schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Mr. T's post is cynical and inaccurate.

I disagree it is spot on. This is what the PDW concept is for.

Hmm.  That is very interesting.  Mr. T said that a PDW "is a weapon...for folks that have no clue how to use it...to deter and suppress the enemy for a moment or two and inspire some courage to poor sucker who is about to get killed..."

So, you're telling me that German soldiers who are issued a PDW really have no clue how to use it, and they are just poor suckers equipped with a PDW solely to bolster their morale before they get killed?  Das ist aber schade.  I would've expected better of the German Army.

 I don't know how many rounds German tankers get to fire from their PDWs per year but i suspect not many .they simply do not get enough live fire time on these arms to be really proficient.

And anyways that is beside the point,that peashooter is there to enable some suppressing fire so you and your team mates can hopefully run away from immediate danger 

On the other hand, a huge advantage of the MP7 and P90 is their extreme ease of use; they are closer to an airsoft gun then an AR15 in terms of ease of use. Weapons are very light, low recoil, and with a red dot fairly straightforward.

This is based on my own experience shooting them, as well as a few firearms instructors who have kept PS90s on hand for recoil sensitive / otherwise unsuitable students.

So with someone who has limited training, I’d rate these light PDWs as having the best chance for the novice shooter to actually hit anything. 
 

Given their ease of use plus ~100m or less range, the most salient aspect for success is likely having non infantry troops understand propper method of getting to cover and firing while minimizing exposure to enemy fire.

When playing airsoft and paintball, that was always the sign of a novice - sticking way too much of their body out from behind cover to shoot. My concern is a non infantry soldier might make a similar mistake in their first engagement.

Indeed  MP9 and MP7 with hand grip magazines are likely more intuitive to use under stress than Sig MCX Rattler which is otherwise about the same size also a concussive blast  of a 5.56x45 from a very short barrel without suppressor is severe and a huge penalty if used inside a vehicle so its somewhat unsurprising that 9mm  PDW seem to be making somewhat of a comeback over more exotic 5.7 and 4.6

stancrist said:

So, you're telling me that German soldiers who are issued a PDW really have no clue how to use it, and they are just poor suckers equipped with a PDW solely to bolster their morale before they get killed? Das ist aber schade. I would've expected better of the German Army.

Yes it is sort of like that. I would not say no clue at all but limited clue.

Mr.T again is spot on:

Mr.T said:

I don't know how many rounds German tankers get to fire from their PDWs per year but i suspect not many .they simply do not get enough live fire time on these arms to be really proficient.

The small arms training of AFVs and really everyone but infantry is very limited.
Back in the day of 9 mm SMGs you got most of the training during your basic tanker training. Once you qualified there was little to no range time and ammo allocation for SMG training. But we got plenty of MG ammo and range time.

The SMG back than and the PDW now is not there to win firefights. Its there to be able to return fire in a pinch. Most importnatly to allert everyone else. Uppon sudden weapons fire the SOP is man the MGs and man the vehicles. Not necessarily in that order. The SMGs as now the PDWs are kept on the person but for sentry duty if the tanks are hidden and the unit bivouacing at least one MG per tank is deployed in LMG config either in a defensive position or on a tank for close defense.
Nobody ever expected or intended to win a fight with SMGs and handguns.
Even if they would have issued rifles a tank crew doesn't become an infantry squad. Giving them a small weapon that is not interfering with the important tasks and this available when really needed and that does not encumber so mobility of the user is not compromised makes much more sense.
Suprise contact at short distance: shoot, full auto one mag load rapid aimed bursts and run. Don't try to fight their way. Get to the tank and fight your way.

BTW:
There is one thing missing on these pictures!
Handguns. It used to be two SMGs and two handguns per crew. They finally got rid of the useless handguns and issue a PDW for each crew member. That is a real improvement.

gatnerd said:

It's highly unlikely any weapon smaller than the 6.8 NGSW Spear is effective against modern hard armor. 

So the question I'd posit to you is, if thats the case, is there value in issuing any defensive weapon thats not the 6.8 NGSW (or its rough equivalent)?

If that actually is the case, then yes, I think there would still be value in issuing a "not the 6.8 NGSW" PDW.

But what reason is there to conclude that a weapon smaller than the 6.8 NGSW Spear cannot be effective?

If 6.8 can defeat Level IV armor out to 600 meters, why couldn't a smaller caliber do so out to 100 meters?

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  Yes, the PDW should be more capable, because sometimes there won't be a machine gun that you can get to.

No there ALLWAYS should be a machine gun that you or your mates can get to.

The trouble with that statement is that what you think "should" be is a theoretical ideal which is not always the case in reality.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  When the rear echelon troops of the 507th Maintenance Company were ambushed in March 2003, their sole .50 Browning reportedly did not work.

Actually to me this short sentence sounds like an investigation for neglect and bad leadership is required. How can this happen? Why is their main assent not in working condition?

The brief account I read did not go into detail about how and why the gun was not working, but there are a number of possible reasons besides neglect and bad leadership.

Even well-maintained guns can stop working for no apparent cause.  In Vietnam, a friend had just cleaned and lubed his M60 when the NVA attacked.  The gun failed to fire.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said:  When Taliban fighters infiltrated Camp Bastion airbase in September 2012, pilots and mechanics armed themselves with rifles to fight the attackers.

Obviously this has not been a situation whre PDWs are required. If you have time to gear up or even go to the armory obviously you don't need to rely on a PDW.

I don't know that they went to the armory.  Being a combat zone, the rifles may have been close at hand.

In any case, it doesn't matter at all because the point is that non-infantry personnel engaged the enemy.

If PDWs were issued to rear echelon troops, the pilots and mechanics would've had to fight using PDWs.

schnuersi said:

The small arms training of AFVs and really everyone but infantry is very limited. Back in the day of 9 mm SMGs you got most of the training during your basic tanker training. Once you qualified there was little to no range time and ammo allocation for SMG training.

It was very much like that in my unit.  Once a year qualification with .45 pistol, and a mere 10 rounds in the SMG for familiarization firing.

schnuersi said:

The SMG back than and the PDW now is not there to win firefights. Its there to be able to return fire in a pinch. Nobody ever expected or intended to win a fight with SMGs and handguns. Even if they would have issued rifles a tank crew doesn't become an infantry squad. Suprise contact at short distance: shoot, full auto one mag load rapid aimed bursts and run. Get to the tank...

That is fine for tankers, but most of the folks in this thread are talking about PDWs for all rear echelon and other non-infantry personnel.

The 507th Maintenance convoy, the Camp Bastion personnel, the rear echelon soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge, had to fight like infantry.

schnuersi said:

BTW: There is one thing missing on these pictures! Handguns. It used to be two SMGs and two handguns per crew. They finally got rid of the useless handguns and issue a PDW for each crew member. That is a real improvement.

Yeah, I noticed the absence of handguns when I selected those photos. 

But it appears that they are issuing three PDWs and one rifle per crew.

It looks to me like the man at the far right has rifle mags in his chest rig.

stancrist said:

If 6.8 can defeat Level IV armor out to 600 meters, why couldn't a smaller caliber do so out to 100 meters?

Well from previous testing we've seen, 5.56 Tungsten core is unable to reliably defeat Level IV from even 40' when fired from a 22" barrel.

From Emeric, we've learned a main factor for Tungsten penetration of ceramic is increased penetrator length. 

Combined, it seems like a 100yd AP would at a minimum require a 5.56 with a longer (likely good bit longer) tungsten core then 5.56 M995. And likely a cartridge thats even more powerful than 5.56, or at least with a longer COL to allow more ogive space for a longer penetrator. 

At this point we're talking about a rifle equal or greater in weight than the current M4, possibly in a new proprietary caliber. At which point why not just give them the 6.8 NGSW since the 'handy PDW' is out. 

gatnerd said:

...we're talking about a rifle equal or greater in weight than the current M4, possibly in a new proprietary caliber. At which point why not just give them the 6.8 NGSW since the 'handy PDW' is out.

Realistically, I think it is very unlikely the "handy PDW" was ever actually in, insofar as the US Army is concerned.

I have never seen any official desire for such a "true" PDW since the demise of the OICW about two decades ago.

So, if NGSW gets fielded, I expect non-infantry personnel will continue to use 9mm pistols and 5.56mm carbines.

And if at some future time the body armor threat extends to those troops, I expect that they too will get the XM7.

Or weight of the XM7 might prompt an M1 carbine redux to create a new carbine and a "new proprietary caliber".