new PAP special forces unit

taxiya said:

So my thought is that, pistol is less effective than a long weapon to keep a safe distance and also lethal enough to disable or kill the attacker.

Click to expand...

Are you saying a pistol has shorter range than a mace?? The effective range of a 9mm is about 100-200 yards. How long is the mace?

It's also much easier to handle a small pistol, such as changing directions etc. it's much cumbersome to wield a mace...

vesicles said:

Are you saying a pistol has shorter range than a mace?? The effective range of a 9mm is about 100-200 yards. How long is the mace?

Click to expand...

No, not range. It is because like baton or long pole (already used by PAP) are hard to push and keep distance.

It's also much easier to handle a small pistol, such as changing directions etc. it's much cumbersome to wield a mace...

Click to expand...

It is cumbersome, but so long as you can point at the attacker you can keep them away and even wound them if you have spikes.
But a pistol can only be effective in keeping the distance if either 20 meters out, or kill within 10 meters.

The video I mentioned demonstrated that exactly that an attack can reach the officer within less than a second if his initial position was within 10 meters to the officer. But even if the officer shot him (so long as not killing him), that sub-second is enough to kill the officer with a stab at the hear or neck.

Here is one of the videos that I have watched. . although it is in a different scenario than terrorist attack, it demonstrated how deadly a knife against a pistol within close range. You only have a plit of second (within 5 meters) or max one second (within 10 meters) to point and kill even if you have the gun drawn already.

That is probably why some armies still retain bayonet for close courter combat even today instead of relying purely on pistol (I know the US army as one). But apparently some other countries think otherwise. And essentially in a close range, PAP and army soldier are in the same situation.

Then use hollow point bullets.

So when a PAP soldier says he may get medieval on yo ass he may mean it literally!
Seriously though what crazy contraption is that? Wouldn't a revolver be much more effective ? That weapon is used strictly for psychological reasons only.

taxiya said:

now we know it was a stunt according to some report, so I take it as a pure discussion of its effectiveness.

In one of my posts, I mentioned the Kunming attack, an officer shot multiple shots within 10 meters to disable the attacker in seconds. I also mentioned the training video of American police of countering a knife welding attacker. The attacker reached the officer (in the demonstration video) in less than 2 seconds. If officer did not manage to kill the attacker in 2 seconds, the officer will be dead because the attacker won't collapse in that 2 seconds if the shot is not fatal, he probably won't feel a thing.

So my thought is that, pistol is less effective than a long weapon to keep a safe distance and also lethal enough to disable or kill the attacker.

Click to expand...

If you can't get your pistol out in time to pull the trigger, how do you expect to be able to swing that thing in time to stop a knifer?

Pole arm weapons are medium range melee weapons and even more ill suited against a knife wielding attacker who managed to get in close than a conventional firearm.

Even back in the day when the wolf tooth mace was a battlefield weapon, it was typically an officer weapon reserved for mounted commanders, who can use the speed and elevated position of his mount to generate deadly momentum to swing it freely with little risk of it hitting friendlies and/or getting it snagged on something in the middle of a swing.

Infantry pole arm weapons were typically stab and thrust weapons like spears and lances for good reason.

But since it's just a prop, it's all pretty much irrelevant.

The best effective defence against knife attackers are still firearms.

Those police training videos only highlight how dangerous knives can be to hammer home the fact that drawing your gun isn't necessarily the best idea in all situations, and to train officers to know when they won't have time to get their gun out so they can have a better chance of surviving being jumped.

That is the key issue, those videos show how easy it could be for officers to to caught by a surprise attack.

That will be less of an issue with knife wielding terrorist mass attacks.

Any officers responding to such an attack will already have weapons drawn and ready.

Not only would aiming and firing a gun be far quicker than using a mace, in the confused environment a terrorist attack will create, you will probably have civilians fleeing in all directions, so swinging a big mace around is likely to be a very bad idea.

The only people who might have any reason to use such a weapon during a terrorist attack would be a terrorist.

Police have far better tools to use for threats than those silly things.

taxiya said:

No, not range. It is because like baton or long pole (already used by PAP) are hard to push and keep distance.

It is cumbersome, but so long as you can point at the attacker you can keep them away and even wound them if you have spikes.
But a pistol can only be effective in keeping the distance if either 20 meters out, or kill within 10 meters.

The video I mentioned demonstrated that exactly that an attack can reach the officer within less than a second if his initial position was within 10 meters to the officer. But even if the officer shot him (so long as not killing him), that sub-second is enough to kill the officer with a stab at the hear or neck.

Here is one of the videos that I have watched.

. although it is in a different scenario than terrorist attack, it demonstrated how deadly a knife against a pistol within close range. You only have a plit of second (within 5 meters) or max one second (within 10 meters) to point and kill even if you have the gun drawn already.

That is probably why some armies still retain bayonet for close courter combat even today instead of relying purely on pistol (I know the US army as one). But apparently some other countries think otherwise. And essentially in a close range, PAP and army soldier are in the same situation.

Click to expand...

That's why the best equipment to counter a surprise knife attack assuming the target notices it in time are armored gloves and arm guards (and the appropriate training of course) allowing the target to resist the attack "barehanded" and chest plate (or whatever torso armor is called) to protect the easiest to hit part of the target.

taxiya said:

What does that suppose to mean? Did they wear PAP uniforms in the movie?

Click to expand...

It means literally. Every once a time PAP and sometimes second line PLA units will receive the political missions to support the culture industry. Sometimes to supply the manpower sometimes the equipment and professional support. But that's off topic though.

kriss said:

It means literally. Every once a time PAP and sometimes second line PLA units will receive the political missions to support the culture industry. Sometimes to supply the manpower sometimes the equipment and professional support. But that's off topic though.

Click to expand...

Good that you know that the "soldiers in movies" is off topic. And I know the literal meaning of your words but my question remains because the two situations are different.

In the "soldiers in movies", they are authorized by the right command to do so in the right context, not in uniforms. Nothing they do is off the book and rule. The PAP being part of the state machinery is authorized by the central military commission to do so.

However, in this stunt, they are using some non-regulated "weapons" to carry out their duties in uniforms. That is a breach of the rules. The commander I referred to has no such authority, it is not like a commander with any rank can issue whatever weapons to his subordinates to carry out tasks out of the guidance of operative directives which include what weapons they are authorized to use in specified situations. Plain and simple.

That is why I asked you what was your meaning by bringing in "soldiers in movies".

Is it only me who think that those sword baton and mace are more logical if it's because of the local martial art culture? Maybe there is a traditional sword martial arts that the local famous of, so the police tried to use that tradition for their cause.

I'm not saying that their decision is based on practical used. But China is different to the western society. They still safeguard their tradition. Specially their martial art culture. And those culture involve of medieval weaponry practice.

So maybe someone has an idea to use the tradition to more practical use. Like giving their police some medieval weapons that is not lethal.

Brainsuker said:

Is it only me who think that those sword baton and mace are more logical if it's because of the local martial art culture? Maybe there is a traditional sword martial arts that the local famous of, so the police tried to use that tradition for their cause.

I'm not saying that their decision is based on practical used. But China is different to the western society. They still safeguard their tradition. Specially their martial art culture. And those culture involve of medieval weaponry practice.

So maybe someone has an idea to use the tradition to more practical use. Like giving their police some medieval weapons that is not lethal.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. In typical Chinese stories, the wolf-tooth mace is such a brutal weapon that it is usually used by bad guys, like foreign invaders.

And this weapon is not commonly associated with Chinese martial art. There are 18 common Chinese weapons, 9 short ones like swords and 9 long ones like spear. Wolf-tooth mace is not one of them. So if they want to do some cultural thing with martial art, they have many choices before ever having to go to the wolf-tooth mace.