Thread: World War Three

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

With all three of these factors, and one sixth of the world's population, only major political turmoil or a massive disaster can really stop China's economic rise.

Sigh. Continue to believe that, sure. If you really do believe it then I recommend investing heavily in Chinese stocks if you have not already.

-dale

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I am assuming that this is a major operation to take away Siberia. Therefore it would be launched by more than just what is in place in Manchuria. Any offensive operation tends to require more than just in place forces. Even if Russia began mobilization fairly rapidly, China could still have a significant edge in numbers by the time it launched it's offensive.

Strategically, is China able to achieve surprise in this hypothetical? Complete? Partial?

-dale

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Several points. The Germans nearly won all those fights, especially at Kursk. They nearly rolled up the entire Russian line.

The terrain in question is flatland. Internal LoCs mean squat.

Both the Chinese and the Russians do not resupply their units. They get rebuilt. They fight until exhausted, step aside and let a fresh army take their place, and wait for their turn to go back to the rear for fresh men and materials.

Lastly, modern warfare is not attrition warfare. We no longer need to kill every man in an enemy army. We just need to kill those that would render the entire army ineffective and that usually means killing the reserves. The Soviets call this the Deep Battle and the Chinese is trying to copy it in their WZC.

Couple things:

Nearly won is not as won. For some reason, the Germans were unable to win those battles even though they could have nearly won. I am pretty sure the German generals realized that but could never exploit their gains. That's what I'm sure wlwarmonger is referring to.

In NATO, your doctrine of modern warfare is isolation & reduction, right? So how does that translate into defeating the enemy? Soviets say that in the Deep Battle, to kill the reserves means defeating the enemy. Is that the same for NATO? If it is, NATO has a different way of going about it, no?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No, they were decisive - against the Chinese.



The same with the Chinese. The majority of their forces are 100 miles away from the border.



It would not be a few hundred thousand men. At best, only two corps would be involved and that's 60,000 men. By their standard calculation, those divisions can tolerate up to 50% casualties before they're combat ineffective and that is 30,000 casualties.

They sufferred far more than that in Korea and in 79 Sino-VN War, and they did not hold any territory.



200,000 men in 79 Sino-VN War is a minor clash? However, you're missing the point. The point is a political victory. In the WZC scenario, the Chinese would bloodied a few noses and then run away before a replacement army would come seeking vengence. Which is exactly what happenned in all of China's Wars.

In Korea, Eisenhower threatened nukes. The Chinese negotiated.

In 62 Sino-Indo War, the Indian Army mobilized, the Chinese ran home before the Indian Army could exact revenge.

Sino-Soviet Clashes, the Chinese retreated 100 miles away from their borders, not giving the Soviets any chance at their avenging humalition at losing a battalion level engagement.

79 Sino-VN. The Chinese gone home long before the Vietnamese could mount a counter-attack.

NATO divisions can only sustain 25% before rendering as combat ineffective, right?

I didn't know that Eisenhower threatened nukes. I thought that was MacArthur. Tell me, in light of this infoif it was Eisenhower, would he have conceded to MacArthur's demands that USA use the nukes against China?

Originally Posted by dalem

Strategically, is China able to achieve surprise in this hypothetical? Complete? Partial?

-dale

It really depends on how they run things. If for a few years prior to the offensive China conducts massive training exercises annually in Manchuria they should be able to achieve strategic surprise. The only way I could see them achieving tactical surprise would be if the Russians didn't tell their unit commanders on the ground anything. I cannot envision a situation like that occuring. But they should be able to achieve a nice superiority of forces in theater before jumping off, and they get to pick their objectives, so that also helps. Let's say, at best, partial surprise if they're lucky and good, at worst an in theater superiority of forces, unless they are really dumb (or the Russians really paranoid).

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

It really depends on how they run things. If for a few years prior to the offensive China conducts massive training exercises annually in Manchuria they should be able to achieve strategic surprise. The only way I could see them achieving tactical surprise would be if the Russians didn't tell their unit commanders on the ground anything. I cannot envision a situation like that occuring. But they should be able to achieve a nice superiority of forces in theater before jumping off, and they get to pick their objectives, so that also helps. Let's say, at best, partial surprise if they're lucky and good, at worst an in theater superiority of forces, unless they are really dumb (or the Russians really paranoid).

So the Chinese start running massive exercises (yearly I assume) near the Russian border, and the Russians do nothing in response? Move no troops? Increase no readiness?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

So the Chinese start running massive exercises (yearly I assume) near the Russian border, and the Russians do nothing in response? Move no troops? Increase no readiness?

-dale

I did not say that. I was likening it to the annual exercises run by the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. Perhaps limited troop increases on the part of NATO, and an increase in alertness would be the most likely response on the part of Russia after a few years of desensitization. The Russians may move some additional forces in theater, but not enough to compensate for the Chinese forces there, which is why I stated that a comfortable margin of superiority could be built up by the Chinese. That is also why I said that attaining tactical surprise was extremely unlikely, because Russia military readiness would be fairly high. However at least partial strategic surprise is possible, and the Russian armed forces are unlikely to move most of their army to Siberia until after China's tanks roll over the border.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I did not say that. I was likening it to the annual exercises run by the Warsaw Pact during the cold war. Perhaps limited troop increases on the part of NATO, and an increase in alertness would be the most likely response on the part of Russia after a few years of desensitization. The Russians may move some additional forces in theater, but not enough to compensate for the Chinese forces there, which is why I stated that a comfortable margin of superiority could be built up by the Chinese. That is also why I said that attaining tactical surprise was extremely unlikely, because Russia military readiness would be fairly high. However at least partial strategic surprise is possible, and the Russian armed forces are unlikely to move most of their army to Siberia until after China's tanks roll over the border.

I don't know. Hard to find folks more paranoid about invasion (and arguably rightly so) than the Russians.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I don't know. Hard to find folks more paranoid about invasion (and arguably rightly so) than the Russians.

-dale

Yeah, but they don't really have the money to throw away moving troops around like that every year unless they are absolutely sure that the blow is coming. In the end, the sheer cost will force them to lower their guard a little bit.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Yeah, but they don't really have the money to throw away moving troops around like that every year unless they are absolutely sure that the blow is coming. In the end, the sheer cost will force them to lower their guard a little bit.

I still disagree. In the hypothetical we are discussing I think you are requiring the Russians to be Very Stupid, and I don't think that's a wise assumption. The Russians have had, and still do have, many many problems, but stupidity is NOT one of them. And as far as the simple expense of adequate preparedness, I think that they would find the spare change for that kind of thing.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I think that they would find the spare change for that kind of thing.

Their people are used to starving.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

It really depends on how they run things. If for a few years prior to the offensive China conducts massive training exercises annually in Manchuria they should be able to achieve strategic surprise. The only way I could see them achieving tactical surprise would be if the Russians didn't tell their unit commanders on the ground anything. I cannot envision a situation like that occuring. But they should be able to achieve a nice superiority of forces in theater before jumping off, and they get to pick their objectives, so that also helps. Let's say, at best, partial surprise if they're lucky and good, at worst an in theater superiority of forces, unless they are really dumb (or the Russians really paranoid).

Your scenario is not anything near realistic.

Even if the Chinese do manage complete strategic surprise, the Russians got the one ace that the Chinese could not answer blow for blow - nukes. For the Chinese to take the Siberian oil belt, the Russians are going to make the Chinese rice belt a radioactive lake and the industrial belt a nice flourecent green.

And before you say you don't want to include nukes in this equation, you cannot escape it. If there are no nukes, the Russians would be manning 40 divisions in Siberia.

This essentially leaves a quick and dirty border war in which only honour is at stake and not national survival and for that, the Russians are still superior to the Chinese.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Your scenario is not anything near realistic.

Even if the Chinese do manage complete strategic surprise, the Russians got the one ace that the Chinese could not answer blow for blow - nukes. For the Chinese to take the Siberian oil belt, the Russians are going to make the Chinese rice belt a radioactive lake and the industrial belt a nice flourecent green.

And before you say you don't want to include nukes in this equation, you cannot escape it. If there are no nukes, the Russians would be manning 40 divisions in Siberia.

This essentially leaves a quick and dirty border war in which only honour is at stake and not national survival and for that, the Russians are still superior to the Chinese.

I know. This original scenario was assuming no nukes, because that is the only way that one could map a convential war out. Given a couple of decades, China could probably build it's nuclear forces up to a point where it will have second strike capability, but as of right now Russia would obliterate them as soon as it seemed like an invasion was actually taking place. As you will recall, my original scenario envisioned 30 years in the future, and by that point China could have a much larger nuclear arsenal, thus reducing the Russian nuclear advantage. Also, what started the current conversation was whether China was stronger than Russia in terms of great power status. In a long, drawn out, conflict I would still say absolutely (the economic disparities ensure Chinese victory, if nothing else does). Such a conflict would not occur with nuclear use however, therefore such a scenario automatically assumes no nukes.

Still not realistic. Would the US yield Alaska to the Russians? Why would the Russians yield Siberia to the Chinese? Which again leaves a short and bloody conflict and that advantage still belongs to the Russians.