Did the Army do not enough when adopting CROWS?

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:14:15 -0400

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?

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Sep 22 at 2020 2:17 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:17:01 -0400

Obviously the higher ups like this system CW3 Kevin Storm it reminds me of the Hammerhead.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2020 3:50 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Sep 2020 15:50:53 -0400

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

Response by SPC Steven Depuy made Sep 24 at 2020 3:30 PM

SPC Steven Depuy — Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:30:12 -0400

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?