Jump to content

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/5/2021 at 6:06 AM, mr.T said:

Yes they have done a couple of small turrets and order from UAE got them going, but its still a dude in his garage. But yes quite impressive start for a company with 2 employees.

 

 

I like how you're just shitting on some dude who's out there building real stuff lmao.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A bit late, but OCCAR has contracted ARTEC to develop and produce prototypes of the new JFSTsw (Joint Fire Support Team schwer) variant of the Boxer for the German Army. The equipment is a bit odd, common German parts (FLW 200 RWS, BAA II sight by Hensoldt) have been replaced by foreign ones (Kongsberg's M153 Protector RWS and Thales' PAAG sight) - suggesting that there might be a plan to export it:

BOXER-JFST-sw-2048x1147.jpg

 

Older concept version with FLW 200 and BAA II sight:

Boxer-JFST-mit-BAA-und-FLW.jpg

 

Meanwhile Rheinmetall and the Bundeswehr are celebrating the Marder's 50th birthday (quite bit later than they should have).

 

The Puma there is equipped with the TSWA, which the German Army plans to field with the Puma S2 upgrade:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They have bridge layers as well but it takes time to cross an anti tank ditch with an AVLB.  Fascines are faster under some conditions than breaching with AEV or bridging. We are transporting fascines on our dozed blades to drop them quickly but limited in the about we can carry. Such a vehicle is very specialised but that is an bridge layer as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Imagine some east europeans , buying this and getting a vehicle that has much less protection and firepower (low pressure derivative of the Leopard 2 gun) at the weight pushing that of a T72 only advantage is the modern optronics and of course with a price that way above T72 they currently use.

 

Also what is the plan with RWS being obstructed in frontal arc by the panoramic commanders sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

Imagine some east europeans , buying this and getting a vehicle that has much less protection and firepower (low pressure derivative of the Leopard 2 gun) at the weight pushing that of a T72 only advantage is the modern optronics and of course with a price that way above T72 they currently use.

 

This is not a low-pressure gun. It fires the full 120 mm suite currently offered by Rheinmetall. As for "less protection": protection is always relative to the threat. It does not matter if you have 200 or 500 mm of steel equivalent armor, if you face only anti-tank weapons capable of defeating 600-1,000 mm of steel. That is one of the reasons why the German Army in its (biased) assessement on the possibility of replacing the Leopard 1A5 by the ex-GDR T-72M1 tanks considered the latter tank's armor thickness advantage as irrelevant for actual protection.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

As for "less protection": protection is always relative to the threat. It does not matter if you have 200 or 500 mm of steel equivalent armor, if you face only anti-tank weapons capable of defeating 600-1,000 mm of steel.

 

 


I’d say “less efficient protection”, not less protection. Common to all IFV-based light tanks/tank destroyers/insert your semantic preference here, Lynx 120 has protected volume it doesn’t need for its role. 
As the volume to be protected is high, relative to that needed by a purpose designed tank or light tank. the overall level of protection is lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Looks like hull alone is about as high as an western MBT 

 

Lynx 120 looks like its built on the KF41 

E3stI0iVkAAN9QK.jpg

 

Leo2 side by side with the smaller KF31 ,KF41 absolutely dwarfs the MBT even before you stick on the 120mm gun turret.

DpAhQ0bXoAAgvki.jpg  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 2805662 said:


I’d say “less efficient protection”, not less protection. Common to all IFV-based light tanks/tank destroyers/insert your semantic preference here, Lynx 120 has protected volume it doesn’t need for its role. 
As the volume to be protected is high, relative to that needed by a purpose designed tank or light tank. the overall level of protection is lower.

 

Yeah, I never quite understood the hype surrounding light tanks based on IFV hulls. if you want a tank in the 40-50 tonnes range, there are modernized T-72s, and the Type-10 looks like the better Western option. If you want an actual proper light tank, there is BAE’s MPF proposal and Sprut-SD/SDM1. If you want your tanks and IFVs to be on the same chassis, you either go heavy or you go home imo. The medium weight concept is not going to work out very well (this concept was looked at by the Norwegian Army a few years ago, and ultimately rejected in favour of acquiring new MBTs).

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...