# XM25



## Gunz (Apr 11, 2016)

I think the article overstates the potential impact


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 11, 2016)

Seems to be some argument as to viability: too heavy, but once it's used, they didn't want to give it up.  It's a great concept, though.  Maybe find a way to shave weight?  Dunno.....


----------



## AWP (Apr 11, 2016)

> The XM25 will essentially destroy the value of cover and with it the necessity of long-drawn out firefights. *It will also make the old infantry tactic of firing and maneuvering to eliminate an enemy hiding behind cover obsolete.*



Pure garbage. Pure garbage. Anyone who believes that is a damn idiot.



> “Ranger units found the XM25 too heavy and cumbersome for the battlefield. They were also concerned that the limited basic load of 25 mm rounds was not enough to justify taking an M4A1 carbine out of the mission,”



Yet conventional infantry loved it according to "the man." Hmm....sounds like marketing or that the other units used it as a crutch. Maybe the differences are because of their missions, but the two opinions don't jive so what's the disconnect?


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 11, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Pure garbage. Pure garbage. Anyone who believes that is a damn idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet conventional infantry loved it according to "the man." Hmm....sounds like marketing or that the other units used it as a crutch. Maybe the differences are because of their missions, but the two opinions don't jive so what's the disconnect?


Mech/Armor are conventional units (so is cav, which is like infantry with cowboy hats).

This is why PEO Soldier sucks:
_The weapon’s potential revolutionary impact on infantry tactics is undeniable. “The introduction of the XM25 is akin to other revolutionary systems such as the machine gun, the airplane and the tank, all of which changed battlefield tactics. No longer will our Soldiers have to expose themselves by firing and maneuvering to eliminate an enemy behind cover. *Our Soldiers can remain covered/protected and use their XM25 to neutralize an enemy in his covered position,” *wrote an officer of the U.S. Army Program Executive Office Soldier in 2010._

The person who wrote this wears clown shoes, he/she (probably a supply officer) assumes the other side will not get/develop this capability.

_" so-called troops in contact (TIC) events very quickly" _This comment shows the arrogence of the press, Liberals started using the term "so-called" during the Bush Administration as a way to denigrate an action (The "so-called" Troop Surge, etc").  Now everyone uses the phrase, 

It's a TIC or it isn't, there is no "so-called" to the event.


----------



## Gunz (Apr 11, 2016)

edit


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Mech/Armor are conventional units (so is cav, which is like infantry with cowboy hats).



How dare you...

Agreed with the rest of your post.

There are far too many tools already in the inventory that can be brought to bare against enemy behind cover or bunkered up. This is nothing more than the "we spent millions on R&D and have to justify it, and General if you want to make million sitting on our advisory board when you retire, you had better ignore those Rangers and get this new kit to the troops".


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 12, 2016)

You know, if they actually taught use of the 40mm to it's utmost capacity (hint, there's firing techniques people basically never actually ever use at a range), this whole discussion would be a totally moot point and we wouldn't be trying to get a fucking overweight airburst rifle with some hella expensive ammunition.

ETA: What I am talking about is use of the 203 or various other variants in an indirect fire mode. Not so easy to accomplish with the newer stand-alone system designs, but still doable as long as it has a buttstock and you have a 2 point sling to work with for ranging purposes. If a level was thrown in on the rear base of the leaf sight, it would be much easier to accomplish as well.

In effect, you're turning the 40mm grenade launcher into a short range mortar, with all the indirect effects and denial of cover other than overhead.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 12, 2016)

Hand grenade, 40mm, AT4, Carl Gustav, 60mm mortar, arty, radio and an apache on station, or a TACP and all his magic.

I've said it many times that the two best fire support weapons in urban was a Bradley and an Apache, if you had either one of those supporting you, or even better both, there wasn't anyone's ass we couldn't kick.

$.02


----------



## Etype (Apr 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Yet conventional infantry loved it according to "the man." Hmm....sounds like marketing or that the other units used it as a crutch. Maybe the differences are because of their missions, but the two opinions don't jive so what's the disconnect?


Take a unit that still uses M16s and has minimal range time, then give them fancy equipment, a range to shoot it on, and tell them how wonderful it is.  Of course they are going to tell you it's the best thing since the brass rifle cartridge!

The truth is, the Army has been airbursting frag grenades in CQB since at least WWII, and there have been all manner of programmable/setable (set-able, ability to set, #notaword) air burst rounds for at least the same length of time.  It's nothing new, it's not a game changer- it's a tool that requires additional training and careful implementation.

As we've seen with the SDM program, they give soldiers a marginally better weapon and mediocre training with no sustainment plan- then expect them to change the face of the battlefield.  It doesn't work that way.


----------

