I read this article today:
I wonder what other people think, for those who don't read Chinese, I will try to summarize:
- The author claims to be a veteran with experience with both Type 81 and 95 rifles
- The key advantage of the 95 over the 81 is size and weight which is important since the Chinese soldier is expected to be on foot more often than soviet counterpart
Interesting, Russian Forces are heavily mechanized. Even there Airborne and Marine Forces use Armored. Terrain wise Mechanization would be well suited to the Gobi and Urbanized portions of the PRC, Foot patrol would be more needed for Mountain and jungle who would be rotorcraft/Aircraft based or foot patrol.
[*]The AR and AK families were designed to fit their respective users, the US emphasized range and precision while the Soviets emphasized simplicity and reliability. While an adopter of the AK with Type 56(assault rifle), PLA traditionally placed heavy emphasis on marksmanship and precision due to its experiences in wars where ammunition shortages were common. Therefore, it also adopted the SKS as Type 56(carbine) as complement.
True, enough so according to the Author the PLA would more favor the AR then the AK in terms of design emphasis and yet at the same time he will contradict himself.
[*]While preparing for the Sino-Vietnamese War, the PLA brass realized that the advantages of the SKS in Jungle warfare were limited, so withdrew it in large numbers and substituted with Type 56 assault rifles and Type 79 sub-machine gun (which he claims has problems but did not elaborate), but this exposed the short-comings of the Type 56 and resulted in the Type 81, which had much improved accuracy.
Taking a SKS based carbine into a conflict with a enemy using selective fire weapons never made sense, like the Confederate army with Breech loading rifles going against Union Soldiers with Repeating carbines.
The US army did a study after WW2, Project SALVO it studied combat reports from millions of engagements in WW2, It concluded that infantry battles happened when two forces more or less stumbled onto each other, that the unit with more fire power tended to win and that hitting a target was a literal hit or miss as aimed fire made little difference as both sides were moving targets. Salvo also found that most troops never fired there weapons and that those that did tended to be using automatic weapons it recommended issuing selective fire weapons to all troops but concluded that Doing so would increase ammo consumption and therefore require a ammo that was easier to carry, the results would eventually lead to selection of the Ar15 and it's modification into the M16 series.
[*]Type 81 was adopted when other countries have already moved to smaller caliber rifles, but China was slow to adopt a smaller caliber so an entire generation of soldiers got used to the Type 81.,
Accurate, By 1981 the US had M16A1 with M16A2 on the way, the Soviets had the AK74, the the Austrian Steyr AUG was in the Works having entered production in 1978, the SG 540 was in swiss service, FN CAL was under development although it would fail, it's data would lead to the FN FNC in the 1980's Both Famas and SA80 were in the works.
[*]In 1998, when the author's unit first tested the Type 95, its report concluded that it's not suitable for adoption by front-line forces. He goes on to claim that 10 years later, there is still resistance to its adoption, in boarder patrol units in particular.
[*]While there has been many televised tests of the 95's reliability in adverse conditions, the author claims they fail to simulate the long-term effects of these environments, it's also unrealistic to assume that rifles could be cleaned regularly under field conditions, as result, it's less reliable than the 81.
Now this is the contradiction. M16A1,M16A2, M16A4 and M4 and M4A1 as well as any number of western systems show that regular maintenance is a must and is done. most western arms are designed for ease of this particularly bullpups thaat use easy to open butt pads and reduced part numbers.
[*]Despite weight savings and more ammunition with smaller caliber, the author went on to identify the following problems:
- The ejection window is close to the face, causing ringing in right-ear after automatic fire.
- The 5.8 mm ammunition he was issued gave off heavy white smoke that obscured vision.
- Much slower magazine change than Type 81 and requires taking eyes off target.
- Bad safety/fire selector placement (I know this was fixed with newer variant)
- No indication when the last round is fired and chamber is empty.
He believes that while these problems can be mitigated,
A Deflector and change of powder can correct the first two points, the Third is a issue with all bullpups, it can be eased though For example the latest X95 and Desert Tech MDR both place the magazine ejection in the same location as that of a AR. to do this however requires a AR style magazine latch Type 95 uses a AK style mag latch needing a rocking action to seat.
the Type 81 is much more robust and friendly to recruits.
Sure but will these recruits be using type 81's ot 95's? If they were to be issued Type 81's or Type 03's I could see giving the Training recruits Type 81's or even Type 56 carbines. but if you intend to give your troops QBZ95 or derivatives there in even if it means spending more time in basic learning the weapon. You need them to learn the system.
[*]Problems with the 95 resulted in the development of the QBZ-03 to finally replace Type 81.
except 03 seems more selectively issued. The Question is what is the Aim of the PLA infantry. Bulls give advantages in close quarters and some weight savings but not much. it's main savings is length. a X95 with a 13 inch barrel has a length of 22.83 inches a G36K with a 12.5 inch barrel ( note half a inch shorter ) is 33.85 Inches long Almost twice as long. That Said Bulls compromise in ergonomics and ambidextrous friendliness.
