Revolving the Fireteam around the Grenade Launcher, not Machine Gun

Ryz05

Junior Member
The machine gun became popular around the time of bolt-action rifles, and mass infantry charges. With the advent of assault rifles, mass infantry charges became a thing of the past. The future gun battle will be fought behind walls and barriers. In this case, the grenade launcher, like with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, will be the deciding factor on who will win or survive (who shoots first, who is more accurate, and who has longer effective range). The fireteam can consist of four people: one grenadier, one ammo carrier with assault rifle, one scout with assault rifle, and one
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. A fifth person can be the medic, carrying another assault rifle.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Not going to happen. We had a previous thread on the same Idea opened by you with a poll and almost universally we came to the Conclusion . Due to cost of production, issues with explosives being fired and weight of rounds compared to ability to carry that it was nt happening.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/are-machine-guns-antiquated.t8028/
The earliest machine guns were designed for rapid firing, which is an advantage against slower reloading bolt-action rifles. In essence, the machine guns of the past can be considered the earliest designs of a modern assault rifle, just that they are much heavier. After the World Wars, armies used semi-automatic rifles, and thought that machine guns are still needed as a way to keep the enemies pinned down. However, the soldiers in World War I were not pinned down specifically by machine guns, but sharpshooters, and the soldiers of the years following the world wars lacked scopes for better accuracy. In the years since the Iraq War, modern armies have recognized the importance of precision firing, and gave each soldier a scope with their assault rifles. The likelihood of human wave tactics as seen in World War I is nonexistent in the modern era, yet armies are still equipped with machine guns, in the dated belief that the enemies are less likely to fight back when a machine gun is used. On the other hand, there are far better options, like grenade launchers and sniper rifles. While high-caliber machine guns are arguably useful on a moving car, the squad automatic weapon could be better replaced with grenade launchers, like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. An example of a modern replacement of the machine gun is the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

What are your opinions? Thank you for reading.

No. Dedicated Machine guns are not Obsolete, Military weapons tend to have a slower rate of Evolution then Computer technology and tend to have a long life span.
What is happening is changes in the way some militaries equip The individual squad due to weight and accuracy limitations of the Existing So called Light Machine gun.
Well heavier Machine guns like the M240 are moving to a more important role and traditionally Heavy MG's like the M2 are being put on a diet and getting educated.

Today yes the USMC and now the British army have both been looking to phase down the number of FN Minimi LMG This is as even it's lightest weight infantry version is 14.5 pounds empty.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In a concept the Russians started moving to at the end of the 1990's Phasing out the RPK 74 and RPK in favor of reduced weight PKM's
Some western forces like the USMC aim to use systems like the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle and reduced weight versions of the FN MAG.
This is as the latest Versions of the venerable FN MAG empty is about the same weight as a fully loaded Minimi. and has a longer range and higher terminal effects, And A assault rifle with the proper build is a infantry friendly 7.9 pounds well still offering a degree of Squad suppressive fire. It would Of course demand that the GPMG be more active and more numerous but the lighter weight IAR weapon allows the LMG gunner to maneuver with the squad and operate in urban or vehicles.
The trade off is that Assault rifles are not designed for extended Supressive fire and more prone to over heat and issues with high capacity magazines.

Now at the same time the Minimi has been facing questioning of it's weight other lighter systems are starting to come on line along with other schemes to augment and reduce the weight penalty on the gunner. Systems like the KAC LMG A1 offer a 10 pound weapon with a continuous recoil system offering increased fire control on top of a light weight.
Simmilar case is the Ultimax 100 again a 10 pound weapon with a constant recoil system only this time with a magazine feed as apposed to the LMG's belt feed. Or the developmental Cased Telescoped systems by Textron a 9.8 pound base weapon yet still belt fed. All three I expect to be offerings for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Along with new weapons are new or revisited ideas of Ammo carry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
/
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
/
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and There
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
all offer a Back pack with ammo Belt Director offering a over 700 round capacity of Ammo belts mounted on a Soldier's Back and hips and off the weapon.
And concepts to off load the shouldered weight of weapons like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Grenade launchers like the Xm25, M320, M32 offer HE fire power to the squad which is fine but they Don't suppress the enemy they are designed to body slam a foe but they need to know where the Foe is precisely for best use and have a limited ammo supply in the Squad and long reload vs a Automatic weapon. They are excellent tools but If all you bring is a Hammer every problem looks like a nail... but what do you do if you need to tighten a screw?
I especially like Iron man on this.
The answer is definitely NO. Large volume suppressive fire in combination with a flanking engagement is the key to winning a modern firefight.

One of the primary reasons the US military switched to the 5.56 round instead of staying with the 7.62x51 round is that a soldier can carry more 5.56 ammunition, for the purpose of putting more rounds down range; the other reasons being there was seen to be less need/likelihood for longer range engagements where a heavier bullet would be advantageous, a lighter caliber rifle was easier to control, and of course cost. Their previous analyses of engagements during WWII and the Korean War had indicated that the side with a larger volume of rounds sent down range tended to win more engagements, regardless of the caliber of the round. This is the reason every US fireteam (4 men) includes one automatic rifleman, usually armed with an M249 LMG chambered in 5.56. That's THREE machine guns per squad of 12 men. This ratio holds true across many modern militaries.

This is not to say that I think the 5.56 round is the ideal choice for modern infantrymen (it really isn't), but that is a topic for another thread.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The machine gun became popular around the time of bolt-action rifles, and mass infantry charges.
not really, The First machine guns came about the same time as the end of the percussion cap, and start of the lever action. Massed infantry charges were around but then they were still being used into world war 2 at some points.
With the advent of assault rifles, mass infantry charges became a thing of the past. The future gun battle will be fought behind walls and barriers.
The First assault rifles were used in World war 2 some predated it but the weapon we consider the First practical Assault rifle were used in WW2.
The Future is variable People in the late 1990's though it would be Urban. then Came Afghanistan with mountain fighting. People in the late 2000's though That conventional Wars were over then came Tank on Tank battles of Syria, Iraq and Ukraine. And even in Urban like we see in Syria the Assault rifle is still the better infantry weapon as the fact is there are still open Urban and most of the time the only way the
see where the Enemy is is to see them.
In this case, the grenade launcher, like with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, will be the deciding factor on who will win or survive
XM25 is at this point dead. due to HK and ATK infighting. leaving the K11 of South Korea and the QST 11 There are also programs to adapt Airburst Technologies to other infantry platforms like 40mm grenade launchers, Chain gun autocannons like the 30mm Bushmaster and Recoilless systems Actual ability to use the Airbursting round is a specialized need less a every engagement need
who shoots first, who is more accurate, and who has longer effective range
Overestimation the XM25 had a maximum range of about 1,000 Meters roughly the same range as a Infantry carbine with a good shooter. Most infantry combat in Urban takes place at under 200 Meters. Longer effective range is less an issue for Urban and more for Desert and Mountain. in terms of accuracy there is a simple fix for that it's the fire selector on the side of the Rifle. At close quarters Rapid fire is king at longer ranges semi auto fire discipline. In fact The US Army's Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle... A Program I think needs some Trimming back due to over estimates of wants vs practical Tech wants to have a semi auto mode. Infact a large number of Machine guns have Semiauto settings, Although generally still as Accurate as a Infantry rifle due to most being Open bolt.
The fireteam can consist of four people: one grenadier, one ammo carrier with assault rifle, one scout with assault rifle, and one
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. A fifth person can be the medic, carrying another assault rifle.
Despite all your Rage you are still just using the same.... Seriously look at your thinking here. 1 Grenader... and 2 Assault rifles with 1 spot being DMR or LMG gunner? I mean basically the "
Revolving the Fireteam around the Grenade Launcher, not Machine Gun
Title of your choice was just admitted as a Fallacy.
So what Do I think the Future holds for the Infantry fire team? not that much of a change.
  • The Team leader will remain team leader and the guy with the most electronics with Radio and GPS the biggest changes Coming to him will be more tablet based interfaces and micro drones.
  • Rifleman The classic rifleman/ Scout or Designated marksman with DMR weapon
  • The Grenadier standard infantry carbine with under barrel launcher modified with the ability to fire Airburst and there smart rounds.
  • Automatic Rifleman, Carries a Squad LMG or GMPG
So where are the Changes? Well other than the drones I think the biggest changes are not who is firing what but what is being loaded and how it is being fired.
huh?
Gentlemen Polymer composite cased and Cased polymer telescopic roundspolymer composite.png caseless-and-cased-telescoped-lightweight-ammunition.jpg
The former can be fired from a number of existing weapons the later requires new weapons both reduce the weight of the ammunition used by the infantryman.
reduced weight infantry weapons are coming and part of that is getting lighter bullets.
On those weapons.
1229058156654871877-660x372.jpg
Assisted aiming to allow better target acquisition and attack, in essence this is a mini version of of the gunnery system found in modern Tanks. gun-info.jpg
this would allow infantry to get the most from their small arms. Systems like these can as seen be fitted to conventional carbines as well as DMR's and Grenade launchers both dedicated and underbarrel. They can also be integrated into next gen LMG's and Gpmg's. They can network with smart devices like tablet digital radios and heads up displays to relay imagery like night vision allowing shooting around corners and barriers, probing for targets and even designation of targets to other members of the squad or assets like Aviation. or armor.
the other changes I see is increased signature management meaning use of suppressors.
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
A fireteam with a XM25 grenade launcher is a lot more effective than a fireteam with a M249 machine gun, instead of the grenade launcher
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
A fireteam with a XM25 grenade launcher is a lot more effective than a fireteam with a M249 machine gun, instead of the grenade launcher
XM25 is dead.
All stop.
HK and ATK (then Orbital ATK now part of Northrop Grumman) got into a internal fight and the Army was not delivered weapons on schedule with no signs of any ever being delivered in the future cancelled it. There is no XM25.


The single advantage of the XM25 is the airburst. This is less an advantage as 40x46mm rounds have emerged with the same capacity. Farther more these rounds can be fired from existing underbarrel launchers attached to existing carbines.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Additional the XM25 doesn't fix the issues of the M249 or fill it's mission set it role.
The M249's issues are it's weight almost 20 pounds loaded
It's lack of semi auto fire and accuracy compared to a infantry rifle. These issues are in common with all variants of said system as well as the K3 and HK MG4. But not in all LMGs the Negev, Utilimax, and Knights LMG LAMG are far lighter and have semi auto fire modes.

The XM25 weighs about the same, was incapable of high volume fire due to limitations of the ammunition and it was always intended for a more precision intermediute to long range engagement mentality, where a Saw can be used from 0 to 800m.

The OICW concept from which the XM25, K11, QST11 all descended were never ever to replace Squad automatic rifleman weapon. They were to supplement the M16/M4 M203 combination weapon. In the original XM29 configuration they were to be a 20mm smart launcher with a 5.56mm carbine. Not a LMG.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Lightweight+Family+of+Weapons+and+Ammunition.jpg

As you can see in this table this was the original aim 2 XM29 in the fire team to replace the M4 carbine, a carbine and underbarrel launcher and a LMG, not an M249 but rather a Infantry automatic rifle based on the XM8.
latest

now remember this was after they spun off the XM8 but before the XM25. When they Tried to issue the XM25 has a Standalone weapon other issues came up. A M4A1 with M320 launcher and 36 40x46mm rounds has a weapon load of 38 pounds. The XM25 with 36 rounds of 25mm is 36 pounds and the soldier needs to make a choice of if they add a second weapon to defend themself in breaching or close quarters. Remember that as a Grenade launcher using it to room clear well in the room is not an option. If you can see the enemy from outside the building fine but not if you have to dig out a dug in enemy. that means breaching and clearing. You can do that with a M249 barely but doable. to do that with a XM25 would demand having a second weapon. a Pistol like a M17 or a M4A1 Carbine. Pistols are... Well Sidearms in Infantry pretty much a none weapon, they have their uses but it's mostly a worst of worst case weapon.
A carbine would be first pick but adding a M4A1 to a XM25 weapon load means that trooper is packing around 51 pounds. Had it been partnered with a PDW weapon like the HK MP7A1 it might have worked.
At the End of the Day the system just couldn't lose enough weight to plug into a Rifle Squad. And other technologies came on line that rendered it superfluous. 1200px-PEO_M320_Grenade_Launcher.jpg Technologies like the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
set mean that launchers like this M320 can do much of the same Job.
The only advantages of XM25 vs SAGM is that the XM25 has a flatter trajectory and programmable for window breaking. however the size of the 40mm round being larger than the 25mm means that that kind of fuse could be fitted into a 40mm more easily it would just need a fire control system with a rangefinder like that of a Trackingpoint rifle to interface in.
You also have now systems like the Pike missile that can be fired from 40mm launchers range out to half a mile and are laser guided an option not available to the XM25.
 
Top