m4 or SAR21?
-
yah but most buggers won't shoot without a butt lah..... was just play with my carbine in those NS days....Originally posted by Tango1:Yeah...I tried taking out the buttstock before and shooting it...hurts like crazy...and that was only blanks too!! ouch
You're right though. The carbine isn't that accurate as compared to the M-16 let alone the SAR-21. But the purpose of it is simply compact handling, esp. for Armour crewmen, BRCs, and sometimes, Cdos. 300m effective range? Can do lah...most engagements in jungle warfare take place at less than 100 metres...I dunno, but the carbine is pretty fun to shoot once you know how to handle the 'kick'. The 'crack' of the weapon when firing is distinctively louder and higher pitched than the M-16. Wah lau, no ear plugs cannot man...
Wish I had the chance to play with the SAR-21. I wonder if reservists would all convert to SAR-21 also? Or done already?
I think tangos will stick to carbine thoughout their NS lifes......but if got sar21, dunno the scope is strong enough to be use to recce for baddies or not... -
Heh heh...didn't we all play with our carbines? Macam new toy as compared to BMT M-16s...lol. It was a noveltyOriginally posted by Silenthunter:yah but most buggers won't shoot without a butt lah..... was just play with my carbine in those NS days....
I think tangos will stick to carbine thoughout their NS lifes......but if got sar21, dunno the scope is strong enough to be use to recce for baddies or not...
I dunno. I personally would prefer to carry the carbine on recce missions. Lesser weight. Dun need the scope. Even if so, can fix the Avimo scope that the sharpshooter uses, on the carbine instead. Still lesser weight than the SAR-21...lol what can I say? I'm an M-4/carbine fan. -
Heh heh...didn't we all play with our carbines? Macam new toy as compared to BMT M-16s...lol. It was a novelty....lighter for SOC runs, route marches, guard duty, missions, etc...when it came to ORD shoot though, suddenly everyone wanted an M-16 again to win prize money...lolOriginally posted by Silenthunter:yah but most buggers won't shoot without a butt lah..... was just play with my carbine in those NS days....
I think tangos will stick to carbine thoughout their NS lifes......but if got sar21, dunno the scope is strong enough to be use to recce for baddies or not...
I dunno. I personally would prefer to carry the carbine on recce missions. Lesser weight. Dun need the scope. Even if so, can fix the Avimo scope that the sharpshooter uses, on the carbine instead. Still lesser weight than the SAR-21...lol what can I say? I'm an M-4/carbine fan. -
Technology is extremely importanty in war... there has been a lot of macho talk attempting to downplay the role of technology in G.F.2, siting isloated examples of how low tech beats high tech. But stepping back to look at the big picture, it's easy to see how high technology hopelessly outclasses the losing side.Originally posted by Tango1:No weapon is fool-proof. I don't doubt your claims but I would argue that technology does not account for most eventualities that might occur in a shooting war. So its a high-tech weapon. So? It still requires the individual grunt to go out there and face the enemy to use it. What happens when its damaged? As compared to replacing an ordinary assault rifle? A guerilla armed with an AK have a good chance of getting an OICW-armed soldier too. Its just a matter of tactics. Even the best technology out there in Iraq has not prevented weekly ambushes of the coalition forces, or bagged the head honcho...yet.
The entire idea of the OICW is not to be put in the hands of normal grunts like you. It is supposed to be a part of the new Land Warrior System they are putting in. And yes, the OICW is actually cheaper then the M-16 and 203 when you add all the stuff on. And far more effective.
But of course, the military is a conservative organization, left you your own devices, you would still be using muskets now. There is no excuse for it, better technology must be developed. And you can use you old M-16 that fires a dumb, slow projectile, and rely on your own muddled unaided eyes in the future world of smart, hyperkenitic munitions and electronic sensors if you want, but I doubt you will survive long.
[/i] -
Haiz the only part of the OICW is new.....the grenade launcher....
It's like this more or less.Ranging/targeting unit,computer to set the nade(contact explosion,ranged explsion or timed),the special grenade and the composite body.If i'm not wrong the grenade launcher itself is quit standard and the rifle part is a G-36C with foldable butt(or extended?).The rifle is also detachable.Hence if like some said in war the computer fails the soldier can detech the rifle and use it like a normal rifle.So the guy with the old Ak 47 or 74 will still be up for a fight. -
I don't doubt that technology is important in a war. But like I said earlier, technology forms only a component of it. Tactics are important. If technology was that good, then why did the U.S. fail in locating Mohamed Farah Aidid in Mogadishu in 1993? What abt Osama and Saddam? Have they found them yet? Technology is important in conventional settings, but go down to a low-intensity conflict, its still the man-to-man firefight that determines the outcome. And LICs are the mainstay of 21st century conflict. No guerilla is gonna go head-on with a superior-technology armed soldier. They are gonna try other avenues of zapping an OICW-equipped soldier. Ambush, sniping, you name it...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Technology is extremely importanty in war... there has been a lot of macho talk attempting to downplay the role of technology in G.F.2, siting isloated examples of how low tech beats high tech. But stepping back to look at the big picture, it's easy to see how high technology hopelessly outclasses the losing side.
The entire idea of the OICW is not to be put in the hands of normal grunts like you. It is supposed to be a part of the new Land Warrior System they are putting in. And yes, the OICW is actually cheaper then the M-16 and 203 when you add all the stuff on. And far more effective.
But of course, the military is a conservative organization, left you your own devices, you would still be using muskets now. There is no excuse for it, better technology must be developed. And you can use you old M-16 that fires a dumb, slow projectile, and rely on your own muddled unaided eyes in the future world of smart, hyperkenitic munitions and electronic sensors if you want, but I doubt you will survive long.
[/i]
Regarding your second point, if the OICW isn't for ordinary grunts, then who is it for? A small select group of soldiers? Would it make an impact in a conflict? Regarding the costs, wouldn't it be better that they configure current weapons to allow for each and every individual grunt to carry rifle-launched grenades instead? That would be more cost-effective than investing in an entirely new weapon system.
I agree that the military is a conservative organization. Sometimes their conservative thinking overrules better technology. BUT, we must also remember that they are the ones doing the fighting, not the defence scientists and engineers. Take for example, Eugene Stoner, the man who invented the AR-15/M-16, who came up against a wall of conservative flak for the introduction of the 5.56 cartridge for use in his rifle. But there was a reason for it. The M-14 was a clumsy weapon, but it at least fired a 7.62 round which has a greater knock-down power than the 5.56 round. The problem with the 5.56 round has been proven time and again in many conflicts. Even as recent as the Afghanistan conflict, grunts wished for a bigger calibre weapon firing a 7.62 round.
I'm not arguing against technology. I believe that it has provided a fair amount of useful devices such as NVGs and stuff like that which aids soldiers in fighting better. But while technology has improved, the enemy has also grown smarter to it. So at the end of the day, new tactics still have to be devised to counter that. By pushing the technological envelope, you are forgetting that under all that high-tech gizmos is an ordinary soldier that still has to learn how to fight and survive, irregardless of technology. -
regarding whether OICW is indeed cheaper than a
M-16/M-4 - M203 combo i think we will only know when they decide to mass produce it.
havent we all heard about many a high profile projects running way over budget when the developers initially said they would cost cheaper or more affordable? Eurofighter and F22 are such examples.
not questioning OICW ability, it's definately very "hight tech" but supposedly you were to fight with OICW, out-numbered 3 to 1, would you be able to run for cover more effectively?pray hard that all the electronics stuffs inside your OICW dun fail you before your mag runs out.
as for SAR21, some of you guys out there really seems to like it a lot! but for people like myself who had handled and trainned with SAR21 before, i tell you, it's definately not a matter of getting used to it or not, or whether we still prefer M-16, the most important thing is that the design of the magazine release , charging handle and the fire select options really sucks! but of course it's still an excellent weapon in terms of it's accuracy. that's all.
for those who like SAR21, go ahead, but give me a m16-m203 combo any day. although, if i were a SOF trooper, i would prefer the SOPMOD M4 -
The land warrior system is suppose to consist of something like 80% off the shelf parts.....The grenade launcher and the rifle is taken from present day weapons...the only new parts like i've said is the computer targeting and the special grenades.The land warrior system was to help soldiers from getting into 3-1 situations by telling all friendly forces where he is so they can support him.....if everyone is dead liao it doesnt matter if he has the M-16 m203 combo he is screwed anyway.And i believe the average grunt is suppose to get the land warrior system since the US army is 100% regulars.Maybe the National guards units will be stuck without it since they are barely used anyway.But i do admit the OICW looks freaking big and bulky.....
-
tough time dun last tough men do.Originally posted by |-|05|:.The land warrior system was to help soldiers from getting into 3-1 situations by telling all friendly forces where he is so they can support him.....if everyone is dead liao it doesnt matter if he has the M-16 m203 combo he is screwed anyway. -
Actually we have our very own land warrior system here....
and of course our very own not quite yet OICW....jpg)
[/img] -
i really do wish that mindef would seriously consider implementing the lightweight 40mm AGL at the battallion level man...
mobile artillery on the fly... way cool... better than riflemen lobbing 40mms from his m203 one sad round at a time... -
Obviously a lot of pple here have not been doing their research.
While the intial cost of developing the OICW is obviously high, in the long run, if implemented it is actually one of the most cost effective weapons systems ever to be implemented.
One of the objectives of the OICW was to make a weapon system that is cheaper then the current package they are using, plus at the same time being more effective, taking advantage of advanced technology.
While a bare bones M-16 costs about $650 US, add an M203, and thermal sight and the other niffy stuff onto it to fit with the Land Warrior suite, you'll find the price soon skyrockets to $36,000. And that combo still lacks the ranging and computer guided abilities of the OICW.
On the other hand, per unit cost of the OICW is only $10,000, and it situtational kill envelope (the lethal ability of the weapon) is also 5 times larger then the M-16/203 which costs over three times more. That also means that once the weapon is finalized (they are still working on reducing system weight to be actually lighter then the M-16/203 by about a pound), you can get thrice more of it out to the troops then you could with the old system, and you get a fivefold increase in effectiveness as well. In all, three times five means that your average American force projection is fifteen times more powerful then your current day force.
And that's why they are so keen on this weapon. It utterly outclasses the old M-16/203. -
The entire idea of developing OICW and Land Warrior systems is to overcome the enemy by information dominance.Originally posted by Tango1:I don't doubt that technology is important in a war. But like I said earlier, technology forms only a component of it. Tactics are important. If technology was that good, then why did the U.S. fail in locating Mohamed Farah Aidid in Mogadishu in 1993? What abt Osama and Saddam? Have they found them yet? Technology is important in conventional settings, but go down to a low-intensity conflict, its still the man-to-man firefight that determines the outcome. And LICs are the mainstay of 21st century conflict. No guerilla is gonna go head-on with a superior-technology armed soldier. They are gonna try other avenues of zapping an OICW-equipped soldier. Ambush, sniping, you name it...
That means that ambushing and sniping attempts on OICW Land Warriors is far harder and more dangerous now.
Recently they ran an interesting wargame engagement of several paradropped Land Warriors versus two snipers. Using their thermal sights to peer out of cover without exposing themselves, the Land Warriors took out the first sniper at 300 meters and chased the second one down and "killed" him.
Information dominance is what the US is aming for, not having bigger and better guns, you can't ambush their troops easily some time in a future battle field if you have dozens of sensors in UCAVs and such covering your every position. That's the gist of the 21st century battlefield. To remove as much of the fog of war as possible until your enemy who does not have this ability is obviously outwitted. -
To the extent that the OICW was successful against two snipers, we have to ask ourselves under what conditions did the engagement take place? Terrain? Weather? Will future combat conditions mimic the conditions of wargames? I don't doubt its success, but seeing is believing...so until we see that the OICW is combat-proven, it is hard to believe the claims made of this weapon.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The entire idea of developing OICW and Land Warrior systems is to overcome the enemy by information dominance.
That means that ambushing and sniping attempts on OICW Land Warriors is far harder and more dangerous now.
Recently they ran an interesting wargame engagement of several paradropped Land Warriors versus two snipers. Using their thermal sights to peer out of cover without exposing themselves, the Land Warriors took out the first sniper at 300 meters and chased the second one down and "killed" him.
Information dominance is what the US is aming for, not having bigger and better guns, you can't ambush their troops easily some time in a future battle field if you have dozens of sensors in UCAVs and such covering your every position. That's the gist of the 21st century battlefield. To remove as much of the fog of war as possible until your enemy who does not have this ability is obviously outwitted.
Regarding your second point on information dominance, aren't you forgetting that with smarter weapons and technology, the enemy will also wise up over time and find ways to overcome it? Maybe you get 'em in the beginning. . maybe you kill 10 guerillas. So? That's the end? Pple in the 3rd and 4th world can afford to lose 10 or more of theirs for every one of yours...and they will still be victorious. Numbers are on their side. Plus, you may be operating in a hostile environment...Can UCAVs spot booby-traps? It doesn't have to be command-detonated mines or stuff that requires the enemy to hang around and wait for the other side to come. That's the essence of 'sparrow warfare.'
Sun Tzu himself said that the enemy has no shape just like water...so we have to adapt to changing situations. In this sense, we cannot simply assume that technology alone would win a conflict for us. -
Well said , well said.Originally posted by Tango1:Sun Tzu himself said that the enemy has no shape just like water...so we have to adapt to changing situations. In this sense, we cannot simply assume that technology alone would win a conflict for us.
Lets put it in this way , the Americans are adapting to the changing situation with changing technology , so now it is their enemies and rivals turn to adapt to the American's changing technology.
In fact , China , France , Israel and Singapore ( for wat i know ) had already follow up suite on building up our very own OICW/Land Warrior programme . So , the world is rotating constantly and we shouldnt be surprise to know that our rivals are finding ways to adapt and try to upperhand our superiority ....
Darwins theory : the strongest will survive even though every animal is trying to adapt. So even though the 'gorillas' are trying to 'envolve' themselve to upperhand the Americans , they may not succeed........ -
I have personally used the M-16, carbine and then followed by the SAR21. Did numerous firings on the SAR21 recently, both single and auto shots.
Yes, the SAR21 is highly accurate even in auto mode. I also agree about the part on the 'just place the point on the target and shoot'. However, the basic rules of firing the M16 still do apply. Breathing and gripping techniques still apply, but not to such strict extent.
Another excellent advantage of the SAR21 is the easy IA drills. Any IA drills encountered, be it double feeding, no feeding, etc can be easily rectified by simply cocking the handle. And the cocking handle is positioned in such a way that you don't need to remove too much of your eye away from the target as the handle is right above the chamber, which differs from the M16 which is behind the aiming sight. This will also help in safety, as blur shooters won't be pointing the barrel at their sgts when encountering IA.
The part about less jaming may not be true. I encountered at least one IA for each of my live firing. I have cleaned my weapon thoroughly after every session and yet for the next range shoot, i always experience IA. Maybe it's the fault of my individual weapon. The good thing is that the IA drill is rapidly cleared as described in the para above.
Another down point to me is the weight of the weapon and not to mention the bulkiness. There are names going around e.g. "Starship trooper" etc. Compared to the Australian Styer, the SAR21 looks like a laser cannon. Clearing SOC with this rifle is not going to be any easier than the carbine i used to carry.
Maybe they should do away with the permanent attachment of the laser. -
Yeah, the breathing and gripping techniques are still important, but to me finger control is the most important aspect of firing the new gun. As I said, just like a computer game. Press the trigger at the right time, even if you are not at the correct part of the breathing cycle or you are not fully supported, and (usually) you hit. I guess the low recoil has something to do with it.
The handgrip with the laser can be completely removed and replaced with almost anything. Forward pistol grip, M203, rail system, tactical flashlight, etc. Take a look at ST Kinetic's literature. If the laser proves unpopular or unnecessary, we can simply remove them and get a lighter rifle than the M16, though not as light as the carbine.
I don't get as many IA's as you (none actually). Might be the new rifles. It takes some years for the rifles to settle down and work as designed. The plastic of the body seems really tough, but I notice it can be scratched easily compared to metal. Not really a problem, but if it gets scratched again and again over a period of years, it might be bad.
I still can't get over the poor controls though. I find myself fumbling a lot during magazine changes. They need a lot of work, though the IA clearing is very nice, as you say.
As for the OICW, I will wait and see before I believe these tests, figures and predictions. As I have said, the US arms procurement process is currently very corrupt, and stacked toward buying ANY expensive weapon regardless of merit to line the pockets of the military-industrial-congressional complex. The OICW programme is overbudget, has run into unexpected technical problems and fewer than anticipated will be deployed. I am not sure that they will cost so little when they are finally deployed. We will see. -
hey hey... i'm interested in knowing more about the landwarrior systems... can somebody provide good links for me please?
s'pore tyrannosaurus, about that part that landwarriors are harder to ambush and snipe, what is the basis for that statement?does this mean that a soldier equipped with landwarrior combat system can be alerted to such threats automatically? -
He said something abt thermal imaging, prob thats how they spotted the snipers, i dunno.Originally posted by alphanumeric:hey hey... i'm interested in knowing more about the landwarrior systems... can somebody provide good links for me please?
s'pore tyrannosaurus, about that part that landwarriors are harder to ambush and snipe, what is the basis for that statement?does this mean that a soldier equipped with landwarrior combat system can be alerted to such threats automatically?
I doubt there are any effective anti-sniper systems that can be used from only one point, prob need more than one point to calculate the location of the sniper. Also, these are not very portable for soldiers on the move as far as i know.
my two cents. -
The thermal sights on the Land Warrior weapons allowed them to spot the sniper from behind cover using even though he was well hiden to visual detection.
Having located the sniper, they shared this information via their data network and simply got one guy to surprise and ambush the sniper before he knew he was it.
It's nothing surprising in warfare, the hunter becoming the hunted. In this case, technology and new tatics helped turn the tables. The position of the sniper in warfare is not stable and new technologies can help alter the way this sport is being carried out. -
Of course there are other ways of Land Warriors killing snipers as well, they can figure out his location and call in an strike on him or something like that.
The idea is not to have bigger guns, but better intelligence. And if your intelligence is very much better and up to date, you have a decided hand over the enemy. So much so he spends more time hiding and siamzing thena ctually fighting. -
While the technical specifications of the Land Warrior system are truly impressive, they do not address the main problem with warfighting the Americans seem to have: target identification. I would very much like to see how the Land Warrior systems manage to distinguish the following from each other:
1. An enemy guerilla in civilian clothes.
2. A civilian with a hunting rifle.
3. An angry civilian with a hunting rifle who wants to avenge his wife who died yesterday in a JDAM attack.
4. A special forces soldier from your own side in enemy civilian clothes.
5. An allied guerilla in civilian clothes (e.g. Kurds or Northern Alliance).
6. A reporter on an undercover story with the guerillas.
So you see a blob in your thermal sight. There is a black area that indicates the target is carrying a long metal object. Open fire?
This has always been the problem with the US Army, since VIetnam, through Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now in Iraq. Their firepower far outstrips their ability to apply it discriminately. Each time they shoot the wrong guy, be it their own soldiers, allies, civilians or neutrals, they make the situation politically worse. They are still fighting WW2, storming the beaches of Normandy. Just like in the movies, with a good guy and a bad guy. Clean and simple.
War is not that way any more. The problem with all these technological solutions is that they are for yesterday's wars. The Land Warrior system is great in a stand-up fight, but not so hot otherwise.
This is also a problem with the SAF to some extent. Whatever blitzkrieg forward defence strategy we use will be followed by some period of counterinsurgency operations, which we are mostly untrained for. At least our peacekeeping experience in E. Timor will allow us to develop the required skills, but only if the brass bother.
Anyway, back to the topic. OICW good, but maybe irrelevant. Having massive killing power at long range is NOT always a good idea when you are performing infantry missions. A tank should have as long a range as possible, because he can always be sure that his target is valid (enemy tank, bunker, etc.) An infantryman on patrol does not have that luxury. That is why infantry carry short ranged assault rifles, so you can actually identify what you are shooting at. Blasting away at blobs in your thermal sights from 2-3 km away may be good in a shooting war, but is really dumb in a lower intensity conflict. -
Irrevelant? Prehaps you would like to go up against an enemy armed with it? Maybe then you would reconsider? When you don't even know where you enemy is and where death can come out and take you even though you are behind cover? All because you are using mark 1 eyeball and they are using an eint netwoek?
As for zapping friendly targets, it's a matter of intelligence, which is what entire Force 21 suite is trying to reduce, by having accucrate intelligence and to get friendly troops on the right side of the weapon, so that you can be reasonably sure that the dude you are zapping is supposed to be killed.
As for manverick jokers that decide to go lone ranger and make themselves indistinguishable from the enemy, it's their funeral. War was never a safe place after all. It's their loss. -
BTW, the OICW works within the range envelope of the M-16/203 it replaces... I dunno where you get your 2-3km from... I never knew it was a superweapon that could toss 5.56 and 20mm that far...
Do your homework before you open your mouth.