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

polati · 2024-11-20T04:56:43-0500

Blitzo said:
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.

Once again not talking about the average infantry force here, but rather SOF made for conducting specific specialised missions. The point I was making is that improving SOF equipment (Not all infantry) is not much more costly than compared to a small european military. As learned from the Sino-Vietnamese war, you do still need SOF for infiltration missions, recon, rear-line sabotage and etc. I believe focusing heavily on aspects of the ground force such as IFVs, Artillery, and heavy firepower does make a lot of sense, but not when you forgo special forces whose role can't just be replaced by pumping the budget elsewhere. This is like going all out on drones, and leaving your MBT force to rot because drones have much higher yield/cost ratio.

One thing that should definitely be on the PLA's mind for all infantry thought, is the widespread usage of fpv drones and etc, at least much more than what is currently seen.

Blitzo · 2024-11-20T05:21:39-0500

polati said:
Once again not talking about the average infantry force here, but rather SOF made for conducting specific specialised missions. The point I was making is that improving SOF equipment (Not all infantry) is not much more costly than compared to a small european military. As learned from the Sino-Vietnamese war, you do still need SOF for infiltration missions, recon, rear-line sabotage and etc. I believe focusing heavily on aspects of the ground force such as IFVs, Artillery, and heavy firepower does make a lot of sense, but not when you forgo special forces whose role can't just be replaced by pumping the budget elsewhere. This is like going all out on drones, and leaving your MBT force to rot because drones have much higher yield/cost ratio.

One thing that should definitely be on the PLA's mind for all infantry thought, is the widespread usage of fpv drones and etc, at least much more than what is currently seen.

If you're specifically only talking about SOF, then that is potentially affordable (your previous post included some other unit types -- incidentally I think PLA snipers are reasonably kitted out).

That said, even for SOF I don't think the PLA would have that much opportunity to use them in the conflicts they're planning for.
I think highly equipped SOF are also a little bit overrated in conventional war against a modern military foe, especially if you yourself lack the sort of very high end enabling capabilities like the US possesses (extensive extensive extensive special force aviation and insertion capabilities). Against an opposing national military with their own extensive conventional capabilities, SOF is basically just light infantry but a bit more daring and a bit better equipped, and mileage may vary.

That said, the idea of widespread kitting out SOF units in a competent way probably won't break the bank, but I suspect they also don't see the value in doing so at scale yet.
But I agree if they wanted to introduce more some more high end infantry equipment as standard, starting it among SOF first would make sense, and could act as seedcorn knowledge base if they ever felt they had the ability to distribute it in a more widespread manner.

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

polati

Junior Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General