The myth of American military superiority

[DroneAcharya]

GAMBIT - I am a b.i.g. fan of your posts. But this is the first one that I disagree with. Now, in 2012, the idea about defeating China wouldn't work. It's simply not possible through conventional means. So unless you suggest the N word's on the table. The 'defeating' can't happen. There are a ton of factors playing in. Including massive casualties, risk of nucs, and more. This won't be a month or a year long invasion. Plus, you can't capture China that way. Look at the map. Unless we have supermen in our Army ( which I believe there are as I am a fan of our military), but oherwise it ain't possible!

If there is one thing that has to be learnt from the history of the Chinese uprisings, rebellions and conquests, it is this. Chinese have been decimated whenever there has been a conquest or an uprising that has been heaped upon them. In other words, the general Chinese populace have been slaughtered like lambs whether it be due to Genghis Khan, the Lushan or Taiping rebellions, the Ming Dynasty, Xin dynasty or due to Mao Tse Tung. I wouldn't be surprised if the PLA fall like nine-pins after the initial wave of attacks. These poor folks will serve as cannon fodder unfortunately, if the Chinese do not have come up with any new strategy ala Clausewitz or Boyd. Sun Tsu is obsolete in this age if the Chinese still rely on it.

 

[gambit]

GAMBIT - I am a b.i.g. fan of your posts. But this is the first one that I disagree with. Now, in 2012, the idea about defeating China wouldn't work. It's simply not possible through conventional means. So unless you suggest the N word's on the table. The 'defeating' can't happen. There are a ton of factors playing in. Including massive casualties, risk of nucs, and more. This won't be a month or a year long invasion. Plus, you can't capture China that way. Look at the map. Unless we have supermen in our Army ( which I believe there are as I am a fan of our military), but oherwise it ain't possible!

The first line of defense of any country is the formalized army. The nuclear deterrence is a different issue. The PLA is a formalized army and its main goal is to prevent a hostile force from gaining a physical foothold on home soil. If we examine the PLA in this context, minus the nuclear deterrence, then despite the numerical manpower advantage, precision strikes ala Desert Storm will deny the PLA leadership of command and control mechanisms.

The PLA realized this a long time ago...

ocp28

"People's war" was built around these assets. In Mao's model, the PLA and paramilitary forces, supported by the populace, would conduct protracted war against any invader. Initially, the PLA's main forces, using conventional tactics, would carry out a strategic retreat supported by guerrilla-type operations until the invading forces were overextended and dispersed. PLA forces would then be reconfigured and concentrated to annihilate the enemy in detail.

In Mao's opinion, the "people's war" strategy was valid even in the event of a nuclear attack, as Mao suggested to Andrei Gromyko in Beijing at the height of the problems with the US over Quemoy in 1958:

If the USA attacks China with nuclear weapons, the Chinese armies must retreat from the border regions into the depths of the country. They must draw the enemy in deep so as to grip US forces in a pincer inside China. . . . In the event of war, the Soviet Union should not take any military measures against the Americans in the first stage. Instead, you should let them penetrate deep inside the territory of the Chinese giant. Only when the Americans are right in the central provinces should you give them everything you've got.

Ironically, though "people's war" was Chinese military doctrine for more than a decade, they rarely employed it; and when they did, it did not work very well. In Korea, save for early successes, when the use of deception enabled the PLA to move more than 300,000 troops into Korea undetected, Chinese units had a difficult time applying "people's war" principles because they could not take advantage of their numerical superiority and had no space to trade for time. The PLA's massed, unsupported (air or artillery) attacks against vastly superior American firepower did not work and in most cases led to disastrously high personnel and equipment losses. In fact, Korea was a wake-up call for the PLA and made its leaders painfully aware of the need to modernize weaponry, combat skills, and military doctrine before again engaging a modern military force.

Essentially, the concept of "The People's War" is the doctrine of an army that conditioned itself as ALREADY defeated and had no choice but grudgingly allow that hostile force access to home soil. But when the PLA had to deploy itself to foreign soil, in other words, became an expeditionary army like how formalized armies should have expeditionary forces as an option, the PLA had no guide on how deploy and wield its capabilities as befitting an expeditionary force.

And that sub-standard performance was not confined to Korea...

The Sino-Vietnam War was largely a conventional affair, in which the two enemies engaged in largely set-piece frontal assaults on well dug-in positions, and the Chinese did not do very well.

The Chinese were shocked to discover that the traditions of the Long March, World War II and Korea were not enough to meet the Vietnamese, with their modern Soviet (and US) equipment and with the confidence gained at the expense of American forces. . . . The PLA lacked adequate communications, transport and logistics and were burdened with an elaborate and archaic command structure. Their maps were 75 years old. Runners were employed to relay orders because there were few radios (and those they had were not secure). The PLA suffered more than 60,000 casualties, including 26,000 killed. Thus in heavy fighting [for three months] in 1979. . .the Chinese had nearly half as many soldiers killed in action in Vietnam as the US lost in 10 years.

Set piece battles are when armies faces and assaults each other in massed formations on fairly predictable battlefields. When armies that conditioned themselves to insurgency tactics but deviate from that conditioning, they usually lose the battles. The NVA's supposedly 'military genius' Võ Nguyên Giáp never won a single set piece battle, from the days of fighting against the numerically inferior but better trained French, to when he fought the numerically inferior but better equipped Americans. When the PLA invaded Viet Nam, which for that brief conflict turned the PLA into an expeditionary army, the PLA performed as poorly at expeditionary tactics as when it was in Korea.

Note: The word 'expeditionary' here is not confined to units within an army whose main function is to be an 'expeditionary force', meaning rapidly deployable to foreign territories to conduct military operations as a prefix to the main forces, such as the US Marines or the US Army Ranger corps. An 'expeditionary army' is an army that is fully capable of deployment to anywhere outside home territories and one that contains distinct expeditionary units whose missions are to engage an enemy as far away from home territory as possible. The USAF is an expeditionary branch of the US military. So is the US Navy, which contains the dedicated expeditionary force US Marines Corps. In short, the entire US military is fully expeditionary.

The PLA is not an expeditionary army. Neither is the Swiss. But the smaller (than the PLA) British military is fully expeditionary.

For China, Desert Storm was a wake-up call of major proportions. Before the war, the PLA high command predicted that US forces would become bogged down as the Soviets did in Afghanistan. They were surprised, and the Chinese leadership's reaction to the high-tech war waged by the United States was deep and lasting. They were particularly impressed with the speed and precision of the US attacks and the lack of collateral damage inflicted on civilian targets. They were "stunned," and "every element of the allied strategy left the PLA aghast and hammered home as never before the backwardness of the PLA."

Desert Storm was when the PLA realized it is severely outclassed by the US military and allies -- in terms of everything that mattered to a military. Today, to defeat a military is no longer confined to numerical destruction of an army but to include the severance of command from the rest of the army. Desert Storm showed the PLA its shortsightedness and worse -- the creativity of a potential adversary in combining the expeditionary capabilities typical of a formalized army with the mobility and flexibility typical of small units of insurgents operating independently from the main forces but towards the same goal. In other words, the US army is better than the PLA at tactics of "The People's War".

We can defeat the PLA and if there is a shooting fight we will defeat the PLA.

 

[TR.1]

The first line of defense of any country is the formalized army. The nuclear deterrence is a different issue. The PLA is a formalized army and its main goal is to prevent a hostile force from gaining a physical foothold on home soil. If we examine the PLA in this context, minus the nuclear deterrence, then despite the numerical manpower advantage, precision strikes ala Desert Storm will deny the PLA leadership of command and control mechanisms.

The PLA realized this a long time ago...

ocp28

Essentially, the concept of "The People's War" is the doctrine of an army that conditioned itself as ALREADY defeated and had no choice but grudgingly allow that hostile force access to home soil. But when the PLA had to deploy itself to foreign soil, in other words, became an expeditionary army like how formalized armies should have expeditionary forces as an option, the PLA had no guide on how deploy and wield its capabilities as befitting an expeditionary force.

And that sub-standard performance was not confined to Korea...


Set piece battles are when armies faces and assaults each other in massed formations on fairly predictable battlefields. When armies that conditioned themselves to insurgency tactics but deviate from that conditioning, they usually lose the battles. The NVA's supposedly 'military genius' Võ Nguyên Giáp never won a single set piece battle, from the days of fighting against the numerically inferior but better trained French, to when he fought the numerically inferior but better equipped Americans. When the PLA invaded Viet Nam, which for that brief conflict turned the PLA into an expeditionary army, the PLA performed as poorly at expeditionary tactics as when it was in Korea.

Note: The word 'expeditionary' here is not confined to units within an army whose main function is to be an 'expeditionary force', meaning rapidly deployable to foreign territories to conduct military operations as a prefix to the main forces, such as the US Marines or the US Army Ranger corps. An 'expeditionary army' is an army that is fully capable of deployment to anywhere outside home territories and one that contains distinct expeditionary units whose missions are to engage an enemy as far away from home territory as possible. The USAF is an expeditionary branch of the US military. So is the US Navy, which contains the dedicated expeditionary force US Marines Corps. In short, the entire US military is fully expeditionary.

The PLA is not an expeditionary army. Neither is the Swiss. But the smaller (than the PLA) British military is fully expeditionary.


Desert Storm was when the PLA realized it is severely outclassed by the US military and allies -- in terms of everything that mattered to a military. Today, to defeat a military is no longer confined to numerical destruction of an army but to include the severance of command from the rest of the army. Desert Storm showed the PLA its shortsightedness and worse -- the creativity of a potential adversary in combining the expeditionary capabilities typical of a formalized army with the mobility and flexibility typical of small units of insurgents operating independently from the main forces but towards the same goal. In other words, the US army is better than the PLA at tactics of "The People's War".

We can defeat the PLA and if there is a shooting fight we will defeat the PLA.

So you mean expeditionary by having aircraft carriers and things like that to do operations somewhere else?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The american army couldn't beat the primitive PLA in korea decisively,any invasion would be miserable failure simply due to weight of numbers.Even though they will cause huge numbers of PLA casualities,a land invasion would be wiped out sorry simply due to numbers.And i'm certainly no PLA fanboy.

 

[fallstuff]

Author of the article Winslow T. Wheeler

From 1971 to 2002, Wheeler worked on national security issues for members of the United States Senate and for the Government Accountability Office (GAO): In the Senate, Jacob K. Javits (R, NY), Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R, KS), David Pryor (D, AR), and Pete Domenici (R, NM). He was the first, and according to Senate records the last, Senate staffer to work simultaneously on the personal staffs of a Republican and a Democrat (Pryor and Kassebaum).

In the Senate staff, Wheeler was heavily involved in legislating the War Powers Act, Pentagon reform legislation, foreign policy, and oversight of the defense budget and weapons programs. At GAO, he directed comprehensive studies on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign, the US strategic nuclear triad, and weapons testing. Each of these studies found prevailing conventional wisdom about weapons to be badly misinformed.

In 2002 when he worked on the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee, Wheeler authored an essay, under the pseudonym "Spartacus," addressing Congress' reaction to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks ("Mr. Smith Is Dead: No One Stands in the Way as Congress Lards Post-September 11 Defense Bills with Pork"). When senators criticized in the essay attempted to have Wheeler fired, he resigned his position.

Winslow T. Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Viper0011.]

The first line of defense of any country is the formalized army. The nuclear deterrence is a different issue. The PLA is a formalized army and its main goal is to prevent a hostile force from gaining a physical foothold on home soil. If we examine the PLA in this context, minus the nuclear deterrence, then despite the numerical manpower advantage, precision strikes ala Desert Storm will deny the PLA leadership of command and control mechanisms.

The PLA realized this a long time ago...

I am with you on the last line that the PLA realized this long time ago. However, back to my statement from the previous post, now, in 2012, the PLA's drastically changed and is further changing right now as we speak. The landmass of China is massive. It's nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. The precision strikes like Desert Storm aren't applicable. Iraq didn't have that much land mass. Mobilizing and hiding resources was a bit difficult. With China, the first threat is the ASAT weapons. If they take out some of the GPS and Imaging satellites, we lose the capability to real time track and destroy. The network part of the Net-Centric warfare that we specialize in gets hit pretty heavily. Second, right this second, with the exception of F-22's, all other fighters and bombers will meet a force of about 500 - 700 4 and 4.5 gen jets (SU-27, SU-30 MKK, FC-10, J11, etc) with a range of advance weapons, some of them with Western tech, a HUGE air defense network and a massive army. We can occupy a small part of China but taking over China like Iraq is unfortunately not going to be possible. There is a LOT of strategic depth and modern warfare capability that the Chinese are building and have built already.
The above is not to confuse or doubt the US military's capability of dealing with any threat. I don't have a doubt in my mind that if forced to, the US military can and will remove any threat. There is no better military than the US military hands down and for the past 7+ decades. But in my opinion, we'll win in a war with the Chinese, but occupying or ground invasion or 'precision strikes' on a country that size isn't a viable option if you wanted to win a war in a 30 day period. (DOESN'T mean we won't do it if need be).

 

[LeGenD]

They can yes. But if you look at the last 70 years, they have always fought powers with zero or no airforce, or powers which are like decades behind them in terms of technology. Meaning America has always fought weak nations with no or an insignificant army both in terms of numbers as well as technology. Although they are still the most powerful, we should still take their capabilities with a grain of salt. Not overstate it.

Iraq and Serbia both had reasonable Airforces. They were armed with latest weapons prior to respective wars with USA.

The superiority that you speak of has been achieved by USA during COLD WAR era and it still exists.

Confronting USA on its strong aspect is suicide for any nation. Taliban have survived due to Pashtun populace being dispersed in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and USA not interested in exterminating Afghans.

Lets face it; USA can achieve military victory in any front but it may not necessarily be able to convert that military victory in to a political victory if idiotic politicians are in power and command.

 

[Wickerman]

Iraq and Serbia both had reasonable Airforces. They were armed with latest weapons prior to respective wars with USA.

The superiority that you speak of has been achieved by USA and is still retained. Russians in no way or form can match US military might.

Confronting USA on its strong aspect is suicide for any nation. Taliban have survived due to Pashtun populace being dispersed in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and USA not interested in exterminating Afghans.

Lets face it; USA can achieve military victory in any front but it may not necessarily be able to convert that military victory in to a political victory if idiotic politicians are in power and command.

No I agree with that. Am not saying the US isnt the strongest. I was just saying, they cannot invade countries like Russia and China and hope to be successful. This is just counting the US. Where will they bring supplies from, their forces will be spread too thin over a large area, and they would be fighting the 2nd strongest country in the world etc., What I mean to say is, in a strategic war, lasting a few months, they will obviously beat any country. But this doesnt mean they can go and invade powerful nations like Russia, and hope to succeed in that terrain. Thats why I said they cant win in every form of warfare, in every terrain against every country.

 

[LeGenD]

This is not to downplay. However, Are you seriously gonna equate the US military might with that of Iraq? Ever heard of the term "Pick someone of your own size?". Would you blame a 5 yr old kid if he lost a fight with a sumo wrestler? What you say is like that. And it is also fact that the US has always fought hapless nations with almost zero military might compared to the US. And that with the whole NATO and everyone else.

The US is indeed the strongest nation out there, and I am not denying it. But if they ever get into a war with countries like China or Russia, they they wont win an invasion attempt. They could field superior aircraft numbers, have more money to spend etc etc, but it wont work. The terrain is unknown. Plus the land is vast. So what they did in Iraq will never be possible in China for example.

Thats why I said, take it with a grain of salt. In a strategic war, if china goes up against the US somewhere, then the US might beat them. But the capability stops there. If they are gonna invade countries like Russia or China, they will fail. Miserably. They wont win all wars against all countries in all types of terrain fighting all kinds of warfare. We have to be realistic. No country is without its weak points and the US is no different.

Please learn a thing or two about modern warfare tactics. Their is no need to invade large countries WWII style. You do not need to deploy troops in every town or city or village to control a country in this century.

What you do is that you nuetralize the military capability of a nation and then have a field-day with civilians. Russia and China are safe due to their nuclear capability and not the size of land.

 

[Wickerman]

Please learn a thing or two about modern warfare tactics. Their is no need to invade large countries WWII style. You do not need to deploy troops in every town or city or village to control a country in this century.

What you do is that you nuetralize the military capability of a nation and then have a field-day with civilians. Russia and China are safe due to their nuclear capability and not the size of land.

Yeah and that wont be possible with Russia and China. These two countries do have very good weapons. To be able to defeat a nation you need air superiority over that nations airspace as well as its land. And that wont be possible with Russia and China, and land area does matter. Where you use your ground troops, the terrain that you fight in all matter. What they did in Iraq wont be possible with Russia and China.

 

[LeGenD]

Yeah and that wont be possible with Russia and China. These two countries do have very good weapons. To be able to defeat a nation you need air superiority over that nations airspace as well as its land. And that wont be possible with Russia and China, and land area does matter. Where you use your ground troops, the terrain that you fight in all matter. What they did in Iraq wont be possible with Russia and China.

According to experts, Russia is a mediocre military power in current times. It no longer can pull off WWII type resistance and neither it can stand up to US armed forces out in the open. If nukes are taken out of the equation, Russia can be also defeated and occupied. Heck, Russian population is not very big either.

China is arguably the toughest cookie to crack and handle in modern times. However, even China is a decade behind USA in military capability. And USA have war-gamed China recently.

Lets face it; American military planners are not dumb. They first analyze the capabilities and characteristics of the opponent and then plan accordingly. Obviously hypothetical war with China or Russia would be different from that of Iraq.

However, geographical size is not an issue. The most recent conflict in Libya affirms this.

 

[gambit]

So you mean expeditionary by having aircraft carriers and things like that to do operations somewhere else?

Yes. An aircraft carrier group is intended to project military might in persistence, meaning beyond a single engagement, as well as being a threat of such a persistence of presence off anyone's waters. It does not matter if that military have even just one aircraft carrier group. That navy can send that force to perform some operations, return home to refuel if non-nuclear, then return to that foreign territory or go somewhere else. Victory is not assured because of these lapses of presence but the possibility is real and the odds may swing in favor. Then when there is a rotational capability of an aircraft carrier group, like how the US Navy is so capable, the odds of victory increasingly favors that expeditionary navy and projects to the entire military as well.

The US Navy is fully expeditionary. The PLAN is not, it is primarily a coastal defense force whose main mission is to delay the advances of any hostile force intending to access home territory. Most of the world's navies are not expeditionary. Some are in withdrawal (or decline) of that capability, like the Brits and the French. The Russian Navy is pretty much out of that business. China and India are nascent expeditionary navies with India a slight edge ahead.

 

[ARSENAL6]

Lets face it; American military planners are not dumb. They first analyze the capabilities and characteristics of the opponent and then plan accordingly. Obviously hypothetical war with China or Russia would be different from that of Iraq.

However, geographical size is not an issue. The most recent conflict in Libya affirms this.

Yep THats why more than 10 years the US is still in Afaganistan, fighting against a rag-tag group of insurgants, now commited to use drone attacks on PAkistani civillains out of frustration. Due to that more and more Pkaistanis are now hating AMerica. More hate , more fear to put on the American people.


Drone Fleet To Expand- Civilian Death Statistics - YouTube

CIA demands drones despite 80% civilian death rate - YouTube

American military planners are just brillant aren't they ?
But then you go right ahead anything makes you sleep well role it in.

 

[Esc8781]

Fact that the us is fighting with two hands behind their backs funny.

 

[gambit]

Yeah and that wont be possible with Russia and China. These two countries do have very good weapons. To be able to defeat a nation you need air superiority over that nations airspace as well as its land. And that wont be possible with Russia and China, and land area does matter. Where you use your ground troops, the terrain that you fight in all matter. What they did in Iraq wont be possible with Russia and China.

In air conflicts...

Air Dominance - The ability of an air force to compel other air forces, allied and adversaries, to re-array themselves into inferior postures.

Air Superiority - The ability of an air force to repeatedly achieve control of contestant airspace and if there are any losses, those losses are not statistical deterrence for those achievements.

Air Supremacy - He flies, he dies.

Stage One will have US air power, whether it be projected from CONUS, or stationed in allied territories, or from the seas, or in combinations, compels the PLAAF into inferior postures. Read: Defensive. This will occur without a single shot from either side. That posture is internally compelled by the pragmatism of the PLA's leadership regarding the PLAAF's ability to prevent access to territorial airspace: Not able. All the PLAAF can do is attempt to respond to initiatives and hope for any opening to have an initiative, which for a non-expeditionary air force: Not able.

Stage Two will have US and Chinese air forces essentially 'duking' it out over pieces of contestant airspaces, such as over vital sea ports, cities, etc. US air forces will have a difficult time in achieving air superiority over these contestant airspaces but given the fact that air battles are essentially mano-a-mano affairs and that US pilots have superiority in training, experience in personal and institutional memory, and equipment, US air forces will achieve air superiority over most, if not all, of discreet contestant airspaces.

Stage Three is what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. The enemy flies, he died, not entirely applicable to Afghanistan since it does not have any air forces to speak of. Not likely with either China or Russia. The geography is too large to cover. Despite the non-parity of technological levels compared to US, both of these air forces do have sufficient technological and usage sophistication to present a persistence in resistance to control by the adversary air force (US) to confine US to only air superiority of diverse contestant airspaces. Not over the entire country. Here is where wholesale numerical destruction by the US of its adversary air force is required to achieve 'Air Supremacy'. Is it possible for the US to achieve that wholesale destruction of the PLAAF forces arrayed throughout mainland China? It is a stretch...