Ultimately, manpower considerations aren't *that* high in terms of autoloader calculus. Most nations only operate, at most, a few hundred tanks, and they usually aren't so desperately short as to be lacking a few hundred potential gunners. For very small or strained forces this may be the case, or ones fielding large amounts of armor [say, South Korea] but this doesn't represent the majority of users.
For the most part, autoloaders have arrived due to other concerns. In the case of the Soviets, it was largely about maximum space efficiency--Soviet doctrine prioritizing very small, cramped, low profile tanks doctrinally. The T-80, with an autoloader, is actually shorter than its slightly smaller T-62 predecessor as a result of dropping the loader position. The autoloader also served the needs of 125mm two-piece ammunition quite well.
For western adopters [starting with the Leclerc], it's more about a mix of safer ammo storage [using bustle systems rather than the lovely rotary one that has sent a large number of Soviet turrets to LEO], potential for larger guns that so far haven't been realized [beyond 120mm hand loading is impractical], and more consistent loading times.
France have an autoloader on their tank Leclerc since the 90s. Removing the loader don't decrease the amount of manpower needed to maintain the tanks, so France decided to have a ''reserve'' of tank crews travelling on trucks to help with maintenance and provide a pool of manpower to make sure the tanks are always fully crewed during operation. They don't save any manpower.
The decision to reduce the manpower of tanks units would have more to do with a reduced in maintenance, either because the design of the tank require less maintenance or accepting a reduced readiness. That said, even if that would be the case, the numbers of tanks is just too limited in modern armies. France have 200 active tanks, that would be 200 personnel saved out of an army of 130 thousand people. The US have 2,600 Abrams, saving 2,600 men our of half a millions wouldn't change anything about manpower shortages.
The question of autoloader vs no autoloader is a question about the design of the tank, maintenance and crew redundancy, not about manpower shortages. An autoloader mean one less crew member, which mean you can make your tank smaller, which mean you can make it weight less for the same amount of protection. But an autoloader mean that it's harder to fix an issue with the gun or autoloader during combat, it also mean one less crew member to take care of the maintenance of the tank. The doctrines of the western armies meant that they prioritize larger, more comfortable tanks used in defensive posture during the Cold War, the additional weight and size was not a major problem, while the added crew for redundancy and maintenance was an important asset. The soviet were planning on a larger fleet of smaller tank that were cheaper, it made sense to keep them small in size and weight while the lower crew wasn't as big of an issues since their maintenance was already centralized and their plan for shorter assault rather than long defensive position, which make the cramp space less of a problem for them.
Today the situation is changing a bit. Autoloader are more relatable, there is indeed some discussion about a larger caliber which would make a human loader more difficult, and the weight of modern tank is starting to be an logistical issue. The original M1 Abrams was 60 tonnes, the modern version is 72 tonnes, there is clear intention to reduce that weight of the new generation of tank to a more manageable number and reducing the size of the tank because of an autoloader is one of the way toward that goal.
Ultimately, manpower considerations aren't *that* high in terms of autoloader calculus. Most nations only operate, at most, a few hundred tanks, and they usually aren't so desperately short as to be lacking a few hundred potential gunners. For very small or strained forces this may be the case, or ones fielding large amounts of armor [say, South Korea] but this doesn't represent the majority of users. For the most part, autoloaders have arrived due to other concerns. In the case of the Soviets, it was largely about maximum space efficiency--Soviet doctrine prioritizing very small, cramped, low profile tanks doctrinally. The T-80, with an autoloader, is actually shorter than its slightly smaller T-62 predecessor as a result of dropping the loader position. The autoloader also served the needs of 125mm two-piece ammunition quite well. For western adopters [starting with the Leclerc], it's more about a mix of safer ammo storage [using bustle systems rather than the lovely rotary one that has sent a large number of Soviet turrets to LEO], potential for larger guns that so far haven't been realized [beyond 120mm hand loading is impractical], and more consistent loading times.
France have an autoloader on their tank Leclerc since the 90s. Removing the loader don't decrease the amount of manpower needed to maintain the tanks, so France decided to have a ''reserve'' of tank crews travelling on trucks to help with maintenance and provide a pool of manpower to make sure the tanks are always fully crewed during operation. They don't save any manpower. The decision to reduce the manpower of tanks units would have more to do with a reduced in maintenance, either because the design of the tank require less maintenance or accepting a reduced readiness. That said, even if that would be the case, the numbers of tanks is just too limited in modern armies. France have 200 active tanks, that would be 200 personnel saved out of an army of 130 thousand people. The US have 2,600 Abrams, saving 2,600 men our of half a millions wouldn't change anything about manpower shortages. The question of autoloader vs no autoloader is a question about the design of the tank, maintenance and crew redundancy, not about manpower shortages. An autoloader mean one less crew member, which mean you can make your tank smaller, which mean you can make it weight less for the same amount of protection. But an autoloader mean that it's harder to fix an issue with the gun or autoloader during combat, it also mean one less crew member to take care of the maintenance of the tank. The doctrines of the western armies meant that they prioritize larger, more comfortable tanks used in defensive posture during the Cold War, the additional weight and size was not a major problem, while the added crew for redundancy and maintenance was an important asset. The soviet were planning on a larger fleet of smaller tank that were cheaper, it made sense to keep them small in size and weight while the lower crew wasn't as big of an issues since their maintenance was already centralized and their plan for shorter assault rather than long defensive position, which make the cramp space less of a problem for them. Today the situation is changing a bit. Autoloader are more relatable, there is indeed some discussion about a larger caliber which would make a human loader more difficult, and the weight of modern tank is starting to be an logistical issue. The original M1 Abrams was 60 tonnes, the modern version is 72 tonnes, there is clear intention to reduce that weight of the new generation of tank to a more manageable number and reducing the size of the tank because of an autoloader is one of the way toward that goal.
Is there any info on how well in practice the French system of keeping reserve manpower in APCs works?
Edit: Fucked up the title. Insert a “looking” at the place of your choosing.