PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented

G

ger_mark

New Member
The first prototype of the new german IFV Puma was today presented in Kassel, Germany. The project is lead by PSM, a 50:50 joint venture of the two main german army hardware producers Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Landsysteme. The current plans aim for 410 new vehicles for a total of 3 billion euro.
The Puma will be air movable with A400M due to it's optional protection levels (PL-A for air transport will give security against 30mm on the front, 14,5mm on the sides and mines, PL-C will add armour to the flanks and the top).
More here:
http://www.kmweg.de/mediendb2.php?area=4
Whole news in german: http://www.kmweg.de/pressenews_detail.php?id=45



 
D

Dr Phobus

New Member
One as no doubt that the PUMA will be an excellent IFV. However, look also too the CV-90, 6 european customers with 1700 plus order, 30mm/35mm/50mm autocannon, its good extremely well. With the Spanish, austrians with their own desigh and the italians with there's I do not see the Puma doing well at all on the export market. This is not to detract from the quality of Puma's design, althought i am some what critial of its armament which i feel does not represent the current trends well.
 
D

driftder

New Member
ger_mark said:
some more/smaller pics
http://193.158.125.14/produkte/puma2.jpg
http://193.158.125.14/produkte/puma3.jpg
http://193.158.125.14/produkte/puma4.jpg
http://193.158.125.14/produkte/puma14.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b216/Eurocopter/KopievonPUMADemonstratorVorstellung.jpg
Click to expand...
interesting - modular passive applique armour designed from stage 1. we should incorporate that into the Bionix. any tech specs on its weight class and air portablity, weapons outfit etc?

thanks in advance.
 
webmaster

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
driftder said:
interesting - modular passive applique armour designed from stage 1. we should incorporate that into the Bionix. any tech specs on its weight class and air portablity, weapons outfit etc?
thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Here you go:

The new Puma infantry fighting vehicle demonstrates once again Germany\'s paramount position in the domain of army technology. It sets the standard worldwide, as the following technical details make clear:

airportable in the future A400M transport plane;
rapid availability in the area of operations;
modular armour elements;
a single compartment for all occupants;
a compact, newly developed, extremely powerful engine;
highly effective mine protection;
a remote-controlled turret;
efficient armament for engaging all types of targets;
suitable as a platform for future applications;
interfaces for future systems (friend/foe identification, etc.)

Technical data:

maximum design weight: 43 tons
weight (Protection Level A): 31.45 tons
weight (Protection Level C): 40.7 tons
crew: 9 (6+3);
maximum road speed: 70 kilometres per hour
power to weight ratio: 20 kW/t;
length: 7,330 mm
width: 3,430 mm
total height: 3,050 mm​
Click to expand...
 
G

ger_mark

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
puma is very well protected it is originally designed to withstand permanent 30mm fire and has probably a better protection then old russian mbt's im confused about its weaponary, puma should originally recive pars3 antitank missile (antitankmissile for ec tiger) but this project was cancelled by the green party in favour to MEADS maybe its getting continued under the new goverment but its unclear and i wonder what antitankmissile the puma will recive ,however the puma has most likely infrared stealth (http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4151/20050109220345tt.jpg 2 leos on the move) but there are still too less informations about the puma :confused:
 
T

turin

New Member
The Puma IFV has its drawbacks, however most of them not part of the design itself.
One such thing is the limited ammo storage for the main gun, being only 200 initially and another 200 in reserve (but in combat the reserve might be out of grasp). The other thing is the choice of the MG-4 (5,45 mm) as secondary weapon. I think, a 7,62 mm MG would have been a better choice performancewise.

As for the AT missile, I doubt the Puma will ever receive any. Not in the foreseeable future at least.

Note that the protection level highly depends on the added armor plates. Protection level A means allround protection against 14,5 mm and partial protection (front, some other parts depending on direction of enemy fire) against 30 mm. Protection level C is the maximum defense, meaning allround against 30 mm and extended protection against RPG and other AT weapons.

The CV-90 is an excellent competitor and currently the more versatile vehicle, esp. with its different weapons mounts. Further evolutions and subtypes of the Puma are already on the drawing board, however it remains to be seen wether those will see service. Main drawback might be that the german forces are a little bit thin on the cash site and additional procurements beyond the ordered Pumas are unlikely. Time will tell...
 
D

driftder

New Member
after reading through what was posted on the Puma (Tracked) and the CV90, I went and dig around for some info. from what was posted at army-technology.com, I won't really like to be at the business end of the CV90/40 the version that the Swedes are using. that thing with its 40mm Bofors looks 'mean' and had been in service with the Swedes a looonngg time, so all the kinks and weirdness had probably been ironed out. where as the Puma (Tracked) had been just introduced with the advantage of newer technology but lets face it, when it comes to military hardware, no govt likes to gamble on the unknown.

add in what Turin had posted about the Puma's (Tracked) ammo shortcoming and I don't think it be well-received, though I like the level C armour protection. still if its ammo load can be increased, then I think the Puma(Tracked) will be rather well received. but if matched in a selection test against something like the CV90/40, it be a close call to choose.
 
D

Dr Phobus

New Member
I agree about the armament situation, the dutch CV-90 has a 35/50mm gun, the up-graded warrior will have a 40mm gun. Moreover, CV-90 and warrior all have up-grad-able Armour packages. After all Armour upgrading is a wide spread industry. Puma will not sell well, its too delayed. Still, i am sure its a fine vehicle, and i agree 5.45mm co-axial is way to light.
 
P

psyclops

New Member
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but here's my two cents: The Puma seems to be a response to recent conflicts which see heavy use of RPGs and IEDs, and little AFV vs. AFV battle. So for the German Army, it's well-suited. Light enough with its basic armor to be airlifted to a peacekeeping zone, where (if necessary) it can have the rest of its armor bolted on, still saving time compared to sealift. On the other hand, that all-round RPG protection and heavy AT mine protection should give the troops some happy thoughts.

As for armament, the 30mm cannon is about par for the course among AFVs these days. Only the Swedes armed their CV90s with the 40mm cannon, and everyone else has gone for 30mm or 35mm. Once the CTS or 30/50mm Supershot are ready, we may see some upgunning, but the Bundeswehr may do that, too. (Unlikely, since they never upgunned their Marders, but possible if the need to take out heavily-armored IFVs crops up.) The onboard ammunition stowage is more or less comparable to other designs, and one would like to think that modern sighting systems and airburst munitions would require less expenditure of ammunition. (At least, that argument sounds good during Pentagon PowerPoint presentations to the Budget Committee, right?)

Regarding the 5.56mm coax, that's apparently for commonality with the infantry squad. Since the infantry squad got rid of their 7.62mm MG3s, the coax would be the only 7.62mm rounds used, which the loggies don't like. This way, the infantry have a bunch of extra rounds to draw from if they run short. As for knockdown power, if there's something that the 5.56mm can't handle, there's always the 30mm cannon...

Despite all that, I agree that Puma will probably not export well. That's partly due to what I suspect will be a high price relative to other modern IFVs, and partly due to its late arrival. Who's due to buy a new IFV that hasn't already placed orders?
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ger_mark said:
The first prototype of the new german IFV Puma was today presented in Kassel, Germany. The project is lead by PSM, a 50:50 joint venture of the two main german army hardware producers Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Landsysteme. The current plans aim for 410 new vehicles for a total of 3 billion euro.
The Puma will be air movable with A400M due to it's optional protection levels (PL-A for air transport will give security against 30mm on the front, 14,5mm on the sides and mines, PL-C will add armour to the flanks and the top).
More here:
http://www.kmweg.de/mediendb2.php?area=4
Whole news in german: http://www.kmweg.de/pressenews_detail.php?id=45



Click to expand...

Should be a good replacement for the Marders with good gun capabilities, it is not always the size of the gun but what is being fired out of it.
Does anybody know what Germany plans on doing with the Marder IFVs.
 
M

Manfred

New Member
I have a question.

Armored transport for infantry is supposed to there to allow Infantry to accompany Tanks in an assault. So... why not give the Infantry a carrier based on a modified tank chassis.

The best Anti-Aircraft gun platform ever built was the Gepard. It sits on a Leo-1 chassis, and can go anywhere a tank can go. Why worry about the places a tank cannot go, the thing was designed to support the tanks!

The same goes for the Armored Infantry. The M-1 can leave the much lighter Bradley behind. An enemy with a few small automatic cannons can peal IFVs away from tanks with the greatest of ease.

I know that purpose-built IFVs are somewhat cheaper, but does that cover development and a sepperate support structure for these machines? I thinnk not...

And why should Infantry not have the same level of protection that the Tanks they are supporting? Why are 10 grunts more expendable then 4 tankers? It just don't make sense!
 
G

gary1910

New Member
driftder said:
interesting - modular passive applique armour designed from stage 1. we should incorporate that into the Bionix. any tech specs on its weight class and air portablity, weapons outfit etc?

thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Our Bionix does comes with modular passive applique armour over a steel hull, some said it is MEXAS, some kind of NERA.
 
T

turin

New Member
eckherl said:
Should be a good replacement for the Marders with good gun capabilities, it is not always the size of the gun but what is being fired out of it.
Does anybody know what Germany plans on doing with the Marder IFVs.
Click to expand...
Same as with the surplus Leo 2...selling them to whoever wants them. Greece already bought a number of vehicles.




@MBT/IFV-discussion: The Achzarit was only developed because the Israelis had a massive surplus of T-55 chassis, which they could and had to use, based on their constant struggle with ressources and money. Also their protection requirements were always a bit higher, see the Merkava-evolution for that one.
Also the Achzarit is more of an ultra-heavy APC instead of an IFV. Different requirements.

Why are 10 grunts more expendable then 4 tankers? It just don't make sense!
Click to expand...
Thats beside the point and has a bit of a polemic stance. The function of the IFV for infantry is transport and delivery to the battlefield, but also being quick and versatile enough to fight alongside infantry as well as MBT. Also IFV are fielded in higher numbers than MBT, so the price per unit is a point as long as you actually have to pay for your armed forces. In the past the protection level for IFV rose dramatically and the Puma is right now probably the best protected IFV in the world.
 
M

Manfred

New Member
Jamesteo- Thanks for the reference... and leave it to the Isrealis to get it right! Using old tanks for IFVs is brilliant! They dont have to worry about getting chopped up by a 30mm cannon.

Turin- Polemic? Tell me, have you ever gone into battle in a Bradley against an enemy known to deploy 57mm Anti-Aircraft guns in the direct fire mode at ground targets? I have, and it was no fun at all.

Also, I was very specific; Infantry in support of tanks, not other roles. Scouts and other light units should have a vehicle of thier own. Bradleys, Pumas and other large IFVs are not ideal for these roles.

Which brings up another question; with the LAV-25 giving good service in the Marine Corps, why the HELL did the US Army go and develop the Styker to do the same damn job? Something stinks about that one...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top