UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Timmymagic » 08 Apr 2019, 13:20

Lord Jim wrote:Of course funding permitting, having a true dedicated long range under armour system like Spike-NLOS or even a ground launched derivative of Brimstone 3 would be a valuable addition, with the CTA40/Javelin-ER Turret equipped vehicles being allocated one per platoon instead.


The perfect solution will be the MBDA concept of Boxer mounted launcher sitting back firing the CAMM/Brimstone hybrid with optical or MMW seeker heads to replace the Spike-NLOS and to provide long range fire and forget AT support (far beyond what Swingfire could do).
As to Javelin, by all accounts we'll be looking to replace Javelin in the 2025 timeframe. I would have thought that MMP was a shoo in at that point, the ability to fire and observe and abort attacks will count for a lot, unless Javelin is upgraded with a man in the loop capabilty it won't be able to compete.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 08 Apr 2019, 20:46

Spike NLOS or Brimstone are rather too large and capable to be part of an armoured Infantry Battalion. An attached artillery battery, perhaps.
Javelin, Spike LR or MMP are more suitable for infantry use, although they are rather expensive. I wonder if there would be mileage in fitting smaller infantry AT weapons like NLAW or ASM in such a way that they could be fired from under armour? That would provide both more powerful AT capability that could be used in a pinch (800m range is a bit short but better than nothing) and/or a substantial HE projectile, both of which are likely to be carried by the vehicle anyway.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Apr 2019, 22:17

I am surprised that we are looking at replacing Javelin in the mid 2020s. However is a system like MMP is the same weight or lighter in its man portable form then it would make a good replacement and also be a good choice for being integrated into common turret I proposed for both Ajax and Boxer.

I cannot see any good reason for mounted AT weapons like NLAW on AFVs due to their exceptionally short effective range. By the time a hostile MBT gets to under 800m you are up the creek so to speak and have to pray the infantry are still around. Mind you at that range the CTA40 is surprising effective against most targets with a high probability of disabling even a MBT.

Having the Royal Artillery operate a NLOS style weapon system to provide over watch support on the battlefield harks back to the days when they were responsible for the Army's dedicated Anti Tank units. The idea has a lot of merit and the Boxer is the obvious choice, as well as that for replacing the Stormer as the platform mounting the Starstreak HVM system. The fact that a modernised launcher can also use the LMM is an added bonus.

All of the above show how the Army has seen the least investment of the three services. This needs to be rectified as a matter of the highest priority. Having the Strike Brigades rely on a few dozen Javelin launcher for their entire AT fire power is a classic example and why I have been proposing the common turret of both Ajax and Boxer. Even though some programmes like Boxer and Ajax are now bearing fruit, they have not been consistently funded and have not been allowed to utilise the full potential for the platforms being developed. These have left the Army with gaping hole in its capability even in its latest platforms.

After decades of under funding, with the lion's share of funding going to the hugely expensive highly complex programmes run by the Navy and Air Force, thins need to be re balanced. The vast majority of the Army's AFV fleet needs either replacing or major upgrades if the Army is to be fit for purpose. The Army need to re focus on top tier high intensity warfare purchasing equipment that is both effective in the this but able to be used in less hostile environments. Boxer is the key to this but that is another thread.

The Warrior, once completing the CSP will be a very effective platform and serve the Army well into the 2030s. But it needs to be part of a force structured and equipped to deal with modern threat, both today and tomorrow. You cannot have an Army fit for purpose on the cheap. To do so is a false economy with the price being paid in the lives of service men and women who did not have the right kit to fight and survive on a modern battlefield.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Apr 2019, 22:33

Lord Jim wrote:After decades of under funding, with the lion's share of funding going to the hugely expensive highly complex programmes run by the Navy and Air Force, thins need to be re balanced. The vast majority of the Army's AFV fleet needs either replacing or major upgrades if the Army is to be fit for purpose. The Army need to re focus on top tier high intensity warfare purchasing equipment that is both effective in the this but able to be used in less hostile environments. Boxer is the key to this but that is another thread.

The first part of this statement is fundamentally incorrect. The Army has received Billions in UOR fleet vehicles that it now has little use for. It has squandered money updating outdated platforms (Bulldog, Scimitar 2), vanity projects (Watchkeeper) and continually delayed much needed programmes (CR2 LEP, FRES UV) that have ultimately led to greater costs down stream. If the Army gets all its projected procurement for the mid term (full AJAX fleet, CR2 LEP, MIV, WCSP, MRVP part 1 and 2) then you're looking at about £10Bn.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 08 Apr 2019, 23:43

When it comes to Army procurement, it’s a four letter work beginning with ‘f’ that has done much of the damage.
Could you imagine what the situation would be like had we not gone down that particular rabbit hole?
Boxer in service, Warrior 2000 being the primary IFV with the Rarden equipped vehicles converted to replace the FV 430 series, CVR(T) Scimitar and co replaced by CVR(T) Stormer...

Anyhow, we are at a different stage now.

I could see a use for the short range weapons on a turret, especially when armour is used in complex terrain, and I wouldn’t put much faith in the CT40 being able to deal with any sort of tank other than a light one from the frontal arc. Sides and rear only, at any range.

The Warrior and Challenger upgrades are stopgaps to keep the Armoured force effective for long enough to see where the Major projects are going (US, European, Russian and Chinese). I’d suggest that the replacement would look to the Israeli and Russian concepts where the infantry vehicle uses many of the same systems and components as the MBT.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Apr 2019, 03:18

RunningStrong wrote:The first part of this statement is fundamentally incorrect. The Army has received Billions in UOR fleet vehicles that it now has little use for. It has squandered money updating outdated platforms (Bulldog, Scimitar 2), vanity projects (Watchkeeper) and continually delayed much needed programmes (CR2 LEP, FRES UV) that have ultimately led to greater costs down stream. If the Army gets all its projected procurement for the mid term (full AJAX fleet, CR2 LEP, MIV, WCSP, MRVP part 1 and 2) then you're looking at about £10Bn.


I do not class the UORs for Afghanistan and Iraq as true funding for the Army, these procurements were to urgently meet operational requirements for a type of operation the Army had not planned to fight nor equipped to do so. What I consider true funding is those programmes that were part of the core that were mainly stalled, in limbo or cancelled over the past three decades. The Army has had funding for its core programmes repeatedly diverted to other areas deemed more important that its retaining and modernising its capability to fight high intensity conventional warfare.

Part of the blame goes to the service chiefs who repeatedly moved the goal posts and tried to follow whatever the US was developing. Part goes to the Programme managers who were too reluctant to make important decisions when required and preferred to let programme stay in limbo rather then move forward. And a part goes to the Treasury who whilst funding the UORs failed to properly fund the rest of defence which greatly hindered amny equipment programmes as they were unable to move forward through lack of funding.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10899
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Apr 2019, 04:54

Lord Jim wrote:harks back to the days when they were responsible for the Army's dedicated Anti Tank units.
Quite right. Or even further back, when the US tanks were developed as infantry support tanks (up to Sherman) and the more effective ones belonged to artillery
- evidenced by the fact that when the fight was where not expected, in the Ardennes, it became the only main engagement in Europe where the effective kill distances by US forces surpassed those of the opposing German tanks. Simply because most of the "tanks" that happened to be there were with artillery and had more potent guns on them
Lord Jim wrote:All of the above show how the Army has seen the least investment of the three services.

+
Lord Jim wrote: with the lion's share of funding going to the hugely expensive highly complex programmes run by the Navy and Air Force

You can't look at equipment budgets in isolation. For sure RAF/ RN are more capital intensive and army more manpower intensive... it is the nature of 'things'. The ultimate example is the deterrent: relative to the huge upfront cost, cheap to run (until renewal comes around... as it does).
Lord Jim wrote:The Army need to re focus on top tier high intensity warfare purchasing equipment that is both effective in the this but able to be used in less hostile environments. Boxer is the key
Quite right
RunningStrong wrote: for the mid term (full AJAX fleet, CR2 LEP, MIV, WCSP, MRVP part 1 and 2) then you're looking at about £10Bn
There's more than that for AFVs in the EP; it is the bunching up that gives the problem.
mr.fred wrote:I could see a use for the short range weapons on a turret, especially when armour is used in complex terrain, and I wouldn’t put much faith in the CT40
Quite. Nort German plains is the past, the boreal forest to the North and East the present. In the latter the effective engagement distances average 400 meters.
mr.fred wrote:look to the Israeli and Russian concepts where the infantry vehicle uses many of the same systems and components as the MBT.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10899
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Apr 2019, 05:04

Ahh, mr. fred quote was hiding and I hit "enter" too early. Just as well as this one goes beyond Warrior, to next gen.

The point is well made, but another important trend is also in evidence in Israel and in Russia. Namely, making AFVs less heavy and being smaller helps with that
- Armata is (will be?) close to 50t when the best other MBTs weigh in at around 70
- Carmel will also use a citadel, to lessen the need for an all-around protection above what is needed against the heaviest autocannons.

Top-attack is all the craze and the only way to provide protection against that is to accept mission kills, protect the crews (to fight another day) and go for numbers (so that a few mission kills at AFV level won't kill "the mission").
Ugh! (the emoticon for an Indian Chief with feathered headgear and crossed hands is sadly missing :D )

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Apr 2019, 12:01

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- Armata is (will be?) close to 50t when the best other MBTs weigh in at around 70

T-14 is well above 50t. Unless the Russians either have it possessing little armour, have not factored in anything but the very baseline chassis, or have broken how physics works. It's likely on par with the other NATO ones, which are between 57-62t.

70t is only when they have those huge urban kits on them.

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Qwerty » 09 Apr 2019, 12:10

The UOR equipment isn’t budgeted for by the MOD but by the Treasury.
This is/was kit the army should’ve had but was never funded thanks to various government policies. Short term strategic thinking and planning and not very popular as it doesn’t win votes.

Whereas Typhoons and Aircraft carriers are all about keeping U.K.plc at the forefront of cutting edge technology, wheels and tracks, etc are not anywhere as expensive, easier to cut and bury under bad news.

Some UOR’s have been brought into the core budget and the SV vehicle fleet have been a success (although there were teething issues)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Apr 2019, 13:57

Although I do not believe the CTA40 could actually penetrate and destroy a T-80 from the form it could possibly achieve a mission kill, taking out optics and/or tracks, so its utility should not be underestimated. CQB with armoured vehicles is a mugs game and in these situations it will be the infantry to the fore with their IFVs and APC providing fire support and shelter from indirect fire when needed. An infantry section with NLAW is going to have far more success at these ranges than a Warrior with a couple of the aforementioned weapon mounted on its turret.

The fact that we could be fighting at these short ranges dies bring up the issue of the reorganisation of the Infantry and the loss of the LMG for example. The idea of accurate suppressing fire has is merits but when faced with far superior number weight of fire maybe preferable. The benefit of re adopting the Carl Gustav in its M4 form also becomes far more tempting, with its ability to fir different types of ammunition whist being man portable.

A piece of kit that should become standard on all our AFV is the fire direction sensor, and q personal version should be made available to each infantry section or even fire team. Our AFVs, especially those with less armour like Warrior should all have APS as standard as the greatest threat to them at the ranges we have talked about a going to be RPGs in one guise or another, and every enemy fire team has one of these at least. AFV and infantry launch UAVs are also going to be a key enabler and Infantry based ISTAR needs to be increase for both the individual and the platforms they are carried in. A Section commander should be able to view the feed from a local UAV whilst in their IFV and ideally have a portable though smaller terminal as well. Like the UA Army amongst other, we need to accelerate to ability of all arms to quickly and securely transfer data, something we are still lagging behind in. A lot of the above should have been in the baseline equipment list covered by the Warrior CSP. To include it later is going to be far more costly compared to doing it during this programme where the platform is stripped back.

To achieve this I would be willing to see the Army reduced further to only three Armoured Infantry Brigades, one Airmobile/Ranger Brigade and relevant support units, reducing the Army to sixteen front line but enlarged and fully manned and equipped Infantry Battalions. Have each of these mirrored by a Reserve battalion, in some way like how things were back in the 1980s and that would be it. Yes this would make persistent operation on any scale very difficult if not impossible but on the up side it may make the Politicians less keen to become involved in operation that may lead to long term commitments. To this their is also 3 Commando Brigade which Would see its two true Commandos increased along the same line as the Army's Battalions and also have a third Commando made up of Reserves. This reduction in personnel could free up substantial funds to allow the procurement of needed kit, but would make the remaining formation fit for purpose.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Apr 2019, 15:33

Lord Jim wrote:Although I do not believe the CTA40 could actually penetrate and destroy a T-80 from the form it could possibly achieve a mission kill, taking out optics and/or tracks, so its utility should not be underestimated.

I would hazard against thoughts of achieving mission kills. Autocannon armed IFVs against a group of tanks is just asking for said IFVs to be slaughtered. Achieving such mission kills are very unlikely, and the range required for that sort of pinpoint accuracy would be suicidally inefficient.

I've always seen IFV ATGMs as more of a "proactively reactive" weapon. Most Bradleys using them stumbled into tanks, realised they had a chance,and used it. They didn't go out hunting after all. But the time to deploy infantry for that removes the reaction element. It's all a balance, hence that an IFV with ATGMs, and the infantry inside also having ATGMs, is the "standard choice" for most nations who bother to arm their vehicles well. (ie - The majority of major nations.)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1696
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby bobp » 09 Apr 2019, 16:08

Lord Jim wrote:A piece of kit that should become standard on all our AFV is the fire direction sensor


https://des.mod.uk/ajax-threat-detectio ... nsor-army/

Also posted this in Ajax thread but put it hear for reference.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Apr 2019, 18:37

Thanks for that.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 10 Apr 2019, 20:57

Lord Jim wrote:Although I do not believe the CTA40 could actually penetrate and destroy a T-80 from the form it could possibly achieve a mission kill, taking out optics and/or tracks, so its utility should not be underestimated.

It can't do it to a T55, let alone something even slightly more modern. The utility of HE or airburst shouldn't be overestimated either. As a last ditch it's better than nothing, but not something that you'd want to rely on.
Lord Jim wrote:A lot of the above should have been in the baseline equipment list covered by the Warrior CSP. To include it later is going to be far more costly compared to doing it during this programme where the platform is stripped back.

There was a recent video where the managers from the WCSP programme (DE&S and LM) were stood in front of a vehicle and talking about future capability - it might yet be designed in. If there's any sense it would be set up so you can add it later so you don't need to fit all vehicles with expensive electronics when they don't all need it.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 10 Apr 2019, 21:53

Lord Jim wrote:A piece of kit that should become standard on all our AFV is the fire direction sensor, and q personal version should be made available to each infantry section or even fire team.

I agree, but unless you properly integrate with the current systems then all you're doing is adding an additional display screen and significant task loading for the crew.

It will become standard in time but the platform systems need to be upto scratch first (something which may or may not be addressed in CR2, but likely will in WCSP and MIV).

Our AFVs, especially those with less armour like Warrior should all have APS as standard as the greatest threat to them at the ranges we have talked about a going to be RPGs in one guise or another, and every enemy fire team has one of these at least.

Disagree entirely. APS is not without its risks to surrounding infantry and platforms. It's also heavy and quite a burden on systems. It should be kept for high value assets.

AFV and infantry launch UAVs are also going to be a key enabler and Infantry based ISTAR needs to be increase for both the individual and the platforms they are carried in.

Agreed.

A Section commander should be able to view the feed from a local UAV whilst in their IFV and ideally have a portable though smaller terminal as well. Like the UA Army amongst other, we need to accelerate to ability of all arms to quickly and securely transfer data, something we are still lagging behind in. A lot of the above should have been in the baseline equipment list covered by the Warrior CSP. To include it later is going to be far more costly compared to doing it during this programme where the platform is stripped back.

Lagging behind who?

Because from my understanding we have one of the best secure data network systems that is integrated across the platform fleet and infantry. It's not without it's issues, but the MORPHEUS programme continues to evolve the capability.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10899
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Apr 2019, 13:29

RunningStrong wrote:the MORPHEUS programme continues to evolve the capability.
v important, but does not make headlines

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 16:23

I wasn't full aware of the potential of the Morpheus programme, and its ability to provide battlefield and other data across platforms and personnel. How far is it from being actually introduced? Is it part of the Ajax and Warrior CSP programmes? Or is it like so many programmes, moving at such a sedate speed that its actually role out is yet to be confirmed?

As far as APS is concerned, it depends on what one describes as a "High value assets". Today every soldier is seen as such as so platforms such as APCs and IFVs should definitely receive such systems. Weight is becoming less of an issue with the various Israeli companies producing light weight versions of existing systems designed for vehicles as light as a 4x4. I think what needs to happen is all frontline platforms needs to be FFBNW and that APD should be part of every TES kit.

As for the CTA-40, as I stated it is unlikely to go through the front door when fighting Main Battle Tanks, though it does stand a small chance of a mission kill by disabling systems. But then again there is little the Infantry have that can take on a latest generation T-90 or T-80 from the front. NLAW is not a certain kill, Javelin possibly if not intercepted or spoofed by counter measures. But the CTA-40 is an incredibly flexible weapon systems and has a lot of potential still to be realised. As for the infantry, adopting the M4 CG would give them a better weapon than the current Matador.

It does seem strange to me that whilst we are increasing the firepower of the Warrior we seem to be heading in the opposite direction with the Infantry it carries. I sort of understand the desire to lighten the load of the individual soldier, but every time we have sent troop in to combat they have raided very store house to gain as much fore power as they can and UORs have had to be issued to fill gaps. Should we be looking more towards enabling the Soldier to have the firepower they actually need with them on the battlefield.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 11 Apr 2019, 19:46

Lord Jim wrote:I wasn't full aware of the potential of the Morpheus programme, and its ability to provide battlefield and other data across platforms and personnel. How far is it from being actually introduced? Is it part of the Ajax and Warrior CSP programmes? Or is it like so many programmes, moving at such a sedate speed that its actually role out is yet to be confirmed?

MORPHEUS is likely still early days, but it's besides the point, Bowman already offers SA data to the soldier. It offers wider data to the vehicle.

As far as APS is concerned, it depends on what one describes as a "High value assets". Today every soldier is seen as such as so platforms such as APCs and IFVs should definitely receive such systems.

Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.

High value assets are battle winning assets.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 20:13

RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.High value assets are battle winning assets.


No offence meant, but to politicians and bean counters they are as they cost money and are valuable but I see your point. A previous post stated that APS should only be bought for High Value assets, and the point I was making was that an APC or IFV carrying Infantry was such an assets, and I stand by this. The platform and personnel are one weapon system.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 694
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 11 Apr 2019, 21:48

RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.

Forgive me, but they are. At least as far as the battlefield.
Obviously you don't want to spend them frivolously, but equally you can't achieve zero casualties and you are likely to suffer more if you try not to take any.

I'd take a reasonable chance of knocking out a tank with an NLAW vs. a minuscule chance of damaging it with a CT40.
ASM as a disposable system that anyone can use has certain advantages compared to concentrating the capability to a team that others can only carry ammunition for. A CG and a dozen rounds can only be in one place while a dozen ASMs can be in a dozen places.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Apr 2019, 21:55

We will have to differ on our level of appreciation for the CTA-40 and other bit of kit.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10899
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Apr 2019, 22:25

mr.fred wrote:ASM as a disposable system

ASM? I only know it as one of the rounds available for CG:
CARL-GUSTAF M4,MULTI-ROLE/ ANTI-STRUCTURE specifically with HEDP 502 MT 756 and ASM 509


Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10899
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Apr 2019, 05:19

Ahh, Matador! Thank you.
More blast (90 mm vs 84) and just one round, rather than the many for CG:
"United Kingdom: British Army has ordered the new Anti-Structures Munition (ASM) version of the MATADOR "


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests