American analyst: Even if the People's Liberation Army has not fought for many years, once it fights, it may not lose to the U.S. military

　　 The US 'National Interest' website issued a comment, questioning that since 1979, the Chinese People's Liberation Army has not fought a major war. Can technology help the People's Liberation Army overcome its lack of combat experience?

　　 RAND analyst Timothy Heath said that the PLA has almost no combat experience, but lack of experience may not be important. He said: 'Today, the Chinese army has increasingly impressive high-tech weapons, but its ability to use these weapons and equipment is still unclear. There are reasons to be skeptical.'

　　 [Peacekeeping operations provide the PLA with valuable practical opportunities]

　　 Heath said that the last time the Chinese People's Liberation Army participated in a large-scale war was in the 1979 self-defense counterattack against Vietnam. At that time, the Vietnamese army still maintained the war experience of defeating the United States and its allies in the early 1970s.

　　[Rocket Army equipment has not experienced actual combat]

　　 The article stated that these problems do not mean that Beijing cannot 'win' a war. Although considering the huge loss of life and economic, ecological, and political chaos that war may cause, whether any party can really 'win' in such a conflict is still open to question.

　　 In this case, 'winning' can only mean: While one party achieves its own strategic goals, it prevents the opponent from doing so. Heath used history to explain the role of combat experience in the outcome of the war.

　　 At the beginning of World War II, the US military lacked experience, but had the resources, fighting will and institutional foundation-training, education, and self-correction capabilities. As a result, the US military was able to quickly recover from the defeat in the Kasserine Valley in North Africa in 1943.

　　 In contrast, the Iraqi army in 1991 had rich experience. Since 1980, it has fought Iran for eight years, but its equipment, theory, and system are all insufficient. The inexperienced coalition led by the United States defeated the Iraqis, partly because the Americans were well equipped, trained, and prepared for combat, which were left over from the Cold War. In the Cold War, there were few actual battles between the main opponents, but both sides were fully prepared.

　　[The U.S. Army also lacks experience in modernized naval battles]

　　 Today, as the United States has conducted long-term combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the US military undoubtedly has more combat experience than any other armed forces. However, whether this experience of low-intensity warfare will affect potential high-tech warfare is a question worth discussing.

　　 Heath wrote: “At the strategic level, the war between the Chinese and American armed forces is likely to involve high-intensity battles that neither side has experienced.” The initial conflict may result in two situations. With sufficient preparation and planning, under ideal circumstances, China may win the first battle. '

“However, because the initial conflict may not end the war,” he continued, “it can be expected that the U.S. military will use its powerful advantages to adjust and improve its performance in subsequent engagements, just like they did in Caserin. Yamaguchi revived after the initial defeat and defeated Germany.'