From the top of my head, the last well known raid from the sea to capture a major defended port was the Dieppe Raid in August 19, 1942. Even though the attackers outnumbered the defenders 4-to-1, the attack was crushed in just a few hours. Of the original attacking force of ~6000, ~4000 became casualties.
Moderated taiwan invasion war game
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
- Status
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
The Dieppe raid failed for a variety of reasons. Firstly both countries involved were already at war meaning the Germans were ready for such an operation. The landing areas itself was fortified with surrounding gun batteries. More importantly, the landings itself was complicated by the fact that part of the landing fleet were detected by another German convoy which alerted defenses which were already prepared. The landing areas were also the beaches not the port itself.
Ops Weserubung or better known as the German invasion of Norway is perhaps a more apt example. German aggression was already deemed possible but the rules of engagement meant that the Germans dictated when the operation was conducted, if it was conducted. The German fleet landed in many cases at the ports itself overcoming resistance which although prepared were inadequate. Read about how oslo was captured. The British (or the Americans in Taiwan's case) could not intervene until war was declared by which time, it could only restrict its operations to Narvik.
In the Taiwan invasion scenario envisaged, I have no doubt the Taiwanese are prepared for an amphibious landing especially against its beaches and probably from an airborne assault. I agree the Taiwanese are a lot better prepared than the norwegians, detection technology is also not what it was in WW2. This is however balanced by the element of surprise. A surprise attack where the landing point is the port itself will be unopposed unless Taiwan fortifies all port premises (which isn't the case and would not go unnoticed by the PLAN).
Like the allies too, China has the ability to recon and choose its landing point from an area almost as large as what the Allies had and with fewer resources than the Germans had in France. Any defense of port premise (like what the Germans had to do with regards to Antwerp) would dilute defenses on the beach. Yet if no such defenses were prepared, the risk is prohibitively high.
There are at least 7 ports within Taiwan itself with 18 Airports and numerous beaches. It will be interesting to identify troop deployments.
The Dieppe raid failed for a variety of reasons. Firstly both countries involved were already at war meaning the Germans were ready for such an operation. The landing areas itself was fortified with surrounding gun batteries. More importantly, the landings itself was complicated by the fact that part of the landing fleet were detected by another German convoy which alerted defenses which were already prepared. The landing areas were also the beaches not the port itself.
Ops Weserubung or better known as the German invasion of Norway is perhaps a more apt example. German aggression was already deemed possible but the rules of engagement meant that the Germans dictated when the operation was conducted, if it was conducted. The German fleet landed in many cases at the ports itself overcoming resistance which although prepared were inadequate. Read about how oslo was captured. The British (or the Americans in Taiwan's case) could not intervene until war was declared by which time, it could only restrict its operations to Narvik.
In the Taiwan invasion scenario envisaged, I have no doubt the Taiwanese are prepared for an amphibious landing especially against its beaches and probably from an airborne assault. I agree the Taiwanese are a lot better prepared than the norwegians, detection technology is also not what it was in WW2. This is however balanced by the element of surprise. A surprise attack where the landing point is the port itself will be unopposed unless Taiwan fortifies all port premises (which isn't the case and would not go unnoticed by the PLAN).
Like the allies too, China has the ability to recon and choose its landing point from an area almost as large as what the Allies had and with fewer resources than the Germans had in France. Any defense of port premise (like what the Germans had to do with regards to Antwerp) would dilute defenses on the beach. Yet if no such defenses were prepared, the risk is prohibitively high.
There are at least 7 ports within Taiwan itself with 18 Airports and numerous beaches. It will be interesting to identify troop deployments.
I think we've already been through the surprise element of an invasion. I liked Ozzy Blizzard's response; even with a few hours notice, the US can send forces into the straits. Besides, its going to be pretty hard to have surprise when you now have thechnology like satellites (of course, they aren't the solution to everything). If china wanted to send in air support for their invasion force, they can't just mass them because that would kill the surprise. Not only that, even if the Chinese do make a successful landing at a port or anywhere, they'd have to keep the reinforcements coming. Not only that, the taiwanese will be reinforcing their defenses too but they'll have a much easier time that the chinese (reinforce over sea vs reinforce over roads and land).
Also, what about spies? I'm sure China has some in Taiwan, but I'm also sure that Taiwan is getting their own intel as well. What kind of impact will spies have on both sides?
Also, what about spies? I'm sure China has some in Taiwan, but I'm also sure that Taiwan is getting their own intel as well. What kind of impact will spies have on both sides?
Ok, lets assume they take the port with their overstrength bn of troops coming out of a modified ship.
How should these troops run a port? Under constant fire from artillery and air assets?
That there is no way that China can hide the massing of land, air and naval assets which are needed for a follow on force to this small surprise raiding force has already been covered.
This all reminds me of the idea of taking an airfield with airborn troops and than airlift a force in which can also take a port and so open it for follow on forces.
We talked about this in another thread...
How should these troops run a port? Under constant fire from artillery and air assets?
That there is no way that China can hide the massing of land, air and naval assets which are needed for a follow on force to this small surprise raiding force has already been covered.
This all reminds me of the idea of taking an airfield with airborn troops and than airlift a force in which can also take a port and so open it for follow on forces.
We talked about this in another thread...
There are a lot more then satellites pointed at, and inside, China these days. Compared to what they used to be they are a fairly open society, especially to business, which Intelligence services love to use as cover for their activities. And in the 21'st century there would be an entire host of indicators, military, economic, transportation...ect that would be screaming "danger" weeks, if not months, before the Chinese attacked.
I dont think there is any chance for an invasion of Taiwan. But there is a very real chance of a shooting war in the straight, and beyond. I'd be more worried about a missile attack , and blockade, then some willy-nilly invasion. The missile attack and naval blockade they can pull off with very little warning.
Consider the very real Chinese military buildup and the counter buildup the Taiwanese will also have to do. Already they are clamoring for AEGIS destroyers, advanced SSKs, PAC-3s, P-3s...ect and were going to have to make a decision if were going to sell them a meaningful weapons package. All the other arms making countries have shunned them. Most of all the European ones.
So I guess you can figure what kind of support we would get if we decided to fight the totalitarian state as it was crushing the small Democracy.
I dont think there is any chance for an invasion of Taiwan. But there is a very real chance of a shooting war in the straight, and beyond. I'd be more worried about a missile attack , and blockade, then some willy-nilly invasion. The missile attack and naval blockade they can pull off with very little warning.
Consider the very real Chinese military buildup and the counter buildup the Taiwanese will also have to do. Already they are clamoring for AEGIS destroyers, advanced SSKs, PAC-3s, P-3s...ect and were going to have to make a decision if were going to sell them a meaningful weapons package. All the other arms making countries have shunned them. Most of all the European ones.
So I guess you can figure what kind of support we would get if we decided to fight the totalitarian state as it was crushing the small Democracy.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Agreed with the build-up. That's something the PLA will have to consider. Some of these factors include.
1) Redeployment of air assets (on both sides) is significantly faster than sea assets.
2) Any build up will be similarly matched by the US.
Actually, these are the same scenarios that the US played out in the reforger exercises. From a sudden attack using existing forces to a stretched out build up. IMHO, unlike the old soviet union, China does not have a quantitative advantage in tech assets to justify a build-up scenario.
In the sudden attack scenario, China does not have to mobilise ground assets immediately because as long as the ground assets can't get across, it won't be needed. The only ground assets that I would secretly mobilise are some 2-3 air-mobile/heliborne divisions (which in any case are regular units).
IMHO, the minimum China would need for a successful port attack at least a brigade-sized unit. Hence 3-4 ships would be needed. Ground forces in this attack will be tasked primarily to establish a sizeable defensive perimeter around the port area (handheld SAMs, ATGMs). It would be a weapons-free zone for any aircraft under 5000 ft except for the facing towards the corridor.
Air assets are likely to be mobilised within the Chinese interior. It is not difficult nor will it take long to redeploy aircraft. Sukhois, H6s and air refueled J10s already have the range to reach Taiwan from existing airfields without remobilisation. Attacks will probably originate in the interior and land on the exterior airfields for refuel & rearm.
Upon capture of a port, air assets will be tasked to establish an air corridor to Taiwan. Ground missile attacks will supplement suppression of air defences. FGA sorties will be focussed solely on CAS/ARM support of the port area as well.
Once an air corridor is established, attack helos will be flown in to the port area for further CAS. Attack helos will also be used for artillery suppression around the port area. Weapons tight may be established for certain sectors where the helos are used. Transport helos will further supplement ground forces with troop reinforcements and light artillery. Il-76's will be air-dropping airborne troops (on the friendly defensive area) as well.
Surface naval assets are likely to remain outside the Taiwan area for consolidation until some air superiority is achieved over the LOCs. I would envisage that pre-placed submarines will be relied upon to provide the bulk of port/naval defense.
All of the above will be take place within a week. During this time, US F22s and F18s based in Okinawa as well as the ROCAF will intervene to dispute the air corridor. Naval and ground assets will be mobilised for intervention. The PLAN will probably attempt to use sub-surface attacks as well as missile attacks to try and disable the airfields from which the aircraft are operating.
Upon capture of the port, naval assets will congregate at certain specified rendevous points for loading. Once the defensive perimeter is firmed, a convoy will attempt to bring heavy assets into play. These will probably be countered by US and Taiwanese subs.
This is just one possible scenario. Not saying whether it will work....FYI, my belief is that any PLA options has very little chance of success in the long run due to USAF supremacy. Such a scenario could (in theory) maximise its chance of success.
Agreed with the build-up. That's something the PLA will have to consider. Some of these factors include.
1) Redeployment of air assets (on both sides) is significantly faster than sea assets.
2) Any build up will be similarly matched by the US.
Actually, these are the same scenarios that the US played out in the reforger exercises. From a sudden attack using existing forces to a stretched out build up. IMHO, unlike the old soviet union, China does not have a quantitative advantage in tech assets to justify a build-up scenario.
In the sudden attack scenario, China does not have to mobilise ground assets immediately because as long as the ground assets can't get across, it won't be needed. The only ground assets that I would secretly mobilise are some 2-3 air-mobile/heliborne divisions (which in any case are regular units).
IMHO, the minimum China would need for a successful port attack at least a brigade-sized unit. Hence 3-4 ships would be needed. Ground forces in this attack will be tasked primarily to establish a sizeable defensive perimeter around the port area (handheld SAMs, ATGMs). It would be a weapons-free zone for any aircraft under 5000 ft except for the facing towards the corridor.
Air assets are likely to be mobilised within the Chinese interior. It is not difficult nor will it take long to redeploy aircraft. Sukhois, H6s and air refueled J10s already have the range to reach Taiwan from existing airfields without remobilisation. Attacks will probably originate in the interior and land on the exterior airfields for refuel & rearm.
Upon capture of a port, air assets will be tasked to establish an air corridor to Taiwan. Ground missile attacks will supplement suppression of air defences. FGA sorties will be focussed solely on CAS/ARM support of the port area as well.
Once an air corridor is established, attack helos will be flown in to the port area for further CAS. Attack helos will also be used for artillery suppression around the port area. Weapons tight may be established for certain sectors where the helos are used. Transport helos will further supplement ground forces with troop reinforcements and light artillery. Il-76's will be air-dropping airborne troops (on the friendly defensive area) as well.
Surface naval assets are likely to remain outside the Taiwan area for consolidation until some air superiority is achieved over the LOCs. I would envisage that pre-placed submarines will be relied upon to provide the bulk of port/naval defense.
All of the above will be take place within a week. During this time, US F22s and F18s based in Okinawa as well as the ROCAF will intervene to dispute the air corridor. Naval and ground assets will be mobilised for intervention. The PLAN will probably attempt to use sub-surface attacks as well as missile attacks to try and disable the airfields from which the aircraft are operating.
Upon capture of the port, naval assets will congregate at certain specified rendevous points for loading. Once the defensive perimeter is firmed, a convoy will attempt to bring heavy assets into play. These will probably be countered by US and Taiwanese subs.
This is just one possible scenario. Not saying whether it will work....FYI, my belief is that any PLA options has very little chance of success in the long run due to USAF supremacy. Such a scenario could (in theory) maximise its chance of success.
just a little side note, I read from a guy on Chinese bbs who claims to be from a factory that produces parts for HQ-9 missiles mentionned that they were asked to deliver 5000 sets by 2008 and these sets are not used for spares. The missiles are to protect Beijing, Shanghai, Pearl Delta Peninsula and Three Gorges Dam. Gives you an idea of the kind of cruise missile attack that China is envisaging from Taiwan and USAF. It makes me laugh sometimes that Taiwan thinks 50 HF-2 LACMs can make any difference.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
A lot of people claim a lot of things. If he was high-enough up to know all about this (including where they're going) then I wonder whether he would be supplying this information in public. If he really is genuine, then I would be worried over the lax security in the Chinese military industry.
Also, what's a "set"? I doubt it's a battery - a missile?
If used on selected targets, they might. Impossible to know without more information on range and accuracy. Also it's unlikely they would be used on civilian targets, due to the comparatively smaller numbers Taiwan has.
A big problem for every chinese raiding force capturing an airport or a port is enemy artillery.
The area will defenitely be a free fire zone especially because there will be not that many civilians in an (air)port area.
While light forces with ATGMs and MANPADs may be able to slow down a counterattack (if they are able to establish defensive perimeteres fast enough) they cannot hope to run an (air)port under constant fire from tube and rocket artillery.
And when I look at how many problems the whole mighty coalition in both Iraq wars had to find some SCUD launchers I doubt that the PLAAF is able to surpress this artillery fire in a much more contestet airspace.
The area will defenitely be a free fire zone especially because there will be not that many civilians in an (air)port area.
While light forces with ATGMs and MANPADs may be able to slow down a counterattack (if they are able to establish defensive perimeteres fast enough) they cannot hope to run an (air)port under constant fire from tube and rocket artillery.
And when I look at how many problems the whole mighty coalition in both Iraq wars had to find some SCUD launchers I doubt that the PLAAF is able to surpress this artillery fire in a much more contestet airspace.
Let's just say, I normally don't post bs from Chinese bbs, but this one had some credibility.
well yeah, how can they produce 5000 batteries?
According to my Taiwanese friends, Taiwan has told China it will attack those 4 spots.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I find the credibility difficult to believe if he's then going to post the information on the internet. Anyway, it's a personal thing - I personally wouldn't believe any claim like that.
Which is why I asked what a "set" is - maybe you'd like to tell me?
Some politicians and officers (not as far as I know the government) have threatened to do so. Why would Taiwan give China advance notice of the sites it will definitely attack? That would give China the ability to focus its defensive resources on those areas.
Maybe the suggestion of attacking Chinese cities/the 3GD is partly a ruse (as well as a deterrent) to make China worry about their safety and have to deploy resources there, rather than use them on the real targets.
Attack what four spots? Does that include the 3 Gorges Dam? Are they out of their minds? That target is deep inside China... and what results do they think they can get from throwing 1/4-ton warheads at an earth embankment of that size?
I have a question of scale. Can the PRC Navy and Air Force create a safe corridor, or seal off the strait from the north and south? If they used enough mines, sonobouyes, Submarines and especialy aircraft, they might be able to create temporary barriers, and still have enough surface craft left over to give the convoys close escorts.
I have a question of scale. Can the PRC Navy and Air Force create a safe corridor, or seal off the strait from the north and south? If they used enough mines, sonobouyes, Submarines and especialy aircraft, they might be able to create temporary barriers, and still have enough surface craft left over to give the convoys close escorts.
believe whatever you want. Since you don't know the source, there is nothing else I can say at this point
I wrote "produce parts for HQ-9 missiles" and "deliver 5000 sets", so 5000 sets of those parts -> 5000 missiles
because everyone knows that China would not sweat that much if they attack any other civilian locations. And obviously, military locations are also protected.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
That doesn't mean any attack would fail/be pointless.
Doesnt matter wether it fails or succeeds. China has enough military hardware and military infrastructure to keep enough pressure on Taiwan long enough for the small island state to accept defeat.
I see the US intervention factor is not being considered a lot in the last few posts. That makes a lot of difference. Because normally all Taiwan has to do is to hold on to its defences and let the US do its work. The US may be bogged down in iraq but it doesnt need manpower in the taiwanese theatre. Just one of its converted Ohio class subs has enough tomohawks to wreck most of the C5ISTAR abilities of PLAN, PLAAF or PLA.
But since you guys are ignoring the US factor ill continue with just Taiwan and China. I dont know if you guys have read up the Chinese military doctrine but i think its mostly Missile Based. That means theyll be launching swarms of missiles on the Taiwanese military sites. Ofcourse most of them arent accurate enough YET to do real damage and some would get knocked out but when used in large numbers they have their own quality.
After the initial missile and probably aerial bombadment you have the PLAN enforcing a blockade and attempting a landing or whatever.
So what do the Taiwanese do here? Well the Chinese dont yet have enough quality hardware to buldoze the Taiwanese. But its doctrine allows it to be used correctly. The Taiwanese should NOT focus on this hardware but instead try and destroy large portions of the Chinese C5ISTAR system while try to maintain their own. this would turn the entire invasion into a chaotic extreme. Once youve dont that you can pick out threatining portions of the chinese harware piece meal in a co-ordinated effort while still have enough punch to target their infrastructure.
As for the missiles, since China will most probably initiate the war it will have the first strike so focus on diversifying ur infrastructure and making back ups and have ur manpower trained to know what do to in the chaos after the missile strike.
Once the second strike comes it will be from Taiwan and must focus on Chinese C5ISTAR abilities. You need a very high standard of intelligence to identify the correct targets.
Then like i said, focus on the most threatining military hardware and simultaneously knock out infrastructure to prevent reinforcements.
Two minor notes. to achieve all this you need a massive investment of resources into the taiwanese infrastructure and the taiwanese mlitary manpower. This will be crucial in getting back online after the chinese bombardment and keeping up sustained attacks on the Chinese in all the right places at all the right times. Once their top line and medium line hardware is out, with the ability to C5ISTAR it, the war is over.
But i still think u guys need to consider the US factor as it is near impossible to beat Taiwan with the US backing it in the near future. Rumsfield may have buggered up for iraq with his cuts in manpower and focus on harware, C5ISTAR etc but his doctrine is perfect against china.
Also i really dont think china will attack taiwan in the first place. Geopolitics has changed to much and china knows better to wait and see.
I've had my share in these Taiwan invasion games and I've stated my stance several times, mostly in SDF, but also here as well. To save time and effort I wont go too deep to give my insight for the situation, just point out few issues that have grossed by path everytime this issue is being raised.
My stance is that with the current state of all PRC military branches it isen't able to take down Taiwan when the Island is defended by an army in the state of ROC military is. Biggest and most important factor to this is that PRC lacks the neccerical capacity to land adequate landing force in the required time. It's only able to "thorw" theoretically around a brigade size of unit mens with most of its equipment left in the mainland. With fully equipted a reinforced Battalion can be landed with one sortie and thus everyone can draw their own conclusions how adequate that is against army sized defender. Simply counting the maxium speed of the chinese landing fleet and the distance of the straight, even using the closest theoretical range and overestimating the speed of reloading the transports ships, the next sortie will take at least 24 hours since the first sortie have landed. Even all this ofcourse is only possiple if the landing fleet can travel without interruptions.
This restrictions in the very fundamental issue in all amhpibious landings, in the actual transport capacity is reflecting all areas of the campaing. It's negative effect on the performance of the invading troops is exponential. It will take over a week in optimal/unrealistic conditions to get even a division sized unit with all its equipemnt ashore. And we haven't discussed anything about suplies, theres no need to it, cause alone the fact that you cannot resupply even the first enforced battalion sufficiently enough (when your transport ships are busy to bring more troops ashore) effectly makes the whole scenario unworkable.
Other factor, or more like a observation in all these "taiwan invasions" is the belive that PRCs non-land force units can effectly take out the ROC army leaving the actual workmaulers, the landing force just roll in and march to the city streets. Its often based in some sort of disillusion/over-estimations of the general capacity of PLAAF and PLAN in the light of the latest steps towards more modern approach. Yet its often forgetted that these new systems are usually only begining to be fielded into the arsenal of PRC and the main bulk and more importantly its operational doctrines are still in many parts in the sad obcolence state that its often linked to all chinese military, or at least in transition stage. Also its often forgotten that many of the new systems introduces entirely new branches to the military and further increases the required time to adjust and learn the full potential of the new systems. Yet I've heard comments like the PLAAF will takeout the entire ROCAF to its fields and how PRCs cruise missiles will destroy the cruisal C&C elements of ROC. Basicly doing stuff that even the US military generally aknowlidged to be the most potent in today cannot do...
Most ridicilous flavour of this is the missknowlidge and belives towards the PLA's ballistic missile force. Its said to be able to knock out the entire ROCA. Well it can if nuclear warheads are used but its quite obvious that if PRC wishes to invade the Iland, it wont use them. So you are left with expensive missiles with normal good old TNT warheads. I once counted that the entire medium range ballistic missile arsenal can deliver approx. the same ammount of TNT than normal chinese group army's artillery units when firing 9 rounds. To give this some concept, for example in the battle of 1944 in our Karelian isthmus, one finnish battalion defended a village of Tienhaara that recived 25 000 grenades of enemy artillery. Thats as much as three times the entire Chinese medium range ballistic missile arsenal. And our battalion wasen't defeaded but manangad to keep its stand. So thus I usually treat the ballistic missile threat of RPC with a grin...
If Taiwans invasion would be as easy as it sometimes is said (i've heard that it can be taken in mere of hours:nutkick ) it would be done ages ago, wouldn't it?
My stance is that with the current state of all PRC military branches it isen't able to take down Taiwan when the Island is defended by an army in the state of ROC military is. Biggest and most important factor to this is that PRC lacks the neccerical capacity to land adequate landing force in the required time. It's only able to "thorw" theoretically around a brigade size of unit mens with most of its equipment left in the mainland. With fully equipted a reinforced Battalion can be landed with one sortie and thus everyone can draw their own conclusions how adequate that is against army sized defender. Simply counting the maxium speed of the chinese landing fleet and the distance of the straight, even using the closest theoretical range and overestimating the speed of reloading the transports ships, the next sortie will take at least 24 hours since the first sortie have landed. Even all this ofcourse is only possiple if the landing fleet can travel without interruptions.
This restrictions in the very fundamental issue in all amhpibious landings, in the actual transport capacity is reflecting all areas of the campaing. It's negative effect on the performance of the invading troops is exponential. It will take over a week in optimal/unrealistic conditions to get even a division sized unit with all its equipemnt ashore. And we haven't discussed anything about suplies, theres no need to it, cause alone the fact that you cannot resupply even the first enforced battalion sufficiently enough (when your transport ships are busy to bring more troops ashore) effectly makes the whole scenario unworkable.
Other factor, or more like a observation in all these "taiwan invasions" is the belive that PRCs non-land force units can effectly take out the ROC army leaving the actual workmaulers, the landing force just roll in and march to the city streets. Its often based in some sort of disillusion/over-estimations of the general capacity of PLAAF and PLAN in the light of the latest steps towards more modern approach. Yet its often forgetted that these new systems are usually only begining to be fielded into the arsenal of PRC and the main bulk and more importantly its operational doctrines are still in many parts in the sad obcolence state that its often linked to all chinese military, or at least in transition stage. Also its often forgotten that many of the new systems introduces entirely new branches to the military and further increases the required time to adjust and learn the full potential of the new systems. Yet I've heard comments like the PLAAF will takeout the entire ROCAF to its fields and how PRCs cruise missiles will destroy the cruisal C&C elements of ROC. Basicly doing stuff that even the US military generally aknowlidged to be the most potent in today cannot do...
Most ridicilous flavour of this is the missknowlidge and belives towards the PLA's ballistic missile force. Its said to be able to knock out the entire ROCA. Well it can if nuclear warheads are used but its quite obvious that if PRC wishes to invade the Iland, it wont use them. So you are left with expensive missiles with normal good old TNT warheads. I once counted that the entire medium range ballistic missile arsenal can deliver approx. the same ammount of TNT than normal chinese group army's artillery units when firing 9 rounds. To give this some concept, for example in the battle of 1944 in our Karelian isthmus, one finnish battalion defended a village of Tienhaara that recived 25 000 grenades of enemy artillery. Thats as much as three times the entire Chinese medium range ballistic missile arsenal. And our battalion wasen't defeaded but manangad to keep its stand. So thus I usually treat the ballistic missile threat of RPC with a grin...
If Taiwans invasion would be as easy as it sometimes is said (i've heard that it can be taken in mere of hours:nutkick ) it would be done ages ago, wouldn't it?
grin away mate, if ur referring to my post i read through the forum and was replying to peoples assumptions of the PLA and its force and doctrine 
I would say it's an overly simplistic view to say that China only has those ballistic missiles and LACMs against Taiwanese military targets.
China believes that it can keep Taiwan offline for several hours in the beginning of the war with anti-radiation drones, ARMs and such. The ballistic missiles are important part of the attack, but by no means the only part of the attack. They do have a full assortment of air launched LACMs, LGBs and SGBs that will be used to destroy the air bases, military installations and such. That's where the main damage comes from. Taiwan can try to repair those bases, but there will just be more PGMs coming. You are not facing the PLAAF of 2005 anymore.
China believes that it can keep Taiwan offline for several hours in the beginning of the war with anti-radiation drones, ARMs and such. The ballistic missiles are important part of the attack, but by no means the only part of the attack. They do have a full assortment of air launched LACMs, LGBs and SGBs that will be used to destroy the air bases, military installations and such. That's where the main damage comes from. Taiwan can try to repair those bases, but there will just be more PGMs coming. You are not facing the PLAAF of 2005 anymore.
If your confident about the PLAAFs ability to mass large numbers of such weapons, with their required quality, with the right infrastructure to maintain, launch and give them targets and not lose the platforms carrying them prematurely and have enough accuracy to hit the right targets in a sustained effort, then i humble my assumptions. A VERY heavy investment would be needed by poor taiwan to counter such an effective system in manpower and infrastructure terms. Infact, even the US should be vary as it would encounter a threat far larger than the soviets.
The point is, do u have resources to back your claim besides high tech sites like sinodefence? The effectiveness of battle systems and entire armies is far shorter in war than on paper.
The point is, do u have resources to back your claim besides high tech sites like sinodefence? The effectiveness of battle systems and entire armies is far shorter in war than on paper.
I wasen't refering anyone's post, only to my past encourtements of this same issues in other forums and threads.
But Tphuang somewhat marketed my point by summarizing the counter-arguments. Yet they are made in the very same belive that I mentioned in my earlier posts and thus have very thin ground beneath.
Yeas China has fielded PMGs and its even testing its first generation of LACM. But thats the point, its just started to introduce them to its arsenal. Its ridicilous to say that china is different than it was in 2005 when actually its capacity in overall temrs is just begun to improve from the level that it was in 1995. Two years may be enough to reveal new systems to daylight and print the hihgly appraising salesprochyres but it's hardly makes the system incorporated to the branch using it or even worse incorporating the entire branch to the military. Introducing new military equipment can take years, even a decade to be fully able to use its potential and that is required to be able to use the weapon as the nice salesspeaches says.
War in real life isen't simple as you might think. Its not done by counting your PGM's and then counting the opponents tanks and then press the button and you destroy X ammount of those tanks...
But Tphuang somewhat marketed my point by summarizing the counter-arguments. Yet they are made in the very same belive that I mentioned in my earlier posts and thus have very thin ground beneath.
Yeas China has fielded PMGs and its even testing its first generation of LACM. But thats the point, its just started to introduce them to its arsenal. Its ridicilous to say that china is different than it was in 2005 when actually its capacity in overall temrs is just begun to improve from the level that it was in 1995. Two years may be enough to reveal new systems to daylight and print the hihgly appraising salesprochyres but it's hardly makes the system incorporated to the branch using it or even worse incorporating the entire branch to the military. Introducing new military equipment can take years, even a decade to be fully able to use its potential and that is required to be able to use the weapon as the nice salesspeaches says.
War in real life isen't simple as you might think. Its not done by counting your PGM's and then counting the opponents tanks and then press the button and you destroy X ammount of those tanks...
- Status