wait you're right about. I know that in Beijing there;s a special group in the army that are in charged with maiintaining the soldier's physical apperances. i
To those who serve/served in the armed forces: WHAT DO YOU ENVY ABOUT THE PLA?
- Thread starter chicket9
- Start date
wait you're right about. I know that in Beijing there;s a special group in the army that are in charged with maiintaining the soldier's physical apperances. i
aquilis182
New Member
Im SPC Gonzalez, US Army Reserve. The only thing that maybe we can envy of the PLA it's the size. but US Army it's not about size, its about quality. Thats why you see a lot of people getting kick out of the army scince the BCT. cause they cannot meet standars they get chaptered out (most of them just because the cannot pas the APFT or just the marksmanship)
Looks like China care more about size than anything else. If yo compare the US defense budget against China's you'll se US surpases China's like 6 times.
China have like 35% maybe 40% more soldiers than USA but. It's imposible to train them as effective than the USA. just imagine two classrooms. one better founded with less students, more teachers, better enquipment, more experienced and modern teaching techniques, now imagine the other classroom with a way more sudents than the other and everything else the oposite. Where do you think you gonna fiend better overrall students?
No disrespect or underestimate PLA but that exactly the case right here.
And I have to recognize than beyond all my complains about the PLA i think the PLA still the most capable to hold for a longer time a fight with the US Army.
Interesting opinion.... but i would disagree because a larger military will naturally have a larger number of teachers and classrooms therefore the quality of the soldiers will be consistent to a certain degree. U will only get soldiers of less quality if u give them less training and practise. I know this because i was an Education Officer in the Australian Army after i transferred from infantry. In australia, because we have less money we had to shrink the initial recruit training from 13 weeks to 7 weeks. But that did not mean we reduced the requirement to past the course. It just meant that the recruits must complete 13 weeks of training in 7 weeks. It was much harder for the recruits mentally and physically but they turned out just as hardcore.
In addition the amount of training given to certain types of units r determined by doctrine, strategic and tactical value of those particular units.
In addition, soldiers with various ranks also have the responisbility of training other soldiers, for example... coporals r trained to teach privates, sergeants r trained to teach coporals and to an indirect way a mentor to new Platoon Commanders and so forth. So in this way, a large army will naturally have enough instructors. In terms of training of other professional skills and design of training doctrine... this is left to the Education Officers. Also u do not need fancy stuff to teach effectively, u can use the most ancient teaching equipment and still deliver a high quality of teaching.
And on the contrary, the PLA is actually shrinking in size and most of the money to increase the salaries of her military personel and buy new equipment. And the USA army is also about size.
I mean no disrespect, but when i was still in the Army the US army doctrine was different compared to our's and as infantry units they were of less quality compared to the Australians, but however the USA deliberately did this to fit their doctrine. However in terms of technical and specialist corps such as medical, engineering etc, the USA army is of excellent quality.
Well having observed the PLA actions, i can say that their officers and people who come up with the strategies r quite creative and efficient. Also it appears that the PLA soldiers have a high degree of moral and strong believe in the destiny of PLA, China and the direction of their country by their political leaders.... this is something to envy for any military.
Last edited:
aquilis182
New Member
I say the example about the techers and schools cause Chinas military including PLA, PLAAF and PLAN togeter have about $ 60 billion and the U.S. Army alone have $ 80 billions, plus China have a way more solders but a way less money Im not an officer and I have bearly 3 yrs in the US Army. But that oviously will reflect in quality and enquipment. When I was in Basic Combat Training the vast majority of the instructors (Drill Sergeants) Happen to be veterans. PLA have not to much combat experience in comparation to the US Army, besides PLA teach his soldiers to be proud and brave *So US Army does, but never jeopardizing the TRADOC* (chek globalsecurity.com) but put TRADOC in second place and weapons in third place. With all respect you cannot mesure a soldier's quality by his honor alone. About the US Infantry soldiers they take a 9 weeks BCT (Basic Combat Training) plus a 15 weeks AIT (Advance Individual Training) In AIT they have to qualify with US/NATO and familiarize with foreing weapons plus a gruelling physical training. I herad than the mayority of PLA soldiers bearly have the chance to practice with the Type 56 (a chinese version of the AK-47). I can say that you're right when you say US Army it's also about size but its more about quality In the US Army if you fail to meet standars you get chaptered out even if you are a General. (I personally meet cases) About Australian Army the few things I read tells me it's pretty good, also the Israeli, German, French and British but I gess you know more about Australian Army than I do. I also heard the Australian Army use the STG 77 assault riffles and as far as for I read surpases the M16A2 in terms of acuracy and firerate. It's that true? 
I dont think you understand how the economy works. The exchange rate is based of either market mechanisms or by government mandates. China's Yuan is clearly undervalued. Thats why it always appreciates when the Chinese government lets it float right before its capped again. China and the US can spend exactly 100 billion dollars on a single industry, but in China 100 billion dollars actually means 800 billion Yuan. That goes to providing more resources and utility than what what 100 billion in the US can provide. Of course to be exact, 1 dollar does not equal 1 yuan in purchasing power, but more like 1 dollar equals 2.2 yuan in purchasing power. But nonetheless that means if both sides spent exactly the same, China would be in fact spending nearly 4 times as much.
Many of the public works and aerospace projects in China get praised for their efficiency in cost because it is several times lower the cost if done elsewhere. The truth is, these projects were not easy to spend at all. They were in fact very expensive, each costing tens of billions in government debt. But when its converted into dollars under China's exchange policy, it looks like nothing at all.
Many of the public works and aerospace projects in China get praised for their efficiency in cost because it is several times lower the cost if done elsewhere. The truth is, these projects were not easy to spend at all. They were in fact very expensive, each costing tens of billions in government debt. But when its converted into dollars under China's exchange policy, it looks like nothing at all.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
Ah the gross misconceptions about the PLA. What can I say?
SPC Gonzalez, my advice to you is, take everything you know about the PLA, and toss it out of the window.
SPC Gonzalez, my advice to you is, take everything you know about the PLA, and toss it out of the window.
eecsmaster, before you suggest to someone to toss everything they know about the PLA out of the window would you please feel free to post what you feel is more accurate information about the PLA?
We all need to back up our claims.
Thank you.
eecsmaster
Junior Member
My contentions are:
Economic disparities
Qualifications of PLA infantry
Perceived qualifications of US Army infantry
And of course, "I herad than the mayority of PLA soldiers bearly have the chance to practice with the Type 56 (a chinese version of the AK-47)."
Now which bone I should pick is entirely up to our dear specialist.
Economic disparities
Qualifications of PLA infantry
Perceived qualifications of US Army infantry
And of course, "I herad than the mayority of PLA soldiers bearly have the chance to practice with the Type 56 (a chinese version of the AK-47)."
Now which bone I should pick is entirely up to our dear specialist.
Humm??
You still did not post any information. Just exactly what is your point.? If you are privvy to information about the PLA please feel free to post it here! This is a Chinese military forum.Thank you.
aquilis182
New Member
When I read the armed forces spending where allready converted in US $ at least thats loocks like cause have the $ simbol on the number, anyway if a US dollar is equal to 2.2 chinese yuangs that maybe convert china's military budged in a little bit more than 120 billion US dollars. Im I right? But still lags far behind from ths US military budget of 466 billion dolars. You can chek globalsecurity.com and correct me if Im wrong... thats where I get the military budget info. And one more thing... about my economy knowledge. yeah Im not an expert on that field