Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Nor do I ever recollect a situation where a Warrior had to wait for the MBTs to catch up, something to do with all arms groupings. Even on an objective Warrior was protected by the accompanying tanks, the clue was in the name Intimate Support.

Do the tactical arguments no longer apply? Can intimate support no longer be done? Or is the Warrior upgrade not going to incorporate a stabilised weapon system?

Reliance on intimate support is still a comparative reduction in capability, in two respects.
Firstly, in terms of reaction to new targets. If the opposition is co-operative enough to place his defenses sufficiently in the open that the overwatching tanks can deal with them, then that's fine, but if they decide they're going to use terrain masking or whatever, then it may well be the case that the only allied vehicle with line of sight to the threat is the IFV. Even if it isn't a matter of line of sight, it may just be that the IFV spots the threat first. They have a bunch of eyeballs scanning around, I would think that a company of IFVs would have a reasonable chance of spotting things before the accompanying platoon of tanks did. At which point you have to hand off the target, or the IFV has to deal with the problem itself, whichever is faster. You can try bringing the tanks up close with the IFVs, but then they no longer are a detached support-by-fire element able to deal with things like "unexpected counter-attack from the flank" (and may also put tanks at greater vulnerability). It would require yet another group of tanks to be added to the attack.

The other issue is the amount of targets which can be engaged at once. If an infantry company is moving forward, that's, what, a dozen cannon or machinegun not doing anything in the most critical and vulnerable phase of the assault? Even if you assume an equal number of tanks to IFVs, you're only OK if the number of targets does not exceed more than half the number of attacking vehicles. I should say that 'targets' can mean not only identified targets, but suspicious bushes, ditches, etc in which an as-yet unidentified threat may lurk and require either preventative suppression or a rapid kill. The only counter to this is to add more vehicles to any assault, but the British Army is running short on vehicles lately, it seems.

The only significant downside to a stabilised gun on an IFV is cost. The British may have considered it, in advance, to be a 'nice to have', but it adds a lot of flexibility for not very much cost.

This is, of course, a separate issue to choosing a clip-fed weapon.
 
Do the tactical arguments no longer apply? Can intimate support no longer be done? Or is the Warrior upgrade not going to incorporate a stabilised weapon system?

Reliance on intimate support is still a comparative reduction in capability, in two respects.
Firstly, in terms of reaction to new targets. If the opposition is co-operative enough to place his defenses sufficiently in the open that the overwatching tanks can deal with them, then that's fine, but if they decide they're going to use terrain masking or whatever, then it may well be the case that the only allied vehicle with line of sight to the threat is the IFV. Even if it isn't a matter of line of sight, it may just be that the IFV spots the threat first. They have a bunch of eyeballs scanning around, I would think that a company of IFVs would have a reasonable chance of spotting things before the accompanying platoon of tanks did. At which point you have to hand off the target, or the IFV has to deal with the problem itself, whichever is faster. You can try bringing the tanks up close with the IFVs, but then they no longer are a detached support-by-fire element able to deal with things like "unexpected counter-attack from the flank" (and may also put tanks at greater vulnerability). It would require yet another group of tanks to be added to the attack.

The other issue is the amount of targets which can be engaged at once. If an infantry company is moving forward, that's, what, a dozen cannon or machinegun not doing anything in the most critical and vulnerable phase of the assault? Even if you assume an equal number of tanks to IFVs, you're only OK if the number of targets does not exceed more than half the number of attacking vehicles. I should say that 'targets' can mean not only identified targets, but suspicious bushes, ditches, etc in which an as-yet unidentified threat may lurk and require either preventative suppression or a rapid kill. The only counter to this is to add more vehicles to any assault, but the British Army is running short on vehicles lately, it seems.

The only significant downside to a stabilised gun on an IFV is cost. The British may have considered it, in advance, to be a 'nice to have', but it adds a lot of flexibility for not very much cost.

This is, of course, a separate issue to choosing a clip-fed weapon.

I can’t remember what the US FM on combined arms says, but in UK doctrine, the battlegroup (or Sqn-Coy Group) is almost always led by the tanks - not least of which because a 70t platform is more likely to be able to take ballistic abuse in the face, and is a more stable platform for detecting threats.

In the attack, assault tank troops lead to provide the shock and awe on the objective, and create a ‘ring of steel’ beyond. Warrior platoons line up behind the intimate support tank troops, who quite literally drive them onto the objective. Warriors would fire on the move using their chain gun (30mm HE was never that great at suppression anyway), and an experienced gunner could usually use the manual elevation to deliver a good beaten zone onto the trench line.

As I think you mentioned earlier, unlike Bradley, Warrior never had a Cav/recce role, so it was felt that benefits of stabilisation compared to cost were probably less - at least until its midlife upgrade was due (which admittedly has happened a lot later than intended).

On a related matter, I’ve compared the dispersion data for RARDEN and the Russian 2A42 - the latter is all over the place, even when static.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Do the tactical arguments no longer apply? Can intimate support no longer be done? Or is the Warrior upgrade not going to incorporate a stabilised weapon system?

Reliance on intimate support is still a comparative reduction in capability, in two respects.
Firstly, in terms of reaction to new targets. If the opposition is co-operative enough to place his defenses sufficiently in the open that the overwatching tanks can deal with them, then that's fine, but if they decide they're going to use terrain masking or whatever, then it may well be the case that the only allied vehicle with line of sight to the threat is the IFV. Even if it isn't a matter of line of sight, it may just be that the IFV spots the threat first. They have a bunch of eyeballs scanning around, I would think that a company of IFVs would have a reasonable chance of spotting things before the accompanying platoon of tanks did. At which point you have to hand off the target, or the IFV has to deal with the problem itself, whichever is faster. You can try bringing the tanks up close with the IFVs, but then they no longer are a detached support-by-fire element able to deal with things like "unexpected counter-attack from the flank" (and may also put tanks at greater vulnerability). It would require yet another group of tanks to be added to the attack.

The other issue is the amount of targets which can be engaged at once. If an infantry company is moving forward, that's, what, a dozen cannon or machinegun not doing anything in the most critical and vulnerable phase of the assault? Even if you assume an equal number of tanks to IFVs, you're only OK if the number of targets does not exceed more than half the number of attacking vehicles. I should say that 'targets' can mean not only identified targets, but suspicious bushes, ditches, etc in which an as-yet unidentified threat may lurk and require either preventative suppression or a rapid kill. The only counter to this is to add more vehicles to any assault, but the British Army is running short on vehicles lately, it seems.

The only significant downside to a stabilised gun on an IFV is cost. The British may have considered it, in advance, to be a 'nice to have', but it adds a lot of flexibility for not very much cost.

This is, of course, a separate issue to choosing a clip-fed weapon.

Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating the status quo, I would be more than happy with a Warrior with a stabilised turret however the doctrine and tactics would have to change to reflect the new capabilities.

Gassing_Badgers has explained the British way of conducting a Sqn/Coy Gp attack which I hope goes some way to showing how to overcome the lack of an IFV with a stabilised turret. All I would add is that there is usually a static troop that provides DF onto the objective whilst those forces in the assault are carrying out the assault.

I merely try to correct some of the more fanciful notions put forward by PhotEx (or whatever other guise he may choose to inhabit this week). As mentioned in a previous posting he expresses some opinions that are quite simply wrong based on sources of dubious provenance.

If I wish to read about a fantasy world where magic is capable of besting any of our enemies I will re-read the books written by JK Rowling, rather than many of PhotEx and his missives.
 
Some of us are learning wot we didnt know and are well happy with the idea - so please keep the info coming !
 
C8194F7E-268A-4258-9622-0A49CC7D43CE.jpeg
 
Wow. Imagine that lot out to the front and protecting your flanks while you follow on with the new Warrior and Boxer behind.
All we need now is summat like K9 155 SPG and we'd smack a few arrses.
 
Wow. Imagine that lot out to the front and protecting your flanks while you follow on with the new Warrior and Boxer behind.
All we need now is summat like K9 155 SPG and we'd smack a few arrses.
@PhotEx will be along in a minute explain how Russian BMD-3s will take them apart should we be foolish enough to question Saint Vladimir.
 
@PhotEx will be along in a minute explain how Russian BMD-3s will take them apart should we be foolish enough to question Saint Vladimir.

Nah, they’ll all be destroyed by cheap Amazonski drones and an unrelenting rain of MBRL rounds before they get out of Calais - and that’s before they get within range of the Ion Cannon anti-tank screen and hoards of AT-ATs in reserve...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nah, they’ll all be destroyed by cheap Amazonski drones and an unrelenting rain of MBRL rounds before they get out of Calais - and that’s before they get within range of the Ion Cannon anti-tank screen and hoards of AT-ATs in reserve...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unrelenting rain of empty vodka bottles and AL39ski containers more like.
 
Is that a fibreglass fume extractor on the Hun Gun? If so that's a bad idea.
 
That defence committee has published all the evidence it's received:

I've only had a chance to skim read but this one caught my attention:

The British Army’s armoured vehicle capability represents one of a number of significant work strands that the MoD is currently undertaking which are competing for the continuing funding by the defence budget. As the National Audit Office have highlighted, the current EquipmentPlan is unaffordable and it is unclear how the MoD will resolve the financial shortfall.1 Previous assumptions about efficiency savings and the potential sale of MoD assets have proven to be optimistic.2

I've yet to sit down and read Lockheed Martin's one which I suspect will say "It's not our fault! Keep the cash taps turned on bitches!"
 
I've yet to sit down and read Lockheed Martin's one which I suspect will say "It's not our fault! Keep the cash taps turned on bitches!"

Or maybe, “this is what happens when MoD changes a spec during a project, mandates the use of a weapon system still in development, or sells off the organisation responsible for providing refurbished hulls (which were in a worse state than expected)”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Or maybe, “this is what happens when MoD changes a spec during a project, mandates the use of a weapon system still in development, or sells off the organisation responsible for providing refurbished hulls (which were in a worse state than expected)”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Little of Column A, little of Column B?
 

aardvark64

War Hero
... and people still somehow manage to maintain the belief that we don't need a Defence Industrial Strategy.
 

Latest Threads

Top