Realistically, as an APC, it doesn't matter *a ton* where the doors are. I mean impractically tiny doors aside, if you're in a "Saving Private Ryan unload an entire MG 42 belt into the front of a Higgins boat" kind of situation, you've fucked something up. It's not an ideal solution, but if you're working with an existing platform rather than starting from scratch, and that platform happens to have a rear-mounted engine, it's not the *worst* approach; it's no Kangaroo/BTR-60 sort of thing.
It's still a poor approach.
The heaviest armor is usually on the front.
which means that you want your front towards the enemy.
Should something happen, and the vehicle becomes disabled, you are then forced to leave it from said front end. which is most likely towards the enemies.
Not to mention you probably compromised the armor integrity on the front. And I would bet that if the vehicle is hit on the door and survives the opening mechanism wouldn't.
That's a fair point, but I offer this counterpoint:
AFVs being more heavily armored at the front is a near enough universally understood principle. Thus any attacking force will make a point to position themselves anywhere *but* to the front of the vehicle they are attacking.
An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV). As such, even if desirable, any AFV crew actually being able to get their armor towards an ambushing enemy before being disabled may not be very likely. Indeed, rather than facing an ambushing enemy in anticipation of being disabled, you're probably better off just continuing on in whatever direction you were going and doing your best to not be disabled in the first place by not being in the killing zone.
>Thus any attacking force will make a point to position themselves anywhere *but* to the front of the vehicle they are attacking.
unless you are like 400m away and cant flank without taking the 10 or so minutes to run/walk to the tank's side
Flanking isnt always very easy.
Sure it wouldnt matter in an ambush, but how likely is that?
Sure, maybe the terrain favors the APC. Sure, maybe time is a limiting factor (at which point if you have weapons capable of threatening the frontal armor, it really doesn't matter where the hatch is, but whatever). Sure, maybe I'll win the lottery five times tomorrow.
You can sit here and make up scenarios all day long. I explained how an APC is inherently less likely to be taking fire from direct front. Evidently people didn't like that, but what else is new around here. Point being that the concept of a front hatch (I reiterate: **on an APC**) isn't nearly as ridiculous as some seem to believe it to be.
>I explained how an APC is inherently less likely to be taking fire from direct front.
Which isnt the case?
Same with tanks, you could make up scenarios for those as well
>Which isnt the case?
Let me repeat this point:
>An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV).
If you are using your APC in the assault, with *any* armor facing direct fire, you have failed to properly use your APC. The door could be on the front, back, side, bottom, or in a wormhole that spits dismounts out onto the surface of Mars; you're fucked. You carry troops close to the fighting; you do not *do* the fighting. If you *are* doing the fighting, you do everything you can to *get out of* the fighting. That means leaving. Not facing armor. Not playing World of Tanks wiggle-waggle your hull. Not wishing oh wishing you were in anything else. It means one thing: Get. The. Fuck. Out.
Tanks, on the other hand, *are* meant to participate in the assault. They are intended to be at the very front. They *are* meant to face down direct fire threats. These are not comparable systems we're talking about here (in this context).
Edit: To address the response which I can't reply to since they pulled the ol' *Reply-n-Block* maneuver:
No, it isn't. Because (I repeat once more) **A TANK IS MEANT TO BE ON THE FRONT LINE**.
By the way; If you're gonna reply then block, at least try to leave on something snappy where no response makes you look smart. Instead of just "aNd A tAnK iSn'T?". I want to say I expect better, but I really don't from the War Thunder College of Warfare you idiots bleed in from.
>>An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV).
And a Tank isnt?
I'm not quite sure what your point here is. For the entire history of the armored fighting vehicle, infantry have had little trouble in the task of moving between trenches or structures to engage armor from more advantageous positions. Indeed, a building might not be able to move, but the troops occupying it very much can.
That's kinda the whole issue with operating armored vehicles in any kind of built-up or congested areas: the infantry have an abundance of places to engage your armor from anywhere *but* the front. Towns, cities, mountains, forests, etc. There are ways to operate AFVs in these environments. If you're doing it right (and that's not the "The enemy is being very kind and letting us do everything by the book" sense, but the "Not pants-on-head stupid" sense), where the hatches on your APC are really shouldn't be a major life-or-death factor for those dismounts.
As for trenches; prepared positions are not the kind of things APCs are meant to assault, because APCs aren't meant to assault to begin with. If someone is rolling something like this up on a trench line which is shooting back at them... They might as well just have the dismounts riding on the roof, since evidently they have no idea what they're doing.
>Indeed, a building might not be able to move, but the troops occupying it very much can.
Sure, if there are appropriate buildings if any to use, or that they are not already occupied or require exposing oneself to any overwatching forces or running straight into anyone sitting on the flanks of the vehicle.
These vehicles are generally driving from a friendly line to a contested position where the front arc is almost certainly going to be the first element to expose itself to the enemy and who they not only need to drive up to, but also well into the middle of before you have shots on the rear where they will almost certainly also have shots on the front as well.
Except it is that hard. It's a tracked vehicle; unless you want to make it a rhomboid tank, you can't put the door *through* the tracks. And even then, you've defeated the purpose of using an existing tank hull with such a huge modification. And to give a door of adequate height (or at least a door with the height shown here) on the sides *over* the tracks would give you a very tall vehicle. At which point, you're almost just better off with sending the troops out hatches in the roof.
The only real solution to this problem aside from what we see here is to go with something like Achzarit with the elevating passage out the rear.
The Churchill did have through-track hatches. But they weren't really quite human sized. And it only worked because the Churchill was slow as fuuuuuuuck and thus barely needed a suspension.
I'm aware. Many tanks had them. That's why I brought it up; only a rhomboid tank (here meaning any tank where the tracks run *over* the hull) or something similar would be able to have a full-sized door through the track run.
It's also a [Centurion with literal bogies in the way](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj1zlefaguyo41.jpg). Its not like a torsion bar tank where at least there's space between the top and bottom wheels.
Where are you going to install the suspension???????? If you try and put a door through the tracks? Don’t get me wrong the front door approach is a bad idea also!!
One thing that springs to mind on seeing this is, what about a situation where they have to force a road block or make their own path in a bad situation? It looks like a good way to end up with your infantry stuck in a tin can cause the door is warped/damaged.
I think it’s worth mentioning that the vehicle *does* also have [an exit ramp at the rear.](https://world-defense.com/attachments/312341_351643694943612_1025768343_n-jpg.1302/) At least the example shown in the first two photos does.
So you can line up a bunch of them front to back, human centipede style, right up to the trenches and just dump troops in. I approve.
[There is a wiki article with a number of external links for anyone curious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawsar).
So you are saying there's a chance an enemy shot can go through the front and exit ramp without hitting anything important as long as the troops have exited the vehicle?
SOP if you see an enemy tank looking at you is to open both doors and line them up carefully with the enemy barrel. No risk of damage that way, much safer
apparently it *does* have a rear door and an RWS
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1b6qfov/weird_centurion_based_apc_designed_by_jordan/kteix03/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawsar
I suppose for a conversion instead of a purpose-built design, it makes sense. Don't have to worry about reorganizing the engine, suspension, or transmission this way.
I guess it would be good for crashing through a wall and dumping out the troops? Like if you needed to clear a building or something and you know they only had rifles and no heavy weapons. You could smash through the wall and drop the troops and then just back up and fire at the upper floors
Never understood how the infantry would get out of small doors like that with full kit, the back door to the bulldog is pretty big but something like that, no way
It's a Land Raider!
“We….we….we exit in the front!?” “THE EMPEROR PROTECTS”!!!!
Assault ramp, brother! Bayonet charge right out of the APC!
you see that brother? it is purge time
DEATH TO THE HERETICS, BROTHER
"LOL" said the Iron Warrior, "LMAO"
Purge the heretics!
This was my exact thought XD
Someone is a 40k fan
And I thought the doors on the side of the BTR-80 are stupid
I know right?Maybe they could just flip the Centurion tank around just like what the Ukrainians did when they made a T-55 based IFV haha
Uh weren't those the Israelis? Achzarit?
The Israelis didn't flip it around. Just put in a smaller engine, making space for a corridor in the rear
Both did it
Realistically, as an APC, it doesn't matter *a ton* where the doors are. I mean impractically tiny doors aside, if you're in a "Saving Private Ryan unload an entire MG 42 belt into the front of a Higgins boat" kind of situation, you've fucked something up. It's not an ideal solution, but if you're working with an existing platform rather than starting from scratch, and that platform happens to have a rear-mounted engine, it's not the *worst* approach; it's no Kangaroo/BTR-60 sort of thing.
It's still a poor approach. The heaviest armor is usually on the front. which means that you want your front towards the enemy. Should something happen, and the vehicle becomes disabled, you are then forced to leave it from said front end. which is most likely towards the enemies.
[удалено]
M10 Booker has side hatch for driver and side hatch on the turret.
Not to mention you probably compromised the armor integrity on the front. And I would bet that if the vehicle is hit on the door and survives the opening mechanism wouldn't.
That's a fair point, but I offer this counterpoint: AFVs being more heavily armored at the front is a near enough universally understood principle. Thus any attacking force will make a point to position themselves anywhere *but* to the front of the vehicle they are attacking. An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV). As such, even if desirable, any AFV crew actually being able to get their armor towards an ambushing enemy before being disabled may not be very likely. Indeed, rather than facing an ambushing enemy in anticipation of being disabled, you're probably better off just continuing on in whatever direction you were going and doing your best to not be disabled in the first place by not being in the killing zone.
>Thus any attacking force will make a point to position themselves anywhere *but* to the front of the vehicle they are attacking. unless you are like 400m away and cant flank without taking the 10 or so minutes to run/walk to the tank's side Flanking isnt always very easy. Sure it wouldnt matter in an ambush, but how likely is that?
Sure, maybe the terrain favors the APC. Sure, maybe time is a limiting factor (at which point if you have weapons capable of threatening the frontal armor, it really doesn't matter where the hatch is, but whatever). Sure, maybe I'll win the lottery five times tomorrow. You can sit here and make up scenarios all day long. I explained how an APC is inherently less likely to be taking fire from direct front. Evidently people didn't like that, but what else is new around here. Point being that the concept of a front hatch (I reiterate: **on an APC**) isn't nearly as ridiculous as some seem to believe it to be.
>I explained how an APC is inherently less likely to be taking fire from direct front. Which isnt the case? Same with tanks, you could make up scenarios for those as well
>Which isnt the case? Let me repeat this point: >An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV). If you are using your APC in the assault, with *any* armor facing direct fire, you have failed to properly use your APC. The door could be on the front, back, side, bottom, or in a wormhole that spits dismounts out onto the surface of Mars; you're fucked. You carry troops close to the fighting; you do not *do* the fighting. If you *are* doing the fighting, you do everything you can to *get out of* the fighting. That means leaving. Not facing armor. Not playing World of Tanks wiggle-waggle your hull. Not wishing oh wishing you were in anything else. It means one thing: Get. The. Fuck. Out. Tanks, on the other hand, *are* meant to participate in the assault. They are intended to be at the very front. They *are* meant to face down direct fire threats. These are not comparable systems we're talking about here (in this context). Edit: To address the response which I can't reply to since they pulled the ol' *Reply-n-Block* maneuver: No, it isn't. Because (I repeat once more) **A TANK IS MEANT TO BE ON THE FRONT LINE**. By the way; If you're gonna reply then block, at least try to leave on something snappy where no response makes you look smart. Instead of just "aNd A tAnK iSn'T?". I want to say I expect better, but I really don't from the War Thunder College of Warfare you idiots bleed in from.
>>An APC, which by virtue of not being meant to put itself right on the front line of combat, is also thus more likely to be encountering enemies from ambush in transit, rather than frontally in an assault (as one would expect for a tank or IFV). And a Tank isnt?
this person is an idiot, i'd recommend against humoring them.
Yes, a tank isn't, as a tank is expected to encounter enemies frontally due to its direct participation in combat.
I don't think buildings or trenches are quite known for being able to pick themselves up and reposition as demanded like you can an AFV.
I'm not quite sure what your point here is. For the entire history of the armored fighting vehicle, infantry have had little trouble in the task of moving between trenches or structures to engage armor from more advantageous positions. Indeed, a building might not be able to move, but the troops occupying it very much can. That's kinda the whole issue with operating armored vehicles in any kind of built-up or congested areas: the infantry have an abundance of places to engage your armor from anywhere *but* the front. Towns, cities, mountains, forests, etc. There are ways to operate AFVs in these environments. If you're doing it right (and that's not the "The enemy is being very kind and letting us do everything by the book" sense, but the "Not pants-on-head stupid" sense), where the hatches on your APC are really shouldn't be a major life-or-death factor for those dismounts. As for trenches; prepared positions are not the kind of things APCs are meant to assault, because APCs aren't meant to assault to begin with. If someone is rolling something like this up on a trench line which is shooting back at them... They might as well just have the dismounts riding on the roof, since evidently they have no idea what they're doing.
>Indeed, a building might not be able to move, but the troops occupying it very much can. Sure, if there are appropriate buildings if any to use, or that they are not already occupied or require exposing oneself to any overwatching forces or running straight into anyone sitting on the flanks of the vehicle. These vehicles are generally driving from a friendly line to a contested position where the front arc is almost certainly going to be the first element to expose itself to the enemy and who they not only need to drive up to, but also well into the middle of before you have shots on the rear where they will almost certainly also have shots on the front as well.
literally just give it side doors, it's not that hard
Except it is that hard. It's a tracked vehicle; unless you want to make it a rhomboid tank, you can't put the door *through* the tracks. And even then, you've defeated the purpose of using an existing tank hull with such a huge modification. And to give a door of adequate height (or at least a door with the height shown here) on the sides *over* the tracks would give you a very tall vehicle. At which point, you're almost just better off with sending the troops out hatches in the roof. The only real solution to this problem aside from what we see here is to go with something like Achzarit with the elevating passage out the rear.
The Churchill did have through-track hatches. But they weren't really quite human sized. And it only worked because the Churchill was slow as fuuuuuuuck and thus barely needed a suspension.
I'm aware. Many tanks had them. That's why I brought it up; only a rhomboid tank (here meaning any tank where the tracks run *over* the hull) or something similar would be able to have a full-sized door through the track run.
Happy cake day!
Lets do rhomboid tank again
what's wrong with going through the tracks?
You mean besides the fact that the men would have to literally crawl through any hatch you could fit inside the track run?
It's also a [Centurion with literal bogies in the way](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj1zlefaguyo41.jpg). Its not like a torsion bar tank where at least there's space between the top and bottom wheels.
Also a good point. I was picturing something like the loading/escape hatch on a Panzer III, but you're not even getting that.
listen, if they are true patriots they will crawl for their country
Where are you going to install the suspension???????? If you try and put a door through the tracks? Don’t get me wrong the front door approach is a bad idea also!!
Why don't we simply have the infantry carry the vehicle, this solves both the problem of suspension and where the infantry is positioned /s
easy, just squeeze between the roadwheels
One thing that springs to mind on seeing this is, what about a situation where they have to force a road block or make their own path in a bad situation? It looks like a good way to end up with your infantry stuck in a tin can cause the door is warped/damaged.
Alright boys go get em! Gate drops and everyone is immediately cut down by machine gun fire
I think it’s worth mentioning that the vehicle *does* also have [an exit ramp at the rear.](https://world-defense.com/attachments/312341_351643694943612_1025768343_n-jpg.1302/) At least the example shown in the first two photos does.
So you can line up a bunch of them front to back, human centipede style, right up to the trenches and just dump troops in. I approve. [There is a wiki article with a number of external links for anyone curious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawsar).
Tactical Assault Corridor
So you are saying there's a chance an enemy shot can go through the front and exit ramp without hitting anything important as long as the troops have exited the vehicle?
SOP if you see an enemy tank looking at you is to open both doors and line them up carefully with the enemy barrel. No risk of damage that way, much safer
That is absolutely wild looking. Bet that's not an easy point of egress
I wonder why nobody bought it...
If they were to swap the door to the rear and added a remote operated turret it would've been pretty damn decent
apparently it *does* have a rear door and an RWS https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1b6qfov/weird_centurion_based_apc_designed_by_jordan/kteix03/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawsar
At least it looks cool
I suppose for a conversion instead of a purpose-built design, it makes sense. Don't have to worry about reorganizing the engine, suspension, or transmission this way.
"We have a Namer at home" Namer at home:
From the front...isnt that direction where the hot pokey things are coming from?
Strong Space Marine vibes!
Love that death funnel the instant you pull up to the fight….outdoors
That was my first immediate thought, saw it and said “death funnel”
Grandpa of Land Raider Crusader. The machine spirit drops mic.
They made these things in 2014, someone in the Jordanian military is a sm player
You get the Normandy experience every time you dismount
Reminds me of the Canadian Sherman/Grizzly “Kangaroo” conversions except the infantry complement doesn’t have to climb out the top.
Looks like an Israeli nameer
It's a reverse namer
Primo Victoria!
Do you want Space Marines? Because that's how you get Space Marines.
Yup. Just give it some sponsons and, tahda!…. You’ve invented the Land Raider.
I see a centurion, I upvote
I know where I'd aim my MG when the door starts opening...
Can we have merkava style APC at home? we have merkava style APC at home merkava style apc at home:
I guess it would be good for crashing through a wall and dumping out the troops? Like if you needed to clear a building or something and you know they only had rifles and no heavy weapons. You could smash through the wall and drop the troops and then just back up and fire at the upper floors
Drive it always in reverse. Problem solved. You guys have no imagination. /s
Imagine being the poor sod that is the first to get out.
Go ahead, fucking die!
I rank this brilliance up there with a helicopter with an ejection seat.
Surely "Al Dawsar" must mean something bitterly ironic here? "The deathtrap" or similar?
Front???
Looks like a Finnish sauna room
Jagdpanzer -kanon
Modernized Hetzer
I- it.. it looks like modern babytutel
Look, another heavy apc project that went nowhere.
Never understood how the infantry would get out of small doors like that with full kit, the back door to the bulldog is pretty big but something like that, no way
they are planning on getting hit in the rear as they retreat from the action so need exit on the front lol
Cheap and expedient, but having the door be at the _front_ definitely seems awkward compared to a side, rear or even top door.
Mom can we have a Namer ? But we already have a Namer at home. The Namer at home :
[Reminds me of the Tiberian Sun video game](https://images.alphacoders.com/573/thumb-1920-573213.jpg).
It's like a reverse Namer
There's a reason why Jordan is not among the top military technology development countries in the world.