Mighty_Zuk

Ares APC

I know very well the influence of ex-Soviet immigrants. I'm one as well, but their involvement in some of the more well known project at the time, was not substantial. There's also no way to confirm who was on the design team. All the available info is a certain Rafael division in cooperation with a German scientist (I forgot his name, sorry). According to my father's friend, who used to work for Rafael and Elbit, Russian presence was felt mostly in optronics (night vision mostly) in both these companies, and automotives design in MANTAK. It's important to note that armor solutions in the IDF are provided by IMI+MANTAK for heavy applications, and Plasan for light applications. Rafael only deals in Reactive, Hybrid, and Active protection.

The Author in the narod blog claims Blazer was a Soviet development, when IRL it was Rafael's development - an Israeli company. He shows a general bias and lack of knowledge when it comes to Israeli developments

Next he's going to say the Cent tanks were also USSR built tanks. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

What were they thinking? Challenger 2's gun in a Leopard 2 turret and a T-72 hull with Leo 2's ammo safety features. All took about 35 years.

Remember the command version of the Merkava 2 that had its turret removed in favor of an armored brick? Well that brick evolved: http://waronline.org/fora/index.php?attachments/img_5329-jpg.52058/ Shame I can't upload pictures here...

Overhead turrets make sense maybe up to 30mm. At 40mm and above, it gets bulky and has to take up hull space. The only 40mm turret that is planned to be overhead, is the one designed for the Eitan IFV. However, there's still the option for 30mm, so it may or may not prove to be feasible. Overhead cannons don't seem to be the way to go for large calibers either, as while less vulnerable than unmanned ones in theory, they are doomed to fail in urban combat or even prove too vulnerable to artillery.

and I am a former one. Russians can also have varying points of view on things.

Care for human lives and life quality could have been better is all I'm saying. A lot better. I lived there after all. The situation now greatly improved though. APS and separated ammo racks are things that I could lecture you about their merits without mentioning once crew survivability. Engineers are people who care very little about politics or doctrine. You give them an assignment to build a tank, and they will build it. If you change the requirements drastically, they'll build it differently but will still do it. Soviet tank engineers were employed in Israel, and were pretty dominant in the Merkava early design team. They were experienced in building tanks based on entirely different concepts, but they have managed to produce a radically different design as you can see. This is because requirements are different. I'm not talking about what would happen if the USSR would still exist. I'm talking about change of reality on the battlefield that altered the tank building philosophy, mostly as result the break up of the union. Russia was in no state to fund ambitious programs. The Object 299 was indeed a very ambitious project. The focus switched to toned down, less ambitious programs built only with technologically available solutions. And as you said it before, the T-14 indeed doesn't incorporate any new technology as the first user. The ammunition placement in the Merkava indeed loses some of its advantages when the tank is getting shot in the flanks, and in that case it suffers from not having a separation. But so far the only incidents of ammo detonation were by IEDs which were heavy enough to cause the deaths of the whole crew even before the ammo detonates (talking about 300-500kg after all). The statistics are 51 damaged vehicles, of which 21 were penetrated in some form, in which 23 crewmen were killed in total. This is not "more than 1.5x". It's just a little bit over 1:1. Which is very good considering that even older Merkava 1 have participated, and Mark 2 were targeted even more than Mark 3. Allocating enough roof armor for the crew is not impossible, and is now routinely done. Both the Merkava and T-14 have thick roof armor, consisting of both ERA and passive armor.

How do they still have ammo for that thing?

Many things can go wrong before a tank is cleared for procurement, and it's hard to tell what would have come out if the USSR was still alive. And I won't pretend to know a lot about that, but I do believe that with Russia's loss of superpower status and higher value of experienced crews (instead of meat shields previously), its philosophy changed. The main similarity between the T-14 and Merkava is the protected crew compartment. In the T-14 they are encapsulated in an armored box, separated from everything. While it has its clear drawbacks, it's a good design. The Merkava had, in a sense, emulated an armored capsule by surrounding the crew from every angle with extra modules. So that even when the armor would be pierced, the rate of fatality would be very low. Modularity, as you mentioned, is indeed a similarity shared between them. However I have my doubts as to how much the T-14's armor design is modular. Autoloaders and such, are more of a doctrinal based feature than anything else. What future 4th gen tanks there will be? Could be following the same concept as the T-14, or could follow the concept favored by xoon and I, of a forward mounted engine and a rear placed crew capsule for 2.

Hopefully they'll consider replacing the Stryker with it, as it does incorporate some technologies they plan on purchasing. But maybe I'm too optimistic.

It's obvious that at least most of the main technologies of the Armata, including the general concept were tested and/or examined prior to the break-up, when the Cold War drived tank design bureaus to go crazy on the designing boards. But in the end only 1 concept is chosen, refined, and built. And the needed concept the Soviet Russia and modern Russia need are wildly different. It's all about doctrine and economy of war, not thinking capacity. So while I understand your point, I think you should also understand that if the Soviet Union would still exist, we may not have seen a T-14. Or even anything similar. I am well aware of the Object 299, but comparing that with other just as ambitious projects of the time, would be more a doctrinal debate, rather than technical debate. And about Otvaga, I visit quite often, and I know what they say about every tank. When I say "fond" I mean least disliked. Anything that isn't an Armata or a T-tank is shamed as being too not-Armata-ish. Shows a great deal what mediocre propaganda can do. I would not advise any country to buy Merkavas if their doctrines don't match the characteristics of the vehicle, or if they are capable of domestically producing a tank (even if not as good), but at least these have proven their worth almost non-stop for over 3 decades. As opposed to T-tanks being slaughtered left and right, and the T-14 sharing more concepts with the Merkava than with any other tank.

I mean the larger picture

The picture of the tank without the engine is of the Merkava 3, not 4.

xoon, what do you think of my proposed idea? Front - engine Center - turret+autoloader Rear - crew capsule I believe this would let the crew have further protection against artillery and top attack munitions which are among the most prominent threats on the symmetric battle, as well as use all the front engine's advantages to the fullest. a reduced crew of 2 could make the capsule even more narrow, allowing both thick side and rear armor and large equipment such as NBC and APU systems and misc as well as sponsons, protecting the crew from every direction. I honestly think this would be the optimal solution as it would not put the crew directly at the receiving part of the attack, rather protected from every possible direction, and would reduce any total loss to a mobility loss.

It's true that the armor would have to be extended as the turret would move further back. But consider another option; Engine up front, turret in the middle, and crew sitting in the rear section, protected on the sides by additional modules such as NBC, APU and others, also enjoying the advantage of rear exit. Such design would have only 1 problem - backup sights. However it would be fairly easy to fix by installing an LIC-like upgrade in which small cameras are embedded around the vehicle, protected by a bulletproof mesh, making it immune to sniper fire and only vulnerable to electric outage (too rare to discard, considering APU working as well). It's pointless to talk about crew or certain component's survivability when only discussing physical armor thickness. It doesn't make a tank immune. Just more resilient. And when it's pierced, better be safe than sorry. With that said, we probably should go back to topic - front mounted engines in future tanks. But I do believe that it IS valid in this discussion. While not exactly a tank, it certainly does share a very similar layout. When discussing, for example, a light tank such as the M8, is it invalid to treat it as an MBT? Because it's merely an MBT in a light package with reduced capabilities but overall same concept. The Carmel, regardless of armor thickness, would have a crew capsule, a turret that will penetrate the hull, an engine compartment, all separated from each other. And no infantry carrying capabilities. Would thick armor automatically change its status according to your logic? With that said, I don't think it would be smart to exclude the possibility of thick armor. It would only become operational by 2027, and the armor technology will change. I mean, the Merkava 4 already affords excessive amounts of armor in places traditionally unprotected such as the sides of the hull and roof due to reduction in armor weight. And Mark 2 and 3 afford additional protection via similar technologies. The AMAP-B installed on several Leopard sub-types similarly affords very thick armor over above-mentioned areas with minimal weight gain. Achzarit is another example of a 36-ton T-55 converted to a 44 ton HAPC with a ridiculous amount of armor. Bottom line; it would be silly to think the Carmel would be paper-thin, especially when the IDF is known for its obsession with sticking excessive amounts of armor on everything that moves. Did you ever bother looking at pictures of the T-14? That black-lined area is nowhere near the real layout. IRL the T-14 has a better slope, as opposed to the near un-sloped armor presented in the German presentation. The forum member made image seems a lot more accurate overall. And I guess this forum member doesn't try to claim the Armata has a 4-man crew, as the German presentor seems to think. The distance between the hatch and the armor seems to be at least 200mm (or more), and all official and semi-official claims when the T-14 was first revealed, were 900mm of armor. Anything above that (I've heard 1,000, 1,100 and 1,200) is simply a fanboy-ish attempt to scare people, or overhype it. The T-14 is the first Russian MBT. Anything produced prior to that and in-use with the Russian army, is Soviet designed and made. The T-14 is built more in line with western standards and completely abandons Soviet philosophy. So knowing that the T-14 has similar size as a western tank, a 48 ton mark is definitely a weight reduction. Not over the predecessor but over the current conventional design. The armor is less upgradable? That's a new one. I could have guessed the opposite, knowing the design bureau had always touted its modular armor construction as a major advantage over contemporary designs, claiming the ability to change the armor as technology progresses with fewer costs and less time than conventional designs. As for space for armor, that was never the problem. If there was an armor thickness issue with the Merkava, not only would it be exploited in countless occasions before, but fixing it would have been very easy. There are several options; 1)move the fuel tanks to the sides or back. Most of the fuel tanks are already located in the rear and sides. Those few at the front were just moved there to act as spacing between armor plates, as it would function similarly to air in disrupting the jet. Need more space? Move them and put more armor instead. 2)Slightly extend the hull. Merkava 2-3-4 hulls are non-interchangeable and any hybrid requires modifications, cuts, and welding. With every generation, the hull can be made longer to accommodate more frontal armor. 3)place armor that would extend over the hull length, ahead of the tracks. It was done on several tanks and HAPCs in service with the IDF. The added frontal weight is seen as a benefit in difficult terrain and slopes, and even if not, there are enough modules at the rear to act as counter-weight. Now, the problem is that you ASSUME there is an issue with the armor thickness. At least according to past experience, the frontal armor was the least of their worries when it came to protection problems. My point is, it would not make sense for a man like Tal who believed that greater protection afforded greater mobility (less mobility kills = better overall mobility) and should not be compromised. Especially when in later designs like Mark 3 and 4, somehow the front would lack protection while much less important areas i.e the sides, roof, and rear, were afforded unprecedented amounts of armor. I don't know how the armor scheme on the Mark 3/4 looks like. I've never seen photos of that area as it was never documented from the required angle, but to say it's paper-thin? Some things just don't add up. And another problem with your line of thinking, is that the engine was supposed to act as part of the armor scheme. It wasn't. It's supposed to be a last line of defense against a penetrating shot, rather than an integral part of the armor. Irrelevant. You claim the Merkava 4 has 300mm of composite armor over the front section of the hull (despite MANTAK claiming a much increased ballistic protection over every generation). How exactly is that enough to stop a missile penetrating 1,200mm of RHA? Keep in mind the armor was developed in the early 2000's and only improved a year after the said incident. That would require a 4x space efficiency vs HEAT at optimal approach angle. The Leopard was never combat tested, however I do believe it would withstand it. Leclerc though? I wouldn't count on it to stop even a Konkurs. and I'm saying that because recently a report showed it was frontally pierced by a Konkurs, killing the driver... aim a bit to the left and it would be more than just the driver. This was not an isolated incident. Rather common actually. And "add the steel of the engine"? Forgot that it didn't reach the engine compartment? The Merkava 3 competed against the M1A1SA as well. And despite the M1A1 being a newer design than above-mentioned Leopard 1, MBT-70, and Merkava 1-2, it didn't fare well in the mobility trials. So my point remains. a smaller profile (regardless of armor volume) is always great for the survivability of the inhabitants. If height was really a problem, they would just cut down on roof armor. or go in the conventional method of completely neglecting it. Of course I took values with gun forward length. I couldn't find a source for the Leopard 2's length without gun, so I had no choice. And I picked Leo 2A5 length because it had an identical gun length. Now, shall we return to the original debate? I am repeating my idea; at first glance, a front-engine design would not suit well a next generation tank with a separated turret from the crew compartment. However, there is the alternative of placing the crew at the rear and keeping the turret in the center.

Similar design was used to convert T-55 into Achzarit, but this was not a very good idea, resulting in development of Namer and cessation of T-55 conversions. The concept of placing the engine at the front was not because of any need for a rear door. Rather, it was a "side-effect". It was first and foremost made to increase the survivability of the crew, ammo and the whole tank. Quicker reload and dismount capability were only secondary advantages.

Leopard 2A5 is 9.67m long. Merkava 3/4 is 9.04m long. That makes the Leopard 2A5 about 630mm longer.

I would like to add, however, that despite the advantages a frontal engine can provide in such case, it would not really be ideal for desings with unmanned turrets in mind. The Merkava didnt suffer from the disadvanatges similar Soviet designs for example, because of the lack of autoloader and placement of ammo behind the turret. However unmanned turrets do require autoloaders, and so while the entire front and middle would be occupied by the engine and crew capsule. Considering that ammo isolation is now a requirement, it would leave the turret far more to the rear, akin to Soviet designs. What's left to see is how the Carmel is visualized, to see if the concept of unmanned turrets can work with the Merkava's frontal engine and crew capsule.

Frankly, I dont know any more than the average concerned citizen following the news. A little over 10 years ago, Israel ordered a batch of 100 engines. IIRC 4 were unusable from the beginning, and a few more broke shortly after. It didnt help that they were significantly more expensive than the AVDS alternative. The IDF thankfully does have a long experience in engine designing and making, so the problem was fixed with General Dynamics approval fairly quickly. However they still broke down more frequently than the IDF would consider normal. According to IDF Spokesperson unit, the fixes were tested and proven in numerous conflicts, however by the year 2012 a reserve brigade using the Mark 4 was for the most part shut down, as most of its tanks were inoperable and awaiting engines. The Namer, for these reasons, had initially been fitted with the AVDS-1790-9AR used on the Merkava 3, and was said to later receive the MTU883. However it kept the AVDS to this day and there are no discussions about changing it. It's worth mentioning the AVDS-1790-9AR costs about a third of an MTU883.

One of the main conclusions of the post-battle analysis in 1973 of thousands of destroyed tanks belonging to Israel, Syria, and Egypt alike, that people often ignore, is that the rate of mission kills was exactly the same for penetrations to the engine compartment, and penetrations to crew compartment - 100%. These would always bring a tank to a halt. But what is the tactical advantage of a frontal mounted engine? Prevent the first and keep the latter at minimum. The end result is an unchanged rate of knocked out tanks and required replacements, but a much higher survivability of the crew, which is highly important to anyone who wishes to maintain a well trained army for prolonged conflicts or attrition warfare. The Merkava tank, while slightly taller than average, is shorter by quite a margin, which helps to keep its weight down.

Because they have literally nothing else going on in KMDB

Which is why I've seen reports of Thailand considering purchasing Chinese tanks.