what's the big deal? Retired UK Pilots took jobs in China

[Dungeness]

I understand about 'respect'. You guys are not here for 'respect'. We found that out a long time ago.


Did I said it was wrong? The stupidity here is that you guys thought that China would be the only one that gains something.

You are the one here who doesn't know what "respect" means. The moment you are using the disrespectful term "parade line army", you should know someomne is going to remind you of not so invincible history of us military. And you shouldn't use the term "you guys" to refer to the members who share the same origin here, just like you shouldn't use the term "we" to refer to US armed forces. We are nothing but just some ramdom dudes here, so don't speak like someone representing any authority.

 

[MastanKhan]

Investigative interviewing 101

1. Isolate your candidates and have them provide information individually so they cannot cook up misinformation.

2. Use standardized set of questions and check for common themes.

3. Test and experiment

Really, it wasn't that hard to get former NATO pilots to spill, especially for the right money. The very first group of carrier-based PLAN pilots were reportedly trained by a retired US Navy CAG in the early 2000's, when he was flying civilian airlines for China.

Hi,

Actually it is very difficult for professionals to lie about their training and what they did---and specially the brits that went over there.

They would spill their hearts out to impress the chinese---train them to the best of their abilities---. Do not forget the 'bridge on river kwai " effect---.

Brits don't have inborn dislike / hatred towards the chinese like the americans have---.

American have a habbit of blaming everyone else for the problems of the world---and when they get into that mode---they can do terrible things---. The brits are just so opposite of the americans---.

And look what Netherland did a few days ago---turning down american sanctions.

I am not talking about what happened during stalemate between 51-53. I am talking about expanding operation from South Korea to North Korea, that period is between Sept 23 to Oct 25.

You don't just "Re-task" a war when you feel like it, when you set off for a war, you have a set of goal you want to do, and that goal for UN force before they went to war is to liberate the South. Which mean everything, from troop strength to supply are assigned accordingly. Same with the Russian War in Ukraine, there are not enough troop for a 300,000 UN Force to fight 415 mile and occupy the entire length of the Korean Peninsular, that mean from the point when UN troop cross into the North, that already doomed their entire operation.

War did not win or lose solely because you have Air or Naval Superiority, as I said, it does not matter if you have 100 ship bombarding target all the way, once your ground troop goes without supply, no ammo, no food, no fuel, no medicine. You will have to surrender regardless even if you have 100 ships at the gate. The supply line dictates war, because you can only fight as long as you have supply, I can probably fight on for a month if I run without food, probably a week if I run without water, probably days without fuel, but I can't fight at all if I don't have ammo, and it doesn't take a military genius to understand the further you go, the further you expanded the supply line and LOC, the more demand are going to be put on them. And that line, is at the 38 Parallel. You can't bring in anything further than that, not with a multi-years campaign. That is just to build up their supply capability.

On the other hand, you discounted the end-to-end distant completely, that distance play a very important role in war, because you won't have supply on hand immediately and you cannot adjust to the need immediately if you have thousands of mile of supply line between you and where you are fighting, Which mean you can cope better for battlefield changes if your supply line run shorter, like China do, then the UN. Because anything you need to change you can't change it on the tail end of the supply chain, you have to change it at the front, which mean by the time that changes made to the head has piped down to the end user point of view, you are already seriously delay.

UN is fighting an expedition war, China is fighting a local war. That is very much a major different between the two in term of supplies.

Hi,

Sir---you are incorrect---UN does not fight a war---US fights a war---. Maybe you typed wrong---hehn---?????

 

[Bilal9]

No, having a nice Knob Creek after sharing a tomahawk ribeye.

Contractors like these UK pilots usually take their pay up front and usually at 6-figures. Then they deposit their monies somewhere safe. So what make you believe that I will tell you the factual truths about NATO combat tactics?

Knob Creek ? Since Suntory now owns that brand, you should try Yamazaki from the parent company, or Hibiki even. That is what my friends say, if single malt is your thing.

Sorry about the OT post.

 

[jhungary]

Hi,

Actually it is very difficult for professionals to lie about their training and what they did---and specially the brits that went over there.

They would spill their hearts out to impress the chinese---train them to the best of their abilities---. Do not forget the 'bridge on river kwai " effect---.

Brits don't have inborn dislike / hatred towards the chinese like the americans have---.

American have a habbit of blaming everyone else for the problems of the world---and when they get into that mode---they can do terrible things---. The brits are just so opposite of the americans---.

And look what Netherland did a few days ago---turning down american sanctions.


Hi,

Sir---you are incorrect---UN does not fight a war---US fights a war---. Maybe you typed wrong---hehn---?????

That was a UN war. That war and the UN unit still exist today with the MNU in JSA.

United Nations Command - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MastanKhan]

That was a UN war. That war and the UN unit still exist today with the MNU in JSA.

United Nations Command - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hi,

Youngman---there is NO UN war---all wars are US wars------. The SLAVE nations of the united states are lined up to do the bidding---trying to beat everyone to get in the front row---committing horrendous atrocities in the process without any show of conscience---.

 

[jhungary]

Hi,

Youngman---there is NO UN war---all wars are US wars------. The SLAVE nations of the united states are lined up to do the bidding---trying to beat everyone to get in the front row---committing horrendous atrocities in the process without any show of conscience---.

Whatever you said bud

 

[nahtanbob]

They not there to teach but tell Chinese all the military doctrine of NATO while NATO know zero of Chinese fighting doctrine.

what do you learn from a lowly pilot when lot of the military doctrine is published in the public domain ? Unless you are looking for classified stuff.
Of course if you do not know to fly combat aircraft that is a different story

 

[MastanKhan]

They not there to teach but tell Chinese all the military doctrine of NATO while NATO know zero of Chinese fighting doctrine.

Hi,

Off course they are there to teach---first they are going to teach them how the brits fly---so first the chinese will learn to fly like the brits---then they will teach them how the americans fly----then the chinese will learn to fly like the chinese---.

Once those lessons have been learnt very well---then the chinese pilots willl begin to understand NATO fighting doctrine.


The chinese have had no wars lately---maybe long long time ago---so they are basically in the darknabout modern warfare---.

The 1st GW was a shocker to chinese generals----as well as pakistani generals---.

 

[Beast]

Hi,

Off course they are there to teach---first they are going to teach them how the brits fly---so first the chinese will learn to fly like the brits---then they will teach them how the americans fly----then the chinese will learn to fly like the chinese---.

Once those lessons have been learnt very well---then the chinese pilots willl begin to understand NATO fighting doctrine.


The chinese have had no wars lately---maybe long long time ago---so they are basically in the darknabout modern warfare---.

The 1st GW was a shocker to chinese generals----as well as pakistani generals---.

And the Russia has many years of aerial warfare in syria and I yet to see the benefit of having war experience help them in Ukraine war.

A good simulated war exercise is even better than war experience fighting in low intensity warfare where you are fighting low tech caveman with no ECM, no advance technology counter by enemies...

China has a huge military budget, we have no problem conduct expensive real war like scenario exercise which gives Chinese doctrine and pilot a good run of their training.

Tell me, why RuAF perform so badly in Ukraine war despite with their experience fighting in the syria war?

 

[applesauce]

I am not talking about what happened during stalemate between 51-53. I am talking about expanding operation from South Korea to North Korea, that period is between Sept 23 to Oct 25.

You don't just "Re-task" a war when you feel like it, when you set off for a war, you have a set of goal you want to do, and that goal for UN force before they went to war is to liberate the South. Which mean everything, from troop strength to supply are assigned accordingly. Same with the Russian War in Ukraine, there are not enough troop for a 300,000 UN Force to fight 415 mile and occupy the entire length of the Korean Peninsular, that mean from the point when UN troop cross into the North, that already doomed their entire operation.

War did not win or lose solely because you have Air or Naval Superiority, as I said, it does not matter if you have 100 ship bombarding target all the way, once your ground troop goes without supply, no ammo, no food, no fuel, no medicine. You will have to surrender regardless even if you have 100 ships at the gate. The supply line dictates war, because you can only fight as long as you have supply, I can probably fight on for a month if I run without food, probably a week if I run without water, probably days without fuel, but I can't fight at all if I don't have ammo, and it doesn't take a military genius to understand the further you go, the further you expanded the supply line and LOC, the more demand are going to be put on them. And that line, is at the 38 Parallel. You can't bring in anything further than that, not with a multi-years campaign. That is just to build up their supply capability.

On the other hand, you discounted the end-to-end distant completely, that distance play a very important role in war, because you won't have supply on hand immediately and you cannot adjust to the need immediately if you have thousands of mile of supply line between you and where you are fighting, Which mean you can cope better for battlefield changes if your supply line run shorter, like China do, then the UN. Because anything you need to change you can't change it on the tail end of the supply chain, you have to change it at the front, which mean by the time that changes made to the head has piped down to the end user point of view, you are already seriously delay.

UN is fighting an expedition war, China is fighting a local war. That is very much a major different between the two in term of supplies.

but my point wasn't about any of that.

yes, there were logistic difficulties in the initial push to the north, but since getting back to the 38th, the us had vastly better logistics in korea than the PVA did, even when its thousands of miles from the us.
if the UN force only left north korea because of supply issues initially, then why is the stalemate at the 38th still happening two years later? the 38th is equal distance from china as it is from busan which by this time had became a major developed port capable of handling all that the UN forced needed and more. its well known by now that the us was able to send perishable goods to its front line units while the PVA ate basically fried starch mixed with snow. and yet there a stalemate happens. so what im actually saying is, supplies in north was only one of the reasons of the UN retreat from NK. a major one, sure, but the other major reason is they faced a capable PVA as shown by the stalemate at the 38th, when supplies were no longer an issue, while you attribute the entire retreat on only supplies.

 

[jhungary]

but my point wasn't about any of that.

yes, there were logistic difficulties in the initial push to the north, but since getting back to the 38th, the us had vastly better logistics in korea than the PVA did, even when its thousands of miles from the us.
if the UN force only left north korea because of supply issues initially, then why is the stalemate at the 38th still happening two years later? the 38th is equal distance from china as it is from busan which by this time had became a major developed port capable of handling all that the UN forced needed and more. its well known by now that the us was able to send perishable goods to its front line units while the PVA ate basically fried starch mixed with snow. and yet there a stalemate happens. so what im actually saying is, supplies in north was only one of the reasons of the UN retreat from NK. a major one, sure, but the other major reason is they faced a capable PVA as shown by the stalemate at the 38th, when supplies were no longer an issue, while you attribute the entire retreat on only supplies.

I have already explained.

South Korea is NOT a suitable logistic base (THE ENTIRE COUNTRY) because they don't have suitable road or even railroad back in 1950s. South Korean back then is like a giant farmland with a few big city in between (Seoul, Inchon, Nakdong and then Pusan) that also explained why North Korea can just ride thru the entire country from the north and reach Busan in around 3 weeks. You don't have a lot of build up area and road network for you to put defensive position, If South Korea back then is like Ukraine now, the South can do what the Ukrainian do and wage a 3rd dimension attack mixed with conventional war and insurgency. The South Korean can't, that is why they folded that quick.

As I said, if the UN wanted to set up South Korea in a way you can sustain fighting on, THAT alone is multi-year process. That is why it took them 3 years to build up the supply and are able to fend off the Chinese+NK attack which is something they CAN'T just 3 years before. If the South Attack North now, they can and will have enough supply base and road network to support a war further north, unlike back in 1950. Had the war last into 1960, that would be another issue, we may actaully see South Push North and regain some ground, which evidentially is what happened in the last 3 months of war. The South don't want to end there because in the last 3 month, they took a few village in the North at the last couple of month and that contributed to North Korea losing 1500 sq mile of land to South Korea.

That entire war is a war of supply, it's between how US turn South Korea into a build up defence and make road. And that applies the same to the Chinese Troop, they had exhausted their supply line, that is why they were stopped at Han river, on the other hand, just because UN troop may have advantage on logistic (they really don't because again, you are talking about a few hundred mile supply line for China to over 5000 mile supply line for UN troop) it does not mean the can overcome the supply issue and overwhelm the Chinese troop. Chinese Troop cannot advance does not mean they need to fall back, if China can supply their troop on the frontline, which is independent to what UN logistic capability.

So no, Chinese Troop is NOT the direct reason why UN retreated in Dec 1950. Chinese troop influx triggers a LOC problem so dire the UN cannot overcome, which leads to the UN troop withdrawal. They gamble the operation is quick and they gamble the Chinese will not move, they lost that gamble. That does not mean Chinese troop "Defeated" the UN. You can put in extra 300,000 of anyone, Chinese, Russian. Vietnamese or Mongolian, the reason is going to be the same.

 

[applesauce]

I have already explained.

South Korea is NOT a suitable logistic base (THE ENTIRE COUNTRY) because they don't have suitable road or even railroad back in 1950s. South Korean back then is like a giant farmland with a few big city in between (Seoul, Inchon, Nakdong and then Pusan) that also explained why North Korea can just ride thru the entire country from the north and reach Busan in around 3 weeks. You don't have a lot of build up area and road network for you to put defensive position, If South Korea back then is like Ukraine now, the South can do what the Ukrainian do and wage a 3rd dimension attack mixed with conventional war and insurgency. The South Korean can't, that is why they folded that quick.

As I said, if the UN wanted to set up South Korea in a way you can sustain fighting on, THAT alone is multi-year process. That is why it took them 3 years to build up the supply and are able to fend off the Chinese+NK attack which is something they CAN'T just 3 years before. If the South Attack North now, they can and will have enough supply base and road network to support a war further north, unlike back in 1950. Had the war last into 1960, that would be another issue, we may actaully see South Push North and regain some ground, which evidentially is what happened in the last 3 months of war. The South don't want to end there because in the last 3 month, they took a few village in the North at the last couple of month and that contributed to North Korea losing 1500 sq mile of land to South Korea.

View attachment 900790

That entire war is a war of supply, it's between how US turn South Korea into a build up defence and make road. And that applies the same to the Chinese Troop, they had exhausted their supply line, that is why they were stopped at Han river, on the other hand, just because UN troop may have advantage on logistic (they really don't because again, you are talking about a few hundred mile supply line for China to over 5000 mile supply line for UN troop) it does not mean the can overcome the supply issue and overwhelm the Chinese troop. Chinese Troop cannot advance does not mean they need to fall back, if China can supply their troop on the frontline, which is independent to what UN logistic capability.

So no, Chinese Troop is NOT the direct reason why UN retreated in Dec 1950. Chinese troop influx triggers a LOC problem so dire the UN cannot overcome, which leads to the UN troop withdrawal. They gamble the operation is quick and they gamble the Chinese will not move, they lost that gamble. That does not mean Chinese troop "Defeated" the UN. You can put in extra 300,000 of anyone, Chinese, Russian. Vietnamese or Mongolian, the reason is going to be the same.

BS.
the North had been bombed out at that point. all supplies links were bombed, all rail was bombed and even the bridge over the yalu was bombed. the us actually ran out of targets and started re-bombing little already-bombed out villages.

there is no way the north, by the time of the stalemate, had better logitics than the south. especially when the us gets to use air fields and ports far closer to the front line than china which has to carry them over the yalu half the time on foot and at night all the way to the front while being bombed the entire time.

also i call BS on needing 3 years to build logistics links in the south.

 

[jhungary]

BS.
the North had been bombed out at that point. all supplies links were bombed, all rail was bombed and even the bridge over the yalu was bombed. the us actually ran out of targets and started re-bombing little already-bombed out villages.

there is no way the north, by the time of the stalemate, had better logitics than the south. especially when the us gets to use air fields and ports far closer to the front line than china which has to carry them over the yalu half the time on foot and at night all the way to the front while being bombed the entire time.

also i call BS on needing 3 years to build logistics links in the south.

lol. It's only BS because you know shit about how military logistic work.

It's not just building a few roads and you can have solved your logistic problem, to supply a expedition like that, you would need to have a fully function network. With Ports, Road (Both MSR and ASR) Railroad and Airport. You can ride a tank from North Korea to the South, even a bombed-out road, but you can't ride a tank from Japan or Philippine or Australia or United State to Korea. That is something you still failed to get. Building all that take time, and South Korea have NOTHING back in 1950. There are 3 stages to conduct logistic operation, first is to build your infrastructure, then you increase your capability (ie start producing more stuff), then you fine tune your need, you don't get to overhaul an entire operation in just a few months. You probably aren't going to get out of the first stage with that time rame.

On the other hand, who told you that you can't have logistic capability when you are under constant bombardment? Ho Chi Ming trail is the most bombed logistic supply line in history, NO OTHER Logistic trail have been comprehensively bombed before and since then, does that stop the North Vietnamese from supplying the Vietcong?

And finally, I never said North Korea have better logistic than the UN, I said there is a limit on either side, and that limit is independent to each other, just because the North rely on donkey to supply their troop and the UN rely on Aircraft and Ship, that does not mean UN is a sure win in the war, because as long as North Korea and Chinese can supply their frontline troop, they can and will hold out the UN, on the other hand, the UN supply line also have its limit and as I said, that line in 1953 is just north of the 38. parallel. There is an old saying in quartermaster "You need fuel to bring fuel to the frontline" every can of fuel you brough in the frontline have to waste another can of fuel just to transport it from you Log Train to frontline. Which mean the longer the Log Train from end to end, the more resource you use to constantly supply your troop. And again, the Log Train for China form end to end is less than 300 mile (from China to 38 Parallel) the Log Train for UN is around 5000 mile + depends on where you are getting your supply from. UN is good, but not that good to offset that difference in just 3 years, even now in modern war. We need approximately a year and a half to stabilise the supply situation in Iraq, and you know how I know? I was there.

Dude, you are extremely simplifying battlefield.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Am USAF. You can boast how 'awesome' was the Parade Line Army (PLA) in Korea and there are plenty of arguments against that, but in the air, you fight pretty much mana-a-mano and you guys ain't got the experience we do. After all, we are not trying to hire former PLA pilots, are we?

you might do , just for a heck of it to troll PLAAF,

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Hi,

Youngman---there is NO UN war---all wars are US wars------. The SLAVE nations of the united states are lined up to do the bidding---trying to beat everyone to get in the front row---committing horrendous atrocities in the process without any show of conscience---.

well that's a political statement. he is talking from technical point of view. UK in that sense is a slave nation to USA as well let alone UN