Over 60 years later, is the "Assault Rifle" concept still viable in modern combat?

[MechAg94]

I think part of the question is that the military realizes that the full auto attribute of the first assault rifle is not the most important or revolutionary attribute of that rifle. The ergonomics, light weight, lighter recoil, lighter ammo, and better handling are all more important to performance. Do you really need every man carrying light machine guns? When the ammunition load is limited, semi-auto makes more sense for the majority of troops.

What you are also seeing is the machine gun turning into an "assault machine gun" with the SAW and such using the same intermediate ammo. Not as revolutionary, but fits the same concept.

Also, even if we switch to a larger cartridge, it still wouldn't be a "battle rifle" to the purists on this board. That also is not a military term. Just a term people picked up to differentiate the rifles in discussion.

 

[GunTech]

Future was fought by the US will undoubtably be counter insurgency operations. As was clearly demonstrated during Gulf War I, and phase I of Gulf War II, no army can defeat the US in a conventional war. The US spends more on its military than all the other nations of the world combined.

In counter insurgency operations, a light and handy rifle makes more sense and does the job adequately. I don't expect any change from the current rifle until there is something like a new paradigm like the OICW, and the expense of a new weapon is going to be a hard sell without the threat of a major conventional war.

New weapons get adopted because they are sexy and good career moves for procurement officers, and highly profitable for defense contractors. No career will be made championing a new rifle, and only a few companies see the paltry millions of a rifle contract as worth much of a bother.

 

[Nolo]

WWI comes along and teaches us that nope, infantry units taking long distance shots at eachother is a thing of the past, because lets say your 45-70 can volley-fire a mile, and his 7mm mauser can only volley fire 1/2 mile. You sit around volley firing your 45-70, he calls in artillery. OR, you get closer, say 300 yards, then his flatter flying cartridge has an advantage.

How do you expect .45-70 to outrange 7mm Mauser?

 

[Roswell 1847]

How do you expect .45-70 to outrange 7mm Mauser?

Sounds like he's got the Spanish American War mixed up with WW1 and gotten his calibers Backasswards as well.

The 7mm was considered superior precisely because of its greater long range capability over both the .45/70 and the .30/40 krag.

In WW1 conditions resulted in long range machinegun fire replacing volley fire to an increasing extent as time went on but the Germans dubbed the British "The Machinegun Army" not because they had more machineguns but because British Volley fire was so rapid and precise that each rifle squad was equal to a machinegun.

 

[Tony Williams]

I'm not aware of any military that uses the term assault rifle.

Not many, but some do. The Swiss and Austrian rifles still have the "StG" designation (Sturmgewehr = storm or assault rifle), copied from the German original. I understand that the Finnish (? one of the Nordic countries anyway)term for their military rifles also translates as "assault rifle".

 

[Wes Janson]

Future was fought by the US will undoubtably be counter insurgency operations. As was clearly demonstrated during Gulf War I, and phase I of Gulf War II, no army can defeat the US in a conventional war. The US spends more on its military than all the other nations of the world combined.

This line of thinking is what worries me. We're continually gearing up for whatever we did last, and historically we've always screwed up in our medium-to-long-term predictions. What if we're out of Iraq by 2010, but wind up in a shooting war with China in 2012? Or Venezuala in 2014? Etc. What happens if other countries refine cutting edge technology, developing their aircraft, naval vessels, and armor to the point at which their forces can rival ours? Every dollar spent towards up-armored humvees and gunshot detection systems is a dollar in contention with projects like the DD(X), or the Raptor.

What I fear most is that fifteen, twenty years down the road, history is going to look back at the "War on Terrorism" as a short-sighted distraction that blinded us to bigger threats.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I don't know how much of an issue we're looking at -- the "always preparing for the last war" conventional wisdom was primarily something that bit us in the ass in Vietnam. But even then, the problem wasn't really preparing for the last war so much as refusing to realistically fight the current war once we were involved. In the current war we've been very able to reconfigure ourselves for a low intensity conflict, not because we've been preparing for it for years (though we have trained for that contingency as well as others), but because the leadership this time around is not blindly insisting on fighting the insurgents the same way they fought SS Panzer Divisions a generation earlier, etc.

As for China specifically, war between us and them is unlikely for the same reason war with the Soviets was a no-go -- direct conflict between two nuclear powers carries too much potential risk for everyone involved.

 

[Wes Janson]

As for China specifically, war between us and them is unlikely for the same reason war with the Soviets was a no-go -- direct conflict between two nuclear powers carries too much potential risk for everyone involved.

History would seem to support that, but it's a hell of a gamble to make regardless. What if we're wrong? It's worth noting that part of the reason Korea became such a mess was specifically because of the assumptions amongst those in power that China wouldn't involve itself directly-rather than asking what China could do, they asked what they thought China would do. And they were wrong.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Possibly what brought an end to the Korean War was the release of nine nuclear weapons cores from the Atomic Energy Commission to the US Airforce for assembly into air dropped Atomic Bombs.
There were mainy other factors of course but China had no Nuclear strike capability and The Soviet Union would not have backed their play at that point in their relationship.

As Einstein said he could not tell you what weapons the next world war would be fought with but the one after that would be fought with rocks and sticks.

Armored vehicles are almost usless without fuel, they become pillboxes at best, as the Germans found out.
Automatic weapons are less effective if theres little possibility of ammunition resupply.

Armed groups that have sophisticated weapons would do best to remain on a defensive, staking out territory and dominating through fear of reprisal rather than open combat.
Fortifications would become more important than they have been for almost a century. No Maginot lines though.
With limited to no air craft after the first two to three years at best strategic bombing would become stuff of legend in a generation.
Barter of foodstuffs for bio fuels would be big business. Trade in scavenged ammo and battlefield pickups would follow the mold established in the Former Soviet States like Checnya.
Gunsmithing skills would make a man a valuable asset to any community. Advanced knowledge of scavenged Military hardware would also be a plus.
The guy that would make the most from his skill would be the Hotrod mechanic who figures out how to run a Bradley on Bio Deisel.

Ultralight Aircraft for recon would be invaluable.
Just meandering through post apoctalyptic scenarios. Who really knows.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Nope, not obsolete. You can carry much more ammo for an intermediate caliber weapon, and considering the average kill with small arms is at ranges that the "Assault Rifle" excels at, why change?

 

[Roswell 1847]

considering the average kill with small arms is at ranges that the "Assault Rifle" excels at, why change?

The exception to the rule is what fills body bags.

Awhile back I watched the helmet camera footage of a squad of Marines trying to take out a sniper whose only cover was the crenelations on a building rooftop. Their 5.56 couldn't penetrate and ever time someone tried to get a headshot he'd shoot first.
A Marine brought up a SMAW and as he was drawing a bead the sniper nailed his SMAW's optical sight, luckily the bullet fragmented and didn't drill through his head.
They finally got him but he had an entire squad pinned for along time, and a WW2 BAR would have smoked him in seconds without having to take time trying for a headshot, same for a squad armed with FN FAL with AP rounds for that matter. They'd have chewed through his cover so quick he'd have had no time to move out.

Even then though 7.62X51 AP ammo isn't as good as WW2 .30/06 AP.

 

[Tony Williams]

Even then though 7.62X51 AP ammo isn't as good as WW2 .30/06 AP.

? WW2 .30-06 AP ammmo had a hardened steel core, current 7.62x51 M993 AP uses tungsten: in terms of armour penetration, it's about 50% better.

 

[Roswell 1847]

WW2 .30-06 AP ammmo had a hardened steel core, current 7.62x51 M993 AP uses tungsten: in terms of armour penetration, it's about 50% better.

US .30/06 WW2 AP was a 163 grain Tungsten Carbide core.
US 7.62 NATO AP used a lighter Tungsten core of about 150 grain until recently, it was deemed inferior to other available 7.62 NATO AP and the most recent US 7.62 NATO AP Loading uses a 125 Grain bullet at suped up velocities hoping to increase penetration at extended ranges.

I haven't heard much about the newer bullet and its velocity figures are so much higher than you'd expect from a .308 I figure it must use some new technology.

They actualy used up almost all remaining stocks of Nam era AP production in training before Dessert Storm ( due to a SNAFU no replacement had been ordered for years, some bean counter wasn't counting bullets it seems) and some Scandinavian (Swedish or Norwegian forget which) AP had to be purchased from non government Ammunition dealers to equip machinegunners.
At least one Company Commander during Dessert Storm bought AP for his troops out of his own pocket, he being an old money multi millionaire.

The Foreign manufactured AP was so far superior to the US standard AP that new ammunition was designed and developed for our machineguns. Don't know if it can even be fired safely in rifles.

 

[2Ais4U]

Semi-auto is better for combat, 3 round burst is perfect for combat. semi-auto is better for combat because you dont lose accuracy or waste rounds. 3 round burst is perfect because you don waste ammo and you keep most of your accuracy, but three rounds in a row drops most all unarmored targets.

 

[TimboKhan]

a WW2 BAR would have smoked him in seconds without having to take time trying for a headshot, same for a squad armed with FN FAL with AP rounds for that matter. They'd have chewed through his cover so quick he'd have had no time to move out

So, let me get this straight: Somehow the guy managed to take down a SMAW, but yet a BAR would have done the trick? Whats to say that he wouldn't have just shot the BAR gunner? For that matter, why wasn't a SAW used? Actually, if anything, why wasn't a LAW or an M203 used? If the crenellations were wood, the SAW would have chewed right through that, and if it was concrete, the BAR wouldn't have been anymore effective.

The BAR was a good weapon and all, but it isn't magical.

Semi-auto is better for combat, 3 round burst is perfect for combat. semi-auto is better for combat because you dont lose accuracy or waste rounds. 3 round burst is perfect because you don waste ammo and you keep most of your accuracy, but three rounds in a row drops most all unarmored targets.

I can count the number of times on no fingers that we ever used burst in combat. It isn't bad, I guess, but it certainly isn't "perfect". Maybe it's just the Marine in me, but well-aimed shots are the key, not bursting through a magazine and hoping it works.

The "spray and pray" technique favored by terrorists is A: somewhat overstated and B: Not effective. A squad of soliders can stack up spray and pray-ers all day long with well aimed fire. Also, terrorists are perfectly capable of using sights. I will grant that there are terrorists who just run around and spray full mags of ammo willy-nilly, but it is also true that the bigger, more organized terrorist organizations actually provide training to thier people. Perhaps compared to US training it is inadequate, but getting across the general idea of using the sights and taking a shot or two at a time isn't particularly difficult to do. Heck, for that matter, there are terrorist sniper teams that do pretty darn well, all things considered.

 

[Tony Williams]

US .30/06 WW2 AP was a 163 grain Tungsten Carbide core.

I quote from "History of Modern US Small Arms Ammunition", which is the standard work on the subject and goes into great detail about experimental as well as service loadings:

"At the start of 1940 the standard Cal .30 armour-piercing cartridge was the M2...(which) had a 168 grain flat-based bullet loaded to a muzzle velocity of 2,775 fps and designed to penetrate 0.42 in armour at 100 feet. This bullet was made up of a gilding-metal jacket, a lead "T" shot point filler, a steel core and a gilding metal base filler."​

Confusion is frequently caused because the steel is often referred to as "tungsten steel". As the book goes on to say:

"The original tungsten steel core was actually 4% tungsten, called WD-74100 Electric Furnace Steel."​

Manganese-molybdenum steel and high carbon steel were also authorised as substitutes for the tungsten steel; there was apparently little difference in performance.

You will appreciate that there is a huge difference between a steel core containing 4% tungsten and a tungsten carbide core. AFAIK, the only rifle-calibre ammunition with tungsten carbide cores used in WW2 were the German 7.92x57 S.M.k.H. and (possibly) one Soviet 7.62x54R AP type (although I'm not certain of the latter). The high cost of this ammo meant that its used was very limited. Penetration of the 7.92mm was up to 18mm (0.71 in), some 50% better than the steel-cored types, which penetrated 10-12mm.

US 7.62 NATO AP used a lighter Tungsten core of about 150 grain until recently, it was deemed inferior to other available 7.62 NATO AP and the most recent US 7.62 NATO AP Loading uses a 125 Grain bullet at suped up velocities hoping to increase penetration at extended ranges.

I haven't heard much about the newer bullet and its velocity figures are so much higher than you'd expect from a .308 I figure it must use some new technology.

The first US 7.62x51 AP was the M61, which had a steel-cored 150.5 grain bullet fired at 2,750 fps. I have no penetration figures, but these presumably would have been slightly worse than the .30-06 AP due to the lighter bullet. The latest version is the M993, which has a 127 grain tungsten carbide cored bullet of Swedish origin loaded to 2,985 fps, and much better performace as a result. This ammo is reserved for MG use.

 

[BigG]

I think that people who are wise are always looking for the weakness in a current approach and therefore, the assault rifle is going to be outmoded in some situations. The original Soviet concept of massed charges by peasants deemed little more valuable than cannon fodder is not acceptable to Western minds. We do not like to see our boys and girls mowed down like Playstation characters.

 

[ndh87]

Select fire is still useful, particularly when troops are trying to achieve fire superiority. So with that in mind I'd say that the modern combat rifle concept is still perfectly viable.

Maybe some of the modern combat rifles are outdated, but definitely not the concept of the rifles themselves.

 

[Kipling79]

Wow.... this thread has become confusing, to say the least...

but back to the original question: I have had similar thoughts. I have also wondered why firearms with automatic capability are considered to be more lethal and thus made illegal, why our military has removed the auto option from our infantry weapons aside from one SAW per fire team.

The only conclusion I can come up relies on training. An automatic weapon in the hands of a trained marksman is less useful in a majority of tactical situations, while a full auto weapon is likely more useful for an untrained marksman in a majority of situations (civilans, untrained insurgents). But, this theory doesnt explain the complete absence of an auto function on our weapons, since I would think a trained marksman would be trained well enough to judge when to remain in semi auto mode.

There are also other possibilites... perhaps there is a fear of infantry men overshooting (overheating) and rendering the weapon useless in high stress situations? Or maybe it was the cost of ammunition (as suggested above). Or simply the fact that a high stress situation might cause even a trained soldier to regress to the spray and pray method and thus reduce the effectiveness of his training.

i dont know.

 

[BigG]

Apart from overheating the weapon and the inaccuracy already named many times. The BLS of the soldier is 7 mags which = 210 rounds. In any sustained engagement there is a real possibility of running out of ammo. I would say ammo conservation is your friend.

 

[mr.trooper]

The world is becoming more populated. Cities are growing so large they are merging together into single enormous metro areas.

Cities that nobody has ever heard of are now as large as New York was at the turn of the last century.

Rifles are primarily long-range weapons. Normal combat ranges are getting shorter and shorter as time goes on.

I see the M4 and other high cyclic rate carbines remaining in service for quite some times. I see Sub Machine guns becoming more popular, and I see large caliber rifles becoming popular again as marksman's rifles and sniper rifles... But I see full sized assault rifles becoming less desirable, and armys moving away from them....at least the armys that can afford to do so.

 

[Roswell 1847]

The M-2 AP was adopted in August of 1939 with a core of 4% tungsten. The steel alloy was called "WD-74100 electric furnace steel". In February of 1942 a change to a new alloy of manganese-molybdenum steel was authorized to conserve tungsten. High carbon steel was also authorized at this time. Experimental use of tungsten carbide and tungsten alloy steels in .30-06 dated back to at least 1918

So Tungsten Carbide cores were experimental only and the Tungsten Steel cores were phased out due to wartime shortages of tungsten.
Learn something new every day.
This would explain why the AP bullet is listed as either 168 gr or 163 gr according to lot number. The Tungsten steel being heavier.

The first US 7.62x51 AP was the M61, which had a steel-cored 150.5 grain bullet fired at 2,750 fps. I have no penetration figures, but these presumably would have been slightly worse than the .30-06 AP due to the lighter bullet.

Then as far as ammunition usable in battle rifles of those calibers I was correct.

The latest version is the M993, which has a 127 grain tungsten carbide cored bullet of Swedish origin loaded to 2,985 fps, and much better performace as a result. This ammo is reserved for MG use.

I suspect that this new juiced up ammo would not be good for an M14 or other 7.62 NATO caliber main battle rifles, so any AP available for 7.62 NATO rifles is inferior to WW2 .30/06 AP due to lesser bullet weight.

Some of the .30/06 AP I've fired came from Foreign sources. This bullet had two crimping Rings , one for use in .30/06 loads and the other for loading in NATO cases. The Bullet was as far as I could tell Identical to the WW2 AP.
I was told it was in limited use by the French until they phased out remaining .30/06 machine guns left over from WW2.
I think the Israelis made ammo of this general type for .30/06, 7.62 NATO, and possibly for use in captured 7.62X54 weapons. Possibly this was the same ammo as sold to the French at one time.

Penetration of .30/06 AP on building materials, including steel fire doors, Auto bodywork, trees and even poured concrete foundations is amazing.

PS
It take a great deal less time to get off an accurate burst with a BAR than it does to deploy a SMAW.
The crenellations I saw in the video would have been unlikely to have stopped .30 AP, even if of heavy cinder block.

 

[akodo]

How do you expect .45-70 to outrange 7mm Mauser?

The spitzer type bullets were great for cutting through the air at high velocities, resulting in nice flat shooting guns where you could aim them right at the enemy, no need for holding high, aiming at his hat, etc.

All things being equal, at a given weight plus caliber size, spitzers win. However, if you get a heavy enough round nose, less surface area per unit of mass can eventually overcome a sufficiently light spitzer. It's all about extremes.

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/ballistics/sandyhook.htm

2 mile range on a 45-70 is nothing to be sneezed at. But it sure ain't a flat shooter!

 

[Luomu]

I understand that the Finnish (? one of the Nordic countries anyway)term for their military rifles also translates as "assault rifle".

Correct.
Assault rifle in finnish is "rynnäkkökivääri".

 

[Roswell 1847]

Akodo

TECHNOTES:
Model 1893



Action: Turnbolt Repeater
Total length without bayonet: 1,235 mm (48.62 inches)
Total length with bayonet: 1,484 mm (58.43 inches)
Length of barrel: 738 mm (29.06 inches)
Rifling: 4 grooves with one turn in 8.8 inches
Weight: 3.95 kg (8.69 pounds)
Ammunition: 7mm rimless in five round clips
Maximum range 4,000 meters (4320 yards)
Operational range 2,000 meters (2160 yards)
Initial muzzle velocity 680 meters/sec (2203 feet/second)
Charge: 2,5 grams
OverallwWeight of cartridge: 25 grams (0.88 oz.)
Overall length of cartridge 78 mm (3.07 inches)
Weight of projectile: 11.2 grams (.394 oz.)(173 grains)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,300 feet per second
Bayonet: Knife-type, .405 kg (.891 pounds)

From your link

After firing many rounds, the service Springfield and Martini-Henry rounds failed to reach the target at 3,500 yards.

3,500 is far short of 4,320.