rob89

Well, that's an improvement.
 
It's made by the same guy (Kwadwo Safo Kantanka) who built these for the Ghanaian military:
 
 
That...illuminated human, who also calls himself an "Apostle" and also goes by the nickname of "Star of Africa", also designs...uhm...helicopters:
 
 
^--- Note where those tail "missiles" are pointing. Don't worry if you can't even, it's normal.
 
And he also "designs" indigenous cars that in reality are Chinese cars whose spare parts are imported, then assembled in Ghana.

x2
 
BTW - Leopard 2 was developed whit some "german specyfic" too - armour was only "addon" to whole rest and prioryty was firepower, mobility and relability. After IIWW trauma when Panthers and Tigers where mostly in repairs then on battlefields there was the same story since Leopard 1 - tank must be on battlefield not in garage during reperation and mobility and firepower haveprioryty then armour. And Leopard 2 would be mucht more sophisticated but US trials had shown that Leopard 2AV even castrated from autoloader, APU, better FCS etc outperform XM1 in this case. 
And finnaly we had Leopard 2A0-2A3 whit working FCS, whit panoramic comander sight, whit 120mm and whit gorgous mobility and relabity. And really easy to use and repair. 
Polish army have very very good compare between T-72M1 so pure low-cost soviet tank, PT-91M/MZ so deep modernisation whit western FCS, western stabilisation, turet ring, transmision, thermal cameras etc and...25 yers old leopard 2A4. And what? And this "old" Leo-2A4 outperform not even T-72M1 but mostly PT-91MZ (Pandakar) tank in olmoust all aspects -including fire power, not even mentioned about durbility and relability. And thats the reason why Bumar łabedy had butthurt and had tryied (sucesfully...) block any take nex Leo-2 batch between 2003-2012...They "new" child whit mostly western components suck in compare to old 2A4. Ironiccly not in armour area but in all others aspects importatnt for tankers. In some way taken in 2002 Leopard 2A4 for Germans had killed Bumar-Łabedy and PT-91. But MoD and Army didn't do anything between 2003-2012 not take next Leo-2 batch (and Germans had offered circa 500 tanks) nor developed and buy nex PT-91 or modernisated T-72M1/PT-91 to  "Pendakar" level.  Of course Iraq and A-stan mission, and cirisis in 2008 hurt a lot armu budget but whole problem is mucht deeper - pepole rosponsible for army modernisaton did nothing in those times... :-/
Only thanks to two Generals Polish Army had taken germans 2A5 - it was small miracle in polish shitholle named moD, and lucky shoot. But whole rest had problems - including Leopar' s 2A4 couse lack of spare parts and looooooooong procedure to choose who (KMW, RHM or Aselan lol) will modernisated polish leo-2A4. This procedure had taken from 2012 to...december 2015. So proud of my MoD... :/ And form limited budget army choose Rheinmetall and..choose wrong in some way
Long story.
 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.
 
 
It might be possible, but I doubt that this is very likely if both vehicles make use of the same armor technology:
The Puma's decoupled running gear means there is no penetration of the hull floor (which is required for the torsion-bar suspension of the Lynx KF41), so the KF41 would require thicker belly armor to offer the same resistance against mines The basic structure of the Puma is designed to minimize weight (for example by using an aluminium inner shell for the unmanned turret and thin-metal bending technology for the hull), thus a larger percentage of its weight is invested into composite armor (which can offer several times the protection of steel plates of the same weight). The hull and turret structure of the Lynx KF41 are made of welded steel without making use of weight reduction measures. The Puma has an unmanned turret, while the Lynx KF41 has a manned turret (it could be fitted with an unmanned turret, but has only been showcased with the manned LANCE 2.0 turret), so the turret armor of the Lynx KF41 would need to be stronger for the same level of relative crew protection. The Lynx KF41 is capable of transporting more dismounts, because it is larger. This means there is more surface to be armored, which means less effective protection is afforded per weight and per surface area. So it really depends on unknown factors such as how much the armor weighs, how much weight is saved by the Puma's design, how much added area needs to be protected with the manned turret, where the armor is located in what thickness and how much the armored surface area/volume of the Lynx KF41 is larger than the Puma's. The fact that the Puma has a nine men capacity (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts), the Lynx KF41 with 12 men (crew of 3 + 9 dismounts) seems to indicate that the weight gain might not be enough to provide the same level of protection, if the same armor package technology would be used.
 
 
The Puma is a result of a project, which originally was meant to be fully modular and include various variants such as IFV, MBT, self-propelled anti-air gun, etc. The whole vehicle family was to be larger (up to 77 tonnes with modular armor package installed), feature bigger guns (50 mm gun for the IFV, 140 mm gun for the MBT variant) and provide more space (crew of 3 + 8 or 9 dismounts of 95th percentile German males) - but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV. The Lynx KF41 barely copies some of these aspects in a more primitive form.
 
The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

Yes, it is possible. They are both IFVs.
 
The Puma is optimized to achieve the maximum possible level of protection within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft. It makes a number of sacrificies (such as being more expensive due to relying on high-performance materials for armor protection and being able to transport only six dismounts) in order to achieve its goal. Unlike the Lynx KF41, it is a proper "next-generation" IFV in the sense of incorporating as many new technologies as possible - the German military used the Puma development to fund the development of new technologies suited for future next-generation AFVs such as MBTs.
 
The Lynx KF41 is based on tested and existing components, not integrating many new technologies. However that makes it cheaper and likely also more reliable (at least until the teething issues of the Puma have been fixed). It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine), larger armament options (up to 120 mm smoothbore gun in an AGS variant) and uses a cheaper (but physically larger) engine. The Lynx KF41 is meant to be a low-cost option compared to developing new IFVs in many aspects. It is also semi-modular (the rear module can be exchanged), further lowering costs of creating and operating multiple variants of the Lynx KF41.

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.
 
Wether these two are the best on the market is debatable, there never is a definitive best solution; each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. But they should always be considered to be contenders.
 
 
Currently there is only a single Lynx KF41 prototype, this is the same vehicle showcased at Eurosatory 2018 in Paris, at AUSA 2018 in the US and in Australia. But apparently Qatar has shown interest in the Lynx KF41 (maybe they are already negoating, I don't know), so Rheinmetall decided to showcase the vehicle in Qatar. Note that Rheinmetall Barzan is a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and the ministry of defence of Qatar, so it has a very good chance of being adopted in Qatar.
 
 
As said by 2805662, the SEOSS commander's sight can be retracted into the turret, so that the Lynx fits through lower tunnels, into ships or transport aircraft with height restrictions. This is how the retracting mechanism looks in case of the LANCE 1.0 turret:

Well sometimes knowledge in silver but shut the fuck up is pure gold. That what I think about those on AW forum.
 
Point by point:
 
Yes, mostly true.
PT-91M/M1 have better vs KE armour then Leopard 2A4 and as base armour - mucht more weaker then L2A4 against HEAT. But PT-91M/M1 whit ERAWA-2 is mucht better protected then Leopard 2A4. Sad, but it's fact. But from the other hand - Leopard 2A4 outdated PT-91 in all other aspects and tank crews don't event want to lisen about T-72M1/PT-91/Pendakar tank. They just want's Leo-2.
 
 
yes, it's true in case old 2A4.
 
No, not true. AMAP-B is OK, "base armour" in Leopard 2A4 is shit -that's the problem.  Whole protection accoding to polish PGZ shoud be "over 2A5 level" but on test WITU dicover that is not even on this level. Rest is classify but definetly AMAP-B is not problem...in relatio to weight is very good. 
 
 
Part of polish MoD is working on G2G whit USA about take  300-400 M1A1 and upgrade it in Lima.  Estimated cost is ~3bln $ It's forced against polish industry (PGZ want's to deal whit Germans or mod.PT-91M) or Army (they want Leopard 2 tanks). It's just slowly doing by last year - IMHO chance are 50/50 couse nobody (despite part od MoD) want's M1A1PL in Poland. 
 
 
 

@UP
no, definetly not - late 2A4 haven't this problem as I know, but still suspension  limited weight to circa 60,5t.  The next problem that not exatly all Loeben users can had problem whit "old" 2A4 chassis - many depend on how is used tanks. And this polish ones have hard life couse they are used a lot - sevral are send to Germany between 2006-2015 to welded again the bottol of the hull sides couse it was cracing - but it's mostly cased by stupid-estern cowboys jumping whole tank style. But there where some problems whit cracking - old hulls, "tired", used a lot. And now whole problem blow up during Leopard 2PL program - weight limits,  $ limits, etc.  
Intresting case are Indonesian and Singapour tanks - maybe they armour is mucht lighter then we think or they have upgreaded suspension. Or finall user doesnt care about microcracking chassis mounts. No idea.
 
Oh, the last but not least - almoust all informations about problems whit Leopard 2PL or doubfull balistic test are rumors from OBRUM and HSW factories - co competitors of Bumar - Łabędy SA. Polish Rheinmettal of course doesen't coment, WITU too.  There are some rumors from army side but they are rather suport IBD/Rheinemttal then blame them. And all is theory OPSPEC so I would be very cerfull whit some "hard" statsments.
 

Does it mean that all the 2A5 converted from old 2A4 (for ex. the ex-Netherland ones, now in Finland) have these structural weakness and risk to crack, due to their upgraded weight, now above 60 tons ? It seems quite unbelievable ...

In the AW forum there are some pretty sensational revelations (by the user Damian) about the characteristics of Leo 2 armor of early variants and about the chassis and AMAP-B too (Poland AFV, pg.95).
 
https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?24934-Polands-Armored-Fighting-Vehicles&p=1869758&viewfull=1#post1869758
 
What do you think ?

The CV90 Mk. III reaches what BAE Systems describes as "level 5++" of STANAG 4569. This means its protection should be above STANAG level 5 (capable of stopping 25 mm AP(FS)DS ammunition at the frontal arc), but below STANAG 4569 level 6. That would place effective protection below ~120 mm steel equivalent protection, but above 60-70 mm.
The CV90 Mk. IIIb (Norwegian model) and CV90 Mk. IV are both offered with STANAG 4569 level 6 protection, so they should have at least ~120 mm RHAe along the frontal arc.
 
Only the Swedes with their Strf 90C (CV90 Mk. 0 with add-on armor) have adopted armor capable to stop the basic RPG-7 ammunition types with penetration of ~300 mm steel armor.
 
The ASCOD is also offered with numerous armor configurations. The Spanish Pizarro is fitted with ERA along the frontal arc, but no composite armor. So armor protection is just barely higher than the standard ASCOD hull (stopping 14.5 mm AP rounds along the frontal arc and 7.62 mm rounds elsewhere; even including the steel plates of the ERA, protection might be as low 50-60 mm steel armor equvialency vs KE). The SABBLIR ERA is claimed to provide protection against the RPG-7 with 300 mm penetration.
The Ulan is fitted with MEXAS designed to resist 30 mm APFSDS at 1,000 m range along a 30° arc (±15°), so it should have at least  ~110 mm RHAe at the frontal section. Curiously the latest versions of the ASCOD 35 have been showcased with only STANAG 4569 level 5 armor (so at least ~60-70 mm RHAe), which also appears to be thinner than the Ulan's MEXAS. As for the Ajax, the UK has not revealed any protection levels, but it is understood (based on the weight), that it should be able to at least reach STANAG 4569 level 6.
 
Likewise Germany has not revealed the protection level of the Puma IFV, aside of stating that it is protected against "medium caliber ammunition (such as 30 mm APFSDS)" and RPGs at the front of the hull without add-on armor, when fitted with add-on armor (which currently is always fitted), the sides of the hull and the turret reach the same protection against KE (and the hull is also capable of resisting RPGs). It is rumored, but uncofirmed, that the armor can protect more than just 30 mm APFSDS ammo. The frontal hull armor makes use of AMAP-SC NERA, which in other applications (like the side skirts of the Leopard 2 Evolution) can stop the PG-7VLT munition of the RPG-7, which features a tandem warhead with 550-600 mm penetration into steel armor.
 
The armor of the KF41 Lynx remains largely a secret, but the manufacturer also provides armor for the ASCOD Ulan, the Puma, Strf 90C and CV90 Mk. IIIB, so it is expected to reach a very high level of protection given its weight. It doesn't seem to be NERA, so it likely won't be enough to stop an RPG.
 
 
The ASCOD has yet to be advertised with STANAG 4569 level 6, the ASCOD 35 presented at Eurosatroy had only STANAG 4569 level 5 ballistic and level 3 mine protection.
 

 
Ajax's protection level also remains a mystery.
 
It is not stated wether the Puma conforms with any STANAG standards in terms of protection, the level 6 was added to the standadrd 4569 long time after the Puma was designed. The additional side protection also contains an armor plate, overall it is claimed to provide similar protection to the front armor (that is confirmed to at least protect against unknown 30 mm APFSDS rounds from unknown distance).
 
 
Yes, that is the main reason why 35/40/57 mm autocannons have been made. But IFVs are always on the light side of protection, the Warrior and M2 Bradley were initially designed to stop 14.5 mm AP rounds at the front only.
 
 
You are simplifying too much, both in terms of size and weight available for armor.
 
 
It is much smaller than a Marder in terms of usable volume and the claimed protection levels are very suspicious. Parts of the UFP are directly taken from the T-64 hull on which it is based. But it won't matter, it is rusting away...

 
 
Marder 1 has 11-15 mm steel at the upper hull, 32 mm steel at the lower hull and 25 mm steel at the turret. Including slope you are looking at 32-72 mm steel armor. The Marder 1A3 added spaced armor to protect against 30 mm AP rounds from 200 m distance (on the upper hull, the spaced armor seems to be between 5 and 10 mm thick, so steel thickness along the line-of-sight would be about ~75-100 mm with slightly higher equivalent protection.
 
 
 
 
 

Hello everyone
 
I have a question for the armour experts of this forum
Is it possible to have an estimate of the RHA equivalent of frontal arc and side protection (vs KE & vs CE) of modern IFV/AFV like Spz Puma, Kf-41, Ascod/Ajax, CV90 MkIII/IV etc.
 
Thank you in advance
 
best regards