Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

This is a discussion on T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger) within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; T-155 FIRTINA ; Pzh-2000 Main weapon: 155 mm ; 155 mm Calibre: 39/52 ; 52 Battle weight: 47 tons ; ...


View Poll Results: T-155 vs Pzh-2000
T-155 (Turkey) 30 71.43%
Pzh-2000 (Germany) 12 28.57%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old August 26th, 2005   #1
Defense Aficionado
Major General
[TR]AHMET's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: TURKEY
Posts: 2,228
Threads:
T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

T-155 FIRTINA ; Pzh-2000

Main weapon: 155 mm ; 155 mm
Calibre: 39/52 ; 52
Battle weight: 47 tons ; 55.3 tons
Vehicle length: 7.44 m ; 7.90 m
Overall length: 12 m ; 11.67 m
Widht: 3.4 m ; 3.6 m
Height: 3 m ; 3.1 m
Number of ammo carried: 48 ; 60
Max. range of fire: 40 km ; 40 km
Rate of fire: 3/12 seconds ; 3/10 seconds
Max. rate of fire: 8/minute ; 10/minute (for a duration of 3 minutes)
Continuous rate of fire: 16/3 minutes ; 20/3 minutes
Max. speed: 65 km/hour ; 60 km/hour
Cruising range: 500 km ; 420 km
Inclination capability (straight): 60% ; 60%
Inclination capability (sideways): 30% ; 30%
Obstacle pass: 0.75 m ; 1 m
Trench pass: 2.8 m ; 3 m
Water pass: 1.5 m ; 1.5 m
Powerpack: 1000 HP MTU (German) diesel ; 1000 HP MTU (German) diesel
Transmission: Renk HSWL 284 C ; Renk HSWL 284 C
Fire control system: ASELSAN ; ?
Infrared Sighting: ? ; Yes
Elevation: -5 + 65 ; -2.5 + 65
Horizontal turret rotation: 360 degrees ; 360 degrees
Secondary weapon: 12.7 mm/7.62 mm ; 7.62 mm
Power to weight ratio: 21 ; 18
Fuel intake: 1100 lt. ; 1000 lt.
Fuel consumption: ? ; 2.4 lt/km
Secondary-engine: Yes ; No
Number of crew: 4 ; 5
Ammo initial speed detection: Yes ; Yes
Reload system: Automatic ; Automatic
Navigation system: INS/GPS ; GPS
Automatic cannon relay system: Yes ; Yes
NBC protection: Yes ; Yes
Armor: ? ; 14.5 mm armor protection from all directions except the top and a good top protection.


please vote


T-155 FIRTINA
http://www.turkish-defence.com/album...155_rd15_2.jpg

Pzh2000
http://www.gxu.edu.cn/nfjs/list/d/pic/0211_0815.jpg

Last edited by [TR]AHMET; August 26th, 2005 at 05:10 AM.
[TR]AHMET is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2005   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

I would be interested to hear, why someone votes for the Firtina (or why someone votes at all...explanations please! ).
Actually that SPH is a copy of the korean K-9 SPH, featuring a turkish FCS. The Firtina is inferior in terms of firepower, off-road-movement and has a significantly lower ammo supply. In comparison and most importantly the Pzh 2000 offers much greater firepower, firing twelve shots in one minute and 20 rounds in about two minutes, as was demonstrated in live firing tests back in 1997 (see army-technology.com).
Also please note that the Turkish government was initially interested in getting a license production of the Pzh 2000. Only when their request was turned down, they decided to go for the K-9. Why would you do that...

Last edited by turin; August 26th, 2005 at 03:10 PM.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 196
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by turin
I would be interested to hear, why someone votes for the Firtina (or why someone votes at all...explanations please! ).
Actually that SPH is a copy of the korean K-9 SPH, featuring a turkish FCS. The Firtina is inferior in terms of firepower, off-road-movement and has a significantly lower ammo supply. In comparison and most importantly the Pzh 2000 offers much greater firepower, firing twelve shots in one minute and 20 rounds in about two minutes, as was demonstrated in live firing tests back in 1997 (see army-technology.com).
Also please note that the Turkish government was initially interested in getting a license production of the Pzh 2000. Only when their request was turned down, they decided to go for the K-9. Why would you do that...
Ahh there you are. I was wondering where you meandered off to, Turin . Based on the above, its obvious that the PzH2000 is tops. Incidentally, we just rolled out a small little SPH ourselves - Primus (link here: http://www.dsta.gov.sg/home/DisplayP...10.asp?id=1963). Kind enough to do a little write up on it? I do myself except that I rather not fall into a chest-thumping mine's-bigger-than-yours slugfest .

cheers,
driftder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #4
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 25
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

6:3 for the turkish gun...
why?
pzh has way better electronic systems, mobility(i dont mean vmax) , more accurate and has a higher firepower
but i like the agm more
http://kmweg.websolution21.de/produkte/agm.jpg
ger_mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ger_mark
6:3 for the turkish gun...
why?
pzh has way better electronic systems,
Evidence for that claim?

Quote:
mobility(i dont mean vmax)
The stats given in this thread say clearly otherwise. Check obstacle and trench crossing capabilities which are, though minimal, in favour of the german SPH.
Quote:
, more accurate
Same here: Some evidence available?

Quote:
and has a higher firepower
Erhm? The german gun has a significantly higher firepower. See my comments about that in my post above.

Quote:
but i like the agm more
http://kmweg.websolution21.de/produkte/agm.jpg
The AGM looks to be a viable concept. However it is not considered as a full replacemnt for more conventional SPH. The idea of KMW for the german army is something like this: Pzh2k for home defense and full scale deployments, requiring a longer time until reaching the theater of operation. AGM for rapid response forces, employing airlift by A400M, the future mainstay of german and european airlift capabilites.

@Driftder:

Interesting find. I wasnt aware of Primus before. Well, based on the information given, I think its supposed to be a blend of light weight, mobility and firepower. The light combat weight should grant a quick deployment. All in all I guess, its comparable to the AGM-concept, although the Primus clearly predates the german counterpart . However, the employment of a Pzh2k-module on the AGM allows for better firing performance, while the Primus retains more characteristics of a traditional SPH which may result in slightly better protection (although the protection of most SPH is rather limited anyway). As far as mobility goes, I cant really say wether its better compared to the AGM or not, since I dont know about the exact performance of the latter.
Still I think, its a good product, especially considering Singapores past as a country dependent almost completely on foreign equipment. Maybe you should consider replacement of the main gun in favor of a 52 cal.-gun. That should allow for considerable improvement in the most critical field.

Last edited by turin; September 5th, 2005 at 10:27 AM.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #6
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 25
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

we never sell the best systems they always a bit worse
k9 itself is in many parts a copy of pzh2000
and thats why the reichtag had to approve the turkish license to get them
ger_mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ger_mark
we never sell the best systems they always a bit worse
k9 itself is in many parts a copy of pzh2000
and thats why the reichtag had to approve the turkish license to get them
You better start substantiate your claims with some serious background information! The K-9 in many parts a copy of Pzh2? Amusing. The only thing they have in common is the use of an MTU-engine, and even there they are using different models. The Pzh2k uses a MTU MT883, the K-9 a MT881. The engines are mated to completely different transmissions. There are massive differences in crew layout, see positions of commander and gunner. In the K-9 the engine is in front and to the right of the driver, in the german SPH its the other way around. In the K-9 ammunition is stored in the turret, in the Pzh2k its stored below the turret. These are important design elements, your copy-claim is simply unsustainable.

Also your logic is confusing: you claim, that Germany is never selling the best systems abroad, which in itself is unsustainable, just see the spanish and hellenic MBT Leo2A6 being more advanced than the german ones.
Yet you stated before, that the turkish SPH is better in critical aspects than the german one. How might that be possible if its just a copy of an (inferior) copy?!

Oh yeah, sources for my claims: see the usual sites, army-technology (already posted) and global-security. Most issues are recognizable from simple photos anyways.
Since you are German, you may find all the information in essence on www.waffen-der-welt.de as well.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
tatra's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 823
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

In addition to the KMWEG PzH-2000, there is its little brother, the "Artillerie Geschütz Modul“ (Artillery Gun Module, AGM). Same gun (155mm/52), smaller crew, uses surplus MLRS chassis (Bradley Systems carrier)...

http://kmweg.websolution21.de/produkte/agm.jpg

Caliber 155/52 mm
Range > 40 km
Rate of Fire 6.8 rounds/min
Module weight ca. 12,5 t
Crew 2 Men outside of the firingmodule
Protection Crewcabin: Level 3

[edit: noted AGM already introduced to discussion, oops]
NB: about rapid deployment, AGM is not particularly light, about same as M109
________________
Trans corpus mortuum (and I mean that!)

Last edited by tatra; September 5th, 2005 at 03:50 PM.
tatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5th, 2005   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tatra
NB: about rapid deployment, AGM is not particularly light, about same as M109
Thats somewhat a matter of perspective. For the german army this is quite an issue, since it may need a system with the characteristics of a SPH, i.e. no FH, that is light enough to be transportable in an A400M. The Pzh 2000 is way too heavy for that and the old M-109G are being phased out now. Also the M-109 offers much lower performance. Therefore a modern system with characteristics close or identical to a Pzh 2000 is desirable and additionally it has to be fully ready for airlift. Since Germany in the foreseeable future will not have significiant heavy airlift capabilities (although the leasing of six AN-124 within the NRF-Plan might ease these issues), this is where AGM comes in.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2005   #10
Defense Aficionado
Major General
aaaditya's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: india
Posts: 2,362
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

hey guns i would like to know wether these two artillery guns are capable of firing illumination and tracer rounds,if so what is the purpose of the tracer round is it another type of illumination round?
________________
howdy guys
aaaditya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2005   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaaditya
hey guns i would like to know wether these two artillery guns are capable of firing illumination and tracer rounds,if so what is the purpose of the tracer round is it another type of illumination round?
Of course the Pzh 2000 is able to fire illumination rounds. And I dont see, why the Firtina should not This is one of the very basic requirements for artillery. Also its not real a technical issue since conventional ammunition types in 155 mm NATO are more or less one family of ammo (esp. propellants) and therefore compatible. It may be different with certain types of extended range ammunition, since these rounds use different propellants.

I dont know about these tracer rounds. I was with german artillery during my time of service and we never used something like this in life firing exercises. I am not sure what use it would be. Tracer rounds are useful for direct fire on the enemy since it allows visual targeting for assisting units. But with indirect fire, esp. over the distances employed by artillery I dont see the purpose.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6th, 2005   #12
Defense Aficionado
Major General
aaaditya's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: india
Posts: 2,362
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

[QUOTE=turin]Of course the Pzh 2000 is able to fire illumination rounds. And I dont see, why the Firtina should not This is one of the very basic requirements for artillery. Also its not real a technical issue since conventional ammunition types in 155 mm NATO are more or less one family of ammo (esp. propellants) and therefore compatible. It may be different with certain types of extended range ammunition, since these rounds use different propellants.

I dont know about these tracer rounds. I was with german artillery during my time of service and we never used something like this in life firing exercises. I am not sure what use it would be. Tracer rounds are useful for direct fire on the enemy since it allows visual targeting for assisting units. But with indirect fire, esp. over the distances employed by artillery I dont see the purpose.[/Q

what is the maximum firing range of both the guns?can they use the south african assegai range of ammunitions and the bofors bonus and excalibut rounds?i believe the germans were quite interested in the assegai range of ammunition.
________________
howdy guys
aaaditya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7th, 2005   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

The range of both guns is stated as being 40 km. Pzh 2000 demonstrated in firing trials a maximum range of about 42 km. This result was achieved by using the mentioned Assegai VLAP. I dont know about the Bofors and Excalibur rounds, I dont recall the Pzh2k using them. However there is a number of other ER-rounds, that can be used with the system as well, most notably Rheinmetall ER-rounds RH40 (identical in range to Assegai) and ERFB-rounds (slightly inferior). Assegai was quite an accomplishment at the time of its introduction and thats why the Pzh demonstrated the use of these rounds shortly after. Now however there are german ammunition types with similar performance (the mentioned RH-round) given priority, understandably.

I guess since for the Firtina the same range is given, it should be able to fire most or all of these rounds as well.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2005   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 196
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Quote:
Originally Posted by turin
......

@Driftder:

Interesting find. I wasnt aware of Primus before. Well, based on the information given, I think its supposed to be a blend of light weight, mobility and firepower. The light combat weight should grant a quick deployment. All in all I guess, its comparable to the AGM-concept, although the Primus clearly predates the german counterpart . However, the employment of a Pzh2k-module on the AGM allows for better firing performance, while the Primus retains more characteristics of a traditional SPH which may result in slightly better protection (although the protection of most SPH is rather limited anyway). As far as mobility goes, I cant really say wether its better compared to the AGM or not, since I dont know about the exact performance of the latter.
Still I think, its a good product, especially considering Singapores past as a country dependent almost completely on foreign equipment. Maybe you should consider replacement of the main gun in favor of a 52 cal.-gun. That should allow for considerable improvement in the most critical field.
Well here's some tech specs on it at this link: http://www.one35th.com/bionix/sph155_spec.htm. As for me I wasn't aware that your side had a air mobile version of the Pzh2000. Looks mean - got a automatic reloader at the back too, right?

As for the 52 cal, we wish too - give us a longer reach up to 40-50 km but with the Primus being so light, think it might get flipped over. Be embarassing to have a SPH that goes turtle when we need it .

BTW where to get more info on your AGM? Looks interesting.
driftder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2005   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
turin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 511
Threads:
Re: T-155 FIRTINA (TR) vs Pzh-2000 (Ger)

Information on the AGM is very limited. As far as I know, there is only one demonstrator and that one has been developed by KMW purely as a proposal to the German Army (i.e. no requirement has been issued). Therefore as of now there is no decision on what will happen to AGM. KMW already said that they will continue work on the project, but without firm interest on behalf of the army this may change, of course. There is definitely a requirement since currently large parts of the Bundeswehr are being transformed with the primary mission of crisis reaction forces in mind, and that means to have an ability of quick deployment.
As for the data: yes, it has an automatic loader and a crew of only two. It can use a tracked (MLRS) or wheeled basis, the only important system needed is the module itself. Unfortunately further information I am aware of is in german only and even that is not really much.

Last edited by turin; September 8th, 2005 at 04:21 PM.
turin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM.