Jump to content
Skybird03

Puma

Recommended Posts

A 20 minutes-documentary (IN GERMAN) on the new German IFV, Puma, described as the most modern IFV to date and the first with true hunter-killer-capability like MBTs have(really?).

Interesting is the second part. From 5:15 on you will see the description of the traning simulator for the Pumas, which in fact is just the equipment packed into four boxes that gets installed into just any Puma - and turning that Puma into a cabin simulator with VR-headgear for the crew. You can compare the graphics with those of SBP. After watching this, I am quite pessimistic that the Germans will ever buy SBP. :frown: Not because SBP is bad in comparison, but because they actually have something like SBP, but with better hardware integration - and without depending on stationary cabin simulators like they use for Leopards.

I would love to have that SIAM kit for my home TV. :biggrin:

-----

Since I am at it, this is a video on the developement for the new Boxer GTK, command vehicle. Again described to be the most modern of its kind worldwide. But: its the official Bundeswehr channel, so "optimistic exaggeration" comes as part of the deal, I assume. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent video Skybird.

I new the puma was high tech.

But its some piece of equipment.

I was really impressed by the ability to integrate the simulation and run it from the vehicle.

A very clever innovation. and in the long run cost effective.But this is just my opinion. the Only thing the puma lacks is a ATGM launcher.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Only thing the puma lacks is a ATGM launcher.

I think it can be equipped with MELLS/SPIKE which replaces MILAN and TOW in the German inventory. the system has been ordered. They ordered the long-range variant with a range of 4000m. - Says the press. :)

The one thing I do not like about the Puma is the light MG4 (5,56mm), instead of a cal 7.62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I do not like about the Puma is the light MG4 (5,56mm), instead of a cal 7.62.

Dont foget: IT IS SO UGLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hunter-killer part isn't entirely correct. the M2A3 bradley has an independent thermal viewer for the commander as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the Commander in the M2A3 (or Puma for that matter) actually designate/slave targets for the Gunner, or is it "just" for his situational awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFIK, via the gunnery manual no less, the M2A3's independent viewer is fully capable of target designation/hand-off, unsure of the Puma though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFIK, via the gunnery manual no less, the M2A3's independent viewer is fully capable of target designation/hand-off, unsure of the Puma though.

The first movie (at around 4:50) claims the Puma has that capability.

- Rump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AFIK, via the gunnery manual no less, the M2A3's independent viewer is fully capable of target designation/hand-off, unsure of the Puma though.

Video says the Puma can. It also features full mobile firing capability from stabilised gun, like any modern MBT firing while moving. That thing is said to be the most expensive IFV in the world, so what do you think...!? :tongue:

What I am always wondering about is how the protection against a kinetic prpojectile as fired by a tank or IFV is in the Puma, compared to the Marder. The Marder was the heaviest and best protected IFV when it was introduced, and the Puma has a lot of engineers fighting behind it over reducing the weight to make it capable for A400M airlifting. I assume the protection against explosive blast and shockwaves is better, but what is about simple, brutal kinetic impacts of fast moving hard objects like a 30 mm AP round, or comparable? I cannot help it, but somehow that thing simply looks - fragile.

And to what degree are the optics protected against shrapnels, projectiles, small arms fire? I assume there is a layer of protective Panzerglas, but too thick it cannot be without effecting the sensitivity of the sensors behind it. What can they bear, and what is too much? Asking this in general, not just regarding the Puma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it can be equipped with MELLS/SPIKE which replaces MILAN and TOW in the German inventory. the system has been ordered. They ordered the long-range variant with a range of 4000m. - Says the press. :)

The one thing I do not like about the Puma is the light MG4 (5,56mm), instead of a cal 7.62.

The puma has just gone up a couple of places on my personal wish list. And hopefully We mite get it in SB one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I do not like about the Puma is the light MG4 (5,56mm), instead of a cal 7.62.

Yeah Ssnake agreed with that sentiment @ ITEC couple of years ago.

So much uber high tech sensory stuff in that turret, and the insistance on a direct optical channel, pretty much ruled out a 7.62mm cox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah Ssnake agreed with that sentiment @ ITEC couple of years ago.

So much uber high tech sensory stuff in that turret, and the insistance on a direct optical channel, pretty much ruled out a 7.62mm cox.

I think it was more about wanted ammunition standardization, and getting the 7.62 out of service in general. For the same reasons, if I can trust ordinary media, this was the reason why they have turned to equipping infantry squads with 5.56 LMG instead of the older (but punchier) MG3. I also occasionally read that German troops in Afghanistan have "informally reintroduced" the MG3 where the beancounters in the dear Fatherland had sent them into mission with the MG4 as standard equipment. But being unable to judge all that from own first hand experience, I just quote some internet and media reports when I say that. Whether it is true or not, I cannot say for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puma has 2 armour configurations, 31 ton and 43 tonnes.

standard configuration is 30mm proof from the front, and 14.5mm proof from the sides.

combat configuration should be allround 30mm proof, in addition to being proof against RPG-7 from all angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it was more about wanted ammunition standardization, and getting the 7.62 out of service in general. For the same reasons, if I can trust ordinary media, this was the reason why they have turned to equipping infantry squads with 5.56 LMG instead of the older (but punchier) MG3. I also occasionally read that German troops in Afghanistan have "informally reintroduced" the MG3 where the beancounters in the dear Fatherland had sent them into mission with the MG4 as standard equipment. But being unable to judge all that from own first hand experience, I just quote some internet and media reports when I say that. Whether it is true or not, I cannot say for sure.

The newest information I got is, that the PUMA only has 5.56 because at the time of development there was no new machine gun for the german army in 7.62. The MG3 is getting old, even when it is a great weapon, it isn't the future.

Now with introducing the HK121 (a kind of MG4 in 7.62), I think it will replace the MG3. Also as secondary weapon in the PUMA. (they just have to change the weapons, because the systems allows to use both weapons within the same mount)

Greetings

Thonar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah Ssnake agreed with that sentiment @ ITEC couple of years ago.

So much uber high tech sensory stuff in that turret, and the insistance on a direct optical channel, pretty much ruled out a 7.62mm cox.

It couldn't be because the 5.56 is cheaper, could it? No - silly me. That would imply the accountants were making operationally critical decisions. Perish the thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It couldn't be because the 5.56 is cheaper, could it? No - silly me. That would imply the accountants were making operationally critical decisions. Perish the thought.

Maybe it could have something to do with the amount of 5.56 rounds

they can carry compared to 7.62 for a given space/weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5.56 was chosen because of space limitations in the turret. A 7.62 simply wouldn't have fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:eek2:

Has somebody slept all planning phase long, or do you mean that only the MG3 would not have fitted, but the HK121 will? (I don't know how both MGs compare in size).

If both MGs would not fit, than maybe it would have been a good idea to make the turret slightly - well, ehem: bigger...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only repeat what was reported in the defense-related press at the time when the decision was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are interesting videos, thanks for posting.

HK121 GPMG is 1165mm long in "infantry" configuration. Being a gas operated rotating bolt weapon with a conventional return spring assembly, as far as I understand it, I can't see any reason why the cut down AFV version would have to be any bigger than ~800mm long. I don't have height or receiver width etc figures.

Given the huge stocks of NATO M80 ball (7.62x51), is 7.62 more expensive than whatever 5.56 loading the BW uses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the coax is the least problem of the Puma right now.

We use to say: they allways have to drive in pairs! In the morning the Puma rolls out followed by a BPz...at noon the BPz in towing the Puma in :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the coax is the least problem of the Puma right now.

We use to say: they allways have to drive in pairs! In the morning the Puma rolls out followed by a BPz...at noon the BPz in towing the Puma in :-D

Let me guess.......Engine Fault Codes :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...