Better protection (all around 14,5mm AP) and more space inside.
Dr Phobus said:
That's wrong, it cares only 6 dismounts. In my opinion it's the only technical disadvantage of Puma. Second one is its price.
PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented
- Thread starter ger_mark
- Start date
Better protection (all around 14,5mm AP) and more space inside.
That's wrong, it cares only 6 dismounts. In my opinion it's the only technical disadvantage of Puma. Second one is its price.
contedicavour
New Member
It's curious to see that defence industry is short of animals to name their AIFVs 
since we've got 660 Pumas of our own in the Italian army, but they have nothing to do with the German AIFV since they are wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 fighting vehicles.
SPECIFICATIONS ITALIAN ARMY PUMA WHEELED AIFV
Weight: 8,2 t
Crew: 1 + 6 fully equipped infantry
Armament: mitr. 12,7/5,56/7,62 mm
Protection: ballistic, NBC, laser alert
Engine: turbodiesel 180 HP (132,3 kw)
Transmission: hydrodinamic
Max speed: 110 Km/h
Dimensions:
- Length 5,07 m
- Width 2,3 m
- Height 1,68 m
Autonomy: 600 km.
cheers
since we've got 660 Pumas of our own in the Italian army, but they have nothing to do with the German AIFV since they are wheeled 4x4 and 6x6 fighting vehicles.SPECIFICATIONS ITALIAN ARMY PUMA WHEELED AIFV
Weight: 8,2 t
Crew: 1 + 6 fully equipped infantry
Armament: mitr. 12,7/5,56/7,62 mm
Protection: ballistic, NBC, laser alert
Engine: turbodiesel 180 HP (132,3 kw)
Transmission: hydrodinamic
Max speed: 110 Km/h
Dimensions:
- Length 5,07 m
- Width 2,3 m
- Height 1,68 m
Autonomy: 600 km.
cheers
Both the LAV-25 and Stryker originate from the same Swiss IFV, the Mowag "Piranha". Then Mowag was bought by GD in 2003.
"Developed from.." ?
The way I heard it, the LAV was based on a Canadian vehicle, I was my first ones in 1984.
The LAV has 8 wheels, Strykers have 6. Do they both have the same hull, or engines?
Puma fans; dont get me wrong, I'm all in favor of Germany continuing its excellent AFV programs, and look forward to thier next creation.
However...
How about this; you take the basic Leo 2 chassis, with a fixed supperstructure in place of the turret, built to resemble the turret, even with a fake gun. This would give you a large internal volume to work with, not only as an APC, but also for other jobs; artillery control, C3I and medical evacuation. It would offer first class protection and interchangable parts with the panzers.
By the way... is the "Luchs" armored car still around? I always thought that was one of the best Scout vehicles on Earth, and a worthy successor to the Sdkfz. 234 (ten points to whoever can tell me what the name of that vehicle was called)
The way I heard it, the LAV was based on a Canadian vehicle, I was my first ones in 1984.
The LAV has 8 wheels, Strykers have 6. Do they both have the same hull, or engines?
Puma fans; dont get me wrong, I'm all in favor of Germany continuing its excellent AFV programs, and look forward to thier next creation.
However...
How about this; you take the basic Leo 2 chassis, with a fixed supperstructure in place of the turret, built to resemble the turret, even with a fake gun. This would give you a large internal volume to work with, not only as an APC, but also for other jobs; artillery control, C3I and medical evacuation. It would offer first class protection and interchangable parts with the panzers.
By the way... is the "Luchs" armored car still around? I always thought that was one of the best Scout vehicles on Earth, and a worthy successor to the Sdkfz. 234 (ten points to whoever can tell me what the name of that vehicle was called)
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Ahh. Let me guess...
You mean the 234/2 aka Puma?
Anyway, the Luchs is still around, but it serves as escort vehicle in Bosnia and Kosovo. Actually in the german forces the Luchs is not seen as such a good scout vehicle. While its mobility is excellent, the size and tall silhouette are seen as disadvantages for scout operations. Thats why its sucessor, the Fennek, looks quite different.
Well, you are describing exactly what they build the GTK Boxer for. Of course its not MBT-related but also its not tracked.
There are some problems with making an IFV out of a Leo hull.
The first is the engine in the back. So there is no space for a backdoor exit.
And if you look into a Leo II with its turret removed you see that there is not that much space you can work with. The internal space of a Puma or Marder is much bigger.
And you also need a totally new unmanned turret like the one on the Puma if you want to convert a Leo II hull into an IFV.
You could also make a HAPC put of it but this would not meet the requirements of our mechanized infantry.
In the end the Puma is able to go everywhere the Leo II goes, it is protected against 30mm frontally and has a good all around RPG protection (No, not RPG 29 ) as well as a good IED/mine protection.
If you would want to have an IFV with the same protection like a Leo II AND the internal space and ergonomic of a Puma you would need a totally new designed vehicle whoch could easily get bigger than a normal Leo II.
And you should remember that our new IFV should be able to be transported in an A400M. And the Puma is in its A configuration and than it can easily be uparmored to C config within short time.
For a Leo II you need a C-17, C-5 or an An-124.
The first is the engine in the back. So there is no space for a backdoor exit.
And if you look into a Leo II with its turret removed you see that there is not that much space you can work with. The internal space of a Puma or Marder is much bigger.
And you also need a totally new unmanned turret like the one on the Puma if you want to convert a Leo II hull into an IFV.
You could also make a HAPC put of it but this would not meet the requirements of our mechanized infantry.
In the end the Puma is able to go everywhere the Leo II goes, it is protected against 30mm frontally and has a good all around RPG protection (No, not RPG 29
) as well as a good IED/mine protection.If you would want to have an IFV with the same protection like a Leo II AND the internal space and ergonomic of a Puma you would need a totally new designed vehicle whoch could easily get bigger than a normal Leo II.
And you should remember that our new IFV should be able to be transported in an A400M. And the Puma is in its A configuration and than it can easily be uparmored to C config within short time.
For a Leo II you need a C-17, C-5 or an An-124.
Please use google.
Why do some of you advocate using tank hulls for infantry battle taxi`s, yes the IDF uses them due to a shortage of IFV`s and because the armor protection on a M113 series APC is deplorable, if you are wanting to use a tank hulled APC for urbanized warfare then this is the wrong application, for this type of warfare you need dismounts on the ground going house to house which can be some of the ugliest type of warfare that you can fight, tanks and armored vehicles due not do well in this type of environment which history has shown. the IDF will not rely on this type of vehicle for carrying infantry to the front much longer, they have choosen the Stryker APC as a battle taxi.
Please also take in consideration on the cost of maintanance and logistics to keep them up and running, it`s alot more than a APC. Waylander hit it right in regards to the Merkava`s, they are not designed to carry dismounts but rather a extra pallet of maingun rounds. Okay guy`s lets put a Puma up against a BMP3, Bradley or a Warrior, which one will come out on top.
Please also take in consideration on the cost of maintanance and logistics to keep them up and running, it`s alot more than a APC. Waylander hit it right in regards to the Merkava`s, they are not designed to carry dismounts but rather a extra pallet of maingun rounds. Okay guy`s lets put a Puma up against a BMP3, Bradley or a Warrior, which one will come out on top.
Frontally the Puma should be able to take everything what a BMP3, Bradley or Warrior could throw at them (except ATGMs) while they on the other hand should not be able to withstand the 30mm.
The FCS and optics of the Puma are also top (including hunter/killer capabilities) so I would rather sit in a Puma than in any other IFV if I would have to (But I don't know why I should leave the Leo II ).
The only thing I miss on the Puma is that there is no ATGM included till now.
The vehicle itself is able to adopt any ATGM quickly, the electronic and space is available but the Bundeswehr hasn't decided yet which ATGM is going to be introduced next and if this ATGM is going to be implemented into the Puma.
Every export customer could easily use his favorite ATGM.
The interfaces for active and passive protection systems are also already implemented and so systems can be adopted faster than usual.
And I like the grenade launcher at the back which can be controlled by the mounted infantry under armor protection.
The FCS and optics of the Puma are also top (including hunter/killer capabilities) so I would rather sit in a Puma than in any other IFV if I would have to (But I don't know why I should leave the Leo II
).The only thing I miss on the Puma is that there is no ATGM included till now.
The vehicle itself is able to adopt any ATGM quickly, the electronic and space is available but the Bundeswehr hasn't decided yet which ATGM is going to be introduced next and if this ATGM is going to be implemented into the Puma.
Every export customer could easily use his favorite ATGM.
The interfaces for active and passive protection systems are also already implemented and so systems can be adopted faster than usual.
And I like the grenade launcher at the back which can be controlled by the mounted infantry under armor protection.
Frontally the Puma should be able to take everything what a BMP3, Bradley or Warrior could throw at them (except ATGMs) while they on the other hand should not be able to withstand the 30mm.
The FCS and optics of the Puma are also top (including hunter/killer capabilities) so I would rather sit in a Puma than in any other IFV if I would have to (But I don't know why I should leave the Leo II
The only thing I miss on the Puma is that there is no ATGM included till now.
The vehicle itself is able to adopt any ATGM quickly, the electronic and space is available but the Bundeswehr hasn't decided yet which ATGM is going to be introduced next and if this ATGM is going to be implemented into the Puma.
Every export customer could easily use his favorite ATGM.
The interfaces for active and passive protection systems are also already implemented and so systems can be adopted faster than usual.
And I like the grenade launcher at the back which can be controlled by the mounted infantry under armor protection.
What about the 25mm DU ammunition for Bradley and the 100mm on the BMP3, Do you guy`s have anyone interested in purchasing the Puma at this point. Also realisticaly how many is your opinion that Germany will purchase.
410 will be bought.
Most of them for the normal IFV role in our Panzergrenadier units and some for the FACs of our artillery units which are attached directly to the tank and mech inf units.
I do not believe we will buy any more units. There are no customers for the Puma I know of.
Not many out there are searching for a real tracked IFV and have the money to buy a Puma.
We are late with so many european countries having bought CV90 versions in the last years.
They say that it withstands this in the maximum armored C version:
- 30mm AP frontally
- 14,5mm AP all around
- handheld AT weapons like RPG-7 frontally and on the sides
- artillery fragments all around and on the top
- bomblets on the top
- EFP mines and heavy blast mines
There are two fire surpression systems for the crew cabin and the engine compartement.
It is NBC protected.
The question now is of you believe Rheinmetall.
I do, especially when I consider that just the modular add-on armor from A to C config weights 11,55 tons with the whole vehicle being 43 tons heavy in C config.
I do not think that Rheinmetall build it this heavy just for fun and it is said to be better protected on the sides than a Leo II.
Most of them for the normal IFV role in our Panzergrenadier units and some for the FACs of our artillery units which are attached directly to the tank and mech inf units.
I do not believe we will buy any more units. There are no customers for the Puma I know of.
Not many out there are searching for a real tracked IFV and have the money to buy a Puma.
We are late with so many european countries having bought CV90 versions in the last years.
They say that it withstands this in the maximum armored C version:
- 30mm AP frontally
- 14,5mm AP all around
- handheld AT weapons like RPG-7 frontally and on the sides
- artillery fragments all around and on the top
- bomblets on the top
- EFP mines and heavy blast mines
There are two fire surpression systems for the crew cabin and the engine compartement.
It is NBC protected.
The question now is of you believe Rheinmetall.
I do, especially when I consider that just the modular add-on armor from A to C config weights 11,55 tons with the whole vehicle being 43 tons heavy in C config.
I do not think that Rheinmetall build it this heavy just for fun and it is said to be better protected on the sides than a Leo II.
That is pretty darn heavy for a IFV, does it lose any of it`s cross country performance in the C configuration.410 will be bought.
Most of them for the normal IFV role in our Panzergrenadier units and some for the FACs of our artillery units which are attached directly to the tank and mech inf units.
I do not believe we will buy any more units. There are no customers for the Puma I know of.
Not many out there are searching for a real tracked IFV and have the money to buy a Puma.
We are late with so many european countries having bought CV90 versions in the last years.
They say that it withstands this in the maximum armored C version:
- 30mm AP frontally
- 14,5mm AP all around
- handheld AT weapons like RPG-7 frontally and on the sides
- artillery fragments all around and on the top
- bomblets on the top
- EFP mines and heavy blast mines
There are two fire surpression systems for the crew cabin and the engine compartement.
It is NBC protected.
The question now is of you believe Rheinmetall.
I do, especially when I consider that just the modular add-on armor from A to C config weights 11,55 tons with the whole vehicle being 43 tons heavy in C config.
I do not think that Rheinmetall build it this heavy just for fun and it is said to be better protected on the sides than a Leo II.
It has a 800kw powerpack and tests showed that it is able to follow the Leo II evereywhere it goes and at the same speed.
And yes it it damn heavy but I think there is no other way to get the protection you need these days and it should be the best protected IFV today (And one of the most expensive ones).
And yes it it damn heavy but I think there is no other way to get the protection you need these days and it should be the best protected IFV today (And one of the most expensive ones).
Sounds like a good vehicle, in future are you guy`s possibly going to place a ADA weapons platform on it, also how much bigger in length and width is it over the Marder series.
Marder:
- length 6,79m
- breadth 3,24m
- height 2,86m
Puma:
- length 6,50m
- breadth 3,25m
- height 1,91 (The turret is unmanned)
The Puma is build up modular and is already prepared for integration of active and passive protection systems.
And Diehl just recently successfull finished tests of their new APS against ATGMs.
So there is the chance for an APS being installed in the future and they announced that they plan to do so in the future.
But with our budget I wouldn't be surprised if this plan gets scrapped.
- length 6,79m
- breadth 3,24m
- height 2,86m
Puma:
- length 6,50m
- breadth 3,25m
- height 1,91 (The turret is unmanned)
The Puma is build up modular and is already prepared for integration of active and passive protection systems.
And Diehl just recently successfull finished tests of their new APS against ATGMs.
So there is the chance for an APS being installed in the future and they announced that they plan to do so in the future.
But with our budget I wouldn't be surprised if this plan gets scrapped.
From my point of view, the Pume does look look the best new AFV on the market... or it WILL be as soon as they mount an ATGM on it.
I wonder what it would take for America to develop an APC that could keep up with the M-1? Its not just a matter of speed, but also of suspension. That big, heavy tank can slam through terrain without beating it's crew to death, and Bradleys cannot hope to keep pace.
The Leo 2 seemed to be a great vehicle for other roles, since that is huge turret with vertical sides. I would move the engine forward, since rear doors are an absolute requirment for a good APC.
I wonder what it would take for America to develop an APC that could keep up with the M-1? Its not just a matter of speed, but also of suspension. That big, heavy tank can slam through terrain without beating it's crew to death, and Bradleys cannot hope to keep pace.
The Leo 2 seemed to be a great vehicle for other roles, since that is huge turret with vertical sides. I would move the engine forward, since rear doors are an absolute requirment for a good APC.
How would you use a vehicle as big as a LEO hull on the modern battlefield.
The Space you get by removing the Leo II turret is not much more or less than on the Abrams or Challi II. (BTW the turret of a Leo is smaller than an Abrams turret)
And if you want to put the engine to the front and get a new unmanned turret as well as the whole conversion to an IFV you could also design a totally new IFV like the Puma with all the new materials and knowledge and without all the compromises you get when converting a MBT hull.
There are enough possible other roles for surplus Leo II hulls (Besides the fact that our standard Leopard IIA4 sell very good) like AA vehicle, heavy FAC, bridgelayers, engineering vehicles, etc.
We thought about using surplus Leo IIs for the FAC role some time ago. In my eyes this would have been a good and cheap decision.
The implemented FACs in our mech companies are one of the prime targets if the enemy is not dumb and they deserve the best protection they can get.
But the Puma should also work well in this role.
As to the ATGM. It is a race between MILAN ER and Eurospike (This is the israeli Spike ER build and sold in europe) for the new ATGM in service with the Bundeswehr. We should know more early this year.
But in the end you should be able to put every ATGM onto the Puma you want as a customer.
And if you want to put the engine to the front and get a new unmanned turret as well as the whole conversion to an IFV you could also design a totally new IFV like the Puma with all the new materials and knowledge and without all the compromises you get when converting a MBT hull.
There are enough possible other roles for surplus Leo II hulls (Besides the fact that our standard Leopard IIA4 sell very good) like AA vehicle, heavy FAC, bridgelayers, engineering vehicles, etc.
We thought about using surplus Leo IIs for the FAC role some time ago. In my eyes this would have been a good and cheap decision.
The implemented FACs in our mech companies are one of the prime targets if the enemy is not dumb and they deserve the best protection they can get.
But the Puma should also work well in this role.
As to the ATGM. It is a race between MILAN ER and Eurospike (This is the israeli Spike ER build and sold in europe) for the new ATGM in service with the Bundeswehr. We should know more early this year.
But in the end you should be able to put every ATGM onto the Puma you want as a customer.
No disrespect intended to any body, but I just do not see the feaseability of using tank hulls as infantry haulers.