PLA Coast Defense Forces

I think some of you are dismissing Roger604's comment about nukes as inflammatory, but he's dead on.

For any modern power, when things get so bad that a rival power has such firm control over your airspace and coastal waters that they can realistically attempt a landing, then things are truly desperate.

The U.S. would do the same thing, as would Isreal, Britain, India, Russia, etc. That's why nuclear powers fight proxy wars rather than engaging each other directly.

Hence, coastal defense isn't such a big issue as it used to be.

... Ami.

yeas...Coastal defence emphasis in China is direct decent of the PLAs maritime roots thats lies in the Old Soviet maritime philosophy. And what Ami said is partially true, but you have to remember that China still has neighbours like Vietnam and Taiwan that can bring the naval combat really close to the Chinese shores, and the crucial and important fact that PLAN itself isent yet powerfull enough to engage other martime superpowers in sea.

Thats why there still exist a remrant of the "old school" wich can be seen in newer model truck-load SSMs, Minelayers and in the Type022 wich presents really old, shore led coastal defence doctrine in FAC operations, but these must be seen as transistional units and weapons and Im confident that they will present the last of the line in these fields. when their retiriment days comes, PLAN would be world class blue water force that can keep even conventional regional conflicts in safe distant of its shore lines.

bigstick61 said:

That would not prevent a landing from coming ashore, and it would there is also the possibility of preemptive strikes, or interception should the ABM system become reality, and such. The use of nukes would likely infuriate Americans into a frenzy.

Click to expand...

That's why American should not land on China, infuriating Chinese to a frenzy.

Communist China has never let itself be invaded, and always struck first.

bigstick61 said:

So say that US forces were to achieve air superiority and control the seas in the area where the landings are to take place, the only heavy weapons the PLA could employ to oppose a landing are field pieces and weapons organic to infantry units, along with missiles?

Click to expand...

China may not try to oppose a major landing at the beach, but use the time to deploy armor to eat up the beachhead. The beachline is far longer than France anyway (and we saw how those fortifications went) so it isn't economical to fortify. Even in the 60's to 80's the armor would have been adequately protected from a carrier force with thousands of defense fighters (J-6).

Well, an invasion would likely come as the culmination of a long campaign in the Pacific and Asia due to a major war. We would likely have to liberate our territories in the region, parts of Japan, the ROC, parts oor all of the ROK, and such, before we invade the PRC. It would have to be done, though, for there to be victory. It's likely that a nuclear exchange would have occurred before then. Of much greater concern would be Russia's nuclear reply, should they remain committed to their alliance.

Well, America settled for non-victories in both Korea and Vietnam, both times when there were not even under nuclear threat. So it's not likely to push for unconditional surrender on China.

We might look at how China planned to deal with a Soviet tank rush, which would have been much more dangerous than any beach landing. China was going to give up vast territory, retreat to mountains, make the occupation impossible, build nukes inside caves, stuff like that. It's a much deeper defense strategy than putting up bigger guns at beaches.

The best defence would be to turn the country into a porcupine brimming with ballistic missiles (Porcupine Strategy). This offers a good deterrance so there would not be a war in the first place. If a country is ever foolish enough to invade, all they will see is a black sky darkened by flying scuds.

Vietnam was in no way a conventional conflict. That it was fought like one by our forces was the source of our failure, as it wore down American forces on major operations in the hinterlands, where there were only small populations, while the focus should have been on the population centers, somethig the USMC and counterinsurgency experts noted. In Korea, it would have been hard to push for such a thing given that officially it was just a "police action," which I think was a stupid thing to call it. It should have been called what it was: a war.

World War II is probably a better example of how the conflict would be fought, especially considering that such a war would likely become a world war. We would likely try to focus, after seizing islands and such, on an operation to seize the capital and the surrounding area, and after securing control, conduct a campaign of pacification. If a small wars doctrine is once again in place, which is highly likely to be the case after the Iraqi conflict is over, while long and difficult, such a campaign could be successful. I'm sure there would be attempts to create a rebel army within the PRC, but I'm not sure how successful that would be. The campaign needed to get to the point where the next step would be an invasion would likely be long and bloody enough that anything short of victory, by that point, would be outrageous. And it would need to be done as a method of prevention. The likely use of nukes at some point would make an invasion politically feasible, as well, as would any assault on US soil.

How about People's Nuclear War strategy..every house gets uranium, every village gets blueprint

***

bigstick, whatever you're smoking, give me some

bigstick61 said:

It's likely that a nuclear exchange would have occurred before then. Of much greater concern would be Russia's nuclear reply, should they remain committed to their alliance.

Click to expand...

After a nuclear exchange with China, there would be no "USA" for you to fight for. Just like there is no "Atlantis" or "Cherokee Nation" today. China has enough fissile material for at least 1000 plutonium (strategic, not tactical) nukes. At least that figure has been produced by the two known nuclear facilities in China. In such an exchange, all the urban population of the USA would be vaporized. Welcome to the stone age.

Here is the population density of the USA.