China in a land war, IMO could only operate for a relatively short period of time outside of its own country. Beyond their borders their aren't many highways or nice terrain to ease of transport of logistical support. China has enough trouble as it is in its own country(which they are fixing). But the farther they get away from their borders, the harder logistical support that will have and the size of their military will make things ALOT worse. A big military is very nice, but supporting it is a pain in the ass. And as Is a war over an ocean is logistically impossible for them.

That's odd, ever since I mentioned Sino-defense.com, people are beginning to dive into its reliable sources. Trust me, the information provided are actual and the website itself is UK-Based. I believe globalsecurity.org is somewhat inactive for quite a while, thus the information lagged behind others.


According to Snauhi's question post relating Sino-defense.com is a Pro-China website, please rephrase and reconsider that there is no such thing that is "Pro-China" when describing and providing information about China's 1949-current military equipment, gear, doctrines, etc. Read the articles and descriptions, close captionings, specifications as they are important and vital to understand how their military work. It describes the challenges, the problems, the success, and the progress.

If you want the latest information and updates on their activity, sino-defense.com is always active. Always. And free of Charge. That's how I got most of my info from when I check-in on the World's Military. (Janes Weekly is also suggestive but you need to pay for suscription.)

China in a land war, IMO could only operate for a relatively short period of time outside of its own country. Beyond their borders their aren't many highways or nice terrain to ease of transport of logistical support. China has enough trouble as it is in its own country(which they are fixing). But the farther they get away from their borders, the harder logistical support that will have and the size of their military will make things ALOT worse. A big military is very nice, but supporting it is a pain in the ass. And as Is a war over an ocean is logistically impossible for them.

PLAN is unable to operate offensive capabilities although their newly launched Vessels and new shipbuilding projects are already in full throttle at Shanghai/Guangzhou shipyards (Correct me if I'm wrong about the locations). However, I do know that China has no problem dealing with logistical effeciency when transporting goods overseas in the near future since the country itself has already several massive shipping companies.

Well I was leaning more toward protecting those shipping..erm...ships. They would have almost no air cover and they might have to resort to ww2 style convoy tactics.

ginger, could you post some Tang-ese police pics of HongKong and Macao for me?

EuroSpike is a funny guy. Such as these sentences - "The american way to solve the problem, just change the names on the boxes." "Why didn't for example princess Diana pressure UK to ban seamines instead of landmines?"

Mr. EuroSpike, you may just express that landmine isn't aggressive weapons mainly. That's enough.

And I'm interesting in what "tree hugger" means?

i think the chinese military commanders learnt their lesson in 1979, that even though a large infantry based army with a huge artillery barrage could defeat the viets easily, the amount of casulties and logistics is high

if china is to invade another country, probably not, but lets consider this

china will use a smaller army, probably its best motorized army agnist the enemy. roads and inferstrure in border area are bad which makes transportation bad. solution: airdrops and paving of new roads

someone said impossible for china to have an ocean based conflict because of logistics

whoever said that should reconsider this, for impossible is the wrong word, more logically the word hard shoujld be used.

china is currently working on a blue sea navy and china is not going to sucide by having a force doing stuff in teh middle of the pacific

"Mr. EuroSpike, you may just express that landmine isn't aggressive weapons mainly. That's enough. "

And that is all i have said about them. Landmine is defensive weapon but commies and other treehuggers don't like them since they have seen children without legs and they are so cute.

"EuroSpike is a funny guy. Such as these sentences - "The american way to solve the problem, just change the names on the boxes." "Why didn't for example princess Diana pressure UK to ban seamines instead of landmines?" "

Yes, that is american way and finnish too and the most propably the way of all European countries. Landmines are useful defence weapon for land warfare as seamines are for naval warfare. For naval countries it is ok to ban landmines like for Switzerland to ban seamines. You got the point?

Originally Posted by Knightraptor

Well I was leaning more toward protecting those shipping..erm...ships. They would have almost no air cover and they might have to resort to ww2 style convoy tactics.

not exactly, the chinese have the Su 27 and the Su 30, i know the chinese have out-dated bombers, but remember, chinese have alot of anit carrier missles and curise missiles. those Su 27 and 30 have modified for air to ground attacks.

read this:New Chinese Jets Superior, Eagle Loses to Flanker

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/154053.shtml

go to sinedefence, its a gd site since it is not bias so u can put on ur own judgement.

as with Cabal, he is right, since china would need its ships for Taiwan, and perhaps future conflict with japan. at least there ius recent news that chinese troops are practicing amphibious assults constantly.

as with the logistics, the chinese always have no problem in doing so, in history or today, even in the 1100 AD, the chinese have one million imperial guards, that means that's only the emperors private army which is specially trained, not to mention its own regulars, to keep them properly fed and transport them is a nightmare. in history chinese have always field large amount of men. since the population is china is always huge. and it took the mongols 40 years to conquer south china (Sung). while it took the mongols a matter of few years to conquer the turks, northan chinese kingdom and half of europe.
As with later, the Ming in the Ningxhia compagine transported 400 pieces of artillary (cannons, siege engines and supplies etc..) over 300 miles of difficult terrain.

Remember you cant a soldier "elite" untill he has been in combat..

Originally Posted by Snauhi

Remember you cant a soldier "elite" untill he has been in combat..

i know, that's true, but technology and weapons play a very gd part too, i am not saying the chinese army is better thant he US in terms of weapons and experience, but i am just saying people have been underestimate them and people without knowledge about how the chinese army is today.

Far as i know, the chinese at the moment are developing every field of their military very rapidly. first of all they have been concerating on their land army because of the history of warfare throughout the ages. the airforce is also at a high rate of development because they realised how important the air is, but still lack advance bombers. and third, the chinese recent and regularly praticing amphibious assults on their beaches. also their recently is being developing very rapidly. and the Kilo subs are being used by the chinese navy. at the moment they are building more landing crafts due to the taiwan issue. but there is some impressive ships recently.

Russia Arming Chinese Navy Against U.S.
NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 12, 2000
Communist China is receiving from Russia the second of four advanced warships armed with super-missiles aimed at knocking out United States aircraft-carrier battle groups.
It is a move unabashedly aimed at countering any U.S. move to honor its pledge to defend Taiwan against China's threatened attack from the mainland.

Republican-led bipartisan members of Congress are so alarmed by this new weapon ?which the Navy admits it has little ability to defend against ?they are sponsoring legislation to cut off U.S. aid to Russia unless it halts all further sales of "this 200-kiloton nuclear-capable weapon."

Citing its well-placed military-intelligence sources within the Pentagon, the Washington Times is reporting that the second Sovremenny-class advanced warship Beijing is buying from Moscow has been spotted undergoing sea trials in the Gulf of Finland.

What has American observers concerned even more, the exercises are expected to include at least one test launch of the Russian onboard SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship cruise missile, which is what makes the Russian vessel so awesome.

Even without the other two installments of the four-ship procurement, this latest acquisition from Russia ?which is receiving billions in U.S. aid to bolster its messed-up economy ?will give the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army frightening new capabilities against U.S. aircraft- carrier battle groups.

Operated by a mixed crew of Russian and Chinese sailors, the first cruise-missile ship, delivered from Russia in February, is currently going through test runs off the Chinese coast, within easy range of Taiwan.

Its arrival in the region was followed within weeks by a shipment of two dozen of the dreaded Russian-made SS-N-22 missiles this spring.

Those developments take on greater significance when considered against the background of recent Russia-to-China sales of missile-equipped destroyers, Su-27 aircraft, Kilo-class submarines and satellite navigation systems for missile guidance.

Just recently, Moscow announced it will begin sending to China also the first 10 of 40 advanced Su-30 warplanes.

Those purchases are funded by cash, much of which China has been able to garner from its lopsided favorable balance of trade with the United States.

The Clinton-Gore administration has spent much of this year lobbying Congress to grant China permanent normal trade status, which would boost even more the communist regime's global trading ability.

There is no longer any question that Russia, a direct recipient of massive aid in U.S. tax dollars, is embarked on a deliberate and extensive program to help bring the Chinese war machine up to world-class standards, or that Beijing's ultimate target is the United States.

The Washington Times reports that the leader of concerned congressmen on both sides of the aisle, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says, "The SS-N-22 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.

"Our Navy admittedly has scant ability to defend against this 200-kiloton nuclear-capable weapon."

According to the wording of Rohrabacher's bill to rein in Russian missile sales by denying further U.S. financial bail-out assistance to Moscow:

"Currently the Russian and Chinese governments are discussing the sale of two additional Sovremenny destroyers.

"The supersonic Moskit [SS-N-22] missile, which can be mounted on a naval or mobile land platform, was designed specifically to destroy American aircraft carriers and other warships equipped with advanced Aegis radar and battle-management systems.

"The United States Navy considers the missile to be extremely difficult to defend against."

As all this was going on, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen flew in to Beijing on Tuesday to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart, Defense Minister Chi Haotian.

Cohen's arrival was greeted by an official Communist Chinese statement repeating its attacks on the Clinton-Gore administration for proposing a national missile-defense system, which so far has flunked most of its in-flight tests.

Calling it part of American plans to dominate the world, the Chinese statement said:

"We urge the United States to drop as soon as possible this plan, which does not serve its interest and harms that of others."

Cohen said earlier that part of the objective of his mission to Beijing was to assure the Chinese government that the limited U.S. missile-defense shield would not pose a threat to China.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/12/70602