Warrior versions and MILAN/Javelins

As I am continuing what has sort of become and unoffical Do The British Armour oddessy, I am now working on doing a 144th Warrior model.

Unlike with the Challengers (the 2 especially), there’s not quite the same information about the different versions. (Heck, there was really only one source for the former…)

So I have come to the point at which I’ve done the base model. I can see the changes for the end TES(H) version (there are of course kits for those where I can clearly see the details - secondary sources, admittedly), but for the intermediate steps (especially during the Gulf War 1) are a bit more sketchy.

I have gathered, at this point, that version would have the straight applicae armour plates on the sides and glacis and the Bowman radio and driver’s 3-sight periscope.

(E.g. Here.)

What I am not clear on is the MILAN (Javelin) and whether that was just… Functionally strapped on the side (as I’ve seen on some photographs) to regular Warriors and the FV516 AGTW version was different again, or whether the FV516 is literally just the base Warrior with the aforemention MILAN stuck on the side. And thus, whether I should do a Gulf War 1 versions both with and without MILAN.

(For example, it’s not 100% clear on that image whether that Warrior has a MILAN mount that’s just dismounted and covered up at the moment or not.)

Any help in getting some vague kind of clarity as to what versions there are (since there don’t seem to be any attached mark numbers, not in any sources I’ve found) would be greatly appreciated.

I don’t believe FV516 is an actual variant. The MILAN mount is an improvised mount that is bolted to the right side sight head. No Javelin have been mounted to the Warrior. I’ve only seen on Jackals. Only MILAN sections for Op Granby (1991) or Op Telic (2003) would have the MILAN mounts. 3 sight periscope is not seen on all vehicles.

What Paul @ptruhe said. It’s not a variant. 2 ATGW test beds were made but never went any further.
Ref the Milan fit out, this was very limited. It was for Ops only and very limited numbers were done. I think no more than 10 to 15.

Also, Bowman was not fitted for GW1. It was clansman.

Okay. Several sources say “489 were produced (including 105 as platforms for the mobility of anti-tank guided weapon teams, originally equipped with MILAN and later with Javelin missiles)” and also talk about the FV516 - though they seem to be quoting each other* - while other don’t specify a number of MILAN equipped Warriors, so you can perhaps understand my confusion.

*Edit: one other source says “Total orders for the FV510 numbered 384 plus an additional 108 placed after the Gulf War. These 108 were to be equipped with the TRIGAT anti-tank missile but were fitted with Milan in the interim.”

So, then, making a reasonable go of it would be something like:

  1. Base Warrior

  2. Warrior (Op Granby) with applique armour

  3. Warrior (Op Granby) with applique armour with MILAN

  4. Warrior (Op Telic) with the Bowman and the 3-sight periscope

  5. Warrior (Op Telic) with the Bowman and the 3-sight periscope with MILAN

and the question becomes whether 4 and 5 are done with with WRAP2 (as seen here and here) or the full-on TES(H) or both or what.

Does that sound like a credible batch…?

(I presume the FV511 - which says it basically only differs in the rear doors - would have been fitted with the same lot of armour upgrades. Tthough I feel doing on one version of that would be sufficient, as you potentially run into the trouble of M981/M901 problem of when the vehicles are designed to look the same, the wargamer (especially at small scale) can’t easily tell them apart either so you have make some artifically obvious differences for practical playability reasons.)

Self edit, there were more than I thought from the original 10 to 15. They were fitted out in 1991, and a new order went in …
Trigat never happened. Only the test bed was produced. The ones designed for the MILAN, didn’t have it fitted all the time. And by the numbers I would say it was only 1 per section.
The command version looked externally the same as a section wagon apart from the double rear doors and it would of probably had 3 antenna bases as a minimum.

Also, if you are doing this in 144, you need to consider detail and how much smaller this will be than the challengers you did… Some of these details may just end up as over scale blobs ?

1 Like

Yeah, 144th does require an amount of adjustment and rationalisation on to what will be visible and also what will print (meaning details and thin parts need to be upsized), but I’ve been doing it for… a dozen year now, huh… So I’ve got a good handle on that part. The Bowman and the 3-sight hatch will be visible (if somewhat subtle). But yeah, it’s mostly a case of the removal of what I assume is an old sight for the radio mast on the top and a different box on the turret… Which may well be obscured by the mesh armour of whatever stripe, but…

(Antenna I don’t worry about (aside from some attempt to model the very base), since they have to be at least a millimetre thick and they’re rather fragile when printed on an FDM printer especially.)

This, by way of example, is the result of today’s work (which was just doing the Granby stuff, which took a surprisingly long amount of time, all things considered; but a lot had to be done a bit by eye and that’s hard when you don’t have good pictures or many angles).

(The rivets on the side plates almost certainly won’t come out in anything other commericial resin prints and possibly not even then.)

Pasting the MILAN onto the side will be trivial, since tomorrow I can literally just steal the mount off the Marder 2 I did.

1 Like

Looking at it today, it is frustratingly difficult to find a good photo of a MILAN equipped Warrior seen from the righthand side, but for the few I have found, it looks like the Warrior version does NOT seem to have the tripod attached like on the Marder.

It seems possible it’s just pointing backward and not fowards (it’s very hard to tell on that linked image) and that is what I’m tenatively going with, for the sake or arguement; but anyone know whether that is the case or not?


I was going to post the same image. It’s fitted and trailing to the rear. If you look at the other image in the same thread, you can make out the legs going rear :+1:

Ace, thanks!