The OICW - Wonder Weapon or Piece of Junk?

[Timber Loftis]

The system looks great, H&K has a wonderful rep for building quality guns, and its based on the G36.

That said, I agree with comments about its practicality. And, yes, the first thing I thought was "why go to the trouble of a bullpulp design and then put the RIFLE up front and the LAUNCHER in the bullpulp??" I can imagine the range is not so hot. Plus I agree with the notion that this weapon will cause a soldier problems when used for longer periods of time in the field.

Now, the M16/M203 combo may have some issues. But, replacing the M16A1 or A2 completely?? It's been so reliable for so long. It's the Real Mattel.

Good range and accuracy, plus how many fully auto combat rifles can you hold the stock against your groin and pull the trigger without recoil affecting your children? Which reminds me -- how is the recoil and other ease-of-use factors on this OICW???

[Oblivion437]

First off, laser accuracy simulations don't conclude some very important realities, such as
1. Combat wear and tear on a weapon.
2. A soldier's reduced hit probability under stress
3. The liability of using this system under real combat.

Second, the ease of use thing is a piece of garbage. You must use a range finder to allocate a target distance, and then program the fuse, finally firing. Unless every enemy soldier in the world is held in a concrete cylinder w/open top, travel in 5X5 tight-packer square formations, or are otherwise completely retarded, this thing is useless. Computer seem to have caused us to look at artificial numbers and lose sight of the real ideology. The results of the ACR program should be re-examined. And considering that the thing weighs more than a Sturmgewehr 44, using a less powerful round, I'd wager it has little recoil, except the 20MM is pressed right to your shoulder. The M203 low-v is at the front.

[Oblivion437]

I also would like to add, that an AK-101 rifle costs 70% of what an M-16A2 does, performs in every way, superior, and is capable of mounting a HUGE range of optics and GL systems, so I'd take THAT over this system. Besides, I just love Kalishnakov designs.

[Masklinn]

--== The OICW - Wonder Weapon or Piece of Junk? ==--

I will answer honestly : It's a piece of junk.

Like any other weapon.

I don't understand how people can be so fond of these kind of things.

Should I remember you all what is the main purpose of these stuff ?

Killing people, plain and simple.

Shame on you.

[Oblivion437]

I'm going to ask that this post above be deleted as it's
1. Off topic
2. Specifically countermanded in the rules I've placed on this thread
I don't want an explanation or arguement on the morality of firearms. I don't care about that. I want to know about the consensus on the soundness of our army to adopt the system. Don't tell me that simply because it kills it's unsound, that's what armies do.
EDIT: I would expect this of a French person, a country that hasn't won a war on its own two legs in over 100 years. Your country is experimenting with a similar system, the PAPOP, a LOT of Frenchmen are guaranteed to die using that mess.

[ 01-28-2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Masklinn]

"3. My purpose of posting this, is to see what most people think. I don't see many of these threads here, so I figured this is a good place to find out.

4. Your opinion matters, I want to hear it, to discuss and share. Bringing other weapons systems into the debate is most welcome."

Eh, you asked for it.

"EDIT: I would expect this of a French person, a country that hasn't won a war on its own two legs in over 100 years. "

Wow...did you try to hurt me with this comment ? You see war is not my thing. I don't judge a country by that. There is no pride in making/winning/loosing a war.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my previous post. I will stay out of this thread now.

But I still don't see how one can be so passionate over weapons, army and wars. How the hell is this gonna make a better world ?

Have fun.

[Sir Taliesin]

It's too big! I'd rather have an M4 with a grenade launcher (Like SF uses or an M203. My understanding is that the Army is trying to give the average infantry soldier more fire power than ever before, in the hopes that they can cut back on the number of soldiers needed. An example would be a Brigade would have the same or more fire power than a division when armed with this particular weapon. Therefore they wouldn't have to deploy more troops. I also don't like the seemingly complicated system as well. A M203 is about as simple has it gets! Can't beat that.

While the AK series of weapons has been a good one, I've never been very fond of their lack of accuracy. I have always found the M-16a1 and a2's to be a better weapons. They just need a bit more maintence.

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I also would like to add, that an AK-101 rifle costs 70% of what an M-16A2 does, performs in every way, superior, and is capable of mounting a HUGE range of optics and GL systems, so I'd take THAT over this system. Besides, I just love Kalishnakov designs.

I won’t claim to know much about what people in the army want with guns but I once met a guy who was in Vietnam as infantry, and he said that he along with some other infantrymen abandoned their M-16’s in favour of the AK-47’s.

I have to admit though, If I were a soldier, I would NOT be happy with a gun that needed battries.
What if you like lost the recharger or something?

Perhaps it reflects the changeing nature of warfare and it is time for a new one.
Because For example with the First Assualt Rifle (Sturmwergher 44 IIRC) at that time, The MAin Rifles used by the Armies were essentialy long range target weapons, They fired big heavy bullets from big heavy cartridges a very long way and were accurate to very long distances, Good for trench warfare.
but IIRC this is not needed since most combat apprently takes place at something like 400m or less.

So out came the Sturmwergher 44, But the militry establishment (hitler) resisted it, and it never got as much use as it could of, It was left to the russians to develop the Ak-47 etc.

So perhaps the nature of war is changeing and it's time for a new weapon?
or maybe just we have the technology

[Sir Kenyth]

I don't beleive in multi-tool weapons for combat. To replace all weapons systems with a single one is a farce. They each have their place and you must change weapons to meet the circumstances. To replace everyting is akin to replacing all the football team positions with quarterbacks. Sure, the quarterback is critical, but it needs all the other positions to support it! The M249 and M60 are heavy support weapons. You couldn't have enough ammo on hand if everyone were to use these. Long barrelled rifles are for long range shooting. Short barrelled weapons are for short range shooting. Nuff said on that. Grenadiers are also a support weapon. I'm all for a better portable grenade delivery system. So lets keep it there. Develop the thing as an advanced grenade weapon to be used in addition to a sidearm or rifle by the grenadier. The support needed for these things looks to be a nightmare. Hell, they had a hard time keeping food, water, and 5.56 ammo flowing smoothly in the Gulf War. What makes you think they could keep batteries and grenades for everyone going? I know about supply problems. I was there. Use the right tool for the right job and work as a team.

[Oblivion437]

They fired big heavy bullets from big heavy cartridges a very long way and were accurate to very long distances, Good for trench warfare

Actually, long ranges are HORRIBLE for trench warfare. Almost 90% of those rounds' potential is only seen at 400+ meters, or in the hands of a sniper. The ideal trench weapon is the one that can hit something up close, and frequently. An AK-47, or the Federov Avtomat (Which was developed by Federov in 1917) would have been the ideal weapon. The fact is, most combat occured at approximately 66 meters. That's the reason the Winchester 1897 Riotgun was so popular, it was a powerful trench broom, like the Tommygun, and with only roughly 20 meters of closing distance, I'd wager you'd want THAT over a Springfield or a Pederson-modified-Springfield.