Officer of Engineers

75-80% of the North Korean military is stationed within 100 miles of the DMZ. This means that they have no strategic depth. In short, kill the force at the DMZ and you could pretty well walk to the Chinese border. If the Chinese do decide to intervene on behalf of the North Koreans, that automatically gives them strategic depth ... all the way into China itself.

You will note how concern we were about the BACKFIREs in Cuba.

The Fulda Gap is in Europe.

No, they can come out and challenge the carrier battle groups as the Soviets did.

__________________
Chimo

ravi12

I was just wondering, how different the strategic depth would be if you had directly invaded china? Being a non-military person, I am frankly unable to grab the finer nuances between these two.
which was what I was alluding to, they needed a land base near the fighting area, cuba provided it - US could enforce a blockade on cuba, but SUs hand was tied. Reinforcements of weapons/ russian soldiers would have been difficult.
did they challenge the CBGs in open seas? Interesting, may I know what ships/subs were they operating?

I knew that their subs trialled the CBGs almost continuously.

Silent Hunter

Did they ever deploy "Backfires" in Cuba?

Officer of Engineers

It's how many battles you have to fight in order to win the war. In the current case of the NKs, all the US and Seoul have to do is to win at the DMZ and they won the war. If you add in the Chinese, they will have to fight all the way to the North Korean-Chinese border and even then, it may not be enough.

The war was going to be won or lost in Europe. Not Cuba, Africa, Asia, nor China.

Soviets or the Chinese?

Only on visits which is scary enough.

HKDan

Sir,

A question about this, my understanding is that the Chinese currently have a very limited capability to conduct aerial refueling. Do you see an increased investment in this capability, or is their current capability greater than my admittedly very limited powers of research have found? I have only seen very small numbers of H-6 and Il-76 refueling aircraft.

Officer of Engineers

First, we have to restrict ourselves to the PLANAF. The PLAAF have yet to fly beyond the sight of land. In which case, we are talking at max 350 aircrafts. So, the ability is there to support this limited number.

2ndly, the range itself is limited in what the PLANAF wants to achieve. They want to deter a USN CVBG in which case, the USN CVBG must come into range of of the Chinese mainland ... and thus, within range of the PLANAF. The PLANAF does not have to fly out to Alaska to find the USN CVBG, they hve to fly out to the Taiwan Area of Operations.

All doable.

HKDan

Sir,

Thanks. Does this imply that in a future hypothetical Taiwan conflict that USN CVGBs would likely only face a threat from the PLANAF in the air? Your point about the PLAAFs lack of experience over water is fascinating. What effect do you think this would have on PLAAFs ability to take part in a Taiwan invasion scenario?

ravi12

Well, this exposes it. I am an internet warrior. and you a colonel

You were talking of actual scenarios and I was about imaginary scenarios

I was on the lines of talking in the first case talking about
i) If US could have done a cuba on USSR, what were the options of USSR
ii) I was talking about the difference if US directly attacks china and not through NK or something else.

Officer of Engineers

You're forgetting the subs.
Taiwan itself doesn't move.

Officer of Engineers

I am not following you.

We would need some sort of staging ground to amass the necessary ground forces.

HKDan

Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to ask was whether US CVBGs would likely face any other air threat than the one posed by the PLANAF. I agree though that the Chinese sub force represents their most viable method to attack and deter the USN.

If I understand correctly, you mean that although the PLAF would have to cross water in order to hit Taiwan, that would not be the same sort of challenge as finding and striking a carrier group and something that is well within their capabilities.

ravi12

Well, I wrote my scenario and in it I found 8 "if"s and then thought - hey this is unrealistic

Would USSR have been able to successfully attack a decent (~10000 sq mi) sized pacific island, > 400 miles from the continent - if need be?
Assume US to be protecting with 1-2 CVGs, with atleast 2 brigades on the land and only a max of 10-15 land based aircrafts.


My guess was no.

This sums up, what I specifically wanted to know about their capabilities.


The analogy was- cuba a landmass of 50k sqkm, with USSR navy protecting it but has only minimum number of fighter planes in cuba, but with decent ground troops of cuba itself.


would a d-day type of landing, with probably taiwan(in the worst case japan) as the massing ground be possible?

Blademaster

No but the US CVBGs do.

Colonel,

Has the PLAAF ever carried out an exercise where they put up more than 100 birds in the air? Not only that but do wave after wave and do prepositioning and preparations and all that to deal with returning planes? Not only that, but learn how to refuel and rearm and then go back in the air again? I have yet to see a single air exercise by the PLAAF.

Officer of Engineers

Exactly. Which is why I think it would be the PLANAF doing the carrier hunting. They're the only ones with open water training.

The largest I've seen is 68 planes (PEACE EXERCISE 2005) of all types including helos, transports, Air Control (not AWACS), air refuel and a single regiment strike package. But there have been 100+ planes in the air before but not anything resembling a co-ordinated package.

However, as I pointed out in CDF. The air space wouldn't allow for more than 40 planes. Otherwise, you will do a lot more friendly fire than its worth.

Blademaster

Do they have any equivalent of P-3 Orions to look for ships?

In WWII, there have been waves of 100 planes each. Hell there were massive strike sorties numbering in the 1000s. What has changed now?