Recently, in fact according to some sources just today, the US Military's new XM25 Grenade Launcher has been announced as entering service in Afghanistan. This new weapon will likely revolutionize the way Urban and in the case of Afghanistan at times 'cave' warfare is fought.
What makes this weapon so revolutionary is its ability to trace the distance to a target and allow the operator to detonate the launched shell at the specified distance. This can be applied to a variety of situations: enemy gunners inside bunkers, behind sandbags, in cover behind a wall. The XM25 Grenade Launcher will help to ensure US dominance in Urban Warfare and minimize collateral damage, fairly ironic considering it is a grenade launcher.
The XM25 will make taking down bogey's without harming civilians and minimize collateral damage, fairly ironic considering it is a grenade launcher. For those interested in more readings I have compiled some relevant and easy to read articles below:
US Army http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smart-high-explosive-weapon-for-soldiers/
(http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smart-high-explosive-weapon-for-soldiers/)
The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/xm25-supergun-that-shoots-round-corners-goes-to-us-troops-in-afghanistan/story-e6frg8yo-1225964999015
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/xm25-supergun-that-shoots-round-corners-goes-to-us-troops-in-afghanistan/story-e6frg8yo-1225964999015)
CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024281-503543.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024281-503543.html)
Puffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/xm25-smart-gun-unveiled-by-us-military_n_789969.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/xm25-smart-gun-unveiled-by-us-military_n_789969.html)
PS-(Please excuse my hyper links I am unaware of how it is possible to make just the selected words the link; it has been awhile since I have posted on forums with the purposes of linking.)
Oh, good. A new weapon I can't own.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:37:10 PM
Oh, good. A new weapon I can't own.
Learn how to construct your own and hope it is not confiscated and you don't get arrested?
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:37:10 PM
Oh, good. A new weapon I can't own.
Learn how to construct your own and hope it is not confiscated and you don't get arrested?
Why, yes, I could design the required electronics in a mere 50 years or so.
Uh... Urban, grenade launcher? I guess the thing is better than firing mortars into a city, but I don't see this having a happy ending.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 03, 2010, 05:06:15 PM
Uh... Urban, grenade launcher? I guess the thing is better than firing mortars into a city, but I don't see this having a happy ending.
The military already uses grenade launchers in urban warfare, most notably as offhand attachments on mainline firearms (M4, M16, Scar-L/H), models such as the M203. This is merely a more controlled explosion for diffusing dangerous situations as quickly as possible; it just happens to implement a dangerous ordnance as a solution to this problem.
This is merely a cheaper and more effective than relying solely on armored support in order to take down barricaded enemies and other enemies with positions that would otherwise require troops to enter harms way or endanger civilians by any other means.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 05:11:40 PM
This is merely a cheaper and more effective than relying solely on armored support in order to take down barricaded enemies and other enemies with positions that would otherwise require troops to enter harms way or endanger civilians by any other means.
No. It's not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 05:11:40 PM
This is merely a cheaper and more effective than relying solely on armored support in order to take down barricaded enemies and other enemies with positions that would otherwise require troops to enter harms way or endanger civilians by any other means.
No. It's not.
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:41:42 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:37:10 PM
Oh, good. A new weapon I can't own.
Learn how to construct your own and hope it is not confiscated and you don't get arrested?
Why, yes, I could design the required electronics in a mere 50 years or so.
Man I said something retarded like this when I got here. :lulz:
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 04, 2010, 12:20:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:41:42 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 04:37:10 PM
Oh, good. A new weapon I can't own.
Learn how to construct your own and hope it is not confiscated and you don't get arrested?
Why, yes, I could design the required electronics in a mere 50 years or so.
Man I said something retarded like this when I got here. :lulz:
And I still think you're a
moron normal person for no other reason.
Well it is true, if you dedicate your time and gather enough people you could possibly construct your own.
It is by no means impossible, just impractical and pointless.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 04, 2010, 02:16:12 AM
Well it is true, if you dedicate your time and gather enough people you could possibly construct your own.
It is by no means impossible, just impractical and pointless.
Much like your comment that he should construct his own.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 04, 2010, 02:21:28 AM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 04, 2010, 02:16:12 AM
Well it is true, if you dedicate your time and gather enough people you could possibly construct your own.
It is by no means impossible, just impractical and pointless.
Much like your comment that he should construct his own.
First I never said he
should, I said he
could.
Second your posts merely detract from the thread's topic. You can say mine are the same in your next post, but will it make anything you state matter anymore or be any more important?
I think not.
I suppose some people need the
/sarcasm added at the end of a sentence to detect it. I assumed the readers here would find the sarcasm of my comment was implied.
Fool your friends into thinking that their neighborhood is safe with the new XM25 Grenade Launcher. It's super-neat. Weapons of mass destruction should make way for this piece of shit. Personally, I feel that this device, although being a support-based weapon, be a resource guzzler considering the fact that grenades and the power source must be replenished at various intervals. The cost of artillery may be minimal at the start, but could eventually lead to financial trouble for the US. Then again, this is under the assumption that mass production is considered and applied.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 04, 2010, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 03, 2010, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 03, 2010, 05:11:40 PM
This is merely a cheaper and more effective than relying solely on armored support in order to take down barricaded enemies and other enemies with positions that would otherwise require troops to enter harms way or endanger civilians by any other means.
No. It's not.
Elaborate.
Can the grenade launcher push aside a barricade, knock a building over, advance on a machine gun position inside a building, or shelter a squad behind it for an advance?
Fact1 : The morons in the Pentagon and the DoD keep trying to do everything on the cheap. Add in a sexy high tech grenade launcher, they can justify using less armor.
Fact 2: High tech sexiness is 20th century thinking. Wars are won now based on endurance and birthrate...in short, on economics. How long does it take to train an American soldier to use this launcher, as opposed to the 15 minutes it takes to train an insurgent on a perfectly good $50 RPG7 (Gary Brecher has the RPG7 as the all time best bang-for-buck weapon in history, and I tend to agree)?
That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions. The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare. Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7 :lulz:
Is there an estimated price of these toys?
And how much is an AK-47 anyways?
$30,000, with another $5,000 in options, according to Wikipedia.
Wiki also says an AK-47 is apparently as low as 30$ on the African black market, though that probably has a lot to do with it being stolen. I don't know of Ak-47s being made new, but Venezuela bought 100,000 AK-103s at 520$ a piece.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 06, 2010, 09:45:48 PM
Can the grenade launcher push aside a barricade, knock a building over, advance on a machine gun position inside a building, or shelter a squad behind it for an advance?
Fact1 : The morons in the Pentagon and the DoD keep trying to do everything on the cheap. Add in a sexy high tech grenade launcher, they can justify using less armor.
Fact 2: High tech sexiness is 20th century thinking. Wars are won now based on endurance and birthrate...in short, on economics. How long does it take to train an American soldier to use this launcher, as opposed to the 15 minutes it takes to train an insurgent on a perfectly good $50 RPG7 (Gary Brecher has the RPG7 as the all time best bang-for-buck weapon in history, and I tend to agree)?
Fact 1: Debatable; but your comment does remind me of a discontinued project involving a new prototype defensive system for our troops(not the exoskeleton). I'll see if I can gather enough information on it and give it its own home here later.
Fact 2:
High-Tech Sexiness=Yes
Economics=US wins
Now for the good stuff.
The XM25 Grenade Launcher will likely take a decent amount of time to train a troop to properly operate; however, the United States needs to utilize weapons that are more difficult to be used against us. If we employ technology that requires more advanced infrastructure and support in place to utilize we have the edge in warfare.
Grenade launchers are anti-infantry weapons, this is not meant as a means for combating armored vehicles. Grenade launchers have never knocked buildings over. Even an RPG will not knock a building over, it may cause some damage, however, as previously stated this weapon is meant to
minimize collateral damage.
This grenade launcher is specifically made for tactical purposes such as breaking barricades, disrupting enemy movements, and taking out lightly fortified nests. Say you're behind a machine gun turret 30m away from an enemy squad utilizing this weapon, upon acquiring the distance they can fire a grenade directly onto your position and mess your shit up.
Saying numbers and money is all that matters merely causes an attitude of apathy towards our own resources and leads to a
lack of innovation. The XM25 is a sign that our military, despite bureaucratic and slow to accept change by nature, still desires progress. Your attitude seems to imply every war is a war of attrition, when in fact this does not have to be the case.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 08, 2010, 05:56:31 AM
That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions. The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare. Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7 :lulz:
The RPG7 will not take out heavy armor, tanks will eat that shit. The RPG7 is also on a different level than a grenade launcher; grenade launchers are meant to combat infantry and lightly to non armored positions and enemies, the RPG7 is meant to take out fast, lightly armored vehicles and lightly fortified positions. Try taking down a tank with an RPG7 and you'll get owned.
But yes in trenchwarfare the XM25 will definitely always be the correct choice.
/end rant
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 09:30:27 AM
Fact 1: Debatable; but your comment does remind me of a discontinued project involving a new prototype defensive system for our troops(not the exoskeleton). I'll see if I can gather enough information on it and give it its own home here later.
Fact 2:
High-Tech Sexiness=Yes
Economics=US wins
You're an idiot. I'll elaborate if you like.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 09:30:27 AM
Your attitude seems to imply every war is a war of attrition, when in fact this does not have to be the case.
Again, you appear to be an idiot. It IS the case, the only difference being the attrition is money, not lives.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 08, 2010, 05:56:31 AM
That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions. The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare. Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7 :lulz:
The RPG7 is useful for a lot of things. Breaking an ambush, for example.
I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.
Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.
Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.
Yeah, and I'm talking about reality, and how this will make the overall force weaker.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.
Which comes down to economics. Which means we lose.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.
How so?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 08, 2010, 07:56:04 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.
1st:
Yeah, and I'm talking about reality, and how this will make the overall force weaker.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.
2nd:
Which comes down to economics. Which means we lose.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 07:52:54 PM
Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.
3rd:
How so?
1st:
I believe you are correct in thinking the Pentagon could try to use this as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere. However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.
Not to mention if they discussed cutting expenses it should be within the same realm of combat, not a different one. Adding a grenade launcher to the military's arsenal should not have anything to do with body armor (which during the beginning of the War on Terror our troops armor did not protect against AK47 bullets anyway, not a justification for any of your perceptions). Now perhaps replacing another military weapon such as the M203 grenade launcher allowing for more tactical uses. While it could replace some of the M203 supplied to the troops the M203 does not need to be completely phased out in favor of the XM25. Flexibility is an important aspect of war.
2nd:
This means we need to change our battle strategy and how we choose what wars we participate. I am sure few people will argue the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary, but I'm positive many will question the benefits of invading Iraq, unless you count surrounding Iran as a benefit.
Again elaborate.
3rd:
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage. After a war who do you think is expected to pay for these damages? While it is often the loser the United States is on some sort of moral high ground claiming they are fighting for the aboriginals of the invaded state and not ourselves, thus we would end up paying the damage expenses. Using a weapon like the RPG7 in situations where the XM25 is to be used would cause much more damage and thus be far more costly.
So while the RPG7
could theoretically be used in similar situations it would prove to be very costly. You could bring up other aspects as to how the United States wages warfare on a scale far more devastating than either of these weapons, however, that is on a whole different scale and would require a discussion of its own.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 08, 2010, 08:13:47 AM
$30,000, with another $5,000 in options, according to Wikipedia.
Wiki also says an AK-47 is apparently as low as 30$ on the African black market, though that probably has a lot to do with it being stolen. I don't know of Ak-47s being made new, but Venezuela bought 100,000 AK-103s at 520$ a piece.
The AK47 is the most copied weapon in the world.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.
Who do you think we are fighting currently?
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 08, 2010, 08:27:03 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.
Who do you think we are fighting currently?
The Redcoats, in their pretty battlefield lines, obviously.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.
I detect a subtle flaw in your argument.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 08, 2010, 08:29:53 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 08, 2010, 08:27:03 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.
Who do you think we are fighting currently?
The Redcoats, in their pretty battlefield lines, obviously.
I know right?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on December 08, 2010, 07:30:10 AM
Is there an estimated price of these toys?
And how much is an AK-47 anyways?
A brand new Chinese copy is 15 USD in downtown Kabul Market.
I believe this thread is an elaborate waste of the mental resources of PD. Also, someone needs to send me an AKM for Xmas.
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
So what do you prefer AR-15 builds or AK builds? I'm partial to the ARs myself, because I don't have as much trouble keeping my aim low. I suppose that's because of more efficient recoil absorption.
Quote from: Phox on December 09, 2010, 04:17:08 AM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
So what do you prefer AR-15 builds or AK builds? I'm partial to the ARs myself, because I don't have as much trouble keeping my aim low. I suppose that's because of more efficient recoil absorption.
Having never held an AK or it's variants, I have next to know opinion between either families of weapons. Although if you are aiming low to hit your mark with any rifle that has adjustable sights, you are doing it wrong. You can adjust the front sight post on an AR15, which will shift your point of aim up or down.
I meant the recoil on the AK raises the barrel, causing me to readjust my aim after 1 round, as opposed to 2 or 3 on the AR, not that I was aiming lower than where I was hitting. Then again, I'm not very strong and I've only fired either once. And that's about as firearm geeky as I can get, since my other firing experiences are limited to civilian hunting rifles/shotguns and 9mm handguns of various makes.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 08, 2010, 08:37:37 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.
I detect a subtle flaw in your argument.
This is sad...but unfortunately true.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 08, 2010, 08:29:53 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 08, 2010, 08:27:03 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.
Who do you think we are fighting currently?
The Redcoats, in their pretty battlefield lines, obviously.
Enemy combatants regrouping or gathering in an area doesn't count as a formation? Splitting apart enemy combatants in order to capture one of single out a target does not count as disrupting formation?
Unfortunately, "enemy combatants" have this nasty tendency to "group" near civilians. So chances are you'll end up "disrupting" civilian guts and organs all down the street.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.
:lulz:
Can we talk about the real world now?
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 08, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
Not to mention if they discussed cutting expenses it should be within the same realm of combat, not a different one. Adding a grenade launcher to the military's arsenal should not have anything to do with body armor
I didn't say BODY ARMOR, I said ARMOR. You know, tanks, APCs, etc.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2010, 03:36:52 PM
I didn't say BODY ARMOR, I said ARMOR. You know, tanks, APCs, etc.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
You actually believe the United States would cut out tanks and armored transport?
Not to mention how would adding a grenade launcher justify removing heavily armored vehicles from service? The two do not fulfill the same roles and it would be foolish to think adding a grenade launcher would replace an armored vehicle.
Perhaps it is you, stuck in some sort of conspiratorial delusion, that is confused.
Adding a small arm is in no way a replacement for armored vehicles.
I did misconstrue what you said previously and for that I apologize. I just assumed you were staying in the realm of infantry, not hopping around into all sorts of other topics without announcing a change.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
I spent a lot of time, stalking Habr Ghidr from the Mogadishu rooftops, and found the HK PSG 1 a worthy tool. (Except for it's habit of ejecting spent cartridge casings with enough velocity to take your ear off) Ended up using the Barrett light 50. A bit of an overkill, I know, but the satisfaction of a well executed headshot using one of these babys is pure poetry in motion.
I'm not talking real life here, but playing "Delta Force Black Hawk Down". But I got all the realism that I could ever want, regarding long range hard target interdiction. And rooftop sniping. And became so accomplished at the missions, I got the expansion pack, which sent me to Colombia, fighting Drug Cartel Militia, and Iranian insurgents too. I lived and died a thousand times in my career as a member of Delta Force. But I had to leave and went on to more specialist work, mopping up Bio-genetically engineered Rogue Mutants, in FarCry.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 04:30:23 PM
You actually believe the United States would cut out tanks and armored transport?
It's already happened twice. Somalia in the 90s (The "Blackhawk Down" incident), and once during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (We tried to directly assault a tank battalion with Apaches on flat desert to sav shipping more tanks, and got owned by 50 year old ZSU 57-2's.).
So, yeah. That's exactly what they'd do.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 04:30:23 PM
I just assumed you were staying in the realm of infantry, not hopping around into all sorts of other topics without announcing a change.
WWI wants its thinking back. You don't just talk infantry, you have to view it as combined arms. Always. You can't use artillery in an urban setting, because those darned buildings get in the way, same with jets, and helicopters have a bad habit of attracting SA11 missiles, or just being turned into a collander by machine gun fire.
All that's left as consistent backup is armor, and if you short the troops on armor, you get a replay of Somalia...And there's no advantage to replacing armor with this new gizmo, unless you reduce the amount of armor you deploy.
Modern warfare isn't about high tech sexiness, it's about training. Spend less on toys from the beltway bandits, and concentrate more on, you know, actually developing and achieving objectives. Sending supply clerks in to guard convoys is fucking ridiculous (Jessica Lynch, anyone?)...Spend that money on either training new grunts, or retraining (properly) the clerks & jerks that are sent out to play infantry.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 04:30:23 PM
Perhaps it is you, stuck in some sort of conspiratorial delusion, that is confused.
Adding a small arm is in no way a replacement for armored vehicles.
The sky in my world is blue, and the pencil sharpener boys LOVE to try to do things on the cheap.
What color is the sky in your world, where pentagon accountants do things with an eye to effect, rather than cost?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2010, 04:54:30 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 04:30:23 PM
Perhaps it is you, stuck in some sort of conspiratorial delusion, that is confused.
Adding a small arm is in no way a replacement for armored vehicles.
The sky in my world is blue, and the pencil sharpener boys LOVE to try to do things on the cheap.
What color is the sky in your world, where pentagon accountants do things with an eye to effect, rather than cost?
This is what happens when waging war is learned from video games.
I notice Persona said that the RPG7 is meant for taking out "fast, lightly armored" things, or words to that effect.
There are rounds for that platform that are specified for piercing up to 700mm of RHA (steel armor plate) AFTER it pierces reactive armor.
So that kind of begs the question, what kind of "fast light armor" has 2.3 feet of hardened steel plate and reactive armor?
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 05:16:38 AM
Enemy combatants regrouping or gathering in an area doesn't count as a formation? Splitting apart enemy combatants in order to capture one of single out a target does not count as disrupting formation?
The current enemy combatants look just like the civilians.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 04:30:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 09, 2010, 03:36:52 PM
I didn't say BODY ARMOR, I said ARMOR. You know, tanks, APCs, etc.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
You actually believe the United States would cut out tanks and armored transport?
Not to mention how would adding a grenade launcher justify removing heavily armored vehicles from service? The two do not fulfill the same roles and it would be foolish to think adding a grenade launcher would replace an armored vehicle.
Perhaps it is you, stuck in some sort of conspiratorial delusion, that is confused.
Adding a small arm is in no way a replacement for armored vehicles.
I did misconstrue what you said previously and for that I apologize. I just assumed you were staying in the realm of infantry, not hopping around into all sorts of other topics without announcing a change.
They have, are and will. Back before I joined my recruiter was bitching about how they(Big Army) was cutting down on tanks in favor of strykers, which has been going on since. If Big Army can cut costs somewhere they will. Why do you think we use 5.56mm NATO cartridges? They are cheaper than 7.62mm.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 09, 2010, 08:08:23 PM
I notice Persona said that the RPG7 is meant for taking out "fast, lightly armored" things, or words to that effect.
There are rounds for that platform that are specified for piercing up to 700mm of RHA (steel armor plate) AFTER it pierces reactive armor.
So that kind of begs the question, what kind of "fast light armor" has 2.3 feet of hardened steel plate and reactive armor?
That is for buildings. I think.
They put reactive armor on buildings?
ETA: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 09, 2010, 08:29:30 PM
They put reactive armor on buildings?
ETA: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR
Note the "I think" cuz that does sound retardiculous.
I think it is for buildings and tanks, although I can't imagine why not just use a thermobaric round on a building instead. Probably "service" more targets that way.
It appears arguing about this any further will bring about nothing; hell I have no idea what I am going to argue anymore anyway.
But I do believe that we have ascertained the implementing of this weapon has pros and cons. The only questions remaining is:
Do you think it has potential to be useful or beneficial? Would it be better to scrap the project and apply what has been learned from its research to other areas?
Was nice debating this subject with you all.
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
Agreed. Anyone want to measure Colt 1911 v Colt Python?
Python:
1.1kg of badassery backed by .357 magnum rounds
1911:
.45 caliber semi-auto goodness
Someone with more knowledge than me should add to this fire. :D
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 11:12:07 PM
Do you think it has potential to be useful or beneficial? Would it be better to scrap the project and apply what has been learned from its research to other areas?
Well, yeah. If enemies behind cover was such a big problem, sure. This sort of thing would be great for fighting battles that resemble a laser tag arena, for instance.
But the problem is that bullets are so good at ignoring cover these days that there is really no need for expensive gadgets that cleverly defeat cover. It is much cheaper just to use a weapon with better penetration and shoot through the cover. Even an engine block is no inconvenience to the right rifle.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 11:24:28 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
Agreed. Anyone want to measure Colt 1911 v Colt Python?
Python:
1.1kg of badassery backed by .357 magnum rounds
1911:
.45 caliber semi-auto goodness
Someone with more knowledge than me should add to this fire. :D
What's the comparison? They are completely different guns for two completely different purposes made by the same company.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 10, 2010, 05:06:35 AM
What's the comparison? They are completely different guns for two completely different purposes made by the same company.
The comparison is which one is cooler.
Just mention anything unique about the weapon that comes to mind. Which you prefer and why.
If you're going with cool Colts, It'll have to be the Anaconda. Because you can put a telescopic sight on it, and use it for big game hunting.
Quote from: BadBeast on December 10, 2010, 08:41:02 AM
If you're going with cool Colts, It'll have to be the Anaconda. Because you can put a telescopic sight on it, and use it for big game hunting.
I've done this with my uncle before..well adjusting the sights anyway.
He has roughly 30-40 firearms. Including one shotgun which I actually cannot fire effectively due to my giant thumbs, the knuckle is so large cocking it causes the sliding part of the ejection port to dig into my skin. Incredibly flexible fingers are not always advantageous apparently.
I personally prefer the 1911. It produces a pleasing sound when fired and it is very accurate. Badass Handgun.
Moderately off-topic, but so is this whole thing, anyone else notice the python doesn't have nearly as much recoil as it is hyped to have?
Never fired either, but I'm partial to good old fashioned revolvers.
I'm a big fan of RDX.
]I like the solid comfort, and "Under the Coat" security of a sawn off, side by side double barrelled twelve bore. Traditional persuader of the Old Firm Blaggers, it's use has fallen by the wayside, largely because the Tactical Firearms Units, have adopted the most unsporting habit, of getting tooled up with H&K MP5s, and shooting the fuck out of any Jobbing Gentleman Blagger, with the temerity to arm themselves, in time honoured fashion, before putting on the traditional Donkey Jacket, and stocking mask, and engaging in a good old fashioned Bankjob, or Wages Heist.
Bloody EU directives, eroding our traditional British way of life! :argh!:
I blame the popular 70's Docu-drama "The Sweeney" , with little Denis Waterman, always yelling at Inspecter Morse "Look aht Guv, 'es got a shoota!" before chinning the hapless Villain, and leading him off, in cuffs to be banged up for another 12 stretch in the Scrubs.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 09, 2010, 11:24:28 PM
Quote from: Sir Coyote on December 09, 2010, 04:06:39 AM
I think we should spag this thread up with firearm geekery.
Agreed. Anyone want to measure Colt 1911 v Colt Python?
Python:
1.1kg of badassery backed by .357 magnum rounds
1911:
.45 caliber semi-auto goodness
Someone with more knowledge than me should add to this fire. :D
The .45 has the ballistics of a volkswagon. It travels only about 900fps. The .357 is much faster and still has very effective knockdown power and less chance of bouncing off of anything. Also the .357 has greater range.
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
Depends on the pistol and the shooter. I would personally be comfortable at 100 yards with a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with the 10" barrel under the right conditions.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
How good's your aim.... and your math?
My aim, with a pistol? I can hit a target at 5 feet, if its a really big target, and not moving. :lulz:
I don't really know anybody who pistol shoots much (I've only done it once myself) me and my friends all take rifles to the range, so its an honest question.
:lulz:
I was being a bit snarkier than necessary, I guess. .357 Magnums are around 1300 fps, and pretty damn accurate, IIRC. Not really an expert on this stuff, though, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me?
Accuracy of the bullet and accuracy of the sights are different questions (shorter gun length means weaker sights for a pistol), and its the weakest link that determines accuracy.
I don't really know what the real limits are though, so maybe the bullet does matter more.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 07:32:49 PM
Accuracy of the bullet and accuracy of the sights are different questions (shorter gun length means weaker sights for a pistol), and its the weakest link that determines accuracy.
I don't really know what the real limits are though, so maybe the bullet does matter more.
Though you are right about being different questions, I would think the accuracy of the bullet matters more for long-distance shots with handguns, assuming a skilled shooter who can compensate for the the sight's limits.
Not that I'm comparing the range and accuracy of a handgun to that of a rifle, mind, so "weaker" sights shouldn't be an issue.
Grains of weight, load of powder, bullet type, and a hell of a lot more need to be figured in.
Rule of thumb on muzzle speed;
.45 - 1000 fps
.357 - 1200 fps
.44 - 1300 fps
Barrel rifling, age of gun, length of barrel all figure in as well.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 08:38:46 PM
Grains of weight, load of powder, bullet type, and a hell of a lot more need to be figured in.
Rule of thumb on muzzle speed;
.45 - 1000 fps
.357 - 1200 fps
.44 - 1300 fps
Barrel rifling, age of gun, length of barrel all figure in as well.
1200, eh? I was close.
As for the rest, that was the "math" part of my original question. :wink:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 11, 2010, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 08:38:46 PM
Grains of weight, load of powder, bullet type, and a hell of a lot more need to be figured in.
Rule of thumb on muzzle speed;
.45 - 1000 fps
.357 - 1200 fps
.44 - 1300 fps
Barrel rifling, age of gun, length of barrel all figure in as well.
1200, eh? I was close.
As for the rest, that was the "math" part of my original question. :wink:
You need to remember real shooters also handload their rounds. Not all ammo fits all shooters. Weather plays a part as well, high humidity can knock your range down drastically.
It's pretty much all math. Powder charge, bullet size and shape, windage, elevation, hell, it goes on and on. You can study for a year and still learn after that.
I used to handload my hunting rounds for my 7MM Magnum rifle. I liked a 'hot' round, (more powder) and a bullet on the lighter side. My effective range was 300 yards with an outside shot of 600 yards. That was using a scope that could stand up to the shock of such a big bore rifle and stay zeroed in. Open sights would take me down to 200 yards effective range.
For deer I used a muzzle loader (not one of those pussy in-line jobs) and a round ball. This threw ballistics right out the window. :D
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 11, 2010, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 08:38:46 PM
Grains of weight, load of powder, bullet type, and a hell of a lot more need to be figured in.
Rule of thumb on muzzle speed;
.45 - 1000 fps
.357 - 1200 fps
.44 - 1300 fps
Barrel rifling, age of gun, length of barrel all figure in as well.
1200, eh? I was close.
As for the rest, that was the "math" part of my original question. :wink:
You need to remember real shooters also handload their rounds. Not all ammo fits all shooters. Weather plays a part as well, high humidity can knock your range down drastically.
It's pretty much all math. Powder charge, bullet size and shape, windage, elevation, hell, it goes on and on. You can study for a year and still learn after that.
I used to handload my hunting rounds for my 7MM Magnum rifle. I liked a 'hot' round, (more powder) and a bullet on the lighter side. My effective range was 300 yards with an outside shot of 600 yards. That was using a scope that could stand up to the shock of such a big bore rifle and stay zeroed in. Open sights would take me down to 200 yards effective range.
For deer I used a muzzle loader (not one of those pussy in-line jobs) and a round ball. This threw ballistics right out the window. :D
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: a serious shooter. :)
I could never be that serious about firearms. I occasionally go to a shooting range to blow off steam, and I like to occasionally take a few shots with some exotic things in my uncle's collection, but I don't hunt or anything like that, so I'm not really that hip to all of this.
LOL. I would get my ass kicked in a serious competition.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 08:59:57 PM
LOL. I would get my ass kicked in a serious competition.
That doesn't matter, Charley. You still know your shit, and that's what counts. :)
On November 12, 1945, Life Magazine ran an unusual story. It was a photographic study of an FBI agent named Jelly Bryce drawing and firing his .357 Magnum in two-fifths of a second, faster than the human eye can follow. In the pictures Bryce dropped a silver dollar from shoulder height with his right hand then drew with the same hand and shot the coin before it reached his waist. What the article did not say was that Bryce could not only draw fast in front of a camera, but also in front of people who were trying to kill him. In fact, at that time, Bryce had already killed over 10 men in face-to-face shootouts as a city policeman and FBI Agent. In his era Bryce was undoubtedly the FBI's deadliest gun and may have been the best they ever had.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957612/posts
A real shooter.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 09:19:51 PM
On November 12, 1945, Life Magazine ran an unusual story. It was a photographic study of an FBI agent named Jelly Bryce drawing and firing his .357 Magnum in two-fifths of a second, faster than the human eye can follow. In the pictures Bryce dropped a silver dollar from shoulder height with his right hand then drew with the same hand and shot the coin before it reached his waist. What the article did not say was that Bryce could not only draw fast in front of a camera, but also in front of people who were trying to kill him. In fact, at that time, Bryce had already killed over 10 men in face-to-face shootouts as a city policeman and FBI Agent. In his era Bryce was undoubtedly the FBI's deadliest gun and may have been the best they ever had.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957612/posts
A real shooter.
I haven't read the whole article yet, but all I can say is wow.
My effective range caps at around 30ft.
I've shot the .357 so often that is seems boring in comparison to the 1911.
Both are awesome pistols with their own merits. The only true debate between the two is which is more bad ass.
Trying to debate the effectiveness of such awesomeness weapons is a sin against AMERICA..and I will accuse you of being a commie for doing so! :lol:
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 09:39:47 AM
My effective range caps at around 30ft.
I've shot the .357 so often that is seems boring in comparison to the 1911.
Both are awesome pistols with their own merits. The only true debate between the two is which is more bad ass.
Trying to debate the effectiveness of such awesomeness weapons is a sin against AMERICA..and I will accuse you of being a commie for doing so! :lol:
:|
How romantic of you. :|
Yes let's romanticize weapons, and then mock people for caring about the utility of them. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 09:39:47 AM
My effective range caps at around 30ft.
I've shot the .357 so often that is seems boring in comparison to the 1911.
Both are awesome pistols with their own merits. The only true debate between the two is which is more bad ass.
Trying to debate the effectiveness of such awesomeness weapons is a sin against AMERICA..and I will accuse you of being a commie for doing so! :lol:
God, you suck at life. And, evidently, know nothing about firearms of any sort. Have a nice day.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 09:39:47 AM
My effective range caps at around 30ft.
I've shot the .357 so often that is seems boring in comparison to the 1911.
Both are awesome pistols with their own merits. The only true debate between the two is which is more bad ass.
Trying to debate the effectiveness of such awesomeness weapons is a sin against AMERICA..and I will accuse you of being a commie for doing so! :lol:
If your effective range is 10 yards then you are banned from this conversation.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 12, 2010, 04:11:18 PM
If your effective range is 10 yards then you are banned from this conversation.
Just because I have shaky aiming and am incompetent when it comes to aiming a pistol doesn't mean the conversation of which is cooler cannot be had. :x
What is your effective range Mr. Brown?
I am sufficiently hated, unsure as to whether this is good or bad. I evidently suck at life too much to know.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
Depends on the pistol and the shooter. I would personally be comfortable at 100 yards with a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with the 10" barrel under the right conditions.
Read much, Persona?
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:17:13 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 12, 2010, 04:11:18 PM
If your effective range is 10 yards then you are banned from this conversation.
Just because I have shaky aiming and am incompetent when it comes to aiming a pistol doesn't mean the conversation of which is cooler cannot be had. :x
What is your effective range Mr. Brown?
I am sufficiently hated, unsure as to whether this is good or bad. I evidently suck at life too much to know.
With a .357 conical bullet and a nice tight revolver about 70 yards. With a .45 hollowpoint about 25 yards.
Which is cooler? They are completely different weapons. At close range the .45 has more knockdown power. Once you get past 20 - 25 yards the .357 is the way to go, it has greater range and still has knockdown power at 70 -75 yards. Also the bullet is faster with the .357 and it has much less propensity to ricochet.
Have you honestly ever shot either one?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
Depends on the pistol and the shooter. I would personally be comfortable at 100 yards with a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with the 10" barrel under the right conditions.
Read much, Persona?
Doesn't shoot much either is my guess.
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
Look again.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 12, 2010, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 11, 2010, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 11, 2010, 05:50:50 PM
How far away are you actually going to hit anything with a pistol?
Depends on the pistol and the shooter. I would personally be comfortable at 100 yards with a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum with the 10" barrel under the right conditions.
Read much, Persona?
Doesn't shoot much either is my guess.
I don't shoot much. My guess is he doesn't shoot at all.
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
:boring:
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
:|
Quote from: TGB on December 12, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
:|
This guy's a real winner, ain't he? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 11:37:00 PM
Quote from: TGB on December 12, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
:|
This guy's a real winner, ain't he? :lulz:
I liked him better when he was banned for being poptard.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 11:37:00 PM
Quote from: TGB on December 12, 2010, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: Persona Facade on December 12, 2010, 10:30:01 PM
Charley is right, I do not shoot much. I simply am unable to shoot often.
I have looked through the entire thread and I still do not see where this quote from read much is located.
:|
This guy's a real winner, ain't he? :lulz:
Oh, yeah.
On that note: We've missed you, CB. Not enough people slapping the newbs while you were away. :)
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 11:58:20 PM
On that note: We've missed you, CB. Not enough people slapping the newbs while you were away. :)
This is a kinder, gentler me.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 12, 2010, 11:59:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 11:58:20 PM
On that note: We've missed you, CB. Not enough people slapping the newbs while you were away. :)
This is a kinder, gentler me.
:aaa:
Well, I guess i'll have to pick up the slack again. Not that i mind that much.
In all seriousness though, it's good to hear from you again. :)
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 13, 2010, 12:03:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 12, 2010, 11:59:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 12, 2010, 11:58:20 PM
On that note: We've missed you, CB. Not enough people slapping the newbs while you were away. :)
This is a kinder, gentler me.
:aaa:
Well, I guess i'll have to pick up the slack again. Not that i mind that much.
In all seriousness though, it's good to hear from you again. :)
Thanks. :)
One day I told my son to try my 12 gauge. He didn't know I had slipped in a 3" Magnum buckshot load. It damn near dislocated his shoulder. :lulz:
Oh, and if you're wondering, he was 225 lbs at the time and a grown man.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 12:59:56 AM
One day I told my son to try my 12 gauge. He didn't know I had slipped in a 3" Magnum buckshot load. It damn near dislocated his shoulder. :lulz:
Oh, and if you're wondering, he was 225 lbs at the time and a grown man.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 13, 2010, 01:01:29 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 12:59:56 AM
One day I told my son to try my 12 gauge. He didn't know I had slipped in a 3" Magnum buckshot load. It damn near dislocated his shoulder. :lulz:
Oh, and if you're wondering, he was 225 lbs at the time and a grown man.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
We were always fucking with each other like that. He had me shoot his derringer once. I stupidly assumed it was a .22. It was a .45. We had to go look for it because it flew out of my hand and went over my head.
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 13, 2010, 01:01:29 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 12:59:56 AM
One day I told my son to try my 12 gauge. He didn't know I had slipped in a 3" Magnum buckshot load. It damn near dislocated his shoulder. :lulz:
Oh, and if you're wondering, he was 225 lbs at the time and a grown man.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
We were always fucking with each other like that. He had me shoot his derringer once. I stupidly assumed it was a .22. It was a .45. We had to go look for it because it flew out of my hand and went over my head.
That happened to me the only time I ever fired a .45. :oops:
Was it a derringer or a full frame?
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 01:12:19 AM
Was it a derringer or a full frame?
It was full frame. But I thought it was a 9mm. :oops:
:lulz:
Hurts, don't it?
Quote from: Charley Brown on December 13, 2010, 01:42:47 AM
:lulz:
Hurts, don't it?
I'm not allowed to shoot it anymore. :lulz:
LOL
http://exiledonline.com/xm25-gee-whiz-how-can-we-be-losing-with-such-cool-stuff/
QuoteMy basic rule is that if Rick Sanchez said that water is wet, I'd start to doubt it, so I've got a couple of doubts about this story. First, it's very hard to tell if the XM25 works as well as we're hearing, because U.S. armed forces procurement is a big, sleazy business and involves more lies and propaganda than Stalin's show trials ever generated. There are proven cases of Army officers working with contractors from the big weapons companies to rig tests to make new weapons systems look good. If you take a look at this recent video of the XM25 putting on a show for the tame media, you'll see what I mean.
Most people have no idea how to read a video like this, so here are a few pointers to make you a smarter shopper next time you need to buy a weapons system. First, you'll notice that the reporters are told what's going to happen by Col. Tamilio, the Army's public-relations honcho for the new weapon. And he tells them, "You're not going to see anything" because the XM25 is firing dummy rounds, training rounds, non-explosive. After the soldier handling the weapon fires two rounds, Tamilio tells them the test went "two-for-two," but they're taking his word for it. All they actually saw was a guy shooting the thing twice.
Next, notice that after the first round is fired, a civilian in a baseball cap comes up, tinkers with the XM25, and whispers something in the shooter's ear. I'd bet my lunch that's a consultant from the companies that produced the XM25, telling the shooter how to baby the weapon to make it look good. You have to realize that in a lot of American high-tech businesses, everything from hip-replacement surgery to weapons testing, a lot of the the hands-on work is done not by doctors or soldiers but by industry guys who never get mentioned in the official reports. So this is not a combat-style firing by an ordinary GI; not only does the shooter have industry help right over his shoulder, but the shooter is identified as a major, and you can bet he was hand-picked for this demonstration.
It's a matter of money—big money. Defense contracts are the sweetest you can imagine, which is why defense contractors bribe the hell out of everybody from congressmen to foreign dictator's nephews to get them to buy. If you want a classic example of what defense procurement sleaze looks like, take a look at the career of former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now better known as "Federal Inmate Cunningham." There are thousands of lobbyists and "consultants" who spend their whole lives greasing the Federal procurement process. Naturally the weapons nuts who follow news like the XM25 don't have a clue about this stuff, but the real grownups in DC pay very close attention to it.
The XM25 has a typical history for a big-money American weapons system. By the time suckers like Rick Sanchez get brought to the proving range to see it shown off, this weapons system has been through a career as sleazy as Duke Cunningham's. It all starts when one or more of the Armed Services comes up with a "need" for a new weapon. In this case, Plan A was a fantasy weapon called OICW, "Objective Individual Combat Weapon," that would combine the power of an automatic rifle and a grenade launcher. That program failed, and was split into two parts: one for a new rifle to replace the M4, and another for a rapid-firing grenade launcher, Program XM29, which ended up with the XM25. Along the way, the program ran into more corporate and political interference than you can imagine, especially because some of the competitors were foreign companies. Colt Industries, the company that makes the current M203 grenade launcher, actually called in a rule that the Defense Department had to use American corporations in certain cases, so they could get a piece of the procurement pie.
That's pretty standard Defense contractor behavior: if you're losing out to a foreign competitor, and you can't just bribe some tool like Rep. Cunningham to step in on your side, then play the "Buy American!" card.
Sometimes good weapons come out of all this sleaze, sometimes not. And even when the results are good, you can count on the fact that some contractor who loves to wave the flag made some obscene profits by gold-plating the winning weapons system, loading it up with expensive options. It's not hard when the armed-services officers in charge of signing off on the money know they can go right to work for the contractor as soon as they retire.
So maybe, just maybe, the XM25 will do what it's supposed to do. But even if it does, it won't be a "game-changer" in either of our wars, because irregular wars like Iraq and Afghanistan aren't decided by superior weaponry. If they were, we'd already have won both those wars about a million times over. The Taliban use old Soviet AK rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and get to battle on foot or bouncing along in the back of Toyota pickups. But in spite of this humongous gap between our tech and theirs, the senior British commander in Afghanistan went on record in 2008 saying the Taliban will not be defeated militarily–and he should know, because the Brits have been fighting the Pashtun irregulars for two centuries now.
Let's take the best-case scenario and say that this new weapon, the XM25, makes every American infantry squad so lethal that the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents lose a huge number of men and can't afford stand-up fights any more. What that would do is force an accelerated evolution in the same direction guerrilla war's been evolving for more than 100 years: away from trying to fight the invading army on its own terms and toward assassination, bombs, betrayal—all the ways insurgents love to fight and conventional armies hate. In practical terms, that means more Taliban enlist in the Afghan Army and wait for the chance to mow down the Western soldiers who are supposedly their buddies. Or more Taliban go home and wait until we lose interest and go home, then dig up their buried guns and go stomp their less-militant neighbors. Or, worst and most likely of all these scenarios, more Taliban forget about chancing a firefight and stick to IEDs.
According to the U.S. Army's own newspaper, the Army Times, IEDs now account for 75 percent of American casualties in Afghanistan.
Most of our GIs are not dying or being wounded in the kind of firefight the XM25 is designed to win. They're dying in a much nastier way: getting blown up by remote control while they patrol rural Afghan dirt roads.
And unfortunately, the only effect a gee-whiz weapon like the XM25 is likely to have is raising that figure closer to 100 percent.
QuoteSo maybe, just maybe, the XM25 will do what it's supposed to do. But even if it does, it won't be a "game-changer" in either of our wars, because irregular wars like Iraq and Afghanistan aren't decided by superior weaponry.
Damn right.
I seriously don't understand why you would spend war budget money (in this war) on anything other than troops supplies and armor (the vehicle kind). :?
Because war is a racket, and the gun exists only to create thin veneer of legitimacy? I dunno.
Guns are a principle part of the racket really. Half the racket is selling shit to the military that's either useless or overpriced by an order of magnitude.
I suppose my cynicism wasn't working for a moment when I wrote that.
So this thing... right... You point it at a barricade or whatever, and it finds it's range, then you manually dial in a couple more feet, aim up a little, fire, and the idea is that it airbursts over the cover and gets the guys on the other side?
Damn, it's not the worst idea ever, but can't they do it cheaper? I'm guessing the current M.O. for that very specific set of circumstances is to just lay down suppressive fire?
It sounds like this is just an OICW spinoff they're trying to offload.
It's not so much the cost of the gun (60k I think?) as the cost to train people to use it effectively.
Quote from: Slyph on January 29, 2011, 03:51:30 PM
It sounds like this is just an OICW spinoff they're trying to offload.
it is.