Discussion in 'China' started by Illusive, Feb 11, 2014.
Chinaâ€™s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military
â€œAppear weak when you are strong.....â€
â€• Sun Tzu, The Art of War
â€œAll warfare is based on deception.â€
â€• Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Here its the opposite, they show they are strong, but not really.
Discouting PLA is plain stupidity, they are a force to reckon.
A modernising forced back by an industrial infrastructure and large economy.
The biggest weakness of the Chinese is PLA itself. It functions on a conscription system which is a "levy". A fixed number of quota is allotted to a military region ( seven ?) to cajole youngsters to join the army. If the number of volunteers are less then they are forced to join. the numbers who are forced to join is a matter of speculation (" unwilling horses being taken to the water, which they do not wish to drink"?. As China grows economically there are lesser volunteers. A fully volunteer army is a better fighting force than an army of even partial conscripts.
They are definitely someone not to be taken lightly, they are a nuclear power and hold a lot of clout in terms of economy. But here the author is telling us that PLA tries to portray its stronger than it actually is. They are not experienced in combat and that this inexperience is very dangerous cause they want to go for a war the way they are acting in SCS and senkaku island disputes.
There is reason they have their photoshop and 50 cent armies, slowly we also actually start believing it.
the first part is already terribly wrong ..
normaly I would avoid to quote the wiki(English version about China entry)...but after I had a quick check, this entry seems to explain this accident well..
Chinese submarine 361 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and many high rank officers were impacted
SSK361 was not damaged at all. and the new crew was re-formed on 2008 Apr 29 ---just two weeks after the accident...
in 2008, <China Navy> magazine had a news coverage (with the Title -- 361 Returned to the Deep Sea) about the new team and SSK361's deployment and action after 2003..
SSK361 in 2008---it's a Type 035G SSK(improved Type 035 SSK)...the Type35 family has about 4 varients--035,035G ,035B and a test sub with SSM launch ability on the sea surface...
Do you remember they fought and kicked our butt in 1962.They fought in korea/ Vietnam etc.
Agreed they may not have the first hand experience of conducting full scale war, but then except USA and Russia who knows it.
Our experience is limited to Pakistan which imho is a formidable foe unlike PLA.
Do you forget the Chola incident, 1962 was a wakeup call because we neglected our military for more passive appraoach.
USA was inexperienced once too, they learnt from their mistakes and they were able to win because they had allies, Germany alone was a handful for the allied forces. How many allies do China have, infact they are in a enemy making spree.
India has a lot of experience in warfare thanks to pakis.
You have to set the bar higher, PLA is a much more formidable foe for the obvious reasons I stated above.
Chola is termed incident/ 1962 war. I rest my case.
China no matter what people would like to say, its a force to be reckoned with.
Was there no automatic emergency shutdown mechanism for the boat? Nothing is stated in the article about it. All diesel engines need an emergency shutdown system.
The deaths of the crew seems so unnecessary.
yes...this accident was well reported as a lesson paid for with blood..
as we know, two main reasons...
1. the Crew severely Violated the operating and safety specifications. the capitain(although killed in the accident as well) had the direct responsibility in Daily training and commanding. the Division leader and Fleet leader failed the supervisory responsibility. one promising Fleet commander lost his chance as the next Navy Chief...
2. some flaw in the safety design and a valve failed to work and change to the snorkel mode...the working diesel engine absorbed all the air very quickly resulting in the sudden death of all crew very quickly...although it's a sub with old design ,such simple mistake never happened...
in a word , this is a severe 'human error accident' which could be avoided by obeying the standard operation procedure and proper supervision. in the probe report ,the design flaw and component malfunction seemed not be highlighted as the main cause considering this is an old sub design...
There was! But the problem is there is always some faults in your system: some come in the designing of system, some come with integration of other system. There is no perfect system on the board of any country's submarine. Even you set up an almost perfect system, you got another problem to deal with: people.
That is why we have all kinds of disasters in every country, such as US, Russia and India, etc.
The deaths of the crew is not unnecessary: they exposed the faults in China's submarine designing and crew training, we cannot bring them back alive but we can save the crews in other submarine.
Illusive is clearly indoctrinated!!!
Let us also not overlook, China imports 44% crude from Saudi Arabia, Iran & Angola, crtical sea lanes have to be guarded, and there are several choke points. This air of invincibility in Asia is air only. 1962 was a turning point. We are a professional army now, capable of giving a bloody nose, when provoked.
Actually, the PLA has hit its recruitment quotas without conscription for every single year after 1978. In 2013, the pool of applicants for enlisted recruit positions exceeded the quota by 221%, and the pool of applicants for officer recruit positions exceeded the quota by 164%. Note that these are for training spots, not necessarily active service; boot camps and officer academies in China further weed out recruits.
As the PLA has shrunk in manpower, it's been increasingly focused on recruiting soldiers with pre-existing skills - the 2013 application form for enlisted positions is over fifteen pages long, and has space for applicants to attach test scores, technical/engineering certificates and school diplomas. Priority skills for recruiting include years of formal schooling, math/logic ability, computer proficiency (including coding proficiency), English proficiency, metalworking/mechanical engineering/vehicle repair, and the ability to swim (alongside traditional physical traits). Notably, Communist Youth League membership is not a high priority in the recruitment process.
The operational doctrine of the Chinese Army has shifted to take advantage of said shifts in manpower quality. For example, unlike the US model of centralizing cyberwarfare capabilities among US Cyber Command, the NSA, USSOCOM and the USAF, China adopts a two-tier cyber system whereby the top tier is centralized and the second tier is cyber capabilities attached at the ship, squadron, brigade, or divisional level - giving nearly every military unit its own organic cyber support (on top of the traditional EW support). Some training extends ever further down the food chain. For example, one leaked training document from showed that, in theory, every infantryman is schooled in how to cut, splice, tap, and monitor coaxial cables.
One factoid: if trends continue, by 2016, the average Chinese enlisted soldier will have more years of schooling than his/her American counterpart.
I have no doubt on our capabilities however, what about political will? Retaliation is something which we lack in the first place
This is true in the case of INDIAN ARMED FORCES...
Still the Chinese believe that having numbers alone will win war. If the chinese army was truly powerful they would have invaded India long back.
Separate names with a comma.