AZ or loader: if everything is broken

90
AZ or loader: if everything is broken

Probably, disputes about what is better: automatic or manual loading have already become classics of the genre, like “which is cooler: AKM or M-16”. However, this does not remove the relevance of the issue, as the world continues to produce Tanks both with automatic loaders and with manual systems.

The fact that each of the approaches has its pros and cons is clear and understandable. Let the US military talk for as long as you like that a trained loader will work faster than any AZ, no one forbids this. True, the automation on the new Japanese and South Korean tanks allows you to reload the gun in crazy 3 seconds, and the “trained loader” after a couple of arrivals in the tower will become a bunch of jelly with a probability of 50%, we are not talking about that now.




AZ has enough advantages. These are the smaller dimensions of the turret, and the fact that the machine does not get tired, does not make mistakes (chooses the type of projectile that was assigned), it is easier for it to load the gun on the go, especially in rough terrain. And it does not depend on the reduction of the crew in battle.

But now we will consider the moment, which we discussed for a long time with our expert Alexey Kuznetsov. They talked, discussed, sketched. And the topic was this: what if the AZ fails? What to do and how to fight in this case, especially if it is necessary to fight? And how difficult will it be compared to the work of a conventional loading western tank?

Indeed, no matter what happens, until its final failure, the loader will perform his simple role - to remove the next projectile from the stack and feed it into the chamber. And if something happens, you can replace the loader, although, of course, it’s not as simple as taking the first infantryman that comes across and putting him in the tower.

We will not even begin to simulate a situation in which AZ / MZ will fail. He will come out. Let's not get hung up on the difference between AZ and MZ, the reasons for leaving, that one has enough, that the other has enough. Broken pipes and hoses of the hydraulic system, broken power wires, deformation of the carousel (relevant after an explosion on a good land mine), and so on. The main thing is that the automation is dead. And the battle goes on, and it’s impossible to just take it in and out. It happens.

Moreover, a situation can happen in general when everything coincides with the shot. That is, the tray/cassette is empty.

T-64


Let's start with the T-64 (this is also true for the T-80, where the actions are almost the same, because the MOH). The main work falls on the tank commander, who must carry out the following actions:

- remove the gun guard from its side;
- open the gate wedge;
– raise the aluminum cover of the dispensing window;
- switch the valve on the spool box under your seat from position "A" to position "P";
- remove the commander's cupola from the stopper and turn it to the left;
- put the gun on a hydromechanical stop at the loading angle;
- turn on the mechanism for blocking the manual descent from the gun;
- return the commander's cupola to its original position;
- remove the handle of the manual drive from the bracket, insert it into the hole in the drive of the conveyor turning mechanism, remove the conveyor stopper and start rotation, while observing the projectile delivery window;
- on the exit of the projectile, stop the conveyor.


(A necessary digression. Alex TV explained two things: the first is that you can not turn the turret, with certain skills you can easily do everything without turning, the second is that during all these manipulations, the tank commander simply has to monitor the situation so as not to get it again. This difficult, but possible, because at least he is in his place, next to surveillance devices... In principle, an experienced commander can carry out all these manipulations almost blindly, but this is really an experienced one).

Go ahead. After the projectile exits, the tank commander:

– rotates the manual drive for lifting the tray and raises the tray to the dispensing line;
- takes out a wooden rammer and with its help sends a projectile into the bore first, then a charge, removing it from the spring hooks of the rear half-tray;
- closes the shutter;
– removes the spent pallet from the catcher to the tray;
- lowers the tray back into the conveyor of the loading mechanism;
- removes the cannon from the stopper, turns off the mechanism for blocking the manual descent of the cannon;
- gives a command to the gunner to open fire.


At this time, the gunner performs his functions: he brings the gun barrel to the loading angle (if necessary), prepares data for firing (range to target, type of projectile, etc.), monitors the situation.

The process is taken from the book “Technical description and operating instructions for the T-64A tank. Book One”, Moscow, Central Research Institute of Information, 1973. The standards are also spelled out there: 1 minute and 40 seconds are allotted for loading the first shot manually. That is, 100 seconds. Subsequent shots must be charged in 60 seconds. Of course, when compared to the automatic mode, which should load the gun in 7-10 seconds - an eternity.

Moreover, the instruction does not take into account additional factors, such as shell shock of the crew, lack of proper practice, and so on. But these factors can double the loading time, if not more.

There can be no question of a decent rate of fire, but the tank is capable of firing if the hydraulic or electrical systems fail. The question is relevant here: what to do if the tank commander cannot fulfill the duties of a loader? The answer is solely within the framework of the preparation and training of the gunner. It will be inconvenient, but even in such a situation it is possible to make a shot.

T-72


Now the same situation in the T-72.


If you study the regulatory document "Tank" Ural ". Technical description and operating instructions ”(Moscow, Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Defense, 1975), then it does not contain a time standard for manually loading a tank gun. Why? Yes, because this mode of operation of the automatic loader is simply not provided. But combat is such a state that many instructions simply do not give a damn about it, because you need to fire minimally in order to survive.

Because the gun in the T-72 can be loaded. But here the "combat Kama Sutra" is somewhat different. Less comfortable than in T-64/T-80. And everything again falls on the shoulders of the tank commander:

- move forward the right guard of the gun;
- open the wedge of the shutter (the gunner at this time lowers the barrel as far down as possible);
- turn the commander's cupola to the right (required);
- then the commander should fold in half, leaning forward, with his left hand turns on the mechanism for blocking the manual descent from the gun, and with his right hand turns and holds the stopper lever of the rotating conveyor. Then, with his left hand, he “swings” the lever of the manual drive for turning the conveyor, thereby turning it half a step, after which he releases the stopper and turns the conveyor until it stops completely;
- then the commander turns 180 degrees and manually raises the cassette to the unloading line.


(Retreat: if you are lucky, then the cassette will contain the shell you need, if not, the procedure will have to be repeated until the necessary type of shell is found. The tank commander cannot control which shell is in the conveyor at the time of loading, the doors of the delivery window are closed and open only when the cassette is raised.It is important here how the stacking is done so that the shells alternate).

- Next, the tank commander lies down (well, practically lies down) on the conveyor and first removes the projectile, then the charge. The gunner must at this time press the projectile stopper so that the commander can remove it;
- put the charge in a non-mechanized stack so as not to interfere;
- lower the cassette down;
- send the projectile, and then the charge;
- lower the wedge of the shutter;
- turn on the mechanism for manually blocking the descent;
- return the turret to its original position and give a command to the gunner to open fire.


In general, to manually load the T-72 cannon, you also have to plow the gunner, the question of who is monitoring the situation does not require an answer. The gunner, even if he is distracted, because the commander is not only busy, but he also does not have the opportunity to watch. The commander has to really spin.

Shot. After that, there are also some problems. In the T-72, if there is no power in the on-board network, then getting a spent pallet from the catcher is not a task for wimps, because raising the frame, lowering it, opening the hatch for ejecting pallets - everything is done by drives powered by electricity.

By the way, the T-62 had a manual drive to open the ejection hatch and lower the frame. And this very simple mechanism did not take up much space to be abandoned on the T-72. But they refused.

Of course, the mode in question is by no means the main one, this is the most emergency mode of operation of the tank and its crew. At one time, as a beginner, I asked a naive question: why is this so? Why was the manual loading mode provided in the T-64, and relatively comfortable, but not in the T-72?


Designers, representatives of the Ministry of Defense, representatives of manufacturing plants - saw everything, and everyone was silent? It turns out that yes. But what can we say now about what happened more than 50 years ago in a completely different country? "I blinded him from what was." Everything is like in a song.

You will say (and I said the same at one time) that many problems were eliminated in the T-80 and T-90. Yes it is. The T-90 is definitely not de-energized after the first hit by an armor-piercing projectile in the tower. But how many T-90s and how many T-72s do we have in the army? That is the question…

Of course, a modern tank cannot but be stuffed with electronics that make life easier for the crew. But you have to pay for this. Including reliability and durability. Not in terms of breakdowns, but just in the field of unscheduled equipment failures due to hits in the tank. It's normal when something flies into a tank, in a war it's really the norm. But when all the electricity is cut down, it’s not great, because too much is tied to it.

So which is better?


Passions on what is better: AZ or MZ have not subsided, probably, since the appearance of an alternative AZ on the T-72.


The loading mechanism uses a hydraulic carousel rotation system and a lever to feed the projectile and charge, sending them together. The automatic loader is powered by electric drives, but, unlike the MOH, the projectile and charge are fed into the barrel separately.

So, in principle, the MZ is somewhat faster, although a well-promoted AZ electric motor will drive the carousel much faster, and the AZ will have an advantage when changing the type of projectile.

And we also have a hybrid, which is on the T-80, where the carousel drive is electric, but the layout of the carousel and the hydraulic lever are from MZ. As is - took the best.

If we compare the T-64 / T-72 with the "Abrams" or "Leopard" in this aspect, it turns out that everything depends on the commander of the Soviet tank. How quickly it will perform the duties of an infector, so much will a tank without AZ / MZ be effective.

That is, the failure of the tank commander automatically puts an end to the further use of the tank, albeit in a limited form. The gunner will be able to work on the enemy without a commander if the automation is working, but to equip a shot - alas. Our guns provide for manual loading only on the right side, and the gunner sits to the left of the gun. Moving back and forth is not an option at all, there really is only one way out - from the battle.

Loader... It's just a man. With their weaknesses. It can confuse and load the wrong projectile. May be tired. May fail due to hitting the tower.


By the way, appreciate how much easier it is to plant the Abrams than the T-72. But there's nothing to be done, the loader really requires a lot of space for his work. But it's easier with him. And it’s easier to work, the loader has fewer breakdowns, and they are eliminated by replacement much faster than a wrench that has flown under the AZ conveyor is picked out.

AZ / MZ has more weaknesses in theory. The hydraulics of the MZ will stop working in the event of a fluid leak, this is understandable. AZ categorically does not like when landmines and mines explode under the bottom, even a slight deformation of the bottom of the car can lead to the inoperability of the AZ, up to a major overhaul.

Still, automation is better.

Its advantages are more obvious, and the main one is more stable work on the go. Of course, when the Americans fire from their Abrams standing on a flat surface, they demonstrate miracles in turns and very fast reloading. However, we were 110% sure that after 30 minutes of the battle taking place on the fields of the same Lugansk region, with gullies and drops, when the tank would actively maneuver in rough terrain, it would be interesting to look at that combat "mogul" , which will ensure the reloading of the gun in 8 seconds. At least for 8.

And most importantly, the loader also has a limit. The main problem of AZ / MZ is the final length of the projectile, which is very difficult to increase in terms of modernization, being constrained by the size of the transportation equipment.

But the loader is limited. Projectile weight. The fact that the calibers of tank guns will grow is clear as daylight. The first step has already been taken by the Germans in the promising Panther KF51.


The Panther, which under certain conditions will replace the Leopard 2, will be armed with a 130-mm cannon with an automatic loader.


130 mm Next Generation (NG) 130 gun on display. A unitary shot of a new gun in the display case is on the left, a shot of a Leopard 2 tank gun is on the right.

The mass of a shot of a 130-mm gun reaches 40 kg. The long and fast work of the loader is very doubtful, even considering that there will be 20 shells in the stack and another 10 in a non-mechanized stack.

Even earlier, the French placed AZ on their Leclerc. And then the baton was picked up by the South Koreans and the Japanese.


The South Korean tank is equipped with an AZ, very similar to the French one. Allows you to shoot up to 15 times per minute, that is, a reload speed of about 4 seconds. There are 16 rounds in a mechanized stack and another 24 in two stacks.


The latest Japanese tank "Type 10" is also with AZ. Moreover, it is this tank that holds the reload speed record - about 3 seconds.

It is impossible not to mention the Merkava. This beautiful tank is equipped with a drum feed mechanism for 10 shells to the loader, and the remaining 36 shells are located in the rear of the hull. Something average.

So the Americans with the Abrams, the British with the Challenger 2 and the Germans with the Leopard 2 are just gentlemen lagging behind in this regard. Although the Germans are correcting themselves. As for the Americans and the British, well, their tanks were not originally designed for the use of AZ, because it will never appear there. It’s easier to really develop a new tank, but if the Abrams suits everyone in the USA, then it will still serve.

Сonclusion


The automatic / loader mechanism can fail, but the tank, as a combat vehicle, will work in the hands of the crew of the T-64 / T-72 tank and their derivatives, more precisely, its commander in conditions of automatic failure. Moreover, the tank will partially lose its combat capability in the event that the AZ / MZ is operational, but the tank commander fails. The gunner will be able to fire using his set of sighting equipment. That is, a tank equipped with automatics can endure a crew reduction of up to two people and even to one, but then it will be possible to shoot only from a place.

A tank with a loader does not allow such liberties. Reducing the crew to two people (and in some cases the loss of only the loader) practically takes the tank out of the battle.

Still, the future belongs to automation, and not to "John".
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +24
    24 March 2023 05: 03
    With all due respect to the deceased Alexei, he never served on tanks with MOH and what is written about manipulating him during manual loading sounds like nonsense to me ... which is now being repeated based on those descriptions. In practice, everything is somewhat easier and more difficult at the same time.
    I am especially touched by the point
    - closes the shutter;

    Yes, it closes CAM, under the action of a spring, when the charge is sent. Do not send it - the shutter will not close
    Here is the commander's procedure for loading guns manually from the MOH conveyor





    And with AZ, why MAXIMUM DOWN THE GUNS when manually loading the gun ????? This is done only when loading shells into the BT. When loading the gun on the T-72, you don’t have to lie down on or lower the gun as far down as possible, it should go to the loading line, onto which the tray with the projectile and charge is manually raised.
    Lying on the floor, you won’t send a projectile into a weapon bowed down as much as possible

    So, sorry Alexey, but it seems that someone misunderstood you ...
    1. +1
      24 March 2023 05: 42
      Sorry, okay AZ (MZ), but what happened to Alexey?, I missed something.
      1. +6
        24 March 2023 06: 05
        Quote: TELEMARK
        but what happened to Alexei

        He is no longer with us... Alas. He struggled with his sores for a long time and left undefeated
    2. +11
      24 March 2023 12: 58
      Quote: svp67
      Looks like someone misunderstood you...

      hi
      It happens....
      Loading manually from the MZ and AZ is difficult, that's for sure. A fat or physically weak commander is "unacceptable." There is especially little space in the T-64 (T-80).
      But .... Roman did not say that the tank also had a non-mechanized ammunition rack. In the 64, God forbid, there is a pair of A / B in the tower, and in the T-72 there are 10 or 12 pieces for the AZ. In extreme cases, it's easier to take it from there and charge it. You also need to wriggle, but at least you don’t need to manually twist the AZ (MZ) conveyor and lift the tray or cassette.
      True, I personally have not heard anyone complain about the reliability of AZ or MZ in combat conditions. It is certain that these mechanisms do not fail first when hit without breaking through the armor.
      But in case of improper operation (loading), the MZ levers, trays are already bent at a run. As for the AZ, I'm not a great specialist, I only studied the T-72.
      Again, as always, everything depends on the training of tankers.
      1. TIR
        +3
        24 March 2023 15: 58
        In general, how often does AZ break? I think the engine fails more often
        1. -1
          24 March 2023 18: 47
          In general, how often does AZ break?

          Often enough
      2. 0
        25 March 2023 05: 01
        hi
        Quote: Alekseev
        But .... Roman did not say that the tank also had a non-mechanized ammunition rack. In the 64, God forbid, there is a pair of A / B in the tower, and in the T-72 there are 10 or 12 pieces for the AZ.

        Yes, there is such a "thing" as a tank rack ...
  2. +5
    24 March 2023 05: 31
    Of course, get out of the fight. And what does "impossible" mean? On the offensive, the tank does not go alone, which means that its comrades will cover it, and in defense there should always be escape routes! The rest is wild failures in tactics. And a mine explosion with the failure of the MZ / AZ can be said to be guaranteed to disable the chassis ... And then it makes sense to sit in a doomed car?
    By the way, such a nuance as the hydraulic drive for opening the door to the main ammunition rack of Leo and Abrams is somehow missed. And this drive, too, may well fail. In general, there are nuances:
    Therefore, in order to get shells from the additional ammo rack, you need to remove the finger that secures the hydraulic cylinder piston to the door on the side of the loader and move it manually. At the same time, in order for the door of the compartment with the ammunition rack on the side of the commander to move from the “closed” position to the guide, it is necessary to use the built-in lever. It was very difficult. Then it was necessary to manually move the doors, while pulling out the shells from behind the commander and moving them to the main ammunition rack. And then it was necessary to close everything again and reconnect the loader door. It took several MINUTES to move one projectile. However, after the first manipulations, things went quite briskly - the most difficult was the fuss with the doors. I once had to do this during a fight in September 2004, when the temperature in the tower was somewhere under 65 degrees Celsius. I caught heatstroke, and ended up throwing up on the side of the tank (I didn't care that I could get a bullet - I didn't want my comrades to wipe my vomit inside the turret afterwards).
  3. 0
    24 March 2023 05: 36
    It is better to hire port movers from Africa as loaders ... in his youth he himself worked for a short time as a loader on wagons ... smile lifting and hauling dozens of 50kg bags is no job for nerds.
    So I imagine the work of a loader in a tank.
    Heat, air, cramped space, you carry shells at a fast pace ... you get exhausted quickly.
    Definitely automation will prevail in a long duel.
    1. +3
      24 March 2023 11: 17
      How long have you seen these long duels? Probably only in games. How tanks work in the NWO, got out of cover, fired one shot and reversed. Well, what are the advantages of automation from the loader? Can you send a video where the loader on Abrams throws 20 shells continuously at an average rate of 8-9 rounds per minute?
    2. +4
      24 March 2023 13: 22
      But are there these "long duels" or is everything decided in 2-3 shots?
    3. 0
      26 March 2023 10: 20
      It is hard to work as a loader, as well as a coven worker, for the first ten days. Then just fatigue, nothing more. I worked as such, I know.
  4. +10
    24 March 2023 05: 56
    The picture with the proportions of the tanks is not correct
    1. +4
      24 March 2023 11: 18
      In general, I am surprised how in 2023 the author of this opus does not know this moment.
      1. +1
        24 March 2023 18: 51
        as in 2023 the author of this opus does not know this moment.

        The author is a "specialist" of a wide profile: in tanks, ships (he confuses where the turbine is, where the diesel engine is), in missiles (trash), in aviation (super trash), in small arms, in air defense, in reb and in "how to equip Russia."
        As a result: a weak trio, graphomania seems to be called that
        1. +1
          25 March 2023 17: 57
          Offend Skomorokhov in vain. He always writes well, to the point. It's easy to criticize.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. +5
    24 March 2023 06: 19
    It seems to me that after 30 minutes of the battle the shells will end and the tank will have to leave the battle due to the lack of shells ....
    1. +4
      24 March 2023 07: 35
      Quote: realist
      It seems to me that after 30 minutes of the battle the shells will end and the tank will have to leave the battle due to the lack of shells ....

      In general, troops should not be delayed in battle for a long time and regularly rotate whole units. Since the stamina of the soldiers is spent quickly, the unit receives a lot of wounds and damage, which is better to be eliminated as quickly as possible. So far, this hasn't caused more serious problems. As I remember from American studies, with a loss of 5%, the unit loses 80% of its effectiveness. Because of the need to care for the wounded, because of broken equipment, fatigue, the impossibility of using proven tactics (since some of the soldiers are dead, some are wounded, some are taking care of the wounded, some are repairing their equipment), and so on. Thus, quickly withdraw, replenish, repair, send for treatment, and so on. Allows you to fight much more effectively. But this requires a deep rear and many replacement units for regular rotation.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +1
          24 March 2023 08: 48
          Quote: vvvjak
          Quote: BlackMokona
          As I remember from American studies, with a loss of 5%, the unit loses 80% of its effectiveness

          As I remember, with a loss of 10% l / s, the American unit loses its offensive potential, with 30% - it completely loses its combat capability. As for the AZ / MZ, the gunner has much more reasons to "break down". AZ/MZ has no problems with drugs/alcohol, he is not afraid, and his girlfriend (friend) will not cheat on him (well, etc.), not to mention injuries, contusions, physical fatigue. Yes, any crew member can have similar problems, but we multiply them by 3 or 4 people, there is a difference. And if you take a detonation on a mine, in which something will warp there, then Abrams will generally end up without all his electronics, which he has a "tueva hucha" and what can he do without it, even if the gunner is intact?

          Tueva a bunch of electronics is now in all modern tanks. It radically increases the military capabilities of the tank. Even in strategy games, you can see how simply changing the AI ​​in Starcraft has increased the effectiveness of siege tanks by an order of magnitude. And it all came down to the fact that they simply began to distribute targets, and not attack all together the first target they saw.

          Well, the automatic loader may have problems with alcohol and drugs, only they will not be used by him, but by the one who serves him. From which in battle it will quickly break. Just bad parts, etc. Therefore, there are no less problems. And replacing the loader is much faster than fixing the machine. In general, any infantryman will cope with the work of the loader after a minimum briefing,
          1. +3
            24 March 2023 09: 21
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Well, the automatic loader may have problems with alcohol and drugs, only they will not be used by him, but by the one who serves him.

            Problems are multiplied by 3 or 4, no difference?
            Quote: BlackMokona
            In general, any infantryman will cope with the work of the loader after a minimum briefing,

            During the battle?
            From my own experience: the less human factor in the work, the better.
            PS I wrote a "comment" not for the sake of developing the discussion, but simply for the sake of checking for a "ban" for another mate.
            1. +2
              24 March 2023 09: 25
              Problems are multiplied by 3 or 4, no difference?

              And the mechanic serving the AZ is no longer a person?
              From my own experience: the less human factor in the work, the better.
              PS I wrote a "comment" not for the sake of developing the discussion, but simply for the sake of checking for a "ban" for another mate.

              So much the better, but I think you would not want to completely abandon the human factor in the form of workers at the current level of development of science and technology. The same Tankers calmly find where to send the loader's pitching. Digging, carrying, and other physical labor is very necessary for tankers.
              1. +3
                24 March 2023 09: 38
                Quote: BlackMokona
                you would not want to completely abandon the human factor in the form of workers at the current level of development of science and technology.

                The development of science and technology is just going in the direction of minimizing the influence of the human factor.
                Quote: BlackMokona
                But the Tankers calmly find where to send the loader's pitching. Digging, carrying, and other physical labor is very necessary for tankers.

                It is necessary, but you have to pay for it 3-4 cubic meters. "extra" reserved space, which leads to an increase in the mass of the tank, and this leads to an increase in breakdowns, a decrease in resource, etc., up to problems with logistics and restrictions on the use on the battlefield. And for digging and other physical labor, you can attract infantry (there is an interesting episode on this topic in the film "In War as in War"), well, if it's so easy to put an infantryman in the loader's place.
                1. -1
                  24 March 2023 15: 17
                  Actively goes, but has not yet reached a complete failure. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the optimal working teams. Therefore, the question of the usefulness of the loader is a moment for discussion. Some countries decide that it is too early, others believe that it is time.

                  Yeah, this is the price of the loader, but we also know its benefits
              2. +1
                25 March 2023 13: 58
                When he served urgent (1977-79)" laughing , the most terrible threat from a superior to a tank commander or gunner was: “Yes, I will transfer you to loaders!
            2. -3
              24 March 2023 18: 56
              the less human factor in the work, the better.

              This is only if there is no external harmful factor.
              As soon as it arises, and even with summation.
              I would prefer a man, he knows how to think.
            3. 0
              26 March 2023 10: 30
              And what, the word "comment" is equated to a mat? Wow!!! belay I was somehow banned here for a long time for assessing one who mocked the memory of those who died in the Great Patriotic War. I called that victim, following the example of our President, a citizen with reduced social responsibility. He still left his opuses, and I was banned! After that, the desire to come here disappeared for a long time.
      2. 0
        19 February 2024 15: 19
        with losses of 3%, an American unit loses 80% of its effectiveness, and with 6% it completely loses its ability to fight.
  6. -1
    24 March 2023 06: 22
    If there are only one or two tanks on the battlefield, as it is now, then when the AZ fails, the situation is critical, if the company is in battle, then the tank, if possible, leaves, evacuates to the rear, the rest attack or hold the front. soldier
  7. +7
    24 March 2023 06: 51

    The diameter of the Abrams rollers is 12 cm less than 72)
    1. 0
      24 March 2023 07: 36
      Quote: Zufei

      The diameter of the Abrams rollers is 12 cm less than 72)

      The author needed to drag the dimensions of the Armata with an automatic loader, which is larger than Abrams
      1. +5
        24 March 2023 08: 02
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The author needed to drag the dimensions of the Armata with an automatic loader, which is larger than Abrams


        1. +4
          24 March 2023 12: 53
          Quote: BlackMokona
          The author needed to drag the dimensions of the Armata with an automatic loader, which is larger than Abrams
          And on this proportion others winked

          Moreover, judging by the size of the rollers (for the T-14 - 700 mm, for the "Abrams" - 635 mm)
          then the proportions of the tanks are correct here.
          And note that the length of the supporting surface is almost the same for them. And the hull length of the T-14 is longer only due to the overhangs (the wing with anti-mine equipment protrudes forward, the external tanks protrude behind)
    2. +8
      24 March 2023 11: 27
      Well, if the aator does not know the simple performance characteristics of machines, then how should one regard his work?
      1. 0
        24 March 2023 19: 02
        How can you doubt the competence of the "head of the weapons section" himself? Mind is incomprehensible laughing
  8. +8
    24 March 2023 07: 57
    It is strange to hear about the fatigue of the loader. Young, healthy. I worked with weights. Yes, 50 kg is a lot. But 40 or 30 is already much easier. As if there is a car of shells in the tank. And no one will throw out all the shells in the shortest possible time somewhere there. There are always pauses. Well, etc. Yes, and you don’t need to carry them anywhere. Tea is not on a Russian-Japanese cruiser.
    Although I myself am for AZ. A tank without energy on the battlefield now is a dead man in any way. It is necessary to bring down from it and prepare evacuation.
    1. +9
      24 March 2023 08: 12
      Quote: mmaxx
      It is strange to hear about the fatigue of the loader. Young, healthy. I worked with weights. Yes, 50 kg is a lot. But 40 or 30 is already much easier. As if there is a car of shells in the tank.

      A 120 mm tank gun has a cartridge weight of 20-25 kg. If separate loading, then divide by 2 for the projectile and propellant charge. In general, I don’t see any problems for the loader.
      1. +4
        24 March 2023 08: 35
        Quote from cold wind
        cartridge weight 20-25 kg. I don't see any problems at all.

        Weight is important, but it's a matter of object comfort and body position. Getting into the straps of a backpack on the table and carrying 25 kg of tile adhesive from the store home is much easier than removing a 20 kg valve from the well and climbing out yourself.
        I have never climbed into the Abrams, but I suspect that it is crowded and uncomfortable there, and the projectile is round and therefore slippery. We mentioned the heat above, and also potholes.
        IMHO you need to redesign the AZ. Around the breech there is a "drum skeleton" in which there are 10 - 15 shots, inside the tray, along which the shot rolls onto the chambering line. And behind or on the floor - a supply of unitars, or separately shells and charges, with which the drum is replenished from there by the forces of the loader or "claw". In this case, the reload speed is maximum, and the loading from the "drum" is mechanical - after the gun rolls back, the tray falls, and the rammer is cocked. Further, either remove the stopper so that the projectile rolls onto the ramming line and knocks down the rammer stop, or turn the drum to select a different type of projectile. For manual cranking, provide a certain gearbox with a "crooked starter".
        In this layout, it turns out both the ability to quickly shoot, and a lot of shells on the floor or behind the crew on the racks.
        1. +5
          24 March 2023 08: 48
          Well, look how they work. What is the problem? There are a lot of places, they stand at full height, you only need to turn around your axis at a small angle. Personally, I don't see anything difficult.
          https://youtu.be/lkl7_78WGLk
          Our AZs are outdated, which is not surprising given the years of development. The layout is a shahid's dream, the speed is 2-3 times lower than foreign AZs, the general unreliability of the scheme.
          1. 0
            26 March 2023 21: 49
            Our AZs are outdated, and the loader in the crew is a caveman age. Again, in order to assert whether our AZs are outdated and by how much, it is necessary to compare them with foreign ones. I have not come across any article on this topic.
        2. +5
          24 March 2023 08: 51
          I have never climbed into the Abrams, but I suspect that it is crowded and uncomfortable there, and the projectile is round and therefore slippery. We mentioned the heat above, and also potholes.

          Inside there is enough space and convenience, no wonder the tank is so big. There is no heat inside, there the air conditioner works in the tank. Potholes are smoothed out by a good suspension.
          1. -1
            24 March 2023 11: 25
            It does not smooth out, where the tanks go, there are such potholes that the tank staggers back and forth.
          2. +5
            24 March 2023 13: 26
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Inside there is enough space and convenience, no wonder the tank is so big. There is no heat inside, there the air conditioner works in the tank. Potholes are smoothed out by a good suspension.
            In the Abrams, the height from the floor to the roof of the tower is 165 cm, so the loader works either half-standing, half-sitting or with the hatch open. And where did you find a lot of free space there?

            3 crew members sit in a basket (in the photo the basket sticks out from the bottom of the turret), sharing this space with the gun breech. The diameter of this basket is slightly less than the width of the tank hull and is quite comparable to the width of the hull of our tanks. But if we take, for example, our T-62, then it does not have this basket (the T-62 has a spinning floor) and it is quite possible to lie down on the floor at full height at a halt. moreover, to the entire crew, which is impossible in the Abrams. And you can stand inside the tank in full growth (with a height of 175 mm)

            top - Abrams, middle - Leopard, bottom - T-64
        3. 0
          24 March 2023 19: 41
          Quote: eule
          IMHO you need to redesign the AZ.


          It is not necessary to lift the projectile, as it can be manipulated by holding it suspended in a grapple on a horizontal or oscillating arm, which can be directed where necessary and which transfers the weight of the projectile directly to the hull.
          On the other hand, for reliability, the machine lacks an intermediate energy storage device on the drive, which constantly stores a supply of energy for several shots - and this can be just a flywheel, an air cylinder or a spring.
          1. +2
            24 March 2023 22: 28
            Quote: ycuce234-san
            It is not necessary to raise the projectile

            And I about it! According to my idea, the tray is inclined parallel to the radius, but with a bend at the end so that the projectile rolls from the drum socket, which is higher than the axis of the barrel, onto the chambering line. One of these days I will try to draw, if there is time and inspiration, no more than a layout sketch.
            1. +1
              25 March 2023 06: 51
              Gall's chain, for example, from a large forklift, is strong, rigid in one direction and flexible in the other - it is enough to fix such a roller in a vertical plane and at its end a glass for a projectile and a charge - and you can feed it without burdening yourself with the weight of the load. There are durable polymer belts, for example, for drives of agricultural machinery or mining crushers.
              By the way, it is better to turn the conveyor with much stronger legs than with your hands - whoever tried to run on his hands knows this. Launch a pedal around the circumference of the tower in the form of a spring-loaded annular rod, which can be pushed to the floor or to the side by the whole team, like rowers on an old ship and twisted by a flexible shaft driven by the pedal, and not by a handle. Well, a backup mechanical energy storage is needed, like a spring motor - you can even replenish it with the same pedal and spend it on the drive for turning the turret, guns and conveyor.
        4. +2
          24 March 2023 20: 28
          If there is dough in our tanks, is it cramped in others? Oh well. In general, do not suspect, you just need to watch the video how it happens.
    2. 0
      26 March 2023 10: 40
      The loader does not work in an open field, but in a cramped, stuffy and smoky space (ventilation does not immediately remove the combustion products of gunpowder, heat from the engine and other emissions inside the tank space)
  9. +3
    24 March 2023 10: 36
    Electronics is a good thing, but there should always be a simple alternative in skills. A common example is that many now, if the calculator breaks down, will they be able to calculate the data in a "column" on paper? Oh well hi
    1. +1
      24 March 2023 21: 06
      Quote: bandabas
      Electronics is a good thing, but there should always be a simple alternative in skills. A common example is that many now, if the calculator breaks down, will they be able to calculate the data in a "column" on paper? Oh well hi
      And share more "corner"...
      Yes, at school they taught to multiply by a column and divide by a corner - there is a calculator (several pieces ...) but everything lies far away, you rarely have to divide-multiply - you have to "creak with gray matter" and count everything on a piece of paper.
      Here, doing the same calculation in the mind is an indicator of applied skills ...
      Knowledge is power - we will pump "brain muscle"
      hi
  10. +6
    24 March 2023 10: 43
    Quote: eskulap
    The picture with the proportions of the tanks is not correct

    ... but beautiful - that's why the author put it, because the work is artistic.
  11. -1
    24 March 2023 10: 57
    I myself am not local ... that is, not a tanker (!), Although somehow they called for a month, for a "mobutu" in a tank battalion ... But, "sort of like" there are tank shells (shots) unitary and separate loading ! The reason that the Germans and Americans, who have "German" guns in their tanks, "hold on" to manual loading is that the Germans managed to make 120-mm unitary shots in weight and size characteristics acceptable for manual loading! Thanks to the possession of technology for the production of strong (!) Powders!
    The USSR did not have such technology (so the Internet told me ...) and from 115-mm caliber shots for tank guns were made separately loaded! And it was this fact that served as the "impetus" for the development of automatic loaders (AZ), because separate loading is less "rapid" than unitary! Unitary 115-mm and 125-mm shots in the USSR / RF were developed and produced by experimental (small) batches ... but, as I remember, then they didn’t make a splash! The reason is the same ... the lack of technology for the production of "strong" gunpowder in the USSR! (By the way, then the Soviet solid propellant rocket motors were inferior in terms of specific power, for example, to the American ones!) What is the current state of affairs in this area in Russia, I don’t know ... I wasn’t interested!
    1. +7
      24 March 2023 11: 29
      What strong gunpowder are you talking about? The Challenger is separate, the ancestor of the Leopard and Abrams also had AZ, but it was abandoned - all these differences were made not at all because of worse or better gunpowder, but for completely different reasons. There are whole concepts of tank building reasons, not gunpowder.
      1. +2
        24 March 2023 13: 30
        I read in a good book about Abrams that the Americans did not take up the AZ, because their concept was to defeat an enemy tank with the first shot. If bad, then the second. They did not save on sighting equipment. Hello T-72. In such conditions, AZ is simply not needed. So they decided.
        1. +4
          24 March 2023 13: 46
          Quote: mmaxx
          I read in a good book about Abrams that the Americans did not take up the AZ, because their concept was to defeat an enemy tank with the first shot.
          Automatic loader for "Abrams"
          It was developed, but something did not grow together. That is, at one time such a task was set.
    2. +3
      24 March 2023 16: 22
      115 mm projectile unitary. And "gunpowder in powder flasks" is not "weaker". Write in the media different insinuations. Separate loading allows you to create a compact AZ.
    3. -1
      26 March 2023 12: 37
      lack of technology for the production of "strong" gunpowder in the USSR

      I read that in the USSR they abandoned "other" gunpowders due to the fact that some do not shoot in the cold, others do not shoot in the heat, they took the gunpowder that has the maximum variation in temperature of use, but it is heavier and more voluminous
  12. +4
    24 March 2023 11: 13
    I myself am not local, that is, not a tanker; but, here's something, I have never heard of tank automatic loaders (AZ) creating problems in their operation and in battles; despite the long period of use of AZ! Therefore, at the words "what to do if everything is broken", a military "parable" was involuntarily recalled: "What is needed for a fighter to have a need to engage in hand-to-hand combat? To do this, a fighter needs to be profaned: a machine gun, a pistol, a knife, a sapper shovel, a belt and find the same rasfufaya!
    1. 0
      24 March 2023 16: 53
      It seems that AZ on our tanks is generally the last thing that breaks down.
  13. +5
    24 March 2023 12: 05
    Hmmm ... the article somehow tactfully omitted the two main arguments of the opponents of the domestic version of the AZ / MZ: the placement of the carousel in the fighting compartment (and in the case of the T-64 / T-80 there is also a high altitude - hit the side, you won’t miss) and smaller BC.
    For the carousel is only 22 cells for four types of ammunition. And then - retreat to recharge.
    1. 0
      24 March 2023 13: 54
      Quote: Alexey RA
      For the carousel is only 22 cells for four types of ammunition. And then - retreat to recharge.
      Ammunition "Abrams"
      Count the number of shots in the ammo rack. I counted 18 pieces. Where are the rest?
      1. +3
        24 March 2023 15: 46
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Ammunition "Abrams"
        Count the number of shots in the ammo rack. I counted 18 pieces. Where are the rest?

        This is half the ammo rack. The second is behind the left border of the photo.
        1. +3
          24 March 2023 16: 26
          Quote: Alexey RA
          This is half the ammo rack. The second is behind the left border of the photo.
          And since the loader does not reach it with his hands, then the Abrams also needs time and a place where, with the help of the crew, it will reload additional ammunition into the ammunition rack of the first stage.
      2. -3
        24 March 2023 19: 11
        I counted 18 pieces. Where are the rest?

        Where did the rest 32 go?
        M1A1 ammunition contains up to 40 shots:

        armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber with a detachable pallet M829, M829A1 / A2 / A3 / E4 (BOPS range is 4600 meters with a spread of 0,32 meters)
        cumulative М830
        sub-caliber cumulative-fragmentation М830А1
        sub-caliber high-explosive concrete-piercing М908
        buckshot (with ready-made striking elements of a spherical shape) М1028
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 10: 09
          Quote from Digger
          Where did the rest 32 go?

          Less. They wrote that they prefer to keep the ammunition rack in the BO at "Abram" empty. The BC remains only in the niche of the tower. And there are from 32 to 36 shots.
    2. +3
      24 March 2023 16: 32
      By omission of arguments. 22 a / c is half a b / c tank. B / C does not flow at all as if from a cornucopia, even if factories work smoothly in the rear. It accumulates for the active phase of hostilities - conducting an army or front-line operation, that is, for a week, two active battles accumulate 3-6 b / c, something is also served during the operation.
      Accordingly, the wisdom of old Suvorov has not lost its relevance: shoot rarely, but accurately. The tank should not shoot shells, but hit targets.
    3. +3
      24 March 2023 16: 42
      recently on TV they showed a story about the work of our tankers in the NWO. so there the tank commander says that when leaving for the front line they take only 5 (five) shells! they also shot for new shells. They never take full ammo.
      1. -1
        24 March 2023 20: 49
        so there the tank commander says that when leaving for the front line they take only 5 (five) shells! they also shot for new shells. They never take full ammo.

        I also do this in the tundra on the Is-2, one of a hundred battles when you took more than 10 shells and they ran out before you were killed.
      2. +2
        25 March 2023 19: 52
        As I understand it, in order to avoid the detonation of the BC when it hits?
        1. +2
          26 March 2023 12: 12
          yes, the fighter said so, so as not to fly away with the tower.
  14. +2
    24 March 2023 14: 14
    By the way, appreciate how much easier it is to plant the Abrams than the T-72.

    With modern SLAs, ATGMs, the size of the tank no longer greatly affects whether they get into it or not.
    In addition, when reading foreign literature, all NATO tanks are made according to the principle, fire, forget, "that is, a guarantee of hitting 98% ~.
    Due to the good gun depression angles of Western tanks, it is not necessary to stick out the entire hull from behind the hill when firing. (I forgot what this technique is called in English, you can see it in the American training film M60 vs T-62).
    1. +4
      24 March 2023 15: 55
      Quote: Order
      Due to the good gun depression angles of Western tanks, it is not necessary to stick out the entire hull from behind the hill when firing.

      Shooting at negative VN angles (declination angles). It is used when working from reverse slopes and from caponiers of variable depth (the depth increases towards the back).

      At high angles of declination for shooting, you can take Hull Down position, when only the gun and the strip of the forehead and the roof of the tower are visible above the parapet (at large angles of inclination), and after the shot, move back, covering the tower too.
      A fetish of NATO armored vehicles since the Cold War with its hordes of red tanks rushing towards the Atlantic through Fulda Gap. smile
      1. -1
        26 March 2023 13: 12
        What kind of nonsense is in the picture from the T72 that prevents you from making / finding a hill with the right angle so that only the tower sticks out and you can draw a hill such that the Abrams will also have a lower armor plate sticking out
  15. 0
    24 March 2023 14: 50
    Great article. Adepts of manual loading, who believe that "a man is more reliable than a machine", I advise you to at least serve in the tank troops.
  16. +2
    24 March 2023 15: 11
    "trained loader" after a couple of arrivals in the tower will become a bunch of jelly with a probability of 50%
    Az of course will then work in normal mode 100%
  17. -2
    24 March 2023 17: 57
    judging by the first photo - a black man in a tank works as a "black man")
  18. 0
    24 March 2023 19: 03
    Quote from Nesvoy
    Well, if the aator does not know the simple performance characteristics of machines, then how should one regard his work?

    How can you doubt the competence of the "head of the weapons section" himself? Mind is incomprehensible laughing
  19. +3
    24 March 2023 22: 25
    I like Roman, with his interesting articles, but this one came out one-sided, and here's why.
    MZ / AZ is good, but it should be a combination of all systems on the tank, as a rule, the maximum rate of fire is achieved under ideal conditions - from a standstill, during the day, visibility of targets and automation of the SLA, no one will shoot at the maximum rate in battle if he does not see the target, even such a unique use of tanks in Chechnya instead of self-propelled guns, where tanks hit at point blank range at home due to the capacity of the MZ / AZ and then retreated to reload, does not give an advantage to automatic loading.
    An example from personal service on Merkava-2/3 tanks, the trained crew of the Merkava-2 tank makes at least two aimed shots per minute when the tank moves over rough terrain at speeds up to 20 km / h at a distance of up to 1700 meters, a Hetz-type BOPS projectile 6.
    The Merkava-3 Baz tank fires at least 4 shots while moving over rough terrain at speeds of up to 30-35 km / h, with a Khotsetsan-type BOPS projectile at a range of up to 2200-2400 meters.
    As you can see, there is a significant difference, and all this is a combination of technical solutions and the latest technologies on the Merkava-3 Baz tank.
    Moreover, Western tanks, like Israeli ones, have a quadruple reservation for loading a tank gun, we are also taught and prepared by other specialties, for example, I could be a driver, loader and gunner, and I constantly trained.
    In my opinion, a tank loading mechanism is only advisable if there is excellent crew awareness of the external situation, and then the crew can realize a proactive high rate of fire on the battlefield, using surprise and initiative.
  20. -1
    24 March 2023 22: 47
    The military doctrine did not provide for long-term battles, for a year or two)) such shooters were not considered. What kind of war is going on for so long? The tanks should be in storage or in the part where you see the resource consumption here, the third world war was considered, the tanks are removed and go into battle serviceable, they have an advantage in the automatic loader, the doctrine was forward and only forward, the tank life was calculated not very long, which repairs in the contaminated area, another important plus is the reduction of losses, 3 vs. 4, mini wars are not taken as seriously as the third, which means that the course of hostilities is less intense and not critical. The whole approach is better tied to the strategy of waging a real war.
    1. +1
      24 March 2023 22: 56
      And how many nuclear wars there were, not a single one, and Thank God. But there were dozens of wars and conflicts where the tank was constantly improved and proved its worth, but with constant improvement and modernization, which is natural for any equipment.
      1. 0
        26 March 2023 13: 17
        And how many nuclear wars there were, not a single

        That’s why it wasn’t that we had equipment and everything else is designed for this
    2. 0
      25 March 2023 06: 23
      Quote: Mister Who
      The military doctrine did not provide for long-term battles, for a year or two)) such shooters were not considered.


      It is enough for the designers to make the machine gun a quick-release option and you can get a bonus - a tank suitable for both large and small conflicts. So then a tank with a removable machine gun will be better than not having it at all. After all, no one is surprised by removable protection, trawls - why not be removable machine guns and sights or, for example, drones.
      1. -1
        26 March 2023 13: 30
        In the 00-10s, all the especially star-striped ones shouted about modularity, such as how conveniently one module removed the other one and the equipment changed its function and the star-striped ones built several modular ships, but when they thought in reality to change the modules, so many questions surfaced that in the end these ships were left with the modules that were during the construction, and the construction of other modules was abandoned and the construction of such ships was also abandoned in favor of predecessors (not modular), for example, to change weapons, you need to change almost the entire team and where to store the removed modules, etc., somewhere here the article was
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 07: 06
          Quote: t7310
          but when they thought in reality to change the modules, so many questions surfaced there


          In radar, communications, instruments - modules are a very good idea. Rather, the problems of the sailors were connected precisely with the additional or replacement crew, about which no one thought. For example, now no one expects to have, according to circumstances, on board, additional UAV operators or anti-mine underwater drones that are already needed there, but they, meanwhile, need themselves - cockpits, hangars and decks for containers with equipment, warehouses, doctors, energy , fresh water and cold, etc. It will be much easier for tankers, removed and installed, almost like a unit on a car.
  21. 0
    24 March 2023 23: 02
    The world and wars are changing, it's time to change the strategy and move to new platforms, change the concept. Tanks are the last century. As an example, the sky is closed by air defense, it is impossible to make a drone with a radar down, detect the launch of missiles, launch anti-missiles and work on the air defense system while it is crawling, if there are enough such drones, then the sky will be cleared for flight, a new type of drones is emerging to break through and suppress air defense, further tanks are not needed, aviation and only aviation. All disputes around tanks lie in a closed sky, if this issue is closed, the need for tanks is melting before our eyes. And aviation should prevail over tank forces, and not vice versa. The ratio in the number of aviation should be several times greater. This legacy needs to be changed, the ground forces should be used for cleansing, the main blow should be delivered by aviation, as conflicts after the zero have shown. How will the alignment of forces change if the enemy has 1000 fighters in the sky, will the tanks save?
    1. 0
      24 March 2023 23: 10
      I do not understand your confusion, clarify your thought, better point by point.
      1. +1
        25 March 2023 07: 16
        Quote: merkava-2bet
        clarify your thought, better point by point


        Apparently - he meant a flying and diving ATGM with a radar. A good idea - firstly, its operators are now very unhealthy near their weapons, and secondly, if the engine is non-electric and an internal combustion engine, then such an anti-tank missile system is very mobile and covers hundreds of kilometers per hour through the air and can plug tank breakthroughs or break through air defense into other people's the rear to the places of accumulation of tanks and at sea to catch up with such a difficult and nimble target as an armored boat. Radar is an all-weather radar sight and the ability to be included in modern communication networks. Well, it’s best to hit tanks on the roof.
        In fact, if the drone is made compact and armored, then you get the reincarnation of an anti-tank attack aircraft on a reduced scale.
  22. 0
    24 March 2023 23: 04
    Quote: Mister Who
    The military doctrine did not provide for long-term battles, for a year or two)) such shooters were not considered. What kind of war is going on for so long? The tanks should be in storage or in the part where you see the resource consumption here, the third world war was considered, the tanks are removed and go into battle serviceable, they have an advantage in the automatic loader, the doctrine was forward and only forward, the tank life was calculated not very long, which repairs in the contaminated area, another important plus is the reduction of losses, 3 vs. 4, mini wars are not taken as seriously as the third, which means that the course of hostilities is less intense and not critical. The whole approach is better tied to the strategy of waging a real war.

    At least you understood yourself and what you wrote, fantasy and heresy.
  23. 0
    25 March 2023 17: 13
    Quote: bandabas
    Electronics is a good thing, but there should always be a simple alternative in skills. A common example is that many now, if the calculator breaks down, will they be able to calculate the data in a "column" on paper? Oh well hi


    There is no paper for calculations, no pencil in the store. But everyone studied at school. We count in our minds.
    Doesn't everyone do that?
  24. 0
    25 March 2023 19: 46
    As I understand it, the main conclusion is that it is not weapons that fight, people fight. A well-trained crew will cope with a non-working AZ / MZ. There is only a question for practitioners: how often does the machine fail? Is he generally "brittle" or not?
  25. 0
    24 May 2023 17: 10
    Something about this tank at the top, apparently a passport photo, so tortured, so unhappy. Apparently they poured into him not a worthy swill, but something diluted. You need to be nice to him, and he will be nice to you, gently lull you, that you won’t utter a word.