Bullet proof vests in the Chinese military

solarz said:

Heh, I think vesicles read you guys will be getting shot up and blown up all over the place instead of your guys will be getting shot up and blown up all over the place. A single letter's difference changes the meaning entirely.

However, I would like PeoplesPoster to elaborate on how exactly one would go about training to be more effective with body armor.

Click to expand...

Correct. I said "your guys" as in your soldiers. As far as how training in your gear will improve combat effectiveness it's only common sense that getting acclimatized to the bulk and weight of armor will make your movement more efficient during combat. It's the same concept as say training for football. You won't see football teams training without their armor, the more you wear armor the more comfortable you will be with it.

PeoplesPoster said:

Correct. I said "your guys" as in your soldiers. As far as how training in your gear will improve combat effectiveness it's only common sense that getting acclimatized to the bulk and weight of armor will make your movement more efficient during combat. It's the same concept as say training for football. You won't see football teams training without their armor, the more you wear armor the more comfortable you will be with it.

Click to expand...

Except that there are ways of simulating the bulk and weight of body armor without actually issuing body armor.

I'm curious, do even US soldiers train with body armor? I remember reading that the soldiers had to buy their own armor when they got shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan.

In any case, I think that the real difference is in the doctrine. The PLA is geared toward fighting a peer adversary. Insurgencies are dealt with by the PAP.

kyanges said:

This is how I understood it. Him saying "Your guys" in this context is a tone that references the hypothetical soldiers in the situation outlined by the other party. In this case, the camp that's rationalizing training without body armor. It's a pretty common sort of informal tone that I hear used all the time. For example, in a discussion, someone will say something like, "Oh, well, meanwhile your guys would be... bla bla bla." Pretty sure it wasn't a personal attack.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I made a mistake there. I thought he said "you guys". my apologies to PeoplesPoster

solarz said:

NATO is experienced in fighting technologically inferior enemies. When was the last time NATO fought a war where they didn't have air supremacy? Having air supremacy means your enemy can't bring any artillery and armor against you, and you never have to charge a fortified position. All that's left then is to fight against light infantry who can hide from air strikes. That's where body armor comes in as useful.

Click to expand...

Body armours are useful in all situations, not just in specific areas. Even when both sides are using heavy artillery, ballistic vests are still good at stopping shrapnel and shock waves. Majority of death and injuries result in shrapnels, not direct gunfire.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

Insignius said:

The PLA has both body armour and ballistic plates. Most of them are in storage though, and not regularily worn during excercises. But for artillery operators during excercises, vests are handed out, though.

PLA Navy operators deployed in Aden are wearing vests too (refer to the anti-piracy thread). The most common one is the ZTCD-06 bodyarmour, which resembles the US Interceptor, and its predecessor, the TF90/TF95 "Guardian God" armour.

Click to expand...

Any evidences of stockpiles of vests? I don't think there are stockpiles, since kevlar and other similar synthetic fibers have a very short lifespan. If you don't use them for few years, they would be wasted. On top of that, ballistic vests, especially those Type IV style used in the military, are extremely heavy, weighing usually 30 - 40 pounds. It will literally bog you down in real battle. Training without it is completely different from training with it.

I have notice PLA/PAP wearing it in small numbers, but those are not really that thick. They look like they're really low level vests, maybe only Type II equivalent. Does PLA have any Type IV equivalent ones? Like those being worn by NATO troops in the Middleeast?

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

muddie said:

Wow, really? I never heard of any military training or exercise where soldiers stand in a line with body armor and get shot at to feel what its like to be shot with armor on.

Click to expand...

LOL, you'll be surprised. I have relatives in the law enforcement and they have actually being shot at in training (point blank, on purpose!!!!!).

I guess what "PeoplePoster" was trying to say was the fact that those vests are super heavy. You have to wear it for a long time to get used to it. I personally have worn them few times and trust me, they are F*%$King heavy. I was just wearing it in paintball matches and wasn't carrying anything else. Real infantry have to also carry another few tons of gears. Your gears at the end will weigh almost as much as you do and you still have to run and fight. It's a completely different story.

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------

solarz said:

Except that there are ways of simulating the bulk and weight of body armor without actually issuing body armor.

I'm curious, do even US soldiers train with body armor? I remember reading that the soldiers had to buy their own armor when they got shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan.

In any case, I think that the real difference is in the doctrine. The PLA is geared toward fighting a peer adversary. Insurgencies are dealt with by the PAP.

Click to expand...

US soldiers train with real armour, especially those simulations and war exercises. Of course they're not worn everyday, but often enough to be often. In fact, a lot of runs and marches require full gear, which include the cumbersome vests.

And NO, US soldiers don't have to buy gears. You probably misunderstood the articles. The only things they have to buy are those minor personalized attachments they prefer. Those gears in the military are all mass produced, sometimes no to the soldier's likings, such as the scope or the camel-pak, maybe even just the Velcro for his radio. But as for common gears, they're all already given, even the gloves and socks. You literally have everything without spending a penny. But if you want to personalize your stuff (common in Western culture), then you have to spend your own dollars.

I think the most common replacement is the handgun holsters and sunglasses. Other than that, rarely do they spend money on gears.

Added*
I do know a lot of friends serving in Iraq like to buy their own handguns, thinking the standard handgun is not powerful enough.

I have notice PLA/PAP wearing it in small numbers, but those are not really that thick. They look like they're really low level vests, maybe only Type II equivalent. Does PLA have any Type IV equivalent ones? Like those being worn by NATO troops in the Middleeast?

Click to expand...

yes they do, but i have never seen any units issued with Type-IV level body armor or seen in training with

Vini_Vidi_Vici said:

Body armours are useful in all situations, not just in specific areas. Even when both sides are using heavy artillery, ballistic vests are still good at stopping shrapnel and shock waves. Majority of death and injuries result in shrapnels, not direct gunfire.

...

And NO, US soldiers don't have to buy gears. You probably misunderstood the articles. The only things they have to buy are those minor personalized attachments they prefer. Those gears in the military are all mass produced, sometimes no to the soldier's likings, such as the scope or the camel-pak, maybe even just the Velcro for his radio. But as for common gears, they're all already given, even the gloves and socks. You literally have everything without spending a penny. But if you want to personalize your stuff (common in Western culture), then you have to spend your own dollars.

Click to expand...

Kind of hard to misunderstand this:



Note that the article is from 2004. This tells me that before the Iraq invasion, the US Army didn't have enough armor for every soldier. This made me wonder if they had enough armor to train with. Or perhaps they simply used weighted vests.

As for artillery, it's undeniable that body armor is extra weight. Extra weight makes you run slower. Armor might prevent you from getting killed by shrapnel, but it most likely will still cripple you, or at least take you out of the fight.

I think the lack of body armor is the direct result of PLA strongly prioritizing the navy and air force over the army in the past couple of decades. Most infantry still wear those outdated helmets.

solarz said:

As for artillery, it's undeniable that body armor is extra weight. Extra weight makes you run slower. Armor might prevent you from getting killed by shrapnel, but it most likely will still cripple you, or at least take you out of the fight.

Click to expand...

I think it would be better to take it off when you don't need it, rather than need it and not have it.

EDIT:

Wait, did you mean the armor might cripple, or the shrapnel?

kyanges said:

I think it would be better to take it off when you don't need it, rather than need it and not have it.

EDIT:

Wait, did you mean the armor might cripple, or the shrapnel?

Click to expand...

He meant the shrapnel might still cripple you by going into your limps and other areas not protected by body armour. At least that's how I interpreted his statement, correct me if I'm wrong.

jobjed said:

He meant the shrapnel might still cripple you by going into your limps and other areas not protected by body armour. At least that's how I interpreted his statement, correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's right.

Also, I don't think that the idea that you can "take it off when you don't need it" is quite right. Body armor costs upward of 1400$ each. Equipped on over a million soldiers, that's 1.4 billion dollars. Not a small expenditure. In addition, vests have a shelf life of only a few years, so that money will have to be re-spent every few years. The idea that it's "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it" is not enough to justify that kind of expenditure.