Platoon Weapons

[William F. Owen]

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.

[120mm]

...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.

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...)

[SethB]

Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?

[Jones_RE]

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.

[RJ]

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..

[Sabre]

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).

[Norfolk]

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).

I'd say you have it bang-on right there, Sabre. Even if PDW's proved adequate for their intended role, they help to set-up their own Squads and Platoons for piecemeal destruction as they can't even hope to offer a secondary (even if limited) capacity for longer-range fires in defence of the main weapons. Kind of like the time-honoured practice of using artillery to separate infantry from their tanks, and then to pick each off at comparative leisure.

[William F. Owen]

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.

You are correct. There is lots of data on the purely mechanical terminal effects. In 5 years of research I have found no open source data (or even foot prints of proprietary data) that any testing has been done on the tactical applications, human performance, or comparative organisations of the employment of PDWs.

Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?

Pick a well reasoned criteria and test against it. Personally, I think the mechanical testing is not that important. Bullet design and testing is far from complex, and there are legal issues to contend with as well. Penetration is still the simplest, least contentious and easiest to achieve effect.

So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?

Did the Germans respond differently to squads of Soviets equipped with PPsH, or any other weapon? This question assumes tactical problem to be in isolation.

To repeat, I am no saying, every man should have a PDW or even which PDW. I think big bullets are good. Big Bullets coming from GPMGs and Long range rifles is more effective than than from IWs. The concern and the only reason to look at this, is the issue of carried weight. I am not suggesting squads equipped with PDWs. I am suggesting optimising functions within the platoon, based on carried weight. That may mean, giving some, (or even a lot of) men PDWs

[120mm]

I think it would definitely be worth setting up some old-fashioned war games that test the concept.

I think you could even do something with micro-armor to illustrate how it would work: I mean, we know the terminal effects/range of each weapon, and we could make a range of estimations of ammo consumption.

[Sabre]

As interesting as the discussion of WWII-era "room brooms" is (and it IS interesting, I remember the day that the units' last few M3's were coded out...) I'll make some small attempt to drive the thread back to the original topic...

Did the Germans respond differently to squads of Soviets equipped with PPsH, or any other weapon? This question assumes tactical problem to be in isolation.

To repeat, I am not saying, every man should have a PDW or even which PDW. I think big bullets are good. Big Bullets coming from GPMGs and Long range rifles is more effective than than from IWs. The concern and the only reason to look at this, is the issue of carried weight. I am not suggesting squads equipped with PDWs. I am suggesting optimising functions within the platoon, based on carried weight. That may mean, giving some, (or even a lot of) men PDWs

My guess is that no, the Germans did not respond differently to PPsH-equipped squads, if for no other reason than they didn't often encounter such a squad in isolation, but rather as some part of a horde (a gross over-simplification, I know).
In the relatively smaller "advanced" armies, however, a platoon or even squad may well find itself tactically isolated, and a few unlucky hits away from disaster.

So, if only say, two personnel in each squad will have a "real" casualty-producing weapon, how do we select who those "lucky" folks are?

Do we believe in the 95%/5% rule, that while most soldiers are quite willing to do their duty as best they can, and display immense courage, only a small percentage of soldiers are going to end up causing a disproportionately high percentage of enemy casualties? Will we saddle some very effective soldiers with a weapon that doesn't realize their full potential to deal damage to the enemy, while putting the big guns in the hands of less capable individuals?

What message are we sending to those who are armed with PDF's? Do we say "you are basically a pack mule to carry ammo, and once the shooting starts, you are expected to provide close security, and lay down some suppressive fire as necessary, but not really expected to kill the enemy?
Rather than contributing rather less to the squad/platoon "total", the demoralized squaddies will now contribute zero? (Of course, that is the central argument, after all: the premise that they already contribute next to nothing...)

It occurs to me that we already have a weapon that can lay plenty of suppressive fire with a smaller round (the SAW) and yet it isn't universally accepted as the answer to our tactical prayers. Admittedly, this last is perhaps a specious argument, but would everyone suddenly love the SAW, if it weighed only 8 pounds? (I already love it, so it is hard for me to tell.)

This probably also means that there must be VERY extensive cross-training, as a squad cannot afford for the GPMG or LRR to be out of action, if the primary operator is hit. True proficiency with either weapon takes time and much practice (I'm not saying that it isn't possible, just something to consider, and something that we haven't always been able to achieve in the past).

I do appreciate what is an intellectually daring approach to this problem. From an engineering perspective, this is an optimization problem, balancing carried load/weight vs. battlefield effectiveness. I'm just not convinced that this takes the human factors sufficiently into consideration.

[ODB]

Gentlemen,

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..

Yes if you have priority of fires. Have to think on a worst case scenerio. Can I effectively take on an enemy force with my internal weapons/weapon systems. There has been many fights where the unit in contact did not have priority on A/C gun ships, fighter A/C, or UAVs, they had to slug it out the old fashion way. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the power/fuel source that can keep an airframe in the air indefinately. Soldiers need to be able to continue the fight when aircraft have to leave station to refuel or rearm. Additionally there are cases where units maintained contact with the enemy for hours with these assets available. When thinking of how to arm todays grunt these factors need to be addressed.

[Richard W]

A man can carry only so much. What are the limitations of the average, young man in terms of weight bearing? How far can he walk with a designated weight? Does the West still need foot platoons?

We know that prior to WWI that the Imperial German Army conducted exhaustive testing regarding the first two questions.(Certainly at that time there was no question as to the right answer to the third question.) We also know the results of the march testing. Generally speaking an average young man

1) Can carry about 1/3 of his body weight over extended distances.

2) He can march in day light on a reasonably surfaced road at a rate of about 3 MPH with a 10-minute break every hour for about 8-hours a day for a total of about 20-miles a day. Anything more than this is a "force march" and impacts on the health of the average young man.

3. Our young man can do this 6-days a week with a single day of rest.

If we assume that he weighs around 150 lbs then his marching weight his around 50lbs. As we all know if our young marcher is issued with an old 7.62 machine gun (M 60 or MAG 58) and about 400 rounds of link outside of its packaging then he will approach or exceed the 50 lbs limit without counting the other necessities of survival (The way things are going our young soldiers may soon be carrying 50 lbs in battery weight alone.)

The 1944/45 German infantry platoon solved this problem with issuing 2-4 pony carts to a platoon. The young German marcher put his machine gun, ammunition and much of his other gear in the squad cart and marched along carrying his basic webbing and pistol. Sadly I do not think that I could convince the Western Defense establishments to return to unshod ponies and wooden carts as the principal support vehicle for foot platoons).

My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).

But does the West still need foot platoons?

Regards

Richard

[William F. Owen]

My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).

Six days on foot is very demanding dismounted operation. Not impossible, but the circumstances that would cause it would be pretty specific, and you'd be trading weapons weight for Comms, rations and water.

Rifle Grenades are good, as are 66mm LAWs, but again, these had to be set against trade-offs in other areas. Do you need Rifle grenades if you have 40mm UGL? etc.