(Jake Collins of NZ 2) | 26 Dec 2012 10:51 p.m. PST |
Retired Japanese general maps out PLA campaign to take Okinawa Staff Reporter 2012-12-26 10:00 (GMT+8) Yoshiaki Yano, a retired general of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, has said China would be able to occupy Okinawa with just 15 PLA divisions in two weeks by 2025, reports our sister newspaper Want Daily. As the dispute between China and Japan over the disputed Diaoyutai (Diaoyu or Senkaku) islands in the East China Sea rumbles on, certain voices in China have arisen saying that the country should go to war to claim the entire Ryukyu island chain that stretches between Japan's main islands and Taiwan, of which Okinawa is the largest. Yano said that China will have the military muscle to wage such a campaign by 2025, and if a war should break out between Israel and Iran that would tie up the United States, Japan could have to face an aggressive China without any support from its key ally in the Pacific, since an anti-access and area denial strategy could be employed by China's air force and submarine fleet to prevent American intervention. Yano postulates a scenario in which China attacks on Apr. 16, with the PLA Air Force deploying 900 advanced fighters to launch attacks against Japan's major cities, against which Japan might be only to send 300 fighters. Without long-range ballistic missiles, Japan would be unable to strike military bases within China, allowing the PLA to wipe out Japan's air defenses by May. After the PLA gains air supremacy over Japan, the US military bases at Okinawa would become the next target for the Chinese forces. The runways of major US air bases in Okinawa, including Kadena and Futenma, would be taken out by ballistic missiles from China's Second Artillery Corps. While acts of sabotage by Chinese spies would be taking place in the cities of mainland Japan, US military bases except for those in Okinawa would not be the targets for the spies for the time being. Before the Japanese government is able to identify that China is not starting a war in order to claim the Diaoyutai, the PLA could launch cyber and electromagnetic pulse warfare against both the US and Japanese units in Okinawa combined with special forces and ballistic missile assaults by May. 3. Two marine divisions and four marine regiments would then begin their landing mission on Okinawa. After establishing a beachhead, four more mechanized divisions then attack and occupy the island's major ports and airports with the support of airborne, air assault and special forces. In the beginning, the Chinese divisions would face fierce resistance from the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force equipped with attack helicopters and armored vehicles. However, the Japanese troops would be defeated by the invaders as they would lack the ammunition and sheer manpower of their opponents. Japanese resistance could collapse in as little as two weeks, Yano forecast. Following this, the advocates of Okinawa independence would establish a puppet government over the Ryukyus under the supervision of the Chinese occupation force. To re-establish its relationship with Washington, China would release all American prisoners of war and their family members. By just sending 15 divisions of the People's Liberation Army, China would be able to restore its position vis-a-vis the Ryukyus that existed prior to 1609. Yano said that if Tokyo were eventually to recognize the puppet state of and the Chinese domination of the East China Sea, Russia will force Japan to recognize its claim to the South Kuril islands as well. link |
ghostdog | 27 Dec 2012 3:30 a.m. PST |
Attacking us military bases would start a war between china and usa. No matter how long it would take, there would be a counter attack. Sure chinese military staff have learned the pearl harbour's lesson |
David Manley | 27 Dec 2012 5:17 a.m. PST |
Indeed, this is more of a puff piece generated by the Japanese to drum up sympathy than a real threat. Much as some here would like to think, the Chinese aren't stupid. |
Klebert L Hall | 27 Dec 2012 5:24 a.m. PST |
2025 is not soon enough for the PRC to make the USN stand off out of area. Not the surface ships, and by no means the sub fleet. The PRC sub fleet is garbage except for their kilos, and even those don't seem to have great crews. Their other ASW assets are pretty feeble. Our 5,000 nukes might have something to say about it too. Of course, the chance of the PRC making a push like that when there is any serious risk is near zero. Why not just wait 50 or a hundred years, and see if the balance of power is more favorable then? -Kle. |
Tgunner | 27 Dec 2012 6:43 a.m. PST |
Interesting response David. I've been to China lately and several of the young people I've spoken to, great kids by the way, seem to think that war with the West is a given at some point. I think sweeping this possibility aside as nonsense is very dangerous and increases the likelyhood of war. China is ruled by two powers: the PLA and the Communist Party. And one of these two is really beating the drums of war. Heck, it seems every year that some PLA General is stirring the pot with some mindless yelp of bravado. Do these people believe their own propaganda? Maybe so. Every major power came on to the map through a war so why should modern China be any different? And they do have an axe to grind with Japan (the memory of WWII is very strong there), Taiwan, and with the US. And come to think of it we have an axe to grind with them too. It may not really be a matter of if
maybe it's now just where and when? Finally no serious person thinks that the Chinese are stupid. They are quite reasonable and rational like everyone else. That also means that they can also make mistakes too and war seems to be a favorite mistake from through out history. So really, why should the PRC be any different? China is massively rearming with more advanced and capable weapons and its building new capabilities like amphib forces too. Japan would be truly stupid not to take notice! If they don't take reasonable actions to upgrade their forces then scenarios like this one, which is a worse case one granted, can happen. Deterrence does work, but only if it's creditable. . |
Pedrobear | 27 Dec 2012 8:18 a.m. PST |
I think China is more interested in selling garments and sneakers than going to war right now
To push them to war, you got to do something that really challenges their sovereignty, or strangle their economic lifeline. China has endured a lot of ambiguities over territorial claims, including Taiwan; in the meantime, they are doing business with all their rival claimants. The Chinese may resent having been bullied by the West and Japan in the past, but they also hate being poor. Now unless they are certain of allies who can supply them the raw materials and be a market to buy their goods, why would they go to war with their current business partners? |
Pan Marek | 27 Dec 2012 9:01 a.m. PST |
Nevermind that the Chinese have historically not been expansionist. Could this change? Sure, but it would be a huge change. They are, at their core, cautious. |
Mako11 | 27 Dec 2012 9:21 a.m. PST |
I can see them trying it eventually, but doubt they will do so by 2025. The USN sub and surface fleets will probably have something to say about that, assuming they haven't been mothballed, or scrapped by then. They still have the ability to wage a couple of wars currently, since Iran isn't really a major naval power. Sounds like it would be a good idea to stock up on cruise missiles and ammo though, just in case. On the flip side, their claims in the South China Sea are over the top, and fairly belligerent, so I wouldn't put it past them either. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 27 Dec 2012 9:52 a.m. PST |
Never a good idea to ignore a country getting sucked into a war through other peoples actions. WW2 has a couple of good examples. Hitler didn't expect Britain and France to go to war when hw invaded Poland. The US didn't expect Japan to attack the US when the US imposed sanctions over the Japanese war in China. There seem to be a lot of possible similar 'miscalculations' waiting to happen around the Pacific Rim, |
TMPWargamerabbit | 27 Dec 2012 10:06 a.m. PST |
Lack of oil supply will end any war China starts very quickly
Oil tankers make an easy target in the South "China" sea. The flow of oil will be stopped till they retreat back to mainland China. Easy to torp a tanker in the Indian ocean or beyond China's limited naval reach. So unless Russia is dumb and sells oil from Siberian oil fields
. which will cast China's eyes on that territory by default, the entire Chinese ecomomy will stop in due time from lack of oil or trade shipment. Which will cause food shortages
|
David Manley | 27 Dec 2012 10:19 a.m. PST |
I am far, far more worried about the West pushing the Chinese into a situation where their only credible option was to take a military solution than have the Chinese start a war with the Us and the West themselves. |
Mako11 | 27 Dec 2012 12:18 p.m. PST |
I worry more about China's military/navail/air force personnel, or generals going rogue, in order to prove a point, like their fighter pilot did, when he damaged one of our recon planes back during the Bush admin. The Chinese pilot miscalculated, and paid the ultimate price for his mistake. We rolled over fairly easily to what could have been seen as an overt act of war, in order to keep the situation from escalating, which may, or may not have been a good thing, since China may perceive the US as soft because of that, and other events. Apparently, tensions continue, with aircraft being thrown into the mix as well: link Given the over the top Chinese rhetoric on the issue, I'll be surprised if there isn't an air or naval skirmish over the islands by the end of 2013. |
Tgunner | 27 Dec 2012 1:14 p.m. PST |
I am far, far more worried about the West pushing the Chinese into a situation where their only credible option was to take a military solution than have the Chinese start a war with the Us and the West themselves.
I'm not sure how this fits into the scenario above. Unless you're talking about the West starting a war in a manner similar to how the Poles "started" WWII by "attacking" Germany. If someone really wants to start a war then they'll find an excuse. |
Generalstoner49 | 27 Dec 2012 5:28 p.m. PST |
Perhaps this is the way to get F-22 production up and running again. I think if we sold to the JSDF it might cool things down a bit. Then again, if the Chinese get wind of the Japanese getting F-22's then they may not think twice about going forward with outright hostilities prior to the Japanese getting them. |
Mako11 | 27 Dec 2012 6:06 p.m. PST |
Yep, if it comes to a shooting war between the USA and China, I imagine it will be because the US and/or her allies dared to sail a vessel in the Pacific Ocean, "
which is undisputed Chinese territory
". |
Cacique Caribe | 28 Dec 2012 8:28 a.m. PST |
China has already won, we just don't know it yet. Dan :) |
Klebert L Hall | 28 Dec 2012 9:14 a.m. PST |
China has already won, we just don't know it yet. Not necessarily. China has enormous demographic / economic / environmental / developmental problems hounding their every step. If they stumble, the place could easily implode. -Kle. |
David Manley | 28 Dec 2012 10:46 a.m. PST |
"I'm not sure how this fits into the scenario above." it doesn't because I don't believe it is a credible scenario for the reasons I outlined. This is a piece put out by the Japanese to scare the US into maintaining its support. As I indicated, rather than this far-fetched scenario I am more worried that the US will, deliberately or through ignorance, engineer a scenario in which the only credible Chinese response will be a military one, at which point Washington says "see, I told you so?" I would say that I hope common sense prevails, but as the US seems unable to stop itself falling off a cliff just now I have little hope that its grasp of international politics is any better. And the "30 year" information releases regarding US intended actions during the Falklands Conflict does nothing to alter that feeling. In fact quite the reverse. |
(Jake Collins of NZ 2) | 28 Dec 2012 1:48 p.m. PST |
Sigh – lesson learnt. Innocent scenariofodder post degenerates quickly into political debate. You'd think there are enough other places on the web to express political viewpoints, but clearly not. |
Cacique Caribe | 28 Dec 2012 4:34 p.m. PST |
|
Tgunner | 28 Dec 2012 4:53 p.m. PST |
Discussing modern scenarios has to include the politics really. Wars just don't just break out in their own. Politics drive war because they are the things nations go to war over. China claims the South China Sea and most of the islands around it. The question comes down to how serious they are about their claims and what other nations will to to oppose them, and will the major Western powers stop China? They dropped the ball in the '30s, willt they do it again in the 2010's? Scenario fodder wise good luck finding miniatures. There are some Chinese miniatures out there but not much for anyone else. It's going to be proxies for the most part for Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Although you might mileage from US miniatures since a lot of nations use Kevlars now and if your going 6mm then size will mask, to some degree, "wrong" equippment. Naval and air wise you have better pickings since a lot if the ships have miniatures. Honestly this sounds more like scenario fodder for an operational/political boardgame than a miniatures game. Like maybe "Red Dragon Green Crescent": link What were you thinking about Collins? |
David Manley | 28 Dec 2012 11:58 p.m. PST |
Yeah, perhaps the budget thing was a bit uncalled for (I admit its a bit difficult to understand the lemming mentality there, sorry) but I really do think the scenario you posted there is rather unrealistic, and the one I posited is more likely. If thats "politics" and it offends your sensibilities then I apologise, but thats the risk you run when you post a present day or near future scenario. Since "politics" defines that scenario its difficult not to if some sense of reality is to be maintained. |
Milites | 29 Dec 2012 5:24 a.m. PST |
Yeah, Communist countries who torture and kill their their citizens, remove their rights, arbitarily seize their property and limit their access to information are usually the victims of aggression, perpetrated by modern Western democracies! Getting a bit fed up with any modern scenario proposed, being the blue touch paper for tired, entrenched, political posturing. There is always a political element, to any war, true, but since when do all wars follow rational processes? China might, in the future, be reduced to some show of strength, due to internal weakness, and miscalculates spectacularly. Most gamers want to pit one force against another, they construct a 'reasonable' scenario and have fun. Then again, perhaps the article should have been linked and the explicit wargaming perspective forming the majority of the post. GHQ have quite a reasonable range of Chinese armour but no Japanese, and H&R seem to have neither! Of course you could use substitutes. |
Gennorm | 29 Dec 2012 6:54 a.m. PST |
H&R have the ZTZ96, ZTZ99 and ZBD07. More have been promised. Scotia has Japanese and Chinese. |
Tgunner | 29 Dec 2012 7:55 a.m. PST |
Yeah, I think 6mm is the best bet if you're going for massed armor engagements. The Japanese Type 90 MBT is an Abrams/Leopard clone so you could use either as a proxy:
The Type 89 IFV is a bit tougher but it's a pretty conventional Western IFV with an autocannon, ATGM, and a coaxial mg:
It's a bit boxy in its shape. Maybe a Marder would be a decent proxy? But be warned, the Japanese only have 70 or so of the things! It also can carry 7 men along with its 3 man crew. Pretty conventional really, plus it has six ports for small arms. You don't want to tail gate this fellow. The other two APCs in service are battle taxi types with the Type 73 being a M113 clone:
One oddball thing about this track is that it is armed with a bow mounted mg!! That gives it a three man crew! That's a driver, bow mg gunner, and the TC. That seems a mite big for a battle taxie, but it does carry a 9 man dismount squad though. You also have Type 96 wheeled APC:
There are about 300 of each type so these would be your more numerous AFVs. The Type 96 is a local version of the LAV, sans the 25mm turret. They use a weapons station that is armed with the Ma-dece or a 40mm grenade launcher. This carrier carries a much more reasonable two man crew with eight dismounts. Troop wise you're probably not going to find spot on troops for the JGSDF. But I woud think that GHQ's Americans would be a good fit in 6mm:
Interesting camo pattern. Here's a link to a Japanese order of battle from global security, it has a map which shows unit locations: link[/uel] And a nicer one by wikipeida that shows more of a subunit breakdown: link Wikipedia has a nice break down of the JGSDF, unit by unit, here: link Just click on an army and then it will show you the elements that make it up. You get the name of each division/brigade's subunits and a nice feel for its kit. One problem though is I can't see any Japanese units on Okinawa. There are a lot of US forces there but nothing that I can see that's Japanese. If that's the case then this is really a war between the US and China and unless the Chinese can deplete the Navy and the Airforce then an invasion of Okinawa is a pipe dream. As for missile strikes, the US does have Patriot SAMs and AEGIS warships (how many on Okinawa is anyone's guess)
so it could take a LOT to knock down their defenses. |
JustPlainJoe | 29 Dec 2012 8:49 a.m. PST |
A war between the West/Japan and CHina may be a distant future possibility, but is highly unlikely in the current environment; the Chinese economy, hence their military, is almost solely dependent on the US/European consumer. ANy break there would immediately end their ability to fund their armies. From a wargame perspective, GHQ has a good selection in 6mm to wargame it out. THe quality of the Japanese military would be the great "what if." While Japan has a strong military tradition, the last 70 years has shown the dominance of the pacifist left in military and foreign affairs, yet we cannot discount the very strong sense of Japanese nationalism. They would generally be better equipped/trained vs. your A class Chinese divisions, but only the US can truly boast a veteran military that can conduct large scale warfare-the Japanese (as well as the CHinese) will have sognificant deficiencies in higher command functions and have a serious lack of veteran talent with the ability to conduct large scale conflict. I'd say you could not really give an edge to either side, with the Chinese really relying on pure numbers to give them the only edge-whether the Japanese technological edge is enough is up to the gamemaster. |
Milites | 29 Dec 2012 5:30 p.m. PST |
Interesting counter to your optimism. link |
Lion in the Stars | 29 Dec 2012 7:40 p.m. PST |
I have always been impressed by the competence of the individual Japanese soldier. (Engineroom on a diesel sub clean enough to perform surgery in!) I am less than impressed by the politicians, on any side. |
Lookingglassman | 01 Jan 2013 12:02 a.m. PST |
I was reading an Army Times before Christmas and there was an article about US deploying more troops to Australia and holding exercises in the general area. Hmmm
maybe our govt knows something we don't know? LOL! |
Bangorstu | 01 Jan 2013 12:50 a.m. PST |
The tensions between Japan and China are worrying, but I think if the Chinese are going to do anything in the near future, they'll pick on someone without Western allies, like Vietnam. Just to give their armed forces a run-out so to speak. |
Milites | 01 Jan 2013 3:28 p.m. PST |
I think the Vietnamese would then show the world the failings still inherent in the PLA paper tiger. Better to threaten the West, in the future, with supposed horrendous consequences and gain your objectives rather than risking actual fighting. The West, if it holds to its current political trajectory, will pay the Dane geld willingly, rather than expose itself to conflict. Time is China's best weapon, to achieve her political goals, but if they wait too long the inherent weaknesses, inherent in their system come into force, and the Communists hold on power is seriously compromised if not over. |
FatherOfAllLogic | 02 Jan 2013 10:55 a.m. PST |
Go back to that article and read it again. I think the author is just stirring the pot. I find it unlikely the Chinese would 'suddenly' mass their forces, chase off the US Navy and blanket Japan with advanced jet aircraft. Then invade Okinawa with two plus divisions of troops. How? China has little or no way to project forces from the mainland, not to mention training. The US would certainly notice the concentration of forces and begin to mass our own, you know, like attack subs. Being a taxpayer, I would expect our damn expensive weapon systems to easily handle theirs. Our long range aircraft could stage from Diego Garcia and Guam (and Alaska?) and so protect and reinforce Japan. Finally I would think we could concentrate Marines and air mobile troops to prevent any amphibious invasions. And, or yeah, our aircraft carriers. Sorry, just don't see it. |
Milites | 02 Jan 2013 12:26 p.m. PST |
Of course he's stirring the pot, the author is just reflecting a growing unease in the Asian countries closest to China. They are not reasured by the complacent bromides from the US and see a host of potential conflicts on the horizon. Granted, this particular one is less realistic, but Japan is genuinely concerned that China will be allowed more and more of a free hand. As for carriers, advances in missile technology make these key components of US naval power, more and more vulnerable. The Chinese aircraft carrier is less strategic and more political, a visible symbol of intent. Finally, for all those reasuring us nothing will happen, the PLA is not part of the state but an arm of the Communist party. Sorry. I think history is on the side of the pessimists on this one. I for one would be delighted to be proved wrong. |
Daniel | 08 Jan 2013 4:44 p.m. PST |
The Naval War College, China Maritime Studies, Number 3 is 101 pages of free online PDF goodness on this subject. The issue discusses the PLAN Assassin's Mace mine warfare capability. It lays out a pretty convincing strategy for keeping the USN a considerable distance from locations such as Okinawa, Taiwan and the Spratleys while they're reduced. Clean and efficient too
|
Number6 | 14 Jan 2013 12:59 a.m. PST |
"Sigh – lesson learnt. Innocent scenariofodder post degenerates quickly into political debate. You'd think there are enough other places on the web to express political viewpoints, but clearly not." Of course – wargaming and real wars have nothing to with politics. "rather than this far-fetched scenario I am more worried that the US will, deliberately or through ignorance, engineer a scenario in which the only credible Chinese response will be a military one, at which point Washington says "see, I told you so?" And that just sounds like some stupid left-wing guest analyst on CNN. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jan 2013 3:27 a.m. PST |
China HATES trying to figure out what the US is up to. China plans at least 10 years out. I would not be surprised to learn that China plans 50 years out. The US is hard-pressed to plan 4 years out. |
Zephyr40k | 10 Feb 2013 11:45 a.m. PST |
While I agree China wants to rule the islands of the South China Sea, the biggest hole I see in this concept is air superiority, especially over Japan. They are a very long ways away from even attempting that. |