MwRYum
Major
More like the technology is not yet mature enough at this time, like how Gatling fell into obsolesce when Maxim MG came to be, then get a revival with a vengeance when mated with electric motor.
QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.
- Thread starter tanlixiang28776
- Start date
MwRYum
Major
Considering that PR shot is most likely from an earlier time (Type 07 camo, not the later iteration of Dongfeng Mengshi vehicle, very weird face paint...pre-2019 at least?), and that they've go for a different setup with the whole airburst grenade munition-launcher combo (that big grenade launcher that has quite a heavy recoil), we really need something like picture that has QTS-11 wielded by personnel wearing the full Type 21 gear set to be certain.Yet another image showing an entire squad equipped with QTS-11s. It appears the PLA might be favoring this arrangement over embedding one or two QTS-11s in a standard infantry squad, assuming the publicly available images are indicative of PLA's current thinking.
Presumably this is a recon unit of the former 112th Mechanized Infantry Division.Yet another image showing an entire squad equipped with QTS-11s. It appears the PLA might be favoring this arrangement over embedding one or two QTS-11s in a standard infantry squad, assuming the publicly available images are indicative of PLA's current thinking.
What the OICW is actually transitioning to is a grenade launcher with an assault rifle option as a sidearm.
The 20mm grenade is actually fairly advantageous as a set-up, even if it's hard-pressed for firing / killing power (25-30mm might be better). The reason being, the big limitation of grenades compared to automatic / assault rifles is that grenade ammunition is heavy and dangerous to handle, with the explosive turning the combatant into a walking bomb. With 20mm grenades, you can get explosive power while not carrying too much explosive, as well as enough ammunition so that the 20mm is now a "shoot first, ask questions later" weapon as with the 5.8mm assault rifle; i.e, the small OICW grenade is now a form of suppressive fire.
And with logistics, AGLs are superior to machine guns in terms of burst killing capability, as well as offensive capability, but the amount of ammunition and logistics they go through is prohibitive. You can't replace machine guns with AGLs for that reason; AGLs run out of ammunition too fast so they can only be used in the offensive, not the defensive role.
===
The big missing part of the QTS-11, besides its unusually small caliber (like I said, 25-30mm works better), is a thermobaric round. It's coincidentally what the Russians are missing in Ukraine; the Americans apparently used thermobaric grenades to exceptional effect in Afghanistan, so it's surprising that neither the Chinese nor Russians have main-lined thermobaric grenades.
===
Wow, I've lost my ability to modify. So I'll doublepost / auto-append.
This is also one of the advantages of the QTS-11 as a semi-automatic OICW as compared to a fully automatic OICW as with the K-11 and failed XM-29. The fact that the QTS-11 is single shot helps impose ammunition discipline on soldiers in comparison with a fully automatic weapon, for which the fully automatic mode might be overkill. Making it single shot also encourages, as with the shot shown above, the equipping of entire squads with QTS-11, which is highly beneficial in comparison to heavy-weapons-centered squads as with more conventional infantry.
A squad or platoon organized around its machine guns, grenade launchers, and so on, is dependent on its machine gunners / grenade launchers and so on for its firepower. If the crew-served weapon is knocked out, the squad / platoon is rendered useless. A QTS-11-equipped platoon, in contrast, has completely even and equal firepower among its members, and a couple of QTS-11 can match a machine-gunner in terms of lethal, long-ranged firepower. The unit can continue fighting effectively until all its members are dead, which is a substantial advantage.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Oh boy. You have a ton here that has to be parceled and Especially CORRECTED.
Your post seems to be conflating two different major weapons concepts the OICW and OCSW. You have also made a complete miss characterization of the K11 and XM29/XM25.
First the OICW none of the Grenade lanchers are Fully Automatic. All of the carbine portions are.
The XM29 was semi automatic magazine fed grenade launcher with a selective fire 5.56 p
Carbine. The XM25 same deal minus the 5.66.
K11 was a magazine fed manually operating Bolt action with a 5.56 selective fire.
The QST11 is a single shot bolt action with a 5.8mm carbine.
XM29 and XM25 As a semi automatic system, the shooter always had to pull the trigger to fire. Reset the trigger between shots.
As a Bolt action repeater the K11 always had to have the shooter manually cycle the bolt.
The advantage of the QST11 is it’s lighter in weight. The disadvantage is it’s longer to load. Ammunition management is not an advantage if anything a disadvantage.
The grenade launchers were NEVER Fully Automatic!!
I can only reason that you @Inst have conflated the separate but related Objective Crew Served Weapons concept.exemplified in the XM307 ACSW (don’t sweat the different acronym XM29 also had a alphabet soup of them including SABR)
This was a program to basically develop a family of AGL with air burst ammunition derived from the OICW but of a higher velocity. In the long run this lead to a dead end as they instead just turret mounted automatic cannons like the M230LF with air burst ammunition.
Next I have no idea what the heck you are talking about in regards to “walking bombs” are suicide bombers in suicide vests. Military explosives are very inert. They are designed for safety. To only detonate under specific conditions. Hollywood and movies love to make it all instant boom but that’s exactly what chemist and military engineers don’t want.
OICW Why was 20mm the choice? Why did XM25 only up scale to 25mm? Lighter recoil flatter trajectory, more stored kills per load. The aim was a specialized weapon that would defeat targets in behind barriers and barricades. This is why the three OICW have large suites of electronics.
FAB rounds were on the development tables but never got fielded.
XM29 or XM25 never met the ambitious weight goals. K11 seems to have other issues that have stunted it. The weapon closet in class with the widest range of ammunition including FAB was the South African Neopup or iNkunzi which fires ammunition which is literally the same 20mm shell as a Naval CIWS but in an cut down cartridge.
XM29 failed as They had a 10 lb launcher a 2 pound FCS and a 6 lb carbine. They wanted it to weigh no more than 15 lbs they were at 18.
so they broke XM29 into two separate programs in hopes of separately trimming the fat this lead to XM8 and XM25. The problem there was that separately XM8 didn’t have a proper mission need for the Army and once loaded with conventional 5.56 NATO ammunition it still ended up weighing as much as an M4. The then only route was to try and develop light weight ammunition which Spawned LSAT but it also meant XM8 was a dead end.
The Semiautomatic fire mode was dictated by doctrine, The Army wanted the ability for rapid follow on shots. The optic was limited by technology available.
XM25 continued until HK and ATK had a falling out over the Saint Petersburg declaration. An agreement that was signed by some of the forerunner states of what would become Germany, France, England, Russia just about all of Europe but not the US, ROK or Imperial China, Japan as we weren’t considered “great powers” prohibiting explosive ammunition below 400 grams.
K11 got down below 14lbs but had reliability issues and high recoil.
OST 11 is stated as less than 12 lbs. but it doesn’t seem like it fits with the emergence of QBZ191. Farther the two sights we see with the system raises questions on the ability to shift from day to night.
Blah blah again The fundamental mistake of how the systems operate leading to a massive misunderstanding of the doctrine. OICW doesn’t replace the “Machine gun doctrine”. The XM29 would have been employed like this.
mixing with not replacing.
the QST11 if anything is even more reliant on its “Machine gun” the 5.8mm portion. The explosive punch of the OICW means that the weapon has a limitation on how close it can be employed to the squad. Safety demands that you have such. OICW were conceptualized around Urban warfare which is mixed range and open and enclosed. This mix means enemies could be as near as a punch as far as a mile. To accommodate this the OICW wanted to mix a carbine for close quarters and a launcher for longer area or counter barrier. This notion of equal firepower is bogus. As General Patton put it “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”
Automatic fire creates a situation where in the Opposition cannot maneuver. Due to the mass of fire.
Precision fire whether artillery or rifles is then employed to remove his ability to resist.
A fortified position reduces the effectiveness of weapons organic to the platoon and artillery. It weakens the offensive force and makes them limited in Maneuver. A WW1 trench fight. To counter this often would require extreme means with high volumes of infantry at extreme risk or artillery at extreme expenditure of shells and volumes of fire. Both with questionable results.
OICW was supposed to break that by giving the offensive squad a precision weapon that can reach into that fortification and render it superfluous without having to level a building.
it’s not about fighting till the last man. That’s not What you want in a doctrine. It was about having an overwhelming advantage.
@TerraN_EmpirE
You're making straw man arguments, I'm wrong, of course, that the OICW was fully automatic or semi-automatic, but I'm damn well aware of the differences between OICW-type weapons, AGLs, and underslung grenade launchers.
Your problem is that you're thinking the QTS-11 is just a Chinese OICW knock-off, that the Chinese design choices are simply because they can't do things right the same way as the Americans are doing. The choice of 20mm in the American case might have been because of range, but in the Chinese case, the Chinese 20mm isn't the American 20mm. The Chinese 20mm is single-role and specialized based on payload.
You're stating that QTS-11-type weapons can't be used in close quarters, but as it turns out, the QTS-11 actually has a specialized "doorbreaker" round that's designed to directionally propel shrapnel directly ahead of the shooter.
===
I think the biggest issue you're taking is my claim of machine gun (you're allowed to surrender, because your firepower is gone once the crew-served weapons are down) vs distributed firepower models (retreat, or fight to the last man, but surrender isn't an option). The point isn't some kind of bushido fetishism; it's a question of offensive vs defensive mentality. The attacker always wants to cleanly sweep the opponent with minimal casualties on their end. The defender usually doesn't have this kind of luxury; the best option, to begin with, is deterrence, but when deterrence fails, the counter-response is tossing bodies at the enemy in hopes of wearing them down. The United States, incidentally, did this in the American Civil War, the Soviets did this to the Wehrmacht, and the Chinese did this in Korea.
There is a spiritual and moral difference between "cheap and easy wins" and "we have to resort to suicide warfare or our country is toast". I think the source of your offense is that, after watching the carnage that's happened in the United States over the last 2-6 years, you realize the United States is no longer capable of such; i.e, a switch from the support-weapon centric model to the distributed firepower model is to the United States' disadvantage.
You're making straw man arguments, I'm wrong, of course, that the OICW was fully automatic or semi-automatic, but I'm damn well aware of the differences between OICW-type weapons, AGLs, and underslung grenade launchers.
Your problem is that you're thinking the QTS-11 is just a Chinese OICW knock-off, that the Chinese design choices are simply because they can't do things right the same way as the Americans are doing. The choice of 20mm in the American case might have been because of range, but in the Chinese case, the Chinese 20mm isn't the American 20mm. The Chinese 20mm is single-role and specialized based on payload.
You're stating that QTS-11-type weapons can't be used in close quarters, but as it turns out, the QTS-11 actually has a specialized "doorbreaker" round that's designed to directionally propel shrapnel directly ahead of the shooter.
===
I think the biggest issue you're taking is my claim of machine gun (you're allowed to surrender, because your firepower is gone once the crew-served weapons are down) vs distributed firepower models (retreat, or fight to the last man, but surrender isn't an option). The point isn't some kind of bushido fetishism; it's a question of offensive vs defensive mentality. The attacker always wants to cleanly sweep the opponent with minimal casualties on their end. The defender usually doesn't have this kind of luxury; the best option, to begin with, is deterrence, but when deterrence fails, the counter-response is tossing bodies at the enemy in hopes of wearing them down. The United States, incidentally, did this in the American Civil War, the Soviets did this to the Wehrmacht, and the Chinese did this in Korea.
There is a spiritual and moral difference between "cheap and easy wins" and "we have to resort to suicide warfare or our country is toast". I think the source of your offense is that, after watching the carnage that's happened in the United States over the last 2-6 years, you realize the United States is no longer capable of such; i.e, a switch from the support-weapon centric model to the distributed firepower model is to the United States' disadvantage.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The reason I stated what I stated is laid out. The OICW was never in any form equipped with a automatic grenade launcher.
It was semi automatic in the US version.
Bolt action repeater in the Korean version.
Bolt action Single shot in the Chinese.
we have no idea if the DPRK is real.
No I am not basing my assessments on the knock off argument.
I am basing it on what is know of it. If you have documentation on an impact round please provide it. As stated it sounds more like the Inkunzi. Which was intent on defeating barriers by blowing through them as such it lacked an Airburst and fire control system favoring a simple HWS.
Choices are made on systems based on doctrine, technology and concepts.
The US wanted a system that was basically a one box Land warrior system. XM25 and XM29’s FCS was supposed to be a Day/night system with a zoom, shoot around corners and range find for the weapons smart round.
South Korea followed that same idea. The thought was to in some ways an alternative to a complicated soldier digitalization program just put it on a special weapon for the Team leaders. This proved as did the early digital infantry system inefficient. It took a long time and a lot of development based off commercially sourced IT Products like phones and tablets.
The range finder for the QST11 seems to be built into the rifle rather than the sight. The sights seem in the box seem to be a day set and a night set. This choice likely to keep the size of the optic down compared to the bulk of those on K11 and XM25.
Next, You are now the one making straw men arguments based on your perceptions. The model you are trying to espouse is a fantasy.
Explosive payloads have a blast effect even shaped charges. That effect in close is dangerous and is often one that reflects. This is why Explosive bullets are not common in use for small arms despite the fact that the technology to make small caliber explosive weapons has been around since the 1880s. It’s just more efficient in cost and in general to shoot a bullet at someone.
the mass wave formation has a high cost and low value outcomes. The US did so in our civil war on occasion yet that wasn’t by choice but by limitations of technology. With the side who employed early automatic weapons and more successful repeating firearms having won.
Europe did so in the First World War and it cost whole generations. It bankrupted nations and left the seeds of the European second world war
Japan did so in the Second World War and it’s population has been stunted since.
Russia did so in the Second World War and whole generations have still yet to get an account with a nation that never recovered. It’s population is even more stunted than Japan.
China did so in Korea yet it’s losses have never been fully counted. It was implemented by lack of alternatives due to a peasant army force based purely on infantry and what success it had was primarily as the adversary had overstretched its logistical trains.
That war then ended back where it started. The Chinese may have pushed the UN forces south from the north but they in turn were pushed north until the DMZ.
The Chinese population then underwent decades of changes and now is at the cusp of a population decline and aging out that would render a mass sacrifice for the greater China downright impossible, however you wish to romanticize it. It’s Bogus.
The PLA clearly abandoned such Farther even if they did rather than distribute QST11 the main weapons would be QBZ95 and QBZ191 along with support weapons which they have in numbers rather than some mythical “Distributed firepower model”. We know this as we can clearly see what they intend to be issued as the main line weapon. The weapons they are working on and fielding. The “Cheap weapons” and support weapons not the specialized OICW.
Reports on the QST11 TOE fallowed the same mind set of integration into and not replacement of it. Two QST11 would have been added to the PLA squad at fire team level which is pretty close of the table On the XM29. IE QST 11 for the team leader. The Support centric model lives.
However I say “Would have” as after the launch of the QBZ191 the QST11 seems to have fallen from the spotlight. If it was central to the reforms of the PLA it should have been front and center at the Big Show for the PLA. perhaps even getting a improved model with more commonality with the QBZ191 or similar updates. However it wasn’t. Increasingly the 191 and it’a line take the front of the show well 11 fades away like an old soldier…
Why is that? Perhaps in the end like the K11
And XM25/XM29 it turns out that the weapon is just to specialized and not practical enough . Technology from it may find a way onto the QBZ191 like has happened with the XM157 of the NGSW, yet unless we see some major new report the weapon seems to be about to join its counterparts in the Museum of could have beens and never was.
It was semi automatic in the US version.
Bolt action repeater in the Korean version.
Bolt action Single shot in the Chinese.
we have no idea if the DPRK is real.
No I am not basing my assessments on the knock off argument.
I am basing it on what is know of it. If you have documentation on an impact round please provide it. As stated it sounds more like the Inkunzi. Which was intent on defeating barriers by blowing through them as such it lacked an Airburst and fire control system favoring a simple HWS.
Choices are made on systems based on doctrine, technology and concepts.
The US wanted a system that was basically a one box Land warrior system. XM25 and XM29’s FCS was supposed to be a Day/night system with a zoom, shoot around corners and range find for the weapons smart round.
South Korea followed that same idea. The thought was to in some ways an alternative to a complicated soldier digitalization program just put it on a special weapon for the Team leaders. This proved as did the early digital infantry system inefficient. It took a long time and a lot of development based off commercially sourced IT Products like phones and tablets.
The range finder for the QST11 seems to be built into the rifle rather than the sight. The sights seem in the box seem to be a day set and a night set. This choice likely to keep the size of the optic down compared to the bulk of those on K11 and XM25.
Next, You are now the one making straw men arguments based on your perceptions. The model you are trying to espouse is a fantasy.
Explosive payloads have a blast effect even shaped charges. That effect in close is dangerous and is often one that reflects. This is why Explosive bullets are not common in use for small arms despite the fact that the technology to make small caliber explosive weapons has been around since the 1880s. It’s just more efficient in cost and in general to shoot a bullet at someone.
the mass wave formation has a high cost and low value outcomes. The US did so in our civil war on occasion yet that wasn’t by choice but by limitations of technology. With the side who employed early automatic weapons and more successful repeating firearms having won.
Europe did so in the First World War and it cost whole generations. It bankrupted nations and left the seeds of the European second world war
Japan did so in the Second World War and it’s population has been stunted since.
Russia did so in the Second World War and whole generations have still yet to get an account with a nation that never recovered. It’s population is even more stunted than Japan.
China did so in Korea yet it’s losses have never been fully counted. It was implemented by lack of alternatives due to a peasant army force based purely on infantry and what success it had was primarily as the adversary had overstretched its logistical trains.
That war then ended back where it started. The Chinese may have pushed the UN forces south from the north but they in turn were pushed north until the DMZ.
The Chinese population then underwent decades of changes and now is at the cusp of a population decline and aging out that would render a mass sacrifice for the greater China downright impossible, however you wish to romanticize it. It’s Bogus.
The PLA clearly abandoned such Farther even if they did rather than distribute QST11 the main weapons would be QBZ95 and QBZ191 along with support weapons which they have in numbers rather than some mythical “Distributed firepower model”. We know this as we can clearly see what they intend to be issued as the main line weapon. The weapons they are working on and fielding. The “Cheap weapons” and support weapons not the specialized OICW.
Reports on the QST11 TOE fallowed the same mind set of integration into and not replacement of it. Two QST11 would have been added to the PLA squad at fire team level which is pretty close of the table On the XM29. IE QST 11 for the team leader. The Support centric model lives.
However I say “Would have” as after the launch of the QBZ191 the QST11 seems to have fallen from the spotlight. If it was central to the reforms of the PLA it should have been front and center at the Big Show for the PLA. perhaps even getting a improved model with more commonality with the QBZ191 or similar updates. However it wasn’t. Increasingly the 191 and it’a line take the front of the show well 11 fades away like an old soldier…
Why is that? Perhaps in the end like the K11
And XM25/XM29 it turns out that the weapon is just to specialized and not practical enough . Technology from it may find a way onto the QBZ191 like has happened with the XM157 of the NGSW, yet unless we see some major new report the weapon seems to be about to join its counterparts in the Museum of could have beens and never was.
You've just gotten very opinionated about this. I see the essence of your argument as "the OICW didn't work out, the K-11 didn't work out, therefore it follows that the QTS-11 didn't work out.
The QTS-11 is supposed to weigh about 11 pounds loaded, with rangefinder and computer FCS, but without optics, roughly the same as the weight of the XM5 assault rifle.
===
As to shotgun rounds:
There's also claims of armor-piercing rounds (anti-vehicle). With that in mind, do you see my point about how the QTS-11, even if it fails, isn't in the same direction as the OICW?
In Chinese, it's a "strategic firearm", insofar as it drastically expands the capabilities of light infantry.
A lot of the information concerning the QTS-11, I think, is from Western sources who are half jealous and half skeptical of the QTS-11. For instance, somehow there's a claim that the QTS-11 costs around 75,000 USD a piece. The original OICW was supposed to cost 10,000 USD, so how the hell did a Chinese clone / knock-off exceed that price? And our original numbers were 5 kg, but somewhere the weight rose to 14 lbs.
The QTS-11 is supposed to weigh about 11 pounds loaded, with rangefinder and computer FCS, but without optics, roughly the same as the weight of the XM5 assault rifle.
===
As to shotgun rounds:
There's also claims of armor-piercing rounds (anti-vehicle). With that in mind, do you see my point about how the QTS-11, even if it fails, isn't in the same direction as the OICW?
In Chinese, it's a "strategic firearm", insofar as it drastically expands the capabilities of light infantry.
A lot of the information concerning the QTS-11, I think, is from Western sources who are half jealous and half skeptical of the QTS-11. For instance, somehow there's a claim that the QTS-11 costs around 75,000 USD a piece. The original OICW was supposed to cost 10,000 USD, so how the hell did a Chinese clone / knock-off exceed that price? And our original numbers were 5 kg, but somewhere the weight rose to 14 lbs.