New Humvee weapons system keeps gunner covered inside

Stars and Stripes European edition ^ | February 8, 2004 | Lisa Burgess

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ARLINGTON, Va. — One of the most dangerous jobs in Iraq is acting as a gunner during convoy movements. Even up-armored Humvees, which provide added protection for most of the crew, leave the gunner exposed.

But for the gunners assigned to four special up-armored Humvees in Iraq, convoy movements are a different experience: instead of spending the drive hunched in the turret, scanning their sectors and hoping for the best, these soldiers are comfortably seated the back of the vehicle, eyes glued to a computer screen and right hand on a PlayStation-like joystick.

If the gunner, or someone else in the convoy, identifies a threat, the press of a button instantly slews the gun mounted atop the Humvee in the right direction. Then the flip of a switch puts steel on target.

Throughout the ordeal, the gunner is safe inside the armored shell of the vehicle.

The system these gunners are testing is called CROWS, for the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station.

Designed to be mounted aboard a variety of vehicles, from armored Humvees to the new Stryker, CROWS supports the MK19 grenade machine gun, 50-caliber M2 machine gun, M249 semi-automatic weapon, and the M240B machine gun.

A fire-control computer and stabilizers allow soldiers to shoot with great accuracy, even while the vehicle is moving, according to Maj. Adam Tasca, assistant product manager for crew-served weapons at PM Soldier, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

Gunners “can fire a single grenade and put it right in the chest of an adversary at 1,000 meters,” Tasca said in an interview Friday at the Pentagon, where CROWS was on display.

Moreover, the system’s sensors, which include a laser rangefinder, heavy thermal weapon sight, daytime video camera, and an image intensifier, help the gunner see targets at night and in bad weather, Tasca said.

CROWS isn’t scheduled to be fielded until 2006, but last fall, senior Army leaders realized how well suited the system might be to help protect soldiers against threats in Iraq, Pete Errante, deputy program manager for crew-served weapons at PM Soldier at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., said Friday.

Four systems were promptly sent to Iraq for “operational testing,” Errante said. For security reasons, he declined to identify the unit using the CROWS, or its location.

Tasca, who recently spent six weeks in Iraq evaluating the system and soldiers’ reactions to it, said that so far the systems have been performing “superbly.”

“The reliability is 100 percent and [soldiers] love it,” said Tasca. “They want more of them.”

If commanders in Iraq decide to issue an “urgent needs” request that would subsequently be supported by Army leadership, CROWS manufacturer Recon/Optical, of Barrington, Ill., is ready to begin manufacturing the system immediately, Errante said.

[Flyer]

Yeah, you have a thing about being covered.

[archy]

But I want a few of those new odd 249's.

You'll have to give up to get: the ability to use the M16 magazine is lost, pretty well neglected or abandoned by most M249/Minimi users anyway. And the Mark 48 weighs in at 8.2 kg, a bit heavier than the 7 kg of the M249 [depending on model/configuration] or the 5.75 kg of the Navy Mark 46 Mod 0 Special Warfare lightweight 5.56mm SAW, which also deletes the magazine-feed capability as means to achieve weight reduction, but adds multiple Rail Interface mounts for scopes, laser targeting *killdots* thermal viewers and other useful accessories- some of them heavier than the gun.

The real question will be what comes of the proposed 6,8mm ammunition developments, particularly as they relate to the XM-8 rifle. Changes to the M249 to accomodate the new round should require little more than a bolt and barrel change, with a new link to replace the 5,56mm version probable, and possibly requiring some new components in the top cover/feed tray assembly. But we shall see.

[Darksheare]

Darn!!

[archy]

An up-armored hummer is good, but this is better...

In production, and available for immediate delivery...

Note that the Merkava 4 or a Russian T-90 with remote 12,7mm weapons station can be obtained for around 3 million each, just about the price General Dynamics gets for each Stryker.

Merkava 4 is just now coming into production [First deliveries to an Israeli tank battalion last month, with operational issue and training courses to new Israeli tank crews later this year.] It looks like between 50-70 will be built per year, for a total of around 400, depending on how many of the Mark 4's features [120mm gun, 5 speed automatic transmission, 1500 HP powerpack] can be retrofitted to the earlier versions, or how many of the earlier ones can be sold to foreign customers for the price of a new Mk 4.

[RikaStrom]

I could see where that would be of prime interest for you. :-)

[Yasotay]

Having been in the 9th ID (Motorized/High -Tech), I agree with you. One of the main reasons the 9th was shelved was there was no lightweight assault gun vehicle. The M998T just did not cut it (and putting a whole infantry squad in one sucked).

[Cannoneer No. 4]

"Motorized" Experience of the 9th Infantry Division

[Cannoneer No. 4]

One of the main reasons the 9th was shelved was there was no lightweight assault gun vehicle.

There were some, just None Invented Here.

[Ronzo]

Note that the Merkava 4 or a Russian T-90 with remote 12,7mm weapons station can be obtained for around 3 million each, just about the price General Dynamics gets for each Stryker.

I imagine you could get a dusty 'ol Merkava Mk. III for LESS than a Stryker! (quantity discount!) And I have no doubt that the Russians would certainly cut us a nice deal on T-90's. Personally, I'd prefer the Merkava to the T-90, but either one is FAR BETTER Stryker.

My knowledge of armor and tactics comes from reading books and playing wargames, I don't have any real "hands-on" experience. Yet it's amazing how often you can win any given simulation as long as your tanks have thicker armor and bigger guns than the other guy. Whether it's T-34's blowing away Panzer III's, or Tigers destroying T-34's, or M1A2's plinking away Iraqi T-72's, the better gun and thicker armor win every time.

Since wargamers are only playing games, not fighting real wars, a common tactic is to send in your APC's first as cannon fodder, hoping your opponent wastes his ammunition and his turns blowing away APC's while your own tanks watch & learn. It also exposes the firing positions of his tanks, APC's, and crew-served weapons.

[PattonReincarnated]

>> CROWS supports the MK19 grenade machine gun, 50-caliber M2 machine gun, M249 semi-automatic weapon, and the M240B machine gun.


I'm jumping into this thread a little late and don't have a lot of time. Could someone answer this question. Does CROWS support all of the above weapons concurrently? The way that was written is not very clear to me. Seems like over-kill if that is the care.

[PattonReincarnated]

>> CROWS supports the MK19 grenade machine gun, 50-caliber M2 machine gun, M249 semi-automatic weapon, and the M240B machine gun.


I'm jumping into this thread a little late and don't have a lot of time. Could someone answer this question. Does CROWS support all of the above weapons concurrently? The way that was written is not very clear to me. Seems like over-kill if that is the case.

[Chu Gary]

"There's about 10 % that are ticket-punchers, who'll put their own personal advancement above all else, but the word gets out on them pretty fast, though some are very good at getting their tasks accomplished, at a cost to their personnel, accordingly, they advance, but are not missed once they're gone. And about 5% are just about as I described. Unfortunately, many of them are very senior officers, in positions where their decisions, often self-serving, can do considerable harm, to include fatalities to those who have to live with their decisions."

Hmmm, sounds like General Weasely Clark's resume.

[Chu Gary]

To me, the real significance of this story rests with our existing knowledge of how to engineer, build and control drone aircraft and other drones, e.g. the Mars explorers. I believe it's a small step to merge that knowledge with the Stryker advancements and, voila, reduce the number of troops in the field while increasing controllers in the rear. Safe and effective expenditure. I'll bet Sec'y Rumsfeld has already pushed this.

[Ronzo]

Well, there was one that was invented here:

The M4 Sherman mounting a 105mm howitzer.

Not a very well known tank, but proved to be a very, very useful weapon during WW2. Might be a bit heavy for the old 9th ID however...

[StarCMC]

HOO-YAH! We need these on EVERY Humvee and Stryker in Iraq, bar none.

[stevie_d_64]

All I got to say is "damn"...I hope they're out by Christmas, because I want one!!!

Purty neat stuff...It could possibly make the commutes in Houston a little shorter...Or at least much more polite...

Geesh why didn't our new Mayor figure this one out???

Yawn...nighty night..

Later,
Steve

[Yasotay]

True, I also remember the French Foreign Legion getting our Mk 19s (we got an interesting briefing from the French about how they destoried a Libyan Corps in Chad with our Mk19s....). The AGS just never came about in the US. There were lots of very good ideas. One of my favorites was to equip infantry companies with lasers for Hellfires. The Hellfires were to be launched from a 5 Ton truck. The Apache crowd stopped that idea. Oh well .....

[SJSAMPLE]

UA HMMWVs are not designed or armored to survive RPG blasts. Just because the crew of one vehicle survived" a hit doesn't meant that the concept is deeply flawed. Turning the HMMWV into a gun platform, which is exactly what this is, is deeply flawed logic.

The UA concept was to provide small arms protection to vehicle occupants in high threat areas. Not every HMMWV needs to be (or should be) up-armored. By adding a remote weapons station, you're moving the HMMWV into more dangerous terrain. When you start using a modified utility vehicle as a weapons platform, the UA stands for "Under Armored".

[Yasotay]

In one instance a UA took a direct hit from an RPG with only minor damage.

That is very diffcult to believe. There aren't ANY HMMWVs that can withstand a 'direct hit' from a RPG.

[MPJackal]

Don't believe me. It is public record. There was an article with pictures on the Army web site. Happened in Aug or Sept. I'm not going to speculate on any extenuating circumstances. I admit I was surprised as well.

I think the real issue I was addressing was that the Army is trying to take steps to protect Soldiers. They may not be perfect steps, but everything helps.