would you briefly explain this part:
(I've said it many times before: I'm not good in tanks)
now the other concept is a Autoloader.
This is built under the Turret via machine loads the gun by cycling the next round up opening the breach and loading the gun. Of course the magazine in this style is not to NATO liking. When the US Studied it They even built a version of the Abrams with one.
They decided that it had to much a risk as if the magazine cooked off it would explode inside the turret and hull. This Version of the Abrams ironically shares a lot of features with the new Russian Armata Tank. With the crew in the hull.
Now Abrams tanks were designed with a lot of features to isolate the crew compartment from the magazine. Even when there have been cases where the Magazine has cooked off. A Firewall and blow out panels have isolated the event to the magazine and left the crew compartment of the turret intact allowing survival. Some newer models of NATO MBT have sought to try and create a Autoloader system that gets the best of both.
That is Consistent reload speed without tiring or stressing and the potential for reducing the crew workload or Crew size allowing the loader to serve other functions like in this article operating a drone or be eliminated altogether.well maintaining survivability.
So here is where the other type comes in Pioneered by the Japanese Type 90.
To do this they want a system that keeps the magazine in the rear of the Turret and isolated from the crew compartment keeps Blow out panels so any cook off explosion would be channeled out of the the tank. All of Which is a tall order. A few seem to match these demands the Japanese Type 90 MBT, The Leclerc, The Altay and the K2.
I favor the K2 as It's dimensionally similar and features a Hard kill Active protection system.Lundy noted an automatic loader, which is a proven capability not yet fielded, would be integrated into an Abrams in order to take the burden off the weapons loader and free that crew member for unmanned systems operations duty.
Now in the long... debate of Autoloader vs Manual loader the main issues boil down to survivability, Complexity, Weight, crew and finally some argue rate of fire.
Adding an Autoloader adds weight and complexity as it's a machine like any other but they tend to get around this by being smaller allowing for weight reduction by having smaller crew compartments so Dimensionally the K2 is close to M1A2 but K2 is 61 short tons well the M1A2 is around 72 short tons.
I mentioned crew and survivability which is he really big issue.
That just leaves Rate of fire. on a great day in peak condition a human loader can load the main gun of a MBT(120mm) at about 15 rounds per minute but that is more theoretical. moving over a battlefield with the tank gun traversing best case drops down to about 12 to 10 rounds per minute which matches a Autoloader. so as I see it Rate of Fire is not a realistic argument as in reality you're more likely to hit lower rates per minute. additionally a Machine is less likely to get hurt or tired out by loading the gun.
Additionally Autoloaders may allow totally unmanned turrets like the PL01 concept and yes the Russian Armata tank but both these still have ammo in the hull.