Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I think you seriously underestimate what a heavy bombing campaign can do to any army's logistics. Particularly in terrain where bridges and passes form choke points. It's using the enemies own size against them. A smaller army can supply by air. The Chinese military, however, requires too much by way of supplies to effectively supply their troops with that method.

You're assuming the bombers would get through at a sufficient rate to successfully create that kind of disruption. China has modern air defense systems and interceptor aircraft. As was said before, this isn't like fighting some oil dictatorship in the Middle East. Air superiority is not a given, and its not like World War II where we can pump out bombers by the thousands*, or train people quickly enough to crew them.


*During WWII we built ~13,000 B-17s. Since the introduction of the aircraft, we have built 744 B-52s. B-17s cost ~1.8 million 1998 USD to build, in 1998 (when the most recent B-52 refit was introduced) each plane cost ~53.4 million USD.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Not really. It's easy to rig a vehicle with a mine flail, assuming they just don't march everyone across it anyway. The Russians used to clear minefields by marching prisoners in front of advancing troops to clear them.

NBC isn't necessary either, at least if you don't care about the health of your troops. The point is that we're not just talking about military objectives, but political considerations. Using nuclear weapons is a pretty big international faux pas, probably the biggest.

dogma wrote:
You're assuming the bombers would get through at a sufficient rate to successfully create that kind of disruption. China has modern air defense systems and interceptor aircraft. As was said before, this isn't like fighting some oil dictatorship in the Middle East. Air superiority is not a given.

That's why I was talking B-52s. They're more durable then most other options, able to complete the mission even if missing significant pieces of their air frame. Coupled with their ability to deploy stand off munitions at range, they could effectively engage within US AA and fighter support range.

In addition, the loss of Hainan would cripple the Chinese air power in the area, initially. Victory would hinge partially on the US ability to take Hainan and neutralize a quarter of China's air power in that region in doing so.

By comparison: we were also flying those B-17s into the heaviest AA and fighter concentration that has ever been, far surpassing even modern Moscow and Washington, and doing it without much in the way of fighter cover.

BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I was talking B-52s. They're more durable then most other options, able to complete the mission even if missing significant pieces of their air frame.

Yes, and then they sit on the ground having those pieces replaced, which takes time. Time that small forces do not have against an enemy that is only marginally inferior on a technical level.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Coupled with their ability to deploy stand off munitions at range, they could effectively engage within US AA and fighter support range.

With cruise missiles, that can be shot down.

BaronIveagh wrote:
In addition, the loss of Hainan would cripple the Chinese air power in the area, initially. Victory would hinge partially on the US ability to take Hainan and neutralize a quarter of China's air power in that region in doing so.

Assuming you can take Hainan, and assuming that China would be totally unaware of your intentions.

BaronIveagh wrote:
By comparison: we were also flying those B-17s into the heaviest AA and fighter concentration that has ever been, far surpassing even modern Moscow and Washington, and doing it without much in the way of fighter cover.

And if you lose one B-52, you've effectively lost 25 B-17s. The modern American military is not built for attrition.

Don't we have like 3 times as many planes as China does? Well...estimated to have. China is kind of funny with numbers.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, I don't know why various people have such a knee jerk reaction to mercs.

People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.

In a real war, Mercs give you a new tactical option. They arn't technically your soldiers, so you can use for some of the more distasteful actions you wish to take and you can then play the "not in complete control" card. Loose cannons are useful if let go in the general direction of the enemy.

Sorry, what merc is going to volunteer to put his boots on the ground in mainland China, knowing he's outnumbered 10, maybe 1000 to one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Peace is impossable as long as the Muslims of the region have their heads up their sunburned bums. Which they will have forever.

I pretty much blame both sides. Every time one side mellows out enough to start making serious moves toward peace, the other snorts a line of coke off the sacred book of your choice and goes apeshit.

I hate to say it but that does seem to sum up an awful lot of it, on all sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:Don't we have like 3 times as many planes as China does? Well...estimated to have. China is kind of funny with numbers.

We don't have them over the Chinese mainland.

Thats the central issue. Its not that CHina's military is the combination of Bruce Lee and Hitler, its that they are the equivalent of WWII Soviet Russia X10 and we have to cross the Pacific to get there. Just as they have a doe's chance in hell of invading North America, we have a similar chance invading mainland China. Frankly thats just fine.

dogma wrote:Time that small forces do not have against an enemy that is only marginally inferior on a technical level.

You're assuming that any invasion will be met by their very best units which will just happen to be loitering near the landing zone. While China's military does, indeed, have technical ability equal the US, it's not as even. China's best stuff tends to gravitate toward the top. That's the other reason that units in Southern China are still using the Type 59 and 62. Upgraded though they may be, they're still knockoffs of the soviet T 55.

dogma wrote:
With cruise missiles, that can be shot down.

You do know what TALDs are, right?

dogma wrote:
Assuming you can take Hainan, and assuming that China would be totally unaware of your intentions.

Well, yes, there's always the assumption you can actually make the landing in the first place. Based on what is known about the place, it should not pose much of an obstacle if surprise can be achieved.

dogma wrote:
And if you lose one B-52, you've effectively lost 25 B-17s. The modern American military is not built for attrition.

No it is not. However, used properly, that lost B 52 might buy days on the ground.

Lets look at the typical US first strike, shall we? Assuming, again, that surprise can be achieved, typically it starts with stealth bombers hitting radar installations with EMPs as well as stealth cruise missiles (yes, we have those) followed by a massive barrage of regular cruise missiles against air bases and AA sites in range, as well as an equal number of TALDS to swamp anti-missile systems with targets. This is followed with bombers and F 22s batting cleanup and hittng additional targets such as the bridges on the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, any communications not already knocked out, and C&C.

Frazzled wrote:Sorry, what merc is going to volunteer to put his boots on the ground in mainland China, knowing he's outnumbered 10, maybe 1000 to one?

"Hi, we have an operation in Asia that pays well and has air support. Due to operational secrecy, we can't tell you a lot, but you'll be fighting alongside a national military in a hot warzone'.

Frazzled wrote:
We don't have them over the Chinese mainland.

That was, again, sort of the point of taking Hainan, so that we did.

So you're sitting on an island. Big fething deal. Then what party boy? China is the size of the USA. Japan conquered most of their coastal areas and Manchuria and still couldn't take them out.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You're assuming that any invasion will be met by their very best units which will just happen to be loitering near the landing zone. While China's military does, indeed, have technical ability equal the US, it's not as even. China's best stuff tends to gravitate toward the top. That's the other reason that units in Southern China are still using the Type 59 and 62. Upgraded though they may be, they're still knockoffs of the soviet T 55.

Again, this isn't WWII, countries with a modern military have modern surveillance equipment. You're not going to launch a surprise invasion. Pretending otherwise is foolish.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You do know what TALDs are, right?

Yes, and?

You seem to be trying to prove definitive superiority. I'm only pointing out why you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Based on what is known about the place, it should not pose much of an obstacle if surprise can be achieved.

Surprise? Against a modern military state that would be expecting an attack (China has surveillance technology too)?

Good luck. You may as well try a ground war over the Himalayas.

BaronIveagh wrote: However, used properly, that lost B 52 might buy days on the ground.

And what does the ground force do afterwards? Assuming the payload actually landed?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Lets look at the typical US first strike, shall we? Assuming, again, that surprise can be achieved, typically it starts with stealth bombers hitting radar installations with EMPs...

Our stealth bombers would hit them with bombs. If we wanted to EMP them that would involve nukes, which are kind of a touchy subject.

xole wrote:Our stealth bombers would hit them with bombs. If we wanted to EMP them that would involve nukes, which are kind of a touchy subject.

You mean like they'd nuke us? You'd bet your ass they would.

When do their stealth bombers hit us?

Grey Templar wrote:
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.

No. Mercanaries are more expensive than conventional forces, are less reliable, less accountable and much less trustworthy.
The only roll they have is for when the state requires troops of such a low standard that were they to wear their country's flag, there would be a public outcry - so they call them mercs instead.

Testify wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
People who fight for money are nothing new. In fact, until the beginning of the last century, they often made up significant portions of a nations military forces in the field. Some of the most elite fighting units ever have been mercs.

No. Mercanaries are more expensive than conventional forces, are less reliable, less accountable and much less trustworthy.
The only roll they have is for when the state requires troops of such a low standard that were they to wear their country's flag, there would be a public outcry - so they call them mercs instead.

Whats that have to do with what I said?

The period I was referring to was the 1800s and earlier.

Professional standing armies only really began appearing in the 1800s, prior to that it was largely peasent levies, merc units, and some official standing military units.

Frazzled wrote:

xole wrote:Our stealth bombers would hit them with bombs. If we wanted to EMP them that would involve nukes, which are kind of a touchy subject.

You mean like they'd nuke us? You'd bet your ass they would.

When do their stealth bombers hit us?

When they build them

Grey Templar wrote:Palastinians(who really are scum

Seriously. You're gonna toss that kind of racism around now?

Grey Templar wrote:
Whats that have to do with what I said?

The period I was referring to was the 1800s and earlier.

Professional standing armies only really began appearing in the 1800s, prior to that it was largely peasent levies, merc units, and some official standing military units.

When you say before the 1800s (psst...the nineteenth century), you also mean after the 5th/6th centuries.
The Roman Empire was entirely professional, as were the Greek City States, as was the Hellenic Empire (such as it was).
It's no coincidence that the Renaissance happened at the same time as professionalised armies. They created a more civilised, stable state.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Palastinians(who really are scum

Seriously. You're gonna toss that kind of racism around now?

its not Racisim, its a qualification of their actions over the last half century or so.

Remember, they are the ones who constantly break the peace.

Grey Templar wrote:its not Racisim, its a qualification of their actions over the last half century or so.

Remember, they are the ones who constantly break the peace.

By that definition, Israelis are scum.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:its not Racisim, its a qualification of their actions over the last half century or so.

Remember, they are the ones who constantly break the peace.

By that definition, Israelis are scum.

No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.

The Palastinians feed the cycle of violence by constantly attacking Israel(Civilian and Military targets with no discrimination) and the neighboring countries are no better.

They attacked Israel the day after they gained independence from Britan. What kind of messed up people do that?

Testify wrote:The Roman Empire was entirely professional, as were the Greek City States, as was the Hellenic Empire (such as it was).
It's no coincidence that the Renaissance happened at the same time as professionalised armies. They created a more civilised, stable state.

The Roman Legions were professional... Until the Romans decided they didn't want to be in the legions anymore so Rome started outsourcing their Military to Germanians... Who then sacked Rome...

That said, most of Rome's military was made of levies, not professionals (the Auxilla). They also, like most states of the time, regularly hired mercenaries to fight for them alongside the legion. Mercenaries are a staple of warfare, especially since the legions are a historical fluke, not a standard. Once Rome fell standing armies kind of vanished for a few more centuries. The Varangians were just hired Normans. These days we call them PMCs

They attacked Israel the day after they gained independence from Britan. What kind of messed up people do that?

The kind who disagree with Israel declaring itself an independent nation in the middle of a region predominantly made (at the time) up of Arabs who don't want to be part of that nation. Some people get testy when that kind of thing happens (though oddly enough most of Israel's neighbors today aren't that hostile to them anymore).

Grey Templar wrote:No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.

Settlers.

I need say no more than that Israel supports these thieves, invaders, and murderers.

So, Israel can't live in their own land?

Grey Templar wrote:So, Israel can't live in their own land?

There is no problem with Israelites living in their own land.

There is a problem when they go murder someone else, take their home, and then claim it's their land.

Which is EXACTLY what settlers do.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, the Israelis actions are completely justified. They are constantly under attack and some people have the audacity to question their right to defend themselves.

Settlers.

I need say no more than that Israel supports these thieves, invaders, and murderers.

I thought it was a pretty good game...

Grey Templar wrote:So, Israel can't live in their own land?

Define who's land it is. Jews made up a very very tiny minority in the region until the later half of the 18th century. The Palestinians had been there since the Conquests and Arabs were a majority since the 9th or 10th century.

Unfortunately, the Bible isn't a legal document (well.. it is, but it doesn't fly in a court of law ... Unless that court of law uses the Bible as it- Oh you get point), and God doesn't testify in courts to determine who owns what.

Given that Britan owned the land and gave it to the Israelis I would say its their land. Can't get much more Legal then that IMO.

Israeli settlers even attack and kill Israeli soldiers and law enforcement officials without being punished.

Nobody said they were nice people. But they do have the right to live there.

Grey Templar wrote:Given that Britan owned the land and gave it to the Israelis I would say its their land. Can't get much more Legal then that IMO.

The majority of land that is being settled is privately owned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said they were nice people. But they do have the right to live there.

No, they don't.

dogma wrote:
Yes, and?

You seem to be trying to prove definitive superiority. I'm only pointing out why you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

Dogma, in any discussion with you, you insist that the burden of proof is on anyone but you.

dogma wrote:
Surprise? Against a modern military state that would be expecting an attack (China has surveillance technology too)?

Good luck. You may as well try a ground war over the Himalayas.

That was sort of the reason my plan was workable is that nothing out of the ordinary (as far as satellite and aerial reconnaissance are concerned) takes place until the very last moment. And, again, we can't even surveil the entire Pacific, and we've got a lot more hardware in it then the Chinese ever have.

dogma wrote:
And what does the ground force do afterwards? Assuming the payload actually landed?

Depends on the over all objective. Ideally, they move on Hong Kong and Macao to give the invasive force a deep water port to begin landing heavy equipment and then dig in on the far back of the river. A key objective would be Three Gorges Dam. Whoever holds it can more or less wipe out half the cities in Southern China at will. Beyond that, differs

dogma wrote:
*insulting cool story bro pic*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator


I'll see your bs, and raise you scientific fact, bitch.

Melissia wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Given that Britan owned the land and gave it to the Israelis I would say its their land. Can't get much more Legal then that IMO.

The majority of land that is being settled is privately owned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said they were nice people. But they do have the right to live there.

No, they don't.

Owned by people that are actively waging war on Israel. Seems like spoils to me.