Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 22:51 I’m aware of the erroneous usage in some quarters, but an episcope is a kind of projector, periscopes are an arrangement of mirrors to displace the line of sight.
And you're wrong. Not unusual for the military to use different language. If you want to be an authority on it then please educate Shrivenham, ATDU, GDUK, RBSL and RDUK. Best bring your credentials with you.
whitelancer wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 07:00 Leaving aside whether they are periscopes or episcopes, I fundamentally disagree that they are unnecessary. For an AFV commander situational awareness is vital, one aspect of this is having all round vision, anything that contributes to this is hardly unnecessary.
Situational awareness via direct vision systems to the left and right is appalling, you're either starting across the top of hull or out to the near side with completely inadequate ground intercept.

Indirect (cameras) situational awareness systems are now ubiquitous on modern AFV.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: 19 Oct 2022, 08:33 I think it may be a bit difficult to even to a Boxer Mission Module to house Sky Sabre given its size. IF we want an SPAA Mission Module for Boxer it would probably comprise of a Auto Cannon and/or MANPADS such as Starstreak.. It could incorporate a 360-degree radar in a similar way to what the US has done with its SPAA variant of its Stryker.
This is how the Turkish HISAR-A system solved the problem of a long missile on a vehicle, the video is fun:

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7J1UbRPisY

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 08:14 And you're wrong. Not unusual for the military to use different language. If you want to be an authority on it then please educate Shrivenham, ATDU, GDUK, RBSL and RDUK. Best bring your credentials with you.
There does seem to be a trend for certain branches of the military to develop a jargon based on misuse of words. It doesn't make them right.
I figure if my usage matches the dictionary, technical manuals, descriptions on the items in question and the manufacturers of the equipment, then it's more likely that I'm right than a small clique. I'll gladly tell them that they're wrong next time they use the term in front of me.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 08:14 Situational awareness via direct vision systems to the left and right is appalling, you're either starting across the top of hull or out to the near side with completely inadequate ground intercept.

Indirect (cameras) situational awareness systems are now ubiquitous on modern AFV.
Poor fields of view are linked to poor positioning of the devices. While cameras can provide far better close-in views, the ones used on AFVs are rarely high enough resolution numerous enough or linked to sufficient screens to provide decent detection, recognition and identification (DRI) performance to the same distance that direct vision can, while maintaining the same field of view. The closest I've seen are the Israeli Carmel demonstrators and even then those aren't as good.
At present the ideal solution is a mix of both, but I have no doubt that cameras and screens will keep improving performance and reducing cost until it is feasible to install electro optic arrays that match direct observation for latency, resolution and fields of view at medium* ranges, but we're not there yet.

Periscopes are relatively cheap and simple and can be pretty effective if you get the installation right.

* off hand, I'd say close-in is 25-50m, medium range is from there to 300m, beyond that you need magnification so that would count as long range.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 21:16 There does seem to be a trend for certain branches of the military to develop a jargon based on misuse of words. It doesn't make them right.
A trend for the last 50 years? Have you even been around an AFV in that time?
mr.fred wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 21:16 Poor fields of view are linked to poor positioning of the devices.
How do you propose repositioning a "hatch mounted" episcope that must be within use of the commander crew station? LMAO.
mr.fred wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 21:16 While cameras can provide far better close-in views, the ones used on AFVs are rarely high enough resolution numerous enough or linked to sufficient screens to provide decent detection, recognition and identification (DRI) performance to the same distance that direct vision can, while maintaining the same field of view.
From my first hand experience of current situational awareness systems, this is wrong on so many levels.

Digital systems have greater FoV, vertical and horizontal than episcopes. They can incorporate day, lowlight and thermal performance. The displays can be placed Infront of the commander, greatly reducing the need for commanders to "have their head on a swivel" to have over 180 degrees FoV.
mr.fred wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 21:16 The closest I've seen are the Israeli Carmel demonstrators and even then those aren't as good.
At present the ideal solution is a mix of both, but I have no doubt that cameras and screens will keep improving performance and reducing cost until it is feasible to install electro optic arrays that match direct observation for latency, resolution and fields of view at medium* ranges, but we're not there yet.

Periscopes are relatively cheap and simple and can be pretty effective if you get the installation right.

* off hand, I'd say close-in is 25-50m, medium range is from there to 300m, beyond that you need magnification so that would count as long range.
And yet the latency of modern situational awareness systems is imperceivable to the users even when used as the primary means of driving.

:lol:

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 22:54 A trend for the last 50 years? Have you even been around an AFV in that time?
I have been around AFVs at least to the extent that I know that the periscopes have name plates on them calling them periscopes. I've never seen something described as an episcope.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 22:54 How do you propose repositioning a "hatch mounted" episcope that must be within use of the commander crew station? LMAO.
\
I don't know why you'd want a projector on an AFV. Maybe a command variant?
Whether it's "hatch mounted", hatch mounted, on a cupola surrounding a hatch or otherwise on the structure of the vehicle, positioning periscopes is part of positioning the the crew, the hatch and surrounding structure. If you slap them on as an afterthought you're likely to have difficulties.
The flexibility of positioning electro-optics is an advantage, for sure.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 22:54 From my first hand experience of current situational awareness systems, this is wrong on so many levels.
Well my first-hand experience supports my take. :P
As does some simple mathematics based on pixels per degree.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 22:54 Digital systems have greater FoV, vertical and horizontal than episcopes. They can incorporate day, lowlight and thermal performance. The displays can be placed Infront of the commander, greatly reducing the need for commanders to "have their head on a swivel" to have over 180 degrees FoV.
Well, I don't know about analogue projectors, but comparing with direct view optics (not just unity periscopes) electro-optics can have wider fields of view, but they do this at the expense of resolution. You can use a standard definition camera to cover 90 degrees or greater, but the resolution will be so poor that your DRI ranges will suffer greatly. Even using high definition cameras, you need 11 full HD cameras to cover a 360 degree strip about 20 degrees wide. That comes down to five and a half cameras for 4k cameras, which is why I think that digital systems will keep on improving.
Thermals and low-light are definitely advantages that electro-optics have over direct view, but direct view has resolution and dynamic range advantages.
Putting all the displays in front of the commander reduces their size or ability to be viewed simultaneously. Looking around is something people have trained for all their life so why not use that ability to locate themselves relative to the surroundings? Being able to flip up a reversing camera without having to break your neck to look behind you is clearly a good thing, but why have a blank wall when you could have vision in that direction?
The KF51 demonstrator has an interesting setup for its left hand turret crewstation where they put a display for a camera in the location of a direct vision periscope would be on a cupola, but is blocked in that location because that's where the gun is. The operator gets at least some vision in that direction in an always-on, direction of the display equals direction of camera sense.

An array of screens with very high definition cameras would approach the field of view and resolution you get with a set of well implemented direct view unity periscopes, but no-one has done that yet.

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Oct 2022, 22:54 And yet the latency of modern situational awareness systems is imperceivable to the users even when used as the primary means of driving.
The more bandwidth you have the more latency could be a problem, but data transmission kit is improving too.
Two or three cameras for driving, at resolutions and fields of view suitable for driving, is less bandwidth than observing around the full circle with sufficient resolution to match direct view.

Note that I'm not saying that direct view is always better than electro-optics, just that direct view has a number of advantages that electro-optic installations can't match, yet. Conversely electro-optics can do things that direct view cannot. At present, the best solution makes use of both.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 I have been around AFVs at least to the extent that I know that the periscopes have name plates on them calling them periscopes. I've never seen something described as an episcope.
You buy and sell military surplus?
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 The flexibility of positioning electro-optics is an advantage, for sure.
And a massive one. Ever tried using wing mirrors from under armour? How about reversing? Or even manouvering down a narrow corridor under armour.
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 Well my first-hand experience supports my take. :P
As does some simple mathematics based on pixels per degree.
Which is without any experience of a modern digital platform it would seem.
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 Even using high definition cameras, you need 11 full HD cameras to cover a 360 degree strip about 20 degrees wide.
Not the way it's been implemented on numerous platforms. Guess you don't have experience of any of them then.
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 Thermals and low-light are definitely advantages that electro-optics have over direct view, but direct view has resolution and dynamic range advantages.
Of course which is why we use Direct Vision on engagement sights for modern AFV. Right!? LOL
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 Putting all the displays in front of the commander reduces their size or ability to be viewed simultaneously. Looking around is something people have trained for all their life so why not use that ability to locate themselves relative to the surroundings?
This is counter to Def Stan 00-250. It's a good read. The modern generation, the Cpl commanders of modern AFV are well used to using screens in all aspects.
mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 09:29 The more bandwidth you have the more latency could be a problem, but data transmission kit is improving too.
Two or three cameras for driving, at resolutions and fields of view suitable for driving, is less bandwidth than observing around the full circle with sufficient resolution to match direct view.
It's not been a problem on AFV for 10 years, the hardware is fine already...

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 14:22 Which is without any experience of a modern digital platform it would seem.
Your appraisal would be incorrect.
In any case, I'm very much against the argument from authority approach in general, but particularly on the internet where anyone can claim to be anyone. If you have to resort to such an argument to make your case, you probably aren't making it very well.
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 14:22 Of course which is why we use Direct Vision on engagement sights for modern AFV. Right!? LOL
Engagement sights are something of a special case where you can trade off field of view for magnification to compensate for poor resolution. Thermals also offer advantages for detection that compensate, to a degree, the lack of resolution.
The Germans went to some lengths to make sure that the Puma's panoramic sight had a direct view channel. I suspect, however, that these days they would probably accept the cameras for that, such is the pace of development.
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 14:22 mr.fred wrote: ↑30 Oct 2022, 09:29
The flexibility of positioning electro-optics is an advantage, for sure.
And a massive one. Ever tried using wing mirrors from under armour? How about reversing? Or even manouvering down a narrow corridor under armour.
All things that electro-optics are fantastic for. Using those same cameras for spotting an infantryman a couple of hundred metres away, less so.
Remember, I'm not advocating not having electro-optics, just recognising the limitations of electro-optics vs direct vision at the present state of the art.
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 14:22 mr.fred wrote: ↑30 Oct 2022, 09:29
Even using high definition cameras, you need 11 full HD cameras to cover a 360 degree strip about 20 degrees wide.
Not the way it's been implemented on numerous platforms. Guess you don't have experience of any of them then.
Every implementation I've seen provides wide fields of view at the cost of resolution. i.e. it's not even that good.
You could back those low resolution, wide angle, cameras up with a panoramic sight, but that doesn't help spot the thing you want to cue the magnified objects onto in the first place.
If someone has come up with a different solution, I'd be interested to see it.
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 14:22 This is counter to Def Stan 00-250. It's a good read. The modern generation, the Cpl commanders of modern AFV are well used to using screens in all aspects.
Why must the screen be small and unrelated to the camera position? Most modern AFVs also have substantial numbers of periscopes in addition to cameras. If you look at some of the recent concepts - KF51 and Carmel are good examples - people are giving serious thought into providing the unity vision, wide angle and high resolution view in addition to the multi-function display.

Also, Def Stans are a 'good read'? Yikes. :P
At best they sometimes contain useful information, but they seem to be moving away even from that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Aren't modern optical systems being augmented so that that identify possible targets through various means and then highlight which should be the priority? AS a minimum capability aren't modern systems now giving a Commander a heads up to study a location for possible targets. In these cases, doesn't the resolution of various sensors need to be good enough for the platform to identify possible targets, relying for the Commanders EO viewer to provide positive confirmation. Is AI going to become more and more important in providing a Commander is a high degree of awareness around his vehicle, as we move forwards.

Periscopes are a good manual back up, but I wouldn't want to have to spot an Enemy Soldier 200m away, not in the open, through one whilst moving across country

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1141
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 22 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 23:29 Aren't modern optical systems being augmented so that that identify possible targets through various means and then highlight which should be the priority? AS a minimum capability aren't modern systems now giving a Commander a heads up to study a location for possible targets. In these cases, doesn't the resolution of various sensors need to be good enough for the platform to identify possible targets, relying for the Commanders EO viewer to provide positive confirmation. Is AI going to become more and more important in providing a Commander is a high degree of awareness around his vehicle, as we move forwards.

Periscopes are a good manual back up, but I wouldn't want to have to spot an Enemy Soldier 200m away, not in the open, through one whilst moving across country
GD claimed with their proposed AbramsX which understand using 3rd Generation electro-optical technology FLIR sight using both long- and mid-wave bands simultaneously at long ranges is able with its AI software to give a 90% probability of finding target.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Oct 2022, 15:43 Also, Def Stans are a 'good read'? Yikes. :P
At best they sometimes contain useful information, but they seem to be moving away even from that.
Oh dear, a discussion on human factors and you haven't even read the foundation material.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 31 Oct 2022, 13:53 Oh dear, a discussion on human factors and you haven't even read the foundation material.
I didn't say I hadn't read it*, just disagreeing that it's a good read. In what was supposed to be a humorous way, but one that obviously fell flat.

Which bits do you think are most relevant, to save me going through the whole thing again?

*though it has been a while since I have read it.

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

Boxer 155mm SPG is not in the works for the British Army it seems !!!!

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2533
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 69 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Could be - if we also buy into tracked Boxer!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Whilst I think a mixed fleet has its benefits, I can't see how a tracked turret with hull penetration would be reasonably compatible with a truck/boxer module mounted solution.

Perhaps a wheeled/wheeled solution with Boxer sharing a turret with a truck system is a better compromise in terms.of cost and tactical and strategic manouverability.

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 516
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Has liked: 19 times
Been liked: 5 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Halidon »

RunningStrong wrote: 09 Nov 2022, 16:36 Whilst I think a mixed fleet has its benefits, I can't see how a tracked turret with hull penetration would be reasonably compatible with a truck/boxer module mounted solution.

Perhaps a wheeled/wheeled solution with Boxer sharing a turret with a truck system is a better compromise in terms.of cost and tactical and strategic manouverability.
KMW's Tracked Boxer vehicle uses the same tray/interface as the wheeled Boxer so it can accept the same module. MOD could buy the RCH 155 and then spec a tracked vehicle (Tracked Boxer or other) with the appropriate interface to accept the module, potentially giving them the opportunity to adjust their wheeled/tracked SPG mix as-needed for the situation they find themselves in.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2533
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 69 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Didn't the prototype/ early version(s) of the Boxer 155 use the same base vehicle as the GMLRS system (M270?), or did I dream that up? Pretty sure they also did a version on an ASCOD base vehicle, so not impossible to put it on anything with a flat bed and sufficient power to still move.

Personally I like the tracked/ wheeled mix idea, they both have their plus sides.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Caribbean wrote: 10 Nov 2022, 21:39 Didn't the prototype/ early version(s) of the Boxer 155 use the same base vehicle as the GMLRS system (M270?), or did I dream that up? Pretty sure they also did a version on an ASCOD base vehicle, so not impossible to put it on anything with a flat bed and sufficient power to still move.
Yes, Artillery Gun Module was originally tested while being placed on chassis of M270 system. Later it evolved into Donar system on ASCOD 2 chassis

https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/ ... ery/donar/



(Video Warning: music is overtuned and to me quite annoying)

Maybe something like this would not be a bad solution for the Army, on Ajax chassis, maybe modified M270A2 cabin (if for example upgrades to M270A2 would be done in UK) and AGM which could also be mounted on either Boxer or just track for wheeled version. It could have a lot of common elements with other vehicles. But I doubt that anyone would offer something like this and it is questionable how good it would be compared to K9A2. One thing is for sure, it is quite ugly vehicle, but still prettier that tracked Boxer.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Caribbean

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Halidon wrote: 10 Nov 2022, 20:02
RunningStrong wrote: 09 Nov 2022, 16:36 Whilst I think a mixed fleet has its benefits, I can't see how a tracked turret with hull penetration would be reasonably compatible with a truck/boxer module mounted solution.

Perhaps a wheeled/wheeled solution with Boxer sharing a turret with a truck system is a better compromise in terms.of cost and tactical and strategic manouverability.
KMW's Tracked Boxer vehicle uses the same tray/interface as the wheeled Boxer so it can accept the same module. MOD could buy the RCH 155 and then spec a tracked vehicle (Tracked Boxer or other) with the appropriate interface to accept the module, potentially giving them the opportunity to adjust their wheeled/tracked SPG mix as-needed for the situation they find themselves in.
Tracked Boxer is nowhere near the technology maturity needed to compete in the British Army's artillery procurement.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 11 Nov 2022, 13:18
Halidon wrote: 10 Nov 2022, 20:02
RunningStrong wrote: 09 Nov 2022, 16:36 Whilst I think a mixed fleet has its benefits, I can't see how a tracked turret with hull penetration would be reasonably compatible with a truck/boxer module mounted solution.

Perhaps a wheeled/wheeled solution with Boxer sharing a turret with a truck system is a better compromise in terms.of cost and tactical and strategic manouverability.
KMW's Tracked Boxer vehicle uses the same tray/interface as the wheeled Boxer so it can accept the same module. MOD could buy the RCH 155 and then spec a tracked vehicle (Tracked Boxer or other) with the appropriate interface to accept the module, potentially giving them the opportunity to adjust their wheeled/tracked SPG mix as-needed for the situation they find themselves in.
Tracked Boxer is nowhere near the technology maturity needed to compete in the British Army's artillery procurement.
I would agree that tracked Boxer is nowhere near at this time however if the Army went for 155mm wheeled Boxer it could sit on the fence a little bit and see if tracked boxer makes it if it dose great buy some if not look around

I also agree the module should be able to fit on MAN 8x8 or 10 x10

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 11 Nov 2022, 15:01 ... if the Army went for 155mm wheeled Boxer it could sit on the fence a little bit and see if tracked boxer makes it if it dose great buy some if not look around
If the Army choose 155mm Boxer I don't see point of having tracked Boxer with the same gun. Even tho it looked interesting at the start, I am not fan a tracked Boxer as it does not look as most effective platform for anything, except maybe as a heavily armoured IFV or MGS. But as British Army will not have either of those it is pointless. If they really want both tracked and wheeled platform than they should look into using AGM on Ajax platform (something like Donar of just put it on rear end of Ajax) and on truck to at least have same gun system. Or just use 155mm Boxer instead of both. But if they just want tracked then K9A2 all the way, as it seems that it would be the most common artillery system in NATO, and it is pretty good.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 11 Nov 2022, 19:20
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Nov 2022, 15:01 ... if the Army went for 155mm wheeled Boxer it could sit on the fence a little bit and see if tracked boxer makes it if it dose great buy some if not look around
If the Army choose 155mm Boxer I don't see point of having tracked Boxer with the same gun. Even tho it looked interesting at the start, I am not fan a tracked Boxer as it does not look as most effective platform for anything, except maybe as a heavily armoured IFV or MGS. But as British Army will not have either of those it is pointless. If they really want both tracked and wheeled platform than they should look into using AGM on Ajax platform (something like Donar of just put it on rear end of Ajax) and on truck to at least have same gun system. Or just use 155mm Boxer instead of both. But if they just want tracked then K9A2 all the way, as it seems that it would be the most common artillery system in NATO, and it is pretty good.
As I say tracked Boxer is a long way off wheeled Boxer ticks some good boxes as far as logistics goes however how would it fit with the rest of the Deep strike BCT which looks to be tracked with Ajax and M270A2. K9A2 might be a better fit in the Deep Strike BCT but I still believe we need a wheeled SP artillery unit capable of operating with the medium & Light Mechanised BCT's
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Caribbean

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Nov 2022, 10:03 K9A2 might be a better fit in the Deep Strike BCT but I still believe we need a wheeled SP artillery unit capable of operating with the medium & Light Mechanised BCT's
What is medium brigade? Are you mean Armoured BCT? By FS, there will be only two 155mm regiments, which would cover both DRS and Armoured BCT. There is no need for two separate platform as there, and both tracked or wheeled could fit in that role. I am not arguing here which would be better choice.

While there are two LBCT, only the one of them will have regular artillery regiments. What guns this regiment will use, currently using L118, probably depend on what will replace that system. I personally don't see point having a separate wheeled 155mm platform just for one regiment, and if 16th AABCT and 3rd Comm continue with 105mm, than LBCT should do the same or else it will complicate both regular and TA artillery regiments structure, role and training.

Just wheeled platform would probably be the best option for the British Army, as, in that case, you can potentially have 3 regular 155mm regiments and one TA regiment operating on the same platform but again that depend on how they are planing to replace L118. I personally, don't like idea having 3 separate gun systems/platforms for just 5 gun artillery regiments.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 11 Nov 2022, 19:20 But if they just want tracked then K9A2 all the way, as it seems that it would be the most common artillery system in NATO, and it is pretty good.
Perhaps, but not the A2 with the autoloader and reduced crew.

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 12 Nov 2022, 14:19 Perhaps, but not the A2 with the autoloader and reduced crew.
That is true, altho 460 locally produced K9PL in Poland would be based on K9A2 including its autoloader and with crew of three, or at least that is current plan.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 12 Nov 2022, 14:59
RunningStrong wrote: 12 Nov 2022, 14:19 Perhaps, but not the A2 with the autoloader and reduced crew.
That is true, altho 460 locally produced K9PL in Poland would be based on K9A2 including its autoloader and with crew of three, or at least that is current plan.
Not sure that's confirmed...

https://euro-sd.com/2022/09/articles/27 ... eration-2/

Post Reply