Boxer armoured fighting vehicle | An extremely flexible solution for the future battlefields

[@WeaponDetective]

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other German Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_Lp-QluqKimxcp2fFhBKuCJz Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Land videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LpFkS9hH3KD9uTEKBDVQZRp

[@texasranger24]

There are many ways to present German things. You chose to present it with 12 minutes of Preußens Gloria. And i respect that.

[@magecraft2]

One thing that rarely gets mentioned with modularity is you still need to have those modules on hand, so yes you can swap all you Boxers to a specific version but you still need that module. Do not get me wrong this can be a massive advantage on a strategic level but I am not sure how useful on a tactical one. Boxer is a great piece of kit so I am far from negative on it just thought this is a point that rarely gets mentioned on any modular system (coupled with the fact that nearly all will only likely have one use for most of its career).

[@gusgone4527]

It's the obvious elephant in the room and needs mentioning. Especially as transporting modules seperatly is a logistic burden. However, as the video narrator correctly pointed out, it permits the modules of recovered damaged hulls, to be swapped with hulls of general duty cargo carrying vehicles. Something a field commander would find very useful. Selecting which aspect of the mobile force absorbs the attrition, while awaiting replacements. Are you aware that there is now a tracked hull that can take the same modules. An obvious omission from this video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6eclpx6pcefbZo&ab_channel=RedEffect

[@michaelmulligan0]

Don’t think the intent is that they are changed over regularly Say your planning an exercise and 4 of the APCs are off the road long term, you could potentially change over your ambulance to 1

[@rolandxor179]

Agreed I view it as a gimmick Whatever variant you buy you need the drive vehicle to go with it. You cannot just have a bunch of modules sitting around.

[@gusgone4527]

@@rolandxor179 Remember, there is now a tracked hull with which to swap as required.

[@rolandxor179]

@@gusgone4527 I don't see the point , wheeled vehicles are superior in almost every way. But you do see them get stuck in mud and snow but so do tracked vehicles.

[@saiprateek5779]

Hey Weapon Detective, In India we have a Tata-DRDO WhAP.. an 8-Wheeled Armoured Protective Vehicle, its Modularity and Versatility makes it one-of-a-kind vehicle of Indian Armed forces. I request you to please make a deep analysis video.. You can also make: 1. Mahindra Marksman 2. Paramount M4 3. Arjun Mk1A Tank 4. DRDO ATAGS 5. Renault Sherpa Note: I know its all new stuff (one of them is known in UAE) but this analysis video may make some of the people aware of these tech... atleast keeps our trust and morale too Love from India 🇮🇳

[@WeaponDetective]

We want to make more videos about the Indian systems. But unfortunately, the latest Indian video, LCH, has not gained the interest we hope. So, we will focus on other countries' systems for a while. Please keep us following.

[@cyberarchitect9280]

The GTK Boxer is my favourite troop transport vehicle. I love the look of it and also the features of it. It would be good standard vehicle for whole Europe. I think it would be also a good base for a dedicated wheeled tank destroyer or a wheeled tank such as the Centauro. But I love it, thank you very much for it. My birthday will be on 20th of October, this was a nice present, and also the Ratel will be. Thank you very much. You are the best!

[@WeaponDetective]

Happy birthday in advance

[@cyberarchitect9280]

@@WeaponDetective Thank you very much

[@WAJK2030]

German Panzergrenadier Veteran here. The Boxer SPz (Schützenpanzer or Infantry Fighting Vehicle) will replace our Marders. The frontal arc is armoured against 30 mm machine cannon fire. The sides can be up armored to withstand the same + HEAT shells and ATGMs.

[@ravanpee1325]

Isn't the replacement the new PUMA?

[@abraham2172]

Very impressive vehicle, thank you for the video!

[@olivierpuyou3621]

A very impressive machine.👍

[@flickingbollocks5542]

The one I drive is crap. Uncomfortable seats, no cup-holders, and has an OUTSIDE TOILET.

[@TrangleC]

Recently a tracked version was introduced. That even further improves and expands the modularity and flexibility of the system. Now you can not only chose among the mission modules, but also have the choice between 2 types of drive modules.

[@TheWizardGamez]

I don’t know how far that thing is going to go. Considering that it is A. Really fucking tall, even without the turret. And is slower than the wheeled version for the same armor. That’s supposed to be what differentiates the light mechanized from the heavy mechanized infantry. But I don’t know. Maybe it sticks. I jut can’t imagine the market right now

[@TrangleC]

@@TheWizardGamez More options are always good. Recently the Norwegian Army was looking for a new self propelled howitzer. What they wanted was one that was tracked but at the same time light weight to operate well in mountainous, snowy terrain. They chose the Korean K9 because it is lighter than the German PzH2000 and isn't wheeled like the Swedish Archer. The tracked Boxer came too late for that deal, but now Rheinmetall can offer a light weight tracked howitzer the next time someone is looking for that.

[@zentran2690]

​@@TheWizardGamez I am pretty sure they're about the same height.

[@MWcrazyhorse]

The Boxer is ingenius!!! Just take off the entire back part and slap on a different box. That's brilliant.

[@habahan4257]

Excellent video for an excellent vehicle. Please also make a video about Turkish Pars.

[@Scaleyback317]

Am I right in assuming, in the NATO theatres that, if required a Dutch Boxer using for example an IFV modular set up can then be seconded to, say a British unit which may require, for example a Cockerill turret and the British Cockerill turret can then be temporarily twinned with the Dutch chassis. Or a mortar carrying module or for use this week as an ambulance? Is every boxer in NATO inventory going to be intherchangeable with other nations requirements or availability of systems? If so that is pure genius, if not then it's something which should be considered to make it pure genius. Thanks - enjoyed this.

[@85daniel]

This should normaly work. Only if a developer uses a non default interfaces between the chassis and the module there should be a problem.

[@dougharrison7844]

I like how it's modular, during the week I can have my work fitout with all my tools to get the job done, or can remove it to be able to pick up all the trade supplies I need. Then I can swap it out for my Biological/Chemical/Nuclear proof camping setup for the weekend or appocolypse.

[@alphatyrant8677]

This video had me hooked when I heard Prussia’s Glory.

[@goldzen3019]

Slovenia pulled out of this program couple of days ago.

[@christianjunghanel6724]

Ukraine i think will also by 18 vehicles of the RCH 155 Boxer version!

[@NeoDerGrose]

You forgot to mention, that the Boxer isn't just a wheeled platform, there's also a tracked driving module. That only adds to it's modularity.

[@graemee7732]

Good on you germany for sticking with the british to bring about this awesome machine,sorry if i have left out any other contributions by other nnation,but this is all i could gather. Disappointed at the french for pulling out of joint advances to concentrate on their selves. Much like the typhoon,which they pulled out of to concentrate on the Rafael,which is a great jet,but copies many of the typhoons advancements. The french are great at engineering and if they had pooled their resources with that of uk and germany,as well as a number of European countries,im sure a result would have have been astounding. Its sad to see joint ventures with the french start,only for france to pull out and concentrate on their own projects that have initiated with a union of partnerships. I love the french,as an Australian,but would love to see more long lasting projects with other European countries reach fruition and awesme results achieved!!

[@JohnDoe-yv8yn]

very cool modularity

[@edwardfletcher7790]

08:45 Vietnam era Amphibious M520 Goer Truck !!

[@Retroscoop]

So, how does it compare to the French Griffon ? (it has 200 HP more, can carry 1 more soldier, same protective capabilities when it comes to shells but the Griffon can apparantly withstand a charge of 10 in stead of 8 tons of TNT. Is the Boxer amphibious ? (The Griffon isn't). What about the price ? Would it make sense for Belgium to buy some, let's say the anti UAV-variant ? Can the French Scorpion network also exchange information with the Boxers ???

[@armdengr83]

It takes a lot of maintenance. The brakes need reguler cleaning, otherwise they get too hot and the wheel will erupt in flames. Cleaning the brakes is difficult to get to. The vehicle is 3 times bigger than the one it replaced, but has less room on the inside. The position of the .50 on the Dutch version sucks. The Dutch C2 version lacks and APU. And all countries bought complete vehicles and not different modules. So the modularity is one nice for KMW, but the militaries using it make no use of it. It only helps that spare parts can be shared among the different versions. I don't know man. It is still a good vehicle, but it is far from as impressive as mentioned in this video.

[@Drrolfski]

Modularity always comes with a cost, in this case bigger profile, less interior room and higher unit price. There are no silver bullets in armoured vehicle design. As for the rest of the issues you've mentioned, these get typically ironed out over the lifespan of the vehicle.

[@barlauch9292]

In side of logistics, this is a dream. You can have several different modules and use the same spareparts. Also it is much easier to bring one vehicel and 2 modules to the place, where you fight, than 2 vehicels.

[@trmhmt8875]

Pars 4 is my most favorite IFV among those.

[@Jayclark41]

I agree it’s the best modular design, yet I would state that Europe best battle wagon is the French Philocrates VBCI 😅😅😅, it lacks variants as France has made a choice to use different vehicules for different roles even tho they share across all vehicule types about 70 % of components. Why is the French Philocrates or VBCI 2 better? We’ll more space for the troops , comfort, a 40 mm CT turret with a 12.5mn coax and a commander independent remote controlled 7.65mm on top, 4 missiles with a choice of mixing anti air and anti tank in the same retractable part of the turret leaving them protected and shielded when no in use with 2 milsiles loaded in and 2 in reserve that can be loaded without leaving the interior. Surprisingly The French who are big fans of speed and expeditionary forces , the VBCI boast a lower weight than its German brother, to be easily moved fully loaded in any A400 or bigger planes. On the optics the network centric warfare active and passive counter measures the French are at the top of their game on this new version of the venerable original VBCI. Those point makes it a superior frontline armored infantry fighting vehicle to it’s very capable German counterpart . Tho if you a nation looking to buil on shelf many different variants for different job the boxer is not unbeatable in that department 😅😅😅. I would have you make a comparative video of the battle wagon version of the boxer vs the French VBCI for a future video it could be interesting to know who has the he very best panzer grenadier frontlines dismounted infantry collaborative combat plateform :) 😊😊

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

France have about 19 of these vehicles to the uk to trial out, but for some reason uk declined . As u say one great advantage is the airlift simplicity which I believe was an original uk requirement in boxer development phase.

[@paulcoverdale8312]

IF Patria had listed? That would have left this thing standing an a world beater would have been created.!! Bloody shame! Let’s see if it’s all that when in theatre 🎭?? 🙏🙏👍👍🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@petesheppard1709]

AIUI, there is a significant size and weight penalty for the Boxer's version of modularity.

[@jonny2954]

No. Boxer only has 300 - 400 kg of parasitic weight. That's less than 1% of GVW. On the outside the module encompasses structures that would be there anyway and the double floor created by the Drive and Mission Modules interface is used as part of the underbody blast protection design concept, where normal vehicles would have a double floor anyways.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@jonny2954 Thanks!

[@marky59]

I think this is a great addition to the British Army, proven to be reliable unlike some things the Army has - Ajax comes to mind - cost a lot of money and it still has issues - someone needs to be held accountable for this mess? how late is it now?

[@iterationfackshet1990]

The boxer reminds me incredibly a lot of the BAE SEP program, which is kinda insane since they were developed essentially around the same time. I guess it’s just a case of simultaneous invention.

[@wudruffwildcard252]

😑 You know that the UK was once a development partner but pulled out of the Boxer program? Only the Netherlands and Germany pulled through and made the project happen.

[@iterationfackshet1990]

@@wudruffwildcard252 the BAE SEP was separate from the boxer program and was originally made for the Swedish army and had its first prototypes out before the Boxer.

[@michaelmulligan0]

Excellent if expensive and heavy vehicle

[@Cartoonman154]

MBDA unveiled a concept of a brimstone overwatch system at the DVD 2022

[@poil8351]

one thing that i find odd is how most modern armoured vehicles are rivted instead of welded or cast almost like a crucil lesson of ww2 has been universally forgotten and needs to be relearnt. ask the italians how their riverted tanks faired in ww2 also their us a reason why the m4 sherman was not riverted and that was the issues that riverting caused on the m3 grant/lee

[@lordtemplar9274]

Those are not rivets. They are attachment points for kits, like modular armor kits, anti RPG cages, etc... not all APC will need the extra protection if not directly in the frontline. Having extra armour in kits saves weight, so more fuel efficient and easier to transport in normal mode.

[@gusgone4527]

The tracked variant accepts the same mission modules as the wheeled, which seems an excellent idea. I'm not certain that the levels of protection match those of a heavier dedicated tracked IFV or APV. Bigger APC's carry a larger infantry section.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

boxer has higher protection levels than most current in use tracked IFV´s like Warrior etc.

[@gusgone4527]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I do not think that is correct.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@gusgone4527 boxer has protection vs 14.5mm all round, 30mm from the front. STANAG IV-V for protection. Warrior has only STANAG III from the front

[@gusgone4527]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Is that with the full armour pack on both vehicles or just the standard hull.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@gusgone4527 Max armor on both, even basic vs basic boxer has heavier armor protection

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Would be interesting to see what kind of mission modules get developed off the back fo the fighting in Ukraine and all the lessons learned there. Like will we see drone/loitering munissions carriers (a bit like the old mortar carriers), or more mobile missile based air defence modules or even MLRS modules.

[@dwwolf4636]

all exist or are in planning. 155mm arty, mortar carriers etc. SPAA/Anti drone...

[@fujii_natsuooooo]

Deutsche qualität

[@paulcoverdale8312]

It’s a great bit of kit but, why didn’t they make it aquatic from the get go?

[@85daniel]

Because the armor had a higher priority? The protection level should be very high. There are transport variants but the protection level should be higher than for the most IFVs.

[@roisanglier34]

the big strong point of the boxer these its modularity that proves that have part on bad basis. because a vehicle that must be changed on the battlefield means that in the middle of a mission it will not be able to do all the missions planned by a VCI. He will have to return to the base to be modified and leave one hour later. it is better to have a vehicle ready for use for all the missions assigned to it than a vehicle that must be modified in the field for. the VBCI for example always carries a 25mm cannon and a combat group of 8 men. for the boxer and an equivalent armament it needs to go from 8 to 6 infantry. and if the VBCI passes in mountain bike therefore without tarask turret it can embark 14 infantryman. the shielding and also problematic as much for a troop transport vehicle as the Griffon withstood 14.5mm these quite good but for an infatery combat vehicle like the boxer and the vbci these are insufficient the VBCi can withstand 30mm . the transport also weighs almost 40 tons and cannot be fully airborne makes it a real bad vehicle

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

I can't realy see too much modularity change in the field . Or will be useful however for fast repairs out in the field . One advantage for example. Let's say the anti air raft boxer hits a mine. Because of its high Importance to the battalion , if no spare drive module , then the battalion can cannibalise a standard apc version , thus allowing anti aircraft capability restored. The French have the Nextar ? Or something which is the wheeled version france created when they left the original framce uk german project. They already have 600 in service . They look good and can be transported by air in there entirety as they are lighter . Lightness being one of the original uk requests for the project for air transport , useful for france and uk .uk trialed about 19 nextar vehicles gifted by france but declined to take the order . Maybe a useful variant for a rapide reaction force like uk 16 air assault brigade

[@tclanjtopsom4846]

it has a lot of issues with gun placement, brakes ,maintenance difficulties and is not that good. tell it how it is.

[@joebloggs24]

How does the Australian "Bushmaster" compare? Can't say undoubtedly most successful if there is better out there already.

[@thomasb5600]

The Bushy is not heavily armoured, no APS and as for weapons its 12.7mm v 30mm, Spike ATGM. I think the sensors Boxer has it. The Bushy is still has advantages because it is cheaper and lighter. If the full electric and strike master variants will give extra reason to have a few around. With numbers Australia has we could see boxers and bushies running together.

[@tclanjtopsom4846]

its not the best in its class but not a bad video.

[@seekwhen1848]

>One of the best armor protection for wheeled APCs >Modularity in mind resulted in sacrificing internal space along with extra weight >Price is prohibitive for many potential customers.... and has to compete with real IFVs in the SAME price range >Certainly the best money can buy product might not the the best purchase for many armies. Quite a shame since the design is good.

[@jonny2954]

Boxer only has 300 - 400 kg of parasitic weight. That's less than 1% of GVW. On the outside the module encompasses structures that would be there anyway and the double floor created by the Drive and Mission Modules interface is used as part of the underbody blast protection design concept, where normal vehicles would have a double floor anyways.

[@dannyzero692]

I think the pricing issue can be sorted out once this thing is mass produced just like the F-35, eventually maintenance would be easier and cheaper as more parts are manufactured at scale and the wide adoption of this vehicle by multiple Western armies can help easing logistical issues because everyone would be using the same chassis. The modularity of the chassis is also very good for sale because customers can make multiple different variants to suit their own needs with minimal differences in part commonality with the country of origin.

[@well-blazeredman6187]

Perhaps the protection level should remain secret.

[@556to762]

i am supprised they dont have a heavy motor module

[@anonymusum]

The French always leave a partnership if it´s not going their way completely.

[@DaS-jp6wn]

But the chinese Typ 08 Armoured Fithing vehicle is better then the boxer. Produced since 2008 (6000 units were allready bulid). It has a stronger armour, and the gun has a higher penetrating power. At the moment the boxer is better in hitting but the new version of the Typ 08 were allready a prototyp exist and production starts soon is better then the boxer in hitting, it even is able of SMART hit, were the electronic is targeting at the enemey vehicle points were it is smarter to hit it that it makes boom. E.g the computer is targeting spezial points depending on the vehicle type e.g a light armour vehicle like a humvee the smart gun is targeting the driver The Future chinese Armourded Fighting Vehicle (only rare concept) is planed to have only a crew of 1, a gunner. Its selfdriving and its planned for special missions that it is completly unmanded and remote controlled. But till then its a long way to go, maybe first in around 14 years it will be in mass production

[@556to762]

can you air drop a module ???

[@mikeykeyes]

The detective shows in the UK- but obviously the detective was born elsewhere- detection failed-is it somewhere in former Yugoslavia or even Israel?

[@vader1a]

1:30 of course they did

[@philipfoster7269]

Look guys. It needs a kettle. No kettle? The British Army can't possibly work with it..............................

[@jonny2954]

APC variant has a kettle. And a toilet.

[@Bagas-114]

You want the best, you bought German

[@jean-rochdion4898]

well.... the factory who build it need a lot of electricity and steel!!!

[@andreinarangel6227]

Overpriced for a job that can be done just as well by much more economical machines.

[@zachhoefs9543]

so this must be a much heavier vehicle than the Stryker.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

around 30t

[@jeroenwubbels7824]

yeah, but u can do so uch more with it From IFV to Mortar 120mm,, Arty, 155mm etc Just change the box on the back and in 30mins u got asystem u need And with a large fleet all trhu Nato, u can swap modules with other nations And Swiss put a 120mm smoothbore on a CV90 so that should be easy on Boxer Boxer and CV90 would be perfect for US army, Marines as well

[@wynandkoegelenberg5659]

So basically an updated South-African Ratel. Built since 1980.

[@manuelmamann5035]

the roof cannot.

[@rolandxor179]

You made this just so you could play Prussia Gloria on repeat.

[@MrMikeV00]

All flexibility and f#ckall purpose.

[@JainZar1]

The Boxer is only replacing the Wiesel in the heavy Jäger companies. The replacement for the Wiesel in the heavy parachute companies is going to be a weapon carrier on Fennek chassis, as that one needs to be transportable via helicopter in full battle readiness.

[@dna6882]

The biggest issue (so far as I can tell) when it comes to replacing the Wiesel is that no one can design a replacement that has the same small dimensions and capability while still meeting the modern expectations for protection. I personally love the Wiesel design but it is painfully obvious that such a vehicle could NEVER get through the design phase in todays safety minded climate. In some ways it actually makes me feel sorry for whatever design replaces the Wiesel as the idea of a "replacement" suggests the new design should be better in some areas but while still maintaining the good aspects of the original. This is simply not possible for the Wiesel's replacement.

[@NeoDerGrose]

No, the Wiesel in it's air transportable role will get replaced by the "Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger", a 4.5 t quad tracked vehicle. The Fennek is far to heavy to fulfill this role with more 😢double that weight. That's the plan for replacing Wiesels 1, which is the basis for the autocanon and atgm variants, I don't know what's the plan for all the Wiesel 2 variants, that fulfill different tasks.

[@JainZar1]

@@NeoDerGrose Thank you for the correction, the "LuWa" looks like a smaller Fennek, which is why I assumed that the vehicles had the same basis. It definitely should be possible to also have some Wiesel 2 functions be put on the LuWa, though space requirements for the Ambulance look to be most problematic.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

"Boxer" is german for Boxer.

[@flickingbollocks5542]

The one I drive is crap. Uncomfortable seats, no cup-holders, and has an OUTSIDE TOILET.

[@davidbarr9343]

Bollocks!😂

[@bostorgay]

schon sehr schoon

[@nickmail7604]

Jack of all trades, master of none. British army get given the next generation of shite as usual

[@kazansky22]

Meh, the boxer is too heavy and expensive, and you're hamstrung by needing German support which is in no way reliable. Just ask the Baltic states. Tbh in this class I would call the Patria AMV the "best" as far as price, licensing, production, support, adaptability and functionality.

[@NeblogaiLT]

The issues of the Boxer version for Lithuania are now solved. In the end, with Vilkas IFV plus a few more variants purchased down the road, this vehicle platform might end up perfect for us. And there will also be Britain, not just Germany, producing them.

[@lordtemplar9274]

Gotta love Rheinmetall marketing. Modularity is just marketing blah blah that is trending. Most modern APC on market are available in different configurations: recon, medic, command, fire support, etc... armies just order the variants they plan for and need. No need to swap arti version to a medic or vice versa, this is just marketing bs. It isnt cheap or quick to do, neither is retraining the crew! In todays economy, what army can afford spare modules collecting dust in storage in case they may need it at some point? At the end of the day, the Boxer is just another APC like so many others on the market, ie Patria, etc... it offers similar protection, range, carrying capacity, firepower, sensors and variants as the competition; however, it seems to be more expensive and has taken many decades to develop/deliver. Once it actually sees combat, we will see if it is as superior as many pretend. I suspect it is just more of the same that is already in service, no better no worse. The million dollar question is what are going to be the actual maintenance costs and operational rates? If the German army is the example to go by, i fear the worst. My 2 cents

[@hisredrighthand5212]

No plan survives contact with the enemy. And especially "in today's economy" it is an incredible bonus if you can just buy RCH 155 modules or Skyranger modules or the upcoming GMLRS modules for your boxer fleet instead of procuring a fleet of howitzers, SPAAGs and GMLRS launchers. If only military experts would listen to us KZbin armchair generals. They would avoid grave mistakes like those made by Australia (ordered 211 Boxers), the United Kingdom (ordered 623 Boxers) or Algeria (ordered 500 Boxers).

[@jonny2954]

It's not about the quick change. While it's a nice gimmick for maintenance and airliftability, it is not the main point. The main point of the Boxer modules is that for every new variant, only the module needs to be developed. Unlike with a Stryker or Patria AMV as example, where every different version also requires changes made to the vehicle hull at the manufacturer, which is more cost intensive. For Boxer, all variants use the exact same baseline. The more versions you get the more cost effective it gets. All that of the cost of only about 300 - 400 kg parasitic weight, which is less than 1 % of the GVW.

[@hisredrighthand5212]

@@jonny2954 Exactly. Add to that the fact that the different modules aren't just about what caliber autocannon you want on your RWS. The RCH 155 Boxer for example is the world's first SPH that can fire on the move and comes with an automated resupply vehicle, so the (optional) 2 man crew doesn't need to leave their STANAG 4 cabin at any time during a mission. The result of 10 years of development.

[@barlauch9292]

And dont forget that in war the logistics is far easier if many of your vehicels use the same base.

[@dschihadinio]

Dislike for endless Preußens gloria.

[@Cubcariboo]

Lolz. I feel your pain brother!

[@christianjunghanel6724]

Yeah ! I guess whereever germany is involved cliches aren t far of! 😑

[@DJ1573]

@@christianjunghanel6724 Cliche? Thats still a march of the Bundeswehr.

[@christianjunghanel6724]

@@DJ1573 So ? Can t it be both? Und du kannst mit mir auf Deutsch reden wir kommen wohl beide aus der BRD! 😅

[@DJ1573]

@@christianjunghanel6724 Moin moin 😁 klang bei dir nach der klassisch 'negativen' Assoziation zu der Zeit des Schnauzbarts was ja öfter vorkommt da viele nicht wissen das das Lied älter ist. Aber ja hast recht passt schon als 'witzig-augenverdreh' Cliche 😅

[@scruffy7760]

It's too tall. It's tall enough to shoot over a tank. With top attack weapons becoming more common, being big will get you killed. Javelin, RBS56, NLAW, BONUS and Strix are just a few examples of weapons already in play that would have a fieldday against something this big. Easy to spot, easy to aim at, easy to kill

[@stevestruthers6180]

As a recce vehicle, it's simply huge. Small, stealthy, hard to see and hit and fast are what you want in a recce platform. Get in, get the information and bugger off, or quietly stalk the enemy without being seen or heard. The Australians bought the Boxer mainly because it has the capacity to keep up with its fleet of M1 Abrams tanks.

[@TB-zf7we]

@@stevestruthers6180 Perhaps the German Fennek is the type of vehicle ideally called for.

[@stevestruthers6180]

@@TB-zf7we Agreed, if it offered better protection against mines and IED's. To my way of thinking, the Fennek represents the modern-day equivalent of the old British Ferret reconnaissance car, with modern technology and stealth.

[@marchordie21]

This might be the worse combat vehicle ever produced. Probably the closest the designers got to a battlefield, was in computer games, where you upgrade vehicles by pushing a button :). I agree it's highly recommended to have a common chassis for many vehicles, or as many interchangeable parts as possible (considering this is how US won the logistics battle in WW2). But this kind of "lego" vehicle is insane - how are you supposed to have those big factory like workshops close to the front!? Or you must send the vehicles back 1000km to the factory, each time you need to convert an IFV to a light tank!? Consider only the transport logistics you need in place, in order to constantly move around turrets, cranes etc. I don't understand why people are always so impressed by German fighting vehicles - they are over-engineered, over-priced and generally overrated, considering almost none have been battle tested... The most recent example is with Pzh2000 in Ukraine, where simpler and cheaper systems (like Caesar, Krab and M777), have performed much better.

[@chrizz754]

Lol what? You don't need a factory to replace a module. That's the whole point of it. You need the replacement module, 1 maintenance vehicle and 1 hour of time to change for example an ambulance to a troop transport vehicle. That's the concept. What didn't you get? Btw PZH2000 is performed excellent in Ukraine against Russians. Best rate of fire, best protection for the crew and capable of precision strikes with bonus ammunition. That's why Ukraine ordered 100 more.

[@lordtemplar9274]

Bigger problem is thatyou need to retrain the crew becuase it takes longr than swapping a module. Using a 155mm artillery is not the same as using a 30mm gun or a recon variant. The tactics and deployment are completely different, so crew need a lot of training to become proficient. This modularity is nothing more than a marketing gimmick because in real life it is not practical. All other APC offer a similar variety of ranges, mortar, SHORAD, 120mm gun etc.... just order the factory versions you need for your army. They all have similar motors, wheels, suspensions, etc.. so the Boxer add-on kits do not offer any more savings in maintenance. In fact you are wasting money on modular kits that will end up collecting dust in a warehouse!

[@lordtemplar9274]

@@chrizz754 FYI PZH2000 has actually not performed as advertised in Ukraine. It has proved that it cannot sustain high intensity combat, most have had to go back for repair because of premature wear and tear on barrels etc... but hey it looks great on marketing videos when it shoots 6 shells, problem is you dont win with only shooting 6 shells

[@chrizz754]

@@lordtemplar9274 what are you talking about? PZH2000 has a capcatiy of 60 shells, rate of fire can be 10 shells per minute with burst function. But if you use the maximum capabilty all the time of course the wear and tear rate is high. PZH2000s need repairs like every other howitzer. Ukraine is using all systems at the limit of what it possible because they have not enough. There are some photos of Krab howitzers with exploded barrels and videos of M777 getting destroyed. Are these systems also useless? It´s fucking war and not some marketing show.

[@lordtemplar9274]

@@chrizz754 cool your beans. No need for insults. There are plenty of credible reports that PZH has had many technical issues in Ukraine. Not only wear and tear but the electonics are not holding up. More than half of them were shipped out of country for extensive repair. The PZH hasnt even been there that many months. Other systems have been in Ukraine longer and used similarly. There are no reports of other systems having similar issues.

[@zinjanthropus322]

Am I the only one who thinks that this is one of the ugliest modern ifv's?

[@christianjunghanel6724]

Depends on the version really ! Or taste i guess ! 🤷‍♂ Which one do you think looks good ?

[@DJ1573]

Nope, its a real beauty

[@zinjanthropus322]

@@christianjunghanel6724 Most IFVs look nice. It's that long drooping face. Makes me want to fire a javelin at it.

[@davidbarr9343]

Oh let's just make a pretty IFV , perhaps paint it pink! 😂😱

[@zinjanthropus322]

@@davidbarr9343 lol

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

Even a 20mm cannon goes thru this like butter

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

Bro have you recorded this on a xbox360 microphone?

[@DvdV1337]

Ye, no. Better design a good bunker and get drones. Sort of play video games against eachother. As usefull as it might be, it will be as useless as anything else regarding explosions on weakpoints. At some point, the bigger the explosions, the more useless the people inside become. Stop desgning target practice.

[@bebyfun]

Kindly make a video of india WHAP

[@yabbadabbadoo8225]

If the Russians could afford these they would buy a few also.

[@dannyzero692]

It's laughable to think that Russia or the US would use anything made by foreigners, Russia is basically sanctioned off of all imported weapons from Europe and the US would only agree to buy foreign if they set up factories in the US, even then the odds are highly stacked against foreign competitors.

[@jeroenwubbels7824]

So glad us dutchies got these babies and CV90 as well With F35's and Apaches at least we buy good stuff A few hundred Leo2A6's would be welcomed by many cloggies i think ( and double amount of troops plz) 18milion ppl need a much larger force and we can pay for that ez pz