Western support-tank?
- Thread starter Rythm
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #42
Miscommunications solved. Back on topic 
).
The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".
The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.
Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.
---
And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.
I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.
Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?
As I said, im more interested in a proof-of-concept at this stage. However, the Namera comes with a pricetag of merely 700K $. Granted, with the modifications i prosed so far that price would quickly jump up, but still stay within an acceptable price-range (at least for me
).The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".
The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.
Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.
---
And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.
I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.
Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?
Thats really nice that you and Waylander have cleared your mis communication issueMiscommunications solved. Back on topic
As I said, im more interested in a proof-of-concept at this stage. However, the Namera comes with a pricetag of merely 700K $. Granted, with the modifications i prosed so far that price would quickly jump up, but still stay within an acceptable price-range (at least for me
The weight wouldnt be that high. A Puma "C" weighs in at 42t, A M-1A2 SEP TUSK at 69t. The propsed vehicle would come in somewhere between these. Since it mainly would be used in MOUT and thereby mainly be used on roads or hard-packed surfaces i dont see a direct problem there either. Of course, traversing bridges and similar would be a problem on most occasions, but same goes for tanks and to a lesser extent a Puma "C".
The width of the vehicles are similar as goes hight of them. Both the Puma "C" and Leo 2A4 are 3,7m wide and the Namera is 3,72. Height is a mere 2,35 for the namera, and 3m for both Puma "A" and Leopard 2A5 (turretroof on all). So size wouldnt be an issue when comparing these vehicles in their current version. Granted, a Namera with proper weaponry would be higher.
Weapons mounts.Yes i understand your position on this, and it is indeed a tricky one. But as i said earlier: if one would use the turret of the Puma and then mount the AGL in a tightly designed RWS and place it on the foredeck (on the engine basicly) this would still allow the mainturret to traverse 360 degrees with lesser downward angle at 12 o'clock, at the same time allowing the AGL to bear fire at about 140-190 degrees to the front. A much smaller RWS with a MG (like the KMW FWT100 on the ARV Büffel) on the back would cover the rear area in a nice way without restricting the mainturret too much. Or as you mentioned waylander, fire it thru a backdoor firingport.
---
And yes, i really really want more armour than Puma "C" gives. What if one would encounter a S-60 mounted on a truck, that would ruin the Puma-crews day pretty much.
I mean we all know (or should know) why MBTs arent prefered in Urban warfare, yet the israelis and russians both came to the conclusion that you need MBT-level armour in MOUT. Arguebly these nations have the most experience of MOUT presently. I think its important to explore further the reasons and solutions they had instead of rely on expreinces gained long ago. Battlefields change over time after all. And while its true that one shouldnt disregard old truths, one shouldnt be hesistant to explore new angles either.
Also, while you are quite right that the proposed vehicle is a can-do-all-but-fly like the original Marder, the Israelis have had mutliple RWS on several vehicles for quite some time now. Obviously they came to a different conclusion based on their experiences in the 80s and 90s, than the germans did in the 60s. What are the differences made that so drastically changed the two solutions?
Heres a little tid bit for you, the M1A2 SEP Tusk weighs in alot heavier than what you have stated. Stock M1A2 SEP is at 69 tons.
Last edited:
Ask yourself just how likely that is though - that would be a big truck (a S-60 weighs 4.6 tons dry), and your forces should have at least enough in previous intelligence reports to make this a prime artillery/airstrike target.
The Puma C armour is armoured well enough against about anything possibly encountered short of a HACV, MBT or dedicated tank hunter.
Here is a picture of a Marder 1A1 with the RWS MG on the back deck, btw.
Development of Marder 1:
- A0 - original model; weight 28.2 tons (MLC30); main armament 20mm, coaxial 7.62mm, RWS 7.62mm, two ball firing port mounts for troops each side
- A0 (no mod number) - Milan ATGM added; troops reduced by one to 6 for 4 reserve ATGMs
- A1 - dual feed for 20mm gun
- A1A - A1 with nightfighting capability (IR system)
- A2 - new IR system for Milan and gunner, new comm system, RWS removed
- A3 - uparmored, weight 33.5 tons (MLC37); side stow baskets, firing ports removed, coaxial MG moved to other side of turret; two top hatches covered
- A4 - command version, different comm system
- A5 - uparmored, weight 37.4 tons (MLC42); internal and external rearrangements; improved cooling system, improved drive gear.
For comparison of MLC: Puma is MLC48. This is a somewhat important number, as, outside of the German "main lines", ie in rural areas, a lot of small bridges are laid out for maximum MLC50 (stemming from building during the times when M47/M48 were the standard tanks in the Bundeswehr).
Err, depends on the tons.
Stock M1A2 SEP weighs 69.54 short tons, ie ~139,000 lbs, ie 63.1 metric tons.
... and no, that's not the M1A1, before anyone starts. The baseline M1A1 weighed 130,800 lbs.
Err - that would depend on the combat load layout, the amount of heat rds versus sabot. M1A1 would weigh in at 67 (metric) tons with traditional combat load layout.
Last edited:
Add 2 metric tons, if going with the belly armor package then you need to add 1.5 additional metric tons on top of the 2 metric tons.
Streets tend to be not that stable when one has to deal with streets in less developed countries. And one of the reasons why traditional tanks are not that well liked in urban warfare scenarios is not only because of their focussing on frontal armor, comparable small gun elevation and less usefull weapons package but also because they tend to have problems with streets and bridges. Raising the weight above MLC50 (With the proposed armor even more) is not going to solve these problems. The Puma is already a heavy beast.
If you have a really heavy MOUT vehicle instead one can't decide to send it in where tanks can't go because it weighs nearly the same.
Nobody wants to put a RWS in front of the turret. The resulting restriction in downward angle is going to bite you in the a** when you are in a hull down position.
I can maybe live with the idea of a port for a RWS with a GPMG on the backdeck which can be added if an urban operation is planned.
The problem is that a RWS with a HMG or AGL is going to be bigger. Compare a GMW with a MG3.
And IMHO such an RWS is going to be too big and is going to restrict the turret in backwards directed operations too much.
The Grenadiers were happy when the MG3 on the Marder disappeared. The controls were too big for the already very crouched interior.
The possibility of encountering a s-60 or something like that has already been adressed well by Kato. Protection against RPGs, middle calibre weapons, mines/IEDs and artillery shrapnel has to be enough. Add to this passive and active protection systems against ATGMs and IMHO you have as much protection as one needs.
The Israelis also use modified M113s. One can hardly name this MBT like protection.
And the russians had two possible solutions to their problems.
Their BMPs are just too lightly armored for MOUT.
So they could desing a whole new vehicle or use existing hulls for one.
With the financial problems of the russian army there remained only one solution...
The Israelis have always been some kind of special. They never fielded some kind of IFV but only (H)APCs.
A big part of the answer to this is also money. Fielding an APC (Even when modified and upgraded) is still much cheaper than fielding an advanced IFV.
You can see this in the discussion about the Namera being already too expensive. If 750.000$ scratches the limit of your budget one doesn't even need to think about fielding a modern IFV.
Fielding other modern equipment like tanks, fighters, etc. has always been a bigger priority than this.
Just the wrong smiley or was this ironic?Thats really nice that you and Waylander have cleared your mis communication issue
Wrong smiley, motor skills suck without that first cup of java.