Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/16/2018 at 12:54 AM, Wiedzmin said:

 

and ? during 1966 test IIRC brits noted the tendency of L1 to swing when moving at high speed over rough terrain, movement on roads with maximum speed was possible only within half an hour due to the risk of overheating rubber bondage of roadwheels  at a speed of 50 km / h, overheating occurred an hour later, and to continue the movement it was required to drop the speed to 40 km / h

 

 

 

 

Apparently the Germans did consider this a problem.  The Leopard 1 has rubber cladding on the inner side of the track links.

 

Leo 2 does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

Rheinmetall's air-defence guns, recent firing demonstration in Switzerland. After 1:11 the gun is fired against the simulated optics of a combat vehicle.

 

Only by 1:55 they started showing actually relevant capabilities.

In demonstrations #1 and #2, firing a buttload of rounds, especially when the ammo belly is already quite ridiculously low (180, although hopefully it's only 1 magazine and there are more available rounds inside the vehicle), is stupid when first round hit accuracy is that good.

In demonstration #3 it should have been done whilst on the move because the first thing such vehicle's crew should be doing when seeing an MBT or IFV (note the Skyranger has HE-F based rounds, not APFSDS, unless it has some sort of dual feed) is flee for cover. 

Demonstration #4 was actually much more practical. 2 rounds on a maneuvering drone at good range is what you need. Much more ammo-efficient, much more difficult for enemies to get a location on you, and actually gets the job done without throwing the gun meters off target.

 

Overall, though, I'm not really impressed. The defense sector in the US and Israel (and I assume any country that cooperated) has already demonstrated the feasibility of a 100kW laser atop a reasonably sized platform. Even in adverse weather, such high powered laser should be very capable in the low ranges the Skyranger is expected to operate.

Next up is the usage of missiles - nowadays it's an absolute must. Turn it into a proper SHORAD instead of a C-RAM or VSHORAD style weapon system, and it could be made into a single system capable of doing point defense for long range air defenses and the required numbers for the protection of a brigade-sized formation can go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5vmx499372q11.jpg

 

On its way to AUSA 2018. Claimed to have been taken in Virginia.

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In demonstrations #1 and #2, firing a buttload of rounds, especially when the ammo belly is already quite ridiculously low (180, although hopefully it's only 1 magazine and there are more available rounds inside the vehicle), is stupid when first round hit accuracy is that good.

 

The gun is designed to shoot down fast-moving aircraft, mortar rounds and cruise missiles at a longer distance (up to 3.5 kilometres against fast targets, 5 km against slow-flying targets), the test area however limited the maximum range to 1-2 km. That's why it looks like an overkill, because at this distance and the low velocity of the targets, it is indeed an overkill. There are 200 rounds ready to fire, enough for approximately 20 engagements of aircraft or munitions (between 18 to 24 rounds should be fired against jets to maximize the kill probability) - that is not that far off from other self-propelled anti-air guns. The Gepard had 2 x 320 rounds of 35 x 228 mm APHE (and later FAPDS), but could engage only 25 fast-flying aircrafts due to the lower kill probability of dumb rounds. Rheinmetall demonstrated three different types of AHEAD/KETF rounds, fine-tuned to defeat different threats (i.e. the size and amount of tungsten sub-projectiles differed).

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Overall, though, I'm not really impressed. The defense sector in the US and Israel (and I assume any country that cooperated) has already demonstrated the feasibility of a 100kW laser atop a reasonably sized platform.

 

That is nothing special. Rheinmetall demonstrated high energy lasers (including the HEL on Wheels based on the Boxer) five years ago, also in Switzerland.

 

interview-jung_hel.jpg

2013-10-31_JPW_HEL+Live+Firing+Demo_00.j

 

A 100 kW laser might sound nice, but it is not practical for armored fighting vehicles; the power supply is limited and there isn't enough space to fit a larger generator into a Boxer (or any other AFV for that matter). That is why realistically the size of lasers for AFVs is limited to 5-30 kW at most, which impacts performance and range. If you've seen footage of such lasers being tested against drones or other targets, you should know that they are short-ranged (a 100 kW laser has an effective range of about 10 km, a 5-30 kW laser has a much shorter range) and require quite a bit of time (multiple seconds) to defeat a drone; Rheinmetall named 3 km as effective range against mortars (for a 30 kW laser). That limits the usefulness of HEL (high energy lasers) quite a bit. The laser integrated onto a Stryker for the US Army has an output of just 5 kW!

 

On naval vessels, where space and energy allow integrating larger lasers, they make sense. For AFVs they are not efficient enough.

 

 

4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Next up is the usage of missiles - nowadays it's an absolute must. Turn it into a proper SHORAD instead of a C-RAM or VSHORAD style weapon system, and it could be made into a single system capable of doing point defense for long range air defenses and the required numbers for the protection of a brigade-sized formation can go down. 

 

There just isn't enough space to have a 35 mm gun and missiles in a single vehicle, unless you meant something like taping a few MANPADS to the gun barrel. There will be dedicated Boxers with surface-to-air missiles (at least that has been proposed by various companies); either IRIS-T-SL or NASAMS or Mistral-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ready Now"
haha sure.
After the development Hell the Puma went through i would say it would only be ready after the S1 and S2 upgrades and then some.
For me the Lynx looks too clean for being ready.
Like how do you get ontop of and not slip and break your neck and where do you stow your shit?
And i only can imagine the problems they will have with the thing.
The Puma already has some mind-boggling bugs.

 

But maybe Rheinmetall did a good job. Who knows.

Also what could Raytheon contribute to the thing?
Doesnt Raytheon do the M113 on Steroids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Serge said:

In a period where everyone is calling for tanks using APC chassis, a recall from the past :

seite01_800_828_0.jpg

 

 

Don't forget that the TH-301 was basically an improvement of their work for TAM. I don't understand the sudden IFV-cum-Tank fetish. (I understand the money, and the idea of TDs... but trying to replace the MBT with a lightly armored vehicle will end in pain)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, T___A said:

Jagdtiger being towed:

 

HKdwmBHOcLRFZBjguBw0lAeS6DYsAPqK-c-K1u4N
Looks like the one that ended up at APG. Note the nick in the mantlet and the damaged gun (shorter than it should be, presumably destroyed by the crew by firing with the buffer and recuperator oil drained)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 12:36 AM, Ramlaen said:

Do you know if the 35 ton stripped weight for the Lynx mentioned in that Breaking Defense article would include a 'mission module'?

 

Unfortunately I don't know. In general 35 short tons (31.75 tonnes) isn't meant to be a weight class covered by the KF41 variant, but the smaller Lynx KF31. At this weight class, other IFVs like the Puma IFV (with armor kit for the protection class "A") can be fully functional. The Lynx KF41 however is quite a bit bigger than the Puma and seems to make use of less weight reduction measures. Maybe it is possible to have a KF41 with mission module and a weight of 35 short tons, but that would most likely require to remove all/most armor modules.

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...