Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/10/2002 7:32:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2002 7:35:19 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 7:40:01 PM EST
Can I get one on a Form 4? Drooooooolllll!!!

Link Posted: 9/10/2002 7:47:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 7:49:07 PM EST
I don't like the OICW but this weapon looks as though it can take care of business, the wieght is a big plus as well as the projectile size. I would love to see some evaluation reports after a few Marine Infantry Companies from 29 Palms get some trigger time on this weapon. That would be the ultimate proving ground.
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 9:57:58 PM EST
The 25mm OCSW is supposed to replace the 40mm AGL as much as the .50, I think. It's difficult to compare directly with the .50 as the weapon characterstics are so different. It lobs time-fuzed airburst shells out to 2,000m. The incorporation of a sophisticated rangefinder/ballistic computer/fuze-setter (which is really the heart of the system) ensures that the shells burst right over the intended target, even if it's someone sheltering in a trench or behind a wall.

Of course, the 40mm AGLs are now being made lighter and developed to offer the same airburst technology, so the OCSW isn't home and dry yet.

Against armour, the OCSW can fire a HEAT round which will penetrate around 25mm IIRC.

If it does enter service with the US Army, then the main remaining use of the .50 might be in the anti-sniper role; but perhaps a .50 rifle would be better for that.

Incidentally, someone recently did a conversion job on a .50 Barrett to fire the OCSW ammo. It kicked a bit...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 4:42:49 AM EST
The main advantages over the .50cal is that you don't actually have to hit your target with the projectile, and it doesn't depend on velocity for AP performance.

Just like the Mk-19, the 25mm has a radius that will allow it to produce casualties even if it doesn't directly impact a target (enemy troop). You have to actually hit-to-kill with the .50. With the OSCW, you only have to get close enough. It's main advantage over the Mk-19 is the weight and size of the ammo, which makes it a higher-cap weapon for the same weight/volume of ammo carried (just like the old 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm deal).

Penetration is great with a .50 close in, but as range increases, penetration goes down with the loss of velocity. Beyond 200 meters, a .50cal won't reliably get through BMP side armor or it's equivelent. The current 40mm will regardless of range because it relies on the explosive force (which stays the same over range) ranther than kenetic energy (which drops with velocity loss over range). I don't know what the 25mm really does penetrate, but that's the concept at least.

I doubt that the M2 will ever get fully replaced any time soon. There are situations where a kenetic energy kill weapon is better. Shooting through walls into people on the other side is one I can think of, as is heavy brush/jungle. It's also a heck of alot cheaper to shoot .50BMG than some super-fuzed 25mm.

Link Posted: 9/11/2002 4:44:33 AM EST
Jeez, computers and programmed rounds... that's just asking for trouble if you ask me. I certainly hope Microsoft wasn't one of the prime contractors
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 12:11:50 PM EST
Its far from a done deal. But it is far more likely to be useful than the OICW.

Its designed is inspired by the ChiComs little GPMG sized 35mm AGL, which our Army is very jealous of.

And the OCSW's dependance on shaped charge ammo is not entirely a blessing. We have spent 60 years now learning how to defeat shaped charges, one that small would not be much of a threat to any modern LAV that employed simple spaced armor protection. And its MV, while higher than the Mk19's, is not adaquate for engaging aircraft. For both reasons its not likely to replace the M2-the Mk19 is another story.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 12:57:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By marvl:
Jeez, computers and programmed rounds... that's just asking for trouble if you ask me. I certainly hope Microsoft wasn't one of the prime contractors

My thoughts exactly. What happens when all that whiz-bang stuff goes tits up? Actually, I suspect it would only take one component to fail. I guess the same could be said of a firing pin. However, so what if the extra firing pin gets a little damp or you drop it?

They need to have a backup mode that could, as a last resort, just crank out rounds downrange. To keep the heads down while working out a backup plan.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 1:29:31 PM EST
Several months ago I asked a few "what if's" in a thread on the OICW. I also did some brainstorming. One of the ideas I came up with was to drop the 5.56mm portion of the OICW, beef up the 20mm grenade portion and make it belt fed. Then use it as a complement to the M240G 7.62mm GPMG much in the same manner that the Mk19 complements the M2HB.

It now looks like our fighting men could have a belt fed grenade launcher that can be carried into the assault, used on patrol, and set into an ambush.

Use the machineguns to concentrate the enemy into cover, then open up with the AGL.

I would not want to give up the sustained 1100 meters of grazing fire that a pair of M2HB's can deliver. So I am not in favor of replacing the M2HB with this new AGL. But this new AGL would be absolute hell on earth when teamed up with a 7.62mm GPMG.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 2:40:29 PM EST
Ma Deuce forever.

Properly sorted out this could be a very worthy addition, but comparing it to the .50 is very much an "apples to oranges" comparison, and one which I hope the armed forces will not make.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 3:30:08 PM EST
Slightly OT, but as far as OICW is concerned I'd rather see the 5.56mm dropped in favour of a larger magazine capacity, with a multiple-flechette loading for anti-pers work.

Make the magazines tubular, running alongside the barrel, and you could have two of them side by side (one HE, one flechette) with a rapid switch between them.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 5:00:18 PM EST
A few basic questions: What are the ballistics? I assume the projectile is unguided, just aimed with the laser. Does the system compensate for windage? What is the effective burst radius? At say 1500 yds, how much drift would a 10 mph wind give? Would it drift out of the lethal burst radius?

Whiz bang Buck Rogers stuff is OK if troops can kit with it. For a full auto weapon that weighs only 32 lbs, I suspect a low velocity round, arcing trajectory, slow flight time and lots of wind drift.
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 5:23:17 PM EST
my oppinion: it sounds like a great weapon if it truly performs as it is suppose to. I think it would be a great addition to our armory, but I do not think that it will be able to sufficiently replace the m2. my suggestion, is to thoroughly test it, and if it passes, add it to the amrory but do not replace the m2. as far as the m2 goes, if it ain't broken don't fix it. the m2 has served a valid purpose for 70 some years now, and still conitunes to fufil that purpose today. I don't believe I have ever heard a major gripe about the m2, and especially its more modern incarnations. the ocsw does look however like if it performs as well as projected to be a very devistating weapon and would be a welcome addition .

I heard some where that it is possible to operate the weapon remotely, has anyone heard anything else about this? imagine using this thing like a leave behind detachment, like in the days of vietnam. or setting 3 or for of these around an encampment. you could fused he rounds on targets all day until either the weapon is destroyed/found, you run out of ammo, or you run out of targets. if terrain and camo, permits you could even use it as a smart claymore. if this is true I wonder if it has a self destruct function?
Top Top