US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
That thing weighs 42 tons? That's almost close to a T-72, and a Type 15 weighs 33t!
Americans are reusing a lot of parts or at least design from the Abrams system. So they are stuck using outdated manual loaders, meaning an additional crew member which on average adds about 10 tons to the vehicle to equal a comparable tank that uses an autoloader system.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Yes it does with armor modules. However you are wrong. If you are comparing to Type 15 then it’s 38 tonnes. Because the Type 15 is weighed in Metric tonnes 33. The M10 is weighed in American freedom tons.
“outdated manual loaders”? That’s a funny way of saying a 21 year old from Nebraska. Nothing outdated about him.
In the argument of Automatic vs manual loader on armored fighting vehicles it’s more nuanced than many pundits make it.
first it should be noted that very few AFV that have 105mm guns have an automatic loader. Yes the Chinese type 15. The Stryker MGS had one, as did the BAE M8. Not many others reached beyond demonstration state to actual production.
second in head to head both have pros and cons. Pros for the human is a good loader can be faster than an automatic, atleast for the first few shots. A good loader will stack the ready rack with ammo in a sweet spot a point where he can easily grab them and go. An automatic loader is steady with very little difference in speed as it is the ready rack.
cons for the human he needs more space to move about the turret. Which is part of the reason for more weight. IE a bigger turret.
cons for the automatic loader it’s actually heavier it’s self. A human loader might be at most about 200lbs of beef cake in full kit. The lightest automatic loader I know is 933lbs of steel. Again it’s a question of the size of the turret. On the whole Western tanks are heavier. Even those with built in Automatic loaders than their Soviet counterparts. Because they have larger turrets. If you don’t give a damn about ergonomics you can build a manually loaded tank with a weight on par to an automatic loaded tank.
See T64 vs T62. T64 has an automatic loader T62 doesn’t. Similar guns, similar and similar size roughly same time and almost identical weights. The T62 designers were Sadists for what they did to the loaders of those tanks.
as to “Stuck”. Remember that 933lbs automatic loader? For the past 20 years that loader has been offered as a retrofit to the Abrams. The Meggitt Compact automatic loader, it’s a cassette retrofit that would replace the bustle rack magazine with a 34 round autoloader module similar to that on the Leclerc or K2. It’s a descendent of the loader demonstrated on the Abrams CATTB in the mid 1980s.
As far back as MBT70 the US was looking at automatic loaders.
They simply haven’t seen the need to spend the money on it, Yet. The Abrams X Demonstrator also sports a similar cassette loader in the bustle of its unmanned turret.
As to the M10 Booker. It’s brand new now. In the future it could be retrofit with an automatic loader if the Army sees fit. Because the Booker’s turret uses Abrams architecture it’s magazine is a removable module that can be replaced. That means it could also have its own Compact Automatic loader module down the line if the Army chooses to adopt such. It’s not Stuck it’s Choice.
That "21 year old from Nebraska" is the problem I was speaking on. It became clear we are talking about different things as you were starting to list random historical details that didn't address the well known political decision making in US military procurement nor the chronic manpower issues. Which is what I was addressing. If historical experiments and availability of western autoloaders is what you assumed I was talking about, I am sorry that my original post wasn't clear on that.
If you want to argue which tank version has a marginally higher numerical score in some category...I don't really care. Because it frankly doesn't matter in combat unless it is a significant difference as you are arguing marginal percentage rates of loss and logistical costs. I think there are different people here who would be able to argue over such things with more enthusiasm and knowledge than me.
To explain what I was critiquing, the US Military has been facing staffing shortages for years now and is now currently facing a full blown crisis in manpower and can't fill positions to meet its future goals. Every system like the Booker that requires an additional skilled soldier to operate is by definition outdated because it is enhancing the fundamental crisis that the military is facing. And this is a crisis in peace time. In conflict, as the Ukrainian-Russian has reiterated, there will be tens of thousands of deaths. Every three Bookers with manual loaders that lose their crews also lost the crew of a theoretical fourth booker that could have existed if the US used an automatic loader to replace the fourth crew member. You're right it could be retrofitted in the future, but they won't be. The crews who are sent out to die in the first waves will be in crews of four because that is what is available to the government right now not what could be in ten years. And the US government won't retrofit the tanks beforehand because there is one thing the US military and politicians love more than the lives of frontline troops which is using whatever is traditional and has a preexisting manufacturing lobby.
Good luck with that.
Why do you want to go to RMC? I never understood the appeal. I guess you don't have to pay for it is a bonus.
You could get your degree from somewhere more marketable and then go DEO. Back when I was reservist, a recruiter pitched it to me because I could get 40K signing bonus for my engineering degree (don't think they have it anymore though)
I didn't do it though, but it was attractive.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It was more than a political decision. Automatic loaders until recently had questionable reliability and the cost. More recent models are far more reliable but those really only become available in the last 3 decades. You can call that political if you like but your definition of politics any mine clearly slant dramatically different.
That’s true to a point yet that additional skilled soldier will still be needed. Armored fighting vehicles of the modern era are highly sophisticated machines with hundreds of sub system’s. Maintenance of said system requires a number of soldiers to not just do the work but also keep watch. Even on tanks with 3 man crews additional maintenance vehicles and crews have to be added to the combat teams to assist. An automatic loader doesn’t change the numbers.
And in fact you basically agree with me on that point except you’re assuming that those 4th man go to another AFV. Check with the French. The Leclerc proves this out they send the fourth man to an Armored recovery vehicle.
First. These are not meant to be operating as a tank and your argument is clearly based on the myth of the Ronson Sherman.
If you’re line of reasoning was accurate then the US DOD and US Congress wouldn’t have spent Billions on rapid acquisition of MRAPS after encountering roadside IEDs, State of the art body armor kits, TUSK kits for Abrams and BUSK for Bradley, RPG cages for Stryker, conducted a whole set of studies to change the Army’s camouflage uniforms just a couple years after adopting them due to concerns over their effectiveness. Historically speaking your argument doesn’t seem to fit.
Then again in survivor an automatic loader doesn’t matter. We have seen plenty of Automatic loader equipped tanks bite the dust with their whole crews in Syria and Ukraine among other conflicts. The factor of survival for an AFV crew in regards to an automatic loader is the same as regarding a manual loader on an AFV. Ammunition storage and isolation from the crew.
Abrams Bustle rack system is one of the most successful in that regard. Yes the ammo can cook off but the crews have bailed out more successfully in that situation.
Finally Reminder, We were arguing about the weight of the M10 Booker at 38 metric tons. Your position was that the Manual loader = +10 tons vs automatic loader equipped tanks. However that doesn’t quite match up.
first as when you look at the metric ton weights rather than the American ton to Metric ton the difference is 5 tonnes.
Your assumption seems based mostly on Soviet based tanks vs Tanks like Abrams or Leopard 2, but you forget about Leclerc. Which comes in and disproves that statement because M1A1 was 57 tonnes Leclerc of similar vintage were also 57 tonnes with an autoloader.
Second and on that point Soviet based tanks traded on compactness. Focusing so much on it that they traded off gun elevation and depression in the trades. Western MBT moved to try and get as compact as they could well still offering good all around protection and characteristics. Even at the cost of added weight. The Abrams, Leopard2, Leclerc all feature atleast partial ammunition storage behind the turret as the main magazine a feature that requires a larger turret. Necessiting a heavier tanks. Then factor in a taller tank as dictated by a wider range of elevation and depression for the main gun. Again bigger turret = heavier tank. Finally you add hard protection. Armor and as time has progressed more of it pushing the weight of the tanks up. The original M8 which was intended for the same job as the M10 is taking was about 18 tonnes base weight. But could go up to 23 tonnes with add on armor. That was based on 1990s era military assumptions on protection needs. The Booker is based on 2020s experience of protection needs. Demanding a higher base. It’s the exact same story as Modern IFVs. In fact the Booker’s hull is an IFV’s hull.
Finally who else would build a combat vehicle? What start ip is in the market, meets the security requirements has the production capacity and can meet the requirements? This sounds more like an ideological argument than a factual one.
That all depends on how these "prices" are calculated. Chances are, these prices do not take into account the same things.
Broccoli
Senior Member
According to many it's not based on Ajax as claimed before. Could be suitable as future SPG and maybe IFV.