MwRYum
Major
It's called QTS-11, not ZH-05.
QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.
- Thread starter tanlixiang28776
- Start date
It makes sense to load up an entire squad with ZH-05, since your sustained firepower is reduced compared to an XM-25. It also fits into PLA doctrine where more emphasis is placed on light infantry as an attacking unit as opposed to crew-served weapons or attacking with artillery support.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Actually They might. When the US was devising the XM29 they conceptualized 2 OICW per squad. This was based on a 9 man US Army Squad. That is 1 for every 4 men with a Squad leader..... I can't envision a standard squad having more than one or two QTS-11s', other than for urban warfare scenarios perhaps.
Edit note: changed "ZH-05" to "QTS-11", which is the correct designation, per @MwRYum.
Now individual military services will write their own doctrine on how large their Rifle Squads/Section are. ( in Example the US Army is 9 men the USMC is 11) This might even change based on Quad role.
Generally a Fire team is 3-4 men and is the smallest maneuver element, And then you partner between 2 to 3 fire teams for a Squad/Section So if they use a 3 fire team per squad ratio and 1 QTS-11 per 4 men than 3 per squad for a 10-12 man rifle squad.
I read somewhere that the PLA uses 2 squad models the Mechanized model of 9 men and the non mechanized 12 man.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The PLA has automatic weapons same as any other army and loading down the entire squad is over specialization. The QBB95 and QJY 88 both represent Crew served weapons, they also have DMR QBU 88. the QST 11 due to it's specialized electronics and ammunition combined with its additional weight would be impractical to pure fleet. when combined with small arms and a RPG system
Ultra
Junior Member
Some screen captures from a recent military news segment. No sure if the footage itself is recent. Seems all five soldiers in the frame are armed with QTS-11. I wonder how standard this is, or maybe the footage is recycled and merely shows the rifle during its trial phase. I can't envision a standard squad having more than one or two QTS-11s', other than for urban warfare scenarios perhaps.
Edit note: changed "ZH-05" to "QTS-11", which is the correct designation, per @MwRYum.
Looks like a game screenshot.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Another thing going for the QTS11 is the increasing proliferation of level 4 plates. Short of a revolution in small arms tech, it is hard to see how you are going to be able to reliably punch through lvl4 plates while still keeping the caliber (and weight of the weapon and ammo) within acceptably limits.
The QTS11 nicely sidesteps that thorny issue by keeping the current small cal primary rounds, while adding a modest amount of weight to give your troops an effective counter to lvl4 plates, that will also be effective against unarmoured foes.
The bolt action single round design of the grenade launcher is less of an issue if the entire squad is armed with these.
The costs will be higher obviously, but then China won’t be looking to rolling these out to everyone. If they just equip their marines and tier 1 primere combat units with these, the costs would be managible, while the benefit could be immense. Especially in an urban environment against foes with lvl4 plates.
The QTS11 nicely sidesteps that thorny issue by keeping the current small cal primary rounds, while adding a modest amount of weight to give your troops an effective counter to lvl4 plates, that will also be effective against unarmoured foes.
The bolt action single round design of the grenade launcher is less of an issue if the entire squad is armed with these.
The costs will be higher obviously, but then China won’t be looking to rolling these out to everyone. If they just equip their marines and tier 1 primere combat units with these, the costs would be managible, while the benefit could be immense. Especially in an urban environment against foes with lvl4 plates.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
11 pounds is not light for a main line infantry weapon. It is also not overly heavy M14 Rifles weigh 11 pounds As do a nymber of Modern LMG's however although weight is not an issue Cost is. The system ( Rounds Optic, Weapon and training) will cost far more than a conventional rifle.
The QBZ95 is a carbine. That's the point of the Bullpup configuration, To reduce the length of the weapon well getting a full length barrel. Furthermore the Replacement of the QBZ95 already exists The QBZ95-1.
The Critical element you consistently miss is that infantry rifles although capable of Suppressing fire IE Selective fire they are more often used in Semiautomatic mode. This is the critical correction made in the QBZ95-1 The easy to use fire selector.
The previous iteration of the QBZ95 had the fire selector located near the rear of the stock/Receiver meaning that a soldier using it had to set the selector before engagement. I E lad a magazine, Do not chamber a round set the selector and n Engagement chamber and fire. Any Trained infantryman on contact will go to semi auto as the more reliable and more accurate mode of fire. Full auto fire or Suppression from the Infantryman only really comes in in 1 of 3 conditions.
- The Shooter is poorly trained. The Selector of the AK the weapon most commonly seen in poor armies of the World is said to have been designed with this is mind. To try and Encourage semiautomatic fire the switch goes from safe to full auto to semi this is so that a shooter in a panic hitting the selector with an adrenalin high will knock it all the way to semi auto.
- The Squad is attempting to Break contact and wants to keep heads down.
- Close range fire. Where volume of fire into close targets is more damage to the adversary.
Level 4 plates are an issue, however the QST 11 Airburst is not targeted to that. The Carbine component is not going to Defeat level IV plates any better then the QBZ 95. The Airburst Element seems oriented to defeat unarmored foes in Defial.
The Shockwave against armored troops in very close confined space might do some splash damage but the fragmentation effects aren't likely to do much.
So which are you facing Armored forces or unarmored?
A very specialized tool with a high price point. Equipping a couple per Squad maybe but a whole squad seems highly unlikely.
Wait but you just said "The bolt action single round design of the grenade launcher is less of an issue if the entire squad is armed with these."
And you have other issues now. Marine forces need weapons suited to their Amphibious and expeditionary role. for them It's it better to have a smaller logistics train as it means having to find ways of hauling more.
Tier 1 are Special operations units who tend to operate off the books These tend to fall into Unconventional, Counter terrorism, Direct Action and Special reconnaissance. They are in Conventional war deployed behind enemy lines or conducting raids, Although a system like the OST 11 might be chosen I doubt a pure force. due to the extra weight and specialized nature.
Frankley on the Whole it falls better into a substitution for the Under barrel launcher in the squad rather then a pure fleet force. The Effectiveness of the Airburst round vs Level IV body armor has yet to be proven. however there are a few elifants in the room
The US M993 AP round already defeats level IV however that is the 7.62mm version and it has a very pricey and potentially Strategically recourse for the US. IE the US produces no tungsten it comes from South Africa, Russia and Of course the PRC.
If that is not enough Remember that there are already widely fielded weapons of a more conventional nature that can be just as if not far more destructive in most modern armies Rifle squads.
The underbarrel Grenade launcher of the 35-40mm varieties and recoilless systems.
As well as moving up in caliber from the .2xx caliber range to the .3xx range with a ultra high velocity, suposedly the there is a 6.8mm UHV round in the world right now.
@TerraN_EmpirE: If you look at cause of death in warfare, small arms fire only comprises a small percentage of infantry deaths, with the majority the result of ordinance, vehicles, or crew-served weapons. The standard fire team tactic is for two fireteams to suppress, one to assault. The existence and commonality of cover means that small arms fire is rarely a decisive factor in infantry engagements.
OICW-type weapons promise to transform this. Check out the reports of the XM-25's performance in Afghanistan; engagements at 600 meters, which formerly would have required soldiers to close in and assault, can be ended in seconds with a well-placed grenade shot.
As to plawolf's point about armor-piercing; you are correct that ESAPI, XSAPI, and related body armors resist fragmentation well. They significantly improve soldier survivability versus fragmentation shells, but they do not cover the whole body; joints remain exposed to fragmentation damage.
This is why I'm arguing that incendiary rounds are needed with OICW-type weapons; partial armor is not going to protect you when you've been set on fire.
The other point is that you're critical of the weight. An AK-47 weighs ten and a half pounds loaded. The QTS-11 is rated at below 11 pounds, lighter than the XM-25's 14 pounds, and has a carbine for suppression to boot. Moreover, the QTS-11, while significantly more expensive than a carbine, is still much cheaper than both the OICW and K-11 due to its simplified design.
OICW-type weapons promise to transform this. Check out the reports of the XM-25's performance in Afghanistan; engagements at 600 meters, which formerly would have required soldiers to close in and assault, can be ended in seconds with a well-placed grenade shot.
As to plawolf's point about armor-piercing; you are correct that ESAPI, XSAPI, and related body armors resist fragmentation well. They significantly improve soldier survivability versus fragmentation shells, but they do not cover the whole body; joints remain exposed to fragmentation damage.
This is why I'm arguing that incendiary rounds are needed with OICW-type weapons; partial armor is not going to protect you when you've been set on fire.
The other point is that you're critical of the weight. An AK-47 weighs ten and a half pounds loaded. The QTS-11 is rated at below 11 pounds, lighter than the XM-25's 14 pounds, and has a carbine for suppression to boot. Moreover, the QTS-11, while significantly more expensive than a carbine, is still much cheaper than both the OICW and K-11 due to its simplified design.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The Term you are looking for is Fire and Maneuver, OICW's however do not change that mode.
by the Way LMG and GPMG's are both considered crew served weapons.
600 meters is in the mechanical Range of most conventional infantry weapons the limitation to that being mostly Iron sights. And to point out your own argument The majority of Infantry kills are not by small arms but in fact forms of artillery often called in by infantry forces. US Forces in Afghanistan actually rarely employed the XM25 and favored M4, M16, Accurized Variants of the AR10 and M14 and operated to the same 800 meters.
Modern Fire resistant clothing is also proliferating in the military environment Especially after operations by Nato in Afghanistan and Iraq where IED's set vehicle crews on fire. As to joints Along side Level IV you also have soft armor in the Works this is intended for fragmentation defence of joints by being flexible.
First The weight of a AK47 is closer to 9.7 pounds an AKM ( Which is actually the most common Firearm ) with a loaded magazine is 8.6 pounds not 10.5. The 11 pounds is the listed weight yes. never clarified empty or loaded.
And Price is questionable. Sales materials will list an Objective price, However is that the actual price or the Subsidized price?
And Again There are other existing systems in most of the top and even lesser militaries that offer much of the same capacities. The XM1166 40mm High Explsive Airburst Round fired from a conventional underbarrel launcher and by the way not unique, Singapore and Israel were both working on similar systems. 40 mm Bouncing Air Burst Grenade ARFG-25 AB fired from the Russian GP series launcher may not Airburst in the same way but offers a similar concept. And if these are not impressive enough lightweight man portable suicide drones.