Posted on 04/08/2013 11:12:18 AM PDT by 11th_VA
WASHINGTON: The Army's proposed Ground Combat Vehicle would offer less combat power, at a higher cost, than buying the German-made Puma already in production or even just upgrading the Army's existing M2 Bradley, according to the Congressional Budget Office. CBO issued a report today assessing different alternatives to upgrade Army heavy brigades' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), tank-like war machines with tracks and turrets designed to carry troops into combat.
The non-partisan CBO, Capitol Hill's in-house thinktank, has slammed the Ground Combat Vehicle program before, but never this hard. The office's analysts took the Army's own criteria and created a grading system that scored different combat vehicles for effectiveness. Using a scoring scheme that prioritized protection above all, followed by firepower, mobility, and passenger capacity, in that order, the CBO rated the Puma highest, followed by a notional upgrade to the Bradley, followed in distant third place by the GCV. (The Israeli-built Namer came in fourth). Even under an alternative grading scheme that weighted all four criteria equally -- putting much more emphasis on the capacity to carry troops -- the 6-passenger Puma still edged out the 9-passenger GCV, largely because of its superior firepower.
(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...
I have 2 0r 3 of this and variants in my ‘to be built’ pile of kits.
I have 2 0r 3 of this and variants in my ‘to be built’ pile of kits.
Build it low. Have the Infantry lie down crossways in it. Put a conex on top to ride in and store personal gear in. Make it capable of dropping the conex when assaulting. You don’t carry your ruck into an assault. Since the actual assaulting portion is small, really armor it.
Per the article, the new vehicle could carry more people (at least the American version).
I also suspect with its huge weight (67 tons), it has better armor. And, there is a possibility of upgrading the primary weapon to 30mm...although I’m not sure this is necessary.
If we’re not going to build our own weapons, then let’s just run up the white flag and let Iceland protect us. Remember the Roland? What did we buy, twenty of them?
I see the German version has an un-manned turret. This has been the Holy Grail of tank and armored vehicle design for a long time. Its safer not having a crew member way up top...but....
Having been a tank commander, I cannot concieve of not having the ability to see out of a nice tall turret. The vast majority of the time, you operate with the hatches open, and you can see with your own two eyes...you don’t have to rely on periscope blocks or gun sights. Its especially helpful in navigation.
I understand that we use gps now, so navigation isn’t as critical. But I still could not imagine not having a manned turret....especially in urban warfare. It would be extremely easy to sneak up on a ‘buttoned up’ vehicle.
I am also surprised that the missile launcher is taken out on the American model. Yes, these are rarely used against tanks. But, I have seen video of Iraq where a building (with a sniper) is cleared with a TOW missile.
Most amazing to me is that both of these vehicles appear to have a flat bottom. The recent trend seems to be a triangular bottom, to be more mine resistant. I assume some of the tremendous weight has gone into armoring the floor, instead.
The flat bottom and unmanned turret are attempts to lower the profile of the vehicle...which anticipates its use in an armored tank on tank style battle. And, the desire to use the 30 mm cannon indicates that this vehicle is really supposed to be a tank killer (vs just using its weapon for self defense and against othe personnel carriers). I’m not sure that’s the right direction to be going, in light of our current conflicts....seriously, could anyone imagine this 70 ton vehicle crawling along the valley floor in Afghanistan?
The military has been on the metric system since McNamara, if not before.
Tamiya models rock!
Ah yes, the days when if was the Germans building the expensive overcomplicated armoured vehicle
Funny how that’s never mentioned on the metric system hate threads...
Tiger and King Tiger yes (mause even more so) but the Panther was not too bad complex wise.
... getting rid of the interleaved wheels would have been a good idea though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.