PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
he's wrong because ballistic missiles aren't a big artillery shell, they aren't easy to shrug off and they aren't easy to harden against. Taiwan can worry all it wants, but it doesn't have the capability to stop them or harden against them.

for one, they deliver ~500 kg of payload vs. ~10 kg for a big artillery shell, have ~300 km range (for SRBMs) vs. ~30 km and have CEP in the single digits of meters range. 50x more firepower with 10x the range at equal accuracy is not "just a little bigger". For reference, in terms of income 50x bigger is the difference between a C suite executive and a McDonalds burger flipper. The C suite executive doesn't have "just a little bit higher income" than the burger flipper. 500 kg of even just solid concrete at Mach 5 delivered within 5 meters of a target is devastating.

conventional ballistic missiles have been used to devastating effect by both Russia and Ukraine in this very war that happened less than 1 year after he wrote the "analysis". Ukraine has lost essentially all its strategic logistics capability like oil refining and distribution, training camps, fixed command, etc. Russia on the other hand has been hit by Ukrainian Tochkas from the 1980's even weeks into the war, proving that TELs are extremely survivable even in the face of air superiority, and Taiwan has neither the capability to gain air superiority over mainland China (or even over Taiwan itself) nor the capability to strike TELs like he asserts.
Click to expand...
My point is that Taiwan, particularly Taiwan media, discusses China's ballistic missiles as if it is the primary if not the only means that China would use in strikes against Taiwan targets. This was true in the 90s, when ballistic missile really were the only means as the PLAAF cannot achieve air superiority. It is not true today as the bulk of China's strike force will be from precision guided bombs dropped from multirole fighters.

Thus Easton is correct in that from a tactical perspective Taiwan should not focus that much on ballistic missiles. Of course the rest of that article is garbage.
 
V

Volpler11

Junior Member
Registered Member
Michaelsinodef said:
A recent reddit thread about a report made by Ian Easton on an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA.
And well I was kinda interested in what was written, but when I got into the report I wanted to take a look at his sources, and well, LOL.

A lot of the chinese sources he is using are from 2012-2015, there's no new ones from 2020 or 2021 (not to mention the ones past 2015 aren't like, sources from the chinese military or the likes).

So it can honestly be thrown into the garbage bin (well not unexpected).

Truthfully, not sure if I should post this here or in the funny thread.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/u5rixy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
I think the paper is fairly OK after a quick skim. While ideally you would want information after 2017 pla reform, the paper actually don't include much if any information about the current status of chinese army, thus using older sources are fine. The paper mainly discuss things at a high conceptual level.

The paper mainly relies on 2 pla textbook. Those should still be relevant. The latest edition of those book might have some changes but the bulk of the book should remain the same.

It is at least of good sources of information such as location of strategic ports in Taiwan.
 
PhSt

PhSt

Junior Member
Registered Member
So future NATzO membership for Taiwan is in the works. Soon thousands of nukes will be parked next to China's face. Would be better for China to act sooner before NATzO weapons are prepositioned in Taiwan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
PhSt said:
So future NATzO membership for Taiwan is in the works. Soon thousands of nukes will be parked next to China's face. Would be better for China to act sooner before NATzO weapons are prepositioned in Taiwan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
If you get pissy over every retarded comment by Western politician, you are going to have a bad time. Don't take every word that comes out of a Western politician seriously, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being called out as retarded and also does not mean freedom from being ignored and dismissed entirely. That British btch is retarded and grasping for the straws to make NATO global power.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
PhSt said:
So future NATzO membership for Taiwan is in the works. Soon thousands of nukes will be parked next to China's face. Would be better for China to act sooner before NATzO weapons are prepositioned in Taiwan

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Liz Truss is informally known as the human hand grenade.

theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/20/liz-truss-the-human-hand-grenade-tories-have-taken-to-their-hearts
 
V

Volpler11

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is commonly accepted that the ideal ratio of type 075 and 071 are 1:2, but what about RORO ships? Type 075 and 071 can carry helicopters and landing craft while RORO carries amphibious tanks.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Volpler11 said:
It is commonly accepted that the ideal ratio of type 075 and 071 are 1:2, but what about RORO ships? Type 075 and 071 can carry helicopters and landing craft while RORO carries amphibious tanks.
Click to expand...

Ro-ro ships at this stage are not considered to be a component of any first wave(s) amphibious assault, given that their ability to deploy vehicles would require some sort of port or dock to enable unloading.

There have been some methods investigated that might allow Ro-ro ships to deploy amphibious assault vehicles directly into the water and thus participate in the first wave(s) assault, but at present it isn't considered to be an operational or mature capability.


So to answer your question -- the number of ro-ro ships that could be involved in a Taiwan contingency, depends on the availability of ports (either seized or created).
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Volpler11 said:
It is commonly accepted that the ideal ratio of type 075 and 071 are 1:2, but what about RORO ships? Type 075 and 071 can carry helicopters and landing craft while RORO carries amphibious tanks.
Click to expand...
Their use are very different. 075 and 071 are to land amphibious forces to clear a beach head and/or establish an harbor. The RORO ships will then dock at the harbor and offload PLAGF units.

RORO ships are really big, Bohai Ferry company have something like 9 big RORO ships and each of them can carry the combat elements of two heavy combined arms brigade in one go (and even more if it's medium or light brigades). And they've started to build an even bigger follow up class of RORO ships.

4dd5932fdd984e6a905c4f977c1c56a2.jpeg

These RORO ships have been specifically earmarked for requisition by PLA during times of war, to project PLAGF brigades across the strait. The crew of these ship train with the PLA for this purpose from time to time. Actual amphibious units just need to open the door and either take an existing harbour or allow army engineering to construct one and hold it until the cavalry arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top