BTW: Modern U.S. tanks can be fired remotely (from clear across the world, in fact), and, irregardless, the tank crew's role during engagement is often limited to vocalizing 'fire, fire, fire...' while the computer handles aiming and munition loading, etc. with targets designated from aerial support and command support as well as onboard automated FOF systems.
Not in my Army!
The M1 series tanks are, and have been, our main battle tanks (call it a heavy tank, in other words) since the 1980's. It never had an autoloader. None of our tanks ever have. The Soviets and ex-Soviets have had mixed experiences with them. A good M1 or M60 crew good out-gun a T-72 autoloader.
A 120mm round, with a combustible case, is big, heavy, and relatively fragile. One wouldn't want an autoloader; The commander can override the gunner. On the M1A3, he's got his own thermal, and can slew the gun to the next target that he's designated. The gunner and tank commander AIM the gun; the computer, if properly set up by them, computes the correct gun position based on the point of aim selected by one of these crew members. The lasing of the target obtains the most import aspect here; the range. The crew must determine if the range is correct, or re-lase if they think they got a bad lase.
If the gunner points it at the dirt and fires the computer makes sure he hits that dirt very accurately. Verbal fire commands keep everyone aware of what is going on, but the firing is based on the physical manipulation of the controls.
This is an important point: some of these functions could practically be accomplished remotely,
but they are not. All of these functions could not. The closest thing to a remote is the commander's override; he's so close to the gunner he can kick him in the head. No one outside the tank controls the tank. You'd need a lot of redundant people to do this; why would you create al these redundant tank crews? The most effective way of accomplishing direct fire is with the gunner as close as possible to the weapon system. There are certain things that require over-rides, quick fixes, and improvisation; mechanization helps, but does not replace the human. The hypothesis that in the OTU, analogous situations may exist that keep this principal still valid under certain conditions, is certainly rational if not proveable.
(You may have artillery and armor mixed up; by definition, indirect fire -artillery- uses the fire direction of another. We do not use our tanks -armor- for indirect fire: wrong ammunition, wrong fire control, and we have a lot of indirect fire assets. Some self-propelled artillery may look vaguely like some sort of tank, but they are profoundly different creatures. The SP guns can protect the crew from minor small arms, and artillery fragments if the blasts are not too close; tanks are built to go toe-to-toe with other tanks and offer protection against various anti-tank munitions across the frontal arc. Indirect fire IMTU puts the observer ever father from the weapon system for ortillery, but all the more reason to have a human in the loop, not just yelling fire, but checking that the automation has not obscured or compounded some human error.)
Also, "irregardless" is not a word.
