New Speacial forces pictures

See, I have seen this alot from the Chinese: "Well your equipment might be better, but our soldiers will perform better in combat".

Click to expand...

I will trow counter comment agianst what you said. You see, special forces, no matter where are by nature (just think the name) specialized units mented to perform task that normal mainstream units are not able. Or ability isen't the right word, it's more down to recource managment. It simply just isen't rational to train all your fighting units to airlandings, equipmentdiving ect. You just don't have enough recources to do so. As these task are still important, it wise to train smaller units to perform the task, hence the name "special forces".

Now to you comment: You are critisizing chinese when they raise training over equipment. Anyone ever served in army knows that it's exactly like that. No matter how fancy your equipment is, it's useless unless the troops can actually use it in the best way possiple and bringing the equipments best qualities in use. This ofcourse means in theory that if the training is equal, the units with better equipment is better...yeas, in theory. However in reality its bit different.
Modern technology has this one minor defaults, which is that people tends to be too reliant to it and forgot the basic prinsiples behind the task which the new fancy equipment is mented to perform. I've came agross this phenomenal during my armytimes. We had the privileg to operate old, (60's era) equipments and new 2000 era equipments. Altough the later was clearly superior with it's pure technical details, the older equipment was workprooven and it's analogity made us learn the given task form their fundamental basis. The differences between these two came best seen in proplem situation. When the new system went tilt (and technology does too often in filedsituations) we where left unable to perform our task until the damage was repaired which due the complexity of the technology in use mented that it had to be done far away from the damagespot. With the older equipment, there were only few proplems at the first place and even those were easily fixed becouse we knew how to adopt the system.

So what does this tells about chinese special forces? Well my point was that you cannot say that some unit may perform badly simply becouse it's equipment isen't state-of-the art. Special forces operations are pretty much down to training and human skills. To relying too much to technology may actually be a handicap when things goes wrong. Your senses, strenght, durability, observation skills and so on are in numb state and when it comes down to use them you are as usefull as boys playing computer games and suddenly dragged to the real battlefileds (slightly exxagerated but you get the point).

Experience is one issue that cannot be ignored, and yeas US special forces have huge ammount of that (tough one might argue that when the last time when US special forces were against an opponent that really made an efforrt?). But even experince is useless you can learn from it and adopt it to your training.

but in the end, wars are not won by SOFs and paratroops, it's all down to completely different persons. So trying to compare special force units is bit silly (for start from the fact that different units are mented to different tasks). If country A goes war against country B, it doesen't help if the country A has better SOF units....Infatry moves and SOFs, well stings, but it's the artillery that destroyes

No my friend, you got me all wrong.

I wasnt talking about equipment. I was talking about combat experience. that was what I was focusing on.

The PLA in general have not seen combat for what? 3 decades or something? that is the problem I was talking about.

You may have the best training in the world, but when the bullets starts flying it becomes a totally different thing.

See alot of the things, the tactics, the equipments, hand signals in the Army are perfected through combat. the two instructors in my ROTC units have both seen combat in Iraq, one of them have earend a bronze star for valor and another one silver star for valor. I tell you, they taught us alot of the things that were not taught in Army and corrected alot of the things that were wrong in the FM 7-8 (the field manuel).

and it is also through combat that you learn your weaknesses. Like for example, the ACU uniform the U.S. Army is using looks great and all, but the material is really weak they can torn in combat very easily, and now the Army is doing all it can to fix it. It is little things like this that will make a difference in combat.

and those are things that can not be learned in training alone. And this is something the PLA lacks. I doubt many of their combat instructors can abslutely seriously say that they have seen real combat.

Well I was trying to say that judging some units capabilites is difficoult when you just focus on equipments and other factors that are not directly related to the actual unit.

Like I said the experience is a benefit, but still it's not that simple issue. You cannot say that if some country haven't fought a war in decades it would fail. In fact saying so is arrogant. When my country was dragged to a war in the 1939, it's entire army was only been existing less than 20 years. Still our mens fought hard and showed superior perfroming than our opponent which had fought several times during the time when our military had existed.

What counts in the battlefield is tactics, strategies and most importantly morale. The first two of those can be taken to their best by training and having experiences help there alot. But not with fightingmorale. All troops going to the battlefield, being in the army that have fought extensivily or that have not fought a war in decades are still 95% noobs and first timers. Only the officerbase may have had previous experiences the regular troops not. Do you knwo why? Becouse the morale...those soldiers that have saw one war are not going to go to another if they can choose so (there are ofcourse exeption) They are old and many have suffered injuries so no army would put them into the first line. So those guys that went to "liberate" Iraq in 2003 where 90% in the same starting point than the guys which would go where ever the CCP tells them to do if china goes war in future...

well, you also have to take in account how poorly the Russians were at the beginning of the Second World War. The Russian Army had just under went a purge before the war began. Most of the officers in the army from comany grade to flag grade were executed by Stalin (around 80% of the officers were killed), whats left of the officers were those whose where deemed loyal to Stalin but most of them horrible combat leaders.

the tactics employed by those officers were WWI battle tactics, thus they were obsolete. Like in the Battle of Suomussalmi for example, an entire division of Russian infantry were completely destroyed after their commander foolishly marched them into a Finnish Army ambush like it was still WWI.

Actually the subject of the Ruso-Finnish War actually supports my case. Most of the Russian officers were poorly trained and those who were comparativly well trained were trained in WWI style, because even their instructors were not trained in WWII style combat. And that is pretty much what led to the poor performance of the Russian Army in the war, of course on top of poor equipment and poor morale.

What does that have to do with the case of the PLA? Have you seen pictures of the PLA in combat training? They are still using the human wave tactic for Christ's sake! Look at those men charge, and look at those men die in combat.

PS. Man I can see us having a alot of great time discussing stuff like these. Mind if I add you in my friend list? =)

PSS. no hard feeling against the Brave Fins during WWII. They are great soldiers

I think training and battlefield experience goes both ways.

In old European battlefields, where men were lined up and fired their rifles in unision, the rifles weren't very accurate and the men rarely hesitated in firing.

But when firearm became more accurate, it was later discovered that many men in battle wouldn't aim and fire at an opponent, or would shoot over their heads.

This presented a serious problem, and was not remedied until decades later, when they modified basic/firearm training to condition the soliders to shoot. This mental/physical conditioning is learned during training and usually not on the battlefield (except for irregular units).

Actually the subject of the Ruso-Finnish War actually supports my case. Most of the Russian officers were poorly trained and those who were comparativly well trained were trained in WWI style, because even their instructors were not trained in WWII style combat. And that is pretty much what led to the poor performance of the Russian Army in the war, of course on top of poor equipment and poor morale.

Click to expand...

Not eentirely true. You see although the stalins purges had huge effect on red army's combat performance, it affected more to the moral than the actual training. We are down discussing about the expereinces role in training and military performance. You must remeber that Soviets had fought alongside the long civil war, against Japanese and Polish troops and gained valuable experiences from Spanish civil war, the first truly "modern war". Also the main soviet infatry fighting tactics were not "wwI" era, but the NPP tacticks developted in the 30's. In the light of the day the Soviet army was actually one of the most "modern" in many areas...

But Like I said it didn't help them against us. We had no expereince from any wars exept from our own civil war which was notingh to compared to the one we where about to face. Our trainings and tacticks had no such benefits as our opponent had. But still we succeed. What really made the difference was tactical flexibility and innovation. We were quickly to adopt the changes in the battlefield and managed to use the changing enviroment to our own succes. But no more about finno-russian squarels in this thread...lets focus on china

What does that have to do with the case of the PLA? Have you seen pictures of the PLA in combat training? They are still using the human wave tactic for Christ's sake! Look at those men charge, and look at those men die in combat.

Click to expand...

We cannot make assumptions based on pictures only. It's true the overall strategies and tactics of all branches of PLA have been inflicted by non-rational thinking and too much politically motivated doctrines. But things have changed alot. One thing being great plus to china is it's ability to adopt changes fast. The transformation of PLA to modern fighting unit has only strated in late 80's, but comparing the huge size and the level of this transformation, you can only be amaized! Not only have chinese clearly changed their methods far more flexibily than many others when coming to their own expereinces, but the lessons of other countries wars have been studied as well. The first Gulf war was one of the main turning points and it really put the chinese to speed. In only 15 years PLA is transformed to "quantity over quality" force into modern and very potent force which just keeps on expanding it's cababilities. It's not anyway near the level of USA and perhaps other western countries, but it's steadily narrowing the cap. Anyone that is looking bit more deeply into the chinese military sector cannot no longer use those worn-out clishes of human-wawes and ect. It's almoust an insult to the huge ammount of work that have been done

So I strongly suggesting to surf around this forum and better so in the main site and learn more about chinese military...

ok corporal, and you should call me "sir" =p ah I am just joking.

I did some speed reading on some Chinese military related sites. yup I must admit they have changed alot from those human wave days. though I still quite frequently see infantrymen charge through opennings in mass. I thinks thats what gave me the impression that they are still using the human wave tactic. but you must admit they still use it, and it is outdated. and you must also admit they are going to get alot of soldiers killed with that kind of tactic. Although finding new soldiers is not a problem for them. But that is just cruel.

Now lets continue the debate on experience. There is also the equipment factor; are they properly tested in combat or not. the M-16 is a good example. A alot of problems were reported by U.S. soldiers after the M-16 were first issued to U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, for example, the M-16 jams frequently when it is not properly cleaned; mud and dirty can easily get inside the barrel; ect ect. These were not problems first forseen by the developers. And the only way they found out about those problems were through combat.

Well I guess since the type 81 is based on the Tk 47 there shouldnt be too much problems with it. But what about the new Type 95 (is that it?) and other newly issued weapons? I have heard former PLA soldiers said that the Type-95 rifles issued to their units were never used in exercises, they are instead stored in supply rooms to be prserved.

Anyhow, I dont really know the little details about the PLA Army training. I dunno how well they have tested the Type 95 rifle and all their other new equipments. So thats up to you to tell me

=)

ok corporal, and you should call me "sir" =p ah I am just joking.

Click to expand...

GTJ=0

I did some speed reading on some Chinese military related sites. yup I must admit they have changed alot from those human wave days. though I still quite frequently see infantrymen charge through opennings in mass. I thinks thats what gave me the impression that they are still using the human wave tactic. but you must admit they still use it, and it is outdated. and you must also admit they are going to get alot of soldiers killed with that kind of tactic. Although finding new soldiers is not a problem for them. But that is just cruel.

Click to expand...

The tactic is as stubid as it sounds and yeas many men would die if they use it. But thats not the case any longer. Also the large numbers of mens running down a hill yelling their lungs out is good set for propaganda pics, which many of chinese military pictures are.

Now lets continue the debate on experience. There is also the equipment factor; are they properly tested in combat or not. the M-16 is a good example. A alot of problems were reported by U.S. soldiers after the M-16 were first issued to U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, for example, the M-16 jams frequently when it is not properly cleaned; mud and dirty can easily get inside the barrel; ect ect. These were not problems first forseen by the developers. And the only way they found out about those problems were through combat.

Click to expand...

Well finding out wheter assault rifle stands for filed operational use is not anyway tied to combat. The enviromental conditions are comming from anture, and nature doesen't care wheter you are fighting or training. Our exercises were muddy and snowy, but due the kalashnikoviks phenomenal rugimendity, we were left only amaizing it's capabilities. Once my rifle was laying in the mud for several days without shooting with it(in artillerycrew the rifles are only in the way) and I was then suddenly forced to fire it in combat exersice without the ability to clean and maintenance the rifle. After the exercise I poned the gun for cleaning and there was lot of mud, needles and entire pinecone inside the gun and it still didn't jam while I was shooting with it...

Well I guess since the type 81 is based on the Tk 47 there shouldnt be too much problems with it. But what about the new Type 95 (is that it?) and other newly issued weapons? I have heard former PLA soldiers said that the Type-95 rifles issued to their units were never used in exercises, they are instead stored in supply rooms to be prserved.

Click to expand...

Type 95 is only been issued to elite units and is under transition phase. The new calibre and Bulpub type rifle takes time to adjusting. But as for I know, the mechanism of the rifle is based to the Type 81 (which isen't exatly copy of Kalashnikovik, but a longheaded derivation) so it's rudgimenty should be as good as with old AK...

So thats up to you to tell me

Click to expand...

I only know so little as I've come different side of the globe than chinese but thats why there is internet forums...

This is a shocker, it is on the PLA paratrooper.

It is on the performance of the PLA paratroops druing the Russo-Sino joint military exercise. It is going to be a short one, but hell, they issue weapons and ammos to their paratroopers AFTER they landed. And appearently they also lost an amor personnel carrier during the landing.

Hell, if their is a battalion just happens to move pass the DZ, I can see entire division of paratroopers getting completely wiped out this way.

PS. this aint rumor, it was in their news




If I am a sniper and I saw this, the only thing I would say is "jackpot" And this is the special forces, that red armband totally gave their position away. they sticks out like a sour thumb. =/ Hope they dont do that in real combat, they are gonna get alot of people killed this way.

See their uniform is on the ok side,it might take half a minute for me to figure out, those arent shadows of rocks; but that arm band, man they look like little beacons.

Again, what you heard about the paratroops was wrong , this rumor was first started by a Hongkong newspaper, and now it is getting spread all over the internet.

Regarding your comments on the Type 95 rifles, well, we may never say Type 95 get adopted in large quantity. There is always a debate on this bullput layout over conventional layout issues. If you see the PLA small arms development, after Type 95 came out, there was also Type 03 which use conventional layout. Around the world, France and British are using this bullput rifles, while Russia, German and US still use conventional layout rifles such as AK-101, G36 and M4, and G36 is usually considered as the best rifle.

Type-81 itself is a fine rifle, and it was combat proven in Sino-Vietnam border clash from 1984-1986. I don't see why PLA need to replace it, remember PLA along has more than one million soldiers, if you count armed policies, PLA may need to replace over two million rifles. That's a lot of money, and does it really increase PLA's combat ability by replacing Type 81 with Type 95? I don't think so. With this amount of money, there are many more important things can be done instead of replacing rifles for the sake of looking mordern.

green beret said:

This is a shocker, it is on the PLA paratrooper.

It is on the performance of the PLA paratroops druing the Russo-Sino joint military exercise. It is going to be a short one, but hell, they issue weapons and ammos to their paratroopers AFTER they landed. And appearently they also lost an amor personnel carrier during the landing.

Hell, if their is a battalion just happens to move pass the DZ, I can see entire division of paratroopers getting completely wiped out this way.

Click to expand...