• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

British Military Current Events

Boxer Variants under consideration by the Brits

1713978824498.png 1713978884417.png
RCH-155 Long Range Brimstone/SPEAR (Land Precision Strike)

1713978935425.png
120mm Mortar


1713979004788.png
Brimstone
 
That's going to be some show parade tomorrow...

Four injured as 'spooked' army horses bolt through London in rush hour​


Four people have been injured after runaway military horses - spooked by noise from building work - bolted through London.Soldiers and horses were hurt and vehicles damaged after chaos broke out during rush hour.

Two horses were seen running in the road near Aldwych, one of which appeared to be covered in blood.
The Ministry of Defence said the horses from the Household Cavalry were being exercised ahead of an inspection due to take place tomorrow in Hyde Park.

During the exercise, the horses were "spooked" by nearby building works. Four soldiers were thrown from their saddles and five horses ran loose through London.A taxi driver waiting outside the Clermont Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road had the windows of his car smashed after a spooked horse collided with the Mercedes people carrier.


I wonder how long the Household Cavalry will be able to continue to maintain their mounted troops. There aren't that many riders in Britain these days and those that are tend to be wombish persons. Just take a look at the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery.

1713979500916.png
 
I wonder how long the Household Cavalry will be able to continue to maintain their mounted troops. There aren't that many riders in Britain these days and those that are tend to be wombish persons. Just take a look at the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery.

View attachment 84676

They'll probably continue doing the same thing that they've been doing since the regiments were raised. Teaching the soldiers to ride.

8. Most Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment soldiers have never ridden a horse before and their training takes around seven months, first learning in the full khaki uniform, before finally riding in their full ceremonial kit.

As for gender, at least the two legged members of the regiments don't have to match their mounts.
4. Cavalry Blacks are normally geldings (castrated male horses) and need to be at least 16hh (168-172 cm), but are often bigger – stallions are never used.
 
I wonder how long the Household Cavalry will be able to continue to maintain their mounted troops. There aren't that many riders in Britain these days and those that are tend to be wombish persons. Just take a look at the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery.

View attachment 84676
There's an extensive "horse culture" in the UK, especially amongst young ladies. It's not an accident that so many of them end up in the King's troop. The last time I looked their CO was a female major.

🍻
 
RCH-155 on Boxer....


My complaint about the RCH-155 on Boxer to this point has been that it strikes me as too wobbly when firing and looks to me like it needs stabilizers and that notwithstanding the turret system has been around for well over a decade and no one has bought it. Germany promised some 36 of them to Ukraine and they are yet to be delivered.

There have been rumours that the RCH-155 on Boxer is also the prime candidate for Germany's "Wheeled Howitzer" program which is looking at potentially fielding 168 units.

Interestingly, RCH-155/Boxer chose not to participate in the US Army's 2021 "shoot-off" to select a wheeled howitzer to replace the M777 in SBCTs. The requirement to supply 18 systems for evaluation apparently caused KMW to balk. With 9 SBCTs that was a potential contract for 162 systems plus training and spare systems.

Long story short - once I see some in service with anyone and find that they don't break I'd consider adapting the turret to a LAV/Stryker chassis. I don't think that anyone is studying this seriously. Strangely enough the Brits have only 2 medium regiments 1 RHA and 19 RA which were AS 90 equipped in 3 UK Div (total 36 guns) - they've lost a lot of their guns to Ukraine but have replaced them with some 14 Archers. There's also a reserve regt 104 RA but I don't believe that they "own" any guns of their own other than 105mm Light guns.

There is scope that the 1 RegF and 1 ResF Regt in 1 UK Div (4 and 105 RA) supporting 7th Light Mech BCT (Jackels and Foxhounds equipped) could be converted from light guns to wheeled mediums but that's just a guess (the extra range would greatly benefit their role). In any event I haven't seen any big plan to upgrade/convert UK regiments but then I didn't see this RCH-155 thing coming either.

🍻
 
My complaint about the RCH-155 on Boxer to this point has been that it strikes me as too wobbly when firing and looks to me like it needs stabilizers and that notwithstanding the turret system has been around for well over a decade and no one has bought it. Germany promised some 36 of them to Ukraine and they are yet to be delivered.

There have been rumours that the RCH-155 on Boxer is also the prime candidate for Germany's "Wheeled Howitzer" program which is looking at potentially fielding 168 units.

Interestingly, RCH-155/Boxer chose not to participate in the US Army's 2021 "shoot-off" to select a wheeled howitzer to replace the M777 in SBCTs. The requirement to supply 18 systems for evaluation apparently caused KMW to balk. With 9 SBCTs that was a potential contract for 162 systems plus training and spare systems.

Long story short - once I see some in service with anyone and find that they don't break I'd consider adapting the turret to a LAV/Stryker chassis. I don't think that anyone is studying this seriously. Strangely enough the Brits have only 2 medium regiments 1 RHA and 19 RA which were AS 90 equipped in 3 UK Div (total 36 guns) - they've lost a lot of their guns to Ukraine but have replaced them with some 14 Archers. There's also a reserve regt 104 RA but I don't believe that they "own" any guns of their own other than 105mm Light guns.

There is scope that the 1 RegF and 1 ResF Regt in 1 UK Div (4 and 105 RA) supporting 7th Light Mech BCT (Jackels and Foxhounds equipped) could be converted from light guns to wheeled mediums but that's just a guess (the extra range would greatly benefit their role). In any event I haven't seen any big plan to upgrade/convert UK regiments but then I didn't see this RCH-155 thing coming either.

🍻
I think it’s also just a massive increase in complexity, weight, and cost for a SPH to build them off of IFV / APC hulls that are armoured for resisting direct fire and have power trains built to do an entirely different job.
 
I think it’s also just a massive increase in complexity, weight, and cost for a SPH to build them off of IFV / APC hulls that are armoured for resisting direct fire and have power trains built to do an entirely different job.
That's true enough.

My way of thinking is that if the regiment supporting a mech LAV brigade is also mounted on a LAV chassis then the overall brigade's maintenance burden is massively simplified by not having to maintain some Swedish or Czech heavy trucks and a variety of other support. By the time that you add a HIABed cargo version as limbers and command post and troop carrying version for recce and TSMs, radars UAVs etc you'd have some 85 LAV chassis vehicles to add to the 18 FSCC/FOO LAVs that the F Ech of a full 3 x gun battery/1 x STA battery/1 x Tactical Bty that a full mech brigade really needs. Personally I'd also want to add a GS OWUAV launcher battery on LAVs as well. Then think air defence. You get my point.

The Bisons and TLAVs of days yore are no longer with us. The ACSV makes for a tolerable standard chassis for support vehicles and not just fighting vehicles. It's not just direct fire we need to worry about but massive artillery strikes and air strikes and even drone strikes. Armour protection in the near forward areas is not a luxury its a necessity if you want to keep that support coming. There's enough room behind the driver to place a commander/systems operator with a bulkhead behind him to separate them from the gun turret itself.

Proper SP regiments for mechanized brigades are not cheap in order to work properly. There are a lot of moving parts which we tend to forget about in our peacetime army. If you recall the original LAV purchase was particulalry light on armoured support vehicles which eventually led, by necessity, to the ACSV project. That purchase was still far too light. A third tranche is needed if we plan on fielding the main parts of a brigade in Latvia.

🍻
 
But why do this at all is my question.

Germany already has a decent tracked SPG gun design, Sweden and France have a working wheeled SPG, the USA/South Korea have great tracked guns. What does this naval gun perched on a Boxer brings the fight that doesn't already exist???
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2024-04-24 at 9.13.49 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2024-04-24 at 9.13.49 PM.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 2
But why do this at all is my question.

Germany already has a decent tracked SPG gun design, Sweden and France have a working wheeled SPG, the USA/South Korea have great tracked guns. What does this naval gun perched on a Boxer brings the fight that doesn't already exist???
It's not a naval gun but the same Rheinmetall 155mm L52 as in the PzH 2000. The turret is different and I can't speak as to the autoloader but believe its redesigned. In addition the system is fully automated and not partially automated like the PzH2000 which still has some crew in the turret.

There's been some significant developments in both the automation of the guns and the ammunition which makes the more recent products - interesting. Personally, I have the same question as you about the Boxer. I have issues with the Archer (not enough rounds in the turret and a piss poor limber system) and the Caesar (no crew protection) and the M109 (not an L52 barrel as per current production variant) and K9 (A1 not autoloaded). The RCH 155/Boxer ticks some boxes there but I've stated my concerns above. There are a few other low rate production systems out there - e.g. Denel and Nora B-52 - but when it comes to near production/experimental models I'd be interested in then the M109-52 comes high on my list. As it stands the K9A1 is good the A2 will be better when it hits production. A nice bit is that both the M109 and K9 come with armoured limber vehicles which are high on my list of essential components - lack of an autoloader is not as important to me as a viable ammunition resupply system is.

There's been a great move towards copying the Soviet Unions BTR series of wheeled vehicles in NATO. There have been a few in the past but the NATO fleets were predominantly tracked so their guns were too. Wheeled APC/IFVs are part of the move to lighter more air transportable quick reaction forces that came into vogue at the end of the last century and wheeled SP guns are still catching up to that trend. The absence of decent limber systems for wheeled SPs is IMHO problematic. All that to say that the perfect wheeled SP isn't there yet.

🍻
 
Although wheeled vehicles are usually associated with lighter vehicles that can be transported by air I think that one of the other attractions for them in the European context is that they can exploit the 8,000,000 km of roads at pace without intruding on the railways.

The tracked vehicles relied on rails to move them operational distances, let alone strategic distances.

The roads allowed the wheeled vehicles to move strategic distances as well as manoeuvering tactically.

 
Although wheeled vehicles are usually associated with lighter vehicles that can be transported by air I think that one of the other attractions for them in the European context is that they can exploit the 8,000,000 km of roads at pace without intruding on the railways.

The tracked vehicles relied on rails to move them operational distances, let alone strategic distances.

The roads allowed the wheeled vehicles to move strategic distances as well as manoeuvering tactically.

I think people underestimate the ability of tracked vehicles to move strategically without trains. What "strategic" distances are actually involved? Are we landing our armies by ship in Malaga, Spain to travel to Latvia (3,200 kms)? Or are we moving prepositioned stocks from Selonia Latvia to Ludza (120kms)?

People also underestimate the conditions that our vehicles might have to deal with when manoeuvring tactically. Recollect the German Army being bogged down in Russia; the Russians in Ukraine and even the Canadians in Caen and Afghanistan. These are not uncommon situations.

All terrain - farmland, forests, urban areas, roads, streams - can be natural obstacles for wheels or turn into obstacles in a heartbeat. Why were tanks originally built in WW1? - to carry the weight of the armour and weapons of the day across the obstacles that separated the combatants. Tracks can't conquer everything, but they can conquer more than wheels.

I'll give wheeled vehicles their due on logistics routes that can be easily maintained by engineers. But, it only takes seeing an entire square combat team of Cougars and Grizzleys stuck in a field in Gagetown and being towed out by M113s to understand why tracks are superior. It only takes one battle run on the plains of Shilo watching wheeled vehicles fail to keep up with Leopards at speed to understand why battlegroups need to be configured with vehicles of similar capability or else lose the mutual support that they require.

I know Canada is stuck with the LAV until at least 2035, but if we're serious about having the bulk of a brigade in Latvia then it needs tanks and tracked IFVs and the various tracked combat support vehicles that operate in a battle group. Let's rebuild the army into a light force, a tracked mech force and a wheeled mech force to complement the variety of missions they may be called on to do. As it stands we really can only form one complete three battalion LAV mech brigade anyway so let's build a proper armoured brigade for Europe. Let's stop jury-rigging stuff that will lead to unnecessary casualties.

2VRQKNIHWZJLRK6XDQACEIFMUM.jpg


20220406113901065864.jpg


the-battle-for-caen-1_1280_1280_fit_90.jpg


LAND_LAV-III_Canadian_Stuck_Afghanistan_lg.jpg


images


🍻
 
I think people underestimate the ability of tracked vehicles to move strategically without trains. What "strategic" distances are actually involved? Are we landing our armies by ship in Malaga, Spain to travel to Latvia (3,200 kms)? Or are we moving prepositioned stocks from Selonia Latvia to Ludza (120kms)?

People also underestimate the conditions that our vehicles might have to deal with when manoeuvring tactically. Recollect the German Army being bogged down in Russia; the Russians in Ukraine and even the Canadians in Caen and Afghanistan. These are not uncommon situations.

All terrain - farmland, forests, urban areas, roads, streams - can be natural obstacles for wheels or turn into obstacles in a heartbeat. Why were tanks originally built in WW1? - to carry the weight of the armour and weapons of the day across the obstacles that separated the combatants. Tracks can't conquer everything, but they can conquer more than wheels.

I'll give wheeled vehicles their due on logistics routes that can be easily maintained by engineers. But, it only takes seeing an entire square combat team of Cougars and Grizzleys stuck in a field in Gagetown and being towed out by M113s to understand why tracks are superior. It only takes one battle run on the plains of Shilo watching wheeled vehicles fail to keep up with Leopards at speed to understand why battlegroups need to be configured with vehicles of similar capability or else lose the mutual support that they require.

I know Canada is stuck with the LAV until at least 2035, but if we're serious about having the bulk of a brigade in Latvia then it needs tanks and tracked IFVs and the various tracked combat support vehicles that operate in a battle group. Let's rebuild the army into a light force, a tracked mech force and a wheeled mech force to complement the variety of missions they may be called on to do. As it stands we really can only form one complete three battalion LAV mech brigade anyway so let's build a proper armoured brigade for Europe. Let's stop jury-rigging stuff that will lead to unnecessary casualties.

2VRQKNIHWZJLRK6XDQACEIFMUM.jpg


20220406113901065864.jpg


the-battle-for-caen-1_1280_1280_fit_90.jpg


LAND_LAV-III_Canadian_Stuck_Afghanistan_lg.jpg


images


🍻

We're not landing vehicles in Malaga to fight in Latvia.
But the Spanish have vehicles in Malaga that can move by road to Latvia, Nordkapp, Kyiv and Istanbul. That was the reason the Brits decided to buy the Saxons, so that they could get from Dover to the Inner German Border by road.

I accept that once things bog down tracks are necessary. On the other hand wheels and feet are perfectly adequate for defining and limiting the area of conflict. For setting up a cordon sanitaire. The tracks are useful in the fight. But the war is defined as much by the places the fighting isn't as the places the fighting is.
 
That was the reason the Brits decided to buy the Saxons, so that they could get from Dover to the Inner German Border by road.

The main reason was to minimize casualties from indirect fire, while transiting by road, to the 10s of thousands of Territorial Army & Reservist reinforcements that would be mobilized to face the Red Hordes pouring across the IGB.

The Saxon was only designed for a one way mission... not a great example unless we're looking for ways to deploy conscript armies quickly in one direciton ;)
 
Would the BOXER SPG have rolled over careening down in this ditch?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0803.jpeg
    IMG_0803.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 19
This has been posted previously but not recently


This is what the Brits are buying.


54 km range, 30 rounds, 9 rounds per minute, Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact, Fire on the Move - 3-4 minutes of fire on board.
 
Back
Top