CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

the ‘design a brand new turret’ my arrse.

its Rheinmettals Leo2 turret with the GIAT auto loader, and a U.K. specific armour pack.
it wasn’t ‘designed’ for us, it’s their standard turret they will be offering to anyone with a chequebook and a CR2/Leo2/LeClerc

Difficult to know where to start with this, or whether I should even respond at all...

Will you be changing your username again soon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
the ‘design a brand new turret’ my arrse.

its Rheinmettals Leo2 turret with the GIAT auto loader, and a U.K. specific armour pack.
it wasn’t ‘designed’ for us, it’s their standard turret they will be offering to anyone with a chequebook and a CR2/Leo2/LeClerc
Shhhh !! Someone's SJAR & promotion rests on our political Lords & Masters believing they got a deal...
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
will the redundant loader chap be a ‘little person’? Will he be kept stored in a stowage bin for making brews?

The autoloader will be kept next to the squadron of V-22 Ospreys we got given for free by the US, in the same shed as the busload of nymphomaniac nurses from Rinteln.
 
Meanwhile in HM Treasury, the Chancellor gets out his red pen and calculator as he balances his books to back off the COVID debt, fund the national infrastructure plan and the Tory red wall levelling up agenda.

Army continues to ignore Q2.4 and continues to fiddle whilst Rome burns dreaming up fantasy armoured formations and their equipment tables as though 2020 never happened.
 
will the redundant loader chap be a ‘little person’? Will he be kept stored in a stowage bin for making brews?

So let me repeat my question:

Do you have any sources to back up your claim that the GIAT autoloader will be fitted to the Mk3 Cr2? If so, present them.
 
So let me repeat my question:

Do you have any sources to back up your claim that the GIAT autoloader will be fitted to the Mk3 Cr2? If so, present them.
The telling point will be the life cost of an autoloader vs the life & retirement cost of L/Cpl Smith. Which has to include the cost of training said L/Cpl over and over again as said chap goes for the 7 clicks and f**ks off after a few years as the Army deal is so utterly s**te
 
The telling point will be the life cost of an autoloader vs the life & retirement cost of L/Cpl Smith. Which has to include the cost of training said L/Cpl over and over again as said chap goes for the 7 clicks and f**ks off after a few years as the Army deal is so utterly s**te
And how many L/Cpl Smith’s there will be over the lifetime of the vehicle
 

Bardeyai

Old-Salt
Some may remember that I was bragging that I got the inside the turret tour at DSEI 2019.
It may have been the auto loaders day off. Or having the BV fitted in it’s normal spot was a ruse to keep old farts like me contented.
All I can say is that either there isn’t one or this altzheimer’s is something else.
 
LCpl Smith is also the assistant vehicle commander - and partly how he learns his boss’ job...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasnt it @California_Tanker who suggested that theres a case for Autoloader and 4 crew - (if not here then on his you tube account)

Something along the lines of - the 4th man can moniter APS / surveilance and help with maintenance yet the tank doesnt need the 4th to fight efectively and so 3 with auto loade if youve bodies either sick / injured or on holiday

Edited to add - he may also have argued it was potentially safer in that there wasnt an open door to the bustle (Abrahms) quite so often or for as long - but i wouldnt wabnt to put words in his mouth
 
Last edited:
LCpl Smith is also the assistant vehicle commander - and partly how he learns his boss’ job...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Point I’m making is over the course of 20 years how many loaders will have gone through each tank.

you aren’t making a saving on 112 loaders (1 per tank) and their pensions etc

say the average loader spends 5 years in role, that happens across 112 tanks, your making a saving of 448 loaders and their pensions.
 
Wasnt it @California_Tanker who suggested that theres a case for Autoloader and 4 crew - (if not here then on his you tube account)

Something along the lines of - the 4th man can moniter APS / surveilance and help with maintenance yet the tank doesnt need the 4th to fight efectively and so 3 with auto loade if youve bodies either sick / injured or on holiday

Edited to add - he may also have argued it was potentially safer in that there wasnt an open door to the bustle (Abrahms) quite so often or for as long - but i wouldnt wabnt to put words in his mouth

TBH, I've been thinking along the same lines. I reckon you could have the crew in parallel. So Gunner and Commander in normal positions, but then have the Sys op guy behind the commander (possibly facing rearwards as a space saving measure). This dramatically cuts down on the amount of fighting compartment frontal cross section you need to armour, which is traditionally where one puts your most protection. As armour is one of the big expenses for weigh it would (theoretically) mean savings in weight.
The down side of such a set could mean a bigger turret ring than we normally have. However, as I have previously mentioned a four track tank could, if not avoid, then alleviate this issue.

Autoloader in the bustle, possibly spare ammo and other kit in the position to the other side of the gun. Again with careful placing of less critical systems in this location then you could absorb any penetrations to avoid an instant Mission kill from a penetration. If, for instance you placed ready rounds in the unmanned turret side. They'd need rams to load them into the autoloader. This would be at the front, and so knocked out first. Even if that, COAX and other secondary systems weren't sufficient then you'd get an ammo detonation that knocks out part of your ammo reserve. You'd still have the fighting rounds in the bustle part of the autoloader.

The only thing that worries me about this thinking, is concerns about overall weight, it feels like one is double spending the weight allowance. It'd be something you'd need to sit down with your FVRDE and do some calculations about...

Oh.

Bugger.

Come to think of it, there are tanks that sort of fit the description. With four man crews and autoloaders after a fashion. They have 'loading assists', which seem to be loading systems that get the round into position, and just require the loader to shove the round home (so about 2/3rds of a full blown autoloader). But these are modifications of conventional western MBT's.
 
4th body is always a good thing. Particularly if the fight, eat, sleep routine is going to be fight fight fight for the next 72 plus hours.
 
In the later videos I and others posted about the RM CR2 it mentions that an autoloader was fitted to the 130mm trial variant. I believe the pictures of the 120mm trial variant was not fitted with autoloader.
 
4th body is always a good thing. Particularly if the fight, eat, sleep routine is going to be fight fight fight for the next 72 plus hours.
Is it a good thing when it drives your mass up by 5-10t?
Protected volume, stowage for personal kit, increased capacity for air con and the like?
Could you introduce a number of supporting vehicles to the tank subunit to assist with maintenance and local protection?
 
Is it a good thing when it drives your mass up by 5-10t?
Protected volume, stowage for personal kit, increased capacity for air con and the like?
Could you introduce a number of supporting vehicles to the tank subunit to assist with maintenance and local protection?
Comme Les Grenouiles avec Leclerc
 
Is it a good thing when it drives your mass up by 5-10t?
Protected volume, stowage for personal kit, increased capacity for air con and the like?
Could you introduce a number of supporting vehicles to the tank subunit to assist with maintenance and local protection?

One should if one went 3 man on a new design. But then the manpower just gets shifted to other vehicles that need additional fuel, armour, mobility to keep up with you and all that gubbins.
Then some day in the future , a fine chap will say "what if we put an extra bod in the tank and freed up the support vehicles...."
Ok, tongue in cheek...
 
Is it a good thing when it drives your mass up by 5-10t?
Protected volume, stowage for personal kit, increased capacity for air con and the like?
Could you introduce a number of supporting vehicles to the tank subunit to assist with maintenance and local protection?

There comes a point where weight becomes a bit ‘vague’ - e.g. lightening up a 75-tonne vehicle to 65-tonnes will reduce some fuel consumption, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the way you operate it, or it’s operational effectiveness as a tank.

The majority of the cognitive load sits on the commander - which is mitigated by having an experienced loader in the turret next to them to run the two voice and one data network when not shovelling ammunition into a breech.

It simply isn’t going to be practical to swap commanders in the midst of a 24-72 hour operation (most of which is not spent loading), so the best you can do is have some redundancy in the crew to mitigate their workload.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top