The XM-25 has arrived in Afghanistan, and so far 55 rounds have been fired in combat — enough apparently to declare it a super-weapon that works:
The XM-25s work as advertised, firing “smart rounds” that explode over the heads of Taliban hiding behind rocks or walls, or hiding in a cave or room. Enemy machine-guns have been quickly knocked out of action and ambushes quickly disrupted with a few 25mm shells. Encounters that might go on for 15 minutes or longer, as U.S. troops exchange fire with hidden Taliban, end in minutes after a few 25mm, computer controlled, rounds are fired from the XM-25.
The weapon launches its 270-gram grenade at fairly low velocity (210 m/s), with an effective range of 500 meters for point targets and 765 meters for area targets. The troops have asked for a bit more range, since long-range engagements are typical in Afghanistan:
The shell is optimized to spray incapacitating (wounding or killing) fragments in a roughly six meter (19 foot) radius from the exploding round. Thus if enemy troops are seen moving near trees or buildings at a long distance (over 500 meters), the weapon has a good chance of getting them with one shot. M-16s are not very accurate at that range, and the enemy troops will dive for cover as soon as M-16 bullets hit around them. With smart shells, you get one (or a few) accurate shots and the element of surprise. The smart shells can be used out to 700 meters, but not as accurately. At those longer ranges, you can’t put a shell through a window, but you can hurt a crowd of people standing outside the building.
While the mainstream media generally describe the XM-25 as a super-rifle, because of its form-factor, it’s really more of a super-light mortar, a high-tech 25 mm alternative to the 60 mm M224 — which weighs 18 pounds without its heavy baseplate and has an effective range of 1,340 meters when hand held.
In fact, what I’d expect to see is the XM-25′s high-tech XM-104 targeting system modified to transmit its targeting data to a nearby mortar. Then, with just a glorified pair of binoculars, any soldier could drop mortar fire right on the enemy.
The success of the XM-25 may actually be due to the BAR effect. Briefly: soldiers carrying heavy weapons feel a disproportionate responsibility for the success of the unit and are thus more likely to exhibit bravery discharging their weapon — firing them more often, and more accurately.
As I understand it the XM-104 is literally just a laser rangefinder that does some math and sets a timer on the grenade. It’s assumed that the operator is already pointing the weapon at the target.
For the behaviour you desire it would be neccessary for the targeting software to know range, bearing, and position of the spotter, as well as range, bearing and position of the mortar itself. Then do some math to compensate for wind etc. (as the mortar’s firing arc is higher and longer), align the mortar, set the timer, and discharge the round.
With that said… it would be ridiculously cool.
A David Friedman piece on the economics — game theory, really — of war, from a 1984 Jerry Pournelle-edited collection on war? Excellent find, Sconzey!
Friedman’s game-theoretic take emphasizes the machine-gunner’s rational assessment of his ability to affect the outcome of the battle. He’s less likely to hide, because he personally can win the engagement — or, by hiding, lose it. This would imply that a whole squad armed with light automatic weapons would be no more likely to use them than a squad armed with bolt-action rifles — which would go against one of the key rationales for moving to the M16 assault rifle. It would also contradict the evidence that insurgents love shooting full-auto AKs, even though the old bolt-action Lee-Enfields their grandfathers used were more effective at scoring kills.
I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of truth in what Friedman says, but David Grossman takes a different approach, emphasizing the emotional non-reasoning we use to arrive at Friedman’s rational strategy. Battle is largely about posturing, about convincing yourself and your enemy that you’re bigger, meaner, and scarier, and automatic weapons are really, really loud and really, really scary — or, if you’re the one shooting, really, really loud and really, really awesome. They’re like monster trucks or Harleys.
Also, many soldiers may hide rather than fight, but most at least go through the motions of shooting back, because they’re held at least somewhat accountable for pulling their own weight, by officers and comrades alike. Highly conspicuous weapons — especially crew-served weapons — don’t lend themselves to shooting in the air from behind a rock. Everyone’s watching you and what you’re shooting.
Range, bearing, and position? There’s an app for that! Seriously, with a laser range-finder, a modern smartphone could become a forward observer’s best friend. How do I get the government contract?