PLA Small arms

tupolevtu144 said:

Has the new belt-fed saw received a designation number yet? I wonder why the PLA decided to design a gpmg that uses drum mags back then, don't drum mags jam a lot? I also wonder whats the difference between the Soviet style of gpmg that uses full-power rounds like the 7.62 (like the PKM and type 86) and the western type that uses intermediate calibers like the 5.56 or 5.8 (like the fn minimi and qjb)

Click to expand...

I’m not too familiar with the ballistics of the rounds. All I know is that 7.62 hits harder than the 5.56 (Correct me if I’m wrong though). However, I do know that one of the reasons why the intermediate rounds were developed is the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. Unlike the 7.62, a soldier can carry much more 5.56/5.8/5.45 ammo and, as a result, fire back much more quickly at the enemy.

As for the new lmg, we haven’t officially received any designation for it. As far as I remember, I don’t think we even know if it’ll fully replace the qbb 95 or serve alongside it. Also the qbb 95 isn’t a gpmg. The type 88 is.

Finally, for drum mags, they do typically jam a lot. I'm not too sure if the Chinese one does.

LawLeadsToPeace said:

I’m not too familiar with the ballistics of the rounds. All I know is that 7.62 hits harder than the 5.56 (Correct me if I’m wrong though). However, I do know that one of the reasons why the intermediate rounds were developed is the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. Unlike the 7.62, a soldier can carry much more 5.56/5.8/5.45 ammo and, as a result, fire back much more quickly at the enemy.

As for the new lmg, we haven’t officially received any designation for it. As far as I remember, I don’t think we even know if it’ll fully replace the qbb 95 or serve alongside it. Also the qbb 95 isn’t a gpmg. The type 88 is.

Finally, for drum mags, they do typically jam a lot. I'm not too sure if the Chinese one does.

Click to expand...

The Koreans made a pretty good drum mag for the 5.56. Heard from many people that Jamming isn't that big of an occurrence. A good drum mag is definitely possible.

tupolevtu144 said:

Has the new belt-fed saw received a designation number yet? I wonder why the PLA decided to design a gpmg that uses drum mags back then, don't drum mags jam a lot? I also wonder whats the difference between the Soviet style of gpmg that uses full-power rounds like the 7.62 (like the PKM and type 86) and the western type that uses intermediate calibers like the 5.56 or 5.8 (like the fn minimi and qjb)

Click to expand...

QBB-95 is not a GPMG. And it's not really an LMG either.

QBB-95 is 5.8mm, and either drum or magazine fed (no belt option). So it's best described as an IAR, LSW or SAW. Similar weapons to QBB-95 are RPK-74 (5.45mm) or M27 (5.56mm), or "LSW" variants of various service rifles around the world. I.e.: they all operate in the intermediate calibre but typically lack belt feeds, and lack quick change barrels.

LMGs also use intermediate calibres (5.8mm or 5.45mm or 5.56mm) but typically are belt fed (sometimes with magazine feed option), with quick change barrel capability. Examples of this include the M249, the Negev, and the new PLA LMG whose designation we have yet to definitively confirm.

GPMGs use 7.62mm NATO or 7.62mmx54R being the most common calibres -- M240 and PKM are examples of GPMGs. These are also typically belt fed with quick change barrel capability. They're given to a different level of the TOE than LMGs and IAR/LSW/SAWs.

LawLeadsToPeace said:

I’m not too familiar with the ballistics of the rounds. All I know is that 7.62 hits harder than the 5.56 (Correct me if I’m wrong though). However, I do know that one of the reasons why the intermediate rounds were developed is the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. Unlike the 7.62, a soldier can carry much more 5.56/5.8/5.45 ammo and, as a result, fire back much more quickly at the enemy.

As for the new lmg, we haven’t officially received any designation for it. As far as I remember, I don’t think we even know if it’ll fully replace the qbb 95 or serve alongside it. Also the qbb 95 isn’t a gpmg. The type 88 is.

Finally, for drum mags, they do typically jam a lot. I'm not too sure if the Chinese one does.

Click to expand...

So, the capability of a proper belt fed, quick barrel change LMG like the new one that the PLA has, is different to an IAR/LSW/SAW like QBB-95.
The ability to put down more fire consistently that the belt feed and barrel change offers is something that weapons like QBB-95 and M27 don't have.

I personally would not be surprised if medium and heavy combined arms units may continue using QBB-95 and/or QBV-191 (if the latter gets put into the IAR/LSW/SAW role) because those units will have their AFVs providing more organic sustained fire support as part of their TOE, while the non-mechanized, light combined arms units, and high mobility units are equipped with the new LMG because they will lack the AFVs providing organic sustained fires.

Aniah said:

The Koreans made a pretty good drum mag for the 5.56. Heard from many people that Jamming isn't that big of an occurrence. A good drum mag is definitely possible.

View attachment 73583View attachment 73584View attachment 73585

Click to expand...

If you want to make a reliable drum mag in large quantities the cost of doing so - designing and manufacturing at scale something that is reliable and durable will dramatically increase costs.

Further, drum mags are awkward to carry and their shape would mean you cannot carry many on your person and have to stash them messily in your bag.

A better solution for mass procurement for a large army would be either a slightly longer double stack magazine, say 40 rounds as opposed to 30 or a quad stack mag with 40-60 rounds.

Box magazines are easier and cheaper to produce reliably at scale and are generally speaking more durable than drum magazines.

Box magazines are far easier to carry on your person, on your vest and are also easier to stow and load. With drum mags, you are working with more delicate yet more complex components and storing ammunition in a geometrically awkward manner, which makes operation less reliable, the mechanism more fragile and more difficult to load.

tupolevtu144 said:

Has the new belt-fed saw received a designation number yet? I wonder why the PLA decided to design a gpmg that uses drum mags back then, don't drum mags jam a lot? I also wonder whats the difference between the Soviet style of gpmg that uses full-power rounds like the 7.62 (like the PKM and type 86) and the western type that uses intermediate calibers like the 5.56 or 5.8 (like the fn minimi and qjb)

Click to expand...

I don;t think many machine guns firing intermediate cartridges are considered proper general purpose machine guns. In countries that can afford two different rifle calibers intermediate cartridge machine guns such as those firing 7.62short, 5.45, 5.8 ans 5.56mm machine guns are all regarded as true light machine guns, not general purpose machine guns. Light machine guns are intended to maneuver with infantry squad and provide fire bases for the maneuvering elements of the squads. Because they are integrated into infantry they fire intermediate caliber cartridges for standardization with infantry assault rifle.

General purpose machine guns are primarily for heavier vehicle mounted support or more static company level support. They fire full sized rounds in order to increase range and hitting power. But they are less mobile.

For example, recently the germans adopted both M4 5.56mm Light machine guns for squad support use, as well as M5 7.62mm general purpose machine guns for heavier support use.

In Russian service, the intermediate cartridge light machine gun is 5.45mm RPK-74, which is used primarily at the squad level, while the full powered general purpose machine gun is 7.62mm PK

In US service the intermediate cartridge light machine gun is 5.56mm M249, While the general purpose machine gun is the 7.62mm M240

Bltizo said:

QBB-95 is not a GPMG. And it's not really an LMG either.

QBB-95 is 5.8mm, and either drum or magazine fed (no belt option). So it's best described as an IAR, LSW or SAW. Similar weapons to QBB-95 are RPK-74 (5.45mm) or M27 (5.56mm), or "LSW" variants of various service rifles around the world. I.e.: they all operate in the intermediate calibre but typically lack belt feeds, and lack quick change barrels.

LMGs also use intermediate calibres (5.8mm or 5.45mm or 5.56mm) but typically typically are belt fed (sometimes with magazine feed option), with quick change barrel capability. Examples of this include the M249, the Negev, and the new PLA LMG whose designation we have yet to definitively confirm.

GPMGs use 7.62mm NATO or 7.62mmx54R being the most common calibres -- M240 and PKM are examples of GPMGs. These are typically belt fed with quick change barrel capability.

Click to expand...

Squad automatic weapon is the classic role for the light machine gun. So you can call QBB-95 a LMG or SAW. It means the same thing.

IAR is a peculiarly American, and American marine at that, concept. The Americans have always be favored the individual rifleman over the machine gun as the primary source of a squad’s fire to a much higher degree than European armies. You can call it cultural blind spot if you want. The American riflemen centered infantry squads have had their asses handed to them by German machine gun centered squad time and again during both world wars. The US army sort of learned, the US marine still didn;t. IAR is yet another lapse into the same blind spot of “every marine a rifleman”, of favoring the aimed rifle fire over volume of machine gun fire,

The Chinese army certainly should not follow the US Marines down the IAR route. It would be even more inappropriate for a force centered around armor and intended to take ground against heavy opposition.

Richard Santos said:

Squad automatic weapon is the classic role for the light machine gun. So you can call QBB-95 a LMG or SAW. It means the same thing.

IAR is a peculiarly American, and American marine at that, concept. The Americans have always be favored the individual rifleman over the machine gun as the primary source of a squad’s fire to a much higher degree than European armies. You can call it cultural blind spot if you want.

American military took this point of view into the trenches of WWI, and suffered appallingly at the hands of German machine guns before they temporarily learned the lessons. Americans then developed the first generally issued semi-automatic rifle to reassert the primacy of the riflemen, and suffered badly at the hands of the Germans during WWII again. The Germans in WWII organized their entire squad so infantrymen exist primarily to protect the machine gun and the machine gun provide the dominant fire. The US army sort of learned the lesson after WWII. The Marine still didn’t. The marines still proudly proclaims every marine is a rifleman. In my opinion IAR is yet another lapse into this uniquely American blind spot. IAR is not a substitute for the squad automatic weapon. The US army is not following the marines.

The Chinese army most certainly should not follow the US marines down the IAR route. Riflemen are not substitutes for machine guns. This is all the more so If the combat is more intense the]an mere skirmishes,

Click to expand...

The "SAW" has of course in the past been associated with the LMG weapon, after all the M249 itself is designated "SAW".

However there are multiple service weapons that have variants that are designed to be more oriented for the "LMG" role, while lacking the belt feed and quick change barrel of true proper LMGs like M249 and Negev.
The QBB-95, RPK, M27, MG36, SA80 LSW etc, can all be better described as IAR/LSW/SAW than proper LMGs.

So the concept of an "IAR" in the form of M27 is hardly unique to the USMC.
What is unique about the M27 is the way in which the USMC chooses to issue M27s vs M249s.

For the PLA, clearly they see a benefit in having a proper 5.8mm LMG that has quick barrel change and belt feed capability -- but at the same time, whether they will complement or replace the QBB-95 (or QBV-191 in an IAR/LSW/SAW) role is yet to be determined. There are compelling arguments for both.

Richard Santos said:

Squad automatic weapon is the classic role for the light machine gun. So you can call QBB-95 a LMG or SAW. It means the same thing.

IAR is a peculiarly American, and American marine at that, concept. The Americans have always be favored the individual rifleman over the machine gun as the primary source of a squad’s fire to a much higher degree than European armies. You can call it cultural blind spot if you want.

American military took this point of view into the trenches of WWI, and suffered appallingly at the hands of German machine guns before they temporarily learned the lessons. Americans then developed the first generally issued semi-automatic rifle to reassert the primacy of the riflemen, and suffered badly at the hands of the Germans during WWII again. The Germans in WWII organized their entire squad so infantrymen exist primarily to protect the machine gun and the machine gun provide the dominant fire. The US army sort of learned the lesson after WWII. The Marine still didn’t. The marines still proudly proclaims every marine is a rifleman. In my opinion IAR is yet another lapse into this uniquely American blind spot. IAR is not a substitute for the squad automatic weapon. The US army is not following the marines.

The Chinese army most certainly should not follow the US marines down the IAR route. Riflemen are not substitutes for machine guns. This is all the more so If the combat is more intense the]an mere skirmishes,

Click to expand...

Just a quick correction, every Marine infantryman will be getting m27’s with suppressors and lvpos in order to meet the 2030 deadline. They are becoming more or less infantry “commandos” rather than a mechanized force in order to operate in the SCS.

LawLeadsToPeace said:

Just a quick correction, every Marine infantryman will be getting m27’s with suppressors and lvpos in order to meet the 2030 deadline. They are becoming more or less infantry “commandos” rather than a mechanized force in order to operate in the SCS.

Click to expand...

In effect the US marines are becoming a skirmishing force that can’t take ground or hold ground against any heavy opposition.

A gatling gun from .