• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Light Weapons Carrier - New Wiesel

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
2 man vehicle
Remote Weapons Station
4 independent electrically powered tracks - keeps going if one track destroyed.


Germany Unveils Its GSD LuWa Light Air-transportable Armoured Fighting Vehicle​

The German Army have requested a new light airborne vehicle to replace the family of Wiesel vehicles which was developed for the German Army to meet a requirement for an air-transportable light armored vehicle for use by its airborne troops. The Wiesel is a German light air-transportable armoured fighting vehicle, more specifically a lightly armoured weapons carrier. It is quite similar to historical scouting tankettes in size, form and function, and is the only true modern tankette in use in Western Europe. The German Army eventually ordered 343 of Wiesel vehicles in 1985, 210 were armed with Raytheon TOW wire-guided anti-tank guided missile system and 133 have the one-man KUKA turret E6-II-A1 armed with the dual-feed Rheinmetall Mk 20 RH-202 20 mm autocannon.

1630521657726.png
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,799
Points
940
sigh its always disheartening seeing grown up militaries doing procurement right....
Mind you the German navy has a frigate with a built in list, had 6 subs tied to the wall due to a lack of spare parts and it terrible serviceability rate for their AFV's
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,799
Points
940
I want to see how well it can pivot with that track setup. The four electric motors might make up for it.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,148
Points
910
Mind you the German navy has a frigate with a built in list, had 6 subs tied to the wall due to a lack of spare parts and it terrible serviceability rate for their AFV's
So they prioritize equipment properly you are telling us.
They haven't had or needed a (real) Navy since WW2, and they aren't as keen to fake it as some other nations try.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
Wouldn't buy a German ship. Not sure about aircraft. Might be inclined to buy a Mercedes, Porsche, Audi or Volkswagen - as long as I wasn't too concerned about tailpipe emissions.

Edit: by the way. AFV terrible serviceability rate? Aren't we servicing German Leos? How are they doing?
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
697
Points
990
Mind you the German navy has a frigate with a built in list, had 6 subs tied to the wall due to a lack of spare parts and it terrible serviceability rate for their AFV's
I've always found the 'modern' German military to be quite the paradox, although I do realize their spending priorities lay elsewhere.

They design/procure some of the best kit in the world, and procure in respectable numbers. However, a lot of that is supporting the local arms industry & keeping that plugging along, as it supports thousands of both highly skilled specialist jobs as well as general labour, re: Leopard 2 MBT's, decent warship and submarine designs, various small arms, primary partners in Typhoon fighter project & A400M project, NH90, operator of a decent sized fleet of Sea Stallion family of helicopters, etc.


But once that kit is procured and in service, it's availability rate is absolutely abysmal compared to other countries that operate the same kit. At one point they had:

- maybe a squadron's worth of servicable Typhoons

- a squadron's worth of Stallions operating

- all 6 submarines currently tied up alongside awaiting general maintenance & now repair

- a ship that was delivered to them that was already listing to one side, in which the Germany Navy actually flat out immediately rejected until that was fixed (but I believe they were forced to accept it anyway, like a year or two later, with the issues only partially fixed.)

- Known design flaws with a recently built batch of frigates, which are the same class as the one above. (The vessel is already quite slim on the armament side, yet is also quite heavy which was adversely affecting it's propulsion system, limiting further add-ons. It was also quite top heavy, which made maneuvering it somewhat tricky in combat conditions, especially if seas were rough, etc)




On paper, the German military is very much a well rounded out force. But in reality, a lot of that kit isn't well maintained, or it is out of service pending some heavy re-investment. They have very much fallen into the same black hole we have - the funding is there, but they are unable to use that funding efficiently as every MP and their 4yo child gets a say in how it is spent.

They've been solid at keeping core capabilities in good shape such as SOF, fighter aircraft available to scramble if required, and enough ships at sea to be present where they need to be and to contribute to both the NATO standing fleets as well as their EU commitments.

I think they figured out that IF Russia were to invade Europe (which won't happen, but it keeps certain industries churning along and the public scared enough to support it) - Russia has to go through several other countries before they get to Germany. In the meantime, they can focus their spending elsewhere. And if that ever happens, they'll get those spare parts coming in and get the big green machine chugging along again. Having roughly 22,000 US Army troops stationed there, with the US having 11 bases there in total when you include USAF & USMC, makes those decisions to save money on maintenance/spare parts a lot easier.




(Germany's social programs & social safety net are amazingly generous, to the point it truly isn't sustainable and they know it. It has got to the point where their social spending is so far above and beyond, a big chunk of it actually doesn't benefit them at all. As a German taxpayer, I would be furious - both that it has become so out of control, and that Germany itself doesn't see any sort of return on big chunks of those investments.)

**To give you an example, I currently have a good friend who is living in Germany. She is completing her PhD in physiotherapy, because post-secondary/university is free in Germany. Not only is it free, it's free to anybody who wants to move there & attend, not just German citizens. So her PhD is free, and she is being paid €900 a month on top of that which pays for her somewhat small yet still comfortable, reasonably modern apartment. She also gets a discount on her rent, because she is a student.

So she ends up with about €150 in her pocket for her own spending each month, a free apartment and free PhD. She is not a German citizen, nor even a permanent resident. She applied for a student visa, which she was approved for & received in less than a month.**



My main point, on topic, is that Germany knows the Russians aren't invading anytime soon. So minus a few fighters on alert to scramble, a token ship sailing around with a standing NATO fleet or two, and keeping their SOF well-funded - the German military on paper is NOT the German military you'd come into contact with if you were trying to invade.

0.02





 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,893
Points
1,040
This article says it all - Canada take heed of this quote:

Bureaucracy Strangling Everything and Everyone?

However, Germany’s military efficiency problem goes beyond half-baked reforms or a frequently changing political leadership. In his recent reports to parliament, Commissioner Bartels blames a culture of overregulation within the Bundeswehr for smothering “everything and everyone” in thousands of self-imposed regulations and rules. It is not as if armament projects of other militaries weren’t also prone to delays and cost overruns, but in Germany the Bundeswehr’s culture of overregulation is compounded by a lack of qualified personnel in its procurement agency the BAAINBw.

As a result, virtually none of Germany’s military lighthouse projects, like the armored personnel carrier Puma, the A400M transport aircraft, or the F125 frigates were completed in time or on budget. Even routine repairs and maintenance is often impossible due to a lack of stored spare parts and the byzantine procurement process. Leading to serious technical problems down the line and forcing soldiers to cannibalize other weapon systems for parts. In fact, the Ministry of Defense estimates that it will take until 2031 to fully equip all of its soldiers – a prediction that is already looking increasingly shaky. Particularly, since the Bundeswehr might be heading for a new round of major budget cuts – courtesy of the COVID-19 recession.

🍻
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,254
Points
1,010
This article says it all - Canada take heed of this quote:



🍻
We (Canada), have similar procurement/bureaucratic and production issues, but cannot claim anything close to that. Oh sorry.....we have the worlds' finest maple syrup.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
I don't know what I think about this vehicle as a vehicle. I don't know if it is an improvement over this.

1630591435100.png

I originally went searching to see if somebody had simply added a Medium Calibre Remote Weapons Station to the Wiesel to replace the manned turret. Then I discovered they had replaced the entire vehicle while retaining the concept.

I like that they retained the concept. I like the Remote Weapons Station. Personally I would reduce the crew to one and let the gunner drive and position the vehicle. Stabilization for firing on the move is not critical for my sense of how these things would be used. I see them primarily as machine guns first. The vehicle acts as the assistant gunner carrying the ammunition, the "tripod", the sights, the radio.

With that said I don't know that I am a fan of the four track hybrid electric drive. I could just be too much of a traditionalist or it could be that I have seen too many byzantine improvements that have decreased serviceability and reduced mean time between failures.

Also, adding windows? I kind of like the idea of a single crewman in a titanium bath tub either operating heads down and using the optronics when static or heads up in the breeze while on the move. Windows always suggest to me glare, vulnerability and creature comforts that will encourage the crew to stay inside when the weather is bad. The people they are supporting don't have those creature comforts.

I also don't know anything about the weight or dimensions and whether it is still as light and transportable as the original. I suspect that it has probably grown from the 2 to 4 tonne range to the 7 tonne range.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
203
Points
560
Ok, question here, the tracks look to be a bit narrow to be able to handle alot of deep snow. Is this a legitimate concern?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
Ok, question here, the tracks look to be a bit narrow to be able to handle alot of deep snow. Is this a legitimate concern?
Could be.

Related concept?


I guess we'll have to wait 'n' see on the trials?
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
466
Points
1,030
Ok, question here, the tracks look to be a bit narrow to be able to handle alot of deep snow. Is this a legitimate concern?

The legitimate concern is it narrow enough to fit in a CH-53. Deep snow was not a major concern for the Bundeswehr when the Wiesel was developed in the 70s/80s; they had no intention of making another run to Moscow.

In the early 2000s, NATO's concept for cold weather operations didn't include Germany as a location of concern.

CONCEPT FOR NATO LAND FORCES OPERATING IN COLD WEATHER CONDITIONS
General

1. The coldest regions are the Arctic and Antarctic. The Antarctic region is not of immediate concern to NATO. The Arctic region includes areas of Northern Siberia, Northern Canada and Alaska. No employment of NATO forces is envisaged in Arctic regions.

2. The region including Alaska, Canada, northern Iceland, and the most northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland are facing extreme cold weather conditions. According to FP0048 significant numbers of NATO forces are unlikely to be deployed in these areas as Force planners assess sufficient numbers of specialized forces to be available to cover a possible requirement.

3. The continental region is the area where most likely NATO forces may be employed in cold weather. In Europe, the continental climate occurs in eastern and northern Norway, most of Sweden and Finland, western Russia, most of the Ukraine, the Baltic States, Belarus, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, much of the Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldavia, and Slovakia. Additionally, in accordance with DRR 03 Planning Situations NATO force deployment may also be required to Eastern- and South-eastern Turkey as well as to Central Asia and Transcaucasus.

The Wiesel was only in the Airborne Division. During the Cold War (when this vehicle was developed), the German concept was to use the airborne brigades (3 in the div, one affiliated with each of the German corps) as an airmobile reaction force to Soviet breakthroughs. So everything had to fit into (or be slung beneath) their helicopters.

That requirement still holds for their one remaining airborne brigade.

esk-mungo-faehrt-aus-ch53.jpg

 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
203
Points
560
The legitimate concern is it narrow enough to fit in a CH-53. Deep snow was not a major concern for the Bundeswehr when the Wiesel was developed in the 70s/80s; they had no intention of making another run to Moscow.

But what about third time's a charm?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,799
Points
940
For Canada my preference is this, excellent cold/snow ops, can operate in the desert. I would task some to the Arctic, some to Reserve Armd and some to the Reg force. They are a supplement to the LAV, not a replacement.

Knickgelenkte-BVS10-f%25C3%25BCr-die-Gebirgspioniere_Bundesheer-e1551104789988.jpg
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,548
Points
1,060
For Canada my preference is this, excellent cold/snow ops, can operate in the desert. I would task some to the Arctic, some to Reserve Armd and some to the Reg force. They are a supplement to the LAV, not a replacement.

Knickgelenkte-BVS10-f%25C3%25BCr-die-Gebirgspioniere_Bundesheer-e1551104789988.jpg

Viking Squadron!

Viking is similar to the long-serving BV tracked vehicle – except it’s armed and armoured, providing both firepower and protection for the ten Royal Marines transported in the rear cab. It also keeps them warm and spares them exhausting marches, especially in the Arctic.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
I like that. And I like the idea of the Rangers being kitted out with the unarmoured version permanently positioned with each Patrol.

I also like the idea of the Army, Regs and Reserves, having access to those in both armoured and unarmoured forms. But I don't like the idea of the soldiers being tied to their vehicles. I would rather have the vehicles held by independent transport platoons and companies. Kind of exactly the way the Royal Marines have come to use them. Helicopter Squadron. Viking Platoon. No difference.
 
Top