BOXER: Up Close With The Army's New Fighting Vehicle | Forces TV 

Not like canada ehhhh

@@marksmith8732 Just encase you do not know who Matsimus is. He is British but he moved to Canada and serves in the Canadian military with artillery, also I think he was in the British military but I am not sure on that.

@@sebastiandouse he's ex reme

if only theyd use common sense when it comes to the medical. i got medically discharged for having eczema when i was 12. that was over 12 years ago and ive had no issues or flare ups since then...

@Frank Kirkwood well I don't know about the reasons all of them are, but one soldier quit simply because he was rightly furious about being on a poster with 'snowflake' over his head in one of their ridiculous left-pandering adverts they've been churning out recently

Dutch_Pagan what flaws?

@@UnseenSpirit Not enough space to properly store all of our equipment, and it has a tendency for errors in it's control system

@BritishRepublic Yeah, now imagine 5 engineers with all of their equipment and tools lol

Dutch_Pagan its the biggest APC in the world and still not enough space!

@@TheBooban that's probably because it has a lot of armour.

I use te be a Boxer ambulace driver for the Dutch army. I always thought of it like the thunderbirds 2 vehicle. As a driver you even have to get in in a very thunderbirds way 😜. You go thru the back, swing feet first into the driversarea, lay flat on the seat, than pull the back of the seat up and electronicly elevate the seat upwards so you can see out the periscopes or window. I alway cue the thunderbirds music in my head when getting in 😂

@@Xzibit338 That's awesome!

Exactly what I was thinking as a boy of the 1960’s 😆and thunderbirds fan. Nothing new under the sun eh ?

You mainly just purchased a stack of Continental Europe. Good choice.

Touche. (smile)

that's Striker in AVPR, not this UK boxer. They'll need to make new AVP sequel if you wanted too see boxer with UK army vs xenoborg & yautja, probaby hire director from the British made doomsday movie since he loves aliens movie so much.

@@jayjay53313 Ok, I was referring to Aliens part 2, nothing to do with AVP. Also it's called "Stryker" not Striker. I've served with a Stryker CAV Squadron in the past.

@@jayjay53313 Sure I will answer this. Race has nothing to do with humanity will act on evil. Being in the service has nothing to do with what country you serve with, it's a job just like any other job and I assumed you have a purpose with your job career. Does that help?

@@jayjay53313 Who said anything about war? I'll give you another metaphor, if a thief robs your house and threaten to harm you and your family, you will not defend to protect your love ones because the threat is the same race as you? Why do you keep bringing up "race bashing"? My original comment is about APC for the movie Aliens?!

Spot on...was just thinking that myself.

That was actually an airport aircraft pull/push vehicle :)

You don’t need to worry about the traffic in this, because you’ll be going over the traffic

Atheist Orphan you’re not original or funny

Roberto Oberto arnt you just a ray of sunshine

thediamondshard ok boomer

in Moslem area.

well the german Marder ifv was roughly similar in size of an leopard 2. the warrior was 30 cm lower.

It damn well should but if it doesn't come with one the boys on the ground will make the appropriate modifications 😊

Our german boxer vehicles have one😊

@@tz6070 Wirklich?!

@@chriswagner5177 Wirklich:) Kann man z.B. bei Wikipedia nachlesen.

T Z german word german word, NEIN!

Enter the pentagon wars.

well they did end up getting the stryker not much later which filled up the original plan with the bradley

You do realize that is the BRITISH Army not the US Army, right? The British don't use the Bradley, they use the Warrior or the Spartan APC.

@@swaghauler8334 I think he is commenting that this is similar to what the US field forces actually wanted in an APC. What they got after it filter through the military design pipeline was the Bradley. Which while an amazing and capable vehicle, does not actually serve the role that the boots on the ground needed served to begin with. Ah Military procurement.

@@andrewtaylor940 The Bradley was designed as a direct answer to the Russian BMP. It was designed to go toe-to-toe with BPMs on the battlefield.

We sure are! They're amazing transports and ambulances, I've always admired the British army so I'm happy to see them using the Boxer too! Cheer from the Netherlands!🇳🇱

The one they are showing off here is a Dutch vehicle. At least going by the labels and equipment inside. They put a yellow Boxer label over the license plate :)

It's german.

Yep - poor REME soldiers have to work with it !

There are some really really good weapon companys in the UK but when it comes to tanks, Rheinmetall is number one. You can't go wrong with it! greetings from GER

As Europe, we should stand together and pool resources. Doing everything yourself is outdated thinking. The alliance has to have the capabilities and the interoperability it needs to be effective. If everyone does their own thing we grow weaker every day. That being said, I think since UK is already in Europe (and probably will stay here for a while), and in NATO, it should also be part of the EU.

@@unlink1649 Not saying they should cut all ties or anything, but the government has allowed British industry to wilt far too much to the point we're overly dependant on others, and as has been proven time and time again, when times get tough countries will look after their own interests first. For example during covid when France blocked essential PPE and then vaccines which where owned by and destined for Britain at the boarder to keep for themselves. So it's important you can support your own backbone which can then be supplemented by your allies. It also creates much needed jobs, and income for the country.

@@MrEsphoenix the british tank and AFV industry died from 1980 till 2008. the reason was, that basicly only the british ordered from them and only in small numbers. why didnt anyone else order from the UK? Because live "excecises" like Iran-Irak War, Invasion of Kuwait etc showed how bad british AFV design was and that scared any potential customer away, wich would go to the german KMW/Rheinmetall Leo1 and Leo2, modernised US M60A3´s and french AMX30B´s or russian T-72´s. The T-72´s and Leo1´s especcially were cheaper and vastly outperformed the british export products.

the interviewer is...not great..

yea this reporter was trying way too hard, needs to calm down with his spirit fingers as well!

Paul price

@@DrumToTheBassWoop Ah yes, it's 4 times the cost, because the MOD is tired of just setting fire to money in the car park.

The Mod left the project because because it wasn't going to be air portable, they then went for AJAX after the collapse of "fres" trials which is even heavier and late when CV90 was more suitable and in service with several countries!

well, considering all british projects for an IFV and APC have failed so far..... it does everything better than the british competitors, especcially availability. Ajax is close to scrapping due to major problems with the programm, that seem to be hard to fix. The FRES (Future Rapid Effect System) of the UK dissolved due to major problems and cost explosions plus major intransparencies. like having 3 competitor vehicle designs, of wich 2 had test vehicles delivered and the third is represented via a predecessor vehicle, because the test vehicle was not out of pre prototype design, the not presend vehicle gets chosen as winner during cpability testing etc.

Better be carrying beer if you want the REME to do anything!

They've had to in far smaller and less modern vehicles in the past haven't they

@@1IbramGaunt No. Armies don't typically advance 2000km overnight.

@@geeksqueak7123 wasn't really talking about the specific distance

@@geeksqueak7123 But troops introduced to theater may well have to make a road march of similar distance to get to the fighting.

@@1IbramGaunt not for 2,000 miles!

Well, it's a German tank after all

@@maximilianhellmanns8587 Is it a tank or armored car?

@@antoshq1985 It being an APC doesn't mean it isn't a tank, what it is.

@@antoshq1985 No, I mean tank. Or, more specifically a light wheeled tank, especially designed to be almost on par with the armour of the leopard 2. What you are probably thinking of is a fighting tank.

you can fit the same turret on both vehicles

432 turret gpmg machine gun. 8 soldiers reclining seat for turret command and radio operator gunner. Tight fit for all not forgetting battle gear for troops. Boiler on door for food and hot water for cuppa. Lots of noise unfortunately made for the 70s. Nonetheless boxer infantry support APC working great and better vehicle. Quality platform for all senario.

Key word you're missing on that spec sheet of yours, Maintenance. The transport/ambulance/ect all use the same parts and mechanics for its drive compartment.

Jack Mountain Well yes. Lots of vehicle use the same chassis and share parts. That’s actually a good design feature. It’s the swappable mission payload element that is over engineering a feature that will likely never get used. And certainly never get used in the field. It’s the sort of thing that sounds sexy on the spec sheets. But it means you’ve got a couple of bolts holding the infantry compartment on, instead of just welding that sucker down for added protection. It’s pointless modularity because the only time anyone will be swapping mission modules will be down at the motor pool when they are seeking to canibalize and MacGuyver three broken down vehicles into one working one. Which they are perfectly capable of doing with non modular vehicles.

@@andrewtaylor940 but the cannibalisation is easier. But also swapping out modules is relevant to modernisation etc. in the end, your army should buy enough vehicles to not need to swap modules, but at certain points in time the swapping might be neccesary. And the lockingbolts are part of the mine resistant design, so not really a weakpoint

they can run-flat not a big deal, one or two can come off not a big deal either

Rey Van 0:33

@@KA5Hx thanks but when you look in the back you only see 6 seats behind the crew cab. 3 each side. Also what's the plt lay down going to be ? My best guess is: 3x 8 man section. 4x3 man crew. ( including 1x Boxer sgt and a Lance Jack to step up when PC dismounts) Plt commander, Plt Sgt and Plt RO. Ie 1 plus 38. That's a big plt!

@@reyvan3806 Boxer APC Module has seatings for 8 Dismounts (7 men + 8th squad leader/vehicle commander, 9. is driver, 10 is gunner)

NO

that was the armored troop transport variant, wich is used by the german "light" infantry (Jäger) battalions. There is an IFV variant with options for, for example manned and unmanned turrets with 30mm cannons with programmable ammunition and twin spike launchers (so the same armament like Puma or Lynx) or the option to fit a custom turret with weapons of choice

Alot of these new wheeled 8x8 looks very similiar, like the Stryker, the boxer, Patria AMV, and the Pirahanna V

only that Boxer can take frontal AP hits from a 30mm in less than 200m in its regular configuration and 14.7mm all round from under 500m. Its better protected than some tracked ifv´s (warrior for example)

Easy to park - you can put it wherever you want !

yeah but at the same time, it can drive over an anti tank mine and the crew survives unharmed. It is not designed and intended to face MBT in the field. And from the front it can resist 30mm cannon fire.

There's always a budget, even if it was huge, you should make the most out of it.

I imagine that the army will buy an equal number of drive an mission modules. The issue is that if a valuable variant like a C&C or ambulance breaks down or is due for service you can swap the mission module onto a working drive train in an hour or two and get the needed variant back into service.

Pal you can barely get landy around what little roads the Falkland have, let alone a Mastiff, theres a literal graveyards of BVs that got bogged in never to see the light of day again. The Falklands will always be a place were light role infantry will triumph.

@@donkehmcdonkey3703 Haglungs at a guess would be ideal.

10 boxer platforms should be given to Falkland islands. Spartans Scimitar light recon tanks and take 20 chieftain tanks out of mothballs One regiment of Paras Two new battalion's of infantry support One new marine regiment. If Argentina got involved with china and Russia. This would slow down their retaking the Falkland islands

Yup, just hope it has decent armour as it's a damn big target

Reminds me of the APC from Aliens

There’s a comparison photo from Oz where a Boxer dwarfs a LAV, M113 and an M1 Abrams...

There are the Group transporter, the ambulance vehicle, Pioneer Group vehicle, C4I leader vehicle, C2 lead vehicle, supply vehicle, and the battle damage repair vehicle available right now (In the german army). But i dont know what the British Army has / will get. Edit: and i think there is a module with the LANCE turret system.

There is one, a lot of the other nations use it. But they have it in a heavier role than we do.

The Ajax will be filling that role, in all likelihood.

There is one it had the turret of the New german schützenpanzer puma

@Eddie Weston haha

ĐΣċīƥΣɌ British army already has a better 7.62 dmr

They are already using the HK417.

Dutch and German

That floats like a rock.

of course they dont.... we are in the 20th century and have fought in several asymetric combat zones as NATO. the tires have remote inflation/deflation from cmmander and drivers positions and have a flat running rim wich is capable of sustaining driving on a flat tire for at least 50-60km with maximum load (highest protection level mounted, full capacity loaded etc)

There's a spare tire module.

Boxer It's an apc, pzh2000 IT îs a selfpropeled howitzer

@@byzulescku yes of course. But both are huge. Very high and impressive.

7+1 Dismounts, gunner, driver

James Glenn they are run flats, they can be damaged but you can still get out of trouble on them,

the boxer variant skyranger has laser+missiles+big cannon

no

For hatches, it depends on the variant. I think in all variants the driver has his own hatch, and fir the APC module there are 3 roof hatches. Also, I think the power rear ramp has a manual door in it as well if the mechanism fails.

@@commando552 Ah right I was thinking and hoping that. Would have been an awful design flaw if it only had the rear hatch.

Over half the build and final assembly will be in the UK.

@@davidhouseman4328 Then Algeria does it better. Completely assembles them locally in a factory paid for by Rheinmetal. The Germans are having fun.....

@@hans2406 Whilst fully UK made would be better, it would also be far more costly, a slower to get into production. Amongst other things, this vehicle was selected as it is already a battle proven design, as opposed to the typical bespoke British design that ends up costing us way more than the competition for no real reason.

@@hans2406 I think you misunderstood. Assembly AND over half the parts build. I think the main part we won't build is the engine.

@Eddie Weston Clearly the notional concept of that advert went straight over your head.

Exactly, bigger is not always better, it just weighs more and needs more room both of which cause issues depending where you deploy to

@@regregan5755 considering that Boxer is protected vs 14.5mm fire all round, 30mm fire from the front plus mine and artillery blast resistant on STANAG IV level, it has to be big. and it is not that immobile or inflexible as it seems. 15m turning circle are private SUV levels of agility and extremly good. a smaller car has around 11m. Yes it is not going to be a SMART or MINI, but it is significantly more agile than most MRAP´s on the market with higher levels of protection. And considering that i live in a city with barracks, where Boxer´s are stationed and regularly move from there to the next traininggrounds on public roads.... they really dont have problems with normal city roads or normal european towns. yes it may be too big for the roads of the historic core of some cities/Towns, but that is also a problem for more or less any AFV on the market. look at REFORGER footage. rural german towns have been demolished regularly by comparably small M113 etc. Fences, property walls, signs etc have been destroyed by that on a regular basis. but luckily, german rural historic town centers are not the regular combat zone we design our vehicles around. In afghanistan the Bundeswehr used Boxer and had no problems maneuvering through afghan towns

got a BV and an onboard toilet

MRAP- Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected. Mine and IED resistance comes from ground clearance, lower hull design and decoupled seatings (wich requires headspace). The result is a taller vehicle. in respect to protection, Boxer has a higher level of protection than Warrior in all areas and also higher mobility with similar weight.

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 sir the above was pure sarcasm and disdain for such things as the RG33 and Cougar.