[QUOTE=Tac Error;22171960]You seriously think the PLA would deploy their oldest tanks in frontline divisions?[/QUOTE]
It was a joke because their main battle tank is essentially a T-72 with a modified chassis and different gun.
I may not put much faith into technology which has proven to fail in combat against foes but why do you favor it so much?
Yes it would be a tough fight but really I doubt they would stand much of a chance, air superiority is the king of battles, naval is the queen. The US has both.
what do you think
[editline]08:12PM[/editline]
All I'm saying here is I'm calling this now.
ROK/US victory.
Place your bets ladies and gents.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;22171546]Talking about infantry, the sheer size and influx of recruits in the US army and USMC has caused problems with training rotations and quality/quantity. It's not that the individual infantryman is better or worse, it's that theres a large inconsistencies in quality of training between units. For example, you'll get one unit that is a picture perfect of what a infantry squad/platoon should be and how they should operate, then you'll see another unit that has abysmally poor training and skillsets.
If you take a look at some of the boards with verified military/ex-military personnel (like socnet, strategy, militaryphotos.net) they've often had discussions about subjects like "who has the best light infantry" and they'll look at all the factors. Last time the consensus was a tossup between Great Britain and Australia, with Australia narrowly edging it out because they have one of the best Jungle Warfare schools in the world.
The US Military is extremely powerful, yes, but "best trained in the world" is hyperbole. Also money spent does not necessarily correlate to increased quality.[/QUOTE]
I'd still like to see some evidence that shows China's infantry just as well or better trained than the US.
I don't care if Australia has the best light infantry or if America isn't the best trained in the world because we are comparing only America and China.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22172073]It was a joke because their main battle tank is essentially a T-72 with a modified chassis and different gun.
I may not put much faith into technology which has proven to fail in combat against foes but why do you favor it so much?
Yes it would be a tough fight but really I doubt they would stand much of a chance, air superiority is the king of battles, naval is the queen. The US has both.
what do you think[/QUOTE]
So? Those export-model T-72s used by Iraq don't represent the capabilities of the tank.
As Winston Churchill once said, "The power of an air force is terrific when there is nothing to oppose it."
In layman's terms, modern air power can only dominate the battlespace if there's no opposing modern air force around. If the PLAAF and ground-based SAMs can tie US air power down that air support and interdiction becomes a secondary concern, then the US advantage is air superiority is negated.
Ever since the end of the Cold War the US Navy has slackened off of fleet defense matters and more into support of the Army or the Marines with air strike. Even a former Navy CinC admitted that their ability to defend their carrier battle groups against future threats is uncertain. Carriers may be powerful, but cheap anti-ship missiles - especially those fired in saturation - can devastate any CVBG.
China is a very powerful military force, indeed second, yes, but overall their massive numbers don't quite stand up against the rest of the world's better-trained troops. Their equipment is just below NATO's, but they have better technological warfare. That there. Lasers, cyber-warfare, computers, EMPs, that sort of stuff. While we're over here figuring out how to make a robot fly itself they're already working on 1000$ infantry-based laser cannons that can fry our UAVs and our men. And alongside that,t hey have those super-shovels, too.
BUT I doubt China will side against NATO at this point- we seem to have them on our side diplomatically for now until someone takes military action- and even then, we still likely have them on our side.
On another note I've always wanted a CoD or Battlefield that took place in modern Pyongyang or NK.
[QUOTE=Detective P;22172261]BUT I doubt China will side against NATO at this point- we seem to have them on our side diplomatically for now until someone takes military action- and even then, we still likely have them on our side.[/QUOTE]
NATO will never be involved in a Far Eastern conflict.
[quote=tac error;22172301]nato will never be involved in a far eastern conflict.[/quote]
this just in to the news room, afghanistan is no longer considered "eastern".
We'll have more details at 10.
[QUOTE=Idi Amin;22172364]this just in to the news room, afghanistan is no longer considered "eastern".
We'll have more details at 10.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22172301]NATO will never be involved in a [b]Far[/b] Eastern conflict.[/QUOTE]
Yo, you read my post dude?
I just hope the US won't do a draft cause I'm fucked.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22172394]Yo, you read my post dude?[/QUOTE]
No, but coalition forces likely would be, and Coalition more or less makes up the major nations of NATO, and therefore it's safe to say NATO, k? K.
[QUOTE=Detective P;22172563]No, but coalition forces likely would be, and Coalition more or less makes up the major nations of NATO, and therefore it's safe to say NATO, k? K.[/QUOTE]
A UN force like the one back in 1950 is more likely actually.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22172585]A UN force like the one back in 1950 is more likely actually.[/QUOTE]
But you're forgetting that incase China does side with the North, they would block UN action. Coalition forces still seems more likely in my book.
why do you feel it necessary to split hairs?
[QUOTE=Detective P;22172603]But you're forgetting that incase China does side with the North, they would block UN action. Coalition forces still seems more likely in my book.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, veto power sucks. Too bad the legitimate government of China had to be kicked out.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22172585]A UN force like the one back in 1950 is more likely actually.[/QUOTE]
We're just splitting hairs. Such a force would likely be composed of primarily western nations.
Kim WRONG Il
NK couldn't properly get a baseball over its borders, let alone a nuclear missile.
I wouldn't worry about anything like that.
[QUOTE=hansjurgen;22172211]I'd still like to see some evidence that shows China's infantry just as well or better trained than the US.
I don't care if Australia has the best light infantry or if America isn't the best trained in the world because we are comparing only America and China.[/QUOTE]
Well the most tangible example I could've given you was a video comparison of a PLA infantry platoon doing a MOUT exercise, unfortunately the video seems to have disappeared from youtube...
Pity, it was a very entertaining video too.
[QUOTE=hansjurgen;22172211]I'd still like to see some evidence that shows China's infantry just as well or better trained than the US.
I don't care if Australia has the best light infantry or if America isn't the best trained in the world because we are comparing only America and China.[/QUOTE]
China's military is poorly trained, with short military recruitment periods, and very little amounts of money put into each individual soldier and training. They could get by on sheer numbers, but it would simply be like the Soviets vs Germans, where each German was equal to multiple Soviets in terms of skill and value. But taking a lesson from that,the Soviets still won, so it's really all int he strategy and tactics.
It pisses me off that this could very well turn into a changing point in our generation/time period. But that nobody really talks about it or is concerned. I try to have a conversation about friends with this, and it turns into talk about Celebrity's and such.
Because of that, I feel a World War wouldn't work anymore. Sure, Armies would fight etc, but the public wouldn't give a shit. Most of us would either be impartial or against it. We don't have the motivation to fight another World War like we did with WW2. That was to stop the Holocaust, we were the knight in shining amour for the Jews. If there was to be a WW3, what would be our cause? Probaly money, and the public wouldn't support that.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;22173116]Well the most tangible example I could've given you was a video comparison of a PLA infantry platoon doing a MOUT exercise, unfortunately the video seems to have disappeared from youtube...
Pity, it was a very entertaining video too.[/QUOTE]
That would be only one example of a small amount of Chinese soldiers performing a training exercise and, like you said, consistency is key. So unless all PLA infantry performed as well as the soldiers in the video, they wouldn't quite be the fighting force you describe them as. And neither you nor I could really talk to the higher ups in China on a message board like we can in America to get an idea of how consistent their troops are performing.
That being said, I think it's safe to say the PLA is a modern, well trained infantry force. I would also agree that America probably doesn't have the best light infantry in the world. However, I don't think there is any solid proof to show that Chinese troops are all around better trained than American troops.
Besides that, North Korea knows America will bomb them to no end in a conflict. Because of that, it has some of the most heavily defended air space in the world so, even if it is old technology, the American air force won't be able to charge right in there and bomb whatever they want until those defenses are taken care of. In addition, North Korea keeps most of their military stuff underground like aircraft hangers, weapons and soldiers in heavily fortified bunkers so bombing them will be a bit of a challenge. Considering that, I think it would only be a matter of time before the combined air power of the US and SK have control of the skies and eventually the rest of NK assuming China doesn't get involved.
[QUOTE=Redskins1234;22173386]It pisses me off that this could very well turn into a changing point in our generation/time period. But that nobody really talks about it or is concerned. I try to have a conversation about friends with this, and it turns into talk about Celebrity's and such.
Because of that, I feel a World War wouldn't work anymore. Sure, Armies would fight etc, but the public wouldn't give a shit. Most of us would either be impartial or against it. We don't have the motivation to fight another World War like we did with WW2. That was to stop the Holocaust, we were the knight in shining amour for the Jews. If there was to be a WW3, what would be our cause? Probaly money, and the public wouldn't support that.[/QUOTE]
The US didn't join WWII to save the Jews or look like knights. The US joined because of investments(money). War is run by money.
China would NEVER back North Korea in combat. In fact, China would never declare any sort of war on the United States, because it would devastate them economically. Be a little more realistic guys.
[QUOTE=Ragy;22173479]The US didn't join WWII to save the Jews or look like knights. The US joined because of investments(money). War is run by money.[/QUOTE]
Aye I know that, I'm saying the public had a good emotional, human reason to support the war. With this, or WW3, we all know it would be about politcal power or money.
I just hope NK doesn't launch any of their nuclear warheads at anyone. It would be catastrophic.
[QUOTE=Redskins1234;22173386]It pisses me off that this could very well turn into a changing point in our generation/time period. But that nobody really talks about it or is concerned. I try to have a conversation about friends with this, and it turns into talk about Celebrity's and such.
Because of that, I feel a World War wouldn't work anymore. Sure, Armies would fight etc, but the public wouldn't give a shit. Most of us would either be impartial or against it. We don't have the motivation to fight another World War like we did with WW2. That was to stop the Holocaust, we were the knight in shining amour for the Jews. If there was to be a WW3, what would be our cause? Probaly money, and the public wouldn't support that.[/QUOTE]
I do hope you realize they only discovered the full extent of the holocaust towards the end of the war. Even if they had known, it wasn't our primary cause for entering the war.
Japan foolishly attacked the United States as it foresaw war anyway as an Imperial power so they believed they could preemptively break up the pacific fleet.
yadda yadda why are you even talking about history
This reminds me how I heard a veteran of the Korean war talk about his experiences in it, and how he hoped this generation would never have to face such a horrible experience.
[QUOTE=Redskins1234;22173546]Aye I know that, I'm saying the public had a good emotional, human reason to support the war. With this, or WW3, we all know it would be about politcal power or money.[/QUOTE]
Concentration camps were only discovered when the war was almost over.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;22171667]I'm going down to the recruitment office the minute this goes hot.[/QUOTE]This, but I have to wait like 2 more years, damn it. :frown:
lol @ everyone getting nationalistic over the sinking of a SOUTH KOREAN ship.
America would only get into the conflict if NK attacked SK first, America would never initialize anything or attack based on the fear of nuclear weapons (only talkin about NK here guys not the Middle East).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.