Tank Autoloaders

[xt828]

When I've been reading about tanks and tank design, I've found that the autoloader is generally given a very poor reception, a symbol of trying to trade equipment for skill and expertise. I know that some of the people on this forum have very strong understandings of the military and military design processes, and I was hoping that you could lend some expertise to this topic.

I did a very basic data trawl to establish a base ground:
Autoloaders have been and/or are used in the main battle tanks of both East and West.
The Eastern tanks derive from, from what I can tell, three different families - the Soviet T-64, the Soviet T-72, and the Chinese Type 80
The Western tanks are the Swedish Stridsvagn 103, the French Leclerc, and all Japanese MBTs from the Type 74 onwards

One major issue seems to be that autoloaders a dangerous. The horror stories of tanks loading crew seem to stem mainly from the rather common T-72, which was intentionally designed as the poorer cousin of the T-64, using a worse but cheaper and simpler autoloader. I couldn't find specific examples of Swedish, Japanese or French crew being eaten by their vehicles. Another issue I've seen is that a human loader is better in all respects - able to work faster and more adaptably. I suspect that fatigue would eventually favour the machine, but from what I've been able to dig up it seems that training and skill of crews matters far more that the platform, so long as they're more or less similar. The examples I found here were mostly of the T-72s - in the Lebanon conflict of 1982, Israeli tankers handily routed Syrian T-72s, but the latter were described as being poorly trained, poorly motivated and poorly led, while you'd describe the Israelis as the opposite. Similarly, in the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraqi T-72s were able to force Kuwaiti Chieftains and M-84s from Kuwait, and were roughly equal to Qatari AMX-30s - forces with broadly similar levels of training, as I understand it. The Strv 103 was tested for comparative purposes against other Western tanks: the Norwegians found that it was faster firing than the Leopard 1; the British found it suffered no disadvantage compared with the Chieftain; the US found that compared with the M60A1E3 it was more accurate but slower firing.

Are autoloaders always the wrong option, then? The inarguable downsides seem to me to be the loss of a crewmember, which is felt in many ways, and the inflexibility in that I'm not aware of an autoloading system which allows the changing of an already loaded shell. On the other hand, the autoloader allows for smaller and arguably lighter tanks.

If anyone could point me towards documentation of this issue, I'd appreciate that very much. Otherwise, please offer any comment you have.

[Aaron MkII]

The original BMP autoloader was known to rip the gunners arm off if he got in the way.

That said, having an actual loader is an extra set of eyes. I don't know if you've ever been in an AFV but visibility and situational awareness is best described as poor. Another guy to poke his head out, man a mg, help with maintenance is a big asset. Breaking track is bad enough with four guys, never mind three.

[Gunhead]

Autoloaders allow you to make a smaller turret and reduce weight. T-72 autoloader has caused some accidents by itself, but I have no data to suggest it was more dangerous than a comparable mechanical device. So far we can get by with a loader, but if we we're ever to start employing bigger tank rounds, the human endurance factor cannot be ignored.

P.S if you can't cut and put back on track with two guys, you're just a bit pussy.

-Gunhead

[Aaron MkII]

lol, I think you mean "bit of a pussy"

[Spoonist]

Uhm, don't know if you should have the S-vagn there. Its more of a magazine feed so there is no chance that you'd get caught in it unless you remove stuff.
The only time you'd be exposed to such injuries would be when reloading the magazines themselves.

Seen the inside of a few of them when doing the service but I can't remember how any such injury would be possible.

Also as gunhead succintly points out, the s-vagn was designed for a crew of two. The third space is for optional use.

[Zinegata]

It would really depend on the design of the auto-loader and the doctrine behind the tank's design rather than simply saying auto-loaders are bad.

[Sea Skimmer]

The examples I found here were mostly of the T-72s - in the Lebanon conflict of 1982, Israeli tankers handily routed Syrian T-72s, but the latter were described as being poorly trained, poorly motivated and poorly led, while you'd describe the Israelis as the opposite.

The main engagement with T-72s did not go exceptionally well for the Israelis and a battalion sized force with M60 tanks was destroyed blunting a counter attack by brigade strength T-72s. On the other hand the bulk of Syrian troops in Lebanon at the time, the 10th Armoured Division, had its tank strength almost entirely wiped out in the same wider action but it was equipped only with T-62s. In any event the Israelis were invading with a force that amounted to a pair of army corps, while the Syrians never had more then two divisions fielded at one point, and on both sides the latest tanks were only a minority of the force. Under 20% of Israeli tanks were Merks, I'm not sure more then one T-72 brigade actually saw action though others were in Syria. Not long after that opening tank battle whole Bekaa valley air battle bit went ahead, and while ground fighting went on for several more days Israeli air superiority became decisive. Though more then a few Israeli vehicles were lost to Syrian aircraft and above all HOT missile equipped helicopter gunship attacks.

Similarly, in the 1990-91 Gulf War, Iraqi T-72s were able to force Kuwaiti Chieftains and M-84s from Kuwait

That's... the worst example ever maybe? The Kuwaiti army was intentionally demobilized, about divisional strength even if fully deployed, and only a few small elements actually got into action against three Iraqi divisions. Those elements did in fact blunt the initial Republican Guard push on Kuwait city and held until they both ran out of ammunition and were being outflanked in several directions (matter of hours). The Iraqis themselves planned on meeting zero opposition before the gates of the city, and so first contact with Kuwaiti tanks actually had the Iraqi army rolling down the highway with vehicles still loaded on tank transporter trucks. You can't make crap like that up.

It the Iraqi plan was basically completely predicated on the helicopter commando force taking the royal family hostage who would then order a prompt surrender. Said commando force ran into the issue of the HAWK SAM which its escort was unable to suppress, and which happened to have been designed from its early days to rape helicopters unlike many SAMs, plus a couple Mirage F.1 fighters which left it too scattered and decimated to be effective. But since Saddam was Saddam, the invasion force did include enough overwhelming raw force to ensure that no amount of poor planning or incompetence would allow it to fail.

, and were roughly equal to Qatari AMX-30s - forces with broadly similar levels of training, as I understand it.

The Kuwaitis were better then average, the Qatari force was like the Saudis, largely manned by Pakistanis of variable quality. However I cannot think that the Qatari AMX-30 force ever met T-72s in action . The T-72 tank was not present at the battle of Al Khafji, and during the push on Kuwait city the two Arab forces never encountered that heavy of opposition, and no Republican Guard units. Egyptian and US forces basically led the way in the two respective Pan Arab attack sectors. The French also fielded AMX-30 tanks, but were intentionally deployed in the far west as they were generally weak in heavy weapons and high on mobility making them well suited to the screening role. The 105mm gun on the AMX-30 isn't all that powerful, and the tank has as much armor was a Panther, I really wouldn't want to find out how well that works against a T-72.

Note that the Kuwait M-84 force was a handful of vehicles, I have no idea if they saw action but the total was less then ten, and the vehicle is largely a T-72 copy anyway including the gun and autoloader. The bulk were only delivered after the invasion to Kuwait forces in exile, and then not used in Desert Storm least they cause friendly fire problems.

The Strv 103 was tested for comparative purposes against other Western tanks: the Norwegians found that it was faster firing than the Leopard 1; the British found it suffered no disadvantage compared with the Chieftain; the US found that compared with the M60A1E3 it was more accurate but slower firing.

But such tests of course also entirely predated the fielding of tanks which could fire on the move. If your gun magazine is fixed to the tank an autoloader works better in general. This is why lots of early autoloader concepts, and a few production designs like AMX-13 used oscillating turrets. But this approach created new problems.

Are autoloaders always the wrong option, then? The inarguable downsides seem to me to be the loss of a crewmember, which is felt in many ways, and the inflexibility in that I'm not aware of an autoloading system which allows the changing of an already loaded shell. On the other hand, the autoloader allows for smaller and arguably lighter tanks.

I'd say its always wrong for a vehicle you want to call and use as a tank. If you have some other type of vehicle in mind they could be useful. 140-152mm guns would force autoloaders to keep up a good rate of fire, the odds of such guns being widely fielded are very silm. Too many other ways exist to accomplish the anti armor mission, most of which don't have the drawback of shear size and weight.

Its also worth considering, the autoloaders advantage should grow the longer combat goes on because it doesn't get tired. When the T-64 and T-72 were designed in the 1960s nobody had a tank that could expect to score a first shot hit outside of point blank range. BY the 1980s tanks could expect first round hits at extended ranges, which both reduces the workload on a manual loader, and in a mutual fashion, makes it less likely the tank the manual loader is inside of is going to survive long enough in combat for that guy to get tired. Everyone knows the motto the best anti tank weapon is another tank, but the implication of that is that tank on tank combat should tend towards rapid mutual annihilation. That in turn suggests the best approach to anti armor warfare lies in other weapons, and the tank should stick to its original role from WW1, supporting the infantry and securing objectives as much as possible.

[Zinegata]

What's the problem with the AMX-13's autoloaders? Need to stand outside the tank to reload after it goes through its ready rounds?

[Sea Skimmer]

It only holds 12 rounds and the oscillation system is vulnerable to damage by light caliber fire and fragmentation. That matters less on AMX-13 since the max armor is fairly thin anyway, but it was a serious problem for anyone seeking to design a medium or heavy tank with such a turret. The increased turret weights would have also been an issue of the oscillation mechanisms. Not that they couldn't work, but its just progressively more of a pain the ass. On the plus side you do eliminate much of the weakspot all conventional tanks have around the point the gun barrel perforates the front of the turret. It also creates issues with the NBC seal between turret and hull, though potentially this could be eliminated by having a separate over pressure zones for the driver. The relative movement of the turret and hull could also get interesting in a tank capable of firing on the move, but this was not an issue in the 1950s when the concept was so popular. Gun stabilizers existed but they were only effective on more or less flat ground. Even a tank on flat ground rocks some on its suspension, they could dampen that but not much less. Even then lack of accurate rangefinding still limited the value at anything but point blank.

[Nephtys]

What is the advantage of Oscillating Turrets anyway? They've got a myriad of problems including limited elevation, depression, hard to seal for NBC, etc.

[Rekkon]

They simplified fitting an autoloader as it could remain fixed relative to the barrel in the upper turret.

[Purple]

Three things. You can fit an auto loader that can actually load the gun regardless of of the elevation angle (normal tanks with or without auto loaders have to return the barrel to the flat position to do so). And you can fit a relatively high caliber gun on a very light body since the whole turret recoils. Finally you can also have a relatively small sized (low) turret that can still allow for a high degree of depression.

[xt828]

Sea Skimmer, given all that you've said, would you care to speculate on why the Japanese have continued to use autoloaders in their newest tank design, and why the French switched from manually loading in the AMX-30 to autoloading in the Leclerc?

Very interesting and enlightening so far, thanks all.

[Purple]

From what I understand, the issue with auto loaders in soviet tanks was that the whole turret was so dam cramped that the crew could be caught in the machinery. But that was not so much a flaw in the machinery as it was a flaw in the turret design. Western tanks use larger turrets that have more space in them making them safe.

That and modern tanks no longer use the old style auto loaders that seated the shells in the turret basket and thus had the whole assembly move around the crew (yikes). Instead they use bustle mounted auto loaders that store the shells the same way the M1 does, in a separate compartment out in the back and the system only needs to cycle a conveyor belt that is safely tucked away from the crew and push the round forward, a relatively safe operation.

Refrence images:
T-72 autoloader http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gal ... loader.jpg
Modern bustle mounted autoloader: http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/5228 ... nyleo2.jpg

[Sea Skimmer]

Sea Skimmer, given all that you've said, would you care to speculate on why the Japanese have continued to use autoloaders in their newest tank design, and why the French switched from manually loading in the AMX-30 to autoloading in the Leclerc?

Neither the Type 90 nor Type 10 come across as particularly well conceived, but Japanese men are just small so they have additional issues to deal with. Back in the dreadnought era Japan ended up adapting a 5.5in gun to replace 6in weapons because they felt the shells needed to be lighter for hand loading for example.

As for France, French postwar designs prior to the AMX-30, none of which saw production, generally did have autoloaders. The AMX-30 itself was completely an outgrowth of a failed project for a common European tank with Germany, this is why AMX-30 and Leopard 1 are so similar. They were supposed to be identical. Germans did not accept autoloaders, they fully well saw the value of another pair of eyes and hands. Ergonomics and communications matched to training were what made the Panzers so effective in the first place.

Leclerc was trying to be smaller and lighter then other NATO designs, keeping which French emphasis on high mobility in armored formations and maybe simply to provide an export differentiation for export, an autoloader fit with that. They also claim a very high rate of fire for the autoloader, though it seems to assume zero depression or elevation for each shot. Normally the need to return to a fixed loading angle slows down effective rates of fire.

[xt828]

Germans did not accept autoloaders, they fully well saw the value of another pair of eyes and hands.

It's interesting that you say that, as I've come across a number of sources suggesting that the Germans planned to equip their MBT-70s or had a parallel project with a 120mm smoothbore autoloader, rather than the XM-150 and Shilleigh. Of course, given that it's a cancelled project, it doesn't prove anything, but interesting nonetheless.

[Zinegata]

Germans did not accept autoloaders, they fully well saw the value of another pair of eyes and hands.

It's interesting that you say that, as I've come across a number of sources suggesting that the Germans planned to equip their MBT-70s with a 120mm smoothbore autoloader, rather than the XM-150 and Shilleigh. Of course, given that it's a cancelled project, it doesn't prove anything, but interesting nonetheless.

The MBT-70 was kinda full of crazy impractical techs though.

[Sea Skimmer]

MBT-70 simply had to use an autoloader, because the driver was in the turret so that the entire crew could be fully enclosed in a thick volume and weight intensive layer of neutron shielding. This also allowed a much lower profile vehicle. A conventional driver in hull setup was possible, but would have weighed more and the tank already sank its weight goals. Early MBT-70 concepts actually called for an unmanned turret so they could have even more neutron shielding, as well as proposals for assault guns for the same reason. The 152mm autoloader was a Rheinmetall design and the Germans never reached a final decision if all tanks they produced would have a 120mm gun, a mix of 152mm and 120mm tanks was being strongly considered until the end. They also expected to field a second austere tank in parallel, with 120mm gun only, for replacing the M48 hoard. Not only did this not ever happen, M48 tanks were being actively and rather massively upgraded in 1991 as M48A2GA2 which was kind of like a new tank shoved into these old steel hulks they had lying around. I forget what that asutere program was called but it fed into what became Leopard II.

So anyway, yeah don't read much into that autoloader, unless you consider rolling through nuclear fireballs a high priority in tank design while your 1960s issue fuel trucks don't even have solid roofs and shatterproof windshields.