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

[123]

1

[DIADES]

On 4/28/2019 at 7:14 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

I guess it's better to use some other term that vague "Europe". At least because it does not include Germany.

 

I would like to remind about that article on Puma https://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/start/aktuell/nachrichten/jahr2018/august2018/!ut/p/z1/hY5fC4IwFMW_kXf-m_Y4kURCCy3LvcRwwwzbZCzpoQ_fIvBNug8H7j2_ezhA4QJUsnnomRmUZKPdW4qveBPkmVejIvNOBJGmOu6aonSzfQANnP8h1NpoZQiCmgtobUa0nuFDDRTonc3s5UxKm1EYh3XfjtDemOSjOKiO_A4W5MLplLSMVSOkGaz2mhmll-_uqbV1nIFDi9w0QeHSyX0nfkwiHAQ4zZMKpsc2Lsuw_wCvRfxg/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#Z7_694IG2S0MG2UA0AVRTKVMN1GO3
it was 97th percentile male for crew, and - as a compromise - 75th percentile male for dismounts. 

 

And apparently they paid attention to female soldiers too.
This article https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article180519422/Schuetzenpanzer-Puma-Soldaten-duerfen-nicht-groesser-als-1-84-Meter-sein.html mentions that there is also another restriction - to be at least 161 cm high (without helmet). Which is smaller than (~168cm high)  3rd percentile male in diagram from deutschesheer.de article (which covers man from Infants to 18 year olds, so I presume it gives height without helmet). 

 

Btw, during hearings in Bundestag on Puma - transcript available here http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/067/1906770.pdf - there was a response that "[google translate] Of the serving today in the Bundeswehr Panzergrenadieren are - 86 percent unrestricted use in the armored infantry fighting vehicle PUMA". I do not see any other way to get that 86 precent figure except including female soldiers into consideration.

 

...
altough Zetor Engineering's Wolfdog IFV proposal seems to be nothing but KF-41-alike wishful thinking, - at least it is capable of providing informantion about wishes themselves. It's brouchure mentions that "interior space transports crew up to 190 cm in height in a 3+8 (3+9) configuration", which is obviously male 90+ percentile, and also renders inside that brochure allow to measure space available for dismounts - and about 70 cm is available.

You can't average this stuff but you can say that the difference between the top %ile and the bottom %ile you have designed for represents the fraction of users who are suited to the design.  Knowing that Puma suits 86% of serving German soldiers (not sure if Germany uses German specific data) doesn't actually tell us much.  The top and bottom for each sex impact the overall number and there are multiple ways of coming up with 86%

 

Puma may seat 6 x 75%ile dismounts but that is a very long way from 8 x 95%ile.  Its even a long way from 6 x 95th%ile.  KF41 can seat 8 75th%ile but that is not 8 95%ile by a long way too.

 

I said Europe deliberately rather than Germany.  I don't know what BAE (Hagglunds)did but I suspect that they took the same approach as contemporary KMW/Rheinmetall - same market etc.

[DIADES]

We can't simply compare %iles unless we know that we are talking about the same population data set.  Australia now uses a data set based on actual serving Australian soldiers.  In the past we used various DEF STAN and MILSTD data.  If German designers are using data that is German population specific, then %ile comparisons are pointless.  We would need to look at actual dimensions for the same %ile in each data set to make valid judgements.

[skylancer-3441]

On 4/29/2019 at 2:04 PM, DIADES said:

but you can say that the difference between the top %ile and the bottom %ile you have designed for represents the fraction of users who are suited to the design.

last I looked, when someone does that, they usually use words like "central" to distinguish that from percentile number, in order to aviod confusion. And they do not use Ordinal numbers, although a possibility of typos should not be excluded, obviously. 
Example I just googled: equipment to fit the ''5th to 95th percentile user,'' that is, the central 90%

 

On 4/29/2019 at 2:04 PM, DIADES said:

KF41 can seat 8 75th%ile but that is not 8 95%ile by a long way too.

Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers?

...
upd:
DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required.

 

 

On 4/29/2019 at 2:13 PM, DIADES said:

We can't simply compare %iles unless we know that we are talking about the same population data set.  Australia now uses a data set based on actual serving Australian soldiers.  In the past we used various DEF STAN and MILSTD data.  If German designers are using data that is German population specific, then %ile comparisons are pointless.  We would need to look at actual dimensions for the same %ile in each data set to make valid judgements.

such chart for Geman male population is readily available from deutschesheer.de article:

...
interior of CV-9030N with MkIII hull

12 Mpix version available there https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019/Indekserte bilder1/2015/06/Teknologi kampvogn8.jpg.info#c=%2Ffotoweb%2Farchives%2F5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019%2F%3F25%3Dcv9030

[David Moyes]

Norwegian CV90 Mk III interior:




https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-sprenges-en-norsk-panservogn/222993

[123]

1

 

 

 

[DIADES]

On 4/29/2019 at 11:20 PM, David Moyes said:

Norwegian CV90 Mk III interior:

Wow.  Great pics.  Seriously cramped.  Note the legs extended to rest on opposite seat.  These look like pics of a mine blast test setup.  Feet off the floor is always needed.  It looks like there is not enough interior height to mount the seats high enough to allow the dismounts to rest their feet on a footrest that is part of their own seat.

[Serge]

This is why the chassis can be kept low. 

[DIADES]

6 hours ago, Serge said:

This is why the chassis can be kept low. 

Agreed - but that is not a practical posture.  More modern hulls have enough vertical space to allow legs tucked under instead of stretched out.

[DIADES]

18 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Another drip of information on upgrades and replacment for alot of Bundeswehr AFVs in the coming years.

 

So the big thing first the Spz Marder is getting upgraded.
Over 200 will be upgrade until 2025 with a new Thermal Imager for the Gunner, new night vision cameras for the driver, a new more powerful powerpack, a battlemanagment system and the

same tracks as the Puma and off course Spike instead of MILAN. 

TSWA is still happening for Spz Puma with lethal and non lethal CS and Flashbang rounds (?)
Wiesel is first getting upgraded with Spikes and then replaced by 2025 with a new "Airdeployable Heavy Weapon Carrier".
A Mungo replacment is being looked into.
Jägerbataillons are getting heavy Weapon Carriers so probably Boxer with a turret.
A new Airdeployable Patform with Mortar System is due in 2027 to replace M113 and Lkw Wolf with the 120mm Mortar, so the Wiesel 2 with a Mortar probably.
Boxer will receive an APS but no word on hard or soft kill.

 

 

 

Great drip!  Subscriber access unfortunately.  I can't find any English language reporting of this stuff.  Anybody?

[123]

1

[David Moyes]

Czech army magazine:
http://www.mocr.army.cz/assets/multimedia-a-knihovna/casopisy/a-report/ar5_2019.pdf

Page 28 has article on IFVs.

Decision and Contract by August.
 

Quote

And the facts
Objectives for the re-armament of land forces by modern infantry combat vehicles:
• The aim of the project is to acquire 210 modern infantry tracked combat vehicles on a single chassis in seven modifications according to the specific needs of the army and the acquisition of 29 accompanying service and workshop vehicles on three wheeled chassis.
modifications.
• The requirement of the contracting authority and an integral part of the public contract is the robust involvement of the Czech defense industry, both in its own production of vehicles and in their maintenance, service and logistical support throughout their life cycle of approximately 30 or more
flight. To do this, it will be necessary to transfer the necessary rights, know-how and licenses to the Czech Republic, in particular to production processes, maintenance and further development of vehicles.
• Integrator of the Czech defense industry involvement in the production of vehicles and at the same time the coordinator of their logistical support during the entire period of military use will be the state enterprise
VOP CZ. The Czech Republic and the army will thus gain the necessary self-sufficiency in logistics
support for vehicles and thus guarantee their high combat capabilities.
Basic technical requirements of the Czech Army:
• Modern infantry fighting vehicles will bring a completely new quality to the ground
forces and thus a substantial increase in the military capabilities of our army in defense of the state.
• The military requires vehicles with strong equipment, a high degree of durability and protection
crew, advanced command and control systems and high potential for further modernization growth, especially in the field of armaments, crew protection and used technologies.
• High overall resistance and crew protection for all vehicles certified to standards
and NATO standards, including active protection systems to eliminate 360 ° interference
around the vehicle and protecting the upper polosphere.
• The crew of the combat vehicle will consist of a total of 11 soldiers - commander and gunner, driver, two
specialists and swarm (landing) of six soldiers.
• Armament will be a fast-firing 30mm caliber automatic cannon in a tower ensemble
for commanders and shooters, coupled machine guns and integrated anti-tank missiles;
• Vehicle communication, information and other systems will be involved in national
and alliance systems of command and control.
• Before entering into a contractual relationship with a potential supplier, it will be offered
vehicles on the territory of the Czech Republic for the practical verification of its capabilities and parameters,
including firing of all kinds of weapons.

 

[David Moyes]

https://www.africanmilitaryblog.com/2019/05/algeria-to-produce-the-boxer-infantry-fighting-vehicle-ifv-locally

[David Moyes]

Lynx KF41 in Czech compatible configuration:



https://esut.de/2019/05/fachbeitraege/ruestung/12771/lynx-vom-reissbrett-in-den-wettbewerb/

Google translated:

Quote

The Lynx KF41 is an armored platform in the 40 tonne class. With 15 tons of configurable mass variants can be realized with combat weights between 36 and 50 tons. The trough and turret are made with a high level of basic protection and can be brought to higher levels of protection as needed (even with active protection). The combined air conditioner and ABC protection ventilation feature Beth El's ABC filters. The drive is a Liebherr 850 kW diesel in-line engine with high torque in conjunction with an automatic Renk HSWL 256C superimposed steering gearbox. The torsion bar-sprung drive with six rollers has shock absorbers by Supashock installed. The crawler is a system chain of Defense Service Tracks (DST).

The manned standard Lance tower is equipped with a 30 mm (Mk30-2 / ABM) or 35 mm automatic cannon, which can be reloaded under armor protection and is prepared for the firing of Airburst ammunition against aircraft or unprotected land targets. Mission pods on either side of the tower are suitable for equipment with e.g. Antitank rockets, UAV or means for the electronic fight provided.

The electronic architecture on 24 Volt basis with CANBus, Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA), integrated computer system and WinBMS combat guidance system as well as the equipment with electronic / electrical devices over two generators with altogether 600 A with electrical energy supplies. When the vehicle is stationary, the engine can provide sustained electrical power with reduced power (and reduced noise).

Special feature of the Lynx KF41 is the removable cover of the tub. Thus, the combat area can be provided within a few hours with a high roof, and thus to create more volume for extensive mission equipment or to achieve standing height. Depending on the configuration, up to nine soldiers can be transported indoors in mine-protected seating. The equipment to be accommodated in the different versions will only be determined in all three competition procedures when the final tender documents have been submitted.

Rheinmetall presented the Lnyx KF41 to international specialist journalists in a version suitable for the Czech competition. The equipment with weapons, observation, target and Feuerleiteinrichtungen as well as communication and further electronic device was exemplary, since the final specification for the vehicle does not exist yet. Due to the required participation of the Czech industry, the selection of industrial partners will influence the choice of equipment. The presented Lynx will be exhibited at the International Defense and Security Technologies Fair (IDET) at the end of May 2019 in Brno.

 

[SH_MM]

Roof armor of the Lynx KF41. It's very reminiscent of the Marder 1A3's roof armor.

 

 

Obviously the armor package can be configured to a certain extent according to the user's wishes, but I was expecting a bit more, given how beefy the roof armor of the Puma is.

 

On 5/7/2019 at 12:48 AM, David Moyes said:

Decision and Contract by August.

 

Worth noting that PSM still submitted the Puma as offer, but they are looking at options to modify its design.

[Ronin10]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 1:04 PM, DIADES said:

You can't average this stuff but you can say that the difference between the top %ile and the bottom %ile you have designed for represents the fraction of users who are suited to the design.  Knowing that Puma suits 86% of serving German soldiers (not sure if Germany uses German specific data) doesn't actually tell us much.  The top and bottom for each sex impact the overall number and there are multiple ways of coming up with 86%

 

Puma may seat 6 x 75%ile dismounts but that is a very long way from 8 x 95%ile.  Its even a long way from 6 x 95th%ile.  KF41 can seat 8 75th%ile but that is not 8 95%ile by a long way too.

 

I said Europe deliberately rather than Germany.  I don't know what BAE (Hagglunds)did but I suspect that they took the same approach as contemporary KMW/Rheinmetall - same market etc.

 

LYNX can indeed fit 8 x 95% Adult males in full battle rattle, and they will not have to squeeze in like sardines like in the CV90 of course if you Mount 6 seats in the LYNX, you can cram an awful lot of gear in with your lads as well. Trust me, even in my Army days I was a big lad, and I fit in the seats quite comfortably.

[Ronin10]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Roof armor of the Lynx KF41. It's very reminiscent of the Marder 1A3's roof armor.

 

 

Obviously the armor package can be configured to a certain extent according to the user's wishes, but I was expecting a bit more, given how beefy the roof armor of the Puma is.

 

 

Worth noting that PSM still submitted the Puma as offer, but they are looking at options to modify its design.

Comparing the LYNX and Marder is like comparing a 1980's Porsche 911 to the Current Model 911.... the Marder and the KF41 are vastly different, as is the KF41 to the KF31, this is obvious if you put them all lined up, do they look similar... somewhat, but it is coming from the same design house... are they the same... no.... also note that the LYNX has modular armor packages.... the above is STANAG 5 and above, well exceeding MARDER, PUMA is over engineered in typical german Fashion, it is good.... for the bundewehr.... and the Bundeswehr only.

[Ronin10]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 3:18 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

last I looked, when someone does that, they usually use words like "central" to distinguish that from percentile number, in order to aviod confusion. And they do not use Ordinal numbers, although a possibility of typos should not be excluded, obviously. 
Example I just googled: equipment to fit the ''5th to 95th percentile user,'' that is, the central 90%

 

Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers?

...
upd:
DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required.

 

 

such chart for Geman male population is readily available from deutschesheer.de article:

...
interior of CV-9030N with MkIII hull

12 Mpix version available there https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019/Indekserte bilder1/2015/06/Teknologi kampvogn8.jpg.info#c=%2Ffotoweb%2Farchives%2F5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019%2F%3F25%3Dcv9030

 

Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers?

...
upd:
DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required.

 

No... Skylancer you are right.... he is making up his own figures to Support his own argument

[Ronin10]

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:40 PM, SH_MM said:

 

It is quite a mess:

• The requirements of the Czech army aren't finished yet. They are still working on them, adding new ones and increasing the overall length of the documents containing the requirments - it has reached more than one hundred pages (DIN A4). Only four pages of requirements were given to the defence industry (BAE Systems, General Dynamics, PSM and Rheinmetall) before they started bidding/show-casing their offers.  
• Only European companies (and trans-European such as Turkey and Israel) were asked and allowed to bid. South Korea, despite being a large industrial partner, was ignored.
• The requirements didn't specify a manned or unmanned turret until recently - that's why three our of five IFVs tested in Libava had unmanned turrets. The new requirement for a manned turret was added - according to Czech journalists who asked a spokesperson of the Czech MoD - because Australia demands a manned turret for LAND 400 and the United States have showncased optionally manned turrets on the Stryker. This new requirement invalidates test results and eliminates the Puma, the ASCOD 35 and the CV90 CZr from the competition. 
• All IFVs tested in Libava were configured for nine men (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts) as originally required - but the requriement for crew capacity was changed to eleven men (crew of 3 + 8 dismounts). None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret. 
• The bidding companies have time until some point of time in May to submitt their offers, the rather short time between the changes of requirements and the deadline is a huge problem.
• The Czech army doesn't want to be the first user of a new infantry fighting vehicle, they want to buy a vehicle that is already in service with at least one user. This effectively eliminates the Lynx KF31, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 35 and Ajax/ASCOD 42. In combination with the manned turret and the dismount requirements, there is no IFV meeting all requirements oof the Czech army. 
• The Czech government demands that the state-owned company VOP CZ will act as system integrator, manufacturer of components and provider of maintenance services. The army dislikes this, because it will increase the costs of the new IFVs.
• Side note: while it has been previously reported that the Puma hit 37 out of 40 shots at targets at Libava, the results of the other contenders have been rather unknown. According to the article, the next best result was 19 out of 40 shots hit.
• A lot of people are really pissed, because quite a lot of money was invested into the development, search for industrial partners and marketing of vehicles that are now eliminated from the tender. The ASCOD 35 with Samson Mk. 2 RWS and the CV90 CZr with Kongsbergt MCT 30 turret were more or less specifcally developed for the Czech tender (well, CV90 CZr already existed earlier, but as unfinished variant), while PSM held multiple expensive conferences to find industrial partners.

I will give you a tip.... it is very rare that a vehicle ever meets all the requirements.... most of your Information is correct though, the unmanned turret isnt the controversy that PSM is making it out to be... the 2 Major acquisition Projects other then Czech are Australia and US... guess what Puma isnt in either because both requested manned turrets that can be converted to unmanned at a later time.

 

All responsed to the Initial requirements have been made, KF31 FYI was a prototype and that only, stop quoting that it is an Option... at best it was Proof of concept, as for the Kongsberg CEO whinging and whining... yeah of course it is in his interest, not the interest of the CR... and General Opata made it clear... CZ will get a manned turret.

 

As for the Turkish and Korean offers.... I feel you cant be serious on this matter... do you want another PANDUR Situation?

 

"the rather short time between the changes of requirements...." No one cares... the companies will reply in time, or choose No bid.

 

As for seating... stick your head in a CV90 filled with 8 People... then a Puma with 6 and then a LYNX... I think you will understand what 95% seating is.... just saying....

[Ronin10]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:11 AM, Serge said:

This is why the chassis can be kept low. 

meanwhile.... in other IFVs

[Ronin10]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 11:05 PM, DIADES said:

I disagree - Rheinmetall clearly state that the Puma carries a LANCE turret - the first of the family.  Statement was made to CoA in support of maturity during Ph2 bid.   This is supported across various sites on the web.  I suspect that the LANCE name was not being used during the initial development tho.

 

This makes sense at turrets and guns were what Rheinmetall brought to the PSM ( Projekt System Management GmbH ) partnership with KMW.

It is the same weapon System a Mauser MK30/2 ABM... the turret is different, as is the loading mechanism... and Lance for the most part is a 2 manned turret... of course before you bitch about it... yes there is an unmanned Version... irregardless the PUMA loading and feeding mechanism is not the same as the LANCE

[Serge]

6 hours ago, Ronin10 said:

meanwhile.... in other IFVs

Yes. In other IFV, chassis are higher and so heavier, easier to hit, less mobile....

[DIADES]

On 5/15/2019 at 11:43 PM, Ronin10 said:

oading and feeding mechanism is not the same as the LANCE

LANCE is not a turret - it is a family of turrets.  A bit pile of turret component and sub-system lego.  The Puma turret is the first production turret in the LANCE family.

[DIADES]

On 5/15/2019 at 10:42 PM, Ronin10 said:

he is making up his own figures to Support his own argumen

it is always wise to assume the people you are debating with are at least as well informed and intelligent as yourself.

[DIADES]

On 5/13/2019 at 11:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Roof armor of the Lynx KF41. It's

You are looking at a demonstrator - that is not armour, that is space claim.