(ASK) How well trained are the pla special forces?

paintgun

Senior Member
I find it funny that OP opens thread to label Chinese special forces amateurish and when other posters disagree with that opinion and bring up points, he then says they are too aggressive. Maybe we should start using, "excuse me, if I may, sorry to interrupt ..." and smilie faces in every sentence we reply in this thread. :)

our inzim friend might feel intimidated because some of us did put the tone on him, short of saying "what you say is ridiculous"

the effectiveness and training of PLA SOFs is an interesting topic to discuss, probably it will be more fruitful to discuss on the topic rather than putting him down, or rather closing the whole discussion is rubbish, though we shouldn't probably start on the premise that PLA SOFs training is not up to par, hence the discussion becoming unpopular

@RedSword, no it's not cavalry, we need to use something else as analogy, SOFs does not charge into the battlefield and save the day for the regular troops, they are not super troops, they are just top tier recruits specialized into teams, trained with special capabilities and skills not available to the regulars, and tasked with special missions

now to spice it up abit, escobar just posted old pics collection of 2nd arty SOF members, anyone want to have any comments on them? :)
popeye posted US' SOF, and it's a good comparison
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
now to spice it up abit, escobar just posted old pics collection of 2nd arty SOF members, anyone want to have any comments on them? :)
popeye posted US' SOF, and it's a good comparison

Why do they all carry swords??

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

photo ops during training, or photo shoots can show you how well maintained or well equipped one force is
the basic observation logic would be if you have the gear, you have the skill to use it, if you don't then that the skill probably does not exist

we have seen quite a number of so called Chinese spec ops, and i think they are woefully equipped compared not only to NATO/American spec ops, but even to higher tier US regulars like Airborne, army Rangers, or Marines

What equipment are they lacking compared to NATO SF?
 

paintgun

Senior Member
Why do they all carry swords??

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------



What equipment are they lacking compared to NATO SF?

they carry swords or DaDao(s) as captioned in those pics for showmanship value, as the whole shots are for TV, they didn't wear helmets although they carry a whole rucksack as to appear different, or elite, again for showmanship, why put on googles without helmets, and it's also notoriously well known that the googles PLA provide to the troops are not military grade ones

one can argue the tactical benefits of carrying such a large melee weapon into combat, but we sure does not see other SOFs doing that

another lacking equipment would be the DSR or marksman rifle, which is a Russian origin SVD or perhaps a Chinese equivalent (i'm not familiar with small arms), effective range 800m which is IMveryHO is not adequate
no scopes on the QBZs, no tactical radios (as usual with PLA SOFs pic), and other equipments such as pocket ready magazines, though the video grab is quite blurry to precisely show any or the lack of

suffice to say it's not an exemplary display of a well equipped mission deployment ready SOF team, but we also should not take the pics as a representative of PLA SOFs equipment and load out standards

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

some pics of US Marines equipment for comparison

Ib4AI.jpg

7cSLF.jpg
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
photo ops during training, or photo shoots can show you how well maintained or well equipped one force is
the basic observation logic would be if you have the gear, you have the skill to use it, if you don't then that the skill probably does not exist

we have seen quite a number of so called Chinese spec ops, and i think they are woefully equipped compared not only to NATO/American spec ops, but even to higher tier US regulars like Airborne, army Rangers, or Marines

That line of reasoning makes no sense at all in the context you are trying to use it in.

It is true that within the same organization, units are issued with equipment based on training, but there is no logical correlation between different services or militaries.

There is absolutely no way anyone could possibly say, 'oh look, those guys from country A have tactical flashlights and laser aimers on their guns while the guys from country B doesn't, so the guys from country a must be more skilled'.

Just what kind of essential equipment do you think PLA special forces are lacking exactly anyways?

Ps, you should realize that there are different categories of special forces in any military. Within the Us military for example, Marine Recon and Rangers are also considered to be special forces, but they are not on the same level as Deltas or SEALs. It is the same with PLA special forces, only it is harder for us to know just how elite the units we are looking at are, as we don't really know who the top dogs are in the PLA special forces pecking order.

2. no dedicated service branch within the PLA, as we know they are spread out in each MR, as opposed to a single entity(s) under direct PLA subordination

How do you know this? Each MR have their own special forces does not prevent there being a national special forces branch that pick the best of the best from the MR special forces.

3. quite numerous in number? as each MR have them

So maybe you are just looking at the PLA equivalent of Rangers and thinking they are the PLA's SEALs/Deltas.

4. probably just regular top tier soldiers 'elevated' to spec ops status to be assigned spec ops missions and tasks, which also the case how other army in the world recruit spec ops, but perhaps lacking in intensity and depth

What is the basis for this claim? Just seems like circular reasoning to me.

5. lack of interaction and exposure of NATO/US style training

Who is to say NATO/US style of training is the ultimate style of training that will produce the best results?

They may well do, but unless you can have a direct comparison between the skill and capabilities of PLA SOF and NATO/US SOF, there is simply no way to conclude one way or the other.

6. lack of quality firearms, as we know Chinese made small arms and round are still performing below NATO standards

Well that is simply not true.

It might have been true about very specific niche things like top end sniper rifles and match grade sniper ammo (which the PLA has started to adopt now btw), but in terms of general small arms, the Type 95 family is as good as anything NATO/US fields at present, if not superior.

The G36 might look more sexy, but the Type95 has it beat hands down in terms of reliability and durability, and there is no meaningful difference between standard Chinese and NATO small arms in terms of accuracy, fire rate, effective range or any other significant indicator.

The Chinese 5.8mm is also superior to the NATO 5.56mm in everything except maybe wounding potential, but that is only because the current 5.8mm ammo is intended to be used against armored opponents because pretty much everyone China might realistically go to war with issue their troops with body armor as standard.

But if the PLA suddenly finds itself faced with unarmoured foes in a protracted conflict, it would be a lot easier to simply remove the armor piercing steel core and maybe reducing the charge in the cartridge to avoid over-penetration and other basic steps to make the round more effective against unarmoured targets.
 

paintgun

Senior Member
There is absolutely no way anyone could possibly say, 'oh look, those guys from country A have tactical flashlights and laser aimers on their guns while the guys from country B doesn't, so the guys from country a must be more skilled'.

or perhaps soldiers from country B do not use laser aims at all


Ps, you should realize that there are different categories of special forces in any military. Within the Us military for example, Marine Recon and Rangers are also considered to be special forces, but they are not on the same level as Deltas or SEALs. It is the same with PLA special forces, only it is harder for us to know just how elite the units we are looking at are, as we don't really know who the top dogs are in the PLA special forces pecking order.

yes wolfie, in the US they are called tiers

How do you know this? Each MR have their own special forces does not prevent there being a national special forces branch that pick the best of the best from the MR special forces.So maybe you are just looking at the PLA equivalent of Rangers and thinking they are the PLA's SEALs/Deltas.

because it is actually that way, SOFs in PLA is distributed and subordinated to each MR, perhaps someone more authoritative on this matter can disprove me or convince you, not that i think if they are structured this way they must be not up to par, but again this is an unfamiliar practice in other SOFs

What is the basis for this claim? Just seems like circular reasoning to me.
i say perhaps wolfie, there i bolded and underlined my previous one in this post, therefore i do not claim it is as a thoroughly right or wrong matter of fact :p

Who is to say NATO/US style of training is the ultimate style of training that will produce the best results?[/

They may well do, but unless you can have a direct comparison between the skill and capabilities of PLA SOF and NATO/US SOF, there is simply no way to conclude one way or the other.

well you don't, but you can compare equipments, and equipment is an important part of training, and show what you're skilled with

Well that is simply not true.

It might have been true about very specific niche things like top end sniper rifles and match grade sniper ammo (which the PLA has started to adopt now btw), but in terms of general small arms, the Type 95 family is as good as anything NATO/US fields at present, if not superior.

The G36 might look more sexy, but the Type95 has it beat hands down in terms of reliability and durability, and there is no meaningful difference between standard Chinese and NATO small arms in terms of accuracy, fire rate, effective range or any other significant indicator.

The Chinese 5.8mm is also superior to the NATO 5.56mm in everything except maybe wounding potential, but that is only because the current 5.8mm ammo is intended to be used against armored opponents because pretty much everyone China might realistically go to war with issue their troops with body armor as standard.

But if the PLA suddenly finds itself faced with unarmoured foes in a protracted conflict, it would be a lot easier to simply remove the armor piercing steel core and maybe reducing the charge in the cartridge to avoid over-penetration and other basic steps to make the round more effective against unarmoured targets.

well PLA still uses NATO rounds and rifles for competitions, it is a tell tale of how good your rounds are, some countries even tried to mask it with using foreign round in their homemade package :p

there is much more than just caliber and grains to rounds or wounding potential, such as propellant, round quality and uniformity, things that only matter when you ask for only the best, like in a competition

again ask someone more authoritative if i don't convince you, CDF guys perhaps, as some of them handled Chinese firearms and has had some comments on them, or SDF resident gun nut, as all forums usually has one or some

Just what kind of essential equipment do you think PLA special forces are lacking exactly anyways?

i described some of it in my previous post
anyone want to find a equivalent load out of that US Marines pic of PLA regulars or/and SOFs?
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
or perhaps soldiers from country B do not use laser aims at all

So who is actually more skilled? The guys who need laser aims or the guys who can shoot just as accurately without? :p

because it is actually that way, SOFs in PLA is distributed and subordinated to each MR, perhaps someone more authoritative on this matter can disprove me or convince you, not that i think if they are structured this way they must be not up to par, but again this is an unfamiliar practice in other SOFs

The bulk of the PLA's SOF may be distributed to the MRs, but there are still national SOF units that pull their men from the best of the MRs. The Second Arty's special forces would be a prime example of a national or service level special forces unit. The navy's special forces would also count as a national level force, although they probably have a much smaller selection pool since their members would likely only come from the marines.

My point is that having MR level special forces says absolutely nothing about how well trained or effective national level special forces are.

well you don't, but you can compare equipments, and equipment is an important part of training, and show what you're skilled with

So how much extra training to you need to use an optical sight or laser aimer?

Much of the equipment you listed in your last past is performance aid equipment. The whole point of having them is to reduce the skill requirement level yet still be able to achieve the desired effectiveness.

well PLA still uses NATO rounds for competitions, it is a tell tale of how good your rounds are, some countries even tried to mask it with using foreign round in their homemade package :p

What are you talking about? How about some examples please?

again ask someone more authoritative if i don't convince you, CDF guys perhaps, as some of them handled Chinese firearms and has had some comments on them

Unless they are active military, they would have only handled export civilian grade stuff. Hardly representative of what the PLA uses.

they carry swords or DaDao(s) as captioned in those pics for showmanship value, as the whole shots are for TV,

That is plain wrong. PLA personnel might pose for pictures or show off certain kit, but they have never carried non standard equipment just for the cameras.

they didn't wear helmets although they carry a whole rucksack as to appear different, or elite, again for showmanship,

Do you honestly not realize that is how they train and will deploy?

Such large loads are standard fare when SOF units deploy into the field for protracted periods. It is common practice all over the world to train with massive packs to simulate the kinds of loads SOF soldiers would be expected to carry in the field.

It just seems like you have gotten it stuck in your head that Chinese SOF are crap and are just looking for any excuse to try and reinforce that view.

why put on googles without helmets,

Do you seriously not know? Goggles protect your eyes, helmets protect your skull. Since when has the two ever been co-dependent?

Special forces rarely wear ballistic helmets because of the weight bulk. US special forces only wear sports helmets to protect against bumps and knocks when they are deploying from helos. When they deploy in jungle or tropics on foot, they also don't wear helmets.

and it's also notoriously well known that the googles PLA provide to the troops are not military grade ones

The US and NATO did not issue it's troops with combat goggles at all until recently when they have been actively deployed.

You do realize that you are comparing units deployed the active war zones against those deployed only in training right? High end combat goggles are expensive and need replaying after a few years through wear and tear. There is no need to issue troops with them in peace time.

one can argue the tactical benefits of carrying such a large melee weapon into combat, but we sure does not see other SOFs doing that

Weren't you the one champion the idea that having more equipment = having more skill? If Chinese SOF are carrying DaDao while others aren't, according to your logic, shouldn't that mean they are more skilled?

It is inconsistencies like this that point to you having made up your mind already and are just looking for things to support your view instead to looking at things with a clean slate and trying to draw a conclusion based only on what you have seen.

another lacking equipment would be the DSR or marksman rifle, which is a Russian origin SVD or perhaps a Chinese equivalent (i'm not familiar with small arms), effective range 800m which is IMveryHO is not adequate

Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the role of the designated marksman then. A designated marksman is not a sniper, and 800m is plenty. That is the range of the new L129A1 sharpshooter rifle that the British are only recently equipping their troops with.

no scopes on the QBZs, no tactical radios (as usual with PLA SOFs pic), and other equipments such as pocket ready magazines, though the video grab is quite blurry to precisely show any or the lack of

That vid is several years old. Scopes are far more common place these days, also, when the PLAN SOF deploy for missions, they carry tactical radios, just watch some of the videos on the web. And pocket ready magazines? Really? What special skill do you need to be able to use that? It just look like you are grasping for straws here mate.

suffice to say it's not an exemplary display of a well equipped mission deployment ready SOF team, but we also should not take the pics as a representative of PLA SOFs equipment and load out standards

But the screen grabs are so blurry it's hard to see much of the details. If you yourself acknowledge that this is not representative of the usual equipment layout, how could you use this as 'evidence' that PLA SOF are "woefully equipped"?
 

paintgun

Senior Member
well, ill just say this wolfie, instead of long winding quote and quote, for both us will counter post each other in any way possible

honestly my words seems to be oftenly taken out of context (incidentally i hope) by your comments, you suggest i need to know, see, familiarize, learn, what a masterful way to slight somebody in the politest way indicating he/she is as clueless as ever, i'm not gonna be rude to you wolfie, or tell oh i do know this or that,
maybe i'm just gonna like you slightly less :eek: (that's the polite way to say you were being annoying with that post, right?)

on the topic wolfie, not the person, do we need to do that here?

a pic, that's all i'm asking for

maybe you or someone else can post a pic showing a PLA SOF/regular loadout/equipment up to NATO standards
until then i will reserve my opinion, and probably stay out of discussion with you for a while
 

solarz

Brigadier
I don't think discussion about the minute difference between rounds and small arms is very productive.

Long range sniper rifles does make a difference, but the question is, what is the level of difference between top-tier sniper rifles used by the PLA, and those used by NATO?

no scopes on the QBZs, no tactical radios (as usual with PLA SOFs pic), and other equipments such as pocket ready magazines, though the video grab is quite blurry to precisely show any or the lack of

I really don't think things like scopes and radios are out of reach of PLA special forces in 2012. So what kind of equipment would Chinese SF not be able to have access to?

Note also that equipment does not automatically translate to skill:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, preferred iron sights to a scope.
 

paintgun

Senior Member
I don't think discussion about the minute difference between rounds and small arms is very productive.

Long range sniper rifles does make a difference, but the question is, what is the level of difference between top-tier sniper rifles used by the PLA, and those used by NATO?

yes, such minute differences only matters on competitions level

say in competitions you want to hit the target all the time as close as possible, provided the shooter and spotter correctly predicts all the variables every single time, there is still variables that fluctuates like propellant load measure uniformity between rounds, or minute barrel heating bents

to make out the difference however, again, we have to pull data or pictures of the currently best rifles and rounds in PLA service to measure it

I really don't think things like scopes and radios are out of reach of PLA special forces in 2012. So what kind of equipment would Chinese SF not be able to have access to?

Note also that equipment does not automatically translate to skill:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, preferred iron sights to a scope.

certainly not out of reach, but we haven't seen them in wide spread or standard issue yet (hint : recent pics of Gulf of Aden flotilla PLAN marines deployment), we are even seeing more of the fancy gadgets and rifles at the PAP and SWATs

---------------

agreed with you solarz, equipment does not equate skill, but it is part of the whole equation

i do not doubt that PLA SOFs are most well trained and skilled force, according to the requirements and needs of PLA, and i do not doubt they are the best in fulfilling them

every military has their own requirements and their fighting methods and doctrines, having worse or better equipment does not directly translate into lesser or better warfighting capability, as each have their own way of fighting a war

i believe the PLA wants all the scopes, vests, radios, pads, and googles too, but it is simply too massive to afford all of them
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
i believe the PLA wants all the scopes, vests, radios, pads, and googles too, but it is simply too massive to afford all of them

I'm pretty sure they don't need "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"
when they have Baidu. :D

A good point you bring up is, what *IS* the needs and requirements of the PLA spec ops? Delta Force was formed after several terrorist incidents in the 1970s, and is created specifically for counter-terrorism. The Navy SEALS were created to fight against the guerilla warfare of Vietnam.

What purpose does PLA special forces serve? Is it fighting Golden Triangle drug lords, as CottageLV suggested, or something else altogether? Or do they have no specific purpose and are trained in general infiltration and reconnaissance skills?
 
Top