zraver

39th is one of their two big catagory A formations isn't it.

Officer of Engineers

It's one of two heavy combat formations (1 arm'd div, 3 mech inf div). I would not call it CAT A anymore. That term is obsolete. CAT usually refers to divisional instead of corps strength. CAT A being full wartime strength, CAT B being 50% strength, and CAT C 25% strength.

The term that is now used is Rapid Reaction Force and Regular units. Those units, which includes brigades, tasked as RRF is kept at full strength. However, the ability to task a regt within a div or a brigade as RRF means that those previous CAT C formations would be the 1st to go.

That being said, yeah, the 39GA was brought up to full strength for the purpose of deployment.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

thanks

Officer of Engineers

Now, that I think about it, strange that the PLA only have two heavy armies and not even tank armies at that. They're still an artillery heavy force.

zraver

They only realy need tanks in the west. Thier mostl ikely points of conflcit Korea, India, and Taiwan will all be primarily infantry/artillery fights with tanks in a supporting role.

Officer of Engineers

Really? Then, the question is point to you (and I'm not trying to be a smart ass but trying to figure out your reasonning), why are you so adament about the ARJUN when the Chinese is not for the same theatre?

zraver

because Pak is now inducting the AK II, it looks likea pre-production ZTZ-99. It has a level of protection that completely outclasses the T-90S. The Arjun also gives the InA a anti-armor leathaility vs T-series tansk Pakistan cannot match (unless they licence build Abrams).

Also the Type 96 is considered slow by almsot all modern standards (35mph road). Implying a support role rahter than a manuver concept. As this has been tagged as the mainforce tank for the PLA (ZTZ 99 is "terrain" restricted") I am guessing at a more set peace philospy which fits with Korea, Indian border, and the borders with the stans

Archer

Sorry Zraver, thats completely wrong. The AK-I/II are both inferior to the T90S, rather M, that India has, both in terms of firepower and armour. The ZTZ-99 may be equivalent, but who knows its protection levels.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

MarquezRazor

The history doesnt say so Zrave.

Some of the largest tank battles after WWII were fought in 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars.

xinhui

not sure it is a good idea to continue this thread, but back to topic.

I recently noted ShangYang MR started to receive new equipments and additional trainings. During much of the late 1990s there only one large scale (corp/div) conducted by SY MR where as corp. size ex are yearly rituals for costal MRs (GZ, NJ, Beijing, JN) for certain reasons. My guess this is largely due to DPRK.

However, no formations of SY MR is being coverted into wheeled based light mech infantry unit, all new equippments are heavy tracked based.

xinhui

No surprise here, but it is good that some in the west actually read what PLA's own thank tanks ares saying, instead of writing one's wishful thinking or write what "PLA should do" instead of watch they are actually doing.










WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 (Yonhap) -- China has contingency plans to dispatch troops to North Korea should its neighbor become politically unstable, says a report by American think tanks based on interviews with Chinese specialists in Pyongyang.

Some experts in China want an open discussion with the United States about North Korea, the same report said.

The contingency plans outline three missions in North Korea should the regime become unstable: humanitarian efforts to help refugees, peacekeeping activities such as serving as police, and the securing of nuclear weapons and fissile material as well as cleaning up any nuclear contamination.

"If deemed necessary, PLA troops would be dispatched into North Korea," said the report, referring to China's military, the People's Liberation Army.

"China's strong preference is to receive formal authorization and coordinate closely with the U.N. in such an endeavor. However, if the international community did not react in a timely manner as the internal order in North Korea deteriorated rapidly, China would seek to take the initiative in restoring stability," it said.

The report, titled "Keeping an Eye on an Unruly Neighbor," was commissioned by the U.S. Institute of Peace and written jointly by authors from the institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It is based on discussions with Chinese specialists on North Korea in June last year and was posted last week on the Web sites of authors' organizations.

The report cites new willingness among Chinese and PLA researchers to discuss with the U.S. any warning signs of North Korea's instability and possible responses.

"Some Chinese experts say explicitly that they favor holding a discussion of stability in North Korea in official channels with the United States, including possible joint responses in support of common objectives, such as securing nuclear weapons and fissile material," the authors noted.

But there are also analysts who maintain that such discussions are premature, they said.

Four North Korea issues are currently being intensely debated in Chinese academic circles, according to the report -- prospects of North Korea's nuclear disarmament, North Korea's strategic value to China, the status of the North Korea-China friendship treaty, and the impact of rapid improvement in Pyongyang-Washington relations.

The Chinese leadership appears to be encouraging debate on these issues, perhaps seeing value in a public call for greater pressure on Pyongyang or in urging the U.S. to be more flexible toward North Korea, the report said.

The majority in China favor retaining the 1961 friendship treaty with the North, and also the ambiguity about whether the treaty requires China to automatically intervene in case of a conflict involving North Korea, thus leaving both Pyongyang and Washington uncertain about the extent of China's support in a conflict.

Chinese scholars agreed that this ambiguity "strengthens deterrence," said the report.

Some Chinese experts are concerned the U.S. and North Korea may strike a compromise deal in which Pyongyang is allowed to keep its nuclear weapons, it said, isolating Beijing in its insistence that North Korea give up its atomic arsenal and severely impairing China-North Korea ties.

"Chinese analysts vividly recall that Washington pressed Beijing to impose great pressure on India after its nuclear test in 1998, but then reversed its position and condoned India's nuclear program, leaving China hanging out to dry," the report said.

"China subsequently devoted two years to mending its ties with India."

Officer of Engineers

Andy,

Here's the report.

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...northkorea.pdf

Officer of Engineers

Backdoor diplomacy?

zraver

Common sense, if North Korea falls apart and the PLA feels it has to act now then the US and SK become very important. Both in providing relief supplies, absorbing refugees, intelligence and possible military assistance (air/naval) as the PLA drives south. Finally the US can block any move by Russia to sanction China in the UN.

relief supplies- the US probably has the worlds largest supply of MRE style meals and they are durable enough to be air dropped. Plus the USN: carriers can generate massive amounts of fresh water once a harbor is cleared. Hospital ships and amphib capacity for PLA troop/peacekeepers.

Absorbing refugees- if a pathway through the DMZ can be cleared.

Intelligence- the US has the best elint in the world and have been studying the NKA for decades, and the SK's must have something humint wise to back up the PRC' own assets.

military assistance- timely air strikes to block the transfer of troops North or disable chemical and bio-wep sites, take out dead enders, night time surveillance and AWACs support etc.

On a side note, US military assistance provides the PLA/PLAN/PLAAF invaluable first hand opportunities to study the US military in action from the inside.

xinhui

Not this time as messages from PRC to DPRK tends to direct (in one-on-one dialogs), ie, cut off oil, state a large military ex. I read the primary source, and I considered that another example of "thank tank" within the government having a much greater saying (or allowed). As a side note, many of thank tank members studied in the West.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, right after the fall of the old fUSSR, there had been many articles published within PRC on the importance of Central Asia States especially in academic circles. And, some even hailed it as the second most important area of focus of PRC's foreign policy (we know what the first one is), and with much resource and not much fan fare in the west, PRC has a "secured" position according to an article in Tsingdao daily of last month. PRC leadership realized their economic growth must be supported by energy from that part of the world if MiddleEast oil might not be available (they also look at Africa too). Two oil pipeline already in service under the framework of SCO. Japan is always a side show compare to CAS and Bill Murry and others from US Naval College saw that and done some great works on why naval blockade on Indian ocean will not work in time of war. Sorry for the off topic, but I just want to point out that PRC academic publication is not something to be missed for any PRC watchers, if they wanted to be taken seriously.