Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Training and equipment is useless without a logistical train. t'll be a naval war probaly over Taiwan. Just imagine the faces on either sides generals when their told "prepare an invasion of their mainland"

AustonT wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/09/07/chinas-new-service-rifle-qbz-95g/
China's standard issue rifle. 5.8 cal? What a weird number.

5.8cal could be an odd number, for a tank gun, (it's mm). 5.8mm is no more or less unusual than 5.56 or 5.45 I'm sure it's based on some kind of study performed at one of the design bureaus.

Ha! What in the world was I writing there? Sorry.

And chaos, that's what I was more or less guessing. Certainly, there's a bit of that kind of behavior in every military, but given the massive size of china's military, and the vast expanses of land in between certain parts of the country, it doesn't surprise me that some of them aren't as good as they could be, I guess.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also, Dogma, please reread my post, specifically the quote where it was claimed that China's military strength was greater than the populations of most countries. I never claimed that the US had a larger military, just that the Chinese military's manpower was not that much greater than the US (and certainly its not, 1-2 million personnel is a relatively small number historically speaking (comparing to Cold War/World War 2 era military dispositions)...

I understood what you were saying. My point, which seems to have been lost on you, was that the manpower gap between the PLA and the USM is actually quite large. Addenda to this point, intended to rebuff your argument from history, include the feasibility of conscription in the present United States, and the cost of increasing the size of the active duty military by 800,000 soldiers; both of which speak to nature of the gap between the US and China.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People are forgetting their history. The last major power to get into an arms race with Uncle Sam resulted in their populace having a barn dance on the Berlin Wall.

Communist China will collapse this century, and you can quote me on that! there are too many things going down in the country that makes the communist model unsustainable.
A new China, a democratic will rise and relegate America into the silver medal position.

The problem is, much of the weath of America is being used to build up the economy of China while the American economy stagnates. China isn't on the verge of economic collapse like the Soviets were.

China's economy isn't exactly healthy... its actually been facing serious hurdles the last couple quarters and has seen a drastic decline in growth... in fact I think last quarter it actually receded...

The counter-revolutionaries on the island of Taiwan should be worried by this development. All strategic planning for the Chinese navy has a single goal: the liberation of Taiwan.

chaos0xomega wrote:In one instance (about a year ago), I was told that the average new infantry officer in the PLA Ground Force would most likely end up serving in a unit still equipped with Type 81 rifles and equipment of that generation, and would be unlikely to see any of the much touted new generation of equipment for at least 4 or 5 years. The unit that the average new infantry officer would be responsible for leading would most likely be wearing old outdated uniforms and the average troop in it would have the minimum of training required to serve in the PLA Ground Force and no more (basically the equivalent of basic training plus a couple of weeks of marksmanship training tops), lacking any of the advanced training common to many western armies.

I might be inclined to take that with a grain of salt, as would I absolute proliferation of new technology. Both are equally unlikely. Specifically in regards to the QBZ-95. After 15 years the weapon is about as widespread as one might expect in the PLA, or the US Army for that matter. I doubt the average infantry officer was headed for a unit still using 80's equipment and even if they were it wouldn't be uncharacteristic. In out own much smaller Army the M16A2 is still in wide service. For example I have picture of the PAP cavalry with Type 79 submachineguns, which sounds ancient but the Army deployed troops to Desert Storm with M3s. I would tend to think that 15 years after the introduction of the 5.8x42 that the active PLA is using either QBZ-95s or QBZ-03s by now and most or all Type 81 and earlier AK variants have moved to the reserves,militia, or PAP. The last reports I saw on the Type-03 had the 95 moving to secondary units as of 2009. When it comes to larger more expensive pieces I believe that the new and shiny stuff will never be prolific, truth is on land the PLA will only ever fight locally: Southeast Asia, the Stans, or Russia. The place the West, and west aligned governments like the Taiwanese watch is the naval and marine elements of the PLA. The PLA Marines have had top notch gear issued to them at the inception of every new tech phase. Logistically speaking I dont doubt that many Chinese units have older generation equipment, much as in the States outside of premier combat and combat service units upgrades have been slow in coming. On the training side however I disagree, China has reintroduced the academy concept and is training thier junior officers in the initiative driven style of the West and using realistic and often violently confrontational training formats used in our own military. Probably the most telling indication of China's military future is the equipment and training being shown in the Somali interdiction mission by the PLAN. Granted its still that small visible section you mentioned but some of the indicators don't line up with a large conscripted force.

Sure China has an aircraft carrier and a larger army, the bigger question is whether or not their military is more awesome than ours. I will raise China one photo of a USN carrier drifting.





On a side note I recently got into an argument with one of my friends about weapons. He goes to a military school and complains about the M4(IIRC, which ever is current) system all of the time and also complains about the M9, favoring just about anything with a bullpup design. At this point I turned and looked at him and asked him several questions.

"What tank did the US mostly use during WW2?" I asked.

"The Sherman." he responded.

"Was it the best tank out there?" I asked.

"It had numbers." he says.

"I don't care about numbers, was it the best?" I asked again.

"No, it was actually pretty bad." he answered,

"Did we win?" I question.

"Yes." he responds.

"See, we don't need to have the best to win, we just manage to do so.".

Also, in terms of planning against the US military the rest of the world seems to be confused.

One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine...

That sherman argument holds no water really. The fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, the United States only accelerated their downfall. Also, the Sherman is in particular a poor example, because while it was a terrible tank vs other armored vehicles, it wasn't terrible against infantry forces, which became its primary purpose. Tank v. tank was handled by tank destroyer units with special weapons and training.

As for that old quote about how Americans ignore their own planning, etc. I'm not certain that holds any water today. The military has become so bureaucratized and politicized that senior officers can and will lose their careers over the slightest misstep.

Initiative driven training is largely about being willing to improvise when the plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy, as it is often wont to do.

Of course, most industries will generally reward people that go on their own initiative, so long as they're proven correct.

Oh god that drifting picture made me so excited. I was hollering at the computer screen going "yesssssssssss!" for like five minutes.

The Berretta M92 is pretty unfavorable, I've heard. It's too heavy and bulky, apparently. Didn't know anyone complained too much about the M4, since it's more or less the same thing as the M16, which was used for a long time without too much complaint.

chaos0xomega wrote:That sherman argument holds no water really.

It hold water fine I think. The Sherman was a fine tank. Rugged, reliable, cheap, easy to maintain. It had all the quality of an excellent military vehicle. Spec wise it just didn't stack up well to the Tiger and Panther which were arguably horrible tanks if you consider cost, complexity, and maintance. The interlocking wheels alone gave almost no benefit and horribly worsened German logistic difficulties. They just had huge guns and thick armor. Of course the Shermans habit of catching fire and burning was never solved.

The bulk of German armor from 1943-onwards was Panzer IV which the Sherman stacked well against. However the reputation and legend of the Tiger and Panther tanks has exploded in cultural memory and made the Sherman appear less effective against German armor than it really was.

Tank v. tank was handled by tank destroyer units with special weapons and training.

There weren't enough TD Battalions in world war II though. Half were of the nearly useless towed gun variety, and the other half while combat effective actually rarely engaged German tanks. More often they were employed as Assault guns or mobile artillery pieces.

George Spiggott wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Although officially known as a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) ship HMS Ocean is also referred to as a Commando Carrier and Assault Ship.She can carry and operate a variety of helicopters from the twin rotor Chinook through to the Apache Attack Helicopter and Lynx utility helicopter. It is also possible to operate the Harrier Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) should the need arise

The HMS Ocean can transport up to 15 Harrier II aircraft in the ferry role, however it is unable to operate as an aircraft carrier.

And not again.

AustonT wrote:And since you are so fond of semantics, the HMS Illustrious is also an LPH, not carrying fighters anymore and whatnot.

The difference between not carrying fighters and not being able to use them is not semantics.

The point is that it's smaller because it's a different kind of ship. If it were the same kind of ship there would be no need to build the larger Queen Elizabeth ships.

Harriers? What are those grandad?

The US has nothing to worry about. As others have said, China needs to sell goods to the Americans, and they need to buy US resources (China has much less resources than you'd think).
I mean, can you imagine ANY army being capable of advancing beyond california through the rockies? Millions of miles of rugged mountainous terrain with millions of militiamen who know the land well...imagine Afghanistan but 5 times as big and the locals have much bigger guns.
Australia has much more to worry about. But Indonesia would get there first.

Ha, it's easy to forget, but a significant portion of our population is armed, I forget. Can you imagine how many casual gun owners would have a field day repelling a Chinese invasion?

I don't think the chinese would attempt a land invasion though. Too risky for them.

Fascinating how many people think that private gun ownership in itself puts one on a level playing field with a trained military force with access to all levels of logistics from side-arms through tanks right up to air-strikes and out into ballistic missiles. If I recall correctly, anti-air ordnance isn't commonly sold at Wal-Mart, even if rifles and other hand-weapons are.

Especially facing a force from a nation not known for its "softly softly" approach to.. well anything really. Not to play down an individuals marksmanship, but I suspect that in the event of a genuinely successful land invasion of the US by the Chinese, the Chinese would be more than willing to start liquidating whole townships in retaliation for guerilla attacks.

Cue inevitable ornery Americans explaining how the population of Kentucky alone are hard enough to conquer the world on a sunday afternoon if they were riled enough etc etc. Merry Christmas!

Samus_aran115 wrote:Ha, it's easy to forget, but a significant portion of our population is armed, I forget. Can you imagine how many casual gun owners would have a field day repelling a Chinese invasion?

I don't think the chinese would attempt a land invasion though. Too risky for them.

And overweight and with no training....Militias are worthless owning guns without the training,basic physical fitness and teamwork is of little use. Everyone in iraq was armed and it did not seem to help them much.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Fascinating how many people think that private gun ownership in itself puts one on a level playing field with a trained military force with access to all levels of logistics from side-arms through tanks right up to air-strikes and out into ballistic missiles. If I recall correctly, anti-air ordnance isn't commonly sold at Wal-Mart, even if rifles and other hand-weapons are.

Not saying that in the least. If in any situation where the military would be unable to assist (which in itself is doubtful), I'd imagine that the citizenry would at least attempt to repel a land based invasion. I'm sure at least a couple civilians were out assisting the navy during the attacks on pearl harbor.

Especially facing a force from a nation not known for its "softly softly" approach to.. well anything really. Not to play down an individuals marksmanship, but I suspect that in the event of a genuinely successful land invasion of the US by the Chinese, the Chinese would be more than willing to start liquidating whole townships in retaliation for guerilla attacks.

The chinese strike me as cowardly, compared to the Germans and Japanese, for example.

Cue inevitable ornery Americans explaining how the population of Kentucky alone are hard enough to conquer the world on a sunday afternoon if they were riled enough etc etc. Merry Christmas!

Agree about that, haha.

A blatant invasion of american soil hasn't occurred since pearl harbor, and people were in flames about it for a long time. It's easy to forget how patriotic some people are, especially gun owners. Of course, a bunch of gun nuts aren't going to repel an invasion, but if I was the invader, I'd definitely be concerned about the populace.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Ha, it's easy to forget, but a significant portion of our population is armed, I forget. Can you imagine how many casual gun owners would have a field day repelling a Chinese invasion?

I don't think the chinese would attempt a land invasion though. Too risky for them.

And overweight and with no training....Militias are worthless owning guns without the training,basic physical fitness and teamwork is of little use. Everyone in iraq was armed and it did not seem to help them much.

Not all gun owners are like the dudes you see on youtube. Plenty of gun owners are Prior-Military, Law enforcement, or a variety of other things that would teach leadership and tactical skills necessary to function as a militia.

Especially if we're talking about the coasts. California has a huge veteran population, as does the Washington DC area, due to all the military installations around those areas.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Fascinating how many people think that private gun ownership in itself puts one on a level playing field with a trained military force with access to all levels of logistics from side-arms through tanks right up to air-strikes and out into ballistic missiles. If I recall correctly, anti-air ordnance isn't commonly sold at Wal-Mart, even if rifles and other hand-weapons are.

Especially facing a force from a nation not known for its "softly softly" approach to.. well anything really. Not to play down an individuals marksmanship, but I suspect that in the event of a genuinely successful land invasion of the US by the Chinese, the Chinese would be more than willing to start liquidating whole townships in retaliation for guerilla attacks.

Cue inevitable ornery Americans explaining how the population of Kentucky alone are hard enough to conquer the world on a sunday afternoon if they were riled enough etc etc. Merry Christmas!

You can't get more brutal than the Nazis in the later years of the war, look how that turned out in Yugoslavia and Greece.
Sure the plains of the US would probably be (relatively) easy to control, but America is huge, and it has a lot of people.
China would need tens of millions of soldiers just to control the major cities. And of course the enourmous land border with Canada, which would presumably also "occupied", as as much as you can occupy it.
So yeah, America is impossible to conquer but that's not unique. The idea of Nationalism put an end to a complacent populace forever.

Arbeit, you do realize that all one militia person has to do is kill one enemy combatant right?

You also have the fact that the Chinese have doctrines that may not be suited for unconventional warfare, civilians have no doctrines and another important fact is that any invading force can train in similar conditions, but won't know the layout of the land as well as the locals. That road that Garmin says is there is actually an alley now, but nobody ever bothered to update that info to the national level and only people who live in that area know.

If China does decide to liquidate an entire town then they'll be turned into monsters by any remaining media and propaganda. People who wouldn't normally pick up a gun would after seeing a whole bunch of innocent people massacred.


Anti-ordnance would be hard to get as would any anti-air, but I think that after a few bases get bombed that the militia will clamber all over any surviving tech, later on the US government may begin authorizing personnel to teach citizens how to use various weapons systems and maybe "forget" that they left that crate of stinger missiles they showed the citizens how to use behind when they left. If we were able to teach a bunch of shepherds in the deserts of Afghanistan how to use them, I'm sure they can teach a bunch of Americans.

The real danger would be if the theoretical invaders were smart enough to tread softly and do minimal damage as they rolled in. A large percentage of people in America would ignore being invaded so long as a) no one they know gets killed and b) their favorite shows stay on the air.

[/cynical]

One other thing to bear in mind: Germany's number one trading partner in 1939? France. Didn't stop them from going to war. Invading to gain direct access to all those nice resources is a perennial favorite goal of wars.

All they really need is Alaska, they can farm for themselves.

Vulcan wrote:The real danger would be if the theoretical invaders were smart enough to tread softly and do minimal damage as they rolled in. A large percentage of people in America would ignore being invaded so long as a) no one they know gets killed and b) their favorite shows stay on the air.

[/cynical]

One other thing to bear in mind: Germany's number one trading partner in 1939? France. Didn't stop them from going to war. Invading to gain direct access to all those nice resources is a perennial favorite goal of wars.

Transporting coal from Alsass to Rheinland is much easier than transporting coal from West Virginia to the Chinese Interior.
You think the chinese could guard every yard of every highway and railway in the united states? The infrastructure of the entire country could be ruined in months.

Samus_aran115 wrote: The Berretta M92 is pretty unfavorable, I've heard. It's too heavy and bulky, apparently. Didn't know anyone complained too much about the M4, since it's more or less the same thing as the M16, which was used for a long time without too much complaint.

These opinions seem backwards. The Berretta is neither particularly bulky nor heavy. If the complaint had been that the slide is prone to breakage or the cheap contract magazines in wide service in the US mil let sand get into the weapon I could at least see that whoever told you that had a point. As it is the M9 is neither particular heavy or bulky. It is certainly heavier than say a Glock, and longer to boot, but next to a Sig 228 or a FN Hi Power the weight is similar and it remains longer. This isn't a concealment weapon it's a combat sidearm. The heaver weight reduces barrel climb and decreases the time needed for an aimed follow up, the longer barrel means a longer and more accurate sight radius. I've qualified expert in pistol several times with the M9 and twice with the M11; I've also used my personal weapons on the same courses when the opportunity came to use it on a weekend. The difference between several handguns of similar caliber and capacity is negligible. It's personal preference.
Anyone who HASN'T complained about an M4 hasn't handled one in daily use enough to know it's faults, or just looks at gun porn. The M16 is a dirty, user level maintenance heavy system that had had complaints since it was introduced. Shortening the system has created a host of new problems solved by brute force rather than finding a real solution. I wouldn't argue in favor of a bullpup generally( I saw that earlier...its looks better than it works), but the M4 needs replacement and has many worthy successors. The M4 simply doesn't have the reliability that current designs are capable of as proven repeatedly by testing in Army labs. The weapon itself is militarily functional, there are simply better and less expensive alternatives that are more reliable. We aren't talking video game cool guns here, just functional replacements for an aging system.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Harriers? What are those grandad?

Those would be the British built jump jets that US Marines and Italians used to bomb Libya. Don't worry though those Harriers your MoD axed won't go to waste, US Marines will continue to fly them as late as 2030.

Jubear wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Ha, it's easy to forget, but a significant portion of our population is armed, I forget. Can you imagine how many casual gun owners would have a field day repelling a Chinese invasion?

I don't think the chinese would attempt a land invasion though. Too risky for them.

And overweight and with no training....Militias are worthless owning guns without the training,basic physical fitness and teamwork is of little use. Everyone in iraq was armed and it did not seem to help them much.

After your other comments in this thread I suppose this shouldn't surprise me. Because of the militarization of police forces I commonly decry almost every city in America has a trained core that a resistance group can be built around. Americans don't live and breath struggle and hardship like they used to but overcoming the sheer size of this nation combined with the cold math of our large population and the proliferation of arms here. It's like you've never seen Red Dawn...

Owning a rifle does not make someone a soldier. And again It seems like everyone in iraq had access to a AK and it did not seem to help them much.

It takes a great deal of discipline and training to be able to have the balls to return fire when your being shot at. I would say that most professional soldiers would rather militia groups stay out of there way and would see them as a liability rather then an asset.

I used to be fairly heavily into small and large bore target shooting when I was younger and was a reasonable shot.

That dosent mean I know gak about being a soldier and would most likely get someone who did know what they were doing killed.

Best trained and most talented helicopter pilots in the worlds most powerful military.

Untrained militia members high on khet

The result

Yeah you're totally right...militia=useless.

In part I think the raw stupidity of a lot of American gun totters (aka Militia's) has confused some people to just how effective partisan tactics are when fighting an invading force. It worked wonders for the Vietcong, the French, the Russians, and the Afghans and of course Chechnya. In partisan warfare its really less a matter of who's better trained. Partisan groups don't need elite military training. Just to be smart enough to go in hit something and then run away before they're caught in a fight they can't win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3JCAKwz9z8

Yup they are.

Samus_aran115 wrote: The chinese strike me as cowardly, compared to the Germans and Japanese, for example.

Epic assertions about national character notwithstanding, surely the greater "cowardice" of a nation makes them more likely to resort to insane methodology, not less?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: Harriers? What are those grandad?

Those would be the British built jump jets that US Marines and Italians used to bomb Libya. Don't worry though those Harriers your MoD axed won't go to waste, US Marines will continue to fly them as late as 2030.

Yes, my son flies one like this:



Which means he officially has more of them than the RN does.

Point is, surely the fact that we haven't got any of them to fly from a ship that isn't an aircraft carrier makes comparisons between that ship and actual aircraft carriers a bit silly, because the only thing that makes it similar to a carrier is its ability to fly planes we haven't got?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote: The chinese strike me as cowardly, compared to the Germans and Japanese, for example.

Epic assertions about national character notwithstanding, surely the greater "cowardice" of a nation makes them more likely to resort to insane methodology, not less?

Yeah, that's true.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:Owning a rifle does not make someone a soldier. And again It seems like everyone in iraq had access to a AK and it did not seem to help them much.

Why do you keep referencing this? Some facts, please? Iraq was a dictatorship before we were there, and I have my doubts that a significant portion of the population there was armed.

It takes a great deal of discipline and training to be able to have the balls to return fire when your being shot at. I would say that most professional soldiers would rather militia groups stay out of there way and would see them as a liability rather then an asset.

Or patriotism, or stupidity, or courage. It doesn't require anything but practice to put a bullet in someone's head.

These opinions seem backwards. The Berretta is neither particularly bulky nor heavy. If the complaint had been that the slide is prone to breakage or the cheap contract magazines in wide service in the US mil let sand get into the weapon I could at least see that whoever told you that had a point. As it is the M9 is neither particular heavy or bulky. It is certainly heavier than say a Glock, and longer to boot, but next to a Sig 228 or a FN Hi Power the weight is similar and it remains longer. This isn't a concealment weapon it's a combat sidearm. The heaver weight reduces barrel climb and decreases the time needed for an aimed follow up, the longer barrel means a longer and more accurate sight radius. I've qualified expert in pistol several times with the M9 and twice with the M11; I've also used my personal weapons on the same courses when the opportunity came to use it on a weekend. The difference between several handguns of similar caliber and capacity is negligible. It's personal preference.
Anyone who HASN'T complained about an M4 hasn't handled one in daily use enough to know it's faults, or just looks at gun porn. The M16 is a dirty, user level maintenance heavy system that had had complaints since it was introduced. Shortening the system has created a host of new problems solved by brute force rather than finding a real solution. I wouldn't argue in favor of a bullpup generally( I saw that earlier...its looks better than it works), but the M4 needs replacement and has many worthy successors. The M4 simply doesn't have the reliability that current designs are capable of as proven repeatedly by testing in Army labs. The weapon itself is militarily functional, there are simply better and less expensive alternatives that are more reliable. We aren't talking video game cool guns here, just functional replacements for an aging system.

I mean, I've never used them, so I wouldn't know. I was just picking out points I've read from some 'Kit-blogs'. Apologies. Is there any comparable alternative on the horizon?