Most definitely, the only real example off the top of my head is a skirmish by the Scots Dragoon Guards in Iraq in '03 where a troop of CR2 engaged and destroyed a fixed Iraqi position including export T-72 & T-55.
The author of the book goes on to talk about that the Iraqis were totally outmatched in terms of the rate of fire the troop was putting down on them despite the fact that CR2 uses multiple piece ammunition (I believe) and manual loading because of the training the loaders get.
It depends on autoloader design. You also must understand that T-72, especially in the export variants, is not the best example of autoloader design. Unfortunetly history of soviet tanks is not realy well known in west. And most people still compare soviet tanks by using example of T-72, that from the beggining was a failed design by purpose.
You should remember that best soviet tanks were always designed by one design bureu from Kharkiv, this bureu was reloacted during WWII to Nizhny Tagil, and after WWII as KB-60M directed by genius tank designer Aleksander A. Morozov again placed in Kharkiv.
Morozov was perfectionist, he designed such tanks like T-34/85, T-44, T-54 and T-64. However teething problems with T-64, forced Soviet goverment circles to order UKBTM from Nizhny Tagil, that was mainly responsible for T-55, T-62 and their further modifications and evolutionary upgrades, to design a simplified version of T-64, codenamed Object 172. However the main designer of UKBTM, Leonid Kartsev seen here a chance for his bureau to gain some profits.
Object 172 in the initial requirement was just T-64 with simpler V-45 diesel engine instead of progresive 5TD diesel engine. However Kartsev changed many more things, for example he replaced original suspension and road wheels, replaced 6ETs autoloader with AZ autoloader designed in UKBTM for one of their newer tank design based on T-62.
In the end their designed completely new tank, Object 172M that become T-72.
T-72 and T-64 were basically very similiar, altough where T-64 was progressive, T-72 used many older design solutions.
And this was situation to the end of Soviet Union, for example T-64B had modern FCS comparable to western tanks, T-72B didn't had real FCS, but something called in soviet terminology as sighting system.
T-64BV had properly placed ERA where front turret ERA was formed in to a wedge, so efficency of ERA was increased, and the side skirts had steel frames for ERA, ERA was also placed behind Luna-2G IR reflector, on the turret sides and rear for increased protection, while on T-72B, ERA was placed flat, with decreased efficency, there was no ERA protecting weak zones, and ERA on side skirts were directly mounted to rubber side skirt, which made ERA cassettes vurnable to mechanical damage during manouvering in difficult terrain.
So when T-64 was high quality main battle tank in soviet union, T-72 was lower quality, simpler design, also intended for exports.
T-80 was another history of it's own, as it was designed in LKZ, and was somewhat main battle tank and heavy breaktrough tank substitute in the same time.
T-80 itself was closer to T-64, and was also seen as high quality weapon, and even KB-60M design bureau, renamed after Morozov death az KMDB, seen design as very promising and decided that diesel powered T-80 variant, T-80UD, will be their replacement for T-64B.
And in the end T-80UD was the most advanced Soviet Tank in the late 1980's when Cold War was near it's end.
I strongly recommend to learn a bit of russian, and read that very interesting history of soviet tank development programs, it might give a completely new perspective.
've got 2 big issues with autoloaders though
Replacing the loader with an autoloader means that the crew has one less skilled hand for general duties like maintenance and actually replaces it with something that actually requires maintenance putting more of a strain on the rest of the crew. Not to mention the issue of jamming, if the autoloader mechanism jammed - which will happen - how easy would it be for one of the remaining crew to try unjam it and what if it happened under combat circumstances? A loader will not jam, ever.
Explosive charges have to be stored in the turret meaning a penetrating hit on the turret would cause an ammunition cook off and could destroy the tank and obliviate the crew requiring turrets to be uparmoured to deal with this. The CR2 for example keeps all it's explosive charges in the hull of the tank and the Leo II and Abrams use separate compartments with blow out panels.
Personally, I believe they are justifiable concerns.
This are justible concerns.
1) As far as I know, and talked with tank crews that served on tanks with autoloaders.
- lack of additional crew member is not that big issue, it is there, but it is mainly exagarated.
- autoloader reliability is very high these days, something like jamming is very rare, and even if there is malfunction, crew can still use manual bakcup control to use autoloader, or load gun manually, it is problematic but not immposible.
2) Ammunition storage depends on autoloader design. For example in Soviet, now Russian and Ukrainian tanks, it is indeed very dangerous to store ammunition, and ammo cook offs can happen. However remember that most other tanks are not better in this manner. For example:
- Leopard 2 safely stores only 15 rounds from 42 total, Leclerc safely stores only 22 from 40 total, Challenger 1 & 2 do not have safe storage in modern standards, I seen Challenger 2 photo after F-F incident and ammunition cook off despite lack of armor penetration and propelant charges inside armored bins occured, Italian C1 Ariete also do not have safe ammunition storage, other tanks have ammunition storage modelled after Leopard 2 or Leclerc. I seen Merkava tanks after ammunition cook off, their ammunition storage is also not safe.
I know that for many people this might be blapshemy, but the truth is that the only tank, that was manufactured in large quantities and is used by several armies around the wolrd, and have safe ammunition storage is M1 Abrams.
M1 have two main ammunition magazines in turret bustle, both isolated and with blow off panels, as we as small ammunition magazine behind turret in hull, also isolated and with blow off panels.
So autoloader also can have safe ammunition storage depending on it's design, good examples here are Leclerc, Type 90, Type 10, K2 Black Panther, M1 Abrams modernization proposals with autoloaders, or for example some Russian and Ukrainian prototype designs like Object 640, Object 478H, T-72-120, T-84-120, BM Yatagan, "Burlak" turret combat module, Object 195.
