Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

On 8/19/2020 at 9:25 PM, Voodoo said:

 

Calling the K9 a copy of the M109 is a bit of a stretch.

 

The K2 isn’t a copy of the Leo 2 and/or Leclerc either even if does share certain components with these two.

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

 

Can KMW & Rheinmetall or Artec deliver an ammunition resupply vehicle to go along with their candidates? This article from a month ago gave me the impression that this might be a requirement for the Australian Army.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

from physical version of Mittler Report issue on KF41 Lynx (low-res scans are posted on htka.hu forum)   So, I've made couple of comparisons, to the best of my ability

Maybe me knowledge will suffice as well.   This is the VT-001 (Versuchsträger) prototype of the Marder 2 vehicle. With the introduction of the Leopard 2 there was a need for a new IFV t

A Dingo 2 of the Belgian army was hit by a pressure-activated IED consisting of about 30 kg explosives. The vehicle was part of a German-lead convoy, several German vehicles narrowly missed the IED be

There apparently is a Boxer ammunition resupply variant, though it seems to follow a different concept than the ones available for M109 and K9. There also was a design for an ammunition resupply vehicle for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (designed when KMW competed in the Crusader program in the United States), but it probably is a dead design with blueprints rotting in some old company archive.

 

ESMf0U-X0AEfn-Y.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DIADES said:

The Redback has a proper engine from MTU while LYNX uses a crane engine... 

Well, I work in the construction industry, and here Liebherr means quality. Top quality. Generally, construction machines need to work reliably in harsh conditions, under heavy loads, sometimes without stopping for even a minute in a work shift (mining especially), and sometimes without proper maintenance. Military engines, even the MTU are completely unsuitable in such environments. Liebherr has lots of experience designing engines that are able to work reliably for thousands of hours in such applications. They have engines ranging from 300 to 6000hp. 

The engine for the Lynx will be probably the D9512 model, used by not cranes, but by the ~70 ton PR776 dozer, and the ~140 ton R 9150 mining excavator for example. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Top quality.

I absolutely agree.  Very good product.  But, fighting vehicles operate in much more demanding conditions.  In particular - speed.  High cross country speed imposes shock and vibration far beyond anything seen by any civil tracked machine.  And slopes are traversed that would not be attempted by civil machines - unsafe but military imperative.over rules. Then there is fuel type and quality - AFVs are multi-fule and need to run on just about anything :)

 

Yes, Liebherr make very good engines but this will the first combat vehicle for them so there will be lessons to be learned.  If we are talking technical risk, MTU is near zero and Liebherr is higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

torsion bars couldn't be modern

not what I meant.  The LYNX torsion bar suspension is very evolved, very mature reliable etc.  But conceptually, dates to the 40s and actually is little different from Leopard 1.  The details of the torsion bar mounts and track return rollers look identical to Leopard 1.

 

 It is plain Jane - no functionality.  The Hanwha hydra-pneumatic in arm set up offers some packaging advantages (potentially anyway) as internal height can use space where the torsion bars are not present.  And obviously, inherently capable of ride height control and posture control.  It is not known (to me anyway) if Hanwha is implementing those features on Redback but I would be very surprised if they are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Liebherr

they won on price, which makes sense, they are trying to establish themselves and they probably have better continuity of production which will help their cost base.  OK, I was being hyperbolic when I said "crane" :) My real point is that there is presently zero Liebherr combat vehicle experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II.

Same caliber, same ammunition capabilities, same performance, give or take.  In Capability terms (as used by CoA), they are identical.  Defeat certain threats at certain ranges.

 

How well they are integrated into the respective turrets will be the real difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Really? To me both offers look to be quite different based on their specifications and used components.

 

When Hanwha released first informations regarding the AS21 Redback, it was reported (by Defence Technology Review, MONCH, Jane's and other news outlets), that the weight of the prototype was about 40 tonnes. IIRC the gross-vehicle weight was supposed to be around 43 tonnes. Now a lot has changed since then and the Redback's combat weight has grown from 40 to 42 tonnes, but I don't believe that gross-vehicle weight was massively increased. At least with the rubber band tracks from Soucy they are limited to 42 tonnes.

Meanwhile the KF41 Lynx has a combat weight 44 tonnes as presented at Eurosatory 2018 and a gross vehicle weight of 50 tonnes, which translates to better armor protection and more growth potential in the future. Rheinmetall already stated that they have designed an add-on armor kit for urban combat, raising the vehicle's weight to 48 tonnes... can the AS21 match that?

 

Furthermore the Lynx has the advantage of its modularity. In the past people always downplayed the Boxer's modularity compared to just procure multiple variants of the same vehicle in a Stryker-like fashion, but it has been cited as one of the reason speaking for the Boxer during LAND 400 Phase 2. The modularity allows faster upgrades, easier repairs, in-field conversions and keeps life-cycle costs down.

 

The Lynx also seems to have a more future-oriented power pack, being fitted with the state-of-the-art Renk HSWL 256C transmission coupled to a modern Liebherr engine with 10% more output. The Redback's engine design will be close to 40 years and its transmission design will be close to 60 years if it entered service around 2030... in my opinion that is not ideal. The same applies to the exhaust and cooling system. The Lynx's design takes attention to cooling the exhaust gases and to redirect them to the vehicle rear in order to minimize the thermal and noise signature, while the AS21 Redback simply has an exhaust pipe sticking out of its side. Generally the AS21's design doesn't seem to pay as much attention to signature reduction.

 

Then there are further small differences that might not be that relevant, but at least have influenced my opinion on the vehicles, for example the turret choice for the prototypes. I understand that the turret choice is not set in stone and that the designs will change - for example by including different missile launchers, integrating active protection systems, etc. - but I am really wary of the EOS T2000 turret. While a lot of Australians on different web froums and in social media have declared it to be a perfect turret, aside form the fact that it looks cool I have not seen any real fact why it should be much better than the original Elbit UT/MT30 turret it is derived from. And the MT30 turret was offered during LAND 400 Phase 2, loosing to the LANCE 1.0 design. So the EOS T2000 not only needs to close the gap between its predecessor and LANCE 1.0, but also needs to beat the newer LANCE 2.0 turret... that seems like a lot too much to ask from the first turret design by EOS.

 

There are also the differences between Mk 44 Bushmaster II and Mauser MK 30-2/ABM (electrical driven vs gas-operated, dispersion), missile load-out (current Lynx prototype has four ATGMs vs two in the EOS T2000), the way the air-burst ammunition is programmed (where Rheinmetall's external programming allows using more types of ammunition such as AHEAD/KETF), etc.

 

I am by no means an expert on Australian defence procurement policies, the involved politics and the exact relevance of the difference to the requirements. Maybe the Australian military doesn't care about higher armor protection, when both vehicles manage to hit the baseline requirements. Maybe the LAND 400 Phase 3 IFV's inherent growth potential is also not seen as relevant, given how long M113 and ASLAV managed to stay in service. Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

 

 

You make that sound as if torsion bars couldn't be modern. That's not true.

 

 

Liebherr managed to beat MTU for the German Marder 1 engine replacement. They did not offer a crane engine.

 

 

Currently both use different guns; Mauser MK 30-2/ABM and Mk 44 Bushmaster II. The armor specifications are also different; both managed to meet the Australian protection requirements, but this is not an upper limit for protection.

So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DIADES said:

But conceptually, dates to the 40s and actually is little different from Leopard 1.  The details of the torsion bar mounts and track return rollers look identical to Leopard 1.

 

 It is plain Jane - no functionality.  The Hanwha hydra-pneumatic in arm set up offers some packaging advantages (potentially anyway) as internal height can use space where the torsion bars are not present.  And obviously, inherently capable of ride height control and posture control.  It is not known (to me anyway) if Hanwha is implementing those features on Redback but I would be very surprised if they are not

 

In the end it isn't relevant if the concept dates back to the 1940s or 1950s; the performance in all factors (actual performance, reliability, costs, required design changes, etc.) should be the sole deciding factor. Hydropneumatic suspsensions have been around for 60 years, yet they are still not a set feature in modern vehicles, as they do not come only with advantages, but also their own inherent drawbacks.

 

The Arbeitsgruppe B's Leopard 1 design btw. also featured a hydropneumatic suspension, yet the torsion bar design went into production.

 

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market. 

 

Based on the current prototypes, I would say the KF41 Lynx exceeds the current Australian requirements in certain areas, which is probably the result of the Lynx being designed for/offered in a wide variety of markets - i.e Australia, Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic and Hungary, the United States and Qatar, which can all have different requirements.

 

The side armor of the Lynx is quite beefy and looks rather similar to the Strf90 Evolution upgrade that IBD Deisenroth's Swedish subsidiary Åkers Krutbruk offered to the Swedish Army as replacement for the Strf 9040C's AMAP-X armor package. If the ressemblance of the thick side skirts is not only optical, but also design-wise, then the KF41 Lynx should be protected against heavy EFP-IEDs and RPGs. As far as I know, there is not such a requirement in LAND 400 Phase 3.

2012-05-10%20Ravlunda%20166web.jpgLynx-03a_ES-2018_Messe_Rheinmetall-LynxK

 

Another example could be the roof armor. According to Christopher Foss from Jane's IHS, the Lynx features a reinforced roof with anti-bomblet protection. From the looks of it, the AS21 Redback doesn't feature reinforced roof armor yet.

 

In the end the variant offered by Rheinmetall to Australia might end up looking a lot different from the current prototypes; we don't know yet. The company has shown its willingless to modify the design in their short-lived cooperation with Raytheon (offer lnyx with Coyote UAV, TOW, QuickKill and Raytheon third-generation FLIR). It is also possible that Rheinmetall repeats their LAND 400 Phase 2 tactics by sending over two prototypes in different configurations, i.e. a baseline offer meeting the Australian requirements and a more capable variant to showcase what is also possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The side armor of the Lynx is quite beefy and looks r

I had a good look at these "armour" modules at Eursatory - they are dummies, purely for show.

 

But I agree, we have not seen what was actually offered by either Rheinmetall or Hanwha.  The armour capabilities required are defined by the Spec and yes, bomblet protection is required as is IED and EFP.  Both contenders will offer solutions.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

over two prototypes in different configuration

No.  Not possible.  This would be a breach of the Phase 3 RMA contract conditions.  There will be differences permitted but they are about test practicalities, not configuration with respect to features.  So, turrets can have dummy APS (for example) providing one has real.  The RMA compares one configuration from Rheinmetall and one from Hanwha.  Yes, each provides 3 vehicles but that is to facilitate the test program, not for config differences.

 

Rheinmetall and Hanwah can SHOW as many different configs as hey like to the public, but only one will be considered by CoA during RMA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DIADES said:

But, fighting vehicles operate in much more demanding conditions.  In particular - speed.  High cross country speed imposes shock and vibration far beyond anything seen by any civil tracked machine.  And slopes are traversed that would not be attempted by civil machines - unsafe but military imperative.over rules.

Wholly disagree. You forget one thing. Construction machines DO NOT have suspension systems! Shock and vibration is definitely far higher than in any military tracked vehicle. I tell it from experience. (I drove BMP-1 and MT-55 too for example, and its nothing compared to the wheel loader I use in my job.) As for slopes... just watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POmYyY3sIs4

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Shock and vibration is definitely far higher t

Not higher, different.  The spectral power density distributions are different.  Which is why there are specialist producers of construction machines and specialist producers of military machines.  The environments and needs are different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest watching this. Dozers are one of the roughest running machines. Vibration is massive, you can see it very well that it shakes constantly, especially when running unloaded. Operating the blade also causes big shocks. The engine of the Lynx is probably the same that powers the PR776 dozer, so a much softer running military vehicle cannot be that punishing for it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9cxaCyc31M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 3:28 AM, heretic88 said:

Operating the blade

Several LYNX variants have blades too.  Then there are mine plows.  Yes, I get what you are saying but I am sticking to my guns.  The loads are different - being fine with one is not the same as being fine wit the other.  BTW, I was part of a wheeled loaded design team a while back. - I do get what you are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Beer said:

120% higher, i.e. more than twice higher? Doesn't he mean 120% of the similar guns pressure, i.e. 20% more? 

 

Just 20% higher according to Cockerill's old brochures. That would suggest a maximum chamber pressure slightly above 600 MPa.

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
       
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
       
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
       
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
       
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
       
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;


      (near the Californian border)


      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
       
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.


      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
       
      Requirements
       
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
       
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
       
       
       
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       



×
×
  • Create New...