Are machine guns antiquated?

kwaigonegin said:

I think that firearms as we know it today has pretty much reach apogee in it's development. There will be advances in optics, materials and other peripherals maybe ergonomics but the fundamentals of the gun is pretty much it.
The next revolution in gun advancement would come from the propellants or other methods of propelling an object out of a barrel but that is still many decades away. As far as I know there is NOTHING that can match propelling the bullet out a barrel other than gunpowder w/o making it highly impractical in personal firearms.
Heck the model 1911 was designed and developed in the 1890s!!! and still widely used today with very very little improvement from the original.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Ballistic technology has hit a point of incremental improvement where all we can do is tweak performance.
Where we are seeing changes are materials aiming for reduced weight improve heat management, Optics both conventional and more and more Computerized for more effective aiming in a wider range of environments at longer ranges.
And Ergonomic to allow more comfortable use.
The basics of operation have remained unchanged since John Moses Browning Jr. The only technical change the introduction of Chain feeds but those are limited to Heavy vehicle mounted MG.

Ryz05 said:

Precision assault rifles and sniper rifles are more than enough to keep the enemy pinned down at long ranges. If that fails, there are still smoke grenades to prevent enemy soldiers from seeing what is happening. What the machine gun does is just making a lot of noise, and telling the enemy where friendly forces are coming from.

Click to expand...

No, LMG's Which seem to be where you are aiming are a weapon system that not only is suppressive but lethal. That is how it keeps the enemy pinned down. It doesn't just make noise It sprays Lead, And LMG is a bullet hose for the grunts It cuts the enemy down and places the fear of god in them. It takes them down by numbers and one ones and twos. Allowing the rest of the Infantry to maneuver on the offensive.
Heavier Machine guns add additional reach and more barrier penetration not necessarily Armor penetration but at the cost of low mobility.

The low caliber guns are designed for shooting enemies with little or no body armor, like against the Vietcongs. With the prevalence of modern body armor, it wouldn't be surprising if more armies decide to move to a higher caliber round, like the 7.62mm.

Click to expand...

Low Caliber HIGH VELOCITY!! In point of fact the 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm were Adopted for conventional infantry use for a number of reasons First is reduced weight. You can carry more rounds for the same weight second is Better Armor penetration. The smaller faster rounds are better at piercing body armor. The Push back to larger calibers is the result of the want of Heavier Rounds for longer ranges and Better terminal ballistics against Unarmored Insurgents.

Also, soldiers in the Korean War were still using semiautomatic rifles, which do not have the rate of fire of a machine gun or modern assault rifle. Now that assault rifles are found in every army, the machine gun as a concept is outdated,

Click to expand...

The LMG functions as a Between point between the Assault rifles and heavier weapons. Yes Assault and Battle rifles have selective fire but they also have limited magazine capacity and are not designed for the higher level of heat from extended firing. dedicated LMG's with Quick change barrels and Belt feeds or large capacity drums can lay down far more fire with out needing as meany reloads or cool downs.

and would be better replaced by grenade launchers.

Click to expand...

Grenade launchers are a Device meant to take the role of short range infantry mortar The Rounds fired are of a size that only a limited number can be carried. And slow reloads, Although there are some Automatic launchers with high capacities but they are far to large to carry and maneuver.
They have a negative range limitation as You cannot safely use them for personal defense in close quarters, There Indirect fire arch means that against pill boxes they suffer loss of lethality. And Farther more there key advantage Explosive power is a limitation in fighting against an Adversary in close to a civil population. LMG's may also be a risk but It's less a risk of collateral of a bullet vs a wide effect. Even smaller more sophisticated Grenade rounds like the XM25 have trade offs. in cost Weight and duration of Fire against a larger Enemy formation.

If a squad with a machine gun is to fight against a squad with a grenade launcher, then the one with the grenade launcher would more likely win.

Click to expand...

FACT: Rifle Squads have both. The LMG keeps one form necessarily getting the GL from getting aimed in, And well the LMG has the GL squad pinned The rest of the Squad is moving around to flank the GL squad.
A fact I think you are overlooking is that Infantry combat is not a Duel. When Infantry combat happens it's when two infantry forces stumble onto each other and historically the side with the higher Volume of Violence, The Larger number of Rounds placed on Target wins. In a close fight like Urban You may not be able to use a XM25 as it's possible the enemy is to close or you could refacing a mass attack of enemy forces many times the size of a Squad. The Battle of Mogadishu 1993 160 US Forces faced a Force Thousands. The Us forces inflected massive casualties against the Opposing forces using a combination of Rifle fire, Sniper, Grenade Fire, Machine gun fire from LMG,GPMG, BMG, Gattling guns Airborne assets, Humvees, Rockets and more. Although Sustaining heavy casualties in the process the US forces More then held There own using a combination of Weapons in conjunction. So NO The LMG is not obsolete, and No The Concept of the Machine gun is not a relic and No Grenade launchers will not be replacing them nor will Sniper rifles. What will happen is that we will see Combinations of weapons used together. Carbines and Assault Rifles, Infantry Machine guns, Grenade launchers, And Rockets/Missiles mixed together to augment each other.
The Premises of this thread is Erroneous. The MACHINE GUN IS RELEVANT. The Submachine gun however is debatable.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Low Caliber HIGH VELOCITY!! In point of fact the 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm were Adopted for conventional infantry use for a number of reasons First is reduced weight. You can carry more rounds for the same weight second is Better Armor penetration. The smaller faster rounds are better at piercing body armor. The Push back to larger calibers is the result of the want of Heavier Rounds for longer ranges and Better terminal ballistics against Unarmored Insurgents.

Grenade launchers are a Device meant to take the role of short range infantry mortar The Rounds fired are of a size that only a limited number can be carried. And slow reloads, Although there are some Automatic launchers with high capacities but they are far to large to carry and maneuver.
They have a negative range limitation as You cannot safely use them for personal defense in close quarters, There Indirect fire arch means that against pill boxes they suffer loss of lethality. And Farther more there key advantage Explosive power is a limitation in fighting against an Adversary in close to a civil population. LMG's may also be a risk but It's less a risk of collateral of a bullet vs a wide effect. Even smaller more sophisticated Grenade rounds like the XM25 have trade offs. in cost Weight and duration of Fire against a larger Enemy formation.

When Infantry combat happens it's when two infantry forces stumble onto each other and historically the side with the higher Volume of Violence, The Larger number of Rounds placed on Target wins. In a close fight like Urban You may not be able to use a XM25 as it's possible the enemy is to close or you could refacing a mass attack of enemy forces many times the size of a Squad. The Battle of Mogadishu 1993 160 US Forces faced a Force Thousands. The Us forces inflected massive casualties against the Opposing forces using a combination of Rifle fire, Sniper, Grenade Fire, Machine gun fire from LMG,GPMG, BMG, Gattling guns Airborne assets, Humvees, Rockets and more. Although Sustaining heavy casualties in the process the US forces More then held There own using a combination of Weapons in conjunction. So NO The LMG is not obsolete, and No The Concept of the Machine gun is not a relic and No Grenade launchers will not be replacing them nor will Sniper rifles. What will happen is that we will see Combinations of weapons used together. Carbines and Assault Rifles, Infantry Machine guns, Grenade launchers, And Rockets/Missiles mixed together to augment each other.
The Premises of this thread is Erroneous. The MACHINE GUN IS RELEVANT. The Submachine gun however is debatable.

Click to expand...

Smaller caliber rounds are faster, which means they are more accurate, while larger rounds have more stopping and penetrative power. The smaller calibers are created with the idea that the enemy has little body armor. In close quarter combat where the enemy wears body armor, the higher caliber round actually offers an advantage.

Grenade launchers, especially the air-burst versions, are used to kill enemies behind walls and other obstacles. A weapon like the XM25 is ideal in urban conditions, and in situations like an ambush, where troops need to take out enemy positions and machine gun nests. On the other hand, mortars are a form of indirect fire, like close-range artillery support.

Machine guns were created to give troops more firepower in terms of faster reload. It is also used to stop human wave attacks. On the modern battlefield, the possibility of such frontal attacks is nonexistent. Armies look for more efficiency, which means higher accuracy, and shorter time spent dealing with enemies hiding behind windows or walls. This means equipping soldiers with grenade launchers and more accurate assault rifles. The machine gun is loud and inefficient, so leaving it behind is just dropping a lot of noisy baggage.

Ryz05 said:

Machine guns were created to give troops more firepower in terms of faster reload. It is also used to stop human wave attacks. On the modern battlefield, the possibility of such frontal attacks is nonexistent. Armies look for more efficiency, which means higher accuracy, and shorter time spent dealing with enemies hiding behind windows or walls. This means equipping soldiers with grenade launchers and more accurate assault rifles. The machine gun is loud and inefficient, so leaving it behind is just dropping a lot of noisy baggage.

Click to expand...

No, that's not why they were created. Nor were they created to "stop human wave attacks". They were created to send as many bullets towards the enemy as possible, either to kill them or to suppress their freedom of action. This is the same reason they are being used today, and the same reason no military in this world is without them, or will be without them until the end of time.

Iron Man said:

No, that's not why they were created. Nor were they created to "stop human wave attacks". They were created to send as many bullets towards the enemy as possible, either to kill them or to suppress their freedom of action. This is the same reason they are being used today, and the same reason no military in this world is without them, or will be without them until the end of time.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that...

solarz said:

I don't know about that...

Click to expand...

It was obviously a hyperbole, meant to emphasize the enduring nature of machine guns. I suppose if humans ever develop rapid-fire plasma rifles and handheld quantum torpedo launchers, then the machine gun may be in danger of becoming extinct.

Ryz05 said:

Smaller caliber rounds are faster, which means they are more accurate, while larger rounds have more stopping and penetrative power. The smaller calibers are created with the idea that the enemy has little body armor. In close quarter combat where the enemy wears body armor, the higher caliber round actually offers an advantage.

Click to expand...

First sentence Correct they have a flatter Trajectory due to high velocity and a light weight.
Second sentence Incorrect In the US due to Conflict of Iraq and Afganistan There has been off and On a Debate over Use of the 5.56x45mm NATO standard round this is due to complaints of an effect that has been on Occasion dubbed "Ice picking" where the high velocity rounds over penetrate Unarmored combatants leaving a Flesh wound with little in wound Channel Penetration. To compensate The US has been changing rounds To a Heavier Grain Projectile and Focusing on Training as well as adding optics. This enabled Superior round placement.

Small Caliber High velocity is Oriented to be more Advantageous vs Body armor.
It's Small Size gives it a smaller Surface Area And smaller Surface Area is a natural point of start for penetration add a Smaller Harder Core surrounded by a soft outer layer and You have a very very small surface area. That's Why both FN and HK designed There PDW's to meet Nato's demands for a PDW a Submachine gun sized weapon with the Penetration of a Rifle but the Size of a Subgun.
Small caliber high velocity rounds It's also Why the US army Flirted with Flechetts And Why The worlds Main Tank busting tank shells are Sabot rounds. The most common types of Body armor are intended for Police use these are designed to stop Pistol caliber rounds low Velocity rounds.
Military armor Is generally more specialized And rated against military threats IE Rifle Caliber. Intermediate to Full Caliber High velocity. particularly Nato and Russian Main line rounds. Like the old 7.62x51mm Nato and 7.62x39mm as the most common denominator.
Military body armor tends to mixed with laminated Soft materials for the Helmet and a vest carrier with either Stand alone Hard plates or a mix of Soft armor in the carrier and hard Armor Plate. alternative armor types like Liquid armor are still in the pipe and not prime time.
Now attacking an armored Infantryman is not as easy as Hollywood but there are a number of ways to do it. The Easiest is to attack the gaps in the armor however this would more likely result in a casualty not a kill. If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan The US took Far more Wounded then actually killed.
Second is to try an penetrate straight on However State of the Art Modern Military body armor has stopped Some exceptionally heavy rounds Including 7.62x54MM Rimmed A very very heavy Full power Rifle round used by Dragonov and PSL sniper rifles at ranges of 75 yards.
The only nearly Assured Round that will cut though body armor today is if you are shooting A rifle round Over 8mm In the Magnum category or above. but the Problem is those are Not a round that lends it's self to Selective or semi autos due to recoil and weight.
The Resurrection of the battle Rifle was the Result of Unarmored Combatants And Extended Ranges.
Third is to hit the armor multiple times. The Russians looked at this with Hyper burst a 2 round high speed cycling of a Weapon to try and lay as many rounds as possible into a target in hopes of breaking the armor. This would be perfect for a LMG. especially a very light weight one with a Constant recoil system, as you would have a very very accurate very controllable weapon that would lay a lot of fire in a small amount of time perfect for breaking a plate.

Grenade launchers, especially the air-burst versions, are used to kill enemies behind walls and other obstacles. A weapon like the XM25 is ideal in urban conditions, and in situations like an ambush, where troops need to take out enemy positions and machine gun nests. On the other hand, mortars are a form of indirect fire, like close-range artillery support.

Click to expand...

Yes and No.
First Correct to a point but The XM25 and Zh05 and K11 are Tailor made for Urban but are Experimental systems very rare machines the more common Grenade launchers are 40x46mm Like the M203, M32, Milkor MSGL, M320, Or the Russian GP30 series.
These systems fire low velocity extended range shells. Firing them is done at a arching trajectory.
The type or mortar they replaced was the very short range Commando mortar of the WW2 era the Knee Mortar they also Replaced the Rifle grenade.

Machine guns were created to give troops more firepower in terms of faster reload.

Click to expand...

This part is Correct. If you trace it back absolutely in the late 19th early 20th century that was the original function.

It is also used to stop human wave attacks.

Click to expand...

It was used to stop them that's right but Human Wave attacks come in many ways from the Assaults of WW1 to the Korean war. Another weapon was created to deal with that as well the Claymore mine. The Original Goal of the Machine gun was to create a weapon they could Over power Enemy forces in Rate of Fire. To substantially increase the number of rounds a force can lay down without increasing the number of troops.

On the modern battlefield, the possibility of such frontal attacks is nonexistent.

Click to expand...

Bogus! You may not face the Banzi Charges of WW2 but even probing along a line or assaulting a Tank The Fact is that even during the Early phases of the Iraq War Infantry forces tried to assault Either Tanks or Other infantry forces. The most effective way of clearing infantry off a tank is a Machine gun. The most effective way of Clearing an Enemy boat is a Machine gun.
Along with defensive On the Offensive the Power of a well placed LMG can chew trained Infantry into Bite sized Morsels. Additionally you seem here Targeting the Light or Squad Machine gun.
this doesn't cover the Other functions of Machine guns Vehicle mounted Like the Gun mounts seen on Jeeps, Helicopters and even Naval craft.

Armies look for more efficiency,

Click to expand...

Yes they do they also look for known Quantities that Work!

which means higher accuracy, and shorter time spent dealing with enemies hiding behind windows or walls.

Click to expand...

Not every fight will be Urban. Urban is a Growing environment True but not every fight is against an openly offensive enemy. Infantry is about fire and maneuver. Maneuver means Sometimes you do not engage, Sometimes you dig in and Hide Until you have the best position to assault. To counter that Other infantry have to seek out the enemy That means clearing buildings Inside and out. Urban is a 3d Environment That means Inside and out. If you fire a Grenade launcher in Close Quarters the Blast effect of an Air burst will depending on materials be reflected back into the building back at you! An LMG can fire inside a building with little risk of this.
Afghanistan Featured Extensive use of Mountain Terrain and Woodland. The Opening phases of Both Iraq Wars was fraught in the Open desert. the South East Asian area is a likely hot spot for the near future with many forces And not all of it is developed. Lots of Jungle, Swamp land and River and Amphibious areas.

This means equipping soldiers with grenade launchers and more accurate assault rifles.

Click to expand...

And Designated marksmen rifles and Light machine guns. And as to Accuracy How much do you really need? Assault rifles rarely get better then 3 MOA The Designated Marksmen Rifles of Russia and the Eastern Block are 3 MOA.
Gunny Carlos Hathcock scored some of his sniper kills with a scoped M2 Browning Machine gun.
Face It You cannot Eliminate the LMG without putting something in the same role. The Marines kept a number of M249's They Replaced some with M27, They Supplemented with M240's but it's still there. The Russians Faced down the RPK 74 but it was little more then a AK74 with a Drum anyway. They integrated the PKP Pecheng A reduced weight version of the PK series belt fed Machine gun, the British have been debating phasing out there Minimi's but they would still be using the FN MAG. When the UK deployed to Iraq and Afganistan they came in with the L86 A Long barreled Drum fed bipod-ed Version of the SA80 And What happened? They were found wanting so they picked back the Minimi and the Para.

The machine gun is loud and inefficient,

Click to expand...

Your own Poll shows that Perhaps only You Agree. The Fact that every Army in the World retains LMG's GPMGs and HMG's shows that the Machine gun is still an effective weapon.

so leaving it behind is just dropping a lot of noisy baggage.

Click to expand...

.... So tempting... So very tempting to be bad....
No Leaving it behind would be a mistake.
The Machine gun no matter the type continues to be an effective warhorse. They Offer the Squad a weapon designed to over power the enemy with volume of Fire. A LMG firing on enemy forces is a trifecta of power. It keeps the enemy pinned down, It prevents them from firing and it inspires Fear and awe.

Iron Man said:

No, that's not why they were created. Nor were they created to "stop human wave attacks". They were created to send as many bullets towards the enemy as possible, either to kill them or to suppress their freedom of action. This is the same reason they are being used today, and the same reason no military in this world is without them, or will be without them until the end of time.

Click to expand...

solarz said:

I don't know about that...

Click to expand...

It may not be a "Gun" As we Know it. But I suspect some weapon will fill the same Niche a system designed to lay down a lot of fire in a short period to over power an enemy squad.

hrf weapon systems will always be a needed system as long as men are fighting wars. It doesn't matter if it's on the squad level or guns on planes and cannons on ships.
Rapid and sustain rate of fire be for surpressive or target elimination like on a CIWS is here to stay.

Even a laser CIW in a way acts not too different than a legacy system from that standpoint except instead of hundreds of lead rounds you now use chemicals/light. It still has to sustain the burn long enough to penetrate and destroy the target.