Ronin10

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:52 AM, DIADES said:

it is always wise to assume the people you are debating with are at least as well informed and intelligent as yourself.

Yet LYNX can indeed Support 6 or more 95% males, to state otherwise is not correct.

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:52 AM, DIADES said:

it is always wise to assume the people you are debating with are at least as well informed and intelligent as yourself.

I do, which is why I come here DIADES, in fact many People here are overly informed, and sometimes there is alot of opinion, and sometimes the Information is so specific that it is scary.

please note that the PUMA turret is not a LANCE turret, the of course share similarities and the same main cannon, despite what you read on the Internet, please accept I am indeed informed on this Point. As previously stated they share the common Mauser Mk30-2 ABM and Family of ammunition, if you saw the modern LANCE you would immediately be able to identify significant variations from the Puma turret.

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 11:05 PM, DIADES said:

I disagree - Rheinmetall clearly state that the Puma carries a LANCE turret - the first of the family.  Statement was made to CoA in support of maturity during Ph2 bid.   This is supported across various sites on the web.  I suspect that the LANCE name was not being used during the initial development tho.

 

This makes sense at turrets and guns were what Rheinmetall brought to the PSM ( Projekt System Management GmbH ) partnership with KMW.

It is the same weapon System a Mauser MK30/2 ABM... the turret is different, as is the loading mechanism... and Lance for the most part is a 2 manned turret... of course before you bitch about it... yes there is an unmanned Version... irregardless the PUMA loading and feeding mechanism is not the same as the LANCE

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 3:11 AM, Serge said:

This is why the chassis can be kept low. 

meanwhile.... in other IFVs

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:40 PM, SH_MM said:

 

It is quite a mess:

• The requirements of the Czech army aren't finished yet. They are still working on them, adding new ones and increasing the overall length of the documents containing the requirments - it has reached more than one hundred pages (DIN A4). Only four pages of requirements were given to the defence industry (BAE Systems, General Dynamics, PSM and Rheinmetall) before they started bidding/show-casing their offers.  
• Only European companies (and trans-European such as Turkey and Israel) were asked and allowed to bid. South Korea, despite being a large industrial partner, was ignored.
• The requirements didn't specify a manned or unmanned turret until recently - that's why three our of five IFVs tested in Libava had unmanned turrets. The new requirement for a manned turret was added - according to Czech journalists who asked a spokesperson of the Czech MoD - because Australia demands a manned turret for LAND 400 and the United States have showncased optionally manned turrets on the Stryker. This new requirement invalidates test results and eliminates the Puma, the ASCOD 35 and the CV90 CZr from the competition. 
• All IFVs tested in Libava were configured for nine men (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts) as originally required - but the requriement for crew capacity was changed to eleven men (crew of 3 + 8 dismounts). None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret. 
• The bidding companies have time until some point of time in May to submitt their offers, the rather short time between the changes of requirements and the deadline is a huge problem.
• The Czech army doesn't want to be the first user of a new infantry fighting vehicle, they want to buy a vehicle that is already in service with at least one user. This effectively eliminates the Lynx KF31, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 35 and Ajax/ASCOD 42. In combination with the manned turret and the dismount requirements, there is no IFV meeting all requirements oof the Czech army. 
• The Czech government demands that the state-owned company VOP CZ will act as system integrator, manufacturer of components and provider of maintenance services. The army dislikes this, because it will increase the costs of the new IFVs.
• Side note: while it has been previously reported that the Puma hit 37 out of 40 shots at targets at Libava, the results of the other contenders have been rather unknown. According to the article, the next best result was 19 out of 40 shots hit.
• A lot of people are really pissed, because quite a lot of money was invested into the development, search for industrial partners and marketing of vehicles that are now eliminated from the tender. The ASCOD 35 with Samson Mk. 2 RWS and the CV90 CZr with Kongsbergt MCT 30 turret were more or less specifcally developed for the Czech tender (well, CV90 CZr already existed earlier, but as unfinished variant), while PSM held multiple expensive conferences to find industrial partners.

I will give you a tip.... it is very rare that a vehicle ever meets all the requirements.... most of your Information is correct though, the unmanned turret isnt the controversy that PSM is making it out to be... the 2 Major acquisition Projects other then Czech are Australia and US... guess what Puma isnt in either because both requested manned turrets that can be converted to unmanned at a later time.

All responsed to the Initial requirements have been made, KF31 FYI was a prototype and that only, stop quoting that it is an Option... at best it was Proof of concept, as for the Kongsberg CEO whinging and whining... yeah of course it is in his interest, not the interest of the CR... and General Opata made it clear... CZ will get a manned turret.

As for the Turkish and Korean offers.... I feel you cant be serious on this matter... do you want another PANDUR Situation?

"the rather short time between the changes of requirements...." No one cares... the companies will reply in time, or choose No bid.

As for seating... stick your head in a CV90 filled with 8 People... then a Puma with 6 and then a LYNX... I think you will understand what 95% seating is.... just saying....

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 3:18 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

last I looked, when someone does that, they usually use words like "central" to distinguish that from percentile number, in order to aviod confusion. And they do not use Ordinal numbers, although a possibility of typos should not be excluded, obviously. 
Example I just googled: equipment to fit the ''5th to 95th percentile user,'' that is, the central 90%

 

Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers?

...
upd:
DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required.

 

 

such chart for Geman male population is readily available from deutschesheer.de article:

...
interior of CV-9030N with MkIII hull

12 Mpix version available there https://mediearkiv.forsvaret.no/fotoweb/archives/5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019/Indekserte bilder1/2015/06/Teknologi kampvogn8.jpg.info#c=%2Ffotoweb%2Farchives%2F5000-Alle-bilder-2013-2019%2F%3F25%3Dcv9030

Did I miss some description of KF-41 which stated what soldiers it can and can not fit, which says that it can not fit 8 95th percentile male soldiers?

...
upd:
DTR 2019-04 p.27 claimed it can fit 6 90th percentile (australian?) male dismounts, and 8 "at same seat spacing" (=90th percentile too, I guess) if required.

No... Skylancer you are right.... he is making up his own figures to Support his own argument

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Roof armor of the Lynx KF41. It's very reminiscent of the Marder 1A3's roof armor.

 

 

Obviously the armor package can be configured to a certain extent according to the user's wishes, but I was expecting a bit more, given how beefy the roof armor of the Puma is.

 

 

Worth noting that PSM still submitted the Puma as offer, but they are looking at options to modify its design.

Comparing the LYNX and Marder is like comparing a 1980's Porsche 911 to the Current Model 911.... the Marder and the KF41 are vastly different, as is the KF41 to the KF31, this is obvious if you put them all lined up, do they look similar... somewhat, but it is coming from the same design house... are they the same... no.... also note that the LYNX has modular armor packages.... the above is STANAG 5 and above, well exceeding MARDER, PUMA is over engineered in typical german Fashion, it is good.... for the bundewehr.... and the Bundeswehr only.

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 1:04 PM, DIADES said:

You can't average this stuff but you can say that the difference between the top %ile and the bottom %ile you have designed for represents the fraction of users who are suited to the design.  Knowing that Puma suits 86% of serving German soldiers (not sure if Germany uses German specific data) doesn't actually tell us much.  The top and bottom for each sex impact the overall number and there are multiple ways of coming up with 86%

 

Puma may seat 6 x 75%ile dismounts but that is a very long way from 8 x 95%ile.  Its even a long way from 6 x 95th%ile.  KF41 can seat 8 75th%ile but that is not 8 95%ile by a long way too.

 

I said Europe deliberately rather than Germany.  I don't know what BAE (Hagglunds)did but I suspect that they took the same approach as contemporary KMW/Rheinmetall - same market etc.

LYNX can indeed fit 8 x 95% Adult males in full battle rattle, and they will not have to squeeze in like sardines like in the CV90 of course if you Mount 6 seats in the LYNX, you can cram an awful lot of gear in with your lads as well. Trust me, even in my Army days I was a big lad, and I fit in the seats quite comfortably.