What Firearms For the Cold War with China?

[Cosmoline]

There's a lot of talk right now about the coming conflict with China. The pundits are claiming that it will loom far larger in significance over the long haul than the present Middle Eastern wars, and will define the 21st century. Let's take it as granted that over the next 25 years we're going to have to switch focus from the Middle East to China, what are the small arms implications?

The past decade and a half of conflicts in CENTCOM's turf have seen a retention of the M16A2 as the main firearm, with a shift towards shorter carbine versions. The 6.8 spc and associated M-4 carbine is the culmination of this trend, but I don't see it going anywhere beyond that. Unlike the 6.5 Grendel the 6.8 SPC is something of a one-trick pony. It doesn't have nearly as wide a range of potential loadings.

Assuming there's a shift from the anti-terrorism combat and security patrols of CENTCOM towards more of a cold war posture in PACOM, what will it mean for small arms and cartridges? Lord knows there are a lot of half-finished small arms projects out there, including the OICW. Any conflicts with China are likely to spread over a much larger area than the Mid-East wars and involve climates both colder and wetter than the mid-east. We've fought in the terrain before, from Vietnam to Korea to the Pacific Islands. What lessons can we take from all those wars when it comes to small arms?

Off the top of my head, I know of complaints about the M-14 in Korea and the M-16 in Vietnam. The Marines and Army units in the Pacific seemed to have good luck with the Garand and some trench guns, but obviously that was a very long time ago.

Any thoughts?

 

[2nd Amendment]

Small arms won't be particularly important in any conflict with China. The fact is when we finally do meet up in the Pacific we are going to work around each other and ignore each other or we'll be nuking each other in short order. it's not going to drag out for decades and it's not going to involve soldiers firing at soldiers. There may be the hot spot flare up here and there but those will be short asides to the Big Time.

The Chinses ain't the Soviets and they ain't going to play a Soviet Cold War style scenerio. We'll find a way relatively neighborly way to coexist rather quickly or one of us(at least) will be largely a glowing coal.

 

[Cosmoline]

Sure, let's hope so. If that's correct then obviously we don't need to worry about any of this. But sadly we don't know whether it's true or not. Maybe we'll live in peace and maybe we won't.

For this thread ASSUME that we MUST prepare for small-scale cold-war style conflicts from SE Asia to Taiwan and Korea during the next 25 years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

China????

HUH? You mean we are giving billions in aid and trade to our next big cold war enemy??? Who would have thunk it.

My money is on the return of a true battle rifle, or at least updating an old horse or two.

If the current conflagration has brought out anything, it is that no one can predict the future of conflict. I read a book back in 1999 called LIUC, WAR 2010. The author seemed to be of a mindset that by 2010 we wouldn't need small arms or armies because conflicts would only be of the "small flares here and there, dealt with by a small quick reaction force". He's right, in some parts of the world. In others we have just the opposite. Instead of Low Intensity Urban Conflict (LIUC) we have full blown battles, all be they short and sweet due to our air superiority, etc.

I was just reading an article in some G&A rag about the "guns over there". It intimated that the old M14 has been brought out in droves for the troops in Afghanistan. Let's hope that's true. Rather put to good use than rusting in some armory, or worse yet decomissioned and destryoed by the Feds.

Again, my thoughts are on the return of a true battle rifle in a real caliber. that's what my hope for our future troops would be. If they have to go into harms way, I'd like to send them with a real gun.

And just so you don't think I am an AR hater I have two...A RockRiver 20" and a Bushmaser Bullpup. Great for plinking, but my M1A is always ready to go.....just in case.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Well, I've looked at this for quite a while and I really don't see how we can have a "middle ground". It's going to be all or nothing and I'd like to hope it's "nothing". IOW, both nations are mature enough to realize we're both too dangerous to be poking each other with sticks. Hopefully.

But assuming not, I was under the distinct impression the new M-16/M-4 replacement(American Rifleman this month, what is that thing again?) was very much coming from the anticipation of potential conflicts like this...?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm standing by my prediction that communism will collapse in China by the end of this decade.

 

[Hugo]

I concur. With all the catastrophic corruption in the PRC, and the kicking people out of their homes to build roads for the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese people are getting really, really ticked off with their crummy Communist Govt. Id give it 5-7 years, probably soon after the Olympics fail to bring a lot of $$$ to the Country and get them in debt, just like the Olympics does to every country that has hosted them for decades. Also soon at bat in a few years to get rid of their Crummy Corrupt Governments; Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and probably Vietnam. Go Democracy!

 

[Rebar]

One possible senario would be the North Koreans attacking the South, followed immediately by the long-awaited Chicom invasion of Taiwan. In that case, we might just have to evict the Chinese, either from the whole island, or to dislodge any foothold they might have gained. That is, if we can beat back the North Koreans fast enough.

As the first Korean war showed us, we need something that can fire fast, and put them down hard, preferably at range.

 

[Cosmoline]

Even if Communism does collapse, we will still face China as a huge rival for resources. Anyway, I don't want to get to far into geopolitics in this thread. Like I said, ASSUME we will have to prepare for a war with China, I'm just trying to get some ideas about the direction of firearm development that might result.

 

[bjbarron]

My money is on the return of a true battle rifle, or at least updating an old horse or two.

Yeah, bring back the Garand...it worked before.

I'm standing by my prediction that communism will collapse in China by the end of this decade.

It will probably morph into Commu-Capitalism.

A Chinese student of mine (an adult and recent immigrant) was proud of the fact that China does not have a history of foreign wars beyond those countries immediate to it's borders.

I'm not sure what comfort that has been over the centuries for Japan, Korea, Nepal, and SouthEast Asia. I know they had a vicious (and unreported) little war with Russia. Taiwan is always on their minds and if they really wanted it, we could do little except lose ships or nuke them.

They are streamlining their land forces, building up their navy, and eyeing the routes that oil tankers need to take...with Taiwan sitting in the middle of them. Japan would be a graveyard for them if they tried that again.

I think that commu-capitalism will limit any hostilities to those necessary to protect trade routes. I don't think they want to nuke 50% of their customers. They will shortly have (if they don't already) the standard problem with Islamists in their western provinces.

I would rather see them as trading competitors than military opponents. Even so, their military and support infrastructure is large but brittle, their population is huge but backward and indifferent to the central government.

What the Chinese do have is a homogeneous population and 4000 years of pride...and a knack for capitalism. However, this is the American century, China can wait until the next one.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Yeah, bring back the Garand...it worked before.

Has "our" government ever brought back any weapon or system as opposed to spending millions(billions?) on a new one to do the same job(sometimes not as well)?

 

[natedog]

From what I understand, troops who were underarmed with the 8 shot M1 who faced Chinese human wave attacks in Korea was one of the principle reasons for going to the M-16 in the first place.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

A Chinese student of mine (an adult and recent immigrant) was proud of the fact that China does not have a history of foreign wars beyond those countries immediate to it's borders.

Hasn't China had a history of being isolationist; factionalism and "civil wars" between warlords; has for the most part lacked a navy to project power beyond its borders? They haven't had 4000 years of peace by any means - it's just been internal conflicts and being invaded for the most part.

The Korean War never ended, why else is there still a DMZ between North and South Korea?

I don't see a full-scale war breaking out between the US and China, unless the objective is annihilation. Logistically neither side can invade - even if the navies could cross unopposed . Even if the entire US military landed in China tomorrow, how badly would they be outnumbered? 10-1? 15-1? 200-1? How long until fuel and ammo run out? How long until casualties overflow the medical facilities?

OK, say PLAN lands unopposed on both coasts. The same applies, except that they're going to be tearing up a lot more infrastructure as they progress. What is left after invasion isn't worth spit - no Wall Street, no happy consumers with credit cards, no more golden fields of grain, a lot of regions without power/food/water that ARE NOT used to it - imagine Florida hurricane devastation + LA riots + post-9/11 NY in one area simultaneously, occuring all over the country. Most importantly, there would be no Uncle Sam waiting with handouts and grants; if China invades the US Government must win or cease to exist.

War would essentially bankrupt both sides and the gains could never offset it. Might as well go nuclear, it'd take less time for essentially the same result...

 

[Joejojoba111]

If China is moving from Communism it's only because of movement towards Fascism.

Mirriam Webster:
"Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>"


As for conflicts, let's not forget Korea. Nuclear weapons were not used when there was no fear of retaliation, now there is fear of retaliation. This (VERY SKETCHY) logic suggests against such use.

However it is good to recall that Russia by proxy fought America in Vietnam, and such a concept is not extinct. Proxy wars are my bet for non-nuclear high-intensity conflicts of the future. Major powers may even have troops engaging each other as advisors to the minor powers.

 

[cane]

Cosmoline, the M-14 wasn't used in the Korean war.

 

[Mulliga]

The rifles and carbines we already have (or might acquire, like the SCAR or XM8) will do just fine.

 

[gwalchmai]

Yes, that was the chief complaint about the M-14 in the Korean War - that it wasn't there.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sort of by definition, a cold war is not a battle or "hot" fighting war. So you are not talking about guns for a cold war with China, but for a hot war.

Yeah, bring back the Garand...it worked before.

Historically, a lot of guns have worked. I don't know that I would select bringing back a Garand over many of the other guns. Somebody noted they worked well in the Pacific. That is somewhat misleadng. They turned out to be crappy jungle guns and so a lot of soldiers prefered shorter and lighter the M1 Carbines. Garands also were not a very good urban/city gun for house to house fighting. Once again, it was because they were too long.

The Garand might have worked before, but it was far from optimal in tight quarters and if it did work in those situations, it was not because of the features of the Garand, but of the soldier plagued with forcing into a too long gun in circumstances where it was a poor choice.

Next time you get a chance, trying clearing your home with a Garand. Be care not to telegraph your position around the corner by first leading with the first foot or so of the gun as you go around the corner. Now imagine doing the same thing in the narrower halls and rooms more typical in many other countries. Have you seen some of the narrow halls, corridors, and alleys in Bagdad?

The Garand is a fine shooter and works pretty darned well in large open areas where the enemy can be seen and hit at quite some distance. In such cases, the 8 shot mag wasn't a problem when your enemy is 500 yards away. Distance buys you time and so the frequent reloads would not be a bad deal. When the enemy is 50 yards away, then the reloads are a major hinderance.

 

[jefnvk]

A Chinese student of mine (an adult and recent immigrant) was proud of the fact that China does not have a history of foreign wars beyond those countries immediate to it's borders.

They were also proud of their servitude of the uling family, up until about 100 years ago.

As much as I love the M1, I wouldn't support its coming back. It did its time, quite well it did its service. Something more along the lines of the M14 I could probably get behind, although I don't think that every soldier needs one. What oughta happen, is for a good portion of the squad to be issued M14's, and the others an M16.

As for dewsigning a new weapon, I still have yet to have someone tell me why?

Oh. The WWII weapons to bring back? The 45 and the grease gun. I can definitely see a part of the military benefiting from a standard issue SMG.

 

[Rebar]

From my research, the M1 Carbine didn't work so great in Korea - not enough range or stopping power. The same complaints many have of the 5.56mm round today.

It seems pretty clear we need a new main battle round. The 6.5 grendel in the new polymer case, seems like the best one to replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62 Nato rounds.

 

[Bainx]

I'm standing by my prediction that communism will collapse in China by the end of this decade.

So what. Communism supposedly ended in the Soviet Union yet, the SOBs still have nuclear missles pointed at the U.S. by the jillions.
Just the other day, front page news, the 'no longer commie' Russians threatened to wrec havoc if we continued a military presence in space.

Hmmmm....does not sound to friendly to me

 

[Ky Larry]

We may be putting the cart before the horse.IIRC, a few months ago, Uncle Sam was trying to buy ammo from foriegn companies. Seems we couldn't keep up with the demands of a low intensity war with a third-rate power like Iraq. Whatever weapon we adopt, we'd better make sure we can feed it.
A combat weapon should be tough, reliable, simple, effective, and reasonably accurate. Hmmm, kinda sounds like an AK, doesn't it?

 

[WT]

Hopefully we have learned not to get into a land war in Asia. We can't win.

That said, if we go to war with China, the US Navy admirals will move all their precious carriers to Kansas. No way in heck will they risk getting the paint scratched.

The Chinese, with their ultra quiet AIP submarines, will sink 1 Taiwan bound freighter and bring Taiwan business to a halt. No insurance company would dare insure any freighter bound for Taiwan. All commercial traffic will cease. Rather than starve, Taiwan will surrender peacefully.

We can't find their ultra quiet AIP's. We forgot how to find non-nuclear enemy submarines.

 

[natedog]

A combat weapon should be tough, reliable, simple, effective, and reasonably accurate. Hmmm, kinda sounds like an AK, doesn't it?

Kinda sounds like nearly all military rifles of the past century- K-98, M1, M-14, FAL, G-3, M-16, Steyr AUG, G-36, etc.

 

[jefnvk]

Hopefully we have learned not to get into a land war in Asia. We can't win.

No, what we cannot win is fighting in a PC war. When we are the only side that cares about the public's opinion. With groups like Amnesty International saying everything we do is illegal or with college kids out protesting because they are bored and have nothing better to do.