Bullet proof vests in the Chinese military

Originally Posted by vesicles

No amount of training of any kind can replicate what happens in a battle. So you have to pick your battle when designing a training regiment. There is a trade-off. Spending that much money on something deemed less of a priority when there are so many other things you can do simply for having a realistic training is not wise.

now that's a difference of opinion that i would agree to

Originally Posted by vesicles

Does that mean the US soldiers have to buy their own M-16 with their own money? Does that mean they have to buy their bullets? Or these are all issued to them? The US military issues its soldiers the things that are thought to be essential to fighting and surviving on the battlefield. If that's the case, not issuing body armor suggests the US govn't used to think body armor was not essential on the battlefield. plain the simple. Why is it illogical? BTW, it's not a lynch pin. It's fact.

the body armor is a standard issue, there is no arguing about it since the beginning, the premise is false from the start
and yes US soldiers sometimes buys their own bullets, batteries, or anything they think they need or want

make do they say, how this evolve to becoming a doctrine of regarding body armors is useless is beyond me

Originally Posted by vesicles

About the metal plates on vehicles. It does not mean the US army does not care the vehicle protection. IT only means they did not think the metal plates were necessary, which was absolutely wrong. That's why they didn't issue them. This actually supports my case since it illustrates clearly that heavy armor on personnel and vehicles was NOT needed until fighting in middle east began. The US has been fighting wars everywhere almost non-stop. Why didn't they think of the need to up-armor their vehicle until recently? Why didn't the soldiers complain about it until recently? Is it that the US military works so inefficiently that they only realized their lack of armor after 50-60 years of fighting all over the world? Is it the modern soldiers become softies and the can't handle the harsh environment of a battlefield as well as older generations? or is it because of the fighting style they encountered before did not require the kind of heavy armor on their personnel and vehicles? No body, including the soldiers and the govn't, felt the need to armor themselves so much until now.

not going to comment at this at all, apples and oranges

Originally Posted by vesicles

If you have limited budget and you have to choose between body armor and stealth fighter/carrier, which would you pick? I don't know about you, I would pick stealth fighters and carriers without hesitation. And I hope from the bottom of my heart that you don't pick body armor. Like I said before, with all the advanced weapons, I may never have to use body armor again. That's called deterrence. And China, like anyone else on this planet, has a limited budget. Its defense spending, no matter how you over-estimate it, is significantly less than that of the US. So it makes perfect sense for China to pick their priority and divert the funds to more urgent projects.

i would rather not think of one, or try to formulate one, as it will be an exhaustive effort and elaboration

even without carrier and stealth fighter projects PLA has always been on this way, and probably will be to the near future
this is the observable trend, and i in my humblest insignificant opinion do not agree with it

Originally Posted by paintgun

no i do not advocate equipping them en mass during peace time

but PLA has to have a solid foundation and experience with body armors
producer research and trial can only go so far

Who says they DON'T produce body armor? I won't be surprised if they equip a few of their elite divisions with body armor. And besides, just because you don't wear it does not mean you have no experiences it, PLA is closely studying the result of US troops in Iraq. I am sure they are learning a thing or two from them, without endanger their own in process.

And if you are going to tell me that China don't have the technology then LOL, because anyone with a credit card can order them online here in US, and what are the chances that China won't receive a few samples?

Originally Posted by stardave

Who says they DON'T produce body armor? I won't be surprised if they equip a few of their elite divisions with body armor. And besides, just because you don't wear it does not mean you have no experiences it, PLA is closely studying the result of US troops in Iraq. I am sure they are learning a thing or two from them, without endanger their own in process.

who says they dont?

Originally Posted by stardave

And if you are going to tell me that China don't have the technology then LOL, because anyone with a credit card can order them online here in US, and what are the chances that China won't receive a few samples?

dont put any words in my mouth

Originally Posted by paintgun

who says they dont?



dont put any words in my mouth

Then I guess China don't have a problem with body armor then, they'll produce it when they need it. By not producing it enmass now does not mean lack of funding or capability.

This thread is going nowhere. Both sides have presented and elaborated upon their arguments. Nothing new is being said. Just let it end. Post news about body armor. Post photos about it, but quit arguing already.

Originally Posted by stardave

knee pads and jackets with steel plates x 2.5 million cost more than a ferrari. Just try to understand, buying them enmass in a time of peace = waste.

The question you should be asking, does China have the ability to manufacturer A LOT of body armor in a very short period of time when needed?

China is not in a war, hence no need for guns, tanks, missiles until real battle takes place???

Originally Posted by Vini_Vidi_Vici

China is not in a war, hence no need for guns, tanks, missiles until real battle takes place???

Solid propellants in missiles have a very short lifespan, needing to be replaced every few years. Why all militaries have it?

It looks like this topic has settled on 2 branching debates:

1- Is body armor cost-effective for the kinds of war that the PLA expects to fight?

2- Is body armor necessary for training during peace time?

I won't comment on #2, but I don't think body armor is all that useful when fighting against a near-peer adversary. Remember that the US didn't equip body armor on all its soldiers until years into the Afghanistan war.

Artillery shrapnel has been mentioned, but I don't think charging into artillery is going to be a PLA tactic anymore (not unless things get much more desperate). Instead, troops will be far more vulnerable to artillery and air strikes during transit or defending a location, and the ability to find cover quickly will be far more useful than body armor.

Contrast this to the type of mission that *does* require body armor: patrolling semi-hostile streets and risking fire from AK-47 and RPGs. This is actually a lot like police action, and it's no surprise that body armor is much more useful among cops than soldiers.

Originally Posted by paintgun

not going to comment at this at all, apples and oranges

Why is that apples vs oranges? If people have been using what the US troops are using as an example of what China should do, why can't I use what the US HAD been doing to illustrate what China should do??? what is so qualitatively different with the US before 90's? If China is planning the kind of war that the US had been fighting before the 2000's, why would China have to be different? If an experienced fighter, in this case the US before the 2000's, tells you that you don't need body armor, you leave it at home.

Again, the US had been planning an all-out war with the Soviets since the late 40's. That's 50 plus years of planning, plus the amount of actual fighting the US army had been involved in. Yet, the US still seriously lagged behind in equipping its troops with body armor in the 2000's. This is a perfect example of difference in the fighting style. Previous wars have been the regular kind of war in everyone's mind when two forces clash and duke it out. Infantry soldiers are typically protected by armored tanks and air forces. We are so accustomed to images of US troops on the ground calling for air support. Also, in a war of a normal sense, most of the troops stay behind enemy line. The urban warfare happened once in a while. Yet, the modern type of war is the first such kind that your men mix with the enemy all the time. That means your men spend most of his time like a sitting duck since you have no idea where the next sniper might be, or the IED might be. So you become a sitting duck almost 24/7. So since the second Gulf War, this kind of protection is no longer useful. You cannot call in F-16's to bomb the entire Baghdad to oblivion when a sniper shoots one of your guys. And you certainly can't call for any help when an IED detonates next to you. In a normal war, you can blow up a building/bunker/defensive structure if you find it suspicious. You can't blow up a civilian building in the middle of Baghdad simply because you find the building suspicious. So all of a sudden, you become passive. You can no longer be retro-active and can only react to things. You cannot open fire until being fired upon. So in this passive situation, personal protection all of a sudden becomes important because you want to make sure you don;t get killed before you can shoot the enemy. So in a sense, what the US experiences now is very unique and China does not plan to get into the same kind of mess that the US has been in since 2000's. If China is planning the kind of normal war that the US had been fighting before the 2000's, why should China do anything different from what the US had been doing? If the US did not think body armor to its troops and no one in the field had complained about it, why should China be different?

http://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/vi...s-soooo-light/

Armored vests were first introduced in Korea.

Originally Posted by Inst

http://defensetech.org/2006/01/12/vi...s-soooo-light/

Armored vests were first introduced in Korea.

Yes. As a matter of fact, people had been trying various kinds of body armor since WWI. Even with the technology well in their hands, the US never thought about mass-equipping their troops until the 2000's

As far as I know body armor has never been a standard issue for soldiers around the world during peacetime. Adoption of body armor is a recent phenomenon for the following reasons.

1. Technology- old flak jackets wore during the Vietnam war era were heavy and offer very little protection. The weight penalty and protection level doesn't justified. Newer body armor offers vastly improve protection and also lighter.

2. Public appetite for taking casualty have lower and thereby exerting more political pressure on politician to reduce losses of lives.

3. Modern warfare while no longer fought with numerical superiority means ever individual soldiers carries more firepower. Losses of one soldiers means an equivalent 2-3 soldiers of yesteryear. Not only so, considerable amount of resources and manpower have to be committed towards treating the casualties and handling KIA instead of direct combat action. Thereby further reducing firepower.

So does China needs to equip every soldier with body armor at this moment?

Depends on these factors
1. Budget- limited budget means there is a need to prioritize spending amongst the many items.

2. Probability of fighting wars over potential flashpoint like Taiwan or China-India border.

3. How much value does china place on human lives. Does China still consider it worthwhile to sacrifice thousands just to take a hill top?

My opinion is China doesn't need to equip every soldier with body armor as the potential of China going into full scale mobilization is extremely low. But she does needs to maintain a stockpile of 200 to 400k sets for contingencies in case she needs to fight limited ground conflict in those potential flashpoints. Production capacity can be set aside to increase the stockpile at very short notice.

Perhaps it good to take a leaf from Singapore's Integrated Body Armor (IBA) which functions as a normal load bearing vest during peacetime training and can be customized to carry different levels of body armor should the need arise. Dummy plates ca be slotted for more realism during training (I know soldiers will hate this idea) . Armor plates can also easily be replaced with newer ones as a result of technological advancement. In this way, the army only need to stockpile the armor plates and not the whole vest with armor plate simplifying the logistical aspect.

Don't want to start a separate topic for this:

New-type individual support system debuts

By Guo Jianyue and Zou Weirong | July 24, 2012



The picture shows a scene of a soldier carrying the individual comprehensive support system on back.

According to the briefing, the new individual comprehensive support system developed by the Quartermaster and Equipment Research Institute under the General Logistics Department (GLD) of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is equipped with such devices as electronic medical tag, miniature water purifier and so on, and suitable for the ground combat forces of such services and arms as the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Second Artillery Force. It will multiply the individual soldier's field survival competence.

"Features like being complete in functions, light in weight, easy to put on and convenient to take off make it meets the various demands in actual combats," said delightfully Sun Shoulei, a squad leader of the second company of the first battalion of a regiment. This system consists of two parts, the individual combat comprehensive support system and the individual life comprehensive support system, and serves the functions of defense and protection, self-help and mutual aids, eating and drinking, camping and bivouacking, and many others. Its total weight is only 15 kilograms.

"In the past, portable combat equipment such as firearms, ammunition, jugs, satchels, rain gears, gas masks and bullet pouches was usually hung on the body, which was not only heavy but also troublesome to carry," said a troop unit leader.

Now this new individual comprehensive support system gives prominence to humanized concept in design and enhances the practicality, comfort and safety of the equipment, it provides convenience for officers and men in performing combat tasks and long-range march.

"Most importantly, it has increased the equipment carrying load of individual soldiers, and greatly enhanced the individual survival competence, mobility and combat effectiveness in field combat environment," said Yang Liuqing, deputy chief of staff of the headquarter of the Joint Logistics Department under the Beijing Military Area Command (MAC). This system which utilizes standardized interfaces and modular combination methods is compatible with the specialized carrying devices of existing and active weapons and equipment. Like "building blocks", officers and men can equip themselves with corresponding equipment modules in accordance with different combat requirements, and quickly compose the individual system to carry out corresponding combat tasks.

According to the briefing made by the leader of the Scientific and Technological Equipment Bureau of the GLD Headquarter, in order to meet the needs of future combat, a batch of modernized logistic support systems such as the box-set equipment of field life support system, the vehicle-borne cabin of field medical and rescue equipment, and the like will be equipped to the field troop units in succession.

PLA Daily