Afghan War: News & Update Mega Thread

[52051]

Before all of this, Saddam Hussein was looking for Western arms, but none was willing to sell, so he went after the Soviets and Chinese. You do not sell sophisticated weaponry without providing training, and I do not mean just how to read and execute the user's manual. When I was active duty and on the F-111, the list of air forces that can fly a variable sweep wing aircraft can be counted on one hand minus the thumb. We did not sell the F-14 to Iran and left the Iranians on their own. At the time, the F-14 was a complex weapon system that required two human beings to operate.

Further, you train your customers based upon YOUR knowledge and experience of the system. You can scale down, but not scale up, meaning we did not train the Iranians on carrier operations for the F-14 because the Iranian Navy did not have an aircraft carrier, so if somehow Iran can make the F-14 and sell to someone else, the Iranians cannot train the customer on how to use the F-14 from ships, even though the Iranian version of the F-14 might be fully capable of withstanding carrier operations stresses. What this mean is that %99.999 of the time, you already know your customer's technical sophistication and will offer wares that you believe the client can understand and execute AT YOUR LEVEL of experience.

So for these PDF yahoos to insinuate that China did not train the Iraqi Army is absurd. But of course, none of them ever served a day in their countries' armed forces so they cannot talk with any understanding in the first place.

Big difference:

First, I am sure you know not all training are the same:

If required, selling weapon involve only the training of how to properly operate that weapon, it has nothing to do with your army's tactics and strategic training. Whilst the US offer both weapon operating training as well as tactic training of the troop.

Secondly, the US give Iraq a desert storm when China provide minimum weapon training, if any at all, for Iraq's troop (I am sure Iraq army dont have much difficulties to operate Type-59 or 69 tanks which are basically T-54/55 variants they have for decades).

Taliban give the US-heavily trained (both weapon operating as well as tactics) troop a much quicker version of desert storm.

So even with your best effects to playing with words, the failure on the US side is still overwhelmingly pathetic.

 

[JustAnotherPerson]

Big difference:

First, I am sure you know not all training are the same:

If required, selling weapon involve only the training of how to properly operate that weapon, it has nothing to do with your army's tactics and strategic training. Whilst the US offer both weapon operating training as well as tactic training of the troop.

Secondly, the US give Iraq a desert storm when China provide minimum weapon training, if any at all, for Iraq's troop (I am sure Iraq army dont have much difficulties to operate Type-59 or 69 tanks which are basically T-54/55 variants they have for decades).

Taliban give the US-heavily trained (both weapon operating as well as tactics) troop a much quicker version of desert storm.

So even with your best effects to playing with words, the failure on the US side is still overwhelmingly pathetic.

What desert storm? i least the Saddam army put a fight in the Gulf War. Both the American founded Iraqi and Afghanistan armies they just surrendered without even fighting. They just threw their weapons and run the other way.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Do you expect me to take that seriously? From someone who have no military experience and probably was too young when Desert Storm happened.

Clients shopping for sophisticated weaponry are not as stupid as you think. When they buy, the sellers will always provide 'consultants' or 'contractors' to see how the new weapons would fit with the client, and that includes analyzing intended usage, which includes tactics and doctrines. Give it a rest. Your China armed and trained the Iraqi Army.

They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.

In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.

Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:

1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.

2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.

3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.

 

[JustAnotherPerson]

They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.

In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.

Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:

1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.

2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.

3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.

I think a big mistake was fighting a superior army in a open desert instead of using the city to slow the Allies.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I think a big mistake was fighting a superior army in a open desert instead of using the city to slow the Allies.

Iraq was doomed because they fought against a country with 50x the GDP and 10x the population at the time. No doctrine could've given them the win.

 

[JustAnotherPerson]

Iraq was doomed because they fought against a country with 50x the GDP and 10x the population at the time. No doctrine could've given them the win.

I agree but they would have lost no matter what but causing heavy cuasualities and damage to the Allies forces would have been a major political victory for Saddam in the Arab world.

 

[MH.Yang]

If you mean that to study military theory, China has only taught the armies of North Korea, Tanzania and Vietnam. During the wars in Iraq and Iran, both countries bought Chinese weapons, but China did not train and taught them.

 

[jamahir]

Communism is good only if it is progressive.

China is not Communist nor does it seem to want to be at some point. True Communist society will have people's rule ( which Libya had until 2011 and Venezuela has now ) and will have a progressive economic system. China is a one-party dictatorship with the CCP retaining the historical name for political convenience. What kind of Communist country will allow stock markets and where people will gamble and lose money and will be allowed to commit suicide by jumping off buildings or jumping into steel furnaces ?

 

[Globenim]

They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.

In addition, Iraqi forces had French and Soviet doctrine which is often at odds with Chinese doctrine.

Some simple examples of Iraqi doctrine being far different that Chinese doctrine:

1. They set up static trenches which is what France did in WW2, while Chinese doctrine has always been mobile and offensive since the Korean War and Chinese Civil War.

2. They failed to preemptively attack the US buildup during Desert Shield just like how Soviets failed to preemptively attack Hitler in Poland, but unlike how Chinese preemptively attacked US/SK forces during the Korean War.

3. They had poor morale due to allowing war crimes to happen against Kuwaitis and most soldiers being conscripts which is Soviet doctrine and conflicts with Chinese doctrine of highly motivated volunteers with severe punishment for war crimes.

Nah, when American systems repeatedly fail to just do what they are supposed to do out of the box at the click of a button as advertised, even in the most basic symetric scenarios = Arab pilot/training/maintenance/command fail

When a handful neither strategic nor cutting edge Chinese export systems in some hundred international primarily Russian, but also American, European and South African weapon systems in an already suboptimal scenario with limited and dated intelligence, radar coverage, targeting system, dated Western implemented command chain and structures etc are obliberated primarily by overwhelming airwarfare and cant change the final outcome of a war between an long economically isolated and undermined nation against the entire Imperial West plus Saudis ganging up on it = China fails

You are wasting your breath on a selfevidently not just ignorant but dishonest troll.

 

[gambit]

They'd have to listen to the consultants. For instance, the Saudi military failing to properly use their Patriots batteries and F-15s doesn't mean the US would too, since it is well known that Saudi (and many Gulf Arab) trainees don't absorb knowledge very well and may not follow the taught doctrine in real situations.

You are correct there -- the highlighted.

The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.

Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...

1980's PLA questions?

Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.

Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'. Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.

Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.

The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines. In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.

Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better IF the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...

The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.

But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.

 

[JustAnotherPerson]

You are correct there -- the highlighted.

The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.

Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...

1980's PLA questions?

Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.

Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'. Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.

Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.

The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines. In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.

Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better IF the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...

The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.

But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.

No there was NO proxy war between China and the US in Iraq in the 80-90s, the Chinese sell weapons to anyone willing to buy it with the only condition "do not support Taiwan or any separatist", there was absolutely nothing ideological for the Chinese to gain in the Middle East, were most countries are theocracies and the Chinese are mostly secular - non religious and much less in the 85-90s when the China was becoming capitalist and attracting Western invesment. in fact the Americans have to many times to press the Chinese not to sell missiles to Iran or even nuclear capable missiles to Saudi Arabia, an American Ally, because the Chinese have little restrictions on who they sell their weapons. That Chinese did learn from the Gulf War but in the same way that they learned from the Malvidas War, Kosovo or Iraq war in 2003, they learned that war has changed from a large scale land conflict to a full spectrum technological conflict. But there was not "proxy war".

OK lets ignore all that and asume that for some miracle you are correct, IS STILL NOT COMPARABLE to the recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan.Those were probably or maybe advisors and consultants, but we are talking about US FOUNDED ARMIES that didn't even manage to put a fight against inferior forces, they just surrendered.

 

[master_13]

You are correct there -- the highlighted.

The point here is that if you want to sell, naturally you would want to know if the client is capable of at least knowing how to operate the machinery, then you sell. But the product is not a car but weapons of war and wars are about survival, not just getting from point A to point B. The client will want to know if the weapon system will mesh with his current doctrines or force changes.

Your PLA is perfect example. Here is the PLA in the 1980s...

1980's PLA questions?

Could someone give me a quick overview of all the basic equipment used by the People's Liberation Army in the late 70's early 80's? Another friend of mine (fallout2077) also had questions, so he will post some of his own in this thread. -Was the type 56 AK or SKS used more by infantry? -Were the...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

The China - Viet Nam border war was a fight between two peers. The PLA may have had some advantages in specific weapons systems such as in the air force area, but overall, the two militaries were essentially peers. Objective analyses had the PLA lost but the Vietnamese were too weak to press further so it was called a draw.

Now look at the PLA today and you will see US signatures all over. But did the US and China got into a war? No, the PLA indirectly fought the US via the Iraqi proxy and saw the disaster that was the 'The Mother Of All Battles'. Throughout the Cold War, the proxy conflicts were low key. Any perception of technical superiority of one weapon system and its associated combat doctrine over the opponent's remained at best 50/50. The technological leaders -- the USSR and the US -- continued to press their progress despite that perception. The Vietnam War did not proved anything. At best, the Vietnam War was an experiment for both technology leaders to test their wares under controlled conditions.

Desert Storm pushed those perceptions beyond the 50/50 threshold over to the US side. The US did not used a proxy but its own forces. Its allies were minor participants in manpower and and zero contributors in technology. The bulk of combatants and technology executors was US. Unlike the Vietnam War, US forces were not restrained to the same degrees in terms of battles and how to use its technological advantages. The result was so lopsided to the US side that the PLA was forced to change itself.

The PLA did not used the excuses so common on Internet forums, such as PDF, that it was their clients that failed, and not their weapons systems and the associated combat doctrines. In the Iran-Iraq War, China sold to both sides and the three parties knew it. Iran and Iraq were peers in doctrines and technology. Did China said to Iraq: "The Iranians do this and that, so you should respond with these" ? And did China said similar to Iran ? We may never know. But we do know that China played both sides.

Maybe the Russian/Chinese weapons systems and their associated combat doctrines would have fared better IF the Iraqis were better executors like how their Russian/Chinese trainers wanted. Maybe Desert Storm would have turned out to be a stalemate because the US-led alliance incurred so much casualties...Maybe...Maybe...And so on...

The Iran-Iraq War that ended in a stalemate convinced Russia and China that what they have and exported worked.

But after Desert Storm, the PLA changed because the PLA's own perception was over the 50/50 threshold to the US side. And without fighting the US.

Stating china "lost" to vietnam immediately invalidated your so called "objective assessment", it was only right wing propaganda at most. During China / Vietnam war, Chinese troops went all the way to Hanoi before retreating, took back multiple islands which china still controlling and Vietnamese still crying to this today and occupied northern Vietnamese territory for decades until 1988 when China finally returned those lands back to Vietnam as relationship improved. If you call that china "lost", we will take that loss each and every single day.

And no, China never provided much training to Iraqis, selling weapons are not the same as "training" in the American sense of "training". American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan for 20 years, built up the entire Afghan army from ground up, yet it lost to Taliban in 2 weeks. Just admit it, the American training is inferior, the army that American built from ground up just collapsed in 2 weeks. Yes, the Afghan army was essentially built by the American. So don't even compare that with China simply selling weapons to Iraq, the two "trainings" are not even comparable in terms of scale, depth, involvement and investment. Chinese "training" of Iraq was essentially non-existent, US training of Afghan army was extensive, trillions of dollars of investment and essentially built that army.

 

[gambit]

Stating china "lost" to vietnam immediately invalidated your so called "objective assessment", it was only right wing propaganda at most.

Sure, let us take that a bit further.

I am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War. F-16 Desert Storm.

By what standing do YOU have for YOUR assessment of anything related to military issues in general?

And no, China never provided much training to Iraqis, selling weapons are not the same as "training" in the American sense of "training".

The highlighted is interesting. From what personal experience do YOU have in anything to say that? Do you sell Windows 10 WITHOUT providing to the client at least some familiarization of the operating system? Same question for the new model of a farm tractor.

On the client side, why should I buy anything from you if you refuse to provide training on your product? Why should I waste my money on buying something that I have at best %50 understanding of how to use it, how to incorporate the product into my existing infrastructure, how it would affect my employee efficiency and productivity, etc...etc...? Why should I buy from you?

Think about this for a moment. Before Saddam Hussein bought from the Soviet and China, he tried the Western countries. Why? Because he understood that the Western countries would provide training more in-depth than just the user's manual, which YOU pretty much implied, without any basis, that China did exactly just that.

Just admit it, the American training is inferior, the army that American built from ground up just collapsed in 2 weeks.

Chinese "training" of Iraq was essentially non-existent,...

Inferior COMPARE to what? Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument?

Why did the PLA reformed itself using the US military as model? We provided US-style training. You claimed the PLA does not do the same for its clients, an argument that would be laughed at in the real world, and yet, after seeing the result of Desert Storm, your PLA decided it had to change and change fast because all potential enemies, such as South Korea, JPN, and Taiwan, received US-style training.

 

[master_13]

Sure, let us take that a bit further.

I am USAF veteran. F-111 Cold War. F-16 Desert Storm.

By what standing do YOU have for YOUR assessment of anything related to military issues in general?


The highlighted is interesting. From what personal experience do YOU have in anything to say that? Do you sell Windows 10 WITHOUT providing to the client at least some familiarization of the operating system? Same question for the new model of a farm tractor.

On the client side, why should I buy anything from you if you refuse to provide training on your product? Why should I waste my money on buying something that I have at best %50 understanding of how to use it, how to incorporate the product into my existing infrastructure, how it would affect my employee efficiency and productivity, etc...etc...? Why should I buy from you?

Think about this for a moment. Before Saddam Hussein bought from the Soviet and China, he tried the Western countries. Why? Because he understood that the Western countries would provide training more in-depth than just the user's manual, which YOU pretty much implied, without any basis, that China did exactly just that.


Inferior COMPARE to what? Do you not see the contradiction in your own argument?

Why did the PLA reformed itself using the US military as model? We provided US-style training. You claimed the PLA does not do the same for its clients, an argument that would be laughed at in the real world, and yet, after seeing the result of Desert Storm, your PLA decided it had to change and change fast because all potential enemies, such as South Korea, JPN, and Taiwan, received US-style training.

so you can't provide any counter argument, and essentially by saying being a veteran somehow makes your assessment "objective"? By your logic, there are tons of Chinese foot soldier who fought in Vietnam would have much better standing than you are in terms of their assessment. China took multiple islands from Vietnam during that war, FACT; China controlled norther territories for decades, FACT; china marched all the way to Hanoi, FACT; if you call that loss, we will take that loss each and every day. The fact that you are trying to use your veteran status(you probably made it up, but regardless) for argument actually gives you 0 standing in vietnam/china war assessment, because you can't refute any of the things I said earlier, so you trying to divert.

China did what training to Iraq exactly? By selling weapons? The training was only limited to help them operating weapons and machines. It's not "training" in the sense of American version of "training", in terms of depth, investment, collaboration...

So somehow you are saying Afghanistan troops built from ground up by American military which collapsed in 2 weeks is not "inferior"? no matter how you spinning it, American training is inferior, that's why they collapsed. "inferior" compare to what you ask? Compare to Afghanistan trained Taliban, why do you even ask. No one questioned US military as being the strongest in the world today. No one is questioning American military strength, but that doesn't deny the fact that the strongest military in the world provided some of the crappiest training and built one of the crappiest military in Afghanistan even after trillion dollar investment, which basically collapsed in merely two weeks against sandal wearing Taliban. You understand the difference, veteran? Or you going to say because you are veteran, therefore Afghan army built from ground up by the US is not crap and they didn't lose to Taliban, and you have the best standing to claim such?

 

[gambit]

so you can't provide any counter argument,...

Common sense debunked your argument.

...and essentially by saying being a veteran somehow makes your assessment "objective"?

At least my experience provided me with a solid foundation of military issues. Yours?

By your logic, there are tons of Chinese foot soldier who fought in Vietnam would have much better standing than you are in terms of their assessment.

Hah...It is not my assessment that China performed poorly in the border war. It was the assessment of objective observers who actually have combat experience, not just relevant experience. Their assessment is that the PLA had poorly planned tactics, incompetent leadership, and just overall bad communication. China should have done better given the size of the PLA. Using rounded figures, the PLA amassed over 300,000 soldiers, 1200 hundred tanks, and hundreds of artillery of various calibers. The Vietnamese People's Army (VPA) was outnumbered three to one but the casualties they inflicted on the PLA was disproportionate. General Wu Xiuquan (伍修权) admitted it.

China did what training to Iraq exactly? By selling weapons? The training was only limited to help them operating weapons and machines. It's not "training" in the sense of American version of "training", in terms of depth, investment, collaboration...

How do you know that? Common sense expect the opposite of what you posited and common sense came from experience, of which you do not have even basic military training. So why should anyone take you seriously?

...American training is inferior, that's why they collapsed. "inferior" compare to what you ask? Compare to Afghanistan trained Taliban, why do you even ask.

Really? Let US know when your China invite the Taliban to provide training to the PLA troops.