PLA Organization & Structure discussion

wssth0306 said:

On the contrary , more Air and Sea assets are what needed to get on the island , consider how overwhelming the US were compared to the Japanese at 1945 , but even them decided that taking the island even without a rebellious local population was too costly .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Both parts of this operation will be hard , landing on it , holding it , both would require overwhelming and constant , air and sea dominance.
Consider about 30% Coalition sorties in the fist gulf war went for the SEAD operation alone and still yet had planes shot down, I don't think that it can be determined that PLAAF is has the capability to do so against a better equipped and prepared enemy, and with PLAAF lacking the constitutional knowledge to do so , the bigger the scale the air operation will be , the bigger the gap between PLAAF and USAF.
The same goes to the rest , the Allies during ww2 had more then 1 landing to learn , before attempting the most complicated military operation to date , and PLA will need to succeed in one that is both bigger , and more difficult .
So is getting on the island and staying there .

Click to expand...

I would disagree.

Broadly speaking, I think the PLAAF has enough assets for air superiority. However, it could do with more drones and precision guided munitions for existing platforms. That does not require a large increase in spending.

In terms of the PLAN, there are sufficient surface naval ships to achieve maritime supremacy. Again, there are niche areas where the PLAN needs more capability like minesweepers and LSTs, but these are not expensive ships that require a large increase in spending.

In terms of SEAD, I see Taiwan as being easier than Desert Storm due to improvements in technology.

wssth0306 said:

A staff officer for the PLAN who worked on the 1996 Taiwan crisis said that in order to hold the beach head , they need to be able to land a full brigade in the first hour , and a full crop in the first day to have a good chance of winning , and back then , it would be impossible even if all ships that was available to the navy was put into this operation , even today , with all of the landing crafts PLA has, it lacks the supply ability to maintain a group army on the island without capturing a port .
( I will link you if I can find it )

I think fundamentally you are underestimating how difficult a cross channel invasion is , it was , and still is , the most complected operation type of conversional warfare , and given the population size and how well equipped Taiwan is , I don't think it will be a exaggerating to say that an successful invasion of Taiwan that is willing to fight , will be the most difficult operation every carried out by any military , and we cannot assume that Taiwan doesn't have the will to do so.

So in my opinion , significantly more PLAAF and PLAN assets , training is precisely what a invasion of Taiwan will need.

Click to expand...

We recently went through the logistics for a Taiwan invasion in the relevant thread already. By my count, PLAN amphibious ships have capacity for somewhere between 1400-2300 vehicles. 1400 vehicles would correspond to the ground combat vehicles of 4 Amphibious Brigades.

Maikeru said:

These are interesting discussions but do not factor in the divisions in Xinjiang MD nor the PLAN MC and PLAAF Airborne Corps, which add further maneuver units to the ORBAT. Also, are the Tibet MD CABs part of a Group Army (77th?) or do they report direct to PLAGF central command?

Click to expand...

PLA has an dual command for units Xingjiang and Tibet MD, as far as I know they answer to both the western MD and their own MD, that why the official news still stats that XXX unit form Xingjiang as apposed to XXX unit from western MD.
But I am unsure about if there are direct orders from the central commission , skipping what technically is 2 levels.

AndrewS said:

I would disagree.

Broadly speaking, I think the PLAAF has enough assets for air superiority. However, it could do with more drones and precision guided munitions for existing platforms. That does not require a large increase in spending.

In terms of the PLAN, there are sufficient surface naval ships to achieve maritime supremacy. Again, there are niche areas where the PLAN needs more capability like minesweepers and LSTs, but these are not expensive ships that require a large increase in spending.

In terms of SEAD, I see Taiwan as being easier than Desert Storm due to improvements in technology.



We recently went through the logistics for a Taiwan invasion in the relevant thread already. By my count, PLAN amphibious ships have capacity for somewhere between 1400-2300 vehicles. 1400 vehicles would correspond to the ground combat vehicles of 4 Amphibious Brigades.

Click to expand...

I do think that in many way , PLA can pull this off under a set of more ideal assumptions , but I do not think in general hope is a not a strategy. You have to give the enemy every bit of edge that he can might get , assuming they are better then what they are , and give yourself every disadvantage you might have , assuming you are worse then you are.

The same goes for many other subject , if you assume that PLA can successfully invade Taiwan , then you are biased for only looking at evidence that support the view point , and missing out the thing that says otherwise.

An invasion against a fortified enemy who had more then 50 years preparing for this scenario, on a Island with so limited landing spot , mountains to hide in, and a population that will support the war effort cause it is their home. With many potential allies that are willing to come for it help.

Meanwhile, you have a force that is untested, fighting in conditions that is historically unprecedented in it's scale and complexity , with technology that have yet to be tested.

If I were a betting man , I wouldn't bet my money on a PLA to win , not implausible but not a guarantee.
I would doubt that even US can take the Island if they try, if it and China switched places .

wssth0306 said:

An invasion against a fortified enemy who had more then 50 years preparing for this scenario, on a Island with so limited landing spot , mountains to hide in, and a population that will support the war effort cause it is their home. With many potential allies that are willing to come for it help.

Meanwhile, you have a force that is untested, fighting in conditions that is historically unprecedented in it's scale and complexity , with technology that have yet to be tested.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea how you can get this interpretation from looking at taiwan's history.

Aniah said:

I have absolutely no idea how you can get this interpretation from looking at taiwan's history.

Click to expand...

To be fair it's called being prudent such that you sufficiently prepare and are still able to achieve victory even if luck on the day of battle doesn't go your way.

Greater margins of superiority ensures a greater likelihood of success in the event of things not going your way.

That said I'm not sure why this thread has turned towards a Taiwan contingency, there is a separate thread for that, so if everyone could kindly get back on topic..

wssth0306 said:

PLA has an dual command for units Xingjiang and Tibet MD, as far as I know they answer to both the western MD and their own MD, that why the official news still stats that XXX unit form Xingjiang as apposed to XXX unit from western MD.
But I am unsure about if there are direct orders from the central commission , skipping what technically is 2 levels.

Click to expand...

No it would only skip 1 level, i.e. WTC. I mean XMD reports to central, not the divisions under XMD.

Blitzo said:

That said I'm not sure why this thread has turned towards a Taiwan contingency, there is a separate thread for that, so if everyone could kindly get back on topic..

Click to expand...

On that note , does any one know what are PLA regiments battle order post reform ?
A normal combined arms battalion has 7 companies , how many companies a regiment has? is it just a name change ? or it does indeed a different type of unit.
As far as I saw , only Xingjiang MD still has regiment and divisions , does those divisions maintains a pre reform battle order ? or they are just a legacy name.

Maikeru said:

These are interesting discussions but do not factor in the divisions in Xinjiang MD nor the PLAN MC and PLAAF Airborne Corps, which add further maneuver units to the ORBAT. Also, are the Tibet MD CABs part of a Group Army (77th?) or do they report direct to PLAGF central command?

Click to expand...

Consider each MD a group army.

wssth0306 said:

On that note , does any one know what are PLA regiments battle order post reform ?

Click to expand...

2017-2020: Same as pre-reform.
Since 2020: Combined-Arms Regiments.

wssth0306 said:

On that note , does any one know what are PLA regiments battle order post reform ?
A normal combined arms battalion has 7 companies , how many companies a regiment has? is it just a name change ? or it does indeed a different type of unit.
As far as I saw , only Xingjiang MD still has regiment and divisions , does those divisions maintains a pre reform battle order ? or they are just a legacy name.

Click to expand...

XMR has four Combined Arms Divisions. Each CAD has two Combined Arms Regiments. Each CAR, unlike CAB, has three Combined Arms Battalions with additional supporting units