Bullet proof vests in the Chinese military

M

muddie

Junior Member
This discussion of why China doesn't have armor has been discussed over and over again, and every time we come to the conclusion of China not needing it right now. Chinese forces engaged in combat with terrorists/drug cartels/extremists are equipped with them, average PLA soldiers are not because they don't need them right now. Columbia and especially Philippines both have armed militias in their country. Philippines have Maoists and Muslim groups whom attack government forces. China does not have this.
Like Plawolf said, if China was to engage in war with Russia or US, armor is useless. And because armor has a short shelf-life, they will be a waste of money because they are not used. That money can be spent on something else more useful.
 
S

stardave

Junior Member
Vini_Vidi_Vici said:
Almost all countries have it these days, even the Philippines and Columbia have it. These countries almost don't even have a professional military, more like just a glorified police force, yet even they have it.

This is one of those great mysteries that no one can explain, just like who really killed Kennedy? Why didn't Hitler order the final blow? Or if Cleopatra really had big nose?

China has the technology, the money, and the resources to easily equip all their soldiers with vests. But somehow it's just not done.
Click to expand...

sigh... why don't you go read a few post back, this has been explained very thoroughly.

But in case, you are not willing to do that.. PLA is indeed equipping their rapid response troops with body armor, there is no point to equip all 2.5 million soldier with it, because China is not expecting to invade any nation or occupy their land. And all body armor have expiration date, what is the point spending half billion on them only to have them became useless in a few years. Again, go back a few pages.
 
I

Inst

Captain
As a choice it can still be a doctrinal failure, because it presupposes a decisive battle or a battle of maneuver when, given the PLA's capabilities, a battle of attrition is more likely. With regards to your examples, you are right in principle that it depends on the application, but carriers are extremely heavily armored, and fighters still emphasize survivability, instead of opting for heavy armor, which still doesn't really do much against AAMs, they opt for maneuverability as a mode of protection.

With regards to PGMs and artillery strikes, shrapnel, not blast wounds, are the major killer because shrapnel has a larger area of effect. Attacking infantry, which tends to be dispersed, is mostly a question of area of effect weapons, not one shot-one kill. And if you require your opponent to increase their armor penetration, you increase their cost, weight, and reduce their rate of sortie, still resulting in increased survivability.

With regards to infantry-level and crew-served anti-infantry weapons, Type III body armor can protect against most rifle rounds, and Type IV should be proof against medium machine guns, which are commonly seen on US tanks. Heavy body armor won't result in over-penetration, it will result simply in no penetration at all.
 
P

paintgun

Senior Member
we have discussed this over and over, but we have to separate different things

there are only two attitudes regarding body armors, armies that can afford them, and armies that can't

ask any army or serviceman, will they prefer to have the chance to train with or equip body armor, soft or heavy, they will say yes
ask any army or serviceman in war time, will they want a body armor? they will beg for it
ground commanders/officers and grunts will always know, that a soldier's life is precious and every single measure to protect it that can be taken within consideration will be taken if possible
people who analyze behind desks and are separated from the field and the grunt life often forget this, and simply put things as, it is inevitable that soldiers die under intense fire, why bother equip them?
People in the field will want to fight for every chance to survive, even the smallest chance, and those who survive will fight for another day.

Those who survive will fight better.

there are no doctrinal issues that prevent the use, or advocate the absence of body armor, even more in modern warfare
whether in NATO standard army or any other model, except in special types of mission.
if one can find such a study advocating against the use of body armor in combat, he will be welcomed to post and elaborate it here

the issue with current PLA attitude regarding body armor, is simply that they do not need it yet, and yes PLA is cheap
 
Last edited:
V

Vini_Vidi_Vici

Junior Member
stardave said:
sigh... why don't you go read a few post back, this has been explained very thoroughly.

But in case, you are not willing to do that.. PLA is indeed equipping their rapid response troops with body armor, there is no point to equip all 2.5 million soldier with it, because China is not expecting to invade any nation or occupy their land. And all body armor have expiration date, what is the point spending half billion on them only to have them became useless in a few years. Again, go back a few pages.
Click to expand...

Quick response units have it? Really? Sources? Never seen those pics before, really curious to see it, thanks.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Vini_Vidi_Vici said:
Almost all countries have it these days, even the Philippines and Columbia have it. These countries almost don't even have a professional military, more like just a glorified police force, yet even they have it.

This is one of those great mysteries that no one can explain, just like who really killed Kennedy? Why didn't Hitler order the final blow? Or if Cleopatra really had big nose?

China has the technology, the money, and the resources to easily equip all their soldiers with vests. But somehow it's just not done.
Click to expand...

Again, it's all about the doctrines and whether a country is fighting a war. Both have been explained thoroughly. As indicated by many news articles published in the US, many front-line US troops did not have body armor when entering the fight. Many of them had to purchase one with their own money. So if the US was not issuing body armors to its troops who were about to face enemy fire, don't blame China for not issuing to its troops who are not facing any immediate danger.

As to those other countries you mentioned, many of them are fighting rebels. So they too are facing enemy fire and should be protected accordingly. Also, many of them are small enough, so that issuing a few thousand is no big deal.

Additionally, the kinds of body armor that we think about have been designed and used since WWI. Kevlar vests were designed and issued in limited fashion in the late 60's. Yet, these armors were never in the kind of wide spread usage like today. Why? It's all about the enemy. Most of the fights we see today are polarized fight between an advanced forc and an inferior one who primarily uses gorrela tactics. With its troops constantly exposed to hidden enemy even while staying stationary, the advanced force has no choose but to protect its troops with body armor. This kind of situation is not common in a fight between more equivalent foes, thus less need for body armor. This is why body armor was not issued to troops in mass during the Cold War even though the danger of a war was immediate and looked imminent.
 
V

Vini_Vidi_Vici

Junior Member
vesicles said:
Again, it's all about the doctrines and whether a country is fighting a war. Both have been explained thoroughly. As indicated by many news articles published in the US, many front-line US troops did not have body armor when entering the fight. Many of them had to purchase one with their own money. So if the US was not issuing body armors to its troops who were about to face enemy fire, don't blame China for not issuing to its troops who are not facing any immediate danger.

As to those other countries you mentioned, many of them are fighting rebels. So they too are facing enemy fire and should be protected accordingly. Also, many of them are small enough, so that issuing a few thousand is no big deal.

Additionally, the kinds of body armor that we think about have been designed and used since WWI. Kevlar vests were designed and issued in limited fashion in the late 60's. Yet, these armors were never in the kind of wide spread usage like today. Why? It's all about the enemy. Most of the fights we see today are polarized fight between an advanced forc and an inferior one who primarily uses gorrela tactics. With its troops constantly exposed to hidden enemy even while staying stationary, the advanced force has no choose but to protect its troops with body armor. This kind of situation is not common in a fight between more equivalent foes, thus less need for body armor. This is why body armor was not issued to troops in mass during the Cold War even though the danger of a war was immediate and looked imminent.
Click to expand...

How come people don't get it!!!! Vast majority of casualties and injuries during large scale battles, especially in those WWII style ones you're talking about (equal level strength), were caused by shockwaves and especially shrapnels. Rarely were they caused by direct gunfire. Howitzers, missiles, mines and etc, cause the most casualties.

Anyhow, the fundamental problem is the PLA logistics bureau is cheap.
 
P

PeoplesPoster

Junior Member
I'm sorry, but it takes a certain level of denial to make the argument that no armor is better than armor. Especially when it's been proven to work through combat trials. Even if the armor does not "stop" all damage, it prevent you from dying. What are we going to argue next? That bows and arrows are better than rifles? That a cavalry charge is still a viable military tactic?

This won't be happening to someone without armor.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
PeoplesPoster said:
I'm sorry, but it takes a certain level of denial to make the argument that no armor is better than armor. Especially when it's been proven to work through combat trials. Even if the armor does not "stop" all damage, it prevent you from dying. What are we going to argue next? That bows and arrows are better than rifles? That a cavalry charge is still a viable military tactic?

This won't be happening to someone without armor.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

This is not about denial. If there is something wrong with the Chinese, I would not hesitate to point it out. Please to read about the science threads in the members' club if you don't believe me. However, in the case of the body armor, I truly believe is is about the doctrines. What the PLA believe may not be correct, but they definitely have their legitimate reason not to mass equip their troops with body armor. Most likely, they don't think it's neccessary to issue armor when China is not at war with anyone. Say all you want about training with the armor. Like Wolfi has been saying, the PLA has been training uth excess weight for a long time. It's very possible that they had the armor in mind when they designed their training course. And another fellow poster pointed out not long ago, China does have many types of armor, which shows they are actively researching body armor.

Nobody can deny the fact that body armor does not last long. I think the typical lifetime is 5 years. Each unit costs couple thousand dollars. The PLA has 2.5 million troops. You do the math. Logistically, I don't think there is a nation under the sun that can afford to shell out that much money every 5 years when it is not absolutely needed. Tis is especially the case with the PLA when they desperately need to advance in all aspects of military. The money can be spent on stealth fighters, carriers, missiles, etc. to them, these items might be the priority, especially when China is NOT at war with anyone.

We all care about the safety of our houses and everybody agrees that metal bars increases the security. However, only houses in a bad neighborhood have metal bars on their windows and doors. It doesn't mean the houses in good neighborhood don't care about security. It just means it is not necessary to have them. Same goes with the body armor. China does not need it at the moment. And it can be substituted easily with weights in training. And The money can be better spent on stealth fighters and tanks, which, if designed well and used well, may be much more useful than body armor in time of a war. Just think about losing air superiority to your enemy. No amount of body armor can save you from enemy bombs and missiles. On the other hand, your body amor can only be useful with the air and sea fully secured.

And unlike the US, who leads the world in almost all aspects of military, China still lags behind. So China has to pick a priority and allocate its funds wisely. When it's not absolutely needed, the fund can be diverted to something much more urgent. And I think everyone here should agree that China needs to advance so many aspects of their military in order to actually get a chance to use their body armor in a battle against an advanced foe.

We all love a ferrari, and I believe many of us can actually afford one if we really have to buy one. Let's face it, a ferrari is about the price of a house and many of us have houses. But does that mean we have to buy one?
 
Last edited:
P

paintgun

Senior Member
vesicles said:
This is not about denial. If there is something wrong with the Chinese, I would not hesitate to point it out. Please to read about the science threads in the members' club if you don't believe me. However, in the case of the body armor, I truly believe is is about the doctrines. What the PLA believe may not be correct, but they definitely have their legitimate reason not to mass equip their troops with body armor. Most likely, they don't think it's neccessary to issue armor when China is not at war with anyone. Say all you want about training with the armor. Like Wolfi has been saying, the PLA has been training uth excess weight for a long time. It's very possible that they had the armor in mind when they designed their training course. And another fellow poster pointed out not long ago, China does have many types of armor, which shows they are actively researching body armor.

Nobody can deny the fact that body armor does not last long. I think the typical lifetime is 5 years. Each unit costs couple thousand dollars. The PLA has 2.5 million troops. You do the math. Logistically, I don't think there is a nation under the sun that can afford to shell out that much money every 5 years when it is not absolutely needed. Tis is especially the case with the PLA when they desperately need to advance in all aspects of military. The money can be spent on stealth fighters, carriers, missiles, etc. to them, these items might be the priority, especially when China is NOT at war with anyone.

We all care about the safety of our houses and everybody agrees that metal bars increases the security. However, only houses in a bad neighborhood have metal bars on their windows and doors. It doesn't mean the houses in good neighborhood don't care about security. It just means it is not necessary to have them. Same goes with the body armor. China does not need it at the moment. And it can be substituted easily with weights in training. And The money can be better spent on stealth fighters and tanks, which, if designed well and used well, may be much more useful than body armor in time of a war. Just think about losing air superiority to your enemy. No amount of body armor can save you from enemy bombs and missiles. On the other hand, your body amor can only be useful with the air and sea fully secured.

And unlike the US, who leads the world in almost all aspects of military, China still lags behind. So China has to pick a priority and allocate its funds wisely. When it's not absolutely needed, the fund can be diverted to something much more urgent. And I think everyone here should agree that China needs to advance so many aspects of their military in order to actually get a chance to use their body armor in a battle against an advanced foe.

We all love a ferrari, and I believe many of us can actually afford one if we really have to buy one. Let's face it, a ferrari is about the price of a house and many of us have houses. But does that mean we have to buy one?
Click to expand...

PLA does not have to equip all 2.5 mil strong army with body armor, and it does not make sense at all to do so

Average body armor does not cost upwards of a thousand, even more so with China's mass production

Training with 'just' more weight is not training with body armor, no matter how you do it

the last few statements of yours is even logically confusing

---------------

i never replied to the American example of soldiers buying body armors because it's not relevant at all, but it's becoming the lynch pin of some arguments here

US soldiers have the habit of buying their own extra equipments if they think it's necessary, even when they have been issued with a standard one, if they feel it is not adequate to protect their life or their safety, even if they have to pay it out of their own pocket

another anecdote would be US soldiers ordering off the shelf steel plating to uparmor their humvees, with their own money
would one conjecture it that the US army does not care about vehicle protection?

i do not disagree that PLA deems that it is not necessary to equip its soldiers en masse with body armors for now,
but this is something that needs to be changed, if not starting from their best units
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top