Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

The German military currently has a lot of issues with the reliability of new equipment, maiinly because quality control and supply with new spare parts is sub-optimal. Last year 97 new large combat systems (vehicles and aircrafts) were delivered to the German army, of which only 38 (aka 39%) are combat ready. The largest number of new vehicles is formed by the Puma IFV, of which 71 were delivered in 2017, but only 27 are combat ready. One factor could be that for some weird reason (budget?) spare parts weren't ordered for all components at the same time, so when certain things break, a longer period of time has to be waited. There are also some teething problems that need to be addressed.

Furthermore 4 out of 8 A400M transport aircraft and 1 out of 4 Eurofighters delivered in 2017 were only combat ready, although in case of the Eurofighters that is related to an upgrade of the main computer that started shortly after delivery. 14 new helicopters were delivered in 2017 (seven UHT Tigers and seven NH-90s), but only 6 were combat ready (two Tigers and two NH-90s). That's quite a shame.

 

 

 

Mxog1xz.png

In the current issue of the InfoBrief Heer, there is an article written by the head of marketing of IBD Deisenroth. According to this, IBD has developed a new armor package for the Boxer, which provides the same protection level at 500 kg weight reduction. @2805662, do you know if the Boxer CRV will use this armor kit? Germany hasn't ordered it, but the Dutch army will make use of it.

A new armor package from IBD for the Puma has been qualified by the WTD 91, which would provide protection against RPGs and IEDs. It would replace the ERA kit from Dynamit Nobel Defence and stay more than 400 kg below the weight limit (so I guess that means it is lighter than the ERA?) while being cheap enough to fit into the budget of the German army. Given that Germany did order only 200 ERA kits for ~350 Pumas, this might mean that in the future IFVs will make use of IBD's NERA/NxRA instead. Maybe that explains the differences in skirt armor layout between the different prototypes.

 

kujp6hd.png

Furthermore IBD is marketing the IBD Smart ProTech armor, they suggest that it would fit well to the Puma, the Boxer and the Leopard 2, allowing the base armor to be more optimized against KE rounds. For the MGCS, IBD Smart ProTech could be used, but IBD also wants to provide internal armor arrays and external add-on armor modules for the MGCS. The company has designed its own turret and hull concepts optimized for maximum protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Are you actually worried someone will walk up to the vehicle with a ratchet and the right-sized socket and just disassemble the (presumably over 30 kg each) block and steal it?

Given regulations in most western countries for safe storage of explosives, probably yeah.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the point of the Puma not being deployable:
Yeah heck it isnt.
It takes Months to get one back from Maintenance and it breaksdown again the same day you got it back.
The turret crashes often randomly sometimes while shooting.
The whole thing sometimes freezes and you have to reboot it.
The same with the rear hatch not working so you have to pump it shut.
The Computer always gives you millions of error messages that you just have to ignore if you want to use the tank.
And you always have KMW and Rheinmetall Service on speed dial if something happens.

But when it works when you need it too its great but that doesnt happen often.
It has potential but going from the Marder which is reliable as heck to the Puma is very frustrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Has that ever been an issue for any other country operating ERA-equipped vehicles ever?

Recent example - Ukraine. ERA blocks stealing is not a theory, there were number of UAF personal caught by SBU. I think i even posted news article about one such occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

According to this, IBD has developed a new armor package for the Boxer, which provides the same protection level at 500 kg weight reduction. @2805662, do you know if the Boxer CRV will use this armor kit? Germany hasn't ordered it, but the Dutch army will make use of it.

Not sure, TBH. That level of information is yet to be released (and probably yet to be decided). The design reviews for the Block 1 Boxers are underway at the moment. Apparently there is some rework around the ethernet, moving toward a Generic Vehicle Architecture based fitout (to align with Phase 3), but that’s the only detail that’s being discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

On the point of the Puma not being deployable:
 Yeah heck it isnt.
It takes Months to get one back from Maintenance and it breaksdown again the same day you got it back.
 The turret crashes often randomly sometimes while shooting.
 The whole thing sometimes freezes and you have to reboot it.
The same with the rear hatch not working so you have to pump it shut.
The Computer always gives you millions of error messages that you just have to ignore if you want to use the tank.
 And you always have KMW and Rheinmetall Service on speed dial if something happens.

 But when it works when you need it too its great but that doesnt happen often.
It has potential but going from the Marder which is reliable as heck to the Puma is very frustrating.

 

 

You mention having KWM and Rheinmetall Service on speed dial, and also sending the vehicles back to maintenance.  How much of the maintenance of the Puma has to be done in special facilities vs. in the field?  Is it more reliant on the special facilities than Marder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

On the point of the Puma not being deployable:
Yeah heck it isnt.
It takes Months to get one back from Maintenance and it breaksdown again the same day you got it back.
The turret crashes often randomly sometimes while shooting.
The whole thing sometimes freezes and you have to reboot it.
The same with the rear hatch not working so you have to pump it shut.
The Computer always gives you millions of error messages that you just have to ignore if you want to use the tank.
And you always have KMW and Rheinmetall Service on speed dial if something happens.

But when it works when you need it too its great but that doesnt happen often.
It has potential but going from the Marder which is reliable as heck to the Puma is very frustrating.

Just curious, could you tell me how the Marder compares to the Puma, maintenance wise? 

Like specific examples that don't break OPSEC. 

 

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Not sure, TBH. That level of information is yet to be released (and probably yet to be decided). The design reviews for the Block 1 Boxers are underway at the moment. Apparently there is some rework around the ethernet, moving toward a Generic Vehicle Architecture based fitout (to align with Phase 3), but that’s the only detail that’s being discussed. 

Do you know if it is Ethernet, Ethernet/IP or EtherCat? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xoon said:

Do you know if it is Ethernet, Ethernet/IP or EtherCat? 

Apparently IEEE 802.3-2012, Ethernet: 802.3 for AS GVA data distribution. 

 

f1UhAkS.png

 

U7VYzfC.png

 

Can't forget the power and power conditioning aspects of the AS GVA:

 

aWnO2Ll.png

 

There’s also defined HMI. The idea is that various systems an sub-systems can be hosted on non-proprietary screens and controls, avoiding the one screen per system that was an artefact of some of the operationally urgent acquisitions in the past decade (e.g. one screen for the GPS, one for the RWS, one for the BFT/BMS etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

On the point of the Puma not being deployable:
Yeah heck it isnt.
It takes Months to get one back from Maintenance and it breaksdown again the same day you got it back.
The turret crashes often randomly sometimes while shooting.
The whole thing sometimes freezes and you have to reboot it.
The same with the rear hatch not working so you have to pump it shut.
The Computer always gives you millions of error messages that you just have to ignore if you want to use the tank.
And you always have KMW and Rheinmetall Service on speed dial if something happens.

But when it works when you need it too its great but that doesnt happen often.
It has potential but going from the Marder which is reliable as heck to the Puma is very frustrating.

 

We must’ve got the message down here:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Apparently IEEE 802.3-2012, Ethernet: 802.3 for AS GVA data distribution. 

 

f1UhAkS.png

 

U7VYzfC.png

 

Can't forget the power and power conditioning aspects of the AS GVA:

 

aWnO2Ll.png

 

There’s also defined HMI. The idea is that various systems an sub-systems can be hosted on non-proprietary screens and controls, avoiding the one screen per system that was an artefact of some of the operationally urgent acquisitions in the past decade (e.g. one screen for the GPS, one for the RWS, one for the BFT/BMS etc.).

That's pretty comprehensive. 

 

Though, I find it weird. Do you know if Ethercat or Ethernet/IP was considered? 
I think it would make a lot more sense in a military application. 

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...