The gas masks used by pla in the past, fmj-08 belong to the inventory products that are still in use, and the FMJ-10 on the right is in line with your statement.A lot of trade secret was missing/overlooked when someone try to copy it
You don't need to compare really high tech stuff like jet engine. Even low tech stuff like a gas mask, you can see they didn't put a lot of effort into making a gas mask that suitable for the troop. I mean Gasmask essentially is a rubber mask with a filter, not much of a high tech component on them.
This is the PLA current gasmask called FMJ-08
View attachment 896590
Set aside the uncanny look of FMJ-08 to the British Avon S-10/FM-12 series mask, (Which is as old as I am)
View attachment 896592
This is not ergonomics....Anyone who wear a 2-hole gasmask (Or US M17 or M40, both of which I wore when I was in the Army) know you have zero situation awareness and you can't see shit at night because of the nose piece stuck out in the middle, which mean you have a tiny vision forward, yes, this may be what our eyes were located, but unlike our eyes, you don't have the curve of your eyeball, and not to mention the black plastic that is going to block your vision around the visual cone. This has been the feedback since 1980s when these mask were issued, and we fought in 1991 wearing M17, 2003 wearing M40 and that's probably the last straw and now we (US and NATO) moved on these and M50 we use have a one piece eyepiece which is the norm now, along with dual filter. Because you just can't breath with one, as that restrict your air flow.
View attachment 896591
Notice this is a very non-advance thing, which mean you don't need state of the art technology to make a respirator or gasmask, yet the Chinese design is seriously outdated to a point I would have imagine their troop would have issue fighting wearing those as much as we did back in 1990s and 2000s.
a one piece eyepiece which is the norm now, along with dual filter
Last edited: