Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Just in time for Xmas

  1. #1 Just in time for Xmas 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201...onsafghanistan
    Sweeet!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Nice capability that's been around for larger weapons like the TOW-2 for a decade or so.

    --
    Yet it still doesn't pale compared to an Arabic or Dari speaking Soldier.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Nice capability that's been around for larger weapons like the TOW-2 for a decade or so.

    --
    Yet it still doesn't pale compared to an Arabic or Dari speaking Soldier.


    No it hasn't. This thing uses a laser range finder coupled with a fuse that detonates at the selected range (air burst), rather than at or after penetration.

    The problem during development was lethality of what was a 20mm round -- which I see is now 25 mm. We'll have to see how it pans out in the field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Nice capability that's been around for larger weapons like the TOW-2 for a decade or so.

    --
    Yet it still doesn't pale compared to an Arabic or Dari speaking Soldier.


    No it hasn't. This thing uses a laser range finder coupled with a fuse that detonates at the selected range (air burst), rather than at or after penetration..
    I should have more precisely said the TOW-2B, which has the ability to shoot over a target and destroy it from above. Functionally it's a similar capability--it can shoot a target behind an obstacle. You're trying to discuss how it achieves that capability.

    I'm not sure it will be used that much in the field. In most cases the ROE specify that you still need positive identification of the target, something you usually don't have for a concealed target and almost never >1km from an observer on the ground if he's pulling the trigger.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Nice capability that's been around for larger weapons like the TOW-2 for a decade or so.

    --
    Yet it still doesn't pale compared to an Arabic or Dari speaking Soldier.


    No it hasn't. This thing uses a laser range finder coupled with a fuse that detonates at the selected range (air burst), rather than at or after penetration..
    I should have more precisely said the TOW-2B, which has the ability to shoot over a target and destroy it from above. Functionally it's a similar capability--it can shoot a target behind an obstacle. You're trying to discuss how it achieves that capability.

    I'm not sure it will be used that much in the field. In most cases the ROE specify that you still need positive identification of the target, something you usually don't have for a concealed target and almost never >1km from an observer on the ground if he's pulling the trigger.
    Tow-2b is a wire-guided missile designed for hard targets.

    This thing is an air-burst grenade designed as an anti-personnel weapon, including personnel in defilade (one purpose of the air burst). It has a second barrel that fires the standard 5,56 mm round -- like the M16. It bears no resemblance to the Tow in operation, capability, design or intent.

    It is a heavy bull-pup, a bit unweildy. The prototype that I handled years ago was a bit of a pig.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Not going to quibble. I see it as I'm pretty sure most soldiers will see it--they'll delight with the one capability I mentioned..not the obvious differences which we both agree on.

    Ow..not all TOWs are wire guided anymore. Too bad we don't get to shoot them more often. (too expensive.

    Did you like the bull pup? I've never fired one. I wonder if we'll finally go to that configuration once we move to something larger than 5.56mm as opponents start to use ballistic armor.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not going to quibble. I see it as I'm pretty sure most soldiers will see it--they'll delight with the one capability I mentioned..not the obvious differences which we both agree on.

    Ow..not all TOWs are wire guided anymore. Too bad we don't get to shoot them more often. (too expensive.

    Did you like the bull pup? I've never fired one. I wonder if we'll finally go to that configuration once we move to something larger than 5.56mm as opponents start to use ballistic armor.
    No I don't particularly like bullpups, but that is a personal opinion.

    I also see that this XM25 version apparently does not have the 5.56 mm rifle incorporated into it so it is just a grenade launcher, unlike the original OICW.

    My personal opinion is that it is WAY to expensive and complicated for what it delivers. I would rather see the Army spend more time on marksmanship and something more effective than the 5.56. If they need to take out a soft target in defilade the are other options. I am personally suspicious of small arms that rely on batteries and sophisticated electronics in order to function. But I'm old-fashioned and liked the M79 grenade launcher and the M14 rifle.

    The original OICW was so heavy that I guarantee at close range, say 30 yds or so, I could fire and hit a target with an M16 or M14 before a normal guy could get the OICW shouldered.

    The problem I see with the 5.56 is not ballistic armor so much as the fact that the bad guys don't stop fighting when hit with it -- they just don't act like coyotes and rabbits. But I liked the 7.62
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I am personally suspicious of small arms that rely on batteries and sophisticated electronics in order to function. But I'm old-fashioned and liked the M79 grenade launcher and the M14 rifle.
    I was pretty suspicious as well ten or more years ago. But after carrying an M4 with IR laser and helographic scope which required battery change about once a month with day to day use (even abuse at times) I was sold. We had reasonable long life and better accuracy both night and day. The gear was so good I think it would nulify the original reason for the 5.56 which was wieght of the basic load--today you could cut the basic load in half (to 110 rounds/Soldier) switch to a 7.62mm platform and still be far more effective because of the better round and optics. Night vision equipment and hand held radios was our pain--we couldn't carry enough batteries.

    And if it all breaks we still have back up iron sights.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I am personally suspicious of small arms that rely on batteries and sophisticated electronics in order to function. But I'm old-fashioned and liked the M79 grenade launcher and the M14 rifle.
    I was pretty suspicious as well ten or more years ago. But after carrying an M4 with IR laser and helographic scope which required battery change about once a month with day to day use (even abuse at times) I was sold. We had reasonable long life and better accuracy both night and day. The gear was so good I think it would nulify the original reason for the 5.56 which was wieght of the basic load--today you could cut the basic load in half (to 110 rounds/Soldier) switch to a 7.62mm platform and still be far more effective because of the better round and optics. Night vision equipment and hand held radios was our pain--we couldn't carry enough batteries.

    And if it all breaks we still have back up iron sights.
    I can agree with that.

    But with this M25 you don't have a backup if the electronics goes out. You need the laser range finder to communicate with the fuse in the round through the gun for the thing to work. This is a lot more than a little wafer battery in a holo sight or even a laser.

    BTW while I am not sure about this incarnation, the original OICW was required by the Army to have a bayonet lug -- on a bullpup that weighed about 18 lbs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I also see that this XM25 version apparently does not have the 5.56 mm rifle incorporated into it so it is just a grenade launcher, unlike the original OICW.

    My personal opinion is that it is WAY to expensive and complicated for what it delivers. I would rather see the Army spend more time on marksmanship and something more effective than the 5.56. If they need to take out a soft target in defilade the are other options. I am personally suspicious of small arms that rely on batteries and sophisticated electronics in order to function. But I'm old-fashioned and liked the M79 grenade launcher and the M14 rifle.
    I agree. I would feel very uncomfortable patrolling with such a specialized weapon that almost never conforms to the current ROE's. Heavier firepower is available with cheaper, more simple, and proven crew served weapons. If you want to chew up a building or a mountain emplacement just utilize the already available 25mm Bushmasters, Mk19's or judiciously employ M203's. And a call for fire is always a fun, though less discriminant option.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •