PLA 39th Army Group maneuvering close to North Korean Border

Quit knocking the US, we're recovering just fine, thank you. Keep your attention focused on China's true enemy, Japan. Facts are, US and China can work out a scheme where neither side is 100% happy, but a result acceptable to both. Japan, on the other hand, can't cope with China's resumption to her traditional place, so there are lots of trouble ahead for Sino-Japanese relations. Korea can't go it alone, so will have to decide what's in her best interest.

If China continues to peacefully develop for another 30 years, Japan is screwed.

So back to the 39th army group,

What is it made of and how powerful is it? is it intended of resisting NK refugees incase of a NK collapse, or is it capable of a gulf war style invasion of NK if need be?

Historically it was 3 divisions ~30K men, but what is it today?

Nowadays, the 39th has 2x Mech Inf Divisions (115th and 116th), 2x Mech Inf Brigades (190th and 202th), 1x Armor Brigade (3rd), 1x Artillery (7th) and 1x AD Brigade (unidentified).

It is a very armor heavy GA, although still with lots of old equipment, especially in her maneuver battalions.

Only the 3rd Armor Brigade has 93x ZTZ-99 tanks and 31x ZBD04 IFVs as of now (the 4th tank battalion of this Bde still has ZTZ-59B, though), while the 190th mech Inf Bde has 62x ZTZ-96A for her two organic tank battalions and four mech inf battalions with ZBD-86A (BMP-1 with chinese 30mm turret) with 124 in total.

The rest of the GA is equipped with ZTZ-59B tanks (403 total in 13 tank battalions). The ZTZ-59B (105mm gun, more modern FCS and stabilization) is very slowly replaced by more capable tanks, but against the DPRK she should perform sufficiently. Troops transports are still mostly ZSD-63 and ZSD-89, though.

The most modern assets are concentrated in her artillery and air defense regiments/brigades, with the PLZ-05 155mm SPH deployed in the 116th Mech Inf Div (18 tubes) and the 7th Artillery Brigade (36 tubes) and the new PGZ-07 35mm "Sino-Gepard" deployed in the 116th Div. The rest are the more numerous older systems, like the PLZ-83 152mm SPH, PLZ-89 122mm SPH and PHZ-89 MRLS, Towed AAA, Manpad etc.

Alone, the 39th GA would be not enough for an invasion, but she would most probably be the spearhead for any offensive into North Korea when supported by other units and the PLAAF.

Also, not to forget, the 9th LH (Army Aviation) Brigade is closely associated with the 39th GA.
This unit has 12x Z-10, 24x Z-19, 18x Z-9W/WZ, 12x Mi-171 and 12x Z-8B.

Insignius said:

Nowadays, the 39th has 2x Mech Inf Divisions (115th and 116th), 2x Mech Inf Brigades (190th and 202th), 1x Armor Brigade (3rd), 1x Artillery (7th) and 1x AD Brigade (unidentified).

It is a very armor heavy GA, although still with lots of old equipment, especially in her maneuver battalions.

Only the 3rd Armor Brigade has 93x ZTZ-99 tanks and 31x ZBD04 IFVs as of now (the 4th tank battalion of this Bde still has ZTZ-59B, though), while the 190th mech Inf Bde has 62x ZTZ-96A for her two organic tank battalions and four mech inf battalions with ZBD-86A (BMP-1 with chinese 30mm turret) with 124 in total.

The rest of the GA is equipped with ZTZ-59B tanks (403 total in 13 tank battalions). The ZTZ-59B (105mm gun, more modern FCS and stabilization) is very slowly replaced by more capable tanks, but against the DPRK she should perform sufficiently. Troops transports are still mostly ZSD-63 and ZSD-89, though.

The most modern assets are concentrated in her artillery and air defense regiments/brigades, with the PLZ-05 155mm SPH deployed in the 116th Mech Inf Div (18 tubes) and the 7th Artillery Brigade (36 tubes) and the new PGZ-07 35mm "Sino-Gepard" deployed in the 116th Div. The rest are the more numerous older systems, like the PLZ-83 152mm SPH, PLZ-89 122mm SPH and PHZ-89 MRLS, Towed AAA, Manpad etc.

Alone, the 39th GA would be not enough for an invasion, but she would most probably be the spearhead for any offensive into North Korea when supported by other units and the PLAAF.

Also, not to forget, the 9th LH (Army Aviation) Brigade is closely associated with the 39th GA.
This unit has 12x Z-10, 24x Z-19, 18x Z-9W/WZ, 12x Mi-171 and 12x Z-8B.

Click to expand...

The Type 59B is really obsolete, even against North Korean infantry anti-tank weapons like their RPG-7 cousins. I am not sure these tanks could be anything more than death traps. It really is a bit disappointing that equipment this obsolete is still serving in such large numbers with the PLA.

On a separate note, does anyone know how many total of the most modern generation of the IFVs (ZBD-04s, -07s) have been inducted into the PLA? They are a marked improvement over the Type 89s and 86s.

Insignius said:

Also, not to forget, the 9th LH (Army Aviation) Brigade is closely associated with the 39th GA.
This unit has 12x Z-10, 24x Z-19, 18x Z-9W/WZ, 12x Mi-171 and 12x Z-8B.

Click to expand...

Does anyone find the high ratio of Z-19s to other types curious? Is this an indication that the PLA is happy with the type as is? Or is it because Army Aviation's primary mission is scouting? Or both, I guess it could be a chicken and egg thing.

I kinda agree with the sentiment that the PLA tank force is largely obsolete, even counting in the basic ZTZ-96s.
But this is what you can expect when the Ground Forces get the least out of China's defense budget, and out of what they get, it will be invested into information technologies, new air-defense and artillery instead of mass-producing and mass-equipping modern tanks.
Arguably, this is the correct decision, as informatization and modern fire-support as well as capable AD are true force multipliers. Even a mechanized infantry division equipped with ZTZ-59B tanks and ZBD-86A IFVs, but supported by artillery regiment organic recce drones, upgraded network-centric datalinks and embedded into an integrated command and control system would still be better than the DPRK's armored and infantry forces equipped with slightly more capable Chonma'Ho tanks, but not having access to modern communications, fire-support and organic air-defense.

As for the number of the IFVs, the latest counting on Chinese BBS was:

ZBD-04A (ZBD08): 217, equipped in seven battalions of 31 each.
ZBD-04 (ZBD97) : around 500, equipped in 12 battalions of 31 each (for mech infantry regiments and brigades), and 3 battalions of 41 each (for armor brigades).

Not a bad number, actually, but not as widespread as it should.

Additionally, regarding the survivability of the ZTZ-59Bs against DPRK RPGs and ATGMs, there is some evidence that the PLA actually does undertake field upgrades of heavy ERA to enhance the survivability of their ZTZ-59Bs, a tank the PLA actually holds in high regards for its reliability and the familiarity of the crew for this type.

@CDF, Hongjian posted these in the ZTZ-59 thread:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another very interesting video depicting the PLA armor training efficiently combining live-fire excercises against Type 59's and the field repair of those.
The reason for the PLA's fixation of field repairs against totally FUBAR'ed tanks is the Arab-Israel War of 1973, where Israel won in the end due to their superior recovery rate of their tanks. Though it is still questionable for me, as I cannot imagine that repairing those tanks during a modern, fast paced war with a major power is a good idea - better to build a reserve of spare tanks. Not to mention that I doubt that they could bring back destroyed ZTZ-99s and 96s when their entire turrets are getting blown off and apart due to the carroussel autoloader... This field repair stuff really seems to work with old tanks only, I fear.


Another very interesting fact at 15:47 is the revelation that the PLA is apparently used to field upgrades and up-armorings of their tanks with the most modern ERA available just before any operation. We can see that the maintenance teams are bolting ERA tiles on a modified ZTZ-59B, claiming that they use the most modern ERA in China's inventory.
Guess this puts the case to rest where we always complained about China having no tanks with armored side-skirts - They would just add them during war-time, it seems.

Click to expand...

Also, seeing later scenes, it seems that these ERA tiles are very effective vs armor piercing rounds. The scenes where they compared the penetration of two shots, one hitting the ERA and the other hitting a part without ERA, shows us that the ERA protection worked wonders.

The bad side of course is the old Mao-Dun/Spear vs. Shield dilemma: Does this indicate that Chinese ERA is so good, or does it mean that Chinese rounds are so weak?

On an related note, does anyone want to guess what kind of round they have used? The footages did show HEAT rounds impacting on the Tanks, but the holes do not look as "clean" as HEAT penetration holes. And the claim before was they were actually APFSDS rounds... I dont know.

Click to expand...

Very nice video, thanks for sharing.

In the clip, it said they hit the first tank with all three types of ordinance, missile, HEAT and sabot.

I was pretty impressed with the shots against the ERA, as they almost put two rounds through the same hole. Obviously there was a big element if luck involved, but impressive nonetheless.

For the night time exercise, the tank was repaired in under 3 hours, which was again very impressive.

Another bit of interesting info that was thrown in was that it takes about two weeks to manufacture a new tank from the factory. That's very quick indeed, and means the PLA has the ability to boost their tank numbers in the run up to any big conflict as well as during, to provide replacements and reinforcements, and after to replenish losses very quickly.

That two weeks also seems like peacetime figures, so I would expect them to be able to improve on that greatly if pushed under wartime conditions.

As for the large numbers of 'obselete' tanks, well for one thing, I think with improvements to fire control, networking and sensors, those '59s can function well as a component of a large whole to produce a result greater than the sum of its parts.

It should also be remembered that those '59s are integrated into a unit with '99s, and the crews would have trained long and hard to maximise the benefits of having both.

A very simple example could be that the '99s and '59s have clear division of labour when engaging an enemy armoured unit, with the '99s focusing on enemy tanks while the '59s go after enemy IFVs.

Depending on the kind of enemy they are expecting to be facing, those '59s could either use the '99s as cover and a spear tip (if faced against NK armour), or they can run up front and act as ablative armour for the '99s if they are facing superior enemy tanks that are likely to get first shot on the '99s anyways. Better the enemy alpha strike takes out a wave of '59s and give the '99s a chance to fire back than loose a similar number of '99s in the first attack and have fewer tanks to strike back with.

1. Using obsolete old tanks as screens for advanced armor only works in tactically rudimentary quasi-static defense or shallow frontal attacks like those found in the Iran-Iraq war. In sophisticated mobile warfare it would be important to be able to engage the enemy if one has to. But the overriding goal is to minimize engagement whereever possible using mobility and deception, in order to avoid bogging down, so as to maximize the speed and depth of penetration through the enemy's tactical zone into his real zones without giving enemy time to readjust his forces to deal with the attacks. Hordes of old tanks consume fuel and supplies whose rate of delivery would be a road dependent and dominant factor of constraint on operational mobility. It would limit the rate and flexibility of movement of the armored force, constrain the depth of advance, increase vulnerability to logistic interdiction, and increase the difficulties with concealing concentrations and intentions from the enemy. So burdening armored formations with large number of low quality tanks would reduce, rather than enhance, the mobile fighting power of armored formations at an operational, rather than tactical, level.

Puffing up forces with obsolete armor is essentially an admission that one lacks the ability to fight a sophisticated mobile war.

chuck731 said:

1. Using obsolete old tanks as screens for advanced armor only works in tactically rudimentary quasi-static defense or shallow frontal attacks like those found in the Iran-Iraq war. In sophisticated mobile warfare it would be important to be able to engage the enemy if one has to. But the overriding goal is to minimize engagement whereever possible using mobility and deception, in order to avoid bogging down, so as to maximize the speed and depth of penetration through the enemy's tactical zone into his real zones without giving enemy time to readjust his forces to deal with the attacks. Hordes of old tanks consume fuel and supplies whose rate of delivery would be a road dependent and dominant factor of constraint on operational mobility. It would limit the rate and flexibility of movement of the armored force, constrain the depth of advance, increase vulnerability to logistic interdiction, and increase the difficulties with concealing concentrations and intentions from the enemy. So burdening armored formations with large number of low quality tanks would reduce, rather than enhance, the mobile fighting power of armored formations at an operational, rather than tactical, level.

Puffing up forces with obsolete armor is essentially an admission that one lacks the ability to fight a sophisticated mobile war.

Click to expand...

If the operational level capabilities in terms of logistical sustainability and use don't differ very much from newer equipment it wouldn't have much of an effects on the ability for fighting sophisticated mobile war, this is why M60A3s could be use in the first Gulf War along with M1 Abrams tanks in the proper operational deployment.