You seem to forget something lionnoisy
My purpose in here is not to CONVINCE you that my position is
right, it is to put down the case for my own argument, present
arguments and logical evidences for it, as well as demostrate why
your case is shallow and wrong.
So you can keep denying what I say to you or repeating your old
arguments over and over again but it does not matter if what you
say over and over again is simply wrong.
Did repeating your old "what if lone LCS meets threat it can't
fight" argument help in your LCS thread? It didn't one bit.
The USN never intended to operate the LCS in this way in the first
place.
The only thing it helped to do was to make you look stupid,
and that was at your doing.
You are so fixed on wanting to tear something down that you'll
try everything without even considering if the thing you are trying
will work.
Think about it, is it really me pwning you or is it you pwning
yourself with your own mistakes that you make over and over
again?
The FN2000 was a prime example, you tried to argue black to
white by saying the FCS and ability to fire ABM did not exist
because you can't find that information on their official webpage,
but the vast majority of literature out there supports this
capacity. Unfortunately you were so insistent on it simply because
you WANTED it to be NOT true rather then it actually being untrue
that you only make yourself look stupid.
You forgot that it's not my intention to convince you, it is to
show to others how stupid your way of thinking and doing things in
here really are, and to that end you've really helped me alot.
A lot of the literature on the
FN2000 being able to use an FCS has long been out there since
2001, if this wasn't true the official sources that
propagate this, like Janes, Guns.ru and the like will be liable to
LEGAL trouble if they keep up this myth. Unlike you they have a
VESTED interest in NOT reporting the wrong stuff.
Please don't try to argue black to white.
And I trained in urban warfare before, don't try to smoke
me.
Is the SSW only meant for urban warfare?
Shorter range does not mean you can use a weaker weapon. In fact
if anything it requires a STRONGER weapon as a margin of error is
now smaller. The harder hitting AK-47 is a more valued weapon in
short range ambushes then the M-16 in Iraq, and that's no surprise
why.
In fact the problem with PDW is that compared to full AR is
they have poorer barrier performance as well as stopping power.
This is CRUCIAL in MOUT as the short ranges mean that you jolly
well be able to shoot through cover as well as put your opponent
down in one short.
This is why PDW is called a Personal DEFENCE Weapon, and not an
ASSAULT rifle. It is something for the SSW user to DEFEND himself
with, as opposed to attacking.
Additionally, the SAF does not just fight in MOUT, a lot of the
training still involves operations in jungle as well.
So why did the SSW use a PDW?
Simple, it's a compromise. Instead of trying to figure out the
weight issue of a multi-shot grenade launcher with a full rifle
they are simply slapping a PDW as a lightweight backup just in case
something goes wrong and the user needs to defend himself... but
the PDW is
But make no mistake, it can't compare to a fully modular AR with
MPRS. The Israeli concept will simply be far more flexible then the
SSW.
This is why:
Firstly the MPRS setup is based on the outset to be MODULAR and
can be used with any modern firearm with a P-Rail and a GL. It can
be used with underslung grenade launcher, bullet trap rifle
grenades as well as other kinds of smart munitions. The SSW is just
stuck with it's format.
Additionally, the failure of an MPRS outfield will not disable
the entire system. Instead of sending back the entire weapon for
repair, the modular nature means that field replacement can simply
be done just like changing sights for the P-Rail.
Even better, being modular, this means that the users of the
MPRS system will be able to take advantages of advances in
technology, such as different caliber grenades without extensive
retooling, this modular advantage also means that the soldiers can
share parts and ammunition.
The SSW however, is unable to share parts or ammunition with
normal SAR-21 or Ultimax 100 users. This further complicates the
logistics line by needing to issue PDW ammo. In addition the
SSW cannot be used like a normal AR, and if it's out of
grenades it's a grossly overweight and oversized
PDW.
"A lot of the literature on
the FN2000 being able to use an FCS has long been out
there since
2001"
well said! well said ! Sg Ty.999999 articles on the net dunt
mean
too much.Like Hilter said"A liars told thousand times
become truths"
i just know how to copy and paste and quote.
The Jane's Infantry Weapons 2004/05 said about FN Herstal
2000
Modular Assualt Weapon.
Fire control sys requirement passed to NOPTEL
of Finland for development...
The production version with grenade FCS was due to be ready
within
So,u can see from 2001 to 2004/05,probably up
to 2006/2007 ,all the info on net about FN ABS
was not true.
Some times,when u read the stuff on net,either from Official
and
unofficial web site,i cant be sure they are describe the facts or just
the intended results.
@@@@@@@@@@
Who on earth dunt want to make another weapon like XM 29 ,
but much lighter and smaller ?If any one make it and dunt
put it
on web site,he must be very stupid.
Tell me what are the possible reasons they dunt shout out,
if thay can make another OICW,but much lighter,smaller and
possibly more
powerful!!
mmmmm
