Merkava.

[Marcello]

Well, the way that website is organized is a festering sore for sure. Frankly most of pictures simply refuse to load on my browser, so I have to withold my judgement.
That said with statements worded like this...

It should be noted that it is a ballistic military fact a MBT can not be destroyed, not even by one's own Air Force and artillery and even when it is on purpose!

One can be forgiven if he starts looking for the closest pinch of salt



(OK not an IV but still...)

If you can post the pictures showing the internal arrangement of the rear compartment we can get a better idea. Preferibly one with both ammo and troops if available.

In tank design there is not such a thing such as free lunch. Increased volume must mean either inferior protection or greater weight, basic geometry at work here.
Perhaps they decided they wanted both an APC level of troop carrying capacity, good armor and 40+ rounds at the same time.
In principle you can centainly have that.
But then I would expect a very steep penalty in terms of weight for that, certainly those early rumors I heard about 90 tons Merkava IV would start to sound a lot more sensible in this case.

[kevineduguay1]

Marcello,

The site takes forever to load but is worth the wait.

The statement you refer to sounds very far feched and your photos prove the point.
I belive the author was writing about a Merkava that had to be abandon in Lebanon. The Israelis did not whan the vehicle to fall into enemy hands. Fearing that it might despite their efforts a mission was sent out to strip the vehicle of everything that could be stripped. They kept a watchful eye on the remaining hulk to make sure it was not towed away before they themselves could do the same. To secure the vehicle the Israelis not only dropped artillery on that tank they also called in air strikes to keep enemy salvagers away from the wreck.
To top it all off, the remains of the tank were finnaly recovered and seeing that there was only minor damage to the hull that tank was re-built.

[kevineduguay1]

I have two pics. One id from the inside. 4 men a visable not counting the photographer. The caption says that 4 men have already deployed from the vehicle.

Pic 2 shows part of the rear of the vehicle. But the rear door and some of the seats are shown.

4 seats per side. Another section in the same site says that the layout of the Namer APC troop compartment and that of the Merkava is almost identicle.


EDIT. The pics I have will not up-load for some reason. I'll try again.

[Imp]

The site is a total mess easy to miss all the links somewhere near the bottom there are links that show some inside views.
It does appear roomy & could probably operate as a short range battlefield taxi with a reasonable ammo load on board. However the ammo seems to be stored near the clamshell rear doors so once the magazine is empty you would not be able to reload till the passengers got out. Guessing here but not for use cross country unless you want injury more to drop off & support a patrol as a sign of strength, riding into combat I just cant see.
Wheres gingertanker when you need him.

[Imp]

4 seats per side. Another section in the same site says that the layout of the Namer APC troop compartment and that of the Merkava is almost identicle

I would say the pictures dont tie in with this, Merk very cramped though incredibly roomy for a tank due to shoehorning the engine in the front.
Namer is a limo most spacious APC ever? nice well spaced seating & decent headroom.
How is simple crew & electronics take up a lot less space & the Namer if anything offers a bigger profile as the superstructure runs the full length & is around half turret height.

[kevineduguay1]

From another site....


"Following the model of contemporary self-propelled howitzers, the turret assembly is located nearer the rear than in most main battle tanks. This gives the crew additional protection against a frontal attack by putting the engine between them and the front of the tank. This arrangement also creates an otherwise unused space in the rear of the tank that allows increased storage capacity, as well as a rear entrance to the main crew cabinet allowing easy access even under enemy fire. This allows the tank to be used as a platform for medical disembarkation, a forward command and control station, and an armored personnel carrier. The rear entrance's clamshell-style doors provide overhead protection when off- and on-loading cargo and personnel"

[Imp]

There is no disputing it can carry some passengers that much is obvious, unless you can find a better photo though Merk rear compartment is a tight space with 8 troops on board causing ammo to be stored against the rear hull.
The crew compartment is seperated from it by a wall with a doorway on the left (if facing tank front)
This arrangement looks therefore like it is not possible to use the storred ammo with passengers on board.
From a storage point of view does look more sensible than it sounds.
Rear hull has 2 large bustles attached with additional equipment in which will help defeat HEAT.
The ammo is as far away from the crew as possible & in a seperate compartment if fire fighting equipment needs to go off.
Any penetration in the dead space where the engine normaly is should be survivable by the tank with at worst some crew injury if internal wall spalls, several videos showing this.

[Marcello]

Originally Posted by kevineduguay1

From another site....
This arrangement also creates an otherwise unused space in the rear of the tank that allows increased storage capacity, as well as a rear entrance to the main crew cabinet allowing easy access even under enemy fire. This allows the tank to be used as a platform for medical disembarkation, a forward command and control station, and an armored personnel carrier.

Putting the engine to the front does not automatically create any new space. By itself it only makes possible rear access and the creation of a multipurpose rear compartment.
But it a design choice which comes with trade offs.
Otherwise a simple "engine to the front" configuration would result in something like this:


Not much in the way of storage space, even if a rear hatch was added.

The Centauro has a configuration similar to Merkava: front engine, rear turret and rear hull access. But adding troops there means reducing ammo (or creating a lenghtened version, as it was done).

[Imp]

It is quite intresting actually if you look at a Merk side profile the turret is not that far back compared to a standard layout. This begs the question where is the fuel thats a very compact engine bay if a reasonable amount is stored forward. My thinking is wherever they have put the rest of the fuel has created the rear storage space.
Very quick unsubstantiated look capacity is between Leo 2 + Chally, Abrams obviously needs to carry a lot more.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Imp

Wheres gingertanker when you need him.

I've sent him a PM but I have no way of knowing if it's even going to an active account until he replys

Don