And to Vlad... (thougth who is really begun to loose his credipility by hiding behind typing remarks to avoid answering...)
You seem to make the point well enough by saying not even the U.S. could defeat them.
No. I said that its even hard to US to defeat them. Its difference. US can crush Taiwan, but not with parade manners....and PRC cannot
I'm not saying they aren't "modern". However, does it really matter if their entire navy is sunk in the first hours and their air force can't get off the ground?
By what? Again you just repeat that cheast-beating mantra without proving how PLAFs limited capacity can manage to achieve it
Yeas? Ever heard of irony....
Hmmm, well that pretty much speaks for itself.
It speaks only for the fact that I've skipped some of the english classes
WTF are you talking about? How am I taking anything out of context?
Ballistic missiles ring any bells
remember how you humiliated yourself by claiming over and over again how they are tactical weapon to be used in similar cases as air launched percission munitions or cruise missiles???
Not all, just enough to ensure dominance over the air and sea. There are maybe a dozen airbases, a dozen radars that give Taiwan early warning capability over China's mainland, a few dozen air defense systems, and only a few dozen ships in their navy.
And again you just repeat that they can do this and they can do that....
Without even bothering to base this to anything.....
So again I ask...with what forces?
The munitions China has in range of Taiwan would be sufficient to remove most of it.
what munitions? Are you now moving towards traditional artillery strikes or what? ballistic missiles where old news, so you decided to pick other equipment out of its operational contest and throw it into game....
...or what? Im getting bit confusing with your logic....(expecially when we get into this
There's not much room for failure in the scenario. The failures would have to be technical, but then again, I'm talking of weapons being used in such volume that even technical failure will likely do little to stop it.
Ahem! Thats what I have ranted over and over again myself. So you honestly claim that human errors are out of question when it comes to PLA operations?
If so, I guess there is little point of continue any depate with you
¨
You writing is so horrid that I can't even begin to decipher what you're trying to say.
I said it quite clear: PLAN cannot conduct joint operations between surface ships and nuclear subs in sea with its current organisation as it would mean that SSNs would have to lead that task force as their commander and ship-rank system would make them senior compared to the surface units....
If you you understand naval warfare, you can figure out the result of such composition by yourself....
...but Somehow I begun to loose my hope that you understand.....
I'm still not sure where you're going with this. You keep using the Soviets as an example, but that's really just ignorant. China isn't the Soviet Union. Even if China uses a similar doctrine or uses similar tactics to the Soviets, that doesn't mean they'll be as unsuccessful. The phalanx was not perfected by the first people who used it. This is the case with most military tactics. Tactics are constantly modified and added onto, improved, to achieve greater rates of success. Point out where China's military has suffered a major failure in war, compared to the Soviets and then we'll talk about their doctrine.
Vietnam '79
Well China really hasent gone trough military campaing that would equal the scale of annexation of Taiwan. perhaps thats the main reason why those horrible command structures and doctrines still remain in PLA service....
All soviet military failures have not come from the weapons or thecnologies, but out of simple inflexibility in their chain of command, from the dual-leader BS that still exist in PLA
I wasn't referring to jamming, but just plain attacking. Using PGMs against key communications. Again, you ignore parts of this, assuming I'm talking about attacking radar with just ARMs, when I mentioned several times befores that such sites would be target until they were incapacitated.
No you werent, becouse you werent refering to anything. Thats the proplem. You just say and say how PLAAF would smahs the taiwanese positions, and how its limited ground attack capacity can master something that even NATO couldnt master in 1999. What you say is principle what PLA should do, but unlike all others, you also assume that its exactly what is going to happen without even stopping to think that can PLA even manage to do that, not to mention how would ROCAs defences effect on these attempts.
You're not even explaining anything. What gives them a chance? What air threat are you talking about? Missiles? Helicopters? Aircraft? Why would they need all their modern fighters to protect it either? I'm not even sure how this is relevant as you're assuming there'd be significant air force for Taiwan to use.
Agains Taiwanese air elements that can spread havoc to unprotected PLAN ships. Have you even slightest clue of the state of PLAN air defences?
And why would they need all their modern fighters to protect it? becouse there is so few them. And becouse PLAN ship borne air defences cannot at the same time protetc the landing ships and the operational units operating against Taiwanese fleet, as well as its own supply lines.... PLAN itself needs a fighter umbrella upon it to even try to achieve the goals your scennario imposes to them. All those planes are out of other usage...
If it is that hard to understand, why you even bother to post in military forums?
You are the one assuming war is ordered and controlled. According to you, because the Chinese use a system the Soviets used, they're going to behave the same way in a conflict and suffer the same losses, despite no real history of military failures.
No. Chinese will suffer simply becouse they are humans. All armies aknowlidges this (and I hope PLA does it too, thougth I cannot be sure under ligth of some evindence...) and thats why the basic military leadershiptraining should always emphase innovativeness and spontanius so that military units can keep its fighting potential in ever changing and unpredictable operations. Chinese system and its inflexibility works counter-wise and really adds a multipler to disasters in conflict like Taiwan annexation that really isent winnable by simple quantative power, that has been key to all previous PLA triumphs.
According to you Taiwan being a "modern military" means they're untouchable, out of that wonderful la-la-land logic you use, which relies purely on assuming history repeats itself perfectly in different situations. History is full of upsets and things are constantly happening to do what people like you consider "impossible".
No. It means that it can add the element of suprise and unpredictability to your scennarios. It means that you cannot ignore it. Im not saying that China would fail in its annexation of Taiwan becouse ROCA can rebel it, claiming that would be as silly as your claim of PLA as superarmy without room for human errors.
My claim why PLA cannot succee bases simply to the lacks of PLA itself, most notably presented by its Amphibious arm and supporting naval units, which are the topic of this thread.
So i repeat my question to you:
How can the under-brigade size unit without no fire support nor supplylines advange deep in to the Taiwans territory without being encircled and keep the beach head so that the main bulk of PLA troops can land when they are facing at least 1 army corps (thats three western division to those who don't know) size opponent force with the all the benefits of local area and existing supplylines?
News flash: You can not read minds.
?? How you can claim that, by reading my mind
I'm not saying the ROCA isn't capable, they're just not capable of defeating China. That's all I'm saying. Their fighting ability isn't ignored, more like the whole point of what I said is insuring they have no chance to use it effectively.
yeas you are. You cannot claim that they have no change to use it effectively without spesifically explain why, and what PLA "super weapons" can bring such miracle upon them that they cannot.
You just plain never paid attention to a thing I said did you?
Yeas I have....why would I otherwise even answer to you. The fact that I need to repeat the same guestions over and over again speaks lot about all to be wice versa situation
