I am thinking more along the lines of even just a few squads of jihadists with RPG-7s going from Central or South Asia into western China. The modified BMP-1s, Type 89s, WZ-551s, and lighter armored vehicles of second line troops, not to mention the PAP, in the region aren't up to the task.
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
I am thinking more along the lines of even just a few squads of jihadists with RPG-7s going from Central or South Asia into western China. The modified BMP-1s, Type 89s, WZ-551s, and lighter armored vehicles of second line troops, not to mention the PAP, in the region aren't up to the task.
I wouldn't say that necessarily; I think the ground forces are very much oriented towards fighting a conventional nation state army in a conventional land war, and despite certain weak points (such as the presence of some still obsolete AFVs or lack of universal body armour), there are also certain strengths such as maintaining a large and competent artillery and I think a capable internal logistics chain. (Though I'd agree the PLA is not very well equipped to fight an insurgency like what we've seen in the middle east).
Even in terms of the most "advanced technology" the army's suppliers are probably not that behind their foreign counterparts -- the industry is there, and they produce some small batches of high end equipment for testing, assessment and limited fielding among some operational units. But the Chinese military are making the decision to not equip their army with modern equipment en masse (yet), likely due to greater demands on their Air Force, Navy, Rocket Force, and other military operations.
Instead, I think the PLA are keeping the industry competitive and relatively up to date by giving them contracts to produce new weapons, AFVs, and equipment in limited runs, but not willing to plough in the money to buy and equip them en masse which would require a substantially greater amount of money not only in the unit cost but also the cost to change the army's entire logistics to suit the new equipment and revised training as well.
I expect that in the near future, as the Navy, Air Force and other arms of the military and support services begin to be able to become more competitive with their potential foes, then we will see some attention to be diverted back to the Army to bring them back into better strength and give them some of the equipment that is more standard for better funded armies.
So the issue isn't one of the Army "not having the technology" -- because their suppliers should definitely be able to produce a good proportion of equipment that is standard for other national armies -- but rather it is a question of whether the Army has the budget allocated to equip their soldiers en masse with the equipment... and in the past and at present it is a definite no.
Actually I just realized that a side benefit of not mass equipping their second line ground forces with top of the line equipment means in case of insurgency there wouldn't be as much as capable equipment accessible to insurgents. Ultimately any fight against terrorists and insurgents should primarily rely on preventive intelligence and surveillance anyways.
solarz
Brigadier
Realistically, such a possibility is quite remote, mainly due to the tight border controls that the PLA and PAP maintain. Even if a few such weapons and squads slip through, the damage they can do is limited.
The goal of terrorists is to sow terror. They achieve that by attacking soft targets like civilians. Attacking the military does little to achieve their goals and is much more difficult. The damage they could do with an RPG against a PLA APC would pale in comparison to what they could achieve with a home made bomb in a busy market.
I would argue that, to the contrary, the PLA ground forces are more suited to fighting insurgents and terrorists than the high-tech armies of the West. Anti-insurgency warfare is mainly a question of manpower. PLA foot soldiers may not have the latest body armor (or any body armor) or the best armored vehicles, but between them and the PAP, they have the manpower to cover practically every neighborhood in the restive regions if they needed to.
It's definitely true that manpower helps, especially if used effectively in intelligence and surveillance.
Successful attacks, particularly with high casualties, against security forces are useful though to damage state authority, lower force morale, heighten tensions to seduce a harsh response, and instigate further chaos from sufficiently disgruntled segments of the population even if it's difficult to pull off. Such a calculated move would most likely be state sponsored.
If it ever comes to this hope China learned some useful lessons in its anti-terror and peacekeeping missions on how to deal with it.
solarz
Brigadier
I think that depends on the mentality of the state and public.
Let's not forget that the PAP suffered quite a few casualties several years back. I remember one incident where terrorists plowed a truck into a column of jogging PAP soldiers, killing 18 of them.
The Chinese government responds to attacks with major crackdowns. While at first glance this would further the terrorists' aims by creating discontent among the populace, we need to remember that this is done in combination with economic development in the region, providing education and better living standards. As we can see since, this course of action has been quite effective at stemming violence in the region.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to counter-insurgency, human policy is much more important than military technology.
