The Chinese Special Force Basic Training And Its Effectiveness?

[bladerunner]

BTW, I thought the PLA was using the deep battle strategy in the Chinese civil war (not 100% on that).

The strategy of multiple attacks and not let your enemy know ones main objectives is indeed similar to some aspects of the 'deep battle doctrine'. Military buffs draw a distinction between military strategy and military doctrine, and Im not deep enough into it, to distinguish the differences

What I know on how the Communists fought the civil war in a military way,wouldnt even be good enough to be a footnote Hit and run tactics, standing your ground when you know when you are in a situation you can win, amassing men to achieve a numerical superiority at the point of battle, is only the spattering of knowledge on how they fought.

IMO With this approch The Chinese battles of the Korean War became a battle of attrition which ideology wise, was the opposite to the 'Deep battle concept" . Also it was this type of strategy that the PLA lived with until recent times... ,however knowledgeable military buffs may beg to differ.

editerhaps not ever having fought a land war ah la European style, is why the Chinese appear to have difficulty with the placement/utilisation of their tanks. (im not to sure whether forum rules prevent me from cutting and pasting comments/photos from other websites to illustrate what I mean.

 

[sidewinder01]

The strategy of multiple attacks and not let your enemy know ones main objectives is indeed similar to some aspects of the 'deep battle doctrine'. Military buffs draw a distinction between military strategy and military doctrine, and Im not deep enough into it, to distinguish the differences

What I know on how the Communists fought the civil war in a military way,wouldnt even be good enough to be a footnote Hit and run tactics, standing your ground when you know when you are in a situation you can win, amassing men to achieve a numerical superiority at the point of battle, is only the spattering of knowledge on how they fought.

IMO With this approch The Chinese battles of the Korean War became a battle of attrition which ideology wise, was the opposite to the 'Deep battle concept" . Also it was this type of strategy that the PLA lived with until recent times... ,however knowledgeable military buffs may beg to differ.

editerhaps not ever having fought a land war ah la European style, is why the Chinese appear to have difficulty with the placement/utilisation of their tanks. (im not to sure whether forum rules prevent me from cutting and pasting comments/photos from other websites to illustrate what I mean.

Can you please explain your opinion on the fighting style of the CCP during the civil war, really want to see a western point of view on it. you are right about the Korean war 100%, I think the Chinese fought that way beacuse they had no choice, the Chinese simply dont have the dough to use the deep battle strag. against the Americans. I remmber one of the famous quote by the PVA General Peng "人家又是飞机又是坦克，不怕死咱们还怎么打“ which basically states that if it werent for the ideology of the soliders, there is no chance against the Americans who is armed beyond comparsion to the PVA. I am almost for certain though that if Su Yu was the commander of PVA, the Chinese would at least not suffer so much loss in term of men.

 

[pla101prc]

I couldnt find the appropriate thread so I posted my comments here.

Well the PLA military exercises in which I watched the clips off with great interest got me thinking.

Although the likelihood of a traditional land war involving vast tracts of territory where two fully mechanized armies equipped with the latest of weaponry,face off against one another is unlikely to occur, it should be worth noting that over the years as it moved away from its guerrilla war concepts, and built a army along conventional lines.

What new military doctrine have the Chinese replaced them with,and what have they learnt?.
When they were close to the Russians in the 50's did they use the opportunity to understand the Russian 'Deep Battle' Doctrine which evolved after the first world war and was successfully applied against the Germans in WW2. In Western military circles and even today it is regarded as one of the most successful military doctrines of the last Century. and still has a lot of applicability in certain situations. Ive taken a brief description from Wiki here......
.......... Deep battle encompassed manoeuvre by multiple Soviet Army Fronts-size formations simultaneously. It was not meant to deliver a victory in a single operation, but rather multiple operations conducted in parallel or successively would induce a catastrophic failure in his defensive system. Each operation served to divert enemy attention and keep the defender guessing as to where the main effort, and main objective, lay. In doing so, it prevented the enemy from dispatching powerful mobile reserves to this area. The supporting operations had significantly important strategic objectives themselves and were to continue their offensive action until unable to progress any further. However, they were still subordinated to the main/decisive strategic objective determined by...........



Meanwhile I've read some rather uncomplimentary opinions made by proven and seasoned military personnel from other sites, formed after watching the available clips relating to the stated objectives in the Vanguard exercise.. They thought that the PLA still had a lot to learn in tactics, and the manner they utilised the tanks in relation to the intention of the stated exercise was wrong. Another fault lay in exposing them against the skyline as they were making their way along the ridge and their general placement thus making themselves easy targets Overall general conclusion being the military was still very infantry centric, and it would be many years before they devolved away from it. Apparently while taking most of their artillery and engineering equipment, a big percentage of tanks and stuff was left at home


Another aspect which I had been wondering about, and it was sort a touched upon by another poster on the Somali pirate thread before his banning was the flexibility of the command structure.

Unlike other countries the military swear their loyalty to the CCP, or thats what Im led to believe by the Western Press. If that's the case couldn't a situation evolve similar to what happened to the German Army in WW2, where after having sworn allegiance to Hitler, things turned pear shaped for them when he became their C.C and directed the over all strategy, with the generals too frightened to make a major decision without running it past him
Could a similar situation not arise with the use of the aircraft carriers the Chinese are building, where in a conflict, the politburo wanting one thing, while wiser heads in the military prefer another? .

i wouldnt worry about the PLA's conventional tactics, they've been playing with that stuff for decades. the traditional deep battle tactics focused on the maneuvering of the units, nowadays the PLA wants to prolly focus more on the delibery of firepower...accurately.
the area that the PLA really needs improvement in is the modern way of coordinating different combat elements effectively through C4I. for ex when you launch a cruise missile, you need a whole system working together in order for that missile to hit the target rather than just one or two pieces of equipment. there is intel,comms,recce/recon,target acquisition and a whole bunch of stuff. so it is important for the PLA to develop this kind of system of operation...

as for the military decision making in the CCP...the politburo standing committee does not control the army in theory, the military commission controls the army. i think there was a period where Mao was not even a member of the politburo but he controlled the army, same with Deng.
the head of military commission is often made up of the party sec and a whole bunch of military leaders, or "wiser heads".

 

[plawolf]

All this talk of party v commander is a load of rubbish that has zero basis in real life. Both the Soviet Red Army and the PLA/PVA have demonstrated time and again that their combat effectiveness and flexibility is not affected by the use of a political officer.

Soldiers are trained to do what they are ordered. Americans Soldiers have fired on their own civilians without needing a commissar pointing a gun to the back of there heads first.

 

[LostWraith]

All this talk of party v commander is a load of rubbish that has zero basis in real life. Both the Soviet Red Army and the PLA/PVA have demonstrated time and again that their combat effectiveness and flexibility is not affected by the use of a political officer.

Soldiers are trained to do what they are ordered. Americans Soldiers have fired on their own civilians without needing a commissar pointing a gun to the back of there heads first.

The whole commissar picture is simply a western propaganda creation aimed to lead people to believe that enemy soldiers are a slave army that require constant whipping to march, while their own troops are free men fighting on their free will for the freedom of the free people. Similar efforts were made by the ancient Greeks who portrayed the invading Persians as a mindless slave army while the brave Greeks were free men defending a free cause.

If anything, the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War was an indication of the lack of command ability of Chinese officers in those times, rather than an overly brutal commanding force.

 

[RedMercury]

...or just a reflection of the fact that China deployed 2nd line infantry on the Sino-Vietnamese border. The 1st rate units were on the northern border, in case the Soviets called.

 

[bladerunner]

Can you please explain your opinion on the fighting style of the CCP during the civil war, .

That's a rather hard question to answer the only book I've ever read on China was Edgar Snows book "Red Star Over China" and I can't remember it there was too much written about the actual guerilla war, and although much is made of Mao's guerrilla war against Chiang, the most vivid pictures in my memory were the post WW2 campaigns in Northern China where old film footage showed PLA troops with tanks and with Soviet advice, were beginning to adopt tactics, somewhat similar to the strategy's of 'Deep Battle'.

I guess in the earlier years the battle environment would have been somewhat similar to how the Viet Minh fought against the French?????? I think that type of approach, getting the opponent to over react to your own attacks and thereby alienating the populace was the correct one, because even in the very early days I don't think Stalin was giving unconditional support to Mao, because of ideological differences. I think Stalin believed the roots of the revolution had to come from the proletariat and not from the peasantry?

School lessons told us the reason why the KMT lost was Chiang exhausted his forces energy , by fighting the warlords and the Japanese while the communists conserved their resources and bided their time. This view reinforced by a ex red guard woman ( If or got her name who now lives in the West and for a while was the darling of anti ccp public in that she wrote a book, about her life in China as well as destroying the myth of Mao. cant remember the books title or her name) because I have never read it.

I find the assertion that the Communists did not fight the Japanese rather strange because as a young kid I use to go with my father to the "NZ China friendly society" ( One had to be very careful attending their gatherings as the NZ govt regarded it as a front for communism and watched its goings on suspiciously.) And then my dad was CCP supporter and my mum was a KMT supporter.


Well Im Very Very sure I saw a documentary of communist troops fighting the Japanese in the early part of the war. I don't know where about's in China it took place and when I asked my father what it was about he said something about a hundred. I don't know whether he misheard me or I misunderstood him but I've never pursued the question with him. Subsequently i have nothing to go on other than some vague idea that the communists did fight the Japanese.
the amazing thing about this periods as regards the PLA is how a ragtag army which made hardwork in fighting 2nd 3rd rate japanese forces managed to fight a western army to a deadlock in Korea.

 

[bladerunner]

...or just a reflection of the fact that China deployed 2nd line infantry on the Sino-Vietnamese border. The 1st rate units were on the northern border, in case the Soviets called.

But then again the N Vietnamese though battle experienced had never beaten the US in a conventional battle

 

[pla101prc]

But then again the N Vietnamese though battle experienced had never beaten the US in a conventional battle

they werent fighting conventional wars lol

 

[bladerunner]

they werent fighting conventional wars lol

I always thought that Attack on Hue? during the new Year was regarded as a coventional battle/ or was that only the Viet Cong