Slashdot Mirror
Future Army Battle Uniforms - Wired, Lethal
ssyladin writes "CNN is running an article about the future US army battle dress, code-named 'Scorpion'. It says that "..soldiers of 2011 will step into wired uniforms that incorporate all the equipment they need. The uniforms will monitor vital signs and plug them into a massive network of satellites, unmanned planes and robotic vehicles the military has planned." There will be sensors to monitor heartrate and blood-pressure, built-in tourniquets, a HUD to connect to GPS info, overhead maps, infrared and starlight cameras, and even the venerable M16 rifles are slated for an overhaul."
The army's supposedly coming out with the OICW in 2004, which has a bunch of new features, including a range of up to 1000 meters (the M16 has a max. range of 400, and thats with really good training)
.223/5.56NATO, there's no way it's going to be good for 1000 meters, as that's a limitation of the cartridge design not the gun. The OICW is also a bullpup design, but still has a short barrel, decreasing maximum effective lethal range. The OICW uses the same magazines as the M16. Even .308/7.62NATO isn't really good to 1000 meters because of it's vulnerability to wind interference.
.50 BMG (BMG = Browning Machine Gun) guns you saw mounted on those armored vehicles in Iraq were a Browning design. And it was Gene Stoner who developed the original AR-10 machine gun, which was redesigned into the M16. Now the US has outlawed the kind of work Browning and Stoner did, and given the excessive excise tax required to become a Class II manufacturer, it's unlikely that you'll ever have that kind of innovation again. Trying to build a machine gun makes you a federal felon with an instant 10 years at Club Fed, and we're talking the pound you in the butt prison, not some country club.
Given that the M16 and the OICW are both chambered in
The OICW is a waste. Give any soldier the choice between a set of combat gear or the scorpion suit, and he'll choose the combat gear. Give him a choice between the OICW or an M16, and he'll choose the M16. Why? Because when your life is on the line complex systems fail more often than simple systems and they can also get in the way. When you're on the battlefield and people are shooting at you, you want to be able to shoot back. When you have to reboot your gun or your combat helmet is on the frits, these are bad things. Moving to the latest new fangled gadgets does not make a successful armed force.
This is why smart guns will be a flop. The Glock firearm design is currently the most popular modern design on the market because it is a simple design that works. It has very few moving parts compared to other semi-auto pistols, and that means it tends to be much more reliable than other designs. When you start introducing computer controls, fingerprint scanners, and the like things get much more complicated much quicker and I personally would hate to lose my life because my smartgun crashed while someone was kicking down my door.
The most venerable machine gun designs were from guys who weren't working for the government. Guys like John Moses Browning who designed the majority of the military machine guns in US history and many still in use today. The
Today's combat weapons are made by large military contractors who move at a snails pace. Browning was turning out multiple designs per year. You'd think with all the backing these big defense contractors have, they could at least keep up.
I must respectfully disagree with my Marine Corps fellow traveller here. As a former U.S. Army officer, I wielded an M-16A1 in the first Persian Gulf War. I found my M-16 was okay during peacetime, but had some doubts about it for wartime, due to my copious research beforehand. When the more senior officers traded in their M1911A1 Colt .45 ACP pistols for M-16A1's, I acquired one of those pistols as an addition to my personal armoury. I wanted the .45 with me on the off chance that I got into a firefight and the M-16 jammed.
The M-16 spokesman here says that it works fine if kept properly lubricated. I NEVER lubricated my M-16 during PGWI because I couldn't. The first (and last) time I did, it became utterly encrusted with sand. There was no escaping the sand in the Arabian deserts as it is a fine powder easily blown into the air or stirred into the air by vehicles and troops moving about. I wiped it down to a "near dry" condition and it was still caked in sand. It was only after a few more days and wipedowns that it finally dried out and quit being covered in sand. From then on, I just wiped it down with a dry cloth every day. Assuming the Marine above is correct, my M-16 was rendered just about useless. Basically, I would have had to begin dousing it in lubricant right when I actually needed it. Hopefully, that would not have been during one of the frequent "shamals" (sandstorms) we endured.
The most egregious design flaw of the M-16 is the reloading arrangement to support semi-automatic fire. A small gas tube taps the barrel near the front sight and carries some of the hot gas from the cartidge's detonation back to a very short tube or "catcher" just above the rotary bolt that houses the firing pin. This means you have crappy, government gunpowder blowing crap right into the most critical part of the weapon. This residue rapidly gums up the area where bullet meets bolt and firing pin. (This area is called the firing chamber.) This problem calls for either frequent lubrication to loosen the deposits or a tolerance for the occasional jam. An old neighbour of mine was fortunate enough to not have his M-16 jam when he found himself three feet from a Viet Cong in the jungles of Viet Nam. In that case, the M-16 beat the Kalashnikov.
Another M-16 design flaw is the weak recoil spring that pushes the bolt back into place to chamber the next round after one is fired. This spring and the earlier-mentioned fouling problem caused the addition of the "forward assist" for the M-16A1. Inevitably, experienced shooters will forget that forward assist at the wrong moment because no other weapon I know of has such a jury-rigged loading process as the M-16. Talk about cruft... The operator's manual for an M-16A1 or the current M-16A2 recommends the forward assist be pushed forward with the heel of the hand following each loading of a fresh magazine's first round. The M-16's predecessors; M-14, M-1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, the Krag- Jorgensen and "Trapdoor Springfields" had no need for such a procedure to be followed in the middle of a firefight.
The Kalashnikov designs use a metal rod to collect the gas from a bullet's detonation to push the bolt back. This small but significant difference from the M-16 means the vast majority of the gunpowder residue never reaches the firing chamber of an AK. This is a huge help in not gumming up a Kalashnikov when it is being used. Another tremendous advantage of the Kalashnikovs on campaign is the small number of parts they have. Having field stripped AK's and M-16's many, many times, an M-16 has about three times as many parts. These parts are typically much smaller and more prone to breakage on the lighter M-16. Some of those parts are not "idiot proofed" either. When it's 3 am and you are running on six hours sleep in the last three nights, the last thing you need is to be sure to put some cotter pin in only from the right as the weapon won't fire if that pin was inserted from the lef
In principio erat Verbum.