My research into vehicles + suggestions

Vehicles

Wiesel 1 MILAN

Screenshot 2024-12-12 222748
(wiesel document on pc)

Wiesel 1 ATM HOT

HOT-1,2,3 + M2HB 12.7mm HMG
image
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/wiesel-1-hot-atm-the-3-in-1-tank-destroyer/131780 - Google Zoeken

Wiesel 1 Twin HOT

image

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/wiesel-1-hot-atm-the-3-in-1-tank-destroyer/131780 - Google Zoeken

Wiesel 1 RMK-30/Wiesel 1 RMK-30 + HOT

Germany Ground Tech Tree
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/wiesel-1-hot-atm-the-3-in-1-tank-destroyer/131780 - Google Zoeken

E-25

Entwicklungsfahrzeug 25 (E 25) - Tank Encyclopedia

Panther G? (GT101)

German Jet Engine And Gas Turbine Development, 1930 45

pages

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image


VK 16.02 Leopard

VK 16.02 Leopard - Wikipedia

VK 30.02D

image
french turret


german (rheinmetall) turret
Пантерьи предки | Warspot.ru
VK30.01(D) and VK30.02(M) - Panther Prototypes - Tank Encyclopedia

Spz 1C


image

Spähpanzer 1C - Tank Encyclopedia
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/1czqix1/history_german_light_tanks/

source for gun
image

leopard 1 prototype (standardpanzer)

Postwar German Experimental tanks | Secret Projects Forum
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/lyn0km/leopard_1_prototype_early_1960s/

Проект Standardpanzer. Прототипы танка Leopard 1 - Альтернативная История

Каким мог стать немецкий ОБТ "Леопард" - Альтернативная История

Prototype of the future German “Leopard 1” from Rheinmetall, with a 90mm cannon and hydropneumatic suspension.

image
Also i found some interesting photo of standardpanzer (proto leopard 1) :
Group A by Porsche
90 mm
0-standardpanzer-01
105 mm
0-standardpanzer-02
Group B by Rheinmetall
0-standardpanzer-03
0-standardpanzer-04-788x495
with different gidropneumatic
Group C by borgward:
0-standardpanzer-05

And also leopard 1 prototype serie 2
0-standardpanzer-06-788x517

M-48 mit Leopard 2 turm

ладно с этим разобрались, а это что за тевтонский гений сделал…
image
image
image

Leopard 2 AWISS

image
image
image




DE19644524A1.zip (373.2 KB)
https://defense-update.com/20040121_awiss.html
https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1457-sh_mm-tells-us-about-ngp-which-was-sort-of-but-not-really-like-armata/
Amazon.de – Pages 87-92 contain a sub-chapter on the NGP, while the EGS is mentioned on the pages 180-182.

Leopard 2A5 MUSS

Леопард 2А5 МУСС - Передано разработчикам - War Thunder — официальный форум


image
Source:

https://defense-update.com/20060815_muss.html

Proposal:

With the 2A5 PSO added next patch this version of the Leopard 2 could prove a unique addition as well as testing and refinement of the MUSS APS defense system.

Leopard mit autoloader
leopard 1 T19

German prototype Leopard 2 turret on a Leopard 1 hull. The Versuchsträger Mit Turm T19. From what I have been able to find it was a modified 2AV turret used as a testbed for a bustle auto loader. The 120mm gun is missing the thermal sleeve and fume extractor.

image


Running model of the test vehicle with the T 19 (Leopard 2 AV) turret, in which the Rheinmetall / Wegmann & Co automatic loader was installed for dynamic testing in 1983.

Leopard 2 140 (T19)

KWS I focused on the installation of a 120mm L/55 gun and the use of new, advanced ammunition (with muzzle velocity of up to 1800 m/s)
KWS II focused on additional armor (both turret and hull), crew protection systems and advanced battlefield electronics
KWS III focused on the then-developed 140mm gun to replace the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore and the integration of the IFIS system from the Leopard 2 IVT phase

СТАЛЬ И ОГОНЬ: СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫЕ ТАНКИ: Из истории танкостроения ФРГ.

file:///C:/Users/DELL/Desktop/hobby%20projects/PDFs/345212317-Leopard-2-En.pdf

Leopard 3 (VT-1-1)

image
image
image

file:///C:/Users/DELL/Desktop/hobby%20projects/PDFs/345212317-Leopard-2-En.pdf

Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 Tanks

https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1527-the-leopard-2-thread/page/42/

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://esut.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Rheinmetall-Kompaktlader-aus-dem-Jahr-1983.jpg&imgrefurl=https://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1527-the-leopard-2-thread/page/42/&tbnid=f9RcV95J1zsr8M&vet=1&docid=poJ56w4Oebep0M&w=1358&h=948&source=sh/x/im

West German cold war KMW Leopard 2 MBT (1978

https://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/horned-tank-leopard-3

Leopard 2 prototypes | Secret Projects Forum

PT20/T21 leopard - Google Zoeken

Amazon.com

Танки Германии

Leopard 3 ← this leopard 3 is different from the older leopard 3 project

many tanks have been put up for the leopard 3 title, even the KF-51 Panther, whether officially by the companies or by news outlets, calling many a tank the successor of the famed leopard 2, but as of now, no one solution has taken the name for sure. hopes lie on the MGCS for now. lets see what becomes of that, however, lets introduce a competitor who lost the title for Leopard 3.

text from post 0

The tank, which was supposed to replace the Leopard 2. The tank had two versions - VT-1-1 (photo 3-4) (with two 105mm guns) and VT-1-2 (photo 1-2) (with two 120mm guns), and the VT-1-1 had both barrels automatically loaded, while the VT-1-2 had one gun loaded manually. The tanks also differed in engine power - the VT-1-1 had a 2000 hp engine, and the VT-1-2 had a 2200 hp engine.

text from post 1

Today we will talk about completely perverted German fantasies, namely about the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks, or as they were also called “Leopard 3” (not to be confused with the future MBT). It was in the early 70s, with the MBT-70 project things somehow did not work out right away, they did not share the gun, engine and other units. But a new main battle tank was still needed. And it was very necessary, since tankers somehow did not particularly show a desire to fight on spotted cats 1 against the new-fangled Soviet T-64. All Western military personnel were shocked by the sixty-fours.

As a result, the Germans continued working on a new tank with a standard layout. But there were some particularly clever ones, like engineer Wolfgang Matos, who headed his own project for a new tank. He considered the standard layout to be obsolete and did not particularly believe in the prospects of the Leopard being developed in a neighboring project. As a result, they developed a new tank with a turretless layout. And apparently they thought then that one gun is good, but two are better. Therefore, they stuffed two guns into both prototypes, on the left and right sides of the vehicle. The guns were aimed vertically using a drive, and horizontally by turning the hull. At a range of 1.5 km, the axes of the guns intersected.

The first prototype VT1-1 was equipped with two well-known English L7 guns. Each gun was equipped with an automatic loading system, a trend of the time, and still cool today. The second prototype VT1-2 was even more terrifying: it carried two 120mm Rh 120 guns, one with automatic loading, the second with manual, because the gloomy genius was unable to make a mirror copy of the AZ. Both vehicles were equipped with a PERI R12 sight, which was borrowed from a neighboring project. When firing while standing, the vehicle showed better results compared to turret tanks. But firing on the move became a problem, although this was clear even at the sketch stage. The tank could not aim normally on the move in the horizontal plane, when firing, the vehicle rocked and skidded strongly, the trajectory of movement changed, it was difficult for the driver to control the equipment in such conditions.

In terms of mobility, everything was fine. The vehicles inherited the chassis from the KPz-70 with hydropneumatic suspension, but the hull was shortened and one support roller was removed. A 1,500-horsepower engine was used as a power plant, yes, again taken from a neighboring project. The engine was initially boosted to 2,000 hp and installed on the VT1-1. And on the VT1-2 it was boosted even more, reaching a power of 2,200 hp. The mass of the vehicle was 38-40 tons, which, combined with such powerful engines, gave an incredible 53 hp/t. Modern MBTs, and what’s more, even light tanks smoke on the sidelines. Therefore, the vehicle was very mobile.

The crew consisted of 3 people: commander, gunner and driver. The driver was located in the center at the front of the hull. Behind him were the commander and gunner, to the left of the tank’s axis. The armor was not seriously considered, the Germans still believed that “barnya nenadka!” and relied on firepower and mobility, let me remind you, 2 guns with an automatic loader and 53 horses per ton. Experimental models were made of regular steel, not armored steel, which saved weight. A real tank would have weighed 2-4 tons more. After a lull, in the 80s the project was revisited and several more GVT prototypes were made, on which the guns were moved closer to the center and the internal layout was changed, on some variants the chassis was lengthened.

From 1972 to 1976, the VT1 underwent a test cycle. During this time, they drove many kilometers, fired a lot of shots, etc. As a result, it was impossible to shoot normally on the move, the layout was strange, the neighboring project showed good results. Later, the spotted cat two was born, and the military came to the conclusion that why the hell do we need this, it is better to modernize the Leopard 2. Therefore, the Leopard 3 project was abandoned. In the 80s, they returned to the project again, tested the GVT and eventually closed the project completely and decided to improve the Leopard 2, and thank God. But the double-barreled tank was developed as a promising replacement for the Leopard 2.

text from post 2

Experimental two-gun tank VT1

In the early 1970s, the MaK (Maschinenbau Kiel) company began to consider the prospects of modern tanks on its own initiative. It was assumed that the vehicle being developed, designated VT1 (German: Versuchstrager 1 - test model), would be ready by the time its “peer” Leopard 2 began to become obsolete.

During the analysis of the existing designs, MaK analysts and engineers came to the conclusion that the existing tank layout with a rotating turret and only one gun was no longer capable of providing the necessary firepower. In addition, the success of the Swedish turretless Strv 103 tank, which managed to combine sufficient firepower (105-mm gun) with good performance, maneuverability and protection, had an effect.

True, the rigid fastening of the gun required a significantly more complicated suspension: vertical aiming was carried out by skewing the entire hull. German engineers decided to adopt the idea of ​​a tank without a turret, but at the same time not to be clever with the aiming of the gun. At the same time, a group of engineers led by Wolfgang Matos came to the conclusion that it was necessary to install two guns on the prospective tank at once. According to the designers, it was not possible to achieve a significant increase in combat qualities by other means.

The experimental MBT-70 tank was chosen as the basis for the new experimental design. This armored vehicle was not suitable for serial production, but was attractive for use in experimental work on the VT1 topic. In accordance with the turretless layout of the future tank, the chassis was shortened, due to which instead of six road wheels per side there were only five.

The hydropneumatic suspension was modified accordingly. The MBT-70 tank’s native Continental AVCR-1100-3 diesel engine was replaced by an MB 873 Ra-500 diesel engine. The new engine could operate continuously, producing one and a half thousand horsepower, and “accelerate” to 2175 hp in a short time.

At the same time, in emergency mode, the 38-ton tank had a specific power of over 50 hp per ton of weight. This is approximately twice as high as most modern tanks. One of the reasons for the high specific power was the comparatively low weight of the structure. Given the experimental nature of the project, MaK engineers made experimental tanks not from special armor steel, but from lighter “regular” grades. In this way, about 2-4 tons of weight were saved. An armored cabin was installed on the modified chassis of the MBT-70 tank. It is noteworthy that with a comparatively large internal volume, it did not have very large dimensions. The overall height of the VT1 was slightly more than two meters, which was more than 80 centimeters less than the original MBT-70.

In 1972, the assembly of the first prototypes of the VT1-1 tank was completed. The first example was equipped with two 105-mm rifled L7 guns. Both guns had automatic loaders.

The VT1-2 tank, in turn, received 120-mm smoothbore Rh-120 guns. However, only one gun was equipped with an automatic loader. The fact is that during the development of the new tank, the designers of Maschinenbau Kiel were unable to produce a mirror version of this unit. Therefore, one gun was loaded automatically, and the second was fed shells and cartridges by the crew manually. The design of the gun mounts on the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks is interesting. On both vehicles, the guns had the ability to only aim vertically. The guns did not move horizontally. In addition, they were installed with a small convergence angle: the aiming lines intersected at a distance of 1,500 meters.

Testing of the two prototypes continued until 1976. During this time, the tanks traveled thousands of kilometers across the testing ground and fired hundreds of shots. First of all, it became clear that the VT1-1, due to its very concept, was not capable of firing more or less accurately on the move. When firing from one gun, the recoil slightly turned the tank around the vertical axis, which had to be countered by turning the entire tank. This problem was only aggravated by the lack of sighting devices for the driver.

Only the commander and gunner had Carl Zeiss PERI R12 periscope sights. Naturally, in combination with the lack of horizontal aiming of the guns, this greatly complicated firing. In addition, the design strength limitations did not allow both guns to be fired simultaneously. Thus, the only way to somehow eliminate the tank turning during firing was “prohibited” by the design itself. It is noteworthy that on the above-mentioned Swedish Strv 103 tank, aiming was carried out by the driver. For this purpose, he had a sight and controls for the hull tilt.

Marder Evolution

AKA Marder CCV
AKA Marder IFV (Lance RCT)


image
image
image
image

Marder MICV

HVMS gun system
image

Marder with different engines

image
Installation of a Garrett GT 601 gas turbine on a running model based on the “Marder”.

Running prototype based on the “Marder” with diesel-electric drive since 1985.
СТАЛЬ И ОГОНЬ: СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВНЫЕ ТАНКИ: Из истории танкостроения ФРГ.

Char AMХ-30 with Garrett GT601 gas-turbine engine | Secret Projects Forum

^ also M-48 Super with GT601


Helicopters

Bo-105 PAH-1A2

image

[1.0] MBB Bo 105 & Airbus H135

Bo-105 LS A-3

image
image

P.277 Fledermaus

PAH-2: alternatives to and evolution of the Tiger attack helicopter | Secret Projects Forum
image

Status: Demonstration prototype


Aircraft

Alpha jet WTD-61

Alpha jet WTD 61

Project ROSE

rose mirage cockpit

VAK 191C

image

K-8NG

SPAA

Flakpanzer 341

https://youtu.be/ov1JJ72Xyvw

FlaRakRad (MAN 6x6)

image
Not needed strictly speaking but would be appreciated.
Could be added into the game at around 10.7 if VT-1 is removed.
(Exactly the same as the FlaRakRad)

M113 pr ANZA SAM aur 2 14.5mm type 75-1 HMG

image
image


https://youtu.be/ihM3U34RVnY?t=5639


SAMs

ANZA





Missiles

PARS 3 MR + separate suggestion for JPz Fuchs


https://youtu.be/K_7ELXO7nA8?si=cw0pqQ4TldYMBKpE


Systems

MAWS/LWR sensor pod for Bo-105


image
image
image

More Bo-105 loadout options - Germany - War Thunder - Official Forum

Gepard 1A2 (EOTS II upgrade)

image



Screenshot 2024-10-16 073350
Screenshot 2024-10-16 073409
Screenshot 2024-10-16 073446
Screenshot 2024-10-16 073459
https://youtu.be/ax2HOYHKKMI

downloaded video in case original dies

This movie shows a SPAAG GEPARD tracking a Banshee drone with a modified PUMA thermal weapon sight device (KMW trials 2008 at ADA Life Firing Range in Todendorf/Germany). At least the neighbor weapon system destroyed the drone with a STINGER missile. Kill-distance (German “ENTF” = Distance) round about 5300 meters.

plus gib FAPDS ammo (u have brochure in phone gallery)
*
695316501-EOTS-III-combat.zip (2.7 MB)

Wiesel 1A2 MEXAS armour package

7cb18d357c8ea0c4ef8fb37a6a322f10

3 Likes
Would you want to see this in game?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee


The race to Mach 5

Insert back story here

Technical Specifications

Launch weight: 82kg
Missile length: 2550 mm
Missile acceleration: 1445.5 m/s² (calculated from given information of flight performance)
Missile Thrust: 118.93956 kN (calculated from given information of flight performance)
Maximum speed: 1700m/s (Mach 5)
Maximum overload: 70G
Warhead mass: 11kg (dual purpose, Proximity and contact fuse for hard targets)
Maximum range: 16km

RM5 description

RM5 has the capability both to deal with low-flying helicopters and fixed-wing air- craft, and is compatible with modernised Roland fire units. The maintenance of a link between the missile and launcher is also said to give a high countermeasures resistance capability. The missile is approximately 2.55m long, with a diameter of 0.172m and a wingspan of 0.25m (0.35m maximum with the control fins deployed after launch). It carries an 11kg heavy-metal fragmenting warhead with a substantial kinetic energy effect, activated by a radar proximity fuse combining very low-altitude operations with small-target sensing capabilities. Guidance is semi- active, based on the use of an inertial plat- form and mid-course updates derived from the command link which correlates the target position with those of the two IR beacons in the tail of the missile. Terminal manoeuvring is effected aerodynamically, with load factors greater than 70G out to 8km, 45G out to 10km, and 25G at 12km, allowing interception of fast jets pulling
6G, or jinking at 9G at shorter ranges. Peak velocity is 1,600m/s, the missile’s speed remaining in excess of 1,000m/s between 5-10km. The effective range is from 1.5-12km (16km maximum), for a maximum ceiling of 8,000m. This is sufficient for interception of aircraft armed with stand-off weapons, and also gives an adequate overlap in range and altitude with medium-range ground-to-air systems. With the updated Roland’s reduced action time and the missile’s short time-of-flight, the manufacturers claim that the RM5 will be able to destroy a helicopter unmasking at 6km within 10s (time-of-flight 5.5s). The time-of-flight to 8km is put at 7.3s, rising to 10s to 10km, and 13s to 12km.

Extra information from websites

From Missilery info

The Roland Mach 5 (RM5) missile has increased immunity to electromagnetic and infrared interference and is capable of intercepting armoured helicopters, highly manoeuvrable support aircraft, and in some cases, RPVs, as well as cruise missiles. The RM5 missile is equipped with contact and proximity fuses and has a fragmentation warhead weighing 11 kg with heavy fragments having increased kinetic energy. The proximity fuse is adapted for firing at low altitude and is effective when operating against small-sized targets. The destructive effect of the warhead is complemented by the high kinetic energy of the missile in the event of a direct hit on the target. The RM5 has a powerful solid propellant rocket engine with an optimal (progressive) thrust profile, which makes it possible to intercept air targets at long distances and increase the likelihood of intercepting highly manoeuvrable targets at short range, starting from 1.5 km. The maximum flight speed is 1600 m/s, at a distance from 5 to 10 km - the average flight speed is 1000 m/s. Effective firing range - 12km, maximum range - 16km. The missile’s flight time is respectively: at a range of 8 km - 7 s, at a range of 10 km - 10 s, at a range of 12 km - 13 s. Maximum altitude reach 8000m. The missile operates under conditions of very high overloads: at a range of 8 km - 70 g, at a range of 10 km - 45 g, at a range of 12 km - 25 g.

From Forecast international

Roland RM-5. Aerospatiale, Matra, and Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm (MBB) had commenced a joint development program aimed at the design and production of a hypervelocity missile as part of a wide-ranging upgrade for the Roland air defence system. Development and production of the new missile, designated Roland RM-5, was expected to cost FRF1 billion ($180 million) over the next five years. Aerospatiale and MBB invited Matra to join their team based on the market studies that Matra had undertaken in 1988 regarding the feasibility of developing/producing a hypervelocity missile.

The program’s costs were to be evenly divided among the three companies, as were the development work, production, and profits. Aerospatiale was to have acted as the general coordinator of the program, but a steering committee, comprising executives from the three partners, was to supervise the program. The partners were committed to the preliminary design phase only.
This phase continued until mid-1991, at an estimated cost of FRF150 million ($25.95 million). The next key decision, on whether to launch full-scale development, came in late 1991 when Germany and France decided not to pursue this option.

The RM-5 was to be equipped with a dual-purpose warhead that produced dense, heavy, high-kinetic
energy fragments effective against hardened targets, plus a proximity fuse for very-low-altitude firings and the destruction of small targets. In addition, the agility of the missile (70 G at 8 km) was to have allowed it to intercept fast aircraft making evasive manoeuvres at 6 G or turns at 9 G. With a maximum range of 16 km, an effective range of 12 km, and maximum altitude of 8 km, the RM-5 was to provide the ability to engage aircraft carrying stand-off missiles before these weapons could be released.

The RM-5 was intended primarily for use with the new Glaive version of the Roland fire unit, which
Aerospatiale and MBB were developing through the joint venture firm Euromissile. The Glaive fire unit
consisted of an improved sight, with a new infrared optical sensor in addition to the radar and optronic
sensors of current versions. Its development, estimated at FRF600 million ($108.5 million), was being funded by the French and Federal German governments under a 1989 joint contract. The Glaive fire unit was scheduled to enter service in 1996.

Visual References

image
image
image

Screenshot 2024-05-21 215439

Sources
Would you like to see this in game?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

slogan

image

history header

history

Testing
Technical Specifications

Missile calibre:
Launch weight:
Missile weight:
Missile length:
Missile acceleration:
Missile Thrust:
Maximum speed:
Maximum overload:
Warhead weight:
Warhead penetration:
Maximum range:

Extra info here

image
look at this alpha jet pylon
now look at this Viper pylon
image
They’re the same pylon

Visual References

Screenshot 2024-11-22 092303
Screenshot 2024-11-22 092313


Screenshot_20241122_111136_Google

Sources

Screenshot 2024-07-25 172002

Screenshot 2024-07-25 172017
Screenshot 2024-07-25 172023

VAK 191B


Propulsion
The propulsion was provided by a Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.193-12 swivel jet engine and two Rolls-Royce RB.162-81 lift engines. The RB.193 lift/cruise engine was a two-shaft turbofan similar to the Bristol Siddeley Pegasus of the Kestrel/Harrier. It had four rotating side nozzles, which were adjusted by a Plessey pneumatic motor via cardan shafts and chains over a swivel range of 95 degrees. The air intake was optimized for cruising at Mach 0.92, but offered an additional opening for hovering and slow flight thanks to a movable front section. The two RB.162-81 lift engines were installed at a rearward incline of 12.5 degrees. In later versions, their jets were to be deflected by fuselage flaps.

Thrust and lift
The designers were convinced that this division between lift/thrust and lift engines represented the best compromise between the required take-off power and economical fuel consumption in high-speed flight. In terms of their arrangement, they offered positive ground effects, at least compared to a design with separate lift and thrust engines.

For control and stabilization in hover and transition flight, air was taken from all engines and blown out separately via a redundant pipe system at the wing tips and at the fuselage nose and tail to generate torque. The air nozzles required for this were directly connected to the rudders.

Control
The control torques in the pitch axis were further increased by modulating the thrusts of the two lift engines. In the event of a lift engine failure, the automatic flight control system would have taken over control of the remaining lift thrust and kept the aircraft in a horizontal position to enable the pilot to eject using the Martin Baker Mk 9 ejection seat in a normal flight attitude. The pilot’s commands on the VAK 191 B were not transmitted mechanically to the rudder servo motors, but electrically, with triple redundancy using a flight controller - known today as fly-by-wire. In the event of a total failure of the electrical flight control, the rudder servo motors could still be controlled mechanically by automatically closing a clutch. The high-pressure hydraulic system worked at 4000 psi, a value that is rarely achieved even today. Due to the requirement With regard to the range at transonic cruising speeds close to the ground, particular attention was paid during the design to ensuring that the pilot should only be exposed to a tolerable level of acceleration in gusty weather. For this purpose, wings with a high wing loading, a small aspect ratio and a relatively large leading edge sweep were chosen, which were arranged in a high position due to the central position of the swivel jet engine and had a negative V position. To reduce the conventional landing speed and to shorten the transition distances, the wing was equipped with trailing edge camber flaps. In addition, the ailerons could be deflected downwards in the same direction.

Self-sufficient system
To make the aircraft independent of external energy sources in unprepared areas, a KHD T112 small gas turbine that could be started using a battery was installed at the rear. Coupled with a hydraulic pump and a generator, this auxiliary power unit supplied electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic energy for starting up the aircraft. In flight, this system served as an emergency power supply.

The landing gear, fitted with low-pressure tires, had brakes in the nose and main gear and nose wheel steering. A braking parachute was provided to shorten the roll-out distance during a horizontal landing.

Armament
The cargo area under the main engine was four meters long, 88 cm wide and 60 cm high. It was to be equipped with equipment sets pre-loaded on the ground. The early brochures of the Vereinigte Flugtechnische Werke list armament alternatives such as

▶ 1 x 450 kg bomb plus 115 kg equipment

▶ 2 x 450 kg bombs plus 115 kg equipment

▶ 4 x 225 kg bombs

▶ 2 extendable rocket launchers, each with 54 x 7 cm rockets.

Camera systems or on-board cannons and a 1700 l tank were also conceivable. Ultimately, however, an extensive on-board measuring and telemetry system was installed here, which made it possible to record, process, save and transmit the data generated during testing to a ground station. Of the total of 450 possible measured values, 260 could be recorded simultaneously on PCM and FM channels.

Cockpit
When designing the cockpit, it was taken into account that a V/STOL aircraft also spends more than 90 percent of its flight time as a conventional aircraft. The V/STOL-related additions were limited to the lift engine power lever, the cruise engine swivel nozzle lever and some engine monitoring instruments that were installed for testing reasons.

Technical data

Museum piece: The VAK 191 B V2 is now in the Defense Technology Study Collection in Koblenz. Photo and copyright: Schwarz
VFW-Fokker VAK 191 B

Manufacturer: VFW (later VFW-Fokker), Bremen
Crew: 1 on Martin-Baker ejection seat
Engine: 1 x Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.193-12 plus 2 x Rolls-Royce RB.162-81 F 08
Thrust: 1 x 45.2 kN plus 2 x 26.65 kN
Length: 14.72 m
Height: 4.30 m
Wingspan: 6.16 m
Wing area: 12.5 m2
Empty weight: 5562 kg
Max. fuel: 2100 kg
Max. take-off weight: 8507 kg
Maximum speed: 1100 km/h
Cruising speed: 740 km/h (test flights only up to 665 km/h)
Climb rate: 36 m/s
Service ceiling: 14,500 m
Range: 370 – 400 km

Puma GSD

SPz Puma GSD

[poll type=regular results=always chartType=bar]
  • Yes
  • No
[/] [poll ]

The birth of a gladiator

image

I may be smaller, but my claws arent

History and testing
The Puma (previously known as Igel (hedgehog) and even as panther) program was started as a successor to the German “NGP” project (Neue Gepanzerte Plattformen, “New Armoured Platforms”) from 1996. Initially research was put into designing concepts that would present high levels of interoperability and interchangeability when it comes to battlefield roles such as AA, IFV, MBT etc. However the NGP project came to an end in 2001.

During the same time since 1998, a neuer Schutzenpanzer concept was being looked into as the Germany army, the Bundeswehr was interested in a new IFV that could engage a variety of targets while also transporting troops and having decent armour. Eventually becoming the Marder’s replacement, the Puma, planned around 2002 was ordered as a pre-production test vehicle by the Bundeswehr. it was to be delivered complete with accompanying logistical and training services for the crew that would be operating and testing them. The new vehicle impressed the army, as is evident from its induction, and a large budget for the purchase of 405 Puma IFVs was drawn up of around 3 Billion euros in 2007 (excluding the 5 pre production models supplied to the German Army for trials).

The first two serial vehicles were turned over to the German Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik and Beschaffung on December, 2010.

The vehicle underwent cold weather testing under arctic conditions of -30 degrees Celsius in March 2007 (Norway). The United Arab Emirates were the host of the hot weather tests for the Puma in August of 2013.

After successfully completing mobility and firepower assessments, the now-named Puma IFV was authorised for operation in April, 2015 by BAAINBw. By June of 2015, the German military formally adopted the Puma making it one of, if not the most modern ground combat vehicle both in game and in real life.

The Gesamt System Demonstrator (GSD) model was built as a trial vehicle (in 2003) for the BW, subsequently named the Puma, it demonstrated its preliminary capabilities to the German high command in 2005 after completing initial trials. It was during these trials that it later underwent modifications including but not limited to new suspension components, modified engine displacement, modified torque convertor, new drive sprockets and one extra roadwheel on each side of the vehicle.

The Puma GSD represents the very first complete prototype of the Puma IFV as we know today. It was part of a group of 5 pre-production vehicles delivered to the BW and would prove vital for the Puma’s move onto three separate protection classes, A (air-transportable), B (rail-transport) and C (combat).

The GSD falls into Class A while the Puma production falls into Class C. As such, the GSD is only frontally protected against 30mm autocannons and hand held AT weapons such as the RPG-7. Class B was deemed not as big an upgrade and was eventually dropped as an option, to add onto it, Class C already fulfilled rail-transportability requirements hence the class and designation was trashed. All production Pumas are made into class C standards but can be stripped down to A for air-transportability.

Being the first prototype, it does not have access to either the MUSS APS nor the Laser warning system as the sensors have not been integrated. It does not have the CLARA ERA blocks on the side nor does it have the MELLS weapon system. What it does have to make up for it is increased acceleration, hydropneumatic suspension and a smaller vertical profile.

In the hands of the skilled, alongside its APFSDS and AHEAD shells, it will prove a bane for tanks and aircraft alike.

Technical Specifications

Crew: 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver)
Mobility
Weight: 31.5t
Engine: MTU V10 892 diesel
Power: 1,088 hp at 4,250 rpm
Top speed: +70kmph
Power/weight: 34.5hp/t
Transmission: Renk HSWL 256
Suspension: Horstman hydrosruts (Hydropneumatic)

Armament
Main gun: 30 mm (MK 30-2/ABM)
Secondary gun(s): MG 4
Elevation: -10, +45
Traverse: 360 degrees
Gun sight: Hensoldt EOTS II (+ PERI RTWL sight for comander)
Laser range finder: Yes
Thermals: 3rd generation ATTICA (gunner + commander)

Ammunition

  • 30mm
    Count: 200 rounds (+ 200 in storage)
    Types and performance:


Differences from production Puma


Key:

  1. Add-on UFP composite screen not on GSD
  2. Hull side composite screen not on GSD
  3. Hull side ERA not on GSD
  4. 5 road wheels on GSD vs 6 on Puma C standard (one extra is mounted on each side upon conversion from level A to level C)
  5. MUSS APS not on GSD
  6. No gunshield on GSD
  7. Equal number of Smoke launchers but mounted on top rear of the turret in GSD [refer to pictures attached at end (picture # 2)]

Puma Prototype in museum

NOTE: possible shorter hull length on GSD

Primary argument for Puma GSD

Adding the prototype/early production versions of the Puma as a lower BR replacement for the Puma IFV to give the ranks a suitable LT.
See also:
[h]ttps://forum.warthunder.com/t/removable-electro-optical-aps-module-as-a-modification-for-puma/98106

Visual References

image

image


image

For detailed walkaround (albeit of the VS3 preproduction model, a younger sibling of the GSD)

Sources

Suggestion system

Hello!
This will be a small suggestion but I believe this change can go a long way towards the future of War Thunder. So basically, I’ve been making suggestions for a while and its always come to mind how we have to ask about what our (rejected) suggestions lacked and how to rectify the issues. So why not implement an auto message feature (using the system account we already have on the forum), that sends you a message privately telling you of the reason for the rejection of your suggestion + the suggestion moderators comments. As an addendum, it can also give you a Suggestion Template with some guidelines. Or a bunch of templates. I believe this would greatly expedite the Suggestions process and make the duties of the suggestion moderators a lot easier.
Regards
-Armen Lozone Example Auto-message

You are receiving this message because the suggestion you put forward for review did not meet our criteria. Please refer to the below to find out why.

Reason(s) for rejection:

  • Reason 1
  • Reason 2

Suggestion moderators comment:
– comment –

You may take the following template as a start for arranging the style of your suggestion. You can also take a look at our guidelines and standards for suggestions.

Example template

(text in blue is to be replaced with your own text/image/item)


Vehicle name

[poll type=regular results=always chartType=bar]

  • Yes
  • No[/] [poll ]

Flag of nation

catchphrase/slogan etc

vehicle image

history heading

History and testing

(history)

Technical Specifications

Crew: X (composition: X, X, X)

Mobility

Weight: X
Engine: X
Power: X
Top speed: X
Power/weight: X
Transmission: X
Suspension: X

Armament
Main gun: X
Secondary gun(s): X
Elevation: X
Traverse: X
Gun sight: X
Laser range finder: X
Thermals: X

Ammunition

  • **Calibre: ** X
    Count: XX rounds
    Types and performance:

Ammunition performance table


Visual References

(images)

Sources

  • source 1
  • source 2

1 Like

bro had to put my thread at the top 😢😢

1 Like