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

B

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tomboy said:
Do PLAGF *actually* have the least funding? From what I heard funding is split mostly equally between the three major branches. Other than infantry PLAGF is doing pretty well off with a dozen of new types of IFV with advanced systems such as GL-6 APS and unmanned turrets coming into service and next gen MBT is on the horizon also Z-XX heavy attack heli is coming soon. These are all big ticket items also equipping a mechanised brigade with all the latest equipment is no cheaper than a naval destroyer etc and with the most service member of all branches just trying to pay everyone's wage probably amount to a huge sum.
Click to expand...
PLAGF is a large army that has been updating its equipment very quickly in the past 30 years. They don't have much useful cold war equipment to make the troops "look capable"
Infantry is basically a low priority for funding, regardless of branch. The infamous paratrooper PC purchased for only $70, and the QMK-171, which is similar in performance to the ACOG, only costs $100. On the one hand, some of the equipment is really bad, and on the other hand, it is really cheap.
 
Z

zlixOS

New Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
And what is so magical about super expensive FN SCAR? Does it fire any special bullet that is even marginally better other than good old AK-47?

Let's face it, infantry combat doctrine and technology has been set in stone since WW2 and haven't changed one bit. We are still using assault rifles, grenades and trenches. US tried to change things with OICW, but we know how that turned out.

The goal of the infantry has always been the same, to be eyes on the ground. They will idenity enemy and bring in the artilley, the air strike and direct the tank assaults. Very few enemies actually die by Infantry gun fire.

If China can upgrade infantry but still have much cheaper cost then that is the best thing. There is no point trying to match western countries with super inflated budgets who can't even field a 100k army. Countries like france, UK have tiny armies despite having 50 billon dollar plus budgets. They over spent on each soldiers. China is doing the more efficient approach.
Click to expand...
Yes, cost-effectiveness is far more important than having the most Gucci tactical drip. But the money was spent! The PLA underwent two rounds of infantry equipment upgrades! And of them we got a gimped BALCS vest, a worst-of-both-worlds AR AK thingamabob, zippered boots which fall apart in months, and a helmet and NOD that look like they came out of an AI image generator. It's so absurd it's almost asinine. Couldn't they have gotten like a real tactical gear industry guy from like the airsoft market to make an innovative plate carrier? Couldn't they have contacted ADNV to make a half-decent digital NVG device? Those would be pennies in comparison to what would eventually be needed to bring the equipment up to par with the US!

It's not that I think the PLAGF infantry right now needs to undergo another overhaul --- as you said the equipment is chabuduo enough, but all of these issues point to larger issues of professionalism, competency, and innovation within the army's ranks.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
zlixOS said:
Yes, cost-effectiveness is far more important than having the most Gucci tactical drip. But the money was spent! The PLA underwent two rounds of infantry equipment upgrades! And of them we got a gimped BALCS vest, a worst-of-both-worlds AR AK thingamabob, zippered boots which fall apart in months, and a helmet and NOD that look like they came out of an AI image generator. It's so absurd it's almost asinine. Couldn't they have gotten like a real tactical gear industry guy from like the airsoft market to make an innovative plate carrier? Couldn't they have contacted ADNV to make a half-decent digital NVG device? Those would be pennies in comparison to what would eventually be needed to bring the equipment up to par with the US!

It's not that I think the PLAGF infantry right now needs to undergo another overhaul --- as you said the equipment is chabuduo enough, but all of these issues point to larger issues of professionalism, competency, and innovation within the army's ranks.
Click to expand...
They should have consulted 16 year old SOFs on Twitter
 
Wrought

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
zlixOS said:
Yes, cost-effectiveness is far more important than having the most Gucci tactical drip. But the money was spent! The PLA underwent two rounds of infantry equipment upgrades! And of them we got a gimped BALCS vest, a worst-of-both-worlds AR AK thingamabob, zippered boots which fall apart in months, and a helmet and NOD that look like they came out of an AI image generator. It's so absurd it's almost asinine. Couldn't they have gotten like a real tactical gear industry guy from like the airsoft market to make an innovative plate carrier? Couldn't they have contacted ADNV to make a half-decent digital NVG device? Those would be pennies in comparison to what would eventually be needed to bring the equipment up to par with the US!

It's not that I think the PLAGF infantry right now needs to undergo another overhaul --- as you said the equipment is chabuduo enough, but all of these issues point to larger issues of professionalism, competency, and innovation within the army's ranks.
Click to expand...

Without knowing the original budget/goals of the upgrade effort, you have no ground to stand on. Perhaps it was a poorly-funded half-assed job from the start, and this is the best that could be expected.
 
B

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
zlixOS said:
Yes, cost-effectiveness is far more important than having the most Gucci tactical drip. But the money was spent! The PLA underwent two rounds of infantry equipment upgrades! And of them we got a gimped BALCS vest, a worst-of-both-worlds AR AK thingamabob, zippered boots which fall apart in months, and a helmet and NOD that look like they came out of an AI image generator. It's so absurd it's almost asinine. Couldn't they have gotten like a real tactical gear industry guy from like the airsoft market to make an innovative plate carrier? Couldn't they have contacted ADNV to make a half-decent digital NVG device? Those would be pennies in comparison to what would eventually be needed to bring the equipment up to par with the US!

It's not that I think the PLAGF infantry right now needs to undergo another overhaul --- as you said the equipment is chabuduo enough, but all of these issues point to larger issues of professionalism, competency, and innovation within the army's ranks.
Click to expand...
In fact, both 21 system monocular and ANDV use Rockchip chips, it is still a funding issues.

ADNV manufacturer revealed that PLA purchased its military versions on a small scale, most likely for SOF. Where as 21 system monocular should have been issued to most if not every infantryman, so the purchase price was kept very low.

And you have to consider the time difference. The bidding time of BBG-19 and 21 system monocular was much earlier than ADNV, probably before 2018. It can be said that PLA proved that digital NV was actually usable, and exposed some problems, then led to the birth of ADNV in 2023. A 5-year technology gap should not be underestimated
 
Last edited:
B

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
CrazyHorse said:
Any body who knows anything knows that zippered boots are a bad idea, which points to the guys in charge of buying these pieces of equipment know nothing.
Click to expand...
In fact, the design also took into account the early feedback from the troops. Troops actually OK with the zipper design, but the zipper they chose was too cheap and therefore not durable, military-grade zippers just not as cheap as they think.

What the troops really don’t like is the suede, which is difficult to clean after getting wet. I have also bought this type of boots myself, problem is indeed serious
 
Last edited:
by78

by78

General
bsdnf said:
Troops actually OK with the zipper design, but the zipper they chose was too cheap and therefore not durable, military-grade zippers just not as cheap as they think.
Click to expand...

I suspect peacetime troops are always going to approve boots with zippers simply because they're far more convenient to put on and take off. Combat is a stern instructor who will teach them otherwise.
 
P

pikusharp1

New Member
Registered Member
bsdnf said:
In fact, the design also took into account the early feedback from the troops. Troops actually OK with the zipper design, but the zipper they chose was too cheap and therefore not durable, military-grade zippers just not as cheap as they think.

What the troops really don’t like is the suede, which is difficult to clean after getting wet. I have also bought this type of boots myself, problem is indeed serious
Click to expand...
I dont think you can design a zipper that is strong enough for that kind of constant stress and abuse. Its lucky all the boots problem are showing up in peace time instead of being strong enough to only show when in war.
 
Aniah

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
pikusharp1 said:
I dont think you can design a zipper that is strong enough for that kind of constant stress and abuse. Its lucky all the boots problem are showing up in peace time instead of being strong enough to only show when in war.
Click to expand...
The feedback loop is pretty quick these days. I'm sure they have an new model in development that takes into account these new issues. Type 19 to Type 21 was what? 2-3 years? That's not bad for the feedback to come in, and new adjustments are made. Compare this to the US Universal Camo Pattern, which stayed on from 2004-2019, even after complaints were coming in within the first 2 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top