Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    I would imagine PLA is just biding their time - Taiwan has been a sore spot for them for decades, waiting a few more years does not seem like a big deal, and momentum is on their side. With the current trends, they'll overtake US economically before long, and have a robust network of allies or vassals to draw upon, if necessary, within a decade. At the same time, US is becoming more isolationist and prone to infighting, so the odds of them intervening on behalf of Taiwan are slimmer and slimmer.

    If, on the other hand, their economy grinds to a halt and the trends reverse - and US will once again be ascendant, then they might try something to secure a victory over Taiwan before the divide between them and US grows larger, and international intervention are more likely.
    Even if you are right, China still has several years more to go before they have the ability to mount a successful amphibious invasion of Taiwan. It does not matter that China has a population of 1.4 billion and standing military of 3 million. The only thing that matters is how many troops they can put on Taiwanese beaches.

    Currently China has 8 A-071 landing crafts. Five in operation and 3 being outfitted. Each capable of carrying 600 – 800 troops. Those troops will need armored support. China has 3 A-075 helicopter/tank landing crafts. Two in operation and one being outfitted.

    To put it into perspective, the Allies used over 800 landing crafts in Normandy and their landing force outnumbered the defender by more than 3 to 1. The Chinese will be facing at least three times that with 10 times the fire power. The Taiwanese also has the advantage of defending an expanse of beach head a fraction of Normandy with much more advantageous geographical terrain. The German had 2 years to fortify the beaches. Taiwan had 60 years. Also, the German thought that Allies will land in Calais so it was the most heavily fortified region. Not Normandy.

  2. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Fortunately, since WWII, nobody has been crazy enough to mount another large scale amphibious naval assault
    Just like Armenia weathered Azeri airstrikes? Do not contest airspace (Taiwan can't contest it for long. I really hope you do not think they can), hide in bunkers and hope that your AA and EW can keep enemy off? Yeah, right... You have lost the war the moment you have lost the air. Taiwan cannot realistically counterattack across the straits, even with ballistic missiles, those are likely to be used on beachheads instead.
    Also, only specific bunkers will be fortified and deep enough to survive modern ammunitions, certainly not weapons emplacements.
    Once more, this is not WW2. The average soldier squad is much more capable now compared to that war, so is the equipment.

    As for missile count - good old internet and realistic thinking. Launcher count is more important anyway, most of those are either on trucks or on ships (mostly old and/or small, likely first to go as the priority targets). Harpoons are also not exactly cutting edge (subsonic, after all...), I wonder how indigenous ones compare.

    Taiwan has no strategic depth. Whole country is reachable from bases deep inside China, whether missile or airforce ones. There is also limited territory to retreat and organize counterattack.

    Something has to be noted - China cannot commit everything, of course. Still needs forces at Indian border, something kept in reserve in case USA intervenes, and so on. Even then with just a 1/3 of capacity Taiwan is seriously outgunned. For example, China has definitive advantage in AWAC's aircraft. Another point are submarines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Even if you are right, China still has several years more to go before they have the ability to mount a successful amphibious invasion of Taiwan. It does not matter that China has a population of 1.4 billion and standing military of 3 million. The only thing that matters is how many troops they can put on Taiwanese beaches.
    Your mistake is that you think China would only use the military landing crafts. Securing initial beached, sure, but if that succeeds (let's see after a week of nonstop ballistic missile and air strikes what is left to contest it) they will have huge requisitioned civilian fleet at their disposal. You also forget paratroopers, which can come into play after AA is supressed.
    Once more, this is not WW2. Some things apply, some stopped long time ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  3. #183
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post

    If America was serious about containing China they would focus on limiting the power of global conglomerates because they are the ones giving them the keys to the kingdom.
    Since what counts as American hyper power is basically their committed servicing of capital I wouldn't fucking bet on it.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanoDruid View Post
    Snip
    Your points seem to boil down to the UK and US have blood on their hands, therefore China does nothing wrong, and it is wrong to criticise them for anything.

    This is just rank CCP apologism. The US genocide of the Native Americans does not make the Uighur genocide ok. We live in a world where we can condemn both. The world is not black and white. Countries can do bad things and good things at the same time. This mad idea you have that China does some good, therefore it is all good, doesn't hold up to any kind of logical interrogation.

    Your posts in here make your sig hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gelannerai View Post


    Remember, legally no one sane takes Tucker Carlson seriously.

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Your mistake is that you think China would only use the military landing crafts. Securing initial beached, sure, but if that succeeds (let's see after a week of nonstop ballistic missile and air strikes what is left to contest it) they will have huge requisitioned civilian fleet at their disposal. You also forget paratroopers, which can come into play after AA is supressed.
    Once more, this is not WW2. Some things apply, some stopped long time ago.
    I'd like to add to the paratroopers part: they may come into play regardless of what is the AA situation on the other side. We're talking China here afterall. Regimes like that and Russia aren't so interested in the amount of troops it takes to reach their goals. Suppressing AA before sending people into the guns is more western interest in human lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    True, I was just bored and tired but you are correct.

    Last edited by Thwart; Today at 05:21 PM. Reason: Infracted for flaming
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post
    millennials were the kids of the 9/11 survivors.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Azadina View Post
    I'd like to add to the paratroopers part: they may come into play regardless of what is the AA situation on the other side. We're talking China here afterall. Regimes like that and Russia aren't so interested in the amount of troops it takes to reach their goals. Suppressing AA before sending people into the guns is more western interest in human lives.
    China, in the modern warfare, never had to attack another country, so it's difficult to know how they would reach their goals. Russia on the other hand occupied Crimea without a single shot fired, so again, it's hard to know how they would act. But it seems you already know everything in advance.

    And you have to rephrase your last sentence about 'western interest in human lives'. Victims of Afghanistan and Pakistan drone strikes as well as people in Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Syria would definitely argue on that point of view of yours.
    Last edited by alkyd; 2021-07-19 at 07:40 AM.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by alkyd View Post
    China, in the modern warfare, never had to attack another country, so it's difficult to know how they would reach their goals. Russia on the other hand occupied Crimea without a single shot fired, so again, it's hard to know how they would act. But it seems you already know everything in advance.

    And you have to rephrase your last sentence about 'western interest in human lives'. Victims of Afghanistan and Pakistan drone strikes as well as people in Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Syria would definitely argue on that point of view of yours.
    Yeah, Russia on the other hand downplayed and denied it's eastern Ukraine casualties even being from it's armed forces. Syria? Couple hundred wiped out in single fight against US forces, and again, Russia's reaction is to downplay, call them some random rubble instead of it's own. Gives a pretty damn clear picture how little Russia cares for it's own casualties. Not even enough to publicly recognise their sacrifice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    True, I was just bored and tired but you are correct.

    Last edited by Thwart; Today at 05:21 PM. Reason: Infracted for flaming
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post
    millennials were the kids of the 9/11 survivors.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Azadina View Post
    I'd like to add to the paratroopers part: they may come into play regardless of what is the AA situation on the other side. We're talking China here afterall. Regimes like that and Russia aren't so interested in the amount of troops it takes to reach their goals. Suppressing AA before sending people into the guns is more western interest in human lives.
    As a side note.

    No military, no matter how much disregard it has for the lives of its own troops is going to throw paratroopers into AA guns. It's not a question of valuing human life, it's a question of resource allocation.

    Paratroopers are expensive and time consuming to train and equip as they are specialist troops. They use specialized equipment and are flown around in big expensive, hard to build, hard to replace airplanes that are used for other logistical purposes. Throwing them into AA guns is not a question of valuing human life, it's fucking retardation in military/logistical and economic terms. And while the Chinese can build infinite amounts of certains things, airplanes and other air mobile hardware is not one of those things, nobody can for that matter.

  9. #189
    If we are wargaming.....surely it goes :

    1) Ballistic missile bombardment
    2) Full cyber attack
    3) Full air superiority gained by PLA
    4) Full navy defeat of Taiwan + naval blockade (and capture of outer islands)
    5) Paratrooper drop secure/degrade anything left (airfields, beachheads etc)
    6) 400,000 PLA troops cross the 90 mile gap in waves.

    Pre all of this you would obvious do lots of propaganda warfare, and see what locals you could co-opt.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    As a side note.

    No military, no matter how much disregard it has for the lives of its own troops is going to throw paratroopers into AA guns. It's not a question of valuing human life, it's a question of resource allocation.

    Paratroopers are expensive and time consuming to train and equip as they are specialist troops. They use specialized equipment and are flown around in big expensive, hard to build, hard to replace airplanes that are used for other logistical purposes. Throwing them into AA guns is not a question of valuing human life, it's fucking retardation in military/logistical and economic terms. And while the Chinese can build infinite amounts of certains things, airplanes and other air mobile hardware is not one of those things, nobody can for that matter.
    I like to point out several other issues with using paratroopers.

    China has 7 brigades of airborne troops for a total of around 22,000 with maximum lift and drop capacity of 10,000. They have also shown no inclination to increase the size of their airborne division.

    I am sure that every single one of those Chinese paratroopers are badasses. You have to be in the airborne. However, ultimately, once on the ground they are basically lightly armed ground warriors with no armored support. In the case of Taiwan, they probably won’t have air support either.

    For the next point we have to go back to WW2. All the major paratrooper drops occurred in the European war theater. There were no major drops in the Pacific theater. Not in the Philippines, not in Guadalcanal, not in Okinawa. Ever wonder why?

    It boils down to one factor - terrain. A mass drop into tropical jungle environment would be very difficult to coordinate once the troops hit the ground. Taiwan has the added difficulty of being one of the most mountainous region on earth with 286 peaks exceeding 3,000 m. The Chinese paratroopers will be dispersed on foot during the drop, and have a hard time maneuvering and connecting with each other in that environment. Those cliffs will be heavily fortified and the only way for air support to reach them is by flying down into those deep gorges. Leaving them highly vulnerable to missiles.

    With the exception of Mercury, not a single major parachute operations in history managed to achieve their goals. Mercury was a victory for the German, but it cost them 5,500 troops out of 8,000 and 33% of their transport aircraft. It was so costly that for the rest of the war the German only used paratroopers as elite infantry.

    Market Garden landed largely without incident but, as I mentioned before, lightly armed troops did not do well against tanks, heavy artilleries and fortified bunkers. UK 1st Airborne Division lose 7,100 soldiers out of 9,000; US 82nd lose 1,500; US 101st lose 2,100, etc. All in all, it is estimated that Allies lose over 17,000 troops out of their 42,000 airborne troops, and 144 transport aircrafts.

    Seriously, no military in the world has performed either a major naval amphibious, nor an airborne drop, invasion in 70 years. With very good reasons.

    BTW, AA gun is pretty much dead technology. Those relatively slow transport aircrafts will be dealing with surface to air missiles. They better hope those Chinese cruise missiles and aerial bombs can take down every single one of the Taiwanese launch bases. Not a very likely scenario.

    Also, a couple hundreds anti-ship missiles is definitely a major underestimation. Taiwan has been mass producing Hsiung Feng I, II and III since 2006. A couple of thousands would a more accurate estimate.

    Infographic of Taiwanese missiles range down below. Of particular interest is the Yun Feng which started mass production in 2020. It can reach any cities in central China - Shanghai, Chongging, Shenzen, Guangzhou, etc. Beijing may still be out of range. Not sure. The range also put some of China's major dams within range. It is unlikely that a couple of cruise missiles can take out the Three Gorges Dam. However, the Mekong Dam and other smaller dams are vulnerable. How vulnerable? Second figure is map of Chinese dams.

    Taiwan only has 50 of those missiles currently. Basically gnats on an elephant's ass. For now. In another 3 - 5 years, it will be a different story.



    Last edited by Rasulis; 2021-07-19 at 06:17 PM.

  11. #191
    Aside from my armchairing here this week we had the event of USA, UK and EU basically accusing China of supporting, if not outright commanding the hacker groups involved in the recent large scale attacks (Microsoft Exchange one, for example. Patching Exchange is the most boring thing ever, thanks Xi -.-).
    China has answered that they, of course, did not do that xD
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57889981
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57898147

    Quote Originally Posted by Azadina View Post
    I'd like to add to the paratroopers part: they may come into play regardless of what is the AA situation on the other side. We're talking China here afterall. Regimes like that and Russia aren't so interested in the amount of troops it takes to reach their goals. Suppressing AA before sending people into the guns is more western interest in human lives.
    Not really. While individual soldiers and small units are more expendable than in West it generally is not like that. It honestly has never ever even been a case anywhere in the world. Soldiers are a resource. Wasting resources is not how you win a war. Paratroopers would be specialist units - more expensive than equipment they use, with years of training invested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post

    BTW, AA gun is pretty much dead technology. Those relatively slow transport aircrafts will be dealing with surface to air missiles. They better hope those Chinese cruise missiles and aerial bombs can take down every single one of the Taiwanese launch bases. Not a very likely scenario.
    That dead technology keeps evolving, as evidenced by things like CIWS or any modern IFV sporting a gun capable of engaging attack heli's.
    Mr. Khrushchev, missiles still are far from replacing everything. No one will spend 100k or more to shoot down a quadcopter drone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Aside from my armchairing here this week we had the event of USA, UK and EU basically accusing China of supporting, if not outright commanding the hacker groups involved in the recent large scale attacks (Microsoft Exchange one, for example. Patching Exchange is the most boring thing ever, thanks Xi -.-).
    China has answered that they, of course, did not do that xD
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57889981
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57898147



    Not really. While individual soldiers and small units are more expendable than in West it generally is not like that. It honestly has never ever even been a case anywhere in the world. Soldiers are a resource. Wasting resources is not how you win a war. Paratroopers would be specialist units - more expensive than equipment they use, with years of training invested.



    That dead technology keeps evolving, as evidenced by things like CIWS or any modern IFV sporting a gun capable of engaging attack heli's.
    Mr. Khrushchev, missiles still are far from replacing everything. No one will spend 100k or more to shoot down a quadcopter drone.
    I don't think we will be seeing hundreds of paratroopers dropped from a copter drone anytime soon.

    Missile Arm Race in the Pacific in response to China. Taiwan is throwing a lot of money into manufacturing long-range cruise missiles. Something that they had resisted doing in the past in order not to provoke China. Apparently they had given up on that idea. Japan and South Korea are playing the game also.


  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I don't think we will be seeing hundreds of paratroopers dropped from a copter drone anytime soon.

    Missile Arm Race in the Pacific in response to China. Taiwan is throwing a lot of money into manufacturing long-range cruise missiles. Something that they had resisted doing in the past in order not to provoke China. Apparently they had given up on that idea. Japan and South Korea are playing the game also.
    True, but it still is what I said - AA guns are far from dead tech. Ok, maybe pure AA guns, excluding CIWS, as almost everything else is multipurpose now.

    China can win that race alone against all three united. You have to understand economies of scale involved. Taiwan is by far the weakest one in that regard. This is without any fantasizing about SK and Japan finally getting over their issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    True, but it still is what I said - AA guns are far from dead tech. Ok, maybe pure AA guns, excluding CIWS, as almost everything else is multipurpose now.

    China can win that race alone against all three united. You have to understand economies of scale involved. Taiwan is by far the weakest one in that regard. This is without any fantasizing about SK and Japan finally getting over their issues.
    In a symmetrical war, in term of missiles, Taiwan is severely outgunned. However, I assume that Taiwanese generals are smart enough to recognize that and will be maximizing damage by fighting an asymmetrical war. They will be looking maximize damage with their limited number of land cruise missiles.

    Fortunately for them, China has over 24,000 high damage strike targets called dams. The number go up to 87,000 when you also count the medium and small dams. The gravity dams, such as Three Gorges dam, should be safe. Gravity dams are almost impossible to breach. However, the arch and buttress dams, especially those built during the 1950 through 1980 Soviet era, are highly vulnerable. The tallest Chinese dam (Jinping-I) is an arch dam. A Yunfeng rocket carrying a 500-kg payload will go through it like paper. Zhexi, a 104 m dam built in 1960, is a buttress dam. A single strike at one of the buttress, and the water pressure and weight of the dam will finish the job.

    The PLA recognize this also.

    Once again, how vulnerable are the Chinese to dam failure. The answer very.

    China Blasts Dam To Divert Massive Flooding That Has Killed At Least 25

    How much damage can Taiwan inflict on China. The answer more than China could damage Taiwan short of China nuking Taiwan.

    The largest dam failure that the world and most of China's current generation never heard of was Banqiao Dam. It was completed in 1952. On August 8, 1975, typhoon Nina caused the dam to collapse. Killing 85,000 instantly and 230,000 from flooding and the resulting epidemics and famine. Although the disaster is thought to be the deadliest of its kind anywhere in the world, it’s not common knowledge even inside China. When the dam broke, the Communist Party’s control of the media was near absolute. The government kept news of the disaster from being broadcast nationally, and there hadn’t been any international observers present.

    Imagine 100 to 200 dams the equivalent of Banqiao failing at the same time.

    Then there is the cascade effect. A minor irrigation dam failed in Inner Mongolia which lead to the failure of another downstream dam. Total damage 160 km of major highway completely undermined, 22 bridges destroyed and 21,000 hectares of farmland under water.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2021-07-22 at 03:54 AM.

  15. #195
    China posted a Video Threatening War because The Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso said "Tokyo must defend Taiwan"





    Last edited by szechuan; 2021-07-22 at 04:18 AM.
    Americans are the Chinese of the west. The main reason people tolerate them is because they are too big to ignore.

    "Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack." - Roger Stone (Trump's Friend, Ally, and Campaign Advisor)

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    snip
    cmon dont post falun gong cult shit here buddy

  17. #197
    Now as a distraction from all military shitposting and Falun Gong bullshit, one of "CCP shills" confesses to being funded by CCP:

    Last edited by MechanoDruid; 2021-07-22 at 06:55 AM.
    "Those who can convince you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities." ~Voltaire
    I feel the above truly reflect what is happening in the US and its allies, or has been happening for some time.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanoDruid View Post
    Now as a distraction from all military shitposting and Falun Gong bullshit, one of "CCP shills" confesses to being funded by CCP:

    So if China is the new land of freedom, they won't try to invade Taiwan ? Could we talk about Tibet btw ?

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    So if China is the new land of freedom, they won't try to invade Taiwan ? Could we talk about Tibet btw ?
    Why "talk about"? This is exactly why so many people are brainwashed. All they do is "talk about", spreading rumours, misinformation and blatant propaganda.

    How about actually showing it? I don't mean showing someone "talking about" it, I mean showing it by actually visiting regions.

    Few videos to educate you:



    I know, they are all from the same YouTuber, from the same visit. But some of them are footage from live steams, which counters any "it was edited and approved by CCP!!" bullshit.

    There are more videos from that visit if you want to educate yourself.

    You are welcome to find videos showing (not talking about, but actually showing!) the opposite.
    "Those who can convince you to believe absurdities can convince you to commit atrocities." ~Voltaire
    I feel the above truly reflect what is happening in the US and its allies, or has been happening for some time.

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by MechanoDruid View Post
    Why "talk about"? This is exactly why so many people are brainwashed. All they do is "talk about", spreading rumours, misinformation and blatant propaganda.

    How about actually showing it? I don't mean showing someone "talking about" it, I mean showing it by actually visiting regions.

    Few videos to educate you:



    I know, they are all from the same YouTuber, from the same visit. But some of them are footage from live steams, which counters any "it was edited and approved by CCP!!" bullshit.

    There are more videos from that visit if you want to educate yourself.

    You are welcome to find videos showing (not talking about, but actually showing!) the opposite.
    So the guy is based in China, lived there, even own a society there and you want me to believe he is doing all that from "good will" from inside a dictatorship ? Would be like asking someone from North Korea what he is thinking about his Supreme leader. Same credibility.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •