QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Level 4 plates are an issue, however the QST 11 Airburst is not targeted to that. The Carbine component is not going to Defeat level IV plates any better then the QBZ 95. The Airburst Element seems oriented to defeat unarmored foes in Defial.
The Shockwave against armored troops in very close confined space might do some splash damage but the fragmentation effects aren't likely to do much.
So which are you facing Armored forces or unarmored?

Click to expand...

Well that’s the beauty with the QST11’s ammo choice, you can have specialised arounds to effectively deal with both targets rather than 1 magical round that cannot deal with either well.

A thermobatic round would be able to effectively deal with armoured targets, while traditional frag will be better for unarmed.

And before you complain about logistics, remember that it will be extremely unusual for your forces to face both armoured and unarmoured foes at the same time. Generally, you will know well in advanced what kind of gear your enemy will have, and so can issue rounds accordingly.

Wait but you just said "The bolt action single round design of the grenade launcher is less of an issue if the entire squad is armed with these."
And you have other issues now. Marine forces need weapons suited to their Amphibious and expeditionary role. for them It's it better to have a smaller logistics train as it means having to find ways of hauling more.

Click to expand...

Chinese marines and American marines operate differently and have different missions.

Chinese marines are primarily for island assault, boarding actions and island defence. Although they are now also branching out towards more expeditionary deployments. But those are going to be focusing on infrastructure protection and maybe military extraction for civilians; rather than regime change and occupation.

As such, Chinese marines face very different mission profiles and logistics concerns.

When you are storming a beach, do you really want to bet on your 1 or 2 special weapons guys being in the exact right place to be able to use their airbursting rounds to take out that bunker or machine gun nest, or is it better than any and every marine within range could do it?

Similar deal with boarding and counter-boarding actions on ships. Imagine the difference in effectiveness where every marine could either clear a junction almost instantly with an airburst round rather than having to spend precious minutes suppressing and advancing. Conversely, a marine with a QST11 could easily hold a junction for as long as his ammo lasts since he will have the range already dialled in, and can rely on his helmet sight to keep the junction covered without any risk to himself. As soon as the enemy attempts to supress and advance, he pops a grenade round and takes out the entire unit.

And if anything, for urban, shipboard and other similar missions, having an airburst round might greatly reduce your logistics burden since your troops will have to expend far less ammo suppressing enemies and trying to pot shot them in heavy cover.

Tier 1 are Special operations units who tend to operate off the books These tend to fall into Unconventional, Counter terrorism, Direct Action and Special reconnaissance. They are in Conventional war deployed behind enemy lines or conducting raids, Although a system like the OST 11 might be chosen I doubt a pure force. due to the extra weight and specialized nature.

Click to expand...

Sorry, seems like we are talking about different things. I didn’t mean special forces, but the best PLA conventional forces like the 38th group army tasked with dealing with emergencies on the Korean Peninsula etc.

Maybe category 1 would have been a better term to use.

Frankly on the Whole it falls better into a substitution for the Under barrel launcher in the squad rather then a pure fleet force. The Effectiveness of the Airburst round vs Level IV body armor has yet to be proven. however there are a few elifants in the room

Click to expand...

If anything, I think it may be the other way around, with most of the squad being equipped with QST11s, while the 1-2 grenadiers gets QLU11s.

This is again where the different operating expectations and philosophies between Chinese and western forces causes divergence in weapons choices.

Western and especially US infantry have become ever more reliant on air and artillery support. That is why they favour suppression weapons like SAWs, and want longer range weapons to push the engagement distances further and further out.

Chinese infantry OTOH, would be satisfied if the PLAAF can keep the enemy from dropping bombs and shells and them, and are trained and equipped to take out enemy ground forces themselves for the most part.

Their operating philosophy is rapid armoured advance, while under cover of massive friendly artillery support, to deploy troops at close range to eliminate the enemy, and then to move on rapidly to avoid enemy retaliatory air and artillery fire.

Their tanks, IFVs and themselves are expected to carry all the killing power. And speeds is of the essence.

They are not going to launch suicidal bonza charges, but nor are they content to sit in cover and trade pot shots with the enemy for hours on end.

The US M993 AP round already defeats level IV however that is the 7.62mm version and it has a very pricey and potentially Strategically recourse for the US. IE the US produces no tungsten it comes from South Africa, Russia and Of course the PRC.
If that is not enough Remember that there are already widely fielded weapons of a more conventional nature that can be just as if not far more destructive in most modern armies Rifle squads.
The underbarrel Grenade launcher of the 35-40mm varieties and recoilless systems.
As well as moving up in caliber from the .2xx caliber range to the .3xx range with a ultra high velocity, suposedly the there is a 6.8mm UHV round in the world right now.

Click to expand...

Well I would argue that upping the cal of your primary infantry weapon and issuing specialist AP rounds adds a far bigger logistical burden and procurement cost compared to issuing select units with QST11s.

Besides, the M993 can punch through lvl4 plates, but how long before lvl5 plates show up that they cannot defeat? That’s the kind of arms race I see the Chinese neatly side stepping with the QST11, because short of an iron man like fully enclosed and armoured exposuit, the shockwave and pressure from a close range thermobatic detonation is going to pulp your insides no matter what kind of fancy plate you got on.

Actually You can have both Wolf. Not every nation is like the US and has spent the last almost 2 decades building up the Armor industry and system to actually Field Body armor to every single infantry soldier if not there while army.
Alot of them like the PLA or Russian army seem to have a mixed bag where the elite Infantry line elements have access to body armor but most of the rest have varying degrees of less protection.

plawolf said:

Well I would argue that upping the cal of your primary infantry weapon and issuing specialist AP rounds adds a far bigger logistical burden and procurement cost compared to issuing select units with QST11s

Click to expand...

presumably they would have a more conventional round option as well.

plawolf said:

Besides, the M993 can punch through lvl4 plates, but how long before lvl5 plates show up that they cannot defeat? That’s the kind of arms race I see the Chinese neatly side stepping with the QST11, because short of an iron man like fully enclosed and armoured exposuit, the shockwave and pressure from a close range thermobatic detonation is going to pulp your insides no matter what kind of fancy plate you got on.

Click to expand...

Actually There is Level V armor today. It's called A Tank.
Seriously Level IV armor protection levels are almost ridiculous. Level V would fall into the .50 rifle and HMG category, Literally Iron man but even if the armor can protect you from the penetration the shockwave force from a .50 miss can sever a unarmored limb. Ironman is a comic book character so he has hand waves to protect him, even at the lowest end of the category the .338 lm round would liquidate a real unarmored target.
The Hydroshock of impact even if the round would stop would likely cause massive internal injury.
but on top of that would be the cost and weight. I mean a full set of level IV plates with carrier vest only is a little over 20 pounds and that's the newest versions.

And As for sidestepping That Arms race. Not really. as I have pointed out There are a number of other infantry systems other than the OICW concept that can do the same job some are using conventional issued systems as their host with larger areas of effect like Airburst 40mm that were not available when QST 11 started back in the day. These are using the Research from XM29 and XM25 but packaged in a more conventional form meaning less need for more specialized training.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The Term you are looking for is Fire and Maneuver, OICW's however do not change that mode.
by the Way LMG and GPMG's are both considered crew served weapons.

Click to expand...

Don't patronize me. I know what the terms mean, and the nomenclature for fire teams is sufficient here. And what's your point with LMGs and GPMGs being crew-served weapons? Are AKMs or M16A2s LMGs?

600 meters is in the mechanical Range of most conventional infantry weapons the limitation to that being mostly Iron sights. And to point out your own argument The majority of Infantry kills are not by small arms but in fact forms of artillery often called in by infantry forces. US Forces in Afghanistan actually rarely employed the XM25 and favored M4, M16, Accurized Variants of the AR10 and M14 and operated to the same 800 meters.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, the X in the XM25 refers to experimental? The rarity of XM25 use is tautological given that only 5 copies of the XM25 were initially deployed in Afghanistan, and while an additional 45 copies were ordered, the malfunction of the XM25 resulted in full-scale production being halted. Check out this article for the XM25's capability: . Second, I don't know about you, but if I were an infantryman, I'd rather be able to handle things in the squad than call artillery support. The latter is a phone call / device order, and if the artillery is distant, the shells will take time to arrive. Moreover, artillery, as a separate unit, is vulnerable to airstrikes, counterbattery fire, and if we have a radio connection, artillery is vulnerable to jamming. Artillery, likewise, is dangerous to one's own side as much as it is to opponents. Artillery can end up misfiring and committing fraticide.

Modern Fire resistant clothing is also proliferating in the military environment Especially after operations by Nato in Afghanistan and Iraq where IED's set vehicle crews on fire. As to joints Along side Level IV you also have soft armor in the Works this is intended for fragmentation defence of joints by being flexible.

Click to expand...

Except that soft armor is never going to be as effective as hard armor against fragmentation. Moreover, it's a matter of effective range. You can easily survive a grenade hit provided that you're sufficiently distant from the core blast radius, but point blank, your survivability is reduced.

The other thing I'd note is here:



If we're talking blast radius, note how the entire face and much of the neck is unprotected. Against an airbursting grenade, whatever forms of body armor you suggest will be ineffective, simply because there is no body armor.

First The weight of a AK47 is closer to 9.7 pounds an AKM ( Which is actually the most common Firearm ) with a loaded magazine is 8.6 pounds not 10.5. The 11 pounds is the listed weight yes. never clarified empty or loaded.
And Price is questionable. Sales materials will list an Objective price, However is that the actual price or the Subsidized price?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you're claiming that the PLA is subsidizing the weapons they're buying for themselves? If you were talking about export goods, sure, I could believe that, but if it's by PLA for PLA, your argument is erroneous. Second, loaded weight is ~4.8 kg on the AK-47. If you're talking about AKM, sure, I could give that to you, but the export AK-47 in common use is about 10.6 pounds loaded. At around 5 kg loaded, the QTS-11 is not lightweight, but it's not overly heavy to the extent that it's impractical to replace the QBZ-95 with it.

Also, another point. The QBZ-95 is not a carbine. The QBZ-95B is a carbine. The QBZ-95 is a bullpup assault rifle with a full-length barrel that, by virtue of being a bullpup, has the ergonomics of a carbine. But the QBZ-95 is actually heavier than the M4A1.

And Again There are other existing systems in most of the top and even lesser militaries that offer much of the same capacities. The XM1166 40mm High Explsive Airburst Round fired from a conventional underbarrel launcher and by the way not unique, Singapore and Israel were both working on similar systems. 40 mm Bouncing Air Burst Grenade ARFG-25 AB fired from the Russian GP series launcher may not Airburst in the same way but offers a similar concept. And if these are not impressive enough lightweight man portable suicide drones.

Click to expand...

XM1166 is X, for experimental. It hasn't reached anything remotely similar to production yet, and moreover, without a ballistics computer mated, is not going to be able to achieve remotely similar ranges or accuracy compared to the XM-25 or QTS-11.

Technically M16A1 LMG version and the RPK are both considered crew served weapons because of the off loading of extra ammo to another soldier
QST 11 is also experimental
And finally
Underbarrel launchers have ballistic computer modules.

The problem with all underbarrel launchers and as to why they cant replace dedicated airburst launch systems like the QTS-11/QLU-11/XM-25/29 etc. is that even with high velocity grenades, they will never achieve a flat enough trajectory to accurately put an airburst grenade through a window at 400m because of the short barrel length for these UGL systems. It is already a challenge to hit something at 100m with an UGL and at 200m, you are limited to area targets and need to fire your grenades in a high arc. Wind and weather will affect such slow flying grenades significantly too.

For dedicated airburst systems, there a reason the caliber is so small compared to the 40mm UGLs. It is not just because of weight and size, but also because you can have much longer launcher barrels allowing for higher pressures and hence higher velocity grenades with 20 or 25mm rounds, whilst still being infantry portable. Whatever is sacrificed in explosive power is made up more than enough by the dramatic increase in accuracy and effective range, as you can now launch airburst grenades with flat, almost bullet-like, trajectories at single targets at long range. This is something that can transform the rules of infantry combat.

It was a wise decision by China to produce two infantry systems based on that premise, the QTS-11 for all riflemen and QLU-11 for the specialists.

Accuracy is not a factor of barrel length, the main limitation of existing underbarrel launchers and 40mm launchers has been the sights. The sighting mechanism commonly used for such systems are either Gradualted ladders or sliding irons directly descended from rifle sights used in the 1890s.
Electronic calculating rangefinder sighting modules have been available for about a decade now, and are designed for just that function.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Accuracy is not a factor of barrel length, the main limitation of existing underbarrel launchers and 40mm launchers has been the sights. The sighting mechanism commonly used for such systems are either Gradualted ladders or sliding irons directly descended from rifle sights used in the 1890s.
Electronic calculating rangefinder sighting modules have been available for about a decade now, and are designed for just that function.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you saying that the accuracy of a short underbarrel launchers like the M203 with a muzzle velocity of 76m/s, is similar in accuracy with a longer barrel grenade launcher like QTS-11's 20mm launcher with a muzzle velocity of 220m/s??

Shooting with a high ballistic arc will always be less accurate than a flat trajectory, no matter the sights.

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously, Terran Empire. Your real argument is that the QTS-11 is no big deal, but it is; if you look up the documentation regarding it it has around 10 times the killing potential of QBZ-95s. It is true that there are other, similar weapons, but comparable weapons are early in development, or are not in wide deployment.

For CDTE, there's only three games in town right now, the XM25, the K11, and the QTS-11. Of the three, the XM25 has been canceled due to manufacturer troubles, the K11 has turned into the South Korean infantry gun equivalent of the F-35, and the QTS-11 is in a situation resembling the XM25, with deployment among elite units. Everything else can be said to "exist", but has not seen deployment. Take the MPRS system for the M16 IWI is developing. I have seen no evidence that this has become a standard armament in the IDF.. Likewise with the XM1166 airbursting round: all documentation for it suggests that it is in the earliest stages of development. You mention a Russian attempt at airbursting grenades; this is actually being produced in Bulgaria, and seems to be manufactured by a minor arms producer, with no hint that it has been inducted for standard service.

Moreover, airbursting requires computer assistance to prime the launcher, alongside rangefinding equipment. The MPRS system for the M16, for instance, comes out to 5.5-6.5 kg loaded, heavier than the QTS-11. Current grenade launchers do NOT come with rangefinding and airburst timers as standard, and adding this equipment involves significant weight.

Lastly, as Blitzo has mentioned, velocity matters. A 40mm grenade may pack a more deadly payload than a 20mm grenade, but you'd also need a greater amount of propellant to propel it the full distance. Even the 25mm XM25 has a maximum range of 600 meters. The 20mm QTS-11, on the other hand, can achieve 800 meters range, helped by the lesser drag induced by the smaller projectile, alongside the better propellant-projectile ratio. An airbursting 40mm grenade can definitely reach 300 meters on a ballistic path, but 800 meters? This is impossible with an underslung grenade launcher.

Bltizo said:

Just to clarify, are you saying that the accuracy of a short underbarrel launchers like the M203 with a muzzle velocity of 76m/s, is similar in accuracy with a longer barrel grenade launcher like QTS-11's 20mm launcher with a muzzle velocity of 220m/s??

Click to expand...

I believe what TE was trying to say is NOT that barrel length has no bearing on accuracy or even range for that matter (because it does and I'm sure he is aware) however when it comes to mainstream grenade launchers the barrel length itself is not the limitation but rather the sights. Once that is mitigated THEN barrel length plays a role. Until then it is not the limiting factor... low hanging fruit and all that.