PDWs

IANACSMP[1] but:

Okay, I'm not going to do anything but ask a question or two here and suggest
one outlook in which the PDW might make sense. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm
sure someone (and odds say his initials will be J.A.) will leap up and burn me
from my pulpit....:)

The lastest generation of PDWs (like the 4.6mm one from H&K) are supposed to
offer a small firearm capable of some moderate range, some decent penetration,
quite a few shots, and provide this in a small form factor that is
light, easy to carry, and easy to keep 'out-of-
the-way'. The FN90 is a bit on the large size of
that, and this class of weapons has been represented in past by certain
"specialty" pistols with autofire and stocks and such and by SMGs. But now
they're getting smaller, lighter, and I believe more dangerous to armoured
targets.

Now, are they a replacement for an AR? No. But if you're an armour crewman
working in confined spaces, a medic working in confined spaces, or some supply
guy, etc., the fact that the PDW is small and easily portable may be a greater
factor. It offers a better capability than pistols for ranged combat (I
believe) and therefore is an improvement on the pistol as a sidearm. And isn't
that the function (more or less) of the PDW? It's meant for those kind of
soldier that aren't primary combatants (on the ground). Armour, aircrew,
medics, etc.

Yes, you can argue that the AR is a better choice. Sure. In a fight. But if
95% of your job is
non-combat, and what you do is important
(getting supplies to places, patching people up, driving a vehicle, etc), then
if you do try to make the AR work, you may only be causing yourself grief for
a questionable benefit.

The whether or not to carry an AR or PDW issue is sort of like the "do
engineers expect to see recce elements" issue. In a perfect world, no one
would need more than a PDW in the secondary or tertiary military branches. In
a perfect world, engineers would never see enemy recce, they'd be dead. In the
real world, there are times that these folks might like more firepower or that
engineers might see enemy recce. These kinds of things sometimes happen even
if they are a "bad thing".

But that doesn't invalidate the value of a PDW. If I had a job where my
options were 1) carry an AR and impede my primary taskings 2) carry nothing
(or a pistol) or 3) carry a PDW and get some capability and a good ability to
execute
my primary non-combat taskings, then the PDW
would start to look pretty good.

Don't look at it as a replacement for the AR, but look at it as a replacement
for the sidearm.

And I don't know about John, but I'm pretty impressed by the ability of the
5.7mm round used in the FiveSeven and the FN90 to penetrate ballistic armour.
I bet if it hits an unarmoured target, the bullet probably just punches a hole
and does not do much damage, but even a shot through the arm or leg can be
disabling. Overpenetration would be a danger in urban environments (I can see
cops not using this kind of round), but versus armoured targets, it would make
a lot of sense.

> From my conversations with Los, I get the

Like most things in life, it is about picking the right tool for the job. And
everyone would always like to have every capability available: range,
accuracy, silence, penetration, tissue
damage, etc. - but sometimes choices need to
be made and weight and manouverability are not small factors in these
calculations.

Tomb.
[1] IANACSM - I am not a currently serving
military professional