NationStates Jolt Archive

Please keep flaming and trolling out. I'm just wondering on why the people here underestimate it? I'm here reading information on people saying this and saying that, comparing how easily America could defeat China, how technology and training and sheer ability would win.

While I'm not saying China will win should there be a war (which I doubt), I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. Consider this:

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

All of these scenarios placed a technologically advanced, better equipped and more trained army against another foe 'inferior' in most militaristic way, yet they still lost. I've asked people about that, and they respond 'Oh, well the US can just turn China into a glass plate'. How could that help the US? The entire world would turn against them, as it is controversial now that they launched the nuclear bomb on Japan in World War 2, but what about now? With weapons thousands more lethal?

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's NOT going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?
Maybe it's simply jingoism?

Really, the capabilities at this point for the Chinese military to project force are limited. It is true that an attack on Taiwan could be repelled by the US fairly easily.
An invasion is of course rather impossible, because Communism or not, Chinese people have had enough of being a colony and likely won't tolerate Western forces entering the country. And despite superior technology and tactics, the human wave tactic has won the day once before: in Korea.

What the other thread was about, and most people didn't read the article I don't think, was about a section of the Chinese army that would be modernised to US standards.
An intervention force supported by a Blue-Water Navy, a strong air force and a lot of cruise missiles.
And such a force could be something to be reckoned with, considering that the Chinese have plenty enough money to spend on it.

China may not be a military superpower now, but in 50 years I'm betting it'll top what the rest of the world has. By itself.

If push ever comes to shove, and the Chinese gets into their collective head to go around on a conquering spree, I'm taking classes on mandarin.

Please keep flaming and trolling out.
I will do no such thing.

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.
I believe you are after numerically?
The British did not have Spears.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.
Stalin had the numbers and dint careif people died so whats your point?

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?
Which is why i would never say China would get there butt kicked.
I would ask why do people think America is the bees Knees?
That is the question.

I think a victory in China would not be too hard depending on goals. Conquereing and controlling solidly? Take a while if not never. However if the US people got into going to war against China (such as they did about the axis in WWII) Taking out China's military and/or government would not be that hard. Airpower is a major factor in todays world and with incredible financing which would be gained from higher taxes during wartime and general harder work from the people the F/A-22 Raptor would be put into production en masse. This would mean chinas airforce would be crushed. One of these things can take out 5 f-15 eagles without being seen. These F-15's and their piolets are way better than anything else in the world (with possibly some exceptions) With the air controlled we could destroy a lot of communications and military bases along with of course smaller targets like amoured vehichles and infantry units. Now china's army is in massive disarray with anyone massing in numbers hit with bombs, cruise missiles etc. We send marines into bejing, and take control of the capital. This is followed by a massive, drawn out, guerilla war. This could be won if America has massive support at home. But chinese government and organized military are effectively gone.

Now I am saying that this would be easy in terms of cost of lives in long term or financing. But under the right circumstances (which we will never get) yes it could be done easily in a sense.

As for Korea:Yes mass numbers worked but I have left out a massive amount of new stuff the US military has (mainly experience and lessons from previous wars along with a host of new technology and training) But china's mass numbers did have trouble attacking eventually. My grandfather was a radioman in Korea and he said our airburst artillry would rip them to shreds, we had a lot of artillery.

Well now im open for my thoughts on this issue ( I am no expert) to ripped apart.

...the F/A-22 Raptor would be put into production en masse.
That is the key requirement here. The F-22 is great (although in ten years or so the Chinese J-XX equivalent is probably going to be ready) - but the Chinese are building hundreds and hundreds of their J-10s, which are roughly equivalent to F-16s.

And the question is one of Force Projection perhaps. You can rest assured that the Chinese could blow Taiwan, South Korea and even Japan off the map - meaning that the US would heavily depend on Carriers, which at this point are still vulnerable to Cruise Missile attacks.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8558.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24385

That brings up an excellant point. US is democratic, while China is Communist. The two types of governments cannot exist on the same planet without there being bad blood between the two of them. So why the hell are we trading with China, strengthening their economy?

Your proposed strategy for taking out China does LOOK like it would work, but unfortunately, plans never translate smoothly from paper to real life. Murphy's Law likes to throw monkey wrenches into the mix at every opportunity. So in reality, you'd actually have to take into account ANYTHING the Chinese would be willing to do to erase the US from their soil. Then you'd have to consider the countries surrounding China, the ones who might ally with them. Fighting wars on multiple fronts never succeeds, as Hitler found out the hard way in WW2 when he invaded USSR. (dumbest mistake you could ever make, invade a country that large.

fighting wars on multiple fronts never succeeds, as Hitler found out the hard way in WW2 when he invaded USSR. (dumbest mistake you could ever make, invade a country that large. The Allies managed it...

A non-nuclear war between US and China would be a draw. US cannot successfully invade, China can't reach Hawaii (let alone mainland US) if US Navy doesn't want them to... gotta love those submarines.

However, I thought of another strategy. First, the US infiltrates thousands of agents into China. The US provokes China into doing something stupid. Chinese students get mad. Agents help enrage them. Then, the agents direct the angry people to attack the Politburo. This is the hard part - storming the Politburo. But, the Russian peasants did it, and these kids will have the CIA backing them up. Then, we let the Chinese people take over.

Or: Detonate nukes in low orbit over China. EMP fries everything. Send in the troops.

-snip-
The Chinese could do both those things as well...

We know they have an excellent on-the-ground intelligence agency (arguably better than the more technologically- and surveillance-based CIA). They could do all kinds of damage, although I'm not sure how much angry mobs would be part of that.
And apparently the EMP thing is already a planned procedure of Chinese Command.

So to start with… Your knowledge of military history rivals that of someone who has seen the movie Saving Private Ryan, maybe skimmed through 3 other texts of a similar nature and who watches and takes great interest new programs….
"-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat."
If that is an attempt at humour (I doubt given the “literally”) it didn’t do much for me. However I suspect you are serious and as has been pointed out by Harlesburg the British along with aussies and a few other nations were there in Nrth Africa. I don’t know where you get your info but that’s just sad…. No realy.

Now to the point. Chinas economy is booming. War with USA VERY expensive for everyone. Not… I say again NOT going to happen lol. China is doing (relatively) well atm. They have nothing to benefit from getting in a war with the USA or any western nation. I’m not going to get into a hypothetical situation, it would be to complex.
As for Chinas defence strategies and plans… where did get this info... is it speculation?
Countries don’t give out defence plans, It’s just common sense.
As for you people freaked out by communists… china is about the worst example of a commo country. Ask the next communist you see, they will probably laugh at the idea of china being true a communist country.
“So why the hell are we trading with China, strengthening their economy?”
Trade strengthens everyones economy! Its good for you its good for them.
Go back to school and get an education all of you.
srry to be so cruel. but life is like that. Have a good day.

The same reason noone takes Canada seriously

Why don't I fear it? Well I'm posotive that our US soldiers are trained better and have better equipment. Also, without a strong navy, they can't get their army to go beyond their boarders. And who would they invade? Mongolia?

“So why the hell are we trading with China, strengthening their economy?”
Trade strengthens everyones economy! Its good for you its good for them.
Go back to school and get an education all of you.
srry to be so cruel. but life is like that. Have a good day.
:D
No need to look down your nose at people. China's military is the topic of the day at NS, thanks to an article about how the Chinese are building an intervention force.

People immediately play around in their heads. But we do know that no war is going to start, and if it were, both economies would immediately get vapourised.

So to start with… Your knowledge of military history rivals that of someone who has seen the movie Saving Private Ryan, maybe skimmed through 3 other texts of a similar nature and who watches and takes great interest new programs….
"-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat."
If that is an attempt at humour (I doubt given the “literally”) it didn’t do much for me. However I suspect you are serious and as has been pointed out by Harlesburg the British along with aussies and a few other nations were there in Nrth Africa. I don’t know where you get your info but that’s just sad…. No realy.

Oh so enlightened-master-of history, you are wrong. ;)

"East Africa" would be more accurate than North Africa, however...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Italo-Abyssinian_War

The Italians were soundly beaten in the first war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War

However, the original poster did make the mistake in stating that Mussolini was defeated here. The Italian forces were victorious (Albeit with significant casualties), and were only repelled with British support in 1941.

That is the key requirement here. The F-22 is great (although in ten years or so the Chinese J-XX equivalent is probably going to be ready) - but the Chinese are building hundreds and hundreds of their J-10s, which are roughly equivalent to F-16s.

And the question is one of Force Projection perhaps. You can rest assured that the Chinese could blow Taiwan, South Korea and even Japan off the map - meaning that the US would heavily depend on Carriers, which at this point are still vulnerable to Cruise Missile attacks.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8558.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24385
Dude, the pilots who have flown the F/A-22's has stated that when they went up against groups of 4 F-15's, it was "boring". If all they have, or "will have" are the equivilents of the F-16's, then I wouldn't be putting any money on China. Not to mention that IIRC, the F/A-22 has a longer range than a cruise missile, so the Carriers could sit well out and turn China into a pile of rubble. Let me quote my previous post in another thread.


YEP Heres the range of a Chinese cruise missile.
the Chinese Silkworm (HY-2), which has a range of less than 105 km (http://fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/)
And heres the X-22M "The missile has a range of about 250 miles (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24385)
Full Stealth capabilities, the ability to "Supercruise" at Mach 1.74 , and Thrust Vectoring that assures it can outmaneuver any other aircraft on the planet, not to mention the ability to outrun any aircraft on the planet.

Dude, the pilots who have flown the F/A-22's has stated that when they went up against groups of 4 F-15's, it was "boring". If all they have, or "will have" are the equivilents of the F-16's, then I wouldn't be putting any money on China.
And I will quote Eut's article from the other thread to further illustrate my point.
"They may be taking away US assumptions of a war that would escalate in stages," says Mr. Roy of APCSS in Honolulu.

In a conventional war, says Col. Michael Boera, a wing commander in Guam, his nightmare would be so many missiles or planes that even if his pilots could shoot them down, "they would keep coming.... I fear them numbers-wise. Where I am fighting too many planes, that's my concern."

"The PLA is getting in a position to considerably constrain our freedom of maneuver," says Roy. "We can't expect that we can completely protect a carrier battle group when it got into theater."

And don't forget that you need some time over the target as well, so you can't take maximum range for the F-22 to mean anything, particularly if most of it is going to be spent at supersonic speeds.

That being said, at this point I don't think China would be ready, but once its current programs are completed it will be able to flood US forces with numbers that even superior technology cannot make up. Add a bit of asymmetric warfare, surprise effect and a few secret projects we don't really know about and you'll have an "interesting" time.

YEP Heres the range of a Chinese cruise missile.
I'm talking Russian X-22M (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/as-4.htm)...but the point is moot, those have about 500km range. Still not as much as an F-22, but a bit of creative delivery means that the time an F-22 could spend over there would be much less.

And I will quote Eut's article from the other thread to further illustrate my point.


And don't forget that you need some time over the target as well, so you can't take maximum range for the F-22 to mean anything, particularly if most of it is going to be spent at supersonic speeds.

That being said, at this point I don't think China would be ready, but once its current programs are completed it will be able to flood US forces with numbers that even superior technology cannot make up. Add a bit of asymmetric warfare, surprise effect and a few secret projects we don't really know about and you'll have an "interesting" time.
I'm not quite sure what your trying to say in bold. can you elaborate a bit?

I'm talking Russian X-22M (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/as-4.htm)...but the point is moot, those have about 500km range. Still not as much as an F-22, but a bit of creative delivery means that the time an F-22 could spend over there would be much less.
Yah, I corrected myself on that one. The Silkworms are a bit outdated, it would seem.

I'm not quite sure what your trying to say in bold. can you elaborate a bit?
What is the maximum range of the F-22? And what is it when you're flying in a combat or supercruise situation?

Whatever it is, the US Carriers can't get closer than about 500km to any Chinese coast line. (Rest assured that it'd have to be a little longer, seeing how planes would drop the X-22s).
That means it has to fly at least 500km there, and 500km back. So how long does that mean they can actually spend over the target?

The Luftwaffe had the same kind of problem with range, and we know what happened there.

Kanabia I see what your saying. All true. Except that I’m not an enlightened-master-of history, not even close lol. I was more focused on where all these conflicts concluded. WW2 in North Africa and such, with as you state “British support”
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/africa.htm
No point reading the whole thing, or any of it, if you’re familiar with WW2

Srry to Neu Leonstein, I should probably explain myself (it was a poor comment) but a movie sounds like more fun :D

Enjoy your crazy hypothetical wars. They are good fun.

Kanabia I see what your saying. All true. Except that I’m not an enlightened-master-of history, not even close lol. I was more focused on where all these conflicts concluded. WW2 in North Africa and such, with as you state “British support”
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/africa.htm
No point reading the whole thing, or any of it, if you’re familiar with WW2


Yeah, and you're right; there was no fighting with spears going on in North Africa. In Ethiopia prior to the outbreak of WW2, however, there was, and that's what the original poster was referring to. (even if somewhat misinformed). :)

What is the maximum range of the F-22? And what is it when you're flying in a combat or supercruise situation?

Whatever it is, the US Carriers can't get closer than about 500km to any Chinese coast line. (Rest assured that it'd have to be a little longer, seeing how planes would drop the X-22s).
That means it has to fly at least 500km there, and 500km back. So how long does that mean they can actually spend over the target?

The Luftwaffe had the same kind of problem with range, and we know what happened there.
Range typical: 2,000 nm (3,700 km) (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f22/)
Supercruise means "supersonic without the use of afterburners" so I don't see that Supersonic speeds would shorten it by anything noticable.
(incidentily, the Raptor is the only aircraft on the planet capable of this.)
I think it's safe to say China's screwed till they get better cruise missiles. ;)

I played against them in C&C: Generals and they were easy pickings. Therefore it is true.

I think it's safe to say China's screwed till they get better cruise missiles. ;)

Which raises the question- should preemptive action be taken to criple them now? In 10 or 15 years there may be a new cold war. And although they haven't been as hostile lately, they still claim Taiwan, have a "communist" government, and a far greater advantage in simple numbers.

Which raises the question- should preemptive action be taken to criple them now? In 10 or 15 years there may be a new cold war. And although they haven't been as hostile lately, they still claim Taiwan, have a "communist" government, and a far greater advantage in simple numbers.
Pre-emptive action against China would result in the ability to cook hamburgeres while they are still on the cow, so I'd say we all just play nice and just let them do all our crappy sweatshop work.

Pre-emptive action against China would result in the ability to cook hamburgeres while they are still on the cow, so I'd say we all just play nice and just let them do all our crappy sweatshop work.

Unless sufficient intelligence enabled pre-emptive strikes at all nuclear launch sites first... They don't have any nuclear armed subs do they?

Refering to the scenerio where we go in and use air power to blow up their army, then send the marines in to take their capital, then fight a protracted guerrilla war:

Why not skip their capital until their regular armed forces are worn down to the point where they have to surrender? It has been shown that guerrilla wars are quite costly, in addition to typicaly being unpopular on the home front of the invader (who doesn't seem to win very often anyway).

Symetrical warfare with the present government would be far preferable. Ignore the cities beyond halting the traffic in and out.

In the event we can get in, that is.

After consulting my trusty Google Earth, the following land sites are also within effective range of the Raptor from:
U.S. Fleet Activities in Sasebo, Japan TO Beijing, Shanghai,Shenyang.
South Korea TO All of the above, plus all of north eastern China
Manila TO Hong Kong

Unless sufficient intelligence enabled pre-emptive strikes at all nuclear launch sites first... They don't have any nuclear armed subs do they?

I believe they have one, the Xia.

Although I could be wrong.

Unless sufficient intelligence enabled pre-emptive strikes at all nuclear launch sites first... They don't have any nuclear armed subs do they?

They have one, it carries 12 missiles, capable of carrying 3-4 90 KT warheads, or one 250 kt warhead. The missiles have a range of only 1050 miles (1700 km).

It's opinion, but I would guess that the Chinese ballistic missile sub is shadowed by a US sub every time it leaves port.

Also, my current feeling is that any conventional war between China and the US would be over rather quickly.

My guess is that, rather than just sending in a couple of carrier-groups, the US would send nearly every Pac-Fleet sub to line the Chinese coast. Armed with Tomahawks, and coordinating with B-2's from the US, they could easily wipe out Chinese naval, air-force, and communications/command centers along the Chinese coast.

Not to mention the fact that the US can destroy China's industrial capacity, while the Chinese (short of using nukes) cannot reply in kind. Given this fact, it is my opinion that any conflict between these two nations is over before it even begins.

Now, give the Chinese a few decades, and you'll probably have a completely different situation...but for now, I don't think it's much of a contest.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.
The evidence is that the Russians allowed the Germans to penetrate deep in to the heartland to force a mother of all battles (the real one, not the one hussain supposed). They used the time gained by this to build up a massive inventory of superior arms. Tank for tank, those the soviets fielded in their counter attack were the best ever built. And they had a ludicris number of them. Then there are the incredible number of snipers they trained, which are not only exceptionaly disruptive and demoralizing, but also increase the effectiveness of those units working with them. Then there are their aircraft. The Germans lost air superiority, and the soviets had a very effective tank busting air craft. Not to mention poor tactical and political choices interfering with the German commanders ability to wage war. In the end, everything was on the side of the Soviets, it's amazing the Germans fared as well as they did.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.
Ah the George Lucas verson of events. Let's not forget that the North Vietnamese had the most sophisticated air defenses available at the time, shall we. Let's also not forget that they used international law against the united states, exploiting American unwillingness to widen the war. And let's not forget that they lost every major engagement, absorbing 1 to 2 million casualties for 50,000 Americans. In the end, their victory was entirely political and achived only through the various administrations insistance on not letting the military fight the war, and lying to the American people. In fact their victory cost them much and resulted in a country quite unlike what the "revolution" was originally seeking. Not to say they could have gotten even that far with their phenominal grit and guile, but please, that was FAR from enough.

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.
Conventional Wisdom is the Chinese don't have enough to be sure of being able to retailiate from a significant nuclear decapitation strike. With their reliance on centeralized control, and their political leadership near the coast, their vulnerability is perhaps more pronounced.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?
He who rules the high ground wins. No one doubts for a second that the US is the preminent power when it comes to taking and holding the high ground. Particularly after the F-22 is deployed. China's only hope would be to go nuclear and the retaliation by the US would be horrendous. What China is seeking to do is scare the US off from fullfilling it's treaty obligation to Taiwan, and intimidate those on Formosa into accepting a Hong Kong style solution. The trouble with that is, that seeing this, there's little reason why Taiwan shouldn't resume their abandoned nuclear program. Probably one of the reasons Bush said the things he did in his recent asia trip.

So to start with… Your knowledge of military history rivals that of someone who has seen the movie Saving Private Ryan, maybe skimmed through 3 other texts of a similar nature and who watches and takes great interest new programs….
"-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat."
If that is an attempt at humour (I doubt given the “literally”) it didn’t do much for me. However I suspect you are serious and as has been pointed out by Harlesburg the British along with aussies and a few other nations were there in Nrth Africa. I don’t know where you get your info but that’s just sad…. No realy.


New Zealand and the 2nd NZ Division should never be included in "a few other nations"
we were better thsn those other Jokers.





Definatly in East Africa did Italy face Spears and then had to win the second War using Gas attacks.
Of course the pot head emperor had a Bitch to the LN.

People underestimate China because most people aren't very good at learning from history. They are most likely the same people who said Iraq would be a piece of cake 2 years ago.

Of course the US could beat China, there's simply no question about it.

China is technologically backwards; in fact, virtually all of their military technologies are bought or stolen. The US is capable of fielding out new and better technology at a spectacular rate as the war goes on, the Chinese cannot.

The Chinese air force is inferior. Yes, they are building the J-10 that is based on the F16 and the Lavi- but it hasn't even achieved the initial operational capability yet. They are also planning for less than 100 of the J-10 planes, because of budget constraints. Buying Russian made stuff is cheaper for them than producing their own from scratch. In other words, they are only beginning to field out their first truly modern aircraft, while in the West this generation of planes is already regarded as increasingly obsolete.

Moreover, there is the "combat tested" factor. Neither the Chinese tech nor their ways of applying it in a war are combat tested, while the US has plenty of experience.

Hasn't experience taught us that the US tends to rush of to war thinking "Oh it'll be over in X weeks/months/whatever"? And then end up stuck there for years while we try to figure out how to effectively apply our forces, often having had ignored lessons gained through previous opperational experience, before anything comes of it?

China has been around continuosly longer than any other nation on Earth, don't assume she'd just roll over. We could win, but it's far from a sure thing that we would come out victorious if it came to war.

Of course the US could beat China, there's simply no question about it.

There wasn't much question about the US beating Iraq, a crippled, starved nation either. Occupation on the other hand, hasn't exactly been a bed of roses


China is technologically backwards; in fact, virtually all of their military technologies are bought or stolen. The US is capable of fielding out new and better technology at a spectacular rate as the war goes on, the Chinese cannot.

Looking at how some things turned out in WWII, what with the makers of anti-tank guns lobbying for their construction to the detriment of the American tanks (I think we can safely say the Sherman was rubbish compared to a Panzer IV or Panther, much less a tiger), I'd say it's a double edge sword. You never know when someone who makes weapons and has deep pockets may be screwing around with the tactical capability of a nation when their selling arms to them.

Depending on strategic objectives, a war could be a very, very, costly affair with only losers and no winners.

Besides, you have forgotten about the missile swarm doctrine being proposed.

As for centralized command and control, I would like to point out the case of Cuba and the missile crisis. Local Russian commanders at the time possessed up to 4 SRBMs if memory serves, of which were both nuclear equipped and completely under their jurisdiction unlike the ICBMs. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to expect local commanders in China's coastal defences being given some autonomy with missile weapons.


Moreover, there is the "combat tested" factor. Neither the Chinese tech nor their ways of applying it in a war are combat tested, while the US has plenty of experience.

To my knowledge, the F-22 has never been combat tested so that factor is moot. As to the performance vs stealth argument, I would put the F-22 against the SU-47 to see how they perform before making a judgment.

However, I thought of another strategy. First, the US infiltrates thousands of agents into China. The US provokes China into doing something stupid. Chinese students get mad. Agents help enrage them. Then, the agents direct the angry people to attack the Politburo. This is the hard part - storming the Politburo. But, the Russian peasants did it, and these kids will have the CIA backing them up. Then, we let the Chinese people take over.

China has just as many agents in America. Although many of them are not trained spies. A lot of them are simple citizens who've been ordered to gather inteligence on all manner of things. There's an article on it somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

Supercruise means "supersonic without the use of afterburners" so I don't see that Supersonic speeds would shorten it by anything noticable.
Since the thing isn't flying about in space, there'll be air resistance. Now I'm not a physicist, nor an engineer, but I'm pretty certain that the faster you go, the greater the friction.
So the engines have to run harder at supercruise than they would at fuel-preservation mode.

But your point, and Holy Womble's is probably granted - at this point China has little to offer.
Ultimately they have enough money and enough time to catch up, they don't really have any issues that need intervention now and they don't have commitments overseas.

That being said, the idea of the two going to war is stupid anyways, given that China holds trillions of US Dollars and can screw around with America at will, while any serious conflict would severely cut Chinese exports and also screw them up. So neither really has anything to win.

That being said, there still is something to be said about creativity in warfare, as my earlier posted link confirms.
Is The U.S. Vulnerable In The Persian Gulf (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8558.htm)
During the summer of 2002, in the run-up to President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the US military staged the most elaborate and expensive war games ever conceived. Operation Millennium Challenge, as it was called, cost some $250 million, and required two years of planning. The mock war was not aimed at Iraq, at least, not overtly. But it was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state...
...When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.


The Italian Army had the worst reputation as a fighting unit in WW2, only the Romanians, which both the Soviets and Germans despised, despite the Romanians being on the German side, competed for this dubious honour.

The Soviets despised the Romanians for sucking up to the Nazis, the Germans despised the Romanians because they were thought to be low in morale and thus not trusted to stick to their ground in a battle.

The Italians were low in morale, perhaps from not being able to crush supremely an opposition in East Africa who had spears and stones against Tanks, and perhaps from just not wanting to fight a war in the first place for Mussolini.

The switching of sides later in the war shoed faith in Mussolini was never iron cast.

The jokes about Italian Tanks only having one gear, a reverse gear, and having reverse lights did not come from nowhere. When the British came across the Italians in North Africa, the Italians were crushed, and sent on their way with ease, which lead to the arrival of Rommel and the Afrika Corps which led to the battle of North Africa being see-saw and momentous.

Many today, go on about the French in WW2, but many Dunkirk veteran will tell you the French thought like lions alongside the British against the odds, but the Italians were all too ready to flee, die, or surrender.




-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.



First, it was not the Russian Army, it was The Red Army, all those in it came from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Mongolia, and all the Stans and Azerbijan you can think of.
When the Germans invaded in 1941, The Soviet Union dismantled nearly all of it's weapon and Tank factories, and moved them away from the Germans, deeper into The Soviet Union. That is strategy. To say that the Germans were technological superior to the Soviets is a myth. The Soviets had the T-34-76 and the KV-1, which at the time of them appearing on the battlefield, made the germans positively cack themselves. The KV-1 could not be destroyed aside from an air attack, and the T-34 crews used to refer to German Anti Tank guns as 'door knockers' for the knock knock sound they made as they harmlessly bounced off the T-34's armour.

It was the deployment of the 88mm gun, originally used as a anti-aircraft gun, that was found to be lethal to the T-34 and KV-1.

The Panther and The Tiger Tanks were inspired by the T-34's sloping armour and wide tracks. Indeed, the Germans pondered just copying the T-34 when drawing up plans for the Panther.

The Germans held slight strategic edge (due to Stalin's purge of officers in the 30's perhaps, and putting aside Hitler's errors) in terms of fighting over the Soviets (Although there is the school of thought the Soviets used a strategy of drawing the Germans in and ensnaring them as claimed by German soldiers who survived The Eastern Front) until around late November 1942, at the battle of Stalingrad, when Soviet soldiers fought like bastards in bloody and brutal warfare in what the Germans darkly called RattenKrieg - Rat warfare. The Germans would grimly joke about capturing the kitchen, but not the living room or whatever the next room in a building was. Fighting was street to street, building to building, room to room, feet by feet, inch by inch, hand to hand, head to head fighting in it's most brutal and bloodiest form. When bullets ran out, grenades, when grenades ran out, knifes, shovels, bars, planks of wood, axes, fists, hands, feets, teeth. The average life expectancy in Stalingrad was 15 minutes until death.

The Soviets encircled Stalingrad while this was going on, which crushed The German 6th Army and 16th Panzer Division to the extent they no longer existed unless they were in Soviet capitivity.

Hitler later created a new 16th Panzer Division, but the original had been annihilated.

From therein, the Soviets used what was called 'The Stalingrad School of Street Fighting' in urban warfare, and by late mid to late '43 had upgunned the T-34 to an 85mm gun.

The Soviets in 1943 now had the edge over the Soviets not only in technology, but strategy too.

In 1944, the SU-100 Tank Destroyer arrived, a T-34 hull with a 100mm gun, which is said to have been the best Tank Destroyer of the war, along with the SU-152 and the ISU-152, 152mm self propelled guns for artillery support, but also known as the 'Animal Killer' because of it's ability to take out anything armoured the Germans had, Tigers, Panthers etc.
The IS-2 also arrived, a Tank in the heavy tank category, but yet weighed just less than a Panther, a Medium Tank, whilst armed with a 122mm gun.

They took on the King Tigers, and from accounts on record, always came out the victor. This beast was a monster. The tanks you see with the big guns rolling through Brandenburg gate in the Battle of Berlin photos? That's them. I've seen one for myself. Just be thankful we did not fight the Soviets, because they had plenty of those mothers, more than the Germans had of Tigers, and they then brought out the IS-3.

Perhaps the Soviets had always been strategically superior after all.




So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

Because the thought of a nation of 1.3 billion having a potent military scares people rigid.

I come across people who think Chinese soldiers are armed with nothing more than bamboo canes and rocks.

Perhaps it is a level of denial, or just ignorance.

As for Taiwan being a flashpoint, I would'nt be surprised if the US did nothing but scream and shout to stop Taiwan being taken by China.

But why does China need to? China is booming, and Taiwan wants a piece of that boom, and may come back into the fold themselves in a Hong Kong style way.

Nobody underestimates the army persay.

We all say the Navy is crap. I mean, in order to invade Taiwan, it would literally have to be the million man swim.

China may not be a military superpower now, but in 50 years I'm betting it'll top what the rest of the world has. By itself.

If push ever comes to shove, and the Chinese gets into their collective head to go around on a conquering spree, I'm taking classes on mandarin.


That's pretty cowardly.


:(

That's pretty cowardly.
Or maybe it's just realism. America is the ruler of the world right now, and people everywhere are learning English. Does that mean I am a coward for not fighting America?

Being the top dog today doesn't mean marching down your main street, it just means having the money and the political weight to make you do stuff.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6140

If anyone's interested.

There wasn't much question about the US beating Iraq, a crippled, starved nation either. Occupation on the other hand, hasn't exactly been a bed of roses
Of course attrition wars are never a bed of roses. But nobody is planning to occupy China. We're talking about repelling them from Taiwan, I believe.


Looking at how some things turned out in WWII, what with the makers of anti-tank guns lobbying for their construction to the detriment of the American tanks (I think we can safely say the Sherman was rubbish compared to a Panzer IV or Panther, much less a tiger), I'd say it's a double edge sword. You never know when someone who makes weapons and has deep pockets may be screwing around with the tactical capability of a nation when their selling arms to them.
The US was generally backwards tanks wise during World war II for reasons of geography (they simply did not need tanks much on their continent and weren't expecting to be required to fight in Europe). The Shermans were inferior to Tigers or Panthers, yes, but they were way cheaper, easier to mass produce and by no means bad tanks. Plus they were more mobile and transportable than the Tigers and much less flammable than the Panthers. Hell, the Israeli tank force during the 1967 war was made up almost exclusively of domestically modified World war II era Shermans, bought from the European scrap yards during the Independence war- and they successfully beat the Egyptians on the latest Russian armor of that time.


Besides, you have forgotten about the missile swarm doctrine being proposed.
Missile swarm doctrine would put the two industries into competition over who can produce more and better missiles in less time. Who do you think would win that one?


To my knowledge, the F-22 has never been combat tested so that factor is moot.
But the latest modifications of F15 and F16 WERE combat tested. And once the US gets around to adopting the new generation air-to-air missiles based on the Israeli Python 4, dogfights will be no more. The planes' capabilities won't matter much anymore, it will be almost entirely a radar vs. radar "who sees first" duel. The Chinese can't keep up on that level.


As to the performance vs stealth argument, I would put the F-22 against the SU-47 to see how they perform before making a judgment.

Learn a bit of history, and then learn that's not a glass ball!
I don't understand why there're so many people sure about the capacity of the US to win every war, even when we are seeing that just Irak it's too much for the US army, because wars are much more complicated than tech.

I think China has many chances to keep a good defense, that includes small offensives over Taiwan, or South Korea. Maybe they are going to suffers many, many casualties but it's able to do it, 'cause China it's just a namely Communist country, the new (and old) concret it's nationalism, and is the strongest against a exterior attack (and that includes an attack in defense of Taiwan). An hypotetical attack from the US will be preemptive or in defense of one of their allies, not a self-defense war. So, how many american people will support that war and for how long?

And for the tech superiority, Japan had, they conquered three capital, they conquered the richests areas (the coast and northeast) and a quarter of the territory, they need more than a million soldiers to keep it and they didn't win. To China, to win it's to keep fighting, and that's very easy, actually, easier now against US than then against Japan.
Of course, nuclear weapons broke the equation, but who wants to be the one to begin a nuclear war? And what'd happen within the rest of the countries if US do that, Russia, for exemple?

Anyway China has nothing to loose waiting and growing, so it's better a strong hugh than a kick. I recommend to you to read a short tale from Jack London about China, whose name I can't remember. It's in the book "Future pieces" or something similar, I don't know the name in english.

Finally, We've seen in Irak that the US intelligence it's quite not intelligent and surely it's easier for China to have spies in the melting pot country than the opposite.

So, the best is fighting against any war between the giants. Or the nains (like my country) will die also.

"Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin."

I'd say that the Germans were more "Moral" than the Russians.

In Hitler's purges, he killed six million people; mostly civilians.
Stalin, in his purges, killed about sixteen million; nearly all civilians.

The main difference, other than the massive number of people, was that in Nazi Germany at least you were killed for a reason, rather than in Soviet Russia where you were killed because you were - for no "Greater Good" or anything. Just killed.

Although undoubtedly when the Germans had taken over sections of the countries they annexed to the Reich there must have been some looting going on; this was kept to a minimal by the indoctrination and disciplined nature of the German people. When the Red Army came to "liberate" Berlin though, they raped and pillaged the entire city. Like Vikings, but without a code of honour or anything. Just destruction for no reason.

So, in conclusion, Werhmacht bad; Red Army MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse.

Next time you want to say the Russians were moral I hope your face explodes.

Really, the capabilities at this point for the Chinese military to project force are limited.

Yahtzee! No blue-water navy, including no operational aircraft carriers, and extremely limited (and that's being kind) air-to-air refueling capabilities.

"Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin."

I'd say that the Germans were more "Moral" than the Russians.

In Hitler's purges, he killed six million people; mostly civilians.
Stalin, in his purges, killed about sixteen million; nearly all civilians.

The main difference, other than the massive number of people, was that in Nazi Germany at least you were killed for a reason, rather than in Soviet Russia where you were killed because you were - for no "Greater Good" or anything. Just killed.

Although undoubtedly when the Germans had taken over sections of the countries they annexed to the Reich there must have been some looting going on; this was kept to a minimal by the indoctrination and disciplined nature of the German people. When the Red Army came to "liberate" Berlin though, they raped and pillaged the entire city. Like Vikings, but without a code of honour or anything. Just destruction for no reason.

So, in conclusion, Werhmacht bad; Red Army MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse.

Next time you want to say the Russians were moral I hope your face explodes.
erm.. morale.. not moral..

Please keep flaming and trolling out. I'm just wondering on why the people here underestimate it? I'm here reading information on people saying this and saying that, comparing how easily America could defeat China, how technology and training and sheer ability would win.

While I'm not saying China will win should there be a war (which I doubt), I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. Consider this:

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

All of these scenarios placed a technologically advanced, better equipped and more trained army against another foe 'inferior' in most militaristic way, yet they still lost. I've asked people about that, and they respond 'Oh, well the US can just turn China into a glass plate'. How could that help the US? The entire world would turn against them, as it is controversial now that they launched the nuclear bomb on Japan in World War 2, but what about now? With weapons thousands more lethal?

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's NOT going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

They don't underestimate it, they overestimate it.

The Chinese military is unable to invade any country that it doesn't share a border with. Their navy can't project force overseas because it lacks aircraft carriers and solid missile defense systems. In contrast the US navy is built around carrier battle groups armed with Aegis and Phalanx to destroy enemy planes and cruise missiles.

The Chinese air force is poorly trained by comparison and lacks the technology that the US, many EU countries and Israel have. Their planes would just be expensive targets for many other countries' air forces.

Where the Chinese have an advantage is in their army. It's huge. Lots of tanks (though most are outdated designs), lots of troops. That's what makes China invasion proof. An army that big, even if it suffers massive losses, still will inflict unacceptable losses on an invading force (IMHO)

Please keep flaming and trolling out. I'm just wondering on why the people here underestimate it? I'm here reading information on people saying this and saying that, comparing how easily America could defeat China, how technology and training and sheer ability would win.

While I'm not saying China will win should there be a war (which I doubt), I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. Consider this:

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

All of these scenarios placed a technologically advanced, better equipped and more trained army against another foe 'inferior' in most militaristic way, yet they still lost. I've asked people about that, and they respond 'Oh, well the US can just turn China into a glass plate'. How could that help the US? The entire world would turn against them, as it is controversial now that they launched the nuclear bomb on Japan in World War 2, but what about now? With weapons thousands more lethal?

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's NOT going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

Who's underestimating? They're a freaking powerhouse!

"Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin."

I'd say that the Germans were more "Moral" than the Russians.

In Hitler's purges, he killed six million people; mostly civilians.
Stalin, in his purges, killed about sixteen million; nearly all civilians.

The main difference, other than the massive number of people, was that in Nazi Germany at least you were killed for a reason, rather than in Soviet Russia where you were killed because you were - for no "Greater Good" or anything. Just killed.

Although undoubtedly when the Germans had taken over sections of the countries they annexed to the Reich there must have been some looting going on; this was kept to a minimal by the indoctrination and disciplined nature of the German people. When the Red Army came to "liberate" Berlin though, they raped and pillaged the entire city. Like Vikings, but without a code of honour or anything. Just destruction for no reason.

So, in conclusion, Werhmacht bad; Red Army MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worse.

Next time you want to say the Russians were moral I hope your face explodes.


Ahem - Germans more moral than the Soviets? What are you going on about? For a start, the Soviet reasons for extermination were just as legitimate, or illegitimate as the case may be, as the Nazis. Unless you want to make out that owning land automatically makes you better than being a jew, homosexual or gypsie.

Secondly - the Germans raped and murdered their way across Russia. The Nazis saw Slavonic races as subhuman, kind of like jews. They treated the French and British POWs quite well - not the Slavs. With them, anything went. When the Red army reached Berlin, you can bet they were fucking pissed. Think about it - you are approaching the capital city of a nation whose troops have murdered your father, raped your mother and sister...what are you going to do? I'm not excusing the Soviet actions, but far worse things have happened after sieges have being broke, and you can see the reason they might want revenge, surely? Unless you're simply a "Commies are evil, AHURR!" type, in which case reason is pointless.

That brings up an excellant point. US is democratic, while China is Communist. The two types of governments cannot exist on the same planet without there being bad blood between the two of them. So why the hell are we trading with China, strengthening their economy?




For the short term, short sighted enrichment of the middle man, of course.

They don't underestimate it, they overestimate it.

The Chinese military is unable to invade any country that it doesn't share a border with. Their navy can't project force overseas because it lacks aircraft carriers and solid missile defense systems. In contrast the US navy is built around carrier battle groups armed with Aegis and Phalanx to destroy enemy planes and cruise missiles.

The Chinese air force is poorly trained by comparison and lacks the technology that the US, many EU countries and Israel have. Their planes would just be expensive targets for many other countries' air forces.

Where the Chinese have an advantage is in their army. It's huge. Lots of tanks (though most are outdated designs), lots of troops. That's what makes China invasion proof. An army that big, even if it suffers massive losses, still will inflict unacceptable losses on an invading force (IMHO)

Do you know how many Chinese are already here? Brilliant engineers-look at the top graduates of our colleges and universities- full of Chinese people.

They dont need to send fleets full of soldiers accross the ocean to attack. They may already be in place. In postions of power and control.
I dont envision any type of conventional attack by China of the mainland US ever. They may flood into Tiawan, South Korea and Japan, but then they would probably hamstring US through electronic means- If we postire to help our allies, they shut off our power grids or our stock market.
They likely have us by the balls in that respect already.

Do you know how many Chinese are already here? Brilliant engineers-look at the top graduates of our colleges and universities- full of Chinese people.

They dont need to send fleets full of soldiers accross the ocean to attack. They may already be in place. In postions of power and control.
I dont envision any type of conventional attack by China of the mainland US ever. They may flood into Tiawan, South Korea and Japan, but then they would probably hamstring US through electronic means- If we postire to help our allies, they shut off our power grids or our stock market.
They likely have us by the balls in that respect already.
Are you talking about American citizens of Chinese descent or Chinese citizens living in the USA? I don't think that American citizens who happen to be of Chinese descent will betray us in that manner.

However I suspect you are serious and as has been pointed out by Harlesburg the British along with aussies and a few other nations were there in Nrth Africa. I don’t know where you get your info but that’s just sad…. No realy.

Apparently you need to open your mind a bit more. I'm talking about North Africa the area. He specifically invaded the Abbysian Empire (the remains of it - sorry for the spelling, my memory is fairly fogged, since I learned of it two years ago), which is in North Africa. If you knew about it, you'd know I was referring to that.

They have nothing to benefit from getting in a war with the USA or any western nation. I’m not going to get into a hypothetical situation, it would be to complex.

I know that. War affects everything. It changes the economy at all times, and most times makes things worse. Should China go to war against the USA, trade embargoes could pop up, America might not buy products, prices could increase, etc. I'm well aware of this.

As for you people freaked out by communists… china is about the worst example of a commo country. Ask the next communist you see, they will probably laugh at the idea of china being true a communist country.

The reason why people brand it as a communist country is it's strong ties with the USSR, which is still not communist.

Go back to school and get an education all of you.

Right back at you.

Please keep flaming and trolling out. I'm just wondering on why the people here underestimate it? I'm here reading information on people saying this and saying that, comparing how easily America could defeat China, how technology and training and sheer ability would win.

While I'm not saying China will win should there be a war (which I doubt), I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. Consider this:

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

All of these scenarios placed a technologically advanced, better equipped and more trained army against another foe 'inferior' in most militaristic way, yet they still lost. I've asked people about that, and they respond 'Oh, well the US can just turn China into a glass plate'. How could that help the US? The entire world would turn against them, as it is controversial now that they launched the nuclear bomb on Japan in World War 2, but what about now? With weapons thousands more lethal?

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's NOT going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

Any country thinking they can invade China and win is insane .
You really need to do a little study on the Vietnam war.
Why must other countrys be the aggressor and invade China ? The only way to win a war with China is not to invade them ...so whats that leave ?

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?
Short answer: they don't.

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceSubmittedFileView?file=fsl_asia.htm

Are you talking about American citizens of Chinese descent or Chinese citizens living in the USA? I don't think that American citizens who happen to be of Chinese descent will betray us in that manner.

True, but they could still feel a little loyal to China.

People underestimate China because most people aren't very good at learning from history. They are most likely the same people who said Iraq would be a piece of cake 2 years ago.
Iraq WAS a piece of cake. How many Iraqi tanks were there? 1000s How many M1A2 Abrams tanks did we lose to enemy tank fire? 0
It took us 2 weeks to decimate there entire military.

The war and the insurgency are different entities, and to say otherwise is to say that catching a criminal requires the same tools as keeping him in jail.

Short answer: they don't.

Im with you we dont underestimate them i mean sure theres swarms of them but how much damage can a third world country with knee high inhabitants really do?

Hasn't experience taught us that the US tends to rush of to war thinking "Oh it'll be over in X weeks/months/whatever"? And then end up stuck there for years while we try to figure out how to effectively apply our forces, often having had ignored lessons gained through previous opperational experience, before anything comes of it?

China has been around continuosly longer than any other nation on Earth, don't assume she'd just roll over. We could win, but it's far from a sure thing that we would come out victorious if it came to war.
The war wouldn't last 6 months. If we wanted to occupy them, thats a whole different question. War does NOT = Insurgency.

To my knowledge, the F-22 has never been combat tested so that factor is moot. As to the performance vs stealth argument, I would put the F-22 against the SU-47 to see how they perform before making a judgment.
I've already beaten this horse to death, so you can research it if you don't believe me. The F/A-22 is fully operational, has had more testing than any other fighter jet ever manufactured, and can kill any plane on the planet with ease. As a matter of fact, it can go against 4 F-16s without a doubt of the winner. Ask anyone who's ever flown one.

The Chinese are certainly catching up with America in terms of military and defensive capabilities. Then again, the rest of the world is catching up, and if you don't believe me, compare the U.S.'s dominance now with its dominance in 1990. Ever since the Soviet Union fell, America has grown more complacent, and is unaware of the great powers arising in the East.

Now, onto this war thing. A gigantic American-led war against China could NOT be fought unilaterally, if at all, unless the Chinese were to attack first. The political repercussions would be far too great for whoever was in power at the time, and after President Bush's " unilateral pre-emptive strike" policy has already hit political bankruptcy it would be hard to get support for such an action, from the American people or the Senate.

If a unilateral war really were to occur, I think it'd be a toss-up in terms of who would win. Both countries have their advantages, its just that China has a lot of people. In case you didn't know, the Confederacy had a lot of people too, but ended up losing because they were a century behind the Union in terms of economic and industrial power. Mongolia didn't have many people, but they were so far ahead of China in terms of battle tactics that the population difference didn't matter. Genghis Khan had his way with China, and Kublai would have taken Japan if it weren't for the kamikaze (the storm, not the suicide bombers).

Also notable is the fact that the Chinese haven't officially fought a war since their own Civil War. The last time they put their troops into combat was in Vietnam. The U.S. have fought four wars since then. A minor fact, perhaps, but important if you consider tactics a crucial part of wars.

Then again, the U.S. has had bad experiences with Asia in the past. Vietnam was a prime example of what happens when America is faced with overwhelming numbers in unfamiliar territory against desperate enemy warriors knowledgable in guerilla warfare. The result was humiliating defeat, for the government at home and for the troops in Indochina.

There are arguments for both sides now, but history has never been kind for the Chinese. They are a very persevering people, and have seen many things happen in their 5,000 year history. Who knows what a war may bring?

Then again, the U.S. has had bad experiences with Asia in the past. Vietnam was a prime example of what happens when America is faced with overwhelming numbers in unfamiliar territory against desperate enemy warriors knowledgable in guerilla warfare. The result was humiliating defeat, for the government at home and for the troops in Indochina.

We won the war in Vietnam, but we lost it in America, thanks to a bunch of fucking dirty hippies who have no idea what it means to fight for any cause, yet use the freedoms fought for, such as the "right" to call our soldiers baby killers and spit in their face.

We won the war in Vietnam, but we lost it in America, thanks to a bunch of fucking dirty hippies who have no idea what it means to fight for any cause, yet use the freedoms fought for, such as the "right" to call our soldiers baby killers and spit in their face.

"You may have won the battle but you didn't win the war."
Winning battles in Vietnam did not help America at all. It was a matter of whom was more dedicated and more willing to to fight for victory, and apparently, Vietnam won. America may have one the battles, but they're all moot points as Vietnam ultimately won the war.

"You may have won the battle but you didn't win the war."
Winning battles in Vietnam did not help America at all. It was a matter of whom was more dedicated and more willing to to fight for victory, and apparently, Vietnam won. America may have one the battles, but they're all moot points as Vietnam ultimately won the war.
No, North Vietnam won the war. Many Vietnamese didn't want communism. They lost.

Vietnam also lost the peace. Compare them with S. Korea. S. Korea, after resisting communism, developed into a powerfull modern nation. Vietnam is only now starting to develop.

No, North Vietnam won the war. Many Vietnamese didn't want communism. They lost.

Vietnam also lost the peace. Compare them with S. Korea. S. Korea, after resisting communism, developed into a powerfull modern nation. Vietnam is only now starting to develop.

I know. I'm just emphasising to FireAntz that America did not win the war.

Probably because they have not been tested for a while, in a war conveyed to the world.

Im with you we dont underestimate them i mean sure theres swarms of them but how much damage can a third world country with knee high inhabitants really do?
How very arrogant of you to say that.

How very arrogant of you to say that.

True though

I believe a war between the US and China would result in catostrophic results. I bet you that when America is focusing her military in China, North Korea would invade South Korea because Kim Jong Il would take advantage of the situation. That would only make things worse. Then the US would go to the UN and call upon it's allies to invade North Korea. Then Kim Jong Il would use his nuclear weapons because he's a f*cking psycho. That's how I see it.

I believe a war between the US and China would result in catostrophic results. I bet you that when America is focusing her military in China, North Korea would invade South Korea because Kim Jong Il would take advantage of the situation. That would only make things worse. Then the US would go to the UN and call upon it's allies to invade North Korea. Then Kim Jong Il would use his nuclear weapons because he's a f*cking psycho. That's how I see it.
There will never be a serious war between China and the US. Neither nation is willing to bear the cost in human and economic terms of such a war.

It's just fun to compare relative strengths and weaknesses.

There will never be a serious war between China and the US. Neither nation is willing to bear the cost in human and economic terms of such a war.

It's just fun to compare relative strengths and weaknesses.

Everyone also thought that World War 1 was the war to end all wars.

Everyone also thought that World War 1 was the war to end all wars.
Well, a nuclear exchange between the US and China might be the war to end all humanity.

In case you didn't know, the Confederacy had a lot of people too, but ended up losing because they were a century behind the Union in terms of economic and industrial power
Actually it was the Union that outnumbered the CSA; no matter how many armies Lee smashed, there was always more men to refill the ranks. It was crappy commanders that drew the war out, until some common sense took command (aka General Grant) and finally defeated them.

The reason people underestimate China's military is because they have a reason to. She has no bluewater navy to speak of, most of her aircraft are of outdated design, and while their army is huge it is also lethargic, barely able to invade her own neighbors.

People say that China will improve her military, and they point out that a section of her military is in the process of modernization. No one's disagreeing with you; what you forget is that the West is also improving its military. When China catches up to our present level in fifty years or whatnot, we'll still be ahead of the game by a decade or two.

Well, a nuclear exchange between the US and China might be the war to end all humanity.
Yeah and it might happen. You never know do you? Hopefully I am wrong but I am naturally pessimistic.

Yeah and it might happen. You never know do you? Hopefully I am wrong but I am naturally pessimistic.
Oh, I know. Trust me. It won't happen. They've got nothing that important to fight about. It's not in the national character of either nation to destroy the world unless it seemed that their respective nations were going to be conquered or destroyed.

Here is my take...

The PLA(Peoples Liberation Army) is a formidable foe, nearly equal with the USA in training and equipment terms, and superior in terms of numbers. As a bonus, have not been strung out all across the globe fighting, what I like to call, 'brushfire wars'.

The PLAAF(Peoples Liberation Army Air Force) is not as big a threat, despite having SOME equipment on equal with us. But by the time they get a sufficient amount of equipment equal to our F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and F-14, we will have replaced those with superior F-22s and JSFs, maybe, if they take their sweet time, we will be able to get a few X-02s up there. Right now, the PLAAF mostly consists of J-6s, which are modified versions of the Russian MiG-21(yes, you read that right, a nineteen-SIXTY era aircraft). They are also behind on training and doctrine.

The PLAN(People Liberation Army Navy) is a mixed bag, although its brown water navy is a good force, its still no match for the US Navy. And their Blue Water Fleet is a joke! No, the main threat to the US Navy will be land based Anti-Ship missiles and possibly Air-Surface Missiles.

The Strategic Forces of the PLA at first glance are formidable. They have 2,000 nuclear warheads. But look deeper, you will find that most of those are TACTICAL weapons. Most of their stratigic ones are bomber based, and against US home based fighters we would know how well THAT WORKS! Only 24 of those are ballistic missiles that are capable of reaching the US. And half of those are aboard a SINGLE submarine... which has never left Chinas waters! In the case of a war, that sub is DEAD! The Chinese has 12 ICBMs, sure! But the silos are easily located and can be hit by stealth delivered bunker-busters and annihilated. That would leave china with their tactical nuclear weapons. Which would do well against troop formations, but would wind up getting most of the people in China DEAD via nuclear inferno.

So thats my opinion.

China's army is numerically superior and rapidly arming. Next to the US, China has the most powerful military in Asia. Trouble is, it has no force projection. Beijing is not seriously building up its navy passed a regional capacity, partly because of a lack of interest on their part.

I always imagined China would be quite the force to be reckoned with. It's a very powerful country, and it's constantly getting more powerful. I believe I heard within 50 years it might even surpass the US in military and economic strength

As to the possibility of war with China, I don't really see that in the near future. Although when it does happen, it will be quite the battle. The US will more than likely still win, but not before a very long, very close fight.

The PLA(Peoples Liberation Army) is a formidable foe, nearly equal with the USA in training and equipment terms, and superior in terms of numbers. As a bonus, have not been strung out all across the globe fighting, what I like to call, 'brushfire wars'.

They are formidable, but I wouldn't say training and equipment are on equal terms; they are only now starting to modernize a section of their military, and the vast majority of their equipment stems from 70s & 80s tech like T-72s.

Of course attrition wars are never a bed of roses. But nobody is planning to occupy China. We're talking about repelling them from Taiwan, I believe.

Still not as easy as you think I believe. Such a cakewalk scenario assumes perfect intelligence regarding what China has and what it can do with it. And I don't really believe that there is such a thing as perfect intelligence, or if there is, sufficient intelligence to use said intelligence.

I've already beaten this horse to death, so you can research it if you don't believe me. The F/A-22 is fully operational, has had more testing than any other fighter jet ever manufactured, and can kill any plane on the planet with ease. As a matter of fact, it can go against 4 F-16s without a doubt of the winner. Ask anyone who's ever flown one.

But the latest modifications of F15 and F16 WERE combat tested. And once the US gets around to adopting the new generation air-to-air missiles based on the Israeli Python 4, dogfights will be no more. The planes' capabilities won't matter much anymore, it will be almost entirely a radar vs. radar "who sees first" duel. The Chinese can't keep up on that level.

Still no combat testing. And when I mean combat testing, I do mean against craft which it was designed to go against flown by pilots trained to fly them. Flying a F-22 against a F-16 and claiming good performance is like testing a Honda Accord against a Model T and claiming good performance.

Same with the radar issue. Technical superiority can still be overcome by a number of factors. So you'll need testing against comparative craft.


Missile swarm doctrine would put the two industries into competition over who can produce more and better missiles in less time. Who do you think would win that one?

Except that currently, the US isn't doing anything like that. The Chinese would have first user advantage in a theoretical fight. If they had a ratio of 6 or more anti-shipping missiles to every fighter in the carrier groups, it would be nigh impossible to take heavy losses, possibly losing a carrier in the exchange. Without that, the US takes a significant blow to force projection, thus neutering its ability to fight. You don't have to beat the whole US, just its carrier groups. Which was the idea in the first place.

Its not a matter of who can produce more in less time. Its a matter of who has more in the first time round to use.


The US was generally backwards tanks wise during World war II for reasons of geography (they simply did not need tanks much on their continent and weren't expecting to be required to fight in Europe).

I don't think you can deny the involvement of lobby groups had anything to do with why their tanks sucked so much in the first place though. If memory serves, the Sherman was designed as an infantry support vehicle with HE rounds mostly in the first place. Hardly worthy of the name battle tank. Later variants with a heavier gun and higher calibre only appeared AFTER US forces had their tank units trashed by their German counterparts.

They'll learn, but they need the lesson pounded in their heads first.


The Shermans were inferior to Tigers or Panthers, yes, but they were way cheaper, easier to mass produce

Considering that the factories were already tooled up for mass production of them, I'll have to agree to this. As far as I can tell, the Tigers and Panthers were dithered around too much for significant tooling of the factories to their production in time.


and by no means bad tanks.

High profile, low velocity gun, poor armor compared to German machines. I think for the time, it was a crap tank. The only advantage they had was the mass production factor and airpower. Sherman for Tiger/Panzer, however, they were simply just mobile hunks of scrap waiting to be blown up.

Only when they were upgunned were they capable of being pitted against Panzer IVs. But against heavier tanks, they were still scrap. It all goes to show that the High Command of the time was absolutely clueless about how tanks would perform in warfare at present and in the future.


This shows how the US failed to grasp the importance of tank units as all around-fighting tools, thus missing out one of the main points of the Combined Arms doctrine which would evolve from the original Blitzkrieg-concept. Most culpable for this blunder was General Leslie McNair who believed towed 57mm AT guns, hand-held Bazookas and thinly armoured Tank Destroyers to be sufficient replacements for tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank


Plus they were more mobile and transportable than the Tigers and much less flammable than the Panthers. Hell, the Israeli tank force during the 1967 war was made up almost exclusively of domestically modified World war II era Shermans, bought from the European scrap yards during the Independence war- and they successfully beat the Egyptians on the latest Russian armor of that time.

Less flammable? According to combat performance, the first model Shermans were prone to burn after the first hit. In fact, they got nicknamed "Ronsons" after a cigeratte lighter. Can you guess why?

As for the Israeli tanks, they were modified tanks from your own admittance. Both of them using either the French 75mm from the M50 or the 105mm from the M51. Which goes to show that Israeli command at the time thought the originals were still crap as tanks. I dare you to say the same thing had they been the original M4 tanks against T-34s.

A non-nuclear war between US and China would be a draw. US cannot successfully invade, China can't reach Hawaii (let alone mainland US) if US Navy doesn't want them to... gotta love those submarines.

However, I thought of another strategy. First, the US infiltrates thousands of agents into China. The US provokes China into doing something stupid. Chinese students get mad. Agents help enrage them. Then, the agents direct the angry people to attack the Politburo. This is the hard part - storming the Politburo. But, the Russian peasants did it, and these kids will have the CIA backing them up. Then, we let the Chinese people take over.

Or: Detonate nukes in low orbit over China. EMP fries everything. Send in the troops.

Not to flame, but the "goldeneye" ideal is highly overrated. it's dubious as to the effectiveness of a device of that nature. Furthermore, you could just build a giant coil with a massice power source and launch it into low earth orbit, and it would be more directional as well as reuseable. The oscillators neccesary would be relatively simple.

Still not as easy as you think I believe. Such a cakewalk scenario assumes perfect intelligence regarding what China has and what it can do with it. And I don't really believe that there is such a thing as perfect intelligence, or if there is, sufficient intelligence to use said intelligence.
The US is constantly flying spy sats and planes over Chinese territory, they will spot the massive troop and equipment movements required for an attempt against Taiwan and they already know, if not exact specifics, then the general range of numbers they will be dealing with.

Still no combat testing. And when I mean combat testing, I do mean against craft which it was designed to go against flown by pilots trained to fly them. Flying a F-22 against a F-16 and claiming good performance is like testing a Honda Accord against a Model T and claiming good performance.

Same with the radar issue. Technical superiority can still be overcome by a number of factors. So you'll need testing against comparative craft.
But the best the Chinese have is an F-16 equivalent, and if the F-22 can make going up against 4 to 1 odds seem boring to the pilots test-flying these things in mock combat, they can't be far off. And I would love to know how you plan for the Chinese to overcome the F-22's stealth, esp. since it will probably be working in tandem with AWACs to make it even less detectable.

Except that currently, the US isn't doing anything like that. The Chinese would have first user advantage in a theoretical fight. If they had a ratio of 6 or more anti-shipping missiles to every fighter in the carrier groups, it would be nigh impossible to take heavy losses, possibly losing a carrier in the exchange. Without that, the US takes a significant blow to force projection, thus neutering its ability to fight. You don't have to beat the whole US, just its carrier groups. Which was the idea in the first place.

Its not a matter of who can produce more in less time. Its a matter of who has more in the first time round to use.
But with the Aegis system, it will be particularly hard to overcome the anti-missile defense of a CVN battlegroup. You will need a lot of missiles and be close enough to use them; how close do you think the carriers will actually get to the Chinese coast? Certainly not within land-based missile range, and with their air defende they'll spot incoming fighters and swat them out of the sky.

I don't think you can deny the involvement of lobby groups had anything to do with why their tanks sucked so much in the first place though. If memory serves, the Sherman was designed as an infantry support vehicle with HE rounds mostly in the first place. Hardly worthy of the name battle tank. Later variants with a heavier gun and higher calibre only appeared AFTER US forces had their tank units trashed by their German counterparts.
Truth be told, the Sherman was designed to fight the Panzer IV, which it did pretty well; it's just that the Germans starting producing Panzer Vs and VIs not long after it was fielded, and the only thing the Sherman was better at was ease of maintenence and contstruction compared to them.

The US did produce a heavy tank to combat the Tiger and Panzer, the M26 Pershing was equal to its German and Russian counterparts iirc.

I dare you to say the same thing had they been the original M4 tanks against T-34s.

Believe it or not, the Sherman DID go against T-34s(the -85 version) and did quite well... in the Korean War, of course, this could be contributed to lack of North Korean experience and the fact that they were facing post-war versions.

Anyways, the PLA of today is a far cry from its time in North Korea, they now have a large number of tanks and other mechanized and motorised military vehicles. A large part of its army is still foot infantry, true, but they are have ALOT more tanks and other vehicles then they did back in the Korean War.

Now, for some war scenerios:

A Chinese attack on Taiwan: The most likely scenerio. This would result in a stalemate, the US and Taiwanese do not have the troop strength nessecary to invade mainland China, the Chinese do not have the logistics capability and blue water navy capability to successfully invade Taiwan. If the fight went nuclear, China 'loses'(if you can say that, being a nuclear war and all). The Chinese could obliterate 12 US and Taiwanese Cities(the Chinese Boomer would probably be put to the bottom of the seas and the PLAAF Bomber Force is laughably outdated), but the US could OBLITERATE every single city, town, village, hell even hamlets, in China if it wanted to. Plus, the Chinese ICBM force could still be destroyed via Bunker-Busters delivered by F-117(which I remind, the Chinese have NO WAY of detecting). There is also the possibility of the Taiwanese having the bomb(not likely, but then again, it probably wouldnt be public knowledge).

Second Korean War: I dont think China would get involved this time around. I mean, China does NOT want to lose their big trading partner, the USA, over some backwards country that it lost interest in back in the early 70s(when the Chinese and the Soviets had their 'falling out', the NKs stuck with the Soviets). But if it did get involved on the North Korean Side... jesus, it would be one HELL of a battle, and, depending on how many men the Chinese commit, it would be hard to say who wins.

Chinese/Russian War: This scenerio lands somewhere inbetween the Second Korean War scenerio and the Chinese invade Taiwan Scenerio. Its COULD happen because the Russians and Chinese still harbor grudges adn border disputes towards each other, despite the fact that the Russians still selling China weapons. It is unlikely because the Russians still possess a considerable array of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, and everyone knows how effective those are at phsycological warfare. In anycase, a pure conventional war between Russia and China would wind up in the Russians probably losing. Despite being rather equal equipment wise, the Russian soldier would be out numbered, out trained, out witted, and so on by the Chinese. Chinese win conventionally likely... then the Russians would probably go nuclear. And China would be obliterated just as efficiently as if the US had done it.

So... there you have it.

Um I didn't bother reading past the first page becuase I assumed I had read ever ything I need to.

A couple of things.

Italy was beaten back by a primitive army in Ethipoia before the second world war started. Basically the Italians sucked nuts and didnt have any will to fight.

China does not have the capability to extend its power much beyond its borders with military force. No blue water navy just for a start.

The new Chinese fighter, the J-10, basically is Chinese version of the F-16 made from stolen US tech, reversed enginered from a F-16 bought from Pakistan and partially developed by the Isrealis.

On a unrealted matter the Sherman wasn't good at all, although it was reliable and easily mass produced. The SHermans profile was far to high, it lacked armour and its armament was basically useless against anything more than IV panzers (although i do acknowledge that was what the tank was aimed at). But the US had so many of them it was hard for the Germans to get them all. There was a recorded case in the invasion of Normandy of a Panzer VI taking out 15 Shermans without being damaged before running out of ammo. That said the western allies didnt have many good tanks until the Centerioun (which was amazingly good) and the Perishing. But the centerion never saw action on the front and the Perishing was built in small numbers. The Russians T34 was decent and the Russian KV1 was basically indestructable until the Panzer V but there werent many and the Russians weren't trained well. I read an account by a German Panzer commander were apparently 5 Panzer IVs just circled A KV1 firing but all they manged to do was knock off all the ariels and damage its tracts. The then DEAF Russian crew surrendered becuase they couldn't move.

Actually the Frech some really good tanks, at the start of the Second world war their heavy battle tank (the Char B1) was the best in the world and could have ruined the Germans if used properly or if more than a few hundred were built instead of building the Magiont line. They also had the excellent R-35. The French had no idea about tanks and they wasted their one trump card. Most of the french tanks werent destroyed but rather ran out of fuel after the Germans cut lines of supply. Ironically the French tanks saw action against Australains in syria when the Aussies invaded the Vichy colony. Then too the French tanks were basically invunerable. Ironic that the French... the French... had the best tank in the world until the panzer V

Secondly the JXX won't be equivalent to the JSF or the F22. The chinese still have a way to go to reach US level sophistication. They will rely on Russian tech for a while yet.

IN terms of technolgy the majority of the Chinese army is in the 60s. The US could wipe out most of its armour and air within weeks. That said the US could never invade China. No one has that much man power. GOing back to tech the Chinsese may still be dated but aspects of their army are rapidly moderninising. They are now producing locally made equipment that is A grade, but not tanks or combat air craft.

Also the Isralias used centeriuons not shermans in the Arab - Isreali wars.


I dont think people doubt Chinas ability to defend itself. No one belives China could be invaded succesfully. I think most people are critical of the idea of a China being able to exvert military force world wide like the US can

I do not underestimate Chinas military. Ofcourse I feel that if the US was to unleash total hell on China they'd have no chance.. but it never happens that way. It's all politics and MONEY.. not war. Only the elite will decide how shit goes down..and if they (the elite = seemingly most powerful -are suprised and shown that things are out of their hands to their fear) are pistol whipped - so to speak - then it's no telling what kind of massacre will happen. More than likely, it will be some sort of flu(air born sickness), famine, other natural disaster or something that will bring most of the world to its knees.. not major war. my opinion.

Oh and I'm always aware that our earth might get slammed by some big ass rock.

Also I'm plenty aware that the "big dogs" infect the normal pop with shit. Them sons of bitches. :)

That brings up an excellant point. US is democratic, while China is Communist. The two types of governments cannot exist on the same planet without there being bad blood between the two of them. So why the hell are we trading with China, strengthening their economy?

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -Lenin

Greed can be a major weakness. American leaders want more money, and the Chinese government is taking advantage of that fact.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate.

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

About halfway through the African Campaign, Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, ran out of tank fuel. Meanwhile, America arrived on the scene. The Allieds were suddenly better-equipped and had a larger army.

Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

Two-front war. If he had focused on Western Europe and invaded Britain, consolidated for a couple years, then attacked Russia, then he would have won easially.

Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

If China and America fought, it wouldn't be guerilla warfare. It would be one smaller, superiorly-equipped army with a Naval advantage, versus a much larger army, mediocrely equipped. It would be fought in China.

I think the one thing that evidences China's military power was the Korean War. We had, basically, taken over the Korean Peninsula. Then, all the sudden, around a million Chinese crossed the border, and almost pushed us into the sea. We counterattacked and established the 48th Parallel, but we weren't able to go any further without declaring war on China or nuking something.

That was 50 years ago. The Chinese have only gotten more advanced since then.

Greed can be a major weakness. American leaders want more money, and the Chinese government is taking advantage of that fact.

I guess the Chinese have never learned that if you owe the bank $100 it owns you, but if you owe the bank $1,000,000,000 you own it.

Please keep flaming and trolling out. I'm just wondering on why the people here underestimate it? I'm here reading information on people saying this and saying that, comparing how easily America could defeat China, how technology and training and sheer ability would win.

While I'm not saying China will win should there be a war (which I doubt), I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. Consider this:

-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat.

-Hitler's massive blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union in WW2 was a battle of numbers and morality versus technology and strategy. Despite that, the Russian Army, underdeveloped and not supplied well enough, still broke through and captured Berlin.

-Vietnam, despite facing relentless attacks against the United States, still was able to win the war using guerilla tactics, forcing an unwanted enemy out in their revolution.

All of these scenarios placed a technologically advanced, better equipped and more trained army against another foe 'inferior' in most militaristic way, yet they still lost. I've asked people about that, and they respond 'Oh, well the US can just turn China into a glass plate'. How could that help the US? The entire world would turn against them, as it is controversial now that they launched the nuclear bomb on Japan in World War 2, but what about now? With weapons thousands more lethal?

In a nuclear warfare, neither country would live to see the day. China would be crippled, but the United States would be crippled as well through possibly a great deal of retaliation from other countries.

So the ideal comes back to warfare. People talk about how inferior China's navy is and how they are to get their asses kicked. The thing is they're forgetting is that China's military is focusing on defense. They tend to build an unbreakable brown water defense system with little care for reach into the pacific. Their anti-missile defenses are growing, and while they're airforce is still small, it's not to be underestimated. The People's Liberation Army, PLA, is the main 'shine' of the Chinese military, and they are NOT conscripts (against what people believe).

I'm not China would win, but I am saying that it's NOT going to be so easy for the US should they invade.

So my question is, why do people here underestimate the Chinese Military?

All of your points are valid for the most part, except that you fail to take into account the actual state of China's training and equipment.
Here's some basic information ont hese two key areas.

Infantry: Basically think world war two, thats about the level of technology they have, some SMGs, some Machineguns, there standard infantry rifle is large, unwieldy and does not fire automatic, training wise, China still thinks like it did during the reign of the emperors, confucian loyalty to state, little or no free will on any level and lines of infantry, so far they have neither the training nor the technology

Airforce: Here technology is catching up a little and slowly, their latest fighter is almost as good as the F-15 which we are just now replacing, so their a step behind, but wait! their 'latest' fighter is only in service in extremely limited quantities and they will probably not have the industry to make any sort of considerable stock of them, for chrissake, they still fly Korean War era ex soviet stock. and training? Forget it, in one memorable situation a few years back, an American ASW patrol aircraft (Think slow, unmaneuverable and armed basically with a cannon and some torpedos) was accosted by two chinese fighters, the ASW patrol aircraft came out with two CHinese kills to its name.
oh, and to correct your mistake, the CHinese Airforce is the largest int he world, just none of the planes are worth the scrap metal they're made out of anymore and the Missiles aren't even worth that much.

Navy: Here's where it starts to look scary, their most recent destroyer is a little more advanced than OUR latest destroyer and their training is fairly good, they know more or less what they're doing on the blue water.
Trouble is, the combat envelope has moved passed the Blue water and into Littoral combat zones and China has not yet adapted, Additionally the U.S> own the blue water and even some nice new destroyers won't change the fact that they have no carriers and a submarine force that rivals the old soviet nukees for leaks (radiation and water) And obsolescence. And again, America is soon to upgrade its navy with new Cruisers, Destroyers, Carriers and Amphibious Assault SHips, Oh wait, you didn't here me talk about CHina's AASs, thats because like CHinas carrier force, they don't exist, and without that capability they can't invade except along a land border.

Which brings us to tanks: Face it, the Last Good SOviet block tank was the T-34, the T-90 comes close but lags behind even the leclerc, the back runner of what is considered to be a 'good' tank. and they are unlikely to even see the next generation Russian tank which rivals the Abrams and Challenger two for top billing. and they still train like soviets, America has picked those strategies appart for almost 60 years, its doubtful china brings anything special there.

Coastal Defenses? even state of the art coastal defenses have vulnerablities the U.S. Marines are uniquely suited to exploiting, and CHina's coastal defenses are by no means state of the art (You wouldn't even need a marines SOG to do it, just a few well placed missile and airstrikes). and their littoral navy is little better while America is comissioning a new Littoral Combat ship in two years that rivals anything CHina ever put together.

So there you have it, WHy America can easily defeat China, The only thing china really has going for it is numbers, but with CHina being so far behind in both Technology and Training, the only way that becomes an advantage is if America runs out of bullets or if they discover a way to turn a basically unarmed (Well, technically they have a gun, but it might not fire and its sixty years old) infantry man into a WMD or state of the art tank killing device.
I'm tired of people saying that china is even remotely a threat, not only are they lagging so far behind in the modern theatre of war, they are surrounded by some heavy hitters, India and Packistan to the south are both nuclear powers, Australia excels in special forces and is Britains token ex-commonwealth in the region, Japan is the most technologically superior navy and airforce in the world and could become a nuclear super power within twenty four hours (As well as other nastier rumors about what they can do) RUssia is to the North with the largest tank army in the world and is ironically no longer trapped in the 'Soviet Era' which it passe don to CHina.
and the only realistic Target for chinese agression, Tawain is defended by an ocean CHina can't take troops across and the Ninth Fleet which as I stated, owns the blue water.

So how about that EU arms embargo then?

Germany would stand to make an absolute killing equipping an army of a million or more with rifles, tanks, artillery and helicopters. And the French could sell Planes, and ships.

I'd say that the Germans were more "Moral" than the Russians.

In Hitler's purges, he killed six million people; mostly civilians.
Stalin, in his purges, killed about sixteen million; nearly all civilians.


Hitler killed more than six million, you talk about the 6 million who died in concentration camps, which of course, were more moral in their nature in your view.

Comparing numbers killed to see who was more 'moral' is sick.



The main difference, other than the massive number of people, was that in Nazi Germany at least you were killed for a reason, rather than in Soviet Russia where you were killed because you were - for no "Greater Good" or anything. Just killed.



People in Nazi Germany were killed for no "Greater good" either. Jews, Christians, Catholics, Socialists, Communists, Trade Unionists, Academics, Disabled, Gypsies, Democrats, Aristrocrats, young, old, male, female, of family or no family, they were killed just for either being who they were, or for believing in what they did. They were killed, that's if they were not tortured first.

Shot, or if they wanted to save bullets, gassed.

There was no greater good in that.

None.


Although undoubtedly when the Germans had taken over sections of the countries they annexed to the Reich there must have been some looting going on; this was kept to a minimal by the indoctrination and disciplined nature of the German people.


You are either very ignorant, or very sick.

The Germans raped, pillaged, looted, and exterminated millions of people.

In the harsh Soviet winters, the Germans would turf villagers out of their houses and set fire to the buildings, leaving the villagers to die. For the pure reason they saw the villagers as subhuman.

The indoctrination saw that killing people, crushing people into misery was acceptable, for all others were subhuman. Their discipline was in how effectively they co-ordinated their acts of inflicting misery, death, torture.


When the Red Army came to "liberate" Berlin though, they raped and pillaged the entire city. Like Vikings, but without a code of honour or anything. Just destruction for no reason.


Rather like the Germans in the occupied countries then. What goes round, comes round. The Germans learnt that.



Next time you want to say the Russians were moral I hope your face explodes.

The next time you say the Germans in WW2 had more 'moral', were disciplined, and killed people for 'greater good' I hope you perhaps become more educated afterwards.

In other words, I hope your bubble of ignorance bursts.

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." -Lenin


That was said by Stalin, not Lenin.

So to start with… Your knowledge of military history rivals that of someone who has seen the movie Saving Private Ryan, maybe skimmed through 3 other texts of a similar nature and who watches and takes great interest new programs….
"-Mussolini invaded North Africa in an attempt to rebuild the Roman Empire. Facing a numberically inferior army (literally) with spears and arrows against tanks and soldiers, he lost and was forced to retreat."
If that is an attempt at humour (I doubt given the “literally”) it didn’t do much for me. However I suspect you are serious and as has been pointed out by Harlesburg the British along with aussies and a few other nations were there in Nrth Africa. I don’t know where you get your info but that’s just sad…. No realy.

Eeer...he's talking about the abyssinia war...

The Shermans were inferior to Tigers or Panthers, yes, but they were way cheaper, easier to mass produce and by no means bad tanks. Plus they were more mobile and transportable than the Tigers and much less flammable than the Panthers.


It was the Sherman that was known as the Ronson or Zippo (named after cigarette lighters) for their nasty consistent habit of lighting up when hit very easily, not the Panther.

If the British were using the Sherman when it lit up, the Germans would call it 'The Tommy Cooker'.

Their armour was terrible, and only the Sherman Firefly, a British invented modification was decent in terms of firepower, which the Americans copied later on.

As for Shermans Vs Panthers, it is said it usually took 5 Shermans to take out 1 Panther.

Your post is the first time I have heard the Panther described as flammable, and more flammable than the Sherman!



Hell, the Israeli tank force during the 1967 war was made up almost exclusively of domestically modified World war II era Shermans, bought from the European scrap yards during the Independence war- and they successfully beat the Egyptians on the latest Russian armor of that time.


The Israelis were desperate, they brought anything they got their hands on that they could afford, and they upgraded the Shermans from the WW2 standard. They probably had more tanks than the Egyptians too.

The US is constantly flying spy sats and planes over Chinese territory, they will spot the massive troop and equipment movements required for an attempt against Taiwan and they already know, if not exact specifics, then the general range of numbers they will be dealing with.

Still not perfect intelligence. You think the Chinese don't know about the constant surveillance they are under by the US? It would be nothing but foolishness to assume that they won't have anything up their sleeves.


But the best the Chinese have is an F-16 equivalent, and if the F-22 can make going up against 4 to 1 odds seem boring to the pilots test-flying these things in mock combat, they can't be far off. And I would love to know how you plan for the Chinese to overcome the F-22's stealth, esp. since it will probably be working in tandem with AWACs to make it even less detectable.

If I knew, I wouldn't tell you anyway.

But over reliance on stealth as the end all and be all, has resulted in a particularly embarrassing situation regarding a downed F-117A no? And the first generation radars were supposed to operate on a wavelength that allowed them to detect modern day stealth planes IIRC, the poor performance of them being the reason why they aren't being used today. Nevertheless, it is again, foolishness to assume that China doesn't have anything in the works to counter the vaunted stealth plane.


But with the Aegis system, it will be particularly hard to overcome the anti-missile defense of a CVN battlegroup. You will need a lot of missiles and be close enough to use them; how close do you think the carriers will actually get to the Chinese coast? Certainly not within land-based missile range, and with their air defende they'll spot incoming fighters and swat them out of the sky.

Close enough for their own fighters to launch. At that range, the PLAAF would probably use their own fighter wings to deploy air launched cruise missiles. Thinking that the carrier groups will be unhurt is a pipe dream.


Truth be told, the Sherman was designed to fight the Panzer IV, which it did pretty well;

Incorrect. The original design purpose for the Sherman was for infantry support, not anti-tank operations. Only later upgunning and modification when it was proven to perform poorly against Panzer IVs did it finally become a match for said tanks.


The US did produce a heavy tank to combat the Tiger and Panzer, the M26 Pershing was equal to its German and Russian counterparts iirc.

The M26 Pershing however, was not around at the start of the war iirc. As with the lobby groups and command thinking of the time, anti-tank operations by tanks was simply not to be considered. Only when the reality of the situation proved itself to be a poor idea did these other tanks become available.


Believe it or not, the Sherman DID go against T-34s(the -85 version) and did quite well... in the Korean War, of course, this could be contributed to lack of North Korean experience and the fact that they were facing post-war versions.

Modified Sherman tanks or the original stock versions (M4) that were produced? I highly doubt the latter.

Everyone also thought that World War 1 was the war to end all wars.

Humans have always fought and will always fight (until we are exterminated or just cease to exist) so the war to end all wars is just an event that noone would want to repeat so the wars will be smaller in scale from then on

Infantry: Basically think world war two, thats about the level of technology they have, some SMGs, some Machineguns, there standard infantry rifle is large, unwieldy and does not fire automatic, training wise, China still thinks like it did during the reign of the emperors, confucian loyalty to state, little or no free will on any level and lines of infantry, so far they have neither the training nor the technology

Which brings us to tanks: Face it, the Last Good SOviet block tank was the T-34, the T-90 comes close but lags behind even the leclerc, the back runner of what is considered to be a 'good' tank. and they are unlikely to even see the next generation Russian tank which rivals the Abrams and Challenger two for top billing. and they still train like soviets, America has picked those strategies appart for almost 60 years, its doubtful china brings anything special there.


The standard issue rifle for the Chinese Military is the Type-59 Assualt Rifle, a copy of the AK-47. It DOES have fully auto settings. The Chinese Infantry forces are not stuck back in the 40s. They do have a plethora of Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, SAMs(handheld and not), and Tactical Ballistic Missiles. Finally, their training is MUCH better then it was in the 50s and 60s, they no longer give their troops rifles and chuck them at machine gun nests. They actually train their troops how to shoot and even occasionally go on war games.

As for tanks, the Chinese Type-85-II(their primary main battle tank) is capable of taking on the Russian T-80U, their latest tank(the Type-98) is easily capable of taking on the Russian T-90. Versus Western European and American Tanks, they wont do to well, I admit, but versus any second or third world tanks, they'll do great. And after all, China shares a border mainly with third and second world countries.

China's militarry is not strong you sily American I mean uh person. You have no need to fear us... er.. uh... China. Yes no need to fear at all....

As for tanks, the Chinese Type-85-II(their primary main battle tank) is capable of taking on the Russian T-80U, their latest tank(the Type-98) is easily capable of taking on the Russian T-90. Versus Western European and American Tanks, they wont do to well, I admit, but versus any second or third world tanks, they'll do great. And after all, China shares a border mainly with third and second world countries.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, in any scenerio including an attempted invasion of Taiwan, the picture isn't even nearly so rosy as having the opportunity to square off against american tanks. They'll be facing off against Brilliant Anti-Tank Munitions.

OOC: Taiwans a island, the battle would mostly be air/naval.

We send marines into bejing, and take control of the capital. This is followed by a massive, drawn out, guerilla war. This could be won if America has massive support at home.The U.S. does not do well in insurgency/guerilla-type warfare. Look at the failures in Vietnam and Iraq. The U.S. does not show any ability to learn its lessons from those defeats.

I've been saying for YEARS that China should be considered the next big enemy of the United States but my protestations have fallen on deaf ears. A recent Washington Times report indicated that China was massively building up its military right under the noses of U.S. intelligence. If I were the U.S., I'd be getting the fleet in Asia ready to do some anti-invasion drills for a likely Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Still not perfect intelligence. You think the Chinese don't know about the constant surveillance they are under by the US? It would be nothing but foolishness to assume that they won't have anything up their sleeves.



If I knew, I wouldn't tell you anyway.

But over reliance on stealth as the end all and be all, has resulted in a particularly embarrassing situation regarding a downed F-117A no? And the first generation radars were supposed to operate on a wavelength that allowed them to detect modern day stealth planes IIRC, the poor performance of them being the reason why they aren't being used today. Nevertheless, it is again, foolishness to assume that China doesn't have anything in the works to counter the vaunted stealth plane.



Close enough for their own fighters to launch. At that range, the PLAAF would probably use their own fighter wings to deploy air launched cruise missiles. Thinking that the carrier groups will be unhurt is a pipe dream.



Incorrect. The original design purpose for the Sherman was for infantry support, not anti-tank operations. Only later upgunning and modification when it was proven to perform poorly against Panzer IVs did it finally become a match for said tanks.



The M26 Pershing however, was not around at the start of the war iirc. As with the lobby groups and command thinking of the time, anti-tank operations by tanks was simply not to be considered. Only when the reality of the situation proved itself to be a poor idea did these other tanks become available.



Modified Sherman tanks or the original stock versions (M4) that were produced? I highly doubt the latter.

The Sherman came in an up armored and up guned version ea48 or something,
you can tell them by the massive turret armor look they have..those are the tanks the Israelis used and that took out the t34 85's . The 76 mm gun version could fight Pathers if the right tactics were used .

While liberals and conservatives yell at eachother for no reason about unimportant issues, China is just sitting there selling us a bunch of stuff making there economy strogner and buying weopons with are money. We should boycott most if not all things with those damn made in China stickers. Yes this means no one can buy from wall mart. If we don't 10-15 years from now they'll kick our ass. I am I overreacting? I might but, but if I'm right, say good bye to our world supperpower position America.

While liberals and conservatives yell at eachother for no reason about unimportant issues, China is just sitting there selling us a bunch of stuff making there economy strogner and buying weopons with are money. We should boycott most if not all things with those damn made in China stickers. Yes this means no one can buy from wall mart. If we don't 10-15 years from now they'll kick our ass. I am I overreacting? I might but, but if I'm right, say good bye to our world supperpower position America.

It would only be a matter of time before another country (say, Britain), takes up and buys most of the cheap goods. It's happening already, as they're accepting China's trade of clothing.

The Sherman came in an up armored and up guned version ea48 or something,
you can tell them by the massive turret armor look they have..those are the tanks the Israelis used and that took out the t34 85's . The 76 mm gun version could fight Pathers if the right tactics were used .

Precisely my point. The original M4s were hunks of junk in anti-tank operations. They were just mobile "light me up" cans waiting for a decent panzer to knock a hole in them. Only AFTER they were up armored and up gunned did they become a tank worthy of the name.

Gangxie Nin Shifu

That's "thank you very much master" in Mandarin ... start practising now ;)

Precisely my point. The original M4s were hunks of junk in anti-tank operations. They were just mobile "light me up" cans waiting for a decent panzer to knock a hole in them. Only AFTER they were up armored and up gunned did they become a tank worthy of the name.

Actually when the Shermans were first delivered to the British eight army they outclassed almost every tank in the feild in North Africa..panzer II , IIIj and Panzer IVd 's did not have the armor or the gun the Sherman had..they had Rommel though , and radios and superior tactics . When the Germans put the 75 mm long barrell gun in the IVH and increased its armor a bit and added the skirts etc. it was about equal to the Sherman in all but the gun ..that was WAY superior. When the Tiger went to North Africa ..it became the King of the battlefield with the German 88 mm anti tank gun as its queen . The 88 would go in one end and out the other of all allied tanks except maybe the Matilda II and the later Churchills .