QBZ-191 service rifle family

Wrought said:

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.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

Not going to derail the thread by going into possible conflicts in the near or medium term. The job of the military is to be prepared for a wide range of conflict scenarios, big or small, short-term or long-term, and not be limited to a select possible few that garner the most headlines and speculation. The cost of a handguard with a basic metal rail is 30 to 40 USD at most. Multiply that by a few million spread out over the next 20 to 25 years (QBZ-191/192s are stated to be the main service rifle over that timespan), the total bill is relative immaterial compared to the overall budget: less than a single 052D destroyer. The cost of infantrymen killed or injured because their accessories won't hold zero is in probability (much) greater. There is prioritizing budgets wisely, then there is sheer bean counting stupidity.

Click to expand...

Wrought said:

The PLAGF bean counters in question are presumably thinking not about destroyers, but rather about the obsolete tanks/towed guns/etc still in service which are competing for the same budget. And I would agree that prioritizing such platforms is the sensible choice over rifles.

PLAN having ample funding is a different topic, but the chances of navy funds going to army priorities is a lot lower than the other way around.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

I used 052D as an example. If you prefer, the cost of mere 100 to 150 Type 99 MBTs is likely to cover the upgrade of hardguards. The economic cost of losing a soldier to death or permanent disability –– I'm talking about the loss of their economic potential as able-bodied men that can participate in national economy after their discharge and the cost of long-term medical care –– is likely to far exceed the very minor upfront cost savings of equipping the infantry with a compromised rifle design. There is no way around this simple calculation, unless you're of the view that Chinese peasants' sole purpose are to grow food in peace time and serve as fodder in war. China is long past the point of throwing away lives so needlessly.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

I used 052D as an example. If you prefer, the cost of mere 100 to 150 Type 99 MBTs is likely to cover the upgrade of hardguards. The economic cost of losing a soldier to death or permanent disability –– I'm talking about the loss of their economic potential as able-bodied men who can contribute to the national economy after their discharge and the cost of long-term medical care –– is likely to far exceed the very minor upfront cost savings of equipping the infantry with a compromised rifle design. There is no way around this simple calculation, unless you're of the view that Chinese peasants' sole purpose is to grow food in peace time and serve as fodder in war. China is long past the point of throwing away lives so needlessly.

Click to expand...

Neurosmith said:

This logic could be applied to just about any piece of equipment within the PLA. However, with a limited budget and a large standing army, compromises will have to be made. Drawing from your Type 99 MBT thought experiment, equipping all of your men with fully-upgraded QBZ-191s might mean that 150 of your tank crews would need to face enemy armor/missiles with ZTZ-96Bs rather than ZTZ-99As. The economic cost of losing entire tank crews might just outweigh the risks associated with a slightly-less-capable rifle setup.

Click to expand...

Wrought said:

I think framing the military in terms of economic potential is fundamentally wrong from the start. The entire institution is a giant loss-making money pit, one which should be allocated only as much resources as strictly necessary. The rest can be invested far more productively into the civilian economy.

The military resources you do invest must be prioritized not by economic efficiency but by maximum capability. And in that regard, I do think several hundred modern MBTs is of considerably greater value than a slightly-improved standard rifle. The former can be concentrated into an armored spearhead; the latter is a dispersed and diffuse capability whose benefit cannot even be reliably measured.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

You need to re-read my comment. I wasn't talking about the military's economic potential, I was talking about the economic potential of grunts after they have been discharged from the military/or when a conflict is over.

Click to expand...

by78 said:

The use Type 99 was an example to illustrate how cheaply the handguards can be upgraded across a 25 year span, not as a thought experiment.

Click to expand...