Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Lord Jim]

Nice piece of kit. The same turret can also take a 40mm though the unique arrangement for the ammo feed on the CTA40 might make it a bit of a squeeze. It can also take ATGMs so imagine a 105mm combined with Spike 2-LR as the fire support variant with say eight in each Mechanised Infantry Battalion. One can but dream.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the ammo feed on the CTA40 might make it a bit of a squeeze

The one from the sides, or the one from below (which is also an option)?

[Caribbean]

Cockerill also claim that the turret will take a 120mm smoothbore, but I haven't seen any pictures of one yet

[bobp]

One can but dream.

If its fully modular, it would be a good buy. But I would also like to dream of some serious AA cover as well for knocking out drones, and other hostiles such as Helicopters.

[Ron5]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

[ArmChairCivvy]

6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?

7 the most important thing to start with... and we have been promised answers as for the ongoing armour prgrms in the IR

6 is also an abject lesson in shoe-horning something onto a common platform - that the platform is not suitable for
- MGS at least got the fire power (quick) to where it was needed
- against a peer enemy? Something very interim, put onto a platform that itself was interim (the Dragoon is progress, but only in a sense that it is aping what everyone else is doing)
... could have been a REAL disaster

[mr.fred]

Each time I see a large direct fire gun on a wheeled vehicle it’s usually presented as a self propelled gun, mobile gun system, or some other three letter abbreviation. The trouble with that is that it is being pushed into roles where it is used as a tank. In reality it is a tank, and not a very good one. Incoming fire isn’t going to worry what it’s called.

[RunningStrong]

Is a direct fire on a wheeled chassis a "concept well proven"?

Don't remember them kicking down the door during GW1 or 2? Or a history of use in other conflicts?

Happy to be proven wrong.

[mr.fred]

I think that those with most combat experience would be the South Africans and the French.

More “wheeled light tanks” than anything else.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Happy to be proven wrong.

combat experience would be the South Africans

The US mech cavalry had their M8 wheeled (effective against infantry) supported by the tracked M8 assault guns if they ran against anything 'harder'... late WW2 that is.

South African wheeled 90 mm (low pressure) force, when it ran into (then) modern tank force was only rescued by their long-ranged artillery support (and air mobility)... overall they prevailed.
- can't remember the French running up against an organised tank force?

So? W/o support 'on call' not a convincing case. But to beef up a recce force and enable its orderly disengagement, yes (but the price of doing 'the biz' might be heavy, i.e. to save the force they are covering)
... renews the case for 'overwatch' by other means?

[Lord Jim]

The South Africans found the HEAT round form the 90mm could take care of both the T-55 and T-62 they bumped into in Angola. Of coarse these were not fully upgraded versions with add on armour and only with relatively basic FCS, so had great difficulty in hitting the more mobile South African AML-90s and Ratel 90s.

As far as the French go, I also cannot find an incidence where their wheeled A/Cs took on Tank opposition, though the AMX-10RC would have a pretty good chance against older generations of Tanks. In Chad it was French air power supporting Chadian forces in pick ups armed with Milan.

But that bring we onto why have a large gun on a wheeled platform. They are not tanks anymore than an AS-90 is an alternative to the Challenger 2. They are Direct Fire Support Platforms, taking out bunkers and other fortifications as well as being able if required to engage lightly Armoured and soft skins vehicles. Yes a tank can also do that but it would be far easier getting a Squadron of wheeled FSVs to say Kenya that a Squadron of Challenger 2s. It will also be far easier to operate and maintain them once they arrive and easier to bring them home. For these you do not even need a 105mm, a modern high pressure 90mm will do the job nicely as will some turrets 120mm Mortar systems, in the latter case catching two birds with one stone, being able to provide both direct and indirect fire support. Having eight to twelve such platforms per Regiment/Battalion could actually be the ideal solution.

Formations like the "Strike" Brigades and the Mechanised Infantry Battalion as going to rely on ATGWs to engage modern Main Battle Tanks, which is one of the reason there is an urgent need for an under armour ATGW capability in both the Boxer and Ajax units.

[mr.fred]

u

But that bring we onto why have a large gun on a wheeled platform. They are not tanks anymore than an AS-90 is an alternative to the Challenger 2. They are Direct Fire Support Platforms, taking out bunkers and other fortifications as well as being able if required to engage lightly Armoured and soft skins vehicles. Yes a tank can also do that but it would be far easier getting a Squadron of wheeled FSVs to say Kenya that a Squadron of Challenger 2s. It will also be far easier to operate and maintain them once they arrive and easier to bring them home. For these you do not even need a 105mm, a modern high pressure 90mm will do the job nicely as will some turrets 120mm Mortar systems, in the latter case catching two birds with one stone, being able to provide both direct and indirect fire support. Having eight to twelve such platforms per Regiment/Battalion could actually be the ideal solution.

No. Renaming them does not change what they are. They are light tanks and you must think of them as that. The AS90/challenger comparison is specious because the AS90 is primarily an indirect fire artillery piece. If it ever uses a direct fire capacity it will be either as the result of a mistake or a very deliberate and controlled special decision.

The high velocity gun armed vehicles shown are primarily direct fire systems. They do a tank’s job and are lightly protected so they are light tanks.

Using a turreted 120mm mortar with a direct fire capability is a much better solution (IMHO) and much more comparable to the AS90s because they are primarily artillery.

[RunningStrong]

They do a tank’s job and are lightly protected so they are light tanks.

That's a complete contradiction in terms. Which is why no modern military recognises the term "light tank".

There is no modern military that would attempt to use a wheeled platform with a 120mm gun as a genuine first-response to a breakthrough of heavy armour. In fact, at what time would you ever deliberately put your largest target against your enemies most capable assets?

[mr.fred]

That's a complete contradiction in terms. Which is why no modern military recognises the term "light tank".

I fear that they are deceiving only themselves if that is the case. I assume that you mean China and Russia don’t count as “Modern Militaries” although I speak neither language(s) and cannot vouch for translations which describe some of their vehicles as “light tanks”.
Although not recognising the term “light tank” when such vehicles certainly did exist and were certainly recognised as such is a strange claim. More so when such vehicles plainly still exist in some armies.

There is no modern military that would attempt to use a wheeled platform with a 120mm gun as a genuine first-response to a breakthrough of heavy armour. In fact, at what time would you ever deliberately put your largest target against your enemies most capable assets?

Japan and Italy both utilise a wheeled AFV with a high velocity gun for exactly that reason.
But whoever said that the role of a tank is to charge into the face of an enemy attack? My view is that the role of a tank is to be mobile protected firepower, so while you can use it for that but it also has a myriad of other uses in combat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Japan and Italy both utilise a wheeled AFV with a high velocity gun

I would think that they exist as an element that can get to the spot, to counter a landing, by virtue of being fast along roads
- and in that role (Chinese/ Russian) tanks rolling ashore would be exactly light tanks (also used by Russian airlanded forces
- China has also mountain tanks and India (4-5 yrs ago) tried to place an order for 300, as a counter. There were none to be had

The US 'light tank' will be an interesting to watch. Leaving airborne/ airmobile divisions aside, heavy/medium/infantry BCTs all have a cavalry squadron. ACRs ceased to exist in 2009, but the hunter-killer troop that was part of every squadron was replaced in heavy with MBTs, in medium with Stryker MGSs... and in infantry divisions with nothing
... so will the new system, whatever it will be called, be deemed to be able to be a hunter killer (lands with cavalry), or will it be attached to the BCT artillery bn

[Lord Jim]

The high velocity gun armed vehicles shown are primarily direct fire systems. They do a tank’s job and are lightly protected so they are light tanks.

Going by your argument, Armoured Cars like the Saladin or AML-90 didn't really exist but were simply Light Tanks. Yes modern medium (up to 40t) wheeled AFVs with 105mm or 120mm high velocity guns can engage enemy heavy armour but would do so as a last resort, preferring to slip away, and even then they would manoeuvre to try to engage from the flanks, or engage lighter vehicles whilst their accompanying AGTW platforms took on the Main Battle Tanks.

Italy and Spain have purchased the Centauro to equip their Cavalry units, whose role is very similar to what our planned "Strike" Brigades are intended to do but are much better thought out, not mixing tracked and wheeled to start with. Like the "Strike" Brigades, their role is not to take on enemy Heavy Formations head on in a peer conflict, and they also have an out of area role to, being far more deployable. In a matchup between an old, barely maintained T-55 in Somalia and a Centauro 2 with its 120mm gun and modern FCS I would put my money on the Centauro, when it isn't doing its main job of direct fire support of the Infantry taking out enemy position form a distance, whilst being out of range of their RPGs and safe from their mortars and other light artillery. Could a turreted 120mm Mortar platform do the same, possible?

No one is saying that wheeled platforms mounting large high velocity guns are a replacement for Main Battle Tanks. But modern doctrine where militaries are increasing equipping units with wheeled platforms and assigning them roles beyond peer level conflicts require a deployable, direct fire support platform, that is cheaper than a Main Battle Tank and cheaper to operate. Turreted Mortars may be able to carry out this task, but most are not the best at direct fire over longer ranges, but I have not read any accounts of such platforms being used in such a way operationally.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Could a turreted 120mm Mortar platform do the same, possible?

As you say, direct fire is only out to 1 km, so in direct support of infantry (against bunkers, MG nests... shoot at a building's base and the whole thing comes tumbling down; no guesswork about ' which window' )
- beyond that they are area effect weapons

[mr.fred]

No one is saying that wheeled platforms mounting large high velocity guns are a replacement for Main Battle Tanks.

You are partially correct. However, if such a vehicle is the only such that you have on the field then it is a de facto your main battle tank. If it isn’t very good at it then that is something that must be accounted for.

What I am saying is that they bear all the features of a light tank, however they are called.

[RunningStrong]

I fear that they are deceiving only themselves if that is the case. I assume that you mean China and Russia don’t count as “Modern Militaries” although I speak neither language(s) and cannot vouch for translations which describe some of their vehicles as “light tanks”.

And yet the Chinese ZTQ is neither armoured or armed sufficiently to perform the duties of a modern tank. As that is the case, at what point is it able to be used against other tanks?

At what point is a lightweight tank just another AFV? Is AJAX a lightweight tank?

Although not recognising the term “light tank” when such vehicles certainly did exist and were certainly recognised as such is a strange claim. More so when such vehicles plainly still exist in some armies.

I agree they have existed historically, when the lines between tank armour and armament was very closely aligned to that of IFV and Armoured Recce. And some legacy vehicles do exist within older fleets.

Japan and Italy both utilise a wheeled AFV with a high velocity gun for exactly that reason.
But whoever said that the role of a tank is to charge into the face of an enemy attack? My view is that the role of a tank is to be mobile protected firepower, so while you can use it for that but it also has a myriad of other uses in combat.

Until recently Japan's military stance was entirely defensive, and so the need to get a large calibre weapon to a pre-prepared defensive position quickly was more important than the vehicles own protection.

Italy has never used their wheeled AFV against armoured vehicles. It's purely operated as an assault gun for Infantry manoeuvre.

And of course a tank has many uses (CR2, Basra), but so does an aircraft carrier. And we don't call that a Disaster Relief craft...

[SD67]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

If that's the case then there's not much point in the whole strike brigade concept is there? Because CR2 certainly isn't going to be able to keep up with it, and this is as lethal and well protected as anything else in the inventory bar CR2. The army need to figure out a way to do expeditionary warfare because BAOR is not coming back. Of course this is not a substitute for CR2, but then CR2 won't be there. Personally I'd like to see a whole range of Boxer variants - Boxer-Brimstone, Boxer-GBAD, Boxer turreted mortar etc

[mr.fred]

Until recently Japan's military stance was entirely defensive, and so the need to get a large calibre weapon to a pre-prepared defensive position quickly was more important than the vehicles own protection.

Except the wheeled 8x8 Type 16 is the most modern vehicle in Japan’s Arsenal and has no direct antecedents.

Italy has never used their wheeled AFV against armoured vehicles. It's purely operated as an assault gun for Infantry manoeuvre.

But the high operational mobility anti armour role is what it is for, the lack of enemy armour targets have been the reason it hasn’t been targeting them. In the absence (or despite the presence) of enemy armour tanks provide direct fire support for infantry. Such behaviour doesn’t define them as assault guns.

And of course a tank has many uses (CR2, Basra), but so does an aircraft carrier. And we don't call that a Disaster Relief craft...

That’s kind of my point though. You call an aircraft carrier an aircraft carrier. Historically when it’s called something different then that is usually because someone is trying to obfuscate what they really are. Case in point the Invincible class “Through-deck cruisers”

And yet the Chinese ZTQ is neither armoured or armed sufficiently to perform the duties of a modern tank. As that is the case, at what point is it able to be used against other tanks?

I think you and I have a different view of what constitutes a tank and what the duties of a “modern” tank are. If the ZTQ-15 is not a light tank, what is it?
As I’ve previously stated I think a tank provides protected, mobile, firepower. I might add “in the direct fire battle” just to be clear that I don’t consider a protected artillery piece a tank.

[Ron5]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

If that's the case then there's not much point in the whole strike brigade concept is there? Because CR2 certainly isn't going to be able to keep up with it, and this is as lethal and well protected as anything else in the inventory bar CR2. The army need to figure out a way to do expeditionary warfare because BAOR is not coming back. Of course this is not a substitute for CR2, but then CR2 won't be there. Personally I'd like to see a whole range of Boxer variants - Boxer-Brimstone, Boxer-GBAD, Boxer turreted mortar etc

A Strike brigade cannot successfully go up against an armored formation. Adding Boxer with a big gun on top make zero difference except by supplying a larger target that's easier to hit.

BTW boxer will not be the most protected vehicle in the inventory after CH2. Not sure why you think that.

[RunningStrong]

Except the wheeled 8x8 Type 16 is the most modern vehicle in Japan’s Arsenal and has no direct antecedents.

MCB concept development 2008. Japanese Defence law changes 2015.

But the high operational mobility anti armour role is what it is for, the lack of enemy armour targets have been the reason it hasn’t been targeting them. In the absence (or despite the presence) of enemy armour tanks provide direct fire support for infantry. Such behaviour doesn’t define them as assault guns.

Any evidence of that?

I think you and I have a different view of what constitutes a tank and what the duties of a “modern” tank are. If the ZTQ-15 is not a light tank, what is it?
As I’ve previously stated I think a tank provides protected, mobile, firepower. I might add “in the direct fire battle” just to be clear that I don’t consider a protected artillery piece a tank.

So is an AJAX a light tank? What about a M1128? Scimitar 2? They're all protected, mobile, direct fire, with no dismounts (to exclude IFV).

A tank is the most protected, and the greatest direct firepower in the modern army.

[mr.fred]

So is an AJAX a light tank? What about a M1128? Scimitar 2? They're all protected, mobile, direct fire, with no dismounts (to exclude IFV).

Yes, that would be a fair assessment.

MCB concept development 2008. Japanese Defence law changes 2015.

Any evidence of that?

[That the Centauro is intended to be moved quickly into the path of enemy armour?] It's armed with a high velocity direct fire gun and often described as a tank destroyer. What more do you need?

MCB concept development 2008. Japanese Defence law changes 2015.

OK. But the Type16 is still a rapidly deployable vehicle with a high velocity gun. Part of its stated aim is rapid reaction against conventional incursions, at least according to Wiki. It's also being procured in place of older tanks since the Type10 is about 30% more expensive per vehicle.

[Ron5]

Centauro: tank on wheels