The new XM25.
- Thread starter lbmii
- Start date
- Status
jobu07
Contributing Member
Is this another HK?
What ever happened to old-fashioned rifle grenades?
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=555
Easy to use, easy to practice with, cheap, effective, or am I missing something?
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=555
Easy to use, easy to practice with, cheap, effective, or am I missing something?
Preacherman
Member
Looks interesting, but I have worries about the limited range (optimum 300 meters, max. 500 meters). This is fine for urban use, but I'd like to see something going out to 800 or 1,000 meters for rural use. On the other hand, I suppose that doing this would require more propellant (and therefore more recoil) than would be easily handled by the average soldier, so perhaps the longer ranges should be left to ATGW's and/or mortars.
As for rifle grenades, the problem has always been to get acceptable accuracy with their rainbow-like trajectory. In combat, I reckon I saw at least four or five miss for every one that hit.
As for rifle grenades, the problem has always been to get acceptable accuracy with their rainbow-like trajectory. In combat, I reckon I saw at least four or five miss for every one that hit.
kwelz
Member
Study after study have shown that there is no combat need for a rifle beyond 300 Meters. This is one of the main reasons they went to the .223 round in the M16. Most soldiers don't need to shoot out to 600+ meters. What they do need is the ability to carry more ammo, which the smaller round allows.
B
boofus
Guest
This is the grenade launcher portion of the OICW. It was separated from the rifle portion and made a standalone weapon because together they weighed 18lb unloaded.
The launcher turned into the XM25 and the rifle became the XM8. It says all that in the linked article too.
The launcher turned into the XM25 and the rifle became the XM8. It says all that in the linked article too.
Jeff Timm
Member
Rebar enquired, "What ever happened to old-fashioned rifle grenades?
Easy to use, easy to practice with, cheap, effective, or am I missing something?"
The rifle launched grenade is not very accurate by modern standards, plus in the "Heat of Battle" it requires a complex manual of arms to:
1. Unload your weapon
2. Mount the grenade
3. Turn off the gas system
4. Load from small magazine blank launch cartridge.
5. Aim
6. Fire
7. Pray you hit the target.
8. Remove blank magazine
9. Restore gas valve to proper setting
10. Insert magazine
11. Lock and load.
The M203 under the barrel of an M-16 required little training to put rounds through a small window at 200 meters. I was a grenadier in a maintenance company (the Small Arms Section ended up with crew served and special weapons on a regular basis.)
Geoff
Who fired yellow smoke rounds twice a year.
Easy to use, easy to practice with, cheap, effective, or am I missing something?"
The rifle launched grenade is not very accurate by modern standards, plus in the "Heat of Battle" it requires a complex manual of arms to:
1. Unload your weapon
2. Mount the grenade
3. Turn off the gas system
4. Load from small magazine blank launch cartridge.
5. Aim
6. Fire
7. Pray you hit the target.
8. Remove blank magazine
9. Restore gas valve to proper setting
10. Insert magazine
11. Lock and load.
The M203 under the barrel of an M-16 required little training to put rounds through a small window at 200 meters. I was a grenadier in a maintenance company (the Small Arms Section ended up with crew served and special weapons on a regular basis.)
Geoff
Who fired yellow smoke rounds twice a year.
Fella's;
I see that if the system gets approved & adopted, that the sevices saddled with it immediately lose the ability to arm approximately 12 - 14% of their troops with it.
Or, if that hatch above the magazine is indeed there to provide an ejection port for spent brass, then the figure climbs to 86 - 88%.
900F
I see that if the system gets approved & adopted, that the sevices saddled with it immediately lose the ability to arm approximately 12 - 14% of their troops with it.
Or, if that hatch above the magazine is indeed there to provide an ejection port for spent brass, then the figure climbs to 86 - 88%.
900FI see the Army is still really into this airburst idea. I'm curious about how robust the targetting system (which is going to be critical to realizing the benefits of airbursts) really is under combat conditions.
Also, does anyone know how the range-to-target information is transmitted to projectile?
Also, does anyone know how the range-to-target information is transmitted to projectile?
Missourigunner
Member
The new XM25
Looks like something out of Buck Rogers or Star Wars to me.
Looks like something out of Buck Rogers or Star Wars to me.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The Army should remember the old adage, "No weapons system is so good that it can't be ruined by adding one more good idea."
What's wrong with 40 mike-mike? 
I'm all for technology advancing...but the OICW and this XM25 weapons system seem almost "video game" inspired.
Telperion - IIRC the target's range data is found via laser, then the shell is "progammed" by the operator with that data and fired. That is one of the knocks on the OICW/XM25's effectiveness. Moving targets had to be "re-lased" (is that even a word ) more often than not.
I'm all for technology advancing...but the OICW and this XM25 weapons system seem almost "video game" inspired.Telperion - IIRC the target's range data is found via laser, then the shell is "progammed" by the operator with that data and fired. That is one of the knocks on the OICW/XM25's effectiveness. Moving targets had to be "re-lased" (is that even a word
) more often than not.
Last edited:
The modern "bullet trap" design means that you don't have to do anything other than mount the grenade to the barrel and fire.
As far as accuracy, the modern design is somewhat more accurate. More importantly, a soldier can get a lot more practice with them, using inert dummy grenades. With enough practice, I bet most would get quite good with them.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That reminds me of an old saying in the Army, "Civil Servants are like missiles. They don't work and you can't fire them."
I remember in the 2nd Infantry Division, one brigade hoarded their annual allotment Dragon medium anti-tank missiles, and scheduled a big shootoff -- they had about 30 missiles they were allowed to fire.
The Brigade Commander, Assistant Division Commander for Maneuver, the Division Commander and a general from 8th Army came to watch. You can imagine what happened -- the first gunner was so nervous with all that brass looking over his shoulder that he put the missile into the ground about 20 meters in front of the firing line. The brass had a fit.
The next gunner was even MORE nervous -- same result. The two miscreants were turned over to the Command Sergeant Major -- "We'll deal with YOU later."
Succeeding gunners, seeing what happened to the ones before them were more and more nervous -- the last guy was a basket case long before his chance came.
Not a single hit.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You're right -- the hard sell is in, because the people involved in the program need a "success" for career reasons. This is how we got the Sheridan, among other "winners."
I don't have references, but I believe it was TRIED and failed in Grenada when the two BTR-60 PBs attacked the drop zone. I don't recall if the weapons have been broken in the jump, or simply failed when fired. One of those vehicles, as I recall, was taken out by a 90mm RR, the other by Naval aircraft.
So I guess you could say it has never been fired SUCCESSFULLY in combat.
As I recall from the previous 20 mm grenade program, the air burst system counts the number of rotations of the round after it leave the barrel to judge distance or when to explode. I guess the computer gets the range to target and calculates the rotations across that distance. I am curious how that system would hold up after a number of rounds.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Just the ticket for hunting Xenomorphs.
Vern,
As far as I know the Ranger Regiment (Bns in '83) never adopted the Dragon. They hung on to the 90mm recoiless rifle.
I got in trouble after I asked a McDonnell Douglas tech rep (they made the POS Dragon) if they had a tech rep to deploy with each squad if we ever had to take the Dragon to war. Its probably a good thing we never had to use it in combat.
Jeff
As far as I know the Ranger Regiment (Bns in '83) never adopted the Dragon. They hung on to the 90mm recoiless rifle.
I got in trouble after I asked a McDonnell Douglas tech rep (they made the POS Dragon) if they had a tech rep to deploy with each squad if we ever had to take the Dragon to war. Its probably a good thing we never had to use it in combat.
Jeff
Vern Humphrey
Member
I seem to recall there was a dragon or two on that dropzone -- but I'd have to look it up.
You're right, it was a POS. And I knew the program manager, Burton Patrick, later ADC-M of the 2nd Infantry Division and CG of the 101st Airborne Division -- I wouldn't have thought he'd have allowed such a thing.
Langenator
Member
I never saw Dragons live-fired, although they were part of our 'war load' when I was in 1AD in the late 90s.
Our company master gunner had. He said the one time they fired the Dragons, none of them actually functioned. Main rocket motors were dead. First missile, the launch charge kicked it out of the tube, and it skids to a halt about 100m downrange. EOD is summoned, takes about 2 hours to get there, blows up the missile.
Second round, same thing. Another 2-3 hours gone by. EOD actually decided to stay at the range for the third missile. When #3 did the same thing again, the range was called off.
When we got TOW missiles to fire, by my recollection, about 1 in 8 didn't work.
In contrast, on the limited Javelin live fires I've seen, they all work. And those things are damn awesome. But not as verstile as the Karl Gustav 84mm recoiless.
Our company master gunner had. He said the one time they fired the Dragons, none of them actually functioned. Main rocket motors were dead. First missile, the launch charge kicked it out of the tube, and it skids to a halt about 100m downrange. EOD is summoned, takes about 2 hours to get there, blows up the missile.
Second round, same thing. Another 2-3 hours gone by. EOD actually decided to stay at the range for the third missile. When #3 did the same thing again, the range was called off.
When we got TOW missiles to fire, by my recollection, about 1 in 8 didn't work.
In contrast, on the limited Javelin live fires I've seen, they all work. And those things are damn awesome. But not as verstile as the Karl Gustav 84mm recoiless.
Dragons were deployed to the sandbox in 1990 for Desert Storm. *Supposedly* they were fired in combat. Looking around, I was unable to find any evidence that they actually destroyed anything. All the information I found indicated that it was only to be used as a last-ditch, out of ammo, knife blade has snapped, only have one working finger left sort of weapon. I guess it would hurt pretty bad if the launch charge blew it into your gut. I rather strongly suspect that "fired in combat" means that somebody got bored, and decided to launch one into a knocked-out T-72 just to see if it would go off. I'll bet it didn't.
I also found something that said the Iraqis had them. Evidently we delivered the weapons to Iran, and the Iraqis captured them. Maybe supplying Saddam with a useless weapon was the plan all along.
I also found something that said the Iraqis had them. Evidently we delivered the weapons to Iran, and the Iraqis captured them. Maybe supplying Saddam with a useless weapon was the plan all along.
Vern Humphrey
Member
It's not only malfunctions -- the weight of the dragon is on the gunner's shoulder. When the missile exits the lanucher, the weight is suddenly gone, the gunner's shoulder rises, the tracker points down, and the missile goes into the ground if the gunner isn't experienced enough to anticipate this.
Depends on what you mean by versatile -- when I was training the Singapore Army, they used the Karl Gustav. It's a nice recoilless rifle, has a good antipersonnel round, and also airburst capability. But it can't kill modern tanks -- not without a lot of luck.
Javelin, on the other hand is a stone tank killer.
GunnySkox
Member
Hehahahahaaa...
I saw a video once linked on this Middle East defense forum (from what little I read of it, the people actually seemed to be from the Middle East) of a Javelin missile thumping a T-72. They were horrified, a bunch of guys kept claiming that there was no way that a missile could be that powerful, that the tank had to be packed full of explosives to make an explosion that violent. I've seen a powerpoint presentation detailing the aftermath of a javelin drilling a T-72. IIRC, the turret was something like 20 or 30 meters away from the hull, and they found some random piece a couple hundred meters away.
So yeah, a Jevelin will pretty much put your @#$% in the dirt.
~Slam_Fire
I saw a video once linked on this Middle East defense forum (from what little I read of it, the people actually seemed to be from the Middle East) of a Javelin missile thumping a T-72. They were horrified, a bunch of guys kept claiming that there was no way that a missile could be that powerful, that the tank had to be packed full of explosives to make an explosion that violent. I've seen a powerpoint presentation detailing the aftermath of a javelin drilling a T-72. IIRC, the turret was something like 20 or 30 meters away from the hull, and they found some random piece a couple hundred meters away.
So yeah, a Jevelin will pretty much put your @#$% in the dirt.
~Slam_Fire
- Status