PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
zhangjim said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A self proclaimed retired military officer's instructional video.
Strictly speaking, it is a video that harshly criticizes optimistic tendencies. It is extremely dangerous to imagine landing operations as an easy task, as there have been no revolutionary changes in landing technology to this day, and the transport capacity of landing ships is very limited. Moreover, there are not many suitable landing locations, and the enemy can be fully prepared.
Click to expand...
Landing itself is not difficult, the problem is how a landing should take into account a simultaneous ongoing US' offensive. The US is the only power that can contest the landing zone, without US air, naval, ground troops swarming in, the result of the infiltrated and weakened ROCA would at its very best hold about as well as DPRK did in Incheon.
zhangjim said:
Although those unmanned weapons (such as robotic dogs) look cool, they are not mature and more like tanks from World War I, which can only play a limited role under specific conditions. The cost of using those powerful long-range rocket launchers is high, and there is a risk of damaging the landing site.

Those amateur military enthusiasts tend to convey optimism to the audience, but ignore the risks involved in all military actions.

I am not a military officer who has received vocational education, so I cannot evaluate his views.
His political views are relatively 'official', believing that if the landing operation suffers setbacks, there is a risk of US military intervention. The best way is to wait for the decline of the United States.
But I cannot agree with this because the United States' "Ukrainization" plan is further reducing the possibility of peace.
Click to expand...
The reason Ukraine worked for Russia is that the fundamentals of the Russian state is much stronger than Ukraine, and Putin also diplomatically secured a blank cheque.

It is very optimistic of Americans to believe the strategy of arming/encouraging and then openly joining separatists in battle will work against China.

Ukraine's poor fundamentals is the reason why even if they can surprise setbacks on Russia initially using their large army and morale, they could not follow up and secure destruction of Russian units. They lacked the firepower and breakthrough strength.
So for example when Russia noticed they were doing badly in Kiev sector, they just pulled back nearly uncontested. US won't have this luxury if they make a mistake against China.

China's local force/fires concentration in Asia even during peacetime footing is higher than US. In contrast, the Russian military has never lagged behind Ukraine in fire support throughout the whole war and often reach much higher levels like 10-20x. Ukraine does not possess the ability to create arms or innovate on its own, China in contrast has the largest arms production sector in the world and is at the forefront of weapons invention as well.

In short, this is a suicidally overconfident plan, which unfortunately means there's a good chance US will pursue it.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Like, formal logic goes as:
Redfor stated goal is landing.
Can Bluefor guarantee to prevent it?
No.
Then they begin planning next stage, what to do when PLA just landed, and what can be done with it.

Then there's going to be land combat. You can't fight land combat without AFVs (hamas/hesbollah style doesn't work for Taiwan for very obvious reasons), because direct infantry attack even against weak positions is usually a meh idea.

The best bet for bouefor to prevent/contain beachheads thus is armored counterattack.

Tank is not an optional for land warfare, it's a must. ROC buying them means they accept the reality that they won't be able to fight PLA off with magic wands.
It's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where tank will be useless to ROC. It's very possible they will be countered before making impact - but that's the nature of tank warfare since 1916.
Click to expand...
have you ever seen how an offensive operation is supposed to pan out? once again you are just drawing arrows on a map, that is not warfighting.

in order to conduct a formidable assault you need to assemble your forces in a secure area, conduct reconnaissance, organize logistics and coordinate timings. it is impossible to do this while the enemy has air superiority.

but lets assume that ROC was able to pull off a counterattack, then what? their most elite force in one sector is now exposed to enemy fire, they will inevitably suffer huge losses even if they succeed in defeating the first wave of landing force. Now here comes the second wave. moving forces from other sectors is not feasible because it takes too long and too easily detected.

In the end, if ROC can't stop the PLA in the water, they sure as heck cannot stop the PLA on land.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
have you ever seen how an offensive operation is supposed to pan out? once again you are just drawing arrows on a map, that is not warfighting.

in order to conduct a formidable assault you need to assemble your forces in a secure area, conduct reconnaissance, organize logistics and coordinate timings. it is impossible to do this while the enemy has air superiority.

but lets assume that ROC was able to pull off a counterattack, then what? their most elite force in one sector is now exposed to enemy fire, they will inevitably suffer huge losses even if they succeed in defeating the first wave of landing force. Now here comes the second wave. moving forces from other sectors is not feasible because it takes too long and too easily detected.

In the end, if ROC can't stop the PLA in the water, they sure as heck cannot stop the PLA on land.
Click to expand...
Historically, air superiority was not a huge barrier as long as you had a supply line, cover and concealment, see Korea and Vietnam. While Vietnam had air parity over Hanoi, it did not at the front or in the South Vietnamese rear in the Mekong River delta region.

Taiwan has tons of cover and concealment in its urban jungle - but not their beach regions, which are mostly suburban or rural. They also do not have a secure supply line.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Biscuits said:
Landing itself is not difficult, the problem is how a landing should take into account a simultaneous ongoing US' offensive. The US is the only power that can contest the landing zone, without US air, naval, ground troops swarming in, the result of the infiltrated and weakened ROCA would at its very best hold about as well as DPRK did in Incheon.

The reason Ukraine worked for Russia is that the fundamentals of the Russian state is much stronger than Ukraine, and Putin also diplomatically secured a blank cheque.

It is very optimistic of Americans to believe the strategy of arming/encouraging and then openly joining separatists in battle will work against China.

Ukraine's poor fundamentals is the reason why even if they can surprise setbacks on Russia initially using their large army and morale, they could not follow up and secure destruction of Russian units. They lacked the firepower and breakthrough strength.
So for example when Russia noticed they were doing badly in Kiev sector, they just pulled back nearly uncontested. US won't have this luxury if they make a mistake against China.

China's local force/fires concentration in Asia even during peacetime footing is higher than US. In contrast, the Russian military has never lagged behind Ukraine in fire support throughout the whole war and often reach much higher levels like 10-20x. Ukraine does not possess the ability to create arms or innovate on its own, China in contrast has the largest arms production sector in the world and is at the forefront of weapons invention as well.

In short, this is a suicidally overconfident plan, which unfortunately means there's a good chance US will pursue it.
Click to expand...
If China has to conduct landing AND fend off the US at the same time, it will lose. That is why years ago people used to favour a blitzkrieg style landing to reach a fait accompli before the US could react. in recent years as PLA strengthened its AA/AD capabilities people began favouring blockade.

I think the best move is still a blitzkrieg landing, not to achieve a fait accompli but to force the US to make a quick decision. If the US decides to intervene then it will be forced into fighting the PLA without being fully prepared. It'll lack in ammunition, fuel, and concentration of force. In this case the PLA may end up sacrificing its landed force by redirecting all of its focus onto defeating the US intervention. but at the end of it defeating the US will be a huge strategic boon that will outweigh the loss of those forces.

Should the US opt to further their preparations and not intervene right away, it will likely lead to a collapse of ROC defence because US intervention is their centre of gravity. if that is unreliable then ROC forces will lose their motivation to resist, thus handing an easy win to the PLA.

So the choice here is really a costly but significant victory for China, or a easy but small win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zbb
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
If China has to conduct landing AND fend off the US at the same time, it will lose.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily so, in fact that is the default assumption as China cannot exactly control when the US attack will come. This is the scenario that gives US the best chance, but it will only be something resembling an even clash of forces.

For a country like Ukraine, the only tool they have is to blitz with a lot of men. While China can (and should) apply the same tactic, they can also do other things that are completely out of the scope of Ukraine, such as paralyzing the aggressor's airbases, intel gathering platforms and logistics.

The buildup China has made to ensure they can hold Taiwan against US is focused on breaking the "joints" of the US war machine, leaving them unable to take offensive plans. For example, destroying bases that serve as bottleneck staging grounds for incoming forces.

A landing in Taiwan doesn't have to be a large action, it can first be probing landing manuever with dozens of DRGs bringing fire support from the sea behind them. It makes sense to immediately insert DRGs from day 1 of the civil war restarting, not only will they link up with local partisans fighting the ROCA, but it doesn't cost China much to deploy them.

US will then face the choice of either launching a big arrow offensive and risk being trapped by the PLA's flexible defense, or not do anything, which will cause KMT to collapse. Without local collaborators, the only way US can capture Taiwan will be bloody meter by meter battle after an even more difficult landing.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Historically, air superiority was not a huge barrier as long as you had a supply line, cover and concealment, see Korea and Vietnam. While Vietnam had air parity over Hanoi, it did not at the front or in the South Vietnamese rear in the Mekong River delta region.

Taiwan has tons of cover and concealment in its urban jungle - but not their beach regions, which are mostly suburban or rural. They also do not have a secure supply line.
Click to expand...
Supplying infantry and mechanized formations are two different things, and it is a critical self-contradiction of deploying a gas-guzzler like M1. the thing about supply is that you have to concentrate your material and forces somewhere. for example an ammunition dump, or a fuel station. those locations are static (for 12-24hrs at least), and there tend to be a lot of activities going on, it is difficult to erase their signatures.

lets be generous and say that ROC mechanized forces are all fueled up ready to go when the PLA lands. Okay but they would still have to gather at an assembly point at certain levels, which present them as easy targets. but lets say that they are waiting under cover and concealment, then you run into the problem of coordinating your movements. to pull off an attack like that requires A LOT of drilling and practice. I dont believe the ROC army has that kind of proficiency.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Biscuits said:
Not necessarily so, in fact that is the default assumption as China cannot exactly control when the US attack will come. This is the scenario that gives US the best chance, but it will only be something resembling an even clash of forces.

For a country like Ukraine, the only tool they have is to blitz with a lot of men. While China can (and should) apply the same tactic, they can also do other things that are completely out of the scope of Ukraine, such as paralyzing the aggressor's airbases, intel gathering platforms and logistics.

The buildup China has made to ensure they can hold Taiwan against US is focused on breaking the "joints" of the US war machine, leaving them unable to take offensive plans. For example, destroying bases that serve as bottleneck staging grounds for incoming forces.

A landing in Taiwan doesn't have to be a large action, it can first be probing landing manuever with dozens of DRGs bringing fire support from the sea behind them. It makes sense to immediately insert DRGs from day 1 of the civil war restarting, not only will they link up with local partisans fighting the ROCA, but it doesn't cost China much to deploy them.

US will then face the choice of either launching a big arrow offensive and risk being trapped by the PLA's flexible defense, or not do anything, which will cause KMT to collapse. Without local collaborators, the only way US can capture Taiwan will be bloody meter by meter battle after an even more difficult landing.
Click to expand...
Landing on Day 1 is good but risky. also remember day 1 you still have to deal with Kinmen, Matsu, Dongyin and Penghu, those will eat up a bunch of your landing capacity and fire support. Penghu can be converted into a small UAV control point from which medium sized drones can take off and support spearhead units in Taiwan in various capacity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zbb
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
I dont believe the ROC army has that kind of proficiency.
Click to expand...
Only the US military can undertake a credible Taiwan annexation campaign. The ROCA guys are just useful collaborators mainly to police civilians and help US gain ground faster. Like the Donbass or Kadyrov troops.

US distribute tanks/weapons to them mostly just to give them morale so they don't run and can credibly cow local civilians. It isn't US' intention to use them as the main force for their full scale invasion. It's going to be US' own military.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
Landing on Day 1 is good but risky. also remember day 1 you still have to deal with Kinmen, Matsu, Dongyin and Penghu, those will eat up a bunch of your landing capacity and fire support. Penghu can be converted into a small UAV control point from which medium sized drones can take off and support spearhead units in Taiwan in various capacity.
Click to expand...
A war could happen in two main ways:

1. US initiates the full scale invasion by themselves

2. China attacks to remove KMT and improve it's position before US can finish invasion preparations

In 1, China will still have warnings because US needs to move a ton of equipment for its plans. Probably, I'd guess that China will initiate 2 the moment they get wind that 1 is inevitable.

In scenario 2, China would likely grab all the outlying islands on day -x, x days before the civil war officially restarts. So on day 1, it will be comfortably able to land DRGs everywhere.

Things get tricky if US can pull off 1 without all the outlying islands having fallen first. But likely China will always reply with counteroffensive before the US offensive can arrive, because China is always ready to go in Asia, while US isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top