[sukhoi]

http://www.youtube.com/w/China%27s-Mili ... ir%20force

A bit scary....



What do you think?

[sukhoi]

Notice that M1 Abrams in the beginning... I wonder whos that was...

[Wullu]

What ever that was it was not a real M1. No M1 I ever heard of blew up like that, even in testing least of all from a shoulder fired weapon. Actualy I never heard of a M1 blowing up at all, a few have been disabled.....

And I just watched that part again the explosion starts before the missle gets there I guess the Chinese film industry is up to snuff on special effects

[sukhoi]

Yes of course. I was simply wondering if they were using that as symbolism. like "Hey America its your ass if you dont leave us alone". Of course you should know what our response is going to be.

[dgthe3]

That shot of the Abrahms looked electronic in origin, maybe not though. As for who they got it from, i'm not sure. Most of the Americans allies either produce their own tanks or buy something cheaper.

All in all, it looks impressive untill you realize that it is designed as such. They show the cream of the crop in those vids, everyone does. On Land, being able to march in unison does not make you the best army in the world. Being to think when things change, being adaptive to new circumstances, that's what's important. The German Army of WWII nearly conquered the USSR, with a vast inferiority in numbers and resources. Utilizing forces effectively is critical and i don't know if China is able to do that. They were nearly conquered by the Japanesse in WWII.

From what I have heard, the only superiority that the Chinese have over the US is numbers, and that can be made up for pretty quick, especially in the air. The USAF is designed to dominate the sky, nothing can stop it. They can destroy half an enemies airforce while its still on the ground, on a bad day, and make most runways rather useless in good time too.

At sea, i didn't know that China even had that many ships. But 1 carrier battle group could handle the PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army Navy), and the USN has how many? 12?

On the nuclear side, China has enough to hurt the US, the US can completely obliterate every Chinese settlement if it had to, with plenty of weapons to spare.

[sukhoi]

You are right to say that. But they are a threat. Their technology will continue to improve as their economy does. I think it is well known if given the chance they would take taiwan. I just think they are a bit scary ... though I agree the US and our allies could take on China.

[Thematic-Device]

sukhoi sukhoi:

A bit scary....

Nah, not when you consider some of the facts behind the thing. Notice the planes flying in formation overhead of the naval ships in the beginning, that is not out of any form of coordination between the PLAAF and the PLAN but instead because the chinese naval vessels are so lacking in anti-air and hard kill weaponry that they're fucked if they venture outside of the defensive net that their airforce gives them.

Coordination to the chinese military in the eyes of Russian observers is that the various branches merely show up at the same place, and logistics is simply non-existant.

That their navy spends very little time at sea, and their submariners spend even less, partly because several of their nuclear subs leak radiation.

That only a third of their army has ammo, because they simply can't afford it. That large quantities of their airforce lacks even the most basic forms of radar, and sizeable portions of the remaining aircraft have radar which hardly qualifies as such. And their pilots log less then half the flight hours of any of their counterparts.

They're a paper tiger, and they'll remain a paper tiger

sukhoi sukhoi:

Notice that M1 Abrams in the beginning... I wonder whos that was...

Nooo not digitally animated missiles doing fake damage! Watch out americans or we'll kill you in video games! =)


This is my response to any and all propaganda films http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rriers.htm

$1:

World Wide Aircraft Carriers

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the scope of American military power relative to that of the rest of the world. This graphic illustrates America's aircraft carriers, and those of the rest of the world. Each icon is an accurate depiction of the flight deck of the ship as seen from above, all to a common scale. Each of the middle column of ships is roughly the size of the Empire State Building.

America has twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers. The Navy likes to call the big Nimitz class carriers "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory" -- all two dozen American carriers of all classes add up to about 75 acres of deck space. Deckspace is probably a good measure of combat power. The rest of the world's carriers have about 15 acres of deck space, one fifth that of America's.

There is no hard and fast precise definition of an "aircraft carrier" and some smaller aviation related ships are not included here. The Italian San Giorgio class small dock landing ships and Japan's Osumi class Landing Ship Tank (LST) resemble diminuative aircraft carriers, but lack a hangar deck which would provide an enclosed maintenance area. Although Helicopter Destroyers such as Italy's Vittorio Veneto and Japan's Haruna and Shirane have hangers, these hybrid vessels are clearly outside any reasonable definition of an aircraft carrier.

The United Kingdom plans construction of a pair of CVF Queen Elizabeth class CTOL big deck carriers, and France has decided to build a conventionally-powered Second Aircraft Carrier to pair with the Charles de Gaulle. These ships have a displacement of roughly 50,000 tons, equal to American amphibious assault ships.

Negotiations between Russia and India began in 1994 for the sale of the 45,500 tons full load Admiral Gorshkov, and on 20 January 2004 it was announced that India and Russia had signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing the sale, with delivery expected in 2008. In April 2005 India began construction of the 37,500-ton displacement Air Defense Ship indigenous carrier, with delivery expected by the year 2012.

A number of medium sized amphibious assault ships are currently under construction, including the Italian Luigi Einaudi [NUM], four "13,500 ton" [light] ships in Japan, a pair of Mistral [NTCD] in France, and the Buque de Proyección Estratégica in Spain. In early 2004 the Netherlands expressed interest in acquiring an underway replinishment ship with features similar to those of the Spanish Buque de Proyección Estratégica and the UK's e Ocean. In August 1994 Australia announced plans to evaluate the Mistral [NTCD]and Buque de Proyección Estratégica for possible purchase of a pair of units. These ships all have a displacement of roughly 20,000 tons.

Argentina no longer operates an aircraft carrier, having paid off the 25° de Mayo in January of 1999, at which time she was towed away for scrapping in India by March 2000. Australia no longer operates an aircraft carrier, having decommissioned HMAS Melbourne (ex HMAS Majestic) 30 June 1982. She was sold in February 1985, to China United Shipbuilding Company, and reportedly broken up. But in January 2001, it was reported that China has been using her flight deck for pilot training. Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands also operated carriers in the mid-20th century, but gave it up many decades ago.

Despite a great deal of speculation, there is scant evidence that China is actively working on an aircraft carrier. Altough the Shichang Multi-Role Aviation Ship is one of the largest vessels in the People's Liberarion Army Navy fleet, it would be a bit of a stretch to class this ship as an aircraft carrier.

[sukhoi]

I am glad to see we are on top of things. I knew our military could out perfrom China in most aspects if not all. The only thing that concerned me was the amount of people they had and the growth of their economy. How much do they spend on their military? I know that the US with our Canadian and european allies could shutdown such a threat.

[sukhoi]

Our carriers are HUGE!

[Thematic-Device]

sukhoi sukhoi:

Our carriers are HUGE!

I personally like the quote that they are "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile american territory"

sukhoi sukhoi:

:)

I am glad to see we are on top of things. I knew our military could out perfrom China in most aspects if not all. The only thing that concerned me was the amount of people they had and the growth of their economy. How much do they spend on their military? I know that the US with our Canadian and european allies could shutdown such a threat.

The US alone could shut down China. Taiwan has enough power to make any victory pyrhhic.

The estimates for chinese spending on the military vary. The official number of 55 billion is disputed, some putting it at closer to 80 or 90 billion others push it even higher. But I suppose the best answer would be between 4%-8% of their GDP. Compared to the US which is at 3.2%

The amount of troops they have in their army (active personel) is ~2.8 million, the US has 1.3 million, but we have the added advantage, that our troops know how to shoot, have weapons, have excellent training, moral, professionalism, and perhaps most importantly, guns and ammunition, because after all the rest is worthless without it. =)

[sukhoi]

That is very true. Our troops are among the best trained in the world. Definitley the best equipped. The USAF is the best airfroce in the world. Our Navy is the best in the world. I dont think they would stand a chance. It would be ugly though.

[dgthe3]

Keep in mind who it is that provides a market for Chinese goods: The US, followed by her close allies. If things get difficult, the US could go to any number of nations to get their stuff made, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea, India, etc. It may take a bit of time, but it could happen within a matter of weeks or months. but China will not have a market to sell it's good if the west every decides to play hardball. The Chinese economy is easier to cripple than it's army.

Thematic-Device, you brought up the issue of active personel. While China has twice what the US has, with 4 times the population, the Chinese have insane numbers of call-ups in case of emergency. Also, you mentioned ammo. I remember hearing that durring Korea they would often issue guns to half the troops. If somebody with a gun gets killed or wounded, somebody else takes their gun. A brutal way to do things, but cost effective (in terms of material, not lives).

[Thematic-Device]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Thematic-Device, you brought up the issue of active personel. While China has twice what the US has, with 4 times the population, the Chinese have insane numbers of call-ups in case of emergency. Also, you mentioned ammo. I remember hearing that durring Korea they would often issue guns to half the troops. If somebody with a gun gets killed or wounded, somebody else takes their gun. A brutal way to do things, but cost effective (in terms of material, not lives).

True if you intend to simply pour troops into the battlefield. But consider that with all the training, that the average soldier is far more valuable then all of his equipment put together from even the coldest way of looking at it.

Of course the problem of a lack ammo doesn't present itself as much in a war, as they can probably succeed in diverting resources (if they make it that long), and use the tactic you mentioned.

The crucial issue is that their troops aren't training, and when the average US troop is accurate at 400m and the average chinese soldier is accurate at 50-100m or as the case truly is, has never fired a rifle you truly have a problem. Which will lend itself to US troops cutting through the superior numbers quite easily, even without the technological advantages.

And as for the huge call upsthat causes even more problems for the chinese military as logistics is non-existant . When the military engages on military exercises they simply tell the province to stockpile food ahead of time. Of course this prevents protracted engagements, or any amount of force projection, but creates absolutely horrendous problems when you call up the full extent of your military.

The US by contrast can call up it's 2 million+ already trained soldiers, and recruit new ones, and expect it will force the logistics folks to think a while, but to cause no real problems.

[dgthe3]

Agreed. The 'new' Red Army of the Chinese isn't anything like the 'old' Red Army of the USSR, except for equipment. They had the logistics aspect of war figured out and they could use combined arms to good effect (from what i've heard anyway). They learned from what nearly defeated them in WWII, and what helped them to win. Although the Chinese wrote the book on war (The Art of War, Sun Tzu) but supplying a modern army is far more difficult than it was 2000 years ago. Sun Tzu said:

$1:

II. Waging War

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

[themasta]

They look like robots...
Also, the accompanying music sounds like it was inspired by Carl Orff's 'O Fortuna'.