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

You don’t need to go .338Magnum. The 30.06 ratting was based on the M2 round that dates from 1939!! The core of that round is a manganese molybdenum steel penetrator. It’s basically the lowest common denominator.
7.62x51mm NATO is almost identical to 30.06 in performance. Remember 30.06 was developed before 1906. In the late 40s early 50s using then modern propellant and case technology they developed the 7.62x51mm NATO round to be more compact than 30.06 yet perform on the same level.
Well it’s been another 70 years since then.

The latest US AP round the XM1158 cartridge was created in the last few years and seems according to the US Army to do well against Level IV.
However it’s a specialized round as such it’s not the standard issue against unarmored or training. The main issue being the added cost.
Weapons can fire both types of round however going back to 7.62x51mm is deemed heavy harder to control.
Hence the push to what is derogatorily called 6.8 “Bleed-more” the aim being a round below 7.62x51mm able to perform better in penetration than 5.56x45mm and keep more energy down range with a higher propellant load than 6.8SPC and lower weight.
If it can be accomplished you can issue a standard low cost iteration using a tip akin to the M855A1 that would work fine against insurgents if need be or load up a XM1158 type round for Level IV.

Have you guys considered that maybe these guys are not in the same squad and are just training together in using a new weapon. Once trained, they go to their respective squads and train in combined arms. Kinda like how designated marksman train in China.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

You don’t need to go .338Magnum. The 30.06 ratting was based on the M2 round that dates from 1939!! The core of that round is a manganese molybdenum steel penetrator. It’s basically the lowest common denominator.
7.62x51mm NATO is almost identical to 30.06 in performance. Remember 30.06 was developed before 1906. In the late 40s early 50s using then modern propellant and case technology they developed the 7.62x51mm NATO round to be more compact than 30.06 yet perform on the same level.
Well it’s been another 70 years since then.

The latest US AP round the XM1158 cartridge was created in the last few years and seems according to the US Army to do well against Level IV.
However it’s a specialized round as such it’s not the standard issue against unarmored or training. The main issue being the added cost.
Weapons can fire both types of round however going back to 7.62x51mm is deemed heavy harder to control.
Hence the push to what is derogatorily called 6.8 “Bleed-more” the aim being a round below 7.62x51mm able to perform better in penetration than 5.56x45mm and keep more energy down range with a higher propellant load than 6.8SPC and lower weight.
If it can be accomplished you can issue a standard low cost iteration using a tip akin to the M855A1 that would work fine against insurgents if need be or load up a XM1158 type round for Level IV.

Click to expand...

I thought 308AP are not able to penetrate lvl4 armour. Isn't 308AP the upper limit of NIJ lvl4 standard anyway?

PiSigma said:

Have you guys considered that maybe these guys are not in the same squad and are just training together in using a new weapon. Once trained, they go to their respective squads and train in combined arms. Kinda like how designated marksman train in China.

Click to expand...

Good point on the training.

Personally, I think the PLA won’t be just paper gaming these theories out. What they will do is deploy experimental test units in training and wargames in all the different configurations suggested and more; and simply see what works to decide how they will field these weapons and others.

So we will probably see more pictures of whole squads all equipped with QTS11s and others where only a few members might be.

Point is, it might be premature to call how the PLA will ultimate deploy these weapons until they are modestly widely deployed in active service units; as it could be that right now even the PLA hasn’t made a final decision on that yet.

Dfangsaur said:

I thought 308AP are not able to penetrate lvl4 armour. Isn't 308AP the upper limit of NIJ lvl4 standard anyway?

Click to expand...

The certification is based on test defeating the M2 AP in 30.06 at a range of 15 meters.
Along with a few others mostly confirming levels I -III . 7.62x51mm NATO <.308 being its civilian counterpart> was designed to match 30.06 in general performance well being smaller than the 7.62x63mm <30.06 metric dimensions>. This was done with newer propellents.
However again the M2 was a veteran of world war 2. Then used to AP through thin skinned half tracks and tanketts It’s performance was already surpassed.
As it is the standard certification a Level IV plate will defeat it but anything after that is in The case by case based on factors. Generally common cartridge types are tested against but military like to keep there AP to themselves.

Dfangsaur said:

I thought 308AP are not able to penetrate lvl4 armour. Isn't 308AP the upper limit of NIJ lvl4 standard anyway?

Click to expand...

To farther make my point.
Russian plate the same type as the one that defeated M855A1 vs M80A1 and M61 an older generation of 7.62x51mm AP round.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The certification is based on test defeating the M2 AP in 30.06 at a range of 15 meters.
Along with a few others mostly confirming levels I -III . 7.62x51mm NATO <.308 being its civilian counterpart> was designed to match 30.06 in general performance well being smaller than the 7.62x63mm <30.06 metric dimensions>. This was done with newer propellents.
However again the M2 was a veteran of world war 2. Then used to AP through thin skinned half tracks and tanketts It’s performance was already surpassed.
As it is the standard certification a Level IV plate will defeat it but anything after that is in The case by case based on factors. Generally common cartridge types are tested against but military like to keep there AP to themselves.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there is no way the 6.8mm round was developed to defeat level 4 armor, Chinese, Russian, or otherwise. 30.06 AP will outpenetrate any version of 6.8.

————————————————————

okay new conversation.

Question since we saw at the parade the QBZ191 with a new magazine, supposedly new ammo and NGV and gear ecta... ecta.. is a QST11-1 on the way?
I mean one would expect that once that starts issue you would retrofit the other High tech weapon in the system with lessons learned at least commonality.
if it has new ammo then presumably there would have to be alterations to the barrel, possibly the bolt and recoil system to deal with increased pressures. It probably wouldn’t have issues with the new magazines as the old ones fit fine in the new ones.
Perhaps a update to the optical sighting system?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Again the US and NATO tend to emphasize aimed fire over rapid fire.
Rapid automatic fire is effective primarily against moving targets or very close range engagement. The preferred mode is semiautomatic fire or extremely short bursts. This allows better engagement at ranges and less risk of collateral.

At the same point US and NATO also have emerging or developed corner shooting and air-bursting 40mm grenade systems


Except those systems are highly unlikely to live up to Ironman. The near term may have issue of passive Exoskeleton systems but powered are unlikely for the near to mid term at least until the late 2020s even then the armor capacity will be nothing like something from Tony Stark.
The Russians suit is pure Hollywood.
The Problem with a HEAT round is it’s a impact based system intended for direct fire. The more likely outcome would be indirect based on fragmentation effects which is more easily countered.


I disagree entirely. Unless you are building mecha it’s impossible to armor infantry Master Chief Style. Battle rifle caliber systems with hardened penetrators are more likely in the direct fire more to be effective against anything the future might bring save the Emergence or Terminators. The material science just doesn’t allow plate armor light enough to move with even assisted and strong enough to stop high velocity high mass.
The 20mm bolt action single shot grenade is intended for set mission types and targets primarily vs troops in cover. HEAT type may be suited to trying to counter MRAPS or drones but that’s about it. The main method of attack is going to be area attack but the 20mm rounds are going to come short in that.

Click to expand...

Point with power armor may be more to uprate a soldier's firepower, instead of just improving their survivability. Imagine if a soldier could handle the recoil of a .50 cal burst while standing because his power armor is holding the recoil. Or, if because his weight was being handled by the power armor, that he had a 60 round magazine of 30mm grenades with an AGL.

That said, the point of power armor is still to put something like a tank or a vehicle in the form factor of an infantryman. You want power armor that's still light enough to use an elevator, or climb up a stairwell without smashing it.

Out in the open, AFVs are still going to wreck infantry in power armor, simply because an AFV is cheaper and can carry heavier munitions. But you can't have an AFV take up a sniping position on the 8th floor of a building, so power armor will still have a role.

===

About your conversation thread concerning the QTS-11-1, I don't see the point. The main point of man-portable AGL / smart guns is to extend infantry effective range beyond the 300-400 meters of an assault rifle. The QTS-11's rifle component is more to lay suppressive fire so the airburst grenade can finish someone off in cover.

The evolution of the QTS-11 system is likely more in the direction of SMGs / PDWs, except that the Chinese 5.8mm PDW munition is underpowered.

Inst said:

Point with power armor may be more to uprate a soldier's firepower, instead of just improving their survivability. Imagine if a soldier could handle the recoil of a .50 cal burst while standing because his power armor is holding the recoil.

Click to expand...

That wouldn’t be powered armor but a Exoskeleton.
If that was the case then the emphasis of prototypes would be on a full body including arms, and shoulders. The types that we have seen in testing and R&D focus on the lower body. That indicates load as the focus. Statements made by makers and armies confirm this. It’s on the load. The kind of evolution you are pointing to is possible but not in the foreseeable future. Maybe closer to 2119.

Inst said:

Out in the open, AFVs are still going to wreck infantry in power armor, simply because an AFV is cheaper

Click to expand...

?? A multimillion dollar fighting vehicle vs a multi thousand dollar exoskeleton which is cheaper? You are right the AFV has the edge. But I was talking infantry vs infantry.

Inst said:

About your conversation thread concerning the QTS-11-1, I don't see the point. The main point of man-portable AGL / smart guns is to extend infantry effective range beyond the 300-400 meters of an assault rifle. The QTS-11's rifle component is more to lay suppressive fire so the airburst grenade can finish someone off in cover.

Click to expand...

QST-11 is not an AGL it’s a single shot Grenade launcher.
And I think you missed my point entirely. It was more about commonality. IE the current model is built around the QBZ03. However with the QBZ191 you have a change in magazines and improvements in ergonomics. I was asking about taking those and presumably upgrades to the fire control systems for a update of the QST-11 hardware. Not a totally new concept but a update.

The evolution of the QTS-11 system is likely more in the direction of SMGs / PDWs, except that the Chinese 5.8mm PDW munition is underpowered

Click to expand...

That concept was also pitched as an alternative for the XM29 program but,
1) all PDW ammo is inferior. I don’t care what you put in it 5.8mm, 5.7mm,4.6mm 9mm hot 5.56x30mm, .300BLK. They were designed for use more as SMG ammo. They may have some AP but it’s limited to Level III and below. They trade off range as well maxing out to maybe 250 meters.
2) although it would achieve a weight reduction, that reduction comes at the costs above as well as interchangeable ammo. If you drop QST-11 into PLA rifle squads, the guys with that weapon would have less of his own 5.8mm ammo. But if the situation demands he needs to fire more rifle ammo he can pick a few magazines off his squad mates. He couldn’t do that with a SMG based system.
3) because of the trade offs of the ammo the explosion is smaller the effects are smaller to. Even a full 40mm HE round doesn’t make the blasts of Hollywood fame. And the effects are smaller than you expect. As such in systems like these the carbine portion is actually the more useful.