# Laser distance air-bursting bullets? What do you think?



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

Good idea, bad idea?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11876041


----------



## MPwannabe (30 Nov 2010)

All I could think of when I saw the subject of this thread was 'Lasers! PEWPEWPEW!'

Now I'm going to read the article and edit my post into a real reply.

Edit: That's pretty cool. The accuracy of this will prevent the need for artillery and therefore lessen collateral damage. I'm all about protecting innocent civilians, and this new weapon may help ensure that fewer become casualties during a firefight.


----------



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

Conversly, unknown Taliban has two kids hostage behind the wall you can't see he was planning to use as an escape route. You just blew off their heads. How do you feel?


----------



## MPwannabe (30 Nov 2010)

I agree, but it's better than dropping the whole damn building on their heads. If we had access to weapons that could ensure the prevention of civilian casualties, then we wouldn't be lossing our own to IED attacks.


----------



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

True true, I also wonder as to the cost of the rounds for such a weapon. Something tells me it would be significantly higher then 5.56 ballpoint. I'd imagine you'd be looking at, at most, one weapon per infantry platoon.


----------



## TN2IC (30 Nov 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> You just blew off their heads. How do you feel?



Recoil?  ;D


j/k.... back to your regular programming.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Nov 2010)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Recoil?  ;D
> 
> 
> j/k.... back to your regular programming.



Eyes on the road trucker!


----------



## Veiledal (30 Nov 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> True true, I also wonder as to the cost of the rounds for such a weapon. Something tells me it would be significantly higher then 5.56 ballpoint. I'd imagine you'd be looking at, at most, one weapon per infantry platoon.






> The army is expected to purchase 12,500 of the XM25 rifles this year, which is enough to outfit every member off the infantry and special forces. Each of the rounds will cost in the area of $24.


http://www.dailytech.com/US+Armys+XM25+Fires+Bullets+that+Target+Enemies+Behind+Cover/article20272.htm

I believe the website means enough to outfit one man in every section/platoon.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Nov 2010)

I am going to make a few observations/queries which I hope that someone far more knowledgeable than I can answer:

a. the projectile can not be very large, so the explosive charge and the splinter pattern both must be fairly limited. It seems to me that it would only be about half of that of the 40mm round.

b. in order to keep recoil to an acceptable level, the velocity is probably quite low. Given the use of a laser range finder and a ballistic computer along with the low velocity, an accurate sight picture would seem to be very important.

c. the combination of a and b make target location and identification terribly important.

d. in a SOP to the Technoviking, this might seem to be even less flexible than the AGL.

What have I missed?


----------



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> a. the projectile can not be very large, so the explosive charge and the splinter pattern both must be fairly limited. It seems to me that it would only be about half of that of the 40mm round.



Smart bullet explodes with the force of a hand grenade  (Source: Dailymail)

 If this is equivilant to say a frag grenade. Lethal radius shold be around 18 ft as I recall. Though I would assume it's packed with less shrapanel so I'm not sure how that would affect its range.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2010)

This may help explain things.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...an/?test=faces

Since the dawn of modern warfare, the best way to stay alive in the face of incoming fire has been to take cover behind a wall. But thanks to a game-changing "revolutionary" rifle, the U.S. Army has made that tactic dead on arrival. Now the enemy can run, but he can't hide.
After years of development, the U.S. Army has unleashed a new weapon in Afghanistan -- the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System, a high-tech rifle that can be programmed so that its 25-mm. ammunition does not necessarily explode on impact. Instead, it can be set to detonate either in front of or behind a target, meaning it literally will go through a wall before it explodes and kills the enemy.
It also has a range of roughly 2,300 feet -- nearly the length of eight football fields -- making it possible to fire at targets well past the range of the rifles and carbines that most soldiers carry today. 

Lt. Col. Christopher Lehner, project manager for the semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon system for the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office Soldier, said that the XM25's capability alone is such a "game-changer" that it'll lead to new ways of fighting on the battlefield, beginning this month in Afghanistan.

"With this weapon system, we take away cover from [enemy targets] forever," Lehner told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. "Tactics are going to have to be rewritten. The only thing we can see [enemies] being able to do is run away."

And that would make it much easier for U.S. troops to put them in their sights, either with that same XM25 or another direct-fire weapon.
With this new weapon in the Army's arsenal, Lehner said, "We're much more effective, by many magnitudes, than current weapons at the squad level. We're able to shoot farther and more accurately, and our soldiers can stay behind sandbags, walls or rocks, which provides them protection from fire."

Lehner said the first XM25s were distributed to combat units in Afghanistan this month. The 12-pound, 29-inch system, which was designed by Minnesota's Alliant Techsystems, costs up to $35,000 per unit and, while highly sophisticated, is so easy to use that soldiers become proficient within minutes.

"That's how intuitively easy it is, even though it's high-tech," Lehner said. "All a soldier needs to know how to do is laze the target. It decimates anything within its lethal radius."

Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile communicates exactly how far it has traveled, allowing for precise detonation behind or ahead of any target.

"We have found that this has really made our soldiers so much more accurate and being able to deliver this high-explosive round in about five seconds," said Lehner, taking into account the time it takes a soldier to laze, aim and fire the weapon. Once fired, Lehner said, the round will reach its target in a "second or two," meaning the entire process from aiming to direct hit lasts less than 10 seconds, compared to 10 minutes or longer for traditional mortar fire.

A potential battlefield scenario, according to Army officials, might go something like this: 
-- A patrol encounters an enemy combatant in a walled Afghan village who fires an AK-47 intermittently from behind cover, exposing himself only for a brief second to fire. 
-- The patrol's leader calls for the XM25 gunman, who uses the weapon's laser range finder to calculate the distance to the target. 
-- He then uses an incremental button located near the trigger to add 1 meter to the round's distance, since the enemy is hiding behind a wall. 
-- The round is fired, and it explodes with a blast comparable to a hand grenade past the wall and above the enemy.

"This is revolutionary for many reasons," Lehner said, citing increased efficiency, safety and lethality. "This is the first time we're putting smart technology in an individual weapon system for our soldiers. We feel it's very important to field this because it keeps us ahead of the technological curve of our potential enemies. We have a feeling other people will try to copy us -- this is the future."

Lehner said the Army plans to purchase at least 12,500 XM25 systems beginning next year -- enough for one system in each infantry squad and Special Forces team.

The military isn't overly concerned that the weapon might be captured by the enemy, because they would be unable to obtain its highly specialized ammunition, batteries and other components. Lehner said he expects other nations will try to copy its technology, but it will be very cost-prohibitive.

"This is a game-changer," Lehner said. "The enemy has learned to get cover, for hundreds if not thousands of years.
"Well, they can't do that anymore. We're taking that cover from them and there's only two outcomes: We're going to get you behind that cover or force you to flee. So no matter what, we gotcha."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...#ixzz16gMXKdf4  __________________


----------



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This may help explain things.
> 
> www.foxnews.com[/u]/scitech/2010/...an/?test=faces]http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...an/?test=faces



 Fox news helping me?   :


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2010)

Since we don't know how to properly employ those weapons that we do have, I can understand why a "sniper in a trench" cannot be suppressed by aimed fire, and then closed with and destroyed.  It seems that all the new weapons are _Wunderwaffen_ that take away that need.


Nice weapon and all, but at 20,000 a system, it's not sustainable.  At least not now.  In the meantime, I'll be training the troops how to shoot bullets and then teaching them how to "close with" in order to hand-drop a grenade in said "trench".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Fox news helping me?   :



Ha ha. The mere sighting of Fox and you turn and run with no thought to content. What a hoot! I saw no bias in the article, but go ahead and denigrate the unread article (by you) as some sort of right wing crazed neocon conspiracy. Your loss. The video was a company one with no reporting from Fox. Hope your blinders don't bug your eyes out too much.  I'm sure your mother CBC will get around to showing it one day with the spin your looking for. ;D


----------



## AmmoTech90 (30 Nov 2010)

First off, I have handled (not fired one) and if it does what they said it would do during our briefing it's a nifty piece of kit.  Some points to clarify:

-Force of a hand grenade: I would say no.  A grenade has 150 odd grams of HE, a typical 20-30mm projectile 5 to 20.  40mm grenades: 20 to 40.  You may be able to optimize the frag pattern as you know which way the projectile will be facing when it functions (unlike a hand grenade), but you can only do so much with 15 grams.
-It is ball ammunition, not ballpoint.  Last time I checked Bic made pens, lighters, and razors, not ammo.
-Ammo cost, who cares at this point.  If you are buying the system you are buying ammo.  I have never seen ammo refused to released for ops because of price.  25 bucks for a piece of ammo with some tech in it is cheap.
-I see this being carried like a shotgun.  If SOPs/situation dictate you carry it, someone carries it.

As I said, if it does what it says on the box, it will be useful.  Remember you can fire it at pers in the open, they don't have to be behind a wall, and it has a longer range than 40mm LV.

Edit:  And there is no guidance, just ranging!


----------



## NSDreamer (30 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ha ha. The mere sighting of Fox and you turn and run with no thought to content. What a hoot! I saw no bias in the article, but go ahead and denigrate the unread article (by you) as some sort of right wing crazed neocon conspiracy. Your loss. The video was a company one with no reporting from Fox. Hope your blinders don't bug your eyes out too much.  I'm sure your mother CBC will get around to showing it one day with the spin your looking for. ;D



 Tch, right you are. Face to face with my own prejudice! How ugly a thing!


----------



## MPwannabe (30 Nov 2010)

har har! ^

I wish Canada had a huge Defense Budget that allowed for the development and purchase of baddass weapons such as this.


----------



## GAP (30 Nov 2010)

Naw....we wait for the US to do it, then just tag along...... :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2010)

Weapons like the XM-25 or the Korean K-11 are trying to pack the lethal goodness of a 40mm grenade launcher into a more compact package for the users like you and I. From what I have seen, the 25mm round has a flatter trajectory and greater range than the 40mm rounds a M-203 type weapon fires, so you trade range for lethality. The only other way to go about this would be to make a weapon that can fire 40mm HV rounds from the shoulder. It is possible from a technical point of view (the Swiss ARPAD 600 grenade launcher was built to do this) and would provide a useful niche capability at the cost of a fairly large and bulky weapon. Ditching the expensive sight but keeping the explosive warheads would result in something like the AA-12 automatic shotgun firing "Frag 12" rounds, which would be quite lethal at short range for room clearing, but give up long range accuracy.

This sort of weapon is very valuable given the greater reach and accuracy, and future refinements should include finding ways to produce the sighting unit at a much lower price (this is where all the cost is coming from. You could build an underbarrel 25mm launcher for a few hundred dollars for every rifleman, but the rounds would be very ineffective launched "by eyeball"), and more powerful explosive fillings which can increase the lethality. Having some different ammunition natures will also be nice.

The next evolution of this type of weapon will be a section support weapon to supplement/replace the C-9, or larger more capable weapons to take the role of the GPMG at platoon/company level, so long as they are not significantly larger or bulkier than the weapons they replace. Some Swedish thinking on these lines here


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Having some different ammunition natures will also be nice.


 
An interesting idea would be a round loaded with gas pellets and an incendiary device to ignite the. Effective way to flush the enemy without overly risking secondary casualties.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2010)

I guess I am the only one in step here again, but I still have problems coming to grip with a very small round and the resulting effects at the far end. To my mind, the terminal ballistics suck. 

According to one story I saw it had a max range of about 750 metres, which means getting an accurate range is very necessary, hence the laser range finder. (Facetious switch on) At the risk of getting on the Technoviking's Christmas Card list, this seems to be another case of looking for a weapon that could replace a light mortar . . . or even the AGL. (Facetious switch off) The weapon may work admirably, and I may have been out for a very long lunch, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2010)

Max range of 750m is mostly a result of having a fast round with a flat trajectory. Anyone who ever fired an M-203 or other LV 40mm launcher knows the difficulty of aiming. The high arcing trajectory and low speed (not to mention the effects of windage) works against the grenadier.

Perhaps there are other, better solutions (shoulder launched HV grenade launcher or automatic shotgun are two current contenders), but time will tell.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2010)

The solution is properly employing the weapons we have.  If you want an airburst, use the 84mm (there are airburst rounds.  I don't know if we have purchased them, but if not, we should).  So many existing weapons out there, all with wonderful capabilities, but without the skill sets, we may as well stay home.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

I heard similar arguments against the M-79.....it earned its' place...

You can't easily carry around an 84mm, even a 60 is humping, but this adds flexability to even small teams....

my :2c:


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I heard similar arguments against the M-79.....it earned its' place...
> 
> You can't easily carry around an 84mm, even a 60 is humping, but this adds flexability to even small teams....
> 
> my :2c:


I want my money back 

This thing offers no capability that already exists (though the method of shooting shit is high-tech), costs 20K/unit, and since we can't even use the shit we have now, why get this?

I've lost all faith with DLR anyway.  Hell, I'm losing faith in the whole rotten system.


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I want my money back
> 
> This thing offers no capability that already exists (though the method of shooting crap is high-tech), costs 20K/unit, and since we can't even use the crap we have now, why get this?
> 
> I've lost all faith with DLR anyway.  Hell, I'm losing faith in the whole rotten system.



 Down Johnny, remember this is still American only, there may yet be hope!


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Good idea, bad idea?


Well, it is not a new idea.  Programable airbursting munitions for the direct-fire flat-trajectory weapon have been around for a while ... we've even retired a system (Skyguard) that fired such a round (AHEAD).  It was only a matter of time for the technology to trickle down to lighter soldier weapons.

What surprises me is that the technology is matured to the point where it is being fielded in rifle-like weapons and crew served grenade launchers, but it skipped being implemented in AFVs.  This is a capability that should be in our LAV cannon.


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/reynolds.pdf


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Dec 2010)

I'm at the post-coffee stage of the day (onto my 3-rd cup on the ship)

I observed an exercise this morning where a sailor didn't even know how to properly clear his rifle.  He was "mucking" with it after leaving the clearing barrel, and I noted that his hammer was cocked (mucking involved breaking the rifle open to look into the lower for some reason?) so I queried him on the state of the weapon and sent him back to the clearing barrel.  

Learning to use the tools we have already is a challenge for some folks.

I wish I could spend my days teaching folks how to use their tools better.  Techno....I'm volunteering to help....do you want me?   

As for this fancy tool, well, the video I saw of it showed some pretty brutal looking recoil (no follow-up shot without completely re-assuming your position, that's for sure) 

Somewhere else I saw a photo of the electronic guts of the optic, and thought (as an electronics techie) gee.....that's a lot of stuff to get dusty/dirty/grungy.

I've mucked about with scopes fresh back from A-stan, and the powder fine dust that was in the elevation wheel was appalling.  I can only hope that they have a perfect sealing system to keep this system running.  It'll need it.

I won't speak to what sort of tactical/operational use this might have, that's outside my lane.  

NS


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I wish I could spend my days teaching folks how to use their tools better.  Techno....I'm volunteering to help....do you want me?


I'd take you in a heart beat.  We need people of all stripes (eg: navy, airforce, army) to get our people into the basics before they try to be superninjawannabes.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2010)

NS...that's why the AK, M-79 Thumper, the 60mm, etc are so durable....they are designed to work in existing conditions, not bench state.....

While I like the concept, if things are so crammed/finetuned as you say, then this is probably a no go in the long term....I have no clue as to what durability testing they did on the thing...(but if you remember the intro of the M-16 and all the jamming, chroming of chamber, changing of powder to get it to work....well..........)


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Dec 2010)

GAP,

I've been shooting the C-7, AR-15 (and an original USAF M-16 once!) for a good number of years.

I've got a Chinese (Norinco) AK clone in my collection, along with a few other arms that have garnered my interest over the years.

The absolute brutal simplicity of the Lee Enfield rifle has always impressed me though.  The #4(T) that I picked up a couple years back still shoots to within 2 MOA of the original scope settings from 60+ years ago.  THAT is solid.  Simple, solid, and damned hard to kill.

Stepping over to using the tools, I've been on the CF Bisley team 5 times since 1996, and have seen the level of marksmanship skills transition from the point where I was the noobie, feeling like I didn't belong, to where I'm teaching and sharing what people have taught me over the years, because now, I'm one of those people that others watch and learn from.

For the folks who hear "Bisley" and think blazers, funny hats, and hoity-toity shooters, nope.  Not so much anymore.  The Brit service rifle matches have transitioned from the "old" style to a somewhat more modern set of matches.  Body Armour with plates....mandatory.  7.5Kg mandatory LBV weight (on top of the BA) Helmets, etc.  Running?  500 meters, 3 minutes, followed by a 600 yard fire with movement match on an electronic target range.  CASEVAC of 200m, followed by a 500m fire-team match.  The old belly-shooting days at Bisley are over (at least for the CF team!), and if you don't have the basics down pat, you'll have no chance at the advanced stuff.

Techno, I'd love to help.  I'd love to teach marksmanship, but because I'm an Acoustic Technician, not a Boatswain, I'm not an "Expert" in small arms....so my "help" isn't wanted.  My dream job would be to teach shooting.  I love it, and I love seeing eyes light up with delight after finally shooting a good group.  If there was a way I could do it, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

I teach anyone who comes out with the MARLANT Combat Shooting Team, as as the team rifle coach.  Years ago, I watched most of the top shooters hiding their techniques and tips, and they'd only answer your questions with the minimum....so when they retired, they took most of their knowledge and experience with them rather than sharing it.  Again this summer at CFSAC, I made up and handed out a shooting guide book with match descriptions and some basic marksmanship info in it.  I see no advantage to hiding knowledge from other shooters.  Especially when a lot of them will end up on the sharp end carrying a rifle in harms way.  

Giving those troopers the tools they need to help put the rounds where they belong is a damn fine idea.

Even with this laser airburst system, accuracy is going to be very important.

Suppose you've got a soldier who's only able to barely pass his PWT shoots.  That means he's hitting 60% of the time on figure 11/12 targets out to 300 meters.  That means that 60% of his shots are going into an 18" wide, 22" tall target at 300m (size of a Fig 12).  So basically, at 300m, he's hitting within about a 0.5m circle.  Not bad when applying HE.

If we step back to 600 meters, that group should, theoretically double to 1.0m.    Out to 750m, that's a total of 1.25m group, with 60% of his shots.

The other 40% of his shots will be beyond that, and at best, of reduced effectiveness.  

There's been nothing mentioned of the scope system correcting for windage, which is something that's not well taught or understood (based on how many people approached me to ask about at CFSAC to explain the wind chart I included in the booklet).  And these rounds will have a considerably longer time of flight than a 5.56mm round, meaning windage will have a considerably greater effect on the impact zone.  

Soldiers who carry this tool are going to need to understand windage, ballistics, and how to properly apply the marksmanship principles.

The problem I've noted is that a lot of troops don't have #1, or #2, and only a few learn #3 well enough.

I'd love to help teach...its FUN.

NS


----------



## NSDreamer (5 Dec 2010)

NS any time you want to teach shooting, I volunteer to take lessons! I'm one of those who 'barely' passed the pwt


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Dec 2010)

What do ya want to learn?  Drop me a PM!!


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Dec 2010)

Re windage, this may help explain a bit about the lack of knowledge. I was in the first recruit troop in the RCA Depot to not be issued a Lee-Enfield rifle. Instead we started from day one with the FN C1. In one of the first periods of instruction it was explained to us that while calculations for windage were done with the old rifle, because of the increased velocity of the 7.62 mm bullet, it had been decided to stop the practice of calculating windage. I seem to recall we were told to aim at the left or right side of the target in the even there was a strong crosswind.

This was in early 1958.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2010)

My understanding of the system is the sight is day/night and laser rangefinding (allowing you to accurately lay on the target and get a much higher first round hit probability), but calculating windage or leadoff is still the job of the shooter.

Smaller, faster rounds for grenade launchers would seem to follow the general trend of small arms ammunition; 5.56 X 45 is no longer controversial and was adopted for many of the same reasons (soldiers can carry more rounds, and the flat trajectory with less allowance for leadoff, elevation and windage makes training soldiers to shoot easier as well). I believe something like this is the wave of the future, being the means to radically improve the lethality of the soldier over a conventional rifle armed soldier. Following Navyshooter's formula, an HE weapon continues to put a person inside the lethal radius of the round even out to 750m if the shooter can "just" pass the PWT.

For soldiers who are tired, frightened or stressed this might be enough to give them the edge.

Still, the concept is in the early stages of development, and there are many alternative concepts which *might* work as well or better (including much more rigorous training using current equipment), so stay tuned.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2010)

I would offer that *if* we followed our own training doctrine (eg: with marskmanship), then "more rigorous training" wouldn't be required.  Besides, since we cannot follow the good training we have developed, then why bother with someone "more rigorous?"


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2010)

Looking at the XM-25 again, it would be far more useful to me as an infantryman if it came with a bipod and large capacity magazine (or the action was reworked to make it belt fed. I'm flexible  ) Since the overall idea is to provide a weapon to suppress the enemy in more difficult situations (i.e. under cover), then making this more like a C-9 would increase its utility. The limited terminal effects due to the small round argument would be minimized by putting a burst on the target, and the flat trajectory and long range makes it useful in conventional war scenarios as well as COIN and other LIC situations.

The two elements which drive the costs so high are the sight unit and the active fuse setting mechanism, which feeds data to the round in the barrel as it is being fired. A highly simplified unit with a holographic reflex sight and point detonation fuses would provide a large percentage of the capabilities of the XM-25 at a fraction of the price, something which is also worth investigating.

This is an old idea where the technology has finally caught up, look at the SPIW program

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/spiw.htm



> A completely new kind of weapon called SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) was in the process of development in the 1960s. The new SPIW was to combine the capabilities of a rifle, a controlled pattern shotgun, and a light mortar. It could be designed to fire a single medium-sized dart, a cluster of small darts, a microcaliber bullet, or a high explosive round. Many military experts predicted that the SPIW, or something like it, would become the basic infantry weapon of the future. By the end of 1969, however, the SPIW was still purely experimental, and no such weapon was available to the infantryman fighting in Vietnam.


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Dec 2010)

The SPIW, the greatest weapon that never was.....a very interesting read.  

I would suggest that making it into a belt-fed or Larger Cap mag system with bipod and burst fire capability would necessitate a much heavier platform in order to reduce dispersion.  Note the recoil in the videos of it being fired, the soldiers are being muscled around a LOT by it (IMO) 

In order for a burst from it to be effective, the recoil would have to be much more controllable to reduce dispersion.

NS


----------



## Kalatzi (6 Dec 2010)

Hail technoviking!



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer that *if* we followed our own training doctrine (eg: with marskmanship), then "more rigorous training" wouldn't be required.  Besides, since we cannot follow the good training we have developed, then why bother with someone "more rigorous?"



Just curious, in an early post you seemd to be referring to somethinng like the old section left flanking attack on the lone rifleman ... And in those scenarios any semi bright gunman would be looking to break contact at the first chance. 

Seems much simpler with this device -  fast response less need to manouvre  = less risk and ninimum collatoral damage. 

Are we deplying anything like the sniper detection systesm the Americans are using?

This thing looks  like a super version of whack-a-mole?


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2010)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Hail technoviking!


;D  (And there was much rejoicing)



			
				Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Just curious, in an early post you seemd to be referring to somethinng like the old section left flanking attack on the lone rifleman ... And in those scenarios any semi bright gunman would be looking to break contact at the first chance.


Well, the old "left flanking" is just a bit of a strawman for me to illustrate a point.  Yes, we train and assess people on that in leadership courses, but it's only a vehicle to assess leadership and tactics in a highly controlled situation.  I highly doubt that any lone rifleman seeing an enemy platoon advancing would shoot on them, let alone stick around.  But the point is that when faced with an enemy that is dug in and doesn't want to move, we already have the tools to keep them from shooting at us, and this ranges from accurate rifle fire to sustained MG fire, mortars, 25mm Chain Guns, etc.  

But given that our role as infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, we seem to be falling under the spell of technology being the saviour to all our problems, when in fact we already have the solution: superior firepower.  

Now, I must state now that I'm not talking "Afghanistan", because, really, what does *that* mean?  Is it Kandahar 2002?  Kabul 03/04?  Op Medusa?  Framework patrolling in Zharey?

So, I would offer that irrespective of the conflict, superior firepower is achieved by superb marskmanship at all levels.  And superior firepower allows manoeuvre, which then allows we poor, bloody infantry to close with the enemy and then destroy them.  It may seem enticing to have a "magic gun" that allows us to pump rounds that blow up on command; however, a simple way around that is to have overhead cover.  So, in the end, no matter the weapon (short of nukes, perhaps), there is still a need to go root out the enemy, by grenade if necessary, followed by very close range shots to the centre of visible mass, concluded with one to the face.

A further consideration is logistics.  In fact, that is the main consideration.  If you can have one of these "wonder guns" for the same effort as 20 rifles, I'll take the 20 rifles and take the time to train them how to shoot properly.

So, as you can see, I prefer technique by effectively using technology, rahter than using techology instead of good technique.


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> a. the projectile can not be very large, so the explosive charge and the splinter pattern both must be fairly limited. It seems to me that it would only be about half of that of the 40mm round.





			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> -Force of a hand grenade: I would say no.  A grenade has 150 odd grams of HE, a typical 20-30mm projectile 5 to 20.  40mm grenades: 20 to 40.  You may be able to optimize the frag pattern as you know which way the projectile will be facing when it functions (unlike a hand grenade), but you can only do so much with 15 grams.


I wonder if the technical evaluations of the round used the phrase "force of a hand grenade" or if that was artistic licence from a confused reporter upon hearing "lethality of a hand grenade"?  All other things being equal, an air-bursting grenade will produce more leathal fragmentation than the same grenade laying or impacting on the ground.  It is, therefore, conceivable (though not certain) that this 25 mm round could match the lethality of traditional grenades (hand tossed or PIPD 40 mm types).

The M397A1 is a 40 mm grenade for the M203.  About half the volume of the projectile is a carrier that is designed to (on impact with the ground) launch a smaller grenade to 1.5 m hight where it will detonate.  As this bounding 40 mm grenade sacrifices HE volume to gain the benefits of an air-burst, I suspect it is probably a better munition against which to compare the 25 mm airburst round. 


http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/M397A1-40-mm-LV-HE-air-burst-grenade-United-States.html


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Dec 2010)

Apologies for the short reply, postIng from my iPod touch.

The reason for the reduced terminal effects I mention is the reduced ke from having less force behind the fragments due to less he pushing.  The fragments may be better distributed due to airburst but have much smaller effective range which is why you need so much more accuracy.
Carefully engineered frag may mitigate this somewhat but you can only do so much with less than 20 grams
Once you get below 80 joules you are producing nonlethal frag for the most part.  Also remember the small casing available so you get less fragments of a useful size

One other thing an airbursting munition functioning over your head is sending half it's frag in the air above you just like a hand grenade sends half it's frag into the ground


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2010)

Playing the devil's advocate a bit here:

A 25mm automatic micro grenade launcher would be a useful section/platoon support weapon. It should be much smaller and more portable than the "C-16" (hence far more usable), allow the crew to carry far more ammunition and engage a broader range of targets. The argument that it needs to be much bigger and heavier is belied by Chinese and Russian 35 and 30mm AGL's which are the same size and weight as a C-6 GPMG; given that proof of principle a 25mm man portable support weapon seems quite plausible.

What isn't very acceptable is the cost of such a weapon. The electronic parts of the day/night laser rangefinder and ballistic computer should not be "that" expensive (digital cameras and consumer electronics like iPods or iPhones are proof of principle), so there is lots of room for the procurement agencies to pressure vendors to bring the prices down. OTOH electronic fuses in a round will be expensive (they need to be packaged in a very small space and survive the shock of firing, not to mention the ability to receive data from the ballistic computer in the barrel), so this capability needs to be thought out very carefully. If the weapon's capabilities are entirely dependent on a programmable fuse, then perhaps this really is the wrong way to go.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2010)

It seems to me that the ballistic computer and fuze setter could programme the round before it is chambered or fired. It is not really like firing a Sten or SMG, but the principle might be the same. In any case, recoil will be a problem for a shoulder fired weapon. Much of the weight of the weapon must surely be designed into it to absorb much of the backwards forces, or at least to transfer them to the firer.

My hangup is still the potential lethality of the round, especially as most of the fragments will be directed away from the area ahead/below of the point of burst.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> My hangup is still the potential lethality of the round, especially as most of the fragments will be directed away from the area ahead/below of the point of burst.


? The projectile already has a lot of KE (both linear and rotational) when it detonates and this is does not disappear - it is transferred to all the frag.  All this KE will infact give greater velocity to frag going forward in the direction of flight and in all directions perpendicular to that.  There will be reduced lethal & casualty distances to the rear of the projectile, but when firing over an obstacle the target will already be at least within 1 m of the programmed blast.

... and if a target is not behind an obstacle, then don't add the extra metre when shooting.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Dec 2010)

Suppose there's more to the sight than "meets the eye" so to speak.

Since it's a small projo, with a small HE load, the placement is, obviously, important.  

Suppose the sight has an integrated digital camera.  When it lases for range, it also snaps a "photo" of the sight picture.

The soldier then dials in his delay for the fuse, and lines up on his target.

He squeezes his trigger, but the weapon won't actually fire until the sight picture matches that of what was lased for range.  I don't think it's an overly difficult piece of tech to include.  There's lots of electrically initiated weapons (think the CIWS on ships.)

Thoughts?

It's probably a pretty complex piece of kit in that optic anyhow, what's one more whiz-bang thing to add?

NS


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Dec 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> ? The projectile already has a lot of KE (both linear and rotational) when it detonates and this is does not disappear - it is transferred to all the frag.  All this KE will infact give greater velocity to frag going forward in the direction of flight and in all directions perpendicular to that.  There will be reduced lethal & casualty distances to the rear of the projectile, but when firing over an obstacle the target will already be at least within 1 m of the programmed blast.
> 
> ... and if a target is not behind an obstacle, then don't add the extra metre when shooting.


I understand all that. I also understand that the majority of the fragments are going to fly away upwards and forwards, just as is the case with any air burst projectile. The remainder will be quite lethal, but in a limited area. We are talking, after all, about a projectile roughly 50% larger than a 12 gauge shotgun deer slug. If the shooter is on the target, great. If not, it doesn't matter if it is a 25mm or a 155 mm, although the margin of error is much larger in the latter case.

It may be that the sighting system will compensate for my "litttle bang" theory. If so, I apologize in advance. Let's wait and see.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Suppose there's more to the sight than "meets the eye" so to speak.
> 
> Since it's a small projo, with a small HE load, the placement is, obviously, important.
> 
> ...


We *could* do all that, or we could train our people to shoot effectively, so we can manoeuvre on the enemy to put a bullet in his face from up close.


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2010)

In the decades since I have actively served I have seen more and more whizbang technology come forward, some useful, some marginal, lots just too complicated and time consuming for the soldier in a TIC......if the technology fails, whats the fall back position? 

good solid soldiering.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We *could* do all that, or we could train our people to shoot effectively, so we can manoeuvre on the enemy to put a bullet in his face from up close.



Up close and personal?  I don't know if the new army is up for that.    >


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Dec 2010)

Sorry, 

I didn't mean to suggest that we should go that way....I'm just wondering if it's a built-in doohickey that they're not chatting about to improve terminal potential.

The person carrying the tool should be able to use it effectively.

NS


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2010)

The operation of the sight is actually far simpler than digital cameras and superimposed images. Sights of this sort have a mirror with the sight graticule engraved on it. You aim and lase the target, the ballistic computer calculates the range to the target and the required angle of elevation; the mirror is tilted by the required amount and the sight picture you see now has the graticule in the new position. The shooter then relays the weapon so the graticule is centered upon the target again, and fires.

For the XM-25 and similar weapons, a signal is sent to the electronic fuse at the same time, programing the round to detonate at distance "x". Should the shooter not relay the weapon after the graticule has changed, the round will still detonate after the required time has passed; a loud "bang" will take place somewhere; just not where the shooter expects.

Just to go back to the SPIW for a moment, there is a true case of overcomplicating the problem. As I understand it, the initial idea was to use something like a shotgun to fire flechettes, in the expectation the flechettes would have the velocity and penetrating power to take out a troop at battle range even with 1960 era protection (a steel helmet). Since the weapon had a large bore, deer slugs and mini grenades were also contemplated as part of the battle load so soldiers could engage a wide range of targets. (The developed AA-12 of today is probably what was intended back then). Of course, a faster flechette is even better, so loading something the size of a finishing nail in a 5.56X45 cartridge case was the ideal solution to _velocity_(but added untold complications to the design of the weapon). 

So we should take what Technoviking and others have said, and look for the simplest and easiest solution to the problem of suppressing the enemy.


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So we should take what Technoviking and others have said, and look for the simplest and easiest solution to the problem of suppressing the enemy.



Mortars....??



NS


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So we should take what Technoviking and others have said, and look for the simplest and easiest solution to the problem of suppressing the enemy.


I would offer that we use the tools available, but by all means, embrace emerging technologies when they are mature enough to be fielded, remembering that technology alone cannot do any job for us (lest we stir up SKYNET) ;D


----------



## GAP (8 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I would offer that we use the tools available, but by all means, embrace emerging technologies when they are mature enough to be fielded, remembering that technology alone cannot do any job for us (lest we stir up SKYNET) ;D



Oh.....you think it heard?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It may be that the sighting system will compensate for my "litttle bang" theory. If so, I apologize in advance. Let's wait and see.


Assuming that rotational and linear velocities of the projectile are exploited to compensate for the "little bang" in directions forward and to the sides of the projectile, the rearward compensation is achieved through the proximity of the detonation to the target.  Assuming the target (a human) is behind cover of negligible thickness (prefabricated armoured plates?), he will still be within 3/4 m or less away from the blast.   That is controlled by the projectile detonating 1 m beyond whatever is providing cover.  Any Section/fire team members to the targets rear or flanks  will be subject to the greater lethal radius of that frag that is able to exploit pre-detonation inertia to achieve greater velocity.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> So we should ... look for the simplest and easiest solution to the problem of suppressing the enemy.


It seems to me that this is not a suppressing tool.  It is a killing (destroy) tool.  Instead of suppressing the hidden gunman - the target is killed or made combat ineffective though injuries.  As was pointed out, we have tools that allow a patrol to suppress a few windows in a concrete building at 600 m.  There are not many options for reaching through that window and killing the guy straight below - immediately behind the protective wall.

A question was asked in another thread about breaking the current paradigm of Infantry fixing for Artillery to destroy.  Perhaps one way is to enable the Infantry to destroy under conditions where they are currently only able to fix.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Dec 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> A question was asked in another thread about breaking the current paradigm of Infantry fixing for Artillery to destroy.  Perhaps one way is to enable the Infantry to destroy under conditions where they are currently only able to fix.


That's only a function of risk aversion.  We are able to destroy, but we refuse to (or so it seems).


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2010)

Although advertized as a "killing tool", in real life I suspect it will do a great job of suppressing the enemy. If the enemy soldier is inside the blast radius then he/she/it will be toast, and the fact there is a blast radius and a sight/fuse system to put the blast where the shooter wants it will increase the pK by a fair amount, but many factors will get in the way, including:

Soldiers who are frightened, tired or stressed. They might not aim properly (either to get the range, or properly relaying the weapon once the rangefinder has done its bit) so the round lands outside the lethal radius to the target.

The sight/fuse/round is defective, either through manufacturing fault or the day to day abuse of soldiers in the field (or even dust and moisture working its way inside the system). Never underestimate the clever private who wants to really see how the stuff inside works as well. ("Sergeant, I have these extra parts from when I looked at the inside of the sight....")

The enemy has a vote, and deploys new tactics or countermeasures to negate the effectiveness of the weapon.

Even with these factors in play, the fact there are blasts happening at or near where the enemy soldiers are will have the effect of suppressing them, or forcing them to leave their position to escape the effects of the fire. Most fire _is_ suppressive in nature, since the shooters have very limited sight pictures or windows of opportunity to take aimed shots; the ability to keep _their_ heads down while we carry out our COA is not something to be dismissed.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Dec 2010)

Sincere thanks to MCG for addressing my concerns. Having said that, I still wonder if we are not talking about a "one trick pony" trying to haul a Clydesdale's load. Given the points Thucydides raises above, especially the point of aim, I still worry about the effectiveness of the round under combat conditions. A number of you have already pointed out here and in other threads about the lack of marskmanship holding, aiming and firing skills in our troops. If the firer is uinable to put the round in or near enough to the correct place to take the enemy out of the fight, what has been gained?

Having roiled the waters a bit, it is time for Sweatie to go back into the primordial swamp and dream of Fire Missions Division and coordinating DF tasks and dumping programmes and the rest of the gunner's world back when we worried about the Red Horde.


----------



## NavyShooter (21 Dec 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> NS any time you want to teach shooting, I volunteer to take lessons! I'm one of those who 'barely' passed the pwt



How'd you find the lesson today?

I'm open for feedback....2.5 hours of talking/showing with not one round fired...but a lot covered...what's the one most important thing you took away?


----------



## Old and Tired (21 Dec 2010)

NS

Thought you were going to give me a call.  No worries.  PM if you need my number

H


----------



## NSDreamer (21 Dec 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> How'd you find the lesson today?
> 
> I'm open for feedback....2.5 hours of talking/showing with not one round fired...but a lot covered...what's the one most important thing you took away?



 Heh without a doubt this is a thread derailment, but in the interest of science I'll admit I learned alot today! 

 The techniques for gripping/holding the rifle though I think is what I found the most 'revealing'.

 -Most important thing I took away though was probably your phone number to call again for another lesson though!- (edit for truth!) 
 NS-Dreamer


----------



## NavyShooter (21 Dec 2010)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> NS
> 
> Thought you were going to give me a call.  No worries.  PM if you need my number
> 
> H



Which NS.....NavyShooter or NSDreamer???

 ???



NS


----------



## Old and Tired (21 Dec 2010)

You Brad.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 Dec 2010)

Ah, 

Oops....fail!  Sorry O&T!!  

Now I recognize the face from the avatar!

I plan to do it again....if that's any consolation!


----------



## SOES_vet (5 Feb 2011)

I usually just creep these forums but I thought this news article would be pertinent to this thread.

http://www.military.com/news/article/punisher-gives-enemy-no-place-to-hide.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Seems like they are doing a pretty good job!


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Feb 2011)

From the linked article:

"The Army wants to buy 36 more XM-25s -- which run about $35,000 each -- but the buy isn't fully funded. And the air bursting ammunition costs about $1,000 per round, but Tamilio claims that full rate production will drop the price to $35 per round."

Sounds spendy...


----------



## SOES_vet (7 Feb 2011)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> From the linked article:
> 
> "The Army wants to buy 36 more XM-25s -- which run about $35,000 each -- but the buy isn't fully funded. And the air bursting ammunition costs about $1,000 per round, but Tamilio claims that full rate production will drop the price to $35 per round."
> 
> Sounds spendy...



Indeed! Yeah, that was what I thought as well. Then again a JDAM is pretty pricey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition

for an individual weapon 35K is steep but might very well be worth it. As for the $1,000 a round ammo... Yeah they need to work on that!


----------



## PanaEng (7 Feb 2011)

is the $35K for the hand-made units? What would it be when/if it enters full production runs?  ($1k for hand-made rounds; $35/rd when in full production)
I say it is "priceless" if it can cut the time of an engagement by a fraction and save both fr and non-combatants lives and  given (assumption) that it would obviously be a limited issue wpn (won't speculate on which units or how many per Coy/Bn)

my $0.02 CAD  ( which is now above par btw)

Chimo!


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2011)

A Super-Weapon That Works
February 10, 2011
Article Link

Three months after the first five XM-25 grenade launchers arrived in Afghanistan, and after only 55 25mm rounds were fired in combat, the troops don't want to give these new weapons up. The XM-25s work as advertised, firing "smart rounds" that explode over the heads of Taliban hiding behind rocks or walls, or hiding in a cave or  room. Enemy machine-guns have been quickly knocked out of action and ambushes quickly disrupted with a few 25mm shells. Encounters that might go on for 15 minutes or longer, as U.S. troops exchange fire with hidden Taliban, end in minutes after a few 25mm, computer controlled, rounds are fired from the XM-25. While American infantry love gadgets, they are very eager about electronics that help them in combat. The XM-25 is all that, and the troops want more. In response, the U.S. Army decided to let the paratroopers keep the five XM-25s, and to speed up construction of an additional 36. The word has gotten around in Afghanistan, and every combat unit there is asking for XM-25s. Although warned to keep operational details off public Internet forums, XM-25 users are telling stories to other combat troops of a wonder-weapon that actually works.

All this comes after years of testing and debating whether the XM-25 was ready for a combat test. Finally, three months ago, after yet another year of testing and tinkering, the U.S. Army finally sent five of its high-tech, but long delayed, XM-25 grenade launchers to Afghanistan. This was supposed to happen in 2008, but testing kept revealing things that needed to be tweaked. The first troops to get the initial five XM-25s were paratroopers. It was always the plan that another 36 would quickly follow if there were no problems with the first five.

The years of testing and tweaking, in response to troop feedback, paid off. Even the current batch of users had suggestions for improvements, and some of these are being incorporated the next 36 being built. The final production model will have more changes, and there is growing pressure to start mass production earlier than 2013. The troops also asked for a longer range (700-1000 meters) round, but this would probably require some major engineering and testing. But such longer ranges are required in a place like Afghanistan, where there's a lot of open terrain, surrounded by hills and places for hostile gunmen to fire from. Yet even with the current model, it's obvious that the XM-25 gives the troops something they need, and now want. The XM-25 won't win the war by itself, but it will make life much for precarious for Taliban fighters.
More on link


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Although warned to keep operational details off public Internet forums, XM-25 users are telling stories to other combat troops of a wonder-weapon that actually works.


I am not surprised to hear this weapon is impressing its users.  The ability to kill around corners at hundreds of meters is not something that could previously be integrated to the section level.

Governments have invested a lot into such systems that can operate independent of vehicles (The XM-307 ACSW, XM-29 OICW and XM-25 IAWS in the US, the K-11 in Korea, and even the CASW here in Canada).  All the while, we seem to have forgotten about mounting this capability in to vehicles with the capacity to carry more rounds and/or larger/more-powerful rounds.  If the technology is mature enough for man-portable systems, I don’t understand why it is not already operational in mounted systems.

There have been plenty of firefights where LAV cannon fire was able to suppress our enemy to the point that he remained behind walls, earth berms and other obstacles - but the enemy was not fixed and had the freedom to manoeuvre or escape unobserved and safe from our fire.  If our LAVs had the ability to put air-bursting rounds over those walls, I am confident we would have been inflicting greater casualties on our enemies while sustaining fewer casualties of our own and bringing a quicker victorious end to our firefights.


----------



## GAP (15 Feb 2011)

Excellent point....


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2011)

I'm not sure what the hitch is, 35mm AHEAD rounds have this sort of capability, so shrink wrapping into a 25mm package seems to be a no brainer, unless the shock of high velocity fire renders the electronics of the bursting munition useless; or the round passes through the barrel too fast for the arming signal to program the round...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2011)

It lacks a bayonet mount, enough said!

All this stuff just keeps reminding me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_d%27Infanterie_de_37_mod%C3%A8le_1916_TRP


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It lacks a bayonet mount, enough said!
> 
> All this stuff just keeps reminding me of this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_d%27Infanterie_de_37_mod%C3%A8le_1916_TRP



Oh no, not the XM25 but the C-16 CASW.

Don't let Technoviking see this.....


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Feb 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Oh no, not the XM25 but the C-16 CASW.
> 
> Don't let Technoviking see this.....



 :threat:













;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2011)

The French Army breifly joined the craze with their PAPOP G-II ( PolyArme POlyProjectile). The first iteration was the most awkward and user unfriendly thing imaginable, a sort of 21rst century Chauchat, and the second iteration was only a bit better. Current information is lacking, I think it probably faded into the sunset:

http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/isrop-prisi/research-recherche/nonproliferation/declerq1999/section14.aspx?lang=eng

http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=3796&page=1

http://fdra.blogspot.com/2010/05/armamento-individual-futuro-proyecto.html (in Spanish, but good illustrations. The version two looks like it has a "squad support" version which seems to have a much larger grenade magazine. See last picture and check the translation.)

For the same overall level of effort I still think a very lightweight AGL combined with programmable fuses and an advanced CLASS type sight would be a much better combination. 30 and 35mm weapons fitting the bill are produced by Russia and China, and the advanced amunition and sight system is well within our own capabilities to produce.


----------



## dinicthus (4 May 2011)

Why not just put a dialed-in range burst thing on the 40mm grenade? How hard would it be to use a laser rangefinder, add three feet, turn a collar or dial on a 40, then put it in the M203/M79?

I realize it wouldn't yield that "by golly, I sure did that in a fraction of a second" satisfaction that 20k$ weapon systems bring, but, really, it would be simple, integrate easily into existing kit, and pack a heck of a lot bigger wallop than a 25mm grenade.

If the extra five seconds to acquire a range plus two to three extra seconds to spin the dial or collar on the 40 round to the right distance/timer is just way too long, then there are other concerns than not being able to use the wonder toy.

The more stuff you have done by electronics that you could have done by hand, the faster it CAN be, but I bet that 20 grand could be put to far better use.

Too much electronicification just seems overly expensive, overly complex, and overly prone to malfunction, much to the profit of the expensive toy manufacturers.

With a squad member turning the dials on your 40 rounds and handing them to you, the time loss after the initial distance acquisition for your overall 40mm rate of fire vanishes.

Which leaves increased range as the main point of attraction for the 25mm ridiculotron, I'm guessing. Perhaps having longer-barrel M79s would add some range without a great deal of expense in the brain sweat department?

KISS.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 May 2011)

dinicthus said:
			
		

> How hard would it be to use a laser rangefinder, add three feet, turn a collar or dial on a 40, then put it in the M203/M79?



The 40 mm grenade is a small enough package at the delivery end of the trajectory as it is. Every addition of components would take away from the projectile's payload. It's easy to propose additional bits and pieces, but if the resulting grenade can't do its primary job on impact, it's all a wasted effort.



			
				dinicthus said:
			
		

> With a squad member turning the dials on your 40 rounds and handing them to you, the time loss after the initial distance acquisition for your overall 40mm rate of fire vanishes.



This suggests you see making the 40 mm grenade launcher a crew served weapon. Your concerns over "time lost" doesn't address the lost capability resulting from doubling the manpower requirement, a much more critical resource in an infantry section or platoon.  Now you are affecting a whole lot more than just adding a few seconds to firing a grenade launcher. With six M203s in an infantry platoon, should we be ready to "lose" six riflemen to the role of assistant grenade launcher?



			
				dinicthus said:
			
		

> KISS.



Uh, yeah.


----------



## dinicthus (4 May 2011)

No, not suggesting making it a crew-served weapon. I'm stating that for a situation where you felt the need to fire a lot of rounds in a short time, that had selectable burst timers, then one person could be setting the distance things while the other fires them. In this situation, I imagined that the enemy would be behind some wall, thus not providing a direct-fire threat, so the extra man on our side would not be able to provide any effective direct fire back at the enemy either, so instead of the 40mm guy doing everything, while the squad waited, a squad mate could help out, but it would not, by any means, be a full-time requirement.

For the most part, the time/distance rounds would not be needed or used. I understand that adding a timer to the round would diminish its payload, but this is a suggested alternative to an entire extra weapon system that has a great deal of cost and complexity in comparison. Several rounds of tmed burst 40mm ammo added to an otherwise unmodified 40mm system would not carry anywhere near the cost in personnel, weight, or money that the 25mm system would. 

But, then, it might not be as effective, either. That is, assuming that the 25mm system had close to 100 percent up-time.


----------

