4 Reasons China Can Fight a Modern War

[NiceGuy]

Go ask your uncle.

Our well known General Le Ma Luong said: 'if we ambushed PLA when they withdraw, they would suffer a huge casualties like Qing army '

Tướng Lương cho rằng khi rút quân, nếu bị quân ta chặn thì quân TQ có thể sẽ phải bỏ chạy giống như quân Thanh.

Lời tòa soạn: Mới đây Tờ Hoàn Cầu thời báo, Trung Quốc trắng trợn tung clip tái hiện cuộc chiến tranh xâm lược Việt Nam năm 1979 vẫn được truyền thông nước này gọi là: Chiến tranh phản kích tự vệ chống Việt Nam."Nếu bị chặn, quân TQ có thể sẽ phải bỏ chạy như quân Thanh"

Google trans:
Gen. Liang said that if our troops blocked the withdrawal of PLA, they may run for their lives like the Qing army .(Qing army war defeat badly by emperor Nguyen Hue)

And dont try to lower the rank of PLA in 1979 to save face, even Mr. Deng also dare not said that PLA in 1979 was second rate-army

Of course your so called 'first-rate' army Suck, too, thats why they were mashed like mosquitoes in CN-Taiwan conflict

 

[IsaacNewton]

The 1979 Chinese-Vietnam war was a complete victory for China, there is no doubt about it.

Very obvious if you consider the balance of power between China and Vietnam today. 1979 war is always a reminder to the Vietnamese that the PLA is right next door, and they can capture Hanoi in a week.

Vietnam people are nationalistic, but the Vietnamese government has been pretty much Finlandized by China. Their position has always been to avoid conflict with China at all cost.

 

[NiceGuy]

The 1979 Chinese-Vietnam war was a complete victory for China, there is no doubt about it.

Very obvious if you consider the balance of power between China and Vietnam today. 1979 war is always a reminder to the Vietnamese that the PLA is right next door, and they can capture Hanoi in a week.

Vietnam people are nationalistic, but the Vietnamese government has been pretty much Finlandized by China. Their position has always been to avoid conflict with China at all cost.

blah blah blah ....so cheap dude, lets face wt the Truth:
Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield,
-------------
Some Chinese soldiers called it a “painful, little war.” Vietnamese troops avoided battle and instead harassed PLA forces. Some Chinese officers described it as a “ghost war,” since the enemy troops were almost invisible, or a “shadow war,” since it seemed they were fighting against their own shadows. The Vietnamese troops employed the same tactics, made the same moves, and used the same weapons as the Chinese. They knew exactly what the Chinese were trying to do. They exploited almost every problem and weakness the Chinese had. The Chinese troops had to fight their own problems first before they could fight the Vietnamese. Deng’s border war taught the PLA a hard lesson….

Many of the PLA’s commanding officers were shocked by the poor discipline, low morale, combat ineffectiveness, and high casualties in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. During the nineteen days of the first two phases, the PLA suffered 26,000 casualties, about 1,350 per day. Gerald Segal points out that in Vietnam, “in contrast to Korea, Chinese troops performed poorly. In Korea, they adequately defended North Korea, but in 1979 they failed to punish Vietnam. China’s Cambodian allies were relegated to a sideshow along the Thai frontier, and China was unable to help them break out.”

During the war, 37,300 Vietnamese troops were killed, and 2,300 were captured. The Soviet Union surprised the Vietnamese by refusing to get involved in the conflict. On February 18, Moscow had denounced China’s aggression and promised that the Soviet Union would keep its commitments according to the Soviet-Vietnam cooperation and friendship treaty. Then, however, the Soviet Union did not make any major moves. Russian military intelligence did increase its reconnaissance planes and ships in the South China Sea and along the Vietnamese coast after China’s invasion. On February 24, two Russian transport planes landed at Hanoi and unloaded some military equipment. Most countries maintained a neutral position during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

The brief war was a grievous misfortune for both China and Vietnam, not only because it resulted in material and human losses for both nations but also because it brought years of earlier cooperation to a dispiriting conclusion. The war showed that American belief in the domino theory was misplaced, since two Communist countries, one of which had just attained national liberation, were now in conflict with each other. Each valued its own national interests much more than the common Communist ideology. On February 27, 1979, Deng told American journalists in Beijing that “Vietnam claims itself as the third military superpower in the world. We are eliminating this myth. That’s all we want, no other purpose. We don’t want their territory. We make them to understand that they can’t do whatever they want to all the times.”

Hanoi believed, however, that the Vietnamese army had taught the Chinese army a lesson. One [People’s Army of Vietnam] general said that China lost militarily and beat a hasty retreat: “After we defeated them we gave them the red carpet to leave Vietnam.” As Henry J. Kenny points out, “Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield, but say that with the seizure of Lang Son, the PLA was poised to move into the militarily more hospitable terrain of the Red River Delta, and thence to Hanoi.” Kenny, however, points out that Lang Son is less than twelve miles from the Chinese border but is twice that distance from the delta. Moreover, at least five PAVN divisions remained poised for a counterattack in the delta, and thirty thousand additional PAVN troops from Cambodia, along with several regiments from Laos, were moving to their support. Thus the PLA would have taken huge losses in any southward move toward Hanoi.
What the PLA Learned in Vietnam, 1979 | Far Outliers

 

[sicsheep]

lol, as I said, it probably better for you to talk to any recruiting station if all you think about senior NCO is being older. As I said, and listed the requirement for promotion, ages is not listed as one of them, and 4 out of 6 is about experience. and you can still say degree is most important lol, I got nothing more I can say.

by the way, you are thinking Early Commission Program, some Enlist Commission program offer non-degree entry thru Direct commission, where you can use on-job experience to substitute for a degree qualification, of course this is not the entry for professional branch (like Judge Advocate or Engineering Branch)

its not what I said, but the fact out of all the ways to get commissioned in the Army, degree is almost mandatory . Sure in some cases you can take a shortcut (those really dumb ones, not many would since uncle Sam will even pay for it). but in most cases you need a degree, so Why is degree mandatory while experience is not?

Not all NCOs are just older, not if you are in some special forces, but most NCOs like you said has just been in the army for a long time. They may know the army better, but that doesn't make them a better soldier. sure if you compare him to a fresh recruit, he has more experience.

I think you sound more and more like a recruiter now? you must have been spending lots of time helping out at your local recruiting station. LOL

blah blah blah ....so cheap dude, lets face wt the Truth:
Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield,
-------------
Some Chinese soldiers called it a “painful, little war.” Vietnamese troops avoided battle and instead harassed PLA forces. Some Chinese officers described it as a “ghost war,” since the enemy troops were almost invisible, or a “shadow war,” since it seemed they were fighting against their own shadows. The Vietnamese troops employed the same tactics, made the same moves, and used the same weapons as the Chinese. They knew exactly what the Chinese were trying to do. They exploited almost every problem and weakness the Chinese had. The Chinese troops had to fight their own problems first before they could fight the Vietnamese. Deng’s border war taught the PLA a hard lesson….

Many of the PLA’s commanding officers were shocked by the poor discipline, low morale, combat ineffectiveness, and high casualties in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. During the nineteen days of the first two phases, the PLA suffered 26,000 casualties, about 1,350 per day. Gerald Segal points out that in Vietnam, “in contrast to Korea, Chinese troops performed poorly. In Korea, they adequately defended North Korea, but in 1979 they failed to punish Vietnam. China’s Cambodian allies were relegated to a sideshow along the Thai frontier, and China was unable to help them break out.”

During the war, 37,300 Vietnamese troops were killed, and 2,300 were captured. The Soviet Union surprised the Vietnamese by refusing to get involved in the conflict. On February 18, Moscow had denounced China’s aggression and promised that the Soviet Union would keep its commitments according to the Soviet-Vietnam cooperation and friendship treaty. Then, however, the Soviet Union did not make any major moves. Russian military intelligence did increase its reconnaissance planes and ships in the South China Sea and along the Vietnamese coast after China’s invasion. On February 24, two Russian transport planes landed at Hanoi and unloaded some military equipment. Most countries maintained a neutral position during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

The brief war was a grievous misfortune for both China and Vietnam, not only because it resulted in material and human losses for both nations but also because it brought years of earlier cooperation to a dispiriting conclusion. The war showed that American belief in the domino theory was misplaced, since two Communist countries, one of which had just attained national liberation, were now in conflict with each other. Each valued its own national interests much more than the common Communist ideology. On February 27, 1979, Deng told American journalists in Beijing that “Vietnam claims itself as the third military superpower in the world. We are eliminating this myth. That’s all we want, no other purpose. We don’t want their territory. We make them to understand that they can’t do whatever they want to all the times.”

Hanoi believed, however, that the Vietnamese army had taught the Chinese army a lesson. One [People’s Army of Vietnam] general said that China lost militarily and beat a hasty retreat: “After we defeated them we gave them the red carpet to leave Vietnam.” As Henry J. Kenny points out, “Most Western writers agree that Vietnam had indeed outperformed the PLA on the battlefield, but say that with the seizure of Lang Son, the PLA was poised to move into the militarily more hospitable terrain of the Red River Delta, and thence to Hanoi.” Kenny, however, points out that Lang Son is less than twelve miles from the Chinese border but is twice that distance from the delta. Moreover, at least five PAVN divisions remained poised for a counterattack in the delta, and thirty thousand additional PAVN troops from Cambodia, along with several regiments from Laos, were moving to their support. Thus the PLA would have taken huge losses in any southward move toward Hanoi.
What the PLA Learned in Vietnam, 1979 | Far Outliers

you know its funny this article say VN suffered 37300 killed, while PLA suffered 26000, and the war was fought in Vietnam, we also destroyed the infrastructure as we withdrew. What can I say, we'd love to do it again sometimes?
But then even our rocket artillery now can flatten Hanoi with a few barrage, then fire a few hundred SRBM down to HCM. we never even have to set foot in your country LOL,

We can give you a -25% annual growth just by taking out your drill platforms in SCS with a few missiles, you know Vietnamese economy is agreed to be the MOST FRAGILE economy in Asia.

but you see? our problem is not with Vietnamese people.

 

[William Hung]

The 1979 Chinese-Vietnam war was a complete victory for China, there is no doubt about it.

Very obvious if you consider the balance of power between China and Vietnam today.

Umm brother, so according to this logic, China won the first sino-japan war? because it's obvious if you "consider the balance of power between China and Japan today"?

I don't quite get it.

1979 war is always a reminder to the Vietnamese that the PLA is right next door, and they can capture Hanoi in a week.

Vietnam people are nationalistic, but the Vietnamese government has been pretty much Finlandized by China. Their position has always been to avoid conflict with China at all cost.

But after China withdrew, Viet Nam still occupied China's ally (Cambodia) for the next 10 years. I respectfully don't consider that to be a good "reminder".

 

[NiceGuy]

you know its funny this article say VN suffered 37300 killed, while PLA suffered 26000, and the war was fought in Vietnam, we also destroyed the infrastructure as we withdrew. What can I say, we'd love to do it again sometimes?
But then even our rocket artillery now can flatten Hanoi with a few barrage, then fire a few hundred SRBM down to HCM. we never even have to set foot in your country LOL,

We can give you a -25% annual growth just by taking out your drill platforms in SCS with a few missiles, you know Vietnamese economy is agreed to be the MOST FRAGILE economy in Asia.

but you see? our problem is not with Vietnamese people.

Dude, Nazi killed much more Russian in WW2, but who won the war ??

Your goal to stop VN occupation in Kam failed, so you failed the war. Thats it.

Dont forget that CN lost in CN-TW conflict ,too.

 

[sicsheep]

Dude, Nazi killed much more Russian in WW2, but who won the war ??

Your goal to stop VN occupation in Kam failed, so you failed the war. Thats it.

Dont forget that CN lost in CN-TW conflict ,too.

Russians were in Berlin, what about VN? how far did you make into China?

our homeland was not effected by the war at all.

 

[gambit]

You are hilarious, my friend, a joker I must say. LOL Does any rule book say you can't deploy human wave tactic in a war? In a war, all tactics are on the table.

Of course you can use any tactic you want. Just that the human wave tactic is the least intelligent, most wasteful, most cruel, and most demoralizing.

What we deploy in the past does not mean we will use the same tactic. You have to remember that back then, our weaponry capability is severely lacking, so we have to make up with foot soldiers. Today it is different story, my friend. LOL

China may not use the human wave tactic today, but once China have a taste of it, it is difficult to de-institutionalize it, kid. The way you talk is typical callousness of someone who knows he has no relevant experience but does not care of those who suffered through a war.

Rest assure, my friend, in the Vietnam war, we did more than providing air cover for the VC.

No...The bulk of Chinese troops in North Viet Nam during the war engaged in construction, air defense, and POW interrogation.

The totality of what is combat experience involves more than what China did in the Vietnam War, son. Special Forces often do not engage in battle, especially when the mission is reconnaissance. But that experience is invaluable in the sense that the SF troopers must come very close to the enemy in order to gather vital combat intelligence for the main force. Were there any PLA special forces troopers active against the US/SVN alliance in Viet Nam below the 17th parallel ? POW interrogation is too niche of a specialty. Air defense is essentially reactive in nature. You are at the convenience of the enemy when he comes to you.

True combat experience requires the army to be proactive when necessary. It must be willing to reach beyond secured, not necessary safe, borders. Aggression is not enough but intelligent and focused aggression is the key. When a new technology is available, this army must be willing to experiment in battle if necessary, even if just for the later generation's benefits. Returning to the Vietnam War as an example, the US reached beyond its own hemisphere. Its army was aggressive in pursuing not just the enemy but also in new tactics and technology. Fast forward to Desert Storm, the US became -- to date -- the only military force in history to conduct an extra-hemispherical conquest of a continental power without relying on foreign resources to win. Foreign resources in this case mean the US did not need to 'live off the land' like past expeditionary armies.

The PLA does not have 1/10th of this level of expertise, experience, depth, and scope of warfare.

Anyhow, the US soliders are overrated. You always fight with superior weapon and have better equipments, yet you hardly can defeat the VC. Beating up some desert Iraqi doesn't make you invincible. LOL In fact, if you put one division vs ISIS division on the ground without any air cover, use mainly gun and grenade , I bet the ISIS would kick your *** 9/10 time. LOL


Not too long ago, there was a study and report that came out saying most US soldiers are high school dropout or gang members. LOL

I have no doubt the PLA's leadership contains generals and admirals who amateurishly thinks like you do. After all, often money is equal to patriotism in rising through the ranks in the PLA. I hope there are more of their kind.

I still dont see anywhere that says PLA is forcing people to join, Every government has the power to draft, but can you show me if Chinese people are forced to join? We simply call it conscription but it is 100% voluntary.

In fact PLA is one of the few armies in the world that has both more available men power and men fit for service than it actually need. LOL

and I quote the article you posted
"　According to the incomplete statistics, as many as hundreds of thousands of college students have signed up online to join the army,"

I can hardly call that being forced.

Btw care to comment what is Selective Service System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conscription is not force, it is selective compulsion at convenience. It means the government have a legal reserve to use force if necessary to create an army. The availability of potential recruits have nothing to do with the policy. As for our registration system, it is not conscription but merely a record of potential recruits.

Wanted: China's next top guns - CNN.com

Many are still drawn from rural areas with limited education, while country's one-child policy, which has created the "little emperor" phenomenon of spoiled children, produces recruits who "may not be tough enough to withstand military discipline," the report added.

This is not about passing basic training but about being mentally strong enough to make the military a career CHOICE.

The PLA's service contract is two-yrs. Do you have any idea how inadequate that is ?

Basic Training is at least 90-days, but let us be generous and say 60-days. Depending on specialty, additional basic technical training will take at least another 60-days, then advanced technical training at the unit can take as long as 6-months. That means after the first yr, the enlistee will develop the 'shortermer' mentality where he will perform only the bare minimum to get by. There will be no desire for personal development, no preparation for advanced studies like the USAF's Professional NCO education courses, no intellectual hunger for advanced technical understanding of the weapon system he is tasked to maintain, and the worst of all, possible contempt for the service and its mission as the shortermer get closer and closer to the end of his legal obligation.

Your PLA have the same institutional problems with short term conscription service as with any military in history with similar policies. With today's technology, maintenance of complex weapons systems falls upon the few dedicated souls in the service and their numbers will be rare. Under combat related stress, they will have few they can trust to delegate responsibilities to accomplish the mission. You think that just because China can build an aircraft carrier that mean China can field tough enough men and women to sustain that carrier in combat ? You think the sailor with six months to go on his contract is going to give any shit on how to improve launch/recovery time to match the Americans' experience ?

So by all means, believe Perfesser Dingding Chen of the University of Macau when he declared that combat experience is overrated. I hope the PLA take his opinion to heart and policies.

 

[sicsheep]

Of course you can use any tactic you want. Just that the human wave tactic is the least intelligent, most wasteful, most cruel, and most demoralizing.


China may not use the human wave tactic today, but once China have a taste of it, it is difficult to de-institutionalize it, kid. The way you talk is typical callousness of someone who knows he has no relevant experience but does not care of those who suffered through a war.


No...The bulk of Chinese troops in North Viet Nam during the war engaged in construction, air defense, and POW interrogation.

The totality of what is combat experience involves more than what China did in the Vietnam War, son. Special Forces often do not engage in battle, especially when the mission is reconnaissance. But that experience is invaluable in the sense that the SF troopers must come very close to the enemy in order to gather vital combat intelligence for the main force. Were there any PLA special forces troopers active against the US/SVN alliance in Viet Nam below the 17th parallel ? POW interrogation is too niche of a specialty. Air defense is essentially reactive in nature. You are at the convenience of the enemy when he comes to you.

True combat experience requires the army to be proactive when necessary. It must be willing to reach beyond secured, not necessary safe, borders. Aggression is not enough but intelligent and focused aggression is the key. When a new technology is available, this army must be willing to experiment in battle if necessary, even if just for the later generation's benefits. Returning to the Vietnam War as an example, the US reached beyond its own hemisphere. Its army was aggressive in pursuing not just the enemy but also in new tactics and technology. Fast forward to Desert Storm, the US became -- to date -- the only military force in history to conduct an extra-hemispherical conquest of a continental power without relying on foreign resources to win. Foreign resources in this case mean the US did not need to 'live off the land' like past expeditionary armies.

The PLA does not have 1/10th of this level of expertise, experience, depth, and scope of warfare.


I have no doubt the PLA's leadership contains generals and admirals who amateurishly thinks like you do. After all, often money is equal to patriotism in rising through the ranks in the PLA. I hope there are more of their kind.


Conscription is not force, it is selective compulsion at convenience. It means the government have a legal reserve to use force if necessary to create an army. The availability of potential recruits have nothing to do with the policy. As for our registration system, it is not conscription but merely a record of potential recruits.

Wanted: China's next top guns - CNN.com

This is not about passing basic training but about being mentally strong enough to make the military a career CHOICE.

The PLA's service contract is two-yrs. Do you have any idea how inadequate that is ?

Basic Training is at least 90-days, but let us be generous and say 60-days. Depending on specialty, additional basic technical training will take at least another 60-days, then advanced technical training at the unit can take as long as 6-months. That means after the first yr, the enlistee will develop the 'shortermer' mentality where he will perform only the bare minimum to get by. There will be no desire for personal development, no preparation for advanced studies like the USAF's Professional NCO education courses, no intellectual hunger for advanced technical understanding of the weapon system he is tasked to maintain, and the worst of all, possible contempt for the service and its mission as the shortermer get closer and closer to the end of his legal obligation.

Your PLA have the same institutional problems with short term conscription service as with any military in history with similar policies. With today's technology, maintenance of complex weapons systems falls upon the few dedicated souls in the service and their numbers will be rare. Under combat related stress, they will have few they can trust to delegate responsibilities to accomplish the mission. You think that just because China can build an aircraft carrier that mean China can field tough enough men and women to sustain that carrier in combat ? You think the sailor with six months to go on his contract is going to give any shit on how to improve launch/recovery time to match the Americans' experience ?

So by all means, believe Perfesser Dingding Chen of the University of Macau when he declared that combat experience is overrated. I hope the PLA take his opinion to heart and policies.

The PLA drafting strategy is exactly like US one, Do you know why PLA has a 2 year contract?

Because while we still have lifelong career military professionals, using a two year contact, we'd train more people and have almost double the reserve. (actually an American professor explained this to me)

No of course PLAN carrier is no where near combat ready, neither is the PLA the same one under Mao's command in 1952. but it's OK.!!! Are you saying the US military does not recruit poor people and use money as a sign up incentive?

China has exact system in place for NCO and warrant officers. I understand your experience in USAF and I respect that. But you really dont have much idea about whats going on in China.

 

[gambit]

The PLA drafting strategy is exactly like US one, Do you know why PLA has a 2 year contract?

Because while we still have lifelong career military professionals, using a two year contact, we'd train more people and have almost double the reserve. (actually an American professor explained this to me)

The issue is not the amount of reserve but of CORE COMPETENCY. Besides, the longer the reservist is out of the military, the less technically and physically capable he will be if ever the need arise.

But you really dont have much idea about whats going on in China.

Looks like neither are you if you have to rely on an American perfesser to tell you things.

 

[opruh]

This article sounded a lot like those member in this forum would say, although to be completely honest with you, i stopped reading after "Third, miltary experience is overvalued"

@gambit @Neptune @SvenSvensonov

Oh you needed some backups.

It's true you gained early victories in 1962 but result was unilateral ceasefire by Chinese without any major territorial gain.we still control AP so how can you claim you won 1962 war?

Ssh, be grateful without the ceasefire, India will probably be an agricultural district of China today.

 

[jhungary]

Oh you needed some backups.


Ssh, be grateful without the ceasefire, India will probably be an agricultural district of China today.

如果只是对你的話？我一個就夠了。

 

[gambit]

What I said was if you join as E-4, its not at all a big effort to get promoted to E-5 Junior or not, its still NCO. so the conclusion is even in US military, degree matters, not experience. tell me I'm wrong LOL.

Either for enlisted to officer or enlisted to NCO, degree is KEY, doest matter you get it before you join or after, honestly tell me you have only a HSD.

It is both. Take the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, for example...

CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE JAMES A. CODY > U.S. Air Force > Biography Display

Chief Cody's scope and depth of education would put him in the Ph.D. range. His USAF predecessors are no different. And his US Army counterpart, Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Daily, is no different.

Infantryman named new sergeant major of the Army - News - Stripes

...a bachelor of science degree, summa cum laude, from Excelsior University...

For the US Marines, the top enlisted rank is Sergeant Major of the US Marines and it is Sergeant Major Ronald Green who holds a bachelor in cybersecurity and forensics. A Marine with a computer science degree.

Ronald L. Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sergeant Major Green holds a B.A. in Cybersecurity and a M.A. in Cybersecurity Policy from the University of Maryland University College.

Also note the sergeant is black.

It is almost impossible to achieve senior enlisted ranks without a college degree and most mid-grade NCOs, at least in the USAF anyway, are either college degree holder or on their way there. Those who enlist without a college degree who later got a degree usually stay enlisted. They love the life, simple as that. By the time a person reach E-6, ready to break into senior management ranks, that pay grade is populated by college degree holders. In my 10yrs in the USAF, every single senior NCO I know across three bases/assignments have at least a four-yr university level education.

So: You are wrong.

 

[ravi kiran]

Ssh, be grateful without the ceasefire, India will probably be an agricultural district of China today.

Actually that would have been better compared to congress rule.

 

[grand]

the US is only good at fighting countries that cant fight back, like an adult fighting an infant.