Warrior Typo?

[Reaverman]

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?

 

[mthomason]

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.

 

[lastbesthope]

Thanks for the credit on that article MT.

LBH

 

[mthomason]

np!

 

[Reaverman]

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.

 

[emperorpenguin]

but BFEvo is set in 10 years time or so right? And the Rardens are being replaced

 

[mthomason]

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

 

[Reaverman]

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 :?

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

 

[JoseDominguez]

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.

 

[Reaverman]

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

 

[JoseDominguez]

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.

 

[Reaverman]

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

 

[CudaHP]

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.

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:

 

[Reaverman]

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.

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

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=e...+carrier&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_armoured_fighting_vehicle.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.

See also;

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

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_armoured_fighting_vehicle.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

 

[captainsmirk]

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

 

[CudaHP]

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.

 

[Reaverman]

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.

Ahhhh right, I see what you mean. Yes. a picture would have been useful

 

[Hiromoon]

Supposedly this is a Chieftain Mk2

The Challanger Mk2

The Warrior IFV

 

[Reaverman]

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