New Speacial forces pictures

Two things I like to comment on..

1) Human waves attack..

Human wave attack is not dead.. several circumstances and situations warrants it. Mountainous, rocky and high forested areas where armour units are hampered, for example.. sino-India war.

If we examine the WWI tranch war.. why does this situation exist ? Well, because both parties are equally matched in strength and technology.. neither owns the sky.. nor Armour units were available (early part of the war) and both sides has no lack of arty shells... and no assault rifle.

To say the US don't practice this tactic, is because since WWII (except Korea war) is that they have always been fighting Third rate militaries and have always had air-superiority... another reason is they have always fought wars on enemies homeland... that's why in Vietnam, The vietcon and NVA were always charging at them, while they hunker down in their firebase hitting meatwall and arty, naplaming and bombing them from the air. while the NVA has only Mortars and rpg.. whatelse can they do.. charge !!! The NVA obviously, in soul , wants them off their land, and the GIs had nowhere else to go. It's like trying to dislodge a tree.

Also, doing amphivious beach landing.. isn't that a form of human wave tactic ?

Should US be fighting another enemy with relative equal terms and could not obtain air-superiority.. and the enemy has tons of manpads, atms, armour, sizable competent Air force and a comprehensive sam networks... they would likely need to resort to human wave tactics to capture their objectives too.. don't you think ?

2) Ridiculious camo colours combo used by PLA, PLAN.

You notice that the PLAAF, PLAN and PAP paints their wares in White and armour units in bright blue/white.. and their marine units too.

Well, the reason.. I believe is that they are trying to portray themselves as a Docile entity and not a threat.. because of Western (more likely US) rhetoric harping the 'China Threat'.. because any half blind military commander would know those camo are not effective... in real war scenario, I believe the uniforms wil be very differently camo-ed.

If you read up on some Korean War sites, they dispel the myth of the ubiquitous human wave charge by the PVA. The PVA only used human waves when capturing the objective in a timely manner meant high casualties were acceptable (Chinese generals actually consider casualties, not as inhuman as the West dearly wants to believe "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient.")

RedMercury said:

If you read up on some Korean War sites, they dispel the myth of the ubiquitous human wave charge by the PVA. The PVA only used human waves when capturing the objective in a timely manner meant high casualties were acceptable (Chinese generals actually consider casualties, not as inhuman as the West dearly wants to believe "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient.")

Click to expand...

Yes, I've read it too. The PVA's tactic was to assert pressure to the front, while trying to encircle them from thier flank, cutting off supply and escape route. The UN forces would usually panick and abandon their positions to escape, thus a quick victory over their objective.

However, I was in fact pointing to todays US/Isreal tactics used. Why was it possible...because they have enormous firepower and air superiority.. fighting a relative weak opponent. They bomb the living hell out of their enemy, precison bomb their strategic assets, and goes in with copters and armour, with pockets of boots to clean up remaining resistance.

Should they be fighting an enemy with equal terms, I suspect the US would not engage, or would have to resort to some form of human wave tactic to capture enemy's positions... how else ?

mobydog said:

Should they be fighting an enemy with equal terms, I suspect the US would not engage, or would have to resort to some form of human wave tactic to capture enemy's positions... how else ?

Click to expand...

As a future U.S. Army officer I cant see myself ordering a human wave attack under any condition, or do I think any other officers would do the same. Because a human wave assault is just plain foolish, it has tremendous cost of human lives, and it rarely gets the job done. And it is simply preposterous to think that the U.S. Army is designed to fight weaker armies.

This is the standard way used by the U.S. Army is capture an enemy position: Unit A found enemy position; Unit A engages the enemy and put suppressing fire on the enemy ; Unit B which has been following Unit A, flanks the enemy position and captures it.

This is the the tactic the Chinese used in the Korean War: Unit found enemy position; Unit A launches wave after wave of human wave attack on the enemy to put pressure on the enemy; Unit B flanks the enemy, cut off its retreat, and Unit A captures enemy position.

From this you can see that the purpose of the human wave tactic is the equal of that of the suppressing fire used by the U.S. Army. But the whole reason behind the human wave tactic is simply because the Chinese Army back than had little or no crew served weapons thus could not achieve fire superiority over the U.S. and thats why they had to use their soldiers' lives to achieve that.

after reading this, I want laugh big time!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

******** Ahem, did u read the rule of the forum, you need to respect people, and i think that was unrespectuful !!! Watch out !

First of all, who ever taught you WWI history deserves to be shot.

The reason the "human waves" were used in WWI was because the generals on both sides during the war were still using tactics of the 19th century. And reasons why 19th century warfare was fought with the so called huma n wave tactic is because the rifle, or in its earlier form, the musket, were used as an alternative to pikes, thus musketeers were marched into combat
in large formations just like the pikemen would.

But battlefield tactics were quickly changed after WWI, because the human wave tactic was not suitable for modern warfare anymore due to several factor. One is the rifle, the killing range of a single riflemen increased from 200m to 1000m with the introduction of the rifle. Two is the machine gun, capable of firing hundreds of bullets per minutes, entire company of charging infantrymen can be wiped out in minutes by a machine gun.

During the WWI, nearly 10 million men killed and 200 million were wounded on both sides in the period of 4 years. Military strategists of both sides after the war realized that battlefield tactics needs to be changed to avoid sacrificing so many lives.

Also let me ask you this:
have you ever been to combat? or have you at least played a game of paint ball before? I not, I want to invite you to play a game of paint ball with me, bring your friends too if you want.

paint ball is similar too real combat, but instead of firing bullets, you fire little balls of paint. It can be played with teams of any sizes, but we usually play with 40 vs 40. I can tell you right now, if your team just get up and charge blindly into our poistion you will get your ass raped big time, your team will be wiped out in the first minutes of the game.

but instead the best tactics is to split your team into smaller teams. the tactic we use to to send two or three teams out to locate the enemy position, and engage the team to pin them down. They would than radio to the rest of the team their location and size, the rest of the teams would than flank the enemy position and wipe them out.

And if we have to fight an enemy as strong as us, such as the PLA, we would still use the same tactic similar to the one described by me.

mobydog said:

Two things I like to comment on..

1) Human waves attack..

Human wave attack is not dead.. several circumstances and situations warrants it. Mountainous, rocky and high forested areas where armour units are hampered, for example.. sino-India war.

If we examine the WWI tranch war.. why does this situation exist ? Well, because both parties are equally matched in strength and technology.. neither owns the sky.. nor Armour units were available (early part of the war) and both sides has no lack of arty shells... and no assault rifle.

To say the US don't practice this tactic, is because since WWII (except Korea war) is that they have always been fighting Third rate militaries and have always had air-superiority... another reason is they have always fought wars on enemies homeland... that's why in Vietnam, The vietcon and NVA were always charging at them, while they hunker down in their firebase hitting meatwall and arty, naplaming and bombing them from the air. while the NVA has only Mortars and rpg.. whatelse can they do.. charge !!! The NVA obviously, in soul , wants them off their land, and the GIs had nowhere else to go. It's like trying to dislodge a tree.

Also, doing amphivious beach landing.. isn't that a form of human wave tactic ?

Should US be fighting another enemy with relative equal terms and could not obtain air-superiority.. and the enemy has tons of manpads, atms, armour, sizable competent Air force and a comprehensive sam networks... they would likely need to resort to human wave tactics to capture their objectives too.. don't you think ?

Click to expand...

green beret said:

after reading this, I want laugh big time!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

****************************************************************************************************************************

First of all, who ever taught you WWI history deserves to be shot.

The reason the "human waves" were used in WWI was because the generals on both sides during the war were still using tactics of the 19th century. And reasons why 19th century warfare was fought with the so called huma n wave tactic is because the rifle, or in its earlier form, the musket, were used as an alternative to pikes, thus musketeers were marched into combat
in large formations just like the pikemen would.

But battlefield tactics were quickly changed after WWI, because the human wave tactic was not suitable for modern warfare anymore due to several factor. One is the rifle, the killing range of a single riflemen increased from 200m to 1000m with the introduction of the rifle. Two is the machine gun, capable of firing hundreds of bullets per minutes, entire company of charging infantrymen can be wiped out in minutes by a machine gun.

During the WWI, nearly 10 million men killed and 200 million were wounded on both sides in the period of 4 years. Military strategists of both sides after the war realized that battlefield tactics needs to be changed to avoid sacrificing so many lives.

Also let me ask you this:
have you ever been to combat? or have you at least played a game of paint ball before? I not, I want to invite you to play a game of paint ball with me, bring your friends too if you want.

paint ball is similar too real combat, but instead of firing bullets, you fire little balls of paint. It can be played with teams of any sizes, but we usually play with 40 vs 40. I can tell you right now, if your team just get up and charge blindly into our poistion you will get your ass raped big time, your team will be wiped out in the first minutes of the game.

but instead the best tactics is to split your team into smaller teams. the tactic we use to to send two or three teams out to locate the enemy position, and engage the team to pin them down. They would than radio to the rest of the team their location and size, the rest of the teams would than flank the enemy position and wipe them out.

And if we have to fight an enemy as strong as us, such as the PLA, we would still use the same tactic similar to the one described by me.

Click to expand...

If enemy's strenght is as powerful as yours, don't you think by laying suppression fire on them don't actually work because they too have powerful firepower to pin you down. In in many cases, before your reinforcement or flanking unit could come in, they might already have sent units out to flank you and cut you off.

I believe that the best way is to infiltrate snipers or commandoes into their position and take out important targets and installations. Make use of your strenght against their weaknesses.

In any terms, shooting hell of a lot of bullets and pray they are enough is often not enough. I believe that each army would have their own weaknesses and strenght so in this case, before entering a war, info on the opposing army is of utmost importance in any planning by strategist down to commanders.

Just a thought.

Of course laying surpressing fire works.

There a few keys to achieve fire superiority over the enemy. Face it, when you get hit by an AK-74 round, you are about as ****** as getting hit by a M4 round. All is fair in battle for the infantry. Thus the key is bravery. When the enemy starts firing at you, if you just get down and get into a fetile position, there is no way you can win. The first thing you should do is get down on the ground and immediately starts returning fire. Than the commander would direct the machines guns and call indirect fire on the enemy position.

As for the flanking enemy thing. You see each forward unit is usually followed by a supporting unit. You will usually always have a squad (platoon, comany) in the front, and another one following it. So it all depends on the situation. If the enemy got pinned down, you can send the supporting unit to flank them, to the enemy tries to flank the forward unit, you can send the supporting unit to stop them.

And of course it is best to send in aircraft and use special forces to disrupt the enemy. but you are talking about strategy here, and I am talking about tactic.

okay guys, it's time to calm down...

First of all, who ever taught you WWI history deserves to be shot.

The reason the "human waves" were used in WWI was because the generals on both sides during the war were still using tactics of the 19th century. And reasons why 19th century warfare was fought with the so called huma n wave tactic is because the rifle, or in its earlier form, the musket, were used as an alternative to pikes, thus musketeers were marched into combat
in large formations just like the pikemen would.

Click to expand...

May I asked what's your understanding of 'Human wave' is ?

Those musket cannon fodders were standing and advancing shoulder to shoulder, and later break into a charge, when it's up close... this is not case in WWI.

To me.. Human wave is charging your objectives with sizable infantry force to seize quick victory. Who doesn't want to bomb and do an armour run into the enemy's positions... if they had the means. But that doesn't mean, soldiers do not need to charge the location, if armour is hampered and bombing cannot dislodge them.. in the mountain ranges for instance.

But battlefield tactics were quickly changed after WWI, because the human wave tactic was not suitable for modern warfare anymore due to several factor. One is the rifle, the killing range of a single riflemen increased from 200m to 1000m with the introduction of the rifle. Two is the machine gun, capable of firing hundreds of bullets per minutes, entire company of charging infantrymen can be wiped out in minutes by a machine gun

During the WWI, nearly 10 million men killed and 200 million were wounded on both sides in the period of 4 years. Military strategists of both sides after the war realized that battlefield tactics needs to be changed to avoid sacrificing so many lives..

Click to expand...

Machine-guns were very present during WWI. I would say it was armour, sub-machine guns and proved air-power that shaped the tactics from the trench war....

Human wave tactics were still comonly used by all parties during WWII.. the Brits were very much into it in Africa, inspite of having armour and Air power. Because there were not much cover in the desert.. you need boots to secure and capture objective. You can't be shooting each other in the open.

Also let me ask you this:
have you ever been to combat? or have you at least played a game of paint ball before? I not, I want to invite you to play a game of paint ball with me, bring your friends too if you want.

Click to expand...

No thanks, I have been serving as reservist for 11 yrs now. I would recommend you War games and live firing exercises instead.

paint ball is similar too real combat, but instead of firing bullets, you fire little balls of paint. It can be played with teams of any sizes, but we usually play with 40 vs 40. I can tell you right now, if your team just get up and charge blindly into our poistion you will get your ass raped big time, your team will be wiped out in the first minutes of the game.

Click to expand...

Not when when I have arty, mortar, air-strikes and napalm exploding around you... and armour charging with me...

but instead the best tactics is to split your team into smaller teams. the tactic we use to to send two or three teams out to locate the enemy position, and engage the team to pin them down. They would than radio to the rest of the team their location and size, the rest of the teams would than flank the enemy position and wipe them out.

Click to expand...

Your enemy's leader must be an air-head.. what made you think your opponent doesn't do the same. Shooting paintballs in a limited space and engaging competent infantry force is two different things.

And if we have to fight an enemy as strong as us, such as the PLA, we would still use the same tactic similar to the one described by me.

Click to expand...

You ignored alot of other attributes.

How do you do airstrikes confidently if your enemy had air-defense and AC in the air ?

How do you get reinforcements or EVAC from the air, if your enemies had manpads ?

You arty me, and I arty you. You bomb me and I bomb you. You machinegun me, I machine gun you.... you got more armour than me , I have ATMs (Vice Visa)... understand what I'm getting at.

Of course, in the whole scheme of things, the war arena would be chaotic.. and you cannot have equal forces thru out the front line... then tactics, mistakes and some luck comes in... but it could go either way.. IF THEY ARE ON EQUAL TERMS.

No need to make fool of yourself greeny by stating silly stuff like "paint ball is close to real combat" and so on...that could be taken offense by those who have actually beeing in one.

Also this thread is gone way to far from it's orginal topic which is chinese special forces pictures. So lets cut this off-topic stuff. If you wish to discuss more about some matters being discussed in here, why not start a new thread? (in the limits of our rules tough) ff ff

I agree with u golly, this comparison of paintball and infantry tactics is really insulting. And for those who have felt the tiredness, pain, sweat and plain fear of having all sorts of stuff flying around u..... its even more insulting. And this lack of understanding of strategy, tactics and history is not one bit pleasant.

Anyway, does anyone know the number of PLA special forces currently in service. Last time read a few yrs ago they said they had roughly 500 000 special forces of various types. Is this true?????? enlighten me