I think it is the long accepted consensus that the SMG no longer has a primary military role. WWII was the last time they were fielded as a front line weapon and Vietnam was the last time the US employed them in significant numbers.
Assault rifles basically come in at similar weights and lengths with superior ballistics, especially at combat distances. As a result the SMG has been relegated to a very limited special application role, usually involving the need for suppression.
But has the larger caliber battle rifles similarly been dismissed? Like the SMG they still pop up from time to time, often in a DMR role or other similar special application, but nearly every modern military has largely retired them in favor of carbine length assault rifles.
Have 7.62 military rifles simply seen their day in the same manner as the 9mm SMG?
i’m not nearly enough of a warfare buff to be too insightful… but what if warfare should evolve back out to longer engagement distances? for the last 65 years, war has been up close and personal because we’ve been facing poorly trained irregular soldiers with shitty guns. but if we were to face off with a well trained military, i would expect our small unit close-with-and-engage MO wouldn’t work anymore. engagement distances may very well open up- WAY up. with less rounds fired per soldier, with greater energy at longer distances needed, we might find an m14-esque gun with an acog the ideal front line weapon. or at least one of the main line guns.
Just about every 1st world nation that has the means to change from a battle rifle to an assault rifle has done so.
Some people believe battle rifles are a solution for the Afghanistan problem, but the Norwegians didn’t agree and replaced the AG-3 with the HK416. I doubt they would have done so if they regarded assault rifles failures
I think the SMG is “obsolete,” only in the sense we no longer fight wars to WIN them - rather, we fight them to snipe at the enemy from football field distances or more, and our current personal weapon platforms reflect that.
WERE we fighting in the sandboxes, the WAY we fought across Italy and Germany in WWII (mechanized armor to open up the city - then house-to-house to either kill or capture EVERY enemy combatant), it’s hard to beat a Thompson, once you kick in a door and need to “clear” the room, OLD school style. An HK MP-5 in .40 or 10mm would be IDEAL for such work today.
Not at all. The problem with pistol caliber carbines for today is that a soldier is expected to do CQB, step outside, and engage obscured enemies several hundred yards away. A pistol caliber round does very poorly at that which is why WW2 squads were a mix of long and short guns. They didn’t have a rifle that does both things pretty well like the M4 of today.
I think SMG’s have long since seen their day. There just really isn’t a role for them anymore that is mainstream enough to keep their use alive.
As far as 7.62 battle rifles I think their use is on the rise and will continue to grow especially if we are still in Afghanistan for the next 3-6 years.
Think for a moment how different WWII would have been if the Germans had the MP44 fielded in large numbers from the start of the war.
Logistically, they would have been in a much better position, which in itself is a force multiplier. Plus they would have had a weapon that was equally capable clearing rooms, street to street fighting in Stalingrad, and keeping GI heads down at intermediate ranges in France. That’s the strength of the assault rifle.
Also, one of the big problems of the subgun is the ubiquitousness of the MP5, and HK’s awful support. HK basically drove scores of agencies into the arms of the M4 where parts and support are plentiful.
Battle Rifle: A military service rifle that fires the 7.62x51mm round.
Question: Is the battle rifle obsolete?
Answer: No.
Reasoning: SOCOM has adopted the MK17 SCAR-H. The UK last year adopted the L129A1. The Australians have procured the HK417. All these have been 7.62x51mm rifles pressed into Military Service in the last few years primarily due to the increased distances of engagements in Afghanistan.
I believe the future will be military service rifles that are very caliber modular allowing entire units to quickly and easily modify their rifles to go 7.62 or 5.56 depending on their mission. Our military is very expeditionary these days and has to be ready to go from heavily urban environments to very rural ones.
SMG’s went obsolete due to body armor. We are seeing body armor become more in use throughout the world including now in third world nations. At some point 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm may be obsolete and require a new caliber.
The “battle rifle” is gone, just like the full powered bolt rifle. Both will still be used for longer ranges as designated marksman and sniper rifles, but that’s it.
The role of modern infantry is now to “break doors” and “find and hold”. The find and hold is basically a support function for aircraft and longer range weapons. Precision guided bombs, artillery, and mortar rounds are a part of the digital revolution that will change ground warfare as long as they exist. If he is going to survive, the enemy must either get so close that our bombs will kill us too or just blast away inaccurately from a distance and bug out before the high powered stuff gets there.
Most rounds fired in combat miss. In WWII it took about 20,000 rounds to cause one enemy casualty. It is far more now. It is much better to miss with a much lighter weight round as, after all, you have to carry them. And if they are beyond 300 meters, it is unlikely that the average soldier will even see his opponent. Steely eyed marksmanship is a fantasy unless one is a highly trained sniper or possibly a designated marksman with an optical sight.
I agree. There’s never been a decent AR10 that I’ve seen… and there’s NO ONE making a good M14… I don’t know that the M14 could be revived in any decent numbers.
That junk SA is kicking out would never be acceptable in a military Rifle.
I think it will stay around in a limited function, ie DMR, for long range engagements. If we end up switching to a bigger intermediate round then maybe it will go away.
I do find the 7.62 Nato to be a fantastic machine gun round and think it will stay in that role for a long long time.
if a little effort went into it, i’m sure somebody could produce a reliable automatic intermediate range rifle firing an intermediate range cartridge. doesn’t need to be AN m14, just something that does what the m14 was supposed to do, but in a modern configuration… likewise doesn’t necessarily need to be 7.62x51… we’re talking about something a bit out into the future, where necessity has birthed invention.
I know they have had the M16A4 for awhile now. I’m not sure they every retired it in favor of the M4 or if they simply issue both as needed or if they are now moving back to it from the M4.
