Jump to content

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


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, DIADES said:

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...

 

The location of the air vents for the cooling system is a result of the optimization of the Puma for participation in international peace-keeping missions. The requirement for the highest possible level of all around protection (meaning thick armor is required) while also limiting the width of the vehicle to fit inside the A400M aircraft meant, that it was not feasible to integrate a rear vent/exhaust system. Another advantage of this design is the fact, that the hot air and exhaust gases do not increase the temperature of the dismount compartment; high temperatures inside the Marder have been an issue in Afghanistan. The fact that the decision to limit the Puma's weight and dimensions for A400 compatibility was made in 2002 and the fact that the design process started only after that (just look at the actual dates), clearly disprove your "Puma design is twenty years old, I love the Lynx".

 

The thermal signature of the Puma is lower than that of the Marder. Both vehicles have a few hotspots and the frontal exhaust isn't optimal.

 

Contrary to your claim, the air vents are up-armorable. As a matter of fact there are already two different armor configurations for it; the basic armor configuration as part of the Puma protection class "A" provides protection against 14.5 mm AP rounds, while a second layer of air vents made of armor steel or light-metal alloys is added as part of the Puma protection class "C", providing protection against medium caliber rounds and EFPs. In theory nothing prevents the usage of NERA plates, but as far as I know the current air vents are just  made of metal.

 

CDwWktf.jpg

 

Here is a photo of the Puma being used to demonstrate the modular armor system as part of a public demonstration. On this side of the vehicle, the rear and front sections of the vehicle's side are configured in the protection class "A", but the additional air vent armor module for the protection class "C" is visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

The location of the air vents for the cooling system is a result of the optimization of the Puma for participation in international peace-keeping missions. The requirement for the highest possible level of all around protection (meaning thick armor is required) while also limiting the width of the vehicle to fit inside the A400M aircraft meant, that it was not feasible to integrate a rear vent/exhaust system. Another advantage of this design is the fact, that the hot air and exhaust gases do not increase the temperature of the dismount compartment; high temperatures inside the Marder have been an issue in Afghanistan. The fact that the decision to limit the Puma's weight and dimensions for A400 compatibility was made in 2002 and the fact that the design process started only after that (just look at the actual dates), clearly disprove your "Puma design is twenty years old, I love the Lynx".

 

The thermal signature of the Puma is lower than that of the Marder. Both vehicles have a few hotspots and the frontal exhaust isn't optimal.

 

Contrary to your claim, the air vents are up-armorable. As a matter of fact there are already two different armor configurations for it; the basic armor configuration as part of the Puma protection class "A" provides protection against 14.5 mm AP rounds, while a second layer of air vents made of armor steel or light-metal alloys is added as part of the Puma protection class "C", providing protection against medium caliber rounds and EFPs. In theory nothing prevents the usage of NERA plates, but as far as I know the current air vents are just  made of metal.

 

CDwWktf.jpg

 

Here is a photo of the Puma being used to demonstrate the modular armor system as part of a public demonstration. On this side of the vehicle, the rear and front sections of the vehicle's side are configured in the protection class "A", but the additional air vent armor module for the protection class "C" is visible.

OK, so if I use your dates, Puma is 17 years old...  Please don't assume that I am automatically pro-LYNX merely because I disagree with design trade offs that the Puma team made.  LYNX is not perfect.

 

I do not accept that two slatted grilles gives 30mm APFSDS protection.  I just can't imagine how that could be done and still have adequate airflow.  Maybe that is a failure of my imagination,  It just seems too easy given what I know is required in terms of layered plate structures to achieve that level of protection (multiple materials, spaced etc)

 

and if somebody decided to optimize for counter-insurgency at the cost of usefulness in peer to peer, that could only be called short sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DIADES said:

yeah, note that later generation LANCE reverts to gun on centerline of turret.  Probably to reduce traverse drive loads

 

The Puma turret is not a Lance turret. There is a remote Lance turret, but it is not the same as that fitted to the Puma (though the Puma turret has been fitted to Boxer for trade shows, further confusing matters). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

The Puma turret is not a Lance turret. There is a remote Lance turret, but it is not the same as that fitted to the Puma (though the Puma turret has been fitted to Boxer for trade shows, further confusing matters). 

I disagree - Rheinmetall clearly state that the Puma carries a LANCE turret - the first of the family.  Statement was made to CoA in support of maturity during Ph2 bid.   This is supported across various sites on the web.  I suspect that the LANCE name was not being used during the initial development tho.

 

This makes sense at turrets and guns were what Rheinmetall brought to the PSM ( Projekt System Management GmbH ) partnership with KMW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Moyes said:

The Puma turret is the RCT 30 by KMW.

I disagree - Rheinmetall clearly state theta the Puma carries a LANCE turret - the first of the family.  This makes sense at turrets and guns were what Rheinmetall brought to the PSM ( Projekt System Management GmbH ) partnership with KMW.  Puma is not a KMW product - it is a PSM product.  Which is a problem for both parties as it limits where/when they can bid it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Puma carries a turret made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall makes the hull of the Puma. The LANCE modular turret system has absolutely nothing to do with the Puma. It's turret is fully assembled by KMW and then transported to Rheinmetall's facilities for final assembly on the hull (just like the decoupled running gear). You again have no clue about what your talking. The Puma is not "a 17 years old design", it is built for the same type of warfare as the Lynx KF41 (aka the type of warfare encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.). That you have a problem believing that multiple highly-sloped steel plates can defeat a 30 mm APFSDS is btw. also rather irrelevant, given that you clearly have massive gaps in knowledge regarding the technology and the construction of modern (German) AFVs.

 

The unique engine you previously praised as advantage of the Lynx KF41 is a bog-standard diesel engine, which was only chosen because it is made by Liebherr (meaning it is cheaper and there are a lot less issues with exporting & licencing it, because Liebherr is a Swiss company). The cooling system you praised at the same time as unique to the Lynx has been adopted on AFVs since the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The Puma carries a turret made by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall makes the hull of the Puma. The LANCE modular turret system has absolutely nothing to do with the Puma. It's turret is fully assembled by KMW and then transported to Rheinmetall's facilities for final assembly on the hull (just like the decoupled running gear). You again have no clue about what your talking. The Puma is not "a 17 years old design", it is built for the same type of warfare as the Lynx KF41 (aka the type of warfare encountered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc.). That you have a problem believing that multiple highly-sloped steel plates can defeat a 30 mm APFSDS is btw. also rather irrelevant, given that you clearly have massive gaps in knowledge regarding the technology and the construction of modern (German) AFVs.

 

The unique engine you previously praised as advantage of the Lynx KF41 is a bog-standard diesel engine, which was only chosen because it is made by Liebherr (meaning it is cheaper and there are a lot less issues with exporting & licencing it, because Liebherr is a Swiss company). The cooling system you praised at the same time as unique to the Lynx has been adopted on AFVs since the 1970s.

i suspect that you are confusing design with manufacture.

 

yes, by you dates, Puma is a 17 year old design.

 

I am trying to be dispassionate about this.  I am not invested in either product and at no point have I attacked or denigrated you.  I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design has been updated and improved until the adoption in service! Specifications and requirements have been altered several times, which is one of the key reasons for the delay in introduction compared to the original timeline.

 

This "conversation" consisted to 90% out of you making incorrect statements, ignoring all corrections and moving on to make the next incorrect claims... and you are clearly biased for the Lynx. Aside of the fact that an older design date doesn't in any way affect the actual performance of hardware (Leopard 2 was designed in the 1970s, yet it is better than the Arjun, which entered service in 2004; the NGP tank concept and late-stage Soviet prototypes are far ahead in terms of performance in most aspects compared to anything that actually is in service at the moment), your claim is unfounded. The ASCOD and CV90 are even older designs (both developed in the 1980s), yet the Lynx design resembles them closely in many aspects.

 

"Puma is made to fight Soviet hordes", "Germany not buying more Pumas", "unmanned turret is a proof that something is designed to fight Soviet hordes", "Lynx KF41 includes components from Puma and has an unique engine and cooling system", "Yugoslavia and Kosovo being main factors for Puma's design", "air vent cannot be up-armored", "air vent doesn't protect against 30 mm APFSDS", "Rheinmetall claims Puma uses LANCE turret", "Rheinmetall's participation in manufacturing the Puma", "Puma being a joint-venture limits where it can offered", etc... all incorrect claims made by you solely for the reason to bash the Puma and pretend that the Lynx KF41 is better. It is not. They are different vehicles and different approaches to meeting the demands of the same battlefields. One vehicle is a new, full next generation design developed with lots of (probably too much) funding, requiring the development of new armor technology, new manufacturing techniques, new electronics, a new powerpack, a completely new running  gear, new vectronics and various other fully new components  - the other vehicle is created to maximize profits by maximizing the chances to win competitions (via cost reduction and maturity of sub-components), using as much technology from the same manufacturer as possible (even if some of the technology was considered worse than competing products from other vendors during official BAAINBw/Bundeswehr testing), recycling as many parts of previous offers as possible, while also using as many off-the-shelf components as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2019 at 1:33 PM, SH_MM said:

 

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. 

[...]

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.

Strange. When I was introduced to the SPz-Puma in 2003, I can’t remind the protection level was low. 

And the name was not Puma yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rheinmetall has announced that it is purchasing IBD Deisenroth Engineering. The purchase will be fully finalized by first of June 2019. All properties of IBD (and with that its joint-ventures with Rheinmetall like Rheinmetall Chempro and ADS Gesellschaft für aktive Schutzsysteme mbH aka Rheinmetall Active Protection GmbH) will become part of the Rheinmetall Group.

 

The series production for the Mission Master UGV has started. Aside of the Bundeswehr (just for tests), Italy and more than one country from the Middle East have placed orders for the Mission Master.

D3TQYUVWsAATFe6.jpg

 

 

While not directly related to Germany, the Czech Republic has decided that the BMP-2 replacement will not be purchased after an open tender/bidding process. Instead the Czech army was given the right to choose its own IFV directly, talks with the companies are supposed to start soon. In the past the Czech army had openly declared the Puma their favorite option, although Rheinmetall's Lynx supposedly also has good chances of being adopted due to its lower price.

 

Reading through my previous posts, I might have chosen the wrong tone; I did not intend to insult anyone, so if you felt insulted @DIADES, then I apologize for that. In the armor community it is unfortunately very common for people to become fans of vehicles, companies or countries, usually related to their own home countries and their respective militaries. These people are often 'attacking' the designs of other companies/countries - and IMO that is the case with your crititque - without a lot of thought put into the attacks, just to boost the perception of the vehicles/companies/countries that they are fan of. There are lots of valid reasons to criticize the Puma, I already mentioned a few (like the height limit, the focus on asymmetric warfare despite the role of the Bundeswehr being homeland defence according to the German constitution, or the high costs), but calling it out for the wrong reasons (like pretending that it was designed for a different knd of warfare than the Lynx KF41 or that it would use an outdated variant of Rheinmetall's LANCE turret system) just to make the Lynx KF41 look better is not valid.

 

Speaking of the Puma, apparently the costs to upgrade 41 vehicles for NATO's VTJF will cost 228.1 million (or about €5.56 million per Puma)... that's quite a lot. Honestly way too much, even if the Puma's would be upgraded to the S2 or A1 configuration. Probably could buy an equal amount of new CV90s for that money, which seems to be a better idea. Hopefully this includes development costs, as the upgrades should later be introduced into the whole fleet.

 

On 3/22/2019 at 5:05 PM, Serge said:

Strange. When I was introduced to the SPz-Puma in 2003, I can’t remind the protection level was low.  

And the name was not Puma yet.  

 

"Low" is always relative. The protection was a lot lower than that of the previous concepts developed for the NGP project. Project was further changed during development to meet the changing requirements. One of the lessons learned from looking at American performance in Iraq was for example to change the length of the side skirts: the original prototypes had skirts covering only the surface area, behind which the crew, the dismounts or the powerpack were located. On the series production model, the skirts were extended further down (with reduced thickness and slat armor) to also protect the drivetrain and suspension elements of the Puma.

 

The name Puma was chosen very late in the development, because previous suggestions were either deemed unfit by politicians, industry or military.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2019 at 9:06 PM, SH_MM said:

Reading through my previous posts, I might have chosen the wrong tone; I did not intend to insult anyone, so if you felt insulted @DIADES, then I apologize for that. In the armor community it is unfortunately very common for people to become fans of vehicles, companies or countries, usually related to their own home countries and their respective militaries. These people are often 'attacking' the designs of other companies/countries - and IMO that is the case with your crititque

So your idea of apologizing is to call me a fanboy?  Ironic, your hysterical response to anything other than fervent worship of all things Puma...  and you call me a fanboy!  Puma is a beautiful thing but like us all, flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2019 at 10:13 AM, Zadlo said:

PSM has found another possible buyer for their SPz - Romania wants to buy 173 Pumas instead of developing Agilis APC and modernizing MLI-84.

 

https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-defense-23089641-armata-vrut-achizitioneze-urgenta-173-blindate-puma-rheinmetall-renunte-schimb-dezvoltarea-moreni-transportorului-blindat-agilis.htm


RIP in Peace Agilis:

Q7RkfnH.jpg
 


We hardly knew ye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Anyone got a good picture of a StuG that was fitted with a coaxial machine gun? 

EXKVGs3.png

With

CNUllQM.png

Without

 

That's for the cast mantlet.  I know there are supposed to be box mantlets with and without the coax as well, but I'm not sure what the box mantlets with the coax look like.  I also have no idea how the coax mount looks from the inside.

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...