Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Biscuits said:

If Russia was capable of firing 15 000 munitions a day, China must push its military industry capability to the edge and fire as much as possible, if anything is shown by the Ukraine war, its that artillery numbers matter. A volume of fire at 50 000 to 100 000 munitions a day would not just decimate ROC forces in days, but have a tremendous morale effect. The question is if China can achieve these rates.

Click to expand...

The initial artillery barrage against Vietnam way back then, was massive according to what everyone remembers.

According to this article, it works out to 35200 shells per day. (The rest of the article tends to go into the propaganda from sick minds).



If mainland China is going to shell Taiwan these days, should be 100,000 or 200,000 shells/rockets per day at least.

vincent said:

Seems the reasons PRC hasn't pulled the trigger are the potential economic impact and the lack of nuclear parity

Click to expand...

I mean there are many reasons why china should not pull the trigger. aside from the obvious issue that wars are horrible and china should try to avoid them unless red lines are crossed.

Just a simple list on why:
- large war with your biggest trading partners
- possible decoupling with the west
- not having mad
- not being sanction proof.
So for the first one, that may require waiting another 15 years where china is completely at military technology parity with America and having 8 carriers to convince American politicians that this is a bad idea. Until then, people that spend their days telling the world that china is about to collapse are always getting more air time than they deserve

For the second one, china has already entrenched itself even more in the global supply chain in the past year. Give them time and chinese industries will simply stretch tentacles to even more places. Won't be long until semiconductor industry are also heavily reliant on Chinese companies. And surrounding nations as part of bri will be reliant on Chinese investment to create jobs. Remember, china wants to move up in value chain and send those lower value chain jobs to lower cost countries.

For the 4th one, there are plenty of infrastructure projects left. China needs more time to build out all the railway and roads so that it can get all of the natural resources and food it needs without importing things from countries like Australia. It wants to have a network of rail, road, pipeline and sea lanes that all passes through china. In such a system, Europe and America continue to loose relevance and countries around china continue to gain relevance and become more reliant on china. However, all these projects take time.

And on technology front, we still need a few years for china to dominate every supply chain outside of aerospace industry. They are probably 5 years away from being able to build everything state of art (or close to it) in china when it comes to chips. They will only get more dominant in other modern industries as Europe continues to suffer deindustrialization from it's self destructive policies.

And just as importantly, it can continue to mature in finance industries and develop a system of banking and finance that doesn't depend on western banking. You want to make yuan a more international currency. All these things are important.

Militarily, they can become even more capable of winning by having large number of h20s, 095s, carriers and stealthy drones in service.

vincent said:

Why would NATO bomb Sarajevo, a Bosnian city?

Click to expand...

I don't know why they bombed Sarajevo, : "Jets roared over Sarajevo at about 2 a.m. (5 p.m. PDT Tuesday, and the first explosions were heard 90 minutes later from the southeast".

So you definitely can't shrink Yugoslavia down to Serbia. You can't use Yugoslavia's 78-day resistance as an exemplar. If mainland China bombs or missiles Taiwan, the island's coastal defenses will likely fall in less than a week.

Nutrient said:

I don't know why they bombed Sarajevo,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

: "Jets roared over Sarajevo at about 2 a.m. (5 p.m. PDT Tuesday, and the first explosions were heard 90 minutes later from the southeast".

So you definitely can't shrink Yugoslavia down to Serbia. You can't use Yugoslavia's 78-day resistance as an exemplar. If mainland China bombs or missiles Taiwan, the island's coastal defenses will likely fall in less than a week.

Click to expand...

Check the date of the report please.

vincent said:

Please read what @Patchwork_Chimera wrote to see why amphibious assault is unnecessary

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

What part of what he wrote gives you the impression that he said "amphibious assault is unnecessary"?

My interpretation of his write up here (and which I personally also have believed in for a while) is that an amphibious assault to enable the transfer of follow on large amounts of ground troops, is the method to properly conclude and settle a Taiwan contingency even after multiple weeks of large scale and comprehensive bombardment.

vincent said:

Please read what @Patchwork_Chimera wrote to see why amphibious assault is unnecessary

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Obviously no amphibious assault is necessary if Taiwan is on its own. But the risk of US intervention rises with every day of the campaign. Defeating the US in a Pacific War is not easy. Russia made plans for an unopposed campaign, China should make plans assuming that the US and Japan are likely to enter the war if there's any hope for Taiwan to survive. Aircraft carriers don't even matter that much, the US can simply fly hundreds of planes from the continental US to their unsinkable aircraft carrier called Japan and attack from there. Assume they send 200 F22, 100 F35 etc in addition to the Reagan and the Japanese air force. Plus all the forces in Japan and those in Korea, which can easily move to the bases in Japan and attack from there.

Convincing the ROC to surrender without a substantial amphibious landing on the main island can only work if the US does nothing but sanctions. Why would the Chinese government make such a risky bet?

Minm said:

Obviously no amphibious assault is necessary if Taiwan is on its own. But the risk of US intervention rises with every day of the campaign. Defeating the US in a Pacific War is not easy. Russia made plans for an unopposed campaign, China should make plans assuming that the US and Japan are likely to enter the war if there's any hope for Taiwan to survive. Aircraft carriers don't even matter that much, the US can simply fly hundreds of planes from the continental US to their unsinkable aircraft carrier called Japan and attack from there. Assume they send 200 F22, 100 F35 etc in addition to the Reagan and the Japanese air force. Plus all the forces in Japan and those in Korea, which can easily move to the bases in Japan and attack from there.

Convincing the ROC to surrender without a substantial amphibious landing on the main island can only work if the US does nothing but sanctions. Why would the Chinese government make such a risky bet?

Click to expand...

Japan is not an unsinkable carrier if china destroys the military bases there. This has been discussed many times in this thread and the west pac thread. I really wish people would actually read over some of these discussions before rambling on here. The entire premise of attacking Japanese bases in the beginning is to make what you are describing unlikely to ever happen.

Now, let's say that china takes a chance and does not attack any of the Japanese bases, then it will certainly need a different strategy. But in that case, it will still need to fully degrade taiwanese army first and take a couple of weeks to work out a force that can land and hold it's position.

China has a really big decision on whether or not to do the surprise attack. If it doesn't do it, the conflict may be more localized. Or maybe us military will still attack china's mainland. But either way, china should still be able to target Japanese bases in that scenario and do significant damage. There really isn't a scenario where USAF can just land 300 aircraft in Japan and expect them to not get destroyed by ballistic or cruise missiles. The air bases themselves also are not setup to maintain large number of USAF aircraft. And there also aren't anywhere close to 200 f22s that can deployed to Asia. F22s also don't have the range to strike china or Taiwan without tankers. Tankers themselves would get destroyed in most cases.

tphuang said:

Japan is not an unsinkable carrier if china destroys the military bases there. This has been discussed many times in this thread and the west pac thread. I really wish people would actually read over some of these discussions before rambling on here. The entire premise of attacking Japanese bases in the beginning is to make what you are describing unlikely to ever happen.

Now, let's say that china takes a chance and does not attack any of the Japanese bases, then it will certainly need a different strategy. But in that case, it will still need to fully degrade taiwanese army first and take a couple of weeks to work out a force that can land and hold it's position.

China has a really big decision on whether or not to do the surprise attack. If it doesn't do it, the conflict may be more localized. Or maybe us military will still attack china's mainland. But either way, china should still be able to target Japanese bases in that scenario and do significant damage. There really isn't a scenario where USAF can just land 300 aircraft in Japan and expect them to not get destroyed by ballistic or cruise missiles. The air bases themselves also are not setup to maintain large number of USAF aircraft. And there also aren't anywhere close to 200 f22s that can deployed to Asia. F22s also don't have the range to strike china or Taiwan without tankers. Tankers themselves would get destroyed in most cases.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree that China &Usa (and her proxies) will come to blows as China2022 is NOT China 1952 and can and will expand her lethal reach to her periphery if attacked by a coalition(11 nations in Korea IIRC) but now is totally different scenario- a successful short quick TW blitzkrieg takeover of political and military bases and minimum deaths/casualties to either side with island hermetically sealed by PLAN/PLAAF/PLANAF .I predict no attack to break blockade or counterland troops if done right.Some political rhetoric and some economic sanction but no kinetic war as West/USA doesn't attack a peer power for its own sake.

Minm said:

Obviously no amphibious assault is necessary if Taiwan is on its own. But the risk of US intervention rises with every day of the campaign. Defeating the US in a Pacific War is not easy. Russia made plans for an unopposed campaign, China should make plans assuming that the US and Japan are likely to enter the war if there's any hope for Taiwan to survive. Aircraft carriers don't even matter that much, the US can simply fly hundreds of planes from the continental US to their unsinkable aircraft carrier called Japan and attack from there. Assume they send 200 F22, 100 F35 etc in addition to the Reagan and the Japanese air force. Plus all the forces in Japan and those in Korea, which can easily move to the bases in Japan and attack from there.

Convincing the ROC to surrender without a substantial amphibious landing on the main island can only work if the US does nothing but sanctions. Why would the Chinese government make such a risky bet?

Click to expand...

long range OTH radars can pick up the tankers needed for the flight to Japan.


so I don't think it will be too late to wait and see.

Blitzo said:

What part of what he wrote gives you the impression that he said "amphibious assault is unnecessary"?

My interpretation of his write up here (and which I personally also have believed in for a while) is that an amphibious assault to enable the transfer of follow on large amounts of ground troops, is the method to properly conclude and settle a Taiwan contingency even after multiple weeks of large scale and comprehensive bombardment.

Click to expand...

What he wrote is more of a humanitarian rescue than an amphibious assault.