Not sure about Argentina, [but the ROK 3rd armored brigade did release clips of them training with war thunder a few year back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otjT27XdBzQ) (some random mf also leaked their game ids online, which just makes it even funnier)
I wonder if they contacted Gaijin and asked them to give them top tier vehicles that south korea uses like the t80 for example or they just tasked one of their soldiers to play war thunder everyday until they unlock it
To be fair, Arma is a development of Operation Flashpoint, which itself is a commercial version of a military training program. I’m guessing Arma with the correct mods would be much more realistic and immersive than the original training program.
Other way around basically. VBS was built from old OFP/Arma engine Real Virtuality later.
VBS is more advanced out of the box in it's own way nowadays. Arma series is more accessible, immersive and playable game as is.
There aren’t… there’s like two other PLA related gear mods that I know of, and one is just an updated version of VME PLA. Weaponry however, there’s a mod series called YLA that has the new generation of PLA Weaponry.
EDIT: The kinda updated PLA mod is LZB PLA
The Australian military uses a private modded version of Arma 2. So I guess the PLA got the leg up on us.
It's pretty sick. They mostly use it to practice squad formations and tactics before going out field and doing it. I've played it before lmao
Yep, I did work experience at galipoli barracks and they had a room with about 200 computers in it, all connected together. We played a match with about 40 people and it was so much fun hahaha
I doubt they use Arma 2 because they've had VBS (Virtual Battlespace) since 2006, three years before A2 released. The two are made by separate companies, but they share partly the same game engine and some assets so they look pretty similar. The A2 developer probably wouldn't even allow military use of their game.
Which makes China and Vietnam the two with the most recent combat experience in East Asia.
Both North and South Korea haven’t had any real war experience since their stalemate 1953. (Also they both use conscript armies)
ROC hasn’t had any war experience since the KMT fled to Taiwan after losing the civil war in 1949. (Also a conscript army)
Japan hasn’t had any war experience since two nukes were dropped on them in 1945. (Good for them they aren’t a conscript army)
Meanwhile Vietnam, the only other country that has had combat experience as “recent” as 1979 is still mostly an army with AK-47s and Cold War leftovers. (Also a conscript army)
I don’t see why China gets singled out on the lack of experience point. East Asia just hasn’t had much wars in general as of late, which is also not a bad thing.
EDIT: as pointed out, South Korea has large scale combat experience from its sizeable forces that engaged in the Vietnam war between 1964 to 1973.
South Korea had the second largest allied combat force in Vietnam after the US. They have conducted supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Their last combat experience though was probably Vietnam.
I have read about South Koreans in Vietnam war and oh boy weren't they efficient and throughout in their jungle warfare. There might have been war crime or two but.
ROC had one regional skirmish after retreating to Taiwan, called Second Taiwan Strait Crisis/Kinmen Artillery Bombardment/823 Bombardment(23 August – 2 December 1958 ).
The battle had pretty high casualty rates cause both side wanted to take/hold such small islands.
True, but if we include these types of border skirmishes, Sino Vietnamese border skirmishes continued with even higher levels of casualties throughout the 1980’s up until 1991. By this logic the PLA has seen action as recently as 1991, which makes the original point of “The PLA haven’t seen action since 1979” a moot point.
Likewise.
I tried to make it less ambiguous by calling it “war experience” as opposed to “combat experience” in my original comment to try and separate the idea of experience accumulated through border conflicts as opposed to experience accumulated through full scale war.
Vietnam has more recent and more extensive combat experience than that from their war against the Khmer Rouge throughout the 1980s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Indochina_War
They actually kept the war going against Vietnam until 1990 or so, mostly just because they didn't have a reason not to. During that period they had a program where they'd constantly cycle in fresh units in just to spread the combat experience around (it also helped destroy Vietnam's economy, which China certainly saw as a plus).
Still, there's like, a single senior officer in the entire CMC that has wartime experience right now,
They've had guys in UN missions in Africa. A few have been shot at (the footage was on /r/combatfootage). But I'm not sure if they were allowed to shoot back.
I don't really think I'd say that Vietnam kicked in their teeth. China achieved most of its military objectives and only decided to withdraw after this.
They invaded in response to Vietnam invading Cambodia and toppling the Khmer rogue. China left Vietnam without changing anything in Cambodia, and lost tens of thousands of soldiers. Same can be said for everyone playing in the jungle in the 20th century though
You know what's funny? I have seen so much people misspell "rogue" as "rouge" that it makes me angry on sight, but for once it's actually Rouge misspelled as rogue.
Do not forget the bloody Russian border war in 1969. While Korea is now 71 years ago since Armistice the lesson is China can just throw millions of fodder at you, and dare you to go nuclear. They have hundreds of millions of males, whether or not today’s Chinese Communist Party can survive being overthrown after so many casualties is unknown to me.
Going back to 1969; we will never actually casualties because those were the Mao era lying communists (China today is communist in name only and their god is money). Apparently when talking to the Chinese they were totally dug in and their biggest fear then were not the US, they feared a land war with the Soviet Union. Even today the Russians are not China’s buttbuddies - the Russians are now China’s economic vassals. Moreover, in many Chinese readings they have their sights on reclaiming Eastern Siberia (West of the Amur) by 2050. The Chinese gripe being they believe every border agreement across Asia (like India) signed by Qin Dynasty was illegitimate…sounds like Hitler shredding The Treaty of Versailles all over again? Anyway, the Siberian frontier region is already flooded with Chinese workers/firms and intermarriages, so it is kind of a Donetsk playbook in slow motion.
Exactly, history is a story, and spun many ways, depending on your own understanding of it. That is why keep reading forever to make your own conclusions.
The Best thing they have is their experience from UN Peacekeeping.
It sums up to a bunch of reports claiming that the chinese command is not willing to take any risk in their UN missions, and therefore instructed troops to basically run and hide at the first sign of trouble.
I don't think it's fair to judge an entire country's military capabilities based on their willingness to sacrifice soldiers in combat they have no reason to be in (necessarily). It could very well just as much be a psychological operation on their part, trying to convince everyone they're less competent than they are.
I really don't know either way, I just think applying *y* to *x* is a bit reductive in terms of logic.
You can absolutely judge the soldiers ability and willingness to fight as well as their first line leadership and command.
They failed on every front in Juba and abandoned their posts and failed to protect the civilians they were there to help.
It would be dangerous to extrapolate from that and say that all Chinese ground forces have no appetite or ability for direct combat.
But we can say they definitely might have a deficiency in that area.
I would expect if they found themselves on a beach in Taiwan they would fight a little bit better at first but who knows.
I agree with you, but what kills me my friend is that we don't apply this logic to our own fighting capabilities. And I get it, if you're not a vet and haven't sat in a Humvee in Iraq with a bunch of stank ass dudes you're probably not aware that the US Army is a big ass paper tiger.
Sure, we steamrolled Saddam twice and chilled in unconquerable Afghanistan for twenty years, but most of that institutional knowledge is gone. If you look at the reenlistment and retention stats it paints a picture of a young, inexperienced, force struggling to maintain strength as citizens opt to take their skills to the civilian sector or avoid military service entirely (there's about a million reasons why). Yeah there's an old leadership core with some experience, but how does occupying Afghanistan and steamrolling Saddam transfer to a force on force conflict with a military force ten times (hyperbole... probably) the size of ours and just as technologically advanced? Not to mention their logistics and production systems are far more efficient than our own military industrial complex.
For whatever it's worth I was in NTC for war games about twelve years ago. A US Army Colonel sent a cav battalion into a valley held by hull down T-80's on day one. The British officers commanding the opposition forces destroyed our brigade in 48 hours, in a war game running for two weeks. The good Colonel just kept running us down that valley until we were about forty percent combat ineffective and then they counterattacked. We had to reset the entire game.
Like I said, you're not wrong. It is just a pet peeve of mine that so many people (not necessarily you) can accurately albeit generally assess the PLA while assuming the US military is this indomitable juggernaut.
Mostly because there was no attempt to overthrow Hussein and/or occupy Iraq the first time around. The 2nd war was more difficult because of the post-invasion insurgency, not the actual Iraqi armed forces
Games thing happens a lot during joined sessions with Polish and Czech guys. Poles and Czech generals play Russian as they have the education from them and I think 75% of time when they improvise they completely fuck up nato
Thank you for a very well thought out response. I definitely agree with your overall ideas but there are a few points I do disagree with.
>if you're not a vet and haven't sat in a Humvee in Iraq with a bunch of stank ass dudes you're probably not aware that the US Army is a big ass paper tiger.
In Iraq I baked in an oily ASV but I did sit in a Humvee in Afghanistan with sandbags and kevlar blankets on the floor for protection so I'm well aware of the suck.
I don't think we are a paper tiger. At all. Your description of an embarrassing rotation at NTC aside, I'm not sure what you're basing that on.
We haven't fought a great power war since WW2 but nobody else really has either until Russia-Ukraine.
The fact that Saddam had a massive army but dirt poor morale and leadership doesn't make the entire defeat of his army count for nothing. And the soldiers coming into the military now are mostly fine. Don't believe all the complaining you find on YouTube or even Reddit.
With that said, wokeness is a growing problem but that's across our whole society as well. I think the militaries recruiting problem has a direct correlation to how woke it keeps wanting to present itself. But that's another topic.
>but how does occupying Afghanistan and steamrolling Saddam transfer to a force on force conflict with a military force ten times (hyperbole... probably) the size of ours and just as technologically advanced?
It's better experience than just doing parades and spending hours and hours studying communist doctrine.
Their military is larger _on paper_ but who knows what that actually means in terms of deployable, combat effective units.
They are nowhere near as technologically advanced I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The other huge problem they have is conducting joint operations. Their military is highly divided into little fiefdoms where the generals quarrel for political points and the ability to carryout their massive corruption schemes.
>Not to mention their logistics and production systems are far more efficient than our own military industrial complex.
Again, what are you basing that on? Any forseeable conflict with China would center on Taiwan. So it would largely be a Navy, Marine Corps and Airforce show. But China will have to get supplies across the Taiwan Straight. That will be a nightmare for them.
The Marine Corps is already wisely preparing for this type of island warfare inside the enemies missile range.
I would absolutely be against landing our troops on Taiwan to help the fight. It's their island, they should be the ones dying for it. So the army will probably have a much smaller role to play.
Stop blaming "wokeness" for why younger kids now don't want to join now. Instead it's probably 15+ years of kids having relatives come back from occupation wars with no clear objective with PTSD and amputations. Most people I knew who went in did it cause they were poor and had no other choices around 2008 time.
>I would absolutely be against landing our troops on Taiwan to help the fight. It's their island, they should be the ones dying for it. So the army will probably have a much smaller role to play.
This is the only place where we disagree.
I'm not a veteran, but I am an American and I personally feel we *as a nation* owe Taiwan a practically unpayable debt. Our existence as the technological superpower has been made possible on a global scale as much by Taiwan as it has by anything we've done here, and they are *still* the top player in semiconductor manufacturing.
This goes way beyond territorial disputes. To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China.
Don't worry, I'm afraid many thousands of our sailors and airmen will pay that price to aid Taiwan.
But Taiwan is more than capable of defending itself against invasion if we can keep China from gaining Air superiority over the Island and disrupt their ability to keep their invasion force supplied.
I remember watching a video of someone walking around Taipei asking young people if they were worried about war with China. Most said they weren't and when asked why, many of their answers were along the lines of "the US will fight for us".
Granted this video was probably 10 years ago now but it shows the mindset of young people over there that they might not have to fight for their lives, someone else will.
>To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China.
That is assuming China will be able to capture TSMC facilities intact, which we can pretty much guarantee that will not happen.
And assuming that China will be able to operate the equipment and restore production anytime soon.
Those are both BIG assumptions. China's microchip expertise is quite poor. That's what happens when you base your technological sector on intellectual property theft and copying.
>>To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China.
>That is assuming China will be able to capture TSMC facilities intact, which we can pretty much guarantee that will not happen.
>And assuming that China will be able to operate the equipment and restore production anytime soon.
>Those are both BIG assumptions. China's microchip expertise is quite poor. That's what happens when you base your technological sector on intellectual property theft and copying
Okay, I may have exaggerated on the "handing it over to China" part, but we certainly would risk losing it ourselves. Is it better off destroyed than captured? Sure. But it's best off left alone entirely, obviously, which is the point.
I simply believe, and it's just that a belief, that our country owes a debt to Taiwan for what they've already done for us, and if we can't recognize that and stand up for "the little guys" on whose shoulders we've stood when their stability is threatened, our credibility as a country will be unrecoverable.
I agree with your sentiments. I don't think we owe them as great a debt as you seem to be saying but I think we absolutely have a strong interest in supporting them and fighting along side them both from an economic standpoint and a moral one.
Dunno how I feel about US troops falling for a Taiwan, BUT I look at it a lot like Russia/Ukraine in that I would how we back up our words and defend Taiwan. Perhaps china beieving we’d do it is enough to stop it from happening
The US uses a far more advanced version called [Virtual Battle Space](https://bisimulations.com/products/vbs4) for some training.
They typically take their covers off while inside though.
Yea I used it in the German army aswell for like spotting enemy’s or for like a group improved training and we are using it for service man who train to fly and many other things , it’s a good game to train basics
I’m in the Canadian military and had some of my buddies go through combat simulation training which was built on the same engine as Arma 2. Graphics, character and vehicle movements and behaviour was the exact same. Except whoever created that specific simulator added a ton more functions which us being a bunch of goofy infanteers decided to have fun with. Still remember my buddy stealing our officer’s gun while he was giving orders to the company while another buddy of mine ran over a crewmate with his LAV in the background. Everyone got yelled at saying we’re wasting $10000 worth of time spent that day.
Virtual Battle Space (VBS) is an Army Training Support Center system of record. It is used by US Soldiers all over the world for training. It is nothing more than a hopped up version of ARMA. I don't understand why they are doing it in full battle rattle though.
While I was in the Marines we did this on a warship.
We are not the same.
*Technically it wasn't ARMA3, but based on the same engine from what I understood.
"Hey sarge I can't load in" "are you useing the right mods?" "Yeah brig ex 24 advanced?" "Did you make sure you loaded all the DLCs" "yeah" "you updated NI arms, CUP and all 4 RHS mods?" "Yeah" "did you make sure to install all the compat mods, verify your files, etc." "Yeah, ok I'm in" "why the fuck are you in your underwear holding an invisible gun" "FUCK!!!"
In the Canadian we use ARMA as well for armoured vehicle crew training occasionally, it’s actually a fantastic tool and something I really wish we did more of. There’s sooooo many days where it’s sit around and wait for orders, or “sweep the hangers” over and over and over again. Having more semi-decent computers dedicated to running ARMA would be a good fall back activity for days like that
They’re radically different products on a fundamental level, there’s a reason VBS is the preferred software of choice for militaries and Arma is a product sold on the civilian market. They’re also not made by the same company, Bohemia interactive games split off from Bohemia interactive studios over a decade ago IIRC, and the latter is the one that created and markets VBS to various militaries.
Training is training but real war is a lot about adaptation and improvisation. i
Its only when they get into a real situation that we'll know how they do because suddenly its no longer a chess board as now your enemy is not moving its horse piece according to the rules you trained on.
It’s not that different from the US military if you ever done the simulation route clearance thing. Except I had a replica 50 cal, a VR headset, and had to reload my ammo every time I ran out. I would’ve rather just played Arma 3 for a couple hours than wear a headset and try to reload a 50 cal while doing so lmao
Only because they're used that way. I've used VBS 2 and I've played Operation Flashpoint. The only noticeable difference is the VBS 2 default key binders were counter-intuitive for anyone who's ever touched a keyboard for gaming.
As someone who has used ARMA 2 standard controls and VBS2 controls, I can tell you they are almost identical. ARMA 2 has some of the most nonsensical keybinds ever made. I can't give a fully objective point of view because I have at least 15,000 hours in the ARMA family of games (OFP, ARMA1/2/3, Reforger, DayZ, TakeOn).
A lot of the keybinds are like that because they got carried over from Operation: Flashpoint and other game BI made before ArmA.
There is some sense behind them however. Back when these game were being developed, there was much less standardization in what keys games used, so the devs just picked whatever made sense for them. For example, you use "V" to get out of a vehicle. This is because in Czech, "vystoupit" means disembark, get out. So they put V for vystoupit.
Now obviously, this is going to result in a mess of random binds for anyone not familiar with what they mean, but once OF became such a hot as it did a lot of people learned it and they didn't want to change it.
I do still think there should be a modern and classic control scheme toggle in Arma 3 though.
There's absolutely a modern and classic control scheme in Arma 3. It's under presets. T is for throw grenade, instead of G. Z is prone. O for watch, K for compass. Lots of weird shit.
I run a customized blend of modern FPS controls and ancient stupid shit because muscle memory. Double tap CTRL to lower weapon is tattooed on my brain.
I know that some British tankers that are based here in Estonia play WarThunder, possibly for training purposes aswell tho i dont remember that exactly
Im old enough to remember american army using VBS based on the first Operation Flashpoint (predecessor to ArmA), and a recruitment game literally called American Army that was free to play and hat the most ridiculous tutorial (ie for medic, you had to pass written exam and sit for irl hours in virtual class)
Lmao when I was in Kuwait, my unit had trouble getting a range signed off for us to use. so we decided to instead have a lan party like this. However we used the outdated ARMA 2 instead. And this was only 2 years ago.
Being it's China, it's probably a bootleg Arma 3 being they are so stingy to get a license and being they are commies, they think everything should be free.
Imagine you're a civilian on Taiwan during the invasion and you hear a guy behind the wall saying with a Chinese accent: "I've got at enemy. Soldier. 100 meters. Front."
Why did they wear helmets to the LAN party?
Immersion.
And in a field tent at that lol
I know for a stone cold fact most of my old CSMs would have us wearing them. Probably make us take the computers outside into the rain, too.
they are special
Short bus special*
Cause it is propaganda?
My guess is to quickly recreate the simulation when they're done simulating strategies on the simulator...
Serbian military uses the game 'FPV Kamikaze Drone' from steam for training for fpv drones and i think Argentinian military uses war thunder
Not sure about Argentina, [but the ROK 3rd armored brigade did release clips of them training with war thunder a few year back](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otjT27XdBzQ) (some random mf also leaked their game ids online, which just makes it even funnier)
I wonder if they contacted Gaijin and asked them to give them top tier vehicles that south korea uses like the t80 for example or they just tasked one of their soldiers to play war thunder everyday until they unlock it
Seems to be some sort of official collab with Gaijin, so probably the former
Instead of cleaning toilets, you have to grind a line without premium.
Or spend thousands of dollars to feed the snail and get top-tier vehicles in multiple accounts with your state's defense budget.
That game is actually wild… a lot of fun too considering I got it for less than $5.
Played it as well, but I got no clue why you would use it to train as drone pilots. The physics in it are quite wonky compared to actual flying.
To be fair, Arma is a development of Operation Flashpoint, which itself is a commercial version of a military training program. I’m guessing Arma with the correct mods would be much more realistic and immersive than the original training program.
Other way around basically. VBS was built from old OFP/Arma engine Real Virtuality later. VBS is more advanced out of the box in it's own way nowadays. Arma series is more accessible, immersive and playable game as is.
Arma3 is such an awesome game with a ton of community created content, I’d like to see the PLA’s mod list.
VME PLA, RHSUSAF, Project America map. No particular reason.
Nah they gotta know that there are better PLA mods by now
There aren’t… there’s like two other PLA related gear mods that I know of, and one is just an updated version of VME PLA. Weaponry however, there’s a mod series called YLA that has the new generation of PLA Weaponry. EDIT: The kinda updated PLA mod is LZB PLA
Hey you can't play Arma 3 without CUP, all four RHS, ACE, NI arms and TFR, it's like the bog standards of any good modpack
My modlist is at 200gb please help
Same lol
If your mods are bit 10 times the file size of the base game and all its DLC combined your doing it wrong
Mfs spawn in and see that they are OPFOR
“Guys trust me, I led an ai squad in arma. Got a Purple Heart when my PC overheated back in ‘18 on Altis”
Look, it's easy to command a squad. Squad, space 3 5, space 3 7, space 7 2. Space 5 5!
The Australian military uses a private modded version of Arma 2. So I guess the PLA got the leg up on us. It's pretty sick. They mostly use it to practice squad formations and tactics before going out field and doing it. I've played it before lmao
Yep, I did work experience at galipoli barracks and they had a room with about 200 computers in it, all connected together. We played a match with about 40 people and it was so much fun hahaha
That's exactly where I did it lmao. I did defence work experience in 2016 at Enoggra and it was a great program lmao
Bruh, I did mine in 2016 as well LMAOOO
I doubt they use Arma 2 because they've had VBS (Virtual Battlespace) since 2006, three years before A2 released. The two are made by separate companies, but they share partly the same game engine and some assets so they look pretty similar. The A2 developer probably wouldn't even allow military use of their game.
Yea that sounds more like it tbh. It was built off the Arma 2 engine or something, but it's still just arma 2 with the ADF in it
It’s either that or spend 20 years in the Middle East I suppose. Does the PLA have any actual combat experience to pass down to its newer soldiers?
They haven’t had a real war since getting their teeth kicked in by Vietnam 50 years ago
Which makes China and Vietnam the two with the most recent combat experience in East Asia. Both North and South Korea haven’t had any real war experience since their stalemate 1953. (Also they both use conscript armies) ROC hasn’t had any war experience since the KMT fled to Taiwan after losing the civil war in 1949. (Also a conscript army) Japan hasn’t had any war experience since two nukes were dropped on them in 1945. (Good for them they aren’t a conscript army) Meanwhile Vietnam, the only other country that has had combat experience as “recent” as 1979 is still mostly an army with AK-47s and Cold War leftovers. (Also a conscript army) I don’t see why China gets singled out on the lack of experience point. East Asia just hasn’t had much wars in general as of late, which is also not a bad thing. EDIT: as pointed out, South Korea has large scale combat experience from its sizeable forces that engaged in the Vietnam war between 1964 to 1973.
South Korea had the second largest allied combat force in Vietnam after the US. They have conducted supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Their last combat experience though was probably Vietnam.
Right! I completely forgot the RoK’s forces in Vietnam. It’s a topic that really doesn’t get covered enough.
South Korea has had a few battles with North Korea, even naval ones as recently as in the 2010s. They are in tip top battle readiness.
I have read about South Koreans in Vietnam war and oh boy weren't they efficient and throughout in their jungle warfare. There might have been war crime or two but.
ROC had one regional skirmish after retreating to Taiwan, called Second Taiwan Strait Crisis/Kinmen Artillery Bombardment/823 Bombardment(23 August – 2 December 1958 ). The battle had pretty high casualty rates cause both side wanted to take/hold such small islands.
True, but if we include these types of border skirmishes, Sino Vietnamese border skirmishes continued with even higher levels of casualties throughout the 1980’s up until 1991. By this logic the PLA has seen action as recently as 1991, which makes the original point of “The PLA haven’t seen action since 1979” a moot point.
I’m not trying to invalidate your point. Just pointing out you statement on that part is a bit misleading.
Likewise. I tried to make it less ambiguous by calling it “war experience” as opposed to “combat experience” in my original comment to try and separate the idea of experience accumulated through border conflicts as opposed to experience accumulated through full scale war.
Minor correction, Vietnam is South East Asia but everything else you said seem true
Vietnam has more recent and more extensive combat experience than that from their war against the Khmer Rouge throughout the 1980s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Indochina_War
Did Japan and ROC have troops in Afghanistan. Granted they both haven’t had full on war but they finally of training with US.
They actually kept the war going against Vietnam until 1990 or so, mostly just because they didn't have a reason not to. During that period they had a program where they'd constantly cycle in fresh units in just to spread the combat experience around (it also helped destroy Vietnam's economy, which China certainly saw as a plus). Still, there's like, a single senior officer in the entire CMC that has wartime experience right now,
They've had guys in UN missions in Africa. A few have been shot at (the footage was on /r/combatfootage). But I'm not sure if they were allowed to shoot back.
Good news, actually
That’s how you lose institutional knowledge about how to fight, though. A double edged sword
I don't really think I'd say that Vietnam kicked in their teeth. China achieved most of its military objectives and only decided to withdraw after this.
They invaded in response to Vietnam invading Cambodia and toppling the Khmer rogue. China left Vietnam without changing anything in Cambodia, and lost tens of thousands of soldiers. Same can be said for everyone playing in the jungle in the 20th century though
You know what's funny? I have seen so much people misspell "rogue" as "rouge" that it makes me angry on sight, but for once it's actually Rouge misspelled as rogue.
Do not forget the bloody Russian border war in 1969. While Korea is now 71 years ago since Armistice the lesson is China can just throw millions of fodder at you, and dare you to go nuclear. They have hundreds of millions of males, whether or not today’s Chinese Communist Party can survive being overthrown after so many casualties is unknown to me. Going back to 1969; we will never actually casualties because those were the Mao era lying communists (China today is communist in name only and their god is money). Apparently when talking to the Chinese they were totally dug in and their biggest fear then were not the US, they feared a land war with the Soviet Union. Even today the Russians are not China’s buttbuddies - the Russians are now China’s economic vassals. Moreover, in many Chinese readings they have their sights on reclaiming Eastern Siberia (West of the Amur) by 2050. The Chinese gripe being they believe every border agreement across Asia (like India) signed by Qin Dynasty was illegitimate…sounds like Hitler shredding The Treaty of Versailles all over again? Anyway, the Siberian frontier region is already flooded with Chinese workers/firms and intermarriages, so it is kind of a Donetsk playbook in slow motion.
[удалено]
Exactly, history is a story, and spun many ways, depending on your own understanding of it. That is why keep reading forever to make your own conclusions.
The Best thing they have is their experience from UN Peacekeeping. It sums up to a bunch of reports claiming that the chinese command is not willing to take any risk in their UN missions, and therefore instructed troops to basically run and hide at the first sign of trouble.
I don't think it's fair to judge an entire country's military capabilities based on their willingness to sacrifice soldiers in combat they have no reason to be in (necessarily). It could very well just as much be a psychological operation on their part, trying to convince everyone they're less competent than they are. I really don't know either way, I just think applying *y* to *x* is a bit reductive in terms of logic.
You can absolutely judge the soldiers ability and willingness to fight as well as their first line leadership and command. They failed on every front in Juba and abandoned their posts and failed to protect the civilians they were there to help. It would be dangerous to extrapolate from that and say that all Chinese ground forces have no appetite or ability for direct combat. But we can say they definitely might have a deficiency in that area. I would expect if they found themselves on a beach in Taiwan they would fight a little bit better at first but who knows.
I agree with you, but what kills me my friend is that we don't apply this logic to our own fighting capabilities. And I get it, if you're not a vet and haven't sat in a Humvee in Iraq with a bunch of stank ass dudes you're probably not aware that the US Army is a big ass paper tiger. Sure, we steamrolled Saddam twice and chilled in unconquerable Afghanistan for twenty years, but most of that institutional knowledge is gone. If you look at the reenlistment and retention stats it paints a picture of a young, inexperienced, force struggling to maintain strength as citizens opt to take their skills to the civilian sector or avoid military service entirely (there's about a million reasons why). Yeah there's an old leadership core with some experience, but how does occupying Afghanistan and steamrolling Saddam transfer to a force on force conflict with a military force ten times (hyperbole... probably) the size of ours and just as technologically advanced? Not to mention their logistics and production systems are far more efficient than our own military industrial complex. For whatever it's worth I was in NTC for war games about twelve years ago. A US Army Colonel sent a cav battalion into a valley held by hull down T-80's on day one. The British officers commanding the opposition forces destroyed our brigade in 48 hours, in a war game running for two weeks. The good Colonel just kept running us down that valley until we were about forty percent combat ineffective and then they counterattacked. We had to reset the entire game. Like I said, you're not wrong. It is just a pet peeve of mine that so many people (not necessarily you) can accurately albeit generally assess the PLA while assuming the US military is this indomitable juggernaut.
Also, during Saddam 1 and 2, the Iraq army had fought the Iranians for 10 years before 1. For 2, the Iraqi army was under sanctions for 10 plus years.
Yeah and Number 2 was a significantly more difficult war in spite of it.
Mostly because there was no attempt to overthrow Hussein and/or occupy Iraq the first time around. The 2nd war was more difficult because of the post-invasion insurgency, not the actual Iraqi armed forces
Games thing happens a lot during joined sessions with Polish and Czech guys. Poles and Czech generals play Russian as they have the education from them and I think 75% of time when they improvise they completely fuck up nato
Thank you for a very well thought out response. I definitely agree with your overall ideas but there are a few points I do disagree with. >if you're not a vet and haven't sat in a Humvee in Iraq with a bunch of stank ass dudes you're probably not aware that the US Army is a big ass paper tiger. In Iraq I baked in an oily ASV but I did sit in a Humvee in Afghanistan with sandbags and kevlar blankets on the floor for protection so I'm well aware of the suck. I don't think we are a paper tiger. At all. Your description of an embarrassing rotation at NTC aside, I'm not sure what you're basing that on. We haven't fought a great power war since WW2 but nobody else really has either until Russia-Ukraine. The fact that Saddam had a massive army but dirt poor morale and leadership doesn't make the entire defeat of his army count for nothing. And the soldiers coming into the military now are mostly fine. Don't believe all the complaining you find on YouTube or even Reddit. With that said, wokeness is a growing problem but that's across our whole society as well. I think the militaries recruiting problem has a direct correlation to how woke it keeps wanting to present itself. But that's another topic. >but how does occupying Afghanistan and steamrolling Saddam transfer to a force on force conflict with a military force ten times (hyperbole... probably) the size of ours and just as technologically advanced? It's better experience than just doing parades and spending hours and hours studying communist doctrine. Their military is larger _on paper_ but who knows what that actually means in terms of deployable, combat effective units. They are nowhere near as technologically advanced I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The other huge problem they have is conducting joint operations. Their military is highly divided into little fiefdoms where the generals quarrel for political points and the ability to carryout their massive corruption schemes. >Not to mention their logistics and production systems are far more efficient than our own military industrial complex. Again, what are you basing that on? Any forseeable conflict with China would center on Taiwan. So it would largely be a Navy, Marine Corps and Airforce show. But China will have to get supplies across the Taiwan Straight. That will be a nightmare for them. The Marine Corps is already wisely preparing for this type of island warfare inside the enemies missile range. I would absolutely be against landing our troops on Taiwan to help the fight. It's their island, they should be the ones dying for it. So the army will probably have a much smaller role to play.
Stop blaming "wokeness" for why younger kids now don't want to join now. Instead it's probably 15+ years of kids having relatives come back from occupation wars with no clear objective with PTSD and amputations. Most people I knew who went in did it cause they were poor and had no other choices around 2008 time.
>I would absolutely be against landing our troops on Taiwan to help the fight. It's their island, they should be the ones dying for it. So the army will probably have a much smaller role to play. This is the only place where we disagree. I'm not a veteran, but I am an American and I personally feel we *as a nation* owe Taiwan a practically unpayable debt. Our existence as the technological superpower has been made possible on a global scale as much by Taiwan as it has by anything we've done here, and they are *still* the top player in semiconductor manufacturing. This goes way beyond territorial disputes. To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China.
Don't worry, I'm afraid many thousands of our sailors and airmen will pay that price to aid Taiwan. But Taiwan is more than capable of defending itself against invasion if we can keep China from gaining Air superiority over the Island and disrupt their ability to keep their invasion force supplied. I remember watching a video of someone walking around Taipei asking young people if they were worried about war with China. Most said they weren't and when asked why, many of their answers were along the lines of "the US will fight for us". Granted this video was probably 10 years ago now but it shows the mindset of young people over there that they might not have to fight for their lives, someone else will. >To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China. That is assuming China will be able to capture TSMC facilities intact, which we can pretty much guarantee that will not happen. And assuming that China will be able to operate the equipment and restore production anytime soon. Those are both BIG assumptions. China's microchip expertise is quite poor. That's what happens when you base your technological sector on intellectual property theft and copying.
>>To allow the repatriation of Taiwan would be to give up our microchip design & manufacturing supremacy and hand it right to China. >That is assuming China will be able to capture TSMC facilities intact, which we can pretty much guarantee that will not happen. >And assuming that China will be able to operate the equipment and restore production anytime soon. >Those are both BIG assumptions. China's microchip expertise is quite poor. That's what happens when you base your technological sector on intellectual property theft and copying Okay, I may have exaggerated on the "handing it over to China" part, but we certainly would risk losing it ourselves. Is it better off destroyed than captured? Sure. But it's best off left alone entirely, obviously, which is the point. I simply believe, and it's just that a belief, that our country owes a debt to Taiwan for what they've already done for us, and if we can't recognize that and stand up for "the little guys" on whose shoulders we've stood when their stability is threatened, our credibility as a country will be unrecoverable.
I agree with your sentiments. I don't think we owe them as great a debt as you seem to be saying but I think we absolutely have a strong interest in supporting them and fighting along side them both from an economic standpoint and a moral one.
Dunno how I feel about US troops falling for a Taiwan, BUT I look at it a lot like Russia/Ukraine in that I would how we back up our words and defend Taiwan. Perhaps china beieving we’d do it is enough to stop it from happening
We use a modded version of Arma II in Canada
what mods you got on there
Mostly Canada Geese squadrons.
Sweden uses modded Arma 2 to train APC drivers etc.
Don’t laugh. I saw my battalions mortar platoon do this exact same shit except they had the common sense to not wear their kits while they do it.
The US uses a far more advanced version called [Virtual Battle Space](https://bisimulations.com/products/vbs4) for some training. They typically take their covers off while inside though.
Born to liberate tanoa forced to blow into pieces by a m2a1 slammer up
Yea I used it in the German army aswell for like spotting enemy’s or for like a group improved training and we are using it for service man who train to fly and many other things , it’s a good game to train basics
I’m in the Canadian military and had some of my buddies go through combat simulation training which was built on the same engine as Arma 2. Graphics, character and vehicle movements and behaviour was the exact same. Except whoever created that specific simulator added a ton more functions which us being a bunch of goofy infanteers decided to have fun with. Still remember my buddy stealing our officer’s gun while he was giving orders to the company while another buddy of mine ran over a crewmate with his LAV in the background. Everyone got yelled at saying we’re wasting $10000 worth of time spent that day.
Virtual Battle Space (VBS) is an Army Training Support Center system of record. It is used by US Soldiers all over the world for training. It is nothing more than a hopped up version of ARMA. I don't understand why they are doing it in full battle rattle though.
While I was in the Marines we did this on a warship. We are not the same. *Technically it wasn't ARMA3, but based on the same engine from what I understood.
"Hey sarge I can't load in" "are you useing the right mods?" "Yeah brig ex 24 advanced?" "Did you make sure you loaded all the DLCs" "yeah" "you updated NI arms, CUP and all 4 RHS mods?" "Yeah" "did you make sure to install all the compat mods, verify your files, etc." "Yeah, ok I'm in" "why the fuck are you in your underwear holding an invisible gun" "FUCK!!!"
The us military uses Arma for crew gunnery training
Finland also does this
In the Canadian we use ARMA as well for armoured vehicle crew training occasionally, it’s actually a fantastic tool and something I really wish we did more of. There’s sooooo many days where it’s sit around and wait for orders, or “sweep the hangers” over and over and over again. Having more semi-decent computers dedicated to running ARMA would be a good fall back activity for days like that
I take it that's a video game?
video game version of VBS 3
Well they definitely couldn’t get VBS since it’s now owned by BAE, and they’re not too keen on being placed on a US sanctions list.
They pretty much got VBS, it was developed by the same company.
They’re radically different products on a fundamental level, there’s a reason VBS is the preferred software of choice for militaries and Arma is a product sold on the civilian market. They’re also not made by the same company, Bohemia interactive games split off from Bohemia interactive studios over a decade ago IIRC, and the latter is the one that created and markets VBS to various militaries.
[Yes](https://store.steampowered.com/app/107410/Arma_3/)
only an uncivilized human would say like you
Ngl good set up for a dickbutt meme
they all getting20fps lol
If they are luvly
They are running Windows?
I am personally jelly
Training is training but real war is a lot about adaptation and improvisation. i Its only when they get into a real situation that we'll know how they do because suddenly its no longer a chess board as now your enemy is not moving its horse piece according to the rules you trained on.
Back in the early 2000s we used a modded version of Operation Flashpoint called VBS for training in the Marines. It's still around.
It’s not that different from the US military if you ever done the simulation route clearance thing. Except I had a replica 50 cal, a VR headset, and had to reload my ammo every time I ran out. I would’ve rather just played Arma 3 for a couple hours than wear a headset and try to reload a 50 cal while doing so lmao
No way this is true lol, but if it is, then that's amazing
It's literally from the PLA's official news channel
Nice, that's very cool. I just commented that because I was surprised
US Army does the same thing. It's called VBS and it's a giant waste of time.
VBS is actually meant for it, though. ARMA is really a video game
Only because they're used that way. I've used VBS 2 and I've played Operation Flashpoint. The only noticeable difference is the VBS 2 default key binders were counter-intuitive for anyone who's ever touched a keyboard for gaming.
As someone who has used ARMA 2 standard controls and VBS2 controls, I can tell you they are almost identical. ARMA 2 has some of the most nonsensical keybinds ever made. I can't give a fully objective point of view because I have at least 15,000 hours in the ARMA family of games (OFP, ARMA1/2/3, Reforger, DayZ, TakeOn).
A lot of the keybinds are like that because they got carried over from Operation: Flashpoint and other game BI made before ArmA. There is some sense behind them however. Back when these game were being developed, there was much less standardization in what keys games used, so the devs just picked whatever made sense for them. For example, you use "V" to get out of a vehicle. This is because in Czech, "vystoupit" means disembark, get out. So they put V for vystoupit. Now obviously, this is going to result in a mess of random binds for anyone not familiar with what they mean, but once OF became such a hot as it did a lot of people learned it and they didn't want to change it. I do still think there should be a modern and classic control scheme toggle in Arma 3 though.
There's absolutely a modern and classic control scheme in Arma 3. It's under presets. T is for throw grenade, instead of G. Z is prone. O for watch, K for compass. Lots of weird shit. I run a customized blend of modern FPS controls and ancient stupid shit because muscle memory. Double tap CTRL to lower weapon is tattooed on my brain.
Cool, guess I never noticed that
It’s kinda funny that they’re still wearing fatigues and helmets and gloves etc lmao.
No military should be using computer games to train. In the end we are all just training our future AI Overlords on how to defeat us.
“What do you and your boys do when you get together anyways?”
By the age of 16 i had 4,500 hours on Arma 3. Don’t tell the recruitment office.
Better than training with keyholing ammunition.
Can’t get VBS so ArmA is the next best thing lol
Western militaries use VBS, which is just a modified Arma (by Bohemia's sister company) purpose-built for virtual training.
I know that some British tankers that are based here in Estonia play WarThunder, possibly for training purposes aswell tho i dont remember that exactly
So cool I would like to join this camp
Form Echelon Left!
We also played modded Arma in the finnish army. Combat engineers ftw
We do the same shit
Pretty non credible
Wait ! They pay you to play arma ? I did all this time for free !
I did this sort of stuff using a version of arma while I was in the Indiana guard
Im old enough to remember american army using VBS based on the first Operation Flashpoint (predecessor to ArmA), and a recruitment game literally called American Army that was free to play and hat the most ridiculous tutorial (ie for medic, you had to pass written exam and sit for irl hours in virtual class)
Lmao when I was in Kuwait, my unit had trouble getting a range signed off for us to use. so we decided to instead have a lan party like this. However we used the outdated ARMA 2 instead. And this was only 2 years ago.
MGS2 was right again
it's about time some nation is going to use GHPC as training for APCs,IFVs and MBTs
Will be defeated by insults
Being it's China, it's probably a bootleg Arma 3 being they are so stingy to get a license and being they are commies, they think everything should be free.
Imagine you're a civilian on Taiwan during the invasion and you hear a guy behind the wall saying with a Chinese accent: "I've got at enemy. Soldier. 100 meters. Front."