Foolish Comments by PLA Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong

[Oracle]

These are 50 centers. I wonder if CCP is paying them to post on international boards. Last I heard, they get paid to mould public opinion only on domestic boards. I eat dog you Chicoms, let me get you across a table someday.

 

[nrj]

Two weeks ago, Adm. Zhang predicted India had only a 60 percent probability of success in launching the Agni-5 ICBM. A couple of days later, India launched the rocket, which was reported to be a 100 percent success.

Exactly 60% probability? :cerealspit:

These PLA Generals must be math wizards !

Too bad we disappointed them. And we heard the chicoms say that Chinese Govt do not care about Agni or anything!

 

[Ray]

Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong as per the instructions given to all Chinese to say!

 

[Ray]

For years now, open discussion of the Mao era has been forbidden. Not long after Mao's death the party announced that he had been 70% right, 30% wrong.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China moves on from Mao

 

[J20!]

To borrow from someone smarter than I am:
"There was an infamous war game conducted years ago where a U.S. admiral in command of a bunch of speed boats and fishing boats sunk the fleet of a U.S. admiral in command of destroyers and etc. The former had numerical superiority so IIRC he just zerg swarmed and attached explosives to the side of the ships. The victory was completely one-sided, and it was so humiliating that they tried to suppress the results. The victorious admiral was given harsh words for making a mockery of the war game. Adm. Zhang made reference to the exact same strategy of zerg swarming with small fast boats and explosives, so he must be at least somewhat familiar with that war game. A lot of the small speed boats were sunk, but overwhelming numerical superiority won the day. The cost damage inflicted against the destroyers/other "serious" navy ships (they were all sunk) vs the cost of the speed boats, explosives, and men was exponential."

 

[s002wjh]

To borrow from someone smarter than I am:
"There was an infamous war game conducted years ago where a U.S. admiral in command of a bunch of speed boats and fishing boats sunk the fleet of a U.S. admiral in command of destroyers and etc. The former had numerical superiority so IIRC he just zerg swarmed and attached explosives to the side of the ships. The victory was completely one-sided, and it was so humiliating that they tried to suppress the results. The victorious admiral was given harsh words for making a mockery of the war game. Adm. Zhang made reference to the exact same strategy of zerg swarming with small fast boats and explosives, so he must be at least somewhat familiar with that war game. A lot of the small speed boats were sunk, but overwhelming numerical superiority won the day. The cost damage inflicted against the destroyers/other "serious" navy ships (they were all sunk) vs the cost of the speed boats, explosives, and men was exponential."

got it from sinodefence i see.

but in reality destroyer will be accompany/support by other platform. so its not just an single destroyer, but force multiplier.

also i doubt destroyer will get too close to coastal water during conflict, which is typical area of operation for speedboat.

 

[Ray]

Wargames are wargames.

Musharraf did a wargame before he launched Pak Army into Kargil.

In that wargame, he was sitting pretty in Srinagar.

In actual war, Musharraf was licking his wounds.

In Wargames, everyone is Sir Galahad but in real war they are all whimpering and thinking of God!

 

[J20!]

@ Ray:

You cant say a war game is a war game as if they show no true wartime realities. If that was true, then no one would drill their militaries at all since according to you they are useless. Small boat attacks are proven big ship slayers, look it up.

@ s002wjh:

Yep! That's where I got that excerpt; I saw a comment from you on that thread as well. As already mentioned, that small boat attack simulated by the Americans was directed at a destroyer surface action group, not a single combatant, and even in the group dynamic, the destroyers lost the skirmish, not once, but time and again. That, combined with sub surface ssk's, is why the US Navy has been focusing so much of its attention on the littorals, where small surface vessels rule the roost.

@ nrj:

Stop with the ridicule. Are you implying that you somehow have more naval knowledge than an Admiral who has served at sea for decades? Have you even been on a warship? A ship even? Do you have more accurate intelligence on the upcoming Zumwalt class than he does? Do you have an intelligence service working for you? Sure of course the Zumwalt will by no means be "no good", but in the littorals, where it is meant to operate in its land attack role, it will face small boat action, and as the American exercise shows, big destroyers will face difficulty against well armed, coordinated small boat attacks, that is the main reasoning behind the new LCS, to combat this threat.

And of course there will be rivalry. Did you expect him to praise it and congratulate the Americans for a ship well designed? Rivalry aside, his points are in no way foolish Ray, they are naval realities, stop presuming to know more than a man who is, you cant disagree, an expert in his field ie naval warfare.

 

[Ray]

J20

There was an infamous war game conducted years ago where a U.S. admiral in command of a bunch of speed boats and fishing boats sunk the fleet of a U.S. admiral in command of destroyers and etc.

This war game is not an exercise (using real ships).

It must have been a sandmodel exercise.

Or else would any country go bonkers to actually allow sinking their own ships with their own fishing boats? And Admirals being from the same Navy but in opposing Forces?

Further, the Blueland always wins over the Redland.

If they didn't the accepted military concepts that they have devised would be flawed.

BTW, I know the Navy. Was with the Amphibious lot!

Small boats are what? Super craft?

The fleet does not have means to know what is moving on the surface, below the surface and above the surface?

Which world do you live in?

 

[Damian]

Yep! That's where I got that excerpt; I saw a comment from you on that thread as well. As already mentioned, that small boat attack simulated by the Americans was directed at a destroyer surface action group, not a single combatant, and even in the group dynamic, the destroyers lost the skirmish, not once, but time and again. That, combined with sub surface ssk's, is why the US Navy has been focusing so much of its attention on the littorals, where small surface vessels rule the roost.

You making wrong assumptions basing on limited informations... typical.

We do not know if larger warships were armed with small close range defences or they could use them (yes, in all drills there are rules, some rules makes one side of conflict in better situation).

Not to mention that Americans contrary to popular belifes are smart, they like disinformation and what is better disinformation that staged drills with an effects that might be "inspiration" for potential enemy. And belive me, automatic cannons have plenty of ammunition, and 25mm or 30mm HE or AHEAD will do a swiss chease from a small vessel trying get close, combine this with radars, optics, other sensors and that there is not one big military battleship bot some number of them with such weapons.

Attacking them by small vessels in swarms is waste of crews, fuel, explosive materials etc.

While LCS vessels IMHO are in fact cheap replacement for frigates like OHP class, also designed to better operate in littoral waters.

 

[trackwhack]

I think the Chinese general is thinking an Al Qaeda style suicide fast attack craft.

 

[Ray]

"Littoral Combat Ship" program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

The missions are vast and the array of systems are complementary to the mission envisaged.

 

[rock127]

I think the Chinese general is thinking an Al Qaeda style suicide fast attack craft.

Inspiration from Pakistan.The suicide bombing disease catching Chinese Military too now

 

[nrj]

Chinese Fishing boats carrying manually planted explosives Vs 155mm, 57mm guns + Seahawk +FireScout equipped with laser guided rockets.

Good Luck !

 

[J20!]

J20



This war game is not an exercise (using real ships).

It must have been a sandmodel exercise.

Or else would any country go bonkers to actually allow sinking their own ships with their own fishing boats? And Admirals being from the same Navy but in opposing Forces?

Further, the Blueland always wins over the Redland.

If they didn't the accepted military concepts that they have devised would be flawed.

You're guessing. i'm telling you with certainty. If you doubt my post's authenticity, look it up, its that simple. It was an actual exercise with actual ships. The word war games doesn't imply that no actual equipment is used. red flag is a war game. And of course you don't sink your own ships in exercises genius. How do you think ASW is practiced? By lobbing actual depth charges and torpedoes against YOUR OWN warships and personnel? Even in live-fire drills, no one actually sinks their active ships, maybe old hulks are turned into reefs but that's it.

If the exercise was soooo useless, why did it lead to the pivot of US navy focus towards the littoral combat zone? No one does drills and war games for fun Ray, they're expensive and very useful, if it was as you say: "Blueland always wins over the Redland", there would be no point to war games. How else would the US Navy have discovered their CBG's weakness against SSK's had they not borrowed a Swedish sub and carried out exercises against it? How would they have discovered the need for a Littoral combatant had they not had these very "small boat vs large surface combatant in the littoral" excercises?

 

[nrj]

Inspiration from Pakistan.The suicide bombing disease catching Chinese Military too now

They've apparently copied Zaid Hamid here in the form of Zhang Zhaozhong, way to go !

 

[J20!]

They've apparently copied Zaid Hamid here in the form of Zhang Zhaozhong, way to go !

Please look up the Millenium Challenge of 2002 and stop being a prat.

 

[Damian]

Key Words : Blue water battleships that are big are intended to fight on deep waters, nobody would use there a swarm of small boats, plenty of space, plenty of time to locate them and destroy.

Littoral Combat Ships are designed to fight on littoral waters, so why the hell send them big battleships that have weaponary designed to fight on long distances and also destroying land targets from long range?

It seems that someone here do not know what logic is. If US have big battleships with long range weapons they do not need to bring them to littoral waters where they can be endangered by these swarm attacks of small boats. And if there is need to send some vessels to littoral waters then there are LCS ships. So it seems that for some people war is like a wargame where there are rules and everyone need to stick to them stricktly.

 

[nrj]

So the large ships from deep waters had close range defenses on them during the war game?

 

[Damian]

So the large ships from deep waters had close range defenses on them during the war game?

Nobody knows, it could be done that way, that ships could not use close range defences. However as far as I seen on photos, on all US vessels, turrets and pintle mounts for automatic cannons and heavy machine guns are standard. In a real war I doubt that small vessels without thick armor could survive fire barrage from these weapons.