The bullpup Type 95 (QBZ95) 5.8x42mm Assault Rifle is operational with the People's Liberation Army, Chinese People's Armed Police, Chinese para-military police and People's Liberation Army Special Operations Forces.
The bullpup Type 95 (QBZ95) uses 5.8x42mm round which according to the Chinese sources has outperformed the both the NATO's 5.56x45mm and Russian 5.45x39mm rounds in penetration , flatter trajectory, velocity and energy downrange.
Post a Comment
too big for tiny chinese guy..make smaller guns that are practical...also do not imitate or copy. Design your own systems.
Above post is pretty irrelevant to what this is intended for. I'm pretty that's what the US Marines will be saying when they fight. From what i've seen here, I'm pretty convinced by China's military. Their use of a round smaller than 7.62mm is likely to have the same effect that one did on the AK. Smaller projectile = travels faster and further, with possibly improved armour penetration.
Their training, however, is unlikely to match that of US forces. Consider how long America has been doing it.
China has prove it's worthy on the battle field against bigger and better arm nations. Korea and v. It's not the guns it's who's at the trigger.
The trouble with US is its persistent belief that it is the centre of universe, and shall remain so. With its mighty propaganda machines and Hollywood-styled make beliefs, besides its technological head start, it continue to exert hegemonic masculinity over the rest of the word.
Defeats in the hands of the impoverished Chinese in the Korean and Vietnam wars were spun to appear like victories. To make up for the dented egos, they trained their overwhelming technological fire power on perceived and imaginary foes who fought and fight with literally "bows and arrows"!
However one spun, the mighty US army and its allies lost the both wars to the impoverished, undernourished, under equipped and physically "smaller" Chinese. Then the technological odds were 9:1 in US's favor. Today, it may still be 7:3 in US's favor. But my advice: Don't send Rambo!
Sent from my iPad
The Chinese military tactics are quite basic its all was strict to the letter orders on how to act to a situation with no deviation,
american tactics are do what you think is best for the situation at hand adapt and over come ect but when it comes to on the ground experience america has 60 years of modern combat experience but with china they have seen but not experienced
personally ageist 3 million PLA id take 1 million us army. (and 200 thousand British)
On topic after firing the QBZ-95 not a bad wee weapon ill still take an SA80a2
In the past 30 years what modern combat has Chain had?
Nothing
The US has been involved in the largest ground combat battles in 20th century operations in Deseret Storm 1 and lets not forget Deseret Storm 2...
Again what combat prove troops or equipment do they have?
Yes China could out man the use 4 to 1 in soldiers but as we seen this did not help the Iraqis..
While it's true that China may be technologically lagging, and also in training [but now building a largely professional army] and actual combat experience, what may happen in a conflict between China and America is a bogged out war of attrition. The US can't invade China or vice versa; they are just too big a country, so too much territory to capture. Unlike Iraq which is mostly desert, China/US is packed with people (and in the US, populace with guns!) and holding territory while maintaining population control will be difficult, especially if said local populace is hostile. Terrain is also widely varied which requires huge resources to tackle. China has a huge army which would counteract the [slowly shrinking] technological/military superiority of the Americans but more critical is the fact that China has many chains of material supply spread all around the country. One thing they know is mass production, so replacements can be called up quickly. It was much the same in WW II where the Germans (e.g. Panzer tanks, combined arms tactics) and Japanese (e.g. Zero fighter, naval tactics) were technologically/tactically ahead of the Allies at the beginning, but material numbers and gradual technological advancement on the Allied side equalized the situation. Two large nations with huge resources despite different strengths would end up in a stalemate.
its very late to develop tactical qzb 95
China need 20 years again to controll western pacific rim. But to make equal US superiority 20 years isn't enough. Financial crisis just make an small effect to US military.
China is a disgrace... Your a nation of belligerent thieves...... Actually invent something instead of stealing then you might get some respect....
US is the largest copyright hacker during 1910 to 1930, and deemed low intelligent by mighty europeans. It is with the help of immigrants that US gained gradually the dominance of advanced weapon system.
China is catching up in the tech and science area, especially in military field. Chinese kicked Americans ass in 1951 with much disadvantaged weapons,
You are most likely something designed to be sent to mid east frontier to die for oil tycoon and jewish elites who make you believe you are doing the right thing to fight thousands of miles away with people who have nothing to do with you.
chinese products are junk, unreliable and could end failure, you will utilize it for war? i dont think so that it could save your life. the americans does not need to engage the chinese in air, sea and land they just leave the chinese equipment in utility, in a couple of weeks all their equipment will break down. chinese quality!
Your post has reveled to me syntax and grammar and spelling i never thhought possible before. By the way the U.S. has enough nerve gas to wipe the world 5 times over.
https://anujsomany.blogspot.com
https://bellefamosecitazioni.blogspot.com/
https://greatquotesonlife.blogspot.com/
https://trainhardquotes.blogspot.com/
https://famouspositivequotes.blogspot.com/
https://anujsomany.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment