Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

King_Comm said:

==I wouldn't say so, over 800,000 German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front during the 18 month from Barbarossa to right before Operation Uranus, the most difficult period during the war, compare to the 740,000 killed in western Europe, Scandinavia, North Africa, Italy, and Balkans put together over the entire war.

Click to expand...

Well going by numbers of troops is nice and all but figures on losses of aircraft, supply depots, main battle tanks, airstrips, fuel reserves and on some theaters Naval Vessels would be a better more actuate picture I would think. After all foot solders on the open temperate planes are tasty treats for tanks and aircraft.

The figures above tend to only prove that the Eastern front (probably for terrain and weather reasons) was less Cavalry intensive and more infantry intensive then all the other theaters combined. Due to all the mud and snow back east, using foot solders was far more useful particularly during weather that made heavy armor and aircraft highly unreliable. Its after all harder to build tanks then to indoctrinate the poorly educated to kill them selfs for this dictator or that dictator which was the tragedy of the eastern front. Had either the German or Russian troops been in their right mind, they would never would have allowed sociopaths like Stalin or Hitler to have governmental power in the first place.

The Eastern front had less influence upon other theaters then other theaters had on the Eastern front. However the massive loss of German troops back east did make Germany much easier to passify AFTER it was conquered in urban areas.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Raptoreyes said:

Actually Von Stoffinburg (yes his name is probably miss spelled) and Erwin Romell (the desert fox and probably also mis spelled) actually helped plan the planting of the bomb that nearly killed Hitler himself (but for the unfortunate table leg that allowed him to survive the blast almost untouched. For a few days the conspirators nearly ceased control over Germany but forgot to cut Joseph Gerbils phone line and failed to kill Hitler so the plot folded and all who took part were killed.

I can't believe you forgot about that. A portion of the German army did rebel against Hitler even if it was only a few of the higher officers. Best of all it almost worked!

Click to expand...

I didn't forget about it, I conciously excluded it because it doesn't meet the criteria; a few German officers secretly tried to assasinate Hitler. The fact remains that they didn't have the support of the High Command, and the Army did not turn on Hitler even at that point, when they had the perfect opportunity. No matter how many officers may have disliked Hitler or hoped the plot succeeded, they did not translate than into action.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Raptoreyes said:

Well going by numbers of troops is nice and all but figures on losses of aircraft, supply depots, main battle tanks, airstrips, fuel reserves and on some theaters Naval Vessels would be a better more actuate picture I would think. After all foot solders on the open temperate planes are tasty treats for tanks and aircraft.

The figures above tend to only prove that the Eastern front (probably for terrain and weather reasons) was less Cavalry intensive and more infantry intensive then all the other theaters combined. Due to all the mud and snow back east, using foot solders was far more useful particularly during weather that made heavy armor and aircraft highly unreliable. Its after all harder to build tanks then to indoctrinate the poorly educated to kill them selfs for this dictator or that dictator which was the tragedy of the eastern front. Had either the German or Russian troops been in their right mind, they would never would have allowed sociopaths like Stalin or Hitler to have governmental power in the first place.

The Eastern front had less influence upon other theaters then other theaters had on the Eastern front. However the massive loss of German troops back east did make Germany much easier to passify AFTER it was conquered in urban areas.

Click to expand...

You are not seriously suggesting that the Great Patriotic War saw less tank action than the western front, are you? All those huge tank battles in the open plains, including the top three largest tank battles in human history? You DO know where Kursk is and what happened there, right?

And you MUST be joking. If there is no Eastern Front, think about the other fronts facing three times the troops they did historically. And then come back and say with a straight face it's 'not as influential'. The other fronts sped up Soviet victory by about a year, but it also prevented Red Army from reaching the Rhine, if not the Atlantic.

Lastly, this is a TANGENT which Jeff has already said the last word on, so I suggest to all parties concerned not to continue.

And that includes me.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Great book. Sure opens one’s mind, even though something like a Sino-Indian alliance is highly unlikely in real life. Still, as long as it is not totally impossible, we have to say there are such possibilities.

Just some thoughts that may make the story more reasonable:

1. US should show more resistance and adaptation at the beginning of the war
Even if an enemy made sudden achievements in almost all areas like LRASD, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-satellite weapons, US and allies aren’t stupid or blind. It shouldn’t take several years for them to produce their own version of LRASD and throw it back at enemies, esp. with real samples acquired at early stage of the war as told in the story.

2. Terrorist attack on US soil from non-Islamic groups such as oversea Chinese or Latin Americans
So far suicidal and large scale terrorist attacks came from Islamic terrorists only. With the knowledge of certain death of attackers themselves, it is something that only people thoroughly poisoned by radical religious belief are capable of. Chinese have never been really religious in history. Or one can say that they were kind of during Mao’s age. But after culture revolution and economy reforms since 1980s, Chinese are very realistic these days. They respect real things like money, power and material enjoyment. It’s very hard, close to impossible, to get that bunch into suicidal and large scale terrorist attacks.

3. Responses after large scale attacks using nuclear or biology weapons
There should definitely be some serious revenge and retaliations, from the side attacked with those weapons. Will Chinese refrain from nuclear counter-attacks after US nuked their cities, simply because US warning of more coming? I don’t think so. Will US only revenge by annihilating the terrorist leader after lost tens of millions of people in biology attacks? Very unlikely.

All in all, very good book. Another suggestion - some further proofreading will make it better.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

NorthernAlly said:

Great book. Sure opens one’s mind, even though something like a Sino-Indian alliance is highly unlikely in real life. Still, as long as it is not totally impossible, we have to say there are such possibilities.

Click to expand...

There is article posted earlier in this thread about how India and China are cozying up and making better economic ties. Check Jeff Head's threads for those particular chestnuts of observation.

Just some thoughts that may make the story more reasonable:

1. US should show more resistance and adaptation at the beginning of the war
Even if an enemy made sudden achievements in almost all areas like LRASD, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-satellite weapons, US and allies aren’t stupid or blind. It shouldn’t take several years for them to produce their own version of LRASD and throw it back at enemies, esp. with real samples acquired at early stage of the war as told in the story.

Click to expand...

Jeff partially answers this by placing that Vietnamese genius at the center of Chinese research efforts. Any random and extremely brilliant researcher can be quite the wildcard in international relations. In fact this is always been the United States great strength from the fact that we have a great patent system and encourage the free flow of ideas.nevertheless if I were a judge I'd have to say that this were an objection to have to be sustained.

2. Terrorist attack on US soil from non-Islamic groups such as oversea Chinese or Latin Americans
So far suicidal and large scale terrorist attacks came from Islamic terrorists only. With the knowledge of certain death of attackers themselves, it is something that only people thoroughly poisoned by radical religious belief are capable of.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ on this score. Inside the old Soviet archives were many plans for inserting Spetnaz commandos into Europe prior to any conventional invasion plan. Most of these commandos were considered to be "expendable troops" quote unquote. Disabling certain key European air bases and military installations before the onset of major hostilities was considered a suicide mission by the Russian authorities. Then again I've always considered socialism as it was once practiced in Soviet Russia and later abandoned in communist China as more of a religion then a politco-economic philosophy.

Chinese have never been really religious in history. Or one can say that they were kind of during Mao’s age.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this sentence except for the words "kind of" that you placed into it, to soften the blow. As with any social organization with as much centralized power as Mao's China or Stalin's Russia, the comparisons to fundamentalist religions are perhaps too many to classify them as a fully distinct group.

But after culture revolution and economy reforms since 1980s, Chinese are very realistic these days. They respect real things like money, power and material enjoyment. It’s very hard, close to impossible, to get that bunch into suicidal and large scale terrorist attacks.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately these reforms have been top-down instead of bottom up. Any ambitious government official can easily lead the Chinese public away from, its current peaceful economic based stance. Most government heads of China, will have more trouble convincing the other departments of its government to take an action, then to convince the bulk of the population. The bulk of the population knows what'll happen to it, if it steps out of line with dominant government thinking on it any issue.

Only minor deviations from the government line such as opposing the construction of a power plant in a local area are tolerated. Dissent on items of national or international policy are simply not tolerated by the Chinese government.

3. Responses after large scale attacks using nuclear or biology weapons

Click to expand...

There should definitely be some serious revenge and retaliations, from the side attacked with those weapons. Will Chinese refrain from nuclear counter-attacks after US nuked their cities, simply because US warning of more coming? I don’t think so. Will US only revenge by annihilating the terrorist leader after lost tens of millions of people in biology attacks? Very unlikely.

All in all, very good book. Another suggestion - some further proofreading will make it better.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head actually explains this quite well in the fact that the space stations were deemed to be able to shoot down almost all of the Chinese strategic missile forces. Basically this book features a fully implemented and well tested system of what Ronald Reagan only began work on during the close of the Cold War.

The US didn't retaliate in the story because it didn't need to. At that stage of the story things are still perilous but the United States is pushing on most fronts, with its tenuous control of space. The space platforms also tend to explain why earlier nuclear retaliation, was not attempted. Why shoot missiles only to see them taken down long before they reach the intended target.

So long as other options exist is fully consistent with American political culture to avoid the use of nuclear weapons assuming those leaders in power, feel there's some real alternative. Even if it's only a long shot.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

I wonder how the war would have looked if Russia jumped in on the side of China, India et al. Considering how much we're aggravating the Russians these days, that's a fairly safe bet to make.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

These days people harp less about 'cold wars' and 'global alliances' yet although they have escaped the vogue phraseology of our modern days we can draw voluminous parallels from the recent past; both Great Wars and the cold one seem to come into focus as we gaze ahead. Of course this is what history is for! Yet few politicians are devout students of the anachronisms of yesteryear and prefer to think they are molding a future (by their very will and ideological prefecture mind you) that is brave and new (thank you Mister Huxley). We see the rusted motives of NATO still surging mindlessly ahead, we see the Shanghai Corporation and abysmally foreboding shows of power by Russia, China and India. It may be said that war is even more of a faraway visage; that with the split came many more checks and balances. Yet old angers are reviving and new ones surfacing, and don't even get me started on the Dr Killjoy Nuclear Club... Next thing you know even Tuvalu will have the bomb, yeesh...

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

hihi...read a few pages....the book seems intersting

Got one question...i went to the afterwards and saw so many casualties. Were WMDs used in the story?..tks for a quick reply. I'd appreciate a quick reply cos i'm not sure i appreciate the politics part of the book (China is the bad ass dude) to want to read it completely.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Excuse me? Was this a reply to my post? The generalities that I mentioned were just that, I am half interested in which book you speak of? Normally I wouldn't even ask but you have my curiosity piqued.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

gartheven2000 said:

Got one question...i went to the afterwards and saw so many casualties. Were WMDs used in the story?..tks for a quick reply.

Click to expand...

WMDs are used, but not in a general exchange. The PRC stays away from them to begin with because of the US's overwhelming advantage there. And the US stays away because the PRC uses conventional weaponry and the US wants to avoid losing whole cities and the massive civilian casualites that would entail.

Later, the Russians attempt to use them to stop a large Chinese offensive that is breaking through the Urals, but they are largely negated by the anti-missile defenses the Chinese have developed.

Still later, the PRC, towards the end, does use them as does the US...but again, not in a general excahnge.

Most of the casualities in the story are caused by very large scale and widespread conventional warfare employing the use of new, high-tech, weaponry on both sides, up to and including orbital-bombardment by the US (but only after a savagely fought battle in space for the control of near space).

Hope that helps. The book is fiction and is meant to be an interesting and enjoyable read. There are strong characters, with good, and some with ver bad, qualities and character traits on both sides.