SinoDefence Forum

bd popeye

Gentlemen, the topic of this discussion is the ordinary PLA infantryman not the US Army equipment in Iraq. Even though the tone of your discussion is very civil please discuss the PLA foot soldier. This is a Chinese military forum. Thank you.

bd popeye super moderator

__________________
Discover the Chinese and World Military picture threads!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And the Chinese Daily Life Photo thread!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


..And don't forget

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"I am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"

aquilis182

The assault riffles that you seen than looks like AK-47s... actually are Type 56 assault riffle, a chinese version of the AK-47 but is less reliable than those AK-47 that were maded in the soviet union (Russia now) and eastern european blocs. besides the only thing superior than the AK-47s have over the M16A2s are the reliability an the sturdy desing of the AKs are better for hand-to-hand combat you can hit harder with an AKs butt than a M16 butt, also I see in the military chanel... (have to do something with the discovery chanel) than the AK-47s have more destructive power than the M16A2s. In fact I see a test where both riffles fire agains a small rock, the M16A2 made a small hole and the round pass without problem... but the AK-47 pulverize the small rock, they compare the M16A2 riffle with a surgery instrument and the AK-47 with a shippi hammer. But in terms of acuracy,more versatile, weight, and allow much more attachments than the AK... I sugest you to go to http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php. And then try to explain why the AK-47s it's better than the western riffles (M-16A2s) in overrall terms.
When we talk about soldiers... I agree with you but we can use a more diplomatic way to explain our points. The fact that we see them in the picture like that doesen't have to meand that allways they lack of enquipment, hell when I was In BCT I have not a helmet for hours because my head where too big for the helmets they have... (of course they dont let me train like that, but eventually they find the right helmet then I go to train)... The other point about the material of the helmets they have... to be honest with you scince they have the cover in I cannot tells you if the material of the helmet is kevlar or steel.

I agree with you if you try to state than the PLA isin't nearly as well trained as we are but... 5 rounds in a military career? Respectfully man... that ridiculous... If you are a soldier you know that if somebody tells you tah you're not gonna to believe it... Some PLA soldiers don't fire a weapon in years but that doesent mean they only fire 5 rounds in a military career. Perhaps you can ask the former PLA soldier that you know that if somebody pay him for say that or if he hates to mush The PLA... Im not questioning your credibility, Im questioning the credibility of the former PLA soldier that you know

Chengdu J-10

That video you mention about the AK-47 vs M-16 is available on You Tube. The factor is that the AK-47 delivers a 7.62x39mm round while the M-16 delivers the NATO round a 5.56x45mm round. The footage you saw demonstrated the brute force of the AK-47 power this is due to one of many factors, one being the AK-47 round is larger than the M-16 giving it more penetration power. AK-47 is design moreso as a machine gun giving the user a heavey hit rifle, while the M-16 gives the user a accurate rifle with less hittin power. So AK-47 increase penetration decrease accuracy, M-16 increase accuracy decrease penetration. In response to the 5 round post. Probably misunderstood what the guy said. Probably said that 5 rounds was at the beginning of his career. As most soldiers in their first year concentrate moreso on the physical side than the weapons side. Second year focuses on weapons and others etc. 5 rounds no way. Not doubting you though.

RedMercury

The mandatory bit of drilling for college students involves around 5 rounds out of a rifle.

LiLaZnMaGiCsCt

The AK-47, when I've used it, was a very fine rifle. And, I have to say it's better than the M16. AK-47s are better in all types of terrains compared to the M16, which jams often and is harder to clean. If you have watched something in the military channel, most likely you are watching an American military-supervised channel. More Americans disagree that AK is better than M16 due to the fact that games and such intentionally pick the M16 as the better rifle.

The main reason why Americans choose the M16 is because of its less recoil and the fact that its an American-made rifle, compared to a Russian made AK.

aquilis182

I agree with your point, thats a fact... but it's worth sacrifice penetration power in order to gain acuracy... I been in the battlefield and I talk with my experience, Whats the point of have more penetrating power if you can't even hit the target you are aming, besides must of the enemies we fight dont wear body armor... a bullet in the heart it's a bullet in the heart, theres no tactical diference if you kill an enemy by destroing is heart or his entire chest.
One more thing, must of the problems related to the M16 reliability were back in Vietnam war... If you see the movie Hamburger Hill you gonna see american soldiers puting condoms in the rifle's muzzle so the dirt din'd enter... Today the M16 it's far more reliable and if you clean it once or twice at day it should be fine... The AK still better in reliability but in overall terms the M16A2 it's far better, please make sure you chek the source I give you before and see youself... I prefer to talk with evidence

If you talk about a drill for a high school student thats more aceptable... but If you talk about those soldiers already in the PLA... Thats ridiculous for god sake, I've been in the US Army Reserve for 3 years and I fire hundreds of rounds, scince BCT, to Irak and now... and Im mearly a reserve soldier. If a active duty PLA soldier fire 5 rounds in his entire career thats very sad... That means that if they go to war they just gonna get their self kill... Thats Why I find that hard to believe, I don't see the point of send a soldier to war if you know he gonna die and not even cumply his purpose... Please I respectfully ask for a source than I can veryfy that information myself... In my military opinion thats just not acceptable... I read an article of 1999 in the internet about how Ill trained are the PLA but thats just too much... In fact The Chinese military is gaining a lot of power in the last few years than even calls the atention of the U.S. Pentagon... Seems imposible to me than they are one of the must powerfull countries in the world and they do such a thing

If you are a civilian probably you fire the AR-15... so called the black riffle instead of an M16... and If you fire an M16 and find many problems on jamming probably you fire the M16A1... not the M16A2 that its what we use in the U.S. Army. If you say just because they used because its american... probably you dont know than the USAF security forces use P90s submachineguns and the U.S. Army also use Mi-24 Hinds... We dont care who create the weapon, we do care the performance

Skorzeny

A couple of thoughts:
1: The M16a2 is overall a better weapon than the now very old AK47. (the new 100-series might be a different matter) but...
-5,56 has worse performance against unarmoured targets, og targets behind trees and walls, but better against people with wests. (better penetration means more stable bullet and less damage on unarmoured targets)
- "a shot in the heart.." reliably hitting a heart doesnt happen. hitting the torso on the other hand is more likely, and you just have to use a round or two more with the m16 (wich has lower recoil and therefore makes this easier)

2. The m16 is not the best weapon around, and therefor HK has "cured" it with HK416 (my unit will be getting it in 6 months) and you are allso looking at the XM8

overall the m16 is probably best for trained soldiers and the ak47 for guerillas

aquilis182

Even Russia accept than the Ak-47s cannot comply the standars than they have now, thats why they Create new riffles... like the AN-94 (You can find that in http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94) Scince China builds their own versions of the AK-47s... The Type 56 Riffle, they ussually create their own versions than weapons already created... did you hear about the Type 17 pistol? Well it's a copy of the Mauser pistol "the broomhandle" ... Im not saying that in a negative way... I mean, The Regular PLA Still using type 56 Riffles... Why they dont try to emulate better riffles like the M16 or the AN-94?

Skorzeny

Well, I think we actually agree. The ak47 is outdated, and there is a lot of room for improvement. The russians themselves use the ak-74, not the ak47. The AN94 is probably only going to be suplied to special forces, being to expensive and complicated. The AEK971 is a better choice overall. So they should try to copy one of the newer russian weapons, or as i prefer, HK or SIG.

I`ve seen 5 rounds mention earlier in this thread. You can`t even zero your weapon with that. 600-1000 rounds is just one day at the range doing contact drills.

A good site about rifles
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm

f.hind

Do you have any evidence at all for this? I doubt it very much.

The type 81 has been in use with regular forces for over 20 years, and the replacement of these with the QBZ-95, a design a good 40 years younger than the M16 family, is well underway. I dont know how you can criticise the PLA for not modernising their armaments when the US forces that you seem to use as a benchmark are still using the M16 and its varients despite its well publicised reliability, or lack thereof.

Gollevainen

The shortcommings of even the orginal AK-47 are marginal to the improvements that more recent rifles may posses. These differences are so small that their actual influence to battlefield operations is minimal. The plain and simple fact is that all Kalashnikoviks are simple and most importantly realible from the outset where as its western competitors aren't. So what if M16 is slighty lighter and have less recoil and thus marginally shaper? You can hit a mansize targets with AK in 300 meters and thats all you need. Ranges above that are usually very rare outculding deserts. Thats why you have sniper-rifles. More important is that your gun works and you can thrust it in all conditions. I can thrust AKs, so what if it weights few grams less than M16, thrust me no matter how light is the gun, carrying it around in the woods and it will weight a ton

__________________

Skorzeny

Well, its the little things that count. In battle, when thousands of troops fires hundreds of times each, a little improvement in accuracy starts making a difference. If you look to other western weapons, like HK, you dont have a reliability issue, unlike the original M16. The weigth difference is allways important. When you cut your soap bar in two and throw away the "useless bit" of your rations, why would not weigth saved on your weapon count? More ammo or smaller load is the result. When you walk through the woods, everything is heavy, but that little extra might be the straw that breaks you.

Gollevainen

My point was that the differences are really marginal and hardly makes a difference. Accuracy is always more dependable on the guy shooting the gun than the actual gun (if talking about common assault rifles in service nowadays). Weight is really not an issue, if few grammas will break you, then its more likely that you would have broken anyway regardless what type of rifle you are carrying.

My stand is that as long as you have working rifle that deliveres its mission, wheter its a Kalashnikovik, G36, M16 or some other its sufficient enough. We finns have great emphassy towards high quality as our limited recources and yet huge task (defend huge and rough area with small population) asks for the best possiple solution. Our weaponmanufacturing industry has long tradditions and certainly would have been able to adopt more "modern" design than Kalashnikoviks. But we haven't and the sole and simple reason is that it just isen't worhtwhile. You aim and you shoot and the enemy is dead. plain simple. You can hit ten rounds to 10cm diameter circle from 150m so its accurate enough. I have fired the gun with it being lying in mud for several days and had a complete pinecone inside the mechanism, so its realible enough
...The end result of wars is dependable of entirely different issues, but IMO having gun that doesen't jam is much more important than a rifle that doesent "kick back" so much than AK...

__________________

f.hind

I think the PLA have learnt this lesson after decades of using AK derivatives; I bet they made damn sure the QBZ-95 has AK like reliability.

Skorzeny

Well here is were we disagree. Those two pounds are making a diffence. They allow you to bring more ammo or travel lighter. And I know accuracy is mostly dependent on the shooter, but with a well trained army, the accuracy of the weapons start counting. I`ve fired HK weapons for years (G3 and MP5), and never had a jam i couldn`t clear in two seconds, so reliability isn`t a big issue with these. With nearly everyone who can adopting never and lighter 5,56 og 5,45, it would be strange if they all are wrong.