Front engine tank

>>33447242
I think that there's a chance the cabin can be penetrated and the crew can keep fighting, so it's better to risk that than have an instant mobility kill.

>>33447341
forgot to mention I know nothing so I'm probably wrong.

A non penetrating hit on the front glacis would jar the crew.
the same shock could cause damage to the engine an result in a mission kill.

also, you have now put the main thermal component of the tank infront of the gunner, limiting the accuracy of any thermal sights and raising the frontal thermal profile of the tank which may allow you to be spotted easier by any enemy forces closing on you and cost you the 1st shot advantage.

thirdly you severaly limit the gun depression you can attain over the frontal hull, this drastically limits your ability to use make shift hull down locations, a core of western tank design

>>33447433
Also Western Tanks are designed to swap powerpacks (engine and gearbox) very quickly in the field with a small crane on a recovery vehicle. in front engine designs this is not possible due to the weight of the frontal glacis

>>33447242
It raises the profile of the tank., the height needed for the powerpack is greater than that of a reclined driver, this then leads to a raised turret ring to clear it - as opposed to the undercut seen on the rear of most turrets today

>>33447433
third point is invalid, merkava gets between -8 to -10 degrees of gun depresion, its the turret roof that limits it.

the thermics that inturapt the sights is a non issue.

i would say that the main problem is control. when you have this big nose in front of you (insert jew joke here) its a little harder to control aspacialy in urban combat, and also provide exposure time while going out from narrow streets

>>33447563
good point

>>33447595
7 degrees, it was designed with that limitation to prevent the risk of gun collision with the UFP

>the thermics that interupts the sights is a non issue.
Having a radiator infront of a thermal optic thats is meant to be accurate at reading temps out to over a click away is a ridiculously bad idea, the gun sights need cooling to address heat issues in the lenses themselves never mind the intervening air

>>33447242
A rear engine design can be a mission kill but not a mobility kill, this allows the crew to fall back

A front engine tank is a mission and mobility kill, this means you are now locked in place on the front lines requiring support to drag it back, this bogs down more man power.

>>33447242
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-drawbacks-of-front-mounted-engines.html

Here you go

>>33447242
>Seems like it would be a better way to design tanks
That is if you want a paper thin glacis.
>the extra protection for the crew
Engine provides almost no extra protection, compared to a proper glacis. It's fine for an IFV, not for a tank.

File: Merkava IV Trophy.jpg (187KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x532px

>>33447242
it's something that just isn't necessary. Keep in mind that we see this design on very few, if any modern MBTs aside from the Merkava. The reason for this is that the Merkava was designed around a very specific set or requirements, which had arguably never been seen before in the history of tank development.

The Merkava is a vehicle designed around keeping it's crew alive. We see some aspects of this in Western tanks, where crew training made these men a fairly valuable resource. In Eastern design the sheer volume of vehicles meant that losing a tank wasn't so much of an issue. However, when your manpower is as numerically limited and as well trained as Israel's (I'm not saying they're great, but they're better than any given group of hajis), keeping these soldiers alive becomes that much more important.

So then, all of this works it's way into the design. I'm not sure which came first, but the frontally mounted engine offers greater protection, while leaving the rear of the vehicle available for additional storage (allowing crews of knocked out vehicles to be safely recovered, or for vehicles to carry their own escort into combat).

What it all boils down to is the user's needs. Israel needed a tank that could take a hit. Size and weight weren't an issue, and thus we have the configuration in question.

>>33447433
>also, you have now put the main thermal component of the tank infront of the gunner, limiting the accuracy of any thermal sights

That's not true. At all.

>>33447825
>The Merkava is a vehicle designed around keeping it's crew alive

It was built around Israel not having access to the same sort of composite armor as Germany, Britain, and US

>>33448112
The Merkava is a vehicle designed around keeping it's crew alive without the benefit of advanced composite materials.

There, happy?

File: 1485016995011.png (2MB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1063px

>>33448112
>It was built around Israel not having access to the same sort of composite armor as Germany, Britain, and US

Israel doesn't have air?

The Merkava is only good for Israel's purpose and doctrine. It is useless for both the Soviets and NATO.

Doctrine dictates equipment. The Soviets needed to be able to cross rivers and drop from planes, Japan needs light tanks that can be moved by rail and roads, South East Asia needs light tanks that won't get stuck in the jungles.

It doesn't matter if one vehicle is better than the other, if they fit the doctrine the country has, then it works.

>>33448342
>It doesn't matter if one vehicle is better than the other, if they fit the doctrine the country has, then it works.

A fair point, but only assuming that the vehicle is fighting on it's own turf. A tank designed to fight primarily on flat ground isn't going to fare well when it's owner decides to invade a mountainous nation.

>>33447563
this

>>33448222
>The Merkava is a vehicle designed around keeping it's crew alive without the benefit of advanced composite materials.

Yes

>>33448327
As I understand it, such modules were not present on the Merkava I