1. Shifting the goal posts now are we?
You said the Chinese military would 'utterly fail' to do a similar job as the US military.
...
2. I have shown all your examples to have a marginal impact at best, which would hardly have a decisive impact on the overall campaign if China was in America's shoes at that time.In terms of quality of equipment, 3. there is precious little America had in 91 that China does not have an equivalent deployed today, what more, 4. there are plenty of things China has deployed today which America and allies did not have in 91. 5. The only significant difference between the PLA of today and the US military of 91 was the fact that the US had more of most weapons systems then than China does now.
However, we are not discussing if the PLA of today could have taken on the American military of 91 and won. 6. What China has available to deploy now is more than enough to match gulf war US deployments at the minimum, and with superior systems and weapons in a great many cases, it would take a real spin doctor to come up with a remotely convincing case for how the PLA would have 'utterly failed' to beat Saddam's forces had they been given the same support as the US enjoyed. Even without coalition partners, 7. the PLA could still have prevailed if they were allowed to use the same bases as the US used even if no-one else got involved in the actual fighting. It might not have been as decisive or one-sided, but then the same thing could have been said if the US went in alone without help.
@plawolf, 1. I did not shift goal posts, nor did I change my mind at all about how China today will utterly fail in the 1991 Gulf War vs. Iraq.
You shifted goal posts when you say that 7. China can prevail IF they had the same basing and other international support that the US did. Fact is China today does not have and cannot muster the equivalent support that the US did. So just with this fundamental point your entire argument falls flat. The strategic setup is a deliberate part of a military's capability, not a transferrable happenstance.
2. and 3. You simply showed me your ignorance of the facts, so let me help enlighten you:
Strategic airlift - 200+ C-5s, C-141s were involved in airlifting weapons and personnel for the US. At best in terms of comparable aircraft China has about 20 Il-76s.
Carriers and airwings - 6 carrier battle groups participated in the Gulf War, contributing 400+ aircraft. China today has no equivalent, the Varyag is still being worked on.
Amphibious ships - around 30 amphibious assault ships with their corresponding aircraft and amphibious forces participated in the Gulf War. This tied down 6 divisions of Iraqi forces deployed to block likely coastal attack routes - they were flanked. China may be able to come up with a similar sized fleet but will not have anywhere near the number of aircraft (transport choppers, helicopter gunships, no equivalents at all when it comes to Harriers).
Organic CAS - just in terms of equivalents to Cobras and Apaches, Chinese WZ-9s are not nearly as survivable nor as numerous, WZ-10s just began deployment and are at least nowhere nearly as numerous.
Subs with LACMs - in sheer numbers these are a small proportion of total munitions expended but still a significant number at least in the dozens. These are smart munitions meaning that many more targets hit. And I forgot to mention battleships with LACMs, at least two ships firing 50+ rounds. Around 300 Tomahawks total were fired by US naval forces, China does not have the known ability to deliver this much firepower with its naval forces.
Long range strategic bombers - B-52s delivered 40% of all munitions dropped during the Gulf War flying from the Middle East, Europe, and the continental US. Smart bombs may be able to hit targets better, but it does not have the same demoralizing effect on troops across the theatre. Even if China wanted to carpet bomb, it would not be able to with fewer and less capable H-6s.
4. Like what?
5. This in and of itself allowed the US to deploy more and higher quality forces to fight Iraq. Would China deploy all its J-11/Su-27/30s, J-10s, and JH-7s in a fight with Iraq and have only J-8s and J-7s left defending China? No. Can China sustain 2500+ sorties per day (of similar quality as the US) against targets in Iraq? No.
6. You gotta be kidding right? Besides from the carriers and bombers mentioned above there are other things the US had that China still doesn't, not the least of which are dozens of F-117 stealth bombers which made many of the initial bombing runs on top tier targets. The quantity and quality of CAS that China can deploy today is unlikely to match that of the 1991 US, A-10s - no Chinese equivalent, C-130 gunships - no Chinese equivalent, helicopter gunships - Chinese ones today are less numerous and at least the WZ-9 is less capable as mentioned above.
So besides from 7. which completely invalidates your argument, given the facts I've listed several other things would likely happen if China today took on 1991 Iraq:
- China will have a hard time intimidating Iraq from launching a pre-emptive strike on forces as they arrive in theatre
- China will have a harder time, if not an outright hard time achieving air superiority and destroying as much Iraqi c3/c4 as the US
- China will not be able to demoralize Iraqi forces as much as the US did through an air campaign
- All this means that more Iraqi forces are likely to continue fighting longer as conventional forces, even if these forces are defeated Iraq is less likely to sue for peace with China than to continue fighting through guerilla warfare
- Given the lesser armor of Chinese ground vehicles and their likely susceptability to 1991 Iraqi weapons, Chinese forces are likely to suffer higher casualties than US forces did
Even if we ignore the problems China has in getting to Iraq in the first place, China only has some chance of accomplishing a Pyrrhic victory after a long and costly war, which would equal an utter failure because it wasn't worth it.
The Chinese military today can definitely defeat 1991 Iraq in an imaginary neutral arena, but not so much in a real world simulation.
