Talk:Puma (German infantry fighting vehicle)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Puma (IFV))

Compliacted calibers?[edit]

Why doesn't the Puma use the widespread 27mm Mauser ammunition, which is found in the Tornado? Why do the germans introduce a third 30mm ammunition, besides the 27mm and the 35mm used for the twin flak anti-aircraft tank? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>> Wouldn´t make sense. As air-optimized cartridges the 27mm and 35mm offer a different performance spectrum than what is needed for ground combat. They are high-velocity FAPDS ammunition to maximize performance against a variety of targets. The 27mm is Luftwaffe exclusive anyway, they have their own logistics.

The 30 x 173 mm caliber used on the Puma however is highly flexible, the ammunition variety is abundant and it is also a de facto NATO standard by now. The grenades are also 50% lighter and smaller than the 35 mm. And lastly, the Rh MK 30-2/ABM is roughly two thirds lighter than the Oerlikon 35mm. Vandervahn (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30x173mm has gone from a "de facto" NATO standard as of when you posted this to a full NATO standard as of 2012; it is STANAG 4624. DesiArcy (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition type is incorrect[edit]

The front armour is able to withstand 30mm AP projectiles. The end of phrase is incorrect because, firstly there is no 30mm AP in inventory, and secondly at combat weight 32 - 43t nothing to do with 30mm AP projectiles . The exact ammo type should be APFSDS.-- The exact ammo type should be APFSDS.

Mobility[edit]

The Israeli Namer (vehicle) has definitly a more powerful engine, counting 895 KW. The power/weight ratio also is really not that different. Please rephrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.233.83 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Namer is based on the Merkava chassis and share the same diesel engine from the Merkava Mark 3. De Grasse (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article reads like a project advertisement and I believe fails Wikipedia's integrity standards for promotional writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.15.149 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The statement, "The smaller 30 x 173 mm caliber (for example in comparison to the Bofors 40 mm gun mounted on the CV9040) offers major advantages because of a much lower ammunition size and weight, and the large number of rounds ready to fire, e.g. the CV9040 offers only 24 shots per magazine.", is slightly non-sensical and comes across as pure marketing speak. Obviously smaller ammo is, well, smaller, but it's not necessarily "better" as smaller ammo also tends to have less range, less penetration, and causes less damage. It's a tradeoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmw2cc (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a necessary information. On Puma there were strict requirements for weight and the amount of ammunition carried. They even went for a smaller 5.56 mm NATO MG instead of the typical 7.62 mm NATO MG. On Marder 2 the requirements were 300 rounds carried and an effective combat range of 2,000 m. This lead to the adoption of the 35 x 228 mm caliber. The requirements for the Puma were even stricter. The weight had to be less (less than 35 tonnes instead of 45 tonnes), more ammunition had to be carried and the effective range also should be about 2,000 - 3,000 m. This lead to the adoption of a rather "small" unmanned turret with high-performance KE-TF and APFSDS ammunition, while other countries still use APDS rounds. Especially the part "CV9040 offers only 24 shots per magazine" is crucial. If the Puma would have only 24 rounds ready to fire, then after 24 shots the Puma would need to leave the battlefield, so that the crew could leave the vehicle and reload the turret magazine. The 40 mm gun of the CV90 is also not belt-fed, which means that it is impossible to use it in an unmanned turret while staying in the same configuration as the Puma.
A 40 mm cannon is also not necessarily "better", it can be in some scenarios, but in a lot it will be inferior.
The mentioned sentence btw. is more or less a translated copy from a German webportal and not from some marketing brochure. --EndlessUnknown (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree somewhat with user Pmw2cc. Describing such things as purely advantageous is not really NPOV. It may very well be true that the combination of 35mm cannon and 5.56 machine gun is superior to all others for such a vehicle, but such a statement needs to somehow be backed up by comparison, testing, and so forth, ideally by third-party analysts.
Perhaps a compromise statement to the effect that "designers/procurers of the vehicle feel that the combination of smaller caliber main cannon and machine gun carries performance and packaging advantages compared to a larger-caliber main cannon" might be used, or something like it, which still explains their position while not coming across as so definitive. The strict issued requirements you mention that led the the adoption of these weapons might also be mentioned in the article, sourced ideally, which will further explain why the systems chosen are advantageous in this application. Russ3Z (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the part, incorporating some of the info given by EndlessUnknown. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am no expert, by the TMG (Turm-MG, machine gun on a tower) is a normal MG with a certain device to put it in, right? Rather different from the cannon which is, sort-of, in-built.
The reason why they chose an MG4 with 5.56 is clear: Because, at the time the Puma was commissioned, the official future plan concerning MGs was that the MG3 is to be phased out in favor of the MG4 because of unit bullet-size and supposed other advantages. This doctrine is, as far as the rumours have it, a thing of the past; MG4s are used as additional light machine-guns and very welcome in the role, but are no longer thought to phase out the MG3; MG3s are phased out by the MG5 instead which does have 7.62. (Maybe the instinctive distrust of soldiers in a gun that looks like a drum-fed G36 on a bipod and shoots the same bullets as such a one has played a role.) For the time being, MG3s are apparently kept in use. In this sense, it does not look utterly impossible that the MG4s on the puma are replaced by MG5s.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:70F0:EBC0:F1EF:E853 (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article also doesn't mention any of the criticism the vehicle received while the german article mentions it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.72.198 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crew use of MG4's ammo?[edit]

While this is a smaller weapon than the western standard secondary armament (7.62 mm caliber MG), it offers the advantage that the crew can use the ammunition in their individual firearms.

Isn't the MG4 fed from a linked belt? If so, I don't see how the crew can use them in their magazine-fed weapons, unless this is somehow referring to a member or members of the squad (I don't know its makeup) who are carrying MG4s themselves. In either case, it should be reworded, since most of the crew would still be unable to use the ammo. Russ3Z (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly hard to break down link. The actual ammunition is exactly the same; you just have to snap the rounds out of the links then load them into a magazine.--DaleCurrie (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soldiers fill the magazines, as well as the belts, themselves, and know how to do so. They also know how to pick the bullets out again, that is from the back end, not by shooting.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:70F0:EBC0:F1EF:E853 (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeping the weight within the 35-ton limit also led to a smaller calibre for the secondary armament"? 2000 rounds 7,62 are about 48kg, 5,56 are about 22 kg: are you sure that's the difference for a 35-ton limit?--Dillylike (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puma versus Marder: explain the differences here[edit]

Please add a short paragraph that explains the key differences, in an objective manner. Explanation: I came here to try to find out what the fuzz is about in regards to Marder versus Puma. I read the article about the Marder, but I have no idea why the Puma is supposed to be better? What were the reasons for going to the Puma? 2A02:8388:1600:A200:52F3:DC0A:2A2B:D63F (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– or Puma (German combat vehicle) and Puma (Italian combat vehicle). Per discussion in the just-closed RM at Talk:Atom (infantry fighting vehicle)#Requested move 14 November 2022. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical problems[edit]

Second batch stopped by the German ministry of defence today[edit]

Not a single word here about the countless problems. Fine advertisement by company PR, I assume. Fact: The complete project was put on hold today. See German Wikipedia. 79.211.212.150 (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puma_(German_infantry_fighting_vehicle)&oldid=1213811367"