Boxer RCH 155 British Armys New Replacement British Soldier reacts

[@schnelma605]

Somehow, the most important features of the Boxer RCH-155 were missing: - no stabilizers needed - 360° aiming - direct fire possible - fire-on-the-move capabilities

[@donjonson1748]

fire on the move... lol.... but only if you want to shoot half as far and just as precisely as the Russian artillery. The Boxer sways too much to be accurate while in motion. This vehicle is just a cheap mobile artillery module. Every time it's claimed that the RCH 155 is identical to the PzH 2000, you know that everything being said is bullshit. The RCH 155 is inferior to the PzH 2000 in every way except mobility. The RCH 155 shoots slower, has less ammunition, MRSI 6 vs. only 4!... The advantage is that it is a module. You can remove it from the Boxer. You can mount the module on trucks, various tank chassis, and stationary on the ground. Definitely better than the AS90, but not as good as the PzH 2000.

[@majorix1]

@@donjonson1748 Fire on the move in testings was as precise and as far as while standing still. The Fire Controll Computer waits till the barrel is pointing at the right point before it fires the projectile. Also its used while on Roads or at least dirt roads and with slower speed, not while traveling through rough terrain. Of course MRSI doesn't work in this mode. But as Ukraine has shown, being able to fire on the move is a pretty important feature as you are safe from Counter Battery fire. There are plans to try and add that feature to the PZH2000. While tracked vehicles are good in rough terrain, its hard to get them to a front, train transport is almost always needed as the tracks deteriorate quickly when traveling on roads for long. With the wheeled variant you can drive through Europe and the tires will be fine. In case of Ukraine this means they can get the guns to and away from the front much easier and quickly and also harder to detect.

[@tyrson2445]

@@majorix1 Getting to the front is not that great problem to ukraine/russia. Did not see much movent there, so tracked vehicles should be good right now. I really hope Ukraine gets all of promised stuff in promised time so there wil lbe a a bit more movement to show pros of RCH 155.

[@williamzk9083]

@@donjonson1748 The swaying doesn't matter. Apart from gyro stabilization the gun will shoot at the correct instant even when there is residual motion. Of course when firing GPS or ammunition such as SMArT 155 it doesn't matter.

[@morbvsclz]

@@donjonson1748 Swaying does not matter... The gun fires in the split second everything is perfectly aligned. So not just the second you press the fire button. And mobility plus ease of maintenance (which is often terrible with tracked vehicles) are incredibly important. Smaller crew as well. The Pzh2000 wins in a game of Top Trumps and impresses more at a parade, the RCH 155 wins in a war. MRSI 4 vs, 6 and max theoretical fire rate only matter so much in reality, when the real issue is getting enough Ammo produced and sent to the front. Superior systems win engagements, better logistics and industry production win wars. If you can pay for and maintain 10 of these vs. 8 PzH (and the ratio is probably even more in favor of RCH than that), you have already won.

[@Chiron84]

The German army is in the process of splitting up into light forces (paratroopers, special forces and such), heavy forces (tracked vehicles like Leopard 2, Puma and PzH2000) and medium forces (wheeled, vehicles like Boxer IFV, RCH 155). This also marks their response time, light forces can airdrop in, medium forces drive on their own wheels, and heavy forces have to be carried there by train or tank transporter. We're not giving up on tracked artillery, we're just making sure each force has artillery support.

[@connorlee5873]

Light infantry aswell travel in on foot or light skinned vehicles like us brits do with land rovers and tcvs

[@CarstenStrauss]

Vehicles, air droppable

[@mauno7230]

What's new about that??

[@th3cleaner354]

@@CarstenStrauss like german wiesel in different typs.

[@Chiron84]

​@@mauno7230 the concept of the medium forces as rapidly deployable wheeled forces with every capability the heavy forces have on tracked vehicles? The fact that for the Bundeswehr is restructuring into an organization that's capable of war and not just intervention? The fact that my response was giving context to the video which you seem to have missed?

Main benefit is, that it can fire while on the move.

[@user936]

Not accurately - that thing wobbles all over the place! With that instability I cannot believe it will be able to use the simultaneous impact mode the AS-90 can.

[@AufmerksamkeitsgeileNarzisstin]

​@@user936😢 🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪🇩🇪😜

[@sirbonobo3907]

Bullshit

[@jonas384r7]

​@@user936 kommt drauf an. Es kann sein, dass sich der Schuss erst löst, wenn das Rohr über das Ziel schwenkt. Also der schuss wird freigegeben und der Computer berechnet wann genau er sich löst. Dann wäre es 100% genauso genau wie im stehen. Ist natürlich geheim, aber ich denke das die Technologie funktionieren kann

[@P3tze]

as a german artillery officer I can say....yes it works accuratly...it is a game changer....but...just 30 rounds innone system are to less for real artillery fire missions....the tech is simple....leopard mbt tech combined with a permanent working positioning system and fire control system...

[@kibun1]

None of the key features mentioned: 360 degree aiming, no stabilizers needed, direct fire possible on a tank e.g., fire while rolling, all which Archer doesn’t have. Till now it’s unique. Archer chassis makes logistics complicated, that’s why other countries buy archer on a MAM HX chassis.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Except the Archer CAN fire directly, just not while moving or at targets directly ahead, but it has full 360° indirect fire capability.

[@kibun1]

@@SonsOfLorgar not true, no 360 degree firing capability for archer. Also no 0 degree ore even less barrel inclination possible.

[@garywheble4534]

@@kibun1 personally I think the RCH 155 should have stabiliser. It may not need them on all gun positions , but I have been on many Gun Positions in both tracked and field Guns where the gun has move so far off cross level the sight can not be corrected or the gun becomes unstable on full recoil . Also the more stable your gun is the quicker it can be relaid so the fall of shot is more accurate . You do not want a 155 to be out if your doing danger close at 150 meters when the splinter distance of a 155 on hard standing is 200 meters

[@norbertkranz6685]

@@garywheble4534 Die Granate hat den Lauf schon verlassen bevor das Geschütz sich neigt, deshalb hat es keinen Einfluss auf die Treffsicherheit.

[@bjoernschneider7762]

The upper most unique Feature: a crew of two.

[@positroll7870]

Original video is rather repetitive and misses key features of the RCH. Unlike Archer - it can fire WHILE DRIVING - it has a RWS on the roof to which the main gun can be slaved, which gives it Hunter Killer capabilty - the RWS also can be used for close defense against drones

[@FentionX]

At least up to 30km/h, if i have my numbers right. However, this would make counter battery fire seemingly impossible, even with cluster munitions.

[@AnkurFFM]

The RWS combined with the sensors of e.g. the australian "Slinger-System" will be in future mandatory I personally assume. Unfortunately, there will be no AHEAD Ammunition given the weight and the height of such a 25-30 mm Autocannon. Maybe a modified TROPHY system may be used to kill incoming drones. Disadvantage: runs out of ammo pretty soon, overloading it should be not really a problem.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

An RWS isn't a difference, The archer has one too, at least the original dumper chassi version.

[@positroll7870]

@@SonsOfLorgar but on the truck, iirc, not the roof of the gun module itself. Which is what allows slaving the main gun to it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3_KlJp4lrSNm7Msi=NfpfNoiU6vjny1GW

[@positroll7870]

@@AnkurFFMlook at the RWS on top of the new Leo ARC 3.0 that KMW just presented. Short 30mm with AHEAD ammo.

[@klausberfelde-je2ye]

There are 2 main differences to the Archer System. 1.) the modulartity from the Boxer concept. 2.) There is no more shoot and scoot... now it´s shoot while scoot. You can also put the RCH 155 module on a tracked Boxer chassis.

[@solstice5605]

No tracks, because wheels don´t need extra trucks or trains for longer distance land transports. The video doesn´t mention anything about the beauty of that thing, it can shoot like a normal howitzer while driving at around 15 to 16 mph without any issues. It is operated by only two and if you need to stop, shoot nine rounds and drive again it takes only 90 seconds for the whole process. It does have a auxiliary power unit (APU), so it doesn´t need the main engine to be still fully operational, in a fixed position, wich reduces also the heat signature. It is automated and the on board computer solves the concern about accuracy, because of vehicle movement, it is more like tipping on a target on a touch screen. In the near future they want it to be fully automated without any on board personal, RCH / remote controlled howitzer. It all happens via data link and it can fight even moving targets. Artillery Range, standard up to 40 km, V-LAP up to 54 km, Vulcano up to 70 km , so the 25 mile range is just the standard munition and not the extended range one. Combat ready weight is around 39 tons and not 45 tons, it was a requirement of the German military, because you would run into issues with streets, roads and so on. Buyers: Germany and UK are ordering together and want to optimise that system together, Ukraine will get 36 of those and Swiss is also interested, I didn´t hear anything about those other countrys mentioned.

[@assellator7298]

Why is this modernist artillery at the world? As the others comments show: Fast, airtrasportable, can fire while driving, 360° aiming, because the weight is so high, stabilizer are not needed, fire on the move capabilities so you can use it as a tank hunter, is NBC protected, capable of MRSI with 9 shots per minute, the range by using VLAP is 33.5 miles.

[@jonny2954]

It gets really funny with Rheinmetall Denel Munitions new 155 mm Ramjet round. Expected range is 150 km.

[@dalehill6127]

You're right, that is wild! 😂

[@ptranchand52]

Impressive in theory but what’s the accuracy at this distance ? Does it use GNSS to be precise ? I don’t like Rheinmetal and their announce because they said impressive things but behind it’s always a deception, they sounds like soviets propagandists with their equipments. always very expensive, pointless in many manners, for a defense company in a country threatened by Russia, they are irresponsible.

[@macfreak9323]

Probably the most important feature is that the howitzer is the first to be able to fire accurately while moving. It may have been mentioned and I missed it.

[@webcrawler9782]

The Boxer platform is an ingenious solution. Spare parts, mechanics and replacement units makes things so much easier which significantly increases the readiness of the vehicles.

[@Janoip]

And with that Economy of Scale, makes the Price per Unit less. +the Modularity helps to make future Upgrades easier +Is nice for sales (than the country in th next years get their modernization & expansions + budget) since They have alot of cooperations with other countries companies going and can if costumer wishes integrate their domestic Parts, Gun possible new Modules on that. Its a nice step for what Europe needs less different Systems for each country, with that more scale, cooperation, cost sharing, but the main problem will remain (understandable in parts) that you dont want to lose your domestic capabilities and not lose contracts for your companies

[@thorstenguenther]

That could be achieved by cross-EU calls for tender for new procurements with the caveat that the winning developer has to share the full specs and blueprints with any certifiable producer within the EU. We desperately need more streamlined procurements in the EU, what we are currently doing is a waste of resources and money.

[@kenb.1096]

The only downside is its size. It is huge especially with a turret

[@bas1330]

This is the current status of the system. The great advantage in the future is not even mentioned. RCH stands for Remote Controlled Howitzer and upgrades in the future will make this system fully autonomous so a crew is no longer needed in the vehicle.

[@micumatrix]

It’s about finally building something in big numbers, that partners like Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium etc. also builds and have. No problems with spare parts/logistics etc. One size fits all…

[@Juuk-D]

I don't have much engineering knowledge or military background, but this looks amazing! I know you said the barrel was to short, but i think they went with the size for transportation and mobility. But these are KEY for Ukraine, because of their accuracy and range! These combined with drones and air support, is what is making the Russians offense so slow.

[@mweskamppp]

One benefit of a wheeled vehicle compared with a tracked one is the much less fuel consumption. Makes it easier for logistics. The barrel and ammunition is the same as for the Panzerhaubitze 2000. The PzH 2000 needs 5 guys to operate, ok they can reduce with some setbacks. The RCH 155 is automated and meant for 2 people operation. max speed >100kmh operation distance >700km.

[@bertnl530]

At 4:14. The other advantage is that it can cover long distances itselve without depending on low lowloaders or lowloader train cars. A few weeks ago convoys of Boxers covered the route from the Netherlands towars Lithuania on own power. without real issues. Took them 2 or 3 days, but it is much quicker then with lowloader and train and you can drive "dispersed". Not 20 difficult to replace vehicles on a train which can be hit or get an accident. With 20 Boxers like 20 different routes or time slots can be used.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

and the 2-3 days were with long rest pauses. in emergency case, these can arrive in 20 hours-24 hours. (1700km from Rotterdam to Vilnius)

[@bertnl530]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I like transport per train better, and that is what happens most of the time, because it may save breakdowns on the road and it saves diesel and driver fatigue, but trains are vulnerable and so are their loads.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@bertnl530 yes, this is just the "quick reaction" VJTF/QRF scenario for the worst case scenario.

[@dalehill6127]

​@@bertnl530Both of your points are well made.

[@erwindogs7683]

The fire on the move capability is the selling point which makes the RCH155 unique so far. Shoot & Scoop was yesterday.

[@CombatReadyHQ]

Yes I think that’s massive for a artillery system

[@dalehill6127]

Also the fact that there's a tracked variant which IIRC also uses the same chassis, so again all of the comments re ease of maintenance still apply. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKbOc2uhbtWkl9Usi=rb46y7Q-kvmkyXxB about 6:00 in for almost 2m.

[@anonymusum]

As far as I remeber the Australians are oredering Boxers as well.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

yes but the Boxer heavy recon variant (manned turret with a ton of high end sensors, RWS, 30mm cannon with airburst ammunition, 7.52 coax, twin spike LR2 launcher etc and 4-5 man recon squad dismount)

[@aopt471]

This is the Phz's natural evolution. The Phz 2000 has been the world's best self propelled artillery for decades but is over comclicated and expensive. It's still in the top league but fast, fire-on-the-move guns with fully self loading turrets like this will very soon make it obsolete.

[@patta8388]

They haven't been the best. And as the conflict in Ukraine proves, they're good at shooting, but an absolute maintenance nightmare

[@jonny2954]

@@patta8388 AFU still dubbed it the best howitzer they have.

[@jackdbur]

You could be stuck with M777 and need a 10 man crew to get 4 rounds a minute 😢

[@ericgrace9995]

If I'm right, wheeled vehicles are usually a lot cheaper to produce and maintain than tracked vehicles.

[@garywheble4534]

Three Possibilities one it could be online with the thinking of the SP80 they are already making the drive unit at Telford so if more SPGs are needed if the front line stalls then the IFV Boxser can be changed for the RCH 155 also it can keep up with the lighter Boxser IFV cost less in Maintenance and is more mobile than a tracked SPG

[@linki84]

It's the Drunken Boxer, wobbling but still hits you. The Hunter killer Funktion was forgotten too.

[@HorstMichel-mh7gv]

Probably the main reason to choose wheels not tracks is the ease to maintain, replacement n' cost. In armies, who have fewer personals at hand, will prone to spent less into training that not necessary to fight the fight at core.

[@TheBooban]

Its because they want it on Boxer, which doesn't have tracks. But tracks are being developed for Boxer. So tracks could be an option in the future. But not sure why. Wheels have gotten so much better and pretty close to tracks nowadays. So I've heard.

[@dalehill6127]

​@@TheBoobanThere is a tracked version shown in 2022. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKbOc2uhbtWkl9Usi=rb46y7Q-kvmkyXxB

[@StoccTube]

Seems like mission specific logistics and possibly interoperability with other Boxer nations might be possible? I.e. forward deployed boxer chassis means only having to transport mission specific modules (a lot less weight). It also seems as though new modules could be developed as required, like drone warfare, anti aircraft, MLRS, EW etc.

[@michaelneuwirth3414]

The Boxer RCH 155 is a good example of the strength of international co-operation, also with regard to the Russian war in Ukraine. Developed in Dutch-German co-operation, the basic model is being produced for the British army in the UK, while the (German) artillery module is being used in Ukraine, i.e. tested under wartime conditions. And the Boxer RCH 155 is just one weapon system in the Western world's armoury. It is this ability of the West to cooperate militarily across national egoisms that will pose insoluble problems for the autistic Putin regime if it believes it has the upper hand in a modernisation of the armed forces that has inevitably become necessary as a result of the war.

[@everlias]

wonder what the Netherlands shall have brought to the party? Reinmetall, KMW both German companies. The artillery is from France

[@michaelneuwirth3414]

@@everlias Weed? Gouda? The promise of being eliminated in the last sixteen of a World Cup? No, even if it is merely the political will and the willingness to share some of the costs of a project. The details of such collaborations are the subject of contract negotiations, which are ultimately countersigned by sovereign partners, whereby both (or several) parties can be involved at completely different levels.

[@williamzk9083]

@@everlias There will be work in Holland in the Dutch divisions and work for Dutch sub supplier. It's an EU project in many ways. The reprochment between France, Germany and Holland is amazing.

[@mogs23]

It should also replace fh70 as towed artillery when fighting the a near pear enemy will get taken out quickly towed artillery is a thing of the past just like the musket

[@Pirate928]

Holds more ammo and slots right in with the rest of the Boxer fleet. No brainer really.

[@richardhasler6718]

The 'Boxer ' platform is an ideal solution to replacing the AS90. As well as greater accuracy and firing range, faster to reposition in the field, better range for the vehicle and compatibility with Germany, Netherlands, Lithuania and Australia and the number of nations likely to use this system will grow (I would expect other Balic states to follow, as well as possibly Poland, Romania and Denmark). In addition it offers a unit that can be easy to repair, reconfigure, air transported and uses only 2 crew plus its made in the UK and relatively cheap.

[@danbarb9728]

wheels are cheaper, faster and easier to navigate and they can drive on every streets! chains are of course better in offroad and mud but more expensive, maintainance and they can not drive on every asphalt street because it can destroy the asphalt i guess. Also wheel howitzer must be lighter because chains system is heavy which means you can probably air lift it easier. However chains have the advantage of the turning circle, they can turn on the spot.

[@wolflarsen1900]

its plain and simple. the rch-155 is by far the best artillery system in the hole world. there is just nothing like that anywhere. no system whatsoever can what this system can do, its an improvement in any instance. Systems like the archer or (try no to laugh) the cesar system now look as something form another century. its stunning how many new capabilities and advantages this system en passou brings. Its a groundbreaking invention which changes "everything". From now on there is only a "before" the rch-155 and an "after". thats how important this developement is. As usual, it comes from the germans.. Ukraine will be the first one, to get this stuff, even before the germans. at least 54 system of them. but not before 2026. thats shit, but it is what it is.

[@merlin8514]

The boxer armoured car looks incredibly similar to the German Second World War armoured car 🧐which if memory serves was called a puma which definitely had the eight wheeled layout 🤔

[@DH.2016]

I prefer the Archer. I don't like the high profile of the RCH 155 and because of its civil engineering heritage, I suspect the Archer chassis might have the edge over the Boxer chassis when it comes to traversing rough ground. But I see why it make sense to go for the RCH. Archer's articulated chassis requires specialist expertise to maintain and repair whereas compatibility with, and the modulatory of, the Boxer fleet as a whole simplifies this and many other issues. There was also the option of mounting the Archer turret on a truck chassis (MAN provides many of the British Army's logistic vehicles). However, perhaps Boxer is judged more capable for cross-country than a MAN /Archer variant plus there is, of course, the higher round capacity of the RCH 155. p.s. Any scope to ship mount that turret?

[@patta8388]

Rheinmetall has been building shit that can traverse rough terrain for decades. They know what they're doing.

[@maxg7928]

This system ist also able for shoot in moving and has Hunter Killer kapebillity because of two separat optics

[@murgel2006]

Wheels are supperior in strategic mobility. Wheeled vehicles are faster and can relocate over longer distances by themselves while tracked vehicles need to be deployed by rail. The tactical mobility is not as good as a tracked vehicle but it is a difference if you can go 60km/h on a road or 90km/h.

[@jackdbur]

Your ammunition resupply will need roads so the likelihood of operating very far from the road system is not high.

[@tokeri4198]

looks a bit wonky but if it works it will be great and i trust the germans with engineering. and if they just slapped the pzh2000 gun on a 8x8 chassi, the suspension maintenance will be horrible. if maintained it will be a good system my only worries i see is the suspension wear, i just hope it wont be like driving a boat on land after the 2nd fire mission.

[@jackdbur]

Tracked vehicle maintenance is far more onerous & expensive than that of a wheeled vehicle !😅

[@kentronndahl3502]

Boxer RCH 155 looks a bit small and unstable when firing?! Does it really have the same accuracy as the Archer? Or is it a financial issue...

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

it got similar accuracy, with Volcano also a range of up to 72km with a CEP of 5m. And with the currently next generation Volcano ammunition entering production, its 100km with a CEP of 1m

[@kibun1]

They said the stress for the chassis while firing is not higher than a cross country drive.

[@bertnl530]

It looks top heavy but you have to think the turret is not completely full. It houses the aiming devices and the machinery to elevate the gun and the autoloader. These last two need a lot of space to be able to move.

[@kibun1]

@@bertnl530 the turret you see on the pictures is not the final one. A newer version is slightly lower to allow the howitzer to be rail transported and pass through German tunnel sections.

[@bertnl530]

@@kibun1 I already thought it was high, specially for the older bridges and also ferries. Such a big vulume moving during a shot or driving suggests instability, although the centre gravity is on a lower position.

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY Corporate sponsors. Nice job on marketing, as it looks like a wonderful system, and wish we had some field reports from in service. 10 million for an SPG is remarkable, so we can understand if too much for a combat test. This item reduced to 1800 e for scrap is quite a blow.

[@0Turbox]

The Boxer chassis will also be available in a tracked version.

[@dalehill6127]

Which was shown at Eurosatory 2022. Tracked vehicle fans claim they're always going to be better in mud but I don't know how the tracked and wheeled Boxer variants compare. It would be good to see both of them put through their paces in really muddy conditions, no?😊 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKbOc2uhbtWkl9Usi=rb46y7Q-kvmkyXxB about 6:00 in for almost 2m.

[@savethebeesplantherbs8809]

The army are testing radiowave weapons able to remove all air threats fit this to ships too

[@dalehill6127]

That sounds like MASERs which are better able to deal with clouds, fog, rain, battlefield smoke etc than LASERs.

[@itsandy88]

Boxer can move by air, and Archer can't that is literally the biggest reason for an island nation... we can deliver systems in hours instead of days.

[@lordtemplar9274]

2 man crew, sounds nice for bean counters, but how practical on the battlefield? pretty sure 3 man would be minimum, ie driver, gunner and commander for comms, situational awareness etc..., and hope you don't need any on the field TLC in sticky situations, because you can't always be sure when the AA will get there.

[@megatwingo]

As far as I know the one single main feature of this howitzer ist the ability to shoot while driving around. All other similar systems can't do that. I'm not an expert and if I'm wrong feel free to correct me. If I'm right it is remarkable, that this documentary isn't mentioning this main feature one single time.

[@richardthornton3775]

There has been much U.K. involvement on the Boxer from its inception & clearly even more now, which I think needs to be highlighted more, it’s definitely not solely, a German system. Personally I’m hoping this relationship will help reactivate the UK’s ability to create artillery & tank guns once more, we definitely do need sovereign capabilities in an unstable world. If RCH 155 proves successful in Ukraine, there is a a very good chance there will be even greater interest in the Boxer series of vehicles, which will surely increase development of the type & also, very importantly, it will create a good manufacturing structure in which to supply Ukraine with potentially a brilliant vehicle👍 it will be very interesting to see the feedback from Ukraine, I’m sure it will studied hard, and it will no doubt have a fair bit of influence on the UK’s acquisition proposals of the RCH. In an ideal ‘budgets allow’ world, I believe the U.K. should be looking into a tracked option as well. More expense for sure, and definitely not as easily deployable, logistics etc, but as is still being proven in pretty much all the ‘war zones’ around the world, artillery is still the queen of the battlefield, so a broader spectrum or having the right mix & balance is important too. To that end a much lighter, transportable, fast into action, automated(?) and still hard hitting smaller option, is also a very good idea to have a look into acquiring as well🙏👍

[@CombatReadyHQ]

Great comment and some good points in there, it would be great if the uk could increase their budget and manufacture more of there vehicles and equipment in the uk

[@Bauramiboring]

Hello. Im a litle bit to late ... 3 weeks 😉 But the RCH 155 is the little Brother from the PZH 2000 The PZH 2000 is still the undefeated Master among the artillery. And I think it will stay that way for a long time. The difference as I have already read here in the comments is correct. RCH 155 is the middle class, but can keep up with its big brother PHZ, only the records of the PZH 2000 remain. Rate of fire unbeatable. Automation is good, but soldiers are still faster than the automatic loader 😉 Just some Numbers. Maby you find them elswere: PZH 2000 3 rounds in 10 sec. ( slow ) 24 rounds in 1 min. (record ) But after that, the reloader is ... dead ( tired ) 😂 btw. The Archer has the same range like PZH 2000 and RCH 155. there is no difference. Same Gun, Same amunition And the Answer to your question at the end: The Difference between PZH 2000, RCH 155, and Archer is simple. There is not realy one, exept one thing that is not realy important if you have cover. The only thing is that the Archer need more time to move after shooting. I think its 1 min. or maby 30 sec. PZH 2000 and RCH 155 can shoot without stopping. But again, its not realy importand.

[@stevelobs6601]

Good thing and has a better cost/ratio than the p2k, but for the support of a moving battle-tank-group the p2k is the better choice. But for a frozen line its absolut enough.

[@target8970]

RCH 155, the best on the market at the moment, like the Boxer, is airborne with the A 400.

[@lordtemplar9274]

thing is bloody expensive vs truck mounted. (approx €10m for Boxer based vs €3.5m for Caesar NG) Maintenance and parts will be more expensive. No way you can air transport it on most cargo planes. At 40 tons, it is too heavy and tall for C130 or A400. So what? remove gun module and reassemble everytime, kind of defeats purpose of expeditionary role. Pretty skepical about fire on the move in terms of range and accuracy (or even 9 rounds a minute) seeing the amount of sway on it. Like firing from a swing. To get metric precision at 40km, the gun needs to be as stabilized as possible. Not even sure why you would need to fire on the move, when shoot and scoot is enough vs counter battery. It's not like the boxer on the move will outrun guided or loitering munitions, or drones. Seeing tye clusterfuck PZH2000 has been in Ukraine in terms of maintenance and malfunctions, i doubt this does any better in actual combat. Really should have gone for the Archer version mounted on a MAN truck, which the UK army already uses for many other roles. Easier and cheaper to source spare parts, and probably would have cost a lot less to buy. Boxer has to be one of the most expensive APC platforms on the market while not offering more in return, just about every modern APC in Nato is Stanag 4/5, and none, incl Boxer, will survive ATGM, arti, etc...) Some procurement guys just love to choose complicated, when simple and combat proven will suffice. my 2 cents

[@nickhockings443]

I think you are wrong about the firing range of AS90 and Archer. All of these are NATO 155mm howitzers. Their range is determined by the ammunition not the gun. The longer ranges are due to base bleed extended range full bore rounds (48km), and sub-calibre, winged ram jet assisted rounds such as Leonardo Oto Vulcan (>100km)

[@CombatReadyHQ]

Thank you, yes I know it’s down to the charge but from when I was in we worked with a max range of 24.7km for the as90.

[@nickhockings443]

​@@CombatReadyHQ Yes 25-ish km would be the standard full bore range for a NATO 155mm Howitzer, with no fancy base bleed rounds etc. The AS90 does have two barrel lengths, which gives 30km range for the 52 caliber barrel version. The weight of the shell and the energy of the propellant charge are the main determinants of muzzle velocity and therefore range. Other factors are the gas pressure (dependent on the chemistry of the charge), barrel friction, and atmospheric conditions. TLDR all the longer ranges (Archer, Caesar, Boxer155 etc) are due to the aerodynamics & in flight propulsion of special shells. With terminal guidance these make an enormous difference to the reach and significance of artillery on the battlefield.

[@CombatReadyHQ]

@@nickhockings443 exactly mate, thanks for the information and comments for everyone

[@1968konrad]

Nevertheless some countermeasurements against FPV devices would be nice.

[@dalehill6127]

I would guess the makers are on that too by now.

[@wolfwise44]

Does it have a C of G issue, as the turret height is huge and aft mouted on the vehicle? to me it looks as though the risk of rollover could be quite high. With no additional support for the firing platform when in use, surely this must affect accuracy?

[@frankcessna7345]

The RCH 155 can fire on the move, has a flick auto loader, drop in compatibility with the Boxer, 44 ready rounds and is crewless.

[@mrcolumbiade]

Just like the good old Routemasters.😉

[@TrangleC]

The turret is almost entirely made of aluminium and is nowhere near as heavy as it looks.

[@wolfwise44]

@@frankcessna7345 doesn't mean it wont roll over when off-road due to it's top heavy design! With no-one in the drivers seat there is no feedback, or feel for the consitions it may be required to operate in. Not impressed.

[@wolfwise44]

@@TrangleC which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of steel? Just because it is made of al alloy does not make it better, just bulky, as the thickness of cover must be thicker to do the same job as steel, but with less bulk. The report tells us that it is being procured buy bean-counters once more, "because it's cheaper" - Not impressed.

[@Kutchulu]

They also forgot to mention the Hunter-Killer-System.

[@marcuswippi850]

It's a good choice! 😊

[@lauchlanguddy1004]

Australia is building Boxers

[@gummibrot4948]

And we buy them. Greetings from Germany.

[@allanxxxxxxxx]

Cheap and Tacky that's why

[@drsnova7313]

I wonder what chassis it is based on? I think it was only mentioned around 70 times, so I may have missed it.

[@Scaleyback317]

Are there any plans to have a 105mm module?

[@Rocco38988]

Was im Video nicht erwähnt wurde, kann der Boxer auch während der Fahrt schießen und seine Ziele genau treffen. Das ist bisher einzigartig unter den Artilleriesystemen

[@janizzkar]

If you like something like this you should check out the finnish AMOS or NEMO mortar systems. Currently in competing to win the contract to be the mortar system integrated to the american AMPV.

[@CombatReadyHQ]

Ok brilliant thank you, I’ll check them out for sure

[@jackdbur]

They are fantastic in the 8 to 13 km ranges but that is now squarely within cheap drone range. This will reach out to 35km with just base-bleed rounds. AMOS is for when you want to put maximum hurt on something is the shortest amount of time at a mid range. More an Assault gun.

[@tobiasbauer198]

The rch150 is the only artillery gun in that size, which can fire while driving.

[@CombatReadyHQ]

Yes it does have some great capabilities

[@beaujeste1]

It’s heavy with wheels…. in Ukraine 🤦‍♂️ what are they thinking? 🤷‍♂️

[@bengale9977]

Yeah I thought the same thing. I would have thought tracks would have been the first requirement on a "Ukraine war winning" weapon.

[@SnowyFeet]

It looks like it's sort of hastily cobbled together. Hopefully it works better than it looks 😅

[@Freedom9X]

05:10 That is just an up right lie, the RCH 155 is not in service with an nation right now. All these nations are planning to get it or ordered it.

[@oliverschwarz7816]

No. Tho Boxer is actually in service but not the RCH.

[@Freedom9X]

@@oliverschwarz7816 Yes the boxer is in service, as you see I wrote nothing about the boxer. I wrote about the RCH 155 and the video talks about the RCH 155 being already in service!

[@mariusmorawski5595]

I think the original video is AI-generated. It also has some other weird issues like the failure to mention key features and repetitiveness.

[@oliverschwarz7816]

@@Freedom9X Yeah, but in this lukewarm video someone is telling us that the Boxer generally is in Service not the specific RCH

[@RandomGuy9]

You can soon form an army and everyone is using the Boxer.

[@alanwareham7391]

Why aren’t we building our own vehicles and why on earth must we buy from overseas, it does not make sense that we are buying from abroad when we are more than capable of building our own fighting vehicles. the main problem with buying any foreign vehicle is that you are tied to them for spares and everything is rosey until you fall out and then you’ve got vehicle without engine spares ,steering spares etc it’s been said thats main benefit is that it can fire on the move but if I remember correctly the old centurion could do that decades ago

[@dalehill6127]

I think that the twin fiascos of Ajax and Ares are their own answer to that. Boxer is designed and built to _work._ The Brit ones (to my disappointment because I'm a Brit too) look like things built to keep incompetent designers and builders in jobs instead. :-(

[@gerhardma4297]

If you Brits had done something sensible in the last few years, your Ministry of Defense would surely have come up with the idea... but you can't even manage Brexit. LOL And besides, the UK has also ordered the Boxer in other variants and it is also produced in the UK. So don't cry about it, but be glad that you as a taxpayer don't have to pay for an immensely expensive new development that doesn't work afterwards.

[@rymoe6299]

2 man crew 🥸 How many units ? Archer Promotion literature was plastered all over our units trng wing in 2000

[@wendyharbon7290]

The Swedish Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howizters, can do everything the Boxers RCH 155mm, but many believe do it better and carry more of the same artillery rounds the Boxer RCH uses too. The main weakness of the Boxer RCH 155m Howizters has, the Archer Self-propelled 155mm Howizters does not have. Could turn out to be, having no Stablizer Leg with Ground-blades, which could badly affect the crew onboard and cause health issues too. Though badly affect the Boxer RCH drive system and suspension system components, plus onboard electronics and Howizter components too. That from excess or extreme vibration damage, caused from rapid fire of the 155mm Howiter! When the the Boxer RCH 155mm Howizter, is already shows issues with rocks heavy rocking side to side and backwards and forwards when fired. That seems when only firing in single shot mode, with waiting time between shots too. Regardless of direction the barrel is facing, either forward or backwards. However, the main weakness, seems to be when firing sideways, either to the left or the right, the Boxer RCH very much rock sideways on its wheels and suspension badly. The Archer Self-propelled Howiters, has a much lower profile, both easier to hide than the Boxer RCH, but the later seems very top heavy when firing too. If the German's are claiming sustain fire rates, of 9 rounds a minute, yes that is high. However, the Boxer RCH 155mm Howizters, will run out of ammunition very quickly. The Boxer RCH will be still going to be rocking all over the place, whether side to side and/or forwards plus backwards too. While firing the next rounds, especially when trying to fire 9 rounds in less than one minute. Which very much affect the Boxer RCH 155mm rapid fire accuracy, when firing multiple rounds from either a stationary position, or trying to fire on the move too. However, the Swedish Archer 155mm Howizters, is a proven battle tested artillery system, already in Ukraine too. Using the equally proven Volvo Armoured Crew-cab and the All-terrain 6x6 High-Mobility heightweight Chassis too. With the newer Archer variant, will be using the newer German Mann All-terrain High-Mobility 8x8 chassis, with new armoured three person crew command cab too. Along with the new Mk 2 Archer variant, will carry more rounds as well it seems, in it larger automatic loading magazine too. Again surpassing the Boxer RCH own Automatic loading magazine. Along with the Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters Mk.1 variant, already has there own Volvo Armoured-protected Automated Resupply Support Vehicle too. Based on the same Volvo 6x6 All-terrain High-Mobility chassis the Mk.1 Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters are mounted on. Or the Armoured Resupply Support Vehicle, could use the new German Mann Armoured Cab All-terrain 8x8 High-Mobility Chassis. The Mk.2 Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters will use, also the British Army already have ordered hundreds of too. Which these Armoured Automated Resupply Support Vehicles, can reload the Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howizters own magazine within a few minutes, either while the Archer is just parked up in its own hide too. Maybe even while actually reloading, between firing too. Also the Armoured Automatec Resupply Support Vehicle, carries enough rounds, to keep the Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters, firing on the battlefield for a long time too. The Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howizter Wheeled All-terrain High-Mobility Vehicle System, is one of the best in the World. The British Government and the MoD, should have purchased, at least a whole Artillery Regiment of 36 Archers plus 4 reserve training Archer systems too. Not just 14 Archer System's, just enough to equip for one Artillery Troop, plus a couple for reserve and training purposes too. The Archer Self-propelled Howiters are designed to operate with their own Armoured Automated Resupply All-terrain High-Mobility Support Vehicle too. The MoD may not have even purchases, these Armoured Automated Resupply Support Vehicles too, to support the Archer Self-propelled Howiters too? That is so both vehicles, can operate as self contained Combat Fire Team, of Self-propelled Howiters and Resupply Support Vehicle. Within or as part of a Six Gun Artillery Troop, or Twelve Gun Artillery Battery. Which can be independently deployed or broken up, into one or two Gun Fire Teams, or a Six Gun Artillery Troop's and/or twelve Gun Artillery Batteries. Along with supported by a Artillery Battery HQ Troop and Battery Logistic Support Troop, plus a Artillery Foward Observation Troop too. With these Archer Artillery Batteriez, being one of three Archer Artillery Batteries, of 36 Gun Medium or Heavy Artillery Regiment. While the Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiter All-terrain High-Mobility Vehicle, can redeploy to a new fire position on its own fully loaded and waiting for its next fire mission. The Armoured Automated Resupply All-terrain High-Mobility Support Vehicle, can travel back to a rear area ammo supply base. To reloaded and then return to a pre-agreed RV, to meet up with the Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters. The Boxer RCH 155mm Howizters, does not have this Armoured Automated Resupply All-terrain High-Mobility Support Vehicle it seems? Whether another Boxer variant being used, or some Armoured All-terrain 8x8 High-Mobility Truck being used either? ARCHER would be my choice, it is a proven working system, Boxer RCH is an unproven system. With in today unsafe World, with China and Russia, let alone Iran and North Korea, plus Islamic International Terrorist Groups too. I would pick the Swedish Archer 155mm Self-propelled Howiters, or even the British M777 Towed 155mm Howizters, over the Boxer RCh 155mm Howizters at present. Let the Germany Army and taxpayers, work out and pay for all the problems with the Boxer RCH 155mm Self-propelled Howiters first. Not British Taxpayers pay to work them out instead, with the British Army or Royal Regiment of Artillery facing the troubling issues of a new Howiter system!

[@gerhardma4297]

My goodness, what do you dream about at night? That was so much fantasy and unproven nonsense that it makes you sick. Wishful thinking is not knowledge and babbling is not evidence. Pull your head out of your ass and ask yourself why the buyers ordered the RCH 155. Surely also because they compared the systems with each other. Knowledge is power.... but not for you

[@immortallvulture]

Rch155 won out against archer because it’s easier to transport by air and faster, plus half the army is going to be using a boxer variant so logistics is much simpler. The rocking around really isn’t an issue, boxer uses air suspension which is highly resistant to shocks like this.

[@markusmontkowski6088]

The british archer are from the 48 swedish once. Which will replace all 6x6 volvo based with 8x8 man hx based once. And even this new archers still only have a 21 round mag in the turret while the RCH has 44 round. As for reloading there is a container based system for the RCH which therefor can be used by all HX trucks of the british army logistics. The magazine of the RCH is more flexible as it has 4 submags so 4 different rounds in direct access as for just two on the archer. And by the way RCH stands for Remotly Controlably Howitzer, so this thing could drive from a to b shooting at c without anybody on board.

[@bremnersghost948]

Archer & Boxer 155 is enough to give the ghosts of Edward 3 or Henry 5 a hard on :)

[@dalehill6127]

I think Archer can move away from its firing position but not very far very quickly. Boxer is faster as well as shooting while on the move.

[@HorstMichel-mh7gv]

One point not mentioned is the RCH can shoot wile on a slow movement, about 5-8 miles an hour.

[@kentronndahl3502]

And hit what ? .😂

[@HorstMichel-mh7gv]

@@kentronndahl3502 You know there is no guy in this turret turning a crank to point the barrel. That thing can hit while on the move, a target with multiple simultaneously rounds. That what it will do. Speaking of counter battery fire. You know that's not space science! Ships are on the move n' hit each other with shells for centuries. Now this tech is set on land. 🤓

[@gerhardma4687]

@@kentronndahl3502 .... you while sitting on the toilet and showing that you don't have any clou about it.

[@ballbag3460]

Looks like it will cook off like a Russian tank in Ukraine with all them exposed charges sitting unprotected.

[@o.w.i.m]

Its left to be seen about the accuracy.. is their any verified source on it, and what rate of fire while retaining accuracy? Not sure why but for some reason this seems like a quick-fix chassi+gun merger I hope that suspension system is super sturdy and doesn't ware out. Whichever it is we will surely find out from the Ukrainians same as for the Archer.

[@dalehill6127]

Yes, I want to see both the shoot while scoot, _and_ the rounds landing, in the same video. Has anybody seen one like that?

[@iluminas2866]

@@dalehill6127 yes there was a video showing the RCH doing that

[@stefanb6539]

I think this is one of those vehicles, that looks so ugly and misshapen, that it gains a new kind of beauty again.

[@mugin11223344]

The Panzerhaubitze 2000 has proven to be a very maintenance hungry beast. So if the gun system is made after a Panzerhaubitze 2000... Could there be a problem here?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

every modern high end system is maintenance hungry. you cant get a 5 round burst in 16 seconds with simple manual loading etc.

[@mugin11223344]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Nope , not True. the french caesar howitzers are not plagued by the same problem and i haven't heard much about the swedish archer in ukrine either, regarding that area.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@mugin11223344 they are plagued by different problems, like unprotected crew and a high time to get treaty to move after a shot has been fired. Caesars and towed howitzers have proven themselves to be extremely vulnerable to counter battery fire, fpv drones and loitering munitions.

[@jonny2954]

PZH 2000 being maintenance heavy is kind of a myth that got spread by butthurt Polish equipment fanboys once they found out PZH 2000 vastly outperforms the Krab howitzer in Ukraine. About 30 Krabs have been destroyed and zero PZH 2000, which Poles try to explain with the fact that PZH 2000 supposedly spends most of its time in maintenance rather than on the front. Then again we have proof of PZH 2000 taking and surviving a LANCET Drone to the roof armor and exceeding 20,000 rounds fired through a barrel rated for a already crazy high 4,500 EFC (K9A1 has 1,000). That's hardly accomplishable when sitting in a maintenance shop.

[@bertnl530]

Every tracked vehicle demands a lot of maintenance and repairs and is thirsty as well. So maintenance on the carriage will be lower already.

[@jamesedwards7241]

Eighteen units. I would take a good long look at current losses in Ukraine before celebrating any victory as at some points eighteen units make up less than half a day's potential losses. Lesson not learned. Ukraine is currently offloading all its ammunition from its mobile gun systems and only putting the shot required in through the hatch at the time it is required due to issues with drones & ATGM causing total loss of the asset once hit, and they will get hit, so an autoloader would not be of much use in those circumstances. As for mobility One IVECO, bad news all round, Two, ask any site worker what Volvo site trucks can do in the right hands, ask any eight-legger driver what they can't do, no comparison at all. The Volvo wins hands down every single time. Overall looking at this thing I detect the rich stench of government cost-cutting with zero thought for the consequences of those cuts ordered by people who will never be affected by those decisions at all. War is still a numbers game and if you ain't got it then you are going to lose every single time.

[@bombardierboerboels]

What’s the Uk doing about MRLS systems

[@petermclelland278]

Good to know it can fire back when retreating?

[@rogerdethridge9155]

Look slightly taller than Archer but a bit shorter.

[@jackdbur]

A lot shorter!

[@timmurphy5541]

at 10 million a piece it sounds like it will be something you don't want to lose. I was reading a comment somewhere about how the age of "shoot and scoot" is over and SPGs are also hopeless because drones spot them too easily now. I wonder if drones will make this kind of system far less useful because nobody will want to risk putting them where they need to go?

[@schlawa]

The Ukrainians have yet to lose any PZH2000 (I think one was damaged), even to drones or airforce. Because the concept of beeing pretty mobile and fast fireing works pretty well even with a 58 ton beast like the PZH2000. One would also hope that our NATO Air defence in combination with an actual flying airforce of more than the 50 or so old Soviet planes that Ukrainians currently operate would provide some more cover against Drones operating 30+ km behind the frontlines.

[@Petriefied0246]

I thought the British Army had opted for the Archer?

[@Varzaak]

Relying on another country's weapon's system to be used is really a slippery slope. Its gambling at high stakes that you will continually have good relations with that country when the chips are down.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

considering that the UK relies on german Rheinmetall to rebuild the domestic tank and AFV production, because the domestic british AFV and MBT production died about 20 years ago... there s no other choice than to buy german.

[@Varzaak]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 For the short term thats fine. But if you don't restart a weapons program for yourselves you will always be beholden to another. You need to demand from parliament a commitment for British citizens to make British weapons. Otherwise you are just making the Germans richer while hoping the two countries remain friends.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@Varzaak the UK is more broke than the brokest redneck from Lousiana. It just cant reestablish a domestic AFV industry like it had in the cold war, as it laggs behind 30+ years in technological developement, all expertise is gone, no customer base (or to say better, its former customers got effectively turned off british goods during the 80´s and 90´s by the lackluster performence of british products), the UK does not buy in large quantities and cant buy in large quantities to sustain its cottage style production and there is too much competition already on the market (germany, korea, USA, russia, china). So basicly, if the UK would restart its domestic design and production, it would turn quickly into a gigantic drain of taxpayer money without much to show for. even in the 80´s and 70´s the UKs industry was not really that profitable anymore. look at the numbers of Chieftain sold in the 70´s and 80´s. 1900 units. (around 950 for the UK, another 950 to customers in the middle east, of wich 3/4 got destroyed in combat against T-55, T-62 and early export T-72) In the same timeframe triple the number of Leopard 1 (6500 Leo1) and 7 times the number of M60´s (15.000 M60s) got sold. Even the french AMX30 sold better (3600 units sold). A domestic design and production of AFV is just not sustainable for the UK.

[@christasker2944]

MTU the engine supplier is owned by Rolls Royce and the uk was originally in the Boxer consortium when the initial requirement / specifications were drafted but pulled out.

[@simon_7620]

​​@@Varzaakdo you really think the British industry have a future? Especially when we are talking about armored vehicles such as MBTs and IFVs? 51% of BAE is already owned by Rheinmetall and BAE was the only big and important one in the UK. The Challenger 3 upgrade was only possible with Rheinmetall and while the UK is trying to get there tanks upgrade all Major tank manufacturers are already planning and build the next generation. Abrams X, Abrams 3, KF-51 and Leopard 2 A RC 3.0, EMBT. All these tanks are already fare superior to the Challenger 3. They could enter full production in 5 - 10 years when the UK will get there last Challenger 3. The Boxer program the UK left it bc it was not promising Germany and the Netherlands finished it and now the UK is buying for the full customer price. And there is nothing the Boxer can't do, Short range air defense, Drone defense, Brige layer, Medical, Mortar or a 155. Ajax IFV it gets delayed, stopped, started, stopped and delayed again while there already better IFVs on the market like the KF-41. For the development cost they could have buyed a few hundreds of KF-41. On top of that the KF-41 can be changed into an Air Defense variant or 120mm just by changing the Turret. Anything the UK build was a flop on the market. Today you only have 2 options either Abrams or Leopard 2 (the K2 sucks and all trails showed that). And with Rheinmetall buying basically anything the UK even had there is no future and it's good bc they will save money and get better stuff, the can build there stuff in the UK and the army can buy it and better price bc it's one of many Nations using it.

[@imhip510]

We like K9 Thunder from South Korea That's a better machine all the way around. Bummer

[@davec5153]

So i guess they're not going to buy any more boxers, their just going to buy the gun pack and put it on Boxers that were meant for other uses. Sick of the penny pinching.

[@lost1nMarmite]

Disappointing we cant buy British.

[@EngelinZivilBO]

That video was a bit weird tho, he told us a lot, but said nothing 😅

[@bobferry55]

Still looks like it’s going to fall over !. And the whole point of tracked vehicles?, mud. Not sure how the wheeled fleet would deal with off road in crap conditions

[@dalehill6127]

There's now a tracked variant, _but:_ a skilled FPV operator can easily disable a tracked vehicle by flying into one track. From that point on it's a sitting duck. We've all seen the Ukraine videos. Even a turtle or 'shed' tank has to have ground clearance and that's all a good FPV flyer needs. Meanwhile, it would take several FPVs to disable enough wheels to stop the RCH155. But I too really want to see the RCH155 in seriously deep mud.

[@jackdbur]

Realistically how often does heavy artillery work far from the road system? The logistics of ammunition supplies are tied to wheeled trucks unless you have the kind of vertical lift of the US.

[@bobferry55]

@@jackdbur True to a Degree of course. But the purpose of off road capability is to follow the armoured force over the same terrain and support it. Wheeled artillery clearly has an important future role. But is not a solution to everything. Still gonna need armoured tracked fires

[@jackdbur]

@@bobferry55 It is a module which just needs the appropriate fittings so it could be connected to another tracked hull if that hull has the appropriate connection.

[@rogerromer7905]

After listening to your material, I regret to say that the level of uncritical acceptance of advertising brochures is appalling. I will give you a few arguments why RCH155 is a bad idea: 1. Howitzer carrier - Boxer is heavy and at the same time too small to mount such a tower on it. It is not without reason that the Austrians want to adapt the Piranha 10x10 to this tower. 2. The Austrian method of mounting on a 10x10 cart also has the advantage that you can add hydraulic cart supports that transfer the forces generated by the shot directly to the ground. The films clearly show what happens to this Boxer after firing a shot. Please imagine the state of the suspension and perhaps even the structure of this Boxer after firing a few hundred shots. 3. The war in Ukraine clearly proved that the PzH2000 with its complicated automatic loading mechanism was problematic during military operations. There is a problem with service and quick repairs. Basically, a failure of the automatic loading device takes the howitzer out of combat. Therefore, the balance between the high degree of complexity of the structure and the ability to perform quick, efficient and relatively simple repairs in field conditions, allowing the howitzer to be kept in constant combat. 4. Coming back to the howitzer carrier, placing the turret on a Boxer does not provide any benefits compared to placing it on an armored truck, which will be cheaper and will provide greater adaptability to the purpose of a wheeled howitzer. The off-road capabilities of the 8x8 truck will be very similar to those of the Boxer, and even better with the use of double wheels on the rear axles. To sum up - RCH155 is a very risky purchase. There will be a problem with these howitzers in the future. Well, unless the British Army buys these howitzers to keep them in garages and look nice - that's ok.

[@LarsPW]

There is an interview with the head developer of the PzH 2000 available here. Among other interesting notes he told how they came to employ an pneumatic autoloader system. They calculated and simulated other types of autoloaders (e.g. hydraulic) but nothing else could fullfill the specified cadences. And stabilizers would jeopardise the shoot and run-approach. Modern artillery detects artillery rounds by radar and calculates quickly the position of its origin.

[@knoll9812]

Very heavy for wheels

[@kdenyer1]

Are we building them in uk ? Without been able to build them including the steel there just a fad as soon as Europe falls to a enemy we have no guns and will soon run out of shells. Or the country of manufacture will say sorry you can’t shoot there as we see in Ukrainian 😊

[@SolomanGrundy1]

With drones these days these things are rendered useless just ask the Armenians

[@Tonydraycott-nc5tv]

Not the prettiest gun araoung..

[@Sandhoeflyerhome]

Is it sunny where you are, are you indoors, do you play baseball ? So why are you wearing a baseball cap indoors. Did you grow up watching to much TV.

[@CombatReadyHQ]

😂 no I just like wearing a cap

[@TrangleC]

It is not just slightly better than the Archer in mobility. It obviously is way better in mobility and maneuverability because it isn't a articulated, long trailer system that needs to do 3 or more point turns every time it wants to get in or out of a firing position. There is not a single thing the Archer can do, which this thing can't do a lot better. More range, more ammo storage, more mobile, smaller, faster gun laying (because it doesn't have to shift around the whole magazine every time it moves the gun), 360 degree direct firing ability for self defense and firing on the move, without the need to extend any stabilization struts or legs or anything like that.

[@knoll9812]

Is the archer cheaper and easier to maintain? They have been working well in Ukraine. I think they are complementary. The rch probably better in fast moving front and nearer the heat.

[@TrangleC]

@@knoll9812 I have no numbers, but on a purely logical level I would be very surprised if the Archer would be cheaper to maintain, just from looking at it. Having the munitions magazine inside that box at the end of the gun, which needs to be shifted around together with the gun every time you aim the gun at something, seems to me like it is putting a lot of stress on the hydraulic system. There are just a lot of moving parts that seem hard to get to for a maintenance worker. The RCH is just a simpler system. It doesn't even need extendable legs for stabilization or anything of the sort, just a proven reliable 8x8 vehicle with what is basically a naval gun turret like you would see it on a frigate or a destroyer bolted to the back. I'm not saying the Archer is bad. It was a innovative system when it was introduced, but it is one of those typical "early" systems that come up with weird solutions that eventually get surpassed by more streamlined and simpler competition.

[@alanrickett2537]

How about be made by a British company, it's got that one nailed

[@TrangleC]

@@alanrickett2537 You mean the Archer? Nominally maybe. There isn't really much engineering going on in the UK anymore nowadays, which is why they had to go to Rheinmetall to upgrade the Challenger 2 or to fix the SA80 and why even Rolls Royce opened up design offices for aircraft engines in Germany. It is just a matter of priorities and incentives. Great Britain moved from industry to juggling other people's money and now, for near 2 generations, everyone who has a IQ higher than 99 goes into finance instead of engineering.

[@alanrickett2537]

@@TrangleC as a engineer thanks for the insult, but I will let formula 1 know they should move all there engineering and design teams out of the country.

[@Iceman2601]

Der Boxer Rch-155 ist das beste System derzeit da es auch das einzige ist das während der fahrt schiessen kann und es so dem Feind erschwert wird seine Position auszumachen um zurück zu schiessen !

[@olasvensson757]

That’s made for autobahn not mud and rocks😅

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

Boxer has the same terrain mobility as Challenger 2

[@dalehill6127]

And theres's a tracked version: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKbOc2uhbtWkl9Usi=rb46y7Q-kvmkyXxB

[@Aloh-od3ef]

The propellant is stored on the side of the turret. Could make it very valuable to a drone strike!

[@pernykvist3442]

Their is a 2 barell modell for Archer coming up.

[@robertwoolstencroft5946]

Looks like it has a high profile compared to what it's replacing .

[@jackdbur]

Its an artillery system not a tank! It is far smaller than Archer or Caesar platforms.

[@oglordbrandon]

It's goofy looking.

[@rodefasdf2178]

we can hear you breath :P

[@AndyWoohoo666]

Should have stuck to the Archer.

[@simon_7620]

The Archer is straight worse, less protect, you have to exposed when firing, more Crew is needed and the UK is already using the Boxer so it's wise move when you maintain, support and supply these vehicles.

[@AndyWoohoo666]

@@simon_7620 Sure, time will tell.