Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[kato]

I understand that the Boxer will fit in a C-5 or an An-124

Boxer is sized to fit in a A400M for airmobility. At least in all variants used by the German and Dutch armies. The German uparmored infantry variant in A1/A2 version hits ~35.5t empty. That's actually where its weight limit of 36.5t comes from, i.e. the A400M limit of 37 tons.

If a variant exceeds that you just have to dismount the module for air transport and remount it at the destination. Takes about 20 minutes and a crane, splits the vehicle into the ~ 25-27t chassis (depending on whether AMAP-M is mounted) and the ~ 8-12t module.

Boxer AGM (with 155mm unmanned turret) will likely hit or go beyond the A400M limit.

They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.

Thyssen-Henschel was playing around with a 6x6 with a full Leopard 1 turret in the 80s, including the option of upgrading to a Leopard 2 equivalent turret.

[Kidd]

Ah. A400M it is then. Wasnt 100% sure as the diggers intend to deploy them by ship mainly and the thing is taller than an Abrams.

[Feenix74]

Cheers kato  :thumbsup:

So if it fits in an A400M it will definitely fit in a C-17 as well.

[Sharpnel]

Give me a tracked IFV any day. A lower silhouette is a godsend on the b attlefield. Sure, troop accomodations might be cramped, but it's worth it if the enemy can't see you to hit you.

[beachhead1985]

The Boxer IFV variant recently ordered by the Australian Army is practically the upper limit - its 35 tons and can't fit in any aircraft smaller than the Airbus A400M. IIRC they conducted a study of IFVs worldwide and this is the max weight and dimensions a wheeled vehicle can get, once you hit the ~40 ton mark going tracked is better.

That is, within the current limits of technology. They can only reach these weights in the first place due to advances in wheel and suspension tech.

off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark. Even without the applique armour, the LAV IIIs bog down like crazy due to their high ground pressure. And they roll. Oh boy do they roll.

[kato]

off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark.

from the French qualification tests for upgrading the weight limit on the VBCI from 29 to 32 tons back in 2014.

[Matti]

Boxer AGM (with 155mm unmanned turret) will likely hit or go beyond the A400M limit.

What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?

[DoctorMonkey]

What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?

I would hope not - if it is fairly unarmoured then I would worry about the return of fire
Artillery should be heard/felt but not seen (by the enemy at least)

[kato]

What does it shoot? Are HEAT and APFSDS in the menu?

German artillery troops recently started training for direct-fire again.

Video.

Target is a Leopard 1; ammunition used is standard contact-fuzed HE, distance is 600m; using full charge for 1000m/s MV. Effect on target shown at around 2:40.

Crews are mostly getting used to the direct-fire sight in this one, hence missing quite a bit. The direct-fire sight is a fixed-forward non-stabilized installation on the turret itself. Since the AGM module is unmanned it doesn't have it at all though.

I would hope not - if it is fairly unarmoured then I would worry about the return of fire

Armor on the PzH2000 turret is STANAG 4569 Level IV, i.e. against 14.5mm; baseline Boxer is also Level IV.

[Kidd]

off-road mobility goes to hell long before the 35 ton mark. Even without the applique armour, the LAV IIIs bog down like crazy due to their high ground pressure. And they roll. Oh boy do they roll.

Straya's Boxer CRVs are designed with a view to operating primarily in the outback, where previously they had issues with their ASLAVs

[worktroll]

How do they handle in the wet North?

[beachhead1985]

from the French qualification tests for upgrading the weight limit on the VBCI from 29 to 32 tons back in 2014.

It's got 8 wheels and weighs x-amount. The VBCI is wider than a LAV-III, but just because you show one moving freely there on a track doesn't mean it won't bog down in the same spot an LAV-III will, which is lots of places. I saw our current army medium truck doing it's paces on similar tracks in 2009. It dug itself in so deep the track is still there today and will be until they fill it in. The truck that passed that track, failed it's offroad rating to the extent that they cannot be taken off hardpack today and to do so can be chargeable when they bog down. Just goes to show that that ability to run even a very difficult track does not mean that field performance will be equal. As we learned to our hardship in Afghanistan and the American's learned in trials with the MGS.

So unless, the french have some magic that adds more flotation (in the sense of not bogging down) and traction without going to dual tires or some such, it's not going to do much better.

And lets see it do the same track at half the speed or less, as part of a convoy of a dozen vehicles.

You just can't keep putting more tons on the same footprint. Surface tension dictates you will sink and stick. It's why we invented tanks in the first place and why the Germans had such a hard time in Russia when the roads got wet.

Wheeled vehicles require much more planning and thought in their route planning and track plans than tracked vehicles do. But everything is on a scale. We found in the 70s that we had many places our M113s could not go, but our Sherman APCs could.

[ColBosch]

Have I told the story of when I saw some 2LT order his Stryker driver into an LAV ford lately? :D

[chanman]

Have I told the story of when I saw some 2LT order his Stryker driver into an LAV ford lately? :D

Are they still there?  :D

[ColBosch]

Are they still there?  :D

I have never seen a driver come out of his hatch so quickly, not before nor since. They did get rescued, after a while - in fact, my platoon sergeant radioed for the wrecker - and I am left just imagining the dressing-down they got from their CO, XO, 1SG, and motor pool sergeant.

Remember: just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't make a Stryker into a DUKW. ^-^

[DoctorMonkey]

It's got 8 wheels and weighs x-amount. The VBCI is wider than a LAV-III, but just because you show one moving freely there on a track doesn't mean it won't bog down in the same spot an LAV-III will, which is lots of places. I saw our current army medium truck doing it's paces on similar tracks in 2009. It dug itself in so deep the track is still there today and will be until they fill it in. The truck that passed that track, failed it's offroad rating to the extent that they cannot be taken off hardpack today and to do so can be chargeable when they bog down. Just goes to show that that ability to run even a very difficult track does not mean that field performance will be equal. As we learned to our hardship in Afghanistan and the American's learned in trials with the MGS.

So unless, the french have some magic that adds more flotation (in the sense of not bogging down) and traction without going to dual tires or some such, it's not going to do much better.

And lets see it do the same track at half the speed or less, as part of a convoy of a dozen vehicles.

You just can't keep putting more tons on the same footprint. Surface tension dictates you will sink and stick. It's why we invented tanks in the first place and why the Germans had such a hard time in Russia when the roads got wet.

Wheeled vehicles require much more planning and thought in their route planning and track plans than tracked vehicles do. But everything is on a scale. We found in the 70s that we had many places our M113s could not go, but our Sherman APCs could.

I guess the flip side is that a wheeled vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain and can self-deploy much more easily as they are less likely to need transporters; they will also annoy the locals by tearing up the roads less


If your main projected use is Operations Other Than War or in places with less mud than the Eurasian Steppe then a wheeled chassis may be worth the compromises

[Kidd]

I guess the flip side is that a wheeled vehicle is easier and cheaper to maintain and can self-deploy much more easily as they are less likely to need transporters; they will also annoy the locals by tearing up the roads less

Very much so

If your main projected use is Operations Other Than War or in places with less mud than the Eurasian Steppe then a wheeled chassis may be worth the compromises

Thats the current idea.

Down here in the ASEAN we're also switching to FIBUA doctrines and meching up with wheelies as road networks and cleared fields begin to outnumber jungle in the key areas ie cities and their surroundings. It also helps that ~35 ton wheeled IFVs match up nicely with the curb weight of the average 18 wheeler - where lorries can go, IFVs can too.

[worktroll]

Motorised, or mechanised?

[Weirdo]

Motorised, or mechanised?

That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?  How scary are the Starbucks lines over there?!? :o

[I am Belch II]

Motorised, or mechanised?

A Armored Smart Car!!

[kato]

That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?

It's photoshopped. A photo of a Wiesel was cropped to the tracks only, reversed (they're backwards here), scaled down to 80% and pasted onto a picture of a 2007 Special Edition Camouflage Decal DaimlerChrysler Smart Fortwo 451.

Notionally the Smart chassis would indeed fit "between" the tracks of a Wiesel, if you didn't scale it down that way; they'd also reach to about mid window level vertically. The engines of both vehicles are almost identical in power (2000ccm 64 kW vs 1000ccm 62 kW).

The photoshopped picture is from 2008. Someone who saw it thought "i can do that too" and mounted the same camo decal Smart Fortwo hull on a tracked chassis that came from some construction vehicle. Video of that one here on Youtube.

[grimlock1]

That raises so many questions. Do the tracks cut into the passenger compartment? With an engine that tiny, can it actually go faster than I walk?  How scary are the Starbucks lines over there?!? :o

How do you get in the cute little thing?

[Weirdo]

How do you get in the cute little thing?

Evil sciencey magic!

[Sharpnel]

How do you get in the cute little thing?

The sunroof?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The sunroof?

It's a hatchback, isn't it?

[worktroll]

An anecdote I read somewhere:

Public outreach day on an army base. Vehicles are lined up on display, and a Sheridan happens to be parked next to an M60. A sergeant walks out to the display, stands to face the onlookers, and points at the M60.



"This is your tank."

Points at the Sheridan.



"This is your tank on drugs. Any questions?"

To which I can only add:

[Kidd]

Was the Sheridan's main gun at all usable in combat? What about the Shillelagh missile?

[worktroll]

The 152mm fired a righteous HE shell, and a fearsome flechette. Both low velocity though. The biggest issue was the loose caseless propellant, which broke up, and represented an insane fire hazard. Also slowed ROF to 2 per minute, compared to a good M-60 crew's 9 per minute. The other issue was the recoil - the aluminium hull was so light, firing the gun rocked it off the front of its tracks, and knocked electronics (like the missile gear) out of its sockets.

The Shilleleagh (sp?) was also a step ahead of the bleeding edge, with significant reliability issues. It also had problems targetting within 800m, not the most uncommon issue with first-gen AT missiles (see what I did there?) They tried it on the M-60A2 "Starship", but failure of the Sheridan seemed to doom this.

[Matti]

"This is your tank on drugs. Any questions?"

Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?

[DoctorMonkey]

Me me! I have a question! Can the 152 millimeter gun fire the rounds used by Red Army in Second World War?

"Unlikely and somehow none of our troops were bored enough to try"