Merkava. TAM. Ferdinand. Chrysler K. All these tank designs have a common feature - their turrets are mounted at the rear of the vehicle. But why? What are the advantages of placing your engine in front of your turret? Why do we not see this configuration in all tank designs? A lot of questions to answer in 6 minutes but somehow I manage. Glad to be back!
DISCORD: / discord
PATREON: / redwrenchfilms
Grant drivetrain footage from The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum:
• WORKSHOP WEDNESDAY: Re...
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:25 The Centre-Mounted Layout
02:03 Moving Things Rearward
03:03 Merkava - A Modern Example
03:40 Centre-Mount Superiority?
04:55 Current State
05:25 Outro
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by its copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".
Music by Epidemic Sound
1:25 *driveshaft drivetrain is the term for everything that's involved in powering the vehicle, engines, transmissions, transfer cases, differentials, etc
Furious at myself. 5 years of engineering school to make a mistake like this… Pinned this as well because I know everyone will be making the same comment! Cheers for pointing it out anyway - hope you enjoyed the rest ;)
@@RedWrenchFilms nothing tragic, I certainly enjoyed the video, 5 years engineering school? sounds a lot like me except I didn't graduate😭 will have to go back in for one year to get my degree
@imnotusingmyrealname4566 Don't worry about it. I hear that it is difficult and a lot of people loose a year or two.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 oof, what engineering discipline?
@@RedWrenchFilms you forgot to mention that maintenance is easier when the engine is rear mounted
I honestly never thought about the fact that the driver can’t comunicate in a good way with the commander
Commander: Driver, turn left! "Meanwhile in front of the roaring engine" Driver: *W A T??!!*
well the commander needs to communicate with the radioman in the front as well so or more expensive because you need more radios but you csn work around it that way
Arguably... it is somewhat the wrong way round. The commander has a harder time communicating with the driver. In plenty other tanks, the commander is pretty able to communicate with the driver by kicking his shoulders.
@@FrancisFjordCupola oh right I totally forgot that method of communication😂
Driver right in front of the turret, rest of the front sloped all the way down to the front wheels.
The Merkava being able to carry infantry in the back isn't technically untrue, but its more of a misunderstanding, Its only possible by removing a majority of the vehicles main gun ammo. As far as i'm aware the ability is there so that it can transport wounded soldiers in a hurry, although the practically of that sounds questionable.
If the Merkeva have the similar ammunition arrangement like the Abrams; it wouldn't need to stowed ammunition in the hull. Another major issue is the engine is mostly hollowed out aluminum offering almost no addition protection for the crew. Even when engines were still mostly made out of steel, the steel isn't the same steel alloys use in armor.
@@mislovrit Yeah, i don't particularly like the design of the Merk, It could've made sense as a early cold war tank, but in an age of composites its just a liability.
@@mislovritEngine Block isn't gonna stop the Main Body of Projectile, An APFSDS round is gonna soar through Like Nothing, but it's gonna slow it down and It's gonna stop any additional Fragments
Merkava is a downright dangerous Vehicle for Infantry to be in, if they move a little bit forward they can get caught in the Rotating turret, Like 10 tonnes of electronically driven Steel, turrets have no problem breaking hands, legs, or taking lives even There isn't enough of a space to stay behind turret ring. In an extremely emergency situation however Yes, you could cram one or two soldiers between ammunition racks, but they are entirely blocking the exit which of course isn't ideal Merkava isn't an IFV, a P38 has picked up wounded Troops too, doesn't make it a transport plane
@@mislovritM1s have hull ammo stowage
one of the most successful "rear mounted turret" is the AMX-13, the idea was that this light recon/infantry support was very short and could still use a full length gun (75 then 90mm) while being able to fit in airplanes, the driver was seated beside the engine, this tank was used for a long time, even receiving ATGMs to compensate for the aging guns
Israel took some of the concepts from this tank
I hate playing against that tank lol
We had the AMX 13 with 105 mm cannon in the Dutch Army. Great fast tank, low profile,quick reload, thin armor, weak clutch, petrol engine..
@@patverum9051 "Commander we are under heavy enemy fire! We have multiple penetrations!" "Relax it is just rain" (About the thin armor)
AMX-13, the MBT of the Indonesian army. Yes even in 2023 they still use it as their mainline tank. Modified with a diesel engine and better targeting systems and sights. There's also a proposed upgrade with composite turret armor and new 105mm gun, and also another new diesel engine.
Ironically putting the turret in the middle is where you put it when trying to find the middle ground between all the pros and cons.
Ironically you literally can't put it any more forward than on BTs and T-34 without also putting the driver in it ala MBT-70, which is how they wanted to shorten the tank. Meanwhile in russia: ivan, why not put engine transversally?
A con that wasn't mentioned and is a deal-breaker in most cases is access to the powerpack (engine and transmission) for maintenance.
My understanding of the Merkava design was it was built around the concept of crew survivability more than anything else as you can always replace a tank but trained tank crews are a finite resource.
Indeed, but with new APFSDS round that protection offered by the engine is somewhat lessened.
@@FrenzyczczczTank combat is not always common place nowadays, especially in Ukraine. By the time the Merkava is in tank combat it’s in a hull down position.
@Frenzyczczcz the APFSDs isn't new (1960s) and a ton of engine will most certainly make a difference
@@dogfaceponysoldier Yes, it is not new. However, the engine was placed there to protect the crew from HEAT. It will certainly make difference against sabot, however, probably not too much.
That is technically true, but not in the way most laymen think it is. The Merkava was a stop gap solution, its design born out of scarcity and necessity. The Israelis were trying to buy and license modern armor technology from the British, but they refused to sell it to the Israelis, so they were forced to misappropriate the tank's engine as makeshift armor. With other words, they were forced to use the engine as armor because they didn't have good normal armor. Now Israel of course has proper armor technology, or could have it, but they are still stuck with the basic design of the Merkava. They are sticking to it more for political and traditional reasons than because it would actually be advantageous. Having the weight of the engine and transmission at the front heavily limits how heavy and voluminous you can make the frontal armor. The Merkava has a relatively weak frontal hull armor compared to other tanks like the Abrams or the Leopard 2, but it still is very front heavy, which limits its mobility. There are many pictures of Merkavas which nose-dived into ditches and craters or even tumbled down cliffs and steep hillsides. This limiting effect a frontal engine has on frontal armor is why Infantry Fighting Vehicles are always relatively weakly armored. The Germans decided in the 80s that they would develop a new family of armored vehicles with MBTs and IFVs based on the same chassis, where the IFV would have the same strong armor protection as the MBT. The whole project failed because they couldn't find a proper way to put MBT levels of frontal armor protection on a vehicle that has the ability to transport and quickly dismount infantry. One of the ideas was to still put the engine at the back but to the side and leave a 80 cm (31 inches) wide walkway next to it for infantry to get in and out. On the MBT version of the vehicle, that space would have been used for a carousel replenishment auto loader (meaning a secondary auto loader that doesn't load the gun directly, but loads the primary auto loader which then loads the gun, like on the Stryker MGS). They dropped that idea because that tunnel would have been too narrow for the troops to disembark quickly in combat and too unsafe. The reason why I am going on that tangent here is to point out how it is a hard fact of armored vehicle design that the engine at the front makes it impossible to also have strong armor at the front. But back to the Merkava: In a way the IDF is a victim of its own hype. For so long they have spread the myth that the Merkava is the best protected tank with the most crew survivability because of having the engine at the front, that if they would change things now and make a new tank with a more traditional design and strong frontal armor, the Israeli people would be outraged and ask: "Does that mean now that the new tank has less crew survivability or have you been lying to us for 50 years?"
That gun overhang also means you can depress the gun further. Which is a giant advantage.
he never mentioned the weight distribution, which would topple the tank when fired…
Drivers felt lonely
I also love some of the WWII era American prototypes like the T20, T23, and T25 with their rear-mounted transmissions. The former basically looks like a shorter and flattened Sherman, then you can see the clear line towards the Pershing design. Lower profile, more space and weight affordability in the front, and more armor/firepower as a result. That became the standard post-war for most nations.
almost all soviet tanks had rear mounted transmission
Most nations where doing rear mounted transmissions before the war. This video is just bad history.
@@impguardwarhamer I agree it should be mentioned, but to be fair it wasn't very popular until automatic transmission. Soviets simply didn't care how bad time driver had wrestling with the gears, since the size and weight reduction from it are so great on paper. About the British tanks I don't really know, though I haven't heard a good word about ergonomics or reliability of British WWII tanks either. Didn't Cromwell have somekind of semi-automatic gearbox?
@@Teh0X you dont need an automatic gearbox you just use a gear linkage. It's awkward yes, but it was done. It was widely used by the British and Soviets, and French tanks built in the run up to the war used it too. Literally the only countries that didn't use rear mounted transmissions (that wern't just building vickers clones) was America and Germany, which for some reason OP and Wrench are pretending where innovators on the concept.
@@impguardwarhamer Awkward to say the least. It was straight out hampering mobility, though I understand it was made even worse by the friction clutch mechanism widely used in USSR and few other countries, until more advanced alternatives became available. No doubt the smaller tank producing countries were just sticking to working foreign solutions like Vickers as long as they didn't venture too far. With that the best they got were probably tanks like Chi-Nu at tad under 20 tons. For the 30 ton Chi-To the Japanese had to impelement bit more advanced (copied) tech.
One downside you didn't mention about rear-mounted turrets is that in order to get out from cover in a combat situation in order to shoot, you have to expose more of your hull (depending on how the cover looks like), while with a middle, or front-mounted turret you have to expose less of the vehicle in order to do that.
The way you handle a rear-turret tank is going to be different from a center-turret or front-turret design. First off, because of the superior frontal armor you can just charge in against a larger variety of targets, especially with a rear-driver design. And secondly, if you do still find that you need to utilize cover, let's say the enemy has a tank destroyer guarding the area, if you reverse out instead you actually expose less of your hull, although at the cost of the exposed part being more vulnerable if it does get hit - but if the enemy has a weapon that you can't just face head-on then that's not going to really matter because they'll end up punching through anyway if they hit you.
Just charge the enemy good plan
@@MichalKolac that's what an armor spear head is which is still used
thats so insignificant in real life. its only really an issue in video games where people know there are tanks and are expected to engage them all the time in close range.
@@Phantom-bh5ru I mean, kinda? IRL figuring out if there's a tank out there is what scouting and intel ops are for. You don't always have that luxury but when you do, and you know the enemy has a tank, it's a good idea to prepare for it.
4:45 Shows you the pull cables on a Manual transmission In a Centurion tank.. Shows you a t34 with the lever system. Hammer included to change gear.
That is not a Centurion or T-34?
@@robertoroberto9798 Both those tanks have the transmission in the rear with some mechanism to change gear in the front of the tank. That photo is of an M1A1 and driver. I was talking about flawed commentary, giving strange secondary impressions
Thinking of it, a tank with a rear-mounted turret would probably also have severe weight distribution problems if the turret is turned sideways or towards the rear. Frontal engines, and especially engines in the middle of the tank are also much harder to access, and therefore conduct maintenance on, than rear engines. In modern days, the heat signature is also an important factor: while a rear engine would be somewhat concealed by the turret, if the tank is viewed from the front, a frontal engine would light up the tank on an IR display like a Christmas tree.
Trning the turret doesn't create any weight distribution problems since the turret must be balanced pretty well already just to turn around.
@@user-vgrau I believe he was refering to the situation when turret is facing back. I might be wrong. But yeah, it is still on the back and balance won't be shifting much.
@@user-yr9rx2xh5twell that wouldn’t be an issue the center of mass for a turret is always inside it. Hence the longer the barrel the more weight it have in the opposite direction
@@user-yr9rx2xh5ttip of the barrel is not going to be deciding factor for weight. Maybe if the tank was half way off the cliff maybe, but I'd blame any subsequent wreckage on the fact the tank was half way off the cliff.
it’s a problem already with the Stryker Gun Systems, it’s also why self-propelled artillery have rear stabilizers on them
A lot of Self propelled howitzers have rear mounted turrets
Also FYI the rear compartment of the merkava isnt really intended for infantry it's an ammunition storage area. The infantry thing is a myth that came from arma 3s merkava.
@@matthewholt2174I think you could theoretically have a couple guys in the back if you removed all the spare ammo, but it would be super cramped
@@matthewholt2174I suppose the intent is to use it as an impromptu battlefield ambulance. To get the wounded out under heavy fire
It also can be found on several modern tank destroyer designs.
@@matthewholt2174 it was demonstrated just once. When they were showcasing the Merkava, they made 3-4 soldiers come out of the back compartment, seemingly to prove something. The soldiers complained about the crampedness and uncomfortable hard floor they had to sit on. And to carry 4 soldiers the Merkava would have to sacrifice it's firepower. Hey, just like Centauro
I like this kind of video, roughly 5 minutes long short sweet and straight to the point..
I actually genuinely agree with you.
"... mounting the turret on the rear" (Puts an image of a ferdinand)
ah yes, ferdinand is rear-"turreted"
You didn't mention that front mounted engine tanks have a lot bigger heat signature, since all the heat is in front of the vehicle
In the pre-thermal era ,an problem that more obvious than heat signature is the hot air stream from engine will reduce the effective of optics when looking through it
Thats not how that works, the tracks of a vehicle are a much bigger giveaway than the engines signature (yes the engine is hotter, no that does n’t matter) so a front mounted engine vehicle wouldn’t be a disadvantage in that regard
The other modern front engine rear turret tank is the Argentine TAM which used the German Marder IFV hull and powertrain.
Who's Argentina preparing to fight against
@@512TheWolf512Our tank is pretty old design, between the 79', but is getting upgrades from Israel on these years, stuff like thermal optics, ERA, new cannon and other minor stuff As the why we still use an "old" model, is because the tank by itself is really good for our terrain, which includes from mountain to hills, swamps and lots of rivers, as well plains, is just too good, easy to repair, cheap and on top of that, national Is like our icon tank on this point
I wanted to mention the Merkava but it got a rather in-depth segment, yay!
Glad to see you back! This is a question I've had for a loooong time, so thanks for posting! It seems to me that - if the turret were remotely operated, then a design with a front-mounted engine and an oscillating turret would benfit from the strengths of those design choices, while balancing out the drawbacks.
A lot of the modern tanks with rear-mounted turrets such as the Scorpion and Scimitar CVRT, M10 Booker, TAM, and CV90120 have that arrangement likely due to their APC/IFV origins, or at least an intent to have a family of vehicles based on a single chassis. Most modern APCs and IFVs have front-mounted engines because that allows one to have a large rear space for doing whatever with. If you’re turning an APC into a light tank, sticking the turret in the big empty space in the back is the most logical. The CV90120 is built from the CV90 IFV, and the M10 Booker is loosely based on the Ajax which itself is based on the ASCOD IFV. The TAM and CVRT were designed to be the basis for a family of vehicles, to include troop carriers, command vehicles, and tanks. Merkava’s layout is unique for a tank, but almost standard for an APC. It probably helped the Namer APC based on the Merkava, as all that needed to be done mechanically was to remove the turret and install some seats. Trying to do the same with a regular tank would involve far more effort in moving the engine to the front, installing a passageway such as the Achzarit, or forcing the passengers to disembark from the sides or top as is the case with BTR-50 or Nagmachon.
I'm not sure if things like the FV101 or the M10 really have anything to do with discussions about tanks. They're barely tanks to begin with and are more similar to things like the Stryker MGS only difference is tracks vs wheels. None of them are designed to destroy MBT's or be able to take hits from MBT's. If you put a 75mm on a M3 Bradley does it magic into a light tank vs a tracked IFV? I feel like the only reason we consider the BMP 1 an IFV and the Scorpion a tank is because the Soviets called it an IFV and the Brits called theirs a tank. (on that note of the vehicles you mentioned ONLY the British refer to theirs as a tank)
@@nilloc93and the Centauro 2? The italian new TD, or is an IFV?
@@signor_No Well it has wheels so its sure as shit not a tank, and thus irrelevant to my point. Regarding your question it cannot carry troops and is thus not an IFV, it most certainly fits the description of an assault gun or tank destroyer. (which are functionally the same thing)
@@nilloc93assault guns can take out fortifications and provide infantry with direct fire support, which is why it's called an assault gun. Their are not the same as tank destroyers. Since they were never designed to fight armor in the first place.
Rear-mounted turrets have little sense on tanks with guns as tanks are strongest when using terrain to their advantage by peaking from behind obstacles showing only strong turret, but if you go uphill and have a turret in the back of the tank your gun depression angles will be limited because of all that vehicle in front of your turret that is limiting how low you can point your gun meanwhile while peaking from behind a hill you will likely show your enemy lower hull even before turret sees the enemy, so rear-mounted turrets on tanks are generally quite inferior but were used on some vehicles with extra long guns like tank destroyers because gun would stick too far forward otherwise, making such tank difficult to navigate through streets...
Don't know whether this applies in any way to real life, but in video games, it is difficult to go around corners whilst being ready to fire with a rear-mounted turret. It forces you to expose a lot more of the vehicle before you are able to fire at a target, and gives the enemy more time to fire at you.
In World of Tanks, a rear-mounted turret can make a heavy tank with good side armor a surprisingly durable vehicle, even against premium ammunition. There is an “autobounce” mechanic where if the armor piercing shell strikes the armor at an angle 70 degrees or greater will cause a shell to automatically bounce, unless a shell is more than three times wider than the thickness of the place, aka “overmatch.” There’s also “normalization” where depending on the ammunition it will reduce the angle of impact, but doesn’t affect the values for overmatch really. Thus, a tactic known as “side scraping” can be used by a tank with enough side armor to not get overmatched. Side-scraping involves coming up to a corner and parking your tank’s frontal armor behind indestructible cover, only presenting the very heavy armored side armor. You tend to see this at choke points with plenty of vertical and urban maps. Now any tank with enough side armor can do this, but tanks with good side armor AND rear-mounted turrets such as the Maus can easily exploit this since it lets you side-scrape without the need to reverse into fire and possibly expose the thick but not auto-bounce front armor. Lighter tanks with rear-mounted turrets can still use mobility to reverse out of cover, take a shot or two, and then quickly drive forward back into cover. Of course, fighting on hills is harder with a rear-mounted turret because gun depression is sometimes bad and you tend to expose more of the hull and often thinner lower hull armor when doing so. So it does depend on the video game. In World of Tanks, it can be beneficial at times, although a detriment at other times.
Sounds legit.
@@classifiedad1In War Thunder you would judt get shot in the side and istantly die.
Back up to the corner, and use your rear mounted turret to see the enemy first and blast away, then duck back around the corner to wait for the hornets nest to settle down.
In real life if you have to go around buildings without infantry support you're in deep sh*t
Next video, please can you do a video on carousel vs. cassette autoloaders. Thx always for this epic content!
Very informative video! I was confused by the first diagram showing the transmission in the front of the tank with the driver, but then you explain at the end that this was from older tanks before automatic transmissions.
One of the main criteria driving the Markova's design was crew survivability. A big factor in that was the ability to bail out of the tank in relative safety through the rear hatch while under fire. Another factor was salvage operations, again the rear hatch made that a much safer undertaking while under fire.
Maybe it's a good idea for a video on how purely electric drivetrain could impact the modern tank layout. You don't need a huge noisy engine, you can use multiple small motors for powering more than one drive wheel, only that should allow for much greater flexibility in designing the tank.
And do away with tracks which are the tanks biggest unprotectable weakness. I was wondering when the comments would reach this topic, so thanks for bringing it up.👍
The battery required for that would be way, way too big to make it practical, though.
@@wulfthemountaindragon5432 You would be surprised how much lighter batteries are compared to diesel engines and this would work best with toroidal electric motors meaning the running wheels would be the actual movers...it has to be explored because tanks like car haven't changed much lately until Elon came by.
@@billhanna2148 >50km of autonomy a hybrid design makes sense, mainly for noise reduction, but a purely electric one though would have more downsides than upsides. the batteries are more flammable than diesel, and this matters when you get shot at, and even morewhen you consider mines. the engine + fuel isn't that heavy if you want the same autonomy as a diesel with your battery. And you will replace tracks with what? wheels? mbt have tracks because they are too heavy for offroading with wheels without sinking. plus with conventional powers you need to consider nuclear options, think emp, having too much reliance on electronics is a liability.
@@billhanna2148Maybe lightweight graphene supercapacitors (provided they can be made sufficiently robust, reliable and affordable) could store enough energy for an all-electric tank with a decentralized (in-roadwheel) powertrain you propose? And if these graphene supercapacitors were part of the tank's structure or somehow lining it on the inside, the tank's architecture would allow for a centrally mounted turret even in case of a rear-end personnel carrier compartment.
You should also talk about Front Mounted Turrets like in the IS tanks. I would find it interesting to know why that didnt get continued. With gun Depression having a chance to be very good. But probably its the same like the original idea for rear mounted. Because Armor is heavy and causes a HUGE weight imbalance between Front and Back.
as a german :) i think the IS series was the most optimized tank design of this era + the battle-field situations these "MBTs" had to face
@@zachariasobenauf1895 Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
If you have both heavy armor and a heavy turret up front you negate the value of tracks as weight is not distributed evenly but leaning forward. IS tanks got pretty bad gun vertical angles because the turret was low profile and thus did not allow much room for gun vertical movement. IS series of tanks was discontinued AFAIK by Nikita Khrushchev because legends say that he saw heavy tanks as dinosaurs in the era of guided missiles, but this was proven false as modern main battle tanks are basically heavy tanks with composite armor optimized against anti-tank missiles with powerful engines that allow them to reach speeds of medium tanks. What is the more likely reason behind demise of heavy tanks in the Soviet Union was the lack of infrastructure to move around efficiently ~55t or heavier beasts like IS-4 which were still produced in few hundreds...
Visibility was the most important thing in WW2 for tanks. Every study showed, the most important thing in determining the winning side of a tank battle was, who saw who first. Technology have advanced significantly where the driver does not have to risk their lives by being in the frot section of a tank anymore. Most tanks don't even have glass optics anymore either, most of them use digitized cameras of some form to see their surroundings. Keeping your crew alive < engines lost for tanks, so we will slowly see the shift.
"Most tanks don't even have glass optics anymore either," It's SCARY how easy it is for someone to completely lie on the internet and people will believe him and upvote him. Freaky stuff
@@Narcan885 Freaky stuff is idiots like you who insult people without knowing anything. Most modern tanks now use special digitized screens that are linked via satellite imaging or cameras for safety purposes. Are all tanks updated that way, of course not. Not all militaries have the budget to go full high tech. I did mention above "MODERN" tanks.
Today tanks still do have glass optics. but the digital camera tech is starting to be applied to tanks
Thanks for showing the TAM 2C, didn't expect to see it!
The closest thing you can get to an ww2 "rear turreted tank" in war thunder which isn't an SPG or Tank Destroyer is the VK 45.01 P by driving backwards thanks to the Gasoline-Electric Transmission it can go fast in reverse as if it's going forwards
What about the TAM, merkava, Maus, MARS-15 , etc.....
@@WamuroRiXi08 Key word "WW2" vehicles
@@WamuroRiXi08 well to be exact the reason I didn't include spgs and tank destroyer is because they pretty much all have cardboard armor also french light tanks also have rear turrets and obviously have light armor like the TAM but the maus. Yea I think that's pretty much the only rear turreted heavy tank we have in the game
I forgot to mention the SPAA since some of them have their turrets to the rear like for example the Flakpanzer 38(t).
I think more and more rear mounted turrets will come since with technology the visabilty is not an issue. Also the gun deppresion angles are easely fixed by angling the engine deck although the angle exposes the angled engine deck a lot.
Thanks, Red Wrench Films for the podcast.
the merkavas rear hatch is a misunderstanding, the primary purpose, among a few others, is to rapidly restock ammunition. normally, you have to load rounds one by one through one of the hatches nearest to the loader, and this applies to most other non-autoloader tanks as well. the rear hatch facilitates the ability to have easy access to the ammunition storage through a door way in the back on the vehicle leading into the ammunition storage as opposed to a crew hatch on top of the vehicle to access the bustle rack. I wont doubt that you could fit a few soldiers in there in an emergency, but to fit anymore than one or two youd have to remove the ammunition bins which hinders the merkavas ability to fight significantly, seeing as the ready rack inside of the turret can only store 6 rounds compared to something like an abrams which has all 42 rounds inside the turret itself
A lot of Self propelled howitzers have rear mounted turrets. Interesting to see the TAM on one of these! Good job..
because rear turret are best for self propeled howitzers
Ive heard that while the Merkava can take on infantrie its actually not really meant to do that and its rarely used. Its more of an escape route or quicker exit for the crew.
It's been used quite regularly. It isn't the main role, but a useful option in some situations.
He only looks at MBTs in this question, but what about other vehicles? M109 Paladin or the Panzerhaubitze 2000 are self propelled artillery tanks with the turret in the back. The FV101 and FV107 are british light tanks with turrets in the rear. AMX 13 light tank. Wiesel light tank. Puma IFV (Bradley and Marder IFV also have the turret a bit more towards the rear) Stryker AFV variants with turrets
Ok so 30s in imma make a bet He may, or may nopt, mention the Archer mounting its "turret" (or casemate to be real) in the FRONT. BUT having it point over the rear of the vehicle. The reason for this was it meant minimal redesigning of the transmission layout, while minimising the overall length of the vehicle for ease of transport.
This video explains things perfectly, I love your content
Now you gotta make a video about Front-Mounted Turrets. Also, small correction at 2:37: The Ferdinand (as I'm sure you're aware) doesn't have a turret but a casemate
There were several tanks (even pre ww2) that had rear mounted engines and rear mounted engines. They were manual gearboxes. One of the best seling cars of all time had an integrated powerpack at the rear of the vehicle, and a manual transmission; the VW Beetle (Der Volkswagen prior to 1948).
Very nice presentation, kudos to you Sir!
Putting the engine in front does protect the crew from an incoming round, but it also disables the tank, probably even the turret, so the crew survive the first hit and then die a sitting duck.
If you can pen the front, to the point you take out a front engine, very sure that your tank will be dead in the water when the driver is hit in a rear engine tank. Not even hitting the driver, ... just the fact that you penned = high change you will do some explosive turret tossing (Russian design tanks).
@@benjiro8793it complete depends on what you hit the front with. A front mounted engine fills the entirety of the front of the vehicle, thus any penetration will disable you. A drivers cab is incredibly heavily armoured and takes up an absolutely minimal amount of room. Unless you specifically penetrate/injure the driver, he’s going to be good to keep rolling.
they have time to get out though
Interesting to see the TAM on one of these! Good job.
Agree , hope Argentina military can get more budget in the future and have more tams along with the other vehicles
The Swedish S-tank had a design similair to a rear mounted turret, with the small caveat that the turret was merged into the body. The engines of that tank were in the front, with the diesel fuel tank on the sides for extra protection.
With two big engines, the crew space was more of an after thought. In fact, tank operation was such a small priority that one person could run the entire tank.
I always thought that engine cooling and maintenance hatches made the engine area more vulnerable, so keeping it at the rear gave the tank more survivability from artillery strikes.
Keep up the preasure and victory is ours!
there's also the trade off for the tank being more susceptible to mobility kill VS crew death, in a rear mounted turret type tank the turret crew is able to survive most hit more so when the engine is front mounted that even the driver is a bit safer, this was another one of the consideration for the merkava design since manpower of the crews is actually more expensive to lose than the tank itself especially for a small but industrialized country like israel
That doesn't even have to be a trade-off. On a rear-turret, rear-driver design you have nothing important sitting in front of the engine, which means all that space could be dedicated to additional armor thickness and shallower deflective angles.
@@VestedUTuber The whole point the Merkava is engine front design is because they couldn't obtain or develop their own composite armor in time or in large quantities which was brand new in the west. The space is not empty anyways, if they had the ability to produce composite armor the Merkava wouldn't have been front engine designed (at the time 1970s ( lots of wars for Israel). They didn't have time to design a state of the art tank at the time.
@@Taczy2023 That doesn't mean you can't design a tank to take advantage of a rear-turret design like that.
3:27 This is only technically correct. Its *can* have soldiers mounted there, but it's typically used for medical evacuations. This is because that the extra space wasn't actually supposed to be used, and is just a side effect of the engine placement. The israel government *did* showcase the Merkava transporting troops, but it's not very good or efficient at it.
It just drives me insane that he uses the Ferdinand (Elephant) as an example for rear mounted turrets, when it didn't have a turret.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to get a side-on cutaway diagram of any vehicle with a rear mounted turret! The Ferdinand explained the concept well enough that I included it. Considering it’s almost identical in layout to the VK 45.02 (P) I didn’t think it was too offensive.
...and clearly RedWrench has not crewed or maintained a tank in the field that has a rear mounted engine & tracks driven from a rear mounted final drive/sprocket; e.g. Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger, Leopard, M1AX...etc... but then, I've only crewed three of those (4 if an ARV counts) ;-)
3:35 it can carry crew at the cost of carrying 1 to 5 shells only
I think that remote control and automation could make things even more interesting. Without a crew, drone tanks wouldn't need the same type of protection and you won't need the same space clearances internally that you would with a crewed vehicle. You could have space in the rear for supplies for the troops.
Unmanned combat vehicles have been built and tested... but never used. I dont know why, I imagine nobody wants to have an international discussion about what they do or dont count as under the rules of war
in addition to not being able to go through field maintenance by a tank crew, an unmanned remote controls tank necessitates using an auto loader rather than a traditional tank loading setup, a remotely controlled tank will be subject to interference from tunnels and potentially susceptible to enemy jamming, also as you care less for unmanned units, it makes more sense to utilize robotics in lighter and cheaper less armored vehicles than MBTs that have more specific operational parameters (for example tank busters, border patrol, combat engineering (for clearing mines for example), mechanized front guard in a ground maneuver etc )@@1stCallipostle . I wont be surprised if eventually a country will decide to have an alternative unmanned MBT platform with the aid of AI but at that point thats a whole other discussion than remote control.
I think part of the reason they're not used it because they're just impractical, at least at the current time. I'd argue even with cameras and sensors, you'd still be less aware. Not to mention potential risk of getting jammed and losing access to your vehicle. And if it gets stuck or breaks down there's no one to deal with it, but realistically tanks won't operate without support, at least in most doctrines. Not to mention the electrical side. I think anyone who's been in the military know it'd be destined to fail, but maybe I'm just being cynical.
The Argentine 25-ton TAM tack has a rear-mounted turret, with the driver alongside the engine. Another reason for the preference for mid-mounted turrets is that the tank can be rotated along with the turret to bring the gun to bear more quickly, without losing the targeting. This was a big deal with the Tiger, which had a very slow-rotating turret.
the depression problem can be solved by an adaptable suspension system, but that has its own issues too.
There is a tank in World of Tanks known "Lupus" from Valkyria Chronicles that has a read mounted turret. One thing I have always found useful about it is how thick the front and side armor is, and you can line up with a wall, then turn the tank slightly and backup from behind the wall only explosing the turret and the side of the tank, but at a very steep angle that most shots would bounce off. It seems to be pretty effective as a way to use rear turret tanks in my opinion. No need to expose half of your tank just to shoot around a corner. Just line up with the corner at a 90 degree angle, then turn about 5 degrees left or right where the back is pointing out from the corner, then backup until you have line of sight of your target. I have bounced so many rounds doing this. However, it is also just a game so idk how well that tactic would even work in a real situaton, but who knows maybe it would actually work well.
Corner tanking does not happen in real life nearly as often (or probably at all) compared to hull down tanking, where gun depression is king
its called sidescraping… and in real life its not as effective but also should be noted that most tanks just cant do it because you cant clip a gun through a wall
i love the inclusion of a video with the TR-85 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
The Argentinian TAM also uses a a front mounted engine, for two reasons: one is so that the engine can be very easily replaced, as the hatches are designed to fully expose the engine when the turret is turned to a side; the other is to use the engine as extra armor for the crew, as the design had a strict 30 ton limit to make it able to cross light bridges that abound in the country, which meant weight could not be spared for extra armor. For a light tank, it's an exceptional design that wasn't exported simply due to bad government management.
Great video as always
Another awesome video, thank you for your work!
The Merkava is a good design. Add more protection to the front without adding more armor.. The AMX13 also have similar design.
Good analysis, thanks!
Another great video! Could you please make one on bore evacuators? There isn't too much content on how they work
2:52 better protection of the crew plus fuck the driver. Win-win.
_But hey, at least they excell at sidescraping in town maps_ _Wait, this isn't WoT_
Thanks for adding the TAM to the video
3:38 Merkava don't have rear mounted turret, the turret is middle mounted. Engine and driver are at the front, turret in the middle and troop compartment at the rear just like most IFVs. Regarding drawback in real rear mounted turrets (driver/engine/turret configuration) the issue with isolated driver may make him impossible to evacuate if driver's hatch is hit and welded in place. In most tanks in driver/turret/engine design configuration driver can sneak to the turret and escape through turret hatch if driver hatch is hit.
I call it the bullpup tank
Can't wait to see the T10 tank video. You do great work. J🐺🐺🐺🐺
The Swiss S-Tank, and the British CVT 'tankette' are also successful examples of front engine layout. Though the S-Tank lacks a turret, and the CVTs are very small.
Couple of points: 1. The Merkava's gun depression is -8.5 deg, which is perfectly respectable. Most former Warpac tanks only go to -5 deg, most NATO ones go to -8 to -9 deg, while British tanks have the best depression at -10 deg. 2. You don't need an automatic transmission to have a rear-mounted gearbox. Anything Christie-derived, such as the British Cruisers and the Russian BTs and T-34 had a rear-mounted gearbox and they were all manual. What they had was long control runs (push-rods and/or cables) that ran back from the driver to the gearbox. These were much lower than a drive shaft, but the downsdie was that they needed to be carefully adjusted and maintained.
Never ask how Israel developed it's own nuclear weapons.
Love your vids and thank you for not being a shill drama qween like phazerpig! Your vids are way more concise and informative.thanks again and keep on doing what you do!
another tactical disadvantages would be the fight in cities or around curves/bends. The tank would have to show a significant amount of his side armor before it can engage targets around a bend, adding to its visibility and vulnerability, while the middle- mounted gun aleviates that, though not perfectly so either.
Great work!
Porsche: creates a rear turret design so the tank doesnt need to be as tall as there is no drive shaft on the bottom of the vehicle Also Porshe: *makes it literally the same height as tbe Henschel Tiger 2 anyway*
Just reverse sidescrape bro
Although why no one ever thought about the issue I've always had with rear turret designs... In order to have a clear line of sight, ie seeing around a building or obstruction, the tank crew MUST expose the entire front half of the tank
Another benefit of the rear mounted turret can be a more sloped front, and therefore less material necessary for a certain amount of thickness, and therefore less weight. Obviously depending on the size of the engine. Another benefit can be that the front panel can be removable to access the engine for service or replacement (as is the case for the front/middle mounted turret, albeit the chassis top panel). This means that you can potentially replace the front panel as well, which means that most of the tank can be reused by simply replacing the drivetrain and the front panel (assuming the shot didn't go further).
War Thunder players be like: ._.
Fr
FR
I forgot, what is the meaning of my comment? 😅
The french had some very good cold war designs of rear mounted turret tanks like the AMX-13
Nice video, your vids are the best
I always thought they did this design to add protection to the crew when penetrated in the front (since the engine block is additional armor). Yes, War Thunder thought me that.
It'd be less useful in real life than in war thunder, because you cannot repair an engine in like 30 seconds, so you're knocked out completely either way.
A good video. Gun mounting is often a matter of keeping COG manageable, as well as balancing survivability. A single unit drive system (engine & tranny combined) saves space in the vehicle which means more crew/equipment space and/or a smaller profile. There's the choice of front engine or rear engine and the choice depends on keeping weight more-or-less towards the center of the vehicle for stability. There are major advantages to rear mounted guns when the gun is overly large, as in a seige gun (non moving turret). Keeping the turret in the center tends to make more sense when the turret can turn since, when it fires, all road wheels absorb the blast recoil. With ammo storage in a "blow out" at the rear of the turret, much of the weight is shifted rearwards. Or at least that's the way I read it.
I don't know how I got here but I love it. Great video!
Nice that you used footage from Workshop Wednesday for the M3 Lee restoration. 👍
Yes it was!
If I had to guess its because the depression limits of having an entire hull in front of your gun barrel makes it far harder to aim down. Maybe also balance issues or something?
Is there any chances you'll dive into multi-turret tanks topic? Would love to see a vid on them in your style.
For me, the distinction is not so much about the placement of the turret, if there even is a turret, but about where the engine is. With the most of the famous WWII tanks it seems like it was popular to put engine in the back, transmission to the front and a driveshaft in between. Russians liked to put the drive sprocket in the back with the engine, though, and it made the transmission hard to handle with the technology of the time. Late war and after the war it became the popular thing to do with everyone else too, I think. Front engine for crew survivability has been seen with MBTs a few times, but it's quite rare. The benefit is quite small when facing things like APFSDS rounds. More common with IFVs and such.
I would suggest that a front engined AFV would be more flexible regarding variants. Also the drive train is nearer the driver so you don't have a longer control system.
Man it's been a long time since I've seen the Leichttraktor. Love it.
great topic
With the improvements in camera technology, do you think we will see the driver being put in the back some where, in the near future designs?
There's more disadvantages to the rear turret design as well: 1.Mounting the engine in front makes the thermal signature more pronounced 2.Mounting the engine in front makes the reclining position driver not possible, increasing the height of the tank 3.The engine in front prevents the addition of more armour on the front. Composite armour in modern tanks is quite thick and the engine gets in the way of this. (Merkava is less armoured than other tanks due to this) 4.Engine vents have to be placed in the front sides of the hull, weakening the frontal arc of the tank.
Well now i need a video on front mounted turrets.
I could see rear mount starting to come up more the communication issue to the front of the dining has been solved but also at the same time the visibility from behind the engine for the driver issue is fixed as well. Tanks are going to move to a screen and camera area for crew visibility anyways.
I’d love to see you explain how ZU-23 AA gun elevation adjustment works
With the rear of tank less heavily armoured, putting the engine there makes cooling easier as gaps in the rear armour are less of a problem than the would be on the front. The lighter armour would also make it easier to open access hatches to access the engine for repair or maintenance.
nice work, good day to you
this was exactly the question i was asking myself
To be honest I just like looking at rear turret mounted tanks, A very cool idea.
Small correction, tanks like Merkava, and in fact most modern IFVs with front engines, place the driver BESIDE the engine, not behind it. The disadvantages of visibility still somewhat apply, but not quite as much as they would if the engine was also in the way of the driver. This way its just the transmission. The real disadvantage to that layout is that the engine compartment is narrow and off-center, thus limiting what engine can be placed there. For IFVs its not a huge issue as they arent that heavy anyway, so a smaller engine will do, but Merkava is kind of surprising in that they crammed a 1500 hp engine in there. Also the off-center engine will shift the center of mass, though most IFVs just counter that with a turret on the opposite side, so its not a huge issue either.
Another issue with the Merkava is that heat from the front-mounted engine disrupts the thermal/optics of the main gun.