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

Blitzo said:

I actually think it does pass the smell test, because we aren't talking about whether the PLA's procurement of its tools are a reflection of the PRC's manufacturing prowess, but rather about the PLA's procurement priorities in context of their needs.

Very few, and this is exactly the point which I am making.

Western military forces during GWOT had significantly refined their infantry, small unit and air support tactics and procedures in permissive environments, while allowing their high end air-naval-missile warfare capabilities and high end ground warfare (artillery, fires) to wither (or at least, to not advance at the same extent).

Over the last few years I've written things along the lines of "who cares about infantry gear" in relation to the PLA, and that isn't only because PLA infantry gear remains relatively backwards.
It is because we know what the PLA is prioritizing instead of infantry gear.

At the marco, military level they are prioritizing the cream of the crop in terms of technology and systems and training for air, naval, and missile forces, versus ground forces. At the individual service level for the PLAGF, they are prioritizing long range fires (large rocket artillery, tube artillery), ISR and networking, and logistics, followed by certain AFVs, and at the very last, individual infantry gear.

The idea that the PLA would procure individual infantry gear like NODs may be less viable or capable than foreign counterparts, makes a lot of sense when we consider the reality that infantry gear is at the bottom of the list of priorities for the PLAGF, when the PLAGF is at the bottom of the PLA's military services as well.
Then if we consider that funding for a military service also influences the ability for you to robustly train, upskill, do capable R&D, versus western military forces who spent nearly a couple of decades conducting war focused on infantry gear (to the detriment of funding their high end air/naval/missile/ground warfare capabilities) --- then yes it is not only reasonable to me, but it is the only conclusion that should be logical, to believe that the PLA's relative lack of prioritization for infantry gear, as well as relative lack of funding for infantry gear, means that procurement will be relatively suboptimal and unrefined and below other leading military forces with substantial infantry gear.

We are specifically talking about PLA infantry gear and the factors that feed ingo the procurement of such.

The PLA has not been focusing to fight a war requiring ultra high end infantry,

Click to expand...

My point is that we should not assume extra gear means "ultra high end infantry".

I would rather say that "high end infantry" describes infantry that can survive, take ground and win in high intensity combat. And I think China has its own ideas and takes on how high end infantry should be kitted out.

Remember, gear is always competing for the soldier's attention and stamina. If an unit has optimized equipment to massacre barely armed people, that does not necessarily make it a high end unit for real warfare.

Compared to a riot police or a knight in plate armor, the protection kit of Korean war soldiers seems to be backwards. But if you put the whole PVA in modernized plate, I'd bet the war probably goes a lot worse for China. Through this point I'm just trying to say that simplicity should not be conflated for backwardsness.

Especially when we haven't seen that having all these heavy western (or China's versions) gear helps soldiers much in the only major conflict since Vietnam.

Overall the Chinese command I'd think is open minded, they have access to high quality combat info from allies, and they defintely have the resources to build the type of soldiers they want. So I wouldn't outright dismiss their observations and decisions. It'd be another thing if research/experience widely showed that western style gear is the gold standard in high intensity warfare.

Index said:

My point is that we should not assume extra gear means "ultra high end infantry".

I would rather say that "high end infantry" describes infantry that can survive, take ground and win in high intensity combat. And I think China has its own ideas and takes on how high end infantry should be kitted out.

Remember, gear is always competing for the soldier's attention and stamina. If an unit has optimized equipment to massacre barely armed people, that does not necessarily make it a high end unit for real warfare.

Compared to a riot police or a knight in plate armor, the protection kit of Korean war soldiers seems to be backwards. But if you put the whole PVA in modernized plate, I'd bet the war probably goes a lot worse for China. Through this point I'm just trying to say that simplicity should not be conflated for backwardsness.

Especially when we haven't seen that having all these heavy western (or China's versions) gear helps soldiers much in the only major conflict since Vietnam.

Overall the Chinese command I'd think is open minded, they have access to high quality combat info from allies, and they defintely have the resources to build the type of soldiers they want. So I wouldn't outright dismiss their observations and decisions. It'd be another thing if research/experience widely showed that western style gear is the gold standard in high intensity warfare.

Click to expand...

I think "high end infantry" very much is accepted as meaning infantry which are equipped with the most high end of infantry gear that have been developed in recent decades that have proliferated as part of the GWOT.

What you are describing -- as in infantry which is suited to higher intensity ground warfare against an opposing peer, does not necessarily require "high end infantry" because high end infantry has diminishing yields and gains for per dollar spent on high end infantry gear, relative to dollars spent on other systems like artillery, ISR etc.


For the PLA, they are very much cognizant of prioritizing the higher yield capabilities (including for ground warfare) and are relatively light on funding high end infantry capabilities, all in context of a finite budget, and that's completely fine.


It's fine to say that the PLA are equipping their infantry the way that makes sense for them, in the budget reality that they have.
But it should also be non controversial to say "PLA infantry are relatively under equipped compared to other nations leading in the domain of infantry oriented warfare, however higher end infantry is also a domain that is relatively unimportant for the conflicts the PLA are oriented for therefore this relative lack of prioritization and relative inferiority to some leading infantry warfare nations makes sense".

They are replacing all the small arms. From the pistols to the light machine guns. Something they have not done for decades. So I would say they are investing quite a lot in infantry equipment. I have questions about the personal protective gear, knowing that Chinese industry can do better than that, and some people talk about the night vision gear. But the way night vision gear has been evolving, especially the digital gear, it is questionable if it is a good idea to invest on it early.

Blitzo said:

I think "high end infantry" very much is accepted as meaning infantry which are equipped with the most high end of infantry gear that have been developed in recent decades that have proliferated as part of the GWOT.

What you are describing -- as in infantry which is suited to higher intensity ground warfare against an opposing peer, does not necessarily require "high end infantry" because high end infantry has diminishing yields and gains for per dollar spent on high end infantry gear, relative to dollars spent on other systems like artillery, ISR etc.


For the PLA, they are very much cognizant of prioritizing the higher yield capabilities (including for ground warfare) and are relatively light on funding high end infantry capabilities, all in context of a finite budget, and that's completely fine.


It's fine to say that the PLA are equipping their infantry the way that makes sense for them, in the budget reality that they have.
But it should also be non controversial to say "PLA infantry are relatively under equipped compared to other nations leading in the domain of infantry oriented warfare, however higher end infantry is also a domain that is relatively unimportant for the conflicts the PLA are oriented for therefore this relative lack of prioritization and relative inferiority to some leading infantry warfare nations makes sense".

Click to expand...

I agree with you, except I don't think you can crown some countries with "leading infantry warfare" when those countries have not even participated in infantry warfare in the first place, and there's (afaik) no study/practical experience showing that their methods are better in current ongoing conflicts.

It would be akin to crowning a country that has the most efficient ground target strike or airshow performance plane as a leader in aerial warfare.

The infantry experience is closely linked to manning positions under fire, carrying heavy deliveries back and forth in the front, avoiding mines and detecting enemies for fire support while avoiding the enemy's fire support.

Seeing China equipping infantry with motorized carrying devices, easy to carry drones, comms systems, making minesweepers well proliferated, and rugged, simplified gear, tells me this is a high end force that has well analysed the roles of infantry.

They're trying to answer the needs of the modern battlefield, not make heavily armed policemen that fight operationally blind militias/criminals.

Index said:

I agree with you, except I don't think you can crown some countries with "leading infantry warfare" when those countries have not even participated in infantry warfare in the first place, and there's (afaik) no study/practical experience showing that their methods are better in current ongoing conflicts.

It would be akin to crowning a country that has the most efficient ground target strike or airshow performance plane as a leader in aerial warfare.

The infantry experience is closely linked to manning positions under fire, carrying heavy deliveries back and forth in the front, avoiding mines and detecting enemies for fire support while avoiding the enemy's fire support.

Click to expand...

I think this is a matter of our differing views of nomenclature.

What you are describing (bolded) imo is not "infantry warfare" but rather "the infantry experience in combined arms ground warfare".
When I say "infantry warfare" I am saying operations where infantry take the lead, where other complementary combined arms elements on the ground (artillery, mechanization etc) are less important. This is why I make reference to GWOT -- the COIN missions there very much was assisted by infantry having higher end equipment relative to more conventional conflicts.

I think it is important to recognize that PLAGF infantry is more poorly equipped than infantry of other nations with more recent experience in "infantry warfare" but we can also simultaneously recognize that in large scale conventional combined arms ground warfare, the fact that PLA infantry is more poorly equipped than those other nations, is not as important as whether one has more potent logistics, artillery/fires, ISR, networking and mechanization.
If the PLAGF were better funded than today, I'm sure that they would also like to give their infantry higher end equipment as well just so that their forces at every domain were equipped with the best that money could buy, and that such equipment probably would look much like what nations with recent experience/leading in "infantry warfare" would have.

Index said:

Seeing China equipping infantry with motorized carrying devices, easy to carry drones, comms systems, making minesweepers well proliferated, and rugged, simplified gear, tells me this is a high end force that has well analysed the roles of infantry.

They're trying to answer the needs of the modern battlefield, not make heavily armed policemen that fight operationally blind militias/criminals.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that PLAGF infantry have yet to be able to achieve that either, certainly not at any meaningful scale.
The equipment the PLAGF have are simple, but are not necessarily inherently rugged and they are hardly proliferating drones and comms at a scale which is greater than that of other leading infantry warfare nations.

The way the PLAGF are equipping their infantry so far is not yet "answering the needs of the modern battlefield" -- it's more like they're trying to just catch up to begin with. IMO at present there are probably four rough tiers of infantry fitout that exist in the world, very basically summarized in my view as:
0: rifle and slippers (not a tier, this is just any ragtag bunch of irregular militia/insurgents)
1: rifle, no optic, basic vest, basic uniform, basic helmet, highly limited comms
2: rifle, basic optic, vest with optional insert, competent uniform, competent helmet, limited distribution of comms and limited suboptimal NODs
3: rifle, high end optic, modern plate carriers/vests, competent uniform, competent helmet, widespread comms and widespread NODs, limited distribution of integrated computing tablets/phones
4: rifle, high end optic with add ons, competent uniform, competent helmet, near universal comms and near universal NOD, regular distribution of drones, widespread distribution of integrated computing tablets/phones

IMO the PLAGF as a whole is probably at tier 2, trying to get to tier 3. This is actually not bad, because in the 2000s the PLA were much closer to tier 1.
While the US military overall is at tier 3, with certain units approaching tier 4.

by78 said:

A few more images.

Click to expand...

Lugging around 80kg.

by78 said:

Smart visor/display for individual soldiers.

Click to expand...

So their IVAS is back though I count two cameras which makes me question the field of view.

by78 said:

Lugging around 80kg.

Click to expand...

Mike Sparks’s Chinese cousin has been busy I see. Look hand carts are a thing and the military does use them. But having one strapped to you in combat is more a death sentence than a hope. It’s fine for rear line logistics. Moving artillery shells, water cases and the like around a FOB. Hand carts were especially popular in WW2 but more often on the loosing side for a reason.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

So their IVAS is back though I count two cameras which makes me question the field of view.

Mike Sparks’s Chinese cousin has been busy I see. Look hand carts are a thing and the military does use them. But having one strapped to you in combat is more a death sentence than a hope. It’s fine for rear line logistics. Moving artillery shells, water cases and the like around a FOB. Hand carts were especially popular in WW2 but more often on the loosing side for a reason.

Click to expand...

Blood eagle had much better design, being able to attach it to your mount like a pair of Night Vision Goggles.

Blitzo said:

I think "high end infantry" very much is accepted as meaning infantry which are equipped with the most high end of infantry gear that have been developed in recent decades that have proliferated as part of the GWOT.

What you are describing -- as in infantry which is suited to higher intensity ground warfare against an opposing peer, does not necessarily require "high end infantry" because high end infantry has diminishing yields and gains for per dollar spent on high end infantry gear, relative to dollars spent on other systems like artillery, ISR etc.


For the PLA, they are very much cognizant of prioritizing the higher yield capabilities (including for ground warfare) and are relatively light on funding high end infantry capabilities, all in context of a finite budget, and that's completely fine.


It's fine to say that the PLA are equipping their infantry the way that makes sense for them, in the budget reality that they have.
But it should also be non controversial to say "PLA infantry are relatively under equipped compared to other nations leading in the domain of infantry oriented warfare, however higher end infantry is also a domain that is relatively unimportant for the conflicts the PLA are oriented for therefore this relative lack of prioritization and relative inferiority to some leading infantry warfare nations makes sense".

Click to expand...

Even so, if this is the attitude the PLA is taking towards the ground forces (the average army grunt), the equipment of special forces, snipers, and other specialised units should be kept up to modern standards, as their whole purpose relies upon how well they are trained and how good their equipment is. This can be done without even minutely influencing the ground forces budget, even small scale European militaries can do this easily. Furthermore it doesn't exactly look good if as the 2nd most powerful military in the world the infantry (in this case mostly special forces) is worse equipped than most other countries.

polati said:

Even so, if this is the attitude the PLA is taking towards the ground forces (the average army grunt), the equipment of special forces, snipers, and other specialised units should be kept up to modern standards, as their whole purpose relies upon how well they are trained and how good their equipment is. This can be done without even minutely influencing the ground forces budget, even small scale European militaries can do this easily. Furthermore it doesn't exactly look good if as the 2nd most powerful military in the world the infantry (in this case mostly special forces) is worse equipped than most other countries.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, for a military the size of the PLA, including the size of the PLAGF and other services with infantry (PLAMC, PLAAF, even PLARF), equipping their infantry in a modern way similar to leading infantry warfare military forces, would actually cost quite a bit.
Small scale European military forces can equip their infantry well exactly because the ability of them to wage large scale conventional war is more limited, and also because they have to structure their forces to focus on certain aspects of quality rather than balancing it against quantity.

Personally I feel like we are getting to a stage of PLA modernization where they can progressively open the wallet a bit more for their infantry (or perhaps even limited units such as SOF brigades -- modernizing all PLA SOF units to a better equipped standard could be somewhat doable without breaking the bank), however I also strongly understand why they're reluctant to do so, because the money can very legitimately be better spent elsewhere for higher yields, considering the scale and sophistication of the opposing force that they're facing, and how relatively unimportant infantry is for that mission/threat.


However I also take some degree of perverse enjoyment in seeing people accept the reality that well equipped infantry is relatively unimportant in modern large scale conventional warfare, relative to things like networked artillery, networked mechanization, availability of EW, and cross domain fires. It is a shame that video games have glorified "muh operators" and super commandos, rather glorifying the lowly artilleryman and the crew in the fires direction center tinkering with their maps and compasses.