You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
The size of the territory matters because range and mass matters for achievable coverage of surveillance and intensity of attack. But the more fundamental reason Taiwan and Ukraine are nothing alike is simply that Ukraine has a whole western flank that Russia will never be able to contest and control unless it chooses to invade other countries so Russia can *never* impair Ukraine’s access to logistical *volumes*. The word *volume* is important here because the physical quantities that can be moved is what decides whether you can cripple an adversary by attacking their supply lines.Urban fortresses like Bakmut, chasiv yar bogged down Russian force for very long time. Let alone like Taipei.
It has nothing to do with size of territory.
Urkianinans been fighting there without electricity.
You can stop oil and natural gas into Taiwan but food and water , I think Taiwan troops can find or stored. It's allies can bring food, water, medicine from east side. China cannot blockade on the east due to threat.
Attack but don't invade Taiwan island
Blockade till the people in tawain surrender willingly
Taiwan is surrounded on all sides by water imports, and is thus completely port dependent for its supplies. Taiwan almost imports a large share of its food and if their ground forces retreat to the cities they can’t defend against the landings or the subsequent occupation of all their rural peripheries which are what supply whatever food they don’t import to to the cities. China absolutely can and will blockade the East. If the US wants to contest China’s ability to hold the Eastern coast it will have to task a far bigger and more positionally entrenched fight than the hit and run pit shot idea you mentioned earlier, which would in turn put the US within range of China’s missile strike complex.
Last edited:
The Russians never even bothered to blow up the bridges over the Dnieper. That is why those Ukrainian troops get supplied.
China can blockade west of taiwan but too dangerous trying to do that on east side.“You can invent all sorts of fictional war situations if you forget about mass”.
But you’re right, if America’s assets and positions are impervious and untouchable and have infinite attack frequency volume and mass and every one of China’s assets and positions die after being touched just a little then China stands no chance against America. Whether that’s the actual case will require more concrete determinations than an infinite merry go round of fictional rationales.
War planner has to do with worst case scenarios so in actual situation there are margins to work with
Too risky to blockade on east side.The size of the territory matters because range and mass matters for achievable coverage of surveillance and intensity of attack. Taiwan imports most of its food and if they retreat to the cities they can’t defend against the landings or the subsequent occupation of all their rural peripheries which are what supply food to the cities. China absolutely can and will blockade the East. If the US wants to contest China’s ability to hold the Eastern coast it will have to task a far bigger and more positionally entrenched fight than the hit and run pit shot idea you mentioned earlier, which would in turn put the US within range of China’s missile strike complex.
The threat from US and its allies. China won't have air superiority there. J20 not able to help on the east side
After all, it's the open ocean.
You need alot of resources to blockade.
Are you going to sink every ship going to taiwan?
Able to starve the taiwan troops to death is kind of far fetched.
Last edited:
A blockade is not a blockade unless you’ve choked off *all* access. War planners don’t have to imagine worst case scenarios that aren’t realistic. So far all your scenarios have failed to pass any serious scrutiny of realism because you assume America is untouchable and even it’s potshots will be enough to completely crumple a brittle PLA. Your scenarios eschew any concept of mass (or frankly speaking basic knowledge of the real parameter constraints of weapons systems and operational mechanics).China can blockade west of taiwan but too dangerous trying to do that on east side.
War planner has to do with worst case scenarios so in actual situation there are margins to work with
Too risky to blockade on east side.
The threat from US and its allies. China won't have air superiority there. J20 not able to help on the east side
After all, it's the open ocean.
You need alot of resources to blockade.
Are you going to sink every ship going to taiwan?
The eastern coast of Taiwan is not open ocean. That’s why it’s called a coast. The J-20’s range is 1200 nm. It’s designed to operate far past Taiwan. And no one can maintain air superiority over open ocean. It’s also completely irrelevant to whether the PLA can effectively stranglehold Taiwan since only the airspace over Taiwan matters for that.
China in fact has the munitions volume fielded within proximity of Taiwan to sink every ship going to Taiwan. You should actually do some math here rather than make arguments based on imaginary vibes.
Last edited:
In US war simulation, it describes the war lasts about 1 month.A blockade is not a blockade unless you’ve choked off *all* access. War planners don’t have to imagine worst case scenarios that aren’t realistic. So far all your scenarios have failed to pass any serious scrutiny of realism because you assume America is untouchable and even it’s potshots will be enough to completely crumple a brittle PLA. Your scenarios eschew any concept of mass (or frankly speaking basic knowledge of the real parameter constraints of weapons systems and operational mechanics).
The eastern coast of Taiwan is not open ocean. That’s why it’s called a coast. The J-20’s range is 1200 nm. It’s designed to operate far past Taiwan. And no one can maintain air superiority over open ocean. It’s also completely irrelevant to whether the PLA can effectively stranglehold Taiwan since only the airspace over Taiwan matters for that.
China in fact has the munitions volume fielded within proximity of Taiwan to sink every ship going to Taiwan. You should actually do some math here rather than make arguments based on imaginary vibes.
You don't think Taiwan stored enough food and munitions for 1 month?
It's absolutely need to do worst case scenario.
If you don't take down Taiwan in 1 month, do you abort?
Or how long the stalemate lasts before you abort?
Or you are so confident about it you don't need to consider the possibility of stalemate.
Man, this is recipe for disaster in real life.
Honestly since you didn’t cite any sources we don’t even know if this “US war simulation” is up to date. But more importantly if you do not have basic subject matter knowledge to critically assess what you read then you should not be drawing conclusions with so much blind confidence. What the US likes to publish in public is not what their assessments look like in private. Learn how political PR works.In US war simulation, it describes the war lasts about 1 month.
You don't think Taiwan stored enough food and munitions for 1 month?
If you think Taiwan has enough food stored to survive a month you should do the math to show everyone that this is the case. Otherwise it’s another blind unsubstantiated claim. (This is a retread talking point so I’m not going to bother with doing the exercise but there’s a reason all serious analysis on Taiwan war scenarios have shown Taiwan can’t survive a 1 month blockade. If you show the math that this analysis is wrong you can collect the debate point, but no one is going to respect arguments that regurgitate arguments blindly with a complete lack of ability and knowledge to do critical appraisal).
It's absolutely need to do worst case scenario.
If you don't take down Taiwan in 1 month, do you abort?
Or how long the stalemate lasts before you abort?
Or you are so confident about it you don't need to consider the possibility of stalemate.
Man, this is recipe for disaster in real life
The real recipe for disaster in real life is holding strong opinions with no real knowledge or ability to do critical analysis and forming hard judgments based only off hype and vibes. You are asking all sorts of cautionary questions but you’ve shown a remarkable lack of knowledge about how any of these things actually work to a level sufficient to provide useful answers to those questions. The cautionary questions themselves are useless if you don’t know any fundamentals about the topic and refuse to actually study them in detail. The rest of us are currently pointing out where your rudimentary understanding of these fundamentals and their details don’t line up with your judgements on these questions. Until you are capable of understanding at least that much you will not find much productive conversation here or do much to help yourself learn more about how these military matters actually work.
Last edited:
I am not looking for your respect.Honestly since you didn’t cite any sources we don’t even know if this “US war simulation” is up to date. But more importantly if you do not have basic subject matter knowledge to critically assess what you read then you should not be drawing conclusions with so much blind confidence. What the US likes to publish in public is not what their assessments look like in private. Learn how political PR works.
If you think Taiwan has enough food stored to survive a month you should do the math to show everyone that this is the case. Otherwise it’s another blind unsubstantiated claim. (This is a retread talking point so I’m not going to bother with doing the exercise but there’s a reason all serious analysis on Taiwan war scenarios have shown Taiwan can’t survive a 1 month blockade. If you show the math that this analysis is wrong you can collect the debate point, but no one is going to respect arguments that regurgitate arguments blindly with a complete lack of ability and knowledge to do critical appraisal).
I am sticking to my own worst case analysis.
So on record, you don't feel taiwan can last 1 month.
I have few questions for you maybe that can help my analysis.
1) how many troops needed to land in order to take taiwan in planning.
What you do if the actual troops landed is less than planned.
2)if some military transport ships got sunk what would you do?
You haven't answer if there's stalemate whether you would abort. 2 weeks or 1 month?
This is critical. If you don't have answer on this that's fine too.
I am not looking for your respect.
I am sticking to my own worst case analysis.
So on record, you don't feel taiwan can last 1 month.
I have few questions for you maybe that can help my analysis.
1) how many troops needed to land in order to take taiwan in planning.
What you do if the actual troops landed is less than planned.
2)if some military transport ships got sunk what would you do?
You haven't answer if there's stalemate whether you would abort. 2 weeks or 1 month?
This is critical.
1) If you have control over Taiwan’s airspace you don’t need that many troops at landing because Taiwan’s own ground forces can’t mass up to form a defensive line. No defensive line, no resistance.
2) “Some” losses are always expected in a fight. The key question is whether the losses impact your ability to achieve operation objectives. You seem to think a few losses is the same thing as complete defeat. The other side will take losses too. This is not a serious comment.
Your analysis isn’t very useful if it’s not grounded in real knowledge and understanding of how modern combat and military operations work. Comments like the US will cripple the PLA lobbing self guided missiles from 1000 km away are not grounded in reality. If you don’t know the basics you will generate nonsensical questions.
Last edited: