Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: KS_Al on May 28, 2004, 01:16:23 pm
-
I would like to bring up a topic......I'm known to bring up topics such as the best battles in all of history and the brilliant generals but this topic US vs China over conventional warfare......for those people who don't know what conventional is traditional infantry tank and air warfare.......Forget nukes.
My thoughts if we went to war with China......It would be Vietnam all over again. Remember Operation Rolling thunder how we bombed the North Vietnamese. Actually we crippled their economy but we didn't cripple their will. It would be the same with China. Since their population is 2 billion and they have a huge army unlike the US Army. but their Navy and Air Force is not as strong but army wise their numbers are big. Most of their terrain is like Vietnam's and i think the west and north are mountainous regions which are hard to fight on. the jungles proven that US forces are not capable to fight guerrilla warfare also Iraq shows proof as also. Of open outside the US could win but if guerrilla barely a chance with a basic common US soldier. but if you're thinking of a US Special Forces Soldier such as Delta or Green Beret or SEAL or Ranger they maybe have a chance. China will win with a war of atrittion with huge numbers as they did in Korea. They have numerous battalions and they have Russian made weapons and tanks which T-80s are capable to beat M-1 abrams. If it was a t-72 that would be a different story. Don't think Abrams are always the best they can be destroyed or crippled by an RPG. China does have a reasonable Air Force and Navy but no doubt the US can win the sea and air but not by land. About land warfare......China could ambush American forces as Vietnam did. The reason America had lost in Vietnam because they were loud the Vietnamese could hear their radios their equipment. That would be the same if there was a war with China. My conclusion is it can be a stalemate or withdrawal for the US. and the US cannot win.
I welcome any arguements or agreements keep debating!
-
China vs US = WWIII
-
America is currently refitting it's tanks with the Armour that is fitted on British Tanks, which can shrug off an RPG hit in most cases. We swapped it for the American Multi-Target tracking system :)
As for China vs US, I agree with jdjtcagle here, since it may start out as a ground war, but if America tried to invade, they would be decimalised in ground combat, so then it would switch to nukes, simply to cut down the number of Chinese troops. And we all know where things would go from there.
Not that I think this scenario is likely to appear, the two countries are too closely related financially.
-
assuming there is someone left alive to write the history.
-
It would entirely depend on how willing the US would be to carpet bomb...... I
-
yeah. well chances are it won't happen directly, because have you wondered why the US hasn't messed with China? they're an extremely big nation, and if China goes to war the America, i'm pretty sure many other asian nations will join them. it's a power America doesn't want to mess with, because they're not helpless, defenseless people. they'll fight back.
-
then it would switch to nukes, simply to cut down the number of Chinese troops. And we all know where things would go from there.
yes, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't China have nukes too? therefore America won't be messing with them too quickly, because for every nuke America sends to China, they'll send one right back ;) See like i said, they're not helpless, and defenseless.
-
(China) They have the largest Army in the World IIRC
-
yes, but America has the most powerful.
still, America wouldn't attack them, because they'd put up quite a fight.
-
Stealth: no they won't. Maybe maybe maybe maybe North Korea, but no one else. Other asian nations are scared to death of China, and would likely join with the US in order to get rid of the big threat next door in favour of the big threat across the ocean.
but such a scenario is unlikely.
The US would be unwilling to take any significant amount of casualties. A few hundred thousand and the people at home would be screaming for an end to the war. China on the other hand has over a billion people which they can throw into the war.
-
Well it's obvious that one day a nuclear holocast gets started, with all the bozos that run countries
-
Ahhh, the missles are comming! Fire our ****!
But I am le tired.
Oh alright, take a nap, then fire our ****!
-
America would get raped to death.
If they tried conventional warfare, China has enough troops and fanaticised population that it could just swarm tanks with people and crack them open with crowbars and ****.
Air support would be non-existant thanks to the high density of Chinese cities and towns (there could be 40 RPG and missile guys hiding all over the place).
And that'd mean it would come down solely to: Chinese Troops, Choppers, Tanks and Jets VS American Troops and Tanks (provided they could land them in the first place).
Then there's the non-conventional warfare. Chinese guerillas and organised criminals would rape American troops the second they entered a city. And China would be able to 'employ' Triad assasins, who are about the best you can get. And then there's all the China towns in America, that're packed with fireworks and cheap firearms.
If America decided to go the 'Nuke the bastards' way, they MIGHT wipe out the Chinese army, but China would respond in kind and nothing would survive.
If by some miracle America managed to destroy the Chinese command heirarchy, there's still the geographical aspect of the battlefield. China has a ****load of mountainous, junglous terrain for renegade divisions to hide in.
Chances of American Victory: Slim to none.
-
:nod:
-
yeah, those Triad guys are dangerous mofos. They're all like "forgiveness please" and don't look like they're going to do anything, but then they flip out and take down a tank with their bare hands.
-
And also, What started the war could mean a change in the victory for either side. If America started the war, tehn we already knew they couldn't win but then they now have other countries on china's side. But, if China started the war, then it could be very different. The UN and other countries, would be with the US and would eventually signing the treaty to One Government!!! Just Hoping :D
-
countdown to nucleur holocaust - imminent in my opinion. I think WWIII should be just around the corner, pretty much east versus west.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Humanity itself has an extremely powerful self-preservation drive. Dark times are ahead, I agree, the more our governments remove our abilities to make a choice for ourselves, the closer we get.
Things aren't quite at the WWIII stage though, the tension in Iraq is actually easing slightly now, though obviously, there is much to do. And all the IDF have achieved in Rafah is to reveal to the West, and the Media, a side of itself that will remain in peoples minds. Not a solution, but at least a recognition that there is a problem which cannot be turned away from.
The Arab states have, somewhat quietly, admitted that mismanagement of funds and corruption have also played a role in causing problems in the Middle East, and China has enough internal problems to make it far too busy to think about World Domination.
-
meh, everyone seems to be assuming the fight would take place in China. Why not a "middle ground?" Of course the Chinese have an immense advantage in terms of numbers, but thats what bombs and napalm are for :D
I'd say stalemate, as the U.S. doesnt really have the firepower to hold off that many numbers, and Chinese casualties would be so enormous, that they'd get swallowed up and beaten down by surrounding asian nations. As for guerrilla tactics, suppose so, but then again, its kinda hard to quickly hide 1000000+ soldiers.
-
Originally posted by an0n
America would get raped to death.
Conventional warfare definitley. Americas much vaunted airpower is actually pretty ineffective if you actually look behind the hype of cluster bombs and moabs, for example in Serbia Nato claimed 800+ tanks destroyed, when the Serbians withdrew from Kosovo they left behind 2 dozen wrecks and paraded their armour in front of the cameras. Besides that China has massive amounts of sams, mostly late russian models. They're also buying Yah'konts off the russians, a missle designed specifically to defeat aegis radars and take out a carrier with one hit. Not to mention their latest tank is more advanced than the abrams. That said theres virtually no chance of conventional war between the two, if they do come to blows, and its more likely than people think it'll be done with proxys.
-
US vs China? Play JetFighter IV...
-
In a conventional conflict the US would be out numbered in the air and on land. Naval power counts for a bit when fighting a country with a land mass like China's, but not enough since the Chinese had technology equality with the US. More over, it would take months nigh a year to assemble enough manpower to properly invade.
It would be a slaughter with no real winner in my opinion.
However if we are to consider the nuclear option, then the US would "win" in terms of Chinese losses vs. US losses.
-
everyone who's seen the End of the World flash movie knows what will happen if we nuke China...
-
it looks like china has only 20 ICBMs. We win
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html
-
At the heart of capitalism lies China....because everything is "Made in China". I doubt the two could go to war...it'd be crippling to both.
-
Very true :nod:
Looks at American Flag... :eek2: *Made in China* J/K
-
ROFL!
Actually, you never know...... ;)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
At the heart of capitalism lies China....because everything is "Made in China". I doubt the two could go to war...it'd be crippling to both.
very true!
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
it looks like china has only 20 ICBMs. We win
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html
20 is plenty enough to level any major sytrategical spot in the US if you ask me.
And there won't be a war with China before at least 2100, so why wondering? :p
An0n: fanaticized populations? There's no such people in China, they're not all like "viva the red army" or "we'll die for Buddha" :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Nico
20 is plenty enough to level any major sytrategical spot in the US if you ask me.
And there won't be a war with China before at least 2100, so why wondering? :p
An0n: fanaticized populations? There's no such people in China, they're not all like "viva the red army" or "we'll die for Buddha" :doubt:
And you never know what those Chinbese are keeping behind they're backs. Somehow I doubt they put they're entire arsenal on display for everyone to see. I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled out a copy of the Tsar Bomba :D
For those who don't know, although I think everyone here does, the Tsar Bomba is the largest most powerfull nuke ever built by Humans up untill this day. It had a maximum theoretical yield of 100MT [equals 6500 Hiroshima bombs]. Though it's design was reduced to a 50MT bomb. A fun fact about this bomb: The fabrication of the massive parachute disrupted the Soviet nylon hosiery industry.
Also, Buddhists don't fight. They sit and are ignored or killed.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
And you never know what those Chinbese are keeping behind they're backs. Somehow I doubt they put they're entire arsenal on display for everyone to see. I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled out a copy of the Tsar Bomba :D
For those who don't know, although I think everyone here does, the Tsar Bomba is the largest most powerfull nuke ever built by Humans up untill this day. It had a maximum theoretical yield of 100MT [equals 6500 Hiroshima bombs]. Though it's design was reduced to a 50MT bomb. A fun fact about this bomb: The fabrication of the massive parachute disrupted the Soviet nylon hosiery industry.
Also, Buddhists don't fight. They sit and are ignored or killed.
Vietnamese were buddhists they fight to hell and also China invaded Tibet so that's another thing and the Japanese are also.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Also, Buddhists don't fight. They sit and are ignored or killed.
Hmm, nope. Buddhists don't prone non-violence, it's quite the opposite acually. But they don't prone violence either, go wonder.
An interestic buddhist quote:
"if you meet Buddha, kill him"
Would have been funny if the dude who wrote the bible put something like that in it :p
-
it looks like china has only 20 ICBMs.
That would still be more than enough to level the US. They could probably buy more from Russia too.
-
(http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ohio/images/ohio7.jpg)
China has a couple of their own.
-
as do we and we are working on a anti-missle system,
who would win I think comes down to what winning means, and how the conflict started, if China were to atempt a preemtive strike, they'd lose, if we came up with some bull**** reason to invade we'de lose, who ever is wonded first will have moral authority to be utterly merciless to the other, and will take advantage of this. so if China atempts invaideing Taiwan for example, they destroy our bases in the reagon and people all around the world watch as the Chinees army rapes Taiwan, the US wouldn't have it's hands tied as it has in recent wars, there would be no fighting in the streets as cities would be leveled, if it came down to an us killing as many of them, while they try to kill as many of us as posable situation we'de probly win (especaly given the number of nations to whom wich we have mutual defence treaties with, and my scenario is a China strikes first one), but it would be very very very very bloody. as mentioned WW3, probly over 1.5 billion dead. there would defenatly be a draft, we'd probly loose a few million, China would probly be able to penetrate our defences, and if nukes get involve we'd probly lose one or two hundred million people.
-
Originally posted by Nico
Hmm, nope. Buddhists don't prone non-violence, it's quite the opposite acually. But they don't prone violence either, go wonder.
An interestic buddhist quote:
"if you meet Buddha, kill him"
Would have been funny if the dude who wrote the bible put something like that in it :p
"if you meet Buddha, kill him" - thats not LITERAL. It means to not 'worship' him as a God, but to use your own experience 'on the path'
Didn't some vietnamese buddhist monks immolate themselves as part of a protest?
Many of the vietnamese buddhists went to great lenghs to end the war peacefully. This caused them to be seen as enemies both by the Americans and by the Vietnamese government. A lot of them got killed for that. Non-violence is a big part of the religion... of course, whether the average layman could follow that guidance when they see their country being torn to shreds is an individual matter.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Not to mention their latest tank is more advanced than the abrams.
what
What is China's latest tank - their own version of T-90? If so, then how is it superior to Abrams (which is second to Strv 122 and Leo 2A6-EX, maybe)? I feel pretty goddamn confused. And don't bring along "hey, their tank is not as big and the main gun is bigger!!!1" -debate. It has nothing to do with reality.
-
the Chinese government is about as representative of Buddhism as I am of Martians.
suuuure, they invaded Tibet, destroyed countless temples and religious artifacts, drove out the Dalai Lama and killed innocent, peaceful monks, but they're still good Buddhists, you have to believe them...yeah right.
-
To make a long stroy short:
USA has allmost no chance of invading China and winning. (too many chinesse)
China has no chance of invading USA and winning. (what are they gonna invade with? Rafts? Too many soldiers, too little boats. And there's still the problem of the US navy)
-
Originally posted by Janos
what
What is China's latest tank - their own version of T-90? If so, then how is it superior to Abrams (which is second to Strv 122 and Leo 2A6-EX, maybe)? I feel pretty goddamn confused. And don't bring along "hey, their tank is not as big and the main gun is bigger!!!1" -debate. It has nothing to do with reality.
Type 98, details on it are sketchy but janes says its better and thats good enough for me.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Type 98, details on it are sketchy but janes says its better and thats good enough for me.
No. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm)
I believe that you meant this tank (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32501), which is only at prototype stage. Check out FCS and T-95 for comparison.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
At the heart of capitalism lies China....because everything is "Made in China". I doubt the two could go to war...it'd be crippling to both.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31931
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15170
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21634
:eek2: :wtf:
Things are turning worse by the minute...
-
The 21st Century: Age of the Chopstick
:D
-
oh dear god....
its coming ...
-
From Mr. Vega's sig:
"There is only one true Satan and he's cleaning my toilet as we speak." -Tiara
Cool! I'm quoted in someone's sig :p
-
Originally posted by Janos
No. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-98.htm)
I believe that you meant this tank (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32501), which is only at prototype stage. Check out FCS and T-95 for comparison.
Ya, getting my wires crossed. T-95 would probably compare favourably but I cant really see the fcs entering service.
Btw, worldnetdailys a christian fundie site, I wouldnt take articles on there too seriously.
-
Why??
-
Because their dislike for godless commie chinks colours their writing a bit.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Even with nukes, America wouldn't stand a chance.
The only reason people are afraid of America and not of China is that the Chinese aren't overly trigger-happy.
-
>.> reminds me...i've got to retake my garage... thanks for reminding me....
-
[color=66ff00]Someone posted on /. with the topic header 'USA = China lite'.
It made me think anyhow...
[/color]
-
let's be serious: there's no way that China could win against the US at this time.
Theby may have a big army but it's not going anywhere. Not even to Taiwan.
The US, on the other hand, can get 1 or more Carrier groups in the area in a matter of weeks. Enough to gain airsuperiority.
And to cripple China you don't need to occupy all of it. Just the pacific coast should do enough, as most of the infrastructure is there.
And should thinkg get out of hand and nukes are fired: China can flatten some cities, which is very annoying. The US can flatten China, which is victory.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
let's be serious: there's no way that China could win against the US at this time.
It depends on where the conflict would be fought, Chinas in no position to invade the US but on mainland asia the US would get raped.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Theby may have a big army but it's not going anywhere. Not even to Taiwan.
:wtf: China could capture Tiawan in a day.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
The US, on the other hand, can get 1 or more Carrier groups in the area in a matter of weeks. Enough to gain airsuperiority.
One carrier group is not going to get anything like airsuperiority over China, most likely it'd just get sunk very fast. A carrier carrys 80 odd planes, PRC has thousands, not to mention the Brahmos and Yahkonts they're trying to get their hands on. A couple of dozen of those in their inventory and the US wont be sending carriers anywhere near china.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
And to cripple China you don't need to occupy all of it. Just the pacific coast should do enough, as most of the infrastructure is there.
Thats what Hitler thought when he invaded Russia, crafty russians just moved the infrastructure.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
And should thinkg get out of hand and nukes are fired: China can flatten some cities, which is very annoying. The US can flatten China, which is victory.
The US flattens an area the size of China and fallout will kill off most of the world, thats not victory its suicide.
-
better start saving up for those fallout shelters then..
-
Gank
It depends on where the conflict would be fought, Chinas in no position to invade the US but on mainland asia the US would get raped.
You're underestimating the american military. It might be hard, but the US woudln't get 'raped'
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: China could capture Tiawan in a day.
and how would they get their troops over there?
They don't have the transport capabilities. Not the mention the fact that the US would interfere.
gankOne carrier group is not going to get anything like airsuperiority over China, most likely it'd just get sunk very fast. A carrier carrys 80 odd planes, PRC has thousands, not to mention the Brahmos and Yahkonts they're trying to get their hands on. A couple of dozen of those in their inventory and the US wont be sending carriers anywhere near china.
It's china we're talking about. The country can't even give correct numbers regarding their economy (they feel the need to spice up as propaganda) so I'd be at least sceptical about their military.
Then there's the fact that US has a big carrier nearby, called Japan.
gankThats what Hitler thought when he invaded Russia, crafty russians just moved the infrastructure.
WW2 is over. Not to mention the fact that Russia got help from the US in the form of Lend-Lease. china wouldn't get that.
-
They do have transport ability.
-
and how would they get their troops over there?
They don't have the transport capabilities. Not the mention the fact that the US would interfere.
USA would not interfere Because they don't want start war with country like china one of largest military power in World
If USA Try invade USA forces get Their Asses Kicked
-
China has nothing like the sort of shipping required to mount an effective invasion of Taiwan.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm)
With 40 odd true amphibs, they aren't going to be getting much of that huge army across the straight, unless they plan on packing them into various frieghters and the like... :)
Taiwan has a standing army of 200,000, not to mention 1.5 million reservists, all trained specifically to repel a Chinese invasion. Without a huge increase in amphibious shipping and marines, China would be acheiving little more than putting its ships and men into a meatgrinder trying to invade.
Note too that China has no Brahmos or Yakhonts at present, they have merely been offered for installation on its two destroyers ordered from Russia. These ships are still under construction. Even when completed, that will give the Chinese a total of two ships equipped with Yakhont. At present China has two -- count 'em -- two modern destroyers (the US has about 80). Lets also consider China's 'ultramodern' SSN fleet (5 ships):
"The Han-class SSNs are noted for problems, including high internal radiation levels and an inability to fire missiles while submerged, which compromise their operational effectiveness and their wartime utility against ASW-competent adversaries. The lead boats (401 & 402?) suffered radiation problems which were thought to have been solved after extensive refit. But since the late 1990s they appeared to have become inoperational. According to some reports, as of 2000 only two of its Han-class SSNs remained operational, despite the extended re-fits to the units of this class. "
Source :http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-91.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-91.htm)
China's solitary SSBN is no longer operational, either.
As for China's air force, where is it going to acquire all the ramp space near Taiwan to get even the smallest fraction of its aircraft in the air at one time? Most of China's aircraft will be low on feul the minute they even reach Taiwan. They have acquired 40 Su-27s and plan to build more, but this is still very much a future threat.
There is certainly no need for anyone to lose any sleep worrying about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan; the Taiwanese could probably stop it themselves without any aid from the US at all.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
You're underestimating the american military. It might be hard, but the US woudln't get 'raped'
You're overestimating it, US has zero chance of success in an invasion of China.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
and how would they get their troops over there?
They don't have the transport capabilities. Not the mention the fact that the US would interfere.
Of course they have the transport capability, stop talking nonsense. Its amphibious forces are limited, not non-existant.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
It's china we're talking about. The country can't even give correct numbers regarding their economy (they feel the need to spice up as propaganda) so I'd be at least sceptical about their military.
Then there's the fact that US has a big carrier nearby, called Japan.
Thats not a fact thats an assumption, Japan is a not a part of the US and theres no guarantee they'd let US forces operate from there. Whatever about Chinas long range missile capabilitys, it certainly has enough shortrange to make a mess of Japan and given Japans actions in China 60 years ago I'd say they'd be more than willing to do that. As for its spicing up economy figures, every government does that, including the US. Hardly propaganda.
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
WW2 is over. Not to mention the fact that Russia got help from the US in the form of Lend-Lease. china wouldn't get that.
:rolleyes: The fact that ww2 is over and america helped russia with lendlease have no bearing on what was said.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
China has nothing like the sort of shipping required to mount an effective invasion of Taiwan.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm)
With 40 odd true amphibs, they aren't going to be getting much of that huge army across the straight, unless they plan on packing them into various frieghters and the like... :)
Taiwan has a standing army of 200,000, not to mention 1.5 million reservists, all trained specifically to repel a Chinese invasion. Without a huge increase in amphibious shipping and marines, China would be acheiving little more than putting its ships and men into a meatgrinder trying to invade.
You're thinking in ww2 style tactics, mass invasion on the beach. If China does ever launch an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, its likely to come after they've reduced most of the island to rubble and then only likely to be aimed at securing a port/airfield which they certainly have the ability to do.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Note too that China has no Brahmos or Yakhonts at present, they have merely been offered for installation on its two destroyers ordered from Russia. These ships are still under construction. Even when completed, that will give the Chinese a total of two ships equipped with Yakhont. At present China has two -- count 'em -- two modern destroyers (the US has about 80).
The Brahmos and Yahkont were mentioned in a future conflict context, which is what any US-China conflict will be. One of the modified Sovremenny's has been finished and will soon join the 2 other Sovremenny's already in Chinese service you neglected to mention. Both of these are armed with Moskits, which pose a great danger to any US carriers. China is also engaged in seperate negotiations with India and Russia over aquiring Brahmos and Yahkonts as well as air launched moskits.
You're neglecting to mention its Song, Ming and Kilo class subs as well, which may be diesel but still pose a considerable threat, particularly in coastal waters around taiwan.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
As for China's air force, where is it going to acquire all the ramp space near Taiwan to get even the smallest fraction of its aircraft in the air at one time? Most of China's aircraft will be low on feul the minute they even reach Taiwan. They have acquired 40 Su-27s and plan to build more, but this is still very much a future threat.
China has 250 Su-27/30s in its inventory and plans buy or build a further 150 in addition to 1200+ other fighters in service. They also have plenty of runways around Tiawan to put enough planes over the island as well as tankers to keep them there.
-
Originally posted by Gank
You're thinking in ww2 style tactics, mass invasion on the beach. If China does ever launch an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, its likely to come after they've reduced most of the island to rubble and then only likely to be aimed at securing a port/airfield which they certainly have the ability to do.
Reducing Taiwan to rubble would leave China forever condemned in the eyes of the world. With the sanctions and blockade that would inevitably follow, how long would the Communist party stay in power as millions of Chinese become unemployed? :) It just isn't a realistic scenario in today's world. Moreover, of what value would a rubbled Taiwan be to China?
The Brahmos and Yahkont were mentioned in a future conflict context, which is what any US-China conflict will be. One of the modified Sovremenny's has been finished and will soon join the 2 other Sovremenny's already in Chinese service you neglected to mention. Both of these are armed with Moskits, which pose a great danger to any US carriers. China is also engaged in seperate negotiations with India and Russia over aquiring Brahmos and Yahkonts as well as air launched moskits.
These are the 2 modern destroyers I mentioned above. How are a mere 2, or even 4 destroyers going to get anywhere near a US CVBG to put these weapons to use? China is many, many years away from putting a significant fleet to sea.
You're neglecting to mention its Song, Ming and Kilo class subs as well, which may be diesel but still pose a considerable threat, particularly in coastal waters around taiwan.
The Chinese have beaten the heck out of their Kilos, they've had to send several back to Russia for repairs. The Song appears to be half decent, but only 2 are in service. The ancient Mings are of little threat to anyone but their crews!
China has 250 Su-27/30s in its inventory and plans buy or build a further 150 in addition to 1200+ other fighters in service. They also have plenty of runways around Tiawan to put enough planes over the island as well as tankers to keep them there.
Yeah, I goofed on the rate of production; they have managed to get that number into service already. AFAIK, however, China has a mere 10 modified Tu-16 tankers in service, and are beleived to have ordered a few Midas tankers from Russia.
These aircraft are indeed a significant threat; do note Taiwan's acquisition of 150 f-16s, 60 Mirage 2000s, ~120? IDCs. Coupled with Taiwan's purchase of Patriot SAMs, the Chinese certainly won't find the air battle over Taiwan to be any cakewalk.
-
China + USA = BIG ****ING MESS.
Easy as that. No winners, only losers. Millions of civilian casualties, global economic meltdown, both sides lose pretty much all their military.
Happy days, eh?
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Reducing Taiwan to rubble would leave China forever condemned in the eyes of the world. With the sanctions and blockade that would inevitably follow, how long would the Communist party stay in power as millions of Chinese become unemployed? :) It just isn't a realistic scenario in today's world. Moreover, of what value would a rubbled Taiwan be to China?
Sanctions imposed by who? The UN? Hardly likely seeing how China has a veto on any resolutions. US enforced sanctions are likely to hurt the US more than China. And how exactly is a nation the size of China going to be blockaded?
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
These are the 2 modern destroyers I mentioned above. How are a mere 2, or even 4 destroyers going to get anywhere near a US CVBG to put these weapons to use? China is many, many years away from putting a significant fleet to sea.
Sure the fleet is small, and head to head wouldnt last long in a naval engagement, but you're assuming here the Chinese are going to sent the dds out into the open sea to engage the carriers. In order for its airplanes to be effective a cv has to park itself just off the coast, leaving it vunerable to a hit and run attack by one or more dds or even fast attack boats. A single moskit is enough to put a carrier out of action, and the Sovremmeny's carry 8 tubes each. A single Yahkont will sink a carrier.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
The Chinese have beaten the heck out of their Kilos, they've had to send several back to Russia for repairs. The Song appears to be half decent, but only 2 are in service. The ancient Mings are of little threat to anyone but their crews!
A torpedo from a ming will kill as quick as one from an Akula, and only a stupid captain would ignore them off because they're obsolete. And theres at least 3 songs in service
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Yeah, I goofed on the rate of production; they have managed to get that number into service already. AFAIK, however, China has a mere 10 modified Tu-16 tankers in service, and are beleived to have ordered a few Midas tankers from Russia.
These aircraft are indeed a significant threat; do note Taiwan's acquisition of 150 f-16s, 60 Mirage 2000s, ~120? IDCs. Coupled with Taiwan's purchase of Patriot SAMs, the Chinese certainly won't find the air battle over Taiwan to be any cakewalk.
Not a cakewalk, but they would win. China has another 500 modern fighters based on the Mig-33 and Lavi about to or starting to enter production as well as fighter bombers like the JH-7. The IDF btw is a Taiwanese design based on the F-5.
Also the three batteries of patriots Taiwan has are pac-2s, these have a poor record against ballistic missiles like Scuds, I wouldnt count on them being too effective against aircraft. Most likely they'll be used to try and stop some of the incoming surface to surface missiles.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
At the heart of capitalism lies China....because everything is "Made in China". I doubt the two could go to war...it'd be crippling to both.
Guess who France's biggest trading partner was in 1914?
Guess who Germany's biggest trading partner was in 1914?
If you answered Germany to A and France to B, you're correct. :)
Economic interdependence is no guarantee of continuing peace.
As for China versus the US in a military conflict, considering how concerned the chinese over the US's success in the gulf, I'd say they don't see the US as an easy opponent at all, especially not like some of the anti-US wanking going on. Their almost frantic race to upgrade their military should suggest that they see their military as overall inferior to that of the US.
I should also point out that beating the **** out of a large, cold war style military like China's is what the US military has been designed to do for generations. Why do you think the US has trouble during the occupation of Iraq but steamrolled during the actual invasion?
-
"Economic interdependence is no guarantee of continuing peace."
it helps though
-
Originally posted by Shrike
As for China versus the US in a military conflict, considering how concerned the chinese over the US's success in the gulf, I'd say they don't see the US as an easy opponent at all, especially not like some of the anti-US wanking going on. Their almost frantic race to upgrade their military should suggest that they see their military as overall inferior to that of the US.
Of course they wouldnt see the US as an easy opponent, although I doubt the mass tank rush over a 30 mile country while taking potshots at conscripts in their T-55s had anything to do with it. Easy or not though the fact remains that the US is not going to invade and occupy a country of 1 billion+ people. And Chinas modernisation isnt "almost frantic", its steady and in line with their economic growth.
Originally posted by Shrike
I should also point out that beating the **** out of a large, cold war style military like China's is what the US military has been designed to do for generations. Why do you think the US has trouble during the occupation of Iraq but steamrolled during the actual invasion?
US steamrolled Iraq because the Iraqis didnt fight in large numbers. US bought off top commanders who told their men to go home, had they actually fought thing might have been a little different as the events at Umm Qasr and Basra showed.
btw anti-US wanking? as opposed to pro-US wanking?
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
China + USA = BIG ****ING MESS.
Easy as that. No winners, only losers. Millions of civilian casualties, global economic meltdown, both sides lose pretty much all their military.
Happy days, eh?
:nod:...Very well said...
-
And none of you have said anything about the prospect of the Chinese using guerilla warfare.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Sanctions imposed by who? The UN? Hardly likely seeing how China has a veto on any resolutions. US enforced sanctions are likely to hurt the US more than China. And how exactly is a nation the size of China going to be blockaded?
By the US and EU. That would be enough. If the Chinese really reduced Taiwan to rubble, you won;t find a soul willing to trade with them again. The USN would be more than up to the job of blockading China. It would of coure be impossible to prevent smuggling etc, but you certainly won't be seeing any container ships coming in and out of Chinese ports in the face of the US Navy.
Sure the fleet is small, and head to head wouldnt last long in a naval engagement, but you're assuming here the Chinese are going to sent the dds out into the open sea to engage the carriers. In order for its airplanes to be effective a cv has to park itself just off the coast, leaving it vunerable to a hit and run attack by one or more dds or even fast attack boats. A single moskit is enough to put a carrier out of action, and the Sovremmeny's carry 8 tubes each. A single Yahkont will sink a carrier.
In a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan, the US carriers would sit off of the east coast of Taiwan, making using of tanking assets to take down Chiense aircraft and ships. The The DDs could either come out of port to attack, or sit in port to do nothing. Let's not forget that each CVBG has at least 3 Aegis crusiers/destroyers escorting it, with hundreds of missles in total designed for the express of intercepting weapons such as the Yakhont. Not to mention the question of how the Sovs are going to target the CVBG in the first place, or survive to get in range.
I wouldn't count on a single Yahont sinking a carrier, either. Look at the enomous punishment FRANKLIN took; a super carrier is many times more durable than that.
A torpedo from a ming will kill as quick as one from an Akula, and only a stupid captain would ignore them off because they're obsolete. And theres at least 3 songs in service
Perhaps, but unlike an Akula, the WWII technology Ming hasn't a chance of getting a firing solution against a modern CVBG without being detected and sunk.
Not a cakewalk, but they would win. China has another 500 modern fighters based on the Mig-33 and Lavi about to or starting to enter production as well as fighter bombers like the JH-7. The IDF btw is a Taiwanese design based on the F-5.
The IDF is more similar to an F-16, its rather an odd bird.
Also the three batteries of patriots Taiwan has are pac-2s, these have a poor record against ballistic missiles like Scuds, I wouldnt count on them being too effective against aircraft. Most likely they'll be used to try and stop some of the incoming surface to surface missiles.
I sure would not want to be in an aircraft on the receiving end of
a PAC-2. An anti air engagement is not at all similar to a Scud intercept.
China and Taiwan will periodically throw out all kinds of bluster at one another, but don't expect to see a Chinese invasion any time soon. There is too much to lose and too little a chance of success for them to try it.
As for a US invasion of mainland China, it is impossible to conceive of a scenario in which the US would try this. What possible purpose could it serve? What would the US hope to achieve? The US military needs to worry about plausible situations, and not things which will never happen.
-
3 Aegis crusiers/destroyers escorting it
It was said earlier that a Yahkont was specifically designed to outmaneuver Aegis systems.
-
In the recent remake of "On The Beach", world war III begins with the US and China losing the ability to hold civilized discussions over Taiwan.
Worth renting, btw.
-
That's it I'll settle this... I'm making a CIV3 Map right now :p
-
Well ****, I lost the reply I was writing just as I was about to finish. Anyhow, take a look here. Just skimming it should show that China is looking to aggressively upgrade its warfighting abilities.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/d20040528prc.pdf
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
By the US and EU. That would be enough. If the Chinese really reduced Taiwan to rubble, you won;t find a soul willing to trade with them again. The USN would be more than up to the job of blockading China. It would of coure be impossible to prevent smuggling etc, but you certainly won't be seeing any container ships coming in and out of Chinese ports in the face of the US Navy.
Here you're presuming the EU would back up the US in a conflict with China, no guarantees they would. As for trade, nobody blinked an eye when Russia reduced Grozny to rubble. People may condemn it, but at the end of the day governments look after their own interests first, and trade with China is a big interest to most of the developed world. And yeah the US could blockade Chinas ports, but how exactly are they going to prevent trade being conducted across its borders, not exactly an island you know.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Let's not forget that each CVBG has at least 3 Aegis crusiers/destroyers escorting it, with hundreds of missles in total designed for the express of intercepting weapons such as the Yakhont.
An Aegis cruiser is not designed to intercept Yahkonts or Sunburns, these missiles are designed to defeat Aegis cruisers defences. Both missiles travel at mach2-3 at 5 meters above the sea. The best chance an Aegis has of stopping one is driving into its flight path
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Not to mention the question of how the Sovs are going to target the CVBG in the first place, or survive to get in range.
Yahkonts has a range of 300km and Moskit 250km, the DDs dont have to get too close too launch. Most likely they would make their attack as part of a combined air/naval/ss misile assault using other forces attacks to distract the US while they got within range, and as pointed out, they dont need to be too close. Chinese military doctrine has always been about hitting a technologically superior foe with massed technologically inferior forces in the right place at the right time.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
I wouldn't count on a single Yahont sinking a carrier, either. Look at the enomous punishment FRANKLIN took; a super carrier is many times more durable than that.
Franklin was hit by two iron bombs, Moskit and Yahkonts are supersonic cruise missiles designed to destroy or disable carriers a with one hit. 2 bombs is hardly enormous punishment btw, and the Franklin never went to sea again after them. Even slight dmage to the flight deck or a minor list is enough to put the carrier out of the fight, and a single Yahkont or Sunburn is easily capable of this. A 4 ton object hitting a ship at mach 3 is going to make a mess of it regardless of how heavilly armoured it is.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Perhaps, but unlike an Akula, the WWII technology Ming hasn't a chance of getting a firing solution against a modern CVBG without being detected and sunk.
WW2 is stretching it, and it has a chance, a very small one but mass 30 boats on one carrier and those odds arent that bad anymore. Dont think the chinese wouldnt sacrifice a couple of dozen ancient subs if they thought there was a decent chance of putting a carrier out of action, and a single torpedo is all it takes.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
I sure would not want to be in an aircraft on the receiving end of
a PAC-2. An anti air engagement is not at all similar to a Scud intercept.
PAC-2s had poor success in engaging Scuds over Israel and Saudi, Scuds are primitave ballistic missiles which fly at a set trajectory. The chances of a PAC-2 taking out a manuevering object like a plane are slim. Taiwan relys on Hawks and homegrown SkyBows for this, the patriots are for ssms.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
China and Taiwan will periodically throw out all kinds of bluster at one another, but don't expect to see a Chinese invasion any time soon. There is too much to lose and too little a chance of success for them to try it.
True, although I think you're underestimating their chances of success, in a sustained conflict between the two there would only be one winner.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
As for a US invasion of mainland China, it is impossible to conceive of a scenario in which the US would try this. What possible purpose could it serve? What would the US hope to achieve? The US military needs to worry about plausible situations, and not things which will never happen.
Again true, like I already said, any fighting would likely be done through proxys.
-
Both China and the US are self-contained environemts, they can produce just about everything they need on home soil, not including luxuries, but if China were cut off from the rest of the world, they would carry on quite nicely thank you, so could America, though with less ease for the populous.
The reason they are both walking the same path at the moment is because they both share an Achilles heel, and they need to deal with that before they can start looking at each other suspiciously again ;)
-
China sorta needs oil...and food...or are those luxuries? The U.S. needs oil too...we aren't self-sufficient, are we?
-
Here is an interesting article on this very subject with a provocative conclusion -- straight from the Naval War College in Rhode Island:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art3-su3.htm (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art3-su3.htm)
-
Originally posted by Gank
Here you're presuming the EU would back up the US in a conflict with China, no guarantees they would. As for trade, nobody blinked an eye when Russia reduced Grozny to rubble. People may condemn it, but at the end of the day governments look after their own interests first, and trade with China is a big interest to most of the developed world. And yeah the US could blockade Chinas ports, but how exactly are they going to prevent trade being conducted across its borders, not exactly an island you know.
China's rail/road links with other nations are very poor. Nearly all its trade is moved via ship. It would of course not be possible to stop all trade, but very possible to cripple China's economy.
An Aegis cruiser is not designed to intercept Yahkonts or Sunburns, these missiles are designed to defeat Aegis cruisers defences. Both missiles travel at mach2-3 at 5 meters above the sea. The best chance an Aegis has of stopping one is driving into its flight path
Given Chinas past maintainence record, it would be lucky to keep 2 of its 4 DDs at sea at one time. That gives them 16 missles to loft towards the US carriers. The main problem here being....
Yahkonts has a range of 300km and Moskit 250km, the DDs dont have to get too close too launch. Most likely they would make their attack as part of a combined air/naval/ss misile assault using other forces attacks to distract the US while they got within range, and as pointed out, they dont need to be too close. Chinese military doctrine has always been about hitting a technologically superior foe with massed technologically inferior forces in the right place at the right time.
The DDs need something to provide them with targeting data at that range. The question is what will enable the Chinese to track, target and then hand off that data to the ships for firing? They're recce assets are poor, and would have to fly right over Taiwan itself to get at the US CVBGs. Not an attractive prospect.
PAC-2s had poor success in engaging Scuds over Israel and Saudi, Scuds are primitave ballistic missiles which fly at a set trajectory. The chances of a PAC-2 taking out a manuevering object like a plane are slim. Taiwan relys on Hawks and homegrown SkyBows for this, the patriots are for ssms.
The trouble with the Scuds wasn't so much in hitting them, but in hitting the wrong part of the missle. The patrot's hit the larger fuel tank part of the scud, and not the smaller warhead. The Patriot is a serious threat indeed to any aircraft going...
Anyways, thanks Gank for an interesting discusion. :)
What would happen if the Chinese were to acquire a high poly Seth?? wink wink.... ;)
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
China's rail/road links with other nations are very poor. Nearly all its trade is moved via ship. It would of course not be possible to stop all trade, but very possible to cripple China's economy.
As pointed out, Chinas largely self sufficent except in the area of oil, though I'm sure a good bit of this comes overland from russia.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Given Chinas past maintainence record, it would be lucky to keep 2 of its 4 DDs at sea at one time. That gives them 16 missles to loft towards the US carriers. The main problem here being....
16 missiles of Moskit or Yah'konts variety targeted on a CV is a guarenteed kill.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
The DDs need something to provide them with targeting data at that range. The question is what will enable the Chinese to track, target and then hand off that data to the ships for firing? They're recce assets are poor, and would have to fly right over Taiwan itself to get at the US CVBGs. Not an attractive prospect.
They've got these things called radars nowadays, you can put them on land, ships, airplanes, submarines. China has at least 3 over the horizon radars, contrary to what the article you posted says.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
The trouble with the Scuds wasn't so much in hitting them, but in hitting the wrong part of the missle. The patrot's hit the larger fuel tank part of the scud, and not the smaller warhead. The Patriot is a serious threat indeed to any aircraft going...
Umm, no they didnt, PAC-2 missiles dont impact with the target, they use a proximity fuse. I dont see how you could possibly argue that they are a credible threat to aircraft given their shoddy record against missiles on set trajectorys. Besides, they wont be used in this role, the tiawanese aquired them to counter China's SRBM treat.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
What would happen if the Chinese were to acquire a high poly Seth?? wink wink.... ;)
Wouldnt really affect the balance of power that much.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Here is an interesting article on this very subject with a provocative conclusion -- straight from the Naval War College in Rhode Island:
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art3-su3.htm (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Summer/art3-su3.htm)
Interesting indeed....*goes off and muses possibilities*
-
Originally posted by Gank
The Brahmos and Yahkont were mentioned in a future conflict context, which is what any US-China conflict will be.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ok, then we get the new and improved star wars system, orbital anti-bunker missiles, stealth fighters and ships, and exoskeleton body armor for the troops complete with night and IFR vision... ;7
EDIT: Oh yea, we also get lasers on our 747s designed to take out missiles. :D
EDIT #2: I wonder when the lasers will be put on ships? :eek:
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
exoskeleton body armor for the troops complete with night and IFR vision... ;7
dude imgaine...Infantry running around carring miniguns with thousands of rounds of ammo strapped to their backs...
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
dude imgaine...Infantry running around carring miniguns with thousands of rounds of ammo strapped to their backs...
:lol: Sounds like a new video game!
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
dude imgaine...Infantry running around carring miniguns with thousands of rounds of ammo strapped to their backs...
And then the Machine Tentacle Monsters overrun their defences, but the little kid saves the day (for a while)? :)
Oh yeah, and Gank:
How the hell is China going to find the CVBG? It's not the easiest task, you know. US carriers are tremendously durable - destroying it requires A LOT of weaponry. And the carriers themselves have quite a defensive screen, which you should be able to surpass to attack the CV itself (and you would need to get close enough to fire the **** anyways).
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
dude imgaine...Infantry running around carring miniguns with thousands of rounds of ammo strapped to their backs...
It's closer then you think!
I'm keeping track on military development, and they are making progress in "smart" armours filled with sensors and microcomputers.
Lately, they have made a braketrough with exoskeleton armour, but details are sketchy at best....
-
Originally posted by ubermetroid
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Ok, then we get the new and improved star wars system, orbital anti-bunker missiles, stealth fighters and ships, and exoskeleton body armor for the troops complete with night and IFR vision... ;7
Future as in 2-3 years, if it happened now US isnt in a position to fight due to Iraq.
Originally posted by Janos
Oh yeah, and Gank:
How the hell is China going to find the CVBG? It's not the easiest task, you know. US carriers are tremendously durable - destroying it requires A LOT of weaponry. And the carriers themselves have quite a defensive screen, which you should be able to surpass to attack the CV itself (and you would need to get close enough to fire the **** anyways).
Try reading the thread.
-
Originally posted by Gank
As pointed out, Chinas largely self sufficent except in the area of oil, though I'm sure a good bit of this comes overland from russia.
Other than the blockade destroying China's economy.... :) Sure, they could feed themselves, but imagine all those millions of workers standing around outside their shuttered factories suddenly unemployed. All those skyscrapers in Shanghai suddenly empty, no more FDI ever, etc etc.... How long with the Communist Party survive??
16 missiles of Moskit or Yah'konts variety targeted on a CV is a guarenteed kill.
They've got these things called radars nowadays, you can put them on land, ships, airplanes, submarines. China has at least 3 over the horizon radars, contrary to what the article you posted says.
The US also has these things called radars, mounted on such vessels... :) Expect the OTH radars (if they even exist) to eat t'hawks straight away in any conflict. exect also to see those Sovremmenys' bow and stern at a 90 degree angle to the ocean after they eat a mk-48 each. Really, the USN is well aware of the threat posed by Yakhont and Moskit and has spent the last decade working on means to deal with the threat. These aren't magic weapons.
Umm, no they didnt, PAC-2 missiles dont impact with the target, they use a proximity fuse. I dont see how you could possibly argue that they are a credible threat to aircraft given their shoddy record against missiles on set trajectorys. Besides, they wont be used in this role, the tiawanese aquired them to counter China's SRBM treat.
The point is the patriots fused against the wrong part of the Scud, not whether or not the missle physicaly hit it. The patriot was designed first and foremost as a SAM, and is every it as good as the SA-300 in this role. Not to mention the rest of the missles Taiwan has available.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Other than the blockade destroying China's economy.... :) Sure, they could feed themselves, but imagine all those millions of workers standing around outside their shuttered factories suddenly unemployed. All those skyscrapers in Shanghai suddenly empty, no more FDI ever, etc etc.... How long with the Communist Party survive??
:wtf: This isnt the 18th century, a naval blockade isnt going to cripple any economy, please provide one example where it has. And even if the US did manage to cripple the Chinese economy someway, the communist party wouldnt lose power, for the simple reason that theres no viable alternative to it. Look at some historical examples of naval blockades in time of war, Germany during ww2. Did the economy collapse? no, were there millions of unemployed? no, germany had to bring in foreign workers and use pows as labour. A naval blocade will hurt an economy, but its not going to bring a country to its knees, besides after reading the article Shrike posted I'm not so sure the US could actually blockade the whole of China.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
The US also has these things called radars, mounted on such vessels... :) Expect the OTH radars (if they even exist) to eat t'hawks straight away in any conflict. exect also to see those Sovremmenys' bow and stern at a 90 degree angle to the ocean after they eat a mk-48 each. Really, the USN is well aware of the threat posed by Yakhont and Moskit and has spent the last decade working on means to deal with the threat. These aren't magic weapons.
OTH radars do exist, read the article Shrike posted. Tomahawks travel at 500mph, they're fine for blowing up **** in third world countries but China has SA-20s, which would turn a tomahawk strike into a very expensive fireworks show. Thats presuming the US knows where they are, Chinese are very proficient at camoflage. As for the USNs ways to deal with Yahkonts, they have nothing in service which can counter them yet, and wont have for quite some time. They arent magic weapons, but they are assymetrical equalisers, or assassins maces as the article Shrike posted says.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
The point is the patriots fused against the wrong part of the Scud, not whether or not the missle physicaly hit it. The patriot was designed first and foremost as a SAM, and is every it as good as the SA-300 in this role. Not to mention the rest of the missles Taiwan has available.
The patriots didnt "fuse" against the wrong part of the missile, they missed completely or just knocked the missile off course. Stop making stuff up. Its a moot point anyways, Tiawan bought the Patriots specifically to counter Chinas SRBM threat, and given the amount of those aimed at the island they wont be wasting any on planes.
One other thing nobodys brought up, how many people of Chinese descent are in the US, and how many people of US descent in China?
-
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: This isnt the 18th century, a naval blockade isnt going to cripple any economy, please provide one example where it has. And even if the US did manage to cripple the Chinese economy someway, the communist party wouldnt lose power, for the simple reason that theres no viable alternative to it. Look at some historical examples of naval blockades in time of war, Germany during ww2. Did the economy collapse? no, were there millions of unemployed? no, germany had to bring in foreign workers and use pows as labour. A naval blocade will hurt an economy, but its not going to bring a country to its knees, besides after reading the article Shrike posted I'm not so sure the US could actually blockade the whole of China.
Since every German was a solider or working in a weapons factory or dead, of course their asn't unemployment. A blockade of China would ruin its economy. Sure, if the communists want to clamp down on everyone and turn China into a mega North Korea, they can survive, but would they?
OTH radars do exist, read the article Shrike posted. Tomahawks travel at 500mph, they're fine for blowing up **** in third world countries but China has SA-20s, which would turn a tomahawk strike into a very expensive fireworks show. Thats presuming the US knows where they are, Chinese are very proficient at camoflage. As for the USNs ways to deal with Yahkonts, they have nothing in service which can counter them yet, and wont have for quite some time. They arent magic weapons, but they are assymetrical equalisers, or assassins maces as the article Shrike posted says.
Heh. China _is_ a third world countty. Now its the SA-20 that's the latest miracle weapon, capable of defeating anything thrown against it. How many such systems do they have? Where are they deplayed? Will the US not target these sites?
As for not knowing where the radars are, if the Chinese turn them on then suddenly the US will know exactly where they are.
The patriots didnt "fuse" against the wrong part of the missile, they missed completely or just knocked the missile off course. Stop making stuff up. Its a moot point anyways, Tiawan bought the Patriots specifically to counter Chinas SRBM threat, and given the amount of those aimed at the island they wont be wasting any on planes.
Who is making stuff up? That's exactly the analysis I've read of Patriot effectiveness, viz.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html (http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html) amongst others. And if the PAC-2 is such a 'poor' weapon against SRBMs, as you claimed before, why did Taiwan buy them? Why would they use them against such targets if they can't hit them?
One other thing nobodys brought up, how many people of Chinese descent are in the US, and how many people of US descent in China?
Lots. Few.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Since every German was a solider or working in a weapons factory or dead, of course their asn't unemployment. A blockade of China would ruin its economy. Sure, if the communists want to clamp down on everyone and turn China into a mega North Korea, they can survive, but would they?
You're living in dreamland if you think a naval blockade is going to bring China to its knees. It'll hurt its economy, but wont damage it. Besides if the US tries such an act they will find themselves at war fairly sharpish, which means every chinese will be working in a weapons factory, a soldier or dead. The odds of the US sucessfully embargoing the whole of Chinas coasts while at war arent all that great anyways.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Heh. China _is_ a third world countty. Now its the SA-20 that's the latest miracle weapon, capable of defeating anything thrown against it. How many such systems do they have? Where are they deplayed? Will the US not target these sites?
:rolleyes: Who the **** said anything about miracle weapons, a tomahawk is a 500mph drone, you could shoot it down with aaa. As for china being a third world country, it is, its also the worlds largest country and one of the fastest growing economys, and its also sitting beside the worlds leader in missile production who's starved for cash and selling off weapons to anyone who'll buy. And if you want to know the locations of Chinas sam sites, why dont you ask the Chinese government, I'm sure they'll tell you :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
As for not knowing where the radars are, if the Chinese turn them on then suddenly the US will know exactly where they are.
The general area they're in, most likely there'll be a couple of dozen dummy sites around them to confuse any strikes that get through the air defences.
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Who is making stuff up? That's exactly the analysis I've read of Patriot effectiveness, viz.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html (http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html) amongst others. And if the PAC-2 is such a 'poor' weapon against SRBMs, as you claimed before, why did Taiwan buy them? Why would they use them against such targets if they can't hit them?
What that article is actually saying is the scuds broke up on reentry, and the patriots locked onto a seperate part of the broken up missile, not the wrong part of a whole one as I thought you were saying. As to why the Tiawanese bought them, name the alternative?
-
Actually, China is a 2nd world nation, not third...
-
I should note that you don't use a tomahawk against a radar installation, because a t-hawk required premission planning, instead, you use a HARM which seeks out active radar sites.
Personally I wouldn't be too convinced the russian missiles will sweep the seas of USN ships - the Yakhont only has 120km range in sea-skimming mode, which will likely be well within a USN defense ring, and the Sunburns aren't much better. Plus, any realistic US deployment is going to have literally thousands of SAMs in the immediate area, plus all the carrier-based interceptors, plus carrier-based AWACS.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Personally I wouldn't be too convinced the russian missiles will sweep the seas of USN ships - the Yakhont only has 120km range in sea-skimming mode, which will likely be well within a USN defense ring, and the Sunburns aren't much better. Plus, any realistic US deployment is going to have literally thousands of SAMs in the immediate area, plus all the carrier-based interceptors, plus carrier-based AWACS.
Yahkonts arent going to sweep the seas of US ships, nobodys saying that, they can however put a cvbg out of action. 120km is the range for seaskimming the whole way, they'll probably use a mixed alttitude flight which has a range of 300km. As for US defences, the article you provided specifically says the US has no counter to the missiles. There was some other interesting stuff in there as well, like the Klub missiles is getting for its Songs and the Kryptons it has for its SU-30MKKs, both of which pose serious threats to naval vessels. Like it or not, China has the capability to take out one or more CVBGs. Whether they do or not in practise is another thing, but the means are there.
-
Various points:
Naval blockade worked against Cuba. That said, Cuba is a small island, whileChina is the largest country on Earth. Go figure.
China, a Third World country? My god, better read that than being blind.
Patriots: ask the IDF ( the Israelians ) how good they are. They suck, plain and simple.
Carriers: China may have outdated ships, subs and planes, but they have a ****load of them. If you align ONE more target than what the carrier fleet can handle, it's a sure hit. I don't think there's any pb for the chinese doing that.
Guerilla. As proven in Irak nowadays, the US army is unable to deal with that. And chinese have been used to doing guerilla ( against the japanese ) and proved they could do very well.
That's for defense. As for China invading another country? In their current military state, it's as possible as USA invading them. They can't, they just don't have the logistic to support a prolonged, distant war as they could on their own soil.
I read lots of funny things about WW3 in the 50 following years, chinas turning into the next big threat, etc, but get a gripe people, taht ain't gonna happen. Same goes for their exploding economy: they'll face the same thing every country faced at that point: growing health, growing understanding of the populace about their own rights, growing social requests, etc, which will slow down the whole thing w/o any external influence.
-
How's this sound to everybody?
US attacks China = Chinese Victory
China attacks US = US Victory
-
Wasn't it that way in every major war of the 20th century?
To name a couple:
WWI - Germany attacks, Germany "loses"
WWII - Germany & Japan attack, Germany & Japan lose
Conclusion: Launching a war of aggression just isn't a smart thing to do anymore.
Hmmm....:doubt:
-
Exactly, Corsair. Basically, with advantages available on each country's 'home turf,' the way it works is if you attack someone, and your not on at least neutral ground, your gonna get ****ed up, big time.
-
Uh... if you didn't realize, Germany conquered quite a bit before they lost. Meaning, they made a lot of area their territory, then ended up losing it cuz the US came in with overkill and blew the pants off of em. Remember that the allies won D-day, even though it was a massive attack on German territory.
-
I meant in current times, between the more powerful countries
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
I meant in current times, between the more powerful countries
Uh... D-day was in World War 2. And the four biggest powers at the time were the US, Russia, Germany, and Japan. 60 years is fairly recent history, you'll agree, and it's generally agreed that all 4 of those countries could kick quite alot of ass in their day.
-
Originally posted by Reez
Uh... if you didn't realize, Germany conquered quite a bit before they lost. Meaning, they made a lot of area their territory, then ended up losing it cuz the US came in with overkill and blew the pants off of em. Remember that the allies won D-day, even though it was a massive attack on German territory.
Right. And it wasn't really German territory. It was French. The Allies had the help of the Resistance. Not everyone was collaborating with the Nazis and they weren't on their home turf. If anything, it was neutral ground.
-
remember that southern france was collaborating with the Germans. And the Resistance, though brave, is overly glorified. They didn't really accomplish all that much. THey weren't strong enough or hhad the munitions, and i doubt the Germans right now are running around saying "you know, if it wasn't for that damn Resistance, we would've won that war"
-
Originally posted by Reez
Uh... if you didn't realize, Germany conquered quite a bit before they lost. Meaning, they made a lot of area their territory, then ended up losing it cuz the US came in with overkill and blew the pants off of em. Remember that the allies won D-day, even though it was a massive attack on German territory.
And of course the Soviets helped the US win the war by mounting a 2 million man offensive at the same time as d-day which completely smashed several German armys. Then later on they helped distract the germans by capturing Berlin.
-
Erm, Reez, u missed out Britain as one of the most powerful nations in ww2 - we didn't just drink tea and get bombed we kinda were the only ones left standing up to Germany at one point.
Oh and that small matter of the emprie...
-
I believe the British still had the worlds most powerful navy at that point, didn't they/we? It's easy to forget the fighting that went on in Africa, and also in Asia (i.e. British territories uch as Shanghai - and obviously Australia).
NB: It's worth noting that D-Day was a major success partly because counter-intelligence has succeeded in convincing the Germans the landings would take place in Calais, or even (I think) possibly in Norway. On D-Day, Normandy was mostly guarded by older, less-battle hardened troops. I think the only reinfocements were a couple of divisions (not good with military troop sizes, tho...) of more battle-hardened troops*
So it's probably worth remembering that D-Day was only a small part - albeit crucial- of the overall campaign.... the succesfull landing was only the beginning of the fighting, not the end. IIRC, on the end of D-Day, the Allies had only actually moved about 10 miles inland...... the fighting had barely started at that point.
*dispatched by hitler to Normandy on a 'hunch' a few weeks before D-Day
-
i didn't forget about Britain. But when war came around, you guys were sorely unprepared. But GO UK! Awesome navy, what with all the killings of German U-boats you did.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: It's worth noting that D-Day was a major success partly because counter-intelligence has succeeded in convincing the Germans the landings would take place in Calais, or even (I think) possibly in Norway. On D-Day, Normandy was mostly guarded by older, less-battle hardened troops. I think the only reinfocements were a couple of divisions (not good with military troop sizes, tho...) of more battle-hardened troops*
A lot of the troops guarding the beachs were actually russians, equipped with mosin nagants and ppshs. And there were a couple of good german divisions in the area, panzer Lehr and 10th and 12th SS among a few others. Brits in particular had it rough when they started coming up against the big cats further inland.
-
Not to mention captured Polish, some of which shot their German captors when they saw the invasion fleet coming in. ;)
-
And also if the British Royal Air Force didn't win the Battle of Britain... I think we would've been screwed.
-
Originally posted by Reez
remember that southern france was collaborating with the Germans. And the Resistance, though brave, is overly glorified. They didn't really accomplish all that much. THey weren't strong enough or hhad the munitions, and i doubt the Germans right now are running around saying "you know, if it wasn't for that damn Resistance, we would've won that war"
1) southern France collaborated with the Nazi only for the fight against the resistance. The allied never fought french people.
As for the resistance, they didn't accomplish much? Sure, Prior to D-day, they just blown all the rail network, major communication centers, ammunitions depots ( well they did that from day one, mind you, they didn't wait for D-Day ), assassinated countless nazi and wermarcht officers, bombed convoys and bridges, etc etc.
Yeah, they didn't really accomplish all that much.
-
Originally posted by Gank
And of course the Soviets helped the US win the war by mounting a 2 million man offensive at the same time as d-day which completely smashed several German armys. Then later on they helped distract the germans by capturing Berlin.
...
Too bad they launched it towards Finland (at 10.-11.6.) than Germany - the main Soviet assault against Germany only began in August '44, though Germany's power had already been dimished in late 1943 - early 1944.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Too bad they launched it towards Finland (at 10.-11.6.) than Germany - the main Soviet assault against Germany only began in August '44, though Germany's power had already been dimished in late 1943 - early 1944.
No they didnt, operation Bagration was launched at army group centre, the finnish assault (karelia?) was a different matter . And the Russians stopped and started beating back the german invasion winter 42/43, by august 44 the russians were in poland.
Originally posted by Nico
1) southern France collaborated with the Nazi only for the fight against the resistance. The allied never fought french people.
Not in france but iirc they fought french troops in north africa
-
Originally posted by Gank
No they didnt, operation Bagration was launched at army group centre, the finnish assault (karelia?) was a different matter . And the Russians stopped and started beating back the german invasion winter 42/43, by august 44 the russians were in poland.
The assault on Karelian Isthmus began on 10.6.1944. Bagration on 22.6., and though being wildly successful, the units fighting on Karelia were needed on Baltic. Some sources propose Stalin had promised to start a full attack on Eastern Front right after D-Day, and did so, but surprised the Western Allies by throwing his first offensive towards Finland, not Germany.
Not that it mattered, though.
-
Originally posted by Reez
i didn't forget about Britain. But when war came around, you guys were sorely unprepared. But GO UK! Awesome navy, what with all the killings of German U-boats you did.
Not to mention the ****-kicking given to all and sundry in the Med.
Aldo: We had the biggest navy, including the biggest warship (the Hood), but a lot of the ships weren't as up-to-date as they needed to be. The heaviest ships (the Nelson and Rodney battleships) were very powerful (9 16" guns) but slow, and most of the battleship fleet (about 25 ships IIRC) were at least 15-20 years old, with the Great War-style designs (such as the Barham, Malaya, Warspite, Ramillies, etc.). The only new ones were the King George V-class, which started to enter service in 1939 IIRC. Our carriers were also fairly old for the most part, with ships like the Indefatigable dating back to the early 20s (with the exception of the Ark Royal, finished in '37 I think), though we did have more than anyone else. The Americans were probably about equal to us in terms of strength, though they lost a massive chunk of their power at Pearl Harbour (8 battleships sunk), and they never really regained it.
And you were right about the counter-intelligence prior to D-Day - the Germans thought that the British 4th Army was going to invade Norway in the spring of 1944. The 4th Army didn't actually exist - it was all inflatable tanks!
Anyway, getting back to USA vs PRC: I think that any US Navy task force would suffer heavy damage from the Chinese, though they would probably return the favour. As for carrier "durability", a hit from a Moskit or Yakhont would wipe out a carrier almost instantly. Even if the hit didn't destroy the carrier outright, it would be taken out of the battle straight away.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Erm, Reez, u missed out Britain as one of the most powerful nations in ww2 - we didn't just drink tea and get bombed we kinda were the only ones left standing up to Germany at one point.
Oh and that small matter of the emprie...
The only reason GB remained free was the canal. If Hitler had a fast and safe way of transfering it's tanks and soldiers, GB would have fallen fast.
And US was the greatest naval force of that time. Yes, they lost a lot of ship in Pearl Harbour, but by the end of the war they build a whole armada of carriers and battleships.
I really doubt that Germany would have lost the war at all if Hitler hadn't started a war at 2 fronts. The idiot.
-
Actually, he was pretty much screwed when the Americans joined. He really couldn't match their firepower, even if it was one on one.
-
If it was really world war 3, do you think that the US would mess around with cities? NO, they would level them to the ground, carpet bomb the hell out of China, and eventually win the war. China doesn't have a prayer if the US uses all it has at its disposal.
-
uh... do you realize how mountainous china is? and how the rest of the world would declare war on the US for such a blatant war crime? i doubt they could take on the entire civilized world, and most of the uncivilized war as well. Imagine the number of terrorists in planes then.