Do I need to underline it for you? Do I need to underline the date this article was posted as well?
You wouldn’t be saying this if you had at least looked up what RBSL is, they don’t produce engines.
RBSL will be one of the primary manufacturers in the UK producing half of the vehicles. RBSL will undertake the fabrication of the armoured vehicle structures together with the assembly, integration, and test of the complete vehicles at its Telford facility in the West Midlands.
Oh, a webpage article, that’s so easy, I can just create a webpage article and bring it and it proves everything? Is that article more reliable than the Bundeswehr/KNDS/MTU? Do you know why I haven’t bring those kind website articles before?
The answer is no. Bring in the right sources.
This is why the developers distinguish between primary and secondary sources in the report, and do not accept webpage sources unless they are authoritative sources such as manufacturers/government organizations.
You have been stating nothing but non-sense the entire time, you cannot refute why the MD of Artec is stating a specific max weight for the A1/A2, as well as the tires not matching up to the weight of the Boxer MGS as its overloaded, the TE21 is just an uprated TE20 not a newly built engine, it is not produced by the UK, it is assembled.
And your response is, “Oh a webpage article”, you’re wrong!
You’re being childish for trying to argue this.
2019 is hardly outdated…
Artec are the prime contractor. They are the more reliable source compared to the KNDS, Rheinmetall, or the Bundeswehr.
The materials are conflicting, but they are all primary sources. In this case, the majority rule is correct.
Bundeswehr is not a relevant source here. The Boxer MGS has nothing to do with the Bundeswehr.
Is the Managing Director of ARTEC, a primary source? Because I think the actual person managing the project for the Boxer has probably the MOST CREDIBILITY here.
ARTEC has already tested 41t with the Boxer, and it was successful. Bundeswehr mentions that 36.5t is the combat weight, not the maximum weight.
Here we have already confirmed several times that weight is not the issue, but you just shout that it is.
Who doesn’t know that the TE21 is an upgrade from the TE20, and we are now saying that it was not equipped on the Boxer A2. You’re upset now because you misread the MTU article as well.
Of course, you are wrong. All of the material I’ve brought is primary source, but you’re basing your argument on a single webpage of dubious provenance.
This is because your clame was based on “weight”. “the basis for the vehicle not being a Boxer A2 is that the vehicle is 38t.”
And the Bundeswehr uses Boxer A2, so their website is a primary source.
On what variant of drive module. You also provided no source to this.
Rheinmetall Landsysteme-Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) joint venture Artec conducted trials in December 2021 with a Boxer armoured vehicle weighing 41 tonnes, Janes learned at the International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) 2022 conference being held in London on 24–27 January.
Artec managing director Stefan Lischka revealed during a presentation at IAV 2022 on 25 January that the Boxer, without a mission module, traversed gaps up to 2.2 m, climbed a 60° slope, and mastered a 1 m vertical step during the trials. He said there was no actual customer requirement for such a heavy Boxer but placed the trials in the context of armoured fighting vehicles gaining 20–30% more weight within 20 years of first being introduced because of protection enhancements.
Boxer originally weighed 33 tonnes, with the heaviest version being the remote-controlled howitzer (RCH) version at 39 tonnes. Lischka said the trial with a Boxer weighing 41 tonnes meant that two tonnes could be added to this version’s vehicle weight for protection or any other customer requirement. He even questioned whether 41 tonnes was the Boxer’s maximum weight limit.
December 2021, Boxer A2.
Archived post from 2015 documenting now deleted information from ARTEC and MTU detailing the TE21 on the GTK Boxer. Man this is gold. I can keep going.
The article is cut off, there is no way to confirm the full contents without an organization account.
Please provide the full article for full context or this is just as worthless as my article.
Nowhere in that article does it mention an A2.
At this point just write an Email to KNDS and ask them if they maybe put a stronger engine into that one Boxer chassis.
Copy-pasted unknown PDF from Russian Wikipedia is gold?
Nowhere does this say it was a Boxer A2.
I thought janes is a not accepted source?
3 Likes
Everything you need is already available, that article already provided all the elements of when, where, who and why
“It’s worthless as my article?” They gave their source, your website source, of course not. It’s overwhelmingly more usable than yours.
Date, they tested in December 2021 and the A3 Boxer did not exist at that time, the A3 Boxer prototype was first built in June 2022 and delivered for the British Army.
Because we’re not doing bug reports here.
Aslo, I disagree with not accepting Jane as a source for bug reports.