![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
PLA 155th Light Mechanized Regiment
Included are new photos of the Chinese People's Liberation Army experimental 155th Light Mechanized Regiment, this is the 1st time we've got somewhat a closer look at this new formation. This was quite a shock to PLA watchers since this is a regular Army Regiment which is a departure from the stated battalion-brigade-corps. Before this, we had assume all regts were legacy units.
Needless to say, this has caused a stir in PLA watching. I'm going to expand the field into asking you Gentlemen what are they learning, what kind of mistakes are they making, what are they getting right, what can the LMR do, and what can the LMR not do?
__________________
Chimo |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
The initial TOE, may change over time (from Xinhui)
Battalion HQ medical support 1x Fire Support Company Company HQ jeeps and SUV 3xW99 82mm auto mortar 3x25mm/SAM 3xHeavy Machine Gun and Grenade launcher Heavy Mech Infantry company 3 x Type 96 MBT 3 x Type86 IFV 3 x Type96 IFV 1x Artillery Company company HQ 3x100mm mortar 3x105mm Wheeled Anti-tank Gun 3x107mm Multiple Rocket launcher 1 recon company. 1x command and communication jeep 2x armed recon jeeps 2x2 recon ATV. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
New Member
|
Quote:
How effective it would be is as always a representation of a variety of factors- troop quality, tactics, equipment quality, ability to support with attatchments, air support/cover, fuel and supplies, etc, etc. Also of key interest would be what kind of VSHORAD and SHORAD would this formation be able to expect in the field. The best AAA i saw above was a bunch of manual 23mm twin mounts. That is wholly inadequate against a 1st or 2nd tier opponent. Anyway, if the troops are high quality and used properly, it could be a pretty effective force. Wouldn't want to commit it to a knock-down drag out brawl if you could help it though. Even a SAW would cut one of those unarmored jeeps to ribbons in a matter of seconds. Literally....and from 600 meters plus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Part of our problem is trying to come to terms with the heavy mech inf coy. Contrary to the other coys within this regt, it is not air transportable, which
a) limits the distance this regt is supposed to employ b) it must arrive via an airstrip or c) a place holder for equivelent firepower In contrast also to the rest of the coys, the heavy coy are all old toys, all 1950 tech. __________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Contributor
|
Colonel,
Is this Light Mechanized Regiment one of the three in an Infantry Division? I tried to compare this to an Indian Mechanized Infantry Battalion, but didn't find an TO for that. My questions on the PLA's LMR are: 1. With the small number of tanks (am I reading it right that there are only 3 of each?), isn't there a limit to their effectiveness except as reinforcing in defence? 2. Why aren't there more IFVs or at least BMP-type vehicles that can offer a ride to more troops? 3. The organization seems to be a bit imbalanced. For example, due to lack of sufficient ICVs, won't the mobility of the dismounted infantry be mismatched with that of the tanks? Also, the heavy emphasis on the Artillery Coy (for a Mech. Inf. Bn.) seems to detract from the recce and raid functions one would associate with such a unit. 4. Why is the Fire Support Coy separate from the Artillery Coy? If it is to provide close support, my follow-on question is below - support to the (missing) Rifle Coys? 5. Where is the equivalent of the Rifle Coys that one expects in an Inf Bn - Mechanized or otherwise? Already, 4 Coys have been listed and none are Rifle Coys. What am I missing? 6. Given the large Artillery component, wouldn't you expect a larger Recce Coy to utilize that firepower? Sorry about providing questions, instead of answers - but the latter are not my forte! Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |||||||
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
Quote:
At this point, we don't have enough info. Quote:
Quote:
Xinhui (aka Andy Chan) reports from CCTV Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, this makes sense if company group and battle group are employed. However, this would be the 1st time in PLA history that they've embarked on this concept. We don't have any evidence that they're using company group and battle group ... but the suggestion is strongly there. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
Contributor
|
Colonel,
Thank you for the clarifications. I have some more questions: How many helos would it take, if that were the primary source of mobility? In the IA, a medium lift helo like the Mi-17 transports either a jeep or a platoon worth of personnel at a time. It seems odd that they would depend on the helos (instead of investing in ICVs) for mobility, given the weather-dependence and MANPAD risks associated with it. It makes sense for a U.S./NATO force which is largely expeditionary in nature and hence needs high tactical mobility, and can achieve the kind of air dominance required for heliborne assault. Actually, thinking more about this, a heliborne transport would be very useful in a Taiwan or an Indian scenario, given the terrain. However, there would have to be significant force protection, especially in a Taiwan scenario, I imagine. Quote:
But why aren't they listed in the ToO? I see only Support Coy, Artillery Coy, Heavy Mechanized Coy and Recon Coy. How many Infantry Coys to a LM Regiment? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) | ||||
|
Military Professional
Moderator Scotch taster |
Quote:
Quote:
Easiest way to explain a battle group/task force is you take an inf battalion and a tank bn and have them swap one manouver company each (ie, the inf trades an inf coy for a tank coy and vice versa) and you have two battle groups/task forces. Of course, there are other elements such as brigade attached assets such as an engr troop but essentially, the above would suffice for this examination. This being said, we have absolutely no evidence the PLA Army has gone to combat team/task force. Just looking at this thing and seeing the exercise points me in that thinking. Nothing more. Quote:
Quote:
My mistake. There are two light mech inf coys centred on those jeeps but their exact TOE is unavailable. I should also point out that the above listed TOE is deduced and should be considered as such. |
||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments | oneman28 | International Defense Topics | 96 | 06-23-2008 01:49 AM |
| Top 5 Best Trained Infantry | TheGreenSmoke | Land Forces | 268 | 04-02-2008 08:07 AM |
| Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou | Officer of Engineers | The Field Mess | 34 | 05-10-2007 15:44 PM |
| China's Changing Military Ideology | Frank Zhou | World Affairs Board Pub | 0 | 05-03-2006 18:58 PM |
| Bangladesh plays the China card | Ray | South Asian Defense Topics | 136 | 10-17-2005 10:14 AM |