Page 19 of 19

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 08:39
by Tempest414
RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.


But Soldiers are seen as Expendable by HMG / MOD as proven by the lack of kit they are afforded

RunningStrong wrote:High value assets are battle winning assets.


If this is the definition then each and every common garden soldier should be seen as a high value asset and afforded good kit

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 09:38
by ArmChairCivvy
mr.fred wrote:I'd take a reasonable chance of knocking out a tank with an NLAW vs. a minuscule chance of damaging it with a CT40.


It is reasonable due to the PLOS/OTA (when Direct Attack DA mode is not chosen)
- Predicted Line of Sight (assumes unchanged speed during the time of flight to target) would need pretty instant reactions from the driver, for avoidance. As there is no homing, one could easily argue that NLAW is a clever rocket (and not a missile), and also due to the
- Javelin-like Top Attack (OTA... I wonder what the "O" stands for? Optional, or "operate" by turning a switch?)

Of course the CTA was never meant for more than dealing with IFVs and their dismounts, Or other ATGW teams hiding... from the thermal :!: sensors

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 11:31
by mr.fred
O for Overfly

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 16:32
by Lord Jim
The CTA is stated to be capable of penetrating legacy MBTs, but the same article doesn't elaborate on what a legacy MBT is, A T-55? Sherman? More importantly it can deal with any current AFV bar MBTs and is believed to be future proofed against developments. Of course there are exception, one being the Namer which id basically a turretless MBT when it comes to protection.

As for the NLAW and its use one the vehicle, I think you would do better to let the dismounted infantry deal with the threat. They would have a far better chance of hitting and neutralising the threat whist it is distracted by the 40mm rounds being fired by the IFV.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 18:54
by mr.fred
Stated performance in the literature is 175mm at point blank. Frontal arc protection of a basic T55 is 200 mm, so it’s not going through that.
It’s an improvement on the 30mm, but not so much that you would be guaranteed to go through something protected against 30mm at all angles.

Mounted NLAW, in my thinking, would be more of a counter to ohshit moments than for deliberate action, based on a system that uses ammunition already in the logistics chain.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 20:30
by Tinman
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.


But Soldiers are seen as Expendable by HMG / MOD as proven by the lack of kit they are afforded

RunningStrong wrote:High value assets are battle winning assets.


If this is the definition then each and every common garden soldier should be seen as a high value asset and afforded good kit



Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 18:37
by RetroSicotte


Spotted while at Tankfest.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:03
by Lord Jim
Do we have more than one? :D

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:29
by mr.fred
A few...

Image

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 07:05
by Lord Jim
Are those the trials platforms or are they awaiting delivery to the Army.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 08:33
by mr.fred
I didn't think that there had been a production contract so Trials vehicles?

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 09:35
by Gabriele
There's 11 or 12 vehicles being used in the Reliability Growth Trials. Until the manufacture order is confirmed, there won't be others.