Stryker weapons system picture...
-> AFV News Discussion Board
#1: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: SFC_Jeff_Button, Location: Ft Hood, TX PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:13 pm
    ----
[img][/img]
I pulled this from Army Knowledge On-line, (AKO). It a picture of the 172nd Stryker Brigade in Mosul. I found the weapons platform interesting but know little about it. Anyone have some input?
#2: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Sabot, Location: Kentucky PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:23 pm
    ----
It is the Remote Weapons Station (RWS) sometimes called CROWS (Commanders Remotely Operated Weapon Station).
www.army.mil/features/...ForWeb.pdf
#3: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:48 pm
    ----
Stryker has the M151 Protector Remote Weapon Station that is made by Norway's Kongsberg.

The XM101 Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) is a different system, made by RECON Optical.





Neil
#4: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Burik,  PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:48 am
    ----
I have not heard too many good things about the RWS, at least as to how it is meant to be operated from within. Very slow rotation, and just about impossible to use while on the move. While I was at the NTC nobody used it remotely, and all personnel used the .50 cal by being exposed and using it manually. I witnessed a live fire exercise that used overwatch from afar, and Strykers that were in the town as well. None used the RWS as it was designed. Just when does doctrine call for it to be used remotely?

I asked a few people about this complaint which I merely read about, but nobody would say anything negative about the Stryker. Everybody just gave me the "company line" and just would say they were glad they had the vehicle. So I don't know if there is an improvement on the RWS since this initial complaint from the first rotation in Iraq, or what.

Tumbleweed asked about the black cover under the beacon. I assume he means the one with the mesh screen. I think this a cover for the exhaust and is in place for vehicles w/ the slat armor. It seems to be a sort of extension that takes it up and over the slat armor. But this is only my guess. I saw lots of Strykers at the NTC and none had the slat armor. But a few, and just a few, had this extension. I assume back at Ft Lewis those Strykers had slat armor affixed at some point, since back there some vehicles are used for driver training on the slat armor. The post called STRYKER AT NTC shows one of these Strykers w/ this cover.

Cheers.

Bob
#5: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Roy_A_Lingle, Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:47 am
    ----
- Burik

I have not heard too many good things about the RWS, at least as to how it is meant to be operated from within. Very slow rotation,
Bob


Slow rotation, compaired to what?
In the pass the US has tried machine gun cupolas on M48s, M60s, and the M1 tanks. In Vietnam, most tankers took the M2 50 cal out of the cupola because it was too slow. On the M1A2 SEP, the power turret system has been replaced by a flex mounting system for the M2 50 cal. I am not sure, but I would guess that was done because it's rotation was to slow. Now if we are talking about the turret on top a M113 or a Hummer where the gunner grabs hold and throws their weight into the ring because those systems are manully powered. Having worked with the M113, I could turn that cupola fast as long as the vehicle was on level ground. Place the vehicle on a hill side and try pointing the gun uphill. Suddenly that very easy to turn cupola is very hard to turn if at all. If you are not carefull, the gun mount will turn down hill on you. I don't know anything about the gun mount turret on the Hummers, but I would bet they work the same way a M113 does. As for one man powered turrets, the only one I have ever worked with was the XM-27 mounted on the M114A2(better known as the M114A1E1). That turret could go 360 degrees in about 16 seconds. One problem however. There was NO turret basket. One could very quickly get hurt turning that turret very far at max speed. I would guess the M151 RWS on the Stryker doesn't have a turret basket either. Sometimes speed is NOT a good thing.

Some food for thought.

- Burik

and just about impossible to use while on the move.
Bob


It is not designed to be used that way. Every tried to fire a M2 50 cal mounted on top of a moving M-113? That is not "JUST ABOUT", that IS IMPOSSIBLE, unless all you want is spray and pray firing.

My 2 cents.

- Burik

While I was at the NTC nobody used it remotely, and all personnel used the .50 cal by being exposed and using it manually.
Bob


That's not surpising. I would say most troops like to do it that way. How ever if IEDs along the side of the roadway was their primary threat, they would not have been outside and exposed like that. You have to consider the threat they were facing vis what they like to do along with what their commander has order them to do.

- Burik

I witnessed a live fire exercise that used overwatch from afar, and Strykers that were in the town as well. None used the RWS as it was designed. Just when does doctrine call for it to be used remotely?
Bob


Bob, you have to remember that the M151 RWS is a new system within the US Army. The units in Iraq are writing doctrine today. How will it be used tomorrow? The doctrine, that is being written today, is for the next operation and units that don't have any experience. As they develope their own experiences, those next units will adjust their SOPs based on their what they have learned the hard way. When the M113 fitted with an ACAV kit was developed for use in Vietnam, there was no doctrine. It was written on the fly as one operation after another was carried out by each unit that was equiped with those vehicles. Not every unit had the same doctrine.

Another 2 cents.

- Burik

None used the RWS as it was designed.
Bob


The times an end-user does use an item of equipment the way a designer layed it out is very rare.

Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile
#6: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Sabot, Location: Kentucky PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:40 am
    ----
M1 and M1A1 cupola (CWS) electrical rotation was far from slow. It was super fast. Too fast and very choppy to use. I believe it was replaced by the flex mount because all the computer gear in the TC's station took up space required for the traverse motor. No one used the powered traverse any way.
#7: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Joe_D, Location: Razorback Country PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:02 pm
    ----
That makes sense,
Always wondered if they just gave up on any ability to fire buttoned up with the A2, I do like the newer vision blocks. I thought the power traverse on the M1/M1A1 was pretty good. I used to try to break my crews habit of using the manual "Knuckle Buster" ring during gunnery. Forced them to practice using the Power Control Handle thumb switch. It took practice and patience to get good at it. Most never did use it. I prefered it because in manual the cupola free spun. Couldn't use it moving or on a cant. The Challenger 2 thumb toggles are kinda similar to get used to. US crews are used to handles. I do hate the elevation handle in the cupola, not very well designed and a pain to use along with the worthless mount. I'm sure Dontos can attest to how easy it broke or stripped out.
To Tumbleweed, Remember the cupola on the Sheriden, It was pretty fast in power mode. I can't quote how well it worked for real units but it was pretty good on mine at Irwin. Pretty rugged too. The manual mode was good too unless you had the ratchet type.

Joe D
#8: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Dontos, Location: Vine Grove, KY PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:04 pm
    ----
- Joe_D
That makes sense,
Always wondered if they just gave up on any ability to fire buttoned up with the A2, I do like the newer vision blocks. I thought the power traverse on the M1/M1A1 was pretty good. I used to try to break my crews habit of using the manual "Knuckle Buster" ring during gunnery. Forced them to practice using the Power Control Handle thumb switch. It took practice and patience to get good at it. Most never did use it. I prefered it because in manual the cupola free spun. Couldn't use it moving or on a cant. The Challenger 2 thumb toggles are kinda similar to get used to. US crews are used to handles. I do hate the elevation handle in the cupola, not very well designed and a pain to use along with the worthless mount. I'm sure Dontos can attest to how easy it broke or stripped out.
To Tumbleweed, Remember the cupola on the Sheriden, It was pretty fast in power mode. I can't quote how well it worked for real units but it was pretty good on mine at Irwin. Pretty rugged too. The manual mode was good too unless you had the ratchet type.
Joe D


Joe

That POS brass elevation gear!!!! I remember a certain TTXII that I was trying to engage w/ .50cal, in the middle of firing (buttoned up) the .50cal went skyward!! "SHOOT THE MOON!!!" was all I heard as I fired API to the Gods.... (vainly attempting to depress)

I love the 'A-Deuce' Flex!! It just 'feels' more 'in-control' as your blasting away. Although I acknowledge that there is no firing buttoned up.
#9: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Sabot, Location: Kentucky PostPosted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:27 pm
    ----
Yes, the brass gear almost always stripped when going cross country with the BFA mounted on the end of the .50 cal. POS
#10: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Chris_C, Location: WV, USA PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:55 am
    ----
- Roy_A_Lingle

In Vietnam, most tankers took the M2 50 cal out of the cupola because it was too slow.
Weren't there (perhaps more important) issues with lack of room as well?
#11: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Roy_A_Lingle, Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:15 pm
    ----
- Chris_C
- Roy_A_Lingle

In Vietnam, most tankers took the M2 50 cal out of the cupola because it was too slow.
Weren't there (perhaps more important) issues with lack of room as well?


Hi Chirs! Hi Folks!

Lack of room? Shocked

I think bring a weapon to bear on a target is about as important as you can get. As for room, I guess your talking about room for a larger ammo can? If so, moving the gun outside of the cupola was a plus, but not that important. In that case you are trading off unarmor protection for a larger can. Not sure that would be better. If you can not point a weapon at a target, it doesn't really matter how much ammo you have.

Where is Ken Estes?
He had lots of time in Marine M48s and I am sure he would have been able to explain why he and his tankers that that.

Note on Vietnam 11th ACR Sheridans and the powered TC cupola. Once the gunner's position inside the turret was done away with. The ready light box and the joystick was moved up into the TC's cupola, you could not turn it if even if it did work because of the cables. No need to turn the cupola if you can turn the main turret just as fast and bring all weapons to bear.

M551A2, if I remember right (maybe not ) but once the laser range finder was installed, you couldn't turn the cupola because of cables running between the back corner gun shield, out from under the gun mount, and through the cupola base into the turret.

Hey Tumble, do you remember how the cables for the laser range finder were routed into the turret? Shocked



My 2 cents,
Sgt, Scouts Out! Smile
#12: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: Chris_C, Location: WV, USA PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:26 pm
    ----
Thanks Roy. Hunnicutt mentioned that as one of the main reasons for moving the gun from under armor, but it's of course always good to hear first-hand why something was done as well. Smile
#13: Re: Stryker weapons system picture... Author: oldtop,  PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:53 pm
    ----
The M2 in the M48 cop was a pain, Ken Estes bragged that he managed fire a hole feed tray with out a jam, these feed trays held only 50 rounds and were a real pain to install because of the small space, you could always tell a commander who had been to range by the little cuts on his fingers from the edges of the trays and the cable w/handle use to charge the gun was always breaking.
....The mod to mount the M2 on the top of the cop was simple, you remove the sight and welded a track end connector just infront of the sight hole (the hole in the end connector was just the right size for a ground mount pintle), the back plate needed to be replaced with a spade grip type.
...During my first trip to Nam (65-67, 22 and 1/2 months) I did a mod on two M48s installing the cop mounted M2 in the co-axe MG postions, the TCs loved them for recon by fire.
-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Page 1 of 1