bladerunner
Banned Idiot
flyzies; Not necessarily true...reminds me of AK-47 coming out on top of M-16 in Vietnam. US equipment generally comes out of an engagement better than Russia's cos US crews are much better trained.[/QUOTE said:
China depends less on Russian Technology
- Thread starter Rising China
- Start date
Yes, AK-47 was designed primarily for role of a machine gun...M-16 designed as a rifle.
I always tend to think AK-47 is accurate, but just not as accurate as M-16.
Kalashnikoviks were never designed to be a machineguns but as exactly what it is, a an assaultrifle. The concept came from the Germans during WWII by using smaller rounds than in normal rifles in order to fire rapidfire mode that could be handeled but yet larger than submachinegu-rounds to achive greater ranger and bigger bunch.
Now Soviets adopted the same idea alongside with their short 7.62x39 round but americans lacked behind in the terms of concept and adopted the assault rifle idea only with the introduction of M16.
Both guns aren't machineguns. Machineguns are in infatry a squad support weapons (LMGs) and/or heavy platoon/battalion support weapons (HMGs. They are not individual weapons in the same sense as submachineguns or rifles. These are pretty basic stuff lads...
Now Soviets adopted the same idea alongside with their short 7.62x39 round but americans lacked behind in the terms of concept and adopted the assault rifle idea only with the introduction of M16.
Both guns aren't machineguns. Machineguns are in infatry a squad support weapons (LMGs) and/or heavy platoon/battalion support weapons (HMGs. They are not individual weapons in the same sense as submachineguns or rifles. These are pretty basic stuff lads...
OK I really dont know how accurate the AK-47 but I can say that the Type 81 are fairly accurate and has high kinetic energy upon impact. Fired some Type 81 at Sanwei, China.
Its recoil isnt to bad nothing a bit of strength and tight grip cannont overcome, but I found that squating and standing are more comfortable firing positions for Type 81 than going prone. Suprisinly I shot better standing than prone.
Seems that their is a lack in high calibre sniper rifles that are below 1.5MOA all current ones are between 1.8-2.0MOA, if China introduces 7.62mm round bolt action sniper rifle then I would also make a 7.62mm semi-auto derivative also.
Its recoil isnt to bad nothing a bit of strength and tight grip cannont overcome, but I found that squating and standing are more comfortable firing positions for Type 81 than going prone. Suprisinly I shot better standing than prone.
Seems that their is a lack in high calibre sniper rifles that are below 1.5MOA all current ones are between 1.8-2.0MOA, if China introduces 7.62mm round bolt action sniper rifle then I would also make a 7.62mm semi-auto derivative also.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Not if one was to read an article by Martin Sieff in his latest report in UPI some aspects of it have been thrashed about on CDF before with a defirrent conclusion
heres an excerpt
For although China now has arguably the broadest low-tech industrial base on Earth and a space development program that has more promise and vastly more resources devoted to it than those of either the United States or Russia, Beijing remains dependent on enormous quantities of foreign imports for most of its crucial land weapons systems.................The Chinese armaments industry still cannot make any world-class Main Battle Tank of its own. We know this because Beijing wants to buy Russia's formidable T-90, but the Russians won't sell. However, they have just concluded a multibillion-dollar contract to sell 347 T-90s to India......................According to Russian experts, the General Armaments Department of the People's Liberation Army wants to buy large batches of Russian-made Shmel -- Bumblebee -- rocket infantry flame-throwers, 120mm Nona-SVK and Vena self-propelled guns, 152mm Msta-S self-propelled artillery systems, 300mm Smerch -- Tornado -- multiple-launch rocket systems -- MLRSs, BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, BTR-80 armored personnel carriers -- APCs, Mil Mi-28N Havoc and Kamov Ka-50 Hokum "Black Shark" attack helicopters, various types of 3-D radars, naval Shtil-1 R-29RM -- SS-N-23 -- surface-to-air missiles on vertical launchers, as well as electronic counter-measures -- ECM -- systems, Ka-27 and Helix Ka-28 ship-borne helicopters, know-how for manufacturing fourth-generation and fifth-generation aircraft engines, highly alloyed steels and other materials.
In other words, it can safely be said that China's arms industry, for all the country's astonishing economic and industrial achievements, is still incapable of making a vast range of weapons, especially for land warfare and tactical air support of ground operations that it must buy from other sources.
China's domestic arms industry can be said to have hit a plateau, or glass ceiling. It has reached maturity in a limited number of areas where it does what it knows how to do extremely well. But the Chinese, understandably, are not satisfied with that. They want to import the technology and expertise to mass produce robust, state-of-the-art weapons and combat equipment that is comparable with American, Western and Indian output. The natural partner to help them climb this industrial mountain is Russia. But so far, the Russians aren't playing.
I wasnt aware that Chinesee Battle tanks didnt rate with whats around, or that they were after russian battle tanks.India acquiring the T90 would give them the drop on China.
What do you call the T-99?
Russia doesnt sell land assault weapons to China for political and non-military reasons, the biggest one being it shares a common border with China.
I have doubts about China wanting to buy all those Russian systems, as after few minutes of checking on sinodefence, I see China already has its own self propelled guns (PLZ05, PLZ45 and PTL02), its own multiple rocket launched systems (Type 89 and PHL03), its own IFVs (ZLC2000 and Type 92) and its own APCs (the Type 89) - and is also developing next generation 8x8 IFVs and APCs.
Theres no need to buy someone else's stuff when your own stuff can do a similar or same job.
Kamov admitted a while back that China wasnt interested in Ka-50, as China already has WZ-10 project up and running.
Radars and aircraft engines are areas where China would indeed enquire about...
That is the authors own very biased opinion and nothing else.
RedMercury
Junior Member
That article seems to be a decade out of date. Ironically almost every one of those items are now available domestically, and in many cases, the domestic versions are superior. If anything, the Russians denied themselves some sales cash by not exporting those things; it forced China to develop them on its own (possibly with the help of copying or espionage, no doubt, but who doesn't) and now it has no need of such Russian imports.
After that excerpt is shown, that article is complete nonsense. I have never heard of China asking for T-90s. They did ask for T-80s at one point, which is superior to the T-90s, but it did not fall through. The Chinese were probably just "phishing" for information , and if they actually acquired T-80s, it wasn't for their armed services, but for their dissection and study, so they can build a tank that could beat it.
I would regard the ZTZ-99G to be better than any T-90 variant in just every department. The T-90 is much closer to what the PLA has for their second line MBT, the ZTZ-96.
On top of that the PLA never ordered any land vehicle, BMP or such, MLRS rocket launcher, helicopters other than the Mi-171. Practically zero. The proof is out there and it is well documented.
I would regard the ZTZ-99G to be better than any T-90 variant in just every department. The T-90 is much closer to what the PLA has for their second line MBT, the ZTZ-96.
On top of that the PLA never ordered any land vehicle, BMP or such, MLRS rocket launcher, helicopters other than the Mi-171. Practically zero. The proof is out there and it is well documented.
