Now I'm sorry if I had offended you but I just cannot understand your reasonings. They seems to be taken out from computergames and generally build around the logic "if it can be this, then it can also be this". I'm not angry, but frustrated becouse I've earned the label of "racist anti-PRC moderator" when trying to bang reason to others with similar argumentings.
I have no idea of your backround or past service expereinces but it seems that you have slept many valuable lections regarding even the very basics of military theory (not to mention about practise). I hate to continue this silly quote rally but I will point out few of the biggest nonsense that you've posted.
The purpose of ARMs is to take out radar sites. With Taiwan the big key would be taking out the long-range radars and air defense radars, particularly those for the Patriots. There is not a very large number of such targets. Those sites could also be targeted by other PGMs so as to insure their destruction.
Yeas ARMs purpose is to take out radar sites, just as ATGMs are supposed to take out tanks. Do you think that when you automaticly have X number of ARMs you can take out X number of radar sites? Or with Y number of ATGMs you can take out Y number of tanks? It works pretty well in Red Alert 2 but not in
real life. Thus its funny when you keep saying that I'm focusing on technological aspects when yourself have shown nothing more than simple schoolkid reasoning based on technical aspects that you can find form Wikipedia.
Where are those large forces all deployed?
To awnser your question about ROCA deployment first you need to let go the idea that in your mind the reasonable location is where they are most infafourable to the Taiwanese defence. Thats like assuming that when you play hockey, you expect that the team against you will propaply just standing idle and waits for the buck to fall upon them and not trying to do the fencing movments.
Where are ROC forces deployed? I dont know, no one does (ecxept those Taiwanese officers making those plans) and thats the whole point of basic military strategies. I've never been in Taiwan so I wont go estimate fafourable positions over map alone. Thats possiple only for local people. But give me those troops and lets pretend we can cut a Taiwan size piece of land from finland and I will show you where the troops would be grouped when defending against enemy Landings.
Taiwan is hardly over 100 km wide and 360 km of lenght. Its hardly nothing. In rough generalization you have one army corps around 50 km spectrum of any given landing site. And in reality as there are only few place where beaching assaults can be made, there are basicly two army corps minium per beaching site (plus reserves). And as the chinese theoretical beaching capability is only able to transport a one brigade without its equipment, you can count the odds by yourself.
Taiwan is so small, that its completely idiotic to think that there wont be troops defending just that spot or that it would somehow take time to reinforcements to arrive.
Except you ignore the primary point: time and numbers. How many ROCA troops can be sent to that beachhead? How long will it take? If it takes a few hours, they could already have built up their numbers several times and have 10,000 troops there. They may have seized airfields and towns and already be conducting regular resupply missions. They may already have armor and artillery by the time any ROCA forces make it there.
Here's one of the biggest nonsense. In hours almoust the whole ROCA could be throwed against the beachhead. But that chinese could douple it troops in few hours? With what? Starship Enterprize? Lets do some basic math shall we?
The bulk of chinese landing force have maxium speed of around 13 knots. Thats 24 km/h. The Taiwan strait is roughly 200 Km wide. So how long does this landing fleet take for oneway trip?
200 km / 24 km/h= 8.3 h / 6 points
...So when the first assault force is landed it takes alone 8 hours to those ships to get back to their bases (and lets pretend that the ROCN wont do nothing for the courtesy sake). I don't know how long does it takes to reload ships with new equipments but if it takes several hours to load a 3/4 of artillery battalion to traincarriages, I assume that it takes at least 2-3 hours to load new set of equipment and mens to the landing ships. Its now 11 hours since the first landing force arrived. Without further math it can be said that in theoretical conditions the reinforcements will arrive minium of 19-20 hours after the first beaching.
Do you know what happens to that hardly a brigade size unit in 20 hours?
Taking out villages and towns...my ass if I may say.
If they can't deploy a counter-attack within hours they can't stop the PLA from building up the necessary armor and artillery they need.
The counter attack arrives pretty much around the same time as the first PLA marines sets their foot to the dry land. I personally would allow the main bulk of the first assault to get ashore, keeping asure that they wont go anywhere and just shout fire and pull the handle....
I'm not sure how you could divine any of what you said from anything I've stated, I assume you're just blowing smoke because you're mad. I understand that airborne troops and amphibious troops are going to be lightly armed and have little armor support or anything else as extensive. I also understand that much of Taiwan's armor and artillery is horridly dated. What's further I know that there are substantial deployments of artillery on Kinmen, meaning the amount positioned on Taiwan is going to be much less than what they have. Also, I know that it's not going to necessarily be deployed in the central coastal areas of Taiwan in significant force.
Now comes the winner....Do you have any idea of artillery dispositioning in general? Do you have any idea how artillery is used and to which purpose?
Artillery is organic fire support branch of any normal infatry unit above regiment size. That means that every regiment, brigade or division has a organic artillery unit (depends the size of the mainunit, usually a battalion inside the regiment and a regiment inside the division or brigade)
Alongside the divisional organic artillery, army corps or army groups usually have artillery divisions directly for the theatre commanders usage.
So regardless of the ammount artillery deployed into single iland, it wont have no effect on the main artillery numbers being deployed against the chinese in the first place. Organic artillery has standart ammout of tubes to simplify the C & C pf the artillery units. The artillery placed in other locations are never toughted to be used in the main units disposal.
Morale isn't a poltical issue in it of itself. It's a tactical issue. Not having committed and loyal forces can ruin any attempt at defending or attacking a position. The fact that much of the ROCA is compulsory goes to their effectiveness in battle. It also has an impact on their training. With a compulsory service and the size of the military it essentially makes detailed high-quality training financially unsound. So, they are not going to be trained on the level as even standard PLA troops, let alone being close on a qualitative level to Chinese marines or airborne troops, who would receive much more intense training.
I found this comment of yours offensive. I've served myself in "compulsory" army and I can assure you that it has nothing to do with the level of the training. Thats dependable on totally different factors. I've myself have been trained not only to standart infantry work but to operate and master two complex artillery system, other having high set of complicated electronics and other machinery. I know I cannot speak of Taiwanese training as I've never expereinced it but if its poor and inefective, it has nothing to do with the conscription nature of it.
You assuming that PLA troops are better trained? Where do you base this claim? Have you expereinced that training? Or have you served alongside PLA troops or ROCA troops for that matter to make such a claim?
*yawn* Yes. I do know. I also know that the Chinese are better on a tactical level than the Taiwanese.
Then why haven't you shown single evidence of this and more making comments that clearly reveals the opposite? And this comment "Chinese are better in tactical level"...Again its based on what? Your own expereince? Or denial? non-understanding? Or is it simply becouse Mainland chinese are better than Taiwanese?
Amazing. You make it sound like you're talking about "tactics", "doctrine", and "training", but you somehow started talking about technology, again.
Technology? I'm speaking about doctrines. I'm speaking about the fact that WWII style beaching landings are obsolent and harardious in modern combat enviroment. I'm speaking about how large paradrops with heavy equipment are obsolent (and actually never was a fruitfull solution). You seem to lack not only in the understandment of modern warfare but in reading comprehension as well.
Your biggest fault is the lack understandment that every single equipment is tied to the doctrines and tacktics it's used. All military equipments are designed to serve in its own role in those tactics. For example I mentioned tank landingships as they are directly related to the amphibious assault doctrines. If a countrys naval landing fleet is mainly build around LST it means that its main landing doctrine and strategy is to use those ships in the sole role that is possiple to them, a amphibious landing in the WWII beaching style. Or that D-30 used with paratroopers means that the airmobile units have a organic artillery of the level of similar size standart infantry units. Thats only possiple if your airbrone unit is supposed to follow the doctrine of heavy airlanding in the manners of Soviet Union. And when I specially mention the D-30 it means that the airbrone units are tied to use Airlandings if they wish to have their fire support units with in their disposal. D-30 cannot be airdropped and it cannot be transported by any helicopter china posses.
But now I speak form technological aspects when I say that its sad to see that chinese are selecting D-30 for the use of any unit that requires fast deploying and easy to use artillery. Good thing is that finally china is transforming its orcanic artillery from WWII era to 60's technology...too bad that its just for the wrong troops.
And there we get a bridge to the airmobile units themself. You seem to think that they are the miracle cure for all the shortcommins of the amphibious landings. But in reality they aren't.
The small size of Taiwan means that infact all possiple airstrips and landingzones are surveyed and knowed by the defender. The short distances means that where ever the airdrops are made, they will face Taiwanese troops ready to deal with them.
Paratroopers usefulness in warfare where both opponets are similary fielded are narrowed to large theatre operations where you can send them far behind the enemy lines and cause havoc to rear units, mainly to suply. They are still not intended to move the balance, only to supplement the main force as all special forces are tought to be. They don't solve wars, they just helps you. Soviet VDV was 10 times larger and more heavily armed than the current Chinese paratroopers and they weren't tought to survive behind NATO lines for long. The strong armament speaks for this estimation as they were given theoretical changes to break free to own lines or hold their gorund long enough.
In Taiwans case this cannot be possiple due the short distances. They are surrounded form the outset and it wont take marvels to completely ensiege them and destroy them to the last man.
In facto Chinese invasion (existing only in the minds like yourself) of Taiwan is solely based on "special forces" and to the assumption that the small and inferior marine corps would be able to hold the beach ends long enough that secure routes and bridge-end is formed for the main army units to arrive. Its only supply route is the sea or the air and only theoretical reinforcements are basicly those highly praised airbrone units.
Those troops have no fire support required for such a large units to be able to do anything offensive or defensive matters. Unlike you may have learned from Battlefield 2, the infantry with light weapons and light armoured vehicles are mented for manuvering. The fact that actually makes that possiple is the destroing of enemy's ability to prevent it is made possiple by the fire support units of your troops, eg. artillery. You cannot win single battle without it.
To think that a size of single army corps without any of its heavy equipment is able to hold long and even manovre against the ROC defence is simply childish. Its not based on any reason or logic other than the one spreading around kids in military forums. Its based on ignoring all other factors aside the performance of single independent equipments without even understanding what they are mented to do. Its reflection of one and only thing, childish thinking. You don't have to be ex-armymen, you only need bit wider perspective and the knowing that nothing is black and white.
As for endnote, I strongly suggest to leave the matter if you are arguing only for the agruing's sake. Othervise it could be considered as a flaming...
