Moderated taiwan invasion war game

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
gf; one last time; WORLD'S LARGEST AIR FORCE.

Not a single post has even addressed this. Why?
because its absolutely irrelevant. who has the more competent airforce? france or china? so who cares how big it is if its fractured in capability?

Command of the air has been proven to be the decisive issue in every Amphibious assault since 1940. Why not here?
because nothing has been credibly demonstrated to show that they can even remotely provide those "4 P's" of superiority.

volume has little relevance if its inappropriate.


25% subtraction; 1) Helecopters can be shot down 2) Previously stated handicap when you are carrying a mixed load 3) even hellfires can miss, or hit a wave, or missfire... as i am sure the competition pointed out when Taiwan considered bying them in the first place.
again, the attacking force has taxis with what credible organic anti-air?
the airforce has to demonstrate saturated persistence, and that provides advantage to the defender as they kill anything in the box - they don't have to send up anything while they engage in a 21st century version of the Marianas

you still need to provide some semblance of reference as to how you are factoring a 25% degradation in assets.

I'm not contesting that degradation happens, I'm questioning the quantum and how you came to the number in the first place.

I'm certainly contesting the notion that a maritime force based on the PLAN's and chinese merchant fleet is able to cross and defend with any degree of military satisfaction.

As for my credentials, I want to send them in to Webmaster, but he has yet to get back to me with a Fax Number or a PO box.
I'd suggest that you make an effort to remind him - as I will.
 

Manfred

New Member
what do you think GMLRS is?

Who said anything about GUIDED MRLS?!? Does taiwan have them?

Ever seen how fast a transport can turn?

Yes. Even a 10-knot transport can move faster than Infantry can get the word to move, then march or get to the trucks and drive to the new location, deploy and disperse, and then dig in.

Air won't give you sufficient volume or mass. A look at military history will demonstrate how hard it is. Look at the last time a massed airborne insertion was done. Funnily enough, then note how modern militaries have changed their structure since then.

Look, I am not talking about Air Transport exclusivly. I am talking about the massed firepower of Dozens of Regiments of Fighters, Bombers and ground attack aircraft pounding one Island, over and over again.
You do know that I am talking about, right?

What 90km of battle space? Over land or sea?

the taiwanese can be in as many places as necessary - as the necessary favourable places are limited.

Are you saying that the PLA and PLAN are incapable of tactical surprise? This is the same army that fought in the Himalayas... and won.

I'm having serious doubts as to your background as your responses are very much like some of the nationalistic and enthusiastic kids who sometimes come in here.

you need to demonstrate some coherent structured thought


That is ratcheting things up a bit much, don't you think? I don't insult you, and ask the same in return. Deal? It's not like I am out to sabotage your reputation, I don't even know you.
Also; I don't use the same terminology you do, but I think my meaning is clear, even when I am aswering multiple posts at the same time... or maybe I ought to stop doing that...:shudder

BTW- its just a game, right?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
what do you think GMLRS is?

Who said anything about GUIDED MRLS?!? Does taiwan have them?
who says they don't? they've got a demonstrated fabrication capability in electronics and manufacturing - in fact their electronic prefab is superior to mainland china.

Ever seen how fast a transport can turn?

Yes. Even a 10-knot transport can move faster than Infantry can get the word to move, then march or get to the trucks and drive to the new location, deploy and disperse, and then dig in.
Huh? the closer to shore that transport is, the less opportunity it has to disperse at a farther drop off point. From 30km in, its fair game for arty and MLRS and modern fire control systems slaved to long range ballistics are going to make a mess. The ROF for a battery of arty is going to more than effect mobility kills. if those shells are fragged, then nothing underneath is going to feel well. An incoming 155mm shell is going to move a hell of a lot faster than any 10knot sea slug.

Air won't give you sufficient volume or mass. A look at military history will demonstrate how hard it is. Look at the last time a massed airborne insertion was done. Funnily enough, then note how modern militaries have changed their structure since then.

Look, I am not talking about Air Transport exclusivly. I am talking about the massed firepower of Dozens of Regiments of Fighters, Bombers and ground attack aircraft pounding one Island, over and over again.
You do know that I am talking about, right?
and you have yet to demonstrate that fixed wing air from the PLAAF can dominate the battlespace. the advantage of response and logistics lies with the defender. they can darken the sky and blot out the sun as much as they like, but they still have to do it discretely if they want to have any chance of success.

What 90km of battle space? Over land or sea?
the straits are the buffer zone, they are the trip wire. no sub can move in their without triggering a sensor system, so all movement has to be above water on on water.

the taiwanese can be in as many places as necessary - as the necessary favourable places are limited.

Are you saying that the PLA and PLAN are incapable of tactical surprise? This is the same army that fought in the Himalayas... and won.
and the similarity between siachen and the straits is what?


I'm having serious doubts as to your background as your responses are very much like some of the nationalistic and enthusiastic kids who sometimes come in here.

you need to demonstrate some coherent structured thought

That is ratcheting things up a bit much, don't you think? I don't insult you, and ask the same in return. Deal? It's not like I am out to sabotage your reputation, I don't even know you.
Also; I don't use the same terminology you do, but I think my meaning is clear, even when I am aswering multiple posts at the same time... or maybe I ought to stop doing that...:shudder
well, I have a doubt as you either deliberately ignore cponsidered responses from some of those who have clear demonstrated competency in a number of disciplines - or you come back with a series of:

"what about this, what about how big the airforce is, what about tank comparisons etc...."

its about logistics. as soon as people get hung up about platforms over process, then my BS alert is triggered.

maybe you need to demonstrate different awareness. your current approach is not working for me at all. Hence why I have a doubt.

BTW- its just a game, right?
when you're discussing serious events like this, competency still has to be demonstrated - that moves it out of the realm of "just a game"

otherwise its just a fan club discussion rather than considered coherent debate.
 

Manfred

New Member
Okay, gotta quit for now. Good posts , everyone See you tomorow.

:lul :eek: :lul ;)

and the similarity between siachen and the straits is what?

The ablility to operate in terrain that other folks consider un-usable, of course.

well, I have a doubt as you either deliberately ignore cponsidered responses from some of those who have clear demonstrated competency in a number of disciplines

Right back at you, dude.
Did I do something to tick you off in a previous life, or is the Ivory Tower getting a little drafty?
 

Transient

Member
Every year they ask for different things before it was hardened airfields and bunkers, RRR systems (which they got) but now its Patriot Pac 3.
Btw during legislative yuan in Taiwan he commented on the need to hardened airfields but that was a few years ago and I didn't keep any aritles...
anyways 實施戰力保存各項措施 which mean a host of different measures.

The system won't let me post urls so here is the whole article.

國防部公佈中南部飛彈設置基地 戰力存活率提昇
2007/01/24 01:19
記者林弘展/台北報導

國防部規劃在中南部地區設置6個愛國者飛彈陣地的地點正式出爐!根據國防部公佈的資料,未來在台中地區將設置2個、嘉義、台南、高雄與屏東均各設一個總共增設6個愛國者三型飛彈連。共軍對台有1000枚導彈,國防部研判將以約7成導彈攻台,我方戰損評估應有50%以上的戰力存活率,實施戰力保存各項措施後,能使戰力存活率逾7成。

中南部新設的6個愛國者三型飛彈連的設置地點之戰略考量,除防範有關民生、經濟、交通重要地點,儘量降低遭到中國導彈密集破壞威脅之外,更具有保護北從竹科、中科、南科等三大科學園區的防護保障功能。

這6個地點分別是:台中縣太平市坪林營區、台中大肚山營區、嘉義機場附近中庄營區、台南縣新化鎮虎頭埤營區、高雄縣鳥松鄉考潭營區、屏東機場附近空軍飛彈連。

根據軍方的戰略構想,國防部在中部分別部署在台中縣太平市坪林營區、台中大肚山營區、嘉義機場附近中庄營區砲兵基地!其中,台中設置兩處愛國者三型飛彈基地,除可兼防新竹科學園區,國防部也考量到保護中部地區的中部科學園區、台中火力發電廠、彰濱工業區、六輕工業區等地區面臨第一擊的反制能力。

在嘉義地區部署一個愛國者三型飛彈基地,係考量保障西部地區唯一一個F16戰機基地不受中國導彈進行第一擊摧毀,有時間與空間進行臨機升空的應急接戰能力。

國防部在南部地區的台南縣新化鎮虎頭埤虎踞營區砲兵群、高雄縣鳥松鄉考潭營區(43砲指部624群)、屏東機場附近空軍飛彈連各設有一個愛國者飛彈基地,此一考量是,防衛南部科學園區、高雄中油後勁五輕工業區、林園工業區、高雄港區、南部各機場、屏東核能三廠等免遭中國導彈攻擊。

國防部情報次長室次長王正霄少將表示,中共彈道飛彈自1996年的190餘枚後,每年以50枚速度增加,2003年已有540餘枚;之後再增加生產數量並精進彈頭效能,目前已有880餘枚戰術彈道飛彈及百餘枚東海巡弋飛彈,射程完全涵蓋台灣全島,確實嚴重威脅到台灣安全。

國防部整評室副主任葛熙雄少將指出,中共對台雖有1000枚導彈,但精準程度、妥善率未如想像中高,研判共軍攻台將以約7成導彈發動攻擊,我方戰損評估應有50%以上的戰力存活率,實施戰力保存各項措施後,更能使戰力存活率超過7成。
But no where in the article did he say, as you claim he did, that more than 70 percent survivability (as you carefully ignored) was predicated on the measures you put forth.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Okay, gotta quit for now. Good posts , everyone See you tomorow.

:lul :eek: :lul ;)

and the similarity between siachen and the straits is what?

The ablility to operate in terrain that other folks consider un-usable, of course.
They were also dealing with an unprepared and less competent adversary

well, I have a doubt as you either deliberately ignore cponsidered responses from some of those who have clear demonstrated competency in a number of disciplines

Right back at you, dude.
Did I do something to tick you off in a previous life, or is the Ivory Tower getting a little drafty?
I'm actually referring to others in here such as Grand Danois and Waylander...

You've ticked me off by the piecemeal approach you're taking to dealing with what is a complex issue. I'm wondering whether you're just being contrarian - thats all.

As for lofty tower? I have no qualms about my limitations...
 

Manfred

New Member
Oh, almost forgot, that 25% shortfall in Hellfires;

5% loss due to misses. Seems high, but in my experiance, combat can make your hands shake just a bit.
1% for missfires or improperly identified tagrets. Probably low...
10% of Helecopters might be shot down, maybe more if they ignore all threats to them, as some would have them do.
15% Lose of efficiency due to mixed load, and the missed oportunities that inevitably happens... unless you believe that a variety of targets will always line themselves up in the right order for you.

31% reduces to 25% due to overlap. Still a devestating, especialy if they have 1,000 of them, all available for use.


One last thing; if Taiwan is invulnerable to Chinese attack, then why have they not declared independance yet?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One last thing; if Taiwan is invulnerable to Chinese attack, then why have they not declared independance yet?
Who says they are invulnerable? We're saying that its not as easy as some of the mainland fan clubbers think....

Still a devestating, especialy if they have 1,000 of them, all available for use.
warfare is about systems and logistics, not platforms.
 

Manfred

New Member
Whoa, hold the phone... Waylander?!?

I rate him higher than myself, he is fully up to speed on land forces. Denigrating that man's knowledge is not making you look good.
 
Last edited:

Transient

Member
One last thing; if Taiwan is invulnerable to Chinese attack, then why have they not declared independance yet?
Because the Taiwanese population isn't willing to go to war and sacrifice their prosperity when they already enjoy de facto independence and self-rule? Why do you ask such a base question?
 

Manfred

New Member
Who says they are invulnerable? We're saying that its not as easy as some of the mainland fan clubbers think....

Well, I just assumed, since my ideas have been shot down without the acknowledgement of a single point having any validity whatsoever. At some point, it seems that I am fighting one circular argument after another here.

I jump around because I am trying to respond to a lot of stuff getting tossed around here, and it comes very fast sometimes. However, I also catch hell when I ignore something, so how can I win here?

NOT a fan of China, not by any means. I see a challenge and I attack it. This is a fascinating operational challenge, and I intend to pursue it.

Why do you ask such a base question?

Because somebody had to. Every other year, it almost comes up for a vote, seems like, and nothing keeps happening. What is really going on over there?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
so how can I win here?
Its got nothing to do with "winning" - its got everything to do with considered debate.

countering with "the largest airforce" etc does not get to the root issues such as logistics, persistence, projection, speed, geography, timing and capability. arguing that a nation has the largest air force in the world and that this blesses them with invasion competency and capability ignores the real time critical issues that have to be addressed - and in a substantial fashion.

countering with comments such as "destroyers" flitting in and out, doing high speed runs and shooting at massed taiwanese infantry ignores so many fundamentals that of course we question how serious and considered your comments are. when some of us make qualified comments which show consideration of thought, and then get responses such as above, then naturally there is a serious doubt. hence my question as to whether you are serious or just being contrarian for attention.

crossing the straits is a non trivial exercise, and D Day provides a classic example of this. Complexity of modern day equivalence can be seen in the USMC amphib presence off of Iraq in GW1.

a spade is a spade as far as I'm concerned, if you think I'm being harsh, then perhaps you need to wonder why and look at how you construct your responses and how you craft your questions in the first place.
 

Manfred

New Member
countering with "the largest airforce" etc does not get to the root issues such as logistics, persistence, projection, speed, geography, timing and capability. arguing that a nation has the largest air force in the world and that this blesses them with invasion competency and capability ignores the real time critical issues that have to be addressed - and in a substantial fashion.

It was not meant to be that. I was trying, many times over, to point out the fact that the numbers of Chinese aircarft could swamp Taiwan's defenses and then provide the function that Air-superiority is supposed to; Ground support. That does count for something in your book, doesn't it?

Also, when I hear about Helecopters hovering around and blasting valuable assets without a care in the world, or Taiwanese Brigades shifting positions to crucial ares, I have to try to remind people that airpower matters.

logistics, persistence, projection, speed, geography, timing and capability.

Discusing all these things in a reasonable amount of detail will requir 15-20,000 words. Triple that for repllys to arguments and verification of all facts, sources and conclusions. Will Site Admin. permit that?

countering with comments such as "destroyers" flitting in and out, doing high speed runs and shooting at massed taiwanese infantry ignores so many fundamentals that of course we question how serious and considered your comments are.

Naval fire support is a very serious matter. When a handful of Infantry is portrayed as being capable of obliterating a BLT with no problem, I tried to remind folks that Naval landings can be supported by Naval gunfire, as has been the case in the past. Sounds basic, but even that seems far-fetched to some people. Wow...

Complexity of modern day equivalence can be seen in the USMC amphib presence off of Iraq in GW1.

Yeah, I know. I also know that an Aegis Cruiser and an Amphibious Assault ship were damaged by mines during that fient.

crossing the straits is a non trivial exercise,

Of course it is not! What better reason for War Game, than to experiment and try it out?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
countering with "the largest airforce" etc does not get to the root issues such as logistics, persistence, projection, speed, geography, timing and capability. arguing that a nation has the largest air force in the world and that this blesses them with invasion competency and capability ignores the real time critical issues that have to be addressed - and in a substantial fashion.

It was not meant to be that. I was trying, many times over, to point out the fact that the numbers of Chinese aircarft could swamp Taiwan's defenses and then provide the function that Air-superiority is supposed to; Ground support. That does count for something in your book, doesn't it?
Of course it does, but blue force planners have had to contend with dealing with swarm attacks for decades. The big bad bear on the block were the soviets, and they were serious players, far more competent at the concept of area saturation than anyone else in history. Its why the counter to numbers is better systems, better fcs, better integration and greater finesse.

Numbers only gets you so far. The Korean War and Iraq/Iran days are long gone as nobody fights to the other sides advantage.

Also, when I hear about Helecopters hovering around and blasting valuable assets without a care in the world, or Taiwanese Brigades shifting positions to crucial ares, I have to try to remind people that airpower matters.
Remember the Balkans? Guess who had absolute air superiority, who had absolute battlespace dominance etc.... Air dominance as an absolute is not a guarantee of battlefield outcome or theatre dominance.

Point in fact, the Taiwanese are not some 2 bit outfit, no matter how easy it is for some to malign them. I've only had dealings with the Taiwanese navy, but they are serious players.

logistics, persistence, projection, speed, geography, timing and capability.

Discusing all these things in a reasonable amount of detail will requir 15-20,000 words. Triple that for repllys to arguments and verification of all facts, sources and conclusions. Will Site Admin. permit that?
break it up into a series of responses and it will get through. submitting a novel in one thread will see it probably get turfed. Members don't like reading novellia on web sites. (generally) and you kill peoples attention span.

just start with the "5 P's" of achieving battlespace dominance. If you can do that (and it doesn't require more than 500 words) then you'll convince me that you're not being contrarian just to keep the thread alive. ;)


countering with comments such as "destroyers" flitting in and out, doing high speed runs and shooting at massed taiwanese infantry ignores so many fundamentals that of course we question how serious and considered your comments are.

Naval fire support is a very serious matter. When a handful of Infantry is portrayed as being capable of obliterating a BLT with no problem, I tried to remind folks that Naval landings can be supported by Naval gunfire, as has been the case in the past. Sounds basic, but even that seems far-fetched to some people. Wow...
NGFS has to be able to get in range, find the target in real time and kill the target in real time. How many navies at a fleet level have the platforms, integrated comms and capability to do that? China is nowhere near French capability (for example) - and superior numbers won't make up for it. They are certainly nowhere near the capability of the Japanese MSDF at a platform sophistication level.

But, where in modern naval history has naval gunfire been opposed by GB ASh systems. No commander is going to stick their vessel in harms way until they absolutely positively know that the opposing shore based missile systems (ASh systems) have been neutralised or killed. Wow indeed.

How soon do you think that the PLAN are going to wander critical assets into Taiwanese ASh range - esp when missile ranges are always understated? The USN was loathe to stick the 5th Fleet anywhere near ground based respondents in the bad old days - and they could have sent any opposing country back into the stone age without even trying.

Complexity of modern day equivalence can be seen in the USMC amphib presence off of Iraq in GW1.

Yeah, I know. I also know that an Aegis Cruiser and an Amphibious Assault ship were damaged by mines during that fient.
It was also an extraordinary committment of assets on a feint - yet large enough to be used if the opportunity arose. All within capital ship gunfire range - but not opposed by ground based ASh systems.

crossing the straits is a non trivial exercise,

Of course it is not! What better reason for War Game, than to experiment and try it out?
Been there, done that. Kind of know the outcome already. :rolleyes:
 

alexycyap

New Member
It is quite clear that PLA naval and air assets are not sufficient by themselves to invade Taiwan. However, why must the Chinese restrict themselves to only conventional weapons? For example, here's one imagined scenario for a Chinese invasion, just from the top of my head.

Months (even years) prior to invasion:
PLA secret operatives and commandos are gradually smuggled into Taiwan, possibly via the "people-smuggling" rings that are currently active. They form independent cells in all major cities/towns, especially those close to major military installations or strategic locations. They independently organize to smuggle their equipment from China, possibly via black market smuggling. They assemble Electromagnetic (EMP) bombs in their hideouts, stock up on explosives and mines, then wait for the attack signal.

Weeks before invasion:
PLAN ships begin massing at invasion ports, perform wargames, missile tests, etc, just to keep the Taiwanese forces on high alert for weeks. I think its fair to say that its impossible for the PLAN to achieve tactical surprise even if they tried, so instead of trying to hide their activities, why not keep the Taiwanese on their toes with countless false alarms.

24 hours to go:
PLA signals its Taiwan-based operatives to get ready.

12 hours to go:
Chinese troops board transports/planes. But the first wave comprises of mostly older civilian ships that have been rigged to be remotely controlled, as decoys.

Finally, a few hours later:
Chinese operatives detonate all EMP bombs, disabling civilian & non-hardened electrical systems in major cities. Other operatives attempt to blow up bridges, mine roads, spread misinformation about Chinese landings, etc. Chaos ensues. Major freeways are clogged with stalled vehicles. While the army tries to restore order, Chinese commandos storm command centres, airfields, radar stations etc to cause as much disruption as possible. This is a similar tactic to that employed by the North Vietnamese during the Tet Offensive.

First PLAN wave crosses point of no return. Taiwanese forces finally decide this is the real thing, and scrambles fighters and ships to intercept. As soon as they engage the decoy ships, PLA launches massive missile barrage against Taiwanese installations and ships, followed by airstrikes by hundreds of planes.

At nightfall, transport planes arrive to deliver paratroops. Submarines attempt to land small raiding parties at all possible points to further confuse the defenders. When the main Chinese force lands, movement of Taiwanese troops to the actual beachheads are hindered by blown bridges, clogged roads and hit-and-run attacks by commandos.

The Chinese will use all possible means to inflict maximum disruption to the Taiwanese command and control, and hinder the movement of defending forces, to buy time for the invasion forces to secure a beachhead and push inland. I think unconventional forces will play a big part.

Alex
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
it is june 2008 taiwan has just elected another DPP leader he decides to declare independance the PRC condems this and gives him 3 days to back down.....or else
and the scenario proceeds from there...enjoy
China would never do that. This would defeat the element of Surprise they value so much. It is likely that preparations are taking place NOW for the 2008 eventuality, and only a stock-standard rejection of the independence will be issued...the one to fear.
 

alexycyap

New Member
Unconventional tactics

Its clear that China will face severe difficulties invading Taiwan using conventional tactics alone. But why only restrict to conventional means? Here's a scenario involving unconventional tactics from the top of my head.

Over a period of months or years, Chinese covert operatives and commandos smuggle themselves over to Taiwan, probably via the people smuggling routes that exist today. They set up independent cells in major cities and close to important military bases. Then smuggle over their equipment and assemble electromagnetic (EMP) bombs, as well as stock up on explosives.

On the eve of the invasion, they detonate all the EMP bombs, frying all civilian and unhardened electronic devices, blacking out major cities and clogging up the freeways with stalled vehicles (no more runways for jets).

While the Taiwanese army tries to restore order, Chinese commandos blow up bridges, mine roads and storm command centres, airfields, etc. This tactic is similar what the Viet Cong did during the Tet Offensive.

Chinese submarines also land small raiding parties on all accessible beaches to further confuse the defenders.

The idea is to cause chaos to distract the defenders, disrupt their command and control and hinder the movement of mobile forces to the invasion areas.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Then smuggle over their equipment and assemble electromagnetic (EMP) bombs, as well as stock up on explosives.

On the eve of the invasion, they detonate all the EMP bombs, frying all civilian and unhardened electronic devices, blacking out major cities and clogging up the freeways with stalled vehicles (no more runways for jets).

While the Taiwanese army tries to restore order, Chinese commandos blow up bridges, mine roads and storm command centres, airfields, etc. This tactic is similar what the Viet Cong did during the Tet Offensive.
I think the problem with the execution of this plan is that there are two objectives in this operation, political, but more importantly, economic. I sincerely doubt the Chinese would look forward to the prospect of multi-billion dollar rebuilding of Taiwan after the Taiwanese forces are defeated.

THis is a far trickier operation where the excution needs to parallel 'lazer surgery' rather then '19th century amputation without anasthesia'.
 

alexycyap

New Member
I think the problem with the execution of this plan is that there are two objectives in this operation, political, but more importantly, economic. I sincerely doubt the Chinese would look forward to the prospect of multi-billion dollar rebuilding of Taiwan after the Taiwanese forces are defeated.
Obviously, China desperately hopes to achieve reunification without war. Any invasion of Taiwan will only be contemplated when diplomatic options have been exhausted, e.g. Taiwan declares independence. Under such a scenario, China will only have one decision to make :- whether it can retake Taiwan militarily. If there is a good chance of victory (e.g. China manages to diplomatically isolate Taiwan from USA), it will definitely attempt invasion, and bear of cost of rebuilding later, because the alternative is unbearable.

Taiwan is a left-over from the Chinese civil war and will always remain a thorn in China's side until resolved. If it takes a few billion dollars to take care of this problem, so be it. The only question is whether China is able to do the job if forced to.
 

alexycyap

New Member
Decoys and deception

It is quite clear that the PLAN cannot hope to hide any massing of an invasion fleet from satellites. Therefore, a surprise attack out of the blue on Taiwan is not possible.

Another idea I have for a Chinese invasion involves not hiding the preparations from the Taiwanese. Instead, let the Taiwanese observe the massing of ships and airpower over months. Meanwhile conduct intense war games, missile tests, recon flights to keep the Taiwanese on their toes etc. Let the Taiwanese have a few false alarms just to wear them down.

After a few months of this "phony war", the real invasion begins. However, only a small portion of the first wave is the real invasion force. The bulk consists of hundreds, maybe thousands, of commercial ships that have been converted to resemble military transports from afar, to act as decoys. Perhaps these can be rigged to be remotely controlled. Their purpose is to absorb much of the Taiwanese initial defensive salvo of cruise missiles, and to draw as much as the Taiwanese air force out to sea where they can be engaged by the PLAAF away from supporting AA fire. A massive fleet of decoys may overwhelm the defenders and give the real invasion force a chance to land.

The invasion will be supported by simultaneous surprise attacks by secret operatives within Taiwan, to give the invaders a chance to secure the beachhead.

Of course, such a plan assumes that China manages to keep the UN/USA out of the picture via diplomatic means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top