Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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).

 

I've considered it. What next? Several designs were shown here, including one with an armored LFP in an Abrams-like fashion.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

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.

 

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

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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.

 

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.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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.

 

I don't know what their considerations were. They at least tried it on the Merkava 3 in a demonstration for the Mark 4, but no figures about weight, or weight distribution, were given in that demonstration.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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

 

 

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?

 

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. 

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:

600px-M88-ARV--Natan-Base-Independence-D

 

The new powerpack, at least externally seems more suitable for the task because of its shape, and according to your own figures, is quite substantially lower. Indeed, I was incorrect about length. I am more used to talk from my gut about info I remember from a long time ago, and don't keep track of every single piece of data I stumble across. The more relevant parameter seems to be height, with length also being important but to a lesser extent, and with width being the least important parameter.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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

 

Correction on the figures - 50%-55% is the usual in the west, and 70%-80% in the Merkava. 

Finding a source on this claim is also difficult, because again it's a very old one. But I'll do my best to find it in the morning.

So far all I've found is that the source is David Eshel's "Merkava 3: Israel's New Spearhead".

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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.

 

The Abrams is so far the only MBT that fully separates ammo from the crew compartment. Back in the 70's it was deemed a good solution to keep the ammo below the turret ring, because an Abrams-like setup made a K-kill still quite likely, as a piercing APFSDS would have a chance at piercing the armored doors, in which case the blow-out panels are not going to fulfill their task.

It remains one of the only points of criticism I have towards the Merkava's design, and the decision to still place the ammo in the hull in the Mark 4, but at least at RAPAT they've realized that this is an issue, and any future AFV is going to have a separated ammo.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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?

 

The very close cooperation they have with allied nations' tank and AFV programs?

Sure, the IDF hasn't really done anything with rear-engine tanks since the light tank project in the 90's, but why do something twice when you can draw from the experience of others?

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight.

 

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.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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

 

 

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.

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

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.

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!

 

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

 

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

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:

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.

7 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. 

And they have other problems such as :

- complexe cooling (big problem for the SPz-Puma),

- bad field of view for driver. 

 

But it doesn't mean that they can't aim forward. Merkava can, while some russian sources claim that it can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Being high and to one side interfering with a drivers view is a bit intuitive.

The main problem here is the minimum distance you need to see the ground. 

At hight speed on an open ground, it’s not tricky. But, when driving on narrow tracks, it’s better to see the ground very close to the front of the chassis. 

So, when considering the position of the driver, designers try to place the driver as much as the front as possible. 

With the front engine configuration, you have the transmission wich move the driver backward. This is not good. 

To compensate, they are force to raise its position or to work on the slope of the UFP and so, to lower the front protection. 

For exemple, with the Leclerc MBT, we are very satisfied considering this point.

 

An other point to take into account is how easy it’s to use a doser blade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Back in the 70's it was deemed a good solution to keep the ammo below the turret ring

The main problem is that the ammo was placed so far in the rear of the tank, that it is almost always exposed to attack, except a in a small frontal arc. Worse than in T-64/72/80.

https://forum.index.hu/Article/viewArticle?a=150468274&t=9010902&openwith=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre-serial production variant.

57502823_2296306667079590_53257300694636

 

Prototype:

Eytan_--_Our-IDF-2018-IZE-200_(430537756

 

Noticeable differences:

  • Lower (fog?) lights are protected.
  • Storage boxes on the sides appear to be somewhat extended downwards, with the central one being significantly enlarged.
  • UFP has a little bump in the middle.
  • Rear sponsons were somewhat changed.
  • Smoke grenade launchers were removed.
  • New commander's cupola?
  • Sides are now protruding outwards, due to the installation of the new armor modules.
  • New tires and wheel design.
  • Different headlights.

 

Spoiler

57882292_765770563817859_510250103833467

 

Cjs2CZtetGGxPvnTooO9vt5R8vu9b7iQCWompIGm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

m2oTTFc.png

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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:

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?

merkava3baz_g.jpg

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:

1449012386-merkava-mk-4-hull-armor-modul

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:

118f43ec38aad3479a11d6c99d738683.jpg

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:

%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%20%D7%91%D7%9F%20%D7%

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

magach_7a.jpg

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

dep16350_2_1485108577.jpg

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.

63552.jpg

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

15557540759_6a474653cd_b.jpg

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:

IDF_Puma_CEV_(5).jpg

13937217207_3398aea37e_b.jpg

ea89743dd4f4ae9092cd8f0ae878afcc.jpg

 

And with:

without armor modules:

Puma-Thor-mine-neutralization-laser-rci-

with both modules and mine plate:

27788038_10156627281559714_2016896272080

uObOc8j.jpg

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lessons why Merkava have front engines.

 

Merkava front engine layout works because High Intensity Combat included  having infiltrated, tens of thousands Egyptian soldiers with ATGM shooting the sides of the tanks.  On Israeli territory.

 

Merkava front engine layout works because High Intensity Combat included having a last stand all out battle against hordes of Syrian tanks until ammo gets rationed down to 1 round per tank.   Re stocking tanks in action, at the front, under fire is needed.  Rear entry is safest for manual reloading.

 

This is neither Nato nor warsaw pact expection of high intensity combat.  Classic cold war armour is very face first.  Rear engine pushes the parts of the tank that needs protection forward, thus reducing the length of side hull armour to defeat.  Less armour to sides allow more amour to front.  More armour to front was expected to be superior tank.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kal said:

There were lessons why Merkava have front engines.

Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.

 

They put the engine at the front not for protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VPZ said:
5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.

 

They put the engine at the front not for protection. 

 

It's almost as in they put a door in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

It's almost as in they put a door in the back.

 

There was a requirement to place all the ammo in the chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

They put the engine at the front not for protection. 

If speaking in absolutes, then no. It's not for protection.

But absolutes don't really exist. There are always numerous reasons to do something. Protection was one of those reasons, but not the absolutely only one.

 

7 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Yes, one very simple reason: Israel back then didnt have access to technology/no capability to manufacture composite arrays. They needed a solution for good anti-HEAT protection, and the only option was put the engine at the front as armor. As Damian said back then, the design is very inefficient, huge size and mass with comparatively low protection. But since Israel had no other choice, we cant blame the designers. They did everything they could, and the Merkava eventually became a good tank.

 

It may have been a dominant reason for the Merkava 1, but that does not explain why to this day the Mark 4 has a front engine.

 

It's not like the Abrams family that you can just grab an M1A1, refurbish it, and replace kit to make it an M1A2C. Nothing in the Mark 1 and 4 is interchangeable.

 

It also doesn't explain why the Kaliyah AFV, which was not presented in an APC version at all, has a front mounted engine.

 

The IDF's relevant bodies have wealth of experience with both front engine and rear engine designs, and probably including the in-house development of a rear engine tank in the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plasan are releasing footage of their brand new, still prototype, Storm Rider:

 

Unlike the Sandcat, it's much closer to being a clean sheet design. The powertrain is still Ford's, but the chassis were designed independently. The SandCat was an F550 chassis with a mounted superstructure.

 

It retains Sandcat's innovative kitted-hull, which is why overall it looks rather similar, other than the redesigned grill area, but grows in weight by a substantial margin, from 8.8 tons to 11.5 tons.

 

Specs:

Engine - V8, turbocharged.

Volume/fuel type - 6.7 liters, diesel.

Output - 330hp at 2,600RPM

Momentum - 103kg/m at 2,000RPM.

Drive - 4x4.

Gearbox - automatic, 6 gears.

Length - 642cm.

Width - 258.4cm.

Height - 265.3cm (does not include optional top mounts).

Wheelbase - 368.3cm.

Weight/GVW - 10 tons, 11.5 tons.

Distance from ground - 41.8cm.

Approach/Departure angle - 38°,36°.

Troop capacity - 10.

 

Couple of pics:

Spoiler

92321094891384640360no.jpg

 

92321112941997640360no.jpg

 

92321103961492640360no.jpg

 

92322890100286640360no.jpg

 

92321240100792640360no.jpg

 

923211317942489640360no.jpg

 

92321120951090640360no.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 7:03 PM, N-L-M said:

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).

That's pretty much my understanding of the situation.  Teledyne was working with Renk by the late 1970's to get a Renk transmission into their "Super M60".  So I'm not sure if Teledyne pitched the Renk transmission to the Israelis, or if the Israelis picked the Renk transmission independently.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Took those photos from Andrey's LJ, which were taken from FB TANKS in ACTION. Merks 3 and 4:

 

 

  Hide contents

sup hoe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2nd photo isn't a Merkava. Not sure what it is exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

The 2nd photo isn't a Merkava. Not sure what it is exactly.

Yes, i thought it was some kind of another IDF vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
×
×
  • Create New...