Jump to content
ChrisWerb

UK choose Boxer

Recommended Posts

Wow. Times, they are a-changing. I never thought Whitehall would ever admit having made the wrong decision. But, I think, a good move. After all the Boxer was designed to British specs, and from what I'm hearing, it really IS a good platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were the BBC reporting it mite have some more legitimacy

But if true nothing against buying German APC/IFVs. I think there would be no argument German industry makes Good AFVs although some what pricey.

But its a sorry state of affairs if UK industry cant even produce a wheeled PC

 

PS I have spoken to a serving German soldier who thinks the boxer is to big and ungainly for some roles.

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always something "not quite right". The reason for it is that you have conflicting requirements. You want vehicles to be as light as possible. You want the best protection you can get. So you settle for something in between - that is neither lightweight nor best protected, and you have already the class of disingenious critics that will blast it for failing one of the requirements (if not both...).

The real question is, does the vehicle do its job for the (vast) majority of roles, or does it suffer from fundamental problems. If you want to transport 10 beefy infantry guys, under armor, along with equipment that is 80% their size and 70% of their weight, plus three vehicle crew, you invariably end up with something like a maxi size minibus. Add decent armor protection and your solution inflates to regular bus size.

I mean, look at the Patria XA360, or the Piranha V, and compare them with the Boxer. All are 8x8 vehicles, all are ungainly and big. Surprise! They are all designed to accommodate a large number of big guys. You can shrink them only by reducing dismount strength, reducing equipment, and/or further reducing armor protection. Which shall it be? None? Well then, suck it up and get on with it.

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Marko said:

PS I have spoken to a serving German soldier who thinks the boxer is to big and ungainly for some roles.

 

"Some" being the key word, note not "most" or "all".

 

If its fit for purpose for 95% or roles well such is life.

 

Otherwise you are in the classic "Best is the enemy of good enough" scenario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the need to build APC/IFVs capable of carrying a squad of infantry and all there kit ammunition resupply etc.

  I have noticed there seems to be a trend of making bigger APC/IFVs looking at some of the new designs from the military shows

Even the new Russian designs seem to be a lot larger then there previous ones. compare the new T-15 to the BMP

It looks like they  have abandoned there practice of making there AFVs low profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at a Armour Musem in CT and there was a BMP 2(or 1,forget)I belive there,i couldnt even climb in the troop doors to get in it.They are tiny.

Edited by mpow66m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians, for a while, could get away with recruiting armor and mech personnel by selecting only from the short quartile of recruits, simply because they had so many from whom they could pick. Now that they have a mix of both professional soldiers and or conscripts (and they tend to send mostly the professionals into hot combat zones) their design principles seem to change.

Classic BTRs and BMPs are inadequate both in the amount of internal volume and in their armor protection value. They were designed to withstand only smaller calibers and (most) artillery fragments, and at a time when soldiers didn't wear body armor. Once that you equip the soldiers with these, you need soldiers that can carry more. When you do that, you end up with taller, beefier people. Sure, a small guy can carry almost as much, so he's more effective per body weight (just as the Amazonas Ant is the fearsome record holder in the carried weight to body weight ratio ... but still you use elephants when it comes to dragging around felled trees, not ants). Tall, beefy people need, by definition, more space than small, skinny warriors. Even more so if the big guys are wearing protection vests (and the small skinny guys do not, by comparison). So, if you want more people (ten, rather than six in the BMP-2) who are 6 foot tall rather than 4'7", and you want to protect them against 30mm APDS frontally and against 14.5mm all round, plus protection against RPG-7, that alone must inevitably balloon the volume of the vehicle. Add the requirement for a wheeled vehicle - tracked vehicles' running gears are much more compact than balloon wheels that need to turn - and you end with a bus. With today's technology there's just no way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add, since we need to provide the largest field of view possible in SB Pro, tanks always appear much smaller in the sim than they do in real life. Even the flimsy BRDM is actually impressively large if you see it parked next to a civilian car. And the BRDM is probably the most pathetic armored vehicle in our whole selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

The Russians, for a while, could get away with recruiting armor and mech personnel by selecting only from the short quartile of recruits, simply because they had so many from whom they could pick. Now that they have a mix of both professional soldiers and or conscripts (and they tend to send mostly the professionals into hot combat zones) their design principles seem to change.

Classic BTRs and BMPs are inadequate both in the amount of internal volume and in their armor protection value. They were designed to withstand only smaller calibers and (most) artillery fragments, and at a time when soldiers didn't wear body armor. Once that you equip the soldiers with these, you need soldiers that can carry more. When you do that, you end up with taller, beefier people. Sure, a small guy can carry almost as much, so he's more effective per body weight (just as the Amazonas Ant is the fearsome record holder in the carried weight to body weight ratio ... but still you use elephants when it comes to dragging around felled trees, not ants). Tall, beefy people need, by definition, more space than small, skinny warriors. Even more so if the big guys are wearing protection vests (and the small skinny guys do not, by comparison). So, if you want more people (ten, rather than six in the BMP-2) who are 6 foot tall rather than 4'7", and you want to protect them against 30mm APDS frontally and against 14.5mm all round, plus protection against RPG-7, that alone must inevitably balloon the volume of the vehicle. Add the requirement for a wheeled vehicle - tracked vehicles' running gears are much more compact than balloon wheels that need to turn - and you end with a bus. With today's technology there's just no way around it.

 

and of course if you want these guys to be able to do things when they get out you need more room. A Javelin CLU with say 4 reloads takes up a bunch more room than 4 x M-T72 LAW.

 

The same design principles led to the M113 and FV432 on NATO's side, hence why their protection is similar to a BTR-60/70/80, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russians in their newest platforms simply started to look at western design solutions to adapt them in to their own concepts, partially also because majoity of engineers working on these vehicles are very young people. There was a very large generation replacement among engineers working in Russian AFV industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'd like to add, since we need to provide the largest field of view possible in SB Pro, tanks always appear much smaller in the sim than they do in real life. Even the flimsy BRDM is actually impressively large if you see it parked next to a civilian car. And the BRDM is probably the most pathetic armored vehicle in our whole selection.

Its not the most effective platform I agree but its amphibious capability's

Make it very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marko said:

Its not the most effective platform I agree but its amphibious capability's

Make it very useful.

 

He didn't say it wasn't effective. He just said it was poorly armoured. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it was the most pathetic among our whole range of armored vehicles. I wrote nothing about effectiveness. And that even as the weakest type of cannon fodder and being one of the smallest targets among the regular combat vehicles that you get in your sights, it's still pretty large when you stand right next to it, in a museum, say, or when you park it next to a normal car.

My choice of "pathetic" may be debatable. Call me a jingoistic Leopard 2 tanker for it. ;)

But still - the BMD and Wiesel may be smaller, but they pack a bigger punch. The BTR may not offer better protection - but at least it has a lot of dismounts. Only the FIST-V and PRP-3 are armed weaker with nothing but a single 7.62mm MG, but they call in artillery. Which leaves the Humvee and Mercedes G as reconnaissance vehicles, but they don't even pretend to be armored. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRDM-2 is a pretty decent scout vehicle IMO, certainly beats a humvee, protection wise. and beats an MT-LB armament wise. 

as far as armour goes, it's close to the level of a dingo, and armament it beats the dingo hands down, at least the one in SB. 

on price there's no question. you can have far more BRDMs than you can dingos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the British better make this decision quickly, before the Brexit vote takes effect or it will be much more expensive to purchase later.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crusty said:

The whole Brexit saga may come in to play.

If negotiations go badly from a UK prospective I don't see it happening

Even ministers throw there dummy's out of there prams from time to time.

skilled well paid jobs will also be a major factor I think the UK badly needs them.

The only think that should mater though is procuring the best vehicle for the troops.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, part of the problem is that buyers keep blending requirements together...

 

Built a lightweight multipurpose platform on wheels.

 

Okay, done.  It's light, it carries troops, and machine guns, and mortars, ATGMs, low-pressure low recoil guns like Canadian version, you can do lots of stuff with it and it's very mobile because it's got thin armor and no big guns.

 

Okay, now make it resistant to IEDs and mines.

And put a tank gun on it.

And armor it to go toe to toe with tracked IFVs.

And make it fly.

And it should be able to land on the moon.

And drive under water.

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...