Warrior Typo?

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Warrior Typo?

Postby Reaverman » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:50 pm

I'm just curious about the stats given for the Warrior in S&P 37 "Battle for Cricklade Road".

The Warrior is listed as being armed with the 40mm Rarden and Chain gun. Surely this is a typo, since that would mean the Warrior would be armed with a 40mm weapon and a 30mm weapon?
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
mthomason
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK
Contact:

Postby mthomason » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:01 pm

No typo - Warrior command variants carry a turret-mounted Rarden cannon in addition to the standard coax chain gun. On the other hand we used a fairly early playtest draft a couple of months back so all kinds of details have changed.
User avatar
lastbesthope
Executive Mongoose
Posts: 19697
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Postby lastbesthope » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:24 pm

Thanks for the credit on that article MT.

LBH
I'll live forever, heaven won't let me in and hell's afraid I'll take over!!!

Mongoose Accolades
mthomason
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK
Contact:

Postby mthomason » Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:32 pm

np!
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:04 pm

mthomason wrote:No typo - Warrior command variants carry a turret-mounted Rarden cannon in addition to the standard coax chain gun. On the other hand we used a fairly early playtest draft a couple of months back so all kinds of details have changed.
You mean this is the sort of lay out its carrying?


Main Armament 1 x 40 mm Rarden cannon.
Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62 mm chain gun. Smoke grenade dischargers.
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
User avatar
emperorpenguin
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5714
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:02 am
Location: British in Dublin

Postby emperorpenguin » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:11 pm

but BFEvo is set in 10 years time or so right? And the Rardens are being replaced
Into the Fire: 4th place
Wheel of Fire: 9th place
Gaelcon 2006: 2nd place
mthomason
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:47 pm
Location: Suffolk, UK
Contact:

Postby mthomason » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:18 pm

emperorpenguin wrote:but BFEvo is set in 10 years time or so right? And the Rardens are being replaced
Well I only got the name "Rarden" off the army website just now to confirm that having both was accurate ;)

The Evo stats just list a generic "40mm cannon" which now I look into it appear as one of the possibilities scheduled in to replace the 30mm Rarden - so it looks like this one is right on the money :)
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:32 pm

mthomason wrote:
emperorpenguin wrote:but BFEvo is set in 10 years time or so right? And the Rardens are being replaced
Well I only got the name "Rarden" off the army website just now to confirm that having both was accurate ;)

The Evo stats just list a generic "40mm cannon" which now I look into it appear as one of the possibilities scheduled in to replace the 30mm Rarden - so it looks like this one is right on the money :)
Actually that 40mm is under consideration, and the trials are scheduled for December 2006. Its being managed by BAE systems, and they have yet to actually overhaul these weapons. Or start replacing the current 30mm Rardens. Other upgrades include the Bowman com system, and I think there are some mods being done to the armour and turret (though I might be wrong). You never know, in the next year or so, it might not even be upgraded :?
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 15163
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:08 am

mthomason wrote:
The Evo stats just list a generic "40mm cannon" which now I look into it appear as one of the possibilities scheduled in to replace the 30mm Rarden - so it looks like this one is right on the money :)
Though Jane's Defence Weekly has just announced that the replacement might not actually be a 40mm cannon now - such is the stress of trying to plot what armies will be using in 10 years time. We should have made it 20 years :)
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
JoseDominguez
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:10 am

Postby JoseDominguez » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:08 pm

Yup, current research shows that oestrogen levels in the worlds water table are increasing and there's not a lot we can do about it.. so basically the planet's population will become increasingly feminine. I suggest future tank designs should concentrate less on armament and more on pastel camo and ample space for shopping.

:)
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:30 pm

JoseDominguez wrote:Yup, current research shows that oestrogen levels in the worlds water table are increasing and there's not a lot we can do about it.. so basically the planet's population will become increasingly feminine. I suggest future tank designs should concentrate less on armament and more on pastel camo and ample space for shopping.

:)
Its not a Tank dude ;)
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
JoseDominguez
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:10 am

Postby JoseDominguez » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:40 pm

This is exactly why 'Hi, I'm a wargamer' will never, ever, be an acceptable chat up line'. :)

I know, I've been in one (recreationally), my mate Pete had one shot out from under him in the Gulf.
Anyone who cares, knows it's an APC, anyone who doesn't care knows what I mean by tank.

Anyway, it's got tracks, armour and a turret. I think the official designation should be 'ickle tank'.

It would make war a lot more friendly.

It's all academic, in ten years time China will own the entire world and there will be no war. Just affordable merchandise of inconsistant quality.
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:34 pm

JoseDominguez wrote:This is exactly why 'Hi, I'm a wargamer' will never, ever, be an acceptable chat up line'. :)

I know, I've been in one (recreationally), my mate Pete had one shot out from under him in the Gulf.
Anyone who cares, knows it's an APC, anyone who doesn't care knows what I mean by tank.

Anyway, it's got tracks, armour and a turret. I think the official designation should be 'ickle tank'.

It would make war a lot more friendly.

It's all academic, in ten years time China will own the entire world and there will be no war. Just affordable merchandise of inconsistant quality.
Its not and APC either...its an IFV ;)


Anyone who doesn’t care, doesn’t wargame :P
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
CudaHP
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:08 pm

Postby CudaHP » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:20 am

Reaverman,
Sounds like a semantics situation to me, please give me a really good definition of the precise definition of the difference between APC and IFV.

I am just guessing here but is it because an IFV has a turret and weapon/s as well as carrying troops??
If so what about something like a Merkava that can carry troops (just a couple or so internally.

A modern IFV (such as the Bradley)would qualify as a tank under most wwII designations along with thw Pzkw I, II and III. Better armed and armored plus carrying troops.

A rose by any other name still has thorns. :D :D :D

To those of us who know little or nothing about British armoured vehicles, it would have been nice if the S & P article had mentioned just what role a "Warrior" actually fills in combat.

I had to guess that it was some sort of command vehicle but I really did not know.

Guess, I must not be a wargamer, cause I didn't care all that much. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:52 am

CudaHP wrote:Reaverman,
Sounds like a semantics situation to me, please give me a really good definition of the precise definition of the difference between APC and IFV.

I am just guessing here but is it because an IFV has a turret and weapon/s as well as carrying troops??
If so what about something like a Merkava that can carry troops (just a couple or so internally.

A modern IFV (such as the Bradley)would qualify as a tank under most wwII designations along with thw Pzkw I, II and III. Better armed and armored plus carrying troops.

A rose by any other name still has thorns. :D :D :D

To those of us who know little or nothing about British armoured vehicles, it would have been nice if the S & P article had mentioned just what role a "Warrior" actually fills in combat.

I had to guess that it was some sort of command vehicle but I really did not know.

Guess, I must not be a wargamer, cause I didn't care all that much. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rose?

Mate you are comparing a rose, with a Lilly!


APC's are lightly armoured troop carriers. Designed to deliver troops to the engagement area. When I say light armour, I mean against small arms.

Typiccal examples of an APC

Image


Image

APC's have a pintle mounted weapon(s), and maybe a grenade launcher/ATGM.

APC's, do not engage in direct fire if they can help it, as they tend to get 'Brewed' up really quickly.


See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr ... n&ct=title

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current ... ehicle.htm

IFV's are infantry fighting vehicles, which are developed from the APC. But where the APC 'Busses' the troops to the fire zone, and then pottled off when empty. The IFV can actually engage, and support the troops it has delivered to the area.

IFV's have better armour, heavier weaponry, ATGM, and better comms equipement. But IFV's are not anti tank vehicles, and only attend such missions if they they have armour support. But they are good against soft skinned vehicles, and aerial targets.

Image

Image

See also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_fighting_vehicle

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current ... ehicle.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

Of course there are exceptions, and a good one is the Merkava which is a Tanks that carries troops :S
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
captainsmirk
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1034
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Limbo

Postby captainsmirk » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:40 pm

Other than the fact that the Merkava's "troop-carrying" capacity is an extra made possible due to the rear ammo-loading door and by reducing the tanks ammo capacity, which on a normal battlefield would be what normally takes up space where the troops would sit.

Perhaps a more notable feature of the Merkava is the internal 60mm mortar they're fitted with...

All to do with urban comabt environments the Israeli's spend so much time in I suppose.

Nick
Captain Sheridan you're under arrest for a clear violation of the laws of physics!
CudaHP
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:08 pm

Postby CudaHP » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:10 pm

Reaverman,
Seems to me the Australian forces in Vietnam had a varient of the M113 APC that mounted a turret and a light cannon, about 40mm or so.

An APC because it could still carry troops or an IFV?
Trust me the basic one inch tempered aluminum armor on the M113 will not even prevent penetration by a 50 cal Heavy Machinegun. I have blown a hole the size of a dinner plate clear through the engine compartment of one with a long burst of 50 cal fire at 350 meters.

Burst was 20 to 30 rounds. Really destroyed my faith in the 113.

My point was more that the article in S & P made the assumption that everyone knew what the Warrior was.

I barely know what the Chieftain II is. Not my area of expertise. A picture, at a minimum, would have been helpful. That would have given the uninformed a visual clue. :D
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:27 pm

CudaHP wrote:
I barely know what the Chieftain II is. Not my area of expertise. A picture, at a minimum, would have been helpful. That would have given the uninformed a visual clue. :D
Ahhhh right, I see what you mean. Yes. a picture would have been useful :)
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:41 pm

Supposedly this is a Chieftain Mk2
Image

The Challanger Mk2
Image

The Warrior IFV
Image
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
Reaverman
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3778
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: Camberley/Surrey/UK
Contact:

Postby Reaverman » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:42 pm

I like the APFSDSDU rounds on the floor, next to the Challenger II :D
Image

Free Hiffano's Mothership!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests