News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

PRC White Paper Reveals Armed Forces Structure

Started by Jacob, April 16, 2013, 10:56:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

derspiess

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:
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Minsky Moment

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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

derspiess

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.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Minsky Moment

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.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson