| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| Pictures of Sino-Russian amphibious landing drill |
| 2005-08-30 |
| No text this time, just a lot of pictures at the link. No matter what you think of the Chicoms or the Russkies, there are some nifty action shots in there. |
| Posted by:gromky |
| #12 Actually, it is kind of standard. I remember being at a highway rest stop, and there's some cop wandering around with a reflective vest that said "POLICE" on the back. No Chinese. I asked my companion what good this would do for anyone except me, and she said that it's considered more modern and spiffy. Kind of like when Westerners get Chinese character tattoos without knowing what they mean. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-08-30 15:18 |
| #11 Here's a question for you ... notice the arm patch in this pic: link to pic Is it standard for a non-English speaking country's military to have their English-spelling name on their uni somewhere? |
| Posted by: ExtremeModerate 2005-08-30 14:08 |
| #10 The QBZ with a banana clip has GOT to be one of the weirdest gun setups I've seen to date. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-08-30 12:43 |
| #9 I would make a lame joke about a Chinese fire drill, but those toys look pretty serious. Good mil pr0n, at any rate. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-08-30 12:14 |
| #8 The helicopter with the enclosed tail rotor firing rockets is the French Aerospatiale(Eurocopter) Dauphine. The US Coast Guard designation is HH-65 Dolphin. The other helicopters are Russian Mi-8/Mi-17. The assault rifles are Chinese 5.8x42mm bullpup QBZ-95. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-08-30 11:54 |
| #7 What bugs me is durign the cold war I could look at Soviet/Chinese stuff and instantly identify it as theres. Looking at these pictures its a lot harder, a lot of the stuff looks similar to what the Europeans use. Especially the helicopters and a few of those assault rifles in there. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-30 11:17 |
| #6 MK: If they manage to start a landing I really wonder if they have the capability of sustaining the logistics necessary to resupply the level of force they'd need to have a hope of success. All the armor and grunts in the world don't count for too much a few days after resupply is choked off to a trickle. It boils down to gasoline, ammo, food and spare parts. They might be able get gasoline and food once they reach the cities. But first, they have to get off the beaches. And that's a very high hurdle, in an era of artillery-fired cluster munitions. If Taiwan's artillery isn't completely suppressed, the beach landings will be a massacre. |
| Posted by: Clealing Omans6688 2005-08-30 10:39 |
| #5 They soviets and PLA always did like their action shots. Those things are very important to them. Thing is there is nowhere on the coast of Taiwan where the Chinese could expect not to face fairly well armed resistance. Technology being what it is things would be a whole lot uglier riding in than prior historical landings. Most of those amphib vehicles would not fair well swimming along at a snail's pace with even a couple TOW's on location. They sink alot faster than they sail. If they manage to start a landing I really wonder if they have the capability of sustaining the logistics necessary to resupply the level of force they'd need to have a hope of success. All the armor and grunts in the world don't count for too much a few days after resupply is choked off to a trickle. Providing constant 24/7 air cover and support from afar would not be as easy as we make it seem in our operations. Sure they may well be able to get there but the question is whether they would be able to stay for all too long. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-08-30 09:22 |
| #4 If those are the choices, I suspect the Chicoms are indifferent. What they want is not Taiwan, but an end to Taiwanese independence. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-30 08:49 |
| #3 The funny, or sad depending on point of view, is that China would never be able to make an amphibious landing on Taiwan. Of course they wouldn't need to. The Taiwanese would sink so many of the amphib-assault ships (and kill everyone aboard) that the ChiComs would just be able to walk across. God, I really hope the Chinese realize the amount of bloodshed (mainly on their side) that would be required to "take" Taiwan by force. Personally, I don't believe they could take Taiwan...destroy it yes, take it no. |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2005-08-30 08:26 |
| #2 I think the arty should be noted for what it didn't elaborate on, which is the likely pre-attack use of AIrborne andor Naval/Submarine Commandos, and of course Fifth Columnists. "Attacking where Enemy forces [read, USA/Allied] are NOT" is still a Commie maxim, besides also establishing Lines of Supply or Attack where the routes are covered or easily supp by massive missle, artillery, or bomber strikes, whether on offense on defense. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-08-30 03:38 |
| #1 Article: Hundreds of paratroopers were carried by three transporters into the heart of hostile defenses. I think nobody does this kind of thing any more. Unless they have a shortage of helicopter transport. It was tried at Crete and Arnhem, with disastrous results, and that was before the era of modern air defenses. (D-Day drops were made at an altitude of 500 to 1000 feet - well within the range of SA-7's and other post-WWII man-portable air defense systems). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-30 00:37 |