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.

  • 3371
    MEMBERS
  • 192502
    MESSAGES
  • 25
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

PDW again   Small Arms <20mm

Started 20/12/20 by DavidPawley; 144628 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Sep

EmericD said:

No MP7 available?

While performing repairs and maintenance on the vehicle, the mechanic and crewmen were almost certainly unarmed.

Even in the unlikely event each had an MP7 on his body, it would not have mattered because their focus was on the job.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Sep

EmericD said:

No MP7 available?

Apparently not. I don't even know if they where equiped with MP7.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Sep

stancrist said:

While performing repairs and maintenance on the vehicle, the mechanic and crewmen were almost certainly unarmed.

Yes, it seems like it.

stancrist said:

Even in the unlikely event each had an MP7 on his body, it would not have mattered because their focus was on the job.

The thing is alltogether there have been nine casulties. The three KIA plus six wounded. Of the three KIA not all where killed outright. Only one of them died on the scene. The short report i have read also mentiones a fire fight. So apparently after the initial supprise attack it came to an exchange of fire. The attacker apparently had been killed by guards who rushed to the scene and shot him with rifles. There is mentioning that the soldiers doing maintenance (more than the nine casulties) where outgunned by the attacker with an AK. That to me sounds an awefull lot as if they had pistols ready to use.
But to get anything more substancial I would have to look into some more detailed and most likely official.

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Sep

schnuersi said:

The total losses of the Germany troops in Afghanistan are 59 KIA. The vast majority are by IED/suicide bombers. Losses to enemy fire are rather few. I counted six due to enemy fire. Three by accident during a firefight. Three by green on blue. The green on blue have been two AFV crew and one mechanic. Shot while performing repairs and maintenance on a IFV inside the base.

Interesting.  I'm not seeing any justification of the PDW concept in that data.

schnuersi said:

I am not really convinced [that PDW needs for near peer war differ from LIC/COIN]. While LIC/COIN or HIC has conciderable influence on how infantry operates and what their engagement ranges are I don't really think this is the case with PDW use by non infantry personel. In either case we talk about self defense to maybe 100 m. The target might make a difference but 5.7 and 4.6 have been designed with near pear HIC in mind so they will most likely work as intended in such a scenario.

The trouble is that both 5.7 and 4.6 were designed to defeat pre-1990 Russian body armor, which makes them inadequate for the perceived threat of post-2020 body armor.

How well are personnel armed with a 5.7 or 4.6 PDW going to be able to defend themselves against attacking enemy infantry who are wearing modern ceramic body armor?

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Sep

schnuersi said:

The short report i have read also mentiones a fire fight. So apparently after the initial supprise attack it came to an exchange of fire. The attacker apparently had been killed by guards who rushed to the scene and shot him with rifles. There is mentioning that the soldiers doing maintenance (more than the nine casulties) where outgunned by the attacker with an AK. That to me sounds an awefull lot as if they had pistols ready to use.

I think that's doubtful.  Earlier I did an image search and found not a single photo of German soldiers wearing pistols while doing vehicle repair and maintenance in AFG.

However, it very well could be that there were other personnel in the immediate vicinity who were armed with either pistol or PDW, and one or more of them shot back.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Sep

stancrist said:

Interesting. I'm not seeing any justification of the PDW concept in that data.

As well as no falsification.
The data is inconclusive for lack of relevant situations.

stancrist said:

How well are personnel armed with a 5.7 or 4.6 PDW going to be able to defend themselves against attacking enemy infantry who are wearing modern ceramic body armor?

I would say as good or better as anybody else. Concidering that there is no standart issue small arms that can penetrate such protection with ball ammo.
The advantage of a PDW would be that they hold more rounds than most other weapons and the users are more likely to score hits. Which is more or less all that is required. The PDWs are not there to win firefights. They also don't exist in a vacuume. In the above case the PDWs are there to buy time to man the next available GPMG and deliver serious firepower. Which either can decide the fight or buy time for support to arrive.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Sep

stancrist said:

However, it very well could be that there were other personnel in the immediate vicinity who were armed with either pistol or PDW, and one or more of them shot back.

That is what I meant.
Not all casulties and the other people present worked on the same vehicle. They where all in the motor pool doing something.
The point is even though some did shoot back they have been ineffective and have been outgunned. By a single attacker. Until after several seconds help with real weapons arrived.
I agree that the exact details would be very intresting. To see who shot back with what. How did the attacker react. It is entirely possible that the fact that fire was returned prevented him from advancing and shooting aimed at short range at more people. Maybe the attacker even became supressed and stayed put until the better armed guards arrived.
What I know is that as an immediate reaction to this incident the "allways armed" policy, which technically was in place before, was handled very strict from that point on and it was enforced.

stancrist said:

Earlier I did an image search and found not a single photo of German soldiers wearing pistols while doing vehicle repair and maintenance in AFG.

The problem is that its really difficult to get good pictures of German soldiers in deployment which allow for conclusions. The German military is enforcing a very strickt photo, internet and social media policy. Allmost all pictures that are out there are at least officially sanctioned. If not taken by an official source. There is a tendency to blurr the actual reality of the theatre.

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Sep

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: How well are personnel armed with a 5.7 or 4.6 PDW going to be able to defend themselves against attacking enemy infantry who are wearing modern ceramic body armor?

I would say as good or better as anybody else. Concidering that there is no standart issue small arms that can penetrate such protection with ball ammo.

I'm not talking about the current situation, but the near future when 6.8 ADVAP ammo is planned to be standard issue for infantry.

schnuersi said:

The advantage of a PDW would be that they hold more rounds than most other weapons and the users are more likely to score hits. Which is more or less all that is required.

I'm skeptical.  If that's all that would be required of a PDW, why is the requirement not the same for the standard infantry rifle? 

After all, the intended targets -- enemy infantrymen wearing ceramic body armor -- are the same for both rifle and PDW users.

schnuersi said:

The PDWs are not there to win firefights. They also don't exist in a vacuume. In the above case the PDWs are there to buy time to man the next available GPMG and deliver serious firepower.

That seems questionable.  First, there would be many more PDWs than GPMGs, so the vast majority of PDW users would have to fight with their issued PDW.

Second, in a situation in which enemy infantry is assaulting friendly positions, the personnel who are equipped with PDWs would be expected to fight to win.

In my opinion, if a PDW does not give its users the capability to prevail in a fight against enemy infantry, then the result will be to make the user outgunned.

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Sep

Just happened to come across this 2021 article which echoes my thoughts on the subject...  sunglasses

The PDW - Do They Even Matter Today? - (gatdaily.com)

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-Sep

stancrist said:

I'm not talking about the current situation, but the near future when 6.8 ADVAP ammo is planned to be standard issue for infantry.

But 6.8 is not even suitable for carbine use. Let alone SBRs.
If it is done the KE will suffer as will penetration wich nullifies the penetration advantage this round offers.
Actually I am pretty amazed by what I percieve as cognitive dissonance of the people who are arguing for 6.8 "death ray" while on the other hand for arguing for 5,56 and against 7,62. In all those years we had several discussions in this forum about the merits of SCHV and why full power rifles are unsuitable as infantry armament. All of a sudden full power isn't even enough anymore.

stancrist said:

If that's all that would be required of a PDW, why is the requirement not the same for the standard infantry rifle?

Because an infantry rifle is a combat asset for combat troops.
The PDW is a last ditch/emergency reserve for non combat personell. Its main purpose is to be there when needed and work for mediocre trained personell. As a result the power of this weapon has to yield to carriability and shootability.

stancrist said:

That seems questionable. First, there would be many more PDWs than GPMGs, so the vast majority of PDW users would have to fight with their issued PDW.

Of course there are more PDWs. There are also more rifles than LMGs or GPMGs in infantry units. Never the less the MGs deliver the firepower and do the killing. The rifles mostly generate noise. Or better used to since now they want to issue silencers as standard issue.
During my service time the ratio of MGs to heads was usullay higher in non infantry units. A three men recovery team has one on its ARV. The three men repairtruck crew had one on their truck. Four men field kitchen truck, one MG. Our companies first sgt and his clerks and aids two trucks six guys two GPMGs. One tank, four men two MGs. Engenieer section in APC, 10 men, two GPMGs. It used to be GPMGs everywhere. Allmost every vehicle, short of the ones maked with the red cross, carried one. SOP if suddenly attacked has been "once shooting in close vicinity starts man the next available MG and engage". In this environment a PDW does make sense. Even if its only to "allert by fire" so the mates can get to the MGs.

stancrist said:

Second, in a situation in which enemy infantry is assaulting friendly positions, the personnel who are equipped with PDWs would be expected to fight to win.

Not really, if we are honest.
If non combat personel who do their job are suddenly assaulted by enemy infantry they can not realistically expected to win. At best they can disengage and withdraw. Neither a rifle nor PDW is a winning asset in such a scenario. This is where the MGs come in. Volume of fire for suppression and to buy time to disengage.
If we think about a scenario in which a previous allert was made and non combat personel could man prepared defensive positions its basically the same. Rifles and PDWs become largely irrelevant. Its about the GPMGs in LMG and MMG mode that will deliver the firepower to fend of an assault. Rifle and other small arms are just needed as last ditch effort and for trench/position sweeping to trow broken in attacker back out. I argue that in trench or room to room fighting a compact PDW is more usefull than a carbine or rifle. Its still not the main asset though. That would be the hand grenade.

stancrist said:

In my opinion, if a PDW does not give its users the capability to prevail in a fight against enemy infantry, then the result will be to make the user outgunned.

I think you are either asking for two much or have unrealistic expectations. Non infantry, especially non combat personell will not prevail in a fight against enemy infantry. Especially not in a situation where the enemy is well coordinated. The weapons you give them are irrelevant. They will loose.
Its not the intend behind a PDW to make cooks and clerks infantry killers. Its the intend to give them a weapon that they have to hand when its needed. Especially suprise contact. Its supposed to work for them and give them a decent chance to defend themself in a short range duelling situation and even if not successfull allert others nearby by fire. This is why compactness and carryability are paramount. A self defense weapon regardless of type only ever works when its there when needed. A pistol would do that. But the combat performance of pistols is so abysmal that it realistically will only make some noise. A PDW is intended to improve that.

At ranges under 100 m against an opponent with a rifle I think a PDW user is not outgunned. The shorter the distance gets the more advantage the PDW user has. With a SMG it is the same allthough at ranges of 50 m or less. A rifle or carbine offers no real advantage at such short ranges. Since the one to first score a hit usually wins and a PDW is more shooty, has a larger ammo capacity and is very easy to controll chances are the PDW user will score the first hit. With quick follow up hits being easy to achieve.
Of course the training and mind set of the user plays a major role here.

I also think the body armor problem is really exagerated by a lot of people. Even if 5,56 or a PDW cartidge can not penetrate a certain type of plate it doesn'T mean the carrier is immune. A certain part of him is. Soldiers carrying body armor will not walk trough small arms fire and ignore it like its a light rain. They will still be scared to be hit and can be supressed. If the armor is hit they will take cover. If they are struck by a burst of fire chances are some unprotected part is hit and there will be an effect. To get someone out of the fight you don't necessarily need to kill him. Small arms never have been the big killers since the early 20th century.
IMHO it would be a much better approach, even if one thinks body armor will be a serious problem, would be to load the GPMGs with AP or mix some AP in and let these do the armor killing. While retain the high hit propability of the PDW.
I also want to mention that body armor also creates problems. The infantry men carrying them get slower and exaust quicker. There is a bad tendency for body armor wearing troops not to lay down for cover but only to kneel. Which ironically increases the propability of them being hit in the first place.
In the UA both sides make large scale use of body armor. But the way infantry fights and the weapons they use has not really changed. Infantry also are still "squishy" and take massive casulties.

  • Edited 24 September 2022 7:03  by  schnuersi
TOP