TYR Tactical

MDM – Reinmetall Defense – Wiesel 2


There are a lot of vehicles at Moden Day Marine, but the one that actually surprised me was the Reinmetall Defence Wiesel 2. I spoke with one of the representatives at the booth and he explained that they recently attended the Maneuver Conference at Ft Benning as they showcase the vehicle for an Army armored gun requirement. They are at Modern Day Marine because the Marines have a mortar vehicle requirement.


The base vehicle dates from the 1980s and the slightly larger Wiesel 2 on display, sports an additional road wheel than its predecessor. This means almost twice as much internal volume. It is 4.78 meters long, 2.17 meters high, and 1.87 meters wide. Its weight is 4.78 metric tons (about 10,500 lbs). It is airdroppable and airtransportable in the CH-53.


Interestingly, the US Army Ranger Regiment experimented with the Wiesel in the mid-1990s during a series of armored vehicle trials. Wiesels have also more recently been evaluated during UGV trials here in the US.




24 Responses to “MDM – Reinmetall Defense – Wiesel 2”

  1. Solomon says:

    dude. have you seen anything of General Dynamics and their Amphibious Combat Vehicle at the show? even a model? do they have anyone even attending it or a booth. i’ve been hitting their website but nothing.

  2. Riceball says:

    This makes me wonder, is the Corps looking at replacing the LAV mortar variant? Although the LAV is getting a bit long in the tooth, does the Corps really need something brand new to replace it or at least the mortar variant? Wouldn’t it be easier, and possibly cheaper, to LAV 3s or 4s (whatever the Stryker is based on) or even stripped down Strykers and share some of the logistics train and cost with the Army?

    • zuni says:

      Not surprised: Styker and LAV are just too similar and we marpat-ensconced shiver whenever the Army starts doing something Marine-like. Probably, the Wiesel looks like a decent enough rig to build a concept around (and get some really good trips overseas) and SYSCOM PM’s, like all good acquisition PM’s, always have a foot in the fight and the other scrabbling around desperately for post 0-5/6 gigs (and Germany is an excellent place to work for retired DOD). One should never underestimate the Corps’ paranoia that manifests in an unrivaled ability to justify oddball vehicles to fill dubious niches that are nonetheless appealing to members of congress and others who stand to gain in their construction and maintenance. Harrier, V-22, F-35 Marine variant, the list will go on, and every one a fantastically unique Hollywood-ready platform that fills a microscopic gap in the capability spectrum. I would gladly pay to see the look on 1/2/3rd LAR BN CO’s and S-4’s/Maint Chief’s faces when a trainload of these bad boys show up to be the “go-to mortar rigs that make us different than the Army” according to the higher and tighter than thou GO’s who make these decisions. Awesome! Being a small boat guy at heart I’ve been waiting for the intercontinental fire-team minisub that gets us outta the sardine-packed amphibs for good and lets us launch straight from a Lejeune/Pendleton BBQ.

  3. 0313 says:

    The LAV is gonna be around for a long time, still upgrading the suspension transmission and another engine swap

  4. SGT Rock says:

    This is a vehicle that both the US Army and USMC should’ve adapted long long ago.

  5. Reseremb says:

    RMG-762 (triple barrel MG3) on a remote weapon station, interesting. Functional or a mock-up?

  6. MattF says:

    I don’t think that Rheinmetall is so much marketing this for the ‘Mobile Protected Firepower’ program within the Army as the Wiesel isn’t capable of mounting anything in the 90-120mm gun which the Army would be looking for, but rather this is for the ‘Light Reconnaissance Vehicle’ program which has a requirement of the following:
    CH-47 Internally Transportable
    Carry a 6 man scout team (including crew members)
    Have a ‘Medium Caliber Weapon System (25-30mm)
    Retrofit the in-service Long-Range Advanced Scout Surveillance system (LRAS3)

    Looks like the Wiesel 2 has 2/4 and I’m sure that Rheinmetall is working on the weapon system and is in talks with Raytheon for integration of LRAS3.

    This would be a great piece of equipment for the Army to field for LRV.

    • Old MSgt says:

      It fails to be a wheeled dune buggy. Studly lightfighters hate armor, despise the out of shape non-lightfighter lesser humans who operate armor, and hate tracked vehicles the way Taliban hate woman’s rights.

      Customers are curious creatures. What they say they might buy often has little to do with what really clinches a sale. One must pander to the customer vision of his own wisdom even if he’s narrow-minded and a bit daft.

      If Rheinmetall were serious about SELLING Wiesel it would have arrived in tan livery instead of woodland. It would have a serious cannon on RWS. It would have APS as an option even though Army consider APS too expensive to field so they’ve given it up. APS on such a light vehicle would drastically increase survivability and in this era of recreational wars casualties create political blowback. While APS on every AFV can’t happen it would pay off for LRV.

      They know the US Army would rather be blinded with a burning penis then buy a foreign AFV or they’d have had a way to “red, white, and blue-wash” the thing in place. Americans will never admit they won’t buy foreign vehicles and apparently the sellers of these vehicles are equally irrational or they’d have a construct to get the money such as a US fig-leaf vendor.

      Too bad. It’s a nice vehicle which could be quite versatile. The US can accept operational constraints of not having such things because our wars are all optional and at Washington’s discretion. If the Army can’t do X the militarily illiterate politicians won’t see that as a defect. No mission, no losses, no problem.

  7. dudeabides says:

    I love me some Wiesels. This V2 is pretty sweet. Had a pack(terminology?) of them support us during a dog and pony show for select members of the German Bundestag back in 2004.

  8. joe says:

    The Wiesel, or a vehicle like it, has been needed in the XVIII Airborne since the Sheridan was removed from service.

    While an M8 Buford or other light tanks are a better replacement, the Airborne would benefit from ANY mechanized support.

    A highly deployable, yet lightly armored vehicle with weapons packages that are appropriate to engage Armor (missiles) or Infantry (autocannon) makes much more sense.

    As the armor is only rated for small arms, utilize active and passive countermeasures to enhance survivability.

    Of course the masses of Airborne Infantry to their left and right will always be the best defense.

    • Old MSgt says:

      How would you convince Airborne to demand integral mech support?

      Would creating a new MOS that is Airborne-only reduce the degrading stigma of operating a tank? The “masses of Airborne infantry” don’t want tanks or they’d have gotten tanks.

      Meanwhile the Russians, who for understandable reasons don’t hate their Armor branch, equip their Airborne with plenty of mobile tracked firepower. Of course Americans can rely on perfect 24/7 air support in all weathers with no delay (hack, cough…) so we don’t need no steenking organic firepower but it is interesting to compare philosophies. Russian General Shamanov is one tough, effective and ruthless mofo who gets results. He brings armor to the fight.

      • SSD says:

        Amazingly, the Army had a Bn of Sheridans in the 82nd for a couple of decades. I went to jump school in Jan 91 with a Tank Turret Mechanic from the 82nd. There doesn’t need to be an airborne only armor MOS. There isn’t an airborne only Infantry MOS is there?

  9. Haji says:

    Such a vehicle would be good for picking up girls in Minsk.

  10. james says:

    Weren’t the Marines looking for an armored prime mover for the GD autoloading mortar system? Seems like a good option for that.

      • james says:

        Sorry, you mentioned it in the article, I think I just got off track with the mention of the LAV in the comments.Where are they with that system? They bought the m364? and prime movers/ammo carriers but not the XM363 which they were/are looking at in the LAV. Are they doing this as an interim solution to get a more complete EFSS in the future?

      • james says:

        Feel free to delete all this, I have the EFSS and MFSS confused. I was thinking they were the same program.