Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Abrams X - The Next Generation American Battle Tank?" video.

Autoloaders save weight. They are used on the french Leclerc or Korean K2, which are considered as very good tanks, the last one being designed recently. Those also use a separate ammo rack in the bustle for better crew protection.
2
@matthiuskoenig3378 agreed! and a tank is, by definition, a very complex system. If we push the logic of the 4th member, why not embed some electronic engineer, in case some system fails, mechanics to repair any issue with the engine, and a spare crewmember in case one is wounded or sick? In the same logic, if a loader is more reliable than an autoloader, why not get rid of lasers, night vision, fire control systems that are much less reliable than a simple coincidence scopeor bulletproof glass vision ports? Having as few crewmembers as possible saves weight. It can be used to fit a better protection, a bigger gun or lighten the tank.
1
@jimtaylor294 the french tested the concept of an "empty " turret in the 70s, as far as I remember. And it was never adopted for the reasons you list. The autoloader, on the other hand, was retained and is now common in new designs, like the Korean K2 which uses a licenced version of the Leclerc one.
1
@FinsburyPhil one less crew member must be compensated by automating some tasks, adapting the procedures and eventually reinforcing support teams. A tank is designed primerly to fight. The main purpose of a loader is to load the gun. There is nothing in his other tasks that is necessary during the battle. Outside the battle itself, it is a teamwork with C&C, logistics, support and service units.
1