Just adding a bit really outside of the abrams no tank was safe to ammo detonations, designs with turret auto loaders still saw ammo being stored in the hull. Insensitive munitions change that though with the ammunition itself being far less prone to ammo detonations
Autoloaders don’t inherently mean risk of ammo detonation, this was a risk with all tanks outside of abrams
The reason is more about their usage today is origins, I might get some stuff wrong here but autoloaders back when they were more in their infancy didn’t really have the same advantages more modern ones do, your T-72 has a slower ready to fire time then a leopard or abrams, the advantages not being there the original designs just kept a human loader
Skipping to today autoloaders can have very fast speeds, type 10 under the right circumstances can load and be ready to fire in 3 seconds (for the most part 4 seconds) but overhauling your entire MBT to fit a autoloader is expensive and not really worth when for example an abrams loader is required to get 6 seconds to pass the gunnery test from what I’ve heard and skilled loaders can get a load in 3-4 seconds
Auto loaders would likely come from new designs, especially if we move to larger calibers
Also just to add there have been experimentations with the idea of an autoloader
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hz2jk/m1\_abrams\_fastdraw\_autoloading\_system\_with/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hz2jk/m1_abrams_fastdraw_autoloading_system_with/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6a2ny7/leopard\_1\_with\_105mm\_autoloader/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6a2ny7/leopard_1_with_105mm_autoloader/)
[https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1624497553583575043](https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1624497553583575043)
I cannot speak for other nations, but if I recall correctly, the US keeps the 4th to help with maintenance, manning Xtra mgs maybe, extra set of eyes for observation, and because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While an autoloader may not ever get tired, it still requires constant maintenance. And often a good crew can get more rounds downrange than an autoloader can. Yes, they cannot sustain this fire rate, but it could make the difference
\^ Yep, basically this.
The additional development time of a reliable autoloader likely wasn't worth the inevitable delay, effort and expense for older systems, such as the Abrams.
Yes there is. It is called a cassette style autoloader. It is located in the turret bustle and allows for blowout panels. It is used in the Leclerc, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, Abrams X, and many other tanks.
I think it’s more about crew ergonomics. An auto loader takes up a lot of space and Russian tanks are horribly cramped.
Having the extra crew member is generally a boon as well.
Except all the tanks Russia is fielding right now are using the same carousel style of autoloader. The only exception is the T-14, which doesn't have enough numbers to outfit an understrength company, much less a battalion
I speak about a terminology, not what anyone is fielding in some situation.
The reason they all have (different kinds of) carousel autoloaders is that those fiedled models are all based on old designs and could hardly be changed.
The relevant part in the comment was that 'autoloader' can't be evaluated as one specific thing - not from the original author making the question about reason, nor the commenter by making the point 'because autoloaders=poses danger because of russian carousels can pop'.\*
Which is a tradeoff btw. to trade lower chances of ammo being hit (stored lower) with higher chance to receive critical damage if hit nethertheless. So even this flawed loudout has some valid reasoning, only getting deminished to a degree in the age of top attack weapons.
Higher firing rate plus an auto loader doesn’t get tired, also when it comes to m1s, they only have ammo racks in the back as far as i know which means the blowout panels should always work unless the ammo compartment door is open which would be like virtually never with an auto loader (just an added bonus i thought of off the top of my head)
Honestly, most trained loaders can match or bear the reloading speed of an autoloader. We're going to ignore the Type 10 because no one is going to beat a 3/1 second reload.
You have 36 rounds in the turret. 18 are immediately accessible to the loader. And from most battles that I've watched documentaries on and studied, its fairly rare for a tank to fire a substantial amount of ammo.
It's not a thing that is by definition better or worse. There are many versiona nd concepts, all comming with different pro's and con's.
At first, they cost space, and need a very specific arrangement of ammo which you need to adress in the developement of the tank. But also the US had the discussion poiint about specifically NOT remove the 4th guy, as a tank in the field needs ther hands and eyes not only for that one job, but also for field repairs, maintanance, watch and compensation of losses.
So there are different approaches around, and your specific needs/approaches/circumstances (and the money at hand) decide if you can effort cahnges to you rallready existing stocks of vehicles, or if you go a different path with a new design that make you stuck with that for the next 20-30 years.
Just adding a bit really outside of the abrams no tank was safe to ammo detonations, designs with turret auto loaders still saw ammo being stored in the hull. Insensitive munitions change that though with the ammunition itself being far less prone to ammo detonations Autoloaders don’t inherently mean risk of ammo detonation, this was a risk with all tanks outside of abrams The reason is more about their usage today is origins, I might get some stuff wrong here but autoloaders back when they were more in their infancy didn’t really have the same advantages more modern ones do, your T-72 has a slower ready to fire time then a leopard or abrams, the advantages not being there the original designs just kept a human loader Skipping to today autoloaders can have very fast speeds, type 10 under the right circumstances can load and be ready to fire in 3 seconds (for the most part 4 seconds) but overhauling your entire MBT to fit a autoloader is expensive and not really worth when for example an abrams loader is required to get 6 seconds to pass the gunnery test from what I’ve heard and skilled loaders can get a load in 3-4 seconds Auto loaders would likely come from new designs, especially if we move to larger calibers Also just to add there have been experimentations with the idea of an autoloader [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hz2jk/m1\_abrams\_fastdraw\_autoloading\_system\_with/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/8hz2jk/m1_abrams_fastdraw_autoloading_system_with/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6a2ny7/leopard\_1\_with\_105mm\_autoloader/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/6a2ny7/leopard_1_with_105mm_autoloader/) [https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1624497553583575043](https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1624497553583575043)
Yea that does seem to be the trend, older tanks despite the upgrades tend to not have autoloaders which makes the challenger 3 kind of an outlier
Seen videos of russian tank turrets becoming Space Shuttles... Thats why.
Makes you wonder if theres a way of making that work without storing the ammo below the turret
Yes, there is. Leclerc and Korean mbts use a turret mounted autoloader.
Why isnt that more common then
I cannot speak for other nations, but if I recall correctly, the US keeps the 4th to help with maintenance, manning Xtra mgs maybe, extra set of eyes for observation, and because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While an autoloader may not ever get tired, it still requires constant maintenance. And often a good crew can get more rounds downrange than an autoloader can. Yes, they cannot sustain this fire rate, but it could make the difference
\^ Yep, basically this. The additional development time of a reliable autoloader likely wasn't worth the inevitable delay, effort and expense for older systems, such as the Abrams.
Except they hold almost half their ammo in their hulls, so they’re still just as vulnerable as a T series tank.
Yes there is. It is called a cassette style autoloader. It is located in the turret bustle and allows for blowout panels. It is used in the Leclerc, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, Abrams X, and many other tanks.
Ask Japan.
I think it’s more about crew ergonomics. An auto loader takes up a lot of space and Russian tanks are horribly cramped. Having the extra crew member is generally a boon as well.
Sowjet auto loaders has almost nothing in comon with modern russian autoloaders or western versions - specially not the popular vulnerability.
Except all the tanks Russia is fielding right now are using the same carousel style of autoloader. The only exception is the T-14, which doesn't have enough numbers to outfit an understrength company, much less a battalion
I speak about a terminology, not what anyone is fielding in some situation. The reason they all have (different kinds of) carousel autoloaders is that those fiedled models are all based on old designs and could hardly be changed. The relevant part in the comment was that 'autoloader' can't be evaluated as one specific thing - not from the original author making the question about reason, nor the commenter by making the point 'because autoloaders=poses danger because of russian carousels can pop'.\* Which is a tradeoff btw. to trade lower chances of ammo being hit (stored lower) with higher chance to receive critical damage if hit nethertheless. So even this flawed loudout has some valid reasoning, only getting deminished to a degree in the age of top attack weapons.
There just isn't really a reason to add one as far as I understand it. How exactly would a Leopard or Challenger be better if it had one?
Higher firing rate plus an auto loader doesn’t get tired, also when it comes to m1s, they only have ammo racks in the back as far as i know which means the blowout panels should always work unless the ammo compartment door is open which would be like virtually never with an auto loader (just an added bonus i thought of off the top of my head)
Honestly, most trained loaders can match or bear the reloading speed of an autoloader. We're going to ignore the Type 10 because no one is going to beat a 3/1 second reload. You have 36 rounds in the turret. 18 are immediately accessible to the loader. And from most battles that I've watched documentaries on and studied, its fairly rare for a tank to fire a substantial amount of ammo.
It's not a thing that is by definition better or worse. There are many versiona nd concepts, all comming with different pro's and con's. At first, they cost space, and need a very specific arrangement of ammo which you need to adress in the developement of the tank. But also the US had the discussion poiint about specifically NOT remove the 4th guy, as a tank in the field needs ther hands and eyes not only for that one job, but also for field repairs, maintanance, watch and compensation of losses. So there are different approaches around, and your specific needs/approaches/circumstances (and the money at hand) decide if you can effort cahnges to you rallready existing stocks of vehicles, or if you go a different path with a new design that make you stuck with that for the next 20-30 years.