Is the chinese military the biggest paper tiger currently in

>>33524254
Competence isn't needed for human wave attacks.

>>33524352
one air burst artilery and your shitty wave is dead.

>>33524254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

>>33524599
thats like saying we still use tactics from Vietnam in our current military. its over 50 years old.

>>33524599

dont forget their successful invasion of vietnam

>>33524254
>cant move a mechanized division 50 miles without shitting itself

yeah, no

It's big, modern, but their experience is UN Blue Helmet work.

>>33524254
Yes.

If we assumed some conventional conflict between the US and China, either in the Pacific over some islands or in the middle East or South Asia over land, the Chinese military would collapse into chaos after the first weeks.

File: Grid_Array_BO.jpg (691KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1000x563px

>>33524254
>Are they even a competent military?
no. They have very little combat experience and plenty of corruption, all while having little ability to project meaningful amounts of force anywhere.

I often see normies compare them to the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union, which is a laughable comparison. One is a paper tiger of one million men and no technological parity with the West to speak of, while the other was a veritable giant with upwards of 10 million men (not counting the rest of WARPAC) and technology on par with/surpassing NATO.

this isn't to say that the Chinese aren't a threat, they've been trying very hard to expand their soft power. Chinese investment firms have been buying up western R&D companies in a wide variety of fields, and have been making major acquisitions in the western entertainment sector. These purchases are being pushed by the Chinese government itself, it isn't just the work of a bunch of bean-counters looking to expand corporate power. The Chinese want their nation to be the technological, economic and cultural center of the 21st Century world, and if we continue to sit on our asses they may very well succeed.

pic unrelated

Wait, even before we get to US vs China hypotheticals, how do you think that we(Europ) would fare against China?

Or even Russia or India itself?

>>33524757
China beats India, but the mountains prevent anything other than just a short border skirmish.

China has a functioning economy and industry. While Russia does not. Russia will try to trade land for time, and hope winter makes China pay for every km they take in the east. Eventually someone gets their feelings hurt and does something rash. Then they stop fighting and talk things out. Russia loses.

Europeans cannot project power all the way to China. Not even the British of French can do more than defend their pacific/indian ocean territories.

>>33524806
>russia loses

Unless facing the US I do not see this happening.

>>33524824
Russia is the Rusted Tiger.

Their economy is in the shitter and war with China would completely collapse it.

China has all the motivation in the world to grab the energy resources and Lebensraum in Russia's far east. They can also whip up with nationalistic ferver with historical revisionism. Saying the russian far east was stolen from the Qing dynasty or some shit. They can simply out spend the Russians in blood and treasure.

Russia can only save face by using nukes.

>>33524897
>Russia can only save face by using nukes.

And that is russia's biggest advantage over any military in the world (minus the US). Of course they would nuke beijing.

>>33524691
>successful invasion of vietnam
those don't exist for anyone

>>33524987
France managed once

>>33524691
You mean the one where the Viets thoroughly btfo the Chinese by applying the same tactics they used against the US on an inept Chinese military?

>>33525184
It's funny because both sides claim a victory. The Vietnamese say that they repulsed the Chinese invasion, while the Chinese say they achieved the objectives of reaching whatever region they were supposedly aiming for and punishing the Vietnamese for their activities in Cambodia.

>>33524254
Chinese military history is getting BTFO by everyone except themselves. They do a really good job of killing each other.

>>33524352
Human wave attacks have been outdated since at least the 1890s.

>>33526612
>Human wave attacks have been outdated since at least the 1890s.

Didn't stop the Russians or the Japanese in WW2,

Why has China invade a sand country yet. They could take all the women and oil.

The desperately need both.

>>33526694
The Japs only did that as a last resort.

>>33526814

Because they'd have to deal with sandnigger women, which even they don't want. There's a reason goatfucking is so popular in the region.

>>33524897
>Their economy is in the shitter and war with China would completely collapse it.

China's economy is manyfold more vulnerable. They are running that shit hand-to-mouth and rely completely on currency manipulation to float them through the rough patches

Biggest problem would be inflexibility. No possible way Chinese industry could re-tool for wartime production and logistics.

>>33526612
Worked pretty well for them at Chosin.

>>33526814
>Why has China invade a sand country yet.

that's what western china is. xinjiang is mostly ethnic muslim.

or was, since they're deporting the muslims and bringing in han settlers.

>>33524744

>technological economic and cultural center

Instead of their children learning English to come to the US for a chance for a better life, our children will learn Chinese for a chance for a better life.

>>33526997
Where are they deporting the muslims to?

>>33527252

sorry, not deporting, "resettling" the ethnic minorities in other provinces.

if you asked me to be specific, i'd say random housing in tier2-3 cities with high han chinese pop. it's not exactly ghetto since everyone is forced into the same shitty small rooms/bunk rooms.

>>33527318
>It's not racist if we treat everyone like shit
Seems fair

>>33527233
Yeah no.

They can spend a fuck ton of cash, and wind up with a metric assload of overpriced assets that they have to unload at fire sale prices later when the gloss wears off. The Japs went through the exact same process in the 80s. When their economy hiccuped, they were flogging studios and Dutch Masters at yard sale prices.

China will never be the cultural center of anything, because they don't into pop culture. You can't force culture onto people. That's the secret of American culture. We don't force it anywhere, we just give it airtime and let the magic happen. We're like McDonald's- common, artificial, and everywhere. Addictive, bad for you, and ultimately regrettable the next morning. Nonetheless, people want to try our culture. They want to live a Hollywood life and get some of that Disney magic, even though they know it's a lie.

The only thing China has to offer is the same kind of soulless dreary monochrome shit that the rest of the world is trying to get away from.

>>33527318
>not deporting, "resettling" the ethnic minorities in other provinces.

Dividing and diluting?

>>33524254
They have numbers and that alarming enough, I heard there weren't even enough bullets manufactured in the USA to shoot every last one of their soldiers, if they ever invaded we'd probably would have to do a hesvy amount of carpet bombing.

>>33527538

Considering every single ship in the Chinese Navy would be at the bottom of the Pacific before they left the Sea of Japan, I'm not too concerned with a Chinese military invasion. Chinese can't and won't try it with a military conflict. They know they'd lose. They will do what Chinese people have done for 1000s of years. Make deals, backstab, and use subterfuge.

And be promptly conquered when this eventually backfires, only to say the conquering armies loved China so much they officially became Chinese and China by default wins, just like the good ol' days.

>>33526996
You mean the disaster at Chosin where they managed to lose 50% of their committed troops while only taking out of action some 15% of the allied forces? Human wave tactics have never worked. What worked for the chinese in korea was small unit infiltration techniques with coordinated attacks on strong points. ie exactly the same thing that worked well for them in their civil war.

>>33525002
>France
>Successful in Indo China

>>33524254
>thinking combat experience matters

nice meme dude

>>33528418
It certainly helps.

>>33524254

It's in transition, but there's a good chance that what comes out of it is decent. While experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is experience, it is nothing like fighting a peer. Also, this emphasis on COIN has to some extent come at the expense of high intensity war-fighting capability.

Yes, the USA (with its allies) are currently superior to the PLA, however complacency is the road to a nasty surprise.

File: Jnu2xX7.jpg (135KB, 1530x849px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1530x849px

>>33528673
>however complacency is the road to a nasty surprise.
The US Military is far from complacent.

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/donkey-rescued-after-falling-down-well

This is a video of chinese soldiers helping a farmer get his donkey out of a well.

>>33527538
> I heard there weren't even enough bullets manufactured in the USA to shoot every last one of their soldiers
Sorry, are we still talking about the Chinese or the Zerg? How does that retarded statement even sound plausible in your head? There's "only" 1 billion Chinese, total. Less than half that could be conscripted, much less fielded. There's probably more ammo than that in a single large military base. That doesn't even count the fact that other weapons would do most of the killing. There would be plenty of rounds for each soldier, with some to spare.

>>33528418
It's incredibly important
Not for the soldiers but for the leaders and the equipment

Could you imagine your entire chain of command having no combat leadership experience and only getting where they are through dick sucking? As soon as the battle plan deviates it crumbles and no one will make the necessary judgement calls after that because they won't be confident enough to risk the blame

>>33527538
Gotta stop getting your info from the fudds hanging out at the gun shop

>>33528418
No, it isn't a meme.

>>33524932
>Of course they would nuke beijing.
who wouldn't?

>>33524254
yeah but after beating up on dune coons for a decade.....
china or NK would fucking DAMAGE whatever the U.S. threw at it

this wouldn't be Iraq.
in fact lets say you took either NK or China's portion of the army
and you take a portion of the U.S. army, trying to keep things proportional. then you magically place them in Iraq or some other country where neither side has a homefield advantage of the mainland.

they would probably get a 70/30% ratio
as in like 70% of their army would get wiped out and 30% of the U.S. would get wiped out
which is a fair exchange all things considered

people talk like norks are some big joke because LOL 1950's TECH!!!
niggers, all they need is arty and AK's. that's what half of a war is and has been since ww2.
truthfully the U.S. dont want none. yeah we would steam roll them. but at a fucking HEAVY price.
goes double for china.

>then again, all you'd have to do is bribe whatever generals in charge and the US vs China war is over

>>33524806
>chink vs russian scenario
You live in a fantasy world. The Russianscan nuke China into ashes ten times over while only suffering relatively minor damage itself - 400 odd nukes is not nearly enough to wipe Russia out. Even in a conventional scenario China has a whole fuckton of nothing to cross to even put a dent in Russia's war fighting ability, probably under air inferiority. Russia hardly even needs to commit any ground troops, they can just track Chinese movements and shell them to death with planes and missiles. Nothing makes it across the Mongolian plains.

>>33527538
>if they ever invaded
How are they going to get across the Pacific? Can they, like, walk on water? Or do they build a human bridge? No really, I'm interested.

>>33524254
they're actually fighting the somali pirates a lot lately

>>33528993
It's really common among spergs to completely disregard real life logistical issues and stick to autistivally comparing the stats on small arms.

>>33526986
What? China is communist, is littered with giant factories and is chock-full of peasant tier poorfags. They could literally just grab a million people, throw them in a claimed factory and shit out tanks or other equipment

No military in the world could come close to defeating the US military in a full-scale war.

The key to defeating the US would be somehow trashing the US economy and then waiting for the nation to collapse. Of course, at this point in time, if you destroy the US economy then the rest of the world's economies also get rekt so it would be like shooting yourself in the foot. China's economy is currently far more fragile than the US economy.

Yes, China's entire 2000+ years of military history is a story of a paper tiger.

>Beaten by Mongols
>Beaten by Manchus
>Beaten Jurchens
>Beaten by Japs (had to be saved by USSR)

>>33529537
Meant
>Beaten by Jurchens

>>33528418
Experience makes a difference in every other human endeavor on the planet. Why would you think that it doesn't apply to warfare?

>>33524599

All those people are sitting in retirement homes.

>>33528418

Lack of combat experience is exactly how China was pwned by Japan in their last major war in spite of the fact that they held every other advantage.

>>33529774
>China
>retirement homes

choose one and only one

File: 1403038997958.jpg (133KB, 776x678px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 776x678px

>>33524254
>No experience
They beat the shit out of NATO in the Korean war

>>33529841
That was 65 years ago you mong.

>>33529841

>>"Beat the shit out of NATO"

>they did not win, infact they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
>it was the UN, not NATO

You tried.

>>33529852
>>33529844
Have a I struck a nerve?

>That tank US army tank attrition rate circa 1952
Literally somalian tier

>>33524806
> Russia will try to trade land for tim

This has to end at some point, technological advancement should the methods on which logistical lines are drawn and managed.

>>33529841
>NATO
>Korean War
So which stupid third world country are you from?

>>33524254

They're big enough to absorb losses until they git gud. Like Russia but even more so.

>>33529861
>Have a I struck a nerve?
>>>>>NATO

Nope.

>Muh combat experience
NATO armies have not fought a peer opponent since korea (and even that's questionable). Don't act like beating up sandniggers is in any way indicative of how they would fare against china. (That doesn't mean we can't know pretty well from other sources, I'm just saying.)

>>33529893
>NATO armies have not fought a peer opponent since korea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NATO

>>33529841
Your statement is categorically wrong.

>>33529896
No army currently involved with NATO has fought a conventional peer war since korea. Unless you're somehow implying that forming NATO afterwards totally changed the character of the armies involved, the statement is true.

>>33528985
>niggers, all they need is arty and AK's. that's what half of a war is and has been since ww2.
>this wouldn't be Iraq.

You seem to think that Iraq didn't have artillery. In fact, before the gulf war, Iraq had more and newer artillery, more and newer tanks, more and newer aks, more and newer aircraft, more and newer APCs, more and newer ammunition. Yeah that last ones important to, as when they shelled Yongping island, 25-30% of their shells were duds.

Remember in '91, Iraq was qualitatively superior to North Korea AND China. North Korea has not advanced since then, and thus remains significantly behind '91 Iraq. The only thing that North Korea has that Iraq did not is nukes. However, the first nuke they fire, means they will be completely slaughtered when we retaliate with our own much bigger nukes.

>>33528992
I highly doubt Russia will have air superiority in any conflict with China. Russia failed to gain air superiority in their war with Georgia, despite Georgia not having any fighters because of SAMs. Hence with Russia vs China, most likely this ends up in the clear skies situation where the air forces sit out and do nothing lest they get shot down by the S-400's on either side, or the HQ-9/S-300 etc.

>>33526694
Russian military didn't send human wave attacks, stop sucking Hollywood's cock, they were well armed and trained at all times during the war.
It was only the conscripted people that caused those gigantic losses.
OP asked about the military.

>>33529927
Russia and China haven't fought a peer since WW2. What is your point? You think Russian bombing sandniggers and Caucasians counts as an achievement?

>>33529928
>most likely this ends up in the clear skies situation

Never will happen. They dont have doctrine and equipment to actually EFFECTIVELY (key word) fight an IADN like the US, but they can do some things, like fly nap of the earth to completely eliminate the long range components of said systems. Sure, this will get you zapped by SHORAD, but that cant be everywhere.

>>33529893
>>33529927
you are saying the same shit he said:>>33528985

Iraq in '91 was the third largest army in the world, it was also qualitatively second outside of NATO. That's right it had better quality that China and North Korea, while also having more material than North Korea, and half as much as China. Spoiler alert, none of that mattered.

NATO is the only group which has recent experience fighting full scale war against a peer adversary. I know you don't want it to be true but deal with it.

>>33529877
Also, he is probably from America, and just a retard who think he is trolling, without realizing that he is actually retarded.

>>33529938
>Reading comprehension
The point is that neither side has experience worth mentioning. (In fact, russia doing poorly against georgia is actually very indicative, but that's a different topic.)

File: swag.jpg (233KB, 1800x1224px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1800x1224px

>>33526612
this is so wrong.
human wave attacks are the reason why US/UN forces were pushed away from the DMZ and why the Korean war remained a stalemate.

arguably human wave attacks were effective in Vietnam. Google Battle of Ia Drang and read how/why the code name Broken Arrow had been the last option before US forces were completely overrun.

>>33529247

Your laborforce might be monstruous, but you cannot simply put yang wang bang into making the high precision optics that tanks need for example.

>>33529861
>That tank US army tank attrition rate circa 1952

It was 2.85/:1, in favor of the US, over a course of 119 tank battles.

File: 800.jpg (78KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x533px

It doesn't matter how shit your army is when you have a president who will do what you want him to in exchange for, say, giving him trademarks he's long wanted, or giving favorable deals to his son-in-law.

>>33529952
The beating up dune coons part is the only similarity here.

Iraq was an oil nation with bought equipment. NATO had the plans to their air defense system because it was built by frenchmen, ffs. (They also bribed some of their generals.) If you think that anywhere comparable to china, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Just a disclaimer: I'm not saying china is currently or will in the foreseeable future be superior in the technologies and capabilities that matter. I'm just saying that these technologies will not be used against peer enemies before it happens, which is why neither side will get meaningful experience.

File: 8aa623e624d977b845b026fac9240b6a6b3073845b5ee2dc1624022f1d30b1eb.jpg (17KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 360x270px

>>33524254
are you all dense. Drones means no infantry escapes being a predestined corpse.

>>33530018
>>33530018

>a president who will do what you want him to

Except trump has done the opposite of this.

Its cute the Chinese are trying to buy him though, it shows they are truly scared.

>>33529929
>It was only the conscripted people that caused those gigantic losses.
>OP asked about the military.

See if you can follow along. All of those dead conscripts were conscripted into the military. Have your wrangler explain that to you.

>>33524254

aren't they slowly building up exp in Africa?

>>33529945
flying nap of the earth puts you in MANPADs, AAA, and panstir range. Flying high gets you fucked by the long range systems. Hence there is no safe altitude for them to fly at, and as you said:
>They dont have doctrine and equipment to actually EFFECTIVELY (key word) fight an IADN like the US

To prove that MANPADs are deadly take a look at the losses the soviet union and russia sustained in afgahinstan (78 fixed wing), chechnya part one(140+) this is still an offically classified number which should give you an inkling into how bad it really was, and checnya two (8fixed wing), and then georgia (7fixed wing, 5 via MANPADs).

Neither Russia nor China can afford to have loss rate per sorite of 21, which is their average across these recent conflict. Hence clear skies.

File: 1475462371503.jpg (454KB, 1016x1016px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1016x1016px

>>33530043
no they're just contracting aids. YELLOWED.com

>>33530044
>flying nap of the earth puts you in MANPADs, AAA, and panstir range.

The issue is the range is short with these systems, meaning the plane can fight back or stands a decent chance of getting to the objective.

Again, shorad cant be everywhere, while long range systems can. For example the 57E6 missile on the Pantsir has a whopping range of 20km, further masked by terrain.

>Neither Russia nor China can afford to have loss rate per sorite of 21,

Yet, it did not stop the planes did it? They very much can support it.

>>33530033
>Iraq was an oil nation with bought equipment.
North Korea buys all their equipment, and so does China (If they don't steal it that is).

> NATO had the plans to their air defense system because it was built by frenchmen, ffs
BS conspiracy theories. If we had the plans we also would have had the IFF frequencies and not one NATO aircraft would have been shot down.

>If you think that anywhere comparable to china
Indeed they are. Most of China's equipment is still the old outdated equipment that made up their forces back in '91. More than half their air fleet is still 3rd generation, most of their troops don't have body armor or optics, most of their forces aren't mechanized. DOes China have some toys that exceed '91 Iraq yes, but don't let that fool you, just because they have one does not mean every single SAM is now an HQ-9 or better, or every fighter is now a J-20 or better, etc.
Just a disclaimer: I'm not saying china is currently or will in the foreseeable future be superior in the technologies and capabilities that matter. I'm just saying that these technologies will not be used against peer enemies before it happens, which is why neither side will get meaningful experience.
You have now backpedaled from "peer adversary, someone on the supposedly same level of technology and development, to "the exact same adversary" effectively the only way to have peer adversary experience against China by your definition is to have already fought with China.

>>33530044
>flying nap of the earth puts you in MANPADs, AAA, and panstir range.
Those systems also have less field of view and window of opportunity as well against low flying vehicles. It's how cruise missiles remain effective against ships and land targets. That's like you telling me that Russian helicopter doctrine is wrong.

File: 1491243617258.jpg (27KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 540x540px

Far and wide, everyone important in china gets there through a combination of dick sucking, family ties, and government corruption.

In Chinese schools, once you pass the entrance exam they force you though and pass you no matter what.

How does that translate to a military? It means there's nobody willing to risk a bold idea to win. They'll act predictably on a tactical and strategically and lose.

They're also choked on on Sea access by the US Navy and it's allies. Imagine China being cut off from global sea trade.

Finally there's the chinese economy. That shit is going to come crashing down any day now. Their housing bubble makes ours look like child's play.

You can argue bullets and equipment all day, but at the end of the day, what wins wars is the ability to fight longer than the enemy. You need good logistics and economic base.

>>33530075
>Yet, it did not stop the planes did it? They very much can support it.
hahahaha. given a fleet of 1500 aircraft, and a 21 loss per 1000 sortie, means after 71000 sorties ( which is 25000 less than the US alone in the gulf war) they are out of aircraft. Now country has the production levels necessary to sustain such attrition. THe US, which produces by far the more aircraft per year can only sustain 2 losses per 1000 sorties. So please explain how countries that don't produce half of what the US does can sustain ten times higher losses and remain a fighting force.

>The issue is the range is short with these systems, meaning the plane can fight back or stands a decent chance of getting to the objective.
hahahaha, you seem to think getting to the objective is the purpose of aircraft. That is the purpose of missiles, and kamikazes. Aircraft are supposed to be reusable strike aircraft where they can RELIABLY and successfully strike the enemy and RTB.

>>33530124
>That's like you telling me that Russian helicopter doctrine is wrong.
When you're strike fighter bombers are flying the exact same routes as your helicopters, your fixed wing aircraft are effectively useless. Hell you might as well fly helicopters only at that point. Also remember helis take higher losses than fixed wing aircraft, as the Russian average was 55 losses per 1000 sorties. Congratulations your doctrine has now made the attrition problem worse. Hence the skies will be clear.

>>33530148
> given a fleet of 1500 aircraft....

You assume the enemy can keep up the rate of attack on the planes without being attrited itself.

>He US, which produces by far the more aircraft per year can only sustain 2 losses per 1000 sorties.

Wew lad, would love to see a source on this, with historical basis, because i do believe Vietnam proved this wrong instantly.

> Aircraft are supposed to be reusable strike aircraft where they can RELIABLY and successfully strike the enemy and RTB.

Pure autism. Yes, im sorry i was not specific enough. Stands a decent chance of getting to and back from the objective. Better?

>hahahaha

hahahahaha.

>>33530143
>Imagine China being cut off from global sea trade.
You do know China can conduct business inland with it's neighboring countries, negating your little sea blockade.

>>33530207

>negating

Nothing will match sea trade. I dont know if they could survive off land trade alone, much less economically survive.

>>33530143
>How does that translate to a military? It means there's nobody willing to risk a bold idea to win. They'll act predictably on a tactical and strategically and lose.
>I do not know how Chinese conduct wargames.jpg.

Fun fact: Opposing force gets all the advantages. Accidents and lack of a lot of support (say, air support gets wiped out, comms go down) are simulated for the tested battlegroup.

>>33530207
>China can conduct business inland with it's neighboring countries

They depend on the purchasing power of rich western countries to buy massive amounts of their chinkshit though. Most of China's neighbors are either too poor or too small to keep China's export based economy afloat.

>>33530207
China exports mostly to the West so a sea blockade would cripple China.

>>33530224
>>33530226
Also, most of China's neighbors hate/fear China because of their expansionist behavior and scramble to steal any territory in the S. China Sea that has any amount of oil or natural resources.

>>33530223

Thats not true of all war games (as if you could prove that anyways), just true of some.

And the 'home' force always loses.

Hell, if you believe the propaganda, Chinese shit themselves when they found out (via wargame) that stealth was not a meme.

>>33530223
>Fun fact: Opposing force gets all the advantages. Accidents and lack of a lot of support (say, air support gets wiped out, comms go down) are simulated for the tested battlegroup.
I read that article too, you might as well mention that when OPFOR was beefed up to US-comparable capabilities, China got rekt too. But in that same article iirc, one of the commanders claimed that this is something they needed to work on. So it's changing..slowly..but changing.
>>33530224
>rich western countries to buy massive amounts of their chinkshit though
So doesn't that mean the relationship is mutual to some degree? You're going to hurt a lot of US domestic businesses if you're blocking off trade. Unless you're also saying the US would just try and get cheap stuff from elsewhere.

>>33530261
>Unless you're also saying the US would just try and get cheap stuff from elsewhere.

US has already been doing this. Malaysia, Singapore, hell, Vietnam.

>>33524254
they will run scared the first time a tamohawk blows up a bunch of people who look just like him. The downside of homogeny.

>>33530267
>US has already been doing this. Malaysia, Singapore, hell, Vietnam.
Can't China just threaten the fuck out of them though, like it already has with those islands? Even then, i doubt those other countries combined could match Chinas production output.

>>33530297
>Can't China just threaten the fuck out of them though, like it already has

They can try. But they cant do more than just threaten without having the USN get involved.

> Even then, i doubt those other countries combined could match Chinas production output.

No, but they could match US bound production output.

Then there is india, who could very well become the next "china".

>>33528992
>Atomic Joker argument

The Russians would NEVER used their nukes against the chinese unless China used nukes first.

Even if Russia was to nuke chinese cities, it would barely make a scratch to China's demography while contributing little in the war effort.

Please consider that China's industrial output is about 10 times that of Russia.

If we are talking military hardware, sure, Russia has a technological edge for air force and missiles... but it just cannot produce enough for it to matter in the all-out engagement you are writing about.

In a limited engagement, Russia would win because it has an impressive stockpile of weapons and a rather well-trained military compared to China.

But in a longer engagement, such stockpile would melt away after a few months.
And then, China's industrial might and demography (both 10 times higher than Russia) will just eat away the Russian army.

If Russia then used nukes, it would destroy a few cities and towns but then what ?
It would kill a few dozens millions of Chinese, ravaged infrastructure but not to a scale large enough for it to prevent China to rebuild in 2-3 years.
China would sill have a military apparatus large enough to eat up Russia.
Said military apparatus would even grow as the economy is geared toward total war with a scale of leverage such that Russia would be left behind in a matter of months.

>>33530339

If russia went full pell mell on china it would not exist, full stop.

There would be no rebuilding in 2-3 years.

Russia has 400 land based ICBM's alone, with over 1000 warheads. This is not counting SLBM's...another 500 or so.

China cant rebuild in 2-3 years after that. Nobody could.

>>33530241
Too bad the Philippines is cozying up with the Chinese lately. Dudirty whored his brown ass out to some chink dick.

>>33530380

He got the chinese to give him millions for NOTHING.

Did he rip up the MDA with the US? Nope.

Meaningless.

File: pla_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg (264KB, 1420x873px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1420x873px

>>33528992
>400 odd nukes

Even if counting 50.000 casualties per nuke, that still makes about 20 millions people.
Russia has "only" about 150 millions people, with 20 millions for the 4 biggest cities alone.
Losing those 4 cities and the 1/7 of its population that lives in them would be crushing.
Hell, nuking Moscow alone would be enough to destroy all centralized control over the federation.

>>33530392
Millions for nothing? Did you mean the millions he loaned from China? Or should we consider those millions as payment for the territory they encroached on?
Forgot about the MDA, but aside from the Balikatan exercises, I don't think he'll be too keen on playing with the Americans.

>That shit is going to come crashing down any day now.

I'm no Chinaboo but people have been saying that for like 20 years

>>33530416
400 vs ~2,000
yeah you're right anon russia is at a major disadvantage

>>33524352

No experience recently? Sure.

No experience ever? No.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=62511&start=30

>Even without their commanders the VN troops did not give out their position. Even their wounded did not scream. They quickly move the wounded out of the area after the flare went down. Their discipline was unbelievable.

>>33530364
>Nobody could

Japan says "hi"

>Firebombed to the point where the US Air Force lacked target worth bombing
>Only rubble standing by 1945
>Back to pre-war level by 1960

Now consider that China has a MUCH larger urban area than Japan.
And that 40% of its population lives outside said cities.

The average "industrial town" in China has millions of workers and is spread out over such an area that it would take dozens of nukes to destroy it.
Russia has a lot of nukes... but not enough.

Proportion-wise, the devastation of dropping its whole arsenal on China wouldn't be comparable to the one of the US bombing of Japan.
Hence China could get back up quickly, simply because it has enough educated workers and international credit to do so.
Russia, on the other end... only has raw materials and a rusty stockpile from the USSR.

>>33530424
>Forgot about the MDA

No. Because thats the real crux of the issue. No matter what happens, thats still there. As long as it stays there, anything with china, any "slight" is meaningless.

>>33530075
>shorad cant be everywhere
SHORAD can literally be anywhere there are troops. That's one of the main points of it's existence. The problem is we done did fucked up and gutted 70% of our SHORD capabilities over the past decade.

t. Former 14 series

>>33530513

>Japan says "hi"

>Firebombed to the point where the US Air Force lacked target worth bombing

Wrong.

>Only rubble standing by 1945

Again, wrong. Many cities were untouched.

>Back to pre-war level by 1960

Only due to much investment by the US.

>Russia has a lot of nukes... but not enough.

They have more than enough. One RS-24 (of which there are about 100) has 10 fucking nukes on it.

>Proportion-wise, the devastation of dropping its whole arsenal on China wouldn't be comparable to the one of the US bombing of Japan.

>whole arsenal

Jesus christ you are incredibly ignorant.

>>33530560
>SHORAD can literally be anywhere there are troops.

Sure. But its not everywhere there are troops at the same time. There are simply not enough assets to do it.

>>33530513
>What is nuking the 3 gorges dam for 500, Alex

File: Zhubi Islang Chinese SCS Base Feb 2017.jpg (2MB, 2458x2458px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2458x2458px

two months ago this was one of many chinese south china sea installations.

how can the US even hope to compete?

you can sink an island amerifats!

>>33530577
>you can sink an island Amerifats
Yes, yes we can.

>>33530577
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RJPOMWUnhJw
Can sink that runway and then take the island though.

>>33530577
>how can the US even hope to compete?

Thanks for the free assets, china.

File: china is fucked.png (777KB, 837x598px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 837x598px

>>33530635
Forgot my pic.

File: Operation_Crossroads_Baker_Edit.jpg (4MB, 5137x2696px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5137x2696px

>>33530577
Bikini Atoll would like to have a word with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6Q8Q1smwg

>>33526612
>What is the Korean War
>What is Vietnam
>What is Afghanistan
>What is Syria

>>33524254
>Are they even a competent military?
nobody knows

>>33530486
Proportions and absolute numbers are two different things, anon.
Russia has 5 times more nukes than China.
But China is, in demography, economy and military, 10 times larger than Russia.
Hence an advantage for China in a total war (which is what you are advocating by bringing the nuclear argument).

If we go by your number of 2000 nukes, Russia could kill maybe 100 millions of Chinese.
Which would be a shame but China would survive : it's "only" 7% of its population.
Russia would lose about 15% of its population.

It would also wipe out a fair 200.000 km2 of urban area.
Which would also be bad... but again, China would endure, what with having an urban population 6 times bigger than the whole Russian population and spread over 20 times the area that the whole Russian arsenal could destroy.
To be clear, China would lose, at worst, about 5% of its urban area and 10% of its population while leaving Russia with :
- no more nukes
- its 4 biggest and most developped cities in radioactive rubbles
- 15% less people

The 85% Russians left are barely worth mentionning :
They represent a womping 130 millions people, out of which the 13 or so conscriptable ones will have to face a chinese army that can conscript AND lose that many every year for a decade and still not feel it.

The russian industrial capacity has decreased a bit since the nuking.
In absolute term, even assuming China lost 50% of its industrial output after the nuking (it wouldn't...), said output would still be 5 times bigger than Russia's.

This is the extend of the difference between the two countries :

Russia is a well-armed village lost in frozen wilderness, capable of giving a early punch but then not having much else.
China is a lightly-armed but well-developped metropolis, capable of taking said punch and then crank out enough equipment to arm its much bigger population and prevail.

>>33524254
That picture is of their L33t Haxor Division. One place where human waves still work is the American internet. Christ, they've won the economic war of every mmo since everquest with saturation strikes.

>>33530667
>China is a lightly-armed but well-developped metropolis, capable of taking said punch and then crank out enough equipment to arm its much bigger population and prevail.

Literally none of that is true.
Outside of big cities that would be instantly obliterated it's a third world fucking country.

>>33530667

Ahh, i see your main issue here. You think people with sticks and stones can rebuild infrastructure.

The only way china rebuilds is with outside investment.

200,000 km2 is about all of china's military industrial base. (this is not including radiation, just blast to thermal effects btw).

Beijing city is 10,000km squared, give or take a dozen or so for the city proper. Thats 20 citys the size of beijing gone.

Beijing is by in far the most sprawling city. Guangzhou, pop wise is far larger, but size wise is much smaller at 7,000km.

They go down vastly from there.

>>33530109
I guess the Brits telling the French to stop selling EXOCET missiles to Argentina is a conspiracy theory as well? Just say you don't believe it, if you can't see a possible scenario where the French military complex would acquiess to NATO or western pressure you simply haven't been paying attention.

>>33529969
>"human wave attack" was often misused[26] to describe the Chinese short attack — a combination of infiltration and the shock tactics employed by the PLA during the Korean War.[27] According to some accounts, Marshal Peng Dehuai—the overall commander of the Chinese forces in Korea—is said to have invented this tactic.[28] A typical Chinese short attack was carried out at night by small fireteams on a narrow front against the weakest point in enemy defenses.[27] The Chinese assault team would crawl undetected within grenade range, then launch surprise attacks against the defenders in order to breach the defenses by relying on maximum shock and confusion.[27]
>human wave" was later used by journalists and military officials to convey the image that the American soldiers were assaulted by overwhelming numbers of Chinese on a broad front, which is inaccurate when compared with the normal Chinese practice of sending successive series of five men teams against a narrow portion of the line

no

File: IMG_9768.jpg (55KB, 634x775px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 634x775px

Holy fuck this is one shitty thread

Let's take a look at recent history

Second Sino-Jap War = Chinese victory
Chinese Civil War = PRC victory
Korean War = draw
China Tibet conflict = PRC victory
India China conflict 1962 = PRC victory
PRC USSR conflict = draw
China Vietnam 1979 conflict = draw although the Chinese had conquered 12,000 sqkm in two weeks before the peace treaty.
Since then there's been pretty much nothing violent other than Chinese victories in the South China Sea during the 80's and indirectly in Afghanistan.

Overall, they have either won or drawed. Does that mean as much today? Probably not, but they definitely aren't paper tigers.

You guys are fucking retarded for thinking about a major war between nuclear powers though.

>>33530820
>leaving out the Nathu La and Cho La incidents, where china got BTFO by poos.

>>33530820

OH, and you left out the first and 2nd taiwan crisis where the PRC failed to achieve anything. Especially the 2nd when they shelled the fuck out of taiwan then failed to do anything.

>>33530820
Yeah, China v Vietnam was not a draw. They got BTFO

>>33530820
Nice try, fiddy cent

Second Sino-Jap War = Chinese get bailed out by the USA, repay USA by immediately going to war with them

Chinese Civil War = The good guys lose, resulting in tens of millions of deaths

Korean War = An army of half a million Chinese with surprise, an incompetent enemy commander, and nuclear cover from the USSR still gets wrecked and forced to accept a white peace.

China Vietnam 1979 conflict = Vietnam still dominates Southeast Asia, Chinks thoroughly BTFO

>>33530867

The best part is where the F-86 Sabers absolutely fucking wrekt the chinese MIG's.

Crazy odds too, 100 to 30 in the MIGs favor.

>>33530667
All this is opinion and it's my opinion that if even half the command structure for the Chinese military was wiped out there would be complete chaos among the rank and file. I don't think such a nepotistic and graft based structure has the humility to place a contingency for the event that they themselves are all killed or imprisoned. I think precision strikes will be more effective in such a scenario.

>>33530820
>pic not related
He's from the reveal of the new Japanese formal dress uniforms.

>>33530846
>incidents, 400 dead indians, 400 dead chinese, no territorial changes
Wow what a war!

>>33530867
This has to be bait
First
>People's Republic of China seized the Yijiangshan Islands. United States and Republic of China navies evacuate military and civilians from Dachen Islands. Formosa Resolution of 1955 and Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty between ROC and United States

Second
>status quo antebellum
>440 ROC troops killed[1] 460 PRC troops killed, 218 civilians killed

>>33530869
>conquer 12,000sqkm of Vietnam and bombard Hanoi until a peace treaty is signed
The Vietnamese sure did.

>>33530871
>bailed out by US
>literally no significant US aid throughout the entire war

I really hope you aren't arguing that the Chinese didn't win. Ask yourself who sits on the UNSC today.

>Korean war
>hurduruejandijd but but but!
Kill yourself. You are repeating what I said.

>Vietnam dominates southeast asia
What the fuck am I reading

>>33530922
[Citation needed]

>>33531015
I know. Is there a problem?

Are you autistic by chance?

His face after he saw himself in his "uniform" is perfect for my view of this entire thread, so I posted it.

File: 1491076598771.jpg (144KB, 750x746px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 750x746px

>>33531035
>literally no significant US aid throughout the entire war

This is some next level stuff.

>>33531060
Well you're shilling chink dick harder than I've seen in a while and you decide to use a Japanese man as your image. And as someone reading into the "emotions" of a man in a random a picture, I'd say you're the one on the fuckin spectrum my friend.

>paper tiger
I want this meme to die; literally anybody could be considered a "paper tiger" when compared to the US.

>>33531035
>Wow what a war!

Oh yeah, but the ~100 killed Sino-Soviet boarder conflict is TOTALLY relevant.

Shill elsewhere, faggot.

>>33531035
>[Citation needed]

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/021_TaiwanF-86_Keng/story021.htm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

>>33531035

>this has to be bait

Funny, becuase you agree with me.

>first

They gained two insignificant, tiny islands. They lost the ROC having no formal support. It lead to the mutal defense agreement, which has been cucking the chinese ever since.

>Second

Again, its fucking nothing.

>>33531120

>Twelve long-range 203 mm (8-inch) M115 howitzer artillery pieces and numerous 155 mm howitzers were transferred from the U.S. Marine Corps to the Army of the ROC. These were sent west to Kinmen Island to gain superiority in the artillery duel back and forth over the straits there. The impact of these powerful (but conventional) artillery pieces led some members of the PLA to believe that American artillerymen had begun to use nuclear weapons against them.

>of the PLA to believe that American artillerymen had begun to use nuclear weapons against them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, fucking wrekt

>>33530667

Difference is that China is an extremely fragile animal.

It's like a horse. Break it's leg and it'll die because it won't be able to feed.

People seem to forget that Russia and the US are both experts at nuclear proliferation and think tanks have been at work for decades on what the most effective target would be.

I guarantee that disruption in China would be 100% more effective with their nuclear strategy than actually killing people because wiping out shit like 3 Gorges Dam would kill more through expanded effect than nuking Beijing and every city would.

That's why the Russian nuclear strategy for the US is to target primary cities and then nuke the shit out of the primary food producers in the US so that the starvation that follows would make the US forces split between martial law and military action.

It's also why the US strategy is similar for Russia.

The only countries that actively aim for cities and ports overall are the ones with smaller nuclear arsenals like Britain and France due to the nature of their weapons.

>>33530175

>Wew lad, would love to see a source on this, with historical basis, because i do believe Vietnam proved this wrong instantly.

Not that guy, but not only was US aircraft production numbers much higher in the 60s & 70s, fixed wing loss rates in Vietnam were actually pretty low.

>All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#United_States_Air_Force

File: 120606121335-d-day-01-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg (104KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 980x552px

>>33526612

>>33526814
Because chinks are busy invading africa by buying mineral rights left and right.

>>33530739
Still, even 1/4 of said cities have more population than the whole of Russia.
And together, they represent far more areas than Russia can obliterate with nukes.

There have been plans in case of a nuke attack on the USA by USSR.
Even back then and assuming optimal spread of nukes, the USSR couldn't wipe out all urban areas on the US coasts alone.

China's urban area is much bigger than the urban area of the US coasts.
Hence why the (now reduced) nuclear arsenal of Russia wouldn't do much to China's cities.

>Outside investment

You mean the kind of investment that has been going on for the last 3 decades in China ?

USA, EU and Japan litterally dumped 1,7 trillions of $USD in China over the last 25 years.
That's growing to 3,5 trillions if you account for Hong Kong.

Now compare with Russia 360 millions over the same period... and we get the same 10:1 ratio as for :
- population
- industrial output
- economy

Now also take into account the fact that China also has so many investments abroad that it can get capital simply by letting other countries pay back on said investments.

>>33531282

Fair enough. If you want to get into specifics, the manpad kill rates were on aircraft landing and taking off in an insurgency type of situation, by in large, in afganistan.

Manpads suck for fast movers.

That said, i still heavily question a 2 aircraft loss rate max per 1k sorties.

>>33529928
>North Korea has not advanced since then, and thus remains significantly behind '91 Iraq.

A bit like 2017 Iraq.

>>33527720
>You mean the disaster at Chosin
>disaster
>routed 3 divisions and effectively ensured the war would end in a stalemate and North Korea would continue to exist
Yep, sure was a disaster.

>>33530043
Soon China will reach lvl 2 and can begin to construct higher lvl tech factories.

>>33531589

What is a pyrrhic victory?

>>33524897
Literally shit economies are fixed by war my dude.
Everyone gets a job and whatnot, read a fucking book

>>33530297
> doubt those other countries combined could match Chinas production output.

They don't need to match Chinese production. They just need to produce enough to meet our demand.

>>33527720

Casualty comparisons don't really work unless you consider your average chinese soldier somehow equivalent to his western counterpart.

>>33531666
It is only pyrrhic if the losses from winning the battle prevent you from winning the war.

NK's war aims might have been to conquer the whole of Korea and, in that regard, it failed.
But China's war aims were just to salvage the disaster by pushing back the UN/USA troops.
In that regard, they won and it wasn't pyrrhic.

The PLA wasn't overly crippled by the casualties and material losses at Choseon, as it kept fighting for another 3 years, keeping the US/UN forces in check.

>>33530807
This persistent attack pattern left a strong impression on UN forces that fought in Korea, giving birth to the description of "human wave."[8] U.S. Army historian Roy Edgar Appleman observed that the term "human wave" was later used by journalists and military officials to convey the image that the American soldiers were assaulted by overwhelming numbers of Chinese on a broad front, which is inaccurate when compared with the normal Chinese practice of sending successive series of five men teams against a narrow portion of the line.[1]
nice of you to leave out the rest.
it was described as a human wave attack
try reading and learning that it's okay to be wrong.

>>33532303
>It is only pyrrhic if the losses from winning the battle prevent you from winning the war.

It did.

>But China's war aims were just to salvage the disaster by pushing back the UN/USA troops.

If thats the case they would have stopped at the 38th.

Nice try.

>>33531547
>That said, i still heavily question a 2 aircraft loss rate max per 1k sorties.

That's AF numbers. Navy and Marine numbers will be different, and aggregate total will be different again.

>>33532303
>It is only pyrrhic if the losses from winning the battle prevent you from winning the war.

You don't know what pyrrhic means.

>In that regard, they won and it wasn't pyrrhic.

You really don't know what pyrrhic means. Learn words.

>>33532324
human wave gives the impression that the chinese where just mindlessly sending brainwashed fanatical against the un forces.
when in reality these where cooridinated suprise attacks against, prescouted enemy weakpoints

>>33532434
>That's AF numbers.

Again, source.

>>33524254
If we weren't competent, we wouldn't still be a powerful and large country. At our worst, we were still great. No other country had over a century of non-stop warfare against multiple world powers while having a corrupt government to no central government at all and managed to keep its independence and reform as a nation of tremendous power in a few decades.


Countries' power are determined by their size.

>>33532764
>No other country had over a century of non-stop warfare against multiple world powers while having a corrupt government to no central government at all and managed to keep its independence and reform as a nation of tremendous power in a few decades.

Germany

>>33532808

>inb4 nitpicking about germany

It's actually western imperialists who are the paper tiger, Bourgeoisie scum.
let brother Hao explain it to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCMI0uKbBE

>>33532764
>Countries' power are determined by their size.

UK would like a word with you m8.

As an inverse so would candida.

>>33530871
>Vietnam dominates Southeast Asia

Those shitskins got fried by the Chinese navy last time they had a naval skirmish.

>>33530261
>What is NAFTA

>>33532808
Germany got temporarily taken over. China never did. Chinese do not collectively surrender and even when conquered, we destroy our conquerors years later.

>>33532849
>implying the Chinese are not shitskins

Lel

>>33532841
>uk
You're a shadow of what you were. Your power is little compared to China's.

>>33532886
>China never did.

They sure did. Still taken over to this day.

Communism is a hell of a drug.

>Chinese do not collectively surrender and even when conquered

Mongol empire.

> we destroy our conquerors years later.

Century's later dont count, friend.

>>33532898
>You're a shadow of what you were

Yet its size was always small, which is the entire point.

>>33530416
South America is fucking invincible

>>33532324
>>33532723

I've been reading Max Hastings book on the Korean War, and I've got to say is that in the late 1950 Chinese offensive it was very much infiltrate, surround, and then overrun (preferably in a night attack) as the favoured Chinese tactic. Earlier at the Pusan perimeter some of the North Korean attacks were similar to the stereotype of human wave attacks, but the Chinese weren't.

The thing to remember is that in late 1950, the Chinese forces being sent in were veterans of the Civil War which ended only a year or two earlier, and the war against the Japanese before that, whereas the American forces in Korea at this time were mostly inexperienced, inexperienced, poorly trained and motivated troops from the Japan occupation forces, at a time when the USA had almost completely demobilised its military.

Those heavy Chinese casualties (including from frost-bite) among the most experienced and motivated Chinese forces were difficult to replace. What I find so surprising, is how much leeway to dictate policy Douglas MacArthur had, this was in part because Truman was under attack from the right over his failure to support Chiang Kai-Shek to victory, and didn't want to be vulnerable to criticism for holding MacArthur back from chasing the North Koreans over the 38th parallel. MacArthur was a Republican (or at least was a potential Republican candidate for the 1948 presidential election) so Truman's fear of criticism in this kind of red scare climate wasn't unreasonable.

>>33530667
You are thinking that nuclear warfare is simply killing people.
It's not.

Nuclear warfare is the destruction of economic targets. The Russians could deploy 1000 warheads against Chinese nuclear weapons and command and control infrastructure, then about 300 warheads to economic targets, leaving between 200 and 500 warheads.

Keep in mind this is only deployed strategic warheads. Russia has large numbers of deployed tactical nuclear weapons that they could deliver to strategic targets as well.

File: inart.jpg (6KB, 157x119px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 157x119px

>>33527233

They already do! You have not heard about these bullshit elementary "Mandarin immersion" curricula where 1st graders are taught subjects like history in ChiCom? No way I would let them indoctrinate my kid to love those slant eyed fucks.

>>33530416
I don't think you quite understand how vulnerable China is to nuclear weapons. Using nukemap, with one basic russian 800kt airburst nuke against each of China's 20 largest cities (not densest which would drive up the score even more, largest) It estimates 35.5 million dead, another 40.5 million injured. That is 35% of your total dead, and accomplished with just twenty nukes. And there are 80+ more cities with population greater than 1 million.

Also if we are going nuclear the ruskies will take out the 3 gorges dam, and most other dams throughout China causing a severe logistical problem as well, and thus most of those injured will die. We are thus talking about 80 million dead, 400+ million displaced by just 25 nukes.

So how did you come up with the 100 million dead chinese after 2000 nukes number again?

>>33530667
Dude where the fuck are you getting these numbers?

With just 20 nukes 35 million are killed and 40 million injured, by your number each remaining nuke would have to only kill 43000 people each. given >>33531217
how are you claiming that less than 10% of China would die in an all out nuclear strike of 2000 weapons?!

>>33531473
hold on, did you just backpedal to Russia cannot destroy all the urban land, thus China wins!

>>33530660
The last 3 are more about insurgency rather than human wave

File: soviet commie ball.jpg (72KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 644x598px

>>33526612
>Human wave attacks have been outdated since at least the 1890s.

Even as recent as Vietnam they used waves and waves of people. They were taking losses 1:8 but all they really needed to do was keep dying until the hippies defunded Southern military support.

>>33530795
>I guess the Brits telling the French to stop selling EXOCET missiles to Argentina is a conspiracy theory as well?
No, that is not a conspiracy theory, but the idea that the French gave the UK codes to remotely deactivate EXOCET missiles is. Also your argument is a poor strawman, as it has nothing to do with your first conspiracy theory that the french gave NATO all the information about the Iraqi air defense system, thus allowing NATO to beat it.

>>33530175
See Warden, "The Air Campaign", pp. 10–60
given modern production rates (which are significantly lower than older aircraft), a high attrition rate per 1000 sorties quickly leads to an airforce becoming incapable of sortieing. Back in WWII when we could build 250+ aircraft a day, we were okay with loss rates of 10-12% on a strike mission. Nowadays only the US produces that many aircraft per YEAR. THe drop in production is because modern aircraft are significantly more technolgcially advanced, and thus require far more tooling, far higher precision, and far greater machining knowledge then 1940's era aircraft. Oh and with modern readiness levels being significantly lower than older aircraft, the sustainable aircraft attrition levels continue to drop.

>>33531569
and we all saw what happened to Iraq in 2003

>>33532297
considering that their push ended after this battle, means, that it was an unmitigated disaster which lead to a loss that could not be replaced in theatre. ie, in the Korean theatre China's army was never as strong as they were before Chosin. Hence, it was a disaster.

see:>>33531666
>>33532354
>>33532459

>>33532738
I'm not the anon who posted the original clim and numbers. I just figured I would throw my hat in the ring to muddy the waters, so to speak. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm never adverse to stirring the pot.

>>33532886

How's the view from the Island, Taiwan?

>>33534018
*claim, not clim.

File: 1489472696606.jpg (22KB, 477x345px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 477x345px

>>33524254
>Is this nuclear armed country a paper tiger?

Gee fucking whiz anon, I have no idea.

File: Screenshot 2017-04-04 at 4.16.14 PM.png (402KB, 1151x594px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1151x594px

>>33533971
wrong

>>33534002
>See Warden, "The Air Campaign",

Do you have anything attainable, (IE, online) that supports your claims?

File: IMG_8342.jpg (55KB, 599x389px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 599x389px

>>33524254
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line"!

>>33524254
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x10eF7JrDic

They are trash.

>>33534291
>if its not online it never happened because I can't be assed to read a book.

>>33526417
That's excuse didn't work for America and it sure as fuck won't work for China.

>>33527538
>I heard there weren't even enough bullets manufactured in the USA to shoot every last one of their soldiers

there are more civilian guns in the USA than chinese soldiers let alone bullets

>>33532832
Holy shit

File: DANK MEME BOY.png (91KB, 261x281px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 261x281px

>>33534254
Is this bait?

M8 the Vietcong suffered so many losses they literally collapsed into irrelevance. Just because the term "human wave" is not in a Wikipedia article doesn't mean they didn't use zerg tactics. All they did was throw bodies at the US until the Paris Peace Accords.

>>33524757
You can't reach them, and they can't reach you.

Europe has more nukes.

the chinese military uses chinese equipment.

if you've ever used any tools from harbor freight you're probably not afraid of the chinese military.

>>33535784
See, the Chinese adopted infiltration tactics from the German army during their civil war.

The basic idea is that you try and move as many people as close to the enemy as possible before the enemy realizes what's happening.

When they do realize what's happening, you try and close the remaining distance and overrun their position as quickly as possible.

It worked great for German commandos during WW1, but the Chinese had meh tier NCO corps and training, so it often translated into something less organized.

For the VC, it made even more sense, because US air and artillery was everywhere, so they preferred to fight within spitting distance of the enemy to mitigate fire support.

>>33527538
you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny

>>33529987
I'm sure they'd find a way

>>33524897
>Nazi Germany has all the motivation in the world to grab the energy resources and Lebensraum in Russia's west. They can also whip up with nationalistic ferver with historical revisionism. Saying the russian west was stolen from the Holy Roman Empire or some shit. They can simply out spend the Russians in blood and treasure.

>>33530207
Fucking how? Look at a map. To the north you have Siberia. To the west you have mountains. To the south you have mountains and rainforest. Kyrgyztan is the biggest opening there, and neither it's economy nor its infrastructure is up to handling the amount of volume you need. And that's before you get into the inherent inefficiencies of replacing a large merchant fleet with fucking trains, trucks and planes.
Here's a tip to get you started, though: one Maersk container ship carries the capacity of fifty-seven trucks, and isn't restricted to pesky things like roads and afflicted by things like icy weather.

>>33536964
>And that's before you get into the inherent inefficiencies of replacing a large merchant fleet with fucking trains, trucks and planes.
But it can be done.
>what is resource reallocation?
If they're at that point already the government would probably run as a martial state.

>>33532261
>hey just need to produce enough to meet our demand.
but americans always want more...
>>33532867
>>What is NAFTA
You really think Canada and Mexico is going to be able to sustain the US? Even you guys say Canada is the Americas hat...not even going to address Mexico.

>>33537222
>But it can be done.
Yes- through a small geographical area that would likely force a second front open as well, possibly risking war with Russia, while under intense pressure if not blatant war from a power who has turned the destruction of infrastructure at range into a science. It can be done, sure- but not for long, not efficiently, and not sustainably.

>>33535826
kek. This is the truest post in the thread!

>>33529968
>russia doing poorly against georgia is actually very indicative
Which lead to a complete reform of the military, so I'd say it's no longer relevant

>>33525002
>France managed once
Technically, China managed several times and occupied Vietnam more or less continuously for just over a millenia. Not really the same China or the same Vietnam as now though so it really doesn't count.

>>33527503
>Dividing and diluting?
That's a pretty fair description of what they're doing. China already has a fairly large muslim minority which in some places has protected rights. They're very peaceful and are basically just Chinese that run very popular bakeries and butcher shops.

Xinjiang isn't really a religious conflict, it's about territory and basically breaking the identity of an ethnic people that won't play ball with the Han but religion helps motivate people and it also makes for a great scapegoat.

This could backfire a little on China if they make Chinese muslims identify with the Uighur but I don't know if it would really happen.

>>33528387
>>France
>>Successful in Indo China
For a while.
No occupation is successful if looked at on a long enough time line.

>>33529045
>they're actually fighting the somali pirates a lot lately
I bet they're very excited to have actual shooting practice but pirates don't count for much. At least the logistics and shit get tested by putting navy on the other side of the world.

>>33529247
>What? China is communist, is littered with giant factories and is chock-full of peasant tier poorfags.
It's capitalist in all but name. Though it's still a command economy I guess so...

>They could literally just grab a million people, throw them in a claimed factory and shit out tanks or other equipment
They can do the first two bits of that. They could definitely find some unused factory and throw a million people into it. They'd just tell every province to send a bunch of their migrant workers over. They could stand up housing for them in basically no time and start producing whatever the factory does.

However producing the kinds of high-tech stuff you want is a little more complicated than getting farms and builders to suddenly do precision welding.

>>33529828
>>China
>>retirement homes
They're retired anyway, state pensions exist, especially for soldiers. They're in apartments telling grandchildren to do homework.

>>33530143
>They're also choked on on Sea access by the US Navy and it's allies. Imagine China being cut off from global sea trade
Are you sure? They have a very long coastline.

They also have land routes through to Pakistan too, where they have a harbour complex.

>>33530109
>North Korea buys all their equipment, and so does China (If they don't steal it that is).
China manufactures most of their own technology these days. They certainly bought MiGs and SAMs but these days it's mostly home-grown. Jet engines are a work in progress I think.

>>33530143
>Far and wide, everyone important in china gets there through a combination of dick sucking, family ties, and government corruption.
That's basically true, the dick sucking is done by your parents rather than you but sure.

>In Chinese schools, once you pass the entrance exam they force you though and pass you no matter what.
lol no. You know little of Chinese schools. You can literally be expelled from some of the elite schools for not doing well enough (though you can certainly bribe to avoid that). Chinese students sit entrance exams every few years and have to make it through all of them, or spend money to get in when you don't.

Primary school - sometimes has entrance exam for 'senior primary school'
Junior Middle school - entrance exam
Senior Middle school - entrance exam
University - entrance exam (done at end of Senior middle school)

You have to get through the entrance exams for all of those separately. You don't get pushed through anything.
Corruption can get you through but nobody gets favours for nothing.

>>33530416
And then take into account that Russia has a sizable Anti-Ballistic Missile system along with their Integrated Air Defence Systems.

Many of China's 400 nukes wouldn't reach their targets.

Whereas Russia's arsenal will reach Chinese targets.

File: 1347012950523.png (96KB, 277x266px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 277x266px

>>33527538
Holy shit this is like FRONT runner shit for 2017 dumbest post award right here

File: xCqVMK6.jpg (61KB, 563x549px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 563x549px

>>33528418
1. You're retarded.

2. Not everything is a "meme" you little empty-headed shitfuck.

File: 1462755860161.jpg (33KB, 345x269px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 345x269px

>>33528418
lookup the first world war, and think about how little experiance the leaders had with machine guns

Apply that to drones.

>>33530739
You know, the "small" chinese cities dwarf the russian population centers, right? Look at the size of the tier 2 Chinese municipalities.
Don't be fucking dumb and read a book once in a while.

>>33527488
Are you autistic?

>>33528992
U r dumb. For real.

File: 1457064480328.jpg (17KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x400px

>>33538680
I mean, superficially, he's right. The whole world is fucked if more than 10 go off at the size needed to take out a city within a few weeks.

>>33535784
>40,000 communist dead[65] (compared to about 10,600 U.S. and South Vietnamese dead). "It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits", said PRG Justice Minister Trương Như Tảng.[65]

so the vietcong had about 80,000 men how could a force of 80,000 men last any amount of time in a war against a modern power by just "throwing men at them lmao,"
but yeah the tet offenisive was a mistake i once read that the leader of the vietcong thought it was a shit idea, but the north vietnamese army made them do it

>

>>33538712
You are missing americans care about returning home, while the cong are fighting to defend it. Of course they're going to not want to die against people who have no choice.

>>33530640
I used to work at NAVSEA as a researcher. Don't be dazzled by the pretty graphics.

>>33538725
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLF_and_PAVN_battle_tactics

look all im saying is they used more clever tactics than "just run at them lmao"
they had to had to be clever and adaptible since they had all the disadvantages,
they were really something militarily

>>33538764
Yeah, nothing wrong with that.

File: BG-UNCLOS-south-china-sea-map-2_HIGHRES.jpg (1MB, 1467x1957px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1467x1957px

>>33538548
>Are you sure? They have a very long coastline.
What is EEZ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

China's own EEZ is the size of Denmarks due to Taiwan's, Japan's, Vietnam's and the Phillipines' in its way. China has no direct access to international waters which means they have very little space to manoeuver their fleets without stepping on toes, and any of their fleet movements can be easily spotted by their neighbours.
Even worse, what little they have of an EEZ is pretty shallow, which means any PLAN sub sailing off from Qindao has no deep safe heaven to hide from marritime patrol aircraft or anti-submarine surface ships.
And the final nail in the coffin, that last point basically makes their SSBN force useless: in time of nuclear saber-rattling, their boomers would have to reach international waters in plain view of everyone to get to a safe spot from which they could actually do their detterence job.

All of this explains why Xi Jinping is starting shit in the South China Sea and the Senkaku. China is trying to press a territorial claim (the "Nine Dash Line" on pic related) that if granted would get the deep waters and direct accesss to international waters they so desperately need.

TL,DR: the PLAN's even shittier than the PLA and China will never be a sea power. However what has me worried is the PLAAF and the new PLASSF (the cyber army branch they created in December 2015)

>>33524254
Yes, they are. So Westerners really don't need to worry about them, they will collapse in no time as usual. You folks just keep promoting faggotory and fluid genders in your armies, really no need to worry. I've heard there will be a dyke to lead US Air Force academy, so progressive, I'm sure she will help burgermen to crush China.

>>33540053
don't worry, I'm sure Russia will have our back once Trump gives Putin all our launch codes

>>33538426
nope uighur is not chinese they are turkic.The only chinese muslim are hui maybe there are others i don't know.But uighur is certainly not chinese

>>33530041
in other words, not trained properly
actual 8month+ trained soldiers had a surprisingly high life expectancy and made it all the way to Berlin

>>33538743

And i am a US navy seal.


If you really did work there you would know where that image is from and why it matters.

>>33534975

>i can quote some book and instawin!

How to make war by Dunnigan says airforces can take far more than 2 per 1000, he goes to 10.

>>33541441
that's because Dunnigan is looking at short term sustainability whereas Warden is looking at indefinite sustainability.

Think about it this way: you're in a war where you have 1000 aircraft and produce one per day (which is the US level of production, by far the highest in the world). You further want to sustain 500 sorties per day, while each aircraft can fly no more than 4 sorties per day. Hence you need at minimum 125 aircraft. Now lets look at 3 different situations a 10 week war, a 1 year war, and an indefinite war.

In the 10 week war, you can lose 945 planes, across 35000 sorties, hence you can "sustain" a maximum loss rate of 27 per 1000 sorties (which is effectively the russian level of losses to MANPADs and simple IADs). However, at the end of 10 week you are unable to continue your sortie rate for then on.

Now for the 1 year war, you can loose 1240 planes across 182500 sorties, so you can "sustain" a loss rate of 6.79 per 1000. However again you are unable to continue your 500 sorties per day after 1 year.

And finally an indefinite war, where you don't know when it will end so you need to be able to keep your planes sortieing forever. At that point your loss rate has to equal your production rate. In this case 2 planes can be lost per 1000 sorties.

Now if instead of using modern aircraft, you reverted to WWII era planes you could produce 250+ a day, meaning you could afford a loss rate of 500+ per 1000 sorties and still maintain your aircraft fleet size; however, WWII planes get absolutely eaten alive by modern jets and missiles.

Now, fun fact, the highest "sustained" loss rate by any airforce was the Israel airforce in the Yom kippor war when they tried to breach the Egyptian IADs head on, and had a loss rate of 45-90 per 1000 sorties. After seeing this loss rate, the Israelis changed tactics, which meant there was little CAS against the Egyptians until their soldiers left the cover of the IADs.

>>33541859

First off, there is no such thing as indefinite war.

>that's because Dunnigan is looking at

Thats cute. Dunnigan never said that, i was just pushing a point. Thats a real nice paragraph for a lie. I pulled that stat out of my ass to see what you would do, you intellectually dishonest piece of shit, and you just made up a position on a made up point said by nobody, thus proving you sir, are full of shit.

Kindly fuck off.

>>33542108
>First off, there is no such thing as indefinite war.
Please tell me how when the war of terror will end?

Second please tell me exactly how long a peer to peer war between CHina an Russia will last?

Third Dunnigan states his number comes from a period of war which lasts 6 months. Warden states his estimate is based on the overall sustainable rate.

>Thats cute. Dunnigan never said that, i was just pushing a point. Thats a real nice paragraph for a lie. I pulled that stat out of my ass to see what you would do, you intellectually dishonest piece of shit, and you just made up a position on a made up point said by nobody, thus proving you sir, are full of shit.
Now you have resulted to insults, because you cannot even justify your beliefs. or even construct a valid counter argument.

Fourth, lets assume Dunnigan is right, 10 is the maximum sustainable loss per 1000 sorties. Russian has had losses per 1000 sortie rates of:
Georgia: 7 shot down by georgians, 2 shot down by friendly fire, 2 shot down by south ossetians by mistake. So 11 total planes lost for a loss rate of 36.8 per 1000 sorties
Chechnya II: An opponent with only MANPADs destroyed 45 helicopters and 8 fixed winged craft For a loss rate of 18.9 per sortie
Chechnya 1: more than 400 aircraft and hilcopters lost, for a loss rate of 68.3 per sortie.
Afghanistan: again only manpads, 333 helicopters, 118 fixed wing aircraft for a loss rate of 28.6 fixed wing aircraft per sortie.

In all cases Russia has experienced greater than 10 losses per 1000 sorties. Hence, any conflict with China which has a proper IADs will result in unsustainable losses for the aircraft involved resulting in clear skies. Unless you are going to try to make the case that Georgia, Chechnya and Afghanistan all have superior IADs than China. Do you think China's IADs is worse than those countries?

>>33533819
>hold on, did you just backpedal to Russia cannot destroy all the urban land, thus China wins!
More like "Russia's losses would be proportionally bigger than Chinese losses so China can defeat what's left easily and then rebuild"

>>33529952
>Iraq in '91 was the third largest army in the world, it was also qualitatively second outside of NATO.
how do I know you're a sandnigger cocksucker?

>>33542267

>Third Dunnigan states his number comes
>Fourth, lets assume Dunnigan is right

You are having a real hard time with this.

Dunnigan never stated this.

Ever.

I lied, to see if you were being intelectually honest with your sources or not. You were not, are not, and are making up arguements as you go.

This is not an insult, its fact. You prove it again.

Let me repeat, to be completely clear, Dunnigan never stated anything. At all.

>>33524254
>Are they even a competant....

No. The answer to is china competant at anything is always no.

They dont have to be, they just throw people at shit until something happens.

>>33542522
Not that guy, but don't you undermined your own argument by lying? Like you lied to take position and he tries to refute it, but hes refuting nothing because you lied?

It looks like a cheap gotcha moment, like "haha, you thought i was a girl online, got you, you homo!"

>>33543129
>but don't you undermined your own argument by lying?

Only if i didnt intend to tell him anyways. If you look before i was perfectly civil with him, i wanted to see if he was being intellectually honest.

For example, if he said, "nope, you are a lier, it says here..." i would have agreed, or if he said "well if he said that, thats fine, but i will stick with my source", or "i will look into that", i would have said i was bullshitting to see if he would bite. I would have ceded the argument and went on my way.

He did exactly as i expected.

You cant say "lol dis esoteric book i have says x therefore i win" when you are being intellectually dishonest.

>>33536465
The Nominal National Products of the major powers in 1938, in current dollars:

(1) United States: 84.7 billion
(2) Germany: 46.0 billion*
(3) UK: 27.51 billion
(4) USSR: 23.02 billion
(5) France: 16.18 billion
(6) Italy: 8.68 billion
(7) Japan: 7.49 billion


GDP 2016 IMF estimates
>figures in millions
1 United States 18,561,934
— European Union[n 1][22] 17,110,523
2 China[n 2] 11,391,619
3 Japan 4,730,300
4 Germany 3,494,900
5 United Kingdom 2,649,893
6 France 2,488,280
7 India 2,250,990
8 Italy 1,852,500
9 Brazil 1,769,601
10 Canada 1,532,343
11 South Korea 1,404,380
12 Russia[n 3] 1,267,750

>>33524254
I don't think China can really do much outside of bullying their smaller less militarized neighbors and hoping they never give America a good reason to intervene. While China shit on all their neighbors, America made friends with them, including Vietnam. I think that alone fucks China in the end.

>>33543555
Well if I recall, the responsibility of making a claim is that if the person claiming something has to provide the source to back up the claim, or else it has to default to a "persuasive argument.
I think that's the jist of what your trying to say anyways?

Not trying to take sides here, didn't even read the entire chain of posts since it gets confusing trying to follow them with no poster IDs. Whatever most of these threads feel like slide or bait threads. I just come to these threads to see if any of the posts have interesting info/disccusions in regard to the Korean war and Pacific war in ww2, Chinese civil war etc.

>>33525184
You do realize the Viets lost more men than the chinks right?

When their enemy outnumbers them like 10 to one, thats pretty bad for the VC.

>>33526612
Not to mention the most literal human wave attack in the Iran Iraq war. Look it up if you aren't familiar. The Iranians are fucking insane, and it just shows old tactics can still sometimes work.

>>33543745
>the responsibility of making a claim is that if the person claiming something has to provide the source to back up the claim,

Yes, and he named a book, i asked for a source outside of a book i obviously cant verify, he shitposted, i then responded with my bait, he took it and doubled down on it.

Just confirming what i believed in the first place.

>>33532764
Russia did too. You're nothing special.

>>33533888
Even in Korea, "human wave" meant something different than just sending wave after wave of guys against machine guns in broad daylight. It was more like "wave of nighttime infiltrators to surprise sleeping troops, following by several waves of reinforcements."

>>33531666
A victory.

>>33544179

......uhhh...anon.

The Chinese military is just there to give low skilled workers jobs and with automation, it's likely to double or triple with size.

https://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century-ebook/dp/B001NLL946/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1491427310&sr=1-1&keywords=100+year+forecast
TL,DR:China is paper tiger and the future war will happen in space.

>>33544076
Not to mention mustering tremendous amounts of short range firepower like massed sub guns, mortars, and grenade launchers to cause severe damage in cqb.

Americans really laid the hurt down when they got range and managed to get their heavier assets like tanks, air support, and machine gun emplacements up.

>>33524675
A lot of our current counter insurgency doctrine was things first learned in vietnam then updated throughout OIF and OEF.

>>33524691

>"Successful"

From what I've heard, the Vietnamese kicked China's ass. Not surprising considering they'd already fought America, France, and Japan.

We can use Iraqi techniques against China if we have to.

How hard is it really for America to build IEDS? We learned a lot from Iraq and Afghanistan when it comes to unconventional warfare.

>>33538625
Every single major power had some form of observer at the Russo-Japanese War where they had ample opportunity to observe modern artillery, trenchwork and machine guns on modern light infantry advancing across mud. Whether they were observers or actual participants (the Russians) they all still cocked up in WWI.

Experience is nothing if you don't adopt the lessons involved. Conversely, if you adopt the lessons you can overcome the lack of experience. The Chinese have managed the latter.

>>33529841
>Kicked ass
>lost millions of soldiers more than the enemy in an invasion, only to be driven back to the border you started at.

If that's the Chinese idea of victory, I'd hate to see what a defeat looks like.

>>33532886
>China neva taken ova!
>Century of Humiliation?
>Dat some gwailo lie! China always repel attack. Neva forced to give trade concessions or suck down opium for goods.

>>33529841
What part of "North Atlantic" did you not understand, you shitdick mongloid?

Also, how is losing seven times as many troops and failing all of your stated objectives considered a success?

>>33540245
>nope uighur is not chinese they are turkic.The only chinese muslim are hui maybe there are others i don't know.But uighur is certainly not chinese
You're correct, when I said 'they' are basically Chinese, I was talking about the Hui. My point was that it wasn't really a religious conflict because China doesn't have a problem with Islam. However they're manufacturing a problem with Islam because they don't want to call the conflict with the Uighur an ethnic, resources or territorial conflict because they're insisting that they're not just stealing land and minerals.

>>33546643
>Conversely, if you adopt the lessons you can overcome the lack of experience. The Chinese have managed the latter
That's the big thing.

China has been observing the world's militaries and working on achieving parity with their own but they're completely untested. They've made big technological advances but no one knows what level they're at.

US has all the cool toys and big budgets and allies but they'd be a long way from home.

The stakes for both sides are huge, you get some real global domination out of a victory and you get humiliated and crippled by defeat. However one thing is fairly clear, postponing a conflict lets China catch up further. The sooner the conflict, the greater the tech and economic advantages the US has. That's the only reason that I think a conflict is at all possible instead of just being talk and bluster for the nationalist plebs on both sides. If US postpones indefinitely, China will eventually surpass them. It's just a matter of when.

>>33532886
>China never did. Chinese do not collectively surrender
What was the "Unequal Treaty of the Seven Cities"?

>>33545191
>From what I've heard, the Vietnamese kicked China's ass. Not surprising considering they'd already fought America, France, and Japan.

You heard wrong: See>>33543826

Gooks are pretty bad at warfighting but are persistent at continuing to fight, Charlie memes non withstanding. Its why they suffered ridiculous casualties against americans in the first place. Chinks weren't much better but had more firepower and numbers to make up for their lack of experience which allowed them to kill more gooks then they lost.

Which is what us Americans wanted and why we actually preferred the chicoms which we even helped a bit with military intelligence since we were still pissed at how Vietnam turned out (lost politically, won militarily). And was part of the Sino-USA reproachment of the 1970s.

>>33530640
I think that that massive naval based invasion underestimates the Chinese submarine capabilities.

Aren't navies going to be forced to stay well away from Chinese waters?

>>33543826
Henry J. Kenny, a research scientist for US Center for Naval Analyses, notes that most Western writers agree that Vietnam outperformed the PLA on the battlefield.[62]

>>33547803
>Gooks are pretty bad at warfighting but are persistent at continuing to fight, Charlie memes non withstanding. Its why they suffered ridiculous casualties against americans in the first place. Chinks weren't much better but had more firepower and numbers to make up for their lack of experience which allowed them to kill more gooks then they lost.

Other way around. Most Chinese forces had experience in the civil war and sino-japanese war, but also a lot of new green recruits. The American forces were going through downsizing its military, so many veterans were returning home and alot of equipment was being shelved, leaving military units under equipped.

The first thing is, the chinese didn't have a very solid NCO and officer corps with redundant political commissars.

The second issue was that while the communist forces had a temporary material advantage in terms of tanks and self propelled weapons, that advantage started diminishing when Americans landed at Pusan, then rapidly after the Inchon landings, when the KPA had to retreat and abandoned most of its armor and vehicles due to lack of fuel.

>>33528869
That image triggers me.

I'm an American but even I admit that the revolution was a sideshow to the British who were fighting the other two biggest empires in the world at the same time. If the dumb fucks had just let the patriots have their parliament then they might have kept them in the empire.

>>33530036
>Spend $80k to kill fleeing idnividuals
>Do this 100 million times

>>33548697
Um....wrong war even though your statements are correct.I'm talking about the Vietnamese-Chinese conflict in 1979. In that one, the Chinese didn't have as many veterans as the Vietnamese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

>>33531395
>Human wave
>Humans in waves

There's a difference, you stupid gook

>>33548805
>If the dumb fucks had just let the patriots have their parliament then they might have kept them in the empire
Nah....parliament was just the first demand. It was really about wealthy landowners not wanting to pay tax, or at least much tax.

>>33548841
Oh, following the posts back up here >>33524599 looked like you were talking about something else my bad.

>>33541383
But still in the military.

>>33530510
>we gave signal to let the VN to recover their dead
>We ask them to carry a red cross flag, have under 50 people and carry no weapons
>60 to 70 VN troops showed up without any flags
>Once we noticed they were breaking the agreement by carrying an AA gun, we opened fire
>None of the 60 survived
>No more recovery details were conducted afterward
Damn.

Reminder that China so shit they even lost to the Philippines.

TOPKEK

>At one of the forward positions, Lt. Cayton looked out across a smoke shrouded but eerily silent battlefield littered with what appeared to be large numbers of brown rags as far as his eyes could see. He turned to the .50 cal. machine gun crew defending that sector and asked what those rags were.

>“Dead Reds,” the Filipino gunner curtly replied.

TOPKEK China Stronk

Reminder that China is so shit that their last dynasty wasn't even Chinese. China couldn't fight back steppe nomads not once but twice.

>>33542267
>Afghanistan: again only manpads, 333 helicopters, 118 fixed wing aircraft for a loss rate of 28.6 fixed wing aircraft per sortie.
fucking bullshit,. The Soviets conducted nor more than 1.2 M sorties alone- that comes out to 0.375 losses per sortie.
http://www.skywar.ru/afghanistanen.html
Su-25s conducted 60k sorties on their own- vast majority are logistics helo flights ofc, but given that the overall battlespace is littered by muj quite a few were taken down.

>Chechnya 1: more than 400 aircraft and hilcopters lost, for a loss rate of 68.3 per sortie.
9000 sorties for the period between Decemer 94 and June 95 27 aircraft casualties. 3 per 1000 - and this is against the a Chechnya with viable IADS, and airfocrc consisting 227 aircraft


>Georgia: 7 shot down by georgians, 2 shot down by friendly fire, 2 shot down by south ossetians by mistake. So 11 total planes lost for a loss rate of 36.8 per 1000 sorties
7 aircraft out of 200 losses actually. The war basically demonstrated how drastically Russia's air assets in the battlespace were in need of replacement. 35 losses per 1000 sortie

>>33524254
Any serious experience China is or will get is from COIN ops in Tibet and Uighur territories, so...

File: Penguin03.jpg (79KB, 620x415px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 620x415px

>>33552069
>yfw ISIS is basically GLA
>yfw ISIS et al have tonnes of Turkic Uighur men trained, going back to China
>yfw Turkey and Pakistan will fund the shit out of any emergent GLA-esque group that emerges in the 2020's
>yfw the Three Gorges Dam will be destroyed in your lifetime

File: 1487195121211.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>33526612
This is one guy

>>33552081
>Pakistan will fund the shit out of any emergent GLA-esque group that emerges in the 2020's
Pakistan won't fund anything that threatens China. They do very well out of that relationship.

>>33552184
oh you're right, I meant India but I had a brain fart, very odd mistake to make
still, ISI does fund a lot of Islamists, they'd probably wind up funding Taliban (again) to contain ISIS if they haven't already (in Afghanistan)

The issue is that China's most successful experience of the past century, the campaign against the Nationalists and Americans, used a completely different style to what they could use now. The first four offensives in Korea were defined by light infantry infiltrating into and around UN positions and then annihilating them in close battle. The Fifth Phase Offensive was intrinsically different because it employed copious amounts of materiel that could not be efficiently carried by the soldiers themselves or porters. They had to invent a motorized European-style supply system overnight, and failed miserably at it. Making things worse, it wasn't possible to retrain existing veterans for this new kind of war, the men actually involved were pretty fucktarded, and again none of the officers involved had done anything like this before. In 1951 China reached the limits of stormtrooper-style attacks. After decades of work on the next step they couldn't handle it. Even in 1979 they performed poorly enough at fully conventional warfare that their air-force grounded itself before the conflict even started, because everyone agreed Vietnam was just going to shoot the whole thing down.

About two years ago I read about a Chinese training exercise. The officers involved were told they were fighting a simulated Stryker unit fresh off the beach, and to assume America had broken the local air defenses. A couple battalions reached the Americans, and when one of them actually won somehow the referees added tactical nuclear strikes until the battalion stopped moving. This got in the news because it was the first time anyone involved could remember a wargame or exercise that the Chinese side was permitted to lose.

tl;dr China didn't even do proper wargames for conventional fighting until 2015, call me again in twenty years and maybe they'll be functional.

why is everyone in this thread so dim.
half the examples aren't relevant, and the other half assume that it's impossible to learn from mistakes. I thought /k/ was one of the less shit posted boards.
The fuckers talking about human wave attacks, have you even read a book? Ever?
China have been conducting nopatch raids against vietnamese, and the entire point of their military is to counter US weapon systems and strategies with minimal spending. Chinese missiles are purpose made to counter Aegis, and act in conjunction with other assets. The whole point of the Chinese military is to act as a deterrent, and has been specifically engineered to counter the biggest perceived threats.