PaStEuRiZeD
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 38
I think they look acceptable. I just hope I don't have to stare down the barrel of one.
New Chinese Firearms
- Thread starter Rifleman 173
- Start date
- Status
Bottom line, to me, is this.
When you have, say, an army of 20 million men, and you don't give a **** how many die, and each of them has some rifle that puts lead downrange even most of the time, it doesn't much matter if your opponents' 100,000 troops have MOA rifles, or 2 MOA rifles, or whatever.
I mean, I have Mosins and I wouldn't want to use them for anything "serious". I don't think that the Mosin was what won the war for the USSR, but it's an infantry rifle that will put lead downrange and support a bayonet well. There are better guns, and there were better guns. But the USSR sacrificed 10 Million of its military personnel, to win. 10 MILLION.
I don't think we should start a cold war with China, and we likely won't. They're an enormous trading partner. "Coopetition" is the stupid business buzzword. We fought with Japan once, too, and now that just ain't gonna happen, even though their culture is likely just as racist and predatory as it was then. They would rather much fight for market share and get rich, than fly kamikaze planes and get dead.
And for that matter, we fought WW II with semiautos, against enemies with bolt guns, and frankly, that wasn't what won the war for us.
When you have, say, an army of 20 million men, and you don't give a **** how many die, and each of them has some rifle that puts lead downrange even most of the time, it doesn't much matter if your opponents' 100,000 troops have MOA rifles, or 2 MOA rifles, or whatever.
I mean, I have Mosins and I wouldn't want to use them for anything "serious". I don't think that the Mosin was what won the war for the USSR, but it's an infantry rifle that will put lead downrange and support a bayonet well. There are better guns, and there were better guns. But the USSR sacrificed 10 Million of its military personnel, to win. 10 MILLION.
I don't think we should start a cold war with China, and we likely won't. They're an enormous trading partner. "Coopetition" is the stupid business buzzword. We fought with Japan once, too, and now that just ain't gonna happen, even though their culture is likely just as racist and predatory as it was then. They would rather much fight for market share and get rich, than fly kamikaze planes and get dead.
And for that matter, we fought WW II with semiautos, against enemies with bolt guns, and frankly, that wasn't what won the war for us.
Nolo
Member
No, but it's related. The same thing that let us win the war (industrial capability and not being blown up all the time) were the things that let us adopt a semi-auto rifle.
Funderb
Member
wow, didn't know armed bear was so jingoistic.
-ArmedBear
Last edited:
Yes.
However, and it's a BIG however, these things are what helped to make us rich, and they're making our potential enemies rich. Therefore, they won't BE our potential enemies. We might have conflicts, but they'll be about tariffs and markets, but we won't be enemies in the sense we saw in the 20th Century. We'll be business competitors, and business partners, suppliers and customers. Most sane people, once they're rich enough, want to get richer, not deader.
I think that any real military threats will come from elsewhere, not from another "superpower." As others have said, our enemies and China's enemies may well be the same. That will make us allies by default.
Beats the hell out of global thermonuclear war.
(For those who didn't understand my previous post, like Funderb, my point was this: if we ever have to face China in open military conflict, the asymmetry will have nothing to do with infantry weapons systems. And I don't think that we ever will be in that situation, either.)
Nolo
Member
Oh, I agree, AB. I was just commenting on the Garand in particular.
World War is reaching obsolescence, and will continue to do so unless something big changes.
The only wars we've gotten into since WWII have been massively one-sided conflicts that we were sure to win. Why didn't we just cut the heart out of the beast (or the head off the snake, for another analogy) during the Cold War and go after the USSR directly? We probably could've won (well, certain periods maybe not, and hindsight is always 20/20), and some of my friends had been running the country, that's what we would've done, but the cost would've just been too high to be comfortable.
Nobody really sacrifices anything anymore. Nobody big.
World War is reaching obsolescence, and will continue to do so unless something big changes.
The only wars we've gotten into since WWII have been massively one-sided conflicts that we were sure to win. Why didn't we just cut the heart out of the beast (or the head off the snake, for another analogy) during the Cold War and go after the USSR directly? We probably could've won (well, certain periods maybe not, and hindsight is always 20/20), and some of my friends had been running the country, that's what we would've done, but the cost would've just been too high to be comfortable.
Nobody really sacrifices anything anymore. Nobody big.
OTOH they did call WW I the "War to End All Wars", Hiram Maxim thought his new machine gun would make generals unwilling to ever again order their men into battle, and the Wrights thought their new flying machine would make war "practically impossible" in the future...
And that's the bitch. We really don't know what can happen... We humans are crazy.
Nolo
Member
They didn't expect the change.
Nolo
Member
OMG! It's Godzirrraaaaaa!!!!
Acheron
Member
Not true. Many fighters (Harriers, namely) use the British ADEN and even more (Mirage III, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, plus several Israeli jets) use the French DEFA, both firing the 30x113mm shell. Both of these guns are revolver (not rotary) cannon, developed in the 1940s.
Nolo
Member
He means the mechanics. And he's right. I don't know if there are any fighters using the ADEN gun, I only know of attack aircraft.
Unless the Swedes use it... I actually think they might.
Acheron
Member
The Swedes used the ADEN in the Draken, which was retired in 1999.
They were such cool planes.
The DEFA is still in service with the French Armee de l'Air in the Mirage 2000 and Mirage F1.
They were such cool planes.
The DEFA is still in service with the French Armee de l'Air in the Mirage 2000 and Mirage F1.
Nolo
Member
Okay, I was right. Do they use it in the Viggen and Gripen?
And yeah, I was always fascinated by the Draken.
Yeah, I know the DEFA's still in service.
But the Harrier's an attack aircraft. Not a fighter.
Is the DEFA's mechanism related to the ADEN's? I thought that the ADEN's was the only rotary action out there.
And yeah, I was always fascinated by the Draken.
Yeah, I know the DEFA's still in service.
But the Harrier's an attack aircraft. Not a fighter.
Is the DEFA's mechanism related to the ADEN's? I thought that the ADEN's was the only rotary action out there.
futureranger
Member.
Wow this conversation drifted quickly
, back to the qbz95, I read an article in a gun magazine a few months ago and it had the whole process for the Chinese adopting the QBZ95. the standards for the rifle are surprisingly high, they decided to completely rebuild the stock several times past the date it was supposed to be done just to get a few more degrees out of the cold/ hot temperature test. I don’t think the Chinese government would spend all that money just to get a POS in return, from what the article showed the QBZ95 are very reliable, and almost shoot as good as a M-16a2, accuracy wise. In term of what military is better, I know neither the Chinese nor us would be able to invade each other and succeed. We have technology and the second amendment in our national defense and they just have shear size.
, back to the qbz95, I read an article in a gun magazine a few months ago and it had the whole process for the Chinese adopting the QBZ95. the standards for the rifle are surprisingly high, they decided to completely rebuild the stock several times past the date it was supposed to be done just to get a few more degrees out of the cold/ hot temperature test. I don’t think the Chinese government would spend all that money just to get a POS in return, from what the article showed the QBZ95 are very reliable, and almost shoot as good as a M-16a2, accuracy wise. In term of what military is better, I know neither the Chinese nor us would be able to invade each other and succeed. We have technology and the second amendment in our national defense and they just have shear size.Acheron
Member
The DEFA and the ADEN are almost the same gun. They are both based on the late-War German MG213 in 20mm. It never reached service but there was a very limited production run. It proved that a revolver cannon was a capable and effective design. They also built one in 30mm (MK213C).
Nolo
Member
I did not know that.
lvcat2004
Member
Are they airsoft?? They look like airsoft to me....
Those 90lbs soaking wet chinese soldiers can't possibly handle a recoil of that Barrett knock-off unless it's an airsoft...
Those 90lbs soaking wet chinese soldiers can't possibly handle a recoil of that Barrett knock-off unless it's an airsoft...
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Armed Bear,
You're pretty much on target on human nature.
The one catch is, that while it is true that rich men would want to get richer and not deader, the fact remains that if you seek money for the purpose of fame and power, money will only buy you so much of those things. Once it no longer gets you that, you have to go for power for its own sake.
It's the human thirst for the infinite. We're capable of focusing it on good infinite things (goodness) or earthly power for the sake of power.
-Sans Authoritas
You're pretty much on target on human nature.
The one catch is, that while it is true that rich men would want to get richer and not deader, the fact remains that if you seek money for the purpose of fame and power, money will only buy you so much of those things. Once it no longer gets you that, you have to go for power for its own sake.
It's the human thirst for the infinite. We're capable of focusing it on good infinite things (goodness) or earthly power for the sake of power.
-Sans Authoritas
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
Hell, just look at Napoleon. Or Hitler. Or Stalin. Or....
The big assumption in that picture is that there are enough resources for all of us. Can the world support 3 billion people at our standard of living using current technology, or even the technology of 2050? If the answer is no, then sooner or later things are going to get ugly, and it's going to be decided by force of arms.
Developing a nuclear shield in that context actually seems frighteningly sane.
The big assumption in that picture is that there are enough resources for all of us. Can the world support 3 billion people at our standard of living using current technology, or even the technology of 2050? If the answer is no, then sooner or later things are going to get ugly, and it's going to be decided by force of arms.
Developing a nuclear shield in that context actually seems frighteningly sane.
I haven't been terribly impressed with the Chinese firearms I have handled. For the most part they functioned fine, but accuracy was mediocre at best. My various Saiga's are far more accurate than my old MAK90 was and my Yugo SKS outshoots my buddies Chinese one.
OTOH, Chinese optics have been getting better and better.
OTOH, Chinese optics have been getting better and better.
It's hard to say how well those firearms function from watching a youtube video and seeing some photos. In my understanding of the last 100 years of military history, the Chinese military has used ill equipped human waves as their primary tactic. However, it would be foolish to underestimate the abilities of their individual soldiers now. China today is NOT the China of 30 or 50 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if they still used human wave tactics, but I wouldn't count on it. It would be interesting to hear about what level of training modern Chinese soldiers undergo.
That said, I'm not on board with our already excessive military budget (almost as much as the rest of the world's nations combined), and I think the best long term solution is indeed to engage China politically and economically... and yet stand our ground on democracy.
Wikipedia:
"Official Military Budget"... hmmmmm......... but what is the real US budget, as well?
It's worth mentioning that I heard an interview with an american officer and "china hawk" who says that the main reason we should heavily invest in the military is because if a war with China DID happen, we would be extremely hard pressed to get our economy rolling to crank out tanks, ships, and aircraft. In WW2, we were able to convert our industrial economy to manufacture staggering numbers of tanks,ships, and aircraft in just a couple of years.... however, today's tanks and aircraft are extremely complex and would require many years of retooling our industry to produce in large numbers.
History may prove me wrong, but I believe the next 20-30 years of nation warfare will remain guerilla in nature. As Col. Thomas X. Hammes says about conventional warfare: "5 guys in a tank are just neatly packaged for destruction".
That said, I'm not on board with our already excessive military budget (almost as much as the rest of the world's nations combined), and I think the best long term solution is indeed to engage China politically and economically... and yet stand our ground on democracy.
Wikipedia:
"Official Military Budget"... hmmmmm.....
.... but what is the real US budget, as well?It's worth mentioning that I heard an interview with an american officer and "china hawk" who says that the main reason we should heavily invest in the military is because if a war with China DID happen, we would be extremely hard pressed to get our economy rolling to crank out tanks, ships, and aircraft. In WW2, we were able to convert our industrial economy to manufacture staggering numbers of tanks,ships, and aircraft in just a couple of years.... however, today's tanks and aircraft are extremely complex and would require many years of retooling our industry to produce in large numbers.
History may prove me wrong, but I believe the next 20-30 years of nation warfare will remain guerilla in nature. As Col. Thomas X. Hammes says about conventional warfare: "5 guys in a tank are just neatly packaged for destruction".
Last edited:
- Status
