超级军网关于XM25的一些消息，供喜欢榴弹发射器的朋友参考。
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/05/03 17:24:01
1、XM25目前弹匣容量应该是4发。（还有说是6发，不确认）
2、国外一些人觉得“空爆”纸面上效果不错，但对实际战场上使用和装备到底如何存在疑问。（目前俺还没有找到这方面的资料。
从这些方面来看，传统的简单榴弹系统和榴弹发射器似乎更贴近战场需要，另外容弹量上和体积折中上，如果是30mm榴弹，选择4发弹算是比较好的折中。
内容如下：
http://defensetech.org/2009/11/05/keep-it-simple/
You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.
Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie). It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.
Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission.
Rifle grenades: What’s wrong with rifle grenades? We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that. Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete? There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.
I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without. With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)
Shoulder fired weapons: Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7. Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world. What is the US equivalent? The single shot AT-4 (M136.) The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4.
While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory. The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it. Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s. Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.
1、XM25目前弹匣容量应该是4发。（还有说是6发，不确认）
2、国外一些人觉得“空爆”纸面上效果不错，但对实际战场上使用和装备到底如何存在疑问。（目前俺还没有找到这方面的资料。
从这些方面来看，传统的简单榴弹系统和榴弹发射器似乎更贴近战场需要，另外容弹量上和体积折中上，如果是30mm榴弹，选择4发弹算是比较好的折中。
内容如下：
http://defensetech.org/2009/11/05/keep-it-simple/
You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.
Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie). It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.
Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission.
Rifle grenades: What’s wrong with rifle grenades? We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that. Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete? There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.
I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without. With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)
Shoulder fired weapons: Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7. Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world. What is the US equivalent? The single shot AT-4 (M136.) The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4.
While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory. The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it. Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s. Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.
呜呼，还有人说XM25是5发的，当然也有人说是6发的。
到底是多少发呢？
到底是多少发呢？
再补充点消息，似乎最终弹匣容量是4发，原因也提到了是在火力和移动性方面的平衡。
http://kitup.military.com/2010/0 ... rifle-take-two.html
The Army's XM25 Smart Grenade Rifle Take 2
February 12, 2010|Greg Grant
We’ve had a LOT of comments (102 and counting) on our story last week about Army plans to spend $34 million in the coming year to develop its XM25, shoulder fired, semi-automatic 25mm grenade launcher. Lots of folks balked at the price tag, which is understandable, it’s a very expensive weapon. But if it pans out it could really provide some needed firepower to the rifle squad.
A number of critical voices are concerned that the XM25 will replace the venerable M203 under rifle grenade launcher. That’s not the case.
The XM25 is designed specifically for counter-defilade, meaning, it’s intended to blast enemy fighters hiding behind walls, cars, small mounds, or other obstacles. It fires a 25mm high explosive round above the target and then detonates. So it’s a weapon designed with a very specific function in mind. Because of this hyper-specialization, the Army says it will provide one per rifle squad. So it’s meant to augment, not replace, a squad’s current firepower.
In other words, the XM25 is not intended to replace this (the XM320, the replacement for the M203):
Others have criticized the XM25’s limited magazine which only holds four rounds. Yet, one commenter familiar with the weapon wrote in to say that the 4 round magazine is a compromise between weight and mobility and that the weapon’s accuracy will more than compensate. The squad grenadier will put down accurate killing fire with the 25mm rounds as the rest of the squad uses M-4s and SAWs to suppress.
A shortcoming of the M203, as a number of users have commented, is its inaccuracy. The XM25 would appear to be a vast improvement in that regard. One commenter who has test fired the weapon said the laser sight and smart round is accurate enough to put into windows in a house so that the round detonates inside a room.
Another commenter wrote in to say that the 25mm round actually contains more explosive than the 40mm “blooper” round. I’ll have to do some digging and see if that’s the case.
Watching this footage of firefights from southern Afghanistan put together by former Marine turned combat correspondent Bing West, I could see the XM25 having some real utility reaching out and hitting an enemy that uses walls and tree lines as a base of fire.
http://kitup.military.com/2010/0 ... rifle-take-two.html
The Army's XM25 Smart Grenade Rifle Take 2
February 12, 2010|Greg Grant
We’ve had a LOT of comments (102 and counting) on our story last week about Army plans to spend $34 million in the coming year to develop its XM25, shoulder fired, semi-automatic 25mm grenade launcher. Lots of folks balked at the price tag, which is understandable, it’s a very expensive weapon. But if it pans out it could really provide some needed firepower to the rifle squad.
A number of critical voices are concerned that the XM25 will replace the venerable M203 under rifle grenade launcher. That’s not the case.
The XM25 is designed specifically for counter-defilade, meaning, it’s intended to blast enemy fighters hiding behind walls, cars, small mounds, or other obstacles. It fires a 25mm high explosive round above the target and then detonates. So it’s a weapon designed with a very specific function in mind. Because of this hyper-specialization, the Army says it will provide one per rifle squad. So it’s meant to augment, not replace, a squad’s current firepower.
In other words, the XM25 is not intended to replace this (the XM320, the replacement for the M203):
Others have criticized the XM25’s limited magazine which only holds four rounds. Yet, one commenter familiar with the weapon wrote in to say that the 4 round magazine is a compromise between weight and mobility and that the weapon’s accuracy will more than compensate. The squad grenadier will put down accurate killing fire with the 25mm rounds as the rest of the squad uses M-4s and SAWs to suppress.
A shortcoming of the M203, as a number of users have commented, is its inaccuracy. The XM25 would appear to be a vast improvement in that regard. One commenter who has test fired the weapon said the laser sight and smart round is accurate enough to put into windows in a house so that the round detonates inside a room.
Another commenter wrote in to say that the 25mm round actually contains more explosive than the 40mm “blooper” round. I’ll have to do some digging and see if that’s the case.
Watching this footage of firefights from southern Afghanistan put together by former Marine turned combat correspondent Bing West, I could see the XM25 having some real utility reaching out and hitting an enemy that uses walls and tree lines as a base of fire.
有文章说XM25在战场表现不够理想，但是具体是怎么回事美帝恐怕暂时不愿意透露。
我觉得可靠性，后勤，适用性，射程的适用性，威力，和空爆距离的控制，空爆弹的表现都可能存在问题，甚至“有炮无枪”也可能成为原因。士兵单方面的感受就可能抹杀一种新武器的第一印象。
弹容量问题不大，4发就4发吧，凑合点也够用。实战时2颗榴弹杀伤一个敌人，其实已经相当的高效了。
我觉得可靠性，后勤，适用性，射程的适用性，威力，和空爆距离的控制，空爆弹的表现都可能存在问题，甚至“有炮无枪”也可能成为原因。士兵单方面的感受就可能抹杀一种新武器的第一印象。
弹容量问题不大，4发就4发吧，凑合点也够用。实战时2颗榴弹杀伤一个敌人，其实已经相当的高效了。
如果能保证威力，4发足够了，
最好是 兰博一点 用弹链 60发绑在身上……
PRSOV 发表于 2010-3-25 18:50 
看看俺上面贴的帖子中链接，除了我贴出来的报道外，还有更多许多评论，里面的看法分歧也较大。在这些评论中，赞成的意见有，但不是很多，还有很多是与XM25无关的。
看看俺上面贴的帖子中链接，除了我贴出来的报道外，还有更多许多评论，里面的看法分歧也较大。在这些评论中，赞成的意见有，但不是很多，还有很多是与XM25无关的。
空爆弹当年被美军在非洲战场上用来炸德军，德军死伤惨重。巴顿十分赞赏。貌似在79年自卫反击战初期，在许和尚的指挥下，N多干部战士在机动时就倒在越军发射的苏式空爆弹下。大概如此。
定高爆炸的高射炮弹其实也是空爆弹，这东西的作用就无需多言了，美国陆军航空队轰炸机部队在欧洲感受颇深。太平洋战场上的“马里亚纳火鸡大屠杀”成就了无线电空爆弹的威名。
定高爆炸的高射炮弹其实也是空爆弹，这东西的作用就无需多言了，美国陆军航空队轰炸机部队在欧洲感受颇深。太平洋战场上的“马里亚纳火鸡大屠杀”成就了无线电空爆弹的威名。
PRSOV 发表于 2010-3-25 19:37
空炸效果不用怀疑，怀疑的是能否在需要的时候真正将空炸弹发射出去并在目的地上方合适高度空炸。
空炸效果不用怀疑，怀疑的是能否在需要的时候真正将空炸弹发射出去并在目的地上方合适高度空炸。
其实现在导弹的近炸战斗部也是空爆战斗部的例子，威力就不用多说了。
说起空爆弹，还不能不提美军当年在海湾战争中用的MRLS（字母应该还对吧？），虽然这只是子母弹，但是在伊军的壕沟上方如落钢珠雨，伊军恐惧万分。单兵榴弹在壕沟上面空爆可能破片密度比这字母弹还高。
说起空爆弹，还不能不提美军当年在海湾战争中用的MRLS（字母应该还对吧？），虽然这只是子母弹，但是在伊军的壕沟上方如落钢珠雨，伊军恐惧万分。单兵榴弹在壕沟上面空爆可能破片密度比这字母弹还高。
所以啊！单兵可控编程榴弹的威力是没啥值得怀疑的，只要口径对路，战斗部设计合理就没大问题，因为我还没听说过当兵的不怕挨手榴弹炸，或者不怕手榴弹炸不死人。剩下的关键就是弹丸是否能到达预订位置准确爆炸。
我也看了一点英语新闻，有人指出25弹的弹片比40弹还多，这个我觉得不见得一定是好事，弹片多还得杀伤有效才行，我的感觉是25榴弹空爆的杀伤效能可能刚好够用。但是，即使是炸了之后威力不够，被炸的敌人终究需要一定时间才能缓过气来，这意味着达到压制并杀伤敌人的双重效果，而传统的枪械压制通常只能压制，子弹射不到人往往意味着没杀伤效果。
PRSOV 发表于 2010-3-25 19:37
被空炸榴弹大量杀伤的似乎是84年打老山的穿插部队
被空炸榴弹大量杀伤的似乎是84年打老山的穿插部队