@knibis95. Not a chance. Its made to replace the older APCs like the M113. A weeled APC can never replace real tanks and IFVs in a pitched battle.
GregorMar
May 10, 2010 11:01 pm
@gosciu555 And look on this photo it is after 14,5 rounds fire test and like You see it can stand ti
Ehhh I can’t gave this link here so I will send it to You also on PM ((
GregorMar
May 10, 2010 11:56 pm
@gosciu555 Yes You’re right and that is why our soldiers just love this vehicle bcoz it has power, good armour and it is well protected against IED! Talibans are afraid of our vehicles and in they always run away when they see that our solders have them in combat. And solders are always happy where they may trust in their combat vehicles right?
Regards
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 12:47 am
@gosciu555 I’m sorry… But… I don’t understand WHY nonsense? You drive as fast you can bcoz thanks to this enemy can’t tract you on his backsight. But even trucked vehicle can stuck also did you saw pictures of stuck German tanks into Russian mud during II WW? Of course combat isn’t a race but if you going fast then enemy can’t track you and you may use also this speed to surprised the enemy! And surprise is very important trump on battle field. You know this.
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 1:27 am
@gosciu555 @gosciu555 In standard protection in STANAG 4569 looks like that: In the front it is 4 and from sides it is 3+ and that was parameters for main AMV Patria in 2004 now we were producing our own new armor in steelworks Stalowa Wola which is much lighter and tougher then armor from Swedish steel which was in main vehicles. And that is why I want that change Otomelara turret it’s too heavy and RCWS30 no.I will write You more about armor on Private Message
TankNutDave
May 11, 2010 1:44 am
@stahlwerke ???
TankNutDave
May 11, 2010 1:57 am
@stahlwerke ???
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 2:43 am
@gosciu555 Of course I didn’t say that all only few first and rest of vehicles were transported by the Sea but few first vehicles we transported by air bcoz we needed them there quick and rest was transported on ships it is more economic way of course.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 3:37 am
@GregorMar
I know they are well like BUT the commanders job is to get the biggest combat power for the money, not what makes the soldiers happy. A better option would be to get light tracked platforms like LPG from HSW, M113 or BWP-1 to serve where Rosomak is serving now and put real money into a proper IFV or HIFV. With wheels you lose A LOT of flexibily, reliability and robustness. Every vehicle has its limits, but tracked vehicles have much higher limits.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 4:00 am
@GregorMar
NOBODY drives a 100km/h in a war zone, and definitely not 80km/h on terrain, thats nonsense. Besides, you’re going 0km/h if you get stuck, and wheeled vehicles are stuck often. With tracked vehicles you can move offroad *with assurance* in tough conditions which you can’t do with wheels. If you’re afraid to go off road for fear of being stuck then in essence you don’t have true off road capability. Going from place to place, tracked are faster, combat isn’t a drag race.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 4:09 am
@GregorMar
Well the up armored Rosomak can’t swim, and it DOESN’T have 14.5mm protection in its standard form, only 7.62mm. The 14.5mm protection is in the form of modular MEXES armor which you can install on a BWP if you want. You cannot uparmor the Rosomak to take 30mm from the sides are you crazy? It wouldn’t handle the weight, look at the Puma, its 40 tons. Rosomak doesn’t have 30mm in the whole front, only on the top glacis where the additional armor is.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 4:27 am
@GregorMar
Yeah but like the Stryker IT FAILED in its Key Performance Parameter for being air transportable. Its all pretend. Like I said, it can fit into a C-130 and take off, but its transport range is not useful. Show me where you got the info on Rosomak being transported to Afgh on a plane. Polish contingent also has Dana howizters which for sure didn’t go by air, so I’m guessing they both went by sea.
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 4:46 am
@gosciu555 Look the same Borne Sulinowo in 2008 even old tank T-55 didn’t manage with even smaller hole with sand in 2:28
watch?v=iE_lV0JK7uA&feature=related
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 5:38 am
@gosciu555 BTW this
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=relate was 40 km from my home but does means nothing at first you have to see how other vehicles act in such requirements… This was usual rally for people and old military equipment and army rent out Wolverine just for fun for those people that they see how its working in the field. And I think even tank which is much heavier wouldn’t not manage with this. And old cars with 6 weals are much lighter about 8 tons not 22.
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 6:22 am
@gosciu555
And this:
watch?v=mGYAO_8xhjg
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 6:43 am
@gosciu555 Haha I saw this Striker stuck 3 times hahaha
See some about Wolverine it is Patria’s movie but you will see there Polish Wolverine on field tests for Polish army:
watch?v=W8bGO04bDnQ
watch?v=TSzCuVtk5CQ
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 7:17 am
@gosciu555 Oh NO! No there is no comparison between BMP-1 and Wolverine. BMP-1 cant stand 12,7mm Gun from sides and Wolverine in standard can stand 14,5mm gun and tin the front 30mm and if you will put more armour plates then it stand 30mm round from sides
As for which is faster, Wolverine may going 100km/h on road and 80 km/h in terrain and 10km/h in water! It is very good result and have potential to go even faster if there will new engines put into vehicle, its construction is also modular
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 7:47 am
@gosciu555 Oh sometimes yes but not all the time, and they can float and this is very important capability if you want to outflank the enemy. Then you need no sapper units only such vehicles as Patira AMV (Polish Wolverine) but in tires is special rubber mix and bulletproof inserts. You know I can say only about Wolverine bcoz I know it pretty well I can’t say nothing more about Striker. So maybe You right. But Wolverine is very tough not flimsy and our solders JUST LOVE THEM
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 8:14 am
@gosciu555 That our Wolverines are transported by C-130? Simple it was one of main condition for Patria before we bought those vehicles we wanted that this vehicle was constructed under our specification, bcoz we bought also 5 C-130 from USA and we use them to transport Wolverines to Iraq and now to Afghanistan.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 8:53 am
@GregorMar
You can physically fit it in a take off BUT, as you approach the max TOW of a plane, its range decreases dramatically. With a 15ton cargo you can fly a couple of thousand kilometers, with a 20ton cargo like Stryker or Rosomak you can only fly +-500km, which is not useful since they can go that far by themselves.
“how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.”
I doubt it, maybe with Air-to-Air refueling, Where is your info coming from?
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 9:08 am
@GregorMar
“For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? ”
Pfff!?! Buahah, maybe 30mm AP on a small section in the front but 30mm APFSDS no way. Besides you can say that about many vehicles, so what? An uparmored BMP-1 could have the same protection, what your point?
“So it is much faster then for example Bradley… ”
Buahah, right in a 1/4 mile drag race maybe but not in the field.
Because they get stuck ALL THE TIME, especially in mud/soft ground, tires are uber vulnerable even to small arms, and even despite runflat. What do you think will happen to a wheeled vehicle under artillery bombardment? Its tires are going to be shredded. Combat is demanding and if something is flimsy, you don’t mess with it. They are inefficient in terms of protection to size and weight. Compare a Stryker to an MTVL, for a comparable protection level, Stryker weighs 20 tons vs 15.
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 9:56 am
@gosciu555 But tell me why you think that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they’re not good combat machines I don’t understand… For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? So it is much faster then for example Bradley… Write me why you think in this way? and if we change this Otomelara thing on RCWS then we may transported even 10 people inside beside 3 crew!
GregorMar
May 11, 2010 9:58 am
@gosciu555 What? You mean Patria AMV (Wolverine) is not transportable in a C-130??? IT IS TRANSPORTABLE it was one of condition that it must fit and be transportable by C-130 and how do you thing how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.
gosciu555
May 11, 2010 10:32 am
@gosciu555
Yeah and one more things, both are NOT TRANSPORTABLE in a C-130 if you want to actually fly somewhere, father than they would go under their own power for example (sic).
May 10, 2010
10:03 pm
@knibis95. Not a chance. Its made to replace the older APCs like the M113. A weeled APC can never replace real tanks and IFVs in a pitched battle.
May 10, 2010
11:01 pm
@gosciu555 And look on this photo it is after 14,5 rounds fire test and like You see it can stand ti
Ehhh
I can’t gave this link here so I will send it to You also on PM 
((
May 10, 2010
11:56 pm
@gosciu555 Yes You’re right and that is why our soldiers just love this vehicle bcoz it has power, good armour and it is well protected against IED! Talibans are afraid of our vehicles and in they always run away when they see that our solders have them in combat. And solders are always happy where they may trust in their combat vehicles right?
Regards
May 11, 2010
12:47 am
@gosciu555 I’m sorry… But… I don’t understand WHY nonsense? You drive as fast you can bcoz thanks to this enemy can’t tract you on his backsight. But even trucked vehicle can stuck also did you saw pictures of stuck German tanks into Russian mud during II WW? Of course combat isn’t a race but if you going fast then enemy can’t track you and you may use also this speed to surprised the enemy! And surprise is very important trump on battle field. You know this.
May 11, 2010
1:27 am
@gosciu555 @gosciu555 In standard protection in STANAG 4569 looks like that: In the front it is 4 and from sides it is 3+ and that was parameters for main AMV Patria in 2004 now we were producing our own new armor in steelworks Stalowa Wola which is much lighter and tougher then armor from Swedish steel which was in main vehicles. And that is why I want that change Otomelara turret it’s too heavy and RCWS30 no.I will write You more about armor on Private Message
May 11, 2010
1:44 am
@stahlwerke ???
May 11, 2010
1:57 am
@stahlwerke ???
May 11, 2010
2:43 am
@gosciu555 Of course I didn’t say that all only few first and rest of vehicles were transported by the Sea but few first vehicles we transported by air bcoz we needed them there quick and rest was transported on ships it is more economic way of course.
May 11, 2010
3:37 am
@GregorMar
I know they are well like BUT the commanders job is to get the biggest combat power for the money, not what makes the soldiers happy. A better option would be to get light tracked platforms like LPG from HSW, M113 or BWP-1 to serve where Rosomak is serving now and put real money into a proper IFV or HIFV. With wheels you lose A LOT of flexibily, reliability and robustness. Every vehicle has its limits, but tracked vehicles have much higher limits.
May 11, 2010
4:00 am
@GregorMar
NOBODY drives a 100km/h in a war zone, and definitely not 80km/h on terrain, thats nonsense. Besides, you’re going 0km/h if you get stuck, and wheeled vehicles are stuck often. With tracked vehicles you can move offroad *with assurance* in tough conditions which you can’t do with wheels. If you’re afraid to go off road for fear of being stuck then in essence you don’t have true off road capability. Going from place to place, tracked are faster, combat isn’t a drag race.
May 11, 2010
4:09 am
@GregorMar
Well the up armored Rosomak can’t swim, and it DOESN’T have 14.5mm protection in its standard form, only 7.62mm. The 14.5mm protection is in the form of modular MEXES armor which you can install on a BWP if you want. You cannot uparmor the Rosomak to take 30mm from the sides are you crazy? It wouldn’t handle the weight, look at the Puma, its 40 tons. Rosomak doesn’t have 30mm in the whole front, only on the top glacis where the additional armor is.
May 11, 2010
4:27 am
@GregorMar
Yeah but like the Stryker IT FAILED in its Key Performance Parameter for being air transportable. Its all pretend. Like I said, it can fit into a C-130 and take off, but its transport range is not useful. Show me where you got the info on Rosomak being transported to Afgh on a plane. Polish contingent also has Dana howizters which for sure didn’t go by air, so I’m guessing they both went by sea.
May 11, 2010
4:46 am
@gosciu555 Look the same Borne Sulinowo in 2008 even old tank T-55 didn’t manage with even smaller hole with sand in 2:28
watch?v=iE_lV0JK7uA&feature=related
May 11, 2010
5:38 am
@gosciu555 BTW this
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=relate was 40 km from my home but does means nothing at first you have to see how other vehicles act in such requirements… This was usual rally for people and old military equipment and army rent out Wolverine just for fun for those people that they see how its working in the field. And I think even tank which is much heavier wouldn’t not manage with this. And old cars with 6 weals are much lighter about 8 tons not 22.
May 11, 2010
6:22 am
@gosciu555
And this:
watch?v=mGYAO_8xhjg
May 11, 2010
6:43 am
@gosciu555 Haha I saw this Striker stuck 3 times hahaha
See some about Wolverine it is Patria’s movie but you will see there Polish Wolverine on field tests for Polish army:
watch?v=W8bGO04bDnQ
watch?v=TSzCuVtk5CQ
May 11, 2010
7:17 am
@gosciu555 Oh NO! No there is no comparison between BMP-1 and Wolverine. BMP-1 cant stand 12,7mm Gun from sides and Wolverine in standard can stand 14,5mm gun and tin the front 30mm and if you will put more armour plates then it stand 30mm round from sides
As for which is faster, Wolverine may going 100km/h on road and 80 km/h in terrain and 10km/h in water! It is very good result and have potential to go even faster if there will new engines put into vehicle, its construction is also modular
May 11, 2010
7:47 am
@gosciu555 Oh sometimes yes but not all the time, and they can float and this is very important capability if you want to outflank the enemy. Then you need no sapper units only such vehicles as Patira AMV (Polish Wolverine) but in tires is special rubber mix and bulletproof inserts. You know I can say only about Wolverine bcoz I know it pretty well I can’t say nothing more about Striker. So maybe You right. But Wolverine is very tough not flimsy and our solders JUST LOVE THEM
May 11, 2010
8:14 am
@gosciu555 That our Wolverines are transported by C-130? Simple it was one of main condition for Patria before we bought those vehicles we wanted that this vehicle was constructed under our specification, bcoz we bought also 5 C-130 from USA and we use them to transport Wolverines to Iraq and now to Afghanistan.
May 11, 2010
8:53 am
@GregorMar
You can physically fit it in a take off BUT, as you approach the max TOW of a plane, its range decreases dramatically. With a 15ton cargo you can fly a couple of thousand kilometers, with a 20ton cargo like Stryker or Rosomak you can only fly +-500km, which is not useful since they can go that far by themselves.
“how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.”
I doubt it, maybe with Air-to-Air refueling, Where is your info coming from?
May 11, 2010
9:08 am
@GregorMar
“For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? ”
Pfff!?! Buahah, maybe 30mm AP on a small section in the front but 30mm APFSDS no way. Besides you can say that about many vehicles, so what? An uparmored BMP-1 could have the same protection, what your point?
“So it is much faster then for example Bradley… ”
Buahah, right in a 1/4 mile drag race maybe but not in the field.
Look 60mph Strykers going 0mph
watch?v=u_E25Yyv0ZE
watch?v=uTlvmC1rIUA&feature=related
May 11, 2010
9:55 am
@GregorMar
Because they get stuck ALL THE TIME, especially in mud/soft ground, tires are uber vulnerable even to small arms, and even despite runflat. What do you think will happen to a wheeled vehicle under artillery bombardment? Its tires are going to be shredded. Combat is demanding and if something is flimsy, you don’t mess with it. They are inefficient in terms of protection to size and weight. Compare a Stryker to an MTVL, for a comparable protection level, Stryker weighs 20 tons vs 15.
May 11, 2010
9:56 am
@gosciu555 But tell me why you think that wheeled vehicles are highly handicapped and they’re not good combat machines I don’t understand… For example good armored Wolverine may stand even 30 mm round? So it is much faster then for example Bradley… Write me why you think in this way? and if we change this Otomelara thing on RCWS then we may transported even 10 people inside beside 3 crew!
May 11, 2010
9:58 am
@gosciu555 What? You mean Patria AMV (Wolverine) is not transportable in a C-130??? IT IS TRANSPORTABLE it was one of condition that it must fit and be transportable by C-130 and how do you thing how we transported our Wolverines to Afghanistan? We used C-130 Hercules.
May 11, 2010
10:32 am
@gosciu555
Yeah and one more things, both are NOT TRANSPORTABLE in a C-130 if you want to actually fly somewhere, father than they would go under their own power for example (sic).