List of results from China-Taiwan computer war simulations.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Regardless of whether the planes survive or not, you gotta give the ROCAF credit for knowing exactly WHEN PLA will makes its SURPRISE attack and having the foresight to put the planes in the tunnel.

Thanks to the fact that the entire ROCAF is in a mountain, the poor PLA would be unable to utilize its ballistic missiles. Instead, they'll just have to rely on their pitiful air force of a couple hundred outdated fighters (such as the obsolete J-10, J-11, JH-7, nothing in the league of the powerful F-5 and FCK-1) dropping bombs everywhere.

Click to expand...

War simulation 2012 version: Taiwan loses. Why? 2nd artillery sent a missile to the entrance of the cave.

Phead128 said:

I'm pretty sure the ROC Airforce has converted many civilian high ways for dual purpose use...

I've seen a video Youtube. Perhaps the hollowed-out cave tunnels in the mountains have an access outlet to nearby civilian highways which the ROC Airforce can use as a take off strip...

Click to expand...

Honesty, it's even laughable they think they can survive an onslaught by hiding in the caves. Possible scenarios that will emerge will be either 1. PLA is dumb enough to find empty airbases and ignored it 2. PLA discovered the empty bases, then proceed to track down the planes, then bury them in. I think highly of #2, and it sounds funny enough to me. There's no better way to 1-hit KO an entire air force than let them do something stupid then we give them a helpful hand to close the deal.

What would happen if PLAAF and Taiwan AF have a face-to-face, an all-out air battle? In my opinion, Taiwan AF doesn't stand a chance, on paper at least. The only thing Taiwan AF has a slight advantage is the so-called high level of training. This "advantage" has been used in the past decades to argue in favor Taiwan. One would question how much gap there still is between PLAAF and Taiwan in terms of quality of training...

vesicles said:

What would happen if PLAAF and Taiwan AF have a face-to-face, an all-out air battle? In my opinion, Taiwan AF doesn't stand a chance, on paper at least. The only thing Taiwan AF has a slight advantage is the so-called high level of training. This "advantage" has been used in the past decades to argue in favor Taiwan. One would question how much gap there still is between PLAAF and Taiwan in terms of quality of training...

Click to expand...

After the J-20 came out the Taiwanese military purportedly started focusing on the "human factor" and said something along the lines that "weapons alone don't win wars". It is ironic how things have changed in the past 20 years.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Regardless of whether the planes survive or not, you gotta give the ROCAF credit for knowing exactly WHEN PLA will makes its SURPRISE attack and having the foresight to put the planes in the tunnel.

Click to expand...

the ROCAF has hired professional psychics who will be in charge of foreseeing potential PLA attacks. These highly talented professionals can forecast PLA attacks so accurately down to the minutes and seconds. This has become a major X-factor in the war game and in any potential actual fighting... These factors would be programed like "heroes in Warcraft games" who have special powers.

Re: If Taiwan makes it through one week, that would be impressive

Martian said:

In a blitzkrieg attack by mainland China, it is difficult to see how Taiwan can even survive the initial bombardment of its limited military bases by 1,800 short-range ballistic missiles. It is questionable whether Taiwan can last one or two weeks under a withering Chinese assault.

I think it is a stretch to claim victory for Taiwan. They were greedy. They should have just claimed a draw in their simulation. That is at least slightly plausible, depending on the duration and whether China only uses a fraction of its forces.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the definition of victory? to hold out 24, 48, 36, 72 etc hours untill the US battle fleet arrives = victory for the ROC? Annihilating the invasion force and fight its way to plant a ROC flag in beijing = victory?

But in anycase, i won't rely on the blitzkrieg - history have shown it does not work each and every time, having a second or third or even fourth strike ability is very important. So in anycase to defeat the ROC in war, what the PRC needs is 1) the blitzkrieg force to the island, 2) the navel and air forces to keel the ROC perpetually blockaded.

I'd much rather they work this out peacefully.

Re: If Taiwan makes it through one week, that would be impressive

Lezt said:

Well, it depends on the definition of victory? to hold out 24, 48, 36, 72 etc hours untill the US battle fleet arrives = victory for the ROC? Annihilating the invasion force and fight its way to plant a ROC flag in beijing = victory?

But in anycase, i won't rely on the blitzkrieg - history have shown it does not work each and every time, having a second or third or even fourth strike ability is very important. So in anycase to defeat the ROC in war, what the PRC needs is 1) the blitzkrieg force to the island, 2) the navel and air forces to keel the ROC perpetually blockaded.

I'd much rather they work this out peacefully.

Click to expand...

I don't think there will ever be a war. China has a solid record of reclaiming Hong Kong and Macau peacefully. Taiwan (like a precious Ming vase) isn't worth much if China has to smash it into pieces before claiming ownership.


Theow Tow, Deputy Chairman of Christie's Asia and the Americas International Director of Chinese works of Arts, looks at an early Ming underglaze copper-red vase after it was sold for a world record of US$10,122,558 for any Ming porcelain during an auction in Hong Kong May 30, 2006. [Reuters]

I was only making the point that I was incredulous at Taiwan's claim of a win in a computer simulation. They had better publish the underlying assumptions and detailed results. Otherwise, I'm still going to say it is a HUGE stretch. The result of Taiwan's computer simulation contradicts the RAND's 2009 simulation. Taiwan has to explain why their result is vastly different from the RAND outcome.

China is growing stronger year-by-year and its official military budget is approaching $100 billion per year. Taiwan's military budget has consistently remained near $10 billion. This is a mismatch and I don't see how the little guy pulls off a win.

In a modern war, Taiwan will be in smoking ruins long before the U.S. can steam aircraft carriers into the conflict. That is assuming the U.S. takes the risk of approaching Taiwan's waters. China may decide to test its ASBMs and a concerted multidirectional anti-ship missile attack; coupled with a near-simultaneous multidirectional torpedo swarm.

Also, as I have already posted in the thread on "China's Perspective on Nuclear Deterrence," it is much easier to build a stealth cruise missile than a stealth fighter. We cannot discount the possibility that China will attack with conventional stealth cruise missiles from all directions. The U.S. Navy may be too busy trying to defend itself; never mind trying to defend Taiwan.

----------



"BEIJING, March 4 (Xinhua) -- China said Friday it plans to raise its defense budget by 12.7 percent to 601 billion yuan (91.5 billion U.S. dollars) in 2011, compared with an increase of 7.5 percent last year."

Re: If Taiwan makes it through one week, that would be impressive

Was it saying Taiwan winning by itself or with USN? Cause by itself then that is a laugh. Just cause your fighters aren't destroyed in the first wave doesn't mean you win. Winning one round equals winning the war??? Hmm what are they thinking.

Quick Q:

What about certain factors like weather (affecting parachute troops landing positions?) and just the pure probability that something when wrong elsewhere which gave TW and edge.


If it comes down to it, just the fact if you run any computer simulations numerous enough, you will hit some surprising results.

In a blitzkrieg attack by mainland China, it is difficult to see how Taiwan can even survive the initial bombardment of its limited military bases by 1,800 short-range ballistic missiles. It is questionable whether Taiwan can last one or two weeks under a withering Chinese assault.

Click to expand...

First of all, projections of enemy military strength vis-a-vis your own are highly politicized domestically and internationally. In budget battles, national militaries have an interest in under-standing their own strength and over-stating their perceived enemies' strength. Likewise Taiwan has an interest in under-esimtating their capabilities in order to win more support from the U.S., namely more advanced weapons sales. In other contexts, there is the classic chest-thumping that occurs every now and then among militaries in which capabilities are over-stated for domestic and international audiences. Therefore be skeptical of public military scenarios from the PRC and ROC.

Posters on this thread seem to believe China's trump card is the Second Artillery (division?), their ballistic missile force of ~1,600 missiles. I am also skeptical of their capabilities. Ballistic missiles have a pathetic combat record. The Scuds fired by Iraq at Israel is 1991 were notoriously inaccurate. China's newest missiles are surely better-guided, but much of its arsenal is from the 1990s and early 2000s. Have guidance systems been updated? What is the method of guidance? Inertial guidance? Compass global positioning? What if Taiwan finds a way to jam Compass signals, which is well within their technical ability.

Air and ballistic missile power without guidance is practically useless against a dug-in, competent enemy. The allied bombing campaigns of Germany killed hundreds of thousands of people but did little to harm Germany's industrial capacity. The USAF dropped more ordinance on Vietnam, mostly the North, than all the bombs and artillery used in World Wars I and II, and still could not break the back of the North's war effort. Unguided aerial weapons are impressive but have little military value.

I believe China's Achilles Heel is it complete lack of combat experience. ROC forces also lack combat experience, but an amphibious invasion over a hundred miles of open seas is far more complicated than defending agianst such an invasion. On D-Day in 1944, the Allied forces had every advantage possible: surprise, numbers, pre-invasion aerial and sea bombardment, paratroopers dropped behind enemy lines...yet they still took two months to break out of Normandy. Part of that was the tenancity with which the German army fought, part of it was the difficulty in getting an army going straight off the boats.

When you get into a real war, equipment, training, and leadership problems are quickly discovered. A real war is the only adequate proving ground and learning "school" for a military.