Talk:XM25 CDTE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ACU XM25[edit]

are the new pics working prototypes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.102.105 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, just mock-ups. the grafenwöhr xm25 is real -84.57.200.176 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What makes the sand smell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.226.51 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

making it better[edit]

maybe this article will make it better: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-06/smart-bullets 69.225.28.184 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because that article repeatedly refers to the XM25 as a "rifle" when it's actually a grenade launcher and the 25mm grenade it chambers as a "bullet". I'd say its accuracy is quite questionable in that regard. Spartan198 (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it fires rounds from a rifled barrel. 25mm puts it in the class of 'guns' and its projectiles in the class of shells but those distinctions are only there because of some vague 19th century treaties defining what can and can't be an explosive shell. This has more in common with an ship mounted, programmable automatic cannon then with your standard issue grenade. But a journalist reporting on it is unlikely to do that much research.

Also; "These features make the XM25 more effective than traditional grenade launchers at the task of hitting targets that are behind cover or dug into the ground." seems to break NPOV. This is typical of articles of weapons in the procurement or development phase since the manufacturers PR company is responsible for most releases of information. Who's to say an AGS-30 (a traditional grenade launcher by some standards) isn't as effective at this task? If there is a source for this statement I would suggest stating that it is the opinion of that source. If that source is the manufacturer then that should be especially clearly noted as a manufacturers claim.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?[edit]

The first citation in this article is rather unreliable. Half of the article is cut off because it wants you to pay to read the rest of it. This isn't something that can be easily checked. New citation, anyone? 76.19.4.2 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turn counting[edit]

The video attached to the Fox News report says that the range detection is based on "turn counting"... Seems like an interesting thing to include. [1] patniemeyer (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "XM-25 Rifle in Action".

St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868[edit]

This weapons fires explosive projectiles which are less than 400g which contravenes the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868. The international law was established to protect soldiers on the battlefield from small arms round that could detonate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.214 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the US is not a member of that treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.208.165 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, if a US GI Joe got captured on the battlefield with an empty XM25 in hand, by soldiers of a treaty member country, he would be deemed an illegal combatant, not afforded POW status and maybe ended up shot summarily. 91.83.26.110 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that if you actually read the treaty and not just blindly cite it in a fit of pique, you'll notice that all signatories of the St. Petersburg Declaration are either already United States allies or are defunct. In any case, provisions concerning warfare with non-signatory states were specifically left out, in order to allow European Great Powers the breathing room to utilize said weapons on indigenous insurgencies within their colonial possessions. The chances of a US military serviceman or woman being deemed an illegal combatant under the aegis of this particular compact are exactly zero. Do the research next time, before advancing a tidbit as unassailable fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.149.203 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also 25 mm rounds are not covered. Hcobb (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution makes it quite clear that this type of weapon is illegal by modern laws of war. However when has the US military ever cared about the laws of war? From committing SS-type atrocities during the Indian Wars to bombing the shit out of Asians in the Second, Korean and Vietnam Wars, the US military's desire to build a weapon such as this only serves its predilection for killing through the most expedient damage creating method possible. It is why there is a glaring absence of any question of legality in this article. (See about land mines too!)81.129.206.239 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how rules of war work. Since no potential opponent of the US is a signatory of the treaty, the declaration is effectively dead in the water; it says it only applies to wars where both sides are contracting parties, if you actually read it, and if any belligerent party is not a signatory it instantly ceases to apply. The law also specifically only applies to technology that existed at the time (final paragraph) and requires additional rulings to outlaw any future weapons, so could not be applied to the XM25.
The US has not signed the Ottawa treaty on landmines and is therefore not subject to its rules (largely due to their requirement for landmines on the Korean border) but voluntarily uses mines primarily in command-detonated mode (ie, Ottawa-compliant). Please do not fall for the standard mistake of interpreting international law as what you wish it to mean rather than what the high contracting parties of the UN and NATO say it means. You'll find they don't care what you think it means. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the guy above Mr. Gruber, "It is good that is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordered by who?[edit]

"The most recent deployment plans call for a purchase of 12,500 XM25s at a projected cost per weapon system of $25,000."

Who's deployment plans? I guess US militairy, but it might as well be any other armed force, or the plans of all armed forces together, or... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.208.165 (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-lethal?"[edit]

Given the "may" in the article used by some random corporate public-speaking shrill, why is this explosives launcher tagged non-lethal?

I can put rubber bullets (or "small explosive charge" instead of solid-state projectile) and cold-load pretty much any firearm, and they "may" end up being non-lethal (if the combination actually does work), but I would not expect the tag to be valid for such reasons in a description of <insert favorite personal weapon>... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.50.161 (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

The two pictures are mirror-inverted. Please correct them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.203.132 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not mirror inverted. If they were the unit insignia's text would be backwards. ZStoler (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canceled or not canceled?[edit]

The article should make it clear whether the project has been scrapped or not. ScienceApe (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ATM, it says both. The most recent sources I can find, such as this one or this from December 2014, are about a competing system, SAGM. They don't say that XM25 is cancelled, but they don't say it's scheduled to be deployed either. I'd be inclined to remove both the assertions that it's been cancelled and that it's ready for deployment, and just leave that it's still under development, but I'd feel better if there were a definitive source. Rezin (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jane's states Alliant has been given the money to get it ready for production with a ballpark date of 2016 for procurement. Herr Gruber (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition Costs[edit]

Does anyone know exactly how much the ammo for the XM25 costs? The article puts it at $24, $35, and $55. Only one can be correct if any of them are. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that those are all estimates of the cost once it enters mass production. We should probalby put them all together and say something like, "estimates range from $24 to $55 per round". Rezin (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on XM25 CDTE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XM25 CDTE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on XM25 CDTE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Canceled[edit]

Is Stars and Stripes a credible source? According to them, the XM25 was officially canceled on July 24th.[1] Spartan198 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Drawbacks"[edit]

Clearly written with an agenda. The weapon seems to have one drawback, the weight, and the section does a good job emphasizing it from all angles, several times, distorting the facts on the way. Good job, Denel marketing guy! 91.10.44.197 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XM25_CDTE&oldid=1212526774"