Could be. I recall seeing a couple of pictures of them in the field at Ft Hood a year or two ago

 

Pfft.

Wow why the hell is this not in our inventory?

I recall a game... Global Conquest, IIRC. There was a 3-turn land-battleships card. It was awesome... just make sure you battleships were back at sea on Turn 4.

Wasn't the Crusader supposed to be awesome? I had a buddy from Oklahoma, where they were gonna build the things, and Oklahomans were LIVID with Don Rumsfeld for cancelling it.

They couldn't get the liquid propellent to work and the other improvements weren't worth the cost.

When you spend 500 billion on your air force, investing in top of the line FA isn't a good use of money (of course, we could save 300 billion by having a good enough air force and the best arty in the world, but I digress)

if there is a ridiuclously expensive way to destroy things, we will always go that way.

See also Sen Scoop Jackson, Democrat from Boeing.

Pfft! There you go again! Thinking unstrategically.



 

NIH and it's not an F-35 or LCS?

We are so overdue for a auto-loading armored vehicle.....

You know there is a reason armies that fight and with lots of money have kept the loader.

 

They aren't faster.
They are more prone to malfunctions.
They can't pull air guard.
Round selection is a simple voice command.
We aren't talking about artillery.

and that 4th crew member helps a lot when it comes to maintenance, security and having a newbie position to learn the ropes.

MACs charges gave you most of the same capability to include the MRSI capability.  But what really killed it was its weight, it was heavier than an M1 tank in a time when the Dept was trying to become more expeditionary.  The name also did not help, in a time when we were fighting forces who often recruiting on the shtick of fighting crusaders naming the gun system crusader was a  no-go.

Many of the western world, and to a lesser extent third world, is now investing in coordinate seeking GRAMs.  You get most of the capability of precision strike with much  less cost than having to buy aircraft.

 

No.
My argument is that the loader is a key position.

If the French, British, Germans, Israelis or Americans saw value in an auto-loader (which has been around since 1964 with the soviets), we would have one by now.

The loader also gives you another man on a machine gun, somebody to help spot targets, an an air guard while moving.

I spent a lot of time on 3 man crews and they blow even when you aren't using the gun.

The extra hand in maintenance and while pulling security of the loader is invaluable

 


 

Yep French first had one way back when on the AMX-13 too

Because our non-rocket artillery is generally shit that was just adequate in the 80s, and is severely behind the times now.

Hands down one of my favorite systems in the world.  

Is there an active countermeasure like Trophy that will work against MBT rounds? Either in development or already deployed. Of course I would assume that using a system like that in close proximity to your own infantry would not be a good thing.

Oh come on, the risk of seeing the gunner's arm ejected from the turret is well worth the shitty reload time and short-handedness when repairing the track.

Kharn

LOL.

Don't forget IR and mmW stealth

can't stop kinetic.

and HEAT rounds are probably moving too fast.

ATGMs move slow enough to detect, calculate, fire and intercept.

I don't think you could do that with a heat.
and you definately couldn't do that with kinetic.

Crew was too small to perform things like breaking track or site security.

Plus it had the same problem as light tanks - if you are as fast as tanks and brads, and are supposed to keep up with tanks and brads, sooner or later you run into what tanks and brads fight - with predictable results.

License built PzH-2000 would give you 90-95% of a Crusader for maybe a third of the cost per unit.



 

The only non-combat proven tank out of that whole list.

There isn't an Armor crewman around that would want an autoloader in their tank instead of another crewman.

Kinda what I thought.  

Is there any armor in development that could meet the weight requirements and be capable of stopping a MBT round?

Just thinking that it has been a long time since the M1 was developed and maybe we have come up with a lighter armor solution since then.

We've reached a point where tanks that can stop modern rounds will be too heavy to move.

The Russians claim their reactive tiles can stop KE rounds, when combined with advanced composite armor.  Their reasoning sounds viable.  

Rock Island disagrees, but I won't say anything more.  An "A4" version of the M829 long rod penetrator is being developed as well.

On the subject of autoloaders, they can break, and they aren't always safe.  I'm not saying that they're always dangerous, just that they can be dangerous.

This guy seems to be doing the job just fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DcA7RwpFo7o#t=13

Manual loading is only a problem when you start turning sandwich makers into loaders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O0EUc07QbM&feature=player_detailpage#t=202

Just for comparison, lets take a look inside a T-64 on a range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4B4Yd6q-zg&feature=player_detailpage#t=98
That just screams "Crew Safety!" doesn't it?  You'd have to wear your PT belts just to see each other in that thing.

Doubt it.  Something else will come along to change the balance in the "gun / armor" race.  It always does.

common sense disagrees as well.
by the time the explosives detonate, the round is through.  

I bet it briefs well when they try to sell new and improved T-90.
Totally different tank, tovarisch.
much better.

G@& dammit-don't even utter such words!

You're going to give someone out there the idea that wearing a reflective PT belt will enhance "crew safety".

ETA:  I just watched all three videos.  Holy shit.

That German crew was about slow as fuck-no sense of urgency by Cindy at all.  Looks like the main gun automatically "super elevates" after firing to assist loading, and the loader has to disengage "elevation uncouple" manually.  Surely, this must be a safety feature for range use, because EL UNCPL should NEVER be used if you can avoid it.  Don't ask me how I know.

That T-64 looks like it would absolutely suck to crew in.  Bear in mind, those crewmen are short in height, and are chosen for that job because of their physical stature.  They seemed happy in their work however, and there didn't seem to be a lot of confusion between the gunner and TC.  No bore evacuator on their 125mm main gun tube, so they have to blow the smoke out of the turret with overpreassure.  Didn't seem to work too well.

Before deploying to SWA, I met a Marine from Bravo Co. 4th Tank Bn named L/Cpl Wilson who left for the big sandbox across the sky before our company did.  We kept up now and again while we were over there.  He recounted what it was like to be there when they ambushed an Iraqi RG column on it's way to attack a Marine position on the second night of the first Gulf War.  Pitch-black from the smoke from the oil well fires.  The company was alerted by someone on "TIS watch" and he got the word out on the company net.  It was a frenzy of activity while crewmen scrambled out  of the bags half dressed into their crew positions to get their tanks out of the coil they were in and on line to engage the enemy tanks crossing their front from right to left.  The Iraqi column was 100% destroyed-they never knew Bravo company was there, or what hit 'em when they opened up on them.  At daybreak, the survivors started making their way towards Bravo company's position to surrender or seek medical attention.  Some were badly wounded, missing limbs, or crawling on the sand because they lost one or both their legs.  

One Iraqi officer who spoke fluent English requested to see one of our M1A1s, so he was allowed to get inside the turret and given a tour.  That Iraqi couldn't believe such tanks existed.  He was in awe.

I wonder what those Russians would think of an M1A2 SEP?  Even in this day and age, they would probably be in awe.

Too bad they didn't show linda the loader doing more loading.

That first one looked kinda rough.  and they weren't even moving.

I'm not sure about that.  A KE round detonates a tile upon impact with the mild-steel nose of the round.  Does that give the blast time to disrupt the trajectory of the DU rod, or break it into two or more pieces?  I don't know.  

The theory must have had some merit, since the M829A3 was developed with that in mind.

Just say'n....

Yep

That autoloader in the smoke made my skin crawl.





No wonder they have a bad wrap for snaking on arms.
Wonder how many FSA Rebels used captured tanks and had inexperienced crew get whacked?



 

The Russians oversell every fucking thing. I bet their FOS.



These are the same dumbfuck that makes videos of their T-90s flying over ramps on an obstacle course as a selling point for their model.





 

From what I recall, the T-90 was actually going to be called the T-72BU or some such nonsense.  They decided to change the name completely after the Gulf War.

I imagine that their new fancy ERA probably has some effect on APFSDS rounds when it works, but even if it's 100% foolproof it's only going to work if the round hits a box and it's only going to work once.  Plus, I seem to recall that M829A3 (possibly also the A2, I don't recall) was designed specifically to counter their new ERA.



Given how small the reds make their tanks she's probably a good approximation for your average Soviet tanker, only much better looking!

I'm not saying they don't embellish their accomplishments, but obviously the latest generation of ERA has been noted by RIA, and 120mm APFSDS-T ammunition has been fielded with that in mind.

I sat in a T-72 once in Iraq.  (It was funn of Cryllic writing, and had an extending RPG screen on the front, which my Co said was popular of Russian tanks in Chechnya, but I have been assured there was ZERO Russian T-72's in Iraq).





It was awful.  
Cramped, no viability, so on and so forth.



I'm not an armor guy, but the thing felt like a death trap.
Vs sitting in an M1 where you feel like you own the world in comparison.

Pretty much.  If you're an average-sized American (as in height), there's no way to fit into the turret of one and close the hatches above your gourd.

I remember crawling around the inside of the turret of a T-72 that was Polish, and I remember the Cyrillic data plates and IIRC, may have seen one that was from Czechoslovakia.

By contrast:








 

The Leopard 2 series of tanks does super elevate the gun, and keep it there, until the loader hits the ready switch.  Unlike the M1, the Leopard 2 was designed to do that, so it's probably different than the EL Uncouple mode, but that's not a detail I'm terribly familiar with.  The Leo2 loader also indexes the fire control computer for the appropriate type of ammunition.  They also appear to be separately putting the gun on "Safe" between shots.

Honestly, she looks to me like she's scared of the damn gun, she's holding onto the handhold for dear life.  I imagine with practice she'd get better but the real question is, if they HAVE to have her on a tank crew, why isn't she driving?  Finally a job where smashing things with your vehicle can be a GOOD thing!


The T-64 shown does, in fact, have a bore evacuator.  It just sucks.  They're shooting shit with a tank, and I imagine you'd have to be a liberal to not enjoy that.

I imagine the Russians probably already know a good idea about what goes on inside an M1A2 SEP.  They've gone a long way with their last few tank designs, and if we keep sleeping they're going to catch right up.  Ours is still better though.

Rheinmetall claims their AMAP-ADS reacts fast enough to reliably degrade 2km/s range projos. If they reliably tip shells, and bolt it onto IFV armor, it might affect 120mm shells.

Two points.





In a heavy engagement, with that much smoke in the turret, you're straight going to suck at your job.   How can they PID targets and engage when the sight from the glimpse I saw, is already cloudy, and you can't focus because your eyes are all fucked up?





I would say that they have not gone a long way with their tanks.  Most of the current takes are still just T-64/ T-72 variants.  Their more ambitious projects like the Black Eagle turned out to be smoke and mirrors. So I would say they have not gone that far.   The M1 was pretty ground breaking with crew survivability, intergrated systems, and so on.





The Russian takes are much like the M-60, you can hang a lot of cool effective stuff on them, but they are still rooted in the 50's.