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

[SH_MM]

On 5/15/2019 at 2:38 PM, Ronin10 said:

Comparing the LYNX and Marder is like comparing a 1980's Porsche 911 to the Current Model 911.... the Marder and the KF41 are vastly different, as is the KF41 to the KF31, this is obvious if you put them all lined up, do they look similar... somewhat, but it is coming from the same design house... are they the same... no.... also note that the LYNX has modular armor packages..... 

 

Marder, Lynx KF31 and Lynx KF41 are part of multiple evolutions starting from each other. The Lynx KF31 used the design of the Marder IFV hull as base, the Lynx KF41 uses a new hull. but shares many internal components and design aspects with the Lynx KF41.

 

As a matter of fact, the Lynx KF31 seems to be based on the Marder "Evolution" APC hull design, which introduced the same modular armor package (same side armor, same frontal armor, same roof armor and same mine protection kit) and the raised roofline that the KF31 retained. But marketing a "Marder Evolution IFV" wouldn't have been as successful as announcing the "all-new" Lynx KF31.

 

 

On 5/15/2019 at 2:38 PM, Ronin10 said:

also note that the LYNX has modular armor packages..... 

 

Which I certainly did not wrote...

 

On 5/13/2019 at 3:17 PM, SH_MM said:

Obviously the armor package can be configured to a certain extent according to the user's wishes, but I was expecting a bit more, given how beefy the roof armor of the Puma is. 

 

On 5/15/2019 at 3:09 PM, Ronin10 said:

I will give you a tip.... it is very rare that a vehicle ever meets all the requirements.... most of your Information is correct though, the unmanned turret isnt the controversy that PSM is making it out to be... the 2 Major acquisition Projects other then Czech are Australia and US... guess what Puma isnt in either because both requested manned turrets that can be converted to unmanned at a later time. 

 

Requirements have to be written reasonable, otherwise you'll end up with an overly specific and extremely expensive vehicle - just take a look at the Puma IFV; or numerous other, failed programs (including tons of programs of the US Army like the FCS, GCV, etc.). A program were the essential requirements cannot be met by a single candadite, is a program that is doomed to fail (or turn into an expensive mess) unless requirements are changed. Just look at the LAND 400 program: during phase 2, the original protection requirement was to provide STANAG 4569 level 6 (essential requirement) or level "6+" (desired protection level - which is essentially all-round protection against 30 mm APFSDS). Turns out that only one offer would have been able to meet the essential requirement and none would be able to reach the desired level of protection. So what did the Australians do? They lowered the requirements in order to retain competition - instead of demanding full STANAG 4569 level 6 compliance, only the protection against AP and APDS rounds remained an essential requirement; all offers could meet this, meaning competition remained possible.

 

The Czech requirement for an 8 men transport capacity is silly to say the least. I could understand it, if the Czech army actually utilized 8 men infantry squads - but they don't. The Czech mechanized infantry has six men squads - only the requirement to be able to transport a six men squad plus two "specialists" causes issues for all tested vehicles. Given that the idea behind the tests was to see what requirements would be currently feasible, it is extremely stupid to end up with a set of requirements that cannot be met by more vehicles than one (untested) prototype. PSM however has decided to offer a modified Puma with increased size, enough to seat 8 soldiers (hopefully up to 95th percentile) - it would be good if someone in the German MoD grew a brain and decided to purchase this as variant as the up-coming second batch of Pumas rather than to keep buying the ones neutered by the air-deployment requirements.

 

As for the US Army's OMFV: there is no requirement for a manned turret. The US army even requested a demonstration of the Puma IFV. Only Australia has decided to limit itself to manned turrets after testing a single vehicle with unmanned turret during LAND 400 phase 2. The US meanwhile is buying  more unmanned turrets (correction: possibly from Kongsberg), enough for 3 more Stryker brigades.

 

On 5/15/2019 at 3:09 PM, Ronin10 said:

All responsed to the Initial requirements have been made, KF31 FYI was a prototype

 

Now guess what the Lynx KF41 currently is...

 

8 hours ago, DIADES said:

LANCE is not a turret - it is a family of turrets.  A bit pile of turret component and sub-system lego.  The Puma turret is the first production turret in the LANCE family.

 

No, stop repeating the same lies. You have been told by five people in this topic that the Puma's turret is not part of the LANCE Modular Turret System (MTS), yet you keep stating factually incorrect claims.

 

LANCE MTS is indeed a modular family, but if you ever bothered to look at the Puma's RCT-30 turret, you would have noticed that it lacks any the LANCE's modularity, because it is not designed to be modified for as many export users as possible. The RCT-30 turret of the Puma is made by KMW based on Wegmann's expertise, a company that has started making turrets for AFVs decades before the first engineers started to think about LANCE.

 

8 hours ago, DIADES said:

You are looking at a demonstrator - that is not armour, that is space claim.

 

No, this is the armor, configured to provide protection according to STANAG 4569 level 4 against artillery fragment. Protection against bomblets has been listed as "optional" by Rheinmetall at Eurosatory; so it is possiblle to integrate other armor packages.

[2805662]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The US meanwhile is buying  more unmanned turrets from Kongsberg, enough for 3 more Stryker brigades.

Like reply, apart from what I’ve quoted. 

 

The US isn’t buying more turrets from Kongsberg, it’s staging a competition to supply a remote turret that can mount the 30mm Bushmaster gun (XM813?), within which, Kongsberg will likely compete. 

[SH_MM]

2 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Like reply, apart from what I’ve quoted. 

 

The US isn’t buying more turrets from Kongsberg, it’s staging a competition to supply a remote turret that can mount the 30mm Bushmaster gun (XM813?), within which, Kongsberg will likely compete. 

 

Thanks for the correction. But Kongsberg has good chances, given how much RWS they have supplied to the US. Might be the first time they'll offer the Mk. 2 version of the MCT-30.

[2805662]

Agree, Kongsberg definitely has a leg up. 

 

“The Army will award up to seven design integration study contracts for potential vendors to evaluate integrating a MCWS onto a Stryker ICVVA1 platform.The Army will supply both a Stryker platform and the XM813 30mm cannon to build production representative system samples, the official said.”

[SH_MM]

A few snipplets of information regarding the Puma:

• It is expected that Germany needs at least 560 Puma IFVs to fully replace the Marder 1A3/1A5. At least 484 are required by the German army's active units, with the rest being needed for training and practices. Given the plans of the Bundeswehr to increase its size (such as reactivating the PzGrenBtl 908 and 909), it possible that even more Puma IFVs are needed. Therefore a second batch is planned, production start expected at 2023. Currently it seems that the vehicles will be purchased in the Puma S1 configuration.
• Starting in 2021, all current Puma IFVs are expected to be upgraded to the Puma S1 configration, upgrades to which are currently being purchased (in a slightly different version) for the VJTF 2023. To the features previously reported and showcased at Eurosatory, a mobile camouflage system (like Barracuda MCS) is also planned for the S1 upgrade.
• PSM plans to create a whole vehicle family based on the Puma, which is meant for export and also (some variants) for the Bundeswehr. There are designs for a high-roof variant for support vehicles like ambulance vehicles, engineer group vehicles and command post vehicles (kind of looks like a Puma without turret, but the upper part of the Boxer's high roof module mounted ontop of the hull) derived from the Puma driver training variant and an armored recovery vehicle (no turret, new cuppola for the commander and gunner, FLW200 RWS, dozer blade and crane) - sorry, not going to post picture due to copyright of the source.
• MELLS currently still seems to be focused on the Spike LR1 missile only, but the series order has not yet been placed (only the order to equipp the VTJF with MELLS).
• The softkill APS "MUSS" for the Puma S1 is also "improved", but there are no details on what exact improvements will be made.
• The turret independent weapon system (TSWA) for the Puma has changed again. After starting as a system with six 76 mm non-lethal grenades, which latter were supplemented by 24 lethal 40 mm grenades, the TWSA was changed to 9 + x 40 mm greandes (lethal and non-lethal). The latest configuration includes 18 lethal and 18 non-lethal 40 mm grenades. The non-lethal grenades can be used 360° and have a limited range of only up to ~60 m. The lethal 40 mm grenades are only meant to be fired within the rear 180° arc and have a range of a maximum range of ca. 400 metres. The TSWA is fully-stabilized (can be fired on the move) and includes a thermal imager, a daylight camera, and a laser rangefinder. The system is designed for compatability with future upgrades such as air-burst munitions and 40 mm MV grenades (which AFAIK should increase the maximum range).
• Dynamit Nobel Defence is working on ERA with anti-tandem capabilities, which could be offered as future upgrade option.
• Multiple international cusomers are "interested" in the Puma IFV (I guess that this statement is related to Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic).

[Ronin10]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:52 AM, DIADES said:

it is always wise to assume the people you are debating with are at least as well informed and intelligent as yourself.

I do, which is why I come here DIADES, in fact many People here are overly informed, and sometimes there is alot of opinion, and sometimes the Information is so specific that it is scary.

 

please note that the PUMA turret is not a LANCE turret, the of course share similarities and the same main cannon, despite what you read on the Internet, please accept I am indeed informed on this Point. As previously stated they share the common Mauser Mk30-2 ABM and Family of ammunition, if you saw the modern LANCE you would immediately be able to identify significant variations from the Puma turret.

[Ronin10]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:52 AM, DIADES said:

it is always wise to assume the people you are debating with are at least as well informed and intelligent as yourself.

Yet LYNX can indeed Support 6 or more 95% males, to state otherwise is not correct.

[SH_MM]

Quote

KMW’s Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 moves ahead

Christopher F Foss, London - Jane's International Defence Review

22 May 2019

 

Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) is continuing to invest in developing its private venture remote-controlled Artillery Gun Module (AGM) that, when integrated onto the rear of the Boxer 8×8 Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV), is now being referred to as the Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 (RCH 155).

The AGM was originally mounted on a modified multiple-launch rocket system tracked platform, followed by a new tracked platform developed by General Dynamics European Land Systems - Santa Bárbara Sistemas (GDELS-SBS).

Firing trials with the RCH 155 were carried out at the German WTD 41 proving ground with the AGM traversed front, left, and right without the use of stabilisers, according to KMW.

 

 

The KMW RCH 155 mates the Boxer 8x8 MRAV platform with the KMW Artillery Gun Module mounted on the rear. (Christopher F Foss)

 

Trials demonstrated that it can come into action, carry out an eight-round fire mission, and then redeploy in less than 90 seconds. In addition, it can carry out multi-round simultaneous impact (MRSI) fire missions.

The German Army has a requirement for a wheeled 155 mm self-propelled (SP) artillery system that is expected to be met by the RCH 155. When deployed this would supplement, not replace, the legacy KMW PzH 2000 155 mm/52 calibre SPH.

KMW will complete an additional RCH 155 in about 18-24 months, which will have improvements including a lower profile by about 30 cm to enable the compete RCH 155 to be transported by rail.

A remote weapon station (RWS) armed with a .50 calibre machine gun will be fitted on the left side of the roof, and this could be used as a sight for use in the direct-fire role. When not required, this RWS would be folded forwards to reduce the overall height of the system.

 

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/88723/kmw-s-remote-controlled-howitzer-155-moves-ahead

[SH_MM]

Since posting patent images seems to be en vogue...

 

KMW's AGM integrated into a truck:

 

KMW's APVT is apparently a modular vehicle, which is only amphibious when fitted with a special module. To minimize the vehicle's dimensions, the base vehicle does not include an engine (thus the engine for driving on land can have different sizes depending on mission module - in case of the APVT's amphibious configuration it is small):

Example of non-amphibious configuration:

 

Rheinmetall also recently patented a concept for an amphibious vehicle, which has an extendable mid-section of the hull (for greater buoyancy):

 

[2805662]

On 6/12/2019 at 7:13 PM, SH_MM said:

Since posting patent images seems to be en vogue...

 

KMW's AGM integrated into a truck:

 

KMW's APVT is apparently a modular vehicle, which is only amphibious when fitted with a special module. To minimize the vehicle's dimensions, the base vehicle does not include an engine (thus the engine for driving on land can have different sizes depending on mission module - in case of the APVT's amphibious configuration it is small):

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Example of non-amphibious configuration:




 

 

 

 

Rheinmetall also recently patented a concept for an amphibious vehicle, which has an extendable mid-section of the hull (for greater buoyancy):

 

I wonder whether this is the basis for Rheinmetall’s ‘Protected Amphibious Vehicle’ for Land 400-3?

[Militarysta]

....

[Rico]

Found some interesting stuff via Google search. Seems to be some brand new bridgelaying concept for Leopard 2.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.milengcoe.org/events/SiteAssets/FFG%20Presentation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCg6SOzP3iAhWC-6QKHf-tBkkQFjACegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3v53DBpmSOOwrHbVhhe09p

 

See page 24 of the PDF.

[SH_MM]

Wisent seems to have become a very nice solution, acting as jack-of-all-trades support variant of the Leopard 2 family.

 

Btw. this source confirms that the add-on armor is added to improved ballistic protection (level 6) rather than acting as anti-RPG armor system (for which Tarian's RPG-net and slat armor are mentioned as possible solutions).

[Rico]

Agree.

 

Lithium batteries in a military vehicle seems new to me as well. The PDF states "Wisent 2 NOR" so must be in use already. But hey Norway is primary market for electrical mobility so why not...

[SH_MM]

 

[Rico]

Great vehicle. Did they solve the blind spot on the right side somehow or is this "don't care topic" in LTU?

[SH_MM]

Germany will buy up to 210 new Puma IFVs (budget for this amount has been approved). Two alternatives were considered - either upgrading old Marder IFVs or buying a wheeled IFV based on the Boxer APC - but the purchase of more Puma IFVs has been deemed to be the better option.

 

https://esut.de/2019/06/fachbeitraege/ruestung/13812/finanzierung-fuer-bis-zu-210-weitere-schuetzenpanzer-puma-gesichert/

[skylancer-3441]

from german magazine Wehrtechnik, issue of 1973-03, -
what appears to be mostly theoretical article (in german) which has two parts. Apparently first 3 pages are about some thoughts on development of tank guns and other weapons. But then it kinda changes topic (at least that's how it looks at first sight), so there are one and a half pages about armored vehicles designs, illustrated with some drawings

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

some light armored vehicle's turret design

Spoiler

 

 

 

and tank:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[skylancer-3441]

On 2/28/2019 at 11:02 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

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:

 

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

 

Wehrtechnik 1971-04, advert with silhouette of that APC as well as some other vehicles by EWK:

 

Wehrtechnik 1972-01, another advert with relatively good quality photo of P3 test vehicle:

 

Wehrtechnik 1976-08, EWK advert had a colourfull photo of P3:

 

and another colourfull pic of P3 from cover of Wehrtechnik 1976-05:

 

this issue also had an article (in german) on P3 - which, among its pictures has a articst's drawing on possible look of another vehicle by EWK

Spoiler

 

P3 next to APE:

and also some proposals based on EWK's experience with P3 and APE:

both pics from article in IDR 1978-08:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

another article - single page, from IDR 1981-08

Spoiler

 

and another article - in german, two pages from Wehrtechnik 1979-03

Spoiler

 

 

btw, APE once was on Wehrtechnik's cover:

 

and there was also an advert in Wehrtechnik 1977-12:

and another pic of APE in Wehrtechnik 1977-08:

[Beer]

Just a small additional info the weird looking Czech IFV aquisition tender (less weird than our initial multirole helicopter requirements) from this interview with general Miroslav Hlaváč (deputy chief of staff): https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/nato/hlavac-bvp-obrnen-pasovy-armada-tendr-obrana-nato-aliance.A190530_105753_zpr_nato_inc

 

The requirement for 8 dismounts means that the army wants to have a possibility to have mission-specific squad. One option is 6 soldiers + 2 specialists such as forward air/artilery controlers, drone operators, C4ISTAR specialists or canine officiers. The other is two 4-men squads in one vehicle. They claim that it's part of an infantry-centric doctrine. 

 

The other important point is that Czech army actually has long experience with unmanned turrets (Samson RCWS-30 on Pandur II) and the fact they decided to use manned turrets in the new vehicles mean that they see it as more practical for frontline vehicles (they specifically mention situation awarness or better reliability and serviceability as a reason). 

 

The vehicle can be heavy. The army considers amphibious capability of Pandurs as sufficient for its needs. 

 

More detailed (yet still not very much) requirements:

Number of vehciles: 210
Crew: 3 + 6 soldiers + 2 specialists
7 variants: IFV, command, recon, engineering, ambulance, artilery recon, recovery
Lifetime 30 years (min. 10 000 km to general rebuild)
Programmable ammo for the 30 mm canon
Coaxial MG 7,62 mm
ATGM (2 in container, 1 in the vehicle)
Smoke grenade launchers covering 360°
Sights with min. 4 000/3500 m range day/night

Balistic protection (base vehicle min. K2 + addon min. K5) - does that mean STANAG 4569 II/V? 

APS
Protection against IED (jammer)
Survilance systems: day CCD camera, night IR camera, laser rangefinder
Top speed on the road 65 km/h, in terrain 40 km/h
Range min. 500 km
Air-transportable
Intercom + VKV/UKV radios voice/data (GPS, TACSAT and cypher connection) 
 

Desptite that it looks like none of the bidders withdrew. 

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, Beer said:

The other important point is that Czech army actually has long experience with unmanned turrets (Samson RCWS-30 on Pandur II) and the fact they decided to use manned turrets in the new vehicles mean that they see it as more practical for frontline vehicles (they specifically mention situation awarness or better reliability and serviceability as a reason). 

 

It is not that simple. The official requirement asks for a manned turret, but the previous documents submitted to the industry in 2017 (before the tests of the four IFVs in Libava) actually asked for an unmanned turret (i.e. an unmanned turret was marked as "prefered"). That is why BAE Systems refurbished its old CV90 unmanned turret demonstrator to create the CV9030 CZ r, while General Dynamics integrated the Samson Mk II RWS into the ASCOD 35 hull prototype.

That the Czech army wanted a manned turret was not told the industry beforehand, but without any negoations added to the requirements in April of 2019. That's why a lot of the company officials are angry about the Czech army, they have invested lots of funds into the integration of unmanned turrets, made contracts with potential licence-manufacturers and (in case of the ASCOD 2 & Puma) have taken part of the bidding with only an unmanned turrret.

 

1 hour ago, Beer said:

does that mean STANAG 4569 II/V? 

 

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Beer said:

Desptite that it looks like none of the bidders withdrew. 

 

Supposedly PSM wants to extend the hull of the Puma by 1 meter or more (incl. a seventh roadwheel pair) and integrate a manned turret.

[Beer]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the initial requirements were identical. In fact I haven't seen the initial requirements personally so I can't comment what was stated in them. 

 

Nevertheless I would not be surprised if they were changed because we have already seen number of spectacular twists and turns in the helicopter tender for example. 

[Walter_Sobchak]

The British find a use for a Goliath.

 

[EnsignExpendable]

There are lots of videos of Allied soldiers driving Goliaths around for fun like RC cars or even riding them.

[SH_MM]

The new Widder (VW T6):

 

 

Partly replaces the Wolf (Mercedes-Benz G-class).

 

 

Lynx

 

 

Rheinmetall's short range anti-drone system, similar to the configuration supposedly being offered to the German army (on Boxer).