Main Battle Tanks: East vs West

Also open door is what you will expect in case of bigger tank battle,

NO, IT IS NOT!!

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?

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??

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

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)!

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.

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.

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 . 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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

Poland is going to have quite the interesting mix of tanks...
K2 Black Panther tanks from South Korea and M1A2 SepV3 Abrams from the US. Now they could get "older" M1A1 at the same time or before they get the M1A2s
https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/12/07 ... to-poland/

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/1 ... to-poland/

I am wondering if these are former USMC tanks as they have since got rid of their heavy armored fighting force
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... re-service

or are these coming from the Sierra Army Depot?

Poland is going to have quite the interesting mix of tanks...
K2 Black Panther tanks from South Korea and M1A2 SepV3 Abrams from the US. Now they could get "older" M1A1 at the same time or before they get the M1A2s
https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/12/07 ... to-poland/

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/1 ... to-poland/

I am wondering if these are former USMC tanks as they have since got rid of their heavy armored fighting force
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... re-service

or are these coming from the Sierra Army Depot?

M1A1 FEP

https://qr.ae/pr1RhG


QUOTE: The M1A1 Abrams that Poland will receive are most likely tanks that are currently being removed from the inventory of the US Marine Corps.

https://mezha.media/en/2022/07/18/polan ... ams-tanks/

QUOTE: Blaszczak did not provide details, but, according to the assumptions of Polish commentators, we may be talking about the purchase of M1A1 FEP tanks from the US Marine Corps, which is currently in the process of reorganization getting rid of tank units with the transfer of all tanks to the US Army (in total, the US Marine Corps had about 220 M1A1 FEP tanks).

https://vpk.name/en/616332_poland-will- ... ility.html

M1A1 FEP

https://qr.ae/pr1RhG


QUOTE: The M1A1 Abrams that Poland will receive are most likely tanks that are currently being removed from the inventory of the US Marine Corps.

https://mezha.media/en/2022/07/18/polan ... ams-tanks/

QUOTE: Blaszczak did not provide details, but, according to the assumptions of Polish commentators, we may be talking about the purchase of M1A1 FEP tanks from the US Marine Corps, which is currently in the process of reorganization getting rid of tank units with the transfer of all tanks to the US Army (in total, the US Marine Corps had about 220 M1A1 FEP tanks).

https://vpk.name/en/616332_poland-will- ... ility.html

Cool beans, thanks for the info!
No doubt these tanks will go through some modification and have those DU and Chobham armour packages removed before they are shipped off. To my knowledge only US Abrams and UK Challengers have Chobham armour.

It's also really interesting that Poland is also approved to get the very latest M829A4 DU rounds. AFAIK, no previous customer got those but were sold KE-W tungsten rounds. Of course those too are likely very capable but still have lesser performance.

I really wonder how they are planning to use all these new tanks as they are slightly differrent but still very similar in capabilities. K2 has the advantage of being the lightest but the difference is only about 10 tons or so, especially as K2PL is supposed to have longer hull than standard K2. So it might have advantages in some situations, but mostly there is not that significant difference. I bet Abrams has the most capable APFSDS round in M829A4 but other tanks have also very capable APFSDS rounds, although likely with slightly lower performance. K2 has interesting top-attack munition available. All have very good fire-control systems and other systems.

The Gulf War meme about the Iraqi "monkey models" and how "the real T-72's" (under USSR tank units) would have fared entirely differently is brought up time and time again (by trolls)

Here is a brief take on that subject (from the Estonian military forum: militaar.net) from a person that actually served as a T-72 commander in late 80-ies (in the Soviet Army of course).

The discussion was about the (Czech/Polish) T-72M models donated to Ukraine and how those, despite having no laser-rangefinder, and with very poor armor and ammunition have still proven to be useful - making it rather obvious that it''s the Russian tactic, not tanks, to blame.

While this is all true to some extent, people still vastly overestimate the Soviet models of the late-80ies. He brings up the same "missing laser rangefinder" as an example:

Here is a touched up google translation of the aforemantioned forum post:

Have you used the T72 laser rangefinder?

First of all, you have to aim at the target, press the button that measures the distance and make corrections (your movement relative to the movement of the target) then wait until the red light "Готов" lights up and only then can you fire. This process could last a few seconds . If at any point your (or the target's) movement speed increases/decreases the shot will 100% miss. ... and that's only when you managed to accurately estimate your own, and the target's movement speed. Not to mention that you have to keep an eye at the scope, the computer and verify that the correct ammunition is loaded from the carousel.

Jus to be clear what kind of computer we are talking about:


At the same time, the T72 smooth-bore gun was quite an unsuccessful product, both in terms of durability (it had passable accuracy only up to 100 rounds and it started to lose the aforementioned accuracy from the very first shots. And n general it was quite problematic. When firing, on flat ground, while moving slowly at a crawling target at a distance of 1 km, half of the shots missed.

There was very little difference whether using a laser sight or simply the optical sight with corrections (we also shot our fair share without the laser) - nothing along the lines of "pushing the imperialists back to the sea in Iraq", or such nonsense.

In terms of ammunition - I saw with my own eyes only the 3VBM9, which would have penetrated 380 mm, Iraq used 3VBM8 - which should have penetrated 310 mm. Presumably, Russia would have had 3VBM11/3VBM13 in important directions, the penetration capacity of which was around 450 - 500 mm. It still would not have penetrated the frontal armor of the Abrams (while already the Iraqi ammunition would have penetrated the side armor).

All in all, we would have been beaten exactly the same way as the Iraqis (who by the way had a completely respectable military experience from Iran, which again the USSR did not have ...)

In short, Soviet weapons were outdated in the 90s, they are even more outdated now.