schnuersi said:

The green on blue have been two AFV crew and one mechanic. Shot while performing repairs and maintenance on a IFV inside the base.

No MP7 available?

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.

EmericD said:

No MP7 available?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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