What's new

Armata - Russia’s Top-Secret Battle Tank Captured on Video

I've given examples of three different possible ways to address the issue of tank/thermal heat signature. I should at that many a spall-liner also serves as thermal insulator on the vehicle inside. One can also line the engine compartment with specific thermal insolator. There are ways to pre-cool exhaust.

This is a thermal image of Merkava. It does not appear that the engine compartment in particular stands out. I cannot verify for these that the engine is or has been running.
unledztu.jpg


84742f.jpg


Some M1 images
e307c33eae23.jpg

Nightvisionthermal.jpg


Strv 122 Leo2 without Barracuda
300px-Strv122_TIS_rear-left.jpg


300px-Strv122_TIS_front-right.jpg


Same with Barracuda

First pictures look more like night google view instead of thermal camera, which are different..
those last pictures look more like taken from computer games..
If everything is that simple, why Japanese, Koreans, Germans... you name it.. who produce modern tanks didnt design the engine in front?
@cabatli_53 do you have any information about the pros and cons of having the engine in front of the tank?
 
.
First pictures look more like night google view instead of thermal camera, which are different..
those last pictures look more like taken from computer games..
If everything is that simple, why Japanese, Koreans, Germans... you name it.. who produce modern tanks didnt design the engine in front?
@cabatli_53 do you have any information about the pros and cons of having the engine in front of the tank?

They put the engine in the front as added protection for the crew, considering Israel has a small population. After all you are usually trying to keep your front with the most armor towards the enemy. And the added benefit of able to carry extra infantry in the tank.
 
.
They put the engine in the front as added protection for the crew, considering Israel has a small population. After all you are usually trying to keep your front with the most armor towards the enemy. And the added benefit of able to carry extra infantry in the tank.
actually i mentioned these above, but i putted the question wrong. WHy other countries dont put the engine in the front? any other reason i havent mentioned?
 
. .
First pictures look more like night google view instead of thermal camera, which are different..
those last pictures look more like taken from computer games..
If everything is that simple, why Japanese, Koreans, Germans... you name it.. who produce modern tanks didnt design the engine in front?
I don't care what you think of those pics, they are simply illustration.
Where did I say things were simple?
Just because other have not taken a path does that mean that path is somehow wrong?
Most tracked APC, IFV and SPGHs have a front mounted engine.

It is designed for rapid repair of battle damage, survivability, cost-effectiveness and off-road performance. Following the model of contemporary self-propelled howitzers, the turret assembly is located closer to the rear than in most main battle tanks. With the engine in front, this layout is intended to grant additional protection against a frontal attack, especially for the personnel in the main hull, such as the driver. It also creates more space in the rear of the tank that allows increased storage capacity and a rear entrance to the main crew compartment allowing easy access under enemy fire. This allows the tank to be used as a platform for medical disembarkation, a forward command and control station, and an Infantry fighting vehicle. The rear entrance's clamshell-style doors provide overhead protection when off- and on-loading cargo and personnel.

The first Merkava Mk. 1 tanks were supplied to the IDF in April 1979, nearly nine years after the decision to produce the Merkava Mk. 1 tank was taken.
Merkava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deliveries of Leopard 2 started in 1979
The first M1 entered U.S. Army service in 1980
K1 88-Tank mass production began in 1985, with deployment lasting until 1987
The Japanese Type 90 entered service in 1989

The primary characteristics of the Merkava, as delineated by the IDF description of the tank, are:
  • A high-degree of survivability - achieved via modular armor, and augmented by the use of systems for ballistic protection. Examples of this include: the placement of the engine in the front of the tank, and the storage of ammunition in fire-proof containers;
  • Can be used to transport infantry forces.
  • Rear door;
  • 60 millimeter mortar as a secondary source of firepower;
  • Mechanical suspension system which enables a high degree of maneuverability even in difficult terrain, i.e., the Golan Heights.
The Merkava tank's innovative design starts with the engine in front to protect the crew. The basic load for the main gun was 85 rounds but rear doors opened to allow access to a series of ammunition racks holding an additional 200 rounds to facilitate rapid resupply. The tank has sloped sides to repel projectiles as well as reactive armor. In urban combat the Merkava would often sustain multiple hits from RPG-type weapons without damage or crew casualties.
By removing the ammunition racks, the Merkava carries an infantry squad of ten under full armor protection. Tactical use has included positioning a Merkava at the point of entry to a building, using the main gun to breech the wall, then dismounting the squad. The tank can back up to the hole it just created to allow the infantry to dismount directly into the breech.
Israeli IDF Merkava Main Battle Tank

Following General Tal's guidelines, protection remained the highest priority for the Merkava and was never compromised. The initial design, reflected in the Merkava Mk 1 already determines the basic design envelope, with a triangular, flat turret, fitted with typical armor protection cells installed on both sides of the gun. The forward mounted engine, clearing the rear area for an access hatch, stores, and flexible reconfiguration options which are currently taking shape.
A Brief History of the Merkava Tank

The Merkava is the innovative Israeli design of Major General Israel Tal. The primary design criteria was crew survivability. Every part of the overall design is expected to contribute to helping the crew survive. The engine is in the front to provide protection to the crew. There is a special protective umbrella for the tank commander to enable protection from indirect fire with the hatches open. Special "spaced armor" is in use along with protected fuel and ammo compartments. Rear ammunition stowage is combined with a rear entrance and exit. Since the rounds are stowed in containers that can be removed from the vehicle whenever necessary, this space can accommodate tank crewmen who have been forced to abandon their vehicles, or, if thought to be appropriate, even infantrymen. Rear ammunition stowage allows replenishment much more easily than if rounds have to be replaced in a carousel in the hull center, as in typical Russian vehicles. Tank soldiers have long admired Merkava's rear entrance and exit, recognizing that it would allow them to mount and dismount unobserved by the enemy and would provide an excellent alternative escape route. The Merkava can also carry a small Infantry squad internally under complete armored protection.
Main Battle Tank - MERKAVA MBT

Tal used the lessons drawn from the Yom Kippur War to draft a design on what the new tank should be like, with every part playing a role in the protection of the crew. Tal visited friendly Western nations viewing tanks such as the British Chieftain, French AMX-30, German Leopard and American XM-1. He even managed to have a glimpse of the latest Soviet tank (at that time) the T-72. All were impressive, but designed with regard to the relatively flat and open country (compared to Israel's north and east border areas that varied from mountainous at worse to hilly at best) of the North German Plain where NATO and the Warsaw Pact were expected to slug it out. The Israeli tank had to be a desert warrior too (to the west was the desert of the Sinai). Contracts went out to the Israeli defence industry for the design and manufacture of the component sub-systems and gradually an MBT took shape that was of a unique design. Finally, in May 1979 on Israel's 31st anniversary, the Merkava Mk 1 was unveiled with many of the assembled military attachés being taken aback by its low and sloped design. The total cost of research, development and production of the early prototypes amounted to some $65 million. The first production tanks were delivered to the 7th Armoured Brigade led by Colonel Avigdor Kahalani. The Merkava first saw action in the June 1982 invasion of southern Lebanon, codenamed Operation Peace for Galilee and afforded its crews significant advantages in protection over the Centurions and M60s. Only seven Merkavas were destroyed and a number damaged and the percentage of tank crews killed was far lower in Merkava equipped units. Tal's vision had paid dividends.
Merkava Main Battle Tank (Israel)

It is not just 'engine in front' but also using placement of diesel fuel tanks etc to augment armor protectino. Munition is placed as low and to the rear as much as possible, away from danger, and protected. Crew can exit quickly and easily. New combined arms tactics are facilitated.

Not so sure that has a rear exit ...

I don't think, the last photos even real. Looks like some computer simulator.
agree, but it should be evident that track area and turretring are highly visible even in 'normal' tanks.
greentan.jpg
 
.
actually i mentioned these above, but i putted the question wrong. WHy other countries dont put the engine in the front? any other reason i havent mentioned?


Probably the same reason why some countries prefer delta wing aircraft and others do not--preference. Both designs have advantages, a front engine tank or APC will provide more protection in the front and allow room for troops in the rear to dismount safely. The Merkava is radically different from other tanks, but Israel felt it was necessary to go through the trouble of designing a fundamentally different type of tank to insure better crew survivability. Other countries may not feel it is necessary to deviate from known tank designs which are proven. Also having a engine in the rear will protect the crew better in urban combat. So again it comes down to preference, rear engine: proven design, good all around protection. Front engine: better frontal protection and room for troops.
 
.
I don't care what you think of those pics, they are simply illustration.
Where did I say things were simple?
Just because other have not taken a path does that mean that path is somehow wrong?
Most tracked APC, IFV and SPGHs have a front mounted engine.


Merkava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deliveries of Leopard 2 started in 1979
The first M1 entered U.S. Army service in 1980
K1 88-Tank mass production began in 1985, with deployment lasting until 1987
The Japanese Type 90 entered service in 1989


Israeli IDF Merkava Main Battle Tank


A Brief History of the Merkava Tank


Not so sure that has a rear exit ...
you should check their youtube video, you can confirm for yourself their rear exit..

I think you should update your notes..
I would put armor in front instead of wasting the engine from any anti tank missile..
Another problem having engine in the forward, when you try to cross long trenches, your tanks forward will fall down first and will not be able to pass the trench. another design failure.. i will add some pictures to explain my ideas better
Screen shot 2015-03-29 at 5.35.29 AM.png
Screen shot 2015-03-29 at 5.35.43 AM.png
Screen shot 2015-03-29 at 5.36.07 AM.png
Screen shot 2015-03-29 at 5.34.04 AM.png
Screen shot 2015-03-29 at 5.34.14 AM.png



Why dont you talk about type 10 which is entered service in 2012? or Korean K2 tanks..?
Tanks main job is not to carry soldiers. As i mentioned, there are IFVs... for those tasks. if the thermal is not problem, they would not use Auxiliary Power Unit in modern tanks.. which you can insist that designed to save gas, but the main idea to pay for that engine is to hide it from thermal cameras.. just and example, new atack Helicopter can see tanks from 20 km away with their thermal cameras..


also another threat..
The 675-pound AGM-65G was meant for killing Soviet tanks. The sensor would detect the heat of a tank’s engine and guide the missile to blast through the vehicle’s thin top armor. But it’s possible for a pilot to see what the missile sees—via a television screen inside the cockpit—without actually launching the munition.
 
.
Ironically one of the most popular drawbacks from such frontal engine design, like the case of the merkava, is in fact the 'survivability'.
 
.
you should check their youtube video, you can confirm for yourself their rear exit..

I think you should update your notes..
I would put armor in front instead of wasting the engine from any anti tank missile..
Another problem having engine in the forward, when you try to cross long trenches, your tanks forward will fall down first and will not be able to pass the trench. another design failure.. i will add some pictures to explain my ideas betterView attachment 208651 View attachment 208652 View attachment 208653 View attachment 208654 View attachment 208655


Why dont you talk about type 10 which is entered service in 2012? or Korean K2 tanks..?
Tanks main job is not to carry soldiers. As i mentioned, there are IFVs... for those tasks. if the thermal is not problem, they would not use Auxiliary Power Unit in modern tanks.. which you can insist that designed to save gas, but the main idea to pay for that engine is to hide it from thermal cameras.. just and example, new atack Helicopter can see tanks from 20 km away with their thermal cameras..


also another threat..
The 675-pound AGM-65G was meant for killing Soviet tanks. The sensor would detect the heat of a tank’s engine and guide the missile to blast through the vehicle’s thin top armor. But it’s possible for a pilot to see what the missile sees—via a television screen inside the cockpit—without actually launching the munition.
Uhm, there is no rear exit visible in the video that was posted, to which I responded. If a vid is available which clearly shows a rear exit, pls feel free to post it for our enjoyment.
Uhm, why am I expected to defend Israëli design choices? I'm Dutch and I don't own stock in the Israëli companies involved.
Uhm, why do I have to discuss non-contemporaries to the Merkava? Esp. since I discussed those type put forward by other posters.
So, pls remove chip from shoulder and do your own work as analist..
 
Last edited:
.
Uhm, there is no rear exit visible in the video that was posted, to which I responded. If a vid is available which clearly shows a rear exit, pls feel free to post it for our enjoyment.
Uhm, why am I expected to defend Israëli design choices? I'm Dutch and I don't own stock in the Israëli companies involved.
Uhm, why do I have to discuss non-contemporaries to the Merkava? Esp. since I discussed those type put forward by other posters.
So, pls remove chip from shoulder and do your own work as analist..
Watch this youtube video after 8:10, you will see the door i was talking about. Enjoy your watch.. ;)

Ironically one of the most popular drawbacks from such frontal engine design, like the case of the merkava, is in fact the 'survivability'.
can you explain what exactly you mean?
 
. .
In March, a Russian motorist filmed a very unusual, camouflaged tank rolling down a street outside Moscow. Most likely, it was the mysterious T-14 — or Armata — heavy tank, which could represent a major evolution in Russian tank design.

The Kremlin has largely kept the T-14 under wraps, both literally and metaphorically. But we have a pretty good idea of what it can do.

The T-14 weighs around 50 tons and has a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine. The tank’s three-man crew operates the vehicle and its weapons from a capsule in the front. It doesn’t lack for protection — packing both composite and reactive armor.

The tank has an unmanned, remote-controlled turret armed with a 125-millimeter smoothbore cannon — which the Russian defense press claims is 15 to 20 percent more accurate than the existing cannon on the T-90, the Russian army’s most advanced current tank.

But like a giant Lego kit for military use, the T-14 is just one part of the Armata Universal Combat Platform — an entirely new generation of armored, tracked military vehicles.
The Kremlin hopes to use the same chassis as the T-14 for as many as 13 different vehicles. This includes an infantry fighting vehicle, a combat engineering vehicle, a tank support combat vehicle and a self-propelled artillery platform.

It’s no surprise that Russian military media and official government news outlets are touting the prowess of the new tank, claiming it will equal the American M-1 Abrams and the German Leopard.
That claim could be propaganda. But two things are for certain.

The first is that the Russian army already has a limited number of them for testing. Second, despite current problems with the Russian economy, the project is moving forward.

Using a single chassis for lots of different armored vehicles is probably a shrewd move, too. The main reason … it’s cheaper that way.

The Kremlin pushed for a uniform tank chassis even during the Soviet era, according to Charles Bartles, a Russia analyst at the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.

“Imagine if you were responsible for maintaining a brigade’s rolling stock and had several different heavy track chassis,” Bartles told War Is Boring. “You would have to keep enough spare parts and folks trained to attach those spare parts for all those chassis.”
For example, Russia duplicated the T-72 tank chassis when developing a number of other vehicles. This kept costs down, and helped simplify maintenance and logistics.

“It is far easier to forecast and provide maintenance when you only need to worry about one chassis type,” Bartles added. “Plus, there are lots of options for ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’ It is common practice in most armies including the U.S. to pull parts from lower priority working equipment to make higher priority non-functioning equipment work.”

The Russians — both during and after the Soviet period — were famous for keeping almost everything in their inventory, no matter how old the equipment. The practice is tolerable for a huge conscript army, but can be a nightmare for supply sergeants.

It wasn’t until the turn of the century that Russia began eliminating some of its oldest and most superfluous weapons and hardware. The purge is part of a massive modernization program that Pres. Vladimir Putin is pursuing for Russia’s military.
1*dmePIB7J5i_bwt652fPtSg.jpeg

Above — a Russian schematic of the new T-14 tank translated into English by a U.S. Army analyst. Illustration via the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office. At top — T-14 sighting near Moscow. Capture via YouTube
However, when developing the Armata Universal Combat Platform and the resulting T-14, the Kremlin turned to a familiar source.

The massive industrial firm Uralvagonzavod spent five years designing and developing the T-14 before manufacturing the first batch. Located in the Nizhny Tagil industrial complex in the Central Urals, the same design center developed the T-72 and T-90 tanks, currently in Russia’s arsenal.

The T-14 has a fully automated ammunition loading system, and the targeting system is completely computerized. Besides the cannon, the tank bristles with exterior guns, including a 30-millimeter autocannon for targeting drones or attack helicopters. Lastly, it has a 12.7-millimeter machine gun for anti-personnel use.

Russian media reports claim the Russian army received 20 T-14s for field tests and hands-on training.

In addition, the Russian army moved an unspecified number of T-14s to the Alabino military training grounds, which is home to the 5th Guards Separate Mechanized Infantry Brigade. The facility is 29 miles southwest of Moscow and is traditionally the site for rehearsals held in preparation for the May 9 Victory Day Parade.

The parade in Red Square commemorates the end of World War II, and is often where the Kremlin publicly unveils its latest military hardware.

Some analysts suggest that the Russians could display other uses of the Armata chassis during the parade, including a new model BMP — which is a type of infantry fighting vehicle. But we’ll believe it when we see it.

The Russian army wants to build around 2,300 T-14s by 2020, equipping up to 70 percent of its tank fleet with the new model. The tanks would replace the T-72 and most T-90s.

That’s probably highly optimistic, especially during an economic recession. But the Kremlin is banking on its economy to eventually improve. And if Russia follows past practices, it will likely put the T-14 up for sale on the export market to help cover domestic production costs.

“As for the export situation, developing a weapon system and then putting it into production is a huge expense,” Bartles said. “Obviously, since Russian military industries are quasi-government, there is a vested interest in generating revenue, but there is also the advantage of economies of scale.”

“Based on previous projects — T-90, Iskander-E — and the state of the Russian economy, I would say that getting the T-14 into the export market will be a top priority,” he added.
 
.
The T-14 weighs around 50 tons and has a 1,500-horsepower gas turbine engine. The tank’s three-man crew operates the vehicle and its weapons from a capsule in the front. It doesn’t lack for protection — packing both composite and reactive armor.


No one knows the T-14's true weight. It is definitely well over 50 tons. The T-90 is about 50 tons and the T-14 is massive compared to it. The T-14 uses a new lightweight armor which helps keep weight down but because of its size and amount of armor it can not possible be 50 tons. If it is i would be shocked.

There were some rumors that the T-14 is 63 tons when the tank is fully loaded. Which seems reasonable given its size. The weight figure which most report the T-14 to is 55 tons but i am leaning more towards 60+ tons.
 
. . .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom