solarz
Brigadier
Ughh.... seriously man? That's really weak.
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Ughh.... seriously man? That's really weak.
There are some silly statements in the report. An example below.
"Some analysts have argued that the PLA adopted the US model of Theatre Command. However, the US approach fundamentally differs in geographical extent and responsibility structure: US Theatre Commands are global and externally oriented while PLA Military Theatre Commands are restricted to China’s national boundaries."
But Southern Theatre Command has a Navy commander in charge, because the primary theatre is the South China Seas.
Eastern Theatre Command has an Air Force commander in charge, because the primary theatres are Taiwan and Japan.
It's obvious that the Theatre Commands in China are going to project power beyond mainland China.
---
And they're talking about the military situation back in 2018 which is over 4 years ago.
---
But the biggest difference is that Russia has conscripts who only serve 1 year in Russia, with 4-8 months taken up with initial training.
In comparison, China has volunteers who serve 2 years in a conscript style system. And front-line units are fully manned at all times with volunteer conscripts who serve for 18 months, after having completed 6 months of initial training. I can't emphasise enough that volunteers have a very different mentality to grudging conscripts.
In addition, the Chinese military retains the Brigade as the smallest independent combat unit, like the USA or Taiwan.
China has consciously not followed the Russians in making the smallest independent combat unit a Battalion Tactical Group.
If you have a defensive doctrine (which means supply lines are less of an issue) and if you don't have enough infantry (ie. Russian conscripts), then yes, Battalion Tactical Groups make sense because you concentrate on firepower rather than infantry or logistics. But in the case of Ukraine, Russia actually was fighting an offensive war with long supply lines and a requirement for infantry to take and hold cities.
In the event of conflict involving China, the Chinese military would be expected to conduct offensive operations into enemy territory rather than fight defensively on Chinese territory. That applies to all the frontline Theatre Commands (eg. potential operations in Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, India). So expeditionary missions require a Brigade-level structure with sufficient infantry and logistics support.
PLA was never trained by the Russians nor had Russian military command advisors, so how could PLA doctrine and command be derived from Russian ones?
Russian military developed from Soviet and Imperial Russian doctrine.
PLA doctrine on the other hand is a Chinese doctrine, derived from KMT doctrine, which was basically Imperial Japan mixed with some traditional doctrine as most KMT officers were trained by Imperial Japan, and when they defected to the PLA, they took their command doctrine with them.
We're you the author of this abbreviated study or you're simply basing your opinion and analysis from this article? Because that would be short sighted and more than a gross underestimation of the PLA as a credible fighting force.
The constant use or reference to Russia-Ukraine conflict is lazy and unfortunate. The Russian strategy is what caused the overall anemic result on the battlefield more so than it's perceived "ineffectiveness" and defectiveness versus a military that's not exactly lacking in training, morale, manpower, and adequate equipment. Ukraine military had the 2nd numerous serviceable battle tanks in Europe.
Importantly, Russian military isn't exactly the best funded military something that the PLA isn't exactly struggling or scraping by now are they?
I have yet to be convinced as to where, when did America fought an almost equal peer military because the war in Iraq against 3rd rate military equipment, training, mismatched doctrine is just simply LOL..
Rigidity of command structure is what's causing the modern Russian professional military to lose in Ukraine? Lol come on now dude, show some evidence of this and not just regurgitate something that supports your western bias so we can at least be allowed to look at the instances where this has happened. Your exclamation point does not make what you wrote anymore true it is nothing but an insertion of political bullshit disguise as a military analysis. It's the classic "Democracy warriors" fight better versus "Automaton Commies" trope.
I think you guys overestimate the capability of the equipment of the Chinese ground forces. The surface navy and some components of the air force like fighters are leading edge. The ground forces have world leading artillery. Anti-air systems are also better than US ones. But the main battle tanks, IFVs, helicopters, personal equipment, etc still leave much to be desired. With regards to training I am sure it is quite extensive but we have no evidence of how the PLA would actually perform in real combat. And while China is a world leader in commercial drone technology and probably number two in military drones the capability and number of military drones actually in service is probably not quite there yet either.
Chinese army/ground force not Chinese military
That is where the difference lies really as the PLAGF would be able to expect vastly superior support from the PLAAF/RF.
Are there units in the PLAGF with poor obsolete weapons? Yes.
Would the PLAGF be able to put together 200,000 men (the size of Russia's forces in Ukraine) who are vastly better equipped than Russia and enjoy vastly superior logistics support? Also yes.
Not ground force by far. Ground force doctrine is 100% domestic, from experience in the Chinese Civil War and WW2, which is People's War and KMT doctrine. KMT doctrine was heavily influenced by Imperial Japan (and yes, the Soviet Union, but more Japanese).
PLA never had foreign doctrine advisors or sent officers to foreign schools like even the KMT did. PLA fights like the PLA.
One concrete example of PLA difference with Russians and Americans: both Russians and Americans actually have a similar strategy at heart, at least as written during the Cold War. They soften up their targets with long range indirect fire like artillery or airstrikes, then move in. Russians are a bit more aggressive with force in recon and proving attacks per Deep Battle doctrine but at it's core is basically, poke with artillery first then rush in.
PLA doctrine has been to strike first, strike hard with no warning, using maneuver, to simply overrun the enemy with shock, surprise and direct firepower. Artillery follows up after maneuver to eliminate pockets of resistance, it is part of the mop up, not the starter. Long range fires are to enable this sort of maneuver by taking out enemy early warning, recon and interdiction assets.
Proof: Korean War, Sino-Indian War, 1979 vs. Vietnam. PLA trained forces such as KPA and PAVN also fought this way with KPA overrunning the ROKAF within weeks before US intervention and PAVN overrunning the ARVN within months after US left.
PLA doctrine has been to strike first, strike hard with no warning, using maneuver, to simply overrun the enemy with shock, surprise and direct firepower. Artillery follows up after maneuver to eliminate pockets of resistance, it is part of the mop up, not the starter. Long range fires are to enable this sort of maneuver by taking out enemy early warning, recon and interdiction assets.
Proof: Korean War, Sino-Indian War, 1979 vs. Vietnam. PLA trained forces such as KPA and PAVN also fought this way with KPA overrunning the ROKAF within weeks before US intervention and PAVN overrunning the ARVN within months after US left.
I went through the article by Mandip Singh, Dean at the Indian Army's War College. Boy was I not impressed by the content.
Here is how he justifies the similarity between Russian military and the PLA:
- "Equipment homogeneity. China’s modern weaponry, including indigenously produced equipment, is basically the same as Russia’s."
- Where the hell do we even start to unpack this? Where's the Russian equivalent of the J20, Type 055, Type 052D, Type 075, PCL-181, Type 15, UAVs, etc? It's false...I'll let others debunk it even more. Granted the PLAGF has received much less focus than the PLAAF and PLAN.
- "Geopolitics. China and Russia are traditionally land-centric countries that share a long border and similar geography. There is a convergence of thinking on the roles envisaged for their militaries. Both militaries also originate in similar political systems and socio-political habits."
- No. China is significantly more invested in sea trade than Russia. Furthermore China's geography is not similar to Russian geography. No the PLA does not originate similarly to the Russian army beyond superficial comparisons of "communism".
- "Basic military strategy and doctrine. The fundamental military strategy adopted by both is ‘strategic defense’, or as the PLA’s stated military strategy calls it, ‘active defense’. Turning to perceived internal threats, both nations identify challenges from the “three evil forces” of separatism, terrorism, and religious extremism. PLA thinkers have studied Russia’s counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan and the Chechnya wars in great detail.[3]"
- One could easily argue that the PLA also extensively studied the US's "War on Terror". The source for this claim is from 2011...
- International military security. According to PLA sources, China and Russia have cooperated in safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime; in promoting denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula; countering terrorism; maintaining cyber security; opposing the militarization of space; and encouraged the cessation of Cold War mindsets in many countries.
- Nuclear non-proliferation is pursued by a lot more countries than just China and Russia. This list is so broad that many points were also pursued by the US and NATO as well.
"A rigid command structure that doesn't allow initiative from below. This maybe the biggest problem of the PLA today!"
I read the article and that's not a criticism they explicitly make. A lot more of the article is actually spent talking about PLA reforms tackling corruption and increasing civilian/party oversight and control.
Let's address the elephant in the room and explain why the PLA does not originate similarly to the Russian or Soviet army.
- The PLA completely changed during the 1930s after the Long March. The only resemblance to the Soviet Army retained was the presence of political officers. Even then political officers in the PLA are not involved in command and act more as instructors involved in political education and morale.
- It is important to note that the KMT were more influenced by the German military and IJA than the Soviets or US. Following the PRC victory in the civil the PLA absorbed KMT troops that carried that influence forward.
- The PLA during the 1930s and Second Sino-Japanese War was organized with a large guerilla component. This necessitated a heavily decentralized command structure since there was no possible means of keeping in constant contact with individual guerilla elements operating behind Japanese and KMT front lines. This meant commanding officers in guerilla units were expected to operate completely independantly and without input from higher command.
- Guerilla commanders would even be expected to organise troop training without needing to adhere to a centralised doctrine.
- Even in the later People's War doctrine guerilla war was an important component.
- Peng Dehuai did not agree with Zhukov on military doctrine. Zhukov argued that the opening phase of the war was the most important. Peng Dehuai argued that there was no way to predict tactical outcomes and that the military withstanding tactical defeats was more important.
- The key difference is that Peng stressed being able to create new plans and adapt quickly to whatever the initial outcome was following the start of a war. This comes with the draw back that hastily-planned operations can turn bad and ugly real quick.
- It is more arguable that recent attempts at centralizing the PLA is a reaction to the short comings of a historically decentralised army.
- Excessive decentralisation hampers joint coordination and encourages more incidents of insubordination.
- The modern PLA now has a much wider choice in Artillery, Air and Naval support that necessitates improved coordination and joint fighting, rather than decentralisation.
- Making use of improved coordination and fire support allows the PLA to reduce casualty rates more than in previous historical wars.
Special Forces:
"The PLA differs from other modern militaries in not putting PLASOF under a national level headquarters. The US has placed Special Forces Command at the apex level, as does Russia with the Special Operations Forces Command (KSSO). ... There has been an immense change, as each group expanded to an SOF brigade within each Combined Corps and these SOF brigades have doubled in strength to between 2,000 and 3,000 personnel."
PLA special forces are not necessarily directly comparable. Some units classified by the PLA as SOF operate more similar to well trained light infantry, reconnaissance or "Ranger" units than elite specialized special forces.
Here's a section on engines:
"In recent years, China has acquired Russian engines for its newest fighters and bombers, which are more reliable and perform better than its own versions. Russian engines are used on all three of China’s indigenous fourth-generation fighter lines. China also seems interested in outfitting its prototype fifth-generation J-31 fighters with next-generation Russian engines[45]."
Anyone following developments knows this is false. The PLAAF is moving to the WS-10 and developing the WS-15, not Russian engines. The source is also from the Moscow Times, do we really expect the Russians to say their engines are being replaced?
Mechanised Warfare:
"As all PLA mechanised formations are equipped with Russian derivatives, they continue to imbue the same philosophy. The PLA’s modern Type 96 (similar to T-72) or the older T-59/ T-62/T-63, or even the ZBD-03/ZBD 04/WZ-551/ WZ-553 series of ICVs, are all of Russian design and focus on better and accurate firepower rather than manoeuvre."
No mention of the Type 99 or Type 15 and the Type 96 is comparable to T-59s? Also what qualifies as "Russian" design? There's also no mention of the ZBD-05 or ZBL-08.
- Status