Thanks. Interesting.The US military is not designed for efficiency neccessarily but more to make defense contractors $$$$$. It's ironic that the USA out of any country requires a tank engine that can consume any type of fuel when the US is the worlds sole superpower and will most likely NEVER be out of the preferred fuel they desire. Those engines are probably much more expensive than traditional diesel motors. The Russians tried using gasoline engines on some T-80's but had a terrible experience and never went back.
You know what's impressive. The German Leopard tank. The engine can be swapped in literally 20 minutes. It's incredible. This is why I don't understand why the Turks wanted to move away from the Leopard rather than upgrading it. See that's an example of a country putting their faith into hype rather than the Iranian military doctrine, where they invest in deterrence and mostly proven technology.
The AGT-1500 engine can run on Jet Fuel, Gasoline, Diesel and Marine Diesel.
Basically every Main Battle tank that has ever been fielded with the exception of the Swedish Stridsvagn-103 AKA "S-Tank" is comprised of a Hull and Turret. The Hull in most tanks is configured with the driver's positioned in the front, The fighting compartment ( the Turret housing the Gunner, Crew commander ,loader/ Auto loader) in the Center the engine deck in the rear. There are exceptions to this layout like the Israeli Merkava Series MBTs that has the engine up front next to the Driver leaving space in the back for 4 troops or extra ammo. T-14 is also another exception because the driver ,gunner and crew commander are housed housed in an armoured capsule in the front, the unmanned turret and auto loader in the center and the engine/transmission in the rear. The layout that you describe to me seems problematic because those 4 engines and their transmissions and would be taking up space in the fighting compartment which is usually very tight space because it has to house the main armament, the Gunner, crew commander, loader/auto loader and possibly even ammo. Another problem I see with your Idea is that having 4 engines means that maintenance which is normally preformed by the driver will be much more intensive. With any tracked vehicles, track maintenance is already bad enough!
View attachment 777060
All modern tanks have Multi bank smoke grenade dischargers. The Smoke dischargers are angled to fire in front of the tank to create a smoke screen, allowing the tank to take cover behind terrain. There are different types of smoke grenades that can be fired including White Phosphorus grenades which would be really bad for any infantry in front of the tank. Soviet/Russian tanks also have the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting diesel on the hot exhaust plate creating a thick white smoke pumped out of the engine exhaust vent. In general inhaling any kind of smoke would not be very good for troops and can cause asphyxiation.
View attachment 777061
Nice, thank you. More question:
If the track is half the length (from covering 3 wheels, instead of 6/7), does that NOT TRANSLATE into less stress on the track, longer longevity, less chance of snapping/breaking? Or am I totally wrong?
The engines can be positioned (a pair coupled together) in the front and in the back, as are many tanks, no?
More redundancy, the tank would be able to operate on only 2 engines, one in the front and one in the back for each pair of tracks on the left and the right (front or rear) ?
No, doesn't make any sense?