General AFV Thread

[2805662]

4 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Thanks!

 

I was actually at AAD this year - I just never got around to posting photos.

@Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?

[Toxn]

8 hours ago, 2805662 said:

@Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?

I took a few, but it's nothing particularly new.

[Xlucine]

https://www.janes.com/article/85132/brazil-transfers-m41c-light-tanks-to-uruguayan-army

Quote

Brazil transfers M41C light tanks to Uruguayan Army

The Brazilian Army completed the transfer of 25 M41C light tanks to its Uruguayan counterpart in Rivera, Uruguay, on 7 December, according to sources from both nations' armies.

Of the 25 vehicles, 15 were completely refurbished by Brazil while the remaining 10 will be used for parts. Those that will remain intact will be assigned to armoured infantry units, which currently use M24 light tanks. While the M41Cs are also legacy vehicles, they will enhance the capabilities of the Uruguayan Infantry.

 

CHAFFEE IS ETERNAL

[Mighty_Zuk]

Slovenia will buy Boxer IFVs with the same Samson II turret as Lithuania's Boxers.

https://www.janes.com/article/85225/european-boxer-programmes-take-final-shape

[SH_MM]

That's not what the source says though. The same turret has been proposed to Slovenia, after other alternatives were deemed to be too expensive. Slovenia still hasn't decided wether to finalize the Boxer purchase or scrap it.

[rob89]

A question for the forum' experts

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects?

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

thank you in advance

 

best regards

 

PS : why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?

 

[2805662]

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

why KF41 has a Liebherr powerpack and not a MTU 89x series ?

 

According to a Rheinmetall guy I spoke to, the decision was commercially based.  

[Priory_of_Sion]

I found this amusing tank story from the Battle of Massawa(1990) during the Eritrean War of Independence :

Quote

The insurgents (EPLA) then deployed two captured T-55s - with their turrets turned towards their own lines to make defenders (Ethiopian Army) believe their own comrades were trying to rally them - to approach the Ethiopian lines. Turning their turrets around, both tanks then opened fire at close range, inflicting severe casualties before they were both knocked out. - Ethiopian- Eritrean Wars vol. 2 by Fontanellaz & Cooper

 

[Serge]

Pizzaro CEV ready : 

https://www.janes.com/article/85279/spain-s-pizarro-combat-engineer-vehicle-takes-shape

[123]

1

[LoooSeR]

 

3 barrel MG as coaxial weapon is visible here.

 

Lithuania's Boxers

 

Spoiler

 

[123]

1

[2805662]

3 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?

It’s retractable. 

[SH_MM]

On 12/17/2018 at 5:50 PM, rob89 said:

Is a comparison between Spz Puma and KF41 possible?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two projects? 

Are these two the best IFVs currently on the market ?

 

Yes, it is possible. They are both IFVs.

 

The Puma is optimized to achieve the maximum possible level of protection within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft. It makes a number of sacrificies (such as being more expensive due to relying on high-performance materials for armor protection and being able to transport only six dismounts) in order to achieve its goal. Unlike the Lynx KF41, it is a proper "next-generation" IFV in the sense of incorporating as many new technologies as possible - the German military used the Puma development to fund the development of new technologies suited for future next-generation AFVs such as MBTs.

 

The Lynx KF41 is based on tested and existing components, not integrating many new technologies. However that makes it cheaper and likely also more reliable (at least until the teething issues of the Puma have been fixed). It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine), larger armament options (up to 120 mm smoothbore gun in an AGS variant) and uses a cheaper (but physically larger) engine. The Lynx KF41 is meant to be a low-cost option compared to developing new IFVs in many aspects. It is also semi-modular (the rear module can be exchanged), further lowering costs of creating and operating multiple variants of the Lynx KF41.

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

Wether these two are the best on the market is debatable, there never is a definitive best solution; each vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. But they should always be considered to be contenders.

 

23 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Also they bought the Lynx or why is it in Qatar?

 

Currently there is only a single Lynx KF41 prototype, this is the same vehicle showcased at Eurosatory 2018 in Paris, at AUSA 2018 in the US and in Australia. But apparently Qatar has shown interest in the Lynx KF41 (maybe they are already negoating, I don't know), so Rheinmetall decided to showcase the vehicle in Qatar. Note that Rheinmetall Barzan is a joint-venture between Rheinmetall and the ministry of defence of Qatar, so it has a very good chance of being adopted in Qatar.

 

20 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

.Where is the 360° Periscope/Sight for the Commander on the Lynx?

 

As said by 2805662, the SEOSS commander's sight can be retracted into the turret, so that the Lynx fits through lower tunnels, into ships or transport aircraft with height restrictions. This is how the retracting mechanism looks in case of the LANCE 1.0 turret:

[skylancer-3441]

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

within the weight and size restrictions imposed by the A400M transport aircraft

from some Chinese magazine:

 

 

 

Quote

It is not designed to fit into the A400M, so it was designed to fit more dismounts (up to nine)

...and apparently all of them could be 95th percentile. Unlike Puma, which was designed to fit only 75th percentile dismounts.

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width

so Puma's internal space is narrower than what one might expect from a vehicle which is some ~16-18 inches wider than Bradley (when measured by tracks)

[rob89]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In terms of performance, it depends on how the Lynx is fitted out; with the same 30 mm MK30/2-ABM gun and Spike-LR launchers, the Puma's more accurate fire control system and planned TSWA give it the edge in terms of firepower, but the maximum possible calibre supported by the Puma's RCT-30 turret is 35 x 228 mm (and it is unlikely that Germany will replaced the 30 mm autocannon in the near future). Armor wise the Puma is dense (at least compared to the presented configuration of the Lynx KF41), it has a softkill APS, decoupled running gear and a remotely operated turret - so it likely has a higher level of protection than the current Lynx KF41 configuration showcased by Rheinmetall. When Rheinmetall decides to integrate its own Active Defense System (a hardkill APS) into the Lynx, the situation could change. In terms of mobility, the Puma has a more advanced hydropneumatic suspension, it is lighter and it is air-deployable. so it also should have an advantage.

 

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages.

 

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)?

 

In any case I find that some of the adopted solutions are very interesting :

- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion.

 

best regards 
 

[SH_MM]

4 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

That fancy decoupled drive thing wasted a lot of width

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

I read that KF41 at 44 ton has up to six tonnes of reserve payload for future growth (so up to 50 ton), including margins for further uparmor packages. 

  

Could it raise the protection to the level of Spz Puma (guessing that the used composite are at the same level - AMAP / NERA and so ...)? 

 

It might be possible, but I doubt that this is very likely if both vehicles make use of the same armor technology:

• The Puma's decoupled running gear means there is no penetration of the hull floor (which is required for the torsion-bar suspension of the Lynx KF41), so the KF41 would require thicker belly armor to offer the same resistance against mines
• The basic structure of the Puma is designed to minimize weight (for example by using an aluminium inner shell for the unmanned turret and thin-metal bending technology for the hull), thus a larger percentage of its weight is invested into composite armor (which can offer several times the protection of steel plates of the same weight). The hull and turret structure of the Lynx KF41 are made of welded steel without making use of weight reduction measures.
• The Puma has an unmanned turret, while the Lynx KF41 has a manned turret (it could be fitted with an unmanned turret, but has only been showcased with the manned LANCE 2.0 turret), so the turret armor of the Lynx KF41 would need to be stronger for the same level of relative crew protection.
• The Lynx KF41 is capable of transporting more dismounts, because it is larger. This means there is more surface to be armored, which means less effective protection is afforded per weight and per surface area.

So it really depends on unknown factors such as how much the armor weighs, how much weight is saved by the Puma's design, how much added area needs to be protected with the manned turret, where the armor is located in what thickness and how much the armored surface area/volume of the Lynx KF41 is larger than the Puma's. The fact that the Puma has a nine men capacity (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts), the Lynx KF41 with 12 men (crew of 3 + 9 dismounts) seems to indicate that the weight gain might not be enough to provide the same level of protection, if the same armor package technology would be used.

 

1 hour ago, rob89 said:

- the modularity (could it allow to have future combat variants, like a flakpanzer or a support panzer with mortar/cannon like NeMo ?) 
- the internal space for a full infantry squad (95 percentile)
- the engine exhaust vents on the rear face of the sponsons and not on the side (with, I think, better protection and lower thermal signature); the design and position of the exausts in the Spz Puma is not the best, in my opinion. 

 

The Puma is a result of a project, which originally was meant to be fully modular and include various variants such as IFV, MBT, self-propelled anti-air gun, etc. The whole vehicle family was to be larger (up to 77 tonnes with modular armor package installed), feature bigger guns (50 mm gun for the IFV, 140 mm gun for the MBT variant) and provide more space (crew of 3 + 8 or 9 dismounts of 95th percentile German males) - but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV. The Lynx KF41 barely copies some of these aspects in a more primitive form.

 

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

[skylancer-3441]

16 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

That is the result of the all fuel tanks of the Puma being located within the decoupled running gear, so that burning fuel cannot leak into the crew and dismount compartments (also acts as additional protection). The Marder carried 650 litres of fuel, I believe the Puma carries more.

so M113A3-style external fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle were not good enough for them, and also they decided against putting fuel tanks into engine compartment

 

 

25 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

but all variants except of the IFV were canceled, while changes to the specifications and program name turned it into the Puma IFV.

Igel (Hegehog), Panther, MMWS...
some pics from early 2000s magazines:

[Serge]

 

 

33 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

The engine exhaust system of the Lynx KF41 is inspired by the Marder IFV, which already featured the rear exhaust to reduce the thermal signature. For the Puma, the high requirements for armor protection and the strict weight/size limit made it impossible to feature the same rear exhaust design. It would have added bulk and weight to the vehicle, thus decreasing the effective level of protection (or leading to the vehicle failing to meet the weight limit).

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

So, it was simplified to save weight and volume under armor.  

[SH_MM]

7 minutes ago, Serge said:

To complet, we have to remind the first prototype was designed with a rear exhaust system. 

 

Prototype VS2 (mobility testbed) already had front exhaust. The rear of the vehicle (just as the series configuraiton) is occupied by the intercom and the (still projected) TSWA.

[Serge]

Yes. I was considering this one for exemple :

[David Moyes]

On 12/18/2018 at 10:23 AM, Serge said:

Pizzaro CEV ready : 

https://www.janes.com/article/85279/spain-s-pizarro-combat-engineer-vehicle-takes-shape

[123]

1

[123]

1

[Xlucine]

1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:

https://esut.de/2018/12/meldungen/land/9408/armata-und-kurganetz-nicht-in-serie/

ESUT reports that neither Kurganetz or Armata will hit serial production.
Their source is a british Defence Magazin but they dont give the name.
And the British Defence Magazine is quoting the Vice Defence Minister Yuri Borisov.
Does anybody know the magazine or has a second source?

 

There was some discussion of this in the armata thread a few months ago