Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbierwagen | Hacker News Reader

Ah, the XM25. Last publicity blitz we saw on this was a year ago, and Gary Breacher called them out on it: http://exiledonline.com/xm25-gee-whiz-how-can-we-be-losing-w... (Even the file photo is the same!)

The XM25 autocannon is neat. Absolutely nobody denies this. It's also pretty useless, because any insurgent who engages security forces in a conventional gun battle is going to die. Nine times out of ten, they're dead; if by airstrike or just being outflanked and outgunned.

They know this, which is why for the last nine years, the weapon of choice used by the other side has been the IED or the suicide bomb; where high tech weapons like the XM25 are rendered entirely useless. While it's nice to see the Economist running an advertisement for Alliant Techsystems in their magazine, the XM25 will actually do very little to win CI wars.

View on HN

There's a real use for this weapon. If it works, it's not a pointless economic stimulus tech demo. US troops get into plenty of firefights with insurgents. Artillery and air support must be around if we plan to win those firefights with low casualties. The XM25 makes artillery and air support less of a necessity, which means we could save money and gas.

Saving gas is important. If you're shipping gas or ammo by truck, you're creating targets for IEDs. Our casualty rates would be significantly higher if we couldn't use foreign drivers. The DARPA self driving car challenge was a response to the IED turkey shoot that's our supply line. At least we can avoid casualties.

That's not entirely true. There are still plenty of gunfights and ambushes being staged in Afghanistan, especially outside of the major cities.

yes its just a replacement for the existing under barrel launchers M203 and the venerable Vietnam era M79 this gives that gives you a few more tactical options.

"A few more tactical options" is playing down something that can be monumental.

The howitzer only offered "a few more tactical options", mainly being the ability to lay down accurate indirect fire whilst still being able to offer direct fire and defensive fire.

I mean why bother inventing gunpowder or rifling or any other weapons when an arrow killed people too. I mean sure the rifle was more effective and less competent soldiers could use it skilfully, but what was the point when we already had bows and crossbows?

So why bother inventing an accurate method of firing a frag round at 500ft when the M203 has a max range of 400ft and effective fire at only 150ft. Granted the AK47 is only effective at 250ft, but that still means the soldiers will be spraying and praying with grenade fire.

The whole point of making a weapon more accurate and effective is to increase the enemy combatant losses whilst decreasing civilian losses and soldier risk.

The American battle rifles aren't a weakness, they serve their purpose well. The military should be focused on things like IED detection, preventing brain damage from concussive force, battlefield intelligence, social programs (hearts and minds)... the stuff we are having a hard time doing.

The M4 is accurate, but lacks the power of something like an AK-47, which hits harder and has a larger round. It's great for clearing a room or working in tight spaces, but it's not nearly the same as this.

Additionally, they are working VERY hard to improve IED detection, and in fact are making quite a bit of headway in that regard. The same goes for every other issue you raised.

There's no reason you can't improve offense while simultaneously improving defense.

Improving offence helps you improve defence. If you make the most dangerous weapons in the world, then you solely have the ability to figure out the best ways to defend against them.

The US will have a significant advantage in developing jamming systems against these types of rounds.

The US isn't afraid of some Afghan insurgent living in a cave from developing a countermeasure against these new munitions. They're afraid Russia or China will be capable of developing a countermeasure. The rounds are worthless, or potentially dangerous, if you can cause premature detonation.

Brecher (not "Breacher") doesn't know any more about war or geopolitics than you or I.

The fact that this particular weapon isn't useful in an IED attack doesn't mean that it's not useful for what it's designed to do. You seem to be under the impression there's no shooting going on in A-stan. This is definitely not the case.

My understanding was that it isn't being deployed to win battles, more to test it in theatre in preparation for future wars or export.

The accuracy of a rifle with a frag round have a lot of potential. I mean, if you're taking fire from a window you range find to the wall the window is on, add a foot and fire it through, the round will explode a foot or two from the combatant. Know there's four enemy in a vehicle, range find and aim for a side window.

It will certainly change the way soldiers will fight, but the advantage is that the insurgents and less developed nations won't have the technology and likely won't have the understanding of it. Everyone knows grenade launchers lob the round. However, it's going to be very different when it's got the range and the level trajectory of a rifle.

The article was disappointingly flag-waving and uncritical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com