Leclerc Tank Autoloader Reliability

No, the idea is to remove humans from combat and suplement their abilities with robots, not just whisk people out of harms way as soon as we can jerry-rig it.

The Predator Drone is an excellent example of this. The drone is MORE EFFECTIVE as an unmanned vehicle because it is cheap and disposable. You can fly it low to recon and if it gets shot down, who cares! Unlike, say, a glass-bottomed helicopter which has to support a human and if it gets shot down someone dies.

The difference with a tanks are designed to have humans in them. It really doesn't take any more to defend 4 humans instead of 3. So there isn't really a reason to remove the loader. Furthermore, the loader has many capabilities an autoloader does not.

So you see, it isn't about just getting people out of the war, it's about putting robots in places where they are more effective than people.

The only real reason to remove the human loader, as I see it, is that it's more economical to maintain an autoloader than it is to give food, water, and daily pay to a human.
 
Whispering

Well Id say its only a matter of time before all tanks use autoloaders, its really all a question of perfecting the technology. Look at the US Navy, all the Gun systems on our Crusiers and destroyers are autoloaded. 50 Years ago they were still being hand cranked into the barrel.

Can you image today having to hand crank a 2 ton 16" shell (weight the same as a VW Beetle)?
 
I don't think that a autoloader in a MBT is good alternative, but what about artillery? I have seen the new autoloader in the german 'Panzerhaubitze 2000' wich is really impressiv an it doesn't load slower, because the part the mashine cant handle as quick as a soldier, the insertion of the load is still made by a soldier. the system can load different types of ammunition if the commader wants it and if you run it with the computersystem you just hav to write the coordinates on the computer and put the load in and the rest does the mashine.

http://www.waffenhq.de/panzer/pzh2000.html
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Whispering

Well Id say its only a matter of time before all tanks use autoloaders, its really all a question of perfecting the technology. Look at the US Navy, all the Gun systems on our Crusiers and destroyers are autoloaded. 50 Years ago they were still being hand cranked into the barrel.

Can you image today having to hand crank a 2 ton 16" shell (weight the same as a VW Beetle)?
Click to expand...


Ok, your not making any points here other than pointing out that we used machines 50 years ago. We use autoloaders on Naval ships because a human being can't lift any of the shells into the breech. Even though it's a movie you should watch "A Glimpse Of Hell".

I can lift a 120mm M829A2 APFSDS-T round with ease.

A good example of why the U.S. probably won't use the auto-loader anytime soon is the Stryker MGS. They have had more problems with that thing. Rounds getting caught in the ejector.
 
mmarsh said:
Whispering

Well Id say its only a matter of time before all tanks use autoloaders, its really all a question of perfecting the technology. Look at the US Navy, all the Gun systems on our Crusiers and destroyers are autoloaded. 50 Years ago they were still being hand cranked into the barrel.

Can you image today having to hand crank a 2 ton 16" shell (weight the same as a VW Beetle)?
Click to expand...
I agree but not because of your reasoning. Gun systems on naval vessels are a different kettle of fish entirely. But yes, stands to reason that autoloaders will become almost universally adopted when the technology improves. In fact, the technology is probably available now - it's just a case of it being adapted for the role. There isn't enough of an incentive for this to happen at the moment.
 
Doppleganger said:
I agree but not because of your reasoning. Gun systems on naval vessels are a different kettle of fish entirely. But yes, stands to reason that autoloaders will become almost universally adopted when the technology improves. In fact, the technology is probably available now - it's just a case of it being adapted for the role. There isn't enough of an incentive for this to happen at the moment.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, given a long enough timeline then surely. If we're looking at having tanks run autonomously it stands to reason that they'll have automated loading systems also.

But in the immediate future I don't think the autoloader has very many bennefits at all compared to a human loader.
 
Cadet Seaman

We use autoloaders on Naval ships because a human being can't lift any of the shells into the breech

5 in shells (about 70lbs) can be handled by human loaders. As was the case in WWI, WWII. And yet all American Crusiers (i.e Aegis Crusiers) and DGG destoyers use autoloading systems such as the MK45 5".

Again your bringing a design flaw within the Stryker, the Leclerc tank had a similar problem when it was first put into production. Reliability has been a common problem on autoloaders, but it can be corrected like it was on the Leclerc. I understand your concerns about autoloading, I just don't think its a unsurmountable problem. France, Russia, China and others have been using them for years.
 
mmarsh said:
Cadet Seaman

We use autoloaders on Naval ships because a human being can't lift any of the shells into the breech

5 in shells (about 70lbs) can be handled by human loaders. As was the case in WWI, WWII. And yet all American Crusiers (i.e Aegis Crusiers) and DGG destoyers use autoloading systems such as the MK45 5".

Again your bringing a design flaw within the Stryker, the Leclerc tank had a similar problem when it was first put into production. Reliability has been a common problem on autoloaders, but it can be corrected like it was on the Leclerc. I understand your concerns about autoloading, I just don't think its a unsurmountable problem. France, Russia, China and others have been using them for years.
Click to expand...

Ya and how many Russian gunners have lost arms due to auto loaders?

Ok, lets say the US deidce to us auto-loaders on the M1A1/A2.

-----------------------------------------------------

Reconfiguration of all M1's: $500,000 each (5,000 in U.S. arsenal, not including USMC)

Money spent annually fixing broken and destroyed auto-loaders:$2.3million (Not including USMC)

Reconfigeration of TRADOC (not including USMC) training material:$4.3million

Retraining Loaders in other fields: $500,000 each (including all materials) (Not including USMC)

Reconfigeration of shell casing: $7.6million (shells are made of aluminium, even the slightest dent can cause a leak of propellant, which in turn can cause a fire.)

Destruction of older shells: $5.1million

Reconfieration of M256 120mm's breech: $4.2million (Was done once, because of nicks and dents puncturing the round when used during training)

Also adding on the loss of about 20 rounds in stowage, loss of the CITV, spare M240 Coax ammo, and parts to the NBC system.

Added altogether: Ball park of 5,000,000,000 and 3,000,000,000 (not exact)
 
mmarsh said:
5 in shells (about 70lbs) can be handled by human loaders. As was the case in WWI, WWII. And yet all American Crusiers (i.e Aegis Crusiers) and DGG destoyers use autoloading systems such as the MK45 5".
Click to expand...

Comparing a 5in to a Tank is apples to oranges.

Tank shells are only 40lbs on average and they're moving a lot smaller of a distance.

As you know, ship shells have to be stored in magazines deep int he belly of a ship that are protected from bomb and torpedo attack. So you have to send a shell much much much much further.
 
Ya and how many Russian gunners have lost arms due to auto loaders?

I assume you are referring to the T-72? Quite a few, but that the a trend at the time. The Soviet Union didnt exactly put crew safety as a priority on anything from tanks to submarines to rockets. I believe your comment about the auto-loader trying to load the gunner was particularily on point. But the T-72 was a 30 year old tank, I havent heard of the issue repeating itself on the T-95. Even the older T-64 was fairly reliable. Before I moved to Europe, I had a customer He a russian emigre but he had served as Tank Commander on a T-72 before the fall of the Soviet Union. He told me all sorts of horror stories about the T-72, he much preferred
the T-64.

Obviously it makes no sense to re-equip the M1 with auto loaders. The tank was designed with a human loader from head to toe. To try and equip it with one would akin to gluing on some wings and attaching a propeller and seeing if it would fly. I am refering to future designs, far future, as the Army doesnt seem willing yet to change its position. On the other hand, the now defunct Crusader programme used a autoloader so who knows?
 
Last edited:
As far as designing and testing an autoloader that will be as efficient, reliable, safe, intuitive, and space saving as a crewman, you won't see one on an American tank for many years. The reality of lack space to add a high tech system with all the sensors, motors, tracks, computer integration software, and more that doesn't immediately come to mind is hard to explain unless you've built and worked on some of the "blibbits" for the military that I have. Right now, I am still working on 1st generation CITVs for GDLS M1A2s because the cost of replacing them with Block 1 CITVs with Horizontal Technology Integration and better video is too expensive to phase in even though the Block 1 has been used since 2000. It takes less space and has better video but all the interior wiring harnesses for Gen1 has to be stripped and the new system installed. The Pentagon is in constant infighting when it comes to system integration because of time and expense. Plus, the old system works well but the electronic parts are becoming obsolete and are having to be scavenged from scrap circuit boards.
 
mmarsh said:
Ya and how many Russian gunners have lost arms due to auto loaders?

I assume you are referring to the T-72? Quite a few, but that the a trend at the time. The Soviet Union didnt exactly put crew safety as a priority on anything from tanks to submarines to rockets. I believe your comment about the auto-loader trying to load the gunner was particularily on point. But the T-72 was a 30 year old tank, I havent heard of the issue repeating itself on the T-95. Even the older T-64 was fairly reliable. Before I moved to Europe, I had a customer He a russian emigre but he had served as Tank Commander on a T-72 before the fall of the Soviet Union. He told me all sorts of horror stories about the T-72, he much preferred
the T-64.

Obviously it makes no sense to re-equip the M1 with auto loaders. The tank was designed with a human loader from head to toe. To try and equip it with one would akin to gluing on some wings and attaching a propeller and seeing if it would fly. I am refering to future designs, far future, as the Army doesnt seem willing yet to change its position. On the other hand, the now defunct Crusader programme used a autoloader so who knows?
Click to expand...


I can't see the U.S. Army using auto-loaders anytime in the near future. Also your comparing a totally different classes. The Crusader or Crusader XM2001 is a Self-Propelled Howitzer, it utilizes different ammo, parts, and has more space. Also it serve's a different purpose, it sit miles behind the front lines giving arty support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top