Different categories for APCs

[hedgehog]

I just read part of a speach by the German responsible for research and development for the ground forces of the German forces. He made references to the new boxer modular APC

www.kmweg.de/english/rad/rad_boxer_body_fs.html

against the the US Stryker. He says the US stryker is a different type of APC designed with the main purpose of offensive action. The stryker weighs in at only ~17 tons with no A/C , no real mine protection or ABC ventilation system. .

The boxer weighs in at a hefty 30 tons and according to this author is designed more for protection in asymetrical warfare as is curretly being seen in Iraq which will likely be the scenarios the German forces will see in the future. The boxer is maximized to use all of the A400s cargo and volume capacity, but I'm not sure jhow the stryker was designed/what cargo aircraft will most likely carry it.

SO, my question is as follows: Are there different ways to designate an APC? ex. FAPC = Fighting APC etc.. DAPC = Defensive APC etc



In case anyone wants to translate with bable fish
Andere Länder, andere Konzepte
Kammerer gab einen detailreichen Einblick in die aktuellen und zukünftigen Schutzkonzepte des Heeres und zeigte auch die Unterschiede zu anderen Nationen auf. Sein Vergleich des US-amerikanischen Radpanzers STRYKER mit dem kommenden Transportfahrzeug BOXER, machte die nationalen Unterschiede in den Prioritäten schnell klar. Die USA stellen Interventionsfähigkeit und schnelle Verlegefähigkeit über Schutz und Durchsetzungsfähigkeit. Ihr Modell ist trotz ähnlicher Auslegung wesentlich leichter (ca. 17 Tonnen gegenüber 30 Tonnen), verfügt damit aber weder über Minenschutz noch über eine ABC-Schutzbelüftung oder gar eine Klimaanlage. Das deutsche Konzept hingegen ist durch die komplexere Auslegung zwar auch noch luftverlastbar, aber nur mit wesentlich höherem Aufwand. Im Einsatzgebiet erst einmal angelangt bietet der BOXER aber ein wesentliches Mehr an Schutz und Durchsetzungsfähigkeit – was den Soldaten beabsichtigtermaßen zu Gute kommt. Auf einer Linie mit den USA liegen aber die Bemühungen beim "Infanterist der Zukunft", die Nacht zum Tage zu machen und den hochspezialisierten Infanteristen auf den Stand einer führenden Industrienation zu bringen – ein deutlicher Vorteil in asymmetrischen Szenarien.

[hedgehog]

Try the following link and then select wheeled vehicles

http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html

[jizzmonkey]

dont undersestimate the Stryker, it's more versatile than people think, very user friendly, it does have some mechanical quarks, but things are moving forward in working out the kinks, we send them in for retro-fitting on a regular basis, the engineers that designed it come out to the field with us and take our recomendations in to account with every improvment.

As far as protection is concerned, so far so good. a few of them have been hit with RPG's, they were disabled but the crews never suffered any serious injury. A few months ago while convoying north to Mosul from Sammara an ICV ran over an AT mine, the impact disabled the engine compartment, buuuut the driver was O.K.
None of us from day one had very much faith in the Stryker, but as time has gone by we are starting to get a warm and fuzzy for it.
The reason it weighs so much less than the average APC or LAV is to meet requirments for transport on C-130's, and in fact they are still to heavy with all the additions to it to meet a load planners req's.

[wholagun]

**** now Im beggining to like the boxer over the Patria AMV.

[hedgehog]

i wasn't dismissing it at all. It's just different. With a lower wait they could probably mount a bigger gun on it in the future. Probably cheaper..hence better for export. The US probably also considerd how many theywant to fit on a hovercraft, and what equipment to winch it out in case it gets stuck etc..

[Durandal]

I find it amusing how many people say THIS wheeled APC is so much better than THIS wheeled APC. I mean, how many variants of a 6x6 or 8x8 diesel high perforamance power, modular, thinly armored (anyone claiming they have a wheeled APC that can take hits OVER 14.5mm is lying), infantry carrying, vehicles are better than the next.

Cheers!

[maw]

i agree with you to some degree, but look at the evolution of the mowag piranha. i can think of a couple of differentiators that make a wheeled afv more viable than its peers:
- i like the boxer's modularity. means you can cover a broader set of requirements with fewer vehicles.
- i like that some have modular armor that can scale up or down based on mission requirements.
- some have better stabilized fire control systems.
- more modern sensors (thermal imagers etc)
- i think it's neat the way the terrex and bionix can have additional armor placed on top for mout scenarios.
- electric (better imho) vs. hydraulics for turret rotation and access hatch.

[Durandal]

i agree with you to some degree, but look at the evolution of the mowag piranha. i can think of a couple of differentiators that make a wheeled afv more viable than its peers:
- i like the boxer's modularity. means you can cover a broader set of requirements with fewer vehicles.
- i like that some have modular armor that can scale up or down based on mission requirements.
- some have better stabilized fire control systems.
- more modern sensors (thermal imagers etc)
- i think it's neat the way the terrex and bionix can have additional armor placed on top for mout scenarios.
- electric (better imho) vs. hydraulics for turret rotation and access hatch.

This list is applicable to no less than ten wheeled APCs designed/produced by Western manufacturers...

[Yard Ape]

how many variants of a 6x6 or 8x8 diesel high perforamance power, modular, thinly armored infantry carrying, vehicles are better than the next.How many variants of a 4x4 or 2x4 automobile are better than the next? A Temp is the same thing as a Grand Prix, right?

[maw]

i agree with you to some degree, but look at the evolution of the mowag piranha. i can think of a couple of differentiators that make a wheeled afv more viable than its peers:
- i like the boxer's modularity. means you can cover a broader set of requirements with fewer vehicles.
- i like that some have modular armor that can scale up or down based on mission requirements.
- some have better stabilized fire control systems.
- more modern sensors (thermal imagers etc)
- i think it's neat the way the terrex and bionix can have additional armor placed on top for mout scenarios.
- electric (better imho) vs. hydraulics for turret rotation and access hatch.

This list is applicable to no less than ten wheeled APCs designed/produced by Western manufacturers...

i meant this list as an example of some the differences between the current batch of wheeled afv's.
did you follow this link regarding the boxer:
http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html
third pic down, "Modular construction: driving module (bottom) and mission module (top)". that's unique to the boxer.
the terrex has an interchangable roof, that allows additional armor or even a set of smaller turrets to be placed on top based on the mission, that's kinda unique.
the terrex even has a 155mm option! that's definately unique.
my point is that not all of the current wheeled afv's were created equal.

[Durandal]

How many variants of a 4x4 or 2x4 automobile are better than the next?

We are not discussing the difference between an Audi A8 and a Ford Escort.

A better analogy would be discussing which Ford F350 was better based on the color.

[Durandal]

i meant this list as an example of some the differences between the current batch of wheeled afv's.
did you follow this link regarding the boxer:
http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html
third pic down, "Modular construction: driving module (bottom) and mission module (top)". that's unique to the boxer.
the terrex has an interchangable roof, that allows additional armor or even a set of smaller turrets to be placed on top based on the mission, that's kinda unique.
the terrex even has a 155mm option! that's definately unique.
my point is that not all of the current wheeled afv's were created equal.

You are still missing the point. There is nothing about this vehicle that makes it worse or better or even all that unique. Nothing that is a generational leap in technology or modularity.

You find it interesting. Cool. Leave it at that.

[Yard Ape]

How many variants of a 4x4 or 2x4 automobile are better than the next?

We are not discussing the difference between an Audi A8 and a Ford Escort.

A better analogy would be discussing which Ford F350 was better based on the color.I think you are demonstrating a very limited understanding of wheeled APCs. They may look similar, but there are vast differences in performance & capability.

An M3 looks very much like an M113 with a turret. Would you argue that "paint" is the only difference in the vehicles themselves (keeping in mind that you can put a Bradley turret on an M113)?

[maw]

i meant this list as an example of some the differences between the current batch of wheeled afv's.
did you follow this link regarding the boxer:
http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html
third pic down, "Modular construction: driving module (bottom) and mission module (top)". that's unique to the boxer.
the terrex has an interchangable roof, that allows additional armor or even a set of smaller turrets to be placed on top based on the mission, that's kinda unique.
the terrex even has a 155mm option! that's definately unique.
my point is that not all of the current wheeled afv's were created equal.

You are still missing the point. There is nothing about this vehicle that makes it worse or better or even all that unique. Nothing that is a generational leap in technology or modularity.

You find it interesting. Cool. Leave it at that.

"Nothing that is a generational leap in technology or modularity."

duuude, what are you talking about? just gave you a couple features that show that the terrex and possibly the boxer are absolutely a generational leap ahead of the competition.
the terrex has a base weight of only 17 tons even though it's the same size as it's swiss counterpart. that was a design consideration. they were forward thinking enough to allow the operator to up armor it up to a fighting weight of 25 tons, depending on the type of mission. eight tons of extra armor!
you want a generational leap in modularity?
how about the modularity to stick a 155mm howitzer on top! 155mm. try that on a stryker and it's axles would pop.

[Durandal]

So you can stick a 155 on it... big deal.

And 20 bucks says no one every buys it and uses it for a 155 platform.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that, let's say German buys a whole bunch of them. They do not increase force projection on a level to warrant the cost.

It's sort of like arguing whihc rifle is better, the G36 or the M16AX. The are both a 5.56 platform that come in a variety of mod.

Switching from a G3 to a G36 IS a change though.

Or an Phantom to Tornado to say a F22...those are genrational leaps.

The boxer, while certainly a generational leap maybe even 2 from say a BTR60, is not a generational leap from Stryker by ANY stretch.

[Yard Ape]

. . . but they still have unique performance characteristics in each vehicle.

[GazB]

The whole point behind a wheeled vehicle is low cost, low weight and simplicity in operation. Other perks include some resistance to mines in that most can run with one or two tyres blown off.

A 30 ton wheeled vehicle would be quite expensive and though it is very likely to be protected from the front from 30mm ammo it is rather unlikely to be able to withstand a decent anti tank weapon. Late model RPG-7 rockets can penetrate any tank from the side and rear... no 30 ton vehicle would be safe from it either.

What is the point of having a wheeled vehicle if it weighs the same as a tracked vehicle. In the case of the US army the Striker is designed as something that is quickly deployable in sufficeint numbers. The Stryker is just transportable in a Herc with bits removed, but a 30 ton vehicle could only be carried by C-141s and the expensive C-17s... the C-5s would be too busy shifting real tanks. Considering once they got to the war zone that neither is a front line assault vehicle the fact that you could have quite a lot more Strikers than 30 ton vehicles means the Striker is better in this case.

BTW a 155mm gun on a wheeled chassis is not a stupid idea... the G6 South African vehicle is a formidible weapon, but if a vehicle is modular what advantage is there? Drop off the troops and then rush back to the rear to fit a 155mm gun module and then give the infantry fire support, then perhaps slip on a SPAAG turret in case the enemy mount an air raid.
Having standardised basic parts is a good idea... ie the BTR chassis has been used for many different types of roles, including fitting the BMP-2 turret to a modified BTR chassis (ie BTR-90 which has just entered service) and a similar modification with the BMP-3 turret (ie 30mm cannon plus 100mm smoothbore rifled gun firing ATGM) through to turreted 120mm automatic mortar systems, the standard troop transport, Command versions, medical versions, recovery and repair versions, radiation and chemical recon versions, a short wave radio station version, BMR command staff version, all fitted with specialist equipment and fittings.