They'll still be ridiculed; even as the Type 95 is gradually being retired, there's no need for such inefficient way
PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
Correct me if Im wrong, but the ~500m/s muzzle velocity for grenades still seem really high for a indirect fire weapon, especially when compared with other automatic grenade launchers with afiak ~200m/s. On second thought if they switch to airburst grenades as discussed in the intro section of the paper then the higher muzzle velocity would be less of an issue I guess? As it stands right now, using impact fuses would seemingly make the indirect fire capability less reliable than traditional grenade launchers, just my 5 cents.
edit: having gone over the comment section, they're right this is literally the helldivers 2 autocannon down to having both AP and HE rounds lmfao
Last edited:
Do we know what caliber it is? Is it the same one used in the QBZ 191, or is it something new?
Where are you getting your images and information from? You repost these images from certain weibo accounts yet miss the entire context and discussion from the same page.
It's a 40mm export oriented M320 style grenade launcher. It's not new. The first and third images are from 2022 Zhuhai and the second image is an updated variant from 2024.
The actually interesting information that saru didn't post is that the PLA started popularizing UBGLs in conventional infantry units starting around 2014/2015, but still in relatively small numbers. There was then a plan to mass issue UBGLs (2 per squad in MCAB, similar to many Western TOEs) to increase squad level firepower but it was delayed. As of 2026, it's still yet to materialize and it's unclear whether they are still pursuing such an effort.
Last edited:
Maybe they're ditching that for more squad level automatic grenade launchers like the QLZ87 or QLU11
Those things are essentially the weight and bulk of a crew served though, would be especially disruptive for MCAB squads with small number of dismounts and already carrying PF98. Would make more sense at platoon level. Not to mention how terrible the recoil is on those things. I've never seen a video of them being fired from bipod where it looked like the user was having a remotely good time. Because of that, when it comes to aimed fire on a target I can personally shoot an M203 at a nearly just as fast rate. Basically they would need a tripod and/or prepared position for the full auto and drum mags to actually matter.
Also, there is the advantage of being able to use the trajectory of low velocity 40mm as essentially squad level indirect fire against targets in defilade. I worked under a Sgt who did that in combat. He landed a near direct hit on a PKM blindfiring from behind a mud brick wall with the second round, after using the impact from the first to range.
Last edited:
That's interesting. You think they delayed the adoption to instead switch to the new precision grenade launcher?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
So probably 40x46mm NATO comparable similar to the new Russian Gp46.
Although the M320 was developed to underbarrel mount originally intended for the XM8 and HK416 as it’s a derivative of the HK EGLM used on G36 and British L85 rifles. In practice on the TOE for US forces the M320 is preferred as a standalone weapon. Similar to how the old M79 was used. It’s basically Thumper 2.0.
Interesting. I could see a problem with this as PLA MCAB are generally smaller than U.S. infantry who use such a configuration. Well on paper they are both a 9 man unit in practice the PLA counts the 3 man vehicle crew. Where a Bradley unit breaks he dismounted squad between vehicles and a Stryker holds the whole team. With the vehicle crews operating as a semi independent team.
so a U.S. squad would have the two grenade launchers distributed among the nine dismount in one per fireteam.
where the PLA would have the two launchers in the 6 man dismount.
To lay this out the general table is something like this.
US Army__________________PLA MCAB
- Squad leader M4A1/M17 — Vehicle /Squad commander QBZ191
- (A) team leader M4A1/M17– Vehicle Gunner QBZ192
- A Grenadier M4A1/M320– Vehicle Driver QSZ 92
- A automatic rifleman M249–Anti tank PF98/Qbz191 or Grenadier QBZ191/QLG 10A
- Rifleman M4A1 or Designated M110A1–Anti tank PF98/Qbz191
- (B) Team leader M4A1/M17— Machine gunner QJB201
- (B) Grenadier M4A1/M320– Machine Gunner QJB201
- (B) Automatic Rifleman M249–Deputy Squad leader Qbz191/QBS-09
- Rifleman M4A1 or Antitank specialist M4A1/AT4 or Designated M110A1–Designated Marksmen QBU 191
We see elements that are duplicated in the ground elements of the PLA but the spread of weapons means it’s getting more and more complicated because of the smaller base of dismount.
The American infantry squad can easily and is designed to break into two elements where the PLA unit if broken would have less capability and though redundancy is included seems more likely to be used as a single fireteam.
Both organizations are subject to change based on modernization and change to threats. The U.S. tables in example are known to have planed changes coming including reintroduction of AT4 to the squad, the PGS replacing the load of one Grenadier from M4A1/M320 to the PGS, and adoption of the M7 and M250 to replace M4A1 and M249 respectively.
Last edited: