PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Brainsuker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, that's true, but more often than not, having a bigger army helps a lot.

Or well, a bit more precise, when 2 forces clash, the one with the 'bigger army'/more men etc. will have a bigger advantage and is more likely to win (well the 'hidden' text is that they should be somewhat of a similar technological level, spears vs machine guns will have the machine guns win, unless it's just 2 machine guns with 100 bullets vs 1000 spear wielding dudes ofc).

Actually, there are several cases where the bigger army actually got more disadvantage compared to the smaller ones. These are the examples :

1st. Xiang Yu (Later Chu) versus Zhang Han (Qin). In this battle, Xiang Yu with his 35.000 elite Cavalry managed to beat Zhang Han with his 200.000 Qin soldiers.

2nd Xiang Yu (Later Chu) versus Liu Bang (Han). In this battle, actually Xiang Yu managed to beat Liu Bang who had 600.000 coalition soldiers.

3rd Qin (at the era of Qin Shi Huang) versus the coalition of 6 kingdoms.

4th Cao Cao versus Yuan Shao in the battle of Guan Du.

5th Cao Cao versus Zhou Yu in the battle of Chi Bi.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Actually, there are several cases where the bigger army actually got more disadvantage compared to the smaller ones. These are the examples :

1st. Xiang Yu (Later Chu) versus Zhang Han (Qin). In this battle, Xiang Yu with his 35.000 elite Cavalry managed to beat Zhang Han with his 200.000 Qin soldiers.

2nd Xiang Yu (Later Chu) versus Liu Bang (Han). In this battle, actually Xiang Yu managed to beat Liu Bang who had 600.000 coalition soldiers.

3rd Qin (at the era of Qin Shi Huang) versus the coalition of 6 kingdoms.

4th Cao Cao versus Yuan Shao in the battle of Guan Du.

5th Cao Cao versus Zhou Yu in the battle of Chi Bi.
cavalry in ancient times was worth 10 foot soldiers and it indeed takes the calorie equivalent of 10 humans to feed a horse.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Generally, horses at rest in ambient temperatures of 70°F consume 2% of their body weight in roughage (hay) per day. A 1,100-pound horse will eat approximately 22 pounds of hay per day. Assuming an energy density of 1.0 Mcal/lb, which is typical of many hays, this equates to approximately 22 Mcal or 22,000 Kcal.
Humans only eat 2500 kcal per day.

So you'd actually expect 35k elite cavalry to devastate 200k infantry as the 35k elite cavalry is more expensive.

it is like putting 5 tank divisions against 50 rifle infantry divisions in WW2. would you be surprised if the infantry lost?
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
CIMSEC has just published one of the better qualitative (vice quantitative) analyses for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It is one of the few to actually address China's PLAN-CCG-MM coordinated operational capabilities that I've continuously (and tiresomely I'm sure) argued with be used at the boundary of the First Island Chain. Plus it cites the effectiveness of my favorite PLAN vessel.
Agreed. I would add though that I expect Chinese state-owned commercial shipping to even be used offensively, for surveillance, or other disruptive purposes in a war scenario. The US and their vassals will not have the luxury of preserving their best firepower to use on formal military threats, because anything and everything will be utilized against them in any way possible. This will be a huge drain on their reserves of munitions, as well as their sensory and decision-making bandwidth. What's to stop China from hiding guided missile launchers on mid to large-sized civilian ships?
Would be great if the CCG and MM can conduct ISTAR, strike and S&R missions within and along the entire First Island Chain (FIC) "Belt" (as I would like to describe the region of seas bounded by the FIC and the Chinese coastline) using these containerized missiles.

In addition, it would be even more preferable should the CCG and MM capable of executing the above missions, either through:
1. Coordination and cooperation with the PLA; or
2. Independent initiatives with reduced/minimal support from the PLA.

This can be achieved by first having CCG and MM cutters, patrol crafts and "fishing boats" spread across the entire FIC Belt. Being closely integrated and knitted with the PLA networking systems, the CCG and MM definitely will bring enormous advantages to the PLA CMC war-planning that surrounding countries can only dream to have.

Alongside would be containerized land attack or anti-ship missiles which will be stationed onboard state-owned civilian cargo ships dotted along the Belt for concealment beforehand as they awaiting for orders to launch their missiles.

In the meantime, I believe that having a mere 80+ Type 22 missile boat-fleet isn't be enough to saturate and overwhelm enemy defenses stationed along the entire length of the FIC (i.e. South Korea, Kyushu, Ryukyu, Taiwan, Luzon, Mindoro and Palawan) at affordable costs to the PLA, simply because there will be too many targets to aim at. To address this issue, China certainly can print out more modified Type 22 missile boats that can load both AShMs and LACMs - Or even unmanned equivalent USVs in order to reduce strain on crew resources.

Another option would be for the CCG and MM can also introduce marginally faster but smaller crafts that can be disguised as large fishing boats and small cargo vessels to house one or two of these missile or rocket containers. These crafts should be:
1. Minimally-manned,
2. Able to be built quickly in huge numbers by most Chinese shipyards,
3. Deployable at any point along the entire Chinese coastline and all Chinese-controlled SCS islands,
4. Able to reach islands along the FIC from the Chinese coastline and return; and
5. Expendable in war.

CCG and MM cutters, patrol crafts and "fishing boats" would then scout the entire Belt, provide targeting information to allied units, command launch of these containerized missiles, plus guide these missiles towards their land-based or sea-based targets, while hiding amongst the huge fleets of civilian cargo shipping sailing in and around the Belt.

Last but not least, suicide drones that can be made and deployed dirt-cheap and en-masse (e.g. Shahed-136) should also be viable against weakly-defended enemy targets using the aforementioned methods.

Time for those enemies located along the FIC to experience the 21st-century version of the People's War, first-hand...
 
Last edited:

Diaspora

New Member
Registered Member
1) Possible roles of US allies in a war over Taiwan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Philippines​

Driving the news: Philippines President Bongbong Marcos visited the White House on Monday, shortly after the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
military drills. For the first time, the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in part on securing the 70-mile wide channel between the Philippines' northern islands and Taiwan.

  • As U.S. and Filipino forces rehearsed for potential conflict with China, Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang visited Manila and
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    the Philippines — a U.S. treaty ally that moved closer to Beijing under Marcos' predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte — against "picking sides."
Earlier this year, Marcos granted the U.S. access to four new bases, three of which are in the north and face Taiwan.

Japan​

U.S. military facilities in Okinawa have served as staging grounds for U.S. operations from Vietnam to Afghanistan, and would likely play a central role in any Taiwan crisis — making Japan complicit from Beijing's perspective even if it took no other action.

  • But Tokyo is making its own plans. In addition to stepping up cooperation with Washington, Japan is also
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    its biggest defense spending hike in decades.

Australia​


Australia's geography would also make it a critical hub from which the U.S. could resupply its forces and launch operations.

  • "The role for Australia in a Taiwan contingency is highly unlikely to be at the front line in the Taiwan Strait," says Ashley Townshend, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Endowment based in Sydney.
  • But Canberra is deepening military ties with Washington and recently announced
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    in upgrading its northern military bases and in procuring nuclear submarines
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    .
  • In a Taiwan crisis, Australia would likely be responsible for securing sea lanes and tracking Chinese vessels across a wide geographic area, and might take on tasks like escorting U.S. bombers en route to the Taiwan Strait, Townshend says.

South Korea​

South Korea has also
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
its military
spending and cooperation with the U.S., and Korean officials have held discussions with the Pentagon about Taiwan-related contingencies. Still, Seoul's overwhelming focus
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Then there’s Europe.

  • The U.K. and France have naval presences in the Pacific, though neither has committed to defending Taiwan.
  • A French official told Axios they expect the U.S. would be more focused on how Europe could hit China economically in the event of a Taiwan crisis. China-EU trade was worth $732 billion last year.


2) NATO expansion into Asia

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


also credit CuriousPLAFan for already posting this in news section:
More wolves from the other side of the continent have been invited to camp right outside China's front porch.



3) US defense companies visiting Taiwan to try and sign some deals

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



4) China updated conscription rules with focus on space and tech warfare

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China has updated its military conscription law, to entice retired service personnel to return, while also seeking to recruit college students with space and cyber warfare skills.

New rules for the People’s Liberation Army, endorsed by the State Council and Central Military Commission, came into force on Monday (May 1).

The guidelines say conscription should “focus on preparations for war,” and recruiting highly skilled personnel, including former soldiers.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
cavalry in ancient times was worth 10 foot soldiers and it indeed takes the calorie equivalent of 10 humans to feed a horse.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Humans only eat 2500 kcal per day.

So you'd actually expect 35k elite cavalry to devastate 200k infantry as the 35k elite cavalry is more expensive.

it is like putting 5 tank divisions against 50 rifle infantry divisions in WW2. would you be surprised if the infantry lost?
I fully expect 50 rifle infantrey division to win. They have anti tank weapons, artillery, and possibly equal air support.

Secondly horse costing 10x calory therefore 10x supply cost is retarded. Try munch grass only to survive. It is much much easier to feed a horse than human pound for pound. This is how horse people fight. Their horse is easily supplied by grazing grass in the plain. They have an easy supply and sometimes horse feed human with milk.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
I fully expect 50 rifle infantrey division to win. They have anti tank weapons, artillery, and possibly equal air support.

Secondly horse costing 10x calory therefore 10x supply cost is retarded. Try munch grass only to survive. It is much much easier to feed a horse than human pound for pound. This is how horse people fight. Their horse is easily supplied by grazing grass in the plain. They have an easy supply and sometimes horse feed human with milk.
In WW2 antitank weapons were rudimentary and rifle infantry divisions only had small guns, few trucks, etc. Germans still used horses for their infantry and artillery, all the motor vehicles went to their armored divisions.

The historical result was predictable. Armored forces were too fast strategically for Polish and French infantry to keep up with, they got surrounded and annihilated in open fields. The way the Soviets stopped the German armored push was by attrition and urban warfare to eliminate the advantages of armored forces.

Cavalry also costs way more in training than infantry in medieval times and required special cavalry weapons.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Would be great if the CCG and MM can conduct ISTAR, strike and S&R missions within and along the entire First Island Chain (FIC) "Belt" (as I would like to describe the region of seas bounded by the FIC and the Chinese coastline) using these containerized missiles.

In addition, it would be even more preferable should the CCG and MM capable of executing the above missions, either through:
1. Coordination and cooperation with the PLA; or
2. Independent initiatives with reduced/minimal support from the PLA.

This can be achieved by first having CCG and MM cutters, patrol crafts and "fishing boats" spread across the entire FIC Belt. Being closely integrated and knitted with the PLA networking systems, the CCG and MM definitely will bring enormous advantages to the PLA CMC war-planning that surrounding countries can only dream to have.

Alongside would be containerized land attack or anti-ship missiles which will be stationed onboard state-owned civilian cargo ships dotted along the Belt for concealment beforehand as they awaiting for orders to launch their missiles.

In the meantime, I believe that having a mere 80+ Type 22 missile boat-fleet isn't be enough to saturate and overwhelm enemy defenses stationed along the entire length of the FIC (i.e. South Korea, Kyushu, Ryukyu, Taiwan, Luzon, Mindoro and Palawan) at affordable costs to the PLA, simply because there will be too many targets to aim at. To address this issue, China certainly can print out more modified Type 22 missile boats that can load both AShMs and LACMs - Or even unmanned equivalent USVs in order to reduce strain on crew resources.

Another option would be for the CCG and MM can also introduce marginally faster but smaller crafts that can be disguised as large fishing boats and small cargo vessels to house one or two of these missile or rocket containers. These crafts should be:
1. Minimally-manned,
2. Able to be built quickly in huge numbers by most Chinese shipyards,
3. Deployable at any point along the entire Chinese coastline and all Chinese-controlled SCS islands,
4. Able to reach islands along the FIC from the Chinese coastline and return; and
5. Expendable in war.

CCG and MM cutters, patrol crafts and "fishing boats" would then scout the entire Belt, provide targeting information to allied units, command launch of these containerized missiles, plus guide these missiles towards their land-based or sea-based targets, while hiding amongst the huge fleets of civilian cargo shipping sailing in and around the Belt.

Last but not least, suicide drones that can be made and deployed dirt-cheap and en-masse (e.g. Shahed-136) should also be viable against weakly-defended enemy targets using the aforementioned methods.

Time for those enemies located along the FIC to experience the 21st-century version of the People's War, first-hand...
Based on @zhangjim the cost of a Shahed-136 made in China should be around 10k RMB. 100k of these would be utterly devastating.

How many Ukrainian style unmanned drone speedboats could a LHD deploy? Maybe a single LHD can deploy 25-30 semi-submersible speedboats with 2000 km range, only 10 cm profile above the water, each packed with 500 kg explosive, hitting right at the waterline?
 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
In WW2 antitank weapons were rudimentary and rifle infantry divisions only had small guns, few trucks, etc

Actually, the rifle infantry division had their own divisional artillery. From the US War Department in March 1946.

If we go by summer 1941 (when Germany invaded), each fully equipped rifle division would have

8x 122mm howitzers
16x 76mm guns/howitzers
18x 45/57mm ATG
6x 120mm mortars
18x 82mm mortars
54x 50mm mortars
18x 14.5mm ATR.

By the end of 1942.

12x 122mm howitzers
32x 76mm guns/howitzers,
50x 45/57mm ATG
21x 120mm mortars
83x 82mm mortars
56x 50mm mortars
212x 14.5mm ATR

In a straight engagement between 5x panzer divisions. (like ~200 tanks each in 1941) vs 50x rifle division. You still have 1:1 ratio for each 76mm gun and German tank not including the 400x 122mm howitzers to deal with. With late 1942 numbers that would be a 2:1 ratio and 600x 122mm howitzers.

Without adding the rest of the army… You would be pretty suicidal to bet on the 5x panzer divisions winning against 50x rifle divisions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Actually, the rifle infantry division had their own divisional artillery. From the US War Department in March 1946.

If we go by summer 1941 (when Germany invaded), each fully equipped rifle division would have



By the end of 1942.



In a straight engagement between 5x panzer divisions. (like ~200 tanks each in 1941) vs 50x rifle division. You still have 1:1 ratio for each 76mm gun and German tank not including the 400x 122mm howitzers to deal with. With late 1942 numbers that would be a 2:1 ratio and 600x 122mm howitzers.

Without adding the rest of the army… You would be pretty suicidal to bet on the 5x panzer divisions winning against 50 rifle divisions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I guess I overestimated the cost of 5 panzer divisions and underestimated the cost of the infantry divisions. Its just a thought experiment, not exact. The point is, its not just about number of soldiers, its about how well they're equipped.

It is factual that the limiting factor for militaries in ancient/medieval times was the capability to feed enough war horses. Cavalry armies frequently devastated more numerous infantry armies even well equipped ones like the Romans. Han Empire was at the receiving end of Xiongnu cavalry and their response was to use the resources of the entire empire to have a 36% cavalry army that beat the Xiongnu at their own game. This was despite the fact that cavalry cost 9x more than infantry in terms of money (only slightly cheaper than when calculating by calories).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think this may not be the best thread for this, we can talk about this in the Early China thread.

 

Ringsword

Senior Member
Registered Member
Just a random thought, but China's had decades to prepare for an AR scenario, any possibility they've been secretly tunneling under the strait 地道战-style so they can move ground forces onto the island without needing amphibious assault?I saw that movie"Battle
"Battle beneath the Earth" 1967 movie seen it and wondered why every Chinese was played by white people.I wish we could tunnel to Taipei and do the AR with minimum fuss.LOL
 
Top