PLA Small arms

[AZaz09dude]

In practice on the TOE for US forces the M320 is preferred as a standalone weapon. Similar to how the old M79 was used. It’s basically Thumper 2.0.

In contrast, I've heard of many US units being being forced by leadership to mount their M320s in UBGL configuration. With the end result being significantly more unwieldy than the M203.

Interesting. I could see a problem with this as PLA MCAB are generally smaller than U.S. infantry who use such a configuration. Well on paper they are both a 9 man unit in practice the PLA counts the 3 man vehicle crew. Where a Bradley unit breaks he dismounted squad between vehicles and a Stryker holds the whole team. With the vehicle crews operating as a semi independent team.

As I understand it, US mechanized infantry are not doctrinally meant to fight dismounted alongside vehicles in the traditional Soviet/Russian manner? Whereas the PLA does intend to. In that context, a squad being split between two Bradleys wouldn't be as big of an issue in theory.

We see elements that are duplicated in the ground elements of the PLA but the spread of weapons means it’s getting more and more complicated because of the smaller base of dismount.
The American infantry squad can easily and is designed to break into two elements where the PLA unit if broken would have less capability and though redundancy is included seems more likely to be used as a single fireteam.

What confuses me as a result is the PLA's decision to push PF98 down to squad level for MCAB. My experience is in a comparable wheeled mechanized type unit and I have difficulty in seeing the practicality of it. When dismounting on the attack, it constrains their ability to fire and rapidly maneuver alongside vehicles. Ideally attacking squads should be only dismounting well within the last 100m as well, so splash and frag from 120mm fire would risk fratricide. On top of that, the gunner rarely carries a rifle, and also relies on an assistant to load and carry rounds. So their effective strength when assaulting enemy entrenchments, or clearing out structures/constrained terrain is 4(!) dismounts per vehicle. And when the capability is required for defensive or independent dismounted operations, it would be no issue to attach it from a higher level if needed. And PLA MCABs also include plenty of wheeled 105mm guns for DFS as well.

It seems almost like a legacy institutional obsession for squad level AT capability stemming from the prospect of facing late cold war Soviet armored hordes. Would be interesting to see how their TOE evolves as the new ZBL221s enter service. The new IFVs would provide squads with advanced F&F ATGM capability, and the unmanned turret might mean room for more dismounts.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

In contrast, I've heard of many US units being being forced by leadership to mount their M320s in UBGL configuration. With the end result being significantly more unwieldy than the M203.

A number of M4A1 were configured for that. The M320 in its original design was meant to quick mount to a rail system however that system was on the HK416 and XM8 not the rail system of the M4A1. Making it a a user attached system would have required engineering changes to the M4A1 receiver sets basically a hypothetical M4A2 with a reinforced monolithic receiver.
So like the M203 they use an adapter kit that is installed at armorer level mounted to the Trunnion and gas block along the barrel. Removing the M320 would require a work shop and replacement lower handguard segment.

As I understand it, US mechanized infantry are not doctrinally meant to fight dismounted alongside vehicles in the traditional Soviet/Russian manner? Whereas the PLA does intend to. In that context, a squad being split between two Bradleys wouldn't be as big of an issue in theory.

Bradley are an IFV not a battle taxi so they are supposed to be interoperating as support dismounts. It always seemed like the Russian concept of how they operate BMPs particularly the BMP3 is more analogous to how the U.S. operated the M3 CFV. Where the Infantry were more part of the vehicle crew and less infantry.

 

[James Zhen]

So probably 40x46mm NATO comparable similar to the new Russian Gp46.
Although the M320 was developed to underbarrel mount originally intended for the XM8 and HK416 as it’s a derivative of the HK EGLM used on G36 and British L85 rifles. In practice on the TOE for US forces the M320 is preferred as a standalone weapon. Similar to how the old M79 was used. It’s basically Thumper 2.0.

Interesting. I could see a problem with this as PLA MCAB are generally smaller than U.S. infantry who use such a configuration. Well on paper they are both a 9 man unit in practice the PLA counts the 3 man vehicle crew. Where a Bradley unit breaks he dismounted squad between vehicles and a Stryker holds the whole team. With the vehicle crews operating as a semi independent team.
so a U.S. squad would have the two grenade launchers distributed among the nine dismount in one per fireteam.
where the PLA would have the two launchers in the 6 man dismount.
To lay this out the general table is something like this.
US Army__________________PLA MCAB

1. Squad leader M4A1/M17 — Vehicle /Squad commander QBZ191
2. (A) team leader M4A1/M17– Vehicle Gunner QBZ192
3. A Grenadier M4A1/M320– Vehicle Driver QSZ 92
4. A automatic rifleman M249–Anti tank PF98/Qbz191 or Grenadier QBZ191/QLG 10A
5. Rifleman M4A1 or Designated M110A1–Anti tank PF98/Qbz191
6. (B) Team leader M4A1/M17— Machine gunner QJB201
7. (B) Grenadier M4A1/M320– Machine Gunner QJB201
8. (B) Automatic Rifleman M249–Deputy Squad leader Qbz191/QBS-09
9. Rifleman M4A1 or Antitank specialist M4A1/AT4 or Designated M110A1–Designated Marksmen QBU 191

These are based on published US army and tables assembled from open source on the PLA.
We see elements that are duplicated in the ground elements of the PLA but the spread of weapons means it’s getting more and more complicated because of the smaller base of dismount.
The American infantry squad can easily and is designed to break into two elements where the PLA unit if broken would have less capability and though redundancy is included seems more likely to be used as a single fireteam.
Both organizations are subject to change based on modernization and change to threats. The U.S. tables in example are known to have planed changes coming including reintroduction of AT4 to the squad, the PGS replacing the load of one Grenadier from M4A1/M320 to the PGS, and adoption of the M7 and M250 to replace M4A1 and M249 respectively.

Just to note from observations, the PLA in practice, especially from mounted units, the users to be issued the UGLs are usually the deputy squad leaders, since they are usually the dismount leads. They probably employ the same philosophy as early GWOT USMC Squad leaders or SOV/RUSFOR senior rifleman, where the UGLS are used for group control through smokes or lethal. (Poor Deputies, has to carry a QBS, QBZ and QLG)

A usual ZBL08 IFV Squad should be like this.

1. Squad Leader: QBZ191/192 (Preferred to remain on the IFV to coordinate between dismount teams, vehicle and others)
2. Vehicle Gunner: QSZ92
3. Vehicle Driver: QSZ92 (sometimes seen with 192)
4. Deputy Squad Leader: QBZ191 w/o QLG (Dismount Lead. Coordinates between the two fireteams and vehicle)
5. PF98 Gunner: Primarily with the PF98, pre-2020s only had a QSZ but can have a QBZ now.
6. PF98 Assistant: QBZ191 (Carries the ammunition and loads the PF98 for the gunner)
7. Rifleman: QBZ191 (also can carry QLG but no always)
8. Squad Machine Gunner: QJB201/QJB95-1
9. Marksman: QBU191 (Prior to the 2020s, it would have been another rifleman w/o QLG or squad lmg)

Some notes are; again its mostly leadership roles but sometimes a rifleman in the squad will have it (it seemed to be the case prior to 2020s the rifleman that filled the marksman role usually also get the UGLs too). Launchers are issued at Ad Hoc for both the US and the PLA. If armor are more of a threat you'll see AT4s/DZP-11s issued to anyone. (for PLA it can literally be anyone, there's the infamous image of a marksman with the QBU, QBS and PF89)

Fireteams CAN be Ad Hoc. So you may get like:

Example 1:
Fireteam 1; Rifleman, Squad LMG and Deputy SL. Fireteam 2; PF Gunner and Assistant. (Marksman on his own)

Example 2:
Fireteam 1; Rifleman, Squad LMG, Marksman. Fireteam 2; PF Gunner, Assistant and Deputy Squad Leader.

For those who don't know, marksman are now a squad level asset, prior to the adoption of the 191 family, the limited lethality of the QBU88 remained questionable and were dependent on unit needs so it was usually reserved to a company or platoon asset. (this isnt the main reason, the idea of a limited high precision sniper role came from employment of the Type 79/85 SVDs)

But yeah, for whatever reason they didn't push down two UGLs as the norm. My own guess from reading how the PLA has been, is that the UGLs up until recently were probably a weight conscious topic (not saying the UGLs are heavy per say but just how the PLA handles a soldier's combat weights) and the M320 suffers from the weight issue too, complaints both online and from friends that served but that's usually when its mounted on rifles were its weight and size plays a bigger role on the user. The USMC seems to the only branch that prefers the 320 as a standalone, but then again, since the IAR with those quad rails and especially with the cans in front can be a bitch to carry and the 320s can be handled better when standalone.

 

[bsdnf]

As far as I know, some PLA units are temporarily issued standalone GLs as a supplement, even machine gunners. No dedicated ammunition carrying gear? Just put it in any pocket.

Riflemen rarely use underbarrel GLs because holding the rifle with it is more physically demanding on the arms, especially now that the PLA is issued more and more accessories. And it is one of the reasons why the PLA still insists on GP-style GLs.

 

[Dragon of War]

Patents for the Export Type 191.​

 

[QIUSIYU]

Under-Barrel Shotgun

 

[Aniah]

Under-Barrel Shotgun
View attachment 171761View attachment 171762View attachment 171763

Really does feel like early 2000s US when the R&D department got loads of funding, and all the nerds started testing everything under the sun.

 

[Kejora]

So we finally know what the rear attachment point for the UBGL looks like

 

[Rank Amateur]

Under-Barrel Shotgun
View attachment 171761View attachment 171762View attachment 171763

Really does feel like early 2000s US when the R&D department got loads of funding, and all the nerds started testing everything under the sun.

Assuming that the images posted by QIUSIYU really are those of an under-barrel shotgun, such a device is not merely some wacky concept that might have been tested by US R&D nerds let loose with an unlimited budget, but something that has actually been procured and fielded by the US military as early as the 1980s. For more details, look up the Knights Armament Company Masterkey and the M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

not merely some wacky concept

It looks to me like that’s exactly what it is.

Under-Barrel Shotgun
View attachment 171761View attachment 171762View attachment 171763

We have what looks to be a double barrel shotgun system. Why?
There are a bunch of different uses of a shotgun in combat. Of late one of the more popular is anti FPV drone. Basically shooting down a flying mine with buck shot or cutter rounds. Now doing so is in someways comparable to skeet shooting.
Skeet shooting requires an accurate shotgun. Underbarrel weapons suffer a number of disadvantages including being both front heavy and with issues of boresight. It’s not a system that lends itself to shooting flying targets. Skeet shooting favors weapons designed with a specific balance and dedicated to being shotguns.
The next most common role is breaching. The “Masterkey” of door breaching attacks either hinges or the door lock at the bolt or jam.
Well attack at the jam or bolt can be done with a single shot. But you need to get the muzzle into the space between the core of the lock and the jam. The alternative would be to blow the hinges but the number of hinges on a door is variable most in know are three not two.

When you look at master key systems that have been marketed you have the classic M870 Masterkey, M26 MASS, Six12, TX12 and UBGL systems. But each has issues.

Pump action underbarrel systems are the most well known because of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Here is Billy from Predator 1987 rocking an AR15/SP-1 with a Mossburg 500 mounted under it. How much more bad mother ****** can you get?
But take a look at Billy’s gun it should be obvious this thing is a long gun and heavy too. With the gun wanting to point to the ground due to the whole second gun mounted far in front of the natural center of gravity centered around the receiver. When you put ammunition in the weapon it tends to become the center of gravity. Well now you have the AR15’s magazine and the 3 inch shotgun shells stacked in the tube plus the pump. That’s moving the center of gravity far to the front. Speaking of the pump. Racking that action isn’t going to be easy it’s well beyond the muzzle of the rifle. So the user basically has to move completely to using the shotgun. Now Billy’s gun did exist and there is photographic evidence of “Delta Force” using the Ciener Ultimate Over/Under system (A CAR15 mating a Shotgun under it ) in Operation Gothic Serpent. However it wasn’t widespread.

More practical attempts use shorter shotgun systems. Well Billy’s probably had a 5-6 shot tube Knights Masterkey based off the similar Remington 870 has a 3 shot tube plus 1 in the chamber.
When the U.S. Army felt it needed a Breaching shotgun for Iraq, they could have adopted the Masterkey yet instead they developed a whole other system. The M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun system. M26 though uses a straight pull bolt action and 3 or 5 round magazines. That straight pull shortens the length to actuate the bolt on the weapon. The magazine pulls the weight back more to the host weapon’s natural center of gravity. As opposed to the tube magazine pushing the weight to the muzzle. It’s still an awkward system. As a result it ultimately becomes a slightly better system as a standalone shotgun secondary weapon. Because it’s less awkward than either the combination weapon or carrying any of the other U.S. Department of War options. M870, M500 or Bennelli M4 super.
There were others though they don’t seem to have anything like the same degrees of success or notoriety. The Crye Precision Six12 was a revolver based system first appeared at the Shotshow 2014. As a system it seemed like it covered a lot of the issues being more straight forward than the M26 in that it used a double action trigger system to rotate the cylinder. A 6 shot capacity a Bullpup design with either a low profile or pistol grip with the gas sealed cylinder located closer to the magazine than the M26. But Crye is an apparel manufacturer not a firearms manufacturer. It didn’t have the Army backing it like C-More systems did the M26 and underbarrel systems aren’t exactly a common thing outside of military applications. The civilian version was neat but expensive and there were other interesting shotgun coming in the market then.
TX12 is… a bit of a joke. The maker doesn’t seem large and I known of it only from a Kentucky ballistic video. Where it frankly was a failure due to its half arsed mounting system. It’s a single shot breach loader that well it solves the problem of weight to a degree creates a problem as it’s supposed to rail mount and few rail systems are designed to accommodate recoil from an accessory weapon.
A number of UBGL system have shotgun adapters. These single shot systems are meant to be cost effective by reusing existing weapons but reloading is more complicated. Reports from Ukraine have had Russian soldiers adopting such adapters and GP25 underbarrel grenade launchers or modified standalone versions as last ditch drone defense systems. The idea being “If you're falling off a cliff, you may as well try to fly. You have nothing to lose.” Babylon 5. We have seen both Russian and Ukrainian troops modify their own existing equipment to try and counter drone with modified AK ammunition and self defense mechanisms of all types.
I suspect that might be the aim of this. Someone trying to come up with a last resort anti drone system. Otherwise it’s just not a practical system for a general purpose or breaching from what we see. There is a reason why very few countries actually issue underbarrel shotguns. It’s just not a general need for most military applications and it makes a ton of compromises.