Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
There are US police equipment that uses multiple cameras covering a whole area to stereoscopically capture images of sniper bullets in flight to trace back to the location or sniper nests.
Experts in b.s. that's one of the key criterias in becoming some sort of hailed "experts" or expertise on any field in America. Just ask Adam Neuman from WeWork, Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos, Trevor Milton of Nikola Motors...Joe Biden being a foreign policy expert, Donal Trump being a TRADE WAR EXPERT, expert in real estate development, Jared Kushner as some kind of Middle East Peace expert...I could go on because the list is very long. America and American exceptionalist have perfected the art of faking it till you make it.
Chinese weapons are similar to Russian weapons in some ways (though even here there are significant divergences in naval architecture and support aircraft) but here the PLA's emphasis on People's War and networked warfare show through.
But in general, I'll just talk about ground combat.
Russian strategy ever since the 1930s is "deep battle". Basically, attack across a broad front to achieve recon in force. Pull back in places where resistance is strong, then commit reserves to places where resistance is weak, then punch through and hit the supply lines/encircle enemy troop concentrations.
This is very similar to Nazi German blitzkrieg with an emphasis on off-road maneuver (tactical mobility), artillery and concentration (not necessarily numbers though both Germany and Russia had it too). This is why they designed so many tracked vehicles but not that many wheeled ones (wheeled vehicles worse off road). This is why they had requirements for T-72 being small (they needed something that can cross temporary bridges). However, the emphasis on tracked vehicles also means they are tied closely to railways (tracked vehicles are far less efficient than wheeled and need to be transported by rail) and have a huge logistics train (for their artillery munitions and tank fuel).
Chinese strategy is very different. Chinese strategy is essentially People's War. This historically was close quarters ambush warfare with lots of light infantry able to function independently of supply lines. Today PLA still maintains the essence of People's War: independent maneuver elements able to function with a minimal logistics train and able to move themselves to the battlefield fast and without delay (strategic mobility).
This is why PLA has pushed machine guns, grenade launchers and antitank missiles to the lowest level of infantry, and has tons of wheeled vehicles that are usually only tracked in other countries, like heavy artillery. Wheeled vehicles have strategic mobility to get to the right, while heavily armed infantry with squad level weapons can operate with a very light logistics footprint.
As for how this will do: imagine the US in Korea or Vietnam only had air parity and instead of facing guys with only assault rifles and RPGs on foot, faced 155 mm artillery that seems to disappear after every shot and heavy infantry with wheeled APCs, ATGMs and drones that carry their own food and ammo. Whenever an M1 maneuver element tries to punch through in maneuver, there's always an ATGM team waiting, backed by APCs and artillery.
They can shell an area for days, and think it's clear, and in the few hours they take to get there... An ATGM team is already set up again.
They are experts in delusional thinking.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Umm, you guys realise these drones are not only already in real life, but probably already in active service with the PLA already right?
Some Strategic lessons so far:
- If your enemy is expecting you to invade, don't
- Pick the right time/month/weather which is conducive for an offensive
- Don't get pushed into war by external variables like sanctions/threats
- Mask your deployments. If you can't hide your intentions, don't launch
- If you don't have a plan/capacity to establish air dominance in the opening phase, don't launch, you're not ready
- Do your homework/recon/ISR + have sufficient inventory of required munitions to cripple the enemy in the first wave
- Just because you surround the enemy's territory doesn't mean a multi-axis advance (or "feints") is the best approach (it drastically increases the logistics burden)
- Concentrate your main effort (schwerpunkt) against the enemy's weakest link:
- Your strongest forces should end up in the rear/flank of the enemy's main formations, completing encirclement, without needing to engage them directly (air attacks and massed artillery need to be sufficient to neutralize them at this point)
- This is only possible when you have masked your intentions properly (point #4, from strategy)
- Avoid urban/built-up terrain until you have decisively won in the field and can redirect logistics
- By the time you move into cities, you should have complete dominance in every domain (air/land/sea/cyber/space). All other major combat operations should already be over, and only then should you redirect forces and logistics to methodically clear urban sectors
p.s. Just to add to point #1 from strategy, even if your enemy expects you to invade (and sometimes it's even preferable, to force them to shape their forces in a way that suits you), point #4 (masking your own deployment) is a must, in order to maintain surprise. But if you neither have #1 nor #4, then you're not maintaining any strategic surprise at all.
Sometimes air dominance isn't necessary as long as you have dominance somewhere. For example it would be ridiculous if PLAN couldn't move a single destroyer or sub until PLAAF got air dominance... PLAN needs to be doing it's own thing to establish naval dominance concurrently, and rely on naval aviation and SAMs, not just wait for the air force or rocket forces.
Russia thought they had ground domination, they didn't. And they still have a substantial advantage in the air going by sortie rates.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Good list, but most, if not all of these points really shouldn’t be needed to be highlighted since they are just well known and well established basics of warfare strategy.
I think the biggest takeaway China should and will learn from the Ukraine war is that war is war, and that there is no such thing as a ‘brotherly war’ where you can go in with kid gloves pulling your punches and expect the other side to just cave and give up at the first opportunity.
The Iraqis folded so spectacularly during both Gulf Wars not because of any ideological reasons but because the US beat the living snot out of them so badly that they totally lost the willpower to continue getting curbstomped. The same armed that crumbled against the Americans fought for years against the Iranians for example. Just shows how important moral is, all else being equal.
If China wants Taiwan to fold, it needs to hit it harder, not pull its punches. Unless and until the enemy surrenders, you must attack them with excessive force and violence and be prepared to slaughter them without mercury or hesitation if they don’t have the good sense to surrender. Post conflict resentment about killed soldier relatives are a problem for after the war. No point worrying about that if you cannot make sure you actually win the war.
So long as the Chinese political leadership goes in with clear head and eyes and don’t hold any delusions about what they are getting into, I’m confident the PLA knows it’s trade well enough and is well equipped and provisioned enough to do a far better and cleaner job than the sloppy, ugly mess the Russians are making in Ukraine.
- Status