Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Big_Gazza wrote:What is the significance (if any) of the light blue region in the Merkava?
The engine I think. They use it as an armor.
+71
Azi
sepheronx
Arkanghelsk
Podlodka77
Scorpius
Cheetah
Tingsay
Rasisuki Nebia
Shaun901901
Broski
Lennox
Swede55
Mir
ALAMO
RTN
jhelb
flamming_python
Russian_Patriot_
x_54_u43
Backman
limb
Kiko
TMA1
Lurk83
lyle6
The_Observer
Atmosphere
SeigSoloyvov
lancelot
mnztr
Stealthflanker
Viktor
JohninMK
Sujoy
xeno
Mindstorm
TheArmenian
d_taddei2
AlfaT8
dino00
thegopnik
ahmedfire
AJ-47
marcellogo
Arrow
PhSt
Kimppis
miketheterrible
BenVaserlan
Vann7
Cyberspec
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
GarryB
kvs
bolshevik345
LMFS
Hole
hoom
medo
ult
The-thing-next-door
franco
George1
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
calripson
magnumcromagnon
PapaDragon
Isos
kumbor
75 posters
[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
The engine I think. They use it as an armor.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Big_Gazza wrote:What is the significance (if any) of the light blue region in the Merkava?
Probably because of the engine placement being in the front, which explains the catastrophic failure of their MBT's during the 2006 Lebanon War....they really hit the Kornet's nest lol!
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 A77db5f075a985d145d8bddad713c0f8_edited](https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/a77db5f075a985d145d8bddad713c0f8_edited.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 2c218b5d17f9b7b2970be02e4f28bbef](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2c/21/8b/2c218b5d17f9b7b2970be02e4f28bbef.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 84980778b10e87fba13709232786e2ca](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/84/98/07/84980778b10e87fba13709232786e2ca.jpg)
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Isos wrote:Big_Gazza wrote:What is the significance (if any) of the light blue region in the Merkava?
The engine I think. They use it as an armor.
Which is ridiculous!
Engine blocks can be easily destroyed with smaller arms fire, let alone dedicated anti-MBT weapons.
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
I still don't understand how happened the last picture.
That still can be considered as 1m spaced armor which is very good against hollow charges.
The drawback is that pretty much any frontal penetration will make at least a mobility kill and without the engine no more power for the turret and optics so the tank is dead.
Which is ridiculous! lol1 Engine blocks can be easily destroyed with smaller arms fire, let alone dedicated anti-MBT weapons.
That still can be considered as 1m spaced armor which is very good against hollow charges.
The drawback is that pretty much any frontal penetration will make at least a mobility kill and without the engine no more power for the turret and optics so the tank is dead.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Isos wrote:I still don't understand how happened the last picture.
Which is ridiculous! lol1 Engine blocks can be easily destroyed with smaller arms fire, let alone dedicated anti-MBT weapons.
If I had to guess the very Merkava MBT photo was trying to escape in a act of desperation/confusion from Hezbollah's Kornet/Metis fire, and ran off a elevated ridge above the road, gun first in to the ground!
There's a old-school saying in America that we say about someone getting knocked out in a street fight "Face Flat on the ground, with your dick in the dirt!" Which is the best way to describe the photo lol! 
GarryB- Posts : 40574
Points : 41076
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I have heard people defend engines in the front as being for armour but in reality it isn't because that would be worse than stupid.
The metals an engine are made of would not make them effective as armour... worse it would add mass and body to a HEAT penetrator and also it is already hot and full of fumes of diesel fuel and oil so it is a serious fire risk too.
The real reason they put the engine in the front is so they can have a huge rear door so crew can have at least two safe ways of getting out of the vehicle if it is disabled.
Talk of carrying supporting troops in the rear are silly... tanks rush around like tanks and IFVs support infantry and basically stick with them to support them... tanks should be hunting tanks and destroying enemy armour not supporting troops... most of the time.
Of course take the turret off and make it a tank based APC or IFV and it works fine....
The rear space in a Merkava is better used to carry more ammo and as an alternative escape route for the crew if disabled and under fire.
The metals an engine are made of would not make them effective as armour... worse it would add mass and body to a HEAT penetrator and also it is already hot and full of fumes of diesel fuel and oil so it is a serious fire risk too.
The real reason they put the engine in the front is so they can have a huge rear door so crew can have at least two safe ways of getting out of the vehicle if it is disabled.
Talk of carrying supporting troops in the rear are silly... tanks rush around like tanks and IFVs support infantry and basically stick with them to support them... tanks should be hunting tanks and destroying enemy armour not supporting troops... most of the time.
Of course take the turret off and make it a tank based APC or IFV and it works fine....
The rear space in a Merkava is better used to carry more ammo and as an alternative escape route for the crew if disabled and under fire.
JohninMK- Posts : 15669
Points : 15810
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
magnumcromagnon wrote:
If I had to guess the very Merkava MBT photo was trying to escape in a act of desperation/confusion from Hezbollah's Kornet/Metis fire, and ran off a elevated ridge above the road, gun first in to the ground!
No seat belts in a tank and many sharp, hard edges, so that would have hurt, a lot.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13479
Points : 13519
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
JohninMK wrote:...No seat belts in a tank and many sharp, hard edges, so that would have hurt, a lot.
Reminds me back when Kuwaitis managed to flip over M-84 on curve at full speed during tank biathlon, ouch!!!
william.boutros- Posts : 178
Points : 180
Join date : 2015-08-13
There was a report by IDF. All latest Merkavas were returned to duty.magnumcromagnon wrote:Big_Gazza wrote:What is the significance (if any) of the light blue region in the Merkava?
Probably because of the engine placement being in the front, which explains the catastrophic failure of their MBT's during the 2006 Lebanon War....they really hit the Kornet's nest lol!
GarryB- Posts : 40574
Points : 41076
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
No seat belts in a tank and many sharp, hard edges, so that would have hurt, a lot.
The jumping in the air and firing the main gun with the Soviet/Russian T series tanks was interesting... apparently pillows used to be tied strategically on certain internal parts of the tank crew stations and of course their soft helmets were also worn as protection...
AJ-47- Posts : 205
Points : 222
Join date : 2011-10-05
Location : USA
The reasons for installing the engine in the front are:
1. Front wheel drive works much better in the rugged area of the Golan High and Lebanon.
2. The engine in the front is not to stop ATGM, for that they have 1 meter thick armor, but to absorb the hot melting pieces that flying into the tank, after the penetration, and destroy everything on there way including the crew.
Israel with there experience in wars, find out that it’s much easier to replace the engine block, than get a new crew for the tank.
Few more points.
1. The door in the back is not a soldier’s entrance, but if the tank get hit it allows the crew to get out from the tank through this door without exposes them to enemy fire. Some time if the crew get hit they don’t have the strength to pull themselves trough the hatches in the turret and it’s the only way out.
2. The space in the rear is used to carry ammo in individual fire-proof canisters.
3. To carry soldiers Israel builds the “Namer” which is a Merkava without turret, weight 60 tons and will get a turret with 30/40 mm gun.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 200px-10](https://i.servimg.com/u/f63/17/44/96/60/200px-10.jpg)
The rear "door" in the Merkava
1. Front wheel drive works much better in the rugged area of the Golan High and Lebanon.
2. The engine in the front is not to stop ATGM, for that they have 1 meter thick armor, but to absorb the hot melting pieces that flying into the tank, after the penetration, and destroy everything on there way including the crew.
Israel with there experience in wars, find out that it’s much easier to replace the engine block, than get a new crew for the tank.
Few more points.
1. The door in the back is not a soldier’s entrance, but if the tank get hit it allows the crew to get out from the tank through this door without exposes them to enemy fire. Some time if the crew get hit they don’t have the strength to pull themselves trough the hatches in the turret and it’s the only way out.
2. The space in the rear is used to carry ammo in individual fire-proof canisters.
3. To carry soldiers Israel builds the “Namer” which is a Merkava without turret, weight 60 tons and will get a turret with 30/40 mm gun.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 200px-10](https://servimg.com/r/6317449660/200px-10.jpg)
The rear "door" in the Merkava
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-19
Location : Uranus
AJ-47 wrote:The reasons for installing the engine in the front are:
1. Front wheel drive works much better in the rugged area of the Golan High and Lebanon.r
What advantage could that possibly give to a tracked vehicle?
I see oly disadvantages to having the drive sprockets at the front; increased tension on the tracks, the sprocket is more likely to get hit, the list goes on.
AJ-47 wrote: they have 1 meter thick armor
Were oh where is this magical meter of armor in the merkava's layout? I see no way in which you could possibly fit it in.
The problem with the merkava is that due to its armor layout if a tank armed even with older ammunition hits the hull it might not go trough the armored bulkhead but it will destroy the engine and that will disable the tank.
I does not matter how good the crew survivability is if every second hit will leave them trapped in an immobile metal box in the middle of nowhere and likely surrounded by enemies.
Hole- Posts : 11132
Points : 11110
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
Khrizantema can burn trough more then a metre of steel.
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
Most protected parts should have more than 1-1.5m RHA equivalent like on any other MBT. But that doesn't mean it is everywhere the case. Lower front hull should be weak (like on any other MBT), and the side/rear defenceless against moder atgm/apfsds.
Israeli made the Merkava for their use and the most common thing they face when they designed it was atgm. Against apfsds it should be weakly protected.
60 tons reflect more the huge space and huge size rather than bigger armor. The fact that everything needs to be taller/longer adds weight compare to t-90/72 but at the end the thickness should be the same. That's a common mistake that western fanbiy makes thinking that the 20 or 30 tons more in their tanks are just more armor compare to russian tanks when in fact it's just the size that makes them bigger. For protection it's not the size that matters but thickness.
Israeli made the Merkava for their use and the most common thing they face when they designed it was atgm. Against apfsds it should be weakly protected.
60 tons reflect more the huge space and huge size rather than bigger armor. The fact that everything needs to be taller/longer adds weight compare to t-90/72 but at the end the thickness should be the same. That's a common mistake that western fanbiy makes thinking that the 20 or 30 tons more in their tanks are just more armor compare to russian tanks when in fact it's just the size that makes them bigger. For protection it's not the size that matters but thickness.
GarryB- Posts : 40574
Points : 41076
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Most heavily protected part of most tanks is the turret front, which is often the part that gets hit in combat...
One of the late model leopards claims 2.5m thickness of armour but that is based on the presumption that the large cavity inside the front turret armour would cause a penetrator to yaw and tumble so when it hits the inner surface it would snap and fragment and not penetrate at all.
I suspect they would come in for a rude awakening in real combat against modern Russian and ex Soviet anti armour weapons...
One of the late model leopards claims 2.5m thickness of armour but that is based on the presumption that the large cavity inside the front turret armour would cause a penetrator to yaw and tumble so when it hits the inner surface it would snap and fragment and not penetrate at all.
I suspect they would come in for a rude awakening in real combat against modern Russian and ex Soviet anti armour weapons...
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
The advantage of ussr is that they had more tanks. So while a t-80 would fire from the front at let's say a leopard, the leopard take cover a start to fire at each other. But in the same time there would be a t-72 or t54 sneaking in the side and destroy it easily.
That's not a presumption. They have apfsds the same length as russia's and tested it. IMO germans are not liars like US and if they say it works and put it on a 4 million $ tank then it should work as advertized.
Modern FCS should allow to fire either on the turret or on the hull. Not 1cm precise but far better than in the arab/israeli wars. Gunners will learn what are the easy spots to fire at against any tank.
It should be first to see, first to hit, first to kill. Again numerical advantage will be better than quality advantage because modern average quality is enough (average optics will make you see a tank well outside your firing range, average protection can be upgraded with add-ons...) that's why russia modernizes its t-72s.
One of the late model leopards claims 2.5m thickness of armour but that is based on the presumption that the large cavity inside the front turret armour would cause a penetrator to yaw and tumble so when it hits the inner surface it would snap and fragment and not penetrate at all.
That's not a presumption. They have apfsds the same length as russia's and tested it. IMO germans are not liars like US and if they say it works and put it on a 4 million $ tank then it should work as advertized.
Most heavily protected part of most tanks is the turret front, which is often the part that gets hit in combat...
Modern FCS should allow to fire either on the turret or on the hull. Not 1cm precise but far better than in the arab/israeli wars. Gunners will learn what are the easy spots to fire at against any tank.
It should be first to see, first to hit, first to kill. Again numerical advantage will be better than quality advantage because modern average quality is enough (average optics will make you see a tank well outside your firing range, average protection can be upgraded with add-ons...) that's why russia modernizes its t-72s.
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
Is it the autoloader of the t-14 ?
Hole- Posts : 11132
Points : 11110
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
One ammo carousel feeding another and then the round is loaded into the gun... looks complicated. The 2S35 has two autoloaders side by side. Why not doing the same with the T-14?
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
Hole wrote:One ammo carousel feeding another and then the round is loaded into the gun... looks complicated. The 2S35 has two autoloaders side by side. Why not doing the same with the T-14?
Western tanks have two stock of ammo that need to be transfered by the crew. At least this one is full auto.
But I'm not sure about the video. Could be just a fanart.
Stealthflanker- Posts : 1459
Points : 1535
Join date : 2009-08-04
Age : 36
Location : Indonesia
Isos wrote:Is it the autoloader of the t-14 ?
This one is for the old Ob-477 "Molot"/Nota.
GarryB- Posts : 40574
Points : 41076
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
That's not a presumption. They have apfsds the same length as russia's and tested it. IMO germans are not liars like US and if they say it works and put it on a 4 million $ tank then it should work as advertized.
Yeah, I just don't buy it... if APFSDS were easy to make yaw then angled armour plate would be the best way of doing that... and it isn't.
Two angled plates less than 2m apart does not equate to 2.5m of homogeneous armour... the Soviets had a long focal point HEAT warhead mine that was designed to hit the side of a tank from up to 50m away and blow an 80mm diameter hole in the side of an armoured vehicle up to 40cm deep. Plasma streams from HEAT warheads can travel through the air just fine...
It should be first to see, first to hit, first to kill. Again numerical advantage will be better than quality advantage because modern average quality is enough (average optics will make you see a tank well outside your firing range, average protection can be upgraded with add-ons...) that's why russia modernizes its t-72s.
Would agree, but would also add that communication and coordination and team work are critical, but an APS system that can yaw APFSDS rounds and stops HEAT rounds and missiles and rockets could make a huge difference... but as was found during WWII when you are in a German unit and your 50 odd tanks are all coordinated and firing at the group of 5 Soviet tanks you just stumbled upon, those Soviet tanks are in trouble and even if the Soviet tanks fire first... what if they all fire at the same German vehicle... and what if they don't penetrate because you only have HE rounds and no armour piercing supplied yet...
Is it the autoloader of the t-14 ?
It says object 477a in the name... I would think the T-14 would need more than just APFSDS rounds as options.... Having the projectile and the stub round together inline might speed up loading a little but separating the propellent and live rounds would make each loader more compact... having a separate propellent loader might be a better solution in terms of rate of fire and separating the propellent away from the crew area and other things that go boom.
Last edited by GarryB on Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Isos- Posts : 11605
Points : 11573
Join date : 2015-11-07
Yeah, I just don't buy it... if APFSDS were easy to make yaw then angled armour plate would be the best way of doing that... and it isn't.
I don't really go on specialized forums about tanks but again germans have apfsds (which are all similar no matter of their country origine) and tested it.
Maybe there isbthe result of the tests somewhere on the net.
IMO if they have put it on their tanks in service it works.
Two angled plates less than 2m apart does not equate to 2.5m of homogeneous armour...
RHA equivalence is already obsolate to compare modern armors and rounds. I saw on a forum they said german latest apfsds have a terrible pentration in RHA but were very good against modern composite armors.
Using it to make an armor equivalence for an APS or that german solution is just stupid. It either works as advertized or doesn't work. It's mike saying afghanit add 2.5m of RHA, that makes no sense. Either it blow up the round or not. It add no armors itself.
Would agree, but would also add that communication and coordination and team work are critical, but an APS system that can yaw APFSDS rounds and stops HEAT rounds and missiles and rockets could make a huge difference... but as was found during WWII when you are in a German unit and your 50 odd tanks are all coordinated and firing at the group of 5 Soviet tanks you just stumbled upon, those Soviet tanks are in trouble and even if the Soviet tanks fire first... what if they all fire at the same German vehicle... and what if they don't penetrate because you only have HE rounds and no armour piercing supplied yet...
If you have such stupid Generals to send 5 tanks with HE to face 50 enemy tanks you would have lost the war before it happens...
APS radar emmits a signal and can be spotted passively 2-3 times its range. Sometimes you don't want it to emmits so it would be turned off.
Btw HE have good penetration values and can take out a tanks if they fire on very weakly protected part like in the rear turret which would send shrapnels in the engine from the top. It can also destroy the tracks. Specially russian HE which are powerfull.
The-thing-next-door- Posts : 1394
Points : 1450
Join date : 2017-09-19
Location : Uranus
Isos wrote:
Btw HE have good penetration values and can take out a tanks if they fire on very weakly protected part like in the rear turret which would send shrapnels in the engine from the top. It can also destroy the tracks. Specially russian HE which are powerfull.
Well wester tanks have a very thin section of roof armor sloped slightly down over the front of the hull to alow the gun to depress, if you were to hit centre of mass with a 125mm shell that tank you hit might not be doing so well, I am not so sure that you would kill anyone, bu that tank is probably of to the scrap heap and hey to the pindos that is worse than losing 10 crews.
One thing we can look at though is the effect of 122mm 152mm and ofcourse 305mm HE shells on nazi tanks during the latter stages of WWII.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Absolute propaganda lmao! 
1.) Hilarious, Kontakt-5 on T-72B3's won't even go off with 30mm autocannon fire.
2.) Kornet out-ranges 20mm autocannon fire by 5 fold, 10km effective range for Kornet vs. 2km for 20mm Autocannon. And 30mm has double the range of 20mm, 4km vs 2km range, and let's not talk about 57mm and new gen 125mm GLATGM with 12km range.
3.) It's hilarious that they show Armata's out in the wide-open to even the odds for the Bellend Invictus lol! Armata's would be hidden behind camo-nets and vegetation vs much louder helicopters exposed in the air. Not including range of Armata weapons, Armatas will detect them 10's of km's before Bell Invictus 360's would detect Armatas.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 95386](https://2img.net/h/forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/95386.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 56914](https://2img.net/h/forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/56914.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 11706](https://2img.net/h/forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/11706.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 67254](https://2img.net/h/forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/67254.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 13 53378](https://2img.net/h/forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/53378.jpg)
1.) Hilarious, Kontakt-5 on T-72B3's won't even go off with 30mm autocannon fire.
2.) Kornet out-ranges 20mm autocannon fire by 5 fold, 10km effective range for Kornet vs. 2km for 20mm Autocannon. And 30mm has double the range of 20mm, 4km vs 2km range, and let's not talk about 57mm and new gen 125mm GLATGM with 12km range.
3.) It's hilarious that they show Armata's out in the wide-open to even the odds for the Bellend Invictus lol!
Armata's would be hidden behind camo-nets and vegetation vs much louder helicopters exposed in the air. Not including range of Armata weapons, Armatas will detect them 10's of km's before Bell Invictus 360's would detect Armatas. Big_Gazza likes this post
LMFS- Posts : 5169
Points : 5165
Join date : 2018-03-04
More Disneyland fantasies for big children
magnumcromagnon and Big_Gazza like this post