To: ComtedeMaistre
From a conventional warfare point of view, whatever that means in today's terms, it all boils down to "force projection". Getting the force to the fight, at the right place, and right time. I don't envision a million plus Chinese infantry swimming across the Pacific ocean anytime soon.
60 posted on
05/20/2005 8:39:14 AM PDT by
bra
To: bra
From a conventional warfare point of view, whatever that means in today's terms, it all boils down to "force projection". Getting the force to the fight, at the right place, and right time. I don't envision a million plus Chinese infantry swimming across the Pacific ocean anytime soon.That and millions of troops conscripted peasents requires A LOT of ammo, food, supplies, fuel. Supply vehicles, fleet oilers, all of them nice target practice for some Harpoons and/or torpedoes.
190 posted on
05/20/2005 12:26:53 PM PDT by
Paul_Denton
(Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and U.S. out of the U.N.!)
To: bra
From a conventional warfare point of view, whatever that means in today's terms, it all boils down to "force projection". Getting the force to the fight, at the right place, and right time. I don't envision a million plus Chinese infantry swimming across the Pacific ocean anytime soon.That and millions of troops conscripted peasents requires A LOT of ammo, food, supplies, fuel. Supply vehicles, fleet oilers, all of them nice target practice for some Harpoons and/or torpedoes. They would need even MORE troops to protect their supply chain. In the end, China's land army is going nowhere.
191 posted on
05/20/2005 12:28:33 PM PDT by
Paul_Denton
(Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and U.S. out of the U.N.!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson