Brits Anti-armor assets?

[Sivodsi]

Obviously the Challenger is the main one, but apart from that there seems to be a distinct lack of AV mounted antitank weapons in the British Army.

The warrior does not have an AT version, and unless I'm missing something, nothing else does. Is the 30mm on the warrior that much better than the 25mm on the Bradley? At least BMP-3s, M2s & M3s have missiles to take care of business.

What's the protocol when confronted by heavily armored opponents and there are no Challengers about? With the US I would dismount and employ javelins but I understand javelins are fairly limited in the Brit Army. The manual only mentions that the warrior carryies 8 LAW, but these have a limited range of up to 300m according to the manual.

How many javelins does a warrior carry, if any? If not, which units carry them? You can see the WMIK has them on P14, but can't tell on the others.

[MikeyD]

Brit Javelin is parceled out rather like the Marine Javelin.

So Warrior (or Bulldog or TUM) won't carry Javelin unless it a dedicated JDV vehicle. I believe a standard Armoured Infantry Co. should have two JDV Warriors with four Javelin launchers. I don't know what that would mean for total missiles in-game. A dozen maybe? And like Marines, they're 'specialist' weapons, so no running your infantry section over to a vehicle to 'acquire' launchers.

Armys equip themselves for the wars they expect to fight. Currently they expect to fight against hit-and-run light infantry. I think the Brits & Americans would be VERY dismayed to see Taliban T90s rolling in their direction.

[dan/california]

You imply that a T90 would still move under its own power after a few weeks of Taliban "maintenance".

[ChrisND]

You imply that a T90 would still move under its own power after a few weeks of Taliban "maintenance".

Taliban export T-90 model - now with a new 12 donkey-power engine!

[Scipio]

There are Taliban in Syria?

[dan/california]

Well.... there is pretty good evidence that there were a few North Koreans running around.

[Vark]

Taliban maintenance procedures

1. Wait for the vehicle to break down

2. Get out and shout Allah' u' Akbar three times

3. Get back in and try engine again, if it refuses to start, then either

4. Jump out, kick vehicle whilst blaming Zionist conspiracies or

5. Shrug and say insh'Allah!

6. Wait for nice man from the RG to give you a shiny new vehicle.

Can you imagine Taliban bore sighting procedures!

"Commander we need to make an adjustment"

"What! Are you saying I am wrong, my calculations are divinely blessed by he who knows everything"

Um, yes but perhaps we could just check again

WHAT, you are a traitor and a Zionist agent, where is my big sharp knife.

[flamingknives]

There has been an acknowledged gap in British anti-armour gear between 2007 and 2009, which the CM:SF falls neatly in the middle of. The previous section level weapon, the LAW80, was cumbersome but slightly more powerful and longer ranged than the ILAW (a version of the AT4) that replaced it in the interim (hence ILAW). This was supposed to be directly replaced by the NLAW (Saab RB57, essentially a mini-BILL2, giving each section Javelin-like capabilities out to 600m) As the NLAW was delayed, section-level AT suffered, but given the conflicts actually seen, this wasn't a problem.

Javelin in the British army is a Battalion-level asset (replacing Milan), although it might be seen parcelled out to the companies or even platoons as necessary.

[Piecekeeper]

Im sure ive seen somewhere that the NLAW would be in the game....why is it not?

[flamingknives]

Not yet in service, 1 year after the nominal time frame?

[Sivodsi]

There has been an acknowledged gap in British anti-armour gear between 2007 and 2009, which the CM:SF falls neatly in the middle of.

thanks for the answer... dang it!I guess in real life they are not going to miss the gap so much, but in gaming terms its extremely unfortunate. :mad::mad: