Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Belesarius

Marder I replacement begins service.

Recommended Posts

Photos from inside of Pumas showed 2 old monitors that i expected to see in Soviet mbts. At least they got a heavy IFV, with pretty good protection (even roof have thick armor modules).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos from inside of Pumas showed 2 old monitors that i expected to see in Soviet mbts. At least they got a heavy IFV, with pretty good protection (even roof have thick armor modules).

 

the last time Germany tried to produce a well-armored IFV they ended up with something that costs more than a T-72 to transport 10 conscripts with Battle rifles onto the battlefield 

 

 

#inventedmodernwarfare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos from inside of Pumas showed 2 old monitors that i expected to see in Soviet mbts. At least they got a heavy IFV, with pretty good protection (even roof have thick armor modules).

 

150624%2BPuma_Interior.jpg

 

Those 2 monitors are from 1980s  :D

 

BG-2-SPz-Puma-Querfahrt-1024.jpg

 

 

BG-13-Zwei-SPz-Puma-vor-Zuschauertribuen

 

BG-12-Medieninteresse-Schluesseluebergab

 

18524617694_f0a8b03aed_o.jpg

 

18526532793_51076bae3c_o.jpg

 

DSC_4863.JPG

 

811-02%2BDSC_4888.JPG

 

This 2-level panoramic sight... looks strange.

 

This vehicle weights like T-72B (around 44 tons), but offers protection only against 30 mm autocannons in frontal proection and even less at sides. How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

150624%2BPuma_Interior.jpg

 

Those 2 monitors are from 1980s  :D

 

BG-2-SPz-Puma-Querfahrt-1024.jpg

 

 

BG-13-Zwei-SPz-Puma-vor-Zuschauertribuen

 

BG-12-Medieninteresse-Schluesseluebergab

 

18524617694_f0a8b03aed_o.jpg

 

18526532793_51076bae3c_o.jpg

 

DSC_4863.JPG

 

811-02%2BDSC_4888.JPG

 

This 2-level panoramic sight... looks strange.

 

This vehicle weights like T-72B (around 44 tons), but offers protection only against 30 mm autocannons in frontal proection and even less at sides. How?

The Marder was gonna weigh just as mutch, saner minds prevailed and the Puma was adotped

 

To be fair im pretty sure when people design modern IFV's they are less concerned with some Russian 30mm's as they are with the RPG-7

 

i would be interesting to see how this fairs against such weapons

 

I think latest M2 Bradley modifications offer similar level of protection but they are more than ~10 tons lighter.

 

Not to mention the Bradley can also has TOWs stuffed into it. i wonder how much the weight will change when the unmanned turrents are introduced 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on turret design, armor and weapon. In case of Puma i can heard that they had better designs, but they left 'old' version because of budget.

I think Puma have ERA, although russian sources are unreliable about Puma armor (russian wehraboos). There is official german information from Army about Puma, is anybody here capable of translating it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As antiquated requirements for IFVs remain in the books but additional requirements for mine resistance and old fashioned capability grow, you'll see IFVs become these huge bloated things that make MBTs look modest in comparison.

Eventually, one of the major powers will admit to themselves that IFVs are a dumb idea and release a suite of much more diverse and individually capable vehicles. And it'll probably be China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As antiquated requirements for IFVs remain in the books but additional requirements for mine resistance and old fashioned capability grow, you'll see IFVs become these huge bloated things that make MBTs look modest in comparison.

Eventually, one of the major powers will admit to themselves that IFVs are a dumb idea and release a suite of much more diverse and individually capable vehicles. And it'll probably be China.

 

 

thats impossible sturgeon, since the T-14 already weighs so little Russia has plently of breathing space :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said, IFVs should mainly be concerned with stopping Infantry carried AT weapons, which they would probably encounter more than mines even in modern conflicts 

 

Russian IFVs usually have a pretty good combo of protection without insane weight, specially with the new Aramta based ones 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian IFVs have pretty bad protection but "not bad"/good firepower on top of great overal mobility. T-15 is very different from previous IFVs, thats why there are people who hate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian IFVs have pretty bad protection but "not bad"/good firepower on top of great overal mobility. T-15 is very different from previous IFVs, thats why there are people who hate it. 

 

For their time, they had pretty good armor compared to their counterparts

 

why would anyone hate the T-15? Its cost? 

 

and dont forgot about this bad boy 

btr_t.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEXPORT! 

 

Its not like there are Leopard 2s showing up at arms expo's for the Kraut's to measure there dicks

 

Hell, i would be willing to say there is some proof out there for new AFV devopment only being feasible because of export Since most Europeans nations just aren't going for each other's throats like they used to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically. You might as well ask every buyer nation "whatcha want in an IFV?" Than just designing a vehicle for Germany that is built to fight in Iraq where Germany will likely never fight and hoping for exports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans will take what they can get, being there military outside of the handful of Leopard 2s they can get to start for HATO dick measuring YouTube compilations they are a hollow shell of a military

 

Hell, the FDR's army wasnt even that nice compared to the NVA, they definitively had a worse air force than the east Germans 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
×
×
  • Create New...