Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnysensible View Post
    drone strikes vs defenders = a bad time.
    China is not the only one experimenting with suicide drones.

    China's Nightmare: Why Is Taiwan Building Kamikaze Drones?

  2. #162
    China will not risk an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. If they do decide to press their claims militarily, they will simply blockade it until their supplies run out and the island surrenders. Without being able to export any of its products, or import anything, the best they can hope for is a tiny trickle of resources coming from aid supplies delivered by US airdrops and/or rare supply ships that do manage to get through blockade.

    Taiwan does not have the resources to break any blockade that China decides to impose on them, and the world/US lacks the determination and incentive to do anything decisive about it, short of some token attempts to get aid through. After all, cooperation with China is more valuable than Taiwan to most Western consumers, and as long as China does not press its claims outside of Asia, the rest of the world at large does not give a shit.

    An open military confrontation over Taiwan is too risky to all parties involved - China might lose face and suffer a significant set back internally if their military efforts fail, and US will certainly face a complete collapse of the international order that it worked so hard to build if it tries to intervene militarily and suffers a defeat due to Chinese anti-ship capabilities.

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    China will not risk an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. If they do decide to press their claims militarily, they will simply blockade it until their supplies run out and the island surrenders. Without being able to export any of its products, or import anything, the best they can hope for is a tiny trickle of resources coming from aid supplies delivered by US airdrops and/or rare supply ships that do manage to get through blockade.

    Taiwan does not have the resources to break any blockade that China decides to impose on them, and the world/US lacks the determination and incentive to do anything decisive about it, short of some token attempts to get aid through. After all, cooperation with China is more valuable than Taiwan to most Western consumers, and as long as China does not press its claims outside of Asia, the rest of the world at large does not give a shit.

    An open military confrontation over Taiwan is too risky to all parties involved - China might lose face and suffer a significant set back internally if their military efforts fail, and US will certainly face a complete collapse of the international order that it worked so hard to build if it tries to intervene militarily and suffers a defeat due to Chinese anti-ship capabilities.
    That's a more realistic scenario than amphibious invasion. Will the world stand aside while China blockade Taiwan? Not sure. Taiwan is responsible for two-third of the global foundry production. Not to mention the world only source of 3-, 4- and 5-nanometer chips. Cutting off access to that will be devastating to the world's economy.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2021-07-16 at 05:38 PM.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The US still has dozens of amphibious assault ships. Would the US military ever consider an amphibious attack? Only if they have no other choice. History has shown that against an informed and prepared defender, the casualties during an amphibious attack is staggering. The advantage is with the defender. Taiwan had 60 years to prepare against a Chinese invasion.

    The last major US military amphibious operation was Inchon, South Korea in 1950. The attack involved around 300 naval vessels and the US caught the North Korean by surprise. Otherwise it could have turned very bad for McArthur. There will be no surprise attack across the Taiwanese Strait.

    The battle of Okinawa inflicted heavy casualties in term of both men and equipment. The US lost12 destroyers, 15 amphibious ships, 9 support ships, and 386 ships were damaged.

    D-day involved 7,000 ships and the first wave of troops at Omaha Beach suffered in excess of 50%, some divisions up to 90%, casualties.

    That was facing World War II weaponry such as rifles, machine guns and unguided artillery. Not modern smart weapons. No land-based anti-ship guided missiles. No sub-sonic cruise missiles. During the Falkland War, Argentine sank British ships with Exocet missiles. The most antiquated missiles in Taiwan arsenal are leaps and bounds more advanced than Argentine's Exocets.
    You are comparing WW2 experience against modern realities. Even Falkland war was 40 years ago, where jets made close bomb runs against ships and both sides were badly managed. Times have changed. Taiwan has prepared, but for the wealth they have they could have prepared much better, even with the unwilingness of the world to sell them weapons. Israel would be a good example for them to take heed of.
    I will ask again - do you or anyone else really expects 23 million to win against 1.4 billion/2nd economy? It does not matter if China suffers heavy losses, as long as they win it will be forgotten.

    P.S.
    You said 6k missiles. There is one big but in that - that number includes all types, not just anti ship missiles - AAM, AGM, SAM's, etc. IIRC Taiwan has ~couple hundred of anti-ship ones, with even less launchers. They would need a lot of luck for big enough number to survive until actual landing attempts. And it is hard to survive when enemy air forces outnumber yours a few times and overall are more advanced and diverse...
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    *snip*
    Quite a few people here think china is ok with absorbing not only the instant losses of an invasion of taiwan, but also the residual ones, which will be FAR more damaging. At best, they could hope to retain a strained partnership with SOME of the world, but a good number of us would simply regard them as persona non grata. Why do people even think they are the ONLY country in the world who can build shit? World did just fine without their manufacturing for most of our existence and we can do it again. Taiwan is only a pointless honor chip china wants and if they really go for it, their position in the world will suffer an utter collapse.

    World can do just fine without china, regardless of what some people like to think or say. The war/fight will be devastating, but countries have built up from devastation before. USA has not really experienced this and that´s probably why people there like to think it´s "impossible". Hell, you FINANCED Wirtschaftswunder back in the day. Germany was bombed to shit but they rebounded. If china goes the dumbass route, world will rebuild from their asshattery as well.

    Or at least this is what I would hope.
    "It's just like I always said! You can do battle with strength, you can do battle with wits, but no weapon can beat a great pair of tits!"

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by tumppu View Post
    Quite a few people here think china is ok with absorbing not only the instant losses of an invasion of taiwan, but also the residual ones, which will be FAR more damaging. At best, they could hope to retain a strained partnership with SOME of the world, but a good number of us would simply regard them as persona non grata. Why do people even think they are the ONLY country in the world who can build shit? World did just fine without their manufacturing for most of our existence and we can do it again. Taiwan is only a pointless honor chip china wants and if they really go for it, their position in the world will suffer an utter collapse.

    World can do just fine without china, regardless of what some people like to think or say. The war/fight will be devastating, but countries have built up from devastation before. USA has not really experienced this and that´s probably why people there like to think it´s "impossible". Hell, you FINANCED Wirtschaftswunder back in the day. Germany was bombed to shit but they rebounded. If china goes the dumbass route, world will rebuild from their asshattery as well.

    Or at least this is what I would hope.
    Yeah you see I doubt world would stop trading with China. Western world? Maybe, partially at best. Africa? Never. Taiwan gives sea control over one of the most used waterways in the world, just one of the things. Can we do without PRC? Sure. But reality is most would prefer to ignore everything and just continue business as usual.
    Also if said invasion happened right now you could forget about buying a new PC for a long, long time. Now imagine that worldwide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    You are comparing WW2 experience against modern realities. Even Falkland war was 40 years ago, where jets made close bomb runs against ships and both sides were badly managed. Times have changed. Taiwan has prepared, but for the wealth they have they could have prepared much better, even with the unwilingness of the world to sell them weapons. Israel would be a good example for them to take heed of.
    I will ask again - do you or anyone else really expects 23 million to win against 1.4 billion/2nd economy? It does not matter if China suffers heavy losses, as long as they win it will be forgotten.

    P.S.
    You said 6k missiles. There is one big but in that - that number includes all types, not just anti ship missiles - AAM, AGM, SAM's, etc. IIRC Taiwan has ~couple hundred of anti-ship ones, with even less launchers. They would need a lot of luck for big enough number to survive until actual landing attempts. And it is hard to survive when enemy air forces outnumber yours a few times and overall are more advanced and diverse...
    Fortunately, since WWII, nobody has been crazy enough to mount another large scale amphibious naval assault on a heavily defended beachhead. So we don’t have any more recent case studies to look at. Technology advances is null since it apply to both attacker and defender. The same strategy used by the German and Japanese forces in WWII still work to these days. Weather the aerial bombing by hiding in heavily reinforced underground tunnels and bunkers, wait till the enemy starts to disembark on the beaches, and let loose. The casualties on the landing force in Okinawa was 30%. That was against regular guns and dumb artillery.

    Not to mention the beaches of Taiwan are nothing like Normandy. Normandy’s beaches were heavily fortified, but lightly garrisoned. They were defended by around 50,000 troops under German command. To defeat them, the Allies employed over 7,000 ships and over 1,000 aircraft, which together landed approximately 155,000 troops on D-Day, including 24,000 by air. The Allies forces at that time were attacking an 80-kilometer relatively flat beachfront.

    Now think of a very different battlefield. Taiwan is a rugged with over 100 islands, most too tiny to see on the map. Taiwan’s outer islands bristle with missiles, rockets, and artillery guns. Their granite hills have been honeycombed with tunnels and bunker systems for the last 60 years.

    The main island of Taiwan is 394 kilometers long and 144 kilometers across at its widest point. It has 258 peaks over 3,000 meters in elevation. Unlike Normandy, the coastal terrain here is a defender’s wet dream come true. Taiwan has only 14 small invasion beaches, and they are bordered by cliffs and urban jungles which provide a lot of cover for the defender.

    BTW, where did you get the information that Taiwan only has a couple hundred anti-ship missiles? That sounds ridiculously low. According to IDF intel, Hezbolah currently has at least 50 anti-ship missiles and has had access to them since the mid-2000. Taiwan has a lot more resources than Hezbolah.

    The question is not whether Taiwan can defeat China. The question is how many ships and troops are China willing to sacrifice to conquer Taiwan. An amphibious assault on Taiwan is guaranteed to be a bloody affair. Are they prepared for the economic repercussions afterward? Also, all the posters here seem supremely confident that other countries will not get involved in the event of war. It doesn't appear that PLA commanders share that same level confidence.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Also, all the posters here seem supremely confident that other countries will not get involved in the event of war. It doesn't appear that PLA commanders share that same level confidence.
    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.

  9. #169
    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.

  10. #170
    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.

  11. #171
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    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.

  12. #172
    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.

  13. #173
    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.

  14. #174
    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.

  15. #175
    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.

  16. #176
    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.

  17. #177
    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.

  18. #178
    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.

  19. #179
    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.

  20. #180
    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.


Posting Permissions

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