Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

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


Recommended Posts

Doesn't seem like he contradicted himself or implied Puma was never built.


What I understood is that NGP in its original envisioned form wasn't built as a prototype. Rather, a single specialized variant of it was further developed, changed to an uncertain extent, which then formed the basis for the Puma. 


You could argue both ways (whether it was the NGP or wasn't), but can't dismiss either one that easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXM, i have a question...What's the relationship between EGS and PzKW2000 ?

I cant find enough specific information about these two projects' connection ,but i always think they should be linked by something.

The EGS project began in 1989, and the PzKW 2000 was also terminated in 1989... so i guess EGS was a principle demonstrator for pzkw2000 programme, but its test results were applied to NGP programme


Those drawings are an artist's impression and not related to the real Panzerkampfwagen 2000 project. It was canceled before first designs were made. The EGS and PzKW 2000 might be related, but the status of the PzKW 2000 project was a bit unclear for some time. While it wasn't part of the German Armed Forces plan (Bundeswehrplan) of 1989, which would imply that it was canceled, the project was apparently re-added to the Bundeswehrplan 1990 to 1992. Unfortunately these documents are hard to find (while some newer ones can be simply downloaded after a shorter google search)...


An interessting side note of the Bundeswehrplan 1990 was the idea to replace the Marder IFV with two different non-IFV vehicles: one version armed with an autocannon (only for defence against helicopters and low-flying aircraft) that transported the infantry, while another vehicle armed with a 120 mm smoothbore would be responsible for anti-tank duty and fire support.



You are speaking about reading comprehension, but end up being the one with the biggest troubles understanding the English language.

NGP was not canceled, but transformed into different other programs; first all non-IFV versions were cut, then during multiple different projects the requirements were all completely transformed. The first project was called NeSPz, then it became Panther, then Igel, then Panther MMWS, SPz Panther, and finally Puma IFV. While not all nomenclature and designation changes are directly related to changes in the requirements (how could the German military dare to purchase a vehicle that bears the same name as a famous Nazi tank!), the final result of all this developments has nothing to do with the NGP.


The Puma fails to satisfy any of the original NGP requirements. It is not armed with a 50 mm Rh 503 chaingun (rather a gas-operated Mauser MK-30), it has nowhere near the frontal protection and weight class of the NGP (more than 70 metric tons), it doesn't have a hardkill active protection system, it doesn't have two men crew, it carries less infantry than desired and most importantly, it is not a modular vehicle, that can be reconfigured to any specific type of combat vehicle, by swapping out a module containing the turret. This is why the Puma has nothing to do with the original NGP project. It's a single vehicle, designed for a single role. The NGP was a common family of modularily reconfigurable vehicles, not a fixed version that fails to meet any of the core requirements (aside of having a decoupled running gear).




I looked at the picture and noticed the rear, is the cooling like drawn above? With no roof mounted fans or ventilators?


Aside of ballistic protection, a key feature tested in the EGS were stealth charactersitics of all sorts. Reducing thermal signature, reducing the radar cross section and also reducing the noise signature. That's why the engine was fitted with a muffler, similar to the one adopted on the Swiss Panzer 87 Werterhaltung upgrade. No idea on the location of the cooling vents though.




A similar (or maybe even identical) muffler on the Panzer 87 (Leopard 2) after the Werterhaltung upgrade. Note that the normal air vents are still being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "decoupled running gear" exactly?


The running gear (suspension, wheels, etc.) are not directly fixed to the hull (by welding/bolting) except for the part necessary for the power transmission; instead they are connected to the hull only via elastomer mounting elements. The elastomer connections can negate some of the vibrations and oscillation when moving; this leads to a slightly smother ride, but mainly reduces the generated noise; according to German studies by some 20-25 dB(A). The first German vehicle to be fitted with a decoupled running gear was the M113 driver training tanks, but only for noise reduction.




On more modern vehicles such as the Puma, the choice of decoupling the running gear also has other advantages: There are no penetrations of the hull bottom and sides (except for the transmission/final drive), which greatly enhances the protection agianst mines. Furthermore on the Puma the fuel tanks are located within the decoupled running gear, so that armor penetrations won't result in burning fuel leaking into the crew compartment. BAE Systems recently presented the Bradley Next-Gen prototype, on which also all fuel was moved outside of the crew area.




On modular vehicles such as the NGP and the Swedish SEP, decoupled running gears allow easier integration of modules.




Edit: just to clarify, the noise is only reduced inside the vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EGS also had a torsion bar suspension. According to cross sectional drawings, there are two elastomer mounting elements: one around the support bearings, which connect the running gear module to the hull and one around the torsion bar, acting as air-tight seal. Unfortunately I am not sure if this is the correct translation of the German terms.



Here is a image from a patent showing a vehicle with a decoupled running gear (and diesel-electic drive). The elastomer connection is marked as 10. On the drawings of the EGS suspension, there is another elastomer connection/seal at the torsion bar. I suspect the M113 might have a similar system.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like decoupled running gear and torsion bars works by having a sub-chassis that contains the box for the torsion bars, the torsion bars and the running gear, and then the rest of the hull is connected to this sub-chassis by elastomers.  I guess the idea should work as long as there is no direct metal-to-metal contact from the torsion bars to the hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just something that I don't get with this setup:

How does this affect the height of the hull, as well as how easily a suspension element could be replaced. Looking at the Bradly's suspension, it appears they are encased by fuel tanks. And since the fuel tanks would be running along the bottom with support structure for the sub-chassis, won't this increase the overall hull height?



How worth is this for a slightly smoother ride and less inside noise level? And how much volume does these mounting points take up, in say a hydopuematic suspension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that you'd use the resulting double-layered bottom as part of a double-layered mine-resistant hull.


It doesn't look like too much volume is lost; the elastomeric elements look fairly small.  You only get the big volume losses if you have to have the entirely separate sub-chassis necessitated by torsion bar suspension, and most of the decoupled suspension concepts use hydropneumatic suspension.


And honestly, it's TYOOL 2017; why are you screwing around with torsion bars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
On 26 janvier 2017 at 1:28 PM, SH_MM said:


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).

It was a stealth technology demonstrator too.

I think it's important to add this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Serge said:

This drawing is about the 1994 FMBT contest. Winners were Sharony and Bacon.


SH_MM seems to think about this one :




Eh, that's the so-called HD-40T Wombat ("Highly Deployable 40-ton Tank"), some sort of extremely low-profile precursor/testbed to the FCS, and there's extremely little information available about that weird thing. Given that I'm not blessed with glossolalia, I can't even vouch for the Russian link I just posted (there's a short mention of it in this book, though, which is where I got the "HD-40T" name from). The only other available footage about the Wombat is a Discovery Channel documentary...and I'm pretty certain the Wombat (as shown above) is nothing more than two trackbelts mated to a steel chassis, an engine and plywood all around.


More about the aforementioned FMBT: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA289121


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 1 month later...
On 8/7/2017 at 9:56 PM, Renegade334 said:



Eh, that's the so-called HD-40T Wombat ("Highly Deployable 40-ton Tank"), some sort of extremely low-profile precursor/testbed to the FCS, and there's extremely little information available about that weird thing.


Concept of 40-ton tank was also mentioned there http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a358002.pdf (proceedings of 1998 Combat Vehicles Conference) on some pages starting from 46th (accoring to a pdf viewer page counter)

This conncept without a doubt appeared on pages of magazines of that time too, though a lot of those of those are not available on the internet now, like Jane's IDR for example. I mean - this russian article on wartank.narod.ru was taken from Zarubezhnoye Voennoye Obozreniye (Foreign Military Review) magazine, 1998-12. And there were articles in polish magazines like Raport WTO and Wojskowy Przeglad Techniczny i Logistyczny which talked about this this concept or at least printed pictures of similar vehicles 



Zarubezhnoye Voennoye Obozreniye 1998-12





Raport WTO 1998-05







Raport WTO 1999-12



Wojskowy Przeglad Techniczny i Logistyczny 2001-05


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 5/1/2018 at 11:23 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

This conncept without a doubt appeared on pages of magazines of that time too

including Army 1996-10:

and also GettyImages has a 3Mp pic of mockup from some exhibition


upscaled fragment which shows APS launchers inside left turret cheek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/26/2017 at 1:40 PM, seppo said:

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. 



Wehrtechnik 1990-06:


Wehrtechnik 1991-08:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...




NGP Render





2 Versions: IFV Variant with 50mm Rh503 (300 shots) and 6-8 dismounts, MBT variant with 140mm nPzK (30 rounds)

Both variants were proposed to have significant ballistic protection (55-70t) and (as seen on the render) the Diehl AVePs APS. Both operated by 2 man crews with all around camera / thermal vision. Kind of resembles Armata platform if you ask me.


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.

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.

  • Create New...