Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Chinese Military is no match for US Army!


Dr. Strangehug

Recommended Posts

Wow interesting info, thanks for that. Seems France aren't quite the joke we thought they were at the moment... huh.gif

Edited by Richdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Iilaa'mpuul'xem

    60

  • SnakeProphet

    34

  • british_patriot

    30

  • Stixxman

    24

"We have the largest air force in the world, made up of the BEST aircraft in the world.......so its a moot point anyways...we could have the same quality tank as everyone else and STILL when a land engagement just because we would would control the air with our outstanding air force. " Strangehug

tell that to the Canadians killed by the friendly fire from your jet fighters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is not to be fooled with they will die in waves without fear America does not want to awaken the DRAGON OF THE EAST there dedication and tactics in war are superior, only rivaled by the Japanise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We have the largest air force in the world, made up of the BEST aircraft in the world.......so its a moot point anyways...we could have the same quality tank as everyone else and STILL when a land engagement just because we would would control the air with our outstanding air force. "  Strangehug

tell that to the Canadians killed by the friendly fire from your jet fighters.

729539[/snapback]

That was indeed the most astounding display of negligence and imcompetence I have ever witnessed. It just screams "AMATEUR". Very, very sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was indeed the most astounding display of negligence and imcompetence I have ever witnessed.  It just screams "AMATEUR".  Very, very sad.

729568[/snapback]

Does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friendly Fire

"Friendly fire," an ironic term for casualties in combat inflicted by one's own armed forces, has been a constant feature of warfare. It became a political and organizational issue only in the twentieth century, principally in the armed forces of western Europe, Canada, and the United States. Operating under media scrutiny and dependent upon public support, these military establishments cannot ignore the phenomenon of "fratricide" or "amicicide." Friendly fire is a serious problem: estimates of such casualties run from a low of 2 percent of all casualties to more plausible highs of 10-15 percent of all combat casualties. Friendly fire incidents are especially demoralizing since they destroy confidence in one's own comrades, commanders, and supporting arms.

The heat of battle has always created problems in distinguishing between the enemy and one's own forces. When battles were fought in classical and medieval times, distinctive insignia and tight formations simplified killing the right people, but arrows and thrown spears surely did not discriminate when launched into a melee. In some struggles, mounted knights trampled their own bowmen and men-at-arms. The introduction of firearms complicated identification problems by adding dense smoke and opening distances between the combatants. Artillery, even fired at short distances at visible targets, could kill friendly infantry when foot soldiers joined in close combat; such an incident occurred among British troops at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in the American Revolution (1781). In the American Civil War, Confederate infantry killed General "Stonewall" Jackson (1863) and Micah Jenkins (1864), mistaking their mounted staffs for Union cavalry.

The revolution in weaponry in the twentieth century made friendly fire more likely and more destructive. Foot soldiers could still kill their comrades through error in battle or (more likely) in nighttime mistakes in security and patrolling operations, but the chief culprits became field and antiaircraft artillery, and aircraft, especially those attacking ground targets. Also, warships shot down friendly aircraft, and aircraft destroyed friendly aircraft; these problems led to the development of electronic transponders that communicated identification-friend-or-foe (IFF) signals. Tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, lacking adequate observation capacity, added to the sources of danger. The whole art of fire support coordination developed not only to inflict damage on the enemy, but also to prevent friendly fire. The fielding of automatic geographic-position-sensing devices from the 1980s onward through satellite communications should reduce friendly fire casualties that occur through position misreporting. Nevertheless, the use of infrared sights, hypervelocity munitions, terminal-guidance systems, and whole groups of standoff weapons that depend on electronic target identification increases the potential for accidental deaths.

The experience of the American armed forces reveals the changing dimensions of the problem. Artillery barrages that fell on friendly infantry units were commonplace in World War I. Although artillery forward observers improved this situation in World War II, the far greater involvement of aircraft made matters worse. U.S. Navy ships shot down twenty-three transports and killed about one hundred paratroopers in the invasion of Sicily (June 1943); bombers of the U.S. Army Air Forces made two major bombing errors in the Normandy campaign (July 1944) and killed over six hundred American soldiers, including the highest ranking U.S. casualty of World War II, Lieutenant General Leslie J. McNair. In the war with Japan, artillery, naval gunfire, and airplanes killed marines and soldiers in relatively small numbers in almost every operation. U.S. Navy ships sometimes destroyed fighters of their own combat air patrols, but the development of fighter-direction techniques reduced these incidents late in the war. Friendly fire incidents plagued subsequent operations in Korea and Vietnam, especially (in the latter conflict) attacks by armed helicopters. One of the worst incidents in Korea occurred when U.S. Air Force aircraft attacked and killed or wounded seventy-six British soldiers (August 1950).

The Gulf War of 1990-1991 again proved the persistence of the friendly fire problem. Of the 146 coalition troops killed in combat, 35 died in friendly fire incidents; of 467 wounded, 72 fell in such incidents. In April 1994, two air force fighters shot down two army helicopters over the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq and killed 26 crew and passengers.

The friendly fire issue raises the longstanding dilemma of reconciling realistic training of troops with concern for safety. Some armed forces do not consider this a problem; the pre-1945 German army and the Soviet armed forces conducted field training notorious for resulting in casualties. In the United States, training deaths are controversial and taken seriously; between 1988 and 1995, 170 service personnel have died in combat and over 4,000 in on-duty accidents. Finding technological aids and operational techniques to reduce friendly fire casualties should also curb training accidents, but war and realistic training will still take their toll of accidental deaths.

Allan R. Millett

Charles F. Hawkins, "Friendly fire: Facts, Myths, and Misperceptions," Naval Institute Proceedings (June 1994): 54-60; Charles F. Shrader, Amicicide: The Problem of Friendly fire in Modern War (1992).

Source

Friendly fire is something that ALL armies are dealing with and have dealt with for a number of years....as the above article states......I don't think that incidents of friendly-fire would be evidence to support your claim that the American Air Force is "amateur"......

Also.....alot of you are just making broad anti-american statements that are not supported by any hard, bipartisan evidence.........I find THAT amateur........ grin2.gif

As a student who is specializing in pre-law with a political science degree........I find that it is best to support ALL your arguments with evidence.......as I have tried to do here.

I can't just say, hey you, I am a political science student specializing in foreign policy........and I believe Britain or Canada is suffering from what American's call "sibling rivalry"..........I would have to have some sort of evidence to support my claim, evidence that was respected and deemed credible by the majority of the people involved in the discussion....which basically means.....no wack-job web pages.....keep to university studies....goverment pages, actual scientific evidence, etc......

Now....the question I ask all of you is this.....can you find real evidence that America is militarily inferior too your own militaries....and also....that it is anymore or less "amateur than your own militaries.

If America's military is so bad, and our goverment is so bad, why is America so powerful? Why have Americans, in just over 200 years grown from a small British colony....into the most powerful military power that has ever strode the face of the earth? Don't take my word for it.......

The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation (e.g. People's Republic of China, Russia) or organization (e.g. the European Union).
Source Edited by Dr. Strangehug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An army's strenght isn't just measured by numbers, the soldiers will pays a big role, it has been proven in matters of security at least that even with all the systems you have you fail to prevent terrorist attacks very easily so I wonder how would US army stand against an army with the same or similar type of tech, but I prefer not to cause wars are stupid and I'm against them.

Edited by Nirwana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Britain or Canada is suffering from what American's call "sibling rivalry"..........I would have to have some sort of evidence to support my claim, evidence that was respected and deemed credible by the majority of the people involved in the discussion....which basically means.....no wack-job web pages.....keep to university studies....goverment pages, actual scientific evidence, etc......

Now....the question I ask all of you is this.....can you find real evidence that America is militarily inferior too your own militaries....and also....that it is anymore or less "amateur than your own militaries.

If America's military is so bad, and our goverment is so bad, why is America so powerful? Why have Americans, in just over 200 years grown from a small British colony....into the most powerful military power that has ever strode the face of the earth? Don't take my word for it.......

The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their force projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation (e.g. People's Republic of China, Russia) or organization (e.g. the European Union).
Source

730459[/snapback]

I don't know if you're familiar with a certain Michael Winner, but maybe you ought to take his advice and 'calm down, dear'....? Yes, dear, the United States is the Most Powerful Military Force in the World ... happy now? And beleive me, your force projection capabilities make us all nod profoundly in admiration. My gosh, we wish we could project force as well as you do ... the most powerful military power that has ever strode the face of the earth ... yes.gif

Well, yay you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh Strange I'm so glad you give me these opportunities, I remember an American force being sent up to where I live to do a joint training exercise with CFNA. The scope of the mission included operating successfully in a winter climate against an intrenched enemy using the tools and training of both forces. It would have been a success if the Americans could get their equipment to work. As soon as their gear was out of the game, they were, no go what so ever. As a matter of fact they had to cancel the whole thing. The Canadian forces were ready and able and although their equipment was less ostentatious it worked. So there is at least one example where your American army was somewhat lacking. It was a precurser to operation Narwhal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was indeed the most astounding display of negligence and imcompetence I have ever witnessed.  It just screams "AMATEUR".  Very, very sad.

729568[/snapback]

Does it?

729603[/snapback]

When the pilot of the F-16 dropped a bomb despite having being denied permission to do so? When he said he was being fired upon yet no bullets had been shot by the canadians? Yeah, I call that pretty amateur, not the sort of "accident" i'd expect from professional military personnel. But that's just my opinion.

Edited by Richdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If things continue as they are now china will own america in a relitively short period of time.

By the way what are the goals of america anyway,dominate the world, rename themselves an Empire, switch their capital to Palestine, control all natural resources, then finally all the alcohol, choice foods, and various pleasure their hearts can desire will be theirs but thats not all, with the''lower class'' humans doing all the icky work they can do what they wish, they can golf, fish, hunt,play freaky games with their foreign sex slaves in their mansion on the coast lines.And no need to worry about the poisoning and desicration of the planet with their evolving space program we can colonies another or even construct a new one!!!Wy on earth would anyone oppose such a wholesome and upright ideal???!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to say im shocked this has managed to spawn 18 pages lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a member of this forum for a few weeks now.......and I seem to spend a HUGE amount of time defending myself for being an American....and in some cases a Texan........well I like America, so call me a stormtroopin', Texan-American goose-steppen', imperialist.......I don't really care.....I'm getting kind of used to it.

I think America is a great place to live......I could have been born in Argentina or China.......Here, I'm free......free to own land and hunt, fish, say whatever I want, protest, practice any religion I want......etc

America has her problems, just like Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc...........but in my opinion.......America is the center of the free world! Americans are proud that we stood against the Communist Russians and prevailed. You all have to understand that we are a colony that has defied the world from the beginning, and it has become part of our psyche..........American's aren't very European, like our neighbors Canada and Mexico......We're American. We fought for our freedom and our unity and paid for it with blood.........every bit of the power and freedom we have, we fought for.......and where I'm from....here in Texas....we fought for our actual survival....It makes us different. We 've always been that wayward colony in the world that did things our way......and it has made us great, and strong........whats wrong with being proud I'm an American? What's wrong with saying that a country like China that is so ground down by civil rights issues and oppression is no match for a country that holds the rights of an individual sacred?

The topic of this thread was that China is no match for the U.S. in battle.....and I think that I've shown enough evidence to support that idea......so far nobody has brought forth any evidence to disprove that claim.

Edited by Dr. Strangehug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah.. Blah.. Blah.

There has been plenty of evidence also to show the strength of the Chinese but you can't see beyond your own flag.

Reality call no one would win, it would draw other countries into the final conflict and Nukes would be the deciding factor.

Edited by XSAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such things as evidence in a theory.You can't have evidence that USA is stronger,just like you can't have evidence that China is stronger.There is only 1 way to have evidence in that comparison.

Like XSAS said,there has been evidence for the strength of both America and China,but no evidence so far which one is stronger.

Edited by Snake_6024
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with you entirely Dr Strangehug, no one should have to apologise for being proud of their country ... but the 'we could take you all on with one arm tied behind our back ... come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' mentality grates a bit on some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada did fight for its freedom strangehug, they called it WW1. We didn't have to kill a single British representative to do it. Your countries violent seperation from your colonizers has dictated your actions ever since, your civil war was a prime example, you couldn't even settle differences among yourselves without a war. And if by european you mean enlightened and open then Canada is a lot like Europe. And I'm sorry USA is the farthest of the free countries from being the centre of the free world. US culture assimilates other cultures into their own, turning everyone American. Canada celebrates the differences and incorperates them into the overall culture. Our multicultural society is a better example to the free world of how free society can work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to say im shocked this has managed to spawn 18 pages lol

733286[/snapback]

Me too...

as it seems to be aimed at being against the U.S. ... indeed it wouldn't have lasted this long if it was against any other country... innocent.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is about the US and China in comparison to each other. It wouldn't be much of a discussion if everybody was in agreement. You have to expect dissenting opinions.

My opinion is that the States would win because of superior technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too...

as it seems to be aimed at being against the U.S. ... indeed it wouldn't have lasted this long if it was against any other country...

You mean like communist Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record in my opinion if it came down to a slugfest between China and the USA, with no nukes involved... then umm the USA would whup some serious ****, that isn't really in doubt is it?

Just look at the USA hardware for a start...

Tanks - Abrama, a virtual forthress on tracks, decimated scores of T-72's etc in Iraq while taking barely a scratch, and they have a lot. China would have nothing to combat that.

Air Force - The USA air force is also uber uber, with all it's F-XXX series of fighters/bombers, Raptors, Stealth bombers... China also would not be able to combat that. Then factor in the choppers like Blackhawks, Apaches, Comanches, all in greater numbers than China and then that would also create serious problems.

Troops - I'm sure Chinas training is improving dramatically but the ratio of quality troops they will have in comparison to the USA will be fairly negligible, and their equipment for the average trooper less sophisticated. With the USA's wide array of hardware China would lose tons more troops in engagements than the USA would. USA is also I think more tactically aware and battle-hardened which also counts for a lot, they have been involved in many more epic scale engagements, and more frequently than China has.

Navy - USA currently has the strongest navy in the world, certainly greater than Chinas.

Chine is set to become a match for the USA soon, but not yet. Currently, USA would have an advantage on just about every front in my opinion. original.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take Nukes out of the scenario, this is not a selective weapon choice, Nukes would be involved end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.