So..........what happened to the OICW?

I must admitt. That was a hell of a weapon! That is the only assault rifle I will admitt is better then Russia's. When I first saw it, I said to myself "Russia must make an equivalant! The OICW was an incredible weapon...............................................................So, WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? Are they gonna use it? Has it been cancelled? If so, that's sad, it looked like such a wonderful weapon


Hope Russia makes something like it.

They cancelled it. The 25mm grenade that it was going to use wasn't powerful enough, and it had some delays to the project.

Oh, sorry, it was the XM-29 that was shelved. The XM-8 and the XM-25 are being developed seperately now. They're not going to be joined into one unit until later.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by Zaphod58]

i agree, nowadays they would need somethin with more b00m to it

The OICW lives on in the splinter cell games now. RIP...

TIP OICW

(thizz in peace, OICW, )



Now its Russia's turn to make an equivalant that uses 30 or 40mm grenades.



PS: Yeah, I saw those grenades. I thought they were bullets at first!





Now, Russia, get to work on the BTOICW (Better. Then.O.I.C.W.)

Original OICW concept had two drawbacks:
1) too much complex electronics
2)too damn heavy to carry around for days...

XM-8 is still under developement, but HK has put it on a sidetrack while marketing heavily their SCAR entries.. i doubt that the XM-8 in .223 won't ever see service...

Originally posted by Russian soldier
...The OICW was an incredible weapon...............................................................So, WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? Are they gonna use it? Has it been cancelled? If so, that's sad, it looked like such a wonderful weapon

...

Quite simply, it got caught in the development hell. Basically the whole concept was a failure from the start. The Army had this utterly idiotic idea to create arevolutaionary new grenade delivery system... and then some idiot made the choice that the weapon also had to be fully firefight capable. The idea to merge a semiauto grenade launcher, a full assault rifle carbine and the most sophisticated fire control and sighting system ever put on a weapon, and THEN expect to get a one-size-fits-all product, was simply ridiculous from the start.

It would have been far more intelligent to go for a stand-alone launcher like the XM25 from the start, or maybe merge the grenade launcher with a light and defensive kinetic energy weapon like the MP7 (as was considered). But no, the people in charge simply HAD to get their ERASER-railgun. No wonder the project didnt come to fruition... the requirements themselves were flawed from the start.

Originally posted by Russian soldier
...
Now its Russia's turn to make an equivalant that uses 30 or 40mm grenades.
...

You can´t have an equivalent to the XM29 with 30 or 40mm grenades. The whole idea of the new grenades were A. a flatter trajectory and higher velocity, giving the weapon better "aimed fire" capability; and B. only with smaller grenades is it possible to have a sufficient mag size of 5 or more grenades.

The FCS (fire control system) was the main problem with the design, it was too heavy/bulky and fragile and ofcourse relied on batteries.

I personally think the 25mm grenade was adequat enough to deliver a lethal payload on enemy combatants, ofcourse it wasn't a 25mm Bradley cannon round but still it wasn't too bad IMO, Russia relies on a 30mm grenade launcher don't they?

And remember, the FN-2000 is virtually the same concept, and so is the AICW (the Australian incarnation of the OICW) and they have a good chance of being adopted by their respective militaries and export countries.

I also believe it was simply too expensive to equip the soldier of the future which such a system, even if it was issued to only a hand full of specialized Grenadier type ground troops.

RS,

>>
Hope Russia makes something like it.
>>

So do I, it's a complete piece of crap.

Soldiers are idiots by definition of putting their 'owe my parents' 20 years+300 grande lives on the line for a bullet that costs all of 25 cents to build. Or maybe 100 bucks worth of explosive sodacan sitting on the sidewalk.

Add to this the certainty that they can't shoot very well under the best of situations and not hardly at all in combat. As well as the fact that uniformed gun bunny death is another nail in a politicians 'do not reelect before the year 3,000' career.

And you quickly reach the conclusion that the manportable weapons system is a waste of time compared to robotic replacements.

That said, anybody who wants to win a firefight with fewer than 100rds _onboard_ to win fast-return saturation game is nuts. Even as the .223 has next to no lethality in the 'legal' rounds that are available to the official forces. And also no accuracy if you take the engagement beyond about 100-150m which is all that most soldiers are good to spray-fire hit to as well.

If you modify the weapon to a metal-storm like stack (multiple rounds, nose to tail and loaded together in a telescoped case) and then run the rounds down the top of the barrel to maximize round count while moving up to a more realistic (for Baghdad) 9-10mm and 1850-2,200fps mv. At the same time you shorten the barrel length and provide an excellent muzzle compensator without going bullpup /perse/.

THEN you might have a decent personal weapon. For everything else? Send in the bots and let them use REAL weapons in the 7.62 X 400rds or better category.

Or with cameras that justify calling down IAM air or light artillery to flatten the whole house.

There is simply no excuse for direct engagement by choice these days. And the generals whose entire livelihood is based on their ability to 'Command Men Not Machines' know it.


KPl.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
The FCS (fire control system) was the main problem with the design, it was too heavy/bulky and fragile and ofcourse relied on batteries.

I personally think the 25mm grenade was adequat enough to deliver a lethal payload on enemy combatants, ofcourse it wasn't a 25mm Bradley cannon round but still it wasn't too bad IMO, Russia relies on a 30mm grenade launcher don't they?

And remember, the FN-2000 is virtually the same concept, and so is the AICW (the Australian incarnation of the OICW) and they have a good chance of being adopted by their respective militaries and export countries.

I also believe it was simply too expensive to equip the soldier of the future which such a system, even if it was issued to only a hand full of specialized Grenadier type ground troops.

Yeah, the FN2000 is a great weapon.

9-10mm and 1850-2,200fps mv gives you about twice the energy of 10mm Auto, and due to a heavy bullet it would be a bitch to control in Full Auto. It would be about in the class of the 7.62x39 anyway, so why not use it instead?

And wtf "spraying" in combat?
Full auto is useless when you can engage targets with accurately with semiauto fire, with todays optics. Full Auto should only be used to suppress enemy, not engage them.

CH.. do you have any experience or training in MOUT or in any other form of infantry warfare?

[edit on 27-7-2006 by northwolf]

Originally posted by ch1466
RS,

>>
Hope Russia makes something like it.
>>

So do I, it's a complete piece of crap.

Soldiers are idiots by definition of putting their 'owe my parents' 20 years+300 grande lives on the line for a bullet that costs all of 25 cents to build. Or maybe 100 bucks worth of explosive sodacan sitting on the sidewalk.

Add to this the certainty that they can't shoot very well under the best of situations and not hardly at all in combat. As well as the fact that uniformed gun bunny death is another nail in a politicians 'do not reelect before the year 3,000' career.

And you quickly reach the conclusion that the manportable weapons system is a waste of time compared to robotic replacements.

That said, anybody who wants to win a firefight with fewer than 100rds _onboard_ to win fast-return saturation game is nuts. Even as the .223 has next to no lethality in the 'legal' rounds that are available to the official forces. And also no accuracy if you take the engagement beyond about 100-150m which is all that most soldiers are good to spray-fire hit to as well.

If you modify the weapon to a metal-storm like stack (multiple rounds, nose to tail and loaded together in a telescoped case) and then run the rounds down the top of the barrel to maximize round count while moving up to a more realistic (for Baghdad) 9-10mm and 1850-2,200fps mv. At the same time you shorten the barrel length and provide an excellent muzzle compensator without going bullpup /perse/.

THEN you might have a decent personal weapon. For everything else? Send in the bots and let them use REAL weapons in the 7.62 X 400rds or better category.

Or with cameras that justify calling down IAM air or light artillery to flatten the whole house.

There is simply no excuse for direct engagement by choice these days. And the generals whose entire livelihood is based on their ability to 'Command Men Not Machines' know it.


KPl.

I agree with you about the OICW, it was indeed a pointless piece of crap. however, the rest of your post makes it seem like you know absolutely nothing about firearms, so maybe I should reconsider my opinion on the OICW. .223 has no lethality? you've never even held a gun before, have you?

[edit on 27-7-2006 by random hero]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by random hero]

Originally posted by northwolf
9-10mm and 1850-2,200fps mv gives you about twice the energy of 10mm Auto, and due to a heavy bullet it would be a bitch to control in Full Auto. It would be about in the class of the 7.62x39 anyway, so why not use it instead?

And wtf "spraying" in combat?
Full auto is useless when you can engage targets with accurately with semiauto fire, with todays optics. Full Auto should only be used to suppress enemy, not engage them.

CH.. do you have any experience or training in MOUT or in any other form of infantry warfare?

[edit on 27-7-2006 by northwolf]

Yeah, 1 shot, and 2 shot bursts are unbeatable! Full auto only wastes bullets. I think the only time a person would use full auto is if he was in a room full of people and armed with a Mac-11.

Northwolf,

>>
9-10mm and 1850-2,200fps mv gives you about twice the energy of 10mm Auto, and due to a heavy bullet it would be a bitch to control in Full Auto. It would be about in the class of the 7.62x39 anyway, so why not use it instead?
>>

The difference is that it's a shoulderfire weapon with the potential of a full-travel recoil sleeve. Add to this the ability to _knock someone flat on their ass_ if armored. Or kill them with one burst if not. Rather than see them run away with a couple 5.56 in the shoulder or chest.

>>
And wtf "spraying" in combat?
>>

In infantry combat, there really are only two kinds of fire. Preemptive and Suppressive. With Preemptive, you shoot the maximum number of rounds to where the enemy MIGHT be. Thereby denying them the option of secure ambush and forcing them into movement to contact just like everybody else.

Suppressive is what happens when you fail to preempt. Maximum rounds downrange, everybody focussed on muzzle sources and praying that somebody has the angle on the shooter to put rounds through their spatial occupation zone on a near random basis so as to rapidly switch up to the next threat.

Accurate point shooting, no matter how 'realistically' trained for, is a fools game that gets soldiers killed. At 25 cents a bullet.

It is also why MOUT is so dangerous as long as it operates under the assumption of 'collaterals'.

>>
Full auto is useless when you can engage targets with accurately with semiauto fire, with todays optics. Full Auto should only be used to suppress enemy, not engage them.
>>

Wrong. Because most soldiers STILL cannot beat the adrenal rush and certain sense of mortal peril to kill well. Certainly not to tag and engage more than one target. They tend to tunnel and fixate in performing their movement drill. Or going to ground to gain some cover. Depending on who grabs the initiative and how many leaders are down.

OTOH, since there is ABSOLUTELY NO DAMN REASON to engage a threat with bleedable bodies /except/ when they jump you, _max firepower down range_ still applies. Since the enemy that thinks they are jumping a mouse instead gets faceful of ROARING autofire will quickly get jumpy themselves.

The U.S. Army, since the Civil War when who was it, Stanton I think, chose muskets over repeating rifles, has had a 'thing' for precision fires and fire management as a 'waste not, want not' method of statistical warfare.

And it _don't mean diddly dip_ when you are fighting at less than 200m against a threat you can only see as muzzle sources, and your only options are crouch and take it or _instant onset_ 'suppression'.

Unfortunately, every damn war we have to retrain our soldiers in the field to be profligate in their fires to avoid just //massive// casualties.

The sad part being that-

1. A little bit of 'we don't care about your excess-of-force whining' deliberate cruelty will go a long ways towards convincing a would be insurgent to choose not to fight.

2. A 3-round burst stuck at 2 because you've lost your fine motor control sucks buttermilk when you haven't got /time/ to be 'thinking about it'.

3. If you drive to the sound of gunfire, there is no excuse for ammo shortages.

>>
CH.. do you have any experience or training in MOUT or in any other form of infantry warfare?
>>

Do you have any experience in WINNING against a primitive warfare psychology?
We're losing because we refuse to take ourselves out of the fight and letting an enemy impale itself on a silicon chip. We are losing because we seem to think that a frickin' hand cannon complete with indirect fires is the way forward when clearly the ultimate ballistic performances don't change much, only the inability of humans to meet the carry weight conditions of their use. We are losing because we refuse to make the Iraqis and like minded biped wolves live by a set of LAWS which punish them for bad acts whose existence they are away _before_ they engage in them. We are losing because the myth of more bullets per man and STANAG compatibility is a myth that no longer needs to be paid lip service to.

We are NOT losing because we are in a MOUT fight that has some mythical power to overwhelm us as an alien environment filled with unknown monsters. We've been here before. With the rate of urbanization, we will be again. And a new longrifle wont do a damn bit of good as more than a mistaken-engagement self defense weapon in mastering it's conditional requirements of victory.

Use robots. Make a LOT of noise. And kill what you hit in the most bloody manner possible. Those are the /combat side/ of starting to 'change their minds' as an exercise in Gen-IV fighting.


KPl.

Collateral issues aside, I'm trained to clear buildings with explosives, if we don't have friendlies in the blast zone, or "spray" it with NSVT and then manouver in to see if anyone needs a mercy shot...

Primary problem with 9-10mm 650m/s round is that it won't pentrate any hard cover nor will it knock down a fighter... It will also be hard to control in prolonged bursts, no matter what features you put into it. Only way to reduce the recoil is weight (either as a by-product of "recoil reducing measures" or accessories"

LMG is for sustained supressing fire, rifle is for picking up troops that are pinned down. More important than getting a Manstoppe SMG to Riflemen, would be a .380 Lapua Mag class LMG that could be operated with a single soldier and that could offer APC penetration from 800m (and wall penetration up to 1200m). Preferably with good barrel and optics that would allow it to root out enemy positions from a distance.

Another weapon i feel useful would be a modern day Infantry gun, 75-80mm light weight low velocity gunmortar, operatable from tri/quadpod and equipied with smart munitions and a range of 1km or so.

And if automatic preventive/supressive fire is so much more effective than point shooting, how is it possible that few crack shots can bottle up entire platoons and decimate their combat effectiveness?

As for Marksmansip, i agree that average Joe from US of A Army isn't as good shooter as the propaganda tells you. In Kosovo shooting matches regular US troops had a hard time against voluteer conscripts from Norway and Finland.

I do agree that "Bots" should take over the burden of direct offencive action from soldiers, but current technology has to much restrictions in powersources for sustained operations so they would be restricted to limited short term offencive use in close quarters... worth the investment even for that in my opinion.

I have a few ideas for mechanized units, but i'll save them for the Individual Mechanized Armor Research thread...

Originally posted by ch1466

The difference is that it's a shoulderfire weapon with the potential of a full-travel recoil sleeve. Add to this the ability to _knock someone flat on their ass_ if armored. Or kill them with one burst if not.

no bullet can "knock someone flat on their ass" that violates the laws of physics. you should watch fewer movies.

Originally posted by random hero

no bullet can "knock someone flat on their ass" that violates the laws of physics. you should watch fewer movies.

Yeah, or MythBusters!!

OICW . . . would have been a crazy weapon had it been better designed, i.e. more man-portable and more relieable. Wait for the future!

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks

Originally posted by random hero

no bullet can "knock someone flat on their ass" that violates the laws of physics. you should watch fewer movies.

Yeah, or MythBusters!!

OICW . . . would have been a crazy weapon had it been better designed, i.e. more man-portable and more relieable. Wait for the future!

heh, yeah. i get really sick of people claiming things without any knowledge whatsoever of terminal ballistics.

Northwolf,

>>
Collateral issues aside, I'm trained to clear buildings with explosives, if we don't have friendlies in the blast zone, or "spray" it with NSVT and then manouver in to see if anyone needs a mercy shot...
>>

Grenades and 'alternate entry' devices, along with support fires, win the close in fight, that is true. But where you are limited by politics from reducing buildings or their inhabitants at a macro-level, it is still better to send in UGVs. Because they can shoot precision fires with a LOT of rounds, and no worry about dying from a boobytrapped door, floor, roof, wall or entire structure.

The Israelis have seen /entire buildings/ dropped on roving footpatrols sir.

>>
Primary problem with 9-10mm 650m/s round is that it won't penetrate any hard cover nor will it knock down a fighter... It will also be hard to control in prolonged bursts, no matter what features you put into it. Only way to reduce the recoil is weight (either as a by-product of "recoil reducing measures" or accessories"
>>

If the 3-5 rounds exit the barrel under the same impulse force, the total felt recoil will be the same. If you are using the gun _solely_ as a self defense weapon, while providing security for a mechanized entry team based on robots, you have no real need to be shooting through obstacles of any kind because you have no excuse for approaching something that can be rigged to blow up or preregistered to attract indirect fires.

>>
LMG is for sustained supressing fire, rifle is for picking up troops that are pinned down. More important than getting a Manstoppe SMG to Riflemen, would be a .380 Lapua Mag class LMG that could be operated with a single soldier and that could offer APC penetration from 800m (and wall penetration up to 1200m). Preferably with good barrel and optics that would allow it to root out enemy positions from a distance.
>>

How many APC do the Iraqi's have? If you are fighting a _main force_ combattant, you BLOODY WELL USE MISSILES. Netfires for longrange and superior (cheaper) 'battlefield loiter' when cued on by essentially unarmed (thanks Air Force!) UAVs. Javelins when, for some damn reason, you've let them get that close.

Infantry have no business being on the battlefield as anything but a security and policing/mopup detail for mechanized systems.

>>
Another weapon i feel useful would be a modern day Infantry gun, 75-80mm light weight low velocity gunmortar, operatable from tri/quadpod and equipped with smart munitions and a range of 1km or so.
>>

Myself, I like the payload weapon, whether it is a shotgun or a microgrenade device (XM25). I think it should have a lot more rounds onboard. And I think it should be recognized as an indiscriminant weapon for when you have to clear windows by killing everything in the room behind them.

I don't see the reason inherent to be taking heavy weapons into towns when you can put 105s and 155s outside it using subcaliber IAMs to do the same job. If you want a _real_ mortar, make it a breachloaded 120 in an AMOS or similar turret. Since that also gives you Merlin/Stryx type Anti Armor solutions while somebody gets the Netfire CLU trailor off the tiltrotor and into play.

>>
And if automatic preventive/supressive fire is so much more effective than point shooting, how is it possible that few crack shots can bottle up entire platoons and decimate their combat effectiveness?
>>

_Six_ _Dead_ _Marine_ _Snipers_.

I do not want a standup fight. I do not want a few vs. many engagement. I do not want to try and get 'sneaky' in amongst the indigs backyard. I want to treat the threat like rabid animals and see them massing as and before they enter into an ambush area. So that I can hit them as they marshal up. Whereever possible, it is better to drive away from your enemies desire to have a tussle and at all times, you need to have mobile, armored, cavalry units that can loop back around to cut off and cut up any desultory attack. Since even if they stage an effective ambush, they absolutely must not get away with it for free. IEDs and EFPs can be engaged by robots on a deliberate sweep-the-trash basis of (use or lose) removal. But we cannot afford to give away 250,000 dollar robots without nailing the trigger man.

OTOH, if you want to talk about the advantages of pointshooters, you'd better provide the "Is it a 1940s farmboy with a semiauto Garand at 400yds dealing out death to an Arisaka or KAR bolt action threat?" specifics. Because now that the whole world is an autofire gunclub. With a few 1,000m snipers. There is no point in playing games with direct fire engagement. You cross LOS with a threat that can shoot you from six different angles with 15-20 bullets and you are dead for nothin'. The bad guys are getting really good at combined arms. But so long as they have to walk away from a fight, you can nail them by fast-cavalry (robotic) pursuit. Or an overhead fires/sensor platform.

IF YOU INVEST IN THEM.

>>
As for Marksmansip, I agree that average Joe from US of A Army isn't as good shooter as the propaganda tells you. In Kosovo shooting matches regular US troops had a hard time against voluteer conscripts from Norway and Finland.
>>

The problem is not that we are so bad. But that the margin between good and good enough _to beat a pedestaled mount on a robot that was never alive to be afraid_ is simply not there. Throw in the predictability of closing up with a threat that has explosives to make even a victory costly. And NO LEGAL RECOURSE to punish those who support an insurgency for 'just standing there' as their son/nephew/brother played terrorist.

And there is simply no excuse in a shrinking military dominated by 100,000 dollar death benefits and shrieking mothers, to play LOS fires games.

>>
I do agree that "Bots" should take over the burden of direct offensive action from soldiers, but current technology has too much restrictions in powersources for sustained operations so they would be restricted to limited short term offensive use in close quarters... Worth the investment even for that in my opinion.
>>

Great. The real question then being how bloody minded we have to be in their use before a primitive threat starts to 'get the idea' that they are trading lives for silicon chips. In theory, if they still treat it as a game, jamming and other UGV specific countermeasures could start to pop up rather quickly. And you could end up headed back to fixed tethers because you don't trust fully autonomous units. OTOH, if you strip the gun and/or mount a secondary mini-vehicle so that the picture can tell the story of why you put a VSM or SDB through through the roof of some 'poor family's house', then you are killing them for NO GAIN on their part.


KPl.

RH,

>>
No bullet can "knock someone flat on their ass" that violates the laws of physics. you should watch fewer movies.
>>

No one pistol caliber bullet can, perhaps. Though I've heard tales of .45ACP doing a pretty good job of folding up everything from Banana Republic guerillas to Japanese on Bonzai charges.

OTOH, I specifically stated a stream of rounds. Such that four or five, 9-10mm projectiles, impact within a few milliseconds and 2-3 inches via Metalstorm, stacked-bullet, cartridge technology.

Which I do indeed believe you can put a man down.

If only through the incredible PAIN of having several ribs simultaneously broken. A shoulder separated. Or just the sudden imbalance of reactive reach-across while trying to run.

Since it appears relatively few insurgents wear PBA with inserts, the question is moot. Because if five individual tight-cluster rounds exit the muzzle in the same recoil impulse and 2-3 hit with residual projectile inertias on the order of 800-1,100fps at typical combat ranges of less than 150m, the chances of critical shock due to blood loss and tissue separation (major vessels being cut) is almost 100%.

It's time we stopped 'pretending' with varmint calibers and started killing people as messily as possible from the ranges at which modern humans can reasonably be expected to see, track and hit threats _from a reactive defensive position_.

Everything else is about automated weapons pedestals where you have the rigid boresight and precision T&E control to exploit sensor systems that take snapshots of a target scene, designate aimpoint as vector tracelines within them and service each with the same snap-engagement sweeping accuracy as a man can achieve with an aimed shot and nobody shooting back.


KPl.