PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos

plawolf said:

Not wanting to dig up an old argument, but here is an interesting product on the market now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wearable infantryman mini displays are reality, not science fiction.

Click to expand...

I'd just like to clarify, the original discussion was not about whether such displays existed or not or whether they were plausible (obviously they are, and I acknowledged such systems were likely under development by the Chinese Army as well) -- rather the point of contention was about what the object in the picture most likely could have been.

First clarification, the Trackingpoint shotglass display is actually not built by Trackingpoint Shotglass is actually a App on the Jet Recon smart glasses these are a sports style wearable display.
Second, the impressive part of shotglass is that it interfaces with the rifle. Other wearable displays have been used and will continue to be used feeding maps and other data.
Again the display is commercial off the shelf technology. The software and the Trackingpoint smart rifle is the major shift.

Addendum:
Sorry had a few more thoughts and a correction. It's Recon Jet not jet recon.
I did not see the quote till I got on my laptop, My mobile likes to randomly pick and choose what to show
.
Originally I thought they were wearing NOD for some reason but now I think it's the same unit seen on the cs/Ln1 ISCS "Dummy"

Or this guy

It's similar to the SO35A Monocular that was part of Land Warrior back in 2007
Since the Rifles show in the flaming picture lack fancy sights ( unless they have small cameras mounted on the sides or something. it's probably just showing maps and other data.

I believe I have found another image of the displays in question

Thanks for the picture.

That clears up some things but gives us more questions.

Those are definitely monocles. They seem to have their IITs mounted diagonally down and beside the eye piece, rather than in line as with traditional NVG designs, to cut down on the length of them. Fascinating!

Having seen the full frame, and the way they sit on the face, I'm more incident to believe they are just support frames.

But that begs the question of why they are using those frames at all? Why not simply use the built-in optics mount on the helmets themselves?

Those frames are totally unnecessary, and worse, push the men's helmets up at an angle, exposing more of the face and head and reducing the protected area.

I would imagine they are not comfortable to wear either.

Those are definitely monocles. They seem to have their IITs mounted diagonally down and beside the eye piece, rather than in line as with traditional NVG designs, to cut down on the length of them. Fascinating!

Having seen the full frame, and the way they sit on the face, I'm more incident to believe they are just support frames.

Click to expand...

A western term used for such a frame is "Skull crusher" early on the US also used such a system and some time still does but once they started adding the mount to the helmet it became more and more relegated to special needs of troops who for whatever reason needed soft covers.

But that begs the question of why they are using those frames at all? Why not simply use the built-in optics mount on the helmets themselves?

Those frames are totally unnecessary, and worse, push the men's helmets up at an angle, exposing more of the face and head and reducing the protected area.

Click to expand...

Here are the only possible justifications I can think of ( in least likely to likely order)
1) the PLA believes that for whatever reason having insignia on the front of the helmet is more important.
2) The PLA doesn't trust the helmets suspension system.
3) The materials used in the PLA issued combat helmets could be of a exceptional hardness and drilling extra holes in them may be considered a risk, as it's worried that said holes could crack the helmet.
4) Because of the size of the PLA, they will only allow a modification to the helmet if universal. however the PLA will continue with older tubes for some time and many will not accept the helmet mount.

This a BBC report on the Chinese officer cadet exchange program from January 2015

I don't think you could draw too many conclusions from that exchange, since above all else, the entire event was carefully planned and managed by the PLA to give away minimal useful Intel.

The main British officer being interviewed in that piece always had a superior smirk on his face, but that was almost certainly because he was placed with the weakest Chinese cadets, who were undoubtably more interested in observing him than merely doing the exercises.

In addition, both British participants are graduates, whereas the Chinese cadets were still I'm training (we were only told that the cadets they were bunked with were 4th years, but note that those cadets were acting as translators and observers, and did not appear to have participated in the JinWu Cup exercises, so the actual cadets they were training with may have been younger still - the professor interviewed near the start mentioned 18 and 19 year olds, so those cadets may have been that young). The 29 year old officer also may well have had many years of military service before going to sandhurst.

As such, it's little wonder he has more experience and better honed skills. I would expect that smirk to have been wiped off his face if he had been placed with the best team.

The most useful insight I got from that was that the PLA value discipline greatly, whereas the British value initiative.

I think that is an area where the PLA should work more on. Discipline is important, but so is initiative. They should start giving their officers especially greater freedoms and latitude during training.

Not only is that good practice, but it is also a useful selection process by itself.

Flexibility and initiative is largely down to the character of the person in question, but it could be nurtured and honed with practice and experience.

The cadets should be put in more situations where they need to figure out what they have to themselves do to accomplish and achieve their orders and objectives rather get into the habit of always looking for orders to tell them what to do next.

There should also be a few unrealistically hard challenges, and maybe one or two impossible ones.

That serves as both a means to identify the truly exceptional candidates, but also to teach the cadets that with the best will in the world, sometimes an objective simply cannot be achieved.

In such instances, it is better to be able to recognise that early on, and report that back up the chain so they can plan around that rather than embark on a hopeless suicide mission that gets the unit wiped out, and worse, leave other units left hanging if they were depending on that objective being taken for them to be able to achieve their own objectives.

Blackstone said:

PLA Marines camo would work really well with blue trees, grass, and groundcover. Can someone remind me what region on Earth has that landscape?

Click to expand...

They've repainted the Marine AFVs' camo but probably couldn't be bothered to order entirely new uniforms for the troops since, unlike paint jobs, uniforms are not disposable. Again, this camo business is a non-issue during wartime; their blue camo is more appropriate for an ocean backdrop than the US Marine's green camo. I mean, when have you ever seen a beach with a green ocean? If the marines are ever needed inland, see below.

J, first I have seen green ocean, and purple and brown and all kinds of colors. The USMC wears woodland and Desert and snow because as Marines they operate in all kinds of landing zone.
The Blue pattern I call Littoral pattern is supposed to be optimized for the South China sea area of operations. In reality it is a purely vanity pattern meant to show the Elite status vs PLA regulars. Lots try to defend it saying its for the ocean but the ocean changes colors based on the lighting. In the late afternoon of the tropical zone sure pristine Blue but just as often emerald green, or Grey to black at night or brown when silted up by a amphibious landing.
As your Marines are assaulting they are aiming inland and not just going to play on the beach. If they need camouflage they are likely also to want cover. On a beach the best option for that is the ground, the sand. The ocean is not really going to be the best match again varies based on time of day and conditions. Add in that said beaches are often urbanized or rocky which means frankly better to just wear deserts.
But there is another factor here not all landings are into beaches from the sea some are into rivers and swamplands for those woodland. A even better option would be transitional pattern like Multicam as there is likely sporadic areas of greenery.
As to Marines fighting in land. That is there function. The amphibious transport and transition, the establishment of a beachhead is impressive but its just getting to the fight, it represents maybe 5% of the actual operations. The PLA knows that, that's why there landing vehicles are armored and Armed like they are. Not for the beach for the battle. The camouflage pattern worn by the PLAMC is like that worn by PLA paratroopers not for the fight but for the prestige. Really what is the use of a pattern in sky blue if your only in the sky for a few minutes? And then spending days on the ground where it stands out. What is the use of a pattern meant for the ocean if your landing up a river with water the color of rotten chocolate milk?