Talk:People's Liberation Army Ground Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

July 2006

There's no point in listing tanks like "type 85-I, type 85-II, type 85-III..." if it's going to point to the same article anyway. I'd just use "Type 85/96". I'll clean up the Type 96 MBT article tonight. -- Adeptitus 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Designation Confusion

Is there a talk page on use of thr official Chinese military designations or simply calling everything 'Type'? For example here the 'QBZ-95' is called th 'Type-95' and links to an aricle called 'QBZ-95'. Should this be standardised across Wikipedia? Semi-Lobster 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Untrusted Source

I'm suspicious of the CF-08PDW listed under the Submachineguns section. Only one English source has listed this weapon. I find no official Chinese sources confirming it. Furthermore, here is a Chinese forum post making a noticeable effort to judge this as a Photoshop image. I have removed the CF-08PDW.

Likewise, the weapons under the "Corner Shooters" section, referencing the same source, have been removed. --71.242.191.208 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

NP-48 Confusion

On this page, NP-58 is listed as being in service with the PLA. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_Equipment_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army_of_China, it is not listed. Can anyone confirm whether or not it is in service with any units, if so, which? 03:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.18.35 (talk)

What Happened to the PLA Ground Force article?

Couple of weeks ago, i was using it as a reference to compile my own database on what equipment the PLA use, now when i come back, it has been completely wiped? why is that? couldn't you just left it until you had made a decision on how you guys could of made it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.91.85 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been series of vandalism of this page on March 26th. Still needs to be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cifyra (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PLA Equipment

I find the comprehensive list of equipment nice, but this isn't the time or the place. A short paragraph and a link to another page would suffice, if it wasn't for a lack of content other than said list. SamBrev (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

About the Official translation

The official English tranlation of “中国人民解放军陆军” is "PLA Army". People's Liberation Army Army. There are 2 army in the name.

source：PRC MOD Website. http://eng.mod.gov.cn/ArmedForces/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.213.87 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Infantry Armour?

Does the PLA even use body armour? A lot of the images of the PLA infantry (including those of the Special Forces) show them without body armour. I wonder if that is the case because that would be incredibly foolish on the PLA's part. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Some units do use body armour.

- Body armour is very expensive and takes time and resources to introduce to all units. Not even western armies use body armour in most of their units. Ususally the most professional units and units used in international operations are issued body armour, while most of the home units manage without. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.111.32 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

- I find that somewhat unlikely considering how the US and British military are equipped and deployed. (Psychoneko (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Concur. US Army had body armor for all soldiers certainly since the late 70s, and for all or nearly all soldiers in Vietnam. CsikosLo (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)