Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.

[Blitzo]

What I don't understand is why are we still somehow treating this as a "one or the other" thing when the Chinese GDP clearly supports spending enough to invest properly in each soldier, I don't get why we still have to act like something like a free float tube is some sort of luxury that's somehow too expensive to afford. This logic is also how they got to them having to use those awful boots instead of something better.

In context of the PLAGFs overall funding, they probably don't have as much money to work with as we think. If we think about the PLA at large, sure it is certainly greater but that comes down to service prioritization.

Something like free floated handguards are a bit of a luxury in that regard (cost of such handguards versus the polymer ones they have now), especially if they don't also intend to have a use case for FF HGs (they aren't going to issue anywhere near enough IR lasers and NODs to make them necessary as a standard fitout).

This isn't to say that PLAGF procurement sensibility for infantry is rated well.
For example, the PLAAF made a great call by making Y-20B a MRTT, and the PLAGFs procurement of ISR and fires (PHL-191) was a bit of a masterclass truth be told.

It's not a controversy to say PLAGF infantry procurement leaves a lot to be desired, but imo it is a bit of a controversy for people to focus on it so disproportionately.
The glamourization of highly specced infantry and operators in media and PR is somewhat to blame for this.

There should perhaps be more movies and video games about artillery loaders, meteorologists and fire direction centers.

 

[Abakan]

This kind of tolerance for complacency is what got the PLAGF's infantry to its position in the first place and made them waste resources to chase things like cool smart soldier set up instead of things which actually matter like expanded training for first aid and mass issuing useful things like IFAKs.

And then this directly translates to unneeded losses which could've been avoided like the deaths of the Chinese peacekeepers in South Sudan in 2016.

I don't think it's a very good example, at that time Chinese peacekeepers were already equipped with an IOTV like body armour, and those two specific peacekeepers were killed by mortar rounds. Thus, I really doubt if it could have been avoided

 

[Clango]

In context of the PLAGFs overall funding, they probably don't have as much money to work with as we think. If we think about the PLA at large, sure it is certainly greater but that comes down to service prioritization.

Something like free floated handguards are a bit of a luxury in that regard (cost of such handguards versus the polymer ones they have now), especially if they don't also intend to have a use case for FF HGs (they aren't going to issue anywhere near enough IR lasers and NODs to make them necessary as a standard fitout).

This isn't to say that PLAGF procurement sensibility for infantry is rated well.
For example, the PLAAF made a great call by making Y-20B a MRTT, and the PLAGFs procurement of ISR and fires (PHL-191) was a bit of a masterclass truth be told.

It's not a controversy to say PLAGF infantry procurement leaves a lot to be desired, but imo it is a bit of a controversy for people to focus on it so disproportionately.
The glamourization of highly specced infantry and operators in media and PR is somewhat to blame for this.

There should perhaps be more movies and video games about artillery loaders, meteorologists and fire direction centers.

That I do agree, they seem to be getting their logistics in order which is a good thing to see.

 

[no_name]

I want robot soldiers and robot dogs that are good enough eventually. And put night visions on them. Then can stop this debate.

 

[dripblackcoffee]

In context of the PLAGFs overall funding, they probably don't have as much money to work with as we think. If we think about the PLA at large, sure it is certainly greater but that comes down to service prioritization.

Something like free floated handguards are a bit of a luxury in that regard (cost of such handguards versus the polymer ones they have now), especially if they don't also intend to have a use case for FF HGs (they aren't going to issue anywhere near enough IR lasers and NODs to make them necessary as a standard fitout).

This isn't to say that PLAGF procurement sensibility for infantry is rated well.
For example, the PLAAF made a great call by making Y-20B a MRTT, and the PLAGFs procurement of ISR and fires (PHL-191) was a bit of a masterclass truth be told.

It's not a controversy to say PLAGF infantry procurement leaves a lot to be desired, but imo it is a bit of a controversy for people to focus on it so disproportionately.
The glamourization of highly specced infantry and operators in media and PR is somewhat to blame for this.

There should perhaps be more movies and video games about artillery loaders, meteorologists and fire direction centers.

I think talking about rifles is a moot point when speaking about the effectiveness of the ground forces, while a better hand guard and stock would improve the effectiveness of the ground troops, it would only do so by a negligible amount. Suppressors, scopes, night vision and thermals while more expensive have proven to be significantly more effective in infantry combat.

 

[Clango]

I think talking about rifles is a moot point when speaking about the effectiveness of the ground forces, while a better hand guard and stock would improve the effectiveness of the ground troops, it would only do so by a negligible amount. Suppressors, scopes, night vision and thermals while more expensive have proven to be significantly more effective in infantry combat.

For sure, as far as priority goes I'd say mass issuing suppressors is the most important, and then optics, other accouterments while still useful are less important

 

[DeltaGreen]

People overestimate how well funded the PLA is. They also overestimate the Army’s funding, let alone personnel costs, the wages paid simply to maintain manpower. Many may be overestimating how much the PLA values ordinary infantry and these relatively ordinary personnel and their equipment.

It should be noted that the PLA now has a personnel cap of about two million, which is much lower than the 2.3 million cap years ago. Every expansion of a carrier fleet may require around ten thousand crew members on the ships, plus various kinds of ground support personnel. When the fujian was launched, personnel quotas were drawn from across the entire military, and the whole force compressed its staffing to expand the Navy.

I know of a certain regiment in the Air Force where not a single third-term NCO remained; everyone left when their service period ended, with no one retained. There was also a motor transport company, not an ordinary infantry company, where not a single conscript successfully applied to become a corporal after completing mandatory service.

I think the PLA’s attitude toward the Army, and toward equipment related to ordinary infantry is basically to save as much money as possible. The more money saved, the better. It’s best not to have expectations for improvements in this area of equipment.

 

[Blitzo]

I think talking about rifles is a moot point when speaking about the effectiveness of the ground forces, while a better hand guard and stock would improve the effectiveness of the ground troops, it would only do so by a negligible amount. Suppressors, scopes, night vision and thermals while more expensive have proven to be significantly more effective in infantry combat.

I would say that the gains in infantry effectiveness overall (as enabled by things like suppressors, scopes, night vision, thermals) is relatively miniscule in context of the overall scheme of ground forces and even more miniscule in context of multi-domain operations, and in the PLA's case where multi-domain operations are heavily weighted towards air/naval/missile then it becomes infinitesimally small.

As said previously, it is either good luck, or a reflection of logical prioritization of human resourcing, that PLA infantry equipment procurement is relatively poorly thought out and poorly funded compared to... everything else, because it also happens to be the near the bottom of relevance and importance for the PLA's force posture.

 

[Clango]

I would say that the gains in infantry effectiveness overall (as enabled by things like suppressors, scopes, night vision, thermals) is relatively miniscule in context of the overall scheme of ground forces and even more miniscule in context of multi-domain operations, and in the PLA's case where multi-domain operations are heavily weighted towards air/naval/missile then it becomes infinitesimally small.

As said previously, it is either good luck, or a reflection of logical prioritization of human resourcing, that PLA infantry equipment procurement is relatively poorly thought out and poorly funded compared to... everything else, because it also happens to be the near the bottom of relevance and importance for the PLA's force posture.

I suppose to be fair, the air force being the most important branch at least is very much well funded, given that they have to do the most in case a war happens

 

[Saru]

I don't think I came across as triggered?

But anyways, think of the scenario in which a regular PLAGF grunt is going to find himself in a firefight using his rifle.

Island hopping in the pacific, sure, but that's after every upright standing thing on said island is devoid of their postures (humans included) from standoff bombardments.

Urban combat to flush out Taiwanese resistance? We can entertain that in the case they REALLY messed up to find themselves in that situation, but PLA already have the required gear issued for this type of fight. What's an more Gucci'ed out rifle going to do that's different from what's already in the hands of every soldier? You're going to Afghan hip fire spray that stuff around the corner anyways.

Korea, you're flirting with nuclear war here, and the tacticool Korean/US Navy Seals are gonna fair just as well to cancer as your regular PLA grunts.

Against India? I think they got that covered as well
View attachment 171135

It's highly unlikely China will ever Invade Taiwan unless Taiwan does something stupid as the Ukrainians who want NATO a union dedicated to getting rid of communism no matter the cost a Union like that on Russia's doorstep Isn't a good idea It's a middle finger to Russia's Sovereignty Ukraine expect not to be bombarded by Russia?

Anyway what Infantry has been taught before is becoming obsolete today while we move toward technology as US and China are investing heavily into AI, Artillery and Aerial Vehicles, ICBM and the Navy.

PLA will not fight another war with Soldiers if there's a Infantry War they will be fought with Robots with Artificial Intelligence that is honestly not too far away the incredible things those robots can do in China performing moves and acrobatics like Humans is slowly rendering the need for a human soldier pointless unless United States of America and other nations whether condemn the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence or not.

China could always deploy PLA Troops in Iran now that the conflict between Iran and Israel US has escalated. the question begs will China help Iran with Infantry? Unlikely China has been the only nation encouraging peace so far unlike US.

Foot soldiers are becoming more obsolete as time goes. If Trump deploys US troops in Iran perhaps we then might see PLA Infantry in Iran.