What's the consensus on Chinese equipment? Are they really

File: 1503997178039.jpg (103KB, 602x521px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 602x521px

I could kick all their asses two at a time until they where all knocked the fuck out

If they didnt have weapons of course!

I believe the General consensus of their military abilities is "not good"

>>35094748
>How does 5.8 stack up to 5.56?
We don't know.
Maybe if someone gets a hold of some we'd find out.
The stuff they use for their fancy units are pretty good but the rest of their army gets all their old shit.

>>35094748
Chinks can't innovate, only steal. Are you just learning this now?

>>35094748
TL;DR v2.0 power outage killed first reply.

What equipment... You get a rifle, a helmet, your uniform, and your only sidearm (a bayonet) is afixed to the rifle.

Yes, for the most part, tho that's when they are not just outright using russain shit.

Standard chink round hits harder and penetrates further then standard freedom munition, but the round can be configured to match it if army stops penny-pinching. Still, why bother when rice niggers don't have body armor on.

>>35094748
ITT, the uninformed masses

>>35094748
arent their web gears getting a lot of work outs in the middle east? or is that all iranian stuff?

>>35094748
it's a bunch of bullshit minutiae that don't really matter. 5.8 is basically the same as 5.56, their rifles work well enough to be infantry weapons, et cetera.

>>35094748
A lot of it is still stuff they imported/copied from the Russians, but they're slowly moving towards their own gear.
On the grand scale of things, how 5.8 compares to 5.56 is irrelevant. Both are hunks of lead thrown out of barrels.

China has a similar predicament to Russia when it comes to outfitting their army. Too big of an army for it to be conceivable to equip and train it to western standards.

Western standards are mostly peace time tom-foolery. In the event of war a small super well equipped and super well trained army wouldn't last long. As time and time again proved to Britain that a small professional army was no good when war broke out with real foes, not some durka durkas in India. They still haven't grasped the lesson after 2 world wars...lel

Long story short, China will always have problems when it comes to training and equipping such vast army. It's not unreasonable to conceive that even their best equipment doesn't really compare to western counterparts.

Check out their UN forces in Africa, probably the best equipment they could give out to their own infantry in recent years

>>35096291
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JstyA5ZXRo4

>>35096291
Except full scale land warfare is extremely unlikely nowadays, and most major powers never have to deploy massive numbers of grunts. Highly trained, well equipped expeditionary forces have proven time and time again to beat larger conscript forces, and they are the only option when it comes to counter insurgency.

Equipment is probably good enough for their military doctrine. They are more interested in appearing strong to their nearest neighbors so they can lean on them and grab contested high-value islands/nature resources, than in actually fighting a real enemy. Their biggest actual fear is the possibility of an unprising, which is the reason their military strength is only second to the resources they spend on spying and policing their own population.

>>35096326
You know that shit is just for show right?
>>35096368
Hasn't that been the mindset for a quite a while?
>Highly trained, well equipped expeditionary forces have proven time and time again to beat larger conscript forces

You are talking about 3rd world barely functioning militias fighting in fairly open arid terrains (no opportunity for ambush) equipped with nothing but decades old surplus. That isn't really a worthy foe to compare to. If America took the same approach if it had to fight China or Russia it wouldn't work in the long term. But even "good training" by american standards is not that great, American army mostly compensates the meh infantry with massive amounts of firepower from their airforce. If they hear so much as the rattle of a Dshk or the thump of a mortar they go to the ground and call arty or air force. It's been like this since WW2. Not to be taking the piss, but US army soldiers on NATO training missions with other European forces tend to be laughed at.

>>35096291
>have small professional army
>Defensive war breaks out with major power
>thousands volunteer to defend queen and country
>rigourous standards for training etc from being a small professional army now implemented in training up the influx of volunteers
>you now have a similarly sized army the conscripted one but with better discipline and espirit de corps

>>35094816
why the fuck are they marching with their eyes closed?

>>35097843
Retardation, The Post

>>35100191
>china, the country

>>35094748
a gun is a gun desu the real metrics aren't arbitrary "damage" but more about reliability and ergonomics

even accuracy is becoming a non issue, even the shittiest off the shelf guns are more accurate than their operators and a lot of the value in modern rifles lies in suppression to cover closing distances anyway, assuming you aren't saying "fuck it" and using an air strike or guided artillery with your infantry as glorified spotters

>>35094816
they all blaze as fucc

I don't have any knowledge on the quality of Chinese equipment, but all I do know is that underestimating an opponent is a great way to be negatively surprised.

>>35094748

Late 1970s equivalent to the united states when it comes to Ground Forces. Including vehicles. Since the focus of this thread is ground equipment and the 5.8mm, not things like air power or radar and comms advances.

Specialized units are a different story, and they officially have an equivalent to the OICW/XM-25 which they didnt mind spending on unlike us. But aside from that just about everybody's spec ops perform only marginally different from each other (when you see all weapons as knives and your gun is just a loud knife that can hit someone over a hundred yards away).

> I suppose the better question there is how many special operations forces they've got.

I believe I saw it stated that the 5.8mm could achieve 800 yards accuracy but this was likely propaganda - and/or performed under contrived conditions with internally fudged statistics (you could get the same thing out of a 5.56 probably if we're talking like that). Call me up when they adopt 6.5 or 6.8mm and get 1000 yards match on a regular basis.

>>35100278
This
While accuracy out to 500+ yards is preferred most soldiers never bother shooting past 300 and even then its just snap shots traded back and forth like poker chips. The benefit is when you can take the same ammo/caliber and put it in a DMR and the marksman can hit someone reliably out to 500 (note: I mentioned "marksman"). The revision in military strategy back in ~1950s determined that soldiers often didnt even notice enemies until about the 200-250 meter distance, and didn't want to open fire until they were on average within about 120 meters even if they had a good gun that could easily reach it.

>>35100313
All major powers have Black Tech, and ill just leave that there for you. But in terms of their regular forces the chinese are like the arabs. Ie "not good, cannon fodder".

>>35100313
reliance on weapons to win a war has always been the US's biggest mistake

it sounds like some "if you kill ur enemeys dey win" shit but seriously: weapons themselves do not win wars. having fancier rifles than the other guy doesn't mean much if they have a more stable and foolproof economy and if individuals/groups there have more political clout in the area than you can get

unless you're trying to overtly annex a place, sheer force of arms doesnt work. most warfare today is just larger-scale police action, and fancy guns dont make for more effective police

>>35094748
the guy on the left just wants to show you his shiny ak and talk about it the guy on the right is so angry

>>35100422
i feel like theres only two kinds of chinese people: the type who want to be everybodys friend and are always super happy about everything all the time no matter how trivial, and guys who are super intense for no reason and probably do a lot of fancy designer stimulants and try as hard as possible to look like the villain from Fast n' Furious Tokyo Drift

>>35100377
> stable and foolproof economy
> cruise missiles take out all your infrastructure, turn off the electricity, probably turn off your water too, and pretty much put you in Fallout land
> you can do nothing about this
> if they start to spring back from it, you hit them again, but usually you're on the ground by then

>>35100469
>> cruise missiles take out all your infrastructure, turn off the electricity, probably turn off your water too, and pretty much put you in Fallout land
and now your country is worthless to the enemy: if they were going to annex it, great, they've annexed a fucking rock, and if they wanted to subjugate you, great, they've subjugated a fucking rock.

very few if any objectives that would make a nation go to war can be solved with total destruction of the enemy except for "make the enemy stop doing whatever it is they're doing entirely"

the world wars are probably the only example where it kinda did work like that, but only because the objectives were mostly the various powers going "Hey, stop that!" in a context where powers were much less intertwined and much more independent from eachother than they are today

you might see some sea battles or border skirmishes over protected trade routes and the like but it's simply unproductive to destroy a whole country, usually at least