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

Blitzo said:

On the one hand, I agree to an extent. On the other hand, if we rank the most pressing traditional domains of warfare/service branch for the PRC, from highest yield to lowest yield to seek maximal funding in, in terms of its strategic priorities and regional challenges:
- Air/Naval/Missile/Cyber/Space/Joint Logistics
....
....
....
....
- Ground

And if we were to separate the major components needed for a successful ground warfare military, from highest yield to lowest yield in context of its major pressing ground priorities to seek maximal funding in, I would say:
- Fires/recce/C4I/EW/logistics/supply
- Mechanization/motorization/rotary support/organic AAD
....
....
- Infantry


Of course, having competent infantry is somewhat important in the prior aforementioned domains (Air/Naval/Missile/Cyber/Space/Joint Logistics) for the purposes of things like base security and counter-SOF efforts, and in theory all warfare is multidomain and joint to an extent as well...
... but it is undeniable that infantry fitout is probably the lowest yield priority for the PLA in ground warfare, while ground warfare itself is the lowest yield domain/service branch for the PLA overall. Infantry fitout is thus the least important of the least important.


So sure, having most of infantry incapable of nightfighting is a critical shortcoming, but if it gets to the stage where infantry being incapable of nightfighting becomes significantly relevant to the PRC warfighting effort, then chances are everything else has already gone poorly for the PLA as a whole and the conflict is basically already over.


Now, I do agree that I think the PLA should be well funded enough that I think they can probably proliferate night fighting equipment a bit more widely in a slightly more standardized manner than they have in the past.
E.g.: SOF, recce units, could probably standardize to have it as part of their curriculum and TOE. But I'm not unsympathetic to the reasoning for why standard line infantry have yet to receive stuff like NODs and IR lasers.

Click to expand...

Look, at the end of the day conditions can change quickly and competent procurement should take into account both current and future needs. There is always a way to balance cost and readiness if enough thought is put into it. If night fighting capabilities at a limited budget was truly something they wanted to solve, complete sets of equipment could easily be rotated between units for regular familiarization training. This would keep units in a semi-ready state that could be scaled up when needed with just a few weeks of work up training. Proper handguard rails would be worth it just for that. It's also very optimistic to assume that there was any some sort of grand strategy behind certain short sighted decisions in rifle procurement lol, when complacency is a much more realistic explanation. I'm sure you of all people are aware of the many stories from former PLA themselves of how backwards many in Ground Force leadership are.

If there's one thing that sticks out to me from talking to guys who have fought against an enemy without modern night fighting capabilities, it's how much shit they were able to get away with. How many paragraphs of justifying mediocrity would it take to console the parents of sons who ended up on someone else's highlight reel that goes viral on IG reels?

AZaz09dude said:

Look, at the end of the day conditions can change quickly and competent procurement should take into account both current and future needs. There is always a way to balance cost and readiness if enough thought is put into it. If night fighting capabilities at a limited budget was truly something they wanted to solve, complete sets of equipment could easily be rotated between units for regular familiarization training. This would keep units in a semi-ready state that could be scaled up when needed with just a few weeks of work up training. Proper handguard rails would be worth it just for that. It's also very optimistic to assume that there was any some sort of grand strategy behind certain short sighted decisions in rifle procurement lol, when complacency is a much more realistic explanation. I'm sure you of all people are aware of the many stories from former PLA themselves of how backwards many in Ground Force leadership are.

Click to expand...

My point is that of all the areas in which incompetence and questionable procurement decisions are being made, the PLA is fortunate that it is in such an irrelevant domain (ground warfare) for such low yield actionables (infantry kit).

AZaz09dude said:

If there's one thing that sticks out to me from talking to guys who have fought against an enemy without modern night fighting capabilities, it's how much shit they were able to get away with. How many paragraphs of justifying mediocrity would it take to console the parents of sons who ended up on someone else's highlight reel that goes viral on IG reels?

Click to expand...

Yeah but if the PLA ever was in a situation where infantry fights at night were common place and a major cause of casualties then chances are:
1. It's not an important conflict for the PLA to begin with, or
2. It's an important conflict for the PLA and they have already lost in the aforementioned much higher yield domains and have been reduced to a semi-irregular insurgent force like the Taliban.

Because before there's IG reels of infantry getting picked off by folks with NODs, you're going to see satellite pictures of air bases and missile sites and radars getting pummelled and naval ships getting sunk and maybe even radar contact footage of fighters getting shot down by BVR... followed by long, long periods of EO targeting pods displaying the rest of a military's conventional forces getting wiped out by PGMs, followed by UAVs and tube artillery picking off ragtag groups of infantry and armour, followed by FPV drones eventually tidying up what's left... and then yes, one may also see infantry engage in gun fights within short line of sight range at night as well, maybe.
For the PLA, focusing on all of those preceding domains of warfare before the availability of NODs being the differentiator of combat effectiveness and casualty causing, would naturally be the goal.


==
I've moved this to the infantry thread.

AZaz09dude said:

Look, at the end of the day conditions can change quickly and competent procurement should take into account both current and future needs. There is always a way to balance cost and readiness if enough thought is put into it. If night fighting capabilities at a limited budget was truly something they wanted to solve, complete sets of equipment could easily be rotated between units for regular familiarization training. This would keep units in a semi-ready state that could be scaled up when needed with just a few weeks of work up training. Proper handguard rails would be worth it just for that. It's also very optimistic to assume that there was any some sort of grand strategy behind certain short sighted decisions in rifle procurement lol, when complacency is a much more realistic explanation. I'm sure you of all people are aware of the many stories from former PLA themselves of how backwards many in Ground Force leadership are.

If there's one thing that sticks out to me from talking to guys who have fought against an enemy without modern night fighting capabilities, it's how much shit they were able to get away with. How many paragraphs of justifying mediocrity would it take to console the parents of sons who ended up on someone else's highlight reel that goes viral on IG reels?

Click to expand...

It also sounds bizarre to me if "waiting until it's needed" is genuinely what the GF leadership thinks when putting a free float tube would substantially change the handling of the rifle and doubly so when you hang a laser box on the front of the gun, so choosing not to ready your infantry for nightfighting (unless they do so with a handguard that doesn't hold zero) does not make sense to me unless they genuinely still have that mindset

Clango said:

It also sounds bizarre to me if "waiting until it's needed" is genuinely what the GF leadership thinks when putting a free float tube would substantially change the handling of the rifle and doubly so when you hang a laser box on the front of the gun, so choosing not to ready your infantry for nightfighting (unless they do so with a handguard that doesn't hold zero) does not make sense to me unless they genuinely still have that mindset

Click to expand...

I think the point is; investing in infantry level gear gets to the point of diminishing returns pretty quickly. And very early on, it stops affecting much of anything.
Think the below timestamped Gun Jesus Q/A and while he's talking about rifles, it's kind of the same for the rest of the gear. So as much as we all want to see tacticool PLAGF, it's logically not worth it.



Snagging Blitzo's post on twitter, ain't no bling is going to do anything when you take this to the face

Blitzo said:

My point is that of all the areas in which incompetence and questionable procurement decisions are being made, the PLA is fortunate that it is in such an irrelevant domain (ground warfare) for such low yield actionables (infantry kit).




Yeah but if the PLA ever was in a situation where infantry fights at night were common place and a major cause of casualties then chances are:
1. It's not an important conflict for the PLA to begin with, or
2. It's an important conflict for the PLA and they have already lost in the aforementioned much higher yield domains and have been reduced to a semi-irregular insurgent force like the Taliban.

Because before there's IG reels of infantry getting picked off by folks with NODs, you're going to see satellite pictures of air bases and missile sites and radars getting pummelled and naval ships getting sunk and maybe even radar contact footage of fighters getting shot down by BVR... followed by long, long periods of EO targeting pods displaying the rest of a military's conventional forces getting wiped out by PGMs, followed by UAVs and tube artillery picking off ragtag groups of infantry and armour, followed by FPV drones eventually tidying up what's left... and then yes, one may also see infantry engage in gun fights within short line of sight range at night as well, maybe.
For the PLA, focusing on all of those preceding domains of warfare before the availability of NODs being the differentiator of combat effectiveness and casualty causing, would naturally be the goal.


==
I've moved this to the infantry thread.

Click to expand...

Your points are correct but it's also cope. Air, naval and everything else can and should take priority over this but that doesn't exclude smarter procurement decisions that allow for expanded capabilities in the future from happening. All it requires is the right person in the right position doing their due diligence.

sheen said:

So as much as we all want to see tacticool PLAGF, it's logically not worth it.

Click to expand...

I understand there's a certain demographic on this forum who follow PLA developments as a way to express their nationalism/ethnonationalism/political views or whatever, but it shouldn't be at the expense of seeking truth from facts. Form tends to follow function, and US/Western forces having an unprecedented amount of money and professional effort being dumped into this domain over the past couple decades has provided many of the currently most optimal solutions. The needs of the PLA/PAP aren't so unique after all, especially not to the point where it defies human anatomy and physics. So don't get too triggered when modernization happens to make a force look more "tacticool." Both the US and Soviets were more than happy to rock Type-56 style chest rigs during the Cold War when it met their needs.

AZaz09dude said:

Your points are correct but it's also cope. Air, naval and everything else can and should take priority over this but that doesn't exclude smarter procurement decisions that allow for expanded capabilities in the future from happening. All it requires is the right person in the right place doing their due diligence.

Click to expand...

Actually I am one of the more consistent and strenuous critics of PLAGF infantry modernization efforts, so no it is not cope because I'm quite aware of their deficiencies.

However that awareness is also paired with understanding that the type of conflict they're gearing up to fight would not position well equipped infantry as an important or high yield category/echelon for priority to modernize.


In fact I suspect part of the reason why their efforts to modernize infantry is a bit confusing/lackluster is probably a direct cause of a lack of priority relative to the other domains.


If we had to put it in a sentence -- everyone is aware PLA infantry modernization sucks, but everyone is also aware that high specced infantry is one of the least important echelons for modern ground warfare, and ground warfare is also the least important contingency for the PLA's strategic priorities.

AZaz09dude said:

I understand there's a certain demographic on this forum who follow PLA developments as a way to express their nationalism/ethnonationalism/political views or whatever, but it shouldn't be at the expense of seeking truth from facts. Form tends to follow function, and US/Western forces having an unprecedented amount of money and professional effort being dumped into this domain over the past couple decades has provided many of the currently most optimal solutions. The needs of the PLA/PAP aren't so unique after all, especially not to the point where it defies human anatomy and physics. So don't get too triggered when modernization happens to make a force look more "tacticool." Both the US and Soviets were more than happy to rock Type-56 style chest rigs during the Cold War when it met their needs.

Click to expand...

It is also probably important to recognize that well equipped infantry is also among the least important differentiators for high end conventional ground warfare, and that ground warfare itself is the least important domain for the PLA as a whole given their priorities.

In context of the PLA at large, their overall combat effectiveness would not be greatly changed if they were using QBZ-191s with optics or if they had never changed from Type 56s, because small arms and infantry action is all downstream and victims of fires, recce, logistics, ISR, EW in the ground domain, and the ground domain is downstream of air, naval, space, op-fires, and cyber.


So one can maybe accept that if the PLA today still had their infantry using Type 56s with 1960s chest rigs, the net difference in their combat capability in context of all the other progress in PLA and PLAGF would be fairly minor.

It is truth from facts to accept that high specced infantry have very diminishing gains in the face of the full scale of the rest of ground warfare not to mention multi domain operations.


If one was fighting an infantry heavy war like in Afghanistan, sure.
But the PLA is not planning to do so.

AZaz09dude said:

Your points are correct but it's also cope. Air, naval and everything else can be take priority over this but that doesn't exclude smarter procurement decisions that allow for expanded capabilities in the future from happening. All it requires is the right person in the right place doing their due diligence.


I understand there's a certain demographic on this forum who follow PLA developments as a way to express their nationalism/ethnonationalism/political views or whatever, but it shouldn't be at the expense of seeking truth from facts. Form tends to follow function, and US/Western forces having an unprecedented amount of money, and professional effort being dumped into this domain over the past couple decades has provided many of the currently most optimal solutions in this domain. The needs of the PLA/PAP aren't so unique after all, especially not to the point where it defies human anatomy and physics. So don't get too triggered when the modernization happens to make a force look more "tacticool." Both the US and Soviets were more than happy to rock Type-56 style chest rigs during the Cold War when it met their needs after all.

Click to expand...

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

sheen said:

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

Click to expand...

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

sheen said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Clango said:

I

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.

Click to expand...

Because when you are going to buy millions of those for your troops, it typically gets very expensive. There's also better things to spend money on, like more RnD or infrastructure etc.