Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

plawolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

And yet, Russia didn't follow many of them.

FairAndUnbiased said:

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.

Click to expand...

Read again:

"If you don't have a plan/capacity to establish air dominance in the opening phase, don't launch, you're not ready."

There is nothing stopping you from maneuvering naval/land units during the opening phase concurrently. I don't know where you got that limitation from the above statement.

Here are some lessons from this war:

1) Political leaders should not be involved (looking at you, Putin)
2) if you are going to "innovate" (BTG) be sure to equip them properly and stop being a cheapskate.
3) First wave should be a massive missile/air attack against enemy important military targets and critical infrastructure
4) Cut off power, internet access from day 1
5) Commit enough troops when attacking
6) Stop attacking urban areas like an idiot. First conquer the countryside and then you can take your time on attacking cities.
7) Stop sending your garbage unmodernised war ships in a warzone
8) Invest in proper training for your troops
9) A shame I even have to write this, instill discipline to your troops
10) Cut off any possibility of foreign intervention
11) Drones, drones, drones. Fill the sky with drones and other ISR assets
12) AWACS to properly monitor the airspace
13) Don't start wars without being 100% ready.
Etc.

Overbom said:

Here are some lessons from this war:

1) Political leaders should not be involved (looking at you, Putin)
2) if you are going to "innovate" (BTG) be sure to equip them properly and stop being a cheapskate.
3) First wave should be a massive missile/air attack against enemy important military targets and critical infrastructure
4) Cut off power, internet access from day 1
5) Commit enough troops when attacking
6) Stop attacking urban areas like an idiot. First conquer the countryside and then you can take your time on attacking cities.
7) Stop sending your garbage unmodernised war ships in a warzone
8) Invest in proper training for your troops
9) A shame I even have to write this, instill discipline to your troops
10) Cut off any possibility of foreign intervention
11) Drones, drones, drones. Fill the sky with drones and other ISR assets
12) AWACS to properly monitor the airspace
13) Don't start wars without being 100% ready.
Etc.

Click to expand...

So for China it's basically:

1) maybe (might set some goals that are hard for the military to obtain in time???)
2) Check
3) Check (most likely)
4) Check (most likely)
5) Check
6) Check
7) Check (basically non/low number of unmodern ships)
8) Check
9) Check
10) maybe (they probably do their best, but uh, I mean the ball does go into US hands)
11) Check
12) Check
13) maybe (they probably aren't ready yet, or well military strong enough, but other various stuff needs improvement/plans etc.)

Basically from what I can see/researched, militarily China should in fact be strong enough to do it say now or like this year (there will be some losses, but should be rather small in the grand scheme), but the potential fallout isn't something China has properly/finished preparing for.
Ultimately waiting a bit more (few years) should still be good/positive for China.

Mohsin77 said:

And yet, Russia didn't follow many of them.



Read again:

"If you don't have a plan/capacity to establish air dominance in the opening phase, don't launch, you're not ready."

There is nothing stopping you from maneuvering naval/land units during the opening phase concurrently. I don't know where you got that limitation from the above statement.

Click to expand...

Sometimes air supremacy is unnecessary, with air supremacy being defined as "he flies, he dies." Sometimes air superiority (disabling enemy air to ground, severely limiting their sortie rate and forcing them only to fly sporadic air to air) in the opening phase is good enough. You'll get air supremacy as time goes on with ground or naval action taking out their bases or sinking their carriers.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Sometimes air supremacy is unnecessary.....

Click to expand...

And sometimes you lose wars without it.

So it's better to make sure you can check that box before starting a war.

Mohsin77 said:

And sometimes you lose wars without it.

So it's better to make sure you can check that box before starting a war.

Click to expand...

US only had air supremacy in a single major war: Desert Storm. Not WW2, Korea or Vietnam. US won WW2.

While US didn't win Korea or Vietnam it wasn't because they didn't have air supremacy. They still were able to conduct strikes, they just had to ditch strike packages more frequently. They lost on the ground first.

FairAndUnbiased said:

US only had air supremacy in a single major war: Desert Storm. Not WW2, Korea or Vietnam. US won WW2.

Click to expand...

The concept of air supremacy was literally invented in WWII.

You can ask Rommel why it's important for conventional warfare, he discovered it the hard way in North Africa.

FairAndUnbiased said:

While US didn't win Korea or Vietnam it wasn't because they didn't have air supremacy. They still were able to conduct strikes, they just had to ditch strike packages more frequently. They lost on the ground first.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that air supremacy will guarantee victory?

You can have air dominance and still lose on the ground, obviously.

That doesn't mean you remove it from your operational requirements.

Michaelsinodef said:

So for China it's basically:

1) maybe (might set some goals that are hard for the military to obtain in time???)
2) Check
3) Check (most likely)
4) Check (most likely)
5) Check
6) Check
7) Check (basically non/low number of unmodern ships)
8) Check
9) Check
10) maybe (they probably do their best, but uh, I mean the ball does go into US hands)
11) Check
12) Check
13) maybe (they probably aren't ready yet, or well military strong enough, but other various stuff needs improvement/plans etc.)

Basically from what I can see/researched, militarily China should in fact be strong enough to do it say now or like this year (there will be some losses, but should be rather small in the grand scheme), but the potential fallout isn't something China has properly/finished preparing for.
Ultimately waiting a bit more (few years) should still be good/positive for China.

Click to expand...

I think the mainland should NOT initiate a unification war unprovoked. If the island decides that they will not provoke the mainland and play nice (meaning they will not declare formal independence or try to change ROC constitution and definition), the mainland should not make the first move, regardless of whether the PLA is ready militaristically or not.

It's not an exaggeration to say that without air superiority, the US does not know how to fight the war. Here we're talking about air dominance, CAS, and strategic bombing.

The US Army or ground troop relies heavily on CAS and air bombing to weaken the opponent. They don't have strong artillery or field air defense, at least compared with their peer or near-peer competitors.

The US Navy, well, aren't they built around aircraft carriers? I mean, they're not particularly strong in anti-ship missiles. Sure they're the strongest in submarines and ASW, but try losing the air superiority and see what happens.

As for the potential Taiwan contingency, it's first and foremost air superiority and air control for China. Without it, forget about it. Don't even try to send you amphibious troops. The same thing is for any potential US intervention, without air superiority or at least a very threatening presence in the air, the US does not have a chance. The superior US nuclear submarines fleet are not a big factor in Taiwan Strait. So the first order of business to deter or defeat a US intervention is to deny their air superiority, or simply, to establish air superiority at least around Taiwan.

Mohsin77 said:

The concept of air supremacy was literally invented in WWII.

You can ask Rommel why it's important for conventional warfare, he discovered it the hard way in North Africa.




Where did I say that air supremacy will guarantee victory?

You can have air dominance and still lose on the ground, obviously.

That doesn't mean you remove it from your operational requirements.

Click to expand...

Yet in WW2 Luftwaffe flew until their airfields got conquered.

The thing I have a problem with is that PLA can't wait for a few weeks of leisurely bombing like Desert Storm to suppress Taiwanese air to 0 sorties.

Right now Russia has 20x the sorties per day (~200) of Ukraine (~10). They've finished off most Ukrainian fixed wings. Yet they still take occasional losses. They only have air superiority, not air supremacy.

PLAAF is more capable than RAF but ROCAF is also more capable than UAF. Expectations need to be adjusted.

I'd say suppressing ROCAF to <10% PLAAF sorties within 3 days, <5% within 7 days, <1% within 10 days would be a good benchmark.

But in conjunction with the air suppression campaign should be a naval surface/subsurface campaign to achieve naval goals such as mining harbors, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, etc. instead of waiting.