Canada's tanks

[FJAG]

Should Boxer be the Warrior replacement though? This is another case of the abandonment of tracked IFV?

In my opinion Boxer is not the right vehicle to accompany Challenger 3. But then I have a well-know track fetish.

IMHO, the whole move to the middle weight force was a solution to a problem that wasn't really there - the so called rapid deployability of light armoured forces by air. We got LAVs the Americans got Strykers. Luckily for the Americans, they kept the Bradley. Just as importantly they are replacing M113s with AMPVs. We've been forced to go for ACVS for LAV compatibility.

Unfortunately CCV wasn't a track specific project. Two final contenders were wheeled and only one tracked. That's why it died. No one could explain to the folks with their hands on the purse strings when money became tight that there was any real difference between the LAV UP which was already on the books and something like a VBCI or a Piranha V for the several billion they would cost. The CV9035 was an obvious choice but tracks weren't part of the specifications and so irrelevant. I'm simplifying the issues but there you have it. (Maybe we should have gone on with the CCV and ashcaned the TAPV instead)

 

[suffolkowner]

In my opinion Boxer is not the right vehicle to accompany Challenger 3. But then I have a well-know track fetish.

IMHO, the whole move to the middle weight force was a solution to a problem that wasn't really there - the so called rapid deployability of light armoured forces by air. We got LAVs the Americans got Strykers. Luckily for the Americans, they kept the Bradley. Just as importantly they are replacing M113s with AMPVs. We've been forced to go for ACVS for LAV compatibility.

Unfortunately CCV wasn't a track specific project. Two final contenders were wheeled and only one tracked. That's why it died. No one could explain to the folks with their hands on the purse strings when money became tight that there was any real difference between the LAV UP which was already on the books and something like a VBCI or a Piranha V for the several billion they would cost. The CV9035 was an obvious choice but tracks weren't part of the specifications and so irrelevant. I'm simplifying the issues but there you have it. (Maybe we should have gone on with the CCV and ashcaned the TAPV instead)

No tracked IFV for us or the French or the UK, although AJAX is tracked it seems to lack Infantry
LAV's maybe should have stayed lighter although that is not the trend and even the LAV 6 is small compared to Boxer

TAPV is gonna be looking real strange especially if we end up with 1500 JLTV as well for the LUVW-SMP plus whatever we get for NGFV

 

[markppcli]

Should Boxer be the Warrior replacement though? This is another case of the abandonment of tracked IFV?

Almost certainly. The idea warrior was going to be upgraded while operating boxer and the Ajax family was always a bit absurd. Boxer have operational history with ifv variants already while the modifications made to ASCOD have proven troublesome.

That said I really don’t like the weapons mounts on Boxer.

 

[GR66]

Honestly, I know it sounds ass backward, but I would first find the IFV with the best weapon system and protection system configuration and design my section size and tactics around that. If the overall platoon size is too small due to limited dismounts then add a fourth section and a fifth vehicle. I actually think we already did that once with the LAV which was a dramatic change from the section configuration in our M113s days.

Realistically when your kid doesn't match your doctrine you only have two choices...go out and buy the kit you need to match your doctrine or adjust your doctrine to match your kit. Unfortunately, Canada seems to think it can follow a 3rd path by having a doctrine on paper that doesn't match the kit, but pretend that the kit will magically appear (along with the personnel) when needed.

 

[markppcli]

Realistically when your kid doesn't match your doctrine you only have two choices...go out and buy the kit you need to match your doctrine or adjust your doctrine to match your kit. Unfortunately, Canada seems to think it can follow a 3rd path by having a doctrine on paper that doesn't match the kit, but pretend that the kit will magically appear (along with the personnel) when needed.

It helps to have made up formations that bare no similarity to existing formations for staff college so no one has to deal with some awkward truths.

 

[suffolkowner]

Almost certainly. The idea warrior was going to be upgraded while operating boxer and the Ajax family was always a bit absurd. Boxer have operational history with ifv variants already while the modifications made to ASCOD have proven troublesome.

That said I really don’t like the weapons mounts on Boxer.

are the UK Boxers armed with anything other than a 50 cal?
kinda puts them in the APC family before even looking at the lack of tracks?
Seems more like a Bulldog replacement than a Warrior one

 

[markppcli]

are the UK Boxers armed with anything other than a 50 cal?
kinda puts them in the APC family before even looking at the lack of tracks?
Seems more like a Bulldog replacement than a Warrior one

They were procured as the fv432 replacement but that’s now expanding with the warrior upgrade being abandoned. The boxer is at present armed with a .50 RWS about 2/3 or 3/4 back from the front, which is my biggest gripe even if they did replace it with an autocannon.