tank questions

Originally posted by Exarchus Are you sure the Soviets were the first to put an automatic reloader? I thought the first tank with an automatic reloader was the AMX-13 produced in 1953. The goal was to put a canon comparable to heavy tanks on a light tank and it required an automatic reloader to make the turret short enough to fit the hull. Correct me if I'm wrong but the first Soviet tank with an automatic reloader was the T-72 and it was the early 70..

Originally posted by DukeC The Soviets were the first to use autoloaders in all their new MBTs but not the first to use it.   It was introduced into Soviet forces in the mid-60s so it was either the T-62 or T-64.

Yes, it's the T-64 you're right.

BTW the introduction of the autoloader to tank guns was really a revolutionary step in tank design. The absence of a 4th crew member saved alot of inside volume that have to be armored (infact, in one of the most well armored places-the turret), thus reducing both tank dimensions and weight, and also giving higher average rate of fire.
The first MBT(main battle tank/AMX-13 is a light tank)is really the T-64(1967). Future tank configuration will be like that of Leclerc and T90, not that of Abrams or Leopard 2-the presence of loader is an anachronism and a major shortcoming.
    

Edited by Desperado - 31-Jul-2006 at 19:15

Originally posted by Desperado BTW the introduction of the autoloader to tank guns was really a revolutionary step in tank design. The absence of a 4th crew member saved alot of inside volume that have to be armored (infact, in one of the most well armored places-the turret), thus reducing both tank dimensions and weight, and also giving higher average rate of fire. The first MBT(main battle tank/AMX-13 is a light tank)is really the T-64(1967). Future tank configuration will be like that of Leclerc and T90, not that of Abrams or Leopard 2-the presence of loader is an anachronism and a major shortcoming.

Yes, the AMX-13 is a light tank, it still is the first tank with an automatic reloader though :).


Edited by Exarchus - 01-Aug-2006 at 06:19

Well i think the gunner or the commander can deal perfectly with an unfired round, it's infact a matter of battle compartment design(btw the loader usually has no access to MGs-old designs like Js-2 and Kv-1 aren't counted ). But just imagine this roughly 10 tons of armor needed for the protection of a loader placed on the front side of the turret or the hull-it gives a clear armor advantage with the same weight and dynamic characteristics, and a lower silhouette. The place of the loader will surely disappear in the next generation of MBT's, just like the one of the radio operator/front MG gunner.
Anyway, the new MBT's are just to appear so we'll see soon.

Originally posted by Desperado Anyway, the new MBT's are just to appear so we'll see soon.

The next Korean XK-2 should be equipied by an automatic reloader. It's actually a requirement in the devellopment of the tank.

Originally posted by Sparten The T-80's aut loader is faster than the m1's, 10 rpm vs 5 IIRC. The problem the T-72 had was that the ammo was in two parts. �

Try T-80 is like 4-5RPM and M1 6-8RPM. It actually gets worse for the T-80 with different rounds up to 12 second reload times on some. Thats not really the point of an autoloader though. I have read the T-80U gets up to 6-8RPM as well but i'm not sure how considering it uses the same carousel.


    

Edited by Gundamor - 04-Aug-2006 at 13:02

I'm still seeing 6-8 RPM as the rate of fire even on the T-80UD. Are they not using the 28 round carasel?

American M1 loaders have no problem reaching that rate of fire. They train for it and can exceed it. They're well battle tested its documented.

I've read the Khalid was so bad the Iranians sent the 3 test models they had back. And what recent large scale tank battle have India and Pakistan had? I've been reading closely on the T-90 and its problems in India and I dont see any mention of tank battles.

T-90 Engine problem was the one that caught my eye. Not to concerened about the overheating sighting systems(not sure if fixed yet) or the ammunition difference problem which was corrected long time ago. It also has required an unusual amount of maintenance though that could be a breaking in period of the tank.

I thought you meant recent tank battles i've read about those. Recent would be 90s+.

Apologies if i came across as a bit angry in my last post, but it is a subject close to my heart and I get a bit upset when figures and statistics from books seem to count more than facts and experience.

Edited by aghart - 04-Aug-2006 at 18:20