China Wants 100,000 Marines To Defend Its Expanding Global Interests

[Beast]

Your China is completely inexperienced in amphibious operations.

I dare to say PLAN is the most experience in amphibious operation with retaking Taiwan as their number one objective. You can checkout the amount of amphibious resources and exercise PLAN undertake every year since 30years ago.

Not even USN has that amount of commitment compare to PLAN marines. The ignorant is with you.

http://china-defense.blogspot.sg/2011/01/most-advance-amphibious-armor-vehicle.html

PLAN marine amphibious asset far exceed USMC vintage.

 

[gambit]

I dare to say PLAN is the most experience in amphibious operation with retaking Taiwan as their number one objective. You can checkout the amount of amphibious resources and exercise PLAN undertake every year since 30years ago.

Not even USN has that amount of commitment compare to PLAN marines. The ignorant is with you.

http://china-defense.blogspot.sg/2011/01/most-advance-amphibious-armor-vehicle.html

PLAN marine amphibious asset far exceed USMC vintage.

And I dare say that only Internet Chinese would believe this. Do you guys actually say this to each other in Chinese forums ? I am asking a serious question.

Here is an incomplete Internet list of notable amphibious landings...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphibious_assault_operations

You can safely assume that they were done under combat conditions, not exercises. You Internet Chinese really think that just because you have shiny new toys, that is going compensate for a couple hundred yrs of inexperience ?

 

[Beast]

And I dare say that only Internet Chinese would believe this. Do you guys actually say this to each other in Chinese forums ? I am asking a serious question.

Here is an incomplete Internet list of notable amphibious landings...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphibious_assault_operations

You can safely assume that they were done under combat conditions, not exercises. You Internet Chinese really think that just because you have shiny new toys, that is going compensate for a couple hundred yrs of inexperience ?

LOL.. Typical lame excuse by slayer. Beside real and near peer to peer strength amphibious landing in WWII that happen donkey years ago. What more realistic amphibious has US marine taken against more powerful enemy in last 20years? If real war experience is so important that triumph more realistic peacetime rigorous training. Iraq army in gulf war 1 shall have given coalitions forces a bloody eye given their long eight years war with Iran which ended only in 1988 that they accumulate so much experience in real war.

Your foolish reasoning can only fool ignorant but not pro like us

 

[Fledgingwings]

Good Move ! This was expected to be happening sooner or later.cant let decades worth of hard work and money go to waste by these Jihadi Changezisssss.Chinese are no Idiots.they plan and work for decades to come

 

[gambit]

LOL.. Typical lame excuse by slayer. Beside real and near peer to peer strength amphibious landing in WWII that happen donkey years ago. What more realistic amphibious has US marine taken against more powerful enemy in last 20years? If real war experience is so important that triumph more realistic peacetime rigorous training. Iraq army in gulf war 1 shall have given coalitions forces a bloody eye given their long eight years war with Iran which ended only in 1988 that they accumulate so much experience in real war.

The problem for your -- truly -- foolish argument is that unlike Iraq, the US actually learned from combat experience.

The US military evolved. Iraq's military did not. For China, not only does the PLA have no real experience since the end of the Korean War, the PLA did not changed until the PLA faced the reality of Desert Storm when the PLA generals' prediction about US were woefully wrong. Combat experience is no good if that experience does not serves as a foundation for change.

Your foolish reasoning can only fool ignorant but not pro like us

YOU a 'pro' ? What branch of the PLA did you served ?

 

[Beast]

The problem for your -- truly -- foolish argument is that unlike Iraq, the US actually learned from combat experience.

The US military evolved. Iraq's military did not. For China, not only does the PLA have no real experience since the end of the Korean War, the PLA did not changed until the PLA faced the reality of Desert Storm when the PLA generals' prediction about US were woefully wrong. Combat experience is

The problem for your -- truly -- foolish argument is that unlike Iraq, the US actually learned from combat experience.

The US military evolved. Iraq's military did not. For China, not only does the PLA have no real experience since the end of the Korean War, the PLA did not changed until the PLA faced the reality of Desert Storm when the PLA generals' prediction about US were woefully wrong. Combat experience is no good if that experience does not serves as a foundation for change.


YOU a 'pro' ? What branch of the PLA did you served ?

As if PLA never learn from others and evolve. I have already proved war experience is not that critical if one forces do not invest enough training and constantly upgrade and changes. You just run out of arguement to prove USMC is in a poorer state than PLAN marines.

 

[Deino]

.... You just run out of arguement to prove USMC is in a poorer state than PLAN marines.

Pardon !! But even if I did not follow all Your arguments to say the "USMC is in a poorer state than PLAN marines" is the joke of the year already.

I'm very much interested in Your arguments, why a force that merely exists as a decent "force" is in better, more healthy state than one of the best-trained, combat-experienced forces with about twice the size, China wants to expand its own force.

 

[jkroo]

@Beast

Yeah, bro we all know that and pls just leave that thick-faced guy alone.

Or just let you deal with it if other members agree with the idea.

Oh, no pls. We are not willing to see those long bs here and there. Leave them alone pls.

So could you pls focus more on Deino? We can already see the love rises for the mouths fighting between you.

 

[Beast]

Pardon !! But even if I did not follow all Your arguments to say the "USMC is in a poorer state than PLAN marines" is the joke of the year already.

I'm very much interested in Your arguments, why a force that merely exists as a decent "force" is in better, more healthy state than one of the best-trained, combat-experienced forces with about twice the size, China wants to expand its own force.

Deino, you simply do not know PLAN marine amphibious asset is much advance and better than USMC. Did you even bother to read about link I posted? You didn't and straight away just jump to your conclusion.

Your mind is already clog with the minded set everything by PLA is inferior to western. I am wondering how can you lead Chinese defense section?

Did marine corps has EFV? No, the multi billion project was cancel and USMC do not have a high speed amphibious assault vehicle. While PLAN has the ZFBD05 that turret can configure heavy machine gun or simply 105mm dual armour piercing and ATGM that allow them to attack enemy even when they are traveling high speed towards the beach. Tell me how does PLAN marines deem inferior to USMC? Virtually almost every asset of PLAN marines vehicle are amphibious that will simply simplify asset needed for breaching them for the shore. Not to mention USMC do not even have a dedicated tank for amphibious but simply rely on LCAC to bring their only 72tons M1A2tank. This will limit the amount of tanks they can bring ashore while PLAN do not have such logistic problem while Type63A tank do not have the firepower and armour. It is only limit by the number LDP or LHD carries unlike American counterparts and can simply swapped the enemies shore by itself. While Type96B tank can still be brought in by LCAC or zubr which compliment each other's for more wider dimension of warfare. Then I do not need to remind you PLAN has more types of landing craft to choose like LCAC or giant Zubr while USMC can only rely on one type of landing craft which is the LCAC.

Finally not to mention, the amount of exercise and asset PLA dedicated to amphibious assault with dream of retaking Taiwan. The amount of training they have every year is even more than USMC undergo. To simply think PLAN marines is simply not a match is nothing but tinted view from just a single side conclusion.

 

[samsara]

The problem for your -- truly -- foolish argument is that unlike Iraq, the US actually learned from combat experience.

The US military evolved. Iraq's military did not. For China, not only does the PLA have no real experience since the end of the Korean War, the PLA did not changed until the PLA faced the reality of Desert Storm when the PLA generals' prediction about US were woefully wrong. Combat experience is no good if that experience does not serves as a foundation for change.

BY YOUR LOGIC, because the warmongering USA has been engaging in ENDLESS WARS around the globe ever since the War World II, no other country can match the US militarily in any aspect, neither China nor Russia, regardless the developments in these countries, for they have not engaged in any war since long long time ago.

These extended actual warring experiences will ensure the perpetual superiority of the US militarily, no other party can catch up because it simply lacks of such actual war experience constantly!

Listen every one, a nation needs to go around to find some soft target to crush in order to drill its military force with real combat situation. The USA has unmatchable military power because it has so many actual war experience within the last seven decades

Uncle Gambit is showing off the case of the US superiority in lobbying its tomahawks and bombs to the defenseless Iraqi forces whereas it has absolute air superiority over the Saddam Hussein army. The same lines can be told about the USA superiority in crushing the Libyan forces under Moamar Gaddafi by the endless bombing, turned the prosperous Libya into a failed state of the 21st century.

The actual war list is so extensive that I just can't put it here, indeed if one goes back to the history of the nation, USA has been engaging into endless wars since its inception, and its war experiences keep on accumulating until today.

How can any nation on earth ever match the Uncle Sam's military muscle with its such enormous extended time-aggregated warring experiences? No wonder many observers say the USA is truly a nation of war, imprinted into its history!

Timeline of United States military operations: 1775 ~ Present
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

 

[gambit]

As if PLA never learn from others and evolve. I have already proved war experience is not that critical if one forces do not invest enough training and constantly upgrade and changes. You just run out of arguement to prove USMC is in a poorer state than PLAN marines.

You have proven nothing.

What you are saying is that PLAN Marines who have literally no amphibious combat experience is better than the US Marines who have decades of continuous improvements based upon actual amphibious combat experience simply because the PLAN Marines have shiny new toys.

You maybe able to peddle this at the Chinese language forum, where most likely not real Chinese soldiers want to participate, but not here.

 

[schoolboy]

You talk as if drafting civilian ships will solve all the problems associated with an amphibious assault.

I just don't understand his obsession with "dual-use" ships. No country in the world including the Israelis have such an impractical doctrine - for reasons @jhungary has explained in one of the earlier posts. Despite the overwhelming evidence of amphibous assaults he seriously believes its productive to use civilian vessels.

BY YOUR LOGIC, because the warmongering USA has been engaging in ENDLESS WARS around the globe ever since the War World II, no other country can match the US militarily in any aspect

These extended actual warring experiences will ensure the perpetual superiority of the US militarily, no other party can catch up because it simply lacks of such actual war experience constantly!

Warfighting experience is huge. In WW2 the Allies fared badly in tactical battles - in both theatres - for years till their troops acquired battlefield experience - how guns perform in combat, when they jam, when torpedos work, how dependable are safety protocols, how airframes take dogfighting stress, etc. A nation that is constantly at war will always be better at it than one that is not. Why do you think an officer who has combat experience gets promote faster? Not only is the US ahead in that but the amount of R&D put into analysis of that warfighting is immense. in my university millions of dollars are granted to the science department to analyse some obscure aspect of grip on desert combat boots - and nobel prize winners are working with post-docs on element analysis, stress tests and innovation. And thats just on a shoe

 

[samsara]

China responds to rumored Marine Corps expansion

Source: China Military - Editor: Yao Jianing - 2017-03-15

BEIJING, March 15 (ChinaMil) -- China plans to expand its Marine Corps from the current 20,000 to 100,000 troops in order to better protect the country's marine lifeline and rising overseas interests, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported on March 13.

Some Marine Corps troops will be assigned overseas, including Djibouti and Gwadar Port of Pakistan, said the report.

The information bureau of China’s Ministry of National Defense said on Monday when answering a question raised by the Global Times that the expansion of the PLA Navy's Marine Corps relates to the reform of the Chinese military, which is being implemented steadily and more detailed information will be released in due time.

The South China Morning Post quoted an anonymous military source who said that two special operations brigades had already been incorporated into the PLA Navy's Marine Corps, taking the number of soldiers to 20,000 with more to come.

Another source said that "the PLA Navy Marine Corps will expand to 100,000 troops, including six brigades, to fulfill new national missions". He added that overall troop numbers of the PLA Navy would increase by 15 percent from the current 235,000.

An analyst said that the 100,000-person expansion sounded like nothing more than sheer guesswork. If China's Marine Corps were to have an expansion to 100,000 troops, that would account for 42.6 percent of the current 235,000 troops of the Navy, much more than 15 percent.

The South China Morning Post commented that the PLA's decision to expand the Marine Corps reflects its strategic transition from relying on large quantities of troops to win land battles to relying on highly specialized troops to deal with diverse security challenges.

The Hong Kong-based newspaper's report also mentioned that China is building a naval base in Djibouti but hasn't revealed how many troops the base will accommodate. Funded and built by Chinese enterprises, the Gwadar Port in Pakistan doesn't have any military facilities, but Chinese naval vessels are expected to be seen there in the near future, said the report.

The information bureau of China's Defense Ministry told Global Times that the support facilities in Djibouti will mainly used for rest and replenishment of the Chinese troops that perform missions of merchant ships escort in the Gulf of Aden and waters off Somali coast, UN peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, while the construction of Gwadar Port is a commercial project under the framework of China-Pakistan economic and trade cooperation and is conducive to promoting prosperity and development in this region.

 

[jhungary]

Deino, you simply do not know PLAN marine amphibious asset is much advance and better than USMC. Did you even bother to read about link I posted? You didn't and straight away just jump to your conclusion.

Your mind is already clog with the minded set everything by PLA is inferior to western. I am wondering how can you lead Chinese defense section?

Did marine corps has EFV? No, the multi billion project was cancel and USMC do not have a high speed amphibious assault vehicle. While PLAN has the ZFBD05 that turret can configure heavy machine gun or simply 105mm dual armour piercing and ATGM that allow them to attack enemy even when they are traveling high speed towards the beach. Tell me how does PLAN marines deem inferior to USMC? Virtually almost every asset of PLAN marines vehicle are amphibious that will simply simplify asset needed for breaching them for the shore. Not to mention USMC do not even have a dedicated tank for amphibious but simply rely on LCAC to bring their only 72tons M1A2tank. This will limit the amount of tanks they can bring ashore while PLAN do not have such logistic problem while Type63A tank do not have the firepower and armour. It is only limit by the number LDP or LHD carries unlike American counterparts and can simply swapped the enemies shore by itself. While Type96B tank can still be brought in by LCAC or zubr which compliment each other's for more wider dimension of warfare. Then I do not need to remind you PLAN has more types of landing craft to choose like LCAC or giant Zubr while USMC can only rely on one type of landing craft which is the LCAC.

Finally not to mention, the amount of exercise and asset PLA dedicated to amphibious assault with dream of retaking Taiwan. The amount of training they have every year is even more than USMC undergo. To simply think PLAN marines is simply not a match is nothing but tinted view from just a single side conclusion.

I Hope you do not sincerely believe what you just said. Because for the same argument, I can say since USMC have inducted MV-22/SH-60/AH-1Z Zulu Cobra (Which PLAN Marine don't have its own Helicopter Branch) AV-8B/F-18F/F-35B/C (Which PLAN Marine don't have its own Fix Wing Aviation Branch) and M1A2 MBT (Which PLAN Marine don't have any Modern MBT inducted), then I can conclude USMC is a lot better than PLA Marine?

Equipment involve how you fight and the doctrine. USMC may induct any given equipment which suitable to fight with their own doctrine, PLA Marine does the same, you cannot be serious when you say since USMC does not have EFV or Amphibious Light Tank, they are far behind PLAN Marine in Capability.

For starter, USMC is a Combine Arms Forces (Which is the only CAF Marine unit in the world). The need for EFV and Amphibious Tank are in the last category because the USMC can just be as easy to Airdrop LAV Mobile Gun or Just as easy to deploy M1A2 MBT onshore, why would the USMC needed Amphibious Light Tank when they can fill that role with Abrams, Zulu cobra and F-35s?

USMC is a standalone force, with Combine Air/Sea/Land Arms, which mean EFV or AAV are last in their priority. On the other hand, PLAN Marine are a dependent force, which mean they needed support from Navy and Army to conduct Amphibious Operation.

Each force is different. USMC being a standalone force mean they can do more without other branches support. while PLAN Marine would have to completely depends on the Navy and Air Force in on/off shore combat operation. Otherwise there will not be any deliver method and air support provided to the PLAN Marine in operation threatre

 

[Beast]

I Hope you do not sincerely believe what you just said. Because for the same argument, I can say since USMC have inducted MV-22/SH-60/AH-1Z Zulu Cobra (Which PLAN Marine don't have its own Helicopter Branch) AV-8B/F-18F/F-35B/C (Which PLAN Marine don't have its own Fix Wing Aviation Branch) and M1A2 MBT (Which PLAN Marine don't have any Modern MBT inducted), then I can conclude USMC is a lot better than PLA Marine?

Equipment involve how you fight and the doctrine. USMC may induct any given equipment which suitable to fight with their own doctrine, PLA Marine does the same, you cannot be serious when you say since USMC does not have EFV or Amphibious Light Tank, they are far behind PLAN Marine in Capability.

For starter, USMC is a Combine Arms Forces (Which is the only CAF Marine unit in the world). The need for EFV and Amphibious Tank are in the last category because the USMC can just be as easy to Airdrop LAV Mobile Gun or Just as easy to deploy M1A2 MBT onshore, why would the USMC needed Amphibious Light Tank when they can fill that role with Abrams, Zulu cobra and F-35s?

USMC is a standalone force, with Combine Air/Sea/Land Arms, which mean EFV or AAV are last in their priority. On the other hand, PLAN Marine are a dependent force, which mean they needed support from Navy and Army to conduct Amphibious Operation.

Each force is different. USMC being a standalone force mean they can do more without other branches support. while PLAN Marine would have to completely depends on the Navy and Air Force in on/off shore combat operation. Otherwise there will not be any deliver method and air support provided to the PLAN Marine in operation threatre

I agree with your statement that both have their own strength. PLAN build its amphibious doctrine more on shallow water and nearby territories like Spratly island and Taiwan. With smaller displacement LST that can access reef area which LDP and LHD cant do.

USMC doctrine is purely on deep cross ocean amphibious. More powerful airborne asset. Unlike Deino comment who outright deem everything of PLAN marine corps are inferior to USMC.