PLAAF vs. USAF

[592257001]

pla better than u.s army

and i saw flying pigs around my window

just a straight comparison,lets go back to the korean war

lets look at the casualities first

chinese casuality
114,000 killed in combat
34,000 non-combat deaths
380,000 wounded
21,400 POW

american casuality
36,516 dead (including 2,830 non-combat deaths)
92,134 wounded
8,176 MIA
7,245 POW

so whose better than whom
and that was in 1953,the gap has only widen

and there r many chinese here who claim they won the war
then have a look at this
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are considering the death rate during the korean war? Why don't you search up the available population for both country? Plus, did US and the UN force win in the end of the Korean war?
I understand why pigs fly out side of your window, you are in India for God's sake. Any thing can happen in India!

 

[below_freezing]

So you are considering the death rate during the korean war? Why don't you search up the available population for both country? Plus, did US and the UN force win in the end of the Korean war?
I understand why pigs fly out side of your window, you are in India for God's sake. Any thing can happen in India!

ignore him, he didn't count the south koreans, british, and other UN troops we wiped out.

 

[hboGYT]

PLA logistics can only manage simultaneous operations of a few divisions, at its current strength. US army can support many times that.

M1A2 is definitely better than ZTZ-99A.

Most of PLA's artillery pieces are towed, immobile, lacking modern FCS and automation.

PLA's future doctrine under development, the War Zone Campaign, is copied from the American field manual.

Troop morale being high is just propaganda. Not many people respect soldiers in China. Not many join up because they want to put themselves on the line for their country. The pay isn't very good. Though, it doesn't necessarily mean morale is low.

There are so many way in which PLA is inferior to US army.

Think about all that money, time and effort spent during the cold war by USA. No way can PLA, with its limited budget make up for so many years neglect that quickly.

 

[中华人民共和&#]

Actually your point was rebutted by ChineseTiger 6 posts before this post of yours!

Excerpt:

Sure, PLA soldiers are some of the most disciplined fighting units in the world. Yes, our army was already superior to that of US, the landpower of 20th century was USSR, today is PRC.

Yes but when you put everything together, overall, China is still very much behind the US.

 

[中华人民共和&#]

PLA logistics can only manage simultaneous operations of a few divisions, at its current strength. US army can support many times that.

M1A2 is definitely better than ZTZ-99A.

Most of PLA's artillery pieces are towed, immobile, lacking modern FCS and automation.

PLA's future doctrine under development, the War Zone Campaign, is copied from the American field manual.

Troop morale being high is just propaganda. Not many people respect soldiers in China. Not many join up because they want to put themselves on the line for their country. The pay isn't very good. Though, it doesn't necessarily mean morale is low.

There are so many way in which PLA is inferior to US army.

Think about all that money, time and effort spent during the cold war by USA. No way can PLA, with its limited budget make up for so many years neglect that quickly.

Then again, China's got the most number of artillery units, that's guided etc. I.E Not towed. Also, there is no evidence that shows the T-99 is behind the M1.

 

[below_freezing]

Then again, China's got the most number of artillery units, that's guided etc. I.E Not towed. Also, there is no evidence that shows the T-99 is behind the M1.

another stupid extremist. what logistics problem? the SINGLE AIRLIFT capability is several divisions, not total logistics. our total logistics including trains and trucks is limited only by the output of our farms and factories.

 

[hboGYT]

another stupid extremist. what logistics problem? the SINGLE AIRLIFT capability is several divisions, not total logistics. our total logistics including trains and trucks is limited only by the output of our farms and factories.

I'm no expert in the field of military. I offer here opions of other experts and my own dubious interpretations.

I'm quoting OfficerOfEngineers from worldaffairsboard who is a retired Canadian colonel that PLA can only supply simultaneously operations of 10 divisions maximum with its own assets. It can be more if using civilian transport as well.

My own interpretation is that: 1. train tracks don't follow you everywhere and they can be taken out quite easily.

2. The more troops you ship out into the field the more of your logistical assets have to be stripped off to supply those units rather than continue to bring in new units.

I'm not an extremist, I'm a patriot.

Do you have any idea how much money PLA hasn't spent, as compared to US army?

Why would you expect PLA to be only marginally inferior to its US counter part when the latter has done far more?

 

[TheMiddleMan]

American Ground Forces Advantages

-Experience
-American Soldiers always look Bad A**

Chinese Ground Forces Advantages

-Numbers
-Artillery

Feel free to mention anymore

P.S. Whats the comparison between Chinese main Battle Rifles and American ones, same goes for tanks, APCs, and helicopters. I'm to lazy to Google it right now

 

[below_freezing]

American Ground Forces Advantages

-Experience
-American Soldiers always look Bad A**

Chinese Ground Forces Advantages

-Numbers
-Artillery

Feel free to mention anymore

P.S. Whats the comparison between Chinese main Battle Rifles and American ones, same goes for tanks, APCs, and helicopters. I'm to lazy to Google it right now

For the logistics problem:

Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

300000 troops involved, 1 division is 15000 troops. Can you tell me, how 20 divisions were deployed and outside national borders at that, within several months, if we didn't have the logistics?

In general, M-16 and Type 95 are almost the same. While the M1A2 is significantly slower and has a shorter endurance than the Type 99 MBT, and has some very interesting armor that the M1A2 may not have:

"Currently, the actual armor composition of the Type-99/ZTZ-99 remains unknown. There are public photos of experimental Chinese composite armors, specifically Al2O3 under test. The armor didn't sustain any significant damage after being shot by a T-72C 125 mm armament seven times or a 105 mm armament nine times in a range of 1,800 meters, while rounds that are used in the test are unknown. The tank's front armor protection is claimed to be equivalent to 1,000~1,200 mm of steel armor, possibly against shaped charge warheads. Also, there are significant differences between the armor packages displayed on the current Type 99s and earlier 99 models seen in 1999."

Type 99 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know much about APCs and helis but I assume that US helis are better while our APCs are better (since many can be air dropped while US only can airdrop humvees; Stryker's viability for airdrop has been shown but it is not yet certified for air drop)

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Us techno is kick arse..but when it comes to soldiers no offence they suck.....USA only relys on technology.

 

[below_freezing]

Us techno is kick arse..but when it comes to soldiers no offence they suck.....USA only relys on technology.

There is no tank in the US army with higher tech than type 99. i can safely say that type 99 is the best tank in the world that is currently deployed. every superior tank is in experimental stages.

 

[gambit]

Us techno is kick arse..but when it comes to soldiers no offence they suck.....USA only relys on technology.

I take it you speak from extensive personal experience...video games...???

 

[Desertfalcon]

Us techno is kick arse..but when it comes to soldiers no offence they suck.....USA only relys on technology.

You are not speaking from any knowledge, sir, just your bias. We have been fighting in two major engagements for many years now.

Let's just take one example. In Iraq, the fighting has been extremely difficult and done person to person and house to house. Our soldiers do not relying on just "technology", but have to bust through doors and hunt terrorists with assault rifles and pistols. That is not a technological fight but the most basic of hand to hand, person to person, encounters. Add to that is the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly half of our troops are National Guard and reserves. Just part time soldiers who are school teachers and truck drivers and sales clerks in their normal life, which they no longer have.

They have performed magnificently with few exceptions. Even most of our enemies have great respect for us on the battlefield as they have leaned that to underestimate us in the way that you have, is to do so at their peril.

You need to read more of our history at places like Iwo Jima and Normandy beach.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I have read about iwo jima and normandy.....i have more respect from the japanese (iwo jima).
And we know about busting doors and stuff.Sir dropping a Jdam and then going in for recky with airsupport is nothing more then relying heavily on technology rather then actual combat.
Dont know abt iraq but in afghanistan.NATO is scared of leaving its bases....Mullah Umer say..instead of sending thousands send several hundred thousands....and its reality tht u have failed in afghanistan.Accept it or not.
While we have paid the debt of ur friendship with more then 3000 soldiers and 18000 civilians by entering Ur war(which has now bcome ours)dstroyed our economy and lost billions in infrastructure and lives........still u show no respect.
Wat has NATO accomplished in afghanistan>?? Most of afghanistan is still under shadow talib governors?
Now see wat we have done?with limited resources?no air support or anything fancy,no luxuriestht NATO has?
killed thousands of f..kers and regained our territory,wiped them out,caught majopr taliban leadership,broke their backbone...and when hilary b..kington warns us about consiquenses our heart and mind says go f..k urself.

 

[Desertfalcon]

I have read about iwo jima and normandy.....i have more respect from the japanese (iwo jima).
And we know about busting doors and stuff.Sir dropping a Jdam and then going in for recky with airsupport is nothing more then relying heavily on technology rather then actual combat.

Again, you are simply either displaying your ignorance or your bias in your statements. You obviously have no knowledge of the fighting that we have been engaged in or you would not state such erroneous views. We clearly are not, "dropping Jdams" in every house we must take from the terrorists and we clearly have engaged in very heavy person to person and house to house fighting in complete contradiction to your statements.

We had great respect for the fighting prowess of our Japanese enemies as well, and yet at places like Iwo Jima, we were the victors, they were the vanquished. Our American soldiers fought magnificently and hard throughout the Pacific in that brutal match with the Japanese, just as we fought and conquered the Third Reich. And what was the deadly mistake those enemies often made with us? That we Americans were "soft" and wouldn't fight hard. We buried many of their dead as well as their empires because of that fatal miscalculation of us.