Should the M1A3 use an autoloader?

[RobWilliams]

My thoughts are

Advantages

1) Sustained rate of fire
2) gives the option of upgrading the gun because the loader wont be as proficient or downgrading the gun as the ROF of the autoloader would be greater (but i don't see why we would but anyway)
3) less internal volume and decreased vehicle height


Disadvantages

1) Greater possibility of malfunction than a loader
2) Human loaders give comparable (somtimes better) rates of fire anyway
3) No military threats at the moment justify widespread issue
4) What are we going to do with the loaders when they go? Surely thats going to add strain to the logistical train
5) If it breaks the ROF will be significantly lower by the crew (brings the issue of who is going to do it and the decreased effectiveness of their primary job)
6) Weighes more than 4 average sized men (Using the average for the US as around 200lbs) but i will alter this depending on your response
7) can perform substantially less tasks than the loader and thus putting more strain on the remainder of the crew which would increase fatigue and decrease overall crew performance

You guys know much more about it than me, would you say those are realistic statements?

 

[Marc 1]

My thoughts are

Advantages

1) Sustained rate of fire
2) gives the option of upgrading the gun because the loader wont be as proficient or downgrading the gun as the ROF of the autoloader would be greater (but i don't see why we would but anyway)
3) less internal volume and decreased vehicle height


Disadvantages

1) Greater possibility of malfunction than a loader
2) Human loaders give comparable (somtimes better) rates of fire anyway
3) No military threats at the moment justify widespread issue
4) What are we going to do with the loaders when they go? Surely thats going to add strain to the logistical train
5) If it breaks the ROF will be significantly lower by the crew (brings the issue of who is going to do it and the decreased effectiveness of their primary job)
6) Weighes more than 4 average sized men (Using the average for the US as around 200lbs) but i will alter this depending on your response
7) can perform substantially less tasks than the loader and thus putting more strain on the remainder of the crew which would increase fatigue and decrease overall crew performance

You guys know much more about it than me, would you say those are realistic statements?

Question - why do you consider less internal volume to be an advantage?

The biggest reason I have seen put forward for the retention of the loader is that it allows another person to share the load on vehicle maintenance (breaking track is a bitch of a job), and other tasks )ranging from security/radio picquet to preparing food and rearming the vehicle) Fatigue has a major impact on combat activities, the smaller the crew the less sleep they will get.

 

[RobWilliams]

Question - why do you consider less internal volume to be an advantage?

The biggest reason I have seen put forward for the retention of the loader is that it allows another person to share the load on vehicle maintenance (breaking track is a bitch of a job), and other tasks )ranging from security/radio picquet to preparing food and rearming the vehicle) Fatigue has a major impact on combat activities, the smaller the crew the less sleep they will get.

Well i was having a debate with another person on another forum who insisted that a lower internal volume would mean you could lower the tanks silhouette and make it a harder target.

I put that list out to him, and he insisted i was wrong and nothing i could explain could convine him otherwise so i just ended it :roll

 

[lopez]

Well i was having a debate with another person on another forum who insisted that a lower internal volume would mean you could lower the tanks silhouette and make it a harder target.

I put that list out to him, and he insisted i was wrong and nothing i could explain could convine him otherwise so i just ended it :roll

modern targeting has made that not that big of an advantage anyways...

and i cant imagine you would lower the profile that significantly(?).

 

[My2Cents]

My thoughts are

Advantages

1) Sustained rate of fire
2) gives the option of upgrading the gun because the loader wont be as proficient or downgrading the gun as the ROF of the autoloader would be greater (but i don't see why we would but anyway)
3) less internal volume and decreased vehicle height

Actually, autoloaders typically have lower ROF than a human because of the need for the gun to return to a fixed elevation for the autoloader to operate, then return to the elevation to fire. This is particularly a problem if the gunner’s sight is slaved to the gun so he loses the sight picture, or the interlocks do not prevent the gun from firing before stabilizing after returning to the firing postion causing a miss.

Disadvantages

1) Greater possibility of malfunction than a loader
2) Human loaders give comparable (somtimes better) rates of fire anyway
3) No military threats at the moment justify widespread issue
4) What are we going to do with the loaders when they go? Surely thats going to add strain to the logistical train
5) If it breaks the ROF will be significantly lower by the crew (brings the issue of who is going to do it and the decreased effectiveness of their primary job)
6) Weighes more than 4 average sized men (Using the average for the US as around 200lbs) but i will alter this depending on your response
7) can perform substantially less tasks than the loader and thus putting more strain on the remainder of the crew which would increase fatigue and decrease overall crew performance

The most powerful argument for autoloaders is the reduction in manning levels. Finding other uses for the loader is not difficult. If nothing more important that needs to be done, there is always a shortage of infantry.

Autoloaders for conventional turret layouts typically weigh, and have volume requirements about the same as the crewman they replace. hwell

The main arguments against autoloaders revolve around the advantages of an extra crew member to:

• Provide additional manpower for maintenance. Tanks require a lot.
• By rotating positions allows a degree of crew rest on the move. This can be particularly important as modern combat is a 24 hour-a-day affair.
• Provides more eyes to watch the surroundings for hostiles, and manning for a second machinegun in close defense.
• Allows a tank unit to field a small force of dismounts as infantry if required, which is far more often than you would think it should be. Critical for combat in built up areas unless advancing behind an infantry screen. Changes in unit organization could reduce this need if tanks and APCs were to be formally combined at the platoon level.

Well i was having a debate with another person on another forum who insisted that a lower internal volume would mean you could lower the tanks silhouette and make it a harder target.

I put that list out to him, and he insisted i was wrong and nothing i could explain could convine him otherwise so i just ended it :roll

The ability to lower a tanks silhouette is ultimately limited by the distance from the trunnions to the end of the breech recoil stroke of the main gun at maximum elevation. Placing the trunnions higher in the turret can effect this more than reductions in the internal volume of the turret, but will usually reduce how far the gun can be depressed unless the turret roof is raised over the gun to compensate. :duel

Changes in turret styles offer some potential improvements in the area of turret height vs. elevation limits, but all have limitations. Also, almost any move to a crew-in-hull design requires the hull height to increase even more unless the crew is in inclined positions (such as drivers currently are) and would therefore be completely on cameras and such to observe their surroundings, and are probably beyond the current level of proven technology to provide equal performance.

• Typically pure external gun mounts appear to perform less well for both extreme elevation and depression of the gun versus vehicle height. This is because the gun cannot recoil down into the hull, requiring the trunnions to be higher, which is also require to prevent the guns recoil mechanisms from fouling the hull in depression. There are also issues with getting ammunition to the gun in most designs, severely limiting the amount of ready ammunition. The major advantage in the reduce turret width and height above the trunnions makes it a smaller target when hull down. :sniper
• Split turrets, where the gun is partially external in a slot between upper turret halves appear, to be superior for elevation limits versus turret height because the turret roof can be level with or slightly above the level of the trunnions while the gun can still recoil into the hull, but are much more difficult to seal for NBC. hwell

There are also some possibilities of new gun designs that would help. The original XM360 120mm gun design for the cancelled FCS uses a composite barrel to move the center of mass and the consequently the trunnions back onto the breach. The breach was redesigned so that it pivots in line with the trunnions, instead of using an end closure, and can be reloaded by a simple mechanism at any elevation. This gun is perfect for the alternate turret designs above, but is not very compatible with a conventional turret design.

 

[Waylander]

The advantages of human loaders have all been explained and personally I would't like to have an autoloader in place of a 4th crewman.
BUT western armies have one big problem and this is manpower. Personell costs in western armies are enourmous. Operating armoured and mechanized forces is expensive and getting rid of a quarter of your crew costs means alot these days.

So in the end IMO the cost factor trumps all thr numerous advantages of a human loader.

As for the smaller silouette. When one looks at the T series tanks they pay for their smaller internal volume with cramped working conditions, little room for upgrades and a smaller gun elevation. This is not a small bill and results in severe disadvantages compared to other designs. Even the best FCS is useless if your gun constantly hits the maximum elevation in heavy terrain and not being able to use the same variety of fighting positions may cost you dearly in combat.

The Japanese (Type 90, Type 10) and French (Leclerc) 3 crewmen designs show that a really low profile is not the ultimate goal and they were not willing to pay the steep price for it despite using an autolader.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The M1A3 will have an autoloader but it won't be at the expense of the loader/operator who will stay onboard and be an assistant tank commander.

The Meggitt 120mm compact autoloader and magazine is designed to fit into the current turret of the M1 and provide automatic loading without interfering with other functions. The only difference is instead of 40 rounds carried only 34 will be carrier. The primary reason of this part of the upgrade is to free up the responsibilities of the fourth crewman so they can spend more time engaging in situational awareness and target acquisition.

The only way you could get a volume saving from an autoloader on an M1 is to design a new turret from scratch for a three man crew. Probably better designing a new hull as well…

Meggitt Defense Systems - Compact Autoloader

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well i was having a debate with another person on another forum who insisted that a lower internal volume would mean you could lower the tanks silhouette and make it a harder target.

Lower internal volume does not always mean lower height as some things require minimums of height, like fitting humans into the vehicle and breech clearance for gun depression. However lower internal volume is closely related to lower surface area which means a lower armour requirement.

The classic example used to illustrate the savings possible in a tank via lower internal volume is that of the Centurion and S-Tank. Both tanks had comparable firepower, mobility and protection but by not having a turret the S-Tank weighed in at 20-25% less than the Centurion. This is because it has a lot less internal volume meaning less exposed surface area, requiring less weight of armour to provide the same level of protection.

 

[Belesari]

I think the lessons learned in Iraq and elsewhere have proven that the more people able to help the better. As was mentioned Cleaning or working on any tank is a ***** and more hands help. Then there are the secondary weapons.

I think we just arent at the point where the tech is up to it.

Actually, autoloaders typically have lower ROF than a human because of the need for the gun to return to a fixed elevation for the autoloader to operate, then return to the elevation to fire. This is particularly a problem if the gunner’s sight is slaved to the gun so he loses the sight picture, or the interlocks do not prevent the gun from firing before stabilizing after returning to the firing postion causing a miss.


The most powerful argument for autoloaders is the reduction in manning levels. Finding other uses for the loader is not difficult. If nothing more important that needs to be done, there is always a shortage of infantry.

Autoloaders for conventional turret layouts typically weigh, and have volume requirements about the same as the crewman they replace. hwell

The main arguments against autoloaders revolve around the advantages of an extra crew member to:

• Provide additional manpower for maintenance. Tanks require a lot.
• By rotating positions allows a degree of crew rest on the move. This can be particularly important as modern combat is a 24 hour-a-day affair.
• Provides more eyes to watch the surroundings for hostiles, and manning for a second machinegun in close defense.
• Allows a tank unit to field a small force of dismounts as infantry if required, which is far more often than you would think it should be. Critical for combat in built up areas unless advancing behind an infantry screen. Changes in unit organization could reduce this need if tanks and APCs were to be formally combined at the platoon level.

The ability to lower a tanks silhouette is ultimately limited by the distance from the trunnions to the end of the breech recoil stroke of the main gun at maximum elevation. Placing the trunnions higher in the turret can effect this more than reductions in the internal volume of the turret, but will usually reduce how far the gun can be depressed unless the turret roof is raised over the gun to compensate. :duel

Changes in turret styles offer some potential improvements in the area of turret height vs. elevation limits, but all have limitations. Also, almost any move to a crew-in-hull design requires the hull height to increase even more unless the crew is in inclined positions (such as drivers currently are) and would therefore be completely on cameras and such to observe their surroundings, and are probably beyond the current level of proven technology to provide equal performance.

• Typically pure external gun mounts appear to perform less well for both extreme elevation and depression of the gun versus vehicle height. This is because the gun cannot recoil down into the hull, requiring the trunnions to be higher, which is also require to prevent the guns recoil mechanisms from fouling the hull in depression. There are also issues with getting ammunition to the gun in most designs, severely limiting the amount of ready ammunition. The major advantage in the reduce turret width and height above the trunnions makes it a smaller target when hull down. :sniper
• Split turrets, where the gun is partially external in a slot between upper turret halves appear, to be superior for elevation limits versus turret height because the turret roof can be level with or slightly above the level of the trunnions while the gun can still recoil into the hull, but are much more difficult to seal for NBC. hwell

There are also some possibilities of new gun designs that would help. The original XM360 120mm gun design for the cancelled FCS uses a composite barrel to move the center of mass and the consequently the trunnions back onto the breach. The breach was redesigned so that it pivots in line with the trunnions, instead of using an end closure, and can be reloaded by a simple mechanism at any elevation. This gun is perfect for the alternate turret designs above, but is not very compatible with a conventional turret design.

 

[eckherl]

The M1A3 will have an autoloader but it won't be at the expense of the loader/operator who will stay onboard and be an assistant tank commander.

The Meggitt 120mm compact autoloader and magazine is designed to fit into the current turret of the M1 and provide automatic loading without interfering with other functions. The only difference is instead of 40 rounds carried only 34 will be carrier. The primary reason of this part of the upgrade is to free up the responsibilities of the fourth crewman so they can spend more time engaging in situational awareness and target acquisition.

The only way you could get a volume saving from an autoloader on an M1 is to design a new turret from scratch for a three man crew. Probably better designing a new hull as well…

Meggitt Defense Systems - Compact Autoloader

Just think everyone thought I was nuts a few years back when I lay mention of this. Now to see if they will actually have a reason that warrants such a drastic upgrade from current model.

 

[fretburner]

^ Will that auto-loader be smart and that it will pick up different types of rounds and still keep its 12 rounds/minute firing rate?

I know the link said KE or HE, but it didn't say that it can alternate between both types without skipping a beat.

 

[eckherl]

^ Will that auto-loader be smart and that it will pick up different types of rounds and still keep its 12 rounds/minute firing rate?

I know the link said KE or HE, but it didn't say that it can alternate between both types without skipping a beat.

Yes, unit is equipped to handle multiple selections. Firing rate will not be deminished and should be able to maintain it's firing rate while making it alot safer for the crew, especially during cross country offensive engagements.

 

[sgtgunn]

The M1A3 will have an autoloader but it won't be at the expense of the loader/operator who will stay onboard and be an assistant tank commander.

I'll be interested in how this changes crew assignments. Currently, in the US Army, the loader is typically (though not always) the least experiences/lowest ranking member of the tank crew. Progression is usually loader (PVT-PFC), driver (PFC-SPC), gunner (SGT - sometimes SPC/CPL), and tank commander (SSG - or higher on a "command" tank).

If the position of loader is changed to "Assistant Tank Commander" that implies much greater responsibilities requiring a more experienced Soldier or an NCO. A tank crew is already 50% NCOs, so it's unlikely you'd have 3 NCOs per tank. Do you move the NCO from the gunner's seat into the assistant TC's seat, and make the driver the least experienced/lowest ranking Soldier, putting your PFC/SPC into the gunner's seat?

What would an assistant TCs duties be aside from being a back up to the auto loader? Managing radios and the blue force tracker? Manning an additional weapon system (loader's M240, RWS, etc.)?

Adrian

 

[Waylander]

Problem with this is that the driver is usually the least supervised crewmember of the lot. So having a total rookie in the place may pose a problem.

In Germany many tank commanders say that the driver has to be intelligent, maybe more so than the other crewmembers besides the TC, as he more often than not works autonomous.

I can very well imagine the assistant TC position becoming a junior NCO slot with. One may have to adjust entry levels for the lowest position (driver) as one really doesn't want to put a douchebag into that position.

 

[eckherl]

I'll be interested in how this changes crew assignments. Currently, in the US Army, the loader is typically (though not always) the least experiences/lowest ranking member of the tank crew. Progression is usually loader (PVT-PFC), driver (PFC-SPC), gunner (SGT - sometimes SPC/CPL), and tank commander (SSG - or higher on a "command" tank).

If the position of loader is changed to "Assistant Tank Commander" that implies much greater responsibilities requiring a more experienced Soldier or an NCO. A tank crew is already 50% NCOs, so it's unlikely you'd have 3 NCOs per tank. Do you move the NCO from the gunner's seat into the assistant TC's seat, and make the driver the least experienced/lowest ranking Soldier, putting your PFC/SPC into the gunner's seat?

What would an assistant TCs duties be aside from being a back up to the auto loader? Managing radios and the blue force tracker? Manning an additional weapon system (loader's M240, RWS, etc.)?

Adrian

The loader will not be a back up TC, duties will entail situational awareness, back up loader in the event auto system fails, communications and crew served weapons. Rank will still be the same with additional AIT training for new systems.

 

[eckherl]

Problem with this is that the driver is usually the least supervised crewmember of the lot. So having a total rookie in the place may pose a problem.

In Germany many tank commanders say that the driver has to be intelligent, maybe more so than the other crewmembers besides the TC, as he more often than not works autonomous.

I can very well imagine the assistant TC position becoming a junior NCO slot with. One may have to adjust entry levels for the lowest position (driver) as one really doesn't want to put a douchebag into that position.

I would think that a good TC would train the entire crew to be able to function or handle crew duties from each tank position. At least that is what I tried to do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When I said "assistant" tank commander I didn't mean deputy or vice tank commander I meant assistant as in personal assistant. They are not the new second in command. The old job of the loader/operator was very much to assist the gunner in operating the gun (loading it) and assist the commander via operating the radios, providing SA/TA to the left side and manning a MG. The new job resorts these priorities. The ‘4th crewman’ will still be in charge of the ammunition and loading but won’t have to do anything during engagements to keep the main gun in business. Since the upgrade concept also includes the roof mounted RCWS and additional sensors for both long range TA and close in SA the 4th crewman takes primary responsibility for operating these along with the radio. So in effect they are taking over a range of tank commander jobs to free the tank commander to command.

 

[Waylander]

I would think that a good TC would train the entire crew to be able to function or handle crew duties from each tank position. At least that is what I tried to do.

Well, but IMHO there is a huge difference between mastering a crew position and knowing how to handle it in case of an emergency. Even with conscripts the tank corps in the Bundeswehr generally qualified each enlisted crewmember on two positions and trained them on the other positions for temporary emergency role switches.

Nevertheless I wouldn't like to have my newest and/or borderline foolish crewmember on the driver or gunner seat.