UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Jake1992 » 26 Mar 2019, 19:11

RunningStrong wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:.
Going down this route with foxhound would not only of giving the army a very capable platform ( IMO a better one ) but also built up a high skilled industry in the UK that has the potential for exports.

We already have a skill base for manufacturing such vehicles. We built foxhound and UK-spec a whole host of UOR complex fix vehicles. Now AJAX takes that a step further and potentially WCSP. Maybe even MIV and CR LEP.

But for all the good that Foxhound is, it's too expensive for large numbers and it's an export failure.

No amount of tax receipts will change that.


The larger the high skills base the better for the UK as s whole, as well for the treasury.

The price is so high due to low numbers ordered, the first 300 cost £250m the next order of 25 cost £30m so a large number of 2500-3000 would bring that per unit price down, yes still be more than JLTV but this is how I’d like other departments to chip in.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Ron5 » 26 Mar 2019, 19:56

Lord Jim wrote:It is what became the JLTV and the same variant have been developed and then some. I couldn't find a video showing all the JTLV options at the time so though this would do and I did state it was not the JLTV but its predecessor.


Not really. JLTV is 100% new.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Mar 2019, 15:05

But it gives a good idea of the variants you can expect if the JLTV was selected for the MRV(P) programme, that is all I was putting across as the platform is from the same manufacturer and they developed the JLTV from what is shown on the video. Yes the JLTV maybe 100% new, but it is like Porsche stating the latest 911 is 100% new even though it looks a lot like its predecessor.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Apr 2019, 14:31

Please can we have some for these for out light forces.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Apr 2019, 05:39

This is from 3 yrs back
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I am under the impression that Huskies have been converted both to the ambulance and command post roles, when 325 of them were taken into the Core
when the news broke out
The Armchair Soldier wrote:The UK’s Ministry of Defence has revealed it is in talks with the Pentagon, which might lead to a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal. The British Army is interested in acquiring the Oshkosh Defense vehicle, set to replace the Army and Marine Corps Humvees, to meet part of a requirement known as the Multi-Role Vehicle-Protected (MRV-P).


Now military.com reports "The original 49,000-vehicle requirement was first decided before the new National Defense Strategy came out and shifted the U.S. military's focus away from the Middle East, Esper [Army Sec] said.

Likewise, the CH-47 Block II helicopters were designed to fly heavier payload in a hotter climate, Esper said.

"And what was the heavier payload? JLTV," Esper said. "What drove JLTV? [Improvised explosive devices] in Afghanistan and Iraq, and because the MRAPs were too big and too heavy.

"They were, in many ways, designed for a different conflict. It doesn't mean we won't use them in future conflicts, but now my emphasis has to be rebuilding my armor, rebuilding my fighting vehicles, having aircraft that can penetrate Russian and Chinese air defenses"
so may be we should accept what the Americans will do and also have mixed fleets:
- limit the JLTV order to intervention (16X and 3CDO) and follow-on (Strike BDEs) forces
- ditto for the long wheelbase "version" which has turned out to be a completely different vehicle anyway - and use Huskies for the role in the ' regular' forces [regular as in: for conventional conflicts]

We haven't committed to Chinook BlockII yet, so we can look into that in 2023 (when the first Strike Bde should be operational)?
- by that time the Bundeswehr decision for their heavy battle field lift will have been made
- they are pooling the maintenance of medium fleet (NH90) with France, so why not us do the same for the (much smaller) heavy fleets - should they go Chinook?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Apr 2019, 11:39

If anyone starts to think of the numbers, based on the above, let me just add (to the 375 Huskies taken to core) that original purchase numbers may be misleading, but our old blogger friend Jed did provide some updates in Feb:
" more than 200 Jackal Mk2A into the core equipment fleet after Afghanistan. These now equip light armoured reconnaissance regiments. Some 165 Coyote TSVs were purchased, and all were taken into the core fleet."
so call the sum the same as the 400 for Ocelots, or for "pinpoint accuracy":
375 - 365 - 400, in which only the Jackals (200) and Ocelots overlap in role/ functionality - and even then only somewhat

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 May 2019, 22:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- limit the JLTV order to intervention (16X and 3CDO) and follow-on (Strike BDEs) forces
- ditto for the long wheelbase "version" which has turned out to be a completely different vehicle anyway


OMG! Alan Adair contributed a few facts onto the TD thread on this, so the official version of where to start to use JLTV is becoming very suspect indeed:
"Interestingly the MRV-P was also presented disingenuously. The weights and performance are such that it only weighs less than 10 tons without armour, without load, and without doors. It was identified as suitable for armour forces, but not for light role or airborne forces by DSTL. Yet the proposal that went to Parliament indicated it was required for high readiness forces (airborne and commando).

The American light forces have chosen to not take the vehicle, preferring the GM Flyer.

The 10 ton requirement for underslinging represents the maximum weight a chinook can move at sea level, in temperate conditions, and for a distance of less than 50 miles"

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Jake1992 » 05 May 2019, 00:58

To me it’s looking more and more that we should reevaluate the JLTV choice and look again at supporting our own industry by choosing the Foxhound family.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 May 2019, 02:45

It is going to come down to money. The JLTV was not solely developed as a result of the IED problem, a lot was because the Humvees were never designed to carry the level of protection they are now carrying and even with improved suspension and powertrains, are still having mobility issues. AS to the 10t limit and air mobility, there is a danger here that people desire to forget the lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that the lessons regarding protection levels are not relevant to conventional operations and manoeuvre combat.

Is the US going to end up gong down the FCS route again, being obsessed with reducing the weight of its forces? Funding pressures is going to make this even more tempting, and we must not fall into the trap of once again following the lead of the US without considering how their needs differ form ours. Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

As for light/intervention forces, well they need specialised platforms for their unique needs. Sacrificing protection levels across the board to meet their specific requirements is not a good idea. The MRV(P) will be fine for the Royal Marines as few if any of their Armoured platforms can be airlifted even now and an effective protected platform is needed to supplement the limited number of Vikings already in service. 16 Air Assault is a different matter and here there is a need for specialised platforms. If a cost effective platform is agreed upon an argument could be made to purchase a number for 3 Commando Brigade at a later date to give that formation more options when landing forces.

There is also a danger we could fall in to old, bad habits and over think the MRV(P) programme, conducting an never ending series of trials and assessments trying to find the perfect platform to at can do everything both now and in the future. The JLTV for example meets the majority of the Army's needs and would provide a substantial leap in capability and have reduced through life costa, saving the MoD money in the longer term. But this runs up against the issues that already exist within the current Equipment Plan and the lack of funding to make up front investment that plagues all procurement programmes at present.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 May 2019, 04:37

Lord Jim wrote: there is a danger here that people desire to forget the lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that the lessons regarding protection levels are not relevant to conventional operations and manoeuvre combat.
here may be, but the US army will use their JLTVs exactly for those ops, with the heavier units, meant for manoeuvre combat [ the lighter ones are for ' strategic manoeuvres' 8-) ]
Lord Jim wrote:The MRV(P) will be fine for the Royal Marines as few if any of their Armoured platforms can be airlifted even now and an effective protected platform is needed to supplement the limited number of Vikings already in service.
I was thinking on the same lines: BVs can be airlifted, but Vikings are too heavy for [the current] Chinooks,,, when is this 50% more power going to materialise?].

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Jake1992 » 05 May 2019, 09:43

Lord Jim wrote:Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one.

The JLTV for example meets the majority of the Army's needs and would provide a substantial leap in capability and have reduced through life costa, saving the MoD money in the longer term.


The Foxhound family would meet both of these while improving and maintaining our own skill base in this sector. Besides the basic Foxhound a logistics, command and RWMIK variants have be developed to at least prototype level with plans for an long wheel base, a 6x6 and ambulances variants, this would allow the common design requirement to reduced long term cost all with out the need to set up a new logistics line ( even more savings )

The cost of the first 300 Foxhounds was £250m around £800,000 a unit l, I believe this compares to expected $600,000 per unit JLTV ( or around £400,000 ). I wouldn’t be surprised that with a larger order of 2000-3000 we could get the Foxhound to a unit price of around £600,000, yes this would still be 50% greater than JLTV but it should be pointed out to the treasury that they would get at least 20% back in tax where they wouldn’t with JLTV so should look at helping cover some of the difference.

I believe the current Foxhound also weighs in at around 7-8t with armour so could be airlifted if the limit is 10t

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Frenchie » 05 May 2019, 16:48

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: there is a danger here that people desire to forget the lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that the lessons regarding protection levels are not relevant to conventional operations and manoeuvre combat.
here may be, but the US army will use their JLTVs exactly for those ops, with the heavier units, meant for manoeuvre combat [ the lighter ones are for ' strategic manoeuvres' 8-) ]
Lord Jim wrote:The MRV(P) will be fine for the Royal Marines as few if any of their Armoured platforms can be airlifted even now and an effective protected platform is needed to supplement the limited number of Vikings already in service.
I was thinking on the same lines: BVs can be airlifted, but Vikings are too heavy for [the current] Chinooks,,, when is this 50% more power going to materialise?].


Hi ACC :wave: ,
For our light brigades the French army has opted for a vehicle of about 16 tonnes which can carry ten infantrymen, you do not think that for less than ten tonnes it is difficult to obtain a sufficient level of protection and to transport six infantrymen, that multiplies the number of vehicles necessary, I do not quite understand the reasoning :?:

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 May 2019, 18:50

Lord Jim wrote:AS to the 10t limit and air mobility, there is a danger here that people desire to forget the lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, believing that the lessons regarding protection levels are not relevant to conventional operations and manoeuvre combat.

Agreed. Mines will continue to be a huge part of the landscape going forward, and our vehicles should be protected accordingly.

But we should also remember that Russian tactics are heavily based on high volumes of artillery and that when you start protecting against that at all angles you are rapidly climbing the STANAG levels and in all the wrong places (high on the chassis).

Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

Agreed. But I disagree that there are even short term savings to be made on using existing fleet (like Foxhound) for MRV-P.

Foxhound does not have fielded variants like Utility and WMIK, and it doesn't appear to have been used as a gun tractor either. Those sort of variations and developments quickly add up even if you've seen a prototype.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Jake1992 » 05 May 2019, 20:58

RunningStrong wrote:
Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

Agreed. But I disagree that there are even short term savings to be made on using existing fleet (like Foxhound) for MRV-P.

Foxhound does not have fielded variants like Utility and WMIK, and it doesn't appear to have been used as a gun tractor either. Those sort of variations and developments quickly add up even if you've seen a prototype.


They do have these types built to at least prototype level and that was several years ago you can easily find them on YouTube, they also have several other variants in development ( this too was serveral years ago )

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 May 2019, 23:00

Whilst I agree the Foxhound is a good platform, it will require significant investment to develop all the variants the Army will eventually need. In addition can the manufacturer handle such a large contract as the MRV(P) without having to make a major investment in its manufacturing capacity?

For our Armoured Infantry, Mechanised Brigades as well as 3 Commando, the JLTV will be a good fit as a support/utility vehicle and also filly out other support units such as Signals and ISTAR. IT will also make a good replacement tractor for the Light Gun and transport for the 81mm Mortars of lighter units.

16 Air Assault, if it is intended to provide additional ground mobility, a specialised platform will be needed, but there are a number or these available off the shelf.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 May 2019, 23:34

Jake1992 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

Agreed. But I disagree that there are even short term savings to be made on using existing fleet (like Foxhound) for MRV-P.

Foxhound does not have fielded variants like Utility and WMIK, and it doesn't appear to have been used as a gun tractor either. Those sort of variations and developments quickly add up even if you've seen a prototype.


They do have these types built to at least prototype level and that was several years ago you can easily find them on YouTube, they also have several other variants in development ( this too was serveral years ago )

Exactly, you are literally referring to untested prototypes and brochure-ware as an alternative to an established development programme. There are no savings to be made there.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Jake1992 » 06 May 2019, 00:57

RunningStrong wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

Agreed. But I disagree that there are even short term savings to be made on using existing fleet (like Foxhound) for MRV-P.

Foxhound does not have fielded variants like Utility and WMIK, and it doesn't appear to have been used as a gun tractor either. Those sort of variations and developments quickly add up even if you've seen a prototype.


They do have these types built to at least prototype level and that was several years ago you can easily find them on YouTube, they also have several other variants in development ( this too was serveral years ago )

Exactly, you are literally referring to untested prototypes and brochure-ware as an alternative to an established development programme. There are no savings to be made there.

RunningStrong wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Yes the Foxhound and other UPR platforms brought into the core can do many of the tasks the MRV(P) is destined to carry out, but pursuing the short term, up front savings will be cancelled out by the use of multiple platforms instead of one common one. We should use these existing vehicles in specialised roles, eventually they should be replaced by whatever platform is selected for the MRV(P) in the majority of units.

Agreed. But I disagree that there are even short term savings to be made on using existing fleet (like Foxhound) for MRV-P.

Foxhound does not have fielded variants like Utility and WMIK, and it doesn't appear to have been used as a gun tractor either. Those sort of variations and developments quickly add up even if you've seen a prototype.


They do have these types built to at least prototype level and that was several years ago you can easily find them on YouTube, they also have several other variants in development ( this too was serveral years ago )

Exactly, you are literally referring to untested prototypes and brochure-ware as an alternative to an established development programme. There are no savings to be made there.


When we look at the difference in cost and investment to savings in tax returns and possible less on unemployment it could be very much s neutral game.

A neutral game or even a slight lose game is worth paying to maintain and build up a light armoured home manufacturing industry instead of just handing over cash to the US IMO.

Now I’m always one for the traditional capitalist approach of the best in competition succeeds but when it comes to defence I’m of the opinion that a home built and design option should be chosen ( when available ) unless a clearly better or massively cheaper ( only when providing similar capability ) option is in the running.

Defence manufacturing should not be allowed to slip away in any field due to short term cheaper today options.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3052
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 May 2019, 04:38

Neither should the Defence budget be used as a job creation and/or industry support tool. If another Department is willing to provide the funding for that fine. Issues such as tax collected etc. have little impact on the decision making process at the moment unless rival bids are too close to call and then this might sway the decision towards a UK based bid. The alternative is to get the bidding company to fund the establishment of a facility, which now seems to be the preferred process. A bid is announced as the preferred submission and then the MoD and the Bidder negotiate along the lines of "If you want to gat approval to move forward you will have to set up a facility in the UK for at least final assembly with you bearing the cost". Sometimes this works others things breakdown and it is back to square one, with the programme delayed or even cancelled.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 May 2019, 08:26

RunningStrong wrote:But we should also remember that Russian tactics are heavily based on high volumes of artillery and that when you start protecting against that at all angles you are rapidly climbing the STANAG levels and in all the wrong places (high on the chassis).
Agreed. And in a way this answers the question by Frenchie
- a different class of vehicle
- if Boxer is the de luxe item, for the combined 'good-enough' mine and ballistic protection, AMV sets the standard and we end up in the 20-28 t range (how heavy is Boxer, again?)
Jake1992 wrote:They do have these types built to at least prototype level
I think @jed dug up everything available on this in the public domain (and that would make it a TD contribution, as far as I can remember)
Lord Jim wrote:16 Air Assault, if it is intended to provide additional ground mobility, a specialised platform will be needed, but there are a number or these available off the shelf.

Indeed, the US seems to be going for GM's Flyer

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1477
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Caribbean » 06 May 2019, 11:43

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Indeed, the US seems to be going for GM's Flyer

The Flyer seems like a pretty decent machine. But it's also worth remembering that Jackal is internally transportable by CH-47 (a bit of a squeeze, I know) and that Supacat also make the LRV 400/600 range, which are also internally transportable by CH-47.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Frenchie » 06 May 2019, 14:21

I do not see in my mind that a vehicle of less than ten tonnes serves as a troop transport or patrol vehicle with the risk of mines and IEDs, between the Foxhound of 7 tonnes and the boxer of 38 tonnes, there must be vehicles of intermediate size. Once on the ground the Royal Marines and paratroopers are infantry like other units, the UKSF uses 24 Bushmaster of 15 tonnes to move and the 3 Commando Brigade and the 16AAB would patrol with six tonnes vehicles, because they can be transported by Chinook is a bad reasoning in my humble opinion. Although I do not dispute the usefulness of light vehicles, I think you mix the special forces and conventional units. The Royal Marines and the 16AAB are elite units but not special forces. And 20-28 ton class vehicles can not be transported in a C-130 for intra-theater movement.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby RunningStrong » 06 May 2019, 15:08

Frenchie wrote:Between the Foxhound of 7 tonnes and the boxer of 38 tonnes, there must be vehicles of intermediate size.

Boxer isn't 38 tonnes in base form, so everything over and above the supposed 24t baseload is Systems and appliqué armour.

Same can probably be said of many platforms, and how you choose to tailor that appliqué will depend on your threat and your deployability requirements.

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Voldemort » 06 May 2019, 15:43

Look no further than Patria 6x6 then.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Frenchie » 06 May 2019, 16:18

Absolutely :thumbup: , although I do not know if this vehicle is small enough to be transported by C-130 :oops:

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 606
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby Frenchie » 06 May 2019, 16:27

RunningStrong wrote:
Frenchie wrote:Between the Foxhound of 7 tonnes and the boxer of 38 tonnes, there must be vehicles of intermediate size.

Boxer isn't 38 tonnes in base form, so everything over and above the supposed 24t baseload is Systems and appliqué armour.

Same can probably be said of many platforms, and how you choose to tailor that appliqué will depend on your threat and your deployability requirements.


I do not say that the Boxer is too big, but it is unsuitable for the transport of light brigades.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests