Is China's military equipment 20 years behind the US' army ?

Experience is the watchword which the US and British in particular have. Since WWII, their forces have been engaged in battles. You can have all the hardware, but the actual battle expriences of the officers & men are important. The PLA has been involved in conflicts in Korea, India & Vietnam some years back. It needs to test its current doctrine, strategies and tactics. Somalia & some troubled African States under the auspices of the UN could be useful testing ground.

But ROC has no recent experience either. The last time the fought was against PRC.

True, but defending your own territory is a lot easier than coordinating an amphibious assault.

Experience is the watchword which the US and British in particular have. Since WWII, their forces have been engaged in battles. You can have all the hardware, but the actual battle expriences of the officers & men are important. The PLA has been involved in conflicts in Korea, India & Vietnam some years back. It needs to test its current doctrine, strategies and tactics. Somalia & some troubled African States under the auspices of the UN could be useful testing ground.

Click to expand...

Right. The United States, UK, and France have been deployed abroad into war zones almost continuously for the last 70 years. China has been rewriting its war-fighting manuals but needs a chance to validate them before taking on bigger prey.

Geographer said:

True, but defending your own territory is a lot easier than coordinating an amphibious assault.

Click to expand...

Yeah and ROC has practised for defending their territory just as PLA has practised for attacking it. In the end if you apply the idea that having no real "experience" will degrade actual capabilities then ROCA and PLA will both suffer.

Geographer said:

The most recent PLA acquisitions are almost at the level of the top U.S. military hardware. The last 10 years has been a period of extraordinarily rapid development that few nations could have achieved. But what the PLA sorely lacks is war-fighting experience. There is just no substitute for combat with a real, live, thinking enemy. Experience is a huge edge to the American, French, and British militaries over the PLA. China's isolationism for the last thirty years has cost them valuable experience. Barely any of the current crop of officers have seen combat. And even those that are veterans of the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War have experience with outdated weapons and tactics; in short, what combat experience the PLA possesses is useless in a modern war.

Experience and organization is something that message boards cannot pick up on. We can ogle photos of the J-20 and 052C systems, but we cannot know how an extremely complex system like a multi-department military will operate under battle conditions. Nobody can. Exercises are useful and a critical part of military readiness, but they are no substitute for combat.

Think about how the U.S. army has changed since 2001. The camouflage schemes have changed from desert brown to urban grey. The standard rifle has changed from the M16 to M4 carbine. Body armor is more comprehensive. Humvees are now heavily armored and their gun ports on top shrouded in a turret. UAVs have made become a staple of counter-insurgency. And so on.

The experience deficit is why the PLA needs to fight some small, warm-up, wars before it takes on a big military like Taiwan. If the PLA, full of greenhorns, tries to take on the ROC's military as it is, it will be so much bloodier and costlier than if they cut their teeth on some patsy countries first.

Click to expand...

Most likely fighting in taiwan straits will involve Missile strikes and long range cruise missiles not grunt fighting on the land.

Like they says fight like you trained and train like you fight . Granting all the training is no substitute for real war but to certain degree it will add to the proficiency of the army. China does a lot of training and 1/3 rd of the defense budget is commited for training. Streamlining command,logistic and having joint command for the 4 branches of defense forces will do more toward preparing for the real war than actual fighting rag tag insurgent in low intensity war

Never uderestimate the professionalism of PLA They will rise to occassion when the need arrive . China has been reforming their armed forces for decades now and modernized their logistic and command structure . It is not the same ill prepared army fighting the vietnamese in border war

Re: Are China's military equipments 20 years behind the US' army ?

I don't think so.

I took the weekend too chime in doing research for this comparing What I know of the PLA Ground forces too the US ARMY Isolating my work too Infantry kit,Infantry Small arms, Ground vehicles, Armored Vehicles, and Vertical lift then comparing too Us Forces of the Gulf War. My Conclusion, The PLA as it stands is a Rough Equal too the US Army of the First Gulf War.

Infantry systems. Uniforms the PLA Type 07 vs US Army ACU.
In camouflage the PLA Wins The Conventional ACU as Issued too The Majority of Us forces Sucks. The So Called Universal Camouflage pattern might work better on other planets then it does here on Terra Firma The PLA's pixilated pattern Series is better. Offering effective patterns for woodland and desert as well as a fair Urban pattern Although I take away points for Tropical ( every time i see it I think Tropical drinks, flower necklaces and the Hula.) In 2009 The Army Was forced too admit defeat on the UCP it then adopted Operation Enduring freedom camouflage pattern, Ironically this pattern was rejected in favor of UCP. The Widely successful Multicam is available too US Army and Air force units in Afganistan.
Yet Here The US Army Wins it's first Victory. The OCP ACU's are Fire resistant there is no evidence of the same in the PLA. US Army Not only issues ACU's in FR fabrics but the standard Tee Shirt, versions of the combat boots, Cold weather gear, Ghillie suits, gloves, Balaclava's Just about every US army issued clothing Item save for Track suits is Fire retardant or available in Fire retardant. There is little evidence of the Same in the PLA. The Army Also Gains Ground in Armor integration The ACU was built too be warn with body armor It's pockets, collar, and closiers are made for use with armor The Us Army has even gone so far as too make special Combat shirts too ease the Heat Stress on Her troops in Armor. No Evidence of the Same in the PLA.
Speaking of Armor The US does not issue a single armor system too her Army... she issues Four. The Concealable body armor Offers Level 3A NIJ and Is under evaluation for replacement with a plate carrier offering better, The standard Issue Improved Outer tactical Vest on it's own offering level 3ANIJ with American issue plates Of Boron Carbide Ballistics is a solid level 4 stopping AP rounds. The Modular Body Armor Vest - Army Issued too Rangers and SF and the new Lightweight Soldier plate carrier system issued too troops in Afghanistan. Armor is issued Wide used in Training and known too be very very effective with improvements on going. Common features include Pals webbing, front, back, side protection and Quick release.
By Contrast the PLa's Armor Is rare, Utilizing at best aluminum oxide ceramic Plate at worst Balistic steel and presumably Some form of Kevlar backing. No rating is known on it's protection however A similar system The Ranger Body armor vest also used aluminum oxide plates backed by Kevlar it offered NIJ level 3A protection. Like the Amreican it offers pals webbing but photos indicate lack of side protection as well as doubts of a quick release.
The Standard issue US Army helmet is the ACH Advanced Combat helmet some times called the MICH or Modular Integrated Communications Helmet. a cut down version of the older PASGT helmet with improved materials for lighter weight. Current US Army issue features a Improved suspension padding, Night Vision mounting bracket and in come cases Side and Rear mounting rails either the Ops core ARC or BAE Corona
allowing mounting of IR IFF lights, Camera's Active hearing protection, Communications Head sets or a combination unit offering features of the two, Sadly the ACH only offers 9mm protection however By the end of 2011 the army is slated too move up too the ECH offering protection form 7.62mm rounds. The Army is then supposed too begin work on a new helmet system integrating more protection and features the Head gear system.
PLA standard is moving too the Qgf03 said too offer protection against higher velocity rounds then the ACH However the Chinese Soldier shows no signs of the ability too use his helmet for mounting of equipment for night operations. Consistent with the US army issue during the Gulf war.

In Terms of small arms the PLA and US stand about the same. M9 vs Type 92/Type 06 Comes out on China's side as does Mp5-N vs Type 05. QBZ95-g vs M4A1 is also about a Tie The M249 beats out the Type 88 LMG in terms of capability Strangely the M240 would have stood alone Save I then thought of the type 67-2 and a bit of Irony cropped up in that during the Gulf war US forces also deployed a thought too be retired weapon in the form of the m60 in it's GPMG role. The M240 though wins out in the form of the M240 L entering Us army service. Where the M240 B stands more or less on even footing the Type 88 DMR stands fine against the M16A4 SDMR but fares poorly when compared too a Army Mk14 mod 0 or M110 and and so on and so forth The Us army however takes the lead when it's Small arms accessory's are compared. M9 Takes The Type 92/Type 06 with a retention holster, and ILWLP ( integrated Laser/white light pointer), The MP5 takes the lead with a Surefire dedicated foreend light and Reflex sight. The M4A1 P'wns The Qbz 95 with the Sopmod gen 1 Gen 2 kits. M249E4/E5 Thrashes the Type 88 when sights and goodies are mounted and M240L stands alone. Type 88 DMR is sunk when Suppressors clip on night sights laser sights and lights come in. And on and on but when you roll it back 20 years you find parity.
Same for Armored vehicles and vertical lift Even the Humvee now entering PLA issue was a fresh player in the gulf but fares about the same today save for protection. Every comparison of the confirmed says 1991 US army equivalent.