What's new

US has more military experience, but China has infrastructure to grow capabilities at a faster rate: Analysts

you brought that trash article here, so I'm asking you. It's not about who is better, it's about the credibility of the person making the assertion. If a neurosurgeon's diagnosis is brain tumor but your five year old says you're totally fine- who would you believe?

How do we know Mr. Panda is not a five year old child?
Ankit is a well known researcher. I heard him on many podcasts over the years, and he sounds like he knows his stuff. Definitely has his own perspective/world view, but he is a professional.


It does not work that way.

I can offer nothing to the US Military if I was to go back to TRADOC and teaches officer there. Because what I know is what I "KNEW" back then, that particular knowledge only applies to that situation back when I was an infantry officer between 1999-2006. It would probably work if I went back to TRADOC and teaches class in 2008 or 2009, maybe 2010, but that knowledge gap is just too much now, you would need a person to bridge that gap every 3 or 4 years to have the fresh knowledge.

The problem is, China last war is 1979 (not including military operation in China and peacekeeping mission) and that battlefield back in 1979 have surely changed since then, it would have been irreverent if a vet in 1979 go back to teaching how PLA fight. I mean, you don't need to look far, just look at the battle landscape between Ukraine and Syria, those Wagner folks or Russian regular served in Syria would probably have low to no advantage on applying their knowledge in Syria or Mali in Ukraine. And those war were 5 or so years apart.
It’s not the equipment, but the mindset I was actually referring towards. The younger generation has grown up in a China nearly two generations removed from that conflict, and are being asked to get into a mindset to be prepared to fight a full scale war. Even the senior PLA officers don’t have full scale war experience.

Sure, the pre-GWOT/early GWOT is different from the post-GWOT NATO landscape, but learning from those that prepare their whole careers for great power battle maybe helpful to those now asked to enter that mindset, and away from COIN. Equally, a veteran with actual fighting experience in difficult terrain and against a resourceful opponent could teach a thing or two to soldiers tasked to fight in Taiwan.
 
Last edited:
Ankit is a well known researcher. I heard him on many podcasts over the years, and he sounds like he knows his stuff. Definitely has his own perspective/world view, but he is a professional.



It’s not the equipment, but the mindset I was actually referring towards. The younger generation has grown up in a China nearly two generations removed from that conflict, and are being asked to get into a mindset to be prepared to fight a full scale war. Even the senior PLA officers don’t have full scale war experience.

Sure, the pre-GWOT/early GWOT is different from the post-GWOT NATO landscape, but learning from those that prepare their whole careers for great power battle maybe helpful to those now asked to enter that mindset, and away from COIN. Equally, a veteran with actual fighting experience in difficult terrain and against a resourceful opponent could teach a thing or two to soldiers tasked to fight in Taiwan.
You can't transplant mindset tho. Unless you can read mind.

It's still ok-ish if you are talking about tangible stuff like experience (as in what you should do and what you expect) you can't really tell people who had not been in battle what's battlefield is like. It's like telling people who had never had chocolate in their life what Chocolate tasted like.

For example, if you look around in this forum, you see most Chinese member here are very optimistic about war. You WILL see statement coming from them saying "You don't need to use full strength to take [insert countries name]" In war, you don't do that, be it facing a big and small enemy. And that's not just what the Chinese, back home, some people would ask me why to shoot a person in the head when he is already down? You do that because you make sure he won't get back up, it may sound cruel, but it makes sense in the battlefield. This is something you won't be even able to imagine if you had not been in any hostile environment.

I mean if you think these people talking about their war can make a different to a person who never been in mortal danger, or a "Two way firing range" as we passionately dubbed. Then you may as well just show them war film like band of brothers or saving private ryan and ask them to prepare to go to war that way.

There are only 1 way people can physically prepare a war, that is to fight one, anything else is literally pointless. You start with smaller engagement, then you lose men, unit and equipment, and then you know how to fight. That's why US started WW2 with Katherine Pass instead of going big, because you need to be able to adapt to that environment before you can go big, anything else is secondary
 
You can't transplant mindset tho. Unless you can read mind.

It's still ok-ish if you are talking about tangible stuff like experience (as in what you should do and what you expect) you can't really tell people who had not been in battle what's battlefield is like. It's like telling people who had never had chocolate in their life what Chocolate tasted like.

For example, if you look around in this forum, you see most Chinese member here are very optimistic about war. You WILL see statement coming from them saying "You don't need to use full strength to take [insert countries name]" In war, you don't do that, be it facing a big and small enemy. And that's not just what the Chinese, back home, some people would ask me why to shoot a person in the head when he is already down? You do that because you make sure he won't get back up, it may sound cruel, but it makes sense in the battlefield. This is something you won't be even able to imagine if you had not been in any hostile environment.

I mean if you think these people talking about their war can make a different to a person who never been in mortal danger, or a "Two way firing range" as we passionately dubbed. Then you may as well just show them war film like band of brothers or saving private ryan and ask them to prepare to go to war that way.

There are only 1 way people can physically prepare a war, that is to fight one, anything else is literally pointless. You start with smaller engagement, then you lose men, unit and equipment, and then you know how to fight. That's why US started WW2 with Katherine Pass instead of going big, because you need to be able to adapt to that environment before you can go big, anything else is secondary
I agree with that point that unless one has been in battle, one doesn’t know how they will react. The famous Mike Tyson line that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Probably also why Sicily was taken before Normandy.

But in what domain will the PLA gain experience. I see a lot of rhetoric on Chinese defense channels about India. Do you think they will “cut their teeth” on the Indian military before considering a war in Taiwan? They have the 2020 clash and the unable border as pretext.
 
you brought that trash article here, so I'm asking you. It's not about who is better, it's about the credibility of the person making the assertion. If a neurosurgeon's diagnosis is brain tumor but your five year old says you're totally fine- who would you believe?

How do we know Mr. Panda is not a five year old child?
Lol, when would you be able to write a " trash article?" are you a five year old?
 
I agree with that point that unless one has been in battle, one doesn’t know how they will react. The famous Mike Tyson line that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. Probably also why Sicily was taken before Normandy.

But in what domain will the PLA gain experience. I see a lot of rhetoric on Chinese defense channels about India. Do you think they will “cut their teeth” on the Indian military before considering a war in Taiwan? They have the 2020 clash and the unable border as pretext.

There are 2 things you never do, unless you are pushed into a corner

1.) Never go to war with a nuclear power
2.) Never go to war with a near peer.

It will not be ideal if China want to "cut their teeth" with the Indian, because if you have any miscalculation, you are going to ends up in tear or worse. You want to try to "fit the size" for your military, you fight as far from your home as possible and in a country that do not have the capability to bring the fight back to you. That would be the most optimal scenario.

On the other hand, unless China has a post 2030 timeline for Taiwan recovery. China do not have the time to wrap themselves up in a conflict far away and fight Taiwan at the same time. This will be multiple years venture, and when you focus on it, they won't have any spare resources to take Taiwan. But at the same time conventional enough to rack up your experience level.
 
There are 2 things you never do, unless you are pushed into a corner

1.) Never go to war with a nuclear power
2.) Never go to war with a near peer.

It will not be ideal if China want to "cut their teeth" with the Indian, because if you have any miscalculation, you are going to ends up in tear or worse. You want to try to "fit the size" for your military, you fight as far from your home as possible and in a country that do not have the capability to bring the fight back to you. That would be the most optimal scenario.

On the other hand, unless China has a post 2030 timeline for Taiwan recovery. China do not have the time to wrap themselves up in a conflict far away and fight Taiwan at the same time. This will be multiple years venture, and when you focus on it, they won't have any spare resources to take Taiwan. But at the same time conventional enough to rack up your experience level.
Perhaps a small war with the militant groups in Myanmar in coordination with the Myanmar Junta is the right size? The tangible benefit for China is a secure corridor to a Chinese controlled port (naval base) on the Bay of Bengal that Myanmar would be grateful to provide on a long term lease.
 
Perhaps a small war with the militant groups in Myanmar in coordination with the Myanmar Junta is the right size? The tangible benefit for China is a secure corridor to a Chinese controlled port (naval base) on the Bay of Bengal that Myanmar would be grateful to provide on a long term lease.
That would not be a war, that would be an insurgency, and that usually resource demanding and not very rewarding.

Also, you probably would not be able to jump from Myanmar to Taiwan. Unless China plan on fighting the Myanmar Junta, it's not going to help.
 
That would not be a war, that would be an insurgency, and that usually resource demanding and not very rewarding.

Also, you probably would not be able to jump from Myanmar to Taiwan. Unless China plan on fighting the Myanmar Junta, it's not going to help.
Perhaps not all the way, but a decent first step, to gain experience? Allowing them to leave a “peacekeeping force” in Northern Myanmar. Sure it would be resource intensive but how else are they to gain experience?

The only alternative I see is PLA UN troops being given rules of engagement to more forcefully defense posts like they hesitate to do in Juba, South Sudan a few years ago or perhaps be the muscle that assists countries in civil wars.

Either way they go about it, it will undermine their global reputation for non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of foreign nations.
 
It does not work that way.

I can offer nothing to the US Military if I was to go back to TRADOC and teaches officer there. Because what I know is what I "KNEW" back then, that particular knowledge only applies to that situation back when I was an infantry officer between 1999-2006. It would probably work if I went back to TRADOC and teaches class in 2008 or 2009, maybe 2010, but that knowledge gap is just too much now, you would need a person to bridge that gap every 3 or 4 years to have the fresh knowledge.

The problem is, China last war is 1979 (not including military operation in China and peacekeeping mission) and that battlefield back in 1979 have surely changed since then, it would have been irreverent if a vet in 1979 go back to teaching how PLA fight. I mean, you don't need to look far, just look at the battle landscape between Ukraine and Syria, those Wagner folks or Russian regular served in Syria would probably have low to no advantage on applying their knowledge in Syria or Mali in Ukraine. And those war were 5 or so years apart.
but.. but.. The PLA (Parade Line Army as @gambit put it) has more experience than the US Army!!! They have more experience marching like robots that is! :cheesy:
 
Perhaps not all the way, but a decent first step, to gain experience? Allowing them to leave a “peacekeeping force” in Northern Myanmar. Sure it would be resource intensive but how else are they to gain experience?

The only alternative I see is PLA UN troops being given rules of engagement to more forcefully defense posts like they hesitate to do in Juba, South Sudan a few years ago or perhaps be the muscle that assists countries in civil wars.

Either way they go about it, it will undermine their global reputation for non-interference and non-intervention in the affairs of foreign nations.
Again, you are talking about experience in insurgency (or counter insurgency) and peacekeeping mission, both expectation and rules of engagement is different than a conventional war like an conventional war, which is what they would do ifthe Chinese decided to invade Taiwan.

It would be a war with different tempo, different level of sophisticated defence and offensive strategy to deal with Myanmar defences than Taiwanese defenses, it will be much more comprehensive than Myanmar and the execution plan will be a lot more different. Also the enemy expected will be different.

Also, UN draw the RoE if you goes with UN peacekeeping mission, not the individual countries, and UN RoE are notoriously restrictive.....
 
You can't transplant mindset tho. Unless you can read mind.

It's still ok-ish if you are talking about tangible stuff like experience (as in what you should do and what you expect) you can't really tell people who had not been in battle what's battlefield is like. It's like telling people who had never had chocolate in their life what Chocolate tasted like.

For example, if you look around in this forum, you see most Chinese member here are very optimistic about war. You WILL see statement coming from them saying "You don't need to use full strength to take [insert countries name]" In war, you don't do that, be it facing a big and small enemy. And that's not just what the Chinese, back home, some people would ask me why to shoot a person in the head when he is already down? You do that because you make sure he won't get back up, it may sound cruel, but it makes sense in the battlefield. This is something you won't be even able to imagine if you had not been in any hostile environment.

I mean if you think these people talking about their war can make a different to a person who never been in mortal danger, or a "Two way firing range" as we passionately dubbed. Then you may as well just show them war film like band of brothers or saving private ryan and ask them to prepare to go to war that way.

There are only 1 way people can physically prepare a war, that is to fight one, anything else is literally pointless. You start with smaller engagement, then you lose men, unit and equipment, and then you know how to fight. That's why US started WW2 with Katherine Pass instead of going big, because you need to be able to adapt to that environment before you can go big, anything else is secondary
MTXX_MH20230604_112810368.jpg
 
You can't transplant mindset tho. Unless you can read mind.

It's still ok-ish if you are talking about tangible stuff like experience (as in what you should do and what you expect) you can't really tell people who had not been in battle what's battlefield is like. It's like telling people who had never had chocolate in their life what Chocolate tasted like.

For example, if you look around in this forum, you see most Chinese member here are very optimistic about war. You WILL see statement coming from them saying "You don't need to use full strength to take [insert countries name]" In war, you don't do that, be it facing a big and small enemy. And that's not just what the Chinese, back home, some people would ask me why to shoot a person in the head when he is already down? You do that because you make sure he won't get back up, it may sound cruel, but it makes sense in the battlefield. This is something you won't be even able to imagine if you had not been in any hostile environment.

I mean if you think these people talking about their war can make a different to a person who never been in mortal danger, or a "Two way firing range" as we passionately dubbed. Then you may as well just show them war film like band of brothers or saving private ryan and ask them to prepare to go to war that way.

There are only 1 way people can physically prepare a war, that is to fight one, anything else is literally pointless. You start with smaller engagement, then you lose men, unit and equipment, and then you know how to fight. That's why US started WW2 with Katherine Pass instead of going big, because you need to be able to adapt to that environment before you can go big, anything else is secondary


the chinese here reek of desperation

does the constant post spam seem like confidence to you?

chinese all know they're fucked if going against NATO, Quad, and ASEAN together

if they were so confident they would've taken taiwan already
 
Back
Top Bottom