Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Finally a prototype of Scout. About time considering how much money has already been committed to buying them. :(

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by bobp »

Never quite understood the Scout SV too similar to the Warrior. Looking forward to the DSEI 2015 and wondering what announcements will be made if any.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

bobp

Totally agree, what is the fundamental difference between an updated Warrior and Scout!
Even if their is a rational behind the concept of Scout, which I have not heard yet, it has been poorly executed. As I have said before it is too large too heavy and underarmed.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

whitelancer wrote:bobp

Totally agree, what is the fundamental difference between an updated Warrior and Scout!
Even if their is a rational behind the concept of Scout, which I have not heard yet, it has been poorly executed. As I have said before it is too large too heavy and underarmed.
Well, one is an IFV and one is not. They're totally separate classes of vehicle. Warrior can carry 6-7 men along with it, while Scout is much faster, heavily armoured and carries a massive ISTAR suite.

I still don't quite understand "underarmed". It'd be nice to have ATGMs for those rare times we encounter a modern MBT, but it's got the best autocannon on the planet elsewise that handles pretty much everything it could ever be expected to face. In tandem with that ISTAR suite to spot and target, it's going to be a lethal combination. I think it's very much being billed as a vehicle that is capable of roving aggression, spotting from far off and exploiting targets of oppurtunity. Bullying anything that isn't a modern 3rd gen tank in rapid attacks.

It is becoming ever more apparently of the gulf between likelihoods. ATGMs might come someday, but given the budgets I don't think they should be priority number one for such a vehicle.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote:
whitelancer wrote:bobp

Totally agree, what is the fundamental difference between an updated Warrior and Scout!
Even if their is a rational behind the concept of Scout, which I have not heard yet, it has been poorly executed. As I have said before it is too large too heavy and underarmed.
Well, one is an IFV and one is not. They're totally separate classes of vehicle. Warrior can carry 6-7 men along with it, while Scout is much faster, heavily armoured and carries a massive ISTAR suite.

I still don't quite understand "underarmed". It'd be nice to have ATGMs for those rare times we encounter a modern MBT, but it's got the best autocannon on the planet elsewise that handles pretty much everything it could ever be expected to face. In tandem with that ISTAR suite to spot and target, it's going to be a lethal combination. I think it's very much being billed as a vehicle that is capable of roving aggression, spotting from far off and exploiting targets of oppurtunity. Bullying anything that isn't a modern 3rd gen tank in rapid attacks.

It is becoming ever more apparently of the gulf between likelihoods. ATGMs might come someday, but given the budgets I don't think they should be priority number one for such a vehicle.
Hit the nail on the head there beautifully, to the best of my knowledge, mate. As far as I can work out, and admittedly there hasn't been much commentary on their envisaged employment, they will be used as you had described. It would also seem that the CT40 is also quite capable of making more than a token gesture of a stand even against 3rd Gen MBTs when push comes to shove. Hell if Bradley's were achieving penetrating hits (AFAIK) against Iraqi T-72s then I think the CT40 is going to have a whole lot more to offer on that front. Also on the AT front I would very well imagine that Scout will be practically wedded to the PMRS variant in the hunter-killer capacity, directing Javelin teams on to targets with perfect precision - one would hope! :D

I'm very much hoping that some of the additional models get a reprieve in a hopefully re-drafted Block II purchase which still, as far as I am aware, has not yet been officially ruled out. I doubt we will see the DF variant make a comeback but I would love to see the long mandated Striker replacement finally get its break through FRES. Imagine something like Striker NLOS in its core AT role on an SV platform? Perhaps if we are feeling particularly innovative some bright spark might suggest finding a means to integrate Brimstone as a ground based system? Who knows? :)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Generally, I think Scout's best ATGMs are the ones it guides in fron Exactor 26km away, or the Brimstones it calls the shots for from 60km away.

CT40 is excellent, but that ISTAR suite is the real weapon, I believe is the oft understated element of this vehicle. A recon unit that can sit at a standoff distance and direct modern precision warfare, but is brutal enough of a combatent on its own that projected enemies have very few ways of dealing with it, given once they finally root out this annoying "spotter", they instead find a 40 ton armoured vehicle with a blisteringly powerful autocannon waiting for them.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

RetroSicotte wrote:
whitelancer wrote:bobp

Totally agree, what is the fundamental difference between an updated Warrior and Scout!
Well, one is an IFV and one is not. They're totally separate classes of vehicle. Warrior can carry 6-7 men along with it, while Scout is much faster, heavily armoured and carries a massive ISTAR suite.
I think that slightly avoids the point of the question: a Warrior fitted out for recce would also carry a massive ISTAR suite and would have no room for dismounts.

Both are big, tracked, armoured boxes which as basic vehicles are comparable in most respects. They would both be capable of taking a full section in (turretless) APC versions. They are both capable of being fitted out in various ways for recce or other specialised purposes, and of carrying a wide range of equipment.

The best argument for Scout that I can see would be if the intention has always been to replace the Warriors with a more modern vehicle, on a step-by-step basis. If that is the case, then it is a pity that Scout doesn't seem to offer much in the way of fundamental vehicular advantages over Warrior (more powerful engines are easy to fit). For example, where is the hybrid drivetrain of the kind that BAE claims such major efficiency improvements for?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Here it is
http://www.gizmag.com/bae-gcv-hybrid-tank/25113/

Unfortunately the other specs made the GCV a 70 ton monster, @ $13m a piece still cheaper per ton than the Scout.

Consumption figures make interesting reading. Still, the indications are that the M1A3 will be diesel powered. I guess the hybrids will have to be designed from ground up, the drive train being so different.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ah, the myth that the CT40 is a practical weapon to kill MBTs is back (if it ever left).
Frontal arc, it will have trouble with anything that has had the title MBT.
Side and rear arc it may have a chance against older and/or cheaper models.
The Bofors 40mm has almost exactly the same external ballistics and I don't think anyone has been touting that as a tank-killer

Of course return fire from any MBT that hits will turn a converted IFV inside-out.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

On the "too large, too heavy" front, i'm always tempted to ask what advantages the army would get from sticking with something like Scimitar in the end. The main task of the Scout is screening and reconnaissance for brigades in which the rest of the equipment goes all the way up to MLC Tracked 100.
The Scimitars can choose some extreme routes because they are small and light... but that goes to their advantage only, because the rest of the brigade will not be able to make any use of such route.

One could say that Scimitar (or a Scimitar-like light vehicle) is better at recce by stealth, chosing unexpected routes and observing from the shadow. However, at some point they will have to go recce the routes the brigade can actually use, and maybe end up in combat. And they are not going to do too well in combat.

The FRES Scout is, perhaps, a middle-ground solution. It is going to have much greater mobility than a Warrior (far less ground pressure per square inch thanks to additional wheel and track surface); it is well protected and well armed. Yes, in theory you could have modified the Warrior design, stretching it and obtaining the same end result. But Warrior is old and no longer in production, so it is an obvious no.
You can (and should; and hopefully will under ABSV) modify existing Warriors to cover a lot of roles currently covered by FV432, but the recce role? No. It would be very complex if not impossible to stretche the existing hulls, add another wheel, tracks for better mobility, and the kind of protection and electronics the Scout has.

The Scout can be used with confidence in a lot more "recce by strenght" scenarios than a Scimitar, while still being able to move over terrain that the rest of the brigade cannot use, and that might allow, to a degree, to sneak up on the enemy.
It is middle ground because when it comes to "hardcore" recce by strength, MBTs become needed, and nothing less will quite do.

That's why the US Army used cavalry regiments with Bradleys and tanks for major recce, and is thinking about trying to squeeze some such formations back into the force (read: budget).

Italy has an interesting approach, mixing the Centauro 8x8 with its 105 mm gun (in the future, the Centauro 2 with the 120/44) with the light Puma 6x6 and/or the Lince 4x4 with mast-mounted sensor.
The Centauro is clearly going to do the "by strenght" bit, while the Puma, the Lince and the dismounts do the sneaky bit. In the future, the Puma 6x6 is due to be replaced by a much heavier and more kinetic solution with the Freccia 8x8 Explorer, in two variants: one with radar and Horus UAVs, one with Spike missiles on the turret and an UGV in the back. Both Explorer variants come with a 25mm gun.

On the other hand, that means doing recce with wheels even for brigades mounted on tracks. Ideally, you'd have tracks with tracks and wheels with wheels.

The FRES Scout was going to have its "hardcore" organic firepower in the form of the Overwatch vehicle, a replacement for the Striker of old, with its long range anti-tank missiles.
Unfortunately, the Overwatch variant, due to budget shortage, will just be an APC carrying dismount Javelin teams. That is the one major disappointment.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabby,

For the explorer, are the Italians going to use the Slovak-Polish integration of Spike with Hitfist turret... or do their own?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Gabby,

For the explorer, are the Italians going to use the Slovak-Polish integration of Spike with Hitfist turret... or do their own?
The Hitfist is an italian product. They are the ones using the italian solution. The Freccia with box-mounted Spike LR missiles already exist: it is the anti-tank vehicle within the 8x8 infantry battalion's Heavy Weapons Company. Each infantry company also has a small number of Freccia equipped with the Spike MR, and carrying dismount teams with the base Spike.
The Explorer is just another variant on an already established theme.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thx, new about Hitfist, but not of such extensive use of Spike in the Italian forces.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by shark bait »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Perhaps if we are feeling particularly innovative some bright spark might suggest finding a means to integrate Brimstone as a ground based system? Who knows? :)
That an option I've always liked.
Its a feasable option being been ground launched before, and hell fire had been deployed as a ground launched system in a similar role. It would certainly give scout or warrior one hell of a punch!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Here the launch platform is slightly bigger than a Scout
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Gabriele wrote:On the "too large, too heavy" front, i'm always tempted to ask what advantages the army would get from sticking with something like Scimitar in the end. The main task of the Scout is screening and reconnaissance for brigades in which the rest of the equipment goes all the way up to MLC Tracked 100.
Is that their main task because that's what is needed or is that the main task because that's all it can do? I would say as well that you've only captured half of it. Too large and heavy for recce by stealth or light armour work, too light and underarmed to tangle with equivalent weight formations.
The Scimitars can choose some extreme routes because they are small and light... but that goes to their advantage only, because the rest of the brigade will not be able to make any use of such route.
It's more than that, because the extreme routes can be used by the other side. If you can't put forces into those areas to stop them they can move anti-armour teams, artillery observers and similar units designed to spoil your day in on an exposed flank with impunity
One could say that Scimitar (or a Scimitar-like light vehicle) is better at recce by stealth, chosing unexpected routes and observing from the shadow. However, at some point they will have to go recce the routes the brigade can actually use, and maybe end up in combat. And they are not going to do too well in combat.
It really depends on what you can do with a Scimitar-like vehicle with respect to combat ability. The Stormer Light tank had as much firepower as SV at one-third the weight (if you think that the CT40 is a wonder gun that the Mk44 can't beat then you'll also but the claim that it fits in turrets that fit the Mk44, so there.) The mobility is going to be similar (plus inherent advantages for narrower, lighter vehicles). If you bump up a little for improved armour protection, you're still at half weight.
The FRES Scout is, perhaps, a middle-ground solution. It is going to have much greater mobility than a Warrior (far less ground pressure per square inch thanks to additional wheel and track surface); it is well protected and well armed. Yes, in theory you could have modified the Warrior design, stretching it and obtaining the same end result. But Warrior is old and no longer in production, so it is an obvious no.
Really, it's going to have marginally more mobility than Warrior over certain terrain. You might not notice the difference over a hundred operations, although I'll concede that the one operation where it can make a difference will be noticeable.
It is too lightly protected and armed for its weight class.
You can (and should; and hopefully will under ABSV) modify existing Warriors to cover a lot of roles currently covered by FV432, but the recce role? No. It would be very complex if not impossible to stretche the existing hulls, add another wheel, tracks for better mobility, and the kind of protection and electronics the Scout has.
But you could, if you wanted, fit additional electronics in the vacated section compartment and get almost the same capability. But you are right, there probably isn't enough vehicles available, especially if you want ABSV as well. It might be sensible to have a small number of close recce variant Warriors to replace the Scimitars currently assigned to the Armoured Battlegroups to maximise vehicle commonality within formations. Easy enough to stick a panoramic sight on the back of a turret and some supporting electronics in the back.
The FRES Scout was going to have its "hardcore" organic firepower in the form of the Overwatch vehicle, a replacement for the Striker of old, with its long range anti-tank missiles.
Unfortunately, the Overwatch variant, due to budget shortage, will just be an APC carrying dismount Javelin teams. That is the one major disappointment.
If they can include Exactor in the formation and can cue it from the forward vehicles, that'll do quite nicely, depending on its ability to salvo or ripple fire.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by marktigger »

The networked battlespace is a great concept how practical is it with ELINT/ESM/ECM ?

Could Scout work in the same way that scorpion/scimitar worked in the falklands? has it the same or lower ground pressure?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:The networked battlespace is a great concept how practical is it with ELINT/ESM/ECM ?
It has been practical, to some degree, for the past 100 years. The high degree of networking promised in powerpoint presentations for lots of money for research may end up being somewhat limited if anything emitting for long periods gets counter-battery fire.
Squirting a fire request and target co-ordinates is likely to remain possible
Could Scout work in the same way that scorpion/scimitar worked in the falklands? has it the same or lower ground pressure?
Ground pressure is likely to be higher (34kPa vs 60kPa, according to a quick Google) and the overall weight is higher, so getting it where you need it is more difficult. The CVR(T) was air transportable by Chinook, so it fulfilled the requirement for a light forces weapon carrier as well.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

The Scimitar low weight and air mobility made it perfect for a reconnaissance and fire support platform for 16 Air Assault Brigade. That's where i'd still love seeing a vehicle of those size and overall features.

But it being the main scouting element for armoured / mechanized brigades? No.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

mr.fred wrote:Ah, the myth that the CT40 is a practical weapon to kill MBTs is back (if it ever left).
Frontal arc, it will have trouble with anything that has had the title MBT.
Side and rear arc it may have a chance against older and/or cheaper models.
The Bofors 40mm has almost exactly the same external ballistics and I don't think anyone has been touting that as a tank-killer

Of course return fire from any MBT that hits will turn a converted IFV inside-out.
That is not what is being suggested at all...I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the CT40 constitutes a particularly ideal/viable anti-tank gun, let alone a 'tank-killer'. What people are quite right to point out however is that in circumstances where something like the Scout happens to find itself confronted with an MBT and is forced to engage it, it is a little less helpless/defenceless than it might have otherwise been. Still extremely unlikely to reliably destroy later generation tanks without considerable luck/favourable circumstances, but certainly provides Scout, and others, with more of a chance to at least attempt to fight their way out of trouble against such threats - especially given the types of armour we have found ourselves confronting in our more recent campaigns. Given that CTA advertise the gun as being perfectly viable against 2nd Generation targets there is no reason not to believe that it won't benefit from some proportional level of enhanced performance against later generation platforms too.

Additionally, the CT40, IIRC, has far better ballistic performance than the Bofors 40. If CTA's own projections are to be believed then the CT40 offers better performance than any existing or near-term projected weapon system of a similar nature, including the once much vaunted Supershot 50.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote:Generally, I think Scout's best ATGMs are the ones it guides in fron Exactor 26km away, or the Brimstones it calls the shots for from 60km away.

CT40 is excellent, but that ISTAR suite is the real weapon, I believe is the oft understated element of this vehicle. A recon unit that can sit at a standoff distance and direct modern precision warfare, but is brutal enough of a combatent on its own that projected enemies have very few ways of dealing with it, given once they finally root out this annoying "spotter", they instead find a 40 ton armoured vehicle with a blisteringly powerful autocannon waiting for them.
It is what i have been arguing from the start and only now are more people starting to look past the project's obvious issues and begin to appreciate Scout for the capability it will come to provide. When in service Scout will not simply be, to all intents and purposes, unrivalled - it will be virtually unique in its role. We are evolving, if not even revolutionising, mechanised reconnaissance with Scout. The ISTAR package to be installed on it is not merely more advanced/modern relative to its peers in terms of its more traditional components it is also far more expansive/comprehensive

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by shark bait »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
It is what i have been arguing from the start and only now are more people starting to look past the project's obvious issues and begin to appreciate Scout for the capability it will come to provide. When in service Scout will not simply be, to all intents and purposes, unrivalled - it will be virtually unique in its role. We are evolving, if not even revolutionising, mechanised reconnaissance with Scout. The ISTAR package to be installed on it is not merely more advanced/modern relative to its peers in terms of its more traditional components it is also far more expansive/compressive.

Swap out scout for F35 and that comment still holds true!


Going back to the scout vs warrior comment, is it fair to say that if warrior was built today it would look alot like scout, a more modern intelligent machine?
@LandSharkUK

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

shark bait wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
It is what i have been arguing from the start and only now are more people starting to look past the project's obvious issues and begin to appreciate Scout for the capability it will come to provide. When in service Scout will not simply be, to all intents and purposes, unrivalled - it will be virtually unique in its role. We are evolving, if not even revolutionising, mechanised reconnaissance with Scout. The ISTAR package to be installed on it is not merely more advanced/modern relative to its peers in terms of its more traditional components it is also far more expansive/compressive.

Swap out scout for F35 and that comment still holds true!


Going back to the scout vs warrior comment, is it fair to say that if warrior was built today it would look alot like scout, a more modern intelligent machine?
I guess it does, though you might say that in the case of Scout it is an ISTAR platform that can fight as opposed to the F-35 which is meant to be a fighting platform that can do ISTAR - hence why questions about its performance are a bit more....pressing :lol:

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:That is not what is being suggested at all...I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the CT40 constitutes a particularly ideal/viable anti-tank gun, let alone a 'tank-killer'. What people are quite right to point out however is that in circumstances where something like the Scout happens to find itself confronted with an MBT and is forced to engage it, it is a little less helpless/defenceless than it might have otherwise been. Still extremely unlikely to reliably destroy later generation tanks without considerable luck/favourable circumstances, but certainly provides Scout, and others, with more of a chance to at least attempt to fight their way out of trouble against such threats - especially given the types of armour we have found ourselves confronting in our more recent campaigns. Given that CTA advertise the gun as being perfectly viable against 2nd Generation targets there is no reason not to believe that it won't benefit from some proportional level of enhanced performance against later generation platforms too.
What they advertise and what you can extrapolate from the published performance figures are two different things. It isn't likely to destroy even first generation MBTs (T55, Centurion) without favourable circumstances. The best bet against anything heavier than 30tonne would be to douse it liberally with airburst/HE while popping smoke and running away, which would hold true for a 40mm grenade launcher as well.
Additionally, the CT40, IIRC, has far better ballistic performance than the Bofors 40. If CTA's own projections are to be believed then the CT40 offers better performance than any existing or near-term projected weapon system of a similar nature, including the once much vaunted Supershot 50.
I would suggest that you do not recall correctly, or haven't checked. Both guns (the CTA40 and the Bofors L70 gun both propel a 1kg projectile at 1000m/s) Same muzzle energy (about 0.5MJ).
What data there is for 50mm supershot suggests slightly over 0.5MJ for the APFSDS, compared to the CTA 40mm which puts 0.36MJ for the APFSDS.

Post Reply