China's military is improving but US still has more combat experience - Business Insider

[gambit]

Western media have been brainwashing fools.

China state media have been brainwashing fools.

Chinese weapons are stolen from the United States.

Nah...You just made poor copies of Soviet/Russian weapons.

Since 1945, no naval battle has occurred in the US Navy. Then you said you have naval combat experience

And what have your China contributed to naval warfare for the last 300 yrs? How about nothing?

Naval combat experience does not have to be confined to fleet vs fleet, kid. In fact, the last time naval fleets fought within sight of each other was in WW II, and it could be the last time as well, thanks to the aircraft carrier. And speaking of aircraft carrier, how much naval aviation does the PLAN have? How about nothing? The laugh is on you, child.

 

[hualushui]

China state media have been brainwashing fools.


Nah...You just made poor copies of Soviet/Russian weapons.


And what have your China contributed to naval warfare for the last 300 yrs? How about nothing?

Naval combat experience does not have to be confined to fleet vs fleet, kid. In fact, the last time naval fleets fought within sight of each other was in WW II, and it could be the last time as well, thanks to the aircraft carrier. And speaking of aircraft carrier, how much naval aviation does the PLAN have? How about nothing? The laugh is on you, child.

Chinese students take classes in the United States
Western teacher: What do you want to learn?
Chinese students: How to wash brain.
Western teacher: We are free and democratic! How could I brainwash my people!
Chinese students: Yes, yes, this’s what I want
***

Again，If China has stolen the United States for 20 years, and the United States cannot stop China, I suggest that the United States surrender as soon as possible.
***
Since neither China nor the United States has experience in naval warfare, why do you brag about the experience of the US Navy?

I believe that Chinese soldiers have enough training on how to press missile launch buttons, such as DF-21D, DF-17

 

[Figaro]

Western media have been brainwashing fools.
Chinese weapons are stolen from the United States. If China has stolen the United States for 20 years, and the United States cannot stop China, I suggest that the United States surrender as soon as possible.



Since 1945, no naval battle has occurred in the US Navy. Then you said you have naval combat experience

A naval battle does not have to be a ship to ship battle. The USN still provided massive support in terms of naval strikes and CBG air support in Vietnam and Iraq (also don't forget the USN wiped out half Iran's navy in a couple hours in 1988). These are all valuable experiences, even if they don't rival the scale of the Second World War.

 

[PeaceGen]

Yes, no one comes close to US combat experience, they've been waging wars, killing and bombing around the world for the good part of whole last century.

not to mention that they've been preventing wars from escalating into more massive bloodshed regional wars?

diplomacy is achieved through friendliness over criticism, dude.. just remember that..

other than that, i do love your posts here on this forum.
keep 'm coming

 

[Brainsucker]

By experience the author refers to quick decision making under stress, coming up with a likely solution or at least an acceptable one. This is what real time conflict provides case studies. I don't US Is a fool to equate Chinese military capabilities with that of Taliban or Insurgents. The author specifically mentions this in his ending statement "they have different ambitions and we need got to judge them by that".

I don't think war experience has anything to do with veteran troopers who have gone from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Those troops are humans. They have age limitation. After following several campaign, they will growing old, become lame, thus retire and eventually dead. Then, after that, they will be replaced with green troops, who don't have any experience like their predecessor.

War experience affect more to method, doctrine, and tactic. They give you more insight about the weakness of your military organization, doctrine, and tactic. Thus let you find a way to patch those problem. The new method will affect on the procurement of new weapons, adopting new tactics, and method. Then it will be taught to the next generation of soldiers.

So I don't think that PLA war experience in 1979 will be useless in today war. Because that experience doesn't has anything to do with the birth of a Rambo. But more of learning on how PLA will be doing in the future war in the same topography. Jungle, mountainous area.

At the same time, US Army don't have any new experience in a war in the same area like in South East Asia after Vietnam. They fought in desert area that need different doctrine, strategy, method, and tactic.

 

[Figaro]

I don't think war experience has anything to do with veteran troopers who have gone from Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Those troops are humans. They have age limitation. After following several campaign, they will retire, grow old, become lame and eventually dead. Thus, after that, they will be replaced with green troops, who don't have any experience like their predecessor.

War experience affect more to method, doctrine, and tactic. They give you more insight about the weakness of your military organization, doctrine, and tactic. Thus let you find a way to patch those problem. The new method will affect on the procurement of new weapons, and will be given to the next generation.

So I don't think that PLA war experience in 1979 will be useless in today war. Because that experience doesn't has anything to do with the birth of a Rambo.

One of the reasons why China went to war in 1979 was also to see its military perform in action ... a lot of lessons were learned and were immediately applied (e.g. helmets became standard issue for PLA infantry). That is why the Chinese performed better during the Sino-Vietnamese border battles such as the Battle of Lao Shan. Of course combat experience helps a lot, but would any country go into a war just for the sake of increasing combat experience?

 

[Brainsucker]

One of the reasons why China went to war in 1979 was also to see its military perform in action ... a lot of lessons were learned and were immediately applied (e.g. helmets became standard issue for PLA infantry). That is why the Chinese performed better during the Sino-Vietnamese border battles such as the Battle of Lao Shan. Of course combat experience helps a lot, but would any country go into a war just for the sake of increasing combat experience?

Yes, even PLA experience in the war against India in 1962 still useful in today situation; if you want to fight in Himalaya area.

Edit :
Combat experience help a lot. But human soldiers have limitation in physic and psychology. Even the best soldiers will suffer in PTSD or their body become lame after some years in the battlefield.

 

[Figaro]

Yes, even PLA experience in the war against India in 1962 still useful in today situation; if you want to fight in Himalaya area.

Honestly I'm sure the PLA forces in Tibet have always been adept at mountain warfare. In the 1950s, they gained a lot of experience fighting Tibetan separatists in really remote/mountainous areas ... the 1962 war just validated those tactics. Nowadays, the Chinese have a much greater mountain warfare edge over the Indians because of specially designed equipment (e.g. Type 15 tank) ... not to mention a couple decades of conducting large-scale military exercises on the plateau.

One of the biggest reasons India lost 1962 was because of lack of mountain-combat training. IIRC, many Indian soldiers died from ascending the Himalayas too fast (brain asphyxia was the disease). Needless to say, they also learned a lot from the 1962 war.

 

[hualushui]

A naval battle does not have to be a ship to ship battle. The USN still provided massive support in terms of naval strikes and CBG air support in Vietnam and Iraq (also don't forget the USN wiped out half Iran's navy in a couple hours in 1988). These are all valuable experiences, even if they don't rival the scale of the Second World War.

Using warships to launch missiles, is this naval combat experience? If so, I think the PLA Navy has enough training
The PLA never thought of fighting against the US Navy in the ocean.

 

[PeaceGen]

One of the reasons why China went to war in 1979 was also to see its military perform in action ... a lot of lessons were learned and were immediately applied (e.g. helmets became standard issue for PLA infantry). That is why the Chinese performed better during the Sino-Vietnamese border battles such as the Battle of Lao Shan. Of course combat experience helps a lot, but would any country go into a war just for the sake of increasing combat experience?

combat experience is like maintenance on tanks and aircraft and ships and submarine ships, i think..
use it (the skill), or lose it.
and then you're in deep deep trouble, as a nation / country / alliance of countries.

 

[52051]

But again, your avoidance of the fact that US-China shooting fight WILL on the water is indicative of your willful ignorance despite the abundance of public information about naval warfare. You are deluded by shiny toys whereas we are harsh assessors of ourselves. In the SCS, we WILL sink the PLAN.

Your willful ignorance despite the abundance of public information about naval warfare in front of the ever growing yuuuge arsenal of Chinese AShBMs is tremendously yuuge

In a war with China, the US simply don't have a navy after probably the first 15 mins, and that's exact the reason I don't say a word about your navy since it is irrelevant to the war after just 15 mins

 

[thewayoftheworld]

This sounds like the same BS like America is the most prepared for the pandemic. Certainly, American have the most experienced in killings. But fighting Iraq, Libya, and countries without an defense industry certainly doesn't prepare American to fight against an industrial power like China.

 

[gambit]

Your willful ignorance despite the abundance of public information about naval warfare in front of the ever growing yuuuge arsenal of Chinese AShBMs is tremendously yuuge

Of which, the only way to prove their efficacy is in battle.

Assume that Chinese ballistic missiles are able to find a moving target, which is a yuuge assumption, the only way China could prevail is to launch a surprise attack on a carrier, like right now when there are two of them in the SCS. However, once relations between the US and China soured to the point where war is not merely inevitable but actually imminent, the element of surprise is lost, and if the element of surprise, there goes the advantage -- poof.

Long before you came on this forum, I have explained to the readers the technical difficulties of finding a moving target in the seas.

This...

...Is NOT how a carrier fleet is arrayed for battle.

There is no photograph of how a carrier fleet is actually arrayed for battle. For that, we have to use other illustration.

This...

...Is the true formation of a carrier fleet arrayed for battle.

Human visual line-of-sight (LOS) is about 25 klicks max. So from the above illustration, both carriers and their escorts are outside the human LOS. The center is Washington DC. One escort is at Harrisburg. The distance is about 130 miles or about 200 km. How many square km is that to search for a single ship, even one as large as an aircraft carrier, eh?

Once the missile is launched, the entire fleet will be alerted and countermeasures prepared. A single ship can create an EM cover of hundreds of square km. Same for an IR cover. Now imagine the entire fleet spread over thousands of square kms creating IR and EM hot spots, each lasting for dozens of minutes or even hours.

For yrs on this forum, I have said this: On a missile against ship scenario, if the missile failed by one meter, the ship win. Which means your China WILL lose.

 

[thenextdoor]

Of course nothing beats real combat. This begs the question : is getting involved a war worth it to enhance the combat experience of troops? The answer is really simple, which is of course not. If the US had a time machine, I will guarantee the military would want to go back to a time before they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. And the actual combat experience of fighting a war in Iraq or Afghanistan is another question ... a war between China and the US would be completely different than fighting Iraqi insurgents. So that alone degrades the combat experience argument.

If us had a time machine they would've invaded Pakistan in 60s probably.
I see Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as huge implicit success. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan have been destabilized and pushed back thousand of years. US would never want a sovereign country others then it's alies. And US gains from there wars are unimaginably huge if you performance a comprehensive study also a cause of it's being superpower.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Obviously. The US/West has far more experience engaging in conflicts around the world than China or any other Asian country for that matter. Western powers US,U.K,France also have the luxury of having military bases and territories around the world. So their influence and zone of presence basically spans the entire globe , this combined with the fact that they have been involved militarily, and politically around the world for centuries gives them an edge in dealing with situations that arise unexpectedly. China has no experience dealing with such events outside their neighbourhood. The only other non western country with as much experience and role in world military affairs is Russia. Russia does have the experience engaging in conflicts and involving itself in hot zones outside their neighbourhood either through state or indirectly through non state actors(military contractors like Wagner etc).
China needs a complete change of doctrine ( i.e military, institutional, educational and political) to be able to start venturing outside it's own borders. As of now China doesn't have much experience dealing with such issues and their culture has always been more inward looking and isolationists which in itself is a big handicapped. I don't see this changing anytime soon. So I will be more watchful of Russia challenging western interests abroad than China, especially when push comes to shove. Russia has shown this in Syria and more recently in Libya. Guess China has alot to learn from Russia.

War experience affect more to method, doctrine, and tactic. They give you more insight about the weakness of your military organization, doctrine, and tactic. Thus let you find a way to patch those problem. The new method will affect on the procurement of new weapons, adopting new tactics, and method. Then it will be taught to the next generation of soldiers.

This is exactly what I was about to say but you said it even better. Most Chinese members here seem to miss the point you just made. Experience is a big advantage since it helps find flaws that you will never find without actual real life scenarios. The Russians learned ALOT from their short war with Georgia where they didn't perform as good as many people expected and this helped them reformed many layers of their military, doctrine and equipments . Same with the war in Eastern Ukraine they did learn from this and adjusted their military accordingly. Same with their current war in Syria, it has been well documented how Russian military officials have publicly claimed how they have learn a lot from this war and have taken measures to streamline their military and equipments accordingly. These are flaws they would have never found had they not engaged in these conflicts. The war in Libya is another conflict where Russian soldiers (in guise of private military contractors like Wagner group) are still learning alot from this conflict etc etc. Russian military has changed and improved alot due to their experiences gained from this conflicts and they themselves publicly admit this. Comparatively, we can agree that China learned ALOT from the Korean war and Vietnam invasion which they still use as lessons to this day. I'm sure they won't deny that. So this shows the importance of experience and practical lessons . Theory is only that i.e just theories. Many members here forget these facts . China today is way behind in this aspect.