Ask anything Thread

lcloo

Major
How big of a difference would it make if the United States pulls most of its military from its other global commitments to fight China? What if they just decide to go all in and use everything they have? How about this + a militarized japan?
If this happened, Japan will be a waste land within a week or two, so are Guam and South Korea and Philippine. Hawaii would be bombarded daily like what Iran do to Israel.

China has the home ground advantage and deep interior with mountains and thousands of miles of strategic underground great wall, and most important logistic advantage. As in many great wars, like invasion of Russia by Napolean and Nazi Germany, Japanese invasion of East Asia in WW2 etc, they lost on logistics and manpower. China resisted Imperial Japan despite having practically no navy and a tiny air force and little armored and tanks available, even worst, in many occasions, Chinese army soldiers had to share one rifle among 2 or 3 of them.

Logistics and vast interior to fall back help China to resist against Japanese invasion for more than 14 years, from 1931 to 1945.

If US goes all out, their backs are exposed, their industrial base cannot sustain logistic support if their manufacturing stayed as what they are in 2026, as exposed in war against Iran. And they lack complete supply chains and essential materials to build and replenish advance missiles and sensors.

I can only see USA balkanized and tribal wars fought on many fronts within their border after their misadventure fighting China.
 
Last edited:

Inque

New Member
Registered Member
If this happened, Japan will be a waste land within a week or two, so are Guam and South Korea and Philippine. Hawaii would be bombarded daily like what Iran do to Israel.

China has the home ground advantage and deep interior with mountains and thousands of miles of strategic underground great wall, and most important logistic advantage. As in many great wars, like invasion of Russia by Napolean and Nazi Germany, Japanese invasion of East Asia in WW2 etc, they lost on logistics and manpower. China resisted Imperial Japan despite having practically no navy and a tiny air force and little armored and tanks available, even worst, in many occasions, Chinese army soldiers had to share one rifle among 2 or 3 of them.

Logistics and vast interior to fall back help China to resist against Japanese invasion for more than 14 years, from 1931 to 1945.

If US goes all out, their backs are exposed, their industrial base cannot sustain logistic support if their manufacturing stayed as what they are in 2026, as exposed in war against Iran. And they lack complete supply chains and essential materials to build and replenish advance missiles and sensors.

I can only see USA balkanized and tribal wars fought on many fronts within their border after their misadventure fighting China.
China has nukes to deter a ground invasion, anyway. A more feasible scenario is the entire deployed USN sailing to China and overwhelming the PLAN and PLAAF with sheer numbers.
 

Puss in Boots

Junior Member
Registered Member
China has nukes to deter a ground invasion, anyway. A more feasible scenario is the entire deployed USN sailing to China and overwhelming the PLAN and PLAAF with sheer numbers.
Landing on the Korean Peninsula and in Vietnam is the best option for a land-based invasion of China; don't fantasize about landing directly on China's eastern coastline.
During World War II, Japan only conducted its amphibious landings after occupying Northeast China, and that was only with overwhelming weaponry superiority. Given current military capabilities, if these countries were to attempt a direct landing on China's eastern coastline, I can guarantee they would all be fish food before they even see the shore.
 

lcloo

Major
China has nukes to deter a ground invasion, anyway. A more feasible scenario is the entire deployed USN sailing to China and overwhelming the PLAN and PLAAF with sheer numbers.
No, China will not use nuke against any ground invasion. These are for MAD. In today's China any invasion on the ground is plain suicide, even for US army or marines.

Any ARG from US Marines are easy target within 1,000km from Chinese shores, which is within strike range of PLARG, PLAAF and PLAN Air wings from Chinese aircraft carriers within second island chain.

Sailing an entire USN is another suicidal action, it is a gamble that makes US's existence a big question if they failed or get wipe out. without functional US Navy, US lose its global projection power completely. Only a mad man would deploy an entire USN against China.
 
Last edited:

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
No, China will not use nuke against any ground invasion. These are for MAD. In today's China any invasion on the ground is plain suicide, even for US army or marines.

Any ARG from US Marines are easy target within 1,000km from Chinese shores, which is within strike range of PLARG, PLAAF and PLAN Air wings from Chinese aircraft carriers within second island chain.

Sailing an entire USN is another suicidal action, it is a gamble that makes US's existence a big question if they failed or get wipe out. without functional US Navy, US lose its global projection power completely. Only a mad man would deploy an entire USN against China.
Trump is not far from being a msdman!
 

zxcv872

New Member
Registered Member
I have a question about the PLA Rocket Force.

I don't know much about these matters, and I was interested in finding out more. One thing I was interested in finding out was how many launchers and missiles are in a road-mobile ICBM brigade. It seems people usually say a DF-31A(G) brigade has twelve launchers and twelve missiles, and a DF-41 brigade as six to twelve launchers and missiles. I wondered where these numbers came from.

One text on this matter that I found was this 2023 paper by Decker Eveleth.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


He says DF-31AG brigades have twelve launchers, and DF-41 brigades have six to twelve launchers. His basis for this seems to be the number of launcher garage spaces at the brigade's base. If the base has twelve garage spaces for launchers, he lists the number of launchers as twelve. If the base has less than twelve garage spaces for launchers, he instead lists the number of garage spaces.

Eveleth illustrates with the example of brigade 621, a DF-31AG brigade, whose base (28.761, 104.790) has twelve twenty-five meter long drive-through garage spaces, which he identifies as being the ones meant for launchers. He also illustrates with brigade 652, which Eveleth says likely operates DF-41. Its recently constructed base (43.939, 126.449) has eight such drive-through garage spaces.

The bases do not seem designed to be resistant to attack, so they do not seem like sensible places to store hardware intended for combat use, since it would be very vulnerable to a surprise attack. The bases don't really seem designed with the safe storage of large amounts of explosive material in mind either. The base of brigade 621 seems to have one shallow storage tunnel (28.7676, 104.7888), but it is very small and not well protected from attack. The base of brigade 652 has one munitions storage igloo (43.9363, 126.4470), but it's very small, barely long enough to fit a DF-41 missile, and it doesn't look like there is any good way to move a DF-41 sized munition in or out of it.

In a valley about 60km east of brigade 652's base, there is another base that was built around the same time (44.097, 127.215). There is what looks like a missile maintenance building, which is tall enough to fit a gantry crane, is surrounded by lightning towers, is far away from most other buildings, and is connected by rail to one of many tunnel entrances that lead into the mountain.

I would presume the eastern base is the combat base of brigade 652, where the brigade keeps hardware intended for combat use, whereas the western base is an auxiliary base, mainly intended for non-essential functions, such as administrative paperwork, housing of soldiers who are not on combat duty, training using inert rounds, storing spare bootlaces, etc. Launchers stored on the western base would then mostly be for training purposes, and the number of garage spaces would not be indicative of the actual combat strength of the brigade. Launchers intended for combat use would mostly be stored underground at the eastern base.

All this is to say, to me it seems a bit questionable to assume that the number of launchers in a brigade is exactly equal to the number of launcher garage spaces at an auxiliary base.

It seems to often be assumed or implied by people that ICBMs and launchers are essentially synonymous, in the sense that the number of ICBMs exactly matches the number of launchers. I don't see why it would. On one hand, you would have launchers for training and decoy purposes, so the number of launchers might exceed the number of missiles. On the other hand, you might have reload rounds, so the number of missiles could exceed the number of launchers. So it seems to me that the number of launchers doesn't really say much about the number of missiles.

Is there any solid confirmation of how many launchers and missiles there are in each ICBM brigade?
 

Michaelsinodef

Captain
Registered Member
Is there any solid confirmation of how many launchers and missiles there are in each ICBM brigade?
No.

It is top secret information in China, so we only have western analysis and guesses.
Plus messy internal romours and comments from the Chinese side.

Another angle you can try and do, is square yearly launches (though that is mixed with non nuclear ones like DF21 or DF17 series alongside HQ series), which according to French sources reached over 300 at 2025 i think, and we had from Pentagon on over 200 around 2020.

Considering the Pentagon reports puts the greater full rocket force at 3 to 4k, shooting off 10ish % for ttaining and testing seems quite something.

Though still very rough, so does not help much (though Pentagon must be undercounting, although rough bottom floor is maybe ok)
 
Top