×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

(OP)
Can you please share if anybody has some NEWS on new GCV program.
Thank you

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

any idea why they disqualified the Puma vehicle? i think it is the most modern of the bunch, has an existing add-on armour (30mm protection from sides) and uses a novel RWS.  it is true though that it would need some stretching for the nine man squad, but it would still be the best imo.

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

although i must admit that the puma is already a long vehicle - 7.4m vs 6.5 for the cv9030 (6 vs 7 troopers); but it can take 10t more weight and was designed with growth potential in mind.

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

The baseline weight of the GCV is about 20 tons heavier than the Puma, so it's likely that the Puma armor is insufficient to meet the GCV requirements.  Most IFVs have pretty wimpy armor, compared to MBTs, as the doctrine was that IFVs would not see OPFOR tanks and would therefore not need MBT-level armor.  But that's so 80s; today, any vehicle faces the possibility of either home-made or commercially built EFP warheads used as improvised explosive devices (IEDs).  Therefore, armor is king, and anything built for a massed armor on massed armor warfare is extremely vulnerable.

It's very likely that the Puma is still doctrinally tied to Fulda Gap warfare, and hence, the add-on armor capability, but the pictures I've seen still look to be similar to Bradley-level armor, i.e., wimpy, particularly given the weight spec.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

Yeah, as 'solid' as they seem when you bang your knee on one (or similar) most AFV other than MBT's are pretty wimpy in the passive armor category.  (Even MBT armor isn't what you might expect on some surfaces etc.)  While there's room for add on armor etc, generally you'd expect a more efficient solution to generally be building it in originally.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

Add-on armor, being non-integral to the structure of the vehicle, tends to be heavier than required for the amount of protection provided, and is likely to be less effective since there is an interface between the add-on and the original armor.  This may sometimes work to your advantage, but more often than not, it works against you.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

puma is capable of defeating 30mm from the front (baseline) and 14.5 from sides (and back). with the addon armour it can defeat 30mm on the upper sides too.
also i doubt the gcv will really be 50tons baseline. that thing would be totally undeployable. good for israeli and other defensive forces, bad for the usarmy.

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

That weight is about 15 tons lighter than an M1, which has be deployed into various situations, albeit, not ideally.  The current Bradley weights 30 tons, and it's pretty wimpy armor-wise, compared to the M1.

Note that a larger variant of the Puma was bid by one of the contractors on the initial RFP

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

The Puma looks very similar to the Russian BTR and the American M1117 vehicle that the Military Police use. While in Iraq we supported the Iraqi army during the 2008 Battle of Sadr City. We supported them on their checkpoints and I saw the immediate aftermath of two of their BTRs after EFP strikes. The vehicles were completely destroyed and were essentially death traps for the crews. They have very little fire power and are very vulnerable against readily available weapons such as IEDs, EFPs, and even the lowest level RPGs. The American M1117 is of a similar design and saw limited use for the same reasons. I was on a M1 Abrams and they threw everything they had at it(RPG 29, arrayed EFPs, etc) and it stood it's ground, it to however has its vulnerabilities that I will not discuss. I think that the US made the right choice by going with the Stryker because I saw that vehicle in action and can tell you that it is very versitile and enables the unit to put the enemy on their heels very quickly. In terms of a modern fighting unit that I can kick some serious urban warfare butt the Stryker Battalions are where it's at. Their vehicles are not bomb catchers but do have the capability to take a hit. I would even go as far as to put the Stryker units in a Special Forces category because of their capabilities are so vast. Honestly I would much rather be riding in an MRAP than that Puma because atleast the MRAP can take a deep buried IED. I don't have much confidence in a Puma in that category either.  

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

puma is a tracked vehicle and has a very good mine protection (due to it being completely new design), so
MAJOR FAIL

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

There are at least 4 different vehicles called Pumas out there...which one is which person talking about?

Italian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28AFV%29
German (modern): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IFV%29
Israeli: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IDF%29
German (WW2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Panzersp%C3%A4hwagen#Sd.Kfz._234.2F2_.22Puma.22

Ok...the last two are more for the chuckle factor...but still.  Less a major fail than a weak communication link?

RE: Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV)

loki3000,
Assuming that you are talking about the German Puma I do think that it has respectable specifications. The armor does look impressive but it is not anything new. I'd say that it is equal or slightly better than a bradley fighting vehice. Either way a large deep buried IED would destroy it, an RPG 29 would go right though it, and a correctly designed EFP would blow a hole it in a burn it to the ground. No armored vehicle is perfect but it is probably one of the best in it's class but I would still rather have a Stryker because of its versitality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
Check out all the variants available. I saw these in action first hand, you have mortars that can support from behind and a Main Gun System capable of bringing tank fire power to the battle. From my experience 2 main gun rounds quites any battle. Something you aren't going to see on the Puma.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources