It is definitely useful to train in a disadvantaged environment, especially if that is the more likely and realistic scenario. However it is also important to practice being able to maximize performance when operating on an equal footing with an opponent or in an advantageous setting. The requisite sophistication and nerve for decisiveness to operate well when all means are at one's disposal is a different kind of challenge that is also difficult.
New Type98/99 MBT thread
- Thread starter Dongfeng
- Start date
It is definitely useful to train in a disadvantaged environment, especially if that is the more likely and realistic scenario. However it is also important to practice being able to maximize performance when operating on an equal footing with an opponent or in an advantageous setting. The requisite sophistication and nerve for decisiveness to operate well when all means are at one's disposal is a different kind of challenge that is also difficult.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
And do you have any proof of US military commanders re scripting the battlefield conditions to be more favorable to the visiting party ? Because as far as we can tell, US training simulations like Red Flag Blue Flag, National Joint Training Center and as well as annual Japan-US training stimulates the worse case scenarios for all visiting forces. As one pilot would quote the first Gulf War "It is almost as hard as Red Flag".
And they are rather frank in their appraisals of current doctrinal practices being tested by various armed branches, such as the rather damning report of how military commanders attempting to Strykers in lieu of MBTs fail spectacularly when the opposing side have actual MBTs as counter.
Last edited by a moderator:
@Viktor Jav
This is probably the most egregious and declassified example.
“It is almost as hard as red flag”
That really doesn’t engender confidence. It’s like a heavyweight boxer saying “beating up that malnourished teenager was almost as hard as my training regimen!” before entering the ring.
Ofc that exercise was back in 2002 (otherwise it wouldn’t have been declassified), maybe today they do train for worst case scenarios with no satellites, tactical nuke ASBM and total red air superiority. We can’t know for sure until the 2018 exercises get declassified.
This is probably the most egregious and declassified example.
“It is almost as hard as red flag”
That really doesn’t engender confidence. It’s like a heavyweight boxer saying “beating up that malnourished teenager was almost as hard as my training regimen!” before entering the ring.
Ofc that exercise was back in 2002 (otherwise it wouldn’t have been declassified), maybe today they do train for worst case scenarios with no satellites, tactical nuke ASBM and total red air superiority. We can’t know for sure until the 2018 exercises get declassified.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Barring the second part of the computer test, we cannot claim that the Pentagon official when along with the second results of the war game. Egregious sure, but not a solid proof of a continuous streak. Especially considering other naval exercises that highlights severe deficiances
The Gotland Incident for example.
More so this does not include realistic exercises like the one hold at the JRTC at Fort Polk.
Also the pilot's claim is backed up by the results of the Gulf War of which the US took minimal losses and is operating against an organized enemy, leaving aside the obvious disparity of technology. It cannot be denied that the Red Flag exercises of SEAD and EW missions enables such a smooth and successful operation. We only need to look at other modern military campaigns like the one Russia is conducting in Syria to get an idea of how confusing the whole system would be without such training. Where friendly fire is a very real thing, and technical complications are not unheard off even in such a low threat environment.
Say what one will of the rest of the MIC, but the US military training regime still maintains a certain standard of performance.
No doubt that those exercises were of a higher quality.
Training against a single Song or Han class equivalent is better than training against speedboats for sure, but is still not anywhere near representative of a true “enemy” task force, let alone the exaggerated task forces used to prepare the different PLA branches for absolute worst case scenarios.
I think you misunderstand me. The pilot’s claim is certainly backed up by the catastrophic performance of the Iraqis. But that is a poor reference for a proper military.
Performance against against extremely poorly equipped troops with no command or control structures to speak of tell us very little about true battlefield prowess. During the Gulf war, you had idiots doing things like lining up vehicles on a highway with no air protection, burying tanks to use as pillboxes and other feats of too stupid to live.
The fact that such a “battle” could even be comparable to normal exercises raises red flags about their validity outside of target practice.
Most likely, both forces are trained at the same time. If the “enemy” side is training using the entire kit of the PLA including it’s most esoteric capabilities, then it can apply that training to the real world should it be required. Meanwhile the “own” side is trained in less mainstream scenarios which lets them overcome in emergency situations, such as a single army group stuck without air cover after advancing too far, an enemy suddenly using nuclear/biological/chemical weapons etc.
That's true. If I remember correctly though doesn't the blue force use outdated equipment that is simulated to be top of the line opponents' equipment? This isn't the same as actually using their own top of the line equipment.
Yes I suppose it is, but the important distinction is to consider what the PLA is training for in that exercise. If they can put an old tank that can replicate a top of the line enemy tank, then that means more PLA tanks that will be used in combat in the hands of the trainees. If the PLA has say 500 99A tanks, it would make sense to get 500 crews trained up with that tank for combat rather than lose 50 99A crews to the trainer force which are not going to see combat soon anyway.
Same function achieved, more crews trained in their own tanks per exercise.
But blue force have been seen to use 96A/B as well a 99Gs before. Not necessarily bad tanks in their own right.
The armor and firepower of Abrams are simulated by changing the laser engagement rules. A single hit from a blue Type 59 destroys a red Type 99 and a blue Type 59 only quits action after three hits. Also, since blue Type 59 only need to illuminate an opponent without actual firing, it can simulate a fire rate that is faster than Type 59 could do in reality.
Of course there are limitations to how close the simulation is to reality. No matter how much you change the rule, A Type 59 cannot match M1's engine power output no matter how you change the rule. But if the red force can be easily defeated by the simulated M1s, then the reality can only be worse. And that is the point of the excise.
Depends on the nature of the exercise.
Most likely, the equipment changes based on what sort of scenario being simulated.
Type 99A - M1A2, K2
Type 96A - T90(S), M1A1
Type 59G - T72, T62, M60
The sort of tank that can be simulated is based mostly on engine output. A Type 99A (1500hp) can roughly simulate a M1A2 (1500hp) if it slows down a little to compensate for weight. And the current Type 59 variants can make similar speeds as early T72s. Furthermore, the accuracy of the gun(s) can be tweaked to simulate another platform.
Some exercises also have imaginary equipment that’s designed to be overpowered instead of mirroring any real world weapon to let commanders find a way around it.