Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

AndrewS · Sep 1, 2022

tphuang said:
The problem is it doesn't make any sense. If you invade, you need at least a month to prepare an invasion force. Even in the scenario we discussed, the invasion force would be smaller than one that's necessary to conduct a non-exhausted defensive force. Doing a major buildup 6 weeks before a planned invasion would be a huge give away that an invasion is coming.

It's obvious that you can't conduct and finish a major amphibious invasion of Taiwan in the space of 2 days.

But it is possibly in the space of 2 days (and make clear to Taiwan and the USA) that Taiwan is crippled and that it is only a matter of time before Taiwan disintegrates due to lack of electricity, fuel, food and comms.

Imagine China conducted 400 strike sorties in a day comprising JH-7A and J-16s.

Theoretically they could launch 6400-9600 SDB glide bombs against soft targets in Taiwan.
That is shock and awe

And I would say at least 2 weeks to prepare a major invasion force.

tphuang said:
well, the nearest NTC bases are only a couple of hundred km closer to Tokyo than the nearest ETC bases. So, ETC would be part of any attack south of Misawa. Even before H20 presence, the growing naval presence (carrier + 055s) will carry out large portion of land attack also. But yes, they will be well served in building up bases near Korean border and Shandong with J16s. Replace some of the JH7A regiments with j-16s and H-6K/J bases.

And don't forget about Chitose airbase on Hokkaido.

Chitose is about 1000km from Manchuria and the journey is over empty water.
From ETC, Chitose is 2200km away.

If Chitose is secure, the US could start pouring in aircraft to contest air superiority with Chinese aircraft.

a0011 · Sep 2, 2022

Patchwork_Chimera said:
That's actually a little easier said than done during surge tempo strike ops lol. When destroying C4I infrastructure, there's a very non-zero chance of a national leadership figure being killed in the process. The same goes for the tactical phase, where any military vehicle that gets plinked has a small, but non-zero chance of Tsai Ing Wen in the passenger seat, singing along to Taylor Swift on the CD player or something. Plus, not striking at military leadership will be a hinderance to the overall goal of degrading ROC warfighting capabilities, and eventually the ROC's ability to keep its citizens alive, and will drag out the conflict longer than it needs to go, which is generally imprudent in all but a select few circumstances.

Further, again, the communications issue is quite a meaningful factor.

Even if you were to do this, those radios (presumably civilian, seeing as how giving over your own radio equipment isn't the greatest COMSEC decision lol) would be subject to the same EA as all the other radios, would struggle to reach PRC forces (powerful infantry radios are like... 10ish miles of range, though it of course varies by a lot of factors), and larger radios would be a waste of a sortie to drop, assuming it was deployed via cargo aircraft (I'd be surprised if someone wanted to jury-rig a radio + parachute system onto an H-6 and fly it over Taipei, or really onto any other aircraft hardpoint, and do so. It's just an unnecessary mission, and it doesn't net much.

There's also the added "finality" of a landing. It might not sound important, but it's one thing for an ally to surrender while still across 100nm of water, and thus still technically control their territory; rather than having them announce their surrender as they're receiving aid and more PLA troops are flowing into the island, with many of them likely being greeted by grateful citizens, who would - again, more than anything - just be happy to be getting a hot meal and clean water again. I believe it is a relevant political goal in the CPC, that 'reunification' occurs in a manner where they can come out on a positive note, can say they had concluded it decisively and on their own terms, and that it can be painted as a "courageous" mission to "reclaim" not only a territory perceived to have been unjustly ripped away from them at nuclear gunpoint, and which had been a symbol of Western hegemony and Chinese subordination to the western-dominated global order for so long, but also to "reclaim" their "natural" place in the global order as a superpower in their own right, which I believe necessitates at least **some** land-component element. Not saying it'll be a full scale invasion, but I do believe there must be at least (as described before) a "coup-de-grace" even with a small force, which can then proceed to HA/DR tasks, which again, would be a major propaganda victory.

Perhaps I have my impression all wrong, but I simply don't think the PRC would be as keen to sit there watching and waiting for Tsai to pick up the phone (assuming she's alive) and cry uncle, when all it would take to end the war **right then** would be to deploy 2 to 4 PLANMC/PLAGF amphibious brigades from Penghu to a few beachheads, mop up any stubborn local forces right then and there, and to start setting up aid posts and humanitarian facilities to get the citizenry firmly in favor of "let's just end this, I missed food and water a lot."

there is satellite radios and sat phones. I would highly doubt that CPC wouldn't have direct line of communication with ROC in an AR scenario

FairAndUnbiased · Sep 19, 2022

I was skeptical of the small payload of Iranian loitering munitions but they seem to be doing heavy lifting in Ukraine as used by the Russians. I would say that if a war to liberate Taiwan was imposed on China, the first wave of SEAD can be carried out by a wave of loitering munitions against soft targets in addition to heavy hitters like MLRS, cruise missiles and SRBMs. IMO response speed isn't as important in a first strike as coverage and stealth are.

Franklin · Sep 30, 2022

AndrewS said:
If it was just one anonymous source, I would have agree. But it's multiple sources and this story has been published and then repeated. And the UK governments must have some sort of analysis as to how they think China will conduct a Taiwan war. Presumably this is reflective of what the US thinks, given the close diplomatic, military and intelligence relationship.

A 2 day operation is plausible from the point of view that China doesn't want to conduct a surprise first strike against the US as the first step, and therefore be in a full-scale war with the US from Day 1.

So I think it is useful to consider what such a 2 day campaign looks like. The UK and US governments certainly won't want to discuss this publicly, so if this happens, we may see ill-considered, populist and plainly stupid decision-making like with Ukraine.

Putin didn't deploy 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border for months just for laughs. Yet Zelensky kept baiting Russia by publicly insisting that Ukraine would join NATO which is a hostile military alliance aimed at Russia. A sensible and competent President Zelensky would have taken the Russian threat seriously, and kept quietly publicly but worked behind the scenes to resolve this. Instead we saw public grandstanding and self-righteousness aimed at the crowd.

Then when the Russian invasion happened, predictions of an imminent Ukrainian collapse were leaked by the Pentagon, and it did take some days for a Western response.

---
So broadly speaking, in 2 days, we could say the vast majority of the Taiwanese Air Force and Navy would be destroyed. That the Chinese military can blockade Taiwan and also attack any land target it wishes to. There will no electricity from Day 1 and it will take at least a year to build replacement electricity plants. Much of the dual use civilian infrastructure such as fuel and communications will be degraded at a minimum.

Even if the US military intervenes after Day 2, the Chinese military still retains the ability to keep Taiwan blockaded and therefore ensure the collapse of Taiwanese society within 6 weeks.

So suppose China conducts a 2 day operation with the effects on Taiwan above. Then China declares success and a unilateral ceasefire, subject to Taiwan accepting a Hong Kong settlement but with Taiwan being allowed to maintain its own Army.

This all happens before the US/Japan decide to intervene.

Is it worth the US going to war with China or continuing a war in such a scenario? Would Taiwan confine to resist, knowing it was only a matter of time before Taiwan disintegrates?

Like I mentioned before, we may have the Taiwanese President addressing the UN and telling the world that it isn't in Taiwan's interest to see the US and China at war.

If China and the US are at peace, the world might get away with a short global recession.

But if China and the US are at war, it means a global economic decline comparable to the Great Depression. In terms of the impact to the US and also China, a 25%-35% GDP decline has been mentioned. Japan and Taiwan would be hit even harder.

Japan will also have to grapple with whether it is worth going to war against China. If the US doesn't have access to Japanese bases, there's no way for the US military to effectively reach Taiwan.

But having said all this, I do not think this is China's preferred scenario. There is so much risk, destruction and death in any war. The status quo is fine, particularly since China is still increasing its power in all dimensions.

There are still 400 million poorly paid peasants for example, which can potentially fuel relatively fast growth for another 2 decades. If Beijing is able to make them middle-class and rich, that alone would be the equivalent of an entire USA in terms of people and economic heft.

---

Practically speaking, aircraft from ETC airbases could only cover the Western half of Japan, at most.

Yes, I would expect Yanji airbase in NTC to be expanded and new airbases in this area to host heavyweight fighter bomber aircraft.

In the coming decade, I expect more H-6 and H-20 to be assigned for missions against Japan, due to the distance involved.

Of course, that assumes Cuba can use North Korean airspace.

The world is now headed for a great depression style economic decline even without a US China war over Taiwan. The question is how will such a event change the world's geopolitical picture and what will the US do if its feels that time is no longer on its side.

AndrewS · Sep 30, 2022

Franklin said:
The world is now headed for a great depression style economic decline even without a US China war over Taiwan. The question is how will such a event change the world's geopolitical picture and what will the US do if its feels that time is no longer on its side.

I would say it's a recession rather than a depression coming.

Well, the news is all about China collapsing (when it's not), and I don't see that changing for the next few years

ACuriousPLAFan · Oct 3, 2022

Here is a short piece of article that I would like to share here, which is from someone knowledgeable that I follow on Quora.

Chinese Commentary on the Ukraine War

Most Chinese commenters, including independent commentators on YouTube, have sided with Russia in the Ukraine war. Even though they respect Ukraine’s independence as a nation, they do not like that the Ukraine government has sided with the US and NATO against Russia. They believe that Russia was reacting against NATO aggression against Russia, and that Putin had drawn a line in the sand which led to the special military operation.
After siding with Russia for more than six months, they were disappointed to see the Russian withdrawals in the north of (correction: around) the country.

Here are some of the Chinese criticisms of the Russian strategy and fighting ability, again mostly by independent commentators:

Putin was wrong not to invade with overwhelming force. If he had used overwhelming force this war would not have dragged on for so long;

Putin was hoping to have negotiations with Kyiv, Brussels and Washington DC and he was caught unprepared when Kyiv refused to negotiate;

Why didn’t Putin destroy Ukraine infrastructure right at the beginning? This would have prevented it from dragging on for so long.

Russia produces oil and their tanks run out of fuel? What’s going on here?

The Russian military is poorly equipped and there are shortages everywhere.

Not enough ideological training for the troops, and they were NOT given clear tactical goals. This resulted in poor morale among the troops.

Among the Chinese, this has made them think about what they should do when it comes to military reunification with Taiwan:

Strike hard and don’t hold back; that will give the Americans time to support Taiwan. Apply devastating force right from the beginning. Innocent lives will be lost, but a lot of lives will also be saved by making the fighting shorter.

The PLA is much better equipped than Russian forces. Equipment is better, ideology is better, leadership is better.

A short intensive war with a lot of violence is much better than a dragged out war with many civilian casualties.

FIGHT TO WIN RIGHT FROM THE START, AND DON’T HOLD BACK!

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Short, yet concise and precise.

Biscuits · Oct 4, 2022

Another interesting point is that late USSR air defenses are now battle proven with good results.

China's own systems represent a further advancement on that development, and there's much much more of them, plus they have way better ISR than Ukraine has.

Russia has a bomber fleet of 182 aircraft vs US with 162. With just a handful of S300 and Buk paralysing RU bomber fleet, the prognosis is bad for US bomber fleet, especially since Russians reduced their bomb carrying capacity in exchange for missile trucks, but US still runs around with many bombers that need to be incredibly close to target.

Of particular interest is how Lvov was almost untouched by Russian bombing power. In terms of strategic depth, Lvov is Ukraine's deepest stronghold, but it is not that far from hostile borders. In an US assault scenario, Liaoning or Shanghai has about equal strategic depth to Lvov when it comes to distance from hostile airbases.

Furthermore, China has vast internal cities like Chengdu, Xian, Chongqing, Nanning etc. If 182 Russian bombers struggle so much to get to Lvov against a vastly inferior air defense, you can pretty much forget the threat of 162 US bombers against cities that have tens of times more strategic depth than Lvov.

The takeaway message, as long as China keeps a vast and modern air defense network, its industrial core remains very safe. It is simply not viable to throw away bomber crews to terror bomb civilian targets, even on the most exposed coastal cities. Instead, the major bombing threat in a war would be eventual US Iskander/Kinzhal equivalents.

Franklin · Oct 4, 2022

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Here is a short piece of article that I would like to share here, which is from someone knowledgeable that I follow on Quora.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Short, yet concise and precise.

Its interesting that they would cite ideological training. The problem for the Russians is that they are invading another country. If Russia was the one that was invaded the troops would have performed much better. They don't believe in the cause of the war and a lot of them feel that they shouldn't be there. That is creating moral problems for them to fight and for people back home to sign up to join the fight.

Also they have a ridiculous law that says that conscripts cannot deploy abroad. Meaning that the units that were going into Ukraine were doing so without the conscripts and were undermanned from the very beginning.

There is also contention about the Rosgvardiya the Russian equivalent of the PAP should be fighting in Ukraine. A lot of deployed Rosgvardiya members refuse to enter Ukraine as they see themselves as a internal police force and shouldn't deploy abroad.

China wouldn't have such problems over Taiwan as people in China believe that Taiwan is a part of China. Everyone in the armed forces is a volunteer and the PAP is commanded by the CMC and is seen as a part of the PLA. But on the other hand they will have to cross a body of water called the Taiwan Straits and would have to fight Japanese and American forces to do so.

The Americans seems to have far less problems fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years.

Petrolicious88 · Oct 4, 2022

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Here is a short piece of article that I would like to share here, which is from someone knowledgeable that I follow on Quora.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Short, yet concise and precise.

—People have talked about how China needs to go hard and destroy Taiwanese infrastructures at the getgo. Remember Russia did fire over 100 cruise missiles on runways, telecom stations, weapon depots, etc… during the first day.

—The line between civilian and military or dual use infrastructures are easily blurred in a war. Especially if Taiwanese military start to use civilian infrastructures as cover, something the Palestinians have done with success against Israel.

—Taiwanese are brothers and sisters in the same way many Russians consider Ukrainians their “Kin” with relatives across borders.
—Careful on how hard you want to go as collateral damage will only turn more Taiwanese against China.

ACuriousPLAFan · Oct 4, 2022

Franklin said:
Its interesting that they would cite ideological training. The problem for the Russians is that they are invading another country. If Russia was the one that was invaded the troops would have performed much better. They don't believe in the cause of the war and a lot of them feel that they shouldn't be there. That is creating moral problems for them to fight and for people back home to sign up to join the fight.

and

Franklin said:
The Americans seems to have far less problems fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years.

Let's establish the fact where the Russians are invading Ukraine, a sovereign nation and a fully-fledged UN member state in 2022, similarly to how the Americans have invaded Iraq, also a sovereign nation and a fully-fledged UN member state in 2003.

The difference, however, lies exactly with not just the ideology, but also the mindset of the average Russian troops (and civilians), versus that of the average American troops (and civilians).

The Russians have much of their mindset and ideological values (bar some core ones) pretty much hollowed out over the past three decades - All thanks to having unfettered access to Western social media and news agencies within Russia itself. The three decades-worth of leaving their doors wide open and almost without control after the collapse of the Soviet Union have done significant damage to their own populace. It looks as if many average Russians may no longer own similar sense and strength of patriotism, unity and nationalism for their Mother Russia as with the Soviet Union, essentially "lying flat' (躺平).

Meanwhile, the invasion of Iraq by the US and several of her allies was launched merely one-and-a-half years after the September 11 attacks. The memories of the hijacked planes slamming into the twin towers in New York, and the sights of their collapse are still very fresh in the minds of most Americans. Coupled with how Saddam's Iraq has been literally defaced over the past 12 years in the minds of the American people with the great help of American's mass media (not forgetting the Colin "washing-powder" Powell's contribution too), any opposition or dissent against the invasion would be considerably weaker (or even supressed) within the US armed forces itself. The American public at the time also saw the invasion as a justified revenge act against "the Muslim terrorists", despite several anti-war protests being held.

Furthermore, remember that while the Russians may see Ukrainians as their long-lost Slavic brothers; the Americans certainly aren't looking the same way at the Iraqis.

Do note that I neither agree nor support the invasions of both Ukraine and Iraq by Russia and the US respectively. I am just stating my viewpoint on how the mindsets of the average Russian and American troops could have been affecting their performances in 2022 and 2003 respectively.

Honestly, though, China is really blessed with their GFW being kept standing and secure for the past few decades.

Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

AndrewS

Brigadier

a0011

New Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Franklin

Captain

AndrewS

Brigadier

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

Biscuits

Colonel

Franklin

Captain

Petrolicious88

Senior Member

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier