Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[goldenpanda]

The Blitzkrieg began on May 10 with an attack on France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Dutch surrendered on May 15 and the British began evacuating Dunkirk on May 26. It all happened very quickly. My point was that none of the Netherlands’ allies were in a position to help the Dutch, unlike the situation with Taiwan where the USA and perhaps others would certainly be in a position to help. I could argue with you about the quality of the Dutch defences and whether the canals were a liability rather than an asset but I think that would be getting too much OT. Incidentally wouldn't the fact that an enemy had "shown extreme aggression and brutality" in another country make surrender a good idea once there was nothing but assured destruction (through bombing) to be gained by continued fighting? I spent some time last year in the Netherlands and Belgium and when I visited the Belgium city of Ypres (English Spelling) I was struck by the fact that whilst this city was famous for resisting German occupation in WW1 (the city was flattened in the process) the residents were pleased that Belgium surrendered on May 28 before the rebuilt city could be destroyed again.

What I was pointing to was Germany's brutal occupation of Poland, which makes surrender pretty undesirable. You are right in a sense that Europeans in 1940 were wary of more wars. They wanted to sign whatever treaty and get it over with.

Taiwanese today are kind of oblivious to how bad war is. They just know to reel in pain whenever we cause their stock market to dive. I think they'll yield to China if we up the pressure, while keeping the paternal face. That's the reason we never make nuclear threats--how could a parent shoot his own child?

 

[Schumacher]

..........
As things stand, it's pretty tough to win them over towards active unification. We don't have the economic and cultural advantage of say, West Germany against East Germany. The best we could do is bolster their anti-independence sentiments.

There will have to be considerable plurality in the Beijing government to go beyond this. Actually if people take the time to understand CCP, they are not opposed to a more democratic system in principle. However in practice electoral governments have not been effective in many places like South Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, not least of all Iraq. Ideological westerners refuse to acknowledge any of this. This kind of attitude has already alienated Russia, who increasingly sees the West as hypocritical and pursuing their own power games.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/w...&en=3c3dfce117120d6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Yes, actually PRC likes the status quo & they know time is on their side to gain the economic & cultural advantage as you mentioned with the Germany example.
I think Hu is smarter than Jiang, he knows the smarter ones in the US administrations don't want conflict as well so he presses them to rein in Chen.

 

[goldenpanda]

If your going to make massive generalizations like that, that are slightly offencive you'd better make sure you've got your facts streight.

Yet you ignored the facts I JUST gave to you, such as the evacuation of 100,000 soldiers from Putnam. Massive generalization is what I see all the time, but most are coming from "your side".

UN was not out numbered in total forces, as you can see by how many had to evacuate. UN was at the highest morale when we attacked, chasing North Koreans before them. By Feb 1951 we had advanced almost 700 km, with no tanks, no aircraft, and primitive logistics. It is the scale of this achievement that I used to support my point. So if you refuse to acknowledge something pretty obvious, then go into discussions about "oh you surprised us", "oh you used human waves", that's actually slightly insulting.

You could tell me that the ADF doesn't have the capability to invade and occupy indonesia and i wouldn't be offended. You know why, because realisticly we dont. And thats ok. It doesnt lessen the pride and admiration i feel for the quality and bravery of my countries armed forces. I'm sorry to say buddy but PROC just doesn't have the capability to invade taiwan at the moment under just about any feasable senario.

And that's fine with me just how you put it. If you look at my own posts I'm open about how difficult it is, in fact I present arguments FOR how hard it will be. What I don't accept are *dismissive* statements, which I know you can tell when you see them, too.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Taiwanese today are kind of oblivious to how bad war is. They just know to reel in pain whenever we cause their stock market to dive. I think they'll yield to China if we up the pressure, while keeping the paternal face. That's the reason we never make nuclear threats--how could a parent shoot his own child?

That all depends on the rest of the world. if PROC starts upping the pressure on taiwan and the western world starts lining up behind taiwan i dont think they'll even consider capitulation. Japan, South Korea, Australia and most of south east asia would be verry concerned about growing Chinise agression and most see china as the major threat in the reagion allready, not to mention the US. I doubt any of these nations would allow taiwan to unite with china under the tyhreat of invasion or fall to PROC without interviening. The US has guarentied taiwan's security. Is taiwan worth a war with most of the western world? I suspect the chinese will back down before the taiwanese.

 

[Schumacher]

Anyone Europe or the US have issued de facto security guarantees for or have direct interest in?

Pretty hard actually.

I thought we were talking about 'unprovoked barbaric attack on a much weaker nation'.
So you've gone in circles to limit the questions to just 'Anyone Europe or the US have issued de facto security guarantees for or have direct interest in?' simply to avoid the obvious answer ?
That's quite sad really.

Anyway, I do get what you're trying to say that Europe & US have interests in Taiwan. But I do question the ability of Europe & US to implement global sanctions on China though considering the level of their success so far with Iran.

 

[Grand Danois]

So you've gone in circles to limit the questions to just 'Anyone Europe or the US have issued de facto security guarantees for or have direct interest in?' simply to avoid the obvious answer ?
That's quite sad really.

For your initial statement to have relevance it has to apply to a Taiwan scenario, right? De facto security guarantees is at work here.

I placed it in context. Nothing to do with going in circles.

Other than saying it does not apply, I'm not going to discuss Iran in this thread.

 

[Schumacher]

For your initial statement to have relevance it has to apply to a Taiwan scenario, right? De facto security guarantees is at work here.

I placed it in context. Nothing to do with going in circles.

Other than saying it does not apply, I'm not going to discuss Iran in this thread.

When DA said 'a weaker nation', I thought any weaker nation. My mistake.
ok, no Iran. I sense a reluctance to discuss another weak nation as well.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Infuriate Americans ? I'd think not nearly as infuriating to them as they'd feel in the event of any US military response starting to go wrong. As for economic sanctions, there was the economic sanctions in 1989-90. It crumbled a few years later. So you think any economic sanctions now will 'utterly destroy' PRC's economy ?

China wasn't acting to destablise the entire Asian region then, was it? If it attacked Taiwan, that would have a much more effective response in comparison.

You're right however that the best way is to win the hearts of the Taiwanese. Fortunately, PRC is doing this coupled with pressure on the Chen government.

Umm, you don't get it - do you? China isn't winning hearts & minds in Taiwan. Buying a bit of fruit doesn't counteract the fact China is unpleasant towards Taiwan in both media and official statements, has an ever increasing military build-up (nearly 1,000 missiles?) obviously directed at it, won't talk to the elected government, obstructs it signing economic agreements with other countries/joining the WHO, objects to it buying weapons to replace worn-out capabilities, etc.

It's a shame that Beijing can't understand these very simple facts, because if it did it could lead to a new, more successful approach to China-Taiwan relations. But if it continues with its current attitude (which I see no cause to believe it won't), relations will not improve regardless of who wins the 2008 election. Giving someone an ice-cream doesn't compensate for holding a gun to their head - it's like Saddam Hussein asking that little kid whether he had enough cornflakes for breakfast!

 

[Grand Danois]

When DA said 'a weaker nation', I thought any weaker nation. My mistake.

In principle you'll have to ask DA to clear up what he meant. I read it as related to Taiwan.

ok, no Iran. I sense a reluctance to discuss another weak nation as well.

The reluctance is based on the very peripheral relevance to the thread. We could use an endless number of posts on how Iran is affected under the current sanctions regime, on how clear the case is, and if any of this applies at all to Taiwan. I can't see it does. The PRC using any kind of military force against Taiwan would be viewed in the same way as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

[Schumacher]

China wasn't acting to destablise the entire Asian region then, was it? If it attacked Taiwan, that would have a much more effective response in comparison.

If Taiwan declares independence, Asia will point the finger at Taiwan for causing instability, not China. Well, let's just say China is also much more effective in facing sanctions compared to 1990, and I do doubt how 'international' the sanctions will be.

Umm, you don't get it - do you? China isn't winning hearts & minds in Taiwan...........

Only time will tell.

 

[isthvan]

considering the pace of PLAN improvement, eventually is just not good enough. As for HH-16/YJ-83 superior to ESSM/HF-3, I don't think I said that, there are other stuff involved like sensors, combat system. Which I think 054A being a new frigate will have advantage. But strictly speaking, I do think YJ-83, being the more proven missile and continuously imprvoing has the advantage over HF-3. For example, the air launched version of YJ-83 scored hits on 63 out of 64 launches by JH-7A regiment stationned in SSF. I don't think HF-3 can achieve that.

Considering that ROCN will have to upgrade combat system and some of the sensors if they wont to upgrade weapons suite on Kang Ding class I doubt that type054 combat system will be so superior.

From what I have seen YJ-83 is really modern and capable system(probably one of the best SSMs today) but HF-3 seams to be in that liege too. Also we will have to see how this systems will perform in real life environment... On other hand we still cant judge HQ-16 since currently we don't have any knowledge about it other then obvious fact that it is VLS launched...

what are you proposing then?

Honestly nothing... Looking at quantity and quality of systems ROC and PRC have and variety of scenarios outcome can be different. On other hand most of people who advocate PRC side have tendency to minimize ROCN capability to inflict loses to PLAN modern assets...

it doesn't have to destroy ROC defenses completely. It will just have to keep these units on the run constantly and not create too much problem. It just needs to constantly "bother" the units opposing the land. It just needs to damage enough airbases and keep enough SAM units on the run to achieve air superiority.

And that is not so simple task as some think; ROC defenses are quite well prepared and If you don't destroy them (and I didn't see any proof that PRC can achieve that in limited time line they have) they will pose serious treat to any invasion force. They could save enough assets to decimate any invasion force and if that happens invasion is failed even with PLAF air superiority...

M48 is no match to Type 99 no matter how much you upgrade. PLA has all kinds of improved infantry equipment such as Type 95 rifle, kevlar armour and helmets, 120mm antitank rockets, IFV's. Our SP artillery is also better if we can put them to use. All the best stuff will be thrown into the beach head that's what Taiwan will be facing. If we secure the beachhead, move up heavy armor, any breakthrough will cause unrecoverable collapse to their army, like what happened to the south vietnamese.

And how many type99 tanks can you deploy with your amphibious forces? PLA has body armor, helmets and bullpup rifles? Now ROC Army has to surrender, they really don't have anything like this...
What Taiwanese will be facing is light infantry supported by IFVs and light amphibious tanks; on other hand PRC will face numerically superior opposition defending from prepared positions with enormous artillery support... And M-48A5 and M-60A3 are more then match for light amphibious tanks...

the 6000 troops is per transport. My estimate was 2 brigades a day, NOT counting the 50 medium ships. That seems more than enough to expand from the beachhead

I already shown you how many troops PLAN can deploy. If you count in light tanks, IFVs and most important supplies figure drops considerably. Also this is best case scenario with no losses of PLAN amphibious transports, unopposed landing and ideal conditions for unloading troops and supplies...

Now considering possible losses to ROC shore based anti-ship missiles, to artillery, considering that landing spots are already mined, considering time needed to unload those 75 ships on that beach, considering those Taiwanese troops defending beaches from prepared fortifications do you still think that they will be able to expand beachhead? They will be lucky if they survive...

 

[Schumacher]

......
...The PRC using any kind of military force against Taiwan would be viewed in the same way as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

I disagree here, if the attack is due to Taiwan's provocative action like openly declaring independence etc, US and/or Japan might try to explore options of gaining some advantage, but it won't be viewed globally in anyway resembling the Kuwait invasion.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Yet you ignored the facts I JUST gave to you, such as the evacuation of 100,000 soldiers from Putnam. Massive generalization is what I see all the time, but most are coming from "your side".


And that's fine with me just how you put it. If you look at my own posts I'm open about how difficult it is, in fact I present arguments FOR how hard it will be. What I don't accept are *dismissive* statements, which I know you can tell when you see them, too.

So you owned the un because of the evacuation of a division ( i think correct me if i'm wrong but i think it was the 7th) that was logistically streached, had just compleated a long advance, when it was being assaulted by a numerically superier enemy that had the advantage of suprise and therefore the chinese owned the UN?? Because of one action? when your casualties were so much higher than UN forces (not including South koreas, many of whom were inflicted buy North Korean forces in the initial stages), and the fact that the allies didnt attack past the 38th paralell again was only due to fear of ferther escelation, ie soviet envolvment. All of this doesnt matter because of the tactical withdrawl of one division??? come on dude. Is it offencive to say that light formations fought heavy formations??? You admit chinese forces were light? Chinese forces showed unbelievable bravery in korea, charging en mass against well fortified positions and masses of allied heavy weapons and devistating artillary. But i'm sorry to say that the only real reasons for chinese sucsess were suprise, numerical superiority and to some extent the ability of light chinese forces to move over terrain that the heavy allies couldn't. So don't go around saying you owned anyone, you fought well thats for sure, lets be respectfull.

I know people can be dismissive, especially some of us "westerners" but your repling to dissmisive statements with unrealistic dismisive statements of your own and you all just end up going round in circles untill the thread is closed, so try to be the "bigger" person and dont drop to their level. But your also responding this way to reasonable post's, Its no discrace to say that PROC cant do what they dont have the capability to do, and it seemed you couldn't admit that. Its ok, the ADF cant to what we dont have the capability to do.

 

[goldenpanda]

The reluctance is based on the very peripheral relevance to the thread. We could use an endless number of posts on how Iran is affected under the current sanctions regime, on how clear the case is, and if any of this applies at all to Taiwan. I can't see it does. The PRC using any kind of military force against Taiwan would be viewed in the same way as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Do you find it even slightly hypocritical to say attacking another country out of unestablished, phantom fears, with the result of 100,000 people killed, is any acceptable behavior? Do you find it slightly hypocritical to constantly threaten two sovereign nations for developing a weapon which they hold more than anyone else, while ignoring their own NPT obligation to seek eventual disarmament? Do you find it any hypocritical that most of USA population DO NOT EVEN KNOW they're obliged to seek disarmament, while they go around seeking to disarm others?

Why should the international community want to follow a hypocrite, I think that's Schumacher main point.

 

[goldenpanda]

Ozzy I think if you look at your own comments you're becoming more unrealistic, and nationalistic than I ever was. you spend a huge amount of dishonest effort to prove you were "not owned". I really don't care. I added some facts to the original post, if facts are what you're interested in. One more fact is that North Korea exists today because of our victorious army in Korea. If you deny even that you'll only be insulting yourself.

 

[Grand Danois]

Do you find it even slightly hypocritical to say attacking another country out of unestablished, phantom fears, with the result of 100,000 people killed, is any acceptable behavior? Do you find it slightly hypocritical to constantly threaten two sovereign nations for developing a weapon which they hold more than anyone else, while ignoring their own NPT obligation to seek eventual disarmament? Do you find it any hypocritical that most of USA population DO NOT EVEN KNOW they're obliged to seek disarmament, while they go around seeking to disarm others?

Why should the international community want to follow a hypocrite, I think that's Schumacher main point.

There are many interesting points, among those, what soft power constitutes, and what moral leadership is. And how it impacts the room for political maneuver. Especially wrt what Putin said on the Munich conference.

However, I refuse to discuss what I am to be morally indignated over. It will quickly disintegrate into emotional replies...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Either threads start relating to the topic title or they will be deleted.

I am not going to close the thread, but I will be deleting everything that is off topic.

There have been so many warnings that its now beyond a joke.

This is not up for debate.

If people want to discuss idealogical and political disconnects then start another thread on another forum or PM each other.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree with you reguarding the iraq war. But NK and iranian nuke programe is verry dangerous for the world, including china. Just because the US has nuclear weapons, that means the rest of us can have them too? Thats not a verry constructive atitude for the future of human civilization. And i'm pretty sure that Russia has the largest stockpiles of nuclear warheads, by a mile. In fact the US has droped its arsenal from 60 000 odd warheads, some with yields of over 10 megatones to 1700, with 700kt yeilds at the maximum. That is what i call massive dissarmament.

A china beligerant enough to launch military operations against Taiwan would be unaceptable to Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philipines, Singapour and practically the rest of south east asia. Thats a big chunk of the rest of the world, even if the europeans didn't get involved. Add the US to that equasion and thats a pretty formidable alliance. iraq war or not.

 

[goldenpanda]

And how many type99 tanks can you deploy with your amphibious forces? PLA has body armor, helmets and bullpup rifles? Now ROC Army has to surrender, they really don't have anything like this...

Notice I said "if we secure the beachhead, move up heavy armor". I was talking in answer of the question, how many troops to defeat Taiwan, once we're onshore?

And yes, they really don't have bullpup or any kevlar armor that I can see.

What Taiwanese will be facing is light infantry supported by IFVs and light amphibious tanks; on other hand PRC will face numerically superior opposition defending from prepared positions with enormous artillery support... And M-48A5 and M-60A3 are more then match for light amphibious tanks...

The answer to your picture is in other posts but I'll retread quickly. PLA can put all its firepower into a few kilometers of front, while Taiwanese are spread over much of 1500km of coastline. Given air superiority, major weapons near beaches are not survivable, for that few kilometers of front we need. So I don't put much doubt on ability of T63A+IFV to get onshore. The real challenge is to hold and grow the beachhead against artillery and counter attacks.

I already shown you how many troops PLAN can deploy. If you count in light tanks, IFVs and most important supplies figure drops considerably. Also this is best case scenario with no losses of PLAN amphibious transports, unopposed landing and ideal conditions for unloading troops and supplies...

25 HLT's will carry a fully mechanized brigade, with all their equipment, EACH transport. That's where my 2 brigades a day comes from. You can keep saying attrition attrition attrition, without more facts we're not going to get anywhere. But you want to rather dismiss the viability of invasion on these filmsy arguments. That's just kind of stubborn and silly.

 

[isthvan]

Notice I said "if we secure the beachhead, move up heavy armor". I was talking in answer of the question, how many troops to defeat Taiwan, once we're onshore?

And yes, they really don't have bullpup or any kevlar armor that I can see.

I have misunderstood your post... IMHO if PRC establishes beachheads and start moving inshore ROC is basically screwed... On other hand I doubt that they can do that.

As for bullpups; while ROC standard rifle is T-86/T-91 rifle based on M-16 although it has piston-type gas action ROC has bullpup sniper rifle based on Israeli M89SR sniper rifle (besides bullpup design doesn't make type95 rifle better then T-86/T-91 rifle).
As for body armor I have seen enough pictures of ROC troops with PASGAT helmets and body armor.

The answer to your picture is in other posts but I'll retread quickly. PLA can put all its firepower into a few kilometers of front, while Taiwanese are spread over much of 1500km of coastline. Given air superiority, major weapons near beaches are not survivable, for that few kilometers of front we need. So I don't put much doubt on ability of T63A+IFV to get onshore. The real challenge is to hold and grow the beachhead against artillery and counter attacks.

On those 1500km of coastline how many places are suitable for amphibious landing(using LST sucks)? And ROC has been preparing for this for how many now? Troops are concentrated in vicinity of those spots, beaches are mined, supplies are stored near etc. And I doubt that your ONE mech brigade will be able to successfully make beachhead and secure it until they are reinforced... And sorry but I still don't think that PLAAF will gain air superiority so easily...

25 HLT's will carry a fully mechanized brigade, with all their equipment, EACH transport. That's where my 2 brigades a day comes from. You can keep saying attrition attrition attrition, without more facts we're not going to get anywhere. But you want to rather dismiss the viability of invasion on these filmsy arguments. That's just kind of stubborn and silly.

Mate you are looking at this like some ferry ride where those troops get in the amphibious ships, have a nice boring ride and joyfully disembark without any problems... I see this as War, with all problems that are connected to this kinds of operations, with strong opposition, with all logistical problems, basically with all the shit that happens during War.. If those are flimsy arguments then yes I'm stubborn and silly...