New Hitech Army "Rifle"-Part III

I

Ivanhoe

New member
my turn to re-light the fires, I guess. speaking of LAVs, when I look at the LAV-25 and family, it sure looks "tippy" to me. not the sort of thing I'd want to give to a bunch of testosterone-laden 20 year olds in rough terrain. I'm going to guess there is some sort of width constraint that caused that design to be narrow and high. what trasport vehicle is the problem?

secondly, to be able to improve the tooth/tail ratio of our forces, what areas could we reduce the support train the most? vehicle maintenance? supply?
 
S

STLRN

New member
The LAV can tip over, it is a little more top heavy than a tracked armor vehicle. However is really not much more dangerous than a typical SUV. The 25 really isn't the problem though the worst version is the AT, the hammer head turrent puts a lot of weight on the top of the vehicle and makes a little more unstable and easy to tip.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
Still. the LAV-AT can caeey 16 TOW II antitank missles which can come in very handy if you encounter hostile T72 or T80tanks.
 
I

Ivanhoe

New member
"not much more dangerous than a typical SUV"!! that's bad enough for me. God invented the SUV to thin the yuppie herd out, and the "sport-cute" to thin down the hip-hop crowd. I'd really prefer to ride around in a lower, wider chassis.

to tie two issues together, how are the LAVs maintenance-wise? on wheeled armor, what are the maintenance items, and what are the breakage items?
 
S

STLRN

New member
The Marine LAV is very reliable. They are really no more maintenance than most 5-ton trucks. I not sure of the Op cost or specifics on which parts break down, but never heard any complaints from the LAR community. If you ever drove on I-95 or I-40 around in Eastern North Carolina area it was not unusual to see the LAVs pass people at 80-90 MPH. There is suppose to be a speed inhibitor in the vehicle to keep them from driving that fast, but its interesting to see them drive by you when you as you are going 75 MPH.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
Most of the LAVS from GM of Canada in the curreny Army tests are the improved LAV III configuration which is supposed to be better than the originak LAVs they produced for the Marines.

AS an interesting sidelight, the Australian Army has eqipped its armored cavalry reqiment with 100 LAVs and is quite pleased with yhem. They are reportedly planning to buy a second large lot if the cost of "peace keeping" in East Tomor does not eat up their army eqipment budget.
 
M

Mountaineer

New member
As a sidenote, earlier in this thread I saw some mention of the new Crusader howitzer, anyone have any info on this? I thought the military was just starting to purchase the Paladin system...can we afford both? Will this new Crusader system be better than any other artillery fielded? what in your opinion is the best artillery , including combloc?

------------------
Somedays you eat the bear...somedays the bear eats you.
 
S

STLRN

New member
Mountaineer:
In part 1 and 2 of this thread and the thread on BlackHawk Down 1-5 the 100 ton crusader is discussed. It will not be fielded for years. They just fired there first rounds through it a few days ago so it is no where near being adopted. Crusader is a technical gamble in order to have a future system that is better than anyone elses. Some of the technologies that were to be used have already been abandoned because of lack of maturity. There is also the possiblity that the system won't be adopted because of its heavy weight and the CoS of the Armies vision for lighter forces. The M109A6 Paladin was first adopted shortly after the Gulf War and has equiped all the active heavy forces at this time. It has started to filter down to the Guard also, so its not new.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
Crusader attempts to develop a high performance artillery system by incorporating a number of "high tech" inovations. If it al works it will be a very high performance system indeed. It may have a long development cycle however because of the new technology features. Current deployment dates are very tentative.
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
The Army is now saying that the OICW wold only be issued to infantrymen. Other soldiers would be issued the rifle module without the 20mm grenade lfiring module. This would reduce overall orogram cost.
 
G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
Not bad. Getting away from the M16 is a good thing.
Is any other modern army on the planet that is still using a 30+ year old rifle?
I dont care about the new modifications to it trying to modernize the dang thing... flat tops, shotgun like ribs, duplex rounds, shorter or longer barrels... its still the same thing... and still blowing the dirty gasses back into the action - still takes special determination and attention to detail usually required by swiss watch makers just to clean the dang thing...

About time.
 
E

EchoFiveMike

New member
I don't think the M16 is nearly as bad a gun as George Hill makes out. Yes you have to clean it, but what gun doesn't require cleaning? I have never had any jamming problems with my issued M16A2 unless I let it go more than 400-500 rds between cleanings. Any even then it's nothing difficult to pull the bolt and wipe it down real quick. I don't think you realize what a POS this SABR/OICW is. We will have to go through the whole M16/Vietnam thing all over again with this OICW thing and I don't believe the OICW is a sound concept like the M16 is. You can do everything the OICW does by putting optical sights on the M16. The 20mm system is a joke. Take the several tens of millions of dollars you save(if not hundreds of millions) and TRAIN THE TROOPS. What is so hard about that? Semper Fi....
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
My biggest concern is that the OICW rifle module has a ten inch barrel. The muzzle velocity of Standard 5.56mm ball is reduced to @ 2,550 feet per second. I think the combat efectiveness of a .223 FMJ bullet at that velocity is questionable.

------------------
"I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeis domestic or foreign WHOMSOEVER."
 
L

Long Path

New member
Hard Ball--

recognize that this is with the newest, heaviest bullet. I haven't yet played with that one-- What's the weight up to, now?

It's not quite the same as the old 55 grainer would be at 2500 fps.

NOT that this makes me a huge proponent of it. I'm just noting that it's not quite apples and oranges.
 
G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
Just wipe the bolt off?
Sure after you pull the carrier out of the gun, remove the tiny pins and that lug and pull the firing pin and then remove the bolt to be wiped off... And dont forget to scrape the carbon of the firing pin and then align the rings staggered like and then try to clean behind the lugs in the chamber and wipe the gunk outta the reciever channel thats just a tad too narow to let you do this easily...

Yes - cleaning the M16 is a pain in the ass whatever version M16 you have. A2 is a fine rifle - for an M16. You want an easy cleaing rifle? Try an FAL. Your looking at less than 1/4th the time and effort. The SABR rifle, or what ever you call the .223 lower part of the OICW - has a different mechanical set up - it isnt going to be polluting itself each round you fire.
If you fire 400-500 rounds outta an M16, then just wipe off the bolt and bolt carrier with a cleaner soaked rag - you are not cleaning it - and you will get nasty failures soon enough.
I have had perfectly clean ARs and M-16s jam up and lock up so tight I couldnt get it opened up with out full blown effort to unlock it. As a result I find the design distastful.
A new rifle is IMO long overdue. Vietnam all over again? Doubt it. We wont have the magazine issue - the flash suppressor prong problem and the cleaning problems that the M16 had when it came out over 30 years ago. Shorter Barrel? Sweet! How often do grunts engage past 150 meters anyway? Look at all the actions from Vietnam to Now - most engagements are under 100 Meters, fast and furious - and problem targets get engaged with crew served or indirect weapons anyway.
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
Long Path:
Just read an Army press release that gives the OICW rifle Muzzle velocity as 2.450 fps. I don't believe any FMJ .223 bullet regardless of bullet weight will be effective in combat.
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
There may be a solution to the OICW ten inch barrel problem, I just saw photographs of the OICW. If the rifle module is going to be produced as a seperate rifle to replace the M16A2 it will require a new stock and it appears that it could be issued with a 16 inch or 20 inch barrel installed which would give equal ballistic performance to the current M16s.
This would only leave the infantry stuck with the comp;ete OICW with the 10 inch rifle barrel.
 
H

Hard Ball

New member
Thanks dz. This site has a good picture of the rifle module removed from the rest of the OICW. As you can see, a stock would need to be added if the rifle module were to be used as a rifle only without the rest of the OICW.

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 23, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top