PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Gatekeeper said:

Yes impressive. But how is that going to stop China taking Taiwan? This armada is going to stay out of range of China's rocket force. As such, how are they going to get boots on the ground to fight?

All the time they stay out of range, they might as well be off the coast of Australia. And if they get near, there's a risk if loosing half is assets before even getting anywhere to fight.

And what about the Joe public at home. Are they happy seeing body bags retiring in droves fighting yet another foreign war with a near advisory that last time they
came to blows together they got a bloody nose?

Click to expand...

My post was in response, and in agreement, specifically, with this observation.

AndrewS said:

I actually see the US being able to interrupt Chinese air-sea dominance in the Taiwan Straits for some time yet.

Click to expand...

But, at this point, I get it. Any attempt at a rational evaluation, not based fundamentally in fear-based emotion, will elicit an attempted smack-down. So, despite the fact that no one here is remotely capable of smacking me down, I’ll adopt the party-line and all subsequent posts will simply be:

CHINA GOOD, AMERCA BAD; CHINA GOOD, JAPAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, TAIWAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, AUSTRALIA, BAD; CHINA GOOD, ENGLAND BAD!!!

The alternate iteration will be:

CHINA WIN, AMERCA LOSE; CHINA WIN, JAPAN LOSE; CHINA WIN, TAIWAN LOSE; CHINA WIN, AUSTRALIA, LOSE; CHINA WIN, ENGLAND LOSE!!!

This should be quite well accepted as it requires no criticality, only Neanderthal chest-thumping!

AndrewS said:

Yup.

But fishing boats has been something I've mentioned for years now.

One of things I can see happening is the Taiwan Straits being blocked off with fishing driftnets.
That would prevent any attempt by submarines to sneak in.

Click to expand...

When it comes to island invasion and amphibious war in connection with PLA/CCP and Nationalist troops and KMT, it's actually quite helpful to review some of battling history between the two. The point is not so much that they reveal anything useful tactically, but more so from the strategic thinking, organization and motivation behind these battles. A lot of times, the insights and lessons learned from these histories are more useful than those of D-Day or Inchon Landing.

1. (1949)
2. (1950)
3. (1955)

In all of the above battles, PLA was the inferior party from the weaponry and equipment standpoint, without even support of a real navy or air force (with the exception of Dachen when PLAAF took part in the battle). The weaponry and technologies are vastly different these days, but this time it is PLA that has the absolute superiority now.

james smith esq said:

My post was in response, and in agreement, specifically, with this observation.

But, at this point, I get it. Any attempt at a rational evaluation, not based fundamentally in fear-based emotion, will elicit an attempted smack-down. So, despite the fact that no one here is remotely capable of smacking me down, I’ll adopt the party-line and all subsequent posts will simply be:

CHINA GOOD, AMERCA BAD; CHINA GOOD, JAPAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, TAIWAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, AUSTRALIA, BAD; CHINA GOOD, ENGLAND BAD!!!

Click to expand...

Nobody force you to be China good. You can take the position of America/Australia/Japan/England good all you want. If your arguments are good, nobody can smack you down. If not, you will be either ignored or refuted.

I don't see the point of being so emotive in this post.

weig2000 said:

I don't see the point of being so emotive in this post.

Click to expand...

And I don’t see the point of irrationally defensive reactions to the raising of possibilities/probabilities. All that reveals is fear and insecurity, not confidence!

james smith esq said:

And I don’t see the point of irrationally defensive reactions to the raising of possibilities/probabilities. All that reveals is fear and insecurity, not confidence!

Click to expand...

This is a China-related defense forum, and due to its member composition there is a pro-China bias. But that doesn't mean people can not post opposite opinions or raise possibilities that are not necessarily aligned with the prevailing views here. It's just that you need to be ready to stand the heat and make good arguments. You'll still be respected if you do so. We see plenty of such examples at SDF.

SDF is an open forum after all is said and done.

james smith esq said:

My post was in response, and in agreement, specifically, with this observation.

But, at this point, I get it. Any attempt at a rational evaluation, not based fundamentally in fear-based emotion, will elicit an attempted smack-down. So, despite the fact that no one here is remotely capable of smacking me down, I’ll adopt the party-line and all subsequent posts will simply be:

CHINA GOOD, AMERCA BAD; CHINA GOOD, JAPAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, TAIWAN BAD; CHINA GOOD, AUSTRALIA, BAD; CHINA GOOD, ENGLAND BAD!!!

The alternate iteration will be:

CHINA WIN, AMERCA LOSE; CHINA WIN, JAPAN LOSE; CHINA WIN, TAIWAN LOSE; CHINA WIN, AUSTRALIA, LOSE; CHINA WIN, ENGLAND LOSE!!!

This should be quite well accepted as it requires no criticality, only Neanderthal chest-thumping!

Click to expand...

Somewhat overreaction here me think. Where and when did I say China good and west is bad here. The fact is no one knows how a hot war pans out.

But since you only pointed out one sides point of view, which is the might of U.S. carriers group. Etc. It is only right to point out China rocket force is widely acknowledge to be able to change the calculus enough to make the might of the U.S. carriers force to think twice before approaching Taiwan

But NO. You have to see it as something completely different.

weig2000 said:

Nobody force you to be China good. You can take the position of America/Australia/Japan/England good all you want. If your arguments are good, nobody can smack you down. If not, you will be either ignored or refuted.

I don't see the point of being so emotive in this post.

Click to expand...

Well said.

james smith esq said:

And I don’t see the point of irrationally defensive reactions to the raising of possibilities/probabilities. All that reveals is fear and insecurity, not confidence!

Click to expand...

Well, you should be telling the western government snd their MSM that.



Edit:

@weig2000

"This is a China-related defense forum, and due to its member composition there is a pro-China bias. But that doesn't mean people can not post opposite opinions or raise possibilities that are not necessarily aligned with the prevailing views here. It's just that you need to be ready to stand the heat and make good arguments. You'll still be respected if you do so. We see plenty of such examples at SDF.

SDF is an open forum after all is said and done."

I think I've posted something like this to him a few weeks back. Stating he is entitled to post his opinon and it'll be as valid as the next man. Providing it's a reason argument. And his previous post wasn't unreasonable, it was just one sided which is why in my reply. I waa just trying to say it mught not be a one sided affair. But the misinterpreted as chest-thumping .

james smith esq said:

And I don’t see the point of irrationally defensive reactions to the raising of possibilities/probabilities. All that reveals is fear and insecurity, not confidence!

Click to expand...

And the biggest military development is the 230 nuclear missile silos which are currently under construction in China.
You need to take this into account in any analysis of US-China conflict.

This will require Americans to come to the conclusion that they cannot initiate a war with China.
Good luck with that, because none of them seem capable of accepting the end of US dominance.

And that is the primary reason why I post here, because US policymakers are so ignorant and outdated on China, and they need to be educated on the reality today. To do otherwise risks a huge miscalculation on how China will respond.

Examples include:
1. Clinton's escalation in the South China Seas. Clinton thought China would fold. Instead China now dominates the SCS with its new island bases
2. The trade and technology war, where Trump thought China would fold. Instead, it has guaranteed China's drive for self-sufficiency at the expense of US companies. But US policy makers are too shortsighted or in denial to see this.

---

Now, the biggest point that US policymakers need to get into their heads is that China can/will be able to unleash nuclear Armageddon on the entire United States of America.

Every military action needs to take this into account.

It also means every one of those military wargames where the US goes to war with China is utterly pointless

As I said before, majority of the US experts agree that in a conflict about Taiwan, the US is now basically in a un-winnable situation against China should it decide to intervene. Still, some experts believe China lacks sufficient landing ships and crafts. They seem to believe only the number of "proper" large amphibious ships or land crafts count. Other experts now, belatedly, start to track and count dual-use civilian ships.

The following report at China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation look at one particular dual-use ship class. The report said that since 2019, the roll-on/roll-off ferry Bang Chui Dao, a 15,560-ton vessel owned and operated by COSCO Shipping Ferry Company, has been fitted with a modified ramp able to launch and recover amphibious armored vehicles while offshore. This capability means the ship can launch and recover vehicles without dedicated port facilities. This is in contrast to typical RO/RO vessels, which have straight hydraulic ramps for vehicles to drive on or off while ships are in port.

There are actually several types civilian RO/RO ships which can be converted to military use to day. Bang Chui Dao is just one of them.

weig2000 said:

As I said before, majority of the US experts agree that in a conflict about Taiwan, the US is now basically in a un-winnable situation against China should it decide to intervene. Still, some experts believe China lacks sufficient landing ships and crafts. They seem to believe only the number of "proper" large amphibious ships or land crafts count. Other experts now, belatedly, start to track and count dual-use civilian ships.

The following report at China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation look at one particular dual-use ship class. The report said that since 2019, the roll-on/roll-off ferry Bang Chui Dao, a 15,560-ton vessel owned and operated by COSCO Shipping Ferry Company, has been fitted with a modified ramp able to launch and recover amphibious armored vehicles while offshore. This capability means the ship can launch and recover vehicles without dedicated port facilities. This is in contrast to typical RO/RO vessels, which have straight hydraulic ramps for vehicles to drive on or off while ships are in port.

There are actually several types civilian RO/RO ships which can be converted to military use to day. Bang Chui Dao is just one of them.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

From my perspective, the next thing is small airborne drones for tactical air and ground superiority.

With China's high-end capabilities, China should be able to obtain air superiority over Taiwan at high and medium altitudes against fighter-sized aircraft and larger.

But that still leaves smaller ground based drones and land-based SAMs as a threat to be eliminated.

For that, waves of small disposable airborne drones could be launched from offshore fishing boats, with the ability to track and target individual soldiers. Think of it as a "surveillance state" over a Taiwanese battlefield. No opposing forces can survive in such an environment.

A small fishing boat could carry and launch say 100 attack drones. And the total cost would be less than $500K for this capability.

Then the military amphibious warfare ships, civilian ships and fishing boats can land without opposition.

JSChineseTiger said:

Russia intel is not as good but better than China's. Putin used false flag to attack Chechen rebels and retake control of Chechnya. If China is to retake Taiwan, China would require the use of false flag attack and blame the it on Taiwan and deploy carte blanche to destroy the Taiwanese government with no foreign interference.

Click to expand...

It's far more likely for the US to stage a false flag attack than China. USS Maine and Gulf of Tonkin incident are two great examples for the Americans to build off of.