Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM tells us about NGP, which was sort of but not really like Armata


seppo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

this is my first post. Please no bully. :3

 

Panzerkampfwagen 2000

In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 

Leo_unbek.jpgleo_ksc_02.jpg

leo_vt_02.jpgleo_ksc_01.jpg

Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.

 

Neue Gepanzerte Plattform

In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998.
Wegmann desgin:
ngp.gif

Turret + autoloader:

http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf

Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS

AWiSS%2Bauf%2BLeopard%2B2AV.jpg

AFSS_Abwehrsystem.jpg

EGS:

Hull length = 8,67m

Full width = 3,98m

Width between the tracks = 3,5m

Height = 2,71m

The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.

Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?

 

Thanks for your attention! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title is misleading.

How?

 

Any details on the proposed armament, the vision devices, the intended crew setup or the armour package?

Armament:

Available:

120mm L44 + several auto loader designs

120mm L55 + several auto loader designs

NPzK-140 + at least one auto loader design

In development:

Type A. B and C ETC-Cannon

Type C would not have been ready before 2010 though.

Armor package:

The package on Leopard 2A5

Mexas

AWiSS APS <- I updated the thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neue Gepanzerte Plattform

In 1995 a concept a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998.

684644aa53b6a7123a5bfcee57c0a7ae.jpg

Knowing that the wheels' diameter is 67cm and that the trackratio is between 1,5 and 1,8, I calculated the dimensions:

Hull length = 7,2m

Height = 2,3m

2.42m < Width <= 2.9m

I assume the width is about 2.9m.

The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 60t.

Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?

 

Thanks for your attention! ;)

 

Your information is incorrect. The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP. The EGS' development started in 1989, the first prototype was finished in 1993. In 1995/1996 the vehicle was trialed. Unlike your claims, the EGS used large roadwheels with an increased diameter of 810 mm! Weight ranged from 48 to 62 metric tons (depending on armor package), the hull length is 8.67 metres and the height is 2.71 metres. The width is 3.98 metres overall (3.5 metres width to the tracks).

 

No NGP prototype was ever build.

 

You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations.

 

Any details on the proposed armament, the vision devices, the intended crew setup or the armour package?

 

The NGP was designed with modular armor and depending on variant a minimum weight of 51 to 55 tons. With full modular armor package mounted, the weight of the vehicle was to be 71 to 77 tons depeding on varaint.

As no prototype was ever finished, exact statements to the details of the armor, armament and sensor suite are not possible. However Germany investigated to use either a 140 mm smoothbore gun or an ETC gun for the tank variant, while the IFV version was to be armed with a 50 mm gun and most likely ATGMs. The turrets were unmanned. A research project for multiple active protection systems was funded. The crew should be supported by multiple cameras and software functions like automated tracking. As engine conventional HPD (high power density) diesels and a diesel electrical drive system were considered. Armor protection included increased roof armor vs bomblets, improved mine protection and modular armor for the sides of the vehicle.

 

The NGP project was never canceled, but it was cut back to just one version - the IFV variant, because the Marder required replacement more urgently than the Leopard 2. The program was renamed from NGP (new armored platform) to NeSPz (new infantry fighting vehicle) and then became after numerous changes in layout and requirements (and the project names Panther and Igel) the current Puma IFV. The idea was to later utilize new technology developed for the Puma (such as the newer HPD engines, the modular armor system, unmanned turret, decoupled running gear, MUSS APS, etc.) for a tank variant.

 

image_popup.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your information is incorrect. The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP. The EGS' development started in 1989, the first prototype was finished in 1993. In 1995/1996 the vehicle was trialed. Unlike your claims, the EGS used large roadwheels with an increased diameter of 810 mm! Weight ranged from 48 to 62 metric tons (depending on armor package), the hull length is 8.67 metres and the height is 2.71 metres. The width is 3.98 metres overall (3.5 metres width to the tracks).

 

No NGP prototype was ever build.

 

The photograph doesn't simply show the EGS, but the TTK(EGS + built in battle simulater) which was used as a testbed for the NGP. How is that not a NGP prototype?

The EGS is not unrelated to the NGP, because it's appurtenant to the realization of the two-crewmen concept.

Do you have a source on the dimensions and road wheel size?

 

You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photograph doesn't simply show the EGS, but the TTK(EGS + built in battle simulater) which was used as a testbed for the NGP. How is that not a NGP prototype?

The EGS is not unrelated to the NGP, because it's appurtenant to the realization of the two-crewmen concept.

Do you have a source on the dimensions and road wheel size?

 

You apparently have little to no clue what you are talking about. Please try to check facts before spreading incorrect informations.

 

No, this photograph shows the EGS and not the TTK. The EGS predates the NGP project. It is a testbed, not a prototype; the whole purpose of the EGS was to test if it is possible to create a tank with modular armor package, two men crew in the hull and mobility equal or better than the Leopard 2(A4). The conception of the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project (from 1989!) already saw the use of a two men crew located in the hull. Just because the NGP had a two men crew, not all prototypes with a two men crew are related to it. The US Army also had tank prototypes with only two men crew, which are not related to the NGP.

 

fmbt2.gif

US tank design from 1993 with two men crew and unmanned turret.

 

Have you noticed that the EGS has no turret and no gun? It doesn't have proper optics and no FCS sensors. It is not a prototype. No prototype of the NGP was ever build, because the concept phase was never finished. Four industry groups (Krauss-Maffei, Wegmann & Co., MaK Systemgesellschaft and a joint-venture of Henschel Wehrtechnik and KuKa Augsburg) were bidding, but none was chosen and no prototype was funded.

 

The Technologieträger Kette (TTK) was a testbed for the crew compartment conception (much like the VT2000), but not designed with armor. It had a front-mounted engine (unlike the EGS), a weight of much less than 30 tons (probably less than twenty - it had only four roadwheels per side). There is no photograph of the TTK, but a drawing showing the vehicle.

 

You can read all of that, and a lot more about the NGP and EGS in the book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien" by Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Hilmes, who worked at the German military procurment agency (BWB - Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung, now integrated into the BAAINBW) as "Referent für Panzertechnologie" and "wissenschaftlicher Direktor". Pages 87-92 contain a sub-chaper on the NGP, while the EGS is mentioned on the pages 180-182.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, this photograph shows the EGS and not the TTK. The EGS predates the NGP project. It is a testbed, not a prototype; the whole purpose of the EGS was to test if it is possible to create a tank with modular armor package, two men crew in the hull and mobility equal or better than the Leopard 2(A4). The conception of the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project (from 1989!) already saw the use of a two men crew located in the hull. Just because the NGP had a two men crew, not all prototypes with a two men crew are related to it. The US Army also had tank prototypes with only two men crew, which are not related to the NGP.

 

fmbt2.gif

US tank design from 1993 with two men crew and unmanned turret.

 

Have you noticed that the EGS has no turret and no gun? It doesn't have proper optics and no FCS sensors. It is not a prototype. No prototype of the NGP was ever build, because the concept phase was never finished. Four industry groups (Krauss-Maffei, Wegmann & Co., MaK Systemgesellschaft and a joint-venture of Henschel Wehrtechnik and KuKa Augsburg) were bidding, but none was chosen and no prototype was funded.

 

The Technologieträger Kette (TTK) was a testbed for the crew compartment conception (much like the VT2000), but not designed with armor. It had a front-mounted engine (unlike the EGS), a weight of much less than 30 tons (probably less than twenty - it had only four roadwheels per side). There is no photograph of the TTK, but a drawing showing the vehicle.

 

You can read all of that, and a lot more about the NGP and EGS in the book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen: Konzepte - Systeme - Technologien" by Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Hilmes, who worked at the German military procurment agency (BWB - Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung, now integrated into the BAAINBW) as "Referent für Panzertechnologie" and "wissenschaftlicher Direktor". Pages 87-92 contain a sub-chaper on the NGP, while the EGS is mentioned on the pages 180-182.

I don't see how a test bed can't be a prototype, but whatever.....  :rolleyes:

Also i never claimed that the EGS was a prototype.

If you post the drawing of the TTK, I will correct the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly where do you see the Armata concept in that thread?

Well basically all of them are "father of the Armata in one way or another".

The whole unmanned turret; crew in hull thing isn't a new thing for the Russians, nor did they look at other countries for 'inspiration'. The whole "Russians stole the unmanned turret concept from the West" is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The vehicle seen on this photograph is the EGS (Experimentalwanne Gesamtschutz), an armor testbed unrelated to the NGP.

 

No NGP prototype was ever build.

 

 

The NGP project was never canceled, but it was cut back to just one version - the IFV variant, because the Marder required replacement more urgently than the Leopard 2. The program was renamed from NGP (new armored platform) to NeSPz (new infantry fighting vehicle) and then became after numerous changes in layout and requirements (and the project names Panther and Igel) the current Puma IFV.

You contradicted yourself twice in one post, because the Puma is an adaptation of the EGS(running gear + modular armour).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well basically all of them are "father of the Armata in one way or another".

The whole unmanned turret; crew in hull thing isn't a new thing for the Russians, nor did they look at other countries for 'inspiration'. The whole "Russians stole the unmanned turret concept from the West" is nonsense.

The Armata is a concept for a family of AVs with an unmanned turret. 

Where do you see a family of AVs? I don't see more than a MBT in the thread. WIth the NGP however I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Armata is a concept for a family of AVs with an unmanned turret. 

Where do you see a family of AVs? I don't see more than a MBT in the thread. WIth the NGP however I do.

It doesn't take too much imagination to decide that a chassis could be put to more than one use.

 

Where Armata differs, as far as I can tell, is that it actually went all the way from concept to mass-production and solved all the interim problems.

 

No western AFV families have managed that yet.

 

Well basically all of them are "father of the Armata in one way or another".

The whole unmanned turret; crew in hull thing isn't a new thing for the Russians, nor did they look at other countries for 'inspiration'. The whole "Russians stole the unmanned turret concept from the West" is nonsense.

The joke is that Western AFV designers have always been more conservative than the Soviets/Russians. This is not a new phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take too much imagination to decide that a chassis could be put to more than one use.

 

Wern't in practise the M4 sherman a universal chassis? 

 

Medium tank (MBT)

Tank destroyer

SPAAG

APC

ARV

Bridge layer

CEV

Mine clearer

SPG

SPH

 

 

Apart from IFV, which was not invented at the time, it fills all the roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You contradicted yourself twice in one post, because the Puma is an adaptation of the EGS(suspension + modular armour).

 

No, it is not. Modular armor existed a long time before the EGS was build, the decoupled running gear was developed by Krauss-Maffei since the 1970s. But hey, I guess it's hard to admitt one is wrong, when one does start a topic without having any sources on the matter.

 

Btw: The EGS used torsion bars, Puma has a hydropneumatic suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Armata is a concept for a family of AVs with an unmanned turret. 

Where do you see a family of AVs? I don't see more than a MBT in the thread. WIth the NGP however I do.

There's also the T-14 Armata. Which happens to be a main battle tank.

 

The whole idea of NGP being the father of "Armata" is fucking retarded. It's simply not true.

The thread Loooser linked contains multiple different designs for unmanned MBT turrets and various crew layouts. It doesn't take a fucking genius to implement that on other things as well.

 

"Sergey, we just invented a working unmanned turret for an MBT, what do we do now?"

- "Boris, we should put it on an IFV!"

"Sergey, are you retarded? That's impossible! To the gulag with you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wern't in practise the M4 sherman a universal chassis? 

 

Medium tank (MBT)

Tank destroyer

SPAAG

APC

ARV

Bridge layer

CEV

Mine clearer

SPG

SPH

 

 

Apart from IFV, which was not invented at the time, it fills all the roles.

Indeed! It just wasn't designed to be, which seems to be a point we're fussing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wern't in practise the M4 sherman a universal chassis? 

 

Medium tank (MBT)

Tank destroyer

SPAAG

APC

ARV

Bridge layer

CEV

Mine clearer

SPG

SPH

 

 

Apart from IFV, which was not invented at the time, it fills all the roles.

Does it have a unmanned turret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is not. Modular armor existed a long time before the EGS was build, the decoupled running gear was developed by Krauss-Maffei since the 1970s. But hey, I guess it's hard to admitt one is wrong, when one does start a topic without having any sources on the matter.

 

Btw: The EGS used torsion bars, Puma has a hydropneumatic suspension.

Never claimed modular didn't exist before. Never claimed EGS used hydro shocks. It doesn't matter when KM started to develope the decoupled running gear. It's still an adaptation.

 

You have the reading comprehension of a six-year-old.

 

You didn't provide any sources either. Pics or it didn't happen.

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...