| From: | Alex van der Kleut sommers@*****.edu |
|---|---|
| Subject: | OICW (was: RE: Questions of great importance (Steve, Jon, |
| Date: | Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:08:14 -0400 |
>At 14.02 09-09-99 +0200, you wrote:
> > The OICW is going to be shipped only to SOCOM troops up to now.
>
> I know. My brother and his team mates want to find out if it is
>Pararescuer-proof. <g> However, I suspect we will find out how tough it
>really is, although most of the work that SOCOM has done in the last decade
>are not the kind of thing you would want, or if you did, could, take it on.
> I'm guessing the Rangers are going to be giving it a work
> up. I'd saw
>give it to Marine Recon, but those boys could break a big rock. <g>
I'm only going off of a few articles I've read from Pop Sci, Pop Mechanics
et al but that sounded like the plan all along. Start introducing it to the
best light infantry you have in 2003 and then work its way out from there.
Its not supposed to replace the M-16, but the 203 in squads. And while it
is expensive, its was pointed out that once you take an M-16, add on the
M203 launcher, laser sight and thermal scope, it comes out to be about half
of the cost.
I also like the simulation results for the wargames. 75 casualties for the
M-16 side, 1 for the OICW side. If that plays out IRL, gotta give it points
for effectiveness.
>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."
Alex van der Kleut
Sommers@*****.edu
647-6048
