China invades Taiwan

[Monash]

So back to the subject at hand. Assuming China did launch an invasion how effective would a strategy of blockading the South China Sea be as opposed to direct military intervention be? If China can't get so much as a gram of food, coal, iron, oil or gas etc in and not so much as a rowboat worth of goods out how long before the economic pressure forces them to withdraw? Or do they dig in.

[Albany Rifles]

Yes I pretty much expected that was the case. It just that calling the those units 'enablers' sounds so ...... buzz wordy.

We will leave no buzzword unturned....

[Monash]

While you choose the 2nd definition, we in the US DOD prefer the first definition of the word....

"...a person or thing that makes something possible."

Yes I pretty much expected that was the case. It just that calling the those units 'enablers' sounds so ...... buzz wordy.

[Albany Rifles]

Enabler ' a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another.' I guess that term fits. You certainly can't move forward to the location where your supposed to be shot at if someone doesn't help you get there in the first place.

While you choose the 2nd definition, we in the US DOD prefer the first definition of the word....

"...a person or thing that makes something possible."

[Firestorm]

2000 SSMs, ~650 ALCMs. Don't know about the naval component since they're CMC assets, ie may or may not be reserved for nuclear delivery.

Still, we did 2000 sorties per day during the Kuwait War and 900 cruise missile strikes on Baghdad the first day of the Iraq War and in both times, we still had to punch through the Republican Guard. The PRC simply do not have the munitions for 2000 air/missile strike packages per day for 30 days.

Quick drying cement. You want to know why we hit air bases over and over again? The first time is to damage the air base to render it inoperational. The subsequent times is to come back to kill the engineers repairing the airbase. A one time strike is not going to disable an airbase, especially if your CEP is 50 metres+.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

No airplane has ever taken or held ground. Even after all the damage we've done to the Iraqis during the Kuwait War and the Iraq War, we still had to punch through their front lines. The China AF will do far, far, far less damage to the RoCA (not the RoCAF) than we did to the Iraqis.

Another thing, the China AF doesn't have B-52s, they ain't going to do any carpet bombing which means a hell of a lot less damage to Taiwan. After the initial expenitutres, the China AF and the SRF would be reduced to annoyance hits designed to instill terror rather than counter-force strikes.

Apologies for the late reply Colonel. Yes a single strike will obviously not disable the airbase but if you can put enough craters on the runways they will be out of service for a few hours till they are repaired. They would also target any assets sitting on the aprons outside of hardened shelters and other buildings on the base. They don't even have to target all the bases, just the ones housing the cream of the RoCAF, their upgraded F-16's and Mirages which aren't that many. That will give them time to launch their SEAD missions to find and destroy as many AD radars as they can while being virtually unopposed by any modern 4+ generation jet. PLAN dominance of the sea will jeopardize any replacements for the radars and replenishments of their SAMs. Once the AD is sufficiently suppressed it doesn't matter that the runways are repaired, the PLAAF can overwhelm the RoCAF with sheer numbers.

Secondly the objective does not have to be an actual invasion merely the threat of a seemingly unstoppable one. The Taiwanese population knows the war ends and bombs stop if they acquiesce to reunification. The Chinese have to make enough of them think that is the better option. They do not need carpet bombing. A few PGM's in the right places to scare the Taiwanese population into submission once they realize their air cover is practically gone.

Of course this is all assuming that the US does not get involved. All of these calculations go for a toss if they do, especially public opinion in Taiwan if they know American help is days away. I suspect that is the only thing really holding back China. They are still not a 100% sure that the US will not get involved. Fortunately the longer they wait, it gives the RoCAF more time to get in shape.

[Monash]

In Force Structure nerdland, we have combat brigades (BCTs/FIRES/AVN), Enabler brigades (ENG/MP/MI/SC/SUS) and then Brigade Equivalents (Groups/Regiments).

Enabler ' a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another.' I guess that term fits. You certainly can't move forward to the location where your supposed to be shot at if someone doesn't help you get there in the first place.

[Albany Rifles]

gotcha

In Force Structure nerdland, we have combat brigades (BCTs/FIRES/AVN), Enabler brigades (ENG/MP/MI/SC/SUS) and then Brigade Equivalents (Groups/Regiments).

[zraver]

Those units fall under the term "type brigades".

I was more reacting to the term BCTs...people habitually misuse the term. It is only correct when talking of ABCTs/IBSTs/SBCTs.

gotcha

[Albany Rifles]

Why the switch back? I guess I'm asking were there compelling operational reasons for the change (the cynic in me tends to file most organization 'changes' under the 'change for changes sake category). Alternately I can also see why it might be pivoting back to a more traditional structure because of the potential for conflict with large conventionally armed and organized opponents (no names) who are largely still organized in divisions and corps. (No more perpetual, lightly armed insurgencies for Uncle Sam.)

You are hitting the nail squarely on the head...hence my term LSCO. Now a division may not go to combat with it's organic 3 BCTs...but they will do so under a division HQs acting as a JFHQs. For instance, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) may deploy with it's 1st & 2nd Brigades (Armored Brigade Combat Teams) along with 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division ( a light Infantry Brigade Combat Team w/ 3rd Sustainment & Aviation Brigades. 3 ID is the controlling HQs for all.

[Albany Rifles]

Alby, when I was in there were still artillery, MP, ADA brigades etc. Not all brigades with a tactical mission were maneuver units, has that changed?

Those units fall under the term "type brigades".

I was more reacting to the term BCTs...people habitually misuse the term. It is only correct when talking of ABCTs/IBSTs/SBCTs.

[Monash]

The US Army no longer fights as independent brigades. The brigades may be building blocks but we have pivoted back to division & corps headquarters which will act as joint/combined headquarters. And all BCTs are combined arms. Infantry & armor working together is not the only definition of combined arms. An IBCT has 3 battalions of infantry but also has an organic artillery battalion and engineer battalion as well as a sustainment battalion. And current doctrine calls for an armored task force to be attached to the JFHQs to be used as needed to assist the Infantry....

Why the switch back? I guess I'm asking were there compelling operational reasons for the change (the cynic in me tends to file most organization 'changes' under the 'change for changes sake category). Alternately I can also see why it might be pivoting back to a more traditional structure because of the potential for conflict with large conventionally armed and organized opponents (no names) who are largely still organized in divisions and corps. (No more perpetual, lightly armed insurgencies for Uncle Sam.)

[zraver]

Alby, when I was in there were still artillery, MP, ADA brigades etc. Not all brigades with a tactical mission were maneuver units, has that changed?

[Albany Rifles]

In the US Army a brigade/ Brigade Combat Team (BCT) is often but not exclusively a combined arms formation that may or may not be part of a divisional structure.

A regiment is always a pure formation (only infantry or only armor etc) for historical and admin purposes. It may only have a single battalion on active duty, or even have all of it's colors furled. Regardless it is not a combat or tactical formation.

Unless it's an armored cavalry regiment which is really a demi-division/reinforced brigade

If I understand it right in the USMC, regiments serve as the primary sub-divisional unit for tactical control and brigades are administrative/ operational. The regiment is a pure formation until support assets are added and then it becomes a combined arms Regimental Combat Team (RCT) which is the primary maneuver unit of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB)

Soviet/Russian and China(?) A brigade is an independent maneuver or combat element not attached to a divisional structure. Regiments function as the main combat elements inside of the divisional structure and they are not pure but are organically combined arms unless they are specialist troops like air defense or artillery.

The US Army no longer fights as independent brigades. The brigades may be building blocks but we have pivoted back to division & corps headquarters which will act as joint/combined headquarters. And all BCTs are combined arms. Infantry & armor working together is not the only definition of combined arms. An IBCT has 3 battalions of infantry but also has an organic artillery battalion and engineer battalion as well as a sustainment battalion. And current doctrine calls for an armored task force to be attached to the JFHQs to be used as needed to assist the Infantry.

We no longer have armored cavalry regiments and the US Army doesn't organize our forces using the regimental model. Non-combat units in the army are organized into groups and/or type brigades under a JFHQ.

In all cases aviation and other enablers are integrated to support the JFHQ commander.

With the wind down of Iraq & Afghanistan we have pivoted back to large scale combat operations. The brigade centric Army was mostly used to provide manpower for those fights.

[zraver]

And the future threat is so scary now the JMSDF is begining to spin up training to turn the Izumo class helicopter carriers into full fledged fixed wing light carriers with 5th gen F-35B's. The F-35B has limited payload, and range will be tiny unless it can tank up after take off but its still a quantum leap over current JMSDF capabilities. This will put further pressure on the RoKN to upgrade the Dokdo class to fly its own F-35B's. It may be rivalry with Japan, but China is the one who is going to have to account for 4 extra flight decks flying stealth fighters.

[DOR]

ASEAN is economically dependent on China.

How close is Taiwan from this dependence ?

So far $300 bn in Taiwanese investment into China has not worked.

If the Taiwanese elites can be co-opted in a manner where they prosper and not lose under the CCP then there are possibilities.

THIS rather than military force has got to be the way.

China can pull off corrupting elites in the west. Why is it so difficult to do with Taiwan.

Once you convince the Politburo Standing Committee, Military Affairs Commission, oh, and the Chairman of Everything of your plan to woo Taiwan away from independence and freedom, be sure to post it here.