|
What is this, the 5th time?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
But where are they going to park their targets now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:What is this, the 5th time? I have a feeling it's going to stick better this time Get wrecked Putin
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Sadly the gun would not work in the t72/t80 chassis. There are 120mm Rheinmetall armed (or armed with guns that fire compatible shells like the French GIAT CN120) tanks that have autoloaders like the Japanese Type 90, French Leclerc, and South Korean K2. The autoloader is just placed in the turret bustle instead of the hull. That also allows for the addition of blowout panels to minimize the chance of exploding ammo catapulting the turret into space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:I have a feeling it's going to stick better this time
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:What is this, the 5th time? Russia's had control of it since the early days of the war (despite the famously failed VDV assault).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
How does the size of the T-84 turret ring compare to that of the M1 (and similar)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Doccers posted:The autoloader is slower, more prone to failure, and results in drastically lower crew survivability than having a loader does. I'm not a tank expert, but this always surprises me. Loading ammo into a gun seems like something that should be easy to automate and provide improved performance over a human.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:There are 120mm Rheinmetall armed (or armed with guns that fire compatible shells like the French GIAT CN120) tanks that have autoloaders like the Japanese Type 90, French Leclerc, and South Korean K2. The autoloader is just placed in the turret bustle instead of the hull. I learned something today! Neat!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Relatively good news! https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1509557101248626692?t=EWZ0u0keu85DryRG2yyvjQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I'm not a tank expert, but this always surprises me. Loading ammo into a gun seems like something that should be easy to automate and provide improved performance over a human. Its pretty fast, but its not much faster than a human loader.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I'm not a tank expert, but this always surprises me. Loading ammo into a gun seems like something that should be easy to automate and provide improved performance over a human. I recall watching a documentary that stated the study of ergonomics is what reversed that - by optimizing the ammo storage and location of the loader/gun, you can just reach in, pull the round out, flop it over and ram it home in one fluid motion now. They had footage of a loader doing it in an m1 and I was suitably impressed, ill try and find that when I get home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Doccers posted:Sadly the gun would not work in the t72/t80 chassis. Probably different gun, but there seem to be a T84-120 that's designed for NATO stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its pretty fast, but its not much faster than a human loader. A well trained M1 loader works faster than an autoloader. Autoloaders in Soviet doctrine are strictly a function of fielding more tanks and paying for 1 less tank crewman on each one. Also if you want to switch from APFSDS-DU rounds to HEAT for a softer target a trained human can do this easier and better than an autoloader which depending on the tank may not even be able to switch ammo without firing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Doccers posted:They would be better off, imho, purchasing leopards/challengers/m1 export variants, until they can design their own, rather than stick with the t-series. The autoloader is slower, more prone to failure, and results in drastically lower crew survivability than having a loader does. That is my guess of what they will do in the short term until they can get their own design. They will likely move away from the Warsaw Pact autoloader designs going forward since we have seen the massive downsides of that in this conflict. The Ukrainians have some pretty savvy defense engineers so if they get an influx of money you could see some pretty impressive stuff out of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I recall watching a documentary that stated the study of ergonomics is what reversed that - by optimizing the ammo storage and location of the loader/gun, you can just reach in, pull the round out, flop it over and ram it home in one fluid motion now. They had footage of a loader doing it in an m1 and I was suitably impressed, ill try and find that when I get home. This doesn't surprise me at all. Humans are really good at optimizing things to perform a task as quickly and with the least physical effort possible. If a loading machine breaks it may put the unit out of commission for some time as it will need parts and time for repair. If a human loader breaks inside the tank the tank probably isn't functioning any more anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:A well trained M1 loader works faster than an autoloader. Autoloaders in Soviet doctrine are strictly a function of fielding more tanks and paying for 1 less tank crewman on each one. It also means you can make the tank lighter (allowing it to use more bridges) and lower to the ground (reducing the target profile).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I'm not a tank expert, but this always surprises me. Loading ammo into a gun seems like something that should be easy to automate and provide improved performance over a human. The key is doing it in a mechanically reliable and safe way. If you're not worries about that you can get some absurdly fast results. The US played around with autoloaders a lot in the 50s in various prototype tanks that didn't go anywhere (T57 heavy tank, T69 medium etc) using oscillating turrets and even with the tech at the time they were able to put together a heavy tank that fired 120mm shells at a rate of 30 rounds a minute. But was a super complicated mechanism and just couldn't do so reliably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:This doesn't surprise me at all. Humans are really good at optimizing things to perform a task as quickly and with the least physical effort possible. If a loading machine breaks it may put the unit out of commission for some time as it will need parts and time for repair. If a human loader breaks inside the tank the tank probably isn't functioning any more anyway. If a human loader starts malfunctioning, you can just give it a pep talk and more caffeine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:It also means you can make the tank lighter (allowing it to use more bridges) and lower to the ground (reducing the target profile). Aren't the M1s much larger and heavier than Soviet tanks anyway? I suppose it could've been even fatter with an autoloader...
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Who's ready for a good old fashioned belt fed automatic tank gun that spits out shells into the air?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Morrow posted:I'm not a tank expert, but this always surprises me. Loading ammo into a gun seems like something that should be easy to automate and provide improved performance over a human. Delicate ammo/propellents + has to work in a war environment around 18yr olds + severe space limitations means that humans can actually compete quite well with autoloaders. As was pointed out autoloaders are mostly seen as a economic win since it lets you eliminate 1 person from the tank crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:A well trained M1 loader works faster than an autoloader. Autoloaders in Soviet doctrine are strictly a function of fielding more tanks and paying for 1 less tank crewman on each one. Also if you want to switch from APFSDS-DU rounds to HEAT for a softer target a trained human can do this easier and better than an autoloader which depending on the tank may not even be able to switch ammo without firing. Yes, but that's also because the M1 uses single piece ammo. If the M1 used two piece ammo, the loading speeds would likely be comparable. That's the issue in doing a 1:1 comparison loading speed wise. Completely different ammo systems. You can rapidly load a cannon if the entire round is one piece. Better comparison: The Strv 103 had single piece ammo and an autoloader, it has a 1.5 second reload speed. That was a 105mm cannon. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Aren't the M1s much larger and heavier than Soviet tanks anyway? I suppose it could've been even fatter with an autoloader... They meant the opposite - the t72/80 were designed with an autoloader so that it would a: use fewer crew, b: be smaller for those reasons, c:be lighter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:This doesn't surprise me at all. Humans are really good at optimizing things to perform a task as quickly and with the least physical effort possible. If a loading machine breaks it may put the unit out of commission for some time as it will need parts and time for repair. If a human loader breaks inside the tank the tank probably isn't functioning any more anyway. There is this YouTube guy called The Chieftain, served in Iraq as a platoon commander, and in one of his QA sessions, he says that human loaders outperform autoloaders for the first few shells while the ammo is located on something called a 'ready rack' or if safety procedures are bypassed like lap loading is done. But if the fighting is sustained, the autoloader wins in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Doccers posted:They meant the opposite - the t72/80 were designed with an autoloader so that it would a: use fewer crew, b: be smaller for those reasons, c:be lighter. Ah yeah you're right, I'm a dumb-dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Who's ready for a good old fashioned belt fed automatic tank gun that spits out shells into the air? The French and germans played with a 6 round tank shell revolver at one point.... Also, the battleship Iowa museum youtube page did a piece on the 8" autoloader of the des moines class heavy cruisers - now that was a piece of engineering. Also goes into some of the challenges involved, but an 8" translates into like, 203mm? Its *massive*
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
MikeC posted:There is this YouTube guy called The Chieftain, served in Iraq as a platoon commander, and in one of his QA sessions, he says that human loaders outperform autoloaders for the first few shells while the ammo is located on something called a 'ready rack' or if safety procedures are bypassed like lap loading is done. But if the fighting is sustained, the autoloader wins in the long run. The question that comes naturally is how long does a modern tank engagement last, and by all accounts I’m familiar with is “shorter” rather than „longer”, unless we’re talking Chechens firing on an empty building in Mariupol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
MikeC posted:There is this YouTube guy called The Chieftain, served in Iraq as a platoon commander, and in one of his QA sessions, he says that human loaders outperform autoloaders for the first few shells while the ammo is located on something called a 'ready rack' or if safety procedures are bypassed like lap loading is done. But if the fighting is sustained, the autoloader wins in the long run. Seems like it ends up a wash then, depending on the situation. Factors like how long the sustained fighting is and how reliable the autoloader is would probably tilt things one direction or the other. In other news Finland continues it's slide towards NATO https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1509507180512350214?s=20&t=NMd-9Sb_KolukLwYgWPBRA Quoted guy is a Finnish parliament member Edit: Old but got brought up again today https://twitter.com/WoodfordinDK/status/1508882180273025028?s=20&t=NMd-9Sb_KolukLwYgWPBRA KitConstantine fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Mar 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
MikeC posted:But if the fighting is sustained, the autoloader wins in the long run. He also mentions that most gun loaders will adjust the ammo around so there is almost always ammo in the ready rack to take advantage of the positioning as much as possible which further muddles the comparison. Over all I think he actually likes the auto loader but acknowledges people can still do the job. I think he'd prefer a tank with a auto loader but would keep the person. He'd just move them to some other job in the tank company to help with servicing the tanks or something. At least I think I remember him saying something along those lines. edit: speaking of autoloader tanks and the Chieftan he did a short vid on a real slick US test tank from the early 80's that used a autoloader: the M1 TTB! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6acdYwLMaI It actually has some features that make it somewhat similar to the T-14 (totally robotic gun enclosed separate from the crew, 3 crew sit side by side in a armored capsule to reduce weight while still improving safety, LOTS of electronics....all sadly trashed or ripped out now, etc). The tank is trashed on the inside but he has some cool old vids of how it worked when new. The loader was documented as cycling through loading 40,000 rounds without a issue of any sort which even today seems impressive. I think the military liked the tank but didn't trust it'd hold up in combat or be practical to service in the field. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1509553524824326150 (That would be the UK Defen(c|s)e Secretary)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
It is entirely possible to make a mechanical auto-loader that is faster than a human at loading tank-sized rounds, for example the 5" (127mm) gun on US ships has an automatic loading system that can hit almost 20 rounds per minute (for sustained fire it takes a six person crew to keep the loader fed). The big problem is such a loader takes up up significantly more space than a human and tanks are really loving cramped on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
MikeC posted:There is this YouTube guy called The Chieftain, served in Iraq as a platoon commander, and in one of his QA sessions, he says that human loaders outperform autoloaders for the first few shells while the ammo is located on something called a 'ready rack' or if safety procedures are bypassed like lap loading is done. But if the fighting is sustained, the autoloader wins in the long run. He also mentioned having a loader had some other advantages people don't really think about when purely comparing tanks based on theoretical statistics. Mainly, just having an extra guy around can be a huge help when it comes to things like maintenance, standing watch, other workload related things, etc... With an autoloader you have to do all that with three dudes instead of four and the workload can increase proportionally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Seems like it ends up a wash then, depending on the situation. Factors like how long the sustained fighting is and how reliable the autoloader is would probably tilt things one direction or the other. Hell yeah. Let's get Sweden in as well. NATO has a real purpose in the 21st century, peace and security for all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1509553524824326150 I want to kiss this man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Seems like it ends up a wash then, depending on the situation. Factors like how long the sustained fighting is and how reliable the autoloader is would probably tilt things one direction or the other. They have been kissing Putins rear end constantly, most Pro Russia party that there is. But they have constantly tried to say that they are not and really hard trying to keep it hidden now. Too bad their actions speak for them, they have been against pretty much every sanction, wanted Schengen with Russia, their presidential candidate said there's nothing anyone can do if Russia wants to invade Finland aka. they are just going to roll over us. There are some really confused party members and voters now, some are jumping into VKK party, that's pretty much nazies and QAnons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Seems like it ends up a wash then, depending on the situation. Factors like how long the sustained fighting is and how reliable the autoloader is would probably tilt things one direction or the other. YLE survey said that the popular support for joining NATO was 60%+ last week across all groups. It would be a political suicide for any party, or sitting cabinet member, to go against NATO in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Doccers posted:I want to kiss this man. Why are they always making these announcements before they actually happen. Every time Ukraine is supposed to get some sort of decisive heavy weapons aid it always gets walked back as a "escalation" as if decimating the Russian tank corps with Javelins and NLAWs wasn't enough of an escalation? They've already inflicted severe casualties on the Russians as a result of western aid, what difference does it make? If they're gonna make these announcements they should do them after the weapons are securely in the hands of the Ukrainian military, any time before that and we will be seeing Kalibr missiles and airstrikes flying into LVIV to blow it all up before it can be used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Seems like it ends up a wash then, depending on the situation. Factors like how long the sustained fighting is and how reliable the autoloader is would probably tilt things one direction or the other. Here's that Chieftain video that was mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x-8NheU1E OddObserver posted:https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1509553524824326150  yep we really need this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Curious what armored vehicles they mean? A variant of the CVR, maybe the Scimitar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 17:52
|
|
