More than 25 years after procurement of both the Puma IFV and A400M started (a major requirement being that the one thing can be transported in the other), their first flight together just happened.
Say something nice about it.

>>63968388 (OP)
with it's armor stripped like that the Puma looks a lot more like the Marder

>>63968388 (OP)
25 years seems like a long ass time when the designs were meant for one another but I assume German bureaucracy was the reason.

>>63968437
>we need an air transport capable IFV and a air transport that can carry an IFV
>so we can air transport our IFV's to the sandbox
>they get out of the sandbox and stay out of it
>they now have an air transport capable IFV and a air transport that can carry an IFV but nowhere to fly them
something something last war ect. ect.

>>63968437
yes

>>63968388 (OP)
the A400M is still a very good tactical transport, if you can wring the parts out of the frogs to keep it flying

>>63968388 (OP)
>a major requirement being that the one thing can be transported in the other
Why would that be important for Germany, a contintental military, whose main opponent is likely to launching a land invasion?

>>63968496
It was designed from 1995-2009, which was prime expeditionary sandbox time.

>>63968500
there is this

but also,
>>63968496
because of the Kosovo experience

>>63968445
Stupid not to fly it around constantly to test it's failings and oversights. There's a reason armies practice constantly even in peace time and no manner of German autism can solve it.
There's always room for improvement and even just flying from one airbase to another in peace time helps learn what people didn't expect.
Better to see what fucks up before you need to actually deploy in hostility.

>>63968510
yes, but the German army has been bled out for decades now.
when you struggle to allocate the funding for training blanks and munition for time on the range you aren't going to be doing pleasure flights.
there frankly isn't a reason to even airlift those now anyways. Since there's a continent wide rail and road network you can use to move it around on that's probably just as fast since you don't have to strip and then reattach the armor.
it's like wanting to have extra durable dust filters so you can make sure they don't get clogged in a sandstorm. You now have them but if you aren't going back to the sandpit why bother testing them?
"oh no better test the sand filters, you know how gnarly those Eastern European sandstorms are"

>>63968521
>you aren't going back to East Europe why bother
>you aren't going back to the sandpit why bother
(you are here)
>you aren't going back to East Europe why bother
>you aren't going back to the sandpit why bother
/k/ommandos, perennially fighting the last war

>>63968521
>there isn't a reason to
Except we know thats bullshit and we know it's retarded not to have airlift capability, as shown when the French had to beg Britain to do it for them.
Being able to rapidly deploy your IFVs and AFVs, if not your MBTs, to a war zone is a bigger card than being able to throw some on an easily hampered and countered system of transit like a railway.
Relying on rail near exclusively to deploy is what hampered Germany in WW2 and prevented them getting further than they did. Imagine it happening now when air portable AFVs exist and your dumbass is 30 years behind, trying to deploy by rail, an easily predictable and counterable transit method by any insurgent with half a brain, and every opposition you could have knows your rail and road routes.
Having more deployment options is better than having less and having air portable armour is superior to having none.
That's why any military not operating something like a Globemaster is clownshoes.

>>63968558
>as shown when the French had to
ask the Sauds to chip in too
>Relying on rail near exclusively to deploy is what
hampers Russia to this day

>>63968558
My nigger in Christ the Germans were not "hampered" by "only having" trains to move their tanks around.
Do you think the Americans were dropping Shermans out of B-52s or something?
Maybe they should have tried a naval invasion of Russia, I'm sure that would have gone swimmingly.

>>63968614
>the Germans were not "hampered"
The Transport Plan delayed the panzer counterattack by two weeks in June 1944, and attrited whole battalions of panzergrenadiers as they were moving up
Air attacks on workshops and supply lines is also the reason why the Tiger tank gets a lousy rep in the ETO, whereas in the Ostfront it had much better reported reliability rates, since the Soviet Air Force couldn't touch their repair yards and supply lines (until later in the war)

>>63968388 (OP)
That A400 looks rundown af ngl

>>63968388 (OP)
Puma nudes

pooh-muh or pyu-mah?

>>63970649
Poo-mah

>>63968558
You can transport tanks by road. Which is how the majority of logistics will be done anyway. Trying to resupply an entire fucking army via air is a fools errand.
>every opposition you could have knows your rail and road routes
Russia also knows where polish airfields are, and has a vested interested in destroying them.

>>63968558
>Except we know thats bullshit and we know it's retarded not to have airlift capability, as shown when the French had to beg Britain to do it for them.
Germany has no obligations in Africa, like France does. In general Germany has no commitments comparable to the US, France and the UK that would require them to deploy their troops globally at a short moments notice.

>Relying on rail near exclusively to deploy is what hampered Germany in WW2 and prevented them getting further than they did. Imagine it happening now when air portable AFVs exist and your dumbass is 30 years behind, trying to deploy by rail
Germany in ww2 couldn't rely on anything but rail transport due to the critical shortages of gasoline. Despite that they extensively used air transport. Moreover you're making a retarded comparison. Rail can be used to transport hundreds of thousands of men and their equipment, thousands of armored vehicles and all the ammunition and supply required.

When talking about air transport you're talking about a brigade or a division, at best.

>Being able to rapidly deploy your IFVs and AFVs, if not your MBTs, to a war zone
Potential 'war zones' for Germany are practically on the borders of Germany. That is to say Poland and the Baltics. Moreover German troops are, for the first time since world war 2, permamently stationed abroad precisely in the Baltics. Any potential concentration of Russian troops preparing to invade would be recognized well in advance and give Germany time to do the same.

>and every opposition you could have knows your rail and road routes
I think you severely underestimate how dense the road and rail network in central Europe is.

>Having more deployment options is better than having less and having air portable armour is superior to having none.
This comes at a cost which has to be paid for by taking the money from somewhere else in the budget.

>>63968388 (OP)
Nice, very nice. Let's see Vladimirs ifv airlift capacity.

>>63970695
>Which is how the majority of logistics will be done anyway
wrong

>>63968393
Why use reams od.copier paper for the strut base?

>>63968636
>rail transport can be intercepted by air power
>that's why you should use air transport

>>63968528
because if you do need your IFV's to get to the sandpit you can just ship them

>>63970695
You use those transports to move AFVs from railheads to assembly areas and back. Long distance transport is either rail or ship.

>>63973776
it's crazy how infectious this post-Cold War doctrine is
TL;DR no, wrong, very very wrong

>>63973030
shipping unprepared IFVs takes a lot of time, and conflicts are over very quickly these days
I'm not saying I agree with the Puma concept, I think the Germs were a bit too autistic there

but something like Stryker was what they should have gone for
1st gen Stryker is certified for the A400M; Stryker DVH can theoretically fit in based on published dimensions

instead, kraut engineers being kraut engineers, the Boxer gained so much weight over the course of development that it is like the Puma; unable to roll off the A400M for which it was SPECIFICALLY designed for in fighting condition

>>63973873
>conflicts are over very quickly these days
Ukraine has been going on for three years.

>>63973879
that tends to be what happens when you bog down into WW1 style trench fighting

remember however that the initial attempt to invade Kyiv was over in a matter of days
while we were watching the first webms, Russian commanders were already aborting and pulling out

>>63973873
>we are totally moving tanks from depots in Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany to eastern Poland or the Baltics by truck
Lol

>>63973947
I honestly don't know what the actual plans are for the occasion, but I don't see why you couldn't use road trailers.

>>63973873
>shipping unprepared IFVs takes a lot of time
but in what world does Germany suddenly need to ship IVF's anywhere outside of Europe in less than a week?
Germany isn't a global player, it's a capacity it frankly doesn't need and having to designing both the IFV and the transport for each other was retarded

>>63970695

that cute blush

>>63973026
Well you can't carry it inside the plane. Just look at what happened to Soviet Pacific Fleet high command.

>>63973978
That would be a terrible idea for a multitude of reasons. Costs per unit, bridge weight restrictions, road load, speed, just to name a few.
Doesnt mean it cannot be done. You just wouldnt do it if you could avoid it.

>>63968496
to defend the Spree river from BMD attacks

>>63968507
>the Kosovo experience
Any good books about it?

>>63970695
Nice pic.

>>63977827
nope
not that there's much to say
NATO ground troops - American included - were too slow when mobilising and moving out

>>63978343
Are you alluding to the incident of the Russians seizing the airport first?

>>63979065
not really

as I understand it, the decision to intervene militarily was taken 2 months before ground troops moved in. this delay was attributed, at least in part, to ground troops needing that long to assemble and move to the combat zone. dissatisfaction with this led to US and NATO efforts to streamline the organisation of ground forces and create "medium armoured" IFVs (such as Stryker) which could move faster as a formation

>>63973873
>Kraut engineer being kraut engineer
American forgot that SBCT had the same air transportability shit spiral and proceed to Boomer lecture as if they fixed it.

>>63979285
most Americans aren't even aware of the A400M
>SBCT had the same air transportability shit spiral
excuse you
Stryker BCTs are C-130-transportable no problem
they met the minimum viable product test, which the krauts didn't

Stryker DVH is actually a separate set of requirements, namely for a "proper" modern 8x8 IFV, they just decided to use the Stryker hull as the chassis to develop off of

>>63968400
It looks like a fucking BMP desu, disgusting.

>>63968496
Germany had only very heavy mechanized forces. Currently they make some new medium mechanized forces that will be entirely equipped with Boxer. Concept of wheeled IFV is entirely new in german military.
The medium mechanized forces get Boxer with unmanned RCT30 Puma turret and dismounts while the infantry get Boxer with manned Lance turret (same gun) and no dismounts as heavy weapons carrier. Its the Wiesel successor in non air mobile units. While its true that a Boxer is very large for a weapons carrier, those units already use the Boxer as APC without a turret. In german military mechanized forces are part of tank forces, not part of infantry.

>>63979357
Without armor its still nearly double the weight of tin can bmp3.

>>63968401
Rope bondage bdsm