PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
New members come here!My English is not good, please forgive me
I don't know if it's appropriate to put the picture here...
This is the voting activity of youth day in May released by the official platform:
I chose two pretty good pictures of women soldiers of the PLA:
I don't know if it's appropriate to put the picture here...
This is the voting activity of youth day in May released by the official platform:
I chose two pretty good pictures of women soldiers of the PLA:
Why is it that PLA seldomly uses combat gloves and why is their face camouflace often only some few stripes? No dark colours to blur contours of nose and ears and no camo one the lips?
New members come here!My English is not good, please forgive me
I don't know if it's appropriate to put the picture here...
This is the voting activity of youth day in May released by the official platform:
I chose two pretty good pictures of women soldiers of the PLA:
View attachment 88951
View attachment 88952
Dat girl at the bottom picture tho, boi she pretty.
Don't apologize for your English it isn't needed because your English is more than OK.New members come here!My English is not good, please forgive me
I don't know if it's appropriate to put the picture here...
This is the voting activity of youth day in May released by the official platform:
I chose two pretty good pictures of women soldiers of the PLA:
View attachment 88951
View attachment 88952
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Her sister apparently served aboard the Liaoning CV.
The Kazakh from Xinjiang that was on camera?
Was this document by the US Army discussed here?
Despite being from the US military I have serious suspicions about the accuracy of this document. For example:
"The technical demands of the informationized soldier are far greater than for conscripts of past generations, and the maintenance and logistics demands of mechanized forces are much greater than those of light infantry forces."
Since when the PLA is using conscripts?
"Previous PLA forces planned only to operate in Chinese territory, in neighboring territories, and in Chinese territorial waters. In order to establish itself as a great power, however, China believes that a powerful ground expeditionary capability is required. This is the primary driver behind the expansion of the PLANMC. It is likely the most significant effort in the PLA to meet the new expeditionary requirements. Despite these efforts, the PLA still cannot deploy or sustain a heavy mechanized force outside of shared land borders and its territorial waters, limiting the combat power of an expeditionary force."
What's being meant by territorial seas here? In international law, territorial sea only and only refers to inland seas and waters up to 12 nm away from a country's shores. And how China can not deploy or sustain a mechanized force beyond its periphery? The type 075 and 071 are definitely capable of that. If they mean deploying 20000 marines to somewhere in Africa or landing in mainland Japan, yes. China is not capable of that but I don't see how that's detrimental for China. And despite American publications claiming that, I can not fathom PLANMC expansion not being about Taiwan scenario.
"PLAA formations still struggle with independent action. Small unit leaders are afraid to make decisions due to a zero-tolerance culture, and officers remain hesitant to empower subordinates lest they underperform and thus reflect poorly on the officer."
Sounds like propaganda. And why don't they say PLAGF?
"Except in elite units such as SOF or reconnaissance, the battalion is likely to be the lowest echelon capable of operating independently for any significant period of time, and even the battalion’s independence is limited by a small staff and a low density of support assets. "
Well, military theory defines a battalion (600-1000 men) as the smallest unit capable of independent operations. The real question is why the US Army is so big on guerilla style organization but at the same time revolves its small unit tactics around calling air support?
"The B-611 is a new SRBM system that likely seeks to replicate the capabilities of the Soviet SS-26 Iskander. "
Wut? The B-611 is not new. It is not similar to Iskander and Iskander is not Soviet made. And NATO refers to it as SS-26 Stone not SS-26 Iskander.
"The HQ-17 is a reverse-engineered copy of the Russian 9K331 Tor-M1 SAM system. The HQ-17 marries a simple command-guided interceptor "
The HQ-17 has SARH.
It continues like this...
It has many inaccuracies. If it was a think tank article I would ridicule it here. But it is from the US Military. And why they are releasing such a document in the first place? Is this a poor work by a junior team in DIA or a disinformation campaign?
Despite being from the US military I have serious suspicions about the accuracy of this document. For example:
"The technical demands of the informationized soldier are far greater than for conscripts of past generations, and the maintenance and logistics demands of mechanized forces are much greater than those of light infantry forces."
Since when the PLA is using conscripts?
"Previous PLA forces planned only to operate in Chinese territory, in neighboring territories, and in Chinese territorial waters. In order to establish itself as a great power, however, China believes that a powerful ground expeditionary capability is required. This is the primary driver behind the expansion of the PLANMC. It is likely the most significant effort in the PLA to meet the new expeditionary requirements. Despite these efforts, the PLA still cannot deploy or sustain a heavy mechanized force outside of shared land borders and its territorial waters, limiting the combat power of an expeditionary force."
What's being meant by territorial seas here? In international law, territorial sea only and only refers to inland seas and waters up to 12 nm away from a country's shores. And how China can not deploy or sustain a mechanized force beyond its periphery? The type 075 and 071 are definitely capable of that. If they mean deploying 20000 marines to somewhere in Africa or landing in mainland Japan, yes. China is not capable of that but I don't see how that's detrimental for China. And despite American publications claiming that, I can not fathom PLANMC expansion not being about Taiwan scenario.
"PLAA formations still struggle with independent action. Small unit leaders are afraid to make decisions due to a zero-tolerance culture, and officers remain hesitant to empower subordinates lest they underperform and thus reflect poorly on the officer."
Sounds like propaganda. And why don't they say PLAGF?
"Except in elite units such as SOF or reconnaissance, the battalion is likely to be the lowest echelon capable of operating independently for any significant period of time, and even the battalion’s independence is limited by a small staff and a low density of support assets. "
Well, military theory defines a battalion (600-1000 men) as the smallest unit capable of independent operations. The real question is why the US Army is so big on guerilla style organization but at the same time revolves its small unit tactics around calling air support?
"The B-611 is a new SRBM system that likely seeks to replicate the capabilities of the Soviet SS-26 Iskander. "
Wut? The B-611 is not new. It is not similar to Iskander and Iskander is not Soviet made. And NATO refers to it as SS-26 Stone not SS-26 Iskander.
"The HQ-17 is a reverse-engineered copy of the Russian 9K331 Tor-M1 SAM system. The HQ-17 marries a simple command-guided interceptor "
The HQ-17 has SARH.
It continues like this...
It has many inaccuracies. If it was a think tank article I would ridicule it here. But it is from the US Military. And why they are releasing such a document in the first place? Is this a poor work by a junior team in DIA or a disinformation campaign?
Remember, most disinformation and propaganda is aimed inwards, not outwards.