Chinese Military is no match for US Army!

[Commander CMG]

They might have been wiped out my friend but the styles still are traught, I studied Togakure Ryu for many years come to think of it, it was many years ago when I studied it.

[Hans Dolbrook]

if it ever comes down to hand to hand combat,were screwed!

Why?I have seen many american "ninjas",despite the fact that they have been wiped out centuries ago.You have a secret we should know of?

698555[/snapback]

yeah,they have almost a billion people,and we have less than 300 million.you do the math. if they start sending troops in by land sea or air,they got us.

[SnakeProphet]

They might have been wiped out my friend but the styles still are traught, I studied Togakure Ryu for many years come to think of it, it was many years ago when I studied it.

I know.There are about 3 or 4 old schools still alive today,but the really deadly techniques are not taught anymore.Very few people still know of the old techniques and they keep it to themselves.

How do you spell technics(techniques)?

yeah,they have almost a billion people,and we have less than 300 million.you do the math. if they start sending troops in by land sea or air,they got us.

I know(again ).Numbers more than often outwheigh technology.Especially if the war lasts long.The longer it lasts,the harder it will be for USA,since the Chinese will get a hold of their technology eventually.

Edited June 25, 2005 by Snake_6024

[Commander CMG]

Yes the old techniques are the best, Dim Mak again is another style I enjoyed... however I best get back on topic as these skills have no defensive effect against the pointy stick? and I know she is around because my spider senses are tingling.

Edited June 25, 2005 by XSAS

[Dan'O]

The US controlled the Air in Vietnam but got no results?

698536[/snapback]

No results? The Rolling Thunder and Linebacker air campaigns were devastating to the North. In fact, it was Linebacker II that brought the communists crawling back to the negotiating table.

" After 2 months of negotiations talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam broke down in early December 1972. This enraged President Nixon and a new round of air attacks was conceived. LINEBACKER II was initiated and it was more aggressive than ever before. Nixon left the ball in the court of the military, stating to Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “ I don’t want any more of this crap about the fact that we couldn’t hit this target or that one, this is your chance to use your military power to win this war, and if you don’t Ill hold you responsible.”(5) For the next 12 days U.S. B-52 bombers and other aircraft dropped 36,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam, exceeding the tonnage for the past two years before.(6) By December 30, the North Vietnamese were practically out of surface to air missiles and the U.S. continued to rain destruction deep into the heart of North Vietnam. The eleven day “Christmas Bombing” of 1972 had accomplished what hadn’t been done in over 14 years, it brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. Sir Robert Thompson, a British advisor to Vietnam summed up the operation, “In my view, on December 30, 1972, after 11 days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war, it was all over! They had fired 1242 SAM’s, they had none left, and what would have come in over land from China would be a mere trickle. They and their whole rear base at that point would be at your mercy. They would have taken any terms. And that is why of course, you actually got a peace agreement in January, which you had not been able to get in October.”(7)

Peace was finally reached on January 27, 1973. The longest, most controversial conflict in U.S. history had finally come to an end. All U.S. aircraft were gone from Vietnam by the middle of 1973, and all U.S. ground forces were now withdrawn. The war would rage on between the North and the South for two more years. The North finally overran the South in April 1975, realizing the worst fears of the U.S. government; another country had fallen to Communism, despite the best efforts of the U.S. and its military."

Source

I suppose I should have said a battle field which isn't hampered or controlled by *****-footing politicians...

Edited June 26, 2005 by Dan'O

[Doctor_Strangelove]

For the China vs U.S arguement , the americans would win. First the U.S has lots of nucleur weapons just itching to be used. And better tanks, jets, ect. And thats just them alone, Canada, Britain, and other major allies would probably come to help out too. Then the Chinese wil be outnumbered and outpowered. Just like in WW2, the U.S will eventually make an even bigger bomb to make things go faster. Bacically, the Chinese would be screwed, numbers wouldn't matter anymore if theres a bad a** bomb to bring them down. And they would probably make their numbers bigger than the Chinese (same with the allies), so they would be getting even bigger while the Chinese are getting smaller.

[Commander CMG]

Once Nuclear weapons are used there will be no winners as a defensive move they would retaliate with similar weaponry, if you thinbk the US could hit China with an A bomb and get away with it then your wrong.

[Blackleaf]

It's just like the fact that the British army is smaller than the American army but is much better.

[aquatus1]

The concept of winning a wair through air dominance is relatively new. And old story used to float around during the first Gulf war about two tank commanders who met up in the desert. One asked the other "Who won the air war?" The other answered "Who cares?"

This rather simplistic story illustrates how little strategic value air war used to have. It's biggest contribution was tactical, giving individual units a greater chance of success through air support. Ten years later, however, an almost identical war in the exact same arena is fought and almost exclusively won through air power. Without the highly accurate and overwhelming bombardment of the troops, support lines, and strategic communications areas of the enemy, our forces could have never made the blitzkrieg run to the center of Iraq they did.

It is not too much to say that our biggest advantage on the modern field is the air power we can project. This is why the Chinese military represents a threat; their air power is massive, although not as technically advance as ours. I have my doubts as to whether or not our ground troops would be capable of taking on the Chinese ground troops, but then, I am an aviation officer, not a Ground officer.

[Commander CMG]

At the end of the day this would be the beginning of the end there would be no winners and there would be a lot of mess and I would not be happy if this affected my local chinese take away..

[Blackleaf]

I agree. The local Chinese fish and chips shop near my house does good pudding, chips, mushy peas and gravy.

[Space Commander Travis]

It is not too much to say that our biggest advantage on the modern field is the air power we can project.  This is why the Chinese military represents a threat; their air power is massive, although not as technically advance as ours.  I have my doubts as to whether or not our ground troops would be capable of taking on the Chinese ground troops, but then, I am an aviation officer, not a Ground officer.

699284[/snapback]

In the air though, is where quality counts against quantity most of all: China has been modernising its air forces (there are some interesting designs not dissimilar to the F-22 in the pipeline, and they're building versions of modern Russian fighters under license), but they still rely heavily on designs based on old

MiGs. These are 40 year old or more designs; it was only because of the rules of engagement that the MiGs were able to get close enough to US aircraft in Vietnam to draw them into close range combat; with AWACS to assist, i should think an F-15 or F-16 or F-18 (pity they're withdrawing the Tomcat) shouldn't have too much trouble.

[aquatus1]

I worry about the quantity. The quality of their aircraft, while lower than ours, and the quality of their training, again, lower than ours, is still not a bit enough gap to overcome the sheer amountof numbers they have. At least, not by a comfortable enough margin.

As for the F-18s, the only people sorry to see them go are people who have never had to fix these damnable machines

[SnakeProphet]

For the China vs U.S arguement , the americans would win. First the U.S has lots of nucleur weapons just itching to be used. And better tanks, jets, ect. And thats just them alone, Canada, Britain, and other major allies would probably come to help out too. Then the Chinese wil be outnumbered and outpowered. Just like in WW2, the U.S will eventually make an even bigger bomb to make things go faster. Bacically, the Chinese would be screwed, numbers wouldn't matter anymore if theres a bad a** bomb to bring them down. And they would probably make their numbers bigger than the Chinese (same with the allies), so they would be getting even bigger while the Chinese are getting smaller.

If you want to bring in allies then consider Russia and NK on the Chinese side.And with these two on their side they will outnumber the allied american forces by far.

Apart from that,america is loosing their allies around the world.SK has closer ties to NK than to USA now.They really go for an alliance it seems.Israel will propably stay USAs friend but not their ally.And they wouldn't participiate in a war against China,since they would have to take all the beating.

And better hope Scotland won't declare it's independance or UK is screwed up.

[warden]

For the China vs U.S arguement , the americans would win. First the U.S has lots of nucleur weapons just itching to be used. And better tanks, jets, ect. And thats just them alone, Canada, Britain, and other major allies would probably come to help out too. Then the Chinese wil be outnumbered and outpowered. Just like in WW2, the U.S will eventually make an even bigger bomb to make things go faster. Bacically, the Chinese would be screwed, numbers wouldn't matter anymore if theres a bad a** bomb to bring them down. And they would probably make their numbers bigger than the Chinese (same with the allies), so they would be getting even bigger while the Chinese are getting smaller.

If you want to bring in allies then consider Russia and NK on the Chinese side.And with these two on their side they will outnumber the allied american forces by far.

Apart from that,america is loosing their allies around the world.SK has closer ties to NK than to USA now.They really go for an alliance it seems.Israel will propably stay USAs friend but not their ally.And they wouldn't participiate in a war against China,since they would have to take all the beating.

And better hope Scotland won't declare it's independance or UK is screwed up.

699451[/snapback]

There are a few on this board that dream for that very day Snake,but it will be a long time coming

[british_patriot]

Can someone tell me why the second world war was un-neccasary, the war what saved the world from evil tyranny? If the Germans had succeded we would most likely be speakink German, and most people on this board won't be around today.

[Stellar]

The Chinese have the biggest army in the world, the USA have the best equipped, the British have the best trained

You mean Canada have the best trained. Pay attention to typos.

[SnakeProphet]

Oh no,here comes the "my daddy is better than yours" crap.

[Boff]

I believe thats already began.

And I agree with Stellar.

[PadawanOsswe]

First off, I respect The British Military,they have done a lot. Heck, The U.S. based the modern Special forces off of the SAS. My best friends grandfather was in a British tank unit during WW2. So i'm not gonna say this or that military is better. because serving your nation no matter what nation is an honorable thing to do. but I will break down a few up's and downs of the Chinese,British,and American Military.

---------------------------

-Britian:

Minimum Enlistment Age: 16

Available Manpower: 14,943,016

Active Military Personnel: 113,900 (6,380 women)

Frontline Personnel: 65,000

Yearly Military Expenditure: $42,836.5 Million

% of Expenditure from GDP: 2.4%

Airborne Units:

Armor: 6,875

Artillery: 455

Missile Defense Systems*: 1,575

Infantry Support Weapons**: 3,236

* Portable and static surface-to-air missile launcher systems.

** Battlefield squad support weapons such as mortars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

-America:

Minimum Enlistment Age: 18

Available Manpower: 73,597,731

Active Military Personnel: 471,500 (71,500 women)

Frontline Personnel: 220,000

Yearly Military Expenditure: $399 Billion

% of Expenditure from GDP: 3.9%

Airborne Units:

Armor: 29,920

Artillery: 5,178

Missile Defense Systems*: 35,324

Infantry Support Weapons**: 2,441

* Portable and static surface-to-air missile launcher systems.

** Battlefield squad support weapons such as mortars.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-China:

Minimum Enlistment Age: 18

Available Manpower: 379,524,688

Active Military Personnel: 1,750,000

Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000

Yearly Military Expenditure: $60 Billion

% of Expenditure from GDP: 3.5% - 5%

Airborne Units:

Armor: 13,200

Artillery: 29,060

Missile Defense Systems*: 18,500

Infantry Support Weapons**: 34,000

* Portable and static surface-to-air missile launcher systems.

** Battlefield squad support weapons such as mortars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If it came down to war with China and The U.S....

-The U.S has more money to spend for the Yearly Military Expenditure

-China has more available Manpower

-China has more Active Military Personnel

-China has more Frontline Personnel

-The U.S. has more Armor Units

-China has more Artillery Units

-The U.S. has more Missle Defense Systems

-China has more Infantry Support Weapons

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though China has the most numbers,their training is not as good as U.S. or British training. they have old armor,artillery,and other weapons systems, therefore they do not have as good of weapons as the U.S. or U.K. . China doesnt have nearly as much money to spend toward war effort/support as the U.S. , therefore in matters of supply, The U.S. has more Supply capability.

During The Korean War we fought The Chinese, their tactics were usually "safety in numbers",they would send as many Infantry troops as possible to just flood the fields of battle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

conclusion: Fighting China wouldnt be an easy thing to do, but we know the old tactics,and if we had good enough men and leaders we could make those tactics backfire. if you have the "fight and survival" in you,you can turn the tables of probability.

So really both sides could win, but not without one hell of fighting from both sides. each side has advantages and disadvantages.

[british_patriot]

I think you will find the British have the best trained army, but i am not getting into a big debate.

[Dowdy]

I think you will find the British have the best trained army, but i am not getting into a big debate.

Thats a lovely comment comming from a guy who calls himself British Patriot.

But between China vs USA.

Right now USA would win but if China devoted as much reasources to military and the Americans do then China would win.

Right now China's technology is old but they are upgrading quickly

[Space Commander Travis]

Interesting statistics there Padawan, I suppose China's way of thinking is like the Russians in WWII; the old tactics of throwing millions of men at the enemy until they run out of bullets.

Which is why, like I said earlier, I think air power would hold the key here: avoid getting into a slogging match on the ground.

[PadawanOsswe]

here's the link to the site where I found those stats. cool siteclick here

[Commander CMG]

Good find Pado.. it reminded me when the English were in Africa against the Zulu's, the English with the most advanced weapon systems at that time against a far bigger enemy with spears.