Isn't this similar to what they have on the Stryker ? A 50 cal controlled from inside ?
Isn't this similar to what they have on the Stryker ? A 50 cal controlled from inside ?
Don't know if they're the same, or not. I found a post when doing a little googling that seemed to indicate that this is superior to the one on Stryker.
Nice pics, btw. Good find.
Similar. But the Norwegian-developed XM151 *Kongsberg Protector Remote Weapon Station* [named for the Norwegian state arsenal that developed it] has exhibited problems with the M2 links delinking from the ammo from vehicle vibration while movement. The ammo is fine while its in ammo cans, or when fired from stationary positions on firing ranges. But put the ammo in the tac tray and go for a 5-mile jaunt down a bumpy road, and the cartridge cases begin rattling in the links, thence to lock up the gun once fed into the weapon. That's no big deal with a .50 on a tripod or external vehicle mount- pull the bolt handle back twice, and have at it again. But when the operator isn't up there with the gun, it's more of a problem... as it is if a seperated link locks the bolt back or open.
Most of what I've heard from Stryker unit guys is that if they replace their .50s with an M240 7.62 gun, they don't have any problems. We had similar difficulties with the M2 .50 when used in commanders' cupolas aboard M48 and M60/M60A1 tanks, ended when we switched to the M85 .50 that used a scaled-up M15A2 link like that used for the M60 and M73 co-ax machineguns. These had a *tab* that locked into the cartridge case's extractor groove and prevented that kind of problem.
One *quick fix* would be to issue M85 .50 MGs with ammo in M15A2 links with the Strykers...and since the M85 has a switchable rate of fire from 450 RPM to 1000 RPM, I suspect that'd be a real popular and practical move. The weight of extra ammo expended isn't as much of an issue for vehicle-mounted guns, and the mount itself handles any problems arising from the recoil from the .50 round. Muzzle flash might be an issue, especially with night vision or thermal sights used with the remote .50s- the real advantage of those remote sighted gun mounts.
But considering the probable lack of enemy vehicle targets, I bet a twin 7.62-gun mount would do about as well. Or for REAL *shock and awe*, using some of the remote weapons mounting systems with quad M249 5.56mm MGs. That oughta be a real mini-meatgrinder... and if one gun goes down or runs out of ammo, no big deal.
