Bill Rogers replied it didn't matter what kind of gun or caliber you carried as long as you were capable of hitting your opponent in the dominant eye....
Yep, that was Trooper Coates IIRC.
Of course, that was a big 'ol boy he was wrestling with and ended up shooting. Over 300 easy. Hard to believe those 145 grain Winchester Silvertips - normally a bullet with very good performance - didn't make it to anything vital but they didn't.
I hate to speak ill of Trooper Coats but he did make some serious tactical errors in my opinion.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
When asked which caliber was best,
Bill Rogers replied it didn't matter what kind of gun or caliber you carried as long as you were capable of hitting your opponent in the dominant eye....
"THIS is my boomstick!"
The M4 Commando in 5.56 (11.5 inch lightweight barrel and a flat top) and the P90 have the same loaded weight, 3.0 Kg. The M4 has less capacity, but it is in a proven rifle caliber. The magazines (loaded) weigh the same, although the P90 carries 40% more ammunition.
Understood, thanks.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Incapacitate in my mind means that the enemy is unable to return aimed fire. Timeframe = the sooner the better, surely? From what I'm seeing, even 9mm is sooner and better than 5.7mm, by virtue of a larger permanent wound channel. Plus it's supposedly better at defeating cover without deflection. Bearing this in mind, for your purposes, I would argue that you'd be better off proposing a different weapon. I also note the post above about the comparative weight of the 10" barrelled Colt carbine.Be very careful of using the word "incapacitate." It's meaningless unless applied to a specific time frame and capability which you seek to defeat.
Yes, of course -shot placement, whether by luck, judgement, or a mixture of both, is key. That's a given - why further reduce the effectiveness of your fire by choosing rounds that are shown relatively to be less damaging to the human body and less able to deal with interfering barriers.A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.
I see now that you were poking the hornet's nest, and agree that it's one that needed poking. But needless to say you still have to be able to back up what you say. You don't need to prove anything to me, but if you can show me the evidence that counters what I've pointed to myself, I'd love to see it. I have no horse in any race here, I've ended up studying this area as an offshoot of an offshoot of my real job (historical stuff). And as a paid-up member of the sceptic's club, I try to assess everything from that perspective. The weight of evidence seems to me to be against PDWs, which were designed for a specific role, being capable of serving effectively as a main IW.
Playing devil's advocate to myself for a moment, and being optimistic about the tumbling claimed for the 5.7mm round + the capabilities of the P90 itself, you could see it as a fairly close parallel to the 7.62x39 and the AK family. With the advantages of being lighter, higher capacity, more accurate and better able to defeat soft armour. Viewed in those terms (and in the context of your other proposed changes), it's an option. But in terms of wound ballistics, I still think you'd be sacrificing quite a lot even compared to the "clean wounding" 7.62x39 round. A case would need to be made that the pros outweigh the apparent con of the lacking wound ballistics, and I don't think, on balance, that it has been (if it has, great! I hope to read about it one day.).
Anyway, a bit of a distraction from the real point of the article - my apologies for this. I did find it interesting and thought provoking.
Some UK troops in the Falklands dumped their SMGs in favour of Argy FALs because SMGs made them feel more exposed than a streaker at a world cup match. PDWs are really meant to be last resort, emergency weapons and have therefore, IMHO no place in the hands of frontline infantry soldiers, as cute as they are.
Do like your attitude towards provoking thought Wilf, and I totally get that. It’s a good way to get people to think outside the box, provided they are willing to.
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Infantry PDW (side arms)
Kiwigrunt,
I have to disagree on this point. I whole-heartedly think Infantry troops should have them. If their primary goes down in room then what? I think it is more of a METT-TC call. Need them in the woods probably not. Need them in an urban environment most definately.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
ODB, do you think the advantages of the PDW, such as they are, make a PDW better as a secondary weapon than a 9MM handgun?
PDW vs 9mm pistol
For the masses (Infantry) PDWs raise the cool bar a lot, but other than that no. Due to the masses of 9mm in our inventories that misused, sorry staff guys you don't need them give them up. It is a realatively simple and inexpensive way to get them a secondary weapon. Additionally a secondary is only for when your primary goes down in a fight, as soon as your immediate threat is eliminated you need to get your primary up. Afraid you use something other than a 9mm, guys will not focus on getting their primary back operational immediately. Now I think a great use for PDWs is in the turret of gun trucks. Beats trying to use your M-4, personally I used an MP5-45 for this, another useful weapon for this is a shotgun with folding stock. Many times in a crowd you cannot use your .50 or M240.
ODB
Exchange with an Iraqi soldier during FID:
Why did you not clear your corner?
Because we are on a base and it is secure.
"Shot placement is king, but penetration is queen." - Anonymous
Finally read the article, definitely thought provoking.
Some observations;
1 The MGL is not getting the best reviews from what I hear. Long reload times and some issues with the sights. It seems like a solution to a problem that wasn't there. I think the grunts liked having a rifle literally at their fingertips.
Now if we could get get a magazine fed MGL with an interuptor to load different ammo...
2 A lot of those SMG troops from previous wars relied on very short visiblity either from darkness or very urban terrain. Darkness no longer 'effectively' exists.
3 Louder weapons suppress better.
4 I like the platoon DMR's as well as the Brit style platoon mortar.
Being a former jarhead I also like Weapons platoons and rifles.
Me too bikewrench - Rifles & Weapons Platoons
When I was a Recon Marine our T/O weapon was the M1A1
sub-machine gun (grease gun).
Our job was to observe and report. The perfect mission was to go ashore and cover the ground thoroughly and exit with out the enemy knowing we had been there.
"Swift, Silent, Deadly" is the motto for these battalions and the knife and garrote were the perfered weapons used to maintain the low profile required for this sort of work.
The grease guns were for last resort defense only. They were made by the IDEAL Toy Co. of Newark, NJ.
At a 2nd Marine Division Parade for Sec. Def. Mac Namara, my platoon was stuck on the end of the 6th Marine Regt. and was the only unit wearing the WWII Camo Pattern utilities.
The Sec. Def. was impressed enough to climb off his Jeep and question the Div. Commander and some of the troops in the platoon.
He asked me if I knew who the manufacturer of my sub machine gun was. I proudly came to attention, then port arms and opened the breech cover and showed him the Ideal Toy Logo on the inside of the cover plate.
He returned to his jeep.
Nice post RJ.
I believe that it would have been an M3A1.
Semper Fi Sir!
Right you are. M3A1 it was. Turned 69 on Tuesday! Starting to crumble!
Semper Fi, Do or Die! Right back at chew!
I say again, the ONLY "cover" that PDW rounds can perforate reliably is CRISAT. And none of our current or foreseeable enemies is stupid enough to wear body armor to the battlefield. PDW rounds against "real" cover are worse than useless. Light, fast bullets just don't penetrate very well.
One more point on PDWs and "itty-bitty bullets" IOT save weight. I guaran-freaking-tee you, that a lightweight "bullet-hose" PDW will go through ammo fast enough, that will more than neutralize the alleged "weight-savings" versus a "real" rifle.
...and these would be reasons not to adopt a PDW, but as no one has really done the testing versus tactical applications, I would want to see some evidence. The MP-7A1 and P-90s are both being used on operations by various folks, but hard data is very hard to come by.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Don't "get" the "no one has really done the testing" thing. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that light, fast bullets don't penetrate, and don't produce secondary effects anywhere near as well as heavier, slower projectiles.
There is at least one decent study on suppression effects out there, of various types of ammunition and weapons. (BTW - I think the study I saw post-WWII, indicated that even a bolt action rifle can "suppress" with occasional rounds, rather than "beating up" the target with fully auto fire.
Since this thread has started, I've developed one additional objection to PDWs: In combat, very few people will put themselves in a position where they can put their weapon "in play" effectively. The great majority are incapable, or unwilling to put effective fire onto the enemy. Therefore, why sell out to the lowest common denominator at all in your selection of a shoulder arm?
With the assumption that MGs and arty are truly the biggest battlefield killers, why not go to a 16" carbine that shoots the rounds common to your machineguns? (Which would be an excellent reason to change to a single, common caliber, around the 7mm x 45mm range...) If suppression is your goal, accuracy becomes unimportant, and the bigger bullets will have a great effect downrange in ricochets, barrier penetration and splinter effects. Heck, just give everyone a SAGL... (Semi-Auto Grenade Launcher...)
Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?
It seems to me that quite often you're only going to get one crack at a fleeting enemy. Even in more open field fighting vagaries of terrain and relative position may only give one guy in the team a shot at a given opponent. That shot had better be fast, accurate, and effective.
PDWs are fast, but they aren't as accurate as rifles and their rounds can't be as effective.
The extra heavy weapons a PDW equipped squad can carry are effective and accurate, but they aren't nearly as fast as a rifle.
Gentlemen,
I might be old fashioned---but MG's are great for keeping the enemy heads down while the rifle squad manuevers to get in close enough to kill them with bullets or bayonets.
They are also a great help when the enemy is dumb enough to charge in waves like the Chinese and NK in Korea. The Polish Cav. against the Germans and the Italian Arostocracy of the City of Rome that "il Duce" sent against the Russians to help his buddy Hitler and reduce the number of noble sons in WWII. (I knew a surivor of that last Cav. Charge in NJ -he was the Pres. of Alfa Romeo, USA.)
Accurate aimed fire by riflemen, using a round that will effectively kill if it hits in the upper and/or middle body mass, has been the effective standard since WWI.
If you give a infantryman, who has been properly trained, an opportunity to kill the enemy out to 600 yards with a rifle, the killing efficency does not get any better.
Even the old Marine BAR with its 20 round mags wasn't as effective as the three rifles in that fireteam - at picking off individuals at a distance or who were running away.
Could going back to basics, in the long ranges Afganistan is affording us be the way to go?
We live and some of you fight in a time when a good Lance Corporal in the Marines can and does when necessary talk to air assets that have the ability to do a lot more damage to enemy personnel and equipment than any amount of sexy firepower we can equip a modern rifle squad with.
I hear the in some of the fighting in Iraq, stubborn houses, well defended, were dropped around the ears of the enemy by the communication between the ground grunt and hte pilot with a smart bomb.
Now we are seeing single safe houses flattened by drones that are flown by some guy in the rear with the gear.
Let not over think the need, if all things being equal, todays infantry grunt can bring the wrath of God down on fixed defensive postions just by talking to a fast mover or a geek sitting in an air conditioned van on a little strip 100 miles away..
So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?
Presumably, he makes taking out the crew-served and special weapons a fetish - it becomes his #1 tactical priority, and once that is accomplished, manuevers agressively to suppress and destroy the squad...?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of a platoon/squad partially equipped with PDW's, just wondering out loud if it makes the enemy's job a little easier, or allows them to focus better (since they should be focused on taking out the special weapons anyway).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks