Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: Agis on 13 February 2014, 05:57:47 PM
-
Hi folks, I need your help.
I am one of the proud Empress Devildogs and Dragon pledgers.
Now I want to assemble my PLA soldiers in an more or less realistic way.
So how is a PLA Platoon organized?
I presume the following:
1 Command Squad
Lieutenant with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, Sergeant with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, Radio Operator with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE.
2-4 Infantry Squad
Fire Team 1: Sergeant with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 2 Soldiers with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 Soldier with PF-89 anti-tank rocket system.
Fire Team 2: Corporal with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 Soldier with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 Soldier with QBB-95 LMG.
Fire Team 2: Corporal with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 Soldier with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 Soldier with PF-89 anti-tank rocket system.
How is the QBZ-03 and QBZ-95 with UGL fit in?
(see http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/29/qbz-03-chinas-latest-assault-rifle/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/29/qbz-03-chinas-latest-assault-rifle/))
Same structure for PLA Special forces?
0-1 Sniper Team
Sergeant with QBU-88 sniper rifle, Soldier with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE.
How is a typical HJ-8 or Hongjian-8 anti-tank missile system Team organized?
1 Corporal or Sergeant as unit leader with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 gunner with HJ-8 and 1 Assistant QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE?
Type 89 Mortar Team
1 Corporal or Sergeant as unit leader with QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE, 1 gunner with Mortar and 1 Assistant QBZ-95 ASSAULT RIFLE?
Any help appreciated!
-
I've seen various interpretations on the interwebby. To a certain degree, I believe it's conditioned by whether they are mechanised infantry or 'leg' infantry.
Sino Defence, a usually reliable source has them as a 10 man squad, with a 4-3-3 team structure with the LMG in one team and the two PF-89 AT missiles in the other. There's a chart in the files section of the Yahoo TO&E group that gives historical breakdowns of the component parts of the infantry company.
Of course, that doesn't gel with mechanised infantry using some of the contemprary IFVs such as the original Chinese BMP clone the Type 86, aka WZ-501, because that exceeds the capacity of the vehicle. An eight man squad, probably split into two fire teams seems more likely there. Elsewhere I've seen people suggest that the old twelve man squad still lingers on with some non-mechanised units.
One thing does seem fairly certain, assault rifles are not mixed within squads or even whole battalions for that matter, so there is no justification, at least that I'm aware of for the Empress mix of QBZ-95 and QBZ-03. All the sources I've seen suggest that the latter is primarily used by second line formations and possibly some airborne forces. Why Empress included a mix is anyone's guess.
The HJ-8 is a company level asset. The yahoo group I mentioned has a detailed breakdown. If you can't access it let me know and I'll see what I can dig out. I suspect the original is still somewhere on the Sinodefence forum.
-
Here's another view of the world, albeit mech infantry.
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20120901.aspx
-
And here, hopefully is the chart referred to for foot infantry.
-
Thanks already folks!
I may put the QBZ-03 into the Mortar and HJ-8 team in light of Carlos answer.
Is the UGL used in a "normal squad"?
Or more in Special Forces?
My basic breakdown does not seem so far off... 8)
-
Very interesting chart.
So the Sniper is attached to the Command Squad!
Then 3 squads 12 man each!
The Mortar squad looks really strange to me! 12 man plus 2 Mortar gunner?
-
Best piece of info you can get for this, is Ospreys Elite 194 The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949 by Benjamin Lai.
It lists the lot from squad level upwards.
Infantry and Mechanized Battalions have different squad construction, and you will only find Under slung Grenade launchers in Mechanised units.
-
Also,
While I can't speak for the PLA obviously occasionally an NCO or officer will field a UGL - for use as both an offensive weapon and for providing smoke and flare rounds for signals purposes. Of course if something this big ever did kick off, almost any arrangement you decide upon would be incredibly feasible. In places like Afghanistan you see proper structures broken down by logistical problems, injuries, units spread too thin over various duties etc. I know for gaming purposes we like to keep things organized but I'd suggest going in a more fluid direction.
Squad = From X to Y soldiers armed with _______
(May add up to one attachment from: A, B, C etc.)
Also if you're registered on military photos.net (as linked above) you could likely ask somewhere on there. A lot of experts but you have to avoid the Chinabots and CHINA STRONG fellows who habitually lie and push propaganda. lol
-
Seems like most is written here:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/professional-discussions/rifle-squad-section-what-should-do-how-should-organized-2-3379.html
That long post seems to make a lot of sense, but it is 7 years old. If they are anything like our army, things have changed 3 times since :D
-
Thanks again folks.
The more I look into it, the more I am inclined to leave it as outlined in my initial post and give the player the option to add or remove squad members.
Much like Elbows wrote.
-
Well apparently by 2020 the PLA will be able to begin force projection on a large scale, there army has probably changed quite a lot from 7 years back, though I have no doubt the vast majority of their kit is still Cold war stuff.
-
Knew I had seen it somewhere. Crap analysis of section/ squad tactics though. We were taught to carry out flanking attacks with the section using the gun group as the base of fire aeons ago when we still used a gun group, scouts and rifles breakdown, ie two fire teams.
Fire and movement a difficulty with three groups? Er no, pretty simple really, " RIFLES UP" (scouts and gun group automatically provide covering fire) repeat with Scout Group and Gun group.
As for 'double envelopment'....seriously? We were taught not to be silly buggers and to avoid brassing up our own folk in section attacks, which is a likely consequence of having one group providing supporting fire whilst two separate groups conduct an assault from opposite angles. Even if such a thing was desirable, it would be bloody difficult to coordinate. The battle was to be won by gaining fire superiority, allowing the assaulting group onto the objective to close with and kill the enemy. Section tactics do not need to be complicated to be successful, in fact on the whole it's preferable that they aren't.
The other thing worth noting is that our doctrine was that a section, acting independently was effectively capable of taking on 2-3 enemy. Anything bigger became a job for the whole platoon. Naturally, in real life, that won't always occur but that was the way we were trained.
Sorry, I'm digressing from the topic.
-
I´m sure Insurgents have not complicated tactics...
The Osprey book is very useful for a gamer perspective, I think.
-
Insurgent tactics can become pretty complex, although in a lot of ways, the more serious insurgents are just following common sense. There is a few books out there on Chechen and Afghan tactics, most being based on having 30 man+ units split up into smaller groups of 10+ spread out over a large area, keeping extremely mobile, to negate the damages of Aerial and Artillery attacks.
Chechen tactics especially, as they often took up defensive positions and were up against a force that was far more #liberal' with its fire power than the Coalition possibly is in Afghanistan.
-
And what could be a good scenario to use with the PLA forces? We have the figures, but we need a war now!
-
Maybe something like Clancy's work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_Vector_(novel) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_Vector_(novel))
-
And what could be a good scenario to use with the PLA forces? We have the figures, but we need a war now!
Plenty! Aside from the obvious Americans, there is the Russians (and you could use practically all and every piece of kit Russia has used for a Siberian campaign) you could use Taliban/Afghans, as the Chinese have large amounts of troops in Pakistan and are fighting a growing insurgency in Xinjiang, probably even do them invading Afghanistan/Tajikistan etc to stem the flow of weapons into Xinjiang province.
Could have them in the Sudan, Somalia, maybe even Middle East as their influence expands later into the decade.
-
As Brummie and Agis said, all of the above are great locations for possible PLA action. And what's to stop you from having a hot skirmish on the Indian or Vietnamese border?
-
Uses for the PLA are...tremendously varied, but as mentioned - all routed in hypothetical situations.
Currently the Chinese military is in massive-growth mode. They're pushing a couple of destroyers/frigates out each month, recently completed their first carrier (refurbed Russian model), and are constantly causing trouble with territorial water claims - mainly with their weaker neighbors. They still have significant beef with the Japanese over some island claims (currently in the news, and the subject of a recent video game).
If you watch the Australian version of Red Dawn ("Tomorrow when the war began" or something) you'll see China invading Australia...
One thing that's pretty important is that China wants to be a bigger international power. They want their currency to be powerful (would love if nations changed from the dollar to Chinese currency - yuan?). They want to be more heavily involved in international efforts (shocked the world when a Chinese vessel showed up off the coast of Libya a couple years ago). They essentially want to be a huge player like Russia and the US. They want countries to go to China for weapons and arms. They want to be more politically powerful. They're buying up loads of industry in Africa, etc. (heck, buying up lots of stuff in Australia too).
China is responsible for something like 70% of the rebuilding work going on in Afghanistan right now. Wherever there is a project or product in demand, China is taking a swing at it.
All of this means you have TONS of potential (albeit possibly unrealistic) opportunities for the PLA to be in combat.
-Japanese, Taiwanese, Phillipine territorial disputes...
-Invading Australia or New Zealand?
-Chinese maritime forces against pirates?
-Chinese "peace keepers" involved in an African conflict
-China officially invading Taiwan
-Any number of small island disputes around their homeland (China refuses to acknowledge international water legislation and essentially has claimed almost half the hemisphere as China's own territory)
-China and Pakistan/India?
-China vs. Japan (obviously backed up by NATO)
-Chinese forces against internal security in China when the war starts (laying siege to embassies etc.)
-China joining and financially backing a random Middle East country against NATO intervention?
-Natural disaster relief efforts becomes sneaky invasion? (ie. Chinese volunteer forces go to help Japan or Phillipines post-massive earthquake or tsunami - but end up using it to mask a large invasion force?)
Lots of ideas here.
-
Interesting the siege to an embassy...
I am reading a lot about this question, and I like the idea of a Chinese military intervention in Afghanistan (in this way, I have already a third of the figures...).
But the idea of the embassy is very interesting...
-
Personally I'm going for the hugely unrealistic Red Dawn scenario, having Chinese forces invade the US west coast.
That's really a convenience for me as I already have appropriate terrain, and models for US police, which might make an appearance.
Since I'm going to use Force on Force, I'm planning to have the Wolverines pop up for some asymmetric engagements later on as well. This will all be very silly, but hopefully fun!
-
That could be very cool. Who cares if it's realistic? You can always pretend that in 10 years time our economy has completely flat-lined (and China steps into the power void) etc.
-
I was actually trying to figure out, never mind that it doesn't make much sense for China to try, how close they might be able to get to invading the US. I was pondering some idea of weaponry, armour, etc being hidden in cargo ships, and the actual invasion (with dropping paratroopers, of course!) being timed to their arrival.
Possibly some assumption that more hard-line communists have come to power in China and they want a conflict with the West to prop up their own government, as well.
But you're right, I mainly just want to do it because it would look cool on the tabletop!
-
Not even close lol.
That is why they are spending all that capital trying to build an actually navy over the past few years.
Now There sub fleet is a different matter altogether. They could in theory get close enough to shell the US.
But as it stands at the moment there best bet, is that say. They make a go for Taiwan, is to make the sea and air to hazardous for American reinforcements to arrive.
The best we could do for the first week or two, is get a MUE and maybe a few Ranger and Airborne battalions into country. Were the conflict would be decided is the Air and Sea. China still has numbers, and they are improving but they just do not have the ability to do more then a propaganda action at most against the continental US.
Now of course lets not forget about attacking Americas pacific stats and territory Hawaii, Guam, Samoa...etc. I could see maybe a few commando raids, and shelling of the Islands.
-
In your view, is the thing stopping them the fact that they can't get past the US Navy/Coast Guard, no ability to support the troops they land when they get there, both, or something else? :) Just wondering what hand wavy excuses I need to come up with for my campaign to make the tiniest bit of sense...
-
In your view, is the thing stopping them the fact that they can't get past the US Navy/Coast Guard, no ability to support the troops they land when they get there, both, or something else? :) Just wondering what hand wavy excuses I need to come up with for my campaign to make the tiniest bit of sense...
Hit the nail on the head. But its a fictional conflict so you could make up all kinds of crazy ways they got over. Maybe They sneak in a bunch of troops into some of there trade zones in major US ports. And as part of a declared war effort on Taiwan, Japan what have you they do all or nothing raids on the ports and make a go for the docked fleets, and communications. Mean while trying to knock out the US carrier groups at sea with there subs.
The idea being that the units in the US are trying to cause as much damage as possible, and fight as long as they can to try to toss a spanner into Americas ability to rush troops over the ocean, because the government and military are distracted trying to stop and hunt down the invaders. This is of course all hypothetical, and the units doing the raid are doomed. They might complete there mission, but they will ether have to surrender or fight to the last. Not to mention that it would set off the total war mentality fuelled by revenge that the US military excels at.
-
But when it comes down to it. Its a game, Make up any excuse you want to justify it. :D
-
I was thinking about PLA incursions into northern Vietnam (following several incidents in the South China Seas) and small teams of US special forces being sent into investigate. This is obviously because I see this as a realistic potential future conflict and not because I only bought two squads of PLA and eight DEVGRU figures and I'm already making Vietnam terrain. ;D
I thought it would be a nice bit of variety!
-
I think I'm to strong into Twillight:2000/2013. China is invading The West of America. So I think of Diners and Petrolstation in the desert (like Grimm's AC1957-Table). Maybe a small desert-town with buildings from Bachmann. It all can work together. Oh, the Australians... :? I have to think about them
-
China has a very powerful military...but it's powerful in a different fashion than ours. They have "decent" stuff but really lack the quality of our equipment (and our training). However, China has one huge advantage - numbers. Oddly they don't have enough aviation transport capability, though that could change. They recently unveiled their first major transport plane. Granted it's essentially a copy-cat of a couple Western designs...but in 10-15 years perhaps they'll have a bunch of them.
One easy way to make it all justifiable is that terrorist forces strike the US with a nuclear or chemical weapon on the East Coast - severely destroying the economy, drawing the US into another war. While at our weakest China makes a move for the West Coast (or maybe just Alaska first?).
Another simple idea is that China manages to get a first-strike nuclear attack on the US (economic suicide for them, but let's pretend they discovered gigantic oil and natural resources in their country and are financially stabilized by it) and the PLA come in to clean up all of the states and areas which don't have major cities (ie. places which weren't worth a nuke). This would remove the major US military machine from the equation and you could do left-over units, national guard, reserve forces, some allied Canadians, etc.
The easiest ideas of course are a Chinese invasion of Australia or New Zealand (they could do this, but reasons would be...?) or China attacks Hawaii or Alaska - something far enough from the mainland to make it a fight.
-
While not related to Chinese, I have been thinking about justifying my campaign, too. After lot of thinking it over, I've figured I don't need to justify my hobby (yes, sometimes it's just so easy :D)
I say if you want Chinese invasion of USA, do it and don't over think it. Like this:
Due to Chinese propaganda and USA's focus somewhere else (like Middle East), the invasion caught USA off guard and Chinese troops are already making bridgeheads in the North America.
or
War against China has been lasting for a while now and Chinese have been successful in frog-leaping through the Pacific all the way to mainland USA.
And so on. I really wouldn't be bothering counting the ships. If USA Navy is too strong - perhaps it was another Pearl Harbour and it's not that strong anymore?
And great job...now I want to game a combined russian - chinese invasion of USA/Europe :D
-
Just to muddy the water with more factual evidence...if you're concerned about the US Navy don't be. General consensus is that in an all-out war a country like China would fill the sky with cheap MiGs carrying airborne anti-ship missiles. That would destroy the main naval power of almost any nation, regardless of air defenses etc. Essentially a swarm attack - heck they even have land-based anti-ship missiles.
When this large target in the middle of nowhere showed up on satellite, people started hypothesizing that it was a "simulated" target for the rumoured Chinese "carrier killer" missile systems.
(http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/54/74/56/201304/ob_21cd95_test-df-21d-desert-de-gobi.jpg)
lol So, don't stress about the Navy.
-
Yep, just like in the Falkland's conflict, Always a cat and mouse game when if comes to ships and "Carrier battle groups". that is why china is really beefing up its sea board AA. because any conflict will be decided in the air and sea.
Were the ATSMs and MEG swam main disadvantage, is range and detection. They are still lacking in projection and detection. Of course they are working on that. Always a back and forth.
I really don't see Invasion as an option for ether the US or China. Short of a world war.
Now what I see as a more credible threat being, When a Chines attack sub surfaced in the middle of the U.S.S. Kitty Hawks battle group. With out being detected. I believe that happened in October of 06.
For land enjoyments, I really only see Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, South/North Korea, Philippines or one of many much smaller Islands.
-
The cat-n-mouse stuff of the Cold War was always fascinating...and anyone who thinks we're not in a type of Cold War with China needs to read a bit more. lol I'd say a major clash is about as likely as it was in Cold War (ie. not really).
Use your imagination a bit and you can think up a ton of excellent scenarios. Regarding the Chinese sub surfacing near our battle group - my father was a RIO with the Navy for a while back in the mid-late 70's. It was always incredibly common to have nondescript Russian fishing trawlers tailing US battle groups - shadowing them. It was obvious that the Russians knew where our carrier groups were all the time.
What we didn't learn until later in the war or shortly after - was upon seeing some of these Russian fishing trawlers in dry-dock...they had torpedo tubes! In the start of a major conflict we might well have lost a handful of ships/carriers before anything even started.
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b24/hybenamon/NAVAL/WARSHIPS/317039.jpg)
Torpedo trawlers...it sounds weird to say it, but war sure can be fascinating sometimes. I'm curious what we'll discover eventually regarding the Chinese.
-
Sneaky Russians. ;)
Not a bad idea, knock out your enemies best with a up gunned Fishing boat. :D
-
Excellent for sashimi too or making bolinho de bacalhau.