The speed of military mobilization reflects to a great extent a country's combat effectiveness, and when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld led the US military reform in the 70s of the last century, he proposed to build the US military into a rapid reaction force.
Later, we often heard the US military propagating the military reform concept of "striking the whole world in one hour" because of its pursuit of the speed of troop mobilization.
So what is the difference between the United States and China in terms of the speed of troop mobilization, and how many troops can China and the United States quickly mobilize?
Pla
U.S. troop mobilization capabilities
It can be said that there are different answers to the question of how many troops the United States can quickly mobilize in different situations.
In the field of mobilizing troops on the mainland, the level of the US military appears to be relatively low, and this has a great deal to do with the backward level of infrastructure construction in the United States.
The biggest advantage of mobilizing troops to maneuver on the mainland is that it can rely on the local transportation system.
Railways, a train can pull half of the strength of a modern armored company.
Armored vehicles transported by rail
If it is a light infantry unit such as the Chinese Volunteers, that train can pull the strength of a battalion to half a regiment, and this is accompanied by various mountain artillery and other heavy firepower.
If there is no pure infantry with no heavy firepower at all, then 200 people can be stuffed into a car, and about 4,000 people can be stuffed in 20 cars on a train, which is the number of a reinforced regiment.
Even if you don't have a railroad system, the army will march on a system of roads that are laid all over the country much faster than in an environment without artificial roads.
Therefore, based on the level of infrastructure construction in a country, we can judge the speed of the country's military mobilization in the country.
Volunteers take the train
However, the United States has a big problem with infrastructure.
Although the United States has the densest rail network and the longest total railway mileage in the world, the American rail system cannot handle high loads because the rail system is in disrepair.
This can be seen in the accident rate of the U.S. rail system. In the 10 years from 2013 to 2022, there were about 110,000 accidents in the U.S. rail system, with an average of 30.1 accidents per day.
With the performance of the U.S. railroad system, its ability to mobilize troops at home will be miserable.
Overseas, however, the U.S. troop mobilization is much better, thanks to U.S. overseas military bases around the world.
U.S. military bases overseas
The amount of troops that the United States can mobilize overseas depends on the deployment of US forces overseas.
For example, in Northeast Asia, the United States will mobilize troops relatively quickly, because the scale of the US military stationed in Japan and the US military stationed in South Korea is relatively large.
There are about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan and about 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, which adds up to about 80,000 troops, which is about the size of a Chinese group army.
Therefore, if war breaks out in Northeast Asia, the United States will still be able to mobilize relatively large forces.
Another example is Iran, which is regarded as a thorn in the side of the United States, and the United States has deployed a circle of military bases around it, with a total of about 50,000 troops.
US military bases in the Middle East
If the United States were to attack Iran, it would be able to mobilize almost half of the army's troops.
In the European direction, because of the pressure from Russia, the United States has deployed a relatively large number of troops in Europe, reaching about 100,000 troops.
If a large-scale war breaks out in Europe, the United States can mobilize 100,000 troops to fight in Europe in a week.
Of course, when it comes to the peak of the United States' troop mobilization after World War II, many people think that the Gulf War should be counted.
The U.S.-led coalition forces deployed about 600,000 troops in this war, which was huge.
Coalition forces in the Gulf War
However, in the Gulf War, the United States did not "move quickly" to mobilize such a large number of troops. In order to deal with the Gulf War, the United States was actually preparing for the war months before the outbreak of the war, and this obviously has nothing to do with "speediness."
China's troop mobilization capabilities
As for China, compared with the United States, the mainland has the problem of being quick to mobilize troops at home and slow to mobilize troops overseas.
China's domestic troop deployment capacity far exceeds that of the United States, and on the one hand, China's infrastructure capacity is undisputed the world's first.
On the other hand, the national defense pressure faced by China is not on the same level as that of the United States.
The continental United States is flanked by oceans on the east and west, and both countries in the north and south are militarily weak, which leads to the fact that there is no military pressure on the continental United States.
American
But China is different, with Russia to the north, India to the southwest, the Korean Peninsula to the northeast, and the first island chain and its own Taiwan to the east. As a result, China must focus on its own troop deployment capabilities.
At China's level in this regard, each theater has the ability to mobilize 2~3 group armies in a short period of time, that is, 15~200,000 people, which is not a low level.
Overseas, however, China's troop mobilization is nowhere near as fast as that of the United States, which has few overseas military bases.
If China wants to mobilize troops to Vietnam, the Korean Peninsula and other areas bordering China, there will be no problem for China to quickly transport 10~200,000 troops.
Pla
But if it is to send troops to Europe or South America, which is separated from China by an ocean, then it is almost impossible at this stage.
Overseas material transportation
However, this is not to say that China is necessarily weaker than the United States in terms of overseas military power transportation, and there is one place where the mainland maintains an advantage, and that is the ability to transport materials.
Overseas military bases are the basis for the transportation of overseas troops, but many of the military supplies consumed by the army need to be transferred from the mainland.
For example, the United States has deployed a large number of F-35 fighters in Japan and South Korea, but the bombs and missiles used by F-35 fighters must always be transported from the mainland.
Military supplies by sea
Therefore, based on this situation of the need to transport military supplies from the mainland, the mainland has a certain advantage.
Because China's domestic shipping industry is very developed, it has a shipping capacity of 350 million deadweight tons as early as 2021.
Compared to China, the U.S. has negligible shipping capacity.
When the Iraq War was fought, the United States transported more than 200,000 tons of supplies in three months, which was far from enough to support its consumption in this war.
Iraq War
And after the further deindustrialization of the U.S. industry over the years, the U.S. shipping capacity has decreased.
Therefore, although the United States has a large number of military troops stationed overseas, its ability to fight high-intensity and long-term wars is not necessarily so strong.
Resources:
[1] Reference news: "Russian media: The U.S. military announced the number of troops stationed in Europe and will retain 100,000 troops in Eastern Europe"
[2] Observer.com, "After taking stock of the current situation of American railroads, netizens are numb: this is like a fourth world country ......"
[3] CCTV.com, "Achieving the Ultimate in Military Deterrence? This Time the United States Sent More Than 50,000 Troops to Deploy Around Iran"