Why tank automatic loading?

68
Unfortunately, in stories The national defense industry and the industry as a whole are many examples of rather dubious achievements. And all of them, as a rule, are a subject of our special pride.

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.

Why tank automatic loading?

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.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. snek
    +22
    10 November 2011 09: 35
    A difficult question really. I only note that the author considers the problem only from the point of view of the effectiveness of the tank itself. But if you look at the big picture, then AZ has significant advantages. Imagine two armies, with both 1000 tanks. One tank has AZ with another without. As a result, 1000 people are released from the first side and, as a result, it can have either a smaller army with the same efficiency, or the same army with a higher efficiency.
    1. +19
      10 November 2011 10: 55
      a masterpiece of Russian technical thought - the crew sitting on ammunition and fuel is the hallmark of all Russian tanks from T-34 to T-90!

      I would not be so categorical, after all, our tanks caused fear and envy and admiration abroad from the same T-34 (by the way, a report on the tests of the T-34 tank at the Aberdeen training ground in the USA was not found in the American archives)

      One NATO general said this phrase during the Cold War

      "If Satan wanted to create a tank, the T-72 would have turned out."
      1. +3
        12 November 2011 05: 45
        support !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and in general - blasphemy on the part of the author to open a hail at least about the T-34 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (this is how not long ago they discussed the AK, they would also say that the BM-13 (she is a "Katyusha" and the MLRS Grad system - but in the west the MLRS is always better !!!) but the author forgot something about the Ambrams and RPG-7 in Iraq to tell when the vaunted miracle tanks were smashed to pieces by the obsolete and long-removed from service shots (and those shot back in Soviet times), and the Merkavas were smashed to pieces by cornets (or contests, sorry I don’t remember exactly), but about our T-72s Yugoslavia, evil is not enough - what are they there - they were incapacitated with can openers, or with advanced NATO weapons !? so neither Leopard, nor Challenger or Abrams - the hit of the Whirlwind will also not stand it !!!! Article - criticism of ours, even ridicule, without any something sensible justification, or comparison, and praise of the Western ... I didn't really like it, even before the mention of 34 was somehow read, and then - no words, I began to get addicted! angry
  2. +28
    10 November 2011 10: 45
    Well, yes, and Leopard crews (mechvod) sitting next to shells and tanks or Abrams crews sitting between tanks are masterpieces. Complete nonsense. Any MBT design is a compromise of protection / efficiency / cost. - 1 member of the crew, this is -1 potential corpse. And in the case of military operations, the probability of damage to the AZ is lower than the probability of damage to the loader even simply from dynamic overloads during tank maneuvers.
  3. Ion coaelung
    +12
    10 November 2011 10: 46
    And even if there are different types of shells and missiles, especially in extreme situations, a person can make a mistake in a particular task, send the wrong shell to the barrel, although the operator of the AZ can send the wrong command to the machine :) Of course, a good solution with AZ, but it remains the question of reliability and the use of free space and mass of the tank. Although this is relative. The main plus was noted above, due to a decrease in the number of fighters involved.
  4. itr
    +7
    10 November 2011 11: 01
    All the same, the rate of fire is very important (if it hadn’t), then the soldiers still walked with three rulers. The time will come and in the tank’s AZ there will be not 22 shells but five hundred. Everything has its time.
    1. +10
      10 November 2011 11: 22
      then they will say, "And if he shoots 500 shells, then how to load it? But this tank has a loader and thanks to him all 200 shells are used without delay"
  5. CARTRIDGE
    +13
    10 November 2011 11: 27
    As for the rate of fire, this indicator exists, as it were, in parallel. Of course, it is important for the tank, but by no means the main one. Accuracy is much more important.

    The French AZ with a belt type conveyor for 22 unitary (!) Shots is located in the tower niche. The shells are placed in the cells of a horizontal conveyor located across the gun, opposite the breech of which a feed window is arranged. At the command of the remote control, the gun is set at a loading angle of 1,8 °, the conveyor delivers a cell with the corresponding shot to the window. Automation is able to provide a technical rate of fire (excluding aiming and aiming) up to 15 rounds per minute.
    -Author contradicts himself!
    One should probably ask one more question: what happens if the T-72 uses up all the ammunition from the automatic loader?
    -Nehren to ask, in a real war this is more than enough, this is not the case when Pindosia fights with the Poits!
    But the battlefield is not a training ground, the real enemy maneuvers and fires back, which means that the rate of fire will be slightly lower than during exercises. Probably, it is approximately equal to that of "Abrams" and "Leopard-2"
    Of course, not a training ground! But the battlefield is also not even asphalt, but also an intersection, where the loader will not be very comfortable.
    There are a lot of contradictions in this article. I think if we had MBT with a loader, and in the rest of the AZ world, the author would have promoted Western tanks, because he was either paid, or he is an enemy of the people.
    1. Superduck
      +8
      10 November 2011 21: 43
      I completely agree. what will happen if the infecting agent drops the shell? When driving along the intersection, this is quite likely. It is clear that a modern shell from this will not explode. Of course, I would not try to shove it into the barrel again, modern guns are not siege mortars that could shoot everything that fits in the barrel. What to do with it, shell, let it roll on the floor?
      Second point. I think that the idea with the gun did not come up spontaneously. If you remember history, then I heard everything about an interesting, if not the best, tank, the bv2 is-1, and so with its 120mm it had separate loading, which, as a result, reduced its rate of fire to the level of a regimental howitzer in the presence of such "competitors" as the Tiger with a rapid-fire and accurate gun it was a problem. So the idea with separate loading did not come from the tankers, after all, but from the gunners. This damn was our tradition for calibers larger than 110mm, what can you do, because as the plane is built around the engine and the tank around the cannon. I think the engineers were unable to build the right gun of the right size with a unitary projectile. And I don’t think they were stupid, it’s just worth remembering that the requirements for the weight and size characteristics of our tanks differed very seriously from the NATO school. Or do you think that the legendary 120mm rhine metal will fit into the T-72, but crap, the tower will be exactly like a leopard's, maybe a little smaller.
      But now all the very smart ones will try to predict the rate of fire of 125mm guns with manual separate loading, where, by the way, the loader will also have to use a manual re-expander (a 1,5 meter long minimum stick), which will need to pass the warhead completely until it is inserted.
      So if you embark on another holivar about Az, then you just need to remember that all the advantages and disadvantages of our and Western schools of tank building are caused primarily by different requirements for the size, reserved volume, the volume of the engine compartment and other things. But most importantly, a tank, even the most modern tank, is just an armored cart for transporting guns and firing from it, which makes it different from an armored personnel carrier. All for the sake of guns!
      1. mox
        mox
        +9
        11 November 2011 01: 37
        In my youth I had to unload boxes with unitary 100 mm shells for the KS-19 anti-aircraft gun. 80 kg two pieces, plus dimensions.
        Well, I can't imagine how such a "fool" could be pulled out, deployed, sent manually in a tank tower. IMHO, we must not abandon the AZ, but modernize it by increasing the number of shells and the reliability of the system itself.
  6. +11
    10 November 2011 12: 33
    there is nothing ideal and everything is relative. and now it has become fashionable to find fault with everything that is ours --- it turns out that the Negro Bobi is the best automatic loader wink
    1. +4
      11 November 2011 19: 29
      This is still a 120-mm gun can be used loader, but what if they put on their tanks a 150-mm gun?
  7. +2
    10 November 2011 13: 53
    all the same, in the article it would be necessary to disclose the topic of separate and unitary ammunition and the relationship with AZ or loader.
    1. +8
      11 November 2011 19: 34
      And I would also look at the loader who gives a shot every 3 minutes, a sort of pile of muscles in a fetal position with steel nerves !!!! There, and the tank does not need to release such a company on the enemy and all the amb.
      1. Perry
        0
        8 December 2011 17: 00
        +100500)))))))))
  8. makrus
    +16
    10 November 2011 15: 41
    Mikhail Baryatinsky is a well-known comrade, a fan of everything western, while judging foreign tanks by Pentagon advertisements. Once I read his book about the T-34, there was a lot of emotions. Everything seems to be written correctly and in the case, but the fact that our tanks were not assembled by the most skilled workers and in the conditions of a total war, when a good third of the country, economically developed was in the hands of the invaders, was omitted. In general, I really wanted to break his head with a book. He is just a demagogue and no more.
  9. +3
    10 November 2011 16: 10
    I read comments and am surprised ... the author of the article, in fact, is not against the automatic loader, but against the fact that in the Russian version it was made through the ass ... after shooting the ammunition in the AZ, the remaining shells can hardly be used ...
  10. arkhip2020
    +7
    10 November 2011 16: 42
    in modern combat 22 shots are enough. For missing or not destroying the target is quite difficult, having a good fire control system in service.
    1. +1
      12 November 2011 05: 54
      arkhip2020 - do not rush, the afftor also writes about the fire control system !!!!!!!!!! (((((
    2. ak4urin
      +1
      17 November 2011 21: 37
      it’s not without reason that our tank is called a sniper rifle. FOR THE RIGHT GUIDER. This was told to me personally by the tank commander attached to our regiment (56-DShB) to strengthen the kalon. The tank was from 255 regiment. (transition Nagai desert-scarlet October if my memory serves me 1999)
    3. Perry
      -1
      8 December 2011 17: 02
      tank survivability on the battlefield for about 15 minutes
  11. slan
    +6
    10 November 2011 16: 57
    Quote: Krilion
    it was made through the ass ... after shooting the ammunition in the AZ, the remaining shells can hardly be used up ...

    What the fuck? Why then? All fools carry ammunition with them that breaks down the tower, but which cannot be used?))
    Are there tankers on the forum?
    Something tells me that the author is finished m-k, or the categorical style of an obvious amateur, or clearly visible through the lines of the text psychosis on the basis of all Soviet ..
    Of course, AZ is full of shortcomings like any other technical solution, but here the author is simply furious without going into the essence.
    1. -6
      12 November 2011 08: 47
      I wouldn’t be in a hurry to run into the author in your place .. if the author Mikhail Baryatinsky and Mikhail Borisovich Baryatinsky are one person, then you can’t call him a layman in matters of armor .. especially taking into account his works on this subject ...
      1. slan
        +3
        17 November 2011 21: 51
        Ahh)) Historian, journalist, author of books ..
        It sounds very "autocratic")) Almost like Ernst Muldashev.
        Therefore, I would like to hear the opinion of tankers and engineers.
        And then one such "authority" also wrote books on local history until 29 mummies were found, so Baryatinsky has too obvious concern ..
    2. per3526
      +5
      19 November 2011 21: 19
      I’m not a tanker, I just very often helped load the b / c in the t72, the operation is tiring, but not fatal. As for the remaining charges, yes they lie, as you say ..., but getting them quickly is quite real, and doing it directly under fire it’s not at all necessary ... in the fall of 95 in Gudermes we succeeded, it couldn’t come to my mind that someone could doubt the automatic loader.
  12. +3
    10 November 2011 18: 06
    Here the author mentioned the disrupted rages of our tanks, but modestly kept silent about the destroyed tanks of the Pindos and their allies in the same Iraq. They were knocked out not by tanks, but by local aborigines with RPGs, and their turret was torn off just as well. By the way, technically, the T-34 was weaker than the German "menagerie" and, even more so, was recognized as the best tank of the Second World War all over the world.
    1. Kentonella
      +6
      11 November 2011 11: 33
      What's RPG?! ... You can see photographic documents with the destroyed "Abrams" by a bullet (!) On the back of the tower there is a fuel tank of the parking generator. The tank is breaking through from a machine gun. Fuel is pouring onto a red-hot gas turbine engine. All!
      1. -1
        11 November 2011 14: 26
        Lyokha79
        Not in the whole world, and even with us not everyone considers it the best.


        Kentonella
        Do you understand the obsurd ???? if the tank is parked, then there is no war. Or do you think that during the fighting with these tanks someone drives ???
      2. Perry
        0
        8 December 2011 17: 06
        I confirm. There are many manuals on this business. and penetrates not only Barrett, but also the SVD with a bullet BZ
  13. +2
    10 November 2011 19: 03
    Tricky question. With modern trends - shot and forgot, how many goals do you need for a tank regiment to shoot its entire ammunition?
    1. +4
      11 November 2011 02: 21
      how many goals do you need for a tank regiment to shoot its entire ammunition? in fact
      1. +3
        11 November 2011 14: 32
        even taking into account the 50% hit, this is the 341 target;))) with the 10% interest this is the 68 goals
        1. +2
          11 November 2011 20: 55
          Consequently, our tanks will not be destroyed at the same time? But what about the models of doubles and group combat, the flows of striking shots?
  14. +13
    10 November 2011 19: 10
    Let's look at the story. Even the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad learned that panzer in urban conditions suffer huge losses without the support of infantry. It was recognized by our grandfathers in Berlin, Prague, etc. .. although assault groups were already operating there. Why did it happen in Chechnya with the Maykop brigade - questions to our leadership. By the way, most of these gentlemen sit on posts and do not blow a mustache.
    1. Kentonella
      0
      11 November 2011 11: 35
      On the day of the storming of Grozny, Pasha Grachev simultaneously celebrated the DR. They say they had a good drink.
      1. +5
        12 November 2011 11: 36
        There was still a clown at the head of the General Staff who came up with the operation, Pashamers a disgrace to the Russian army for not being able to defend the decision to completely clean up
  15. ZHORA
    +10
    11 November 2011 12: 28
    "In addition to the convenience of replenishing the assault rifle, both from the outside and from the inside, the French unit has another advantage over its Soviet counterpart - it is adapted for any type of ammunition, while the domestic MZ and AZ do not allow them to accommodate modern rounds with elongated sub-caliber shells."

    Firstly, the author drives, the problem with the placement of elongated shells is present only in the AZ which is of the tray type (T-72, T-90). The Ministry of Health does not have this problem, it was not in vain that he migrated from the T-64 to the T-80 of the USSR MBT. Secondly, the use of AZ / MZ is due not only and not so much to the limitation of the armored volume, but to the choice of the caliber of the 125mm gun and the type of ammunition for it, if the author forgot that this gun uses separate loading, and not a unitary shell. A unitary projectile for this weapon would significantly exceed the 120 mm projectile used in NATO tanks in mass and overall dimensions, which would significantly increase the fatigue of the loaders. The use of a loader with separate loading would increase the number of loading cycles per shot by 2 times. That in an artillery duel would guarantee a loss if it came to the 2nd shot and deliberately reduced the overall rate of fire.
    1. +7
      11 November 2011 19: 21
      About Soviet AZ:
      Quote:
      Let's not guess what time it is
      can go up to 22 shots (number
      ammunition in the AZ "seventy-second"),
      try to imagine what will happen next.

      This means that 22 shots are not enough.

      About French A3:
      Quote:
      French AZ with conveyor
      tape type on 22 unitary (!) shots
      located in the niche of the tower.

      This means that 22 shots is enough. wink
      1. -3
        12 November 2011 08: 57
        you read the article to the end .. the author further explains the advantages of the French AZ .. I myself am not a tanker, I can not judge how much the author is right .. but it seems that most of the forum participants are still professional tankers ...
  16. Motherland
    0
    11 November 2011 15: 07
    My opinion is that in Western countries they do not use automatic charging, in my opinion it is clear as a day-earlier, done in Russia this is only because of the principle in general.
  17. -1
    11 November 2011 17: 36
    The automatic loader was not designed to replenish on the battlefield. The tank was designed for 5 minutes of battle, because of which tens of thousands riveted them. Of no less importance is the Soviet tendency to reduce the reserved space, tank weight (10 tons of armor per tank = hundreds of tons of nickel saved, etc. + the possibility of transferring by rail), low silhouette (they were going to fight using nuclear weapons). As a result, Soviet tanks turned out to be lower, lighter, cramped, massive and saved 20 thousands of loaders, which is also important. However, an additional crew member will never be superfluous, for example, when putting on a caterpillar a pair of hands does not hurt at all.
    Whether automatic charging is needed or not, there is no single answer. The fact that the concept of combat has changed over the past 20-30 years must not be overlooked.
    1. +5
      11 November 2011 19: 25
      Oil painting: 5th decade of the XNUMXst century, a robot tank goes into battle, but there is no AZ (MZ) in it, but there is a loader! ;) And he is the only person in the tank - everything else is already automated. :)
      1. -4
        11 November 2011 20: 15
        Why, then, need a gunner and a mechanic driver? In a fighter, one person manages a much faster changing environment.
        When we reach this level of automation, we can remove the loader, but for now it is needed.
        1. 0
          19 November 2011 18: 11
          the plane has no bumps or obstacles. a tanker has to not only look at the battlefield, but also at his own "road", otherwise he can leave like that. so you need a driver and a shooter. and on the planes there are already 2 crew members, a pilot and an operator.
        2. Insurgent
          0
          24 February 2012 10: 25
          You are wrong, there is also a command center, which the destroyer points at the target, gives the decision, and so on.
    2. per3526
      0
      19 November 2011 21: 04
      professor (right, with a small letter)
      , low silhouette (they were going to fight using nuclear weapons).
      ------ and notice, this is not what I said!
  18. +3
    11 November 2011 19: 12
    Actually, why doesn’t the author propose to put 30mm with manual loading on the BMP? Charger is more reliable, and 30mm is not heavy.
    1. -5
      11 November 2011 20: 20
      This is the same as comparing the rate of fire of a machine gun and a sniper rifle. Tank sniper for today: shot = hit.
      1. makrus
        0
        12 November 2011 03: 27
        You are talking about the fight against terrorism, but that’s not why the tank was created. And if suddenly (war 080808) a full-blown conflict begins, the enemy will not give us time to develop tanks from the AZ.
  19. kesa1111
    +6
    11 November 2011 21: 32
    The tank goes at different speeds, with sudden stops .... climbs, slopes, slopes. It so happens that it is difficult for the loader to maintain balance even without a projectile (it is even more difficult under fire). In such conditions, you need to test the real rate of fire.
  20. +1
    11 November 2011 22: 16
    1. The division of labor in the crew.
    a) the tank not only fights on the battlefield, it also makes marches, is transported by various types of transport, is located at halts and in areas of concentration. Consequently, the tank needs to be serviced (cleaned, refueled, fastened and adjusted, straightened the entrenching tool), dug in and masked, and guarded. Yes, and someone needs to run into the kitchen (the film "In War as in War"), tear off cracks and dugouts, communication passages, etc. And on a tank with three crew members, each of whom is a specialist, and one is also a commander , everyone will be leveled out on common tasks and will lose the specificity of the functionality, and they will physically get tired much more;
    b) in hostilities, an extra crew member means additional eyes, and, if necessary, a foot reconnaissance of a water obstacle or obstacle, an observer outside the tank, fire protection of the crew from personal weapons during reconstruction or evacuation operations on the battlefield.
    2. Rate of fire.
    a) combat rate of fire - the time from detecting a target, determining the initial settings of a sight and aiming point to a shot - is practically not limited to technical rate of fire using an AZ or a loader;
    b) the technical rate of fire with an AZ or a loader does not differ significantly: when I was a platoon, I trained the loaders on the T-62 to throw a projectile in a full cycle in 7-9 seconds. Objections to the zakidny’s fatigue are not entirely appropriate, since the tank does not constantly shoot continuously in battle, it still searches for targets and maneuvers in order to occupy a favorable firing position and tactical position;
    c) mistakes can equally be made by the loader and gunner when choosing the type of ammunition. In this case, the gunner also has to be distracted from fulfilling his direct duties in battle.
    3. On the reduction of mass-dimensional characteristics.
    a) the accuracy and validity of firing modern guns is practically independent of the difference in the dimensions of the military hardware because of the high ballistic characteristics of the weapon, the stabilization of weapons, and the resolution capabilities of aiming and surveillance devices;
    b) the ergonomics of the weapons and military equipment (including sufficient reserved space) reduce crew fatigue, increase service and repair capabilities.
    These are just some aspects of the assessment as a first approximation ...
    1. makrus
      +2
      12 November 2011 03: 57
      And how do you comment on promising developments? I think you are simply mistaken in everything.
      1. 0
        13 November 2011 15: 46
        Only he who does nothing (does not think) is not mistaken. You reduce the use of tanks to a few-minute clash, as if in a computer game: suddenly tanks appeared on the battlefield out of nowhere and a continuous mochilo began. Absolutely overlook the long preparatory phase. Briefly about promising developments - robotization, but this is a qualitatively new level of not only application, but also provision, including strategic and operational mobility. I express an opinion on the existing reality. And if we look at the prospect, then in all the relationships and a change in the nature and system of warfare in all physical environments and the application of new physical principles in the corresponding INFORMATION SPACE.
        1. per3526
          +1
          19 November 2011 20: 58
          strategy ---
          then in all interconnections and a change in the nature and system of warfare in all physical environments and the application of new physical principles in the corresponding INFORMATION SPACE.
          --- What the fuck is this? Did you understand what you wrote?
          1. 0
            20 February 2012 11: 42
            Try to understand, and if necessary, read something on these issues. If something is not clear, ask specific questions - I will try to answer))
  21. classicist2001
    +5
    12 November 2011 09: 28
    mare, not an article. An example is given of the T-72, which is significantly inferior in combat characteristics to the T-64 and T-80. Since the loader was removed in the Soviet T-64, T-72, and T-80 tanks, this significantly reduced the volume of the fighting compartment, made the tank a lower silhouette (harder to hit on the battlefield, it’s easier for the tank to hide behind the terrain) and significantly strengthen frontal armor without increasing the total mass of the tank. If the T-62 had 20 ready-made rounds in the combat unit, the T-64 and T-80 had 28 rounds in the Ministry of Defense. MZ provides a rate of fire of 7-8 rounds per minute (shot every 7 seconds) when driving in any terrain and at any speed. On western tanks with a loader, such a rate of fire can be ensured only when firing from a place or when driving on flat terrain. Finally, Leopard-2, for example, has only 15 combat-ready shots that are located in a tower niche. The remaining 27 shots are located without any extra. protection to the left of the driver’s mechanic. To move these shots into the tower niche, the Leopard must stop and rotate the tower 90 degrees, which makes the tank absolutely sky-ready and vulnerable. For more details, see No. 6 http://btvt.narod.ru/1/tank3.htm. Western experts also recognize the undeniable benefits of the MoH. See http://btvt.narod.ru/1/az_zabugrom.htm.
  22. +3
    12 November 2011 14: 19
    The author smacks nonsense! Firstly, a tank on the battlefield with the current guidance systems (all tanks) will survive, God forbid, half an hour, and even from the AZ will not have time to shoot 22 shells. Secondly: "Four corpses near the tank will complement the battle landscape!" worse than three - sorry for the cynicism. Even German (armored) tanks "survived" the WAR without combat damage for a maximum of three battles. And if the tank is dragged away for repair, then the AZ will be filled anew.
  23. +3
    13 November 2011 15: 37
    "It is quite obvious that in a real combat situation it is practically impossible to load a T-72 gun manually. Even if it is possible to do this using the most available shots, then in the process of getting them and loading them, the crew will for some time lose either the gunner or the commander."

    And if the loader’s abram or leoperd breaks down at the beginning of the battle, then someone from the crew from the very beginning of the battle will dive somewhere in the hole for the shells. T72 will fire at least 22 shots for anyone (if it is in time). Somewhere I read that in a modern combined arms battle, the tank lives on average 4 minutes. That t-72 during this time will empty the entire AZ on the enemy, and the pendos will fire a dozen and a half shots, and at the same time a crew member drops out of the battle except for the killed loader. This is my reasoning, I'm not special.A can you fill up the AZ during the battle?
  24. 0
    13 November 2011 15: 40
    Judging by the non-parliamentary terms, some comrades simply do not have a culture of discussion. Logically and justifiably they cannot state anything, but resort to categorical statements in an even offensive form. As if this is a debate in the pub to a fair degree of hopping. Learn to accept the opinions of others and look for rational in them.
  25. +7
    19 November 2011 20: 42
    The author is clearly a provocateur or dunce (choose). The strangest thing is that one conclusion is formally correct - about the fourth crew member, with one caveat - you do not need a loader, you need an additional shooter for a remotely controlled weapon and in general additional. a pair of hands and eyes. But with this approach, many can argue, it is believed that the crew should be reduced to one or two members altogether, or the tank should be made uninhabited by the UAV principle, which is also debatable because it gives the tank a link to a certain control and maintenance base, which in turn does not fit into the concept of application (unless in limited types). The remaining conclusions are pure rhetoric with a targeted distortion of facts. Lunges towards deploying an ammunition unit are generally absurd. There is no safe deployment of ammunition on tanks, and on Western tanks this is generally a headache. On the same leopard, the ammunition is deployed: 15 rounds are located on the left in the aft recess of the tower, additional ammunition storage (27 shots) are placed in the body, to the left of the driver's mechanic without any special protective devices, that is, the author also misinforms or does not know the subject. Knockout panels, even with normal operation, do not save the tank from complete destruction (this is according to Abrams). As for the "business card of Russian tanks", I would give it in the face if the author had told me this personally. It is necessary to learn the mathematical part, and not engage in verbiage. The hallmark of Russian tanks is their phenomenal survivability and manufacturability (correspondingly price) and ease of operation. For reference, even the T-80 was under the strength of the "international" crew consisting of two semi-literate Kazakhs (no offense) and one commander with the education received in vocational schools (he served 90-93). And whether the tower was torn down by the explosion of the ammunition rack or the tower (or rather what was left) seems to be standing still. but the ammo rack exploded in the niche - this is a purely aesthetic issue and it makes no difference how many shells exploded inside the hull (1 or 27).
    Summary: afftor f firebox

    about the instructions - it really is the place to be, but-
    the modern oncoming tank battle is quite short-term, in reality the tank will not be able to release its ammunition with all the desire, and therefore even 22 shots is not bad at all. It is almost impossible to equip automatic loading during a battle, but no one ever planned this, and did not count. Recharging is done even on the go but coming out of the shelling, which is normal by default. Imagine that the tank all the time until the shells run out will be in the zone of a direct shot of the enemy .... In a battle (even in a city) there are pauses, and when the tank and unit commander did not come from training yesterday, he always plans to fight and leave it.

    About Leopard 2:
    Ammunition of the first stage (15 shots) is placed in an easy-to-access laying on the left side of the aft niche of the tower behind the armored partition.

    Under favorable conditions, the time for a charge cycle from this packing is about 8 seconds. The rest of the ammunition (27 rounds) is in the installation, located in the control compartment, to the left of the driver’s seat, of course, there can be no talk about using it in a short-lived tank battle, because access to it requires a turn of the tower.

    http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/80u_vs_leo2.htm
    1. +3
      19 November 2011 21: 49
      As for the "business card of Russian tanks", I would give it in the face if the author had told me this personally. Joining
  26. per3526
    +2
    19 November 2011 20: 51
    The author writes, thereby isolating the crew from at least part of the ammunition. I understand from his words that the explosion of the remaining ammunition will not harm the crew! Probably Mishan suffered.
  27. +2
    19 November 2011 20: 52
    Regarding "here is an eccentric author ..." I can add that an eccentric with the letter M, since what happened in Sinai and on Gollan is tank battles of a completely different era and there were no tanks with AZ (with the same success the author could give examples of the Kursk Bulge or the battles for Budapest.By the way, the absence of AZ (as well as the presence) dictates a completely different tactics and manner of fighting, manually on the move over rough terrain, the loader's work is really difficult and the tank commander is forced to choose a route speed and even stop for comfort loader, which should not be done in the presence of AZ or MZ ..
  28. dred
    -2
    17 December 2011 11: 04
    Do you need a gun or not, you need to ask the soldiers? Won pendosy have not asked now they charge all sorts of niggas joe.
  29. DaNukeoff
    +1
    9 January 2012 16: 05
    "The twenty-year rumble of explosions of T-72 ammunition racks has finally reached Nizhny Tagil."
    I could not stand it, registered.
    1. A twenty-year-old roar rattles in Iraq, and if so, it’s the T-55 and part of the T-72M.
    2. The release of T-72M tanks (Iraq) fell on the 70s, in the export, certainly outdated model, there was no equipment for conducting night battles (the M1 battles with the T-72, without aviation, were mainly at night)
    3. Most often the "carousel" exploded, which is now absent not only on the T-90SM, but also on any T-90 (except for "A", and is eliminated, as well as on the T-72, which Tagilians are modernizing according to the 2015 plan and based on T90SM experience)
    4. If we compare it with the M1, which I understand from the "rumble" hints, then it burns like a cute one when it enters the APU, and how to get out of it is not disclosed for "known" reasons.
    5. According to some rumors from everywhere, I won’t lay out any evidence, I won’t find it easy, maybe speculation, but partially the T-72s were assembled in Iraq by Iraqis.
    You reminded me of "General" Makarov.
    In conclusion, Tagil never received benefits from public defense, even last year (2011) the profit was less than 1%, people do what they can.
  30. Gren9
    0
    11 January 2012 01: 20
    "Who: T-72BM / BU tank from the 141st separate tank battalion
    Where: South Ossetia, Tskhinval, South Peace Base.
    It was burned on 09.08.2008, at about 18-19 hours of the day on the southern outskirts of Tskhinvali, at the location of the base of Russian peacekeepers. One of the two tanks of 141 battalions that broke through to the peacekeepers' location during an unsuccessful attempt to release them on the afternoon of August 9 by the forces of the first battalion of 135 MSPs and the tank company of 141 battalions. The tank supported the peacekeepers with fire for several hours, ran out of ammunition and was damaged. The crew left it and joined the peacekeepers, after which on the evening of August 9 they departed with them. The tank commander, Lieutenant Alexander Popov, was wounded in the leg. "
  31. +1
    14 January 2012 15: 07
    quite obvious: the concept of “automatic charging plus charging” has clear advantages over the concept of “automatic loading minus charging”


    maybe this is so, but then our tanks would not weigh 48 tons, but 60-65, like the western ones.
    Is it good or bad, I would like to ask the author?
  32. Lawyer
    0
    10 March 2012 19: 33
    Automatic loading, in all tanks of the Soviet school is used to reduce weight and increase armor, in turn, this measure carries both positive and negative sides.
    The positive potential is the further potential for modernization (weight reserve) and the convenience of shooting in motion over rough terrain, and the reduction in silhouette.
    To the negative, in the first place, the creation of excessive pressure inside the tank and the likelihood of detonation of the ammunition, which is not critical, in view of the significantly greater protection of the same t-72, with dynamic protection, compared to Abrams and Leopard 2 in all projections. For example, the protection of the sides of the turret of these tanks is less than 60 mm.
    I advise the author to express his point of view objectively.
  33. Lepsik
    +1
    20 March 2012 06: 44
    Well, what can I say was written by a man who had not seen a living tank in his eyes.

    --But the battlefield is not a training ground, the real enemy maneuvers

    at the firing range they shoot at fairly moving targets. It’s easy and easy to shoot at targets even for a child. But try stunned or wounded to load the gun?

    - according to experts, confirmed by relevant tests, the rate of fire when manually loading the first 10-12 unitary ammunition is almost the same as that carried out with the help of AZ, even slightly higher

    There are no links on the testimony of experts, so the race.

    For manual loading, the tank must be stopped - on the go with your hands can current in the movie.
    In life, you sit fastened and snuggle up to the sight - otherwise, with your head on the first bump, you will come across. Try to drive and do something in the car on the road with bumps - but there is no tank in the tank.

    And with the automatic loader - I pressed a button in a slot machine and a shell in a cannon.

    - tank battalion - a hundred tanks.

    If anyone stops quickly will remain in the deep rear. Digging to the tower is done in a few minutes with knives. After this, the tank is no longer available.

    - firing using shots from a non-mechanized warhead is possible only from a place and mainly against targets that cannot respond with fire

    there is generally nonsense - if the shell is in the barrel - there is no difference for what purposes and how to move.
    It is generally not clear what the author wanted to write

    - went around the photos of the T-72 with towers, torn apart by an explosion of ammunition,
    current their few units. No more than the Abrams knocked out almost with a karamultuk

    - The loader sits sideways to the gun (facing the breech) to his left and sends out shots with his right hand, and not with his left, as in Soviet tanks with manual loading.

    moreover, this phrase is not clear in the article - T55 removed from service in the Russian Federation in the 80s

    - So whether or not a modern tank needs an automatic loader?

    definitely needed. Technological trends lead, if not to a reduction in crew, to its complete removal.

    author amateur.

    I speak as the commander of the T72 tank
  34. 0
    April 9 2015 02: 22
    Of course, I understand everything, but the mass of a 125mm tank shell is a little over 40 kilos! and this is with separate charging. And with the sleeve all 60 kilos will come out!
    If you take this into account, then the rate of fire of the tank can and will reach 8 rounds per minute, but in a minute it will be necessary to replace the loader. Where to get it? Carry the barracks behind the tank with a relaxation center?
    And if in howitzers the infecting shells are thrown into the tray, then it must be recalled that her breech is almost on the floor of the fighting compartment, and the tank barrel is quite high.
    In general, the author modestly kept silent about human capabilities.

    And he bashfully kept silent that in other western tanks the ammunition is also located in all free places, from where it will have to be taken out after firing an operational ammunition

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"