Steyr

foxshooter243

I am really taken aback by this thread about the steyr and different weapons for the Irish army,truth be told they could arm the irish army with hurley sticks and it wouldnt make any difference whatsoever-as
an ex serving " irish " member of the sas said " the galway tinkers could beat the irish army "...........dont be gettin carried away lads youse have never fought in your lives................

Manic Moran

foxshooter243 wrote: »

dont be gettin carried away lads youse have never fought in your lives................

There are a few of us on here who might take exception to that statement.

NTM

CCCP^

I would recommend sticking with the AUG. Look at it like this - Ireland is now participating closely with more European countries in the EU Battlegroup. NATO has the standard 5.56mm round [not 100% of that!], and with most of those states also being EU member states, it makes sense for logistical purposes to stick with 5.56mm weapons.

Somebody mentioned that the Israeli Tavor could be fielded. I don't know about buying weapons from Israel, and having to rely upon them for stuff, especially since we would be helping to fund their war of terror against the Palestinans. Wow...whole different can of worms there..

Boston

foxshooter243 wrote: »

I am really taken aback by this thread about the steyr and different weapons for the Irish army,truth be told they could arm the irish army with hurley sticks and it wouldnt make any difference whatsoever-as
an ex serving " irish " member of the sas said " the galway tinkers could beat the irish army "...........dont be gettin carried away lads youse have never fought in your lives................

How is that the truth?

Hagar

Foxshooter243 infracted for trolling.

kowloon

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I've heard all the usual stories of the M-16A1 in Vietnam etc etc and how poorly it fared, what I've heard on the A2 has been mixed and either how it's an excellent weapon for troops who have been well trained or else it's still a substandard gun.


Any thoughts on the uses of theM16 welcome

I believe the M16 was issued as a new wonder-weapon and when it didn't live up to expectations it was stained with a bad rep for years, like the SA80 (:)).

The propellant used wasn't suitable for a piston-less design and fouled the rifle up, apparently the troops first issued with it were told it was self cleaning and weren't issued with a proper cleaning kit. The rifle pitted up easily aswell.
All this compounded by chewing up ammo at a fierce rate.

All of this was supposedly fixed, I have heard, however, that the C-mags are $hite and jam like the pi$$take 50rnd mags for the ruger 10/22.

DISCLAIMER:
This is coming from someone who hasn't fired an original and probably never will.

newby.204

heres something to throw into the thread for the sake of discussion, now i hate baldy but i appreciate new weapons and technology so watchin it is a trade off!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

I believe the M16 was issued as a new wonder-weapon and when it didn't live up to expectations it was stained with a bad rep for years, like the SA80 (:)).

The propellant used wasn't suitable for a piston-less design and fouled the rifle up, apparently the troops first issued with it were told it was self cleaning and weren't issued with a proper cleaning kit. The rifle pitted up easily aswell.
All this compounded by chewing up ammo at a fierce rate.

All of this was supposedly fixed, I have heard, however, that the C-mags are $hite and jam like the pi$$take 50rnd mags for the ruger 10/22.

DISCLAIMER:
This is coming from someone who hasn't fired an original and probably never will.

The initial problems with the M-16 were caused by the Army trying to do things on the cheap, a problem which still pervades to this day, unfortunately. (See UH-72 Lakota problems). The weapon was designed and worked very well indeed. The designer went to the Army, and said, "Listen, you need to use this kind of propellant, make the barrel with this lining" and so on. The Army said "Christ, that propellant's expensive. We'll just use the stuff we've been using all the time, I mean, it goes bang and hasn't been a problem for us yet. This chroming business is a bit dodgy as well, we'll just skip that too." Somehow, somewhere along the line, the Army also got the impression the rifle didn't need as much cleaning.

When they finally started using the right propellant, chroming the bore and chamber, and issueing cleaning kits, the rifle became a hell of a lot better, but the stigma kept with it for a while, much like the L85A2.

that the C-mags are $hite and jam

Depends on manufacturer. Some really were atrocious, and were even rejected by the Army after a while. Some are very good indeed. You can choose your poison: Aluminium, plastic or steel, all are available.

either how it's an excellent weapon for troops who have been well trained or else it's still a substandard gun

It's a perfectly serviceable rifle for a professional military. It's a little long in the tooth, and there are better rifles out there now, but the performance differentials are such that there's little reason to re-equip from M-16 to anything else.

NTM

cushtac

CCCP^ wrote: »

Somebody mentioned that the Israeli Tavor could be fielded. I don't know about buying weapons from Israel, and having to rely upon them for stuff, especially since we would be helping to fund their war of terror against the Palestinans. Wow...whole different can of worms there..

We've already bought quite a lot from Israel.

newby.204

Care to elaborate on that one cush??

cushtac

newby.204 wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that one cush??

The DF has bought helmets, ammunition and UAVs from Israeli companies.

newby.204

see now i should know that, but i didnt aw well now i do!!

OS119

foxshooter243 wrote: »

...........dont be gettin carried away lads youse have never fought in your lives................

not all contributors to this thread are members of Armies that are uninvolved in conflict.

before making such a blanket statement, it would have been wise to do a little reading....

CCCP^

cushtac wrote: »

We've already bought quite a lot from Israel.

Have we? What have we bought from these people? I thought in 2006 when Israel again messed around in Lebanon, we denied even the use of our territory to Israel when the US wanted to ship weapons to them. I can't find anything on the internet about arm's deals between our two countries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Have we? What have we bought from these people? I thought in 2006 when Israel again messed around in Lebanon, we denied even the use of our territory to Israel when the US wanted to ship weapons to them. I can't find anything on the internet about arm's deals between our two countries.

Well its happened, and tough sh*t Paddy (Christy Moore).

And I for one am happy to trade with Israel.

CCCP^

cushtac wrote: »

The DF has bought helmets, ammunition and UAVs from Israeli companies.

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

The new UAV was bought from an Israeli company.

Not sure about the new helmet, but the 'old' kevlar helmet is Israeli made, as is a lot of other stuff we use.

CCCP^

Wow, it's actually true - http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/83667

Although Indymedia is at best disputable, the article comes from a newspaper article - the Indo.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Wow, it's actually true - http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/83667

Although Indymedia is at best disputable, the article comes from a newspaper article - the Indo.

Eretz Israel.

Shalom.

cushtac

CCCP^ wrote: »

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

The helmets are made by Rabintex, the same crowd that made the old Izzie: http://www.rabintex.com/pdf/ireland.pdf

The UAVs are coming from Aeroanutics Defense Systems: http://www.aeronautics-sys.com/

I don't know which company sold the DF the ammo, but they definitely bought some off an Israeli company in the past.

Manic Moran

I'll give this to the Irish procurement system: They don't play favourites when they buy, and on the rare occasions they spend cash, they spend it on the best thing going. The Irish government's primary responsibility is to its people and its soldiers, not the affairs of other countries. Unless you wish to argue that Irish soldiers should not be equipped to the highest standards.

NTM

Flying

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll give this to the Irish procurement system: They don't play favourites when they buy, and on the rare occasions they spend cash, they spend it on the best thing going. The Irish government's primary responsibility is to its people and its soldiers, not the affairs of other countries. Unless you wish to argue that Irish soldiers should not be equipped to the highest standards.

NTM

Well I agree in part the new body armour system they got they f*cked up big time, they apparently ordered to many (100's) midget sizes of body armour they would'nt fit a smurf and can't get there money back.

And this body armour is tailored to the induvidual.

The Steyr and USP were good buys, not the Mowag though.

Manic Moran

What's wrong with the Mowag?

NTM

-aurora

from what ive heard the mowags are great

arybvtcw0eolkf

-aurora wrote: »

from what ive heard the mowags are great

You heard that from a minority of one.

I'll say what anyone who's been to Lebanon (pre this last war) ...''they should'a went with the SISU''.

Manic Moran

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

Mechanically they've been a pain in the ass here.

Flying

Remember the craic in Eritrea with them.

They look nice but I would go with the SISU anyday

arybvtcw0eolkf

Flying wrote: »

Remember the craic in Eritrea with them.

They look nice but I would go with the SISU anyday

You, me and everyone else except the guy who decided the buy the damn things.

Grim.

Mairt wrote: »

You, me and everyone else except the guy who decided the buy the damn things.

they just go with the cheapest option or what?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Grim. wrote: »

they just go with the cheapest option or what?

Haven't a clue.

Manic Moran

What were the mechanical issues? Drivetrain, power plant, or suspension? If the latter, do you think it's because they went with the super-duper hydraulic system instead of the more standard most people bought? Few nations are reporting problems with Piranhas, most are buying new ones to replace old, for example Canada.

NTM

Irish_Army01

From what I've been told, they spent more time with the fitters in Liberia than out on patrol.

balrog

the reason the mowags were off the road most of the time. we were doing over twice the reccommend miles between. not enough spare vehciles to allow a proper service and time for parts to be flown in.

Manic Moran

That could be a problem. We did the same thing to our tanks, they were being run into the ground. "We don't have time to put them down for maintenance, we need them outside the wire." Within two months the 14-tank company was down to two functional tanks.

When I got attached to the Stryker unit in Mosul, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. They were absolutely religious about keeping to the services schedule. If you had to go out the wire, you did it with one less vehicle. As a result, they had a readiness rate of some 98%.

NTM

Flying

Manic Moran wrote: »

That could be a problem. We did the same thing to our tanks, they were being run into the ground. "We don't have time to put them down for maintenance, we need them outside the wire." Within two months the 14-tank company was down to two functional tanks.

When I got attached to the Stryker unit in Mosul, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. They were absolutely religious about keeping to the services schedule. If you had to go out the wire, you did it with one less vehicle. As a result, they had a readiness rate of some 98%.

NTM

That does'nt sound healthy at all

Irish_Army01

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 29, 2008

BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.

The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell. But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.

"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon. "It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."

The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.

According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.

Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.

Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower. But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.

That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat. "You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."

SEE LINK;
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...160981,00.html

the locust

Introducing a new rifle is a mammoth task and has a big effect on the forces' effectiveness even if the rifle was state of the art. I don't think there is a need for any m4's or HK rifles, stick with the Aug bullpup rifle it has no major disadvantages like the SA80 had, next generation AUG would be ideal for the defense forces.
5.56mm gets the job done for whats needed.

newby.204

nice but way too many bits and bobs to be trustin ptes to clean and maintain, price emans they will never ever go with that as standard issue!!

Manic Moran

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

You'll note that only refers to the troublesome 105mm gun-armed-variant, whose weapon system has been causing issues for years. (Apparently they decided to mount a gravity-fed autoloader upside-down to get it to fit in a C-130, and things went downhill from there). I wasn't too impressed with the thing just from sitting in the simulator either. Ergonomics at the gunner's station (which obviously is radically different from the other vehicles in the series) suck.

The other nine variants, particularly the APC and medevac versions, are getting rave reviews from the troops. Indeed, I think part of the problem is that the MGS tankers are comparing their vehicles to the other nine. Look at the problems complaining about heat, for example. "Oh my, the temperatures in Iraq in a closed vehicle (There are fewer hatches on MGS than any other variant) are such that we need to wear a cooling vest". Gee. Why are the TIE-Fighter Vests (As we call them), so well known amongst US tankers, do you think? Perhaps because no vehicle other than the Strykers and later HMMWVs and trucks have air conditioning? OK. so the computers need a thermal management system, this was an oversight, but it's easily corrected, just like the other minor flaws which Stryker displayed since its introduction, such as not having a colour monitor for the gunsight. You'll note that none of the complaints are about the reliability of the vehicle chassis itself. And even at that, the lads being supported seem to appreciate it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1201373855

NTM

Captain Chaos

newby.204 wrote: »

nice but way too many bits and bobs to be trustin ptes to clean and maintain, price emans they will never ever go with that as standard issue!!

There was only one thing extra on that A3, the light on the fore grip. The sight was different from the standard one. Nothing extra to clean. This is the standard A3. I think there are already a few A3s with the ARW.

Oilrig

Mairt,

"And I for one am happy to trade with Israel."

"Eretz Israel" and all that.

Care to explain your stance given that many of your (and mine) colleagues have been killed by these guys?

I was standing next to a guy at a CP who took a .5 in the chest courtesy of these guys. It could have been me. They said it was a round shot to clean the barrel, ie not aimed, Bull****.

When you've got to pick up the pieces you remember these things...

Could you look his family in the eye and say that?

Go talk to Steve Griffins family...

Review your position mate... you've been in long enough to remember what it was like.

newby.204

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There was only one thing extra on that A3, the light on the fore grip. The sight was different from the standard one. Nothing extra to clean. This is the standard A3. I think there are already a few A3s with the ARW.

not really, quick bolt release, different fire selction switch, picatinny means extra sights!!! means extra cost means they wont buy it!!!!!

Captain Chaos

Well the Ranger lads have them.

newby.204

if you issue it to regs whats the point in them having it!! lol:D

Pathfinder

return guide wrote: »

Should the DF be looking at changing the standard rifle now that some of them are 20 years old and if so what should they be looking at ?
G 36, Hk 416/7, M4, Tavor

Its a superb weapon, even if not as robust as the various H & Ks.

Its designed to be fired from a vehicle, some army units in the north also used them.

uptherebels

is there a designated marksman role in the pdf?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Oilrig wrote: »

Mairt,

"And I for one am happy to trade with Israel."

"Eretz Israel" and all that.

Care to explain your stance given that many of your (and mine) colleagues have been killed by these guys?

I was standing next to a guy at a CP who took a .5 in the chest courtesy of these guys. It could have been me. They said it was a round shot to clean the barrel, ie not aimed, Bull****.

When you've got to pick up the pieces you remember these things...

Could you look his family in the eye and say that?

Go talk to Steve Griffins family...

Review your position mate... you've been in long enough to remember what it was like.

You were with the 64th Bn?.

Tenger

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 29, 2008
BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.
The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof.

As this says it the MGS 'version' of the Stryker thats is getting bad press. Anything I have read in the last two years is giving the Stryker great reviews. To quote the above "the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle"


Back to the main topic. I though that the ARW used the HK G36? Which as a civilian did impress me.

astraboy

From personal(reserves) experience the Styer is a great weapon. I lost my cherry on the old FN and the Styer is a far easier weapon to carry and use. Light compared to the FN and the x1.5 scope is handy for range practice. Over my various camps and ARP's I have probably shot over 900 rounds from the styer and have never had a jam. I can't fault it. I also like the bullpup design for some reason.