Someone who likes to make a lot of rookie mistakes while chiding others for making rookie mistakes.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
I edited: Also, perhaps you can make a knowledgeable argument about what the approximate quantity of "locally supportable" USN actually is. I also suppose you think there is some kind of magical maritime Great Wall where the USN's Atlantic assets are somehow magically prevented from sailing over to the Pacific to replace destroyed Pacific assets because... reasons
That is to say, they still have a fleet in the Pacific by the time they arrive to help. With how fast their Pacific fleet will sink, the contested area isn't going to be near china.
Uhh yeah, it’s called 1) Basing capacity (what you think ships aren’t limited by supply lines)? 2) Do you still care about other theaters?
Besides, it’s not like you can just teleport the Atlantic fleet into the Pacific. While the Atlantic fleet redeploys China gets to reload, and if round 1 is a wipeout for the USN Pacific Fleet it’s not even assured the USN will have bases to support the redeployment. Even if (miraculously) exposed US bases didn’t get taken out as a follow up to them losing all defensive capacity what makes you think round 1 would look any different from round one?
One of these days you should uh realize bravado is not a sound substitute for intelligent thought, especially if you want to be taken seriously.
1) Basing capacity is only half of the consideration, the other part being how many ships in total do you have, since this is relevant when the ships you CAN fight with are attrited down. 2) no you don't really give even one flying fuck about "other theaters" if it's a war between China and US's entire security architecture in the Pacific. OTOH it's not exactly a surprise that you utterly lack the geopolitical understanding of what would be at stake for the US if it decided to throw in against China in a Pacific war.
WTF does "reload" even mean in this context? Rebuild? ROFLMAO you actually think that a few weeks' voyage from the Atlantic theater to the Pacific theater is the same as building a ship from scratch? Otherwise what you even mean by reload? If "round 1" is a "wipeout" for the PLAN there's no "reloading", unlike for the US, because it would be the entirety of the PLAN pitted against just the Pacific assets of the USN. Just because you use a word colloquially like reload to obfuscate the details doesn't actually mean it actually means anything of significance.
Hahahaha coming from someone like you, that's actually quite an indictment.
“ Why do they always forget whenever the fight is in China’s periphery it’s not the USN vs the PLAN it’s the locally supportable USN( and whatever USAF you can sustain) vs the entirety of the PLAN+PLARF+PLAAF.”
Someone needs to do some math on how many launchers China has that are pretty unreachable, and also consider what basing is left for the US to support redeployment. Once again demonstrating that you like to substitute bravado for critical thinking and it doesn’t work very well.
It’s like you seem incapable of absorbing *point*
“Why do they always forget whenever the fight is in China’s periphery it’s not the USN vs the PLAN it’s the locally supportable USN( and whatever USAF you can sustain) vs the entirety of the PLAN+PLARF+PLAAF.”
I know it’s a challenge for someone of your caliber but please try if you want to be taken seriously.
Not really. We all know what you’re about. You’re the only guy here who doesn’t seem to realize no one takes you seriously for a reason.Hahahaha coming from someone like you, that's actually quite an indictment.
I just love how you just parrot your previous statement that's been annihilated already, as if it wasn't somehow addressed, just because you have nothing intelligible left to respond with but still want to flatulate like you know WTF you are talking about. You also seem to think that the US military would somehow stupidly wait for the results of some kind of stupid "round 1" before relocating reinforcements from the Atlantic theater. No, little guy, the US military would be redeploying immediately from the Atlantic at the outset of war. Actually even before a war starts. And it would be activating reserve CSGs in advance of a war. The 30-day one. The 90-day ones. And so on. There wouldn't actually be any "rounds" because the US military would be streaming in reinforcements both before the war starts and as the war progresses in anticipation of losses. That's logistics right there. You know that quote about amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics? They're talking about YOU, and not in a good way. LOL
China has literally ZERO "launchers" that are "unreachable", whatever the nonsensical F you mean by that, whether it's naval launchers, inland TEL-based launchers, or whatever. Once again showing you flatulating generalized non-specific statements is not a substitute for critical thinking.
And yet you respond and keep responding to my posts as if you DO care what I think. I told you to block me long ago if you don't like what I post, but you either don't actually think no one takes me seriously, or you somehow stupidly still think you can mouth off to me and win. Pick one, little man.
It wasn’t. You like talking around the point a lot and pretending word count is the same thing as a strong argument. You’d look a lot smarter and more credible if you didn’t but alas…
And yet you respond and keep responding to my posts as if you DO care what I think. I told you to block me long ago if you don't like what I post, but you either don't actually think no one takes me seriously, or you somehow stupidly still think you can mouth off to me and win. Pick one, little man.
It’s called community service. I do that sometimes, runt.
I actually addressed it a second time in my last post, but it just amazes me how you can just stupidly sit there and keep saying "nope, nope, nope" like you've got your head buried up your ass in order to keep your ears shut and your eyes closed. Your 'expertise' is clearly not actually in the details of any military-related argument, but rather in gaslighting, insulting, and outright denial of facts. The devil is in the details, and you are clearly not someone who belongs here.
A third time, for the willfully stupid:
You claimed that the US military's Pacific theater is limited in what it can support during wartime, and yet you have literally ZERO knowledge of what that limit is or whether the US is currently at that limit or to what extent it could expand its Pacific theater logistical capability during war.
You laughably believe that China has "launchers" that are "unreachable" from the US military, but have failed to remember that B-2s and soon B-21s are literally designed to penetrate advanced air defense networks to literally reach exactly those kinds of launchers.
You clearly have no understanding of logistics, as you also claim that there will stupidly be "rounds" as opposed to the real world where the US would be prepositioning, relocating during war, and activating reserve forces, because it has the ability and capacity to do all of those things, unlike the PLAN, who assets will be on the front lines on day 1 and whose bases cannot be made safe from attack which means even PLAN's reserve forces are vulnerable to attack from day 1, whereas the reverse is not even remotely true. And unlike the PLAN the US has bases in the Pacific theater which are varying degrees of less and less vulnerable to Chinese military attack.
You seem to think the US would keep any amount of significant forces in the Atlantic theater in the event of war between the US and China because of unspecified dumb reasons, when there is literally no threat in this theater except jihadis with AK-47s and a non-relevant Iran. There is no Russian naval threat here, either. No, amateur, the BULK of the Atlantic theater will get redeployed to the Pacific theater, because as I said it wouldn't be about Taiwan, it would be about the entire US security architecture in the Pacific, as well as representing the only possible opportunity for the US to put China down for the count before it definitively blows past the US technologically and economically for good. So again, no, the US would not care about any stupid theaters in the Atlantic LOL
And how do you think you are doing so far scrub hahahahahaha
Last edited:
Stop nonsense and trolling. Let's consider America's combat equipment readyness before debate. Even let elsewhere free, not all of Aging US ships/carriers are ready & capable to reach 2IC. Meanwhile don't forget China's Rocket Force, with thousands of DF-XX missiles, enough to deter/weaken US logistics to a critical level.
Again. If there is a full-scale war between US & China, then it's not going to be easy for both two. Just look at both sides' loss from CSIS's simulations. These simulations pre-defined lots of premise conditions, such as US' bombers are always unattacked. With 450 LRASM launched from bombers, US destroyed the entire amphibious landing fleet. Also assumed China will launch full-scale amphibious landing at first time instead of preemptive attack & siege. US'll gain full air superiority of Taiwan bcz J-20 is 4.5th gen fighter, inferior to F-22 & F-35. Also none of Chinese drones are seen in the conflict.
This is war games' report 3 years ago. Balance changed a lot since then. (Compare to its premise conditions)
Again. If there is a full-scale war between US & China, then it's not going to be easy for both two. Just look at both sides' loss from CSIS's simulations. These simulations pre-defined lots of premise conditions, such as US' bombers are always unattacked. With 450 LRASM launched from bombers, US destroyed the entire amphibious landing fleet. Also assumed China will launch full-scale amphibious landing at first time instead of preemptive attack & siege. US'll gain full air superiority of Taiwan bcz J-20 is 4.5th gen fighter, inferior to F-22 & F-35. Also none of Chinese drones are seen in the conflict.
This is war games' report 3 years ago. Balance changed a lot since then. (Compare to its premise conditions)
Last edited: