Why tank automatic loading?
this fully applies to the most controversial element in the construction of Soviet / Russian tanks - automatic loading. Indeed, we are accustomed to emphasizing with a hint of superiority: we are equipping our tanks with such machine guns, and foreign manufacturers in the vast majority do not. But why? Really the development of this unit turned out to be too tough for American, German, English, Japanese (further almost infinitely) engineers and only Russian technical thought could cope with such a difficult problem? Let's try to figure it out.
The indicator is important, but not the main
The idea of using an automatic loader was born in Kharkov during the design of the T-64 tank, was included in the TTZ for this car, and then inherited by the T-72 and T-80 tanks. For reasons unknown to the author, this device is referred to as a loading mechanism (MV) on the T-64 and T-80, and an automatic device (AZ) on the T-72. Probably to completely confuse the likely enemy. In addition, it should be noted that the MOH on T-64 and T-80 are identical, and the AZ on T-72 (and on T-90) has a fundamentally different design. However, the theme of unification, or rather its almost complete lack of it, among three Soviet main tanks, simultaneously mass-produced for almost 15 years, requires a separate detailed discussion. Now it's not about that.
We will try to answer the question: why did T-64 need a loading mechanism? The official version is this: due to the refusal of the loader, it was possible to reduce the reserved volume, reduce the size of the vehicle, and turn the saved mass into reinforcement of armor protection. In addition, increasing the rate of fire and facilitating the work of crew members are commonly mentioned. Which of the following is important? It is clear that the first three factors - in fact, in Kharkov, they tried to solve an insoluble task: to create a tank with the smallest dimensions and weight, but with the most powerful weapons and armor protection. So it was for this reason that the automatic, forgive, loading mechanism was introduced.
As for the rate of fire, this indicator exists as if in parallel. Of course, it is important for the tank, but not the main one. Accuracy is much more important. No wonder in the NATO countries have long been guided by the concept of "shot - defeat." That is, the time spent on the production of the second shot does not matter anymore - the enemy is incapacitated. If there is a second goal that must be destroyed, then the rate of fire does not play a decisive role. Much more important is the speed of the fire control system and the level of training of the gunner.
Automatic loading tank T-72 provides a rate of eight rounds per minute. Therefore, one shot spends seven to eight seconds. However, it is unlikely that they are enough for accurate guidance of the gun at the second target. True, various publications are simply full of stories about how one-two-three T-72 or T-64 were smashed into targets on the test site. But the battlefield is not a training ground, the real enemy is maneuvering and firing back, which means that the rate of fire will be slightly lower than at the exercises. It is probably approximately equal to that of the Abrams and Leopard-2, which have 120-mm unitary ammunition in their ammunition. Another thing, if the first shot of the enemy was unsuccessful. That's when the presence of the automatic loader gives a tangible advantage to the T-72. On the condition, of course, that both tanks missed. A lot of time is not required for amending the scope and, with twice the fast loading, the “seventy-second” is able to get out of such a hypothetical duel as a winner. But even then, if the enemy tank had been in combat for some time, taking several shots. Why?
And because, according to experts, confirmed by relevant tests, the rate of fire with manual loading of the first 10 – 12 unitary ammunition is almost the same as that carried out with the help of AZ, even slightly higher. It is eight to ten shots per minute, fluctuating depending on the agility and fitness of the loader. Then the indicator starts to gradually decrease - the tanker's fatigue affects.
Hard and dangerous ammunition
It is probably worth asking another question: what happens if the T-72 uses up all the ammunition from the autoloader? Despite the fact that modern combat is dynamic and transient, it can be assumed. In the 1973 year, for example, in Sinai and Golan, tank duels lasted quite a long time. We won’t guess how long a shot can be spent on the 22 (the amount of ammunition in AZ “seventy-second”), we will try to imagine what will happen next.
Here is a crank, another reader will probably think, because there is still non-mechanized combat laying, thanks to which the crew will continue to fire. Alas, hardly. That is, at the test site, probably, this is how it turned out, but it will not work in combat. Just look at the layout of the ammunition in the T-72 tank to see: projectiles and charges (loading, recall, separate) are spread across the entire crew compartment, which makes it extremely difficult to use them.
But the main thing - who will charge? Charging because there is no! But there is an instruction manual, which instructs the commander and gunner to do this alternately. There is even a special table for placing projectiles and charges, as well as sequences for loading the gun manually, for example, with the first three shots.
And so for 22 ammunition with the only difference that starting from the fifth in the column "Tower position" is the angle on the scale of the azimuth pointer, which you need to turn it to get to the projectile and charge. So I want to ask: tankers (gunner and commander) should remember all this? And where do I need to remove the covers from the 23, 33 and 43 charges? For on the next page of the manual it is written in black and white that the gunner’s back is removed before loading it manually.
Truly a script for the theater of the absurd. It is quite obvious that in a real combat situation it is almost impossible to load the T-72 gun manually. Even if they succeed in this, using the most available shots, the crew will lose either the gunner or the commander for some time in the process of getting them up and loading. Well, if in this tank a platoon or company commander?
For the sake of fairness, it must be said that in this respect it does not differ for the better from the "seventy-second" and T-64 with T-80. For example, the tank T-64A in the loading mechanism are 28 shots from 37. Seven more are stationed in the control compartment, and two shells and a charge are on the cabin floor. In combat, the crew can only rely on ammunition in the cockpit, since neither the gunner nor the commander can get into the control department. Although the relevant operating instructions state that only shots with high-explosive and cumulative shells can be outside the loading mechanism. From this, however, it does not get any easier.
It is obvious that after the shooting of ammunition from the automatic loader or its failure, for whatever reason, the T-72 practically loses its combat capability. It is curious to note that the T-64А instruction manual on loading the gun with the hands of the commander and gunner is absent altogether, that is, the crew seems to be prepared in advance for the fact that he will have to rely only on 28 shots in the MH. Both in that and in the other tank, it is true that the delivery of shots to the dismounting line by hand is provided, but this is subject to the failure of only the actuator. In the case of a rotating conveyor jamming, shells and charges in it simply cannot be reached.
It follows from the above that shooting with the use of shots from a non-mechanized combat pack is possible only from a place and mainly at targets that cannot respond with fire. Under all other circumstances, after the shooting of ammunition from the automatic loading T-72 must go out of battle to load it. But here everything is not easy. For example, receiving ammunition, the crew of the T-62 (four people) performed 518 operations, and the T-64A (crew of three) over 850. According to the testimony of tank crews, loading the T-72 automatic loader is an even more laborious process. Wow, facilitated the work of servicemen!
By itself, the question arises: is non-mechanized laying necessary? In addition to its uselessness for shooting, it is a clear threat to the life of the crew. The whole world went around the photos of T-72 with towers, ripped off by an explosion of ammunition, from Iraq, Yugoslavia and Chechnya. For some experts, this fact was puzzling, because the shots in the automatic loading of this tank are below the level of road wheels. In the machine - yes, but in non-mechanized packing - no. Apparently, the latter and are the catalyst for the process of detonation of ammunition.
Have a probable opponent
It should be noted that for the first time a French light tank AMX13 was equipped with an automatic loader in the 1951 year. So this is not our invention. Later in the West, several AZ designs of various types, including carousel, were developed. But none of them were used on serial tanks: no one was engaged in reducing the reserved volume there.
The standard rate of fire for the Abrams 120-mm cannon reaches six rounds per minute, while the 34 projectile from the 40 available unitary ammunition is located in the niche of the turret. The loader sits sideways to the gun (facing the breech) to his left and sends out shots with his right hand, and not his left, as in Soviet tanks with manual loading.
Leopard-2 has seventeen 120-mm unitaries from 42 in the fenders of the first shots in the tower niche, and is inferior to Abrams and T-72 in this indicator. But the difference in the case of the latter is obvious - there is a loader in the crew of a German tank, and it will “dive” after the other shells stored compactly in one place in the control compartment. Thus, neither the American nor the German tank loses its combat capability up to the complete execution of the ammunition, which takes much less time to load into these vehicles compared to the T-72.
Only French specialists went the Soviet way, setting the AZ on the Leclerc. The reason for this decision is easy to understand: they, too, sought to reduce the booked volume, only within the limits of other dimensions and mass. However, the design of the Leclerc automaton is fundamentally different and from the point of view of its layout, usability is much better than ours.
A French AZ with a belt-type conveyor on a 22 unitary (!) Shot is located in the tower niche. The shells are placed in the cells of the horizontal conveyor located across the cannon, opposite of the breech of which the supply window is arranged. On command from the console, the gun is mounted on the loading angle - 1,8 °, the conveyor delivers a cell to the window with an appropriate shot. Automation is able to provide a technical rate of fire (excluding aiming and aiming) up to 15 shots per minute. The effective rate of fire - 10 – 12 shots per minute (in T-72 - eight), both from a standstill and in motion.
Equipment of the conveyor cells is conducted from the outside through the loading hatch in the stern wall of the tower or from the inside, from the gunner's seat, which can replenish the machine gun from the ammunition - rotating drum on 18 shots mounted in the case to the right of the driver. There is no need to distribute ammunition by type, because the machine is equipped with a reading device that is connected to a processor that can recognize at least five types of ammunition.
Compartment guns and AZ separated from the jobs of the commander and the gunner sealed walls, which increases safety and survivability. In addition to the convenience of replenishing the machine both outside and inside, the French unit has another advantage over the Soviet counterpart - it is adapted for any type of ammunition, while the domestic MOH and AZ do not allow placing modern shots with elongated sabers in them.
The complete opposite of the Soviet and French solution is the Israeli Merkava tank Mk4. In the automatic loader (or mechanized stacking) of this tank, which is known, however, very little, only ten shots are placed, the remaining 36 are next to the niche of the tower, in non-mechanized stacking. At the same time, a loader remained in the carriage of the car, which, proceeding from the situation, determines how to load the gun: manually or with the help of an automatic rifle.
What can I say? There is a completely different approach: AZ together with the loader, and not instead. It really solved the problem of facilitating the work of crew members and increasing the rate of fire.
So need or not modern tank automatic loading? As we see, the development trends of world tank building do not give a definitive answer to this question. One thing is clear: in the form in which it exists in domestic tanks, AZ (MH) is definitely not needed.
The twenty-year-old roar of explosions of the T-72’s packs has finally reached Nizhny Tagil. On the T-90CM tank, demonstrated this year at the RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS-2011 exhibition, all shots located outside the AZ were transferred to the tower niche, thereby isolating the crew from at least part of the ammunition assembly. However, they did it reluctantly, paying tribute to foreign fashion. Well, of course, because the masterpiece of Russian technical thought - the crew sitting on ammunition and fuel is the hallmark of all domestic tanks from T-34 to T-90!
As for AZ, it is quite obvious: the concept of “automatic loader plus loader” has clear advantages over the concept of “automatic loader minus loader”, as it allows the tank to maintain a high level of combat capability up to the complete exhaustion of ammunition.
Information