3
3
0
I like the Common Remote Operated Weapons System (CROWS), but having seen what other platforms are out there with better capabilities did we go far enough? Should these systems have fire and forget missiles for anti armor/anti helicopter capabilities?
Posted in these groups: 
Armor
DefenseConvoy Commander
0352: Anti-tank MissilemanCROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapons System)
Armor DefenseConvoy Commander 0352: Anti-tank MissilemanCROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapons System)
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
The CROWS were originally meant for protecting the gunner in a HUMVEE from small arms and IED. Most Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan were not packing AT or ADA, because it wasn’t the primary threat. Plus those missiles and rockets add a lot of weight to an already heavy armored platform
(2)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Another reason the Humvee needed to go away. In 2005 we had some guys come to our FOB and ask us about having a remote gunning system. I said it already exists, and has since the 1940's. They looked at me like I was crazy, the Germans had a periscope for their MG42, why not take something like that stabilize it and use it in its place. They were dumb struck. I think the concept that someone knew of something in the field, that could do the job day or night, hot or cold didn't ever occur to them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I am older than dirt, and the weapons systems of my day are lawn ornaments at your local VFW now, but whats the sense of placing ADA and AT rockets on a platform that can be taken out by machine gun fire?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google