Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

War: Can China take Russia with 200 million men?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
So then what did you mean exactly? That weapons would not be used because those two men would avoid that kind of confrontation all together?


POW, hit the nail right on the head.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

All i'am going to say is 2 words, which should close this thread down.

Napoleon and Hitler.


They were both on the verge of victory, and lost because they weren't prepared for the weather, and were outnumbered.


That's my point exactly.

The weather in Russia is too extreme for anyone to invade. If at any point you get bogged down in a Russian winter, even the oil in your tanks freeze.

Napoleon and Hitler WERE on the verge of victory but that's misleading because the weather will always play a factor, it's only a matter of when.

Also, China will not get 200 million to invade Russia, China is no different to any other country. 200 million conscripts can only ever be mobilised IF SOMEONE ATTACKS CHINA, to invade someone else and to do it by using conscripts will signal the end of the Chinese Regime. (Just like it would signal the Bush regime if Bush ever uses Conscripts to attack Iran)



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

The weather in Russia is too extreme for anyone to invade. If at any point you get bogged down in a Russian winter, even the oil in your tanks freeze.


That's bull. As someone already pointed out, the Mongols successfuly invaded Russia with complete ease.

As for it messing up equipment, it was only because of lack of spare parts due to Germany being bombed, and simply not being designed for the Cold. Tanks can operate fine in that weather, especially modern ones.

The Germans didn't have winter clothing with them when they invaded. Had they, there wouldn't have been such losses during the winter, and they would have continued where they left off. There wouldn't have been any Stalingrad.

Not to mention part of the reason Germany couldn't supply its forces was that it was under intensive bombing raids from other allies, and split on two different fronts.

It still really came down to the Battle of Moscow, in which the Germans could have won.

The same basically applies to Napoleon. He terribly underestimated the Russian winter, and wasn't prepared for the Russians burning everything in their retreats. Had he had modern means of transporting supplies, it wouldn't have been a problem.


Also, China will not get 200 million to invade Russia, China is no different to any other country. 200 million conscripts can only ever be mobilised IF SOMEONE ATTACKS CHINA, to invade someone else and to do it by using conscripts will signal the end of the Chinese Regime. (Just like it would signal the Bush regime if Bush ever uses Conscripts to attack Iran)


Honestly, that's a horrible comparison. Bush using a draft for Iran is nothing like China trying to raise 200 million men. China could easily have a draft, and build a large army without worrying about civil unrest.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
[edit on 10-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The weather in Russia is too extreme for anyone to invade. If at any point you get bogged down in a Russian winter, even the oil in your tanks freeze.


That's bull. As someone already pointed out, the Mongols successfuly invaded Russia with complete ease.


The Mongols successfully invaded Most of Europe, Russia, and Most of Asia including China. To date, there has not being another invasion spree like it in the history of human civilization.

At the time, Mongolian cavalry was simply too superior then anything on the planet. There is nothing now that China can have or develop in the near future which can gain that type of dominance on the field of battle.



As for it messing up equipment, it was only because of lack of spare parts due to Germany being bombed, and simply not being designed for the Cold. Tanks can operate fine in that weather, especially modern ones.


Historians have reported on the fact that the oil in tanks froze in Russia (-44 degrees celsius). I don't just make this up.

As for modern tanks, i simply have no idea.



The Germans didn't have winter clothing with them when they invaded. Had they, there wouldn't have been such losses during the winter, and they would have continued where they left off. There wouldn't have been any Stalingrad.


Your missing the point.

Invasion is not like defending, Morale of invaders and defenders are completely different. Mabye this is hard for you Americans to understand since you have never being invaded.

When you feel cold defending your country, you feel the warmth of the whole nation.

When you feel cold attacking another country, you question the decision to war.



Not to mention part of the reason Germany couldn't supply its forces was that it was under intensive bombing raids from other allies, and split on two different fronts.

It still really came down to the Battle of Moscow, in which the Germans could have won.

The same basically applies to Napoleon. He terribly underestimated the Russian winter, and wasn't prepared for the Russians burning everything in their retreats. Had he had modern means of transporting supplies, it wouldn't have been a problem.


Why do you think that Russia would not use the same tactics if China invaded?

Scorched Earth policy in Russia works far too well, in the frozen cold of -44 degrees celcius, no food, no housing, no rail, no nothing.



Honestly, that's a horrible comparison. Bush using a draft for Iran is nothing like China trying to raise 200 million men. China could easily have a draft, and build a large army without worrying about civil unrest.


This statement is simply unbelievable.

China raising 200 million men to invade Russia easy.

Bush putting draft to invade Iran hard.

"Thats right Americans!! China could be rolling up on California if we don't increase our military budget by 200%!!" ----- Bush



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   


Originally posted by rapier28
Invasion is not like defending, Morale of invaders and defenders are completely different. Mabye this is hard for you Americans to understand since you have never being invaded.

When you feel cold defending your country, you feel the warmth of the whole nation.

When you feel cold attacking another country, you question the decision to war.


I'd like to highlight this point again;


Mabye this is hard for you Americans to understand since you have never being invaded.


It really amazes me how many Americans are so ignorant to these things, your country was built and is maintained by the destruction, of other countries, then your "re-build" them to suit your needs. Have you EVER in your ENTIRE life, put yourselves into the shoes of the countries you invade. Obviously not because if you had you and the rest of the world wouldn't be so screwed up.

Did you know that there has never been more than 14-months between military campaigns in which the US has not been involved World War 2... Do you know why that is? Because yous make to much money when you do go to war!



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Russia wouldn't NEED to use a sorch earth policy if china invades!!
C'mon guys seriously!!
Even the Chinese on this forum are not trying to contribute to this thread!!

Russia will simply employ a "sorch invading chinese forces" policy..




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

The Mongols successfully invaded Most of Europe, Russia, and Most of Asia including China. To date, there has not being another invasion spree like it in the history of human civilization.


Germany in WW2 moved with the same speed they did, really faster. Same with Alexander the Great's army.


At the time, Mongolian cavalry was simply too superior then anything on the planet. There is nothing now that China can have or develop in the near future which can gain that type of dominance on the field of battle.


It was not that superior. They faced armies with as much cavalry as they did in China. Hell, go back some and look at the Mongol in-fighting before that. Genghis Khan fought a number of similiar fighting styles as his own in building his empire, and did it outnumbered. When they moved East they faced Persian style cavalry, which was as good as the Mongol cavalry, and had a very similiar fighting style.


Historians have reported on the fact that the oil in tanks froze in Russia (-44 degrees celsius). I don't just make this up.


Yes, but from which side, and under what conditions? German tanks weren't made for that environment. Modern Western tanks were designed to go fight in Russia.


Invasion is not like defending, Morale of invaders and defenders are completely different. Mabye this is hard for you Americans to understand since you have never being invaded.


It's simply not true. Defenders do not always have better morale. The Russians themselves did not have better morale then the Germans. The German soldiers never lost heart the entire time, even while being driven back and facing overwhelming odds and casualties.

Look at how the Russians crumbled in the early parts of the war. Many Russians excepted the invaders with open arms in the beginning.


Why do you think that Russia would not use the same tactics if China invaded?


Maybe I haven't been clear. I'm not talking about China invading, just an invasion in general. It is not impossible to inavde Russia. It's been done, it's come near to happening, and it can be done again.


China raising 200 million men to invade Russia easy.


I never said that. I said they could draft a large number of men and not threaten their rule. People don't revolt against governments simply because their drafted.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Germany in WW2 moved with the same speed they did, really faster. Same with Alexander the Great's army.


I wasn't talking about speed, i was talking about the extend of they conquests.

oh yeah, Alexander never took Russia. Hitler's not even worth mentioning in the prescence of Genghis Khan and Alexander.

Have a look;

Alexander's Empire
library.thinkquest.org...

Now, compare that to the Mongols;
www.lacma.org...

Which is bigger?

-----

Also take a look at Encarta;



With a semimobile circle of wagons acting as a base of operations, the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in 1190 spearheaded Mongolian advances from the Gobi Desert into the heart of Europe. Their conquests, accomplished with relatively small armies but with innovative military skill, relied on a basic formation of 10,000 mounted warriors, the touman. Sixty percent of this force was lightly protected; 40 percent was armored. Special weapons included hurled missiles, fire, and explosives. Communication was by signal flags and drumbeats. The Mongolian hordes lived off the country, and their tactical deployment relied on surprise attacks—thrusts at the enemy's flank and rear that preceded heavy cavalry assaults.

encarta.msn.com...

The Mongols only used Horsemen, and a small number at that, to conquer half the World.

I think that proves that they Cavarlry is "superior".


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's simply not true. Defenders do not always have better morale. The Russians themselves did not have better morale then the Germans. The German soldiers never lost heart the entire time, even while being driven back and facing overwhelming odds and casualties.


Russian soldiers were conscripted, not professional soldiers. German soldiers on the other hand, were Hitler's finest.

German soldiers believed in the "Third Reich", when they were driven back like you said, guess what, they went into Germany.

They became the "Defenders".


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Look at how the Russians crumbled in the early parts of the war. Many Russians excepted the invaders with open arms in the beginning.


That's completely taken out of historical context. Some of them hated Stalin or were oppressed and welcomed Germans. Once they found out how bad the Nazi's were, even people who hate Stalin fought.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I never said that. I said they could draft a large number of men and not threaten their rule. People don't revolt against governments simply because their drafted.


Have you forgotten Vietnam? The legacy of the draft is far-reaching and has long consequences.

People will eventually revolt if they are continually drafted and went to invade another country.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

I wasn't talking about speed, i was talking about the extend of they conquests.


If you talk about the time it took to cover a certain area, Alexander could equal them, and that matters the most. The Mongols never moved out all at once, either. Others could have done the same if they were given the time.


oh yeah, Alexander never took Russia. Hitler's not even worth mentioning in the prescence of Genghis Khan and Alexander.


Alexander took the greatest empire the world had seen. He traveled through India, an environment the Mongols were scared of entering, and the fierce environment of Afghanistan. Not to mention the deserts he had to go through...

And I wasn't comparing Hitler to them, but the German war machine, which was very impressive. They had tactics, training, and technology above everyone else. It ranks among one of the best in history.


The Mongols only used Horsemen, and a small number at that, to conquer half the World.

I think that proves that they Cavarlry is "superior".


It was their tactics. As I said, they faced forces with equal cavalry. The Mongols relied heavily on strategy. You can go take a look at the campaign through Russia and find that. They simply fought in a way people didn't expect. They were eventually defeated, and that was in part because they were facing enemies who they had fought before, and had some understanding of their tactics.


German soldiers believed in the "Third Reich", when they were driven back like you said, guess what, they went into Germany.


There were years before they were pushed back into Germany.


That's completely taken out of historical context. Some of them hated Stalin or were oppressed and welcomed Germans. Once they found out how bad the Nazi's were, even people who hate Stalin fought.


I never said anything contradicting that. They still welcomed the Germans.


Have you forgotten Vietnam? The legacy of the draft is far-reaching and has long consequences.


Most of our troops in Vietnam weren't even drafted. A lot more led to the problems in the 60's besides the draft, like the media which could show war for the first time.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ok, disturbed, this argument i see is not going to end.

So let's get back on topic, away from Mongols and the Greeks.

Do you agree that China cannot and will not invade Russia?



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Hell i love China, Its a beautiful country with a beautiful culture.
However, it's their butts if they tried to invade a power like Russia.

As far as the Mongols and Romans are concerned, army numbers and strategy were a little more vital back then. Nowadays weapons tech, stradegy, deployability, and a ton of other coordinating factors are more vital to victory in war. Irregardless of how many numbers China could throw at Russia, they are not capable of defeating a military made to compete with the only other military superpower in the world (the USA). Its not just numbers (which China has plenty of), .....its overall military capabilities that decide a war. The Russians, and Americans are the only standing big boys in that field. Sure other countries may specialize in particular things, but not overall. Once again the cold war drove these two nations to such competition that they are decades ahead in overall military capabilities.

Carburetor

[edit on 17-3-2005 by Mr Carburetor]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
it will be a stupidity for china to attack russia. russia is being underestimated by many countries but, it is them who gives china all the high tech weaponary and aircrafts, and due to russian aircrafts only, now china poses a real threat to every other country including USA.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:36 AM
link   
A the moment I wouldn't believe that the Chinese military en-masse is a technological match for Russia but the lifting of arms embargoes from Europe could change this in the space of 5-10 years. This is pure unfounded hypothesis though.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Your TOTALY wrong in A MAJOR WAY China at this moment is VERY far away in tech from US, thier airforce has no more than 40 4th generation planes the rest are MiG 21's and other 3 gen planes!!!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Your TOTALY wrong in A MAJOR WAY China at this moment is VERY far away in tech from US, thier airforce has no more than 40 4th generation planes the rest are MiG 21's and other 3 gen planes!!!!!!!!!


I am quite certain that your are correct, I did however provide the stipulaion that 'en masse' or over the entirety (if you prefer) of the Chinese military. This meaning that, while there may be items in the Chinese aresenal which are comparable or superior to Russian equivalents,$ these Items are not yet available in sufficient numbers to make a decisive difference in thecourse of such a war should it occur.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Are you guys silly ?
China will never dream of attacking Russia
what plus point do the chinese have?man power ?man power dosent play a vital role in today's world specially when you are fighting with a superpower like US or Russia .........a fleet of Russian bombers is enough for the chinese army ....Chinese fighters? they are still using the fighters that we used to use 20 years ago.....If there is anyone in this world who knows the drawbacks of Russian Machines the best then its the Russians themselves ...I hope you people got me......

Russia is atleast 20 years ahead of China when it comes to Airforce Army Navy ........and the chinese dont even have a SPace force where the Russians are one of the world leaders



A the moment I wouldn't believe that the Chinese military en-masse is a technological match for Russia but the lifting of arms embargoes from Europe could change this in the space of 5-10 years. This is pure unfounded hypothesis though."


by the Time of 5 - 10 years the Russian military Reform will be complete ......(well thats not my opinion...thats the opinion of Jane's as well as Ivanov " and Russian military will be an unchallenged one Europeans will stay at the Mercy of US and Russia at least when Defense is concerned

Lastly just think................................... how can u dream of fighting with a country that is 100% self sufficient in War (technology , manpower, raw materials , fuel etc) while you (read CHINA ) dont have a single INDEGENIOUS advanced war technology....when all u do is reverse engineering?

[edit on 24-3-2005 by prelude]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Prelude, this thread was most likely posted by an Non-Chinese-Russian person.

I don't think anyone in China would even be thinking about attacking Russia.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Why would we attack Russia? Russia is one of our best friends on this planet, first or second. We have can gain much more by being friends than enemies. Why is this thread even active? These X vs Y stuff are getting out of hand because even though this is purely hypothetical, it still needs to rely on some reaslistic information but this is impossible because it will never EVER happen and nothing in the observable future can cause this.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Yeah, we might as well start a thread about Alaska attacking Antartica.

Go the penguins!





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join