Bird's Eye View: Is the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station an Improvement Over a Traditionally Manned Weapon?

This thesis compares a traditional M2 machine gun with an M2 mounted on the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS). Enemy tactics in Iraq led the military to develop materiel solutions that will increase force protection, particularly when operating off base and on roadways. CROWS is an example of military innovation designed to increase force protection while maintaining lethality and minimizing collateral damage. CROWS is a remotely operated weapons platform primarily mounted on the Army's M1114 Up-Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). The problem is whether this state-of-the-art weapon system is an improvement over a traditionally manned weapon in combat. To address the problem the thesis analyzed the benefits of CROWS over an M2, any systemic issues associated with the system, what end-users thought, and what additional and unique resources CROWS requires. This thesis also analyzed the system's limitations in terms of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). The combination of document research and primary source information provide justification that, despite some increased capabilities, CROWS is not an improvement over a traditionally manned weapon in combat at the current time.