PLA Small arms

O

ohan_qwe

Junior Member
by78 said:
QLL12 35mm grenade launcher.

54440388963_a14e32de86_k.jpg

54439283197_f36221734f_h.jpg

54440149516_2f057666fc_h.jpg

54439283207_002ec0355d_k.jpg
54440140461_06c4c1db73_k.jpg
Click to expand...
Wonder how many types off grenade they have. The low velocity underbarrel launcher is muzzle loaded and the breech loaded AGL/sniper is medium velocity. Is this a breech loaded low velocity?
 
Z

zlixOS

New Member
Registered Member
Fandango831 said:
Definitely seeing that 3x digital optic (roughly related to the commerical ADNV S213) more frequently now between both PAP and PLA units. Would make me think the optic is trialing well thus far for both night and day use cases.
Click to expand...
I think people underestimate the force multiplier that is even a shitty scope (which digital ones most often are). A shitty 3x digital optic with lag and a bright screen and neither optimized for day or night use would still massively increase the force of any soldier equipped with it. It's why the QMK and this NV optic would be so important for fighting a peer war.
 
Wrought

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
zlixOS said:
I think people underestimate the force multiplier that is even a shitty scope (which digital ones most often are). A shitty 3x digital optic with lag and a bright screen and neither optimized for day or night use would still massively increase the force of any soldier equipped with it. It's why the QMK and this NV optic would be so important for fighting a peer war.
Click to expand...

No, very much the opposite. People hugely overestimate the importance of small arms on the battlefield.

Studies of frontline combat during World War II reveal that U.S. troops expended 25,000 small arms rounds for every enemy soldier they killed. In the Korean War the number doubled to 50,000 rounds per enemy death. By the time the United States went to war in Southeast Asia, technological advances in weapons had made it possible to place a fully automatic rifle in the hands of every American infantryman, and the firepower of fully automatic “rock and roll” resulted in the expenditure of 200,000 rounds of ammunition for every enemy body.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Z

zlixOS

New Member
Registered Member
Wrought said:
No, very much the opposite. People hugely overestimate the importance of small arms on the battlefield.



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Good post. I have been refuted. I was mostly basing my post off of the increase of enemy KIA and head-shots following the introduction of the ACOG to USMC forces during the GWOT. But I forgot to take into consideration the low-intensity, static nature of the conflict where Allied forces waited for insurgents to come to them rather than actively seek out and annihilate enemy positions. Seeing the number of rounds expended during a peer, near-peer, and even not-at-all-a-peer (Vietnam) wars, I think you are more correct.

Additionally, in the current Russo-Ukrainian war, many engagements are happening within not 50 meters!

But I still do think equipping every soldier with magnification of some kind will prove useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top