taiwan missile defense and mainland missile
- Thread starter s002wjh
- Start date
Red___Sword
Junior Member
I am very convinced of Jeff's comments by knowing there were "stiff resistance" after American's bombardment of prepared position, across Korea war and Vietnam war.
I am curious how American armed force going to do today, with regards today's assaulting means and face today's prepared positions.
Constant precision strike on real-time surveillanced "still breathing" targets that if not destory, suppress the target until the landing force take it? And in bigger scale - hamper the enemy's C4IR system so that minimise if not deny of their coordinated defense efforts? Given that air and naval (maybe plus cyber) dominance has erected (without question in American's case).
My point is, if true, then the hardened positions ARE STILL sitting ducks despite advertisements of computer simulation of "We can survive this". Yes, PLA is not American armed force, but no, the Nationist Revolutionary Army (that's the official name) is not the People's Volunteer Army either.
I am curious how American armed force going to do today, with regards today's assaulting means and face today's prepared positions.
Constant precision strike on real-time surveillanced "still breathing" targets that if not destory, suppress the target until the landing force take it? And in bigger scale - hamper the enemy's C4IR system so that minimise if not deny of their coordinated defense efforts? Given that air and naval (maybe plus cyber) dominance has erected (without question in American's case).
My point is, if true, then the hardened positions ARE STILL sitting ducks despite advertisements of computer simulation of "We can survive this". Yes, PLA is not American armed force, but no, the Nationist Revolutionary Army (that's the official name) is not the People's Volunteer Army either.
That is not necessarily true, D-day or the pacific campaign, US and western allied troops landed after the bombardment was completed. Crew of bunkers and fortifications will be in in their bomb shelters during a bombardment as being at the firing ports or action stations would hardly provide sufficient protection from high explosive pressure waves.
If the PRC missiles are sufficient enough to not hit friendly troops while landing in close proximity, it would be an effective means of reducing the ability of fortification to interfere with the landing operation even with their crew intact.
Of course, modern fortification may be an improvement over their WW1 and WW2 predecessors, unless it is hermetically sealed like a gun turret or remote control, then they will still be suspect to HE blasts and be ineffective during a bombardment (which might not be able to destroy the fortification, but stun it).
If the fortification are hermetically sealed or have new toys like remote control action stations - there will not be a lot of them due to cost, then won't they deserve precision guided munition?
RollingWave
New Member
The general problem is, para troopers are flown in by big slow planes, if there's any sort of air defense still left standing they're likily to take very heavy casualties before they even land.
Also, much of this depend as other poster pointed out, how the pre-war really plays out, under the assumption that China will not suddenly attack with abosalutely no warning, but that Taiwan would have months in advance of the invasion, then Taiwan's own defense capacity would also be different than what it is right now, given that if all it's reserve is mobilize Taiwan's military is actually just marginally smaller than the PLA, of course given all the likely problems (reserves out of country, draft dodge, needing to keep essential personal at work etc) the true mobilization number would be much lower than the theoretical potential, but still something around 800k to 1 million would still be pretty doable.
If China attacks with abosalute no warning, then the question is even if it takes out everything, how many men can then land in such a short span? the PLA's marine's total number is only 12000, and it's very unlikely that they can prepare real army units to land without being detected. and hell, if they sail out most of their marine a the same time it's already a major alarm bell for Taiwan so there's likely to be some serious time lag between first wave of missile to first landing party (like, at least a day). the PLA marines alone are rather unlikly to be able to topple Taiwan quickly even with full air superiority. then it's a race between who can act faster.
The MLRS argument is very intersting and I never thought about that, it would be enough to tempoarily knock out some airfields yes, but again the same problem exist that if we see the PLA moving all these WS-2s to the coast and/or in ships to the straits, all the planes are going in the air ASAP and the Yanks would know before we even do.
In short, the risk to the PLA is pretty significant in any case, and the risk to the CCP politically in this is ultra high.
For the CCP, the best solution would still be to try and win politically, if the US for any reason completely decide to withdraw from the region for example, we'll most likely enter political negotiation immediately, because in the longer run on our own we have no chance, any one knows that.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
It's very good to read posts actually "from the other side".
I have serious reserve on "who acts faster" theory, for let's say, bombs only falls on one side's head when air and naval (maybe plus cyber) dominance has erected, but I guess land warfare should leave out of this thread.
Our modulators do not wish we chanting about "PRC vs. USA" chorus either, but at least we should sober that CMC never have a delusion on "Taiwan can be taken (if any) by Blitzkrieg". In fact, it is delusional to consider CMC plans "Taiwan campaign" rely on chances that not within CMC's grasp (like "yes or no international intervene" and "who acts faster" for one).
I have serious reserve on "who acts faster" theory, for let's say, bombs only falls on one side's head when air and naval (maybe plus cyber) dominance has erected, but I guess land warfare should leave out of this thread.
Our modulators do not wish we chanting about "PRC vs. USA" chorus either, but at least we should sober that CMC never have a delusion on "Taiwan can be taken (if any) by Blitzkrieg". In fact, it is delusional to consider CMC plans "Taiwan campaign" rely on chances that not within CMC's grasp (like "yes or no international intervene" and "who acts faster" for one).
RollingWave
New Member
Yes, but I do have some privy to slightly more inside informations, (like relatives working as defence researchers) so here's some points to consider.
a. Although it's generally lauded that the 2nd artillery have around 1000+ missile within our range, actual base setup generally see the majority of DF-11s being outside of range of hitting realistic targets in Taiwan, yes they can move, but the setup of their guidance system would function a lot better if they'r fired from fixed bases rather than random points.
b. DF-15s obviously can hit Taiwan, but counting on them alone would obviously reduce effectiveness dramatically.
c. From our military intelligence POV, the current PRC's military base setup shows no real intention of attacking Taiwan anytime soon, there are obviously a variety of political / military consideration into this, but the conclusion is pretty clear that the PRC installation setup has defense in mind more than offense.
I would totally agree that the PRC is not obviously neither stupid nor implusive, they're not goign to seriously align into attacking Taiwan until they're sure they'll win 100% , which basically draws us back more into political territory than military.
But back to the missile issue, my relative happens to be in related field of research so he points out that if the PLA really wants to overwhelm us with missile we can't do jack with what we have now, there's too many ways to get around even things like PAC-3, including one test we know about where the PLA 2nd artillery tested vollies of DF-11 with one DF-15 at the front throwing out massive amount of chafts. let alone what others have noted, using WS-2 etc.. the whole problem of course is how to do it without escalating things.
Though we are obviously doing research of our own to try and find future methods of possibly dealing with such issues, military methods can change dramatically and no one really knows what the future holds, for example one possibility is that we can perfect ramjet artillery rounds, which would revive the possibly of shooting down planes and even missiles with good ole flak cannons (obviously with better range finder / radar ) again. (in theory, ramjet rounds would increase range and velocity of current artillery round limits by several times over) and obviously because artillery rounds would be cheaper even than MLRS, this would counter most non-nuclear possibilities in a cost effective way. (rumors are some countries already have succeded in such weapons)
Geographer
Junior Member
I want to comment on this. Historically, militaries rarely take the blame for a defeat. They usually blame the civilian leadership. Notable examples include France's military after the 1870 Franco-Prussian War (see the Dreyfus Affair), Germany's military after World War I, Italy's military after World War I that led it down the road to fascism, Spain's military in the 1930s after the loss of their overseas empire which led in part to the 1936 coup that started the Spanish Civil War, French troops after the loss of Algeria and the attempted coup d'tat, and the U.S. military after the Vietnam War.
In these cases, a myth developed that it was the civilian leadership who undermined the noble military, either through incompetence or treason. If China lost a war over Taiwan, you can bet the PLA officer corps is not going to take the blame. They are going to blame the politicians. Yes, I know the top officers are all members of the CCP but the top leaders in Chinese government are not active duty military, they are civilians. Vice President Xi Jinping doesn't even have military experience. The CCP might survive a loss in a Taiwan War, but the civilian leadership would not.
Oh definitely,
But it is also necessary. how can you ask men to risk their lives for their country if they know that they will be blamed and scrutinized if they failed?
D-Day succeeded in large because Eisenhower so successfully fooled the Germans into thinking the landings were occurring much further north.
Even then, at Utah beach where the most defenses were in Normandy facing that particular landing, the landings suffered very significant casualties and were in question for some time.
The same type of things will occur in any landing attempted by the PRC.
It will not be a cake walk. the ROC Navy and Air Force have been preparing for this scenario for decades and you can bet they will have a lot of planes and ships that survive and are able to contest the air space and the landings.
If they can hold out long enough and the US intervenes, it becomes a very questionable gambit for the PRC.
I personally believe it becomes even worse if the PRC goes all out with an attempted surprise and hits the ROC and US forces in the area pre-emptively.
That will embolden the US into a much longer and broader war.
As I say, let's hope it does not come to that.
I believe the PRC is banking on the continuing economic growth that is drawing the two sides closer together anyway, and that that will eventually lead to a cleaner, politcal solution that all can agree to. That would be best for all involved.
Like I say, we can all hope that time and change within both nations, and, IMHO, particularly within the PRC as economic prosperity brings a desire for more liberties for the individual (which IMHO is already happening to some extent anyway) that a peaceful reunification occurs at some point in the future.
RollingWave
New Member
the D-day style attack is almost impossible unless they're totally sure the US will chicken out (and that is unlikely and a political issue). once mobilzied Taiwan's defense concentration is ridiculas and combined with limited landing area and the likely desire to avoid totally leveling Taiwan to the ground in the process. the ENTIRE PLA doesn't out number a totally mobilized ROC army by that much. let alone the typical number usually suggeste for amphibious assualts.
More over, d-day took 6 month to prepare, assuming that the PLA would need at least a few month to prepare as well, the US would haev sailed all their fleet to the area already by the time they're ready, and could even land troops into taiwan itself, (not to meantion supply additional weapons, as was the case in Kinmen in the 50s)
The Surprise scence is what we worry about more, though it is also very unlikely for a few reason, for one, the PLA's capacity to move troops across the strait with no pre-mobilization is very limited at best. (and obviously any signs of mobilzation would have set off alarms already). The most likely usable troops would be it's two marine brigades (6000 each). most are stationed in Zhejian province.
Sailing out several thousand folks (espeically with heavy equipment) would already be a major sign of alarm, but let's assume that the PLA can sail half of them out at night or something and then launch the surprise attack, there would still be a time lag between the strike and the landing, paratroopers are extremely risky since in this situation it is very unlikely you knock out 100% of the anti air capacity. and again Taiwan's a small place with no obvious place to hide (unless you throw them into the deep mountains, but that's pretty pointless)
So all in all, your talking about maybe being able to throw 12000 men onto Taiwan within short notice at best, that' a very very high risk operation even if it's US marine vs Taliban.
Yes, that's the general premise and what most so called "pro china" folks in taiwan are banking on as well, that as China gets richer it would be less authoritarian and in the end either they don't care that much of total unification or we reach a settlement that everyone would be happy with.