China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread


lych470

Just Hatched
Registered Member
@sndef888 bro it need to grow a backbone, being nice but in cahoots is not a definition of friendship, that is the thing with the west their foreign policy of Moral virtue and wokeness is not being acknowledge by both China and Russia. For both countries International law must be of precedent.
China is quite clear on the South China Sea being its backyard. There's no way Germany can have it both ways - be seen in public as supporting its allies and freedom of navigation and also dock in Shanghai.
 

Xsizor

Captain
Registered Member
China is quite clear on the South China Sea being its backyard. There's no way Germany can have it both ways - be seen in public as supporting its allies and freedom of navigation and also dock in Shanghai.
Germany is the biggest power in EU ( Although France believes it has got the royal sceptre). Maneuvering a bit regarding Germany will offer long term benefits for China.

It isn't as serious as cross Strait issues.
 

OppositeDay

Junior Member
Registered Member
Germany is the biggest power in EU ( Although France believes it has got the royal sceptre). Maneuvering a bit regarding Germany will offer long term benefits for China.

It isn't as serious as cross Strait issues.

Yeah, the term on the Chinese internet is ditukaijiang 地图开疆 - territorial expansion with the stroke of a pen, referring to Chiang Kai-shek’s drawing of the 11-dash line. It’s definitely not as emotionally charged as Taiwan.
 

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
I tend to disagree.
the 8 nations alliance invasion and sacking of Beijing is still a wound in the Chinese psyche.
to allow Germany to act duplicitous in joining the US led military drills and then visiting Shanghai will be seen as a slap in the face.
this duplicity simply cannot be allowed, otherwise once this precedent is set, you will see other European and Anglos countries follow suit.
If China cannot stand up and fight for her own interests, she cannot and will not be respected as a power to reckon with.
 

ansy1968

Major
Registered Member
I tend to disagree.
the 8 nations alliance invasion and sacking of Beijing is still a wound in the Chinese psyche.
to allow Germany to act duplicitous in joining the US led military drills and then visiting Shanghai will be seen as a slap in the face.
this duplicity simply cannot be allowed, otherwise once this precedent is set, you will see other European and Anglos countries follow suit.
If China cannot stand up and fight for her own interests, she cannot and will not be respected as a power to reckon with.
@Jono bro the current crop of EU politician and even the US need to study the Chinese history, the way they pursue their China policy, sending in warship near Chinese waters invoke such painful memories that they were shock that the Chinese are being assertive...LOL such condescending attitude needed to be crushed and the reason why they hate Xi so much, cause they thought he will abide Deng dictum of "hide your strength and bide your time" and the way he choose the opposite shows that he is a great stateman with the country interest as his priority.
 

Insignius

Junior Member
Indeed.
You see the difference in German handling of all and any Israeli/Jewish issue and how they handle their other colonial crime issues.
(Yes, for those unaware, the grandson of certain African tribesmen is still looking to find the severed head of their chieftain that was taken as a trophy by German colonial troops back in the day, after murdering half his tribe - and Germany is totally unresponsive to their plight: What a difference to how they deal with anything Israel:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

China should not feel any remorse about showing these arrogant Germans what they think of their duplicity, as the Germans to this day still classify Chinese victims of their colonial aggression to be less worth than those they committed against their fellow white brethren.
 

wxw456

New Member
Registered Member
A very misleading series of graphics. The claimed numbers of assets under the US Indo-Pacific Command is incorrect. The US Indo-Pacific Command has the US Pacific Fleet under its command. The US Pacific Fleet in turn has the 3rd and 7th Fleet under its command. The 3rd Fleet is headquartered in San Diego and is responsible for the Northern and Eastern Pacific with four carrier strike groups. The 7th Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka and forward deployed in the Western Pacific was only one carrier strike group. A more accurate assessment is that this is a comparison of the PLAN with only the peace-time forward deployed 7th Fleet. The idea that the USN would not move assets from the 3rd Fleet to reinforce the 7th Fleet is pure fantasy.

Time for a WW2 history lesson :) The IJN attack on Pearl Harbor primarily hit the US Pacific Fleet. However, initial attacks did not cripple the US Asiatic Fleet. The US Asiatic Fleet (2 cruisers, 13 destroyers, 4 seaplane tenders and 29 submarines) was forward deployed at the time of Pearl Harbor, but following Pearl Harbor was outnumbered and outgunned by the IJN with no prospect for reinforcements. By May 5 1942, half of the 40 surface ships in the US Asiatic Fleet were sunk. The remains of the US Asiatic Fleet retreated to Australia and was reformed as part of the South West Pacific Area Command which also established the 7th Fleet. The original pre-war plan was for the US Asiatic Fleet to fight a delaying action against the IJN while the US Pacific Fleet would relieve them in force later. Pearl Harbor completely derailed that plan since the US Pacific Fleet was hit first instead of the US Asiatic Fleet.

A more apt comparison is that the forward deployed 7th Fleet is playing a role similar to the WW2 US Asiatic Fleet. But the meat of the US navy in the Pacific is under the 3rd Fleet and not the 7th fleet. Furthermore, this graphic doesn't even add the JMSDF. The author is deliberately misleading readers with this graphic.
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
A very misleading series of graphics. The claimed numbers of assets under the US Indo-Pacific Command is incorrect. The US Indo-Pacific Command has the US Pacific Fleet under its command. The US Pacific Fleet in turn has the 3rd and 7th Fleet under its command. The 3rd Fleet is headquartered in San Diego and is responsible for the Northern and Eastern Pacific with four carrier strike groups. The 7th Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka and forward deployed in the Western Pacific was only one carrier strike group. A more accurate assessment is that this is a comparison of the PLAN with only the peace-time forward deployed 7th Fleet. The idea that the USN would not move assets from the 3rd Fleet to reinforce the 7th Fleet is pure fantasy.

Time for a WW2 history lesson :) The IJN attack on Pearl Harbor primarily hit the US Pacific Fleet. However, initial attacks did not cripple the US Asiatic Fleet. The US Asiatic Fleet (2 cruisers, 13 destroyers, 4 seaplane tenders and 29 submarines) was forward deployed at the time of Pearl Harbor, but following Pearl Harbor was outnumbered and outgunned by the IJN with no prospect for reinforcements. By May 5 1942, half of the 40 surface ships in the US Asiatic Fleet were sunk. The remains of the US Asiatic Fleet retreated to Australia and was reformed as part of the South West Pacific Area Command which also established the 7th Fleet. The original pre-war plan was for the US Asiatic Fleet to fight a delaying action against the IJN while the US Pacific Fleet would relieve them in force later. Pearl Harbor completely derailed that plan since the US Pacific Fleet was hit first instead of the US Asiatic Fleet.

A more apt comparison is that the forward deployed 7th Fleet is playing a role similar to the WW2 US Asiatic Fleet. But the meat of the US navy in the Pacific is under the 3rd Fleet and not the 7th fleet. Furthermore, this graphic doesn't even add the JMSDF. The author is deliberately misleading readers with this graphic.

Very good analysis, I don't think the author knew it
 

Top