Hosted by Darren Baker
Why no auto loader on the M1 series?
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 01:04 PM UTC
Well topics says it all if anybody knows and not Top secret.
Fitz
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 01:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Well topics says it all if anybody knows and not Top secret.
Because an automatic loader was not an operational requirement. In other words, it doesn't have one because the Army did not ask for one.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 01:16 PM UTC
Thanks
So how is it their after the Bridge deal?
So how is it their after the Bridge deal?
Fitz
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 439 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 02:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks
So how is it their after the Bridge deal?
Not as crazy as you'd think. I used to take that bridge on my daily commute but haven't for about 5 years. Now I ride my bike instead so I never get near that freeway. According to the news reports though the commute went OK today.
ptruhe
Joined: March 05, 2003
KitMaker: 2,092 posts
Armorama: 1,607 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 03:09 PM UTC
I've always heard that if they jam then you're out of luck for loading. Especially if the carousel is in the floor. I thought of the Russian T-64 or T-62 had an auto loader. Not sure how that worked out. Don't know if ammo in the floor matters much when you hit a mine.
Then you've got the dilemma of pulling a sabot round because you need a HEAT round. Don't know if auto loaders go in reverse.
Anyway with an autoloader then who would man the loader's AA gun.
Paul
Then you've got the dilemma of pulling a sabot round because you need a HEAT round. Don't know if auto loaders go in reverse.
Anyway with an autoloader then who would man the loader's AA gun.
Paul
TopSmith
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 06:09 PM UTC
Several reasons. First of all you need the extra body. Your platoon will always be detailed to provide bodies for various details, even during gunnery. People get sick, go on leave, have to take care of paperwork somewhere or other. The tank may be an officers tank and generally would be short a body for maintiance. Life can be tough when you are short crewmembers. You will be shorthanded for maintiance making the task longer and harder especially if there is problem. Night watches with fewer crew means less rest. Fewer crew mean additional work when reloading ammo. Fewer crew are fewer eyes and ears to keep up with what is going on. If you have only three crewmembers you will be in combat at times with only two onboard, a driver and a TC. The second reason is if there is a problem with the Main Gun the loader can work on it while the TC keeps watch. Third the human dosen't jam. Fourth, If the driver, gunner or TC are injured or sick you can move the crew around and train someone to load quickly. With a three man crew no one could be trained quickly as a replacement. Drivers,gunners and TC's take a good deal of training and practice.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 09:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThanks
So how is it their after the Bridge deal?
Not as crazy as you'd think. I used to take that bridge on my daily commute but haven't for about 5 years. Now I ride my bike instead so I never get near that freeway. According to the news reports though the commute went OK today.
I am glad.
at least one made out okay.
weird country I say.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 10:13 PM UTC
I guess having the extra hand on board would make a difference.
But as to loading watched them on a Army site and boy that thing just shoved that round right in their.
I think was the new Korean tank they were testing.
Can't see the jam as everything is in a fixed position breech and auto loader are in same plane.
Here is video of the Black panther.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=130743
Not a bad looking ride can the M1 go up and down on it's suspension or only when a torsion bar breaks.
Hope it makes it as looking like a sweet kit.
But as to loading watched them on a Army site and boy that thing just shoved that round right in their.
I think was the new Korean tank they were testing.
Can't see the jam as everything is in a fixed position breech and auto loader are in same plane.
Here is video of the Black panther.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=130743
Not a bad looking ride can the M1 go up and down on it's suspension or only when a torsion bar breaks.
Hope it makes it as looking like a sweet kit.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 01:46 AM UTC
The M1 does not have a variable suspension. It isn't really needed. It was tested on the MBT-70, but there was found to be no real advantage to it. Not sure why the Koreans have gone back to it. On the autoloader, mechanical parts will always fail. They will either jam, blow a hose, or the computer will crash, something. A human loader is more reliable.
Tankrider
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 02:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The M1 does not have a variable suspension. It isn't really needed. It was tested on the MBT-70, but there was found to be no real advantage to it. Not sure why the Koreans have gone back to it. On the autoloader, mechanical parts will always fail. They will either jam, blow a hose, or the computer will crash, something. A human loader is more reliable.
Actually the "collapsable" suspension allows for a greater elevation and depression of the main gun and coax, which is a key feature with the Korean philosophy of their layered "FEBA" defenses - the rockdrops, prepared minefields and fixed defensive positions. You should remember those things while working with Brother Grimsley...
I am indeed curious to see how well the K1/K1A1/K2 would hold up in sustained combat operations... X days into the fight and X number of tanks are on their bellies.
John
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 02:38 AM UTC
Greg made a great point about needing a human loader. Now a days, firing a main gun round (barring the battle for Fallujah) is a big deal for a tank crew, meaning it isn't done often. I don't know if the Rules of Engagement have changed with the surge, but unless the ROE has been made more liberal (ie easier to shoot) then what I just said is crap, but overall, firing a main gun round is overkill.
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
I haven't had someone do that in a while, and its freaking me out.
Jeff
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
I haven't had someone do that in a while, and its freaking me out.Jeff
beachbm2
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 400 posts
Armorama: 151 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 04:30 AM UTC
Well the reason for no Auto Loader is really Simple as it is based in the Kiss(Keep It Simple Stupid) Principle anyway. The United States Army has Evaluated Auto Loaders many times over the years and at some point they all failed to function properly. So to make sure Murphy does not get a chance to kill the tank, the Army decided that a Human Loader was much more Murphy Proof. I know I know someone will say but they work 99.9% of the time? Well that may or may not be true (I know the old Soviet ones had a higher fail rate) but if it was your life on the line (Or in the tank) do you really want to bet your life on a 99.9%??? No Hydraulic Failures, No Electronic Failures, No Mechanical Failures. So basically Murphy Proof if you go Human and his butt is right out there on the line with ya! So he is Motivated as well not to be killed which is a big Plus! So really it is simple.
Cheers
Jeff
Cheers
Jeff
Razor635
Joined: September 11, 2006
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 46 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 06:20 AM UTC
Actually there is an M1A1 prototype with an autoloader. It was a test bed for the Reinmetall 140mm gun. General Dynamics had one at the Armor Conferenct one year. I think it was '95. There is also a Leopard 2A4 floating around with the same gun again a prototype for testing. The particular abrams was a modified HA. You can tell this partiular tank with the expanded ammo wells and missing loaders weapon. Inside the left side of the turret is blocked off by a wall and the gunner and TC get in through the comanders hatch. If i can find the pic i have of it i'll post it.
1 other reason there are human loaders on american tanks is with practice 9 times out of 10 they are faster than an auto loader.
1 other reason there are human loaders on american tanks is with practice 9 times out of 10 they are faster than an auto loader.
CaptainA
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,117 posts
Armorama: 564 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 06:41 AM UTC
Good question
1. Human loaders are faster, and more reliable. It is hard to keep up with the maintenance with 4 people on a crew. Cutting the crew by 1 person increases the workload considerably. Even more when you need to consider the crews other responsibilities.
2. On the old Russian tanks, the gun tube needed to be elevated to load the round. Gunner lost his sight picture.
3. More to break down.
4. Used to be that you could not change rounds when loaded. In essence, if the wrong round was loaded, you had to launch it to clear the tube. This would give away your position.
5. We did not need it. It was projected we would have more crews than tanks. It was not anticipated we would have such a manpower shortage as to need an autoloader.
6. The army has a long tradition of resisting change and fearing anything that affect a leaders power. OK just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
I have been out of tanks since 1985. I imagine autoloaders have come a long way since then. So take my comments as experience and on the job first hand knowledge, not doctrine.
1. Human loaders are faster, and more reliable. It is hard to keep up with the maintenance with 4 people on a crew. Cutting the crew by 1 person increases the workload considerably. Even more when you need to consider the crews other responsibilities.
2. On the old Russian tanks, the gun tube needed to be elevated to load the round. Gunner lost his sight picture.
3. More to break down.
4. Used to be that you could not change rounds when loaded. In essence, if the wrong round was loaded, you had to launch it to clear the tube. This would give away your position.
5. We did not need it. It was projected we would have more crews than tanks. It was not anticipated we would have such a manpower shortage as to need an autoloader.
6. The army has a long tradition of resisting change and fearing anything that affect a leaders power.
OK just wanted to see if you were paying attention.I have been out of tanks since 1985. I imagine autoloaders have come a long way since then. So take my comments as experience and on the job first hand knowledge, not doctrine.
Tankleader
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 06:44 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Greg made a great point about needing a human loader. Now a days, firing a main gun round (barring the battle for Fallujah) is a big deal for a tank crew, meaning it isn't done often. I don't know if the Rules of Engagement have changed with the surge, but unless the ROE has been made more liberal (ie easier to shoot) then what I just said is crap, but overall, firing a main gun round is overkill.
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
Jeff
Jeff,
I don't know about the Army side of the house, but on the Marine side, the crews are still busting caps at a cyclic rate. The training cycle is even more intensive now than it was prior to the war. Guess since we (Marines) have a smaller force the restrictions on ammo aren't as tight.
Tanks
Andy
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Jeff,
I don't know about the Army side of the house, but on the Marine side, the crews are still busting caps at a cyclic rate. The training cycle is even more intensive now than it was prior to the war. Guess since we (Marines) have a smaller force the restrictions on ammo aren't as tight.
Tanks
Andy
Thanks for the Marine side. Couple follow ups that I hope don't detract from this conversation too much: you said the training side is intensifying, what about in country use of the main gun? I know both sides of the house are somewhat liberal in their use of the .50 and both 240s. Also do you think this is a Lessons Learned response to Fallujah in 2004?
Jeff
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:21 AM UTC
Jeff-- Well, when you get a second, look at the Mobile Gun System. As I recall the tracked version (was it the M-8?) had a three man crew and an auto loader. I believe the Army bought 85 of them. They sit on a lot somewhere rusting since they did not issue them to the 82nd. Now, the Stryker MGS has the auto loader for a 105mm main gun. The damn thing takes up the entire rear of the vehicle. It is not floor mounted. If an auto loader was contemplated for the M-1, it probably was set to go in after they mastered putting an Under Armor Auxillary Power Unit (UAAPU) in the A2. That kinda/sorta happened. But it was no rousing success story so I do not believe they want to mess with a floor mounted 120mm auto loader. The weigh difference between the 105 and 120 ammo is another factor as one wise contributor noted why fix what ain't broke.
My two cents.
DJ
My two cents.
DJ
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:24 AM UTC
Because I agree with all the reasons sited above, I would say a better question would be: Why do some MBT's use an autoloader, instead of a human loader?
Mike
Mike
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:41 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Because I agree with all the reasons sited above, I would say a better question would be: Why do some MBT's use an autoloader, instead of a human loader?
Mike
One reason I suppose is its cheaper overall. I don't know, but I'd bet the cost to install and maintain an auto loader is less than the overall cost to train and maintain a human loader.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextBecause I agree with all the reasons sited above, I would say a better question would be: Why do some MBT's use an autoloader, instead of a human loader?
Mike
One reason I suppose is its cheaper overall. I don't know, but I'd bet the cost to install and maintain an auto loader is less than the overall cost to train and maintain a human loader.
I seem to recall hearing that the Russian attempt to use auto loaders was something less than a fantastic success story. Who else uses this technology? The swedes?
DJ
Tankleader
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 07:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextGreg made a great point about needing a human loader. Now a days, firing a main gun round (barring the battle for Fallujah) is a big deal for a tank crew, meaning it isn't done often. I don't know if the Rules of Engagement have changed with the surge, but unless the ROE has been made more liberal (ie easier to shoot) then what I just said is crap, but overall, firing a main gun round is overkill.
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
Jeff
Jeff,
I don't know about the Army side of the house, but on the Marine side, the crews are still busting caps at a cyclic rate. The training cycle is even more intensive now than it was prior to the war. Guess since we (Marines) have a smaller force the restrictions on ammo aren't as tight.
Tanks
Andy
Jeff,
The use of Canister Ammo is through the roof, as well as that of the .240 and .50
Tanks
Andy
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 08:05 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextGreg made a great point about needing a human loader. Now a days, firing a main gun round (barring the battle for Fallujah) is a big deal for a tank crew, meaning it isn't done often. I don't know if the Rules of Engagement have changed with the surge, but unless the ROE has been made more liberal (ie easier to shoot) then what I just said is crap, but overall, firing a main gun round is overkill.
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
Jeff
Jeff,
I don't know about the Army side of the house, but on the Marine side, the crews are still busting caps at a cyclic rate. The training cycle is even more intensive now than it was prior to the war. Guess since we (Marines) have a smaller force the restrictions on ammo aren't as tight.
Tanks
Andy
Jeff,
The use of Canister Ammo is through the roof, as well as that of the .240 and .50
Tanks
Andy
Andy-- are you referring to 120mm ammunition when you say we are using canister rounds? I did not know we had them in addition to Sabot and MPAT.
DJ
chefchris
Joined: February 06, 2006
KitMaker: 1,544 posts
Armorama: 1,464 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 08:09 AM UTC
I think in addition to all points made above the is the issue of safety. With an auto loader you lose the blast-sealed doors for the ammo. If an auto loader equiped tank takes a penetrating hit it can cause a secondary explosion. This is why you see so many T72s with popped turrets - the force of the ammo brewing up makes things a bit unsurvivable for the crew.
I would also think it would be hard to replace a crewman with excellent training and a Mk. 1 brain.
I als want to say that future Soviet -Ex Warsaw Pact designs are going towards a welded ,bigger turrets (Black Eagle) like the Abrams and Leopard 2s. I think they are still covering those parts of the turrets and Defence Expos with camo netting so its hard to tell.
I am sure there are more people more knowledgeable than me on this exacxt subject.
Chris
I would also think it would be hard to replace a crewman with excellent training and a Mk. 1 brain.
I als want to say that future Soviet -Ex Warsaw Pact designs are going towards a welded ,bigger turrets (Black Eagle) like the Abrams and Leopard 2s. I think they are still covering those parts of the turrets and Defence Expos with camo netting so its hard to tell.
I am sure there are more people more knowledgeable than me on this exacxt subject.
Chris
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 08:18 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I seem to recall hearing that the Russian attempt to use auto loaders was something less than a fantastic success story. Who else uses this technology? The swedes?
DJ
I'm pretty sure the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90 use an auto loader. As far as I know the Swedish don't. Their current MBT is the Strv 122 which is an upgraded Leo 2A5, and unless I'm mistaken it isn't equipped with an auto loader. The Merkava Mk. 4 uses a system that some might call a "semi automatic" loader. There is a 4 man crew, including a loader, and the tank is equipped with a "drum like cassette" that holds 10 ready rounds to assist the loader.
Mike
Tankleader
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007 - 08:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextQuoted TextGreg made a great point about needing a human loader. Now a days, firing a main gun round (barring the battle for Fallujah) is a big deal for a tank crew, meaning it isn't done often. I don't know if the Rules of Engagement have changed with the surge, but unless the ROE has been made more liberal (ie easier to shoot) then what I just said is crap, but overall, firing a main gun round is overkill.
What that means for the loader is that his head isn't inside the tank as much and is used to look around outside. The driver is focused intently on driving, the gunner has an incredibly narrow field of view, and the TC has to manage his crew, his position with the section and platoon and somehow have situational awareness outside. Having a human loader means a second pair of eyes outside and a slightly smaller workload for the TC, unlike if you had an autoloader.
Rob or Gino, if I'm wrong here, step in an smack me
Jeff
Jeff,
I don't know about the Army side of the house, but on the Marine side, the crews are still busting caps at a cyclic rate. The training cycle is even more intensive now than it was prior to the war. Guess since we (Marines) have a smaller force the restrictions on ammo aren't as tight.
Tanks
Andy
Jeff,
The use of Canister Ammo is through the roof, as well as that of the .240 and .50
Tanks
Andy
Andy-- are you referring to 120mm ammunition when you say we are using canister rounds? I did not know we had them in addition to Sabot and MPAT.
DJ
DJ,
Yes, I am referring to the 120mm Canister round. About six years ago the Army had a requirement for the cannister round, but eventually decided not to pursue it. After 911 the Marines though it made sense and revised the program. The Marines purchase something like 10k rounds, when I retired from the Marine Corps the Army was looking at jumping on the band wagon. I assumed they did.
Tanks
Andy
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.