gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191247
    MESSAGES
  • 10
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

PDW again   Small Arms <20mm

Started 20/12/20 by DavidPawley; 125343 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

15/4/22

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.

stancrist

From: stancrist

15/4/22

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.

stancrist

From: stancrist

15/4/22

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.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

16/4/22

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.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

16/4/22

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.

stancrist

From: stancrist

16/4/22

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

stancrist

From: stancrist

16/4/22

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?

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

17/4/22

stancrist said:

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

During WW2 no army that I am aware of did equip their AFVs with rifles. Only the US issued carbines (since no other nation had a similar weapon).
The German army did issue SMGs. But the most universal issued small arm for AFV during WW2 have been pistols or none at all.

stancrist said:

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

The engine in back layout is inefficient. It creates a higher hull, causes difficulties in armoring the front, results in exposed air intakes and exhaust, has negative impact on the gun elevation in the frontal arc etc. The list goes on.
There is a reason why on one nation has build an MBT with this layout. It was tried time and again by everyone else and found inferiour. The Merkava is a very special vehicle. Its optimised for the tactical and operational situation of Israel and for the terrain there. This means the Merkava is conciderable less usefull everywhere else. Which is why nobody was ever intrested in buying it or building it in license. Its simply not a good layout for the requirements of the vast majority of tank building nations.

stancrist

From: stancrist

17/4/22

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: However, they also can be equipped with rifles or carbines, just as they were in World War II.

During WW2 no army that I am aware of did equip their AFVs with rifles.

I meant all of the non-infantry types except tank crewmen.  Only tankers need a compact PDW.  All others can be armed with rifle, carbine, or SBR.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

17/4/22

stancrist said:

I meant all of the non-infantry types except tank crewmen.

Make that vehicle crewmen and i agree... but then you have allmost everybody exept infantry.

stancrist said:

All others can be armed with rifle, carbine, or SBR.

There are lots of people in an army that do not need a rifle and for whom a carbine would interfere with the main task.

And yes during WW2 allmost everybody carried a rifle which lead to a lot a situations where non infantry personel got caught without any weapon at hand because a rifle is to large and unwieldy to be carried around all the time while doing something other than being an infantry man. The US came up with the carbine because they realised this. The carbine is still to large for most tasks.

TOP