schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Oh, please. As if a guy with a SMG and 60-100 rounds of ammo is going to "overwhelm and suppress" an enemy armed with an assault rifle and 2-3 times as much ammo, let alone one armed with a belt-fed machine gun.

Of course this is possible just as it is possible with a SMG. In a supprise contact at short range anyone opening up in full auto will most likely cause the opponent to dive for cover. Which means he is supressed. Even if only for a short while. The time gained will be enough for the PDW user to bolt and for his mates to man their vehicles or heavy weapons.

The trouble is, you're only looking at one hypothetical scenario which is favorable to your position.

Yes, if the PDW user surprises the enemy rifleman/machine gunner, he can briefly suppress them.

But, if the PDW user is surprised by the enemy, he has virtually zero chance of "overwhelming and suppressing" them.

schnuersi said:

2 spare magazines are enough. Its not about participating in a prolonged firefight. Its about self defense at short ranges (< 100 m) in an emergency.

Totally agree.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: It does not matter that you think there is no need for MPs to be armed at home. The reality is that MPs are armed.

If it doesn't matter what I or we think why are we having a discussion in the first place.

Good question.  I want to discuss weapons for the situation as it actually exists, while you keep wanting to hypothesize a situation that does not exist but supports your choice of weapon.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: According to you, police are not supposed to shoot, so how would they be better served with a PDW?

Not according to me. According to the legal situation and regulations.

Okay, allow me to rephrase.  According to the legal situation and regulations, police are not supposed to shoot, so how would they be better served with a PDW?

I don't see the logic in replacing a small, lightweight gun that they're not supposed to shoot, with a considerably bigger, heavier gun they're not suppose to shoot.

stancrist said:

But, if the PDW user is surprised by the enemy, he has virtually zero chance of "overwhelming and suppressing" them.

Yes but in this scenario the weapon makes no difference.
Either the initial attack misses and the PDW user can run or it doesn't and its over.

A PDW does not allow the user to effectively participate in drawn out firefights and infantry combat.

stancrist said:

I don't see the logic in replacing a small, lightweight gun that they're not supposed to shoot, with a considerably bigger, heavier gun they're not suppose to shoot.

I agree on this. This is why for the current situation IMHO police should be unarmed.

IF they are armed they should be properly trained and get an effective weapon.

Unfortunately currently neither is the case.

stancrist said:

I want to discuss weapons for the situation as it actually exists

But you define the situation in a way it only allows your choice.
You use the status quo as argument for the status quo. While I challenge the status quo.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: But, if the PDW user is surprised by the enemy, he has virtually zero chance of "overwhelming and suppressing" them.

Yes but in this scenario the weapon makes no difference. Either the initial attack misses and the PDW user can run or it doesn't and its over.

Those are not the only possible outcomes. 

For example, the initial attack could miss, but the attacker -- who has a lot more ammo than the PDW user -- could keep the PDW user pinned down so that he can neither run, nor effectively return fire.

And surprise attacks are not the only actions that could happen.  There are other possible scenarios, but with the PDW user's minimal ammo supply, I honestly don't see him being likely able to "overwhelm and suppress" the enemy except in one or two ideal circumstances.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: I want to discuss weapons for the situation as it actually exists

But you define the situation in a way it only allows your choice.

I am not sure what you mean.  I do not see myself as defining the situation in any way.  I am just recognizing reality. 

If that causes me to conclude that a pistol is better than an MP7 for some uses, it isn't because a pistol is my choice.

schnuersi said:

You use the status quo as argument for the status quo. While I challenge the status quo.

What you are doing is hypothesizing an alternate universe wherein the generals and military police are somehow magically forced to swap their pistols for MP7s, the military police are disarmed during peacetime, and no soldier carries a pistol as a secondary weapon, thereby allowing 9mm to be expunged from the inventory.  I do not see that as a reality-based challenge to the status quo.

Shoot, I could hypothesize an alternative challenge wherein both 9mm and 4.6mm are eliminated, thereby making only 5.56mm and 7.62mm necessary.  As I see it, the only folks who really need a PDW like the MP7 are tankers.  Replace conventional tanks with a Merkava type, and tankers can then be armed with an SBR variant of the standard infantry rifle, as can anyone else who doesn't need the standard individual weapon.  Eliminate all pistols from the inventory if you think nobody really needs a pistol.  These actions would both simplify logistics and training, and reduce gun and ammo types to a much greater extent than even your proposal.

stancrist said:

What you are doing is hypothesizing an alternate universe wherein the generals and military police are somehow magically forced to swap their pistols for MP7s

Yes exactly. I am presenting my opinion. What I would do if I could decide.
Because if I can decide why compromise? If the paradigm is that I can not decide then my opinion and any discussion is pointless.

stancrist said:

Shoot, I could hypothesize an alternative challenge wherein both 9mm and 4.6mm are eliminated,

Sure.
The think is IMHO the small arms and amunition western armies commonly issue and use make little to no sense. Its basically leftovers, tradition and the cheapest way. So from my point of view the entire system needs to be rethought.
BTW i am not convinced that 4,6 or 5,7 are the optimal choice. I also agree that two so similar cartridges are unnecessary and also just a relic of traditional "not invented here" thinking. They are just what is widely available now. But I do think the general layout and design of the MP7 is good. If a MP7+x that is somewhat smaller and uses different ammo would come around that would certainly be better. The 7.5 FK looks intresting. But its conciderable more powerfull than the 5,7 or 4,6. This is intresting for armor penetration though.

stancrist said:

As I see it, the only folks who really need a PDW like the MP7 are tankers.

And I see it the other way round. Exept for infantry men, to be really exact, the guys who actually fight dismounted, nobody needs a rifle or a carbine. They can all be equiped with PDWs. The rifle is a specilist weapon and very niche. The vast majority of just need PDWs and GPMGs.

stancrist said:

Replace conventional tanks with a Merkava type,

So you want to compromise the effectiveness of the ground forces main weapon system so the crews can be equiped with a carbine... that makes no sense at all.

Depends on the PDW. If you're looking at an M1 carbine type weapon (that would include M4/AK-74AKSU and such) it can be used in drawn out firefights. An MP7 type weapon, no.

The reason that an MP7 (when used as a PDW) can't be used in prolonged firefights is because of the small quantity of ammo that would normally be carried on the person.

MP7

3 x 20 rds = 60 rounds

or

1 x 20 rds + 2 x 40 rds = 100 rounds

----------

Used as a PDW, an M4 variant would have a comparable ammo supply.

M4

3 x 30 rds = 90 rounds

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: As I see it, the only folks who really need a PDW like the MP7 are tankers.

And I see it the other way round. Exept for infantry men, to be really exact, the guys who actually fight dismounted, nobody needs a rifle or a carbine. They can all be equiped with PDWs.

Certainly, they can be equipped with PDWs.  However, they also can be equipped with rifles or carbines, just as they were in World War II. 

Cooks, clerks, mechanics, generals, artillerymen, helicopter pilots, and others do not truly need a PDW that is as small as the MP7 or MP9. 

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Replace conventional tanks with a Merkava type,

So you want to compromise the effectiveness of the ground forces main weapon system so the crews can be equiped with a carbine... that makes no sense at all.

How would it compromise ground force effectiveness by changing the configuration of tanks from rear engine to front engine?