PLAN Amphibious assault capability

I could just as easily call you a fanboy as you seem to assume the Taiwanese forces are like some unstoppable gods of war that not even the most powerful nation in the world, the U.S., could beat them, which is by all means a perfect example of insanity. Aircraft carrier battlegroups, the Marines, B-2 bombers, they'd be toast before they could even say "we're toast".

Click to expand...

And when ever I have made my point by claiming Taiwanese superiority? Always I have pointed out that all your claims over PLAs capacities doesent base on reality, nor any sort of practical understandment of even basics of war fighting.

Once or twice I have mentioned that Despite your own thinking, ROCA actually is a modern and fully capaple military force that benefits to have the best possible insurance against evil agression, the sea....and more importantly a world class naval forces, expecially when it comes to compare with the agressors ones.

In all your scenarios, PLAN conduct miracleus manouvres with equipment not desinged for such (and of most which PLA doesent even poses) agains morally corrupted ROCA that would raise their hands even from smelling PLAs boot-wax near by

So:

You ignore some of the most key issues and prefer to focus on something entirely different, and honestly, irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Saying something like that is simply stubid.

The reason I give 2010 is not merely because of the naval aspect, though surely by then the PLAN will have bought Zubrs, but because of the air aspect. Also, I considered the ballistic missile matter. China is making them more accurate to where they'll be capable of being highly effective weapons against strategic and tactical targets. Denying Taiwan the use of its own air power makes removing the naval and ground power all the easier

Click to expand...

.

And there you go again taking weapon systems out of their contest and place them into usage that they arent even mented to be. And you keep assuming that PLA just can remove all ROCA defences in all field without any resistance and retaliation in all cases....without backing those claims by single fact or prove. You can shout over and over again how your marvelous PLA can do this, but never I have heard single word how and why they can do it.

Not even professional warscenario planners assume that the opponent would fail in every single occasion and your forces succee in everyone and thats your biggest fault and ultimate reason of your blindnes

After that it doesn't really matter how "Dated" the PLAN's doctrine is or how many troops it can land in a certain amount of time, because Taiwan will not be able to stop them anyway. How would this army-sized group in Taiwan survive if it was under constant air and naval barrage? They wouldn't. They'd be torn to piece before they could even do anything about a landing force.

Click to expand...

well perphaps that way that PLAN decides that its naval blockade is best conducted by task force of its all modern FFGs and couple of DDGs as AAW packed with SSNs to exploid PLAN technological advantage at best range in sea denial....

....the out come would be, that the PLAN task force is complete sitting duck in the battle field as Nuclear submarines (As well as all other ships) have military rank of them own and of their commanders, and in that sort of composition, the nuclear subs would be most high-ranking and therefore they would have to lead the taks force in order to maintain the chain of command (a number one priority to any succsesfull military operation) intact......and you can propaply figure out yourself how good command unit SSN is for surface combatants in a navy that has detailed divisional level hierarchied organisation (copyed directly from land warfare tactical thinking) that has proven to be really vunerable to any dissortions in these fields....

I would suggest you to study Soviet red army campaings prior to 1941 and Spanish civil war, then take A DETAILED look of PLA organisation and after then come claiming that doctrines and structure of military units doesent count nothing when compared to pure force....

I would assume that ANY one that dares to venture into military discussion knows at least that much of the "art of war" that these fundamental basics would atleast be in ones mind.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be all about denial. China would try to deny Taiwan use of its own airspace. Deny Taiwan of crucial supplies from outside. Deny Taiwan the use of its own information systems. Deny Taiwan early warning capability. Deny Taiwan successful counter-landing operation. Deny Taiwan help from the U.S. Deny Taiwan the use of its own territorial waters. Much of this is already well within their capacity.

Click to expand...

With what? PLAAF doesen't have the capability to completely deny ROCAF operation nor ROCA's for that matter. Mainland China have possesed modern air-to-ground ability hardly 5 years now and lacks all expereince and capacity (beyond expereimental and trial state) in battlefield C4 and eletronical warfare. Without Intensive ECM jammers, communication relay and AWACs and ELINT platforms it would be impossiple. The aggressor would need SEAD capacity with lot more sopisthicated than few odd imported Russian Anti-radiation missiles.
Without these, the situation where all your scenarios bases, (which are that PLAN would win every engagement and ROCA would chatastrofically fail in each) just cannot happen.

And when the battlefield is changed to the sea, the odds comes in some cases even against PLAN. ROCN has highly realistic change to rebel PLANs most precious capacity, its submarines. PLAN is still really vunerable to air thread and only tieing almoust all PLAs modern fighters to protect it, ROCAs change to attack against it would seriously drop...and all that is out of protecting the small fleet of PLAAFs attackers mented to conduct this mirclous destruction of ROCAs facilities and defences....
And remember, PLAN has only handfull of ships with relatively modern CIWS and ECM to rebel ROCAs SSMs

war is chaos, despite all human efford to control it but you ignore this fact completely and think that everything will work as planned without any change of suprise and dissorder. Knowing the capacities and composition of PLA, your only fooling yourself by thinking that way.

@Gollevainen:
having read my issue of Clausewitz recently I have got the convincing impression that the two most pivotal factors of military startegy are space (distance) and time but of course may be thats inapplicable in certain regions of the globe where other unexplained and mysterious startegic laws are ruling.

Indeed distance is a tricky factor like the daring german amphibious operation conquering Norway and Denmark in 1940 (´Weserübung´) demonstrates but nevertheless the Wehrmacht eventually prevailed by playing a risky gambit in space and time with a truly improvised landing force. The crushing of the norvegian and allied resistance was finally enabled by unchallenged air superiority of the the Luftwaffe and the effective paratroop raids of the Fallschirmjäger.

Of course everything depends on the strength of your adversary and Hitler did obviously not dare to employ a similar tactics against the much stronger (at least in his perception?) defences of Britain later in the war.
The principal flaw in your analysis dear Gollevainen (and I have to second Vlad in his criticism here) is that you overestimate the defensive capabilities of ROCA forces in a near grotesque way perhaps imagining a scenario just like as Britain would have fought a Nazi invasion in 1940 or Sweden might have fought a Soviet invasion in 1945/46. Dismissing specific political, economical and even cultural facts on the ground as irrelevant produces a string of false assumptions since it ignores the fact that war is essentially the final tool of politics.

(P.S.:
As you should know Gollevainen your own country has been living in a state of complicated coexistence with the USSR for decades and some western politicians have criticized that situation as ´finlandization´. Apparently Finland flourished economically during these times and your freedom was never threatened by the soviets but your people had also to make the concessions deemed necessary (neutrality (i.e. holding some distance from the west), intensive economic collaboration and also some degree of security cooperation) by the soviet superpower. May be you have developed the wrong view that Taiwan is a comparable case to your nation (Finland was indeed part of the Russian Empire 1809-1917) but the simple difference remains that the finnish people constitute a distinctive people completely different in culture and language from the slavic russians.
Taiwan was colonized 400 years ago by people from Fujian province and after 1949 another influx of chinese from all regions of the mainland came in ( most of the Japanese had left previously in a repatriation campaign conducted by the US). Consequently the chinese people on both sides of the straits have the same ancestors, culture, language and their daily economic annd social lives are integrating fast; shortly they are from the same strain of ´blood´.
After all this kind of situation is hardly comparable to the historic developments between Finland or the baltic states with Russia.)

"ROCA actually is a modern and fully capaple military force?"

When they had better weapons and large numerical advantages, they were beat the shit out by PLA. Now they has worse weapons and a much smaller size than their opponents, that makes them modern and fully capable? And ROCN is a world class naval force??

the out come would be, that the PLAN task force is complete sitting duck in the battle field as Nuclear submarines (As well as all other ships) have military rank of them own and of their commanders, and in that sort of composition, the nuclear subs would be most high-ranking and therefore they would have to lead the taks force in order to maintain the chain of command (a number one priority to any succsesfull military operation) intact......and you can propaply figure out yourself how good command unit SSN is for surface combatants in a navy that has detailed divisional level hierarchied organisation (copyed directly from land warfare tactical thinking) that has proven to be really vunerable to any dissortions in these fields...."

Click to expand...

Let me tell you another thing, the PRC government, universities, everything, also copied the rank system from army. Like the president of Peking University=Mayor of Beijing=nomarch of Guangdong province=Commander of 38th army=Head of department of education...., this is called province-department-army level. As you can notice, president of Peking University's rank is the same of the chief of his local goverment and his direct administrative leader.

So this country must have collapsed a dozen times huh? I know it's hard to explain but I can assure you, it's not like what you think.

I would suggest you to study Soviet red army campaings prior to 1941 and Spanish civil war, then take A DETAILED look of PLA organisation and after then come claiming that doctrines and structure of military units doesent count nothing when compared to pure force....

Click to expand...

I think you probablity got the things wrong. PLA organization and commanding system are different things. I will be very long to explain, but just don't look China from a European logic.

And for the rest of what you said, they are lack of reasoning too like your view towards vlad. In your mouth, ROC forces sound like US forces. They are well trained with modern stuff, PLA just got some barely modern stuff, and not trained. Just like this, so ROC is superior to PLA.

Actually you two sound quite similar. vlad says, clearly PLA is out numbered in terms of air assault, so PLA will have air superiority, then everything fine. Golly says, PLA have only some stuff now and don't know how to use them, then nothing will be fine.

To Oboe...

The one who is ignoring facts are those who belive that PLA could just march over to Taiwan. I haven't commented on the sosio-cultural issues as they are not in thos focus of this thread (which is PLAN amphi capability) nor the entire forum. I'm not denying its relevance to the overall idea of the war, but that section of that possiple conflict isen't depate in here. We are focusing on purely military maters. That I can say that the will to defend your own home and way of living is far more stronger fuel than some cultural, ethnic or other non-concrete issues. Civil wars are always the bloodiest ones.

So szbd:

When they had better weapons and large numerical advantages, they were beat the shit out by PLA. Now they has worse weapons and a much smaller size than their opponents, that makes them modern and fully capable? And ROCN is a world class naval force??

Click to expand...

Worse weapons? In which sector does PLA enjoy over generation-level advantage in the terms of quality over any ROC branches?

ANd yeas ROCN is a world class navy. Its weapon systems and ships are from USA and european nations which are in the terms of concept, craftmanship and technological aspects superior to those ships in PLAN service. Even the old wwII era DDGs which ROCN still have are in the terms of shipdesign better than the main PLANs destroyer class, Luda. The biggest advantage of ROCN is that it is actually a navy, not a floating branch of the army that PLAN has been right untill the very recent years.

Let me tell you another thing, the PRC government, universities, everything, also copied the rank system from army. Like the president of Peking University=Mayor of Beijing=nomarch of Guangdong province=Commander of 38th army=Head of department of education...., this is called province-department-army level. As you can notice, president of Peking University's rank is the same of the chief of his local goverment and his direct administrative leader.

So this country must have collapsed a dozen times huh? I know it's hard to explain but I can assure you, it's not like what you think.

Click to expand...

Examples from civil sectors have nothing to do with military life. I can assure you that the simplicity and working chain-in command is the key to all military manuvres and actions. During my army times I withnessed few times when equal-branch nco's gave contradicting orders and caused the entire battery to stall. And military units cannot stall in combat enviroments. During the WWII, one of the main reasons to soviets failure in our front was the dual-leadership that effectivily made the soviet military units stiff and unflexiple and too slow in the matter of decision making. They paid heavy prize for this.

I think you probablity got the things wrong. PLA organization and commanding system are different things. I will be very long to explain, but just don't look China from a European logic.

Click to expand...

Commanding system is tied to its organisations, thats very basics of any military leadership. If it doesen't then it doesen't work, its not related to "european" nor the famous "chinese" way of seeing things. War doesen't know cultures, it only knows blood. And please, do try to explain it to me, I'm all ears.

And for the rest of what you said, they are lack of reasoning too like your view towards vlad. In your mouth, ROC forces sound like US forces. They are well trained with modern stuff, PLA just got some barely modern stuff, and not trained. Just like this, so ROC is superior to PLA.

Click to expand...

No. In Vlads mouth PLA sounds like it is should be and what he likes it to bee and ROC's fighting ability is completely ignored. He thinks its as capable as those Cuban companies in Grenada in the 80's. I'm saying that ROC is an army that cannot be ignored. And I'm saying that like history has prooven, its impossiple to invade an Iland country if there is an modenr army to defend it.

Actually you two sound quite similar. vlad says, clearly PLA is out numbered in terms of air assault, so PLA will have air superiority, then everything fine. Golly says, PLA have only some stuff now and don't know how to use them, then nothing will be fine.

Click to expand...

Yeas (if slightly exaggerated). You all can make your own assumptions based on the facts, but remeber there are other facts to take under considerations than just the ammount of missiles that J-10 or Mirage 2000 carries. Vlad and many others are ignoring the most important facts, the basic ideas of modern warfare expsecially in sea and land. IMO its pointless to come here and state anything if you don't understand the basics. For example, Vlad haven't still told me how is he imaging to invade Taiwan with the ammount of troops that PLAN can even theoretically land on Taiwan (which is less than a one brigade WHITOUT its equipment) in one sortie, hold the bridgehead untill the reinforcements gets there (which takes over 24 hours) and even then advage without operational level fire support. And all this against at least one Army corps size ROC unit (with reinforcements comming smoothly) with full support lines and proper equipment in both manuvre and fire-support.

So Violet Oboe, Szbd, Vlad and others please explain me how PLA landing assault force will solve this situation in the means of reality, then you can claim triumph over me. If not then I suggest...well better not say it, you know what I mean

Vlad Plasmius said:

I could just as easily call you a fanboy as you seem to assume the Taiwanese forces are like some unstoppable gods of war that not even the most powerful nation in the world, the U.S., could beat them, which is by all means a perfect example of insanity. Aircraft carrier battlegroups, the Marines, B-2 bombers, they'd be toast before they could even say "we're toast".

The point of an an assault on Taiwan would not be occupation, but capitulation. Do they have the capability to do this right now? Yes.

Click to expand...

Just for clarification, are you saying the PLA can toast the US aircraft carrier battlegroups, the Marines, B-2 bombers, all before they could even say "we're toast"? I like to give you the benefit of the doubt on that statement before I laugh my arse off on that one.

Your points on PLA forcing ROC to capitulation has merit but only if US intervention can be denied. And that is what I seriously doubt if the US does decide on intervention. As long as they can establish a supply line, the capitulation tactic will fail.

Gollevainen said:

To Oboe...

The one who is ignoring facts are those who belive that PLA could just march over to Taiwan. I haven't commented on the sosio-cultural issues as they are not in thos focus of this thread (which is PLAN amphi capability) nor the entire forum. I'm not denying its relevance to the overall idea of the war, but that section of that possiple conflict isen't depate in here. We are focusing on purely military maters. That I can say that the will to defend your own home and way of living is far more stronger fuel than some cultural, ethnic or other non-concrete issues. Civil wars are always the bloodiest ones.

So szbd:



Worse weapons? In which sector does PLA enjoy over generation-level advantage in the terms of quality over any ROC branches?

ANd yeas ROCN is a world class navy. Its weapon systems and ships are from USA and european nations which are in the terms of concept, craftmanship and technological aspects superior to those ships in PLAN service. Even the old wwII era DDGs which ROCN still have are in the terms of shipdesign better than the main PLANs destroyer class, Luda. The biggest advantage of ROCN is that it is actually a navy, not a floating branch of the army that PLAN has been right untill the very recent years.



Examples from civil sectors have nothing to do with military life. I can assure you that the simplicity and working chain-in command is the key to all military manuvres and actions. During my army times I withnessed few times when equal-branch nco's gave contradicting orders and caused the entire battery to stall. And military units cannot stall in combat enviroments. During the WWII, one of the main reasons to soviets failure in our front was the dual-leadership that effectivily made the soviet military units stiff and unflexiple and too slow in the matter of decision making. They paid heavy prize for this.



Commanding system is tied to its organisations, thats very basics of any military leadership. If it doesen't then it doesen't work, its not related to "european" nor the famous "chinese" way of seeing things. War doesen't know cultures, it only knows blood. And please, do try to explain it to me, I'm all ears.



No. In Vlads mouth PLA sounds like it is should be and what he likes it to bee and ROC's fighting ability is completely ignored. He thinks its as capable as those Cuban companies in Grenada in the 80's. I'm saying that ROC is an army that cannot be ignored. And I'm saying that like history has prooven, its impossiple to invade an Iland country if there is an modenr army to defend it.



Yeas (if slightly exaggerated). You all can make your own assumptions based on the facts, but remeber there are other facts to take under considerations than just the ammount of missiles that J-10 or Mirage 2000 carries. Vlad and many others are ignoring the most important facts, the basic ideas of modern warfare expsecially in sea and land. IMO its pointless to come here and state anything if you don't understand the basics. For example, Vlad haven't still told me how is he imaging to invade Taiwan with the ammount of troops that PLAN can even theoretically land on Taiwan (which is less than a one brigade WHITOUT its equipment) in one sortie, hold the bridgehead untill the reinforcements gets there (which takes over 24 hours) and even then advage without operational level fire support. And all this against at least one Army corps size ROC unit (with reinforcements comming smoothly) with full support lines and proper equipment in both manuvre and fire-support.

So Violet Oboe, Szbd, Vlad and others please explain me how PLA landing assault force will solve this situation in the means of reality, then you can claim triumph over me. If not then I suggest...well better not say it, you know what I mean

Click to expand...

'Worse weapons? In which sector does PLA enjoy over generation-level advantage in the terms of quality over any ROC branches? "
Please let me start from here: In the air force KJ2000 VS E2 hawkeye, in the army T99 MBT VS modified M60. In the navy, #170, 171 type 052C ships VS what is in ROCN? Modified Kidd class. Need I say more? the list goes on if you like, Such as all the new Eelctronic warfare Y8 types( there are three types last time I counted, of which the ROCAF has none of the kind), how about Space intel and Communication SAT capability, how about the Anti-SAT capability?, I have not name all the newer modern Subs in the PLAN service ( Song, Kilo, Yuan, 093) of which the ROCN has two sericeable Subs from the 1980s tech. How about the 022 as compared to the also new Missile boat from the ROCN service. do you still want me to go on? And the list can be a lot longer if you want. I hate to argue about who is going to win the war when war has not began yet.
Let just say this. I agree with you that PLA has got to improve their over the water amphibious assault capabilities a lot more, they need more LPD type of ships. But this is the finial piece of the puzzle that is missing for the PLA. Once the Amphibious capabilities are addressed, ROC will be no more.

Well lets look at your list...And remember I asked where PLA enjoys superiority with generation ahead of ROCA?

Please let me start from here: In the air force KJ2000 VS E2 hawkeye

Click to expand...

Chinese first AWACS tpye of plane not even fully operational and only couple existing planes which are yet to be intergrated to the actual operational level forces. Not much to brag around.

in the army T99 MBT VS modified M60.

Click to expand...

A tank based on the soviet T72 concept which prooved itself to be inferior even to the modernised M60's in gulf war. Chinese tank is better, but in the terms of capability not generations away and not anyway superior.

In the navy, #170, 171 type 052C ships VS what is in ROCN? Modified Kidd class.

Click to expand...

2 ships (with underpowered oversized hulls) with AAW missiles and SSMs but almoust non-existing ASW capacity. Firecontrol seems outward similar to the USN Aegis but which capacity is still unknown. Kidd's are based on the succesfull Spruance class hull and balanced AAW, SSM and ASW capacity. Only area where they are inferior to the Chinese ships is the firecontrol system for their AAW missiles but as we still don't know the true capacity of 052C its hard to say how big the cap is. Anyway the chinese ships are first efforts of anything resambling of an fleet unit from a country that has no experience in bluewater naval operations and the Taiwanese ships are from "the" navy...

Funny that you didn't mention other ships.... Oh but you did..the 022...

Ao where does it stands? Well its basicly WWII era torbedo boat with steahtly hull and its fast. Thats about it. It's hull concept prevents it having any endurance what so ever and it seems to lack modern EW suite and airdefence, cruisal to FACs survival against helicopter armed with SSMs, the biggest thread to any FACs these days

For submarines PLAN most certainly enjoys bigger subforce but ironically the ROCN that actually has some ASW capacity can fight against them where as PLAN that basicly has no modern ASW capacity is in serious trouple even with the two subs of Taiwan...


What comes rest of your list, yeas China has made some efforts in its space program, anti-satelites and all...Not enough to win the war. I asked weapons, and what I ment was those that actually counts. Artillery, infatry and supports? Where are your examples in those areas? Where are your examples in Aicrafts, Airdefence, SEAD and counter SEAD? Where are your examples in used naval doctrines and overall fleet capacities?

We can argue to the doomsday over small details wheter this or that equipment is superior to one and another. The differences aren't that huge and as china doesen't have the capability to wage such a higly technologized warfare that we have withnessed in the latest US led campaings. And you would need at least that level to be able to completely destroy the ROCA.
I have argued that even the USMC with USN and USAF helping it would have serious proplems to invade Taiwan if they just fight back. Thats how hard it is to invade completely sea-blocked countries.

But again you can twist the facts and figures as long as you wish, just give me an explanation to my question in the previous post and I will rest...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?

Gollevainen

And when ever I have made my point by claiming Taiwanese superiority? Always I have pointed out that all your claims over PLAs capacities doesent base on reality, nor any sort of practical understandment of even basics of war fighting.

Click to expand...

You seem to make the point well enough by saying not even the U.S. could defeat them.

Once or twice I have mentioned that Despite your own thinking, ROCA actually is a modern and fully capaple military force that benefits to have the best possible insurance against evil agression, the sea....and more importantly a world class naval forces, expecially when it comes to compare with the agressors ones.

Click to expand...

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?

In all your scenarios, PLAN conduct miracleus manouvres with equipment not desinged for such (and of most which PLA doesent even poses) agains morally corrupted ROCA that would raise their hands even from smelling PLAs boot-wax near by

Click to expand...

Pure exaggeration.

Saying something like that is simply stubid.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, well that pretty much speaks for itself.

And there you go again taking weapon systems out of their contest and place them into usage that they arent even mented to be.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? How am I taking anything out of context?

And you keep assuming that PLA just can remove all ROCA defences in all field without any resistance and retaliation in all cases....without backing those claims by single fact or prove. You can shout over and over again how your marvelous PLA can do this, but never I have heard single word how and why they can do it.

Click to expand...

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.

The munitions China has in range of Taiwan would be sufficient to remove most of it.

Not even professional warscenario planners assume that the opponent would fail in every single occasion and your forces succee in everyone and thats your biggest fault and ultimate reason of your blindnes

Click to expand...

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.

well perphaps that way that PLAN decides that its naval blockade is best conducted by task force of its all modern FFGs and couple of DDGs as AAW packed with SSNs to exploid PLAN technological advantage at best range in sea denial....

....the out come would be, that the PLAN task force is complete sitting duck in the battle field as Nuclear submarines (As well as all other ships) have military rank of them own and of their commanders, and in that sort of composition, the nuclear subs would be most high-ranking and therefore they would have to lead the taks force in order to maintain the chain of command (a number one priority to any succsesfull military operation) intact......and you can propaply figure out yourself how good command unit SSN is for surface combatants in a navy that has detailed divisional level hierarchied organisation (copyed directly from land warfare tactical thinking) that has proven to be really vunerable to any dissortions in these fields....

Click to expand...

You writing is so horrid that I can't even begin to decipher what you're trying to say.

I would suggest you to study Soviet red army campaings prior to 1941 and Spanish civil war, then take A DETAILED look of PLA organisation and after then come claiming that doctrines and structure of military units doesent count nothing when compared to pure force....

I would assume that ANY one that dares to venture into military discussion knows at least that much of the "art of war" that these fundamental basics would atleast be in ones mind.

Click to expand...

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.

With what? PLAAF doesen't have the capability to completely deny ROCAF operation nor ROCA's for that matter. Mainland China have possesed modern air-to-ground ability hardly 5 years now and lacks all expereince and capacity (beyond expereimental and trial state) in battlefield C4 and eletronical warfare. Without Intensive ECM jammers, communication relay and AWACs and ELINT platforms it would be impossiple. The aggressor would need SEAD capacity with lot more sopisthicated than few odd imported Russian Anti-radiation missiles.

Without these, the situation where all your scenarios bases, (which are that PLAN would win every engagement and ROCA would chatastrofically fail in each) just cannot happen.

Click to expand...

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.

And when the battlefield is changed to the sea, the odds comes in some cases even against PLAN. ROCN has highly realistic change to rebel PLANs most precious capacity, its submarines. PLAN is still really vunerable to air thread and only tieing almoust all PLAs modern fighters to protect it, ROCAs change to attack against it would seriously drop...and all that is out of protecting the small fleet of PLAAFs attackers mented to conduct this mirclous destruction of ROCAs facilities and defences....

Click to expand...

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.

And remember, PLAN has only handfull of ships with relatively modern CIWS and ECM to rebel ROCAs SSMs

war is chaos, despite all human efford to control it but you ignore this fact completely and think that everything will work as planned without any change of suprise and dissorder. Knowing the capacities and composition of PLA, your only fooling yourself by thinking that way.

Click to expand...

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.

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".

In Vlads mouth PLA sounds like it is should be and what he likes it to bee and ROC's fighting ability is completely ignored. He thinks its as capable as those Cuban companies in Grenada in the 80's.

Click to expand...

News flash: You can not read minds.

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.

For example, Vlad haven't still told me how is he imaging to invade Taiwan with the ammount of troops that PLAN can even theoretically land on Taiwan (which is less than a one brigade WHITOUT its equipment) in one sortie, hold the bridgehead untill the reinforcements gets there (which takes over 24 hours) and even then advage without operational level fire support. And all this against at least one Army corps size ROC unit (with reinforcements comming smoothly) with full support lines and proper equipment in both manuvre and fire-support.

Click to expand...

You just plain never paid attention to a thing I said did you?

joshuatree

Just for clarification, are you saying the PLA can toast the US aircraft carrier battlegroups, the Marines, B-2 bombers, all before they could even say "we're toast"?

Click to expand...

No, I was saying Taiwan would be toast if they went against the U.S., but don't tell Gollevainen that, he'll call you an idiotic child.

Although a thorough analysis of PLA amphibious tactics and command and control structure is certainly very important we have to concede that obtaining publicly known valid information about this matter is very difficult. Most info is woefully obsolete and assuming as Gollevainen does that PLA would employing soviet tactics and command structures from ´ancient´times is wishful thinking at best and ignorance at worst. PLA has changed beyond recognition in only 15 years and so has their organization structure but the ´million dollar question´remains: How effective in comparison with her potential adversaries is the shiny new PLA if war breaks out?

My humble opinion is that achieving victory against separatist forces on Taiwan is a job that already can be done but at a certain price to be paid and currently this price is high enough to make the leadership think twice about taking that risk. Consequently Beijing will strike only if pushed into a corner by taiwanese separatists declaring unilaterally independence or something equivalent like diplomatic recognition by the US and perhaps Japan.

Unfortunately several of our members ignore the fact that the political aim of Beijing is simply retaining the territorial integrity of China and that the central goverment has absolutely no intention whatsoever to change the style of life of taiwanese citizens or infringe on their rights to govern their island autonomously.

Hong Kong will celebrate the tenth anniversary of reintegration as SAR (Special Administrative Region) into the motherland this year and never has Hong Kong been so vibrant and affluent in her entire history. Macau has also been a fascinating story of success since '99 and Taiwan would solve many problems of her sluggish economy instantly after a mutually acceptable deal with Beijing. In fact every taiwanese citizen would be able to have the best of both worlds: enjoying a stable security environment plus a profitable integration into the planets most dynamic economy and simultaneously retaining a ´western style´political system.

Vlad Plasmius said:

It's nice to know that when someone doesn't agree with you you resort to insults and assumptions.

I could just as easily call you a fanboy as you seem to assume the Taiwanese forces are like some unstoppable gods of war....

Click to expand...

Vlad, you were the one that said China could beat Taiwan in a matter of hours if it wanted to. Short of using nuclear weapons (which isn't an option) that isn't possible. So really you were demonstrating either:

a) your own ignorance of reality; OR
b) a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to further an agenda or bias

You are also resorting to ridiculous hyperbole - Golle has never said Taiwan couldn't be defeated. As far as I can see he has merely pointed out the difficulty China would face in trying to successfully invade Taiwan.