• US Govt. Spends Big On Grenade Launcher Rifle
    181 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20132813]How is airburst going to be more effective against vehicles...?[/QUOTE] Multiple rounds of 25mm at 40 RPM (Semi-auto) is going to be more effective against multiple technicals than one round of 40mm that's a breach-loader. Airburst is a setting you can disable, brah.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;20132797]Insurgent: Kills US soldier with reliable weapon that is cheap to fire[/QUOTE] USA: *Round embeds itself in SAPI plate* Insurgent: Gets turned into swiss cheese by 25mm shell fragments USA: "lol"
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132666]The M203 is more practical, and 40mm rounds dont airburst (At least the common HEDP rounds dont). But when you feel the need to carpet bomb the entire fucking block with 40mm rain, then the Milkor is the way to go. Its also fucking sweet looking.[/QUOTE] My thoughts exactly. Seems the intention of this newer grenade launcher is basically the carpet bombing job (granted, with airburst) but the milkor is cheaper anyways and basically does the same job. Being that the grenades are 40mm as apposed to 25, each ground hit may also be just as effective as a 25 mm airburst anyways. And yes, the milkor looks badass.
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;20132842]Multiple rounds of 25mm at 40 RPM (Semi-auto) is going to be more effective against multiple technicals than one round of 40mm that's a breach-loader. Airburst is a setting you can disable, brah.[/QUOTE] Because technicals are such a huge problem for our troops as opposed to snipers or IEDs. Read as: Technicals are a minor issue, let alone multiple techincals, and you sure as shit don't need a GL round to take out a pickup truck.
[QUOTE=protoAuthor;20132842]Multiple rounds of 25mm at 40 RPM (Semi-auto) is going to be more effective against multiple technicals than one round of 40mm that's a breach-loader. Airburst is a setting you can disable, brah.[/QUOTE] Do you think your average insurgent pickup truck or sedan will be able to withstand more than 1 40mm grenade? I don't think so. Besides, I'm more comparing this new launcher with the MGL. I think the MGL could do the same job, but for much cheaper.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132869]USA: *Round embeds itself in SAPI plate* Insurgent: Gets turned into swiss cheese by 25mm shell fragments USA: "lol"[/QUOTE] They have SAPI plates covering their face? Then they're not going to be able to fire the grenade launcher very well now are they?
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132921]Because technicals are such a huge problem for our troops as opposed to snipers or IEDs. Read as: Technicals are a minor issue, let alone multiple techincals, and you sure as shit don't need a GL round to take out a pickup truck.[/QUOTE] Would you rather be on the side with or without this? [editline]08:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;20132931]Do you think your average insurgent pickup truck or sedan will be able to withstand more than 1 40mm grenade? I don't think so. Besides, I'm more comparing this new launcher with the MGL. I think the MGL could do the same job, but for much cheaper.[/QUOTE] That's possible. But we all know military command is retarded.
Half of why this is so useful is targeting. Without a skilled person using the M203, it's not likely to hit anything at distance.
Now if they made the Chainsaw Rocket Launcher come to life...
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20132895]My thoughts exactly. Seems the intention of this newer grenade launcher is basically the carpet bombing job (granted, with airburst) but the milkor is cheaper anyways and basically does the same job. Being that the grenades are 40mm as apposed to 25, each ground hit may also be just as effective as a 25 mm airburst anyways. And yes, the milkor looks badass.[/QUOTE] I disagree, this things job seems to be for more surgical placement of explosives, judging by the fact that the rounds follow a relitively flat trajectory as opposed to a parabolic one. Not to mention that a 40mm grenade burst looses much of its energy making a crater and throwing frag into the ground or the wall behind the target. Whereas the airburst round will send all of its force into the surrounding target area, maximizing effectiveness.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132869]USA: *Round embeds itself in SAPI plate* Insurgent: Gets turned into swiss cheese by 25mm shell fragments USA: "lol"[/QUOTE] "Insurgent uses 'shoot and run' tactic, [I]it's super-effective[/I]" "USA uses spray n' pray [i]with grenades[/i]"
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132994]I disagree, this things job seems to be for more surgical placement of explosives, judging by the fact that the rounds follow a relitively flat trajectory as opposed to a parabolic one. Not to mention that a 40mm grenade burst looses much of its energy making a crater and throwing frag into the ground or the wall behind the target. Whereas the airburst round will send all of its force into the surrounding target area, maximizing effectiveness.[/QUOTE] Well, I'd say the price to effectiveness ratio of the XM25 is pretty bad. Seems like it's something that's not really needed, especially since you're only fighting insurgents at the moment,s eems hardly worth the money. If, for some reason the US was to get in a war with a competent fighting force, this weapon might prove effective, but even then, I'm sure the opposition would go out of their way to develop a similar, or better weapon. Why they just didn't make a non-computerized version of this weapon is beyond me. I can't imagine how expensive a single unit must be.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20132664]As if an Mk19 isn't already capable of completely obliterating anything that stands in it's path.[/QUOTE] XM307 does it ten-times better. Plus it can be converted into a fucking 50 cal in 2 minutes.
[QUOTE=don818;20133081]XM307 does it ten-times better. Plus it can be converted into a fucking 50 cal in 2 minutes.[/QUOTE] Another gimmick expenditure.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;20132787]We already have the legs and autotargeting guns, it's just a matter of supergluing them on top of each other. They kinda have exoskeletons. [img]http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1065/peosnew02.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That's a bomb suit...
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20133096]Another gimmick expenditure.[/QUOTE] Its still a fucking awesome heavy weapon.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20133058] Why they just didn't make a non-computerized version of this weapon is beyond me. I can't imagine how expensive a single unit must be.[/QUOTE] A non-computerized proximity fused round wouldn't be able to enter a room through a small window, and it could easily go off in an urban environment from passing close to a wall or other object. While this isnt totally necessarily, it makes more sense than the MGL, which is basically useless in our current situations, in which we are attempting to reduce collateral damage.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20133122]While this isnt totally necessarily, it makes more sense than the MGL, which is basically useless in our current situations, in which we are attempting to reduce collateral damage.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying the MGL should be used for [I]all[/I] the same precision purposes, I'm saying it should be used to give squads extra fire support, same reason you'd use say, a SAW. Besides, I'm sure at within 100-200 meters, a reasonably trained and skilled shooter should be able to plant a round into a window anyways. I doubt you're going to even be able to see a shooter in a window at 600 meters, let alone have the opportunity to fire at them anyways. I don't think anybody will be using this at a range over 200 meters, in which case a normal revolving grenade launcher could do the same job. Any "reduction" of collateral damage with this M25, wouldn't be much. Reducing collteral damage, at the same time as using an airburst grenade, is not very possible. A bit of drywall inside a building is not going to stop a bunch of supersonic shrapnel. And why would you try and lob a grenade through a tiny window, why not just shoot the grenade at the window. It's just as likely to harm whatever is inside.
I like to think of the XM25 like a real life bolter (not the little rocket missle part, the semi automatic large bore explosive warhead part). Once could tear apart a platoon with one of these, and if one were to hit a single person there wouldn't be much left.
that blew my mind
Those terrorist are all level 70, while the US is level 40 and use noobtubes. God, why did i just say that Box goes here. || || || \/
boxes for box forts donate today and you can bring pizza rolls and mircowaves
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20133268]I'm not saying the MGL should be used for [I]all[/I] the same precision purposes, I'm saying it should be used to give squads extra fire support, same reason you'd use say, a SAW. Besides, I'm sure at within 100-200 meters, a reasonably trained and skilled shooter should be able to plant a round into a window anyways. I doubt you're going to even be able to see a shooter in a window at 600 meters, let alone have the opportunity to fire at them anyways. I don't think anybody will be using this at a range over 200 meters, in which case a normal revolving grenade launcher could do the same job. Any "reduction" of collateral damage with this M25, wouldn't be much. Reducing collteral damage, at the same time as using an airburst grenade, is not very possible. A bit of drywall inside a building is not going to stop a bunch of supersonic shrapnel. And why would you try and lob a grenade through a tiny window, why not just shoot the grenade at the window. It's just as likely to harm whatever is inside.[/QUOTE] the 25mm round would do TONS less damage to the structure compared to a 40mm. The 40mm actually contacts and blows up whatever it hits, wall, door, person, etc, whereas this explodes in the air, and sends shrapnel everywhere. Thats not to say that it wouldnt do damage to the inside of the building, but it would so less than a 40mm round would. Tons of little shrapnel holes are different than a missing wall. As for why you want the round inside of the room, think about it, if a grenade hit the outside of the window as opposed to going in the room, a large portion of the blast and shrapnel goes out into the air/ is absorbed by the wall, whereas the round exploding in the middle of the room, midair, throws all of its shrapnel and explosive force around inside the room (and into potential targets).
The US Army, not the US Government :engleft:
25mm is an accurate shrapnel grenade, along with some other things. 40mm is general purpose.
Isn't the m203 good enough?
Why waste money on grenade launchers why not [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten"]tungsten[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_pole"]telephone poles launch from fucking space[/URL] [editline]11:45PM[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment[/url]
As badass as that is, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchisson_Assault_Shotgun"]a fully automatic shotgun that fires grenades[/URL] is still more badass. [editline]hahaha[/editline] You have manliness issues if you go and rate me dumb.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20133569]the 25mm round would do TONS less damage to the structure compared to a 40mm. The 40mm actually contacts and blows up whatever it hits, wall, door, person, etc, whereas this explodes in the air, and sends shrapnel everywhere. Thats not to say that it wouldnt do damage to the inside of the building, but it would so less than a 40mm round would. Tons of little shrapnel holes are different than a missing wall. As for why you want the round inside of the room, think about it, if a grenade hit the outside of the window as opposed to going in the room, a large portion of the blast and shrapnel goes out into the air/ is absorbed by the wall, whereas the round exploding in the middle of the room, midair, throws all of its shrapnel and explosive force around inside the room (and into potential targets).[/QUOTE] Keep in mind the 25mm is not limited to airburst, it can be detonate on contact. The XM25 would also fire HE rounds and AP as well, so it is not like it is limited to clearing windows and doorways.
Not launch Tungsten telephone poles at terrorist from space is cooler
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.