03-05-2019, 10:20 PM
** 5-Mar-2019 Possible scenarios for WW III
I've taken your conversation, added some other stuff, to create a
chapter in my book on possible scenarios for WW III. Note, Navigator,
that I included a link to your blog -- I can remove that if you want.
The following are excerpts.
I may leave these as is, or rewrite these excerpts as a narrative.
Let me know your thoughts.
When thousands of Chinese fled through Hong Kong to Formosa in 1949,
they were in the Hokkein (Hakka) ethnic group. I wanted to know
how the Hakka people in Taiwan would react to a Chinese invasion.
A man living in Taiwan with a Hakka wife wrote the following
to me:
...
For those reasons, many people believe that America would win a war
with China. Of course China would launch thousands of nuclear
missiles targeting American aircraft carriers, bases and cities, but
in the end there would be a ground war that China would lose.
In the Generational Dynamics forum, "Burner Prime" wrote:
However, "Navigator," a retired American Army Colonel 30 years
experience as an Army Officer, and with and my secondary career as a
military simulation creator/publisher, and blogs at
http://www.comingstorms.com, posted a response:
Burner Prime answered:
Navigator replied:
The preparedness of America's military is widely debated today,
particularly after the government budget sequestration in the early
2010s decade. The above exchange gives a flavor of the debate.
**** China's military strategy
Navigator also provided his thoughts on the details of how a war with
China would proceed:
That's how the war might proceed on the ground. Here are the issues
for the war on the sea and in the air:
Navigator Wrote:> This is a rough response ...
Burner Prime Wrote:> I don't dispute anything you wrote ...
I've taken your conversation, added some other stuff, to create a
chapter in my book on possible scenarios for WW III. Note, Navigator,
that I included a link to your blog -- I can remove that if you want.
The following are excerpts.
I may leave these as is, or rewrite these excerpts as a narrative.
Let me know your thoughts.
When thousands of Chinese fled through Hong Kong to Formosa in 1949,
they were in the Hokkein (Hakka) ethnic group. I wanted to know
how the Hakka people in Taiwan would react to a Chinese invasion.
A man living in Taiwan with a Hakka wife wrote the following
to me:
Quote:> "My wife loves China and seems to be completely blind
> to thier evil. She thinks if they take over, Taiwan could spend
> less on military and would prosper economically. I dont know
> anyone else in Taiwan that holds that opinion, me included.
> The other data point is that Tsai Ing-wen is Hakda and she is very
> against reunification. And she is doing something about it to
> include more weapons and changing military strategy to one of
> fortifying beach head landing sights of which Taiwan has few and
> resistance by guerrilla warfare based in the mountains if the
> beach heads are breached. So I think that may be more indicative
> of the Hakka attitude.
> As I'm sure you know, Taiwan as a whole does not consider itself
> to be a part of China anymore than Chicago is a part of China.
> And that attitude is getting stronger with time. They will not
> willing reunify.
> I think if China wants Taiwan they will have to kill ever last
> Taiwanese to take it. And I am fairly certain Taiwan is a nuclear
> armed country based on facilities I have seen while working for
> thier airforce. A war with China would not be quick and easy. It
> would be long and costly and frankly I dont think China currently
> has the ability to win."
...
For those reasons, many people believe that America would win a war
with China. Of course China would launch thousands of nuclear
missiles targeting American aircraft carriers, bases and cities, but
in the end there would be a ground war that China would lose.
In the Generational Dynamics forum, "Burner Prime" wrote:
Quote:> "Despite the loss of life and treasure, the US has
> been honing her fighting skills since Gulf War I. Prior to that
> there were a lot of shortcomings that were only uncovered by field
> operations and actual combat. Now our armor, weapons, tactics and
> electronic coordination, drone use, etc. is superior to any
> adversary. There are major problems with our Navy but those issues
> are known and being addressed."
However, "Navigator," a retired American Army Colonel 30 years
experience as an Army Officer, and with and my secondary career as a
military simulation creator/publisher, and blogs at
http://www.comingstorms.com, posted a response:
Quote:> "While our individual Soldiers are brave and
> competent, we will be in big trouble in a real war. We are only
> experienced at fighting counter insurgency, and we did a pretty
> bad job at that. Our Army is very over-reliant on electronics, and
> the Chinese will know how to exploit this. Our military is
> infantry deficient, and over reliant on AirForce ground
> support. Support the Army probably won't have, as the F35 is such
> a lemon, we won't have Air Superiority over the battlefield for
> the first time since 1942. Our force on force tactics have not
> changed much since WW2, and are very "broad front" centric. And
> the Navy is not addressing the disaster of the LCS's and
> over-reliance on extremely vulnerable CV
> battlegroups."
Burner Prime answered:
Quote:> "I don't dispute anything you wrote. I have watched
> many hours of Afghanistan combat footage and the default is "call
> in air strike", where a squad of US infantry can easily get pinned
> down by 2-3 well-hidden shooters. I would mention that despite
> that, China has zero combat experience and as shown throughout
> history, experienced troops and commanders nearly always beat
> inexperienced counterparts. You should also note that every
> deficiency you mentioned has been exposed by actual combat
> operations. China likely has as many or more deficiencies that no
> one, not even their own leaders know about. They won't show up
> until tested in battle. For example maybe their SAM systems
> underperform against the F-35 stealthy lemon. Aside from that a
> world war would not be fought the way US forces have in the Gulf -
> as a counter insurgency. It would be all-out brutal maximized
> carnage without the care to protect life as there is now. Soldiers
> will be expected to engage much more aggressively and the extreme
> care to protect civilians would vanish. I think John has brought
> up this point many times. Battles are fought differently depending
> on the era.
> Actually I would dispute one point: "We are only experienced at
> fighting counter insurgency." I don't believe this is
> correct. Gulf War I was no counter-insurgency. Major head-to-head
> tank battles took place without the benefit of air support. The US
> commanders, crews and equipment performed brilliantly. That is
> only one example. It's true Iraq had old Soviet era tanks and used
> outdated tactics, but they had recent experience fighting the
> Iranians. This did not help them. Since then our armor and
> equipment reliability has improved, and learned lessons
> applied."
Navigator replied:
Quote:> "The Gulf War was completely one sided because the
> Iraqi forces were below incompetent. I cannot stress this too
> strongly. There has not been a force on force conventional
> conflict where both sides were competent since 1973 Yom Kippur
> war.
> Our forces learned nothing from the Iraq war regarding
> conventional warfare, because it was so completely one-sided. Our
> tanks are from 1982, and our tactics/operational execution is a
> high tech version of 1944.
> I believe the Chinese will have the same kind of success initially
> that they had when they entered the Korean War in late 1950. They
> will overwhelm whatever we send, though they will suffer high
> casualties."
The preparedness of America's military is widely debated today,
particularly after the government budget sequestration in the early
2010s decade. The above exchange gives a flavor of the debate.
**** China's military strategy
Navigator also provided his thoughts on the details of how a war with
China would proceed:
Quote:> "I believe that ground wise the Chinese have 3
> directions they will attempt to go initially.
> 1 - Cross over to Taiwan. They will need to eliminate USN ability
> to intervene, so they will tac nuke the USN carrier groups at sea,
> and possibly those at Pacific ports. However, they do not have the
> ability to sea lift their entire Army, so only a portion of it
> will go this route.
> 2 - Move through North Korea into South Korea, so as to threaten,
> if not attempt to invade Japan. Their Army would try to time
> things so as to be through South Korea by the time the sea lift
> capability used in invading Taiwan would again be available, this
> time for invading Japan.
> 3 - Through Vietnam to get towards Thailand, Malaysia, and
> Indonesia. The idea here would be to punish the Vietnamese, and to
> be able to support/elevate Chinese minorities in SE Asia.
> The Chinese will not be able to contain their "offensive spirit"
> and, I believe, they will also engage India. This will happen both
> in SE Asia (Thailand/Burma) and across the Himalayas, though
> across the mountains is nearly impossible logistically.
> In response, the American ground forces will attempt to deploy to
> Taiwan and South Korea. We would first send the Marines, and then
> the Army. 2 Divisions of Marines and maybe 4-6 Army
> Divisions. These forces are woefully inadequate to deal with the
> overwhelming masses the Chinese will employ, and they will
> probably suffer the same fate as "Task Force Smith" from the early
> days of the Korean War.
> South Korea will fall. I think there is about a 70% chance that
> Taiwan would too. Attacking Taiwan, and dissipating their strength
> into SE Asia would give the US the time to mobilize somewhat and
> do what it could to assist Japan.
> Secondary Chinese thrusts could be from Taiwan towards the
> Philippines, or more likely, from Malaysia into Indonesia.
> The Philippines would be a good staging area for Americans looking
> to get into China, as would Japan.
> Tactically, the war will be much more like WW1, where defensive
> weapons and tactics are ascendant, than WW2. Meaning that once
> forces become majorly engaged, tactically it becomes a stalemate
> for quite a while.
> Invading China would eventually be attempted, probably at the
> northern peninsulas of either Liaoyang (think Port Arthur) or
> Shandong (think German Tsing-tao) and South at Hainan island
> followed by the peninsula just north of that island.
> However, moving into the heart of China would be beyond
> problematic. Much better to go for a combination of starving China
> and creating internal divisions."
That's how the war might proceed on the ground. Here are the issues
for the war on the sea and in the air:
Quote:> "All wars are decided primarily on land. Even in the
> Pacific in WW2. The Naval War there might have been dominant, but
> the navies either allowed (or failed to interdict) land force
> projection. (Japanese in Dutch East Indies, SE Asia and
> Philippines; US in island hopping, New Guinea, Philippines).
> That said, I am actually glad the Chinese are wasting such vast
> resources on building a Navy. I think the strategy is greatly
> misguided and does not play to their primary strengths. I think
> they following the path of the German Kaiser in his pre-World War
> One ideas of becoming a power with global force projection
> capability. The Imperial German fleet, while impressive, and
> certainly highly competent, was a waste of their military
> resources.
> Most of the money we are now spending on our Navy (not unlike much
> of it spent for the Army and Air Force) is being wasted on weapon
> systems designed not for battlefield efficiency but for maximizing
> the profit of defense contractors. We need to pressure our
> representatives in Congress and the appointees in the Defense
> Department to push for truly cost effective weapons, ships and
> aircraft. Our Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen need effective modern
> weapons. The key word being 'effective.'"
> At the start of US involvement in WW2, most of our aircraft were
> substandard (P-39, P-40), our tanks were substandard (M2, some
> M3's), and none of the torpedoes actually worked. We eventually
> developed and fielded great equipment, but it took a while. In
> most cases that development started because the British were
> pushing us for better equipment to buy from us, and we had a
> couple of years to start to get it through development before we
> were actually involved.
> This time we will lose a lot of life and suffer greatly because
> the forces that we will have will be improperly or poorly
> equipped."