PLAN capability
-
Erm, if I'm not mistaken the British are occupying Southern Iraq, Basra area right? How are they doing? Has 200 years of British imperialism improved the position down there? Actually when you think about the Brits are actually pretty nice people when it comes to colonialism. I don't think I've ever seen an imperial power willingly give up their empire. Not that many wars of independence, and they even left us a radar when they bailed out of SIngapore.
-
Sure... whatever...Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
If you and Tuki (or whatever the fu.ck your other name is) insists NVA was defeated at Tet Offensive, good for you. -
Aye, vulgar, evasive and dismissive answers do you no good... not to mention probably harm your standing and position more then it actually makes any dent on our position. It might do you good to realize that your opponent's motive might not actually be to make you admit defeat in debate (that one is really quite clear to see), but to hopefully make you react in a way to belittle yourself as quite a fool in the face of others. Your reactive nature does you no good, no good at all.Originally posted by moca:Sure... whatever...
If you and Tuki (or whatever the fu.ck your other name is) insists NVA was defeated at Tet Offensive, good for you.
Cheers! -
Hard to say, because Brasa is a far less heated areas then Bagdad. But if one might hazard a guess, the Brits prefer a more "work with the locals" approach to managing the populace, and that might help somewhat.Originally posted by fallin:Erm, if I'm not mistaken the British are occupying Southern Iraq, Basra area right? How are they doing? Has 200 years of British imperialism improved the position down there? Actually when you think about the Brits are actually pretty nice people when it comes to colonialism. I don't think I've ever seen an imperial power willingly give up their empire. Not that many wars of independence, and they even left us a radar when they bailed out of SIngapore.
I think after WW2, imperialism had it's day in Britan. Maybe they kinda figured out that the new world after WW2 wasn't such a good place to stretch themselves all over the shop with the Cold War and such. -
Now now moca, that was just plain rude.
-
yup but i would say basra is a less violent area as the spotlight is mainly focused on baghdad and american forces.Originally posted by fallin:Erm, if I'm not mistaken the British are occupying Southern Iraq, Basra area right? How are they doing? Has 200 years of British imperialism improved the position down there? Actually when you think about the Brits are actually pretty nice people when it comes to colonialism. I don't think I've ever seen an imperial power willingly give up their empire. Not that many wars of independence, and they even left us a radar when they bailed out of SIngapore.
Btw, the brits did not give up their colonies willingly but they did it because they have no choice as their economic problems were pressing. One thing if you read LKY's memoir was the good relationship LKY's team had with the British PM and Defense minister. They understood the trouble that sg will face if they withdrew british troops early. However they had no choice as majority of the Brits were against stationing their troops in other parts of the world. That's why they are willing to leave some of the assets like radar, airbases and sold us some Hunters before they left. Also, it is also partly because the local populace wasnt anti-british unlike some african colonies where they were strongly against their colonial master and thus when the forces withdrew, they destroyed their bases as well, leaving nothing behind. -
dude 1 battle lost doesnt mean u lose the whole warOriginally posted by moca:Sure... whatever...
If you and Tuki (or whatever the fu.ck your other name is) insists NVA was defeated at Tet Offensive, good for you.
the Tet offensive was just...a catastrophic military failure. the VC were broken, the majority of all their undercover agents in the cities that were attacked were killed because they exposed themselves during the offensive. None of the tactical goals of the offensive were achieved either. The only victory they got was a psychological victory against the US which was unanticipated by the commies while planning the operation.
Btw i am not his clone and using offensive language and dismissive tones does not help u one bit -
dude noones trying to belittle him, just getting the facts stright is allOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Aye, vulgar, evasive and dismissive answers do you no good... not to mention probably harm your standing and position more then it actually makes any dent on our position. It might do you good to realize that your opponent's motive might not actually be to make you admit defeat in debate (that one is really quite clear to see), but to hopefully make you react in a way to belittle yourself as quite a fool in the face of others. Your reactive nature does you no good, no good at all.
Cheers!
BTW lets get back to the main topic of the PLAN's capability lol of which i have zero knowledge...
-
Originally posted by Tuki:dude noones trying to belittle him, just getting the facts stright is all
BTW lets get back to the main topic of the PLAN's capability lol of which i have zero knowledge...
I was just pointing out somebody is really just belittling himself and making light of whatever upbringing he might have the slightest honour to uphold... and he has himself to blame for it.Originally posted by Tuki:dude noones trying to belittle him, just getting the facts stright is all
BTW lets get back to the main topic of the PLAN's capability lol of which i have zero knowledge...
I do not understand why some people have their tripwire set so sensitive that even a gust of wind will set them off with all 2 Million of their candlelight explosions of vulgarity and anger, wasting ammo on people who are not even out to get him.
I mean it's not as if people come in here just to pick a fight. If I recall, this little firefight started when some people questioned the ability of the US soldier to fight and some simply disagreed (in a rather neutral tone of opinion as well). And then we have Rambo here coming in all gung ho and shooting off words like "hogwash" and "blah" and "!@#!" and what have you not.
What's up with that? Might even point on in the funny military thread that I simply commented that I based on my experience with Photoshop I didn't think the pictures were edited (save the marching guitar) and again he goes off his rocker.
it appears the feud (which was totally one-sided) has carried on here.
I must say it left people more confused then annoyed really. What's with his dismissive and angry reaction to our plainly stating the fact about the Tet Offensive: That it was a decisive US and ARVN military victory, a crushing military defeat for the North Vietnamese, but ultimately proved to be a decisive strategic and psychological victory for the military losers of this conflictÂ… which like em, basically underlines our point that the US soldier can fight but the politicians can't.
I mean I don't have any vested interest in trying to make the yanks seem invincible (the folks in StrategyPage have the well covered) and really isn't it better to see the truth in the matter then think that an virulently anti-American stance is default or preferable in any situation that refers to them? Even if they are your enemy, not knowing or belittling them seems like a quick road to defeat so it makes little sense to me. Don't like them fine, but propaganda in the opposite direction is still that: propaganda.
I don't get his adverse reaction to that rather plain lesson and fact, except some overwhelming desire to win some fight that nobody's fighting with him to begin with. As I said, nobody treats him like a fool (and in fact is more then willing to talk) but he's really making himself one, be he ignore this post or not, it is a fact.
So let this be clear. I mean I can't understand all this sudden hostility, can't we all just get along until we REALLY having something to fight about? I prefer to reserve my energy till then.
And yes, it would be a good time to revert to PLAN talk. -
Please, go ahead and waste more of your time.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I was just pointing out somebody is really just belittling himself and making light of whatever upbringing he might have the slightest honour to uphold... and he has himself to blame for it.
I do not understand why some people have their tripwire set so sensitive that even a gust of wind will set them off with all 2 Million of their candlelight explosions of vulgarity and anger, wasting ammo on people who are not even out to get him.
I mean it's not as if people come in here just to pick a fight. If I recall, this little firefight started when some people questioned the ability of the US soldier to fight and some simply disagreed (in a rather neutral tone of opinion as well). And then we have Rambo here coming in all gung ho and shooting off words like "hogwash" and "blah" and "!@#!" and what have you not.
What's up with that? Might even point on in the funny military thread that I simply commented that I based on my experience with Photoshop I didn't think the pictures were edited (save the marching guitar) and again he goes off his rocker. it appears the feud (which was totally one-sided) has carried on here.
I must say it left people more confused then annoyed really. What's with his dismissive and angry reaction to our plainly stating the fact about the Tet Offensive: That it was a decisive US and ARVN military victory, a crushing military defeat for the North Vietnamese, but ultimately proved to be a decisive strategic and psychological victory for the military losers of this conflictÂ… which like em, basically underlines our point that the US soldier can fight but the politicians can't.
I mean I don't have any vested interest in trying to make the yanks seem invincible (the folks in StrategyPage have the well covered) and really isn't it better to see the truth in the matter then think that an virulently anti-American stance is default or preferable in any situation that refers to them? Even if they are your enemy, not knowing or belittling them seems like a quick road to defeat so it makes little sense to me. Don't like them fine, but propaganda in the opposite direction is still that: propaganda.
I don't get his adverse reaction to that rather plain lesson and fact, except some overwhelming desire to win some fight that nobody's fighting with him to begin with. As I said, nobody treats him like a fool (and in fact is more then willing to talk) but he's really making himself one, be he ignore this post or not, it is a fact.
So let this be clear. I mean I can't understand all this sudden hostility, can't we all just get along until we REALLY having something to fight about? I prefer to reserve my energy till then.
And yes, it would be a good time to revert to PLAN talk.
-
Actually I never wasted any time on you, I'm sure that's clear enough to anybody reading all this. It is really you who is venting your fustration and agression at nothing, and that's a tad amusing (and makes me wonder who's really wasting time and effort).Originally posted by moca:Please, go ahead and waste more of your time.
Saying things that make decent sense is rarely a waste of time. Tossing dismissive remarks and vulgarities... now that's another.
-
Dragon's teeth - Chinese missiles raise their game
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061219_1_n.shtml
Dragon's teeth - Chinese missiles raise their game
By Robert Hewson
China now builds and supplies missiles that can be used in combat from the beach, across the coastal/littoral environment, and out to extended-range engagements far over the horizon. This has largely been achieved through an evolutionary process of staged improvement.
At the same time, China has shown that it can embrace entirely new concepts to serve the essential operational requirements of the People's Liberation Army, the navy and naval air force, and the air force.
The potential use of tactical ballistic missiles against targets at sea is the best example of this and the intent that drives the process is clear: China has spent a great deal of time analysing how best to neutralise US naval forces in the Pacific - in particular the carrier strike groups.
C-602
The C-602 stands apart from the rest of China's anti-ship missiles because it is such a radical departure in terms of range and accuracy. It is effectively a cruise missile, repackaged for the maritime attack role. Its basic design is clearly scalable and the C-602's performance today is probably at the lower end of this configuration's theoretical capabilities. It has been offered on the export market since 2005.
At first sight the C-602 export designation would suggest a linkage to the much older C-601 missile (YJ-6/YJ-61 family), a 1960s-era Chinese design based on the Soviet SS-N-2 'Styx'. However, the turbojet-powered C-602 is a completely new, very modern design with a maximum range of 280 km.
Going ballistic
Most of what China has accomplished in the development of its anti-ship missile -capabilities parallels that of Europe, the US and elsewhere. But one element of China's ship-killing strategy stands out as a remarkable application of technology, and an unprecedented threat.
In Chinese terms, this is a Shashaojian - the assassin's mace - a 'silver bullet' weapon that would, literally, drop from the clear blue sky.
A 2004 report by the US Office of Naval Intelligence made it plain that China was developing the capability to use its DF-21 tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) against tar¬gets at sea. The DF-21 carries a single warhead of about 500/600 kg over a distance of 1,500 km to 2,000 km, or more.
Designed as a nuclear delivery system, the DF-21 can also be fitted with a conventional payload. If made to work, such a weapon would be a 'carrier killer' without equal.
393 of 3,606 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group -
Out of curiousity, why PLAN. Why not PLN. Subtly implying that the navy is subservient to the Army is it.
-
ask chairman mao.... It really means Peoples Liberation Army - NavyOriginally posted by fallin:Out of curiousity, why PLAN. Why not PLN. Subtly implying that the navy is subservient to the Army is it. -
Well, the PLA existed before all the other arms.Originally posted by fallin:Out of curiousity, why PLAN. Why not PLN. Subtly implying that the navy is subservient to the Army is it.
And it is the tool that brought modern China into existence, so its name - Ren Min Jie Fang Jun - is held in reverence.
So when they had an airforce, it was basically the air arm of the Jia Fang Jun. In Chinese it was called the "Jie Fang Jun Kong Jun" - or PLAAF.
To call it PLAF or Ren Min Jie Fang Kong Jun would give the impression that it was the airforce that liberated China. Quite unthinkable.
Hence, the Navy follows the same pattern. PLAN.
As to who is subservient to whom, I dunno.. I would venture a guess that the Army still lord it over everyone else.