As warfare evolves, the machine gun will always be needed. The technology surrounding it may change, but the basic requirement remains the same. One area where Russia has taken a noticeably different path from many Western countries is machine gun belts. Russian PK and PKM belts can be a headache for many Western users, and you can trace much of that design back to the Second World War and the Soviet SG-43. During its development, Soviet designers studied what the Finns were doing with their Maxim guns, as well as the German approach to feeding the MG34 and MG42 with metallic links. Had Soviet observers paid closer attention to developments in the United States during the war, they might have recognized that factory-loaded, in all flavors, and disintegrating belts seen with .50 linked ammunition during the war were becoming increasingly common in the West.
When the SG-43 entered service in 1943, it represented a major step away from the traditional Maxim-style cloth belt. Instead, it used metallic, non-disintegrating links. The system worked well, and the basic concept became deeply embedded in Soviet and later Russian machine-gun designs as they kept what was familiar and worked for them.
Today, the most common PK-series belts worldwide are the traditional 200- to 250-round belts. Shorter 100-round belts are also designed around the gun-mounted ammunition can, while the more desirable 25-round belts are seemingly less common. Those shorter belts eliminate one of the most annoying features of a long, non-disintegrating belt: the empty belt and links trailing out of the weapon. It doesn't sound like the end of the world until you run one with a long belt.
One interesting feature of the PKM system is that the belt doesn't require the same level of attention to orientation as some Western systems do. There is no need to constantly worry about the equivalent of “brass to the grass.” But, as with everything in weapons design, there are trade-offs. Some Western nations also use non-disintegrating belts for training, with the ability to swap to disintegrating belts for combat use.
Personally, I prefer factory-loaded belts, using disintegrating links. If I had to choose between a PKM and an M240 purely on the belts and preloaded links, I would take the M240 because of the advantages of factory-prepared belts, though the gun is much heavier, so it's a trade-off.
The Soviet preference for non-disintegrating belts has carried over into newer weapons. One example is the 5.45mm RPL-20 light machine gun, which uses a similar belt concept. Rather than relying on a conventional disintegrating link system, the RPL-20 continues the Russian preference for a non-disintegrating belt. From the videos released, they also use long, continuous 100-round belts, not the short 25-round sections seen with the PKM.
The realities of the war in Ukraine are now testing that design choice. One lesson from the conflict is that ammunition packaging and belts matter. Getting large quantities of ammunition forward is already difficult enough. Once the ammunition reaches the front, having soldiers open ammunition cans and manually load belts in the front and trenches adds another task at exactly the wrong place and time. A soldier at the front has plenty of things to do without becoming an ammunition loader to load non-disintegrating PKM belts. Having run both PKM and Western machine guns like the M240 and M249 extensively, I can say factory-preloaded belts are the way to go, especially for combat.
This is where the difference between traditional Soviet-style belts and Western disintegrating belts becomes more than an issue of convenience. Factory-loaded belts can reduce the amount of preparation required before ammunition reaches the gunner. They also eliminate some of the problems associated with handling long, continuous belts.
Historically, the Soviets experimented with metallic disintegrating links early on (ShKAS pre-WWII) and again in the 1960s-70s with the PK/PKM, looking at disintegrating and lightweight belts. The U.S. also experimented with lightweight belts in the 1970s; they found advantages but also that it would require redesigning the weapon rather than using the standard push-through disintegrating M13 links.
The problem was that changing the ammunition belt was not necessarily as simple as replacing one belt with another. Lightweight belts could offer advantages, but fully exploiting them could require changes to the weapon's feeding mechanism. That made the standard M13-style disintegrating-link system attractive because it was already established across a large family of Western machine guns.
The RPL-20 is particularly interesting because it represents a modern Russian attempt to produce a lightweight 5.45mm belt-fed machine gun. Developed in 2020 and later associated with combat trials in Ukraine, it retains the basic non-disintegrating-belt, long, continuous 100-round belts. But reports and observations from Russian units suggest the RPL-20 has disadvantages. This applies to any weapon, but belts can become troublesome when exposed to mud, dirt, and other debris, and they require cleaning before reloading. A long connected belt can also snag on equipment, vegetation, trench walls, and other obstacles. And once the belt has been fired, the gunner has to deal with the empty belt rather than simply leaving individual links behind as the weapon fires.
Russian discussions surrounding the RPL-20 have also highlighted the value of operating two light machine guns within a squad. When two machine guns open fire together, the combined volume of fire can provide much more effective suppression and allow the rest of the squad to maneuver. The concept itself is hardly revolutionary; Western militaries have been incorporating two automatic weapons into infantry squads for decades. The difficulty is that modern trenches are cramped, dirty, and unpredictable. Maneuvering a belt-fed weapon through narrow positions is not always easy, particularly when everything is covered in mud and surrounded by debris, roots, and garbage in the trenches.
Interestingly, Russian forces have also shown interest in captured Western weapons, including FN Minimi light machine guns. One attraction is the ability to use an alternative feed, which is not new to them, but the disintegrating belts are. With the Russian exposure to Western weapons and ammunition, we may see new developments on their end to take advantage of what they can from captured Western equipment.
Another interesting Russian development is the OTs-142, a 5.45mm light machine gun featuring an unusual feature that manages the empty, non-disintegrating belt. Rather than simply allowing the belt to trail away from the weapon, it is designed to feed the empty belt back into a weapon-mounted ammunition pouch. This sounds neat, but I'm curious if this could lead to the belt getting snagged while feeding. That is an inventive solution, but it also highlights the underlying problem: if the belt itself creates issues, why not address the belt rather than live with the same type of belt that creates more problems?
The bigger question is what comes next. Even after the RPL-20 entered combat trials, there have been calls for a more capable light machine gun with an alternative-feed capability similar to Western designs such as the Minimi. That suggests Russia is again at least aware of the advantages offered by disintegrating belts.
Looking ahead, we still see modern machine guns being developed around non-disintegrating belts. The RPL-20 is a good example. While the system may work perfectly well under controlled conditions, long non-disintegrating belts can become catchy during actual combat, particularly in trenches and other confined environments. Though PKM belts have been used worldwide, they have shortcomings. They may experiment with disintegrating belts for the RPL-20; time will tell.
If you prefer non-disintegrating belts, they can certainly work. But in modern combat, there is a strong argument for disintegrating, factory-loaded belts. Pre-loaded belts reduce ammunition preparation at the front, eliminate the need to load belts manually in fighting positions, and make it easier to link more belts together if needed to support operations. This comes down to whether they really want to integrate good machine gun doctrine.
Ultimately, the belt may seem like a minor part of the machine gun, but it can greatly affect how that weapon is used. The PK and its belts have served for decades, and there is no question that they work. But warfare has changed, and Ukraine is providing another real-world test of every part of the infantry system, including something as simple as how ammunition gets into a machine gun. For Russia and other countries still operating legacy Soviet-designed machine guns, the future may eventually require looking beyond the traditional belt. The machine gun itself may not need to change dramatically. The ammunition system, however, could offer some of the biggest improvements.
