We could just add loudspeakers to our tanks and have them broadcast the sound of a pump-action 12ga.  That would entirely eliminate the need for any cannon.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know very little about tanks and the like, but I've always wondered why tanks (ours or others) don't have a semi-automatic mechanism, with say a 3 or 5 shot magazine. Reliability and speed. Tests show the manual loader is much faster and more reliable, so long as he isn't drunk or injured. Plus somebody would have to change Magazines. I dont know what the shells on the abrahms(sp) weigh but could you imagine 5 of them. Why not some type of gravity feed device? kinda like what is used in the c-130 gunships?

The AC-130 does not gravity feed the 105mm howitzer.
The 40mm Bofors loads from 4rnd (5rnd ?) clips.

Quoted: We could just add loudspeakers to our tanks and have them broadcast the sound of a pump-action 12ga.  That would entirely eliminate the need for any cannon.

Or the sound of a 1911 firing, because you know, the 45 Auto can destroy entire cities with 1 shot as JMB intended!!

Quoted: Not to mention it would encourage wastage of ammo.

Ammo used against the enemy is never wasted, just poorly shot.

Quoted: Have you ever seen how fast our guys can fire at multiple targets? They are pretty much semi-automatic! IIRC there was a tank battle in the gulf war and one of our tanks who came over the hill first fired 3 rounds with three hits in less than 10 seconds.

How fast do you NEED to fire a tank?

If you can load a single-shot rifle like a Sharps or Martini-Henry really fast, why not a tank?

I am something of a minority in American tank circles, in that I think autoloaders are probably the way to go.

This list of modern autoloaded tanks is still fairly small. China, France, Iran, Japan, and anyone mucking around with modifying/license-building variants of Russian tanks are making autoloaded MBTs. Light tank autoloader manufacturers are Austria, France, and had the M8 Buford gone into production, the US. Cadillac's LAV-105 also has an autoloader. Israel has a semi-autoloader. The ammunition is provided by an autofeeder in the Merk IV out through a small hole to the human loader, who then puts the round in the tube.

The commonly used arguments against have all been mooted above. Speed, reliability, reset position, extra crewman, eating crewmen and T-72s popping the turrets. There are counters to all of them.

Speed: Old Soviet-era T-XXs would have a cycle on the order of ten seconds. A human loader will have a round ready (using modern ammo, not laploading) in about four or five. However, modern autoloaders do a lot better than the old ones. Leclerc's is a six-second cycle. T-80s is supposedly faster. (Albeit using a vulnerable carousel) However, over time a human loader will also slow down. Not because he's getting tired (though I guess it's possible), but because in a human's ready rack, there is a 'sweet spot', where the rounds are just perfectly positioned for the loader's height/build in order to get the round out, over, and in the tube.

Reliability: Yes, an autoloader can break down. Humans can get injured. I have not heard complaints from French or Finnish tankers (The autoloading type I seem to run into most) about their mechanisms, however, I wonder if it's the same argument that Hondas never break down and Chevy's always do. Common perception, but my Chevy's doing rather well, thank you.

Reset position. Non-issue. Elevation is plenty fast on a modern tank, the sights never leave the target. Gun position and sight position are independent. It should be noted that some manually-loaded tanks, to include Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 have a 'reset' position as well, to make life a lot easier for the human loader.

Extra crewman. An example of people not thinking two stages ahead. The French sort out the problem of not having a fourth chap for maintenance/sentry by having a fourth chap for maintenance/sentry. He doesn't go into battle in the tank, he rides around with the headquarters section, and meets up with his tank when they lager up. Whilst this solution does not save on the manpower issue, which is a commonly touted advantage, it does save on the volume issue: Autoloder's primary advantage. This means that you can have a smaller, lighter tank for the same levels of protection.

Eating crewmen: This problem with Russian autoloaders (which you will note has not been an issue with any other country) was on BMP-1s and early model T-64s. After that, they solved the issue. It is no longer a problem, and it's an unjustified bad rep.

Popping turrets: This was a problem of the Soviet design, with the ammunition stored unprotected underneath the turret. Modern autoloaded tanks (Including the latest Russian designs) have the ready ammunition stored in an compartment in the bustle, much like Abrams, and separated from the crew. Indeed, the protection is probably better since there is a chance the ammo can be hit in the American tank with a rack door fully open, while ordinarily there's only a little round-sized hole in the blast wall for the autoloaded round to come out. The Buford was/is slightly different, it had/has a carousel autoloader where the rounds are stored vertically on the left side of the gun, both crewmen were in their own fighting compartment on the right.

So you have those somewhat non-issues, compared to the advantages of having a smaller, lighter target of the same protection levels (Or a smaller, equally heavy target of greater protection levels), and only putting three people in harm's way at a time instead of four.

I believe the only reason we're staying with four-man crews is tradition. That, and the last generation of Western tanks was produced (bar Leclerc: Autoloader, and Challenger 2, complex ammo) in the 1970s/early 80s, mechanical reliability may not have been up to snuff. I think autoloaders are the way of the future though.

NTM

There are Autoloading cannons on Tanks, the Russian and Yugoslavian T72M1 had them in Desert storm please refer to a video of desert storm and the spectacualer way the t-72M1's turrets went flying for a couple hundred yards when hit!!!!

This is why western tanks do not have them, because the ammo that would be exposed in the crew compartment makes fro great unsurvivable fireworks when hit!!!

So the west opted for manual loading one at a time from seperate turret bustle that has blast off panels so the crew can actually escape and grow old when the ammo cooks off!!

A manual loader who is practiced can load rounds faster than any autoloader designed fro guns that caliber anyway.

So in short Auto loaders fro Main tank guns leads to big deadly explosions of spectacular magnitude, Manual loading is the way to go for Countries who actually give shit whther their soldiers are lost in combat or not.

Quoted: There are Autoloading cannons on Tanks, the Russian and Yugoslavian T72M1 had them in Desert storm please refer to a video of desert storm and the spectacualer way the t-72M1's turrets went flying for a couple hundred yards when hit!!!!

Didn't read my previous post, did you?

NTM

No more problematic than human. As long as you input the correct round data when you were loading the thing.

NTM

Quoted: ...I believe the only reason we're staying with four-man crews is tradition. That, and the last generation of Western tanks was produced (bar Leclerc: Autoloader, and Challenger 2, complex ammo) in the 1970s/early 80s, mechanical reliability may not have been up to snuff. I think autoloaders are the way of the future though. NTM

I would ditto your post, and add that not only will the loader be replaced, but the whole crew.  
Shrink it.  Cheapen it.  Festoon it with optics and tie it together in a net with 500 other armored vehicles of  various sizes/functions and set a perfectly synchronized assault in motion, all with overrides/real time adjustments available if needed.  Air support will be provided by similar means.


Only a grunt can hold ground, but nothing says that grunt has to be human.  Probably not ready for next summer, though...

Quoted: Quoted: No more problematic than human. As long as you input the correct round data when you were loading the thing. NTM It could be an issue if the next chamber in the revolver is a HEAT round when you need APFDS

Then the computer just spins the cylinder until the right round comes up.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: ...I believe the only reason we're staying with four-man crews is tradition. That, and the last generation of Western tanks was produced (bar Leclerc: Autoloader, and Challenger 2, complex ammo) in the 1970s/early 80s, mechanical reliability may not have been up to snuff. I think autoloaders are the way of the future though. NTM I would ditto your post, and add that not only will the loader be replaced, but the whole crew.   Shrink it.  Cheapen it.  Festoon it with optics and tie it together in a net with 500 other armored vehicles of  various sizes/functions and set a perfectly synchronized assault in motion, all with overrides/real time adjustments available if needed.  Air support will be provided by similar means. Only a grunt can hold ground, but nothing says that grunt has to be human.  Probably not ready for next summer, though...

Amen, brother, to that. When we're losing robots and remote controlled vehicles and they're losing hundreds or thousands of men - we win.

Quoted: Quoted: A belt fed tank cannon sounds cool! That would be THE badass emplaced defense.

forget that..how about a 120 mm MINIGUN

The days of the manual reloading are numbered if the 140mm NATO gun is adopted.
The round is gonna be bigger than the crew loading it

The auto-loader on the leclerc seems to run just fine. It allow the tank to fire even at full speed and on a chaotic ground with a constant rate of fire.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No more problematic than human. As long as you input the correct round data when you were loading the thing. NTM It could be an issue if the next chamber in the revolver is a HEAT round when you need APFDS Then the computer just spins the cylinder until the right round comes up. Kharn Time to cycle as they index around, seconds can mean life or death... GUNNER, HEAT! HEAT UP! AWAY! is a lot faster than GUNNER, HEAT! Kerchunk, Kerchunk, Kerchunk, Kerchunk... AWAY!

Computer, your ASS is GRASS if you do not load that next round within 1 second! KERCHUNK WHIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR AWAY

Quoted: The days of the manual reloading are numbered if the 140mm NATO gun is adopted. The round is gonna be bigger than the crew loading it The auto-loader on the leclerc seems to run just fine. It allow the tank to fire even at full speed and on a chaotic ground with a constant rate of fire.

I didn't know anyone was still working on that?

And isn't it really just the 120mm round without a bottleneck?  Because getting rid of the bottleneck and going to a straight case reduced bore erosion and allowed somewhat higher pressures.  Overall length and max diameter of the round werent any different, and except perhaps for the HEAT rounds weight would only change by a pound or two.

Its a realisation that if your going to shoot saboted ammo all the time, a bottlenecked case is kind of redundant.

But I didn't know anyone was working on it still, I thought people were starting to get discouraged about producing a gunpowder cannon that could throw a round much faster than the 1.8km/s of the existing 120mm gun?  It wasnt worth the change needed for new barrels to get maybe 100m/s more speed.

Quoted: Quoted: The days of the manual reloading are numbered if the 140mm NATO gun is adopted. The round is gonna be bigger than the crew loading it The auto-loader on the leclerc seems to run just fine. It allow the tank to fire even at full speed and on a chaotic ground with a constant rate of fire. I didn't know anyone was still working on that? And isn't it really just the 120mm round without a bottleneck?  Because getting rid of the bottleneck and going to a straight case reduced bore erosion and allowed somewhat higher pressures.  Overall length and max diameter of the round werent any different, and except perhaps for the HEAT rounds weight would only change by a pound or two. Its a realisation that if your going to shoot saboted ammo all the time, a bottlenecked case is kind of redundant. But I didn't know anyone was working on it still, I thought people were starting to get discouraged about producing a gunpowder cannon that could throw a round much faster than the 1.8km/s of the existing 120mm gun?  It wasnt worth the change needed for new barrels to get maybe 100m/s more speed.

Anyway you are right, it was just a "what if" situation as i have not heard of it since at least 2 years.

I think a big thing is also the simplicity. The breech system on an M1 is about as simple as you can get. Simple things tend to not break much, and when they do you can fix them.  If you read the "Armor Geddon" blog, the Lt. that writes it talks about his breech getting stuck closed and the loader was banging on it to get it open (it eventually slams open due to the concussion of the Lt's wingman firing right next to him). Anyway, it just required force to open, whereas on a Sov tank he probably would've had to take the thing apart, and pull out to do that.

Yeah, crewmen can get injured. But in a pinch you just grab another guy.

I'm sorry, I just can't resist

Quoted: The auto-loader on the leclerc seems to run just fine. It allow the tank to fire even at full speed and on a chaotic ground with a constant rate of fire.

How would the French know?

Then they can't have a flash-hider or bayonet lug?

Quoted: The 40mm cannon on the AC130H/U gunships are autoloaders.  It  just uses big stripper clips.  They're not "that" heavy.

Except we are talking about 120mm MBT tank rounds, not 40mm cannon rounds.
There is a bit of a difference in weight and size.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why do you need semi auto when those things are over 80 percent accurate with the first shot? someone who expects to face a very large number of low quality Soviet tanks.. That's why the Brits, Germans and Americans(all nations which never abandoned NATO) all have MBTs with autoloaders.

Which American MBT is autoloading, may I ask?

Quoted: Quoted: The 40mm cannon on the AC130H/U gunships are autoloaders.  It  just uses big stripper clips.  They're not "that" heavy. Except we are talking about 120mm MBT tank rounds, not 40mm cannon rounds. There is a bit of a difference in weight and size. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why do you need semi auto when those things are over 80 percent accurate with the first shot? someone who expects to face a very large number of low quality Soviet tanks.. That's why the Brits, Germans and Americans(all nations which never abandoned NATO) all have MBTs with autoloaders. Which American MBT is autoloading, may I ask?

Uh, none, and thats the point- and why there is a gogly-eyed emotocon at the end of the sentence...

Although technically the MBT-70 was half American and did have a autoloader.

Quoted: I'm sorry, I just can't resist Quoted: The auto-loader on the leclerc seems to run just fine. It allow the tank to fire even at full speed and on a chaotic ground with a constant rate of fire. How would the French know?

hehe i was waiting for it

Watch and enjoy infidel www.giat-industries.fr/video/prod_leclerc.rm

That video is an excellent example of autoloader ammo stowage being safer than an Abrams. If the ammo compartment got hit mid-cycle, there's an 8" diameter hole between the crew and the ammo. If the Abram's ready rack gets hit mid-cycle, there's a two foot by three foot gap of nothingness.

NTM