US Army vs Chinese Army, which is stronger?

Question

US PERSONNEL:
Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]

CHINA PERSONNEL:
Total Population: 1,330,044,544 [2008]
Population Available: 729,323,673 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 609,273,077 [2008]

US ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 29,920
Towed Artillery: 5,178 [2001]

CHINA ARMY
Total Land-Based Weapons: 31,300
Tanks: 8,200 [2004]
Armored Personnel Carriers: 5,000 [2004]
Towed Artillery: 14,000 [2004]
Self-Propelled Guns: 1,700 [2004]
Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 2,400 [2004]
Mortars: 16,000 [2001]
Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 6,500 [2004]
Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 7,700 [2004]

US NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 1,559
Merchant Marine Strength: 422 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 12 [2008]
Destroyers: 50 [2008]
Submarines: 75 [2008]
Frigates: 92 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 100 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 28 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 38 [2008]

CHINA NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 760
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,822 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 8
Aircraft Carriers: 1 [2010]
Destroyers: 21 [2004]
Submarines: 68 [2004]
Frigates: 42 [2004]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 368 [2004]
Mine Warfare Craft: 39 [2004]
Amphibious Craft: 121 [2004]

Sources: US Library of Congress; Central Intelligence Agency

Answer 1

Can't we all just get along?











~

Answer 2

Year: 1532



Inca army: 80,000

Incas Tools: bronze



Spain’s Troops: 168

Spain’s Tools: Steel



They’d Massacred 7,000 Alone In November 1532



7,000 Inca Troops V.S 168 Spaniards Why Did the Spaniards Win? Because Of They we’re More Advance Compare to the Incas and China only Outnumber the U.S With 855005 That Does Sound Like A lot But America Is like The Spaniards Good Weapons and New Toys. More Advance Then the Chinese’s Weaponry.

Answer 3

Where would we fight?

Why would we fight?

Who in that region has China's back? Japan, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Thailand?

Who likes China's demographics?

Military leaders may need to stage war game but political leaders should also be simulating peace games. Which is why the US, bordered by two fairly large nations and technologically advanced nations, is less unencumbered as a global power than Russia, India and China.

Answer 4

a war like this wouldn't come down to who has the more troops or tanks.



it will come down to who is prepared to take the losses



and make no mistake any war between these 2 nations will cause causalities that make WW2 combat causalities look like a gang fight in a park in comparison



As the Chinese have shown throughout their history, human life is not valued as highly as else where in the world, they are prepared to suffer massive losses and still carry on, in addition to that their leaders are not democratically elected and as such don't care what the population think as they are not voters.



The US however is a democratic country, the families of those americans killed will expect to see some reason for their sacrifice, some progress, victory. (the only exception to this is if china had invaded mainland USA, but if they are losing thousands fighting over oil wells in central asia they may be less prepared to see endless news coverage of acres of graves of young dead americans, with no end in sight.



If the US lose 1 million men in the first 3-6 months of a full blown war (in a full blown war against two evenly matched sides such as this a figure like that is certainly not impossible) then they had better have something to show for it as the free media will certainly be reporting every death, yard gained, yard lost etc.



the Chinese on the other hand would certainly lose far more men in the same period but since there is no free press and the chinese don't send KIA letters, (every casualties is reported as MIA)

No one in china is likely likely to have any idea of what the real situation is and because of the oppression there are unlikely to cause problems for the government



so it is entirely possible that any war will end with the US having to seek terms due to the fact it's loss's are unsustainable and the citizens of the united states have had enough. Because sooner or later a presidential candidate will stand on a 'peace with honour' platform and get elected



That is the difference between us who live in the free world with Leaders who are accountable to its citizens, and those who live in oppressive societies who have no say on what they can accept.

Answer 5

It's close to a draw. A better breakdown of the U.S. "Land forces" would help some.



I would believe nukes would stay out the picture because if not all the other hardware wouldn't matter after a week or so. Assuming this:

------------

Army wise:

U.S. gets the edge in hardware ... hands down. The M1-A1 (Abrams) already proved in Iraq how it stands up against Russian-style tanks.



China gets the edge in manpower .... hands down.

----------------------

Navy-wise: U.S. hands-down all catergories.

---------------



One little item you seem to overlook was Air Force / Air Support on the battle field. The U.S. takes (air control and ground support) this one both counts ... hands down. The A-10 can make mince-meat out of a lot hardware, fast. And don't overlook our attack helicopters. No modern "battlefield" army has ever won a war without air control.

-------------------

Overall control on the land - Immediate: China; mid-range: U.S.; long-range: China. The reason I state it like is: China has a reputation of striking first, unannoumced. So first one would have the "shock" factor.

Mid-range is once we got greared-up, U.S. technology and hardware would dominant. Long-range it would a war of attrition and a matter of man-power.



So Army-wise if the two tangled, we would have to avoid being overrun for about 2-3 weeks. We would be more dominant and have to win within 6 weeks - 2 yrs. Any longer than that; the massive manpower China could throw in would probably overpower even our hardware.



Where would a potential "war" be fought? Probably somewhere closer to China than the U.S., where China had land access to the battle field. The reason I say this is:

1) China doesn't have the air transport capabilty to supply or field a long range war (like we done twice in Iraq). Not to mention, the U.S. Air Force would significantly "hamper" their effort.



2) U.S. Navy could/would control the "blue water", which would eliminate any "across the ocean" battlefields for China.

---------------------

An "ace-in-the-hole"? Russia. On whose side would they fight (or at least support)? I bet would be the "with the U.S.". In my opinon, although neither Russia nor China have any great love for the U.S., I think they fear each other more than they dislike us.

Answer 6

I see a cyber and nuclear war more then land battles.

Chinese hackers can shutdown nuclear reactors and the US missile take down system, leaving the US open to a strike.

If China were to invade they would probably take Hawaii as a "base of operations" that is close to the u.s.



Then they might invade a port in California and take control of the state, but they would have a time holding it though as they wait for reinforcements.

If successful, China may be able to push all the way to the capital, or threaten nuclear action if the U.S didn't comply.

The peace deal would probably be like this:

China takes islands close to itself, installs communist regime in the U.S

Answer 7

In a conventional war the United States would bring a big case of whoop ***.



What the United States military is currently doing is police work in Iraq and Afghanistan but its training and deployment is based on destroying large armies in a quick fashion by dominating in the air and finishing it off on the ground.



I would suspect the United States Air Force would have complete air superiority within a few weeks. Then it would be open season for Air to Ground missions weakening China's ground forces while the USMC and US Army holds a defensive posture until the OPFOR's are below 50% strength. Even if China would be able to make any type of offensive threat to overrun the ground forces, The US Artillery and USAF would diminish this. In 1991 Iraq made a push into Saudi and the result was the destruction of an entire division. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji



I think China would also have a major problem with Russia. Russia defiantly doesn't have any where near the Air Power capabilities that the USAF has but they are defiantly better then China.

Answer 8

There is no way china can fight USA, precision high tech missiles from USA would destroy china's army and navy in an instant. Without even a man lost, technological weapons of USA are just too ahead.

Answer 9

I am a Chinese, i thinks this is a very stupid question, Chinese army is NOT as strong as you look like, as i say, it is very weak even can not defeat Japanese or British.

Answer 10

in truth such a scenario is scary to think about



By Chinese tradition, if you go back to the older records, at least one man from every household must fight for China. With that based simply on the population of China it would come down to the simple fact that they have more manpower and currently hold the record for 'the nation most invaders fail to conqueror before they die'...in fact, I think everyone who has attempted to invade China or fought China ended up pretty much FUBAR.

Answer 11

The Chinese have stolen all our F-22 R&D. They have built more F-22 equivalents than we have in our inventory. How effectively their pilots can use them vs our pilots and their logistics/ground supportvs ours is another story.

Answer 12

Yep China has more people and more toys. You forgot to mention that China possesses the worlds larges rolling military museum. Most of their equipment is from the 70's and 80's. One Platoon of MIA2s could easily take on an entire Brigade of Chinese T72s. If you don't believe me then look back to the Gulf War where a platoon of 7 Marine M1s were credited with taking out 48 Iraqi tanks in one battle. They also still fly MIG29s which stand no chance against F15s and F16s let alone F22s. Most of their naval vessels wouldn't get close enough to ours to even fire on them let alone do any damage. While in a straight out ground war China might hurt us, our air and naval superiority would weaken the Chinese army to the point that the US Army and Marines would crush them.

Answer 13

You forgot Nukes,kind of evens the playing feild,makes their tanks

and such glow in the dark makes them easy to find.

Answer 14

the chinese military would win in the numbers contest but far better u.s tanks, aircraft and warships would win vs numbers

Answer 15

The United States only comes second best to China with regards to pure numbers. The U.S. still has the better technology, experience, and logistical ability.



It will be a minimum of 30 years before China can even come close to challenging the United States.

Answer 16

You forgot to name the Chinese special forces.

Answer 17

Currently, China has the biggest army in the world and the US has the 2nd best. Just because they are big in numbers doesn't mean that they are the best. The best example of this is in the movie 300 where a couple of Spartans demolished a Persian army of 2,000,000 strong at Thermopylae.

In the end, the US has the #1 Air Force, #1 Navy (its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest combined), #1 Marine Corps, and #2 Army because of size. So if the US would wage war on China, America would slaughter them just like the Spartans did with the Persians. I hope this answers your question!

Answer 18

i doubt US has 118 million fit for military since most of them are obese

Answer 19

Base on technology US stronger..base on numbers China stronger..

Answer 20

We must not forget that unlike the Chinese army,US army is well-trained after the Afghanistan & Iraq war. An experienced soldier is as good as 10 tenderfoots.

Answer 21

indian army become a first place in world............. its not a joke . every indians thinkinging abt this. we want power full priminister..............

Answer 22

WOW numbers dont mean **** when your a 5ft tall rice farmer,Really it wouldnt be a war more like a massacare. The US Navy would win the war by thierselves they would destroy all their navy and boats and anything close to shore pretty much the whole country(SSBN's) and than theres the AF which would destroy all thier air units the F-16 would dominate in a dogfight now bring out the F-22,the predators,and bombers good bye land forces than we would send the army to shoot everything and the marines to raise a flag all before its lunch time

Answer 23

China is not a aggressor, they have never started a war or invaded, dont worry its the idiot running North Korea we all should be worried about

Answer 24

First look at US bases around the world........that should answer your question.

Answer 25

america

Answer 26

American fighters are the BEST in the world! We never stop, and we are hard chargers. The only reason we don't won the whole world is because of politicians and our sense of air play. It it were up to me, Iraq, Iran & Afganitan would be seas of glass and then Brown & Root could turn them into parking lots for New Yook!