"Chinese PLA: when they come how will they fight?" Topic

Anything to worry about in their approach to modern warfare?
Anything about them keeps you awake at night?

Which other country armed forces that has fought in the past 25 years do they most resemble?

Anything to worry about in their approach to modern warfare?

The last time they fought, was their invasion of Vietnam in '79. But that was awhile back. They may have "improved" ?

As I always mention. They lack the ability to project power, i.e. they can't deploy large units anywhere. Save for nations that they border. And even if they had large landing capabilities in sea and air. E.g. invade Taiwan. There is a US fleet plus in the way.

Anything about them keeps you awake at night?

Well it does not keep me up at night. However, China makes up 20% of the World's population. So if they had to. They could take a lot of losses.

If chinese movies are any indication, they will rush forward and be defeated by one or two people who know kung fu

Their cyberwarfare capabilities are first rate, surpassing Russia's which just happens to be our favorite boogeyman right now. Many of China's best and brightest are sent to study computer science in America and Europe, who then go back to China to work in one of the PLA's or MSS's cyberwarfare units. Apple, Google or Microsoft can soak some of these people, but most of them return home since they can't obtain the clearance to work in the government or defense sectors.

As far as their conventional warmaking goes, they are geared toward regional dominance and anti-access/area denial close to their borders. Like Russia, China seeks a sphere-of-influence, not global reach (except for ICBM's) like the US.

For the last several years they have been downsizing their army and going with more of a Western style approach in regards to mixed forces and brigade composition. The Gulf Wars shocked them into rethinking their strategies and so they've been trying to modernize where possible. Will this be sufficient if they get into a shooting war with Japan, India, or Taiwan? Hard to say as they have had little experience in this area since their invasion of Viet Nam.

The Gulf Wars shocked them

I had heard the same and the Russians too were surprised. Considering Iraq had a lot of Russian and to a lesser extent Chinese equipment. And Iraq had received training by the Russians as well.

In both Gulf Wars the US lead Coalition rolled up the conventional Iraqi forces in a matter of days. Once the Coalition rolled across the Iraqi border they were generally unstoppable. And whatever they learned from the Russians etc., was not put to good use. And again in both wars both the Chinese and Russians were carefully watching and taking notes I'd imagine.

The capability displayed by the US terrifies them. We can reasonably expect they have done a lot of work looking for ways to nullify or at least minimize our intelligence and C3 abilities. How well they will be able to do this is an unknown.

Their biggest weakness is likely to be a poorly unified command structure. Traditionally each Military District is run as an independent fiefdom will little coordination at the top.

I was in China during the invasion of Iraq. My hosts asked if I really thought the United States Army had any chance at all of succeeding against the Iraqis.

I replied that the US would win the conventional war in a couple more weeks, and I was right. My hosts were a little surprised.

We did enjoy watching the Minister of Information on tv every night. "No, those are not American tanks. We captured those tanks from the Americans. We just haven't painted our insignia on them yet."

Large hordes of them, like in Korea.

Large hordes of them, like in Korea.

Doubt it.

This isn't 1950-53 nor is it 1979.

To be honest they're a complete mystery in terms of doctrine.

There are drips of information coming out here and there but a lot is old.

For example in the early 2000s the PLA conducted combined arms exercises with its best battalion commanders, Apparently they all failed dismally.

One assumes the Chinese would've ramped up their training since then.

In another recent exercise (2016), Chinese pilots were regarded as good but let down by lack of networking and older avionics (this was older model Su-27/J-11 versus Thai AF JAS-39 Gripens which are one of the most networked jets around).

And a PLA unit actually won an Australian military sniping tournament in 2013 (Australian Army Skill at Arms Meeting).

Trying to sum up Chinese strategy based on 4000 years of history in a post is very difficult so I apologize for the length

Most westerners do not understand the basis behind Chinese strategy which has been consistent throughout the Empire. Republic and now People's Republic and that is that all wars are fought defensively as far from the homeland as possible.

This strategy is expressed in four parts.

First a stable homeland marked by the support (or control) of the population and the means of making war ( arms food supplies etc)The homeland are the highest populated areas centered on the Yangste and Yellow River systems.You lose this area you lose not only the war but the means of ruling

Second A secure"border Area" as far away from the homeland as possible These borders are to be secured by either natural or man made "Great Walls".

Looking at the map of China you will see that the north and north west are guarded by deserts and mountains and key areas such as passes and valleys have been fortified by fortifications An enemy attacking from the west say from Xinjiang has to not only cross the fortified zone but then is faced with a long journey through deserts before reaching the homeland This gives China the opportunity to concentrate and defeat the invader who will be operating at the end of a long and vulnerable supply system

The south west are guarded by the Himalayas and other obstacles that again have to be crossed before undergoing another long journey to the centre

Today the new maritime frontier is the east and south east coasts mainly defined by the South China sea China failed in the 19th century because it had no navy to compete Today the control of the islands and other access roots passing through the South China sea and Sea of Japan have created a new "Maritime great wall" that again potential opponents have to breach before nearing the homeland through Chinese controlled seas Meanwhile supplies and imports can sail safely through the area The extension of control far away from the actual Chinese coasts is a means of keeping airpower away So you can see why China has placed so much emphasis on a blue water navy and an effective missile shield.

The unsinkable aircraft carriers of Taiwan and Japan are still a major problem that has to be worked on Figuring out how to neutralize these areas is probably the main concern for China today . Increasing economic cooperation and eventually Chinese dominance may be one plan.

The third factor follows from the first two and that is to limit the power and influences on those states that border China. Ideally they should all be "tribute"states paying both respect and financial assets to China. No power should be allowed to grow large enough to control a border and provide threats Above all they must be kept on the other side of the wall . Control can be maintained today through economic dependency as well as military threats Threats to this area have to be countered

So if you look at the map you will see that China is behind a large circle of defense and at that centre is the Chinese homeland They call themselves the Central Kingdom for a reason

The fourth factor is the Chinese emphasis on the "Long Game" Time expressed as immediacy or maintaining public support is not a factor in China The end result of direct control is not necessary "right away" as maintaining the current status quo or balance is acceptable Maintaining stability at home is also a key factor as you do not start foreign adventures without a stable and loyal base

In terms of present day reality 100 years ago China could not take on any other military power and thus were faced by foreign control and dominance Today China is capable of fighting an effective war to protect itself and project limited power in other areas. They realize that there is no guarantee that they could win this war so can be expected to back off from situations that are not in their favor They do know the importance of propaganda so giving the image of a powerful military not only plays well at home but may future opponents think twice about fighting.

In China's viewpoint they are continually expanding and growing and have learned much from the end of the Cold War They feel that the Soviets lost because they could not afford the cost to outspend and outperform the west China will not allow that and will do what is necessary In Chinese eyes any competition with a foreigner is a contest of will and that China has that will and the time.

If we can continue to innovate and block Chinese theft of our military technology. They will make do with sub par equipment and hope their massive numbers are sufficient gap bridges.

Let's not forget they are not battle tested at all. No veteran units, no experience. The last skirmish was in India I think in the 80s. Which they won, but was a limited engagement.

The US has been fighting near continuous since 1991. Our systems, leaders, theory, technology and soldiers, sailors can draw on massive experience.

The edge is in the water especially. One example Our submarines have no match. The Chinese are relying on diesel subs. We all know how noisey they are.

The Chinese do have some nuclear-powered boats, but they are of questionable quality and crew protection. Not to mention noisy by 1970s standards. The Type 95 might actually manage to be as quiet as a 688.

Kilo-class subs aren't bad, they're very quiet when operating on batteries (and have a LOT of battery time). The trick to dealing with diesel boats has been known since WW1: catch them when they're recharging.

But the real killer for the Chinese Navy is that they don't go out to sea. OK, sure, they will go out for a couple days to a couple weeks, but it's very different when you are two weeks away from the nearest port you can get repaired at top speed.

If I was still in the Navy, I would be much more concerned about the capabilities and readiness of Iranian Navy (and RevGuard) crews/ships, which seem to always be out and making a nuisance of themselves, while the Chinese rarely deploy. It makes a that big a difference!

No idea how they'll fight, but they do have a unique weakness.

China has, for decades, had a One Child policy, only repealed last year.

This means that each and every soldier is the only child that family has.

Hence, if they start taking huge casualties, that's a massive societal strain of the kind governments' can't ignore, even totalitarian ones.

There's a flip side to that, Stu.

I'm pretty sure that what Mao had in mind was "one son" to carry on the family name (because immortality is having a son). But the policy was put out as One Child (regardless of gender), and so there were very few daughters admitted to being born (usually they were abandoned at birth at an orphanage).

So there's half a billion Chinese men that have little chance for a wife. Might as well be remembered as a warrior if you're never going to have a child.

Stu kinda got it right about societal strain, but not quite. China does have problems in that area. When the Communists switched to free market economics they flushed alot of their ideological authority down the toilet and the people know it – its sneaking out in little acts like protests over land acquisitions for development or outing party officials for wearing watches well above their pay grade. They've attempted to paper over the cracks with a mash-up of Chinese cultural traditions and nationalist rhetoric (see thread on the utterly nuts article about being in New Delhi in 48-hours – makes RTV look believable) with a healthy dose of represion. But of course the Chinese do look for replacements as can be seen in the take of NRMs such Falon Gong, which the government immediately comes down on from a great height, along with any other religious group without state approval.

China has, for decades, had a One Child policy, only repealed last year.

This means that each and every soldier is the only child that family has.

Hence, if they start taking huge casualties, that's a massive societal strain of the kind governments' can't ignore, even totalitarian ones.

Given there is over 1,200,000,000 Chinese, that probably isn't that relevant.

They could take a 1,000,000 casualties and it would only be 0.08% of the population.

Deadles – but if it's your only child whose the one dying, people are going to ask searching questions about why.

It's like several million Private Ryans, right there.

Battle casualties won't affect the Chines population much. But they will have huge implications for Chinese society.

Especially since I don't see the offspring of the elite in uniform.

Especially since I don't see the offspring of the elite in uniform.

That seems to be the norm among many nations, including those in the West. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. The old ways die hard in some cases it appears …

To be fair to the UK, quite a few MPs have served, or indeed are still reservists.

And of course our Royals put in the hours in uniform. I know Prince William was annoyed he couldn't see combat due to his position as heir (though surely that's why one has a spare?).

Mind you, flying SAR helicopters in all weathers in Snowdonia is just as dangerous… but lacks I suppose the prospect of kidnap.

Harry of course saw active duty as an infantryman and Apache pilot, and his Uncle Andrew saw service in the Falklands.

'I'm pretty sure that what Mao had in mind was "one son" to carry on the family name …'

The one child policy was not Mao's. His policy was exactly opposite, encouraging large families of 6 or more children. By the time of his (blessed) death, the problems this was causing were apparent to all. Officials presented him with the one child policy, but he refused to consider it.

For centuries, Chinese families had controlled their own fertility by birth control and infanticide. They knew their resources and the poverty of the land and culturally, the ideal family for most people was considered to be one boy and one girl. The Chinese character for ‘good', 好, is typically explained as either a mother holding a child, or as a girl 女 and a boy 子 together, a good size for a family.

Mao broke this, and broke it so badly that the only solution was the one-child policy, which was eventually applied by Deng Xiaoping in 1979, after Mao's death, which I regret did not occur not 5 or 6 decades earlier.

The reasons Mao favoured large families are still debated, but they seem to include his belief that strong powers have a lot of people, and his fear of nuclear war, particularly after relations with the USSR went south following Stalin's death. Mass re-distribution of young urban populations to rural areas for ‘re-education' does support that theory, but in the end, it was just another of Mao's disastrous policies. It could have just as easily been whim. Of all his terrible policies, this one may have the longest reach.

The effects of the population crisis Mao's big family policy caused will be felt China for at least another 100 years. It ranks right up there with Mao's famine and the Cultural Revolution in the damage it did to China.

Yes, stu … I know all that about the UK's leadership. The Royals especially … But I'd think that should be a standard for a Prince or King. I respect and laud that.

And amazingly, many US Presidents in the past served in the military as well. As well as members of Congress. Their are a number of GWOT Vets in the House and Senate. But of course I feel that does Not have to be a requirement for serving in either. However, I do think the Sec Def should be a Vet. As we see just happened recently in the US. As well as the Sec of Army, Navy, etc., and the VA …

Just like I think the Sec of Agriculture should have some background in Farming, Ranching, etc., of course !

*All of this post has nothing to do with China, BTW … just say'n …

Well the only government that seems to attain that standard is Canada where Trudeau has had the shocking idea of appointing ministers with a background relevant to their brief..

Very interesting, thanks everyone.

aegiscg47 and Toronto48, any recommended reading about your contributions.

Breaking Metal:

This is a reasonable place to start:

PDF link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Well the only government that seems to attain that standard is Canada where Trudeau has had the shocking idea of appointing ministers with a background relevant to their brief..

If true … then I heartedly laud them … hopefully, e.g., the USA will pick up on the concept.

Rod I Robertson, thank you, your link is much appreciated.