It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The XM307

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:
ape

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
didn't see a thread for this so here it is

www.globalsecurity.org...

some cool stuff to check out including the xm307 and other weaponry

dsc.discovery.com...


anyone who saw last nights future weapons knows what i'm talking about, this thing rocks.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by ape]

mod edit: edited title

[edit on 14-2-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
So why didn't they use it in the concluding 'exercise'?

It never fails to amaze... They talk about fighting guerillas in MOUT with 'new amazing, high tech' bull#. And then they show a conventional assault on a conventional bunker/trenchline complex and they fail to put an overhead weapons system into effective use.

Now maybe this is their version of an 'no-roof training simulator' so that they can look down and shoot video of people dying by inches for nothing as a function of showing them later how stupid they are for clearing with direct fire instead of explosives like any moron knows is 'how it's done son'.

But in any case, the ability to direct explosive fire thru windows and brag about the splattered civillians afterwards depends an awful lot on the conditions and rules of engagement in bringing the manpack artillery to bear (and 50lbs is still a /helluva/ lot to hump through 120` heat...).

You might consider reading some of Michael Yon's dispatches and specifically 'Gates Of Fire'-

www.michaelyon-online.com...

To get a better idea of what life is like when you are 'soft interfaced' with an enemy that is **allowed** inside your security zone. And must be flushed out day after day in what amounts to continuing bull-in-china-shop assault mode tactics mixed in with a little Keystone Cops high speed pursuit.

If you can't shoot men running away for simply refusing to stop and be searched, how likely is it that you are going to be able to employ this master blaster vunder veapon on targets that you don't even see when they pot shot your exposed turret gunners in the neck? Which house will you brew up as an object lesson to the locals while the perps are already slinking out the backdoor looking to collect a bounty and an atta boy?

I won't even go into the utterly ludicrous nature of 'Land Warrior As A CNN Ratings Guarantee' as 30lbs of crap-and-camera, but lets just say that if you don't have the operational authority to intimidate a threat with direct action until they realize that, alive or dead, they will never own what they fight for /no matter how many civillians are nearby/ you will always be fighting a war akin to clearing scorpions from your shorts.

And the difference between using chopsticks or a chainsaw thus becomes significant _to you_, the poor dumb volunteer who has maybe half a second to respond and NO TIME to lock the place down and call in fire support as a drawn out effort. Even assuming you aren't standing like a punk on ground zero where it's gonna airburst as the enemy plays by-the-belt-buckle.


KPl.


ape

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
are you in the military? because there are plenty of soldiers that cannot wait to get their hands on this. what say you about colateral damage? you seem to think it's another civilian slaughtering device when it infact eliminates the need for artillery to get a sniper. you should report for nbc.

[edit on 14-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Yea I caught that part of the show. You can turn it into a .50 cal in just a matter of minutes which is pretty cool.

I really like this weapon, Its definitely an effective weapon. Say you have an insurgent shooting at you, but only hes hiding behind a wall. this weapon will tell you how many yards away the wall is and all that you have to do is decide when and where you want the bullet to explode. Thus keeping US soldiers safer and limiting collateral damage in the meantime.


I like it..



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Dont yall think that thing is kinda huge???
it may be kick ass but every weapon has its weakness


ape

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
it's 40 pounds lighter than whats used in the field right now. haha they fired this beast with a plastic cup of water on the top without spilling.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
it's 40 pounds lighter than whats used in the field right now. haha they fired this beast with a plastic cup of water on the top without spilling.


Ape,

They fired it ONCE with a cup half full of water and plenty splashed out. Daddy Mack then /quickly/ took the cup off.

As for wanting this system to 'reduce unintended casualties', since I have yet to see them do anything as /smart/ as employ artillery to level a building and bag a 'single sniper' while proving to the populace what continued collaboration will cost them; the real question becomes how you expect to target another explosive round when you don't know for sure which window the shot came from (limited or no acoustic/FLIR based sniper tracking gear) and your overhead airpower comes down to a worthless AHIP trying to play like it's a Cobra without a big enough gun or sufficient height to catch the Elvis _leaving the building_ like any sniper does after taking their 'one shot' in a war of demoralization as much as military objective taking.

As for the weight, who cares? It's clearly a CSW so it would /never/ be in the average squads carry list and if it's not _right there_ you cannot wait for someone to call up the platoon weapons section and tell them to drive it in.

Which brings me back to the basics of MOUT wherein you are fighting at under 50m and the only way to /finish/ a fight is to HOLD CONTACT so that the goats don't fade into the sheep. Running pell mell trying to close up the distance on a fleeing target only to realize they've gone to ground through a doorway you can't take the time to check and are shooting you up from defilade, _12ft away_ also begs the question "How as why?".

How the hell do you even /bring to bear/ a weapon like the OCSW in a 10ft wide alleyway like that? Do you mount it on a robotic chassis? If so, why are there boots on the ground to begin with? Let alone a /Lieutenant Colonel/ leading a charge because none of his men are interested in doing so.

ARGUMENT:
The XM307 trades muzzle velocity for recoil /reduction/ which means it's best possible employment, on a circling _(A)UAV_ using independent Viper sniper finder gear to trace and fire up individual shooters from a long ballistic slant is impractical.

The XM312 has not been tested with high velocity rounds like the 416 (5,000fps) and so we don't know if it will be any better.

And in any case, as soon as the boot forces start putting explosive rounds into buildings whose occupants they cannot see, you can lay odds that there will be a staged mazcat to make sure that a whole bunch of kids and women die at the hands of the 'Brutal, Cowardly, Americans and their Nasty Remote Not-So-Smart Grenade Attacks'.

CONCLUSION:
These are barbarians they will not respond to any moderated use of force but only to the realization that _you don't care_ if they all live or die. Some live while others die. Or all submit to being ruled as a conquered enemy civillian populace. The U.S. blew our chance to enforce that realization when they refused to police up all weapons on pain of death, make it illegal to gather in groups larger than ten people and denied /luxuries/ like private worship, automobiles, phone service and even rights of travel outside lockdown zones based on the behavior of those 'in their care'.

All of which we had no problems doing unto the Germans.

Not because they were more evil. But because we KNEW HOW TO TREAT A DEFEATED ENEMY BEFORE THEY BECAME AN INSURGENT THREAT. Which is to say no better than they **prove** they deserve to be.

Trust between victim and victor is an uphill not a downhill process.

It is when an Iraqi with the social mindset of an eternal adolescent thinks he can get away with something that you end up playing games with him on a basis of coup-driven scalp taking. If you show him your power, and make him feel it's weight, he will respond as Saddam and a hundred generations of other bad guys have taught him.

Submit or Die.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
so what are you trying to say????? the army is going to send thier troops in with a cup of water??? just because they can shoot without spilling a cup of water doesnt mean they wont be shot by a sniper!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
The cup of water on it was to show the little recoil this weapon has. And it didnt spill as much as it just slashed around which is still pretty impressive giving the power of this weapon.

In your post earlier you said this thing is huge. And you pointed out that as being a draw back. As ape said its 40lbs lighter then the closest competitor. Its 50lbs! You dont even need sandbags because its so steady, which lightens the entire load of the overall weapon system when compared to the likes of the M-19. So its not as huge as you think it is, its actually the opposite, which makes it easier for soldiers transport. Which comes in handy when your in a battle.


Heres the video of XM307 from the show future weapons. It shows them firing it with the cup of water... They also show how it can turn into the XM312 (.50 cal version) in under 2 minutes!
www.youtube.com...





[edit on 082828p://5902pm by semperfoo]

[edit on 112828p://3702pm by semperfoo]



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
And in any case, as soon as the boot forces start putting explosive rounds into buildings whose occupants they cannot see, you can lay odds that there will be a staged mazcat to make sure that a whole bunch of kids and women die at the hands of the 'Brutal, Cowardly, Americans and their Nasty Remote Not-So-Smart Grenade Attacks'.


Because its so macho to just walk in guns a blazing isn't it? Tell me what the survival rate is if we took your approach? Your approach would be either suicide or more collateral damage given the circumstances.
How about we call in an air strike (which is one way to deal with it without the XM307) which will cause more collateral damage all the while destroying the structure COMPLETELY. the XM307 doesnt do that.

The XM307 "limits" overall collateral damage while keeping our soldiers 'safer'.
So I think I will take the "cheap, coward approach thank you very much."

As if the enemy somehow wouldnt use our 'cowardly' capabilities if they had the chance.





CONCLUSION:
These are barbarians they will not respond to any moderated use of force but only to the realization that _you don't care_ if they all live or die. Some live while others die. Or all submit to being ruled as a conquered enemy civillian populace. The U.S. blew our chance to enforce that realization when they refused to police up all weapons on pain of death, make it illegal to gather in groups larger than ten people and denied /luxuries/ like private worship, automobiles, phone service and even rights of travel outside lockdown zones based on the behavior of those 'in their care'.
KPl.


I agree to a certain extent. We need to be harder on these towl heads. But they do fear us. Just look at when we amass a force to a certain point. They run like the chicken sh*ts they are.

Part of what the US is doing with the weapons such as the XM307 is giving the soldier more of a capability besides haveing to take the time to wait for an airstrike to take out a sniper (which requires you to call them in first, coordinates and all) which can prove to be untimely during the heat of a battle. So this weapon makes our troops more 'flexible', thus saving lives.

[edit on 092828p://1902pm by semperfoo]

[edit on 112828p://3902pm by semperfoo]


ape

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
right on semper, not much to say you pretty much sumed it all up.







You have voted semperfoo for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


[edit on 19-2-2007 by ape]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Semperfoo,

>>
Because it's so macho to just walk in guns a blazing isn't it? Tell me what the survival rate is if we took your approach?
>>

Did you bother to read the LINK I posted? This isn't me we are talking about. This is how Deuce 4 does it in Mosul. Certainly _I_ claim no responsibility for DOD policy in Iraq because I would never set ROE by which we cannot shoot a man who runs away from us because he thinks we might not like what we find on him when we swab his fingers or check his pockets. Indeed, how damn likely to do you think it is that we will be shooting into urban buildings occupied by nominally civillians if we can't put a bullet in the back of someone who /does/ know better than to be caught when he can flee?

ESPECIALLY when (sigh, just like 'Nam damn it) we are back to FOBing our way through an ugly war and thus have to reclear every damn street, store and house every bloody day we come back into town like a bunch of Cowboys facing down the resident Earps of Tombstone. WE should be the ones being the 'lawful force' in town. The ones the average-Muktar sees on the street most often. And we are not. Because we fear the kinds of casualties we would take if we were not hunkered down on a remote military reservation.

>>
Your approach would be either suicide or more collateral damage given the circumstances.
>>

Which approach would that be? The part where somebody shoots us from a window and we level their damn hooch around their ears until they LEARN WHO TO COME TO with "Hey, they are pushing me pretty hard..." so that we can /take the bad buys out/ much the way they do us, with superior intel, far away from the informant?

Or the approach where the first man through the door is in fact a silicon chip because you can always buy another Tamiya dunebuggy and strap a camcorder to it's roof?

Or the one where continual contact is guaranteed _without_ close pursuit by a drone that doesn't have the loiter, threat vulnerability or altitude limitations of some yutz leaning out the door of an 8 million dollar helicopter like Rooster Cogburn 'wheeling' his Winchester?

Or the one where we erect forests of CCD telephone posts and make it a death penalty offense to shoot at them so that we can watch over the Zoo animals as they mull about their cages, even when we are not directly present?

>>
How about we call in an air strike (which is one way to deal with it without the XM307) which will cause more collateral damage all the while destroying the structure COMPLETELY. the XM307 doesnt do that.
>>

It's been done. Why do you think the GBU-12 and 38 are the most popular CAS weapons in both Iraq and AfG? The problem is you have SOFies Choice morons getting a phone call that is effectively one gang doing unto another so that they can have free reign on their turf and -who cares- if you implode a house if there is no proof to the Iraqi's that fighting the Americans is a great way to LOSE. As a function of video on the crime and the judgment and the punishment as a complete process.

In fact, it takes time to bring in heavy fires and when you are fighting an insurgent threat the WORST thing you can do is waste that commodity by backing off to accept lost contact because even if you don't play bloody stump games sticking your nose back in ot the bushes where they vanished, the chances are good that you will hurt enough 'innocents' that the combined propoganda effect is still negative.

Add to this the cost per flying hour (5,500 dollars for an F-16) and critically short pilot endurance effects on total sortie generation and coverage by orbit count and it becomes obvious that trying to fight a low intensity war with high-intensity platforms is begging to lose because they can always find a target you AREN'T covering with jetnoise.

This doesn't mean that you switch to hand cannons to engage with because that is equally certain to 'draw commentary' from the various vultures watching from the fence everytime you butcher a child or a woman, pleasing them no end because they want their own to suffer 'unjustly' at your hands so that they can continue their own violence.

Never mind that you cannot bring a 50lb grenade launcher into a running gunfight through a maze of back streets fit to confuse Ali Baba's Forty Finest.

So instead, you push them just hard enough to make them go to ground for fear of _being seen_ as a function of open-ground engagement by overhead fires.

Then you lock down the structural block AROUND their location.

And then you send in robots to every room.

When you find them, you gas them and then when they wake up or stop puking, you hold a field court right there ON THE STREET WHERE THEY WERE CAUGHT. Whereafter you shoot them like dogs, burn the bodies and leave it to the locals to eat, mourn or bury what's left.

Because it is to the survivors that you must demonstrate your power. Both as protector. And as remorseless stone killer.

>>
The XM307 "limits" overall collateral damage while keeping our soldiers 'safer'. So I think I will take the "cheap, coward approach thank you very much."
>>

You don't understand. It is people like the Iranians and the Syrians and EU and the UN who will all scream the we are cowards for using remote fires when they are 'standing by, so ready to take over the peace process'.

THAT is the audience before whom any appearance of inpropriety must be avoided as an excuse to continue or ramp up the fighting.

It can be done. Provided, every time you find someone, you make them stand tall to an AMERICAN military court system. Show them as they are confronted with the proof of their guilt 'guns in the trunk I see...' and then shot down like animals. Night after night. On US Broadcast TV. Like a nightly live-action version of a 'Cops' TV show. So that first they are intimidated by their own seemingly endless guilt. And then they begin to 'Running Man' cheer for the winners just so that they can avoid the need to feel like they are a part of the problem. Because they are 'on the winning side'.

>>
As if the enemy somehow wouldnt use our 'cowardly' capabilities if they had the chance.

>>

When I put something in single quotes, it generally is meant as sarcasm as 'something said that nobody ever would, even if they thought it'. When I put something in double quotes, it's meant to be taken as what /would/ be said, literally, if the events transpired as shown.

That said, the logic (from our standpoint) is one of costs not morals.

The XM307 probably costs on the order of 10 grande. The soldier on the ground will no more be able to bring it into the typical MOUT fight than he would the Mk.19, it just won't be close enough to be handy. Nor sufficiently portable to be brought to bear. Most urban fighting tending to happen at _under_ 35 meters.

The soldier himself is worth 100 grande per life insurance payout.

That means FOR EVERY GRUNT I DON'T SEND IN TO BE RANDOMLY BUTCHERED I can spend 110 grande on enablers that he either doesn't have to carry. Or which weigh all of 5-10lbs. Not 50.

ARGUMENT:
Stalin once said (of the battles in the city of his name which was in many ways the Russians equivalent to BOB) "Victory is not defined by how many you kill before dying. It is defined by how many can die while yet winning."



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
The essence of which in Iraq is a battle of wills between primitive minds who cannot encompass having communal ownership of something 'beyond themselves' worthwhile.

And a 'civilized' armed force whose civillian and political support systems piss and wail at every dead muzzle mutt who _volunteered_ for the position that got them killed. Whether it's just a part of the job description or not.

Were we smart, we would force the barbarians to adjust even their own primitive value system towards the notion of trading an uncertain trip to Allah for the chance to be killed by a silicon chip. Because you see, remote systems? _They aren't alive_. And so provided you keep the value trade low. You can throw them at the enemy until they get tired of bleeding for nothing.

It's when there is a man on the trigger that things get 'sporting' and thus every weapon system which designed around manned use is unwise, given we start out 'on the verge of defeat' by our very lack of will to lose _men_ until we win.

>>
I agree to a certain extent. We need to be harder on these towl heads. But they do fear us. Just look at when we amass a force to a certain point. They run like the chicken sh*ts they are.
>>

Nope. Fear of overmatch doesn't mean lacking in smarts. It means you are -aware enough- to be afraid of what you cannot beat in one engagement but must whittle down bit by bit. In this, Sun Tzu was the first to say "Never attack the strong enemy, maneuver to engage only the weaker one." And that is usually a function of assymetrics and alinear engagement in which a rampant insurgent force (one with virtually unlimited access to transport and telephone comms, one which can keep Americans out of Mosques 'by right' of a religious sanctity they do not apply to themselves, one which is STILL supplied, externally, from outside sources...).

>>
Part of what the US is doing with the weapons such as the XM307 is giving the soldier more of a capability besides haveing to take the time to wait for an airstrike to take out a sniper (which requires you to call them in first, coordinates and all) which can prove to be untimely during the heat of a battle. So this weapon makes our troops more 'flexible', thus saving lives.
>>

Nope. Because they won't be carrying it. Because it both costs and weighs too much to be available to every man. And because you should never give away technology for someone else (Russian, Iranian, Chinese) to copy when it is _deliberately_ 'finder fee' sought out as a function of the quintessential /stupidity/ of all direct-fire engagement models: Having to share LOS with a target to even designate it for attack. For where LOS is dictated by the spacings between buildings. The enemy can always force an engagement at ranges where your new toy won't work because they are too close to risk the back blast. Or too buried in collaterals to risk even a 'smart' explosion.

Airpower should never be 'called in'. It should be 'COP' or Continuously Overhead Present /at all times/. With the sensor gear (like Viper) to see the shots as they happen. And weaponized (with long-slant guns or over-floor droppable PGM) to deal with threats if they expose themselves _running out the back_. Which is inevitably what they will do if they are a sniper and you make it too hot for them to stay and slink away later with your smart grenade launcher lobbing rounds through every damn window on a street.

Once you have them bottled up. Once they know that they can never get away from the site of a desultory attack, that is when you begin to hurt them. And I _never said_ that that endgame should be done by men. It should be done by UGV. With the explicit intent of capturing **criminals** (no recognized command structure, no uniform, no obeying of the Laws of Land Warfare as set out by conventions) so that everyone can see them shiver and shake as they face the realization that not only are they about to die for being murderous bastards. But they /already have/ FAILED in their mission. To hurt Americans while living to proclaim victory.

And trust me, when a primitive man sees that his God has abandoned him, not simply to death but to _judgement by those he considers apostate and infidel_, then will any resistance movement that begins every pronouncement with 'By Grace Of God...' or 'Thanks Be To God' or 'By Gods Will' lose the basis of 'ultimate endorsement' of their actions.

CONCLUSION:
The need to accept that this is a war of belief systems. That as a function of this, we must humiliate and discourage their 'Inshallah!' approach to excuseable behavior as God's Will at every turn. Is why I think that this war will only be won by applying rule-of-law (even if it is brutally efficient military justice) as PRE EXISTING penalties for crimes against the occupational force.

Because only when you make the insurgents realize that this is not an in-combat 'random event' to be responded to in the moment. That there will be consequences afterwards that will only tighten their sense of freedom to play games until they can barely /live/ let alone fight. Will you make them question whether Allah's Will is really apparent in their constant losing against things they /knew going in/ were wrong.

Something which will be all the more obvious when it is made clear that the Iraqi government has NO SAY in how we deal with perceived threats to our defacto rule of their uncontrolled world, be it in Anbar out West. Or street by street in Baghdad.

At that point, we will know that the we are being successful in 4GW altering the state of the Islamic Council Of Iraq's mindset as both the focus of the war (back towards Americans as the primary targets) and the awareness of it's continued prosecutional costs begin to shift the perception from one of fighting an aggressor bent on owning what is not theirs to take. To worrying that maybe God wants the Crusaders to eradicate the Iraqi people as an organized society, responsible to itself, altogether.

Put your finger on THAT panic button. Challenge their social inferiority complex to accept unending dominance of their lives. As the sole alternative to RISING UP OFF ALL FOURS to take part in their own governing. And you will have the insurgency on it's heels.

In this, the XM307 has no more meaning than the platform it is mounted upon. Because without the sensorization and constant presence to engage fleeting targets _as they pop up_, it will never be allowed to be used as a purely responsive fire system. And it will certainly NEVER be with the troops on the ground doing the close up fighting where 'room clearance by explosives' is both the standard and the necessary response. Just on line of sight range issues.

Indeed, one could almost say that OUR challenge was one of acknowledging that an old-school idealism of dependence on inefficient and inapplicable ranged fires systems is what is endangering our own chances of victory. For if boot infantry are too valuable to be risked, close in, and nobody has the balls to replace them outright. Then we are always going to be left with responding to lethal force with lethal force. And force without reason. Without justice of displayed victory /before/ vengeance. Is no better than the chaos that the barbarians seek to bring down upon us.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join