No because 1) room & weight 2) we're moving toward single round efficiency due to AI at the very least

@juleous camper either to many blast makes your apc nor tank has uncontrollable recoil... so your tank will fall to the back, or your the ring rotator for your turret is totally combusted.

I play this one in war thunder its amazing vehicle

There is already a full auto

the "revolver" style autoloader is, if am not mistaken, a type of carousel system, though the MGS would benefit from having a Leclerc style magazine for the backup with the 8 shell ready rack

it is just a big ass revolver hahaha

@@jesusvera7941 the revelver mobile

were you able to test fire one of these?

@@northernalpine4350 in the moon i mean in the eua the eua ...

@@tiger2tank439 ???

This is only the beginning.

Different vehicles have different mechanisms

@@hammerscharlie1935 Im talking about this specific autoloader lol

The days of 75mm field gun being the biggest ordinance available.

The good ole days

I doubt you will find very many people old enough to remember that lol

Now we have 155mm howitzer rounds that are stupid heavy

When the 88mm kwk was a nightmare

The ZSU 23-4 is close enough. For 30mm, you have the Tunguska

For the first, you need to hit there. Its not a fckn Battlefield game boooiii.

There is a big change they already know... these people might be underequipped insurgents, but theyre not idiots.

@@heardistance With a laser/wire guided ATGM oh yeah, easy. And they do that often as from many footages. Or do you think the jihadists have only RPG-7s?

@@heardistance LoL, did i hit a softspot ?. Cant take a joke?. Anyways, for whatever it is.They (Taliban) did quite well. America in the other hand is going back soon. Will be interesting to see the current Afganistan Government stance. Flowers or more Fireworks..

@@heardistance can't even understand a simple joke

IFV*

Well look at it this way. The M1128 is a much smaller vehicle, with weight limitations. So there's no space on it for a big turret with space for crew in it, and if you force it the armor would be quite lacking to cover such an extra area, or the vehicle would take a notable mobility hit. Also the M1128 is almost entirely using HE rounds, for destroying structures, plants, or light targets so a single ammo type in the loading line isn't too limiting, and the smaller total amount of ammo also isn't as serious if they are normally just hitting stationary targets of lower threat. If it's more than they can deal with, call in air support or artillery, it's most likely stationary and thus they can drive off while the others take care of it if needed. It doesn't need a ton of ammo arguably. Now the Abrams... you got a vehicle that needs to be ready to fire multiple types of ammo for multiple situations, and on very short notice the ability to swap the ammo or pre call it out easily what you need the next round to be. Reload speeds, a good Abrams crew will reload faster, especially for the first several shots, and in serious fights the part that they can keep their turret better oriented on targets reliably not needing to bring it to neutral position for a magazine reload is quite nice. That giant rear stowage has a lot of ammo for the gun crews when needed. Next is the turret overall, its big, and armored, turret crew don't feel vulnerable being in the tanks turret and doing the reloading there. And when tanks are in trouble, against their more expected serious threats, you really want that extra ammo and variety of ammo types, and more ammo since you can't rely on artillery or other units to stop another tank showing up in front of you if you're in a more serious frontline area where tanks would be. Now, this all said. I don't hate autoloaders on Abrams, and honestly I have some issues with the autoloaders on the M1128. But there is nonetheless some clear reasons for and against using an autloader on each vehicle. And while if they get a really good dual ready feed type that's quick and reliable for the Abrams it could work just fine in most situations. But that also comes with a serious problem, one less crew member. And when doing maintenance on the Abrams and its tracks, or handling the rear engine cover if needed the extra person helps out a LOT. Not to mention tanks are often set up as sentries with crew being up on watch for maybe 72+ hours. If you have four people, you can have two up at a time and let the other two rest. With only 3, then one persons stuck on a lone shift, or you're rotating rest times a bit more oddly, with no one awake to cover for you if you need to take a piss or anything. So for tanks, a lot of that importance is also just on the 4th crew member being present, rather than their specific role of loading the gun, though that is still quite important again. Honestly, I'm quite curious how the T-14 handles issues with track out or stuff. With only a two man crew can they effect any decent field repairs? How long does it take... if you design the rest of the vehicle well, and stow the right tools built for it you might make due with just two... or three... but you are getting rid of some clear advantages. Though if you can have an extra tank for each four people out there, and ACTUALLY do have that extra tank that does offset it I'd argue. One tank throws track, two tanks stop for the repair so you still get 4 crews, but then when in combat you get two guns from two locations splitting enemy fire and possibly flanking them. So that's nice, but you just know if we had tanks with two crews they're not going to be THAT much cheaper, and the generals and others in charge are just going to end up deploying them in the same numbers they used to expecting it to work like they used to, be it in repairs, on watch, or anything else.

@@terricon4 Oh boy that's a wall of text. Anyway, your information is dated and your logic is flawed. The US made autoloaders that can load, unload, swap, and eject full rounds. _Back in the cold war!_ you really underestimate what autoloaders can do. As an extra, Although you didn't mention it others in the past have ~ blow out panels. They are safer than carousel autoloaders. However many autoloader designs also store their ammo in the bussle bin. Eg: French Leclerc. Japanese Type 10. Chinese type 15. Korean K2. Now for the fabled 4th crewman. You don't need it. As evident by all the tanks and other AFV that survive perfectly well with only 3 crew. Firstly, you don't have a crew of 4. You have a minimum of *3 crews of 4* in the platoon... Meaning you have 12, minimum. Sentry duty? Not the normal night sentry radio piquet split between all crew (and attachments).. Full on sentry duty where ever tank is manned....You NEVER have a lone sentry. You use the double staggered method. Doesn't matter if the number of people are odd or even. Eg:① and ② are on watch.① and ③ swap. So now ③ and ② are on watch.② and ① swap. So now ① and ③ are on watch.... Lifting heavy engine panels? If you can't do it with 3 you're f'ed already. One work around is a pole with a hand winch. That's how we got generators on an off the top of AFVs. Now your 4 man job is a one man job. Throw a track? Again, it's not 3 or 4 people. We are talking 9 or 12 minimum. plus any support assets you've been attached with. I've seen Recovery mech tasked with fixing track plenty of times. And as you said: you can have the 4th crewman without them being a Manuel loaders.(eg: RWS operator) Last but not least, the T14 Armata has 3 man crew. It's the T15 APC that has 2. Edited for typos. So many typos.

@@shanerooney7288 Of coarse autoloaders can swap and eject if designed for it, but to date they hadn't been in a way that worked as well as a human, as fast and quickly as a human could, and as reliably as a human could (without major concessions in how the ammo or such had to be stored limiting vehicle stowage, or at least limiting to smaller ready stocks of ammo. That's why I said a good modern dual feed system could work if it was well made. To date, at least, I'm not aware of the US making one that was able to win in all categories, or at least win in some and not lose in others by enough of a margin to warrant their addition. If we went full on with some modern contracts for it today though I'm sure we could get some great new systems that'd be faster and overall better than humans, and with enough entries one might be reliable enough as well, or easy for the gunner to fix/unjam when it or the gun isn't. If you are aware of such an autoloader today, by all means do tell me of it so I can go look it up. For repair work, again with the right tools you can do it with two, but it does tend to take longer. That was the point I was making. Similar to staying up for long watches, it's harder on the crews in it. Both may work, but one will work better so what's the final cost and effect of that change. And yes you can keep a fourth crew and an auto loader but where do they sit then? Space is a concern so that's not a very likely answer. And thanks for the correction on the T14 Armata, it has been awhile since I've looked at it and my memories of the early test videos are the main ones standing out with just one driver and one gunner (and some camera man).

@@terricon4 *“they hadn't been in a way that worked as well as a human”* Let’s look…. *Rate of fire.* Can a human reload 57mm at 120 rounds per minute? Can a human reload 155mm fast enough for Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact? The answer is no. For smaller rounds the reload rate is too fast for a human. For the larger rounds the round size is too much for a human. Only at 120-125mm range is the sweet spot where humans have _any_ hope of matching autoloaders; and even there the point is kind of moot because the autoloaders can already fire as fast as is safe for the barrel. *Ease of fixing:* I’ve gotta be fair and include this. Humans can be removed and replaced in under a minute if you’ve got the spare human on hand. Cant be said for an autoloader. But….. *Chance of breaking:* Which breaks first, reinforced metal bolted to the tank, or a fleshy human sitting on a chair with gravity assistance? *Time at post:* * Humans need sleep. They need to eat. They need to shit. They take weekends off. They get the flu. * Autoloaders are ready, 24/7. ** Not counting unforeseen breakages (see above: chance of breaking) *Helping with repair work:* Repair work is the work of the mechanics, not the tank crew. But I suppose humans would be more help. *Helping with the medics:* Humans are the reason the medics are needed. *Helping with public relations:* What looks worse to the average civilian, a destroyed autoloader, or a dead human loader? *Low profile turrets in manned vehicles:* Case in point - M1128 Stryker MGS The MGS uses 105, but the concept isn’t limited to that round size. The philosophy is to keep as much as possible below the hull, for protection in a hull-down position. There simply isn’t room above the hull for a human. *Unmanned turrets in manned vehicles:* This allows for the armor to be concentrated in a smaller area. Either reducing overall weight, or increasing survivability at the same weight. Clearly can’t be done with a human loader. *Unmanned turrets in unmanned vehicles:* Same thing, but more so. Clearly can’t be done with a human loader. *4th crewman, where?* You could do what the Armata did and put an extra crewman on either side of the driver. Do this AND have a 2 man turret and now we’ve got a 5 man crew. Why not do this and have a 3 man turret, 6 man crew! Here’s the thing. Firstly, every tank in the world that has an autoloader shows that you don’t need a 4th crewman to operate. And I’d say one of the biggest reasons for that is because tanks don’t operate alone. You have fixit-mechs, recovery-mechs, medics, infantry, cav, refulers, C&C, combat engineers, Coms/EW………. And all those squishy helpers LOVE the tanks. Partly for the novelty (big gun go DOOF), and partly because when it is time to sleep, a tank is a solid wall of metal between the enemy and your sleeping position. AND… yes there’s more… everyone understands the concept of more people = shorter piquet times. The infantry will team with the tankies for watch, and as a result BOTH get more sleep.

@@shanerooney7288 Some valid points, some non relevant to anything I mentioned or have an opinion against, though not necessarily wrong. And some clearly just trying to ignore reality and drop in a positive sounding bit to cover a subject without really answering it. I'd figured my viewpoint had been made earlier, but it seems you're more busy pushing your viewpoint rather than conversing with me about my view point as I'd written it previously... so... not really feeling too much reason to continue the convo on that grounds alone, but then the parts like how you listed chance of breaking just shows you're pushing your agenda hard trying to ignore the downsides... so ya not much point taking this further. I'll just say the following to finish. If you bother using your time to reply to people online, might a well use enough to read and think about the other sides point of view and what they wrote and respond to them properly. If you just want to post about your own opinion on something, make a new post not a reply here, or go make a tweet or such. Well, not to say I never go overly into a reply or idea and loose track of the starting point while writing, but that's also why I go back and re read after writing to see if I should just delete the entire post I'd made up to that point or edit it back to the subject (something I have to do quite often myself).

Me: tank?

砲塔後部が突き出ているのは弾薬を装填機構に引き込むスペースを確保するのと、揺動式砲塔のカウンターウェイトとして機能させるためで、排莢口を守るためではないと思われます。そもそも狙って当たれるような場所ではないので

軽装甲車で小火器しか防護出来ませんので、構造的に砲弾への防弾効果は考慮されていません。

it a chinese tank i thinkn cant remember which country exactly

@@williampenn427 the Stryker im pretty sure is from America

@@henrycooper3431 It's from US

@@williampenn427 The Stryker is from the U.S.....

@@williampenn427 China also has a vehicle similar to Stryker (Type 08) if I'm not wrong

The gun is a "low recoil" 105. That barrel moves back some ridiculous amount and that makes the felt recoil a lot lower to the vehicle. It's only a ~20 ton truck (sans bolt-on armor).

Simplicity is key, both for reliability and maintenance, so yeah haha they're usually surprisingly straightforwards. Tricky bit is getting them as simple as possible while still actually working, but I ain't an engineer yet, so still got a while 'till that's in the job description

@@innacrisis6991 I aspire to be an automotive engineer, creating the best new car and such, best of luck to you I’m your endeavors

No the 8 rd magazine is in the turret basket. Reloading that from the 10 rd magazine does require the turret facing forward.

回転弾倉を備えているというだけで、構造的には寧ろ艦砲なんかの揚弾・装填装置を縮小したものでしょ。

Salam

🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🐙🐙🐙🐙

yeah, a bit

@@user-gw3oe5me3c congrats

Salam olsun sənə ey Allahın qullu🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿

damn

@@adibaw7592 чувак, они верят в синтоизм.

Hahahahahaha I don't know what you just said but I'm still laughing.

16式がもとすごいです！

😂🤣

Keep in mind that many parts are ommitted from the animation to simplify it for the viewer. Theres bound to be a lot more parts making sure that the magazines index correctly and that the shell hoists line up with each other... also, the ejection system is completely absent in this, the shell just flies out the back.

Very true, although consider 150 years ago that is what they thought about self-loading rifles.

@@DarkestVampire92 the shells do just kinda fly out the back lol

@@DarkestVampire92 so true tech has evolved to the point where its possible that nothing goes wrong

@@DarkestVampire92 The ejection system really is pretty dirt simple - the breech opens as the barrel travels back and momentum just throws the casing out the back through a spring-loaded flap.

They already have similar their Infantry Fire Support Vehicle/Mobile Gun System, ZTL 11. Though it's manual loading, requiring a human loader. But overall similar stuff with similar works to do..

@@tamzidkarim9402 In short words. They really copying it without saying they did.

@@jhonfloibelmiculob6581 Externally ZBL09/ ZTL 11 may look similar as striker APC/ striker based mobile gun system. Internally both are very different things, specifically the Assault Vehicle's, based on the two platforms. Lastly, it's historically evident that every country has copied some other country to reach to their current high tech stage. Example being Germany, who's military hardware's from V 2 rocket to jet aircraft's to ground vehicles, got copied both by US and the former USSR one way or another and through that, they reached where they are in current times.. China is a growing power and they might copy thing's from Russia and US, as it's an effective way to develop one's defence industry within short time, then to start from scratch. But now they do more than just copying but also to enhance the thing they are copying and creating hybrid solutions. Thus it's high time the world comes out of it's rhetoric regarding china and copying. In fact their latest top tier military hardware's are coming out as their own designs now..

They'd be copying 20 year old technology that wasn't even that great then... I think they'd be wasting their time.

does it really only carry that much munition ?

Check out those sick wheels

Imagine not making new videos for 4 weeks

4 weeks no new vids then you randomly see a matsimus comment in a random vid....

@@managier1592 yes, the autoloader and replenisher system carries 18 rounds, keep in mind is a fire support system and only a small part of the Stryker brigade. As of now, the brigade has all MGS grouped in the Cavalry Squadron's Weapon troop, with 3 platoons of 4 M1128 Stryker MGS, there is also 3 ATGM platoons with 3 M1134 Stryker ATGM platforms each. the MGS is not an anti tank platform, that is the job of the ATGM carriers or dismounts armed with Javelin ATGM (1 per infantry squad) but is instead thought/used as a kind of assault gun providing direct fire support against enemy emplacements, for this it usually carries 10 shots of HEP-T (US version of HESH) with only 2 rounds of APFSDS and 4 rounds of HEAT for anti armour capabilities (and 2 canister shot for good measure), the 105mm has limited anti armour capabilities against modern tanks anyway

Worked on military aircraft. Every additional moving part creates the opportunity for something to go wrong. Looks like a real maintenance headache!

Its a lot, lot simpler than autoloaders for naval weapons. Its not an ideal solution but it works- its a price you have to pay for an unmanned turret.

Russian Autoloader tanks: " Hold my vodka!...."

It's really not that complicated...

If you think that's complicated, wait till you find out about tracks

Well, from what I know, the reason the ammo storage is separate, is to protect the crew in case it gets hit. Also from what I could find it has an irl faster reload of about 1.2 seconds vs the 72. In fairness, those improvements should be expected for a vehicle developed about 30 years after the T-72.

Fair enough

@@willv2746 30 years but yeah.

@@t1e6x12 yeah, tbh I was ballparking, so thank you for actually checking it!

what would it usually be using then? , HEAT?

Now that is a good question xd

I was wondering that as well. My thought was that it might be a tank hunter style design where it is intended to fire in a particular position with some additional capability if needed trading some advantages. But it's not. Maybe the center rotates with the autoloader rotates as well and it only needs to rotate back every ten shots for the replenisher? Doesn't quite seem right to me. Not enough info on wikipedia to explain it.

It will depends on how the ammo is protected (wet storage for example). From what is shown in the animation, the revolver storage & feed system doesn't seem to prevent ammo cook-off.

Neither tank's turret is wrapped with explosive belt of ammunition. T-64/T-80 has the charges stored in vertical position, true, but it's still below the turret, about 10cm deep into the tank hull. T-72/T-90 autoloader is a knee high relative to clearance height, so it's even deeper. T-90 got extra armor on the autoloader, which means that shots that get the ammo to cook off will definitely kill the crew first. The real cook offs happened because in a "brilliant" piece of engineering, all extras (After 22 rounds in T-72/T-90, After 28 in T-64/T-80) are stored on ammo racks of 2-3 shells all over the hull. That's why tank never carries as much ammo as the specs say, limiting the load to what can be loaded in AL

And unlike T-72/80/90 or Chinese MBTs Stryker barely has armor. It’s an APC with a cannon so it’s survivability comparsion with a tank is questionable.

You don't need to know its survivability because the project didn't survive.

​@@torbai what thats mean Sir? Stryker 105mm production was stopped??

The US has nothing against manual loaders in general, in-fact, having a 4th crewmember can be really handy. Unfortunately the turret ring diameter restrictions of the Stryker means that a 3 man turret simply wouldn't work.

@ade rahmat As Caleb said, the US doesn't have any issue with manual loaders, as having a 4th person who's cross trained in other positions could be beneficial in the event another crew member is KIA or otherwise unavailable. But this also depends on the overall footprint of the vehicle. In something like a MBT, there's room for a 4th crew member. But in something like the Stryker, which is smaller than an MBT, there's only enough room for the driver, gunner, and maybe a commander.

@@Werepie it's not even that so much as they wanted the top of the turret (above the roof of the truck) to be small. The way it was explained to me when I worked on this program is that, statistically speaking, most rounds that are fired at an armored vehicle hit above a certain point. By keeping the area above that point (the top of the turret) as small as possible, you minimize the odds of the vehicle taking a hit. That's also why the ammunition is stored as low as possible in the vehicle, unlike the Abrams where it's stored in the outside of the turret.

砲塔下戦闘室の弾倉は即応弾倉だと思われるから、砲の向く方向に戦闘室ごと回転する仕組みやろ。 即応弾倉に車体後方の予備弾倉から補給するには砲塔は前を向かないといけないだろうけど。

随伴歩兵って現代戦にもいるん？ 今は歩兵も装甲車に乗って移動するんじゃないの。

そもそも戦闘地域で速度を殺してまでこいつに歩兵を随伴させる意味がわからない。敵と鉢合わせると機銃掃射されるかもしれんし装甲があまり無いから戦車砲による撃破を避けるには走って回避率をあげる以外効果もあまりないだろうし

@@yukupovaccinated4 いるんんじゃない？M1エイブラムスでガスタービンエンジンの排気が熱すぎて歩兵が隠れていられれない、ってエピソードがあるようだし。

このタイプのストライカ―だと、随伴歩兵はつかないと思うよ。

随伴歩兵と言ってもある程度の距離を取るので問題ないです。（たまに当たるけど） そもそもヘイトの高い装甲戦闘車輛の周辺は跳弾や砲の衝撃など歩兵にとっても危険なので距離を取らなければいけないというのが正しいかも

Ofcourse it bloody it isn’t but at least it should have enough ammo to eliminate threats in heated situations

Well I hope that the US has enough money then

@@LonelierWolf How many Javelin ATGM does an infantry squad carry? Less than 18?! How about JDAM on F16? Hand grenades in infantry squad? MOAB in B52? The ammo count isn't nearly as important as you make it out to be.

@@shanerooney7288 cuz their infantry they should actually carry only their weapon with enough ammo and a first aid kit etc. They are not transport units ffs

@@LonelierWolf M1128 MGS isn't transport either. It is fire support.

... it costs*.*

Excuse my french (:

単機での戦闘活動はほぼありませんので…一ユニット(機動小隊)8両と仮定して装填数18✕8で144発。 編成2両だと36発。 実際の作戦行動では撃ちきる前に交代で補給に入りますから…ソコまで少なくないと？

It is because of the round in relation to the size of the vehicle. You want an autoloader that won't do that? Get a 40mm autocannon

​@กล้วยหอมจอมซน The auto-loader of ship-based guns (76/100/127/130 mm) are much more efficient than this abomination.

@@shanerooney7288 I've seen 100 mm or 105 mm gun on BTR-80. Just a simple carousel type. Not something stupid like this one.

@@thantzweaung9080 Look at the turret profile. "This stupid one" has everything below the hull. Which is the *_smart_* thing to do.

@@shanerooney7288 The BTR-80 based artillery I mentioned has the auto-loader in turret basket in the hull (similar to ones on T-72, T-90,etc.), not at the back of the gun breech. Turret profile is irrelevant.

this is because the styker inherits its system from a failed airborne light tank. they wanted to keep the hull low to reduce weight, so they didn't have the room for an eastern-block style autoloader (especially a properally armoured 1) for a manned turret (and proper unmanned systems were deemed to complex for the time), and they wanted a low profile turret so that armour wasn't as important (it was going to be poorly armoured so it could airdrop), and so a turret bussel autoloader wasn't viable as it would enlarge the turret profile too much. thus the only system that could work was thus a revolving autoloader fed by another revolving autoloader. the soviets ended up with a similar design for their low profile MBT prototypes in the late 80s (see obect 477 and object 490A) the stryker ended up with the system because they wanted a low profile turret to make up for the lack of armour (due to being a mobile wheeled vehicle), so they reused the older system to reduce costs.

​@@matthiuskoenig3378and that's why it's the size of MAUS