Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
EnsignExpendable

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

Recommended Posts

Rrili1A.png

 

On 5/3/2018 at 3:11 PM, Willy Brandt said:

Any guess what they mean with Puma turret as Air Defence? Or what the Kongsberg System is? 

also is the qualified Air Defence the same as System for Nah- und Nächstbereichsschutz?

 

One option considered for the air defence system is to use the Puma turret with minor modifications. The Puma turret has been offered on the Boxer chassis since 2010, so it is an existing and proven solution with low development effort. I don't know about the Kongsberg system; I'd assume that it is based on (V)SHORAD missiles, because they probably wouldn't want to compete against KMW's and Rheinmetall's turret offerings. Kongsberg has developed a computerized controll system for (V)SHORAD missiles, which might encompass their offer:

 

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/shorad-vshorad/

 

Aside of the Skyranger turret, Rheinmetall seems to also offer the MPCS turret developed in cooperation with MBDA, which was first presented at ILA 2016. At least some of Rheinmetall's investor presentations use a photo of the MPCS turret for the NNBS program.

 

PCP-IMCP-MPCV.324-900x500.jpg

4l-image-34.jpg

 

As far as I know the Qualified Air Defence is part of the NNBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://defence-blog.com/army/rheinmetalls-unterluess-plant-rolls-100th-puma-infantry-fighting-vehicle.html

 

Don't be confused by the title. This is the 200th Puma already delivered to the Bundeswehr out of 342 on order, with the final unit delivered sometime around 2020. 

I just hope they're not thrown into some workshop because of certain shortages like they did with tanks, aircraft and whatnot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.janes.com/article/80463/design-concepts-emerge-for-possible-new-french-german-main-ground-combat-system

Anyone got a Jane `s Subscription?
they just describe one of the four concepts which is the most conservative one:
The first of these is a single platform concept that uses a tracked vehicle with a large calibre externally mounted gun, which could be the Rheinmetall 130 mm smoothbore gun that launched in mid-2016 and has started firing trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft has won the contract on the production of 75-150 Armoured Combat Support Vehicles (AGSV) for the Norwegian Army.This vehicle was originally called M113F4, and was pretty much an elongated M113F3 with a shorter superstructure to allow for various types of modules to be fitted in the back (similar to the Australian M113AS4), such as an Arthur artillery hunting radar module, a SHORAD module with a launch unit for IRIS-T missiles + a multi function radar, and a logistics variant with a 10 foot ISO container. In addition, there is supposed to be an electronic warfare variant that has a full superstructure.

 

sL8p6j4.png

An earlier computer model by KDA showing how a new SHORAD vehicle based on the M113F4 could look like.

 

Rather than let the Army’s workshop in Bjerkvik handle the production of these vehicle as has been the case in the past, they decided to outsource the production to FFG. IMO this makes sense considering that there is an urgent demand for these vehicles, especially the SHORAD variant, and the earlier Project 5026 ended up being completed way behind schedule. In any case, Bjerkvik will probably get some work anyway since FFG is also delivering additional upgrade kits to bring M113A2/M577A2 up to F3 level, in addition to the new ACSVs. Speaking of which, it also seems like FFG has made a lot of changes to the original M113F4 design, and it now appears to be more similar to their PMMV G5.

 

lTtw4OD.jpg

The new Armoured Combat Support Vehicle.

 

FFG is having success in Norway these days. In addition to this contract, they're also producing 6 Leopard 2 based Wisent 2 ARVs for the Norwegian Army, and will probably receive an order for 6 more in the AEV configuration to replace the Leopard 1 based NM189 INGPVs.

 

 

The delivery of the first Wisent 2 to the Norwegian Army happened in September last year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted A minute ago

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch.

 

What was initially intended to be a stretched M113 might have turned into a new vehicle from the looks of it. I guess we'll be able to tell for certain once the completed prototype is revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Posted A minute ago

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch.

 

What was initially intended to be a stretched M113 might have turned into a new vehicle from the looks of it. I guess we'll be able to tell for certain once the completed prototype is revealed.

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xoon said:

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead? 

 

I can imagine that the shape and layout of the ACSV (and the M113 design) might lend itself more favorably for a configuration seen in the image. You probably won't have that much space left in a CV90 with its lower hull and well sloped glacis plate if you cut away that much of the  superstructure. That said, for the EW variant you probably could use the CV90 Mk I hull  as is, and if it's somehow possible to put the launcher and radar on top of the hull , it could also take over the SHORAD role. Since Norway still has about 30 or so of these hulls sitting around  afaik, it might not be that much more expensive either.

 

On the other hand, the ACSV based vehicles are almost certainly going to be lighter and cheaper to operate than a CV90 based variant, and since the Norwegian Army were probably going to have to order a number of these vehicles anyway (for the reasons stated above, otherwise you'd not only have to buy more CV90s, but probably also ask Hägglunds to redesign the CV90 for those roles, and that would be very expensive), it might have made more sense to just opt for more ACSVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I can imagine that the shape and layout of the ACSV (and the M113 design) might lend itself more favorably for a configuration seen in the image. You probably won't have that much space left in a CV90 with its lower hull and well sloped glacis plate if you cut away that much of the  superstructure. That said, for the EW variant you probably could use the CV90 Mk I hull  as is, and if it's somehow possible to put the launcher and radar on top of the hull , it could also take over the SHORAD role. Since Norway still has about 30 or so of these hulls sitting around  afaik, it might not be that much more expensive either.

 

On the other hand, the ACSV based vehicles are almost certainly going to be lighter and cheaper to operate than a CV90 based variant, and since the Norwegian Army were probably going to have to order a number of these vehicles anyway (for the reasons stated above, otherwise you'd not only have to buy more CV90s, but probably also ask Hägglunds to redesign the CV90 for those roles, and that would be very expensive), it might have made more sense to just opt for more ACSVs.

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run? 

 

In the very long term, you might end up saving money by standardizing on a single platform, yes, but if you’re trying to pitch this idea to the politicians, they’re going to be less interested in the notion that it will be less expensive in 30-40 years from now than the fact that they’d have to make space/ find additional billions of NOK for such an acquisition in the current budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

In the very long term, you might end up saving money this way, yes, but if you’re trying to pitch this idea to the politicians, they’re going to be less interested in the notion that it will be less expensive in 30-40 years from now than the fact that they’d have to make space/ find additional billions of NOK for such an acquisition in the current budget.

So we are not phasing out the old M113 in the near future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M113 is not bad if it's used only for utility roles, especially where you dont need the power and capacity offered by the CV90's chassis.

Its main criticism is its horrendous protection, which should be a non issue here.

It's still the only low cost, extremely simple box on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 9:17 PM, Laser Shark said:

FFG is having success in Norway these days. In addition to this contract, they're also producing 6 Leopard 2 based Wisent 2 ARVs for the Norwegian Army, and will probably receive an order for 6 more in the AEV configuration to replace the Leopard 1 based NM189 INGPVs.

 

In mid-May the Norwegian government announced that they have to buy new tanks, as there are no Leopard 2 tanks available for lease. Does this mean they are just looking at Leopard 2s or are other tanks also considered?

 

20 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch. 

 

The lower image seems to show the G5's suspension (the roadwheels are grouped in two pairs), the upper one however seems to show a M113G4 or similiar vehicle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In mid-May the Norwegian government announced that they have to buy new tanks, as there are no Leopard 2 tanks available for lease. Does this mean they are just looking at Leopard 2s or are other tanks also considered?

 

 

They announced that it's going to be a regular procurement process, and since the name of the project is “new tanks” (and not “new/upgraded Leo 2s”), it kind of implies that other tank manufacturers will also be able to bid on this contract. That said, considering that the Leo 2 is already an established platform in the Norwegian Army, and we’ve recently invested in a new simulator for it, as well as new Wisent 2 ARVs, and that projects such as new AEVs and AVLBs on Leo 2 chassis are apparently proceeding as planned, it doesn’t exactly seem all that likely that something that isn’t a Leopard 2 will end up being selected in the end IMO.

 

Quote

The lower image seems to show the G5's suspension (the roadwheels are grouped in two pairs), the upper one however seems to show a M113G4 or similiar vehicle.

 

 

The upper image shows how the ACVS looked like a few years ago (a few prototypes were even built), and it was pretty much just a stretched M113F3 with a shorter superstructure. It seems like FFG took a look at the RFT on the production of these vehicles, and decided to offer us something better than that instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1528119970-0977770_1280x1024.jpg


This Boxer will be presented at Eurosatory. It has been fitted with the latest version of the Skyranger turret (or maybe a photoshop variant of that). The Lynx KF41 will be revealed in two variants: an IFV with the new LANCE 2.0 turret will be revealed on Tuesday next week, while a command post variant will be revealed a day later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

×