China tests missile air defence system

[scuthan]

You need to be consistent. If aircraft carriers are 'toys' for the American military, it must also be 'toys' for the Chinese military as well.


Am not saying that the result in Iraq will be the same for Russia or China. But Iraq used a lot of Soviet and Chinese derived weapons and training. At the time of Desert Storm, the three countries were pretty much similar in terms of military capabilities minus the nuclear weapons. The Soviets was slightly ahead. But if we take into consideration combat experience, then Iraq was ahead of China because of the decade long Iran-Iraq War. The disparity between the US and Iraq was evident and it jolted China into a realization that if there is a shooting fight between the US and China, China would lose as badly as Iraq did. China then entered a modernization program to make her military more professional in line of the Western militaries.


That is like saying the Army depends too much on the rifle. I fail to see how 'smart' weapons have any relationship to on how the Army create or discover intelligent field commanders.


For a democracy, and despite your unbelief that the US is a functional democracy, popular sentiment matter if the country is going to war. The point I was trying to make was that the restraint we have in Iraq was not because we were afraid of fighting but because IF we were to fight the way we want to win overwhelmingly, the PR fallout could be detrimental for the support of the war. Of course, you could always come out and advocate that we disregard popular sentiments altogether.


Did you know that whenever Giap tried to fight the French in 'set piece' battles, despite his numerical superiority, he always lost? Same when Giap tried to fight the Americans later? Did you ever put an objective mind to the many analysis of the battle of Dien Bien Phu where they outlined how Giap was actually an average commander despite the facts that his forces held the superior high ground, outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, but the siege took months and he lost more men? Did you know that Giap nearly evicted the Chinese advisors from the battlefield because he had enough of their incompetence when they ordered only what they know best from Korea -- human wave attacks? Fort Sill Artillery's paper regarding Dien Bien Phu was the most generous to Giap, others from foreign armies were not as kind but all are worth reading.

Giap was a wily guerilla commander and deserve respect for that, but he was also wise enough of his own limitations that even though he planned the 1968 Tet Offensive he opposed its execution. Did you know that? This factoid is not a secret but a cynic would argue often deliberately omitted from many commentaries. Giap felt that the NVA/VC forces could not stand against the combined ARVN/US forces, despite the incompetency of the ARVN. Giap did not believe the South Vietnamese were so antagonistic towards their government that they would rise up in rebellion. The Politburo overruled Giap and ordered the offensive anyway. The offensive gained nothing and the VC was nearly wiped out. Before 1968, the VC was able to field battalion strength if they needed. After the failed offensive, so many South Vietnamese turned against the VC that they could muster up at best squad level. After the 'Vietnamization' of the war, by early 1972, most US Army forces were out of the fighting, leaving the ARVN and the USAF. Giap thought he could achieve easy victories. Once again he underestimated the effectiveness of air power like he did when he fought against France. Giap had no experience at coordinating ground and air forces, he knew of this inexperience but pressed ahead anyway. The result was his defeat in late 1972 at the Easter Offensive and South Viet Nam existed until 1975 when the US Congress refused to fund the war further. At no time during the war did Giap militarily gained the upper hand for long.

It was the weariness of the American public that eventually compelled their government that the war was not worth supporting, not that Giap was the military 'genius' that many hyped him up to be. If you have enough men and is callous for their lives, eventually you will wear down an enemy who does not have the same disregard for his own. So when a superpower like the US withdrew from Viet Nam without achieving its political objective -- the continuing independence of South Viet Nam -- naturally popular perceptions and conclusions will be that the US was militarily defeated by an intellectually superior enemy. There were many defeated Nazi generals but no one discredited them the way the American generals were discredited. The reason why the US was 'defeated' in Viet Nam was not because the ARVN/US alliance could not militarily defeat the NVA but because the American political leadership failed to grasp the fact that there was a great difference in political goal between the two sides: The communists wanted the whole country but the ARVN/US alliance wanted partition ala Korea.

The political goal set the military objectives. If both sides had the same political goal, which is to put the country under one regime, then the ARVN/US alliance would have overrun the NVA a long time ago with clearly superior firepower. But because the ARVN/US alliance was set on going no further north than the 17th parallel, that gave the communists a clear strategic advantage from the start because they knew that they will always have a secured place to retreat, regroup and rebuild. If they needed respite from the American bombing campaigns, all they have to do is plead for 'negotiations' and the ARVN/US alliance would respond. Everyone knew the game and how hamstrung the ARVN/US alliance was. Despite that strategic advantage, the communists still had to violate the territorial sovereignty of two neighbors, Laos and Cambodia, to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the VC. This flanking movement was not possible with Korea so the Korean peninsula became divided.

I do not claim to be a ground troop movements or artillery expert but what I am is a patient reader. I read between $100-150 a month in non-work related books and news magazines. I have read enough of objective analysis, devoid of the fawning Giap military 'genius' myth, to know that while a competent and shrewd commander like Giap is valuable and should be respected, there come a time when the technological gap between the war contestants is so great, as in even Giap himself recognized how inferior his forces were compared to the Americans, that it will take a political disaster like the American political leadership's abandonment of an ally before the technologically inferior can claim victory.


This generalization is indisputable. But I do not see this is happening in the US military. In fact, the goal have always been to make the equipment as 'field serviceable' as possible, even for aviation. Out West I am within one day's drive to Nellis, Mountain Home and several other USAF bases, the ways the kids today maintain their charges make me jealous.


Guerilla tactics have never won a war and please do not bring up the Vietnam War. The VC was an insurgent arm and a terrorist organization for the NVA. The various 'resistance' groups in WW II never drove out Nazi Germany. Same for the Pacific side of WW II against Imperial Japan. In mainland China, Chennault's Flying Tigers was the air equivalent of a 'resistance' group. A guerilla campaign is an acknowledgement that one side has lost the fight and has to resort to harassment tactics, not actual combat to defeat an enemy. This become a contest of long term will power.

Iraq could not even handle Iran without the help from the US.

 

[Obambam]

Yeah, in 1991 Iraq didn't have significant numbers of S-300S, CIWS, and did not have hundreds of accurate ballistic and cruise missiles with CEP below 50m. 1991 Iraq's air force also doesn't have more than 400 4th generation fighters like the China of today has, and Iraq's air bases doesn't have hardened shelters like most PLAAF bases. The PLA of today is beyond what USA can handle without using nukes.

Iraq was worthy of praise. It took 30+ countries 5 years to defeat them in the Gulf War.
However, it is a joke to even compare us with Iraq LOL!
America and its friends would have came already if we are indeed as invadable as some fanboys thinks we are.
The fact that the west can only bark and point fingers across the pond speaks volumes.

 

[gambit]

Iraq was worthy of praise. It took 30+ countries 5 years to defeat them in the Gulf War.
However, it is a joke to even compare us with Iraq LOL!
America and its friends would have came already if we are indeed as invadable as some fanboys thinks we are.
The fact that the west can only bark and point fingers across the pond speaks volumes.

During the time of Desert Storm, it would be a joke to consider the PLA superior to Iraq.

 

[gambit]

Iraq in 1991 was pretty much similar in term of military capabilities with the Soviet? Is this the kind of myth that keeps repeating over and over again by the U.S and Western media to hide the fact that what the U.S defeated in 1991 was nothing but an ancient army with hardly any 4th generation aircraft?

Let's just face the truth that the U.S did not defeat a domesctic version of 1500 Mig31, Mig29, Su27, S-300 in the Iraq war of 1991. Iraq did not even have any long-ranged cruise missiles that can pound the hell out of every U.S base that their fighters operated from nor Iraq can shoot down all the U.S satellites like the Soviet could .....and yet Iraq shot down 57 coalition aircrafts with their ancient SAM and AAA.

Desert Storm was in Apr 1991. The Soviet Union collapsed in Dec 1991. Knowledge of the Soviet military deteriorating conditions were already known during Reagan's two terms. This is where your lack of military experience revealed your foolishness. Just because you have 1000 tanks that does not mean all of them are operational and deployable. For the Soviets, it was as if they were using 500 tanks to keep the other 500 tanks ready for the parade in Red Square, let alone fight.

The Soviet Army needed to sometimes literally forage for its own food. Soviet troops routinely works the farm, as communist armies usually do in order to survive. Alcoholism was rampant and so was desertions. We are talking about the Soviet Red Army of yesterday, not the Russian Army of today. Most Soviet conscripts did not have the kind of loyalty an army needed. The kids came from republics that were once independent and coerced into the Soviet Union. By the time of Desert Storm, a Soviet trooper could desert and go back to his Soviet republic, whatever that may be, and no one would care to look for him beyond the post's confines.

We know what kind of myth you believe in...

 

[ViXuyen]

Desert Storm was in Apr 1991. The Soviet Union collapsed in Dec 1991. Knowledge of the Soviet military deteriorating conditions were already known during Reagan's two terms. This is where your lack of military experience revealed your foolishness. Just because you have 1000 tanks that does not mean all of them are operational and deployable. For the Soviets, it was as if they were using 500 tanks to keep the other 500 tanks ready for the parade in Red Square, let alone fight.

The Soviet Army needed to sometimes literally forage for its own food. Soviet troops routinely works the farm, as communist armies usually do in order to survive. Alcoholism was rampant and so was desertions. We are talking about the Soviet Red Army of yesterday, not the Russian Army of today. Most Soviet conscripts did not have the kind of loyalty an army needed. The kids came from republics that were once independent and coerced into the Soviet Union. By the time of Desert Storm, a Soviet trooper could desert and go back to his Soviet republic, whatever that may be, and no one would care to look for him beyond the post's confines.

We know what kind of myth you believe in...

Did I hit your nerve or something? I guess I did for pointing out the harsh fact that what the U.S defeat in the 1991 gulf war was nothing but an ancient military and yet an ancient military like Iraq pounded 57 of the most modern domestic version of the coalition's aircrafts....and yet the U.S media keeps parading this ancient military as one of the most "modern" of the world

You don't know how foolilsh you sound by stating that the military capabilities of Iraq was very similiar to the Soviet and I already listed the reasons so.

 

[gambit]

Did I hit your nerve or something? I guess I did for pointing out the harsh fact that what the U.S defeat in the 1991 gulf war was nothing but an ancient military and yet an ancient military like Iraq pounded 57 of the most modern domestic version of the coalition's aircrafts....and yet the U.S media keeps parading this ancient military as one of the most "modern" of the world

You don't know how foolilsh you sound by stating that the military capabilities of Iraq was very similiar to the Soviet and I already listed the reasons so.

No...It looks like YOUR nerve is the one being irritated. So what if the coalition lost a few aircrafts? Spray and pray enough and you will hit something. But the Iraqi Air Force never had a chance to start. This is laughable. As for the Soviet Union, looks like you are too much of a chickenshtt to verify for yourself what I said.

That is how communist military leadership view their armies: worse than cannon fodder. This mentality the Soviets and China exported to other communist allies and entrenched it. Desertions were so common and got so bad in the Soviet Army even as far back as Leon Trotsky, himself instituted 'amnesty day' for deserters and as high as 100,000 deserters took the bait. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Soviet troopers deserters...!!!

The conscription program and the contempt the communist military leaderships have for the individuals resulted in the great disparity in technical knowledge and proficiency that shocked the defector Victor Belenko and others after him. In the USAF, an airman first class (A1C) possess as much knowledge about his aircraft's system of responsibility as a Soviet Air Force master sergeant. We, including myself with the Saudis and Turks, know first hand these discrepancies.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

You need to be consistent. If aircraft carriers are 'toys' for the American military, it must also be 'toys' for the Chinese military as well.

I was consistent about my point that aircraft carrier are high tech expensive toys. Why do you think the Chinese have been delaying on building their own indigenous carrier (beside the Varyag) through out the years? In ten years time the carrier will become obsolete due to improve high speed torpedoes and missiles that are cheaper to build to take out a carrier, than say a whole naval fleet.

Did you know that whenever Giap tried to fight the French in 'set piece' battles, despite his numerical superiority, he always lost? Same when Giap tried to fight the Americans later? Did you ever put an objective mind to the many analysis of the battle of Dien Bien Phu where they outlined how Giap was actually an average commander despite the facts that his forces held the superior high ground, outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, but the siege took months and he lost more men? Did you know that Giap nearly evicted the Chinese advisors from the battlefield because he had enough of their incompetence when they ordered only what they know best from Korea -- human wave attacks? Fort Sill Artillery's paper regarding Dien Bien Phu was the most generous to Giap, others from foreign armies were not as kind but all are worth reading.

Giap was a wily guerilla commander and deserve respect for that, but he was also wise enough of his own limitations that even though he planned the 1968 Tet Offensive he opposed its execution. Did you know that? This factoid is not a secret but a cynic would argue often deliberately omitted from many commentaries. Giap felt that the NVA/VC forces could not stand against the combined ARVN/US forces, despite the incompetency of the ARVN. Giap did not believe the South Vietnamese were so antagonistic towards their government that they would rise up in rebellion. The Politburo overruled Giap and ordered the offensive anyway. The offensive gained nothing and the VC was nearly wiped out. Before 1968, the VC was able to field battalion strength if they needed. After the failed offensive, so many South Vietnamese turned against the VC that they could muster up at best squad level. After the 'Vietnamization' of the war, by early 1972, most US Army forces were out of the fighting, leaving the ARVN and the USAF. Giap thought he could achieve easy victories. Once again he underestimated the effectiveness of air power like he did when he fought against France. Giap had no experience at coordinating ground and air forces, he knew of this inexperience but pressed ahead anyway. The result was his defeat in late 1972 at the Easter Offensive and South Viet Nam existed until 1975 when the US Congress refused to fund the war further. At no time during the war did Giap militarily gained the upper hand for long.

It was the weariness of the American public that eventually compelled their government that the war was not worth supporting, not that Giap was the military 'genius' that many hyped him up to be. If you have enough men and is callous for their lives, eventually you will wear down an enemy who does not have the same disregard for his own. So when a superpower like the US withdrew from Viet Nam without achieving its political objective -- the continuing independence of South Viet Nam -- naturally popular perceptions and conclusions will be that the US was militarily defeated by an intellectually superior enemy. There were many defeated Nazi generals but no one discredited them the way the American generals were discredited. The reason why the US was 'defeated' in Viet Nam was not because the ARVN/US alliance could not militarily defeat the NVA but because the American political leadership failed to grasp the fact that there was a great difference in political goal between the two sides: The communists wanted the whole country but the ARVN/US alliance wanted partition ala Korea.

The political goal set the military objectives. If both sides had the same political goal, which is to put the country under one regime, then the ARVN/US alliance would have overrun the NVA a long time ago with clearly superior firepower. But because the ARVN/US alliance was set on going no further north than the 17th parallel, that gave the communists a clear strategic advantage from the start because they knew that they will always have a secured place to retreat, regroup and rebuild. If they needed respite from the American bombing campaigns, all they have to do is plead for 'negotiations' and the ARVN/US alliance would respond. Everyone knew the game and how hamstrung the ARVN/US alliance was. Despite that strategic advantage, the communists still had to violate the territorial sovereignty of two neighbors, Laos and Cambodia, to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the VC. This flanking movement was not possible with Korea so the Korean peninsula became divided.

I do not claim to be a ground troop movements or artillery expert but what I am is a patient reader. I read between $100-150 a month in non-work related books and news magazines. I have read enough of objective analysis, devoid of the fawning Giap military 'genius' myth, to know that while a competent and shrewd commander like Giap is valuable and should be respected, there come a time when the technological gap between the war contestants is so great, as in even Giap himself recognized how inferior his forces were compared to the Americans, that it will take a political disaster like the American political leadership's abandonment of an ally before the technologically inferior can claim victory.

Regardless of what you feel about the facts, the bottom line is THEY WON! Please don't bring that excuse that the political will are the sole reason for the US and S. Vietnamese lost to the war. They only won the big major battles (brigade size or larger) but lost most of the smaller skirmishes and conflicts that goes around for more than ten years. South Vietnam lost because it has weaker leaders both militarily and politically and so is the US. When two allies can't work together effectively than no amount of high tech weapons can succumbed that. General Giap was known to apply Sun Tzu "Art of War" into his tactics even though he knew would lose a large number of men at times but he gained it in another, like defusing the enemy's will to fight. Yes the VC violated the sovereign territory to build the HO CHI MINH Trail, but that's the audacity of the VC to come up with anything possible to avoid the air campaign bombing (Operation Linebacker I and II) to bring supplies into South Vietnam. If South Vietnam knew about this, why didn't they do something about all these years, why not invade the North to put pressure in Ho Chi Minh?

Guerilla tactics have never won a war and please do not bring up the Vietnam War. The VC was an insurgent arm and a terrorist organization for the NVA. The various 'resistance' groups in WW II never drove out Nazi Germany. Same for the Pacific side of WW II against Imperial Japan. In mainland China, Chennault's Flying Tigers was the air equivalent of a 'resistance' group. A guerilla campaign is an acknowledgement that one side has lost the fight and has to resort to harassment tactics, not actual combat to defeat an enemy. This become a contest of long term will power.

Okay how about Afghanistan during the Russian campaign and quite possibly today with the US? War does not has to be fought with large assembly army marching in wide open battlefields anymore. It's all fair game (except for nukes) these days, and I don't like it. It opens doors to killing an enemy's innocent civilians instead of military targets (human urge and need for vengeance is strong). Do you know that the tactics over in Iraq for the Army and Marines are basically do recon mission over in villages and towns for several hours and then head back to base? It's basically drive by patrol until something hits you (IED and RPG), because there was not enough ground troops to expand and hold new grounds, therefore dependent on the drones to look after the site on the objectives (depending on weather, drones don't work well under stormy clouds, how do I know, I have a buddy who's used to be in the Air Force), meanwhile the insurgents were assembling new ways to avoid and confront US troops. The occupying force does not have infinite resources to stay there for the long term therefore has to priorities the situation at hand.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

No...It looks like YOUR nerve is the one being irritated. So what if the coalition lost a few aircrafts? Spray and pray enough and you will hit something. But the Iraqi Air Force never had a chance to start. This is laughable. As for the Soviet Union, looks like you are too much of a chickenshtt to verify for yourself what I said.

That is how communist military leadership view their armies: worse than cannon fodder. This mentality the Soviets and China exported to other communist allies and entrenched it. Desertions were so common and got so bad in the Soviet Army even as far back as Leon Trotsky, himself instituted 'amnesty day' for deserters and as high as 100,000 deserters took the bait. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Soviet troopers deserters...!!!

The conscription program and the contempt the communist military leaderships have for the individuals resulted in the great disparity in technical knowledge and proficiency that shocked the defector Victor Belenko and others after him. In the USAF, an airman first class (A1C) possess as much knowledge about his aircraft's system of responsibility as a Soviet Air Force master sergeant. We, including myself with the Saudis and Turks, know first hand these discrepancies.

Yeah but their Armies are rugged and brave . Stalingrad is one example of the Russian doing whatever it takes to win. The Chinese helping N.Korea is another. We do have some brave troops, but I don't like the way the Army is heading. It's more technological than field smart and battle ready.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

Did you ever put an objective mind to the many analysis of the battle of Dien Bien Phu where they outlined how Giap was actually an average commander despite the facts that his forces held the superior high ground, outnumbered and outgunned the defenders, but the siege took months and he lost more men? Did you know that Giap nearly evicted the Chinese advisors from the battlefield because he had enough of their incompetence when they ordered only what they know best from Korea -- human wave attacks? Fort Sill Artillery's paper regarding Dien Bien Phu was the most generous to Giap, others from foreign armies were not as kind but all are worth reading.

What, Giap an average commander, says who General Westmoreland? Did you know that the French commander over at Dien Bien Phu was so arrogant that he believes he doesn't need to be there to command besieged fort? He literally made tactical movement and give orders on a phone in Saigon inside the comfort of his HQ, meanwhile his troops were dying and starving? Giap never had proper military training but he absorbed as much as possible along the way, therefore improvising as he goes. Improvising is a sign of a good field commander. Look what Erwin Rommel did to his Africa Corps? He didn't have all the proper artillery pieces he needed at first, so he improvised by making his heavy anti-aircraft guns to rapid firing artillery against tanks.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

It was the weariness of the American public that eventually compelled their government that the war was not worth supporting, not that Giap was the military 'genius' that many hyped him up to be. If you have enough men and is callous for their lives, eventually you will wear down an enemy who does not have the same disregard for his own. So when a superpower like the US withdrew from Viet Nam without achieving its political objective -- the continuing independence of South Viet Nam -- naturally popular perceptions and conclusions will be that the US was militarily defeated by an intellectually superior enemy.

I wouldn't put too much trust and emphasis on what some of those sour Vietnam Veterans make it to be. Isn't the public part of this war too? It's not that Giap is callous about his men, but he doesn't have much of a choice and he really wants to fight for his country at whatever the cost and he acheived that. Those redneck idiots (believe there are and they're not even infantry or ground combat) think too highly of themselves to be defeated militarily. What the hell is that? A lost is a lost get over it already!

 

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

It is evident that ‘gaybit’s real life is a failure with awful personality, that’s why he takes PDF and other virtual life as means of consolation remedy.. we should help him out as PDF is a big family! We should applause everything he posts and suggests, lets treat him as pro as he self-claimed. That will solve all the problems between the Chinese member and that ‘souless Gaybit’!

agree?!

what are we waiting for bro. then let's get started ..

 

[Bigoren]

Every military leadership does. Good thing for them they are not as shortsighted as you are.


China does not have that capability. And please do not bring up that one satellite shot. It took China three separate attempts to do that.

Oh yeah?Seriously how you gonna know that?Everytime i see you talk like yourself like a president of USA/FBI.You talk like you know everything around the world.And you behave like a old man that has many experience call chinese members here chinese boy and you call yourself as a profesional but sometimes give some crap in many topic.Mind to explain where is the evident to support your claim?Vietnamese old man.