Discuss about oicw and m4

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FuseBox @ 10 May 2003,00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ 09 May 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate the SA80, bitch to clean and a pig to use... the OICW will probably be even worse...<span id='postcolor'>

Aww damn never thought about that  <span id='postcolor'>

Even worse! Imagine a software failure on the battlefield!

"Unknown System failure! Do you REALLY want to fire your 40mm Launcher? [Yes/No/Retry] "

"Please contact our software specialist or dial 007-WEAREALLGONNADIE-0815 ."

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least one third of the shell internal space is lost.

And it will be 500% more effective than the M203 round ?!?

Even with the air burst ?

While m203 style rounds already use ( for some ) light alloy for main body, for the balls, etc.... to carry more explosive and fragmentation device in the same round.

<span id='postcolor'>

They were saying a 500% increase in wounding/killing enemy by means of accuracy.Kind of like a sniper has maybe a 100%-300% advantage over a standard soldier.A sniper has the ability to kill a soldier with one round, where as a soldier may use 10-30 rounds to kill one soldier.

An M203 isn't the most accurate thing in the world.I remeber watching mail call on those M203s, and they showed the soldiers trying to hit a truck at the range, and out of all the rounds I saw explode, only 2 or 3 hit the truck dead on.

With an OICW, you could put a 20mm right into the drivers window with out even trying.

And for example, a window, if you saw a group of soldiers behind the window, at a long range, and you fire a 203 round at it, chances are, you might miss the window, and hit high, low, left or right.It would take maybe 2 or 3, 203 rounds, to get it right, and before then, the enemy might be some where else.With the OICW, would only take 1 round(maybe 2 just to finish the job ) to do it.

Or for example, a trench, it would take at least 3-4, 203 rounds, just to get it right into the trench.But the OICW, all you need to do is have the 20mm round explode 4' above the trench with the airburst feature, and shrapnel gets sent every where.

So a 500% increase in wounding/killing enemy soldiers, with accuracy.

[Maraudeur 0]

Elevation from 20 to 30 degrees approximately you say ?

How could you have the target in sights ?

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ 10 May 2003,18:57)</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">People who believe this effectivness and effective range are kids, ignorants without the low level required level of common sense , or heavily biased and blink persons, or all of that at the same time.<span id='postcolor'>

Whatever you are right or not, dude!  This is discussing not fighting. Do not start flaming here <span id='postcolor'>

This is not my objective.

Language barreer my words are crude.

I just want to point that many of the spokes around the OICW, and finaly the only important thing, officials requests of the program are un-realistic.

Examine that picture :

I estimated that at least one third of the internal space of the shell would be used for fuse and electic devices, by coumpraing the diameter/lenght ratio of the fuse with the complete round, it is clear that in fact it is near half of that space that is not used for the warhead.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ 10 May 2003,19:43)</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">At least one third of the shell internal space is lost.

And it will be 500% more effective than the M203 round ?!?

Even with the air burst ?

While m203 style rounds already use ( for some ) light alloy for main body, for the balls, etc.... to carry more explosive and fragmentation device in the same round.

<span id='postcolor'>

They were saying a 500% increase in wounding/killing enemy by means of accuracy.Kind of like a sniper has maybe a 100%-300% advantage over a standard soldier.A sniper has the ability to kill a soldier with one round, where as a soldier may use 10-30 rounds to kill one soldier.

An M203 isn't the most accurate thing in the world.I remeber watching mail call on those M203s, and they showed the soldiers trying to hit a truck at the range, and out of all the rounds I saw explode, only 2 or 3 hit the truck dead on.

With an OICW, you could put a 20mm right into the drivers window with out even trying.

And for example, a window, if you saw a group of soldiers behind the window, at a long range, and you fire a 203 round at it, chances are, you might miss the window, and hit high, low, left or right.It would take maybe 2 or 3, 203 rounds, to get it right, and before then, the enemy might be some where else.With the OICW, would only take 1 round(maybe 2 just to finish the job ) to do it.

Or for example, a trench, it would take at least 3-4, 203 rounds, just to get it right into the trench.But the OICW, all you need to do is have the 20mm round explode 4' above the trench with the airburst feature, and shrapnel gets sent every where.

So a 500% increase in wounding/killing enemy soldiers, with accuracy. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, this is correct in theory.

But the two mains drawback are that finally the warhead far smallest than the M203 like rounds, and that accuracy is not proven far better.

And I repeat, to obtain accuracy with long ranges, whatever the aiming system is, you need speed.

Those grenades can't be that fast for recoill reasons as I spoke in a post above.

At least it may be around 300 meters per second, twice to say it fast of the average M203 round.

This is not enough to have good accuracy at all ( untill you reach approx 200 meters distance ), nor long ranges, whatever accuracy is researched or not.

This is ballistical, physicall laws no any terestrial object can't go against.

For the warhead, even if the materials used are best designed and selected, less or/and smallest shrapnells can't be as effective as bigger, faster ( explosive charge, shell resistance to pressure before fragmentation and also size of fragments on which pressure works got to say with theyr speed ) and more numerous ones.

About accuracy, this quote from FAS ( sorry I did it in the hurry, FAS is not what I call a serious source, but here are some datas from the program ; I'll search some more serious and complete sources )

Well, see the % of hits ( and the circular probable error to count them in not said there... ) at 300m do not show what can be called a " sniper " system.

And people around here talk for distance of 700m to put right through windows, or " acurate fire at 800 meters, and max engagement range of 1000 meters.

It do not sounds the same eh ??

Here under the line " Justification " you can find -> Probability ( ... ) of incacitation. Still 300 meters. Look...

Another quote from the same article, see differences beetween what's wanted ( goals ) and what...will be reached ?

The 6 round ammo clip is not too big lol !

This is not the " max two rounds decisive killing sniper grenade " you thought about.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Specific goals include demonstration of hit probability greater than 0.5 out to 500 meters and 0.3 to 0.5 out to 1,000 meters. Effectiveness against personnel and light armor targets, given a hit, will be greater than those of the M433 High Explosive Dual Purpose cartridge fired from the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M855 cartridge fired from the M16A2 rifle. Specific goals include a 0.5 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (point target) and a 0.2 probability of incapacitation to 300 meters (defilade target) in FY99. <span id='postcolor'>

And curve fire for long distances ?? The aiming system shows limitations I am interested to spoke about, as for the whole accuracy problem of subsonic small shells in parabolic flights...

I always thought the OICW was intended as a close range weapon ( urban warfare etc ), and should be good for this, but the extreme ranges people are talking about and whole effectivness...whoah....take a minute please. all the others claims and attempts are lies/propaganda/dreams.

Not because I say or think it, because physics, always.

The 20mm grenade system will reveal same limitations as the 5.56 systeme have been admited to. ( Not so far in that thread nobody thought the 5.56 system of the OICW could be limited, it was thought as the same extraordinary along with the complete " ultimate " OICW. It's about psychology and social means more than weaponry tolds... )

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ 10 May 2003,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Elevation from 20 to 30 degrees approximately you say ?

How could you have the target in sights ?<span id='postcolor'>

My guess is that the OICW ballistic computer determines the required elevation based on readings from the laser rangefinder and attitude sensors (to compensate for up/down shots).

The same attitude sensors could then be used to get the soldier to fire the weapon at the correct elevation, either by giving him a simple GO / NO GO signal, by using an elevation bar in the display, or both.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ 10 May 2003,11:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 6 round ammo clip is not too big lol ! <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but that's six rounds that can be fired very accurately in semi-automatic mode, whereas the M-203 uses tangent or leaf sights and is breech-loaded one round at a time.

The bottom line is that the OICW will deliver more firepower more accurately in less time than the weapon it is supposed to replace.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ 10 May 2003,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ 10 May 2003,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Elevation from 20 to 30 degrees approximately you say ?

How could you have the target in sights ?<span id='postcolor'>

My guess is that the OICW ballistic computer determines the required elevation based on readings from the laser rangefinder and attitude sensors (to compensate for up/down shots).

The same attitude sensors could then be used to get the soldier to fire the weapon at the correct elevation, either by giving him a simple GO / NO GO signal, by using an elevation bar in the display, or both.<span id='postcolor'>

This is a possibility.

But a very hazardous method

And now inertial gyroscopic systems are included in the aiming system, comprising already a video camera, a laser range finder, the computer, and soon ( as been said ) sensors for windage speed and direction, batterys ?

In that box ?

Sorry, I can't stay serious

To be honnest, very miniaturised gyroscops exists, but they lack accuracy and wouldn't resist the stress of a manportable fireweapon.

For the windage system, this is seriously a joke. Those sensors needs space.

BTW,

Let's have a look :

It looks like the lens is of a limited diameter, and far behind a circular protective ring.

If you're interested, go to a site from a producer of optics ( schmid und bender for example ) to have the datas of what can be the field of view at 1000 meters of a 6X56 scope (  same magnification, but bigger pupil operture... ).

So, and seeing that even if the sights axis is not the same as the canons axis :

I would like to know how the target can be in the field of view, with a 20 degrees elevation at 800 meters...

So you guess that maybe you have to point at the target, the devices calculates the datas, then you have to blindly elevate the gun until the signal " GO " appears ?

Wow, one hour later the grunt is still searching the correct site and azimut values rifle in hands, and the signal do not appears

That cannot be serious.

[CuteQA 0]

My point of shooting 700m window with 20mm grenade, is OICW giving infantry better chance to kill enemy than m16/m4+m203.

Also, I think it still aim target even it is 20-30 degree(check the front part)

The thing i'm confusing is this the latest model of OICW??

read the news

ATK news

Finally, if OICW is really as bad as people think, i dont think the US army is dumb enough to choose it.  It must have better advantanges than the current weapon. There were also a lot people against M16 when it was first introduced(some army officer even tell the m16 designer that he is going to get american soldiers killed in test site because it has smaller caliber than m14) .  There will always be some doubts when new things come out.  Also, dont forget OICW/XM29 is just part of Land Warrior project, it is hard to say will those high-tech infantrymen won't change the future battlefield.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ 10 May 2003,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The bottom line is that the OICW will deliver more firepower more accurately in less time than the weapon it is supposed to replace.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a complete free guess that previous exams broke.

More accurate than the M203 ?

I agree. Untill some limits stated above, not by mee, 0.2 probabilty of incapacitation in peacetime test at 300 meters for defilade targets...

But the M203 is really not a good reference.

More firepower ? with the complete clip of six rounds maybe.

I'm a bit sarcastic, because the 40mm grenades, again, is noy a good reference at all. It produces main fragmentation effects in the frontal sector, this is useless, best would have been sided as the 20mm looks to be.

But the 20mm grenade's warhead is soooo small => low blast effect, finite number of fragment that cannot be that high, affected by a lower initial speed and, as all exploding device, dispersion of fragments. Maybe at 3 meters the coverage is good, enough to reach a correct " incacitation probability " against a huamn sized eposed object, but if the objective is to clean an average room from adversaries inside including dead angles from the initial grenade point of impact by firing through the window, again, be serious please.

In less time ?

No seriously, have you checked in the posts above the steps you have to follow ( including your guess about the " GO/NO GO signal " ) before release fire ?

German army decided to use distinct grenades launchers first instead of some under G3' to allow trained people to be fast and accurate with that main weapon.

The mistake was to use the ineffective 40mm grenades ( it's another debate ).

Have you ever seen a trained soldier using rifle grenades ? ( the biggest ones are 500 grams heavy. )

They are very, very fast...and accurate.

Some have a game : to place those grenades inside a well at 150 meters.

The right tool for the right thing.

OICW is a parangon of compromises and utopias.

Compromises drives to drawbacks in every domain the thing was intended for, and lack of correct answer for any so.

[CuteQA 0]

the targeting system is like this!

The OICW user just need to place the red dot which is counted and produced by FCS on target  

The up red dot is the gun point direction

ps:the pic is from US Army, not i draw it   )

and i found a thermal image from OICW

The air burst of the OICW 20mm

The OICW 20mm fragment can penetrate Pasgt Vest

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ 10 May 2003,21:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My point of shooting 700m window with 20mm grenade, is OICW giving infantry better chance to kill enemy than m16/m4+m203.

Also, I think it still aim target even it is 20-30 degree(check the front part)

The thing i'm confusing is this the latest model of OICW??

read the news

ATK news

Finally, if OICW is really as bad as people think, i dont think the US army is dumb enough to choose it.  It must have better advantanges than the current weapon. There were also a lot people against M16 when it was first introduced(some army officer even tell the m16 designer that he is going to get american soldiers killed in test site because it has smaller caliber than m14) .  There will always be some doubts when new things come out.  Also, dont forget OICW/XM29 is just part of Land Warrior project, it is hard to say will those won't high-tech infantrymen change the future battlefield. <span id='postcolor'>

The point is that with a 0.2 incapactation ->probabilty<- at 300 meters, thinking to place a subsonic grenade in curve fire by a window at a range of 700m is science-fiction.

About the aiming field of view, the picture you show do not correspond to any of knowne solid material.

Even if it's the case, the optical axis cannot be different than the one calculated from the angular max height from pupil entry ( center at the other side of the optic... ) to the lower exit lens side ( an vision is not a line ) by the complete optical lenght.

Small angle don't you think ?

What I really think about that thing : It is a technological demonstrator.

Some ways searched and tested with this system are highly interesting and will conduct to operationnal employments.

Even just like it is actually, in very limited conditions, like suppresive fire needs by special forces in urban warfare, the OICW looks to be good for use.

But along more decisive weapons with others members of the team ( OICW is already two systems to operate, heavy, etc... ).

Like this : http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m141.htm

Except for this, the two weapons systems of the OICW are dangerously limited so tactical means very limitative while they should be exactly the opposite, and ergonomy a complete no sense and step back.

But, big but, as I already said, this must not become a regular infantry weapon ( even with limited repartition in a squad ) because it walks on terrains that are very much well practiced by others systems.

This would conduct to a loss of efficiency for the entire squad tactical consistency.

The famous " good at all, good for nothing ".

The OICW is a perfect reflect of the actual huge US armed forces financial ressources and volunteeres for researchs of new systems and tactics.

It's like fundamental research. You search, don't know if the way will give an application, but this is always good to do.

History military ( and not only military ) got plenty examples of that sort of programs, by many aspects unrealistic, useless or utopist ( and propaganda got its words in this, as the claimed specs like range for the congress to vote the funds ) but every program gives a piece of knowledge for future applications.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ 10 May 2003,21:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the targeting system is like this!

The OICW user just need to place the red dot which is counted and produced by FCS on target  

The up red dot is the gun point direction

ps:the pic is from US Army, not i draw it   )

and i found a thermal image from OICW

The air burst of the OICW 20mm

The OICW 20mm fragment can penetrate Pasgt Vest

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh oh !!!

Those pics shows there would be a problem to keep visual sighting with elevation

Many things perforate the PASGT flak vest

The good question is what's the fragment average size, remaining speed, number, and dispersion, are they balls or prefragmented etc

BTW

Have you noticed :

http://www.hkpro.com/oicwammoint.jpg

this is an already fired inert grenade, simply put on the case.

You can see the grooves prints on the body. It seems the barrel have polygonal rifling. ( Eh, it's HK ! )

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ 10 May 2003,13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

this is an already fired inert grenade, simply put on the case.

You can see the grooves prints on the body. It seems the barrel have polygonal rifling. ( Eh, it's HK ! )<span id='postcolor'>

Rifling makes sense, I would say it is even required to impart a known spin rate to allow the fuses to work correctly.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Look at all that shrapnel!

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ 11 May 2003,01:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Look at all that shrapnel! <span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily.... it could be the blast itself..

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Looks like shrapnel to me.If it was from the blast, it would be a cloud.The dirt looks like its being pelted by something, which most likely shrapnel.

[Renagade 0]

what, i dont ssee anything ?

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Look at the bottom of the picture, and you'll see puffs of dirt all over the place, as the ground is being pelted by shrapnel.(It looks like it to me)

[ralphwiggum 6]

look below the black horizontal lines. those are not OFP bushes for sure

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 11 May 2003,04:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">look below the black horizontal lines. those are not OFP bushes for sure <span id='postcolor'>

there are snipers hiding in there.

[Jinef 2]

Hmm, i would say some of those puffs are actually grass, but some is caused by shrapnel.

[Harnu 0]

Did CuteQA mean the M4? Or the M16A4? THe M4's been around. I would assume we would be comparing new systems?

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I won't go into a big long rant here, but so far I would rather stick with a C7/M203 combo than go to the OICW.

Sure, an airbursting 20mm munition sounds cool, but how effective can it really be? A 1 pound M-67 frag grenade is hardly effective at killing people, it's a last resort wounding/shock weapon at best. The 40mm grenade of the M-203 is even smaller and only has an effective kill radius of 5m. And now they want to replace it with something half the size? What's up with that? The M-203 isn't as accurate but it's an area weapon anyway, and there are 2 M-203's per section in our army so rate of fire and extreme accuracy don't really matter when you consider how many M-203's you have in a Company, plus all of the other support, ie: mortar, machine guns, AT weapons, etc.

Basically, I'd rather spend money on more important things. I don't feel that the OICW is really necessary, but hey, it's not my tax money that they're spending.

Tyler

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

This may come as a shock to you but im no military expert. Anyway, my conclusion is that these weapons sure look big and clumsy.