China's navy no longer so inferior to Japan's, experts say

[BoQ77]

This topic IS comparing CN and JApan navy.

And your saying sound like Viet can beat up any one

I realize you guys have too poor experience about modern warfare, both China and Japan
mobilization dozen thousand by helicopter ? smart bombing, guided missiles ? electronic warfare ? aircraft carrier in large quantity ? blockage ? B52 ? Air-defense , real air combat ...
So I just want to share some slices of modern war to you guys ... by real experience from Vietnam War.

China ever said US would not join in their future war to neighbors but everytime US proved they will.

Nuclear powered Big E CVN-65 joined in Vietnam War

 

[Derek Yeh]

due Japan's unique relationship with the U.S. Japan's rode of military development is different than that of many other nations.

s adjacent areas. The deployment of Cruisers and notable destroyers of the 7th Fleet collaborate with key vessels of the Kaijo Jeita Rengo Kantai on fleet screen duties, ASW duties, Anti-Ballistic Capability, as well as on strike capabilities.

gut the enemy's surface fleet, but would prevent the enemy's merchant fleet and assymetric sub force from negotiating into a position that would threaten logistical, command and support resources.

Precisely. And the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force maintains a distinct and healthy qualitative and quantitative milieu in regards to key strategic vessels that would ensure maritime domination in the event of a conflict scenario.





The JMSDF's ASW force negates any sub threat around our Maritime domain. This allows the entire Surface Fleet to address and focus on hostile surface vessels. Which i have already addressed in my prior posts, and thus i must emphasize the issue of fleet screen and massing ships of the line. The geographic proximity of JMSDF's 4 escort fleets allows a much rapid and cohesive negotiation , whereas the enemy must take time to form and combine their fleets, which will, be engaged upon by the Kaijo Jeitai Rengo Kantai. The massing of the enemy's fleet assets will be limited as well because it will not leave its southern corridor unguarded. In the event of assymetric strategies that will unfold in that geographic proximity.



I believe that you do not fully comprehend the capability and deployment of Japan's Anti Ballistic Missile Strategem. As well, you have not taken into consideration the presence of the United States' 7th Fleet, and its associated 2-3 Carrier Battle Groups that patrols adjacent areas. The deployment of Cruisers and notable destroyers of the 7th Fleet collaborate with key vessels of the Kaijo Jeita Rengo Kantai on fleet screen duties, ASW duties, Anti-Ballistic Capability, as well as on strike capabilities.

The United States' Foreign Policy in Asia-Pacific is centered on Japan -- the greatest ally in the Asia-Pacific Region. In the event of initiation of hostilities, the mutual defense pact will be mobilized, and the combined force of the JMSDF and the USN would , for lack of a better word, not only gut the enemy's surface fleet, but would prevent the enemy's merchant fleet and assymetric sub force from negotiating into a position that would threaten logistical, command and support resources.

I think it's a mistake from your part to assume the U.S will fully commit under any circumstance in an event of war. The U.S regard Japan as a vital friend and alley but they also believe China's importance surpasses Japan. This is also the belief of China to Russia, in which they regard Russia as a vital friend but believe U.S is way more important than Russia. And this phenomena will become more so by the day. I think if would also be prudent to consider the big geopolitical picture and that is the "normalization" of U.S foreign policy as many poli scientist would call it, because the U.S is now seemingly and "increasingly" reluctant to engage in international conflict, much less a war with China. One can even see the gap between Japan and U.S as to how to deal with China. Japan obviously wish the U.S to take a more hard line role, but the U.S response was actually quite moderate. For example, the Chinese AIDZ declaration
My opinion is, the Chinese strategy is to break the U.S-Japan alliance, and they have succeeded in some way as past events have shown.
As to your response to JMSDF's capability. Like I said, the JMSDF is very capable largely because the help from the U.S and Japan's own maritime tradition. But, Japan's military development have long been subjected to U.S influence. So Japan's military capability is grossly unbalanced, because the U.S see no need for Japan to possess overwhelming offensive capability. Good news for Japan is, the U.S has agreed to Japan's new policy in the defense sector, so that would help the Japanese. but it also signals, the U.S is starting to place more responsibility in terms of the security of the region in the hands of the Japanese and less on itself.

 

[xesy]

I realize you guys have too poor experience about modern warfare, both China and Japan
mobilization dozen thousand by helicopter ? smart bombing, guided missiles ? electronic warfare ? aircraft carrier in large quantity ? blockage ? B52 ? Air-defense , real air combat ...
So I just want to share some slices of modern war to you guys ... by real experience from Vietnam War.

Dude, don't bring that up to them. They will use it against you.

By the way Vietnam War was pretty out of date. I think the Gulf War was closer to the definiton of modern warfare.

 

[Kyle Sun]

I realize you guys have too poor experience about modern warfare, both China and Japan
mobilization dozen thousand by helicopter ? smart bombing, guided missiles ? electronic warfare ? aircraft carrier in large quantity ? blockage ? B52 ? Air-defense , real air combat ...
So I just want to share some slices of modern war to you guys ... by real experience from Vietnam War.

Give me a break please.

You call Vietnam war is a modern war ?

Ask the other members here agree with you or not.

 

[F-22Raptor]

How about 5th Fleet?

The US can rapidly deploy immense firepower anywhere around the world within days. I'm not concerned about that.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

@Nihonjin1051 We always prefer quality over quantity, but history teaches us the other way around. Remember the battle of Kursk during WW2? German beast tanks lost to Russian cheap tanks produced from farming machine factories. 1 German tank went against around 5-8 T-34s. Or in Korean war, Chinese human waves proved to be quite effective. I think war between big countries is not about who wins the battle, but who loses more money. And with things as now, China will not run out of money if it goes to war with anyone.

T-34 was the best tank in that period.

 

[BoQ77]

Dude, don't bring that up to them. They will use it against you.

By the way Vietnam War was pretty out of date. I think the Gulf War was closer to the definiton of modern warfare.

Yeah I mean real experience of a large scale modern war.
Tell me what's the most recent "modern" war China or Japan fight ?
During Korean, China is proud of defeating USA ...
They bring that honor to fight Vietnam less than 3 decades later in 1979.
While Vietnam still far behind USA, they seem to be more modern tactical and effective usage of weapon than China,
in brief, Vietnam fighting style is more modern than China at that time ( for example communication by wire not words and more effective usage of formation, logistic )

Against Khmer Rouge ( trained and backed by Chinese ), Vietnam proved the best performance of modern tactical fighting ... by successfully wiped out Khmer Rouge within 1 week.

Vietnam War is the large scale and long war which inspire many directions for development of modern weapons for both Soviet Union and USA ... also the testing field for those ... like aircrafts, missile, air defense, tactical force, special force, artilery ..
We could say, we, Vietnam, Soviet Union, USA have learned a lot from that to enrich our experience for future war.

War to this side the dominance of weapon, high technology ; to other side by smart strategy, tactic, special force ..

or War to both side - the equality of weapons ...

The much bigger not always the winner but the smart strategy does

More refer to 6 days war of Israel to Arabs countries.

 

[F-22Raptor]

I think it's a mistake from your part to assume the U.S will fully commit under any circumstance in an event of war. The U.S regard Japan as a vital friend and alley but they also believe China's importance surpasses Japan. This is also the belief of China to Russia, in which they regard Russia as a vital friend but believe U.S is way more important than Russia. And this phenomena will become more so by the day. I think if would also be prudent to consider the big geopolitical picture and that is the "normalization" of U.S foreign policy as many poli scientist would call it, because the U.S is now seemingly and "increasingly" reluctant to engage in international conflict, much less a war with China. One can even see the gap between Japan and U.S as to how to deal with China. Japan obviously wish the U.S to take a more hard line role, but the U.S response was actually quite moderate. For example, the Chinese AIDZ declaration
My opinion is, the Chinese strategy is to break the U.S-Japan alliance, and they have succeeded in some way as past events have shown.
As to your response to JMSDF's capability. Like I said, the JMSDF is very capable largely because the help from the U.S and Japan's own maritime tradition. But, Japan's military development have long been subjected to U.S influence. So Japan's military capability is grossly unbalanced, because the U.S see no need for Japan to possess overwhelming offensive capability. Good news for Japan is, the U.S has agreed to Japan's new policy in the defense sector, so that would help the Japanese. but it also signals, the U.S is starting to place more responsibility in terms of the security of the region in the hands of the Japanese and less on itself.

The US flew bombers through that AIDZ like it was swiss cheese. All China could do was watch. I don't know if I'd call that a moderate response. It would be a mistake to underestimate US will when our key allies are threatened.

 

[xesy]

T-34 was the best tank in that period.

Nope, German tanks were the best. Germany lost the battle of Kursk simply because there were more Russian tanks than German tanks on the field. Furthermore T-34 was a medium tank model, and could not compete with heavy tank like Tiger, or even medium tank like Panther. The only good thing about T-34 was easy to be mass produced and it had decent mobility.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I realize you guys have too poor experience about modern warfare, both China and Japan
mobilization dozen thousand by helicopter ? smart bombing, guided missiles ? electronic warfare ? aircraft carrier in large quantity ? blockage ? B52 ? Air-defense , real air combat ...
So I just want to share some slices of modern war to you guys ... by real experience from Vietnam War.

China ever said US would not join in their future war to neighbors but everytime US proved they will.

Nuclear powered Big E CVN-65 joined in Vietnam War

How many casualties did Vietnam take ?

 

[xesy]

How many casualties did Vietnam take ?

5 millions including civilians, in exchange for 50,000 US casualities.

 

[BoQ77]

How many casualties did Vietnam take ?

Which Vietnam pls ? You should know that North Vietnam fight against South Vietnam troops, US troops, S Korean troops, Thai troops, Phillipines troops Australia troops ...

It could presents for future allied forces of USA, Australia, South Korea, Japanese, Thai ...

 

[xunzi]

If USA wishes to fight a war with China both countries will exhaust their resources and sustain heavy damages. Russia will become the sole super power. USA can't afford attacking both China and Russia as we all know the Russians have the capability to f*ck USA up with their nuclear arsenal as well not just vice versa.

I believe Russia will not involved directly if their territory is not directly threaten. However, I do believe Russia will do all it can to help indirectly because a defeat of the US is good for Russia and make NATO weaker in their expansion toward Russia proper.

 

[terranMarine]

I believe Russia will not involved directly if their territory is not directly threaten. However, I do believe Russia will do all it can to help indirectly because a defeat of the US is good for Russia and make NATO weaker in their expansion toward Russia proper.

Revival of the glorious USSR

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

5 millions including civilians, in exchange for 50,000 US casualities.

The Vietnamese genocide ..