the Lynx is also equipt with the 120mm L/44 Smoothbore canon (the gun of The Leopard 2 - A5 until the actually Abrams M1A1/A2 and X and Challenger 2/3 Gun)
Usually i would point to teething issues but those are all hand built and in the amazing amount of between 5 and 15. Non of them functional. So yes the likelihood of running into the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot is actually bigger than running into one of those Russian pipedreams.
@@Brightsideofmilitary The Russian equipment is also showing poor protection. Ukraine’s soldiers openly talk about how much safer a Bradley is in comparison to anything made from Russia. Western equipment also has better sights, stabilization, and night vision capabilities.
The Russian Federation has no amphibious BMP's they lack maintenance. Their armour has proven to be sub standard and the optics are only suitable for the eighties.
It's hard to say that it from ground up performed badly. Conditions in Ukriane are highly difficult and present a highly hostile environment, especially to armored vehicles. If we go simply by Ukraine, then the Leopard, Bradley, AMX 10RC and so on would be bad vehicles. Although they might not succeed in such a war doesn't mean there's no way for them to accel. We know that vehicles like the Leopard are highly effective and useful mbts, but even so Ukraine has still lost Leopards in the war already.
With the exception of the Chinese copy of the Soviet/Russian BMP the Asian IFV's are very good. The Marder is being replaced due to lack of protection and other obsolescence issues. Once they get rid of the teething issues the Puma will be a lot better. The Bradley and the CV-90 are the two best vehicles operating in Ukraine ATM. If there was a order in the vehicles they, the Redback and Namur would be in the top 5 in my opinion (I retired from service last September). This due to the " better" vehicles not having entered production. After the deployment of those they can be evaluated not on paper.
The marder is very old but the protection level is still very well. The main problem is the armourment and the possibility to upgrade new features. One of the main weaknesses is the usage of the old milan missile.
@@85daniel the latest version uses the MELLS a joint venture version of the Spike. But they lack electronic capability and they have multiple issues involving the mine resistance and room for crews. If you lack room it reduces the survivability by 40%. That is why they are replaced by the Boxer IFV variant and a limited number of Puma. People my size (2m) don't fit in the Marder but we easily fit in the Boxers and to a lesser extent the Puma. As we do joint exercises it is better for me to get into German vehicles that actually fit me.
The German Army rejected an (already up-armored) variant of the CV90 in 2002 due to insufficient ballistic and mine protection aswell as limited growth capability. Only after that they decided to develop the Puma IFV. If the CV90 was better and met their requirements there literally wouldn't be a Puma. CV90 certainly is not above Puma in that list. It not being good enough it the reason the Puma exists in the first place.
@@colin6550 Puma is very specifically tailored around German doctrine and its requirements. German mechanised infantry has smaller dismount teams that operate more closely with their vehicles, that's why a vehicle with little dismount capacity but in return very high level of protection was required. The general requirements on the vehicle were also extremely demanding, bringing capability but also price up. Very few other countries share these requirements, be it doctrine or capabilities. As for contracts, only the Czech Republic trialed both Puma and CV90, and from what hit the public the results were very in favor of the Puma, in some cases drastically. Czech MoD decision for the CV90 was a budget decision. They very clearly stated capability-wise, Puma was way ahead. Some publications even stating it showed "technological dominance" in the trials. Not just against the CV90, but also against the other contenders including ASCOD 2 and Lynx. At gunnery trials on a stormy day in Libava the Puma hit 37 out of 40 targets. The next best contender hit 19 of 40. Which one wasn't specified to not hurt publicity.
@@jonny2954 It isnt about who has a bigger gun or who has thicker armor, escpecially in todays warfare where a drone can take out any ifv. There is a reason why why everyone rejected the puma mostly cause it doesnt justify its steep increase in price compared to basically all other ifvs. it might be better objectivly bu there is no way to tell cause it wont ever see battle most likely.
@@colin6550 Just because a drone *could* take out an IFV does not mean one should disregard any other capability that vehicle has. And even against drones the Puma has higher survivability than lets say a CV90 due to significantly thicker armor, especially on the sides and roof. The US Army evaluated the Puma in 2013 and came to the exact opposite conclusion than you. Despite its high unit price "...the Puma would provide the greatest increase in capability per dollar invested". That means while it is more expensive it also performs better _to a even higher degree than the price increase_ . And the argument that a vehicles capability can only be evaluated in combat is just plain wrong. We have plenty of metrics to simulate tasks in combat and evaluate a systems performance. It it has better optronics on the range, it will have better optronics in combat. If its gun is more accurate on the range, it will be more accurate in combat. If its armor is thicker in the test facility, it will be thicker in combat. If its APS defeats real ATGM in the test facility it will defeat ATGM in combat. If its more reliable on FTX it will be more reliable in combat. Not that hard to understand.
Then why does no one use it? Dont bring up doctrine btw, if ur ifv is the best it should manage any type of scenario that is put infront of it. Also never said that a vehicle couldnt be valuated without combat experience but to say the exact opposite like you is completely wrong. Just take the entire russian war effort in ukraine, its been nothing but a catastrophe even though every initial metric said russia would win, then with data acquired through battle the view changed.
One burned out last year during an exercise. And 17 others had major issues with the onboard computers and wiring. This all happened in one week and the crew barely made it out. So in about 5 years you are right. But until then the Redback/K-21, CV-90 and several other new ones are outclassing it. Even the production has been halted to get it solved. And most of the Marder will now be replaced by a Boxer IFV variant.
@@jacksonteller1337 "One burned out last year during an exercise" It had a cable fire that was immediately extinguished. "And 17 others had major issues with the onboard computers and wiring" No, some simply had worn down sprockets because they skipped maintenance. One had a heater failure and on one a monitor was damaged because someone kicked it. "and the crew barely made it out" Also false, the crews were not endangered at any point in the incident. "Even the production has been halted to get it solved" For about two weeks, then the German Army ordered a second batch of 50 vehicles with the option of another 179. "And most of the Marder will now be replaced by a Boxer IFV variant" Also incorrect, most Marder Bataillons will recieve new Pumas, some with recieve Boxers with Puma turrets. But that's not because the Puma was insufficient but because the German Army recently created their new wheeled Medium Forces that will need a mechanised troop component. "But until then the Redback/K-21, CV-90 and several other new ones are outclassing it." Funny story, the German Army rejected an (already up-armored) variant of the CV90 in 2002 due to insufficient ballistic and mine protection aswell as limited growth capability. Only after that they decided to develop the Puma IFV. If the CV90 was better and met their requirements there literally wouldn't be a Puma. CV90 certainly is not above Puma in that list. It not being good enough it the reason the Puma exists in the first place. CV90 and Puma are not even in the same class of vehicle. Czech CV90 MkIV have a gross vehicle weight of 37 tons. Latest Puma S1 has 45 tons gross vehicle weight while having a smaller protected volume (more armor weight per external surface area) and a significantly lighter steel hull than a CV90. That way in the 31 ton airlift configuration the Puma still has a better all around level of protection than a CV90 MkIII at 37 tons. That's already a 6 ton headstart. The 43 ton combat configuration of a Puma add another 12 tons of _exclusively_ armor to that, bringing the headstart to 18 tons of just composite armor. Not the same class of vehicle, not even remotely. Seeing Pumas parked next to Dutch MkIII on FTX is hilarious, makes them look like cars. The roof armor of a Puma is thicker than the frontal armor of a MkIII.
This video doesn't make sense Bright side of military. Tell me how British warrior is better and on higher place kompare to Russian BMT 3 when BMT 3 has got more powerful weapons systems and it is amphibious
the Lynx is also equipt with the 120mm L/44 Smoothbore canon (the gun of The Leopard 2 - A5 until the actually Abrams M1A1/A2 and X and Challenger 2/3 Gun)
The Kurganets and Armata…really? I think they’re more suited for a top 15 list featuring Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.
Usually i would point to teething issues but those are all hand built and in the amazing amount of between 5 and 15. Non of them functional. So yes the likelihood of running into the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot is actually bigger than running into one of those Russian pipedreams.
The MkIV integrates MBDA AKERON MP ATG Mmissile into CV90 MKIV
Seeing how poorly the Russian equipment has performed in Ukraine I have doubts about what it says on paper versus what it actually does in reality.
Main reason is poor tactics
@@Brightsideofmilitary The Russian equipment is also showing poor protection. Ukraine’s soldiers openly talk about how much safer a Bradley is in comparison to anything made from Russia. Western equipment also has better sights, stabilization, and night vision capabilities.
The Russian Federation has no amphibious BMP's they lack maintenance. Their armour has proven to be sub standard and the optics are only suitable for the eighties.
@@Brightsideofmilitary well, that's the trick isn't it? Construction, training, and tactics? They all go together.
It's hard to say that it from ground up performed badly. Conditions in Ukriane are highly difficult and present a highly hostile environment, especially to armored vehicles. If we go simply by Ukraine, then the Leopard, Bradley, AMX 10RC and so on would be bad vehicles. Although they might not succeed in such a war doesn't mean there's no way for them to accel. We know that vehicles like the Leopard are highly effective and useful mbts, but even so Ukraine has still lost Leopards in the war already.
With the exception of the Chinese copy of the Soviet/Russian BMP the Asian IFV's are very good.
The Marder is being replaced due to lack of protection and other obsolescence issues. Once they get rid of the teething issues the Puma will be a lot better.
The Bradley and the CV-90 are the two best vehicles operating in Ukraine ATM. If there was a order in the vehicles they, the Redback and Namur would be in the top 5 in my opinion (I retired from service last September). This due to the " better" vehicles not having entered production. After the deployment of those they can be evaluated not on paper.
The marder is very old but the protection level is still very well. The main problem is the armourment and the possibility to upgrade new features. One of the main weaknesses is the usage of the old milan missile.
@@85daniel the latest version uses the MELLS a joint venture version of the Spike. But they lack electronic capability and they have multiple issues involving the mine resistance and room for crews. If you lack room it reduces the survivability by 40%. That is why they are replaced by the Boxer IFV variant and a limited number of Puma. People my size (2m) don't fit in the Marder but we easily fit in the Boxers and to a lesser extent the Puma. As we do joint exercises it is better for me to get into German vehicles that actually fit me.
cv90 forever
Korean K21 😍
The German Army rejected an (already up-armored) variant of the CV90 in 2002 due to insufficient ballistic and mine protection aswell as limited growth capability. Only after that they decided to develop the Puma IFV.
If the CV90 was better and met their requirements there literally wouldn't be a Puma. CV90 certainly is not above Puma in that list. It not being good enough it the reason the Puma exists in the first place.
No one bought the puma, wonder why? Every scenario where the puma and the cv90 battled for a contract cv90 won, wonder why?
@@colin6550 Puma is very specifically tailored around German doctrine and its requirements. German mechanised infantry has smaller dismount teams that operate more closely with their vehicles, that's why a vehicle with little dismount capacity but in return very high level of protection was required. The general requirements on the vehicle were also extremely demanding, bringing capability but also price up. Very few other countries share these requirements, be it doctrine or capabilities.
As for contracts, only the Czech Republic trialed both Puma and CV90, and from what hit the public the results were very in favor of the Puma, in some cases drastically. Czech MoD decision for the CV90 was a budget decision. They very clearly stated capability-wise, Puma was way ahead. Some publications even stating it showed "technological dominance" in the trials. Not just against the CV90, but also against the other contenders including ASCOD 2 and Lynx.
At gunnery trials on a stormy day in Libava the Puma hit 37 out of 40 targets. The next best contender hit 19 of 40. Which one wasn't specified to not hurt publicity.
@@jonny2954 It isnt about who has a bigger gun or who has thicker armor, escpecially in todays warfare where a drone can take out any ifv. There is a reason why why everyone rejected the puma mostly cause it doesnt justify its steep increase in price compared to basically all other ifvs. it might be better objectivly bu there is no way to tell cause it wont ever see battle most likely.
@@colin6550 Just because a drone *could* take out an IFV does not mean one should disregard any other capability that vehicle has. And even against drones the Puma has higher survivability than lets say a CV90 due to significantly thicker armor, especially on the sides and roof.
The US Army evaluated the Puma in 2013 and came to the exact opposite conclusion than you. Despite its high unit price "...the Puma would provide the greatest increase in capability per dollar invested".
That means while it is more expensive it also performs better _to a even higher degree than the price increase_ .
And the argument that a vehicles capability can only be evaluated in combat is just plain wrong. We have plenty of metrics to simulate tasks in combat and evaluate a systems performance.
It it has better optronics on the range, it will have better optronics in combat.
If its gun is more accurate on the range, it will be more accurate in combat.
If its armor is thicker in the test facility, it will be thicker in combat.
If its APS defeats real ATGM in the test facility it will defeat ATGM in combat.
If its more reliable on FTX it will be more reliable in combat.
Not that hard to understand.
Then why does no one use it? Dont bring up doctrine btw, if ur ifv is the best it should manage any type of scenario that is put infront of it. Also never said that a vehicle couldnt be valuated without combat experience but to say the exact opposite like you is completely wrong. Just take the entire russian war effort in ukraine, its been nothing but a catastrophe even though every initial metric said russia would win, then with data acquired through battle the view changed.
All russian IFV must be in another top...😂
Yeah…top of the trash can, specifically
Puma is the best Tracked IFV not CV90.. stupid information
Puma have some reliability issues
One burned out last year during an exercise. And 17 others had major issues with the onboard computers and wiring. This all happened in one week and the crew barely made it out. So in about 5 years you are right. But until then the Redback/K-21, CV-90 and several other new ones are outclassing it. Even the production has been halted to get it solved. And most of the Marder will now be replaced by a Boxer IFV variant.
@@jacksonteller1337 "One burned out last year during an exercise"
It had a cable fire that was immediately extinguished.
"And 17 others had major issues with the onboard computers and wiring"
No, some simply had worn down sprockets because they skipped maintenance. One had a heater failure and on one a monitor was damaged because someone kicked it.
"and the crew barely made it out"
Also false, the crews were not endangered at any point in the incident.
"Even the production has been halted to get it solved"
For about two weeks, then the German Army ordered a second batch of 50 vehicles with the option of another 179.
"And most of the Marder will now be replaced by a Boxer IFV variant"
Also incorrect, most Marder Bataillons will recieve new Pumas, some with recieve Boxers with Puma turrets. But that's not because the Puma was insufficient but because the German Army recently created their new wheeled Medium Forces that will need a mechanised troop component.
"But until then the Redback/K-21, CV-90 and several other new ones are outclassing it."
Funny story, the German Army rejected an (already up-armored) variant of the CV90 in 2002 due to insufficient ballistic and mine protection aswell as limited growth capability. Only after that they decided to develop the Puma IFV.
If the CV90 was better and met their requirements there literally wouldn't be a Puma. CV90 certainly is not above Puma in that list. It not being good enough it the reason the Puma exists in the first place.
CV90 and Puma are not even in the same class of vehicle. Czech CV90 MkIV have a gross vehicle weight of 37 tons. Latest Puma S1 has 45 tons gross vehicle weight while having a smaller protected volume (more armor weight per external surface area) and a significantly lighter steel hull than a CV90. That way in the 31 ton airlift configuration the Puma still has a better all around level of protection than a CV90 MkIII at 37 tons. That's already a 6 ton headstart. The 43 ton combat configuration of a Puma add another 12 tons of _exclusively_ armor to that, bringing the headstart to 18 tons of just composite armor. Not the same class of vehicle, not even remotely. Seeing Pumas parked next to Dutch MkIII on FTX is hilarious, makes them look like cars. The roof armor of a Puma is thicker than the frontal armor of a MkIII.
This video doesn't make sense Bright side of military. Tell me how British warrior is better and on higher place kompare to Russian BMT 3 when BMT 3 has got more powerful weapons systems and it is amphibious
Thanks for your comment my friend.
Ðont think the russian unit deserves its place, Ukraine have proven that again and again.
Just on paper specifications