Discuss about oicw and m4

[CuteQA 0]

Please post your opinion or why u choose it, and let's disscuss about it.  

For example, will the OICW bring more advantages for the future infantry? or it will bring disadvantages?

[PitViper 0]

OICW is far too heavy and unreliable for long term usage.  Far too whiz-bang for my liking.  Give me a solid accurate rifle over that weapon anyday.  It might be handy in specialized roles but definitely not for universal use.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

You can't compare two totally different weapons systems, to do so would be pointless as each has it's own use.

Sure the OICW is nice, but it's a field weapon and I doubt it will replace the M4 in urban ops. Yeah, sure the OICW detaches and you can use the 5.56 weapon by itself, but it has a short barrel and no stock, so the accuracy is questionable when compared to an M4. Besides, an M4 is WAY cheaper.

So there.

[CuteQA 0]

I konw it is camparing two totaly different guns( i mentioned in different topic)

but i think there should be no problem with oicw's accuracy according to some data because of the fire control system.  It sure gives infantry advantages higher effect and safe way to destory the target in combat. Also, it has many many functions especially designed for urban ops.

my only concerns of OICW is the bettery, money(yes i agree it is too expensive) and emp(a little bit fiction, but possible) problem.  

I think the designers will notice the reliablity of the gun( same thing happened on m16 when it first introduced in Vietnam War), and i hope they will(or they already did?) show some data for the enviorment test to the public.

OICW should enter production step soon in the end of 2005

[FSPilot 0]

Well, I wouldnt' want to be the first into battle with an OICW. For one it looks very bulky and uncomfortable, I don't know how well it would do in a combat environment.

[Jester983 0]

I think the m4 has move advantages vs the OICW for now. I would be afraid of the batteries running out while in combat. But the m4 doesnt have batteries (unless it has the RIS).

So i would say the m4 is going to stay around for quite some time.

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 07 May 2003,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I wouldnt' want to be the first into battle with an OICW.  For one it looks very bulky and uncomfortable, I don't know how well it would do in a combat environment.<span id='postcolor'>

yup, i noticed one thing for current OICW pictures. There is no shooter holding it on prone position.

Hope they designer will solve all of the problems before they enter to service.

[Renagade 0]

I vote for a rpg-7 fired from the hip

Everyone else is said what i would of said on the oicw.

[FuseBox 0]

AHH i feel good not being the only one alive that does not like OICW  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yup, i noticed one thing for current OICW pictures.  There is no shooter holding it on prone position.  

<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think they will be able fix that its just to big a weapon.

They would have to change the whole style of the Weapon and im sure they wont do that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my only concerns of OICW is the bettery<span id='postcolor'>

i wonder what size it would take?

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FuseBox @ 07 May 2003,00:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my only concerns of OICW is the bettery<span id='postcolor'>

i wonder what size it would take? <span id='postcolor'>

AA Size of course! Everything uses AA size batteries.

[Mister Frag 0]

I wouldn't be surprised if the batteries will be supplemented with solar cells, either to generate some of the current for operating the electronics and off-load the batteries, or to recharge the batteries.

Obviously, solar cells would only work when either sunlight or artificial light are available, and the US and other modern armies prefer to fight at night. But a weapon left exposed to the light during the day while soldiers are resting would allow the battery pack to recharge.

Also, I think it is important that we compare the OICW to an M4 with a M203 attached. Suddenly, the two weapons are closer in their dimensions and weight, and the OICW will still be more effective for the tasks that the M4/M203 are intended for. The ammo for the OICW grenade launcher is more accurate, more powerful, and less bulky than the M203 rounds.

To answer the question of which weapon I prefer, I'd also have to go with an M4 variant for now. Given some more development time for the OICW (and an appropriate battle environment), the OICW might be my choice in a few years.

[Commander-598 0]

I have a few gripes about the OICW.

1. Weather- Electronics have a nasty habit of not agreeing with water.

2. Weight/Size- Its too heavy, and bulky. And when you remove all the little electronic gadgets and the 20mm cannon, you have a 5.56mm pistol.

3. EMP- Again with the electronics. On the modern battlefield, we do employ equipment to knock out electronics, and so does any enemy that would require a major war with thousands of casualties attached.

4. Power- Just like any other portable electronic device, it needs recharging, and I highly doubt that you'll find a power outlet in a war torn countryside. Solar energy? It would work, but the cost is a little to much. Batterys? Just another addition to what the supply lines already have to get to our troops.

5. Cost- Correct me if i'm wrong, But I thought we were trying to go for the least expensive weapon.

Overall- I thought we(U.S.) were going for a lightweight and fairly cheap weapon. After all, thats the prime reason we dropped the M14 isn't it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">emp(a little bit fiction, but possible)<span id='postcolor'>

No its not fiction. Not only is it caused by a nuclear warhead going off, we now have bombs made especially for delivering an EMP to enemy electronics.

[ralphwiggum 6]

M4+M203.

more electornics, more chance of problem. what good is an electronic system without embedded games?

[drewb99 0]

Neither

OICW is too much wishful thinking and M4 can't hit the broadside of a barn.

[FSPilot 0]

I don't trust electronics when my life depends on it. I don't even want to fly a fly-by-wire aircraft (but I will twist my arm). I can just see that blue screen of doom in my OICW scope now.

[FuseBox 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 07 May 2003,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can just see that blue screen of doom in my OICW scope now.<span id='postcolor'>

lol the blue screen of doom

[Milkman 1]

Once again: A fatal exception has occured at

10821082811a by 4464212:10981

It may be possible to continue running normaly or you may press ctrl+alt+del to restart .... oops your dead

[CuteQA 0]

A question about this OICW

I just saw it on Mail Call last week, and it is testing by the USMC.

But if confused me is this the latest version of OICW, older OICW, or it is a USMC version OICW.

and it looks smaller than current OICW we usually saw

anyone has more info about it??  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">more electornics, more chance of problem.<span id='postcolor'>

I think this is one point the whole LW program is going to face, but i think there will be more and more electornic devices be used in the future warfare as the technology is advancing .

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (drewb99 @ 06 May 2003,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

M4 can't hit the broadside of a barn.<span id='postcolor'>

What the heck do you base that statement on?

[toadeater 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 07 May 2003,02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M4+M203.

more electornics, more chance of problem. what good is an electronic system without embedded games?  <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, when is OFP coming out for the OICW?

[Mister Frag 0]

There is an OICW for OFP, it's part of the Lost Brothers mod:

http://lostbrothers.ofpmatch.com/OFPHK/main.php

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 07 May 2003,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't trust electronics when my life depends on it.  I don't even want to fly a fly-by-wire aircraft (but I will twist my arm).  I can just see that blue screen of doom in my OICW scope now.<span id='postcolor'>

I wouldn't worry. Most newer fly-by-wire aircraft are hardened from EMP to stop them falling from the sky.

The Typhoon for example, has 4 shielded main computers, plus shielding for basic control authority, and avionics. I know the F22 has a similar system, plus all the visors are laser and flash protected.

[Guest]

The positve side is that it's based on the G36 design that is higly praised by those using it.

The down side is of course the electronics. Call me old fashioned but I would not trust the first generation of computerized weapon. I'm not certain that it's even properly waterproof.

No thank you. I'll take an reliable AK-47 over the OICW in the field any day.

On the range on the other hand...

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 07 May 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The positve side is that it's based on the G36 design that is higly praised by those using it.

The down side is of course the electronics. Call me old fashioned but I would not trust the first generation of computerized weapon. I'm not certain that it's even properly waterproof.

No thank you. I'll take an reliable AK-47 over the OICW in the field any day.

On the range on the other hand... <span id='postcolor'>

you have bad taste AK-47  

I would take an M16 any day over that heavy thing.

But back on topic Please put the OICW in the BIN

STGN

[Guest]

M16, that plastic little 5,56 toy! You have to be joking! The AK-47 is the most field tested, most reliable rifle in the world. It's easy to maintain and can stand a harsh treatment.