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. 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  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 NotifyOnline 09:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 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 1 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 ).

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. CheckUser might be revealing.
 * At the top of the page we need a representative 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 of an armoured fighting vehicle. Further reading: Manual of Style/Images and Images for the lead.
 * Also, this image was uploaded in support of a current sales campaign. Wikipedia should try to be neutral rather than support sales campaigns. See WP:PROMO, Neutral point of view, Conflict of interest and Spam ("Advertisements masquerading as articles").
 * The image may be acceptable as one of many variants in the gallery at the bottom of the page, though. --Sitacuisses (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I basically agree with Sitacuisses. Also Wolpat says My key reasons for keeping it are that’s it’s current, but being current is a very good reason for not using this picture. It is not a picture of a current, planned or even hypothetical version of Boxer, it is purely an advertising stunt.


 * If someone broke into a German or Dutch base today and painted anti-war slogans on a Boxer than a picture of that would be more 'current' than this one but I do not think anyone would suggest using that one just because it is more recent. Similarly a picture taken tomorrow of a Boxer on a wet exercise area, so covered in mud that no details cannot be made out would be more 'current' than this one. However neither of there examples would help a reader understand what a normal Boxer looks like and so neither should be used at the top.


 * One place I disagree with Sitacuisses is whether this s/b in the gallery at the bottom. As no Boxer in use will ever look like this I do not think it should be there. If we had an article about the manufacturer (AFAIUI set up just to produce Boxer) then this picture might have a place there illustrating their marketing efforts.
 * FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why I suggested that an image of this type may be added to the gallery is that there is more to it than just the Union Jack. The mission module has some new features. Also, as this version is already mentioned in the text, an illustration, or at least a reference, would be helpful. It's not the highest priority, though. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

UK choses Boxer
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-army-re-joins-boxer-programme

Quite obviously.

Sammartinlai (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Union Jack image
Hello Hello Parquet-strip and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to the Boxer page and want to enter into Talk about it with you. You are obviously new to Wikipedia and therefore I don’t want to just revert it back to what it was, shooting your edit down in flames. I recall when I first started on Wikipedia, and when my first edit was apparently arbitrarily reversed… So let’s Talk. The change you made has actually been made before and following a bit of argy-bargy (if I recall), the Union Jack image was placed in Gallery and not the lead position. The arguments for this if I recall were that it was not really a typical example of Boxer. I kind of agreed with that ultimately, but could see why it was done, and in light of the announcement today can see why you did it. So… I’m not going to revert arbitrarily, as part of me thinks it might be OK to remain – if only for a short while. Difficult to Police that I know. Anyway, I’m starting this Talk, have highlighted that, and have asked any other editor thinking of reverting your edit to hold off and engage in talk with you. If another editor blunders in, ignores this request, and just reverts, I will be ‘naughty’ revert back for you, and ask them to engage. Good luck on Wikipedia. --Wolpat (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wolpat, that marketing picture was not appropriate when you tried to put it in last September and it is not appropriate now. That Boxer was painted like that purely for a military sales exhibition (DSEI?) last year so it almost certainly has been repainted since then. On that basis the picture does not represent anything.


 * Hence I have changed the page back to how it was before.


 * No-ones's edit is being 'shot down in flames'. There is a clear explanation here as to why the change that Parquet-strip made has been over-written. FerdinandFrog (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply and unacceptable edit! I just thought the Union image was a nicer image and as it was in the gallery, didn't think it would be a problem to move it. I apologise Parquet-strip (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Not a problem Parquet-strip. It looks like the Wiki Police do not like the image though, and while I sat on the fence after an earlier discussion on the subject, I can kind of see why. You'll note that during a burst of reverting your change, your change was only partially reverted and we ended up with two Land 400 images in the gallery. I've finished the job that somebody else started and now the page is back to how it began... Good luck with your future edits.--Wolpat (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

it should be over 500 Boxers for the British Army
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-companies-get-green-light-to-press-ahead-with-new-army-vehicle-plans-defence-minister-announces

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Tags
As someone who's had no part in writing this article, I was surprised to see something so well written and so thoroughly cited to so many sources so heavily tagged. I've removed all but one of the tags that stated the article was poorly-cited, point of view, promotional etc etc; basically none of them seem to me to be appropriate. The article is sourced to such major authorities as Jane's Defence Weekly and ABC News; there are many citations to different government and defence sources; and inevitably there are technical details cited to the primary source, Artec-Boxer, but not to an inappropriate degree. The tone of the article is not in any way promotional; it's obviously somewhat technical and military, but that is both necessary and expected in a technical article about a military vehicle. The article is somewhat "newsy", with announcements down to the exact day. Personally if I was writing this I'd give timings to the year (or possibly month), and I'd cut down the detail a little - the sites of headquarters and manufacturing plants are probably not going to be of much interest in a few years' time. In particular the material about future and even "possible future operators" is bordering on WP:CRYSTALBALL, so I've left the excessively-detailed tag in place (though no doubt other editors may find even that tag superfluous) as a "happy medium". All the best to you guys, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Chiswick Chap, I had been TALKing with the editor that added those tags User: Epistulae ad Familiares as an 'interested party'; basically I did a lot of work on the Boxer article. And thank you so much for your kind comments on its overall quality etc. I'm not the most experienced of Wikipedia editors and did take note of comments made and you'll maybe see started to trim some of the detail. I note your comments/views also, and over the next week or so I will continue to work on the article and trim out some of the detail that has been highlighted, to hopefull further improve what I am pleased to see an experienced editor such as yourself approves of. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think on reflection I may have been overly harsh in my initial assessment of the article, and after having a proper read through and a brief discussion with, I have come to realise that the qualities of this article do indeed far outstrip its deficiencies, and I absolutely agree with removing several of the tags as unwanted. However there are definitely several paragraphs that have citation issues (though I'm sure they could be referenced somewhere), which I will move to insert more specific in-line tags rather than catch-all maintenance templates. At the same time, I'll do my best to contribute constructively to this article to help improve readability while recognising the relative limitations of my expertise. Happy editing! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo
I've just reverted back to File:Oefening GTK Boxer Bcie BLJ 01.jpg. I think that this makes a good infobox photo, as it very clearly depicts the vehicle, the vehicle is shown moving from the right to the left (so 'into' the article) and the photo appears to have been taken in an operational environment so shows what this type looks like when its deployed. It's also a well executed and slightly dramatic image that will hopefully interest readers. I don't think that File:First of the Rheinmetall 211 Boxer on order in Q3 2020.jpg is very suitable. It doesn't depict any of the three Boxers in the photo clearly, appears to depict the type in a factory or similar (note that the operators are wearing bright safety shirts rather than military uniforms) and isn't a very good photo - the out of focus grass in the bottom right corner is pretty amateur, for example. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

23 mission modules? Are you sure?
The article says there are 23 mission modules. Whilst this is plausible - I know there are new ones being developed as well as the existing 13 mission modules (see https://www.artec-boxer.com/index.php?id=9 for the 13) - I don't see where the "23" comes from and I can't find a source. has anybody got any ideas? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There are now 31... SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Recovery of UK Boxer
The GVW of the UK boxer is 45 tonnes, this greater than the capacity for the current UK Recovery Vehicle SV(R) which has a GVW of 28 tonnes. While a rope or bar self-to-self recovery can be carried out by another Boxer on rolling casualty with brakes and steering on hard surface it would be difficult cross country. Another disadvantage is that 2 combat Boxers would be out of the ORBAT. The Boxer is not designed for suspended tows because the weight-carrying axles become overloaded. Any other info? Trackorack (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * GVW of UK Boxer is not 45-tonnes. Where did that figure come from? SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing revisions.
I've copied this chat to here from a User Page in case the wider Wiki community and Boxer readers are interested, and to enable them to see the sort of Talks that go on in the background.

Hello (talk), I thought it way better to engage in Talk than just dive back into the Boxer (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) article and revert your edits back to mine. In quite a few years on Wiki I have learnt that explaining ones thought processes, and the reason behind a series of edits, is often way way better than just doing, re-doing, re-doing, and then getting into all manner of fuss and disagreement and ending up attracting the attention of the 'Wikipedia Police.' Once they have their claws into you, they're in...

Anyway, my edits you reverted, mentioning 0 references. You are correct, and for that I apologise. My editing session was cut short yesterday before I had a chance to get to inserting the references for the changes to Qatar and to the UK. I have full and detailed references for both. I really should have done them as I worked, but you know how it goes, I'm sure.

So, looking ahead, I will revert to my edits today, BUT..., with a full set of citations for all the changes etc I make. I have slides of the current ARTEC Boxer 31 variants offering (from ARTEC), plus the current UK order breakdown (Janes/Hansard), and the current terminology they use. Things like reference to a baseline protected mobility (PM) variant (MIV-PM), and command and control (MIV-CC) and repair/recovery (MIV-REP) variants are no longer used. I expect the designations will change again! I was talking to the UK PM for Boxer at a defence event here in the UK in January, and even he used incorrect terminology! What hope is there for the rest of us!

Sadly though, I cannot use those slides in the Wikipedia article as I don't have the copyright to them. However, and while I'm not sure Wiki would allow this, I could try, and would be happy to let you have sight of them should you have any doubts as too their efficacy. Would you like me to try? In broader terms, my primary source for these latest updates is Janes, the AFV Yearbook and Defence Weekly. I've also succeeded in opening up a line of communication with ARTEC, and I'm currently trying to get them to link their mission module designations to what users actually have. Who has APC A, APC B, APC C and so on... They seem a little reluctant to do that at present. We will see!

Back to the actual Boxer article on Wiki, and as to reducing the amount of text in the UK section of Operators, this forms part of a styling approach to make the article a little more consistent, and maybe more readable with some continuity of style. The German, Lithuanian and Netherlands sections of Operators look great, and serve as a one stop shop for the relevant information in one short and sharp hit. It also seems to be, broadly, more in keeping with the wider Wiki style. Currently, the UK (and Australia) sub-sections contain a little too much waffle that bogs the reader down. Much of this waffle is covered in body text, and text that a reader-reader (if that term makes sense) would take the time to read.

At some point I also aim to make Australia in Operators look more like the better German etc. presentation.

On the Qatar subject, again I do have citation references for the changes I made and I will include those. I removed the 'Qatar might buy... Qatar wants to buy...' stuff as this is speculation and not really Boxer article stuff. Would you agree? There's a Wiki guideline somewhere about crystal ball-type stuff.

In fact, looking ahead, I'm not really sure the entire 'Crystal Ball' potential users bit is even really relevant at all. Maybe that's something to open up to the wider Wiki community. Your thoughts?

One of my key aims with this Boxer article is to clear up what I find to be Wiki's biggest problems with larger more detailed records. I don't know if you find these with the stuff you work on, but a random editor who has a little bit but overall limited subject matter knowledge will grab an update from somewhere, dive in, make it, cite it, and walk away. What they seldom do is check the article through for any and all other little mentions of the subject they updated, and that are now wrong to varying degrees, even if by something as simple as 'will do' becoming 'has done'... And the other one... Just dumping updates in random places that screw up any attempt at style, continuity and readability!

You seem to do quite a bit of Wiki editing of stuff I'm interested in, so our paths may well cross again in the weeks or months to come. Do please 'Talk' if you have any queries, or even issues going forwards. Best SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)