Canada's tanks

[IKnowNothing]

Ajax is a hilarious replacement for CVRT
fewer and fatter

Speaking of- which is the bigger drawback for a 21st century CVRT- doctrinal/modern relevance, or techinal constraints?

With advances in tech could you get a ~14 tonne version with a stabilized 35mm and higher protection level into the same size of platform?

 

[FJAG]

I think the answer is more about budget issues than an actual intent.

Could be. The original intent was to buy Boxer for some battalions while upgrading Warrior for others (presumably those in armoured brigades). Budget cuts led to the Warrior upgrade cancelled and Boxers now becoming the standard MIC for the reduced number of heavier battalions.

Somewhere there had to be some folks who said, "That's good enough." I have yet to see a discussion about how it effects armoured brigade tactics.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm a little confused about the UK Boxer. In looking at the videos etc for the UK Boxer, it describes it as an MIC (mechanized infantry carrier) and shows it without a turret, just a RWS MG that looks to be in the nature of a .50. It's replacing Warrior in the mech inf battalions (which was equipped with a 30 mm Rarden turret.)

I may be jumping to a conclusion here, but it seems like the Brits are going to something in the nature of a slightly up-armoured Stryker rather than an IFV. Rheinmetall does offer an IFV version of the Boxer but that doesn't seem to be what the UK is buying. That raises a question for me insofar as Strykers are designed to transport infantry close to the battle area but support a dismounted fight while Warrior was meant to fight through with the tanks dismounting when required.

I've seen a lot of articles about Boxer's "state of the art" and an emphasis which seems to be on driving 1,000 miles to the fight. There is nothing that I could find that discusses the ability to fight once there and if it will be a change of tactics from Warrior. Am I missing something?

thats why I say it is a Bulldog replacement and not a Warrior one

 

[KevinB]

Could be. The original intent was to buy Boxer for some battalions while upgrading Warrior for others (presumably those in armoured brigades). Budget cuts led to the Warrior upgrade cancelled and Boxers now becoming the standard MIC for the reduced number of heavier battalions.

Somewhere there had to be some folks who said, "That's good enough." I have yet to see a discussion about how it effects armoured brigade tactics.

I think the British Army is about a decade behind in incorporating lessons learned. Keep in mind they were planning on axing the majority of their MBT fleet prior to Russia conducting the invasion on Ukraine.

The Boxer acquisition seems to have been based the requirements from Southern Iraq. Conflating the difference between a PSO and actual LSCO needs.

Which is why I think Nicholas Drummond is attempting to beat the Tracked Boxer drum / as he’s financially invested in Boxer, but also knows that it isn’t the all singing and dancing system that the UK needs.

TBH I’m of the opinion that if one can’t afford to have three different types of Division’s one should probably axe the Medium before the Heavy or Light, and should not make a Light Force a ‘shmedium’ just due to previous inappropriate use in PSO’s.