Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

tphuang said:

We have several threads (including a Taiwan contingency one) which is wide open for all the geopolitical commentary that everyone loves to talk about. I created this one specifically so that people that enjoy just talking about military stuff can have a conversation about it without getting into nuclear weapons and which countries they hate. Your post had nothing to do with military strategy to be learnt from Ukraine conflict.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, correctly evaluating the will to fight of an adversary is the most important military consideration.

The current Russia-Ukraine war can be characterized as Putin correctly evaluating the will to fight of the US while incorrectly evaluating that of Ukraine.

solarz said:

On the contrary, correctly evaluating the will to fight of an adversary is the most important military consideration.

The current Russia-Ukraine war can be characterized as Putin correctly evaluating the will to fight of the US while incorrectly evaluating that of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

What I’m curious about is whether American racism will make US action in Taiwan more likely than against Russians

solarz said:

On the contrary, correctly evaluating the will to fight of an adversary is the most important military consideration.

The current Russia-Ukraine war can be characterized as Putin correctly evaluating the will to fight of the US while incorrectly evaluating that of Ukraine.

Click to expand...

That's complete nonsense. You clearly have no idea how US politics work. US gov't said from very early on "no troop on the ground", because America has no legal obligations to defend Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO country. Why should America get militarily involved? None of what has happened thus far has changed any of that. More importantly, PLA has to plan for US intervention is any Taiwan conflict, because of the "Taiwan act".

There is a long list of things that have happened militarily since the start of the conflict that will influence PLA on how they train, procure and fight in a future Taiwan scenario. Looks like we are getting further and further away from discussing that. Which is frustrating, because there is another Taiwan thread just for the geopolitical stuff.

FairAndUnbiased said:

by the time it hits ground warfare, the only solution is artillery. There's too much risk in urban warfare otherwise. The first round will be leaflets for civilians and to ask for a surrender by walking out a given corridor. The next round will not be.

Click to expand...

There's never an "only solution" to any strategic/operational/tactical problem.

Destroying the thing that you're trying to capture is the worst solution, at every level.

You can do it if you want (there's nothing stopping you at that point), but it shouldn't be your first option.

montyp165 said:

More advanced systems such as the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

combine both night vision and thermal imaging into a single system enabling maximal use of ambient heat and light sources for target acquisition, and reducing energy consumption relative to active illuminators. The PLA definitely would have such under development for drone use, and infantry use isn't much of a stretch.

Click to expand...

That's what I was hinting at. Just remember, these optics are very expensive. So factor that in to the calculus.

Also, retraining the selected units which get this capability will be required. Because you still need NVGs (you can't walk around looking through your NV scope all the time.) You will need to keep switching between your NVGs and NV scopes. You'd need to get used to it.

Mohsin77 said:

There's never an "only solution" to any strategic/operational/tactical problem.

Destroying the thing that you're trying to capture is the worst solution, at every level.

You can do it if you want (there's nothing stopping you at that point), but it shouldn't be your first option.

Click to expand...

if there is urban warfare it means 1. they do not care if their own home is destroyed and 2. they cannot win militarily but since they hate the enemy more than they love their own lives or property they'll fight you in the rubble.

in that case, since they've accepted their homes will be turned to rubble, just go for it.

Used to train in southern taiwan as part of Ex Starlight (Singapore) and we do shared the same training area with ROC Army and interacted with some of the ROC soldiers.

Taiwanese army used to be well disciplined, tough and well trained till the 90s. 2000 onwards everything started to change for the worse.

As the 2 political parties campign for votes especially younger voters, national defence gave way to populism.

As a result, Conscription was reduce several times and by 2018, recruits only needs 4 months basic training. Discipline seems to be a problem with abolition of millitary law and court martial.

The desire for Taiwanese youth to fight war is very low. Most harbour the hope that American will fight for them. As a result there wasn't enough regulars to fill in active combat units. Lot of units were 'empty shelves' that severely under strength.

As for millitary ops, most difficult part should of the campaign is beach landing. Not many areas on the island is suitable for amphibious operations. It will be good if china can find a way to demoralise the enemy before actual landing.

My thought is they might want to take Penghu island first which sits strategically between Mainland and Taiwan.

Historically Penghu served as a springboard to invade Taiwan. Winning Penghu means half the war won.

In todays context, it might not served much as springboard but fall of penghu will dealt a heavy mental blow to Taiwanese morale. It also serve as a decoy to confuse the enemy where the actual landing site will be. It opens up the possibility of 2 landing fronts. Enemy force will spread thin as a result.

siegecrossbow said:

Another thing I don’t think we have factored in is Taiwan’s geography, or the fact that it is an island. This means that in event of war where a no fly zone and blockade are established over and around the island, refugees cannot escape via conventional means. Whether it will lead to stiffer resistance or rapid collapse remains to be seen.

Click to expand...

An escape route for enemy under sieze is always a good strategy, Imperial Japanese army always used this during invasion of China in WW2. The retreating army will always lost fighting will when they see a chance to escape. The attacking army should aimed at gaining maximum territoty instead of aiming for maximum kills.

In Taiwan, of course it is different due to it being an island. Opening up an escape air corridor and a sea route for civilians, and even for disarmed military will help to shorten the war and cut down civilian and military casualties. The port of departure may be under control of PLA or under a joint control like Kabul airport last year.

tphuang said:

That's complete nonsense. You clearly have no idea how US politics work. US gov't said from very early on "no troop on the ground", because America has no legal obligations to defend Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO country. Why should America get militarily involved? None of what has happened thus far has changed any of that. More importantly, PLA has to plan for US intervention is any Taiwan conflict, because of the "Taiwan act".

There is a long list of things that have happened militarily since the start of the conflict that will influence PLA on how they train, procure and fight in a future Taiwan scenario. Looks like we are getting further and further away from discussing that. Which is frustrating, because there is another Taiwan thread just for the geopolitical stuff.

Click to expand...

The US gov't says a lot of things. "No troops on the ground" doesn't mean anything. They could have lent air support to Ukraine, but they didn't because Putin threatened them with nuclear war. So, right away, this means nuclear deterrence is a viable strategy against Taiwan.

Second, the US will intervene if they think they can win, they will not intervene if they don't think they can win. This means the faster and more decisively China can retake Taiwan, the smaller the probability of an escalating US-China conflict.

The main issue I'm taking here is people assuming Ukraine changed anything for Taiwan. There seems to be a view that because Putin underestimated the Ukrainians, we need to assume that Taiwan resistance is stronger than it appears. That is nonsensical because TW military training is still abysmal, the Tsai government is still stripping veterans of benefits, and the young TW generation still has no intention of risking their own lives to defend TW.

Vatt’ghern said:

What I’m curious about is whether American racism will make US action in Taiwan more likely than against Russians

Click to expand...

Western elites may very well be racist themselves, but their consideration is going to be based on their self-interests.

FairAndUnbiased said:

....they do not care if their own home is destroyed

Click to expand...

But maybe you do.

I repeat: Destroying the thing that you're trying to CAPTURE is the worst solution at every level.

FairAndUnbiased said:

..... just go for it.

Click to expand...

You never just "go for it."

You analyze all options before selecting which to pick.

I repeat: there is never an "only solution" to any strategic/operational/tactical problem.