Germany's Puma IFV is a Failure.

Comments · 947

• SH

  @ShadowWalker-313 · 3 months ago

  The video states the Bundeswehr &quot;...took their sweet time...&quot; to develop a successor to the IFV Marder. This is not true. The Bundeswehr began development of a successor to the IFV Marder in 1984 and this resulted in the test platform for the Marder 2 in 1991. The changed geopolitical situation with the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the funding for all military projects not already being purchased to dry up and the Marder 2 was scrapped. <br>In 1996 a new program was started to conduct a concept study for an IFV plattform of similar armor to a main battle tank and a weight over 55t with minimal budget. The objective was an IFV for territorial defense. The IFV was developed again with minimal budget since 1998.<br>The 9/11 attacks changed the geopolitical situation again and now a new recommendation came in for the IFV to be air transportable for expeditionary missions and have a reduced weight of 32t. So after several years of planning and design, designers basically had to start over.<br><br>The difference between the Puma and the Lynx is also not stated clearly. The Puma was specifically designed for one role and one customer with very specific needs and limited modular features. The Lynx on the other hand was designed for export from the start and therefore was designed to accomodate other weapons, radios, optics and what not and be modularly adapted to the needs of different armies. And in the end no one wanted to buy the highly specialized and customized Puma while several armies took the cheaper, more adaptable and modular export IFV? The outcome is not really surprising.<br><br>While I usually really enjoy videos on this channel, this one really could have been better researched, incorporating more recent information better balanced.

  191

• IN

  @inkognito5945 · 3 months ago

  I have the sneaking suspicion that Simon is confusing the Puma with the Ajax...

  430

• FR

  @friedrichklett60 · 3 months ago

  Ground clearence of 3,7 Meters? That would be a world record for AFVs… 😂😂😂

  164

• WA

  @watz6962 · 3 months ago

  Quite outdated information, when this Video was recorded? 4 Years ago??...These issues where fixed, why there are not 50 new ordered, but 250, making 600 in total, an there will be another order of 400, leading to 1000 Puma.

  287

• TU

  @TuxCommander · 3 months ago

  It&apos;s quite pitty that this story of the breaking vehicles which was highly over exaggerated are still reiterated over and over.<br>All issues are already solved and the personal loves it.<br>Regarding export. It was never supposed to exported since it was especially designed for German Panzergrenadiere and their doctrine.<br><br>The final assessment of this video is simply wrong because out of date.

  432

• ZW

  @Zwaolin · 3 months ago (edited)

  A little late to the party. Most of this stuff has already been fixed. That&apos;s news from 2018. 2022 the S1 variant was put into service and all pumas will be upgraded to the fixed S1 version....

  683

• AD

  @addygreen8919 · 3 months ago (edited)

  Some of the information here is misleading. It is true that the Marder is outdated and it&apos;s engine overheats, but it is untrue that it has bad mine protection as is implied at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEZGRILFfCg&amp;t=186">3:06</a>. The newest variant of the Marder (1A5) is very well protected including against mines. The newest variant, developed during the Afghanistan operation, also has AC. The protection upgrades are also the reason why the engine or transmission overheats.<br>In Afghanistan a estimated 200kg IED was used by the Taliban in order to destroy a Marder. Only the driver of the Marder got KIA. Every modern MBT would have also got destroyed by this IED.

  75

• HI

  @HikerBikerMoter · 3 months ago

  Lack of Tools and Spares: The maintenance unit assigned to the training exercise arrived without the specialized tools and spare parts required to service the highly advanced Puma. <br><br>Ignoring Early-Warning Systems: One Puma was written off as &quot;failed&quot; due to a severely worn-out drive sprocket. The Puma&apos;s onboard computer had flagged this issue well before the exercise, but the logistical unit failed to replace it ahead of tim <br><br>Minor Tripped Fuses: Several of the &quot;electronic failures&quot; were actually just tripped safety fuses or loose cable connections. These could have been fixed in minutes by a properly trained crew with basic troubleshooting knowledge, but instead, the vehicles were completely mothballed for the exercise.

  8

• TW

  @TwixWaffles · 3 months ago

  Most of pumas issues have been fixed in the meanwhile. Its just a very good and very expensive vehicle. Typical german armored vehicle.

  298

• MA

  @marcelmengdehl6971 · 3 months ago

  I normally love this Channel, but unfortunately I now have to question the accuracy of all the videos, because this one was extremely poorly researched. While all of the mentioned problems existed in some form at one point in time, they have all been solved by now.<br><br>The only problem remaining with the Puma is that it is really expensive — but it is also, without any doubt, not just the most expensive IFV, but also the most capable in the world. When building projects of that ambition, problems are expected, and in the case of the Puma they have all been overcome.<br><br>And finally: no, the Lynx is not a better IFV than the Puma, even according to the manufacturer of the Lynx. But it is much cheaper, making it a far better value proposition for exports.

  177

• RA

  @randyraudi4945 · 3 months ago (edited)

  The Marder isn&apos;t especially vulnerable against mines, sometimes they get destroyed by mines, but isn&apos;t like they would drive over one and would get blown into 1000 pieces, it just breaks down, and the A3 which is in Ukraine hasn&apos;t the mine protection upgrade of the A5. In June 2011 the Taliban tried to blow a Marder up for propaganda purpose with a 200 (!!!) kg heavy IED, and guess what happened ? I think only the driver died. The stuff about the Puma is also wrong, but I think enough people mentioned that already.

  18

• GA

  @Galhara · 3 months ago

  This is not a failing design. It is a complete new design. The moderator said many wrong things. For example the complete weight is not the reason to stuck in swamp. The weight per square centimeter is the decisive factor. ... but some things the moderator said right, it is the best armored IFV in the NATO (and best optics, and has the full hunter-killer ability and many more things). The technical problems are old, meanwhile the Puma is modernized to the S1 version. The mentioned problems are two years old, and the moderator do not detailed say what are the problems. The Puma is better than the Lynx. The Lynx is the cheaper version without some good features of the Puma. For example the Puma is the only IFV where the seats hang. With a mine hit, the crew feels a small rumble. The crew can survive 90% of direct hits. Crew survivability is the best in NATO. This report is too superficial; it omits many details and bases its current assessment on an incident from two years ago. This is the big failure.

  14