Uh, no not really. Customers usually rank the Type 56 as more reliable than the original AK. Its fame is due to its rugged design, cheap price, and proliferation, and the fact that it was built in 1947. Its fame does not come from its "indestructability".
What customers would these be? Imaginary ones or the ones that have Bulgarian, Romanian or some suspicious kit built AK with domestic parts? I have met two Cambodians, one with 10 years combat experience and one with 7 years combat experience, both used the (real) type 56 and (real) AK-47 and when I spoke to them (2-3 years ago) they stated that the AK-47 was the better weapon.
Rifles are also ranked on its firepower, range, rate, and its recoil. "Indestructability" does not play a role.
If you compare Russian and Chinese rifles (I doubt you even bothered to), Chinese rifles rank much better in rate of fire, range, and penetrating capabilities.
Reliability is a major factor in any combat rifle, I will chose a rifle that never jams over a rifle that sometimes jams but has better rate of fire or range because most combat scenarios are less than 100 yards and only morons fire their weapons on full auto unless it is for suppression fire but regardless whether its a 600 rate of fire or 800 it still achieves the same result, difference being one gun wasted more ammunition than the other. In fact the AK-47 was specifically designed to fire at 600 rounds per minute, if I was to pick a weapons for the specific purpose of a high rate of fire I would chose the AN-94 with its ridiculous 1,800 round per minute rate of fire. Further, newer AK variants have what is said to be the best muzzle break ever made and I agree having shot the AK-74; less recoil more accuracy. There is also a broad range of Russian assault rifles, the Vintorez AK-74, 103, 104, 101, 107, AN-94 and the list goes on, all are very accurate and all very unique, with some using 5.45, some using 7.62, some using 5.56 and others using large 9x39 rounds.
Do you seriously believe that mass is related to its size?
Try searching up the DBP87 heavy round and you'll see what I mean. It's standard for all QBZ-95 later variants as well as the QBZ-95G.
7.62 mm rounds have yaw forces when fired, which impedes its capability to penetrate body armor, due to the excess amounts of kinetic energy transferred from the bullet to the target (impulse momentum theorem).
Larger caliber rounds are simply heavier than smaller caliber rounds given that they both use the same core, heavier rounds have more kinetic energy, this is why the 7.62 round has far better penetration than the 5.45 round despite less velocity.
Again, just because it's popular doesn't mean it's effective. Rifles are measured in firepower, not reliability.
QBZ-95 is also known as a very reliable rifle, able to fire rounds in tough conditions, including underwater.
However, the QBZ-95 has a higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, and better penetration.
The QBZ-95 has not proved its reliability on the battlefield like the AK family has, also rate of fire means next to nothing; muzzle velocity also means little when the difference is negligible. Many of Chinas’ allies use modern day AK variants even Pakistan, yes Pakistan chose the AK-101, and not the QBZ-95, jeez I wonder why, maybe because it’s specifications are highly exaggerated?
T
he info you provided me has just proved my point. Its range, firepower, and rate of fire is nowhere near that of the PLZ-05 or PLZ-04, which has 50+ km in range and can fire 10 rounds per minute.
No my info proved reality, hit probability, jamming protection, sighting, laser range finders, ability to hit moving targets, the ability to map terrain digitally, hit probability, and jamming capability. I will chose a combat proven howitzer that’s know to accurately hit targets. And it's firepower and rate of fire is similar to the Chinese system 40+ km vs. 50+ is not that great of a distance especially when the exact ranges are not know.
And I case you did not know the 50km range for the PLZ-04 is only with rocket assisted shells, the standard rounds it fires is well under 50km. The MSAT also carries 20 more rounds meaning it can prolong the fight, and most importantly the MSAT can fire jammer projectiles which disrupt the enemies communications/electronics allowing the MSAT and other allied units to more effectively and safely destroy enemy positions. Once the PLZ-05/04 rocket assisted rounds are depleted which it will only carry a limited amount of it’s not difficult to see that which system is better, even with the rocket assisted rounds the MSAT has more capabilities and a proven combat record.
\
Have you even done any researching?
Type 99A2 uses Al2O3 armor that, during tests, took 9 direct hits from a T-72 at 1 km and took no damage.
That is coupled with the classified armor.
So we are on the same page, the armor is classified for both tanks besides the AL203. It also quite funny how you say the Type 99A2 took 'no damage', the reality is that even old RPG-7's have put large gashes in the Abrams and even disabled it with a hit to the tracks or rear; further, the heavily armored Merkava’s were completely destroyed by Russian RPG's, so I would take that T-72 claim with a truckload of salt. In reality a well placed triple charge round or a modern day RPG will destroy the Type 99A2.
If you read my previous post, you would know that all Chinese ICBMs have the capabilities you mentioned above (MaRV, high apogee, cold launch, etc) coupled with greater range and more warheads.
The capabilities of Chinese ICBM’s have yet to prove themselves, even old Soviet ICBM’s were found to be more accurate than the American counterparts--this is what US inspectors said, as for range and warheads we have ICBM’s with 16,000km range and nuclear warheads 500 times more powerful than the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.
Turbo prop UAV also happen to have much lower escape capabilities, air-to-air capabilities, range, speed, and general combat effectiveness.
UAV’s are clearly visible to radar and jet powered UAV’s give off large IR emissions, so either the UAV’s will be shot down by a fighter like Russia did to Georgia or a surface to air missile will destroy it, either way the reaction time for both scenarios is extremely short, even modern day fighters and bombers have been downed from surface to air missiles or weapons and these aircraft usually have RWR UAV‘s usually do not. Having a turbo prop as apposed to a jet engine will not increase air to air capabilities, UAV’s are not dog fighters, not in maneuvering, not in speed, and not in situational awareness; a UAV is simply a launch platform and reconnaissance platform, having a jet engine will not do anything for a UAV in terms of air to air capabilities, in fact the IR emissions will make it an easier target. You also fail to understand the significance of turbo pro platform, having a jet powered UAV, especially a Chinese one (Chinese engines lack) does not mean better range, the TU-95 chose turbo props for their efficiency, consequently the TU-95 has almost the same seed as the jet powered B-52.
Seriously, do some more reading on this.
All current Chinese major surface combatants uses Chinese missiles and CIWS/main cannons.
New Chinese destroyers and frigates uses Chinese weaponry and Chinese ESA radar. Some subsystems are French. The older ships (like Luda or Jianghu) uses Russian radars and sonars.
The Severnoye Design Bureau would disagree, they claim Chinese ships appear to have Russian made systems when Russian never sold them. Severnoye Design Bureau claims that Russia upgraded one Chinese ship and suddenly other Chinese ships were seen with the same systems.
Reliability has always been the quality of any AK. However its accuracy is not. Can it hit medium targets at 300 meters consistently? If not then it is not up to the M 16 or QBZ 95. Both use cold hammered barrels with barrels at 20 inches and 18 inches respectively with high velocity small diameter rounds and consistently hit targets at that range.
What AK are you talking about? There are AK variants which use 5.45 as well as 5.56 rounds which are known for their accuracy as apposed to the heavier 7.62 round. Newer AK variants also have a muzzle break which virtually eliminates all recoil. New AK’s have extreme accuracy, especially with a modified sight.
The Chinese army created the 5.8mm round for use against heavily armored professional troops, not insurgents. And its penetration is significantly greater than 5.56 with consistent 10 mm of penetration against NATO spec hardened steel plate at 310 meters. Only the AP 5.56 with tungsten core exceeds that.
Different rounds for different jobs. The 5.56 and the 5.45 rounds are know to be the most lethal rounds on the battlefield, even more lethal than the 7.62 even though the 7.62 has far better penetration. The 5.56 round fragment once it hit tissue causing mass bleeding , it’s also difficult for doctors to remove all of the fragments. The 5.45 round has been called the poison or devils round because of it’s
No we are not. Technical performance is all we have with non war tested weapons. And the type 04 with its 155mm 54 cal gun fires farther and faster with it laser guided rocket assisted rounds.
As stated before the 50km range is for rocket assisted rounds; its standard rounds have much less range, and howitzers always carry a combination of different munitions. Also it’s only able to get one more shot off faster than the MSAT, that’s hardly anything worth bragging about. The MSAT is a smart combat proven system. The following is the same information I posted for Sino Soldier:
Hit probability, jamming protection, sighting, laser range finders, ability to hit moving targets, the ability to map terrain digitally, hit probability, and jamming capability are important factors in a howitzer. I will chose a combat proven howitzer that’s know to accurately hit targets and a system with more capabilities over a system that has slightly more range with rocket assisted rounds. And it's firepower and rate of fire is similar to the Chinese system 40+ km vs. 50+ is not that great of a distance especially when the exact ranges are not know.
And I case you did not know the 50km range for the PLZ-04 is only with rocket assisted shells, the standard rounds it fires is well under 50km. The MSAT also carries 20 more rounds meaning it can prolong the fight, and most importantly the MSAT can fire jammer projectiles which disrupt the enemies communications/electronics allowing the MSAT and other allied units to more effectively and safely destroy enemy positions. Once the PLZ-05/04 rocket assisted rounds are depleted which it will only carry a limited amount of it’s not difficult to see which system is better, even with the rocket assisted rounds the MSAT has more capabilities and a proven combat record.
So they are modernizing it. Whats your point? Even with this modernization it does not match the PLZ 04 in capabilities.
Read again, the system has been modernized, in fact there is a new variant of the MSAT with unknown capabilities, and the MSAT is more than a match for the unproven PLZ-04. Does the PLZ-04 have digital terrain mapping? Or even jamming munitions. Do we know it’s hit probability? Can it hit moving targets?
The T 90 armor is not declassified either. No armor on any tank is declassified besides old vanilla steel tanks. We can only make estimates based on the tests on it as well as the weight class. For example the prototype type 98 was hit with a HQ 8 with over 1000mm of RHA penetration failed to penetrate. Old 98s were also tested with an acquired t 72C with 7 rounds and 9 rounds of 105 without sustaining damage. This was all done with only composite, and not with the massive ERA blocks and arrow shaped armor in todays models. With your argument light weight tanks are the best. That is not the case. Light MBTs were destroyed by Heavy MBTs in recent war experiences.
Seems like a made up story, there is no way a tank can not ‘sustain damage’ even Abrams tanks have receive damage from stone age RPG’s and Merkavas, which are extremely heavy and well protected have been destroyed by newer RPG’s. Unless the T-72’s rounds were training rounds it’s safe to say that the story is just that (a story) unless you want to believe Chinese tanks are mystical wonder weapons. A well placed round, especially from a modern day round, something like a triple charge round will penetrate any tank. The front of a tank is the most heavily armored, the amour is also sloped which does two things, firstly it deflects some of the energy away, but more importantly slopped amour can double or perhaps triple to amours thickness. Fore example, a 1 inch plate tilted at and angle will suddenly have a 2 inch thickness. So the front of a tank can often times survive almost all hits, but the sides and especially the rear are vulnerable, and all tanks will sustain damage.
Yes we purchased entire planes as well. Now we do not. Do not constantly look to the past for reassurance. For us only the present and future are applicable.
You just ordered anti submarine helicopters if Chinese technology was so good which I constantly hear Chinese members boasting about than why go to Russia? The Chinese always like to say how much better that are than Russians so why come to us? And China has still purchased a number of other systems within the past 5 years.
We still order Russian anti submarine helicopters because we do not have helicopters like that. The sonar has little to do with the choice. As for PL 12 it uses the first switching datalink in use so its certainly not Russian as no Russian missile use that. Yes we used to purchase Russian systems extensively. We do not anymore. Your constant reliance on past glory is getting a little old. So no we are not still coming to Russia.
You do not need helicopters like that, you only need to install avionics that allow it to do what an anti submarine helicopter is meant to do. As for the PL-12, Sino defense which Chinese members swear on claims that Russia helped China develop it seeker. The data-link and navigation system is also said to be Russia, also Russia does not need to use ‘first switching datalink’. There are systems that Russia exports that it itself does not use.
