Korean Fat Lads Been Watching Aliens

#1
I don't know if here, the Naffi or Military modelling is the best place for this thread, buts here's Kims answer to The Donalds Space Force from the Washington Post MSN feed - in the interest of accuracy that's not what the WP is saying.

1534574088220.png


Though as opposed to the good old M41A Pulse rifle with its Thompson/Spas base it looks like they're using an AK with an unusual bolt action overmounted bullpup grenade launcher??
You have to admire the North Koreans for their foresight and engineering prowess.
 
#4
I don't know if here, the Naffi or Military modelling is the best place for this thread, buts here's Kims answer to The Donalds Space Force from the Washington Post MSN feed - in the interest of accuracy that's not what the WP is saying.

View attachment 346757

Though as opposed to the good old M41A Pulse rifle with its Thompson/Spas base it looks like they're using an AK with an unusual bolt action overmounted bullpup grenade launcher??
You have to admire the North Koreans for their foresight and engineering prowess.
North Korean "OICW" Combined Assault Rifle and Automatic Grenade Launcher Revealed During Day of the Sun Parade - The Firearm Blog
North Korean Assault Rifle with Integrated Grenade Launcher | Military-Today.com
North Korean OICW, based on the S Korean K11 which is reportedly derived from the US OICW. It’s a 20mm grenade launcher on top of a Type 88 (AK74) Rifle.

It appears to be very big and bulky:
 
#5
#6
It does rather look the cat's arse though, eh?
 
#7
North Korean "OICW" Combined Assault Rifle and Automatic Grenade Launcher Revealed During Day of the Sun Parade - The Firearm Blog
North Korean Assault Rifle with Integrated Grenade Launcher | Military-Today.com
North Korean OICW, based on the S Korean K11 which is reportedly derived from the US OICW. It’s a 20mm grenade launcher on top of a Type 88 (AK74) Rifle.

It appears to be very big and bulky:
The thing that always struck me about the NK weapon, was the size and shape of the optics. It would indicate that while the NK army may be backwards technologically it is trying to keep up. It looks like they almost took the trials Proof of concept design and ran it out as a production equipment without refining it.
 
#8
The thing that always struck me about the NK weapon, was the size and shape of the optics. It would indicate that while the NK army may be backwards technologically it is trying to keep up. It looks like they almost took the trials Proof of concept design and ran it out as a production equipment without refining it.
I think it’s probably more a case of ‘reverse engineering’ with what they have from what they ‘stole’ from the K11.

Get a copy of the plans and cobble together what sights they have/can make and stick it on a T-88 as opposed to a M16/4/AR15 derivative.

To me it seems far too big and bulky to be a useful infantryman’s (or SF even) primary weapon, but then I’m clearly not an infantryman.
 
#9
North Korean "OICW" Combined Assault Rifle and Automatic Grenade Launcher Revealed During Day of the Sun Parade - The Firearm Blog
North Korean Assault Rifle with Integrated Grenade Launcher | Military-Today.com
North Korean OICW, based on the S Korean K11 which is reportedly derived from the US OICW. It’s a 20mm grenade launcher on top of a Type 88 (AK74) Rifle.

It appears to be very big and bulky:
Thanks much better pics on those links, though I cant see how you'd actually fire the launcher, let alone fire the thing comfortably, especially when your 5ft tall and malnourished?

Though they do have some supposed previous for less than genuine weapons on these parades, though Snopes has it as an unproven fact.
 
#10
Thanks much better pics on those links, though I cant see how you'd actually fire the launcher, let alone fire the thing comfortably, especially when your 5ft tall and malnourished?
They’re reportedly 3-8cm shorter than S Koreans who are supposedly 1.73M. There’s videos of the K11 firing which show the principle of the bolt action grenade launcher. The bolt’s not exactly in a convenient place but substitute the AR15 derivative for the AK74 derivative and it gives an idea. One of the major differencs would be where their change lever is as the K11 seems to show a fourth position on the change lever:
Though they do have some supposed previous for less than genuine weapons on these parades, though Snopes has it as an unproven fact.
They do, but it seems feasible. Get the plans for a K11 and substitute AR derivative for AK derivative.
 
#12
The thing that always struck me about the NK weapon, was the size and shape of the optics. It would indicate that while the NK army may be backwards technologically it is trying to keep up. It looks like they almost took the trials Proof of concept design and ran it out as a production equipment without refining it.
There may be a lot less to the sight than appears at first glance. The South Korean K11, which the North Korean example was clearly modelled on, uses "smart" grenades to provide an air burst capability. The grenades are programmed by the sight which therefore has to include a lot of electronics.

It is quite possible that the North Korean grenades are simply ordinary 20mm (or 23mm) impact fused shells with a reduced propelling charge. The sight might then just do basic ballistic drop compensation, with separate sights for rifle and grenade launcher.

General opinion seems to be that that whatever advantages the American OICW (which started off this trend) provided simply weren't worth the weight, complexity, and cost, all of which contributed to its demise. The South African Neopup (stand alone semi-auto 20mm grenade launcher) went with the "dumb" impact fused grenade and appears to have most of the advantages of the "smart" systems while avoiding the complexity and cost.

"Smart" grenades of this size range are apparently eye-wateringly expensive and put less "bang" on the target because so much of the grenade is taken up by the smart fuse. "Dumb" grenades on the other hand can be simply standard shells with cut down cartridge cases, and so relatively cheap and can put more bang on the target.

Lots of countries have been experimenting with integrating some sort of grenade launcher into every rifle as standard instead of making it an add-on carried only by a few soldiers. However, many people are skeptical about the usefulness of the concept.

Personally, I suspect that the North Korean effort is simply to show that they've been keeping up with the neighbours (including the Chinese). Without solid proof, which would be hard to come by, I would also be more inclined to suspect that it uses "dumb" grenades rather than "smart" ones.
 
#14
General opinion seems to be that that whatever advantages the American OICW (which started off this trend) provided simply weren't worth the weight, complexity, and cost, all of which contributed to its demise. The South African Neopup (stand alone semi-auto 20mm grenade launcher) went with the "dumb" impact fused grenade and appears to have most of the advantages of the "smart" systems while avoiding the complexity and cost.

"Smart" grenades of this size range are apparently eye-wateringly expensive and put less "bang" on the target because so much of the grenade is taken up by the smart fuse. "Dumb" grenades on the other hand can be simply standard shells with cut down cartridge cases, and so relatively cheap and can put more bang on the target.
The XM25 CDTE system seemed to have quite a good press however, and reports (as subject as they may be) were extremely positive at how quickly they ended fire fights.
 
#15
The XM25 CDTE system seemed to have quite a good press however, and reports (as subject as they may be) were extremely positive at how quickly they ended fire fights.
That project has apparently been shelved!
 
#16
That project has apparently been shelved!
It died a few years ago, but the funding was only officially cut recently. It seems from the little that's floating about that it was indeed a cost issue. Of course Wars have always been expensive, and the cost of killing someone better is often vastly disproportionate (compare a missile to a Pick up or two, or even a tank). It's more about effectiveness. If you're converting 20 minute fire frights to ones that are finished within under five minutes, is this not a significant advantage?
 
#17
The XM25 CDTE system seemed to have quite a good press however, and reports (as subject as they may be) were extremely positive at how quickly they ended fire fights.
Only a handful were ever made, and not all of the reports were enthusiastic about it. For example.
Army Kills Contract for Shoulder-Fired Airburst Weapon
They had a double feed, the primer ignited, and a soldier was injured.
Problems with the program started Feb. 2, 2013, when the XM25 malfunctioned during its second round of operational testing in Afghanistan, inflicting minor injuries on a soldier.

The Army halted the operational testing when the XM25 experienced a double feed and an unintentional primer ignition of one of the 25mm high-explosive rounds, Army officials said at the time.
This caused them to pull the weapon from troop trials.

Next when they tried to get US troops to use it on another operation, the troops rejected it because it was too heavy and cumbersome and the ammunition was too heavy. The weight would have resulted in other items of kit which were considered to be more useful having to be sacrificed.
In March 2013, elements of the 75th Ranger Regiment refused to take the XM25 with them for a raid on a fortified enemy compound in Afghanistan, sources familiar with the incident said.

After an initial assessment, Ranger units found the 14-pound XM25 too heavy and cumbersome for the battlefield. They were also concerned that the limited basic load of 25mm rounds was not enough to justify taking an M4A1 carbine out of the mission, sources said.
The question wasn't whether it went "bang" so much as whether the results were really worth the weight, complexity, and cost. There's only so much kit you can carry and the question isn't "is 'x' useful?" The question is "is there something else I'm willing to give up in order to be able to take 'x' along with me instead?"

It was occasionally useful, but it was a heavy weight which had to be carried about all the time, sacrificing a rifle in the process. Or to put it another way, it had its occasional uses now and again, but it wasn't a game changer.
The Past is Another Country: Objective Family of Weapons | WeaponsMan
The test was inconclusive: the troops carrying it liked it well enough, but it didn’t deliver the combat advantages its inventors imagined, and seems to have been used only occasionally, for suppressive fire. The XM25, then, is looking like a dead end at this writing.
I have read elsewhere that there is a widespread opinion in weapons development circles in a number of countries that what is really needed (if anything) is an improved 40mm grenade and sight. This could be done at lower cost and integrated into existing practices much more easily and quickly.

I have also seen an opinion that there may indeed be a role for a direct fire 20mm infantry gun firing "dumb" grenades, but only in specialist applications such as vehicle check points where it is taken along as additional equipment rather than made a part of the standard equipment which is carried all the time. I believe the South African Neopup is targeted at this market.
 
#19
Only a handful were ever made, and not all of the reports were enthusiastic about it. For example.
Army Kills Contract for Shoulder-Fired Airburst Weapon
They had a double feed, the primer ignited, and a soldier was injured.

This caused them to pull the weapon from troop trials.

Next when they tried to get US troops to use it on another operation, the troops rejected it because it was too heavy and cumbersome and the ammunition was too heavy. The weight would have resulted in other items of kit which were considered to be more useful having to be sacrificed.


The question wasn't whether it went "bang" so much as whether the results were really worth the weight, complexity, and cost. There's only so much kit you can carry and the question isn't "is 'x' useful?" The question is "is there something else I'm willing to give up in order to be able to take 'x' along with me instead?"

It was occasionally useful, but it was a heavy weight which had to be carried about all the time, sacrificing a rifle in the process. Or to put it another way, it had its occasional uses now and again, but it wasn't a game changer.
The Past is Another Country: Objective Family of Weapons | WeaponsMan
Thanks for that.
I hadn't seen feed back about the Rangers, who apparently thought it was crap, yet the airborne troops who had it in AFG thought it was brilliant, and came to absolutely opposite conclusions about it. With troops liking it so much they were reportedly, voluntarily carrying it as their primary weapon.
My immediate thought was it down to the difference in style of operations the two sides were involved in?
 
#20
Thanks for that.
I hadn't seen feed back about the Rangers, who apparently thought it was crap, yet the airborne troops who had it in AFG thought it was brilliant, and came to absolutely opposite conclusions about it. With troops liking it so much they were reportedly, voluntarily carrying it as their primary weapon.
My immediate thought was it down to the difference in style of operations the two sides were involved in?
I suspect it largely comes down to a combination of factors. Some of the positive reports will simply be a result of that cool new stuff will often be popular when the novelty has not worn off yet.

Another can simply be that nobody has said the idea has no use whatsoever, just that it isn't worth the effort of lugging it around all the time for the few times that it is useful.

If you are focused on reporting on "successes" for something you can usually find at least some success stories. However, it all needs to be put into the overall context of whether it is useful enough to replace other kit that you are currently using. And that is the key point here. This isn't a video game where you can carry an unlimited amount of kit and pull it out of thin air as you need it. Standard infantry kit all has to be carried by someone and that someone will have to give up something else to accommodate it and that something else would then no longer be available. So what are you willing to give up in order to have it?

What I have read about the XM25 and other similar kit suggests that there may be a genuine use for it in certain specialist applications, but that it isn't a game changer and it isn't useful enough to make it worth issuing to all infantry to be used all the time.

There seems to be a number of comparable systems around in various countries, but none seem to have really taken off as a major success. I suspect there is a reason for that.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top