Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 11:01

ricnunes wrote:
milosh wrote:Also open door is what you will expect in case of bigger tank battle,


NO, IT IS NOT!! :doh:

Gunner (or Commander) fires the gun, Loader opens door, Loader retrieves desired ammo, Loader closes door, Loader loads the round into the gun and Gunner (or Commander) fires the gun!
Repeats all over again until desired/needed!

Did you even bother to watch the video that I shared in my last post?!


And where I said it isn't like that?!?

Maybe my english is bad but I wrote door COULD stay open during fierce fighting for example if tank need to fire as fast as possible.

If you look YT videos especially of Leopard2 to you will see open door is reality even during exercises.

So on paper loader will close door each time it take round from rack but there isn't any guarantee it will 100% during combat.

In case of autoloader it is all automatic, so door will be close with each round. Autoloader door are lot smaller so it can be open and closer lot faster so no need to have the open at all.

So bustle autoloader is as safe as human loader, plus have some additional safety capabilities you don' have with manual loader.

Disadvantage it have less rounds.

Is it now clearer what I want to say?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4496
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 16:25

milosh wrote:If you look YT videos especially of Leopard2 to you will see open door is reality even during exercises.


And here you'll see a Leopard 2 gunner opening the door, removing the round and the door immediately closes after the gunner removes the round from the rack and still with the round on his hand:


So, what's your point, really?? :roll:

But there you go, the keywords are: could and exercises.
Quite different from actual combat!


milosh wrote:So on paper loader will close door each time it take round from rack but there isn't any guarantee it will 100% during combat.


It's not on paper! That's standard procedure during warfare!
And also people don't want to die in war and will avoid the best way possible to get killed and so you can bet that the procedure of closing the door after removing the round will happen 100% of the times in real/actual combat.

Of course that situations like keeping the door opened in real combat could happen but this would be putting the lives of all crew members in jeopardy and thus the wrong procedure. This would be akin to a soldier not carrying ballistic plates inside the vest or carrying only the front ballistic plate in the vest because he would like to travel lighter or doesn't expect to be shot from in certain places (like from the back). This has happened in real combat with deadly consequences and such a wrong procedure. Again, same as keeping the ammo door opened (again, in real combat)!


milosh wrote:In case of autoloader it is all automatic, so door will be close with each round. Autoloader door are lot smaller so it can be open and closer lot faster so no need to have the open at all.

So bustle autoloader is as safe as human loader, plus have some additional safety capabilities you don' have with manual loader.

Disadvantage it have less rounds.

Is it now clearer what I want to say?


And one can also argue that in order to have a small door that opens and closes faster that this same small door needs to be less armored. And less armored means that it becomes a place where an explosion get thru. Smaller or less armored doors also distribute less the force of an explosion and may act like a pressure point which could allow the explosion force to escape into the crew compartment.
Besides one can also argue that the autoloader mechanism may brake or jam which would leave the tank vulnerable because it can't fire back (with the main gun) while a manual/human loader doesn't (mechanically) brake or jam.
Last edited by ricnunes on 24 Nov 2022, 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1703
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 16:50

milosh wrote:
Maybe my english is bad but I wrote door COULD stay open during fierce fighting for example if tank need to fire as fast as possible.

If you look YT videos especially of Leopard2 to you will see open door is reality even during exercises.

So on paper loader will close door each time it take round from rack but there isn't any guarantee it will 100% during combat.



Image
Offline

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1156
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post24 Nov 2022, 17:46

Never was a fan of the French, Korean, and Japanese autoloaders. Because of the ramming mechanism, the ammo storage is very close to the breach of the main gun. So the fighting compartment is very small. The defensive doctrine dictates the Western tanks must be big, heavily armored, able to hunker down to fend off the Soviet horde. You don't want your crew to cram into a tight space and be quickly tired, do you? The low number of rounds is a major :nono: . 22 rounds are never enough.

Talking about remote controlled turret and isolated fighting compartment is like back in the 1990s. Haven't happened in the past 30 years, won't happen in the next 30 years. The US is stuck with Abrams for the time being.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 Nov 2022, 09:00

ricnunes wrote:And one can also argue that in order to have a small door that opens and closes faster that this same small door needs to be less armored. And less armored means that it becomes a place where an explosion get thru. Smaller or less armored doors also distribute less the force of an explosion and may act like a pressure point which could allow the explosion force to escape into the crew compartment.
Besides one can also argue that the autoloader mechanism may brake or jam which would leave the tank vulnerable because it can't fire back (with the main gun) while a manual/human loader doesn't (mechanically) brake or jam.


French, Japs, Koreans aren't idiots to make door that can't hold blast, and it is lot easier for door closing mechanism to close thick small door then thick big door.

Of course autoloader do have disadvantages I never said it doesn't have.

Autoloader has bad name because it is connect with Soviet carousel autoloader design.

This is why even Leopard 2 and Abrams new demonstrators do have autoloader. Btw autoloader is must with 130mm and bigger caliber rounds.
Offline

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1156
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post25 Nov 2022, 11:03

milosh wrote:French, Japs, Koreans aren't idiots to make door that can't hold blast, ...


Is this an appeal to authority or a false dilemma?

milosh wrote:...

This is why even Leopard 2 and Abrams new demonstrators do have autoloader. Btw autoloader is must with 130mm and bigger caliber rounds.


>130mm. Sure. 8) Back to the reality, the US cannot field a reliable 8-round 105mm autoloader for Stryker MGS.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4496
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Nov 2022, 15:54

zhangmdev wrote:
milosh wrote:French, Japs, Koreans aren't idiots to make door that can't hold blast, ...


Is this an appeal to authority or a false dilemma?


THIS!

And on top of this and this in reply to milosh, it's not that the French, Japs, Koreans or whatever that are "idiots" - I never said that!
It's more that a small blast door needs to be very thick in order to withstand a very big blast. A mechanism for a small and very thick blast door would need to be bulkier compared to if the small blast door is made thinner and all of this on top of the loading mechanism which already takes a considerable space inside the turret. And on top of that a small thinner blast door will open and close faster than a thicker one.
So, you in terms of a tank with auto-loader you either end up with:
1- A similar level of protection of protection compared to a tank with manual loader but with much less available rounds stored (due to smaller magazine since bulkier blast door and mechanism takes space and this already on top of the autoloading mechanism) and will have a much smaller rate of fire (since such blast door would open and close slower and as such the gun will reload slowly).
2- A bit less protection due to using a thinner blast door which doesn't take so much space from the ammo storage and mitigate/improve the rate of fire (since the blast door would open and close faster). This is what I think/believe, is the solution that for example the French Leclerc uses.
3- Or in order to not suffer from ammo storage limitations while keeping the crew protected the best way possible then a bigger tank with a similar size and weight as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 would be needed but by doing this then it would be better just to use a manual/human loader since this solution would still have a slower rate of fire (again compared to a manual/human loader) together with all the other autoloader disadvantages.

In the end, this not a matter of competence. It's all a matter of balance and compromise!


milosh wrote:Of course autoloader do have disadvantages I never said it doesn't have.


And autoloaders also have advantages and I never said that they don't have.
However the advantage of autoloaders (even with the better French design) is NOT to provide better safety to the crew in case of an ammo explosion. Advantages of autoloaders are:
- Requires one less crew member which means that a tank with autoloader can be made smaller and lighter. And this is what the Leclerc is compared to the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2.
- While having a slower rate of fire than human/manual loaders, after prolonged and sustained/continuous firing the autoloader could attain a better rate of fire later on since as opposed to the human loader the autoloader doesn't tire (but on the other hand, can break or jam).
- With future/potential heavier caliber guns (such as the 130mm that you mentioned) the autoloader can have the advantage because larger caliber rounds are obviously heavier and may become too heavy for a human loader.

But as you can see, the advantages of autoloaders have nothing to do with better crew protection.


milosh wrote:This is why even Leopard 2 and Abrams new demonstrators do have autoloader. Btw autoloader is must with 130mm and bigger caliber rounds.


Where's that Leopard 2 with autoloader? I can't find any.
What I did find about Leopard 2 demonstrator was this:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons ... y_kmw.html
The general layout of the Leopard 2A7 Demonstrator is similar to the Leopard 2A7 with the driver position at the front right side of the hull, the turret in the middle, and the powerpack at the rear. The tank maintains a crew of four.

So, this latest Leopard 2 demonstrator retains the manual loading system. And this is a latest product demonstrator from this year (2022)!

If you're talking about the AbramsX demonstrator, yes this demonstrator comes with an autoloader but again the objective is not giving better protection to the tank! The objective is as you can read in the link below:
The AbramsX tank features an autoloader, unmanned turret, hybrid electric power pack that gives 50% more fuel efficiency, and reduced weight for improved mobility.

The Abrams X is a main battle tank for the next generation, featuring reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability and delivering the same tactical range as the M1A2 Abrams with 50% less fuel consumption.

https://militaryleak.com/2022/10/10/gen ... onstrator/

...is to be lighter and more mobile (since it uses a smaller turret). Again, nothing to do with any potential better crew survivability!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1703
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post01 Dec 2022, 13:09

ricnunes wrote:
milosh wrote:This is why even Leopard 2 and Abrams new demonstrators do have autoloader. Btw autoloader is must with 130mm and bigger caliber rounds.


Where's that Leopard 2 with autoloader? I can't find any.
What I did find about Leopard 2 demonstrator was this:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons ... y_kmw.html
The general layout of the Leopard 2A7 Demonstrator is similar to the Leopard 2A7 with the driver position at the front right side of the hull, the turret in the middle, and the powerpack at the rear. The tank maintains a crew of four.

So, this latest Leopard 2 demonstrator retains the manual loading system. And this is a latest product demonstrator from this year (2022)!



Dont get your panties in a bunch. I think he miss spoke and meant Rhienmetall's KF51 Panther.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/rhe ... 1-panther/
The main armament is the Rheinmetall 130mm cannon, designed for the MGCS project’s Future Gun System (FGS). The FGS is automatically loaded from two revolver-type magazines which each hold 10 rounds of insensitive munition-compliant ammunition. According to the company, the FGS “enables a 50% longer kill range to be achieved [than 120mm] with an unrivalled rate of fire due to the autoloader performance.” It can fire kinetic energy rounds as well as programable airburst ammunition and practice rounds.


Image
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4496
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post01 Dec 2022, 15:42

charlielima223 wrote:Dont get your panties in a bunch. I think he miss spoke and meant Rhienmetall's KF51 Panther.


And?

That's only a Concept for a potential new tank. While its hull is based on the hull of a Leopard 2, it's not a Leopard 2.
It seems to be less of a Leopard 2 than the AbramsX is from a current M1 Abrams.
As such and being a concept this may (or probably will) never see the day of light in terms of production and entering in service.

As opposed, the Leopard 2A7 Demonstrator that I previously posted is a real product ready to be sold.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests