Help with Modern PLA Platoon structure

[Agis]

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/)
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!

[carlos marighela]

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.

[carlos marighela]

Here's another view of the world, albeit mech infantry.

http://strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20120901.aspx

[carlos marighela]

And here, hopefully is the chart referred to for foot infantry.

[Agis]

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...  

[Agis]

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?

[Brummie]

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.

[Elbows]

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. 

[Mathyoo]

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

[Agis]

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.

[Brummie]

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.

[carlos marighela]

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.

[Juan]

I´m sure Insurgents have not complicated tactics...

The Osprey book is very useful for a gamer perspective, I think.

[Brummie]

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.

[Juan]

And what could be a good scenario to use with the PLA forces? We have the figures, but we need a war now!