Jump to content

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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

 

This is a terrible way of distinguishing generations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Personally I don't think they'd be up for another rodeo. They lost big with MPF and ACV, and the Amtrac upgrade got canned before it begun. Maybe Textron? They've got the facilities to build armored vehicles, but it would be a stretch.

Can Textron facilities produce SPz-Puma ?

I’m not sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

This is a terrible way of distinguishing generations.

 

The only almost official list of generations of AFVs was invented by Rolf Hilmes, in which he identified 3 different generations of MBTs at the time, corresponding to different technological leaps.

 

Leaps like composite armor, smoothbore guns, thermal visors, automated firing processes (stabilization, laying, etc), and so on. Current day leaps include active protection, automated target identification, sensor and data fusion, and networking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zuk, I agree with you that one has to distinguish between increments in capabilities and revolutions. However you are mixing capabilties of components with vehicles; there are also increments of vehicle designs/concepts and there are new revolutionary designs/concepts, that warrants a new generation. This is why your examples are incorrect in this discussion. Yes, when comparing an APS to passive armor, it is a revolutionary advantage - just as comparing a 360° vision system to a backup sight. But these are only components that can be integrated in any IFV, regardless of generation. As a matter of fact both the Bradley and the CV9035NL (CV90 Mk III) are older models in which the Iron Fist APS will be integrated. BAE Systems also tested 360° vision systems on the CV90, simply by taping a few cameras to the outside of the vehicle, wiring them up to a computer system and then giving the driver a VR headset.

That's why you are looking at the wrong aspects, you are naming prime examples of solutions for retro-fit, i.e. suited for vehicle increments (upgraded versions of the existing design), rather than a new generation of vehicles (new design taking into account new/more concepts). Any vendor that currently is manufacturing/marketing APS is currently offering them as retro-fit options, just like there are multiple 360° vision systems (something that the Puma S1 btw. has, it is just not with a fancy AR/VR headset). In theory APS and 360° might at some point become relevant to vehicle generations, if they in any shape or form are integrated into the vehicle design to such an extend, that they cannot simply be replicated by upgrades to older designs. Current APS are not like that.

 

For a new generation of vehicles, you need to separate components from the vehicle to some extend; you need to look at the basic concept and also wether it is possible to replicate the solutions to the same degree in form of a retro-fit to older generation of vehicles with reasonable levels of effort. Sure the Puma has a lot of additional capabilities that could be retro-fitted (and in some cases are being retro-fitted) to legacy vehicles like third generation thermal imagers or newer armor packages, but there are the reasons why the Puma is a newer generation of IFV, which cannot necessarily be replicated on the ASCOD or CV90 designs without going back completely to the drawing board.

 

 

The Puma is the first IFV to take the advent of composite armor into account, separating structural and ballistic parts more or less completely, not just using a ballistic steel hull and adding composite modules as an afterthought. This advantage means lower weight for a given level of protection, replicating it would require to go back to making new blueprints in case of pretty much any of the other IFV currently available. A complete restart of the design. It has a decoupled running gear, all fuel tanks are placed outside of the vehicle. The ammunition is completely separated from the crew and dismount compartment, stored in separate compartments with blow-out functionality (no fragments or pressure endangers the soldiers in case of an ammo detonation). The other IFVs lack some or all of these features, which would require extensive redesigns. Another example is signature management and stealth characteristics, which played absolutely no major role when the ASCOD and CV90 were designed. Sure, some of this can be mitigated by using an external camouflage system like SAAB Barracuda MCS, but the Australian army has noted that this doesn't actually work in their enivornments, while the US Army - potentially for similar reasons - uses the Barracuda MCS only in Europe. I could go on and list other features, that I'd consider beneficial regarding placing the Puma a generation ahead of some of its competitors, but I hope the point is clear already. On the other hand, only the Lynx with its modularity seems to distinguish itself from the competition feature-wise.

Increasing/incrementing the technology and amounts of  armor, optics, engine & transmission performance and firepower is also a common feature of new generations of vehicles, but of a secondary importance.

 

Also note that incrementing on an existing vehicle designs always leads to compromises (like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams still using powerpacks with an output of 1,500 hp despite roughly 10 tonnes of weight growth from earliest to latest variant). When trying to upgrade an existing design, there are always numerous factors that needs to be taken into account, which limit the growth potential or the gain in performance, which is why at some time new clean sheet designs are required. How easy is it to upgrade the armor without adding ballistic holes? Does reaching the desired level of blast/IED protecting require massive drawbacks in regards to mobility? How much will the weight increase, given that most effective weight-saving measures would require going back to the drawing board.

 

In the end a vehicle is not defined by single parts, but by the sum of its features. That some of the new features that were first investigated or introduced with the Puma's prototypes into IFV design have been incorporated into older designs form other vendors doesn't lead to parity. Take the Leopard 1A6 for example: it has got a 120 mm smoothbore gun, a digitial FCS with thermal imager and laser rangefinder, aswell as thick composite armor. Is the Leopard 1A6 a tank from the same generation as the Leopard 2? No. It is an increment of the Leopard 1 design, even though it added new features, that were seen as revolutionary advantages of third generation MBTs, it remained an upgraded (or an increment of) a second generation MBT. Even despite all the upgrades - and even with further upgrades - the Leopard 1A6 never could reach the same level of performance.

 

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The only almost official list of generations of AFVs was invented by Rolf Hilmes, in which he identified 3 different generations of MBTs at the time, corresponding to different technological leaps. 

 

He didn't invent these "almost official list of generations", they were already a topic in academic circles (mostly military historian) before; he just was the first to publish a book on them. If you read the book, you'd see that your analogy actually favors the Puma, as the other IFVs would be considered as belonging to an intermediate generation (being based on increments of existing vehicle designs rather than being new vehicle designs). That the Puma also incorporates most of your technical leaps in one way or the other also speaks for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SH_MM said:

.

 

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.

KF31 was a demonstrator primarily - Marder based.  KF41 is all new - shares nothing with past vehicles except at the component level (proven transmission for example).

 

Puma is not just limited by cost - it is too narrowly focused on Cold War German concepts.  It will be a hard sell to anybody - even Germany is less than keen on buying more.  Puma is a solution looking for a problem and a perfect example of unconstrained engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, holoween said:

 

Which concepts are those and why would it prevent anyone from buying pumas?

Vast hordes of Soviet armour pouring through the Fulda gap or across the northern plains - this very reasonable fear (for the time) still colours German defence.  We take a long time to change our thinking especially when we have been thinking, planning and training the same scenarios over and over for 50 years.  Add in the fundamental tenet that German forces will never be deployed outside Germany (only recently broken and even then tokenisticly) and you have a recipe for unique design solutions appropriate to those mindsets/scenarios.  All nations have their own version of this problem.  In the case of Puma, the Soviet threat (mass attacks and tactical nukes) drives key design decisions.  The hermetic approach to crew/dismount packaging and the remote gun are typical.  These features are less desirable in other scenarios - they actually degrade military usefulness yet have real value in the scenario they are designed for.  Add in the German technocratic problem seen time and again in WW2 AFV development - there is no idea that can't be made 10 times better by making it more complicated....  And then there are the design limits imposed by the A400M, another perfect example of the fundamental problems I am describing.  Nobody, not even the Germans yet, has this aircraft and its limits are below those of the aircraft others use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, holoween said:

 

Which concepts are those and why would it prevent anyone from buying pumas?

don't get me wrong, Puma is impressive.  A brave design that owes little to the past.  A genuine clean sheet.  I would like to meet the main guy, the concept architect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

KF31 was a demonstrator primarily - Marder based.  KF41 is all new - shares nothing with past vehicles except at the component level (proven transmission for example).

 

The KF31 is not Marder based, but uses a newly built hull based on the old Marder blueprints that is keeping some of the components. The KF41 uses a new hull design, but still shares components with the KF31. Both are largely based on legacy design concepts to remain cheap and technological mature.

 

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

Puma is not just limited by cost - it is too narrowly focused on Cold War German concepts.

 

Actually the complete opposite from your claims are true. The Puma has been overly optimized for peace-keeping missions and deployments as part of international security forces with little attention being paid to "Cold War German concepts".  That's why the Puma has been made air-deployable in the A400M (something that never was a topic in the Cold War), leading to a reduction in volume (it must fit into the cargo bay of an A400M aircraft), the modularity of its armor package (the A400M cannot support the weight of the Puma with full armor package) and a strict weight limit. The Puma's requirements are directly based on the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to Germany demanding the highest possible level of mine protection (something that no Cold War German AFV offered), exceeding STANAG 4569 level 4a/4b at a time when all other IFVs were built without mine protection kits. The armor layout - armor covering all sides of the vehicle including the rear - and protection requirements (armor being demanded to defeat handheld anti-tank weapons like the numerous RPGs encountered in Iraq, aswell as EFP-IEDs) are also directly related to US experience in Iraq.

 

If the Puma was based on Cold War German concepts, it would be larger and heavier, feature a 50 mm autocannon (as planned as uprade option for the Marder 2 and as main armament of the NGP project's IFV variant) and hardkill active protection systems (which weren't added to the Puma, because of the increased chance of collateral damage when driving through cities in the Middle East and being attacked by insurgents with RPGs). You got the reasons behind the Puma's design completely wrong!

 

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

It will be a hard sell to anybody - even Germany is less than keen on buying more.

 

Both Bundestag [German parliament] and Bundeswehr have confirmed that a second batch of ca. 250 Pumas will be ordered in the next years, once the first batch has been finished.

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Vast hordes of Soviet armour pouring through the Fulda gap or across the northern plains - this very reasonable fear (for the time) still colours German defence.  We take a long time to change our thinking especially when we have been thinking, planning and training the same scenarios over and over for 50 years.  Add in the fundamental tenet that German forces will never be deployed outside Germany (only recently broken and even then tokenisticly) and you have a recipe for unique design solutions appropriate to those mindsets/scenariosAll nations have their own version of this problem. 

 

Sorry, but you are falling back to incorrect stereotypes. Since the 1990s the German military has put its focus on peace-keeping missions and overseas deployments, resulting in a reduction in capabilities required in a peer-to-peer conflict against Russia:

  • Germany built NATO's first MRAP eight years before the United States actually started their MRAP program. This was related to KFOR, SFOR and IFOR, where Germany expected to meet heavy local resistance (by Serbian forces) making use of Soviet anti-tank rifles, anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines (with HE and EFP warheads). That's why in the early 1990s South-African MRAPs were shipped to Germany and tested. Krauss-Maffei started developing the Dingo following the tests, which was accepted in service in 1999.
  • Mine protection kits were adopted on the Fuchs, Wolf, Marder and Leopard 2, starting with the deployment of German vehicles as part of KFOR.
  • For a brief period of time, the Bundeswehr had no mortar carriers left. The M113-based mortar carried was retired and a new one was being developed in form of the Wiesel 2 mortar variant. The Wiesel 2 was chosen because it was light enough to fit into a large transport helicopter, allowing it to be used more effectively in Afghanistan. It turned out to be too expensive and not well protected enough (after using the Wiesel a few months in Afghanistan, it was discovered that armor that actually can stop most bullets is a good idea). The old M113 mortar carriers were only recently reactivated after Russia occupied the Crimea.
  • The same happened with the mine-layers, although no replacement program was started. The old mine-layers were retired and scrapped, so when Russia started messing up politics and stuff in the Eastern Ukraine, even older mine-laying systems had to be taken out of long-term storage.
  • All landing crafts of the German navy have been retired or scrapped (the last one, after being damaged). In the Cold War German military concept, they would have been used to reinforce positions at the coast and/or to launch counter-attacks, but for deployment in Kosovo and Afghanistan there isn't a need for landing crafts...
  • The K130 Braunschweig-class corvettes is another example showing how Germany has put homeland defence as second priority behind participating at international stabilization and peace-keeping missions. The K130 de facto replaces the old fast-attack crafts of the Gepard-class, which were optimized to fight against Soviet fleets (back then, Germany took the fastest available small sized vessel and put as many weapons on it as possible). The Gepard-class however isn't capable to operate alone for a longer period of time, has no fire-support options against land targets and cannot transport any sort of group of soldiers. It isn't suited for patroling the Mediterranean Sea when looking for human traffickers and smugglers and also isn't capable of hunting pirates in Somalia's waters. The K130 on the other hand is designed to do such tasks.
  • The Tiger, which was turned from PAH-2 (anti-tank helicopter 2, as a replacement of the Bo-105-based PAH-1) to the UHT Tiger (support helicopter Tiger) is another example of the focus shift of the German army.
  • The Dingo BÜR was meant to replace the Fuchs RASIT. While offering somewhat greater detection range against ground vehicles, the main reason behind this move was the higher resolution of the radar would allow the Dingo BÜR to spot (groups of) people from a distance, which the Bundeswehr believed to be advantageous when hunting insurgents in Afghanistan. Turned out to be too expensive/not good enough to justify the high costs.
  • Funding of many projects related to capabilites required for symmetric/high-intensity warfare against a peer enemy like Russia was dramatically cut between 1990-2015. This includes anti-aircraft missiles, AFVs, anti-tank missiles, guided artillery munitions, etc.
  • I could go on, but I don't think that this will help any more than what has already been written.

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

The hermetic approach to crew/dismount packaging and the remote gun are typical.

 

These decisions are all related to the optimizations for peace-keeping missions. The crew must survive patrols in the Puma even when being ambushed (ambushes being not a topic back in the Cold War) - this meant that crew survivability after penetration had to be maximized, as medical support is limited when being deployed in overseas. The remote turret was adopted for two reasons: Mostly to keep the weight down, allowing the Puma to fit into the A400M while still reaching the protection levels required for assymetric combat and urban warfare (i.e. resistance to various types of munitions available for the RPG-7). A manned turret would have increased the volume of the Puma, hence the weight would have been too much for the Puma, even when staying at the same turret protection level (unlike the hull, the current turret is not designed to withstand RPGs). The second reason for the Puma's remotely operated turret was to create technological knowledge for future AFVs; at the time the project was initiated, nobody else had developed a remotely operated turret; as this was seen [correctly] as the next step in turret design, technology developed for the Puma's remote turret was meant to be reused in other future projects like the next-generation MBT).

 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Nobody, not even the Germans yet, has this aircraft and its limits are below those of the aircraft others use.

 

I agree that focusing on the A400M was a stupid idea; especially given that it was revealed a few weeks ago that transporting the Puma has not yet been tested with the A400M. That's why I'd prefer the second batch of Pumas to not be compatible with the A400M,  being larger and heavier with raised height limit. However claiming that Germany (or no other user) would not have any A400Ms is incorrect. Just last week an A400M flew a German minister to Afghanistan, where he was visiting the troops.

 

The A400M has a lot of problems, it is quite a shit show. But "it's limits" are not below other aircrafts. It fills a gap within the other available models in terms of range and payload, there isn't another option available in NATO. Sure one can buy a larger transport aircraft form the US (i.e. a C-5 or C-17), but those lack the compability with shorter and unpaved runways that the A400M is offering (something relevant for peace-keeping missions in third world countries).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Quote

The hermetic approach to crew/dismount packaging and the remote gun are typical.

These decisions are all related to the optimizations for peace-keeping missions. The crew must survive patrols in the Puma even when being ambushed (ambushes being not a topic back in the Cold War) - this meant that crew survivability after penetration had to be maximized, as medical support is limited when being deployed in overseas.

Question of crew survivability after penetration and how to improve it was there at least ever since late 60s, or early 70s, based - among other things - on experience of Yom Kippur war of 1973 as it was percieved, because it was expected that WW3 would resemble something like that in intensity of fire and losses.


One could also look at M1 Abrams with its ammunition compartment and blow-off panels, - and some people did that IRL in late 80s during Bradley's survivability upgrade (A2) development. Infamous Col. Burton was involved in that, and also he - and Hunnicat , as well as some US Senate hearings and some reports - they do mention "Advanced Survivability Test Bed", a Bradley with compartmentalized ammunition and most of its fuel  on the outside, and Burton said that there was s question of whether it was possible to put TOW in some compartment away from the crew too.
 

Another thing about Bradley, and another one reason for ASTB mentioned by Burton was that in US Army' own studies on what to expect on the battlefield agains Soviets, infantry carriers like Bradleys and M113 were expected to suffer from enemy fire of all sorts - including tank 115/125mm KE rounds, including tank CE rounds, and also all ATGMs - completelly different from an idea that tank is №1 target for another tank and in battle IFV should not worry about being targeted by enemy tanks untill enemy tanks have destroyed all friendly tanks.
So one of the reasonable questions about ERA armor for A2 Bradley (providing protection against RPGs only, IIRC) was - that it is not nearly enough against all other treats expected on battlefield of war that could be called "pece-keeping" only in very special sense. Thus one needs measures to increase crew survivability after penetration.

Spoiler

Hunnicutt:
kTlAbDr.png
QqHIu8z.png
Burton:
pP3momT.jpg
and some reports:

tReMj9S.png

 

3oeKGJ9.jpg


rddsp3l.png

 

/added another screenshot about ASTB - from Hearings of 1987/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously the ideas to improve crew survivability aren't something new, but they were actually adopted on the Puma, rather than just being solely testbeds that ended up being developmental dead-ends. BAE Systems proposed to essentially repeat the suggested survivability upgrades for the Bradley with the Bradley Next-Gen, which was based on the latest AMPV hull, had a raised roof and new (external) storage for the TOW missiles and the fuel tanks.

 

IMG_8308-1024x768.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

The KF31 is not Marder based, but uses a newly built hull based on the old Marder blueprints that is keeping some of the components. The KF41 uses a new hull design, but still shares components with the KF31. Both are largely based on legacy design concepts to remain cheap and technological mature.

 

 

Actually the complete opposite from your claims are true.

Yes, KF31 is Marder based - don't care if they cut up an old one or built a new hull, comes to the same thing.

No, KF41 is new.  It includes components from Puma.  It has all new semi-active suspension (not Puma, not Marder), unique engine and cooling system, new roadwheels, new hull with state of the art armour, a proper LANCE turret, GVA etc, etc...

On Puma, best we agree to disagree - obviously your sources and mine do not agree.  Time will tell.  Regardless, I can't see a remote turret as in anyway useful for "peacekeeping" then again I am biased, I just can't accept a remote turret as a good idea yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The Puma is the first IFV to take the advent of composite armor into account, separating structural and ballistic parts more or less completely, not just using a ballistic steel hull and adding composite modules as an afterthought. This advantage means lower weight for a given level of protection, replicating it would require to go back to making new blueprints in case of pretty much any of the other IFV currently available.

Yes. 

This point is very important to make differences between AFV generations. 

This trend appeared by the end of the 90’s. 

Here is the CHACAL chassis, a French demonstrator for lighters structures :

4a8da510.png

The Char à Caisse Allégée had a hull twice as thin as classical hull. Weight saving was by 15% with armor module. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Puma has been overly optimized for peace-keeping missions and deployments as part of international security forces with little attention being paid to "Cold War German concepts".  That's why the Puma has been made air-deployable in the A400M (something that never was a topic in the Cold War), leading to a reduction in volume (it must fit into the cargo bay of an A400M aircraft), the modularity of its armor package (the A400M cannot support the weight of the Puma with full armor package) and a strict weight limit.

I would say « SPz-Puma take into account peacekeeping operations », not overly. 

The German army was developing a scalable system of forces to face « 3 blocks war » concept. 

 

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The Puma's requirements are directly based on the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to Germany demanding the highest possible level of mine protection (something that no Cold War German AFV offered), exceeding STANAG 4569 level 4a/4b at a time when all other IFVs were built without mine protection kits.

No. 

It comes from Yugoslavia and Kosovo.  

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The armor layout - armor covering all sides of the vehicle including the rear - and protection requirements (armor being demanded to defeat handheld anti-tank weapons like the numerous RPGs encountered in Iraq, aswell as EFP-IEDs) are also directly related to US experience in Iraq.

Once more, no. 

SPz-Puma needs a spherical protection to fight in build up area, among population but the request comes from Yugoslavia experience. 

Both Irak and Afghanistan theaters lesson learned came latter.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Serge said:

No. 

It comes from Yugoslavia and Kosovo.   

[...]

Once more, no.  

SPz-Puma needs a spherical protection to fight in build up area, among population but the request comes from Yugoslavia experience.  

Both Irak and Afghanistan theaters lesson learned came latter.   

 

No, the design of the Puma is directly influenced by the US' lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Germany adopted first armor and mine protection upgrades for the participation in KFOR, the actual experiences in Kosovo and Yugoslavia were all very good. There weren't any larger combat actions and no mine or IED strikes on German AFVs. As a reaction to KFOR, the Fuchs KRK (Krisenreaktionskräfte - crisis reaction force) was developed, which featured only moderate levels of protection (resistant to light/medium anti-vehicle mines and heavy machine gun fire):

 

TPz_1_Fuchs_5.jpg

 

Two variants were developed in 1997 (one with machine gun turret and one with 20 mm Rh 202 autocannon), but they were rejected in 1999, after several attempts to fix certain issues revealed during testing (most likely related to the fact, that the Fuchs' drivetrain couldn't deal with the added weight without further suspension upgrades). The positive experience in KFOR was in some way a step back in terms of protection requirements for assymetric warfare.

 

For the Puma, the turning point was the year 2002, when Germany decided to set a weight limit for the Neuer Schützenpanzer program following the US military actions in Afghanistan. For the next time, the workgroups had to decide how to use the weight/maximize the protection level within this weight limit. Before 2002, the developmental concepts had a much higher level of overall protection (the Neuer Schützenpanzer being a branched-out program from the NGP, which included requirements for the IFV to withstand 125 mm APFSDS rounds and large caliber anti-tank missiles along the frontal arc while having high levels of mine, IED and all-round protection against RPGs). In 2002, the ASCOD and CV90 were evaluated (mostly on paper), but rejected. When the pre-series Pumas were ordered, the US military already had conquered Iraq and more than a year of experience with the insurgent attacks after the defeat of the Ba'ath party. Protection requirements were changed and adjusted even after the pre-series vehicles were delivered in 2010.

 

10 hours ago, DIADES said:

Fascinating!  Similarities to LYNX layout are clear

 

You mean generic IFV similarities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Serge said:

Here is the CHACAL chassis, a French demonstrator for lighters structures :

The Char à Caisse Allégée had a hull twice as thin as classical hull. Weight saving was by 15% with armor module. 

Am I correct in my understanding that it's a hull of wheeled 6x6 vehicle, similar to those developed around EBRC program, like for example GIAT DPE demonstrator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

Add side mounted ROSY launchers, a machine gun of any sort, and you can use it for convoy protection. Otherwise only good as a demonstrator.

 

But I like the idea of 70mm rockets more than LAW launchers or anything of that sort. Especially if the 70mm rockets come with IR or optical guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

.

 

 

You mean generic IFV similarities...

No, I don't.  I mean specific similarities - don't confuse similarity with copy, that is not what I am saying.  But the cooling system is very, very similar.  Different design teams coming up with similar solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Such a cooling system was already developed in the 1960s for the Marder IFV. What a nice similarity between Lynx and Char à Caisse Allégée :rolleyes:

Indeed - yet Puma reverts to a side exhaust cooling system.  Big thermal plume sticking out of the side plus in all the images of up-armoured Puma, the exit air grill is unchanged.  Look at where it is - in the frontal arc and not up-armourable...

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...