MMW MkV thread. It's been fun.

[Fischermann]

Once you enter a discussion there ain't no leaving.

Not to nitpick but this IS a forum on the net. He could ignore you.

Not that it'd make him a winner or anything.

[Purpelia]

Why? You have yet to actually explain your argument.

Actually he did.

Not really.
He does is rant on about how artillery kills more. But has yet to say how that would translate into the rifle going away.
He talks about guided and HE rounds. But has yet to address the issue of their limited use and high cost that I presented.
He throws out phrases like this which have absolutely no meaning past rhetoric.

NEVER is really long time, presumably even longer when it's capitalized like that. Weapons become obsolete during shifts in technological epochs. The Bronze Age obsoleted the rock, the Enlightenment obsoleted the spear, the Industrial Revolution obsoleted the musket. These are all generalizations, but it's highly unlikely that the rifle will survive the Information Age as the infantry weapon of decision.

It probably won't completely disappear. People still throw rocks, after all.

He mentions how small arms have not changed that much. But has yet to say how that would translate into the rifle going away.


All of his points just lead nowhere and conclude in what he wants without the bit in the middile. It's basically step 3 profit. And I want to see that step 2.

[Dtn (Ancient)]

Well, I have no idea how much a small guided missile would cost or weigh. Hopefully less than 3 tons of rifle ammunition.

What's wrong with rocks? Lithic reduction was the cutting edge of weapons technology for nearly 3 million years. If anything ever had an argument for NEVER going away, it was the rock. It outlasted species.

[Purpelia]

Well, I have no idea how much a small guided missile would cost or weigh. Hopefully less than 3 tons of rifle ammunition.

So no actual data. Well at least present for me why you think that one small guided missile would actually justify it's cost in a modern infantry engagement. As in, here are a few scenarios:
1. A soldier is clearing houses in an urban area.
2. A soldier is fighting in an open field with the typical 400m or so engagement range
3. A soldier is fighting in a trench/jungle

Show me why he needs guided rounds.

What's wrong with rocks? Lithic reduction was the cutting edge of weapons technology for nearly 3 million years.

Pointless rhetoric once again.

[Guthrie Garden]

My guitar - because 'this machine kills fascists'

[Dtn (Ancient)]

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/ga ... nt-killed/

Roughly 3 tons. Bullets only seem cheap.

The advantages of a guided round with variable fusing seem blindingly obvious in two of your scenarios. Even in an open field guided rounds would benefit from far greater hit probabilities. Shooting someone with a rifle at 400m isn't easy.

Why does a soldier need a rifle in any of those scenarios? A machete would be lighter and cheaper.

If you don't get the point about rocks I'm not really sure what to say.

[Lusoko]

The main service rifle of the Lusoko National Armed Forces is the M16A1 assault rifle, most of which were captured from the Republican Army when General Jonas Samakuva took power in 1976 during the Communist Uprising. However this is not the only assault rifle in service, the 1st Infantry Regiment is equipped with the L85A2. The National Defence Militia is armed whatever weapons it can get its hands on including the AKM assault rifle, the M2 carbine and the Lee Enfield rifle.

[Purpelia]

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/
Roughly 3 tons. Bullets only seem cheap.

Did you know the American army counts bullets used in training and those given to the local security forces for training as expended? Hell the article even says so:

“The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

As in most of those bullets were NOT fired at insurgents but by the Afghan army at training ranges. So your point is invalid.

The advantages of a guided round with variable fusing seem blindingly obvious in two of your scenarios. Even in an open field guided rounds would benefit from far greater hit probabilities. Shooting someone with a rifle at 400m isn't easy.

And yet it is routinely done with modern firearms and semi competent shooters. And at a fraction of the cost.

Furthermore, all modern bullets are laser guided beam riders. And that is not likely to change since you can't really put any other sort of guidance into a package that small. What does this mean? Well it means your soldier has to expose him self guiding his bullet down to the target. If he so much as jerks his rifle or dives for cover the bullet is going to miss. And you can bet he is NOT going to be able to stand perfectly still in the open while being fired on. Especially considering that just 1 degree of motion over 400m equals a miss of 7 meters. (simple trigonometry) Instead of say siting in the cover of a trench popping out for a short instance to fire off a burst. And I mentioned burst for a reason. Take your Ak rifle. With a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s the round will pass the 400m in about half a second. Good for sniping but not for suppression. So your soldier has one accurate shot every half a second. Compare that to the same AK firing normal bullets at it's cyclic rate of fire of 10 rounds per second. In most scenarios your standard weapon firing standard unguided rounds will be superior. Since in most scenarios fighting will be happening under 400m. Again this all supports my point that guided bullets are unsuitable for regular troops even if they would be good for snipers. The weapon you envision with guided bullets would end up being more like a bolt action rifle than a modern military weapon.

Why does a soldier need a rifle in any of those scenarios? A machete would be lighter and cheaper.

Are you for real?

If you don't get the point about rocks I'm not really sure what to say.

There IS NO POINT ABOUT THE ROCKS. So cut out the rhetoric and analogies and talk strait. Treat this as you would a scientific debate.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

modern armor is capable of stopping everything short of big-bore sniper cartridges, and you seem to be proposing the use of chemical firearms indefinitely into the future

taking a rifle to a fight a hundred or two years from now is going to be like taking a rock to a fight now, and that's without assuming that technological advancement is exponential

[Dtn (Ancient)]

Do bullets used in training cost less? They're training for a reason - so they'll know what they're doing when they're shooting only tens of thousands of bullets per kill in combat.

Does a rifleman take aim, fire and then suddenly dive for cover in the half second you say is needed for the bullet to reach its target? Half a second isn't a very long time.

Even assuming laser guidance, why would the laser be on the rifle? Couldn't you put it on a little periscope? Or a drone? You really don't need to be in line of sight at all.

Yes, there's a point about rocks and machetes. Stone weapons were a highly developed technology that was around for literally millions of years, even before homo sapiens. In fact, towards the end, people were using metal to shape stone into tools and axes. Then somebody started smelting bronze. Bronze is fairly rare, and rocks are everywhere, so it might seem more expensive at first glance. But stone weapons take a lifetime's worth of skill and a great deal of time to make. Stone is also unsuitable for things like swords and armor, and is inferior for the things it can be used for like axes and spearheads. So stone technology was replaced by bronze technology, at least in the military arena. There were massive social and political changes.

The Iron Age isn't quite as revolutionary, so I'll skip over it. Swords, spears, bows, everything else. These were all largely replaced by ballistic weapons powered by gunpowder. There were massive social and political changes. No more knights.

We're now most likely in the tail end of Industrial Age warfare as seen in the World Wars. There certainly won't be anything like them in the foreseeable future, with armies of millions of conscripts operating vast amounts of mass-produced unintelligent weaponry. Anyway, again there were massive social and political changes.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but since the end of World War Two computers have become more and more common, leading some people to call the current era the Information Age. Militaries now field ridiculous sensors and have given weapons a modicum of intelligence, to the point where man-portable fire-and-forget weapons are increasingly common. This will eventually transform the individual weapon, just like every single wave of technological change in the past. Right now we're computerizing the rifle's peripherals - we're pretty much like early Bronze Age people chipping away at a piece of flint with a copper hammer.

The point to all of this is that weapons have a life cycle. They're born from the prevailing social and technological matrix, cause a revolution in tactics, then are refined until the only possible improvements become more and more exotic. Eventually something else is invented, and the old weapon fades from relevance, either surviving in a secondary role or dying out completely like the big gun battleship or chariot - both the primary instruments of military policy in their day.

This has happened with every single weapon ever, and the process begins as soon as its fielded. Maybe the rifle is the single exception in human history. Maybe when the sun begins to expand the final descendants of humanity will fight over the last scraps of a dying world with Kalashnikovs. More likely they won't, though, and the rifle won't prove to be anything particularly special.

It's impossible to predict the future with certainty, and I'm not prescient. There are likelihoods though. I think it's likely that the assault rifle won't be as important as it is today within 50 years, and vanishingly unlikely that infantry will be armed with scaled-up .338 battle rifles.

[Yes Im Biop]

Well, I have no idea how much a small guided missile would cost or weigh. Hopefully less than 3 tons of rifle ammunition.

What's wrong with rocks? Lithic reduction was the cutting edge of weapons technology for nearly 3 million years. If anything ever had an argument for NEVER going away, it was the rock. It outlasted species.

I'm Sorry but i am sure 3 Tons of ammo costs less for the simple reason of 2 things. A Brick of rounds is heavy, ANd Ammo si Mass Produced.

modern armor is capable of stopping everything short of big-bore sniper cartridges, and you seem to be proposing the use of chemical firearms indefinitely into the future

taking a rifle to a fight a hundred or two years from now is going to be like taking a rock to a fight now, and that's without assuming that technological advancement is exponential

Sen. No Offence. But It would be like using Wheel Locks Today. Except for the fact im sure in 200 years we all will be dead. Or Weapons will be smarter, Stronger, and possibly slightly Guided Variants of what we have today.

[Yes Im Biop]

Do bullets used in training cost less? They're training for a reason - so they'll know what they're doing when they're shooting only tens of thousands of bullets per kill in combat.

Tens of thousands of rounds per Kill? Thats 3 times as many rounds used on a single Aircraft in WW2. Try again.

Code: Select all

Does a rifleman take aim, fire and then suddenly dive for cover in the half second you say is needed for the bullet to reach its target? Half a second isn't a very long time.

Actually In Gun terms it is. You can, with a bit know how,and elbow room dive to the ground in that time frame.

Even assuming laser guidance, why would the laser be on the rifle? Couldn't you put it on a little periscope? Or a drone? You really don't need to be in line of sight at all.

This one i gotta hand it to you.

Yes, there's a point about rocks and machetes. Stone weapons were a highly developed technology that was around for literally millions of years, even before homo sapiens. In fact, towards the end, people were using metal to shape stone into tools and axes. Then somebody started smelting bronze. Bronze is fairly rare, and rocks are everywhere, so it might seem more expensive at first glance. But stone weapons take a lifetime's worth of skill and a great deal of time to make. Stone is also unsuitable for things like swords and armor, and is inferior for the things it can be used for like axes and spearheads. So stone technology was replaced by bronze technology, at least in the military arena. There were massive social and political changes.

I really have nothing to comment on this.

The Iron Age isn't quite as revolutionary, so I'll skip over it. Swords, spears, bows, everything else. These were all largely replaced by ballistic weapons powered by gunpowder. There were massive social and political changes. No more knights.

We're now most likely in the tail end of Industrial Age warfare as seen in the World Wars. There certainly won't be anything like them in the foreseeable future, with armies of millions of conscripts operating vast amounts of mass-produced unintelligent weaponry. Anyway, again there were massive social and political changes.

You Do Realize were headlong into the Nuclear/Information Age. Industrial was what? 1800's?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but since the end of World War Two computers have become more and more common, leading some people to call the current era the Information Age. Militaries now field ridiculous sensors and have given weapons a modicum of intelligence, to the point where man-portable fire-and-forget weapons are increasingly common. This will eventually transform the individual weapon, just like every single wave of technological change in the past. Right now we're computerizing the rifle's peripherals - we're pretty much like early Bronze Age people chipping away at a piece of flint with a copper hammer.

O Boy. There is a Difference from a Laser guided Bomb, A Lock on Javelin ATM. And a Soldiers M4. Thats what i don't think you get.

The point to all of this is that weapons have a life cycle. They're born from the prevailing social and technological matrix, cause a revolution in tactics, then are refined until the only possible improvements become more and more exotic. Eventually something else is invented, and the old weapon fades from relevance, either surviving in a secondary role or dying out completely like the big gun battleship or chariot - both the primary instruments of military policy in their day.

The M1911 Would like to have a word with you having just had their 100 something Birthday.

This has happened with every single weapon ever, and the process begins as soon as its fielded. Maybe the rifle is the single exception in human history. Maybe when the sun begins to expand the final descendants of humanity will fight over the last scraps of a dying world with Kalashnikovs. More likely they won't, though, and the rifle won't prove to be anything particularly special.

Again. Speak to the M1911.

It's impossible to predict the future with certainty, and I'm not prescient. There are likelihoods though. I think it's likely that the assault rifle won't be as important as it is today within 50 years, and vanishingly unlikely that infantry will be armed with scaled-up .338 battle rifles.

Assault Rifles will always be used. Dosen't matter if its Chemical, Magnetic, or Directed energy. Human nature demands Instant satisfaction. How more instant is it than 900 Rounds a Minute?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Do bullets used in training cost less? They're training for a reason - so they'll know what they're doing when they're shooting only tens of thousands of bullets per kill in combat.

Tens of thousands of rounds per Kill? Thats 3 times as many rounds used on a single Aircraft in WW2. Try again.

Of small arms rounds expended in all purposes in Afghanistan, 250,000 are used for every single confirmed enemy KIA.

[Yes Im Biop]

Tens of thousands of rounds per Kill? Thats 3 times as many rounds used on a single Aircraft in WW2. Try again.

Of small arms rounds expended in all purposes in Afghanistan, 250,000 are used for every single confirmed enemy KIA.

And that is not a stat i would want to see made public if i was the Government.

[Vulpes Terra]

My military consists of Elite Infantry and Air Force,becuase we don't dally around with slow moving tanks and such,we strike hard and fast

[Yes Im Biop]

My military consists of Elite Infantry and Air Force,becuase we don't dally around with slow moving tanks and such,we strike hard and fast

What happens when they have Mobile and Stationary AA, Heavy Armor, and IFV's? As well as a Counter Air Force?

[Spirit of Hope]

Of small arms rounds expended in all purposes in Afghanistan, 250,000 are used for every single confirmed enemy KIA.

And that is not a stat i would want to see made public if i was the Government.

Well that statistic includes training ammunition, so the actual "combat use" ammunition to KIA is probably much lower. Second, it's confirmed KIA which is likely lower than the actual KIAs and WIAs, due to terrorists having a habit of pulling dead and wounded away.

Now on to the main thrust, let's do a weight analysis! 1 40mm grenade weighs roughly the same as 20 5.56 bullets. So weight effect wise each grenade must be 20 times as affective as a bullet. Next a cost analysis, 1 5.56 bullet costs about $.50. Now there are no real statistics that I could find on how much a guided 40mm grenade would cost, however a guided 155mm artillery shell costs between $85-20,000, scalling down a 40mm guided grenade would then cost $20-5,000. Sure that estimate is probably high but it gives an idea of cost.

Now on to problems with guided munitions. A simple guided munition witch can not self propel can only make minor corse corrections, which means it must be aimed at roughly the spot you want it to hit. If you make it self propelled it becomes a lot more expensive and bulk. Now how would the guidance work? Laser means you have to aim the laser at the point you want to hit. GPS means you can only hit that one spot in the world.

Next computers can only get so small and cheap, we have already started to hit the threshold where we can't get any smaller. What this means is that unless their is a revolution in computer trchnology computers will likely stay at roughly the size weight and cost they are now.

Last, recently I have run across designs for guided .50 caliber bullets. Maybe that could be the next revolution in gun technology? Smart bullets, certainly costly but they would be a revolution in gun technology.

[Yes Im Biop]

And that is not a stat i would want to see made public if i was the Government.

Well that statistic includes training ammunition, so the actual "combat use" ammunition to KIA is probably much lower. Second, it's confirmed KIA which is likely lower than the actual KIAs and WIAs, due to terrorists having a habit of pulling dead and wounded away.

Now on to the main thrust, let's do a weight analysis! 1 40mm grenade weighs roughly the same as 20 5.56 bullets. So weight effect wise each grenade must be 20 times as affective as a bullet. Next a cost analysis, 1 5.56 bullet costs about $.50. Now there are no real statistics that I could find on how much a guided 40mm grenade would cost, however a guided 155mm artillery shell costs between $85-20,000, scalling down a 40mm guided grenade would then cost $20-5,000. Sure that estimate is probably high but it gives an idea of cost.

Now on to problems with guided munitions. A simple guided munition witch can not self propel can only make minor corse corrections, which means it must be aimed at roughly the spot you want it to hit. If you make it self propelled it becomes a lot more expensive and bulk. Now how would the guidance work? Laser means you have to aim the laser at the point you want to hit. GPS means you can only hit that one spot in the world.

Next computers can only get so small and cheap, we have already started to hit the threshold where we can't get any smaller. What this means is that unless their is a revolution in computer trchnology computers will likely stay at roughly the size weight and cost they are now.

Last, recently I have run across designs for guided .50 caliber bullets. Maybe that could be the next revolution in gun technology? Smart bullets, certainly costly but they would be a revolution in gun technology.

Don't they already have Semiguided Rounds for the XM-25 Grenade Rifle?

[Kouralia]

Last, recently I have run across designs for guided .50 caliber bullets. Maybe that could be the next revolution in gun technology? Smart bullets, certainly costly but they would be a revolution in gun technology.

Yes, I saw something like that in a magazine.

As far as I can see, the only place for self-guided small-arms munitions in today's warfare would be something like a self-guided .338 Lapua round which can make minor course corrections during flight to ensure it hits the spot being designated by the spotter/sniper. Otherwise it becomes far too expensive, and offers minimal advantages over simply suppressing then assaulting the enemy with assault rifles. But, then again, I know nothing - so this could easily be bull shit...

[Samozaryadnyastan]

My military consists of Elite Infantry and Air Force,becuase we don't dally around with slow moving tanks and such,we strike hard and fast

Tanks can move battle lines several hundred miles a day. They're a key component of hard and fast strikes because they can do so.

[Purpelia]

Do bullets used in training cost less? They're training for a reason - so they'll know what they're doing when they're shooting only tens of thousands of bullets per kill in combat.

They do not cost anything at all for regular war operations. Since during regular war operations you would not be expending all those bullets. Since your army is not actually training a whole separate army on the side. So when calculating the cost of that deployment in bullets or anything else you have to completely separate the fighting part from the train local army part.

Does a rifleman take aim, fire and then suddenly dive for cover in the half second you say is needed for the bullet to reach its target? Half a second isn't a very long time.

He does not stand around in the open carefully taking aim at the enemy either. And besides, the whole point is moot since the recoil from firing would move the barrel far enough that by the time the soldier re acquires the target and corrects his sight the bullet will already be on a path that is way wrong. And with large flight path corrections comes a loss in energy and momentum. That's why the only use for guided bullets ever in the experiments was firing them at a ballistic arc to create a guided falling bullet effect. Again, useful for snipers but not for the average shooter.

Even assuming laser guidance, why would the laser be on the rifle? Couldn't you put it on a little periscope? Or a drone? You really don't need to be in line of sight at all.

So next you want to issue each individual soldiers targeting drones? What's next? Satellite guidance? Can you not see why that is insane?

Yes, there's a point about rocks and machetes. Stone weapons were a highly developed technology that was around for literally millions of years, even before homo sapiens. In fact, towards the end, people were using metal to shape stone into tools and axes. Then somebody started smelting bronze. Bronze is fairly rare, and rocks are everywhere, so it might seem more expensive at first glance. But stone weapons take a lifetime's worth of skill and a great deal of time to make. Stone is also unsuitable for things like swords and armor, and is inferior for the things it can be used for like axes and spearheads. So stone technology was replaced by bronze technology, at least in the military arena. There were massive social and political changes.

But that does not even relate to our situation here. Better metal weapons developed because of a need for better armor and changing conditions on the battlefield. None of these factor in here. As the requirement to shoot someone in direct fire at 200-400m and put him down dead with something that does not export and is safe and cheap to sue is not going to go away.

The Iron Age isn't quite as revolutionary, so I'll skip over it. Swords, spears, bows, everything else. These were all largely replaced by ballistic weapons powered by gunpowder. There were massive social and political changes. No more knights.

You are kiding me. The greatest revolution in armor and weapons happened during that age. Both changed beyond recognition during that period.

We're now most likely in the tail end of Industrial Age warfare as seen in the World Wars. There certainly won't be anything like them in the foreseeable future, with armies of millions of conscripts operating vast amounts of mass-produced unintelligent weaponry.

That is all the more reason for the rifle and not your fancy ideas to thrive. On one side you will have poor countries who can't afford fancy gadgets. And on the other side you will have modern armies fighting enemies that are not vast conscript hordes they can conveniently locate and kill with artillery or air power. Warfare is only going to get closer, nastier and more confined. And that requires a good rifle more than anything.

Anyway, again there were massive social and political changes.

What changes? What world are you living in?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but since the end of World War Two computers have become more and more common, leading some people to call the current era the Information Age. Militaries now field ridiculous sensors and have given weapons a modicum of intelligence, to the point where man-portable fire-and-forget weapons are increasingly common. This will eventually transform the individual weapon, just like every single wave of technological change in the past. Right now we're computerizing the rifle's peripherals - we're pretty much like early Bronze Age people chipping away at a piece of flint with a copper hammer.

I would live to come and visit your world. Since I am actually a professional software engineer. (well finishing university soon) And I know quite a lot about what computers can and can't do. Man portable fire and forget stuff was here as early as the 50's. And it has not and will not change the battlefield much above what it already has. And computerization might make the sights better or the user smarter. But the need to throw cheap and easy to make lead at the other guy means there will always be a rifle.

The point to all of this is that weapons have a life cycle. They're born from the prevailing social and technological matrix, cause a revolution in tactics, then are refined until the only possible improvements become more and more exotic. Eventually something else is invented, and the old weapon fades from relevance, either surviving in a secondary role or dying out completely like the big gun battleship or chariot - both the primary instruments of military policy in their day.

And yet the good old concept of a gunpoweder powered kill stick that lobs metal at the other guy has hardly been replaced.

This has happened with every single weapon ever, and the process begins as soon as its fielded. Maybe the rifle is the single exception in human history. Maybe when the sun begins to expand the final descendants of humanity will fight over the last scraps of a dying world with Kalashnikovs. More likely they won't, though, and the rifle won't prove to be anything particularly special.

And what will they be fighting with? Hand held grenade launchers that they can't use in confined space? Gyrojet monstrosities whose shells weigh as much as those for an autocanon? Artillery? So far none of your ideas have been even remotely close to any realistic vision of warfare today or the way reality is going.

It's impossible to predict the future with certainty, and I'm not prescient. There are likelihoods though. I think it's likely that the assault rifle won't be as important as it is today within 50 years, and vanishingly unlikely that infantry will be armed with scaled-up .338 battle rifles.

That particular design was only for a particular situation. As in, it was my answer to a HALO like universe where powered armor is common and prevalent. In which case something like the XM29 with a stronger round (maybe 7.62 NATO) would be the ideal firearm combining flexibility with firepower.

[Bafuria]

We've been using hand held tubes to launch projectiles at high velocity towards the enemy for 1200 years.
The long gun has survived the middle ages, renaissance, the industrial revolution, the space age and is currently alive and well in the information age.

Additionally, we've been using long shafts with sharp pointy ends in combat for even longer.

One must also keep in mind that hand held infantry weapons will never be more powerful than they have to be.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Last update to this one in a while. I'm most likely going to be making a bunch of practice art I never finish, and come back to this when I have a bit more experience in lineart.

[Coltarin]

haven't been here in a while, with what looks like good reason.
bullpup bolt action I've been toying with.
I may also start working on a PT rile if I can figure out how to draw the stock

[The Republic of Lanos]

(Image)


AR-10 from Armalite.

Man, I wish they still made the newer AR-10s like that instead of AR-15A2 styles...