CIWS : not using beltfeed autoloader ?

[Lorenzo[FR]]

hey guys, is there a reason for not using beltfeed autoloader for a ciws ?
i'm curious.

[^^]

Your gun now cannot fire while reloading It also cannot break off the reload sequence.
So it might not fire when the second volley of missiles comes in (it is a tad more complicated than this but when unfortunate timings than yeah this).

[Major0Noob]

$$$
might as well build lams for the same cost

the best argument is the volume requirement. although; if it's a key defensive component it's better to make multiple cheaper turrets

[Oorslavich]

Beltfeed gives higher peak firerate at the cost of downtime when the clip is emptied. You also cannot put emergency clip ejectors on beltfed autoloaders.

For smaller designs beltfeds are better because they give you that peak firerate with low volume footprint. For big designs you can have so many of them and armour the turret so well that the downsides are mostly negated.

For medium sized designs it really depends on the context, but you can make the argument that the sustained fire from standard autoloaders has more value when fighting vehicles of similar size. I still like the high RPM brrrrrt that Beltfeds give you though. It's very satisfying.

[bricox01]

Originally posted by Major0Noob:

$$$
might as well build lams for the same cost

the best argument is the volume requirement. although; if it's a key defensive component it's better to make multiple cheaper turrets

I usually go with LAMS over CIWS myself. But if I can mount both, I do. I always use beltfed loaders on CIWS guns, exempting my 150mm dual AAA gun that uses 2m loaders and happens to have a anti-munititions controller. It's actually good for killing those large and huge missiles due to the firepower of those larger AA shells.