The new Japanese tank the TK-X

The M1's have never faced any worthy advisairy in tank vs tank combat. So that is a no go.

The biggest advantage imho for a auto loader is 1 less crew member and fatigue being less important. Both critical in any conflict. The M1 may be able to fire and reload just as fast initially but is that still the case in say a lengthy firefight? I doubt that.

Actually they have - and the results scared the **** out of the armoured cav.

On the Thunder run to bagdhad airport they encountered a small group of T-72`s unlike the `lions` they had been popping all week - the lead M1A1 engaged the lead T-72 at close range and fired

what happened next was the scare the tankers


the round bounced.


the vaunted silver bullet which had been popping tanks for weeks bounced at close range

why? these T-72`s were not Iraqi home built , but came from Hungary and had the full on ERA kits and other defences.

reply to post by FredT

You realize that the RPG-7V2 has a tandem warhead right? And a classic RPG-7 does not have the ability to penatrate the armour on a modern main battle tank.

7V2 indeed does have a tandem warhead, thus it’s clearly visible on the battlefield. In fact, its configuration is so unmistakably different from the mono warhead of the classic 7, that its use would have been confirmed a long time ago during this FIVE year war, yet to this day there has been not a single proof-positive case of its use.

For your information, RPG-7 IS capable of penetrating armor of modern MBTs that are not equipped with slats or active (dynamic) ERA. It all depends on where it impacts, and which MBT is the target.

Here are some other discussion on the supposed use of 7V2s in Iraq, and all boils down to the same thing;


www.shrapnelcommunity.com...

www.worldaffairsboard.com...

Yeah maybe knock of a tread but not defeat the main armor eh? Comeon man do a little research. Far more likely that the RPG-29 was used as the Soviets are just an eager to test thier new weapons as anybody and the following:

“Far more likely”, no, because not a single RPG 7V/29 has been recovered, yet the tanks are continue to suffer confirmed attacks from the basic RPG-7s.

If you have done your research, please share it with us. I for one could not find any indications of dual-warhead RPGs being used in Iraq, again, if you have something tangible, I would like to see it.

So I realize you want to see an film of an insurgent firing the sucker, but you will have to live with the above. But really does it matter

A film is not entirely necessary, an examination of the penetration point of ANY armored unit that has been hit, which proves the use of a dual-warhead.

reply to post by FredT

Yes the Soviet tanks with thier autoloaders faired so well against the M1's Where exactly do you get your information And the leClerc? Based on what exactly? its stellar combat record? Im mean I do realize that it was the bad boy of peacekeeping in Kosovo, but really now I will say that you are amusing in your own sort of way.

Why are you laughing? FredT, personally I’m getting really tired of how you as moderator choose to disregard and laugh at information other ATS members bring to the board. It’s simply disrespectful and juvenile.

We all try to contribute to this board, and personally I don’t appreciate when my time is being demeaned, and especially by a moderator.

I have that information, you don’t, and if you care to know more, all you have to do is simply ask, but like a interested adult, and not a disrespectful teenager.

Hmm the US seems to have NO issue with the practice and could have added an autoloader if there was ANY advantage to the practice but chose NOT to. The rate of fire is almost the same.

Currently there are only 3 modern MBTs that do NOT have autoloaders, they are Abrams, Leo and Chally.

Everybody else use autoloaders.

Do you have any data pertaining to the use of manual verses auto loading systems?

tomcat ha and Harlequin are both correct.

Further more, MBTs with autoloaders are used as mobile front line fire support platforms much as self propelled artillery.

The best modern example of that are the Chechen campaigns, during which Russian Federal troops used their Ts both as assult guns and put up a sustained direct fire on the city bu forming what they call a “carousel”.

A pair of tanks line up and continuously fire until the magazine is empty, and then drive back to rearming point while their place is immediately taken by tanks that was just reloaded and had its barrel cooled.

In a remote fire support role, GPS enabled units patrolled the area while being on call for fire support, and had an air-bursting shell pre-loaded.

When troops request fire support, they automatically transmit their GPS location, and when combined with the Ts location a fire solution is automatically computed. From that point tank commander asks how high the troops want the shells to air-burst, and when that’s established each shell is auto programmed and fired away, all while having the ability of staying mobile and even shooting on the move in order to minimize its own exposure to enemy fire.

Such an approach provides IMMIDIATE fire support, and allows units to operate with in urban environment.

155mm MSTA mobile artillery systems were always positioned well outside of active combat areas and were used for much heavier shelling.

Manually loading MBTs are simply incapable of being used in such a role.

reply to post by FredT

Where exactly do you get your information

Do you really want to know or was it just a snipe?

u dont need a 120mm to open up a MBT, the A10 with its 30mm avenger has proved that, so how would a MBT armed with a avenger perform in the field? u would have no problems reloading, could use burst fire for single targets and very the number of rounds used depending on the type of target, let the structure demolition be done by the artillary or MLRS's at the back of the line

reply to post by talon


I found this little snippet of information regarding the duties of the M1A2 Loader:

"The loader loads the main gun and the coaxial machine gun ready box; he aims and fires the loader's machine gun. He stows and cares for ammunition and is responsible to the commander for the maintenance of communications equipment. Before engagement actions are initiated, the loader searches for targets and acts as air or antitank guided missile (ATGM) guard. He also assists the commander as needed in directing the driver so the tank maintains its position in formation.

He assists other crew members as necessary. Because the loader is ideally positioned both to observe around the tank and to monitor the tank's digital displays, platoon leaders and commanders should give strong consideration to assigning their second most experienced crewman as the loader. Loading of the coaxial machine gun, as well as the stowage and care of ammunition, becomes the duty of the gunner. The absence of a loader also means the commander assumes a greater degree of responsibility for air and ATGM watch".

So I guess my question would be: In MBTs equipped with auto-loaders, how are these functions accomplished?

Also, do the crews of tanks with auto-loader have to do 33% more preventive maintenance and repair, because they are short an additional crew member? And if one crew member is incapacitated, does the MBT with the autoloader become ineffectual? What is the reliability of an autoloader (mechanical device) versus a human (biological device)?

reply to post by talon

u dont need a 120mm to open up a MBT, the A10 with its 30mm avenger has proved that, so how would a MBT armed with a avenger perform in the field?

It’s called BMPT. Run a search on ATS, and take a look at this video;



Currently it’s the most heavily armored tracked vehicle in existence.

With out the weight of the turret the total weight remains the same, because extra armor was fitted all around.

Sweet, so what we need is US/UK variant, with an Avenger! lol and maybe a few hellfires for them hard to reach places.

however i always asumed the BMPT was an air defence tank?

As a resident tanker, I feel the need to give my two cents.

I currently own 5 M1A1AIMS Abrams Main Battle Tanks. The Army inventory is currently consolidating itself to two versions of the Abrams: M1A1AIMS, an improved M1A1, and the M1A2SEP V2, the most advanced tank in the US Army. The idea is to streamline logistics (2 rather than 5+ versions of the tank) and ensure the entire inventory is LandWarNet compatable.

The Army is also in progress of developing a nextgen platform (not the Stryker MGS), a medium tank with an autoloader. My current understanding is that it will incorporate a 2 man crew with redundant controls and remote operation capability. Platoons will be composed of 3 manned tanks and one slave tank that will fight autonomiously and be able to be controlled remotely from within the platoon. I don't know exactly how this will work or if its just a pipe dream.

As far as the current discussion goes, as a "dinosaur" tanker (not a SEP) I am perfectly comfortable in my current platform.

I don't want an autoloader. My loader can hump rounds at about 1 every 3 to 7 seconds, depending of fatigue. Yeah, he is fallible, but without him who would work jams on the coax? 11,000 rounds puts a lot of stress on the feeder, and he can hand-feed rounds if necessary- something that would be impossible with an autoloader because no crew member could step behind the breech. He also works the radios and contributes to tank maintenence, which is considerable. As a leader I frequently have to be away from my tank to recieve and write orders; without him keeping the tank running would be next to impossible. Aside from that, he works an additional machine gun and rifle from his position, and can cover a considerable amount of dead space that I can't see from my hatch and can command the tank when I'm busy on the radio or satellite comms.

As for current threats, it is extremely hard to get a catostrophic kill on an Abrams. RPG7s are only dangerous in that they can disable the engine with a rear shot to the exhaust. RPG29s may penetrate the driver's compartment, depending on the angle of trajectory, but not the turret. There are lucky shots, but if you look at the bulk of the statistics we are very well protected. EFPs are dangerous but rare and require precise aiming. The vunerable areas of the tank are hard to hit.

The weakest part of the tank in my opinion is the main gun, for the current fight. We just can't use it. You can't have a main gun round going through 27 blocks of civilian buildings after you kill whatever you were aiming at. We've adapted by developing the canister round and mounting a .50 cal rifle in the breech to use as a point fire weapon.

A daily motto of the US tanker is "fight your tank." Accept your limitations and devise a way to be more lethal and increase survivability. Soldiers will always find a way to improvise, adapt, and overcome whatever is presented them. The Abrams may be almost thirty years old, but it is still a viable and lethal combat platform. I trust it with my life, every day.

It has always been very hard to get a cathastrophic kill on a tank. Well at least if the tanks are modern and all. If you look at WW2 most tanks "lost" just got abandoned because they couldnt move anymore.

reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Penetrations with RPG's have been from the side and back only. No front penetrations. Mediums such as the Abrams, etc still have use, but the US military has been aware of the mobility, deployability and logisitics of heavy armor, hence, the development of the Stryker series vehicles which are deployable anywhere in the world within 96 hours. It was thought that MBT's wouldnt be useful in Vietnam, but they performed well providing protection and firepower that no in country vehicle could. Absolute opinions are close minded and often reflect general ignorance about topics.

The TK-X is a 44 ton tank. Cannon is a Japanese version of the 120mm smoothbore cannon. The video emphasizes it's usage of integrated digital communications, high resolution camera, and modular composite armor as some of it's benefits in urban combat conditions (not likely the TK-X or Type 10 will be patrolling the streets of Tokyo however). The video also goes on to point out that the reduction in weight (from 50 tons to 44 tons) was improve transportability of the tank, as well as improve maneuverability as it's smaller sized than the current T-90. Finally the video talks about RPG damage (not necessarily RPG-7) done to US tanks in Iraq, but there's no mention of IED's. My Japanese is OK, and so I think the translation is accurate. I hope this helps.

It's a nice looking vehicle no doubt.
But...

we will have to wait and see until it's battle tested, everything looks great while all new and shiny

The whole point with armor on tanks is not to protect the tank.

Its to protect the crew.

Yes US M1 tanks get hit they get knocked out.

But how many tank crew have we lost.(KIA)

Very few compared to many other tanks.

Tanks can be repaired, they can be replaced, but the crew can not and you judge a tank by how well it protects its crew from being killed.

Every tanker i know will tell you i am right.
even my father agrees and he was 2nd armored div in WW2 and he fought across Africa. Sicily and across France

Many of the photo links on this thread show tanks knocked out by IEDs/mines under the tanks.

How can i tell this.
because of the way the tracks/wheels are damaged or blown off completely and in a outward direction.

The iraqis may have tried to finish them off with RPGs but they had to first stop them with IEDs/mines.

but the big point is in most cases they still did there job, they protected there crews.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by ANNED]

What happens if your autoloader malfunctions?


France,German,Japan,Russia do not have the logistics too move anything anywhere fast. Look at the BIG picture as any Armed Service does each soldiers/vehicle/aircraft has it place.

Sure nobody will say the M1 is top dog but the leopard,chally,leclerc are not number 1.NOTHING is KING, anything could happen in combat.

Logistics is the best and greatest multiplier and the USA is king in logistics.France couldn't even move 70 troops to Haiti the US moved them.

What happens in a future conflict Between the Euros and the Americans when the Americans put 3x as many troops and tanks/aircraft on the ground?