RE: Naval and Defense News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Filitch -> RE: Naval and Defense News (10/9/2021 12:26:09 PM)

deleted



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 4:43:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

I have to agree, the West is overestimating China's capability at conducting kinetic warfare. The last time was in the 1950's with WW2 weapons. No, they did try against Vietnam in the 70's with the same old weapons. That did not go well. I don't see China conducting a Normandy like attack on Taiwan. It would be detected assembling and destroyed in transit. But I do see the potential for a "Little Green Men" attack from within Taiwan that might be followed by a "traditional" invasion - airborne, amphibious etc. Sort of a larger scale repeat of Russia's capture of Crimea and move into Donbas. By the time kinetics started, the strategic battle was over. But Russia did not have to contend with the Taiwan Strait. I wonder if China needs Taiwan that bad to risk so much?



From the reading of history and thanks to all of the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party on its own people...in some cases yes as Taiwan was taken from the former Chinese government (Qing Empire I believe) and the seizure of Taiwan from the Chinese took place the 100 years of humiliation. Thus it would indeed be a sticking point for them.

And don't forget the lesson of underestimating one's foe. The big example is how the west underestimated the former empire of Japan. And we all know how that went.



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:00:31 PM)

Yes, we dropped two atomic bombs on them. I think. Isn't that how it ended?



BeirutDude -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:02:20 PM)

quote:

And don't forget the lesson of underestimating one's foe. The big example is how the west underestimated the former empire of Japan. And we all know how that went.


As I recall Japan lost. After six months of running wild they were pretty much boxed in and on the defensive. Perhaps they underestimated the West?????

I remember how the Warsaw Pact was gong to roll over NATO and be on the English Channel in two weeks. I remember our Carrier Battle Groups didn't stand a chance and the Oscars were going to sink them all. This Ten Foot Tall syndrome has been going on my entire life (and before that, see Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Tank Gap <insert your favorite gap here>) and I'm 61!!!!!

Sure don't underestimate your opponent but don't build them up so much that your paralyzed in confronting them.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:08:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yes, we dropped two atomic bombs on them. I think. Isn't that how it ended?



Despite four years of year on the Chinese mainland, the Japanese military was underestimated by the west. The most famous instance was of the Japanese A6M Zero fighter.

From December 7th, 1941 to June 4, 1942, Japan went on a six month rampage. After stopping them at Midway and Guadacanal, the Us and its allies had to fight for three long hellish years to push the Japanese forces back to the home islands. And then of course it ended in a controversial manner with the atomic bombs.

Another famous example was during the Arab-Israeli Wars particularly the ones in 1967 and 1973.



BeirutDude -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:27:21 PM)

quote:

Another famous example was during the Arab-Israeli Wars particularly the ones in 1967 and 1973.


Do tell...

The Egyptian crossing of the canal that was countered at Chinese Farm and left the Third Army surrounded?
Or are you referring to the Syrian assault on the Golan that ended with IDF Artillery in range of Damascus.

Yeah, you found great examples of forces that got in a sucker punch, but in the end, THEY LOST.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:40:02 PM)

If we are all so eager for war with China then we might as well get this underway then since we are so eager to underestimate them. I wish I am wrong about that. I truly wish I am.



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:42:09 PM)

But we know how it ended right. My statements all along have been that the Chinese military is nothing to be dismissed. Its a very potent force and could easily wreak havoc in the region and even meet some of its local strategic goals. My point is there are people in this thread that buy into every Chinese and Russian press release and sales brochure with no intelligent thought as to whether that country actually has the capability to do what it claims. Yes most US announcements or news articles are met with derision or heavy skepticism. I am assuming those people have some special insight into Chinese and Russian development, production, and procurement processes that a lot of us don't have.

I spent a couple years in China running a JV manufacturing plant. I've seen the underbelly of how the Chinese manufacturing industry works. Can it produce volumes of stuff...yes, it can. Can it produce volumes of sophisticated and cutting edge technology without Western/US support, knowledge, and parts? No, right now it can't. Its most advanced weapons are almost all based on US, European, and Russian technology at its foundation. Its on its way to being self-sufficient, but its still years away. In the mean time, China can still hurt the US and its allies. But like Japan in the 40s, its too dependent on those same countries to sustain itself for technology, consumer goods, and food.

A perfect example is the Iranian display of its new stealth aircraft. People were all aflutter over it. But they were silent when it was pointed out the cockpit had very sparse instruments that resembled the technology from a general aviation aircraft. And as people looked closer, they noted the skin looked like plastic and the scale of the airframe was all wrong. And a compliant press went along with the whole scam.

Russia's Armata tank and the SU-57 fighter are another great example. Looks good on parade and at air shows, but can't be produced in numbers that matter. And you think that same philosophy doesn't carry over into other military areas?



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:44:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

If we are all so eager for war with China then we might as well get this underway then since we are so eager to underestimate them. I wish I am wrong about that. I truly wish I am.


I am still waiting on the insight you have that shows the military procurement process of China is so much more advanced that any Western country.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:49:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984


quote:

ORIGINAL: maverick3320


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

Said this before and might as well say this again.

We are frakked six ways to Sunday in a potential fight with the Chinese military. And forget about using nukes. We might as well repeat Kabul all over the Pacific and go full isolationist.

https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-carrier-killer-missiles-j-20-jets-gives-beijing-a-decisive-edge-over-the-us-in-indo-pacific-us-experts/


Just out of curiosity - are you American? It seems like I've read numerous posts from you all along the same lines about how powerful China's military is and how frightened America should be.


Yes I am. Chalk it up to being a cynic and a pessimist and seeing how badly the US has performed in the key wars of Vietnam and now the War on terrorism...and if you think I am a pessimist, remember the wargames the US military ran over a period of nearly ten years...they all say the same thing, the US in the Pacific is screwed. We got ourselves dragged into another Vietnam like scenario and allowed China to catch up and counter most of our most powerful strategic assets. The only thing that might work is the submarine force.


Vietnam and the "War on Terrorism" (i.e, counterinsurgency) are very different from a peer-on-peer conventional fight.

What are your thoughts on how the US performed during Desert Storm?



It was how the US military should have conducted itself from then on after what happened in Vietnam. And yet the immense success led to hubris that we have now paid in blood with the second war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also now for any large power confrontation, we probably will not have that time to prepare. And another successful engagement for me is during the Balkan Wars of the early to mid 1990s. Kosovo is a more controversial case for me. And then also Desert Storm is marred by the fact that we had to go in at all as it was the red line for one Osama Bin Laden.



BeirutDude -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 5:50:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

If we are all so eager for war with China then we might as well get this underway then since we are so eager to underestimate them. I wish I am wrong about that. I truly wish I am.


WoooooH Hoss!

Nobody is eager for war with China, but if it comes we're not exactly defenseless. You need to relax a little, this "ten foot tall" game has been played for a long time. Want a dose of reality let me give it to you, they have a lot of good weapons systems and can do some major damage to us. We have a lot of good weapons systems and will do some major damage to them. It will be bloody mess, but guess what you used IJN/A as an example of us underestimating them pre-WII, BUT SO DID THEY. They thought we were a weak and shallow society, we weren't!. Same applies here. I think for a while the PLA (In all of its forms) was underestimated in the early 2000's, now we've awaken to them and are working on systems/strategies to counter them. On the other hand, like most emerging powers, they are over estimating their own abilities. That is the miscalculation that concerns me, when an opponent dismisses a potential advisory, and make no mistake they are underestimating the West (and not just as an military, but as a culture).

And BTW the way I was there when I lost 241 Brothers in Beirut.



kevinkins -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/9/2021 8:55:41 PM)

Other than re-building Europe and Japan for critical economic reasons after WW2, the US had no interest in Vietnam, Korea, or the Middle East. These latter conflicts were/are strategic holding actions to show resolve against the USSR and China. Then against state supported terror. Don't get me wrong. The US wants small footprints of bases around the world. Sort of like a copy and paste of Guam. Vietnam, Korea, and the Middle East were awful for those that served. Holding actions are thankless operations. The CCP knows if they just rely on traditional systems to occupy Taiwan, and then loses badly, their reputation within their own populace will be tarnished and might never recover. It's about "hybrid" warfare. Something difficult to wargame. The key figures that might win an invasion of Taiwan could be in the country now as civilians - and have been there for decades embedded in society.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/cia-forms-new-mission-address-challenges-china-2021-10-07/

PS: America's entry into the fight against Japan and Germany was the most consequential world event in the past 100 years. And it ended in about 4 years. Consider the ROE then and now.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/10/2021 4:01:10 AM)

May god or kami or any other deity help the US and the democracies for I see no good options over Taiwan: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-and-china-enter-dangerous-territory-over-taiwan/ar-AAPiRKo?ocid=msedgntp



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/10/2021 11:04:15 AM)

Again, what do you think would happen if China invaded Taiwan in the next month. Not only would China have a fight on its hands just from Taiwan, it would also destroy at least for a year, one its critical trading partners. Where do you think China gets the majority of its semicon resources? That flow would stop at least for a while. While the US has the capacity to begin making those chips here, China has very limited capability in advanced chip making. China's economy would immediately collapse. Its food supply would dwindle and its global trade would come to a halt.

It would hurt the US and the global economy, but because the US is, in the long-term, self sufficient, the US would recover and function at some limited level. China can't afford any disruption in the shortest of terms. China is in a better position than 1996, but only slightly.



BDukes -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/10/2021 2:13:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984

May god or kami or any other deity help the US and the democracies for I see no good options over Taiwan: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u-s-and-china-enter-dangerous-territory-over-taiwan/ar-AAPiRKo?ocid=msedgntp


War doom and gloom is a business all its own. It drives weapons sales, keeps people locked to a news channel, vicariously fighting wars in video games, and arguing on internet channels. The trick is not to get sucked in too much. I suck at it.[8D]


Mike



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/10/2021 3:21:59 PM)

If you want some reasons beyond the political and reunification rhetoric, just read through these. The first one is a very good and data-driven perspective on where China is in the semicon value chain. Its mainly a consumer, but wants to be a supplier.

https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Taking-Stock-of-China%E2%80%99s-Semiconductor-Industry_final.pdf

But to get there is a very long journey and bringing Taiwan in closer to get a big shortcut on developing new manufacturing capabilities and start to choke the supply of chips. Getting control of a company like TSMC would be massive game changer and hurt the US economy in the short-term.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/can-china-become-the-world-leader-in-semiconductors/

China could attempt this without a full on invasion of Taiwan. Just a very large scale threat that keeps investment out of Taiwan or maybe going as far as a blockade. They could threaten Taiwan enough that Taiwan cedes control of a couple of the big semicon manufacturing facilities. China probably has just enough military capability to do that. The threat from China is not really the invasion itself, but the brinkmanship around creating

It sets a good potential scenario for CMO. Not an outright war, but maybe a limited blockade with a missile threat. A lot of potential scenario events based on US response, Japan's intervention, Korea's posture, etc.



BeirutDude -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/10/2021 8:07:06 PM)

quote:

It sets a good potential scenario for CMO. Not an outright war, but maybe a limited blockade with a missile threat


I was actually thinking the same, but I'm trying to get away from huge scenarios. I was thinking how to work this, maybe 30 days into a blockade and a united Western force tries to break it to feed a starving Taiwan.



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/11/2021 12:04:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BeirutDude

quote:

It sets a good potential scenario for CMO. Not an outright war, but maybe a limited blockade with a missile threat


I was actually thinking the same, but I'm trying to get away from huge scenarios. I was thinking how to work this, maybe 30 days into a blockade and a united Western force tries to break it to feed a starving Taiwan.


This is the concept I've been playing around recently. Inverted Cuban missile crisis.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/11/2021 1:01:00 AM)

An additional follow up in which the author in the article is correct in most cases...although I am conflicted about giving Taiwan more help: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-us-can-t-fight-china-for-taiwan-but-it-can-help-taiwan-make-china-think-twice-about-starting-a-war/ar-AAPlKdR?ocid=msedgntp



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/11/2021 5:37:47 PM)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-04/taiwan-preparing-for-war-with-china/100511294

"The defence of Taiwan is predicated on a Chinese invasion – but if China's main effort is not an invasion but a blockade, then what? Taiwan doesn't have a Plan B – that's the big problem." - Taiwan's Foreign Minister, Joseph Wu

btw, all the recent incursions into Taiwan's airspace might be an attempt to get Taiwan to do something rash. Any type of incident can be used by China to start pressuring Western companies to divest in Taiwan due to risk. That could potentially lead to a next step of a "soft" blockade under the guise of restricting the flow of any products or commodities that could support Taiwanese military operations.

That would make it very tricky for any Western power to actively oppose China's strategy. It would look like Taiwan and the US are the ones escalating.



cdnice -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/12/2021 5:08:20 AM)

Good luck getting the U.S. and others to pay up on that Chinese debt if they ever invade Taiwan.



Dysta -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/12/2021 6:35:58 AM)

Wow, the debate above reminds me of myself with wood many years ago. It was a good day to keep myself boiled.

Anyway, I am not interested to know who will stand out as an ultimate/terminal/decisive/indisputable victor of that future war scenarios involve with Taiwan. Let the world population decide how much blood to prove this is either a good idea, or a bad idea.



Blast33 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/12/2021 8:35:06 PM)

he U.S. Air Force has successfully completed a series of tests of a new 5,000-pound-class bunker-buster bomb, the GBU-72/B. This included the release of a prototype of the weapon from an F-15E Strike Eagle combat jet over a range associated with Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

The testing of this weapon, developed under a program variously referred to the Advanced 5,000 Pound Warhead or Advanced 5,000 Pound Penetrator, and abbreviated A5K, took place earlier this year, but the Air Force only announced the results today.
Outwardly, the GBU-72/B itself looks essentially like an enlarged 2,000-pound class GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) precision-guided bomb configured with a bunker-buster warhead, such as the BLU-109/B or the improved BLU-137/B.

This new bomb differs most visibly from the GBU-31/B series in that it has a pair of long fins or strakes, one attached to each side of the bottom of the bomb's body. GBU-31/B-series JDAMs have a set of strakes that attach to the center of the weapon.

And more details in: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42714/the-air-forces-new-5000-pound-bunker-buster-bomb-breaks-cover

[image]local://upfiles/61749/975E6269F5DF46E59BBBEB45FA92F710.jpg[/image]



tylerblakebrandon -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/13/2021 11:55:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Yes, we dropped two atomic bombs on them. I think. Isn't that how it ended?



Despite four years of year on the Chinese mainland, the Japanese military was underestimated by the west. The most famous instance was of the Japanese A6M Zero fighter.

From December 7th, 1941 to June 4, 1942, Japan went on a six month rampage. After stopping them at Midway and Guadalcanal, the Us and its allies had to fight for three long hellish years to push the Japanese forces back to the home islands. And then of course it ended in a controversial manner with the atomic bombs.




Putting my Historian Hat on. You might find a look at the history of U.S. war planning in regards to Japan enlightening. A good starting point is Edward S. Miller's "War Plan Orange." He was the first to really examine planning documents as they became declassified.

The USN planning for a war with Japan dated back as far a 1897 and they determined early on that an initial Japanese rush would result in what has been called "the Western Pacific Capitulation" and most Navy planners expected a 3-6 year march back across before reaching the home islands.

The divergence is in the endgame. With most pre-war Navy planning anticipating an air/naval blockade of some duration. By 1945 the White House is concerned about extending the war and is looking to a ground invasion to hasten the end at greater loss in men and materiel. Then when faced with the impending Soviet entry and a desire not to split the spoils as in Europe the Atomic Bomb choice comes into play.



Dysta -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/17/2021 2:44:43 AM)

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1449467671506993159

If this is true, then China answered the INF that torn by US, by tearing the OSW treaty.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/17/2021 2:50:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1449467671506993159

If this is true, then China answered the INF that torn by US, by tearing the OSW treaty.



God frakking damn it...just frak...f**k. The only thing that can stop China now is that if it goes through the same economic problems that wrecked the Japanese economy during the 1990s. Otherwise...just frak.



thewood1 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/17/2021 2:59:26 AM)

People just don't learn.



AndrewNguyen1984 -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/18/2021 3:07:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

People just don't learn.



And someone reminded me of the most powerful weapon they have to use against us. Our own debt of which the Chinese own a large amount of. To sum it up, they own us.



RoryAndersonCDT -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/18/2021 4:08:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984
God frakking damn it...just frak...f**k. The only thing that can stop China now is that if it goes through the same economic problems that wrecked the Japanese economy during the 1990s. Otherwise...just frak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewNguyen1984
And someone reminded me of the most powerful weapon they have to use against us. Our own debt of which the Chinese own a large amount of. To sum it up, they own us.


I'd recommend reading this document, it covers an emerging domain of warfare. Might be relevant.

https://www.innovationhub-act.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/20210122_CW%20Final.pdf




Boagrius -> RE: Re: Naval and Defence News (10/18/2021 6:41:27 AM)

[image]https://c.tenor.com/jGcC6ISzK8UAAAAC/kermit-panic.gif[/image]

[;)]



Page: <<   < prev  153 154 [155] 156 157   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.263672