Chinese Invasion of Taiwan, 2007 - Page 12

zraver · 05-01-2007, 23:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The M9/M11 missiles are advertised to have less than 100 metres CEP. I think there is alot of internal PLA politics involved as to why they went with ballastic missiles rather than cruise missiles (though they are slowly acquiring those but nowhere near the speed of their BM batteries).

Originally, the 2nd Artillery Force (2AF) was the nuclear strike arm of the PLA. Only problem is that they don't own the nukes. The nukes belong to the Central Military Commission and are stored at a CMC location away from their delivery vehicles and under CMC guard.

I know the 2AF has been so frustrated, even during exercise, in trying to get some sort of nuclear release mechanism in place that they went the conventional explosive route but still required to maintain the nuclear option because of their original mandate.

100m CEPmihgt not be good enough to knock out hardened shelters and storage sites. Tank farms and maintence personel barracks perhaps. That would seriously degrade the RoCAF, but would still allow a high intial sortie rate.

Quote:

We are talking about a thousand missile pointed on Taiwan, so it means a clear victory for China if ever they use force against Taiwan and if ever no US intervention?

NO, 1000 bombs is not enough to bring an industrial nation to its knees, or even seriously degrade its defensive capability in the long term. All in all China's build up is decidedly not aimed at Taiwan. I think they are letting the economies merge, money works better than blood when it comes to re-unification. China's build up seems to be aimed at India, Russia, Japan and gaining regional naval dominace in order to secure the gas feilds under the spratly's.

Even the US is not China's target, we are simply an obstacle, not an adversary.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-01-2007, 23:41 PM

Which is why I do not consider those missiles to be a strategic asset but more a tactical one. Something to tip the scales. FOOs calling in a 5 500lb bombs on an enemy CP. A battalion commander requesting a strike on a bunker blocking an advance. A brigade commander collapsing a bridge to cut off an escape. 1000 bombs represent just the strike asset to determine an action or several actions.

Blademaster · 05-02-2007, 12:34 PM

Seems to me to be an expensive way of doing it when considering that the aforementioned strike actions could be accomplished by artillery or strike planes.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-02-2007, 12:55 PM

We have discussed the issue of freighter based artillery. Not exactly ideal and easily prone to be being sunk by mines. PLAAF planes would have their hands full just doing air denial. They won't have time to do the CAS job that they've never been trained to do.

zraver · 05-02-2007, 13:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which is why I do not consider those missiles to be a strategic asset but more a tactical one. Something to tip the scales. FOOs calling in a 5 500lb bombs on an enemy CP. A battalion commander requesting a strike on a bunker blocking an advance. A brigade commander collapsing a bridge to cut off an escape. 1000 bombs represent just the strike asset to determine an action or several actions.

ballistic stukas, hrmm 980 or 9800 might not be enough, jsut re-inforces my view that taiwan is really a back burner issue. I really think China's aims are far more regional and potentially threatening to its other neighbors and US allies.

**astralis** · 05-02-2007, 13:42 PM

zraver,

but if china's armaments can't even seriously threaten an island 100 miles offshore, what's the chances that it's gonna threaten anyone else?

HistoricalDavid · 05-02-2007, 15:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

zraver,

but if china's armaments can't even seriously threaten an island 100 miles offshore, what's the chances that it's gonna threaten anyone else?

I think the gist is that it won't be sufficient fire support for an invasion, not that it won't do harm. The V2s were not aimed at Southern England with the intention of eventually invading it, but they did nevertheless cause considerable casualties. Now imagine missiles (admittedly not as many) over a shorter time period and instead of a 7-mile-ish CEP, a few hundred metres CEP.

**astralis** · 05-02-2007, 15:53 PM

historicaldavid,

sure. but as col yu and zraver has pointed out, it's not going to even seriously degrade taiwanese defense capabilities, and from what we've seen, strategic bombing to degrade morale often backfires.

so these missiles don't represent a strategic threat, and it would seem that there's not enough of them for them to even be a serious threat tactically. that's why i'm wondering about zraver's comment- these missiles seem to be little more than a paper tiger.

HistoricalDavid · 05-02-2007, 16:10 PM

Then the question arises, is the PRC adopting a militarily sound strategy? Or is it, as you say, an intimidating paper tiger?

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-02-2007, 16:20 PM

At this point, we don't know and I suspect, neither does the PLA. Before the Iraq War, the PLA, like everyone else, fell in love with "shock and awe" for a lack of a better term. With the performance of the 3ID in its drive towards Baghdad, I think the PLA saw something similar that could collapse Taiwanese resistance. I think the resulting insurgency is changing alot of minds, not only about deciding on how to win the peace but also a wake up call that taking Taipei may not collapse Taiwan at all.

05-01-2007, 23:41 PM	#167 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,649 Country:	Which is why I do not consider those missiles to be a strategic asset but more a tactical one. Something to tip the scales. FOOs calling in a 5 500lb bombs on an enemy CP. A battalion commander requesting a strike on a bunker blocking an advance. A brigade commander collapsing a bridge to cut off an escape. 1000 bombs represent just the strike asset to determine an action or several actions. __________________ Chimo

05-02-2007, 13:42 PM	#171 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,228 Country:	zraver, but if china's armaments can't even seriously threaten an island 100 miles offshore, what's the chances that it's gonna threaten anyone else? __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debate about China, india and US economies, by Businessweek	oneman28	Political Discussions	7	11-28-2007 08:43 AM
China’s democratization and reunification	pin_qinghai	International Defense Topics	100	01-06-2007 07:59 AM
PLAN Analysis	rickusn	Naval Forces	9	06-12-2006 15:05 PM
China's Changing Military Ideology	Frank Zhou	World Affairs Board Pub	0	05-03-2006 18:58 PM
World Naval Rankings	rickusn	Naval Forces	66	03-04-2005 01:11 AM

05-02-2007, 12:34 PM	#168 (permalink)
Blademaster Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,197	Seems to me to be an expensive way of doing it when considering that the aforementioned strike actions could be accomplished by artillery or strike planes.

05-02-2007, 12:55 PM	#169 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,649 Country:	We have discussed the issue of freighter based artillery. Not exactly ideal and easily prone to be being sunk by mines. PLAAF planes would have their hands full just doing air denial. They won't have time to do the CAS job that they've never been trained to do.

05-02-2007, 15:53 PM	#173 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,228 Country:	historicaldavid, sure. but as col yu and zraver has pointed out, it's not going to even seriously degrade taiwanese defense capabilities, and from what we've seen, strategic bombing to degrade morale often backfires. so these missiles don't represent a strategic threat, and it would seem that there's not enough of them for them to even be a serious threat tactically. that's why i'm wondering about zraver's comment- these missiles seem to be little more than a paper tiger.

05-02-2007, 16:10 PM	#174 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 2,100 Country:	Then the question arises, is the PRC adopting a militarily sound strategy? Or is it, as you say, an intimidating paper tiger?

05-02-2007, 16:20 PM	#175 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,649 Country:	At this point, we don't know and I suspect, neither does the PLA. Before the Iraq War, the PLA, like everyone else, fell in love with "shock and awe" for a lack of a better term. With the performance of the 3ID in its drive towards Baghdad, I think the PLA saw something similar that could collapse Taiwanese resistance. I think the resulting insurgency is changing alot of minds, not only about deciding on how to win the peace but also a wake up call that taking Taipei may not collapse Taiwan at all.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)