Pentagon shake in their boots!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
Violet Oboe said:
Superficial comparisons with the old soviet system of ´political officers´are indeed misleading. Even back in the 50's PLA was no carbon copy of the Soviet Army but unfourtunately prejudices prove sometimes more robust than the simple truth.
Click to expand...

The first thing Mao had in his mind when he established commissioner system in PLA, was to prevent any abusing of soldiers by their commanders, which widely happened in KMT troops. That's his first and one of the most important goal for this system, and explained why PLA had much strong combat capability than KMT troops.

I think Chinese commissioner system works much better than west or US troop system. No idea in US army if you're abused by you commander or fellow soldiers, how or to whom will you appeal? If you appeal to the higher level, they usually don't trust you but your commander, and nobody can verify it. A commissioner with the same level of commander can effectively prevent or reduce that kind of abusing.
 
Last edited:
G

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
fishhead said:
I think Americans totally misunderstand Chinese commissioner's system, they think it's like Russian Red Army system
Click to expand...

Surely Americans realize Red Army was vastly more powerful than Tsarist army. You have to understand fishhead, American don't really "misunderstand" any of it. They fear it. So they trash it for effect. Same way in their military they accept deliberate exaggeration for morale effect. They're interested in the EFFECT, not the truth.
 
szbd

szbd

Junior Member
bd popeye said:
You better believe it. When you have military commanders in battle doing their job but hampered by no-nothing politicians or "political officers" you have confusion and probaly defeat.
Click to expand...

You guys just do not understand this system and do not understand China. The political officers and commanders have different job.

bd popeye said:
What manner of defeat are you refering to? Political or military? Thank you.
Click to expand...

round1, NK vs SK, 38 line->busan, NK won
round2, NK vs US, yalu river <-busan, US won
round3, CN vs US, yalu river -> 38 line, who won?
round4, CN+Nk vs US+SK, 38 line <-> 38 line, draw

Now, tell me the score on CN vs US in total

Violet Oboe said:
Superficial comparisons with the old soviet system of ´political officers´are indeed misleading. Even back in the 50's PLA was no carbon copy of the Soviet Army but unfourtunately prejudices prove sometimes more robust than the simple truth.
Click to expand...

Political officers in USSR army do not have strong influence on commanding either.

edit your post please - TUP
 
F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
goldenpanda said:
Surely Americans realize Red Army was vastly more powerful than Tsarist army. You have to understand fishhead, American don't really "misunderstand" any of it. They fear it. So they trash it for effect. Same way in their military they accept deliberate exaggeration for morale effect. They're interested in the EFFECT, not the truth.
Click to expand...

One thing I am pretty sure. The group raping and murdering civilian women will not happen in PLA as in American GIs. Two guys with the same level are watching and make it very hard not as in Iraq a mad guy with absolute authority could plan that.

Chinese UN troops are best disciplined troops, there is a reason there.
 
F

fishhead

Banned Idiot
I sum up the PLA commissioner system:

In all combat affairs, troop commander is the boss, he rules every one, including his commissioner.

In all non-combat situation, commissioner is the boss, he rules every one, including his commander.

I think it's one of the best Army system in the world.
 
G

goldenpanda

Banned Idiot
I agree with you fishhead. Thanks to the commissioner system PLA is one of the kindest militaries in Asia. In Taiwan and South Korea the grunts get so much abuse, sometimes they commit suicide. In PLA the political officer will take care of the solider and the unit as a whole.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well first of all how many of you have served in PLA, PLAAF or PLAN? Raise your hands, comon don't be afraid..;)

Seccondly, as I see no hands up, let me ask, how many have you served in other armies?

Now this may sound extremely arrogant and I pretty sure that you guys are secretly or even openly pissed off, but where do you base these claims that "Chinese political officer system isen't like we evil westerners think of it"? Reading from some propaganda pamflet of the roles and tasks of the Political officer and then posting them in here as a facts and in the manners that you actually know what you are saying...when you are not even old enough to serve?
To you it may sound like a bragg, but at least I and Poppy knows what we are talking about. Neither of us haven't serve in PLA but at least we know first handed experience how the military system works. And we are able to wiev the issue in its real retrospect. To me your arguments sounds like that you wish that PLA isen't suffering from the same defaults that the political officersystem did for the soviets (and we finns were the first ones to proove its inpracticality:D ) and after wishing and wishing, you start beliving it as it would somehow be a fact all the sudden.

So behind the usual nationalistical boasting in the manners of "China is just so superior combared to anyone that it cannot suffer from any defaults", Why not actually giving something solid to back up your claims...
 
szbd

szbd

Junior Member
Gollevainen said:
Well first of all how many of you have served in PLA, PLAAF or PLAN? Raise your hands, comon don't be afraid..;)

Seccondly, as I see no hands up, let me ask, how many have you served in other armies?

Now this may sound extremely arrogant and I pretty sure that you guys are secretly or even openly pissed off, but where do you base these claims that "Chinese political officer system isen't like we evil westerners think of it"? Reading from some propaganda pamflet of the roles and tasks of the Political officer and then posting them in here as a facts and in the manners that you actually know what you are saying...when you are not even old enough to serve?
To you it may sound like a bragg, but at least I and Poppy knows what we are talking about. Neither of us haven't serve in PLA but at least we know first handed experience how the military system works. And we are able to wiev the issue in its real retrospect. To me your arguments sounds like that you wish that PLA isen't suffering from the same defaults that the political officersystem did for the soviets (and we finns were the first ones to proove its inpracticality:D ) and after wishing and wishing, you start beliving it as it would somehow be a fact all the sudden.

So behind the usual nationalistical boasting in the manners of "China is just so superior combared to anyone that it cannot suffer from any defaults", Why not actually giving something solid to back up your claims...
Click to expand...


Yes you know how the military systems work, but you don't know how the Chinese military system work. What you know is from western materials you read. Those materials were translated from a small part of open Chinese materials mixed with some speculations. Even if we only "Reading from some propaganda pamflet " we still have more information than you, because your materials are a small portion of Chinese "propaganda pamflet" mixed up with western propaganda. In fact, we have a lot of Chinese war history records to read and to be honest those are generally more credible than western records. One example, none of the Chinese Korean war records I read got any of the names of US commander in chief wrong. But you can hardly find a US book that got the all names of Chinese Peoples Volenteer army commander in chief correct.
 
Gollevainen

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I'm not talknig about pamflets, but the actual system itself. The most informative materials that have described it has not been "pamflets" but a real studies of chinese military structure and organisations which weren't anyway biased towards any point, didn't take a stance against which system was better and so on. I've made my assumptions based of what I know about the military systems in general. Warfighting is the same everytime people is involved, no matter what are their races or cultural differences. Certain rules applies to all situations. What sounds good in paper and more alarming what sounds politically correct in paper is not neecerically good in practise and its often found to be the opposite around.

Using examples like Korea is bit irrelevant to this issue. If to be frank China managed to draw tie due its sheer numerical strenght, not becouse of its dual-military leadership's superiority. In fact if the PLA would have been more flexible (the numberone thing that all complicated and cross-hieracy systems effectively supresses) it would have been able to throw out the UN troops...But this isen't thread about Korean war so lets leave it out of this, ok?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top