Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Destraex » Mon 20 Oct 2014 04:13

The British have it pretty poor when it comes to APC carriers. The only one worth fielding for infantry support is the warrior
However I have noticed they will not fire unless stopped.

It is bad enough that it does not really have AT missiles like a lot of other nations.

Is this intentional or does the warrior really have such a poor fire control system in real life?
Image

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby DoktorvonWer » Mon 20 Oct 2014 04:21

No, stop, no. Warrior is in a good place now.

It is an unstabilised gun in real life, hence it can't fire on the move. Back when it used to, with the unstabilised 5% accuracy, it was wasting ammunition and giving its position away by doing so while being totally incapable of hitting anything anyway, making it far less effective.

Warrior's niche is in heavy armour, decent speed and consistent fire support with a cannon that hasn't got much raw DPS but has decent AP and range, making it very useful in numerous situations, even if it lacks raw firepower.


Only the other RARDEN vehicles suck. I still would like Scimitar to be a Scimitar '90 so it can have the Warrior-era RARDEN ammunition with the full accuracy and AP, because the pre-Warrior RARDEN is horribly useless.
Image

User avatar
Destraex
Warrant Officer
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 02:32
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Destraex » Mon 20 Oct 2014 05:29

Well if it was not stabilized in real life I guess that is fine. I will adapt.
The British army sure does make some strange decisions.
Image

User avatar
Hawker Siddeley
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon 20 Oct 2014 09:31
Location: Heart of the glorious Empire

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Hawker Siddeley » Mon 20 Oct 2014 09:40

Destraex wrote:The British have it pretty poor when it comes to APC carriers. The only one worth fielding for infantry support is the warrior

Actually the British have damn good APCs, the Stalwart can just drive forever and ever. The Warrior is an IFV.

Destraex wrote:However I have noticed they will not fire unless stopped.

This is an issue? I only ever see autocannon uses be used in attack move where they'd stop anyway.

Destraex wrote:It is bad enough that it does not really have AT missiles like a lot of other nations.

Warrior Milan.
Image
Professional funtposter
Baitin', hatin', reservse configuratin'

User avatar
Darth-Lampshade
Captain
Posts: 1680
Joined: Thu 10 May 2012 20:12
Location: CT, USA
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Darth-Lampshade » Mon 20 Oct 2014 10:00

Seriously, WTF were the Brits thinking with that? Shouldn't somebody have taken a look at the M242 on the M2/M3 and said "lets just buy that"?
When in doubt blame UGBEAR.

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10430
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby ikalugin » Mon 20 Oct 2014 10:04

Or Marder.
That said brits were fairly conservative in their ground forces, so getting an early IFV would be improbable.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Bougnas » Mon 20 Oct 2014 10:10

Destraex wrote:The British army sure does make some strange decisions.


A stabilizer takes place. An autocannon has an horrible dispersion (even with a good FCS) so just imagine an autocannon firing on the move.
Brits just wanted to have a cheaper IFV with good accuracy, not a yolo-shot-Terminator-expensive IFV.
Image

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby DoktorvonWer » Mon 20 Oct 2014 12:24

Darth-Lampshade wrote:Seriously, WTF were the Brits thinking with that? Shouldn't somebody have taken a look at the M242 on the M2/M3 and said "lets just buy that"?


The inclusion of an autocannon at all on British infantry transports is more of an 'oh a little extra, how nice'; doctrine-wise the roles of fire support and APC were kept separate. At the time the Warrior was being conceived it was as a replacement for the FV432, and while the value of an armed IFV was recognised, it wasn't designed primarily as a powerful fire support vehicle. It was designed to be better protected than the FV432 and faster on and off-road, while remaining cheap and simple to operate and maintain. The capability to adapt it for other roles - e.g. the MAOV Recon, Command Vehicle, Mechanised Recovery vehicle etc. were also important as it had originally aimed to replace the FV432 entirely.

The RARDEN was added a bonus to this package, to provide capability, not so much to provide raw firepower or to try and create the most lethal fighting vehicle. It's not a high 'DPS' autocannon, but has some advantages considering what the Warrior was designed for:

  • It operates at all times and is manually loaded. Slower, yes, but if the vehicle's power supply is knocked out... The RARDEN keeps on firing; the mechanism (and even extraction I believe) is powerless, and no autoloader means it'll go as long as its crew does.
  • It's fairly cheap and arguably easier to maintain than the M242 with its loaders and electronics.
  • You still don't want to get hit by its 30mm rounds if you're sat in a Soviet IFV!
  • It's much smaller than many contemporary powered autocannons. Smaller turret with more internal space, as a result

Basically, it's a very pragmatic and practical autocannon. It won't be winning any awards for rate of fire or advanced FCS, but it does a good job consistently, cheaply and with minimal reliability and maintenance woes, the latter of which the British Army valued rather highly in conventional war scenarios.
Image

User avatar
Mikeboy
General
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 21:59
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Mikeboy » Mon 20 Oct 2014 12:29

Darth-Lampshade wrote:Seriously, WTF were the Brits thinking with that? Shouldn't somebody have taken a look at the M242 on the M2/M3 and said "lets just buy that"?


The Army didn't like the idea of the IFV in the first place. Hence why the UK introduced them so late compared to the rest of NATO and only when prettymuch forced to due to excessive casualties in wargames. When they did it was little more than an APC poorly integrated with an off the shelf gun designed for vehicles that had to be very small.

But it's not like it took them nearly 30 years to fix that.

DoktorvonWer wrote:Basically, it's a very pragmatic and practical autocannon. It won't be winning any awards for rate of fire or advanced FCS, but it does a good job consistently, cheaply and with minimal reliability and maintenance woes, the latter of which the British Army valued rather highly in conventional war scenarios.


The Rarden does not at all have a reputation for being reliable. Servicemen hate the thing.

Liare
Lieutenant
Posts: 1415
Joined: Wed 24 Apr 2013 22:40
Contact:

Re: Why does the warrior need to stop to fire?

Postby Liare » Mon 20 Oct 2014 12:34

http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Warrior

Perception

Great big thrumming beast of a thing with a big growly engine and full of blokes who, when not asleep or having a wank in the drivers compartment, are the best Infantry in the world.

Goes really quick anywhere you want to take it, and stops bloody sharp-ish too.

To compensate for its speed, presence and protection it is equipped with comedy weapons that need precognitive abilities (Think I'll need HE in three rounds time) or (when using the Chaingun), a patient and slow moving enemy, "firing now", BANG, clunk, "stoppage, feck hang on a bit - bollocks - dropped the spinny thing"


http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Chaingun

The greatest contributor to British Military casualty figures since Haig's Chief of Staff misunderstood the General's morale boosting idea of a "Song and Dance" and instead initiated the shockingly wasteful Somme Advance in 1916.

This thing breaks, it burns, it bites, it runs away and it explodes, all without a single round going anywhere near the target. The man who invented this was being noshed off at the time, either that or he was a blind, fingerless man from Albania.

Designed for being a gravity fed weapon, some halfwit at the MOD put it in the Warrior upside down so that the link took all the strain. Probably looked at the link and thought that he could save some pennies there so made it thinner and easily bendable.

You're better off throwing your helmet at the advancing hordes... either that or finding the girl (one hopes) that was giving the nosh and getting one yourself.

See Warrior the vehicle that the Chain Gun fails to fire from.


if ARRSE hates it, it's a fairly safe bet that it's horrible.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests