Technical Intelligence Bulletins Nov

How does an Afghan child tell the difference between a cluster bomb and a humanitarian food pack? It's not always easy, since both are bright yellow, about the same size and labeled in a language -- English -- that few Afghans understand. Fears that children will confuse the two are among the reasons critics are urging the United States and Britain to stop using cluster bombs in their air attacks against Afghanistan. "We have a two-fold concern," says Joost Hilertmann, an arms expert with Human Rights Watch in Washington, D.C. "One, the cluster bomb is a wide-area weapon that if used near population centers increases the likelihood of civilian death and injury if not used carefully. "And second, it has a very high failure rate, so we have a real problem with post-conflict cleanup and hazards. In the 10 years since the Gulf War, we've had 2,500 people killed or injured in Iraq and since 1999, we've had 400 casualties in Yugoslavia."

Human Rights Watch is the latest organization to call for a global moratorium on cluster bombs, which consist of hundreds of small "bomblets" that scatter over a large area when the main bomb is dropped. Other critics include Amnesty International, the Red Cross and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, whose namesake led the campaign to ban a similarly destructive weapon, the land mine. The Pentagon announced last week that it will change the color of air-dropped food parcels so they won't be mistaken for unexploded cluster bombs. Meanwhile, a flying radio transmitter has been broadcasting warnings in native languages telling Afghans how to distinguish between the parcels and the bombs.

So far, neither the United States nor Britain has been moved by pleas to stop dropping the bombs themselves. "Unless and until there is a better means of dealing with the threat posed by armored vehicles, the U.K. and the U.S. will continue to use them," British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said. "They are not in any way compatible with land mines. They are not defined as land mines in any international agreement and indeed their use is wholly lawful." Unlike land mines, which are meant to be buried in the earth as a long-term deterrent, cluster bombs are supposed to explode on impact. However, some of the bomblets fail to detonate because of manufacturing defects, while others land on such soft surfaces -- sand, mud or snow -- that they simply burrow into the ground.

"The unexploded bomblets effectively turn into land mines, ready to detonate on contact, causing death and injury to civilians and ground forces," said Richard Lloyd, director of Landmine Action, a coalition of British agencies and charities. "As many are bright yellow and the size of a drink can, they are particularly attractive to children," he said. According to the United Nations, nine people were killed last month when U.S. cluster bombs fell on a village near a Taliban training camp in western Afghanistan. Eight died instantly and the ninth was blown apart after picking up an unexploded bomblet. Vast areas of Afghanistan already are littered with more than 600,000 land mines laid by the Soviets during 10 years of occupation. In a sad but apt comment, the Afghan capital of Kabul was once described as looking like a city of "human flamingos" because as many as one in every four residents had lost a leg from stepping on a land mine.

Now, experts say, thousands of cluster bombs will aggravate the problems in rebuilding the shattered economy of Afghanistan, whose citizens already are among the poorest in the world. "Unexploded cluster bombs hinder development as people are unable to return to their homes and land, attend school or go to work," Landmine Action said in a statement. "The worst affected areas are often the poorest, and the need for food can override the apparent danger, with people risking life and limb to use their land," the statement said. In Laos, where millions of cluster bombs were dropped during the Vietnam War, bomblets and other unexploded weapons continue to claim victims decades later. In 1995, 14 people were killed and 42 injured, many of them children in farming villages.

One of the cheapest weapons that can be delivered by air, cluster bombs were also used extensively during the Gulf and Kosovo wars. U.S. Air Force engineers in Kuwait recently found hundreds of bomblets buried up to 6 feet deep; to remove and destroy them, it was necessary to first erect a 10-foot-high barrier around the site. The most commonly quoted failure rate for cluster bombs is 5 percent. However, a U.N. mine-clearing operation in Kosovo estimated that 11 to 12 percent of the bombs dropped there by British jets failed to detonate. And the British government itself acknowledged that nearly 10 percent of the bombs used during the 1982 Falkands conflict did not explode and had to be cleared later.

While deploring cluster bombs as unreliable and dangerous to civilians, one military expert offers this thought: Recent wars suggest that the United States and its allies might actually be using more restraint in aerial attacks than critics claim. "During the 43-day Gulf War, where bombing was 20 to 100 times more intense than we've seen in Afghanistan, there were some 350 documented incidents of civilian damage," writes William Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst who has studied both the Gulf and Kosovo wars.

"The Iraqi government itself claimed that about 3,200 civilians were killed and 6,000 were wounded, estimates that I found credible. . . . But for a war of such intensity in which just 9 percent of the firepower came from so-called 'smart' weapons with precision guidance systems, the number of civilian deaths was historically low," he wrote. Civilian casualties were even lower in the 78-day Kosovo War, Arkin says, despite some "clearly avoidable errors" such as the bombing of a nonmilitary convoy.

Following the end of the First World War, the US Army's Ordnance Department, at the urging of Peyton C March and John J Pershing during their back-to-back tenures as Chief of Staff, began a long-term study into the development of a semi-automatic combat rifle to replace the M1903. By the later 1920's, the Ordnance Department had narrowed its considerations to designs presented by Garand and Pedersen. Pedersen advocated a .276 caliber round in place of the .30 caliber round used in the M1903 -- and, apparently, sold the Ordnance Department on this round on the grounds that it was lighter, less expensive to produce, and required less metal. Thus, during a confused period where various panels -- given the graphic titles of "the Pig Board" and "the Goat Board" from the targets for their experiments -- debated the issue and concluded unequivocably that the .276 round was superior to the .30 round. Garand's design was selected for development but he was instructed to rework it to take the smaller round.

This issue landed in 1931 on the desk of Douglas MacArthur, who battled the Ordnance Department for some time before prevailing (the old Army bureaus were VERY powerful bureaucratic agencies!). MacArthur, a more experienced combat infantryman than any other Chief of Staff for decades on either side of his term, felt that the .276 round was simply too light, regardless of however many pigs and goats it could do in -- and he was also aware that Congress would not fund massive purchases of the new round so long as the Army had a huge stockpile of .30 rounds warehoused from the First War.

Was this a wise decision? The US Army eventually did select a lighter round in the 5.56mm (.223) round used in the M16 after debating whether to go to a smaller round with the M14. Would the .276 round have been a better infantry round than the .30? Its lighter weight, of course, would have allowed the infantryman a larger basic load, for instance. Thoughts, anyone? LTC Marc Small OrdC

It is a tradeoff, after all. A similar thing happened with the switch from 45ACP to 9MM. With the switch to a genderless military, the easier to manage 9MM has real advantages, although the 45 is a much better stopper. A lot of this carries over into the rifle caliber realm of course. Any trooper can carry a lot more 5.56 bangs than 7.62 ones and for some situations that is enough of an advantage. And on it goes...Jim Davies

But, in the mid-60's it was a piece of crap that needed at least another 10 years of testing and research before issuing ... and if that had happened, I'll bet it would not have been that groundhog killer round, the 5.56mm ..... probably would have been at least a 6mm. Now, we are still stuck with the system, but at least it works .. mostly. But there was one hell of a price to pay for twisting it until it did work ...

One of the good things that came out of that is Congress forced each of the services to set up an operational test command which put equipment being developed in the hands of user troops, not experts, in close to realistic tests. The organizations have changed over the years but still exist. When I worked in one, I was absolutely shocked at the shit contractors were willing to sell the Government. I worked on testing the MICV, which became the Bradley, and early on it was a real piece of garbage. The test results forced the vendor to redesign the thing and eventually something better emerged. I asked some guys who were in Desert Storm what they thought of it, and they thought it was pretty good. David Chananie

Extremely relaiable and rugged. Weight assisted ability to "hold" to a target. Top mounted magazine assited a rather weak (originally) magazine spring but some say hinded aimed or even snap shooting. Test of reliability was to submerge it in mud for a time (until thoroughly innudated), shake twice, cock insert magazine and fire the complete magazine without stoppage, replace it and fire again. Supposidly had a "quick release" barrel for ease of replacement in case of overheating but this was a manufacturing feature not an operational one (as no second barrels were ever made).

The Austen was a "bowlderised" weapon using the telescoping return spring of the MP38/40 with the overall design of the Sten. More expensive to make and less reliable (suffered the same feed problems as the Sten Mk II on which it was based and not cured until a later magazine design was adopted but by then it was too late for the Austen and Oz did not need two weapons). Regarded as "politically" more acceptable to the Army establishment because of its British origin than the Owen which required real political intervention to have it made.

The Owen was replaced in the late 1950's by the SMG F1 (an "updated Owen") but the time for a pistol calibre SMG was passing. Oddly the Owen was taken to Vietnam by the first Australian contingents but not the F1. (having fired all three I preferred the Owen - more accurate and easier to hold to the target from all positions once practiced). Daniel Ross Daniel.Ross@Adelaide.On.Net

WW I Mortars Stephen came across this photo and has a good question-what were the largest mortars in WWII? I know the US used a 60 and a 81 mm and tested the Little David, which, IIRC, was 914 mm -Drew I was about to raise a variant of the same question myself. The Soviet 120mm mortar, a predecessor of the piece in the picture on that site, was of course widely used during the war-- the Germans and the Romanians both produced their own copies (as well as incorporating captured examples into their own equipment), and the Finns made fairly widespread use of captured Soviet 120mm mortars as well. However, last night I was watching some footage of Soviet forces fighting their way into Berlin, and there was a clip showing some mortars (or more or less conventional design, except that they had a pair of wheels attached to the baseplate for mobility) that appeared to be of an even heavier calibre than 120mm. Do I recall that the Soviets had a rarely-encountered 160mm mortar, or something similar? And didn't the US experiment with a 155mm mortar during the war?

The US and UK used a 4.2-inch (107mm) in WWII and so did the Soviets. The Soviet and Germans used a 120mm (the latter being a copy of the Soviet). The Soviets also had a 160mm mortar, but this was actually an artillery piece and not an infantry weapon. The Germans had a couple of 10cm smoke mortars (actually 105mm) of unusual design and the Japanese had a 90mm alongside their 81mm. The largest infantry-type mortar of conventional Brandt design though was the Japanese 150mm. Gordon R.

The biggest US mortar to see operational use was the 155mm T25. Also a 105mm was used. The Japanese had a 150mm. IIRC the biggest British was a 4.2in (smoothbore, not rifled like the more familiar US four-deuce). The Germans copied the Russian 120mm; I don't recall if they had a bigger one. The Russian 160mm was designated M1943, but I don't know if it saw service during the war. Little David still exists at Aberdeen, BTW.

I thought it rather remarkable how much this weapon resembles (at least at a glance) the Soviet AGS-17 Grenade Launcher first fielded in Afghanistan. That too was initially described as a man-portable, crew-served weapon but if you look at the photos coming out of Afghanistan today what you see is pedestal mounted AGS-17s on GAZ trucks. Never fired one but I know some people who have and they describe it as a real adventure. When the AGS-17 appeared in Afghanistan in 1982 the FSTC was offering $100,000 for a captured weapon. It (the 25mm) probably would be effective as a convoy defense weapon much as the way the Army used 6 Bys with Quad 50s and Dusters in Vietnam and as a perimeter defense weapon. For Grunts useless. Jim Graves-

> Had a prototype "automatic" grenade launcher in VN in 1967. It was strap mounted ON the .50 mg and fired the standard blooper round. It was great for suppressing fire along a woodline or into the woods. It was hand-cranked, you want a higher rate of fire? Crank faster. <G. Looked like it was made by Mattel. I think this new 25 mm will be mainly vehicle mounted and will not be the squad assualt weapon. Andy

I never saw either the double-barrell or the automatic but have seen photos of both weapons when they were field tested by SOG in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Either one seemed a great idea to me, particularly the double barrel, which I was told did not significantly change the handling characteristics of the M79. The Auto appeared to be a bit bulky in photos and guys who used it did not like it as much as the double barrel. Neither weapon ever made it to general issue, the ones in Nam were prototypes used for test purposes. I did encounter the M79 again, in Angola in 1980. The South African army had bought a ship load of the things from Taiwan (I would bet our surplus from Vietnam) and they issued one per 3-man fire team in the Bushman and Caprevi Battalions I traveled with in Angola. They were terrifically impressed with the M79. SA Army by the way was quite impressive what with the Gailil and FN rifles, FN-MAG machine gun, French Alouette and Puma helicopters, and awesome artillery. The SA Army manufactured their own big tubes and ammunition and had some guns that seriously out-ranged the Soviet stuff. They also had several excellent troop carrying vehicles which had been designed for a mine environment. They also had a pretty solid Air Force with French fighters, the C-160 transport for heavy lifting and of all things WWII surplus DC-3s (perhaps the best plane ever built) for paratroop operations. Jim Graves

The International Intelligence History Association has published the Winter 2001 issue of the Journal of Intelligence History. It features contributions by THOMAS BOGHARDT on "A German Spy? New Evidence on Baron Louis von Horst," ALESSANDRO MASSIGNANI on "The Regi Carabinieri: Counterintelligence in the Great War," JUERGEN SCHMIDT on "'Political Police" and German Occupational Forces in Romania, Fall 1918," GERHARD KREBS on "Signal Intelligence in the Pacific War," SIGURD HESS on "The British Baltic Fishery Protection Service (BBFPS) and the > Clandestine Operations of Hans Helmut Klose 1949-1956," and RICHARD CUMMINGS on "The Intelligence Underpinnings of American Covert Radio Broadcasting in Germany During the Cold War." In addition, you will find reviews of recent publications on intelligence history. For abstracts of the articles and the full text of the reviews, please visit the Journal's web-page at http://intelligence-history.wiso.uni-erlangen.de and use the link to the Journal.

The Journal of Intelligence History is committed to the history of intelligence organizations, broadly defined, and their impact on historical development, culture, and international relations. It has an anonymous peer-review of submissions and the editor is much interested in receiving manuscripts for consideration in this field based on orginal research or/and personal experience. Michael Wala Managing Editor, Journal of Intelligence History e-mail: wala@wiso.uni-erlangen.de

The BLU-82 is not a particularly effective FAE despite it's size and the Taifun was also of limited effectiveness. Both use the gasoline aerosol effect but not particularly well. The Russians are, I'm assured, well ahead of the rest of us in BE weapons and I've seen some very frightening evidence of this. I regret to say that the US is well behind the curve on FAEs - even further behind than the UK - and the huge 'Daisy Cutter' is evidence of this: a neanderthal club rather than a precision weapon.From: Adrian Weale

Question: In June 1942 the Germans landed two groups of saboteurs on Long Island and the Florida coast, armed with explosives, U.S. currency and civilian clothing. Their purpose was to attack railroads, bridges and industrial plants to create terror and disrupt the American war machine. Upon their capture, President Roosevelt ordered their trial before a military commission composed of seven U.S. Army officers. All eight were convicted, and six were sentenced to death and executed. What happened to the other 2? Is there a transcript of the 1942 military tribunal? at NARA? Answer:The two others (George John Dasch and Ernest Peter Burger) were the ones to turn the others in to the FBI. Dasch had second thoughts, reveiled these to Burger, who didnt want to kill his friend, and they ended up agreeing to turn themselves and the other six in. They were initially sentenced to death along with the others, but their sentences were commuted to 30 years for Dasch and life for Burger. Both were pardoned in April 1948 on condition of deportation to Germany, and they were dumped in the American zone of control.

The 244th arrived in France as a towed 155mm Gun Battalion, but was quickly converted over to a new status as a "Captured Weapons" battalion. To ease the shortfall in American artillery ammunition, the 244th was equipped with captured German Artillery. It was not used as Field Artillery per se, but was used to give additional artillery support for areas of the line in need of support which had captured German supplies on hand. Elements of it served around Metz for example during the siege of that town. From:

The Japanese use of captured weapons was common, but they usually went to service troops, security forces, and locally raised native militia, which they raised in the Philippines, NEI, and Burma. There were regular Japanese infantry units encountered in the Philippines armed with US .30-cal M1917 rifles though. As a side note, both the North and South Korean Armies were armed with Japanese weapons until replaced by Soviet and US, respectively. Japanese weapons were still encountered by UN forces in the hands of Chinese and NK troops to the end of the war.The Chinese and NKs used massive stocks of Japanese ammunition. That's one thing the Japanese did well was to produce lots of ammo. The Japanese also had an ammo plant in Manchuria and the Chinese may have continued its operation. I would not call Japanese ammo "odd" calibers. In WWII just about every country had its own unique calibers, it was a matter of national pride. In my cartridge collection I have Japanese, Dutch, Norwegian, Italian, Romanian, Greek, Swedish, and Portuguese 6.5mm cartridges. No two are alike and cannot be fired in other weapons. I take it back, the Dutch and Romanians used the same 6.5mm cartridge. Gordon Rottman

Actually the modern tank main gun is quite effective against attack helicopters. From my weapons employment book: 120-mm Tank Gun as an Anti-helicopter Weapon It is not commonly known among non-tankers that the 120-mm M820A1 high explosive-multipurpose-tracer (HEAT-MP-T) is an effective anti-helicopter projectile at up to 2,500 meters range. It is an expensive, fin-stabilized, saboted projectile intended to

defeat light armored fighting vehicles and provide a self-defense capability to tanks from attack helicopters. It can be used to defeat bunkers, fortified buildings, and various soft targets, but this is a secondary role owing to its high cost. The projectile is fitted with a switch on the side, which in one position sets the fuse for instantaneous detonation upon impact (light AFVs, bunkers, other soft targets) and in the other position for proximity detonation (air burst) when engaging a helicopter. Tankers, however, may be reluctant to expend the small number of HEAT-MP-T rounds they carry for other than self-defense.

The Abrams tank's thermal imagery sight and fire control system allow it to engage helicopters day or night as well as in rain, snow, fog, and smoke. Approaching helicopters and high-performance aircraft, unless masked by vegetation, terrain, or low clouds can be acquired and tracked at a range of approximately 10 kilometers at night by the tank's thermal imagery sight. Larger high-performance aircraft can be acquired at a longer range. The thermal imagery sight's ability to determine the contrast between the aircraft's heat and the absolute zero of space in the background is remarkable. This capability should be considered for integration into a unit's air defense system when there is an enemy air threat. The tanks may be able to at least provide early warning of approaching aircraft. This concept was field tested at Camp Wolters, Texas some years ago using an F-16 fighter as the attacking aircraft.

! It's the authors first book, he spent a couple of years writing it....I did not know him prior to the 1st interview. It's mainly about 12 VN vets who came back and about 3 who did not (as another odd side note one of the 3 who was a KIA is buried about 15' from a relative of mine...every Memorial Day I lay flowers..one day I see this grave with a flag and walk over and it's airman Glover...so now I lay flowers at his site as well..I did not know him either) It covers all ranks, all services, male & females and one POW. Several really good stories, one about the tunnel rat Billy McCollum and one who was very seriously WIA. We had a dinner to kick the sale of the book on Veterans Day and a marine Gen. Boomer came and gave us a real nice speach that fits in today "be aware of politicians sending troops off to war". For the most part my story is on the lite side, but i think you'll enjoy it. The author does proof reading at the Newport Naval Base. Another footnote not in the book...Salvatory "Tory" Raffa and I were drinking buddies in high school along with a number of other guys...we'd go to the beach and booze it up...I got drafted in Sept. 65' and Tory joined the USAF after...we did not meet over there. Thanks for ordering the book! Tom Finn

A few 57mm RRs were used by airborne units at the end of WWII in Europe. A few 57mm and 75mm RRs were used on Okinawa. The 57mm and 75mm were organic to infantry battalions in the Korean War. The 57mm could be fired from the shoulder, a bipod and monopod, or a tripod. The 75mm was only tripod-mounted. Both could be mounted on a jeep pedestal mount, the same mount as a .30-cal MG, but this was not a common practice other than in recon companies. The first jeep-mounted RR was the 105mm, two of which were added to the battalion weapons company TOE in 1952. The 106mm RR was adopted in about 1962 to replace the 105mm RR. The ammo by the way was interchangeable. The 105mm remained in use in the National Guard into the early 1970s. The 106mm was retired in the mid-1980s. Gordon Rottman

The ammo was not truly interchangeable. The 105mm RR ammo could be fired in the 106mm, but not vise versa. The reason for the change was that the 105mm had a spin-stabilized HEAT round which had very limited penetration of armor. The same applied to the 57mm and 75mm. The 106mm HEAT round was fin-stabilized providing much greater penetration. I'd not heard of M27 ammo being usable in an M40, and neither has my retired EOD MSG ammo guy, but then again, in the 1967 artillery ammo TM there's a warning about firing ammo only marked for the M40 in the M40, so I suspect it's very likely, and will defer to your greater experience with the weapon. Unfortunately all the M27 ammo drawings have been purged from our system here so I can't compare case dimensions and rifling profiles. More history gone....

OTOH I suspect that the reason for adopting the "106mm" M40 was greater than simply the absence of a fin-stabilized HEAT round, as there was a 105mm M27-family finned HEAT round, the M341, which replaced the spinner M324. The 106mm must have had some significant improvement in operating characteristics (lighter, higher MV, ???). Unfortunately I have no idea what it is, and all our RR guys are long since retired (our current RR "experts" didn't even know we had a 105mm RR when we fielded a Congressional inquiry last year!).

And as an amusing aside, I just got a call on this very subject today! Apparently 106mm RR ammo is getting scarce, so at least one ski resort has acquired a 105mm M101 howitzer to use as an avalanche gun. They plan to use M1 HE, and wanted to know how close they could shoot without projectile frags endangering their crew. Hopefully they won't end up dead like the two Parks Service guys did with their 106mm RR a few years ago...

EAGLE BASE, Bosnia and Herzegovina — The Panther – a remote-controlled mine-clearing tank that has kept peacekeepers out of harm’s way for years in Bosnia — could prove useful in Afghanistan.As snow fell Monday, the Virginia National Guard’s 229th Engineer Battalion rolled the Panther into a practice exercise behind the Eagle Base airfield. The scenario — recovering a downed helicopter stuck in an unmarked minefield — was based on an actual incident that took place two years ago in Bosnia, said Capt. Bryan Coleman, the engineers’ commander.An M-60 tank without a turret, the Panther sports two Israeli mine rollers — each weighing more than three tons — on its front slope. Once at the minefield, the driver hops off, sets up a suitcase-sized remote station, and toggles the Panther into action."We don’t have any soldiers put at risk operating the vehicle," Coleman said. So far, the half-dozen experimental Panthers — used mainly in Bosnia and Kosovo — have not seen action in the war against the Taliban. On Sunday in Afghanistan, three Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit were wounded when one of them stepped on a land mine during clearing operations at the Kandahar airport. The Marine who detonated the mine lost his foot. The other two suffered shrapnel wounds. Coalition forces are using remote-controlled vehicles to clear mines in Afghanistan, said Sgt. Maj. Rich Czizik, a spokesman for U.S. Army Central Command. Some troops are using the Aardvark, a British-made flailing device supplied by the Jordanian military, Czizik said.

"They were first used around the Friendship Bridge area," Czizik said, referring to the span across the Amu Darya River that separates Afghanistan from Uzbekistan. Czizik did not know whether U.S. forces are de-mining with help from the Aardvark or probing the old-fashioned way. In the past, land-mine detection was a slow and dangerous process that involved soldiers lightly poking sticks into the dirt, knowing that a mistake could cost them their lives. While metal detectors are helpful, many mines are made from plastic. Dogs trained to sniff explosives can also aid in mine detection. To quickly breach a minefield, soldiers use tanks with heavy rollers, chain flails, or a plow to clear a path.

In 1995, U.S. troops faced an estimated 6 million land mines in Bosnia. Military officials pushed to develop safer ways to detect and destroy mines. Soon engineers were using the remote-controlled Panther to clear major roads and soldier-occupied areas. In August 1999, the Panther made its debut in Kosovo. "It’s still an experimental piece of equipment," Coleman said. "It’s not an inventory item." The unmanned Panther keeps the operator well away from harm’s way, but remote-controlled robotics is tricky at best, and makes the Panther difficult to control at times, Coleman said. Before deploying to Bosnia in September, six Virginia Guardsmen learned to drive the Panther at the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., Coleman said. The troops also trained to use the Mini-Flail, another prototype that whips 84 chains onto the ground to find mines. Its smaller size allows the Mini-Flail to clear areas the Panther can’t reach, such as footpaths and wooded areas. Engineers training with the Panther in Bosnia are now writing the book on its use, a tool that may help soldiers in the future. Before 1st Lt. Damon Smith arrived in Bosnia, the active-duty 10th Mountain Division officer assigned to the 229th Engineer Battalion had never heard of the Panther. And there was no standard operating procedure for him to follow, Smith said. "Nobody even said how many passes we need to make it safe," Smith said. The 229th sappers, light engineers accustomed to working from rucksacks, set to work writing how the remote-controlled behemoth is best used. In January, the soldiers will use the Panther to begin clearing secondary roads for refugees returning to pre-war homes, Smith said. "Once they knew about our real-world mission, they really got into it," Smith said.

Russia presented two radio frequency weapons, the Ranets-E and the Rosa-E. Analysts view them as a completely new type of electronic warfare weapons. These arms are expected to bring electronic and information warfare to an entirely new level. Ranets-E and Rosa-E represent non-flying weapon systems, which have been developed by Russian researchers since the late 1990s. State arms exporter Rosoboronexport, previously called Rosvooruzheniye, initiated the export-oriented research on the creation of radio frequency arms, based on new physics principles and Russian know-how. The research has been based on the assumption that it is possible to disable not only pointing systems of high precision arms, but also their electric circuits by generating certain levels of electromagnetic radiation. Research has been carried out on many of the new variety of radio frequency weapons projects.

The cooperation between the state arms exporter and military researchers resulted in the preparation of two commercially oriented projects, Ranets-E and Rosa-E, which can be offered to potential clients. The Ranets-E project involves the creation of a mobile radio frequency defense system against high precision weapons. The system consists of an antenna system, a high-capacity power generator, control and measuring equipment, and an energy supply subsystem. Ranets-E can be installed on a stationary or mobile base and its output capacity exceeds 500 megawatts. It works in the centimeter wave frequency-range and produces impulses of 10-20 nanoseconds.

The high capacity interference station Rosa-E is designed to bring down enemy's radar systems. It has a range of 500 kilometers and can be installed in an aircraft when produced in a modified casing weighing 600-1,500 kilograms. Rosa-E's input capacity is 50-100 kilowatts and its output capacity is 5-10 kilowatts. It also works in the centimeter wave frequency range. Clients may not purchase a finished product or the technical documentation of either model. Potential customers need to clearly define their tactical and technical preferences, as well as finance the Russian researchers' and producers' work. After this, their request will be accepted or denied. If accepted, they can receive a model after concluding a special agreement.

Here's an interesting data sheet on the next generation machine gun. Makes the old M-79 we know and love look like a flintlock. The Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) is the next generation replacement for current heavy and grenade machine guns. It is truly a lightweight, two-man portable system that incorporates the most modern technology advancements in fire control, materials and munitions. The 25mm system has a full solution fire control system including a laser range finder and a day/night sight. It delivers a highly lethal and suppressive fire out to 2,000 meters against personnel targets, light material targets and vehicles. The program is managed by the Joint Service Small Arms Program (JSSAP) Office, U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey.

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is the prime contractor with total system integration responsibility, as well as the prime developer and producer of the air burst 25mm ammunition. General Dynamics Armament Systems is developing the 25mm weapon and mount with an associated traverse and elevation mechanism. Dayron is developing the fuze for the 25mm ammunition.