Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/18/2022 at 5:48 PM, 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. 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.

At war, protection is statistical. 
You’re not only facing the highest threat but the whole one which starts with rifles. 
The more you can face, the better this is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

 

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).

 

4 hours ago, Serge said:

At war, protection is statistical. 
You’re not only facing the highest threat but the whole one which starts with rifles. 
The more you can face, the better this is. 


It’s not that bad an idea from a parts commonality stand point: same engine, road wheels, tracks, and modular armor would make logistics and maintenance fairly easy. But I agree, the uses for this lynx are probably niche at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SK105 is good example of light tank hull size for around 20t if it doesn't need to float ,oscillating turret is higher than a conventional one. So it doest seem anyone is even trying to make a light tank . 

 

sk-105-krassier-0dd332a0-056a-4db6-ac35-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder, does the lynx have decoupled running gear like the Puma? I can’t find anything about it other than “lynx is highly modular”, but it only references her kf31 and 41 variants as proof… the Bradley is highly modular if that’s the measure they use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

I too am confused as to what the point of a 50+ tonne TFV tonk is supposed to be. They're not achieving a meaningful increase in any strategic mobility, are there bridges they think they'll be able to cross that a proper MBT wouldn't?

 

There was an interesting thread by Ronkainen on Twitter that looked into the support capabilities (trailers, bridging, recovery etc.) that US Army Infantry Divisions would need to operate the two MPF candidates, but unfortunately I can’t seem to dig it up because I don’t have (never had) a Twitter profile. Anyway, the gist of it was that the equipment required to support BAE’s candidate already existed in these divisions (if not in the quantities necessary), while for GD’s candidate it would have to be beefed up substantially, and to a point where it started to resemble that of an Abrams unit.

 

Edit: I finally found it

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

I do wonder, does the lynx have decoupled running gear like the Puma? I can’t find anything about it other than “lynx is highly modular”, but it only references her kf31 and 41 variants as proof… the Bradley is highly modular if that’s the measure they use. 

Classic running gear. 
Modular because the roof can be removed, and because they say « it’s modular ». 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

On 2/18/2022 at 9:42 PM, 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.

 

I agree with that, but there apparently is a place for such vehicles - BAE Systems, GDELS and Rheinmetall all have developed such vehicles (using their own funds), because representatives from different militaries have been toying with fielding such a vehicle. The same applies to putting a 105/120 mm gun on a 8x8 vehicle.

 

Norway (considered the CV90120 as replacement for the Leopard 2A4NO), the United Kingdom (wanted an ScoutSV Direct Fire variant before budget cuts came in) and also the Czech Republic have shown intest in "medium tanks". The Czech Republic has specified a maximum weight of 60 tonnes for its next tank (preferably less), so at the early stages of the program (when the Puma IFV was still offered) a "Puma medium tank" was considered a viable alternative by the Czech press/industry. Supposedly the only other offer for the (informal) T-72 replacement was the Israeli Sabra tank.

 

ifv_vs_mbt_5big.jpg

Obviously even a Puma IFV with unmanned turret has a lot more volume to armor than a modern MBT like a Leopard 2 - with a manned turret is is going to be even more.

 

 

I believe that the new turret fitted to the Lynx 120 is a stand-alone product or meant to also be fielded on a different chassis - Nicholas Drummond mentions that there is a rumored "Lynx KF51" variant, that might be a proper medium tank/MBT (but then again Mr. Drummond has a history of repeating incorrect rumors). If Rheinmetall only wanted to create a "medium tank" based on the Lynx, they would have purchased/leased a HITFACT turret as they already did on two different Marder tanks.

 

Worth noting that the mission module still has hatches for dismounts (though they are blocked if the turret isn't facing towards a 90° angle). I'd assume that this was a cost-cutting measure (i.e. they likely just use existing IFV module, but fitted a different turret)... but there is a tiny chance that the Lynx 120 still has a capacity for dismount. No idea why one would have dismounts in a tank though...

 

On 2/19/2022 at 5:58 PM, Serge said:

At war, protection is statistical. 
You’re not only facing the highest threat but the whole one which starts with rifles. 
The more you can face, the better this is. 

 

Yes and no. Protection is not limited to frontal armor. Un-upgraded T-72M1 tanks do not provide comparable all-round protection to modern IFV-based medium tanks. I have yet to see a T-72 upgrade featuring STANAG 4569 Level 4A/B mine protection and protection against large caliber EFPs and RPGs along the flanks (T-72 tanks in NATO don't have such armor).

 

Obviously the Lynx 120 isn't optimized for conventional warfare. It is a cheap trade-off compared to buying a whole new MBT (and infrastructure for it) in case a country already operates the KF41 Lynx IFV. IMO Lynx 120 competes against the ASCOD 42 MMBT and CV90120 rather than being meant as direct MBT replacement. BAE Systems' advertisement for the CV90120 (fully kitted out at 40 metric tons) might show why these "medium tanks" have gotten so heavy.

 

mG6ypQl.png

They are advertised as an alternative for MBTs in urban combat. If you have the choice between 40-50 metric tons IFV-based tank and a 70-80 metric tons MBT (up-armored with mine protection plate and armor for urban combat), then the former options do not appear as heavy anymore.

 

However this niche role has yet to see any success on the market... and probably won't see much.

 

On 2/20/2022 at 7:09 AM, Serge said:

Commonality is good but a dedicated rear engin Lynx chassis would have been far better. 
The legacy Lynx is too much high, too much heavy to carry such a turret. 

 

Turret would be a waste of money if it was only offered on Lynx hull.

 

On 2/20/2022 at 8:48 PM, Lord_James said:

I do wonder, does the lynx have decoupled running gear like the Puma? I can’t find anything about it other than “lynx is highly modular”, but it only references her kf31 and 41 variants as proof… the Bradley is highly modular if that’s the measure they use. 

 

Lynx modularity can be seen here:

(IFV being reconfigured to command post variant during the morning of the second day of Eurosatory 2018).

 

Like the Boxer, the Lynx consists of a mission module and a drive module. This allows retrofitting each Lynx IFV from one role to another. The Lynx 120 is a standard Lynx KF41 drive module fitted with a new 120 mm gun turret mission module.

 

There are designs for various other mission modules such as reconnaissance vehicle (with mast-mounted VINTAQS II system), a mortar variant (with Patria NEMO mortar), a recovery variant, a engineering variant, etc.

Spoiler

XFGW1fC.png

LYNX%20KF41-Joint%20Fire.jpgLYNX%20KF41-Mortar%20Camo.jpg

Repair.jpg

 

 

The KF41 Lynx has a reconfigurable torsion bar suspension, which is designed to handle the transistion from 34 to 50 metric tons with ease.

 

On 2/20/2022 at 9:09 PM, Laser Shark said:

Anyway, the gist of it was that the equipment required to support BAE’s candidate already existed in these divisions (if not in the quantities necessary), while for GD’s candidate it would have to be beefed up substantially, and to a point where it started to resemble that of an Abrams unit.

 

To be fair the situation is not really comparable. Like the Boxer, the Lynx can be transported in separate pieces (mission module and drive module) that then can be assembled to a full vehicle at the target destination. Also the Lynx 120 seems to be targeted at (potential) buyers of the whole Lynx eco-system, so there already would be matching logistics.

 

A vehicle weighing (up to) 50 metric tons will have a different impact on logistics and infrastructure than a vehicle weighing 20-30 metric tons - if one has already committed to the former, then the Lynx 120 is not a burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

  A vehicle weighing (up to) 50 metric tons will have a different impact on logistics and infrastructure than a vehicle weighing 20-30 metric tons - if one has already committed to the former, then the Lynx 120 is not a burden.

 

In mechanized units that already field the Lynx family, sure, it wouldn’t be too much of a burden, but there’s still the question of what's its role is going to be. It doesn't have the protection required to replace MBTs in tank units. There’s also cavalry units, but even these would be better off with MBTs imo (if you’re in a tank on a recce by force mission you’d want the better protection). That leaves tank destroyer units, where they actually make some sense even if they are on the heavier side, but this is also the sort of niche role that most countries won’t be able to afford. In other words, I doubt the Lynx 120 will be any more successful than the CV90120 before it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/21/2020 at 11:29 AM, SH_MM said:

There also have been new developments regarding the SHORAD systems that Germany plans to procure as part of the NNbS project.

 

MBDA has shown a graphic of its new Sky Warden system on an Enok 9.5, which will be offered for the German NNbS system. It is available with a laser effector, Mistral missiles or the SADM (shown in graphic).

 

FTdDUbRWAAA1Ylm?format=jpg&name=large

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 12:02 AM, SH_MM said:

 

MBDA has shown a graphic of its new Sky Ward system on an Enok 9.5, which will be offered for the German NNbS system. It is available with a laser effector, Mistral missiles or the SADM (shown in graphic).

 

FTdDUbRWAAA1Ylm?format=jpg&name=large

 

what kind of missile the SADM (in the picture) is?

Do you know some data about it?

thanks in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

279339283-3909924435899952-6577282612734279646783-3909924442566618-7141168701483279575456-3909924429233286-7840594348290279709622-3909924315899964-7739019549547279554024-3909924512566611-7698577341491

 

It would be interesting to see how the Bundeswehr plans to transport the latest version of the Puma with the atgm launcher on rail. Rotation of the turret by 180 degrees? Disassembly of the atgm launcher?
A crane is obviously needed to lift up the protection modules.

 

 

DM73 apfsds for leo 2:

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:196970-2022:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

 

 

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...