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

[Laser Shark]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:25 PM, Voodoo said:

 

Calling the K9 a copy of the M109 is a bit of a stretch.

 

The K2 isn’t a copy of the Leo 2 and/or Leclerc either even if does share certain components with these two.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

 

Can KMW & Rheinmetall or Artec deliver an ammunition resupply vehicle to go along with their candidates? This article from a month ago gave me the impression that this might be a requirement for the Australian Army.

[SH_MM]

There apparently is a Boxer ammunition resupply variant, though it seems to follow a different concept than the ones available for M109 and K9. There also was a design for an ammunition resupply vehicle for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (designed when KMW competed in the Crusader program in the United States), but it probably is a dead design with blueprints rotting in some old company archive.

 

[heretic88]

7 hours ago, DIADES said:

The Redback has a proper engine from MTU while LYNX uses a crane engine... 

Well, I work in the construction industry, and here Liebherr means quality. Top quality. Generally, construction machines need to work reliably in harsh conditions, under heavy loads, sometimes without stopping for even a minute in a work shift (mining especially), and sometimes without proper maintenance. Military engines, even the MTU are completely unsuitable in such environments. Liebherr has lots of experience designing engines that are able to work reliably for thousands of hours in such applications. They have engines ranging from 300 to 6000hp. 

The engine for the Lynx will be probably the D9512 model, used by not cranes, but by the ~70 ton PR776 dozer, and the ~140 ton R 9150 mining excavator for example. 

[Voodoo]

6 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

The K2 isn’t a copy of the Leo 2 and/or Leclerc either even if does share certain components with these two.

 

 

 

 

The K9 and M109 share nothing at all.

[DIADES]

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Top quality.

I absolutely agree.  Very good product.  But, fighting vehicles operate in much more demanding conditions.  In particular - speed.  High cross country speed imposes shock and vibration far beyond anything seen by any civil tracked machine.  And slopes are traversed that would not be attempted by civil machines - unsafe but military imperative.over rules. Then there is fuel type and quality - AFVs are multi-fule and need to run on just about anything

 

Yes, Liebherr make very good engines but this will the first combat vehicle for them so there will be lessons to be learned.  If we are talking technical risk, MTU is near zero and Liebherr is higher.

[DIADES]

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

torsion bars couldn't be modern

not what I meant.  The LYNX torsion bar suspension is very evolved, very mature reliable etc.  But conceptually, dates to the 40s and actually is little different from Leopard 1.  The details of the torsion bar mounts and track return rollers look identical to Leopard 1.

 

 It is plain Jane - no functionality.  The Hanwha hydra-pneumatic in arm set up offers some packaging advantages (potentially anyway) as internal height can use space where the torsion bars are not present.  And obviously, inherently capable of ride height control and posture control.  It is not known (to me anyway) if Hanwha is implementing those features on Redback but I would be very surprised if they are not.

[DIADES]

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Liebherr

they won on price, which makes sense, they are trying to establish themselves and they probably have better continuity of production which will help their cost base.  OK, I was being hyperbolic when I said "crane" My real point is that there is presently zero Liebherr combat vehicle experience.

[DIADES]

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II.

Same caliber, same ammunition capabilities, same performance, give or take.  In Capability terms (as used by CoA), they are identical.  Defeat certain threats at certain ranges.

 

How well they are integrated into the respective turrets will be the real difference.

[2805662]

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Really? To me both offers look to be quite different based on their specifications and used components.

 

When Hanwha released first informations regarding the AS21 Redback, it was reported (by Defence Technology Review, MONCH, Jane's and other news outlets), that the weight of the prototype was about 40 tonnes. IIRC the gross-vehicle weight was supposed to be around 43 tonnes. Now a lot has changed since then and the Redback's combat weight has grown from 40 to 42 tonnes, but I don't believe that gross-vehicle weight was massively increased. At least with the rubber band tracks from Soucy they are limited to 42 tonnes.

Meanwhile the KF41 Lynx has a combat weight 44 tonnes as presented at Eurosatory 2018 and a gross vehicle weight of 50 tonnes, which translates to better armor protection and more growth potential in the future. Rheinmetall already stated that they have designed an add-on armor kit for urban combat, raising the vehicle's weight to 48 tonnes... can the AS21 match that?

 

Furthermore the Lynx has the advantage of its modularity. In the past people always downplayed the Boxer's modularity compared to just procure multiple variants of the same vehicle in a Stryker-like fashion, but it has been cited as one of the reason speaking for the Boxer during LAND 400 Phase 2. The modularity allows faster upgrades, easier repairs, in-field conversions and keeps life-cycle costs down.

 

The Lynx also seems to have a more future-oriented power pack, being fitted with the state-of-the-art Renk HSWL 256C transmission coupled to a modern Liebherr engine with 10% more output. The Redback's engine design will be close to 40 years and its transmission design will be close to 60 years if it entered service around 2030... in my opinion that is not ideal. The same applies to the exhaust and cooling system. The Lynx's design takes attention to cooling the exhaust gases and to redirect them to the vehicle rear in order to minimize the thermal and noise signature, while the AS21 Redback simply has an exhaust pipe sticking out of its side. Generally the AS21's design doesn't seem to pay as much attention to signature reduction.

 

Then there are further small differences that might not be that relevant, but at least have influenced my opinion on the vehicles, for example the turret choice for the prototypes. I understand that the turret choice is not set in stone and that the designs will change - for example by including different missile launchers, integrating active protection systems, etc. - but I am really wary of the EOS T2000 turret. While a lot of Australians on different web froums and in social media have declared it to be a perfect turret, aside form the fact that it looks cool I have not seen any real fact why it should be much better than the original Elbit UT/MT30 turret it is derived from. And the MT30 turret was offered during LAND 400 Phase 2, loosing to the LANCE 1.0 design. So the EOS T2000 not only needs to close the gap between its predecessor and LANCE 1.0, but also needs to beat the newer LANCE 2.0 turret... that seems like a lot too much to ask from the first turret design by EOS.

 

There are also the differences between Mk 44 Bushmaster II and Mauser MK 30-2/ABM (electrical driven vs gas-operated, dispersion), missile load-out (current Lynx prototype has four ATGMs vs two in the EOS T2000), the way the air-burst ammunition is programmed (where Rheinmetall's external programming allows using more types of ammunition such as AHEAD/KETF), etc.

 

I am by no means an expert on Australian defence procurement policies, the involved politics and the exact relevance of the difference to the requirements. Maybe the Australian military doesn't care about higher armor protection, when both vehicles manage to hit the baseline requirements. Maybe the LAND 400 Phase 3 IFV's inherent growth potential is also not seen as relevant, given how long M113 and ASLAV managed to stay in service. Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

 

 

You make that sound as if torsion bars couldn't be modern. That's not true.

 

 

Liebherr managed to beat MTU for the German Marder 1 engine replacement. They did not offer a crane engine.

 

 

Currently both use different guns; Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II. The armor specifications are also different; both managed to meet the Australian protection requirements, but this is not an upper limit for protection.

So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market. 

[SH_MM]

6 hours ago, DIADES said:

But conceptually, dates to the 40s and actually is little different from Leopard 1.  The details of the torsion bar mounts and track return rollers look identical to Leopard 1.

 

 It is plain Jane - no functionality.  The Hanwha hydra-pneumatic in arm set up offers some packaging advantages (potentially anyway) as internal height can use space where the torsion bars are not present.  And obviously, inherently capable of ride height control and posture control.  It is not known (to me anyway) if Hanwha is implementing those features on Redback but I would be very surprised if they are not

 

In the end it isn't relevant if the concept dates back to the 1940s or 1950s; the performance in all factors (actual performance, reliability, costs, required design changes, etc.) should be the sole deciding factor. Hydropneumatic suspsensions have been around for 60 years, yet they are still not a set feature in modern vehicles, as they do not come only with advantages, but also their own inherent drawbacks.

 

The Arbeitsgruppe B's Leopard 1 design btw. also featured a hydropneumatic suspension, yet the torsion bar design went into production.

 

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market. 

 

Based on the current prototypes, I would say the KF41 Lynx exceeds the current Australian requirements in certain areas, which is probably the result of the Lynx being designed for/offered in a wide variety of markets - i.e Australia, Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic and Hungary, the United States and Qatar, which can all have different requirements.

 

The side armor of the Lynx is quite beefy and looks rather similar to the Strf90 Evolution upgrade that IBD Deisenroth's Swedish subsidiary Åkers Krutbruk offered to the Swedish Army as replacement for the Strf 9040C's AMAP-X armor package. If the ressemblance of the thick side skirts is not only optical, but also design-wise, then the KF41 Lynx should be protected against heavy EFP-IEDs and RPGs. As far as I know, there is not such a requirement in LAND 400 Phase 3.

 

Another example could be the roof armor. According to Christopher Foss from Jane's IHS, the Lynx features a reinforced roof with anti-bomblet protection. From the looks of it, the AS21 Redback doesn't feature reinforced roof armor yet.

 

In the end the variant offered by Rheinmetall to Australia might end up looking a lot different from the current prototypes; we don't know yet. The company has shown its willingless to modify the design in their short-lived cooperation with Raytheon (offer lnyx with Coyote UAV, TOW, QuickKill and Raytheon third-generation FLIR). It is also possible that Rheinmetall repeats their LAND 400 Phase 2 tactics by sending over two prototypes in different configurations, i.e. a baseline offer meeting the Australian requirements and a more capable variant to showcase what is also possible.

[DIADES]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The side armor of the Lynx is quite beefy and looks r

I had a good look at these "armour" modules at Eursatory - they are dummies, purely for show.

 

But I agree, we have not seen what was actually offered by either Rheinmetall or Hanwha.  The armour capabilities required are defined by the Spec and yes, bomblet protection is required as is IED and EFP.  Both contenders will offer solutions.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

over two prototypes in different configuration

No.  Not possible.  This would be a breach of the Phase 3 RMA contract conditions.  There will be differences permitted but they are about test practicalities, not configuration with respect to features.  So, turrets can have dummy APS (for example) providing one has real.  The RMA compares one configuration from Rheinmetall and one from Hanwha.  Yes, each provides 3 vehicles but that is to facilitate the test program, not for config differences.

 

Rheinmetall and Hanwah can SHOW as many different configs as hey like to the public, but only one will be considered by CoA during RMA.

[Ramlaen]

 

[Serge]

Made my day. 

[heretic88]

19 hours ago, DIADES said:

But, fighting vehicles operate in much more demanding conditions.  In particular - speed.  High cross country speed imposes shock and vibration far beyond anything seen by any civil tracked machine.  And slopes are traversed that would not be attempted by civil machines - unsafe but military imperative.over rules.

Wholly disagree. You forget one thing. Construction machines DO NOT have suspension systems! Shock and vibration is definitely far higher than in any military tracked vehicle. I tell it from experience. (I drove BMP-1 and MT-55 too for example, and its nothing compared to the wheel loader I use in my job.) As for slopes... just watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POmYyY3sIs4

 

[DIADES]

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Shock and vibration is definitely far higher t

Not higher, different.  The spectral power density distributions are different.  Which is why there are specialist producers of construction machines and specialist producers of military machines.  The environments and needs are different. 

[heretic88]

I'd suggest watching this. Dozers are one of the roughest running machines. Vibration is massive, you can see it very well that it shakes constantly, especially when running unloaded. Operating the blade also causes big shocks. The engine of the Lynx is probably the same that powers the PR776 dozer, so a much softer running military vehicle cannot be that punishing for it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9cxaCyc31M

 

[DIADES]

On 8/24/2020 at 3:28 AM, heretic88 said:

Operating the blade

Several LYNX variants have blades too.  Then there are mine plows.  Yes, I get what you are saying but I am sticking to my guns.  The loads are different - being fine with one is not the same as being fine wit the other.  BTW, I was part of a wheeled loaded design team a while back. - I do get what you are saying.

[SH_MM]

 

[MoritzPTK]

Rheinmetall ADS on Marder IFV

[DIADES]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:17 PM, SH_MM said:

 

I wonder about axle weights.  That is a big lump of stuff!

[skylancer-3441]

 

[Beer]

120% higher, i.e. more than twice higher? Doesn't he mean 120% of the similar guns pressure, i.e. 20% more? 

[SH_MM]

6 hours ago, Beer said:

120% higher, i.e. more than twice higher? Doesn't he mean 120% of the similar guns pressure, i.e. 20% more? 

 

Just 20% higher according to Cockerill's old brochures. That would suggest a maximum chamber pressure slightly above 600 MPa.

[Beer]

20 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Just 20% higher according to Cockerill's old brochures. That would suggest a maximum chamber pressure slightly above 600 MPa.

 

Thanks, I thought so. 

[MoritzPTK]