To those who serve/served in the armed forces: WHAT DO YOU ENVY ABOUT THE PLA?
- Thread starter chicket9
- Start date
wanderingmind
New Member
:china:
I agree with Rhino123: I don't envy them, but I do respect them.
The PLA is a too-large, overly-rigid, under-compensated police force auxiliary. Its main mission is seemingly not outward defense, but rather inward control. I do not say these things intending to provoke anyone, but rather to state the obvious truths.
That said, I would love to be a senior official in the Defense Ministry. Like our own armed forces in the two decades I spent serving my own country, the PLA is an excellent vehicle for social change. Teach conscripts a new outlook or new ways of doing things, and they take them back to their villages when their active service is up. It's a means of furthering education, of opening new horizons, of molding opinion.
Further, I would change the military schooling where I could. I would want to encourage independent thought and action - not rigid school solutions. I would attempt to bring more innovation to the formations, trying to lessen the reliance on large masses of undertrained conscripts by encouraging the formation of smaller, less mass-dependent volunteer units. The rapier rather than the sledgehammer, in other words.
However, in forming these more-elite units, one would have to better compensate them. This doesn't necessarily mean direct increases in pay. It might be something as simple as housing them in upgraded squad-sized hutments instead of company barracks, providing better-than-standard-issue clothing and equipment, and maybe allowing them more leave and recreation.
Those units not so enhanced should be better-trained in peacekeeping duties, or in disaster response/relief, or in civic action medical/engineering functions. A la the U.S. Marine Corps - every Marine a trained rifleman - focus these units inward to provide the nation-building assistance they can provide - and the emergency combat strength required in a national emergency.
Use this part of the PLA to actually go to other nations and help in disaster relief operations, instead of paying lip service. The world might be shocked to find conscript PFC Wang Chung working side-by-side with conscript LCpl Jose Martinez on an earthquake relief mission in Bolivia -- but both nations would be amazed to discover how much each has in common.
Focus the more-elite units outward and make them your prime resource for national defense and foreign peacekeeping missions. Teach your lieutenants and captains to learn from these missions, to see what can be adapted/adopted from other national militaries. Oh, yes! To be a senior Defense Ministry official just for a couple of years! What transformations one could achieve!
The PLA - like the Great Wall - can either be used to hold the barbarians out, or the people in. China's masters must find that razor's-edge of balance. The PLA can either be the rock pressing down the masses - or the force which helps China join the community of nations as an equal.
I agree with Rhino123: I don't envy them, but I do respect them.
The PLA is a too-large, overly-rigid, under-compensated police force auxiliary. Its main mission is seemingly not outward defense, but rather inward control. I do not say these things intending to provoke anyone, but rather to state the obvious truths.
That said, I would love to be a senior official in the Defense Ministry. Like our own armed forces in the two decades I spent serving my own country, the PLA is an excellent vehicle for social change. Teach conscripts a new outlook or new ways of doing things, and they take them back to their villages when their active service is up. It's a means of furthering education, of opening new horizons, of molding opinion.
Further, I would change the military schooling where I could. I would want to encourage independent thought and action - not rigid school solutions. I would attempt to bring more innovation to the formations, trying to lessen the reliance on large masses of undertrained conscripts by encouraging the formation of smaller, less mass-dependent volunteer units. The rapier rather than the sledgehammer, in other words.
However, in forming these more-elite units, one would have to better compensate them. This doesn't necessarily mean direct increases in pay. It might be something as simple as housing them in upgraded squad-sized hutments instead of company barracks, providing better-than-standard-issue clothing and equipment, and maybe allowing them more leave and recreation.
Those units not so enhanced should be better-trained in peacekeeping duties, or in disaster response/relief, or in civic action medical/engineering functions. A la the U.S. Marine Corps - every Marine a trained rifleman - focus these units inward to provide the nation-building assistance they can provide - and the emergency combat strength required in a national emergency.
Use this part of the PLA to actually go to other nations and help in disaster relief operations, instead of paying lip service. The world might be shocked to find conscript PFC Wang Chung working side-by-side with conscript LCpl Jose Martinez on an earthquake relief mission in Bolivia -- but both nations would be amazed to discover how much each has in common.
Focus the more-elite units outward and make them your prime resource for national defense and foreign peacekeeping missions. Teach your lieutenants and captains to learn from these missions, to see what can be adapted/adopted from other national militaries. Oh, yes! To be a senior Defense Ministry official just for a couple of years! What transformations one could achieve!
The PLA - like the Great Wall - can either be used to hold the barbarians out, or the people in. China's masters must find that razor's-edge of balance. The PLA can either be the rock pressing down the masses - or the force which helps China join the community of nations as an equal.
RedMercury
Junior Member
Obvious and truth only to you. The PLA fought its last four wars abroad.
This statement is very inaccurate because the PLA is too small to effectively police the entire population of the PRC. Although the PRC has the largest military in the world in terms of the number of members. The PLA is actually one of the smallest militaries if u divide the countries population by the number of troops in the PLA. Therefore it is clear that the PLA main objectives is not to control the population. On the other hand, the police force in the PRC is numbered at around 8 million members. This clearly shows that the police is meant for controlling the population and law enforcement. Furthermore the weapons that the PLA have been acquiring are weapons that are meant to counter threats from the outside. For example u do not need a S-300 to police the population. U do npt need T-98 MBT to police the streets.
However with this in mind, one must also understand that the military can be called upon to support civilian law enforcement organisations if requested. THis is practised in all countries. In addition there is no such thing as a nice military.... all militaries in the world are organised for one thing.... War.
Mr _C please use proper English when posting. No U R npt. Thank you
bd popeye moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
wanderingmind
New Member
Whoops! I seem to have trod on some toes inadvertently!
No, I said police force auxiliary. That means they back up and augment the police. No question that they do that.
The defense procurement and defense industry newslines I receive indicate highly substantial purchases of foreign-made crowd-control equipment and law enforcement technology by the Defense Ministry. Now, if this is then shipped out to the police by the ministry, I confess my confusion because of the ministry being the purchase agent, and I apologize.
You bet! And I have no quarrel with it! I believe wholeheartedly in using the military to support civilian law enforcement when appropriate. Here in my own country, I have heard a "loony" (unfortunately, he is an elected official!) state we had no need for a military -- that our police and fire departments could handle all our day-to-day defense needs. Such B.S.!
You and I are in total agreement here, Mr_C! As an old sergeant, I can say the military regrets it must sometimes do things that become necessary. Or, to paraphrase a famous book: Sometimes sergeants, like policemen, must spoil the fun.
I meant no disrespect to the PLA in my post. My first and last paragraphs simply echo the viewpoints expressed by some of our most respected Western military leaders, thinkers and educators. If anyone is offended, I sincerely apologize for my speaking plainly. If these premises are incorrect, then help enlighten me. Is that not what these forums are for?
I am impressed with the PLA, and I respect its potential and capabilities both as a defense organization and as a nation-spanning institution. I think it is the single most important instrumentality of the Chinese government, and what directions it moves will affect the course of the entire world's future.
And, RedMercury is correct: Its last four wars have been abroad, but based from the nation's borders. Where are the PLA's UN peacekeepers in Darfur? Somalia? South Whoeverstan? The PLA has not fought a real "foreign" war away from China's borders. It has not learned the lessons of force projection half a world from China's heartland. If China is to become a "great" power, it must let the PLA interact with the other militaries of this earth and learn the responsibilities that come with greatness.
Here again, I say: Oh, to be a senior Defense Ministry official for a few years!
No, I said police force auxiliary. That means they back up and augment the police. No question that they do that.
The defense procurement and defense industry newslines I receive indicate highly substantial purchases of foreign-made crowd-control equipment and law enforcement technology by the Defense Ministry. Now, if this is then shipped out to the police by the ministry, I confess my confusion because of the ministry being the purchase agent, and I apologize.
You bet! And I have no quarrel with it! I believe wholeheartedly in using the military to support civilian law enforcement when appropriate. Here in my own country, I have heard a "loony" (unfortunately, he is an elected official!) state we had no need for a military -- that our police and fire departments could handle all our day-to-day defense needs. Such B.S.!
You and I are in total agreement here, Mr_C! As an old sergeant, I can say the military regrets it must sometimes do things that become necessary. Or, to paraphrase a famous book: Sometimes sergeants, like policemen, must spoil the fun.
I meant no disrespect to the PLA in my post. My first and last paragraphs simply echo the viewpoints expressed by some of our most respected Western military leaders, thinkers and educators. If anyone is offended, I sincerely apologize for my speaking plainly. If these premises are incorrect, then help enlighten me. Is that not what these forums are for?
I am impressed with the PLA, and I respect its potential and capabilities both as a defense organization and as a nation-spanning institution. I think it is the single most important instrumentality of the Chinese government, and what directions it moves will affect the course of the entire world's future.
And, RedMercury is correct: Its last four wars have been abroad, but based from the nation's borders. Where are the PLA's UN peacekeepers in Darfur? Somalia? South Whoeverstan? The PLA has not fought a real "foreign" war away from China's borders. It has not learned the lessons of force projection half a world from China's heartland. If China is to become a "great" power, it must let the PLA interact with the other militaries of this earth and learn the responsibilities that come with greatness.
Here again, I say: Oh, to be a senior Defense Ministry official for a few years!
I understand (respect) why people who served the armed forces in the western nations would not “envy” the PLA. But for me, PLA is enviable given their record since 1949. The Korean war, war with India, conflict with Soviet, and war with Vietnam… I actually could not find a real case where any armed force (including the two superpowers during the cold war) has had such a record when fighting with PLA after 1949. For sure, PLA still lacks the most modern weapon systems, but it seems to me that they are definitely one of the best in terms of how to make best use of their weapon systems. Also, it always amazed me how well PLA could develop and execute strategies in real war situations (…just thinking about the Korean war…)
For those who studied Chinese history, we should know, before 1949, Chinese’ national defense was so vulnerable that many foreign armies (Japanese, English, French, Russian…) could enter and leave Chinese territory without any doubt. Now, I don’t see any nation could threat the country without seriously weighting the consequences.
I have to say I envy PLA because of their ability and their track record to defend the country.
For those who studied Chinese history, we should know, before 1949, Chinese’ national defense was so vulnerable that many foreign armies (Japanese, English, French, Russian…) could enter and leave Chinese territory without any doubt. Now, I don’t see any nation could threat the country without seriously weighting the consequences.
I have to say I envy PLA because of their ability and their track record to defend the country.
Well I am not offended at all. I am just stating other facts from another perspective. In terms of ur referral to UN peace keeping force. The PRC actually provides large amounts of aid through the UN. However they provide very little military personal to these operations. Actually during the recent Isreali and Lebonese war, a PLA officer died when they were shot at by a Israeli MBT. The PRC send mostly police units to UN peacekeeping operations and police units are in fact much more effective after conflicts because soldiers are not good at law enforcement and usually they just stuff things up. That is why in East Timor, the UN troops were working under the directions of the Australian Federal police, who were also part of the UN deployment.
Well i understand ur mentality of deployment of troops as a demonstration of national prowess. However to ur contridiction, the USA is not the largest contributor of troops in the UN. They r however the largest contributor financially. ANyway the important thing is that there are other and better ways to demonstrate ur national prowess besides sending troops abroad. It all depends on the strategic needs of the nation.
Oh yeah here is the name of the man who died in Lebanon. Lt.Col Du Zhao Yu
Last edited:
wanderingmind
New Member
I was aware the USA was not the largest contributor of troops. And I was unaware of both the PLA Lt Col killed in the Mideast and China's contribution of police to peacekeeping efforts. I extend my sympathies to the family and friends of Colonel Du. Any "collateral damage" from any conflict is extremely sad -- as is any conflict to begin with.
I agree: police are a much better contribution after the shooting is over. I just get tired of U.S. troops risking life and limb in "pacification" efforts, and everyone else - our "allies" included - coming in when it's "pacified." BTW: I just learned this morning that the PLA had advisors in Afghanistan prior to and after Operation Enduring Freedom. Noting the Russian/Indian interests in Afghanistan and its Islamic fundamentalists, I can understand why the PLA had some people there -- I do understand national interests.
I just think the strategic needs of the nation call for the PLA to become a bigger player on the international stage. To China's benefit -- not as a "swaggering bully," but as a mature, responsible member of the peaceful international community.
See! That's not hard! We agree on many points - and I've learned a couple of things. That's what this forum is for, right? Thank you for enlightening me!
I finally found something decent with regards to the PLA. They have a mobile automatic grenade launcher, capable of firing lethal grenades to 600m.
As I'm told most engagements between infantry units occur at 200-300m, this would be a great advantage when fighting a unit in manuever.
Edit has been removed?
Okay, correction. The United States has a short-range heavy moble grenade launcher, at 350 feet. The South Africans have a long-range mobile grenade launcher, at 1000 feet.
As I'm told most engagements between infantry units occur at 200-300m, this would be a great advantage when fighting a unit in manuever.
Edit has been removed?
Okay, correction. The United States has a short-range heavy moble grenade launcher, at 350 feet. The South Africans have a long-range mobile grenade launcher, at 1000 feet.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have to say I eny the the progress and detication the PRC high command has shown in the modernisation of its armed forces from the better personal equipment and uniforms to the deployment of some of the top of the line fighter aircraft and development of a high quality MBT.
The overall improvment from just 10 years ago is a massive leap forward. Just think going from T-55 type tanks to now thousands of MBT that in my opinion are better than the T-80 deployed of russia. going from the old J-7 to hundreds of J-10 and 11 and the SU-30 is outstanding.
this improvment should be a envy for all who follow the worlds armed forces....cheers ute
The overall improvment from just 10 years ago is a massive leap forward. Just think going from T-55 type tanks to now thousands of MBT that in my opinion are better than the T-80 deployed of russia. going from the old J-7 to hundreds of J-10 and 11 and the SU-30 is outstanding.
this improvment should be a envy for all who follow the worlds armed forces....cheers ute