything is fine and dandy until you autoload an arm

File: Object477a.gif (417KB, 350x213px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 350x213px

>>34791506
Nato's fighting doctorine and tanks designed for that doctorine favors human loaders. Still Japan and France uses autoloaders.
>>34791859
If someone gets knocked out you fall back to safety and leave or bailout
>>34792400
>An auto loader can't fire a machinegun
Remote controlled mg fired by commander.
> it can't scan the rooftops or the treeline looking for enemy infantry
Again commanders job
>An autoloader isn't going to pull a shift of nightwatch while the driver, gunner and TC are sleeping.
Do you think tanks go out there alone. Min number of tanks that can go out in a mission is 5 at almost all of the militaries. That means atleast 45 guys that can share guard duty
>human loader can reliably out perform a soviet style auto loader
Given circumstances of hull and turred is not moving human loader is better than auto untill 16 rounds iirc thats the number of ammo Leo and Abrams has in its turret. Soviets likes to move and shoot so autoloaders bests the human one when the turret and tank is moving. There is also 24 rounds in carousel. Problem with autoloader is changing the ammo after it's loaded. Which human loader can do it easily but in autoloader tanks it opens a can of problems.

autoloaders better against other tanks and vehicles

non-autoloaders more flexible

File: grozny2.jpg (24KB, 529x272px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 529x272px

>>34794924
>Remote controlled mg fired by commander.

That's the commander, not the autoloader.

>Do you think tanks go out there alone.

russian tanks sure do

>b-b-b-b-b-b-b--b-b-b-bbut you need a fourth guy to do maintenance!

1) No, three is more than enough. Two is all you actually require (no maintenance task actually needs more than two people to do it)

2) If this is true, why don't we go back to 5 and 6 crew tanks? After all, more is """"better"""" is it not?

File: big tonk.png (1MB, 947x532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 947x532px

>>34795240
9 crew + up to a platoon of infantry

>>34794924
>Cdr responsibility,
Sure. Unless you're the psg, pl, xo, or co which is half the unit and which case you aren't fighting your tank, you're fighting the plt/troop and are obnoxiously busy. My loader maneuvered my tank a solid 40% of the time on the defense and 60-70% while offensive. Sending reports, battle tracking, positioning the platoon formation, coordinating with air and idf are an officer's primary job, the psg is covering down for the lt when he's busy with one of those other tasks since they're all happening simultaneously.

Loader is also a great developmental position. You're outside of the hatch, maneuvering a tank before moving to being a gunner, you have a driver under you that you do maintenance with, and later you become a tc, no hard measure but I can almost guarantee 4 man tanks create better tcs as a result.

>>34795513
Is that one of those new chinese tanks? I didn't know there were pictures of them yet

>>34794924
Tanks may be in a formation, but when you're on a defensive line with your sector of fire you can bet you'll wish you had that extra guy to pull shift. Tanks maneuver as an organization, but are largely independent entities because of their capability.

>>34795240
>t. Guy who never had to self recover a vehicle while the remaining formation continued an offensive push

But honestly, the largest thing you're missing - and anyone from maintenance will tell you this, is you need experienced people teaching the new guys how its done. The nco should be in the motorpool working with joe, but sometimes he has cbrn, pao, master driver, or other commitments and additional duties that don't allow that. Otherwise you create an inexperienced maintenance program and you can't fix that without major intervention that takes away from other training.

>>34791879
Stop, i can only get so erect.

>>34794924
>Remote controlled mg fired by commander.
But with a human loader, you have another guy to do this
>Again commanders job
But with a human loader, you have another guy to do this
>Do you think tanks go out there alone. Min number of tanks that can go out in a mission is 5 at almost all of the militaries. That means atleast 45 guys that can share guard duty
Do you think one sod is going to watch a platoon of tanks, dibshit?
>Given circumstances of hull and turred is not moving human loader is better than auto untill 16 rounds iirc thats the number of ammo Leo and Abrams has in its turret. Soviets likes to move and shoot so autoloaders bests the human one when the turret and tank is moving. There is also 24 rounds in carousel. Problem with autoloader is changing the ammo after it's loaded. Which human loader can do it easily but in autoloader tanks it opens a can of problems.
The M1A2 has 40 rounds of turret storage. Also, I'm not sure if you're familiar at all with carousel style autoloaders, but once you start expending the ammunition that is closer it takes much longer for it to cycle though and select the ammunition.

>>34794924
>Remote controlled mg fired by commander.
In case you've never looked at western tanks a lot of them give the loader his own machine gun on top of his station. Your statement is incomplete without saying "lets just remove more firepower for the sake of convenience..."

Also since you've likely never seen how the delegation of responsibilities keeps a tank operating at peak performance or lethality, it is important to bring up the commander has many of his own jobs to facilitate separate from that of say a loader. Many T series and many sub 4 member tanks cannnot operate at the same level of efficiency.Section, Platoon, Company, Battalion, and Brigade level command tanks, all have increasingly higher levels of authority that prevent them from being as effective on their own tank in real time. By removing the loader, your just short of doubling the work load onto one person. Nato Realized 4 member tanks are the perfect combination of work vs human input, and getting the fourth person to fullfil that of gun loader as his primary mission increased the reliability of that tank.

>>it can't scan the rooftops or the treeline looking for enemy infantry
>Again commanders job
No, no it is not. It is supplementary, but not all inclusive. As stated, the commander has many important things to do in addendum to that, stop being a misleading cunt.

>An autoloader isn't going to pull a shift of nightwatch while the driver, gunner and TC are sleeping.
>Do you think tanks go out there alone.
You very clearly missed his point. You seem to lack the ability of seeing how force multiplication with the addition of more personnel makes a tank element more efficient at its job.

>Min number of tanks that can go out in a mission is 5
4, 4 tanks are typically a platoon and older soviet armored platoons were 3, to not include those who used their equipment and copied their doctrine.

>That means atleast 45 guys
4*4=16

>>34791506
we'll all be workin' for robot overlords soon enough.
so why are you in such a damn hurry to expedite that fact now?

>>34794924
>>34796419
>An autoloader isn't going to pull a shift of nightwatch while the driver, gunner and TC are sleeping.
>45 guys that can share guard duty
Where do you get this 45 number from anyway?

But furthering a real point instead of pandering to some world of tanks junkie, you are't putting one man rotations on night watch for the entirety of a section, platoon, company etc, you can't pretend to be this stupid. Even if you try to sound intelligent and say 2 persons, or more, you're entrusting X people to monitor Y vehicles and Z avenues of approach, there is a increasing percentage of labor required from each person the smaller your element is. And in a platoon or section, you're fucked if you have 3 people tanks, you need at least 2 people up at the minimum, you're screwing yourself out of 1/3rd of your sleep where a nato tank would be 1/4th.

And this is in a perfect scenario, you'll never open up a book on maneuver warfare, a perfect defesnive position will have the loader dismount from the vehicle with another loader from the platoon and set up a listening/observation post away from the platoon in an early warning/dead zone covering point.

You don't have an argument for decreasing the number of personnel on tanks, besides whats already been said by people who make more in a month then you do in a year, you should refrain from trying to talk about things you know very little about.

>>34794924
>>34796498
>>34796419
>Given circumstances of hull and turred is not moving human loader is better than auto untill 16 rounds iirc thats the number of ammo Leo and Abrams has in its turret. Soviets likes to move and shoot so autoloaders bests the human one when the turret and tank is moving. There is also 24 rounds in carousel. Problem with autoloader is changing the ammo after it's loaded. Which human loader can do it easily but in autoloader tanks it opens a can of problems.

>not moving human loader is better than auto untill 16 rounds iirc thats the number of ammo Leo and Abrams has in its turret
Double that, there is a rack behind the tank commander. And 6 more in the Hull. The probability of shooting at 10 to 16 vehicles at a succession of a few minutes is insificant. And even if it did happen theres battledrills in place that extract the other 16 rounds, if you need 32 rounds that quick, you have much much more important problems to contend with, where avoiding the battle is more important then engaging in it.

> Soviets likes to move and shoot so autoloaders bests the human one when the turret and tank is moving
You made this up, a human loader is still faster then an autoloader even when the tank is moving. A tank handles terrain very differently then a car.

>Problem with autoloader is changing the ammo after it's loaded
And slower.
And less reliable.
And increases work load on the crew.
Decreases accuracy.
Decreases engagement time.

Almost every point anyone ever makes about an autoloader is so far into fallacy, the obscurity is so intense people gravitate to perpetuating these false truths because they sound good.

>can of problems.
*truck load

Don't underplay how poorly they function. If they are so good, do you have a real argument for them that NATO hasn't already discussed?

>>34791506
120mm guns are a wierd size where the rounds are small enough for a human to load but too big to fire faster than a human can load.

>>34792938
A tank company has a head quarters platoon with additional personal, loaders and drivers don't change much, and gunners and tank commanders don't either. But if a tank commander or gunner is removed from the equation theres usually a lateral transfer of the next most experienced man in the company and in expedited cases the platoon. The promotion of loaders/drivers to gunners is case by case. And for tank commanders its even more complicated.

Some think there's a hierarchy that you must follow Driver > Loader > Gunner > Tank Commander but its 100% arbitrary and more reflective of maturity and competency. Very rarely will a TC be outranked by a gunner, but it has happened.

>>34796697
*faster then the gunner can aim

>>34792561
>making your tanks more than 10 tons lighter for example.

Soviet tanks were not 40-45 tons because they had an autoloader.

>>34792724
>It should be noted that the M1128 is a POS that doesnt even have AC (the computers regularly overheat and shut tdown)

You are not helping your credibility.

>>34792740
By this logic no one is allowed to comment on professional sports except that actual athletes.

>>34796822
Tripfag here, the MGS is a piece of shit, he wasn't wrong.

>>34792918
Those ~5 inch ship guns weigh as much as an entire tank.

>>34796865
Your opinion is noted, try to do better than he did and stick to factual accuracy.

>>34796924
Don't you want to suck his ridiculously huge dick?

One word:

France

The AMX Leclerc does it right, they have an autoloader that is really fast,has few moving parts, is safe and sealed off from the crew and its none of that retarded slavshit

>>34796977
WRONG

>>34796985
Aswome argument there bro

>>34796977
Isn't bustle autoloader vulnerable from 35° angle? Thats why soviet/russia use hull mounted autoloader

>>34797000
Could you elaborate? vunerable in what way?

File: turrets-ugol.gif (52KB, 1200x529px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1200x529px

>>34797000
Like this pic show. Abrams armor is extended all the way to the bustle to compansate it but leclerc bustle only have storage box I think

Friendly reminder that the US Army is going to do a MUM-T test using an Abrams equipped with an autoloader and the loader replaced with an UGV/UAV operator.

>>34797021
There is nothing preventing you from putting armour there is it?

>>34797034
This makes my dong become big ding

>>34792586
How about your tank gets damaged during an attack, and your unit is able to repel the attack. Now with a crewmember, you may attempt repairs in the field prior to arrival of support units.

File: 2gt4rdl.jpg (55KB, 750x800px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x800px

>>34797037
Well weight is mostly the factor. Thats why western tank is heavier.

>>34797049
Not him, and unrelated question I guess, but is there anything preventing you from having a 4th crewmember and an autoloader?

>>34797061
Yeah, but that has allways been the case and has nothing to do with an autoloader, and some Leclercs has ad on armor so weight shouldnt be an issue on that specific type of tank

>>34797061
I've always thought it was a matter of recruitment: for every 100 trainees, the Soviets/Russians would rather have 33 3-man tanks, while Western countries would rather 25 4-man tanks. Does anyone know if there's anything to that?

>>34797089
Soviet want a tank that have armor, speed, and firepower but light enough for their tank transport, train, and bridges. So a hull mounted autoloader tank is what they got. If they using bustle autoloader then those bustle will need to be armored too pushing the weight to ~55t

>>34797089
Not really, conscripts is cheap as fuck compared to tanks

>>34797114
The Soviets adopted an autoloader because the T-64 was pushed to be as small as possible. It is a midget compared to the T-80 and T-72.

>>34797222
The T-80 is a development of the T-64 (just look at them). The T-54 is however larger.

Also, both the T-80 and T-72 also uses autoloaders

>>34797222
Are you sure? Their size is roughly the same.

>>34797236
But T-64 and T-80 similiarity is only in their autoloader type.

>>34797270
No, they are similar in many more ways. Infact, the first T-80 was just a T-64 with a gasturbine engine.

>>34797236
The T-80 is developed from the T-64 as much as the T-72 was.

The T-80 and T-72 use (different) autoloaders because the gun and doctrine were already firmly established with the T-64.

>>34797280
>the first T-80 was just a T-64 with a gasturbine engine.

No.

>>34797296
The tank from LKZ equipped with this turbine engine was designed byNikolay Popov. It was constructed in 1969 and designated Ob'yekt 219 SP1. It was renamed the T-64T.

This was the first T-80 prototype.

File: IMG_2006.png (87KB, 840x280px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 840x280px

>>34797259

>>34797308
It was a testbed for a turbine engine, not a T-80 prototype. Much like how the Abrams engine was first tested in M60's.

>>34797329
Not really tho. The T-80 was just an Object 219 with some uppdates. The Object 219 is tho the T80 what the XM-1 was to the M1 Abrahams.

>>34797342
>The T-80 was just an Object 219 with some uppdates.

You can stop any time.

>>34797356
You do realize the official T-80 designation is Objekt 219 do you? And how the two prototypes was just called the Object 219 SP1/2

>>34792610
Where?

>>34792757
But you didn't ask "were." You asked "where."

>>34793805
>Mixed. Generally specially designed for such and doesn't have a turret. Most are not autoloaders. For example, the US still has a lot of 155 cannons that are man operated. M109 and M777 do their jobs fine and are man operated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBm-FPcz850

>>34798166
M777's are manually loaded because the gun is made to be as light as possible, M109's have assisted loading.

The Crusaders sustained rate of fire was made possible by its water cooled barrel.

>>34791879
>>34795725
When I was about 11 or 12, I used to have daydreams about getting a blowjob while I was shooting insurgents with the mounted gun on a HMMV.

>>34799631
Who was giving you those blowjobs

>>34791506
>Is it because that NATO didn't adopt them?
Short answer - yes.
Long answer - yes.

>>34792400
>ave you considered the reason for why western tanks rely on manual loaders
Because America after failed MBT-70 turned to the reserve bare bones project. Naturaly redneck workshop tank whose only mission is to be as simple as possible didn't included autoloader.

>>34793859
>humans will, in short term perform more or less just as good as autoloaders
No humans can perform as good as autoloader of Leclerk or K2 or Type 10 tanks.

>2000+17 A.D.
>Multimillion dollar stealth fighters flying at Mach 1.2 need only ONE pilot
>Slow ground crawling tank with only one main gun firing at target moving in 2 dimensions needs FOUR crews

Why is this? Is it because the Army only get rejects, retards and monkeys while the Air Force get the cream of the crop? The answer is yes.

>>34794924
>Problem with autoloader is changing the ammo after it's loaded. Which human loader can do it easily but in autoloader tanks it opens a can of problems.
Pretty much this.
You need to be ready to fire but also ready to change what you are firing.

>>34800740
Aircraft don't have turrets and sky doesn't have obstacles. Crafts with turrets (AH-64) have second crewmen as gunners.

>>34792154
>jet of molten copper

File: battlezone_TC_avtank.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

What level of technology would you need to make 1man tanks competitive with a tank that has a 2 man crew?

>>34802136
Autopilot driver and automatic target detection and recognition system.

>>34800680
I guess thats why the Germans and British stuck with human loaders as well, because they love sucking daddy america's dick.

>>34802136

Bigger brain on the one guy

File: Steel Beasts Soviet Army T-72B m.1984.jpg (171KB, 1500x750px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1500x750px

>>34791506
The T-72B looks so much better without ERA.

>>34803962
> the vatnik likes to portray his enemies as prostitutes or passive homosexuals, unwittingly revealing his fears and insecurities about sexual domination and humiliation. Insults revolving around oral and anal sex are par-for-the course when discussing politics with the vatnik, regardless of age.

>>34806526
"бoльшинcтвo pyccких мyжчин гoмoфoбы из-зa тoгo, чтo в pyccкoм yмe oчeнь cильны мeтacтaзы кpиминaльнoгo кoдeкca чecти. Любoй cepьeзный чeлoвeк, чeм бы oн ни зaнимaлcя, пoдcoзнaтeльнo пpимepивaeтcя к нapaм и cтapaeтcя, чтoбы в eгo пocлyжнoм cпиcкe нe былo зaмeтных нapyшeний тюpeмных тaбy, зa кoтopыe пpидeтcя pacплaчивaтьcя зaдoм. Пoэтoмy жизнь pyccкoгo мaчo пoхoжa нa пepмaнeнтный cпиpитичecкий ceaнc: пoкa тeлo кyпaeтcя в pocкoши, дyшa мoтaeт cpoк нa зoнe."

Bиктop Пeлeвин.

>>34800720
Can they clear misfires though?

So what's stopping them from slapping on the autoloader and still having a 4 man crew, with the extra guy acting as the electronics warfare guy or a drone operator or both.


And I'm saying this in the context of future wars, where tanks will probably come with radars and APC and drones are a thing. Especially against a actual militarily force instead of sandniggers.

>>34791506
Because tankfags are autistic, even compared to the rest of this board. They will fight tooth and nail to convince themselves that their favorite tank is perfect in every way and completely indestructible.

Consequently, if their favorite tank lacks an autoloader, that is automatically a good thing because autoloaders must be hot garbage.

>>34806805
Nah, the entire autoloader debate came about because of vatniks trying to use it as something that makes Slav tanks superior when in actuality it has everything to do with differences in doctrines between nations.

>>34806830
Not really, one of the shit argument is arm-chopping autoloader from the human loader fan

They both have their ups and downs really. One isn't objectively better than the other

>>34792137
>early soviet autoloaders were known to be dangerous for the crew
well isn't that an understatement
you know how orthodox priests bless their military equipment?
It's because the autoloaders design make them susceptible to demonic possession
>FEED ME THE ARM OF A CONSCRIPT
-autoloader circa 1963

File: AMX Auf1.jpg (189KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1050x700px

>>34799610
>The Crusaders sustained rate of fire was made possible by its water cooled barrel.

The older AMX AuF1 has an autoloader but has a rate of fire of 8 RPM.