All, I just completed this kit. It looks impressive. It does look like it may be closer to 1/32 scale than 1/35th though. I may be wrong, but it just looks huge, even larger than an Abrams. i haven't seen an actual vehicle, this size could be correct. Any one out there with better data?

Weight-wise it is lighter, size wise, it is bigger, much taller and of course a bigger gun. Did yours come with the aluminum barrel? That barrel is huge! Model Expo had them on sale for about $15 a while back.

Rob,
I was only using the Abrams as a comparison for physical size. You know that I know the difference between a tank and a howitzer. I was referring to the overall size of the model. I bought the kit from a member here in the Buy, Sell, Trade Forum without the metal barrel. I did not have a problem with the plastic one though. This really builds into a nice model. You know I am always looking for a new piece of artillery to add to my collection.

I know you know. I was just answering your question if the PzHbtz2000 is bigger in size. Huge vehicle. You may be right, and it could be an overscale problem. I've never seen one in person to compare it to the M1.

I sat through an acquisition briefing earlier in my course and the Germans had offered to lease us PzHbtz2000s right now to replace the cancelled Crusader. For some reason we turned them down. On paper it looks better than the Paladin, but I'm not a gun bunnie, so I don't know for sure.

Here is the page where I got most of my info from: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/pzh2000.htm. I'll stop answering questions from now on.

I KNOW you both KNOW too

(Man - this site has been getting prickly lately - reminds me of another place I use to frequent...)

I don't have this model kit in my collection but will someday. I'd like to see some pics Gino - take some and post when you can, okay?

Gunnie

LOL! I just sent you a PM on this a second ago Gunnie, we must be reading one another's minds!

BTW, the Crusader is on Modern Marvels on the History Channel right now (7 PM EST). Looks like a real neat weapons system, too bad it will never see the light of day. Now I want to build one.

Yep - we're on the same wavelength!

Gunnie

Got the same kit. I started it already but haven't finished it yet. I find it a wonderful kit. Did you replace the basket 'netting' with PE? I'm modifying it a bit to but PE or mesh in place of the molded basket, and making the gun supporter (?) retractable (so I can display it as either on the move or in a firing position). I initially planned to put an interior but the pictures at AFV Interiors was, uh, intimidating. :-)

Sabot,
Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, just wanted to make it clear what I meant as well. Answer all the questions you want.
I also agree that it looks like it would be a great system to replace the cancelled Crusader (I too watched the Modern Marvels episode, for the fourth or fifth time. What do you epect, I'm an Artilleryman!!) It looks to have many of the same charcteristics that we were gunning for. Too bad we turned them down. I don't know of any other system on the slate to fill the Crusader gap.

As for the model, I only modified the travel lock by placing it in the stowed position and I cut the MG ring on the left side so there would be an opening to allow the hatch to swing open as there is on the actual vehicle. I also added foil to the barrel for the dustcover at the base as recommended in the instructions. Other than that, it is straight from the box. It builds up nicely.

I should have some photos of the model up on the MSN site soon.

HeavyArty, BTW what paint colors did you use? I remember an FSM review on the Revell PzH2000 kit and the reviewer stated that he used Tamiya's NATO colors - which was wrong so he sayeth.

Re:PzH2000 as Crusader replacement, I agree with that - it is lighter than the Crusader IIRC but has nearly the same capabilities. I wonder why the US Army doesn't get - could it be political (i.e. Congress wouldn't want the US Army use a superior system made by a foreign country)?

Not to get political but.......to replace a fleet of battle proven and further upgraded system with one that is most likely more expensive,not to metion larger,wouldn't make all to much sense, in my opinion.Replacing our SPG fleet with a foriegn design also means a extended logistics in paperwork and shipping. Let us also consern ourselves with the mechanics and maintience crews that will need to learn another system to care for.I know little of the Panzerhowitzer 2000 so I cannot attest to it's superiority,wieght,price,or size.I think Sabot would better report on the pheasablity of the switch.

There is actually a requirement in the Defense bill that all US equipment be manufactured in the US. If you remember the debate about the US Army changing to the Black Beret and the problems encountered when a contract was let to a Chinese company to fill the order because they were the only ones who could do it in the time frame originally allotted. This could be worked out though. An example is the Marine LAV and the new Stryker vehicle, which is a LAV Gen III. This vehicle is of canadian origin, built under license by GMC ,I believe, in the US. The same could be done with the Panzer Howitzer 2000. As for the maintenance and logistics requirements, this could be implemented easily. The Army is always adding new equipment and the support systems that go with them. This is not too difficult. Mechanics are pretty flexible and can learn a new sytem very quickly. After all, an armored vehicle is pretty much the same the world over when you come right down to the mechanics of it.

The problem with the Paladin is that it is a weapons system that the original M109 platform was developed in the 1950's. It is a 50 year old weapons system. It has been upgraded over the years and is still a capable system, however, it has been stretched to the limits of its abilities. It can not keep up with modern vehicles such as the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle. It is also outranged by most other countries' artillery sytems. If the US Army is to remain competative on the moern battlefield, we need a new SP Artillery system.

Here are a couple of sites you can compare the M109-A6 Paladin, the Crusader, and the PanzerHowitzer 2000. Paladin Crusader PanzerHowitzer 2000

As for painting my model, i always use the following colors to replicate NATO three-color camo: Model Master Enamel Medium Green, Field Drab, and Flat Black. The field drab and medium green give it the faded look that occurs when these colors are out in the weather and fade . i think the darker colors like in the Tamiya set are too bright. They look too new.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it answers some of the questions out there.

Here are the photos of my PZH 2000.
PZH 1
PZH 2
PZH 3
PZH 4

Didn't ruffle my feathers. You asked a simple question, I thought I answered it properly without "sharp shooting you" or being a wiseacre. Apparently you were insulted with my reply.

All I did was go to a site where I knew some info was on the PzHbtz2000, compared it to reference data I have on an M1 tank. Quickly came to the conclusion that it is physically a larger vehicle (based on the data reviewed, not personal knowledge), but about 5-10 tons lighter. Posted the info I gathered in generic terms (longer, taller, wider, lighter) and somewhere in the mix you get bent out of shape thinking that I am insulting your intelligence by discounting your artillery/tank knowledge.

Goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.

As far as gun size, I was commenting that the aluminum gun barrel that comes with my kit is the largest one I have ever seen and must go 4" into the turret and still have more metal hanging out forward of the mantlet than any other 1/35 scale kit I've done.

I've decided to only answer questions posed directly to me (and in forums which I've volunteered to moderate) and to add the disclaimer at the end of each post.

Disclaimer: If this question was answered in error, or an answer not required/expected/wanted, please notify me and I will delete the post. This post is not intended as an attack on any persons posting prior to or after this post. Please feel free to disregard/disbelieve/discount any information contained in the post.

This doesn't really makea good argument against the PzH 2000 at all. Any M109 replacment is going to be new, meaning new logistics and training. The M109s are old and obviously need replacement soon, of course the replacement will most likely be not battle proven. By that logic the F-15 should not have replaced the F-4, or the M1 should not have replaced the M60. Remember that the PzH 2000 is also NATO compatiable already, which will make integration better.

The only reason that the US would not use the PzH 2000 is NIHS - not invented here syndrome. Very rarely has the US taken on foreign designs - as is to be expected; after all, they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves.

Cheers,
Linz

. it looks graet. mine isn't so great. i didn;t paint t well. what scale it's yours? http://groups.msn.com/armorama/myfirstmodelsinwork.msnw?albumlist=2.l i have some pics. it looks horible. (mine})

Whew. Almost gave in to the old knee jerk back at cha there. But instead lets look at it a little differently shall we? 1. The pzh 2000 is a design geared toward the german army's expectation of a land battle in europe and the need to field a vehicle capable of fulfilling the requirments of such a war. Weight is not one of them. Mobility on a global scale isn't either. True? Ok/ Point 2. The M109 is fast becoming outdated even with the numerous upgrades yet it still fills a necessary nitch in the new era order of battle. Decent accuracy and range. Capable of an acceptable rate of fire, light , mobile, Designed to be air transportable and the damn thing can swim. With flotation kit installed of course. Thats wht it is so light. Point 3. Knowing the capabilities of both vehicles and factoring in the mission requirments and the limitations both physically and politically of fighting in differing parts of the world often against an inferior equipt but still lethal and highly mobile foe which would you go with?
Having said that lets look at another scenario. I'm thinking with the demise of the M110's and the axing of the crusader we just might be seeing the end of large guns. the MLRS have proven their selfs as being capable of fulfilling the role of traditional artillery.
No I really cain't say this is "not invented here syndrome". Could be but in this case I really can not believe it is so. If I have misread your closing statement then accept my apology if not then Please, in the future lets all leave the negative nationally oriented statements on RMS. One of the BIG reasons I moved to Armorama.
By the way, who you callin big enough? #:-)

I'll agree that world wide mobility is not as importaint for the German army as it is for the American one, but weight is not a major issue here. Sure the M109A6 weighs in at around 25 000kg empty while the PzH 2000 weighs in at around twice that amount however weight is not as large an issue as dimensions, as neither will be air-freighted. Heavy weapons go by ship, meaning that physical dimensions are more importaint than weight.

From Janes:
(L x W x H)

M109A6: 9.7m x 3.9m x 3.6m
PzH 2000: 11.7m x 3.6m x 3.46m

Someone else can convert that to feet if they want, it's not really nessesary. The M109A6 is shorter, but wider and higher - but the difference in dimensions are not major. I don't quite know how the US pack the M109s in ships, but I reckon that the ships could carry the same amount of PzH 2000 as M109A6s they can currently do. If someone can add to this please do.

Now throughout all this I realise that the M109A6 is air-droppable and that the PzH 2000 would struggle, however I do not believe that this is as importaint today as it was previously. After all, the Crusader was going to weigh around 40 000kg from what I can find out.




Fast becoming outdated. Need one say more? There are limits to everything, ultimatly the M109A6 is still mounted on a 1959 hull, its fellow AFVs (M1 and M2/M3) are much newer. As mentioned above, the M109A6 struggles to keep up with them. Both of them have similar top speeds, however from what I can find out the PzH 2000 cruises at a higher speed than the M109A6 - which is the importaint performance.

Accuracy is something I cannot find specific data about, however I'd give the nod to the PzH 2000 simply due to the fact its newer and hence would probably have the more up-to-date FCS. In reality though I don't think that there is a difference.

I assume that you are talking about the range of the 155mm projectile when talking about range (Out of interest the cruise range of the PzH 2000 is 80 - 100km further than the M109A6) - as I expected the range is somewhat similar, around 30 000m. The Crusader was to reach out to 40 000m, which I believe that the PzH 2000 is aiming (forgive the pun) for now.

I cannot find anything about the PzH 2000's amphibious abilities, so I'll leave it at that. I'd say that it is as capable (if not more so) than the M1 series - which should be more than enough.




The best one, which I believe to the PzH 2000. It's newer, requires less crew, easier to maintain, can keep up with nearly all AFVs required and may have a few hundred metres range. It has a longer cruising range and has better cross-country mobility. It carries nearly 20 more rounds and has a higher rate-of-fire. It is heavier yes, but ultimatly I'm taking nearly all my AFVs via ship.




MLRS has many problems compared to tube-artillery (and visa-verce) including reload rate, minimum range and cost. There will never be a lack of need of 155mm guns - after all, 105mm and 155mm have been staple artillery sizes for many decades now for a reason. I believe that in 50 years there still will be 155mm SPH running around with the big, well equipped armies.




Obviously it's not as AFAIK the PzH 2000 hasn't been offered to the US. I don't believe it will however, as the US is one of the more obvious countries that have NIHS. This isn't a bad thing - after all I'd rahter use something made in Australia than the same thing made elsewhere, but sometimes it does mean that a better system will not find its way into service. I believe that the PzH 2000 is better than the M109A6, however the US Army already has a logistics tail set up for the M109 series and the M109A6 came along before the PzH 2000. Should the M109A6 be replaced by the PzH 2000? I don't believe so. However, the final replacement for the M109A6 should not be another M109 chassis vehicle, it needs to be a newer one. A PzH 2010 may very well be a viable rival.




What negative nationality comments? That the US has a case of NIHS? That's true. Ditto Australia. Ditto France. Ditto Russia. Hell, if Zambia could produce everything it needed it would. I stand by my statement, the US rarely takes on foreign designs. Look at everything that the US has used in the past 50 years. How much of it was designed in the US and how much was design overseas. Off the top of my head there is:

B-57
M249
T-45 Goshawk
AV-8A
LAV
M93
M119 105mm gun

Now my next question is so? Obviously the US produces excellent designs - why not equip itself with Boeing products as opposed to Sukhoi ones? I never said that it was a bad thing, just that the US was one of the more major cases of NIHS - after all, it is one of the most industrialised countries about.

BTW - Australia's physically bigger

Cheers,
Linz

The reason we won't switch is not a matter of NIHS, it is a matter or National Military Strategy. In order to cancel the Crusader, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) had to show that we no longer had a need for the Crusader in any shape or form. The Secretary of The Army and the Army Chief of Staff disagreed (there was a public debate that got Sec. White in hot water with the SECDEF).

Since the powers that be no longer see us as having a need for a self propelled heavy artillery piece, there is no longer an official requirements document for the Crusader and therefore, no requirement for a replacement. If the requirement still existed, there would have been no reason to cancel the Crusader.

As far as the logistics of adding the PzHbtz2000 to our inventory, there would be an initial fielding issue, but nothing unsurmountable. The Crusader would have had many components in common with the Abrams and eased the repair parts and special tools requirement though.

Disclaimer: This question appeared to be directed towards me. If this question was answered in error, or an answer not required/expected/wanted, please notify me and I will delete the post. This post is not intended as an attack on any persons posting prior to or after this post. Please feel free to disregard/disbelieve/discount any information contained in the post.

quote "You know that I know the difference between a tank and a howitzer." Ok, question. When is it a gun and not a howitzer? Thought that artillery labeled tubes as guns/howitzers by length. Or is it length vs bore or caliber? Why is this a howitzer and not a gun?

The difference between a gun and a howitzer hsa become blurred over the past few years, however the traditional definations are:

A gun is a high velocity, low angle weapon that usually fires fixed rounds (ie, the projectile is fixed to the cartridge case.

A howitzer is a lower velocity, high angle weapon that delivers more plunging fire. Often the ammunition here will be seperate or semi-fixed (semi-fixed si where the cartridge and the projectile are joined immediatley before loading).

All this means that the direct fire weapons are traditionally guns whilst the indirect weapons are howitzers, however this is fairly flexiable. It also means that the howitzer's generally have shorter ranges, meanng smaller projectiles meaning a smaller barrel, although again this isn't always the case.

As an idea on guns vs howitzers with range:



Cheers,
Linz