Jump to content

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The problem with these tests is that they don't provide enough data - or at least the excerpts posted only - about the range. While all tests were conducted at a range of 285 meters (35 meters distance to the velocity measuring device and from there 250 meters to the target), the propellant charge has been altered numerous times and ranges from 4.4 to 5.8 kilograms for the KE/38 mm round (120 mm DM13 projectile) in order to simulate different combat distances.

I found them a little bit confusing and perhaps a little too little detail as well.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

As the muzzle velocity is apparently 1,470 m/s going by the older source, the simulated range seems to vary from 0 meters to more than 3 kilometers distance. At approximately ~1,000 to 1,200 meters distance, the 38 mm APFSDS seems to have a ballistic perforation limit of roughly ~320 mm steel armor (300 mm steel at 70-80° = no penetration, but plug failure of the steel armor). Interessting (and concering) is the result of the tests against the 50 mm steel plate with a projectile velocity of ~1,400 m/s at 35 meters (overall impact velocity = comparable to 1,000 m distance?): even at 9.2° slope from the horizontal, the steel plate could be penetrated. That kind of proves that the British criticism of the highly sloped upper hull plates of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams was correct.

I think the diameter of the penetrator matters with this kind of test though:

http://www.j-mst.org/on_line/admin/files/09-04151_2076-2089_.pdf
Velocity also matters and I think having a thicker projectile means some kind of "overmatch" could take place, for both of these DM13 works quite well.

The Brits might've been right, but I think there's more to it than what we can see from these tests.

In any case, there's a good reason why Germany upgraded the UFP of leopard 2s (only on 2A7Vs but, some earlier versions for other countries had it too).

Odd that the US hasn't done the same.

 

Still think it's a more efficient layout than what the Challenger 1/2 use.

 

edit: you can also see in that research paper that the hardness of the target plate matters, if the leopard 2 had a HHA hull roof that might've increased the protection by quite a bit.

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

That doesn't sound right. The Marder 2 was required to protect against 30 mm APFSDS rounds at the frontal arc, which 120 mm of steel armor would do by themselves. How did he measure the base armor, when it is covered by add-on armor modules?

OK, so I asked him again, he said it was 12cm total with the add-on, I thought it was odd too (I probably misunderstood).

More info: roof was 26mm over crew compartment, add-on on LFP was 80mm + 5-10mm of air + 30-40mm base armour.

UFP was 30-40mm base + 5-10mm air + 50mm add-on.

 

So, I was mistaken and it was 120mm total, excuse me.

 

 

edited the wording, don't want my German friend to go all 1939 on me :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, Iron Fist - Light has been selected for the Australian Boxer purchase. 

 

https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html?sfns=mo

 

Australia plans to contract Rheinmetall to integrate Iron Fist on the Lance turrets being used on the 121 of the Block II (improved reconnaissance vehicles) Australia is buying under the Land 400 Phase 2 program.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

From one of several Swiss military-related magazines, which are scanned and available on the Internet - Der Schweizer Soldat, Vol.43 (1967-1968) №09, page 203 - some very interesting mockup:
6q8qJZh.jpg
VZzkiVe.jpg

Googletranslate to english:

Quote

View over the borders
Presentation of new amphibious vehicles

The Kaiserslautern Ironworks, which has been specializing in the construction of amphibious vehicles for about 12 years, has now unveiled a self-developed amphibious transport and reconnaissance combat vehicle in Koblenz Bundeswehr technicians. The program that was shown provides for a whole amphibious vehicle family. 'They include combat, spy and armored infantry vehicles and a truck. By oversized low-pressure tires to replace the chains. The tire pressure can be determined by the driver and even changed during the journey. The vehicle should be able to drive 100 kilometers despite the punctured tires without losing any of its good driving characteristics. A powerful multi-fuel engine - depending on the vehicle type 200 to 350 hp - causes the drive in the water via an elastic propeller shaft and electromagnetic clutch to the rudder propeller in the rear. The operating device, whether for land or water travel, is located in the bow of the vehicle, also a winch for salvage operations. Speeds were reported at 85 km / h on land and 12 km / h on water. The currently developed 7-ton truck - with plans for a 4- and 10-tonne truck - is to have a cab for four people. For loading work a mounted on-board crane is intended.

For the wheel armor four man crew, a 90 mm cannon and a coaxial MG are provided. The maximum gross weight is 19 tons.

The spy tank is planned to be equipped with a 20 mm cannon, a coaxial MG and optionally a rocket launcher.

The armored personnel carrier receives 250 HP and can accommodate 12 soldiers including their weapons and equipment. For arming, either a 20 mm cannon or just a holder for one MG or two Fla-MG are provided for the time being. Yoke. Prehl


Apparently this is the same company as one which was responsible for P3 and APE 4x4s
61MrMWD.jpg  3dfFjYE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Hungary is (supposedly) considering a buy of several hundred Pumas.

The article says at least 200 is needed... Hell, that would be a huge mistake. Our economy is in a good shape, but 200 Pumas would be waaaaaaaay too much. I'd rather buy the BMP-2-s from the czechs, and modernize them to, lets say the finnish level. That would be more than enough.

Also, Népszava is a leftish-liberal news portal, they are notorious for publishing fake news, so the true intentions of the government may be diferent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 8:06 AM, Ramlaen said:

Puma is a dead end in my view.  Way too complex/expensive for too little return.  Plus was developed in isolation in Germany with only German requirements in mind.  Plus, never had any competitive pressure during development.  End result is far from loved by German user.  Plus, the pending Rheinmetall takeover of KMW..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US likely could reuse the old concept offered as part of the GCV program with a lengthened hull, raised roof and GVW of up to 50 metric tons. I'd love to see Germany also picking up this variant for the next batch (250 vehicles planned), as there certainly isn't a need for every Puma to be air-deployable.

 

I disagree with your opinions; while the Puma still has some teething issues (that apparently are rather common with modern equipment) and didn't turn out to be perfect due to mismanaged (mainly on the government's side of things - instead of paying more than billion for external consultants, the money could have been used to fix some of the Puma's current issues), it still is the only true next generation IFV design in the Western world. It has the highest protection level among Western IFVs - aside of the twenty metric tons heavier Namer -, it is made using more efficient manufacturing techniques, has been designed with new design aspects and technologies in mind and still serves as benchmark compared to more modern IFV (upgraded old generation vehicles). 

 

While I líke the CV90 and Lynx, their ancestry in the last generation of vehicles is undeniable, specifically in case of the Lynx KF31. Even the CV90 Mk IV and Lynx KF41 still retain more old design concepts than they introduce new ones. The US Army can choose to buy one of them (or the Ajax), they'd still get a very capable vehicle. But pretending that the Puma offers no advantages over the current versions of them isn't really true. The high costs of the Puma are its Achilles' heel, but if the Czech Republic and Hungary really opt for it (even though it is questionable), it could become a lot cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The US likely could reuse the old concept offered as part of the GCV program with a lengthened hull, raised roof and GVW of up to 50 metric tons. I'd love to see Germany also picking up this variant for the next batch (250 vehicles planned), as there certainly isn't a need for every Puma to be air-deployable.

 

I disagree with your opinions; while the Puma still has some teething issues (that apparently are rather common with modern equipment) and didn't turn out to be perfect due to mismanaged (mainly on the government's side of things - instead of paying more than billion for external consultants, the money could have been used to fix some of the Puma's current issues), it still is the only true next generation IFV design in the Western world. It has the highest protection level among Western IFVs - aside of the twenty metric tons heavier Namer -, it is made using more efficient manufacturing techniques, has been designed with new design aspects and technologies in mind and still serves as benchmark compared to more modern IFV (upgraded old generation vehicles). 

 

While I líke the CV90 and Lynx, their ancestry in the last generation of vehicles is undeniable, specifically in case of the Lynx KF31. Even the CV90 Mk IV and Lynx KF41 still retain more old design concepts than they introduce new ones. The US Army can choose to buy one of them (or the Ajax), they'd still get a very capable vehicle. But pretending that the Puma offers no advantages over the current versions of them isn't really true. The high costs of the Puma are its Achilles' heel, but if the Czech Republic and Hungary really opt for it (even though it is questionable), it could become a lot cheaper.

 

The Puma may have included from the beginning some components that were more capable but more expensive, but bear in mind that quite a few key components are going to be replaced in the Americanized version. Utilizing more expensive but more capable gear is not a merit of any vehicle, but a customer's choice, so it could be gone out the window as soon as the US decides what level of modifications they want for it.

 

Additionally, that alone does not constitute "next gen" capabilities. The "generation" of an IFV or any AFV can be determined not by the quality of its components, but by its architecture and the concept behind that architecture. It's any added capability that is non incremental.

 

More armor on the front or sides? That's incremental. 

APS? Revolutionary.

Giving the commander or gunner more backup sights? Incremental.

Giving them a 360° vision system? Revolutionary.

You get the idea.

 

In any iteration, whether existing or offered, the Puma does not offer revolutionary capabilities. It would be required to do so for the US Army, but then it cannot be judged by its components. It will be judged by its modularity. In this case, I don't see how it possesses any advantage over the competitors.

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...