new 60 ton tank for the PLA

Inst said:

Regarding North Korea, the PLA is historically bad at logistics; if the Chinese had a better logistics train they would have defeated the UN forces in Korea, but they didn't, so... we're all enjoying our Korean Wave pop culture, aren't we? Regarding North Korea, the North Koreans have a very militarized state; given the choice, they'd rather starve their people than abandon their guns. Further, the terrain there is very hilly; it's what destroyed the Sui Dynasty, humiliated the Tang dynasty, forced the Ming Dynasty to send up southern Chinese armies instead of northern Chinese armies as the latter was optimized for steppe warfare, not fighting in hilly and muddy terrain, and turned the Korean War into a stalemate as neither the UN nor the PVA + NKPA could use armor to good effect.

Click to expand...

Your history is a bit screwed up here...

The PVA *did* defeat the UN, up until the 38th parallel. The PVA logistics problem came from UN air superiority which disrupted the PVA supply lines. I don't think that is an issue vs North Korea.

Sui Dynasty lost two armies against Koguryo, NOT Korea. While the Korean might like to claim Koguryo as theirs, the fact is that Koguryo encompasses a big portion of modern NW China, so the Sui wasn't fighting in Korea at all. In any case, the Tang did destroy Koguryo, and I really don't understand how you can claim the Koreans humiliated Tang... Who was paying tribute to whom?

To Inst:

Basically there are advantages and disadvantages of heavier tank (with bigger guns) in all aspect - technologically, technically, logistically, etc. As far as I can see it (which is quite limited I admit, my knowledge in tank warfare is not as extensive as many of the posters here.), the advantage of having such a tank cannot be oversee. It do make a difference in battlefield. However as to even suggest that the development of such a tank would cause an arm race is pure and simply impossible.

If an arm race is going on... development of this tank is not the cause of it. China had many ongoing project such as aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, conventional submarines, J-XX, J-14, DF-41 (if it is still ongoing), DF-31A (manufacturing of more), etc, all these have greater potential of causing alarms to her neighbour and causing a rapid arm race. So far we are not seeing much proof on that. If these weapons could actually get pass without much panicking, except for some tongue lashing and knitting of eyebrows, I couldn't imagine what one tank would raise so much concern.

Your assessment of NK is absolutely wrong and the way China would need to kill NK by traditional use of tanks and armoured units are also way out. Of course in the end, China would need ground force, but I can predict that that would not be the case right in the beginning. Like the US and NATO, China nowaday could use precision weapons, cruise missiles and stuff like that to put down the defences of NK, then they would send in their air force and navy to bomb the hell out of korea, and finally they would go in with their ground force. Plus... actually if you look at the position of NK, if she didn't receive any help from SK when China attack, China do not really need too much military to destroy that nation. NK is a VERY POOR nation, feeding her population is already a problem... much less arm her men with enough ammunition and weapons.

All China had to do is to lock NK from both land and sea... create a blockage and within months, you will see the nation collapsing. NK's survival nowaday is mainly from aides given by China, Russia and UN.

As to your discussing hypotheticals... well, there must be realistic truth in each hypothetical (sorry to say that). And as pointed out by what I have written in my posts, I give explanations into why some of what you have stated would not happen.

Finally a war between great powers like China and Russia, I can predict that tanks are not what will turn the tide of the war... they are good weapons, but never a trump card.

As to your scenario on US... well, by now, US could strike at any nation they want all across the globe, their transport system, logistic and stuff are too great to ignore.

Bottomline:

China is already surrounded by potential enemies, but what you have pointed out, simply cannot happen. China still need to develope the tank and many other weapon platforms, but unless it was something out of this world, secrecy is something that China would not go for right now... afterall China is also a big arm dealing nations. Who knows, China might even want to sell their 140mm calibre MBT to a third nation.

UN forces pretty much spent all its time retreating from the time the Chinese crossed the Yalu to the cease-fire agreement. The only time when UN forces actually gained ground was towards the end and by the time of the cease-fire, China was still well past the 38th parallel. I guess if people can spin that the US won the Vietnam War simply because the US killed more Vietnamese, they can spin this one too.

If and when China surpasses the US economically, does that mean the communists won the Cold War?

AssassinsMace said:

If and when China surpasses the US economically, does that mean the communists won the Cold War?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's a serious question, I think it's already proven that communism can't beat capitalism economically.

I would like to reiterate that China is ruled by the CPC, but they no long adhere to communism, the party has repeatedly declared they want to build a socialist society.

xywdx said:

I don't believe that's a serious question, I think it's already proven that communism can't beat capitalism economically.

I would like to reiterate that China is ruled by the CPC, but they no long adhere to communism, the party has repeatedly declared they want to build a socialist society.

Click to expand...

I believe Assassinmace was answering to Inst in his post, using Inst's logic to make a point that Inst's opinion was fundamentally wrong. Please read through the entire posts from Assassinmace upward to get a better picture.

However if we were to actually read at Assassinmace's last sentence, taking it at surface value, "If and when China surpasses the US economically, does that mean the communists won the Cold War?" I didn't actually see anything on communism that had beaten capitalism.

It was just something like China surpassing US economically, why do you immdiately jump into the conclusion what Assassinmace mean is communism surpassing capitalism? For as far as we can see, except that China do not have democratic voting for presidency, she basically functioned like many capitalist nations. Her model was not true communism model anymore, since Deng Xiaoping's era.

I don't believe that's a serious question, I think it's already proven that communism can't beat capitalism economically.

I would like to reiterate that China is ruled by the CPC, but they no long adhere to communism, the party has repeatedly declared they want to build a socialist society.

Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't understand but that's how I was pointing out its flawed logic.

So just because the US killed more Vietnamese than Vietnamese killed Americans, does that mean the US won the Vietnam War which is argued?

Obviously the new 60 ton tank for the PLA should come with a flame thrower as standard equipment to mitigate close quarter infantry threats. With the current thread hopelessly sidetracked in a political flame war, I suggest one of the above members volunteer to provide their services for the weapon system addition.

The weapon acceptance committee may have reservations however, due to the fact the new flame thrower will suddenly go off course from time to time and torch surrounding materials that have nothing to do with the intended target matter.

flamed thrower is not a bad idea since it was proving to be effective by the american during ww2 against the japanese

In terms of actual Combat, Flamethrowers of the time that shoot flame are more trouble in modern combat then they are worth they consume oxygen of the surrounding environment are a humanitarian nightmare piss fuel away and have a nasty habit of busting into flames on the first spark . I think though that the Israelis have a good Idea with the small mortar unit in there Tanks.

I had a theory on the backburner that the Soviets really won the Cold War by forcing the United States to become an imperial power and thus become vulnerable to imperial overreach.

Overall, the Korean War was a stalemate for both sides. Neither achieved their overarching objective. For the Chinese, at the end, they managed to keep a capable buffer state against a US client. For the United States, at the end, they managed to keep their authoritarian client on the Korean peninsula alive, prevent the spread of communism, and thus reduce the pressure on Japan.

From this point of view, neither the United States nor China won nor lost the Korean War.

As to whether China is a weak country or not, its d(x) of CNP is better than the United States, but its absolute current CNP is below the United States. By its own measurements, China's CNP compared to the United States is only 67%, but I'd assert when you consider diplomatic footprint, military power, and economic strength, the United States is far ahead in all three factors. The United States has a successful cultural export program in Hollywood, controls the dominant world ideology (liberalism), has the world's most powerful military, and still has an economy three times larger than China's when measured in output.

I'll continue later; I'm out to lunch.