Platoon Weapons

[TheRagingTory]

I'm glad this debate is still going, it suddenly popped back in to my mind a few weeks ago.

I cant help but feel most of the arguments against this article have missed the point.

It could of course just be lack of knowledge on my part showing itself, but isnt the point that a GPMG (or MGL, or DMR, or ect) by itself is more "effective" than four conventional individual weapons?

The three PDWs in a section are not as effective as three more conventional IWs, but is anyone claiming otherwise?

Add in a fourth IW, and a GPMG however, and since the GPMG can outshoot the four IWs anyway (right?), the three PDWs are just a cherry on top.

[Fuchs]

It could of course just be lack of knowledge on my part showing itself, but isnt the point that a GPMG (or MGL, or DMR, or ect) by itself is more "effective" than four conventional individual weapons?

An open secret is that many riflemen in post-1914 infantry organisations were/are in fact porters with a self-defence weapon. You can increase a small unit's technical firepower by replacing rifleman with an additional GPMG (it was done in '45 with Panzergrenadier squads that had 2 MG 42, and it is similar to the choice of 2 light machineguns / "SAW"s), but this comes at a price.
A ceteris paribus change of that kind ("all else equal" means you lack porters, or worse - you equipped a porter-minded soldier with a crew-served weapon.

TRT; you know a certain blog where this was already mentioned.