if a tank was designed right now, would it have a manned turret? i mean why would it? the loading sequence can be automated and everything else can be done from inside the hull. this way, not only will the crew be safer since they can only expose the turret having the crew fully in cover but they can also make the tank have smaller profile since crew comfort is not an issue and only restrictive factor will be the size of the gun and the size of the ammo. all of the ammo can be stored in the turret so if the ammunition explodes the crew will not be endangered.
Isn't that what the Armata was supposed to be?
Aren't human loaders faster ?
Inb4 some retards scream about loading speed of humans(inferior) or how muh 4th crewmember!! How can i repair the tank??
No one has made a new tank since the cold war except the russians so yeah any new one would be unmanned.
>>30557613
No, roughly the same but more adaptable on the first few rounds, then, as the fatigue kicks in, they drop below automatics
>>30557613
A well-trained crew who's been together for a while can normally outrun an autoloader. There are stories of crews getting off a round every 4 seconds at 73 Easting. Manned loaders also:
>Serve as another set of eyes and ears, which is invaluable especially in urban environments.
>Serve as another MG operator
>Switch between different round types better
>Makes maintenance that much easier with a 4th man
>No autoloader means that there's one less thing that could possibly break down.
>>30557691
why would an autoloader of this day and age not be able to switch between round fast and well?
also, can a human not experience malfunctions? humans are susceptible to disease, heat, cold, lack of food among other things.
>>30557613
not sure why that would be, loading the cannon is a quite the simple job well suited for a mechanism to do.
>>30557613
>Aren't human loaders faster ?
>implying nig nogs are human
>>30557277
>i mean why would it?
No matter of the amount of cameras you'll put on top if your fucking tank all-around visibility will be better if your TC and gunner(at the very least) can get on top of fucking turret and look around.
Outside of it - it allows you to distribute the crew better, which results in overall smaller dimensions(hurrrr.... look at T-14 vs T-80 or T-72 or T-90).
Ammo can't be stored in the turret in 100% unless your turret will be enormous too.
On top of it for every additional system there's new faggot part that can break and WILL break, except with crewless turrets there's no fucking way to run in degraded mode. And sure, perfectly made tanks straight out of assembly line won't suffer from it but can you be sure of it after 10 years? 20? 30?
Even the "muh I'll concentrate armour on hull" is fucking dumb. Landmines are bigger danger to you than fucking tank rounds getting in the turret and cooking ammo off, if more "concentrated protection" is your problem you'd be better off armouring the turret better and putting all crew inside of turret too. It's stupid anyway but better than putting them all in hull.
Of course that NATO doesn't use autoloaders widely is another thing but as for crewless turrets it's stupid idea. Especially in NATO since any advantage of using low-profile turret will be negated by the fact that you have to provide decent gun depression so you'll need bigger hull with turret that's still big as fuck on top of it. Sure m8, great trade.
>>30557928
>No matter of the amount of cameras you'll put on top if your fucking tank all-around visibility
We use combined thermal and tv sights just fine to survey the battlespace. Sees farther, is stabilized, can see at night, can range targets, and doesn't require you to stick your pretty little head out. With the push of a button the turret swings to where you want someone BTFO and some even have stabilized MGs to BTFO infantry.
>get on top of fucking turret and look around.
Nice recipe for TC getting his head turned into burst pinata from sniper fire or arty shrapnel.
>Outside of it - it allows you to distribute the crew better, which results in overall smaller dimensions
Its not the dimensions that's important for the Soviets, its the armor to internal volume ratio. By concentrating everything in the hull you get rid of wasted space for each station as well as optimize the amount of armor.
>Ammo can't be stored in the turret in
All the ammo is stored in the hull below the turret ring with both projectile and propellant stub standing up.
>no fucking way to run in degraded mode
Who told you taht? fully automated systems can be made doubly redundant just as well that you don't need manual.
>Landmines are bigger danger
As the foremost user of AT mines they know what they are doing. Besides it appears that its the only one that actually addresses the problem with a magnetic field enhancer to prematurely det. magnetic proximity mines.
>f more "concentrated protection" is your problem you'd be better off armouring the turret better and putting all crew inside of turret too
The MBT-70 did that, and it was unsatisfactory in the armor department. Moving turrets are just inherently vulnerable as compared to a fixed mass of hull armor. Not only would you have to leave certain areas like the turret ring vulnerable, the mantle area is a necessary weakness too. You would have to supply much powerful traverse motors just to turn the turret which adds more weight too.
>>30557928
a modern camera can see better than human eye.
what the fuck are you talking about distributing the crew.
also, why the fuck would storing ammo in the turret make it huge? removal of the gunner and commander will surely allow for enough space
wtf are you sperging on about? turret is the first part of the tank to be exposed and therefore it is useful that the crew isn't dangered when it is exposed.
>>30558074
>>30558067
>looking through the straw of a camera gives you better situational awareness
Actual MOUT results say hi.
>>30558074
>a modern camera can see better than human eye.
It doesn't it has been tested for a long time now.
>removal of the gunner and commander will surely allow for enough space
You're not removing them and leave nothing in their place. Automatic systems and their protection(you don't want them to be busted by first shitty thing that hits them) will take considerable amount of space)
>wtf are you sperging on about? turret is the first part of the tank to be exposed and therefore it is useful that the crew isn't dangered when it is exposed.
As I've said the idea is still dumb. Storing all your crew in one place = dumb, all in turret - little bit less dumb than all in hull.
>Nice recipe for TC getting his head turned into burst pinata from sniper fire or arty shrapnel.
Same will happen to all the optics and cameras so the end result is the same, except TC outside = more visibility.
>Its not the dimensions that's important for the Soviets, its the armor to internal volume ratio. By concentrating everything in the hull you get rid of wasted space for each station as well as optimize the amount of armor.
Then it's bigger than any Russian/Soviet tank since the days of IS series while weighting ~50 tonnes, I wouldn't be surprised if T-64 built with modern materials would had better memeratio than T-14.
>Who told you taht? fully automated systems can be made doubly redundant just as well that you don't need manual.
Redundancy still won't help you in many situations where degraded mode would. Also note that this amount of system stacked on top of tank add to maintenance some of which should be done by the crew and the more redundant the systems are, the more maintenance
>The MBT-70 did that, and it was unsatisfactory in the armor department.
see above - reinventing the wheel is stupid,
>>30557632
Don't forget about their need to remove jams in their 100 year old coax machine gun
>>30558448
I don't understand how a TC sticking his head and looking around/using binoculars magically gives better situational awareness than some form of sensor fused camera setup.
>>30557691
>>Serve as another set of eyes and ears, which is invaluable especially in urban environments.
Knowing that the loader is the crew member having the least amount of vision blocks at its disposal, his job is to load the gun, not observe the battlefield, as a matter of fact, there are no vision blocks for the loader on the Merkava Mk. 4 tank.
>>Serve as another MG operator
Having a second roof-mounted machine gun is sometime simply not the ideal solution since it reduces the already-cluttered field of view of the commander optics.
In addition, the busy loader doesn't have necessarily have time to operate the roof-mounted machine gun.
>>Switch between different round types better
Because pressing on the right button on the autoloader's control panel is so difficult ?
>>Makes maintenance that much easier with a 4th man
The crew is just enough for routine checks.
When you throw a track, a 4th guy won't make a difference. For more heavy routine maintenance, the whole platoon is usually there (like changing the rubber pads). Otherwise, you call the mechanics.
>>No autoloader means that there's one less thing that could possibly break down.
Autoloaders are reliable. Of course, it can break down or suffer whatever kind of mechanical failure, but the same is true for a human one.
>>30558637
Because you can't give TC sitting inside of his tank 160-170 degree field of view screen but when he's sticking his head out he has that kind of FoV as it's the typical human FoV.
On top of that people tend to lose the orientation when the hull, the turret and the optics aren't turned on the same side when moving, no matter of training.
This is not some ground-breaking tech anon, we've mounted cameras on top of tank for loooong time now yet nobody, except for Russians who are known to disregard the questions of ergonomics and visibility decided to rely solely on them.
>>30557277
It would be unmanned with a black person as a loader.
>>30558448
are you actually implying that an automatic system is more susceptible to damage than a human? do you fucking know how fragile a human is?
but all the crew is already stored in one place right now, in the tank.
>>30558786
why the fuck can't you surround the TC with screens? also, if loosing orientation is a problem just add a little tank figure on the fucking screens shoving which way it is facing.
>>30558816
>are you actually implying that an automatic system is more susceptible to damage than a human?
If you skip on armouring those system it will be far more fragile. And that's the fucking purpose of unmanned turret.
>but all the crew is already stored in one place right now, in the tank.
The point is that single hit can disable whole crew if stored in turret/hull entirely. Which is also true for mines - mines will also disable whole crew when they'll fuck up tank with T-14 layout.
>why the fuck can't you surround the TC with screens?
Solution for this problem that's the closest thing to practicality is something alike those VR headsets but their field of view is still too fucking small.
>>30557632
Both the South Korean K2 and Japanese Type 10 have entered service since the end of the Cold War.
>>30557750
Human crew members are much easier to replace than an auto loader if they break down.
>>30558881
>The point is that single hit can disable whole crew if stored in turret/hull entirely
surely you do realize that in ordinary tanks the whole crew is still housed in one place, inside the tank, if a round penetrates a tank it can hit all of them.
>If you skip on armoring those system it will be far more fragile
why would you skip on that then?
>>30558946
why the fuck would that be? not to mention that a human life is monetarily like 10 times more valuable than an auto loading system.
>>30558816
Yes, less fragile than you think.
Self-learning nanoscale bioware with bipedal mobility and dual manipulators >>> a crude combination of cogs and hydraulic pistons.
Shocking, I know.
>Russia developing remote controlled modules for fully unmanned MBTs
>Americans still argue utility of automated loading mechanism in XXI (twenty first) century
These threads don't even amuse me anymore. Tractor replaces the horse, it's an axiom, you can educate backward peasants on this matter for hours until you run out of vernacular and they'll still come up with excuses one more absurd and ridiculous than another; ultimately, you realize none of your arguments would matter to someone who considers that old mare part of their family and dreads the devilish roar of diesel engine.
>>30558741
>there are no vision blocks for the loader on the Merkava Mk. 4 tank.
Which is a design flaw in the Merkava.
>Having a second roof-mounted machine gun is sometime simply not the ideal solution since it reduces the already-cluttered field of view of the commander optics.
If a roof MG blocks your commanders optics then that is a design flaw in the layout of your tank.
>In addition, the busy loader doesn't have necessarily have time to operate the roof-mounted machine gun.
There are times when he is able to operate a MG and times he is not, having one in case he is able to is additional capability.
>Because pressing on the right button on the autoloader's control panel is so difficult ?
Depending on the arrangement of ammunition in an autoloader, switching types can greatly increase the reloading time as the ammunition is cycled to the correct type.
>When you throw a track, a 4th guy won't make a difference.
wew lad
>>30558786
>This is not some ground-breaking tech anon
Except all the technology involved is all rapidly improving, and design decisions that might have been viable 20 years ago are no longer true.
Give the commander and driver some nice big 4k screens.
And give every tank their own spotting/kamikaze drones.
>>30558935
Leclerc, Challenger 2, Altay, K2, Type 10
>>30559046
meanwhile a decade ago
>>30558323
>What are panoramic cameras w/ WFV?
>>30558448
>It doesn't it has been tested for a long time now.
What third world country did you come from that HD cameras aren't available?
>Automatic systems
Are much smaller than a human, and consequently
>their protection
needs lot less mass of armor to achieve.
>all in turret - little bit less dumb than all in hull.
Weaker armor with more gaps/weakspots than a fixed structure and since its statistically likeliest to be hit a double jeopardy.
Btw turret armor can not be any thicker than where the driver's hatch is, a fact that doesn't escape ammo designers that are aiming for 1 m RHAe penetration from APFSDS, since this would more or less invalidate current manned turret designs physical protection.
Also tanks with manned turrets have deficient armor in the front hull- If you are putting all the crew in the turret you would have to stick some ammo in the frontal hull, which as I've said is weaker than the frontal turret.
>except TC outside != more visibility.
ftfu. Btw any sane TC would hunker down at the first sign of enemy fire so yeah.
>Then it's bigger than any Russian/Soviet tank since the days of IS series while weighting ~50 tonnes,
48 tons empty, as in devoid of extra side armor and combat load. Fully loaded that's about 4 tons more at least.
>I wouldn't be surprised if T-64 built with modern materials would had better memeratio than T-14.
It doesn't. separate crew stations have redundant space allowances that would be shaved off in a unified compartment, and it has rather thin turret and hull armor, the thinnest of its AL equipped brothers.
>Redundancy still won't help you in many situations where degraded mode would
Yeah, it won't really help you in that ultra rare contrived scenario of every secondary system futzing up and leaving you with manual. Which, as that Soviet AL anecdote demonstrates, happens once in a blue moon.
>>30559046
Americans tried out an RWS turret on the M1 back in the 1980s.
They were ahead of the Russian tech curve and found tech wasn't good enough at the time, it still isn't.
When RWS become good enough to be a major benefit instead of crude patch for declining national morale and birth rates, then you can trust the USA will add them.
>>30559193
You think a starting from scratch MBT design made today would still involve a 20+ ton manned turrent?
>>30559171
Nice to see US finally catching up with 8 (eight) decade old Soviet technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank
Whatever happened to black knight by the way? I assume poor negro immured inside has died of starvation and Pentagon discarded the idea
>>30559180
>Btw turret armor can not be any thicker than where the driver's hatch is,
The thickness of the turret armor is not decided by how far the drivers hatch is from the turret ring.
>a fact that doesn't escape ammo designers that are aiming for 1 m RHAe penetration from APFSDS, since this would more or less invalidate current manned turret designs physical protection.
No existing APFSDS comes close to 1m RHAe penetration.
>Also tanks with manned turrets have deficient armor in the front hull- If you are putting all the crew in the turret you would have to stick some ammo in the frontal hull, which as I've said is weaker than the frontal turret.
The T-14's turret is only armored against heavy machine guns.
>>30559217
There's a fair chance it wouldn't; but that's due to weight tradeoffs, not automated loaders being superior.
The M1 is good enough today, has been superior for the last 20-30 years, and will continue being good enough for the next 10-20.
If the USA thought RWS were important, they'd pick em up off the lab shelf and put em on. Same for all the other tank-related US tech shit like CKEM hypervelocity missiles or LOCAAS autonomous kill vehicles. Tanks just aren't that important in an age of self-targeting cluster EFPs launched from stealth bombers.
>>30559217
A manned turret that is 20 tons is 20 tons because the designers wanted it to be able to resist machine gun fire.
And yes.
>rectal ravaged vatniks STILL trying to say that any kind of remote viewing system is anything close to the situational awareness of sticking your head out despite decades of experience saying otherwise
incredible
>>30559245
Whatever happened to teletanks anyway, clearly it was a success as it took 70 years for Russia to start making remote tanks again (a decade after the West).
>>30558881
>If you skip on armouring those system it will be far more fragile. And that's the fucking purpose of unmanned turret.
You skip armoring them only to the extent of large calibre tank fired projectiles and anti-tank warheads, which require really thick armor arrays. Anything less like 30-40-45-57 mm autocannons you can put up a physical armor that is not bulky nor heavy.
>The point is that single hit can disable whole crew if stored in turret/hull entirely. Which is also true for mines - mines will also disable whole crew when they'll fuck up tank with T-14 layout.
With the entire crew sitting in one capsule its way easier to protect them all by welding a belly plate or two under the hull where the armored capsule is.
>>30559245
gun isnt even stabalised
>>30559318
In 15 or 20 years eventually it will be as good and the first world will then upgrade.
Then vatniks will crow about being ahead of the game as if 15 or 20 years of inferior performance is good.
>>30559318
They'll see in the next war how wrong they are. A buttoned up T-34 crew was a blind T-34 crew. Without the massive numerical advantage they will have no excuses for their tank loses besides the vehicles and crews being inferior to the West. Which has always been the case aside from the small period when the T-64 and T-72 were new.
>>30559193
>declining national morale
This coming from a country where half of its youths aren't proud to say the least that they are American.
>birth rates
Not too shabby as compared to Europe or should I dare say American whites.
>They were ahead of the Russian tech curve
If we included every prototype that didn't make it even those godless commies are more advanced than everyone today, what with those teletanks.
>>30559262
>The thickness of the turret armor is not decided by how far the drivers hatch is from the turret ring.
Ok, you are right. I forgot you can sort of angle up the armor as it juts out a la Thumper, the caveat being you expose the turret race ring and even worse the sheer obliquity can cause subcaliber penetrators to actually skim off into the hull.
>No existing APFSDS comes close to 1m RHAe penetration.
That new German DM-73? round is said to boast 50% better performance as compared to legacy DM-53, and the vatniks are boasting similar performance with a DU variant of their Vacuum round.
>The T-14's turret is only armored against heavy machine guns.
This debunked meme again.Here we see an external plate, that is on top of a fixed turret structure with its own armor ofc. From vatnik sources that hard kill interceptor is about 152 mm in diameter so including the container about 160 mm. Eyeballing(or any other unorthodox measuring technique like measuring by hand on the screen) one can see its about as thick as the plate and where the visible turret plate thickness is (which likely extends a bit inside since plates aren't joined at their corners but alas we don't have pics) and if the turret shroud is any use would give a bit of initial yaw to any projectile it encounters.
>>30559438
>American whites.
Not an issue considering that Russians aren't white.
>>30559193
T-14 is an evolutionary leap from Object-477 an original Soviet design that predated TTB. Pretty much everyone was playing with the idea of unmanned turrets at the end of cold war, with varying degrees of success. In each case, the decision to drop it had more to do with budget cuts and shifts in doctrine rather than your imbecilic excuse of tech "not being good enough".
>>30559696
Tech's value is dependent on the doctrine and budget; not vice versa.
You'll learn this when you become an adult.
>>30559438
The white birthrate in both America and Russia is ~1.8, with America having twice as many whites as Russia.
>>30559757
Latinos are included in the "White" category.
/offtopic
>>30559714
If the sole purpose of american military are wars with poor arab countries stuck between 1950s and stone age then US can certainly be content with its current armor and level of technological advancement.
>>30559615
>I forgot you can sort of angle up the armor as it juts out a la Thumper,
Turret rings are protected by collars, and the position of the turret face armor cavity varies from tank to tank.
>That new German DM-73?
Something that doesn't exist.
>This debunked meme again.Here we see an external plate
Standard distraction tactic of pretending the shell is being talked about when there are photos that you can see the armor underneath.
>>30559992
>Standard distraction tactic of pretending the shell is being talked about when there are photos that you can see the armor underneath.
>>30559781
My numbers are for non-hispanic whites.
>>30559992
>Something that doesn't exist.
Granted, its a mockup.
>Turret rings are protected by collars
i.e. non-armor.
>>30560028
>>30560096
>armor isn't armor
>>30560139
This actually looks like part of that turret face armor I've mentioned above, looks thin because the metal shroud blocks part of the additional external plate so you'd think that bit that juts and meets with the turret face armor is part of the shroud itself. My picture above shows it much clearer that its the external plate.
>>30560149
>implying a collar could stop a tank-fired subcaliber penetrator.
>>30558996
If an autoloader the tank is disabled until is repaired. If a (human) loader is injured or killed another human can replace them straight away and the tank can get back in the fight.
>>30560404
If an autoloader is damaged...
>>30560207
Anyway, what I meant by "Houses optical tubes" is that its part of the doghouse, and basically contains the optical tubes that connect the sight head to the combined TV/thermal camera. It does not reflect the armor of the rest of the turret face.
>>30560404
What would be so difficult about making an 'optional' autoloading system so that a human can take over for it if need be?
>>30560207
>My picture above shows it much clearer that its the external plate.
Your picture gives a much smaller view of the section in question with less detail visible.
>>30560914
Now, now you're just in denial 8^)
>>30561014
If that is what you want to call your picture being obscured by the APS, then by all means.
>>30560512
nothing, you can load shells manually in t-72. but loading the gun from non-mechanized racks distracts gunner from his direct duties
>>30560404
If your fighting compartment is penetrated, I wouldn't be too optimistic about the rest of the crew
>>30557277
>make the tank have smaller profile
Not necessarily. Gun depression probably dictates height more than crewmembers. You can only make a hull so low to fit a crew as well.
>>30558074
>also, why the fuck would storing ammo in the turret make it huge? removal of the gunner and commander will surely allow for enough space
Abrams turret vs Leo turret vs T-90 turret, famalam
>>30559180
>Btw turret armor can not be any thicker than where the driver's hatch is, a fact that doesn't escape ammo designers that are aiming for 1 m RHAe penetration from APFSDS, since this would more or less invalidate current manned turret designs physical protection.
RHAe doesn't tell us anything in the era of composite armor
>>30557277
I would design one with a manned turret. It would be easier to manufacture, easier to repair, less maintaince, an extra memeber to spot stuff, etc.
>>30561440
>RHAe doesn't tell us anything in the era of composite armor
Yes it does. That's literally what RHAe is for.
>>30561513
Except you have things like Russian HEAT rounds with alternate liners show no difference in penetrating steel but have improved effects against different composite matrixes.
>>30557613
They are only as fast as the automated shell blast door opens and breach closes.
>>30559046
>Being in favor of a 3-person tank
A 3-man crew just increases the chance of things going wrong if one of them is injured.
You dump more work on the other 2 guys. It's better to have a 4-men crew instead of 3.
>>30559958
For killing Russians we have boomers, SSNs, and ABMs.
For killing Russian tanks piloted by Arabs, we have so many weapons most never pass TRL 7.
Personally, I'm partial to the CBU 97. The old Pk per EFP was .5 (discrimination & accuracy is better, this is accounting for vehicles being outside the distribution footprint), before the upgrades (the new Pk isn't public). At 40 self-targeting EFPs per CBU, 40 wing-kit equipped INS-guided CBUs per B2, and 2 B2s (escorted by F22s/F35s) per strike package, that's 160 dead tanks a sortie.
Tanks aren't for killing other tanks any more, they haven't been since the 1980s. Killing enemy tanks is a cool side-mission they get to do occasionally to feel more than infantry support.
Hence, manual loaders. Minimal crew isn't a virtue unless you're hemorrhaging vehicles like a Soviet division with its supply dumps blown up by F15s.
>>30559193
>They were ahead of the Russian tech curve
Lol. Russians were studying this direction since mid 70s, resulting in various layouts and prototypes built. Americans only built one mock-up and called it a day.
>>30563395
> Americans build one model and realize it's not worth the effort.
> Russians still haven't figured that out and keep wasting effort on it for decades.
Goddammit Russia.
> Russians do the math that shows stealth shapes are possible, do nothing with it.
> Americans do the math to make the possible real.
Goddammit, Russia!
>>30563788
Kinda sucks that "stealth" triumphed. I'm going to miss hyper-maneuverable planes, instead of comparatively sluggish ones.
>>30563395
You see comrade, wooden model is equivalent to fully functional capitalist vehicle.
>>30563933
>F-22
>sluggish
what world
>>30564156
He is fixated on the subsonic F-117, which is 30 year old tech.
>all this damage control
Manual loading is so 1918. Get with the fucking times.
>>30563933
One of these days I'm going to start a Real Talk thread, where we put aside romantic notions and acknowledge that some weapons were great in their time, but their time has passed.
>>30557613
>Aren't human loaders faster ?
Hugely faster in normal operation and when they are cheating they can have more than two (non sabot) rounds in the air.
Round loaded.
One held in the hands.
Two between the knees.
4 shot fired in less than 5s.
>>30557645
>No, roughly the same but more adaptable on the first few rounds, then, as the fatigue kicks in, they drop below automatics
Ever see a short stout guy lifting weights? The loader can clear the ready rack, or turret bin, or whatever configuration the tank keeps it's ready to fire rounds in without slowing.
The loader also gives an extra crew member for repair, another set of eyes while maneuvering, can run another MG.
~
As for the question at hand, It's really hard to say if a unmanned turret would be better or not.
>>30564352
4 shots in 5 seconds
Dude fucking kill yourself that is such bullshit
