Warriors to go 40mm

[Sivodsi]

New turret with 40mm gun for the warrior.

The new gun's ammo is 'case telescoped' and takes up less space, comparable to 25mm they say, but packs more punch. It is accurate out to 3000m - twice the distance than the current.

This is one for CMSF2, unfortunately.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Will they get automated turret controls? I was amazed to find out Warriors were hand cracking the things. It's not THAT old.

About the gun, I hope it's a chain cannon? That bizarre Rarden system seems a liability.

[Noltyboy]

Yep and very pretty she looks too.

The CT40 cannon is very swish and modern.

Slide show on CT40

[Blackcat]

The Rarden is now old but, in real life still pretty damn effective (especially with the lastest sight which almost gurantee a first round hit).

In the game the Rarden seems to be ineffective due to Battlefront's decision to make the ammo load conform to some ancient doctrine document, rather than the need sof the operation in which the vehicle is actually engaged.

[lomir]

Slide show on CT40

MTIP (3,8 Tonne Conventional Manned Turret): 42 rounds.

Toutatis (1,5 Tonne Unmanned Turret): 68 rounds.

It seems to me that they won't go mad shooting as well.

[Battlefront.com]

We debated about the loadouts during beta testing. The regular, non-military, testers wanted the loadouts switched to HE instead of AP. But those in uniform, especially in British uniforms, insisted that in a conventional war with the threat of enemy armo (which is what we're simulating) the loadouts would be as they are in the game. So after much discussion we settled on what is in the game now.

Steve

[Ryujin]

Personally, I'd rather have a high capacity/high rate of fire cannon and ATGMs, over a large, but not quite tank killing auto cannon. Plus, only having a handful of rounds seems to cut out much of the advantage of being an automatic cannon. I think the CV9040 carries about 120 rounds for the L70 and the C can program them, which I think is a good minimum for a auto cannon. I know with the 40mm you'd need less rounds on target, but I still think the ability to put down massive area fire or engage large numbers of targets would be key in my opinion (from my CMSF/Steel Beasts Pro experience, so you can take it with a grain of salt).

Still, I think it's an upgrade as far the warrior is concerned, if your not going to carry much ammo, it might as well be 40mm then. I'm sure it'll make a mess of any APCs/structures it comes across.

[Blackcat]

Steve,

I apologise. In my earlier post I was unfair.

The problem I have is that in the majority of scenarios where I have been given Warriors the mission is such that the "standard ammo load" is not justfied and would not be carried in real life. This usually leaves me, the player, thinking that I have been short changed.

The actual game for the Brits, as delivered, does not simulate the conditions of conventional war with the threat of enemy armour, at least not often. Furthermore when it does having 30mm APFDS ain't a great deal of use - the Challengers will deal with the armour and if they can't the Warriors certainly won't be able to.

However, I realise that every game has its limitations and not being able to adjust ammo loads to meet the mission is one in CMSF.

The Warrior ammo load is aggravating and I think you called this one wrong, but I accept you made your decision in good faith. So once again, I apologise.

[Ryujin]

Well, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I seem to run into quite a few BMPs and BTRs as the brits, especially in the campaign. If it were possible, I agree an option would be nice, but the ammo load does seem reasonable for engaging the Syrian army. Just need that bug fixed where they use everything but KE on BMPs....

I would say at least over 50% of the missions (stand alone and campaign) that shipped with the module have some sort of enemy APC. So I'm with Steve that this does fit the role of conventional war with threat of armor and so he pick the more reasonable ammo load.

[Blackcat]

Ryuin,

Maybe you are right and the percentage of games where one's Warriors need 180 rounds of AP is much higher than I think.

Having played through the Campaign and most Brit scenarios, I cannot remember one time when I have thought, "Dang! I wish I had some more AP ammo on that warrior". However, in nearly every mission or scenario where I have Warriors I have found myself cursing that they cannot support their dismounts properly because they have insufficient HE.

The Rarden will burn through its paltry 45 rounds of HE in less than three minutes. Seven man squads need good supporting fire if they are to remain effective. Warriors in my experience just don't cut the mustard in the game.

[Ryujin]

I do agree they are short of HE, but if your going to stick to an "official loadout", the conventional warfare "flavor" of warrior makes the most sense given that the Syrian army is the primary opponent much of the fighting involves some number of mechanized units. Personally, I'd do a 60/40% split of HE/AP, but you get into strange territory when you start "making up" loadouts.

So considering that it seems BF wanted only official loadouts, it sounds like the best choice given that condition.

[Blackcat]

I don't know what strange territory we would get into by having loadouts that match the needs of the mission, but never mind.

Battlefront went with the best advice they could get and we get a loadout that might have been suitable for the North German Plain facing the Sovs streaming accross the IGB in the 80s, but is patently wrong for combat in Syria in 2008. Well into every life a little rain must fall and nothing we can say will change it now.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ryuin,

Maybe you are right and the percentage of games where one's Warriors need 180 rounds of AP is much higher than I think.

Having played through the Campaign and most Brit scenarios, I cannot remember one time when I have thought, "Dang! I wish I had some more AP ammo on that warrior". However, in nearly every mission or scenario where I have Warriors I have found myself cursing that they cannot support their dismounts properly because they have insufficient HE.

The Rarden will burn through its paltry 45 rounds of HE in less than three minutes. Seven man squads need good supporting fire if they are to remain effective. Warriors in my experience just don't cut the mustard in the game.

But you will not want to arm yourself for the enemy you are likely to encounter, you'll arm yourself for the enemy you fear you'll encounter. Which would be lots of armour.

Not having enough AP is infinitely worse then not enough HE. Because if there's still armour while there's no more AP, you are well and truly stuffed. Running short of HE just slows you down as you are relying on the MG more.

Ofcourse, CMSF falls a little short of modelling the effects of AP.

When fired at a building AP is near as lethal as HE for the occupants of that house, with all the debris flying about. This does not appear to be simulated at all, just a large bullet flying past, no more. Which takes some of the fun out of shooting up a house with AP.

[Blackcat]

Elmar,

"Because if there's still armour while there's no more AP, you are well and truly stuffed."

I agree, but it has never happened to me in the game.

AP rounds aginst infantry is, in the game, certainly less than effectiive.

[MeatEtr]

The problem is compounded by the fact I see time and time again my Warrior's firing off HE against BMPs. Sure it destroys it, but also blows right through like half the HE loadout when they got well over a 100 AP ammo.

I take it the loadouts can not be altered in the editor? If not, well then thats just plain lame.

[Battlefront.com]

Blackcat,

I apologise. In my earlier post I was unfair.

heh... I've seen a lot worse. Heck, look at MeatEtr's last post

The problem I have is that in the majority of scenarios where I have been given Warriors the mission is such that the "standard ammo load" is not justfied and would not be carried in real life. This usually leaves me, the player, thinking that I have been short changed.

It's a standard problem of showing up to a party with the wrong gift or coming to a knife fight with a spatula due to a tragic misunderstanding of the invite That's the problem with ammo types, they are usually weighted towards a particular perceived threat (as Elmar put it, "fear").

Think about this from the MOD's point of view. What would the Times, or (shudder) the Mirror, say if a platoon of Warriors was wiped out by armor because they had been outfitted with HE instead of AP because someone thought that's what they would need? That would be far worse than the container of snow skis that showed up in theater instead of something they were desperately short on! So for a variety reasons, including covering one's buttocks, it would make sense to favor the loadouts that have the most leeway in the worst situations.

As Elmar points out if you encounter significant armor you need AP, not HE. If you encounter significant infantry you can get away with AP, and your dismounts. So it would appear sensible to arm the Warriors with heavy AP loads for the initial phase of the conflict. Especially a mech heavy country like Syria (as opposed to some place like Somalia).

The problem you guys have is what MeatEtr so tactfully put as thus:

I take it the loadouts can not be altered in the editor? If not, well then thats just plain lame.

I agree it would be best if the Editor allowed people to choose between two or three "packages" of ammo loadouts. Oh, something like "Heavy Anti-Armor", "Heavy Anti-Personnel", and "Standard" for example. That would be good indeed. It would allow people to simulate the follow up engagements, after the armor is all gone, better than can be done currently. Although CM:SF is not explicitly set up to simulate COIN Ops it would be nice if we could better support certain aspects of it.

It's on a wish list somewhere, but it isn't likely to be addressed any time soon.

Keep in mind that the ammo loadouts for other vehicles are also not necessarily optimal for a COIN environment. Abrams, for example, are heavy on SABOTs that would likely be the minority in a COIN environment.

Steve

[Ryujin]

On a related note, I did a test and they will fire AP at structures when they have no HE, I have no idea of how effective it is though.

[TheVulture]

Blackcat,

Keep in mind that the ammo loadouts for other vehicles are also not necessarily optimal for a COIN environment. Abrams, for example, are heavy on SABOTs that would likely be the minority in a COIN environment.

Steve

The main difference is that the low ammo load of the warrior compared to its rate of fire means that it runs out of HE. A BMP-2 might have the same ratio of AP to HE, but since it can fire for over 20 minutes continuously without depleting its ammo load, you never really run low on HE (and if you do, it is deep in to a battle when running out of ammo 'feels' right). A warrior can run out of HE 5 minutes after you start a long mission...

[flamingknives]

A few points, if I may:

1) Noltyboy's post shows two different concepts for one of the companies (BAESystems) bidding for the Warrior upgrade. The Youtube video is of the previous concept from the other competitor (Lockheed Martin UK) which is actually armed with a Mk44 cannon (a 30/40mm version of the Bushmaster)

2) The CT40 round and gun are quite big and heavy for what they can actually do.

3) My view on ammo load out is that it is down to the unit commander and hence variable, and that British Army doctrine is only a guideline anyway.

4) Rarden isn't actually issued with APFSDS. APDS only.

5) I'm not entirely convinced that AP weapons are as effective against BMPs as they should be anyway.

[flamingknives]

A few points, if I may:

1) Noltyboy's post shows two different concepts for one of the companies (BAESystems) bidding for the Warrior upgrade. The Youtube video is of the previous concept from the other competitor (Lockheed Martin UK) which is actually armed with a Mk44 cannon (a 30/40mm version of the Bushmaster)

2) The CT40 round and gun are quite big and heavy for what they can actually do.

3) My view on ammo load out is that it is down to the unit commander and hence variable, and that British Army doctrine is only a guideline anyway.

4) Rarden isn't actually issued with APFSDS. APDS only.

5) I'm not entirely convinced that AP weapons are as effective against BMPs as they should be anyway.

[Erwin.Rommel]

Hey steve:

I have read some articles which said that just a few 25mm or 30mm APDS rounds(about 3-5 rounds) can easily knock out the light armored target just like the BMPs,and I also saw a video in which a LAV25 be hit by a friendly LAV25,just 3 rounds,it begin to burn.however in the CMSF, these small guns are not that effective,for example,during some fights,after fire more than a dozen of APDS or APFSDS rounds to the BMPs from my warriors or Bradleys,the target still alive,then return fire with his ATGM.as far as I am concerned,the BMP1 and BMP2 has a very small turret compare to their western counterparts,If some rounds(especially the DU rounds) hit the turret,the crew in the turret almost can't survive,then it become a dead meat.In the CMAK and CMBB, in close range,when a M4 76 sherman meets with a panther face by face,the AI will delibrately fire the APCBC to the panther's turret,because that is only place that the 76 rounds can penetrate,then my question:Is this feature exist in CMSF?the AI will delibrately fire the rounds to the weak point of targer?and how CMSF programme the aftereffect of the small rounds?

[Wiggum]

@ Erwin.Rommel

I just did a quick test with a Warrior against a BMP at 500m.

5 shots of APDS from the Warrior (Wrap2) and the BMP is destroyed, the crew bails out ( 1 WIA).

Another test at 700m with nearly the same result...7 shots APDS and the BMP crew bails out (the BMP was maybe destroyed with shot 4 or 5).

[Wicky]

The bit that caught my eye was this

Britain will spend over $2 billion on this upgrade.

:eek:

Is it a typo for a million? as for 2 billion the UK could establish a space program!

[Erwin.Rommel]

@ Erwin.Rommel

I just did a quick test with a Warrior against a BMP at 500m.

5 shots of APDS from the Warrior (Wrap2) and the BMP is destroyed, the crew bails out ( 1 WIA).

Another test at 700m with nearly the same result...7 shots APDS and the BMP crew bails out (the BMP was maybe destroyed with shot 4 or 5).

well I just repeatly tested the same situation many times, the Warrior against BMP1,and I choose the syria so that I can see the casulty of the crew,before the battle I press the hide key,the result is:most of the time the BMP1 can take at least 10 hit with no or 1 casulty and some equitment are lightly demage,in one test ,the BMP take 25 hit got only 1 crew WIA.Occationly just 2-3 rounds can Knock out the BMP(just Occationly),In addition I found that most of the rounds from the Warrior hit the hull front of the BMP,however after a few hits,the engine is still a big green cross

[Flanker15]

I'd imagine that it's partly due to the proper ballistics and subsystem model CMx2 has, there's allot of empty space and redundant areas in a BMP that a 25mm perpetrator will fly straight through. SB: pro has a an even better ballistics model and I often had BMPs that took over 10 hits to be knocked out and the AAR showed that my shots were just going straight through and only causing light damage. Of course if you aimed your shot right you could get one hit KOs through the ammo and crew compartment.

But the AI just aims at the centre of mass in CMx2 so it's sometimes a lucky draw as to whether there's something important in the way of the shot.