PDA

View Full Version : How do they get tank Shells into Tanks?



Grailkeeper
04-24-2011, 06:04 AM
I was thinking about tanks the other night, and I was wondering how do they get Shells into tanks? The only way I could think of was one at a time through the top hatch but that would take forever not to mention the risk of dropping a shell.

I was thinking particularly of second world war era tanks, but if they do things differently with modern tanks I'd love to help.

I know theres plenty of people with military experience here, or with a historical background who might be able to answer my question- so how do they do it?

Gotthammer
04-24-2011, 08:18 AM
That's basically it - see Elvis demonstrate how it's done here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml75FyxTJCc).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/3195368881_eec27962a2.jpg

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/abrams/slideshow/gallery/abrams9.jpg

The Merkeva has a door at the back that is used, but it's an unusual design. I think a couple of tanks might have similar hatches, but I could be wrong on that.

Grailkeeper
04-24-2011, 09:33 AM
I'd heard the Merkava had a door at the back for troop transport, That shell looks like it has a giant thumbtack stuck on the front of it.

Morgan Darkstar
04-24-2011, 01:20 PM
carefully! :D

Necron2.0
04-24-2011, 01:43 PM
I'd heard the Merkava had a door at the back for troop transport, That shell looks like it has a giant thumbtack stuck on the front of it.

Yes, the Merkava carries an eight man infantry squad with it in a special transport section, which opens at the back of the tank. If memory serves, the Merkava is the largest tank in the world. It is too big to transport, which is why its one and only theater of operation is Israel.

The shell shown is a sabot round. The thumbtack is the front of a large tungsten carbide dart. It's a purely kinetic energy round, with no explosives other than the propellant.

Denzark
04-25-2011, 07:10 AM
I'd heard the Merkava had a door at the back for troop transport, That shell looks like it has a giant thumbtack stuck on the front of it.

This is APFSDS - Armoured Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Anti tank penetrator. Aka Vanquisher round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

Necron2.0
04-25-2011, 07:13 AM
Forgot to add: The Merkava is also somewhat unique in that it has it's engine up front, ahead of the crew compartment. It is intended to form something of a secondary armor block in front of the crew. The idea being, if a penetrating hit kills the crew, what good is an intact engine? If the tank is hit and the engine is destroyed, the infantry come out and the tank transforms immediately into an armored pill box with artillery support.

Skragger
04-25-2011, 07:33 AM
"This side off" (label on the back of the tank in the first picture)

I love how clearly labelled everything is in the military. "This end towards enemy" doesn't get any clearer than that..

Aldramelech
04-25-2011, 08:20 AM
Yes, the Merkava carries an eight man infantry squad with it in a special transport section, which opens at the back of the tank. If memory serves, the Merkava is the largest tank in the world. It is too big to transport, which is why its one and only theater of operation is Israel.

The shell shown is a sabot round. The thumbtack is the front of a large tungsten carbide dart. It's a purely kinetic energy round, with no explosives other than the propellant.



Oh dear, someones being reading Wikipedia................

The Merkava cannot carry eight infantry, it could at a push carry two but it doesn't even do that as a matter of routine (the only evidence of this being done is anecdotal, during the Invasion of Lebanon and only in an emergency). The back door is exactly that, a back door, designed for ammunition replenishment under fire and casualty evacuation. The space between the doors and the main crew compartment is very small.

It is not the worlds largest tank either, or anywhere close to it! It has never been exported because it is a tank designed for a very, very specific set of needs and requirements, its a child of its environment.

Israel has a very small population and is completely surrounded by its enemies, so every trained soldier is a very valuable asset to the state, so the Merkava is designed for crew survivability above all other considerations. This is why it has a back door, engine at the front and a very low silhouette. The tank is heavy, slow and not very maneuverable but it doesn't have to be as Israel is a small country and it doesn't have to travel far.

The Tank is a fine balancing act between three elements: Firepower, Maneuverability and Protection. A good tank has a fine balance of all three, the Merkava is heavily weighted toward only one element, Protection and as such is not an ideal vehicle for many armed forces

DarkLink
04-25-2011, 06:39 PM
On the subject of sabot rounds: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/71184/General_Atomics_Railgun___WOW/

Test railgun for the navy. They just started playing around with sabot rounds, and in the test the railgun is laid parallel to the ground and the round still traveled 7 kilometers before hitting the ground.

Drew da Destroya
04-25-2011, 07:05 PM
I've been wanting to answer with the smart-assed "You shoot them at the tanks!" for a while now, but patiently waited until someone answered properly first.

Trying not to be a full-on troll, just a (hopefully funny) jackass.

Necron2.0
04-26-2011, 01:00 AM
Oh dear, someones being reading Wikipedia................

Actually, you need to update your information. It's true that in the original Mark I Merkava the back hatch was only for crew egress. However, in the latest version (the Mark IV) the door has been expanded, turning it into a proper troop transport. The Mark IV is roughly 5 tons heavier than an Abrams, and larger too.

Below is a presentation that provides some of the details on the machine. It's mostly accurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGmxKLQeWu4

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 05:59 AM
Actually, you need to update your information. It's true that in the original Mark I Merkava the back hatch was only for crew egress. However, in the latest version (the Mark IV) the door has been expanded, turning it into a proper troop transport. The Mark IV is roughly 5 tons heavier than an Abrams, and larger too.

Below is a presentation that provides some of the details on the machine. It's mostly accurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGmxKLQeWu4




Oooo The History Channel, it must be true then:rolleyes:

You want to make your mind up sunshine, according to your post it was Eight infantry and now according to your "factual" TV show its five? Bollocks...... Do you have any real understanding of how much space a fully equipped infantryman occupies? I have been inside British, French, American, Soviet and German APC's, look at the distance between the rear of the turret ring and the back door, you wouldn't get five midgets in there.

This same claim was made for the Mk1 when it appeared and has been made for all Mk's after that and it has been proved to always been Israeli propaganda, the Mk1 isn't any longer then the Mk4! Show me one picture of 5 infantry sat in the compartment, in fact show me one picture of the compartment period.

There is a command version that can take 2 stretcher cases, but at the cost of most of its main gun rounds, so how the hell would you get 5 men in the normal gun tank? You can't, plain and simple. People in the world of armored warfare take anything from the IDF with a huge pinch of salt.

As for it being the worlds biggest tank? Really? It might be the heaviest MBT currently serving but it ain't anywhere near the biggest, The M60 towers above it and is wider. As to the weight there are at least 5
heavier vehicles that I can think of off the top of my head.

Asimodeus
04-26-2011, 06:17 AM
Oooo The History Channel, it must be true then:rolleyes:

You want to make your mind up sunshine, according to your post it was Eight infantry and now according to your "factual" TV show its five? Bollocks...... Do you have any real understanding of how much space a fully equipped infantryman occupies? I have been inside British, French, American, Soviet and German APC's, look at the distance between the rear of the turret ring and the back door, you wouldn't get five midgets in there.

This same claim was made for the Mk1 when it appeared and has been made for all Mk's after that and it has been proved to always been Israeli propaganda, the Mk1 isn't any longer then the Mk4! Show me one picture of 5 infantry sat in the compartment, in fact show me one picture of the compartment period.

There is a command version that can take 2 stretcher cases, but at the cost of most of its main gun rounds, so how the hell would you get 5 men in the normal gun tank? You can't, plain and simple. People in the world of armored warfare take anything from the IDF with a huge pinch of salt.

As for it being the worlds biggest tank? Really? It might be the heaviest MBT currently serving but it ain't anywhere near the biggest, The M60 towers above it and is wider. As to the weight there are at least 5
heavier vehicles that I can think of off the top of my head.

Oooo Aldramelech, it must be true then:rolleyes:

get down from your high horse and stop being so cocky

btw

I would rather believe a "Factual" tv programe over "someone who posts on the internet"

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 07:23 AM
Oooo Aldramelech, it must be true then:rolleyes:

get down from your high horse and stop being so cocky

btw

I would rather believe a "Factual" tv programe over "someone who posts on the internet"

Seek life elsewhere

Asimodeus
04-26-2011, 07:44 AM
Seek life elsewhere

What? you think just because you've been here longer you have some right to be rude to other members?


You want to make your mind up sunshine, according to your post it was Eightinfantry and now according to your "factual" TV show its five? Bollocks...... Do you have any real understanding of how much space a fully equipped infantryman occupies?

stop being an *** and acting like a know it all

"I have no issue with the fact that the tank may not be able to carry 8 or 5 or any infantry i took issue with the way you decided to "illuminate" Necron 2.0" i.e. acting like a d**k.

and no i wont go elsewhere! i like it here, and you dont own the place.

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 07:50 AM
What? you think just because you've been here longer you have some right to be rude to other members?



stop being an *** and acting like a know it all

"I have no issue with the fact that the tank may not be able to carry 8 or 5 or any infantry i took issue with the way you decided to "illuminate" Necron 2.0" i.e. acting like a d**k.

and no i wont go elsewhere! i like it here, and you dont own the place.

Perhaps I wasn't being plain enough for you?

I was in fact telling you to F*&% Off

Asimodeus
04-26-2011, 07:57 AM
Perhaps I wasn't being plain enough for you?

I was in fact telling you to F*&% Off

Oh I forgot people like you dont like it when others call them to account and take them down a few pegs:rolleyes:

oh well.

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 08:00 AM
Oh look another wanna be moderator, goody.

Oxygen Thief.

Skragger
04-26-2011, 08:39 AM
As for it being the worlds biggest tank? Really? It might be the heaviest MBT currently serving but it ain't anywhere near the biggest, The M60 towers above it and is wider. As to the weight there are at least 5
heavier vehicles that I can think of off the top of my head.


HA! I see your biggest M60, and raise you the P1000 Ratte!

http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Images/1-Vehicles/03-Heavy_Tanks/P1000-Ratte/p1.jpg

MY TANK IS FIGHT!

Necron2.0
04-26-2011, 09:29 AM
:D

I work in the industry. Like I said, that video clip is mostly accurate. I chose to post that only because it seemed the easiest thing for some people to understand. As for the rest, the prattle of armchair generals only amuses me - like a physicists reaction to a layman arguing string theory. If we were talking 40K, I'd listen. When it comes to the real world, however ... sorry, I have better sources.

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 10:15 AM
:D

I work in the industry. Like I said, that video clip is mostly accurate. I chose to post that only because it seemed the easiest thing for some people to understand. As for the rest, the prattle of armchair generals only amuses me - like a physicists reaction to a layman arguing string theory. If we were talking 40K, I'd listen. When it comes to the real world, however ... sorry, I have better sources.



Armchair? Really? Whatever.......................

DarkLink
04-26-2011, 11:35 AM
Well, seeing as every single website that I looked at mentioned the newest merkava version being capable of carrying extra infantry (the ammo containers can be removed to provide space for extra passangers in exchange for carrying less ammunition), and explicitly mention APC and 'tankbulance' variants, and seeing as Aldramelech probably isn't Israeli so I wouldn't be surprised if his information is simply outdated, then there just has to be some sort of massive internet conspiracy against Aldramelech.

They even have videos of the interior of the tank and interviews with actual Israeli military personnel (obviously all totally fake) to try and undermine Aldramelech' credibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSww8vkjGIM
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

Asimodeus
04-26-2011, 01:11 PM
Oh look another wanna be moderator, goody.

Oxygen Thief.

Moderator? no thanks couldn't be bothered to deal with all the Asshats

Didnt realise this was going to become such an issue but i obviously touched a nerve so let me try to explain.

i have only recently decided to join bols lounge, however i have been following for a while most of your contributions to the lounge are good and some are quite funny i felt that your responses to Necron 2.0 were a tad rude so i called you on it.

to which you replied F#*K OFF

this reminded me of somethings you posted about a year ago when you decided to leave bols due to an incident with another member.


This adolescent bully is allowed to roam this forum doing exactly as he pleases, upsetting who he chooses has become intolerable.


No one ever has to tolerate jerk behaviour, for any reason. Just because we are all anonymous doesn't mean rudeness and insults are inevitable and therefore OK.

just thought i would remind you

looking forward to more contributions from you when you are being less bad tempered.

thats the last i have to say on the issue.

Peace and long life.

Jwolf
04-26-2011, 01:53 PM
As a moderator, I would appreciate all members not using blanks to get around the filters.

I'm only reading this thread because the exchange between Asimodeus and Aldramelech had it brought to my attention.

Thank you, Asimodeus, for stepping past the poor behavior evidenced earlier in the thread. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Corvus-Master-of-The-4th
04-26-2011, 02:36 PM
RAYYYYY.... Sorry I just think somebody had to interveen (sorry can't spell :) ) at some point :L

Skragger
04-26-2011, 02:53 PM
Turnover!

Aldramelech
04-26-2011, 03:40 PM
Well, seeing as every single website that I looked at mentioned the newest merkava version being capable of carrying extra infantry (the ammo containers can be removed to provide space for extra passangers in exchange for carrying less ammunition), and explicitly mention APC and 'tankbulance' variants, and seeing as Aldramelech probably isn't Israeli so I wouldn't be surprised if his information is simply outdated, then there just has to be some sort of massive internet conspiracy against Aldramelech.

They even have videos of the interior of the tank and interviews with actual Israeli military personnel (obviously all totally fake) to try and undermine Aldramelech' credibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSww8vkjGIM
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm


The first link shows film taken in the turret looking forward to the drivers position, no shots of the rear of the tank. The second link shows pictures of the APC built on the Merkava chassis, it is not a Merkava MBT. The third link just repeats what the IDF claim it can do and as I already pointed out it has already been proved on several occasions that the IDF are economical with the truth when it comes to this capability.

I know what I know and thats that, don't bother with anymore cause I wont be reading it.

DarkLink
04-26-2011, 04:18 PM
Actually, the youtube video has the dude who drives the vehicle explicitly state "we can fit a few extra guys in here if we need to". But I digress.

Denzark
04-27-2011, 01:06 AM
The Israeli being filmed for Discovery is hardly going to say 'actually this tank is plop, we should have bought Abrams off the shelf' is he?

The NAMER is an IFV based on Merkava Chassis. This does Squads, it has no tank main gun or rounds. The Merkava is an MBT. Yes it is roomy, yes you can fit a couple of blokes and maybe a stretcher in the back hatch.

But the back hatch represents the israeli philosophy of survivability where the crew are more important that the vehicle - the back hatch to allow egress in an emergency.

Your tank main gun is to kill other tanks, preferably on the move outside of their range - say 3k? Infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy - individual range for their rifles is going to be about 300m. So yoiu don't give your tank the ability to reach out and touch the enemy at range and then employ the tank at distances only 10% of this.

Necron2.0
04-27-2011, 01:35 AM
Look ... I have seen industry trade papers that report this tank carrying infantry. There are several public sources which indicate it carries infantry. Real military experts (not forum lurkers) are on the record saying it carries infantry. Given that the Israelis are as likely to be deploying their tanks in urban sprawl as a typical battlefield situation, it is completely logical that they'd have integrated close infantry support. This is especially true when you consider their need for rapid deployment to pretty much anywhere on their border at a moments notice. Also, given that in the Yom Kippur war the Israelis lost many tanks to russian made wire guided missiles fired by Egyptian troops at relatively close range, it's a virtual necessity that they have close infantry support.

Seriously, this is so painfully obvious and simple. There is not even a question on the voracity of reports regarding this tanks capabilities. If someone opens their eyes, they'll literally trip over this information. This is a complete non-issue, and is not debate worthy. It's like arguing whether fire is hot.

Denzark
04-27-2011, 03:16 AM
Firstly, a question that might occur to a total civilian with no idea of military matters is, that if the Israelis have found a way to combine a Main battle Tank with an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, why does no other country in the world especially the 'premier league' of armies, UK USA and Russia, have this capability, which is open source knowledge?

Secondly, a question might occur which would be why do the Israelis create the NAMER dedicated IFV variant, with no turret etc, if the Merkava is suited as a dedicated IFV?

Next, I offer you the following:

18-08-2009 13:12 #6 Schaden
View Profile View Forum Posts View Articles Add as Contact View Gallery Uploads

Senior Member


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date:Oct 2006
Posts:1,146
Re: The B-52 Of Armored Vehicles
Merkava isn't actually designed to take a full section of infantry - it's rear door thingy was basically there to allow it to do the following.

Load ammunition quickly - big problem in 1973 with Centurions and M-60's
Provide easy pickup of crews of disabled armour
Can be set up as a mini ambulance carryong 3-4 stretchers
Command unit with lots of comms gear.
Easy escape for crew in case of it all going tits up.

Personally I think the stage will be crew under hull armour - ie turret made smaller carrying ammo and auto loader - crew size reduced and optics allowing them to fight the tank from postions in the hull.

This from the following forum: http://www.arrse.co.uk/rac/117123-b-52-armored-vehicles.html

The Army Rumour Service aka ARRSE, a British site for military/ex military, certainly more accurate than geek forum lurkers.

And I know for a fact that Aldramelech has certainly served, if not currently - I am 9 years in regular service and going strong and I'm telling you that yes, you can fit some extra fellas in but not a fully equippped infantry section for the express purpose of them deploying from the vehicle to operate. Don't think having wafted around some DOD contracting you can imply you are Sun Tzu and Alexander rolled into one, and no one else has a clue cos I'm sure my boots have got more sand on than you've seen in your last 5 holidays.

DarkLink
04-27-2011, 11:49 AM
Well, it's not something that seems like it would be commonly useful. If you're going to try and drive 100,000 guys into the heart of Iraq, you're going to have to have some dedicated APCs to carry them. Cramming them into a tanks is a somewhat last ditch effort, especially when it comes at the cost of carrying less ammo.


It doesn't seem to me that anyone has said that the Merkava is a dedicated infantry carrier. All that's been said is that you can cram a few extra guys in there if need be, then Aldramalech got huffy and started with the attitude.

If you're in a tank battle and one Merkava gets blown up, the crew can jump out and take cover in one of their buddie's Merkava's. A couple of Merkavas can be modified to be makeshift ambulances, so they can still fight a little but can take care of casualties without having more fragile vehicles around or something. There are advantages and disadvantages which seem to particularly suit Israeli's military needs, but not those of other nations.

Necron2.0
04-27-2011, 12:14 PM
It doesn't seem to me that anyone has said that the Merkava is a dedicated infantry carrier.

Actually, that was probably my bad. In the 40K universe, any vehicle that can carry dudes is called a troop transport. Since this is a forum dedicated to that universe, I slipped into using the common vernacular for here. In the real world, the proper phrasing would more correctly go something like, "The Merkava's conops includes a mission requirement wherein the tank would include integrated infantry support in the form of a squad of up to 8 warfighters. These would be utilized in support of urban deployments of the unit, as well as in rapid response scenarios, or in any scenario where the probablity of engaging enemy personnel in close combat is likely."

Anyway, the point is, regardless of what name you call it by, the Merkava IV does have the capacity to carry up to eight infantryman, by design. This according to real verifiable military experts, and not some random anonymous yahoos on a forum.

Drew da Destroya
04-27-2011, 09:54 PM
Anyone else think the acronym "ARRSE" is funny? And that we're talking about ARRSE on BOLS?

Or am I the only 6 year old that comes down here?