It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 127
1
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Not all of the hits in Somalia were of helicopters hovering at 10 metres. In fact, only one was. And it was fighters with experience from Afghanistan who showed the Somalis how to modify RPGs so the back-blast wouldn't kill the user when firing AA.


It wasn't the back blast which was modified it was the RPG warheads. They were modified to use a conventional HE charge ( not HEAT ) and used a rudimentary timing device to try and get the airburst effect. That is what brought the Blackhawks down - airbursting RPG warheads.


Again, I ask you, have you seen combat footage of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? I have.


Umm, so what ? LOL. Well if you've seen a tiny bit of footage, you must be an expert. You can watch TV, whereas I read books written by the men who fought in Afghanistan. Believe me, I hvae gleaned far more from my reading than you could ever watching a TV show.


ind D is the most heavily armoured gunship of all time, hence the nickname "flying tank". It still has a tail rotor. Which is not proof against .50cal. And where do I say .50 cal was the weapon used?


Well you said you don't need 23mm only .50 claiber. then you talked about some BS about the muj blazing away at the Russians implyng they were using .50 caliber. Which probably isn't really correct as the main Russian HMG was 14.5 mm caliber.



ument is this: How effective have helicopter gunships been since their invention in VN when machine guns were bolted on the side of the UH1? Not very and good proof of this is Afghanistan where Hind became a favourite target of the Mujahideen because it was such an obvious symbol of Soviet power and such a good kill to celebrate.


LOl, as I said before. The stinger is what made the Soviet hinds vunerable. The Pakistani ISI ( Inter Services Intelligence ), who ran the war, knew that without stingers the war was lost. So helicopters were highly effective in Afghanistan before the advent of MANPADS.
PS. As an aside, the first stinger kill in Afghanistan was video recorded and sent to Ronny Reagan.


It is still extemely easy to kill helicopters with small arms and any scenario in which gunships will be used against a first-world equipped and trained army will always have fast jets flying overhead to protect helicopters. ALWAYS. Because helicopters are too vulnerable on their own. Just as Tanks will ALWAYS have infantry escort.


And what exactly are jets meant to do ? somehow spot a person from 15 000 feet and drop a bomb on them ? I don't think so, lol.


How many Hind Ds were lost in Afghanistan? How effective were they?
How many Apaches were lost in the Balkans? How effective were they?
How many helicopters were lost in VN?


I wasn't aware Apaches fought in the Balkans



Helicopters are good for hunting tanks, they're good for transporting troops very quickly across the jungle and they're excellent for CT ops. They're not designed for a complex combined operation against an equally well-equipped and well-trained enemy, that's what GR Harriers are for. The first thing the soldiers will fire at is the helicopter.


What a load of bollox, not even worth telling you how wrong you are.




posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh huh, all that (no most of it) is accepted.

Now, how many successful combined operations have you seen?

I've seen four, San Carlos Water, Panama, Mogadishu and Iraq (I don't count Grenada as Clint Eastwood films don't count as "seeing").


LOL, so you've seen a few shows on The History Channel and now you're an expert ? lol



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh huh, all that (no most of it) is accepted.

Now, how many successful combined operations have you seen?

I've seen four, San Carlos Water, Panama, Mogadishu and Iraq (I don't count Grenada as Clint Eastwood films don't count as "seeing").


LOL, so you've seen a few shows on The History Channel and now you're an expert ? lol


You tell me, aside from Gaz Hunter, which books you're reading and I'll speak to some men who served with the authors and get back to you on the believability.

No, a tiny fraction of footage is not what I've seen. I've seen a Stinger shot (that did not kill a Hind) which was only a tiny fraction of a much longer battle, a fair chunk of which was also shown.

No, those are in my life, as in "I watched them as they were being reported/were happening." As Inchon wasn't during my life I don't claim to have seen it. Just as I don't count watching Heartbreak Ridge as seeing Grenada.

At no point did I say the Mujahideen used .50cals. As far as I'm aware they were using 14.5mm and up. But that does not mean that helicopters cannot be killed with 12.7mm. They can be killed with a 9mm SMG if you hit the right part.

And go back and read Blackhawk Down again. You point an RPG at the sky on an acute angle and the back-blast will fry you, which is why PIAT could be fired within a building and Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust and Bazooka could not. US forces captured modified launchers. It was the launchers I was referring to. If you hit the target itself you don't need to airburst, although, obviously, it helps a hell of a lot, which is why AAA became so much more effective after the Brits invented proximity fuses in WW2 to replace timed fuses.

The point about fast jets is that helicopter gunships are a paper tiger, everyone is scared of/in awe of them and yet what have they ever done? They're the Russian Empire in 1903.

Without fast jets to protect them HGs die at the hands of other fast jets. Without tanks to protect them HGs can die at the hands of armoured units, which are equipped to fight against HGs and even at the hands of men equipped with shoulder-launched missiles (or even anti-tank rounds). In Vietnam HGs died at the hands of men and women firing machine guns over open sights.

So the Chinese might deploy a hundred helicopter gunships to their operation. Big deal. Let the army take them out, the RoCAF will be concentrating on the jets whose job it will be to protect them and which do you think is more vulnerable to SAM, jet or helix?

No, that's precisely the point, Longbow Apaches did NOT serve in the Balkans, go find out why.

And my info doesn't come from the History Channel. It comes from reading both public and my personal library (upwards of 200 books on these subjects) and from speaking with the guys who were there.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

ument is this: How effective have helicopter gunships been since their invention in VN when machine guns were bolted on the side of the UH1? Not very and good proof of this is Afghanistan where Hind became a favourite target of the Mujahideen because it was such an obvious symbol of Soviet power and such a good kill to celebrate.


LOl, as I said before. The stinger is what made the Soviet hinds vunerable. The Pakistani ISI ( Inter Services Intelligence ), who ran the war, knew that without stingers the war was lost. So helicopters were highly effective in Afghanistan before the advent of MANPADS.
PS. As an aside, the first stinger kill in Afghanistan was video recorded and sent to Ronny Reagan.


And?...Relevence?... Answer the question. How effective have they been? Name a conflict in which they were decisive. Better yet, name a conflict between first world powers in which they were decisive. It doesn't matter what killed them, they died, it doesn't matter who supplied the weapons, the helicopters still died.

(and to go into totally off-topic territory)

And if the war was going to be lost so easily, why are the Taleban still such a bogeyman when there are 18,000 US troops in Afghanistan, with more advanced helicopters and no Stingers in the possession of the enemy, not to mention nearly half that number in NATO troops? No invader in history has successfully held Afghanistan. How many helicopters have gone down in Iraq? Of those, how many were shot down?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Actually, you are missing some major important factors HowlrunnerIV.

The distance between Taiwan and China allows for their transport helicopters to make two-returns trips in 80minutes.

Modern Warfare compaired to World War Two and their beach landing, will allow missiles to destory the air-fields while the transport ships are on route.

The large number of Chinese Anti-Missile/Aeroplane equipment which can over-shoot Taiwan.

Modern advances in equipment, etc.

You also make out like the Taiwanese wouldn't accept them. When from some of the sources posted earlier on in this thread it's about 50/50 as well as the way the Chinese will crack-down on any level of terrorism unlike how America do it probably in a very brutal way if they have to.

AS for my own experience? Well I was trained by the T.A. but I never did see service however several friends of mine (I live within 30minutes of 4 Army bases) were invovled in Iraq including the mission I am speaking of. From on the ground to those directing the mission from the U.K.

Iraq and the invasion, is similar to Taiwan compaired to World War Two.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
You also make out like the Taiwanese wouldn't accept them. When from some of the sources posted earlier on in this thread it's about 50/50.


Hmm, its one thing to have a peacfull re-unification, its quite another to invade. I do agree that they will resurt to brutal methods. One only has to look as far as Tibet or Tienneman



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Actually, you are missing some major important factors HowlrunnerIV.

The distance between Taiwan and China allows for their transport helicopters to make two-returns trips in 80minutes.


True, but you've got to put the men down. And I hate to point it out but transport helicopters are even easier to kill the ganships.

The German high command had planned the invasion of the low countries around how efficient their rail system was, what happened to those plans in 1914?


Modern Warfare compaired to World War Two and their beach landing, will allow missiles to destory the air-fields while the transport ships are on route.


Aren't the Taiwanese developing a maritime cruise missile? Or did I dream that one up?


The large number of Chinese Anti-Missile/Aeroplane equipment which can over-shoot Taiwan.


That would be most of them. You're assuming that they all target perfectly and nothing is left to fly, or anywhere for it to take off.


Modern advances in equipment, etc.


Yes, like rogue1's oft-mentioned Stinger.


You also make out like the Taiwanese wouldn't accept them. When from some of the sources posted earlier on in this thread it's about 50/50 as well as the way the Chinese will crack-down on any level of terrorism unlike how America do it probably in a very brutal way if they have to.


Okay, I'll be clearer, the men in uniform will say unpleasant things about communists. The civilians will probably say unpleasant things about their homes being destroyed and I'm sure would-be Quislings might think twice if the mainland invaded and killed extended family members in the process.


AS for my own experience? Well I was trained by the T.A. but I never did see service however several friends of mine (I live within 30minutes of 4 Army bases) were invovled in Iraq including the mission I am speaking of. From on the ground to those directing the mission from the U.K.


I was talking about Afghanistan in the '80s.


Iraq and the invasion, is similar to Taiwan compaired to World War Two.


No, I don't think so. For one thing, the Iraqi army had no training and no doctrine to deal with an amphibious invasion and for another an awful lot more of it came overland than would happen in the Formosa Strait.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said;
“China's strategy, I think, would be a missile attack on Taiwan's airfields, which are not well defended, hoping to seize air dominance.”
and
“At the end of the day, China may gamble that it cares more about Taiwan than the United States does, and if the United States is faced with a choice between backing down on Taiwan and seeing Chinese atomic bombs detonating over American cities, that the United States will back down.”
and
“I think that Taiwan's military strategy is to hold out for the week that it would take American forces to arrive in large numbers. China's military strategy has to be to have a government in power in Taipei before the end of that first week, [one] that tells the American military to go away -- we're happy that we've rejoined China.”

Dan Blumenthal was Senior Director for China and Taiwan under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said;
“Beijing strategists are thinking about it this way: Taiwan will fold quickly. You can make them come to their knees quickly, not necessarily by invading Taiwan, but by launching ballistic missiles at Taiwan, there are many, many pointed at Taiwan right now -- by trying to bring down their critical infrastructure, by making it seem like the Taiwan government has lost control. [And by] using information and computer network attacks, and blockading the island, starving it from its economic resources.”

www.cbn.com...

Taiwan at the moment, doesn't have any number of ballistic missiles (I've seen it put in the low-tens) compaired to China who by 2012 wish to have 1000 pointing at Taiwan alone.

Split this over how Taiwan has spaced out its Military bases, it is possible for China to do massive amounts of damage without causing a large number of Civilition death. The fact Taiwan's Army is over three Islands, two of which are primarily military bases only makes it easier for China.

Coupled with the approcah they wish to have for their Air-defence, it will be very hard to get a missile through by 2012 they also wish to have a system of layered defence covering China from every angle not the hollow one they have now.

Again, mix that with their ability to put 1000planes over Taiwan in less then an hour, ability to transport hundreds of troops which is only increasing it would be a massive problem for the Taiwanese. The size of China's Army alone allows them to launch quick-strikes using special forces over hundreds of locations at once. Which they probably already have planned out now. To confuse the Taiwanese and although the transport helicopters are weak and easy to take down when those Zubr's are coming up the beach (and they are amazing hover-craft) there is another larger problem.

Then you have to add in para-troopers, etc. China soon will be fielding a few hundred larger planes which will be able to drop troops to capture internal air-fields and allow them to use for transport for their own planes and helicopters while the Taiwanese Air-force is grounded.

I also have seen a report (I will try and find) saying China has 300helicopters which can transport tanks (under them) so once they have the foot hold a few hundred tanks out of the thousands they will have by the time they have to invade (if they do at all) the Island will be there's unless the Generals themselves refuse to give the order. Which I doubt will happen.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
From what I know;
Taiwan has 17 Air-fields:
Makung (not the main Island)
Taoyuari,
Sungshan,
Hsinchu,
Ching Chaun Kang,
Hualien,
Chiayi,
Tainan,
Taitung,
Pingtung and,
Kangshan.

They have three military bases with airfields,
Lungtan,
Hsinsher and,
Kueijan.

They have three ports with airfields,
Tsoying,
Pingtung and,
Hualien.

Those are all of Taiwan's Airfields.

China will soon have over several (50+)missiles, per air-field.
They are working on advancing them to the point they will have at least a 50/50 hit ratio and the Russian's already have some of the best missile technology, which the Chinese would easily be able to buy.

Army Bases

Kinmen, Matsu, and Penghu have 50,000 soldiers and are off-shore.
Defense Ministry of Taiwan have over the last years been shutting down inner-city bases and moveing them outside for obvious reasons. However this has resulted in China having the ability to blitz them and have low civilian deaths. This will again work in their favour while invading.

There are only six Sky Bow missile bases which are in-built into existing bases.

Naval Bases

Anping
Hsinchu
Hualien
Keelung
Kenting
Makung (Pescadores)
Suao
Tamshui
Tsoying and
Wuchi
(And of course, Chingshan which is not finished yet.)

Once the air-fields and ports have been destoryed Taiwan is a sitting duck for the aeroplanes to blitz the troop bases which are now outside towns. It's not something I myself would want to happen but it is logical while invading and capturing the Command Structures of Taiwan you blitz the bases and cause massive loss of life.

Once the troops have the Commond structures which the Taiwanese keep outside of their main bases on seperate bases the army will fall into confusion and have very little choice but to surrender.

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Od, where are you getting info that they can get 1000 planes in the air over taiwan within an hour?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Source
Today, the PLA Air Force consists of 330,000 personnel, operating some 3,500 aircraft, over 1,000 surface-to-air missile systems, and several thousand anti-aircraft artillery. As a result of China’s ongoing force reduction and military modernisation, the size of the PLA Air Force has been decreasing since the mid-1980s, with most of its obsolete aircraft based on the 1950s-era Soviet designs being retired from service.


and


Republic of China 1998] National Defense Report,
"At the 13 military-civilian airports within 250 NM away from Taiwan proper, the PRC's Air Force can station 1,200 combat aircraft.... At present, stationed on the air bases within 500 nautical miles from Taiwan are 1,300 aircraft, of which some 600 airplanes have a radius of operation over Taiwan proper."


I assume roughly they can travel about 250miles per-hour. I'm not up to speed on air-craft speed, but that doesn't seem that high to me.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Oh, you mean travel time....not deployment time like getting the aircraft prepped , etc.
BTW, do you really think china will deploy over 1000 planes in the air....damm the air controllers are going to have a head ache...



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp


Oh, you mean travel time....not deployment time like getting the aircraft prepped , etc.
BTW, do you really think china will deploy over 1000 planes in the air....damm the air controllers are going to have a head ache...



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


Very much so.

Get the job done and get it done quickly.

That many air-craft, would give amazing cover to their boats, helicopters, troops on the ground while being able to blitz the military bases and of course put pressure on America not to get involved.

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Very much so.

Get the job done and get it done quickly.

That many air-craft, would give amazing cover to their boats, helicopters, troops on the ground while being able to blitz the military bases and of course put pressure on America not to get involved.

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]

Umm ok...you do relise that a very small amount of the PLAAF are ground bombers right?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Odium

Very much so.

Get the job done and get it done quickly.

That many air-craft, would give amazing cover to their boats, helicopters, troops on the ground while being able to blitz the military bases and of course put pressure on America not to get involved.

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]

[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]

Umm ok...you do relise that a very small amount of the PLAAF are ground bombers right?


Of course, but you only need a hundred or so that can drop bombs to do massive amounts of damage to Taiwan.

It's a small Island Nation the other planes will be able to do what was done in vietnam to fly support and use the front-mounted guns to take care of troops and even bases. Those bullets will rip through most things, even tanks.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Of course, but you only need a hundred or so that can drop bombs to do massive amounts of damage to Taiwan.

I dont think you under stand, these bombers hold like 4 bombs each; 400 bombs dont do so much damage.


It's a small Island Nation the other planes will be able to do what was done in vietnam to fly support and use the front-mounted guns to take care of troops and even bases. Those bullets will rip through most things, even tanks.

Umm ok, air defence using cannons to take out bunkers?



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Of course, but you only need a hundred or so that can drop bombs to do massive amounts of damage to Taiwan.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I dont think you under stand, these bombers hold like 4 bombs each; 400 bombs dont do so much damage.

Plus what's soon to be 1000 missiles.
That is enough to take out 17 air-fields.

Along with enough to drop on several bases. Bunkers or not they'll do a lot of damage and the guns tend to be used for front-line assault like in Vietnam.

Also the amount of bombers Russia is selling. 72 Sukhoi-30MK which can hold roughly 8000 kg worth of bombs. (Agreed in 1999)
Start of this year Russia seemed to O.K. the sale of Tu-22M3's to China as well which has a load of 24,000kg.

Runways are not that hard to destory.



It's a small Island Nation the other planes will be able to do what was done in vietnam to fly support and use the front-mounted guns to take care of troops and even bases. Those bullets will rip through most things, even tanks.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm ok, air defence using cannons to take out bunkers?


No, tanks, people, etc. Barracks tend to be above ground, air-craft control, etc, etc.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Hmmm, Odium you seem to be drastically overstating the effectiveness of the PLAAF. If the Chinese put 1000 planes in the air over Taiwan then they would lose more to mid air collisions than to hostile fire.
Not to mention they have bugger all experience using AWACS, with more than a few planes.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm, Odium you seem to be drastically overstating the effectiveness of the PLAAF. If the Chinese put 1000 planes in the air over Taiwan then they would lose more to mid air collisions than to hostile fire.
Not to mention they have bugger all experience using AWACS, with more than a few planes.


No but what you do is send them up in waves of 20minutes or 10minutes, or whatever. So Taiwan always has several air-craft over it at anyone time (several hundred) and it won't be just over Taiwan it'd have to be over the three Islands and the strait.

Also with the increased internal and external training exercises, they are building this ability up to conduct large scale exercises.

If you make sure you get the times right, they could make sure they have about 200 to 300 air-craft, always over Taiwan during the invasion. This would be amazingly problematic for Taiwan.

Coupled again with craft like the Zubr and helicopters, they could do this on all fronts and transport a large number of troops, tanks, etc, fairly quickly and with the build up this ability is increasing.


Source
Russia and China are the dominant countries in the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, a grouping that includes four former Soviet republics of Central Asia and which this year took on Iran, India and Pakistan as observers.

At a summit in July, the group called on Washington to set a date for the withdrawal of its forces from Central Asia, where they have been deployed since late 2001 to help support operations in neighbouring Afghanistan. Representatives from the organization's countries have been invited to watch the exercises



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Plus what's soon to be 1000 missiles.
That is enough to take out 17 air-fields.

Is it enough to take out the several hundred guys probably with stingers WAITING for the planes..


Along with enough to drop on several bases. Bunkers or not they'll do a lot of damage and the guns tend to be used for front-line assault like in Vietnam.

23 mm cannons wont do that much damage.


Also the amount of bombers Russia is selling. 72 Sukhoi-30MK which can hold roughly 8000 kg worth of bombs. (Agreed in 1999)
Start of this year Russia seemed to O.K. the sale of Tu-22M3's to China as well which has a load of 24,000kg.

10 bombs per plane, 720 bombs, aint going to cause that much damage.


Runways are not that hard to destory.

going to blow up the roads as well?



No, tanks, people, etc. Barracks tend to be above ground, air-craft control, etc, etc.

Aircraft control tend to be underground.
Tanks are usually guarded by SAM's.



new topics




 
1
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join