China seems to prefer using 5.8mm for short and medium range use and lightweight 12.7 mm weapons for long range firepower.
Does PLA have firearm chambered in .338 Lapua or something similar for long range sniping or they just rely on 12.7x108?
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Does PLA have firearm chambered in .338 Lapua or something similar for long range sniping or they just rely on 12.7x108?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The PLA has an unique appreciation of the importance of logistics almost engrained in its DNA thanks to its beginnings and most notable foreign campaign to date (Korea).
As such, they try to streamline as much as possible, and can be fairly resistant to taking on new stuff because of the logistical impact such changes will bring as much as because of the added monetary costs.
Because of this, the PLA really managed to make a truly man-portable 50cal/12.7mm HMG with the QJZ-89, and looks to be making an even lighter next gen 50cal.
As such, one can easily understand why they dispensed with the 308 cal/7.62mm GPMGs and standardised on 5.8mm and 12.7mm as it’s two machine gun calibers.
5.8 gives you standardised ammo as the regular infantry (both the standard issue rifle 95s and 88s can use both standard and MG ammo, indeed, the 95-1 improved standard service rifle has started using MG ammo as standard anyways); while 12.7 gives you range and punch way beyond what 7.62 could hope to achieve.
I don’t think the PLA is a big believer of suppression fire like some western militaries, and prefer accuracy and efficiency, again owing to its logistics focus. Hence their preference for grenade launchers.
If you engage in a firefight with a PLA unit from cover, they will either obliterate you alongside said cover with 12.7mm machine gun fire, and/or blast you with grenade launchers rather than rain lead on your position. With the proliferation of sniper rifles, that also adds to the PLA’s toolkit when dealing with enemies in cover.
Interestingly, I think the PLA is also set to standardised on 5.8 and 12.7 as their sniper rifle calibers for the same reason as their machine gun caliber choices.
The main drawback of these choices would be volume of fire available at medium engagement ranges. Infantry can only carry a small number of 100 round 12.7 ammo drums, and the drums themselves are too heavy to expect all squad members to be able to carry a spare, as you could with 7.62.
I suppose you can get all squad members to carry 25-50 round belts of 50cal ammo in pouches, so while the machine gunner rattles off the canned ammo, the second man of the machine gun team could collect these pouches from the rest of the squad to reload spend drums, or just feed them directly into the MG.
But even then you are not going to have anywhere close to the number of 7.62 rounds you can have, so there will be no real chance that a typical PLA squad can keep multiple enemy positions effectively suppressed at medium range to allow the GI to advance on them, as many western armies are trained to operate.
The PLA is a much more heavily mechanised force than most western militaries these days, so they would not expect to get into many medium ranges engagements, as they will rely on their armoured transports to bring the infantry in close to dismount and engage the enemy rather than try to close on foot.
As China starts to develop and deploy expeditionary forces further and further abroad, it would be interesting to see if they stick with their heavy mechanised infantry force structure, or shift to a more western rapid response light infantry model, and what, if any impact that might have on their infantry weapon choices in the future.
As such, they try to streamline as much as possible, and can be fairly resistant to taking on new stuff because of the logistical impact such changes will bring as much as because of the added monetary costs.
Because of this, the PLA really managed to make a truly man-portable 50cal/12.7mm HMG with the QJZ-89, and looks to be making an even lighter next gen 50cal.
As such, one can easily understand why they dispensed with the 308 cal/7.62mm GPMGs and standardised on 5.8mm and 12.7mm as it’s two machine gun calibers.
5.8 gives you standardised ammo as the regular infantry (both the standard issue rifle 95s and 88s can use both standard and MG ammo, indeed, the 95-1 improved standard service rifle has started using MG ammo as standard anyways); while 12.7 gives you range and punch way beyond what 7.62 could hope to achieve.
I don’t think the PLA is a big believer of suppression fire like some western militaries, and prefer accuracy and efficiency, again owing to its logistics focus. Hence their preference for grenade launchers.
If you engage in a firefight with a PLA unit from cover, they will either obliterate you alongside said cover with 12.7mm machine gun fire, and/or blast you with grenade launchers rather than rain lead on your position. With the proliferation of sniper rifles, that also adds to the PLA’s toolkit when dealing with enemies in cover.
Interestingly, I think the PLA is also set to standardised on 5.8 and 12.7 as their sniper rifle calibers for the same reason as their machine gun caliber choices.
The main drawback of these choices would be volume of fire available at medium engagement ranges. Infantry can only carry a small number of 100 round 12.7 ammo drums, and the drums themselves are too heavy to expect all squad members to be able to carry a spare, as you could with 7.62.
I suppose you can get all squad members to carry 25-50 round belts of 50cal ammo in pouches, so while the machine gunner rattles off the canned ammo, the second man of the machine gun team could collect these pouches from the rest of the squad to reload spend drums, or just feed them directly into the MG.
But even then you are not going to have anywhere close to the number of 7.62 rounds you can have, so there will be no real chance that a typical PLA squad can keep multiple enemy positions effectively suppressed at medium range to allow the GI to advance on them, as many western armies are trained to operate.
The PLA is a much more heavily mechanised force than most western militaries these days, so they would not expect to get into many medium ranges engagements, as they will rely on their armoured transports to bring the infantry in close to dismount and engage the enemy rather than try to close on foot.
As China starts to develop and deploy expeditionary forces further and further abroad, it would be interesting to see if they stick with their heavy mechanised infantry force structure, or shift to a more western rapid response light infantry model, and what, if any impact that might have on their infantry weapon choices in the future.
I have a sinking feeling that the penny pinching you described is going to bite the PLA at some point in the future. It's got to get out of this resource-constrained mindset because it's doing more harm than good now. It was justified when China was poor and going up against much better equipped forces, but it's unacceptable today that it doesn't have a bullet calibre appropriate for medium range infantry engagements. It makes absolutely no sense, it's like a billionaire who came up from from poverty and still clips coupons out of habit.
The same mindset is constraining China's nuclear arsenal and severely impacting its national security. China is still worried about becoming "like the Soviet Union" and going bankrupt from excessive military spending, like my hypothetical billionaire worries he'll go bankrupt if he doesn't buy discounted groceries.
A lot of it has little to do with penny-pinching, China has the second largest military expenditure, however frugal it might be it still spends a lot more on infantry than many other armies with better infantry equipment and training. it comes down to being able to keep up with the evolution of infantry sections and platoons in battle.
Being afraid to become like the Soviets might be a bad thing for the military but not a bad thing for the country. one should always be vigilant of over-spending.
The 5.8mm heavy DBP 88 rounds used in the QJY 88 (Not taking into account any new rounds making their way into service now) are still effective at 800-1000m (and beyond when fired from a static mount) when firing from a full length GPMG. Yes they will not pack as much of a punch as a 7.62mm at such a range, but should still be effective to suppress as those medium- longer ranges.
A combination of high volumes of 5.8mm fire combined with marksmen fire and high pressure 20mm and 35mm grenades. Should be sufficient to suppress enemy positions even at medium to longer ranges despite the 5.8mm being less effective than a 7.62 GPMG at those extended ranges.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Effective range listings is a bit of a whimsical thing. Like rate of fire, It’s grading depends on how you measure it.
In theory and with a good shooter practice a marksman can hit a target out to a thousand meters with and M4A1 with a red dot sight. The Swiss 550 series was even used as a sniper rifle again in 556.
Thousand meters hits is possible for an FN Minimi. The absolute maximum range for 556 is about 3600 m depending on conditions but reliability of hitting the target is the issue.
But that’s a really good shooter. From the ballistics perspective for that longer range you tend to want the bigger round It tends to keep its momentum better. Butthe biggest problems are the human element. if we go back in time to when you had larger caliber rounds as standard the end of the black powder era rise of smokeless and age of long rifles from the late days of the 18th to early half of the 20th century the problems that actually made them impractical was the sights. Peep sights are better than slider style but the fact is that theywere depending on the mk1 unmagnified human eyeball. Even today irons are limited by the M4 1 eye ball. A wonder of nature that wasn’t designed to see absolutely crisply beyond a hundred meters in all conditions. I don’t care how many carrots get forced feed into the PLA infantry
Then You get control. As Sunbud said in a static mount. Basically a brace. This is meant to reduce movement of the weapon and place more control on it that human arms can.
Finally you have issues of wind and more that start becoming larger factors. A target at a thousand meters unmagnified needs to be fairly large the shooter well braced to factor wind and humility.
The main factor for going to smaller caliber weapons was control and ammo. Even vs the old 7.62x39mm you can carry more 5.56x45mm,5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm.The smaller lighter rounds have softer felt recoil Vs their predecessors. Again major factors in their favor. As this means more rounds on target at infantry warfare ranges 50-600 meters. The rest is just defended by who is writing and what test is chosen. 800m area target vs moving. Infantry sized vs vehicle sized.
You say that in a medium-range engagement, the PLA would try to make it short-range through their mechanized transport. Is this considered a possible superior strategy to that of the West? Or is it a coping strategy trying to ameliorate a weakness they have?
Is heavily mechanized infantry good or bad? Why would rapid response light infantry be better?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Different tools for different jobs.
PLA heavy mech are geared towards fighting near peer standard military forces out in the open, away from cities and urban areas.
Their job is to keep up with the tanks and provide infantry support.
Back during desert storm and the start of gulf war 2, the US also used primarily such standard mech formations.
But after the Iraqi regular army where destroyed, there wasn’t really much need for having MBTs around, and regular IFVs were little protection against IEDs. Tracked IFVs were also not very neighbourly to operate in urban areas as their tracks tended to chew up tarmac roads pretty badly.
Hence the western shift towards humvees and strykers, and then finally wheeled mine proof armoured vehicles.
What is the best tool depends very much on what job you want doing.
For taking on enemy armour in open terrain, there isn’t much better than your own MBTs with mech infantry support.
For low intensity urban policing duties, you prefer lighter vehicles and to use more dismounted light infantry and/or airborne for rapid reaction.
These light infantry won’t have organic armoured transports and heavy MBT support, so must rely more on their own infantry firepower.
This is further complicated by the geography of Afghanistan with very long engagement ranges; as well as western preference for air power, so you don’t want to get too close to the enemy least your own air strike collateral damages you, hence the focus on medium range firepower.
Question, is this strictly for places similar to those Afghanistan warzones. How well can this be applied to somewhere else?
MwRYum
Major
Inertia could only be overcome via war, actual combat, as no BS can stop an incoming bullet.
Also, according to what I've read in the past, China's preference to drop the mid-range caliber (7.62mm), was due to the experience in the Sino-Vietnam border wars, where the Vietnamese used their .50cal to better effect, thus henceforth Chinese opted for 12.7mm and better yet, make it as portable as possible, even at detriment to all other key specs...
Last edited: