Talk:Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle)

Something is fishy here.

> The Boxer is an eight-wheeled MRAV, easily dwarfing most contemporary vehicles with its size. At 33 ton combat weight, it is also about 10 tons heavier than many other contemporary vehicles within the same role. <

It is nigh impossible to support this much weight on 8 wheels, no matter how big, wide and low pressure tires you use! It will sink in mud like a submarine. The 33 metric tons is about the weight of a T-34/85 soviet battle tank, which uses caterpillar tracks for mobility. The soviet BTR-80 APC has difficulty supporting its own weight of a mere 14 metric tons on eight large wheels. This german monster is more than twice as heavy. The maximum 40-ton euro-standard cargo trucks use 18 wheels to support their weight and they are running on solid surface autobahns, not terrain. 82.131.210.162 08:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Soviet BTR-80 has a power/weight-ratio of 13.9 kW/t while the German Boxer has a ration of 16,1 kW/t (max weight). The Soviets also relay on a complety different technolgy. The quetions is: How much of its power does the BRT-80 bring on the track?

I mean, a Mercedes car has also a different efficiency level than a Russian Lada. Even if a Mercedes and a Lada should have the same power/weight-ratio, I'd say the Mercedes would still be the more powerful and faster car. IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.112.206 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

>>It is nigh impossible to support this much weight on 8 wheels, no matter how big, wide and low pressure tires you use!

That is not true. As an example, the worlds largest dump truck (weighing in at up to 600 metric tons) has only 6 wheels - and that is sufficient even to navigate the dangerous terrains of large scale surface mining operations. Many agricultural vehicles also weigh more than 15 tons and carry only 4 wheels.

>>The maximum 40-ton euro-standard cargo trucks use 18 wheels to support their weight and they are running on solid surface autobahns, not terrain.

Yes, 18 wheels on 5 axles... only one more than the Boxer. One of the reasons why Trucks have many wheels however is not the load itself, but the economy of having a standardized wheel size (which can be used on many different types of trucks) and, first and foremost, regulations to protect the road from damage.

Nothing generally speaks against a 33 ton 8-wheeler. One only has to find a technical solution.

-- Vandervahn (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The US Army builds a vehicle which has 36 metric tons, at least according French, German or Chinese articles, is based on only 6 wheels and has less power than the boxer. Have a look at Buffalo (mine protected vehicle) (Mcflashgordon (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)).

Protection

Does anyone have a source for the information given in this part? I'm pretty sure protection level is much higher than 12,7 mm allround. [1] EggyNL (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't lots of light armoured vehicles only protect against 7.62mm ammo? Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

parallel evolution?

Is this an instance of parallel evolution? Industrial espionage? Why does the Boxer look so similar to a Mowag Piranha?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see little real resemblance there. Also the French VBCI shares a similar shape but still is a different design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.1.211 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An anphibious vehicle?

Is this an amphibious vehicle?Agre22 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)agre22

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.203.45 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

120mm mortar module

I searched the official website and brochure of ARTEC, but there is no reference about 120mm mortar module, but about these 9 kinds of module - Armoured Personnel Carrier, Armoured Engineer Group Vehicle, Ambulance, Command Post, Battle Damage Repair, Cargo, Cargo/C2, Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Driver Training Vehicle. Is there any reference about 120mm mortar module? - ImperatorMK (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/index.html

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 09:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahead of its time

User:Wolpat please explain why this should be retained. It is someone talking about their company's product, so a primary source, how can you regard that as WP:RS that should be retained? Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mztourist. My thought processes here are probably more based on a long-time knowledge of the Boxer vehicle (through the old day job) and maybe a little less on actual Wiki specifics; rules etc. I guess what I'm suggesting is those comments reinforce that Boxer was ahead of its time in terms of overall size, weight and protection. It was criticized a lot for being considerably bigger and heavier than comparable vehicles when it first appeared. Indeed it was bigger and heavier... That said, it was better protected, but had a comparable power-to weight ratio, and was (still is) the only modular vehicle in its class. The 'others' (Piranha/Stryker/LAV/AMV/VBCI etc) are now all playing catch up in the areas of size, weight and protection. Piranha 5 has a GVW limit of 35-tonnes, VBCI 2 (and VBCI 1 upgrade) is up to 32-tonnes, AMV is now up to 32-tonnes, while the only real increase for Boxer in this area is when a turret is fitted. Perhaps I should change the words I use a little, but maybe that then becomes speculation/assumption, and not necessarily a citable quote from a knowledgeable person, even if that person is directly related to the company. I'm no Wiki wizard and am definitely learning lots as I go, and maybe using such a direct quote does appear a little PR, but it is in no way meant to be, and hopefully the waffle above goes a way to explaining my thought processes. More than happy to discuss more if required. --Wolpat (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; direct quotes from the manufacturer are not reliable sources, that would be like someone from Eurofighter saying the Typhoon is the greatest fighter in the world, or someone from Dassault claiming the Rafale is. If you can find a reliable third party source that states that the Boxer is ahead of its time you're welcome to insert that, but the current quote cannot be retained and your thought processes and analysis are irrelevant without reliable sources. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Mztourist I anticipated deletion would be the outcome as rules are rules, even when in some cases they can be a little bit too rigid. I will seek out supporting comment from another source. The entire area of Boxer dwarfing other comparable 8x8s also needs to be looked at again at some stage, because as I set out earlier here, it used to be, but it definitely ain't no more!Wolpat (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boxer (armoured fighting vehicle). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040611222805/http://www.army-technology.com:80/projects/mrav/index.html to http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Boxer UK image issue

Dear interested users/editors, I’ve been wondering what to do about the Boxer image I recently added (briefly) for a while. Having seen the publicity that vehicle in that colour has recently received, and noting that other Wiki users/editors appear to agree with my image selection, I have decided to re-load it to the position I originally put it. But before anybody reverts this, please read on…

The current Spec box image will be returned to its original position in the Gallery, and with its original caption.

When the image I loaded was first taken down the comment was a very unhelpful ‘no carnival please’, followed by ‘this does not belong here’. Not the two most concrete of reasons.

And so… given the obvious variety of opinion regarding this image, my action has been to put it back, and my follow-on suggestion is to see what other Wikipedia users and editors think. If they think it is a valid image, it can stay. If they think it is an invalid, it can be removed, but I’d propose to the Gallery as it is quite relevant overall – in my humble opinion.

So please other users/editors, don’t just take it down (to be put back again…), let’s Talk as to why you think it should come down.

My key reasons for keeping it are that’s it’s current, and currency, while not mandatory for Wikipedia, has to be good. It shows a page is up to date, and that has to be a good thing. It is a production Boxer, a Dutch one I understand. It just has a paint job. When the next ‘big thing’ Boxer-related happens, we can swap the lead image around again.

Look forward to any comments etc from those that made changes and/or other users/editors.Wolpat (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

There were no other registered users who agreed with you. There were anonymous IPs. Wikipedia:CheckUser might be revealing. At the top of the page we need a typical image, so that a casual reader gets a quick idea of what this page is about. A Union Jack paint scheme is obviously not typical for an armoured fighting vehicle. Also, this image was uploaded in support of a current sales campaign. Wikipedia should try to be neutral rather than support sales campaigns. --Sitacuisses (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)