War game scenario's

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Please don't take this wrongly, I feel you have many good points in this discussion and I've learned considerably from all sides, but I'm simply saying that in War Game scenarios it does no good to write off one side as simply incompetent or unwilling. Doing such simply makes the hypothetical unrealistic and pointless in a serious analysis of the situation. If it seems I'm biased against your scenario, it's nothing personal or nationalistic.

Ahem to that. Wargames are by nature a bit silly things, and to have any meaning to them you need to be objective to all factors. The mentioned scenario wants to PRC to succee so it is written in that way, highligthing all favorable aspects to the goal and simply passing all the negative ones.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Yeah, that was noted quite awhile ago. It does point out once more than Taiwan's military doctrine is now completely based on defending the island from Chinese aggression, as opposed to a "retaking" of the mainland.

Wasn't sure because of Golle's list. But certainly focus in being put on central defence now. Indeed I wonder if a landing on Kinmen would be opposed at all if there was enough time to evacuate the troops there. Penghu probably would be defended though, as it's much closer to Taiwan.

You cannot simply look at the size of the pan-blue alliance in Taiwan and conclude that all of them are pro-unification.

Absolutely. Although one might be forgiven for thinking unification/independence is the most important part of the public's political motivations, it actually isn't. There isn't much need for Taiwanese to force the issue now, given Taiwan does enjoy effective independence. So domestic issues are far more important.

Even for those that do want unification, they want it on their terms. The KMT want China to become a multi-party democracy before it can happen at all (probably because they don't trust the CCP to keep their side of the bargain indefinitely if they have absolute power). A successful Chinese military invasion means they would have zero ability to negotiate over their future. Would they bank on China being completely gracious and not reserving the right to meddle in Taiwanese affairs when it pleased them? No way - for one thing they have a good example in Hong Kong as to what Beijing will do if it has the opportunity. So it would be in their best interests to fight, or at least not co-operate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Macbeth

New Member
Being pan blue doesnt necessarily mean wanting reunification but it certainly means they are not favor of the pan green. Riots break out after every major election no matter who wins. A red movement in Taiwan signaled just how much the Pan Blue opposes Chen. If Chen forces the issue, there is no way the Pan blue would want to die on his behalf even if they oppose reunification.

The PRC could march in put the Pan Blue in power, walk out and call it a day. One country two systems is largely semantics. It can simply be regime change while still keeping the name ROC intact.

As for the wargame scenarios, its not a surprise the military in Taiwan doesnt expect to win. They never really have expected to win. Thats why they depended on the Taiwan US mutual security agreement. And when that was quietly left to die, the China lobby in Taiwan quickly asked for a watered down agreement in the form of the Taiwan relations act. And I agree, wargames are largely silly things. Trying to evaluate a win lose scenario is largely hypothetical. Sort of like suggesting one soccor team is likely to beat another on Tuesday. But then why have this discussion in the first place? We already know what the Taiwan military thinks, the rest is simply our non-professional opinions on the matter.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Well I think that what people think about any Taiwan scenario depends on certain assumptions that people make as to whether or not certain things are possible, like the ROCAF being wiped from the skies quickly. I would think that is not possible and have reasons to back that up. Vlad would think that is possible and has reasons to back that up. Now something most of us understand is that military operations and warfare is subject to so many different forces, including dumb luck, that outcomes cannot really be predicted.

Anyway I will AGAIN state what I believe is something that CAN be almost concretely stated about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Of course this is really based on my assumptions about this scenario but to me it makes perfect sense. With a legitimate threat of US intervention in the war, Taiwan has a fighting chance, even a sizeable advantage. But if the US does not intervene and it is obvious that they will not intervene, Taiwan has no chance.

If there is no possibility of US intervention to force the Chinese to mount a massive and quick assault (something they really don't have the ability to do but would have to try because of the "ticking clock") then China could simply do what Vlad explained: blockade, attack outlying islands, use attrition on the ROCAF and force a political solution when the fuel ran out.

If the Chinese leadership believes that it is likely for the US to intervene they have to try to land a large force on the island and crush most resistance before the US can get carriers to the area. Now that would be almost impossible considering other assets the USN/AF could use (SSN, SSGNs, B-2, B-52s, B-1s, F-22s) to delay the Chinese before the carriers arrived. But another possible scenario is debate or vacillation by US leadership, in which case it would still essentially be ROC vs. PRC. I think everyone understands what I'm saying.

So now we must look at what this thread is really about, a Chinese attempt at a major landing on Taiwan. Simply put it cannot be done. Why?

1. Chinese transport capabilites: Gollevainen went over this ad nausem. The PLAN cannot get enough troops on the island quick enough to resist a counterattack on an unsecured beachead. On Omaha Beach, 2 days after the initial landings, there were still German occupied bunkers firing on the Allies. So when the counterattack comes, the Chinese will not be ready, and I find it unlikely that they will have been able to reinforce it (with diminished transport capabilites because of casualties) more than once if at all.

2. Chinese Airborne Troops vs. Taiwanese Defenders: Chinese Airborne troops will be lightly armed, unsupported, forced to defend all sides and will be in combat from the second they take off. ROCAF and SAM units will target the transports, and when they hit the ground they will probably be confronted with low-order reserve units (isn't it called the Freedom Corps in Taiwan-that's what I'm thinking of, or some other National Guard type unit) followed by regiment sized RRU units carried in Clould Leopard AFVs and supported by lighter tanks. Against this will be arrayed-what, 3000 spread out lightly armed paratroopers. These troops could could probably hold out for days but I doubt they could actually capture much territory. And reinforcing will be difficult; landing helicopters and dropping troops directly into the confused 360 degree battle Chinese paratroopers would be facing would be a casualty heavy process, especially with Taiwanese Avengers on the prowl.

3. PLAAF vs. ROCAF: I don't doubt that a PLAAF/2nd Artillery attack on the ROCAF at the very beginning of an invasion attempt would do damage. So the ROCAF would be at a disadvatage from the begining. But if the ROCAF is alerted to possible PLAAF action, as would be likely, the effects would not be nearly as heavy as many claim. Given the state of present PLAAF ability I believe it is very possible for the ROCAF to have quite a few planes in the air ready to meet a 2nd wave of attakers and/or escorted airborne transports. With 400 fighters,the ability to use higways as runways and more AMRAAMs on the way, the ROCAF has the ability fight for days and even use its Harpoons against a PLAN Amphib fleet as they would have to put to see very quickly to take full advantage of the aid provided by Airborne drops etc. The PLAAF vs. ROCAF situation is very similar to the RAF vs. Luftwaffe situation in 1940-its essentially up to the pilots and commanders.

So to me it seems almost impossible for China to quickly push aside the ROCAF and ROCN and land enough troops to resist a counterattack while all the while the are LOSING strength because of ships sunk, airplanes shot down, missles used etc.

However without the threat of US intervention Chinese victory is inevitable because they can take away the defenders advantage from the Taiwanese and wait it out.
 

Macbeth

New Member
Right, for the ROC military its pretty much a 3 day to 3 week scenario. Their profesional opinion on the subject is not very positive. Most professional Taiwan wargame scenarios showed Taiwan not being able to hold out for long.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Being pan blue doesnt necessarily mean wanting reunification but it certainly means they are not favor of the pan green.

That doesn't mean they would help PRC invaders, or just let them walk in to spite the DPP. Being attacked by an external force is normally an excellent way to unite different political groups, or at least cause enough movement of support to the government to secure its position.

If Chen forces the issue, there is no way the Pan blue would want to die on his behalf even if they oppose reunification.

Why? If the alternative is to loose their democracy (which almost certainly would happen, because China wouldn't fight a war only to let Taiwan elect another pro-Taiwan party) they may well fight, even if provocative steps were taken in Taipei.

The PRC could march in put the Pan Blue in power, walk out and call it a day.

There is no way they could do that! The PRC would have to forever maintain a large, armed prescence in Taiwan if it wanted to maintain control. Removing a Pan Green administration would not be sufficient, because there wouldn't be anything to stop the people voting another one back in. Taiwanese wouldn't sit back and accept another KMT dictatorship led by a bunch of quislings.
 

Macbeth

New Member
Its not an external force, not any more external than North Vietnam marching into South Vietnam, a region that an indigenous Vietnam leadership hadnt governed for a hundred years.

You can still have democracy without voting for a secessionist leader. Japan's first presidential candidate after the second world war was taken off the Ballots because he was antiamerican.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Its not an external force, not any more external than North Vietnam marching into South Vietnam, a region that an indigenous Vietnam leadership hadnt governed for a hundred years.

South Vietnam was run by a fairly unpleasant regime that didn't have much support from its population. Vietnam had been a French colony, until it was divided - there was little time for people in the South to develop a distinct identity.

On the other hand, Taiwan is a functioning multi-party democracy and has been run separately from China for well over half a century. So you cannot compare the two at all - China is an external force in the eyes of most Taiwanese.

You can still have democracy without voting for a secessionist leader.

Yeah, and who gets to decide who is "secessionist" and not? China. It would just be an excuse to block any candidates who weren't PRC-shills. Even pro-Taiwan KMT members would probably be in trouble. You can't have democracy in any scenario where Beijing had veto control over Taiwanese candidates.
 

Clouded Leopard

Junior Member
1. Any war between China and the USA would be extremely costly in terms of losses on both sides, in ships, aircraft, and men.


Why? As long as the US managed to prevent Chinese forces from striking the aircraft carriers (defended by Aegis and sub escorts), and with stealth fighters to achieve air superiority early on, it's conceivable that the U.S. military could get away with 100 casualties or less.
 

Macbeth

New Member
Distinict identity? South Vietnam completely lost its indigenous writing structure. To this day they still write in the French Alphabet.

Changing the constitution from ROC to ROT would be a good sign that he's a secessionist.
 
Top