PLAN capability
-
How does the China navy fare really? Many westerners has described it as a paper tiger, which is unable to be truly effective.
However, in the event of a naval war in the Taiwan straits, how much damage can the chinese navy deal to the US forces and USN? -
5 yrs ago when they all say that. It is true. but for now it is hard to say.
If u talk abt Taiwan strait naval warfare and US forces intercepting it. With PRC having the home advantage and its increasing modernise sub fleet plus airbase support. It will be a 50/50 situation.
But if u r talking at blue water projection of PLAN. YES... They r still in infant stage and the so called Paper Tiger! -
They still have some ways to go...
-
They aren't one of the best blue and brown water navy yet but anyone will certainly think twice before trying to be funny with PRC in their coastal territorial waters. This is especially so in light of the recent Song class submarine being detected so near to one of the USN CVN groups.
-
Then why are most americans convinced that China cannot do much damage to their carrier battlegroup?
Steamroller in the sense of blasting the PLAN and any attempted invasion out of the water.
More of the fact that we can deploy several carriers to the region, each of which could likely take on the entire PLAN by itself. Several multiple supporting CVBGs simply makes it a curbstomp.
What of it? The carrier was not under wartime procedures and in peacetime the carrier couldn't have done anything to prevent the submarine from doing so. In war, the escorts toss off VL-ASROC and ASW helicopters at it.
I tried arguing with them on other forums...well...many do not believe that China can do more damage to US than Iraq... -
US is more experienced but i hope no war cos i want to live happily ever after ok....
-
I'm sure the Chinese if they fight the US again, they will not try to match it force for force.
America is like a very aggressive heavyweight boxer. They do extremely well when fighting other boxers.
But if the opponent that enters the ring is a Thai kickboxer or a karate guy, the tough American boxer becomes very confused, frustrated and may even lose.
The Americans always think they can defeat everyone.
But they keep denying that they couldn't defeat some really primitive opponents.
They didn't win in Korea against the PLA.
The lost Vietnam.
No hope of stopping the Iraqi insurgency.
Had to be rescued in Somalia.
Can't find Osama.
Everyone's a paper tiger sometimes.
Just that the American propaganda machine can spin a victory out of defeat. They write heroic stories in TIME magazine or make a movie so that everyone understand how heroic they were even when they got their a.ss royally kicked by a bunch of peasants.
Somehow, everyone fails to see that the peasants are also heroes, in sending a powerful foreign aggressor packing.
The problem with this successful propaganda is that even the average US citizen continue to believe in their ability to defeat anyone at any place, anytime - despite constant evidence to the contrary. So they keep acting rashly, without a grand strategy. -
Yeah, the US tends to forget how CHICOM nearly made them bend over in Vietnam and Korea.Originally posted by moca:I'm sure the Chinese if they fight the US again, they will not try to match it force for force.
America is like a very aggressive heavyweight boxer. They do extremely well when fighting other boxers.
But if the opponent that enters the ring is a Thai kickboxer or a karate guy, the tough American boxer becomes very confused, frustrated and may even lose.
The Americans always think they can defeat everyone.
But they keep denying that they couldn't defeat some really primitive opponents.
They didn't win in Korea against the PLA.
The lost Vietnam.
No hope of stopping the Iraqi insurgency.
Had to be rescued in Somalia.
Can't find Osama.
Everyone's a paper tiger sometimes.
Just that the American propaganda machine can spin a victory out of defeat. They write heroic stories in TIME magazine or make a movie so that everyone understand how heroic they were even when they got their a.ss royally kicked by a bunch of peasants.
Somehow, everyone fails to see that the peasants are also heroes, in sending a powerful foreign aggressor packing.
The problem with this successful propaganda is that even the average US citizen continue to believe in their ability to defeat anyone at any place, anytime - despite constant evidence to the contrary. So they keep acting rashly, without a grand strategy.
In the event of a naval conflict, the US navy is gonna get saturated by lots of ASMs. No one knows how effective the Chinese manufactured missiles are, but if the US are not gonna play it smart, they are gonna run out of SM-2s shooting down the "vampires." -
I attribute it to hubris on both sides. When you go to the stragetypage forums you are obviously going to get a lot of pro American opinion just as you would get if you went to sinodefence. It's a nationalistic thing you get anywhere when you put enough like-minded people together, very often more words spoken are nationalistic proclamations then actual analysis and discussion. I don't think even the Americans are above this kind of behaviour. But it can be a tad amusing watching some people argue why the Type 99 is superior to the M1 Abrams BOTH in quality and cost, and what have you not. There is a lot of stuff that people would like to believe, because reality is a lot grittier and often more boring.
But realistically speaking, it is obvious that the PLAN is unable to take on the USN force on force or in a pitched naval battle. However, I think it's a tad quick to say that they are totally incapable of dealing any damage to a USN CBG. And that is going to be a big issue for the Americans esp. when the Chinese do not mind trading 10 or 20 ships or sub for one carrier. AFAIK, the USN has no engaged any enemy navy in a major engagement since WW2, hence it's really a crapshoot on what exactly is going to happen. But it bides everyone well not to underestimate your opponent. It is also important to note that the PLAN is in the process of improvement and hence future projections will be far murkier. Maybe they will squander their chance and maybe not- but that's really for the future. Of course most Americans would LIKE to think of the PLAN or PLA as incapableÂ… but I think that's mostly nationalistic speak better for politicians and not soldiers.
But I don't think the average American soldier is no slouch at fighting though- and I think it's not fair to hold them to such unrealistic and often hypocritical standardsÂ… and maybe it stems from a complex that wants to debunk this myth that they are invincible- but as any rational person already knowsÂ… they are still human. I don't see the need to put them as lousy fighters- objectively speaking they can fight, and often they do it pretty well.
Their greater weaknesses lie in the way the American soldier is so tightly bound to the politician's apron strings, and I think policies and politics often hurt the US Army more then enemy bullets. By all accounts they acquitted themselves satisfactorily (combat wise) in Somalia (could we really do better with an entire city out to kill a battalion sized force?) and it the mission was killed by public and politics as opposed to incompetence. In Vietnam they managed to win every major ground battle, not to mention the Tet offensive in which they inflicted a crushing defeat on the NVA (though eventually the Tet offensive turned out to be a strategic victory thanks to public opinion).
Even more recently in Fallujah the USMC was on the verge of routing the insurgents in the first battle but was called back on the brink of victory for diplomacy. After much wrangling the second battle was finally fought to finish the job which the first battle should have accomplished (with much less losses and damage as well). I think the primary weakness of the US military is the way it is highly entrenched to the whim and wane of politics (as opposed to letting the grunt's work decide what really needs to be done), and inevitably so. It is a different kind of war nowadays.
I wouldn't make the mistake of belittling the average US Infantryman, as captured insurgents often express surprise at the marksmanship, tactics, and aggressiveness of the US soldier in battle, when they have been told that the American cannot fight in a stand up battle and is dependent on technology. I think the American soldier is a gung-ho, ethnocentric and ignorant personality that rubs us the wrong way at times, but I hardly think when push comes to shove they are full of hot air. They can fight, and do it rather well to mention.
But the best infantrymen (as in no CAS and all that support, just plain old grunt fighting?) in the world? I think it could be the Aussies or Brits... maybe the Gurkas as well. -
The myth that US Army is often held back by politicians or general public is just so much hogwash. The aggressive politicians are sending US troops all over the world to fight as we speak.
The only thing they are held back from is from overly wanton use of firepower that are killing too many civilians and achieving too little results.
In both Korea and Vietnam the US airforce was prevented from flattening enemy cities WW-2 style or using atomic weapons. As not only will it kill a lot of civilians, it would have been a clear sign of desperation at being unable to defeat a peasant nation.
Public opinion?
That's another excuse we often make for the Americans.
If they are WINNING A WAR, trust me, there would be no public raising any opinion against the war. Only when clearly they are not winning, like in Iraq, then will Americans start to have a public opinion against the war. If they are winning, no one would ask them to stop. -
Originally posted by moca:
Got to be kidding me.... they did just that.
In both Korea and Vietnam the US airforce [b]was prevented from flattening enemy cities WW-2 style or using atomic weapons. As not only will it kill a lot of civilians, it would have been a clear sign of desperation at being unable to defeat a peasant nation.[/b]
In korean war.. almost all man-made structure was blown flat.
In Vietnam.. B-52s and naplam runs were widely used.. if not for the supplies of thousands of Russian SAMs (SA-2 ??), and Migs (wholely ineffective, but quite a shock for f-4s WVR). -
Well, I beg to differ. They did win the Iraq war in record time.
What they are losing (or not, depending on your perspective) is the fight against insurgency. Which if you think in light of the Northern Ireland experience, Gaza strip, even during our own Malaysian experience.... this is just the start of a long military engagement. In this case, it is not the IED that is important but the overall psycho/military/political set of issues that is more important and this is just what the US (albeit very belatedly) getting at with the most recent report from the Bipartisan group.
So... -
Com'on.. We always have an impression US bagus this bagus tt.. but fact the majority of americans are frogs in their own well. Ask them where is singapore n they tell u in China.. basically they are idiots.
-
They won the battles, they have not won the war. They destroyed the hardware, but can't do a damn about the software.Originally posted by vaxjunior:Well, I beg to differ. They did win the Iraq war in record time.
What they are losing (or not, depending on your perspective) is the fight against insurgency. Which if you think in light of the Northern Ireland experience, Gaza strip, even during our own Malaysian experience.... this is just the start of a long military engagement. In this case, it is not the IED that is important but the overall psycho/military/political set of issues that is more important and this is just what the US (albeit very belatedly) getting at with the most recent report from the Bipartisan group.
So...
What is happening in Iraq is not a military engagement anymore, it is an attempt to change a civilization. -
America can win wars, but not change post-war situations. They lose out in foreign internal defense ability and cultural modifcation to the Brits.
It is not in the average GI's blood to want to colonise his little battlespace. The US Army is often at the whim and fancy of their political masters, but if you give them free rein to acheive their objectives, I don't think anyone can stand in their way. -
Agreed. Unfortunately, the Brits are not doing much better down south in basra and they are also giving alot of signals that they want out by next year.Originally posted by LazerLordz:America can win wars, but not change post-war situations. They lose out in foreign internal defense ability and cultural modifcation to the Brits.
It is not in the average GI's blood to want to colonise his little battlespace. The US Army is often at the whim and fancy of their political masters, but if you give them free rein to acheive their objectives, I don't think anyone can stand in their way.
Well, at least they are in the Afghanistan theatre, but I do hope that things settle down there. Otherwise, there are just too many fronts to this situation with too little overall strategy to deal with it...
I remember that Clancy had one of these hell scenarios where basically Iran tied up with China or Korea? or India (fictional , ok) to open up multiple fronts so that US gets distracted and they can get the actual objectives without having to show their hand till the last minute. Of course it is not so easy in real life (what with mono-dimension characters only in Clancy's world) but a multiple front situation will truly distabilize most of the global economic "progress"...
-
I beg to differ, if you want to look at wonton use of firepower and killing too many civillians with little results... look at Gronzy.Originally posted by moca:The only thing they are held back from is from overly wanton use of firepower that are killing too many civilians and achieving too little results.
If they are WINNING A WAR, trust me, there would be no public raising any opinion against the war. Only when clearly they are not winning, like in Iraq, then will Americans start to have a public opinion against the war. If they are winning, no one would ask them to stop.
And I also need to wonder if we really have any other wars fought by other armed forces to compare this with. Would the PLA do better if they decided to "liberate" Taipei? Wonton use of firepower? Is the USMC sniper and GBU units a less discriminating weapon in rooting out insurgents then blanket soviet arty? You have been doped up too much on the media without considering what the grunts on the ground actually say of their experience my friend.
And politics being hogwash? Your statements on Vietnam and Korea make we wonder if you have even read into the situtation beyond riding on the common tagline of "being unable to defeat a peasant nation". Vietnam especially when the Tet Offensive was a crippling disaster for the NVA, but yet ultimately a war winner out of the hands of the grunts. I suggest you reread how Vietnam was really lost, and why Korea was the way it is now.
Case in point, the first battle of Fallujah (the fierest fighting in Iraq so far) was nearly won before it was stopped on rationale that the damage done was too great. In that first battle 150 airstikes were launched and 75 to 100 buildings destroyed. However when the doomed Fallujah brigade was finally disbanded seven months later after much political wrangling and it was realized that stopping the battle had allowed the insurgency to gain strength the second battle was launched.
This time there were 540 air strikes, 14,000 artillery and mortar shells fired, as well as 2500 M1 rounds. 18,000 of Fallujah's 39,000 buildings were level or destroyed and the insurgency crushed in the city. Unfortunately the second battle came at a far higher cost in lives and damage as the USMC was not allowed to finish a job they could have easily acomplished (they were within hours of routing the insurgency in Fallujah during April) had they been allowed to finish the fight. Instead the board was set which allowed a fiercer, and more costy battle.
Your views on the Iraq war are simplistic Moca, and I would like to believe that the average American soldier is as silly as you like to make it out to be. But the truth is they are also human and subject to error and heroism entertaining statements that in general they are not a competent bunch as soldiers go.
I'm afraid as the previous posts from other poster have also indicated... the hogwash's on you.I remember that Clancy had one of these hell scenarios where basically Iran tied up with China or Korea? or India (fictional , ok) to open up multiple fronts so that US gets distracted and they can get the actual objectives without having to show their hand till the last minute. Of course it is not so easy in real life (what with mono-dimension characters only in Clancy's world) but a multiple front situation will truly distabilize most of the global economic "progress"...
LOL, after Red Storm Rising in Clancy's books always go in one basic vein: "somebody annoys America, America crushes them". I doubt he would change that tone soon, I mean have you read SSN, where ONE 688I pwned the whole PLAN and The Bear and The Dragon? I rest my case.
But in the real world we are seeing something like this happening now, the mess in Iraq emboldening many nations to make a bit more noise. But not sure if full war will actually break out because each of these nations know to avoid war and let it break out elsewhere would mean that you are ultimately in a stronger position in the international stage.
So it's going to be a game of brinksmanship, as we have seen recently with Iran and NK, which know that the US can't really follow up with their moves with actual threats. -
Who are the american war machine fighting against now in Iraq? If it is the Iraqi, then the war is not over, it is not time for post-war situations yet.Originally posted by LazerLordz:America can win wars, but not change post-war situations. They lose out in foreign internal defense ability and cultural modifcation to the Brits.
It is not in the average GI's blood to want to colonise his little battlespace. The US Army is often at the whim and fancy of their political masters, but if you give them free rein to acheive their objectives, I don't think anyone can stand in their way.
When foreign forces are needed for internal defense, it is a sad day for the people of a country that has any pride as sovereign state. Bush and his administration have their political objective from the beginning, the lie in the UN about WMD, the invasion, the search and arrest of Saddam..... it is the GI in Iraq who are wondering what the hell are they doing there, or did they really believe they were there to give the Iraqi people a good life? Anyway, they are trained regulars and paid to follow orders, they are certainly not volunteers on higher moral ground. It is obvious that it is the Iraqis who are preventing the GIs from having a free rein to do anything they want in Iraq.
cultural modification of a country, following military occupation, is colonization of the weaker nations and the people. In today situation, I believe the Brits have learned to respect cultural difference rather than trying to modify them, especially now they found home grown terrorists who were immigrants from their old colonies. When will the americans learn their lessons? -
The Tet Offensive was conducted by the NVA?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:blah blah blah.... Your statements on Vietnam and Korea make we wonder if you have even read into the situtation beyond riding on the common tagline of "being unable to defeat a peasant nation". Vietnam especially when the Tet Offensive was a crippling disaster for the NVA, blah blah blah....
You must be one stupid idiot to try and talk co.ck when you don't even have your basic facts right.
So STFU fool! -
General Vo Nguyen Giap the primary strategist of the tet offensive was of the NVA or PAVN whichever way u want to put it so yes it was conducted by the NVA and executed by VC and NVA troopsOriginally posted by moca:The Tet Offensive was conducted by the NVA?
You must be one stupid idiot to try and talk co.ck when you don't even have your basic facts right.
So STFU fool!
Where do u get your info from? -
I meant to say that if the US Army was not hobbled by an incompetent SecDef, cultural/religious/sociological mores or any political correctness, they are more than capable of acheiving their cold military objectives. It's a theoretical look at their capability I'm driving at here.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Who are the american war machine fighting against now in Iraq? If it is the Iraqi, then the war is not over, it is not time for post-war situations yet.
When foreign forces are needed for internal defense, it is a sad day for the people of a country that has any pride as sovereign state. Bush and his administration have their political objective from the beginning, the lie in the UN about WMD, the invasion, the search and arrest of Saddam..... it is the GI in Iraq who are wondering what the hell are they doing there, or did they really believe they were there to give the Iraqi people a good life? Anyway, they are trained regulars and paid to follow orders, they are certainly not volunteers on higher moral ground. It is obvious that it is the Iraqis who are preventing the GIs from having a free rein to do anything they want in Iraq.
cultural modification of a country, following military occupation, is colonization of the weaker nations and the people. In today situation, I believe the Brits have learned to respect cultural difference rather than trying to modify them, especially now they found home grown terrorists who were immigrants from their old colonies. When will the americans learn their lessons?
Of course, the real world places a lot of limits. -
Duh...sure... whatever...Originally posted by Tuki:General Vo Nguyen Giap the primary strategist of the tet offensive was of the NVA or PAVN whichever way u want to put it so yes it was conducted by the NVA and executed by VC and NVA troops
Where do u get your info from? -
Man, he like deflated your aggressive, but ill-concieved attack there even before it started Moca...
It is obvious you have lost your ability to debate in any coherent manner. Do not worry, we think no less of you for this loss, but it would do good for you to hold a more defensible point of view in the future.
Cheers. -
LOL, that was quick.
Man, he like deflated your aggressive, but ill-concieved attack there even before it started Moca...
It is obvious you have lost your ability to debate in any coherent manner. Do not worry, we think no less of you for this loss, but it would do good for you to hold a more defensible point of view in the future.
Cheers. -
Hey they are yanks... it's going to take a while. The brits did have a lot of experience in what and what not to do in occupying other countries while the yanks are relative newcomers at this. The fact that your typical yank is rather ignorant of foreign cultures does not help (when told to identify North Korea in a map, some of them stuck the flag on Australia and went "I never knew it was so big compared to 'South Korea' (New Zealand)Originally posted by sgdiehard:cultural modification of a country, following military occupation, is colonization of the weaker nations and the people. In today situation, I believe the Brits have learned to respect cultural difference rather than trying to modify them, especially now they found home grown terrorists who were immigrants from their old colonies. When will the americans learn their lessons?
". There you go.
They did make a serious error in the closing hours of Saddam's regime when they refused to deal with the various tribal leaders who offered to step in once Saddam was gone... which ultimately gave everybody mixed messages in the end. Once the fear and threat of Saddam was gone, it was anybody's guess where all that energy would end up. Truth is, the war the yanks can't win is the one they can't win with bullets and bombs, and with hearts and minds they have traditionally been poorer then the rest of their allies.