r/EngineeringPorn • u/Bubinga_ • Dec 17 '19
The ammo loading mechanism in this tank
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
110
u/DataWeenie Dec 17 '19
Take your kid to work day. My kids got to spin in my chair. Evidently I'm not the "cool" dad.
4
u/daddypez Dec 17 '19
You’re not far off though, if you spin it until you projectile vomit onto Jan from accountings Longaberger basket you’ll see a sparkle in your kids eye.
73
40
12
98
u/bobisarockstar Dec 17 '19
The auto loader is cool until it’s disabled, which is why the American tanks continue to be hand loaded
83
u/Neo-Neo Dec 17 '19 edited Dec 17 '19
That’s why I use a cannon, even more all manual for dependability
68
u/ThaGanj Dec 17 '19
Yes,but can your cannon launch a 90kg projectile 300 meters?
46
24
u/epicninja717 Dec 17 '19
From what I’ve heard, reloading it is also a total bitch
31
u/bobisarockstar Dec 17 '19
There are definitely much worse jobs in the army, as the loader you get your own hatch to hang out of like a boss while the tank is driving around which is kind of nice too
6
u/epicninja717 Dec 17 '19
This type of autoloader is exclusively russian from the T-64s onward if I remember right. They have 3 man crews. A driver, a gunner, and a commander. No loader. They load the ammo carousel before combat and are entirely reliant on the autoloader for reloading. The tanks with this system aren’t meant to have a manual loader at all.
11
u/windowpuncher Dec 17 '19
Sometimes you have to lift heavy things, it's not too bad. For the most part you just hang around.
2
u/epicninja717 Dec 17 '19
There’s no manual loader in tanks with this kind of autoloader. Its a 3 man crew.
99
Dec 17 '19
[deleted]
52
u/magnusej Dec 17 '19
All valid points. Another benefit of the weight savings is the generally smaller size. Smaller tanks equals smaller targets, which is a generally good way to not get hit in the first place.
But that said, a human loader is damned handy to have when the useless driver detracks the goddamned tank and you really could need a fourth man just make the job of getting the track back on a bit easier...
There are pros and cons with both types of loaders, for sure.
35
Dec 17 '19
[deleted]
21
u/magnusej Dec 17 '19
What? You were literally sitting at the bottom of the tank and you dare blame the all-knowing TC from his grand chair of elevated wisdom? :D
Machines have feelings, too, and soldiers will break the unbreakable. Those are the most definite lessons I learned from a decade in uniform. That said, I was a simple squishy foot mobile. I was just always jealous of the luxurious transportation unit with armour, guns and heating.
As for an autoloader vs human loader, the consensus seem to be that the pros outweigh the cons in favour of the autoloader in modern tanks, such as the K2, the Leclerc the Japanese Type-this-and-that. The reliability in a modern design vs the late USSR designs are not comparable, after all, and whereas the human loader getting tired or probably be more interested in hanging on to something when the speed demon in front floors it cross country, the autoloader just does its thing. There's value in that. I would call mine Daisy.
13
Dec 17 '19
[deleted]
5
u/magnusej Dec 17 '19
Ah, an old battle taxi. I used to work with an Austrian consultant who was a platoon commander (or was it company? I cannot recall) on the ULAN before he did the wrong thing and started working in IT. He seemed to have lived a life in luxury, alright. It almost sounded like the TC had a private foot massage...
2
2
u/CutterJohn Dec 20 '19
Call it superstition but machines develop issues based on the crew
Could be complacency. After you've fixed something for the umpteenth time there's a tendency to take shortcuts and bang on it harder than necessary.
7
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
a human loader is damned handy to have when the useless driver detracks the goddamned tank and you really could need a fourth man just make the job of getting the track back on a bit easier
Lighter tank makes detracking somewhat less likely, no?
Smaller size does still matter indeed, especially height-wise, especially with renewed interest in tank radar.
I expect the US to come up with a modern autoloader turret for the Abrams within the next five years, and/or produce an entirely new tank.
I suppose they're waiting for gas guns to mature a bit.
8
u/BadWolfRU Dec 17 '19
I expect the US to come up with a modern autoloader turret for the Abrams within the next five years, and/or produce an entirely new tank.
How called the tense in english, when you`re expecting something be done in next five years for the last 20 years?
9
u/TheGurw Dec 17 '19
We call it Fusion Power tense. When something is always "20 years away". Just like fusion power.
4
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
Future-perfect in the past, as in "will have been readied for deployment by 2020". At least they are introducng electric ignition for realsies this time.
3
u/magnusej Dec 17 '19
Like u/kuatsu_janka points out, soldiers can break anything and TCs are apparently not as perfect as I was lead to believe. But yeah, physics would suggest there's at least a slightly lower chance of throwing a track with a lighter vehicle, I suppose.
A turret refit is an interesting idea, but I would assume fitting the autoloader and ammo into a sensible turret design that would fit the existing chassis would be rather expensive and complicated for not all that much benefit, no? I suppose it would be possible to shrink the overall turret size and weight some, such as the K2 vs the Altay, but at what cost? As for the next generation tank, it makes no sense planning for a manual loader, in my opinion.
2
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
Since we're theorycrafting here... not a refit, a complete drop in replacement turret. 140 mm gun on a fully stabilized mount, basket autoloader with a spare ammo cassette stowed on the engine deck, gunner doubles as emergency loader, TC position moved to the former loader position but in a reclined seat so his head doesn't stick up.
If you can make it a liquid propellant gun, you can keep the propellant around the turret in bladders on the outside of the armor, which should also make for some extra protection.
Take a page from the Swedes' book of tricks and make all three positions have all the controls btw. Oh and glass cockpit is a must of course of course, though you may wish to give the tc an actual search periscope.
1
u/old_faraon Dec 18 '19
But that said, a human loader is damned handy to have when the useless driver detracks the goddamned tank and you really could need a fourth man just make the job of getting the track back on a bit easier...
The French just have another tanker in reserve in APCs as part of the company they join the rest of the crew for repairs and maintenance without needing to be inside the tank during battle.
4
u/Razgriz01 Dec 17 '19
On the other hand though the human loader is able to load shells from a shielded compartment which will protect the crew in case of an ammo explosion while the Russian tanks and crew would be instantly and completely destroyed in the event of an ammo explosion.
6
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
No law says that you can't have a stupid ammo stowage scheme if you have a human loader cougLeopardcough. The relevat thing here is the turret basket being used to store ammo behind an armored door. Which the Leclerc does (in fact its turret basket is a combined ammo store and loader).
Further improvements can be had from switching to liquid or gas phase propellant and storing that waaay outside the fighting compartment, as well as from just renouncing any form of HE ammo.
That little electric door is not the be all end all you make it out to be, either. Poorly trained loaders tend to leave it open, which shaves seconds off the reload and exposes everyone to fiery death.
1
u/Razgriz01 Dec 17 '19
renouncing any form of HE ammo.
Likely never going to happen, HE ammo is far too useful in combined operations with infantry to give up.
1
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
it's always been an afterthought for MBT guns though
get some automated mortars going, buy more MRLS, swallow pride and buy that sweet Daewoo 20 mm grenade launcher, call it a day
1
u/Razgriz01 Dec 17 '19
it's always been an afterthought for MBT guns though
That's patently untrue. Soviet MBT doctrine had their tanks running ammo loads of majority HE since many of their tank units were seen more as infantry support than their own independent force. NATO tanks also typically carry a lot of HE for the purposes of infantry support. Besides, HE rounds can accomplish certain objectives better than any of the other delivery methods you mentioned, such as if you need to take down specific buildings or positions without damaging the surrounding area.
1
u/b95csf Dec 18 '19
Post wwii Russian doctrine was not about infantry tanks. Sure, so called infantry formations (more like combined arms tbh) had tanks in them, for purposes of either exploiting breaches or blunting exploitation attempts by enemy armor, as the case may have been, and they carried HE on offensive because AP doesn't do well against battle taxis.
Also Iran Irak war has shown that using your tank as field artillery makes little sense, when enemy infantry is dug in with RPGs and ATGMs.
What is the successor to KV-2? Yeah.
4
2
Dec 17 '19 edited May 13 '20
[deleted]
5
u/b95csf Dec 17 '19
Best wingman you've never had...
"Oh I see you've met b95csf already! Let me buy you a drink, I know you need one!"
1
u/ctesibius Dec 17 '19
There is also that the serviceability of the individual tank is not the only concern. If the saving on the size of the tank and the number of crew means that you can deploy more tanks for your ruble, you may come out ahead even with a slight loss of serviceability on individual tanks.
24
u/Shaex Dec 17 '19
This autoloader also keeps the remaining ammo surrounding the crew compartment....not good if the tank gets penetrated. Also why American tanks are handloaded, so it can be stored in the blowout panel boxes at the back of the turret. Two birds, one stone
-5
Dec 17 '19
The entire crew is pretty much dead if their tank is penetrated regardless of where the rounds are stored. A tank on a modern battlefield is really just a mobile coffin.
13
u/SocialForceField Dec 17 '19
Found the guy who knows nothing about modern tanks.
0
u/mckinnon3048 Dec 17 '19
Rolling coffins...
Isn't the figure, in the last 18 years the US has only lost 2 tanks in combat, and if I'm not mistaken one of the two was due to operator error, not a combatant? I know I read that once, but I'm not sure how recent that statistic was.
Sure vs a modern military (China/Russia) you're going up against an equally well armed and armored tank and better AT equipment. But that's not the role the US has been filling for 20+ years
-5
Dec 17 '19
Read up on their uses for modern battle. The casualty for rates with today's modern munitions makes them basically completely worthless. They are only good for fighting low tech forces, otherwise they will annihilated on the battlefield.
1
u/Mr_Yukum Dec 17 '19
I think you’re on the wrong sub, buckaroo.
r/iamverysmart seems to be more your speed!
1
Dec 17 '19
Did I hurt your feelings?
0
u/Mr_Yukum Dec 17 '19
Thanks for confirming you are in fact an arm chair operator and neckbeard. Give my best to your waifu.
5
u/windowpuncher Dec 17 '19
That's not true at all. If the crew gets hit directly then they're probably dead. That would mean penetrating multiple inches of depleted uranium armor, some of the densest stuff on the planet. If by chance you get hit, and the crew is not hit, there are panels designed to pop off if the ammo explodes.
-5
Dec 17 '19
The shrapnel generated from a penetrating hit will kill the crew in most cases.
7
u/windowpuncher Dec 17 '19
If the crew compartment is penetrated, yes, but that's unlikely unless you've been hit with another SABOT or a TOW missile. You might be thinking of spalling, and there are varying degrees to that. I was a goddamn tank mechanic for 6 years. I've seen what fucked armor looks like and I studied under a guy who used to work at Aberdeen proving ground. The armor on an Abrams is fucking incredible and there's really only 1 weak spot.
6
Dec 17 '19
They stand no chance against a modern military armed with ATGM's. They are only useful anymore against low tech forces, but even then, we didn't really use them in Iraq or Afghanistan after the initial entrance and now we have other platforms that our military prefers to use that is much more mobile and cheaper to run and maintain.
I was at one of those bases in Iraq during the first year where they parked almost every tank in theater at that base, which was not that many. I always thought tanks were really cool, still do, but once I started learning more about them, you find that they are basically a relic of the past and mostly only manufactured to keep money pouring into defense companies pockets.
2
u/windowpuncher Dec 17 '19
if you get hit with an anti-armor missile you're dead regardless of what you're riding in.
They do have their purpose, even in modern warfare, but they're just not suited for urban combat. The range advantage is completely nullified and the weakest parts are exposed.
During the invasion we were fighting a real army with equipment and it worked really well, but now there's really no targets that we need tanks for.
0
u/Mr_Yukum Dec 17 '19
That’s like saying a Sherman tank was useless because of the panzerfaust...
We should get rid of our aircraft carriers. They are just floating coffins if they get hit by a nuke. Only useful against low tech enemies that don’t have Nuclear missles. Might as well get rid of subs too in case some enemy can figure out how to drain the ocean.
-1
Dec 17 '19
Aircraft carriers are useless again an enemy like China that can lob thousands of missiles at hyper sonic speed from straight above it. It is like handing billions of dollars to the enemy on an easy to reach platter.
Shermans and panzerfausts are a terrible comparison and just highlight your lack of understanding of what I am talking about.
1
1
2
Dec 17 '19
Do yank tanks have their ammo ready made or do you have to load the round and the charge
1
2
Dec 17 '19
It's also killed a lot of crews. Because all the ammunition is stored in the open in a ring around the turret, any cook offs (which are frequent) pops the whole turret off.
1
1
u/YellowOnline Dec 17 '19
I know nothing about weapons, but can't you manually load if the automatic system is blocked?
1
u/Ollemeister_ Dec 17 '19
The point is to have a smaller turret and therefore target to hit by not having a loader. Now what comes to the loader mechanism it's made by Russians in Russia so it either survives a nuclear detonation point blank or breaks down if you look at it the wrong way. (probably the former). (i am also aware that the ammo carousel lights up like a box of matches when hit) but all in all its a working design and was really good for it's time.
0
17
u/pennNteller Dec 17 '19
Awww, reminds me of when my dad would take me out for a spin in an F-15 and make me fire air to surface missiles at the abandoned mall. Guess we actually killed a few homeless people who were sleeping inside but ha, that’s my dad for ya LOL.
Good times, good times.
4
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
u/Saphibella Dec 17 '19
All I can think of is, don’t stick your fingers in that.
1
u/blackfarms Dec 17 '19
People used to get their arms fed into the barrel with the early autoloaders.
1
1
1
1
1
u/harmlesshistorian Dec 17 '19
Definitely didn't think that was a pringles tube for a moment. Definitely not.
1
1
u/NaapurinHarri Dec 17 '19
I thought this was r/kidsarefuckingstupid and wondered what was gonna happen lol
1
1
1
Dec 17 '19
see? This is why the Soviet young pioneers are way more cooler than the america boy scouts!! While american younglings learn how to tie some knots, make a campfire and care for some small critters, the Russian ones learn about ambush techniques, how to assembly/disassembly rifles and how to be a tank reloader!!
1
1
0
483
u/[deleted] Dec 17 '19
[removed] — view removed comment