Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
EnsignExpendable

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

Recommended Posts

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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

w940_h586_x470_y293_99fd451da74a70aa.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

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

Not seen? 
 

9duidJl.jpg


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Hensoldt-Spexer_3D_01-800x445.jpg

 

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.

 

Hensoldt-Spexer_3D_02-1.jpg

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Puma%20MELLS%20(171).JPG

Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer-Lynx-31-e15854812033

 

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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
       

×
×
  • Create New...