Moderated taiwan invasion war game

Manfred said:

Sensors are one thing, and are only worth the same as the weapons that they are guiding. Have you been keeping up with all the Chinese espionage cases in the US in the last few years? They are entirely focused on technology. Any idea how many spies succeded in relation to the number that were caught?

My background; US Marine Corps, Helecopter transport, amphibious assaults & NBC warfare, with some logistics.
I decided to go into combat arms, HQMC said no, they had spent too much money training me in the Air Wing. I said fine. When My time was up, I went straight to the Army and became a Scout, saw combat in the First Gulf War (4/7 Cav. 3rd A.D.) and elsewhere.
How about you?

Click to expand...

25 yrs Feds, 15 years in Defence Sector, 7 years my own Mil technology company.

Project management and recovery on various projects including bushmaster, rapier2, perenti, perenti mod, collins, ballistics.

2 years ops manager for a ballistics project, 1 year as a consultant on mil cables and connectors.

my company deals with mainly UDT miltech relating to sensor systems.

I'm more than familiar with some of those sensor systems which are also not in the public domain.

as a I said obliquely before, a goldfish couldn't fart in that area without setting off alarms. there is no way that a waterborne and delivered invasion could be delivered.

China does not have persistence, projection and platforms to achieve a cross water invasion.

They most certainly do not have the ability to launch a more difficult invasion team by air. the numbers don't stack up. as a marine you should be more than aware of the numbers and assets required to successfully insert and them dominate a position on a revolving day basis. if you think that they can do this, then we're both looking at a different country.

short of teleporting them, they'll need to resort to assymetrical warfare.

I've also been on Tender Evaluation Teams to evaluate Hardware, written parts of the RFT's that are sent out to companies to bid on requirements and been Team Leader on Project Recovery Teams.

Part of my career involved running the security for 4 ministers in Fed Parliament as well as running the hot site for the 2nd largest network in the southern hemisphere.

During Tiananmen Sq I was head of what was euphemistically called "The China Task Force" in our International Division. I had my car rammed by CCP staffers trying to stop me assisting chinese students seeking refugee status.

btw, I'm also part chinese, so maybe I have a better idea of how my ancestors minds and thus their future generations might work.

There might be enough in my background to give me a clue as to what and how both sides think. ....

I am trying to organize a game to see if a thing is possible. Why is that such a problem?

On second thought... I might have found a good opponent. Care to give it a try?
China does not have persistence, projection and platforms to achieve a cross water invasion.
I don't agree at all with that first one. From all I have heard and seen of that race, they can be very persistant.
Projection is a matter of transport. What if a mere 20% of Chinese-built merchantmen were desighned with a military support purpose in mind? Available tonnage would be staggering, even allowing for a 30% loss rate.
Platforms; with the coast just 150 kilometers away, what platforms are you talking about?

Manfred said:

gf0012-aust said:

China does not have persistence, projection and platforms to achieve a cross water invasion.

Click to expand...

I don't agree at all with that first one. From all I have heard and seen of that race, they can be very persistant.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're an ex marine? Persistence is a military term. This is a military related forum - I'm using military descriptors. The term has got nothing to do with a triumph of the will. Its a logistical issue and expression.

Manfred said:

Projection is a matter of transport. What if a mere 20% of Chinese-built merchantmen were desighned with a military support purpose in mind? Available tonnage would be staggering, even allowing for a 30% loss rate.

Click to expand...

Huh? what percentile of their commercial vessels are suitable for an amphib landing? You can have all the tonnage in the world, but if you can't load and offload it at suitable disgorge rates, then you have targets.

Manfred said:

Platforms; with the coast just 150 kilometers away, what platforms are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Again, are you sure you're an ex-marine?

You're asking and forming up questions which make me seriously question your background.

Sir, I am postulating a scenario for educational and entertainment purposes. I do not question your background. If you really doubt mine, ask me a question about the Corps, one that only a Marine would know.

Persistance; the will and ability to sustain a war of attrition, annihilation or one similar. I understand your doubts about the ability of the Chinese Navy and Airforce to logisticaly sustain and invasion for more than a week or two. So do I... but I belive that the first ten days will decide the issue. After that, it's all moot. They will either win or loose in the first week, if not the first 48 hours.

Platforms; Chinese airfields are within easy range of Taiwan, even heavy lift Helocopters can make the trip. Much of the command and control functions can also be handled from the shore. As for the rest;

I am not talking about pressing un-modified civilian craft into service as transports, I know that you canot sail stright to the dock, or even plan on using captured docks, something always goes wrong at the last minute.

However, I do not rule out the idea that some Chinese ships, especialy those under 1000 tons, may have been desighned and built in such a way to make them useful to the Navy. Are you telling me that it is impossible that some ships might have painted-over hatches, ramps and other fittings?

There are many experts here, this is a very rarefied atmoshphere, and I have no desire to look like a ninny. However, the Experts always seem to be best at telling us why something can't be done. Wars are won by people who figure out how they CAN be done. If I look like a fool, tossing out odd ideas, so be it.

You were attacked by CCP agents in a voilent way. Remember that while I go into my next point. We are taught about the use of "expendable assets". We don't talk about that, but you know what I mean. I have trouble believing that the CCP would not be utterly ruthless in the use of their own expendables, and do so in shockingly effective ways.

Last point; the unthinkable has happened before. Who thought that Argentina would invade the Falklands before 1982? Who immagined that the German assault on Norway would succeed, and in such a way, before it happened? Who in the West thought for a moment that the Japanese could conquer Malasia and Singapore in a few weeks?

The next move belongs to those who will take a chance, and come up with innovative solutions to old problems.
We seem to be having a failure to communicate here. I repeat, would you like to oppose me in the game?

Manfred said:

I repeat, would you like to oppose me in the game?

Click to expand...

In short, no. I wargamed this in a Chinese Mil Studies group approx 3 months ago using unpublicised data - so I've got no desire to do it again.

Once a year is enough for me.

Outstanding!
Without giving too much away, could you share the results?

What forces employed, who survived, what were the LZs used?

Hello?

Don't you hate it when this happens?

Manfred, could you please reply to my PM.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/private.php

Got it, thanks for reminding me to check!

May be a spanner in the works here. Never know when a lil bit of info is useful.

There was a reported agreement between China and Singapore that specified a timeframe for notification to Singapore before any conflict begins bet. China and Taiwan. This request was made to ensure the safe evacuation of Singaporean forces on Taiwan, the notification timeframe is around 3-4 weeks, IIRC.

Here's the website : singapore-window.org/sw03/030824af.htm

(nasty rule about posting links)

Links lead to lots of trouble, from spam to viruses. I never follow them myself.

3-4 weeks? Sounds like wishful thinking on somebody's part.

Not only that, but it would ruin my own plans. What I had in mind was a 2-day long nautical shell game, to mass an invasion fleet in 3 widely dispersed areas. If it came off right, Taiwan would only have 24 hours warning when all these ships suddenly turned towards them.

Three weeks... yeah, right. How important is Singapore to China, anyway?

Manfred said:

Three weeks... yeah, right. How important is Singapore to China, anyway?

Click to expand...

Well I am not sure of the information either, to be fair, Singapore's location makes it an important country to North Asia full stop. A lot of trade and oil goes through the Straits.

The Chinese wouldn't give 3 minutes notice if they could help it, let alone 3 weeks. Whats going to happen? An attack from Singapore? I think they would be far more worried about the USN and giving them 3 weeks notice of a pending attack would be suicidal.

Theres very little doubt the Chinese simply dont have the amphibious/transport/supply assets to mount a invasion from the sea. I dont even see how they could come up with the platforms for the initial 3 beach attack, "and they would be fools not to attack on multiple beaches", let alone the platforms to supply/support the initial shock forces.

Its been awhile since I gauged their amphib ship platforms but If I remember right they had something over 40 with most of them old and very few over 4,000 tons, most under 2,000. I know they have built some new ones, but c'mon, they hardly have enough for an exercise let alone an invasion. Contrarily "I love that word" this is what we call "assault ships" http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-1-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhd-1-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lsd-41-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lsd-49-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lcc-19-specs.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sealift-inventory.htm

Take a good look at what we consider "minimum" and what the Chinese have in their inventory. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm

I use Pikes sight because its easiest to navigate and past. No matter how you look at it the Chinese capability to launch an invasion of Taiwan from the sea just isn't there. Not only that, it aint going to be there for a long, long time. If ever! Between the platforms available, and available marines actually trained for such an OP, anyone who would think this is possible must be a Loon. And the Chinese aren't Loons. They would actually have to be prepared to fight two wars. One against Taiwan, and one against the USN for sea/air dominance in the region. I suspect they would have a hard enough time with Taiwan's air force and that dominance in and around the Island would be contested for awhile too.

And you just cant take a bunch of fishing boats, cargo ships, yachts, or whatever, and load them up with troops and equipment. I dont care what "in mind" they were built for. The communications issues alone would screw things up let alone the synchronization of forces, in an OP that has to run like a Swiss watch to succeed. A 1,000 ton ship would be about as useful as tits on a Bull. Thats a "man carrier" not a "machine carrier". What are they going to do? Land and run across the Island?

So they would be left with a BM terror campaign which probably aint enough to take out the critical sights they would need to. Throughout history it has shown that such terror bombing campaigns dont work. Mass killings of civilians would demonize them in the world view. A naval blockade might work but that to would be contested, and again, there would be a probable eventuality of the USN showing up. And then what? Besides they would still be left with an Island 165 clicks off their shores that aint theirs.

So yes, China is modernizing. But when you look at the , and I use the word "good", systems they have available its not nowhere even close to being able to pull an OP like this off. They have had more then their share of problems with development and integration into trained forces.

And they know all this. Believe me they know it even better then we do. No Commander would even try such an OP without a 5 to 1 advantage of comparable forces. For the Chinese 165 KLs is a long ways off.

Rich, you're right. I've gone over the numbers from various sites, and the maximum sealift for troops is barely over 10,000. It's incredible, I know, but those are the numbers using Sinodefence's navy page.

Sure China could try to draft in some civilian ships, but that wouldn't make up for what the PLAN lacks. Air transport capabilities are even worse.

Thanks for the links, I will have a look at those.

10,000? Sounds off by a long way. I was assumming 50 kilos per man per day... are you sure that the number was calculated by Chinese, and not Western standards?

THis is the same site where I was told that selling hulls to China was like sending coal to Newcastle, and the Civilian Airfleet was growing by leaps and bounds. Which is it?

Manfred said:

10,000? Sounds off by a long way. I was assumming 50 kilos per man per day... are you sure that the number was calculated by Chinese, and not Western standards?

Click to expand...

I calculated it myself by using the numbers of ships in service with the PLAN and their capacity - from Sinodefence.com. I then found that Globaldefence.com had the 10,000 figure too.

Manfred said:

Thanks for the links, I will have a look at those.

10,000? Sounds off by a long way. I was assumming 50 kilos per man per day... are you sure that the number was calculated by Chinese, and not Western standards?

THis is the same site where I was told that selling hulls to China was like sending coal to Newcastle, and the Civilian Airfleet was growing by leaps and bounds. Which is it?

Click to expand...

50 kilos? What about the armor, the transport, the medical gear? The Taiwanese have over 1,500 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 1,200 APCs. How are the Chinese going to float enough equipment and supplies for a 1 : 1 engagement of forces let alone the 5 : 1 they need to succeed?

How many MBTs can a 2,000 ton transport possible carry? 4 or 5? Their bigger ones maybe 10 amphib tanks? Then figure in the overall attrition of the first few hours. Which would probably be somewheres around 50%. I dont know if 50% of the amphib assault/support ships would get thumped but I bet they would get thumped. And before even letting off cargoes.

Theres only one World power that could pull something like this off, and we'd really rather not. History has shown these types of attacks are nasty affairs with heavy casualties. Even the ones with the defenders far, far off from their bases of supply/communications. Even with total air dominance they are nasty.

If anything the Chinese communists have historically been rather wary and careful and they dont like taking chances. Even their entry into Korea wouldn't have ever happened if a English spy hadn't assured them the US would not ever nuke them.

The 50 Kilos per day was for supply. Not total wieght.


So, mathamaticly, it is impossible... If we know all that there is to know about all of China's ships, aircraft and equipment.

Do we?

I can't help wondering if the people were surprised that the Germans were able to occupy Norway in April of 1940, and how impossible that seemed before it happened.

Altho, I must admit, all the enthusiasm I had for this project is just about gone.

Rich said:

50 kilos? What about the armor, the transport, the medical gear? The Taiwanese have over 1,500 tanks, 1,500 artillery pieces, 1,200 APCs. How are the Chinese going to float enough equipment and supplies for a 1 : 1 engagement of forces let alone the 5 : 1 they need to succeed?
How many MBTs can a 2,000 ton transport possible carry? 4 or 5? Their bigger ones maybe 10 amphib tanks? Then figure in the overall attrition of the first few hours. Which would probably be somewheres around 50%. I dont know if 50% of the amphib assault/support ships would get thumped but I bet they would get thumped. And before even letting off cargoes.

Click to expand...

Spot on. Everyone seems to get exited talking about fancy tactics and sneaky tricks, but none of that is possible without adequate logistics. PLAN and PLA do need a 5 : 1 advantage at least in order for the ivasion to be sucsessfull. And with defencding forces as large as the ones we are talking about, 1500 tanks, 1500 Arty pieces (a good number of MLRS in there too), and several divisions of mech infantry, 5 : 1 starts to look pretty daunting. There have been arguments made that this can be avoided by achieving suprise. However no one has realisticly stated how exactly this is possible with the ISR capability of the US pointing at china. So thats out of the question.

Also how are you going to use the merchant marine without a port??? Beach it and cut holes in the side at low tide and drive the tanks out? The chances of PLA capturing an intact port are low, the chances that said port would operational for longer than a few houres are in the millions considering the firepower on the defencive side. An example is Antwerp or Brest, the allies captured brest but it was over a month before it was ofloading any meaningfull tonnage due to the dammage the germans had done, and only after it was out of artillary range. Antwerp was not as badly dammaged but still took several weeks to become usefull because of german foces within artillary range of the shipping lanes and minefields. Taiwan is much smaller geographicly, has much fewer ports to defend/destroy, and there artillary capability is much better than the germans. So capturng a port and getting it in working order is, if not impossible, only achievable in a timeframe that would render it irrelevent in terms of the conflict we are talking about. So taking into about the merchant marine is irrelevent if you cant unload them. Unless PROC has built a mullbury in total secrecy and intends to use one. So realisticly your just talking about amphibs. And remember one key fact, every aphib that unloads a tank then needs to be used to supply it over the beaches. So as the deployed force gets larger, the more of your amphib asstets are needed to cart supplies over the same landing beaches, under heavy artillary bombardment, and thats not taking atrittion into account which is bound to be heavy, considering the stand off weapons the defender posess. There is a maximum force that can be deployed AND SUPPLIED with a sertain amount of logistical assets, and i think it is nowhere near the 5:1 ratio needed. We might not knoe the exact logistical capability of PLAN, but unless the estimates ar miles off and it is much stronger than stated, even by chinese sorces, then the equasion deosent change all that much. This is so rediculosly hard it seems nye impossible with the assets at hand. However people just dont seem to be thinking about this in a logical and realistic manner, considering the massive problems involved, and just want to think of it as an entertaining novell or video game.

Manfred said:

I can't help wondering if the people were surprised that the Germans were able to occupy Norway in April of 1940, and how impossible that seemed before it happened.

Click to expand...

That was because no one believed they could slip past the Royal Navy - transport capabilities were less of an issue.

Also the Germans only used five divisions and two regiments for the invasion, with no serious need for armour. Then there was Norway's lack of naval and airpower. There is absolutely no way Taiwan would be such an easy target for China.