The Future of Firepower

LongbowSince the invention of gunpowder there’s been a disconnect between an infantry soldier’s personal weapons and the heavier stuff he can call in for support fires. It wasn’t always like this though. Medieval English armies were dominated by the famous longbowmen who, to be accepted, had to be able to shatter an oyster shell with an arrow at a hundred paces. They used this skill to pick off heavily armored knights by shooting at the weak points in their protection. At longer ranges, out to 300 yards or more, they used a very different tactic – shooting in groups of a hundred or more on a high trajectory, so enemy forces would be caught in a lethal barrage before they ever got close enough to use their own weapons. High angle mass archery could be deployed against an enemy fortress, turning its courtyards and fighting platforms into a death trap swept by falling projectiles. It’s as if every infantryman could instantly convert his personal weapon into a light mortar, and switch from the contact battle to fire support on a single word of command.

XM25 Individual Airburst Weapon System
XM25 Individual Airburst Weapon System

One future goal of the US Army is to bring that capability back, updated with modern technology. The first serious attempt at this was the familiar M203 grenade launcher, which gave rifle squads a high explosive weapon with a limited indirect fire capability, combined with a standard rifle. The 40mm grenades are heavy though, and it’s not a very precise weapon against enemy behind cover. The next attempt was a lot more advanced – the XM29 Objective Individual Combat Weapon. A low velocity shoulder-fired 20mm autocannon with a 5.56mm carbine underslung, this was meant to give every soldier a weapon that could pick off the enemy with aimed rifle fire or detonating airbursting explosive rounds above cover. Unfortunately it was too heavy and the 20mm rounds didn’t have enough of an explosive effect, so the project was cancelled. A heavier caliber 25mm version, without the underslung carbine, lives on as the XM25 and has been field tested in Afghanistan; if the Army can get the funding past Congress, the plan is to buy 1,400 of them in the next few years. Both the OICW and XM25 use a laser rangefinder to set the detonation distance of the projectile so it bursts right above the enemy.

The XM29 failed, but it’s now only a matter of time until an improved version succeeds and gives the future GI a vastly more flexible and capable weapon. But that’s only one way to integrate personal weapons and heavier firepower. After centuries of iron sights, today’s infantryman is used to aiming with an optical sight – usually some kind of ACOG – combined with NVGs and infrared lasers. Inside the next decade we’ll start seeing personal weapons sights that include their own laser rangefinders, designators, and ballistic computers, giving a huge leap in accuracy. What a lot of people overlook is the possibilities of these sights when tied in with GPS and networked communications. With every soldier able to know his own position to the nearest yard, and precisely measure a target’s distance and bearing from himself, there’s no limit to the firepower he can call in. Imagine a battlefield where a soldier can engage infantrymen and light vehicles with his own multi-caliber weapon, but be handed control of indirect fire grenade launchers, artillery or even missiles when he spots a tougher target.

Right now a US Army or USMC rifle squad carries a hard-hitting array of firepower and can call on a lot more. When the possibilities of the latest technology are fully explored, though, they’ll have almost god-like power in their hands. The XM25 is only the start.

US Patriot Tactical

US Patriot Tactical

US Patriot is a veteran owned and operated US-based retailer supplying boots, uniforms, apparel and gear to military and law enforcement personnel. By soldiers for soldiers. Visit them online at
US Patriot Tactical

Latest posts by US Patriot Tactical (see all)


2 thoughts on “The Future of Firepower

  1. I’ve heard that the Marines are going to start doing proficiency tests with the ACOG sights, rather than iron sights. I think we are putting too much reliance on technology (we used to always say “don’t bet on tech”) but its hard not to with how much it improves abilities. But we have to always be ready to do things the old ways, and to shy away from the fundamentals is a major oversight. An EMP can fry just about anything that is not heavily shielded (based on the “god-like” power the author drools about, its not hard to imagine an EMP-type grenade or directional energy weapon). But on a smaller scale, batteries die (not really an issue with an ACOG), gear can be calibrated incorrectly (especially when the SHTF) and less we forget human error. But my real concern is… what happens when we move onto the next thing and we start selling these weapons to other countries, especially since we sell everything short of nukes to the middle east. But I’m probably alone on that concern.

    1. I agree completely about the over-reliance on technology. What’s worse about these technologies is the cost–is the military really getting the most bang for the buck? Note that other nations (and military forces) do just fine with lower-cost alternatives.

      The skill, training, and dedication of the soldier or Marine matters more than what accessories he has on his rifle. Technology is no substitute for adequate training.

      Selling these weapons to other countries is definitely not good, but I don’t think it is that much of a concern. At least we will know what they are capable of! Besides, small arms have not changed very much in the last 50, if not 100 years (see the M1911, for example). A bigger concern, I would say, is the sale of larger weapons, but again, the advantage is that as we know the capabilities and limitations of these systems, it may reduce the chances of unwelcome surprises.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *