by78
General
But hey, your average peasant recruit (@QIUSIYU) thinks this rifle is the coolest, the bestest in the world. He's blissfully unaware and very proud of it, and that's got to count for something, right?
Last edited:
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
But hey, your average peasant recruit (@QIUSIYU) thinks this rifle is the coolest, the bestest in the world. He's blissfully unaware and very proud of it, and that's got to count for something, right?
Small arms are of marginal importance to any kind of serious conflict. I'm fine with them cutting corners here so long as they don't skimp on high-end platforms; having the latest and greatest rocket artillery matters a lot more than the latest and greatest assault rifle.
They could've just stayed on the Type 56 if they needed to.
by78
General
That's what I thought as well –– assault rifles are basically PDWs –– until a couple of years ago. The experience in a certain ongoing war informs us otherwise. Warfare is ever evolving, and good assault rifles are back in fashion.
I honestly agree, but my issue is, to me at least, it seems like it was an unnecessary skimp. Like, did we seriously need to cut back on something like this so much? Even the Russians deeply regret skimping on the AK-12 back then and have done a lot better with the upcoming upgrades. There's just so much lack of vision and backwardness when it comes to the GF higher-ups. You don't see this with any other branch of the PLA on the GF. The CS/LS 17 is a lot more future-proof than this rifle, and that was made by a truck company of all people. The wonders when you don't have old management breathing down your neck to skimp over everything.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It should be noted that the three recent conflicts may not be reflective of future conflicts. They are products of the respective militaries fighting, the arms available to them, geographical locations and other factors.
As a general rule Yes Assault rifles and Battle rifles are basically PDWs.
However a halfassed PDW is a halfassed PDW though ultimately the best weapon and optic in the world will be limited by the training and proficiency of its user.
In the Case of the AK12, the problem is the choices they made meant that even if they had issued enablers (optics, VFGS, Night vision, lasers) it would have been of little benefit. Even with improved iterations of the AK 12 it’s hard to see any significant difference due to the base designs inherent limitations. The Kalashnikov rifle was a good design in the 1950s even the 1960s but in the age of optics… the steps needed to adapt the AK are frankly ridiculous.
As yet there haven’t been any real independent reviews of the QBZ191 with what we have seen being primarily in China or inside the Chinese media sphere. Based on what we see of it I have often felt that well not as advanced it’s still an adaptable design. It reminds me of the Short lived Sig 556 series.
Well the receiver extension may prohibit folding as the M4 and HK416 has proven that is not a deal breaker. Since then a number of retrofit and commercial AR manufacturers have developed abbreviated buffer extension systems and even folding stock kits.
well a reciprocal charging handle may not be ideal it’s not a deal breaker as any number of even new rifles retain such.
Ambidextrous controls can be retrofitted if desired at a later date. Though training with them would be required. As is it’s a substantial improvement over the QBZ95.
We know the Chinese have a metallic rail retrofit for the QBZ191 series so again we don’t have a deal breaker the receiver rail system seem to work as intended and getting optics in issue and training can come before getting a top end RAS system.
If we want to talk about things we think are going to need fixing. I would add that stupid grip pod. It’s either a big heavy fat bulky grip or a chonky almost useless bipod snagging on kit and just in the way.
I don't think anything from Ukraine—or Gaza—is a good reference for a much higher-end fight in the Pacific. Infantry combat will be an afterthought of ground combat, which will itself be an afterthought of air/sea/etc combat. Especially when you look at it from an informatized system perspective; the individual infantryman neither contributes to awareness of the broader battlespace, nor degrades enemy awareness of such in any meaningful fashion. No offense to Russia/Israel/etc but they are simply fighting a less sophisticated form of war than we expect from China/US.
Well you have to remember these rifles are being procured by the million, so a few $$$ saved per rifle adds up really fast.
Last edited:
by78
General
You certainly cannot discount the probability of scenarios in which a combination of attrition and strong electronic warfare have neutralized or rendered in effective ranged artillery and aerial platforms, thereby necessitating the kind of brutal urban/trench warfare that require painstaking infantry action. The cost of a full metal top rails on a few hundred thousand/million rifles is a pittance compared to not having them when you need them.
With regards to any plausible conflict with the US, discounting such a scenario is the only reasonable path. The only direct infantry actions are likely to be SOF in nature.
ROC infantry certainly cannot be compared to US infantry in any way.
by78
General
It'd be unwise to make that assumption.
Which one? The former assumes that one side or the other has sufficient air/naval control to successfully conduct and maintain an amphibious operation, but insufficient control to deny it to an adversary—a very fine line, if it even exists at all. I certainly can't think of any plausible battlefield which does not hugely favor one side or the other.
The latter is a given from the enormous disparity in resources put into training/equipment/etc on both an individual and army level.