Damn. Maybe the PLA should hire you for advice. You seem to know warfare very well behind that keyboard of yours.
Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
Maybe the PLA should stop holding back their potential just to pander to this " We're all about peace and no violence " that is false, it's blatantly obvious they have ridiculous policies they must follow that is outright unnecessary.
Delusional, unfounded claim.
These arent sold due to nice looking ads, that's something only civilians care about.
PLA inf equipment is rugged, light and functional. That hits the trifecta for use in modern battlefields, hence why both Russia and Ukraine are big customers.
Compare this to heavy US made night vision gear. Looks good for airsofters and colonial policemen, essentially both different types of cosplayers. When you're under artillery and air strikes, you don't want to be wearing 20 kgs of cosplay material.
That's every army besides the Russian and Ukrainian ones. And apparently the armies with combat experience like PLA gear, so right back at you.
It doesn't pass the smell test that countries that in general make worse tools with worse manufacturing tolerances and worse base materials would magically have better infantry equipment, which in the end is simply another type of tools.
PLA gear is aimed at the type of war they're going to fight. Obviously flimsy looking NODs will break more easily under fire and need to be replaced more often (something China can easily do). And from the Russians, we have heard that PLA armor is highly durable and lightweight, but must be often replaced after they've been damaged (also something China can easily do).
The trade off is that a relatively unburdened soldier will more easily dodge enemy fire. Expensive and heavy does not necessarily translate to better survivability in real combat conditions.
How many western troops have the experience of:
1. Glide bombed.
2. Shelled by 120mm+ artillery
3. Under fire by incendiary
4. Fired at by atgm of Javelin generation or better
There is nothing wrong to acknowledge that armies which don't have the above experiences do not fit the criteria of having undergone intensive warfighting and as such may have institutional deficiencies
Of course such institutional deficiencies can be countered if the command is humble, willing to learn and open minded.
Do you however think that is a description that fits the prevailing military culture in those countries?
You first made claims that those equipments at the show are useless as PLA hadn’t fought in wars for a longtime. Then you made the above accusation. All based on what? How/where did you get all those inside informations? Care to share…
?????
US made or US derivative infantry gear is widely used all over the world. I don't see very much PLA gear being used at all, except the occasional holosun optic. In the modern age, the PLA is perfectly capable of producing high quality, high end, high durability gear, AS WELL AS producing tons of it. For example, argus, ADNV, etc. As you've seen in the ukraine war, whilst drones, artillery, and high caliber weapons do most of the work, when it comes to infantry fighting, you still need well equipped infantry with superior capabilities to hold trenches, attack fortifications, and plug gaps in the line.
I would definitely argue that having higher quality infantry gear (Thermals, thermal fusion, NVGs) in particular is worth the tradeoff in weight. You don't see videos of soldiers escaping a hail of gunfire by doing rolls or fancy corner peeks, or any specific movement tricks.
The PLA is perfectly capable of fielding a large quantity of very well equipped infantry, it has the budget, the technological ability, and the manufacturing capability. And it can choose to do so whilst also developing the air force and navy. I just hope they realise soon enough that infantry capability is still important in the modern battlefield. Because there is definitely a lack of institutional knowledge, by far the most obvious for the ground force, which will take time to develop, unlike the issuing of high end gear to every grunt.
US made or US derivative infantry gear is widely used all over the world. I don't see very much PLA gear being used at all, except the occasional holosun optic. In the modern age, the PLA is perfectly capable of producing high quality, high end, high durability gear, AS WELL AS producing tons of it. For example, argus, ADNV, etc. As you've seen in the ukraine war, whilst drones, artillery, and high caliber weapons do most of the work, when it comes to infantry fighting, you still need well equipped infantry with superior capabilities to hold trenches, attack fortifications, and plug gaps in the line.
I would definitely argue that having higher quality infantry gear (Thermals, thermal fusion, NVGs) in particular is worth the tradeoff in weight. You don't see videos of soldiers escaping a hail of gunfire by doing rolls or fancy corner peeks, or any specific movement tricks.
The PLA is perfectly capable of fielding a large quantity of very well equipped infantry, it has the budget, the technological ability, and the manufacturing capability. And it can choose to do so whilst also developing the air force and navy. I just hope they realise soon enough that infantry capability is still important in the modern battlefield. Because there is definitely a lack of institutional knowledge, by far the most obvious for the ground force, which will take time to develop, unlike the issuing of high end gear to every grunt.
They won't "realize" that because they know a few dozen VLO tactical aircraft or a few hundred BMs they could buy instead of that are infinitely more consequential.
GWOT and the zero casualty policy (because these wars were hard to justify, to start with) Western govts adhered to really distorted people's view on how much investment the infantry should get. The statistics from World War I to the Russian-Ukrainian war are available. Small arms cause very few casualties compared to artillery, air power and AFVs. And most of the time it is the machine guns doing most of the job. Rifle engagement distances are really close. The second figure is for WW2 and it is about the maximum distance men fired at. ~85% reported that they never fired their rifles at ranges greater than 300 yards in daytime offensive action. So I don't see why 3rd gen analog night vision is a must or everyone needs thermals.
Stacking on more equipment doesn't compete with having less/flimsier equipment. It competes with the soldier's stamina.
Looking at the elite units in the Ukraine war, you find none that go around in full GWOT colonial police cosplay.
In the vast majority of cases, soldiers are killed by artillery, mines and vehicle machine guns. I think PLA have studied this phenomenon well, and are willing to make kit decisions based on reality, not pride.
Given the current status quo of (nearly) all major militaries lacking institutional experience, those armies that are more open minded will have a relative advantage.
Looking at the elite units in the Ukraine war, you find none that go around in full GWOT colonial police cosplay.
In the vast majority of cases, soldiers are killed by artillery, mines and vehicle machine guns. I think PLA have studied this phenomenon well, and are willing to make kit decisions based on reality, not pride.
Given the current status quo of (nearly) all major militaries lacking institutional experience, those armies that are more open minded will have a relative advantage.