International Can china beat the US?

[Brigfa2]

China is overrated af but they are the best when it comes to propaganda

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

If you look at the war from a Western framework & understanding, it's easy to conclude that it's nearly stalemated and Russia has been struggling mightily for almost 3 years. Westerners generally focus on territory taken so if the front lines aren't really moving then no one is winning. Then add in all the media bias & propaganda where Ukrainians are killing Russians at something like a 10:1 to 20:1 ratio and it's not hard to see why we believe Russia's military is shit.

Reality is very different. People don't understand the scale of the war, Ukraine at the start of the war was more heavily armed than all of Europe put together, they had more tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, and anti-aircraft systems than the entire EU, and then the US and NATO poured in their entire stockpiles as the Ukraine's Soviet era equipment was destroyed (fun fact, Ukraine had more artillery at the start of the war than the entire US military). On top of that, Ukrainian soldiers are incredibly tenacious, NATO armies would've broken ages ago if they had to endure the outright hell that the Ukrainians are facing. There's a lot of testimonies from foreign mercs on the Ukrainian side that this war is the most hellish shit they've ever seen, far, far worse than anything in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of the other conflicts in my lifetime.

Fighting a war against an opponent as heavily armed, tough, and determined as the Ukraine is difficult to say the least, it's even harder if you want to keep the casualties somewhat reasonable. Plus, Russia wants to occupy a large chunk of land after they're done so they don't want to bomb everything into rubble either since they're the ones who will have to rebuild it. This is why they're taking their time instead of going for the big offensives that many people are expecting. The Russians know that artillery does about 70%-80% of the killings in a modern war, so what they've decided to do is dig in and use their 5:1 artillery advantage to shell the Ukrainians until they're sufficiently weakened before slowly advancing the front lines.

As for whether Russia is "holding back", that is a more complex question than it appears. If we use the layman's definition, yes, Russia is holding back a lot because it hasn't thrown its entire army at the Ukraine yet, not even close. However, there's other considerations such as how many men you can pack into each mile of the front line before they get all clumped up and become easy pickings for drones & artillery. Throwing more men & equipment at it may not necessarily change much, so it could also be argued that there's not much difference between using 20% of their army vs. throwing in the kitchen sink.

Finally, some food for thought.

https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters

Excerpt:
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities
in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace
casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained
rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action
to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries.
With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will
require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained
about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same
number of casualties in two weeks.

3600 casualties per day is more than double the current Ukrainian casualty rate. The entire US Army would be combat ineffective within a year.

Great post, a lot of food for thought.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

well they defiantly out number us when it comes to ground troops, but that's not how wars are fought now days.

 

[fica]

No, and it's not even close.
1) Malacca chokepoint - China doesn't produce enough food or energy to supply itself.
2) National economy HIGHLY reliant on trade. There would be blockades and massive sanctions on them from US allies.
3) The US military has been specifically gearing up to counter China for years now.
4) Even with stolen technology, they are roughly two decades behind the US in key military technologies.
5) Much of China's equipment is based on Russian technology... see Ukraine for the effectiveness of Russian tech.

Exactly see Ukraine for Russian tech it is stale mate and west were throwing the best they have

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Exactly see Ukraine for Russian tech it is stale mate and west were throwing the best they have

I'm no fan of the Ukraine war, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that you think the equipment that was sent to Ukraine is the best America has to offer?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I started wondering if China could beat us in a war presently and so I started doing some digging and research and I found articles... well thought out articles going both directions. some claiming that China is already a serious threat and could easily beat us in war and others saying that they have no chance whatsoever.


I don't really know much about military issues between China and the United States, but I would love to hear from those who do. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

One article said they can already beat us easily and I found myself wondering why would we let that happen? We spend so much more on our military. How could we possibly allow China to outstrip our Navy and Air Force for example.

Can China beat the United States in war and if so, why? And if you think they cannot beat us in a war, could you explain why that is?

No; just no. If they thought they could they would already be in Taiwan.

Their navy is subpar by any 1st world standard. Their airforce is catching us; by stealing our tech, but aren't tested and are a half step behind us for now.

They have a ton of soldiers to send in the fray, but that probably means more body bags.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Any war between the 3 major superpowers becomes a war of attrition, large nations such as the US, China, and Russia are very difficult to cripple let alone destroy with anything other than nukes. It's not like Desert Storm where we can run them over quickly before our weapons stockpiles run out, it'll be like the war in the Ukraine but on a much larger scale. And that's where the problems begin, the US doesn't have the industry to replace losses, it takes years to build a single ship and there's no way to ramp it up since we don't have the shipyards or even the industry needed to build new shipyards in a reasonable amount of time. Then there's stuff like TNT which you need for all those missiles & bombs you're dropping, the US doesn't even have a TNT factory and likely won't have one until 2030. Kinda hard to win a war when you can't even make explosives to blow shit up.

None of the 3 superpowers have enough weapons stockpiled for a decisive initial strike, however, China & Russia have a shitload of heavy industry & factories which can crank out obscene numbers of replacements in a prolonged war. The US does not and will not for the foreseeable future, in fact it continues to de-industrialize which just makes things even worse.

Then why does China buy old and inferior Russian ships? We can't hold China, but in a conventional war our military eats it's lunch. Which btw, China won't be eating after a few months because they import food and energy.

Also we make rocket propellent (mk90) about 15 minutes from my house.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It's not just mixing up your Flankers, it's all the other stuff as well such as not knowing the standard operating procedure for all stealth aircraft. They're not flown in full stealth configuration unless it's in combat or in secure airspace where they can't be scanned by potentially hostile radars. They'll have radar reflectors or external stores mounted when they're flying in civilian airspace or within radar range of non-friendly nations. That is why the Indians were able to track the J-20, not because its stealth sucks.

As for engines, once you have the materials tech the rest of the design is fairly easy. The reason Chinese engines have poor power & reliability is because they didn't have high temperature alloys for the blades in the turbine section, which is why they deformed or melted under high power loads and trashed the engine. They have those alloys now which instantly fixes the reliability problems, all they have to do now is up the compression ratio and mass flow to match the performance of US engines. This is trivial compared to figuring out how to make single crystal nickel-cobalt superalloys.

To summarize, you don't know anything about the SOP of stealth aircraft, can't get your Flankers straight, and you don't know anything about jet engine design and why the Chinese couldn't make good engines in the past. This is why I think you're a hack who's just reading shit off of Wikipedia, everything I've written in this and the previous post is common knowledge amongst those who actually have some degree of expertise in the aerospace field.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it was detected because of deflectors wouldn't the IAF know that it was reading the deflector as well?

 

[Deleted member 110072]

A bunch of untrained, lifted truck drivers trying to take out an invading unit rolling through would learn really quick.

A Siege of Leningrad-style scenario would be the only one where the huge number of civilian guns would make a difference. The Nazis wanted t to completely take over the USSR and annihilate its people because that was part of the lebensraum plan. But that's an extremely unlikely goal for any invading force here. China or Russia aren't going to de-populate the US so that they can come live here.

If were looking at situations which could potentially happen(although I feel still quite unlikely) sometime in the next few decades close to or in the US then perhaps something like a cold war like standoff on the Mexican boarder? Mexico becomes a close Chinese ally and you have a buildup at the boarder from both sides which the Chinese view as favourable to them forcing the US to spend a lot on defence and keep its troops closer to home rather than closer to China.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

No chance. They could defeat the US in a small conflict in Asia due to numbers but not in an all out war.
The reasons being that the US has a lot more advanced equipment, a much better navy, and a lot more experience.
It's obviously not going to happen, though.
What is more interesting is if the US could stop a Chinese invasion of another country without sending troops. Akin to how the US/NATO is holding back Russia in Ukraine.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

If were looking at situations which could potentially happen(although I feel still quite unlikely) sometime in the next few decades close to or in the US then perhaps something like a cold war like standoff on the Mexican boarder? Mexico becomes a close Chinese ally and you have a buildup at the boarder from both sides which the Chinese view as favourable to them forcing the US to spend a lot on defence and keep its troops closer to home rather than closer to China.

Yeah, a Mexico-China alliance would be the one thing even halfway feasible. Somehow, the US becomes so hostile to Mexico that it turns to China as its main partner and China then starts building bases in Mexico.

But that's also extremely unlikely. There's just no reason for either the US or Mexico to break off relations. Even with the combination of a very leftist Mexico administration and a very rightist American one the relations haven't really soured. That's what we had in Trump's first administration (with Lopez Obrador as prez) and they got along pretty well, except for a few jabs here and there. That's what we'll have in the next four years with Trump-Scheinbaum and so far it's the same thing, a few media jabs here and there but nothing else.