New Bespoke Post subscribers get 20% off their first box of awesome - go to bespokepost.com/nwyt20 and enter code NWYT20 at checkout. Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring!
I absolutely love modern mechanisms, like reloading ones, they're always so smooth and futuristic almost. It's like that feeling you get as a kid when you think about how the future will be, except it's now. Oh, and Wolfenstein.
I think their designs are rather flawed. With so much talk going around alpha damage and removing the human element, why are there still no MBT guns designed so that they can take advantage of magazine-type loading methods? With casing ejection, you would be able to fire, for example, 5 shots in very quick succession and have maybe a 8-15 second reload before being able to fire 5 again.
@@Donkeymaster9000 It's a videogame about killing Nazis in a world where Nazis won WWII. A lot of really cool German machinery with heavy moving parts, pistons, etc.
I love how he casually says that the human loader is easier to replace than an auto loader Edit: thanks for the likes you just extended my will to live
@@Global-yt The general thinking is that Otto cares a lot about his three fellow crewmates inside his tank, so while it would be a bad day for Otto, at least his mates may survive.
Some more consideration on tank autoloaders: 1. France manages to deal with the issue of only 3 crewmembers on a fairly heavy tank (~57 tons) by teaming them up with scout cars. This way they get at least 5 people to take care of a tank and a car. 2. The limiting factor of the rate of fire of Soviet designed tanks often isn't the autoloader, but how quickly they can re-acquire the target after each shot. They are often more limited by their optics and the lackluster stabilisation than by the autoloader. German trials with eastern German T-72 for example found that it often takes over 10 seconds until the gunner and commander can get the gun back on target. 3. Casette autoloaders are one option for modern tanks, but the gun compartment and crew compartment get increasingly seperated anyway. Not all go with a fully unmanned turret like Armata, but Leclerc-style designs like the EMBT put the turret crew within the rotating turret basket and give them a hatch to look out of, while also largely isolating them from the gun and ammo handling. 4. Saving 25% of a 4-man crew by switching to 3 men and an autoloader sounds way more beneficial than it actually is. Tank crews only make up a fraction of larger armored formations. A US Armored Combined Arms Battalion for example typically fields over 600 men, of which only 112 are tank crews (2 tank companies of 14 tanks/56 crew each). Switching to autoloaders would save them a total of 28 out of 600. And this ratio only goes down as you look at bigger units with ever more supporting elements. But now you also have to teach your commanders and gunners how to fix an autoloader in battle, and give them all sorts of other responsibilities... you need to teach your mechanics how to repair them... chances are that this expansion of responsibilities gives you more breakdowns of men and tanks even if the autoloader itself is quite reliable.
Concerning point 4: The point that make gettin grid of the fourth crew member so benefical is the size of the tank. Humans need a lot of space inside at tank, especially the loader. And space for the crew has to be well armoured. If you compare "western style" autoloader tanks (like Leclerc or K2) with human loaded tanks (like Leopard 2 or Abrams) you can see it pretty clearly. The autoloader tanks are about 10t lighter, 0.1m narrower, 0.3cm less tall and the hull is about 1m shorter (all values approximate). Russian tanks and the japanese type 10 tank are even more compact but sacrifice protection to achieve it. T-14 is also a bit of an odd one out, with a big hull, but a really small turret.
About part 4, those 28 people that were just booted from the battalion, now you have to find other jobs for those 28 men, which includes probably close to 6-12 months of retraining in a new occupation, along with the fact that that's only for one battalion. Now imagine if that happened to all the battalions in the army and marine corps. That's thousands (guesstimate) of people that have to be retrained and are out of the job.
@@tylermcdavid9426 From what I read france didn't boot the tank loaders from the tank battalion. The army put them into armored cars and attached them to tank battalion in a support role. That way you have a 4th person to deal with a broken down tank and replacement if someone get's hurt or killed.
I mean in WW2 they were only held in by gravity so imagine just flinging the suckers and a big ol crane coming in and pilfering a new one from a burning enemy battleship
I hear japanese navy is developing a ciws that can be reloaded for 2mins and missile stowage rack system that allows ships to resupply missiles while moving at sea
I'm a ammunition feed specialist. From 223 all the way up to 70 mm cannons. I like the 50 mm bushmaster 🤠 I did my time learning everything from start to finish building ammunition feed systems.
The USN has loved it's autoloaders ever since the late WW2 cruisers like USS Salem. Those were some large rifles with autoloaders and IIRC there were plans to equip an Iowa with autoloaders during the cold war
Since obviously nobody is hand-loading 8-16 inch rounds, every battleship and cruiser since the WW1 era has technically been "auto-loaded". The difference is basically only in how fast the loading mechanism works. Apparently the Germans stuck with 2-barrel turrets for their Bismarck class battleships because the loading mechanism, which was the fastest for that size class of ammo back then, took up too much space to fit 3 guns into the turrets.
@@TrangleC we did hand pass rounds and charges on Battleships. The only auto part was actually chambering the round and closing the breach. Sailors had to hand lift the 16inch projectile and it's powder bags onto a table to then be pushed into the gun, it's basically hand loading in all the ways that really count. That's how it's been done on all ships that allow for manual loading. You still have to heft that 8-16inch projectile onto a platform in line with the breach. For more info, both the USS Iowa and USS New Jersey RU-vid channels have videos on loading the various guns on the battleship.
6:30 The MANTIS is quite versatile, the turret can also be mounted on any vehicle able to take the weight. When mounted on a GTK Boxer it is called Skyranger35 (there is also a Skyranger30 using a 30mm cannon). The burst length can be adjusted from 36 down to single shots, for small targets like drones a 6 shell burst is sufficient. It can also take down anything from low flying aircraft via cruise missiles to drones and even mortar and artillery shells. It's effective range is 5km (3m) for slow moving planes and helicopters and 3km (1.7m) for incoming artillery shells.
CIWS and its aircraft predecessors for the most part retain the casings too; pushing them hard enough to get them clear of the aircraft takes more mechanism than simply returning them to the magazine.
I read that the original autocannon switched to retaining spent cases because they can't stop instantaneously; when the pilot released the trigger, inertia meant a few unfired rounds got ejected too while slowing down, and it was considered both unsafe (don't want any misdirected unspent rounds drifting into engines!) and an unwise gift to the enemy.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 The chance of anyone finding ejected rounds live or otherwise is pretty small but yeah, things getting sucked into engines is generally bad.
Great little vid and I can confirm it's hard work, as a 72 year old engineer involved in several Middle East military contracts I can agree that the reloading issue does not get any easier as time has progressed, assisting our Brit armourers in Qatar during reloading Hawker Hunter aircraft on firing programmes was a work up, the Hunter had 4x30mm Aden cannons just below the pilots feet, the Hunter gun's were in a pack and made up part of the foreward fusilage, winched in with something like a car jack. Whilst having a couple of beers with a pilot friend of mine he said that if you fired all the ammunition from all cannons in one of the gun packs the aircraft would stall because of the recoil effect, I can say with certainty that when all 4 cannons fire and you have the misfortune of being in the aircraft at the time, your feet do not actually have contact with the flightdeck floor as said cannons are fired!
The recoil force of the GAU cannon on the A-10 equals the thrust of one of the two turbofan engines. That means the aircraft kind of loses half of its engine power every time it fires the gun.
@@TrangleC do you think it would be a bad idea to equip thrusters on the aircraft that would add in that much extra thrust while the guns are firing to cancel out the recoil
@@TrangleC. The Soviets built a plane with an even bigger Gatling gun, because, y’know, vodka. But every time a pilot fired the gun, it disabled the aircraft.
@@asdalotl The machine worked just fine without any special thrusters and now it is mute to speculate about any upgrades because the A-10 is getting retired. But even if that weren't the case, you have to consider that aircraft are very complicated, delicate things. You hear in the video that they even have to keep the empty brass casings of the fired ammo inside the plane to not mess up the center of gravity too much. Slapping extra rockets on it, or whatever you have in mind when you talk about "thrusters" would mean extra weight, extra drag and might shake the aircraft violently when ignited, messing up the accuracy of the gun or even damaging the airframe. The A-10 is cool and interesting because it is different than other planes and extreme with its giant gun and all, but its time is over and statistics show that it never was all that useful anyways. The RU-vid channel "Military Aviation History" has a whole video about that, where he does a deep dive into the combat record of the A-10. During Operation Desert Storm they only used the gun to shoot at civilian trucks, were never really needed for close support missions and whenever they engaged in proper ground attack missions on military targets, they basically only used the A-10 as a Maverick launching platform and other planes like the F-16 could do that job better.
When I was active duty we would upload the carrier at sea from an ammo ship with two helicopters and three STREAM Rigs going balls to the wall in 12-14 hours. I've done this many times. I have also reloaded VLS underway using the CH-46 to bring loaded canisters to the cruiser and bring the empties back to the ammo ship. We could replenish VLS with the STREAM Rig too. VLS ships used to carry a crane that took up four adjacent VLS cells. All these skills are lost but the equipment still exists in storage and the skills can be re-learned.
@@philsalvatore3902 loading vls with a helicopter is more dangerous and time consuming. We got barges and cranes that are able to do it much faster and safer.
@@Brownie.- We were reloading VLS in blue water, middle of the Pacific, underway in a strike group. That is my point. We used to reload VLS while underway. It could be accomplished with a standard STREAM rig from the AE, AOR or AOE, but we could also set the canisters on deck with the helo. The ships used to have a crane that took up four adjacent VLS cells that could lift out the empty canister and load the new canister with a missile inside. The Navy seems to have lost knowledge of this capability we used to have, and many RU-vidrs and younger service members are too young perhaps to be aware the capability exists.
Great video. I saw an A-10 at an airshow. I noticed a flange near the pilot's window. The pilot told me it was to deflect the smoke from the gun while firing. He explained that the first firing of the gun choked the engine and resulted in ejection of the pilot.
This was a really great video. I didn't think a video on reloading could be interesting but it was awesome to see the involved process for reloading some of these weapons systems. Keep the great videos coming!
The 76mm Melara Bow Cannon was the most fun I had on the HMCS Iroquois, sea cadets sent me out for 2 weeks on the ship and what a hoot firing that cannon was, then being below deck during reloads, the massive carrousel is impressive below deck.
Quick addition on the tank loader for the abrams. Generally between engagements the crew will move ammo from other compartments into the ready rack, this usually happens when the tank is in cover and or not under fire. Tanks usually opperate in packs so if a tanks ready rack is running low it will rotate with another tank to a less vulnerable position, theyll keep the gun firing as opportunitys arrise but will replenish the ready rack 2 or 3 rounds at a time, this keeps the rate of fire up as much as possible
"I love to reload during a battle! There's nothing better than slamming a long silver bullet down into a well-greased chamber." "Alright! I'm alive again! Let's go!" - Revolver Ocelot (MGS1)
@@iceswalopiss1425 But the Revolver Cannon, the System is also used on Skynex/Skyranger, Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun used on ships like denmark, indonesia (dont know that) Venezuela Guaiquerí-class, Guaicamacuto-class patrol boat (lol) and others
I play this sandbox videogame with a lot of custom guns and there's a decoration system for making them look good. What I always stress about is how the hell are they reloaded, so this helps a lot.
I would really have assumed that they would have invested in building at least a "prepared reloading setup" and then it would take more effort after the 1st full reload. (BTW could you please cover a video on the awesome video about the military iron man style hover suit that the navy could utilize to improve so many aspects of their abilities)
using something like the submarines rig for loading torpedos to load the vls would be good. stick a small crane on the ship, set up the loading rig, then the supply ship sets a whole container of missiles on the deck and the smaller crane and rig fill the vls.
"To be fair, being on the receiving end of any weapon demands a serious reevaluation of your life choices" ...nice! I doubt that being on the receiving end of these weapons will leave any time for reevaluation
You might have up to a few minutes while the A10's arrive and circle your general area while they confirm with ground troops where they're gonna destroy everything that's not yet taken the opportunity to run away...
I can tell you from first hand experience, the lethality of these ultra lethal weapons isn't what you'd expect. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're not lethal, but you'd be amazed at how easily certain death is avoided. I've seen 155 artillery obliterate everything and a group of insurgents come running out from between a cinderblock wall and a house like it was nothing.
I'm guessing the speed with which a submarine can reload a torpedo tube is classified. That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing you would want an enemy to know.
My favorite USN guns in this context are the Mark 16 8"/55. Used in the Des Moines class heavy cruisers. Capable of firing 10, 8" shells a min per barrel. Three triple turrets. Just imagine being on the receiving end of that. Also, this is a system from the 1940s.
Ever see the MCLGS, (Major Caliber Lightweight Gun System) an 8-inch single that was tested on USS Hull, and old Forrest Sherman class can? Quite a sight. The turret might still be out at Dahlgren VA somewhere.
Yeah the Iowa class was a monstrosity (in a good way) however large battleships don’t really have much of a place hence why the iowa class was the last battleships built by the us. While most of them have monstrous armor, the deck is a weak point despite the 5 INCHES of armor. This was demonstrated perfectly with the USS Arizona, where a Japanese bomb struck the deck near a turret, resulting in the detonation of the ammo magazines
@@LettuceGaymingYou know I was talking about cruisers right? Besides, the entire context is weapon systems, not the merits of a battleship. You posting a bog standard "battleships no good" argument *WHERE THE BIGGEST GUN MENTIONED WAS 8 INCHES* screams bot or, in very mild terms, a person who is very very confused, or someone who just wants to one up other people with some out of place argumentation. Also, Arizona was a Pennsylvania. The next class, the Nevadas, those are the first to use an all-or-nothing armor scheme. I.e. Arizona's armor scheme was dated at the time of ww1, let alone ww2. edit: Look up animations/descriptions of how Des Moines & Salem's gun systems worked and then think of the autoloading part of the video. Then you will see what I was getting at.
@@LettuceGayming Warhead design and energetic materials have advanced greatly since WWII. The BROACH warhead in something like a JASSM/LRASM, JSOW C1 or Storm Shadow would defeat the thickest armor to ever go to sea.
Just a heads up. At 4:26 an 'incoming' alarm is played in the background. It's not very loud but it's there. Anyone who might be affected by hearing it, please beware.
I'm a couple days late but Smarter Every Day has a whole series on modern US nuclear submarines. He gets right to the border of what he can show and talk about and it's definitely worth the watch. Smarter Every Day 241 What an outro btw
Man, I really love your channel, but do not agree on many political views, but it does not matter, your videos and narration is topnotch, the subject of the narration is very dedicated, we can see that you spent hours to make a great work in the research and editing. Keep up buddy, the world needs more people like you and thanks for another great video.
1:48 We actually reloaded our VLS a couple times at anchorage in Japan. Went smoothly. not sure why it's not done more often. I think though, Japan did not allow us to load nukes... but I was always under the impression my ship did not have any! if so we should have had a Marine detachment onboard for security. Anyway, that is the reason why Kitty Hawk stayed in Japan for so long as the Japanese did not allow a nuke carrier. That has changed now though.
Yeah, that barge from Urago. The reason they don't do it more is because it's difficult to get that much loft from a barge(which is sitting down near the water rather than halfway up like a pier). It's VERY touchy trying to do the VLS systems, even in the relatively sheltered sea state you get in Tokyo bay. They're putting in a loading/unloading pier at Urago.
I'm surprised you didn't speak about the Japanese type 10s auto loader which not only allows for safety, reliability, weight and most importantly reload speed as the average reload speed of the type 10 is 3-4 seconds but there is video evidence that it can be 1 second
17:04 that’s the case with most aircraft guns, you don’t want your jet engine to suck in the casing. Also you‘d need an extra hole somewhere to eject the casings.
That is the general case for all rotary machine guns. It is easier to cycle them back into the magazine than to acutually eject them. Besides, when you are firing at 50-100 rounds per second that is a whole lot of very hot brass you would be spraying all over the place raising havok with everyone nearby.
15:14 I appreciate the curious it’s, but nearly everything about US nuclear submarines is classified. It’s to the point that most retired submarine crewmen won’t even talk about it. And seeing as reload time can be important, that is also probably classified.
17:21 Oh man I remember breaking track. Turned in 4 tanks in 5 years. 1 tank had both tracks rebuilt using individual track blocks. 1 tank done with 8 bock track sections ( that was nice ) ... the other two were just turned in as is. Had to put track back on 3 tanks in the field ( thankfully in dry moderate weather ).
@@jhonthecat5061 You get them as tight as possible, then drive around the motor pool which stretches the track and helps the wedges seat and then you go tighten again.
@@johnjacobjinglehimerschmid3555 So a retorque neat! how many segments of track does a tank generally have? how many times do you have to retorque is that a regular maintenance thing or not for tracks? how quickly do tracks wear too?
@@jhonthecat5061 If I remember right, going back to 1986 here,and M60A3's had 80 track blocks per side. Was it a regular procedure, no not really after any sort of movement, especially if it was an off base movement, It wasn't unusual to find missing bolts and or the wedge nuts. If you did you walked the track looking for missing and honestly I'd just hammer the connector and listen if it was a ping, tight connector or a thunk loose and tighten them up, Inside ones were hardest as you had to crawl along as the driver moved the tank forward.
15:20 I just went on a tour recently on the USS Kentucky (Ohio class) and by hand it takes around 10 minutes to load a torpedo. If they are in combat they could maybe do it in 8. They couldn't give us any info on the auto loader though.
In your discussion about the Sea Sparrow (which had an awful reputation about 25 years ago, btw), you mentioned how the Phalanx could be considered the 'goal keeper' of the layered ship defense system. The British use a CIWS system called Goal Keeper - which is more-or-less a 30mm version of Phalanx.
Goal keeper is a much heavier system. The think with the phalanx is it is both light (As ship weapons go) and can be mounted on just about anything, any where. The problem with goalkeeper and presumably even more so with mantis is that the ship needs to be built with these emplacements in mind. The goalkeeper weights almost twice as much with all the added power, cooling and stabilization cost. By the time you get to mantis you might as well be using a small ship cannon. No Idea what their requirements are but it is certainly a chonkey looking boy.
@@Snipergoat1 I don't think Mantis is a going concern anymore. Admittedly it was a really quick search, but it looks like only 2 were made. Goalkeeper has a total mass of 9,902kg; and Phalanx has a total of 6,200kg. I think you're correct that the biggest advantage of Phalanx is its inherent modularity. It does need power and hydraulics from somewhere, but that can be located at a reasonable distance away. It carries it ammo in a drum just below the gun, which eliminates below-deck colocation. Goalkeeper has a longer effective range, but does require a huge amount of modification for the massive support system that must be located immediately below the mount; which includes its magazine. Interestingly, and I didn't know this before, but the UK is unmounting Goalkeeper in favor of Phalanx.
I spoke with an Abrams tank commander who participated in the Gulf war (1991). When I asked about autoloaders, he was critical of their reliability. He also said the manual loading was faster. His crew was able to reload in just 4 seconds.
Crew loading may be faster - when the loader is not tired / has not been tossed around during battle and so is uninjured. We humans are fragile, generally. And a tank is basically a big metal box. Accidentally banging around while inside the big metal box may injure humans.
"His crew was able to reload in just 4 seconds." Not impressed. Firstly, that's just for the shells that are easiest to grab in the rack and the loader would have to do some funky stuff even so, like lap-loading with the bustle door open. Secondly, the current tank record (for 10.5 cm guns) is 2.5 seconds a shell for the full complement of 25 AP and 20 HE.
@@BPo75 Impressive stats. But, #1) Can you substantiate your claim by citing a source? #2) On what platform was this record achieved? #3) A 105mm shell is obviously smaller than the NATO standard of 120mm for tanks. So the comparison is a little bit apples vs. oranges #4) What do you mean by 'full complement"? ( I assume you're NOT suggesting firing 45 rounds in 45 * 2.5 = 112.5 seconds.
@@gregparrott Stridsvagn 103. The right magazine held 25 rounds, while the left held 20 plus 5 manually cranked rounds, usually smoke or illumination. Obviously, firing 45 rounds in a row would be detrimental to the gun, but it was done on several occasions to test the reliability of the loading automat. The declassified military archives as follows: Pansartruppskolan, Försöksavdelningen, 1960-1965, Serie F II, Volym nr 1. Datahandbok strv 103, page 1. Försvarets materielverk, Armématerielförvaltningen, Fordonsavdelningen, Centralsektionen, Serie F I, 1100:1-11 - 7890:1, 1969, Volym nr 10. Chapter: RAC Equipment Trials Wing, RAC Centre Report on Swedish S Tank.
Adding bananas and cherries to the fruitsalad of comparisons, the OTO 127/64 LW is capable of 32 rounds a minute while the preceding 127/54 C was good for 40 rounds/min. As these are naval guns, a direct comparison is of course ridiculous, but what it shows that it is possible to construct very reliable and fast handling autoloaders even for modern munitions. Looking only at landbased systems, there's no shortage of solutions in the 155 mm artillery segment either as that's a requirement for MSRI-functionality. In short, I'd say autoloader performance are more down to 1) desire and 2) willingness to pay for it than to technical limitations of what is possible.
I served in a mechanized unit using Bradley Fighting Vehicles. They use 25mm chain guns as the main weapon system, and reloading those is a pain in the ass lol. I lucked out by being a driver, lol. All I needed to do was keep the vehicle up and running and provide a stable platform to shoot from 😆. The guys in the back had to deal with popping floor plates and reloading 25mm ammo in a space you could barely stand up in 😆. Still, I loved my BFV. It was a work horse.
I remember the first time i was shown how to reload an M163, half a year after basic training with it. I was somehow not surprised but deep down i knew i'd fuck up 100 out of 100 tries of loading the rounds properly, it was a cluster fuck of a higher level.
The insane thing is that this is "military grade", meaning it's the cheapest possible option. Imagine how horrifying weapons would be now if they used the expensive/corporate development options(Nvm, Rheinmetall IS the expensive corporate option. And they look damn cool in design, scifi shit)
They would run out of money before they could make it happen. Military developments are already extremely expensive so they have no choice but to reduce costs when they can
I don't know our tanks sound better economically. Smaller tank less weight same steel layer of armor. Smaller weight, less power hungry engine less fuel to chunk and the fuel itself is cheaper. Maybe you can turn it faster because of the momentum. But then again I don't know why we would need to go cheap on tanks if we have such an abundance of raw materials to build stuff.
And you see the only downside of the tank mentioned everywhere so far is the carousel. I wish engineers would have thought about that and the whole turret would blow out with the crew compartment intact just landing with a parachute or something. That would be definetly more entertaining to see knowing nobody became bасon.
US human tank loaders are sometimes faster than auto loaders. The new Abrams X will be using an auto loader instead though to push for less men lost when a tank is destroyed.
my teacher used to be in the dutch navy and he worked on submarines i asked him how long it usually takes to reload a torpedo and he says that it can vary from 20-30-45 minutes depending on the weight, size and crew but for him it was mostly 30 minutes per torpedo
The GAU-8 Avenger was made by the same company that they design and create machines to make something clean, and they designed and created the GAU-8 Avenger to make something disappear.
👍🔫💥 It's amazing how far technology has come in terms of weapon design and function. The mechanisms and precision involved in modern weapons are truly impressive. It's like we're living in a sci-fi movie.
I served on ships that had 5”/38, ASROC, Chaparral, 3”/50, Terrier missiles, M-2 .50BMG, Mk 19 grenade launcher, 20mm cannon, Mk 45 5”/54, Harpoon, various models of Mk32 torpedo tube, SH-3 helicopters, SH-60 helicopters, Seasparrow missiles, CIWS, VLS, Oto Melara 76mm gun, SM-1 Standard missiles. Yes Chaparral was a army system however in 1972 the USS Lawrence and USS Floyd B. Parks had the system.
All good until you are working with weapons systems considerably larger than a human or ones that hold thousands of 30mm rounds. At that point the fast method requires complicated machinery and the simplicity has to be dropped in favor of turn around time. If you think loading a VLS takes a long time, just don't look at the time it would take to reload and rearm an attack sub or a carrier.... The time in port for one of those is considerable.
@@Its-Just-Zip Yes. I know what you are saying, but, that is the problem. Engineers are famous for designing equipment without attention to maintenance and other issues involving handling. Ease of operation, in this case, loading, needs to be addressed during the design process.
@@fearthehoneybadger loading is addressed in the design phase. It's just that often there are other factors that take precedence part of the problem with reloading the ciws Is that it needs to be able to have an exceptional amount of ammo fit into an exceptionally small space because it has to be equippable on nearly every ship in the US fleet regardless of size or remaining space available. Otherwise it is conceptually. Pretty stupid to load. Chain of ammo goes in. There's just a really long chain. Same with the VLS. It is conceptually one of the dumbest systems box goes in tube. The issue is that the stuff contained in the box is extremely volatile so you have to be very careful and also you shouldn't be loading it where somebody is shooting at you in the first place so it doesn't matter that it takes 4 weeks to reload. Ease of use is all fine, but when you start compromising stuff like survivability in order to make the system easier to reload, you've just created a weapon system but you can't really use in a situation where somebody's going to be shooting back at you
I was part of the Weapons department on a U.S Navy cruiser. Worked with most of the at sea systems shown. CIWS, 5 inch, 25mm and torps. CIWS for the U.S has the benefit of being a fully self contained unit, all we need is ships power and sea water for our water to water heat exchanger and we are good to go. We can search and track without any other systems though we are integrated (decreases the time to availability in case of catastrophic failure). We really only use the tungsten rounds and only use kinetic energy for the kill no exploding rounds (naval variant). Fired from 2 separate locations on the ship and very accurate. Also 5 inch is a monster, the ammo elevator goes down several decks and you can send shells and canisters up to the gun crew continously. it is all hydraulic based pretty much though so just hydraulic fluid everywhere, It uses EOSS (think a big hi def camera) as well as integration to other ship systems for targeting. It is run by 2 different teams. the loaders and maintainers under the gun and the shooters up at the firing console. Every time it shoots you feel the ship shudder. It is impressive. Torps are another hydraulic mess. We used high pressure compressed air to launch them out and they are self propelled with self oxygenating fuel.
Soccer analogy: the Dutch CIWS is even officially named "Goalkeeper" On manual vs. autoloading in tanks: The autoloader is generally slower, but doesn't get tired -- so a person with arms like Popeye can pull the cartridge, flip it and slam it into the tube at worst three times to the autoloader's two, they'll eventually have to rest for a moment., but those first three or four will settle the argument before the autoloader gets off a second shot. And if the American loader plays fast and loose with the rules, and is first to shoot, they can theoretically have one in the pipe, pull out another from the bustle just before firing, and then immediately throw it into the gun for a near-instant second shot before the enemy even figures out where the first came from. ("Lap loading", as that's called, is a hell of a safety violation, but if the other guy hasn't seen you and you're going to get the first shot, you can afford to bend the rules.) Also the main problem with "autoloader go boom" isn't so much the carousel itself -- it's way down between the roadwheels, so another spaced layer of armour -- but the extra ammo crammed into every corner of the people space, I've read a lot of accounts of Soviet/Russian tank crews going out with just the carousel filled and no reloads to improve their chances.
What the Navy needs for the VLS, is a Gantry. Basically the reload ship uses its crane to lift the gantry down onto the deck of the ship. The crew bolts it to the deck. The gantry has an arm with a grabber instead of a flexible cable and hook assembly. The grabber grabs the missiles from the crane that delivers them to the gantry, or to a holding platform on the deck. The gantry grabber lowers the pods into the launch box, and does so with significantly more stability as it is a solid rig attached to the deck of the ship. Once reloaded, reverse the steps, remove gantry, and get back in the fight.
IM just a random guy scrolling through the comments, but i will say, the navy did use to have one that was already in VLS. They phased it out however since it wasnt very reliable and prone to breaking. Plus having 8 more cells vs a gantry was more optimal. -Former VLS Tech
VLS equipped ships used to carry a crane that took up four adjacent VLS cells and could reload at sea from the STREAM Rig or from a helicopter. I know because I have reloaded VLS underway in blue water to USS Antietam from USS Kiska using a CH-46D helicopter. But we could also do it from the STREAM Rig. This was normal during the Cold War.
Ukraine now has the SKYNEX. Which is a single MANTIS turret mounted on a truck. Funnily the gun is classed as a Revolver. So at high noon, make sure the other side does not bring a seven-shooter 😉
I think space is also a big issue with autoloaders. On tanks, depending on the era, being as small as possible and properly sloping armor and having room for angling the turret are all important considerations.
The GAU-8 is not the only gun to keep its spent casings. The M61 does it. It's partially for ballast, but partially so you are less likely to FOD your engine with your own spent brass. And the Phalanx, since it uses an aircraft mount phalanx, it also keeps its brass.
It's a shame they couldn't design a magazine system for most of those systems, resulting in a 5 to 10 second reload time (reload CWIS from below). Maybe redundant systems, while one is being reloaded, the other can fire?
I like that, while discussing the benefits of a human loader while showing the round get stuck on what seems to be an impassable but integral part of the system.
