Above you see pics of the T54E1. Its a blast from the past that explored placing an oscillating turret with an autoloader on an M-60A1 chassis. The only reason why it wasn't put into production was because of issues with the autoloader, but the implications and potential of the design remain.
A 105mm, rapid firing cannon could decimate almost any target on the battlefield (especially if it used depleted uranium rounds) and would change tank tactics forever.
Is the future for US Main Battle Tanks autoloaders?
Theoretically you could have a much smaller turret, you could reduce crew size and the vehicle would be harder to detect AND lighter to transport....call it an oversized RWS system only it uses a heavy cannon instead of machinegun.
KADBB tried it with the Falcon Turret mounted on a Challenger MBT chassis. I think its time for the US Army and Marine Corps to trial this version (or develop something similar/better) on an M-1A3.
Sharp, short, punishing and decisive armored engagements will be a hallmark of future combat in my opinion. An autoloading tank might be the winning weapon in such a battle.
The problems with a completely automated turret are: it is impossible to reload under armor, lessened situational awareness, complete reliance on electro-optic sensors, like TV cameras, thermal imagery, ect. to look around the tank, and if the auto-loader in an unmanned turret fails, you are SOL.
ReplyDeleteI personally think the best designs are the Leclerc, Japanese Type 10, and the Korea K2. Both are roughly 10 tons lighter than the M1, the auto-loader and ammo are safely stored in the turret bustle, and, if the auto-loader does break, it is possible to loads the main gun manually, albeit very slowly.
However, I do believe that autoloaders are the future of tank design, but it will be another 5-10 years or so until the UK, US, and Germany begin to design their next generation MBTs.
Do auto-loaders load that much faster than a human? I was under the impression there wasn't _a lot_ to be gained.
ReplyDeleteif properly done they can. but the main benefit will be a much lower profile and compact vehicle. the ability to move the crew down into the hull and even if you don't lose weight because you increase IED protection you still gain. the only drawback is maintenance but that can be gamed out by increasing the size of the section and perhaps assigning a support vehicle in case of break down. as far as Davids concerns. we're depending on electro optic sensors for fighters so why not for tanks? additionally you can load many RWS systems under armor so i see why you can't in a tank.
DeleteDo we really expect the need to load the ammo under fire? If the auto-loader can carry 40-60 shells do we really consume all those shells before the tank has a capability to leave the firing and be refueled and re-armed? Also doesn't re-arming typically happen at the same time as refueling?
Deletei should have been clearer. large caliber autoloaders usually (and this is a place for improvement) have a magazine of shells. in the T-54E1 it had a 9 shell magazine. for my mythical M-1A3 i'd like to see that at least doubled. but i get where you're coming from. if the "stock of ammo" is availabe to our autoloader then any FARP can handle the issue just like they do with current tanks.
DeleteThe main benefit of the auto loader in adition to speed is cca 5 tons less in armor for equal protection due to one less crew member=less volume to protect.
DeleteI may be behind the times, but I was under the impression that autoloading tanks were troublesome. The human loader seems like it would be more reliable(as long as it wasn't a 90lb female).
DeleteNot sure if to many people remember this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html
This was the same layout the was trying to use for the 40t FCS-T:
http://youtu.be/2AZe8jOuGpo
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm
Meggitt designed an interesting model:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.meggittdefense.com/index.php/compact-autotoloader?task=view&id=152
Stryker 105 has auto loader, and yet it can take only 18 rounds on board. The lightweight/low profile turret design was a disaster.
ReplyDeletewe're talking tanks not mobile gun systems on a modified APC. the difference is huge.
Delete====Stryker 105 has auto loader, and yet it can take only 18 rounds on board. The lightweight/low profile turret design was a disaster.====
ReplyDeleteEverything about the Stryker is a disaster.
As for Autoloading turrets on MBTs, I like them because of the weight reduction opportunities. I would rather have a 45 ton tank that wasn't all-everything vs. a 70-ton plus MBT that is much more limited re: the places it can go without breaking roads and bridges.
The Japanese Type10 is a perfect candidate for US Marines. Nominal weight of 45 tons, 3 crew members w/ autoloader, 120/44 cal gun. Due to its relatively low weight, the Type 10 is powered by a 1200HP disel engine which saves substantial fuel cost. It can move at top speed of 70KM/H, faster than the M1.
DeleteIt's the same with the Navy LCS thinking. Reduce crew size in favour of technology and you don't have enough manpower for damage control and housekeeping (broken/slipped track, casualty, refuelling, watches while lagered, etc)
ReplyDeleteThe old 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 auto loader was a marvel to see and a pain in the ass to load.
DeleteThe entire mechanism from Barbette to gun was amazing.
Autoloaders are a great in theory, horrible in practice based on M1 Abrams verses T-72 experiences. American loaders could outshoot the Russian auto-loaders every time.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when the tanks lager overnight (or day, depending on your operations cycle) you need to have SOMEONE get out of the tank, run the field phone out to an LP/OP, and be on guard. With just a gunner and a driver, you lose that third guy to maintain watch.
Here's one problem with an autoloader: it can't go outside the tank and perform maintenance along with the other crewmembers. 4 man crews have more hands to help maintain a tank than 3 man crews.
ReplyDeletei covered this in previous reply but it keeps coming up so let me clarify.
Deleteif we go this route we're talking about a battalion or brigade. i'm also talking about enhancing the maintenance section and having them traveling not far behind in dedicated APCs. doing maintenance and setting up security will be no problem because you'll have the bodies in the maintenance company.
additionally i get th opinion that everyone is thinking pure tank companies. the USMC doesn't operate that way and neither does the Army. think along the lines of the Combat Assault Battalion but instead of TOWS on Humvees you're adding tanks....M1A3 tanks and you're getting the Marine Corps back into the heavy maneuver game...with MPCs and ACVs included.
I'm still wondering why the US has not switched to autoloaders and the usual answer is that a human loader can actually get the rounds out faster. In my mind though, I question if there just hasn't been a good enough autoloader made yet.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I hated playing with the T54E1 in WoT. It's not good enough to take on other Tier 9s. The T57 Heavy that you get after playing with it is definitely worth the struggle though. The T57 Heavy can go toe to toe with anything, so long as you make sure to give one of your crew members the Safe Storage perk and maybe add a wet ammo rack as a damaged ammo rack means your autoloading tank will take forever to reload.
Just one more piece of equipment that can and will break.
ReplyDeleteK.I.S.S.
Solomon,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Abrams and Bradleys generally work together to form a cohesive combined arms team. Except when they don't such as when tasked with conducting a screen line. Then you have crews separated by a lot of geography.
If you are talking a two or three person crew light tank that will solely be used as an infantry support weapon, an autoloader makes plenty of sense, but with a crew of two you'll give up the traditional armored cavalry role for a tank. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just a tactical tradeoff that needs to be put into the calculus of whether the juice is worth the squeeze.