Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
What he wrote is more of a humanitarian rescue than an amphibious assault.

It still requires the use of amphibious assault ships employing amphibious maneuver units that will have to be conducted against an opposing force (even if their capabilities are significantly degraded), and will still require the extensive logistical supports and prudent escort and supporting fires needed to enable it.
 

XiDada

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
To add, Ian Easton and Project 2049 has looked at the 5 major strategies the PLA would likely employ in a full AR scenario using PLA publications, one of which is a full blockade to achieve exactly what Patchwork has outlined.

The 5 are as follows:

(1) Joint Firepower Strike Operations against
Taiwan (大型岛屿联合火力突击作战 ).
(2) Joint Blockade Operations against Taiwan
(大型岛屿联合封锁作战).
(3) Joint Attack Operations against Taiwan
(大型岛屿联合进攻作战).
(4) Joint Anti-Air Raid Operations
(联合反空袭作战).
(5) Joint Border Area Operations
(边境地区联合作战).

And somehow Easton still arrived at the conclusion that the PLA will still choose to do a contested landing on day 1 instead of a starve then march approach...

I'm guessing he knew that his audience in Washington won't like the idea so tailored this final analysis so that he can continue getting funding
 

bjj_starter

New Member
Registered Member
If you can't be bothered to summarize the point made by @Patchwork_Chimera, I won't bother to wade through his propaganda.
I might have some issues with his employer, but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that Patchwork is repeating or spreading propaganda. He's an intelligent and reliable viewport into the American military's approach to China and he's never pretended to be anything else.
 

YISOW

New Member
Registered Member
That's a really horrible scenario. I really hope it doesn't end up happening, it would be a lot of unnecessary human suffering.

Do you think there's any realistic path to that not happening? A US "operational consolidation" and a Taiwanese agreement with the PRC? I just can't see Tsai going for it, but then again she's not already declared independence so maybe a withdrawal of US support could make even her see the writing on the wall. I struggle to see the US giving up Taiwan without a fight, though. I am honestly not sure why, it's not like the Taiwanese are going to bleed the PRC the way the Ukrainians are bleeding the Russians. Maybe it would be wanting to avoid Japan and south Korea viewing it as a fickle ally, but then I think the situation unfolding anything like what you described would be significantly worse for US alliances in Asia than that. The US could credibly claim it never had a treaty obligation to support Taiwan so Japan and south Korea are very different; a decade from now it might be accepted wisdom, and maybe westpac remains stable with the US in charge until China is much stronger than it is now. But if the US opposes China militarily and loses, I don't think they come back from that in terms of their reputation in Asia.


If the US manages to make the conflict with China trigger article 5 of NATO (I know that's against NATO rules, but that NATO dude recently said it would like it was fact so at least someone is thinking it), would that significantly change the outcome?
No one want to see WW3 happens
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Check the date of the report please.
I did not notice the date. Apparently NATO's bombing of Sarajevo was part of the Bosnian War that lasted from 1992 to 1995. The bombing of Serbia occurred in 1999 and did indeed last for 78 days. So fine, Serbia did resist NATO's bombing campaign for 78 days. That is true.

And it is also unimportant to a possible resumption in Taiwan of China's civil war. Because the mainland wouldn't be using air power only, as NATO did. The PLA would use missiles to flatten Taiwan's defenses on the coast. That might take a week or less. Then millions of PRC soldiers would land on the island. At that point, Taiwan would lose.
 
Last edited:

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
So you think you can launch a first strike on not only Taiwan but also Japan, destroying its entire military infrastructure and then you get a whole month of just waiting for Taiwan to surrender while the US does nothing? What happens a year later? It's not smart to start a world war over Taiwan. The whole world would see it as another Pearl Harbor. A localised conflict is the only option.

F22 range with external fuel tanks is enough to fly from Guam to Okinawa. Of course the US would suffer heavy losses, but that doesn't make a major war worth it. It doesn't even matter how the US responds initially, nobody wants a decade of war for the sake of taking Taiwan. The scenario you're proposing sounds like the soviet union launching a first strike on western Europe for the sake of conquering Austria and expecting to be home by Christmas.
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
To add, Ian Easton and Project 2049 has looked at the 5 major strategies the PLA would likely employ in a full AR scenario using PLA publications, one of which is a full blockade to achieve exactly what Patchwork has outlined.

The 5 are as follows:

(1) Joint Firepower Strike Operations against
Taiwan (大型岛屿联合火力突击作战 ).
(2) Joint Blockade Operations against Taiwan
(大型岛屿联合封锁作战).
(3) Joint Attack Operations against Taiwan
(大型岛屿联合进攻作战).
(4) Joint Anti-Air Raid Operations
(联合反空袭作战).
(5) Joint Border Area Operations
(边境地区联合作战).

And somehow Easton still arrived at the conclusion that the PLA will still choose to do a contested landing on day 1 instead of a starve then march approach...

I'm guessing he knew that his audience in Washington won't like the idea so tailored this final analysis so that he can continue getting funding
Beijing doesn't lose anything from feinting landings from day 1. If Taipei wants to defend that area, they'll need to move and setup troops in static defense positions, these troops are like fish in a barrel for the PLA to shoot at when they have 10cm error margin satellite targeting and tons of AEW drones flying around the area uncontested.

China doesn't have to land in the first day, but it can make feints and if Taiwan fails to detect one, those troops will land. If the rebel army instead manage to setup defenses, they'll be a bombing target and PLA can feint at another area. The rebel army is 150-200k strong, if PLA artillery mow down tens of thousands in a few days time (and even the far older PLA of 1979 showed such capability to inflict terrible casualties against way better trained Vietnam army), there won't be anyone left to staff the defenses.

The more overwhelmingly China moves against the rebels, the more US and Japan will be deterred from invading. To use Ukraine as an example, imagine if Kiev had attacked the rebels in 2021 with 30 000+ precisely targeted shells a day while Ukrainian formations rapidly flood into the Donbass as the LDPR loses almost all their equipment to strikes and suffer complete blackout & blockade. Would Russia still have conducted a special military operation in 2022 then? They would be cowed because 1. Ukraine showed its overwhelming capabilities 2. There is no organized army left to reinforce in the separatist territory.

Once China has confirmed the unwillingness of the rebels to go on the negotiating table or threat from US steps up too much, China shouldn't sit and wait for America to declare a SMO. Instead, they'll hit the rebels first. I think that is what Chinese planners are doing now, and they obviously have far greater insight into the exact "red lines", but most likely it is related to monitoring upcoming leadership changes in Taipei.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
So you think you can launch a first strike on not only Taiwan but also Japan, destroying its entire military infrastructure and then you get a whole month of just waiting for Taiwan to surrender while the US does nothing? What happens a year later? It's not smart to start a world war over Taiwan. The whole world would see it as another Pearl Harbor. A localised conflict is the only option.

F22 range with external fuel tanks is enough to fly from Guam to Okinawa. Of course the US would suffer heavy losses, but that doesn't make a major war worth it. It doesn't even matter how the US responds initially, nobody wants a decade of war for the sake of taking Taiwan. The scenario you're proposing sounds like the soviet union launching a first strike on western Europe for the sake of conquering Austria and expecting to be home by Christmas.
It would be really good if you actually bother reading some of the stuff we wrote ahead. For the sake of this discussion, please just read some of what we discussed here PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
and what @Patchwork_Chimera posted here
https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/vs924o
China needs to determine if America will fight to the end here. The current belief is that America will not stop even if China manages to take Taiwan after a month without US intervention. All the scenarios we discussed of the Chinese first strike is based on the belief that China assesses America will not stop even if China takes most of Taiwan. So if it needs to defeat America regardless, then what is the best course of action? Depending on where China is in it's buildup, it may or may not have the luxury to give America the first shooter advantage. Imagine China blockades Taiwan and America/Japan comes by with very quiet submarines and start firing at China's blockading fleet or such. Once we get to a war scenario, it would be very hard for PLA to know if America's intention if its aircraft takes off from the air fields and ships starting to come over to Taiwan.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Beijing doesn't lose anything from feinting landings from day 1. If Taipei wants to defend that area, they'll need to move and setup troops in static defense positions, these troops are like fish in a barrel for the PLA to shoot at when they have 10cm error margin satellite targeting and tons of AEW drones flying around the area uncontested.

China doesn't have to land in the first day, but it can make feints and if Taiwan fails to detect one, those troops will land. If the rebel army instead manage to setup defenses, they'll be a bombing target and PLA can feint at another area. The rebel army is 150-200k strong, if PLA artillery mow down tens of thousands in a few days time (and even the far older PLA of 1979 showed such capability to inflict terrible casualties against way better trained Vietnam army), there won't be anyone left to staff the defenses.

The more overwhelmingly China moves against the rebels, the more US and Japan will be deterred from invading. To use Ukraine as an example, imagine if Kiev had attacked the rebels in 2021 with 30 000+ precisely targeted shells a day while Ukrainian formations rapidly flood into the Donbass as the LDPR loses almost all their equipment to strikes and suffer complete blackout & blockade. Would Russia still have conducted a special military operation in 2022 then? They would be cowed because 1. Ukraine showed its overwhelming capabilities 2. There is no organized army left to reinforce in the separatist territory.

Once China has confirmed the unwillingness of the rebels to go on the negotiating table or threat from US steps up too much, China shouldn't sit and wait for America to declare a SMO. Instead, they'll hit the rebels first. I think that is what Chinese planners are doing now, and they obviously have far greater insight into the exact "red lines", but most likely it is related to monitoring upcoming leadership changes in Taipei.
why would Taiwan move far quantity of troops to static defense positions when it can do a whole lot of damage with artillery units hidden away somewhere that's hard to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top