Story on BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22163599
White Paper in English here: http://eng.mod.gov.cn/TopNews/2013-04/16/content_4442750.htm
Yeah, cover it up with the BBC article, Xiacob. We all know you're on the mailing lists for both the CPC and PLA.
But anyway, didn't read the whole thing. Have they figured out how to make a tank better than the T-62? They're making some advances with their small arms, but the heavier stuff is seriously lagging. Not that I'm complaining.
The thing I found odd is that, according to the BBC, the army has 850,000 officers... that sounds like they have an almost 1:1 ratio of officers and enlisted ranks. Which is kind of weird.
Or is that how it is in modern militaries?
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2013, 11:19:51 AM
The thing I found odd is that, according to the BBC, the army has 850,000 officers... that sounds like they have an almost 1:1 ratio of officers and enlisted ranks. Which is kind of weird.
Or is that how it is in modern militaries?
:lol: Looks like they just corrected it.
FWIW though, I don't know about the PLA so much but the Soviet and other ComBloc armed forces tended to be officer-heavy. Something like 8:1 (enlisted to officer) which is way more than Western militaries. The commie militaries used officers for highly-skilled technical positions, whereas their Western counterparts would be NCOs.
Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2013, 11:15:39 AM
Have they figured out how to make a tank better than the T-62? They're making some advances with their small arms, but the heavier stuff is seriously lagging. Not that I'm complaining.
Shit, they still had gas masks for their 3rd echelon horse cavalry reserves in the western provinces as late as 1992. I doubt their tanks and arty have made such similar leaps and bounds.
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2013, 11:19:51 AM
The thing I found odd is that, according to the BBC, the army has 850,000 officers... that sounds like they have an almost 1:1 ratio of officers and enlisted ranks. Which is kind of weird.
Or is that how it is in modern militaries?
It's called no effective NCO corps.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 16, 2013, 11:42:16 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2013, 11:19:51 AM
The thing I found odd is that, according to the BBC, the army has 850,000 officers... that sounds like they have an almost 1:1 ratio of officers and enlisted ranks. Which is kind of weird.
Or is that how it is in modern militaries?
It's called no effective NCO corps.
A question: aside from historical development, does having a seperate stream of NCO positions as opposed to officer positions make sense?
Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2013, 11:26:56 AM
FWIW though, I don't know about the PLA so much but the Soviet and other ComBloc armed forces tended to be officer-heavy. Something like 8:1 (enlisted to officer) which is way more than Western militaries.
:secret: The US armed forces have a 4.9:1 (enlisted to officer ratio)...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flpix.org%2F1180860%2Fenlistedtoofficers.JPG&hash=ed681fb06742d7db8b58fe610f4eabc071366769)
http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2011_Demographics_Report.pdf
Obviously old data, but this link claims a 2:1 (enlisted to officer ratio).
QuoteAs of 2007, the PLA has 2.3 million personnel divided roughly into thirds (765,000) for officers, NCOs, and conscripts.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-personel-enlistedforces.htm
Quote from: Malthus on April 16, 2013, 12:20:57 PM
A question: aside from historical development, does having a seperate stream of NCO positions as opposed to officer positions make sense?
Absolutely. But could you elaborate on what you're getting at?
Don't you mean Rice Paper?
Quote from: ulmont on April 16, 2013, 12:35:51 PM
:secret: The US armed forces have a 4.9:1 (enlisted to officer ratio)...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flpix.org%2F1180860%2Fenlistedtoofficers.JPG&hash=ed681fb06742d7db8b58fe610f4eabc071366769)
http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2011_Demographics_Report.pdf
I'll have to go back & check my source, but I was thinking specifically in terms of Cold War-era line units. We had something like 13:1 and Warsaw Pact armies had 8:1.
Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2013, 12:40:30 PM
Don't you mean Rice Paper?
Rice paper is commonly white :mellow:
Quote from: Jacob on April 16, 2013, 12:53:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2013, 12:40:30 PM
Don't you mean Rice Paper?
Rice paper is commonly white :mellow:
Rice paper doesn't mean generic paper.
Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2013, 12:41:18 PM
I'll have to go back & check my source, but I was thinking specifically in terms of Cold War-era line units. We had something like 13:1 and Warsaw Pact armies had 8:1.
There may be a lot of work done in the phrase "line units" there. According to this source, which I haven't tried to verify in any way, the Vietnam/Cold-War US armed forces were 7:1.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/09/10/american-military-force-changed-43153/
4.9:1 still beats 2:1, though.
Quote from: ulmont on April 16, 2013, 01:01:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 16, 2013, 12:41:18 PM
I'll have to go back & check my source, but I was thinking specifically in terms of Cold War-era line units. We had something like 13:1 and Warsaw Pact armies had 8:1.
There may be a lot of work done in the phrase "line units" there. According to this source, which I haven't tried to verify in any way, the Vietnam/Cold-War US armed forces were 7:1.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/09/10/american-military-force-changed-43153/
4.9:1 still beats 2:1, though.
I can't find my source online. I'll dig it up when I got home. Or not. I'm already tired & haven't even picked up the kids yet :mellow:
Tank quality really isn't a big issue, is it? I assume their ground forces are more than sufficient for any likely tasks. A more relevant question is the quality of air/naval forces.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 17, 2013, 10:12:20 AM
Tank quality really isn't a big issue, is it?
I suppose it's something of a nitpick, but still-- their tanks suck.
QuoteI assume their ground forces are more than sufficient for any likely tasks.
Their infantry seems decent. Their small arms have been upgraded and they surprisingly developed their own designs and even created a unique cartridge for themselves. From what I understand, their artillery is still a bit low tech, and their anti-tank weapons are also inadequate. But I'm using Western standards and as you point out ground forces technology may not be such an immediate concern for them.
QuoteA more relevant question is the quality of air/naval forces.
I'm not overly impressed with their Air Force-- seems to be late Cold War-ish even after the modernization program. Naval stuff is always my blind spot, but none of the naval geeks here seem to be frightened of the PLA navy.
Quote from: derspiess on April 17, 2013, 10:40:49 AM
I'm not overly impressed with their Air Force-- seems to be late Cold War-ish even after the modernization program. Naval stuff is always my blind spot, but none of the naval geeks here seem to be frightened of the PLA navy.
Fleet modernization appears to be a priority. They may or may not have an effective ASBM capability. They are developing what appears to be new carrier based stealth plane, exact capabilities unclear. One thing to consider is that looking at the navy figures alone probably understates China's coastal warfare and denial capabilities because they have a bunch of sizable maritime paramilitary forces including a fisheries protection organization and martime safety administration each with thousands of personnel and hundreds of armed patrol craft and the like.
Of course, China's equipment and training don't have to up to par with the US in order to pose a very significant and credible threat.