Today, we’re pitting two of the world’s greatest economic and military powers against
each other: China and the United States of America.
These two modern titans regularly go toe to toe on trade deals, cultural influence, and
intellectual property, but today we’re talking about soldiers.
We’ve previously compared the US and Chinese military, and the average American and Chinese
citizen, but this video is something in between – In a modern ground war between American
and Chinese forces, which infantry soldier would come out on top?
We’re about to find out, by looking into each army’s combat history, tactics, capabilities,
training, and equipment.
If ever China and America go to war, the whole world is in trouble.
We’re talking about two of the largest and most well-equipped militaries on the planet.
China, being one of the oldest civilisations in the world, has an incredibly illustrious
military history.
The country can be credited with pretty much inventing rocketry, as well as giving us Sun
Tzu’s The Art of War.
Comparatively, the United States is one of the youngest civilisations on earth.
However, it makes up for this by having been in constant conflict since the early Twentieth
Century, and has consistently been one of the world’s highest military spenders.
Let’s discuss some of the two country’s recent conflicts, and see what it tells us
about each country’s soldiers.
First, the Chinese Army – known officially as the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA.
Specifically, we’re going to be discussing the People’s Liberation Army Ground Force,
China’s 1.3 million personnel-strong fighting force.
In the last seventy years, China’s ground forces have engaged in significantly fewer
full-blown wars than the US military.
A number of China’s recent wars – such as the Tibetan Uprising in 1959 and the Battle
of the Paracel Islands in 1974 – have been against forces so comparatively small that
they can’t really be used to illustrate what a China Vs USA match-up might look like.
Also, because the United States and China are two of the largest and most well-funded
militaries in the world, their equipment and training has advanced considerably over the
last several decades.
Perhaps the best conflict to focus on is the one that most heavily involved both the US
and China’s ground forces: The Korean War, taking place from 1950 to 1953.
This might give us a better insight into the tactics of the two armies here.
Modern Chinese infantry tactics have always been based around the fact that China has
assumed numerical superiority.
In the 1950s, the world population was only 2,556,000,053, and China ended that decade
with a population of 551,960,000 people compared to the US’ population of 150,697,361 – almost
a fifth the size of China’s.
The size of the US and China’s armies today still reflects this disparity.
The US today has 1,281,900 active personnel compared to China’s 2,300,000.
This disparity gets even worse when you take a look at the reserve personnel – comparing
the United States’ 811,000 to China’s 8,000,000.
How did this vast numerical superiority play into their on-the-ground tactics in the Korean
War?
The answer to this question is the legendary “human wave” attack.
And no, this does not literally mean sending unlimited waves of infantry towards the enemy
in so-called “human seas.”
That’s a common misconception.
In reality, the human wave is another name for the PLA’s “short attack” technique
– which involves repeatedly sending small, typically five-man fireteams in covert missions
towards weaknesses in enemy defences.
These forces will then launch a brutal surprise attack, sowing confusion and worsening the
weakness that was already there.
If enough of these short attacks are successfully executed, a more large-scale attack would
likely destroy whatever’s left.
And, given that the PLA had soldiers to spare, they could keep up these attacks almost indefinitely.
This tactic has proved extremely effective for Chinese infantrymen, who would use it
again in the Sino-Vietnamese War twenty-nine years later.
Much like the tactics laid out originally in Sun Tzu’s aforementioned classic, The
Art of War, the PLA rarely uses its huge forces directly.
They often opt instead for tactics of ambush and subterfuge.
Ambush tactics handed them several key advantages during the battles of the Korean War.
An interesting case is the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, where a mountainside ambush allowed
120,000 Chinese troops under the field command of General Song Shilun to completely encircle
30,000 UN troops.
They kept these troops – comprised mostly of American soldiers – trapped for seventeen
days.
However, this brings us to the US tactics employed during the Korean War.
Because, in spite of being overwhelmingly outnumbered by the Chinese forces here, the
30,000 troops were able to break out of the Chinese stranglehold.
In fact, they even dealt heavy casualties to their ambushers in the process.
Why?
Because, in spite of being an overall smaller force – as mentioned in our previous video
comparing the United States’ and Russia’s soldiers – US troops have incredible tactical
versatility.
Groups of US infantrymen are able to work with a greater degree of independence from
their superior officers.
They can defer to field commanders with immediate, situational knowledge rather than having a
rigid, top-down chain of command on the battlefield at all times.
The Battle of Chosin Reservoir was a horrific ordeal for the US troops – with stories
of people freezing to death and bodies being used as sandbags not being uncommon – but
the US troops’ tactical retreat was truly miraculous.
How did 30,000 troops avoid total extermination from a surprise-attacking that outnumbered
them by 90,000 men?
Well, in spite of being farther from home, and suffering from outdated World War II equipment
and shaky supply lines, the United States’ troops were able to improvise and adapt to
their situation on the ground.
This pattern has held true in many subsequent US conflicts, such as the Vietnam War and
the conflicts in the Middle-East.
While looking at these historical tactics can be useful in gleaning an insight into
how a modern ground war between the US and China might play out, tactically, the Korean
War happened seventy years ago.
What equipment and training do these forces bring to the table today, when the USA and
China’s military spending and modernisation has never been higher?
First, let’s discuss the equipment of the modern People’s Liberation Army soldier.
In terms of small arms, the primary armaments of the PLA are the QBZ-95-1 and QBZ-95B-1.
Introduced in the aftermath of the Gulf War in the early 1990s, the QBZ rifles were a
direct response to Chinese observations of American military activity in Iraq.
The QBZs are powerful, compact bullpup rifles with a thirty-round magazine capacity.
These weapons are strong, reliable, and accurate.
It has a fire rate of 650 rounds a minute.
An average PLA member’s offensive loadout would consist of the QBZ-95-1, a bayonet for
close-quarters combat, and six WY-91 hand grenades.
It’s also been speculated that the QBZ-95 might soon be replaced by a new rifle, referred
to by some as the QBZ-19.
This speculative new rifle, first fully spotted in 2019, would likely be an improvement on
the range, accuracy, and fire rate of its predecessor, with an option for fully automatic
fire.
A full rollout of this weapon, however, is yet to be confirmed.
The United States of America’s primary armament is the M4A1 carbine, a rifle designed for
close-quarters combat and introduced around the same time as the Chinese QBZ-95.
This rifle was largely intended to replace the M16.
The M4A1 carbine is slightly longer and more cumbersome than its Chinese equivalent, but
with a significantly greater rate of fire, at seven-hundred-to-nine-hundred rounds a
minute.
With an effective range of approximately 600 metres for an area target/1970 feet, it’s
pretty much on par with the QBZ-95.
A critical shortcoming of the QBZ-95 however is features native to bullpup rifles, namely
that they can be far more difficult to shoot when in the prone position than traditional
rifles such as the M-4.
Reloading a bullpup rifle is also not as intuitive as a traditional rifle, and seating a magazine
placed near the buttstock can severely affect the shooter’s meld with his weapon.
This can lead to a QBZ-95 shooter taking longer to re-establish their sight picture over an
M-4 user.
However, in a close-quarters combat situation, you can’t underestimate the importance of
the humble sidearm.
For the forces of the People’s Liberation Army, this sidearm is the QSZ92 Pistol, a
9mm pistol capable of holding fifteen rounds per magazine.
The American equivalent is the Beretta M9 pistol, a 9mm handgun that’s been in service
since the 1980s.
This is another 15-round-capacity pistol relatively even with its Chinese counterpart.
However, due to the US infantry’s dissatisfaction with the M9’s performance during the Afghan
wars, they’re in the process of phasing in a replacement.
This replacement is the SIG Sauer P320, also a 9mm handgun capable of holding 17 rounds
per magazine, two more than the PLA competition.
That being said, a soldier’s performance in war is defined as much by their ability
to take shots as it is to fire them.
In this particular department, the Chinese forces are truly lacking.
Despite China being one of the world’s largest exporters of commercial body armour, the grand
majority of the PLA infantry are not fitted with any form of specialised combat body armour.
This is actually a major source of debate and controversy within the People’s Liberation
Army.
Some commanders – such as Cui Xianwei, from the PLA’s Joint Logistics Provisions - adopt
the philosophy that soldiers wrapped in too much protective armour will get soft and lose
their “fighting spirit.”
Others, such as equipment assistant Liu Honghui, have a more pragmatic approach – believing
that giving soldiers body armour will helpfully increase the soldiers’ sense of security
on the battlefield.
The divide between the commanders and actual infantrymen is clear here, though sadly for
those infantrymen, the commanders make the rules.
The result?
Little to no body armour for the PLA.
The forces of the United States are the complete opposite in their approach to body armour.
For US troops, body armour saved countless lives during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
where sudden gunfire and the shrapnel of Improvised Explosive Devices were among the biggest causes
of death.
As a result, the US military came to the conclusion that more body armour equals safer soldiers,
and thus better soldiers.
United States soldiers are also fitted with high-tech equipment, from night-vision goggles
attached to their helmets to enhance low-light combat to advanced radios.
However, while this means the average US soldier is generally far better equipped than the
average soldier of the People’s Liberation Army, it creates its own major issue.
Modern United States soldiers are often forced to carry up to 200 pounds/90 kilograms of
armour and equipment.
Some military theorists have estimated that soldiers often have to carry up to 20 pounds/9
kilograms of batteries alone, just to power the juice-guzzling equipment they need on
the job.
While this armour and equipment might give soldiers a tactical edge, this edge is offset
by the fact that PLA soldiers can move faster, stealthier, and retain energy without such
a cumbersome loadout.
However, advances in United States military technology are rising to combat the weight
increase issue.
The US military has created the Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport Program.
This program is designed to test a series of small resupply vehicles that can act autonomously,
following infantry soldiers to the front lines with equipment, supplies, and ammunition.
When these systems are perfected, it’d be likely to give US forces a major advantage
over their Chinese infantry counterparts.
So far, we’ve discussed the soldiers of these two superpowers in terms of numbers,
historical tactics, and equipment.
The final crucial element in the comparison is the training these two different militaries
give to their soldiers.
How do the US Army and the People’s Liberation Army measure up here?
United States basic training is among some of the most respected in the world, even across
other world militaries such as the British, French, and Canadian Armed Forces.
Much of the US training regimen focuses on building their soldiers as people, in terms
of strength and endurance, before training them as soldiers.
The US military also added an additional eight weeks of infantry training to their regimen
last year, extending the overall training period to 22 weeks, to extremely positive
results.
Col. Dave Voorhies, in an address at Fort Benning, shared data indicating the new training
had improved their soldiers’ skills in marksmanship, physical aptitude, and combat lifesaving skills
from day one of combat deployment.
Sadly, for them, the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army cannot say the same.
One of the most frequent criticisms of the PLA is that while its forces are huge, they’re
also woefully untrained compared to most major militaries.
International defence research analyst Timothy R. Heath described the PLA’s training as
being of “debatable realism”, and the army’s lack of real combat experience can
be a serious handicap.
Correspondent Kristin Huang has identified the PLA’s lack of trained, experienced soldiers
to be one of their largest barriers to becoming a truly formidable fighting force.
In this case, the sheer volume of China’s military works against its interests.
The cost, time, and resources it would take to train them all to the level of US troops
would likely be staggering.
This, more than anything else, proves that on an individual basis a soldier of the People’s
Liberation Army can’t match up to the training, experience, tactics, and equipment of your
average US infantry troop.
Let’s all just hope we never have to find out for sure.
Who do you think is the superior soldier?
Let us know in the comments!
Hungry for more military comparison?
Why not check out “America Soldier (USA) Vs Russian Soldier – Army / Military Comparison.”
If you like to train your brain, why not join the Infographics Show Army?
All you need to do is hit “subscribe.”