Het Chinese Leger deeltje 2

Deel 1 was gesloten.. misschien vol?

Het Chinese Leger

Maar goed, lang geleden vroeg iemand over de dienstplicht in China.

Hier een samenvatting in het engels:

Every winter, around November or December, the annual conscription drive begins.

A team of PLA officers, usually led by a captain, arrives at the designated rural county or city district (not every county or district will be visited every year, there is a rotation process). They will work with the local RenMinWuZhuangBu (People's armed services department) to select that year's recruits.

All eligible draftees in the area will have recieved a first notice, but not all draftees will be required to report for examination. That would be an impossible task. After the first notice, the local PASD would recieve a list of people who volunteer for military service. This list is usually more than sufficient for that year's quota. These are the people who will recieve a second notice to report for examination. In some rural areas it can be a competition just to get on this list. Bribery is not un-heard of.

If you pass all the aptitude tests and background checks, you, along with your fellow draftees from the same county, will be given a royal send-off with bands playing and packed into a train to go to a basic training base. The same captain who selected you is usually also the commanding officer of you basic-training company.

During 3 months of basic training, you may still be sent home for being unfit for military service. But if you pull it through, you will say goodbye to your friends and report to your assigned military unit. You are now a honoured member of the PLA. You are a conscript, even though you probably volunteered. You recieve virtually no pay.

After your two years are up, you may have had enough of military life and choose to leave. It's called "Fu Yuan". You will return to where you came from. If you were in school or had a job before join the military, they are required to take you back. With you veteran's card, you may get small perks like getting discounts on train tickets, etc. But other than that, there are no real benefits. You have simply done your duty for your country.

If you wish to stay, you will file a request for extended service. If deemed worthy, you will become an NCO first grade, with another three years' service. You are now officially a "volunteer". You are paid a salary. If you marry, your wife may "sui jun", live on the military base.

There are six grades of NCOs, with 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9 years of service respectively, maximum 30 years. If you make it to NCO 3rd grade, or a minimum of 10 years of service, and then leave the PLA, you will be treated as a decommissioned officer. It's called "Zhuan Ye". You will be given a city living permit if you come from a rural background. And the government will either help you find a satisfactory job or give you a substantial sum of money.

If you make it to NCO 5th or 6th grades, with a minimum of 20 years of service, your salary and perks will be similar to that of a colonel. If you leave the miltary, it will be considered "Li Xiu", retirement, with retirement pay, free housing, free medical care, and other benefits.

That's the basic career path you can look forward to in the PLA. The basic service term for the navy and air force is 3 years


En voor de mensen die graag een bron willen en ook Chinees kunnen lezen:

http://xsc.suda.edu.cn/pa(...)_laws/06bingyifa.htm

Laten we verder met de discussie gaan

We waren ongeveer ge-ëindigd over de Korea oorlog.

Je kunt discussieren over overwinning of verlies, maar er is wel een statement gemaakt door de Chinezen. Zie mijn ondertitel.

quote:

Op vrijdag 21 mei 2004 15:23 schreef sp3c het volgende:
over de Korea oorlog
[..]

ik zeg ook niet dat de Amerikanen hebben gewonnen, ik zeg enkel dat de Chinezen wel de laatste zijn die hier een overwinning kunnen claimen.

imo heeft Zuid Korea die oorlog gewonnen met hulp van de VN strijdkrachten waaronder veel Amerikanen (en een kleine 1000 Hollanders).

wat je ondertitel betreft vind ik dat een beetje een rare kijk op geschiedenis van die meneer ... ik kan me uberhaupt geen oosters land herinneren wat de afgelopen 100 jaar puur door maritiem overwicht is verovert.

China werd in de 19e eeuw door een paar duizend Britse soldaten en een superieure vloot tot haar knieën gebracht. Als jij gewoon even in de geschiedenis van China verdiept, weet je dat de meeste Chinezen toch een wantrouwen heeft wat betreft Westerlingen. China is in de 19e door het westen zwaar mishandeld en in de Koreaanse oorlog heeft China laten zien dat het niet meer zo makkelijk zal gaan zoals toen!

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 11:57 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

niet in de afgelopen 100 jaar dus zoals ik zei
[..]

Dat het niet meer zo makkelijk zou gaan als toen was in de tweede wereldoorlog al bekend geworden het enige wat de Chinezen hebben laten zijn tijdens de Korea oorlog is dat er gruwelijk veel Chinezen zijn ... militair gezien was het huilen met de pet op.

Terwijl de VN de boel bij elkaar Blitzkriegde kwam de gemiddelde Chineze tacticus niet verder dan zo hard mogelijk op zijn trompetter blazen en de heuvel af/op hollen achter zijn hordes aan en hopen dat er nog genoeg in leven waren aan het eind om de stelling in te nemen

wat dat betreft waren de Noord Koreanen een stuk verder

Sorry hoor, maar de Noord Koreanen kregen altijd al steun van de Chinezen. Hun hele oorlogsmachine was gesteund door de Chinezen.

En al zijn de Blitzkrieg tactieken van het Westen zo goed.. ze werden toch een flink eind teruggedreven door de Chinezen!

Dus vind jij ook dat de Russen gefaald hebben tegen de Duitsers in WW2 met hun mensenlijke aanvallen? Het was een slachting ja, maar het zorgde dat 2/3 van het Duitse leger aan de Oostfront zat en dat de Amerikanen het een stuk gemakkelijker hadden!

En verder als je kijkt naar de slachtoffer aantallen. De Chinezen leden in de Koreaanse oorlog 3x zoveel verliezen als de Amerikanen. Voor de Chinezen is dat best weinig als je vergelijkt met de geleden verliezen van de Russen tegen de Duitsers!

En over tactiek gesproken. MacArthur was zo'n goede tacticus dat hij China boos maakte! Hij is gewoon een grote mongool... Als hij gewoon lekker zijn bek had gehouden, dat zaten de VS nu nog steeds in NK.

En verder kwam het vaak voor dat de US/UN troepen goed omsingeld werden door de Chinezen, door tactisch maneuvreren, maar het probleem voor de Chinezen was dat ze gewoon te weinig vuurkracht hadden vergeleken met de US/UN troepen! Daardoor braken de US/UN troepen vaak uit een val.


Het is ook belangrijk om te kijken wat de doelstelling waren van de partijen. US/UN had als doelstelling de hereniging van de Koreaanse schiereilanden. De NK ongeveer hetzelfde, alleen dan onder een communistisch bewind. De Chinezen hadden als doelstelling: terugdrijven van de US/UN om een bufferzone in te stellen.

Als eindresultaat hebben de Chinezen toch het beste hun doelstellingen bereikt!

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 12:51 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

Nee China schopte 300.000 (?) 'vrijwilligers' de grens over met een zakje rijst en als ze geluk hadden een karabijn met wat kogels die het maar moesten zien te rooien

Sorry hoor, maar het CPVA was het beste wat de Chinezen hadden. Hun uitrusting bestond uit meer dan wat jij wil geloven!

Je kunt zeggen wat je wil, maar de Koreaanse oorlog had voor de Chinezen een grotere voordeel dan voor de Amerikanen!

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 12:55 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

mwah tactisch maneuvreren is een groot woord ze liepen gewoon niet over de weg

probleem was vooral dat de Zuid Koreanen (die toch de meeste manschappen hadden) van oorlogsvoeren geen kaas hadden gegeten en je hoefde maar boe te roepen en ze zetten het op een lopen, radio snapten en ze leken meer op de vijand dan op hun bondgenoten

de chinezen konden gewoon doen alsof ze Zuid Koreanen waren die weer ergens vandaan terugtrokken of verdwaalt waren om dan in de rug aan te vallen.

De VN troepen braken uit de vallen omdat ze simpelweg veel en veel beter waren

1) De CPVA waren geharde veteranen van de Sino-Japan oorlog. De ROK troepen waren doodsbang voor de CPVA! (en trouwens ook voor de NK troepen)

2) De US/UN troepen beschikten over veel betere materieel, maar werden uiteindelijk door de wilskracht van de Chinezen toch teruggedreven.

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 12:59 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

ja omdat de meeste westerlingen er toen nog niet waren

toch kun je op de kaart zien dat er meer Zuid Korea boven de 38ste breedtegraad dan Noord korea eronder is dus feitelijk is Zuid Korea de winnaar
[..]

slechte vergelijking

De Russen hebben het daadwerkelijk tot Berlijn gehaald, doel heiligt de middelen enzo, de Chinezen zijn een beetje Noord Korea rond geslagen
[..]

ja daarom is Mc Arthur ook vervangen door van Fleet na 1 jaar oorlog toen was het snel gedaan met de noordkoreaans/chineze wil om nog wat aan te vallen

1) De eerste geef ik je gelijk

2) Nee, de US/UN troepen hadden als doelstelling het verenigen van Korea. Dat is ze duidelijk niet gelukt. Dit goldt ook voor de NK.

3) Chinezen door Noord Korea rondgeslagen? Aha.. dus de US/UN troepen trokken terug omdat het een beetje saai werd om Chinezen te slaan?

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 13:00 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

hiiihihihi
[..]

wat dan?

Geen westerse legermacht pal naast de Chineze grens

Verder kregen de Chinezen uiteindelijk erkenning door de VS omdat de VS hulp nodig hadden om NK te bedwingen

Dat is ook een van de hoofdredenen dat de VS nu toch soft tegenover China staat

En over de uitrusting van de chinezen kunnen we wel stoppen nu.., Jij denkt nog steeds dat het Chinese leger bestaat uit boeren met hooivorken

quote:

Op zaterdag 22 mei 2004 15:49 schreef NathraX het volgende:

[..]

Je bedoelt door de mankracht van de Chinezen werden de VN troepen belet om heel Korea te veroveren. Iets met de 38e (?) breedte graad ofzo.

Ja, door de mankracht van de Chinezen zijn de VN troepen teruggedreven tot aan de 38e breedte graad.

quote:

Op maandag 24 mei 2004 14:53 schreef Piro het volgende:
China heeft een inhaalslag te doen eerlijk gezegd.
Dat het een capabel leger aan het worden is zegt nog weinig over de gear die ze meezeulen.
De helicoptervloot is hopeloos verouderd, de fixed wing toestellen hebben een fantastisch airframe wat alleen de juiste electronica nodig heeft.

De tanks kunnen mee omdat ze redelijk van kwaliteit zijn en er een hoop tegelijk kunnen schieten.
Over de artillerie weet ik weinig tot geen moer.
Standaardwapens zijn gewoon goedkope AK klonen in een bullpup config, niets speciaals.
Over de standaardkogel in het leger weet ik niks.

Feit blijft echter dat China dingen als reactive armor, APDU munitie, ceramische pantsers, stealth, V(S)TOL en al dat soort speeltjes moet missen, en op dat gebied zijn ze nog LANG niet zo ver.
Op dit ogenblik zijn ze alleen gevaarlijk omdat ze stinkend veel hebben en een verdedigingsoorlog kunnen winnen als de agressor niet 'goed' oorlogje voert. .
Een aanvalsoorlog ver van huis halen ze niet.

1) Over de vliegtuigen heb je gelijk. China loopt kwa rakettechnologie nog steeds achter op het Westen.

2) De tanks kunnen goed mee met het Westen. De meesten hebben toch wel reactive armour, westerse vuurgeleiding en thermasights... De raakkans van de tanks doen niet veel onder de Westerse tanks.

3) Een aanvals oorlog kan China op dit moment niet voeren. Het beleid van aanschaf van militaire middelen was ook een defensief oorlog voeren, aangezien eerst het verdediging goed in orde moest zijn. De aanvalscapaciteiten beginnen echter wel toe te nemen. Er wordt veel geld besteed om een USMC achtige Marine Corps te trainen, er worden "blue-sea" schepen gekocht of gebouwd en veel fighters gekocht.

4) Klein opmerking over de Type-85 (De zogenaamde bullpup AK). Kwa bereik, nauwkeurigheid, gewicht en betrouwbaarheid doet het echt niet onder de "zo opgegeilde" M16 familie. Er is echter een ontwerpfout gemaakt. De magazijn is te lang en daardoor is het niet prettig om liggen het wapen af te vuren.
China heeft ook een eigen AK-kloon gemaakt. De Type-81. Dit wapen is een stuk nauwkeuriger dan de Ak-47 en lichter.

Een artikel voor je over de Type 95:

Het is de nieuwste wapen van de PLA. Het is nu bezig met de oude Type-81 aan het vervangen.


China's New 5.8x42mm Weapons Complex Revealed
by David M.Fortier
The Small Arms Review - Vol.5 No.12 - September, 2002

Since the Communists came to power Chinese small arms development has always been "A riddle wrapped in a mystery behind the Bamboo Curtain". All we in the West suspected was that the Chinese military was mostly armed with domestic copies of various obsolete Soviet designs. While there is truth in this, the rest of it may surprise you. The Chinese began extensive research and development on domestic designs as early as 1958. This led to the 1st (Type 63 and Type 74) and then 2nd (Type 81 and Type 87) generations of Chinese small arms. In the last 20 years, especially since the Open Door policy, China has made significant progress in small arms development. This has culminated in the design and adoption of their unique 5.8x42mm weapons complex. A system, they claim, that outperforms both the current NATO 5.56x45 SS109 and Russian 5.45x39 7N6 cartridges.

China historically had relied on foreign designed weapons to equip her vast armed forces. Germany in particular was a major player in China from the turn of the century until signing the Anti- Comintern Pact with Imperial Japan in 1937. After 193 7 another country's influence was strongly felt in China, that of the Soviet Union. As early as 1932 the Soviets began supplying weapons to the Communist forces in China. Over time this aid greatly expanded. However, relations began to sour between the Chinese and Soviets after the Korean War and took a nose dive after Khrushchev came to power.

Using their experience with the Soviet designs, the Chinese undertook extensive research and development work beginning in 1958 to improve their small arms. It was based on their combat experience with full power battle rifle cartridges, as well as the less powerful 6.5 Arisaka and 7.62x25 sub-machineguns. They recognized the potential of the new intermediate 7.62x39 cartridge and admired the reliability of the Kalashnikov design. However they were not impressed by the AK-47's accuracy or ergonomics. To fit their tactical needs they wanted a rifle as reliable as the Kalashnikov but with increased accuracy. It was intended to be used primarily in the semi-automatic mode for ammunition conservation. They also felt it must be useful with a bayonet for hand to hand combat. This was due to their doctrine calling for fighting very close to an opponent to negate his superiority in artillery or air support.

The result of their efforts was a weapon that outwardly resembled the Soviet SKS-45 carbine. Internally however it was quite different from Simonov's design. It was adopted for service in 1963 and designated simply Type 63. The Type 63 rifle (incorrectly identified in the West as the Type 68) and the Type 74 Squad Auto represent the First Generation of domestically designed Chinese small arms. Not a battle rifle nor true assault rifle, it was outclassed by the M-16 during combat operations in Vietnam. It remained in service up until approximately 1974.

Seeing the changes in modem warfare, the Chinese went back to the drawing board. The Second Generation of Chinese small arms is seen in the Type 81 weapons series. The goal of the design team of the Type 81 rifle was to provide a modem assault rifle with the reliability of the Kalashnikov but with superior accuracy and ergonomics. After studying in detail the Soviet SVD Dragunov sniper rifle (Chinese Type 79) the Chinese came away quite impressed with its system of operation. They eventually used a modified short stroke gas system and a bolt/carrier system gleaned from it. It should be remembered however that the bolt/carrier system of the SVD is itself derived from the Kalashnikov. The culmination of their work was a rugged and reliable rifle with a few features not offered on the Kalashnikov. Unlike the AK-47/AKM the Type 81 features a bolt holdopen, a selector lever accessible by the operator's thumb, an integral capacity to launch rifle grenades, and an adjustable gas system. The Type 81 weapons series includes the standard rifle weighing 7.49 Ibs, a 7.7 Ibs folding stock model, and an 11.4-pound squad auto. These three weapons maintain a high degree ofinterchangability with 64 parts common between them. Overall they are a well thought out and reliable design chambered for the venerable 7.62x39 cartridge.

However just as the Chinese were quick to appreciate the 7.62x39 intermediate cartridge they were also quick to take notice of the 5.56x45. As soon as the M-16 rifle appeared in Vietnam, the Chinese noted the advantages of the 5.56x45 cartridge. They appreciated that it allowed a compact and lightweight weapon, produced a low recoil impulse, was controllable on full auto, and allowed a larger basic load of ammunition and supplementary equipment. This increased a soldier's survivability on the battlefield. What the Chinese were not impressed with was the reliability of the M-16 rifle itself, compared to their experiences with the AK- 47.

Noting the advantages of the small, high velocity round, they began extensive research and theoretical studies based on their combat observations of the war in Vietnam. Their goal was no simple one. They desired to find the ideal caliber to satisfy the Chinese military requirements ranges (400m) as well as in the supporting roleofamachinegun(upto 1000m). Their intention was not just to build a series of weapons based on an existing cartridge but rather to build a weapons complex using the ideal cartridge. This "Universal caliber" had always been a Holy Grail for which many have sought but none had found.

After extensive calculations they concluded that the ideal caliber would be 5.8mm, 6mm, or 6.2mm. They then designed a vast assortment of prototype cartridges for use in comparison testing. This is similar to our own SAW project which tested over 1000 configurations in calibers ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Our final result was the 6x45mm SAW round which was never adopted due to logistical reasons. This shows that the U.S. and Chinese designers came to a similar conclusion as to the ideal caliber. Based on their test results the Chinese came to the final conclusion that the 5.8mm best fit their needs. The result is their new small caliber , a heavy projectile loading for use in their GPMG, and a specialty loading for use in sniper rifles.

The standard loading features a 64-grain FMJBT projectile with a 22.6-grain AP core loaded into a copper washed steel case. The overall cartridge length is 58mm, case length is 42.2mm, and the projectile is 24.2mm long. The cartridge case in that it is tapered; however, the case neck is shorter. It bears no outward resemblance to the 5.56x45. While straightwall cases like the 5.56 are inherently more accurate, tapered cases aid feeding and extraction. The projectile also exhibits a substantial sectional density, although not as great as that of the 5.45x39. Muzzle velocity from the Type 95's 18.2-inch barrel is 3,050 fps. Out of the Type 95 Squad Auto's 21.9-inch barrel it clocks 3.182 fps. The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56x45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45x39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange.

Although the Chinese had developed their ideal cartridge they still had one major hurdle to overcome, the Chinese military. During the last Sino-Japanese war the Chinese had made extensive use of captured 6.5 Arisaka rifles and machineguns. From their combat experience they felt that this cartridge performed poorly, lacking penetration and killing power. They felt this was especially true when it was used from machinguns firing at long range. Recent combat experience, on the other hand, had proven the effectiveness of 7.62x39 assault rifles and 7.62x54R GPMG's and sniper rifles. Due to this the Chinese military wanted nothing to do with a small caliber cartridge intended for use in machineguns as well as rifles.

So in order to convince the military, the Chinese Armament Bureau produced a quantity of transitional 5.8x42 assault rifles. These were based upon the Type 81 and were designated the Type S7. They were then siihnntteil to the military for extensive testing and Held trials against the existing 7.62x39 weapons. During these trials the 5.8X42 weapons outperformed the 7.62x39 weapons in every way. They proved superior enough for the Chinese military to adopt the new cartridge for use in the next generation of Chinese small arms.

With the problem of a suitable cartridge out of the way, during the late 1980's the Chinese set to work designing the weapons to use it. The result of their work is not just a new assault rifle but an entire weapons complex. This includes an assault rifle (Type 95), Light Squad Auto (Type 95), Sniper rifle (Type KBU88), and surprisingly, a belt fed GPMG (Type QmS). Obviously lollowing the current trend in small arms development, they chose to use the bullpup configuration (except for the GPMG).

I was told that in designing the Type 95 they again took a long hard look at the SVD Dragunov design. This can be seen in the Type 95's 3 lug rotating bolt, carrier, and adjustable short stroke piston gas system which is similar conceptually to the SVD's. The main features of these new weapons are their extensive use of high tensile aluminum and modem high impact synthetic materials coupled with improved human engineering. In addition they feature cold hammer forged barrels for superior accuracy. The design emphasizes keeping as close as possible the distance between:

1. The center of gravity of the whole weapon and the center of gravity of the axisof the barrel.

2. The center of gravity of the bolt assembly and the axis oi'the gas piston.

3. The center of gravity of the barrel and the axis of the gas tube.

4. The center of gravity of the bolt carrier and the center of gravity of the whole gun.

They state, "This design brings a combined effect of compact structure, minimiz- ing the supplementary force of inertia, ensuring a stable and smooth movement of the bolt carrier, minimizing the overall weight of the rifle, increasing shooting accuracy, and promoting reliability." It is also interesting to note that they claim a reliability rate equal to that of the Kalashnikov. That in and of itself would be quite a feat.

These weapons were designed to use the following accessories:

1. Fixed or variable power telescopic sights with quick detachable mount.

2. Their latest star light night vision scope with quick detachable mount.

3. Quick detachable 35mm grenade launcher that mounts to the forend.

4. Multi-purpose bayonet which can be used as a bayonet, field knife, wire cutter, or a dagger.

While I personally do not care for bullpup style rifles, the Type 95 appears ergonomic and well balanced. The rear sight is mounted on an M-16 style carrying handle, which also accepts optical sights. The front sight assembly reminds one of the familiar AK unit. The charging handle is located inside the carrying handle, AR-10 style, and is ambidextrous. Feed is from 30 round synthetic magazines. The Type 95 Squad Auto shares the same bolt assembly, trigger assembly, upper and lower receiver, and magazines with the rifle. For its fire support role it's equipped with a longer, heavier barrel to which a bipod is directly mounted. To increase its practical rate of fire, 75 round drum magazines are issued for it, although the standard 30 rounders will also work. In my experience Chinese drums are usually quite noisy though, as they allow the rounds to slap back and forth. Weighing in at just 8.7 Ibs it is more of a machine-rifle, along the lines of the L86A1 British Light Support Weapon, rather than like our own M249 SAW.

For reaching out and touching someone, there is the KBU88 sniper rifle. It's equipped with a 25.1" hammer forged barrel, and the carrying handle has been replaced with a 3-9x variable telescope. The aiming holdover points in 100 meter increments. Fold down backup iron sights are also provided. An integral folding bipod, with legs individually adjustable for height, is attached to the barrel just in front of the handguard. Feed is from 20 or 30 round magazines. When tested against the Type 85 7.62x54R sniper rifle (SVD Dragunov) the KBU88 outperformed it in accuracy, higher hit probability at long range, was quicker to get into action, had capacity, and was lighter in weight -thus increasing the mobility of the sniper. We would consider it a Designated Marksman's Rifle, rather than a true sniper fill on the modem battlefield.

The latest member of the 5.8mm family is the QJY88 GPMG. This project be- gan in July 1989 and after extensive testing in freezing cold, hot desert, windy, and sandy conditions to eliminate defects, it was formally adopted in July 1999. Feed is from 200 round belts. The feedway is equipped with 3 rollers, and the feeding during feeding and to aid reliability. It's equipped with a bipod for use in the LMG role but can also be tripod mounted for sustained fire use. The tripod is equipped accuracy and quickly converts for A.A. use. For long service life the core of the barrel is hardened more than the rest during heat treating. Also a special pattern of rifling is used and the chrome plating carefully kept to . 18-.28mm to increase barrel service life. The Chinese claim it to be very simple, reliable, and mobile due to its light weight, coupled with long range and a high hit probability.

So the question is, exactly how well does this new Chinese 5.8x42 round stack up against our 5.56x45 and the Russian 5.45x39? The Chinese have tested their new cartridge extensively against both the 5.56x45 SS109 and the Russian 5.45x39 7N6. They claim their 5.8x42mm outperforms both cartridges with penetration superior to the SS 109, a flatter trajectory, and a higher retained velocity and energy downrange. I was recently able to get my hands on some documents containing some of their test results. Testing was conducted using a 5.45x39 AK-74 and 7N6 ball ammunition, a 5.56x45 FNC and SS109 ball and P 112 AP, and a Type 95 with 5.8x42 ball. Accuracy testing was conducted out to 600m between the three weapons. Projectile Time of Flight was recorded out to 800m. 3.5mm NATO spec hardened steel plates were shot at 640m and 700m. A 10mm hardened steel plate was shot at 310m. Finally, anesthetized livestock between the weight of 26-44 pounds were shot at a distance of 90m. All the infortained in the accompanying charts. For comparison I also included one chart on the performance of typical military rifles against NATO 3.5mm steel plate from tests performed by the USMC Firepower Division in Quantico, VA in the early 1980's.

The Chinese test results indicate that their new 5.8x42mm cartridge is intended to provide an increase in effective range and penetration. The difference is that it is now possible for the high velocity small bore military cartridges to place fire at medium ranges without the weight and re- coil penalties of the older full power car- tridges. While obviously lacking the punch of a 7.62x51 at long range the 5.56x45 has none the less proven itself to be capable of superb accuracy at 600m. This has not been lost on the Chinese. Their 5.8x42 ball round is designed to surpass the per- formance of the 5.56x45 SS109, includ- ing at long range. That the Chinese wish to be able to extend the practical effective range of their small arms can also be seen in the Type 95's ability to easily mount optical sights. While we don't yet have any specifics on the dedicated sniper load for the KBU88 sniper rifle, that it outper- formed the 7.62x54R SVD out to 1000m speaks for itself.

Against steel plate the 5.8 easily out- performed the 5.45 7N6 ball loading as well as the 5.56 SS109. It equaled the penetration of the 5.56 PI 12 AP loading while providing greater retained energy. It should be remembered though that the 5.45 7N6 loading has a mild steel core and a more even test would have been to use the newer 7N10 High Penetration round. While the 5.8 retained more energy and velocity downrange, there is a downside to a light weight, small diameter projec- tile with high penetration. Such rounds can zip right through a man without doing sig- nificant damage. This was first seen on the Italian Front during World War I when it was common for soldiers hit through the lungs at long range by 6.5mm rounds to recover in a matter of weeks. Recently American troops witnessed this first hand in Mogadishu when close range hits on rebels with SS109 ammunition produced no immediate visual results. This was veri- fied in the livestock testing performed by the Chinese. Here the 5.45 7N6 load showed what it was designed to do and produced significantly larger wounds than eitherthe5.56SS109orthe5.8x42. How- ever the range here was short, only 90m. While the Chinese were impressed by, and commented on the tremendous close range wound capacity of the 5.45 7N6 loading, they also stated that by 600m its accuracy, penetration, and wound capability had dropped off significantly due to its light-weight 52 grain projectile. However they also felt the 5.45x39 to be a very economical cartridge to manufacture. The Chinese were impressed by the 5.56x45 SS109 and felt that it was effective up to 600m. However they felt that it had the disadvantages of high chamber pressures, and because it utilized brass cartridge cases, was not economical to produce.

While the 5.8 was superior in penetration to the 5.56 SS109, the same was not true of accuracy. That the new Type 95/ 5.8x42mm combination was more accurate than the 70's vintage Russian AK--74/ 5.45x39mm combo is really no great surprise. While the AK-74 is more accurate than the 7.62x39 AKM, at the time of its design Soviet doctrine relied on massed automatic fire rather than accuracy. By switching to a short stroke gas system, the accuracy over the Kalashnikov while maintaining the same level of reliability. It appears that they have accomplished this. However the FNC/5.56x45mm combo easily outshot the new Chinese system. Straightwall case designs, such as the 5.56x45, tend to be more accurate than tapered case designs such as the 5.45x39 and 5.8x42. The trade-off being that tapered cases feed and extract easier. While troops complain about the M -16A2, it can not be faulted for its accuracy. Also keep in mind when looking at the Chinese data SS109 round out of an M-16A2 is higher than that listed for the test FNC. However they are within NATO SS 109 spec's which call for a 61.7 grain bullet at 3025fps 25m from the muzzle. While the 5.8 exhibits higher retained velocity and energy in their test results compared to the 5.56 SS109, the difference is small.

Why did the Chinese bother with developing an entirely new assault rifle cartridge when they could have simply adopted the 5.56x45 is a question I'm sure many will ask. The only reason I've been given is that the PLA has a defensive doctrine and if China were invaded their unique caliber weapons would prohibit an attacking force from utilizing captured weapons against the PLA. I will let you of this new cartridge based on the accompanying data. How China's new 5.8x42mm series of weapons fares in service or combat remains to be seen. One thing is certain though, the Kalashnikov's service with the PLA appears to be coming to an end. While the Type 95 was officially adopted in 1995 and is standard issue with the Hong Kong garrison force, spread issue simply due to the size of the PLA.

Acknowledgments: Much thanks to Dave Brown at Sierra Bullets for his patience and help making sense of the ballistic data in its original form and to Mark Vorobiev for a Russian point of view.

References:

Bolotin, David. SOVIET SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION. Finnish Arms Museum Foundation, Hyvinka, Finland. 1995.

Cutshaw, Charlie. THE NEW WORLD OF RUSSIAN SMALL ARMS & AMMO. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 1998.

Harris, C.E.. "The M-16A2: New World Standard For Infantry Rifles" GUN DIGEST, 40th Edition. DB1 Books Inc. Northbrook, IL. 1986. SLIDE CAPTIONS

En hier een site over de Type-81

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/rifle_81.asp