No Soviet Autoloaders...

Actually...the engine in the M60's better, which has been proven in field tests in the desert out in Texas and California.

Better mileage, longer range between tuneups, etc. It's just a better made engine. The T-72's engine doesn't have the pulling/pushing or torque, which is why it's silhouette is so small.

And since I know you're wondering...the source is me when I was at Fort Hood for training before being sent to Afghanistan. But since I know you probably wouldn't want that: Dragons At War: Land Battle in the Desert, by Daniel Bolger. That one provides a good overview.

Did you get to use a T-72 there and compare it? (Serious question)

But as for m60:

Power/weight = 12.5hp/ton
Speed = 30mph

T-72

Power/weight = 18.8hp/ton
Speed = 60 km/h = ~38mph

Do you have any figures you can put out for the "inferior" qualities of the T-72 engine?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I've seen you consistantly make these claims. Do you have any credible source that says smaller tanks were symptoms of smaller engines as opposed to the other way? Or that the breech on the 125mm was unnescissarily large compared to ones used in other countries?

As for the smaller tanks and smaller engines thing...it's kind of obvious in tank design: if you have the engine to push more tank, then you build more tank.
That's why the Soviets ended up with some ungodly big monsters at the end of the WWII, and why Brits were powering the Centurion with a derivative of the Hurricane's engine.

The Soviets do that to. You read the quote: they found out the West had a different size gun, so they immediately slapped a larger one on their current tank almost as a kneejerk reaction.

At any rate, it is clear from the performance you get that less crew is better, which is why so many countries, have gone that way, with their new tanks, not just ex-soviet ones, but Countries like ROK, Japan, France. If you look at the best new and upcoming tanks that are being introduced today such as the Type 10, Oplot-M, and K2 they all have decided to go with the 3 man crew.

Those are countries with a history of quality engineering. I still wouldn't take an autoloader over a manual loader, but I'd trust a Japanese or French one over a Russian one. You don't hear horror stories about French ones.

If you look at the original design specifications for the T-34, you can see that they designed it with these wopping tolerances: +/- .039 of an inch in most cases. I'm a machinst, and we can eyeball that. What the Soviets built their tank industry towards coming out of WWII was making simple designs that could be built by reasonably untrained labour with low quality control. And for the T-34, T-54, and T-55, it worked great. Then something happened around the time of the T-64: they started putting heavy mechanical equipment on it that requires good quality control, but didn't enact any.

I've seen this a million times where I work: they sacrificed quality for quantity, then tried to turn on a dime and expect the opposite. Then they were surprised when it ripped their arm off.

On the other hand, the US army is currently scratching its head over how they're going to trim 15 tons off the M1 for the next upgrade.

Hey, I'm the one who wanted the M8 AGS. Me personally, I think the L7 105mm could've stayed on every tank we have and still made every creditted US tank kill since 1991.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Did you get to use a T-72 there and compare it? (Serious question)

No. We got to see one, that was it. We were just there to use the terrain for familiarization before going to Afghanistan, so we drove around for awhile and some Leopard 1s got to shoot some rounds.

Do you have any figures you can put out for the "inferior" qualities of the T-72 engine?

The guys who actually ran it said it was like "driving in a can." There was also one guy at a bar later who made a very big production about how they wanted to swap out the actual Russian engine with an American one so it would be more reliable. Apparently they'd done that with a BMP at Fort Irwin and it worked.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Soviets can figure out a way to have manually-loaded guns that fire quickly and well, this could be a good thing for the Soviets themselves (fewer tank crewmen with missing arms) and for the people who buy their export models.

IIRC, one of the many reasons the Iraqis got destroyed in 1991 was they were slow between shots and the way the gun moved clued Coalition tankers in to the fact the gun was being reloaded (the barrel would dip or something).

The main reasons that the Iraqis were overwhelmed had less to do with the rate of fire their main guns could maintain and the fact that the M1A1 and Challenger 2 was able to make kills at up to 4,000 meters against front hull armor of the T-72 and the Iraqi 125mm wasn't able to do the same at 1,500 meters. Coupled with the far superior aiming systems and training of the Western troops it equally a disaster. A single Challenger or Abrams could take on 4-5 Iraqi tanks and defeat them all (in the case of the Abrams, the track was enough faster than the T-72 to be able to kill enemy armor until it ran out of sabot rounds without the Soviet models every getting into effective range).
 
As for the smaller tanks and smaller engines thing...it's kind of obvious in tank design: if you have the engine to push more tank, then you build more tank.
There's also the (quite) logical point that a smaller tank is a smaller target.
That's why the Soviets ended up with some ungodly big monsters at the end of the WWII,
You're sure it's not because they wanted something more survivable against the Panthers and Tigers on the Eastern Front?
The Soviets do that to. You read the quote: they found out the West had a different size gun, so they immediately slapped a larger one on their current tank almost as a kneejerk reaction.
At least that's better than the Americans who initially still fielded the aging 105mm L7 on the first batch of Abrams tanks. When they offered the Abrams to the Dutch, they would take it only if they could put the German 120mm/L44 gun on it. When that was not possible, the Dutch bought the LeoII instead and the Americans later also put on the very same tank gun the Dutch requested on the M-1. :p

Hey, I'm the one who wanted the M8 AGS. Me personally, I think the L7 105mm could've stayed on every tank we have and still made every creditted US tank kill since 1991.
Considering the enemies the US faced since 1991, a WWII tank gun would have sufficed too.
 
You're sure it's not because they wanted something more survivable against the Panthers and Tigers on the Eastern Front?
Well, if the tank isn't going to be any faster than the Maus, what's the point? At least a T-34 can move, even if it gets blown apart by the German tanks. I mean, the Americans had tanks which were...not so good against the Germans and we still overcame them on the Western Front. The Soviets could probably have done it on the Eastern.

So people here are thinking that the main problem was with Soviet industry, correct? They couldn't build a really good, relatively compact high-velocity gun, so they built bigger guns...and to get better firing rates, they made them autoloaders...and because they had a history of poor QC, those autoloaders were bad, meaning they took your arm off sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. That's why the NATO countries didn't need the larger gun sizes that the Soviets had. Take the Abrams for example: it probably could operate the L7 105mm gun to this day and still have the same battle record, because it's a well designed gun that's able to stand up.

And besides: is there anyone here who really thinks the Soviet tanks got better performance after their guns, breaches, and ammo got bigger? That's just more weight and parts to break.

A T-72 with a manual loader (i.e. a 115mm gun) would be able to conceivably match the rate of fire of the western tanks. That's a great asset.

The Soviets needed to do what the West did: find one or two main gun types, and stick with them instead of diddling around.

Osprey's T-62 book gives some interesting background on Soviet tank guns.

According to it the Soviet Army was concerned that the 100 mm gun on the T-55 wasn't enough to cope with the armour on tanks like the M-48 and Centurion, they decided to replace it with an improved 100 mm gun firing longer, more powerful rounds. When the head of the Soviet armoured corps heard that the next generation of NATO tanks would be mounting 105 mm guns he through a fit over the West having larger guns than the USSR. The tank design bureau solved the problem by boring out the 100 mm rifled gun to make a 115 mm smoothbore, the Russians were already planning on fielding a 100 mm smoothbore at the time, this went into service on the T-62 and T-64.

Just as these came into service the news came that Britain was fielding the Chieftain mounting a 120 mm gun. As Kuschev had cancelled the next generation of Soviet heavy tanks they hadn't anything to face it. They considered rifled 122 mm and 125 mm guns before finally settling on a 125 mm smoothbore which they fitted on the T-64A.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Can't have a gun caliber gap!

Osprey's T-62 book gives some interesting background on Soviet tank guns.

According to it the Soviet Army was concerned that the 100 mm gun on the T-55 wasn't enough to cope with the armour on tanks like the M-48 and Centurion, they decided to replace it with an improved 100 mm gun firing longer, more powerful rounds. When the head of the Soviet armoured corps heard that the next generation of NATO tanks would be mounting 105 mm guns he through a fit over the West having larger guns than the USSR. The tank design bureau solved the problem by boring out the 100 mm rifled gun to make a 115 mm smoothbore, the Russians were already planning on fielding a 100 mm smoothbore at the time, this went into service on the T-62 and T-64.

Just as these came into service the news came that Britain was fielding the Chieftain mounting a 120 mm gun. As Kuschev had cancelled the next generation of Soviet heavy tanks they hadn't anything to face it. They considered rifled 122 mm and 125 mm guns before finally settling on a 125 mm smoothbore which they fitted on the T-64A.
 

NothingNow

Banned
One idea to lower the weight on the M1. Stop putting multiple hard points on the top of the turret. The tankers get modification happy and put 4 or 5 machine guns up there like they are a ww1 british rhomboid tank
From what I've seen they only put 2 guns on them and stick with Everything else being MREs and Spares.
Now Merkava Crews pile on the firepower. Observe:

Tank-weapons-Merkava3tank.jpg
 
From what I've seen they only put 2 guns on them and stick with Everything else being MREs and Spares.
Now Merkava Crews pile on the firepower. Observe:

Erm.... The only thing the Merkava has that the Abrams, Challenger or T-72 doesn't is the second FN MAG. Smoke grenades, a .30 cal machine gun for local defence and a .50 cal for AA are all pretty much standard.
 
I personally would prefer modern autoloaders over modern manual loaders, but I would prefer modern manual loaders over older autoloaders.

The autoloaders used on the latest versions of the T-80 and the T-90 don't break anywhere near as often as they used too, can fire continously as fast as a manual loader, and won't have a chance of taking the gunner's arm off* unless he want's it too.

In regards to Soviet tank size, the small size was a number of factors, but too make a long story short, they bypassed the problem by putting short guys in the armored units and the taller guys in the infantry. I once met a former-US Defense Attache who went to the USSR in the 1970's, he saw some T-72's parked with their crew around and noted most of them were 5 foot 4.

Of course, by the 80's, the average size was just getting too big so the USSR was going to wind-up being forced too design bigger tanks anyways.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, there is still the problem of storing the ammo in the turret ring.:eek:
I personally would prefer modern autoloaders over modern manual loaders, but I would prefer modern manual loaders over older autoloaders.

The autoloaders used on the latest versions of the T-80 and the T-90 don't break anywhere near as often as they used too, can fire continously as fast as a manual loader, and won't have a chance of taking the gunner's arm off* unless he want's it too.

In regards to Soviet tank size, the small size was a number of factors, but too make a long story short, they bypassed the problem by putting short guys in the armored units and the taller guys in the infantry. I once met a former-US Defense Attache who went to the USSR in the 1970's, he saw some T-72's parked with their crew around and noted most of them were 5 foot 4.

Of course, by the 80's, the average size was just getting too big so the USSR was going to wind-up being forced too design bigger tanks anyways.
 
I've seen you consistantly make these claims. Do you have any credible source that says smaller tanks were symptoms of smaller engines as opposed to the other way? Or that the breech on the 125mm was unnescissarily large compared to ones used in other countries?

There are side by side drawings of the turret interiors of the M1A1 and T-72 in Osprey's Abrams vs T-72 book and the difference is extremely noticable. Not only does the T-72 block seem about the size of a bedside cabinet compared to the M1's but it extends much farther back into the turret.

At any rate, it is clear from the performance you get that less crew is better, which is why so many countries, have gone that way, with their new tanks, not just ex-soviet ones, but Countries like ROK, Japan, France. If you look at the best new and upcoming tanks that are being introduced today such as the Type 10, Oplot-M, and K2 they all have decided to go with the 3 man crew. On the other hand, the US army is currently scratching its head over how they're going to trim 15 tons off the M1 for the next upgrade.

All of whom use a completely different type of autoloader to Soviet tanks. They all use bustle mounted systems that are kept seperate from the crew compartment.
 
Did Russian autoloaders really take off arms? I've heard it's a myth, can someone provide a source if it isn't?
 
Did Russian autoloaders really take off arms? I've heard it's a myth, can someone provide a source if it isn't?

Finnish Army used T-72's for very active service for some 25 years and the incidents did not happen. I think that's part of the T-72 mythos which purports the T-72 as particularly bad tank due to Persian Gulf War. Same kind of myth-making as the indestructible M-1 myth.

If Iraqis had had modern Western tanks and the Coalition had T-72's, the Coalition would have still won. Wars, even those fought in desert, are not won simply by the side having the technologically best tanks.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
At least that's better than the Americans who initially still fielded the aging 105mm L7 on the first batch of Abrams tanks. When they offered the Abrams to the Dutch, they would take it only if they could put the German 120mm/L44 gun on it. When that was not possible, the Dutch bought the LeoII instead and the Americans later also put on the very same tank gun the Dutch requested on the M-1. :p

In my opinion, they could've kept the L7 up to this day. It's a fine gun. Very reliable, and proven against just about every tank in the world.

It helped Israeli Centurions and M-60s destroy T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s in Egypt, the Golan, and Lebanon, it helped South African Oliphants destroy the same tanks in SWAT. USMC M-60s cut up the Iraqi Army in Kuwait using the gun.

I defy anyone to find a situation the US or any military has gotten into where the L7 couldn't have gotten them out of it. It's a reliable gun, and is able to strapped onto any frame by any country.

Hands down: the L7 105mm gun is the best tank gun that has ever been designed to this day. It's cheaper than the L44, and the final L7 barrels produced in South Africa had a longer barrel life than the L11s produced for the Chieftain Mk.5s in Britain.

It's just a better gun for the money.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Finnish Army used T-72's for very active service for some 25 years and the incidents did not happen. I think that's part of the T-72 mythos which purports the T-72 as particularly bad tank due to Persian Gulf War. Same kind of myth-making as the indestructible M-1 myth.

If Iraqis had had modern Western tanks and the Coalition had T-72's, the Coalition would have still won. Wars, even those fought in desert, are not won simply by the side having the technologically best tanks.

I know this is going to sound dickish...


...but the Finns aren't Soviets. And I'll bet they had better quality control than the Soviets did. Ask yourself: if you took 10 Finnish T-72s and 10 Soviet T-72s, which ones do you think would run better?

All I can say is that when I was in Afghanistan with the CF, we had to use Polish helicopters to get around since the Canadian Forces didn't have any in country. One of the pilots said his dad had lost a hand in a tank because of this. That makes me believe it. The guy didn't look like he made shit up. He looked a little too...unimaginative for that.
 
...but the Finns aren't Soviets. And I'll bet they had better quality control than the Soviets did. Ask yourself: if you took 10 Finnish T-72s and 10 Soviet T-72s, which ones do you think would run better?
Do you think the Soviets, who were known to keep the best stuff for themselves, would sell superior tanks to the country next door they might end up fighting in WWIII?
All I can say is that when I was in Afghanistan with the CF, we had to use Polish helicopters to get around since the Canadian Forces didn't have any in country. One of the pilots said his dad had lost a hand in a tank because of this. That makes me believe it. The guy didn't look like he made shit up. He looked a little too...unimaginative for that.
OK, so no real evidence then.

So next time there's a thread about autoloaders, let's keep the urban legends at the door, 'kay?
 
If Iraqis had had modern Western tanks and the Coalition had T-72's, the Coalition would have still won. Wars, even those fought in desert, are not won simply by the side having the technologically best tanks.

Umm...there's still the matter of the longer range, the better armor, and the better sights.
 
Top