Well you have to remember what we wanted Warrior for. It was to provide fire support for infantry in static positions. British Army doctrine was to fight from overwatch so I guess the thinking was why do you need fire on the move capablity? I think through the 1980's doctrine was moving to a more counter offensive strategy, and in that, yes, clearly a fire on the move capablity would be useful.money was tight. The positive to all this is that come 1991, Warrior had an availablity of over 90 percent, unheard of in British kit, perhaps at least partially due to its simplicity.
Yes, but think about it. If we had bought another gun for Warrior, we would have to buy ammunition for it. They really wanted to share the same stockpile between Fox, Scimitar and Warrior (as they had previously between Scorpion and Saladin). I dont think the costs warranted introducing yet another automatic weapon, particularly as the only conceivable role was killing light armour, and it still works fine for that.
I have to disagree with you here Stuart, at least in part. Warrior was procured to deliver infantry onto a position, rather than short of a position as per FV432 (the UK belatedly moving from an APC to an IFV) and to be able to keep up with Challenger. The RARDEN gun was intended to be used from static positions, with the chain gun used in the assault, so as you say there was no need for stabilisation.
As well as the procurement issue you correctly highlight, another factor for using existing armament on new vehicles is to ease supply and maintenance in the field.
Edited by GJK, 14 February 2020 - 0726 AM.