Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

I guess I never realized that the Pz i and II used the same track.

FWIW in appendix C4.1 of Panzer Truppen vol.1, Jentz has the Pz.Kpfw.I Ausf.A and B using track with a width of 28 cm (11.0") and a pitch of 9 cm (~3.5"), while he says  Pz.Kpfw.II Ausf.a-C and F used a track with width of 30 cm (11.8") and pitch of 9 cm. Spielberger agrees with the widths, but doesn't seem to list the pitch in his book on the Pz.Kpfw.I and II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2012, the Danish Army looked for a new APC. They tested the FFG 5, the CV90 Armadillo, the VBCI and the Piranha 5, choosing to buy the latter. ARTEC also submitted the Boxer as option, but it was not shortlisted (this has apparently to do something with the price...). Here are some foils from the ARTEC presentation to Denmark:

 

Regarding Germany and the Netherlands:

 

Spoiler

3Kh2SIZ.png

nvUdlUQ.pngkQdcGS6.png

XQjfE1C.png

LULKsJg.png

 

 

 

Regarding the Boxer's design and features:

Spoiler

xArLRtJ.pngjNzE6rv.pngiEyMsdK.png8iC3gxG.jpgf7X2CZ1.pngIH0yXrT.png4bDA3f7.png2KGPZIl.pnghtVABE4.png6Z5zoyk.pngZjKoYBS.pngPxffaSI.pngm6X3ZmM.png3jZTvdB.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Czech trials for a BMP-2 replacement, the Puma IFV proved to be more accurate than all other contenders. It hit the highest number of targets during the static and also during the dynamic (fire on the move) tests. The trials lasted six weeks and included firing trials, high speed driving on roads, traveling cross-country, climbing, crossing ditches, wading through water and other tests.

The manufacturing companies hope to copy the Leopard 2's success and to start a Puma user's group responsible for suggesting upgrades, sharing operational experience, etc. PSM offers that all Pumas for the Czech Army would be assembeled locally and even some components for the German Puma would be made in the Czech Republic (currently some of the cables and parts of the fire suppression system are already made by Czech suppliers - in the future this also could include the tracks). Seems like a cost-cutting measure, but that may be the solution to make the Puma affordable (also make it cheaper for Germany) . On average wages in Germany are 3.64 times as high as in the Czech Republic (data from 2014), but it might mean that some jobs are outsourced from Germany (unless there is enough demand for tracks to keep KMW busy). It is possible to easily create other Puma variants such as a recce vehicle and an armored ambulance based on the Puma's hull.

 

Btw. the Spike-launcher to be added to the Puma IFV will be armored to resist enemy fire.

 

01fcec7af2.jpg

c548222fa8.jpg

e493481002.jpg

594191fd9c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Was this info only released in regards to the Puma, or was some info released on other contenders?

 

This exact info was released in a news article on the Puma IFV, but there are numerous other sources containing small snippets of information. First of all, the Czech Ministry of Defence invited nine companies to participate in the tender, but only seven reacted:

  1. GDELS with the ASCOD 2
  2. BAE Systems with the CV90
  3. PSM with the Puma
  4. Rheinmetall with the Lynx
  5. FFG with the G5
  6. FNSS with the Kaplan 20
  7. Otokar with the Tulpar

The Italian Dardo was also requested, but the Italians did not react before the deadline was over. The same happened with Isreal, which did not offer the Namer despite the official request from the Czech MoD to participate in the tender. (Btw. the Merkava 1 or 2 was offered to Switzerland, but rejected; do you know more about that?)

 

Out of these seven vehicles, only four (the first four in the list) were tested at the Libava facility. This might mean that only four vehicles were shortlisted, or the other vehicles will be tested on a later stage (maybe they need to design a proper variant for the Czech Army or are testing the vehicle at other places to avoid high transport costs). Based on a news report from General Dynamics European Land Systems, the ASCOD 2 was on of the "down-selected" vehicles, making it appear that the three not tested vehicles (G5, Kaplan-20 and Tulpar) were rejected.  At the time of the testing, the Czech Army didn't know how the exact requirements will look. They will decide on a balance between costs, weight, height, wading depth, interior volume, transportability, payload and more (i.e. mobility, protection, firepower, reliability, etc.). It was planned that a suggestions for requirements made by the Army should be submitted to the MoD end of August (so last month, don't know if that happened due to the source being older).

 

Overall 210 new vehicles in nine versions will be bought (with an option for 100 more vehicles) for a total contract cost of up to 50 billions koruna. Half the money will be spend on vehicle, the other half will be used for the infrastructure - they need facilities to manufacture and repair the vehicles, training facilities with new simulators, but maybe also new transport and recovery vehicles for the new IFV. Some of the money might come from the new EU defence fonds, which is only possible when a European manufacturer is chosen (but I guess since GDELS has its headquarter in Europe despite being owned by the American General Dynamics, it is also European, so all of them count as European).

The contract will be made with the manufacturer of the winning bid at the end of 2018, deliveries will start 2020 and last to 2024.

 

According to a news report on the Czech Army website, the (first set of the?) firing trials against moving targets were done at the ranges 700 m, 1,200 m and 1,800 m - nothing special given that all tested vehicles claim to have a range of 2-3 km. The vehicles were required to transport at least nine men (crew of three + six dismounts), have a high level of protection (incl. mine protection) and a 30 mm gun. Crew ergonomics, infrastructure and growth potential are also important factors.

 

The Czech defence news blog Armádní Noviny has a few articles on the BMP-2 replacement program. Apparently the Puma might be the favorite vehicle of the Czech MoD, but they also consider a vehicle with rubber band tracks (I don't speak Czech, so I don't know if they are looking for a lighter Puma variant or are considering a ASCOD 2/CV90/Lynx as alternative). The Puma apparently was the best vehicle in the test (it "showcased technological dominance" according to Google translator), but is very expensive. The fact that the Puma is currently in production and by 2020, the Bundeswehr's order would be nearly finished, is seen as an advantage by the author. The Czech Puma would be cheaper than the German version (due to local assembly and possible design changes), but the Czech MoD still looks at cheaper options - they might consider buying the Puma for the IFV role only and a second, cheaper vehicle for all other tasks (such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, etc.); interesstingly Czech website E15.cz mentions only the ASCOD 2 and the Lynx as vehicles suited for the cheaper secondary vehicles, not the CV90 (apparently based on the price of the CV90 being too high compared to the previously mentioned vehicles).

 

The T-72M4Cz is also meant to be replaced in the timeframe from 2020 to 2025, thus the Czech military is interested in the Leopard 2 (making Germany a more attractive partner), but they also consider buying a medium tank on the new IFV chassis. CV90 and ASCOD 2 already have been showcased as light/medium tanks, Lynx more or less (Marder 1A3 was fitted with various turrets)... question is if a Puma light tank could be made.

The Leopard 2 is considered the best option, being a high-tech tank that might be available for affordable leasing thanks to the EU defence fonds. The problem is that only very few Leopard 2s are available for leasing (something about 100) - enough for the Czech Army, but Croatia and Bulgaria are also interested in them.

The only MBT other than the Leopard 2 offered to the Czech Army is the Sabra tank in the latest version. The Ariete and the Leclerc are not in production anymore, while the M1 Abrams, the K2 Black Panther and Japanese Type 10 are all too expensive to operate and maintain. Originally IMI and partners wanted to offer the Merkava 4, but seeing the requirements and European terrain they considered the Sabra to be a better option. The Sabra is considered a worse option than the Leopard 2 due to being based on the M60 chassis and being inferior in performance.

 

bvp_libava_2_big.jpg

bvp_libava_3_big.jpg

 

(Some of this text is off-topic given the thread title, please ignore that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The fact that the Puma is currently in production and by 2020, the Bundeswehr's order would be nearly finished, is seen as an advantage by the author.

I am not sure if it is a mistake by google translate but in the Armada Noviny article it states that:


"Puma just exists in the BVP version, but the Bundeswehr is also a supportive option on the Puma platform.

 Supported variants for the Bundeswehr are to be part of the second package, which will begin production in 2020."

(Puma existuje právě pouze ve verzi BVP, avšak podpůrnou variantu na platformě Puma požaduje i Bundeswehr. Podpůrné varianty pro Bundeswehr mají být součástí druhého balíčku, jehož výroba začne v roce 2020.)

and
" Criteria for drawing on finance from the fund best meet the Puma, given that the manufacturer is a purely European company and around 2020 other Puma vehicles will be bought by the German Bundeswehr. This is also in line with the planned purchase of new BVPs for the Czech Army."

(Kritéria pro čerpání financí z fondu nejlíp splňuje vozidlo Puma vzhledem k tomu, že výrobcem je čistě evropská společnost a kolem roku 2020 další vozidla Puma nakoupí i německý Bundeswehr.

To časově pasuje i na plánovaný nákup nových BVP pro Armádu ČR.)

 

So Germany wants more Pumas and more Variants? This would be breaking news or a mistake in the article.
Maybe we have a czech speaker here?

also Hi i am new here (pls dont hurt me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to Sturgeon's House.


The second batch of Puma IFVs for the German Army is planned since at least 2015. The German Federal Audit Office however wants to postpone any further Puma to after 2022. Until 2025 the Marder IFV will remain in service, about 200 of these will be upgraded with new night vision sights for the driver, third generation thermal sights replacing the old WBG-X and Spike-LR replacing the Milan ATGM.

 

The other Puma variants for the German Army are to my knowledge limited to driver training vehicles and command vehicles (i.e. normal IFVs with better radios, like the Marder 1A4).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome and the quick Respone!
Is anything known about the Spike LR placement on the Marder? Will it again only be launchable from the Commander Cupola? Or is something more modern planned?
Also and whats the problem with the MELLS/Spike integration on the Puma? The Lynx uses the same/similar turret as the Puma and has the MELLs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

I am not sure if it is a mistake by google translate but in the Armada Noviny article it states that:


"Puma just exists in the BVP version, but the Bundeswehr is also a supportive option on the Puma platform.

 Supported variants for the Bundeswehr are to be part of the second package, which will begin production in 2020."

(Puma existuje právě pouze ve verzi BVP, avšak podpůrnou variantu na platformě Puma požaduje i Bundeswehr. Podpůrné varianty pro Bundeswehr mají být součástí druhého balíčku, jehož výroba začne v roce 2020.)

and
" Criteria for drawing on finance from the fund best meet the Puma, given that the manufacturer is a purely European company and around 2020 other Puma vehicles will be bought by the German Bundeswehr. This is also in line with the planned purchase of new BVPs for the Czech Army."

(Kritéria pro čerpání financí z fondu nejlíp splňuje vozidlo Puma vzhledem k tomu, že výrobcem je čistě evropská společnost a kolem roku 2020 další vozidla Puma nakoupí i německý Bundeswehr.

To časově pasuje i na plánovaný nákup nových BVP pro Armádu ČR.)

 

So Germany wants more Pumas and more Variants? This would be breaking news or a mistake in the article.
Maybe we have a czech speaker here?

also Hi i am new here (pls dont hurt me)

Welcome to SH!

 

I'll refer you to read this thread:

 

And remember the forum motto: Link or die! :P

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

Is anything known about the Spike LR placement on the Marder? Will it again only be launchable from the Commander Cupola? Or is something more modern planned?

 

According to German defence newspaper Europäische Sicherheit und Technik (ESUT), a version of the MELLS will be adopted onto the Marder - this would imply the same dual-missile launcher as used on the Puma. However I am not sure if the author doesn't use MELLS as synonym for Spike-LR in this case...

I haven't been following the Marder upgrade project in the past, but as far as I know the German government has not awarded any contracts yet. T. Wiegold from the blog Augengeradeaus.net compiled a list of all projects planned to be be awarded/funded before the German elections (24.09.2017), the Marder upgrade wasn't mentioned there. It is possible that the final layout of the future Spike-LR launcher has yet to be decided.

 

47 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

Also and whats the problem with the MELLS/Spike integration on the Puma? The Lynx uses the same/similar turret as the Puma and has the MELLs

 

Well, first of all the main problem was the lack of a contract. The government had not awarded a contract for the MELLS launcher before 2017, because there was not enough money within the Bundeswehr's budget to deal with all projects at the same time. Before that, there also were some issues with the Spike missile itself. I remember having read a report (IIRC from 2011), which mentioned that during the first series of tests the Spike-LR ATGM failed to meet the performance requirements in regards to accuracy, therefore EuroSpike and Rafael had to touch up some aspects of the missile (or the quality control at the manufacturing plant). There also were rumors about the electronic interfaces of the Puma and the Spike-LR being somewhat incompatible and requiring some work-arounds, but I cannot say if these rumors are correct.

 

The Puma uses a very different turret than the Lynx. The Puma is fitted with an unmanned turret made by KMW, which has been marketed as Remote Controlled Turret 30 (RCT-30). It is not available in a manned version. The Lynx and the Boxer CRV are fitted with the Lance modular turret system from Rheinmetall. This turret is manned (though an unmanned variant called Lance-RC exists).

The Lynx is fitted with a missile launcher made by Rheinmetall, were both missiles are arranged in the vertical plane: one missile is located above the other. The Puma's MELLS on the other hand will have both missiles arranged int he same horizontal plane, i.e. one missile located at the left of the other one.

 

_DSC4788.jpgLynx_Rheinmetall_KF31_IFV_tracked_Infant

 

To be fair Rheinmetall is also responsible for developing the Puma's launcher. There is also a version with vertically arranged missiles for the Lynx turret. According to the Australian Defence Technology Review magazine, this might be a simplified/downgraded version of the MELLS launcher for the Puma. Another Boxer CRV prototype has the same missile launcher as the Lynx prototype(s).

1024px-Boxer_Land_400.jpg

 

I don't know all differences, but I understand that the MELLS launcher has additional capabilities over the simpler design fielded on the Lynx prototype. One could be the different protectiton level, as the Puma's launcher seems to be a lot thicker. There also might be different supported software functionalities (maybe) or other aspects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again thanks for the clarification.
I saw the post form Mr. Wiegold but thought the MELLS was already ordered but delayed because of Vibration issues (ignore the title, on the end of the post he talks about MELLS on the PUMA) and not money but this makes more sense because there are still no Spike LR for the infantry as those are also part of the order/MELLS. Press Rlease from Rheinmetall about the order from 2009(!).

So if they had problem with the accuracy and other things and adressed those issues why arent there already Spike LR for the infantry? Or was the contract pulled/canceled and now was awarded again?

And here from this March they ordered another(?) 1000 missiles and 97 launchers.

Or maybe this is the additional option the Rheinmetall Press Release talked about?
This is all so weird.

 

Edit: So here are the links as the motto states. Mostly in german but i think SH_MM doesnt has a problem with that.

 

Edited by Willy Brandt
addition
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...