[GZG] Real Life catches up to, passes(?), Star Grunt weaponry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt is only a
matter of time before sci-fi becomes sci-real.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smart-high
-explosive-weapon-for-soldiers/

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Indy wrote:

> It is only a matter of time before sci-fi becomes sci-real.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smart-high
-explosive-weapon-for-soldiers/

Color me impressed, that sounds like a well thought out system.

--
Michael Llaneza maserati@speakeasy.net

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:15:57PM -0800, Michael Llaneza wrote:

Looks like a carryover from the failed OICW/SABRE project - good news if
they can get it to work, but let's hope they've fixed the problems that had.
Stripping off the 5.56mm rifle helps with the weight, but AIUI the
major concerns were non-robustness of the rangefinder computer and shell
programming system, and structural problems which caused a number of them to
blow up during testing (with at least one death, as I heard it).

R

> Roger B W wrote:

> >>http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smar

It is, though with the calibre borrowed from the OISW (25mm instead
of 20mm). (Hm, that's funny - I get zero hits when googling for OISW.
Was that program *that* thoroughly killed...? :-S)

> - good news if

Yeah... looking at the combat scenario on the above-linked page, I
wish them all luck in getting low-velocity rounds to consistently
detonate at such precise a distance. While they're entirely correct that those
tiny rounds will cause very little collateral damage when they're on target,
they only need to be *off* target by a few meters to inflict no damage at all
:(

> but AIUI the

Ouch. I hadn't heard about any fatal accidents - was that at
Aberdeen?... and do you know any more about that?

Later,

Probably because your're googling for OISW instead of OICW. ;-)

It would be impressive to be able to wipe all mention of something from the
internets. Can't really be done though some government agencies which
accidentally released information publically wish there was an undo button.

-Mark

> Oerjan Ariander wrote:

> 20mm). (Hm, that's funny - I get zero hits when googling for OISW. Was

> that program *that* thoroughly killed...? :-S)

> ... and do you know any more about that?

> Mark Kinsey wrote:

> Probably because your're googling for OISW instead of OICW. ;-)

Well, duh. They're two different weapons, thus two different acronyms and two
different search terms for Google. Since I was trying to find a link about the
OI*S*W to give y'all a chance to compare it to both
the OI*C*W and the XM-25 currently under discussion it would've been
pretty daft to search for OI*C*W, don't you think?

FYI, the OISW (Objective Infantry *Support* Weapon) was a 25mm
tripod-mounted thingy, fairly high-velocity (and thus longish range),
using the same kind of precision airburst tech as is now used in the
XM-25 (which since it is shoulder-fired launches its shells at a
rather lower velocity, giving it a correspondingly shorter range). After I
posted I did manage to get one hit on Google for it... on a
now-defunct discussion forum.

OICW (Objective Infantry *Combat* Weapon) OTOH was supposed to be a
GW Space Ork-style kombi-blasta firing both 5.56 rifle rounds and
20mm precision-airburst rounds (the two weapons could also be
disconnected from one another to be used separately). It was also supposed to
be light enough that just about every grunt in the squad could carry one.
Unfortunately (for the developers, anyway) the 20mm round turned out to have a
positively tiny lethal radius (IIRC less than a meter against a target without
any body armour whatsoever), which isn't very useful if you need to hit
someone hiding behind a
man-high wall... enough if he is standing up right below where the
round explodes; not enough if he's happened to take a few steps to
the side after the last time you saw him. Which is why the XM-25 uses
a 25mm shell similar (possibly identical) to the one used in the OISW, instead
of the OICW's 20mm round. (The increase from 20mm to 25mm calibre might not
sound mucy, but it roughly doubles the shell volume. Since the fuze is pretty
much the same in both shells, it allows the 25mm shell to carry much more
explosives and fragmenting mass than the 20mm round could.)

Here endeth the lesson :-/

> It would be impressive to be able to wipe all mention of something

Which is precisely why I was so surprised to not get any hits at all for the
OISW, particularly considering how much hype I read about it
on the 'net up to 3-4 years ago...

Later,

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTry XM307
instead, and possibly the related XM312 (.50 MG based on same chassis).

Steve.

> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Oerjan Ariander wrote:

> It is, though with the calibre borrowed from the OISW (25mm instead

I hadn't heard of it before. Hmm, poking about a bit - perhaps OCSW
(Objective Crew Served Weapon) rather than OISW? That at least has a basic
Wikipedia page.

> Ouch. I hadn't heard about any fatal accidents - was that at

Aberdeen, yes, and about 2003. I don't have more details; if I can relocate my
source I'll post it.

R

> Roger B W wrote:

> >It is, though with the calibre borrowed from the OISW (25mm instead

Ah yes, that was the proper name... though for some reason it was called OISW
in several discussions I've read as well, by people who ought to have known
better:(

Thanks! (to Stephen as well, of course!).

> >Ouch. I hadn't heard about any fatal accidents - was that at

Please do... I'm curious if it was a case of "the program management requires
that we do this even though we're not ready for it" or "what the heck, it has
always worked out OK before so we'll risk it this time too". Having spent a
lot of time on our own test range recently, I know far too well just how
treacherous both of these lines of reasoning can be:(

Oerjan said:

(The increase from 20mm to 25mm calibre might not sound mucy, but it roughly
doubles the shell volume. Since the fuze is pretty much the same in both
shells, it allows the 25mm shell to carry much more explosives and fragmenting
mass than the 20mm round could.)

-------

I'd heard a lot of suggestion that they'd need to stay with something in the
40mm range to get a truly effective weapon. I recall 20mm being way too small
to be effective. Is 25mm big enough? I guess we'll see.
And we'll see if they've ironed our reliability/robustness issues.

I'm also curious to see if the guy lugging the XM-25 ends up lugging
an M-4 anyway. With 4 rounds per mag and presumably fair weight for
mags, he won't be carrying that many rounds. And it won't be too useful for
door kicking and indoor fighting I would imagine so the
squaddie will still probably need something for that - M-4, Shotgun,
something.

Still, if it does prove useful in attacking prone opponents or opponents
behind barricades or in windows, it may well earn its keep in COIN warfare.

It seems like it would be of some use even against modern line troops with
armour as they have exposed extremities. In the long run, I can see defenses
against this being thicker ballistic fatigues to limit
the non-hard-armoured areas that can be hurt by the small
fragmentation. Paper, scissors, rock - next chapter. Still, you
probably won't see that on guys in rags with sandals and an AK.

TomB

> TomB wrote:

> Oerjan said:

Depends a bit on what you want to shoot at, how accurate you can be and how
much ammo you want to carry; for example the various
ex-Soviet 30mm grenade launchers are pretty nasty too. But yes, 20mm
is definitely too small to rely on fragmentation and IMO 25mm is very
debatable too. 'Course, I prefer 84mm for my HE shells <g>

Later,

Oh yes, especially when *combined*. Mercifully, in my field, only money is
lost.

> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd heard a lot of suggestion that they'd need to stay with something

25mm HE works, just ask the Bradley guys.:)

> I'm also curious to see if the guy lugging the XM-25 ends up lugging

Yes, he'll have an M-4 also.  Or at least I assume so.  Just like the
M-203 guy does, and the M-240 gunner and so on and so forth.

> It seems like it would be of some use even against modern line troops

Google DAP. Extremity protection is at least a couple weight breakthroughs
away from happening for Soldiers that aren't immobile elements of a vehicle
mounted weapon system.

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Oerjan Ariander
> <orjan.ariander1@comhem.se> wrote:

> Depends a bit on what you want to shoot at, how accurate you can be

As long as you don't have many targets to shoot at, I like 84mm too.

> John Atkinson wrote:

> > I'd heard a lot of suggestion that they'd need to stay with

Well... the Bradley cannon has a *slightly* higher ROF and muzzle
velocity than the XM-25 <g>, so it can both put more rounds on target
in the same time and get them there with a bit of extra KE to improve the
damage potential (penetrating further into stuff before exploding,
etc)...

Later,