# Germans and Dutch Buying Boxer Light? Armoured Vehicle



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2006)

> GTK Boxer for the German Armed Forces
> 
> (Source: Krauss Maffei Wegmann; issued Dec. 13, 2006)
> 
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

Just check out the Crew Commander on this beast.  And the size of those ruts in the track.  This is a MASSIVE vehicle.


----------



## 28402 engineers (14 Dec 2006)

wow, that looks like a sweet vehicle. you think we should/could buy it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2006)

LAV III on Steriods, likely we could build 2 LAV's for the final price of one of these.


----------



## 28402 engineers (16 Dec 2006)

point taken. still looks cool though.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2006)

quite a bit like the LAV when you get down to it............


----------



## old fart (16 Dec 2006)

I wonder if it is allowed out after dark...


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2006)

sides are straight up and down......like the Bison.
I thought the LAV III was given sloped sides to address that "problem"... so is it a problem?


----------



## foresterab (18 Dec 2006)

Looking at that machine....my first thought is it's a perfect chasis for adding a hydraulics system to it and a small blade similar to how logging skidders operate.  

Of course to house the hydraulics you'd loose some crew space so I'm not sure if it's a no-go for light duty engineering...


----------



## geo (18 Dec 2006)

They have already got that (blade & hydraulic & auger) figured out on the LAV & Bison variants.  don't see much of an advantage of boxer over LAV


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2006)

> don't see much of an advantage of boxer over LAV



Beyond, perhaps the Mass of 33,000 kg.  Better momentum and better anchor.  Of course, all that mass acts straight down into those 3 foot deep ruts.  



> Specifications Notes
> Crew 2 -
> Cruise Speed 22 mps (43 kt)  -
> Height 2.4 m (8 ft)  -
> ...



http://www.deagel.com/Multirole-Armored-Vehicles/Boxer_a000567001.aspx


----------



## foresterab (18 Dec 2006)

It'd be nice if you could fit a 6-way blade onto the machine.....but then you're talking a dedicated engineering machine that is probably better handled via a convential bulldozer.  You loose the personal capacity....but if you need to move that much dirt grab a DH-6 and do it properly.  If you just need to knock a hole in something a more convential blade will do it....or use explosives.

I wonder what sort of ground they were operating on and how many passes they had made before creating the ruts shown in the pictures.  Short of swamps I rarely see that kind of rut with loaded industrial civilian machines.


----------



## 28402 engineers (20 Dec 2006)

I'm probably going to regret saying this, but my uncle is a heavy equipment operator, and he thinks that it would be pretty top heavy with a crane stuck on the top.
rip it apart boys (and girls)


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> quite a bit like the LAV when you get down to it............



Yeah, but I could fit SO many more radios in this one  ;D


----------



## rwgill (27 Dec 2006)

Seems like quite the _transformer_ though..................

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/


----------



## Big Foot (27 Dec 2006)

At the risk of sounding cynical here, but what do the Germans need more armoured vehicles for? Not like they're really using what they already have...


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Dec 2006)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> At the risk of sounding cynical here, but what do the Germans need more armoured vehicles for? Not like they're really using what they already have...



Dat vas not verry nice!


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2006)

bigfoot.
You have to consider that the Germans, in order to encourage R&D and maintain production capacity "in country" must continue to throw contracts out there & purchase.

Once the taxpayers have funded the R&D, the German Mfg can export the technology & make a bundle on the taxpayers' back........ again.


----------



## Big Foot (27 Dec 2006)

Right, I forgot, the military is about making a buck. lol. I guess I am just cynical.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (28 Dec 2006)

Big Foot et al:

Gents, before continuing to snipe at the Germans for their lack of combat in Afghanistan, let's remember that there are a lot of Bundeswehr soldiers there that would love to get into combat with the Taliban just as much as our troops are.  I have a number of friends who are officers in the Bundesheer, all combat arms, who wish they were allowed to do night patrolling, take aggressive action and use their capabilites to bring the fight to the enemy.  Military forces have to follow their government's orders; the Bundeswehr of all organziations remembers this all too well and its employment, sometimes down to tactical details, is VERY strictly controlled at very high levels.

Let's not forget the many places where our soldiers were hamstrung by orders and policies from higher (DESERT SHIELD/STORM, UNPROFOR, IFOR/SFOR, Op APOLLO to name a few) and not permitted to act as aggressively as other nations or take the lead in combat.  Ask older 8th Hussars of the bitterness and disappointment engendered by the decision not to send them to DESERT STORM but relegate them to guarding Kasernes in Germany while VII Corps went to battle.  Does anyone else here remember feeling the sting of shame after having to explain to UK or US allies overseas why the Canadian Forces were 'not allowed' to do things or go places that other countries were?  When you have felt that shame, Big Foot, you will know better than to make comments like "they are not using what they have" - we were a country in that same boat until just recently.  Reading your profile, it does not seem that your cynicism is based on any real experience.

There are threads on this site from people who served on Op ATHENA Roto 2 decrying the Germans and their lack of professionalism, all of which are true of the unit and individuals in that time and place.  I'm not so sure that all Canadian soldiers are paragons of virtue, professionalism and soldierly skills such that we can look down our nose at others and paint an entire military force with the same brush- you can find good and bad everywhere.  In addition, I do believe that at a strategic level, Germany fulfils its part of NATO's collective security requirements in terms of acquiring and maintaining first-line, modern equipment, forces and funds allocated in sufficient quantity far more than Canada does.  

In terms of "making a buck", coutries need to keep defence industry viable - look at the decline of Canada's shipbuilding industry and the "JSS issues" discussed elsewhere here as an illustration of this need.  In addition, let's remember the follow-on industrial benefits that accrue to the civilian sector by having an effective and modern defence capability.  Expanding view outwards from just defence into second and third order industrial effects will let you see that R&D for armoured vehicles worth is a little more than "making a buck".

I do not see the Bundeswehr, US Army, USMC, IDF, UK Army, RN, ADF, RAF, JSDF or any other military force as the be-all and end-all of military forces - all have strengths and weaknesses.  However I do see a trend creeping into many posts demonstrating a lack of objectivity and maintaining a view that the Canadian Forces has suddenly become far superior to others on all levels based on recent accomplishments in Afghanistan.  While there is no doubting the skills, efforts, sacrifices and combat effectiveness of our soldiers there it does not give us carte-blanche to adopt a collective sense of moral superiority.


----------



## geo (28 Dec 2006)

CSA105,  I am not sniping at the German military... never have, never will.
I am somewhat cynical with respect to the politicians who make decisions that oft fails to pass scrutiny.

The professional armies that are deployed on NATO missions are just that, professional.... the politicians are the amateurs.

Also,  I fail to understand why you would have had to appologize to anyone about anything the Cdn Gov't has done.  Was there merit in going to Iraq???.... I dunno and the US has never provided an adequate explanation to support their case.  At 1st they say it is to get the WMDs.... then they change it to "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people!.  So - which is it this week?

Call me jaded.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Dec 2006)

Well, I must say I side with CSA 105.  Our Government has left the CF in embarrassing positions more than enough times, that any of us complaining about foreign Armies not pulling their weight openly in a Public Forum, instead of over a couple of jovial beers, is tantamount to being one of the "Back Stabbing, Two Faced Bastards" that we all so often despise.

Geo

I don't agree at all with your last statement about not having to apologize to anyone for anything the Cdn Gov't has done.  It has performed miserably as a member of NATO and in practicing its' role in the support of fellow NATO members.  Canada really has been a poor partner.

Big Foot

The German military has always been at the cutting edge with it's equipment.   With the changing philosophies on AFV's, why should they not look at a wheeled vehicle, vis a tracked vehicle?   Why can't they look outside of Germany for an "off the Shelf" vehicle that suits their needs?  The German Army has always been a very large Mechanized Force and will remain to be so.


----------



## geo (28 Dec 2006)

George,

The Cdn politicians may have some aappologies due to the NATO countries - the Cdn Military does not.  Over the years we have had to do so much with so little - and we (Military) have performed extremely well.  Nothing to appologize for on our side of the house.


----------



## 28402 engineers (28 Dec 2006)

I'm just a cadet, but I'm going to have to agree with CSA-105. I'm no military expert, but there are probably German soldiers who think their politicians are dumb, just like we do. I'm sure germany enjoys having shiny new equipment, just as I'm sure we Canadians would. 
 Germany has, as far as i know, always had a modern fleet of vehicles, even though they haven't always played nice with them.

my 2 cents worth,

regards,

Matt


----------



## Big Foot (28 Dec 2006)

I know I came out strong against the Germans here but I would like to clarify my position, I am not upset with the German army, I am upset with the fact that German politicians are not willing to allow their troops to do what they are trained to do. Instead of simply buying new vehicles for their troops, the German government, in my opinion, would do well to ease the restrictions on their troops and allow them to do their work and help the people they are there to help.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2006)

It all boils down to what the Gov't believes the German population expects of them and their troops.  Are the german people upset that their troops are being kept in their Kaserne while the people they have been sent to help/support are being slaughtered in their tracks?.... Is German reconstruction being hampered?..... I would venture to say that the answer to both is nope.... so the german people will be more than happy with the stellar performance of their troops AND their politicans.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (29 Dec 2006)

x


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2006)

Yeah, seen.

1990 era ROEs did stink & sting.


----------



## Mackie (9 Feb 2008)

Canadian menace to reduce engagement in southern Afghanistan seems to be successful. 
German Gov. under pressure and speculations say that they talk about 1000 soldier more for A'stan. 
So hold up pressure, guys! 


Boxer MRAV:

We use the A400M in future. So the Boxer use the full loading capabilities of the aircraft. 
That's all. 



Mackie
-Germany-


----------



## geo (9 Feb 2008)

Mackie...

Suggestions are that the 1000 extra troops will be going into the already secured northern part of the country and not to the south....

Some help.........

(PS - I know that the decisions are being made by the politicos and not by the soldiers who would.... if they could)


----------



## Mackie (9 Feb 2008)

But it is one step. 
In Germany it is a huge step because the anti-war movement is still powerful and the left wing party increase influence. 
Our history is another problem. 15 years ago, 1200 Leopard2 tanks aimed at the eastern border.
If you ask Germans 10 years ago if they believe in German troops in Afghanistan, you would see a lot of laughter. 
The Balkan conflict, Afghanistan. Now the Tornado aircrafts. 
We have not only to transform the military. We also must transform the mentality. 
This needs time. 

BTW: More an more generals also exert pressure on the Gov. I hope for success. In the last days A'stan becomes very important again. 


Greetings


----------



## STONEY (9 Feb 2008)

Remember that if the Canadian public & 3 of our political parties have their way  we will also be History in a combat role a year from now.  So will we get rid of our armoured veh's  and get more G-Wagons.

Cheers


----------



## Mackie (10 Feb 2008)

In fact, I hope so because it is the best way to show the German Gov. and public the reality. 
Canadians/Dutch must stay on the condition that NATO partners, especially Germany, support them with infantry an logistics.


----------

