Sino-India conflict

I know Kalashnikovs are not of great accuracy, due to their poor tollerances, but I am surprised that people think they are unable to hit 200m targets?

A Western 5.56mm assault rifle is fully capable of hitting a torso size target out to 500m's with low power optics, and 400m's with iron sights. Anybody trained to shoot a rifle should be able to hit the 300m target the majority of the time.

The differnce in recoil between a 5.56 and a 7.62 is huge, especially with older rifles. One of my friends currently in the Finnish army said that he wouldn't use automatic fire in case of a war, due to the massive recoil of his Kalashnikov-copy that is a few years old. He explained that when firing burst you hardly can manage to make all bullets hit the target, and that is one the firing range. Other of my firends currently in the ranks said the same.

Also, the 7.62s usually have worse ballistic profiles than the lighter 5.56s, but on the other hand the 7.62s packs a much heavier punch, as have been discussed earlier.

Hmmm, you have a few misconceptions.

7.62x39mm only has a very slight bit more recoil than 5.56x45mm, which is the higher pressure cartridge. Both rounds are also fairly accurate, although the Russian round has more of a ballistic arc due to its lower velocity.

Recoil only becomes more of a factor when you step up to full power rifle rounds.

Well, I have never actually fired anything heavier than a .223, I only retell what my friend said. He argued that the heavy recoil also is to blame on the poor design of the stock of the rifle. I don't know exactly which rifle model the PLA used in that conflict, but I believe that it is close enough to older Finnish ones (bought fro China I believe) to be included here.

The Lee-Enfield doesn't even play in the same league as the AK-47, as Gollevainen explained, there is a reason for nearly all the armies having converted to automatic rifles instead of a sub-machine gun/bolt-action rifle mix as used in WWII.

Stalin had in 1941 ordered mass wave attacks with anything that a commander had without making adequate preparations due to the desparation at the time, but in 1942 onwards Wave tactics became far less frequent.

Once equipment and munitions production finally kicked in and numbers switched to the Russians in all fields the tactics changed as things became more stable, attacks with large amounts of infantry, artilly and tanks was common but it wasn't done helter skelter, there was always strategy involved, except with alot more men and material used.

Try to research the "Russian School" of thought which used a combination of numbers, mobility, and the toughness of the average Russian to win in "shock attack" engagements. The Russian Civil war (the miliary side) is a better view of this.

The Chinese under Mao favored Mobile "People's War" doctrine, of "luring the enemy in deep", utilizing the peasant masses to form a "wave of humanity" to stop the enemy in which the red army could become "fish among water", and favored flexible tactics of attacking the enemy where they were weakest to weaken them in whole.

These tactics first used against the GMD in the Jiangsi Soviet Republic, then against the Japanese in WWII, and finally again against the GMD in the second Chinese Civil War.

I'm certain that they were used to drive the Americans back to the 38th parallel but I don't know much else after that.

I go to indoor shooting ranges once in a while to do a little plinking with friends. Since I've never served in military, I can only speak as an amateur shooter.

From experience, smaller caliber guns like the .22 Ruger pistol, in the hands of an amateur shooter, is more accurate than a larger caliber gun, like the .357 magnum revolver. I can empty a 10 round (22 cal) clip faster and with more accuracy from a Ruger. As an added bonus, the .22 ammo is also a hell lot cheaper (than bigger cal ammo) in boxes of 500 at local sports shops. =/

@ Lavi

**-The Lee-Enfield doesn't even play in the same league as the AK-47, as Gollevainen explained, there is a reason for nearly all the armies having converted to automatic rifles instead of a sub-machine gun/bolt-action rifle mix as used in WWII.-**

Assault rifles are like the name suggest. its for assaulting or attacking. Most modern army uses infantry in conjuction with tanks to launch a attack. This needs a large concentration or fire which a assault rifle is better than a bolt action(because of the higer rate of fire) and the sub machine gun(which is less accurate)

In the style of combat the indian and chinese forces used in the sino-indian war was in terrain which had a high visibility.

In ww1 where the bolt action rifles were useful in defense at the ranges they were fighting while in ww2 defense switched to offense (because of the tank) and a high amount of concentrated fire was needed.

Regards,

chinawhite

Well whit assault rifles you have to also remember that thougth some older NATO rifles are listed as ones, their long .308 caliber makes them really a automatic rifles whit full rifle cartiges. That sort of weapons like FN FAL and H&K G-3 would be best type of weapon in high visipility-long distance mountain regions, as they somewhat compinates good (or bad depending on your stance and favours) qualities of the both

ArjunMk1 said:

Image courtesy : bharatrakshak.com .

Neither India nor China has released an official record of this border skirmish but much can be known from news papers and quotes from ex soldiers .
Its interesting to note that both India and China had similar no of casualities though PLA in those areas was much more stronger and had better logistics !!!

As far as I know , PLA fought like a 'people's army' !! They preffered 'wave style' attacks , which in turn caused many casualities .

Click to expand...

please read and enlighten yourself!

jason_chiu888 said:

please read and enlighten yourself!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Link doesn't work !!! Any way u pls paste in in your next post ...