Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: cindi%bucsb.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Cynthia Fong)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: MBT Tank Turrets - (question)
Message-ID: <7405@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Jun 89 03:23:50 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 61
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cindi%bucsb.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Cynthia Fong)


    I was catching up on several months backlog of Jane's Defence weekly
and International Defence review when I came across an article with several
artists' rendition of future MBTs. Basically they were nothing very new or
exciting (seen 'em all before :-)), One thing that caught eye though :-
  
    All the MBT's that are slated to enter service in the 1990's (the French
Le Clerc (sp?), the Korean XK-1, the Japanese MBT (name?), the M-1 upgrade
(with auto-loader)) all have their gun turrets located in the middle of the
hull; that is between the driver and the tank power-pack. This has always
puzzled me as one would think the more logical location for the turret would
be at the back of the tank, behind the driver and it's power-pack (a-la
Israeli Merkava).  All the references that I have looked up on don't seem to
address this question at all : why 80%-90% of the tanks that exists today
(and in the 1990's) have their turrets in the middle of the hull.

    In the Israeli Merkava with it's turret behind the engine, I can see a
lot of advantages going for it :
    
    a) Extra protection provided by the mass of the engine in front of the
       crew and ammo.
    b) Fast evacuation for the crew in case of emergencies through the back
       exit, an option not available for the "middle turret" tank crews.
       This, I'm  sure saves a lot of lives as a lot of tank crews were 
       killed whilst exiting through top hatches in face of enemy fire.
       (of course this assuming that it is knocked out)
    c) Ease of reloading through the back door, (mechanical resupply
       as used in the M-109); also with a back door the tank becomes
       more flexible tactically. In Lebanon, the Merkava was used as an
       APC (albeit very crowded) and makeshift ambulance.
    d) A safer location for the powerpack and fuel tanks with them being
       located at the most thickly armored area of the vehicle.
       (This is a bit shaky though, grasping at straws even :-)

    Well you get the general idea. Why are MBTs still designed with their 
turrets in the middle???? I mean the M-109, Scorpion, Bradley, TAM (argentina),
and of course the Merkava have their turrets at the back; it's not as if this
is new unproven stuff...Hidebound traditionalism? The reasons (a) and (b) alone
are good enough reasons to have the turret built at the back of the hull.
The only minuses that I can think of for it are:
    
    a) Reduced tank gun depression.
    b) Maintenance difficulties realting to access to the power-pack, but
       this shouldn't be much of a big problem; the Merkava doesn't have
       a bad maintenance rep does it?

    Anyway after all this; I may be making a fool out of myself, One of you
chaps will probably blow me out of the water with some simple reason why
the "turret at the back" configuration is not so hot.....Oh Well live and
learn.  Post soon !!!! I'm leaving for a vacation in a few weeks time AND
it's soon going to be MOOT point!!!!! MBTs in the 2000's have NO TURRETS!
They leave their guns dangling out! (external gun) ;-)


Tan See Teng ------------> cindi@bucsb.bu.edu
             ------------> engn1bc@buacca.bu.edu
No end-signature but I'm working on it.