I see a site like the one you posted and wonder why one cannot ever find any detailed research.
;>)
Thanks for the link.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Posted on 11/30/2002 12:19:57 AM PST by VaBthang4
Will it Work?
New weapons, particularly very different new weapons, have a hard time gaining acceptance among the troops until the new gadget has performed well in combat. As a result, every time the U.S. gets involved in some new war, large or small, there is a lot of pressure from the weapons development crew to get some of their new stuff tried out against a real live enemy. One candidate for this treatment in the coming war with Iraq is SABR (or "Selectable Assault Battle Rifle, otherwise known as OICW or the XM29). This is an over and under weapon with a 20mm computer controlled grenade launcher on top, and a 5.56mm assault rifle underneath. In development since 1994. The weapon has proved it can work, and development is now concentrating on getting the weight down to 14 pounds, and reliability improved to the point where it will keep working under battlefield conditions.
The major question to be answered on the battlefield is whether the heavier, awkward weapon is worth the weight and cost (up to $20,000 each) in combat. The key new feature of the SABR is the ability to fire 3.25 ounce 20mm shells up to 1,000 meters and hit targets in trenches, inside buildings or around corners. Each 20mm round costs $25. This particular magic is accomplished with a computer controlled fuze in each 20mm shell. The infantryman firing SABR can select four different firing modes via a selector switch on the weapon. The four modes are;
"Bursting" (airburst). For this to work, the soldier first finds the target via the SABRs sighting system. This includes a laser range finder and the ability to select and adjust the range shown in the sight picture. For an air burst the soldier aims at an enemy position and fires a round. The 20mm shell is optimized to spray incapacitating (wounding or killing) fragments in a roughly six meter radius from the exploding round. Thus if enemy troops are seen moving near trees or buildings at a long distance (over 500 meters), the SABR has a good chance of getting them with one shot. M-16s are not very accurate at that range, and the enemy troops will dive for cover as soon as M-16 bullets hit around them. With SABR, you get one accurate shot and the element of surprise.
The second mode is "PD" (point detonation), where the round explodes on contact.
Then there is PDD (point detonation delay), where the round detonates immediately after it has gone through a door, window or thin wall.
The fourth mode is "Window", which is used for firing at enemy troops in a trench, behind a stone wall or inside a room. The round detonates just beyond the aiming point. For buildings, this would be a window or door frame, cave entrance or the corner of a building (to get enemy troops thought to be around the corner.)
The 3X site on SABR also has a thermal imaging mode useful at night. In fact, the SABR has a five pound fire control module with a computer as powerful as those found in some laptop computers. The current version of SABR has a lot of adjustments and features the soldiers can play with, too many according to some combat veterans. Again, only combat testing will decide which adjustment features are needed and which are not.
In theory, and so far successfully in tests, SABR would be a very useful weapon for fighting in urban areas, or even forests. What is difficult to replicate in tests is the wear and tear a weapon will receive in combat, and exactly how many situations will be encountered where the troops will end up saying, "it's a good thing we had SABR along." Indeed, the impact on enemy troops encountering SABR for the first time will be demoralizing. Once word gets around that the Americans have a weapon that can get you when you are taking cover in a trench, or around a corner, panic will set in with some troops and entire units may surrender or flee after getting shot up by SABR armed troops. Eventually, however, more experienced troops will learn to deal with SABR.
There have not been any reports of SABR being used in Afghanistan, and it's unknown if any of the weapon will be brought along for an invasion of Iraq. It's likely that the engineers, or combat officers supervising the project, will veto use of the SABR in action this year because it just isn't ready for field use yet. But the temptation is there. For until SABR gets tagged as "proven in combat," it's future will be in doubt.
The choice of a .30 caliber rifle would probably be between a really good bolt-action rifle, such as the one used by the Marine Snipers, or a really good self-loading rifle such as the Knight SR-25, which is equal in accuracy to any bolt-action rifle. Personally, I would lean to the SR-25, because the self-loading feature would soak up some of the recoil sharpness, making shooting easier.
The two terms are interchangeable when the weapon in question lacks an internal magazine. The OED defines "magazine" as "a chamber in a repeating rifle, machine gun, etc. containing a supply of cartridges which are fed automatically into the breach."
For example, in a Mauser bolt-action, a soldier puts a five round stripper clip into the internal magazine. In the M-16 rifle, in contrast, there is no internal magazine, so the inserted clip serves as the magazine.
Ergo, where the weapon has an internal magazine, the terms "clip" and "magazine" are mutually exclusive. Where the weapon has no internal magazine, the terms are interchangeable.
I see a site like the one you posted and wonder why one cannot ever find any detailed research.
;>)
Thanks for the link.
Stay safe; stay armed.
When the army designs a jeep you get a Hummer. When it develops an assault rife you an OICW.
"The Army expects the IBCT to provide…a rapidly deployable early-entry combat force that is lethal, survivable, and capable of operating in all types of military operations, from small-scale contingencies like the Balkans’ missions to a major theater war."
The Stryker indeed provides that. Whether or not it is the best choice is debateable but it fills the requirement.
"To equip its early-entry force, the Army has selected the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV). However, many individuals have questioned the wisdom of this decision..."
"Many" individuals question the wisdom of everything under the sun...when someone adds a sentence like this into their observations, to me it undermines their own credibility.
"and expressed the opinion that the M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) is a more capable and cost-effective vehicle for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs)."
Yeah...we could buy bullets cheaper if we bought them from China...I dont think the soldiers themselves want to have the "absolute cheapest" cost versus better quality ratio factored into the equation.
"The Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle has sufficient internal space to carry a standard 9-man infantry squad, but no additional personnel. Soldiers in Millennium Challenge 2002 reported there is insufficient room to put on protective clothing and equipment, or to wear the fighting load. Also, the cramped space made it difficult to access ammunition and load their individual weapons."
I dont place alot of weight into the complaints of today's individual pampered Army soldiers. I learned that you'll be surprised at what Soldiers accomplish when their lives are on the line.
"The Stryker Mortar Carrier is armed with a 120mm M121 mortar, with stowage for 60 mortar rounds. The mortar can only be fired from the ground -- not from the vehicle -- thereby increasing the risk from counter-mortar fires."
If I am not mistaken the Stryker has a setup that deploys the mortar from the rear of the vehicle with mechanical arm and can be retracted quickly. The picture of two guys firing a normal mortar is a bit misleading. And the competitors must open a hatch to the vehicle i order to fire the mortar, exposing the vehicles interior to counterbattery mortar fire.
"Since the primary reason for the Brigade Combat Team concept is to deploy maximum combat power in the minimum time frame, the Stryker is a poor choice. The C-17 can transport twice as many MTVLs, and more than twice as many M113A3s, for a much more efficient and effective use of this limited-availability airlift resource. In addition, unit integrity of the infantry platoons is superior with the MTVL and M113A3, since all four of a platoon’s vehicles – together with assigned personnel – can be transported on one aircraft."
I would agree with this...apparently it comes down to give and take for Army planners. I'll defer to their judgement.
"Delivery of Stryker vehicles by C-130 is also an inefficient use of airlift. Depending on the flight distance involved, 13 or more C-130 sorties will be required to transport only a dozen Stryker ICVs and personnel."
If the Army and Air Force dont have a problem with this...then neither do I.
"The M8, M113A3, M1064A3, and MTVL can be airdropped onto the battlefield, thereby providing enhanced strategic mobility. This option does not exist with the Stryker, which is too big for parachute delivery from C-130 aircraft."
But it can be parachuted from the C-17 cant it?
"With a tow cable attached to its front end, an eight-wheeled USMC LAV-25 is pulled from the Croatian mud where it had been hopelessly mired. Note the nose up angle, indicating that each pair of tires has dug deeper into the mud than the preceding pair. The LAV-25 is an earlier generation in the vehicle family that evolved into the Stryker, and shares the same basic flaws regarding cross-country mobility."
That would concern me.
"A Stryker Mobile Gun System drives through soft sand. Note that – like the USMC LAV stuck in mud – each pair of tires is digging deeper into the sand than the preceding pair. In soft ground, these eight-wheel drive vehicles are always trying to crawl out of the ruts that they are in the process of digging."
Doesnt really say what it wants to say.
"Tracks distribute a vehicle’s weight evenly over the surface. This enables deep, soft sand to be traversed with ease..."
That is intentionally misleading.
The rest of the piece seems to focus solely on Stryker shortcomings [which all systems have]. It does not go into the drawbacks of other systems proposed. This also undermines the overall position and gives me pause before taking the breakdown to heart.
For bumber stiggers they don't get paid. For tweeking the meaning of complete testing, they get well paid. Adjust the meaning of is; no problem.
For bumber stiggers they don't get paid. For contracting jobs to "save 1.2 million a year but the contractor shows an 8 million cost over run in the first quarter of 03 and will be paid for it; they get paid. Adjust the meaning of is; no problem.
Our military wants to be quick and mobile but they are loading the poor grunt down making him slower.
I vote for having light, reliable, accurate weapons.
This 20mm grenade launcher only has a 6 round mag? And what's going to be the effective range of that 10" barrel on the 5.56?
I say make it just a high tech grenade launcher and dump the rest. Looks rediculous with a bayonet too.
0311 bump
Where's the love?
A 5.56 mm rifle. The same thing they have now.
"What is the warm up time...What is the battery life... Want to bet your life on low bidder batteries...How many types of..."
Probably the same questions asked when the military introduced NVGs or Thermal sights on their man portable anti-armour weapons.
I'm not sold on the system yet but I am not a naysayer either. I know this...
If while serving in the Marines, I was given the choice between a functioning rifle that fires 10/20mm grenades and a rifle that fires 30/5.56 mm rounds...
I'dve taken the former.
I humped around with an M-60 Echo 3 for a year and change...so if the complaint from the "Army" soldiers is that the OICW is too heavy....my succinct response is "work out".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.