Psychology of feelings 

America's weapon of choice. New US weapons: eight of the most promising developments What weapons does America have

MOSCOW, October 13 - RIA Novosti, Andrey Kots.“The latest military developments”, weapons “that no one can imagine”, “brilliant submarines” - this is how Donald Trump described the latest achievements of the American defense industry to reporters last week. He did not provide details, but expressed the hope that all this would not have to be used in the case. About the five most ambitious weapons projects of the future - in the material of RIA Novosti.

Invisible "raider"

In September, the Americans began assembling the first prototype of the newest strategic bomber B-21 Raider. These heavy “invisible” aircraft are manufactured by the Northrop Grumman concern; the start of operation is scheduled for 2025.

Externally, the vehicle resembles the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber: both projects are based on the concept of a subsonic stealth aircraft, built according to the “flying wing” design and capable of carrying missiles or bombs in its internal compartments. One of the main tasks of a bomber is to covertly enter the area where missiles are launched or bombs are dropped to destroy enemy air defense facilities. By destroying air defense lines, the B-21 will allow tactical aircraft to operate in relative safety.

Most of the aircraft's performance characteristics are kept secret. It is known that the combat radius will be about 3,800 kilometers without refueling and more than nine thousand kilometers with refueling. The vehicle will be able to lift up to 12.5 tons of weapons and additional equipment into the air. The cost per unit is estimated at 500-600 million dollars - a significant improvement compared to the B-2, which cost the treasury a billion apiece. Between 80 and 180 of these aircraft should enter service with the US Air Force.

However, things are not going too smoothly with the armament of American strategic aviation. The only air-launched cruise missile with a nuclear warhead in the entire US arsenal is the AGM-86B, created back in the 1980s, with a 200 kiloton warhead and a flight range of about 2.5 thousand kilometers. It is seriously inferior to modern Russian ammunition of this type - the winged X-102, which was put into service in 2013. Their range exceeds three thousand kilometers, and the warhead power varies from 250 to 500 kilotons.

Quiet "Columbia"

By “brilliant submarines,” Trump most likely meant the Columbia project of advanced strategic nuclear submarines. Construction of the lead nuclear submarine is scheduled to begin in 2021. Over time, the Columbias should replace the Ohio submarines in the US Navy, which will begin to be decommissioned in 2027 - one per year. In terms of dimensions, the new boats differ little from their predecessors. The length of the Columbia is about 170 meters, the hull diameter is 13 meters, the underwater displacement is 20,800 tons. Armament - 16 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles (Ohio has 24).

The new generation submarine will receive X-shaped stern rudders, as well as horizontal depth rudders installed on the wheelhouse. Instead of a propeller there is a water-jet propulsion device. The ship's know-how is an all-electric permanent magnet propulsion system, powered by nuclear turbine generators. This design will make the nuclear submarine much quieter than the Ohio.

In total they are going to build 12 submarines. The service life is about 42 years, and the reactors are designed to operate without reloading fuel during the entire operation period. The construction of the lead submarine will cost the American budget $6.2 billion.

To replace Apache

In early October, the American Bell Corporation presented a project for the Bell 360 Invictus combat helicopter, which will take part in the US Army competition under the FARA (Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft) program.

We are talking about replacing the huge fleet of rotorcraft “veterans” AH-64 Apache. So far, Invictus exists only on paper, so journalists were shown not a working sample, but a 3D rendering. The new helicopter will be built on the basis of the civil transport Bell 525 Relentless, which is due to its outstanding speed characteristics: during testing, the car was accelerated to 306 kilometers per hour.


The machine will be compact. The engine was developed by General Electric engineers under the Turbine engine program - GE T901. The architecture of the T700 used on Apaches will remain, but the power will increase by 50 percent. Another feature of the Invictus is a pair of wings that will provide up to half the lift at certain speeds. The helicopter's armament will be hidden in the fuselage, which will improve aerodynamic characteristics and reduce the radar signature of the vehicle. In addition to the new product from Bell, three more projects are participating in the competition. Two “semi-finalists” will be announced in April 2020. They must present flight samples of their projects by 2023.

Light tank

Since 2015, the United States has been developing a promising tracked armored vehicle with MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) artillery weapons. The goal of the program is to create a light tank for expeditionary forces. As practice has shown, heavy Abrams are too bulky and clumsy in urban environments. To support infantry, a more compact and mobile platform is needed.

At the end of September, General Dynamics Corporation demonstrated the first prototype of the MPF program - the Griffin II light tank. Depending on the protection configuration and other features, the combat weight of the vehicle will be 35-38 tons. The Griffin will be armed with a 120-mm smoothbore cannon and two machine guns, and equipped with a modern fire control system. The body of the new chassis will be protected from small-caliber projectiles. The tower of the original design is planned to be covered with hinged modular armor.

© General Dynamics


The state, which does not have a potential enemy near its borders, was able to build powerful armed forces with the most modern weapons. America's military consists of just over a million military personnel (whose training is considered a modern model for most armies on the planet), as well as almost seven hundred thousand civilian employees. Up to five hundred thousand people serve in the ground forces, up to two hundred thousand in the reserve army, and almost four hundred and fifty thousand in the National Guard.

The American army occupies a leading position on the planet in terms of the level of funds spent on it. Thus, the 2016 military budget provided for spending more than $607 billion on the needs of the army, which amounted to more than 34% of global military spending. According to independent sources, this is three times more than China's defense spending and seven times more than Russia's.

General structure of the US Army

The US Army was founded in June 1775 by an act of Congress, it was intended to defend the young independent state. Modern American armed forces include independent types of armed forces:

  • Ground Forces;
  • Air Force;
  • Navy;
  • Marine Corps (MCC);
  • Coast Guard.

Moreover, everyone except the Coast Guard is directly subordinate to the Minister of Defense, the latter is subordinated to the National Security Agency in peacetime, but during martial law is also resubordinated to the Minister of Defense.

The US Constitution provides for the appointment of the President of the State by the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army. He, in turn, controls the national Armed Forces in peacetime, directing the civilian Minister of Defense, who reports to the heads of the sub-services of the Armed Forces. The heads of ministries deal with issues of recruiting, equipping, organizing and supplying the army, and also control the combat training of personnel. The highest military command of the branches of the Armed Forces are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The chairman of this committee resolves issues of coordinating the activities of everything related to the military administration of the state.

The operational subordination of the US Armed Forces is currently reduced to nine unified commands, five of which are formed based on the geographical principle.

Five unified commands:

  • North American;
  • South and Central American;
  • European;
  • Middle Eastern and Asian;
  • Pacific.

All branches of the US Armed Forces located in their areas of responsibility are subordinate to the commanders of these unified commands. The remaining four joint commands do not have their own areas of responsibility.

The Unified Commands include:

  • Strategic Command. Deals with strategic planning issues, controls strategic nuclear weapons;
  • Special Operations Training Command;
  • Strategic Airlift Command;
  • Unified Forces Command. Engaged in combat training in all branches of the Armed Forces.

Recruiting the American Army

The American army is recruited voluntarily and is based on a contract basis. American citizens or permanent residents of the United States of America who have a residence permit and have at least a secondary education are accepted for service. The minimum candidate age for military service is 18 years. However, if you achieve parental approval, you can go to serve at the age of seventeen.

The age limit for active military service is determined for each branch of the US Army. So, for example, the age limit could be:

  • Air Force and Coast Guard - 27 years;
  • Marine Corps - 28 years;
  • Navy - 34 years;
  • Ground forces - 42 years.

Each contract soldier signs a service contract for a period of four to eight years.

National and racial composition

The United States of America is a multinational state. The national composition of the country is represented, in addition to Europeans, by African Americans, Asians and Latin Americans. The same picture is reflected in the formation of the American army.

Thus, according to information from open sources, the following serve in the American Armed Forces:

  • European Americans - 63%;
  • African Americans - 15%;
  • Hispanics - 10%;
  • Asians - 4%;
  • Indians and Alaska Natives - 2%;
  • Others from different mixed marriages - 2%;
  • 4% were undecided on their race or nationality.

It should be noted that the latter group includes those who do not have American citizenship, but have the right to permanent residence in the United States. Most of them join the military because it makes it much easier to obtain American citizenship.

Gender

American military personnel are divided by gender:

  • Men – 86%;
  • Women - 14%.

For many years, it was generally accepted that only officers could be professional soldiers in the American army. However, after the Vietnam War, during the period of army reform in the early seventies, non-commissioned officers and warrant officers received the status of professional military personnel.

Mobilization resources

The total American population is more than 325 million people. This provides the army with extremely large mobilization resources. According to some estimates, mobresources may amount to more than one hundred and ten million American citizens.

Every year, more than four million Americans and American women reach military age. In addition, the state has at its disposal approximately eight hundred and fifty thousand so-called “reservists” of all branches of the military. A separate branch of the military is the American National Guard, formed by reserve groups created by the Army and Air Force. The total number of National Guardsmen in the United States is approximately three hundred fifty thousand military personnel.

Features of service in the US National Guard

A special feature of service in the American National Guard is the combination of service and work in a civilian specialty. Every year, the National Guard accepts approximately sixty thousand American citizens into its ranks. All of them are required to undergo combat training in groups and individually. There are forty-eight programs of four hours each, running on weekends throughout the year.

In addition, National Guardsmen are sent to camp for two weeks to participate in command post and military exercises together with Army units. All employers are officially warned that if they try to prevent National Guard soldiers from carrying out the service and combat tasks assigned by the state, they may even face criminal liability.

In addition to patriotic feelings, Americans are motivated by various benefits provided to those serving in the US National Guard:

  • Increase to pay for accommodation;
  • Increase to pay for treatment;
  • Preferential sale of goods and products in military stores;
  • Refueling at military gas stations (at a price 50% cheaper than the market price);
  • Increase in pension;
  • Other.

Features of US military doctrine

Recently, the American military leadership has proposed concentrating its resources in five important areas:

  • Elimination of terrorism and expansion of weapons of mass destruction;
  • Intelligence;
  • Preparation for information wars, including the protection of one’s information and communications systems, as well as the elimination of similar enemy systems;
  • The struggle for military superiority in the airspace with an emphasis on the development of unmanned aircraft;
  • Development of military space technologies.

At the same time, American military doctrine pays attention to preparations for military clashes during unconventional and hybrid conflicts.

Armament of the US Army, Air Force and Navy

Infantry weapons:

  • Tanks - over eight thousand;
  • Armored combat vehicles - almost twenty-six thousand;
  • Self-propelled artillery guns - almost two thousand;
  • Towed artillery - almost one thousand eight hundred;
  • Missile systems - more than one thousand three hundred.
  • Aircraft - more than thirteen and a half thousand;
  • Fighters - more than two thousand two hundred and twenty;
  • Fixed-wing combat aircraft - more than two thousand six hundred;
  • Military transport aircraft - more than five thousand two hundred;
  • Training aircraft - more than two and a half thousand;
  • Helicopters - more than six thousand;
  • Combat helicopters - more than nine hundred.

Military units and formations

  • A squad consists of nine to ten military personnel, these are US Army soldiers commanded by a sergeant. The smallest structural element in the US Army;
  • Platoon (platoon) - sixteen to forty-four soldiers led by a lieutenant. A platoon consists of two to four squads;
  • Company (company) – sixty-two to one hundred and ninety military personnel. It consists of three to five platoons, the company is commanded by a captain;
  • US Army battalion - three hundred to thousand military personnel. Consisting of four to six companies, the battalion is commanded by a lieutenant colonel;
  • Brigade – three to five thousand military personnel. It consists of three to five battalions led by a colonel;
  • Division - ten to fifteen thousand military personnel. Its usual composition is three brigades, the division is headed by a major general;
  • Corps - two to forty-five thousand military personnel. It consists of two to five divisions, the corps is controlled by a lieutenant general;

    • Chevrons and stripes of the US Army are distinctive signs that are attached to clothing and reflect affiliation with certain structures, official position, type of troops, as well as service in a specific unit. In addition, chevrons with stripes may indicate length of service, terms of study at a military educational institution, military or special ranks in the US Army. They can complement shoulder straps and buttonholes or even replace them. It may also be a rating badge, or "US Army badge."

    If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them

Not so long ago, lenta.ru gave birth to another masterpiece on small arms and weapons topics called “ American experience and Russian machine guns" In all articles Ribbons on this topic, domestic weapons are given a second role, but the leading role in technology, in promising developments, and now experience, is given to Western weapons thought, and, first of all, American. Many well-known personalities in the media space, from bloggers to weapons manufacturers, are noted for their uneven breathing towards the West, but when this uneven breathing is superimposed on outright illiteracy in the topic being covered, and even with a poorly disguised disdain for domestic achievements, this is too much.

Author of the article with the subtitle “Why does the Russian Guard need an assault machine gun?” makes it clear that he will not ask anyone “why”, he will explain to everyone why. Let’s say the author is on topic, but what is an “assault” machine gun? And how does it differ from manual, machine or aircraft? In any case, the state standard for weapons terms 28653-90 does not recognize the term “assault” for rifles, machine guns, or pistols. Okay, weapons terms can be forgiven with due leniency, but how should we approach this: “The Marines purchased several thousand Hecklers to replace the M249 in a number of their units, from where the most complimentary reviews".

What, excuse me, reviews? It must be assumed that a new adjective in the Russian language was created from the word “compliment”. Okay, but then in what context should we consider it? For example, I can tell my object of adoration such compliments about her merits that she has no idea about, but she will immediately become more accommodating. But I won't get distracted.

“In Russia, two new light machine guns of 5.45 mm caliber are being tested at once. One was developed at ZiD by order of the Russian Guard, the other was an initiative development of the Kalashnikov concern, which the military became interested in. In the early 2000s, a similar concept was developed for the United States Marine Corps.”

We are talking about “special weapons for fighting in urban areas and enclosed spaces,” and which should have the ability to quickly change the barrel and combine power - machine gun belt and standard AK-74/RPK-74 magazines.

What is so special about urban and indoor combat that it requires combined power and quick barrel changes? Increased fire density? Indoors? The giraffe is big. The main and obvious thing is that the requirements for the new machine gun are:

largely reproduce the concept of the famous FN Minimi machine gun from the Belgian company FN Herstal.

RP-46, created by A.I. Shilin, P.P. Polyakov and A.A. Dubinin based on the earlier Degtyarev DPM machine gun. The feed from the belt in this machine gun was carried out through an adapter inserted into the receiving window of the receiver.

Czech machine guns CZ 52 and CZ 52/57 (Czech designations vz.52 vz.52/57), differing in the type of cartridge used - Czech 7.62x45 or Soviet 7.62x39 and adopted for service in 1952 and 1957, respectively. Perhaps, these are indeed the first machine guns with combined power supply.

Experienced Korobov machine gun - belt-magazine fed TKB-516M, which participated in the competition of 1955-1958.

In 1971, on the instructions of the GRAU of the USSR Ministry of Defense, development work began on the topic “Poplin”.

Many things that seem obvious to us in familiar designs actually go through many years of elaboration in calculations, prototypes and tests. The amount of work that goes into waste is many times greater than the output of the finished solution. Often the very formulation of the task before the developer is vague and carries a large amount of uncertainty that needs to be eliminated so that it becomes clear - what do we want? Works on the theme “Poplin” are a classic example of this situation.

The need to create a machine gun with a belt feed or with the possibility of a combined one, as an element of increasing overall efficiency, had to be tested in conjunction with the main issue - determining the tactical niche of such a model in the overall weapons system.

The task on the topic was set as increasing combat effectiveness by 1.5 times in relation to the RPK-74. I have already written about what the coefficient 1.5 is and why it cannot be 1.4.

The creation of a machine gun with combined power supply was only one of three solutions to the problem. The other two related to modifications to the RPK-74 itself. This was the development of high-capacity magazines similar to drum magazines for the RPK and disk magazines for the DA, and an adapter device similar to the adapter for the RP-46. The design of the machine gun, while working on it, evolved from a layout with a receiver on the left side and a magazine at the bottom (PU, PU-1) to a layout with a top receiver and a magazine on the left (PU-2, PU-21), together with the concept from " magazine-fed machine gun with the ability to use a belt" to a "belt-fed machine gun, in which if necessary, you can use the store" By the way, the Belgians came to the same opinion. The M249 SAW instruction manual states:

“As an emergency measure, 20 and 30 round magazines can be used in the SAW...”

At a meeting following the “Poplin” topic, the head of the GRAU Small Arms Department, Major General Smolin, said that “GRAU sees no point in returning to high-capacity magazines.” Obviously there were complaints against them regarding the experience of operating the RPK in terms of reliability. It was not for nothing that it was equipped with two 75-round magazines and eight 40-round box magazines. And the weight and size characteristics were not in favor of the drums. Compare the weight of the RPK with an equipped drum magazine - 6.8 kg, with a box magazine - 5.6 kg. The difference is 1.2 kg per 35 rounds. Or the weight of ammunition for 300 rounds in four drums is 6 kg and 4.2 kg for 320 rounds in eight box magazines.

As for the tape, its use in a light machine gun has its drawbacks. Changing a belt takes longer than changing a magazine. The value of this resource especially increases in conditions of combat operations with increased dynamics, for which, in theory, an “assault” machine gun is created. Changing the tape requires more manipulation, which means there is more room for error. In any case, at the mentioned meeting not a word was said about the tape at all. Apparently, the customer saw the modernization of the RPK at the end of the work. The machine gun was tested at TsNIITochmash, which, based on the latest modifications, issued a conclusion on the possibility of bringing its reliability to the level of technical requirements. At the Rzhev training ground, in addition to the tactical and technical characteristics, it was necessary to determine the tactical niche for the launcher, but at the conclusion of the training ground not a word was said about this.

R&D on the topic “Poplin” ended with a negative result. But with what a wonderful negative result! I will mention one fact that the vast majority of readers will remain indifferent. One of the indicators of an automatic weapon that characterizes its reliability is the stability of the bolt frame speed in the rear position. Since with belt feeding, part of the energy of the bolt frame is spent on pulling the belt, ensuring equal speeds for both types of power without using a gas regulator is a very difficult task, and only specialists who know a lot about solving engineering problems can truly evaluate its solution. In the PU-21 machine gun, the difference in speed between the bolt frame and the magazine was only 0.2-0.4 m/s, which ensured equal power reliability for both types. And this is how the phrase from the manual for the American machine gun sounds in full:

As an emergency measure, the SAW can use 20 and 30 round magazines, but this increases the likelihood of delays when firing.

The results of experiments on optimizing automation parameters formed the basis of a Ph.D. thesis, which M.E. Dragunov defended in 1984. As part of the theme, high-capacity drum and disk magazines were developed. I think that the 96-round magazine that comes with the new Izhevsk machine gun did not appear out of nowhere, but I have no doubt that it will be less reliable than the standard 45-round one. A story on the topic “Poplin” on behalf of one of the developers - M.E. Dragunov is described in the magazine “Master Gun”, No. 84, 2004 in the article “Our minimi”. This is highly recommended reading for connoisseurs of engineering romance.

Thus, the appearance of the FN Minimi was not exclusively a Western innovation. The thoughts of our and Belgian engineers developed in the same direction. This was expressed not only in the concept of the machine gun, in which the magazines played an auxiliary function, but also in a similar layout. As Mikhail Evgenievich recalls, our designers even had the idea of ​​patenting the PU-21 layout even before they became aware of the existence of the same one in the FN Minimi.

The further fate of the two machine guns turned out differently. The Soviet development, despite the possibility of bringing its reliability to the required requirements, remained unclaimed by the customer. The Belgian one went into production, but its low reliability and poor functionality did not win the machine gun great fame.

The number one scientist in the field of automatic small arms theory, twice Army General V.G., was the first to speak out about the creation of light machine guns chambered for an intermediate cartridge. Fedorov. In his work “On trends in changes in small arms models of foreign armies based on the experience of the Second World War” in 1944, he wrote:

The introduction of new intermediate cartridges makes it possible to further lighten light machine guns, bringing their weight to 6 kg.

Note that German military thought did not consider the development of light machine guns chambered for an intermediate cartridge at all and, perhaps, was even right in some ways. The adoption of the Sturmgewehr included the abandonment of submachine guns, carbines and light machine guns, including the handbrake MG-42. Although a single MG-42 machine gun on a bipod can hardly be classified as manual due to its low maneuverability due to its excessive weight of 12 kilograms.

The design of an automatic carbine can be taken as the basis - as the main weapon of a fighter, with loading from a clip and inserted magazines; the advantages of this weapon must be observed first of all in comparison with the design of a light machine gun, which, with the adoption of the machine gun, will to some extent lose its former significance and will not be as widespread as in our time.

This short paragraph expresses three thoughts that have been confirmed by the course of history. Firstly, the unification of the light machine gun and machine gun in design. Fedorov was precisely the pioneer in the field of unification. He is known to have developed a light machine gun based on his machine gun. Secondly, store food. Fedorov did not even consider tape feeding, if only for the reason that in this case there could be no question of unification. Thirdly, as practice has shown, light machine guns chambered for an intermediate cartridge, both magazine-fed and belt-fed, do not provide a significant advantage over a machine gun and are not widely used.

And yet, the first RPD light machine gun chambered for an intermediate cartridge was belt-fed. But not much time passed, and during Fedorov’s lifetime what he wrote about happened. For the first time, a unified AK/RPK combination was created. The Americans did not succeed in creating a unified machine gun/light machine gun combination. Eugene Stoner tried to introduce modularity in the Stoner 63 project as a counterbalance to unification. Nothing happened with his project either, but “modularity” has since been another marketing trick and a bugbear for neophytes in online battles on weapons. Eventually the FN Minimi itself appeared, one of its modifications was adopted in the United States as the M249 SAW in 1984.

Apparently, this fact is supported by the conclusions of online encyclopedias such as:

The machine gun (FN Minimi) enjoys deserved popularity for its high mobility combined with firepower, significantly superior to the firepower of such light machine guns as RPK-74, L86A1 and others, built on the basis of machine guns, and not created “from scratch” like machine guns.

Like its predecessor, the RPK-74 is significantly inferior in firepower to foreign small-caliber light machine guns (for example, the FN Minimi, which is very common in the world), since it does not have a replaceable barrel, fires from a closed bolt and has magazines of limited capacity

makes customers from the Russian Guard excitedly walk around the room and look for funds for development. The task that our grandfathers coped with with the help of the PPSh assault rifle degenerated into requirements for a machine gun with combined power supply on the topic “Turner”. Having successfully absorbed 15 million for development on the topic “Turner-1” (which no sane specialist doubted), the topic “Turner-2” was raised for 25 million.

The history of the development of small arms chambered for the American low-pulse cartridge is a series of continuous alterations, compromises, outright failures, the roots of which lie in the shortcomings of the cartridge adopted for service and the ill-conceived design of automatic mechanisms. FN Minimi is one of the pages in this story. Let's start with the fact that, according to the results of the survey, the M249 ranks last in terms of reliability in the entire line of NATO infantry weapons.

In 2001, Marine Corps officer Ray Grundy wrote an open letter expressing what he thought about the machine gun. I am posting excerpts from it:

KMP(US Marine Corps) can learn from the Soviet Army, which in the early eighties decided to get rid of the 7.62 mm belt-fed RPD in its rifle platoons and replace them, Right, Soviet AR RPK. The RPK is the same AK rifle with a longer and heavier barrel, a bipod attached to the barrel, a slightly modified butt (for automatic fire from a prone position) and sector magazine of increased capacity.

Soviet engineers realized the problems arising in the belt-fed compartment and got rid of them..... I fear that we will need to suffer senseless losses in various situations before it dawns on us that the light machine gun is unsuitable as an automatic rifle.

Why was a spare barrel included in the kit? Understanding the M249's fire modes will confirm that a spare barrel is not necessary for its use as an AR. Frequent fire from it for a long time is 85 rounds per minute. Rapid fire is 200 rounds per minute with a barrel change every two minutes. Show me a Marine who can move around and fire 3-5 round bursts at a rate greater than 85 rounds per minute, and that will be a picture of a Marine who misses targets and wastes precious ammo. Briefly speaking, KMP added a spare barrel in vain - it is not needed.

My assessment of the M249 SAW is based on my own field experience. How many times have I seen a SAW shooter forced to stop in an attack to eliminate a delay! The nightmare begins when the feed tray lid is lifted to determine the cause of the delay. Often the tape slips out of the tray and falls into the box. The Marine finds himself in a desperate situation. In addition to finding out the reasons for the delay, he needs to decide what to do with the tape. Do I need to shake this tape out of the box, or is it better to look for a new box? All this time he does not participate in the battle. His weapon does not work, he does not shoot at the enemy and cannot defend himself. His unit continues to advance, but the fire cover it is supposed to provide is missing. In order for the shooter to at least protect himself in such a situation, the KMP must arm the shooter with the SAW with an M9 pistol, just as they arm M240 machine gunners.

I don’t see any logic in continuing to preserve the M249 system. As a general purpose light machine gun it has its merits. This is too heavy a weapon. It violates the interchangeability of the link's ammunition, does not work very well with magazines, only shoots accurately from a bipod and is usually carried in “position three” (cartridges on the feed tray, the bolt in the forward position, the chamber empty, the safety removed) when approaching the enemy due to that we are not confident in this system.

I am convinced that the KMP should conduct comparative tests of the M249 SAW with the corresponding AKMoid, as the Soviet Army did.... Armchair strategists say that I am too harsh in my assessment of SAW. But experience confirms my assessments. Let's not let the souls of the dead remind us that if we had made the necessary decision and replaced the M249 SAW, we would have been more successful and saved their lives.

Let me emphasize once again what experience the American is talking about:

The Marine Corps (MCC) can learn from the Soviet Army...

In May 2011, the KMP decided to purchase for trial operation about four thousand M27 IAR (German HK416 rifle) to replace the M249 SAW. The IAR is an "Infantry Automatic Rifle" - a fighter's automatic rifle that can be equipped with a magazine-fed bipod. At one time, a similar solution was tested in Sudaev and Kalashnikov assault rifles. SAW - “Squad Automatic Weapon” - an automatic weapon of a group of the LMG class - “light machine gun” of light machine guns. Our PKK falls into both of these categories. As we see, the game of terms begins again. For us - if on a bipod, then a machine gun. For Americans, if you can shoot with your hands - a rifle.

Ray Grundy's wish came true. The KMP got rid of the belt-fed machine gun. A four-man Marine team includes a fighter armed with an M27 with 21 magazines of ammunition. Next, there was a natural attempt to complete the evolution of light machine guns - during exercises in August 2016, American Marines tried to use the M27 as a standard weapon to replace the M4. That is, abandon light machine guns in favor of universal infantry weapons. Whether it will be an M27 or something else, based on an AK or AR, it is possible that this will be a completely logical conclusion to one of the rounds of the evolution of small arms.

I don’t know what was said in the “complementary” reviews about the M27 rifle, which lenta.ru writes about. But here are some known facts about this weapon:

According to the results of tests in 2008, preceding the conclusion of an agreement for a limited supply of M27 to the ILC, H&K products were not superior in reliability to those offered by other suppliers. Thus, for FN Herstal products, 26 delays were obtained, for two Colt samples - 60 and 28, H&K - 27 for 7200 shots under not the most difficult conditions, which amounted to 0.38%, which is incomparable to the Soviet 0.2%. In dust tests in 2007, the HK-416 received 3 cartridge case ruptures per 6,000 rounds, which is equivalent to the weapon failing.

With the adoption of the M855A1 cartridge, the M27 began to have problems with it. The average life of the bolts when using the M855A1 did not exceed 6000-7000 shots, the barrel life was 9000 - 10000. In this regard, the M4A1 Carbine bolt surpassed the M27, having worked 9000 and even in one of the tests 13000 before one of the lugs broke. The reason for the breakage of the stops is the same as in the case of a ruptured sleeve - replacing the gas pipeline with a short stroke rod. When the rod hits the bolt frame, a tipping moment occurs.

The work on wear between the surfaces of the bolt and the bolt frame increases, the gap between them increases and a force that works on breaking appears on the lugs.

In addition to reliability, there are two more significant problems:
— the first is maintainability. The M27 comes with factory warranty assemblies. That is, repair of individual components is possible only in the supplier’s factory. Replacing the bolt is only possible with a bolt carrier.
— the second is cost. The price of one copy without a body kit is 3,000 US dollars, and complete with bipod, optics and rangefinders it reaches 5,000. The price of the car is by no means economy class.

Perhaps the corps of elite troops can afford such a dubious whim, but the American army did not even consider replacing the M249 with the M27 for this reason. The same cannot be said about the French, who, having had enough of their FAMAS, seem to have rushed to the other extreme. The Germans gave them a discount on a large batch of HK-416 purchases, but the French had to step on the throat of national pride by purchasing this sample for $4,000.

Resume

With the partial adoption of the M27 by the US Marine Corps, the Americans only came closer to the Soviet experience of the 70s. The level of reliability set by Soviet designers and technologists has not yet been achieved by them. And no wonder. As one philosopher said: “ You can't fart louder than the hole in your butt allows" Constructive miscalculations made during the development of the cartridge and automation circuit set a limit to improvement. Due to technological introductions from chrome plating of the barrel and chamber in the early stages, to modern dry lubricants and nano-coatings, evolution has not budged the main indicator of the weapon in the American rifle.

Operation of the M249 SAW (FN Minimi) belt/combined-fed light machine gun has shown its low reliability. The effectiveness of such a machine gun in terms of accuracy, maneuverability, and reload speed is no better, and sometimes even worse, than a standard machine gun. For this reason, our eventual enemy decided to get rid of it, while we are spending money and resources on creating a similar machine gun, citing the “positive experience of the Americans.” At the same time, the domestic experience gained on the topic “Poplin” is completely ignored.

Maybe it seems to me, but on specialized foreign forums I more often read quite adequate comments from their participants regarding both American and Soviet weapons than on ours. When the message appeared that the Russian Guard ordered Tokar-2 with an eye on the “experience” of the FN Minimi, it plunged many into a permanent state of Sergei Zverev, that is, into shock. I feel their questioning gaze on me. And I don’t know what to answer.

Those remaining in the world, namely the United States and the Russian Federation, spent the first years in relative strategic nirvana. The leadership and people of both countries had a deceptive impression of the ensuing peace, guaranteed for many decades. The Americans considered their victory in the Cold War so convincing that they did not allow thoughts of further confrontation. The Russians did not feel like losers and expected an equal and benevolent attitude towards themselves as a people who voluntarily joined the Western democratic scale of values. Both were wrong. Very soon, a civil war began in the Balkans, in the outcome of which American weapons played a decisive role.

The US leadership considered its success in dismembering the SFRY a good omen. It went further, striving to establish complete hegemony, allowing it to control material resources on a planetary scale, and suddenly at the beginning of the third millennium it came across resistance from Russia, a country that has the will and means to protect its geopolitical interests. The United States was not ready for this confrontation.

Before and during the war

Even on the eve of World War II, the United States was a peaceful country. The American army was not numerous, and its technical equipment remained rather modest. In 1940, a certain congressman boasted that he had seen all the armored vehicles of his country’s armed forces: “All 400 tanks!” - he proudly declared. But even then, certain types of weapons were given priority, and serious achievements by American designers were observed in the field of aircraft construction. America entered the war with a powerful air fleet, which included an armada of B-17 strategic bombers, Mustang and Thunderbolt long-range fighters, and other examples of excellent aircraft. By 1944, the United States began using the latest B-29s in the Pacific Ocean, beyond the reach of Japanese air defense systems. The US fleet was also impressive, powerful, aircraft-carrying and capable of crushing objects remote from the coast.

American ones were supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, and this concept included dual-use equipment. The beautiful Studebaker trucks, Willys and Dodge Three-Quarter jeeps enjoyed the well-deserved respect of Red Army drivers, and are remembered with kind words to this day. American military weapons, that is, those that are means of directly destroying the enemy, were assessed less clearly. The Airacobra fighter, on which the famous ace I. Kozhedub fought, had truly titanic firepower, excellent maneuverability and unprecedented ergonomics, which, combined with a strong engine, contributed to the achievement of many aerial victories. The transport Douglas was also considered a masterpiece of engineering.

Tanks made in the USA were rated quite low; they were outdated both technologically and morally.

Korea and the 50s

The American weapons of the ground forces of the post-war decade were practically no different from those with which the US Army fought against Nazi Germany and practically they were the same Shermans, Willys, Studebakers, that is, either outdated models of armored vehicles, or excellent transport equipment, created by the Detroit auto industry. Aviation is another matter. By joining the race of aircraft, Northrop, General Dynamics, and Boeing achieved a lot, taking advantage of the technological superiority achieved in those years when the fire of war was raging in Europe (and not only). The largest strategic bomb carrier in history, the B-36, was adopted into service by the US Air Force, not without irony called the “Peacemaker.” The Saber jet interceptor was also good.

The USSR soon overcame the gap in the field of fighter aircraft; Soviet tanks remained unquestionably the best in the world for decades, but in many other areas American weapons were superior to Soviet ones. This was especially true for naval forces, which had large tonnage and devastating firepower. And the main factor became nuclear warheads.

The beginning of the atomic race

The arms race truly began after the appearance in the arsenals of the United States and the USSR of a large number of atomic charges and means of delivering them to the target. After the vulnerability of piston-powered strategic bombers was convincingly proven in Korean skies, the parties focused their efforts on other methods of delivering nuclear strikes, as well as technologies for parrying them. In a sense, this deadly ping-pong continues to this day. At the dawn of the arms race, even such joyful events in the history of mankind as the launch of Sputnik and the flight of Gagarin, in the eyes of military analysts acquired an apocalyptic overtones. It was clear to everyone that in the event of a major war, American weapons, even the most modern ones, would not be able to play the role of a deterrent. At that time there was simply nothing to repel the attack of Soviet missiles; all that remained was deterrence provided by the guarantee of a retaliatory strike. And the number of warheads was constantly growing, and tests were constantly taking place, now in Nevada, now on Spitsbergen, now near Semipalatinsk, now on the Bikini Atoll. It seemed that the world had gone crazy and was moving with vigorous steps towards its inevitable death. Thermonuclear (or hydrogen) bombs appeared already in 1952, less than a year later the USSR already presented its answer.

Local wars

Another illusion that arose at the dawn of the Cold War was that fear of a nuclear apocalypse would make it impossible. In a sense, this was true. The American attack on large industrial and military areas of the USSR had the same sobering effect on the Soviet leadership as the missiles deployed in Cuba had on J. Kennedy. An open military conflict between the two superpowers never occurred. But the horror of the inevitable end did not prevent humanity from fighting almost continuously. The best American weapons were supplied to the pro-Western allies of the United States, and the USSR almost always responded to these actions by “providing fraternal assistance” to one or another freedom-loving people fighting against imperialism. It should be noted that the practice of such (often gratuitous) supplies to friendly regimes was stopped even before the collapse of the Union due to economic problems that arose. However, while the allies of the USSR and the USA were fighting among themselves, analysts had no doubt about the relative parity of the superpowers' weapons systems. In some cases, the domestic defense industry has demonstrated superiority over overseas ones. American small arms were inferior in reliability to Soviet ones.

Why doesn't the US attack Russia?

Unlike the Soviet and Russian defense industries, which have always been predominantly owned by the state, American arms firms are privately owned. Military budgets (or rather, their ratio) indicate that the US armed forces should be the most powerful in the world. The history of recent decades leads to the conclusion that their use is inevitable against an obviously weak enemy in the event of dissatisfaction with the American administration with the policies of a particular state declared a rogue state. The budget of the US Armed Forces in 2014 amounted to an astronomical amount of 581 billion dollars. The Russian figure is many times more modest (approximately 70 billion). It seems that conflict is inevitable. But it is not there, and it is not in sight, despite serious tensions with the superpowers. The question arises as to how much better the American army's weapons are than the Russian ones. And in general - is it better?

Judging by all the signs, the United States currently does not have superiority (at least overwhelming), despite the gigantic amounts of military appropriations. And there is an explanation for this. It consists of the main goals and objectives of the American military-industrial complex.

How does the American military-industrial complex work?

It's all about private ownership. American arms manufacturers are interested in observing the fundamental law of capitalist society, for which His Majesty Profit is the main shrine. Technical solutions that require little, even brilliant ones, are usually rejected outright. The new must be expensive, technologically rich, complex, and have an impressive appearance so that taxpayers can, after admiring it, be convinced that their hard-earned money was not wasted.

While there is no major war, it is difficult (if not impossible) to assess the effectiveness of these samples. And against a technically weak enemy (such as Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya or Afghanistan), using the wonders of technology is generally a win-win. Apparently, the US Army is not going to fight a strong enemy. At the very least, it is not making technical preparations for an attack on China, India or Russia in the near future. But spending budget funds on promising secret American weapons is a win-win, but very profitable. The general public is promised hypersonic missiles and fantastic unmanned aircraft. The latter already exist, for example the Predator in strike and reconnaissance versions. True, it is unknown how effective they will be in the face of powerful air defense. Over Afghanistan and Libya they were relatively safe. The newest stealthy Raptor interceptors are also untested in combat, but they are so expensive that even the American budget cannot support them.

The main trend of recent decades

The already mentioned relaxation that came after the victory in the Cold War prompted a change in the structure of spending of the US military budget in favor of preparation for a series of local wars planned in order to achieve a new geopolitical picture beneficial for the US and NATO. from the Russian side since the beginning of the 90s it has been completely ignored. The weapons of the American army were created taking into account their use in precisely such conflicts, which are close in nature to police operations. Advantage was given to tactical means to the detriment of strategic ones. The United States still holds the world lead in the number of nuclear warheads, but most of them were manufactured a long time ago.

Despite the fact that their service life has been extended (for example, the Minutemen - until 2030), even the most cheerful optimists are not confident in their ideal technical condition. The US plans to begin developing new missiles only in 2025. Meanwhile, the Russian state did not miss the opportunity to improve its Against the backdrop of the emerging lag, the American leadership is making attempts to create systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, and are trying to move them as close as possible to the borders of the Russian Federation.

American missile defense systems

According to the plan of overseas strategists, the most likely enemy in a proposed global conflict should be surrounded on all sides by means of detecting and intercepting ICBMs, combined into a single complex. Ideally, Russia should also fall under a kind of “umbrella” woven from invisible satellite orbits and radar beams. New American weapons are already stationed at many bases in Alaska, Greenland, and the British Isles, and they are continuously being modernized. An extensive warning system for a possible nuclear missile strike is based on AN/TPY-2 radar stations located in Japan, Norway and Turkey, countries that have common borders or are closely adjacent to Russia. The Aegis early warning system was installed in Romania. According to the SBIRS program, 34 satellites are being launched into orbit according to plan.

Space resources (both literally and figuratively) are spent on all these preparations, but their real effectiveness raises certain doubts due to the fact that Russian missiles can overcome the most modern missile defense systems - both existing and being created, and even planned.

"Trunks" for export

American advanced weapons account for approximately 29% of global defense exports. Russia is coming “on the heels” of the United States with its 27 percent. The reason for the success of domestic manufacturers lies in the simplicity, efficiency, reliability and relative cheapness of the products they offer. In order to promote their goods, Americans have to act in different ways, including using political influence on the governments of importing countries.

Sometimes simplified and cheaper designs are developed for the foreign market. American small arms, which in most cases are modifications of time-tested and combat experience-tested models that have been in service since the Vietnam War (M-16, M-18 rapid-fire carbines), enjoy well-deserved success in many countries. The newest “barrels” are considered to be the P-226 pistol, the Mark 16 and 17 assault rifles and other successful designs developed in the 80s, but in terms of popularity they are far from the Kalashnikov due, again, to their high cost and complexity.

"Javelin" - American anti-tank weapon

The use of guerrilla warfare, the complex nature of the modern theater of war, and the advent of compact man-portable weapons have revolutionized the science of tactics. The fight against armored vehicles has become one of the most important tasks. Due to the expansion of the geography of local conflicts in the world, the demand for American anti-tank weapons is possible. The reason for the shift in import channels is not primarily the superiority of overseas samples over Russian ones, it lies in political motives. The Javelin anti-tank missile system has recently become most famous in connection with negotiations on possible deliveries from the United States to Ukraine. The new complex costs $2 million and includes a sighting and launch system and ten rockets. The Ukrainian side agrees to purchase used units, but at a price of $500 thousand. How the negotiations will end and whether the deal will take place is still unknown.

Weapons have always been one of the most sensitive topics of discussion. Some argue that it was created for killing, others - for protection. No matter how heated the dispute may be, both sides are right in their own way. This article will talk about American weapons. After all, both world wars could not have happened without it. In addition to them, there is also the Vietnam conflict, and, of course, the war in Syria.

A little history

Due to the relatively distant location of the United States from the main theater of war during World War II, American industry made a significant leap (compared to the European countries involved in the conflict) from the fall of 1939 to the fall of 1943 due to the large number of orders for the development, production and supply of weapons.

Based on the report of Jerzy Potocki, who was the Polish ambassador to the United States in 1939, American propaganda reached such heights that the people fully accepted the need to concentrate efforts on the military industry, relegating even their own need for national defense to second place.

M1911

First of all, we should mention the creation of John Browning, which was in service with the US Army from 1911 to 1985. The Colt 1911, better known as the "Colt", gained worldwide fame thanks to popular Western films and television series about the police.

It is worth noting that the transition from revolver-type pistols to self-loading ones was not made so quickly. This is all due to the conservative views of the American Department of Defense at that time. Drum weapons worked well, so they were abandoned with great reluctance. Moreover, this policy applied to both the weapons of American police and military personnel. The changes did not take place immediately.

However, by 1911, Smith and Wesson revolvers were replaced by self-loading weapons. The new product had a mass of 1.12 kg, a length of 216 mm, and the barrel was 127 mm. The width was 30 mm, and the height was as much as 135.

The magazine contained 7 charges, and a bullet fired from such a pistol reached a speed of up to 252 m/s. Sighting range - 50 meters.

An improved version is also being produced, labeled MEU (SOC) pistol for US Marine units, which has an aiming range of 70 meters. And also the already mentioned company Smith & Wesson has its own modification called SW1911. It differs from the original in that it is produced in two calibers: 9 mm for the Luger and .45 ACP for the original M1911.

This American pistol is in use to this day; many companies around the world produce both improved models and outright “clones” under a different label. The weapon was used in all armed conflicts after 1911.

Springfield M1903 rifle

American weapons were not always removed from service at the appointed time. This happened with the Springfield M1903 repeating rifle. The model was put into service in 1903, and in 1936 it was decided to completely rearm the troops, replacing the rifle with the M1 Garand. Due to the outbreak of World War II, not all members of the personnel had time to change weapons, so some US Army soldiers went through the entire war with the Springfield M1903.

The kit included a bayonet developed in 1905, which was replaced in 1942 by a model designated M1. An interesting feature is the fact that in the same year, this American firearm received another attachment - a rifle grenade launcher, which made it possible to throw grenades over a long distance.

The weight of the rifle was almost 4 kg (3.95 to be precise), the total length was 1098 mm, with a barrel length of 610 mm. The capabilities made it possible to fire 15 shots per minute, the bullet reached a speed of up to 760 m/s, and the target range was 550 meters. The maximum possible firing range is 2743 meters.

This American weapon was equipped with a mechanical sight, the magazine held five rounds. The caliber was marked as .30-06, which in the domestic classification is 7.62 × 63 mm.

Rifle grenade launcher

This “body kit” became widespread during the First World War. Moreover, not only American weapons in Europe were equipped with this. It was used by all participants in the conflict who had at least some rifles in service.

This is due to the fact that the battles were characterized by positionality. Often the distance between the trenches of the opposing sides was little more than the throw of a hand grenade. Therefore, in order not to leave their trenches, the soldiers had to resort to tricks.

A thin wire or an old ramrod was welded to the grenade, and then threaded onto the rifle barrel. A blank shot ignited the gunpowder, and the released energy pushed the grenade out. A homemade shank quickly rendered the weapon barrel unusable, so small hand-held mortars were developed for such purposes.

In 1941, the M1 Grenade Launcher, firing 22 mm rifle grenades, was developed and entered service with the US Army.

M1 Garand

As mentioned above, American small arms were subject to re-equipment, but due to the war it was not possible to completely rearm all soldiers. The new rifle almost completely replaced the Springfield only in 1943.

It has proven itself to be an easy-to-use and reliable weapon in combat operations. Unlike its predecessor, it was equipped with an optical sight and weighed more - 4.32 kg. The length differed from the Springfield by only 7 mm (1105 mm, when the old model had 1098 mm), while the barrel was not shortened or lengthened - it remained 610 mm.

If we compare the remaining characteristics of the two rifles, a clear step forward in terms of performance is noticeable:

  • the initial bullet speed changed from 760 to 865 m/s;
  • the sighting range remained unchanged - 550 m;
  • the maximum decreased to 1800 meters.

On the last point, it is worth noting that the Springfield M1903’s lack of an optical sight would hardly allow it to shoot at the stated distance of 2743 meters, so the new variation is much closer and more down-to-earth to combat conditions.

The type of ammunition and the type of cartridges have changed. In addition to the already existing Springfield caliber, the English cartridge .276 Pedersen was added, and in the post-war period, until 1957, the US Navy used a cartridge labeled T65 (7.62 × 51 mm NATO).

Accordingly, standard ammunition came in clips of 8 pieces in a bundle, and .276 Pedersen - in clips of 10.

M1 Carbine

And this is no longer a rifle, but a light self-loading carbine. Developed for the needs of US and allied soldiers during the war. It entered service in 1942 and served valiantly until the sixties.

Intended for military personnel who do not directly participate in hostilities: drivers of all kinds of equipment or crews of artillery pieces. According to US Army doctrine, it is easier to train a soldier to use a carbine than a Colt 1911 pistol. Therefore, this particular weapon served as a kind of “means of self-defense.” This was intended to be used in the event of close contact with the enemy and short-range combat. For example, breaking through the defense and moving the enemy towards the artillery crew locations.

In view of the above, the range of the product was only 300 meters, while the box magazine contained from 15 to 30 rounds. The carbine was similar in appearance to the M1 Garand, fired single shots, had an effective range of 600 meters, caliber 30 Carbine (7.62 × 33 mm), and weighed only 2.36 kg (of course, without cartridges). Reached a length of 904 mm from the beginning of the butt to the tip of the barrel. The barrel itself was 458 mm.

"Tommy Gun"

American machine guns originate from this gun. The Thompson submachine gun, known from Western gangster films, was widely used by reconnaissance and airborne units of the US armed forces during World War II, the Korean conflict, confrontations in Yugoslavia, and the Vietnam War.

It was used by the British in 1940 during the war in Italy and Africa, and copies supplied under Lend-Lease found wide use among USSR soldiers.

This American special forces weapon was quite bulky. Weight is almost five kilos (4.8 kg, to be more precise), length is 810 mm (of which the barrel was 267 mm). Caliber 11.43 mm. I fell in love with it due to the ability to use both a box magazine for 20-30 rounds and a drum for 50-100.

However, the soldier still had to carry a large amount of ammunition with him, because with a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute, the magazine had to be changed quite often.

The target range is only 100 meters, and the maximum is 750. The bullet reached a speed of up to 280 m/s.

Browning M2

This heavy machine gun can easily be called a modern American weapon. Developed back in 1932, this killing machine is still in use today. In addition to World War II, it was used in the Gulf War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

It has a number of variations: anti-aircraft, infantry and aviation. Each option is designed according to the scope of application and type of military service.

Firing is carried out with large-caliber 12.7 × 99 mm cartridges, which are fed by a loose-type machine gun belt. Due to its impressive weight (38.22 kg), it is mainly mounted on the hulls of military equipment. Together with the machine it weighs 58.6 kg. The length of the product is 1653 mm, of which 1143 are allocated to the barrel.

The target range is 1830 meters, the bullet is capable of reaching speeds of up to 895 m/s. But the rate of fire differs from one model to another depending on the type:

  • a conventional military machine gun marked M2HB is capable of firing from 485 to 635 rounds per minute;
  • another version of the product, intended for aviation (AN/M2), has indicators from 750 to 850;
  • its aviation counterpart, modernized under the designation AN/M3, already has 1,200 rounds per minute.

Browning M2 sniping

An interesting point when using this machine gun is the attempt to mass produce a model with a sniper scope. It all started with an incident during the Vietnam War when a soldier named Carlos Hatchcock successfully hit a man-sized target at a distance of 1700 meters (according to another version 1830 meters). The distance was twice the maximum firing range of conventional rifles. A specially formed evaluation commission checked the shooter’s results, they were confirmed, and a new world record was set.

With this news, American propaganda successfully raised the morale of the soldiers, and models with a mounted sight began to be produced. But this did not justify itself. There are not so many unique people in the US Army who are capable of using this machine gun for other purposes. And it’s unlikely that anyone would engage in training in sniper shooting with this weapon, so the initiative was quickly stopped. But the idea arose of creating a line of sniper rifles based on the Browning M2 machine gun. The idea was never realized, because in 1982, rifles from the Barrett company proved themselves very well, and the need to develop the above innovation quickly disappeared. By the way, the “Barrett” is used by the Americans to this day along with the Browning M2, although the latter is an American weapon of World War II.

Nevertheless, rumors about the “sniper-machine gunner” were overgrown with new fables. The world record set by Hatchcock lasted until 2002, when a hit was recorded at a target at a distance of 3000 meters.

Browning M1918

It’s hard to call this gun anything other than a “mutant.” Something between a machine gun and a rifle. But for the latter it has too much weight, and for a machine gun it has too little ammunition in the magazine. It was originally conceived as an infantry machine gun that could be used by soldiers going on the attack. In combat conditions in the trenches, bipods were attached to the product. It served in service until the fifties, after which it began to be withdrawn from service and replaced with the M60.

Grenade launcher

If we compare Russian and American weapons from the Second World War, domestic weapons immediately come to mind, without which this war would hardly have been won: the Shpagin submachine gun (PPSh), the Degtyarev machine gun. This weapon became something of a calling card of the USSR. However, it should be mentioned that the United States also has a weapon model that has become a household name. And this is not an American Colt pistol.

This is "Bazooka" - the name of an anti-tank grenade launcher, which was, in fact, a portable rocket launcher. The projectile had its own jet engine.

It was used for combat both in open areas and in urban conditions. Used by the Americans to combat German heavy armored vehicles. It was put into service in 1942 and is still in use today, which is why it is considered modern.

It has a mass of 6.8 kg, a length of 1370 mm, and a caliber of 60 mm. A projectile fired from this cannon has an initial speed of 82 m/s. The maximum possible firing range is 365 meters, but the most effective distance is considered to be 135 meters.

The projectile itself had a cumulative part that weighed less than a kilogram (700 grams), the length of the entire ammunition was 55 cm, and the total weight did not exceed two kilos (1.59 kg, to be exact).

The word "Bazooka" itself was borrowed from a musical wind instrument that was invented by the American comedian Bob Burns in the twentieth century.

M-20

Technical progress did not stand still; American weapons often underwent changes during the war due to the enemy’s use of more powerful and high-quality analogues. Thus, faced with the facts of the Germans using “Panzerschrecks” (a German analogue of a grenade launcher, which exceeded the American one in terms of performance), the US Army command upgraded the standard grenade launcher to the “Super Bazooka” towards the end of the war.

The new sample was marked M-20, the caliber was 88.9 mm, the weight of the projectile was 9 kg, and the mass of the product itself was 6.5 kg.

This grenade launcher successfully remained in service with the US Army until the end of the sixties. It was also successfully used in Vietnam. However, due to the complete lack of heavy equipment from the enemy, it was used to destroy enemy fortifications, fortifications and communications centers. It was gradually withdrawn from service due to the transition to the use of the M72 LAW, a disposable anti-tank grenade launcher.

The M20 itself took pride of place in warehouses storing decommissioned weapons, and on the shelves of various historical museums around the world next to the Smith and Wesson revolver.

Conclusion

Over time, not only American assault rifles have undergone changes. In the global arms market, interest in machine guns with replaceable power supply has sharply increased.

The transition from using a belt to a magazine was due to the fact that to use American weapons (and not only American ones) with belt feed, a crew of two people was required. Machine gun boxes were invented later, which led to a reduction in the crew to one infantryman. But the tapes often got stuck and the weapon had to be disassembled. Also, fragments of the machine gun belt, although light, are susceptible to rust, which leads to rapid failure of both the belt itself and the mechanism for feeding the cartridge into the chamber. Using a magazine limits the number of rounds used and increases the amount of ammunition the average soldier can carry.

The Belgian FN Minimi machine gun has won worldwide recognition. In 1980, it was adopted by the US Army under the designation M249 SAW. The model occupied a leading position in the world market for a very long time, satisfying the demands of customers who focused on weapons with replaceable power supply.

Meanwhile, in September 2016, at the international Russian arms exhibition Army-2016, a development by domestic designers was presented that could supplant the aforementioned machine gun. We are talking about an innovative model - RPK-16. The new domestic Kalashnikov light machine gun is capable of “feeding” both with the help of a machine gun belt and a regular horn from an AK-74 with 5.45 caliber cartridges.

The tactical and technical characteristics of the new product are classified, but there is every chance to assume that the machine gun-rifle (this is the nickname already assigned by the designers) will open a new branch in the development of the arms market and displace the established “Belgian” FN Minimi from its place.

Time will tell what will happen in the end. All you have to do is wait and follow the news.