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.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Tempest414 » 12 Apr 2019, 08:39

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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Apr 2019, 09:38

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

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 12 Apr 2019, 11:31

O for Overfly

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Apr 2019, 16:32

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.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 12 Apr 2019, 18:54

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.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Tinman » 12 Apr 2019, 20:30

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



RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2387
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Jul 2019, 18:37



Spotted while at Tankfest.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Jul 2019, 21:03

Do we have more than one? :D

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 11 Jul 2019, 21:29

A few...

Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Jul 2019, 07:05

Are those the trials platforms or are they awaiting delivery to the Army.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 12 Jul 2019, 08:33

I didn't think that there had been a production contract so Trials vehicles?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1938
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Gabriele » 12 Jul 2019, 09:35

There's 11 or 12 vehicles being used in the Reliability Growth Trials. Until the manufacture order is confirmed, there won't be others.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests