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.

Then how will you defeat China in a war?

Trick is capturing Hainan. Unless you Tomahawk it but heck I settle for a couple hundred Tomahawks trying to take it out. There is only so many in stores. Besides I'm pretty sure I can hire a few mercs to take a trip in the Canadian wilderness to wreck havoc on the pipeline. Taiwan stores of anti defense missile will only last so long and resupply from the US is iffy if I'm continously hitting the ports with my missiles and air strikes. Goal is to outlast the American staying power. Okinawa itself can be nailed with missiles and quite in range of air transport. I'm sure I can get enough screaming maniacs to take Okinawa. There's only a MEU equivalent station there.

xole wrote:
Alright. Why in the living feth do people do this? Either you do X or you do Y! That's a fallacy...false dilemma.

We have no need to walk into China. Why would we? Why would we give their horde of foot sloggers something to do?

Well, war tends to be a sort of polar event, either you win or lose, live or die. There are not a lot of half way points, and some of them are even worse then the two usual options.

And, something I have noticed, a lot of posters seem to think that the Chinese army from the Korean War is still around. It's not, any more then the US Army from WWII is. Just snce 1991 the Chinese military has changed dramatically in tactics and equipment, and is not in a position to conduct wars of attrition either, for all intents and purposes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Trick is capturing Hainan. Unless you Tomahawk it but heck I settle for a couple hundred Tomahawks trying to take it out. There is only so many in stores. Besides I'm pretty sure I can hire a few mercs to take a trip in the Canadian wilderness to wreck havoc on the pipeline.

Hainan is doable. It's defense is too centered on a huge early warning.

China only has 1600 odd combat aircraft. Between the US,Taiwan and Japan, we have almost that many F-16s alone.

Jihadin wrote:
Taiwan stores of anti defense missile will only last so long and resupply from the US is iffy if I'm continously hitting the ports with my missiles and air strikes. Goal is to outlast the American staying power. Okinawa itself can be nailed with missiles and quite in range of air transport. I'm sure I can get enough screaming maniacs to take Okinawa. There's only a MEU equivalent station there.

Granted, they have limited stores (IIRC it's something like 10k munitions for each system, but I may be wrong) but China also only has limited supplies of Cruise missiles, and given the near inversion of the situation on the ground in the air, I'm not terribly worried about it.

And, again assuming that Hainan is takeable, with your navy in US possession or sunk, how are you going to get them there? Dunkirk style?

BaronIveagh wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Think the financial cost for this endeavor will collapse the econmy of America. The government will collapse with it and thus the vets will band together and create Heinlain "Federation"

Actually, it would do the American economy a lot of good, as it would increase the number of manufacturing sector jobs and reduce foreign competition.

Until the nukes make most cities radiactive hells of course.

You have to come in range of my ground SAM sites and Air Wings. Since China Naval forces are geared towards supporting the mainland and surrounding areas Lets not forget my MANPADS 8)

Mind you to win you need to put boots on ground. If so when would you land these ground forces

Amaya wrote:Then how will you defeat China in a war?

Removing their Navy, air force, and industry. Y'know. The things that matter. The whole "never enter a land war in asia" thing is remarkably true.

I can see targets along the coast but what about further inland. Further in you go with your air power the factors stacks against US air units.

edit
Also bear in mind for a land invasion to work in China it has to be done in Jan to Feb. The farmlands are frozen hard enough to support armor units.

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

Generally because I poke holes in other people's arguments, which generally requires very little proof.

BaronIveagh wrote:
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.

Do you really think the Chinese aren't aware of their territorial vulnerabilities? And that, in any situation in which an invasion was likely, that they wouldn't keep a close eye on them?

Or are you proposing that the US invade China without any provocation?

BaronIveagh wrote:
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

All assuming air superiority, which is a really bad idea.

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


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

I'm well aware that EMP generating devices exist, I was mocking you for suggesting that they're viable, or widely used, weapons. EMP devices are expensive, easily shielded against, and have an area of effect comparable to conventional payloads which are cheap, and not easily shielded against.

Jihadin wrote:You have to come in range of my ground SAM sites and Air Wings. Since China Naval forces are geared towards supporting the mainland and surrounding areas Lets not forget my MANPADS 8)

Mind you to win you need to put boots on ground. If so when would you land these ground forces

On the mainland or on Hainan? On Hainan a two pronged assault landing at the harbor at Wenchang on the north of the island, and drive toward Haikou, and then on the south end with a larger force and armor from the area along the coast near the Zongtian reservoir toward the sub pens about 10 miles away.

On the mainland, near Zhanjiang to seize the airport, cut off the peninsula, and seize control of the highway junction. If the Vietnamese are in on it with us, this would allow us to also seize the port at Beihai by forcing any reenforcements to either fight down the G16 or try to flank through Nanning, if we hit the bridges on the Pearl River and it's tributaries with air strikes. Otherwise we have to land a much larger second force and move west at least as far as Quinbei, and then hold the pass to block forces coming from Nanning.

It's my opinion that if we seize Hainan and can drive as far as Macao and Hong Kong up the G16 and S 32 that it might be possible to force them to the negotiating table, particularly if we significantly damage their airforce. Particularly since there's widespread anti-government sentiment there following certain political events there recently.

And MANPADs are only really effective against low flying aircraft like helicopters. F22 ewar suite is more then a match for the older model units that we'd encounter in Southern China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
I'm well aware that EMP generating devices exist, I was mocking you for suggesting that they're viable, or widely used, weapons. EMP devices are expensive, easily shielded against, and have an area of effect comparable to conventional payloads which are cheap, and not easily shielded against.

Widely used, no, viable, yes. Against certain types of targets they're highly effective, others, as you say, they're no more effective then conventional munitions.

Against communication infrastructure in China, they would be highly effective, as the Chinese don't typically shield their comm sites. Radar, as far as we know, is a mixed bag. Larger installations are actually more vulnerable, as many of them are mid 50's and 60's Soviet hardware or local knockoffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
All assuming air superiority, which is a really bad idea.

Odds are good when we outnumber their entire combat air strength with a single type of fighter.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Widely used, no, viable, yes. Against certain types of targets they're highly effective, others, as you say, they're no more effective then conventional munitions.

Against communication infrastructure in China, they would be highly effective, as the Chinese don't typically shield their comm sites.

There is literally no way you could know the bolded portion with any degree of certainty.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Odds are good when we outnumber their entire combat air strength with a single type of fighter.

Uh, what type of fighter would that be? The Chinese air force has ~1600 active combat aircraft.

dogma wrote:
There is literally no way you could know the bolded portion with any degree of certainty.

Well, yes, actually anyone can. Their telephone switchboards are Japanese designs these days. Most of their military comm gear is older Soviet gear or local knockoffs, and Russian gear made pre-1985 or so is not very well shielded (ask the Iraqis), a fact that came up as something they wish to correct as part of their drive toward military modernization.

dogma wrote:
Uh, what type of fighter would that be? The Chinese air force has ~1600 active combat aircraft.

F16. with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active. IIRC the Japanese use the F15 eagle.

You assuming all F16 and F15 are going to be thrown in the mix of this fight? Logistacal support is not there. Don't count the A10 to much because they have to grind their teeth on the target and China has a crap load on MANPADS with a range of three miles The attrition alone for US losses is unsustainable.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, yes, actually anyone can.

Anyone can read a CSIS study, that is true. But that doesn't grant a degree of certainty given that it is, obviously, a public study.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Their telephone switchboards are Japanese designs these days. Most of their military comm gear is older Soviet gear or local knockoffs, and Russian gear made pre-1985 or so is not very well shielded (ask the Iraqis), a fact that came up as something they wish to correct as part of their drive toward military modernization.

Again, no way you could know that. And again, conventional warheads are more effective.

dogma wrote:
F16. with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active. IIRC the Japanese use the F15 eagle.

We're not talking about allies, we're talking about the US. We're also not talking about the USAF, we're talking about force that could actually be involved in a first strike against China.

Again, when presented with a point that makes your own invalid, you deflect and pretend it didn't happen; changing the premises of your initial comment in order to protect your ego.

dogma wrote:
Again, no way you could know that. And again, conventional warheads are more effective.

Sure, they're if you don't care about killing civys. The Russian gear they used as a basis for it is available on the market. If you don't believe me, buy one and open it up. Going by the stats for the Russian version the Russians used for themselves is a mistake, as they loved selling their allies 'monkey models' that were not as advanced. (Example: the T-72 the Russians use and the T-72 they sold everyone else are two very different tanks)

dogma wrote:
We're also not talking about the USAF, we're talking about force that could actually be involved in a first strike against China.

Again, when presented with a point that makes your own invalid, you deflect and pretend it didn't happen; changing the premises of your initial comment in order to protect your ego.

How on earth does that invalidate my point? For much the same reason as that, do you think that the US would face every last combat aircraft the Chinese have within ten minutes of landing? Further, you think that the first strike against airfield and air bases will hit absolutely nothing?

And, bluntly, if, as jihadin pointed out, and I agreed, we would need every available combat division, do you think that similar preparations would not be required of other branches of service to carry off an invasion? Because if that's what you think, you don't know what we're talking about. To make this work would require overwhelming force at the point of attack. (In this case Hainan) I think that with current forces and sufficient preparation it's 'possible'. It would require, however, a great deal of effort and likely months of preparation, stockpiling, and subterfuge.

As far as total aircraft coverage, I think it safe to say we can field twice what they can between the four branches.

Amaya wrote:Then how will you defeat China in a war?

The same way you beat the US.

You don't beat them, you let them beat themselves.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sure, they're if you don't care about killing civys.

Its a military target. There are no civilians. And if there are, oops. Its total war you're discussing, not some surgical strike. You even talked about blowing up 3 Gorges, and now you're worried about civilians?

BaronIveagh wrote:
How on earth does that invalidate my point?

Really? Your point was that the Chinese Air Force was outnumbered by all produced F-16s. Who even thinks that is significant, especially given that most are not operated by the US, and none of them are going to participate in a first strike of any kind?

You clearly lack any context, or competence. You read Soldier of Fortune and think you're an expert.

Am I seriously reading people advocating an invasion of China?


Oy......spare me military enthusiasts...

That's kind of how I feel... seriously guys, invasion?

The pathetic justifications of WHY an invasion would be needed don't work at all...

Ketara wrote:Am I seriously reading people advocating an invasion of China?


Oy......spare me military enthusiasts...

Im hard as nails, and even Im not up for invading China, I couldn't carry enough ammunition for starters. Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.

Table top war gamer guys!

Ketara wrote:Am I seriously reading people advocating an invasion of China?


Oy......spare me military enthusiasts...

simply discussing the plausibility of such an action and if it were to happen, what actions would be taken

dogma wrote:
Really? Your point was that the Chinese Air Force was outnumbered by all produced F-16s. Who even thinks that is significant, especially given that most are not operated by the US, and none of them are going to participate in a first strike of any kind?

Well, no, again you totally misrepresent what was said.

BaronIveagh wrote: with over 4500 produced, the US and it's allies could field more then 1600 easily. The US alone has over 800 active.

The actual point, which you missed entirely attacking the F16 statement, what that the Chinese airforce was not going to win a war of attrition, nor even swamp the landing zone with a bajillion Chinese fighters.

And, technically, in a first strike situation, the Chinese airforce's main participation would be as targets on the ground. It's sort of the point of a 'first strike'.

A US first strike against a near peer would look like somewhere around 500 Tomahawks, 500 ITALDS, 150 SLAM-ERs, 200 AGM-86s, ??? AGM-158 Stealth Cruise Missiles, ??? unknown EMP or specials. And that is before we get into manned aircraft. Think of B-2s and F-22s alone delivering 2000 SDBs. All of this would be directed at C3 and Air defense networks. I would be very interested in hearing how to discern and defeat a mix of 50 ITALDS lined up 5 deep and 1km abreast shadowing a much more stealthy kill package of AGM-158s all headed towards a single air defense asset. They won't be able to reload the SAMs fast enough, not before their depots start taking Tomahawks.

The US airforce does first strikes very well.

And, frankly, I'm not justifying this at all, it's the idea that 'it can't be done' that irritates me.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Im hard as nails, and even Im not up for invading China, I couldn't carry enough ammunition for starters. Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.

I hate to say this, but the average footslogger could almost certainly carry enough ammo. Again, this is the sort of thinking it's still the 1950's Chinese army that seems to dominate this board, when it's not even close to accurate. Though, if the HRM's armed forces were to join the US in such an operation, they'd be ideal for hitting that sub pen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Me and all the battle hardened veterans and elite soldiers can stay home and watch the real tough guys in action.

Table top war gamer guys!

...matty, I'll just have to take your word for that first part. On the second, I've been told by enough foot sloggers that 'real' tough guys have to carry a bajillion pound of gear on their backs, 20 miles a day, fighting all the way. I'll stick to my air conditioned, reasonably bullet resistant, chunk of French metal.

BaronIveagh wrote:

I hate to say this, but the average footslogger could almost certainly carry enough ammo. Again, this is the sort of thinking it's still the 1950's Chinese army that seems to dominate this board, when it's not even close to accurate. Though, if the HRM's armed forces were to join the US in such an operation, they'd be ideal for hitting that sub pen.

Average footslogger?! Im a green beret, I can carry ten times the average footslogger!

Anyway, I was being sarcastic, the point is mate, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying their military is as good as hours, I'm saying we are fat and comfortable, so we don't have the will to fight, and that is the single most important aspect of winning a modern war. A war where the public are better informed than ever before. We have a society that keenly feels every death, and they don't, so how can you expect us to win?

Elite Soldiers don't win modern wars, tax payers do. And the British and American ones would absolutely gak themselves when they saw 20,000 body bags.

A luxury the Chinese hardly have to worry about.

Melissia wrote:That's kind of how I feel... seriously guys, invasion?

The pathetic justifications of WHY an invasion would be needed don't work at all...

Because you need to go on their land to win a battle over contested waters

mattyrm wrote:

Average footslogger?! Im a green beret, I can carry ten times the average footslogger!

Well, you should be fine then!

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I was being sarcastic, the point is mate, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying their military is as good as hours, I'm saying we are fat and comfortable, so we don't have the will to fight, and that is the single most important aspect of winning a modern war. A war where the public are better informed than ever before. We have a society that keenly feels every death, and they don't, so how can you expect us to win?

Elite Soldiers don't win modern wars, tax payers do. And the British and American ones would absolutely gak themselves when they saw 20,000 body bags.

A luxury the Chinese hardly have to worry about.

Well, you'll get no arguments there. I've long felt the public needs to quit being 'fat and comfortable'. Again, from my point of view, this was simply a 'how could it be done' rather then just assume that it can't.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, you'll get no arguments there. I've long felt the public needs to quit being 'fat and comfortable'. Again, from my point of view, this was simply a 'how could it be done' rather then just assume that it can't.

Yeah well, its an interesting thing to think about as a student of war obviously, but my point is simply that its a bit pointless to think about because the only way we could win is if things changed really drastically, you need hunger to win, we had it once, we lost it, its a natural successor of success!

The only way we could win is if we had the will to fight, and as I explained, it is all important and nothing else matters. The US killed 20 times the amount of enemy soldiers in Vietnam, 66,000 losses against a million. And they could have killed another million on top, but they still wouldnt have won, the VC had that hunger because quitting wasn't an option for one side, and the same thing will occur in a proper war with China, we could only win if we wanted it badly enough, and that would only happen if we got desperate, and we wont ever be desperate, because we arent.

The British and American public will never again allow our governments to get involved in a conflict that would cost us 66,000 lives, let alone more than that, which is potentially the case with a full blown war with a decent sized superpower. We are well fed, well educated and well informed, and they aren't.

Desperation breeds hunger and desire, and we ain't hungry.

About 600 million Chinese are though.

Think about Mattyrm's point this way:

Afghanistan has, effectively, repulsed every major power that's ever tried to take it over, thorugh little more than the indomitable will to fight. Even Americans, who were the most successful, still are effectively being defeated and pulling out because the fighting just doesn't stop.

mattyrm wrote:
The only way we could win is if we had the will to fight, and as I explained, it is all important and nothing else matters. The US killed 20 times the amount of enemy soldiers in Vietnam, 66,000 losses against a million. And they could have killed another million on top, but they still wouldnt have won, the VC had that hunger because quitting wasn't an option for one side, and the same thing will occur in a proper war with China, we could only win if we wanted it badly enough, and that would only happen if we got desperate, and we wont ever be desperate, because we arent.

That's probably why Nazi Germany was so effective at crushing partisans in Yugoslavia and France.
Your argument about the west lacking the guts to fight might be more valid if we had a war worth fighting for - the US public was never behind Vietnam, the British public was never really behind Afghanistan.

What we're dicussing here is China essentially claiming other nation's territory - an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.

an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.

Its not our (US) area to begin with. If China rolls in and literally claims it by flexing its military strength the US politicians are going to scream loud and clear because its a "no no" and thats pretty much it.

Jihadin wrote:

an obvious threat to peace and stability in the area.

Its not our (US) area to begin with. If China rolls in and literally claims it by flexing its military strength the US politicians are going to scream loud and clear because its a "no no" and thats pretty much it.

The US will never pick a fight with a power capable of fighting back that does not attack them directly first.

Ketara wrote:
The US will never pick a fight with a power capable of fighting back that does not attack them directly first.

That's not hard for US politicians to manufacture though. Remember the Maine?