N-L-M

No, sometime next week, sorry. Update soon.

Well, now's as good a time as any for the great announcement:

ATTENTION COMPETITORS:

@Toxn

@Collimatrix

@LostCosmonaut

@Lord_James

@DIADES

@Datengineerwill

@Whatismoo

@Kal

@Zadlo

@Xoon

And any others I may have missed:

The time of submission is approaching, and the DPRC is getting ready to evaluate your designs!

Detailed submission guidelines will be posted soon in a dedicated thread.

The date of submission is in 3 weeks from the time of posting, Tuesday the 11th of June at 23:59 GMT.

Incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

Oh wow, looks really good!

Band tracks and pneumatic tires in this weight class is asking for trouble.

The concept of ATGMs is indeed well known, and basic conscan trackers can be fairly reliably produced. Extra advanced trickery is up to you.

ANY DAY NOW

Yes but it can't be welded so...

2 possible reasons IMO:

1. Feeding FCS rount type data (to prevent APFSDS being fired with HEAT fcs solution)

2. In-round propellant thermometer for accurate measurement.

I don't have solid info either way though.

5 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

gold-plate plastic

Pretty sure you can't electro-plate it, and that also looks a bit too shiny for real gold. So my vote is spray paint.

13 hours ago, Lord_James said:

@N-L-M, is this technology accepted for use?  

Sure, if you can convincingly get it to work.

41 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

first 150-250

Any idea about the rate at which they'll be produced? That number can convincingly be argued to be anywhere from 1 year (150 at very high rate, excluding prototypes), to 10 years (250 at low rate plus a year or two for production prototype testing) of production line time.

On that note, how many tanks is the Turkish military looking to replace with the Altay when all is said and done?

1 hour ago, Kal said:

Can i use a small amount of mercury in the anti tank ammo?  Just a teaspoon worth.

Yes, assuming there is a sufficiently good reason for it.

Extremely impressive, very well done! 

12 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

So what exactly causes the turret to swing around on its own like that?  That sounds... bad.

The turret on the Abrams is hydraulically powered and the hydraulic unit is powered by a power take off from the powerpack, IIRC. a jammed valve would mean the turret moves whenever there is pressure in the system. Fun times for the entire family.

Gather round, ye posters of Mechanized!

Recent events have indicated that a refresher course on the posting standards of this forum is needed, and so:

Reminder that SH is primarily, first and foremost, a document-based forum. While there is a gentlemen's agreement kind of deal whereby you are not expected to post your sources with every post you make, it is implicitly assumed that you actually have such sources and that they actually say what you claim they do. Furthermore, it is expected that when requested, you post the relevant sources.

While it is known that not all the information relating to the subjects discussed on this forum is public domain, and that therefore informed speculation is a large part of any debate, it is expected that:

A. your speculation have some basis in reality (which can in turn be backed up with at least circumstantial evidence), and:

B. that it be presented as such.

Here is a very good example of how not to post:

You would note that the poster in question is extremely confident in their tone with no indication to the average reader that this is in fact complete bullshit, and has no basis whatsoever for the claims he is making. This is in fact the exact kind of posting that is not desired on this forum.

On the other hand, here is a good example of speculation done right:

The poster in question clearly explains, by analyzing available imagery and using basic logic, why in fact they have reached their conclusions, and backs it up with references to available literature on the topic. No wild assumptions are fielded as fact, nor are any major claims presented without at the very least circumstantial photographic evidence. And all speculation is presented as such- "a seems to be true", "b seems to be better than c", "I'd say d is the case", and so on. Even a poorly-informed reader can easily distinguish between what is implicitly assumed, what is actually known and what is fresh new (grounded) speculation.

For those of you who are new, or just rusty, the posting rules are fairly clear:

Kindly re-familiarize yourselves with the rules.

And last but not least, remember that the forum motto is  Referte avt morimini, link or die. Hiding behind sources that cannot be confirmed, that have mysteriously disappeared, or that "you seem to remember" do not count. While nobody is expecting you to have all your sources at hand at any given moment, it is expected that you either post them at the nearest possible convenience or back off the claims which remain unsubstantiated until further notice. Failure to do so is considered poor taste, to say the least. Many posters who are no longer with us did not heed the warnings and therefore chose themselves the "morimini" route.

The management thanks you for your voluntary cooperation.

3 hours ago, Xoon said:

Also, are gas turbine turbochargers allowed

Sure, but complex engine designs like these are bound to lead to trouble. In particular, trying to squeeze significantly more power per dispacement than the Kharkovite engine is not going to make you a happy camper.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I've considered it. What next?

Now answer the question of how you do the same with drivetrain components that aren't optimistically tiny, and a conventional turret- cause shoving the gun turret waaay the fuck back to balance the thing and forcing the trunnions into the stratosphere to get your desired depression may be fine with an overhead weapons mount, but it quickly gets you to unreasonably large and tall turrets if you want to have any actual armor on them as well.

In short, it results in a bloat tank, and bloat is not generally seen as a positive feature of tanks.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

https://yadlashiryon.com/news/התובה-של-טנק-המרכבה-סימן-4/

Congratulations! you have found A Source!

Only problem is, it doesn't say what you says it does! At no point does that state that the switch to the MTU is what allowed them to increase the volumes allocated to armor because of the powerpack length. FFS, you're the one who's supposed to be able to read these sand runes.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Are you even aware that the Namer and Merkava 4 are using the SAME armor module on the hull front? The Namer is able to achieve that, however, by increasing the height of the vehicle.

I'mma assume you mean similar module construction, cause if you actually mean they use the same module, lel. But even if that is the case, you'd note that I was actually praising the Namer for having a better hull armor layout than the Merk 3.

The Namer is indeed taller, but there's much more to it than that. For a start, the Namer has an actual armor module in front of the transmission access door, above the fuel tanks, which is conspicuously lacking on the Merk 3, despite there being no good reason for the fuel tanks not being a couple centimeters shorter in compensation, y'know, the way it is in the Merk 4 and Namer. Likewise, the Namer's transmission cover module is much better laid out than that of the Merk 3. The Merk 3's cover wastes a lot of the available space between the transmission and the gun depression swept volume on inane shit like the travel lock and the bump stops for opening, which could just as easily have been placed over the fuel tanks, where there's more room to work with. So yeah, the armor layout on the Merk 3 could be much better despite using the AVDS, and the Namer proves it.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is it with you and the constant need to insult people to overcome deficiencies? If you want to have a proper debate, engage with the person you want to debate with. 

wew lad >implying

I'm mocking you for no having put in 30 minutes of critical thought on a subject close to your heart is what's going on.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes, you are correct about the length, but perhaps I should have rephrased. In the relevant parameters, the new powerpack is smaller than the Merkava 3's, and organized better. It allows for more room for armor.

But what's bothering me about these figures is that it seems as though the transmission is taller than the engine, when in reality it seems the other way around: 

AAAAAAND WE HAVE A WINNER!

Yes, the relevant parameter is the height of the powerpack as a function of longitudinal location.

What's missing from the MTU catalog I posted is the cooling system for the engine- the MTU is liquid-cooled, as opposed to the AVDS, which as its name implies is air-cooled. The practical upshot of which is that the design of the cooling system is much more flexible, so that on the MTU powerpack for the Merk 4 the limiting factor is the height of the transmission, with the rest of the cooling being crammed in under the sloping deck rearwards, clearing up the needed volume. On the earlier Merks with the AVDS, the limiting factor is in fact the shroud for the frontal cooling fan on the engine, which is the exact height of the rear one- which is not exactly well-suited to cramming in under a sloping deck, necessitating the hump.

Which is again not to say that the same hump coudn't have been significantly better protected than it is, but there is a reason it's there.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

David Eshel's "Merkava 3: Israel's New Spearhead".

Referte Avt Morimini.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Abrams is so far the only MBT that fully separates ammo from the crew compartment.

True, but any tank designed after TYOOL 1990 should ideally be designed with properly separated ammunition, but clearly the Merk 4 wasn't. Missed opportunities I suppose.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

but why do something twice when you can draw from the experience of others?

Cause it really isn't the same. Also, seeing as the Merk isn't abroad very often, and a quick googling doesn't suggest that IDF tank crews get sent abroad to train like the paratroopers do, nor have very many foreign tanks been reported to have visited the Levant for cross-familiarization, I'd say that "close cooperation" needs some work.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Define roof. If you mean the "tunnel"-like setup it has, similar to the Leopard 2A0-2A4's gunner's sight, then no. It compromises the turret's protection. What I mean is something along the lines of what the Merkava 4 has.

I see you are referring to the GPS. My bad, I thought you were referring to the commander's independent sight. Sorry, you are 100% correct regarding the location of the GPS.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

As I've said, every major variant of the Merkava has seen substantial amounts of combat, and enough to draw conclusions from. Throughout its entire history, the Merkava has performed as expected, or above expectations, at least in terms of crew survivability.

True, but that does not actually contradict what I said.

Also if anything I've read about the Wadi Saluki battle is correct, the Merks were fine in terms of crew casualties when penetrated (except for when they kaboomed, but that's the case for any non-Abrams tank), but were surprisingly easily poked in the first place. Yes I know that included older Merks.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

https://yadlashiryon.com/news/התובה-של-טנק-המרכבה-סימן-4/

So again this, and again it doesn't say what you says it does. In this case, they're talking about moving the air filters and batteries. Now, where did they sit in the older Merks?

You see the yellow module on the side of the turret ring? the box underneath that is the air filter. As you can easily see, the width of the air filter means that the yellow module is greatly constrained in width, as is the red module aft of it, thanks to those stowage (and presumably battery) compartments.

On the Merk 4, on the other hand:

We see that the side modules are extra thick, and that there are cutaways on the aft of the hull, presumably to make room for the air filters. The stowage boxes along the side are likewise MIA to make room for the modules.

So, as we see, this has nothing to do with the UFP as you claimed.

You're supposed to know about the Merk, I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you this stuff.

And you don't even have the excuse of reading this article you linked via the vagaries of Google Translate.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to show me here. All these photos show, on the hull front, a UFP modular armor kit, and an LFP-attached mount that holds the belly armor. None of these has an LFP armor kit.

lol no. All of those have a UFP armor module, which the mine plate sits on top of:

See the module, with its 6 mounting bolts? Also, you can see the escape hatch under the driver's spot, so definitely no mine plate in this vehicle.

The "horns" sticking out from under the module and welded to the hull are non-standard, but I strongly suspect that they're there to provide a good indexing point for the mine plate. This is what a Magach looks like with a mine plate attached:

As you can see, the mine plate itself extends roughly up to the welded "horns".

Another, with the horns visible and therefore no belly plate.

Another view of what the belly plate looks like, so you can see that none (bar one) of the photos I linked in the last post had one. You can also see some LFP modules in this (sadly low-quality) pic.

Another pic with the horns and the lower hull visible, no belly plate here!

And one more because it's a nice pic with the bare lower hull peeking out and no mine plate in sight.

And while we're at it, the Puma also has an armored LFP in addition to the mine plate.

Without mine plate:

And with:

without armor modules:

with both modules and mine plate:

So yeah. Conclusion- the IDF has indeed up-armored the LFP of magachs (and that isn't just the mine plate adapter), and have also armored the LFPs of Pumas; or in other words, the IDF has not ignored the LFP when it comes to armoring rear-engined vehicles, whether MBTs or not. Git larned.

On 4/24/2019 at 5:28 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is it you're trying to compensate for, with all these attempts to insult me? We've had quite a few disagreements so far, you and me. Have you seen me trying to insult you for that? No. But I've witnessed quite a lot of outright childish behavior coming from you, and I expect better if you wish to maintain a debate. Please revise your strategy when approaching a debate

I'm simply tired of the confident tone you use while spouting bullshit, and you deserve to be mocked for being so confidently wrong in great detail. And so here I am.

If you want me to take you seriously and actually debate you need to stop being such a credulous individual when it comes to your pet statelet's products and y'know actually A. have sources B. that actually say what you say they do and C. Referte Avt Morimini.

"I seem to remember reading this somewhere" holds no water, particularly when the only source you have presented hasn't said what you claimed it did.

But I suppose neither of us will get what they want, eh?

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

If you actually bothered to read anything, or watch the video

I've read a damned sight more relevant literature than you have, and watched the vid. You assertions regarding the Merk's thermal sig not being a problem "because it's a bigger deal" are clearly bunk, as can be seen from just looking at the Merks. The older Merks are relevant to the discussion because thermal sig was a big deal back when they were introduced too, not just for the 4. If you think that's off topic I suggest you take a look at the thread topic.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't remember seeing any thermal view of the Merkava 4 online. 

So your entire argument regarding its thermal signature being effectively a solved problem is based on nothing, good to know.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

True, but the grate is hot, which wouldn't really make sense as when idling, the tank uses an APU instead of the engine. But we can't just assume they used the APU, so that begs the question - even though it's idling, shouldn't at least SOME heat be radiated from the front?

As I've said, I don't have any other available thermal image of the Merkava 4. But we can see here that there is no heat emitted from the UFP at least. 

As soon as we get more footage, then we can properly debate this.

The grate is hot around the engine exhaust itself, but not the engine cooling air, which suggests either that the engine has only just been started or that the exhaust is not properly mixed with the cooling air. The engine has to be run when you're preparing to move.

You can't actually see the UFP in that pic, but only the side of the sponson armor module, so no, you don't actually see that "there is no heat emitted from the UFP at least." Claiming that is again disingenuous.

We shall indeed discuss this at great length when such info becomes publically available.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The point of that argument was that it makes no sense to list it as a downside, or a problem, in the Merkava. Of course the engine is more vulnerable, but it is at least going to result in a mobility kill while otherwise it would be a mission kill.

The LFP is indeed a weak spot, as a penetration of roughly 50% of its area can result in substantial damage to the transmission, but statistically it's not considered vulnerable enough to be prioritized for additional armor compared with areas like the belly, sides, or top.

Having the engine in the front behind a paper-thin LFP is definitely a downside, considering how even you admit the LFP isn't really armored. Prioritization is a legitimate reason to accept this deficiency as part of a trade-off, but to deny that such a weakness was accepted as part of an optimization tradeoff is just blind ignorance.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

You're assuming the Merkava 4 has no armor on the front, an assertion that is objectively incorrect considering the vast evidence presented in this very thread. If you wish, I could link these photos again.

The UFP is armored, the LFP doesn't appear to be armored against anything larger than autocannon, as opposed to tanks like the Leo 2, Abrams, and even the fucking Chally 2 with TES(H). If the fucking Brits have better armo(u)r than you, you've done something terribly wrong.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Why are you keen on breaking that consensus? And why are you not offering any information to dispute it?

Because it's wrong if you spend even just a few minutes thinking about it, that's why. And because I wanted you to first admit that you have nothing of any substance to back up your claims other than parroting what others have said.

But you only have to ask, and ye shall receive:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a055947.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a035460.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/618687.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a071461.pdf

The bottom line of all of which is that there's no reason to believe that the engine would be any less effective than its constituent materials in equivalent-areal-density monobloc sections and equivalent air gap, which as everyone should know, is of vital importance in spreading out disturbed penetrators.

Against Soviet-style tungsten-cored APFSDS broken up by a thick facing plate, the engine should give moderate performance for its weight. Factor in the fact that the mass is not evenly distributed in the engine, and you quickly reach the conclusion that areas like the connector rods, flywheel and crankshaft offer quite a lot of steel, while things like the fans don't, so it's a bit of a statistical hit-or-miss, but when it's a hit it's a non-negligible one.

The engine is not likely to do enough to effectively stop a Kornet, but there are a lot of less effective missiles than the Kornet flying around.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The transmission that is more dense?

Correct! The transmission which is not only more dense, but also made largely of high-grade high-hardness steels, which are more effective on a per-weight basis against most KE threats than the light aluminum alloys the engines are made of.

Also, on the Merk 2 and higher the transmission also sits in front of the driver, and helps keep him moderately safe (on the Merk 1 the transmission does not reach that far across, leaving the driver with only the deck and whatever armor his little cabin has on it).

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

So the Abrams keeping fuel tanks around the driver is a sign of an incompetently designed tank?

The point also wasn't that any tank keeps fuel tanks with a potential to leak into the crew compartment. It was to ridicule the maker of that video.

The Abrams has fuel around the driver, separated by solid welded steel partitions of non-negligible thickness, similar to engine firewalls. In effect, they can be counted as separate compartments.

And in addition to this, the Abrams has actual armor in front of the bow fuel tanks.

Ridiculing Red is an acceptable reason to do things.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Now that I've found the articles

Referte Avt Morimini. This isn't difficult.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

So if you were trying to argue about absolute values in an inherently relativistic statement, then you've absolutely won that one.

Great, kindly refrain from flinging around such baseless and valueless statements with such conviction in the future.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I assume a burster plate addition is a possible upgrade. 

Not only am I supposed to take your word for it because the source has disappeared, we've now gone from you stating that this is the case to admitting that it's an assumption on your part.

So again, this is unsubstantiated nonsense that could easily be explained by other factors, like the side skirts* (which, as previously mentioned, we've seen updated multiple times), or the turret side modules, as you know the 2nd Leb war statistics at around as well as I know- there was a major problem of Merks getting flat-out penetrated by hits. While a lot of that was older Merks, the 4 took quite a lot of hits too, and not getting penetrated in the first place tends to be a higher priority than multi-hit survivability.

*and yes, the sideskirts are interchangeable with those the older Merk 4s, but so too are the armor modules, if we assume that part of the 4b standard was new armor.

Also, if you actually (the shock! the horror!) do the fucking math, you quickly realize that "just adding a burster plate lol" really isn't easy at all.

Examine if you will, the armored area of the Merk 4, which needs to be faced with a burster plate:

Using a drawing found with approximately 10 seconds of GIS (it ain't the best (lol the wheels) but it'll do), and using the arcane powers of MSPaint, we note the marked approximate areas of armor that would need burster plates. The front projection and the turret side were chopped a bit to avoid taking an unnecessarily large section. Scaling via the width of the vehicle, we get the stated dimensions.

What we note from that is that the area to be burster plated (both sides and the front) is around 14.9 square meters. Taking a 38mm steel burster plate (per the Burlington docs), we get 4.4 tons of steel just in burster plates, without any of the associated weight gains from the structure needed to support these heavy plates out in front of the module despite powerful blasts! All of which would drive weight up.

But wait, there's more! As the Merk isn't a NATO box tank, the armor on the turret and UFP aren't vertical, but the burster plate is constant normal thickness! therefore, we have to multiply the turret side and front (both turret and hull) by the inverse of their slope consines, at eyeballed angles of 45 and 75 degree angles from the vertical respectively, and we then get approximately 30 m^2 of surface to plate, for a total plate weight of 8.8 tons before brackets and mounting and shit.

That is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a non-negligible weight to add to an existing tank. Even if the numbers are off by 25%, that's still 6.6 tons to add, approximately 10% of the vehicle's weight, before accounting for secondary effects like brackets to hold these plates.

Combined with the total lack of any visual evidence that the Merk 4 modules have anything other than thin facing plates, the idea that they somehow incorporated burster plates into the design just like that is an ignorant fantasy-level baseless assumption.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

with Switzerland developing the gun, and IMI developing the APFSDS round

So what we know from this is that IMI has developed, and likely has the ability to produce, 1m long APFSDS. Which, by strange coincidence, is only slightly longer than can be fit in to 120mm guns. The Swiss 140mm gun project appears to be long dead, and that particular paper is one of those from before the Merk 4 ever entered production. So claiming that the Merk 4 was actually designed and/or is actually capable of accepting a gun of said size is once again baseless speculation presented without basis or source.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes, I am aware of the implications of introducing a larger gun to a tank. Is there anything NEW you'd like to add? Because you really need to stop speaking in absolutes all the time.

If you are aware of the implications, you shouldn't be throwing around terms like "no biggie" when you have no objective evidence to suggest that the required NRE and base work to achieve this has been done.

I speak in absolutes when they are correct and not unsubstantiated claims based on nothing but 20-year-old one-offs and prototypes.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

It shows that at one point he takes issue with a side effect of the design that impacts its survivability by a certain margin, and then proceeds to talk about the Trophy so eagerly despite its radars actually being, in many cases, substantially more impactful in that regard.

Fair enough.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

If you're so eager to find a source on this, I promise I will do some digging among the 50+ issues of the very long Shiryon magazine, but I can't promise much, and it certainly doesn't help that you once again choose to insult me to mask an inability to maintain a proper debate. 

I'm eager for a source for literally any of the baseless claims you've made so far.

And no, I'm insulting you as a form of mockery, because as big as a fanboy of this particular system you are, you clearly haven't done the basic math involved in analyzing it in any detail.

20 hours ago, Xoon said:

but can do do something like 25mm Alu + 50mm air + 20mm Alu?

Yes.

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Edit: Can we use the Napier Deltic (or similar) for our vehicles? 

 

Also, can I use polyurethane for insulation? Or are we limited to Urea-formaldehyde and asbestos? 

Sure.

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

1700hp

Sounds fairly optimistic for the size of that engine.

15 hours ago, Xoon said:

One thing I have been curious about, is if it is possible to make a X opposed piston, were the piston heads have a wedge shape, and four cylinders meet in the center.

Its possible but doesnt really do much. The Germans experimented with 3-piston OPEs in the 30s.

35 minutes ago, Serge said:

So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ?

The 2 is what the 1 always should have been IMO. Based on what @Walter_Sobchakhad to say about it, the reason the Merk 1 had the CD850 was that Allison were being shitters and not cooperating with Continental on newer better transmissions for tanks at the time, and the Izzys had to then go to Renk for assistance.

The Merk 2 also benefits from being a few years later and incorporating some lessons learned from the fielding of the Merk 1 (both field trials and combat), but on the whole the 2 is the M1IP to the Merk 1's M1. (And in this analogy the Merk 3 is the M1A1, the Merk 3 Baz is the M1A1 AIM and the Merk 4 is the M1A2 with the Barak being the M1A2C, but this whole analogy is a bit of a stretch).

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.

Hoo boy that's a lot of implied implications in one line. 

One at a time:

-You living in Russia means you have a special sense for Russian propaganda.

-I do not know what Russian propaganda is

-I am a redneck

-Rednecks do not know what Russian propaganda is

Despite half of that being flat out wrong, it's mildly amusing that your only response is that you're russian, and not actually anything of content or value.

Also flattery will get you nowhere.

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.

And here we have:

-It's wrong

-it's a myth

-the people spreading this claim know nothing about the tank

-the above is the reason for it being wrong

So, ignoring for a moment the whole stopped clock business (idiots saying something right doesn't automatically make it wrong), do you have any basis for your claim that people discussing it know nothing about the tank? Cause you sure seem to have a high opinion of your own knowledge of the vehicle.

Also for the record, I do not believe there would be a problem firing within the frontal arc, what with the way the Merk throws the hot air back and to the side. But the hull itself is highly likely to light up for all to see IMO.

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

appeared in Russian internet several years ago

I note we jumped from "Russian propaganda" to "Russian media" to "randos on Russian forums".

As an aside, it was an issue raised in Western defense publications at leadt as far back as the Mark 3s introduction if not the Mark 2s. It is a potential issue that many have spotted. IIRC it was also discussed to death on the Steel Beasts forums, for what it's worth.

None of this however smells of propaganda, as much as it does of idle speculation. Crying propaganda is not good for your health or credibility.

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

BTW, this article is much older than I thought:

https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html

That does appear to be a base for most of the shitty assumptions and numbers in the vid in question, good catch.

On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front. A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

Consider the geometry of actual armor without ignoring the LFP.

In addition, the mass of the ammo is almost insignificant (25 kg per round and 40 or so rounds in the hull is 1 ton, vs 2 tons each for the engine and transmission plus fluids).

On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

That's not how tracked vehicles work, at all.

On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is really a factor is the volume. However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

You keep throwing this around without sourcing it. While I get that the Merk 4 is better protected than the previous ones, I'm interested in hearing what the actual professionals have to say.

Also, the Namer shows that when sufficiently motivated even the Izzys can adequately place armor around an AVDS if we ignore the LFP as usual.

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

In terms of volume, quite a lot. The AVDS-1790 interfered with armoring the hull by simply being too big. Any more armor and the driver would have poor visibility. 

The Mark 2D seems to show that the guys in charge disagree about the driver's visibility and armor on that side. On the engine side, continuing the hull line at the hump forwards to the beak instead of having it drop would make room for an armor module in front of the engine. That area is not in the FOV of the driver's central periscope nor in the FOV of the right one, which looks out over the engine deck.

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

as the new engine offered a significant reduction of the length of the powerpack unit.

Please don't throw around things like this, they betray just how little you actually know.

Let's compare the AVDS-1790-5A as found in the Merk 1 to the MTU 883 in the Merk 4, shall we?

First, the AVDS:

And then the MTU:

Notice something? The AVDS is nominally approximately 4" longer. But that includes the turbo arrangement, which isn't included in the MTU engine dimensions. Once you include the turbo, the MTU 883 is longer.

But wait, you say, the powerpack isn't only the engine! The Merks have used CD-850 Allsions and RK-304 and RK-325 Renk transmissions!
So let's take a look at those now.

First, the CD-850:

Note that the depth of the transmission, 29", is approximately 730mm.

next, the RK-304:

and finally, the RK-325:

https://www.renk-ag.com/en/products-and-service/products/vehicle-transmissions/rk-325/

Dimensions: 1,910 x 830 x 960mm

that's L*W*H.

So, in fact, the RK-325 as found on the Merk 4 is longer than the transmissions in any previous Merk model, as is the MTU engine.

So yeah, the "significant reduction in length of the powerpack unit" is a simple sign that you don't actually know what you're talking about, care to guess again?

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Ammo was just one example. RAPAT cite a figure of 50%-55% of the overall mass of the tank being utilized for extra protection of the crew, compared with an average of 20%-25% in contemporary designs.

You should know the drill by now. Source this claim.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

There are more wheels in the front than the rear, as a consequence, to restore balance.

You're zigzagging from "theres no problem with armoring the front along with the engine, slight weight bias forwards is a good thing" to "need to restore balance by uneven wheel spacing".

Also that's not the only reason for having wheels spaced unevenly, care to guess what the other ones are?

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mark 1-2: Same tank.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret. Clean sheet design drivetrain.

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull. Clean sheet design powerpack. Clean sheet design turret.

Again you're not bringing your A-game, step it up.

2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on.

The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

one could expect the IDF to realize a rear-engine tank would be the better alternative

Well you'd also expect them to realize that ammo separation is the objectively correct way to go, but I suppose you can't get everything.

Also how exactly would you expect them to realize that the alternative is better when they don't have any experience with rear engine tanks newer than the M60A3, anyway?

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And a new turret to support a roof-mounted sight

Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Additionally, they wouldn't have been so keen to install the engine on the front of their brand new, entirely clean sheet designed MBT, if they didn't believe they could provide sufficient crew protection.

There's a difference between making something work and it being a good idea which gives you what you actually want.

On 4/22/2019 at 6:39 PM, VPZ said:

russian media. BTW, this youtuber is Russian

Red is not russian, even if you can't tell Eastern European accents apart.

On 4/22/2019 at 6:49 PM, VPZ said:

He is just another Putin-obsessed Russian.

What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?

You're dragging the forum discourse level and SNR waaay the fuck down with your shitposting, cease.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

With hybrid or electric engines, this problem is basically reduced to dust. You can place the transmission in the front and then either a small generator or some batteries in the front to beef up the protection, and whatever remains that would take up crucial space, could be placed elsewhere.

Hybrids bring their own host of problems, not least requiring more volume and weight than equivalent mechanical transmissions. Also, why would you go to all the trouble of putting the drive sprockets in the front, if you decouple them from the engine? it's objectively a worse location for them.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

. Today it's possible. The much smaller MT883 engine greatly helps in that regard. With the AVDS-1790 it wasn't possible.

This bit we've been over before, and I'm just qouting it again to rub your face in how wrong it is and how you never bothered to perform 10 minutes of googling because you lack any self-critical thinking ability.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 This was partially also done with the Merkava 4, as in that same interview they've also said that other than using a smaller powerpack, they moved other stuff around like filters and batteries, so they won't get in the way of armoring the UFP. 

You're gonna have to source this too, this claim in particular is interesting, as on the Merk the air filters were never in the way of the UFP in the first place!

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The "problems" of pointing the barrel, or heat waves for the thermal sights, are just myths and completely baseless, and I've already explained why. 

Aaaand you're confirmed for never having viewed anything through a camera resting above a hot surface.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

but traditionally the IDF hasn't really armored the LFP of even tanks with rear-mounted engines.

That's not only an incredibly asinine statement, considering how the IDF hasn't designed any rear-engine MBTs, but it's nevertheless still wrong:

In short, @Mighty_Zuk, you have a lot of unsubstantiated claims to back up, Referte Avt Morimini.

You've also said a lot of bullshit that betrays a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Git larned, and kindly match the confidence displayed in your posts to your actual level of knowledge in the subject matter, and not to what you'd like others to believe it is. You are invited to step up your game and keep the baseless speculation and denial to other forums like AW, and refrain from overly nationalistic fanboyism.

Also, if you don't know something, even in a field which is close to your heart, just admit it. there's no shame in not knowing shit, but there's quite a lot in pretending to know stuff you don't and being flat out wrong.

Kindly raise the standard of your posting, we really don't want this place devolving into AW or worse, DFI. Which is unfortunately the current posting standard you are representing.

3 hours ago, MRose said:

Or just get rid of the transmission if you go full electric.

Sure, if you like your tanks immobile.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Here's the video:

While the video is indeed garbage, your rebuttal is as well.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

For the Merkava it's more important, and the engine is not covered by thin sheets, and the exhaust isn't just blown wherever. The entire area above the engine is thick armor, and the exhaust air is cooled and thrown downward. The engine cover is not hot, but the exhaust is.

So your counterpoint to "the engine bay being hot and in the front is an issue with the Merk" is "It's more important and therefore it isn't an issue".

If you actually bother to look at how the Merks 1-3 and the AVDS-1790 are put together, you would very quickly notice that the hottest air from the engine is blown straight onto the deck above (which on the Merk 1, 2, and early 3 would appear to only be solid steel, with no give-away bolt heads to indicate composite armor of any kind), and from there out the side louvers, sideways (and slightly back). if it were thrown down it would kick up clouds of dust.

Steel is, of course, an extremely good conductor of heat, and this in turn means that if the lower surface gets hot, well, so too does the upper one. The thickness of this plate is, in fact, mostly irrelevant.

Additionally, if you knew anything about other tanks which use the AVDS, you'd know that the entire purpose of the funky grating on the back of the M60 (and originally the M48A3 with the AVI-1790-8) is to reduce the IR signature. And yet despite that grating and exhaust tunnel design, the M60 retains a non-negligible IR signature. I strongly suggest reading what Hunnicutt has to say on the topic. To assume that the Merks 1-3, which squeeze more power out of what is effectively the same engine and therefore have more waste heat to remove, and have less grating area to permit airflow, somehow end up expelling colder air is plain fantasy.

Unlike the Merk, the M60 spits out its hot exhaust rearwards, out of the line of sight, and therefore the exhaust grills are out of sight from the front. The Merk has its exhaust grills in the front arc of the tank, where they can clearly be seen (and of course the grills heat up to approximately the temperature of the exhaust air). On the Merk 1 it was waaaaay worse, as the engine combustion exhaust was just piped out to the sides and expelled there, resulting in a large patch of the vehicle which get hot enough to fry an egg on. On the later Merks the exhaust was routed to mix with the engine cooling air exhaust, indicating that this was a large enough problem that it needed to be solved.

The later Merk 3 has a layered deck above the engine (if the bolt heads are anything to go by), and layers (particularly if they include air layers) are extremely good insulators, so that bit should be mostly ok now; the Merk 4 has both a layered deck and an MTU engine, in which the air flows the other way through the engine, from the top downwards and out the side. The Merk 4 also what looks like layered sponsons around the exhaust grate, which the 3 lacks; so that area too should be better off than it was. These tanks however also have solid steel hulls, which the engine can and does heat up through its mounting points (as you need pretty solid mounting points to hold down a 1000+HP diesel), and the hull extends forwards to the nose (and to the non-modular sponsons on the Merk 3), giving a large area in the front radiating away. It should also be noted that transmissions produce non-negligible quantities of waste heat, as do the brakes (torque converters too, yay viscous fluid shear), for obvious reasons; more so that the engine if you're doing anything other than standing still. And having those stacked right up close against the steel hull is asking for it to heat up.

So yeah, handwaving away the heat from the automotive components being in front as "Not true"

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

It adds only a very small portion to the heat signature. 

You wouldn't happen to have a single fact to back up that rather bold statement, would you? Like, a source of some kind?

Regarding the pic you posted, there's a certain component that deserves some attention there. Specifically, the tires on the roadwheels. You may note, that they are white and therefore cold. Now, what do we know about roadwheels on tanks?

hint: they ain't cold when the vehicle is moving:

So by the fact that the wheels are cold, we know that the Merk you posted has not been moving, and indeed one cannot tell how long the engine has been running; nor can the LFP, which is by all accounts part of the steel hull, be seen. Using a photo such as that to demonstrate the effect of the engine on the thermal signature is disingenuous at best.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

In the Merkava 4 that has proper armor in the front, that's not the case.

The LFP is a thing on the Merk 4 too, you know; and considering how the rest of your treatment of this point is "I'd rather have a damaged engine", you're effectively trying to squirrel out of the fact that yes, the engine on the Merk is more vulnerable than it is on MBTs.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

If the engine is damaged by a penetrating shot, then in a conventional design it would have been a dead crew.

Not if said conventional design had, y'know, armor there, like, I dunno, the Abrams or Leo 2.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Against an APFSDS the engine indeed would not add much protection

Again, do you have a single fact or source to back that opinion up?

And, as usual, you are ignoring a much more vital component than the engine, care to guess what it is and why?

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Fuel tanks in any tank can catch fire. That's not unique to the Merkava. In the Merkava it may fry the engine. In another tank it could fry the driver.

In actual competently designed tanks post-1973 there are no fuel tanks in the crew compartment (excluding derivative designs which inherited them), so that's a bit of a moot point. Most modern tanks keep the fuel in the engine bay and/or the sponsons, and not in the front of the hull where armor belongs.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

RAPAT (Israeli equivalent of TARDEC) believe the armor suit they developed for the Merkava 4 is one where they didn't have to make any compromises

I find that hard to believe, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?

Cause if we take that at face value, that would make the Merk the first tank designed without armor compromises since what, 1916?

Also the multiple generations of modules and sideskirts spotted on Merks suggests that that is not actually the case.

Of course another point that both you and Red missed is that tank armor is designed to meet a reference threat. What that threat is is a different question, but considering how Egypt, Jordan and Syria all operate tanks which fling APFSDS and which the Merk 4 is at least notionally supposed to be able to go up against and win, the idea that its armor doesn't at least do something against KE is laughable, to say the least. What the CE threat is is also an open question. Red also clearly doesn't get how "special" armors work against CE.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

That was a problem with the Merkava 4A, but not the Mark 4B and subsequent variants.

Again, fact to back that up? Cause without a source, that's just meaningless handwaving.

Cause even with the most modern turret modules seen on the Merk 4m, there doesn't seem to be any burster plate to prevent the blast from an ATGM disassembling the armor inside, the way we've all seen the pictures of it happening from 2006. If the declasified Brit Burlington docs are anything to go by, NERA arrays have trash multi-hit ability without burster plates, and there's no reason to believe the Izzys have some super duper sekrit sauce nobody else does to solve this problem.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Merkava's turret was built in a way that allows for substantial growth in firepower - up to 140mm.

That's a very strong statement to throw around unsubstantiated. You wouldn't happen to have anything resembling a source to support this claim would you? Official claims that this is indeed the case? Product page on one of IMI's websites that claims this gun ever existed? pictures of a testbed with the gun?

The last time I saw someone taking the claims of a 140mm gun on the Merk 4 seriously was back in the early 2000s, before the thing entered mass production, and even then it was presented as only being rumors and not thrown around as if it were a fact the way you're doing.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Accepting an L/55 gun is a no biggie. But there is no operational need for such a gun, and it's possible the IDF will skip right to the 130mm or whatever the next gun may be.

Both these claims also need to be sourced.

For reference, L/55 guns have a whole host of problems accompanying them, including balance issues, elevating mass and inertia, recoil impulse and length (same problem faced with more energetic ammo in L/44 guns), and so on. As part of the upgrade to the L/55 in the Leo (part of the A5 upgrade pack), the gun drives were replaced and the entire mantlet area redesigned -the newer mantlet is much narrower, and the gap is filled by armor boxes attached to the fixed turret structure, most likely to reduce the elevating mass and restore margins.

L/55 guns are enough of a headache that the US seems to have decided to not go that route because of the problems the testbeds had with them. Handwaving away integration issues like this as "no biggie" is being deliberately ignorant.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Similar to point 1, but you can see in the photo I added there that the radars are actually just as hot, if not hotter than the exhaust air.

We've already been over the whole thermals business and that picture, but what I don't get is even if we assume you are correct and the Trophy antennae are a stronger radiator in the relevant wavelengths*, how is this greatly increased thermal signature a point in favor of the Merk?

*even with extreme emissivity differences, I don't see how that could be the case. Comparing to a similar radar by the same manufacturer, I get 110W continuous power draw for the radars at most (comparing to the Elta EL/M-2129), as opposed to several hundred KW waste heat in the exhaust even at idle.

On 4/21/2019 at 7:33 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

But the difference in armor construction is visible here: 

A. You are aware that the wonders of modular armor mean that armor packages can be changed mid-batch, and that therefore doesn't make it a 4a/4b difference.

B. If you think minor changes like that (and whatever internal changes to the armor module it covers) are enough to prevent the blast from a warhead shrekking the armor after a hit you're somewhere between deluded and hopeless.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:19 PM, VPZ said:

This fake is spread by russian propaganda.

Before being a Democrat and blaming Russian propaganda, consider the following:

1. Is it wrong? If it is correct, or at least has a good change of being so, crying "propaganda!" is a great way to discredit your viewpoint.

2. Cui Bono? If the Russians don't stand to benefit (and indeed, what good does mocking the IR signature of an irrelevant third world country's tank does to the Russians), why would they waste their propaganda efforts on it?

Kindly use your brain before posting.

Also kindly try and keep your shitposting on this forum in full grammatically-correct sentences. 

2 hours ago, Kal said:

Can I do that under the rules or is it no go?

Sure, as long as there is sufficient remaining thickness without the silica for structural integrity.

Correct.