future of war, XM29 and XM307

MrClean, your picture shows why it should replace the M2 Browning. The top picture shows the XM303 in it's Grenade Launcher form, and it shows that the weapon can be changed between a .50 calliber weapon and a GL with only a few changes to the internal system and barrel. So I am very much for the replacement of the venerable M2 .50 Cal.

This bunch of stuff are in my eyes guns for show, not for fight.
As Crazy pointed out, what's the chance that it will survive the battlefield?
All this costs money, how will the government pay for it. We are suppose to lower the deficit. (And we had actually did it!) So no need to relieve the work we've done!

As for the .50 HMG, it can't shoot airplanes at all.

Also, the XM-29 and XM-8 both employ carbine length barrels, that'll hamper performance, especailly with the problematic .223 round.

And who will use the XM-29? SOF forces will use the SCAR most likely.

What problems remains on the XM-8 anyway? (Its weight of 2.59kg doesn't seem real though.)

Well, as I said before the XM-29 is -probably- going to be scrapped. And then will instead be replaced by better production numbers/deployment numbers in the XM-8 and XM-25. Which are practically what the XM-29 is, but just instead of both .223 and the smart 25mm both being in the same weapon, they will be separate systems. And, uh the XM-8 can come in a whole variety of barrel lengths, and calibers, if desired.

As for your other statement, I suppose you would be reffering to the XM-307/312. It is a two man crew served weapon, which is the most capable, technologically advanced, deadliest, multi faceted, and lightest crew served weapon that has ever been designed. Available in both 25mm and .50 cal it is the most likely candidate to replace the aging Browning .50 cals and HK Mk19 40mm grenade launchers.

To answer your Q really the only place for these CSW's on the battlefield are mounted on MBT's and APC/IFV's or other vehicles, other than that they are more than likely going to be defending fixed positions. Even though the weapon only consists of 2 parts, and only weighs in at 22.7 kg.

Don't know what that equals out to in pounds but it sounds pretty light

MrClean said:

Though the weapon only consists of 2 parts, and only weighs in at 22.7 kg.

Don't know what that equals out to in pounds but it sounds pretty light

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Well, that's about 50 pounds... I wouldn't really consider that "pretty light".

Actually, for a HMG/GMG, 50 pounds is realatively light...........
But the lightness is a bad compromise on performance:
The .50 cal MG can't shoot up airplanes since the Rate of fire is so bad, and the 25mm GMG, do the rounds have as much firepower and killing as the old 40mm?

To clarify, I meant that 50 pounds would make it still more suitable for fixed positions (as opposed to infantry lugging it around)...

I'm not sure about the firepower and weight compromise, (although it's probably safe to say that 40mm will definitely do more damage than 25mm) but considering that most aircraft cannons are 20~30mm in diameter, I'd expect 25mm to do decent damage, the biggest problem still being how to hit the aircraft. Then again, I'm not sure if the initial speed of aircraft adds to damage considerably?

Err................aircraft cannons fire at a much higher rate with bullets that doesn't explode unless it hits the craft.

As for the anti-air point. You will need many .50 bullets to effectively damage a plane so that it doesn't attack you. This new item will not help in here at all. (Then again, the US Army can be so integrated at times, soldiers would expect the AF to have good cover for them anyway......) But there is the Stinger...... I am not a very pro-technology guy, batteries die, computers freeze, so relying on a missile (that has a minimal altitude limit) isn't very smart in my point of view even when you are just defending a position.
And if someone else manage to fly CAS as good as the US (Flying so low that if you open your gears it will touch the ground.) that Stinger is going to have problems.

My point is, I think the USA is going too comfortable here. (Well, from Speculation)The XM-312 should not replace the Ma Duce. (Actually, is this gun really going to replace the Ma Duce entirely?)

sumdud said:

Err................aircraft cannons fire at a much higher rate with bullets that doesn't explode unless it hits the craft.

As for the anti-air point. You will need many .50 bullets to effectively damage a plane so that it doesn't attack you. This new item will not help in here at all. (Then again, the US Army can be so integrated at times, soldiers would expect the AF to have good cover for them anyway......) But there is the Stinger...... I am not a very pro-technology guy, batteries die, computers freeze, so relying on a missile (that has a minimal altitude limit) isn't very smart in my point of view even when you are just defending a position.

Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot to take into account the (insanely) high rate of fire most aircraft cannons have.

On the second point... maybe the item isn't going to be very useful for anti-air. Of course when the day comes that the US Army is forced to use machine guns against aircraft is probably still kind of far off, considering the almost unfair gap in air superiority and the nature of conflicts the US in involved in.

But I also understand the need for AAA and flak guns, like you said technology tends to fuck up just when you need it the most. My guess is that the "flak traps" used by the North Vietnamese are still useful in today's environment, albeit as a last resort.

So maybe the question is, higher calibre-lower ROF vs lower calibre-higher ROF?

Don't recall anyone saying anything about these weapons being used as AAA. They are only to -possibly- replace the aging Browning .50 cals and HK Mk.19 series of crew served weapons that are mounted on everything from Humvees to Jolly-Greens. It will be a better replacement for the HK40mm in that it has overall better combat potential in that it can be a somewhat "smart" weapon. The XM307s 25mm firing system is designed to be able to used to it's maximum killing/supression potential by electronically controlling the munitions' detonation. It can be programmed to make the 25mm explode either just before or after it reaches it's target, instead of detonating on impact. By doing this it becomes more useful and effective in that it can be used in a number of different scenerios that would sometimes call for different solutions.

For example, if a soldier or Marine is engaged by a sniper who is dug into a foxhole or inside of a building, and can't quite reach the enemy with his rifle. He could use the XM307 and it's unique firing system to lay down an impressive display of supressive fire by programming the munitions to detonate right as it reaches the target and exploding directly above the foxhole, therefore effectivly liquidating the target by getting him with the shrapnel. Similar situation with the sniper in the room of a building, instead of potentially having to call in an airstrike to take out the building, the munitions can be programmed to explode a few milliseconds after punching through the wall or window and exploding in the center of the room.

That grenade is very useful, but of course, it is expensive. Question though: how long is the 25mm round? By calibre alone, the 25mm should be weaker in firepower than the 40mm grenades. (I am guessing the 40mm is a stronger round, since that makes sense. I doubt the US has a new explosive.)