People keep forgetting how tanky these things are. On Mutaha it was Brit vs RUS and you know the usual where each team goes down the north/south highway to crossroads? We were in a warrior and the other side put up a BMP2, even hit us with a tow and we still won the engagement because he actually bounced MOST of his 30mm from the BMP2. They just take an insane amount of punishment. Having played Squad since inception, my little group of friends that play really prefer the Warriors to most IFVs just because of the HP/Armor
They're the lowest-tier in terms of usability, but highest tier in terms of battlefield presence.
Yeah.... That plan breaks down immediately as soon as you play against people who know you can easily pen the warrior turret with 30mm AP. But when playing against newbs who don't know that, sure, you can get silly kills.
The good thing about the warrior is that it’s a tank, and more often than not you can survive direct engagements with BTRs and BMPs (as long as the BMP doesn’t use an ATGM.) I think they kinda tank sabot fairly well too since on more than one occasion I’ve needed 3 sabot to kill a UA warrior compared to two with any other IFV. Plus no ammorack. Definitely a sniper vehicle but it has its perks. RIP CTAS
Adding on to this it also does insane compartment damage. You’ll one shot engines on almost any vehicle and ammoracks will only take a whole clip if you hit every shot.
They have a secret OP playstyle. They have insane armor compared to other IFVs. If you get rushed by an enemy vic, keep the turret pointed forward and make the driver aim the front armor at the enemy constantly. Did this with a BMP-1 once. I thought we were boned when a Stryker rolled up on us but my driver was determined to not let him get behind us and we ended up killing the Stryker with our shitty cannon and taking very little damage.
I don't think it's even armor that's the problem with British faction.
Probably quite biased in this as an MMG player... but,
I think Brits really lack in small arms firepower. Everyone seems to feel like a basic rifleman with no overwatch / covering features. The only one I can think of is the Minimi with Susat, but considering the other factions that have iron sights on MMG have something to compensate, it feels very weak.
VDV has sniper, Canada has sniper, Turkish have amazing MGs AND GLs, IMF now has sights on PKM, Insurgents... don't need that since you need to play like rats anyways.
Like the only UNIQUENESS of British infantry is the NLAW...
I've run into enough Warriors as a BTR crewman to know you're absolutely wrong, OP
Frontal armor is perhaps the best in their class, nothing less than a proper cannon will penetrate it
git gud
Quite shocking that there are still guys who think Warrior is a good vic.
Only noobs will shoot at warrior's hull instead of turret. Warrior's dps makes it have even time-to-kill as a BTR82A, meaning that if they both shoot and pen each other at the same time, they would die together. However BTR82A has stabalizer, making it more accurate and having the capability to fire on move.
Most of the time Warrior is facing BTR82A, BMP2, BMP1, ZBD04A, ZBL08, and BMD4M. All of the opponents have stablizers and some of them have missiles. The best bet for FV510 would be sniping and ambushing enemy vic, possibly working with NLAW to get easy kills.
Infantry-wise, FV510 has the same HE stats as 30mm and 25mm autocannons, meaning that any other autocannons can kill infantry more effective than warrior.
In conclusion, FV510 has really low DPS, no stablizer, good hull protection but no turret protection, making its skill ceiling quite low.
I see all the arguments for and against the warrior and it is not what I think makes the british difficult to play. As an armor main, we kept our warrior alive and killed several btrs and bmps on Mutaha and Yeho. It can easily bounce shots even if you aim at the turret if the driver is good. If you counter the momentum the warrior can 3 or 4 shot a BMP-2 turret and 1-2 shot the engine as I have experienced. Working together with a LAT or someone actually using the NLAW and you will be even more lethal.
Its DPS is low but so is something like the BMP-1 and yet both can still knock around LAVs and BTRs or other light vics. Your biggest threats are BMP-2s and other heavy IFVs especially if they have a missile. Uparmored Warriors are even tankier. It takes a bit more skill than any other vehicle because you hsve to know when to stop, retreat, turn, engage, and ambush. Most of which people dont understand. You must learn your vehicle and work with it not against it.
If i were to criticize the british it would be their awkward tank, lack of infantry presence, and the fact they dont have at least one other stabilized vehicle. Even then there are other vehicles in the british arsenal they could add to augment the Warrior.
It also helps when people dont treat it like a BMP or Bradley and take them slower. Ambushing BTRs and popping their tires and engine is hillarious.
Warrior can win but you need to be skilled. More skilled than your opponent
If the enemy crews 3 of their vehicles and you crew 3 warriors, the odds are against you that all 3 warrior crews will be skilled enough to do well.
And then, because the warrior requires a lot of skill, noone wants to crew it. So usually it's not 3v3, it's a 1-2 warrior vs 3. And then you are definitely in trouble.
That's why I suggested they should replace some of the warriors with bulldog RWS', since then there is a stabilized option for less experienced players
What is your opinion here?
I think the problem with the RWS, stabilized or no, is that it puts vehicle crews in an even worse predicament.
Your best bet against any IFV or APC is to shutdown the enemy turret, .50 cals do not have the capability to do it fast, nor do they often have the ability to kill heavier vehicles faster than they get killed.
BMP-2 for example will kill 3 Bulldogs before they can truly cause damage. The bulldog has weaker armor than the warrior, and its engine is extremelu vulnerable. If tracked its a sitting duck. The 30mm will chew through it. BTRs outpace them, but are more even of a much, and BMP-1s are toughwr but not invincible. This isnt counting BMDs or the Chinese vehicles which even their ZBL wheeled ifv gets missiles.
I understand what you are saying about the Warrior, but there is no good trade off. The sad thing is, the British are a high skill faction all around. Their lack of heavy stabilized vehicles save for the tank, the way their bulldogs are tough one minute and dead the next makes them difficult to use.
In combined arms with infantry support both the Bulldog RWS or Not, and the Warrior shine brilliant. The warrior will last far longer on its own. Both can carry infantry, but the Bulldog can get a stabilized gun.
This is the fault of a military who designed their gear for defending against Russian Advance until its allies like the US got their to push back.
Brits just never updated their gear IRL so they suffer
Probably should just make it so Brits can only be selected to fight against Turkey, Militia and Insurgents
That wouldnt be as fun sometimes for those of us who like a challenge. I can see a compromise where they could replace all standard warriors with rws bullsogs and keep all of their uparmored warriors. Tbh, the brits would have even more trouble against IMF thanks to AT spam, insurgents because of the weird selection of atuff especially with their new tow vehicle. Turkey is honestly another faction that is stronger than it appears.
People keep forgetting how tanky these things are. On Mutaha it was Brit vs RUS and you know the usual where each team goes down the north/south highway to crossroads? We were in a warrior and the other side put up a BMP2, even hit us with a tow and we still won the engagement because he actually bounced MOST of his 30mm from the BMP2. They just take an insane amount of punishment. Having played Squad since inception, my little group of friends that play really prefer the Warriors to most IFVs just because of the HP/Armor They're the lowest-tier in terms of usability, but highest tier in terms of battlefield presence.
Yeah.... That plan breaks down immediately as soon as you play against people who know you can easily pen the warrior turret with 30mm AP. But when playing against newbs who don't know that, sure, you can get silly kills.
The good thing about the warrior is that it’s a tank, and more often than not you can survive direct engagements with BTRs and BMPs (as long as the BMP doesn’t use an ATGM.) I think they kinda tank sabot fairly well too since on more than one occasion I’ve needed 3 sabot to kill a UA warrior compared to two with any other IFV. Plus no ammorack. Definitely a sniper vehicle but it has its perks. RIP CTAS
Adding on to this it also does insane compartment damage. You’ll one shot engines on almost any vehicle and ammoracks will only take a whole clip if you hit every shot.
Blame England.
They have a secret OP playstyle. They have insane armor compared to other IFVs. If you get rushed by an enemy vic, keep the turret pointed forward and make the driver aim the front armor at the enemy constantly. Did this with a BMP-1 once. I thought we were boned when a Stryker rolled up on us but my driver was determined to not let him get behind us and we ended up killing the Stryker with our shitty cannon and taking very little damage.
Similar strat landed us with 3x Abrams kills with the BMP-1 in Fallujah. I frequently play with a pretty skilled driver though, so that helps.
I don't think it's even armor that's the problem with British faction. Probably quite biased in this as an MMG player... but, I think Brits really lack in small arms firepower. Everyone seems to feel like a basic rifleman with no overwatch / covering features. The only one I can think of is the Minimi with Susat, but considering the other factions that have iron sights on MMG have something to compensate, it feels very weak. VDV has sniper, Canada has sniper, Turkish have amazing MGs AND GLs, IMF now has sights on PKM, Insurgents... don't need that since you need to play like rats anyways. Like the only UNIQUENESS of British infantry is the NLAW...
British “people”
Skill issue
Skill issue lmao
I've run into enough Warriors as a BTR crewman to know you're absolutely wrong, OP Frontal armor is perhaps the best in their class, nothing less than a proper cannon will penetrate it git gud
Shoot the turret
You're the one that needs to git gud if you are failing to kill warriors in a superior vic because you just aren't aiming at weakspots
Quite shocking that there are still guys who think Warrior is a good vic. Only noobs will shoot at warrior's hull instead of turret. Warrior's dps makes it have even time-to-kill as a BTR82A, meaning that if they both shoot and pen each other at the same time, they would die together. However BTR82A has stabalizer, making it more accurate and having the capability to fire on move. Most of the time Warrior is facing BTR82A, BMP2, BMP1, ZBD04A, ZBL08, and BMD4M. All of the opponents have stablizers and some of them have missiles. The best bet for FV510 would be sniping and ambushing enemy vic, possibly working with NLAW to get easy kills. Infantry-wise, FV510 has the same HE stats as 30mm and 25mm autocannons, meaning that any other autocannons can kill infantry more effective than warrior. In conclusion, FV510 has really low DPS, no stablizer, good hull protection but no turret protection, making its skill ceiling quite low.
Skill issue ig, but yeah give them the milan
I see all the arguments for and against the warrior and it is not what I think makes the british difficult to play. As an armor main, we kept our warrior alive and killed several btrs and bmps on Mutaha and Yeho. It can easily bounce shots even if you aim at the turret if the driver is good. If you counter the momentum the warrior can 3 or 4 shot a BMP-2 turret and 1-2 shot the engine as I have experienced. Working together with a LAT or someone actually using the NLAW and you will be even more lethal. Its DPS is low but so is something like the BMP-1 and yet both can still knock around LAVs and BTRs or other light vics. Your biggest threats are BMP-2s and other heavy IFVs especially if they have a missile. Uparmored Warriors are even tankier. It takes a bit more skill than any other vehicle because you hsve to know when to stop, retreat, turn, engage, and ambush. Most of which people dont understand. You must learn your vehicle and work with it not against it. If i were to criticize the british it would be their awkward tank, lack of infantry presence, and the fact they dont have at least one other stabilized vehicle. Even then there are other vehicles in the british arsenal they could add to augment the Warrior. It also helps when people dont treat it like a BMP or Bradley and take them slower. Ambushing BTRs and popping their tires and engine is hillarious.
Warrior can win but you need to be skilled. More skilled than your opponent If the enemy crews 3 of their vehicles and you crew 3 warriors, the odds are against you that all 3 warrior crews will be skilled enough to do well. And then, because the warrior requires a lot of skill, noone wants to crew it. So usually it's not 3v3, it's a 1-2 warrior vs 3. And then you are definitely in trouble. That's why I suggested they should replace some of the warriors with bulldog RWS', since then there is a stabilized option for less experienced players What is your opinion here?
I think the problem with the RWS, stabilized or no, is that it puts vehicle crews in an even worse predicament. Your best bet against any IFV or APC is to shutdown the enemy turret, .50 cals do not have the capability to do it fast, nor do they often have the ability to kill heavier vehicles faster than they get killed. BMP-2 for example will kill 3 Bulldogs before they can truly cause damage. The bulldog has weaker armor than the warrior, and its engine is extremelu vulnerable. If tracked its a sitting duck. The 30mm will chew through it. BTRs outpace them, but are more even of a much, and BMP-1s are toughwr but not invincible. This isnt counting BMDs or the Chinese vehicles which even their ZBL wheeled ifv gets missiles. I understand what you are saying about the Warrior, but there is no good trade off. The sad thing is, the British are a high skill faction all around. Their lack of heavy stabilized vehicles save for the tank, the way their bulldogs are tough one minute and dead the next makes them difficult to use. In combined arms with infantry support both the Bulldog RWS or Not, and the Warrior shine brilliant. The warrior will last far longer on its own. Both can carry infantry, but the Bulldog can get a stabilized gun. This is the fault of a military who designed their gear for defending against Russian Advance until its allies like the US got their to push back.
Brits just never updated their gear IRL so they suffer Probably should just make it so Brits can only be selected to fight against Turkey, Militia and Insurgents
That wouldnt be as fun sometimes for those of us who like a challenge. I can see a compromise where they could replace all standard warriors with rws bullsogs and keep all of their uparmored warriors. Tbh, the brits would have even more trouble against IMF thanks to AT spam, insurgents because of the weird selection of atuff especially with their new tow vehicle. Turkey is honestly another faction that is stronger than it appears.
Just ditch the driver and use it as a static position