Brit 30mm

[zmoney]

I have to admit, I’m a huge fan of British kit. The 30mm on the Armored vehicle seems a little weak against infantry in builds though. Unfortunately I only get about 2hrs play time a week due to pesky things such as work and sleep. But when I get a chance I’m going to run a test with similar cannons firing at troops in buildings to see if there is much of a difference. I suspect it’s due to the fact that HE rounds are fired but just a guess. Whereas I believe the 20mm fires HEDP and the CV fires their fancy rounds. Plus it’s a bigger round.
 

Wondering if anyone else have experienced this or know why?

Edited March 20, 2021 by zmoney

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, zmoney said:

But when I get a chance I’m going to run a test with similar cannons firing at troops in buildings

Nato Handsreich I found the Marder's Cannon excellent against infantry in buildings. But as a part of a combined arms assault, you can see the results of breaching walls of the quick firing cannon, combined with the 40mm HE of the infantry section. Combination of plunging and grazing fire. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

The problem with the Warriors lies with the rate of fire.

More specifically the Warriors gun  "RARDEN" has manual loading system using 3 round clips. Max full auto salvo is 6 rounds. 

BMP-2 can fire more rounds of HE in a one burst than the Warriors whole ammo load of HE.

[zmoney]

I believe you guys are right about the rate of fire. I hadn’t even considered that.

[MikeyD]

Rarden is an odd design. Its less a super-sized machine gun and more a down-sized cannon.

[Erwin]

In all the CM2 games, from WW2 onwards it seems that the Brits give very little ammo to their troops.  Budget cuts I guess.  

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

The British Army has always had a particular obsession with ammo consumption/supply - which is no doubt linked to some of their greatest defeats in battle being linked to running out of ammunition. 

I too was puzzled about the Warrior until I did a bit of research about its background. 

It was designed and built in the late Cold War and meant to serve with British Armoured Troops in Germany, where it would be facing hordes of Soviet tanks and IFVs/APCs.
In order to avoid that the vehicle blasted away its ammo within minutes, the slow-firing and 3-6-round Rarden was purposely chosen to ensure that the Warrior would remain combat effective for longer. Also, the lack of a stabilizer for the cannon meant that the crews were encouraged to remain in the pre-planned and prepared defensive positions the British Army would assume if war broke out. The ammo loadout of the Warrior is a clear indication of this role. Also, to the Rarden's credit, it did have the major benefit of not requiring an external power source and can therefore remain in action even if the vehicle's engine is disabled or turned off.

Curiously the export version of the Warrior (called the Desert Warrior) which was acquired by Kuwait is equipped with the 25mm Bushmaster, rather than the Rarden. 

About the use of the Warrior in-game, I personally tend to mainly use its machinegun with a cannon for emergencies and/or armoured targets. This does require a lot of micro-management, which can be a bit tedious (setting target arcs is quick but it can lead to some frustrating situations). 

[Erwin]

1 minute ago, AtheistDane said:

In order to avoid that the vehicle blasted away its ammo within minutes, the slow-firing and 3-6-round Rarden was purposely chosen to ensure that the Warrior would remain combat effective for longer.

Sounds like a rationalizations for budget cuts depriving an important weapon of ammo.  Can you imagine the US or Russians using the same argument?

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Sounds like a rationalizations for budget cuts depriving an important weapon of ammo.  Can you imagine the US or Russians using the same argument?

Budgeting of ammo perhaps. The British forces in Germany would have been seriously outnumbered, and supply would not be easy, so economy of ammo seems like a good idea. The Warrior does have a generous amount of AP ammo, due to its role as a vehicle-killer. 
.
The US and Russians were in a different position than the British. The US had a huge supply system to back up its forces, and the Russians; well, they didn't expect their vehicles to survive long enough for resupply to become an issue (and their advances were incremental with units being substituted/rotated as each objective was reached).

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, AtheistDane said:

The British forces in Germany would have been seriously outnumbered, and supply would not be easy, so economy of ammo seems like a good idea.

Hmm...  Ok, but that was 35+ years ago.  CMSF2 is in Syria 5-10 years ago.   The Brit Warriors (as modeled in CMSF) seem as useful and effective as Italian armor was in WW2.  In a game I find it's necessary to have an entire platoon or more of Warriors all firing at the same target (with HE) to get a useful result in a reasonable amount of time.  With one or two Warriors, you just sit there for many turns of firing b4 anything happens to the target.

[MikeyD]

The Brits thought they had the optics to hit the target reliably and the gun was made for high accuracy shooting, as opposed to autocannons that relied on a dispersion pattern to increase the chance of a hit from a burst. It was very much a small tank gun.

[Erwin]

Interesting difference in doctrine.  However, in the game, the Warrior system comes off as very inferior to the US or Red re IFV firepower.  

[sburke]

On 4/7/2021 at 3:00 PM, Erwin said:

The Brit Warriors (as modeled in CMSF) seem as useful and effective as Italian armor was in WW2.

I literally laughed out loud reading that.  Man that is a brutal comparison.  Haven't played with the Brits enough to really experience it but I'll be wary.

[Erwin]

My CM2 experience with Warriors is that it takes a platoon of Warriors firing for a couple of minutes to equal less than a minute of a single Bradley or BMP firing. 

And as for the BTR 4E, it probably fires more 30mm in 15 seconds than a platoon of Warriors does in over a minute.  In fact the problem in CM2 with the 4E is that one really only needs 5 seconds of fire as one can exhaust its ammo in a little over a minute of firing(!)  Be nice to have a 5 second option rather than the 15 sec minimum.  A workaround is to fire the BTR 4E with a 5 second pause before moving to another waypoint to stop it firing and wasting its precious ammo.

[THH149]

Ammo supply and rate of fire in the Warriors is a real issue. Playing UK Breaking the Bank and we're nearly out of HE with 35minutes to go, and have only been shooting at known targets. The warriors are a kind of hybrid IFV and APC.

The Spartan are even worse, just have a 7.62 mg, so need to be always used as APCs rarely IFVs. I'm not sure why theyre in the scenario, maybe just to fill out the order of battle for the UK unit. If they're not used, better just to leave them out. Maybe there is a use for them to do an end run though, but that exceptionally dangerous in SF2.

They both need as upgrade.

 

[domfluff]

5 hours ago, THH149 said:

Ammo supply and rate of fire in the Warriors is a real issue. Playing UK Breaking the Bank and we're nearly out of HE with 35minutes to go, and have only been shooting at known targets. The warriors are a kind of hybrid IFV and APC.

The Spartan are even worse, just have a 7.62 mg, so need to be always used as APCs rarely IFVs. I'm not sure why theyre in the scenario, maybe just to fill out the order of battle for the UK unit. If they're not used, better just to leave them out. Maybe there is a use for them to do an end run though, but that exceptionally dangerous in SF2.

They both need as upgrade.

 

The Warrior is a vehicle that's designed within the context of the Cold War. The RARDEN is designed to take out enemy BMPs from range, and allow the infantry to get on with winning the infantry fight. It's very capable within that context. The infantry are the primary anti-infantry weapon that the Warrior IFV has, with the Warrior's MG as the secondary weapon.

The Spartan is a (small) APC, and not a fighting vehicle.

Many of the British missions in Shock Force involve you having to use tools which are not designed for their task in creative ways, that's one of the main themes of the module.

Breaking the Bank is a brutal scenario, but it's also a heavy urban environment, which means it's a light infantry fight. The armoured vehicles are there to support that fight at best.

[THH149]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

Many of the British missions in Shock Force involve you having to use tools which are not designed for their task in creative ways, that's one of the main themes of the module.

Breaking the Bank is a brutal scenario, but it's also a heavy urban environment, which means it's a light infantry fight. The armoured vehicles are there to support that fight at best.

Agree, the Brits are using the old flat head in a phillips head screw.

Breaking the Bank: i have entered two of the 4 objective buildings with 35 mins to go.  As I say to my opponent, I'm expecting a platoon of Syrian infantry on every floor as I havent encountered much opposition so far, maybe theyre all in the bank. Lost a Warrior to a BMP and another to an IED, d'oh!

 

[domfluff]

If you're doing Breaking the Bank as PBEM, then sure, could be anywhere (and that positioning could be terrible, no way to know). As a single player scenario there's a more structured approach to the thing. Great scenario, but it's a ton of effort.

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, domfluff said:

Many of the British missions in Shock Force involve you having to use tools which are not designed for their task

A very pertinent comment.  I would say that most scenarios from all titles tend to design the game as if they were US or German troops with the same tactical abilities and flexibility.  For example, the Brit tactics historically seemed to rely on lots of arty and MG's.  (One of the main objectives was to reduce troop losses as GB always suffered from lack of manpower due to its horrendous losses in WW1.  Montgomery was good at that that and popular with his troops.)  But most scenarios starve the Brits of those assets.  

[MikeyD]

Well, to keep Warrior current the Brits gave it a new turret with a 40mm gun. Is that the same 40mm that they put on Stryker? I could look it up but I'm too lazy.

[The_MonkeyKing]

I wonder about the ammo load it carriers

[domfluff]

Now, I do think that might be a reasonable complaint - whether the default loadout is unsuitable for the situation, and whether it would be changed in the field to add more HE.

We dont have control over ammo loadouts for anything else - if that is done doctrinally, I'd expect to see a Warrior (COIN) variant, with more HE.

[Thewood1]

That Warrior upgrade has been cancelled.  And I don't think those turrets are very close to similar.