Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Singular is Freccia, plural would be Frecce going by regular grammar, but I don't know if a vehicle name gets changed like that or it it remains Freccia   Have some Ariete - Centauro II mix

I didn't say anything about penetration either.     See?  That's what I said.  I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate.  I am saying HESH is impotent because

https://www.janes.com/article/85132/brazil-transfers-m41c-light-tanks-to-uruguayan-army

Quote

Brazil transfers M41C light tanks to Uruguayan Army

The Brazilian Army completed the transfer of 25 M41C light tanks to its Uruguayan counterpart in Rivera, Uruguay, on 7 December, according to sources from both nations' armies.

Of the 25 vehicles, 15 were completely refurbished by Brazil while the remaining 10 will be used for parts. Those that will remain intact will be assigned to armoured infantry units, which currently use M24 light tanks. While the M41Cs are also legacy vehicles, they will enhance the capabilities of the Uruguayan Infantry.

 

CHAFFEE IS ETERNAL

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for the forum' experts

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects?

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

PS : why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this amusing tank story from the Battle of Massawa(1990) during the Eritrean War of Independence :

Quote

The insurgents (EPLA) then deployed two captured T-55s - with their turrets turned towards their own lines to make defenders (Ethiopian Army) believe their own comrades were trying to rally them - to approach the Ethiopian lines. Turning their turrets around, both tanks then opened fire at close range, inflicting severe casualties before they were both knocked out. - Ethiopian- Eritrean Wars vol. 2 by Fontanellaz & Cooper

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hu?
I just realized something.

If you look at the driver the armor looks similar to the Puma but all the hatches seem to be opened by hand and not by ratchet.
.Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?
@SH_MM Do you know anything on why the Lynx is in Qatar and we didnt hear anything about it?

Is it because they are sold/produced(?) by Rheinmetall Barzan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 5:50 PM, rob89 said:

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects? 

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

Yes, it is possible. They are both IFVs.

 

The Puma is optimized to achieve the maximum possible level of protection within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft. It makes a number of sacrificies (such as being more expensive due to relying on high-performance materials for armor protection and being able to transport only six dismounts) in order to achieve its goal. Unlike the Lynx KF41, it is a proper "next-generation" IFV in the sense of incorporating as many new technologies as possible - the German military used the Puma development to fund the development of new technologies suited for future next-generation AFVs such as MBTs.

 

The Lynx KF41 is based on tested and existing components, not integrating many new technologies. However that makes it cheaper and likely also more reliable (at least until the teething issues of the Puma have been fixed). It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine), larger armament options (up to 120 mm smoothbore gun in an AGS variant) and uses a cheaper (but physically larger) engine. The Lynx KF41 is meant to be a low-cost option compared to developing new IFVs in many aspects. It is also semi-modular (the rear module can be exchanged), further lowering costs of creating and operating multiple variants of the Lynx KF41.


In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

Wether these two are the best on the market is debatable, there never is a definitive best solution; each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. But they should always be considered to be contenders.

 

23 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Also they bought the Lynx or why is it in Qatar?

 

Currently there is only a single Lynx KF41 prototype, this is the same vehicle showcased at Eurosatory 2018 in Paris, at AUSA 2018 in the US and in Australia. But apparently Qatar has shown interest in the Lynx KF41 (maybe they are already negoating, I don't know), so Rheinmetall decided to showcase the vehicle in Qatar. Note that Rheinmetall Barzan is a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and the ministry of defence of Qatar, so it has a very good chance of being adopted in Qatar.

 

20 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

.Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?

 

As said by 2805662, the SEOSS commander's sight can be retracted into the turret, so that the Lynx fits through lower tunnels, into ships or transport aircraft with height restrictions. This is how the retracting mechanism looks in case of the LANCE 1.0 turret:

DpbRIyiU8AApxwd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft

from some Chinese magazine:
shDIYOX.jpg

 

 

 

Quote

It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine)

...and apparently all of them could be 95th percentile. Unlike Puma, which was designed to fit only 75th percentile dismounts.

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width
AUC5fIp.jpg
so Puma's internal space is narrower than what one might expect from a vehicle which is some ~16-18 inches wider than Bradley (when measured by tracks)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages.

 

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)?

 

In any case I find that some of the adopted solutions are very interesting :


- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion.

 

best regards 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages. 

  

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)? 

 

It might be possible, but I doubt that this is very likely if both vehicles make use of the same armor technology:

  • The Puma's decoupled running gear means there is no penetration of the hull floor (which is required for the torsion-bar suspension of the Lynx KF41), so the KF41 would require thicker belly armor to offer the same resistance against mines
  • The basic structure of the Puma is designed to minimize weight (for example by using an aluminium inner shell for the unmanned turret and thin-metal bending technology for the hull), thus a larger percentage of its weight is invested into composite armor (which can offer several times the protection of steel plates of the same weight). The hull and turret structure of the Lynx KF41 are made of welded steel without making use of weight reduction measures.
  • The Puma has an unmanned turret, while the Lynx KF41 has a manned turret (it could be fitted with an unmanned turret, but has only been showcased with the manned LANCE 2.0 turret), so the turret armor of the Lynx KF41 would need to be stronger for the same level of relative crew protection.
  • The Lynx KF41 is capable of transporting more dismounts, because it is larger. This means there is more surface to be armored, which means less effective protection is afforded per weight and per surface area.

So it really depends on unknown factors such as how much the armor weighs, how much weight is saved by the Puma's design, how much added area needs to be protected with the manned turret, where the armor is located in what thickness and how much the armored surface area/volume of the Lynx KF41 is larger than the Puma's. The fact that the Puma has a nine men capacity (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts), the Lynx KF41 with 12 men (crew of 3 + 9 dismounts) seems to indicate that the weight gain might not be enough to provide the same level of protection, if the same armor package technology would be used.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion. 

 

The Puma is a result of a project, which originally was meant to be fully modular and include various variants such as IFV, MBT, self-propelled anti-air gun, etc. The whole vehicle family was to be larger (up to 77 tonnes with modular armor package installed), feature bigger guns (50 mm gun for the IFV, 140 mm gun for the MBT variant) and provide more space (crew of 3 + 8 or 9 dismounts of 95th percentile German males) - but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV. The Lynx KF41 barely copies some of these aspects in a more primitive form.

 

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

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

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

so M113A3-style external fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle were not good enough for them, and also they decided against putting fuel tanks into engine compartment

 

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV.

Igel (Hegehog), Panther, MMWS...
some pics from early 2000s magazines:
PFHOSyE.jpg

ur1tt7s.jpg

9RY2Doo.jpg

K0Vjw61.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

33 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

So, it was simplified to save weight and volume under armor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Serge said:

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

 

Prototype VS2 (mobility testbed) already had front exhaust. The rear of the vehicle (just as the series configuraiton) is occupied by the intercom and the (still projected) TSWA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress in the czech IFV Trials.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/198479/czechs-shortlist-four-in-%242.25bn-armored-vehicle-deal.html

"The Ministry will contact four previously selected firms to submit their bids, and it will sign the contract in August 2019. The potential bidders are BAE Systems, General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS), PSM and Rheinmetall Landsysteme."

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://esut.de/2018/12/meldungen/land/9408/armata-und-kurganetz-nicht-in-serie/

ESUT reports that neither Kurganetz or Armata will hit serial production.
Their source is a british Defence Magazin but they dont give the name.
And the British Defence Magazine is quoting the Vice Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.
Does anybody know the magazine or has a second source?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

https://esut.de/2018/12/meldungen/land/9408/armata-und-kurganetz-nicht-in-serie/

ESUT reports that neither Kurganetz or Armata will hit serial production.
Their source is a british Defence Magazin but they dont give the name.
And the British Defence Magazine is quoting the Vice Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.
Does anybody know the magazine or has a second source?

 

There was some discussion of this in the armata thread a few months ago

 

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 SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...