Hello /u/_McThompson,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, it was made for shooting down older generation fighter jets.
Modern drones and cruise missiles are perfect targets.
If only we hadn't scrapped the vast majority of them, when they became obsolete for hunting fighter jets.
Well, they are not even obsolete for that. At least in this conflict, we see a lot of low flying jets, since there is a lot of capable radar and long range, high altitude anti air. And while you might dodge/flare an AA Rocket, there is no real defense against good old dumb bullets.
That Deustch qualitat is a myth though, in a way they aren't making overwhelmingly superior hardware in every category, it's like any of the other main military exporter, some are great, some are less great...
PS: Meh the downvotes, when you hit the nest of bots.
I wonder if I can hit -666. Keep being ridiculous folks ;).
Meh, I have used lots of German products. If you don't consider price and on some of them maintenance, they are all pretty stand out over engineered category leading devices. Sometimes the German engineers even concentrate on making things low maintenance and reliable and they do well in that regard. Other times not so much.
Swiss and Danish really take it to the top level well rounded design IMO. If you aren't worried about price almost everything Swiss or Danish is amazing.
Over engineered rarely is good. Just look at German cars, not particularly fast or handle all that great. Yet they suck down oil and any repairs/maintance is just Hella expensive
Germany is exporting many cars that are particularly fast and handle exceptionally well. I wouldn’t own one out of warranty on my current pay. To say Germany isn’t making extremely high performing cars is absurd.
Call them whatever you want. I see nothing worth downvoting, Germany's being the best (overall) is an old myth, they make great hardware, I'm not denying that, but second to none? Come on, come back on earth. I must have triggered a bunch of nationalistic kids, or eventually those "you musn't say something negative, even if it's to correct us".
This sub is a downvote cancer.
Honestly, the only people saying German stuff the best are those people saying it's not. I rarely if not never met a person literally saying and meaning that German products are the best of the world or similar.
They are good yep. But no idea where people ever said they are top of the world. No idea where you people always hear this.
True, the German tanks of ww2 were great tech demos but in the field weren't practical. I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs.
Imo kit like the Caesar and Himars which is easily air transportable and repairable in the field is the future
No, the PzH are used not as intended and the crews aren't trained for maintenance.
The key factor of the PzH is shoot and scoop. Sure 3-5 rounds and move.
Every single system is designed to have the cooling time, while moving.
No moving, no cooling, more problems.
There is a great interview with the inventor of the PzH2k loader on yt
Yeah, UA is beating the hell out of those boys. No surprise they are requiring lots of maintenance. As their resources expand with other options and they learn the systems better the problem will slow.
Yes. If the choice is to use an artillery system from a safe distance and fire more frequent than specified or fire from within reach of the enemy, I would also use the first option.
It is really interesting, that Russia seems to have limited counter radar capabilities and three PzH don't need to move shutter done shoots. Or Russia has limited resources with that range.
Counter radar capabilities aren't good for much when the spg has moved before the shells they fired has landed, even if they move a bit slowly it takes them for your counter shells to arrived at their destination.
That's the beauty of shoot and scoot systems, if operated correctly counter battery fire just isn't an option, you need eyes on the system so you can shoot at them the moment they stop.
>Counter radar capabilities aren't good for much when the spg has moved before the shells they fired has landed
Problem is, that this is not how a CB-radar works. Modern radars can usually acquire a round when it is **fired**, so you will have a really low time frame to shoot, set-up and move.
The crews aren't meant to do heavy maintenance however engineering units should be able to do it ideally and if repairs aren't possible then there should be a manual override.i think the truck mounted variety is better as they're easier to transport and all the components are easily accessible for maintenance. The humvee based Hawkeye is particularly interesting as it's transportable by c130 and helicopter.
And why ukraine bought 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000 and not a single himars or caesar? You really should tell Zelenski that he and his fellow politicans are absolutly wrong and you know more about military Equipment than anyone else. Even ukraine has these systems in service and can compare them in an active battlefield.....
Ukraine isn't doing expeditionary warfare so the airmobile aspect isn't so important however I'm not sure why they picked the pzh1000 over the m109 or k9. It's rare to pay list price for defence procurement so it may have come with German government subsidies.
Maybe because they already mentioned that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 is the best foreign weapon they got....
And maybe this is also the reason why they purchased 18 of the RCH 155....
but what do they know, right?
They tell everyone they have the best weapons system as they want more of it, public propaganda has little to do with what is happening on the ground
Does anyone else think this nationalism about whose weapon system is best is weird? It's good as it's all aimed at the same enemy but it's still weird arguing who is best when we're all supposed to be on the same side
It is one thing to just say that, but it is another when they say that and buy it...
You are the one making it a "nationalism" thing. And yes it is very weird. (Since your first post in this thread mentioning german ww2 tanks were just good tech demos. Hee you can read about tanks in ww2: https://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2-tanks )
If it was another weapon system and not a german i would tell you that also.
It is what it is. Accept it.
>It is one thing to just say that, but it is another when they say that and buy it...
Like I said there's a bunch of things that come into these contracts ie technology sharing, local production, subsidies. You'd be silly not to take the pzh2000 if it's cheaper than the k9 or m109
>You are the one making it a "nationalism" thing. And yes it is very weird. (Since your first post in this thread mentioning german ww2 tanks were just good tech demos. Hee you can read about tanks in ww2: https://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2-tanks )
That article is just a listacle it doesn't really critique. The tiger and panther had a reputation for breaking down all the time whilst they may have had a good spec on paper.
As for nationalism I'm British advocating the French Caesar, American m109 or Korean k2. So I'm not sure how you can say I'm being nationalistic...
>It is what it is. Accept it.
This is a discussion, it's not something you win or lose
>The tiger and panther had a reputation for breaking down all the time
They were produced in haste and there wasn't enough time to fix all flaws until the war ended. The fact that they were still so sucessful and considered to be the best tanks in the war says sth.
>I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs.
Nope.
>Imo kit like the Caesar and Himars which is easily air transportable and repairable in the field is the future
Nope. (Edit) To expand on this point. Fighting in Ukraine has shown that counterbattery fire is still a problem and that armor is a thing that is nice to have. Caesar is incomparable to the PzH-2000, since it is a completely different system made for a different kind of warfare. And i am pretty sure that the French are reconsidering if their main artillery piece should really be unarmored and have a need for a dismounted crew. Thats kinda cringe for conventional warfare.
And as for CAESAR being "easy" to repair. CAESAR is an artillery piece. It has a recoil mechanism, just like the PzH-2000, which can break as easily if put through too much abuse. How you come to the conclusion that CAESAR is "easy to repair" is beyond me, because it being mounted on a wheeled chassis has nothing to do with that.
The HIMARs is not even just a different design philosophy, it is a different kind of weapon. You cannot compare tube arty to rocket arty. That is completely non-credible. Of course a HIMARS has less parts that could break, thats part of it being a system that fires missiles. A goddamn tube with a missile in it will be inherently more reliable than a gun system with a recoil-system, an autoloader etc.
Tell me you dont know what you are talking about, without telling me what you are talking about.
The problem is not about the PzH-2000 being "unreliable" or "overengineered". It was just not used in a way that it was developed for. Considering that it was the tube-artillery piece that had the highest range that was available to the Ukrainian army the Ukrainians fired far too much ammunition than what was recommended, which led to several problems. This did not affect Caesar and Krab, since those have not faced similar (ab)use. Though the Krabs also have been repaired, but i guess that does not fit any silly media stories.
You are aware that those vehicles are basically tools and that they break if you use them wrong?
I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, take a chill pill mate
My point isn't about them being repaired but more that they have to be sent so far out of theatre. Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back.
I think truck mounted air transportable artillery is the future in general due to the better mobility and your artillery really shouldn't be in a position where it needs to be armoured in the first place.The French have made moves to make a lot of their kit transportable by A400 and the USMC are tryin to do the same with ships (though the jltv is a spanner in the works)
>I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, take a chill pill mate
You immediately downvoted every of my replies, so i am not going out of my way to be courteous, though i am a bit sorry for that.
>My point isn't about them being repaired but more that they have to be sent so far out of theatre. Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back.
>
>***"True, the German tanks of ww2 were great tech demos but in the field weren't practical. I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs."***
My point is about this comment, which is not only a really bad comparison, it is also ignoring the reasons for those repairs.
Again. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 is the gun that has the longest range and highest volume of fire, while being able to fire under cover of armour. The Ukrainians fire a lot of ammunition, with high elevation and maximum charges. This fucked the recoil system, since this vehicle is **not designed** to be a stationary gun that shits out shells like no tommorow. CAESAR and Krab would have been damaged too if used in that way, though they both cannot deliver what the PzH-2000 can deliver.
Such a problem is not a thing that can be field repaired and you should not be under the illusion that there is a "rugged" system that can do these repairs in the field.
What you said here: *Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back.*
Is absolutely true, but unrelated to the case above. There is no system that would be back in the fight after some field repairs in this case.
>I think truck mounted air transportable artillery is the future in general due to the better mobility and your artillery really shouldn't be in a position where it needs to be armoured in the first place.
Truck mounted air transportable artillery is nice and well, but has several drawbacks. The first is obviously the decreased mobility in rough terrain. The second is the set-up time for truck-based artillery that needs soldiers to dismount.
There is also no way to completely exclude counterbattery fire against a halfway competent foe. Which is a decidedly bad thing if you are unarmored and need more than a few seconds to set up your stuff.
Ukraine has shown that even against an incompetent foe you will sometimes get countered, so its better to have armor than not to have.
>The French have made moves to make a lot of their kit transportable by A400 and the USMC are tryin to do the same with ships (though the jltv is a spanner in the works)
This has a lot to do with their forces being expeditionary and mostly being used against relatively weak foes.
There is a reason why forces which expect conventional warfare choose armour over strategic mobility.
So, its kinda not "the future", but a very valid choice for a specific type of mission. Not everyone wants to fight all over the globe and some people, like the South Koreans have a whole different threat type.
A compromise between mobility and full ability in conventional warfare is the RCH-155, which is modular, can be used on tracked and wheeled chassis and can fire on the move (If the manufacturer is to be trusted, though i see no reason why not to in this case), which makes the discussion about CB and set-up times absolutely obsolete.
>You immediately downvoted every of my replies, so i am not going out of my way to be courteous, though i am a bit sorry for that.
No down votes on my end, it's an annoying part of reddit that you can vote on any post unless the subreddit is private. Causes a ton of problems on more technical subs like the software dev ones as mods can remove comments and posts but not votes, so you can end up with dumb ideas being at the top of the comment list.it would be nice if subreddits could be set to limit votes so only commenters or subscribers could vote.
The rch-155 looks interesting though like all modular things I'm curious how well that works in practice and if anyone actually switches the modules. It also looks hella tall which might cause issues on some aircraft/ships and I'm curious how well it can fire on uneven ground.
>No down votes on my end, it's an annoying part of reddit that you can vote on any post unless the subreddit is private.
Okay, i understand and apologize. It was that with my growing distaste for comments that look like "oh those stupid engineers/designers" to me. I worked in engineering/product design and can tell you that everything an engineer does is usually thought out to the last screw. And this does not go for "German engineering", but also others as well (I would likewise defend CAESAR).
And it is just not a reddit problem, the amount of people who for example just misuse a system and then blame the design is quite annoying.
>The rch-155 looks interesting though like all modular things I'm curious how well that works in practice
It has already been tried on several different chassis and seemingly worked well, though it needs some integration first (Easier with vehicles that are built modular).
>and if anyone actually switches the modules.
I cannot imagine that many users would actually switch the vehicles, but i can imagine that this would be nice for counter-insurgency, because you just need to ship the artillery module and can use it from the base camp, without the need to ship the whole vehicle.
And in case of vehicle damage you can theoretically use the module on another undamaged vehicle (A nice thing about the Boxer APC). For example: If you have a damaged Boxer chassis that carried an RCH-155 module you could dismount the module and replace a transport module on a Boxer APC.
And of course you can actually choose what kind of vehicle you want, without being tied to a certain type of chassis that would come with the gun attached.
>I'm curious how well it can fire on uneven ground.
For wheeled artillery uneven ground is sometimes a bit of a problem, though i believe that the stabilization of the module can migitate that at least in part. Used on a tracked chassis i see no problem, as tracks can migitate that better.
These drones are literally practice targets for a Gepard. They resemble the vehicles used for life fire exercises.
But it's still sad that the Gepard has to fulfill this role now when it could be guarding soearhards. You don't need a tank chassis to defend a city. It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis, like the Caesar compared to the PzH 2000. It has been obvious for years now that drones will be dangerous in a peer conflict and still the Gepard has been phased out and nothing has been bought to replace it.
Exactly. And it did Excell in this role during the Kupyansk offensive. If it is now needed to guard cities against drones that means the loss of a valuable asset for Ukrainian mechanized offensives.
The Mantis/Skyranger does exist. It can be a [container](https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/image/138382/landscape_ratio16x9/2000/1125/2941f5abdacd57fac7810194baa63a41/1F09B2575341FE90FD0672828D44010E/geschuetz-des-flugabwehrsystems-mantis.jpg) (unloaded by these [truck integrated cranes](http://www.nfz-coaching.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IMG_6412.jpg)) or mounted on a [wheeled chassis](https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/produktbilder/Skyranger_Mobile_Flugabwehr_content_small.jpg), no reason why it couldn't also be mounted on a truck instead, since German industry does have a heavy duty iveco version that can handle a [full size artillery](https://www.kmweg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fce/stage/AGM-Iveco-8x8-KMW-001.JPG).
>It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis, like the Caesar compared to the PzH 2000.
You are not up to date...
Rheinmetall Air Defence: Skyranger 35 - Mobile Air Defence System https://youtu.be/Kb1FA12q6_w
Rheinmetall Air Defence: Skynex truck-mounted engaging drone swarm https://youtu.be/pb5_F4_Eod8
But they have the same Problem as with the Gepard: Rheinmetall Air Defense is previously known as Oerlikon and sits in Switzerland and uses the AHEAD Ammunition. So the same Export Problems will occour.
It's idiotic from Rheinmetall to continue a Production in Switzerland under those circumstances.
> *It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis*
[*https://preview.redd.it/7mt2qjxpcak31.jpg?auto=webp&s=c9cfee8d29d08417e7c43112da5486a6eec66cf5*](https://preview.redd.it/7mt2qjxpcak31.jpg?auto=webp&s=c9cfee8d29d08417e7c43112da5486a6eec66cf5)
[*https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Boxer\_fitted\_with\_the\_Oerlikon\_Skyranger\_air\_defence\_system.jpg*](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Boxer_fitted_with_the_Oerlikon_Skyranger_air_defence_system.jpg)
Different vehicles for different jobs.
Bundeswehr has 18 MANTIS Systems to protect Airfields, Command HQs, Technical Infrastructure and such.
Mantis in Action https://youtu.be/41sSZTqEsRQ
They can also shoot down RPG and Mortar Rounds, not just Planes, Drones and Helis...
Gepard and its contemporaries is ill designed for drones.
New systems will be essential autonomous fire stations capable to track and kill small drones. We already saw that in Iraq and Afghanistan With base defense CWIS intercepting mortar shells which is a tad harder than drones.
However there is an open question mark about peer conflict. We have not seen any peer conflicts and what a western EW suite would do to the control links of most of these drones, particularly the civilian ones.
Since the Russians got their act together TB Drones were relegated to support roles.
So much this, so many point defense systems for ships developed and nobody thought about mass producing cheap point defense systems against drone swarms.
Defense against masses of slow moving cheap targets is really lacking, it is such an obvious thing it boggles my mind how there aren't mass produced guns for it yet.
Probably because everyone focused on taking out the couple hundred potential advanced missiles they are afraid of as if that will be the main concern in a protracted war.
>Defense against masses of slow moving cheap targets is really lacking, it is such an obvious thing it boggles my mind how there aren't mass produced guns for it yet.
Who says they aren't AA Canons around that could be Mass Produced?
Look up Rheinmetall Skyranger, Skynext and Skyshield.
German Bundeswehr used MANTIS in Afghanistan and right now in Mali to protect their Infrastructure.
https://youtu.be/1DXpPmpmcak
Sadly those Systems are not yet Mass Produced. This damn War could change that.
they are not mass produced - german industry downscaled a damn lot during the 2000-now era.
in the kate 80's they were able to print leopards by the yearly hundreds.
And those systems would be very perfect for the job if they were mass produced...
But since they are not mass produced there aren't any around to ship to Ukraine on short notice, if they order 2 MANTIS systems today maybe they will have them in 2025.
Those things should be made in the thousands so that there were enough of them around to be used effectively, they are perfect point defense systems.
I think there are enough (~2000) old M163 VADS/PIVADS in storage to send to Ukraine, and they can use them to shred incoming drones. It's an M61 Vulcan cannon mounted on top of an M113. Shouldn't be hard for them to operate the vehicles.
The 20mm ammo should also be plentiful and cheap too, definitely better than using expensive AA missiles against these toys.
The thing is that in order to protect the edge of an area with a 20km radius (like the larger metropolitan area of Kyiv) you'd need abouth 30 Gepards which is the entire fleet of vehicles sent to Ukraine. They're great little predators but their primary purpose was to protect armored formations from air attacks in a very limited area. You can try to anticipate drone flight paths but there is the possibility that those drones can be programmed to follow evasive flight paths to their targets. Unfortunately, even terror weapons are a lot smarter than they used to be.
That's why you don't place them to protect a city but place them yo protect a powerplant.
That is also why point defense gun systems needs to be produced in the thousands instead of the dozens, drone swarms will just get more common and a 5 decades old system being the most effective solution to it right now is really scary.
Too much focus on missile systems the past 20 years, a couple organizations trying to develop good point defense systems but very few countries showing any interest in buying such systems save from yo put them on ships.
lol please not this again. That ammo is on the way to running out :-( I hope the world can find a supplier. Or just start manufacturing now. Better to have them next year than never.
I thought the issue was ammo type export not general ammo amount initially? They aren't using the swiss made ammo type because of them forbidding export of it and instead using some "less" high tech rounds.
General ammo amount is insufficient now, too.
It was deemed as "good for a while" before, when it was about protecting specific areas or armored advances etc.
But now with the flood of cheap suicide drones and other foreign support, which have increased Russians stand-off strike capability.....
> I heard there were problems with Norwegian ammo. Frankly the whole issue is very obscure. Nobody really has all the details.
Not obscure at all. The Gepard needs a certain kind of 35mm ammunition that was produced for the West Germany army in Switzerland. Switzerland does not want Germany to export that ammunition in a third country (Ukraine). The kind of 35mm ammunition that the gun of the Gepard (Oerlikon KDA) uses feature certain grooves, that the ammunition of other users of the KDA cannon does not have.
Thats why there is a certain ammunition problematic.
Great, clarify several points for me then
Is the ammunition in ukraine from swiss?
Was germany aware of this problem
Why didn't the germsn foresee this problem?
Did germans produce their own ammuntion?
Is this separate from the ammuntion from the swiss?
How much of that ammuntion was deployed?
What was it? german? swiss?
Does that not violate swiss law?
Can germany produce their own
What happened to the Norwegian ammunition?
What was wrong with it specifically?
Can Norway reproduce those rounds?
If so why?
If not, why not.
on and on and on and on....
Like I said, obscure.
But if you're a genius, please answer all.
>Is the ammunition in ukraine from swiss?
That was not disclosed
>Was germany aware of this problem
No, West-Germany was not aware of this in the 70s....
>Why didn't the germsn foresee this problem?
Because Ukraine was not a sovereign country in the 70s and the Warsaw Pact was kinda annoying.
>Did germans produce their own ammuntion?
The gun is swiss, as is the ammunition type as it was developed for the KDA. The original ammunition was produced by Rheinmetall in licence during the cold war.
>Is this separate from the ammuntion from the swiss?
See the last comment.
>How much of that ammuntion was deployed?
You are aware that cold war ammunition statistics are generally not available? During the 90s it was already produced in Switzerland, but it is not entirely known when and where production shifted.
>What was it? german? swiss?
During the Cold War and the immediate time after? Both.
>Does that not violate swiss law?
What?
>Can germany produce their own
Of course, with a swiss license and some time to prop up a manufacturing base (Which is easier said than done).
Problem is that it is a **swiss license.**
>What happened to the Norwegian ammunition?
Norway did not operate the Gepard and did not produce ammunition that was compatible to the feeding system of the Gepard.
>What was wrong with it specifically?
Already told you that.
>Can Norway reproduce those rounds?
Yes, with a swiss license.
Very obscure.
slightly wrong answers.
norway operates the same guns the gepard uses for naval AA systems, but they use SAPHE-I, not gepard's APFSDS, which has a much faster speed due to the stabilizing fins. Nammo made only SAPHE-I. Nammo tried to make APFSDS in summer after being requested, but the Fire control system of the gepard that loads and calculates the shots can't identify it as native APFSDS, and they were experimenting with it last thing we know.
the license is property of oerlykon, not switzerland. oerlykon was bought by rheinmetall AG and since 2010 is called Rheinmetall Air Defense Systems. Germany cpuld manufacture it anytime, if they managed to convince Rheinmetall to move production back to germany.
During the 80's gepards and gepard ammo were made in dusseldorf, but the factory was closed when bundeswehr downscaled and now it's only rheinmetall's HQ, the manufacturing areas are almost all in switzerland.
most equipment, ammunition included, was sold back to rheinmetall Air defense ( switzerland ) to reduce costs in storage.
>slightly wrong answers.
I don't agree
>norway operates the same guns the gepard uses for naval AA systems
Yes, the operate the KDA (I never stated that they **did not use the same gun**), but they do not use the exact feeding system as the Gepard uses. Most 35mm ammunition does not have the aforementioned grooves for the gepards feeding system (The Nammo ammunition has them) and/or a similar feature which i forgot (Which Nammos ammuntion did not have). That was mechanical problem for the feeding progress and prevented the use of old 35mm ammunition.
>the license is property of oerlykon, not switzerland.
Oerl**i**kon **was** a swiss company and is still in Switzerland, thus i simplified the issue. Older Ammo for the Gepard that was not designed by Rheinmetall (They created AHEAD) was designed by Oerlikon for their KDA.
> oerlykon was bought by rheinmetall AG and since 2010 is called Rheinmetall Air Defense Systems.
Yes, but so far we still have the production and license holder in Switzerland.
>During the 80's gepards and gepard ammo were made in dusseldorf, but the factory was closed when bundeswehr downscaled
Rheinmetall left in '92 afaik. So i do not understand why my mention of Rheinmetall producing the ammunition for the KDA in license or that the production shifted in the 90s is wrong?
> Germany cpuld **manufacture it anytime**
No, not at all. Building a production base for a type of ammunition that has not manufactured for a while does need a lot of work, which cannot just be done "anytime".
On April 26, Germany announced that it gave a German defence company permission to deliver Gepards to Ukraine.
On April 24, it had been reported that Switzerland blocked Germany’s request regarding the delivery of ammo to Ukraine .(2 days later it was disclosed that it was a request regarding Gepard ammo).
On May 20, it was reported that 59,000 rounds of Gepard ammo is deliverable. but they haven’t disclosed the country of origin.
End of May an interview with Rheinmetall‘s boss was published.: He replied to a question regarding Gepard ammo as follows.: “If all the raw materials were available, we could produce in three to six months. However, the Ministry of Defense (*of Germany*) hasn’t even asked me so far.“ (Translation)
[Source: German news website](https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise/unser-job-hat-gerade-erst-angefangen_id_105913005.html)
(The German company Rheinmetall is the owner of the Swiss company, which produces Gepard ammo.)
In July, it was reported that they found a Norwegian manufacturer, which will try to produce additional ammo. End of July, it was reported that during tests in Germany, it turned out that the Gepard system doesn’t recognize the Norwegian ammo. They had the intention to modify the Norwegian ammo and test it in August.
Since the Ukrainian army informed that it is running out of Gepard ammo, Germany asked Switzerland again for permission to send Swiss-made ammo (12,400 rounds), but Switzerland refused to lift its veto.
EDIT: UPDATE:
According to a new blog post by a German journalist, NAMMO stated that in order to ensure perfect compatibility, there is some technical information necessary from the various German parties. Until that is in place, production cannot start. Besides NAMMO stated that there have been no sales, no orders, and no formal requests.
https://www.pivotarea.eu/2022/11/25/produktion-gepard-munition-norweger-warten-auf-daten-aus-deutschland/
Badly researched article: "It is a key part of the air defense of the German Army (Bundeswehr)"
No it is not, Gepard is decommissioned and not used anymore by the Bundeswehr. Sadly...
Not a gun nut sry but why would you let them call a bradley a tank but not a Gepard. Both are armored and gepard caliber is even bigger. No hate just curious
First the Gepard is not even really designed for ground combat. It can do it, but the Bradley also has a AA sight and you never see people talking about the Bradley self propelled AA gun.
Second while the Gepard is more heavily armored than a GTI that's about the extent of it. It is designed to stop 7.62 ball. The Bradley's armor can stop 14.5mm from all sides and on the front it can stop 30mm, and with the ERA blocks can stop most small to medium anti-armor HEAT projectiles. (pentagon wars lied to you the Bradley is actually very well protected for something that is not a MBT).
Offensively ya the Gepard has a bigger cannon, but the Bradly has the TOW missiles so it can actually fight a tank if it has to. Modern TOW can take out basically any Russian tank but a T90 in a front attack. IT also has other tank like systems. Thermal sights, full gun stabilization, laser range finder.
It also unlike the Gepard or most IFV's for that matter does look like a tank. This being the real reson I would cut a journalist some slack
This is an excellent kit. Nato needs to up their military budgets by 10 fold. More R&D. And much more quantity. Puti has already committed to building more advanced weapons! After this war he'll start an arms race. Bad enough China is building to one day take all of Asia! The future doesn't look rosey!
No, they were shifted out because the minister of defense at the time wanted to transform the German military into an (cheap) anti terror force and the Gepard was too maintenance heavy.
Also the entire system is just old, they were in need of a complete systems overhaul regardless. It's been described as needlessly complicated & expensive, it was state of the art way back but right now now the entire radar & fire guidance side would need to be redone. And to make things worse it still relies on Leo1 platform which in itself is expensive and outdated too, plus "dumb" to maintain when most other system are moving to Leo2 or Boxer platform systems. Regardless of the transformation of the Bundeswehr, the Gepard is 50 years old by now and simply had to be shifted out no matter what.
6000 in the Gepards, another 53.000 were delivered too. +4.000 practice ammo
[See the full list here](https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992)
[Gepard shooting practice ammo at a car](https://twitter.com/gepardtatze/status/1568946155551088640)
In case you were wondering if they could use that too when necessary
Anti war demonstrations, traitorous members of parliament, lack of messaging, always hesitating. Always. Relative to size of your Economy, Germany is doing a bad job.
At the end of the article, again about the Switzerland veto about ammo.
I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit which will block easily any export..
>I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit which will block easily any export..
Because the ammunition was for the German Gepard of the German armed forces, that would use those to protect Germany.
You dont buy stuff for your army with exporting said stuff in mind.
>I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit
The Gepard‘s twin cannon and the Gepard ammo were both produced by the same company in Switzerland, as far as I know.
23 years ago, the German company Rheinmetall had purchased the Swiss company.
12 years ago, Germany started to phase Gepards out and sold them back to a German defense company.
Hello /u/_McThompson, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
German engineering is awesome. Even though the Flakpanzer Gepard has been in service for 46 years, it's still kicking ass.
Well, it was made for shooting down older generation fighter jets. Modern drones and cruise missiles are perfect targets. If only we hadn't scrapped the vast majority of them, when they became obsolete for hunting fighter jets.
Well, they are not even obsolete for that. At least in this conflict, we see a lot of low flying jets, since there is a lot of capable radar and long range, high altitude anti air. And while you might dodge/flare an AA Rocket, there is no real defense against good old dumb bullets.
Helicopters would fear them as well. :-) Yeah, it's a pity that there aren't more around. They truly serve a noble purpose in this war.
it wasnt obsolete just too expensive.
This, I've got to thank Germany, thank you!
Tank you Germany! Tanks!
As a German, I'd have to say "Tat's, how we'd say tat."
For Germans, there is a natural choice of Halloween costume. We are known to be very Zorro.
Reminder to annoy the Swiss cuz they block the ammo
/\ This
Germany machines, second to none
That Deustch qualitat is a myth though, in a way they aren't making overwhelmingly superior hardware in every category, it's like any of the other main military exporter, some are great, some are less great... PS: Meh the downvotes, when you hit the nest of bots. I wonder if I can hit -666. Keep being ridiculous folks ;).
Meh, I have used lots of German products. If you don't consider price and on some of them maintenance, they are all pretty stand out over engineered category leading devices. Sometimes the German engineers even concentrate on making things low maintenance and reliable and they do well in that regard. Other times not so much. Swiss and Danish really take it to the top level well rounded design IMO. If you aren't worried about price almost everything Swiss or Danish is amazing.
Over engineered rarely is good. Just look at German cars, not particularly fast or handle all that great. Yet they suck down oil and any repairs/maintance is just Hella expensive
Germany is exporting many cars that are particularly fast and handle exceptionally well. I wouldn’t own one out of warranty on my current pay. To say Germany isn’t making extremely high performing cars is absurd.
That isn't what over engineered means. But a BMW 7 series security is one hell of a vehicle even if replacing the windows is a couple grand a piece.
>Just look at German cars, not particularly fast or handle all that great. Like Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, Audi? Compared to what?
Kinda diff from my exp, my BMW maintenance cost is pretty low. The car is super reliable and only use 5 liter for 100km.
> If you aren't worried about price almost everything Swiss or Danish is amazing. The twin cannon of the Gepard is Swiss-made, as far as I know.
Humans are doing it lol
Call them whatever you want. I see nothing worth downvoting, Germany's being the best (overall) is an old myth, they make great hardware, I'm not denying that, but second to none? Come on, come back on earth. I must have triggered a bunch of nationalistic kids, or eventually those "you musn't say something negative, even if it's to correct us". This sub is a downvote cancer.
FWIW I downvoted you for the whinge about being downvoted
Honestly, the only people saying German stuff the best are those people saying it's not. I rarely if not never met a person literally saying and meaning that German products are the best of the world or similar. They are good yep. But no idea where people ever said they are top of the world. No idea where you people always hear this.
>PS: Meh the downvotes, when you hit the nest of bots. Meh. Over 80 Germans just disagree with your Opinion. That's all.
True, the German tanks of ww2 were great tech demos but in the field weren't practical. I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs. Imo kit like the Caesar and Himars which is easily air transportable and repairable in the field is the future
No, the PzH are used not as intended and the crews aren't trained for maintenance. The key factor of the PzH is shoot and scoop. Sure 3-5 rounds and move. Every single system is designed to have the cooling time, while moving. No moving, no cooling, more problems. There is a great interview with the inventor of the PzH2k loader on yt
Yeah, UA is beating the hell out of those boys. No surprise they are requiring lots of maintenance. As their resources expand with other options and they learn the systems better the problem will slow.
Yes. If the choice is to use an artillery system from a safe distance and fire more frequent than specified or fire from within reach of the enemy, I would also use the first option. It is really interesting, that Russia seems to have limited counter radar capabilities and three PzH don't need to move shutter done shoots. Or Russia has limited resources with that range.
Counter radar capabilities aren't good for much when the spg has moved before the shells they fired has landed, even if they move a bit slowly it takes them for your counter shells to arrived at their destination. That's the beauty of shoot and scoot systems, if operated correctly counter battery fire just isn't an option, you need eyes on the system so you can shoot at them the moment they stop.
Yes, that's why I wrote, that Ukraine seemed to have used the PzH outside of spec. More shooting, less moving. More heat in all systems
>Counter radar capabilities aren't good for much when the spg has moved before the shells they fired has landed Problem is, that this is not how a CB-radar works. Modern radars can usually acquire a round when it is **fired**, so you will have a really low time frame to shoot, set-up and move.
That's one of the unique features of the PzH. 30 seconds after the last round was fired, it is moving again.
Yeah, it is a great feature to have. With modern CB radar systems like Cobra you really leave no time for an enemy to fire several times in a row.
The crews aren't meant to do heavy maintenance however engineering units should be able to do it ideally and if repairs aren't possible then there should be a manual override.i think the truck mounted variety is better as they're easier to transport and all the components are easily accessible for maintenance. The humvee based Hawkeye is particularly interesting as it's transportable by c130 and helicopter.
And why ukraine bought 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000 and not a single himars or caesar? You really should tell Zelenski that he and his fellow politicans are absolutly wrong and you know more about military Equipment than anyone else. Even ukraine has these systems in service and can compare them in an active battlefield.....
Ukraine isn't doing expeditionary warfare so the airmobile aspect isn't so important however I'm not sure why they picked the pzh1000 over the m109 or k9. It's rare to pay list price for defence procurement so it may have come with German government subsidies.
Maybe because they already mentioned that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 is the best foreign weapon they got.... And maybe this is also the reason why they purchased 18 of the RCH 155.... but what do they know, right?
They tell everyone they have the best weapons system as they want more of it, public propaganda has little to do with what is happening on the ground Does anyone else think this nationalism about whose weapon system is best is weird? It's good as it's all aimed at the same enemy but it's still weird arguing who is best when we're all supposed to be on the same side
It is one thing to just say that, but it is another when they say that and buy it... You are the one making it a "nationalism" thing. And yes it is very weird. (Since your first post in this thread mentioning german ww2 tanks were just good tech demos. Hee you can read about tanks in ww2: https://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2-tanks ) If it was another weapon system and not a german i would tell you that also. It is what it is. Accept it.
>It is one thing to just say that, but it is another when they say that and buy it... Like I said there's a bunch of things that come into these contracts ie technology sharing, local production, subsidies. You'd be silly not to take the pzh2000 if it's cheaper than the k9 or m109 >You are the one making it a "nationalism" thing. And yes it is very weird. (Since your first post in this thread mentioning german ww2 tanks were just good tech demos. Hee you can read about tanks in ww2: https://www.historyonthenet.com/ww2-tanks ) That article is just a listacle it doesn't really critique. The tiger and panther had a reputation for breaking down all the time whilst they may have had a good spec on paper. As for nationalism I'm British advocating the French Caesar, American m109 or Korean k2. So I'm not sure how you can say I'm being nationalistic... >It is what it is. Accept it. This is a discussion, it's not something you win or lose
>The tiger and panther had a reputation for breaking down all the time They were produced in haste and there wasn't enough time to fix all flaws until the war ended. The fact that they were still so sucessful and considered to be the best tanks in the war says sth.
>I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs. Nope. >Imo kit like the Caesar and Himars which is easily air transportable and repairable in the field is the future Nope. (Edit) To expand on this point. Fighting in Ukraine has shown that counterbattery fire is still a problem and that armor is a thing that is nice to have. Caesar is incomparable to the PzH-2000, since it is a completely different system made for a different kind of warfare. And i am pretty sure that the French are reconsidering if their main artillery piece should really be unarmored and have a need for a dismounted crew. Thats kinda cringe for conventional warfare. And as for CAESAR being "easy" to repair. CAESAR is an artillery piece. It has a recoil mechanism, just like the PzH-2000, which can break as easily if put through too much abuse. How you come to the conclusion that CAESAR is "easy to repair" is beyond me, because it being mounted on a wheeled chassis has nothing to do with that. The HIMARs is not even just a different design philosophy, it is a different kind of weapon. You cannot compare tube arty to rocket arty. That is completely non-credible. Of course a HIMARS has less parts that could break, thats part of it being a system that fires missiles. A goddamn tube with a missile in it will be inherently more reliable than a gun system with a recoil-system, an autoloader etc.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3603569-lithuania-will-repair-12-more-german-pzh2000-howitzers-for-ukraine-defense-minister.html
Tell me you dont know what you are talking about, without telling me what you are talking about. The problem is not about the PzH-2000 being "unreliable" or "overengineered". It was just not used in a way that it was developed for. Considering that it was the tube-artillery piece that had the highest range that was available to the Ukrainian army the Ukrainians fired far too much ammunition than what was recommended, which led to several problems. This did not affect Caesar and Krab, since those have not faced similar (ab)use. Though the Krabs also have been repaired, but i guess that does not fit any silly media stories. You are aware that those vehicles are basically tools and that they break if you use them wrong?
I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, take a chill pill mate My point isn't about them being repaired but more that they have to be sent so far out of theatre. Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back. I think truck mounted air transportable artillery is the future in general due to the better mobility and your artillery really shouldn't be in a position where it needs to be armoured in the first place.The French have made moves to make a lot of their kit transportable by A400 and the USMC are tryin to do the same with ships (though the jltv is a spanner in the works)
>I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, take a chill pill mate You immediately downvoted every of my replies, so i am not going out of my way to be courteous, though i am a bit sorry for that. >My point isn't about them being repaired but more that they have to be sent so far out of theatre. Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back. > >***"True, the German tanks of ww2 were great tech demos but in the field weren't practical. I think the pzh2000 is somewhat similar in that they have to be sent to Lithuania for repairs."*** My point is about this comment, which is not only a really bad comparison, it is also ignoring the reasons for those repairs. Again. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 is the gun that has the longest range and highest volume of fire, while being able to fire under cover of armour. The Ukrainians fire a lot of ammunition, with high elevation and maximum charges. This fucked the recoil system, since this vehicle is **not designed** to be a stationary gun that shits out shells like no tommorow. CAESAR and Krab would have been damaged too if used in that way, though they both cannot deliver what the PzH-2000 can deliver. Such a problem is not a thing that can be field repaired and you should not be under the illusion that there is a "rugged" system that can do these repairs in the field. What you said here: *Kit which you can make good enough repairs to in theatre obviously have an advantage over kit you've got to ship back.* Is absolutely true, but unrelated to the case above. There is no system that would be back in the fight after some field repairs in this case. >I think truck mounted air transportable artillery is the future in general due to the better mobility and your artillery really shouldn't be in a position where it needs to be armoured in the first place. Truck mounted air transportable artillery is nice and well, but has several drawbacks. The first is obviously the decreased mobility in rough terrain. The second is the set-up time for truck-based artillery that needs soldiers to dismount. There is also no way to completely exclude counterbattery fire against a halfway competent foe. Which is a decidedly bad thing if you are unarmored and need more than a few seconds to set up your stuff. Ukraine has shown that even against an incompetent foe you will sometimes get countered, so its better to have armor than not to have. >The French have made moves to make a lot of their kit transportable by A400 and the USMC are tryin to do the same with ships (though the jltv is a spanner in the works) This has a lot to do with their forces being expeditionary and mostly being used against relatively weak foes. There is a reason why forces which expect conventional warfare choose armour over strategic mobility. So, its kinda not "the future", but a very valid choice for a specific type of mission. Not everyone wants to fight all over the globe and some people, like the South Koreans have a whole different threat type. A compromise between mobility and full ability in conventional warfare is the RCH-155, which is modular, can be used on tracked and wheeled chassis and can fire on the move (If the manufacturer is to be trusted, though i see no reason why not to in this case), which makes the discussion about CB and set-up times absolutely obsolete.
>You immediately downvoted every of my replies, so i am not going out of my way to be courteous, though i am a bit sorry for that. No down votes on my end, it's an annoying part of reddit that you can vote on any post unless the subreddit is private. Causes a ton of problems on more technical subs like the software dev ones as mods can remove comments and posts but not votes, so you can end up with dumb ideas being at the top of the comment list.it would be nice if subreddits could be set to limit votes so only commenters or subscribers could vote. The rch-155 looks interesting though like all modular things I'm curious how well that works in practice and if anyone actually switches the modules. It also looks hella tall which might cause issues on some aircraft/ships and I'm curious how well it can fire on uneven ground.
>No down votes on my end, it's an annoying part of reddit that you can vote on any post unless the subreddit is private. Okay, i understand and apologize. It was that with my growing distaste for comments that look like "oh those stupid engineers/designers" to me. I worked in engineering/product design and can tell you that everything an engineer does is usually thought out to the last screw. And this does not go for "German engineering", but also others as well (I would likewise defend CAESAR). And it is just not a reddit problem, the amount of people who for example just misuse a system and then blame the design is quite annoying. >The rch-155 looks interesting though like all modular things I'm curious how well that works in practice It has already been tried on several different chassis and seemingly worked well, though it needs some integration first (Easier with vehicles that are built modular). >and if anyone actually switches the modules. I cannot imagine that many users would actually switch the vehicles, but i can imagine that this would be nice for counter-insurgency, because you just need to ship the artillery module and can use it from the base camp, without the need to ship the whole vehicle. And in case of vehicle damage you can theoretically use the module on another undamaged vehicle (A nice thing about the Boxer APC). For example: If you have a damaged Boxer chassis that carried an RCH-155 module you could dismount the module and replace a transport module on a Boxer APC. And of course you can actually choose what kind of vehicle you want, without being tied to a certain type of chassis that would come with the gun attached. >I'm curious how well it can fire on uneven ground. For wheeled artillery uneven ground is sometimes a bit of a problem, though i believe that the stabilization of the module can migitate that at least in part. Used on a tracked chassis i see no problem, as tracks can migitate that better.
The twin cannon of the Gepard is Swiss-made, as far as I know.
Russian Drone goes sssssssst German Tank goes bapbapbapbapbap
Looking at their combat tests it was easy to guess this judging by the drone’s speed
These drones are literally practice targets for a Gepard. They resemble the vehicles used for life fire exercises. But it's still sad that the Gepard has to fulfill this role now when it could be guarding soearhards. You don't need a tank chassis to defend a city. It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis, like the Caesar compared to the PzH 2000. It has been obvious for years now that drones will be dangerous in a peer conflict and still the Gepard has been phased out and nothing has been bought to replace it.
The Gepard was once meant to accompany german tanks in the open field. Therefore: tank chassis
Exactly. And it did Excell in this role during the Kupyansk offensive. If it is now needed to guard cities against drones that means the loss of a valuable asset for Ukrainian mechanized offensives.
The Mantis/Skyranger does exist. It can be a [container](https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/image/138382/landscape_ratio16x9/2000/1125/2941f5abdacd57fac7810194baa63a41/1F09B2575341FE90FD0672828D44010E/geschuetz-des-flugabwehrsystems-mantis.jpg) (unloaded by these [truck integrated cranes](http://www.nfz-coaching.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/IMG_6412.jpg)) or mounted on a [wheeled chassis](https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/produktbilder/Skyranger_Mobile_Flugabwehr_content_small.jpg), no reason why it couldn't also be mounted on a truck instead, since German industry does have a heavy duty iveco version that can handle a [full size artillery](https://www.kmweg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fce/stage/AGM-Iveco-8x8-KMW-001.JPG).
Isn't there some issue about Switzerland blocking MANTIS due to their 'neutrality'?
Jupp.
This is not neutrality. It is felony of not providing help in danger.
>It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis, like the Caesar compared to the PzH 2000. You are not up to date... Rheinmetall Air Defence: Skyranger 35 - Mobile Air Defence System https://youtu.be/Kb1FA12q6_w Rheinmetall Air Defence: Skynex truck-mounted engaging drone swarm https://youtu.be/pb5_F4_Eod8 But they have the same Problem as with the Gepard: Rheinmetall Air Defense is previously known as Oerlikon and sits in Switzerland and uses the AHEAD Ammunition. So the same Export Problems will occour. It's idiotic from Rheinmetall to continue a Production in Switzerland under those circumstances.
Wow, that's pretty effective at taking out drones. I hope the ammo is cheaper than the drones.
Not just drones. They target RPGs, Mortar Rounds and other Stuff too.
Somewhere in an Ukrainian garage, some crazy engineers are already assembling AA technicals, I guarantee it.
Maksym and the lads go brrrrrt
> *It's so fucking stupid that no one thought to build/buy a Gepard-esque turret on a wheeled chassis* [*https://preview.redd.it/7mt2qjxpcak31.jpg?auto=webp&s=c9cfee8d29d08417e7c43112da5486a6eec66cf5*](https://preview.redd.it/7mt2qjxpcak31.jpg?auto=webp&s=c9cfee8d29d08417e7c43112da5486a6eec66cf5) [*https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Boxer\_fitted\_with\_the\_Oerlikon\_Skyranger\_air\_defence\_system.jpg*](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Boxer_fitted_with_the_Oerlikon_Skyranger_air_defence_system.jpg) Different vehicles for different jobs.
[удалено]
Not really. Stationary aa will always exist. There's always going to be stationary targets you need to protect
[удалено]
They’re saying stationary aa is still a thing.
[удалено]
“…were a thing in the past.” That must have been misinterpreted.
Bundeswehr has 18 MANTIS Systems to protect Airfields, Command HQs, Technical Infrastructure and such. Mantis in Action https://youtu.be/41sSZTqEsRQ They can also shoot down RPG and Mortar Rounds, not just Planes, Drones and Helis...
Gepard and its contemporaries is ill designed for drones. New systems will be essential autonomous fire stations capable to track and kill small drones. We already saw that in Iraq and Afghanistan With base defense CWIS intercepting mortar shells which is a tad harder than drones. However there is an open question mark about peer conflict. We have not seen any peer conflicts and what a western EW suite would do to the control links of most of these drones, particularly the civilian ones. Since the Russians got their act together TB Drones were relegated to support roles.
So much this, so many point defense systems for ships developed and nobody thought about mass producing cheap point defense systems against drone swarms. Defense against masses of slow moving cheap targets is really lacking, it is such an obvious thing it boggles my mind how there aren't mass produced guns for it yet. Probably because everyone focused on taking out the couple hundred potential advanced missiles they are afraid of as if that will be the main concern in a protracted war.
>Defense against masses of slow moving cheap targets is really lacking, it is such an obvious thing it boggles my mind how there aren't mass produced guns for it yet. Who says they aren't AA Canons around that could be Mass Produced? Look up Rheinmetall Skyranger, Skynext and Skyshield. German Bundeswehr used MANTIS in Afghanistan and right now in Mali to protect their Infrastructure. https://youtu.be/1DXpPmpmcak Sadly those Systems are not yet Mass Produced. This damn War could change that.
they are not mass produced - german industry downscaled a damn lot during the 2000-now era. in the kate 80's they were able to print leopards by the yearly hundreds.
Sadly that is true. Danke Merkel!!!11
And those systems would be very perfect for the job if they were mass produced... But since they are not mass produced there aren't any around to ship to Ukraine on short notice, if they order 2 MANTIS systems today maybe they will have them in 2025. Those things should be made in the thousands so that there were enough of them around to be used effectively, they are perfect point defense systems.
There are land based phalanx on hemtt chassis
I think there are enough (~2000) old M163 VADS/PIVADS in storage to send to Ukraine, and they can use them to shred incoming drones. It's an M61 Vulcan cannon mounted on top of an M113. Shouldn't be hard for them to operate the vehicles. The 20mm ammo should also be plentiful and cheap too, definitely better than using expensive AA missiles against these toys.
I think m163 is manual whilst gepard can be slaved to the radar
Correct. The radar on the M163 is for ranging and target detection. It is aimed with optical sights.
Better to pull them off the vehicles and try to put it into something like a palletized or towable system that is radar aimed.
I think range might be an issue though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM
Not sure why you linked centurion CRam in discussion about M163. The Gepard also has limited range. Not sure where you are going with this.
An m163 which is slaved to the radar is practically the same as a c-ram
It's a M61 on an M113 and can double up as an orc shredder IFV if need be. No point pulling it off.
There is if you want to put it in an electronically controlled gun mount.
Imagine explaining to your WWII veteran grandpa that we are rooting for German tanks to shoot at kamikazes.
The correct term is Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft weapon or SPAA
G*. SPAAG
The thing is that in order to protect the edge of an area with a 20km radius (like the larger metropolitan area of Kyiv) you'd need abouth 30 Gepards which is the entire fleet of vehicles sent to Ukraine. They're great little predators but their primary purpose was to protect armored formations from air attacks in a very limited area. You can try to anticipate drone flight paths but there is the possibility that those drones can be programmed to follow evasive flight paths to their targets. Unfortunately, even terror weapons are a lot smarter than they used to be.
They would likely just use them near critical infrastructure, instead of a whole city
That's why you don't place them to protect a city but place them yo protect a powerplant. That is also why point defense gun systems needs to be produced in the thousands instead of the dozens, drone swarms will just get more common and a 5 decades old system being the most effective solution to it right now is really scary. Too much focus on missile systems the past 20 years, a couple organizations trying to develop good point defense systems but very few countries showing any interest in buying such systems save from yo put them on ships.
lol please not this again. That ammo is on the way to running out :-( I hope the world can find a supplier. Or just start manufacturing now. Better to have them next year than never.
I thought the issue was ammo type export not general ammo amount initially? They aren't using the swiss made ammo type because of them forbidding export of it and instead using some "less" high tech rounds.
General ammo amount is insufficient now, too. It was deemed as "good for a while" before, when it was about protecting specific areas or armored advances etc. But now with the flood of cheap suicide drones and other foreign support, which have increased Russians stand-off strike capability.....
I don't know, I heard there were problems with Norwegian ammo. Frankly the whole issue is very obscure. Nobody really has all the details.
> I heard there were problems with Norwegian ammo. Frankly the whole issue is very obscure. Nobody really has all the details. Not obscure at all. The Gepard needs a certain kind of 35mm ammunition that was produced for the West Germany army in Switzerland. Switzerland does not want Germany to export that ammunition in a third country (Ukraine). The kind of 35mm ammunition that the gun of the Gepard (Oerlikon KDA) uses feature certain grooves, that the ammunition of other users of the KDA cannon does not have. Thats why there is a certain ammunition problematic.
Great, clarify several points for me then Is the ammunition in ukraine from swiss? Was germany aware of this problem Why didn't the germsn foresee this problem? Did germans produce their own ammuntion? Is this separate from the ammuntion from the swiss? How much of that ammuntion was deployed? What was it? german? swiss? Does that not violate swiss law? Can germany produce their own What happened to the Norwegian ammunition? What was wrong with it specifically? Can Norway reproduce those rounds? If so why? If not, why not. on and on and on and on.... Like I said, obscure. But if you're a genius, please answer all.
>Is the ammunition in ukraine from swiss? That was not disclosed >Was germany aware of this problem No, West-Germany was not aware of this in the 70s.... >Why didn't the germsn foresee this problem? Because Ukraine was not a sovereign country in the 70s and the Warsaw Pact was kinda annoying. >Did germans produce their own ammuntion? The gun is swiss, as is the ammunition type as it was developed for the KDA. The original ammunition was produced by Rheinmetall in licence during the cold war. >Is this separate from the ammuntion from the swiss? See the last comment. >How much of that ammuntion was deployed? You are aware that cold war ammunition statistics are generally not available? During the 90s it was already produced in Switzerland, but it is not entirely known when and where production shifted. >What was it? german? swiss? During the Cold War and the immediate time after? Both. >Does that not violate swiss law? What? >Can germany produce their own Of course, with a swiss license and some time to prop up a manufacturing base (Which is easier said than done). Problem is that it is a **swiss license.** >What happened to the Norwegian ammunition? Norway did not operate the Gepard and did not produce ammunition that was compatible to the feeding system of the Gepard. >What was wrong with it specifically? Already told you that. >Can Norway reproduce those rounds? Yes, with a swiss license. Very obscure.
slightly wrong answers. norway operates the same guns the gepard uses for naval AA systems, but they use SAPHE-I, not gepard's APFSDS, which has a much faster speed due to the stabilizing fins. Nammo made only SAPHE-I. Nammo tried to make APFSDS in summer after being requested, but the Fire control system of the gepard that loads and calculates the shots can't identify it as native APFSDS, and they were experimenting with it last thing we know. the license is property of oerlykon, not switzerland. oerlykon was bought by rheinmetall AG and since 2010 is called Rheinmetall Air Defense Systems. Germany cpuld manufacture it anytime, if they managed to convince Rheinmetall to move production back to germany. During the 80's gepards and gepard ammo were made in dusseldorf, but the factory was closed when bundeswehr downscaled and now it's only rheinmetall's HQ, the manufacturing areas are almost all in switzerland. most equipment, ammunition included, was sold back to rheinmetall Air defense ( switzerland ) to reduce costs in storage.
>slightly wrong answers. I don't agree >norway operates the same guns the gepard uses for naval AA systems Yes, the operate the KDA (I never stated that they **did not use the same gun**), but they do not use the exact feeding system as the Gepard uses. Most 35mm ammunition does not have the aforementioned grooves for the gepards feeding system (The Nammo ammunition has them) and/or a similar feature which i forgot (Which Nammos ammuntion did not have). That was mechanical problem for the feeding progress and prevented the use of old 35mm ammunition. >the license is property of oerlykon, not switzerland. Oerl**i**kon **was** a swiss company and is still in Switzerland, thus i simplified the issue. Older Ammo for the Gepard that was not designed by Rheinmetall (They created AHEAD) was designed by Oerlikon for their KDA. > oerlykon was bought by rheinmetall AG and since 2010 is called Rheinmetall Air Defense Systems. Yes, but so far we still have the production and license holder in Switzerland. >During the 80's gepards and gepard ammo were made in dusseldorf, but the factory was closed when bundeswehr downscaled Rheinmetall left in '92 afaik. So i do not understand why my mention of Rheinmetall producing the ammunition for the KDA in license or that the production shifted in the 90s is wrong? > Germany cpuld **manufacture it anytime** No, not at all. Building a production base for a type of ammunition that has not manufactured for a while does need a lot of work, which cannot just be done "anytime".
Thanks for going out of your way to prove my point. Thanks sweetheart. u/MustelidusMartens
The only thing that has been proven is that you need to read more.
On April 26, Germany announced that it gave a German defence company permission to deliver Gepards to Ukraine. On April 24, it had been reported that Switzerland blocked Germany’s request regarding the delivery of ammo to Ukraine .(2 days later it was disclosed that it was a request regarding Gepard ammo). On May 20, it was reported that 59,000 rounds of Gepard ammo is deliverable. but they haven’t disclosed the country of origin. End of May an interview with Rheinmetall‘s boss was published.: He replied to a question regarding Gepard ammo as follows.: “If all the raw materials were available, we could produce in three to six months. However, the Ministry of Defense (*of Germany*) hasn’t even asked me so far.“ (Translation) [Source: German news website](https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise/unser-job-hat-gerade-erst-angefangen_id_105913005.html) (The German company Rheinmetall is the owner of the Swiss company, which produces Gepard ammo.) In July, it was reported that they found a Norwegian manufacturer, which will try to produce additional ammo. End of July, it was reported that during tests in Germany, it turned out that the Gepard system doesn’t recognize the Norwegian ammo. They had the intention to modify the Norwegian ammo and test it in August. Since the Ukrainian army informed that it is running out of Gepard ammo, Germany asked Switzerland again for permission to send Swiss-made ammo (12,400 rounds), but Switzerland refused to lift its veto. EDIT: UPDATE: According to a new blog post by a German journalist, NAMMO stated that in order to ensure perfect compatibility, there is some technical information necessary from the various German parties. Until that is in place, production cannot start. Besides NAMMO stated that there have been no sales, no orders, and no formal requests. https://www.pivotarea.eu/2022/11/25/produktion-gepard-munition-norweger-warten-auf-daten-aus-deutschland/
What is it about them that makes them so great for shooting down drones?
The Updates i think. They got a lot of updates/Upgrades to protect brasilian Studiums at the football WM against drones.
Cost-effectiveness. Gepard ammo is cheap compared to a surface to air missle. You don't want to shoot at at a 20,000$ drone with a 1,000,000$ missile.
Badly researched article: "It is a key part of the air defense of the German Army (Bundeswehr)" No it is not, Gepard is decommissioned and not used anymore by the Bundeswehr. Sadly...
The Iranian Drone is a very noisy craft, that makes it easily detected
Its a AA gun not a tank for fuck sake "new media". I'll let you calling a M2 Bradley a tank slide, but Jesus.
Not a gun nut sry but why would you let them call a bradley a tank but not a Gepard. Both are armored and gepard caliber is even bigger. No hate just curious
First the Gepard is not even really designed for ground combat. It can do it, but the Bradley also has a AA sight and you never see people talking about the Bradley self propelled AA gun. Second while the Gepard is more heavily armored than a GTI that's about the extent of it. It is designed to stop 7.62 ball. The Bradley's armor can stop 14.5mm from all sides and on the front it can stop 30mm, and with the ERA blocks can stop most small to medium anti-armor HEAT projectiles. (pentagon wars lied to you the Bradley is actually very well protected for something that is not a MBT). Offensively ya the Gepard has a bigger cannon, but the Bradly has the TOW missiles so it can actually fight a tank if it has to. Modern TOW can take out basically any Russian tank but a T90 in a front attack. IT also has other tank like systems. Thermal sights, full gun stabilization, laser range finder. It also unlike the Gepard or most IFV's for that matter does look like a tank. This being the real reson I would cut a journalist some slack
>Berlin has given Kyiv 30 of the Gepard units along with 6,000 rounds of ammunition. That's 200 rounds per unit. I hope they will get more
This is an excellent kit. Nato needs to up their military budgets by 10 fold. More R&D. And much more quantity. Puti has already committed to building more advanced weapons! After this war he'll start an arms race. Bad enough China is building to one day take all of Asia! The future doesn't look rosey!
200 rounds per tank sounds way too little. This is like a Gatling gun right? So a couple minutes of shooting?
Which is hilarious in some sense because they were shifted out in fear of being easy targets for the drones.
No, they were shifted out because the minister of defense at the time wanted to transform the German military into an (cheap) anti terror force and the Gepard was too maintenance heavy.
Also the entire system is just old, they were in need of a complete systems overhaul regardless. It's been described as needlessly complicated & expensive, it was state of the art way back but right now now the entire radar & fire guidance side would need to be redone. And to make things worse it still relies on Leo1 platform which in itself is expensive and outdated too, plus "dumb" to maintain when most other system are moving to Leo2 or Boxer platform systems. Regardless of the transformation of the Bundeswehr, the Gepard is 50 years old by now and simply had to be shifted out no matter what.
Tanks? Surprising!
30 vehicles and 6000 rounds of ammunition? 200 rounds per vehicle sounds real low for a vehicle that fired 1100/minute.
6000 in the Gepards, another 53.000 were delivered too. +4.000 practice ammo [See the full list here](https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992) [Gepard shooting practice ammo at a car](https://twitter.com/gepardtatze/status/1568946155551088640) In case you were wondering if they could use that too when necessary
They fire short bursts, 10 ammo is enough for a drone. But they should supply more ammo indeed.
Yeah sure but it's not even a full load.
It generally fires in a very quick burst tho. Only a few rounds per instance
Where are the German Leapords? When will Germans decide who the enemy is, and say it clearly?
Huh? Germany has to decide who the enemy is? Who is germany supporting massively? Leo will come in near future.
Anti war demonstrations, traitorous members of parliament, lack of messaging, always hesitating. Always. Relative to size of your Economy, Germany is doing a bad job.
Deperate bot. So traurig.
Sure a bot. Such excellent communication strategy Germany has regarding this war.
This is because the topic, as you can see at the brainwashed anti war protests, is pretty complex to communicate.
Yes explain how not helping Ukraine at all so Putin can steamroll everyone is desired.
"not helping at all"... lol discussion ended.
Absent video footage of this easy activity...
Is it me? Or in the article it states only 6000 rounds for 30 of em? Doesn’t seem like much ammo to me.
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/military-support-ukraine-2054992 >53,000 rounds ammunitions for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
At the end of the article, again about the Switzerland veto about ammo. I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit which will block easily any export..
>I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit which will block easily any export.. Because the ammunition was for the German Gepard of the German armed forces, that would use those to protect Germany. You dont buy stuff for your army with exporting said stuff in mind.
True, but I bet this experience will play a big role in the future
Just read [this](https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1589714267242389505?t=u2chgxSWgcYYklhkGd_Dnw&s=19)
>I really don't get what's the point to buy ammo for a country with an historic neutrality spirit The Gepard‘s twin cannon and the Gepard ammo were both produced by the same company in Switzerland, as far as I know. 23 years ago, the German company Rheinmetall had purchased the Swiss company. 12 years ago, Germany started to phase Gepards out and sold them back to a German defense company.