Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1281650
as a state-of-the-art platform. Crews trained from the ground up are equally satisfied. Meanwhile, the crews transitioning from the Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks that are 30 years old consider the Hitfist-30P firepower and its fire control system to be disappointing. The issues include the poor situational aware- ness of the commander, limited target designation capacity, and imperfect gun stabilizer, with the firing solution adjustment ap- plied to the cross-hair, not to the actual Bushmaster movement. Generally, though, it may be claimed that design- and arma- ment-wise Hitfist-30P is a good product. When compared to the foreign design the turret is slightly below average in the class. Unfortunately, the Polish military has not managed to integrate the Spike ATGM on the Hitfist-30P turret yet. Looking back, one could come to a conclusion that despite its disadvantages, Hitfist-30P has been a product meeting the requirements associated with the global average - a single ther- mal imaging system, efficient stabilization system, decent fire control system (however, lacking the hunter-killer capability) and very good primary armament. The Hitfist-30P's firepower surpassed the BMP-2 turret and was corresponding with most of the NATO IFV turret designs. The lack of ATGM integration has been the only relevant disadvantage. However, it needs to be said that most of the Western post-Cold War designs also did not go through such integration. Even though the Hitfist-fitted Rosomak is classified as a wheeled IFV, its turret was quite impressive, among other wheeled plat- forms. The Rosomak counterparts around the world were usu- ally treated as wheeled APCs, not IFVs. And because of that the- ir armament was usually much weaker. The turret was quite successful, when compared to the NATO IFV average, however, the fully "polonized" hull was placing the Rosomak at the very top of the ranking. The vehicle manufactured in Siemianowice has been, for quite some time, the most modern one in its class. The hull is a monocoque design welded out of 8 mm SSAB Ar- mox 440T/450T steel plates. Underneath one may find a suspen- sion support element developed by the Finnish Sisu company - the infamous steel frame (that was one of the reasons the competition was trying to invalidate the procurement), that sup- ports the suspension, makes the structure more rigid and transfers most of the load. This improves the IED/mine protec- tion levels and makes maintenance much easier. The hull itself is conventional in its design, with the driver's seat located in the front, on the left. The driver has a separate hatch at his disposal. On the right side of the driver, one may find the power-pack, whi- le behind - the troop/transport compartment that is connected with the driver compartment with a little corridor. In the rear portion of the hull, a twin door can be found, with two extra hatches cut in the roof. Despite the weight savings, the vehicle is still well protected. The armor is an armored steel monocoque structure. 35 mm from the base structure, extra armor is in- stalled - the Armox 500T or the Armstal 450/550 plates that are 6 mm thick. Everything provides the vehicle with STANAG Level IV protection at an angle of +/- 60° in relation to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle - the APC is protected from 14.5x114 mm rounds at 200 meters or explosion of a 155 mm artillery shell at a distance of 25 meters. In the remaining portion of the angle envelope, the armor pro- tects the crew from 7.62x54R rounds at 30 meters or 155 mm shell explosions at 60 meters. The under-wheel explosion re- sistance has been defined as 6 kilograms of TNT. The interior is lined with an aramid anti-frag liner. As the Rosomak's armor is of modular design to some extent, and it can be easily reinfor- ced, this option has been used when the vehicles were being prepared for foreign deployments. As a result of this, above the VEHICLES