vesicles
Colonel
I doubt it (that's what the general was talking about and was worried about), but that's what you aim for.
The loss of the Axis was not because of their fighting ability, but politics...
Deficiency for the whole of PLA
- Thread starter rhino123
- Start date
I doubt it (that's what the general was talking about and was worried about), but that's what you aim for.
The loss of the Axis was not because of their fighting ability, but politics...
If the war was fought between superpowers, then we can expect the casaulties to be high. However I believe that the Chinese by now should be focusing on minimizing casualties rate since they have the means to do so now. In the past, it is quite impossible to do it because of the lack of equipment and training, but now, they pretty much have everything.
Lets not compare what happen in WWII or WWI, the basic doctrine, equipment and standards of each armies are very much different now. I do not think we will be seeing mass troop movement, huge tank battles and stuff like that in near future. Future war will be pretty fast as was the doctrine of many armies (I believe that is the same case for China too.) the main casaulty will start rolling in only after the war (like the case for US and UN troops in Iraq and Afganistan.)
If the battles are fought between superpowers... I believe it will be over pretty fast too... everyone will be dead... note that all of these powers have nuclear, and although there are pledges not to use nuclear first... but who in the right mind will hold back in throwing out their arsenal when it is quite clear that they are about to be doomed.
Lets not compare what happen in WWII or WWI, the basic doctrine, equipment and standards of each armies are very much different now. I do not think we will be seeing mass troop movement, huge tank battles and stuff like that in near future. Future war will be pretty fast as was the doctrine of many armies (I believe that is the same case for China too.) the main casaulty will start rolling in only after the war (like the case for US and UN troops in Iraq and Afganistan.)
If the battles are fought between superpowers... I believe it will be over pretty fast too... everyone will be dead... note that all of these powers have nuclear, and although there are pledges not to use nuclear first... but who in the right mind will hold back in throwing out their arsenal when it is quite clear that they are about to be doomed.
actually they are related, even at strategic level. remember the israel's big screw up in lebanon back in 06? well the leadership was scared to death about major land operations in lebanon cuz of the casualty worries. so they didnt go in to clear the hezbollah out after the air strike, the best chance they had. instead they waited and waited, and when it comes the time to realize they actually have no choice but to go in, they didnt want to do the large deep maneuvers recommended by veteran generals, but instead they send in troops battalion by battalion, and instead of moving them quickly in a flanking fashion they had to attack the places near the border where hezbollah had already dug in. in the end they suffered high casualties anyways, and they didnt even achieve their strategic aims. so being afraid of casualties...well in some cases might actually bring you closer to casualties, ironically.
i think on a technical and tactical level the PLA should practice due dilligence in keeping its troops safe, but strategically and politically speaking, you oughtta prepare to suffer 100000casualties. if a country goes into a war and was hit harder than it could emotionally tolerate, then the repercussion will not be confined to the military aspect, this is also true for the economy.
cliveersknell
New Member
Hi Folks
Any of you paid attention to the 1985 war in Laoshan with Vietnam. This happened after the 1979 war, not too many in west paid attention to this. I advise members of this forum to study this war carefully before making judgement calls and conclusions.
best regards
Clive
Any of you paid attention to the 1985 war in Laoshan with Vietnam. This happened after the 1979 war, not too many in west paid attention to this. I advise members of this forum to study this war carefully before making judgement calls and conclusions.
best regards
Clive
vesicles
Colonel
Most of the soldiers involved were born in the 50's and 60's, WAY before the one-child policy was in effect. In fact, that was the period when the Chinese govn't actually encouraged people to have more babies, which later caused the population crisis and led to the one-child policy, which was not enforced 'til the late 70's. So I would guess most of the soldiers back then in the 1984 conflict had siblings. In fact, these soldiers would be the parents in the 1st-gen single child families, NOT the children. Since we are discussing how the single children would be effective on the battlefield, this example is not appropriate, IMHO.
vesicles
Colonel
Like I said before, what that general was saying was that the modern PLA soldiers may not have the fighting spirit any more because most of them have been spoiled. This is vastly different from how a war should be prepared. It's apple vs. orange. It's like a basketball game, you may have the best strategy and best talents. but if you are not willing to sacrifice your body and dive onto the floor for loose balls and risk losing a few teeth banging with opponents, it would be difficult to win games. It's that fight spirit he is talking about.
I think it is a myth that PLA in the past did not care about casualties. Back in the days of guerrilla warfare, the 8th and the new 4th armies were limited in numbers. And most of the time, they were surrounded by enemies superior in both number and weapons. They simply could not afford to "waste" lives. So the strategies of the PLA have always been to conserve resources, including manpower. The philosophies coming out this period have governed PLA strategies for decades. So I would believe that limiting casualties has always been in the minds of PLA generals.
Most of this "human wave" myth came out of the Korean War. Instead of "bravely attacking enemy positions in the open with no concerns for casualties", the PLA actually spent most of their time playing hide and seek with the Allied forces, attacking only at nights and using ambushes a lot. And if you look at most of the battles in the Korean War, PLA was purposefully seeking South Korean positions and focused on those positions, instead of blindly attacking the stronger American positions. The Americans did the same thing, attacking primarily NK positions. It tells me that they cared A LOT about losing lives and were doing all they could to limit it. The huge casualty they got was perhaps the best they could do given the situation while fighting an enemy technologically so much more superior than them. IF they truly cared little about casualties and attacked the Americans head-on and did not use those hide and seek maneuvers, the casualty might 10 times as much.
The 1st Gulf War had mass troop movements. You always see the footage of huge tank columns on CNN. Nearly half million troops were involved in the initial build-up. So the massive battles can happen. No matter when the casualty occurs, the bottom line is you have to put troops on the ground. And a fearless and tough troop will give you heavy advantage vs. someone who only hides behind protections. The IEDs and suicide bomb attacks that we hear so much about have been designed to inflict enough casualties and negatively affect the morale of the Allied forces. The American military is now under tremendously pressure from back home because of the high casualties. So if you are an American commander who is NOT willing to accept the high casualties, what would you do? Pull out? You see that the willingness to accept high casualties is playing a factor even now. I guess the decision made by the military has been that they are willing to accept the high casualties.
I also think it is a myth that Western militaries teach their soldiers to care more about their lives than their missions. No matter where you go, the willingness to die for one's country and to do whatever it takes to complete the mission have been drilled into every soldier's mind since the first day of their boot camp. And if you look at how they train their new recruits, you'll see that almost everything has been designed to "brainwash" the soldiers to walk in the harm's way without any hesitation. That means they want that "high casualty" mentality as well.
I honestly don't think there will a war between two superpowers any time soon because what might be at the stake. We all know no one will benefit a fight between two giants. The giants know this too.
Last edited:
one thing you guys must realize about this "fighting spirit", it does not make a difference say in the "short term" like in a firefight or whatever. it is natural for human to react differently than what you might have expected them to. some brave person may end up having a hard time shooting back, while some mediocre dude might be the guy taking control of the situation. these are all natural stuff it doesnt matter if you have a brother or sister at home.
the real difference this fighting spirit thing makes is the long term. for example, the PLA's spirit are demonstrated in the long march not because they did some crazy stuff in one battle, but because they survived impossible conditions for a year, that's what counts. and this stuff can be fostered overtime. so to say that some soldiers dont have to courage to charge at the enemy...the way i see it that should not be a big problem if its their first time because it is unavoidable. however if they refuse to carry out an order not because they are scared but because they are undisciplined, like the russians in 1917, that's a whole different issue. discipline is the number one thing in the army not bravery. 1000 brave peasants will not stand a chance against 500 disicplined soldiers.
the real difference this fighting spirit thing makes is the long term. for example, the PLA's spirit are demonstrated in the long march not because they did some crazy stuff in one battle, but because they survived impossible conditions for a year, that's what counts. and this stuff can be fostered overtime. so to say that some soldiers dont have to courage to charge at the enemy...the way i see it that should not be a big problem if its their first time because it is unavoidable. however if they refuse to carry out an order not because they are scared but because they are undisciplined, like the russians in 1917, that's a whole different issue. discipline is the number one thing in the army not bravery. 1000 brave peasants will not stand a chance against 500 disicplined soldiers.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
What do you mean by doomed. Theres life after defeat, maybe not for the leaders though
I don't think any of the major countrys leaders in their right mind will resort to nucleur weapons, if they see defeat looming in a conventional war between themselves.
vesicles
Colonel
Fully agreed. It is the morale that is affected the most in this case.