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

[SH_MM]

Leopard 1 deep-fording.

 

[heretic88]

Interesting talk about the Tiger. It has some good points, I can easily believe that it was far more reliable than british tanks, or even the T-34, but I do not buy it that it was better or just as good as the Sherman...

 

[Wiedzmin]

@SH_MM

 

 

is it known why upper hull front addon steel on marder get rubber on some plates, and some plates without it ? thermal signature reduction for engine deck?

[SH_MM]

 

18 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

is it known why upper hull front addon steel on marder get rubber on some plates, and some plates without it ? thermal signature reduction for engine deck?

 

No idea. But some plates are connected with welded to the hull (i.e. in the area around the driver's hatch as shown in your image) while most of it is connected with rubber-paded bolts like the add-on armor on Leopard 1A1A1 and the Jaguar vehicles.

[Wiedzmin]

[SH_MM]

[SH_MM]

According to an article published on the website of Europäische Sicherheit und Technik, the German Army is cooperating with the Australian military on the development of the Heavy Weapons Carrier Infantry (formerly MaKaBo) variant of the Boxer in order to save money and time spent on development - this suggests that it will be based on Australian experiences with the Boxer CRV evaluation for the LAND 400 phase 2 program. Series production is planned for 2024.

There are no plans for dismounts, but MELLS (Spike-LR) will be integrated as additional armament to the required 30 x 173 mm gun. Additionally a RWS will be fitted to the vehicle, which is controlled  by the commander.

 

The JFST (heavy) variant for the German Army is planned to enter service by 2023. An improved command vehicle variant integrated into the DLB-O/MoToKa project is currently being projected.

 

Current development/improvment programs of the German Army's Boxer focus on improved optics, other sensors and auxiliary power systems. Digital/software-defined radios, a new BMS and integration of the Wirkmittel 90 (might just be better storage racks, but maybe they'll add the option to fit the Wirkmittel 90 to the RWS) are also topics. Evaluation of possible options to increase protection against handheld anti-tank weapons and ATGMs are also ongoing.

 

Talks have been started to potentially develop a mortar variant of the Boxer in cooperation with the UK.

[2805662]

Linked to the above - Lance turret for Boxer CRV Block 1 vehicles being test-fired from a KF31 hull in Germany. 
 

 

[SH_MM]

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Linked to the above - Lance turret for Boxer CRV Block 1 vehicles being test-fired from a KF31 hull in Germany. 

 

Note what seems to be Iron Fist sensors at 00:21.

[2805662]

40 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Note what seems to be Iron Fist sensors at 00:21.

Not seen? 
 

There is Iron Fist integration scheduled for Block 2 turrets, not sure of Block 1 will be delivered with them. 

[SH_MM]

On the left - optical sensor for the wake-up radar

On the right - ELAWS (Elbit Laser Warning System)

 

Unless I am mistaken.

[2805662]

Well spotted. 

[Beer]

Looks like Puma is still a headache for Bundeswehr. 

 

[SH_MM]

3 hours ago, Beer said:

Looks like Puma is still a headache for Bundeswehr. 

 

It is still a headache, but the values from Mr. Alex Luck are not supported by the linked official report from the German MoD. It seems that he didn't actually read it, but only glanced over it.

 

The Puma's readiness is not mentioned. Instead it is stated that the availability/readiness of new weapon systems is ranging between 30% and 93%:

"Beispiele für neue Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 30% bis 93% - sind u.a. SPz PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Geschützte Transportfahrzeuge (GTF) Zuladungsklasse (ZLK) 15t und NH 90."

 

The readiness of old systems meanwhile is really not different, ranging between 26% and 89% depending on the exact weapon system:

"Beispiele für alte Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 26% bis 89% sind u.a. TORNADO, CH-53, P-3C ORION, Betriebsstofftransporter."

 

Thus it appears that the "troubled" new weapon systems are actually a bit more reliable than their worn-out counterparts. This becomes even more clear when looking at average readiness rates - on average the eleven new weapon systems have a readiness rate of above 70%, while the 26 old weapon systems have a readiness rate of 67%.

However the exact situation for the Puma certainly isn't great. The Puma IFV belongs to the four new weapon systems with the lowest availability - for all of these systems special programs have been started to improve availability. A problem is that when the original contract was signed, spare parts and tools required for maintaining the Puma were reduced to a minimum in order to cut costs. As a result the spare parts order for the Puma IFVs meant for the VTJF 2023 also included lots of tools required to maintain/repair the vehicle that are lacking at many German Army sites in the relevant numbers.

 

The stated 80% readiness of the MRAP is also not mentioned in the document. The figure 80% is only mentioned twice: first in a passage mentioning that the availability of the helicopters used for flight training is 80%, and that Germany wants to purchase more market-available - so called "80% solutions", i.e. solutions that do not meet all requirements, but are already available and don't require a costly and risky development - in the future.

 

 

Edit: the last time the Puma's readiness rate was openly mentioned, it was 39% and according to reports, the situation is getting "better". A big issue according to the new official report is the low quality of "fresh from the factory" weapon systems, specifically for the Puma and the F125 frigates, which often results on systems being rejected by the Bundeswehr and then being fixed (a few times) before officially accepted.

[Beer]

39 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

It is still a headache, but the values from Mr. Alex Luck are not supported by the linked official report from the German MoD. It seems that he didn't actually read it, but only glanced over it.

 

The Puma's readiness is not mentioned. Instead it is stated that the availability/readiness of new weapon systems is ranging between 30% and 93%:

"Beispiele für neue Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 30% bis 93% - sind u.a. SPz PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Geschützte Transportfahrzeuge (GTF) Zuladungsklasse (ZLK) 15t und NH 90."

 

The readiness of old systems meanwhile is really not different, ranging between 26% and 89% depending on the exact weapon system:

"Beispiele für alte Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 26% bis 89% sind u.a. TORNADO, CH-53, P-3C ORION, Betriebsstofftransporter."

 

Thus it appears that the "troubled" new weapon systems are actually a bit more reliable than their worn-out counterparts. This becomes even more clear when looking at average readiness rates - on average the eleven new weapon systems have a readiness rate of above 70%, while the 26 old weapon systems have a readiness rate of 67%.

However the exact situation for the Puma certainly isn't great. The Puma IFV belongs to the four new weapon systems with the lowest availability - for all of these systems special programs have been started to improve availability. A problem is that when the original contract was signed, spare parts and tools required for maintaining the Puma were reduced to a minimum in order to cut costs. As a result the spare parts order for the Puma IFVs meant for the VTJF 2023 also included lots of tools required to maintain/repair the vehicle that are lacking at many German Army sites in the relevant numbers.

 

The stated 80% readiness of the MRAP is also not mentioned in the document. The figure 80% is only mentioned twice: first in a passage mentioning that the availability of the helicopters used for flight training is 80%, and that Germany wants to purchase more market-available - so called "80% solutions", i.e. solutions that do not meet all requirements, but are already available and don't require a costly and risky development - in the future.

 

 

Edit: the last time the Puma's readiness rate was openly mentioned, it was 39% and according to reports, the situation is getting "better". A big issue according to the new official report is the low quality of "fresh from the factory" weapon systems, specifically for the Puma and the F125 frigates, which often results on systems being rejected by the Bundeswehr and then being fixed (a few times) before officially accepted.

 

I went through the report quickly myself and I admit I haven't found the 30% value explicitely stated as well, however Puma is clearly mentioned several times in the report as "negativbauspiel". 

[123]

1

[Beer]

Panther vs. Grant with expected result.

 

[SH_MM]

Boxer with anti-drone system - i.e. a Kongsberg RWS firing 40 mm air-burst grenades and a Hensoldt Spexer 2000 radar unit, being purchased by the Bundeswehr as an interim solution for the VJTF 2023

 

 

Spexer 2000 is a new AESA radar working in the X-band. Maximum range is 40 kilometers when using a single beam or 2.5 kilometers when using 16 beams at the same time. Three radar panels are required for a full 360° coverage. Comparable solutions from other vendors would require four radar panels instead.

 

 

The IOC variant will have only one radar panel for 120° coverage, but it is prepared ("fitted for, but not with") to be upgraded with two further panels for full 360° coverage.

[SH_MM]

On 6/11/2020 at 3:59 PM, SH_MM said:

 

It is still a headache, but the values from Mr. Alex Luck are not supported by the linked official report from the German MoD. It seems that he didn't actually read it, but only glanced over it.

 

The Puma's readiness is not mentioned. Instead it is stated that the availability/readiness of new weapon systems is ranging between 30% and 93%:

"Beispiele für neue Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 30% bis 93% - sind u.a. SPz PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Geschützte Transportfahrzeuge (GTF) Zuladungsklasse (ZLK) 15t und NH 90."

 

The readiness of old systems meanwhile is really not different, ranging between 26% and 89% depending on the exact weapon system:

"Beispiele für alte Systememit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 26% bis 89% sind u.a. TORNADO, CH-53, P-3C ORION, Betriebsstofftransporter."

 

Thus it appears that the "troubled" new weapon systems are actually a bit more reliable than their worn-out counterparts. This becomes even more clear when looking at average readiness rates - on average the eleven new weapon systems have a readiness rate of above 70%, while the 26 old weapon systems have a readiness rate of 67%.

However the exact situation for the Puma certainly isn't great. The Puma IFV belongs to the four new weapon systems with the lowest availability - for all of these systems special programs have been started to improve availability. A problem is that when the original contract was signed, spare parts and tools required for maintaining the Puma were reduced to a minimum in order to cut costs. As a result the spare parts order for the Puma IFVs meant for the VTJF 2023 also included lots of tools required to maintain/repair the vehicle that are lacking at many German Army sites in the relevant numbers.

 

The stated 80% readiness of the MRAP is also not mentioned in the document. The figure 80% is only mentioned twice: first in a passage mentioning that the availability of the helicopters used for flight training is 80%, and that Germany wants to purchase more market-available - so called "80% solutions", i.e. solutions that do not meet all requirements, but are already available and don't require a costly and risky development - in the future.

 

 

Edit: the last time the Puma's readiness rate was openly mentioned, it was 39% and according to reports, the situation is getting "better". A big issue according to the new official report is the low quality of "fresh from the factory" weapon systems, specifically for the Puma and the F125 frigates, which often results on systems being rejected by the Bundeswehr and then being fixed (a few times) before officially accepted.

 

Contracts have been signed to improve Puma's readiness from about 30% to 50% within just a year. Let's see if that will happen...

 

[SH_MM]

 

Technical analysis/evaluation of the VJTF 2023 configuration of the Puma has been finished at the WTD 81. Note the hull mounted cameras/thermal imagers for 360° coverage, mounted at the corners of the hull.

 

 

 

[123]

1

[2805662]

Supashock Australia’s Retractable Anti-tank Missile Platform (RAMP) for Spike LR2 as being integrated into the Lance 2.0 turret for the Lynx KF41 & Boxer CRV. 
 

[SH_MM]

16 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

@SH_MM Wasnt the successful technical evalution the requirment for ordering the second batch of 210 Pumas? Or do we have to wait for the tactical evaluation?

 

We have to wait until the industry proves that it can bring Puma's readiness rate up to 50% this year.

 

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Supashock Australia’s Retractable Anti-tank Missile Platform (RAMP) for Spike LR2 as being integrated into the Lance 2.0 turret for the Lynx KF41 & Boxer CRV. 

 

But why? Aside of putting something Australian into these vehicles - to please some Australian politicians - there is little sense in integrating RAMP into LANCE 2.0. It only bulks up the turret while providing no real advantage (protection, signature management, capacity) over the modular mission pods already part of LANCE 2.0.

[2805662]

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

We have to wait until the industry proves that it can bring Puma's readiness rate up to 50% this year.

 

 

But why? Aside of putting something Australian into these vehicles - to please some Australian politicians - there is little sense in integrating RAMP into LANCE 2.0. It only bulks up the turret while providing no real advantage (protection, signature management, capacity) over the modular mission pods already part of LANCE 2.0.

According to the article in DTR (July 2020), it’s lighter, more robust, less vulnerable to tree strike, reduces turret swept volume, has better shock absorption, better operation temperature range (-40 degrees C - +70 degrees C) than the legacy MELLS launcher as used on Puma & the original Lance turret. 
 

I guess time will tell. 

[SH_MM]

The DTR article goes a bit more into detail, though I am still quite a bit sceptical.

 

The fact that it is lighter seems mostly related to the fact that it is not armored? The amount of armor required to cover the same box-shaped volume will be the same. The only thing that has changed is where the box-shaped volume is located inside or outside the turret in "a void inside the Lance turret envelope" on the starboard side. As far as I know, this void currently does not exist -  at least not with sufficient volume to mount RAMP within the LANCE 1.0 turret.

 

The hazard of tree strikes is an odd one. Seems like this never was a problem with IFVs. In case of the Puma IFV, the launcher does not extend over the hull sides, so at most turret rotation there isn't really the possibility of a "tree strike". In case of LANCE 1.0, Rheinmetall also designed a dual missile launcher with vertical arrangement rather than horizontal, which has been showcased on the Lynx KF31 demonstrator. While this won't completely prevent the likelihood of tree strikes, it would reduce it.

 

Spoiler

 

Btw. MELLS is the designation for Spike-LR, not a designation for the launcher. The Puma and Boxer CRV use different launchers; the latter's is a variant of the former's, but they are not identical. Armor protection is one major difference, but not the only one.

 

I don't think that the information released by Defence Technology Review magazine (both in their current issue and on Twitter), actually supports your statements. While DTR writes that the operational temperature range for the RAMP is -40°C to +80°C, no comparison to the earlier launcher is made. My understanding is that the Spike-LR (II) missile would be the limiting factor. Likewise it is stated that the Supacat RAMP is dampened, but it is not mentioned in the article nor in Twitter that it is dampened to a higher degree than the previous options (and that any dampening beyond the one offered on the existing launcher would actually make a difference).

 

However the weight difference, reduced overall volume and reduced tree are mentioned. Last but not least: in the article DTR specifically mentions that RAMP is to be added to the KF41 Lynx, but the previous comparison is related to the launcher used on the Boxer CRV demonstrator. On Twitter it is stated that RAMP (might/will) be mounted on the Boxer CRV aswell, but I am highly sceptical of that statement. I am 90% sure that the Boxer CRV will enter production with the LANCE 1.0 turret, rather than the newer LANCE 2.0 design. This is based on the fact that according to in 2019 Rheinmetall was in the process of implementing some changes to the LANCE 1.0 turret based on Australian requests and one the fact that the Bundeswehr announced that it will cooperate with Australia to speed up its procurement process of the heavy weapons carrier (Boxer with LANCE 1.0).