What's new

2019 was a great year for China Navy, with record-breaking number of warships launched

I mean, it's not like you cannot google it..

Data from official Chinese sources reported that the PVA had suffered 114,000 battle deaths, 34,000 non-battle deaths, 340,000 wounded, and 7,600 missing during the war. 7,110 Chinese POWs were repatriated to China. In 2010, the Chinese government would revise their official tally of war losses to 183,108 dead (114,084 in combat, 70,000 outside of combat) and 25,621 missing.

Overall, 73 percent of Chinese infantry troops served in Korea (25 of 34 armies, or 79 of 109 infantry divisions, were rotated in). More than 52 percent of the Chinese air force, 55 percent of the tank units, 67 percent of the artillery divisions, and 100 percent of the railroad engineering divisions were sent to Korea as well. Chinese soldiers who served in Korea faced a great chance of being killed than those who served in World War II or the Chinese Civil War.

In terms of financial cost, China spent over 10 billion yuan on the war (roughly $3.3 billion), not counting USSR aid which had been donated or forgiven. This included $1.3 billion in money owed to the Soviet Union by the end of it. This was a relatively large cost, as China had only 1/25 the national income of the United States. Spending on the Korean War constituted 34-43 percent of China's annual government budget from 1950 to 1953, depending on the year.

Despite its underdeveloped economy, Chinese military spending was the world's fourth largest globally for most of the war after that of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, though by 1953, with the winding down of the Korean War (which ended halfway through the year) and the escalation of the First Indochina War (which reached its peak in 1953-1954), French spending also surpassed Chinese spending by about a third.


Source:. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties
 
The so-called arms-race is so one-sided it is not even funny anymore, China has been only use a little finger and yet she has produce far far more weaponry comparing to the poor old competitor.

No wonder Trump want a trade war as a desperate and dotard attempt to slow China down a bit:lol:

its great that china is churning out vessels.. but need operational efficieny and optimization, which US has a lot .. asvantage is still with Us, i will say in a decade china will be the mightiest military power
 
I mean, it's not like you cannot google it..

Data from official Chinese sources reported that the PVA had suffered 114,000 battle deaths, 34,000 non-battle deaths, 340,000 wounded, and 7,600 missing during the war. 7,110 Chinese POWs were repatriated to China. In 2010, the Chinese government would revise their official tally of war losses to 183,108 dead (114,084 in combat, 70,000 outside of combat) and 25,621 missing.

Overall, 73 percent of Chinese infantry troops served in Korea (25 of 34 armies, or 79 of 109 infantry divisions, were rotated in). More than 52 percent of the Chinese air force, 55 percent of the tank units, 67 percent of the artillery divisions, and 100 percent of the railroad engineering divisions were sent to Korea as well. Chinese soldiers who served in Korea faced a great chance of being killed than those who served in World War II or the Chinese Civil War.

In terms of financial cost, China spent over 10 billion yuan on the war (roughly $3.3 billion), not counting USSR aid which had been donated or forgiven. This included $1.3 billion in money owed to the Soviet Union by the end of it. This was a relatively large cost, as China had only 1/25 the national income of the United States. Spending on the Korean War constituted 34-43 percent of China's annual government budget from 1950 to 1953, depending on the year.

Despite its underdeveloped economy, Chinese military spending was the world's fourth largest globally for most of the war after that of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, though by 1953, with the winding down of the Korean War (which ended halfway through the year) and the escalation of the First Indochina War (which reached its peak in 1953-1954), French spending also surpassed Chinese spending by about a third.


Source:. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties

He hasn't discovered Google yet.

I deliberately gave the Chinese source because the Americans put the number of Chinese soldiers who sacrificed their lives for North Korea twice as much.
 
Nice, muricunt cheerleaders in this thread are currently crying and banging their head in the walls.
 
Communist China has no ally except that pot belly tinpot dictator in North Korea that’s wiling to fight a war for Communist China. Communist China is surrounded by powerful rivals (Japan, India, Vietnam) that hate it. The US and EU hate Communist China too. As bad as it is, the CCP are finding new ways to gain more enemies.

The worst nightmare for Communist China is US, EU, Japan, India, Vietnam, Australia cooperating to counter the Chinese threat.

Just Vietnam alone absolutely humiliated the Chinese military in the 1979 war. That was a shock to observers to see how weak and incompetent the Chinese military truly are.

Don't try and say anything against Chinas great military did you not know that China is the greatest etc, etc? And all the bootlickers in this thread clearly don't like it when you show them facts.
 
The so-called arms-race is so one-sided it is not even funny anymore, China has been only use a little finger and yet she has produce far far more weaponry comparing to the poor old competitor.

No wonder Trump want a trade war as a desperate and dotard attempt to slow China down a bit:lol:

Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier is capable of sinking half of PN.
 
Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier is capable of sinking half of PN.


How? Can F-35 and F-18 on Gerald R. Ford intercept rain of YJ-100 AShM? It is 800km - 1000km range cruise missile with supersonic terminal speed.
 
How? Can F-35 and F-18 on Gerald R. Ford intercept rain of YJ-100 AShM? It is 800km - 1000km range cruise missile with supersonic terminal speed.

When Chinese say this, they forget that US warship can also rain Tomahawk and finish chinese ships off.
 
Last edited:
When chinese say thsi, they forget that US warship can also rain Tomahawk and finish chinese ships off.

Because there are some Hyper nationalist here that live in their own PDF Fantasy bubble.

In their mind, A war with United States would be completely one-way. Like the USA can’t shoot back or something.
 
When chinese say thsi, they forget that US warship can also rain Tomahawk and finish chinese ships off.


There is no Tomahawk for anti ship at the moment, leave alone rain of it.
Besides Tomahawk is not supersonic as well.

Even so, that means not by USS Gerald Ford but by DDG.

Dont forget beside YJ-100, China has DF-26 that tomahawk cant kill during initial phase due to distance and limited range, they can finish USN on the other way round.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea about might...
Actually, to China, US has no navy[emoji38]

U6917P27T1D687282F3DT20120411143648.jpg
df-26-image05.jpg

China%20Parade%20Visual%20Anthology%20GettyImages-1178333702_0.jpg


DF-17-hishot-1024x683.jpg

z1Ro-fzrwiaz8412233.jpg


And so much more...[emoji38]
China may just hope that these DF batteries may protect them, their capabilities are highly doubted and unproven
China can't even project power against US in Chinese sea, will have trouble even defending its shores
 
Because there are some Hyper nationalist here that live in their own PDF Fantasy bubble.

In their mind, A war with United States would be completely one-way. Like the USA can’t shoot back or something.


I dont say USN cant, of course she can. I am just curious how ... :)

China may just hope that these DF batteries may protect them, their capabilities are highly doubted and unproven
China can't even project power against US in Chinese sea, will have trouble even defending its shores


Why PLAN with 700 ships can't project power in Chinese sea? even have trouble defending its shores?

It is USN that should think twice to get close to china's shore. H-6 with LRASM will be dangerous for USN ships, not to mention submarines and DDG even if we discount DF-26.
 
Because there are some Hyper nationalist here that live in their own PDF Fantasy bubble.

In their mind, A war with United States would be completely one-way. Like the USA can’t shoot back or something.

When people are fed with Propaganda and contents from free press and media are restricted, people behave like this. Actually , it is not their fault. it is the wonder of upbringing with reeducation camp training and Madrasa brainwashing.
 
I dont say USN cant, of course she can. I am just curious how ... :)




Why PLAN with 700 ships can't project power in Chinese sea? even have trouble defending its shores?

It is USN that should think twice to get close to china's shore. H-6 with LRASM will be dangerous for USN ships, not to mention submarines and DDG even if we discount DF-26.
Bro search china vs us on yt, they explained professionally in top vids
And man just imagen R Ford with F35s its like battle station, only one will be enough and not to mention that these Chinese and Indian carriers are just floating launch pads - piece of cake
And US won't dock in Chinese land base Cruise range
 
Bro search china vs us on yt, they explained professionally in top vids
And man just imagen R Ford with F35s its like battle station, only one will be enough and not to mention that these Chinese and Indian carriers are just floating launch pads - piece of cake
And US won't dock in Chinese land base Cruise range


No, they dont explain how USN deal with YJ-800 or DF-26 or even fleet of H-6 bomber with 1500km range LRASM that can target all US assets in west pacific.

R Ford is indeed super huge, but again as many said - Super Carrier is also vulnerable in modern warfare.

So my question is valid : how Ford will defend against rain of YJ-800. If you have belief that G Ford can wipe half of PLAN then you need to be able to explain how. Otherwise, it will be just a myth.
 

Back
Top Bottom