schnuersi said:

This is why I asked if you knew what Jagdkampf means. You obviously don't. The fact that German Jäger units are equiped with Boxers (regardless if they have an AC or not) is irrelevant for this. Jagdkampf is a special mode of operation. Which is focussed on stealth and self sufficency of small units. Usually platoon sized. Its basically formalised guerrilla warfare (very simplified in a nutshell). Vehicles especially big ones that require lots of maintenance and supplies have no sensible role in this. If a unit of Boxer equiped Jägers would be tasked with Jagdkampf they would leave the vehicles behind. At best they would use them in the approach and infiltration phase. Jagdkampf means a lot of hiking, hiding and sneaking. A vehicle usually does not help with that.

I was aware of m ost of this. I was admittedly confused as to why they'd get a big car like a Boxer.

graylion said:

I was admittedly confused as to why they'd get a big car like a Boxer.

Because for COIN and LIC a rolling bunker seems like a good idea to some.
You allways have to keep in mind the traditional mission of the German military, homeland defense, has been allmost 100 % ignored since the late '90. The Boxer and Puma are the direct result of this. Homeland and allied defense and HIC are an afterthought in their design and development. As a result they do not exactly fit the traditional roles very well.
With the Boxer they tried to effectively turn the Jäger which used to be pure light infantry into sort of motorised rifles comparable to what the former WP had. Very capable and effective (while as cheap as possible) for expeditionary work and deployment at the end of the world. While not compeltly useless in other scenarios. Of course the traditional light infantry role basically disappeared because of this.

I know COIN. What are LIC and HIC?

graylion said:

What are LIC and HIC?

Low intensity conflict and high intensity conflict.

If Elbonia would be gifted some M240/FN MAGs, True Velocity will sell conversion kits for 6.8, and ammo.

graylion said:

For argument's sake I'd say Belarus post Lukashenko :)

In that case all the fancy modern equipment is to expensive for them.

They would have to make do with used Western oder Soviet Era stuff. Maybe some new budget gear from China.

schnuersi said:

In that case all the fancy modern equipment is to expensive for them. They would have to make do with used Western oder Soviet Era stuff. Maybe some new budget gear from China.

Or call it Ukraine. Or maybe Romania? Anyway. somewhere in that neighbourhood with 

• outdated WP kit
• some money to spend (post war // Marshal Plan II)

I must admit looking at page 1 of this thread I am impressed by the lower profile of the CV90 vs other kit. So I am voting CV90.

as for the turret, I think a new devlopment by Thales+Nexter(+Saab) with the flexible options as discussed would be useful:

• 2 missile bays that can hold 2 each of MMP/LMP or 4 each of StarStreak and/or Martlet
• 1 40mm CTA
• 1 coax MG in 6.8/7.62/8.5/whatever else you're having today with the nifty German 'rotate 3 barrels to allow for cooling' feature
• RWS with same MG
• optional radar and FCS for AA rôle

If it is UA, licence production would make sense.

Going for a whole new turret might be a bit risky/high cost, especially if you want the CT40 because it'd be harder to get ammo for it. 

graylion said...

• 1 coax MG in 6.8/7.62/8.5/whatever else you're having today with the nifty German 'rotate 3 barrels to allow for cooling' feature
• RWS with same MG

If you're not averse to buying American I'd suggest using a minigun (other externally-powered gatlings are available) where you can change the rate of fire. That way you have the increased duration of fire before overheating and user selectable rates of fire* for different purposes. Maybe a larger calibre for Co-ax and smaller for RWS. If you are having an RWS, I'd suggest one of the ones that fit around the commander's panoramic sight to minimise turret-top clutter.

graylion said...

2 missile bays that can hold 2 each of MMP/LMP or 4 each of StarStreak and/or Martlet

That's a lot of missiles for an IFV. Maybe provisions for fitting that many for specialist tasked vehicles while the majority don't carry so many?

*There is a question of how much you would be prepared to trust the user with how much you can select the rate, but if the operator is the one who has to make up the belt and refill the magazine, you ought to be able to achieve a modicum of restraint.

graylion said:

Or call it Ukraine. Or maybe Romania? Anyway. somewhere in that neighbourhood with  outdated WP kit some money to spend (post war // Marshal Plan II)

Which fits the typical Elbonia narative and is a sensible comparison.
But this really means they can not afford all the high tech gear. Even if they would only purchase homeopathic numbers they would struggle to sustain them and this would leave the bulk of their forces without modern equipment or alternatively with a very, very small army.

If such a country would want to switch from old WP gear to western equipment it would most likely the best for them to get second hand stuff and upgrade some systems to modern standards. For example buy Leopard 1 and modernise the thermal imager (or fit one into depending on version) and the FCS. With the Leopard 1 comes a whole family of support vehicles and there is plenty of spares. It all can be had for very reasonable money.
 

graylion said:

I must admit looking at page 1 of this thread I am impressed by the lower profile of the CV90 vs other kit. So I am voting CV90.

The CV90 indeed isn't very high profile. Its basically like a Volvo. Reliable, sturdy, does the job well but is so understating that it often does not attract attention.
But I doubt a fleet of CV90 is viable for thet budget.

graylion said:

as for the turret, I think a new devlopment by Thales+Nexter(+Saab) with the flexible options as discussed would be useful:

Yes but funding such projects is out of the question for such a limited budget.

graylion said:

If it is UA, licence production would make sense.

Hard to realise. It takes years to build up a working and sustainable defense industry. Especially for working with really modern, high tech equipment.
Look how long it took Poland. Poland is a significant economy. Orders of magnitude more powerfull than Romania or UA. Even though Poland can not sustain programs like a modern MBT or aircraft. They have to buy from abroad or at best can get a production licensen if key parts are delivered.

RovingPedant said:

If you're not averse to buying American I'd suggest using a minigun (other externally-powered gatlings are available) where you can change the rate of fire. That way you have the increased duration of fire before overheating and user selectable rates of fire* for different purposes.

That is not a good idea.
Miniguns are not intended for vehicle mounted use. They can not be effectively used as coax. It makes no sense to use a minigun at a low ROF. The whole point of the system are high ROFs. Its like using a racing car to tow a trailer. You get all the drawbacks but none of the advantages.

graylion said:

1 coax MG in 6.8/7.62/8.5/whatever else you're having today with the nifty German 'rotate 3 barrels to allow for cooling' feature

You are aware that this weapon isn't actually used? It never made it past the prototype stage.
IMHO its pretty pointless. For the same weight use a heavy barrel and a simple cooling system instead. Usually a heavy barrel alone will do it. In most
Or as alternative mount to weapons and use them alternating.
In most cases the limiting factor is not the weapon overheating but the ammo capacity of the mount.