PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
I never claimed that.

Helicopters will be part of the entire amphibious operation, from start to finish, which means that helicopters will necessarily be within range of small arms engagement such as MANPADS, where their suppression through preparatory air strikes is aimed at reducing and not completely eliminating this threat.
Between the helicopters and the contact line, there would be waves of 1000s if not 10000s of FPV drones hunting for militants on the contact line.
MALE drones (like BZK-005, ASN-209, WZ-6, WL-1 among others) are under the MANPADS engagement altitude. Furthermore, the impact on Ukraine is almost zero because both sides almost never use MALE drones, only now the Russians have started using MALE drones, but in previous periods, drones like Bayraktar were shot down by Russian Iglas.
Same goes for drones really, they can stay 10km+ away from the front, beyond eyeball visual identification range.
In order to not have much of an impact, the PLA will need to suppress most of Taiwan's MANPADS positions and units as well as completely reduce the combat power of the ROCA, if they fail in this, Taiwan will certainly be able to inflict losses on the PLA. I won't make any claims to that effect because I'm obviously not clairvoyant, but the operational implications surrounding the operation are under these conditions.

No. Investing in MANPADs makes sense when you want to create an integrated air defense structure and layer; MANPADs are the first layer of this integrated structure.

It is worth remembering that Taiwan will be on the other side of the war, the side that will be defending. Every doctrinal manual foresees the enemy's attrition in a counter-amphibious landing operation, so in order to effectively oppose an amphibious landing, the ROC troops in charge of defense actions will seek to wear down and disorganize the PLA as much as possible. They will try to take advantage of the critical moment for the operation, hitting it with fire from the moment the troops transfer to the landing craft, as well as during the movement to the landing area, aiming to inflict heavy losses in personnel and material, which will contribute to the neutralization of this operation, before the start of ground operations. If this is not possible, the ROC ground force, as a whole, will seek to limit the beachhead and attack the PLA to destroy it. Most of these conditions will depend greatly on the surprise (from strategic to tactical) that the PLA can offer in an amphibious operation.
Why do you assume there will be 1 decisive landing moment? Logically, a PLA counteroffensive would first spam the whole contact line with speedboat infiltrators. To defeat local assaults, ROCA needs to come out in force and bring heavy weapons, which then becomes target for air/artillery/drones. Rinse and repeat until at least 1 position gives. Also at this point where probing speedboat assaults are begun, there won't be much organized KMT fighters anymore.
In order to be successful in an amphibious operation, it is necessary to achieve surprise. From marsh landings such as those that occurred in the Iran-Iraq war to large amphibious operations such as Inchon, the element of surprise was a critical factor. However, the plethora of naval assets involved, no matter how small the scale of the planned amphibious operation, and modern detection equipment, especially satellites, practically invalidate strategic surprise. However, tactical surprise will always be desirable, seeking to disguise, as much as possible, the movement of the Task Force that will carry out the amphibious assault, with some operational attraction, aiming to deceive the defender, inducing him to adopt an unfavorable course of action, as to the time and true location where an amphibious landing operation is intended to be conducted.

China has an advantage in Taiwan because I seriously doubt that the Chinese would land amphibious forces on the first day. This would be foolish on the part of the PLA commanders, considering that Taiwan could mobilize its forces and obtain numerical and even material superiority in the first few days. This is because the PLA is unlikely to put all of its effective power on land simultaneously with the ROCA units responsible for defending the coast. It will have the flexibility and combat power to contain the penetration and carry out counterattacks against the PLA amphibious brigades. Because it has strong fire support and good air defense coverage, which are essential for operations of this nature, and because it has a tactical operations center that allows the coordination of this same support and also the use of airspace, a large unit equivalent to an Army Division, integrated by at least two Large Units, seems suitable for conducting the amphibious counter-landing operation, under better conditions. It should also be considered that a Division has greater flexibility to respond to attempts to achieve tactical surprise by the enemy Amphibious Task Force that carries out a diversionary action.
Once the "big" amphibious landing arrives, it's almost sure that it will be unopposed, because of the probing landings used to clear out areas from militants first.
China would follow a course of action of bombing to reduce the combat power of the ROCA/ROCN/ROCAF as much as possible, regardless of how long it lasts. Taking the ROCAF and ROCN out of action in particular will give the PLA much more freedom to plan and execute the amphibious operation at a later date, allowing it to carry out all preparations before and during the landing.

The big problem afterwards will continue to be the ROCA, which could still contribute to the attrition of the PLA, even after the successful landing on the beaches of Taiwan. I have already written two comments under the same logic of the ROCA's strategy around an operation to wear down the PLA's amphibious landing:
To prevent KMT collaborators from linking up with potential foreign invasion armies, the PLA needs to achieve a high output on bombs to target. ROC scales anywhere from 5-10x of Hamas, and for the purposes of not underestimating the enemy, should also be considered to have the same level of morale. Israel required around 6000 munitions hits a week, and while they are far from winning, they have at least secured the ability to create operational corridors, which should be the first milestone of a PLA counteroffensive.

It's worth saying that most KMT strongholds aren't as hardened with tunnels, supplies and backup generators as Gaza. Also there's no possibility of trans national tunnels. But China however should not afford itself the luxury of waiting 6-12 months before establishing a stable corridor inside Taiwan.

A minimum target level of 10 000 deliveries a day for 1-2 months seems reasonable. And this is well possible for the PLA that scales around 10-20x Israel in air/artillery assets, but more importantly is also much more of an artillery/ground strike weighted army. We've seen Russia achieve higher numbers, although on a way wider front.

The more China can exceed this minimum, the faster the PLA can mount a counterattack with boots on the ground.

Scaling up (the OG) Geran like productions is probably a key to enhance these rates. Aircraft are expensive and difficult to replace in wartime. Prop based preset coordinate suicide or unmanned ww2 style dumb bomb deliverers are cheap.

In that way, there would be a triple tiered fire support system, with the highest tier being leadership, air defenses and enemy white elephant platforms, which would be engaged by high end missiles and air strikes. In the 2nd tier, troop concentrations and artillery, engaged with old missiles, glide bombs and MLRS. And finally a 3rd tier consisting of cover denial and static targets, using propeller based drones and unguided bombs.
 

votran

New Member
Registered Member
I never claimed that.

Helicopters will be part of the entire amphibious operation, from start to finish, which means that helicopters will necessarily be within range of small arms engagement such as MANPADS, where their suppression through preparatory air strikes is aimed at reducing and not completely eliminating this threat.

MALE drones (like BZK-005, ASN-209, WZ-6, WL-1 among others) are under the MANPADS engagement altitude. Furthermore, the impact on Ukraine is almost zero because both sides almost never use MALE drones, only now the Russians have started using MALE drones, but in previous periods, drones like Bayraktar were shot down by Russian Iglas.

In order to not have much of an impact, the PLA will need to suppress most of Taiwan's MANPADS positions and units as well as completely reduce the combat power of the ROCA, if they fail in this, Taiwan will certainly be able to inflict losses on the PLA. I won't make any claims to that effect because I'm obviously not clairvoyant, but the operational implications surrounding the operation are under these conditions.

No. Investing in MANPADs makes sense when you want to create an integrated air defense structure and layer; MANPADs are the first layer of this integrated structure.

It is worth remembering that Taiwan will be on the other side of the war, the side that will be defending. Every doctrinal manual foresees the enemy's attrition in a counter-amphibious landing operation, so in order to effectively oppose an amphibious landing, the ROC troops in charge of defense actions will seek to wear down and disorganize the PLA as much as possible. They will try to take advantage of the critical moment for the operation, hitting it with fire from the moment the troops transfer to the landing craft, as well as during the movement to the landing area, aiming to inflict heavy losses in personnel and material, which will contribute to the neutralization of this operation, before the start of ground operations. If this is not possible, the ROC ground force, as a whole, will seek to limit the beachhead and attack the PLA to destroy it. Most of these conditions will depend greatly on the surprise (from strategic to tactical) that the PLA can offer in an amphibious operation.

In order to be successful in an amphibious operation, it is necessary to achieve surprise. From marsh landings such as those that occurred in the Iran-Iraq war to large amphibious operations such as Inchon, the element of surprise was a critical factor. However, the plethora of naval assets involved, no matter how small the scale of the planned amphibious operation, and modern detection equipment, especially satellites, practically invalidate strategic surprise. However, tactical surprise will always be desirable, seeking to disguise, as much as possible, the movement of the Task Force that will carry out the amphibious assault, with some operational attraction, aiming to deceive the defender, inducing him to adopt an unfavorable course of action, as to the time and true location where an amphibious landing operation is intended to be conducted.

China has an advantage in Taiwan because I seriously doubt that the Chinese would land amphibious forces on the first day. This would be foolish on the part of the PLA commanders, considering that Taiwan could mobilize its forces and obtain numerical and even material superiority in the first few days. This is because the PLA is unlikely to put all of its effective power on land simultaneously with the ROCA units responsible for defending the coast. It will have the flexibility and combat power to contain the penetration and carry out counterattacks against the PLA amphibious brigades. Because it has strong fire support and good air defense coverage, which are essential for operations of this nature, and because it has a tactical operations center that allows the coordination of this same support and also the use of airspace, a large unit equivalent to an Army Division, integrated by at least two Large Units, seems suitable for conducting the amphibious counter-landing operation, under better conditions. It should also be considered that a Division has greater flexibility to respond to attempts to achieve tactical surprise by the enemy Amphibious Task Force that carries out a diversionary action.

China would follow a course of action of bombing to reduce the combat power of the ROCA/ROCN/ROCAF as much as possible, regardless of how long it lasts. Taking the ROCAF and ROCN out of action in particular will give the PLA much more freedom to plan and execute the amphibious operation at a later date, allowing it to carry out all preparations before and during the landing.

The big problem afterwards will continue to be the ROCA, which could still contribute to the attrition of the PLA, even after the successful landing on the beaches of Taiwan. I have already written two comments under the same logic of the ROCA's strategy around an operation to wear down the PLA's amphibious landing:
yep manpad and ATGM sure effective way to defense again landing force

IF they Allow you to

remember what i said before ?

you can't fire manpad and atgm inside a well protected and cramp bunker that shield you from enemy boom stick

both weapon system require a certain open space to operation that what make those stuff very less effective again a proper beach assault

let not talk about drone which are obvious nightmare for any weapon system operation in open space

even "old stuff" such as attack helicopter and recon drone + guilded pin-point rocket arty can easily counter your trick in beach defense case

because unlike traditional guerilla warfare : hide > hit > run > relocation like ukrainian did inside their massive land mass , beach defense require your troops to "stand and fight face to face" during the enemy landing phase or else they land everyone and everything safely

with basic 2010 tech helicopter equip with high quality 3rd gen thermal can easily launch their pin-point missile at 8km or more (AKD-9 top down attack laser beam missile standard equipped on PLA heli/wingloong)

PLA drone with higher tech thermal camera can even do better than that to direct pin-point rocket arty attack

so good luck doing that out in open during PLA landing phase , the phase PLA heli , UAV , drones and rocket arty gone wild for any heat signature pop-up on the other side of the beach the most
 

votran

New Member
Registered Member
too many people still stuck with the infamous D-day landing ........and forget that modern day beach landing will be very different

enemy fire support will somehow stop entirely during landing phase allow your defense troop to come out of bunker > man weapon system in open and ready for turkey shot show like omaha beach

no that not gonna happen
 

votran

New Member
Registered Member
further more even in case ROC defense troops retreat back inside the island and doing urban guerilla warfare warfare with stinger , tow , javelin ...

i don't think it will bring any good result either

unless PLA learn nothing from ukraine and repeat the same russian mistake armored and infantry fast rust to capital without proper support

the island of taiwan is very small meaning it offer very limited way/place for ROC arty , himmar , missile system , drones to hit and run without being spot-track-destroy by PLA airpower/guilded rocket/missile (which alot stronger and better than russia)

even setting up a radar system out in open to guiled any sort of missile system (you can't just bury your radar deep underground and expect it still able to guild your missile to target)

very different compare to massive ukraine land mass and thousands of km frontline

less threat from constant arty/rocket/drones = allow PLA doing the same good old bully as american did in afganistan/iraq

building alot of foward fire support based > more fire support from nearby arty base > less burden on attack heli > need less gun/rocket run at close range > less food for enemy manpads

and finally the huge issue with retreat back in inland tactics is : allow PLA plenty time land huge amount of troops , heavy weapon , vehicles on the island of taiwan

and set up logistic bridge from mainland too

that is the last thing US boots on ground intervention want (their entire marine corp can't handle this)

the option left for US is all out war mass attack on entire china naval/air/carrier/submarine force > guarranted ww3 nuke exchange
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I never claimed that.

Helicopters will be part of the entire amphibious operation, from start to finish, which means that helicopters will necessarily be within range of small arms engagement such as MANPADS, where their suppression through preparatory air strikes is aimed at reducing and not completely eliminating this threat.

Just what do you think helicopters will be doing in an amphibious assault operation? Doing cannon strafing and fast roping troops directly onto the beach?

Attack helicopters will most likely stay well outside of the range of MANPADs and provide fire support using long range NLOS missiles. It will be swarms of loitering munitions and small attack drones that will be providing the close element of air support. If you want to have a go shooting at AI controlled FPVs and machinegun/automatic grenade launcher firing drones with Stingers, you go knock yourself out. Just don’t expect the PLA to waste their time trying to stop you.

If you seriously expect to be shooting down hoards of PLA helicopters with stingers or be able to force the PLA to use its helicopters differently because you got stingers, then you clearly are not looking to the future and only thinking about how to win the last war.

MALE drones (like BZK-005, ASN-209, WZ-6, WL-1 among others) are under the MANPADS engagement altitude. Furthermore, the impact on Ukraine is almost zero because both sides almost never use MALE drones, only now the Russians have started using MALE drones, but in previous periods, drones like Bayraktar were shot down by Russian Iglas.

And everything that flies near the frontline is within the theoretical range of something. Is the skies empty over Ukrainian battlefields? There is a world of difference between theoretical possible engagement range and practically viable engagement range. The vast majority of MALE drone combat looses have been to full sized SAMs and not MANPADs despite the much larger number of MANPADs deployed. Ukrainian looses in Ukraine are also no representative since Ukraine has to deal with Russian air superiority, meaning flying high is a suicidal option, which is what puts their MALE drones in the MANPAD sweet spot.

The handgun analogy still holds true. You can kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield with a handgun, but is that the weapon you should be using to engage the enemy in the first place?

In order to not have much of an impact, the PLA will need to suppress most of Taiwan's MANPADS positions and units as well as completely reduce the combat power of the ROCA, if they fail in this, Taiwan will certainly be able to inflict losses on the PLA.

Or they can just fly high.

No. Investing in MANPADs makes sense when you want to create an integrated air defense structure and layer; MANPADs are the first layer of this integrated structure.

No serious IADS bother with MANPADs. They are not the first layer of defence. They are not that useful even as the last layer. They are the equivalent of your man operated 50 cal machine guns. You can have a pop with them against incoming missiles if you really want to, but not bothering basically gives you the same odds.

It is worth remembering that Taiwan will be on the other side of the war, the side that will be defending. Every doctrinal manual foresees the enemy's attrition in a counter-amphibious landing operation, so in order to effectively oppose an amphibious landing, the ROC troops in charge of defense actions will seek to wear down and disorganize the PLA as much as possible. They will try to take advantage of the critical moment for the operation, hitting it with fire from the moment the troops transfer to the landing craft, as well as during the movement to the landing area, aiming to inflict heavy losses in personnel and material, which will contribute to the neutralization of this operation, before the start of ground operations. If this is not possible, the ROC ground force, as a whole, will seek to limit the beachhead and attack the PLA to destroy it. Most of these conditions will depend greatly on the surprise (from strategic to tactical) that the PLA can offer in an amphibious operation.

In order to be successful in an amphibious operation, it is necessary to achieve surprise. From marsh landings such as those that occurred in the Iran-Iraq war to large amphibious operations such as Inchon, the element of surprise was a critical factor. However, the plethora of naval assets involved, no matter how small the scale of the planned amphibious operation, and modern detection equipment, especially satellites, practically invalidate strategic surprise. However, tactical surprise will always be desirable, seeking to disguise, as much as possible, the movement of the Task Force that will carry out the amphibious assault, with some operational attraction, aiming to deceive the defender, inducing him to adopt an unfavorable course of action, as to the time and true location where an amphibious landing operation is intended to be conducted.

China has an advantage in Taiwan because I seriously doubt that the Chinese would land amphibious forces on the first day. This would be foolish on the part of the PLA commanders, considering that Taiwan could mobilize its forces and obtain numerical and even material superiority in the first few days. This is because the PLA is unlikely to put all of its effective power on land simultaneously with the ROCA units responsible for defending the coast. It will have the flexibility and combat power to contain the penetration and carry out counterattacks against the PLA amphibious brigades. Because it has strong fire support and good air defense coverage, which are essential for operations of this nature, and because it has a tactical operations center that allows the coordination of this same support and also the use of airspace, a large unit equivalent to an Army Division, integrated by at least two Large Units, seems suitable for conducting the amphibious counter-landing operation, under better conditions. It should also be considered that a Division has greater flexibility to respond to attempts to achieve tactical surprise by the enemy Amphibious Task Force that carries out a diversionary action.

China would follow a course of action of bombing to reduce the combat power of the ROCA/ROCN/ROCAF as much as possible, regardless of how long it lasts. Taking the ROCAF and ROCN out of action in particular will give the PLA much more freedom to plan and execute the amphibious operation at a later date, allowing it to carry out all preparations before and during the landing.

The big problem afterwards will continue to be the ROCA, which could still contribute to the attrition of the PLA, even after the successful landing on the beaches of Taiwan. I have already written two comments under the same logic of the ROCA's strategy around an operation to wear down the PLA's amphibious landing:

None of which relates to MANPADs. Take MANPADs out entirely and nothing really changes.

That is the fundamental problem with spending so much money on them. Especially when Taiwan is making painful cuts and loosing far more important capabilities due to a lack of funds.

The likes of the US, Russia and China already have vast stocks of MANPADs bought and paid for, so they might as well try and find useful ways to use them. But to buy new, and foreign imports, so you are not even supporting domestic industry, is just pure idiocy when your budget is already under so much pressure.
 

votran

New Member
Registered Member
^
the reason we often see russian attack heli/su-25 do fire support with rocket run was soviet cold war doctrine lead to massive number of unguild dumbfire rocket being product for their mi-24/su-25 fleet

PLA did not have this legacy and doesn't suffer from huge old rocket stockpile need to be use somehow

the reason we often US attack heli/a-10 warthog doing close range gun-run was also the same

US doctrine favor gun CAS , apache being build with 30mm chain-gun carry 1200 round , A-10 gau-8 since cold war , huge stock pile of ammo go with it to this day

PLA also did not have this legacy and big old ammo stockpile need to be use

Z-10 attack helicopter only armed with single barrel 23mm cannon with 300 rounds : not really great at close range gun-run CAS
JH-7 attack aircraft also have the same twin barrel 23mm gun as lated mig-21 with 300 rounds not great at close range gun-run too
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Speaking of which, looking at how many RuAF Su-24s, Su-25s and Su-34s were lost in the Russo-Ukraine War, I do believe that it was a timely, correct decision for China to not pursue the Q-6 project to succeed the Q-5 back then.

In addition (and thankfully), the era of drones is here. This means that large-scale, long-term attritional warfare in the skies can be achievable without losing significant if not permanent portions of the PLA's combat potential in the domain (in terms of both manpower and materiel), especially considering China's immense industrial capability.
 
Last edited:

Index

Senior Member
Registered Member
Speaking of which, looking at how many RuAF Su-24s, Su-25s and Su-34s were lost in the Russo-Ukraine War,
50-100? That's very little for an actual war, lower or about the same as Russian replenishment rate, which honestly speaking is shameful levels when it comes to some aircraft.
I do believe that it was has been a timely, correct decision for China to not pursue the Q-6 project to succeed the Q-5 back then.
It's a reflection of Russia choosing a rather safe air doctrine of only overflying the front.
In addition (and thankfully), the era of drones is here. This means that large-scale, long-term attritional warfare in the skies can be achievable without losing significant if not permanent portions of combat potential (in terms of both manpower and materiel), especially considering China's immense industrial capability.
China would probably not lose as much if they were in Russia's position because they can saturate with fires, or about the same because PLA ops tempo is higher, depending on how manned aircraft heavy PLA fire support actually is. And in a Chinese civil war, PLA will defintely lose much less because Ukraine is a whole country with rather large inheritances from the USSR, ROC is not.

But if we are in a scenario where US and Japan are attacking, China needs to be prepared to lose and replace many manned aircraft as well. It would be criminally negligent to think against peer/near peer US and Japan (equal or more powerful than Ukraine), China can get away with so low losses as the Russians have been having. Even if China has the defensive advantage and can bottleneck US bases.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
Just what do you think helicopters will be doing in an amphibious assault operation? Doing cannon strafing and fast roping troops directly onto the beach?
How about Air Support? Airmobile landing? Logistical support? CSAR?

Among the helicopter missions during the amphibious assault we have:
Assault - Transports troops and equipment to the beachhead;
Combat logistics - Transports ammunition, fuel, supplies and other cargo;
Mobility of troops on the beach - Allows troops to move faster inland from the beachhead;
Escort - Is done by armed or specialized helicopters and must defend against enemies both on the ground and in the air;
Close air support - Done by armed helicopters;
Medical evacuation - Medvac;
Search and rescue - CSAR;
Visual and armed reconnaissance;
Air control for long-range air assault operations;
C3 for OTH assault operations of LCACs and other amphibious vessels;

What do you think a helicopter does in an Amphibious Operation? Do you really think that only attack helicopters are used for Air Support? If you think so, you are more lost than a blind man in a firefight. An Amphibious Operation is a type of operation that does not even need an enemy to go wrong, such is the number of variables involved and things that can go wrong. Just to use as an example, the type of combined operation to make the use of attack helicopters for Air Support functional, the PLA must avoid deconfliction of the airspace as much as possible, this will be extremely difficult in an environment saturated with drones, missiles, helicopters and aircraft throughout the airspace in the theater of operations during the landing.

I really try to understand the triumphant mentality here that the PLA should achieve during a large amphibious assault operation but unfortunately the real world of military operations is much more complex than most here suppose, Taiwan can take measures to make the challenges described above even more insurmountable for the PLA and this is much easier for the defending side considering an Amphibious Operation.
 
Top