Whats so difficult to understand? 30mm stands for the diameter of the gun, but I guess you already knew that... CV90 stands for type of vehicle I think... If its CV9035 this means that it has a 35mm canon. ATGM= Anit Tank Guided Missile APC= Armored Personel Carrier BTW, I just noticed that BMP and vehicles like that aren't APC's but IFV's wich means Infantry Fighting Vehicles wich transports and supports the infantry, don't know if this is the main difference though... But again, for urban support a 30mm or even 25mm would be fine, if its on open terrain at bigger ranges a ATGM would be more tha welcome. If your against somewhat heavy armored vehicles a 35mm + ATGM would be more than welcome...
I always find the term APC misleading, the type of armaments all depends on the purpose of the vehicle. For most troop carrying armored vehicles, a rapid firing 20-30mm (or even a MG) is more than adequate, a larger gun would have meant less room for troops. On the other hand, some armored scouting car or vehicle could pack a heavier punch (example the British scorpion that mounts a 75mm gun) since it only has to carry a 2-3 man crew and a larger gun ensure that it can deal with any adversaries other than MBTs. With the advent of anti-tank/anti-aircraft missles, many modern APCs were modified to fullfill these roles on the modern battlefield.
Misleading indeed, Stryker is an APC (Armored Personel Carrier), probably because it has light armor and weaponry maybe. Bradley is called IFV (infantry Fighting vehicle) has heavy amor and weaponry, so it can give heavy fire-support to infantry units.
IIRC, we no longer use the Scorpion with 75mm gun - we now have only the Scimitar, with 30mm cannon. Does anybody know why?
1: Maybe the gun was to heavy for the chassis because of the extra armor. 2: The protection was not good enough and the vehicle would become to heavy if they would upgrade the armor, so they scraped the whole series. 3: There was no need for this vehicle, because other vehicles could fullfill its role so they didn't need it anymore. 4: something else...
I always worked on the assumption that an APC was just a battlefield taxi - FV432, M113 etc while an AIFV was something the crew and troops could fight from - Warrior, Bradley M2, BMP etc.
I think it was because the 30mm Rarden with a DU round (? Can the Rarden fire DU?) was reckoned sufficient to deal with the Russian T-72 which was to be its main enemy. At least that was according to a cavalry commander I heard interviewed in the mid 1990s on BFBS (British Forces Broadcasting Services) in Germany, perhaps a slight case of overconfidence there? I don't know, perhaps anyone else can enlighten me as this is really not my area of expertise and I'm recalling a radio interview about ten years old! I can distinctly recall this Cavalry officer saying the seven or eight rounds would be enough to deal with an enemy MBT, altough whether he meant any other MBT, i.e. Abrams, Leclerc or Challenger II, or whether he meant the typical MBT they had fairly recently met, i.e Iraqi T-52s , was never made clear.
BTW I think the difference between an APC and IFV is that an APC is intended to transport infantry to the combat zone after which they would disembark and fight, an IFV is intended to do that and fight alongside the infantry, providing additional heavy weapons fire as needed. An APC would be an M113, AFV432, etc, an IFV would be a Bradley or Warrior.
brad vs T-72 there have been several kills of T-72s using 25mm chain guns. a couple of rounds slipped into the turret ring and the stored ammo goes BOOM.
What?!? 7 or 8 rounds to take care of an MBT? Possibly in the right place but if a Rarden is being used against MBTs then the guy's not doing his job. CVR(T) = reconnaissance not tank destroyer. BTW the gun on Scorpion was 76mm, AFAIK roughly that of Saladin (or was it Saracen - can never remember which is which). Oli
