So I was thinking about the Armata, with its little three-crew

>>33760689
The tank is more valuable than the training that went into the crew.

>>33760689
>fuel in front

welcomes to burnsville, pop. Crew

>engine in the front
ishiggydidggyduu

>>33760711

Lol

>>33760713

Diesel doesn't burn like you think it does. Fuel tanks also function like armor when they're hit with something because, due to being filled with liquid, they are extremely dense. It's like shooting a handgun into a pool.

The Leclerc actually has a fuel tank in the front for exactly this reason.

>>33760715

What's wrong with that?

All the things that expolde in the front. Nice.

How heavily do you plan to armor the crew because having fuel+engine+barrel at the front and nothing but three guys at the rear would surely make it a very front heavy tank?

>>33760761
As opposed to all the non-exploding things in a tank, like... ammo? Wait.

>>33760715
OP is a faggot, but engine at the front is hardly unheard of.

File: 14800430_980x1200_0.jpg (56KB, 980x711px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 980x711px

What if we took OP's idead and turned it up to 11 and put the crew WAY back on the vehicle?

>>33760761

As opposed to what?

>>33760885

Sure, but why would you put it in a separate hull?

And IIRC that vehicle's crew is all in the front hull. The thing behind it is where the ammo is stored.

>>33760715
The jewas did it with the Merkava and works enough to kill sandniggers

>>33760689
kek'd at filename

File: gxiabL9.jpg (281KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1500x1125px

>>33760689

File: 929Go1F.jpg (186KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1500x1125px

>>33763345

File: image002.jpg (48KB, 664x559px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 664x559px

>>33763355

>>33760689
You dumb dumb, the back of the tank is the weakest part.

>>33763385
Did you even read his post? I don't think it's a good idea, but still. The weakest part of the tank is that which requires the least amount of protection, ie where the crew isn't. Most tanks have crew forward, and engine at the rear, so the rear armor is the weakest. If that was reversed, one could even out the armor profile. It's not a law that you have to put less armor on the rear of a vehicle. If we were so inclined we could make a tank with composite armor plating around the engine and corrugated aluminum sheets around the crew compartment.

>>33763461
Front armor is the strongest because the tank needs to be protected from things it's pointed towards and traveling towards, more than anything else.

File: Abrams and Merkava.png (469KB, 985x426px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 985x426px

>>33760689
If you want a non-meme answer, it's about weight balancing and height.

The height of the hull is mainly determined by the tallest component that has to fit in it. The lower the hull can be made, the more weight you save. Tank engines that provide the necessary power are quite big, enough so that crewmen sitting in a reclined position is shorter than the engine. If you put the engine in front, you have to make the front hull and necessary armored area larger, and the tank heavier. If you put the engine at the back, you can raise the unarmored engine deck, since shots from the front are blocked by the turret.

Compare the front hull height of the Merkava and Abrams. All that height has to be armored, which is heavy.

>>33763525
>Implying a tank with an even all-around armor layout needs to weaken it's frontal armor to do so.

>>33763546
this though. Thank you not shit anon

>>33763550
It does. How much weight you can put on a tank is a zero sum game. If you thicken the side and rear armor, you necessarily have less front armor than you could have otherwise. Engineering is all about tradeoffs.

>>33763525
>implying armor is relevant in the 21st century
shaped charges and high speed projectiles exist now, armor hasn't mattered since WW2

>>33760689
Why not just make the crew walk behind the tank?

>>33763700
Then why make a tank at all? Just use self-propelled artillery for everything.

>>33763676
This is assuming you're modifying an existing tank. It was my understanding that OP was porpoising a totally new platform, in which case you can put whatever the fuck you want on it. I'm not speaking in terms of practicality here, just possibility.

>>33763700
the 1960s called; they want their armor theory back.

In case you haven't noticed, tanks designed with this in mind, such as the Leopard 1 and AMX 30 are being replaced by vehicles with proper composite armor.

>>33764195
Take your hypothetical tank. Remove some of the armor from the sides and back. Now you can add more amour to the front!

>>33764219
I mean, this is assuming that the armor wasn't adequate to begin with. I get your point though.

File: k777.jpg (102KB, 685x960px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 685x960px

>>33763723
perhaps...
mechanized infantry?