PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Temstar said:

Original Japanese news:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Same news in english:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On 14th of this month PLAN sent two 071 and circled around to the east side of Taiwan and conducted simulated landing operations against Hualian which hosts major ROCAF and ROCN bases.

I'm of the opinion that this sort of thing is exactly what 071 and 075 should be used for. They shouldn't be part of the landing force crossing the strait but rather should circle around to the lightly defended rear area that is Taiwan's eastern seaboard and deploy vertically and quickly knock out key locations like this.

By running this sort of exercise when the time comes ROC will be faced with the decision of either doing what they are doing now and keep the vast majority of their land forces on the west side and leave their rear area lightly defended and vulnerable to this sort of attack, or alternatively transfer some of their forces to the east side and leave their western defence weaker than they already are.

Click to expand...

The geography of the eastern side of the island and the greater vulnerability of the eastern side of the island in general, means such operations would be require substantial air and naval escort/support and the forces that they deploy would be lacking in depth and persistence.

In context of a proper high intensity invasion operation, I'm doubtful whether large amphibious ships would best be used in that kind of risky, low yield mission rather than simply contributing their large amphibious sea lift capability to a direct frontal assault.


Or, putting it another way, small scale surgical operations on the eastern seaboard could be conducted by amphibious assault ships but they can also be conducted to an extent by air and missile strikes.
However, there is no substitute to having the sea lift capability to conduct a rapid amphibious assault to establish and secure a beachhead for follow on forces. I imagine that only once the amphibious (and joint) capabilities needed to guarantee that key prerequisite, would they consider conducting more fancy tasks like raids on the eastern side of the island.

Bltizo said:

The geography of the eastern side of the island and the greater vulnerability of the eastern side of the island in general, means such operations would be require substantial air and naval escort/support and the forces that they deploy would be lacking in depth and persistence.

In context of a proper high intensity invasion operation, I'm doubtful whether large amphibious ships would best be used in that kind of risky, low yield mission rather than simply contributing their large amphibious sea lift capability to a direct frontal assault.


Or, putting it another way, small scale surgical operations on the eastern seaboard could be conducted by amphibious assault ships but they can also be conducted to an extent by air and missile strikes.
However, there is no substitute to having the sea lift capability to conduct a rapid amphibious assault to establish and secure a beachhead for follow on forces. I imagine that only once the amphibious (and joint) capabilities needed to guarantee that key prerequisite, would they consider conducting more fancy tasks like raids on the eastern side of the island.

Click to expand...

I thought the point of amphibious ops on the eastern side might be to prevent other countries from doing the same. It could stop an intervention.

Andy1974 said:

I thought the point of amphibious ops on the eastern side might be to prevent other countries from doing the same. It could stop an intervention.

Click to expand...

What's the point of allocating amphibious ships to prevent countries from intervening?

You don't need to carry helicopters, tanks, troops to deny an amphibious (or other kind of) invasion

You can just park a CBG and blockade the island. Put in the air a couple of KJ-600s and whenever you detect someone closing in, fire a couple of missiles and be done with it. If a big naval force comes up then use the full strength of a CBG to fight it off

All in all, a blockade is neccessary otherwise you risk having an intervention from a third party

large scale landing on the east as a breakthrough attack is impossible, it cannot be sustained logistically.

there are only two plausible scenarios for landing on the east side neither of which is considered a main thrust.

1. a commando raid on the airports on the east side, after they were thoroughly bombarded. This will prevent reactivation of those airports, and frees up PLAAF from having to constantly bombard or monitor them. a small commando unit is easy to sustain with just aerial delivery, and the ground is defensible, risk of failure is also acceptable because PLAAF can always go to their fall back plan to bomb the airports again.

2. an amphibious landing on the north east (there's a pretty nice stretch of beach for landing) once beach heads on the main axis have been established and exploited (ie large numbers landed, ports captured etc). this will speed up the disintegration of ROC defence by establishing a new front after it has committed its main force to fight off PLA units along the west coast. logistics is less of an issue here because the main concern of ROC or US would be to deal with the main axis. amphibious ships would have also been available to support this assault because the main axis can rely on civilian ships by this point.

I suppose the PLARF will stand down or simply disappear in his forecast.

escobar said:

I suppose the PLARF will stand down or simply disappear in his forecast.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467621097570930690

Click to expand...

If you are going to be reposting the irrelevant (and wildly inaccurate) anti-China rambling of every armchair general on Twitter, you are going to be wasting a hell of a lot of everyone’s valuable time.

escobar said:

Thought-provoking thread...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467621097570930690

Click to expand...

Thats some quality garbage smart-sounding "analysis"

"Experience" argument.


Mythical western dominance argument


Lol at this garbage. Equating Xi with the "Mullahs in Iran". And then implying that Xi is wary of Russia



Obviously the guy knows absolutely nothing about geopolitics. The only thing he is right is about resources and energy imports. (And even here he tried to imply that Russia may not provide it to China...)

Hopefully I won't have the displeasure to read similar "analysis" of such "high-quality" in the future. Next time I will be pressing the report button against such propaganda and low quality "analysis"

All the empires he gave as example in his first post have since ceased to exist, well except America which by all indications is on its way.

Overbom said:

Thats some quality garbage smart-sounding "analysis"

"Experience" argument.
View attachment 79700

Mythical western dominance argument
View attachment 79701

Lol at this garbage. Equating Xi with the "Mullahs in Iran". And then implying that Xi is wary of Russia
View attachment 79702


Obviously the guy knows absolutely nothing about geopolitics. The only thing he is right is about resources and energy imports. (And even here he tried to imply that Russia may not provide it to China...)

Hopefully I won't have the displeasure to read similar "analysis" of such "high-quality" in the future. Next time I will be pressing the report button against such propaganda and low quality "analysis"

Click to expand...

And just who the bloody heck is that "Strategic genius" that took his time to bestow his fellow anti-China zealots his strategic analysis for all of them to absorb and savor with glorious joy?

I mean, if the outcome of war with China is going to be such a cake walk, why haven't they done it already? It's rather unfortunate that people like that fella literally pollutes the Twitterverse and all media platforms and be seen as credible. I mean just look at Enes "I suck at Basketball" Kanter. He's now being paraded as the paragon and virtue of woke geopolitical analyst expert on everything that's Chinese. Holy mother bleeping dragon.

Bellum_Romanum said:

And just who the bloody heck is that "Strategic genius" that took his time to bestow his fellow anti-China zealots his strategic analysis for all of them to absorb and savor with glorious joy?

I mean, if the outcome of war with China is going to be such a cake walk, why haven't they done it already? It's rather unfortunate that people like that fella literally pollutes the Twitterverse and all media platforms and be seen as credible. I mean just look at Enes "I suck at Basketball" Kanter. He's now being paraded as the paragon and virtue of woke geopolitical analyst expert on everything that's Chinese. Holy mother bleeping dragon.

Click to expand...

Lot of self-delusion everywhere