PDA

View Full Version : XM25 "good enough"



120mm
10-01-2008, 12:46 PM
http://www.military.com/news/article/army-to-test-air-burst-weapon-for-joes.html?ESRC=army.nl

In a shocking reversal, the OICW crowd simplified the XM25 and are going to release it in the "good enough" stage.

These are the same folks who sat on 120mm beehive round for 20 years because the fusing wasn't "quite" perfect. (Perfect? In a beehive round? Are you kidding me?)

Who was it that said "The perfect is the enemy of the good"?

Ken White
10-01-2008, 03:37 PM
curve got hold of PEO Soldier and told 'em to shape up and get with the program. If so, it was a long overdue grab by the stacking swivel IMO.

That's just one of several reverses from them in the last couple of weeks...

sullygoarmy
10-01-2008, 04:37 PM
Looks like it could fill a nice nitch, especially in an urban environment.

reed11b
10-01-2008, 05:23 PM
If they further this so that the warhead technology is useable by the M109 payload rifle, I will be very happy.
Reed

SethB
10-01-2008, 10:53 PM
How useful would this be? The internet is full of speculation, and I've seen a lot of guys complain that they don't want it.

But then, I don't see how different it could be from a 40MM like the MGL that the Marines are using. Actually, it probably is more effective, since the 40MM is half fuse and expends something 80% of what energy it has on the ground.

William F. Owen
10-02-2008, 05:52 AM
Infantry weapons to date have permitted fighters to shoot at or through an obstacle concealing enemy threats, but the Army for years has been trying to come up with a weapon to engage targets behind barriers without resorting to mortars, rockets or grenades -- all of which risk collateral damage

So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?

sullygoarmy
10-02-2008, 10:04 AM
So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?

That's what I was thinking, one per fire team. Still a lot more information to gather but its application within an Urban or rugged environment sounds very valid to me. The ability to put precision fires just around or over a barrier to kill a hostile without having to a) level the wall (which Mk19s are great for) b) blindly fire indirect in a restricted environement or c) use a 40mm with a larger bursting radius and far less accuracy.

This thing, however, needs to be soldier proof and have the training ammunition available for the owners to become proficient in its employment during the train up.

The Cuyahoga Kid
06-08-2009, 02:54 PM
That's what I was thinking, one per fire team. Still a lot more information to gather but its application within an Urban or rugged environment sounds very valid to me. The ability to put precision fires just around or over a barrier to kill a hostile without having to a) level the wall (which Mk19s are great for) b) blindly fire indirect in a restricted environement or c) use a 40mm with a larger bursting radius and far less accuracy.

This thing, however, needs to be soldier proof and have the training ammunition available for the owners to become proficient in its employment during the train up.

Just wondering with what you were describing above, would the XM25 be an fireteam member's primary weapon or would it be a secondary speciality weapon?

reed11b
06-08-2009, 08:48 PM
So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?
700m and the high probability of 25mm round varients (AP?), I think that it could answere some of the HE projection hole left by the 203, even if that is not it's stated mission.
Reed

Coldstreamer
06-13-2009, 08:31 PM
who made points like this...but are there not significant Positive ID issues with an munition like this? If you can't see behind the defilade, you can't tell if there are women, children, hostages or wounded littering the trench/ditch/behind the wall/in the room etc. Which leaves you open to legal questions of due diligence.

Back in the day I would have thought this was awesome. For fighting the Soviet, the North Korean or general conventional war, it is. But I don't think this is a COIN weapon system - especially in urban areas. In campaign terms (and this was a very bitter pill for me to swallow), you're better of bringing in smoke and extracting yourself than you are dropping JDAMs if you can't guarantee you won't kill a family or a wedding party. Because the vital ground remains legitimacy - upon which we will win or lose. The only exception is when you simple can't extract because the Dushka's have you in a crossfire. But again, smoke, or precision fires onto PID firing points. The Local Nationals don't give a toss if you accidentally killed their retarded nephew. You killed him. And now there's a blood feud. Better to lose the odd battle and win the war...as the American Revolution taught us.

Stick to double taps to the head with a decent round. The only interesting rifles are accurate ones.

Ken White
06-13-2009, 09:32 PM
Stick to double taps to the head with a decent round. The only interesting rifles are accurate ones.We tend to forget that all too often in the rush to find an easier way...

Grenades -- 25mm, 30mm, 40mm, hand tossed or launched -- are indiscriminate weapons and often make more noise than they do actual damage. As you point out they often also do damage you'd be better off without. Time and a place for them, to be sure -- but those are rather limited. They are really defensive weapons with no place in the offense and of very little benefit in COIN, IW or UW operations.

Schmedlap
06-13-2009, 11:38 PM
I share the concerns of Ken and Coldstreamer, but have a slightly different take. I think that we used 25mm and 40mm extremely effectively and could use something like the XM25 effectively, as well (though I see no pressing need for it and we could certainly make do without it).

In OIF III, my unit fought against a hodge-podge of various insurgent/terrorist factions that came and went in our AO. Lacking intelligence to do much more than fight them when they exposed themselves, that was about all that we did. In all of the firefights that we had over a year-long deployment (more than I can count), we had zero KIAs and all wounds were RTD. Nonetheless, the people in the city would complain that we "weren't fighting back." As they saw it, a few insurgents would dump multiple magazines of 7.62 at us, throw a few grenades, fire a few RPGs - all indiscriminately - and we would only return well-aimed fire. To the Iraqi citiizens, this looked like we were weak, because we were not firing nearly as many rounds, we were being cautious, and anything that got blown up was a result of enemy munitions. Even though we were killing the attackers and suffering no losses in the process and no collateral damage or civilian casualties, we somehow looked weak in the eyes of the folks in the neighborhood (didn't make sense then and still makes no sense). Explaining to them our rationale (avoiding civilian casualties) only earned us eye-rolls and disgust.

So here is how we fixed that perception problem. We started making copious use of 40mm. 40mm was actually far preferable to 7.62mm because it did not ricochet (in prior months, we accidentally hit some civilians with ricochets). On occasions when an OP spotted an IED emplacer and could have shot him with one round to the chest, we fired 40mm. We set up a free fire zone in which we told no civilians to travel. When we got attacked from that location, we peppered the place with so much 40mm, 25mm, and even hellfires, that rumors began to spread that we had surrounded and killed Zarquawi (when, in fact, we were simply making quick work of a few random combatants). In the first month of this new tact, we fired more AT-4s than in the prior six months combined. It actually caught the attention of the BDE S-4 who noticed an enormous amount of class V being pushed our way - he feared that we were stockpiling it or carelessly discarding ammo once it got dirty.

The result of these actions? We experienced no greater tactical success against the jerk-offs whom we were fighting against, but the populace had a far more favorable opinion of our efforts. Now, instead of more gunfire coming from the enemy, they saw more coming from us. It was reassuring to them and they actually thanked us for "finally" fighting back.

Now, this more liberal application of high explosives could have backfired, for the reasons cited by Ken and Coldstreamer. Had we used poor judgment as to when to fire 40mm instead of 5.56mm, or if the guys squeezing the trigger were poorly trained and misplaced their rounds, then our results would have been significantly worse. So the issue isn't the weapon system's risk for collateral damage. The issue is how well the guys who use it are trained. If they know their profession, then figuring out how to leverage the capability of yet another weapon should be no problem. A well-trained Soldier who understands the capability of a new weapon system will have no problem thinking through the repercussions of firing through a wall when he is uncertain what is behind it and his leaders should have no problem balancing the risks of doing that. So, long post short, I am not concerned about the issues cited with using the weapon. I am concerned with whether our Soldiers are properly trained and know the capabilities of the weapon. If they are properly trained, then they will not be misusing this weapon and causing collateral damage.

ODB
06-13-2009, 11:55 PM
but I'll lay it out here. Many dicussions throughout the SWJ revolve around weapons. Everyone talks about the ideal round, ideal lethality, ideal caliber, firing rates, etc..... Finally someone brought up one of my biggest pet peeves (Thanks Coldstreamer). POSITIVE ID. At what distance with the naked eye can a soldier positively ID (PID) his threat in any environment? Yes, the environment makes a difference and I know all the associated factors. For arguements sake let's say open desert:

1. In local attire carrying an AK or RPG?

2. In local attire hiding an AK or RPG under his clothes?

3. In military uniform carrying an AK or RPG?

4. In military uniform with no weapon visable?

Aditionally lets use the same constraints with common current optics found within our force.

1. ACOG 4x power

2. M68 or EOTECH 0x power

3. Binos (showing my age by allowing the old M22) 7x50

4. Thermals (lightweight)

5. ELCAN M145 3.4x power

Staying in the daylight only realm, night becomes a completely different story.

I'm not talking capabilities with sniper teams and other specialties. Most discussions center around the "force" in general.

Additionally this changes based on the fight your in. Yes one can PID someone shooting from a much further distance or can they?

Based on being able to PID your target then what becomes the ideal weapon systems?

As far as anything 25mm, 40 mm or whatever the hell the next great idea fairy dreams up, maybe they should look at an effective way to train Soldiers on the weapon system. M203/M79 (yes they are still around) is the most underutilized weapon in the inventory. No one gets ammo to train with it and since this has been the case for too many years no one knows how to use it. I love seeing the deer in the headlight look when I ask why they do not have "hold off" markings taped onto their sling. Before we keep throwing new weapons, ammo, technology at the "force", we need to be able to ensure it can be effectively trained and therefore utilized to it's full capability.

Ken White
06-14-2009, 01:47 AM
Both y'all have good points -- and I'll add that the 40mm is really great for bringing a car that tries to speed through a checkpoint to a screeching halt if you drop one about 15m ahead of him or her. :eek: :D

And nothing beats a .50 cal for deterring people inside buildings in most of the world.

Hadn't considered the noise angle with Arabs but I can definitely visualize it -- and the eye rolls at us being nice. :D

While all the HE grenades are essentially defensive weapons, the launchers do have uses in the offense and they need to be available because one never knows when an offensive move will get turned into a hasty or temporary defense; same reason we carry frags in the attack and Offensive Grenades are rare beasts.

Same old stuff, though -- Training and METT-TC. Always gets back to those two...

Firn
11-27-2009, 03:38 PM
Some very interesting posts. I like the way the counterintuitive but yet logical consequence of a controlled demostration of loud and messy firepower can help to fulfill the objectives.

Any news about the performance of the XM25?


Firn

jcustis
11-27-2009, 05:07 PM
I love seeing the deer in the headlight look when I ask why they do not have "hold off" markings taped onto their sling.

I've never heard of that technique either. What does it involve?

jmm99
11-27-2009, 06:12 PM
so ODB or Ken can shell both of us - windage and elevation clicks + ?

from a target shooter only. According to a Marine friend (Vnam vintage), you also get into the target's speed and angular attitude with respect to the shooter (1/2 body width, full body width, etc., leads).

Regards

Mike

Ken White
11-27-2009, 06:31 PM
From the book:

f. Marked-Sling Method. To use this method, the grenadier must--

(1) Loosen the sling, assume a kneeling position, and place the forward foot in the sling.

(2) Ensure the sling is taut and vertical between the front sling swivel and the boot. If not, the rounds will impact at a greater range than desired. To check this, tie one end of a string or thread to a weight, such as a cartridge case, and tie the other to the sling swivel. Let it hang freely, and align the edge of the sling with it to ensure the sling is vertical.

(3) Fire several rounds to determine the desired range.

(4) Where the sling is held to the ground by the foot, mark the sling with colored tape, paint, ink, or whatever is available. Mark the position of the buckles so that, if either is moved, the grenadier can return them to their original positions and be assured of constant range accuracy.

(5) If the sling gets wet, it may stretch or shrink, indirectly causing the rounds to impact closer or farther than desired.

LINK. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-31/f2331_6.htm)

Uboat509
11-28-2009, 12:55 AM
Actually, hold offs refers to the point of aim for that weapon at a given distance. The idea is to know what your point of aim is so that you don't have to adjust the sites.

SFC W

Ken White
11-28-2009, 03:42 AM
and I read what ODB said, hold offs. However, the tape and the reference just prior to the M79/M203 to me implied he was talking the sling marking with respect to shooting grenades and said 'hold offs' instead of 'expedient elevation markers for specific ranges' (handy for FPF and several other things, not least a channeling barrage from two or three launchers...).

Proper hold offs, as those you mention, IMO need to be known and remembered -- carried in the mind, not (written?) on tape on the sling. I'd ask what good they are there, particularly at night or in low vis or when one is in a terrible big hurry -- or else... :D

Or are we all missing something?

Only ODB knows and he must be out and about, having fun somewhere... :wry:

You really want to get a deer in the headlights look, ask even experienced people about fire tunnels. :D

jcustis
11-28-2009, 06:24 AM
Well Ken, even though the FM doesn't provide a visual reference, I was imagining that the grenadier, with prpoer hold-offs marked on his sling, could loosen it to X length, take a knee and with the weak leg's foot, step on the tape mark, elevate the barrel until the sling was 90 deg to the ground, mounted the buttstock to his shoulder, and fired the round.

I can see how that would best work for night firing only. Or am I getting it all clearly wrong with that imagery?

Firn
11-28-2009, 08:17 AM
From the book:

f. Marked-Sling Method. To use this method, the grenadier must--

(1) Loosen the sling, assume a kneeling position, and place the forward foot in the sling.

(2) Ensure the sling is taut and vertical between the front sling swivel and the boot. If not, the rounds will impact at a greater range than desired. To check this, tie one end of a string or thread to a weight, such as a cartridge case, and tie the other to the sling swivel. Let it hang freely, and align the edge of the sling with it to ensure the sling is vertical.

(3) Fire several rounds to determine the desired range.

(4) Where the sling is held to the ground by the foot, mark the sling with colored tape, paint, ink, or whatever is available. Mark the position of the buckles so that, if either is moved, the grenadier can return them to their original positions and be assured of constant range accuracy.

(5) If the sling gets wet, it may stretch or shrink, indirectly causing the rounds to impact closer or farther than desired.

LINK. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-31/f2331_6.htm)

Shouldn't it mean shorter range, or do I get this wrong?

Firn

Firn
11-28-2009, 08:34 AM
Edit: Unless you are talking about really high angles, something like ++/+55°. With such high angles some markers on the sling would make sense and the 40mm GL would be used like a very light mortar.

Firn

Kiwigrunt
11-28-2009, 08:49 AM
I've not heard (or thought) of using a 40 mm in this manner but many commando mortars are indeed 'slung' like this 60 mm Hurtsomebugger.

Firn
11-28-2009, 11:35 AM
I've not heard (or thought) of using a 40 mm in this manner but many commando mortars are indeed 'slung' like this 60 mm Hurtsomebugger.

Yes that is what I thought too. The difference is that you rest the GL on your shoulder. With high arcing fire the description makes perfect sense. With a couple of markers you could also use the GL for deliberate, almost vertically plunging grenade fire on relative near enemy positions. I don't think you can use the original sights for that kind of work.


Firn

jcustis
11-28-2009, 01:06 PM
Yes, that's it! The buttstock of the M16 would be placed on the ground then I suppose, even though firing it that way could be very hazardous if one wasn't fully switched on doing so.

Since we have barely enough ammo allocated to shoulder-mounted practice, I can't imagine this technique ever being taught, which is a true shame then. It would be truly badass to see that technique employed.

William F. Owen
11-28-2009, 01:29 PM
Yes that is what I thought too. The difference is that you rest the GL on your shoulder. With high arcing fire the description makes perfect sense. With a couple of markers you could also use the GL for deliberate, almost vertically plunging grenade fire on relative near enemy positions. I don't think you can use the original sights for that kind of work.


The UK had a 2-inch and 51mm mortar in the platoon for 70 years. Some great genius got rid of it, and they have now brought it back as 60mm C6-210!

Cavguy
11-28-2009, 03:50 PM
This discussion made me think of this: :D

http://verydemotivational.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/129030747535674267.jpg

Firn
11-28-2009, 07:47 PM
The UK had a 2-inch and 51mm mortar in the platoon for 70 years. Some great genius got rid of it, and they have now brought it back as 60mm C6-210!

I agree that this would be a rather interesting technique especially with the low-velocity 40x46 grenade. You could cover a range of 50 to 400m with with the classic low-arc indirect fire and plunging one. This could bridge some gaps left by the heavier and more efficient mortar fire support from further away.

As jcustis said there won't be much training time for this specific technique. But which GL would be suitable for this type of support?

a) A rifle with an underslung GL (M203, M320)

b) A stand alone GL (M320)

c) A multiple GL (M32) - could be interesting due to the bursts of grenades.

d) A GMG (grenade machine gun) - depends on the tripod. If MGs were used for long range indirect fire why shouldn't GMGs not be used for long range plunging "mortar" fire?


What about the M320. It has side-mounted sights and even a LRF. There should be a way to turn the sight around 90°. In this case it should be easier to get the rounds on target. Or we use the good old slinging technique with alot of marks after having first lazed the target. Then give the GL a talented guy and let him shoot a lot of rounds. Then make him the squads/platoons first grenadier or light mortarier. He could operate from behind a wall with another guy reloading and an observer close by directing his fire. Does almost sound like a 51mm mortar :)

Heavy things like the M32 might be a good crew served weapon for a platoon mountain of infantry. But you can carry alot more rounds (12-15?) by bringing instead an M320 with you. If you have your vehicles nearby the situation changes quite a bit.

I do think that a true mortar is a more efficient solution. But why shouldn't we make better use of weapon which has become practically a standard staple for every infantry squad across NATO? We just have to carry a marked sling, an opern mind and more training in you head to do just that.


Firn

Kiwigrunt
11-28-2009, 09:33 PM
I think there could be some advantages to this technique with 40 mm, especially for lobbing some grenades over a high obstacle like a wall. I can see some negatives though, some of which have been mentioned:

• Requires lots of practice rounds. Good luck with that. There are typically 6 to 9 grenadiers to a platoon against only 1 (for armies that have’m) commando mortar. They would all need to be trained in this additional technique. They don't get enough playtime with 40 mm as it is.
• A 60 mm bomb makes a reasonably big bang and can therefore afford to be off target a bit and still be effective. A 40 mm grenade needs to be pretty much bang on (pun intended) or all it does is throw up a bit of dust. So lobbing 40 mm in an indirect fire mode may be somewhat disappointing in most cases.
• The ‘aim by sling’ method is not particularly scientific and accuracy will be easily affected, even just by not being on perfectly level ground (between baseplate/buttstock and locking foot). This will exacerbate the above point. Firn’s suggestion of using a better sight would make more sense.

So it would a useful technique to add to the toolbox but I think we need to be careful with assuming that we can easily and effectively use a light direct fire weapon in the indirect fire role. Armies that do not yet have them are IMO better off with adding a 60 mm commando mortar at platoon level ….. sure, more weight, but the tool has been specifically designed for this role.

While we’re drifting towards commando mortars, the South Africans use two different conversion sets for their M1 mortar. One uses the ‘aim by sling’ method. The other uses a clip-on handgrip with an incorporated laying table/levelling bubble thingy. Now a simplified version of that could work on a 40 mm. That would however add yet another sticky-out thing to the weapon, to add to the Christmas tree effect.

Fuchs
11-28-2009, 09:49 PM
About OICW / XM29 / XM25:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtGpWnLi45U

The ROK has its own.

jcustis
11-28-2009, 10:25 PM
Now a simplified version of that could work on a 40 mm. That would however add yet another sticky-out thing to the weapon, to add to the Christmas tree effect.

You know, it need not...all it would take is a graduated level that could attach to the side of the mil-std 1913 Picatinny rail. Our current M224 60mm has that built into the firing assembly. It just needs to be small, lit by a tritium ampule, and could clip on via any number of attachment means that are already in use for side-mounted sling swivels.

A couple rounds to get the thing zeroed and locked down with Loctite, and there you have it. No need to fiddle with a sling marking system that would rely on the grenadier to pause and adjust it to the appropriate length for use. There would be slight variation due to the surface the buttstock rests on (sand, gravel, boot tip, etc.). The only thing limiting this setup would be the degree of accuracy required in the requirement document, as it related to mounting the sight to the rail, adjusting the rail in relation to the launcher receiver, etc.

We might never get there due to tight tolerances required by whomever would generate the specifications, but my light bulb just clicked on. :D

Schmedlap
11-28-2009, 10:58 PM
We had IR aiming lights for our M203's as early as OIF III. A few of our enlisted Soldiers who were RFS'd from the Rangers said that they had them a couple years before that. So long as you estimate range within the ballpark (which you need to do anyway if using leaf or quadrant), it's very accurate. Even in training, guys who had never fired a 203 before (really, we had a bunch of people who had never fired one - unbelievable) they were scoring first-round hits on targets at 250 meters at night. It was kind of bulky, but lightweight. I think the latest generation are far less bulky and even lighter.

See the bottom of the page here: https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSW/SW_IW_M203DNS.pdf

William F. Owen
11-29-2009, 10:26 AM
I agree that this would be a rather interesting technique especially with the low-velocity 40x46 grenade. You could cover a range of 50 to 400m with with the classic low-arc indirect fire and plunging one. This could bridge some gaps left by the heavier and more efficient mortar fire support from further away.


No need. 40mmx46 medium velocity has been with us for 4 years now. Shoots to 800m, with 30% more blast, from an M-203 or M79 type. The reason it's not in service is purely one of bureaucracy, as far as I can tell. It's certainly no secret and the infantry fire support topic for some time.

Light Mortars are excellent. Not as inaccurate as commonly supposed, very fast into action, and very high rate of fire. Because they don't "fire blanks" on exercise, everyone underestimates their importance. All you need for sights is an "Inclinometer" and something to align the weapon with. There are even computer training packages for them.

I used to carry the 51mm as a Platoon Sergeant.

Firn
11-29-2009, 01:05 PM
An interesting debate.

I envisioned not a true light mortar but a GL which could be used to aid the squad/element to fulfill their task. IMHO a true organic mortar support should always be available, best if coming from a location which can be easily supplied with ammunition and as heavy as sensible. Commando and light mortars are certainly excellent tools if more efficient mortar support can not be delivered. Kiwigrunt's points are pretty much spot on.

I also considered the low velocity of the classic 40mm grenade fitting because it would be ideal for short to medium plunging fire. But all things considered the medium velocity one seems to be the far better choice. A good inclinometer would be of course an ideal and even cheap and rather light solution. I do not know if the modern sights on the new GLs coming out are able to cover the whole reach of the faster grenades - so the inclinometer could also be valuable for the longer ranges. The IR lights Schmedlap mentioned could have one included.

To come back to the original topic. Part of the promise of the XM25 is that you can engage an enemy in a room or behind a wall thanks to ranged airbursting. Perhaps we will see the XM25 grenade's airbursting modes also in the 40mm grenades. But thanks to modern sights and aiming systems the not so fancy 40mm can already be very accurate.

To use this great accuracy and the great versatility offered by the large variety of rounds one needs also an experienced hand and a good supply of ammuntion. So sometimes one might have to sacrifice some other weight/firepower to carry more rounds for this weapon.


Firn

Schmedlap
11-29-2009, 01:25 PM
I guess I just don't understand what need is being fulfilled by the XM25.

It would be neat to be able to hit a guy hiding behind a berm with an airburst. I can think of zero occasions when I needed to do this. Anyone else? Even if there were a handful of cases, is this narrow range of uses worth the extra weight, bulk, new lines of ammo and parts, and the re-training that would be necessary?

There were a few occasions when there was someone in a building who needed to be killed before the building could be assaulted. That's why we train to put 40mm through windows. It's surprisingly easy.

jcustis
11-29-2009, 03:28 PM
It would be neat to be able to hit a guy hiding behind a berm with an airburst. I can think of zero occasions when I needed to do this. Anyone else?

I can think of several times in Iraq where that would have been appropriate. In Afghanistan (headed there next), isn't that what wall-fighting is all about?

Firn
11-29-2009, 08:54 PM
I guess that only the battlefield can decide if the system XM25 is worth it. Perhaps it would be helpful to test it as a support weapon for the platoon and not as an substitution of one UGL at the squad level. I gave it a quick glance the target acquisition/fire control system coupled with 4x Thermals sounds quite impressive. If only that works it would be a nice addition to any platoon :D

Wikipedia gives it a rundown:

Target acquisition/fire control (XM104).

* Weight: 2.54 lbs
* 4x thermal sight with zoom.
* 2x direct view optical sight.
* Ballistic computer.
* Digital compass.
* Laser rangefinder.
* Ammunition fuze setter.
* Environmental sensors.

So you could use it to generate good target solutions for the other weapon systems (mortar, sharpshooter, artillery, GL...)

Other than that it might be used also as rifled shotgun on steroids. If the gun itself works one could give the gunner always some slugs. ;)


Firn

Firn
11-30-2009, 05:59 PM
I gave the XM-25 now a closer look from my armchair. The decision to drop the rifle part seems to be very sensible. You have a far less heavy and cumbersome weapon without another 2kg + hanging under the center and front of the grenade launcher. It focuses the scope of the weapon on supporting the riflemen and does away with the rather naive vision that every grunt will have one.

The design and the choice of the caliber should allow the grenadier to use it as his sole long weapon - looking at it also as a bulky 5-gauge rifled shotgun with a huge sight. A light pistol as a sidearm might still be a wise choice, at least until one can be certain of its mettle. This GL will fire slugs just fine and perhaps one could make buckshot work in it. Rifled barrels spread buck much more than smooth ones, at 10m they will be all over a torso. To reduce the weight of the self defense ammuniton sabots could be used instead of full-size slugs. It should be easy to design a breeching round for it.

So it covers quite some needs. It might also intimidating than a M-4, and can make a visible and messy statement in the same way Schmedlap's guys used the 40mm. It should do it's work from closer (arming) and longer distances than the M203. The long barrel ought to give not only good range, but also a more moderate muzzle report. Relative quick semi-automatic shooting should be possible due to the lighter recoil and the rather heavy weapon.

Just some quick rambeling...


Firn

Fuchs
11-30-2009, 06:25 PM
It focuses the scope of the weapon on supporting the riflemen and does away with the rather naive vision that every grunt will have one.

One per fire team was the official plan for the OICW.

Firn
12-01-2009, 09:05 AM
One per fire team was the official plan for the OICW.

Really? I guess I crossread it with the new Korean rifle. Anyway this makes of course much more sense.

Another thoughts.

A 25x40mm grenade should weight only around a third of a 40x46mm or something like 80 g instead of 230 g. Thus you can carry a lot of them, especially if the Grenadier can do away with another long weapon and maybe even the pistol thanks to some "defensive" rounds (slugs, buckshot, AP).


Firn

Kiwigrunt
12-01-2009, 09:55 AM
A 25x40mm grenade should weight only around a third of a 40x46mm or something like 80 g instead of 230 g.

So how effective can such a small grenade really be, assuming it will air-burst a few metres away from the target? I assume an advantage of this air-burst over the 40 mm is that no energy is lost in the ground. Or, come to think of it, into the back wall of a room after firing it through a window.

Also from Firn:


So it covers quite some needs.

I'm not sure that all the examples you gave can really be seen as needs. Some seem more of a justification to help warrant it's existence. For instance, a buckshot or flechette round seems to me a heavy, bulky and expensive alternative to 5.56 or 7.62. A breaching round however could have merrit.

Firn
12-01-2009, 12:18 PM
S
I'm not sure that all the examples you gave can really be seen as needs. Some seem more of a justification to help warrant it's existence. For instance, a buckshot or flechette round seems to me a heavy, bulky and expensive alternative to 5.56 or 7.62. A breaching round however could have merrit.

We will have to wait and see if the XM25 can fulfill it's core and much advertised function, taking out people behind cover through a precisely placed air-bursting round.


Let us talk about the possible functions and the needed ammuntion:

a) Rapdily eliminating or suppressing enemy targets on open ground and in defilade from short to long distances with a low risk of collatoral damage and relative lightweight rounds. The small burst radius should allow a short (10m?) arming range-> HEAB

b) Defeating or stopping lightly armored targets, such as vehicles or personnel behind cover at short to long ranges.-> AP (HEAT?), HEAB

c) Killing enemies at close range, for example while clearing a house or a trench Essentially selfdefense, this task is better left to other soldiers. -> Sabot Slug ( good range, good, safe penetration power), Buckshot/Flechette ( very short range, medium penetration), not armed HEAB

d) Breeching doors. -> Breeching round

e) Crowd/Riot control. Less-than-Lethal rounds -> bean bags, soft slugs. I'm generally sceptical about their use, but it should be possible to create some sensbile ones to give trained hands an important toolset.

f) Training. -> Training round


All in all the 25mm grenades won't replace the 40mm, as it will still be for many uses (smoke, illumination, WP, disposable camera, sheer bang) the better choice.


Firn

P.S: It seems that the XM25 with solid rounds is somewhat between downloaded 6- and 8-bores (http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?magid=44&tocid=553) favorite big game rifles of the 19th century. A thinner sabot will result in less weight and more muzzle velocity.

Tukhachevskii
07-21-2010, 09:37 AM
Let us talk about the possible functions and the needed ammuntion:

a) Rapdily eliminating or suppressing enemy targets on open ground and in defilade from short to long distances with a low risk of collatoral damage and relative lightweight rounds. The small burst radius should allow a short (10m?) arming range-> HEAB

b) Defeating or stopping lightly armored targets, such as vehicles or personnel behind cover at short to long ranges.-> AP (HEAT?), HEAB

c) Killing enemies at close range, for example while clearing a house or a trench Essentially selfdefense, this task is better left to other soldiers. -> Sabot Slug ( good range, good, safe penetration power), Buckshot/Flechette ( very short range, medium penetration), not armed HEAB

d) Breeching doors. -> Breeching round

e) Crowd/Riot control. Less-than-Lethal rounds -> bean bags, soft slugs. I'm generally sceptical about their use, but it should be possible to create some sensbile ones to give trained hands an important toolset.

f) Training. -> Training round



g) Coudln't the XM25 provide a very useful small unit (plt level) air-defence weapon against small tactical UAVs (not the UCAV though) with its flachette rounds?:cool:


The Swedes have been busy too; The Swedish Squad Support Weapon Programme (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf)

Tukhachevskii
07-21-2010, 09:42 AM
g) Coudln't the XM25 provide a very useful small unit (plt level) air-defence weapon against small tactical UAVs (not the UCAV though) with its flachette rounds?:cool:


The Swedes have been busy too; The Swedish Squad Support Weapon Programme (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf)




p.s. if link doesn't work search for SSW Presentation at ESAS 2003 on google or a search engine of your choice:D

Kiwigrunt
10-14-2010, 07:23 PM
It's (http://soldiersystems.net/2010/10/14/breaking-news-army-deploying-xm25-to-afghanistan/) coming.

DMR
10-14-2010, 08:17 PM
12 pounds?

Ok let's ask a few questions:
1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.

TAH
10-15-2010, 03:19 PM
12 pounds?

Ok let's ask a few questions:
1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.

It also means two fewer Soliders in each rifle sqaud capable of shooting 5.56 in support of the operation. 6 fewer per Plt and 18 fewer per company. Adds up quick!

Rifleman
10-15-2010, 04:02 PM
Seems like one per squad would be a better idea.

And since trying to conduct an enveloping attack with one fire team in a nine-man squad is a usually a fantasty anyway it won't matter that the fire teams aren't balanced.

Maybe a different story if the squad is reinforced but usually they're understrength.

120mm
10-15-2010, 05:38 PM
Note that in the article they are calling for 36 per battalion. It should be easy enough to figure out at what level they are being deployed based on that number.

Rifleman
10-15-2010, 06:31 PM
For light TOEs 36 per battalion sounds like one per rifle squad plus three unassigned in the company arms room.

One weapon like that per fire team is just too much in small Army squads. Too many suppression weapons equals not enough riflemen to clear with.

Now, if the Army squad would just get rid of one of the SAWs. One light machine gunner, one grenadier and six or seven riflemen would be better. Balanced fire teams made better sense in the days of the BAR and M1, especially in big USMC squads.

TAH
10-15-2010, 06:36 PM
For light TOEs 36 per battalion sounds like one per rifle squad plus three unassigned in the company arms room.

One weapon like that per fire team is just too much. Too many suppression weapons equals not enough riflemen to clear with.

According to the May 2010 version of the Fort Knox Special Manual on BCTs,

An Infantry Bn has 15 M320 in its HHC, 20 M320s in each of three rifle companies and 16 in its Wespons Co, for a total of 91 in the Bn.

So, it is clearly NOT a 1 for 1 swap.

Uboat509
10-15-2010, 06:58 PM
It looks like one per squad but I still don't see the point. According to Wikipedia the system weighs 14 pounds but it doesn't say if that is loaded or empty. I am guessing empty. It gives the weight of the Target acquisition/fire control but does not say if that weight is included or not. Logic would suggest that it is included in the weight of the system but since this data apparently comes from the company who is trying to market it to the military, logic may not apply. There is no weight given for the ammo. There has been no data that I have seen on the effective burst radius of the round. I also have questions about what will happen when the highspeed optics fail. I would like to know what secondary weapon the gunner is supposed to carry. Most importantly, I would like to know why we need this. This appears to be a very narrow niche weapon. It appears that it can only really do one thing that the M203 can't. Is it really worth the cost or could that money be better spent elsewhere?

Firn
01-21-2011, 08:32 PM
You know, it need not...all it would take is a graduated level that could attach to the side of the mil-std 1913 Picatinny rail. Our current M224 60mm has that built into the firing assembly. It just needs to be small, lit by a tritium ampule, and could clip on via any number of attachment means that are already in use for side-mounted sling swivels.

A couple rounds to get the thing zeroed and locked down with Loctite, and there you have it. No need to fiddle with a sling marking system that would rely on the grenadier to pause and adjust it to the appropriate length for use. There would be slight variation due to the surface the buttstock rests on (sand, gravel, boot tip, etc.). The only thing limiting this setup would be the degree of accuracy required in the requirement document, as it related to mounting the sight to the rail, adjusting the rail in relation to the launcher receiver, etc.

We might never get there due to tight tolerances required by whomever would generate the specifications, but my light bulb just clicked on. :D

Somebody's light bulb clicked on a little earlier, and designed the (rifle ) grenade sight T59, for the use of low-angle and high-angle fire. It could be fitted to pretty much every US WWII rifle and carbine. :D

Slings were already marked with tape in WWII, usually with the aid of a clinometer. When used in the high-angle role, an additional, rimmed .45 propulsion cartridge was inserted into the launcher tube.

The interesting thing about rifle grenades was the broad range of uses, already in WWII. Here are just some of the lesser known ones:

- After removing the detonator, a 30-yard cordtex (explosive 1/4 inch cord) was tied to the (Mills) rifle grenade and shot across the minefield, clearing a long and 8-inch narrow path. By using two such paths 10 feet apart, a cordtex net could be dragged across the minefield to open a 10-feet street (Source: British Commandos, Nr.1 of the often mentioned Special Series)

- "Grapnel" Grenades were first improvised to clear from a covered position trip-wire up to a 100 yards away. A simple AT rifle grenade got almost completely stripped down and a wooden plug with three inserted hooks got fixed with a screw as new head. A heavy 150 yard chalk line was attached and coiled up. ( Combat Lessons 4, WWII series)

- In a similar way com. wire was layed across streams, to up to 130 yards. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- 60mm Mortar bombs were attached by wire and pliers to the grenade projectors M7 and M1 and fire to up to a range of 110 yards. Used to clear houses and hedgerows. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- WP (smoke) rifle grenades with reduced WP charge were used by grenadiers to mark hidden targets, especially for the supporting tanks. (The reduction of the WP avoided the concealment by the very smoke) (Combat lessons x, WWII series)

- Some German rifle grenades could also be thrown by hand, lightening the combat load. This was considered to be very useful for mobile, light units operating far from the next base. ( Other countries had also special rifle adaptors for hand grenades) (Small unit action in Russia)

All in all it seems that the rifle grenade can still be useful in some "odd" or special jobs which need an odd or oversized warhead shape. Breeching, Mine-clearing, Grapnelling are just some of them.

The 40mm grenades at one side of the spectrum and the shoulder-fired weapons on the other seem to cover the big rest well enough. We will see how well the 25mm grenades widen that spectrum.

SJPONeill
01-23-2011, 11:19 AM
So how effective can such a small grenade really be, assuming it will air-burst a few metres away from the target?

Efficiencies in fragmentation rounds can be realised by hyping up the technology and quality control in the fragmentation shell so that it fragments reliably and consistently over the required pattern...just like the original hand grenades had a cast sheel that might even shatter into a even spread, or simply just break into a small number of large chunks...5-6 years ago, Denel reckoned that it had made the frag pattern of its new 105mm round consistent and reliable enough to offer the same spread as the 155mm rounds of the time...

JMA
01-23-2011, 12:24 PM
So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?

It seems it needs to be supplied with a bipod and possibly a standing aiming rest. It weighs 14lbs (6.35kg) unloaded and that means most soldiers will have a problem aiming and carrying it with sufficient ammunition. Base camp defence?

JMA
01-23-2011, 12:33 PM
...but are there not significant Positive ID issues with an munition like this?

The requirement for a positive ID before firing is the best reason why the leading Western countries (US, UK) should make more use of proxies to fight their wars for them.

B.Smitty
02-07-2011, 07:10 PM
http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/inside-the-xm-25-after-action-reports-from-afghanistan.html


The XM-25 has fired 55 rounds in nine firefights between Dec. 3 and January 12, when the formal Forward Operational Assessment ended. Officials say the weapon “disrupted” two insurgent attacks against an observation post, destroying one PKM machine gun position in one of those attacks. That is where the ”usually our engagements last for 15-20 minutes. With the XM-25 they’re over in a few minutes” line came from.

The XM-25 also “destroyed” four ambush sites during engagements on foot patrols or movements to contact. In one instance, the 25mm HE round exploded on a PKM gunner and he was either wounded and fled or scared and fled, but dropped his machine gun, which Soldiers later recovered.

Two units within the 101st Airborne have used the XM-25 since November. The first unit fired 28 rounds in four TICs, the second unit fired 27 rounds in five TICs.

Firn
10-14-2011, 02:05 PM
Somebody's light bulb clicked on a little earlier, and designed the (rifle ) grenade sight T59, for the use of low-angle and high-angle fire. It could be fitted to pretty much every US WWII rifle and carbine. :D

Slings were already marked with tape in WWII, usually with the aid of a clinometer. When used in the high-angle role, an additional, rimmed .45 propulsion cartridge was inserted into the launcher tube.

The interesting thing about rifle grenades was the broad range of uses, already in WWII. Here are just some of the lesser known ones:

- After removing the detonator, a 30-yard cordtex (explosive 1/4 inch cord) was tied to the (Mills) rifle grenade and shot across the minefield, clearing a long and 8-inch narrow path. By using two such paths 10 feet apart, a cordtex net could be dragged across the minefield to open a 10-feet street (Source: British Commandos, Nr.1 of the often mentioned Special Series)

- "Grapnel" Grenades were first improvised to clear from a covered position trip-wire up to a 100 yards away. A simple AT rifle grenade got almost completely stripped down and a wooden plug with three inserted hooks got fixed with a screw as new head. A heavy 150 yard chalk line was attached and coiled up. ( Combat Lessons 4, WWII series)

- In a similar way com. wire was layed across streams, to up to 130 yards. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- 60mm Mortar bombs were attached by wire and pliers to the grenade projectors M7 and M1 and fire to up to a range of 110 yards. Used to clear houses and hedgerows. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- WP (smoke) rifle grenades with reduced WP charge were used by grenadiers to mark hidden targets, especially for the supporting tanks. (The reduction of the WP avoided the concealment by the very smoke) (Combat lessons x, WWII series)

- Some German rifle grenades could also be thrown by hand, lightening the combat load. This was considered to be very useful for mobile, light units operating far from the next base. ( Other countries had also special rifle adaptors for hand grenades) (Small unit action in Russia)

All in all it seems that the rifle grenade can still be useful in some "odd" or special jobs which need an odd or oversized warhead shape. Breeching, Mine-clearing, Grapnelling are just some of them.

The 40mm grenades at one side of the spectrum and the shoulder-fired weapons on the other seem to cover the big rest well enough. We will see how well the 25mm grenades widen that spectrum.

Der Kampf der Infanterie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmibfBVMJB8&feature=related), the fight of the infantry, a swiss army movie of 1976 is interesting for a couple of things I noticed. Of course the Swiss German makes it rather hard to understand the talking of the soldiers, even for fluent German speakers.

Rifle grenades are featured very often both while defending and attacking, against infantry and AFV.

1) An strongpoint gets attack one of the defender calls out the range, and another adjusts his bipod with engraved range scales on it. Later you see how different defenders engage out of the trench the attacking infantry with massed indirect rifle grenade fire.

2) Armored infantry advances through forests and meadows in alpine terrain and,while still mounted, get attacked by various AT-weapons, like mines, ATM and rifle grenades.

3) Airmobile infantry inserted behind the frontline get counterattacked by infantry supported by MGs, mortars. Some riflemen get tasked to support the advance by using their rifle grenades in the same mini mortar-like role as seen in 1).

The rifle grenades were quite heavy and thus the recoil was wild, making it quite (un)popular in soldier stories. In direct fire the shooter had to be careful to follow the correct procedure.

Overall the greater ease of use of the 40 mm GL as well as the spread of ATM might have been key factors in the decline in popularity of rifle grenades. With training time ever limited it certainly is sensible to focus it on weapons expected to be widly in use.

Fuchs
10-14-2011, 02:37 PM
The UBGL is essentially an (almost) always ready-to-fire version of WW2-era rifle grenades that used muzzle cups (such as German Schissbecher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiessbecher)).

Modern rifle grenades are descendants of those WW2-era rifle grenades that used a rather stokes-like principle (sitting on the muzzle).


The UBGL and stnad-alone GL designs add (just like the Schiessbecher) a certain fixed cost of mass. No matter how many grenades you carry, you gotta carry those 1-4 pounds of weapon.

Thus we have today the choice between
* rifle grenades with zero fixed costs (mass) thanks to ladder sights on the grenade itself
OR
* grenade launchers with fixed costs (mass), which in present GL designs is somewhat outweighed by less slow use (I wouldn't say 'quick' as long as you need to flip up sights or carry a carbine in ready position but have to switch to a stand-alone GL). The variable costs (mass per shot) is also smaller.

Recoil as a problem rather favours rifle-attached solutions, for the additional weight reduces felt recoil. A given warhead mass and a given trajectory (~muzzle velocity) will yield about the same recoil all else equal (weight and thus recoil differences between fin and spin stabilisation may occur, though).


In the end, today's rifle grenades have two niches:

(1) Whole small unit grenade salvo without many heavy GLs
(2) Large calibre grenades (see the Simon doorbreacher rifle grenade)

GLs have other advantages

(1) Potential exploitation of Medium-low pressure principle.
(2) Can be carried ready for fire in UBGL
(3) Can be a multi-shot weapon (revolver or pumpgun principle usually)
(4) already standardised
(5) No need for bullet trap or special ballistite blank cartridge
(6) Can be used on weapons of different calibres without aiming issues
(7) The limitation to few soldiers inherently leads to higher practice standard by specialisation in practice
(8) Propellant power is independent of rifle/carbine calibre and barrel length.

The French, Israelis and some other countries make still much use of rifle grenades.

Firn
10-14-2011, 03:34 PM
The UBGL is essentially an (almost) always ready-to-fire version of WW2-era rifle grenades that used muzzle cups (such as German Schissbecher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiessbecher)).

Modern rifle grenades are descendants of those WW2-era rifle grenades that used a rather stokes-like principle (sitting on the muzzle).


The UBGL and stnad-alone GL designs add (just like the Schiessbecher) a certain fixed cost of mass. No matter how many grenades you carry, you gotta carry those 1-4 pounds of weapon.

Thus we have today the choice between
* rifle grenades with zero fixed costs (mass) thanks to ladder sights on the grenade itself
OR
* grenade launchers with fixed costs (mass), which in present GL designs is somewhat outweighed by less slow use (I wouldn't say 'quick' as long as you need to flip up sights or carry a carbine in ready position but have to switch to a stand-alone GL). The variable costs (mass per shot) is also smaller.

Recoil as a problem rather favours rifle-attached solutions, for the additional weight reduces felt recoil. A given warhead mass and a given trajectory (~muzzle velocity) will yield about the same recoil all else equal (weight and thus recoil differences between fin and spin stabilisation may occur, though).


In the end, today's rifle grenades have two niches:

(1) Whole small unit grenade salvo without many heavy GLs
(2) Large calibre grenades (see the Simon doorbreacher rifle grenade)

GLs have other advantages

(1) Potential exploitation of Medium-low pressure principle.
(2) Can be carried ready for fire in UBGL
(3) Can be a multi-shot weapon (revolver or pumpgun principle usually)
(4) already standardised
(5) No need for bullet trap or special ballistite blank cartridge
(6) Can be used on weapons of different calibres without aiming issues
(7) The limitation to few soldiers inherently leads to higher practice standard by specialisation in practice
(8) Propellant power is independent of rifle/carbine calibre and barrel length.

The French, Israelis and some other countries make still much use of rifle grenades.

I mostly agree with this summary.

It is interesting that early post-WWII AT rifle grenades shared the technology, warhead or even more parts with the missiles fired by rocket launchers. This goes for the French (AC58 - WASP 58), Swiss (Gewehrgranate 58 - Raketenrohr) and the USA (M31 HEAT - LAW72).

For direct fire the max. effective ranges seem to have been around 75 to 100 m. Used like spigot-mortar with rocket-boosted grenades ranges up to 550 m, although shorter ranges would have been the norm. Velocities of up to 75 m/s were achieved, but with 7,62 mm blanks and as said with a rocket boost. Not much compared to the claimed 250 m/s of the Wasp and still a lot slower than the 145 m/s of the LAW72.

The Swiss army used the training rifle grenade 58 to lay cable across obstacles, something which was already done in WWII.

All in all I could imagine those niche uses ( points taken partly by Fuchs) with modern assault rifles.

(1) Whole small unit grenade salvos (HEDP, etc)**
(2) Large calibre niche grenades (SIMON, smoke grenades)*
(3) Cable, Grapple, Cordex projector


All of them should be bullet-trap or -through types. If practical, the lighter rifle grenades (HE/HEDP) could also double as defensive handgrenades, like some German WWII ones.

*Heavy AT grenades don't seem to make sense enough compared to light rocket launchers like the LAW72 to develop, train and carry them.

**Light mortars have taken part of that role, even if the rifle grenades are of course a different kettle of fish.

P.S: I guess Schissbecher is a typo :)

Fuchs
10-14-2011, 09:25 PM
Some typos happen unconsciously, but honestly...

It was a stupid design, about as much over-engineered as the 5 cm leGrW 36 (platoon mortar). German engineers of the 30's were totally in love with spin stabilisation and neglected fin stabilisation (see also Rz 65, Nebelwerfer 41).

This, by the way, enabled the 8th air force to use its quite poor heavy bomber designs (which were mere target practice for fin-stabilised low-tech R4/M rockets!) in the first place.

Compost
10-17-2011, 01:51 AM
XM25 could be “good enough” for use in some kind of adventure park but virtually useless everywhere else. See post 928 on Roles and Weapons with the Squad.


In the end, today's rifle grenades have two niches:

(1) Whole small unit grenade salvo without many heavy GLs
(2) Large calibre grenades (see the Simon doorbreacher rifle grenade).

That first niche would require prompt supply of spare rifles, carbines and attachments to replace those damaged or wrecked delivering volley fire during operations, and earlier in range practice and field exercise ?

What useful niches (other than salvo line throwing) are left when a section/squad typically has hand grenades, UGLs and demo charges plus Armbrust, M-72 or suchlike; and when a modern platoon can have a 60mm handheld mortar (issued or attached) and also one or more 40mm MGLs ?

Compost
10-17-2011, 05:12 AM
It has been pointed out that lack of calibre makes for confusion. Can sentence be corrected?

Fuchs
10-17-2011, 11:40 AM
GLs have other advantages

(1) Potential exploitation of Medium-low pressure principle.
(...)

I am disappointed. Why did nobody point out that rifle grenades inherently kind of exploit the high-low pressure principle?


------------------------

@Compost: Why should a salvo of rifle grenades wreck the weapons? The rifle/carbine is largely unaffected by the use of rifle grenades.

UBGLs and MGLs will typically not be together in a small unit. 40 mm medium velocity ammunition also puts a bold question mark behind a platoon ("commando", "light" or "patrol") mortar since it has ~700 m range and enough physical effect to achieve similar psychological effect.

Compost
10-17-2011, 10:26 PM
Compost: Why should a salvo of rifle grenades wreck the weapons? The rifle/carbine is largely unaffected by the use of rifle grenades..

First, “bullet-trap or –through designs” produce a pressure pulse that is higher than the normal pressure for which the rifle or carbine was primarily designed. For grenade launching to be approved that higher pressure must be within safety limits. Perhaps that also means there are no cumulative affects and my residual concern there is wrong.

Second, the user expects the recoil to be higher and anyway to achieve range a recommended method of firing is with the butt grounded. If/when the weapon is held down with inadequate pressure – especially against a hard surface – the butt is liable to damage together with any frangibles attached to the weapon. That is likely to occur due to haste and stress during operations and exercise and training. An expert is unlikely to make that mistake but in volley/salvo fire only some will be rifle grenade experts.


UBGLs and MGLs will typically not be together in a small unit. 40 mm medium velocity ammunition also puts a bold question mark behind a platoon ("commando", "light" or "patrol") mortar since it has ~700 m range and enough physical effect to achieve similar psychological effect.

Agree UGLs and MGLs and mortars will typically not all be together in a small sub-unit such as a section/squad but at least two of the three are on issue to some modern platoons. The USMC platoon now has one or more MGLs and its squads have UGLs able to fire LV and MV rounds.

However, a light mortar is longer ranged than 40mm MV weapons and can launch a significantly heavier and more damaging weight of ‘munitions’ particularly including HE, line, smoke and exotics such as para-cameras and micro-UAVs. If a light mortar is needed by a USMC platoon then a 60mm can be obtained from the company weapons platoon.

Hence my phrase: “when a modern platoon can have a 60mm handheld mortar (issued or attached) and also one or more 40mm MGLs “.

In line with that concept, the Br Army platoon has regained a light mortar and its sections have UGLs. I believe that 60mm mortar would be carefully kept on issue (although not invariably carried on light infantry operations) even if the platoon were to gain one or even two of the increasingly attractive 40mm MGLs.

Fuchs
10-17-2011, 10:33 PM
This is the very first time that I hear about some "pressure pulse" problem associated with rifle grenades. I have some physics skills, but I can only imagine a tiny effect after the time when the bullet reaches the muzzle. The grenade might act as a cloture (hardly with bullet-thru, though) for a very, very short moment.

I doubt that this has any measurable effect, since barrels have a decent safety margin anyway.


About the buttplate damage; again entirely new to me. Soldiers do a lot with their rifles and rifles have to be tough anyway. The recoil of a rifle - even with a heavy projectile - should be well within the limits of normal harsh treatment.

Ken White
10-17-2011, 10:56 PM
The only problems with rifle grenades is that they are heavy, inaccurate and tie up the rifle from which they're fired. Due to those shortfalls, they are disappearing from inventories and rightly so. A 40mm under a rifle is a far better solution.

Whether the XM-25 is going to be a plus for combat -- heavy combat -- remains to be seen. For combat operations like the current efforts, it does what it's supposed to do -- which is more than can say for most of the tripod or vehicle mounted AGLs. Those things are significantly overrated. Though they are fun to play with... :D

Last I heard, Canada proposed to replace their 60mm mortars with 40 AGLs. I hope, for their sake, that's not true... :o

Kiwigrunt
10-17-2011, 11:59 PM
This is hearsay but I was led to believe that the NZ army tested rifle grenades prior to adopting the 203 and the recoil would rattle the AUG to bits. I have read suggestions regarding the British CLAW of the nineties knocking the SA80 scope out of zero. But the 203 is said to do that to the standard scope on the AUG as well, although I never experienced that.

The French, long-time users of rifle grenades (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chauN53W1tI), also seem to be moving towards UGLs.

Compost
10-20-2011, 12:27 AM
This is hearsay but I was led to believe that the NZ army tested rifle grenades prior to adopting the 203 and the recoil would rattle the AUG to bits. I have read suggestions regarding the British CLAW of the nineties knocking the SA80 scope out of zero. But the 203 is said to do that to the standard scope on the AUG as well, although I never experienced that.

The following paras on rifle grenades summarize what I have been told/instructed and read over time combined with some assumptions. (Due to ignorance, the affects of gas being bled off into the cylinder during the grenade launch is largely ignored.)

Launch of a bullet-trap or bullet-through rifle grenade does include some energy simply transferred from the bullet to the grenade. However, the grenade is mainly projected by gas and that is the basic reason for the higher recoil force.

Depending on the configuration of the muzzle and/or projector, the rapidly expanding jet of gas driving the bullet out of the barrel may be initially directed upon the whole or only part of the driving surface of the grenade. Whole exposure (in a chamber with a cross-section larger than the bore) or partial exposure increasing to whole exposure as the grenade moves forward would seemingly be accompanied by a reduction in the gas pressure which was until that moment restricted to the bore. However that reduction can be almost instantaneously overtaken by an increase as the continued expansion of the gas jet is restrained by the slowly accelerating grenade.

Rifle ammunition is designed to burn propellant to initiate the movement of a bullet and spin it up to achieve a particular muzzle velocity. Irrespective of whether the propellant is fast- or slow-burning and whether that propellant is exposed and burnt at a uniform or an increasing or reducing rate, the bullet is started and accelerated by varying pressures of gas. Typically a gas pressure peak is generated early during passage of the bullet up the barrel and the bullet is stabilised although it can still be accelerating as it exits the muzzle due to an ( ‘extinguished’ or still-burning) gas jet that continues to operate but at a lower pressure than lower in the bore. To avoid violent operation of the bolt unlocking mechanism and of the bolt itself, a rifle and its ammunition are designed so that pressure in the barrel has been somewhat reduced before any gas reaches a tapping port into a recoil cylinder.

A particular feature of the rifle grenade is that it introduces another pressure peak and also adjacent high pressures that all occur close to the muzzle. Dependent upon grenade weight, that second pressure peak can be higher or much higher in a rifle than the ‘normal’ pressure peak produced when firing a single round of ball ammunition.

The time span during which the grenade-related pressures operate can be referred to as a pressure pulse. In a short-barrelled carbine that second peak will tend to reach a higher pressure and consequently duration of the pulse will be reduced.
All gas pressures generated in the barrel are also directed backward to the firing chamber and via the bolt to the bolt locking mechanism. If the intended use of a rifle or carbine includes the firing of rifle grenades, then the bolt locking mechanism must be more strongly engineered. That applies especially to the lugs of a forward locking bolt, and the receiver that houses a rear locking bolt

Additionally the second peak and adjacent pressures occur as gas is being tapped from the barrel to drive the bolt-unlocking cycle. To avoid violent unlocking it is preferable to suspend or reduce gas tapping. For example the gas regulator of a 7.62mm FAL/L1A1 SLR was routinely adjusted to close off the gas cylinder before firing a ballistite cartridge to launch an Energa AT grenade. Failure to close off often resulted in a bent piston rod.

My books on ballistics and small arms are currently packed in boxes, and this topic will be long gone before they are unpacked. So am interested to read any post that identifies an authoritative and readily accessible source, or provides detail that expands on or contradicts the above.

But in summary there is at least one good technical reason to avoid use of rifle grenades.

Fuchs
10-20-2011, 04:32 AM
Keep in mind that you do not need to use heavier rifle grenades than barrel-launched grenades, and you don't need to use them at a higher velocity.

FN Bullet-thru: 320 g
40x46mm: 230-250 g

This means all higher recoil would quite by definition be an intentionally accepted by-product of higher performance.

Compost
12-19-2011, 06:39 AM
Air-burst 40x53mm HV cartridge grenades and integrated FCS-fuzesetters are already available for several types of 40xmm AGLs.

A recent report claims the USMC is seeking air-burst capability for its 40mm UGLs and MGLs: see www.military.com/news/article/2011/marines-want-more-potent-air-burst-weapon.html

During the last few years Germany, Israel, Singapore and South Africa have each been rumoured to be developing FCS-fuzesetters or sights with dial-in fuzesetters for air-burst 40x51mm MV and also for 40x46mm LV cartridge grenades. So candidate systems for USMC evaluation could include several of these.

Compost
12-28-2011, 12:02 PM
Last para of item 72 is misleading. Copy of the recent USMC RFI for airburst 40mm cartridge grenades is available at
https://www.neco.navy.mil//synopsis_file/M6785412I1002_PMIW_RFI_Proximity_Fuzed_Ammunition_ 13_Oct_11.docx

RFI specified proximity fuzed 40mm LV grenades to engage defilade targets between 30 and 150 metres. Ammunition to be compatible with M203 and M32 launchers without requiring any modification or addition of equipment. RFI closed on 5 Dec 2011 at 4PM.

jcustis
12-29-2011, 02:57 AM
I submitted an idea to the Marine Enhancement Program a few years ago, recommending the exploration of an indirect fire sight to allow for the M203 to be employed in an IDF mode, similar to the the sling technique that has been all but forgotten.

The MEP folks said it would be pushed past Gunner Eby at that time to review, and it seems it didn't stick.

Compost
10-22-2013, 02:29 PM
The British have raised a supply contract for 40mm MV/ER cartridge grenades to be employed in a feasibility study with in-service single-shot weapons. The contract specified six grenade variants – HEDP and five types of smoke, marker and illuminating. That variety is generally similar to the types of bomb previously fired from their 51mm platoon mortar.

See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:338249-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML

If testing is successful then possibly the Canadians will follow and be followed in alphabetic order by Oz and NZ.

davidbfpo
10-23-2013, 09:44 AM
There is an old thread Canadian 60mm problem, which maybe relevant:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5692

Compost
10-23-2013, 11:31 PM
That 60mm mortar problem was well considered by Canadian CAPTs Rintjema, Boucher and Erkelens as reported in “ Infantry Company Crew Served Weapons “. Their report is available at

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.119.4064&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The British Army seems to generally share/agree with its main conclusions: summarised as infantry company fire based on 60mm mortar and 84mm CG RclR with 40mm HV AGL introduced in preference to 12.7mm HMG.

Hence believe British are now considering the 40mm MV grenade capability as a complement to their recently gained 60mm platoon mortar. The 40mm MV seems particularly suitable for section use and close-in tasks where even the small bombs of the 51mm mortar were previously useful.

Fuchs
10-24-2013, 01:18 PM
Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?

Nothing, absolutely nothing in its published specs points at a superiority over the likes of the already phased out LRAC F1 STRIM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRAC_F1)* and similar weapons.
Is it all about the (recently developed) fancy munitions?

For example, the U.S.Army finally introduced the M3 CG for general infantry and promotes this fact as if they had invented something great, but the marines already had their equivalent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon) already for three decades (an Israeli 70's design).

Sometimes it seems as if the people's capacity to think about weapons and munitions cannot reach beyond a few marketing stars, ignoring more than 90% of what's actually available.


* An export success story in the francophone world.

TAH
10-24-2013, 05:47 PM
Saw the story the other day. IIFC, the major point was that it had greater range over the disposable AT-4s currently being carried.

Ammo for it is also "in the system" as our rangers got it back in the 90s.

I had recommended it as a replacement for the old 90mm recoiless rifle when I worked at the Engineeer Center. My thoughts were it was more flexible then the 90mm because it also had the capability to fire both smoke and illum rounds. Nice options for a combat engineer as part of a breaching effort, smoke to screen and illum for thermal marking.

They went with the Javilin ATGM instead. Go figure.

TAH

Fuchs
10-25-2013, 06:07 AM
Saw the story the other day. IIFC, the major point was that it had greater range over the disposable AT-4s currently being carried.


That's a function of barrel length and munitions, which are about identical.
The effective range is coined by the aiming device, and as Germany shows with its Panzerfaust 3IT-600, you can also attach an electronic fire control system (http://www.dn-defence.com/index.php/dynarange.html) to a disposable ammunition tube. In fact, the U.S.Army could have adopted the Dynarange sight 15+ years ago and simply attached it (with slightly adapted dimensions and computing variables) to its AT4s.

The trade off between reloadable and disposable is rather the fixed weight (launcher) and weight per shot (less for reloadable).

Compost
10-27-2013, 07:50 AM
Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?

It’s a result of the ABCA association which – nuclear concerns notwithstanding - effectively includes NZ as per http://www.abca-armies.org/

The hierarchy in terms of population and military power is ABCANZ. Taking Australia as an example, defence force development and procurement elements are enmeshed in a public service system that is concerned with process before purpose. Hence with some notable exceptions such as the Bushmaster IMV, Oz defence procurement tends to delay and ultimately to follow a lead established by A or B and preferably also C. Then the alpha order resets with Aus followed by NZ, or NZ followed by Oz.

Believe Carl Gustav is somewhat unusual in that B and C preceded Aus and NZ with A in last place. But Saab/FFV has been fortunate because its product should have been dumped in the 1960s when Sweden withheld CG spares and ammunition from ANZ in SVN.

SJPONeill
10-28-2013, 06:08 AM
Changing the name from ABCA to ABCANZ was mooted for about 30 seconds when NZ became a full member in 2006 but it was correctly considered the name change would just be an administrative overhead offering little value thous the organization remains ABCA http://www.abca-armies.org

Your statement wrt Australian and New Zealand acquisition processes is incorrect and one only has to look at the orbat of either nation to see this. both nations have steered their own courses for some decades although there IRS some obvious benefit to common equipment.

The attraction of the CG 3 is its flexibility and portability. It has a good rangeo of ammunition types and is relatiively simples to train and use...simply, if it ain't broke...

Compost
10-28-2013, 10:54 PM
SJPONeill

Post 81 noted that ABCA is effectively ABCANZ and did not propose need for a change of name.

You maintain that orbats show planning and procurement for the Aus army does not tend to delay nor follow " A or B and preferably also C ". And that NZ army does not behave similarly and follow or sometimes precede Oz army. A list of such principal equipments with approx dates would be useful.

There were and are French and West German alternatives to Carl Gustav. When support was denied ANZ - and later ABCA - should have got rid of it. Instead of sending a clear message to all would-be suppliers ANZ continued to follow Britain and Canada. That was seemingly ABCA at work, although it might have been at government insistence because some AusGovs have been strangely keen to procure from Sweden. (Procurement of RBS70 was another poor message, and it is one for your list.)

Fraternal relations and common doctrine can be useful. But British and Canadian land forces are not active in SE Asia, Oceania or the South-West Pacific and are unlikely to budge on ANZ account in either a geographic or procurement sense. Similarly Australia and NZ are unlikely to deploy West of Suez or into the NorthEast Pacific. Equipment commonality with the US and France and with Singapore, Korea and possibly Japan (if ever ..) could be more productive. Possibly also China for a variant of the QLB-06 / QLZ-87B.

Chris jM
10-29-2013, 01:58 AM
With regards to ABCA procurement I do know that NZ follows the 'pic the best of the bunch' from in-service ABCA equipment. LAV3, MHOV trucks, NH90 helicopters, DMW rifles, LSW machine guns, body armour, etc is all from within the in-service ABCA family. I'm pretty sure that the Australian's main point of difference is that they want to maintain a domestic manufacturing base and that sometimes means a move away from the American/British/Canadian in-service equipment types as the European manufacturers seem more predisposed to licensing arrangements (hence the Steyr rifle and Tigre helicopters).

I've always loved (admittedly it does become a love-hate relationship when I'm carrying the thing) the Carl Gustav but am in no position to comment as to alternative systems or the history with Saab (while the news that they did not support it in SEA is new to me, I do find that revelation interesting). I will say that the CG is a very robust, hard wearing infantry system with a long lifespan and it survives a fair amount of. If the lighter comparable systems lack the same robustness then that could point in the CG's favour.

I would love to see how one of these stacked up against (or complemented) the CG (BLUF: westernised RPG7 launcher): http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/07/31/usa-exporter-rpg-7/

End of the day, we could chase a better system but the CG is good enough and suits us fine right now. We need to remember, too, that most of our efforts should be spent on improving the people and organisational aspects in the infantry rather than continuously pursuing the latest and greatest (and lightest) equipment on offer. The CG might have been a good enough system when it was procured back in the day, and the cost of replacement may have never been worth the gains to be had since.

With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

Compost
10-31-2013, 09:48 PM
With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

Understand you mean that fire of 40mm MV ammunition would preferably be arranged using AG36 and similar UGLs attached to a specialized and well sighted stock or gripstock, and when UGL is alternately attached to a rifle or carbine it should be employed mostly to fire LV and only infrequently MV grenades. And of course if MV ammunition were procured for such use it would be in service when/if some type of MGL was procured later on.

Such a deliberate two step advance could well appeal to the British and in turn to others in ABCA. Usefully both types of UGL contending for attachment to the EF88/F90 are LV and MV compatible.

Compost
11-06-2013, 01:53 AM
Launching a new generation: tracing Asian grenade developments
Grenade launchers and their ammunition are currently experiencing the fastest and most dramatic period of development of any small arms. In NATO armies, the traditional 40x46 mm Low Velocity (LV) and 40x53 mm High Velocity (HV) rounds used in shoulder-fired and crew-served launchers respectively still dominate, although ammunition offered for shoulder-fired weapons now includes LV Extended Range (LV-ER) and Medium Velocity (MV) to provide greater reach [first posted on 30 October 2013] Para extracted from recent IHS Jane’s Defence News Brief - IDR ( not yet free on website).

Compost
11-06-2013, 01:56 AM
British Army infantry to revert to 81 mm mortar
Rupert Pengelley, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
04 November 2013

Key Points
• The UK forces' 81 mm mortar is to be kept in service
• The new mortar fire-control terminal enters service in 2014
The majority of the M6-640 Commando handheld and M6-895 bipod-type 60 mm mortars acquired in quantity from Hirtenberger by the British Army to meet urgent operational requirements (UORs) in Afghanistan since 2008 are to be shelved for economy reasons.

According to Major Haydn Jellard, a staff officer from the Dismounted Close Combat section of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Capability Directorate Combat who spoke at the Defence IQ Future Mortar Systems conference in London in October, once the drawdown from Afghanistan is complete, the Anglo-Canadian 81 mm L16A2 mortar will again be the only type on issue to standard infantry battalions in Reaction Force and Adaptive Force brigades.See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/british-army-infantry-to-revert-to-81-mm-mortar

tankersteve
11-07-2013, 05:51 PM
...With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

With the excellent holsters commerically available to hold the GL, the Soldier is better off keeping the M-320 system separate from his rifle. This enables better accuracy with the M-320 and keeps maximum freedom of movement when employing the M-4. The M-4 will be lighter and handier to employ. A truly dedicated Grenadier may carry a very slick (and lighter weight) M-4 with only a few mags and plenty more Golden Eggs, balancing his load. Having leaders smart enough to employ these systems properly will still be a challenge.

Tankersteve

Compost
06-27-2014, 06:55 AM
The forum at www.quarry.nildram.co.uk has a new thread titled " Chinese 40mm grenade launchers ". Its first item decribes two types of 40x53mm GL that have been or are being developed by the mainland Chinese.

If the 'sniper' version does have a fairly accurate range of 1,000 or more metres then it is past time for the XM-25 to be consigned to a scrapheap.

David I Evans
06-27-2014, 08:10 AM
See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/british-army-infantry-to-revert-to-81-mm-mortar

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

JMA
06-27-2014, 10:43 AM
Worse...

Look at the photo and see where the barrel of that soldier's rifle is.


so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

Compost
06-27-2014, 01:35 PM
so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking
Joined up and pop-centric thinking notwithstanding, “shelved” does not necessarily mean retired and scheduled for disposal. It can and probably does mean the 60mm has been transferred to reserve for issue dependent upon circumstances and physical environment.

jcustis
06-28-2014, 01:54 PM
That was what I took it to mean as well. Perhaps going into depot-level stores for proper preservation.

I've always liked the 60. Light, capable of very good accuracy even in hand held mode, and not under-ammo'd when you use the right round and properly match it against the effects you want.

Compost
09-19-2014, 08:10 AM
The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

Brit Army revealed intention to test 40x46 Extended Range and compatible ammunition back in Oct 2013. See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:338249-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML

Meanwhile US Army has seemed with little publicity to be perservering with XM-25. Junior members of ABCA may have been simply waiting a decision or decisions by the seniors.

However it is worth noting that on 12 Sep 2013 Australian Munitions – a subsidiary of Thales - released a media statement regarding an agreement with STK of Singapore “ to cooperate in Australia and New Zealand for the development, manufacturing and marketing of ST Kinetics’ world-leading 40mm low velocity, extended range, and air bursting ammunition. " http://www.australian-munitions.com.au/media/2013-09-11%20New%2040mm%20ammunition%20for%20Australia/New%2040mm%20ammunition%20for%20Australia.pdf

Six weeks later on 22 October 2013 STK announced sale of 40mm HV ammunition to Canada, and also that STK 40mm LV airburst (possibly LV/ER airburst) ammunition had been selected for the US Army Foreign Comparative Testing program. http://www.stengg.com/press-centre/press-releases/st-kinetics-secures-over-us$30m-in-international-orders-for-its-40mm-solutions

Have not found any recent internet mention of ABCA interest in 40x46mm LV/ER or 40x51mm MV ammunition.

kaur
09-26-2014, 07:54 AM
New CG M4 is coming. According to rumors it has smart sight, that recognises rocket type, estimates the distance to the target, finds right point of aim etc. Sounds like a headache for HK.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Land/Weapon-Systems/support-weapons/Carl-Gustaf-M4/

Compost
12-24-2015, 04:40 AM
Project was/is planned to continue until at least Spring 2016:
see
'Army’s XM25 Gets More-Powerful, Streamlined Optic’', Army Times, 14 Oct 2015,
http://kitup.military.com/2015/10/ar...reamlined.html

Compost
12-27-2015, 05:53 AM
April 2015 RFI to be followed by 2016 market survey and 2018 EMD program,

see http://www.stratvocate.com/grow/find-opportunities/view-opportunity?noticeid=597752&solnbr=W15QKN-16-X-02V3

Training needs are being considered:

“Medium Caliber Ammunition: The Target Practice Day Night Thermal (TP-DNT) cartridges are 40mm grenade training cartridges. The low velocity variant is for training with the M203/M320 grenade launchers; the high velocity variant is for training with the Mk19 grenade machine gun. Both cartridges will provide the Warfighter with a non-dud producing, environmentally friendly training cartridge that provides a visual impact signature seen day or night, by the naked eye, through night vision devices,and thermal weapon sights. These cartridges will replace the 40mm Target Practice, M918/M385A1 (Mixed Belt) cartridges and the 40mm M781 cartridges. It is expected that the unit price for high velocity cartridges will be lower than the Mixed Belt cartridges. Funding for FY 2015 activities transitions to PE 0654802/Project EC1. In FY 2018 funding is in place to start an Increased Range Anti-Personnel (IRAP) Program which will extend the range of conventional 40mm Low Velocitygrenades from 300 meters to 600 meters. “

Extract from DoD FY 2016 President’s Budget Submission – Army Justification Book of R,D,T & E,
http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/budgetmaterials/fy16/rforms//vol4.pdf

davidbfpo
05-06-2017, 03:50 PM
Via Twitter and the opening passage:
U.S. Army‘s senior leadership has ended an agreement with Orbital ATK Inc. that spanned two decades over the XM25 25mm airburst weapon, a move that could put the troubled weapon system’s future into jeopardy.
Link:http://taskandpurpose.com/army-kills-contract-shoulder-fired-airburst-weapon/?

Compost
06-05-2017, 11:03 AM
US Army authorities have revealed little about the status of the XM-25 project in 2017. It may be continuing as a technology demonstrator for ‘brilliant’ ammunition/technology. Alternatively the whole project may have been suspended pending some decision, or even terminated with un-expended funds transferred to another project or a contingency pool.

Has any useful statement been made since the early May 2017 report on military.com ?

Compost
08-15-2018, 12:11 AM
On 13 August it was reported the XM-25 project has been conclusively terminated:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/13/rip-army-finally-cancels-xm25-punisher/

Hence the US Army is now likely to promptly adopt some kind of shoulder-fired multi-shot weapon that can fire one or more types of 40mm grenade cartridge. For support of foot-mobile infantry it also likely to sponsor new forms of micro guided munitions which can be powered or glided all the way to a target.