OICW

[redondomarine]

When is the OICW going to make its debut and who will get it? Also I have heard people saying they dont like it. Is there anything wrong with? Will the marines probably have the M-16a4 out before that?

[Ratamacue]

HKPRO.com says that it will be fielded with "special units" (my guess being Army Special Forces/Rangers) by 2009, though I see it becoming available way before then.

There is nothing wrong with it at all except that at the moment it's a bit heavy (around 15lbs, so about the weight of an M249). Eventually it's supposed to be issued to all grenadiers as a replacement for the M203, with Land Warrior providing the weapon for the riflemen and God knows what for SAW gunners.

From what I've seen, the weapon isn't even that heavy or large anymore, from the most recent photo:

http://www.hkpro.com/oicwcasing.jpg

The biggest problem I see with the weapon is that the 5.56mm barrel's length is only ~10 inches, so I'm going to guess the maximum effective range will probably be around 250-300 meters. Despite the fact that most upcoming wars will be predominately urban, the capability for long range is still a necessity, even for a normal rifleman (in my opinion).

As for the M16A4 coming into issue, I would say it will be issued before the OICW comes into service with the USMC, as the Marines tend to get all the older stuff when it comes to weapons.

[redondomarine]

then why not do what SOF does, use a what ever weapon best suits the mision? Or is it that we dont have funds for that because we spend money on more "important things"

[Vance]

Dont SF usually go with the smaller, compact gun? That thing is huge compared to the M4, and in certain aspects, even the M16.

[redondomarine]

I cant speak for the men of SF but I have no problems caring an m16, and im sure the weight of an OICW cant me that much more than an M16 with M-203. I have also read that the 20mili grenade launcher is removable.

[GearGod]

Heres some exellent must-read OICW articles by the 1st TSG(A):

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/oicw.htm
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/21stcenturyrifle.htm

If the page doesnt load, try at another time

[Apogee]

For once i agree with Adam. Those are very well written articles. I'm not so sure about the source though (they ARE hosted on geocities). I also don't agree with the example of the SEALs getting cut down. I don't think that was a case of not having the proper weaponry, but of not using the proper force. I say that for 2 reasons.
1. Rangers are the subject matter experts on taking down airports. They do it best and are best outfitted for doing it. Their equipment and doctrine reflects this.
2. The SEALs were forced to operate beyond their normal force structure of a SEAL platoon.

Maybe its just me bitching. I'm out for a while, but I'll be back in a week or two.

[96B]

I think that the OICW will provide a great advantage for our infantry units once it is fielded but I just think that it is not suitable for SEALs, SF etc. I am no SOF shooter, but it just seems way to bulky compared to the M4. I think that the technologies we will see in the final production OICW will eventually be incorporated into smaller weapons.

If what USMA was referring to with the SEALs was Patilla Airfield raid, Rangers definately should have done that job. There was something like 40+ SEALs involved in that mission I think, and that is way to many because they always operate in small numbers. Another factor was the fact that they were caught on the open tarmac and had nowhere to hide.

[GearGod]

"I'm not so sure about the source though (they ARE hosted on geocities)"

Written by the 1st Tactical Studies Group(Airborne) http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop Bunch of Army Paratroopers that see the "corruption" in DOD:

"We live in an age of cowards, physical and moral. Thus, lies and corruption within DoD cannot be expressed on official web sites/pages because such things would compel public scrutiny and positive changes to improve our nation's defense; so if you haven't noticed yet, this web site and most of the web pages offered are NOT official DoD web sites/pages. Any official links offered are self-explanatory references with the army.mil type domain name etc. Be real here. Why do you think we have to document problems/solutions on the www if DoD was open to solving its problems, anyway? So, NO! WE WILL NOT GO INTO THE NIGHT QUIETLY. We see corruption in DoD, WE WILL FIGHT IT, NOW. NOT LATER. As in N-O-W. NOW. ATTACK. IMMEDIATELY. AT ONCE. MEETING ENGAGEMENT. IMMEDIATE COUNTER-ATTACK. SPOILING ATTACK. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION AND THE LIVES OF OUR MEN DEMAND IT!"

LOL Yea... http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop is an EXELLENT website... Be sure to scroll all the way down on the left frame to see categories of articles such as leadership, intelligence, weapons, ta-50, etc.