Once upon a time firearms revolutionized the human condition. In particular in the context of war they eventually replaced almost all hand-to-hand fighting. Today bayonets and fighting knives are an afterthought or retained for niche situations. Firearms are so ingrained in our very assumptions about armed conflict that we imagine people in the future still using manual small arms, albeit based on beam weapon technology rather than gunpowder and bullets.
But are automated drones a new paradigm, one that might actually make battlefield small arms obsolete? Will the soldier of the future be a drone tender, with the very idea of a man with a rifle being as outdated as swords?
It’s entirely possible, but a lot will depend on if anyone can come up with an effective defense against drones.
All warfare is an arms race between attack and defense. Weapons improve, so armour and the like improves. Tanks changed the balance in WWI, making actual breakthroughs possible, but by WWII, we had man-portable weapons that could kill tanks.
Shooting down a drone with a rifle is kind of hard. But what if we could develop a super-shotgun kind of weapon, that fills the air with enough small, fast-moving bits of stuff that we would increase the hit rate to a decent percentage of shots? Airborne drones are, of necessity, not well-armoured, since weight is a factor for any flying machine. Make the drone heavy enough to survive such a blast, and maybe it becomes too large and slow to be effective.
I’ve wondered if some genius had invented the panzerfaust six weeks after tanks were introduced whether tanks would have continued development at all.
In addition to the famous M134 “minigun” which fires 7.62mm, there was an experimental XM214 “microgun” which fired 5.56. What if we took that down further? About the smallest centerfire cartridge currently extant is the 4.6x30mm HK, used for personal defense weapons. Develop a gatling gun for it and include tracer rounds.
It would be easier to strike a drone with another drone, one trained to track it and crash into it. Or some kind of beam weapon to fry its electronics.
Although there is some experimentation with guns, my understanding is that the vast majority of offensive drones are kamikazes, detonating an explosive charge on impact.
I doubt guns will ever be obsolete. In a close-in situation, one may need something only a firearm can provide, and that is instant line-of-sight firepower.
Furthermore, a bullet can take out an enemy much faster than a drone. A police sniper, for instance, may need to kill a hostage-taker terrorist with a bullet to the head during the 1-2 seconds that that terrorist has moved his head into a vulnerable position. A drone couldn’t get there in time.
On top of that, bullets are aimed according to the intention and placement of the shooter, but if you face a situation needing target discrimination, how do you know drones won’t slay terrorists and hostages alike?
It could be like the OP’s example of the bayonet. What was a primary battlefield weapon for a couple of centuries is now a niche weapon, used only in specific circumstances.
And of course, the problems of civilian policing are different from the problems of fighting a war. No reason to suppose that they’d have the same solutions.
I assume the future of warfare is drones/robots armed with various kinds of projectile weapons and explosives.
For one, that reduces the emotional toll of war on the invading country. Nobody cares if millions of drones die. The drones themselves don’t develop complex mental and physical health issues after the war either
Also you don’t have to worry about a manpower shortage. Ukraine produces something like 4 million drones a year. You aren’t limited to how many biological bodies you can corral up.
I think projectile based weapons will still serve a role, but I’m guessing human soldiers will be mostly phased out and autonomous robots and drones that are either armed with projective weapons or kamikaze explosives will do most of the fighting. That would be my guess.
I don’t see what purpose humans will serve in war eventually. Robots will have better aim, be able to spot threats faster, and nobody cares if they die. However battery range would be a massive issue. Also I don’t know if there are some raw materials that are a limiting factor for global production. So who knows.
In the interim we may see more things like humans with small arms, but an augmented reality headset will help identify threats and the firearms will have auto-aim capabilities.
But long run, I don’t know if firearms like a 5.56 which has a range of maybe 500 meters will still play a role or not.
There’s always the flip side, that comes up in any number of sci-fi short stories or even films.
At some point, the cost of keeping quality, effective, re-useable drones may become so high, and so valuable, that human troops become a cheaper option. Especially in nations that may have a shortage of materials.
Not saying it will happen - a great deal can be done with cheapish drones. But if it does become the way of the future, to any society that has a lot of cheap manpower and little political duty to said population… I wouldn’t rule it out.
In other words, back to the cycles @Horatius mentioned.
Small arms like rifles need not necessarily be completely manual. Imagine a computerized smart scope and trigger system that helps you hit your targets accurately under battlefield conditions.
Wars are won by destroying, or threatening to destroy, what the other side does care about. So it seems likely that the role of humans would be as targets.
There will always be a place for armed soldiers. Commando raids (e.g., breaking in to Bin Laden’s compound), guerilla tactics, scout patrols, etc.
Plus, there’s the inconvenience that drones can only fly a limited distance and carry a limited amount of ammunition, then they have to turn around and go back before they can continue. Sure, you can make bigger drones, but that makes them bigger targets.
Drones can’t function very well in indoor, covered, or heavily forested areas. They can’t maneuver well, and radio comms degrade very quickly the more walls and other obstructions are involved. These situations will always belong to humans. Or, a humanoid robot that’s capable of fighting as autonomously as a human.
In the 1950s, the United States Army was a little worried nuclear weapons would make them largely obsolete. It’s very difficult to predict the future, but I don’t see drones replacing human soldiers. Drones will augment soldiers on the battlefield, but until we get a drone that can operate with its boots on the ground like a human, we’re going to need humans to fight wars.
People have been saying that infantry are obsolete since the end of WWII. “Tanks will replace soldiers,” then “planes will replace soldiers,” “helicopters will replace soldiers,” and so and so forth. And yet, 11Bullet-catchers are still as present as ever in modern militaries. “Drones will replace soldiers” is just the newest resurgence of the same idea that somehow new technology will completely replace infantry on the battlefield.
Nonetheless, drones seem to be inflicting devastating losses; albeit against one of the lowest quality armies fielded in modern times, and anti-drone measures are still in their infancy.
