Lessons learned by the US military in Iraq applied to the PLA

yehe

Junior Member
To say that the PLA is far from well trained compared with the USarmy based on GlobalSecurity.org is simply inaccurate, now what GlobalSecurity.org does no tell you is that the PLA is actually divided in2 classes, A and B class, A class as Elite unit and B as secondary units, while A units gets most of the funds ,new equipments and trainings, B units only get a fraction of everything, considering that the PLA is the largest army in the world, you average it at GlobalSecurity.org etc. and gets the conclusion that the PLA gets alot less training compared with the US, not exactly an accurate estimation.
Ppl were arguring here about whether China should adopt a smaller but hightech and highly welltrained expeditionary force OR a conventional large coldwar style military, well, the truth is that China is getting both. Considring the relative limited funds the PLA gets and the massiveness of it, also considering the border situation of China, its building up a smaller but hightech based, well equipt and trained rapid-reaction expeditionary force(the A Class units) while also keeping the old conventional military(the B class units) for any possible bordering conflict.

The PLA soldier is volentier soldier, serve in the military for average 3 years period before discharged, 3years is far more time than most other military in the world, which means soldier in the PLA gets more time for training and to learn and ajust to their duty to be more professional than those soldier in ther contries who only serve for 1-2years in their military.
The PLA might be undermanned but definitly not undertrained, when I say undermanned I mean personel that can handle high tech military equipments, cuz of huge amount of new equipment been acquired in resent years, the PLA start to feel a shortage of capable personel to operating them all, this is the however overcomable with time and the reason why the PLA now is increasingly signing contract with college students to give fund for the entire college in return for service in the military when gratuated.

Granted the average flight hours of PLAAF is less than the USAF,but considrig china still have 2-3000 operational aircraft, most of which is old J6, its not really suprising, but the Su27 pilot training hour is reported to be around 200-220 hours/Y, not 300h/y like the USAF maybe, but not low at all if compared with other AF in the world.
About the claim that chinese fighter pilot only train in old tactic, I dunno where ppl get that impression from, but even if the PLAAF never invented new tactic in decades, the PLAAF is known to have pilot send to both Russia and France for training and exchange on regulary basis, they never learn anything there?

And I dont really expect Taiwan to be much of a guerilla warfare battleground after/If the mainlandChina invaded it, I mean pls, guerilla warfare in a wealthy and stable society vs. a civilwar foe that speak the same language, eat same food, have same religion, same historical and ethnical background? No, I dont think so, I even doubt how many of the ROC military will actually fight and not deserting or rebel from the reward of the PRC once the war started. The number of Taiwanese living and working in PRC will soon reaching a million, even more if you count in their families in Taiwan, and there is only 20million inhabitant in toltal in Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
Yeah I don't see Taiwanese civilians picking up arms, after they see how fast their military just surrendered. ;)

Honestly anyone still holding out hope for Taiwan (usa help or not) is in denial. Taiwan imports 90% of its food. Chinese will not give up once shot is fired, and Taiwanese know it. They have no interest to be geopolitical pawn to give bruise to China.

In terms of anti-insurgency, PLA seems to have a bigger problem with Xinjiang than people realize, inside or outside China. The uighurs are like in some kind of rage, they walk around with these fruit knives, and do nasty things to Han. The story I was just reading, PAP are taught to conduct operations differently in Xinjiang than in the heartland. Lots of explosives, home-made weapons, and flesh bombs over there. New troops are concerned about civilian uighur casualties. Veterans are not.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



As recently as Jan 5th this year there was an operation consisting of border police, xinjiang special reconnaissance column, armed police helicopter column. The reconnaissance column is trained in both search and arrest. A "east turkestan" training camp in southern xinjiang was destroyed. Killed 18 terrorists, arrested 17. Found 22 home-made hand grenades, and more than 1500 unfinished samples.

One soldier from reconnaissance column lost his life, 21 year old Wang Qiang from Cheng Du. He had told his parents he was only doing training in a regular police unit.

Due to insufficient intelligence the battle was fought as a meeting arrangement rather than encirclement. The battle got underway while soldiers were conducting search. A number of escaped terrorists are still being hunted.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I would say that the Chinese could learn from the Iraqi experience in both wars. The lesson they should take is the importance of air superiority, or at least preventing the enemy from gaining ari superiority. I say this not because the direct effects of aerial bombardment would be crippling to the PLA (the Iraqi Army in Gulf War I remained cohesive, capable and with most of the forces in good shape even after extended bombardment), but because of the constraints it places on a ground commander. The problem is, quite simply, to protect against an enemy with air dominance, a commander must deploy his forces in a spread out, disorganized manner. But to fight the enemy's ground formations, he must concentrate and organize his forces. Another example is Normandy. The Germans were never able to counterattack effectively because the Allied "Jabos" were so pervasive; the Panzer brigades were never able to move into postion and counterattack.

Thus one of the lessons that the Chinese should take from the Iraq Wars is, to use a poker term, that air capability (by air capability I mean the ability to at least deny air superiority to the enemy) is the "ante in" to a conventional ground battle like the one in the Kuwati Desert in 1991.

It's quite possible that we will never see another big, armoured clash like that again, but the lesson holds true in a variety of situations.
 

yehe

Junior Member
Yeah I don't see Taiwanese civilians picking up arms, after they see how fast their military just surrendered. ;)

Honestly anyone still holding out hope for Taiwan (usa help or not) is in denial. Taiwan imports 90% of its food. Chinese will not give up once shot is fired, and Taiwanese know it. They have no interest to be geopolitical pawn to give bruise to China.

In terms of anti-insurgency, PLA seems to have a bigger problem with Xinjiang than people realize, inside or outside China. The uighurs are like in some kind of rage, they walk around with these fruit knives, and do nasty things to Han. The story I was just reading, PAP are taught to conduct operations differently in Xinjiang than in the heartland. Lots of explosives, home-made weapons, and flesh bombs over there. New troops are concerned about civilian uighur casualties. Veterans are not.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



As recently as Jan 5th this year there was an operation consisting of border police, xinjiang special reconnaissance column, armed police helicopter column. The reconnaissance column is trained in both search and arrest. A "east turkestan" training camp in southern xinjiang was destroyed. Killed 18 terrorists, arrested 17. Found 22 home-made hand grenades, and more than 1500 unfinished samples.

One soldier from reconnaissance column lost his life, 21 year old Wang Qiang from Cheng Du. He had told his parents he was only doing training in a regular police unit.

Due to insufficient intelligence the battle was fought as a meeting arrangement rather than encirclement. The battle got underway while soldiers were conducting search. A number of escaped terrorists are still being hunted.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Really dont see how some of the Uyghur could ever think Xinjiang AKA the so called East Turkestan is theirs to be taken, they should learn some history first, Chinese presence in Xinjiang outdate even Islam itself.

Uyghur is where Turks coming from,

Xinjiang is Han Chinese territory already during Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD). Archeological findings date Chinese settlements in the region already at 400-500 BC. during the Chou Dynasty.
The "Uyghur" word didn't appear in human history until 400AD in North Wei Dynasty (386-534AD). First written record of "Turks" in world history is coming much later in 600AD from Han Chinese "Tujue". Uyghur Empire is 745-840AD with the capital Ordu Baliq located 300 km west of Ulaanbaatar (close to Town of Hotont). Uyghur homeland is Mongolia today. Xinjiang actually has nothing to do with Uyghurs.

Uyghur Empire (745-840AD) territory even didn't reach to the present-day South Xinjiang or Turpan where it has the high concentration of Uyghur people today (over 64% population). That's why Xinjiang has nothing to do with Uyghurs in history. Therefore Mongolia is the place if we want to re-gain the glorious days of Uyghur Empire. More information type 'Uyghur Empire" in Wikipedia

Xinjiang was named in 1884 in Manchu Qing Dynasty (1616-1911) as "Old Land Newly Returned" because it was Qing Dynasty territory in 1757 to 1840. Russia invaded Xinjiang after Opium War in 1840. Qing Dynasty re-gained control over Xinjiang in 1884 and renamed it as "Xinjiang" ("Old Land Newly Returned"). Qing Dynasty established regional capital at Urumqi and local governments all over Xinjiang, parts of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan
 

yongke

New Member
Really dont see how some of the Uyghur could ever think Xinjiang AKA the so called East Turkestan is theirs to be taken, they should learn some history first, Chinese presence in Xinjiang outdate even Islam itself.

Off topic but when did historical logic ever matter in world politics? At the end of the day the point of any military force still is to secure land that is not yours and stop other from doing the same to yours'.

Rebels and insurgence wouldn't listen to reason, you have to fight it with a real force. Just look at successful land grabs: Great Britain with Scotland, Spain with Arragon. They where not quickies; they took decades of pacification.

Xinjiang pacification like any other area will take time and money. This is unavoidable. The PRC just need to stay on target and keep at it.
 

ABC78

Junior Member
The Chinese military leadership has actually been analzing high tech US military opperations of the 1991 Gulf War to the present. That's why on this site there is almost a new prototype weapons platform announced every month. The book "China's Military Faces the Future" gives you insite on how the 1st Gulf War has influenced the PLA's reforms. Under Deng Xiaoping the military was sacrificed for economic development. When Jaing Zemin was part of the Central Military Commision he and his supporters pushed for modernization the decomission of out dated equipment from artiry peices to warships. On the personel side they pushed to demobilize 900,000 troops and improve the education training of their junior officers corp and NCO's.
 

pla101prc

Senior Member
Hello all

I have been thinking about this topic for a while and I believe it would be fair to apply some of the lessons learned by the US military in Iraq to the PLA. Tell me if you agree or disagree with these 'lessons.' Feel free to add any of your own.

1. Most wars today are fought in limited-high-tech conditions. The PLA's massiveness is useless against a much smller, more modern, an more professional force. From the experiences of US CAS (close air support) pilots in Iraq, a single fighter bomber can destroy (on average) 12-50 tanks in a single sortie with little risk to itself. In some cases a singel A-10 or F-16 have destroyed more than 200 enemy tanks and APCs when loaded with cluster munitions. Likewise it is not unlikely for a single squadron of Apaches to come out with over 100 kills whenever they sally out to attack enemy tank formations. Keep in mind the 'killcount' system the US military uses is quite conservative. Two other personnel and the original shooter must see the enemy target killed/destroyed for it to be counted as a 'confirmed kill.'

2. SAM defenses are the wrong answer to try to stop an opposing air force. In Iraq, Iraqi air defenses scored 0 kills against American aircraft (save a couple fo AH-64s brought down by ground fire). Before the war, it was thought that the Iraqi anti-air nework was still a significant threat despite having been degraded from over 10 years of sanctions. To stop an opposing modern air force, the PLA must build an strong air force of its own.

3. Fancy toys don't make your military strong. Well, this is more of a lesson from the first Gulf War. Back then, the media and general public had greatly overestimated the capabiltiy of Iraq's military and the Republican Guard because of all the 'fancy toys' and modern equipment they had bought themselves. T-72s and MiG-29s were thought to be serious adversaries. For all the money Hussein had drained into his armed forces, much like the PLA is doing now, they came out extremely poorly agaisnt a more well-trained professional force. Just because the PLA might be buying a lot of flashy equipment from Russia and is developing a lot of thing that may seem to stack up well against what the US military has on paper, in the end, it depends more ont he skill of the armed forces themselves. One American M1 Abrams commander said after the Gulf war, even if you gave us the T-72s and the Iraqis the Abrams, we still would have won. No matter how much money the PLA puts into buying new ships and new aircraft, in the end it is training and experience that matters most, and this is were the PLA is lacking the most.

4. Military success does not equal political success. In most of the skirmishes in Iraq, the US military fights outnumbered but nonetheless comes out on top, having killed or captured 30,000 Iraqi army and Republican Guard during the initial invasion against less than 200 US casualties; and having captured or killed around 60,000 to 70,000 insurgents in the post-war occupation (according to a Jane's defence today estimate and a number of independent think thanks) against 2000 or so US deaths. Despite this disparity that clearly demonstrates the military superiority of the US military, the US has not emerged the political victor, as military success does not equal political success.

Well what do you think? Your thoughts are expected.

lol i agree with most of what you said but i also have to question of validity of comparing iraq to China.
first of all, the outcome of war is almost never decided by military power i think we already know that one.
its true that nowadays size does not dictate the outcome of a battle, but size still matters because if you have a larger army you have a larger reserve of men to fill up for those that are lost on the battlefield. in the earthquake this may China mobilized over 100000 PLA troops but not one of them were from the vital regions such as FuJian.
yeah i agree with you on the SAM thing mostly, but the effectiveness of SAM is also depends upon the integration of the systems...China is behind the US in that one but is still way better than the iraqis
as for the training, its gotta be looked differently in the PLA. generally the units that get the "fancy toys" are the ones that has really good trainings anyways. the ones that dont get good weapons will just have to train their troops to be able to use whatever they have. so if you are talkin Cat A frontline troops, their training is good. there is no point in preparing all fighter pilots to fly a f-22. what PLA really lacks is combat experience.
the militay success does not equal to political success thing was discussed in Art of War 3000 years ago and in On War 150 years ago, anyone who hasnt figure that out should get kicked in the head.
 

pla101prc

Senior Member
aquilis if your knowledge of the PLA is base on globalsecurity.org i suggest you diversify your source of information. its a good site, its where i started when i first started lookin at the Chinese army. but its far from detailed and is a bit outdated, they havent updated some of the stuff for years lol.
what is true is that overall the PLA isnt as well trained as the western military forces. there isnt enough money to have everyone trained to that scale in the Chinese army. but for the elite units that China knows it might use in the future, the training is good enough to take on any military unit in the world. example: the PLAAF put a great emphasis on the training of its 3rd generation fighter pilots. someone has already mentioned up there they are already training 200hr/y in 2004. as for infantry, training has always been tough as the PLA emphasize a lot on ground battles. i wouldnt say its better than the NATO infantry training cuz from what i observed the canadian infantry is GOOD (no offence but better than the americans in my biased opinion). they simply have different doctrines, but Chinese infantry (the good ones) are definitely capable accomplishing their tasks. just go around and ask how they train in units like the 54th GA,31st GA,38th GA,1st GA etc.
what China needs to learn from the US is the integration of C4ISR,they've started on that a while ago but is still far from reaching the level the US is at right now. logistics and transportation is another major issue for the PLA. their logistics is good enough within their borders cuz there is local support but the PLA will prolly struggle overseas. so that is something they'll have to work on.

just a side note on Taiwan there, its not in their culture to do what the iraqis did. if all hell breaks lose and PLA took over Taiwan.there will be some sporadic insurgency prolly funded by foreign countries and made up of people who failed in life (as is the case with iraq cept for there are a lot more of them). but remember the PLA was once a guerilla force itself...so i wouldnt bet on the insurgency to make as big a difference as it did in iraq
 
Last edited:

pla101prc

Senior Member
The Chinese military leadership has actually been analzing high tech US military opperations of the 1991 Gulf War to the present. That's why on this site there is almost a new prototype weapons platform announced every month. The book "China's Military Faces the Future" gives you insite on how the 1st Gulf War has influenced the PLA's reforms. Under Deng Xiaoping the military was sacrificed for economic development. When Jaing Zemin was part of the Central Military Commision he and his supporters pushed for modernization the decomission of out dated equipment from artiry peices to warships. On the personel side they pushed to demobilize 900,000 troops and improve the education training of their junior officers corp and NCO's.

no offence but what you said there sounded like something you took straight out of a Chinese new report haha.
yeah the PLA focus a lot on training NCO's now. NCO makes up half of the entire Chinese military at the moment, which in my opinion is not enough. its gotta be 2/3 or something. half of them will train the newbies, the other half do what they have to do.
 

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
Really dont see how some of the Uyghur could ever think Xinjiang AKA the so called East Turkestan is theirs to be taken, they should learn some history first, Chinese presence in Xinjiang outdate even Islam itself.

Uyghur is where Turks coming from,

Xinjiang is Han Chinese territory already during Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD). Archeological findings date Chinese settlements in the region already at 400-500 BC. during the Chou Dynasty.
The "Uyghur" word didn't appear in human history until 400AD in North Wei Dynasty (386-534AD). First written record of "Turks" in world history is coming much later in 600AD from Han Chinese "Tujue". Uyghur Empire is 745-840AD with the capital Ordu Baliq located 300 km west of Ulaanbaatar (close to Town of Hotont). Uyghur homeland is Mongolia today. Xinjiang actually has nothing to do with Uyghurs.

Uyghur Empire (745-840AD) territory even didn't reach to the present-day South Xinjiang or Turpan where it has the high concentration of Uyghur people today (over 64% population). That's why Xinjiang has nothing to do with Uyghurs in history. Therefore Mongolia is the place if we want to re-gain the glorious days of Uyghur Empire. More information type 'Uyghur Empire" in Wikipedia

Xinjiang was named in 1884 in Manchu Qing Dynasty (1616-1911) as "Old Land Newly Returned" because it was Qing Dynasty territory in 1757 to 1840. Russia invaded Xinjiang after Opium War in 1840. Qing Dynasty re-gained control over Xinjiang in 1884 and renamed it as "Xinjiang" ("Old Land Newly Returned"). Qing Dynasty established regional capital at Urumqi and local governments all over Xinjiang, parts of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan
I know it's late but it also should be mentioned that modern Uyghur are not descendent from the ancient Uyghurs of the Uyghur Empire. Yugurs are and modern Uyghurs actually from the kara-khanid khanate.
 
Top