The Chinese Special Force Basic Training And Its Effectiveness?

R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
Re: The Chinese Special Force Basic Trainning And Its Effectiveness??

bladerunner said:
That depends, with todays observation equipment it would be a very difficult manouvre to accomplish and if detected out in the open as in the desert or Afghanistan type terrain, a few "daisy cutters" or carpet bombing would destroy any offensive by the other side.
Click to expand...

Of course but once again this tactic from AoW wasn't directed only to troop movements, but anywhere in general where it can be applied and if conditions fulfilled to make this tactic ripe for applying.
 
R

ravenshield936

Banned Idiot
Re: The Chinese Special Force Basic Trainning And Its Effectiveness??

vesicles said:
Typical genetic stuff back in the days when I used to do cloning work :)
Click to expand...

so there's an evil version of you running in the wild out there? lol jking
pretty interesting stuff though. reminds me of all those bio sci-fi like resident evil and t virus and stuff

speaking of that, check this thread out:china:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/members-club-room/true-false-successful-vaccine-developed-4757.html#post108715
 
ABC78

ABC78

Junior Member
Well a true test of whether or not Chinese SOFs are ready or not will be how well the rescue of the Chinese crew captured by the Somali pirates goes. Of course the government will have to make the decision if the mission's a go.
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
ABC78 said:
Well a true test of whether or not Chinese SOFs are ready or not will be how well the rescue of the Chinese crew captured by the Somali pirates goes. Of course the government will have to make the decision if the mission's a go.
Click to expand...

i dont think that's what the Chinese government is gonna go with, the mainstream media is talking about paying a ransom.
 
A

aznboi123

New Member
PRC trying to rescue crew
Bloomberg

2009-10-26 12:00 AM

China is making a concerted attempt to rescue members of a bulk carrier seized by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, a government spokesman said.

"The Chinese government takes this seriously, and is making an all-out effort to rescue the crew members of the ship," the Foreign Ministry's Ma Zhaoxu said in Beijing today at a regular press briefing. He declined to give any details.

The Chinese Navy is preparing a rescue plan now, Radio Television Hong Kong reported, citing military sources that it didn't identify. The vessel is the 76,432 deadweight-ton De Xin Hai with 25 Chinese crew members on board, Andrew Mwangura, head of the Seafarers' Assistance Program, said in a mobile-phone text message yesterday.

The ship, which hadn't registered with naval forces in the area, was hijacked 550 nautical miles (1,020 kilometers) northeast of the Seychelles islands and 700 nautical miles east of Somalia, the European Union said in a statement. A maritime patrol plane has been sent to investigate.

The seizure brings to six the number of ships that are being held by the pirates, who operate out of lawless towns on the eastern coast of Somalia. A Singaporean container ship was seized Oct. 15 about 300 nautical miles north of the Seychelles.

Since the end of the monsoon last month, almost all pirate attacks have been in the Indian Ocean, and not in the heavily patrolled Gulf of Aden, which leads to the Suez Canal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
aznboi123 said:
PRC trying to rescue crew
Bloomberg

2009-10-26 12:00 AM

China is making a concerted attempt to rescue members of a bulk carrier seized by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean, a government spokesman said.

"The Chinese government takes this seriously, and is making an all-out effort to rescue the crew members of the ship," the Foreign Ministry's Ma Zhaoxu said in Beijing today at a regular press briefing. He declined to give any details.

The Chinese Navy is preparing a rescue plan now, Radio Television Hong Kong reported, citing military sources that it didn't identify. The vessel is the 76,432 deadweight-ton De Xin Hai with 25 Chinese crew members on board, Andrew Mwangura, head of the Seafarers' Assistance Program, said in a mobile-phone text message yesterday.

The ship, which hadn't registered with naval forces in the area, was hijacked 550 nautical miles (1,020 kilometers) northeast of the Seychelles islands and 700 nautical miles east of Somalia, the European Union said in a statement. A maritime patrol plane has been sent to investigate.

The seizure brings to six the number of ships that are being held by the pirates, who operate out of lawless towns on the eastern coast of Somalia. A Singaporean container ship was seized Oct. 15 about 300 nautical miles north of the Seychelles.

Since the end of the monsoon last month, almost all pirate attacks have been in the Indian Ocean, and not in the heavily patrolled Gulf of Aden, which leads to the Suez Canal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Hu Jintao already instructed the transportation department on the matter, that was published on the people's daily, which basically means China is solving this by peaceful means, because the ship has entered somali water China will not be conducting military operations unless it is absolutely crucial.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
I couldnt find the appropriate thread so I posted my comments here.

Well the PLA military exercises in which I watched the clips off with great interest got me thinking.

Although the likelihood of a traditional land war involving vast tracts of territory where two fully mechanized armies equipped with the latest of weaponry,face off against one another is unlikely to occur, it should be worth noting that over the years as it moved away from its guerrilla war concepts, and built a army along conventional lines.

What new military doctrine have the Chinese replaced them with,and what have they learnt?.
When they were close to the Russians in the 50's did they use the opportunity to understand the Russian 'Deep Battle' Doctrine which evolved after the first world war and was successfully applied against the Germans in WW2. In Western military circles and even today it is regarded as one of the most successful military doctrines of the last Century. and still has a lot of applicability in certain situations. Ive taken a brief description from Wiki here......
.......... Deep battle encompassed manoeuvre by multiple Soviet Army Fronts-size formations simultaneously. It was not meant to deliver a victory in a single operation, but rather multiple operations conducted in parallel or successively would induce a catastrophic failure in his defensive system. Each operation served to divert enemy attention and keep the defender guessing as to where the main effort, and main objective, lay. In doing so, it prevented the enemy from dispatching powerful mobile reserves to this area. The supporting operations had significantly important strategic objectives themselves and were to continue their offensive action until unable to progress any further. However, they were still subordinated to the main/decisive strategic objective determined by...........



Meanwhile I've read some rather uncomplimentary opinions made by proven and seasoned military personnel from other sites, formed after watching the available clips relating to the stated objectives in the Vanguard exercise.. They thought that the PLA still had a lot to learn in tactics, and the manner they utilised the tanks in relation to the intention of the stated exercise was wrong. Another fault lay in exposing them against the skyline as they were making their way along the ridge and their general placement thus making themselves easy targets Overall general conclusion being the military was still very infantry centric, and it would be many years before they devolved away from it. Apparently while taking most of their artillery and engineering equipment, a big percentage of tanks and stuff was left at home


Another aspect which I had been wondering about, and it was sort a touched upon by another poster on the Somali pirate thread before his banning was the flexibility of the command structure.

Unlike other countries the military swear their loyalty to the CCP, or thats what Im led to believe by the Western Press. If that's the case couldn't a situation evolve similar to what happened to the German Army in WW2, where after having sworn allegiance to Hitler, things turned pear shaped for them when he became their C.C and directed the over all strategy, with the generals too frightened to make a major decision without running it past him
Could a similar situation not arise with the use of the aircraft carriers the Chinese are building, where in a conflict, the politburo wanting one thing, while wiser heads in the military prefer another? .
 
Last edited:
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
bladerunner said:
Unlike other countries the military swear their loyalty to the CCP, or thats what Im led to believe by the Western Press. If that's the case couldn't a situation evolve similar to what happened to the German Army in WW2, where after having sworn allegiance to Hitler, things turned pear shaped for them when he became their C.C and directed the over all strategy, with the generals too frightened to make a major decision without running it past him
Could a similar situation not arise with the use of the aircraft carriers the Chinese are building, where in a conflict, the politburo wanting one thing, while wiser heads in the military prefer another? .
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the same "pirate" thread, this system has been battle-tested. Ever since the establishment of CCP and the armed forces (the red army, the 8th/new 4th armies and later the PLA), all personnel swear their loyalty to the CCP and they have political officers at every level of the command. This seems not to interfere with the fighting too much as the outcome is plenty clear.

As to the potential interference from the politician, AKA politburo, this, to me, occurs in every country. One good example: MacArthur in the Korean War wanted to do one thing (let's not talk about whether it was wise to do it), while truman wanted to go the other direction. In the end, the politician overruled the military and the general was let go. Of course, the Vietnam War is another example of politicians interfering with the fighting.

I don't think military can be separated from politics as many claim. As the military is a political tool, any military action without political goal and guidance is useless and aimless. Ever since ancient times, the struggle between pure military objective and political goals has always been there.

BTW, I thought the PLA was using the deep battle strategy in the Chinese civil war (not 100% on that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top