Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.

BoraTas said:

Not really. Infantry is mostly for observing, holding ground and mopping up nowadays. It doesn't do major defensive or offensive ops unless the army is desperate. Armored vehicles and arty do those. The most important skill of infantry is concealing themselves on the battlefield. You can equip your infantry with WW1 equipment (radio excluded from this) and still do just fine if other things are good. I am personally satisfied with what PLA is doing. They are spending money on networking and communications instead of 2000 USD rifles and 10k NVGs.

Click to expand...

You do realize that mopping up enemy infantry and observing/patrolling are a major part of major offensive and defensive maneuvers and that infantry ride in IFV's right? I'll keep this minimal since this can basically become a post that is as large as that of Markoz81 and is already off topic. Based on what we have seen in Ukraine and previous actual conventional conflicts, infantry did the following:
- Security on the flanks and screening in the front during offensive and defensive operations:

• As we have seen in the war in Ukraine, armored vehicles that ride into the battlefield with a lack of infantry to support them get killed. Simple as that. Infantry resolves this issue since they can rapidly Act as flank security and clear out any potential infantry that can slow down or even stop the offense. They can also bog down the enemy to give other units time to regroup during defensive operations. This is shown in the ongoing Bahkmut conflict. There are other examples of this in previous wars as well.

- Accessing austere terrain and overcoming fortifications that are inaccessible to vehicles:

• Your requirements for an offense or defense may be infantry centric if your terrain is too inaccessible for vehicles. Jungles, forests, urban settlements, tundras, and mountains are some of the austere environments in which vehicles will generally fail or slow down which will affect the maneuver's tempo. Infantry can meet those requirements easily. The Sino-Vietnam War (1979), current Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and 1973 Yom Kippur War have shown that infantry remains the queen of the battlefied in a austere environment.

- Initial rapid seizure of designated key locations and rapid reinforcements:

• Infantry remains the smallest defensive and offensive arms. They can be transported by helicopters and ready to fight almost instantaneously. They can be driven to defensive lines with MANPAD's and ATGM's. This gives them the ability to rapidly seize key objectives and reiforce the front line.

There are other functions they can perform, but I'll be going off topic.
So, with all of that in mind, am I saying infantry is the ultimate arm of war? No, but combined arms, which is the reigning form of engaging in battle since the age of slingshots and sticks, require all military arms to be good at their tasks in order to solve any problem they may face. So the infantry needs the necessary equipment to do their job well enough regardless of the time and terrain. Yes they don't need overexpensive equipment. However there needs to be enough for the infantry to execute their tasks. If your infantry is equipped with s**t equipment to the point in which they can't keep up with the offensive or defensive maneuver, even if they have radioes and regardless of how good the other arms are, the infantry will now be the weak link in the chain, and a good commander can take advantage of such weakness to dismantle an entire offensive or defensive maneuver.

BoraTas said:

Not really. Infantry is mostly for observing, holding ground and mopping up nowadays. It doesn't do major defensive or offensive ops unless the army is desperate. Armored vehicles and arty do those. The most important skill of infantry is concealing themselves on the battlefield. You can equip your infantry with WW1 equipment (radio excluded from this) and still do just fine if other things are good. I am personally satisfied with what PLA is doing. They are spending money on networking and communications instead of 2000 USD rifles and 10k NVGs.

Click to expand...

Just a word of caution. The assumption that firepower alone could break the enemy and that infantry are only for mopping up has proven to be wrong in every war (except for desert storm) thus far. This is how one end up with the tragedy that are the BTGs and an immobile frontline despite gross firepower overmatch.

Infantry in fortified positions can survive heavy firepower for an inordinate amount of time. PLA don't have the political capital for an unlimited bombardment phase like NATO, it is imperative that the fight be carried into night time in time sensitive operations like Taiwan.

LawLeadsToPeace said:

You do realize that mopping up enemy infantry and observing/patrolling are a major part of major offensive and defensive maneuvers and that infantry ride in IFV's right? I'll keep this minimal since this can basically become a post that is as large as that of Markoz81 and is already off topic. Based on what we have seen in Ukraine and previous actual conventional conflicts, infantry did the following:
- Security on the flanks and screening in the front during offensive and defensive operations:

• As we have seen in the war in Ukraine, armored vehicles that ride into the battlefield with a lack of infantry to support them get killed. Simple as that. Infantry resolves this issue since they can rapidly Act as flank security and clear out any potential infantry that can slow down or even stop the offense. They can also bog down the enemy to give other units time to regroup during defensive operations. This is shown in the ongoing Bahkmut conflict. There are other examples of this in previous wars as well.

- Accessing austere terrain and overcoming fortifications that are inaccessible to vehicles:

• Your requirements for an offense or defense may be infantry centric if your terrain is too inaccessible for vehicles. Jungles, forests, urban settlements, tundras, and mountains are some of the austere environments in which vehicles will generally fail or slow down which will affect the maneuver's tempo. Infantry can meet those requirements easily. The Sino-Vietnam War (1979), current Russo-Ukrainian conflict, and 1973 Yom Kippur War have shown that infantry remains the queen of the battlefied in a austere environment.

- Initial rapid seizure of designated key locations and rapid reinforcements:

• Infantry remains the smallest defensive and offensive arms. They can be transported by helicopters and ready to fight almost instantaneously. They can be driven to defensive lines with MANPAD's and ATGM's. This gives them the ability to rapidly seize key objectives and reiforce the front line.

There are other functions they can perform, but I'll be going off topic.
So, with all of that in mind, am I saying infantry is the ultimate arm of war? No, but combined arms, which is the reigning form of engaging in battle since the age of slingshots and sticks, require all military arms to be good at their tasks in order to solve any problem they may face. So the infantry needs the necessary equipment to do their job well enough regardless of the time and terrain. Yes they don't need overexpensive equipment. However there needs to be enough for the infantry to execute their tasks. If your infantry is equipped with s**t equipment to the point in which they can't keep up with the offensive or defensive maneuver, even if they have radioes and regardless of how good the other arms are, the infantry will now be the weak link in the chain, and a good commander can take advantage of such weakness to dismantle an entire offensive or defensive maneuver.

Click to expand...

Breadbox said:

Just a word of caution. The assumption that firepower alone could break the enemy and that infantry are only for mopping up has proven to be wrong in every war (except for desert storm) thus far. This is how one end up with the tragedy that are the BTGs and an immobile frontline despite gross firepower overmatch.

Infantry in fortified positions can survive heavy firepower for an inordinate amount of time. PLA don't have the political capital for an unlimited bombardment phase like NATO, it is imperative that the fight be carried into night time in time sensitive operations like Taiwan.

Click to expand...

As far as I read the vast majority of deaths in Ukraine are caused by fragments. Even for the Russian side. Assaulting fortified positions without AFVs would be exceedingly risky. I am pretty convinced that infantry is 90% about enduring enemy bombing while continuing to observe and act as a delaying force against determined pushes by the enemy. This doesn't mean AFVs don't benefit from infantry presence ofc but the paradigm we see in Ukraine is much different from what we saw in Afghanistan. Almost the opposite.

Anyway off topic...

BoraTas said:

As far as I read the vast majority of deaths in Ukraine are caused by fragments. Even for the Russian side. Assaulting fortified positions without AFVs would be exceedingly risky. I am pretty convinced that infantry is 90% about enduring enemy bombing while continuing to observe and act as a delaying force against determined pushes by the enemy. This doesn't mean AFVs don't benefit from infantry presence ofc but the paradigm we see in Ukraine is much different from what we saw in Afghanistan. Almost the opposite.

Anyway off topic...

Click to expand...

Correct, vast majority of casualties of most wars are caused by artillery, but this is also because maneuver forces are unable to advance, hence a static frontline where only branch that can hit anything is artillery, hardly an ideal situation. Heavy indirect firepower gives diminishing returns on dispersed enemies that are weak to direct maneuver forces, but we can observe in Ukraine that Russian infantry are too weak(in terms of numbers as well as quality, I would say coordination with other branches requires a heavy investment into infantry equipment) to exploit even dispersed defenders.

Russians don't lack AFV or artillery, they have more than anyone else before the war and but lack good infantry, you can see them losing AFV by the hundreds without moving much. Russia is a victim of the simplistic statistical approach which led them down this path.

There will be more movement once the mud dries up and the armor can move outside the main roads where the opposing force has prepared firing positions.

BoraTas said:

As far as I read the vast majority of deaths in Ukraine are caused by fragments. Even for the Russian side. Assaulting fortified positions without AFVs would be exceedingly risky. I am pretty convinced that infantry is 90% about enduring enemy bombing while continuing to observe and act as a delaying force against determined pushes by the enemy. This doesn't mean AFVs don't benefit from infantry presence ofc but the paradigm we see in Ukraine is much different from what we saw in Afghanistan. Almost the opposite.

Anyway off topic...

Click to expand...

It’s not about the kills. Having good infantry equipment and rifles allows you to gain fire superiority in an effective manner. It pins the enemy force down to allow other slower but more powerful fire support to fire upon and finish off the target. That’s why body armor, night vision, optics and a decent rifle are an important. Without such equipment, an infantry company cannot pin the enemy down, much less sustain such fire superiority to the point in which they can accurately call in artillery. In China’s case, the Chinese are working hard on their multifunctional NVG’s and started distributing scopes and 191’s to everyone while keeping the 5.8mm round due to the following:
1. For the 5.8mm and 191 series with optics, the average infantryman can carry more rounds, thereby giving them more suppressive fire capabilities. Also a modular rifle with superior ergonomics allow them to shoot more comfortably from more directions, thus improving the soldier’s ability to achieve fire superiority.
2. The multifunctional NVG’s allow the Chinese infantrymen to maneuver around and designate potential enemy locations or targets, thereby increasing the accuracy of fire support that ranges from machine guns to precision rockets.
3. The body armor keeps the average infantryman in the fight longer, thereby allowing their unit, as a whole, to sustain their fire to pin the enemy.

In the modern era, rapid and accurate target acquisition and superior firepower work together to annihilate an enemy target. The average infantryman needs to have equipment like the multifunctional NOD’s and optics to do so while executing their tasks, which can determine the success of an operation.

BoraTas said:

Not really. Infantry is mostly for observing, holding ground and mopping up nowadays. It doesn't do major defensive or offensive ops unless the army is desperate. Armored vehicles and arty do those. The most important skill of infantry is concealing themselves on the battlefield. You can equip your infantry with WW1 equipment (radio excluded from this) and still do just fine if other things are good. I am personally satisfied with what PLA is doing. They are spending money on networking and communications instead of 2000 USD rifles and 10k NVGs.

Click to expand...

We will just have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day a well equipped ground forces including obviously infantry is still needed to secure victory and win the war.
Equipping them with WW 1 equipment as you quoted would prove fatal in any modern day conflict EVEN if other assets are evenly matched with the opposing force.

Anyways I feel like there is no reason for the PLA to be slacking off on providing proper modern tech and combat equipment for the PLA, and even more so for the special forces, who, given that they are not a massive force, should easily be able to acquire the best combat equipment available given China's military budget. If the Navy and Airforce have received such high tech equipment to complete the combined arms network proper military equipment needs to be given and prioritised before a weakness arises which can be exploited e.g. being incapable of fighting at night, or being outmatched in detection by the US army's E-NVGs.

polati said:

Anyways I feel like there is no reason for the PLA to be slacking off on providing proper modern tech and combat equipment for the PLA, and even more so for the special forces, who, given that they are not a massive force, should easily be able to acquire the best combat equipment available given China's military budget. If the Navy and Airforce have received such high tech equipment to complete the combined arms network proper military equipment needs to be given and prioritised before a weakness arises which can be exploited e.g. being incapable of fighting at night, or being outmatched in detection by the US army's E-NVGs.

Click to expand...

Probably only possible if China increase their defense budget to 3% of GDP and allocate most of it to PLAGF.

Patches for various service branches, garrisons, units, academies, and institutions, to be worn with combat uniforms.