(ASK) How well trained are the pla special forces?

janjak desalin

janjak desalin

Junior Member
texx1 said:
US/NATO is good at and has plenty of experience defeating ragtag third world militaries that never stand a realistic chance anyway.
Click to expand...
And the US even wound up fighting against itself, Marines vs Army, in Grenada! How's that for experience?
As I've reminded many US fake"war" heroes, lately, you haven't been in a battle, or war, unless there was a 50% probability that you could lose. Coming out on the winning side of that indicates the interaction of some other factor or factors.
That said, having been there (in several contexts), it's training, persistent, quality, challenging, training that prepares an individual, or a unit, technically, for combat. The only psychological training for the brutal realities of combat is, as Musachi put it, to accept that "the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death"!
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
rhino123 said:
No. The Chinese, even Marshal Peng Dehuai, had already mentioned so many times that they didn't use Human Waves tactic in the Korean war. Sorry.
Click to expand...

There have been numerous documented events during the Korea War by American GIs, Marines etc of human wave attack conducted both by the North Korean forces and by the CCF but this is not what this thread is about so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this piece of history.

In some instances the CCF forces outnumbered their foes by as much as 10:1 ratio. Many of these soldiers even went into battle without any weapons because some of the tactics was to pick up the rifles of their fallen comrades and continue charging.

The casualty/kill rate were horrendous so I for one am glad that these type of tactics are not practiced anymore by modern armies!
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
kwaigonegin said:
There have been numerous documented events during the Korea War by American GIs, Marines etc of human wave attack conducted both by the North Korean forces and by the CCF but this is not what this thread is about so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this piece of history.

In some instances the CCF forces outnumbered their foes by as much as 10:1 ratio. Many of these soldiers even went into battle without any weapons because some of the tactics was to pick up the rifles of their fallen comrades and continue charging.

The casualty/kill rate were horrendous so I for one am glad that these type of tactics are not practiced anymore by modern armies!
Click to expand...

Kwai, I suggest you take a look at this thread, where this issue has been covered:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/dispelling-the-human-wave-peasant-army-myths.t6914/
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
solarz said:
Kwai, I suggest you take a look at this thread, where this issue has been covered:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/dispelling-the-human-wave-peasant-army-myths.t6914/
Click to expand...
I have and appreaciate the link however that's nothing in there to disprove or dispel the fact that in the Korean War there are some battles where such tactics were employed. As a matter a fact I would state that it actually confirms that that tactic in some of many instances were actually used. I want to add also that there is nothing to be defensive about because many Western armies used those tactics as well in the early days or 19th century warfare and before so it is certainly not unique to CCF or North Korean forces.

I think the general consensus was that the human wave form of warfare was NOT the primary tactic used for infantry front line attacks and in that instance I do agree in dispelling the 'human wave myth' however I stand by my original statement in my earlier statements. Either way regardless of what I think this wasn't the core debate so I'll leave it at that.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
There have been numerous documented events during the Korea War by American GIs, Marines etc of human wave attack conducted both by the North Korean forces and by the CCF.

In some instances the CCF forces outnumbered their foes by as much as 10:1 ratio. Many of these soldiers even went into battle without any weapons because some of the tactics was to pick up the rifles of their fallen comrades and continue charging.

The casualty/kill rate were horrendous so I for one am glad that these type of tactics are not practiced anymore by modern armies!
Click to expand...

I have an uncle who was at Chosin Reservoir in the 1st U.S. Marine Division, during the Korean War. He made it our through the corridor maintained by US air power...but a whole lot of his friends did not..

People can call it whatever they like...or they can change the terms and call it something different...but large scale infantry attacks were used, and they included the leapfrogging of arms forward by the attackers. Meaning that attackers in second and third waves picked up and used the rifles of comrades who had fallen before them.

The US had parts of three Divisions (1st Marine, 3rd and 7th Infantry) involved . The Chinese attacked in Corps strength...2 or 3 Corps I believe.

Talk of that battle specifically should be in a Korean War thread in the history forum.
 
T

texx1

Junior Member
kwaigonegin said:
Respondes like yours is expected and I appreciate it however your assessment is Not accurate. The US suffered a lot of losses in the early days of Vietnam, Korea etc. from a tactical perspective there is no such thing as fighting a ragtag band of untrained enemies.. An ak 47 kills you just the same whether it's fired from a child soldier hiding inside a mudhut or from a trained operative. And many of these untrained men in pajamas like you so eloquently put are not exactly untrained. Even the spetnaz suffered some losses in the early days fighting the mujaheedeens. They know the terrain, they know the local environments just like with the VCs.

If you assume you are fighting a bunch of untrained guys in their boxer shorts then you've already lost. Just ask the Marines and the Delta boys in Mogadishu if it was so easy
Click to expand...

With respect, I hope you can appreciate the contradictory nature of your posts. You stated that one should never underestimate any potential opponents even if they are untrained men in pajamas. Yet in your earlier reference to PLA special forces (a force that is definitely better trained than pajama men) you stated that PLA special forces can never be as good as American or NATO counterparts. Isn't that underestimating a potential opponent?
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
texx1 said:
With respect, I hope you can appreciate the contradictory nature of your posts. You stated that one should never underestimate any potential opponents even if they are untrained men in pajamas. Yet in your earlier reference to PLA special forces (a force that is definitely better trained than pajama men) you stated that PLA special forces can never be as good as American or NATO counterparts. Isn't that underestimating a potential opponent?
Click to expand...
Huh? Pls don't quote me out of context. That is not even anywhere close to what I was saying. You're putting words in my mouth. I said PLA forces can never be as good because they have not experience much real world warfare as compared to the US and I stand by my statement... And I only said that in response to that video by the British on PLA soldiers which I have seen before. I never said anything about underestimating. You were the one who minimize the potential danger of non traditional combatants. As a matter a fact NOT underestimating a potential enemy is part of being a mature AND experience fighting force.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
kwaigonegin said:
I'm sure I receive much negative feedback for this however prc's military and soldiers will never be as good as say the us or NATO for one and one reason only. They are not battle hardened. Unfortunately the only way to be effective cohesive force is to experience warfare first hand.
For good or bad the us have been fighting wars on and off pretty much since the creation of this nation and even more so since WW II.
CHINA's military has been very sheltered and have not experience any real warfare since the inception of their modern military. the last time they war any major war was Korea, Vietnam using human waves as a strategy. Those strategies are not applicable to modern war fighting. To develop sound doctrines, training etc you need tons of people who have actually seen warfare and past their knowledge on to new generation of warriors.
As to other countries who are allies of the us, they are afforded valuable experience due to cross training , knowledge transfer etc such as nato countries, Japan, Australia etc.
Click to expand...

Even experienced doesn't guaranteed victory. Infantry tactics can be adapted during and learned during peace time to build and work together as a cohesive force. Take WWII for example when the US Army units first in engaged in Rommel's forces in North Africa were shocked and terrified because it was their first combat engagement. Later on the US was able to adapt and build up battle senses to engage the German forces effectively. My point is experienced can only carry so far against a non-experience foe who are at least well trained and determined.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Equation said:
Even experienced doesn't guaranteed victory. Infantry tactics can be adapted during and learned during peace time to build and work together as a cohesive force. Take WWII for example when the US Army units first in engaged in Rommel's forces in North Africa were shocked and terrified because it was their first combat engagement. Later on the US was able to adapt and build up battle senses to engage the German forces effectively. My point is experienced can only carry so far against a non-experience foe who are at least well trained and determined.
Click to expand...

If I understand Kwai's point correctly, battle experience carries weight and unfortunately that can only come from actual battles and not through training. There is just that extra element to it. Any inference beyond that I think is simply not his words. My 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top