Shady Posted November 30, 2010 Report Share Posted November 30, 2010 This looks pretty amazing! Dubbed the "Game Changer", the XM-25 fires a massive round which can be programmed by computer to explode after travelling any set distance.This effectively turns the bullet into a grenade which penetrates hiding places and then blows up - meaning concealed enemy fighters are denied cover. Military chiefs believe the £20,000 American-made gun, seen above being demonstrated by a US soldier, will transform the fortunes of Our Boys battling in the Afghanistan war zone. Insurgents often take pot shots at troops from buildings and then duck down and hide behind walls or in trenches. Until now it has been hard to hit back with conventional light weapons. But the XM-25's huge 25mm round, capable of being fired the length of eight football pitches, will leave rebel gunmen with nowhere to hide. US Army spokesman Lt Col Christopher Lehner said: "Tactics will be rewritten. The only thing we can see enemies being able to do is run away." Link Now you can literally say, you can run but you can't hide Taliban scum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 How old are you Shady? Why aren't you over there fighting the Taliban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Because they were so dangerous before, it's not like we have a 100-1 kill ratio with them or anything. It's not like there weren't Predator drones, Apache gunships and AC-130's that they already couldn't run from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 1, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 How old are you Shady? Why aren't you over there fighting the Taliban? Who cares? What does that have to do with this topic? Because they were so dangerous before, it's not like we have a 100-1 kill ratio with them or anything. It's not like there weren't Predator drones, Apache gunships and AC-130's that they already couldn't run from. Yes, but drones, gunships and AC-130's tend to lead to civilians casualties. This weapon could help limit some of that problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 It's not like there weren't Predator drones, Apache gunships and AC-130's that they already couldn't run from. While that's true, these weapons are available only in limited numbers and can be present only in a tiny subset of the war areas at any given time. Individual human soldiers are present in far greater numbers than any of these weapons systems. They can simultaneously cover a far greater area, and can remain in an area for longer periods than any currently-existing aerial weapon system. This difference in capabilities should not be ignored. New weapons that substantially enhance the capabilities of individual human soldiers on the battlefield can indeed have a significant impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 While that's true, these weapons are available only in limited numbers and can be present only in a tiny subset of the war areas at any given time. Individual human soldiers are present in far greater numbers than any of these weapons systems. They can simultaneously cover a far greater area, and can remain in an area for longer periods than any currently-existing aerial weapon system. This difference in capabilities should not be ignored. New weapons that substantially enhance the capabilities of individual human soldiers on the battlefield can indeed have a significant impact. These guns cost $20000 a piece they are going to be given out in significant numbers. Especially with the porential risk they end up in enemy hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 These guns cost $20000 a piece they are going to be given out in significant numbers. Especially with the porential risk they end up in enemy hands. Yeah 'cause programmable 25mm grenade shells are everywhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 These guns cost $20000 a piece they are going to be given out in significant numbers. Especially with the porential risk they end up in enemy hands. $20000 a piece really isn't that much. The cost of each individual soldier's training, salary, benefits, pensions, transportation, housing, etc is many many times higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Yeah 'cause programmable 25mm grenade shells are everywhere... These things can use regular grenade shells to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 $20000 a piece really isn't that much. The cost of each individual soldier's training, salary, benefits, pensions, transportation, housing, etc is many many times higher. Yes but a captured soldier isn't then going to start fighting for the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) These things can use regular grenade shells to. Which would make no better than a regular grenade launcher...except regular grenade shells are 40mm and this is 25mm..... Edited December 1, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Which would make no better than a regular grenade launcher... Able to fire a 1000 metres with a laser rangefinder and thermal scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Able to fire a 1000 metres with a laser rangefinder and thermal scope. Which does squat without programmable munitions... I mean....how many Leopards have they captured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Which does squat without programmable munitions... You think the thermal scope only works when they use the computerized bullets? I mean....how many Leopards have they captured? Not the same because they can just kill the operator and take it, and while this is unlikely with the XM-25 because the Taliban suck it would be downright impossible with a leopard because they can't even damage one of those things with the weapons they have. In order to capture a leopard they would have to kill all the troops supporting it then contrive someway to get inside. In order to capture an XM-25 they'd have to kill the guy with it and get lucky enough that it's either left behind or grabbed during the fire fight. While unlikely it's actually possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Yes but a captured soldier isn't then going to start fighting for the other side. Guns don't judge, they just kill. Operator beware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 You think the thermal scope only works when they use the computerized bullets? No I thing thermal scopes can be bought online and the fear of one falling into enemy hands is alittle over blown.... Not the same because they can just kill the operator and take it, and while this is unlikely with the XM-25 because the Taliban suck it would be downright impossible with a leopard because they can't even damage one of those things with the weapons they have. In order to capture a leopard they would have to kill all the troops supporting it then contrive someway to get inside. In order to capture an XM-25 they'd have to kill the guy with it and get lucky enough that it's either left behind or grabbed during the fire fight. While unlikely it's actually possible. Anything is possible, probable is another story. How many soldier have been captured in combat? This weapon is a kin to the Leopard in such that the operator will not be operating alone or with close support. In order to capture one they will have to kill his entire platoon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 No I thing thermal scopes can be bought online and the fear of one falling into enemy hands is alittle over blown.... I did say unlikely. Anything is possible, probable is another story. How many soldier have been captured in combat? I'm not sure if it was in combat but I know of one that has been captured. This weapon is a kin to the Leopard in such that the operator will not be operating alone or with close support. In order to capture one they will have to kill his entire platoon.... Not really, they shoot the guy with the XM-25 and it could end up being left behind or depending on the flow of the battle they may end up being able to grab it during battle. On the other hand the leopard is a tank no one forgets that they had a tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Not really, they shoot the guy with the XM-25 and it could end up being left behind or depending on the flow of the battle they may end up being able to grab it during battle. On the other hand the leopard is a tank no one forgets that they had a tank. Yeah in paint ball it could go that way...and 1 time out of 5000 it could go that way....but this is a squad weapon (maybe even a company weapon), not an individual weapon...sort of like saying that mortar teams are forgotton, or GPMG teams are forgotten.... it isn't really in the cards.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Yeah in paint ball it could go that way...and 1 time out of 5000 it could go that way....but this is a squad weapon (maybe even a company weapon), not an individual weapon...sort of like saying that mortar teams are forgotton, or GPMG teams are forgotten.... it isn't really in the cards.... Does the term unlikely not mean anything to you? I've said it enough times. And it's still a weapon being carried by an individual soldier, if that soldier get's shot they are going to care more about him than the gun he was carrying. I'll say it one more time for you it is unlikely that it will be captured but it is possible. Oh and back to this. except regular grenade shells are 40mm and this is 25mm..... No a regular grenade shell is can be many different sizes including 25mm x 40mm just like the computerized shells in the XM-25. The Xm-25 was designed to use many different types of shells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Not the same because they can just kill the operator and take it, and while this is unlikely with the XM-25 because the Taliban suck it would be downright impossible with a leopard because they can't even damage one of those things with the weapons they have. In order to capture a leopard they would have to kill all the troops supporting it then contrive someway to get inside. In order to capture an XM-25 they'd have to kill the guy with it and get lucky enough that it's either left behind or grabbed during the fire fight. While unlikely it's actually possible. Damn, too bad we got rid of all those Enfields. Guess we should just go back to pikes and long bows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Damn, too bad we got rid of all those Enfields. Guess we should just go back to pikes and long bows. Not even close to my point. The points have have made in this thread 1) This thing is not going to be a game changer not with the already huge technological superiority we have over the Taliban. 2) These things are expensive and as such aren't going to be put in the field in huge number. 3) There is a risk, like with all infantry weapons, of it being captured by the Taliban and them capturing this grenade launcher is more worrisome and costly then them capturing an M16. Never once have I made the point that we shouldn't use them at all. Edited December 1, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Does the term unlikely not mean anything to you? Apparently.... Anything is possible, probable is another story. yet you still go on with the improbable like it should be a highly possible scenario...you do not, not introduce a force multiplier simply because it may fall into the enemy's hands....however unlikely the scenario is... No a regular grenade shell is can be many different sizes including 25mm x 40mm just like the computerized shells in the XM-25. The Xm-25 was designed to use many different types of shells. No...regular shells are 40mm....there are some highly non standard 25mm...THAT DO NOT FIT THIS WEAPON.... The Xm-25 was designed to use many different types of shells. I'm sure a source that shows that it can fire shells other than 25mm x 40 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) yet you still go on with the improbable like it should be a highly possible scenario...you do not, not introduce a force multiplier simply because it may fall into the enemy's hands....however unlikely the scenario is... You think the army shouldn't take improbable scenarios into account when introducing new weapons? No...regular shells are 40mm....there are some highly non standard 25mm...THAT DO NOT FIT THIS WEAPON.... By regular I'm just talking grenades, you know ones that explode on impact vs time delayed, armour piercing, high explosive, etc. FYI 40mm shells aren't standard they're just the most common and even they differ in length between launchers Heckler and Koch have some grenade launchers that use a 40mm x 53mm round and other with a 40mm x 46mm round. (mounted launcher and hand launchers) I'm sure a source that shows that it can fire shells other than 25mm x 40 Again by type I'm not talking about the size of the grenade I'm talking explode on impact, armour piercing, computerized etc. Edited December 1, 2010 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 Again by type I'm not talking about the size of the grenade I'm talking explode on impact, armour piercing, computerized etc. And again, the 25 x 40 is unique to this weapon....and they aren't so common that you can get them online... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 1, 2010 Report Share Posted December 1, 2010 And again, the 25 x 40 is unique to this weapon....and they aren't so common that you can get them online... Dude our forces in Afghanistan have lost thousands of guns, don't bet on them not being able to get ammo. There are 2 other weapons I know of that used a 25mm grenade see if you can figure out which ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.