Posted on 12/26/2020 7:04:56 AM PST by Onthebrink
There are countless examples of military systems that shouldn’t have gone forward – but too often designers “chased” the problems, and in the end that put soldiers in harm’s way. A weapon that doesn’t function properly in the field is dangerous to the user, and the U.S. Army’s XM25 Punisher is such an example.
At least in this case the problem was canceled and the lessons (hopefully) learned.
History
Developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch under the Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) program for the Army, the XM25 System was meant to provide a soldier with a revolutionary weapon platform that could provide increased lethality and range using 25mm programmable ammunition. The handheld weapon was also designed to enable small units and individual soldiers to engage defilade targets by providing a 25mm air bursting capability that could be employed in all operational environments.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
Interesting read. Thank you.
At one point Ronnie Barrett was involved in developing a similar weapon. That disappeared too.
Human hubris costs much in life.
It’s HARD to admit one was wrong..it’s hard to just let go of the fact that so much time and energy and money were spent on something...even if it’s very obvious it’s the right thing to do.
And then there’s the profit angle. Money to be lost if a weapon ceases to be funded.
I’m sure many weapons have failed in the past. Many plane designs, I think.
I would imagine though that even a failure provides knowledge that should help in future endeavours
Of course, the Obama years and his failed, weak minions at work half-heartedly in behalf of America because their boss was against America.
I worked in weapons development for the Marine Corps, so I saw it in all of its many evolutions - from a "combo" weapon with one 20mm 5-shot system mated to a 5.56mm rifle system, to a 20mm only, then the 25mm beast. It was always unhandy, heavy, chunky, and had a whiz-bang, battery-powered $25,000 computing gun sight that set the time on the projectile fuze by estimating the number of times the round would rotate until it got to the target's range.
Sounded great on paper - and to the civilians/rear area pogues. but in action it was a pig and the round's very expensive per shot cost was upwards of $100 per round. The 25mm round has itty-bitty frags, so chances are you'd just annoy your target and not kill him after your long exposure to his fire while your computing gunsight was getting his range.
Combat weapons need to have direct input by actual combat veterans, not be designed by JSSAP weeny civilians or weapons vendors seeking to make bucks.
There is a museum at Ft. Benning that houses a collection of these failed products of this development process: they'll undoubtedly want one of these to add to their collection.
Bkmk
Pentagon Wars!
One weapons system that got a lot of pushback (even here in FR), which has since (I believe) become well-adopted is the Osprey. So, sometimes the Phoenix can rise from the ashes.
That’s why the dragonfire mortar system is far better. A single soldier can lase a target and within 18 seconds a mortar is on its way raining death from above. Whoever came up with that one is a genius.
Have a happy new year Sir.
Primary feature was the distance-set detonation of a 25mm frag round.
Rumor is an early demo had a high ranking officer test fire the weapon.
The ranged detonation worked as set.
The range was set to one meter.
The old 40mm M-79 with M-4 carbine (left):
The new 25mm XM-25, no carbine (right):
The US Army already has lots of different grenade launchers for soldiers to chose from on any given mission.
Which ones work best under what circumstances is likely a matter for discussions & preferences.
From what I remember, it cost a lot of money to develop, along with having a rocky testing period.
I used the M79 in Nam. With enough practice you can pretty much hit what you are aiming at. Cheap and effective and works even if your batteries go dead. Oh, wait. It doesn’t have batteries.
The AV-8B Harrier was another. Killed a lot of Marines before they worked (most of) the bugs out. The F-35 appears to have turned the corner as well, though older aviators remain skeptical.
Infantry weapons are a different matter. They have to be rugged, reliable, portable and lethal (probably in that order). Infantry could usually expect to be operating with mortars, artillery or occasionally air support. So having a heavy air-burst weapon for those few occasions is a bit of a luxury.
Damn metric system.
Speaking of museums at Benning, any idea if we’re any closer to getting the tanks formerly at the Patton Museum on display?
“failed products of this development process”
That’s the very nature of Research and Development.
Roughly...
90% of ideas entering Research don’t get to Development.
90% of products entering Development don’t get into production and are not commercially introduced.
90% of products entering the commercial market do not succeed.
Yet you never stop your R&D pipeline.
14 lbs! Too much weight to lug around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.