"China US war on Taiwan simulated" Topic

Interesting video from the Daily Mail (and really, I love the way this guy speaks English, distinctly and with distinction). This said, IMO, a bit too optimistic about the lack of PLAN ASW capabilities. A few US SSNs operating freely in the restricted waters of the Formosa Strait under Chinese air supremacy and wiping out half of the PLAN amphibs?

YouTube link

China is hoping that futuristic interested tech will make up for their total lack of experience in ASW. US and Russia have been doing ASW against each other for decades and get free practice hunting and evading each other. If Chinese tech is miraculous then the US subs won't do much. If their tech isn't up to par they're in real trouble.

This has been war gamed before … All involved take heavy losses. But in the end the Chicom invasion of Taiwan will be thwarted.

The Chicoms seem to always have the numbers to take losses and continue to attack. But as many note. They have never fought a naval/air war. Last time they went to war was with Vietnam, in '79. The Vietnamese once again had the home court advantage. Both sides took heavy losses. But looks like the Vietnamese held on. The Chicoms eventually withdrew …

It was noted that the Chicom mass infantry attacks looked a lot like what was seen during the Korean War. They did have much, much more armor in '79. But no real exceptional use of their AFVs. Suffering many losses. The Old VC/NVA know how to fight in their jungle … The Chicoms paid for it.

After a full 50 years of the US "intelligence" apparatus greatly exaggerating the scale of the Soviet threat, I've grown wary of the most current threat assessments of China by the same family of spies.

Do I believe the PLA/PLAN are a capable, but untried, force, willing to go all in against the West? Absolutely. Do I believe the West has buried its head in the sand, or worse, been paid off by Chinese agents to ignore the threat? Again, yes.

But the history of the Chinese Army is not one that highlights a highly flexible, well versed war machine. And political cronyism at its highest ranks no doubt could cripple its other capabilities.

The threat is real, but I always wonder how much is exaggerated to keep the defense dollars feeding the war pigs in DC…..

Yes, I know, cynicism…

Maggot, you are right, there has been in recent years a lot of fear-mongering in the west to keep our defense contractors in contracts. The Chinese need constant watching, but constant spying and infiltration by them is the biggest threat for now, IMO.

Also I didn't mention war broke out again in '84 when Vietnam tried to occupy some Chicom territory, etc. The clash was short with many losses suffered on both sides. And both sides fought heroically and to the death in a number of actions. Seems both were willing to inflict heavy losses on their enemy no matter the losses to themselves. China claimed victory …

But will the Chicoms take such losses if they try to invade Taiwan ? They do consider it part of China. Let's hope no one has to find out.

Another aspect to consider approx. 40,000 + or – Chinese illegal aliens were allowed to cross into the US. Unimpeded with the Biden Admin and his party's open border policy. Many were military age males. Some families which are a perfect cover for spies. As the Russians did in the Cold War, etc. Daddy, mommy and baby(s). They can't be enemy agents. Can they ? If the US got involved in a conflict with the Chicoms, how many of these 40,000 will be a 5th Column, intel assets, saboteurs, etc.?

Plus the USA/the West knows you cannot get into a land war with China in their own country. For so many obvious reasons …

The Chicoms are the real threat. Russia has nukes but the rest of the military and intel assets have proven to be marginal at best as we see in Ukraine.

But the Chicoms know how to play the long game. They are buying property and business in the US. They gave the cartels drugs to bring into the USA which killed thousands of Americas, they most likely fund the anti-US factions within the US, etc., etc.

They are the real threat to US from both inside and out … They may never have to invade Taiwan. Just wait for the USA to fall from within like many great nations/empires before. The Chicoms … they'll wait …

Again … Pray for peace buy prepare for war." … The US can now to set real priorities any republic should i.e. Defense and the Economy. No more wasted taxpayer money on woke progressive projects, initiatives, etc. E.g. LGBTQ+, CRT, DEI, supporting illegal aliens, a green agenda, etc., etc., are things the Chicoms don't spend a Yen on.

"A few US SSNs operating freely in the restricted waters of the Formosa Strait under Chinese air supremacy and wiping out half of the PLAN amphibs? "

Those waters are on the shallow side. I wouldn't risk subs in them, even if the ASW threat is thought to be poor…

"This has been war gamed before … All involved take heavy losses. But in the end the Chicom invasion of Taiwan will be thwarted."

Interesting, whenever I have heard reports of pol-mil games conducted by US agencies and think-tanks the Chi ese have more often than not come out on top. I took part in a similar game in the UK in the Spring – same outcome. Even more interesting are the more "pol" focused games where the US teams realise that they aren't actually obliged by treaty to do much more than send a strongly worded letter to Beijing,

Thinking outside the box:

There is no reason that the Taiwanese couldn't use B61s on their own soil to destroy enemy beach landing forces.

Initially observers would assume enemy had used the tactical nukes – upping the ante on the diplomatic front.

Changing the battleground into a CBRN environment would up the complexity and difficulty for the enemy.

It would certainly rattle enemy morale – imagine being in a concentration area on the mainland and learning that forward elements had been nukulearised.

Note: this is what I posted – "All involved take heavy losses. But in the end the Chicom invasion of Taiwan will be thwarted." …

I have heard reports of pol-mil games conducted by US agencies and think-tanks the Chi ese have more often than not come out on top.

I have heard otherwise. But what I read, heard, etc. could be wrong. There is a lot of info out there and it changes … often.

But what does "come out on top" mean ? They take Taiwan ? They destroy the US Forces decisively ? Or ?

the US teams realise that they aren't actually obliged by treaty to do

That should be no real surprise … But what happens if the US leave Taiwan on its own ? Only supplying them with weapons, etc.

Of some interest …

link

link

link

The reason the Chinese win a conventional simulation maybe has to do with the combat capabilities of Chinese commanders, their leadership skills, knowledge, competence. If assumptions are made and they are rated even average, and you believe a huge number of corvette-type ships is critical, then they are competitive. If you believe they can run land and carrier air operations, they have the logistics, pilots, sophisticated aircraft design and production capacity, or they have millions of drones ready, then they can win.

However, I think the Chinese would have to take a corruption impact roll at the start of each turn to see which commanders have sold or diverted resources for their own money making schemes.

"But what does "come out on top" mean ? They take Taiwan ?"

Yes, damage to US forces depends obviously on the level of engagement that the US decides upon.

I'm at the Connections conference in Laurel next week. Many of the pol-mil wargamers who run or take part in these kinds of games will be there. I'm sure it will be discussed

My totally unprofessional and uninformed feelings align with
DMs and T's, much because of L4's first post. I think we are in for a mess of hurt in the future. Sadly I also no obvious leadership in either party that can make much difference.

We await the next generation of leaders with fingers crossed, hoping some talented and exceptional people are in the pipeline no matter what party. So far, no signs, IMO.

Good points Tort …

I'm at the Connections conference in Laurel next week. Many of the pol-mil wargamers who run or take part in these kinds of games will be there. I'm sure it will be discussed

Well that is good to know Dave. You are the man on the ground. So, you should have the inside track. So yes, please keep us informed.

My totally unprofessional and uninformed feelings align with
DMs and T's, much because of L4's first post.

Well I didn't think what you said was unprofessional and uninformed. But please explain what you meant, or am I being a bit "dense" ?

I have spent a lot of time in Taiwan both as Military and as a civilian. All these supposed "experts" in predicting wargaming outcomes as to what will happen I suggest the following:

There were good reasons why the US bypassed the island in WWII. Do these folks think nothing has changed in those past 80 years?

How many of those have actually ever been to Taiwan let alone get to "see" ROC capabilities. facilities, terrain studies, logistic sustainment preparations, etc.?

The general feeling of the indigenous population on this subject?

While I do not claim to have any special or inside knowledge outside of my firsthand observations, I do maintain that there were reasons why we bypassed it in WWII! Those reasons have had 80 years to be improved upon.

Dye4 +1

From what I know/have heard, etc. as I have said before …

There are limited beaches capable of handling large landings or how many large DZs ?

There is a number of mountainous and heavily forested areas.

They have the home field advantage … it's their back yard …

Most on the island have no love for the Chicoms …

The Chicoms have never made a major Normandy style invasion …

Even if they manage to get a few beachheads. How can they be resupplied, reinforced, etc. Unless they have air and naval superiority.*

Can they even break out of those beach heads, with difficult terrain and logistical concerns.

*Will they ever get total air and/or sea superiority, even though they as always will have the numbers. But what is the quality of those massive numbers of aircraft and naval assets? Plus do they have the leadership quality at all levels ?

Of course, never underestimate you enemy … But as in the case of the Russians they were overestimated. When invading and fighting effectively in Ukraine. They too seem to depend on numbers but that war there is still going on after 3 years. With little gains and more & more heavy losses. Even had to call for help from N/Korea.

The Russians just had to cross a border. The Chicoms will have to cross the sea.

Just off the top of my head …

Xi brothers fallout and military coup confirmed

YouTube link

Armand

What struck me in the video is that, despite a fairly optimistic assessment of the political context (allies support militarily the US intervention) and military situation (no Chinese preemptive strikes on US and Japanese air bases that are pivotal in the scenario's interdiction of Chinese shipping), there is no clear win of the Allies.
No detailed accounting, too, of the performances of DB21s missiles (beyond the fairly abstract damage to US CVs : the main question being, as in Midway's time, the capability to locate, track & acquire enemy CV groups which is not a simple matter).
Talks about Chinese lack of experience in naval and amphibious operations are, for me at least, reminiscent of the way Western powers assessed Japan's capabilities prior to December 1941. I'm a strong western supporter, and this is why I'm voicing concern while it's still hopefully time.

A good point Foxbat. We cannot be certain. Our tech gives us an advantage in surveillance of naval construction that did not exist in 1941. But we still don't know for sure how they will perform.

Taiwan imports 70% of their food.

As a precursor to an CCP invasion, there would be a training exercise, incorporating a naval blockade

Once hostilities begin, I doubt China would allow any "humanitarian" aid through a blockade.

Taiwan capitulates before starvation.

^^^^
Maybe. But Taiwan can prepare and hoard food beforehand. You'd also be surprised to see how long people can keep on on reduced rations, as many sieges showed in the past.
Also, this is valid only in the case of the US choosing not to intervene. Relief forces would be there long before the blockade can force Taiwan to surrender, as many sieges in the past also taught us…
which brings us back to the point of the simulation in my post. Naval supremacy, with a slightly different twist (and a simpler problem for the Allies) : you don't have to stop the invasion force, you "simply" have to go through the blockade. Since by nature, it will be on the far side of Taiwan for China, and fought on the open seas, China would surrender a lot of the advantages geography gives them if they renounce an invasion beforehand.

Taiwan imports 70% of their food.

China imports 80% of its oil supply, 80% of its iron supply and in aggregative some 30% of its food supply…

Most of China's oil has to cross the Indian Ocean where it would be very vulnerable, a few USN units might do. The Chinese navy currently is not nuclear-fueled and has a finite range and endurance.

Like the Japanese, who had to plan later operations based on their limited oil supply, lack of oil could hurt ops and production of war material.

China imports 30% of oil requirements, 90% of that by sea, 10% by Russian pipelines.

Twaiwan imports 97+% of its oil requirements.

Overall, China imports 15% of their energy requirements and with 40% of China's manufacturing base devoted to exports, cutting energy/oil consumption – not too difficult.

Regarding a naval blockade … the CCP doesn't have to attack in mid-ocean – half of Taiwan's major ports are on the Taiwan Straii and destroying the four major ports on the Pacific side?

China imports 70 per cent of its oil according to my source here. I don't pretend to know first hand, but I have never heard a figure as low as yours AGamer, but maybe I am wrong.

Xi is hell bent for energy self sufficiency, China is pushing EVs hard, leaving us in the dust in all likelyhood. US oil corporations have been exporting huge amounts of American oil we assume is ours to China for years. Apparently, the US government does not control the global oil market, regardless of promises made. But in a war things would be different.

link

Tort – I believe you may be right, my source the US Energy Administration – for China – seems to have the 70/30 split contradicting itself in certain docs. My apologies for the inaccurate stat I posted.

The 15 % import percentage of energy requirements is correct.

Generally speaking, … anything that has to come across a sea /ocean, rail, pipeline, road even, air … it can be interdicted. Much more easily today than before. But to effectively "cut off" supplies it is going to take assets, lots of them.

Talks about Chinese lack of experience in naval and amphibious operations are, for me at least, reminiscent of the way Western powers assessed Japan's capabilities prior to December 1941.

As I have said before and not just me, but never underestimate your enemy. I think we learned and remember some lessons from WWII, etc.

But as always it will come down to leadership. And the Chicoms will always have numbers on their side. Not only on land, but on the sea and air if the intel is correct. And I think it is generally correct.

We already know to never fight a land war in China, in their backyard for obvious reasons. And we saw how they used their numbers during the Korean War. Had they not crossed the Yalu in the winter of '50. The war would have been pretty much over. As the N/Korean forces had suffered severe attrition at the US/UN's hands.

As I said I think things could be pretty bloody for all involved. If the Chicoms tried to invade Taiwan. But will their numbers work for them on the seas as it did on the ground in Korea ? Remember the Korean War is not over. It is only a truce. I'm leaning on Western quality will be effective enough to stop a successful invasion. Similar how the US/UN blunted the North and Chicoms trying to overrun the South. But again … a number of things have changed since the Korean War, '50-'53 …