Chinese People's Liberation Army marched for the first time in the wilds of Africa

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

I have some question for you though

So I think we should learn and dare to learn.
No matter from who and where, if it's good, and learn it.
Everybody knows, on aircraft carrier operation, we also learn a lot from USN: the vihicles, the layout, the color/ visible management, the uniforms, even the gestures.
If it benefits, why not.

THEN you. get a nick name as copy cat......

 

[S10]

So I think we should learn and dare to learn.
No matter from who and where, if it's good, and learn it.
Everybody knows, on aircraft carrier operation, we also learn a lot from USN: the vihicles, the layout, the color/ visible management, the uniforms, even the gestures.
If it benefits, why not.

The "camo" USN uses isn't actually a BDU, but a working uniform. The complaint about the old uniform was that any dirt was very much apparent visually as it was a single color. They were meant to be used on ships, not land camouflage BDU. For that, they have NWU for that. Even now, they're going to ditch the blue camo.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...o-dump-the-military-s-most-pointless-uniform/

These PLA marines are using it as BDU on patrol. Camouflage is meant to conceal the troops, not mark them out as targets. On top of that, they didn't "learn" from USN. This type of uniform existed as far back as the early 1990's. Get your facts right before you blindly defend a stupid decision from PLA leadership. This is a live example of PLA bureaucracy winning over practicality. It's not the first one and it won't be the last.

 

[andylrd]

... off-topic-reply deleted

The "camo" USN uses isn't actually a BDU, but a working uniform. The complaint about the old uniform was that any dirt was very much apparent visually as it was a single color. They were meant to be used on ships, not land camouflage BDU. For that, they have NWU for that. Even now, they're going to ditch the blue camo.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your...o-dump-the-military-s-most-pointless-uniform/

These PLA marines are using it as BDU on patrol. Camouflage is meant to conceal the troops, not mark them out as targets. On top of that, they didn't "learn" from USN. This type of uniform existed as far back as the early 1990's. Get your facts right before you blindly defend a stupid decision from PLA leadership. This is a live example of PLA bureaucracy winning over practicality. It's not the first one and it won't be the last.

I didn't defend PLA decision.
So the blue camo (PLA uses as BDU) on patrol is not proper, after all? Got it.

 

[rcrmj]

how dump to wear this CAMO in a desert? they really need a real war to crack through their thick nutcase``despite our rapid development of our air and navy force, but our army, especially personnal kits are still such a disgrace````

 

[S10]

how dump to wear this CAMO in a desert? they really need a real war to crack through their thick nutcase``despite our rapid development of our air and navy force, but our army, especially personnal kits are still such a disgrace````

In terms of uniform, load bearing gear and personal protective equipment, PLA is not even on par with American PASGT system in the 1990's.

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

i say PLA can not compare to those of US in 1980s in terms of equipments(developing country common issues),but still PLA won the north korea war by pushing the 战线 battle line from Yalu river to 38 line,what does that tell you?!

 

[gambit]

i say PLA can not compare to those of US in 1980s in terms of equipments(developing country common issues),but still PLA won the north korea war by pushing the 战线 battle line from Yalu river to 38 line,what does that tell you?!

Tell us NOTHING.

Here is what you do not understand about warfare because you neither have served nor made any serious study about the subject. And I can tell.

Warfare is the only human activity that cannot regress, meaning you cannot reuse old ideas and technology. You can modify old ideas with new technology to create new strategies and tactics, but you cannot recycle what was successful in the past and expect it to work. Of all human activities, warfare is the most technologically dependent of all.

What this really means is that in order to at least prepare for the next war, you should study the most immediately previous one. It does not matter who were in that war and where. You should study that war to see if the participants made any progress in the efficiency of executing the many aspects of war, from individual kills to innovations in tactics to command decisions and many more. If that war contributed no changes to warfare, then you proceed to study the next prior one. And so on if necessary.

This is why it is hilarious to me -- a Desert Storm veteran -- that so many of you Chinese are so focused on the Korean War. In the Vietnam War, China contributed nearly nothing to warfare and it was the Viets whose battlefield tactics and political acumen contributed to how a war could be fought. Then came later conflicts in other parts of the world where technology and political considerations altered how battles are fought and even how individual soldiers are allowed to behave. China is nowhere to be found.

So when it comes to a potential war between states whose individual status is at least being regional powers, I consistently point out Desert Storm as currently THE war to dissect and learn its lessons. But you go on looking at the Korean War and I hope the entire PLA leadership is as shortsighted as you are.

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

Tell us NOTHING.

Here is what you do not understand about warfare because you neither have served nor made any serious study about the subject. And I can tell.

Warfare is the only human activity that cannot regress, meaning you cannot reuse old ideas and technology. You can modify old ideas with new technology to create new strategies and tactics, but you cannot recycle what was successful in the past and expect it to work. Of all human activities, warfare is the most technologically dependent of all.

What this really means is that in order to at least prepare for the next war, you should study the most immediately previous one. It does not matter who were in that war and where. You should study that war to see if the participants made any progress in the efficiency of executing the many aspects of war, from individual kills to innovations in tactics to command decisions and many more. If that war contributed no changes to warfare, then you proceed to study the next prior one. And so on if necessary.

This is why it is hilarious to me -- a Desert Storm veteran -- that so many of you Chinese are so focused on the Korean War. In the Vietnam War, China contributed nearly nothing to warfare and it was the Viets whose battlefield tactics and political acumen contributed to how a war could be fought. Then came later conflicts in other parts of the world where technology and political considerations altered how battles are fought and even how individual soldiers are allowed to behave. China is nowhere to be found.

So when it comes to a potential war between states whose individual status is at least being regional powers, I consistently point out Desert Storm as currently THE war to dissect and learn its lessons. But you go on looking at the Korean War and I hope the entire PLA leadership is as shortsighted as you are.

Korea war loser has no place to give big talks!

 

[Viet]

... deleted due to insulting content ....

amazing, thread is about the PLA marching in desert with blue camo, but you take the opportunity to troll Vietnam and Philippines. why should we be next China? NO way, we will be next Vietnam. or do you think we will study this stat that stat before constructing a road or a bridge? we will never progress because you say so?

No, you change nobody people´s minds.

you are just a jobless chinese with US passport.

you even admit it.

 

[Brainsucker]

I worry about your feet, then.

I guess I can claim myself being "more Chinese" than many, given my family name 刘。
And by claiming commentators (whoever critise or beg to differ) not being chinese, seems doesn't give more credits to your statement or arguement. What is the point doing that, after all.

Some critism seeks for dishonor, some critism seeks for improvement.
Don't just act like a teenager boomed up by, and linger around at 环球屎报/铁血网.

Hey, you have the same family name as I'm.

 

[Tom99]

amazing, thread is about the PLA marching in desert with blue camo, but you take the opportunity to troll Vietnam and Philippines. ...

I totally agreed. There is no reason to bring Vietnam or Philippines into this discussion. However, some people are very insecure and/or just like to gloat. These types of posts doesn't bring any constructive discussion at all.

 

[andylrd]

Your family name is 'liu' my ***.

Defintely not a chinese. U used the wrong character for global times and no chinese will use 'fifty cents' in that awkward grammatical manner u r using.

So now its established u're masquerading as a chinese- whats your intention?

How boring you are, still, stuck in "you are not a chinese" thing... sigh...