Weapon: change Afghan warfare

[dieseltaylor]

(PhysOrg.com) -- The US Army has recently announced plans to test the high-tech XM25 airburst grenade launcher this summer in Afghanistan, unleashing a weapon that veterans predict could be a game-changing advantage in the war. The XM25 can fire 25mm rounds that explode at any distance set by a soldier, effective at a range of up to 700 m. Because the 14-pound, $25,000 gun can fire rounds in just seconds, it could replace the need to call in fire missions, artillery or airstrikes in some situations, which can take anywhere from several minutes to an hour to arrive.

Army officials say that the XM25 could be ideal in current situations in Afghanistan, where the enemy tends to hide behind barriers such as walls and trees or in underground trenches, often at distances of 300 m or more. Right now, such targets are difficult to hit even for skilled marksmen, since a bullet is only lethal if it hits the head or vital organs.

Since the blast radius of the XM25 is equivalent to a hand grenade, it could allow US soldiers to target and kill these hidden snipers. For example, if an enemy is hiding inside a distant building, a soldier can point the gun at the building’s façade, which measures the distance using lasers and sensors.

http://www.physorg.com/news192633095.html

Seems pretty hot stuff.

[Michael Emrys]

Seems pretty hot stuff.

Only as long as the enemy does the things that this weapon is designed to counter. If the enemy changes his tactics, we're stuck with a $25,000 white elephant.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

Michael, what sort of tactics are you contemplating that might counter such an advanced weapon? Basically it is just designed to lob explosive rounds where you want them, and explode them when you want them to go off. I see it having a lot of utility and not just in A'stan but also in other contexts, e.g. urban fighting.

Countermeasures that defeat laser ranging might work, but I doubt the Taliban has access to many of them on the battlefield at least. But perhaps you have sneakily thought of countermeasures that have not come to my mind as yet.

[JonS]

I suspect he was responding to this bit of hyperbolic BS:

... unleashing a weapon that veterans predict could be a game-changing advantage in the war.

First up, it isn't a war.

Secondly, there are no weapons that could be game changing, since it's fundamentally a political problem, and has to be solved with those means. Calling a weapon 'game changing' in a political conflict is like the police developing a new set of handcuffs and claiming it'll end crime.

[Stalins Organ]

Overhead cover seems to be the basic counter - however it is difficult to construct in the field - and AFAIK the insurgents are not well known for their engineering prowess.

However simply undercutting a ditch to provide some might be enough - what is the pattern of fragmentation fo these things? Do they project lethal fragments back along the line of flight?

If not then deeper holes and/or vertical walls might be enough.

Hiding in buildings with roofs doesn't count since they allies probably don't call in airstrikes on those in the 1st place (unless they are isolated & sure they are empty of civilians (I hope)), plus putting a round through the window means the roof isn't much use!

[Michael Emrys]

But perhaps you have sneakily thought of countermeasures that have not come to my mind as yet.

Depends on what you have thought about. Seems to me that a modicum of overhead cover would defeat it handily. It fires a 20mm round, right? Or something about that size. It can't have a very big blasting charge and its fragments aren't likely to have a whole lot of penetration. Might be good against troops who lack overhead cover (including flak jackets and helmets), but even then mostly in a suppression role. Of course all this remains to be discovered in combat, but I have a sneaky hunch this is just another oversold mediocre weapon the Army brass is too gormless to reject out of hand.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Secondly, the[re] are no weapons that could be game changing, since it's fundamentally a political problem, and has to be solved with those means. Calling a weapon 'game changing' in a political conflict is like the police developing a new set of handcuffs and claiming it'll end crime.

There's that too.

But even if it were somehow just a military problem (if such things ever exist in the real world), thinking that one new weapon is going to radically alter the situation is pushing the limits of probability. Might happen but usually doesn't work that way.

Michael

[JonS]

There was a story from earlier this year that nicely encapsulated that Mike.

UAVs are good right? Most people can agree on that. And if some are good, more must be better. 24/7 coverage over a significant fraction of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area - that'd be pure gold, right?

Well, as it happens, not so much.

The non-aligned border tribesmen aren't wild about being spied on all the time when they're doing nothing they perceive as 'wrong'. More significantly, the Taliban-aligned folks were reasonably quick to grok the idea that mving about and living together in groups had become a bad idea. So, they stopped that, and started billetting themselves out in onesies and twosies with the local population. So, instead of one or two houses having a bunch of Taliban, now pretty much every house has a low level of Taliban presence. This has had a couple of knock-on effects. Airstrikes aren't really viable anymore, since the target is more dispersed, and the liklihood of civilian cas has correspondingly gone way up. Also, while the owners of the residences usually aren't too wild about having unwanted guests there isn't too much they can do about it, but the critical point is that they blame the US and their drones for pushing the Talibani into their homes, rather than the Taliban for arriving uninvited. Furthermore, because each residence has pretty much continuous Taliban presence, they are much more able to control and win the propaganda war.

So, while drones undoubtedly gave coalition forces some initial advantage, and continue to be highly important for troops-in-contact, the profligate use of them at the strategic level they've created far more problems than they solved.

[Affentitten]

I can't believe this thing is still knocking around. I remember reporting on it about 15 years ago for Beyond 2000. I think then it was a combo weapon with a 5.56 rifle. The main problem was the interface and the bulkiness. The deployment of the rounds required quite a complex measurement of range to target, since obviously if you're trying to burst them above a ditch or just past the corner of a bulding, you need to know how far away it is. You then had to program that into the grenade launcher with your non-trigger hand. That seemed to be unrealistic for a rifleman in a firefight.

[dieseltaylor]

Tank might be an example of game changing. And the use of the armoured car and biplane made quite a difference in the pre-war period.

Just reading a biography of Percy Hobart and that is illuminating for the changes during his lifetime from cavalry to Centurion.

Looking at the use of Funnies that is also instructive in new weapons to solve big problems. The difference in beach casualties where they wer ein use and not in use is very striking. And also the speedy reduction of German fortified ports is textbook right tool for the job.

Couple of things re Percy. Could have been killed several times before WW2 , including a misfire when a Turkish guard was going to shoot him in the back. A landing on his head when at full gallop a lucky shot nicked his horses hoof. And several near misses on the Western Front. And a plane crash. Probably one of the first Army officers to go up doing recon.

Other facts - often quoted as brother-in-law to Monty. In fact his sister Betty died in 1937 so one time brother-in-law might provide a better view of the connection. His daughter was named Grizzel!???

[Michael Emrys]

Tank might be an example of game changing. And the use of the armoured car and biplane made quite a difference in the pre-war period.

But as soon as the enemy adapted his tactics those weapons were not enough by themselves (which is apparently how this new weapon is being touted) to win. See the difference?

For all I know, this may turn out to be a useful weapon well liked by the troops and so on. But it won't carry the burden of obtaining victory all by itself any more than guided bombs have done.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

There was a story from earlier this year that nicely encapsulated that Mike.

And that's a perfect example of why the American style of making war just doesn't work in these conditions, a fact the generals and their civilian bosses just don't seem able to get.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

I suspect what we have here is a difference in opinion in what game-changing represents. I do not see game changing as being synonymous with winning, rather it changes how the game is played.

Interestingly if the tactical applications do mean a reduction in other types of fire support it may give the US Army a pool of existing soldiers that could be put in the sharp end. So maybe ramifications beyond the obvious.

There is also the psychological effects of new weapons. If you are behind the curve and reacting to enemy plays that can be daunting.

[Affentitten]

I would have said the advent of the machine gun was more game changing than the tank. But it still never happened overnight.

I also don't think the Taliban will be over-awed by a new piece of kit. They're not exactly fighting one even tech terms at the moment.

[JonS]

Looking at the use of Funnies that is also instructive in new weapons to solve big problems. The difference in beach casualties where they were in use and not in use is very striking.

Hmm. Actually, not so much. Take a look at Anderson's book on 1st Assault Bde RE.

The short version is they didn't have much effect on D-Day, the beach with the lowest cas had no funnies, and they wouldn't have been any use on OMAHA.

Edit: As a general note, I've come to the strong opinion that auto/biographies are pretty much useless as sources of technical information. The writer will tend to credit their subject with all manner of perception and credit any inventions with everything from solving cancer to ending world hunger. About the best use for them is as a record of the subjects movements and - occasionally - his thoughts and opinions.

[Stalins Organ]

Relevant questions would be whether the funnies had an effect where they were used, and, as at Omaha, how could they have been used where they were not.

Barbed wire and machineguns were the game changers in WW1 - pretty much every other development that occured in land and air warfare was in response to the defence advantages of those 2 combined.

[JonS]

Relevant questions would be whether the funnies had an effect where they were used' date='[/quote']

Yes, and the answer is some but not nearly as much as you've probably been led to believe.

[gunnergoz]

IMO, separating this new 25mm GL system from a combination rifle/GL weapon was the best thing that could have happened to it. And from what I've read, it has many if not most of the bugs out of it, after years of testing.

Putting myself in the place of a squad leader in A-stan, I'd be happy to have a weapon available that could be fired into a window, say, and take out someone hiding behind it, even if they are ducking or off to the side. Ditto for an enemy fire team hiding behind a wall. Do Taliban wear armor? Not likely. Are they going to build heavy defenses into a building they just occupied? Not likely either. And if we are taking on a known stronghold with heavy defenses, we have plenty of tools for that sort of scenario already. So this new GL might just actually prove very useful, day to day, in that it can respond to the sort of sniper ambush sneak attacks that are fairly commonplace in asymmetrical warfare, and can do so without destroying an entire building in the process. Sure, a 40mm grenade can do some of this, but it has no way to hit targets in defilade or behind cover, unless you can find a ballistic trajectory that works. And its warhead is a bit of overkill for some circumstances.

If the new GL can be made reliable and the troops take to it, more power to them and may more of them come home safely because of it, I say.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS - as I do not have Anderson's book your comments need expanding if I am to rebut them in any way.

The biography is written by Kenneth Macksey, who at least has the advantage of being a tank man. He did serve under Hobart but I do not think one would say he has hidden his subjects failings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Macksey

The short version is they didn't have much effect on D-Day, the beach with the lowest cas had no funnies, and they wouldn't have been any use on OMAHA.

I understand its your short version but I have nearly 20 pages in the book on the Invasion day , and a whole chapter previous on their development so ....

* the US had 27DD sink at sea of Omaha - two made the shoreline and engaged the shore defences but could not move off because of the minefields. Three later arrived by LCT. If they had Crabs then as on the UK beaches the paths could have been cleared for them to advance

* not move on the shingle?! Bobbins were utilised to cover the soft blue clay on the British beaches were it existed - shingle would have been easier I would think.

* the petard armed AVRE was designed to follow up the paths made by the Crabs and AVRE bridging units. The Crabs themselves could fire anyway.

Apparently Chester Wilmot wrote " At Bradley's HQ .... Montgomery's plan for armored assault was regarded as just another example of British under-confidence and over-insurance."

Incidentally you write as though the DD's at Utah did not exist -34 reached the shore and silenced the close opposition but had to wait for the slow manual clearance of mines. On this the least contested beach the US Engineers had 45 casualties compared to the 79th Armoured's 169 for the full day from three more hotly contested beaches.

Seems fairly evident that a Crab can clear more quickly and safely than any manual method. Not to say that at times engineers did not get out of their tanks to clear mines and lay charges also.

The only thing I have no info on is the LCT claim - do you have that fact handy? The other points you raise seem to require expansion as at the moment they do not seem to hold water.

[JonS]

Deez,

most of Anderson's arguments can be found at the AHF forums, where he posts under the name "RichTO90" (that's "Rich-TEE-OH-nine-zero", a reference to the US 90th Inf Div, in which his dad served). I'm not going to reproduce the many and complex arguments in full.

On OMAHA, the two DD bns had extraordinarily different experiences. One lost most at sea, while the other lost almost none. However, and counter intuitively, the flank that had the fewest tanks land did the best over the course of the day.

Petards would have been little to no use on OMAHA due to range and/or elevation limitations. And that's even assuming they could manoover. The gun on a Crab is - obviously - just the same as the gun on a DD or regular Sherman.

The Bobbins were intended to facilitate movement across the clay, but their success in that was fairly spotty. There's no expectation they'd have been better use on OMAHA.

I know there were DDs at UTAH, but I don't really count them as Funnies. The general argument runs something along the lines of 'the US would have done "better" if only they'd had Funnies", but since they /did/ have DDs presumably the argument excludes them. Also, the UK/CDN units equipped with DD were NOT part of 79th Armd Div.

Crab performance was spotty.

LCTs - and in fact LC of all types - were in short supply for OVERLORD, at least compared to what was wanted. If the US were to utilise Funnies they would have had to forego some other element of their assault to make room for them on such LCTs as they had available.

[JonS]

The biography is written by Kenneth Macksey, who at least has the advantage of being a tank man. He did serve under Hobart but I do not think one would say he has hidden his subjects failings.

I haven't read this book, and you may be right - perhaps this /is/ the one biography that fully, honestly, and fairly examines its subject and their innovations

[dieseltaylor]

I will look Anderson up.

My first reaction is that it is a stunt to exclude DD's as Funnies. I suppose on that line of argument if the Yanks had used any others it would have disbarred those from being called Funnies also. There were a range of Funnies . Ike liked DD and CDL and left it to Bradley to decide on the rest -- and Bradley delegated. Apparently the Crabs would have been difficult to train on [WTF they were Shermans]. All the training for DD's etc was done by 79th Armoured.

According to Hobarts diaries he had words with Ike as getting Sherman DD's built in the UK was being a problem. A day later the blueprints and his best man flew to the US and the first 100 arrived 6 weeks later in Liverpool. Ike was very taken with DD's.

[JonS]

My first reaction is that it is a stunt to exclude DD's as Funnies. I suppose on that line of argument if the Yanks had used any others it would have disbarred those from being called Funnies also.

heh

Well, as I said, the basic argument is that "the US would have done better if only they'd had <x>". Since they /did/ have <y> (which is a subset of <x>) I thought it made sense to exclude it from discussion. So in that sense, yeah - IF they'd also had, oh, say Crabs at OMAHA and UTAH, then they'd be excluded from the discussion too

BTW, on the DDs at OMAHA, I assume you know that the majority of those that made it to shore were landed directly? That is, even though they had the capability of swimming, the local commander took the decision to land them 'dry' after beaching the LCTs. So, in that sense, there actually weren't many true 'wet' DDs at OMAHA - less than 10 IIRC.

[dieseltaylor]

Just for the hell of it:

About 4 minutes in you get to be on the viewing end of the flame. Unpleasant. The other very interesting thing is the rapidity of fire of the jet - that is also very scary. I have been playing CM with German and Russian FT and they fire nowhere nearly as fast in firing.