Serial start for new PUMA infantry fighting vehicle (Germany)

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann ^ | December 07, 2010

[Red6]

I really don’t care enough to do any research, but I seriously doubt that it’s just an upgraded Marder.

Look at the road wheel # and configuration, the engine, remote controlled turret and the armor set up (you can get an idea from pics from the rear). The old Marder was extremely primitive in armor design/concept (basically just steel) while this one looks like it has thicker side walls to accommodate some form of more advanced armor. No, this is an all new vehicle that has a similar silhouette but little in common to a Marder. -IMHO

[Chode]

it's too bad...

[Red6]

So,

Since you’re worried about flame weapons, what’s your take on a plastic tank? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-molecular-weight_polyethylene

There are plastics out there today that have a phenomenal performance and a lot of work is being done to possibly use these in vehicle armor.

[alfa6]

C #4 is enroute back to the show if he passes his physical
if I ain’t mistaken. I think I saw that on Pajamas Media Belmont Club blog in the comments a week or so back

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Red6]

We need FCS!

First they kill it. Then they bring it back to life in a scaled down version.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/government/canceled-future-combat-system-springs-to-life-with-a-new-name-but-the-same-old-contractors/6545

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100521/FREE/100529954#

Then we delay it again: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/DN_army-army-delays-gcv-082510/

Now they sort of bring it back to life again: http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/12/02/48843-army-issues-rfp-for-ground-combat-vehicle/

Call it whatever makes people like it and feel good..... we need something that is designed around a different mission profile (what Charles Krulak called the “three block war.”), capable of handling emerging threat weapon systems, able to be even more versatile in terrain, that is logistically easier to support, is more transportable to and within a theater of operation.

Here’s the problem. Vehicles like the M1 and M2 were conceptually pre-digital age. They are pre- active defense systems. Frankly, even though they threw this in, even ERA was an after thought and not really designed into the M2 very well as noticed on the turret. They are conceptually designed around a mobile defense of Western Europe where we are being pushed back by the Warsaw Pact. The vehicle even in it’s protection is designed around a specific threat, with very specific capabilities that were defined based on the threat and their capabilities, i.e. 152mm air burst, 6.5Kg mine, 14.5mm all around and 30mm frontal. These standards correspond to the threat systems and their capabilities of that time. They were designed to operate against threat weapon systems that were around in the 70s to early 80s and technology that we thought would be around in the late 80s through 90s (That was emerging technology when these were new systems). A top attack shoulder fired AT missile wasn’t around then nor even really conceivable.

They are technologically and conceptually obsolete. We are attaching applique technologies like Blue Force Tracker, ERA or even hard kill active protective systems to these vehicles and they can’t fully exploit the capabilities of this technology because the baseline platform wasn’t designed with these technologies in mind.

The costs of certain materials has decreased, there is the advent of newer classes of materials all together like new plastics, the technology in computing, advent in networks, the cost of certain optics, capabilities of propellants and power plants, batteries ....... we can do so much better today! An M2 is conceptually from the 70s and built in the early 80s.

[FreedomPoster]

Yes, it looks like he is posting over there now.

They have some great content, but I just can’t abide a linear, non-threaded forum format.

[Chode]

i'd still like to see this go into production, 30mm Urban Avenger...

[Squantos]

Good deal.....hope he gets where he wants to be safely.

You stay safe also !

[DemforBush]

Interestingly (or not), the coax MG on the Puma is going to be 5.56 (HK MG4, to be specific) rather than a 7.62.

[PapaBear3625]

However the thing that I did not see is the equiptment to save it from the thing that I carried in WWII. A FLAMETHROWER. On Guam in 1945 I put out a Japanese tank with mine. I just put the flame over the vent input and the inside of the tank turned black and the two inside were cooked. Of course you have to get close enough use it. And another thing, I think that the U. S. Government has now banned FLAMETHROWERS. (To bad they did great in the islands of the Pacific.

I was thinking about Blackhawk Down and the battle of Mogadishu, and how lovely it would have been if the relief column had a bunch of Bradleys with turret-mounted flamethrowers. Somebody shoots at you from a window, just send a stream of napalm back through the window.

[patton]

You know, with tracks about twice as wide, that would make a nice camper.

[Sarajevo]

The designers forgot the screen door between the 3rd and 4th roadwheels...........

[Sarajevo]

Their old Marder was not only technologically antiquated, it was conceptually obsolete.

Aww- c'mon Red6, how long has the M113 been in service? IIRC, it was originally designed in 1957-58 time frame, and fielded throughout the US Army inventory up to 2008, and some units may still have them in their inventory. Bigger, expensive, and overwieght does not equate to a better piece of equipment. Although I like the fire control system of the Bradley, I'd take an M113 any day of the week.

[VOA]

bump

[Chode]

looks like

[Red6]

The 113 was in its time a great vehicle. It was the first to employ aluminum armor, making the vehicle lighter and if penetrated spalling less. It has decent protection stopping 762 all around, 152mm air bust, and smaller mines. It has awesome off road capabilities (actually beats a M2/M1 in nasty terrain in where it can get through), is amphibious, reliable, uses little fuel, is quiet, has a large internal volume because of its box like design and not needing internal support structures etc.........

However, in case you missed the last 28 years, it’s not serving as a IFV, but rather an APC, as a taxicab, ambulance, BN TAC (versions thereof).............

The Marder was an IFV, he’s the oldest Western IFV (The BMP1 was the first). When he was built he was a decent vehicle. Stacking him up against other Western IFVs, the Marder didn’t fair well, but that’s not important. What is important however, is that the Marder is in his capabilities outmatched by potential threat systems. Would you want to take a Marder against a improved BMP2 or BMP3? Would you want to be on the battlefield in a Marder without thermals, having to expose yourself to fire a Milan, having only one shot ready with lesser range and mediocre behind armor effect and be susceptible to jamming? Would you want to be in a steel hull vehicle without a spall liner, that has a 20mm gun that can fire fast but doesn’t have anything like HEIT nor M919 and has far less effectiveness? Do you want to be caught on the modern battlefield in an IFV that has no stab for the gun and can’t really shoot on the move and takes longer to get on target when playing behind burms? That has no ERA against RPGs that are everywhere (M2A0 was already available with ERA and had the mounts for the rails)? That has no active defensive suite other than his smoke (ODS and later has some active defense systems)?

I duno... did they add thermals/stab to the Marder? Last I knew it still didn’t have them but that was a while back.

The Marder is essentially in capabilities a M113 with a turret that has a OK gun and OK missile launcher for their time (late 70s....marginal by today’s standards). As an IFV this vehicle has been “inadequate” for a long time.

[The Shrew]

Still active here. Many days I wish I was active there!

Reading the younger guys makes me realize how much more technology there is now. Impressive. I appreciate their service.

Semper Fi,

TS

[Red6]

“I’d take an M113 any day of the week.”

Ahhhhhh...... alrighty then.

“Bigger, expensive, and overwieght does not equate to a better piece of equipment.”

I’d like to see where you can really save weight by cutting something off a M2 (especially in the time he was built)? The M2 isn’t needlessly weighted down be some overly heavy gun, inefficient engine, ineffective armor, luxurious waste of space, or needless subsystems that serve no purpose....... If you want a vehicle with a ramp, an armored turret offering full enclosure while operating all weapon systems, NBC and fire suppression systems, stabilization for the gun and electric turret drive, a fire control system, a gun that can reach out to 3000m and is effective against a wide range of targets, a missile that can reach out to 3750m and has two ready to fire, thermals, spall liners, laser range finder, adequate ammunition to duke it out, enough armor to protect you against 30mm frontal, 14.5 all the way around, 152mm air burst and a 6.5Kg mine and carry troops and have a compartment for them, you’re going to get heavy, especially in 1980 before the advent of some of the materials and active defense systems we have today. The Bradley in reality already makes use of aluminum armor armor on the inside, steel laminate on the outside, some titanium and ERA (state of the art in 1982) which for its time was very modern and minimizes weight. If this vehicle is supposed to have the ability to carry add on armor (ERA) which weighs several tons but protects you against RPGs, the power plant and suspension etc all needs set up for that as well. It’s not a coincidence that the Bradleys all had the rail mounts on the sides, that the suspension and power plant as well as tranny can hold up to all the weight he’s lugging around. The Bradley was designed for this.

The Bradley in all reality borrows heavily from the M113. You can see the similarity in the hull and the layout of the vehicle interior. Only the Bradley was designed as a much more armored and heavy hitting IFV.

Performance comes with a price-tag. In 1982 how many IFVs had thermals, a laser range finder, stabilization and a fire control computer? How many had viewers for a driver at night? How many used a heavy ATGM like a TOW which could be elevated so the Bradley could stay behind cover and minimally expose himself using Inner Visibility lines, berms or an entrenchment? How many IFV’s used a high velocity 25mm like on the M2 which can select ammo and fire rate and shoot explosive and armor piercing ammunition?............ Where was the waste? When the Bradley was new, he was actually quite revolutionary as a IFV and if you care look, most IFVs today have gone to a similar setup.

The argument is not if the Bradley was bad (The machine was highly successful)- it’s that the Bradley is being passed up by time.

The missions have changed.

The threat capabilities have changed beyond the scope of what the Bradley was conceived for.

Technology in digitization, materials (alloys, composites and plastics, armor designs and technologies), optics, networks, propellants, power plants, batteries, gun designs, missile designs, track designs..... have advanced in the last 28 years. While the M2A3 is fairly modern and capable, we can do so much more today.

[FreedomPoster]

I wish archy were still active here to read Red6’s posts and interact. Old school and new school knowledgeable treadheads, if you will.

[Red6]

When in you wish you were out.

When out you wish you were still in.

lol