Discuss about oicw and m4

[Balschoiw 0]

I was able to shoot the OICW in the testing programs here in germany and during one mission abroad. It is a very precise and and versatile weapon (the list of projectiles suitable for the launcher and the gun is very long). To compare it wioth the M4 is nonsense. The M4 is the M4. Nothing special, nothing extraordinary. The OICW guidance comp makes a hell of a job on ranged targets with elevations. The comp/visor combination is capsuled, waterproof and easy to understand although I always have my problems with to many buttons and switches The sights to eye time is not longer than with a standard visor I worked with (M16, M4, G36, Steyr).

The weight is a result of the ammo loadout. Not to heavy anyway. The OICW will probably not hit the shelves for all infantry units. The LW program should give it a good home.

Nethertheless I still prefer the G36 with attached nade launcher or a separate Grapi for field useage. Maybe it´s just that we are all used to certain weapons and it´s pretty hard to get friend with a new type of gun. The G36 was a masterpiece here. All recruits I took to the range with the G36 learnt to handle the gun in no time and it is still outstanding in weight and reliability.

[Necromancer- 0]

Personally... I would take the OICW over the M4 if the supply lines are good, So I can replace the weapon very quickly with another one.

For long term missions, I would not choose the OICW, unless the rifle is able to operate without the electronics.

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ 07 May 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was able to shoot the OICW in the testing programs here in germany and during one mission abroad. It is a very precise and and versatile weapon (the list of projectiles suitable for the launcher and the gun is very long). To compare it wioth the M4 is nonsense. The M4 is the M4. Nothing special, nothing extraordinary. The OICW guidance comp makes a hell of a job on ranged targets with elevations. The comp/visor combination is capsuled, waterproof and easy to understand although I always have my problems with to many buttons and switches    The sights to eye time is not longer than with a standard visor I worked with (M16, M4, G36, Steyr).

The weight is a result of the ammo loadout. Not to heavy anyway. The OICW will probably not hit the shelves for all infantry units. The LW program should give it a good home.

Nethertheless I still prefer the G36 with attached nade launcher or a separate Grapi for field useage. Maybe it´s just that we are all used to certain weapons and it´s pretty hard to get friend with a new type of gun. The G36 was a masterpiece here. All recruits I took to the range with the G36 learnt to handle the gun in no time and it is still outstanding in weight and reliability.<span id='postcolor'>

Which one is you?

 

[Balschoiw 0]

No that´s me. I need to make some new pics as this one is really old, but I am not to keen on being object of a photography.

[PitViper 0]

G3 from the hip?  

BTW, Can I request something for the OICW?  I want one of those foldout LCD panels like on camcorders. That would be a cool sight.  

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">G3 from the hip?

<span id='postcolor'>

Well yes. It´s called "Deutschuss" in german wich means you shoot the direction you point. The G3 isn´t a monster. You can shoot it from the hips. You may have noticed some arm muscles

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ 07 May 2003,16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The comp/visor combination is capsuled, waterproof and easy to understand although I always have my problems with to many buttons and switches  <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, waterproof? I'm highly sceptical. Probably in theory, but in my experience HK & water do not mix very well. The G3 was also supposed to be 'water tolerant', yet water between the bolt head and the extractor made the weapon often unreliable.

I also happen to be a firm believer that electronics and water don't mix Sure, it might work on a new unit, but what about after a couple of years' usage?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, waterproof? I'm highly sceptical. Probably in theory, but in my experience HK & water do not mix very well. The G3 was also supposed to be 'water tolerant', yet water between the bolt head and the extractor made the weapon often unreliable.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well you know the improvements made with the G36. The G3 developement started in the late 50´s. It´s no wonder it doesn´t like water

The G36 already uses the capsuled bolthead with turning head to avoid water. Most of it´s components are non-metal and therefore corrosion through water is unlikely. We had some issues with breaking composite parts because of high UV exposure but they seem to be fixed now. The OICW is the next phase developement and surely will find the corner it fits.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also happen to be a firm believer that electronics and water don't mix Sure, it might work on a new unit, but what about after a couple of years' usage?<span id='postcolor'>

Well therefore the tests for new W-Systems are extensive and part of the the manufacturing process. Sure there is no 100 percent guarantee that a gun will work 100 percent after a long period useage or extreme conditions, but that´s the same with all guns. If they are mantained properly and pass the regular service intervalls I see no reason for a technical malfunction. We all use NV and electronic scopes on guns nowadays and I remember the training I got on the G3 with a regular ZF (no electronics). A few years later now I have a G36 with NV and high power lens and it works without problems. I was sceptical also but those things tend to be reliant. At least I didn´t have a malfunction in years now.

[Guest]

I'll just let you Germans play with your HKs for a few years first, and I'll stick to my trusty Ak-5

[Balschoiw 0]

Oh well no problem about that as long as I get these greedy looks whenever I have my gun with me and other army members from different countries seem to be a bit unhappy with their current gear

Maybe this is just another male thing. Like the one with bigger cars and spoilers

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ 07 May 2003,18:14)</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">G3 from the hip?  

<span id='postcolor'>

Well yes. It´s called "Deutschuss" in german wich means you shoot the direction you point. The G3 isn´t a monster. You can shoot it from the hips. You may have noticed some arm muscles  <span id='postcolor'>

I guess you have many girls standing in line for you.

And there's another thing I dont prefer OICW's... it does not intimidate the enemy, because it gives the enemy the impression that you're carrying an oversized sci-fi gun.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh well no problem about that as long as I get these greedy looks whenever I have my gun with me and other army members from different countries seem to be a bit unhappy with their current gear

Maybe this is just another male thing. Like the one with bigger cars and spoilers <span id='postcolor'>

Nah, no problem, we use the GRG (Carl Gustaf), which beats most portable weapon systems

Kind of beats your 20mm grenades

[ralphwiggum 6]

Bal, good to see you back.

you gotta remember that denoir is someone who buys a plastic frame gun like P99, not a trustworthy gun like a CZ or a HK let the boy play with his toy and he'll grow up someday to love HK.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, no problem, we use the GRG (Carl Gustaf), which beats most portable weapon systems

Kind of beats your 20mm grenades <span id='postcolor'>

yeah, but with your kind of aim.... j/k

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ 07 May 2003,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And there's another thing I dont prefer OICW's... it does not intimidate the enemy, because it gives the enemy the impression that you're carrying an oversized sci-fi gun.  :D<span id='postcolor'>

It's not about intimidating the enemy, it's about stopping him (and that's where the OICW will have an edge over any other weapon system). Usually that's not some sort of pissing contest to see who's got the most bad-ass looking gear.

[Jinef 2]

I think that it's inevitable that guns are going to get digital, but just make sure you can turn off all the computers, chuck it down into a puddle and it still works.

It's a bit like when we turn off all the flight computers in the helicopter, as long as you can still fly it without some computer intefering your okay.

If you remember the exercises results, whatever new piece of kit the Americans brought over to show us we still kick their ass with our '58 pattern webbing and 30 year old SLRs. If we had kit like that then just imagine...

Nice pic, Balschoiw, but what was that bollocks about not liking being the object of photography?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

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

Now that I've used both, I'd still go for a Diemaco C7 over an AK anyday. British Special Forces use the C7 for a reason you know. Actually, the AK's and SKS's that I tried recently were of Chinese and Yugoslavian (better) manufacture and I found them to be a bit crude, but I'm biased. The AK isn't heavier than an AR-15 variant (it is, but at least I didn't notice it) and I find that the AR-15 type weapon is easier to shoot/aim with.

P.S., hey Ralph, ever tried a Sig Sauer?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And there's another thing I dont prefer OICW's... it does not intimidate the enemy, because it gives the enemy the impression that you're carrying an oversized sci-fi gun.<span id='postcolor'>

The enemy would likely never see your weapon anyway. If it never fails to go *BANG* and I like it, it works for me.

Tyler

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ 07 May 2003,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ 07 May 2003,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And there's another thing I dont prefer OICW's... it does not intimidate the enemy, because it gives the enemy the impression that you're carrying an oversized sci-fi gun.  <span id='postcolor'>

It's not about intimidating the enemy, it's about stopping him (and that's where the OICW will have an edge over any other weapon system). Usually that's not some sort of pissing contest to see who's got the most bad-ass looking gear.<span id='postcolor'>

I know that....

Think of making an airsoft version of the OICW, I doubt people will see it as a real life weapon if you have such a gun.. so this gun would be legal here... in The Netherlands.

Imagine the software installed in the OICW... it crashes and suddenly you see a BSOD. haha

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ 07 May 2003,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice pic, Balschoiw, but what was that bollocks about not liking being the object of photography?<span id='postcolor'>

hehe.  I'll second that.  I'm going to start calling him Rambo.

BTW, the 20mm airburst grenades on the OICW sounds really cool.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice pic, Balschoiw, but what was that bollocks about not liking being the object of photography?<span id='postcolor'>

2 reasons:

- I don´t like it

- I am often not allowed to

hope this is clear enough.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hehe. I'll second that. I'm going to start calling him Rambo.<span id='postcolor'>

Call me Alex instead

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bal, good to see you back. <span id='postcolor'>

Thx Ralph. Took some time to sort things out. Still a lot of paperworks to do but the worst things are over. Good to know people take care of each other here. At least some

[Mister Frag 0]

I have quite a bit of faith in computers and electronics, and practically all of us trust our lives and well-being to them every day, whether we are aware of it or not.

If you fly in a plane, ride in a train or car, take an elevator, have a pacemaker, get medical treatment, or any number of other things, electronics and computers are involved.

The systems controlling these devices are not the same general-purpose computers we use to play games, they are embedded systems with a closed architecture that are designed, built, and tested by a single vendor. There isn't a plethora of expansion cards from a myriad of different vendors with different versions of poorly written and tested drivers for different versions of different operating systems. As such, embedded systems tend to be far more robust than our PCs.

Best of all, the rifle portion of the OICW will still go BANG when you pull the trigger even if the batteries or computer are dead. I don't know how well the normally individually programmed grenades would work without the electronics, but they have a contact detonation setting, and may default to that if not programmed otherwise. Should the GL become useless, take it off, and you still have a (very) short-barreled carbine.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ 07 May 2003,21:02)</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">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. <span id='postcolor'>

Now that I've used both, I'd still go for a Diemaco C7 over an AK anyday. British Special Forces use the C7 for a reason you know.    Actually, the AK's and SKS's that I tried recently were of Chinese and Yugoslavian (better) manufacture and I found them to be a bit crude, but I'm biased. The AK isn't heavier than an AR-15 variant (it is, but at least I didn't notice it) and I find that the AR-15 type weapon is easier to shoot/aim with.<span id='postcolor'>

In basic training during my military service we got the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with a number of foregin weapons, including the M16A2 and the AKM. I was very excited about the M16 since, well, they're common in movies etc Anyway, I was very dissapointed when I got to shoot it since it felt like a cheap piece of plastic. I have still not gotten over my initial disappointment, so I don't like it at all

I've tried several AKs, especially the Yugoslav M78 and I've always been impressed by the simplicity of the design and the beating it can take and still operate.

Of course my favourite weapon is the Ak5 (Bofors) - Swedish modified version of the FNC 80. I admit that I have a certain bias concerning it

[Maraudeur 0]

sorry, post below

[PitViper 0]

Take this from a former signal man... if its electronic and in the field, it's gonna go screwy or break. I'd say the screwy part is far worse than the broken part.. especially if it tosses ordnance

[Maraudeur 0]

I am very sceptical about OICW utility.

The thing by itself.

Use of computerized aiming is not really a problem as perfectly sealing parts is possible so water dirt etc is not so much a problem, but computerized fire control mean glass or synthtic lenses. And the OICW looks like its grenade launcher is quite useless without this optical device. Is there a good replacement classical sighting device for the 5.56 gun ?

By good I mena long sght line, close to the fire axis, naturaly in line with the eye while taking the weapon on shoulder... it seems not.

In many situations, morning in desert and temperate countrys, during rain, while changing exposure of the lense to differnet solar expositions, air humidity levels, etc etc.... lenses externals sides covers with condensation.

And if the problem is not condensation, it is dust, or both.

And of course, I agree with Mister Frag, murphy laws said that complicated systems will brake down only but always on the baddest moment.

About the concept.

The idea is to make every infantryman the universal soldier able to response to most tactical situations.

Nothing can't be more wrong.

Even if those 20mm grenades are more effective than 40mm ones ( and that cannot be difficult... ) this new system introduction will reproduce the same mistake than replacing rifle grenades by 40mm systems.

That's maybe sound stupid, but biggest is better.

Reduction of lethal effectivness, grunt beeing lost in the options to take at decisive moments.

The system weight will limit the grunt carry ability for others systems like rocket launchers ( including anti-bunker devices ), true and effective indirect fire loads ( rifle grenades ).

Reduction of effectivness for the rifle system.

( And still nothing better than 30 rounds of 5.56 in an unfriendly big package )

Well, a team well trained of specialzed grenadiers ( barimetric rocket launchers, heavy rifle grenades, why not light mortars ), sharpshooters, machine gunners can't be beaten by the dream of universality, ultimate compromise dream.

Ask the marines that have fought in Irak if the job have been done by the 40mm grenades and M16s or by machine gun suppresive fire, snipers and support weapon.

( And those support weapons were tanks and artillery, anti-tank rockets launchers because they lacked true infantry support weapons like barimetric rockets, carl gustav like recoilless guns with HE warheads, rifle grenades while fast response situations were needed etc... )

About the ergonomy.

Best thing is a tool that is effectively used.

There is not one thousands ways to go.

The line of sight must be nearest as possible of the cannon axis, sights must be fast to catch ( as the AK ones, looking like the hunting rifles sights, open design and far in front of the gun )

Cannon axis and pistol grip must be as close as possible.

Overhall height and width must be as small as possible for concealment while prone and target surface while standing ( ability to practice fring position with body side turned at the aiming direction, a " rolled back " compact torso stance ).

The OICW do not allow those things at all.

I really wonder why people always need to re-invent the wheel while essential rules, basics are knowne since decades if not centurys while it's about warfare tactics, war tools ergonomy, human behaviour under combat, experience of how destructive a weapon must be ( grenades etc ) or at contrario how fast and accurate in single shot it must be to solve combat situations.

[FuseBox 0]

what happens when the terrorist get there hands on this?