personal body armor

[M Hofbauer]

Steve:

One of the advantages of the Stryker and Bradley units is that their rides are organic and right there alongside them. They can afford to leave some stuff behind because it really isn't.

Steve, that is theory, and nothing but. I disagree quite a bit. It won't work in real life.

in your reasoning the cat bites its own tail.

because the inherent nature of infantry is their unmatched ability to operate and fight in terrain and situations where vehicles cant.

Stealthy movement or investigation, surprise attacks.

Towns, woods, mountains, swamps, whatever.

By definition places where the vehicles cannot be "right there alongside with them". Or where they are highly endangered if they stay (with high profile and a big HIT ME marker above them) right there with the infantry and not a bit back.

An IFV like the Bradley might try to stay closer with the infantry in some of those situations, but it is risky even for an M3; for a Strykeout it's an absolute no-no (or, "should be").

The Strykeout will not be able to be right there alongside the dismounted infantry. It can not move through the factory complex, or through the wooden rocky mountain. It can carry the troops to the edge of the building complex, to the edge of the mountain woods, and drop them off.

It might stay back there and provide a *relatively* close forward "logistic base" for operations. But not right there alongside the infantry, "in their trench" so to speak.

Or it can stay near the infantry dismounts in some special situations of open terrain. But even there it is advised to stay back in defilade unless it wants to give away the position of the infantry and present itself as a juicy target for the very tanks that the infantry would need those Javelins for.

Its like the german Sd.Kfz.250/1 and Sd.Kfz.251/1s HTs in CMBB. You cannot really move the infantry forward into the enemy MLR in them, it is much more adviseable to have the infantry dismount beforhand and advance on foot using cover and all the advantages infantry inherently has.

Now, would you have the Panzerschreck team advance together with the infantry platoon, or hold it back in cover inside the 251 to "rush it forward where it is needed" ?

I dont know, but personally I found it to be much better to have the infantry AT teams immediately behind the infantry itself and not in the AFV "back over there" behind the woods or hill.

But I admit I dont know what experiences other players made, whether you people disagree with that. Would love to hear your experiences.

[ October 24, 2005, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[felixgrey]

Hi

I've seen alot of mentioning of elite units - like SF, Delta, Rangers, etc. I only have the experience that I saw while I was on the ground. We conducted raids in conjunction with 3 different SF teams and a couple of different "elite" outfits.

Without an exception, all the teams we worked with wore IBA outside the FOBs. Now their IBA looked different and a bit lighter then ours, but they wore armor. Of course, this is Iraq experience only - which is a different monster then Afghanistan.

Scott

[Battlefront.com]

Hof, you are taking me far to literally. I do not mean that the dismounted solders are within a meter of their vehicles at all times. That is a rather silly thing for you to assume I meant. Within even 100m is what I would call "along side". And since most of my point was about the advantages of organic transport, even 1000m is "along side" in certain types of engagements.

As for AT teams, the team is not separate from the Squad. The Javelin is a part of the Squad's inventory of weaponry. It remains on the Stryker (and I do wish you'd stop with the belittling name... makes you look petty and biased) unless it is needed. Sincer real world engagements allow time to fetch things on an as needed basis, this tactic in the real world is fine most of the time. It is superior to the tactic of having the infantry carry the thing with them 100% of the time every day despite perhaps never needing to use it.

And remember... people discussing this theory vs. reality stuff should remember the SBCT is not a theoretical force and it is not without actual combat experience to draw from. The SBCT theory seems to be holding up well with SBCT's actual experience in Iraq. Some room for improvement, but then again what doesn't need some? For a newly fielded force with new doctrine I'd say things are going pretty darned well.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

Strykeout-Stryker-Shmyker, it's just a name, and I do admit I am biased against it

And of course I know that the Javelin is an integral part of the infantry squad, but the "item" Javelin left behind in the Stryker is completely comparable to a CMBB Panzerschreck team for the sake of my comparison.

Or, it would be like leaving the german infantry squad's PzF-100 behind in the HT, but we can't do that in CMBB, so I will have to do use the analogy to the Panzerschreck (or, maybe even better, a Bazooka team left behind in the .50cal-armed M5 Halftrack).

My point still holds. If you are arguing that a Javelin packed away in the Strykeout hundreds (or even 1,000) meters away at the other side of the crest is considered to be available to the dismount infantry then I still disagree, and my example with the german HTs with the Panzerschreck was chosen with full intent, with all aspects that speak for your or my point of view on that issue.

I know that there are situations where it might be a good idea to have your limited AT team resources uncommitted because you do not know where they will be needed; then rush them near the infantry that came in contact with enemy armor and which is consequently in need of that AT team.

however, in the many CM games I have learnt that it is almost always much better to avoid this and have the AT teams go along with the dismounted infantry whenever possible.

If you *know* for sure that there is no enemy AFV, if you have 100% intelligence on the enemy force composition/location, then ok, it does not matter that the Javelin is back with the Shmyker, but then again it doesnt matter at all whether its a Javelin or a can of cheese-spray stored in there.

However, in the usual situation where you do *not* know for certain about the enemy force composition, and you are forced to rely on your infantry's inherent AT weapon in case they come across enemy armor, i.e., the typical CM scenario I described, the Javelin in the Stryker is useless even if it is under a click away, because you need that darn Panzerschreck (Javelin) the moment the infantry comes under attack from that tank.

Which means that in all cases where there is not 100% perfect intelligence that there is no threat of an enemy AFV, the Javelin must be carried by the grunts, or else its is useless the moment the chance of an AFV threat suddenly realizes itself.

Against a "static", unwilling, passive enemy you might be able to afford the luxury of letting the tea boil for a while, hunker down and go back to get the Javelin so you can blast that T-55 sitting between your team and the pot of gold;

however, if the enemy is actively engaging, encircling and attacking the probing US forces, the enemy armor component needs to be destroyed at once, before it can add weight to shifting the momentum of battle in favor of the attacking, say, syrians.

And remember... people discussing this theory vs. reality stuff should remember the SBCT is not a theoretical force and it is not without actual combat experience to draw from. The SBCT theory seems to be holding up well with SBCT's actual experience in Iraq. Some room for improvement, but then again what doesn't need some? For a newly fielded force with new doctrine I'd say things are going pretty darned well.

the employment of the Shmyker in Iraq is no valid comparison to the role it will play in CMSF, as you yourself stated before vehemently, repeatedly and rightly.

Iraq is a high-intensity police action against insurgents and terrorists. Patrol the area, suffer the occasional car bomb, show street presence to the public; without occasional major operations such as Fallujah and others it is a job that could be done in many areas for most of the time by police (SWAT) forces in police ACs.

Most of the daily work in Iraq is still done in trucks and Humvees.

of course there are nowhere near police forces in such quantities and quality available, and it is of such high intensity that downright military might is still needed. But it is different from CMSF.

CMSF will be outright war. You don't have the Iraqis put up an MLR, employ BMPs and T-72s and use large regular army units to fight US invaders. Its insurgents and terrorists employing, well, terrorist and insurgent actions, albeit in a very very high intensity (maximum ferocity) kind of way.

edit: edited for poor english (partly successful effort)

[ October 24, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[flamingknives]

Actually, it's more like leaving the Panzerschrek behind and carrying as many Panzerfausts (AT4s) as you are likely to need.

Obviously, if you expect tanks, you take a bunch of AT4s and the Javelin.

[cassh]

felixgrey - I think that as most patches worked in Iraq are built-up areas and semi-built-up areas or along the road networks - then body armour is completely logical. Why would you not wear protection if you were travelling by vehicle and dismount to get into any action.

Where ditching personal protect can be weighed up against mobility factors is when conducting foot patrols for extended periods without vehicular back-up in broken, rugged and rough terrain.

In arctic/snow, arid/desert, mountains, jungle and tropical rain forest body armour may put you at a distinct disadvantage to your enemy.

If contact is made and they can then break it easily by merely bugging out you've got a serious problem. If body armour and other kit makes you move like a bunch of fat-arsed heifers huffing and puffing you way through whatever terrain you're in, you will not catch a true light infantry enemy withdrawing.

You are then at a distinct disadvantage and are not going to be an effective patrolling element.

Therefore in these types of situations you ditch the kit that is not absolutely essential to make your forces as combat efficient as possible. To press a light infantry enemy you have to be light infantry yourself, otherwise you might as well stay in camp and whittle yourself a pipe!

[mazex]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

The whole reason I am able to support our effort in Iraq, and I am over here right now, is that we are (hopefully) trying to make the country a better place for individual Iraqi's. The WMD argument, which I believed at the time, fell through, and I don't think Saddam was a player in 9/11. If I can't believe that we are at least trying to give Iraq democracy, then I am left with nothing but revenge for what the enemy has done so far, and I don't think that is enough.

There is the argument that better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than in the US, but I don't know if I buy that or not. I do know that if we leave Iraq as it is now, we will be abandoning those who have stepped up to a hideous fate, and we will have a bigger mess than we started with. A failed state is against everyones best interests.

I do know that if we (the troops) stopped looking at Iraqi's as people, as hard as they make that some time, things would get even uglier over here, very quickly.

VERY well said!

/Mazex

[Battlefront.com]

Hof,

Strykeout-Stryker-Shmyker, it's just a name, and I do admit I am biased against it

Well... if you want to look childish... ain't much I can do about it

My point still holds. If you are arguing that a Javelin packed away in the Strykeout hundreds (or even 1,000) meters away at the other side of the crest is considered to be available to the dismount infantry then I still disagree, and my example with the german HTs with the Panzerschreck was chosen with full intent, with all aspects that speak for your or my point of view on that issue.

You're missing the point. With an organic vehicle, be it a Stryker or a 251, the Squad has the choice about what it lugs around. If the vehicles are to be 1000m away the Squad is going to know that and will pack accordingly. If they are going to stay in place, for defensive ops, and the vehicles withdrawn to a "safe" sector, then you can unpack everything. For infantry that has to manually lug their stuff with them wherever they go there is no such choice. If they don't have it on their backs from the beginning, they don't have it. Period.

however, in the many CM games I have learnt that it is almost always much better to avoid this and have the AT teams go along with the dismounted infantry whenever possible.

Oh, I agree that in a CM type game, when you are just about assured of contact with enemy armor, this is the best way to go. In CM:SF this might also be the best way to go too. But I can see many scenarios where you can have your cake and eat it too. Tanks and what not will likely be heard or reported before encountered, so steps can be taken to deal with them prior to actual contact. Not 100% assured, of course, but everything in war is a gamble. When you are looking at 24/7 operations you have to cut corners somewhere or your troops won't make it more than 2 days. Giving them rides and having heavy stuff stowed is a very good way to do that.

the employment of the Shmyker in Iraq is no valid comparison to the role it will play in CMSF, as you yourself stated before vehemently, repeatedly and rightly.

Correct, but some of your (and the Tread Head) criticism has already been proven wrong in Iraq even though the conflict in CM:SF will not be the same. The ability for Strykers to survive minor and major damage, for example, that would cripple a tracked vehicle. The ability for Strykers to redeploy troops rapidly with little to no notice. The advantage of a 9 man dismount Squad in MOUT environment. The ability to defeat RPG hits. So on and so forth.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

The majority of combat injuries in the Middle East are extremity amputations related to IED exploding. Will the flying body parts be modeled? Thanks

[cassh]

Originally posted by Steve BFC of the Stryker

The ability to defeat RPG hits

That's just vanilla RPG-7s right?

I'd have thought RPG weapons such as PG-7VR, RPG-26, RPG-27, RPG-29 with tandem-stage warheads would be a bit more pokey.

Second Stage Penetration

RPG-26 500mm rolled homogeneous armour

RPG-27 750mm rolled homogeneous armour

RPG-29 750mm rolled homogeneous armour

PG-7VR 750mm rolled homogeneous armour

Don't know much about the effectiveness of the cage of slat armour seen in Iraq, or the reactive armour kits BAE Systems are providing next year, but as a betting man I'd not want to meet a bad guy with one of the above RPG systems in a Stryker!

[Battlefront.com]

No, we aren't simulating flying bodyparts.

Cassh, yeah, I think the more advanaced RPGs and ATGMs out there will not be too bothered by the slats. However, I haven't read anything either way about it. In theory the slats have a chance of messing up a hit, but I'm not sure if it would be enough to make a difference.

I'd not want to meet a bad guy with one of the above RPG systems in a Stryker!

I wouldn't want to be in any armored vehicle with one of those things getting a hit.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

I was about to say the same, these new shaped-charge weapons are not a Stryker thing, they would take out a Bradley or anything similar just the same.

Steve, I see we agree on the organic/left behind thing in reality and in CM. However, if the stuff is left behind in the Shmyker which again is parked "around the corner" in safety, out of way of the action, then it doesn't really matter wether it is a Shmadley, a Shmyker, a Shmumvee or even a Shmord Shmutt.

Correct, but some of your (and the Tread Head) criticism has already been proven wrong in Iraq even though the conflict in CM:SF will not be the same. The ability for Strykers to survive minor and major damage, for example, that would cripple a tracked vehicle. The ability for Strykers to redeploy troops rapidly with little to no notice. The advantage of a 9 man dismount Squad in MOUT environment. The ability to defeat RPG hits. So on and so forth.

that is simply not true.

I never questioned whether it would be possible to uparmor the thing to withstand RPG hits; its a no-brainer that you can almost always (with only chassis/engine/transmission gross weight limits) uparmor anything to any standard. Just give B.A. Baracus and the A-Team half an hour and you'll see.

What I did question was whether you could give the Strykeout the 25mm gun, make it RPG-proof and still meet the weight limitations as strictly set forth in the original specification that was tailored to throw out the Stryker's competitio...uh, I mean, ensure airlift capability.

And I was proven right.

I further questioned whether a wheeled vehicle offers the same off-road mobility as would a tracked vehicle. Stryker usage in Iraq today is (due to the nature of its mission there) mostly confined to roads so there is little to be learnt for the mobility issue. Same goes for my questions regarding combat capability versus a real enemy beyond occasional roadside bombs and heavy police action.

I never took issue pro or con a 9-man squad in an MOUT environment, I do not know nearly enough about that to even come to a preliminary personal judgement about that. The Bradley would have even less, wouldn't it?

I do not see how the Stryker competition could not have been outfitted with similar slat armor so that is also nothing that speaks for or against the Stryker as such.

all in good spirit

and a good day to everyone

[ October 25, 2005, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[ng cavscout]

An interesting article from Yahoo news about Asymmetrical Warfare. Note the discussion of China as a potential enemy in a future "real war".

Iraq war forces Western military rethink: report

By David Clarke 2 hours, 59 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Western military powers are being forced to rethink strategy because conflict in

Iraq has shown the limits of their conventional armies, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said on Thursday.

In its annual report on global military might, "The Military Balance," the London-based think-tank said strategists had hoped new technology would let them target enemies accurately from ships and planes, avoiding protracted ground battles.

But it said conventional armies have been sucked into messy conflicts, often in towns, where they face enemies invulnerable to the advanced gadgetry that was supposed to dissipate the fog of war and herald a new era in warfare.

"Iraq,

Afghanistan and

Chechnya demonstrate the limitations of modern conventional forces in complex environments that demand more of them than traditional warfighting," wrote Editor Christopher Langton in the introduction.

The United States has some 137,000 troops in Iraq more than two years after crushing Iraq's conventional army in a ground invasion. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003.

The Military Balance said that rather than winning "network-centric warfare" using electronic sensors to find targets and direct fire, Western forces were enmeshed in "netwars," based on "agile and adaptive human networks."

"The conflict environment of the early 21st century certainly does represent a new era in warfare: but not the era that Western military planners expected," it said in its handbook which lists the size and capabilities of the world's armed forces.

INERTIA IN U.S.

Using suicide bombers and roadside bombs, Iraqi insurgents have killed U.S. and British soldiers and thousands of civilians. U.S. campaigns to dislodge fighters embedded in Iraqi towns have also involved losses.

"Dealing with this new conflict environment has caused a rethink for many Western forces," the institute said.

It said British and Australian special forces and the U.S. Marines were adapting to the new era of "asymmetric" conflict used by non-state actors such as al Qaeda by creating smaller fighting groups.

But it said there was unlikely to be any major shift in U.S. strategy, or spending, for two reasons. First, because it feared the rise of large conventional armies in countries such as China and wanted to maintain air and sea supremacy.

"China's military is rapidly modernizing. This is of concern to the U.S. and some countries in the Asia-Pacific region as the modernization of the People's Liberation Army is no longer directed solely against Taiwan," Langton wrote.

The second reason was the immense inertia of the industrial groups that helped build U.S. military might and the fact that it would take time to move away from decades of strategic thought.

The institute said one bright spot for Western conventional armies was that they were still unrivalled in their ability to respond quickly to natural disasters, such as the Tsunami.

[M1A1TC]

[J Ruddy]

Where is it written that all members of a section need to ride in the same vehicle? Isn't that like putting all your eggs in one basket, especially in an Urban Environment?

Is it time to go to 2 smaller, heavier armoured 5 man carriers per section?

I prefer treads to tires, but I know in Canada the powers that be are determined to go to a wheeled force... so keeping it wheeled is required if you're a Canuck...

Maybe kit one with a TOW system and the other with a remote operate .50?

Keep them as small a target as possible with less overall area and considerably more protection than a LAV/Stryker? There would only be room for a 2 Man Crew and 4 or 5 passengers max.

I'm thinking of something like a Ferret on Steroids with a small passanger compartment, a Tow or Remote .50 system and bolt on composite armour, a bit bigger than a Humvee.

As usual I could be totally out to lunch, but I think it's a pretty logical concept. (Now where did I put that tel# for NDHQ)

[Sergei]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Where is it written that all members of a section need to ride in the same vehicle? Isn't that like putting all your eggs in one basket, especially in an Urban Environment?

So true!!!

I think all armies should adapt what the Vatican 1st Mechanized Army has been using for years - the PapstKampfWagen Ausf.A:

Seriously, though, have you considered that half as many squaddies per APC would mean twice as many APC's per squad, in the end resulting in half as expensive an APC?

[Battlefront.com]

Hof,

Steve, I see we agree on the organic/left behind thing in reality and in CM. However, if the stuff is left behind in the Shmyker which again is parked "around the corner" in safety, out of way of the action, then it doesn't really matter wether it is a Shmadley, a Shmyker, a Shmumvee or even a Shmord Shmutt.

Man, another completely false line of reasoning. Geeze Hof, one would think you are biased. Oh wait, you already said you are

Yes, it doesn't matter what the vehicle is if the vehicle is parked around the corner and definitely out of harms way. But last time I checked vehicles don't magically appear on the battlefield. They have to actually... now stay with me here... drive into battle. I know, it's a shocker, but there you go There is absolutely no question that the Stryker is more survivable in a combat situation than other wheeled vehicles. Humvees also can't take a full Squad + other things. So you'd have to have several Humvees instead of the one Stryker.

Plus, the Stryker can be exposed to enemy fire. It is obviously designed for that. It just isn't designed to withstand major anti-armor threats. It's very much like a SPW 251, not like an Opel Blitz.

What I did question was whether you could give the Strykeout the 25mm gun, make it RPG-proof and still meet the weight limitations as strictly set forth in the original specification that was tailored to throw out the Stryker's competitio...uh, I mean, ensure airlift capability.

And I was proven right.

Sure, but what's your point? I don't see one at all. Oh wait... I see you are once again grinding your axe. The Stryker beat out the Gavin for a number of reasons. Because those other reasons don't support your bias, I can understand you continuing to not address them. Oh well...

I further questioned whether a wheeled vehicle offers the same off-road mobility as would a tracked vehicle.

Actually, there is no question. A tracked vehicle, offroad, is superior to a wheeled one. However, a wheeled vehicle is vastly superior to a tracked one on roads and equal in most types of terrain. It is the typical "no one thing can do everything, so pick the one that best suits the expected mission".

I never took issue pro or con a 9-man squad in an MOUT environment, I do not know nearly enough about that to even come to a preliminary personal judgement about that. The Bradley would have even less, wouldn't it?

The Bradley can only dismount 7 men.

I do not see how the Stryker competition could not have been outfitted with similar slat armor so that is also nothing that speaks for or against the Stryker as such.

I think the original design called for ERA armor, which was later rejected because of weight and performance issues. Not exactly sure. The slat armor was, however, not originally anticipated.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Again the problem with going for a five man vehicle is logistical. If you have two crew per vehicle it takes 11 men to transport 9, 20% non infantry. If you go for two vehicles it's 14 for 10, thats 40% non infantry, plus twice the fuel etc.

There is an obvious point where putting three sqads in an unarmed truck with one driver, is efficent, but just asking for trouble.

As long as Stryker is part of the picture and not the only thing you havethats ok. Like any vehicle it has clear advantages in certain roles and should give way in others.

Peter.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hof,

Man, another completely false line of reasoning. Geeze Hof, one would think you are biased. Oh wait, you already said you are

Sure, but what's your point?

I think a short explanation is in order since I was repeatedly misunderstood or things imputed that I never said.

I am not per se against wheeled AFVs. They do have a place in the military, especially in today's military with the many involvements in peacekeeping - stabilization "police action" type of operations. Like I stated before, the US Army isn't the first but rather one of the last large militaries in the world to field respective wheeled armored vehicles.

The Stryker itself I find to be actually aesthetically pleasing (and that is usually my primary criterium for judging a vehicle *g*).

what irks me about the Strykeout are two things, one is the whole way at which this thing is put forward, the costs and the doctored reports, the whole affair simply reeks of politics, major corruption (redundancy?) and outright stupidity behind the scenes.

Granted, politics, corruption and stupidity play a role in every major arms procurement project; but at least many times there's still something useful that comes out of it (Abrams, Leopard 2, MLRS, Humvee); in the case of the Strykeout the result is only marginally of what could be had if things would be done differently and more honestly. Designing a wheeled armored vehicle is after all nothing really special. The question is not whether the Stryker will work; the question is if not with the same money an even better, more effective military solution could have been found.

The second thing is the whole "emperor's new clothes" aspect to it.

The whole Stryker thing very much reminds me of the awful Army-of-One black berets.

(And the black beret btw by now has the world over become a symbol of a US Army of Lynndie Englunds, btw)

As an ousider, not even american citizen, I can afford the "illoyality" to point out the issues with this thing. Why, you ask? Why do I even care?

True, I could simply sit back like the arab or chinese and secretly enjoy seeing the US getting their nose beaten bloody again and again like in iraq (they probably celebrated the official announcement of the 2000th US soldier killed in iraq yesterday);

I don't.

I think a sound USA with an effective military is neccessary for the world's prosperity. Both criteria I sense to be currently at stake (albeit the former much more than the latter, but I dont want to get into politics here).

[Battlefront.com]

Hof,

The question is not whether the Stryker will work; the question is if not with the same money an even better, more effective military solution could have been found.

Well, we don't disagree there. I think it probably would have been better to have either chosen a different vehicle than the LAV III or to have made a new one from the ground up. The costs associated with the Stryker program do seem to be in excess of the product that was produced. They also clearly tried to cram too many things into that vehicle and that's why I wonder if they could have done better with another one.

Having said that, what does this matter in terms of CM:SF? The soldiers on the ground don't care how much the thing cost, nor do they have a choice to exchange it for something better that doesn't exist. So when we're talking about how the Stryker will perform in combat, I don't see what the point of dragging procurement and political decision making baggage into it. It would be like arguing that the King Tiger was a waste of money and resources when you find yourself commanding one facing a platoon of Shermans. At that point, who cares?

Steve

[hellfish]

Hof,

What's your opinion on your own country's Boxer MRAV program? It's essentially the same concept as a Stryker (wheeled family of vehicles designed for LICs) but it was built from the ground up as opposed to being adapted from an existing vehicle.

[Peter Cairns]

The idea behind the Boxer of having interchangable modules seems to me to be a bit daft.

It might have made sense a decade ago, but we are fast moving to a stage where to turn an APC in to a comand vehicle you should unload the eight guys with M4's and load up with six guyys with laptops.

The idea of unloading an 8ton module in or near combat to replace it with another with a different function seems a logistical disaster in the making.

About ten or 15 years ago the idea of demountable trailers that you could leave to unload anywhere was all the rage, but commercially few systems actually worked, thats why 95% of haulage is dominated by semi's or flatbeds.

Things like Drops vehicles (which are overgrown skips) have worked because they copied a system that was working well in industry, particularly construction.

Having failled commercially in haulage I think demountables like Boxer are trouble...

Peter.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Hof,

What's your opinion on your own country's Boxer MRAV program? It's essentially the same concept as a Stryker (wheeled family of vehicles designed for LICs) but it was built from the ground up as opposed to being adapted from an existing vehicle.

I stopped tracking the whole new GTK / Igel programs a while ago because I got fed up with all the on again off again, and the little real hard data (unit costs?) released.

but since you've asked...

the programs have now eventually arrived at the designations Boxer for the gtk and Puma for the Igel (hedgehog)(used to be Panther).

let me start off with saying that the name "Boxer" itself is extremely stupid and out of convention.

Like the US Army naming its helicopters after indian tribes and its AFVs after famous soldiers of the past, the Bundeswehr AFVs have always been named for animals [Leopard, Wiesel (Weasel), Marder (marten), Fuchs (fox), Gepard (cheetah), Luchs (Lynx) and so on], the latest was the Dingo.

Boxer is, at best, a dog breed like Dachshund, Poodle or Chihuahua.

The Boxer is also pretty ugly, way uglier than the Strykeout.

Boxer / GTK

apart from that, it is quite unlike the Strykeout in so far as it is quite a bit more substantial.

at roughly 25 to 30 tons it is much heavier than the Stryker (less than 20tons), and it is supposed to be 30mm-proof from the very beginning without extra armor.

The Boxer can afford this protection and respective weight because it does not have to be airlifted by C-130s but instead uses the new Airbus A400M.

It is longer but has a lower profile than the Stryker. Its engine has roughly twice the power of the Stryker.

Boxer / GTK

you would think I would be more comfortable with the Boxer compared to the Stryker.

but even though it is a bigger, heavier, similarly mobile yet better protected vehicle compared to the Stryker, it has a different role, it is meant to replace the Transportpanzer Fuchs and the Mannschaftstransportwagen M113, which means it is not meant to "ride infantry into battle" but is strictly meant for armor-protected transport in the true sense of an APC.

TPz Fuchs (you probably know the NBC version used by the US Army)

to quote a Bundeswehr LtGen working on the new projects:

"Der Boxer, das GTK, wird vor allem und zunächst ein geschütztes Transportmittel höchster Qualität sein. Es bietet höchstmöglichen Schutz und im Sinne eines "system-of-systems" Ausbaumöglichkeiten für die verschiedensten Aufgaben, vom Verwundetentransport über das Gefechtsstandfahrzeug bis hin zum Transportmittel für Personal und Material."

[The Boxer, the GTK, will be first and foremost a protected means of transportation of highest quality. It will provide for maximum protection and -in the sense of a system of systems- for loadout/modification options for the most diverse of missions, from ambulance to HQ command vehicle down to transport for men and equipment.]

You might now point out that the Stryker, too, is intended for a variety of different roles including ambulance and such; but please note that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy here:

the Stryker is also a fighting vehicle and as such carries real arms like, originally, the 25mm, now the 50cal, the Mk19 40mm grenade launcher, or TOW ATGMs or a full 105mm tank gun (MGS) in the respective versions;

as far as I can see all the Boxer will ever get, like the Fuchs before it, will be the lone standard 7.92mm machine gun fitted to all Bundeswehr trucks and vehicles for self-defence.

Hence, even though it is better protected than the Stryker, you should think more along the lines of the Fuchs, an armored transport which isnt supposed to get into actual frontline combat contact, and mission-wise it has more in common with rear-area trucks and specialty-cabin-trucks than it has with frontline AFV's.

As an interesting side note, the french were originally partner to the development, but left precisely because they found that such a Stryker-esque vehicle would not suffice for their need of a fighting vehicle.

Enough of the Boxer - the thing to put infantry into battle with will be the Igel, now called Puma (btw, to make confusion complete there is also a six-wheeled armored vehicle of same name in service with the italians that looks very much like the six-wheeled version of the Boxer ).

project model of Puma ( was Igel) ( was Panther)

Think of a Marder or a Bradley, only more compact and more modern, and much heavier (up to over 40 tons), making it the supposedly "best armored IFV in the world" (according to the manufacturer ).

SPz Marder

so how do they airlift it with the A400M, with weight limited at 32 tons?

They came up with some similar modular armor concept like they intended for the Stryker to meet the airlift weight limit, where the basic armor has 32tons, and the additional armor can be fixed to it after it has landed. The idea is to air-transport five Pumas in six A400Ms(other plans: three Boxers with four planes), with the sixth A400M having the additional armor modules that supposedly can be fixed to the five Pumas right after the landing.

so what do I think of them?

I don't know if not these programs are as much of importance to the industry as they are for our army, or even more. The Fuchs does the job alright, it seems. Nobody talks about the costs of these vehicles.

Both seem to be rather substantial to me, almost "too much" for their respective missions.

But then again I might be the wrong person to ask anyhow since I am at odds in the first place with germany's (re)new(ed) policy of using its army for messing in international affairs all over the globe (according to the german (socialist!) defence secretary: "Germany is being defended at the Hindukkush"). I dont like that at all. And Boxer and Puma will be the means for this new policy.

it is way too early to judge these vehicles since the powers that be have just started to make up their minds (for the time being) over whether or not to develop them after all and even eventually agreed on the names (keeping my fingers crossed), but we havent seen them in evaluation/action yet. Far from it.

edit: edited to include the french and italians

[ October 26, 2005, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

The idea behind the Boxer of having interchangable modules seems to me to be a bit daft.

It might have made sense a decade ago, but we are fast moving to a stage where to turn an APC in to a comand vehicle you should unload the eight guys with M4's and load up with six guyys with laptops.

The idea of unloading an 8ton module in or near combat to replace it with another with a different function seems a logistical disaster in the making.

unless *I* misunderstood things then *you* misunderstand the role of the "modular" boxer.

they are not intended to be modified in battle.

I am certain that like any other vehicle that has the "option" to be modified, they will be modified at factory and the option to change that will hardly be used later.

since they will be armored transports think of it more like the Humvees and trucks with cabins for certain functions.

the modular nature of the design has more to do with economics and using a shared chassis for the different versions of the various nations' armies than it has to do with any tactical options this might offer to the divisions motorpool.

or so I think.

[Peter Cairns]

I saw a quote about interchanging the rear section in about 1 hr , so if it was amrketed as a feature of the design, I hardly think it was aimed at factory managers....

Peter.