Future PLAN orbat discussion

manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Jura said:
OK I'll say it loud so that you get what I mean, but it's going to be a politically-incorrect post:
the thing is to have troops who have killed in action (plus have seen their fellow soldiers getting killed in action),
and commanders who have ordered this (plus have lost some of their subordinates),
which I suspect is the point of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
You might have to say it even louder because I still don't get what you mean.

We're talking about the most effective way to train soldiers to fight real wars, right? That's what I'm talking about.

Now you're suddenly talking about how people can be killed in action? I know that; a soldier's occupation is dangerous. That's not politically incorrect to say it either. I don't know what you're talking about and I don't care to restate the obvious with you either. As Biscuits laid out in 7106, yes, a very small number of soldiers can die when a vastly superior force attacks a small and primitive defense. I don't care to argue that.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
manqiangrexue said:
You might have to say it even louder because I still don't get what you mean.

We're talking about the most effective way to train soldiers to fight real wars, right? That's what I'm talking about.

Now you're suddenly talking about how people can be killed in action? I know that; a soldier's occupation is dangerous. That's not politically incorrect to say it either. I don't know what you're talking about and I don't care to restate the obvious with you either. As Biscuits laid out in 7106, yes, a very small number of soldiers can die when a vastly superior force attacks a small and primitive defense. I don't care to argue that.
Click to expand...
please google
"thousand-yard stare"

(to Mods: I'm done)
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
manqiangrexue said:
We're not talking about the same thing! I'm talking about making soldiers effective for combat and you're talking about the human costs of war.
Click to expand...
nah, I'm saying your army needs guys with a real experience, not (figuratively speaking) paintball players

it's
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
so pick another thread or send me a Private Message in case you wanted to go on

I'm sorry, Mods, I veered off topic
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Jura said:
nah, I'm saying your army needs guys with a real experience, not (figuratively speaking) paintball players

it's
Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
so pick another thread or send me a Private Message in case you wanted to go on

I'm sorry, Mods, I veered off topic
Click to expand...
Reread:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-711#post-573463
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-710#post-573449

In a nutshell, there's "real" experience and there's relevant experience; nobody (or hardly anybody) in the world has real relevant experience, and confusing one for the other can do you more harm than good.
 
J

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
I would disagree on most of this

Control of the 1st and 2nd Island chains (thereby protecting coastal China) is the top priority for the Chinese Navy, not sending ships off to the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.

By that measure, 3 dozen Type-55 is insufficient to dominate the 1st island chain.
Click to expand...

No, China does NOT need to control any so-called chains. What China needs to do is to render these chains useless against China, that's it. As soon as China start to put "controlling a chain" of international water as its goal, it will be a bottomless pit of military spending. That defeats the purpose of the Chinese defense doctrine. One of the key factor of China's rise, is its extremely smart defense doctrine which guaranteed peace at lowest cost possible.

It is much easier to challenge one's control of international water/space than to ensure the control of it. Strategically speaking, one of the best thing in Asia for China is the fact that South Korea, Japan and some other small countries are all close US allies. This means that, with sufficiently powerful conventional rocket (ballistic or cruise missile) forces alone, China can pretty much hold South Korea and Japan hostage, by holding their maritime trade route hostage. This is a powerful enough strategic leverage against any US attempt to straggle Chinese maritime trade route, because China's trade route also overlaps with many US allies that are much more depended and vulnerable on maritime trade.
 
W

williamhou

Junior Member
jimmyjames30x30 said:
No, China does NOT need to control any so-called chains. What China needs to do is to render these chains useless against China, that's it. As soon as China start to put "controlling a chain" of international water as its goal, it will be a bottomless pit of military spending. That defeats the purpose of the Chinese defense doctrine. One of the key factor of China's rise, is its extremely smart defense doctrine which guaranteed peace at lowest cost possible.

It is much easier to challenge one's control of international water/space than to ensure the control of it. Strategically speaking, one of the best thing in Asia for China is the fact that South Korea, Japan and some other small countries are all close US allies. This means that, with sufficiently powerful conventional rocket (ballistic or cruise missile) forces alone, China can pretty much hold South Korea and Japan hostage, by holding their maritime trade route hostage. This is a powerful enough strategic leverage against any US attempt to straggle Chinese maritime trade route, because China's trade route also overlaps with many US allies that are much more depended and vulnerable on maritime trade.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting the use of ASBM against merchant ships thousands of miles away?
 
T

Tyler

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
I would disagree on most of this

Control of the 1st and 2nd Island chains (thereby protecting coastal China) is the top priority for the Chinese Navy, not sending ships off to the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.

By that measure, 3 dozen Type-55 is insufficient to dominate the 1st island chain.
Click to expand...

China's biggest adversary has about 90 of the biggest DDG and littoral warships. China really needs a comparable number of type 052 and type 055, just to counter the biggest adversary and its so-called allies.
 
J

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
williamhou said:
Are you suggesting the use of ASBM against merchant ships thousands of miles away?
Click to expand...

ASBM is for foreign military ships that are providing protection and exerting control over sea lanes. With ASBM, a country with a smaller navy could successfully contend with a country with larger navy. Especially against huge surface assets like nuclear powered aircraft carriers and LHD's. The thing about China is that, in the long run, China will field all of those asset, except in much smaller numbers than the US and her allies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top