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.

Melissia wrote:More likely it'd end up as some fighters shot down or something.

Unless it gets out of hand then its a shooting war and maybe a nuke war. You want you and everyone you've known dying in a mushroom cloud so that Vietnam can make money off oil vs. China making money off oil?

A US carrier is a prize to bag and CHina not going to be careful about dealing with it. They will go balls out to nail it. Taking a US carrier out puts a major dent in US combat operation in the region. Before you say land based fighters on our sides bear in mind. The airbase does not move.

Jihadin wrote:A US carrier is a prize to bag and CHina not going to careful about dealing with it. They will go balls out to nail it. Taking a US carrier out puts a major dent in US combat operation in the region. Before you say land based fighters on our sides bear in mind. The airbase does not move.

Plus it would have a very high chance of making us run away screaming like girly boys.
Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.

Even with the US fatigued by the WoT I can't see us taking the loss of a carrier lying down.

Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.

Only works if the US population is totally behind the war effort to end China expansionalism. To see it to the end. Like Matty mention. Think Putin might be entice for some cheap real estate in northern china....

or did I missread what your saying Frazz?

edit
Besides we be in a shooting war with Iran before we go into a shooting war with China.

Amaya wrote:Even with the US fatigued by the WoT I can't see us taking the loss of a carrier lying down.

Truth be told, an unprovoked attack is about the only thing the population of the US would consider all out war over.

The only fatigue from the WoT is mental. The casualities suffered are nothing in the scheme of global military power.

Amaya wrote:At this very moment? Maybe a handful of Marine units, 20,000 Marines tops.

So, likely, they could only hold for about 48 hours against a serious effort by the Chinese to dislodge them. Longer with heavy support, of course, but... it'd really only be a matter of time without reinforcements landing behind them.


Personally, I'd land near Zhanjiang while launching a simultaneous larger assault on Hainan island. It'd maximize the advantage of the US marines and Hainan airfield would allow the US to use land based aircraft to support, as well as the ability to quickly move troops onto or off of Hainan to reenforce or withdraw as needed. The peninsula would also allow more effective support fire from the Navy. The proximity to Hong Kong would also allow the US to likely seize a deep water port largely intact if they move quickly. To add to the effectiveness, inciting Tibet and inner Mongolia to rebel at the same time would force China to fight on three fronts simultaneously.

Chinese forces in southern China still use the Type 62G to a degree, as it's better able to handle mountainous terrain then the Type 96 and 99. The up side to this is that it's largely inferior to the Striker, and piss poor in FIBUA

I'll bet India would be interested in a coalition if this went down too.

Then there is the probability that portions of the Chinese army are not as good as they appear on paper. Its always in the interest of dictatorships to embellish their fighting strength.

Amaya look up Marine Expeditionary Units

Look up 82nd Airborne Division

Only two units capable on putting significant amount of "boots on ground" in a 24 hrs period

As for Tibet and Mongolia rebellion all China has to do is leave their troops in a containment position and concentrate on the bigger threat.

If we're to hold ground and advance all 10 active duty divisions, reserves and national guard units have to mobilized. Problem will be how to get all the bodies, equipemnt, and vehicles in play on mainland China as quick as possible. Amphibous invasion is not doable. If we stage out of Japan then be aware China has missiles that reach the ports and bases there.

Need to think on the scales of Operation Barbarossa but with todays technology

edit

Then there is the probability that portions of the Chinese army are not as good as they appear on paper. Its always in the interest of dictatorships to embellish their fighting strength.

China will no doubt implement forced conscription. Mind you we just invaded their homeland/fatherland/motherland/land of the dragon whatever they call it. They're going to be pissed off

Jihadin wrote:

Of course if thats low chance we go all "awakaned a sleeping giant" thing thats a problem.

Only works if the US population is totally behind the war effort to end China expansionalism. To see it to the end. Like Matty mention. Think Putin might be entice for some cheap real estate in northern china....

or did I missread what your saying Frazz?

edit
Besides we be in a shooting war with Iran before we go into a shooting war with China.

My point is if you sink a carrier all bets are off. Its Zombie Roosevelt time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Amaya wrote:At this very moment? Maybe a handful of Marine units, 20,000 Marines tops.

So, likely, they could only hold for about 48 hours against a serious effort by the Chinese to dislodge them. Longer with heavy support, of course, but... it'd really only be a matter of time without reinforcements landing behind them.


Personally, I'd land near Zhanjiang while launching a simultaneous larger assault on Hainan island. It'd maximize the advantage of the US marines and Hainan airfield would allow the US to use land based aircraft to support, as well as the ability to quickly move troops onto or off of Hainan to reenforce or withdraw as needed. The peninsula would also allow more effective support fire from the Navy. The proximity to Hong Kong would also allow the US to likely seize a deep water port largely intact if they move quickly. To add to the effectiveness, inciting Tibet and inner Mongolia to rebel at the same time would force China to fight on three fronts simultaneously.

Chinese forces in southern China still use the Type 62G to a degree, as it's better able to handle mountainous terrain then the Type 96 and 99. The up side to this is that it's largely inferior to the Striker, and piss poor in FIBUA

And then five million screaming Chinese hit you like the Ork tide. And then you die.

For this invasion of China and occupation I take it everyone then is for the "draft" if China went ahead and sink a US carrier?

Jihadin wrote:For this invasion of China and occupation I take it everyone then is for the "draft" if China went ahead and sink a US carrier?

1. I am for not being there in the first place.
2. Nuke first, ask questions...never?

I'd just like to point out that China is not North Korea in terms of blind obedience of the leadership and collectivist mentality.

Partly as a result of the 1 child act, many of the current 20-somethings have grown up being told that they were a special snowflake for their entire lives. Urban Chinese (which is almost anyone near the coasts) can be very individualistic, entrepreneurial, free-minded individuals.

I have no doubt that there's a very strong undercurrent of the old-school Communist thought and that China could levy a gigantic army of volunteers in the event of outright invasion, but very few of the Chinese individuals I know, even the oldguard Communists, are dogmatically indoctrinated enough to go all suicide bomber everywhere.

sourclams wrote:I'd just like to point out that China is not North Korea in terms of blind obedience of the leadership and collectivist mentality.

Partly as a result of the 1 child act, many of the current 20-somethings have grown up being told that they were a special snowflake for their entire lives. Urban Chinese (which is almost anyone near the coasts) can be very individualistic, entrepreneurial, free-minded individuals.

I have no doubt that there's a very strong undercurrent of the old-school Communist thought and that China could levy a gigantic army of volunteers in the event of outright invasion, but very few of the Chinese individuals I know, even the oldguard Communists, are dogmatically indoctrinated enough to go all suicide bomber everywhere.

So there kids are as loser wussies as our kids are? In that case I embrace my Chinese (parents) brothers and weep with them, knowing that, as a species, we are all doomed.

Well to be truthful, that whole sea is named after them........it's not the East Vietnam sea, is it?

Jihadin wrote:
As for Tibet and Mongolia rebellion all China has to do is leave their troops in a containment position and concentrate on the bigger threat.

As far as Northern China is concerned, Mongolia *is* the bigger threat. They're heavily outfitted by the Former Soviet Union and the United States started supplying them with arms as well, though on a more limited basis. ATM it's a mixed bag of BTRs and Humvees for their mech infantry. Airforce and heavy armor is almost exclusively Russian stuff. Mig 29s, etc. I don't think it'd be hard to get them to join in to regain Inner Mongolia from the Chinese. Tibet, you're essentially correct save for the possibility of India using it as a land route in. China would have to keep a much larger force present or risk India simply over-running them. The other somewhat frightening possibility is Chinese nuclear facilities in Tibet falling into the hands of Tibetan rebels. There's a high chance they would try to use them.

Jihadin wrote:
If we're to hold ground and advance all 10 active duty divisions, reserves and national guard units have to mobilized. Problem will be how to get all the bodies, equipemnt, and vehicles in play on mainland China as quick as possible. Amphibous invasion is not doable. If we stage out of Japan then be aware China has missiles that reach the ports and bases there.

Depending on how much prep time we're talking, the Navy still has some toys from the old days in mothballs capable of moving about 20,000 men each. And the United States is docked at Pier 82 in Phili awaiting conservation. She's old and needs work, but her primary systems are nearly identical to an Iowa class battleship and the Navy designed her with quick conversion into a super troop transport in mind.

The most effective option, I think, would be to build up at Mindinao and Okinawa, and then hit Hainan. Then push northeast to Hong Kong. With Hainan and Hong Kong in hand, we can reenforce at our pleasure from any base in the Pacific. Assuming no one reaches for the nuclear option.

Jihadin wrote:They're going to be pissed off

Depends. The Middle Kingdom's rulers have not held the Mandate of Heaven for many years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And then five million screaming Chinese hit you like the Ork tide. And then you die.

That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.

Back in the '80s I think there was legitimate concern by various forward-thinking individuals that the 1 child policy and the Chinese cultural preference for males would result in an overabundance of young men for whom military service would be a natural occupational niche, and worried about increased Chinese aggression in the surrounding regions.

Turns out that the 1 child policy and the need for a young male heir to care for the elders in their dotage resulted in a lot of mollycoddled boys, who were always perfect and told they were good at everything, and were kept as far away from military service as possible because if he gets bumped off, the parents' retirement plan is SOL.

sourclams wrote:Back in the '80s I think there was legitimate concern by various forward-thinking individuals that the 1 child policy and the Chinese cultural preference for males would result in an overabundance of young men for whom military service would be a natural occupational niche, and worried about increased Chinese aggression in the surrounding regions.

Turns out that the 1 child policy and the need for a young male heir to care for the elders in their dotage resulted in a lot of mollycoddled boys, who were always perfect and told they were good at everything, and were kept as far away from military service as possible because if he gets bumped off, the parents' retirement plan is SOL.

It also means in a generation or two, China's Han population will undergo a massive demographic collapse, as the 1 chide rule does not extend to Mongolians or other minorities.

Another potential ally against China would be Australia. The Aussie government was not too happy when 'rogue' Chinese military vessels started committing piracy in Australia's national waters, seizing Australian nationals and Australian ships. (and Australian beer)

BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.

And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?

Whats the big plan again?

Um personnaly....survive. Same as my troops.

Frazzled wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
That's why I selected that terrain. The Chinese can't hit you with all five million at once, because of the geography. It funnels them into narrow kill zones and slows their advance.

And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?

Surround them!

Frazzled wrote:
And then you do what exactly. If everything goes as planned you've just created Anzio. Instead of facing some German defenders you now have an amry even Zhukov would poop a brick to face, forming up in deep echelon to exterminate you. Whats the big plan again?

Point of fact, Zhukov's army was larger then anything that would be faced short term in Southern China.

And if they're echelon deep, it will make it so much easier to hit them from Hainan. Granted, it'd be close air missions the likes of which the US hasn't flown for a dogs age, but that was why I opted that Hainan should be the first objective. The extensive air fields and infrastructure should be easy enough to take mostly intact in a surprise assault.

Once we start rolling B-52 missions from Okinawa and Hainan, it becomes very difficult for the Chinese to move and support their army.

As a last resort, blow Three Gorges Dam. The ensuing devastation would bog down even the largest army for weeks.

And if they're echelon deep, it will make it so much easier to hit them from Hainan. Granted, it'd be close air missions the likes of which the US hasn't flown for a dogs age, but that was why I opted that Hainan should be the first objective. The extensive air fields and infrastructure should be easy enough to take mostly intact in a surprise assault.

Ask Matty about US Air Support. Hell I called two in myself in a far distant land

You cannot invade mainland China with the current US forces. You will have to implement the draft.

Jihadin wrote:Current japanese military forces has no foot print. Its a defense force. How is the "Defense" force suppose to project power in SCS? Also remember in a few more yrs the US Navy will be mothballing quite a few ships limiting our "projection of power" oceanwide.

You dont need to project power to be able to pose a threat....and the Japanese Military is very capable of performing offensive actions, regardless of the fact that its technically a defense force. Just as technically the IDF is a defense force.

And for those talking about India being against China, here is an interesting article that proposes otherwise
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/01/rising_peacefully_together

And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.

Here's another article talking about China's possible long term strategy for the region
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/03/salami_slicing_in_the_south_china_sea

I think the President and Congress need to take a clear stand on this issue and possibly press nations in the region to create a NATO like organization possibly led by Japan and South Korea

edit

Huffy wrote:
And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.

China does control Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia is the separate nation with ties to Russia and the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Ask Matty about US Air Support. Hell I called two in myself in a far distant land

You cannot invade mainland China with the current US forces. You will have to implement the draft.

I think it's possible, but would require the US to entirely disengage for all other peace keeping and combat theaters. I do think that it would, however, require the entire national guard and reserves, as well as recommissioning a lot of hardware we've kept in mothballs for the last twenty to thirty years, plus reigniting a lot of industries to support it, particularly steel and munitions. Manpower wise, in the later stages, you're right, though, to sufficiently cover the terrain we'd need more manpower.

Currently the US has about 180k 'security consultants' on tap, some of whom have their own private air forces and fleets. That might be a viable alternate source of manpower.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Huffy wrote:
And for those who are speaking about Mongolia revolting...China doesn't occupy or control Mongolia, Mongolia is a separate country with excellent ties to the USA and Russia, thanks to the USSR haha
Tibet revolting against chinese rule is more likely and the Uighur regions are the most likely to revolt.

Chine does control Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia is the separate nation with ties to Russia and the US.

You mean Mengkukuo??
I thought people were referencing the actual nation of Mongolia...however I even doubt revolution in Inner Mongolia...since it has been part of China for quite a while, I couldn't put number to it however.
I honestly can't see any war with China going well on a land front, it's far easier for them to defend than for us to attack. As well as the USA not having the military resources to commit nor the public will to commit to a large war without significant changes in the social and political environment.

I can see limited naval war with China, however I do think that the Army and Marines should be gutted to more money could be funneled to the Navy and Air force. would it win a war?? no..but it would stall/stalemate the conflict.

Not feasible.
Ground forces is ten divisions of the US Army.
USMC about 2 Divisions.

Immediate boots on ground is 82nd Airborne Div (a light infantry division) and a combined arms marine brigade MEU

How do you propose using 12 divisions if we can get them all at once into mainland China to conduct combat operations. Espacially when a division is going to require to take a major city.

Reserves and National Guards are needed just to augment the divisions on this scale of an assualt.

Security firms are not going to used as mercenary forces period.

How do you propose replacement of troops that either wounded or opted out.

Presumably a war with China would also prompt an expansion of the US armed forces...

Presumably a war with China would also prompt an expansion of the US armed forces...

and joined by our fellow ally of UK