Jump to content

Battle for Taiwan.


Recommended Posts

This has been discussed elsewhere, but as it seems to be a popular topic for a future CMx2 game I thought I'd start a seperate thread.

I went for a scenario where, with China growing in strength and economic links with Taiwan becoming more important, there was an attempt at "peaceful" reunification ( ie both sides were cheating), which lead firstly to a coup come civil war, and then Chinese military invovement prior to a US military response.

Most if not all regional powers decide to treat it as a civil war and deny the use of there territory for direct military use, a bit like Turkey and Saudi in OIF.

I like this scenario for a number of reasons.

1) It's not your straight nasty "Yellow Devils" scenario so it's a bit different.

2) It's a bit ambiguious, as in depending on your view either side can be seen as right, and I think thats more realistic. I prefer it when we slide in to war because politicians on both side cock Up, rather than a sort of James Bond Villian.

3) The Civil War element would create some interesting start scenarios with first Taiwan on Taiwan and then Taiwan v Chinese, (which means T-85(11)'s v M-60's etc). before the M1A2's arrive.

4) Any scenario which has the US defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack is a non starter, because they wouldn't get across the Straits.

Having the Chinese in situ with the US having to rely almost totally on only carrier airpower and what it can get on to the beaches, makes it far more balanced.

OK thoughts people.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the most likely region for a medium to high-intensity conflict is to be found in the far east: either North Korea, Taiwan straights, or Spratleys. I favour the later as the most likely, as economic issues are almost always the root cause of why states go to war and China's need for oil is massive.

Peter Cairns said

4) Any scenario which has the US defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack is a non starter, because they wouldn't get across the Straits.
I suggest you study what the PLA and PLAN are up to before you make a statement like that. The rapid growth in airborne and amphibious commands, blue water navy and air superiority assets mean this will in future (CMx2 timescale) not necessarily be the case.

Although the Taiwanese are heavily armed and constantly poised to counter the threat from the mainland, the PLA/PLAN need only secure an airhead on the island to start poring in massive numbers of ground troops. I doubt the Seventh Fleet would be able to prevent any Chinese airlift given the number PLA fighter/strike assets in Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong provinces.

As far as scenarios for this region go - North Korea is the wildcard - if a national administration can be classified as being irrational then Kim Jong-il's regime fits the bill. China's voracious need for oil means a Spratley Islands sovereignty dispute is more likely. ROC (Taiwan) and PRC (China) will not be unified unless the DPP declare independence and the communist invade to settle the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances of the Chinese being able to supply by air are virtually none existant.

It will be a decade before they have anything like an effective airborns capacity. At present their extremely limited transport fleet is based around 15 aging AN-12's.

Given that a single TLAM can close a runway one US sub could cut off their airbridge with a single salvo from 500 miles away.

To do it by air against opposition either dommestic or US the Chinese would need to guarentee absolute air superiority, and they can't do that against the US navy, no one can.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put in "Taiwan", in Google Maps you get some great photos of the countryside, ( I can't unfortunately find out how to post them),

If you go for the US landing on the EAST coast, then it looks as if that is the mountainous side with a very narrow coastal strip, most of the flat land being on the Western Straits (Chinese) side.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

As I said you might want to take a closer look at PLA, PLAN and PLAAF developments.

Chinese PLAAF Transport / Airlift

As to there only being 15 An-12/Y-8; I think you'll find that is nearer 100 airframes with all three services and 30 assigned in direct support of 15th Airborne Army (PLAAF 13th Division) and another 30 earmarked for the 16th Airborne Army.

44: IL-76

8: IL-78 Tankers

? :Y-9 (Y-8 Upgrade)

60: Y-8/An-12

80: Y-7 (An-24/An-26)

100: Y-6

80: Y-5 (An-5)

In addition to military transports the PLAAF routinely use civilian aircraft to augment transport lift capability. Lookup China United Airlines.

The Chinese now have a 16th as well as 15th Airborne Army, and their amphibious forces have doubled in size in the last four years.

A quote from a few years back...

The air transport resources of the PLAAF are modest. However, the total air transport resources of the PRC is impressive. Their routine organization to support the PLAAF upon mobilization indicates a massive airlift capability exists which should not be underestimated
Federation of American Scientists 2002 Source

With regard to air superiority, the Chinese have purchased getting on for 64 Su-27 and 38 Su-30 from Russia and have had their own domestic version (J-11) which entered service in 1998 rolling out a production of 40 aircraft a year. A total estimated figure of 320 - 380 Su-27/Su-30/J-11 aircraft are thought to be in operation. I think this would make even the most hardy carrier battle group commander wince.

There are a lot of developments going on in China that make events you are so certain of more ambiguous in the next ten years or so. As I said, take a closer look - you may find it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to geography of the island, that break down of east west is essentially correct. The communications and infrastructure of the east side of the island could be easily defended as in say Italy. The western coastal plain is much wider and would allow for the use of manoeuvre forces.

However, many waterways, 'fish ponds' and paddy fields restrict vehicle transport mobility as you go south from Taichung down to Kaohsiung where the mountains rejoin the coastal plain. Hualien and Taitung are about the only viable landing sites on the east coast.

The west coast is heavily garrisoned and partially shielded by the fortress like Penghu islands. The littoral area is dominated by fish ponds and paddies just behind the beaches. Also many coastal transport routes are deliberately deeper inland. For example a six lane highway bridge crossing the estuary at Anping outside Tainan in the south west comes to an abrupt halt going nowhere. This type of situation is fairly common, restricting costal routes and forcing any would be attacker inland.

Of note - make sure you use satellite/aerial mapping as it seems many Taiwanese maps have deliberate/inherent flaws in the littoral zone when it comes to the true nature of roads and topography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key for the PLA to getting force across the strait is air superiority, or more exactly, denial of air superiority to the U.S. Taiwan, so as to feed force onto beach/airheads. To a lesser extent it is a naval issue, although basically, if you control the air you are going to control the sea as well.

The Red Chinese right now looks like it couldn't manage that, as it could at very best come up with a couple of hundred first-line aircraft to take on that challenge, while U.S./Taiwan through raw numbers plus superior sortie rates stick 2-3 decent aircraft in the sky for every Chinese. Given U.S./Taiwan pilot, air control, and target acquisition superiority, that's a Chinese defeat.

The thing is, the Chinese appear to have decided dogfighting it out isn't the right route. The Chinese suck technologically but they are good at a few things, and from what I read their missile and missile guidance technologies are quite good. Chinese cruise missiles do not suck, they are capable and the U.S. takes them seriously. China further has placed a very high priority on air defence, and I have seen reports describing the Chinese air defence network over the strait as already the densest in the world.

Also, in I would say is not a complete coincidence, among the latest purchases from the former Soviet Union are air defence radars designed to paint stealth aircraft, and Russia's top-of-the-line S-300 system. Can any one say reverse engineer.

From what I can tell the proper Chinese strategy is just to build thousands of missiles and let the Capitalists worry about pilots and air control and so forth. Even U.S. carrier groups are vulnerable to saturation strikes by dozens or even hundreds of cruise missiles at a time, same deal for U.S. air. The Chinese approach should be to compensate for U.S. quality with missile quantity; and it seems like that's exactly what they're doing. The only comforting bit is that is seems like the CPC is in no hurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the big thing everyone is discounting in this discussion, which is actually the deciding factor. The American Hippies will never stand for another war no matter what aid the US has promised in the past. The biggest enemy to Taiwan and the US in this situation isn’t really China. It’s the American left.

I think the Chinese are realizing this, that’s why they are building up a force sufficient enough to take Taiwan. Plus look at the Yom Kippur war. Just at the Egyptian/Israeli part. The Egyptians denied the Israelis air superiority over the Suez for the first couple of days through the use of SAMs. So I think if the Chinese do this they will have sufficient time to land plenty of troops on Taiwan.

Plus I think if the US makes the mistake (oh and the admin will) of not fighting this like a war then we will lose. What I mean by that is I doubt the US will make the necessary strikes on mainland China to stem the tide of supplies. Instead the Admin will probable decide to just fight on Taiwan’s soil exclusively

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zmoney: You are right about the American left-wing kool-aid drinkers. They will (are) trying to pull the same stunt they tried in Vietnam then forcing US to abandon its allies in SEA. Recall, the Roman military began to lose effictivness when they ran out of actual Roman citizens who wanted, or could be coerced into fighting in the Legions. If Americans choose not to fight for our soverienty they will be destroyed eventually. If the USA chooses to fight with the full force of our military might, China will be reduced to running for cover and praying to whatever statutes they have overthere for protection. IF they manage to sink a US Carrier task force, you will wonder where the yellow went!! By that I don't mean that Kerry et.al. will flock to Asia! LOL

The most likely war now is the invasion/attack on Iran by US/Israel. This must be fought like a real war or it too will be lost. It must be restricted to the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities/launch capability. Tactical nuclear weapons must be used if necessary but I don't think it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tagwyn:

Zmoney: You are right about the American left-wing kool-aid drinkers. They will (are) trying to pull the same stunt they tried in Vietnam then forcing US to abandon its allies in SEA. Recall, the Roman military began to lose effictivness when they ran out of actual Roman citizens who wanted, or could be coerced into fighting in the Legions. If Americans choose not to fight for our soverienty they will be destroyed eventually. If the USA chooses to fight with the full force of our military might, China will be reduced to running for cover and praying to whatever statutes they have overthere for protection. IF they manage to sink a US Carrier task force, you will wonder where the yellow went!! By that I don't mean that Kerry et.al. will flock to Asia! LOL

And remind me, between Bush and Kerry, which one actually served in Vietnam? Oh right, Kerry, who was decorated multiple times, as opposed to Bush, who failed to fufill Air National Guard service. Take your false rhetoric elsewhere, dirtbag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few facts for the defend or ally brigade.

Taiwan does more trade with China than with the US.

China is Taiwans biggest trade Partner.

Taiwan has invested more in China than almost any other nation.

Links between Taiwan and Hong Kong are particularly strong.

The continuation of prosperity in Hong kong since the Chinese took over has relieved many of Taiwans fears.

The Taiwanese both ethnically and culturally are far closer to the Chinese than the US.

The Por dialogue anti independence, opposition in Taiwan are currently on the ascendancy.

All of these suggest that the prospect of Taiwan voluntarily changing sides and becoming a part of China are real, if not immediate. In this respect as the scenario clearly states, the whole China fighting across the straits is not part of it.

As top the air capacity, the use of small aircraft like An-26, Y-7's is marginal, you can't invade by parachuting in a platoon at a time. Beyond that almost all of the rest require runways to land anything effectively, and with the like of TLAM they can be closed on day one.

The Chinese are modernising there airforce, but their best still isn't as good as an F-15, or F-18E, and the quantities they are purchasing won't be enough to match the US dircetly for at least a decade, by which time the f-22 will be on line.

That's why the scenario where the CHinese are already in occupation is the only one that will work. Unless you like the idea of CM game where the chinese get a few disrupted platoons of paras or marines who have to attack entrenched US Armoured Battalions.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy on the politics boys - I didn't know we had so many who were slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.

Bigduke, again, I suggest you take a much closer and detailed look; not just the number of aircraft (you can add about 300 J-10's to the 300 odd J-11/Su-27's you've characterised as a couple of hundred first-line aircraft), but to the type of c4i and training issues that that you believe currently exist. Why have they purchased so many trainers? Why have air combat schools all rapidly expanded? When did they start fielding so many 'aggressor' squadrons? In my limited view this is indicative of an air force attempting to undertake a qualative change.

Although choking with propaganda/disinformation this website is an excellent source of info if you can use a bit of common sense and have a good natural BS filter. People's Liberation Army Daily - English

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that the Chinese are modernising, and moving away from the old soviet system, be it Mig-19 derrivatives, or close control by ground controllers, but that doesn't mean they are "up to something".

As other have said GW1 was a wake up call for the Chinese, and it showed that the late 1960's vintage airforce that the Chinese had in the early 90's was total inadequate.

The subsequent modernisation is long overview, but it is in no way disproportionate to the current scale of the Chinese economy, or it's development. They are spending 4.3% of GDP (about $70bn), where as the US spends 3.5%, (about $400bn).

The fact that a growing China has replaced a backward military with a more modern professional one, does not and should not be taken as intent. There is a difference between modernising your forces and building up for war.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

As to proportion of GDP spent on defence - USA has historically had the largest and disproportionate weighted defence spend of any western democracy. That China has caught up and over taken the USA in defence spending, as a proportion of their wealth, is worrying indeed.

China is not just modernising, but expanding its forces.

To modernise would be to improve c4i, platforms and doctrine etc. Modernising does not mean doubling the size of your airborne arm and amphibious arm. These are tools of power projection. So why do they need these assets?

That is the real underlying trend in Chinese defence spending. They want to be able to muscle their own backyard and a little beyond, where since 1947 they have been unable to do so.

To say the Chinese are not up to something is to miss a beat or two. Have a very close look at high level conversations and strategy papers reported in the press and open sources from the heads of their armed forces and political leaders. You'll detect a policy tuned to naval expansion and a desire to become a true global power, rather than merely a regional heavy-weight. Good coverage to be found in numerous articles in U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings journal, RUSI, IISS and Janes.

Worryingly they make many references to ancient imperial glory and maritime empire. I always find harking back to some previous moment of glory a trend that precursors a resurgence of nationalism and militarism. E.g. Hitler and the Teutonic Knights, Mussolini and Imperial Rome, Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbian Knights etc. etc.

For the Taiwanese unification with the mainland will depend much more on PRC expanding their move into capitalism and it taking root across the country.

The KMT are not pro mainland, just anti a declaration of independent that would trigger an invasion.

As for the DPP they will always be anti mainland and pro independence - this is because in their heartland of the south there less mainlanders and more Taiwanese speakers of both Chinese and aboriginal stock - if you like the pre civil war Taiwanese. Add to this the Japanese flavour of in the first half of the twentieth century and you have an island lacking in any desire to unify on a cultural/political basis. I agree that if closer relations are to occur it will be via trade as with most nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by cassh:

Easy on the politics boys - I didn't know we had so many who were slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.

Come on, cassh, you're not that naive' are you?

Beware of the threads that start with phrases like;

"This has been discussed elsewhere" or "I'm new here and did not have a chance to do a search on this topic"

There was a reason why the moderators banned political discussion on these boards.

[ January 29, 2006, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And remind me, between Bush and Kerry, which one actually served in Vietnam? Oh right, Kerry, who was decorated multiple times, as opposed to Bush, who failed to fufill Air National Guard service. Take your false rhetoric elsewhere, dirtbag. [/QB]

I really didn't mean to state anything political, its just the truth. I think it will be a major factor going into how much help the US would lend. The US population is almost 50/50 when it comes to foreign policy matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Greece and Turkey have currnt and consistantly higher GDP spends than the US.

China is now the biggest exporter in the world with Shanghi the worlds busiest port, it has every legitimate reason to expnad it's navy, which it has done proportionately, it being still a long way behind Britain or France, neither hof whom have the excuse of being a growing maritime exporter.

As to the expansion of it's airborne, so what. If I have a single C-130 herc and buy anotherone, thats hardly a major issue, but that won't stop some gungho paranoid from saying " He'd up to something because he's doubled his airborne assault capacity".

In addition if you look at UN operations you will see that in relationship to it's size and wealth China is starting to play a larger and more effective role. It's increased air lift capacity allows it to do that but, as to invading taiwan, forget it.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the whole Taiwan invasion issue would turn on the relative effectiveness of U.S. EW systems vs Chineese missles, I dont have the back ground to really analyze the question but as a Navy EW officer in another forum I read put it. "That is what we think about all day, every day", for better or worse it is also almost all "if we tell you we have to shoot you classified" . That means the discussion is very theoretical and going to stay that way. As a back story to a CMSF module though it means that almost any backstory can be reasonably justified in terms of who starts where with how much of what. Which should allow the creation of reasonably even scenarios, if Battlefront will bite the bullet and put the Chineese in the game. They HAVE TO DO THAT DON'T THEY, I MEAN THEY REALLY, REALLY HAVE TO DO THAT. I Hope smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zmoney, my comment was directed towards Tagwyn. I agree that there is a large split in the US population on how to do foreign policy, and I agree that both the Dems and Pubs have some good points. It just irritates me when people assume that because I didn't think Iraq was a good idea or something, then I hate America and am allied with the terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

What you perceive to be my gung-ho paranoia is what is called threat assessment. The initial step is the assembling of facts to form a view of potential threats. The second step is to assess intent and direction that the threat might take. Now whether it comes to anything is quite another thing, but regardless given the facts as I know them to be I would state that PRC is a greater threat to its neighbours and regional power than it was ten years ago.

Which source did you use to get a Chinese defence budget of $70 billion?

The official PRC figure is $29.9.

The RAND Corporation have it at $42.0-51.0 billion.

The U.S. Department of Defense estimate it at $90 billion.

A wikipedia link here Military budget of the People's Republic of China which you may find of interest and has many related article & links.

Chinese defence budget for the past fifteen years increased from a lowest figure of 9.6% (2003) to a highest figure of 28.8% (1994) with the average being 15.4%.

If this rapid growth in defence expenditure increases at the same pace for the next fifteen years then you're looking a Chinese defence budget of $168.04 billion, $236.05 billion and $505.82 billion using the PRC, RAND and DoD figures respectively. Which ever way you look at it the trend is at least a concern!

I would like to add that just because one perceives a rapidly expanding military as a potential threat does not make one gung-ho; only possibly paranoid!

The diplomats Sir Horace Rumbold and Sir Robert Vansittart were accused of belligerent and anti-Germanic views in their less than supportive views toward Hitler's Nazi Germany in the early years of the regime. They were ignored, marginalised and then replaced by men less concerned with the growing danger, allowing the FCO to maintain a happy policy of appeasement! Recognising a growing danger is not belligerent; doing nothing about it until war becomes inevitable is!

I am not advocating an anti-Sino policy, but rather increased engagement and trade with an eye kept firmly on their more expansionist murmurings.

BTW the world's busiest port is disputed between Shanghai, Singapore, Rotterdam as measured by container numbers or weight, but your point is taken, and Shanghai will undoubtedly become the dominant port in the far east outstripping both Singapore and Hong Kong.

The most significant in strategic terms is still Singapore as the Malacca Straights sees a third of all sea trade pass through it.

Your point -

If I have a single C-130 herc and buy anotherone, thats hardly a major issue
- would seem less absurd if we were talking about one or two platforms or another battalion or so. But when someone creates a second airborne army of three divisions and a second reinforced marine brigade it is worth at least considering why?

It cannot be verified but the PLAN may also have flat tops and helicopter carriers under construction in their enclosed Shanghai shipyards. Again, not a call to arms, but a least a take a look and have a serious think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're really going to look at PLA capabilities, then I'd argue that they a) need to be examined in light of the new alliance consisting of Russia, PRC, India, Brazil and Venezuela, B) in light of the fact that the PRC openly refers to the U.S. as the Main Enemy, exactly as the Soviets used to, and c) bearing in mind that two Chinese colonels wrote a book on asymmetric warfare, using inter alia kamikaze jetliners, and were promoted right after all the celebrations in China of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My figures for both china and the US come from the CIA world year book, when making comparrisons it helps to use the same source.

global security has a good measured article on Chinese defence budgets.

Chinese Budget.

Overall it gives what I see as a balanced view of a modernising force backed by an expanding economy. Of particular interest is the focus wages pay and conditions. a lot of the critics of the Bush administration overlooked this when they attacked his increases in defence spending calling him a Hawk. a very large part of the increase when on improving service personnels conditions, essential for an effective armed force.

As to the threat, well in terms of assessment,

T=CI, Threat = Capability x Intent.

To determine the threat you look independantly at both the capabilities of the potential opponent, and his actions, Unfortunately you seem to be going for the rather simpler formula of

T=C, Threat = Capability, where anyone whos capability is increasing regardless of why is seen as an increased threat.

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Cairns,

Applying the T = CI model, then it's clearly important to look at PRC declaratory policy. I just discussed, albeit briefly, the PRC position on the U.S., but the PRC position on Taiwan has been shouted from the rooftops for decades in the One China policy, so effectively that the Republic of China had to undergo a name change (de facto or de jure, can't remember) in order to appease the PRC.

Thus, from a geostrategic perspective, if the PRC ever moves directly against Taiwan, we may confidently expect that such a maneuver would be presented to the world as a "reunification," doubtless carried out on the heels of some "uprising" on Taiwan or "incident" elsewhere "requiring the intervention of PRC forces" to "stabilize the situation" or "thwart revanchist

elements."

Of course, others have tried that and come off badly indeed. See Argentina and Iraq as prime examples. PRC leaders desirous of "reunification"

would do well to study their Mao, who warned against "seeking hegemony."

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...