Help support TMP


"A ultra-modern Wake Island?" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board

Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



917 hits since 1 Jul 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner02 Jul 2018 7:14 a.m. PST

This is an interesting article about looking at the Wake Island Campaign with a modern lense and applying it to a future Sino-US Pacific War.

link

One of the big US weaknesses during the opening phases of the war was that US positions were very widespread and not mutually supporting. That allowed the Japanese to mass forces and take the piecemeal. While the Chinese can dominate the first island chain (due to a lack of US presence in the area) I have to wonder how the war would go in the second island chain where China is further away and you´re getting closer to major US bases like Guam and Hawaii.

Personal logo aegiscg47 Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2018 8:52 a.m. PST

While an interesting article, China is a long way off in sealift capacity and being able to project power too far from the mainland. A strike at Taiwan and Vietnam are certainly possible in the next 3-5 years, but beyond that they would need to allocate a lot more resources to build up to where Japan's strategic situation was in 1941.

thomalley02 Jul 2018 9:33 a.m. PST

Well, unless they neutralize Japan and the Philippines the rest of the islands are out of play.

Lion in the Stars02 Jul 2018 10:44 a.m. PST

And 'neutralizing' Japan will be problematic at best. Major military actions will only make it easier for PM Abe to push through more militaristic reforms.

Like changing Article 9 (the no-war clause in the Post-War Japanese Constitution).

Lion in the Stars03 Jul 2018 1:00 a.m. PST

Reading that article, the big problem is that an EAB cannot be hard-to-detect without a major increase in missile capabilities.

In order to avoid the base having a major surface-search radar, the US would need an anti-ship missile that can go to a GPS waypoint (guess how high a priority killing GPS satellites is?), and then search&destroy for ships fitting the right target profile. Technically, Tactical Tomahawks can do that (or will within 5-10 years), but we don't do Ground Launched Cruise Missiles anymore, and IIRC we destroyed the launchers. The EAB would be using satellite surveillance for initial targeting. You might be able to leave a platoon or so to guard the missile launchers, any less than that and the base will be very vulnerable to Special Forces/Marine Raiders.

This is even more problematic for anti-air. Gotta use a radar to track airplanes. Whether that's a radar from a carrier's Hawkeye, a land-based AWACS, or the radars for Patriot and/or THAAD missiles. I suppose you could borrow one of those border surveillance Aerostats (tethered blimps), but that still a non-stealthy way to track things.

Cacique Caribe04 Jul 2018 7:06 p.m. PST

Not IF. When. Just a matter of time.

Dan

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.