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.

Moot argument, Loooser *is* Russian.

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

Wait what? Meatshields? Are were going into dumb shit territory? And you were speaking about russians and "mediocre" propaganda.

You keep saing about changed "philosophy" and yet can't point at actual differences between late Soviet designs and Armata. Do you understand that Object 299's capsule was better protected than Armata's? Or that under Object 299 there was number of programs to create remote controlled mineclearing and engineering vehicles (Komplekt-2) in order to decrease potential danger to crews. Object 490A and 477's attempts at isolated ammunition racks, an extensive work on different soft- and hard-kill protection systems don't indicate that designers were thinking about crewmembers?

Yeah, Merkava "emulated" crew capsule by placing ammunition and crew members in the same space. Fatality rates in Merkavas during 2006 was more than 1-1.5 KIA per penetration, with several ammo fires that killed 3 or 4 crewmembers (at least 1 Mk4 suffered ammorack fire)

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.

Only one drawback? I can see much more: armor integration, weight distribution and the same mobility problems that are related to having the drive-sprocket located at the front (more likely to be damaged during fast travel on uneven terrain). In order to provide just the protection along the frontal 30° arc, the side skirts have to essentially cover the whole length of the tank... that's certainly contra-productive when trying to reduce the weight of tank (or increase the protection while staying at a fixed weight).

 

Armor integration? Modularity. Problem solved.

Weight distribution? Frontally placed engine means rear placed other modules. Counter-balance is not hard to obtain. 

Drive sprocket damage? At least according to a technician's letter to Otvaga forum, who worked on Namers, this isn't a problem. As he gave a long list of issues he had to deal with, and never even mentioned anything like that. 

The only way it can be damaged, as I see it, is when it directly hits the ground when breaking down a slope. 

Side skirts length? Going by purely 30° frontal attacks, it doesn't have to be longer. It can be simply placed in the middle portions of the hull. Placing more armor along the hull will protect the engine and ammo racks, but is not necessary as it was not the case in conventional designs. 

The only reason the Merkava 4 jumped straight from poorly armored sides to perhaps the thickest sides with the best coverage, is because that armor was needed to protect the crew from all directions, including 0° attacks on the sides or from the rear portion. 

If designers of the Leopard or Abrams for example, were required for such protection, they would have placed side armor of similar length. And indeed they did. Abrams has the TUSK and some Leopards have the recent AMAP armor. 

 

In the context of this discussion, yes. We are talking about next-generation tanks, which probably have extremely thick armor - take a look at projects from the Soviet Union/Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany. There are numerous tank projects - pretty much all next-generation tank prototypes - which had thick frontal hull armor. This affects the ability of the tank to mount it's powerpack in the hull front: it causes problems in combination with thick and heavy composite armor. The Carmel - based on currently avialable informations - does not fit into this discussion.

 

Moving other heavy components to the rear, together with the crew capsule, are enough to create counterbalance in weight. Frontal engine design, in itself, does not limit the amount of frontal armor.

Feel free to post any sources for your claims. Here is another drawing made by a forum-user, which pretty much confirms a thickness of 1,100 mm. That the T-14 Armata with an unmanned (and nearly un-armored) turret has an armor thickness comparable to the two-tons lighter T-90 tank seems to be very unlikely. There is also a drawing from Russian Sputnik-News, which also confirms an estimated thickness of more than 1,000 mm.

Take a look at US armor projects for a M1 Abrams replacement/follow-up from the 1980s and 1990s. These tanks had an armor thickness of 1,500 mm or more. The German EGS prototype had about 2,000 mm frontal hull armor. The upgraded Leopard 2 versions already have about 900 mm effective thickness.

 

http://army-news.ru/2015/05/vidimye-preimushhestva-perspektivnogo-tanka-t-14-armata/

http://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html

 

The T-14 Armata is made by the same companies, the same research departments and some of the same people that made the Soviet tanks. Russia is the official successor state of the Soviet Union, the Russian Army is the de facto successor of the Soviet Red Army. Your claim is wrong and doesn't make any sense. It completely abandons Soviet philosophy, but still heavily relies on ERA and has an autoloader for a 125 mm smoothbore gun firing two-piece ammunition? That was a good joke! Next time you will claim that the Leopard 2 is not German, because it was made in West-Germany before the reunification, will you?

The T-14 Armata is pretty much a lite-version of the Object 195, a Soviet next-generation tank prototype.

 

Well at least I'm not claiming the T-14 uses 2-piece ammunition (unitary) or has 4 crewmen. 

Reliance on ERA (which I believe is NOT the case here) is part of technical requirements. Not doctrinal changes.

 

Yes, the hull armor is less upgradable. The Merkava 3 has no composite armor at the hull front, while the Merkava 4 has no composite armor at the LFP. There is no easy option to upgrade this armor. Meanwhile on a conventional tank like the M1 Abrams, the armor inserts can simply be replaced.

 

Hold your horses! The Mark 3 has no composite armor at the hull front? Literally the first time I'm hearing this. The whole point in the Mark 3 survivability upgrade over the Mark 2 was that it finally has composite armor on all areas of the tank, as opposed to Mark 2 which had limited composite armor coverage. 

Ever thought why the Mark 2 has applique in front of the driver while the Mark 3 (with seemingly similar UFP thickness) doesn't? The Mark 3 simply didn't need it. The armor was considered to be sufficient to deal with current threats, whereas on the Mark 2 it wasn't. It still is.

 

Now, saying the hull armor is less upgradable is simply neglecting the whole concept of modularity. If an armor array is no longer sufficient, it can be improved and replaced with ease. The whole point was to make it easy to upgrade. Israel doesn't have the capacity to pump out new tanks and spend a shit ton of money every time a more potent threat appears on the battlefield. 

There are of course prototypes and test-beds of upgraded Merkava hulls with thicker armor over the front. 

 

Upgrading thickness is very easy. Just put it on top of the existing armor (thicker blocks). If needed, even let it extend over the hull a bit, as was done in multiple other Israeli designs. The options aren't lacking. It's just a question of whether it is needed or not. If there's a need, modularity will save production and development costs and time.

The problem is that you reject everything that sounds remotely like a critique of the Merkava, because you are a fanboy. This is the only issue here. Do you think that the rest of the world has moved for increased armor thickness just for fun? Do you think that Merkava is impenetrabtable against anything at all places? No. The tank isn't super heavy-weight, still it has a much greater armored surface... did you ever wonder "how comes that the tank has so much armor, but is relatively light-weight"? Do you think that the Challenger 2 with TES(H) and the Leopard 2A7+ prototypes reached a weight of 70+ tonnes, if a much lower weight could afford a much better protection?

 

In the case of Merkava 4, the answer is armor technology. Every inch of surface is thicker compared to the Mark 3, while retaining the same weight. This is not only because of general weight saving solutions from component modernization. Armor of the Mark 4A is just considerably lighter, and was even tested fully on a Mark 3. This is the same story as with the AMAP-B armor on the Leopard 2 Revolution. By the way, regarding your article in your blog, the Mark 4B has an improved armor that fixes the issue of armor disarray that follows highly energetic hits. 

 

The Merkava 3 in contrast, has garbage side armor, and only a bit above average roof armor. It was by no means light however. It was on the high end of heavy tanks. A certain prototype even exceeded the 70 ton mark.

 

You keep forgetting that the Merkava 4 is not capable of stopping a Kornet ATGM (which doesn't always have a penetration as high as 1,200 mm depending on warhead) at all places. Even the Metis-M missile has proven of being capable of penetrating a Merkava 4 in several incidents. In 2006 51 Merkava tanks (inlcuding the Merkava 4 tanks) were hit by ATGMs, half of them penetrated the armor. So instead of being invulnerable, the Merkava tanks suffer losses ina bout 50% of the times being hit by ATGMs. In a fight at the Saluki river, three Merkava 4 tanks were penetrated by ATGMs, leading to the loss of seven crew members. At another incident a Kornet ATGM managed to penetrate the frontal armor of a Merkava 3 tank.

 

Well of course. In the very early stages of the operation, even the latest ATGMs employed by Hezbollah have hit multiple tanks frontally, to no effect. 

The terrain of Lebanon however, allowed them to very easily ambush tanks and convoys, and so the vast majority of attacks were to the side armor. Together with IEDs, Hezbollah had no problem to overcome the issue of frontal protection. 

High powered ATGMs (especially the Kornet) are capable of penetrating the side armor of even the Merkava 4. Merkava 1/2/3's and any conventional design doubly so (keep in mind Mark 1 also participated in the combat, and most losses were in Mark 2).

The rate of fatalities in side penetrations however, is very impressive.

Why do you think did the IDF adopt the Trophy APS on the Merkava tank? Just for fun?

 

Same reason why USA and Russia are in the process of adopting APS as well.

Do you think that the Fagot ATGM will always hit the hull front straight on? If so, you are wrong. The ATGM will in most cases hit at a slight angle, most likely even more than a few degrees due to being a composed angle of vertical and horizontal variance. Most likely the ATGM strikes the hull slightly downwards, because the user doesn't want to risk hitting the ground or rocks/trees/bushes when firing. This would greatly increase the effective slope of the Merkava's LFP. So seeing a ~280-290 mm armor layout capable of protecting against a shaped charge with 400 mm nominal penetration (which for Soviet export weaponry in some cases wasn't reached) at unknown conditions is nothing special nor valid.

 

Regardless, it does come to prove that the Merkava's armor layout over the hull is not the simple 76mm plate followed by fuel tanks. 

You are basing your statements on the Merkava's protection on hearsay performance under unknown conditions. That is the key difference between the armor protection of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, which was tested at known conditions to work equally well at the whole required frontal arc. You can see a photograph of the Abrams' hull armor being tested at 0° against a shaped charge warhead. Compared to this, your story is not verifiable.

 

The 2006, 2009, and 2014 wars as well as the 1985-2000 conflict, provide enough data on many incidents in which tanks faced ATGMs in various conditions.

Results in the 2006 war may seem grim, but if we overlook the incompetence of the entire chain of command of the ground forces at the time, cut-down acquisition, and extremely lacking training budget, the tanks HAVE shown a greater deal of survivability than previously thought.

For an engine having an engine cover that can only be lifted using a large crane seems to be another drawback. Yes, usually the engine covers are always lifted by a crane, but in case of emergency the crew can still use less potent/non-military equipment to deal with it.

 

I've never heard anyone referring to that as a problem of any sort. If the engine is damaged, you tow the tank back and get a new powerpack. You're going to need a new engine anyway, which requires a crane. If only the fuel tanks are hit, the tank will still go for a few hours before it has to stop.

In your suggested layout, the frontal armor acts as roof armor only for the engine, which frankly doesn't require the same level as protection for the crew. The turret will only protect the crew compartment, if it has a large, overhanging turret bustle (which is capable of providing enough crew protection and not just external storage boxes as most of the turret bustles of the Leopard 2A5/6/7 and the Challenger 2) and the turret is turned towards the front. Want to fight against an enemy at the side? Well, then you have to expose the crew to top-attack weapons...

 

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. 

 

 

You seem to lack the context. If the crew is located in an armored capsule in the hull directly behind the frontal armor, then the glacis armor will be located above the crew, protecting it against top-attack weapons. If the engine is located in the front, you need to have an equally thick glacis armor (as part of the tank's frontal protection) and an additional layer of armor above the crew compartment, leading an increase in armor weight without enhancing the crew protection or frontal protection of the tank.

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).

 

 

Besides that, the ammunition in tanks with front-mounted turrets is not safer. On the Strv 122 the frontal hull armor has a thickness of more than 800 mm, while the Merkava 4 has less than 600 mm of hull armor. The Leopard 2 has 640-660 mm hull armor, whereas the Merkava 1 has 280 mm steel armor plus the engine and fuel.

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.

 

No, it does not remain valid and it never was valid to begin with. It is not comparable in layout, weight and size to a tank. If a vehicle barely has any armor, a front-mounted engine won't affect the armor integration much, due to the armor being thinner (no space issues) and lighter (no weight balance issues).

To support and prove my point that the Carmel is not a tank and not valid in this discussion.

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.

 

 

The images are not for scale and based on different sources. If you scale them accordingly, the armor thickness will be comparable. The difference is about 2 to 3 pixels, depending on how to count the pixels with partial transparency. The lower picture is made by a Russian forum user, it might not be the most accurate one. The source of the CAD image above is unknown. I don't think that the 1,100 mm thickness was measured on the image, but is result of further anaylsis of multiple pictures and probably (scale) measurement on photos of the real T-14 tank. The black lines and the color for the different compartments were added for better visibility in the presentation, they are a bit inaccurate.

I have never seen a value as low as 900 mm armor thickness for the T-14 Armata frontal hull, i.e. I have seen Russians claim a thickness of 1,200 mm and more. Given the size comparison between T-14 and T-90 (T-90 has more than 600 mm of glacis armor), this ballpark of values (1,100 - 1,200 mm) seems to be correct. There is about ~1,300 mm of space in front of the T-14 hatch, the upper edge of the sloped armor starts about 100 - 200 mm from the hatch.

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 Armata is two tons heavier than the last Russian MBT... nice weight reduction. QED

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 layout in the Merkava is less upgradable. The engine will always provide a fixed amount of protection when you stay with a version of the same engine (as done by MANTAK on the three first Merkava tanks). On the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2, you could upgrade over 600 mm of composite armor at the hull... on the Merkava 1 and 2 there was no composite and no option to upgrade. On the Merkava 4 however there is much less space for armor than on an Abrams. So essentially you are claiming that a fuel tank and a MTU 883 engine are comparable to ~300 mm of current generation composite armor.

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.

 

 

No proof, just claiming that the Merkava 4 survived a Metis and a Kornet. Now prove that under the same circumstances any of the mentioned tanks - despite having much thicker composite armor - would have been penetrated. Do you think that the Leopard 2 or Leclerc would not survive a Metis or a Kornet?

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.

 

 

Which is quite bad protection. This is essentially possible just by adding the steel + the steel of the engine + the fuel alltogether... if the impact occured at a slight angle, this is even less surprising. This is not a bit surprising given the weight and amount of steel used.

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?

 

 

Yes, but this is more the result of the M48 and M60 not being known for their mobility to begin with. These are older generation tanks with by modern standards bad suspension systems. These tanks have a suspension travel of only 292 mm and 320 mm, not comparable to a Leopard 1 (407 mm), a MBT-70 (600 mm) and a Leopard 2 (526 mm), the tanks used as reference for the VTF in Germany (afaik VTF had the same suspension travel as the Leopard 2). Supposedly the early models of the Merkava had a travel of less than 500 mm based on comments of the new suspension used on the Merkava 3 and 4 being better.

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.

 

 

Maybe you take into account that the turret roof is lower in order to keep the tank's height at an acceptable level, which is hard to due to front-mounted engine and rear door increasing height considerably?

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.

 

So did you go to Wikipedia and read the values without thinking about it for a moment? These are the values for overall length with the gun facing forwards, not the hull length. You claim that the short length of the Merkava keeps the weight down, however it is not shorter. The Merkava 4 hull is 7.6 metres long, the Leopard 2 hull is 7.52 m long (excluding mudguards). There is no weight saving as result of a shorter hull, because there is no shorter hull. The Leclerc's hull is only 6.88 metres long.

 

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.

If a rear door is wanted or required, one can use a compact higher-power-density engine and have a small path at the side. Wegmann proposed such a design for the German NGP project, which demanded a modular vehicle, that could be reconfigured for different uses such as being a MBT, being an IFV or various other vehicles.

 

 

The vehicle was to be powered by a diesel-electric powerpack, which was located at the right rear section of the tank. For the IFV version, the left rear section was used for a ca. 750 mm wide path to a rear door. On the MBT version, this place was used for storing some ammunition of the autoloader (due to the design using a low-profile unmanned turret). The same design using a larger turret (with enough storage for all ammunition, but no turret basket) would enable the vehicle to have a rear door and a rear-mounted powerpack.

 

 

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. 

 

 

Still I don't think that a front-mounted engine would be advantagous for armor protection. I'd expect any sort of real next-generation tank (and this is also the case with the T-14 Armata) to feature enhanced protection against top-attack weapons and artillery ammunition. Here having the crew sitting below parts of the frontal armor means that it double-acts as roof armor. With a front-mounted engine, this is not the case.

 

How is this related to engine placement? If the turret roof armor is pierced, the crew is injured or dead.  If the hull roof armor is pierced, the driver is dead (or in the case of several tanks, the ammo is hit).

In theory, a frontally placed turret would serve additional protection against top attack missiles with a low approach angle, however when the crew is moved back with the turret, this advantage is nullified. 

The door - and the path to the door - need to be tall enough for a man to fit through. The height of the rear compartment of a Merkava tank - or an IFV such as the CV90 and Marder - is much taller than the height of the crew or engine compartment of a conventional tank.

 

For an APC perhaps. In the case of tanks like Merkava (don't know about BTMP-64/72) the door is only tall enough to allow men to crawl in and out. The height of the rear compartment is also lower than the rest of the hull.

APCs and IFVs are a different story, as they're purpose-made to carry troops. 

 

https://tankandafvnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/merkava-4.jpg

The Marder also has a rear exhaust system, still it is a bad design for a tank. It is necessary on IFVs and some APCs for allowing a rear ramp and keeping the thermal signature at the front lower, but it is not a good design choice at all cases. The temperature of the exhaust gases is very high - about 230°C on the Leopard 2 and more than 600°C on the M1 Abrams; so the channel for transporting the exhaust fumes to the rear need to be insulated and/or actively cooled. The higher temperatures can effect other components (such as electronics) or the crew. It is already less weight and space efficient to transport the exhaust fumes to the rear, but the high temperature makes it only worse. Fuel is also more likely to catch fire after penetration when it is hot.

 But when the engine compartment is separated from the crew, and protected with fire extinguishers, it's not dangerous. The crew at least has enough time to escape the tank. But when a frontally placed ammo rack is hit, there wouldn't be anyone left to notice that there was even a penetration and that they need to leave.

The Carmel is meant to weigh just about 35 metric tons and is meant to armed with an autocannon between 40 mm and 76 mm calibre and ATGMs. It is not a next-generation tank, but rather another type of combat vehicle.

 

And when did I ever claim otherwise? A cannon in the 40-76mm caliber has to be placed in a turret that pierces the hull, and fed with hull stored ammunition. Maybe the Eitan will be some sort of an exception, if a 40mm cannon is indeed picked over a 30mm. 

When you have an autoloader and an ammo compartment isolated from the crew, you're taking up a rather significant amount of space. So knowing that it won't be an IFV/APC, my point remains.

If you have not much armor (due to a weight of 35 metric tons or less), a lot of drawbacks of the front-mounted engines won't be as prominent. The T-14 Armata has about 1,100 mm frontal armor according to German estimates, which is to weigh significantly more than 3,500 kg/m² (which about the armor weight of the Leopard 2 or 2A4 - equal to 446 mm steel). This is in no way comparable to the Carmel.

 

And why are you comparing the Carmel to a tank right after you said it is not a tank?

Now, I have 2 questions for you:

1)How come Germans estimate more physical armor than the Russians, but show 2 separate pictures of the tank that each suggests a very different armor layout? The top picture suggests a LOT less slope and reduced crew capsule size, while the bottom picture, which is more accurate, shows a much better sloped armor with smaller thickness (~900mm, in line with Russian sources) and more accurate crew positioning? 

 

2)How do you know the armor weight of the T-14? I have yet to stumble upon a source that claims to know the armor weight.

I guess you can explain both claims by looking at the number  of crewmen they give it. First time I hear it has 4 of them.

 

Who says the weight of future tanks will go down. The reason why countries like Germany, the US and France have researched unmanned turrets in the - and why the T-14 has an unmanned turret - is to increase armor protection without increasing the weight. The current Challenger 2 weighs nearly 75 metric tons, the Leopard 2A7 in the best possible configuration (as wanted by the German Army) weighs nearly 70 metric tons. In the future tanks might need even more armor in order to resist 130 mm APFSDS or 152 mm APFSDS; Russia at least has thought about using this gun on a version of the Armata. A modern MBT with two/three men crew and increased armor protection might weigh some 60 metric tons or more, while providing the protection of a 80 or 90 metric tons conventional MBT. Other factors such as larger guns, bigger power supply systems (APUs, batteries), etc. might also affect the weight.

In general having more horsepower, more torque and better acceleration is desirable. Yes, one can try to reduce the weight of the tank and reduce the engine power and fuel consumption. One could however also try to stay at an acceptable level of fuel consumption and try to maximize the automotive performance. There is no law that say the speed of a tank should be limited to just 70 km/h on the road or why the tank should be slow at accerating and unable to climb steep slopes.

 

I'm guessing the weight will go down and basing it on the T-14. Its weight of 48 tons (or 49 with some modifications) is enough proof. The weight reduction in removing turret armor is already significant enough, and general modernization of all components can also save a few tons even. Comparing it to a Challenger 2 that hasn't been touched in over a decade, is not really fair.

Focusing the armor entirely on the hull, may well make them resistant to higher caliber weaponry. However hitting the turret is enough to make them combat ineffective for a while. For this, one might need to focus on saturation fire rather than raw penetration power, as the APS will not be easy to get by.

 

My opinion on whether power generation of engines should be reduced or not, is not yet formed, as there is also the argument that newer engines with the same output incorporate new technologies to reduce consumption, weight and space. 

The older Merkavas, the ones on which Tal worked, however were never designed with a modern armor layout or ammo seperation with blow-out panels. The tanks were designed for frontal fighting only, with little to no side armor (as clearly visible on the much lower turret side armor thickness) - in this case placing the ammunition at the very rear of the vehicle does mean it will be hit last and more armor and other components need to be penetrated.

However when looking at the protection along the frontal arc - or overall along the complete azimuth of 360° - the ammo is much less protected. Given that the earlier Merkava tanks lacked composite armor at the hull - and the armor is in general much thinner than on other MBTs - I would expect a Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams (which in the original configuration still had 105 mm non-isolated ammunition at the center of the crew compartment) to have much better protected ammunition.

 

The M1 would perhaps have better ammo protection due to having it (almost) entirely protected with blow-out panels and only a portion located at the center-rear. The Leopard however, not at all. 

Physical armor of the Merkava 1/2 and M1 were comparable in effectiveness. M1 may have had higher thickness (not entirely accurate, as it did too have large spaces between plates) but in effect, it was roughly equivalent to 300mm of RHA, which is approximately what the Merkava 1/2 had in RHA.

From there, thickness increased as engine size reduced, power output increased, and general tank's weight reduced.  In the Merkava 4, the frontal hull armor was sufficient to protect against Kornet-E missiles and Metis-M.

So in the case of frontal penetrations, the ammo in the Leopard 2, Leclerc, K2 and especially Altay, are far less protected, and are the first ones to be hit in frontal penetration to the hull.

 

In frontal arc attacks excluding direct front, a rear placed ammo rack is still not more dangerous. ammo is not attached to the walls. There are fuel tanks, water tanks, NBC, APU, AC and other components protecting them after armor penetration. There were only 2 instances of ammo cook-off, and both by missiles hitting the side armor at the rear at a very low angle, which in the case of Leopard or Leclerc, would also mean penetration. 

These are very subjective advantages. Carrying injured infantry into the back, but not having the place to treat their injuries or putting them into the recovery position is not an advantage, you could do the same with other combat vehicles. There is a reason why ambulance vehicles are tall and roomy. There is not very much place in front of the rear door: just enough to store 120 mm tank ammunition with protective caps - so probably less than 1.2 metres of space - this is not enough to aid an adult man. If the person is larger than that, it will be crushed when the turret rotates.

 

If a single tank could in 1 occasion carry 19 injured, I am sure there is enough space for a single injured man. If the ammo racks are dumped, there is enough space for 2 stretchers. 

The safe exit of the crew is very situational. If the enemy can shot from tha tank at the side - even if it is just with a machine gun - then the exit is not safe anymore. If you can hit the front of tank from a 30° angle from the centerline, you can also hit the place behind the rear ramp at an angle of 30-40°. On the other hand having the engine at the front increases the likelyhood of mobility kills in conventional combat, hence making sure that evacuating the tank has to be done more often.

 

And other than urban combat scenarios, how can a machine-gunner have direct line of sight to the rear of the tank?

Disregarding the long sponsons on the Merkava 3/4 that provide further protection against even rear attacks, the crew can always hide directly behind the tank, hide below it, or run to safety.  Situational means that in a minority of cases it would work. When it works almost every time, if not every time, then not having such design feature would make crew survivability (upon escape) situational. 

In any case, it's much better than being forced to leave through roof hatches, where the crew will be in danger from any possible angle.

 

Also, as I said and quoted from the interview: http://in.bgu.ac.il/bgi/iyunim/10/2.pdf ,the rate at which tanks would become immobilized is near identical for tanks with frontally placed engines and conventional designs. 

In fact, Tal says that out of 500 tested vehicles, the ones with frontally placed engines had a slight advantage of 2% over conventional designs, and uses Shermans, AMX-13, and Panzers as examples of tanks with forward drive with whom there were no mobility-loss problems.

Quick and easy resupplying is depending on what you look at. Resupplying the Leopard 1 or Leopard 2 through the old ammunition hatch could be probably done faster than taking out those bulky ammo racks or crouching through the rear door.

 

The ammunition hatch on the Leopards was removed, I think in lot 5. 

In the Merkava, the ammo racks are in a fixed position. None removes them other than in emergencies. Shells are loaded individually when 1 soldier hands the shells from the outside and another sits by the door and inserts them into the racks. The whole process is fairly quick, and reloading of the turret and hull can be done simultaneously. As opposed to the Leopard or Leclerc, where hull ammo reloading takes significantly more time as each shell has to be handed through a roof hatch, and then placed lower in the hull. 

The glacis armor of the tank is however not thicker than that of other tanks, it is rather the opposite: it is thinner, while not being as well-sloped as the UFP of an Abrams for example. Hence it is weaker, less protected. The armor in front of the UFP, i.e. the hull nose and lower front plate, also does not seem to have a thickness comparable to that of other current tanks. The Leopard 2 - when fitted with the hull armor used on the Leopard 2A5DK, Strv 122, Leopardo 2E and Leopard 2A6 HEL, or when fitted with AMAP armor as used on the Leopard 2RI and Leopard 2SG - has much thicker armor at the LFP, hull nose and UFP. We are talking about an additional ~300 mm along the line-of-sight, while the basic tank already had thicker hull front armor than the Merkava 4 by most estimations (other than yours probably).

 

That highly depends on which part of the UFP you're looking at. Going above the engine's cover-plate, you're looking at a near vertical plate. Only in the Mark 4 that angle was reduced. 

The main armor however, we only have estimates of the Merkava 1/2. For the Mark 3 and 4 there is the combat experience that showed their resilience, but no thickness estimates exist at the moment, other than Russian sources that say simply 750mm (it only recently came to my knowledge that Russians are fond of the Merkava because of the similarities with the T-14). 

This doesn't say much. It just says that the fuel and the armor are capable of stopping some RPGs, nothing more. The side armor of the Abrams turret (~300 mm) has been capable of surviving some older Soviet ATGMs, while the heavy side skirts of the Leopard 2 together with the side armor (110 mm composite side skirts + ~650 mm empty space + 60-80 mm steel armor) has been claimed of resisting ATGMs with 1,000 mm penetration into RHA by Dr. Held, when being hit at a 30° angle.

 

What is says is that there was enough armor behind the fuel tanks to resist ATGMs and ATRs. 

The Fagot, which was mentioned as having hit a Merkava 2's front, has 400mm of penetration in its basic version.  The frontal plate (76mm) along with the fuel, provide together 118mm of RHA equivalent armor. This leaves 282mm of penetration power for everything behind the fuel tanks. But the jet didn't reach the engine compartment. 

Still the engine remains vulnerable then, while being place at a location that is more likely being hit.

 

as I said above, and gave source, the tested rate at which conventional and front engine tanks suffered mobility kills, is similar and even slightly favors front engine designs. This is mainly due to the fact the crew compartment contains far more valuable equipment.

According to Tal, in the vast majority of cases, frontal penetrations to the crew compartment were a total loss of the tank, and not just a mobility kill that is fixed within hours.

Or you know, maybe the German Army had stricter requirements for mobility after having built two tanks with - by international standards - excellent mobility in form of the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2, whereas the IDF was willing to accept vehicles with much lower mobility, such as a 63 metric tons heavy Merkava 1 tank being powered by a 908 hp engine only? When your tank is capable of only reaching 50 km/h on road (and thus probably something between 20 and 30 km/h in heavy terrain), it certainly won't suffer from the same stress as a tank being powered by a 1,500 hp engine... this is why I clearly stated that the mobility issues were found to arrive at maximum speed.

 

 Despite the higher weight, the Merkavas in service were considered more mobile than Magach (M48 and M60) tanks, mainly due to their ability to drive over more difficult terrain. I forgot to mention earlier, but in the same link I gave you on the interview, Tal quotes a senior engineer as saying the changed center of mass (front) helps the tank to better maneuver over slopes and difficult terrain.

Mobility is not just the top speed of a tank, and no it was not 20 or 30km/h. The spring suspension allows for a much smaller gap between on-road and off-road speed.

Yes, but the tanks with 105 mm guns have no relevance in this discussion.

 

Perhaps, but take into your consideration that the lower gun depression on the Mark 3/4 is the result of a lower turret roof, and not related in any way to the hull height. 

It is not shorter than the average MBT. It is shorter than the M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 maybe, two of the MBTs with the longest hulls currently being used. It's hull is still a tad longer than that of the Leopard 2 and considerably longer than the hulls of the Leclerc, K2 Black Panther, T-90, T-80 and T-84M.

 

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.

I disagree. A modern powerpack such as the MT890V12 will still be larger than a small two or three men crew capsule. Germany has tested two-men-crews and Israel is currently thinking about having only a two-men-crew for the Carmel.

 

And yet, the Carmel demonstrator is more than likely to retain a frontally placed engine despite being a clean sheet design.

 

 

On a tank one most likely wants a V12 engine with at least 1.500 horsepowers - if you take a look at German projects (like the canceled NGP modular combat vehicle and the Leopard 2A7V upgrade), it seem that one wants even more power than just 1,500 hp. Yes, one could use an uprated version of the MT890V12, but this still should require larger cooling units, better brakes and better fuel systems than used on the Puma - so even more spaced is occupied by the powerpack. On future combat vehicles, the demand for larger APUs will also be important. The Leopard 2A7V will already feature an upgraded APU compared to the Leopard 2A7, but this is just the start. On future combat vehicles, there should be more electronics and other power-consuming features (such as an active protection system).

 

I have to disagree.  As the weight goes down, the need for higher power engines reduces.  If you can make the heavy weight class future MBTs weigh ~55 tons (7-13 tons less than modern tanks), there is no reason to keep the 1,500hp engines, as they will needlessly consume more fuel which reduces autonomy and increases operation costs - unwanted.  I don't know why the T-14 has a 1,500hp engine. Seems excessive to me.

You could argue though, that to better handle autonomy and fuel consumption issues, future tanks will utilize hybrid engines, or less likely, electric. And they're usually larger, though provide higher torque.

I'd like to continue this discussion. 

 

 

The main problem with your suggestion of future MBTs moving towards front-mounted engines is that there are no real benefits of this. Your list includes five pros for front-mounted engines, but only one is valid. The option to have a rear door or ramp is the main benefit of front-mounted engines and the only reason why some APCs, most IFVs and the Merkava tanks have their engines located at the front. The other advantages are half truths or not true at all. You have also overlooked a few major drawbacks of front-mounted engines here.

 

Having a rear door/ramp is not the only advantage. Aside from having a further layer of protection behind the main armor, Tal would often refer to the frontally mounted engine as a way to secure a safe position for the ammo, to which he attributed at least as much importance as safety of the crew compartment. So for those less familiar with his philosophy, basically ammo protection = crew protection. 

There is a multitude of advantages; Carrying injured infantry in the back. Safe exit for the crew. Easy and quick resupplies. Reducing potential firing angles fatal for the crew. 

What is the disadvantage? Bad weight distribution. But that was fixed with a center-rear mounted turret and unevenly spread wheels. 

 

You wrote that a front-mounted engine could potentionally reduce the frontal area needing protection. How? Unless you want to claim that the engine acts as enough armor to stop anything by itself, this won't happen IMO. Tanks and other combat vehicles (such as wheeled and tracked infantry fighting vehicles) with front-mounted engines are always taller at the front than current combat vehicles with rear-mounted engines. Even if it was possible to create an engine, that delivers enough power while being small enough to not affect the height/width of the vehicle, the frontal area requiring protection should remain the same size as with a rear-mounted engine in best case. Why? Because the crew has to sit in front of the turret (or directly below the turret), if one wants to have optical sights (vision blocks) as back-up solution for electronic systems. If you want a rear door or ramp to evacuate the crew, the height of the hull might even be increased compared to currently existing tanks.

 

This is a misconception you often repeat without trying to understand actually, how one needs to armor a frontal-engine design. The hull becomes taller indeed, but it doesn't mean the entirety of the hull frontal profile needs to have thick armor. The Merkava series of tanks, especially the earliest, show that armor directly above the engine is rather thin, as the angle becomes far too high (akin to Abrams' concept of UFP armor).  There is only a certain portion on the UFP that needs armor, and that is the nose and the engine cover-plate. The main armor though, would come in the form of near vertical plates located behind the fuel tanks, as suggested by Rolf Hilmes and Ogorkiewicz. 

Also supported by various accounts of Merkava tanks fending off ATGMs and ATRs that would leave a few fuel leaks (would switch to other fuel tanks on the sides and rear) but with non-perforated main armor and undamaged engines.

Again, looking at any other tank, you see that not 100% of the height is protected with thick armor.

 

Another issue with front-mounted engines is armor integration. In Germany the VTF (Versuchsträger Frontantrieb) was tested in 1984, after Germany considered the concept of a MBT with front-mounted engines. An major issue seen with the VTF was the weight distribution: Having thick frontal armor and the powerpack at the vehicle front caused a massive weight disbalance, which affects the mobility. Unless the turret is mounted in the rear of the vehicle - which would eliminate the option of having a rear ramp - the tank cannot have the same armor thickness at the hull as with a conventional layout.

 

There are ways to fix the weight distribution issue, you know. Rear placed ammo and center-rear placement of turret are a good way to counterbalance. 

 

The cooling and exhaust of front-mounted engines are an issue. If the engine is front-mounted, you cannot move the exhaust and air vents to the rear of the vehicle, unless giving up any gained spaced (which is required for a rear door). This means there are ballistic holes, i.e. the engine vents won't be protected close to the same level as the rest of the hull. Any hit here by an ATGM or an APFSDS could lead to a penetration. This is sub-optimal, because it would be located in the frontal 60° arc. In general the tank needs to have more side skirts for protecting the frontal 60° arc, when the crew is moved further away from the front.

 

It's possible to place heavy side skirts exclusively behind the vents and in front of the crew compartment and provide the same level of protection. The only exception I see is the Mark 4 and prototypes of Mark 3 utilizing thick side armor throughout the whole length, but that was when the Kassag mods were added, including the better armor distribution, which also included turret armor on the sides.

 

Three further problems of tanks with front-mounted engines according to the German military are lowered visibility for the driver (the engine creates a huge dead zone for his optics), reduced gun depression (only 7° on the Merkava) and reduced mobility when driving at maximum speed through very uneven engine (otherwise the drive sprocket located at the front of the tank can hit the terrain and be damaged, leaving the tank immobilized).

 

And how experienced is the German military with frontal engine tanks? Surely such design is no good for a country with rough, rocky, uneven terrain, which is why no such country has adopted one. 

Sarcasm off, the only problem with mobility on the Merkavas at least, was the engines. 

First the AVDS-1790-6 had issues when going up slopes, and now the MTU 883 is problematic enough to opt for a less powerful 1,200hp engine instead.

 

Oh and the gun depression of 7° on the Merkavas is only relevant to the Mark 3/4. On 105mm armed variants, it was 8.5°. 

 

So I don't see any reason why future tanks should move to front-mounted engines. Just the demand of better protection per weight should already favour rear-mounted engine concepts.

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.