The theory now is that even if the short UGLs were given advanced sights and aiming equipment, it still cannot reach the performance required by the military where a soldier has to reliably shoot a grenade 300m into a window. For example, with advanced sights, the UGL may be able to land the grenade with a CEP of 5m at 300m but while 5m CEP at 300m is amazing for open ground detonation, it's nowhere good enough to guarantee ingress through a window.
QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.
- Thread starter tanlixiang28776
- Start date
The theory now is that even if the short UGLs were given advanced sights and aiming equipment, it still cannot reach the performance required by the military where a soldier has to reliably shoot a grenade 300m into a window. For example, with advanced sights, the UGL may be able to land the grenade with a CEP of 5m at 300m but while 5m CEP at 300m is amazing for open ground detonation, it's nowhere good enough to guarantee ingress through a window.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
But let’s face reality here, the PLA isn’t really gearing up with fighting itself or Russia in mind now is it?
Which means you have little to no logistical benefit since your troops need to stock two types of ammo now.
Well all the top militaries are not development powered exo-frames/suites for just the cool factor.
One of the primary considerations for such frames/suites is the ability to allow the soldier to carry armour that are currently impractical when relying on human muscles alone.
There is also always materials science advancement. Lvl4 plate was not really practical until fairly recently thanks to improving material science.
The first generation or two of exosuits are unlikely to be able to offer comprehensive protection against blast effect weapons, so the QST11, if fielded today, should be effective and future proof for the next 15-20+years, which is pretty good when weighed against the probability of 7.62 being overmatched by lvl4+ or lvl5 plates, either as a result of breakthroughs in material science and/or as a result of the introduction of heavily armoured exosuits, which might happen within the next 5-10 years.
I would not rate an upgraded 40mm grenade launcher as the same kind of weapon as the QST11 since the QST11 should be able to shoot its rounds at a considerably higher velocity and to much greater effective ranges at far greater accuracy compared to a 40mm.
Just think how exposed your guys will be trying to shoot a 40mm at targets several hundred metres away because of the elevation needed to lob a 40mm that far.
In urban and complex environments, such long range shots might now even be possible if there are low overhanging structures around.
A unit using 40mm against lvl5 plate carrying opponents will need to get much closer to use those launchers compared to the same squad using QST11s.
The rest are all special weapons even less suitable for general issue that QST11s.
In actuality, there's going to be real issues with the QTS-11's lethality, given its 20mm round. Moreover, does the range actually matter? It depends on the terrain: in dense, urban terrain, engagement ranges are going to be at far lower ranges and 40mm will outperform 20mm at short distances.
The PLA will likely, if viable, move toward a 30mm or 35mm grenade size. Recall that Chinese and Soviet 35mm outperform American 40mm grenades for some reason, probably due to greater length. But as is, the QTS-11 is extremely light weight and is suitable for equipping line infantrymen in the absence of heavy weapons such as machine guns or anti-tank rockets.
The PLA will likely, if viable, move toward a 30mm or 35mm grenade size. Recall that Chinese and Soviet 35mm outperform American 40mm grenades for some reason, probably due to greater length. But as is, the QTS-11 is extremely light weight and is suitable for equipping line infantrymen in the absence of heavy weapons such as machine guns or anti-tank rockets.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Got Stuck pulling a double shift needed some time to makeup sleep
Now I can here the WHAT!!!
but let me Clarify. In order to maintain recoil, weight and portability as well as allow the system to be mounted to a Infantry carbine without being over a meter long ( good luck maneuvering that in Urban or Jungle or a Ship). and weighing more than 30 pounds ( if you thought the XM25 was heavy) These systems are limited to low velocity 20mm shells. The XM29 fired 20x29mm rounds K11 moved up to 20x30mm The biggest is arguably the Inkunzi formerly PAWS 20 Neopup Which although not airbursting fires 20x42mm. These are not 20x110mm High velocity. These are getting there Flat trajectory by being smaller profiles. at that 800m you are talking about you are firing high arch to get the trajectories.
What you get from the longer barrel is higher dwell time to allow more powder burn when combined with a low drag projectile you get better velocity which gives you stability. Stability means that the round has a longer time until the shell loses velocity and drops as well as less effect from wind. but The longer barrel has a downside It has vibration that means that as a round is fired there is more a chance it getting an imparted alteration in trajectories to counter that the longer the barrel the thicker it needs to be which in turn imparts weight.
If we were talking about this or the latter sight I would totally agree.
however a number of factors have stepped in here first extended range 40mm rounds these push out to 600m from under barrel launchers Some versions even out to 800m. And if really want to reach out there is the laser guided pike with a range of over 2000m from an under barrel launcher
That is the FN FCS 40mm Mk1 They are on the Mk3 now.
Rhinmetal offers one For use on HK and other systems.
This is the Wilcox RAAM on the side of this british L85A2 with a HK AG-C
these systems come standard with range finding. The Airbursting rounds have the enough room that some even range the airburst themselves. farther more the 40mm Shells even with the added system would still have a larger warhead.
That by the way was a XM29 20x29mm round
A 40mm would easily be double the fragmentation and double the blast effects.
Okay Hold up here there is one thing that needs to be Clarified No OICW Fires High Velocity rounds.
Now I can here the WHAT!!!
but let me Clarify. In order to maintain recoil, weight and portability as well as allow the system to be mounted to a Infantry carbine without being over a meter long ( good luck maneuvering that in Urban or Jungle or a Ship). and weighing more than 30 pounds ( if you thought the XM25 was heavy) These systems are limited to low velocity 20mm shells. The XM29 fired 20x29mm rounds K11 moved up to 20x30mm The biggest is arguably the Inkunzi formerly PAWS 20 Neopup Which although not airbursting fires 20x42mm. These are not 20x110mm High velocity. These are getting there Flat trajectory by being smaller profiles. at that 800m you are talking about you are firing high arch to get the trajectories.
Thank you.
What you get from the longer barrel is higher dwell time to allow more powder burn when combined with a low drag projectile you get better velocity which gives you stability. Stability means that the round has a longer time until the shell loses velocity and drops as well as less effect from wind. but The longer barrel has a downside It has vibration that means that as a round is fired there is more a chance it getting an imparted alteration in trajectories to counter that the longer the barrel the thicker it needs to be which in turn imparts weight.
This is the Traditional type of Grenade launcher sighting system
If we were talking about this or the latter sight I would totally agree.
however a number of factors have stepped in here first extended range 40mm rounds these push out to 600m from under barrel launchers Some versions even out to 800m. And if really want to reach out there is the laser guided pike with a range of over 2000m from an under barrel launcher
Standard no
That is the FN FCS 40mm Mk1 They are on the Mk3 now.
Rhinmetal offers one For use on HK and other systems.
This is the Wilcox RAAM on the side of this british L85A2 with a HK AG-C
these systems come standard with range finding. The Airbursting rounds have the enough room that some even range the airburst themselves. farther more the 40mm Shells even with the added system would still have a larger warhead.
let's not go there, but If the PLA did get into a fight It's likely that those they would be fighting are mixed forces, Coalitions are very popular these days and most of The PRC's neighbors are not fulling equipped with body armor.
Multiple ammo types in inventory are standard practice. Again not High velocity, And Compared to conventional 40mm.
no the 40mm launcher would be more versatile in that it's not just for grenades but can be used in Breaching, less lethal urban pacification, many units can be used as standalone launchers, It can be mounted to a number of weapons meaning you don't need to build it on a weapon, And as I covered above more advanced 40mm underbarrel launcher rounds are available now.
And Congratulations Again I point out that the Range issue is less one these days. but from a fragmentation standpoint against armored targets a 20mm Shell fragmentation is like this
That by the way was a XM29 20x29mm round
A 40mm would easily be double the fragmentation and double the blast effects.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The type of launcher you are talking about are the AGS 17 and AGS30 these are 30x29mm rounds They have longer range not Higher explosive power and are not Under barrel launchers. They are already equaled in PLA service and QLZ 87 series and QLU11 comes in with the 35x32mm slightly longer range but better boom.
IF your a force operation without support of heavy Machine guns, Anti Tank weapons Mortars and Artillery against a even half way equipped force with such QTS 11 is not going to amount to much. The QTS 11 concept was meant to be used with Machine guns and Anti tank weapons and integrated with a army and doctrine.The Shells fired by OICW class weapons are to low velocity to penetrate armored vehicles They don't have the explosive capacity to do more than scratch the paint of even a light APC. unless you happen to encounter a open hatch. They are anti infantry systems and as Wolf pointed to increasingly modern infantry is armoring. perhaps not to level V
You ( inst) posted images of US Army troops going on a patrol, That image was from 2007 Iraq.
Now I could post an image of the US Army Soldier protection system but I am going to post this instead.
This is the Direction of modern body armor... no wait it's missing the blast protective undergarment Knee and Elbow pads.
This is a USMC and Crye precision graphic you have protection around the head and face, neck, back chest, shoulders and upper arms, lower back kidneys lower torso and thighs. when you add in blast protective under garments and knee / Elbow pads and compare the fragmentation effects of a 20mm shell vs this.
You might hurt him but chances are not enough to pull him out of the fight. and unless it's a close hit the shockwave effects are also not likely to immobilize. Soft armor is designed for small caliber fragmentation. Vietnam era Flak Jackets have stopped hand grenade effects and those are much larger than the 20mm we are talking about. The XM25 moved to 20x40mm to try and get a bigger effect and longer range by using technologies from the XM307 ( which was an attempt at a weapon to take the place of the M2 Browning and Mk19 Also canceled) because of the limited effects.
Hard plates are for rifle rounds like the 5.8x42 fired by the KE portion.
Against insurgent forces with no body armor a 20mm Airburst shell is a good option.
Against troops with flak jackets and soft armor like those of a moderately equipped army say Taiwan or North Korea maybe even the philippines, It will cause casualties but unless in very close don't expect absolute supremacy
Against modern armor again very close fire.
And As to the window argument that's more of fighting insurgents anyway. the term Defial is better as it means more than a sniper take pot shots from a hide in an abandoned building, it means from behind barriers like buildings, trenches, cars, sandbags, Roof walls the side of a hill or embankment, retaining walls. fences, trees and anything else that the target can get behind.
Once again, patronizing. I'm familiar with the QLB-06 and QLZ-87 systems. The Chinese claim that their 35mm grenades are more lethal than legacy 40mm grenades, with a casualty radius of 10 meters, whereas 40mm grenades have a claimed kill radius of 5 meters. Apples to oranges, but 40mm grenade claim a casualty radius of 130 meters. I'm aware these aren't underslung launchers; the QLZ-87 is a man-portable automatic grenade launcher, while the QLB-06 is a semi-automatic. These were issued to Chinese troops when the LMG variant of the QBZ-95 showed a pronounced lack of killing potential.
As to advancing without heavy machine guns; the point is that you have 2-3 men in a fireteam whose role is to assault. You have to note PLAGF OoB; mechanized infantry usually carries a plethora of rockets. That's different than Western armed forces, where armor is primary and infantry's role is to pin down opponents so fire support can be called in. For the PLAGF, infantry is a killing tool, not a suppression tool, and these rockets are often dual-role, capable of operating as a heavy grenade versus infantry as well.
The QTS-11 functions as an upgrade to this capability. Instead of having cumbersome RPGs that are half-way to being mortars, the QTS-11 allows even suppression infantry the ability to engage and destroy enemy infantry. Even if each individual grenade has relatively low killing ability, multiple grenades fired in sequence from multiple rifles gives infantry the ability to eliminate enemy infantry without having to call in mortar, artillery, or air support.
As to your armor picture, note this:
I could also circle the joints, which are unusually exposed, as well as point out that the forearms are not protected by hard armor. The armpits are not fully protected either, when a cut artery will result in severe blood loss. Most importantly, the rear of the neck is exposed. Compare to PLA Sudan peacekeeping armor: The large gorget, if nothing else, blocks shrapnel hits to the neck. Even if a wound is not instantly fatal, it can result in paralysis, turning the victim into a vegetablized casualty.
Let's put it this way, this is a doctrinal difference between NATO and the PRC. The PRC is still wedded to the notion of having infantry assault and take territory. The QLZ-87, for instance, was designed to be portable by light infantry, whereas equivalent Western and Soviet systems require mechanized transportation, but are more controllable in sustained fire. NATO would rather prefer that infantry stay in the suppression role, or alternately flush out opponents at close range, relying on airpower and heavy vehicles as the main killing tool. Infantry, ultimately, is extremely fragile and moreover it is relatively immobile. An infantry-dependent doctrine is a sure formula for filling C-130s with body bags. On the other hand, infantry can go places armor cannot, and assault infantry are better suited to urban combat.
As to advancing without heavy machine guns; the point is that you have 2-3 men in a fireteam whose role is to assault. You have to note PLAGF OoB; mechanized infantry usually carries a plethora of rockets. That's different than Western armed forces, where armor is primary and infantry's role is to pin down opponents so fire support can be called in. For the PLAGF, infantry is a killing tool, not a suppression tool, and these rockets are often dual-role, capable of operating as a heavy grenade versus infantry as well.
The QTS-11 functions as an upgrade to this capability. Instead of having cumbersome RPGs that are half-way to being mortars, the QTS-11 allows even suppression infantry the ability to engage and destroy enemy infantry. Even if each individual grenade has relatively low killing ability, multiple grenades fired in sequence from multiple rifles gives infantry the ability to eliminate enemy infantry without having to call in mortar, artillery, or air support.
As to your armor picture, note this:
I could also circle the joints, which are unusually exposed, as well as point out that the forearms are not protected by hard armor. The armpits are not fully protected either, when a cut artery will result in severe blood loss. Most importantly, the rear of the neck is exposed. Compare to PLA Sudan peacekeeping armor: The large gorget, if nothing else, blocks shrapnel hits to the neck. Even if a wound is not instantly fatal, it can result in paralysis, turning the victim into a vegetablized casualty.
Let's put it this way, this is a doctrinal difference between NATO and the PRC. The PRC is still wedded to the notion of having infantry assault and take territory. The QLZ-87, for instance, was designed to be portable by light infantry, whereas equivalent Western and Soviet systems require mechanized transportation, but are more controllable in sustained fire. NATO would rather prefer that infantry stay in the suppression role, or alternately flush out opponents at close range, relying on airpower and heavy vehicles as the main killing tool. Infantry, ultimately, is extremely fragile and moreover it is relatively immobile. An infantry-dependent doctrine is a sure formula for filling C-130s with body bags. On the other hand, infantry can go places armor cannot, and assault infantry are better suited to urban combat.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Casualty vs Kill Apples vs Oranges. a Casualty can range from wounded to killed.
The QBB95 is a LMG not a grenade launcher and will always have issues if you try t compare it to a grenade launcher you know that. Different forces will choose their systems to match there wants, In comparing to the QBL6 the closest is the Milkor launcher. It's a difference in wants The QBL favors firing from the prone the QLZ more so due to it's 26 pounds light configuration
The Milkor at 18 pounds is not lightweight but some armies go for it. The Question is more fire or more maneuver and adding in lots of heavier weapons favors one or the other.
Actually platoons often have Shoulder fired launchers to It's just not often listed on tables. the M3 Carl Gustav rough equal to the RPG 7 has been especially popular of late as both light anti armor and grenades. It's just the ratio of them to the units the more heavy weapons the slower movement.
The Platoon or Squad is still likely to be needing that RPG because the fact is most combat happens when two forces bump into each other.
Second as I have pointed out the QTS-11's near future advantages are equaled by more modern near future 40mm systems that can equal and in some cases out range a QST11 with higher potential casualty ability.
In response to your own
As I could do the same.
The Armor you are displaying is worn over a camouflage uniform which hides some openings. the mode modern body armor systems in the west are modular meaning that they can be built up or built down based on need and want.but there are always limitations. Neck guards can be added based on needs. and some gaps are overlapped.
The Armpits of both armor sets are going to be open to some degree though this is because the wearer needs to move there arm and to allow heat exchange. The Forearms are almost always unarmored unless in riot mostly because of weight. and The protection of the PLA troops in your photo is actually just there Elbow pads having a larger cut.
Since this is a fragmentation threat soft armor is adequate, Again Hard armor is for Rifle threats fragmentation can be stopped by soft armor.
Farther more because of the small amount of fragmentation from the small size of the shell there is no guarantee of the destruction you seem to imply. As for rear of the neck, The soldier has to actually move his head. I mean batman might get away with not being able to but you need to be able to and the PLA armor has about the same size of opening there.
This is also where a QST11 would hit a snag the more armored the shooter the more weight of the total package. Modern Armor is not light. It traps heat, often prohibits movement and vision. This is why when actual pictures of the PLA deployment on patrol came out they stripped off a lot of the armor down to a helmet and vest ( the Gorge is part of the vest.)
Which is part of the reason I posted my image because you Inst had posted a image of US Troops with down armored gear for maneuver.
This is why it's a little misleading.
In another way. By going with smaller and more soft armor it reduces weight and allows more overlap.
You seem to think I'm a rube that's never seen a fragmentation grenade before. Funny thing is, the only person you're making look bad is yourself.
Claimed lethality radius varies by source; some treat it as casualty radius, others as lethality radius. Moreover, if we compare modern Chinese and Russian grenades to American grenades, the 30mm and 35mm grenade use a different design than the American 40mm grenade.
This is the M406 fragmentation grenade.
Note that its design features a circular warhead, meaning that the explosive force is distributed evenly. Seemingly a good idea, except that the fuse and the front of the projectile absorbs a significant amount of the explosive force so that the sideblast is minimized.
In contrast, here is the schematic of a 35mm grenade. Notice how there are much more explosives in the grenade, and that the sideways explosion, hitting the metal balls, is more potent due to greater explosive content.
As to body armor, there are interesting soft armor technologies in the works, but if you're going to claim that soft armor is superior to hard armor, I'd like to see you in an Abrams covered in Kevlar. Lighter, true, but much less protective for volume. Boron Carbide plates, the same as used in some tank armor, is actually available on Alibaba for personal use. As an infantryman, would you rather be protected by tank armor, or would you rather be in ballistic cloth?
In the Chinese case, notice the sheer size of the neck protector. As to whether it connects with the helmet and produces a nominal complete neck protection, it depends on the individual: we see soldiers whose gorgets reach to the helmet, and soldiers whose gorgets do not. Neck length varies, as does neck position. But the larger gorget, capable of protecting the front of the neck as well as the back, shows ghreater emphasis on full-body protection.
Claimed lethality radius varies by source; some treat it as casualty radius, others as lethality radius. Moreover, if we compare modern Chinese and Russian grenades to American grenades, the 30mm and 35mm grenade use a different design than the American 40mm grenade.
This is the M406 fragmentation grenade.
Note that its design features a circular warhead, meaning that the explosive force is distributed evenly. Seemingly a good idea, except that the fuse and the front of the projectile absorbs a significant amount of the explosive force so that the sideblast is minimized.
In contrast, here is the schematic of a 35mm grenade. Notice how there are much more explosives in the grenade, and that the sideways explosion, hitting the metal balls, is more potent due to greater explosive content.
As to body armor, there are interesting soft armor technologies in the works, but if you're going to claim that soft armor is superior to hard armor, I'd like to see you in an Abrams covered in Kevlar. Lighter, true, but much less protective for volume. Boron Carbide plates, the same as used in some tank armor, is actually available on Alibaba for personal use. As an infantryman, would you rather be protected by tank armor, or would you rather be in ballistic cloth?
In the Chinese case, notice the sheer size of the neck protector. As to whether it connects with the helmet and produces a nominal complete neck protection, it depends on the individual: we see soldiers whose gorgets reach to the helmet, and soldiers whose gorgets do not. Neck length varies, as does neck position. But the larger gorget, capable of protecting the front of the neck as well as the back, shows ghreater emphasis on full-body protection.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Inst I am not claiming that hard armor is inferior to soft armor. I am saying that Soft armor is designed for fragmentation effects well hard armor is designed for rifle effects. High velocity low mass. That is exactly what a 20mm Airburst will produce. soft armor Flak jackets have been designed for that since world war 2.
Hard plate are designed for high velocity higher mass like bullets.
Because of the small size and low weight needed for the 20mm grenade it's not going to have the space for the claymore like fragmentation you are talking about.
And the Protector you keep pointing to is soft armor.
Additionally the Diagram you display is clearly a M406 that grenade has been in service since 1972, f course it's going to be inferior to a more modern weapon of the same class.
Hard plate are designed for high velocity higher mass like bullets.
Because of the small size and low weight needed for the 20mm grenade it's not going to have the space for the claymore like fragmentation you are talking about.
And the Protector you keep pointing to is soft armor.
Additionally the Diagram you display is clearly a M406 that grenade has been in service since 1972, f course it's going to be inferior to a more modern weapon of the same class.
Except that M406 remains standard with American infantry employing M203 underslung grenade launchers. Chinese and Russian claims that their 30 and 35mm grenades are more lethal are vaild since the 40mm grenades are antiquated. In comparison to, say, a 40mm airburst grenade, it's more questionable since, as we know, the US gave up half the space on the 20mm OICW grenades for multirole functions, and we don't know how much a 40mm airburst would give up for similar battery /multirole functions.
As to the effectiveness of soft armor, I agree that it is shrapnel resistant at range, but you're looking at it as perfect protection, when it is not. Consider this: most militaries, including the United States Army, uses a combination of concussive and fragmentation grenades. The latter is for defensive purposes: you throw it from behind cover because the fragmentation grenades have an enormous lethal distance. Even when equipped with soft body armor, you are not proof against fragmentation grenades. Likewise, in Vietnam, "fragging" was a common way of murdering unwanted officers or other liabilities. Since these included NCOs, you'd imagine that people would not attempt to frag officers if soft body armor was proof.
Put it another way. If you are an armored infantryman in a NATO military that, for whatever reason, is facing QTS-11, perhaps sold as export weapons, would you prefer that the opponent fire airburst grenades at you, or shoot at you with the 5.8mm?
As to the effectiveness of soft armor, I agree that it is shrapnel resistant at range, but you're looking at it as perfect protection, when it is not. Consider this: most militaries, including the United States Army, uses a combination of concussive and fragmentation grenades. The latter is for defensive purposes: you throw it from behind cover because the fragmentation grenades have an enormous lethal distance. Even when equipped with soft body armor, you are not proof against fragmentation grenades. Likewise, in Vietnam, "fragging" was a common way of murdering unwanted officers or other liabilities. Since these included NCOs, you'd imagine that people would not attempt to frag officers if soft body armor was proof.
Put it another way. If you are an armored infantryman in a NATO military that, for whatever reason, is facing QTS-11, perhaps sold as export weapons, would you prefer that the opponent fire airburst grenades at you, or shoot at you with the 5.8mm?