money*
but seriously, why bother with upgrading a shitbox when there are several IFVs you could buy that offer that kind of capability out of the box without tacked on shit
Just a hilariously bad IFV design out of the Uk. It gets so much heat because there was a much better design already fielded by the west but the UK wanted to try and make their own but it backfired.
300+ warriors were deployed as part of the UK's 1st Armoured Division in the Gulf War. They handily rolled through T-55s, BMPs, and anything the Iraqis had at hand, and suffered 0 losses to enemy fire.
They didn’t do shit in the gulf. They were way behind the armoured dueling that the Bradley was getting into. There’s only 7 recorded instances of the warrior firing its gun in anger in the gulf.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>There’s only 7 recorded instances of the warrior firing its gun in anger in the gulf
Source?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Wow 300 warriors that’s like so many. But they were mostly in the rear and didn’t see much combat. Their record is laughable
Factually incorrect, Warrior was well used and killed many sand people and their Soviet equipment. Seethe more.
The gun isn’t stabilized meaning it can’t fire on the move. It doesn’t have dual feed capability meaning the gunner can’t switch between ammo types without unloading the gun. It fires from 3 round clips which means the gunner has to stop what he’s doing and load more clips every 6 rounds fired. It also doesn’t have an integrated ATGM that the gunner can utilize. Few vehicles have a bolt on Milan but to use it requires the VC to expose himself and lean out of his hatch to fire
They also mounted the coaxial chaingun upside down, putting forces on the gun it wasn't designed to handle, so it's broken most of the time. Doubly so because they haven't replaced the electric motors since they were produced so they're all terribly worn out.
Just a hilariously bad IFV design out of the Uk. It gets so much heat because there was a much better design already fielded by the west but the UK wanted to try and make their own but it backfired.
Wrong
The gun isn’t stabilized meaning it can’t fire on the move. It doesn’t have dual feed capability meaning the gunner can’t switch between ammo types without unloading the gun. It fires from 3 round clips which means the gunner has to stop what he’s doing and load more clips every 6 rounds fired. It also doesn’t have an integrated ATGM that the gunner can utilize. Few vehicles have a bolt on Milan but to use it requires the VC to expose himself and lean out of his hatch to fire
It can it's just not particularly accurate. Doctrine at the time mostly used it in fire support. You can see it in modern BMP's even now, most firing is done from static positions. Only the modern Bradley really moves while shooting, yes they had training on moving shooting back then but it wasn't nearly as common. Not every written engagement using the Bradley during GWOT had it stopping to fire outside of point blank, where stabilisation literally doesn't matter.
The dual feed was mitigated by having manual loading, the tank is better armoured and faster than the Bradley, they also wanted a smaller turret so it could more effectively be used as fire support over ridgelines.
It was a difference in priorities of design and you know it.
The Bradley from the 80's was a mediocre piece of shit compared to what it is now an amazing IFV but with no armour, the warrior right now has only received sight upgrades during it lifespan and has thus fallen behind. It exported pretty well considering, with the doctrinal changes being fixed by a different turret. The only complaint you can have is that they didn't bother upgrading it like they should have really.
Nope. It’s much worse. Ammo capacity is much, much worse than a 25. Typically you’d use a machine gun on infantry anyway. Don’t forget that 25 DU penetrates more armor than 30 rarden. 30 rarden doesn’t even have a DU round available it’s that bad
I’m verifiably right. Sure you can use autocannon on infantry in a pinch but the machine gun is what you’d primarily use against infantry. The warrior Carrie’s such a small amount of 30mm ammo as it is
The one guy defending the warrior ladies and gentleman
11 months ago
Anonymous
Are you suggesting that IFVs use their main gun against infantry as standard? What do you think the MGs are for
I’m verifiably right. Sure you can use autocannon on infantry in a pinch but the machine gun is what you’d primarily use against infantry. The warrior Carrie’s such a small amount of 30mm ammo as it is
Samegayging neverserved have a nice day.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Instead of being wrong and doubling down perhaps you can just show us a first world doctrine that calls for IFVs to shoot individual infantrymen with its main gun rather than its machine guns
A Dacia Logan is a better IVF than the warrior.
So True.
Yes, next question.
More importantly, can the Warrior mount the bmp-1?
>lust provoking image
Tank-kun where are you pointing that barrel!?!?
UwU
Is diesel good for you?
Warrior can penetrate it
Probably not
Real in my mind
It would be extremely painful.
OP, what would you do with your time if the Warrior got a stabilized belt fed gun with an internally fired ATGM launcher like the Dessert Warrior?
>that time an Arab army had more common-sense than the Brits.
money*
but seriously, why bother with upgrading a shitbox when there are several IFVs you could buy that offer that kind of capability out of the box without tacked on shit
They wanted to make sure I could tell people that the only export warrior customer demanded they remove the turret and replace it with an American one
Redpill me on the warrior, why does it get so much shit
Some autismo (possibly Frenchman) keeps seething about it
Just a hilariously bad IFV design out of the Uk. It gets so much heat because there was a much better design already fielded by the west but the UK wanted to try and make their own but it backfired.
>but it backfired.
It performed pretty well, and is shortly to be retired. How can you be so bitter about an IFV?
It didn’t perform well at all. It barely saw combat.
>inb4 it took some RPGs a few times
this is always a hilarious response
300+ warriors were deployed as part of the UK's 1st Armoured Division in the Gulf War. They handily rolled through T-55s, BMPs, and anything the Iraqis had at hand, and suffered 0 losses to enemy fire.
They didn’t do shit in the gulf. They were way behind the armoured dueling that the Bradley was getting into. There’s only 7 recorded instances of the warrior firing its gun in anger in the gulf.
>There’s only 7 recorded instances of the warrior firing its gun in anger in the gulf
Source?
Factually incorrect, Warrior was well used and killed many sand people and their Soviet equipment. Seethe more.
It performed so well that the USAF actually had to destroy one or two just to show the world it wasn't indestructible.
Wow 300 warriors that’s like so many. But they were mostly in the rear and didn’t see much combat. Their record is laughable
>It barely saw combat
Utter bullshit
It’s nickname wasn’t the safe queen for no reason. The warrior has very very little combat experience
>shortly to be retired
This is a lie. And even if that were true it’s about 30 years past the point of when it should have been retired
indians
The gun isn’t stabilized meaning it can’t fire on the move. It doesn’t have dual feed capability meaning the gunner can’t switch between ammo types without unloading the gun. It fires from 3 round clips which means the gunner has to stop what he’s doing and load more clips every 6 rounds fired. It also doesn’t have an integrated ATGM that the gunner can utilize. Few vehicles have a bolt on Milan but to use it requires the VC to expose himself and lean out of his hatch to fire
They also mounted the coaxial chaingun upside down, putting forces on the gun it wasn't designed to handle, so it's broken most of the time. Doubly so because they haven't replaced the electric motors since they were produced so they're all terribly worn out.
Gold
Because Armatard sucks donkey dicks
Wrong
It can it's just not particularly accurate. Doctrine at the time mostly used it in fire support. You can see it in modern BMP's even now, most firing is done from static positions. Only the modern Bradley really moves while shooting, yes they had training on moving shooting back then but it wasn't nearly as common. Not every written engagement using the Bradley during GWOT had it stopping to fire outside of point blank, where stabilisation literally doesn't matter.
The dual feed was mitigated by having manual loading, the tank is better armoured and faster than the Bradley, they also wanted a smaller turret so it could more effectively be used as fire support over ridgelines.
It was a difference in priorities of design and you know it.
The Bradley from the 80's was a mediocre piece of shit compared to what it is now an amazing IFV but with no armour, the warrior right now has only received sight upgrades during it lifespan and has thus fallen behind. It exported pretty well considering, with the doctrinal changes being fixed by a different turret. The only complaint you can have is that they didn't bother upgrading it like they should have really.
have a nice day Armatard
Wrong
Don't forget 30mm mogs 25mm for infantry engagements.
Nope. It’s much worse. Ammo capacity is much, much worse than a 25. Typically you’d use a machine gun on infantry anyway. Don’t forget that 25 DU penetrates more armor than 30 rarden. 30 rarden doesn’t even have a DU round available it’s that bad
>Typically you would use a machine gun on infantry
Confirmed moronic
But this is you every thread.
I’m verifiably right. Sure you can use autocannon on infantry in a pinch but the machine gun is what you’d primarily use against infantry. The warrior Carrie’s such a small amount of 30mm ammo as it is
Are you suggesting that IFVs use their main gun against infantry as standard? What do you think the MGs are for
The one guy defending the warrior ladies and gentleman
Samegayging neverserved have a nice day.
Instead of being wrong and doubling down perhaps you can just show us a first world doctrine that calls for IFVs to shoot individual infantrymen with its main gun rather than its machine guns
Can confirm. Am challenger gunner. Use big gun to kill infantry.
>Bong superiority makes OP seethe for the nth time.
Rent free.
>may 2023
>one man still fervently defends the warrior
kek you have to admire his humiliation tolerance
Armatards 10th thread today, is this guy fricking the mods or something?
They both just fricking toast soviet shitboxes so well it makes me happy
Starstreak thread deleted, tick tock warriortard.
Yes
They’re both pretty bad
They’re both terrible
Marder is unstabilized kek
Marder's like 20 years older anon.
Still better if upgraded though.
Is it true that there is a toilet in the Warrior IFV which uses bags? Imagine the smell. You can smell shit while riding in a piece of shit
All these flaws don't actually matter. It's irrelevent.