In a modern tank, is the auto-loader better than having a human loader, and a crew of four, rather than three? What advantages does an auto-loader tank offer to an army? Noam's Answer View 10 Other Answers Noam Kaiser, Major (Res.) IDF Armored Corps, commanded Magach 7 tank company. 50.8k Views • Upvoted by Eric Tang, Paratrooper, Troop Commander, U.S. Army.• Annika Schauer, Navy vet. • Michael Chan, Republic of Singapore Navy (1988-1997) Noam has 16 endorsements in Military. Thanks for the A2A. No disrespect to other answers and answer writers here, they are all correct, but so far, it seems that I'm the only one answering who was actually a tank commander. At more advanced stages of my service I was a tank platoon leader and tank company commander. Under my command were Magach 7 Main Battle Tank 4 men crews, like the one below: (The Magach 7c is an Israeli Military Industries upgrade of the American M-60, and the last Non-Merkava Tank in IDF service ) I'm pointing out my credentials as tank commander because it gives me a field use case perspective, and in light of that perspective, I am not even going to compare advantages to disadvantages of auto loader vs loader like I've noticed in other answers, but rather directly claim this: Under no circumstance would I prefer a tank with an auto loader, or even find any room for comparison of one, with the far more preferable 4 men crew based tank. Here's why: First it's about the ammo. Auto loader tanks have predetermined sets of tank shells. What they don't have is a mechanism enabling them to foresee the future. Why is that an issue? Because not all shells are alike. They have different purposes for different targets. How the hell would I know which target I'll encounter, and at what order? Look at this sucker for example: The 120 mm IMI "Arrow 6" armor piercing shell. Cute, isn't it? I fire this at a tank, bye bye tank. It will penetrate the armor, raise havoc in it, and within less than a second blow it sky high. But wait! What if this is the next shell loaded in my auto loader, but in front of me I suddenly encounter an Infantry company? Well, I fire this, because it's an auto loader, and I can't change the ammo NOW, One infantry soldier dies a very exotic death with an entry hole in the gut, the shape of a small sun with rays, like a 4 year old would have painted it. Through the hole, if one were to look closely, you could see a small cloud of dust behind the soldier, where the projectile enters the ground. The rest of the enemy infantry? They'll be just fine. And it's the other way around too. This time my auto loader is armed with this baby: The 120 mm IMI "Inert" dual purpose shell, which is effective against light vehicles, APCs and infantry... Then along comes a T-90... Are you fucking kidding me? What, we feel like scratching some paint of the T-90's front? What the hell am I supposed to do with an Inert shell now? See, my point is, this type of auto loading system negates the basic definition of warfare, as set forth brilliantly, by Prussian Major General Carl von Clausewitz: "War is the realm of uncertainty". ("On War", Book 1, Chapter 3, Page 79) I don't know what I'll need! And I don't want a machine to decide for me. And even the most elaborate and modern ones where you CAN change ammo, can't supply me with a series of same type shells, of any length required, that I may actually end up needing because: 1. You don't always hit on the first shot, 2. Sometimes it takes more than one shell to destroy a target. This alone - the incompatibility of ammo - is enough to render the auto loader system for tanks irrelevant. Ha, but there's more. Much more. The Loader (Let's decide that "Loader" is Human, and "Auto Loader" is d out of touch mechanism, OK? Cool) is not just a loader: He is the crew's Comm Specialist. We have all types of communications systems, and sure, as tank commander I CAN take care of them if something goes wrong. but you know what? I'm kinda busy here commanding the tank crew... The loader is also in charge of other weapons system in the tank. See here for example: Noam Kaiser's answer to What is the barrel/tube attached to the main gun of this armored vehicle? - The parallel machine gun. When that gets jammed, a lot of good an auto loader will do you... The loader also has his own machine gun on top of the turret for short ranger. An Autoloader makes you lose that too. Without elaborating too much, the Loader is trained to a certain extent on other crew members duties. He can replace one, and I, as commander, can make do with a team of 3 for a while if I have to. The duality of capabilities also allows the crew to conduct double shifts, if we're on a long mission like an ambush. Not much an auto loader can do here. Also, the Loader, like other crew members, is also a trained infantry soldier when need arises. He can grab a machine gun, an M-16, both perhaps, some ammo, a medic kit and water, and then dismount and fight if the tank is decommissioned. He can help carry a stretcher if a team member is down. Sometimes the entire company or regiment is used for an infantry mission: With auto loaders we'd be 25% men short. Lastly, the auto loader is not at all that faster, and perhaps even slower, than a proficient loader doing his job right, and even a really fast machine wouldn't be faster in any way that is significant in real time. Because even if it was, the tank is a mobile unit, it's efficiency and survivability are dependent on maneuvering and operational discipline, not on half a second bought here or there. As I answered here, Why are tanks still in use despite the array of anti-tank weapons deployed? people fascinated with military technologies, that haven't served in the military, have a tendency to forget one thing: The human factor wins wars, not technologies. There's a reason these auto loaders have been abandoned as a concept. Greg Chalik explained well why the Soviet tactics of masses, moving fast, with vehicles staying small, and coming in waves matched that concept once. In today's battlefield this would be suicide. Don't get me wrong - I love technology, my work revolves around it, I appreciate modern military technologies and in awe of the people behind them. But a tank is only as good as the crew handling it is. This is the origin of the IDF armor corps motto: "The man in the tank wins". So, short answer: Human Loader. http://qr.ae/RPlm3d
while I realize these are all valid arguments, it seems to me as if there might be a simple enough solution to even those problems listed against the autoloader, they simply have not advanced the mechanism enough to meet the needs of the tank crew sufficiently in lieu of a person doing the job manually. Much like all automatic vehicles will never quite feel as -right- as driving a rear wheel drive standard transmission.
It seems like a better system would be an auto-loader cutoff and a human loader to accompany it. You have a few shells racked up in the autoloader for any situation you could conceivably need the rapid fire, but rely on a human loader until you need it. Though then you have to deal with either an increase in turret size or a decrease in interior space, or more likely, a combination of both. You also have to worry about the autoloader jamming in such a position that you cannot engage the cutoff, in which case you're really screwed.
It might just be me and lots of bias and stereotype but when this renowned Israeli tank company commander who was initially a tank commander says stuff about how to win with tanks, I kinda take it as coming from a serious authority. Those guys have some real hands down experience from all sorts of conditions with modern combined weapons tactics and fighting with tanks. And I fully believe when he says that battles are not won with that point something seconds difference in some reload stat or an inch difference in tank height but by the people in the tanks. Machines are tools and tools are used either properly or improperly. But yea I do sort of agree with that part about keeping a tank crew at 4 but also having an autoloader that can rapidly switch the feed type (all the modern ones can). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoloader I find that autoloaders are mostly used in West in artillery vehicles and such. Also from same source: Now, which type of tank would you like to go to combat with? It appears that tanks facing combat situations where there's a real desire to conserve the crew that an autoloader is not really an option. West emphasizes crew experience, crew skill and crew survivability as in West it is considered that it is easier to replace tanks and fighters etc. than to replace the skilled and trained crews. In the former Soviet doctrine they solved this issue by limiting crew size so they could crew more tanks with the same amount of people, 33% more tanks to be exact for same amount of crewmen. They also produced things like Mig-21 that carried only two missiles - even if only every fifth plane shot down a West built fighter they'd still be winning economically (or thereabouts). Artillery vehicles etc. usually have the fire missions dictated beforehand and also truly benefit for any squeeze in firerate because they can fire the multiple arc thing where the faster they fire the more rounds they can have land simultaneously. Also they don't need to be built for maximal survivability because they're not front line combat units and because ... well.. it's a fricking artillery tank. It goes boom if you hit it.
Looks like Polish new light tank comes with autoloader, planned to enter service in 2018. This looks like it's primarily for engaging enemy vehicles, which makes sense too as the most likely opponent is Russia which means lots of hard targets. Also, the old term 'tank destroyer' comes to mind. Though with the auto grenade launcher it can be very lethal against infantry. Because it's not as heavy as MBT's, it doesn't sink as badly and can move more freely in difficult terrain with less fear of getting sunk or stuck. Designer: BAE Systems Main weapon: 105/120mm gun with capacity to fire AT-rockets, 45 rounds of ammo Rate of fire: 10s per round / 6 rounds per minute Speed: 70 kph on road, 50 kph on rough terrain Weight: 30 tn Crew: 3 Anti-projectile system capable of intercepting incoming missiles. Increased stealth against radar and IR. Increased crew survivability features. Remote-controlled module slot options: -7.62 or 12.7mm machinegun (750 / 400 rounds) -40mm automatic grenade launcher (96 rounds)
Yea I know. Quiet forest where you can hear bullets being loaded into chambers by enemy infantry... and them WRRRROOOOOAAARRRRR as 950hp engine comes to live and starts hurling 30 tons of steel across broken terrain. Real ninja tank that's gonna sneak up to you. That said, those tank roars are actually quickly lost into the ambient noises of battle. Stuff like 155mm artillery shells going off, all sorts of heavy machineguns all over, autocannons, MLRS strikes etc.. And not forgetting tons of smoke that also interferes with IR sensors.
of course, you could scatter a bunch of magnetic tracking devices all around your defense perimeter, and when several of them start moving simultaneously you'll know something metal is coming XD
