Re: HIGH TECH WONDER INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

At 4:50 PM -0800 1/31/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>1)In real combat units[*] we use M-16s, with a handful
>>of M-4s.
>
>I am SO going to ID myself as a civvie here - what is the M-4?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m16.htm

>
>If it ain't fixed, it must be broken, right?  The Gee Whiz syndrome 
>strikes again.

The primary motivator is to reduce the need for the M4 as a complete 
kit and increase usefulness. Its a selective replacement of the 
M203/M16 combo.

The 20mm in OICW is not unlike the 25mm in OCSW.

>
>Just from casual observation, I had a funny feeling that a REDUCTION 
>of launched grenade size was a BAD thing.  I'm glad to see I'm not 
>entirely off on that count.

Well, the basic idea is that instead of the grenade detonating 
because it hit the ground it detonates at the target you aim at _or_ 
when you designate a red force team that are behind defilade and set 
it to go off at their backs as it passes their cover. It puts all of 
the fragments into the area around it, rather that half into the 
ground. ie It air bursts next to them in something of an enfilade.

>From FAS's web site**
Specific goals include demonstration of hit probability greater than 
0.5 out to 500 meters and 0.3 to 0.5 out to 1,000 meters. 
Effectiveness against personnel and light armor targets, given a hit, 
will be greater than those of the M433 High Explosive Dual Purpose 
cartridge fired from the M203 Grenade Launcher and the M855 cartridge 
fired from the M16A2 rifle. Specific goals include a 0.5 probability 
of incapacitation to 300 meters (point target) and a 0.2 probability 
of incapacitation to 300 meters (defilade target) in FY99.
**

Take a look at ATK's web site on the system.
http://www.atk.com/homepage/products/
>
>Again, just my UNQUALIFIED observation, but it sounds from the 
>conversation that the 20mm grenades are BARELY anti-armor capable. 
>I apply this concept to the rest of life, it seems applicable to 
>military issues as well - just BARELY being able to do something 
>seems like a bad goal to set, especially since things always tend to 
>get harder.

I'd wonder that. The ability to get it right where you want it helps.

>Shouldn't non-REAL-combat units get at least a SMATTERING of Combat 
>arms, in case that "Something deeply wrong" happens?
>

They do. They have Carbines. The push has gone as far as PDW's and 
such in some armies.

--
Ryan Gill	  |	   |	     rmgill@mindspring.com
		  |	   |
		  | O--=-  |
		  |_/|o|_\_|
		  / 00DA61 \
	       _w/|=_[__]_= \w_
	      |: O(4) ==    O :|
	      |---\________/---|
	       |‰|\	    /|‰|
	       |‰|=\______/=|‰|