@Nightbane Italy? Oh whoops I meant Israeli .ya Leo 2 same smooth bore as us. I'm not comparing tanks either dumbass. I was stating there are better tanks out there then the m1's no
@SMGjohn as a tanker on the M1a1 I agree with you the m1a1 series isn't the best in the world there are better tanks out there such as the merkarva "Italy" or the t-90 "Russia". But the way the people running tanks from having a company of tanks 14 to a section of tanks 2 the way they are trained to fire and maneuver makes the tank looks so fuckin good. I'm pretty sure past and present tankers will agree.
@atarturk Well I'm sorry for being hot headed. But lately a bunch of American patriotic Nazis have been attacking me for saying M1A2 Abrams is not the best tanks in the world. And sometimes it's just hard to tell difference between one that doesn't intend to insult you or one that does in this kind of situations
@SMGJohn I have seen you posting on many other videos and it has occurred to me how little you actually know. There are several reasons that an auto-loading system was not chosen. 1. Having a 4th man takes stress off the rest of the crew during long missions. 2. A 4th man can help identify targets and eliminate close threats with the 7.62 machine gun. 3. Ensures the correct round is loaded. 4. Auto-loaders are just one more thing to go wrong. 5. They are expensive to produce and maintain.
@SupremeStig I am wrong? Your just impossing your opinions. Auto loaders are superior as it makes the tanks smaller, faster reload time and it eliminates one crew meaning more space in the tanks. Soviet and Russian tanks are great tanks with autoloader as they are small and eliminating one crew made more space inside the turret. Surely the loader could hit his head inside and bleed to death. Just as a autoloader could jam up, that rarely happens
@SMGJohn No, look at the auto loader on the MGS, it breaks alot and misfeeds worse than almost anything I've ever seen, also soldiers are trained to fire faster than the soviet/Russian tanks. Also look at the Russian tanks, the auto loader for then is fairly big for a smaller caliber round, while the Abrams has a larger round, meaning the auto loader would have to be bigger, bigger than the soldier who would usually be occupying the position. And its another thing to maintain in a tank.
@boohooer So from your conclusion autoloader on MGS breaks allot means ALL Auto loaders breaks? Fail much? Russia has the simplest most reliable auto loader around it never breaks unless it's hit by something and jams. Even though if it breaks it can still be manually reloaded... You think they didn't add that? And no the autoloader is fairly small compared to earlier models and no T-90 has a bigger round then Abrams, WAY bigger.
@SMGJohn there's little reliable information on soviet autoloader systems in english online, so any discussion of it is going to be mostly bullshit. 125mm isn't much larger than 120mm, also.
@stopthatimmediately 5mm for a bullet is quite allot even thought it doesn't sound much to you. I've seen this rounds in real life compared, and if you read Russian you find allot of info. Clearly you wont find information in English cause they don't go around and write every damn detail about Soviet autoloader however it's shown they are most reliable under stress tests performed by Russian military there should be videos but they are in Russian
@SMGJohn in smaller bullets yes in tank rounds not really so even more so if the overall size and weight of the round are smaller also if you know the military they like reusing stuff they already have so we would probably end up with an upgraded version of what is in the MGS and not what the russians have and you did bring up a good point about loading the weapon after a jam, but you forgot 2 things 1 the autoloader will probably be jammed in the way and 2 why fix whats not broken
@boohooer This isn't 1917 is it now?? No it's the 21th century and 5mm difference says allot now days maybe it didn't do so 80 years ago but today it does. Did I also mention that 125mm has been in use on Soviet tanks since the 60s while US still only used 105mm and later upgraded to 120mm those days. The auto loader on MGS and Soviet autoloaders bears big difference, MGS is more advanced and complex while Soviet design is simpler and built to stand though fightings
@DoubleDeePro0duct10ns that's a negative the safe/ arm lever controls on the gunner controls power handles and it's electrical trigger however. if the gunner uses the maual trigger aka" master blaster".. it automatically over rides the safe handle no matter if it's armed or not.
Whining noise is the turbine engine, not the hydraulics. Sorry JoeyDkid, but as a 19K in a former life, that isn't all that bad ass. As a tanker, you never notice the whine. Loader yells "UP" to inform the gunner that the gun is loaded and ready to fire. Gunner can't fire unless the lever is "up". It's a safety thing for the loader.
second round down range knocks the camera off. 7 seconds later loader has another round chambered and another another 3 second and camera is 'up'...good job!
this is hard work to load the gun with heavy projectiles... How will feel this soldier at loading a 30-40th projectile? At 50th? Why Americans don't use autoloader system in their tanks?
@antonvix an auto loader is just another piece of machinery that can break down, having a crew member load it is much more reliable, yes the rounds are heavy but you only hold them for about 5 seconds, and you wont be loading 50 rounds one after another. All you gotta do is use your man muscles and a little elbow grease. And yes I know from experience I'm an army 19Kilo Tanker.
@samurai709 The hull holds 6 rounds, this space is generally not used because it is impractical to use. each turrent block holds 17 rounds and when you run out of rounds in primary storage you have to refil 1 by 1 to the primary from the 2ndary by closing primary door , opening secindary door then close that door then open pruimary etc. anything else you need/want to know message me.
source- Is in US army as 19k M1 crewman. i work with M1A1's in Ft.Irwin NTC
those fragments then eventually hit a soft target ie human. Heat round can be easily defeated by chobham armor or also know as ceramic sandwiched composite armor or ERA or explosive reactive armor. which is why iraqi fail to destory any M1 by tank on tank battle (but most of the iraqi tanks are destroyed by hellfire fired from helicopter) i would like to see if US sent their M1 to mainland in china and russia and see how they truly proform
@jack99889988 "but most of the iraqi tanks are destroyed by hellfire fired from helicopter" - This is a common misconception. Aviation and helicopters strikes destroyed probably 20-25% of Iraqi destroyed armored vehicles. US Armored Forces gave large scale tank battles. Especially in 1991.
This misconception is a product of those, who spread the propaganda that modern wars are won from 30.000feet above. Iraq '91 and '03 and Serbia in '99 have proved that air strike are not so effective yet.
DU round can cause mutation to occur because it is uranium but less radio active. many tank crew from M1 became sick after the second gulf war, many become unable to work and live of military pension. On the other hand, russian gov say that they will only load the DU round inside their tank if they are going into "doomsday war".
note that steel penetrator and tungsten penetrator do not heat up, they just penetrate the armor then turns into fragments and bounce inside the tank like "ping pong"
What some people need to know that during the second gulf war, iraqi army uses steel penetrator and heat round made around 1972 but americans are using are pure DU penetrator. they did not use any heat round or tungsten penerator. When DU is fired of a gun, rapid fission occur to depleted uranium undergo a chain reaction which create heat, the penetrator reach temperature that is alot higher than melting point of iron. thats why american say "that round is like a hot knife went through butter".
@mtrtrm Actually, the main gun going off when your in the tank really isnt loud at all. I know this from experience considering I am a loader in a tank.
@789joshi Autoloaders are dangerous. "1st" they are two parts in the turret with you. the Round and the charge bag. you get a hit inside the tank the charges in there will kill the whole crew in 1 second. "2nd" the loader system can fail and there is no manual loading option. it either works or it doesn't. "3rd" if something goes wrong inside the tank like a flame or fire the charges will cook the tank without ever being hit. "4th" it takes up a lot of space to install one, more then a human!
@WizzRacing Another "expert". There are many types of autoloaders, for different turret layouts and different ammo storage. Just like there are many types of cars. If someone can't build a decent reliable car, that doesn't mean that noone else can. Same with autoloaders. Bad autoloaders jam once per 300 rounds. Good autoloaders jam once per 600+ rounds. 600+ rounds is a life circle of many gun barrels.
It is easier to disable a human, even without penetrating tank's armor, than autoloader.
Every tank in the world has secondary ammo storage inside the tank. Leopard, Challenger, Merkava, Leclerc... you name it. So if projectile penetrates the armor it doesn't matter where your ammo is placed. In autoloader's carousel, or in that storage compartment.
The only exclusion is the Abrams, which has all rounds behind the turret. But even Abrams M1A3 will have autoloader. I am sure that such "experts" like you, will be the first preaching advantages of autoloaders.
@BitnikGr Your response does not address one item I just pointed out. Lockheed works on this everyday and has tested every possible concept you can come up with. tanks are not cars were you can rollout a new model every year! Jams are not the main cause of failure. its the system that drives it. you might look at how many parts it takes and movements to make the think work. not to mention the space it takes up!
Try again, I know what I'm talking about. yes I am a expert! you have a nice day .
@WizzRacing Autoloader jam is not only when breach jams. Every autoloader's failure to reload a main gun is autoloader's jam. Drive systems also can vary a lot. From complicated wire driven mechanisms, till robust robotic arms, with much less moving parts.
Saying that autolader takes up space in tank just show how much expert you are :)))
Space needed for autoloader is less than space required for a standing human even 5' tall.
That's why all tanks with autoloaders are lower than tanks with 4th crew members. And in its turn this brings a number of advantages for a tank. Lower tank can have less mass with same level of protection. Less mass - cheaper production. Less mass - better tactical and strategic mobility characteristics. Lower tank - lower target silhouette.
@BitnikGr It does matter were the ammo is stored, as well has how its placed. another problem that comes up is tank maintenance. with autoloaders you have more to take care of and one less man to help. now if One crewman is injured your down to a Two man crew to make the repairs, service, and run the tank in combat. the tank would be withdrawn for any of the given reasons. "one less tank on the frontline" and more support personnel needed. you can only make a tank so small!
@WizzRacing Yeah, yeah. Old story about maintenance. Well, as it seems 3 men are enough for field maintenance. Of course 4 is better, but assumption that 3 is not enough is wrong.
-
4men tank will also be withdrawn from frontline in case of injury of one of them. And there are many examples of that in Iraq.
You are talking about 1 tank less from frontline. I'll give you 2 more points:
- Let's say you have 300 men. You can man 100 tanks vs 75 tanks.
@WizzRacing "It does matter were the ammo is stored, as well has how its placed." - Of course it does matter. However, that doesn't mean that creating of successful (reliable and fast) autoloader is impossible.
I am 100% sure that all Abrams fanboyz will start preach how great autoloader is when M1A3 will come out. They will start count how many benefits it has and that old Leopards and Challengers remained in 20th century :)))
Nothing like a good solid fast human loader though. I know folks who could be auto loader times. Without the malfunctions and will your auto loader clear the breech when you have a misfire?
@TalonConsult001 How often do you have a misfire? Once per tube's life? Autoloaders I know don't prohibit gunner to open and clear the breech manually in case of misfire.
"solid human loader" ? In every kind of complex machinery and in every military branch (especially in aviation) human is more prone to errors... that's why we call it "a human factor". Trends of future technology show that all future tanks will have autoloaders and not human loaders.
@BitnikGr until we get thinking machines, Humans are almost always better in terms of overall reliability than a machine because we are overall more adaptable and well rounded. It's true that a machine can be more efficient than humans, but when something goes wrong, it usually cannot be fixed without the help of another machine.
Trends of future tech show that using humans is more cost effective and reliable. Look at field artillery which still use crews, despite the advent of automated arty.
@mtrtrm Today's Artillery on the field is not a lot different from artillery in WWII. Yes, look at trends of future Artillery and you will find 2-3men crews in S/P howitzers with autoloaders (yes, even double autoloaders for twin-cannon). Meanwhile previous generations needed from 4 to even 9 crew members to operate.
@BitnikGr SPGs with autoloaders are very few. While some autoloader SPGs have a great track record (PzH 2000), it's not enough to influence the rest of the world.
In tanks, instead of four crewmen, you have three to fulfill the tasks of maintaining the tank and operating it. What if one of the crewmen get injured? You can't have no gunner or TC or driver. But with four crewmen, you can have someone else double up as the loader or the loader take the gunner/driver seat if someone gets hurt.
@mtrtrm "it's not enough to influence the rest of the world." - It's because they are quite new comparing to all existing SP Howitzers. Trends are for acclimatization of every possible procedure and reduction of humans on battlefield.
-
Field maintaining is the only "argument". Then let's have 5 crew tanks. Or 6 will be even better. Half of the World build tanks with 3 men crews and they are not stupid. 3 men are enough for field maintenance. 4 are better, but 3 are enough.
@mtrtrm Really? How much will a tank worth on a battlefield if driver or gunner have to replace a loader? In first case, immobile tank = dead tank. In second case, rate of fire will drop to 1 round per minute... exactly like in most tanks with autoloaders in case of failure. Manual loading will make tank firing 1 round per minute.
@BitnikGr If the DRIVER or GUNNER gets hurt, you can replace them with the LOADER. In an autoloader tank, you can't do that. Likewise, if the loader gets hurt, it's very simple for the gunner to act as a loader as well.
An autoloader also requires the ammunition to be in the turret. Any penetration of the turret will cook off the rounds and destroy the entire tank instead of just the turret. While autoloaders can sustain 12 rds per min, it is VERY unlikely for a tank to be firing that fast.
@mtrtrm Who will load the gun if loader will replace driver or gunner? Tank will be out of battle in both scenarios. That's what I said.
-
"An autoloader also requires the ammunition to be in the turret." - Not true. Autoloader can take ammo from behind the turret store as well. Will M1A3 have ammo in turret? No.
"Any penetration of the turret will cook off the rounds and destroy the entire tank" - Have you any idea of the amount of energy burning in case of ammo cook off? Can you show me ANY tank with cooked off ammo and burned out turret but not body? :) Penetration of the turret of T-tanks is more difficult than penetration of Abrams ammo storage behind the turret and both tanks will be burnt out completely. The main difference is that Abrams crew have more time to leave the tank.
@BitnikGr i guess that is exactly why M1 have blow off pannels on the top above the ammo storge to lose pressure from the round. thats said but the turret cannot hold all the ammo ie 40+ is a typical modern load. from sources and history books what i understand is that inside T-72 about 3/4 of the ammo is inside the auto loader, but antitank missile is stored inside the front hull, the configuration is more or less the same applys to M1.
@BitnikGr when heat or DU round hit the front hull, there is no blow off panels in front hull and stored with tow-missle and other frag round, the tank would just blow up like a T-72 after hit by chemical penetrator ie DU round, Heat round or frag round.
@jack99889988 Exactly. The turret itself plays the role of "blow off panels" on T-tanks and this is not good. Undoubtedly, blow-off panels is a great future. However, on Abrams they don't work exactly how they were initially designed. Because they were originally designed for 105mm rounds of M1 version. And 120mm ammo stored produce much more energy, than blowoff panels can handle. That means that tank will be destroyed and burnt in case of ammo cooking off. But crew has more time to leave it.
@mtrtrm "While autoloaders can sustain 12 rds per min" - Mmm, not yet. Only the most modern and very recent autoloaders promise such rates of 12-15 rounds per minute. Almost all of existing autoloaders today do "only" 9 rounds per minute. Exactly same performance with human loader (8-9), but in immobile tank. On the off-road human loader is slower. In case of different type of ammo fired - autoloader is slower (up to 12 seconds). The future is for autoloaders, however.
@BitnikGr There is a small ammo storage in the hull, but you do have to have the turret in the correct position to access it. My unit doesnt even bother using the hull storage though
@BitnikGr If you are at all familiar with the inside of the turret what you do is traverse the turret (I cant recall which way). The safety door that the driver uses to enter his station is then opened. There is a panel there which can be opened that holds 3-4 rounds and I believe there is a second hull ammo storage as well. As I said, Im not very familiar with it since My unit, 3ID 2nd brigade, 1-30IN, does not use it. In the A2's they may have actually gotten rid of it
@samurai709 Thanks for explanation. Because I have seen descriptions (aka manuals) of how tough it is to load ammo from hull to primary storage. But never heard any real tanker speaking or describing such situation.
In low intensive conflicts, like most of conflicts are today, primary storage is more than enough. And we live with hope to not see large scale wars of the past in the future.
@BitnikGr which is extreme unlikely until america army collapses but then world will be in chaos. or another way an extremely peaceful presidents is elected well (gain trust from ppl and survive from assassination in the inner party) on top of that, USA finally start digging oil in their own land + less fossil fuel usage. from now, i seems like USA is going to the collapses position, they are under huge debt, and beginning a new war in libya. i bet after 6 month if they cant kill gaddafi,
@jack99889988 they are going to send ground forces then libya will be another iraq, which will making even more debt. under pressure and dont wanted to pay back the money, they decide to attack china because they own chinese more money than NATO combine. possibly nuclear war, then human race is gone. ---thats just my prediction but it is likely to happen if USA continue doing this.
@jack99889988 War in Libya didn't started by US, and US doesn't participate much in it. But anyhow, they would already give an end if they would sent ground forces from the start. 2months of air strikes give nothing. They try to assasinate Gaddaffi, instead of bring him to justice.
-
About US you are right. Debt is huge and all measures they take seem only to delay the collapse several decades, but it doesn't solve the problem. Many already say, that the system is too huge to be fixed.
@jack99889988 Attack of USA on China, however is unlikely. US fights there, where is oil, like ancient Greece fought for land only where was a grain. China is not a country with many natural resources and is too powerful and with nuclear arsenal. US will continue "rob the poors" (yes, it is a term of foreign policy of powerful against defenseless).
@BitnikGr oh right cause theres a shitload of recources in afghanistan the place is a wasteland, and if we were preying on people for oil we wouldnt be spending an arm and a leg on gas right now...
@seabornegrad Transit countries are same important with production countries. Look at Bulgaria, FYROM, Kosovo... Why do you think they are so favorable by US foreign policy last years? Because, they are on the path of "Blue Stream" or how it is called. This year, US pushed Bulgaria a lot and made it to deny co-operation with Russia for Burgas-Alexandrupolis part of "South Stream".
Now open up the World Map and tell me how they will get Turkmenian's gas when Iran is hostile and Caucasus is not...
The shortest path for gas from Turkmenistan to Indian Ocean is through Afghanistan and Pakistan and likely it is away from SouthEast borders, where Talibans rule and this path keeps gas flowing around Persian Gulf.
For 5000 years, all Empires wage wars only for control of resources and nothing else. Get used to it. Everything else is just cover. Answer for 99.9% of questions is always the same - Money!
@BitnikGr Ah yes, let the conspiracy theorists blossom. There are alot of things going on in Afghanistan most people will never know about. Not even the people that fight there.
@seabornegrad Ok! Let's say I don't have a real clue of what is going in Afghanistan.
Do you deny that empires were always waging wars for resources and for profit in a whole human history? Everything else is just an excuse. "Free Helen of Troy", "Civilize the barbarians, spread the civilization", "Fight evil communism in Vietnam", "Bring Democracy to the World" - all these are bullshit! Resources, money, power, territories... or in other words Money, Money, Money and Money.
@WizzRacing ur 1st statement is correct, but the tank only blowup if it is hit by heat or Du round. ur 2nd statment is wrong, infact u can reload even if the auto loader is down, if u look at the french leclerc or t72, the ammo storge is either behind the crew or under. the gunner can reach those rounds, which is either protected by doors or exposed. ur 3rd is wrong again, there is active fire extinguisher beside engine and ammo compartment 4th it take less space thats why t72 is smaller than m1
@jack99889988 I know you think it takes up less space, but it does not. it makes the turret lower but wider. lockheed martin has been trying to make an autoloader for years. they come to the correct conclusion that its not worth the time and cost. in field trials they had to many issues with the fire control system failing. you can ask for the report under the freedom of information act on the project. its very lengthy on the subject.
@1curis The noise is not from the turbine engine its the hydraulic pump that runs only wile the engine is running and turret power is on. When the engine if off you will hear the Aux pump running .
@callofdutyguy9 Its a mixture the gunner pick target threw a scope logs it into the "war machine" Computer which calculates its range and stabalizes the main gun then gunner says for example tank front 1340 the commander says fire heat or sabot and bang 1340 being the distance heat and sabot being type of round those are the basics of how tank crews work with there gunnery electronics// M1 ARMOR LEAD FROM THE FRONT!! US ARMY ARMOR SUPPOTT HOOAAHH if u want more details msg me
@callofdutyguy9Its a mixture the gunner pick target threw a scope logs it into the "war machine" Computer which calculates its range and stabalizes the main gun then gunner says for example tank front 1340 the commander says fire heat or sabot and bang 1340 being the distance heat and sabot being type of round those are the basics of how tank crews work with there gunnery electronics// M1 ARMOR LEAD FROM THE FRONT!!
US ARMY ARMOR SUPPOTT HOOAAHH if u want more details msg me
Outstanding loader!Under 5 seconds is good !
reddevilparatrooper 1 day ago
i wonder where they keep all the ammo? and i guess the need to have alot just incase it goes realy bad out there..
broranton1 3 weeks ago
oh god that turbine is fucking annoying as hell
Ralroost 1 month ago
That is the sound of freedom and a kick ass Tank Crew
reloadsabot 1 month ago
ahh my ears , what is that sound coming from?
NarrowKilla 1 month ago
@NarrowKilla probably the turbine that powers the abrams
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ralroost holy fuck , but tank helmets are very useful
NarrowKilla 1 month ago
@NarrowKilla hydraulics system
crazyhead5426 4 weeks ago
basically loading a giant "fuck-you-in-your-face-boom-you're-dead" Round
Haloplaya2332 1 month ago
It's not so much about the tank, it's about the crew inside the tank and how well they work together as one.
Silenceownz 1 month ago
What is that constantly noise the tanks does?
seba1551 2 months ago
hydrolics and turbine engine but when u have head set on u dont really hear it
Blueatchley12 2 months ago
@seba1551 Hydrolics and engine, but you wear a cvc( the helmet with the commo in it) it reduces it to almost nothing.
wowgamer14 2 months ago
@Nightbane Italy? Oh whoops I meant Israeli .ya Leo 2 same smooth bore as us. I'm not comparing tanks either dumbass. I was stating there are better tanks out there then the m1's no
Resendez1959 2 months ago
crazy, no relaxing haha
OMBIC 2 months ago
"M1 series" not m1a1
Resendez1959 2 months ago
@SMGjohn as a tanker on the M1a1 I agree with you the m1a1 series isn't the best in the world there are better tanks out there such as the merkarva "Italy" or the t-90 "Russia". But the way the people running tanks from having a company of tanks 14 to a section of tanks 2 the way they are trained to fire and maneuver makes the tank looks so fuckin good. I'm pretty sure past and present tankers will agree.
Resendez1959 2 months ago
@Resendez1959 The Merkava is Israeli and it's an APC, dipshit. The only tank that compares to the M1 is the Leopard 2.
Nightbane 2 months ago
@Resendez1959 T-90...has nowhere near the quality/armor/fire control of a Leopard 2 or Abrams. It's a gussied up T-72.
DACFalloutRanger 1 month ago
Auto loader is better
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Auto loaders jam
atarturk 2 months ago
@atarturk And so do normal breech loading smart ass
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Why did you turn to insults right away? Did I insult you by replying to your comment?
atarturk 2 months ago
@atarturk Well I'm sorry for being hot headed. But lately a bunch of American patriotic Nazis have been attacking me for saying M1A2 Abrams is not the best tanks in the world. And sometimes it's just hard to tell difference between one that doesn't intend to insult you or one that does in this kind of situations
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn That's true man
atarturk 2 months ago
@SMGJohn I have seen you posting on many other videos and it has occurred to me how little you actually know. There are several reasons that an auto-loading system was not chosen. 1. Having a 4th man takes stress off the rest of the crew during long missions. 2. A 4th man can help identify targets and eliminate close threats with the 7.62 machine gun. 3. Ensures the correct round is loaded. 4. Auto-loaders are just one more thing to go wrong. 5. They are expensive to produce and maintain.
SupremeStig 3 weeks ago
@SupremeStig I am wrong? Your just impossing your opinions. Auto loaders are superior as it makes the tanks smaller, faster reload time and it eliminates one crew meaning more space in the tanks. Soviet and Russian tanks are great tanks with autoloader as they are small and eliminating one crew made more space inside the turret. Surely the loader could hit his head inside and bleed to death. Just as a autoloader could jam up, that rarely happens
SMGJohn 3 weeks ago
@SMGJohn No, look at the auto loader on the MGS, it breaks alot and misfeeds worse than almost anything I've ever seen, also soldiers are trained to fire faster than the soviet/Russian tanks. Also look at the Russian tanks, the auto loader for then is fairly big for a smaller caliber round, while the Abrams has a larger round, meaning the auto loader would have to be bigger, bigger than the soldier who would usually be occupying the position. And its another thing to maintain in a tank.
boohooer 2 weeks ago
@boohooer So from your conclusion autoloader on MGS breaks allot means ALL Auto loaders breaks? Fail much? Russia has the simplest most reliable auto loader around it never breaks unless it's hit by something and jams. Even though if it breaks it can still be manually reloaded... You think they didn't add that? And no the autoloader is fairly small compared to earlier models and no T-90 has a bigger round then Abrams, WAY bigger.
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn there's little reliable information on soviet autoloader systems in english online, so any discussion of it is going to be mostly bullshit. 125mm isn't much larger than 120mm, also.
stopthatimmediately 2 weeks ago
@stopthatimmediately 5mm for a bullet is quite allot even thought it doesn't sound much to you. I've seen this rounds in real life compared, and if you read Russian you find allot of info. Clearly you wont find information in English cause they don't go around and write every damn detail about Soviet autoloader however it's shown they are most reliable under stress tests performed by Russian military there should be videos but they are in Russian
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@SMGJohn in smaller bullets yes in tank rounds not really so even more so if the overall size and weight of the round are smaller also if you know the military they like reusing stuff they already have so we would probably end up with an upgraded version of what is in the MGS and not what the russians have and you did bring up a good point about loading the weapon after a jam, but you forgot 2 things 1 the autoloader will probably be jammed in the way and 2 why fix whats not broken
boohooer 1 week ago
@boohooer This isn't 1917 is it now?? No it's the 21th century and 5mm difference says allot now days maybe it didn't do so 80 years ago but today it does. Did I also mention that 125mm has been in use on Soviet tanks since the 60s while US still only used 105mm and later upgraded to 120mm those days. The auto loader on MGS and Soviet autoloaders bears big difference, MGS is more advanced and complex while Soviet design is simpler and built to stand though fightings
SMGJohn 1 week ago
lol right this guy is slow as hell BADAASSSSSS? ha im in c co 1-66
The69barracuda69 2 months ago
looks like you need to drop the breech block and clean if you have to lift it. WTFO Crew Chief?
Goldenhind03 3 months ago
thats not the hydraulic pump, that is the turbine engine. 6 seconds is slow my best was 2.5 sec
wpwolly 3 months ago
Wow. Our hydraulic pump would cut off, once it had built pressure in an M60A2. That continuous whine there would drive me bats.
Blargaldalien 3 months ago
the lever on the left arms the main gun this guy is slow as hell taking way too long to load a round
dadonate 3 months ago
The leve to the lef
dadonate 3 months ago
0:55 was pretty fucking funny
FINLANDISH 3 months ago 2
this loader took 6 seconds to load a tank round... WTF man
y2blas 4 months ago
That screamy voice would makes me crazy!!! Is it gas turbine or some kind of hydraulics pump???
2442Random 4 months ago
@2442Random Hydraulics
GenericAmerican1 4 months ago
What is the lever you're using to the left of the breech?
khertler 4 months ago
@khertler im pretty shure it is to arm it
nolandandfriends 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nolandandfriends You're right. You can see it in this video "RNTDyJmKCnQ".
khertler 4 months ago
not a bad ass with 7 sec reload times
rjonesy0075 4 months ago
Hell of alot more quiet then the old m60 diesel engines
Resendez1959 4 months ago
And the 1500 hp turbine engine is a hell of alot quiter
Resendez1959 4 months ago
@DoubleDeePro0duct10ns that's a negative the safe/ arm lever controls on the gunner controls power handles and it's electrical trigger however. if the gunner uses the maual trigger aka" master blaster".. it automatically over rides the safe handle no matter if it's armed or not.
Resendez1959 4 months ago
@Resendez1959 Thanks for clarifying. It's been a while since I was in a tank.
DoubleDeePr0duct10ns 2 months ago
Whining noise is the turbine engine, not the hydraulics. Sorry JoeyDkid, but as a 19K in a former life, that isn't all that bad ass. As a tanker, you never notice the whine. Loader yells "UP" to inform the gunner that the gun is loaded and ready to fire. Gunner can't fire unless the lever is "up". It's a safety thing for the loader.
DoubleDeePr0duct10ns 4 months ago
what is that sound? engine or something else?
KRAUSER0130 5 months ago
@KRAUSER0130 That's the turret hydraulics.
jorgesfs 5 months ago
The whining noise is the hydrulics
merc1967 6 months ago
6 second load? ... Fuckin hoo ahhs are slow.. I guess the 3 second loads only exist in the marine corps
Resendez1959 6 months ago
We averaged an "up' in 3 seconds.
liam13coins 6 months ago
What he yells at 0:29, and what's that lever?
valttu94 6 months ago
second round down range knocks the camera off. 7 seconds later loader has another round chambered and another another 3 second and camera is 'up'...good job!
356slick 6 months ago
@356slick In sweden the stadard loading time is 4 sec or less.
vurre222 5 months ago
@vurre222 we used to do around that time with the 105mm by vacum loading
356slick 5 months ago
theirs an m1a2 abrams?
lovegunz1 6 months ago
looooooooool the camera
xXxxWARNINGxXx 6 months ago
one question how the fuck does the gunner get out of the tank and in the tank!?
crazyhead5426 7 months ago
@crazyhead5426
TC dismounts through the hatch directly above him... then the gunner pulls himself upto the TC's seat and repeat steps.
FrostyBowman 6 months ago
@FrostyBowman thanks that`s makes a lot of sense!
crazyhead5426 6 months ago
as they say in the AC-130
1:23 gunready!
0:42 SHOT!!
parcer4401 7 months ago
this is hard work to load the gun with heavy projectiles... How will feel this soldier at loading a 30-40th projectile? At 50th? Why Americans don't use autoloader system in their tanks?
antonvix 7 months ago
@antonvix an auto loader is just another piece of machinery that can break down, having a crew member load it is much more reliable, yes the rounds are heavy but you only hold them for about 5 seconds, and you wont be loading 50 rounds one after another. All you gotta do is use your man muscles and a little elbow grease. And yes I know from experience I'm an army 19Kilo Tanker.
KrystlMethod 7 months ago
what were you firing at that required sabots? and what all are sabots used to be fired at, other than other armored vehicles?
jonesm16 7 months ago
@jonesm16 this is just a gunnery for practice, you can tell, the rounds are blue training rounds
KrystlMethod 7 months ago
were those just training rounds?
MzAlmondEyes 8 months ago
@samurai709 The hull holds 6 rounds, this space is generally not used because it is impractical to use. each turrent block holds 17 rounds and when you run out of rounds in primary storage you have to refil 1 by 1 to the primary from the 2ndary by closing primary door , opening secindary door then close that door then open pruimary etc. anything else you need/want to know message me.
source- Is in US army as 19k M1 crewman. i work with M1A1's in Ft.Irwin NTC
wowgamer14 8 months ago
@wowgamer14 thanks!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@wowgamer14 Good to hear from another tanker, Ill be seeing you this October out in NTC
samurai709 8 months ago
those fragments then eventually hit a soft target ie human. Heat round can be easily defeated by chobham armor or also know as ceramic sandwiched composite armor or ERA or explosive reactive armor. which is why iraqi fail to destory any M1 by tank on tank battle (but most of the iraqi tanks are destroyed by hellfire fired from helicopter) i would like to see if US sent their M1 to mainland in china and russia and see how they truly proform
jack99889988 8 months ago
@jack99889988 "but most of the iraqi tanks are destroyed by hellfire fired from helicopter" - This is a common misconception. Aviation and helicopters strikes destroyed probably 20-25% of Iraqi destroyed armored vehicles. US Armored Forces gave large scale tank battles. Especially in 1991.
This misconception is a product of those, who spread the propaganda that modern wars are won from 30.000feet above. Iraq '91 and '03 and Serbia in '99 have proved that air strike are not so effective yet.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
DU round can cause mutation to occur because it is uranium but less radio active. many tank crew from M1 became sick after the second gulf war, many become unable to work and live of military pension. On the other hand, russian gov say that they will only load the DU round inside their tank if they are going into "doomsday war".
note that steel penetrator and tungsten penetrator do not heat up, they just penetrate the armor then turns into fragments and bounce inside the tank like "ping pong"
jack99889988 8 months ago
What some people need to know that during the second gulf war, iraqi army uses steel penetrator and heat round made around 1972 but americans are using are pure DU penetrator. they did not use any heat round or tungsten penerator. When DU is fired of a gun, rapid fission occur to depleted uranium undergo a chain reaction which create heat, the penetrator reach temperature that is alot higher than melting point of iron. thats why american say "that round is like a hot knife went through butter".
jack99889988 8 months ago
What heppens to the shell casing?
JPSwissCheese 8 months ago
@JPSwissCheese it drops down when the breach opens.
Monkeynuts502 8 months ago
no im pretty sure they are used to the noise
MRVIDZ99 8 months ago
Your best time is 10 secs?? I could have done it in 5!! LOL good vid man I miss the tanks!
TalonConsult001 8 months ago
Gotta love those turbine engines.
intermsofreality 8 months ago
@intermsofreality the whine is actually the sound of the turret hydraulics.
mtrtrm 8 months ago
that noise must be fucking annoying for sombody who has to listen to it all day
evoldevildogs 8 months ago
@evoldevildogs they have special ear protection in their helmets, otherwise they'd suffer hearing damage from the 120mm gun firing.
mtrtrm 8 months ago
@mtrtrm Actually, the main gun going off when your in the tank really isnt loud at all. I know this from experience considering I am a loader in a tank.
samurai709 8 months ago
Looks pretty crude on the inside.
Wolfenion 10 months ago
LMFAO! NO AUTOLOADER HOW LAME
789joshi 10 months ago
@789joshi Autoloaders are dangerous. "1st" they are two parts in the turret with you. the Round and the charge bag. you get a hit inside the tank the charges in there will kill the whole crew in 1 second. "2nd" the loader system can fail and there is no manual loading option. it either works or it doesn't. "3rd" if something goes wrong inside the tank like a flame or fire the charges will cook the tank without ever being hit. "4th" it takes up a lot of space to install one, more then a human!
WizzRacing 9 months ago
@WizzRacing Another "expert". There are many types of autoloaders, for different turret layouts and different ammo storage. Just like there are many types of cars. If someone can't build a decent reliable car, that doesn't mean that noone else can. Same with autoloaders. Bad autoloaders jam once per 300 rounds. Good autoloaders jam once per 600+ rounds. 600+ rounds is a life circle of many gun barrels.
It is easier to disable a human, even without penetrating tank's armor, than autoloader.
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@WizzRacing -
Every tank in the world has secondary ammo storage inside the tank. Leopard, Challenger, Merkava, Leclerc... you name it. So if projectile penetrates the armor it doesn't matter where your ammo is placed. In autoloader's carousel, or in that storage compartment.
The only exclusion is the Abrams, which has all rounds behind the turret. But even Abrams M1A3 will have autoloader. I am sure that such "experts" like you, will be the first preaching advantages of autoloaders.
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@BitnikGr Your response does not address one item I just pointed out. Lockheed works on this everyday and has tested every possible concept you can come up with. tanks are not cars were you can rollout a new model every year! Jams are not the main cause of failure. its the system that drives it. you might look at how many parts it takes and movements to make the think work. not to mention the space it takes up!
Try again, I know what I'm talking about. yes I am a expert! you have a nice day .
WizzRacing 9 months ago
@WizzRacing Autoloader jam is not only when breach jams. Every autoloader's failure to reload a main gun is autoloader's jam. Drive systems also can vary a lot. From complicated wire driven mechanisms, till robust robotic arms, with much less moving parts.
Saying that autolader takes up space in tank just show how much expert you are :)))
Space needed for autoloader is less than space required for a standing human even 5' tall.
...
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@WizzRacing ...
That's why all tanks with autoloaders are lower than tanks with 4th crew members. And in its turn this brings a number of advantages for a tank. Lower tank can have less mass with same level of protection. Less mass - cheaper production. Less mass - better tactical and strategic mobility characteristics. Lower tank - lower target silhouette.
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@BitnikGr It does matter were the ammo is stored, as well has how its placed. another problem that comes up is tank maintenance. with autoloaders you have more to take care of and one less man to help. now if One crewman is injured your down to a Two man crew to make the repairs, service, and run the tank in combat. the tank would be withdrawn for any of the given reasons. "one less tank on the frontline" and more support personnel needed. you can only make a tank so small!
WizzRacing 9 months ago
@WizzRacing Yeah, yeah. Old story about maintenance. Well, as it seems 3 men are enough for field maintenance. Of course 4 is better, but assumption that 3 is not enough is wrong.
-
4men tank will also be withdrawn from frontline in case of injury of one of them. And there are many examples of that in Iraq.
You are talking about 1 tank less from frontline. I'll give you 2 more points:
- Let's say you have 300 men. You can man 100 tanks vs 75 tanks.
- With 3men tank you put less lives in danger.
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@WizzRacing "It does matter were the ammo is stored, as well has how its placed." - Of course it does matter. However, that doesn't mean that creating of successful (reliable and fast) autoloader is impossible.
I am 100% sure that all Abrams fanboyz will start preach how great autoloader is when M1A3 will come out. They will start count how many benefits it has and that old Leopards and Challengers remained in 20th century :)))
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@BitnikGr
Nothing like a good solid fast human loader though. I know folks who could be auto loader times. Without the malfunctions and will your auto loader clear the breech when you have a misfire?
TalonConsult001 8 months ago
@TalonConsult001 How often do you have a misfire? Once per tube's life? Autoloaders I know don't prohibit gunner to open and clear the breech manually in case of misfire.
"solid human loader" ? In every kind of complex machinery and in every military branch (especially in aviation) human is more prone to errors... that's why we call it "a human factor". Trends of future technology show that all future tanks will have autoloaders and not human loaders.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr until we get thinking machines, Humans are almost always better in terms of overall reliability than a machine because we are overall more adaptable and well rounded. It's true that a machine can be more efficient than humans, but when something goes wrong, it usually cannot be fixed without the help of another machine.
Trends of future tech show that using humans is more cost effective and reliable. Look at field artillery which still use crews, despite the advent of automated arty.
mtrtrm 8 months ago
@mtrtrm Today's Artillery on the field is not a lot different from artillery in WWII. Yes, look at trends of future Artillery and you will find 2-3men crews in S/P howitzers with autoloaders (yes, even double autoloaders for twin-cannon). Meanwhile previous generations needed from 4 to even 9 crew members to operate.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr SPGs with autoloaders are very few. While some autoloader SPGs have a great track record (PzH 2000), it's not enough to influence the rest of the world.
In tanks, instead of four crewmen, you have three to fulfill the tasks of maintaining the tank and operating it. What if one of the crewmen get injured? You can't have no gunner or TC or driver. But with four crewmen, you can have someone else double up as the loader or the loader take the gunner/driver seat if someone gets hurt.
mtrtrm 8 months ago
@mtrtrm "it's not enough to influence the rest of the world." - It's because they are quite new comparing to all existing SP Howitzers. Trends are for acclimatization of every possible procedure and reduction of humans on battlefield.
-
Field maintaining is the only "argument". Then let's have 5 crew tanks. Or 6 will be even better. Half of the World build tanks with 3 men crews and they are not stupid. 3 men are enough for field maintenance. 4 are better, but 3 are enough.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@mtrtrm Really? How much will a tank worth on a battlefield if driver or gunner have to replace a loader? In first case, immobile tank = dead tank. In second case, rate of fire will drop to 1 round per minute... exactly like in most tanks with autoloaders in case of failure. Manual loading will make tank firing 1 round per minute.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr If the DRIVER or GUNNER gets hurt, you can replace them with the LOADER. In an autoloader tank, you can't do that. Likewise, if the loader gets hurt, it's very simple for the gunner to act as a loader as well.
An autoloader also requires the ammunition to be in the turret. Any penetration of the turret will cook off the rounds and destroy the entire tank instead of just the turret. While autoloaders can sustain 12 rds per min, it is VERY unlikely for a tank to be firing that fast.
mtrtrm 8 months ago
@mtrtrm Who will load the gun if loader will replace driver or gunner? Tank will be out of battle in both scenarios. That's what I said.
-
"An autoloader also requires the ammunition to be in the turret." - Not true. Autoloader can take ammo from behind the turret store as well. Will M1A3 have ammo in turret? No.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@mtrtrm ...
"Any penetration of the turret will cook off the rounds and destroy the entire tank" - Have you any idea of the amount of energy burning in case of ammo cook off? Can you show me ANY tank with cooked off ammo and burned out turret but not body? :) Penetration of the turret of T-tanks is more difficult than penetration of Abrams ammo storage behind the turret and both tanks will be burnt out completely. The main difference is that Abrams crew have more time to leave the tank.
...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr i guess that is exactly why M1 have blow off pannels on the top above the ammo storge to lose pressure from the round. thats said but the turret cannot hold all the ammo ie 40+ is a typical modern load. from sources and history books what i understand is that inside T-72 about 3/4 of the ammo is inside the auto loader, but antitank missile is stored inside the front hull, the configuration is more or less the same applys to M1.
jack99889988 8 months ago
@BitnikGr when heat or DU round hit the front hull, there is no blow off panels in front hull and stored with tow-missle and other frag round, the tank would just blow up like a T-72 after hit by chemical penetrator ie DU round, Heat round or frag round.
jack99889988 8 months ago
@jack99889988 Exactly. The turret itself plays the role of "blow off panels" on T-tanks and this is not good. Undoubtedly, blow-off panels is a great future. However, on Abrams they don't work exactly how they were initially designed. Because they were originally designed for 105mm rounds of M1 version. And 120mm ammo stored produce much more energy, than blowoff panels can handle. That means that tank will be destroyed and burnt in case of ammo cooking off. But crew has more time to leave it.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@mtrtrm "While autoloaders can sustain 12 rds per min" - Mmm, not yet. Only the most modern and very recent autoloaders promise such rates of 12-15 rounds per minute. Almost all of existing autoloaders today do "only" 9 rounds per minute. Exactly same performance with human loader (8-9), but in immobile tank. On the off-road human loader is slower. In case of different type of ammo fired - autoloader is slower (up to 12 seconds). The future is for autoloaders, however.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr There is a small ammo storage in the hull, but you do have to have the turret in the correct position to access it. My unit doesnt even bother using the hull storage though
samurai709 8 months ago
@samurai709 In Abrams? Where is it located?
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr If you are at all familiar with the inside of the turret what you do is traverse the turret (I cant recall which way). The safety door that the driver uses to enter his station is then opened. There is a panel there which can be opened that holds 3-4 rounds and I believe there is a second hull ammo storage as well. As I said, Im not very familiar with it since My unit, 3ID 2nd brigade, 1-30IN, does not use it. In the A2's they may have actually gotten rid of it
samurai709 8 months ago
@samurai709 Thanks for explanation. Because I have seen descriptions (aka manuals) of how tough it is to load ammo from hull to primary storage. But never heard any real tanker speaking or describing such situation.
In low intensive conflicts, like most of conflicts are today, primary storage is more than enough. And we live with hope to not see large scale wars of the past in the future.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr which is extreme unlikely until america army collapses but then world will be in chaos. or another way an extremely peaceful presidents is elected well (gain trust from ppl and survive from assassination in the inner party) on top of that, USA finally start digging oil in their own land + less fossil fuel usage. from now, i seems like USA is going to the collapses position, they are under huge debt, and beginning a new war in libya. i bet after 6 month if they cant kill gaddafi,
jack99889988 8 months ago
@jack99889988 they are going to send ground forces then libya will be another iraq, which will making even more debt. under pressure and dont wanted to pay back the money, they decide to attack china because they own chinese more money than NATO combine. possibly nuclear war, then human race is gone. ---thats just my prediction but it is likely to happen if USA continue doing this.
jack99889988 8 months ago
@jack99889988 War in Libya didn't started by US, and US doesn't participate much in it. But anyhow, they would already give an end if they would sent ground forces from the start. 2months of air strikes give nothing. They try to assasinate Gaddaffi, instead of bring him to justice.
-
About US you are right. Debt is huge and all measures they take seem only to delay the collapse several decades, but it doesn't solve the problem. Many already say, that the system is too huge to be fixed.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@jack99889988 Attack of USA on China, however is unlikely. US fights there, where is oil, like ancient Greece fought for land only where was a grain. China is not a country with many natural resources and is too powerful and with nuclear arsenal. US will continue "rob the poors" (yes, it is a term of foreign policy of powerful against defenseless).
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr oh right cause theres a shitload of recources in afghanistan the place is a wasteland, and if we were preying on people for oil we wouldnt be spending an arm and a leg on gas right now...
seabornegrad 8 months ago
@seabornegrad Transit countries are same important with production countries. Look at Bulgaria, FYROM, Kosovo... Why do you think they are so favorable by US foreign policy last years? Because, they are on the path of "Blue Stream" or how it is called. This year, US pushed Bulgaria a lot and made it to deny co-operation with Russia for Burgas-Alexandrupolis part of "South Stream".
Now open up the World Map and tell me how they will get Turkmenian's gas when Iran is hostile and Caucasus is not...
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@seabornegrad ... stable.
The shortest path for gas from Turkmenistan to Indian Ocean is through Afghanistan and Pakistan and likely it is away from SouthEast borders, where Talibans rule and this path keeps gas flowing around Persian Gulf.
For 5000 years, all Empires wage wars only for control of resources and nothing else. Get used to it. Everything else is just cover. Answer for 99.9% of questions is always the same - Money!
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@BitnikGr Ah yes, let the conspiracy theorists blossom. There are alot of things going on in Afghanistan most people will never know about. Not even the people that fight there.
seabornegrad 8 months ago
@seabornegrad Ok! Let's say I don't have a real clue of what is going in Afghanistan.
Do you deny that empires were always waging wars for resources and for profit in a whole human history? Everything else is just an excuse. "Free Helen of Troy", "Civilize the barbarians, spread the civilization", "Fight evil communism in Vietnam", "Bring Democracy to the World" - all these are bullshit! Resources, money, power, territories... or in other words Money, Money, Money and Money.
BitnikGr 8 months ago
@WizzRacing ur 1st statement is correct, but the tank only blowup if it is hit by heat or Du round. ur 2nd statment is wrong, infact u can reload even if the auto loader is down, if u look at the french leclerc or t72, the ammo storge is either behind the crew or under. the gunner can reach those rounds, which is either protected by doors or exposed. ur 3rd is wrong again, there is active fire extinguisher beside engine and ammo compartment 4th it take less space thats why t72 is smaller than m1
jack99889988 8 months ago
@jack99889988 I know you think it takes up less space, but it does not. it makes the turret lower but wider. lockheed martin has been trying to make an autoloader for years. they come to the correct conclusion that its not worth the time and cost. in field trials they had to many issues with the fire control system failing. you can ask for the report under the freedom of information act on the project. its very lengthy on the subject.
WizzRacing 8 months ago
you can see a red or a orange light at 1:15
boredpasword 10 months ago
Is it just me or does the shell casing that drops out look weird? like its cut in half?
skimyy 10 months ago
@skimyy
No it is just a base and the primer that are left, no ful case thta is consumed, but unlike the UK system where nothing is left this has the base.
chieftain900 10 months ago
@skimyy I believe it's crushed after firing to conserve space.
soocl0se 9 months ago
@soocl0se no, the case is a laminated cardboard type materiel that is burned on firing. Only the stub base is left.
M2fiftycal 9 months ago
does the whining noise get annoying?
Wadser 10 months ago 22
@Wadser you get used of it
TransAmRob383 9 months ago
@Wadser its the hydrolic pump
TheBleedingoutbooze 9 months ago
@Wadser Pretty sure the helmet they wear gets rid of that noise.
DOAHunt3r 9 months ago
@Wadser Im sure it does, but then you remember you're in a FUCKING TANK.
1curis 8 months ago 18
@1curis being in a fucking tank is epic enough :D
AGeiisz 8 months ago
@1curis is that noise the hydraulics or something?
ChowderHole 7 months ago
@ChowderHole Turbine engine.
1curis 7 months ago
@1curis The noise is not from the turbine engine its the hydraulic pump that runs only wile the engine is running and turret power is on. When the engine if off you will hear the Aux pump running .
kingmanthe1 7 months ago
@1curis never imagined that turbine engines sound so annoying either have you wondered that?
CRAZYhill112or999 5 months ago
@Wadser being a tanker is a loud job trust me.
AGeiisz 8 months ago
@Wadser not at all when your wearing a CBC, it's just another part of being a tanker. I am currently a Driver/ Loader been in for over 2 years .
kingmanthe1 7 months ago
@Wadser you can't hear the whining noise with your ear protection on
akispines 6 months ago
@Wadser I guess it does while you are there but 20 years later as soon as I heard that beautiful noise, my eyes watered. I do miss it
356slick 6 months ago
8 effing seconds? wtf noob?!?! dude you suck at loading...too worried about your coolguy video and not feeding the beast......fuckin millenials...
beefpunch 11 months ago
@beefpunch hoooaa an internet soldier XDDDD
bodyboystance2 10 months ago
Don't flinch.
theflyingass 11 months ago
thats actually pretty slow loading
85jc11 11 months ago
Fuck... i hate being colorblind
MagnumPI4 11 months ago
19 KILO FT KNOX AGONY,MISERY! Thumbs up OSUT.
opfor137 11 months ago
Wow what a flashback! M1A1 Tankers GO!
opfor137 11 months ago
lol please respond how did u sign up for that job like to be in the army and be a tank crew im just wondering for in the future
joeylenseigne120 1 year ago
@joeylenseigne120 When you have a meeting with a army recruiter tell them you want to be an M1 Abrams crewmember / Tanker.
general1000 1 year ago
@joeylenseigne120 Armor/Tank Crewmember
mirlin235 11 months ago
@joeylenseigne120 Let the recruiter know you want to be a nineteen-kilo (19K) Then you'll be sent to Fort Knox, KY for 18 weeks of OSUT.
miggywidit 11 months ago
are those rounds that light? or you are that strong to load it fast?
another505 1 year ago
@another505 Well depending on the type of round those rounds were 45 pounds
xblvTV 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Oh and any more questions you can msg me
xblvTV 1 year ago
@callofdutyguy9 Its a mixture the gunner pick target threw a scope logs it into the "war machine" Computer which calculates its range and stabalizes the main gun then gunner says for example tank front 1340 the commander says fire heat or sabot and bang 1340 being the distance heat and sabot being type of round those are the basics of how tank crews work with there gunnery electronics// M1 ARMOR LEAD FROM THE FRONT!! US ARMY ARMOR SUPPOTT HOOAAHH if u want more details msg me
xblvTV 1 year ago
is the aiming of the tank done by computer or does a spotter have to manually aim and point the gun at a target
callofdutyguy9 1 year ago
@callofdutyguy9Its a mixture the gunner pick target threw a scope logs it into the "war machine" Computer which calculates its range and stabalizes the main gun then gunner says for example tank front 1340 the commander says fire heat or sabot and bang 1340 being the distance heat and sabot being type of round those are the basics of how tank crews work with there gunnery electronics// M1 ARMOR LEAD FROM THE FRONT!!
US ARMY ARMOR SUPPOTT HOOAAHH if u want more details msg me
xblvTV 1 year ago
@xblvTV sounds pretty cool, sorry forlate response, internet troubles
callofdutyguy9 1 year ago
slow loading hahahaha
tarmacbulldog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ʇuop ˙˙˙ʞɔnɟ
dotcombatgames 1 year ago
@dotcombatgames Don't buy keyboards on ebay,yes!
USMCjunior117 1 year ago