Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Gloire_bb]

And to be frank, fortifications are far less useful these days with bunker busters and precision munitions.

But they're still there. Unless bunker-busting capability completely negates fortification to the point of obsolescence, this capability isn't "0" or "1".
To be frank - it doesn't negate them even them, they simply go down from the status of fortification to the status of highly favorable terrain(even medieval castles still can function as such).
Furthermore, even with ideal PGMs, mapping things for destruction isn't a game of one.
There are fake/new positions, more durable bunkers, old positions may be optionally manned, making it into a guessing game.

Even NK’s infamous mountain artillery bunkers are not expecting to survive the opening days of any war.

No one can guarantee they'll be destroyed before they'll get their job done(poor Seul). Or that paying attention to empty bunkers won't let a gun hidden on the hill next to the bunker do the same job.

Which is the exact problem we have here.
Fortification typically isn't meant to be an "impregnable bastion of freedom against communist devils". Fortification in a broad sense buys time. For this - imho - Penghu is still viable.

Remember that Chinese drones won’t be limited to high altitude only like American drone missions. China has invested significantly in air deployable mini drones, including drone swarms; which can be launched by helicopter, missile or even other drones. These mini-drones can fly low to give close monitoring not possible from high altitude, and can even fly inside structures to verify kills.

I.e., paraphrasing, a certain technical solution(drone observation) will solve essentially a geographical problem.
Maybe it will(it indeed often happened in human history), but it needs to be seen. More often than not, however, when we're talking about sides at the approximately same technical level(of understanding warfare), the opponent won't play it dumb, and there is going to be a need for organizational/tactical solutions.

If anything - I personally think if anything will put the resistance down rapidly - it will be breaking morale (which indeed can be destroyed by firepower).

That’s where the small island nature comes into play. You are literally boxed in with very limited scope for movement, and everywhere you can go would have been pre-mapped by the PLA for destruction or close monitoring by drones.

So was Iwo Jima, and the attacker didn't really have to care for collateral damage.

Proximity to Taiwan will be largely meaningless and probably end up being a detriment

How proximity to a large body of well-protected friendly territory can be a detriment?
At best it can be useless, if complete isolation&supression of both is to be achieved.
But anyway, Penghu location(much like Taiwan itself) is a big problem for the Chinese side - it really decreases available firepower options.

 

[steel21]

Offtop: Penghu archipelago is ~twice the area of Bonin archipelago (including the infamous Iwo Jima, which is only 21km^2), is extensively fortified over many decades, has a significant population, is close enough to Taiwan to be under its umbrella, and is remote enough from the Mainland for it to be a significant factor.

It will be neutralized and eventually taken in case of a conflict(as will Taiwan itself), but the degree of this neutralization is up to execution(on both sides) and isn't a done deal. The archipelago is neither small nor it is insignificant.

Before we go neck deep on Penghu, lets remind ourselves what is the significance of the place.....

It is entirely a power projection platform, used by the defender to obstruct the attackers. The island is isolated and flat as a pool table.

So, in order for Penghu to be of value, the defenders need to shoot munitions off the island to pose a threat. So how does an ASCM determine if the target is a Panamax cargo container or a CVN? It needs targeting data, which means radar. So for Penghu to have any value, they need to beam out X band like time square on new years eve, just begging for HARM responses.

Penghu is also neatly off the horizon of any of the main objectives on Taiwan, so unless the ROC army want to lob missiles with the distinct possibility of bombing their own people, indirect munition won't do ROC any good.

I disagree with PLAwolf, Taiwan does not need days of bombarment. The ideal condition is to cross the channel while the enemy is suppressed. If the flotilla is already at sea, a 100km strait will take less than 3 hours to cross. Once the main effort has landed, and IAD set up, Taiwan will capitulate within 2-3 days.

Once ROC surrenders, Penghu will be in the bag as well.

You guys are playing last century warfare......

 

[steel21]

But they're still there. Unless bunker-busting capability completely negates fortification to the point of obsolescence, this capability isn't "0" or "1".
To be frank - it doesn't negate them even them, they simply go down from the status of fortification to the status of highly favorable terrain(even medieval castles still can function as such)..

No one can guarantee they'll be destroyed before they'll get their job done(poor Seul). Or that paying attention to empty bunkers won't let a gun hidden on the hill next to the bunker do the same job.

Which is the exact problem we have here.
Fortification typically isn't meant to be an "impregnable bastion of freedom against communist devils". Fortification in a broad sense buys time. For this - imho - Penghu is still viable.

I see 2 major holes you your scenario:

1. Taiwanese are not North Koreans. Shit, they aren't even in the same league as South Korean. In terms of morale and will to fight, Taiwan is just north of Panamanians.

2. Bunker are effective if the enemy bombing overhead, once they have landed, and able to interdict logistics, your bunker is more of a prison. I guess you don't need to breath, eat and shit in that bunker of yours.

Dude, I don't know what experience you have. I have been to Area 1 and have drove past those fighting positions in my Abrams. Those fighting positions are stupid hard to get to, and you need to maintain them by clearing the trail to those position every year. some are hard to identify from the ground, but are pretty distinct from the air.

A lot of your arguments are predicated on PLA not having much of vertical lift capability.

WTF those shitty pill boxes are gonna do with Z-20 flying around at night? What? You're gonna shoot FIM-92 from those pill boxes?

 

[tupolevtu144]

Rare (currently the only one in existence) documentary from 2013 about the training of tanker crew in the Taiwanese Army. It's in Chinese so many of you might not understand.

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

[siegecrossbow]

Rare (currently the only one in existence) documentary from 2013 about the training of tanker crew in the Taiwanese Army. It's in Chinese so many of you might not understand.

Part 1:

Part 2:

If you ignore the insignia and flag it actually feels quite a bit like one of those CCTV military documentaries. Are there more episodes?

 

[tupolevtu144]

If you ignore the insignia and flag it actually feels quite a bit like one of those CCTV military documentaries. Are there more episodes?

Well to be honest there's a lot of them. Which do you wanna watch?

 

[Nutrient]

There are fake/new positions, more durable bunkers, old positions may be optionally manned, making it into a guessing game.

I doubt the mainland will bother guessing which positions are real and which are fake. The PLA will have enough weaponry to blow all of them to bits. If a tiny organization like Hezbollah could have 100,000 missiles, imagine how many the PLA has.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well to be honest there's a lot of them. Which do you wanna watch?

Is there one on naval training?

 

[Hendrik_2000]

There's plenty of sinicized Japanese in Taiwan, estimated at over a million decendents who were relatively well off economically at the end of WW2. Settlers remained on the island when Imperial Japan was defeated. With the efforts of KMT they adopted Han names and Mandarin.

DPP is seen as the grass roots party local to Taiwan, supported by Taiwanese/Hokkien speakers. KMT is seen as the Chinese party. Naturally Japanese decendents will tend to support the non-Chinese identity party and their pro-Japan sentiments will seep into the DPP.

That is BS I never heard of it . My best buddy in college is Taiwanese(Hokkien, Hoklo) He was always been pro Taiwan independent decades before DPP come into power. I guess Taiwanese resent the "invasion" of Taiwan by remnant of KMT. By extension mainlander.
I have no doubt that there are many intermarriage between Taiwanese and Japanese during colonial time. But 1 million is way too high number. Can you refer to your sources?

Why Taiwanese is not hostile to Japan, because unlike any other place Japanese colonization in Taiwan is not that harsh. They developed Taiwan agriculture and infrastructure also industry. Why did Japan do that it is mystery. One theory said because Koxinga whose mother is Japanese and he is revered as hero in Japan and known to average Japanese. Because his life is memorized in popular Kabuki play still popular today

 

[plawolf]

But they're still there. Unless bunker-busting capability completely negates fortification to the point of obsolescence, this capability isn't "0" or "1".
To be frank - it doesn't negate them even them, they simply go down from the status of fortification to the status of highly favorable terrain(even medieval castles still can function as such).

Maybe for troops sure, but last I checked, large and delicate major weapons systems like missiles and radar don’t get a cover save from terrain. Especially not against precision munitions that than bypass blocking terrain, or bunker busters that flat out flatten them

Furthermore, even with ideal PGMs, mapping things for destruction isn't a game of one.
There are fake/new positions, more durable bunkers, old positions may be optionally manned, making it into a guessing game.

As others have pointed out, China enjoys such an overwhelming advantage in munitions and air assets they can afford to just hit everything and keep the ruins under 24/7 monitoring with UCAVs really to instantly hit anything that survives that makes any attempt to relocate or make ready to fire

No one can guarantee they'll be destroyed before they'll get their job done(poor Seul). Or that paying attention to empty bunkers won't let a gun hidden on the hill next to the bunker do the same job.

Which is the exact problem we have here.
Fortification typically isn't meant to be an "impregnable bastion of freedom against communist devils". Fortification in a broad sense buys time. For this - imho - Penghu is still viable.

What makes you think the PLAN will put any principle assets worth hitting within range before the initial air and missile strikes have hit and drone monitoring is

I.e., paraphrasing, a certain technical solution(drone observation) will solve essentially a geographical problem.
Maybe it will(it indeed often happened in human history), but it needs to be seen. More often than not, however, when we're talking about sides at the approximately same technical level(of understanding warfare), the opponent won't play it dumb, and there is going to be a need for organizational/tactical solutions.

That’s just a weak nonsense argument. Drones have been proven in combat all across the world already, many of which were made by China. There is nothing left to prove. And of course China would have taken any countermeasures Taiwan might have tried into account.

Also, it’s rich to assume Taiwan is at the same tech level or base competence as China in terms of military tech. I trust Chinese UCAVs, Drone swarms, air deployable mini drones and bunker busters (all real world demonstrated capabilities far more than I trust Taiwanese Taliban-esq attempts to disguising military vehicles as construction equipment.

If anything - I personally think if anything will put the resistance down rapidly - it will be breaking morale (which indeed can be destroyed by firepower).

So was Iwo Jima, and the attacker didn't really have to care for collateral damage.

If the soldiers want to abandon their posts and blend in with the civilian population, China won’t really care. But you can’t fool a military drone into thinking a missile launcher is a crane no matter how many yellow hazard chevrons you glue onto it.

How proximity to a large body of well-protected friendly territory can be a detriment?
At best it can be useless, if complete isolation&supression of both is to be achieved.
But anyway, Penghu location(much like Taiwan itself) is a big problem for the Chinese side - it really decreases available firepower options.

It’s close proximity offers readily available fall back options to defenders, thereby weakening the already shaky moral of their spoilt conscripts.