This post is inspired by a recent article John Farnam at AmmoLand where he asks “Is the PDW (Personal Defensive Weapon) Still Relevant?” Farnam mostly focuses on the FN P-90 and why it hasn’t been widely adopted before moving on to an argument that the handgun can serve the traditional role of a PDW if the military allowed it to be carried as millions of police and private citizens carry their handguns. He does include some discussion of why PDWs are needed (smaller weight and size, the latter particularly important in our heavily mechanized forces, and discusses the adoption of the M1 Carbine in WWII.
PDW or personal defense weapon is a term referring to weapons intended to be carried and used by troops not serving in combat roles or that due to other reasons could not carry full size rifles, but who still needed effective combat weapons. Traditionally these personnel included troops manning artillery or other support weapons, drivers, medics, radio men, and even those with command roles, as well as others providing logistical support at or near the front line.
Although the PDW designation is fairly recent, such weapons have been around for a long time. In fact, the various hangers and swords carried by non-infantry troops prior to the advent of modern firearms filled much the same role.
Arguably the first PDWs of the modern era were handguns. Originally a Calvary weapon, as revolvers became smaller they were increasingly carried by line officers in addition to or as an adjunct to an officer’s sword. By WWI, handguns were being regularly issued to officers and support personnel. But even during that great conflict it was recognized that something more was needed, which is why we saw a proliferation of pistols being produced that would accept stocks and, in many cases, offered full automatic fire.
At the same time, the combatants recognized the need for more firepower when assaulting trenches and other field fortifications. Consequently several of the belligerents developed and started issuing sub machine guns.
By WWII, although the sub machine gun started out as an assault weapon, it was also widely issued to support and rear echelon troops to serve as a PDW. If the US had not already developed its M1 Carbine (which by the end of the war was transitioning to a select fire assault rifle), the US probably would have made greater use of sub machine guns. It is important to note that after the M1 Carbine was adopted, many combat troops began clamoring for it because of its smaller size and weight and increased magazine capacity, particularly in settings where the size and weight of the Garand posed a disadvantage and the range and power wasn’t always needed: e.g., urban and jungle warfare. Keep note of this because we will see something similar happen two more times.
The military hates the added logistics of multiple individual weapons and ammunition, particularly since, as all right thinking generals know, wars are won with bombs and missiles. Thus, following WWII, the military (and, in particular, the Army) decided to chase after that rarest of unicorns: the one infantry arm that could do everything. This was the M14 and it was not just to replace the M1 Garand as the principle infantry weapon, but also replace the M1 Carbine, the submachine gun, and the automatic rifle. (At the same time, the Army was also pursuing the general purpose machine gun that was to replace the light and medium machine guns). I'm sure that it irked them to no end that the M14 couldn't also replace the handgun. But the Army had achieved the impossible: it had produced an infantry rifle that could do everything one could want in an individual weapon.
That is until reality struck and the country found itself embroiled in a war in South East Asia. Early on in the war, you saw a resurgent popularity of the lowly .30 carbine (albeit in a select fire version called the M2 or the night vision equipped M3) and various submachine guns. But the M16 also made its appearance, and suddenly the troops were clamoring for the smaller, lighter, M16 which could do most everything they needed it to do in the jungle and urban combat that was prevalent in that war. I would argue that because of its light weight and low recoil, the M16 and M16A1 was effectively able to serve as a PDW.
But Vietnam ended, the military forgot many of its hard-learned lessons, and so the military once again set about trying to develop a rifle that could do everything. By that time, even our NATO allies had learned that a .308 "assault rifle" was impractical (which is why they all continued to field submachine guns in addition to the FAL or G3 or equivalents).
But the light weight M16A1 and its very effective 55-grain bullet was suddenly not good enough. Bullet weight was increased to 62 grains. The NATO allies each went their own way as far as a rifle platform, but the U.S. decided to add a heavy barrel and rifleman's sight and upgraded furniture. The result was the significantly heavier M16A2. I would argue that the A2 was heavy enough that it no longer could also serve as a PDW. But that issue was ignored until the U.S. started finding itself embroiled in yet other wars: this time in the Middle-East.
Then, just as happened in WII and Vietnam, the regular troops discovered the M4 Carbine (which, just like the M16 in Vietnam was intended as a weapon for special forces), which was lighter, shorter, and handier than the M16A2 (or A3 or A4) and started clamoring for it. Again, the troops wanted a PDW type weapon.
Of course, over time, more and more stuff started getting hung off the weapon, special variants were issued, and the overall weight started creeping up so ultimately troops were carrying weapons that weighed more than their grandfather's M1 Garand. Encouraged by this, the military has once again decided that it can develop another infantry weapon that can do it all: the M5 ... er ... M7. Essentially the M14 all over again except with optics and a silencer. But, here is the interesting part, the M-4 will be retained for non-combat and support troops--i.e., it will serve as a PDW. And my prediction? Even after the M7 is issued, the M4 will continue to see use even among combat troops who will value its lighter weight and lower recoil and higher magazine capacity.
So does the PDW have any relevancy? Maybe not in the form of a P90 or a tricked out submachine gun. But in short barreled 5.56 weapons, the answer is a definite yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment