FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Route predictability/canalisation due to bridge width/weight kicks that idea somewhat towards the long grass.
Rail deployment wasn't just about speed
It's easy to kick any idea into the long grass if you want to. It's more informative to try it and see. I agree rail would be far better, although it's far more predictable and limited in it's routes.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. I come back to this: Ajax, what is it for?
Keeping Welshmen employed now they've closed the coal mines.

I'm not sure if it's big enough to be a credible replacement for Warrior, otherwise it's a niche vehicle for all the jobs Warrior variants weren't bought for.
 
one went over at around 25 to 30 mph. In the wet very gentle corner, road reverse chamber, the whole thing slide side-ways into a shallow ditched, bounced out and rolled. One bloke broke a collar bone and the gunner a fractured skull.
Was he by himself or did 20 other vehicles safely go round the same corner.
 
Boxer is going to be outgunned by its wheeled peers
Rant on :
Might be a good reason to force its use wisely.
Make it too capable and some "emergency " will result in it being used beyond the borderline of its capabilities with predictable rests.
I like the idea of eff off from.a bad situation like a boy racer, rather than be compelled to play Thermopylae mkII because having javelin and a 40mil means I can play tank hunter-killer as well to some chap miles away.
Rant off:
 
Reality check, what is going to kill $hit faster...a .50 cal or 30 mike mike? Will these vehicles be supporting an infantry section?? Yes they will...Do they need to be able to defeat other light armoured threats in a near peer environment??? Survey says yes. Is a .50 cal or MK 19 up to the task.....not really. 30 mike mike would also play hell on enemy dismounts, and be capable of still reaching out further then .50 cal and Mk 19...

The powers that be in our military have opted to upgrade lethality for many reasons.
Your idea of the battlefield taxi is great If you are worried about a couple of Haji’s and an RPG. But your military is committed to a high technology fight should it develop. Those little Green Men and Paras will have some nasty things to use.

You are worried about space in vehicles, but are all infantry sections going to be fully manned? Do you have enough Javelin CLU’s to properly equip each battalion battle group? Will they have an adequate supply of missiles to use? Will you have any other dedicated ATGM vehicles in these formations?
Addressing the last point first you design a vehicle to do a job and man it accordingly, designing on the basis of being short manned or under equipped is borderline idiocy.

Now to the big point, there are two type of armored vehicle, one fights essentially on the move and by engaging other armoured vehicles, the other transports infantry who essentially fight static [or as near as dammit when moving on foot] and offers them some support when they dismount. The two should not be confused because the same vehicle won't do both jobs. I see lots of current development trying to be both tasks in one, and funnily it's always in the light cheap chassis. People don't want the cost of enough proper armour and are trying to do the job on the cheap. If you really do think you need a do everything vehicle it needs to be an MBT chassis with an infantry squad in the back.
 
Roll over / high CoG appears to be a problem for a lot of mine protected vehicles.

Difficult circle to square
Yes and how many mines will we be facing defending Europe from the Russians, since I believe we've been daft enough to sign up to some no mine pact and their troops will be trying to move too fast to lay them. We're back to what is the army for neo-colonial policing or fighting high intensity warfare.
 
having javelin and a 40mil means I can play tank hunter-killer as well to some chap miles away.
Having Javelin enables you to play tank hunter, the 40 mm has no part in this task, that is the fallacy of the 'medium tank' Ajax.
 
Having Javelin enables you to play tank hunter, the 40 mm has no part in this task, that is the fallacy of the 'medium tank' Ajax.
Oh I know, but I'd argue that it's best use on a Boxer is for that GTFO moment when you've run into something bad and are as outgunned as Colonel Custer. As for running around after tanks in something thats as big as a T72 , a lot less armour and higher, I really don't think that's a great idea.
 
with regard to rubber tracks, have the manufacturers looked back at the combat history of the M3 with regard to mine damage or are they testing these new tracks against sample mines and IEDs to test their survivability and ease of repair? is there such a thing as a repair patch for these tracks or does the entire track have to be rpelaced as one unit?
 
Not me, a big lad done it and run away boss!
1 RHF (I think) Recce Pl in Portugal - commander was killed as I remember.
 
Addressing the last point first you design a vehicle to do a job and man it accordingly, designing on the basis of being short manned or under equipped is borderline idiocy.

Now to the big point, there are two type of armored vehicle, one fights essentially on the move and by engaging other armoured vehicles, the other transports infantry who essentially fight static [or as near as dammit when moving on foot] and offers them some support when they dismount. The two should not be confused because the same vehicle won't do both jobs. I see lots of current development trying to be both tasks in one, and funnily it's always in the light cheap chassis. People don't want the cost of enough proper armour and are trying to do the job on the cheap. If you really do think you need a do everything vehicle it needs to be an MBT chassis with an infantry squad in the back.
Then you just acquire MRAP's for your infantry. But you are trying to field a middleweight type of force which is about a decade behind the times. The trend to do the opposite of the world is a bit worrisome. Why in the feck do current IFV's all mount cannon's and ATGM to support their dismounts?? Why in the hell would you expect wheeled IFV's to just be a taxi and not be able to provide mobile fire support to the infantry, and be able to defeat their peers? Do you understand that the British Army is being tasked to fight against opponents who are going to outgun your platforms?


Do you understand that your forces will get the sh*t shot out of them if they come into contact with anything bigger than a 12.7mm machine gun??

The reason why the US Army decided to upgun the Strykers very quickly was because the powers that be realized showing up to a near peer fight with spit wads is a great way to lose quickly. When the "Light" forces have vehicles that have more firepower then the tier above them, one has problems.
 

TamH70

MIA
The cold will get Jackal crews first!
I met some guys from the RSDG in Glasgow (they were doing a publicity thing next to the Opera House) a couple of years ago, with their Jackal vehicle, and I could feel myself freeze at the very thought of being in one of them blasting down the road at high speed.

I don't think that they were built for the Scottish climate, so giving them to a Scottish regiment smacks of a war crime.
 
Then you just acquire MRAP's for your infantry. But you are trying to field a middleweight type of force which is about a decade behind the times. The trend to do the opposite of the world is a bit worrisome. Why in the feck do current IFV's all mount cannon's and ATGM to support their dismounts?? Why in the hell would you expect wheeled IFV's to just be a taxi and not be able to provide mobile fire support to the infantry, and be able to defeat their peers? Do you understand that the British Army is being tasked to fight against opponents who are going to outgun your platforms?


Do you understand that your forces will get the sh*t shot out of them if they come into contact with anything bigger than a 12.7mm machine gun??

The reason why the US Army decided to upgun the Strykers very quickly was because the powers that be realized showing up to a near peer fight with spit wads is a great way to lose quickly. When the "Light" forces have vehicles that have more firepower then the tier above them, one has problems.
My bold. Don't worry, we're used to it:

a13.jpg
 
That is not comforting.
We spent virtually all of WW2 trying to get at least gun parity. We then achieved gun superiority throughout the Cold War and now seemed to have been asleep on the job.

Shameful really. I blame OBL and the diversion of the British Army towards its spiritual home in the romantic wastes of the desert...
 
I'd argue that it's best use on a Boxer is for that GTFO moment when you've run into something bad and are as outgunned as Colonel Custer.
Should you ever be advancing into this sort of situation in an APC without an MBT behind you on over watch to solve this sort of problem for you. I'd suggest not. It's a hazard of recce, it shouldn't be for infantry; and if it does happen your best bet is probably still the smoke grenades.
 
I met some guys from the RSDG in Glasgow (they were doing a publicity thing next to the Opera House) a couple of years ago, with their Jackal vehicle, and I could feel myself freeze at the very thought of being in one of them blasting down the road at high speed.

I don't think that they were built for the Scottish climate, so giving them to a Scottish regiment smacks of a war crime.
We once went on Ex to Aberdeenshire in Fox and the enemy were in stripped L'rovers. Week two the northerlies came in and we had to stop while they took several L'rover men to hospital with hypothermia. It wasn't exactly warm in a Fox either, but we're were managing.
 
We spent virtually all of WW2 trying to get at least gun parity. We then achieved gun superiority throughout the Cold War and now seemed to have been asleep on the job.

Shameful really. I blame OBL and the diversion of the British Army towards its spiritual home in the romantic wastes of the desert...
Ze problem silly Englishmen is that your new strike brigade resembles more of a Kampgfruppe being put together with whatever odds and ends your Army has left on a shoe string budget. Not a well thought out middle weight force that can go toe to toe with peer formations or dominate lighter formations with superior firepower and mobility.
 
Then you just acquire MRAP's for your infantry. But you are trying to field a middleweight type of force which is about a decade behind the times. The trend to do the opposite of the world is a bit worrisome. Why in the feck do current IFV's all mount cannon's and ATGM to support their dismounts?? Why in the hell would you expect wheeled IFV's to just be a taxi and not be able to provide mobile fire support to the infantry, and be able to defeat their peers? Do you understand that the British Army is being tasked to fight against opponents who are going to outgun your platforms?


Do you understand that your forces will get the sh*t shot out of them if they come into contact with anything bigger than a 12.7mm machine gun??

The reason why the US Army decided to upgun the Strykers very quickly was because the powers that be realized showing up to a near peer fight with spit wads is a great way to lose quickly. When the "Light" forces have vehicles that have more firepower then the tier above them, one has problems.
Just to clarify; the British army is doing what it's doing and I have little understanding of the rational behind it so please don't read what I'm writing as a defence of current UK actions. I do however feel that upgunning APCs and expecting them to play some sort of 'tankish' role is both a waste of an APC and most of the men in it and a recipe for getting royally rodded by some real MBTs.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Latest Threads

Top