Wonder what Chinese military is saying....

[StageLeft]

I wouldn't say 40 years but it's definitely behind and I'll take quality over quantity. The size of their standing army doesn't mean much if they can't project its power.

 

[Shlong]

Sooner or Later China will eventually catch up, maybe Grasshopper is worried about that fact.

 

[Fronic]

Originally posted by: rahvin

30 to 1? How so? They have about 3 million people in their regular Army, they have about 2 million more in their reserves.

That is, at best, a 10 to 1 ratio against an invasion of 1/2 to 2/3 of our standard land forces.

As for "kicking our ass" on the ground, I refer you back to my prior statements. What are those millions going to do, spit on us? Iraq in 1991 had several times as many tanks as we did, yet we destroyed over 1,500 armored vehicles, including at least 800 tanks, with only a half dozen losses of our own.

Since then, our tanks have gotten better, everyone else has stayed about the same.

Quoting the CIA world factbook:

China
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 370,087,489 (2002 est.)

United States
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2002 est.)

370/70 = 5.28:1 Advantage

I would have prefered to use actual fit for service numbers but the CIA does not publish those for the US. I personally feel that 73million is much much larger than it would be in reality. Regardless, to fight to a draw every US serviceman would have to kill 5.2 Chinese servicemen. This analysis also fails to take into account that up to 50% of US forces would be in supply and support roles where the Chinese would be able to utilize their female population to outfit for supply and support. This combined with a real service level of support and the US would easily be facing 30:1 outnumbering in the field in a ground war with China. It's foolish to even suggest that we could beat them in sustained land combat.

That was a long time ago, back when our tanks were no better than what China could field.

That is like trying to compare the British fight with Romel in North Africa in WWII to the Gulf War. Very different world today...

China did not field ANY armor in the Korean war. They lacked an airforce and had limited artillery and heavy weapons. Most troops were marched and they had a few ten thousand cavalry (that still road horses). In all effects China developmentally was at WWI level of millitary advancement (with better guns and a few heavy artillery pieces). They still fought us to a draw. Armor can be powerfull, but against infantry armor is almost useless. Never never underestimate the guys with guns on foot armed with 2lbs of grey matter.

I have to agree. You can bomb them, fire missiles at them or even nuke them but in the end the ground pounder grunt has to go in and hold the ground .

 

[Bluga]

You see, there's a reason why China has 4000+ years of history.


Look at Romans.

 

[rahvin]

That is assuming that China would arm all 370 Million of those people and put them in the Army.

That is no more likely to happen than is America to put all 73 Million of those people into the military.

Your thought process is flawed from the start on that point.

You are foolish to think that in an invasion situation reinforcments would not arrive to tune of every man they could field. With 370million men to draw from your conclusion that even bombing them for years we couldn't kill them all is entirely accurate. This is exactly the reason that we could not ever win a land war in China. You should also examine history and what occured in Stalingrad in WWII. The red army had retreated from the city, the populous held and ground the germans to a halt. To take and occupy every Chinese city would put our troops into the biggest meat grinder you have ever seen.

don't even know where to start with all the flaws in your thought process.

Let me just say this... Your thinking about military conflict is decades out of date and does not reflect modern military reality.

China can quickly field about 5 million soldiers, the United States can quickly field about 1 million soldiers. Our 1 million soliders are many times more effective than China's are. We would destroy a lot of military equipment long before we had to deal with a stand up frontal battle, and when that came, our tanks would destroy their tanks at about a 100 to 1 ratio. So we might lose 100 tanks in the whole war to their tanks, and maybe another 100 tanks to other various weapons.

We have over 2,800 Main Battle Tanks, so we'd lose perhaps 7% of our tank force in the war.

Your numbers are absurd. The Chinese can field 5 million immediately, with mandatory service and immediate drafts they could easily field another 10million in just the province we decided to stage from. Kill the first 5 million and the remaining 10 just pick up their guns and keep fighting. Given china's massive industrial complex that has and is continuing to be built the arms problem wouldn't even be an issue.

Sure they did, they used equipment bought from Russia as well as North Korean equipment... But they didn't use very much of it, that is true.

What happened is a million Chinese soldiers crossed the border when we were not prepared, and did not have the forces in place to do anything about it. At the time, our tanks were fragile and could not withstand sustained attack from handheld anti-tank weapons and mortors. Today, our tanks can withstand anything a soldier can carry, and can withstand point-blank shots from other tanks.

Only missiles and bombs from aircraft can destroy the M1A2 Abrams tank

One we regrouped and recovered, we held them at the original border, they could not make any further headway, despite huge numbers of reinforcements. Once we held them, we bombed them into submission and they sued for peace

You need to brush up on your History. The Chinese snuck 300,000 men accross the boarder into NK. They then attacked into the left side of the advancing UN force and crushed them. The UN forced retreated to within a mile of the end of the Korean penisula. Using suppier tactics we were able to push the chinese back to the 38th parallel and then the war turned into a big meat grinder. The UN out of a desire to stop the flow of casulties pursued peace with the CCF and NK's. Consult this timeline to brush up your history.

That was true then, it isn't true now. That is the gap the M2 Bradley filled... The 25mm auto cannon on the front filled the gap between the .50 cal machine guns and the big 120mm main gun on the M1A1 Abrams. Those two armored vehicles working together means that no longer do American soldiers have to dismount to fight. We can take on large numbers of human wave attackers using the weapons mounted on those vehicles.

Put it together man. The infantry armed with anti-tank weapons kill the Bradley's and other light armored vehicles. The infantry then mops up the Tanks who then lack the support to adequatly defend themselves.

It's simple, we invade china and we lose. We are not invincible, pull your head out and realize the advantage of numbers. Sun Tzu knew the power of numbers in 600BC.

 

[LongCoolMother]

about how likely is this war you guys speak of? i dont think it would happen anytime soon, from the way things are looking.

id hate to see it happen. i love the culture there. i love the cities and the people there. i love the history. it would be a shame to see two great countries go at it. 🙁

 

[Alistar7]

interesting story that also tells of chinas military "strength" vs ours

China today does not have the air or boat lift capability to re-enact our landing at normandy. The following story will clarify the stark reality between the weapons of today vs then.

During ww2 there was an airplane engine plant, one of Japan's most vital that NEEDED to be destroyed, it went on to become one of the most sought after targets of all time.
The US launched a total of 833 sorties comprised of full bomber squadrons with full fighter support, all of which failed, the factory never was destroyed.

A B2 stealth bomber of TODAY could take that factory out AND SIX identical in size BY ITSELF within @ 1000 miles IN ONE MISSION, not even required to fly over the target area.

You do the math, if ONE of our planes can do the job in ONE DAY what thousands couldnt in the WHOLE WAR, and China cant even claim to be at our ww2 level right now, who do YOU think would win ANY WAR.

P.S. They are WELL aware of this themselves, our ability in 1991 alone shook them greatly, we are now even more efficient and precise.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, China is what, 4000 year old nation?

China is a region with a 4,000 year history...

They have at times been ruled by a lot of different people. The current rulers have been there since just after WWII. THEY are new kids on the block too...

: ) Hopper

3000 years of advanced, sophisticated civilization. For many centuries, leaders in commerce, weaponry, military strategies, etc.

Don't know if you can say the same for North America.

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Obviously you are caught up in the moment and aren't thinking logically. Anyway this is just hypothetical yammering and hopefully we won't ever have to find out who is right and who isn't.

Of course it is hypothetical, and no, we'll never find out...

I do however believe we could win a standup conventional war against China. I have too much free time on my hands, so I think about these things... 😀

: ) Hopper

It's find to hypothesize as long as you keep it to yourself.

What is dangerous is that you could potentially brainwash many 12-year-olds (or anybody with such level of understanding of this matter) who will grow up thinking that America could easily wipe out China.

 

[joohang]

This is an interesting thread, but it is absolutely absurd and extremely dangerous to even suggest that America could easily win a war against China. I mean, seriously, wtf???

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I wouldn't say 40 years but it's definitely behind and I'll take quality over quantity. The size of their standing army doesn't mean much if they can't project its power.

Quality or not, how the hell does anybody win against China?

 

[funks]

remember folks, there's enough nuclear weapons in the world to blow it up 7000 times.. the US shouldn't be worried about military conflict against china, instead - we should brace ourselves for the up and coming economic war.

 

[OulOat]

Here is an excellent, indepth site about the Chinese military. From what I read, it doesn't seem too bias, it mentions both the strengths and weaknesses. Oh well, at least it's an interesting read.

--An interesting tidbit about the T-98, China's newest tank--
Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

...

The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: OulOat
Here is an excellent, indepth site about the Chinese military. From what I read, it doesn't seem too bias, it mentions both the strengths and weaknesses. Oh well, at least it's an interesting read.

--An interesting tidbit about the T-98, China's newest tank--
Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

...

The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.

I wonder if they'll be training dolphins? 😉

 

[OulOat]

WTF, they copied the humvee.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: OulOat
WTF, they copied the humvee.

lol

 

[Shlong]

"Last time I checked, China is what, 4000+ year old nation? China have seen so many great enemies and rivals come and go, and all they did is outwait, outbreed, and outlive them. In the states it's all about what's happening now, but in other parts of the world people are much more aware of history, and their place in history, and that they don't necessarily need to exert themselves trying to build some big empire or be the first in everything, but proceed slowly but surely at their own pace. Sun Tzu knew the power of numbers in 600BC. Empires die. Civilizations don't." -Some Forum Guy I read online somewhere.

 

[ManSnake]

Empires die. Civilizations don't.

Yes, they do, when I turn of my computer!

 

[MadRat]

The Iraq operation is fundementally against U.S. military doctrine formulated this past two decades. We prepared for containment, not for necessarily for an active invasion. In the past 48 hours the Iraqi army just gave the U.S. a taste of the fallacy in American commanders theory about being able to sustain a mobile battleline. We are not invulnerable and if you paid attention to the details of the military doctrine and the logistics involved then you wouldn't be so gungho to push the invasion before the next two task forces make it around the Arabian peninsula. The U.S. invasion force is way too thin right now.

The U.S. should have been picking its fights and staying out of the East until it was really ready to move full force up to and into Baghdad.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: tec699
I can imagine the Chinese military's response when we conducted the shock and awe campaign.

Chinese military's response - :Q

-You have to wonder whether or not they are looking at the war very closely.

Question - Is it true that the Chinese military is 40 years behind the Americans? And is that there Navy, Airforce and Army or is it just certain parts that are 40 years behind the Americans?

Yes, given 6 months to deploy and setup as we have for Iraq, we could easily defeat China's Army in a stand up fight. Unlike Saddam, who is an idiot, China would never give us those six months...

: ) Hopper

Gotta love those armchair generals!

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: joohang

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, China is what, 4000 year old nation?

China is a region with a 4,000 year history...

They have at times been ruled by a lot of different people. The current rulers have been there since just after WWII. THEY are new kids on the block too...

: ) Hopper

3000 years of advanced, sophisticated civilization. For many centuries, leaders in commerce, weaponry, military strategies, etc.

Don't know if you can say the same for North America.

one point:
US:Landed man on the moon, 1969
China:Hopes to land a man on the moon by 2005


btw: a war with china would be extremely stupid for both the US and China to take part in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's add things just as likely to happen as these chest beating hypotheticals. The US invasion forces land, and massive numbers of Trogdors from secret biolabs display their magnificence and burninate the entire force. This is followed by an attack of zigs which were moved for great justice.

Some people need to get a real job.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: ncircle

Originally posted by: joohang

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Last time I checked, China is what, 4000 year old nation?

China is a region with a 4,000 year history...

They have at times been ruled by a lot of different people. The current rulers have been there since just after WWII. THEY are new kids on the block too...

: ) Hopper

3000 years of advanced, sophisticated civilization. For many centuries, leaders in commerce, weaponry, military strategies, etc.

Don't know if you can say the same for North America.

one point:
US:Landed man on the moon, 1969
China:Hopes to land a man on the moon by 2005

nobody suggested that the chinese civilization has always been leaders. it has had golden ages and slumps. and it has suffered a lot for the last hundred years or so eg the end of the manchurian dynasty being corrupt and backwards, numerous foreign invasions and the extreme communist party. the chinese civilization is very resilient and has experienced quite a lot. america has made some very astounshing achievements in the last hundred years but that's a relatively short amount of time compared to a few thousand years. you are comparing a country in its golden age to anther that is just beginning to recover from some very bad things.

 

[oslama]

Mao said its not the weapons that decide wars its the people that do.

And china has far more people then US

1.2 billion vs. 275 million

 

[Zhou]

Why do people think most Chinese live in huts? The majority of the population lives Along the Eastern Coast (and few hundred miles inland) in major cities.

Most people on this forum think China in terms of the Maoist regime in the 1940s and 1950s. 1 suggestion: go to Shanghai. The rate of change is simply astronomical. Chinese people living in the United States know. They dont go home for 2-3 years, and go back. They cant even recognize what city they're in.

That's so true...


Grasshopper... stop and think about the economical aspects of a none nuclear conflict. How long would a war take for 'sucess'..... how much the cost?