>Unlike the belt-fed systems on most vehicle weapons, Rarden is loaded manually with three-round clips.[1] This limits its capacity to fire in automatic mode to 6 rounds.
Is there any particular reason why the Brits use the RARDEN over traditional types of autocannons?
It seems like a very odd weapon to equip an AFV with.
>>29944586
clip fed is the traditional method for autocannons, see the 40mm Bofors
>>29944586
Because it's an older vehicle, and it's why as of next year they'll start getting very new and advanced 40mm cannons instead as the upgrade is incoming at last.
RARDEN was kept as its manner because they never had any particular moments that necessitated change. Every war it went to, it did well in and while fiddly to operate, the RARDEN was accurate, reliable and had a lot of power behind its rounds. Back when it was first made, these qualities were tougher to come by without the long proven truth we have these days of other cannons that were, back then, just starting out and weren't proven yet.
But as was said, it's not found a war yet that it hasn't performed well in. So they can't have made too bad a choice.
>>29944586
The primary advantage of the Rarden is that it is low footprint, you can literally put a Rarden on anything.
Unlike the Bushmaster, it doesn't have a motor so you don't need a power supply.
Because it's clip fed, you don't need the internal riggings for a drum like 2A42.
Also the breech for the Rarden is very short, so you don't need a lot of internal room to add Rarden to a turret.
The downsides are many; it's inaccurate, it's not stabilized, sustained ROF is shit, the burst is short, and it can't fire smart ammo like the newer auto-cannons. It's inferior to just about every other autocannon in the world, and that was the price for it's low footprint.
>>29945226
> it's inaccurate
Source? Never seen anything that suggests it isn't an accurate and powerful round.
Lack of stabilisation is an issue for accuracy on the move, but the base accuracy of the gun from still or low speed that the suspension removes it is pretty good. They were sniping things in the sandpit for a while with Scimitars using these things.
>>29944586
It's being replaced with 40mm stabilised auto cannon with telescoping ammunition in the next few years.
>>29945264
The gun is mechanically accurate, but the means of laying the gun are not as good as what you have on the Bradley.
Are 30mm and 40mm autocannons superior too 25mm autocannons or do they have different roles?
>>29945829
there's far more to cannons than calibre...
>>29945829
Yes and no, this is where the term 'stored kills' comes into play.
Obviously a 30mm, 35mm or 40mm cannon will hit harder than a 25mm cannon. But as you increase the size of your shell the amount of shots you can carry decreases.
Lets use Australia's Land 400 program as an example, they require the ability to kill 40 targets without reloading (your ready ammo).
>ASLAV's 25mm Bushmaster had 210 ready rounds, allowing 5-6 per target.
>LANCE turret with 30mm gun has 200 ready rounds, allowing 5 per target.
>AMV35 with 35mm gun has 70 ready rounds, allowing 1-2 per target.
How about CV90's with a 40 kill requirement?
>CV9040 has 24 ready rounds, nope
>CV9035 has 70 ready rounds, allowing 1-2 per target
>CV9030 has 160 ready rounds, allowing 4 per target
The Warrior vs its 40mm upgrade
>30mm RARDEN has 6 ready rounds, nope
>40mm CT gun has 60(?) ready rounds, allowing 1-2 per target
tl:dr the smallest gun that is big enough to kill what you want it to kill is best
One quirk is that 25mm guns are small enough that their ammo count allows them to be used like giant machine guns, IIRC Bradley's carry 900 rounds in total.
>>29944586
>Is there any particular reason why the Brits use the RARDEN over traditional types of autocannons?
It is/has been phased out, it was an experiment that failed and the rest of the world learned from it. The replacement is much better.
>>29946210
>>40mm CT gun has 60(?) ready rounds, allowing 1-2 per target
It's far more than that. Ajax especially has a rather funky ammunition load, no exact numbers, but General Dynamics mentioned it's easily into the triple figures with all the space they save from the guns design. Same goes for the Warrior's new turret. The 60 number comes from the original Warrior replacement turret, but they changed it mid way through development away from the original. The MTIP and TOUTATIS turrets could hold 42 and 68 rounds respectively, you can see how small they are. They made the new turret much MUCH bigger.
>>29946300
In this picture you can see how much more mass the turret has to fit many more rounds into it.
A lot of the thinking behind the CT40 was in trying to follow what you say though. To get the punch of 40mm against other uparmored AFVs, but with a greater quantity of ammo than other 40mm guns available like the Bofors, which carries substantially less.
>>29946300
Well that is part of it too, you can always allocate more room for ammo when making a new design. It is when you are converting an existing vehicle that the space becomes a stickler.
In that line of thought, think of how many 30mm rounds you could fit in the space used by an MBT to store ~40 rounds of 120mm ammo.
Because it's very dangerous to have more than six rounds. You might kill somebody with it. Its truly a British weapon.
Is the new 57mm gun that the Russians want to use in their IFVs practical or just a meme?
>>29946815
I doubt it will be used. Too large for the benefit.
