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
  • 192522
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

PDW again   Small Arms <20mm

Started 20/12/20 by DavidPawley; 145168 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Sep

schnuersi said:

I would argue that on both pictures the crewmember would deliberatly need to remove the weapon from the bracket and pick it up. Which in both cases involves turing in the seat and reach to the side behind them. Or when they allready left the vehicle stay in the open door and reach back inside. A carbine is also very unwieldy should it be required to use it while still in the seat.

All good points.

schnuersi said:

A PDW that is in a pistol like holster, strapped across the chest or even just dangeling down on its sling is far more convenient, will not get lost or forgotten and is easy to bring to bear and use while still sitting.

Also some good points, but I have my doubts about just how "convenient" such a PDW would be for a number of military jobs.

To look at the example of helicopter crewmen, I cannot imagine any way to wear an MP7 that would not prove problematical.

schnuersi said:

Using 5,56 weapons for allmost everything really is only an advantage for the ammo supply. At least as long as no new loads are introduced for use in carbines and/or SBRs. If the new 6.8 really becomes the standard rifle and MG ammo issuing 5,56 weapons makes little sense. The logistical advantage is gone...

Not true.  There would be substantial advantages in logistics, economics, and training by using 5.56 carbines and SBRs which are currently in the inventory for the personal defense requirement.

There is beau coup 5.56 ammo on hand, and Lake City is set up to produce more.  It would cost much money and time to acquire new PDWs and establish production lines to make PDW ammo.

schnuersi said:

...and a new cartidge tailored to the need might be introduced without making things more complicated. Chances are if 9x19 can be replaced as well logistics become simpler.

If 6.8 SIG enters service, it would certainly seem to offer a superb opportunity to adopt and field a new PDW cartridge to replace both 5.56mm and 9mm.

The trouble is the US Army recently bought a whole bunch of new 9mm pistols and SMGs.  I don't see the leadership being willing to trash those weapons.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

21-Sep

stancrist said:

Also some good points, but I have my doubts about just how "convenient" such a PDW would be for a number of military jobs.

Of course there are allways exceptions and outliers. 100 % is to much to ask. In my experience on such large scales a 75 % solution would be a really good result.

stancrist said:

To look at the example of helicopter crewmen, I cannot imagine any way to wear an MP7 that would not prove problematical.

The funny thing in the helicopter in the background you can see the carbines mounted. So these guys have carbines and pistols. They also carry spare ammo for both. The MP7 is larger than a pistol but without silencer and without a scope its still pretty compact. With all the pouches on their chest they could certainly swap the pistol and spare ammo for a MP7 and tuck it in there or use a holster diagonally across the chest.

stancrist said:

Not true. There would be substantial advantages in logistics, economics, and training by using 5.56 carbines and SBRs which are currently in the inventory for the personal defense requirement.

There is beau coup 5.56 ammo on hand, and Lake City is set up to produce more. It would cost much money and time to acquire new PDWs and establish production lines to make PDW ammo.

This argument could be applied to any change in equipment.
Of course there would be a transition period. Nobody said throw all 5,56 away. Just stop aquiring new and use up the old stocks. Transition to the new weapons and caliber unit by unit. After some time the old stuff will be phased out gradually.
Yes switching production causes cost but if the new ammo is smaller and needs less resources after a short time there will be savings.
Similary the argument with simpel training. Once training of people on the new weapons starts these will become the new normal over time. Especially if more and more service personell only ever knew these.

stancrist said:

The trouble is the US Army recently bought a whole bunch of new 9mm pistols and SMGs. I don't see the leadership being willing to trash those weapons.

I agree. I do not think this will happen. My arguments are not for a particular military or what they will do in the near future. For me its allmost entirely academic. Its about discussing options and trying to find an ideal.
In reality we will propably see 9x19, 5,56 and 7,62 stay for the next decades. With 4,6 and 5,7 in lower scale use by some. 6,8 will be in additon to that. It most likely will not really replace anything. The result will be worse logistics and less economy of scale.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Sep

schnuersi said:

My arguments are not for a particular military or what they will do in the near future. For me its allmost entirely academic. Its about discussing options and trying to find an ideal.

Yes, it was the same for me until a few years ago.  Then I transitioned from searching for the ideal, to looking at what seems more realistic.

schnuersi said:

In reality we will propably see 9x19, 5,56 and 7,62 stay for the next decades. With 4,6 and 5,7 in lower scale use by some. 6,8 will be in additon to that. It most likely will not really replace anything. The result will be worse logistics and less economy of scale.

I think you are probably right about all of that.  However, if 6.8 works really well, I could see it possibly replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 completely.

And I fully agree that 9x19 is here to stay, if only because the pistol is universally considered necessary and nobody wants a 4.6 or 5.7 handgun.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

22-Sep

stancrist said:

Other than armored vehicle crewmen, which personnel truly need a lightweight, compact PDW?

As I've said numerous times, and echoing Tony's comments, where the PDW makes the most sense is for the 'HE lobber.' A infantry guy whose primary job is employing man portable HE weapons (40mm smart grenades, 84mm CG, ATGMs, MANPADS, etc.)

I talked to a Ranger who served in Iraq, who was issued the Carl Gustaf as his primary weapon. He carried a M9 pistol, because carrying a M4 + Ammo + CG + 84mm was just way too much weight and bulk. 

Weight and Bulk were also issues during the XM25's experimental use in Afghanistan with the 101st. Units that liked the XM25 reportedly carried it without the M4, while other units refused to carry the XM25 on some missions because they didn't want to lose having an M4. Both imply that a XM25 type weapon + full size carbine is prohibitive. 

So these sorts of HE jobs really would be made much more practical with a lighter and less bulky defensive weapon to pair with the HE system. 

To my tastes, at the low end, the PDW would be a MP9 type in 9x19 or 5.7x28. At the high end some sort of lightweight, folding stock 5.56 (like western Krinkov) such as the new CMMG Dissent with 3-4 mags. 

....

For truck drivers / mechanics / cooks etc (the original use case of the PDW) I dont think its worth the hassle vs just issuing them a M4 or a pistol, as their probability of conflict is so low.

Its really the HE Lobber job where the PDW niche really would be very handy and possibly the key to being successfully employed. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

22-Sep

stancrist said:

Yes, it was the same for me until a few years ago. Then I transitioned from searching for the ideal, to looking at what seems more realistic.

I have given up on this quite some time ago. What is realistic is at best boring, most of the time borderline stupid and sadly not seldom outright disgusting.
What is happening with the restructuring of the German Army currently is such a case. Somthing boring but sensible has been promissed. What we get is outright disgusting and retarded. Its just aggravating and tiring.

Thinking about ideals at least is fun.

stancrist said:

However, if 6.8 works really well, I could see it possibly replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 completely.

I agree. But it will most likely take a couple of decades. Several NATO countries are currently in the process or planning to adopt new 5,56 and 7,62 weapons. At best in the next round of replacements the transition to 6.8 will be done. But since arguments like the ones you brough up some posts ago will be made, simplified "its cheaper to stick with what we have", there will be a serious reluctance to change until the business case can be made that transitioning is cheaper. The problematic part is that governmental agencies and especially politicians only think in chash flow not in investment. This can make it very hard to argue for "it will be cheaper in the long run".

stancrist said:

And I fully agree that 9x19 is here to stay, if only because the pistol is universally considered necessary and nobody wants a 4.6 or 5.7 handgun.

And this is a case of outright stupidity IMHO.

4.6 might not work well from a pistol. Allthough I would argue that in a properly designed pistol for 4,6 and not just a conversion of a 9x19 it would work. Never the less 5.7 does work from pistols. It is proven and effective. So one could argue that if pistol use is really a necessity (which I doubt) the adoption of 5,7 would allow to replace 9x19. This in turn would really simplify logistic and save resources in the long run because this would allow to phase 9x19 out and transition lots of 5,56 users to 5.7.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

22-Sep

gatnerd said:

As I've said numerous times, and echoing Tony's comments, where the PDW makes the most sense is for the 'HE lobber.' A infantry guy whose primary job is employing man portable HE weapons (40mm smart grenades, 84mm CG, ATGMs, MANPADS, etc.)

The important part here is "infantry guy". Yes he might need a PDW. But since he is infantry his needs don't really overlap with all the other potential PDWs users who are not infantry.
IMHO it really makes little sense to use the same PDW class weapon for the infantry users and everybody else. For example for the infantry users caliber comonality with the rest of the squad is a serious advantage. The training and mode of operation also would allow the infantry user to actially make use of the potential of 5,56. So a SBR of some sort of 5,56 PDW make sense for these guys. But it needs to be kept in mind that they are few in comparison. A special case.
To me it seems not the ideal solution to try and shoehorn a single solution based on the needs of a special few for everyone. This will ultimately lead to a similar situation as we currently have.
This is why I am advocating the infantry weapons for infantry and a PDW with focus on easy of carrying and use for anybody else.

gatnerd said:

For truck drivers / mechanics / cooks etc (the original use case of the PDW) I dont think its worth the hassle vs just issuing them a M4 or a pistol, as their probability of conflict is so low.

And if their propability of conflict is so low why should they carry unnecessarily powerfull and large (carbine) or allmost useless (pistol) weapons? The thing is if these occupations have to use their small arms something went wrong allready. So they need something that works best for them in such a situation.
The statement that the propability of conflict is low also seems questionable. The losses of the German Army in Afghanistan include a disproportionate number of non infantry and even non combat personel. This might be a theatre specific problem but IMHO theatres similar to Afghanistan are more likely in the future for the German Army and all NATO Armies. Regardless what is happening currently and all the politicians chiming about homeland defense. Once the situation in UA is solved other things will come back into focus. The world has not become a saver place. UN and NATO missions in LIC and COIN scenarios are still very likely. Even though we might not like it or want it.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Sep

gatnerd said:

As I've said numerous times, and echoing Tony's comments, where the PDW makes the most sense is for the 'HE lobber.' A infantry guy whose primary job is employing man portable HE weapons (40mm smart grenades, 84mm CG, ATGMs, MANPADS, etc.)

I have to disagree.  I think that a PDW of the types you propose for the "HE lobber" make little sense.

Weight of loaded MP9 + 3 spare mags is ~7 lbs.  A loaded CMMG + 3 extra mags would be over 8 lbs.

Note that in your examples the Ranger carried a pistol (weight penalty ~ 3.5 lbs) and the XM25 users didn't carry a secondary weapon.

The "HE lobbers" operate as part of a team, and their focus should be on maximizing effectiveness with their primary weapon systems,

As Tony said, the heavier is the secondary weapon, the less weight is available for grenades, so the less effective the grenadier will be.

IMO, a pistol is the best choice of secondary arm for troops equipped with multi-shot grenade launchers and the reloadable 84mm CG.

And "HE lobbers" with a disposable weapon like AT4 and Javelin, really should have a carbine/rifle for use after expending their missile.

  • Edited 22 September 2022 17:03  by  stancrist
Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

22-Sep

PDWU? Personal Defense Weapon Upper, 11.5" barrel, with suppressor taking it out to 14.5". Figure to use an integral suppressor to keep length down.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Sep

Farmplinker said:

11.5" barrel, with suppressor taking it out to 14.5"

OMG, it feels like deja vu all over again!  scream  smile

I always considered the XM177 to be the best looking M16 variant.  sunglasses

  • Edited 22 September 2022 17:23  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

22-Sep

schnuersi said:

       gatnerd said: For truck drivers / mechanics / cooks etc (the original use case of the PDW) I dont think its worth the hassle vs just issuing them a M4 or a pistol, as their probability of conflict is so low.

The statement that the propability of conflict is low also seems questionable. The losses of the German Army in Afghanistan include a disproportionate number of non infantry and even non combat personel. This might be a theatre specific problem but IMHO theatres similar to Afghanistan are more likely in the future for the German Army and all NATO Armies.

In order to propose a solution, we first need to know what the problem is. 

What caused those losses:  IED blasts?  Enemy fire?  Green on blue attacks?

Such information could make a big difference in what type of "PDW" is best.

And with planning for (near) peer war, PDW needs may differ from LIC/COIN.

TOP