*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
In a message dated 3/27/00 12:23:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, CVRFOX@aol.com
writes:
<< Again, Jack, how's the lack of an autoloader a negative? Is it an
oversight
the M-1 series, Leopard 2, Challenger II do not use autoloaders?
Additionally, you will find the Merkava III has an equivalent gun and
power/weight ratio to the above mounts. >>
We're moving past our area again 53-73... obviously Merkava III's are a
modern MBT's! Well, ok, for arguments sake I'll go along, but you may be
surprised to note this gun was a British design too, produced under license
in Israel. The 105 mm was the standard gun on early Merks. (Interesting to
note the T-54 had a very potent 122 mm )
As to the manual loader. I am told it works best when fired from a prepared
position, which has been the tactic of the Israelis, so for them it's
probably not an issue. I can only imagine the drawbacks of a manual loader
in a 24 hour skirmish leading into days. I suppose this is why they kept a 4
man crew on Merkavas, to spread out the work load.
Having no personal experience with either system, I can only speculate as to
the autoloader advantages... maybe there are none, but it doesn't seem
logical.
Anyone here have an expert opinion?
Jack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:28 PDT