It looks vaguely similar to the vehicle in the PLA Next Generation Main Battle Tank thread. The overall shape, road wheels and box on the turret are the same but the applique armour, side skirts and the front differ slightly.
If the engine is located in the rear then the front is the Crew compartment/ infantry compartment. Most IFVs place their engines in the front to allow a mid to rear crew compartment and passenger compartment. The Russian BMP3 and BMD series as well as a number of BTR models use rear mounted engines.Hello everybody. I can indeed see a grill on the left side of the hull of the new ifv. But why did they put it there and if so, what’s in the front of the vehicle where the engine is normally placed? Furthermore, what’s the extension on the upper left side on the hull? Does it anything to do with the engine?
Having more composite armor (rather than engine) facing front offers superior protection, but at the cost of the vehicle being more cramped.Why in the rear? It doesn't help with protection or with the rear hatch size..
I know there is this myth especially with the Merkava tank and Namer IFV that they put the engine as extra protection. Realistically if a shell managed to penetrate the armor the engine really wouldn’t stand much of a chance at stopping it. Modern tank and IFV engines are like most engines aluminum alloys and don’t do well against penetration rounds.Why in the rear? It doesn't help with protection or with the rear hatch size..
That may hold true for kinetic penetrators but the construction of the engine is probably effective against shaped charges. Might not work against more modern and larger chemical penetrators but it definitely works to some degree on single charge man portable anti tank weapons. Example would be the Stryker that recently survived an RPG round to the engine block with no crew fatalities.I know there is this myth especially with the Merkava tank and Namer IFV that they put the engine as extra protection. Realistically if a shell managed to penetrate the armor the engine really wouldn’t stand much of a chance at stopping it. Modern tank and IFV engines are like most engines aluminum alloys and don’t do well against penetration rounds.
If a round managed to penetrate the armor but not the engine, it probably wouldn’t have made it through the firewall between the crew and armor.
It's cheap extra armor while giving room for the engine. Obviously it's better for survivability to have a additional layer of real composites like in this IFV. But this IFV still needs to put the engine somewhere, which means less room for crew.I know there is this myth especially with the Merkava tank and Namer IFV that they put the engine as extra protection. Realistically if a shell managed to penetrate the armor the engine really wouldn’t stand much of a chance at stopping it. Modern tank and IFV engines are like most engines aluminum alloys and don’t do well against penetration rounds.
If a round managed to penetrate the armor but not the engine, it probably wouldn’t have made it through the firewall between the crew and armor.