History Learner
Well-known member
Current UN prediction is China to about 700 million end of century. South Korea and Japan will be about 100 million all together; if they are equalized in GDP per capita, then basic mathematics says no, it doesn't.
Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Current UN prediction is China to about 700 million end of century. South Korea and Japan will be about 100 million all together; if they are equalized in GDP per capita, then basic mathematics says no, it doesn't.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
They actually have Aircraft Carriers.
It'd still be rough for them to supply them that far out, but they do actually have the capability.
The West's ability to be a peer competitor to China should increase over time due to the declining Chinese birth rate.
Though Europe isn't actually interested in fighting China over Taiwan, is it? Though imposing heavy sanctions on China for this might be a different matter.
Hm, I'm wondering who all their including: 2020 US birth is 3.6 million, EU is 4 million, for a total of 7.6 million vs China's listed 12 million. 4.4 million more births, on top of the prexisting numerical advantage of 1.4 billion vs 778 million, though at a higher average development. And natural change is roughly -900,000 in the West, while they still officially grew by 2 million in China.
This is one of the big warning on any hope of demographics destroying China, because most of the west outside the US actually has worse demographics: EU's average age is 43, Germany is 47. China is 37. Just by the reality of the passage of time it would take 10 years for china to catch up to Germany.
The EU is losing about a million people a year naturally, and the immigration the EU is getting does not look like its going to seemlessly plug that gap. Hell, I'm sure the native population of the EU is doing even worse than those numbers suggest, since the number of births I'm sure is inflated by immigrants.
Yeah, my analysis is more or less in line: if the West broadly is going to have a general demographic advantage, that occurs out in the 2050s, not 2020s. 30 years a long time for geostrategic issues. Germany for example might have a population decline of 5-10 million to 70 million ish vs 80 million now. That might leave Germany okay, or Germany might dissolve over that.
History Learner
Well-known member
UN projections has South Korea crashing down to around 15 million and Japan to 80 million; this is insane levels of population loss for them as well that limits future U.S. ability to act against the Chinese bloc in tandem to their own demographic decline. I think a lot of people are letting their ideological priors blind them to the multi-faceted nature of this situation.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
That isn't a problem with the ammunition, that's a problem with the rifling in the barrel. That is a very, very basic industrial process to deal with if you're supposed to be a modern nation. Decent rifling was a problem solved in the 1800's.
What makes the Chinese look even worse in this, is that this video was released in the first place. It suggests quite a number of things:
1. The defect wasn't detected in prototyping, or alternately that the prototypes were up to spec, but the mass production run is not.
2. The problem wasn't recognized when the new weapons started to be issued.
3. The basic infantrymen and infantry officers either lack the ability to realize this is a problem, or there's too much political weight behind the manufacturer for it to have been addressed.
4. Whoever recorded this video did not recognize that this was a problem.
5. Whoever among the CCP's higher-ups that was shown this video did not recognize this was a problem.
6. Possibly in a best-case scenario for the CCP, someone did recognize this was a problem, and this was supposed to be buried, but it was leaked. This is very unlikely given all the other shit that slips past them.
To give some perspective on the sheer level of incompetence this demonstrates on the part of the PLA, this is a problem that somewhere between a quarter and a half of random US Citizens would be able to recognize on-sight, and the CCP has failed to do so.
Maybe by this point they have started to address the problem, and to be fair, once the problem is recognized, it's not like they have to redesign the whole rifle. They just have to fix the problems at the factory. Of course, given the CCP's utterly pervasive problems with quality control and corruption, even once they recognize the problem, there's a very real chance nothing will be done.
History Learner
Well-known member
So what causes the bullet instability through the air? There are several causes for this:
- Rifling in the barrel could be worn out, therefore it does not impart enough spin to the bullet while it is leaving the barrel.
- The bullet might be undersized and is therefore not engaging the rifling properly.
- The rifling twist rate may not be adequate for the weight, shape and profile of the bullet. For example, the M855 cartridge and the L110 cartridge are both designed for the M16A2. The bullet from a M855 (or SS109) cartridge can be adequately.stabilized by a barrel with a 1 in 9 twist rate (i.e.) 1 turn every 9 inches (228.6 mm.) of barrel length. On the other hand, the bullet from the L110 tracer round cartridge does not adequately stabilize at this twist rate and needs a twist rate of at least 1 in 7 (i.e. 1 turn every 7 inches (180 mm.)) for the tracer bullet to stabilize. This is because while the bullet diameters are the same, the weight, distribution of mass throughout the bullet and the bullet profile shapes are different, which causes the instability. Therefore, M16A2 rifles come with a 1 in 7 twist rate barrel, so that they can be used with both bullet types.
- Leading in the barrel could also cause the bullets to not spin as much when they come out of the barrel.
- Damage to the barrel near the muzzle may cause the bullets to wobble or tumble as they come out.
- The bullet does not always immediately stabilize in the air as it leaves the barrel and needs to travel a little distance in the air before it gains stability. If the target is too close, the bullet may be still wobbling in the air a bit, by the time it hits the target.
- The bullet may have hit something on the way to the target, causing it to tumble in the air for the rest of its journey.
Meanwhile in reality...
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Meanwhile in Reality, you post an article in French.
Shall I post an article in Klingon to rebut?
Regarding the rest of your post, you have a fair point about possibly using undersized bullets. I had assumed the Chinese weren't that incompetent, but that could indeed be it.
The rest of it falls into various forms of 'problems with the rifling,' or things that we know aren't happening, such as hitting something before the target, or damage near the end of the barrel.
Have seen people claim they are bouncing off the wall behind.
Which is even worse because even in US kill houses they dint bounce back against the target
History Learner
Well-known member
Am I to assume in our future convos you don't understand how to use google translate or, failing that, allowing your browser to automatically do that for you?
Beyond the fact that this exact tactic has been used successfully by other nations, I again point you to the reality the French, a NATO nation, went as far as to send their troops to Afghanistan having the same issue as the Chinese here; tumbling rounds. It was a propellant issue then, and probably the same here.
Or, you know, issues with the cartridge itself as a lot of that list notes? You might find it educational to realize 3# is only talking about issues with U.S./NATO rounds.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
If you can't be bothered to post links in a language I can understand, I'm under no obligation to act like you've made a meaningful point.
Google translate can give some semi-understandable soup, but I'm not going to do your work for you.
This would mean that North Korea will have more people than South Korea by 2100, no?
gral
Well-known member
That would assume North Korea doesn't get her own population collapse(which I'm firly sure will happen), but, IIRC, yes.
For the Norks to get their own population collapsed, Communism needs to collapse there beforehand, no?
History Learner
Well-known member
I will keep it in mind for the future that automatic translation apps are beyond your capacity.
And yet, here you are content to make broad generalizations about China based off a Chinese language/media originating video and have had no issue doing with Slavic language sources in other places. Most curious.
gral
Well-known member
Not necessarily; in fact, I think you are inverting the order here.
paulobrito
Well-known member
"Sir, remember how the Commandant got rid of all our tanks because he said we were only going to be manning forward bases on tiny islands in the Pacific?"
paulobrito
Well-known member
It was not an "island" meme. It was a "We were only supposed to defend small islands, but here we are invading mainland China" meme.