It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revolver-style magazine for Main Guns of M1 Abrams and similar tanks

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Do you know if revolver-style magazine are used in main guns of 50-70 tons tanks like M1 Abrams, they can achieve high rate of fire that can even rivals those that uses autoloaders(which M1 Abrams and other tanks of similar weights didn't use) whilst all that they need is manual loader as they are always more reliable than Autoloaders and this takes lot less space than Autoloaders(M1 Abrams and tanks like that don't use autoloader for this reason).

How it works
it works just like revolver magazines that used on Milkor MGL(rotates automatically everytime when firing) except on bigger scale, each chambers can be loaded, unloaded, and reloaded individually(in case when Ammunition are failed to fires or want to loads more special ammo), Water-cooled(the rest of spaces inside revolver style magazine itself that isn't used as Ammo Chamber are spared for waters that cooling it), and it can rotated to specific chambers that fired if at least one of the chambers in that revolver magazine are loaded with more special ammo, plus the revolver magazine itself are made of Kevlar-lined Steel.
edit on 2/12/2010 by masonicon because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
Do you know if revolver-style magazine are used in main guns of 50-70 tons tanks like M1 Abrams,

No, they are not.

...they can achieve high rate of fire...

No they cannot. See below.

... that can even rivals those that uses autoloaders...

Autoloaders are known to be SLOWER, on average, than manual loaders.

...whilst all that they need is manual loader as they are always more reliable than Autoloaders and this takes lot less space than Autoloaders...

Autoloaders take MUCH less space than human loaders. In fact, that one extra crewman, the space for him to move, the extra armor necessary to protect that larger turret, accounts for a considerably increased weight and size of the tank - where speaking of a 10%-15% weight penalty here. Your idea is actually a combination of the worst aspects of both systems: you have the lacking versatility of an autoloader AND the greatly increased weight of a human loader.

(M1 Abrams and tanks like that don't use autoloader for this reason)
.
Wrong. Most tanks have human loaders for a hundred reasons, the main one being that you have an extra crewman. This is so valuable that armies around the world are willing to endure the aformentioned greatly increased weight just for that one man.


How it works
it works just like revolver magazines that used on Milkor MGL(rotates automatically everytime when firing) except on bigger scale,

And HERE´S your main error. You cant just upscale something and expect it to work likewise, physics dont work that way. I don´t want to get into too much detail here, but lets take the M1 main gun which weighs more than two tons minus the barrel. It is a safe bet that at least half of that weight is used for the actual chamber. Subsequently, a six shot revolver assembly (each slot acting as a separate chamber) would add at least about 5 tons weight. Plus a HEAVY motor for rotation (revolving a six ton revolver assembly takes A LOT of torque, and it can only be done slowly because of the forces involved to accelerate AND brake the cylinder -> hence you actually cannot fire THAT much faster). Plus a greatly increased gun mount to handle the weight. Plus needing more space in the turret. Plus subsequently more armor.

And all that notwithstanding that tanks actually do not need to fire that fast. the weapon has to be relayed and resighted after every shot anyway, and a manual reload takes less than five seconds.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


And then you'd get the gas escaping the "join" between barrel and chamber, one shot would probably kill the crew and then brew all the rest of the ammo up.

Other than these issues great idea though, in a steam punk dimension.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 

How about revolver magazine being rotated with Tank Gun's exhaust like gas operated guns did instead motors(to save weight)?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Theoretically, an autoloader could easily be designed which works faster than a human. Robotic technology can work very fast nowadays.

The problem is the environment this robot would have to work. Tanks in battle can undergo very violent conditions, and a highspeed robot could easily get damaged. There are too many factors that could lead to failure.

Also, even a simple autoloading system could suffer mechanical issues, so you would always have to have a human in there to diagnose, and fix the system.

Well, if you are going to have a human in there anyways, you may as well give them something to do.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


The main problem is actually the layout of the tank itself. The tank gun should ideally be at the top of the turret, so that the tank can best make use of hills and such for cover. The gun cannot be all the way at the top, however, because the gun needs to be able to depress below horizontal in order to engage things very close to it, as well as engaging things level to it while the tank is cresting a hill. A taller turret will facilitate better gun depression, but tanks should also be as low to the ground as possible, so it is a trade off.

To reduce the amount of literal overhead needed for gun depression, tank designers have come up with two very similar solutions. A manually loaded gun will lower the gun to about horizontal so the loader can put a new shell in more easily, then automatically elevate to match the gunner's sights. A gun with an autoloader has the auto-loader at a fixed level, and the tank gun elevates to that level when it needs to be reloaded, so that the next shell can be directly inserted into the gun.

Any auto-loader will have difficulty beating an experienced, fresh human loader. Humans might get tired, but prolonged tank engagements are rare these days. Of course, when the shells get much bigger than ~120mm, auto-loaders are much better than humans. One man simply cannot shift around that much weight as fast as a machine can. For now, humans are at least as fast as the best mechanical loader, and there aren't any immediate plans for anyone to shift beyond 125mm guns.

Another problem is the ammunition storage. The shells for an autoloader can't be held in something like a very scaled up rifle magazine. The current method is very space-efficient, which is important in tanks. They aren't known for being spacious after all.

But anyway, to answer the OP, there are some revolver-like autoloaders in service. The stryker MGS uses one, as do newer Merkavas. I'm not clear on the actual workings of it. If I had to guess, the revolver part is probably just to store ready rounds. You select what round you want and the autoloader pushes the appropriate one into the breech. I highly doubt that the revolver part is actually analogous to the revolving chambers of a revolver handgun, due to aformentioned gas leakage issues and weight issues and such.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by Lonestar24
 

How about revolver magazine being rotated with Tank Gun's exhaust like gas operated guns did instead motors(to save weight)?...


Two problems: Again, since you plan on the cylinder acting as breech and chambers as well, we´re speaking of a weight of several tons as I have crudely outlined before. I GUESSTIMATE siphoning that much gas off of the gun to rotate that cylinder might have a considerable performance impact on the gun itself.

Second, with a gas driven revolver you could only rotate to the next round (or a predetermined one) lets say the next chamber holds a HEAT while suddenly you´re in need of an APFSDS; in that case you would need a revolving motor to rotate to the correct round again. So basically you´d end up with a gas system AND a motor.


Originally posted by mdiinican
...But anyway, to answer the OP, there are some revolver-like autoloaders in service. The stryker MGS uses one, as do newer Merkavas. I'm not clear on the actual workings of it. If I had to guess, the revolver part is probably just to store ready rounds. ...


You are correct, there are several mobile gun platforms that store some or all ammunition in revolving cylinders. None of these however actually fire directly from that cylinder to my knowledge.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by Lonestar24
 

How about revolver magazine being rotated with Tank Gun's exhaust like gas operated guns did instead motors(to save weight)?...


Two problems: Again, since you plan on the cylinder acting as breech and chambers as well, we´re speaking of a weight of several tons as I have crudely outlined before. I GUESSTIMATE siphoning that much gas off of the gun to rotate that cylinder might have a considerable performance impact on the gun itself.

Second, with a gas driven revolver you could only rotate to the next round (or a predetermined one) lets say the next chamber holds a HEAT while suddenly you´re in need of an APFSDS; in that case you would need a revolving motor to rotate to the correct round again. So basically you´d end up with a gas system AND a motor.


Originally posted by mdiinican
...But anyway, to answer the OP, there are some revolver-like autoloaders in service. The stryker MGS uses one, as do newer Merkavas. I'm not clear on the actual workings of it. If I had to guess, the revolver part is probably just to store ready rounds. ...


You are correct, there are several mobile gun platforms that store some or all ammunition in revolving cylinders. None of these however actually fire directly from that cylinder to my knowledge.

To eliminate the need of motors, that revolver magazine are can rotated with hands to firing correct rounds



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


To hand rotate a revolver magazine heavy enough to support 6 or so rounds of 120mm shells would weigh a very significant amount and would most likely need gear reduction and a hand crank and would significantly reduce the speed or reloading to the point where even a mediocre human loader could perform the same task manually with less to go wrong.

As far as having a revolving magazine where the magazine being a part of the breach would be pure suicide, anyone ever shot a revolver with their finger by the gap between the revolving magazine and the barrel? Even a .22 long rifle will burn your finger and with a .357 or .44 mag will do damage to your finger, now scale this up a couple hundred times in the confines of a tank turret and the over pressure would kill every member of the crew in the turret,



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigDave-AR
reply to post by masonicon
 


To hand rotate a revolver magazine heavy enough to support 6 or so rounds of 120mm shells would weigh a very significant amount and would most likely need gear reduction and a hand crank and would significantly reduce the speed or reloading to the point where even a mediocre human loader could perform the same task manually with less to go wrong.

As far as having a revolving magazine where the magazine being a part of the breach would be pure suicide, anyone ever shot a revolver with their finger by the gap between the revolving magazine and the barrel? Even a .22 long rifle will burn your finger and with a .357 or .44 mag will do damage to your finger, now scale this up a couple hundred times in the confines of a tank turret and the over pressure would kill every member of the crew in the turret,

Well! it still needs motors



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I probably won't say too much that hasn't been said, but as a tanker its hard to resist...

There are a lot of reasons we don't use autoloaders. Cost, reliability, etc. I wouldn't work in an autoloading tank. More crap to break. A human loader can make decisions, respond to commands, run a machine gun, help with maintenance, and still hump rounds twice as fast as the best Russian autoloader.

A revolver, though interesting, would not work in our current tank.

There is not enough room behind the breach to retrofit it. The revolver assembly itself might fit, but you wouldn't be able to load the chambers because it would be butted up against the turret wall, which creates another few problems. First, the main gun recoils about 2 feet. The revolver assembly would hit the turret wall when fired and likely cause the gun to come out of battery (rendering the gun useless and likely killing several crew members). Second, the additional chamber length inside the turret would greatly limit incline/decline available for targeting.

Not to mention sitting next to the gun is dangerous enough as it is. Put your knee or elbow in the wrong place and you're going to have a bad day (or, more realistically, a bad 4-6 months). And its just a big hunk of metal with like 3 moving parts. Add to that a large spinning chunk of steel filled with gunpowder, inches away from where I sit....

And you would still need someone to load it.

It would improve rate of fire for those 6 or whatever rounds, but what after that? How long is your tank going to be down while you reload the cylinder? I think a human loader on a single breach would have a better sustained rate of fire, which is more or less what counts in armored combat.

It can't be gas operated in a traditional firearm since. The "gas" leftover after firing the main gun is poisonous and often flammable due to unspent powder. The bore evacuator sucks it all out and sends it out the front of the barrel. If you wanted to do gas operation, you'd need to redesign the barrel a bit, find a way to isolate the crew from poison and (possibly) burning gas, and make sure the (possibly) burning gas doesn't ignite the 6 or so rounds in the revolver (the shell cases on American tank rounds are made out of paper, so that may be tricky).

There are some other comments but the previous posters hit most everything.

Bottom line, you'd have to design a new tank around your proposed gun assembly.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by BigDave-AR
reply to post by masonicon
 


To hand rotate a revolver magazine heavy enough to support 6 or so rounds of 120mm shells would weigh a very significant amount and would most likely need gear reduction and a hand crank and would significantly reduce the speed or reloading to the point where even a mediocre human loader could perform the same task manually with less to go wrong.

As far as having a revolving magazine where the magazine being a part of the breach would be pure suicide, anyone ever shot a revolver with their finger by the gap between the revolving magazine and the barrel? Even a .22 long rifle will burn your finger and with a .357 or .44 mag will do damage to your finger, now scale this up a couple hundred times in the confines of a tank turret and the over pressure would kill every member of the crew in the turret,

Well! it still needs motors


Motors?? might be true.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
are there actually any reports on newer russian autoloaders? because all reports ive seen were for the original autoloaders and nothing for the latest versions of these.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Here is why we do not use Auto-loaders. One they are slow! two our troops wouldn't like this very much. Then again only this would have been thought of by the Russians lol.

www.youtube.com...

By the way, who said Real Russian troops were not well into Ukraine????



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
One other reason to not use a auto loader in the amount of live rounds in the gun area.

The M1 has blast doors between the ammo storage area and the gun.

The loader hit a foot switch and opens the blast doors and pulls the round then the door closes.

In case of a hit in the gun area there is only the round in the gun.

In case of a hit in the ammo area the blast goes up and does not enter the loading compartment and the crew compartment

With a revolving magazine you have number of live ammo in in the crew compartment.

There have been a number of M1s with fires and the crew has jumped and the ammo has blown but they were all repairable, Because the turrets were not blown out of the tank unlike tanks from other countries that were sent high into the air when exploding ammo went off in the crew compartment.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ex M1 crew man. My best time for loading a 120mm Round was 3.5 seconds.
The standard time expected for a loader was 5 seconds.

Also an auto loader can't deal with an order like "Fire, Fire Heat" in a couple of seconds.
Meaning fire the round that's loaded, usally a Sabot round, and load a HEAT round.

With the 105 mm gun loaders used to do a bad pratice where they would load a round then get another round out and place it between thier legs. if I remember correctly it was called "hot loading" That way they could load faster.
Problem is with120mm caseless ammo the propellant is part of the round. It's really just covered by tissue paper with a layer of hard lacquer. When fired all that gets ejected is the back end of the round, baseplate with a small glowing hot stub. People were not supposed to but they usally got used as ash trays later.

Well when you can imagine what happens when the propelant touches a fresh glowing hot piece of metal.
Trust me you only need to see the film of an M1 cooking off once to get the picture.
The blast door and blow out panels only work if your on the right side of the fire.

Nobody trusts auto loaders anyway.
Too many horror stories about the Russian ones feeding the tank commaders arm into the gun tube.



posted on Mar, 8 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Here is why we do not use Auto-loaders. One they are slow! two our troops wouldn't like this very much. Then again only this would have been thought of by the Russians lol.

www.youtube.com...

By the way, who said Real Russian troops were not well into Ukraine????



Wow. Notice the Main Gun has to elevate just a bit after firing. I'm assuming to get in postion for the autoloader to work.
Which means the gunner has to re adjust his aim after every shot.

This isn't a very good video but it gives you an idea of whats going on inside of a T-72 with an auto loader.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Here is why we do not use Auto-loaders. One they are slow! two our troops wouldn't like this very much. Then again only this would have been thought of by the Russians lol.

www.youtube.com...

By the way, who said Real Russian troops were not well into Ukraine????




Nice video...Is there somebody,somewhere, who stills believe that the whole separists "concept" wasn't lead directly by russians, to be more accurate, by allmighy mr.Putin ? Back to the topic....you made some good points as did others.
Auto-loaders---Bad news



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join