Could the US take China as they did Iraq in a conventional war

Manic Moran

Bramble wrote: »

There have a large logistical arm and unfortunately a problem they will face (and are now facing in Iraq) is the difficulty of defending this suppyline. Thye cannot afford to use well trained offensive troops to do this. And they do not have enough second-line units (national guard?) to adequately protect the supply line.

Security of the lines of communication are the function of the MPs, both Active and Guard. (US field MPs are not the same as the guys in red berets who hand out speeding tickets, they drive armoured vehicles and are heavily armed) In terms of combat role, there is no difference between a Guard unit and an Active unit. Indeed, I'm a Guardsman in the recon squadron for an active cav regiment.

The supply line problem is perhaps a little overstated. There is ample redundancy in the American logistical system that it can handle the lines being attacked and the loss of some of the logistical assets. It's gotten the news recently because the majority of the attacks in Iraq are against the soft targets (Not that they're having an effect, but they're just happening), which is not necessarily going to be the case when there is an ongoing conventional fight.

(I read somewhere that at one point in Korea some UN troops had to give up there position due running out of ammo to deal with the waves of chinese)

There were Israeli tanks which ran out of ammo against the Syrians as well. (Though they didn't pull back: After causing all the destruction which resulted in the lack of ammo, their mere presence was a sufficient deterrent to the Syrians who didn't know they were out of ammo!). It happens, from time to time.

Navy: Do the Chinese have a carrier?

Technically... no. They're working on it though, they plan to have the first carrier group operational this decade. (Don't mistake these for US-style supercarriers, it's really just going to be one of the old Russian carriers that they've resurrected. That said, they're working on the old Varyag, now Shi Lang (a Chinese admiral who took Taiwan). They're planning an indigineous carrier of their own, but it's not a high priority.

(For example the armoured cav/mechanised units are usually short on dismounted troopers,the drivers and gunners are seen as the priority for the theorised mechanised mission)

Knox has figured this out. The proposed new armoured cav structure is a return to the old 70s era pattern, with a lot more dismount capability. I look forward to this, as it also returns tanks to the cav units.

The current US army has so many specialised units that getting combat ready units takes far longer than just training new recruits to move and shoot.

Yes, a WWII-style draft isn't going to work very well: The fight would be over before they were trained.

But I doubt the US soldier has the fighting ability to kick sh*t off a stick

That's a little harsh. Can you refer me to any cases where US infantry or armoured troops have proven military ineffective or incompetent in the last, oh, twenty years? Even during the low end of the US's troop quality era, Vietnam, I am unaware of any military defeats.

Even at present the US still have troops in Korea. Do they still have significant troops in Europe anymore?

Not a huge amount. They've got a Brigade in Italy, and about a division equivalent in Germany. (Cav regiment, a few other assorted bits and bobs). 1st Infantry returned to Riley a year or two ago.

NTM

Prolatarian

Militarily the US could probably bomb any other country in the world back to the stone age, so yes they could kill China dead.

China has nukes of its own though.

Tenger

Manic Moran wrote: »

Security of the lines of communication are the function of the MPs, both Active and Guard. (US field MPs are not the same as the guys in red berets who hand out speeding tickets, they drive armoured vehicles and are heavily armed) In terms of combat role, there is no difference between a Guard unit and an Active unit. Indeed, I'm a Guardsman in the recon squadron for an active cav regiment. NTM

Am I right in saying that US units are 2/3 active and 1/3 guard? Are they called 'round out' brigades?
I do realise that Guard units do serve as front line troops in combat zone. (Indeed some individual state national guard forces are equal to many Nation armed force in the world)
Is the Army Reserve used in combat areas,how is this diferent to the National Guard?

Manic Moran

Bramble wrote: »

Am I right in saying that US units are 2/3 active and 1/3 guard? Are they called 'round out' brigades?
I do realise that Guard units do serve as front line troops in combat zone. (Indeed some individual state national guard forces are equal to many Nation armed force in the world)
Is the Army Reserve used in combat areas,how is this diferent to the National Guard?

The US went away from the Roundout concept some time ago. My unit gets away with it because the unit it's assigned to, 11th Cavalry, has a primary role of being OpFor at Ft Irwin. It sortof works out for 'surges' and the like. As a result, there are very few Guard units who wear Active Duty patches: 1/221 Cav and 1/144 Arty are the only two I'm immediately aware of.

The Guard/Reserve units generally have their own independent organisations, up to division level inclusive, containing all their required supporting infrastructure, from MPs and fuellers through air ambulance and artillery, all reservists. They are capable of deploying just as independently as a regular Army unit of equivalent size and have identical tables of equipment and manning.

Interestingly, even though the Guard is smaller than the Active Army, it has a higher proportion of the combat units. Before the recent re-org, the Guard had 60% of the Army's tanks, and 70% of the Army's artillery. I'm not sure of the current ratio, but it won't have changed that much. If you're wondering how that works out, just take into account the masses of supporting infrastructure required which are not part of any unit at all, such as who runs and maintains the bases that both Active and reserve use. Who runs the schoolhouses that all Active and reserve go through. Warehouses and inventory. That sort of thing.

The differences between Army Reserve and Guard are that the Reserve is a purely federal organisation, whilst the Guard are ordinarily under State control, and thus available for domestic use such as disaster relieve, law and order, that sort of thing. For a reason I'm not entirely aware of, the Army Reserve is 99% non-combat-arms (They have a single infantry unit), focusing on combat support/service support.

By way of comparison of size, California's National Guard is some 17,000 persons strong, consists of a light infantry brigade with all supporting arms, a spare infantry battalion, a spare heavy combined arms battalion, a spare artillery battalion, an aviation brigade, a sustainment (support) brigade, an MP brigade, and a military intelligence Brigade. It can also provide an Air Rescue Wing, a fighter wing of F-16s, an airlift wing and a Recon wing. I know I'm missing one or two units, for example, I'm not sure where the 579th engineer battalion fits in these days: Officially it's still part of 40th ID, but that division is more a division in name than strength.

NTM

delos

Manic Moran wrote: »

The supply line problem is perhaps a little overstated. There is ample redundancy in the American logistical system that it can handle the lines being attacked and the loss of some of the logistical assets. It's gotten the news recently because the majority of the attacks in Iraq are against the soft targets (Not that they're having an effect, but they're just happening), which is not necessarily going to be the case when there is an ongoing conventional fight.

In your professional opinion (not trying to be smart here, just acknowledging your expertise) would the sheer scale of tackling and securing the eastern seaboard of China not be a major concern from a logistical point of view?

Kaiser_Sma

An advanced army is irreplacable in attack, but i see what people mean about it being a numbers game when it comes to occupation. But thats really because of the hearts and minds game everybody plays now. When the context of the war is dubious and the invaders where the initial invaders, it pretty much has to be that way to maintain support/moral. It doesn't have to be that way though. What ever your oppinions of the british empire was, it managed to hold huge populations and fight much larger forces with an often very small and cheap force. One of the ways this was so succesfull was due to retailiatory attacks and examples.
Of course that isn't applicable where the eyes of the world are upon you and your nation practically started the war such as in iraq and vietnam. But in events such as world war 2 where your fighting a long drawn out and weary war and eventually invading the original aggresor, people can afford to be far more lax when it comes to these things. Prisoners can be shot, civilians will be bombed into submission, retaliations are common place. This isn't right of course, but it would definently improve the US chance of winning if it's in response to a genuine attack by china or the culmination of an aggrevated war in another theatre.

Enevitably this means fewer troops in garrisons, and a much greater concentration on the activities of conventional war. It may also be that the strains that the chinese government would put on it's people as a result of long combat and a cut off economy, would be so great that they would be willing to submit and surrender far more readily.

duggie-89

Cato wrote: »

If any group would contest American occupation it would have to be the die hard communists, but in a conventional war i think America would win even without tactical nukes, American technology, intelligence gathering and surgical strikes at strategic locations would be one of the main factors in chinas defeat i would say.

but the vast resources that would be needed to do this would stretch the americans to far and the chinese althought not totaly efficent would have numbers and knowledge of the terrain.

the usa could only win with nuks but saying that china has built a huge new range of nuke silos in well defened areas and with the range to hit american cities. usa wouldn't be able to hold the ground. i mean its ****ing china for god's sake.

hitler once said the world will shake when china awakens

Kaiser_Sma

People thought the same thing before hitlers time. It was a common concern before the 1st world war, that china was going to realise it's power one day and destroy the west. But that time certainly isn't now. The rigours of a war with the US would be so damaging to china (not just from a military stand point) that the nations capacity for maintaining it's power would severly decrease very quickly.
It would be a tactical mistake to try and take the whole country, just certain parts. Choking the dragon would probably be the best option, air superiority, naval blockade, taking key ports, intensive bombing of urban centres, transport and communication networks.
Chinas a big country but this can work to it's disadvantage as well. The key would be demorilizing the nation and seperating the multiple heads from the body. Eventually the US could get an upper hand in all the areas of specialisation, the conventional battles would be won and chinese industry and resources would be crippled and overstretched, the majority of china would be forced to capitulate eventually in increments. The terms of surrender wouldn't be conquest of china as that could not happen, it depends on whatever their aims are.

The thing is nobody fights wars like this anymore

Prolatarian

They tought there would never be another major war in Europe after WW1:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

delos wrote: »

In your professional opinion (not trying to be smart here, just acknowledging your expertise) would the sheer scale of tackling and securing the eastern seaboard of China not be a major concern from a logistical point of view?

That's not so much a logistical concern, as a manpower concern. The US military has plenty enough logistical capability to support whatever it has in the field. Whether they have enough forces to fully secure the Chinese seabord is another matter entirely.

NTM

phil_w2@hotmail

the U.S would just rearm the japs and let them have another go. they would have taken the chinese in WW2 if they didnt have a go at the americans at the same time. just like hitler would have won if he waited to invade russia and finished off the brits. patience was a virtue they did not have in these situations as was propper planning and communication between axis powers that would have sealed victory i believe.

But everyone assumes america would invade china as they have a bit of a habit of invasions of late. what if china invaded the u.s? the question was who would win after all in a war, it didnt mention where!!

would the "rules" of war that the u.s tries to play by apply to the chinese who have a history of slaughtering its own population? - civilian slaughter like the old days etc to crush uprisings work better than the G&y "hearts and minds" media orientated campaign as lets face it the romans didnt have to deal with this kind of post war bullsh/t they just went in and killed everyone or enslaved them/bred then out as is the most efficient and less costly option.

If the chinese invaded the u.s then i think it would revert to a scramble for victory with no rules for the chinese as if they lost they would get nuked to f###ing hell afterwards so the gloves would be off on U.S soil with a crowd attracting UFC of war going on.

secondly i really doubt the u.s would nuke its own lands to stop the invading hoards of chinese. this cancels out the nuke question on the U.S side a bit but also this is where the numbers would come in. america cannot possibly sent is 2 million soldiers to take china but the chinese numbers landing in america backed up by the fact that the chinese could easily just send 50 mill bloodthirsty axe wielding conscripts to invade a lot easier than the americans could (media uproar, hippies, 60% obeisty etc) that and nuke major population centers like L.A and New York and you would cut the main resistance in half.

So, in this scenario i reckon we'd have a couple new interesting games for the xbox 360 and ps3 for summer (Halo 4 maybe??) although the wii would take the christmas market after everyone runs out of bullets and we have to all fight with sticks!!!!

irishsurfer

Christ, should this be in Walter Mitty Section

Manic Moran

what if china invaded the u.s?

How? Their ability to invade Taiwan is open to question, and that's right next door.

NTM

Fenian

I live in Hong Kong,so I think I can throw my two cents in when it comes to the minds of the people.

The thought of PLA regiments surrendering to a foriegn army is laughable. Chinese people (esp. those in Hunan province) are very distrustful of outsiders.

Any army (esp. a white one) that dared violate Chinese territory would rise the whole population. All the factories that are now making cars and cuddly toys would be transformed into a huge war machine.

The CCP would also have no problem arming the people because the militias that would be formed would be controlled by loyal party cadres.

The upsurge of patriotic feeling would be massive. People in the West think that most of the population are distrustful of the government. That is total bollocks. The people have no reason to distrust the CCP because the CCP has brought China out of the bad ole days and made China a major international player.

The only way for an army,the US or otherwise, to defeat the Chinese would be to wipe out the Chinese people, and the Chinese would take a fair few foriegners with them.

phil_w2@hotmail

definitely

And the chinese could take tiawan if they didnt have the americans sabre rattling about it. They would have been in there 5 years ago only for the U.S.

But its a bluff and the chinese will call it sooner rather than later. It would be a great victory for the CCP in china to finally crush the old enemy once and for all as tiawan is the safe haven for the exiled leaders from the war.

Then after getting a taste for victory it will start to get nasty - nostradamus 4:57

I still say they could take the U.S on U.S soil... they eat their own kids for christ sake!!!

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/china.html

Tragedy

Until they have a vastly superior blue water fleet, the chances of them invading USA is quite quite slim.

the_syco

Cato wrote: »

American technology

"Made in China"

=-=

If the USA went against China, they would have to go in with a reason. No reason, and the Chinese would go up against them. Oh, and Russia may take the invasion the wrong way, and "help" their Chinese friends out.

Cato

the_syco wrote: »

"Made in China"

=-=

If the USA went against China, they would have to go in with a reason. No reason, and the Chinese would go up against them. Oh, and Russia may take the invasion the wrong way, and "help" their Chinese friends out.

I thought most arms/amunition were produced in the US? what sense would it be to have a foreign maybe future enemy produce your arms? i could be wrong though...

Barlow07

MooseJam wrote: »

What do you think folks could the US invade and take red China in a conventional war

NO chance:)

Offalycool

I found this the other day. Its an article concerned with the future mechanisation of war. It would seem the US intends to deal with its lack of personnel in the future. Such a situation may make other countries uneasy forcing there hand at a pre-emptive strike.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200606120018

Manic Moran

And the chinese could take tiawan if they didnt have the americans sabre rattling about it

You still have the question of 'with what'?

Having a gazillion man Army is pretty irrelevant if you don't have the amphibious assault capability to move them. The PLAN is surprisingly short of landing ships. Granted, the Chinese are looking to fix this, but they're not there yet.

NTM

Kaiser_Sma

I though this argument was based on invasion. But i guess not.

If the americnas just wanted to punish china, they could easily defeat their navy and eventually defeat their airforce, the could cut of chinas trade it's foreign investments, it's resources, destroy it's infrastructure and never have to set foot on china. It's perfectly possible for the US to wage a war completly by the air, if the object is destruction and not specifically tactical. It did say in the topic "in a conventional war" but theres no gaurnetee that the chinese wouldn't use missles in such an event.

If the US wanted to hurt china, as a number of economists have stated, a military engagement isn't even necisary, since chinese investment is so heavily tied up in the US.

Also the Americans could possibly orchestrate cold war style proxy wars. While the majority of the chinese population is seemingly deeply nationalistic, there are a number of ethnic diasporas around the country that are not.

phil_w2@hotmail

Manic Moran wrote: »

You still have the question of 'with what'?

Having a gazillion man Army is pretty irrelevant if you don't have the amphibious assault capability to move them. The PLAN is surprisingly short of landing ships. Granted, the Chinese are looking to fix this, but they're not there yet.

NTM

well it wouldnt take so long to buils ships if they wanted.

look at how they work at the mo. the americans took 50 years to build their current road network... the chinese have done the equivilant if you measure it in road distance and cement used ... in 5 years!!

the americans when they entered world war 2 were building individual merchant ships in 5 days each!!! thats not a lie or an exageration. a population with a will can do a lot in a short time. i'm sure the CCP could "manufacture" an attack by tiawan just like sep 11 and use it as a pretext for getting the population fired up. all they need is the desire and 1 billion people could do a lot.

a massive navy is about 2 years away if they really wanted it. an enemy or threat to a way of life can be percieved a lot sooner than that. look at how george bush took afganistan and iraq on speculation and ghost stories. i'm sure its not beyond the CCP to do something similar.

besides they have about 2000 small to medium subs that they could pack with men and run aground... talk about a surprise assault. plus i'm sure the 4000 fighter planes they have would wipe out any hard targets and deter even the 2000 strong U.S airforce of which only about 25% are in the pacific.

Tenger

phil_w2@hotmail wrote: »

the americans when they entered world war 2 were building individual merchant ships in 5 days each!!! ...............................a population with a will can do a lot in a short time. ....................all they need is the desire and 1 billion people could do a lot.

a massive navy is about 2 years away............... an enemy or threat to a way of life can be percieved ..... look at how george bush took afganistan and iraq on speculation and ghost stories. i'm sure its not beyond the CCP to do something similar.

besides they have about 2000 small to medium subs that they could pack with men and run aground... talk about a surprise assault. plus i'm sure the 4000 fighter planes they have would wipe out any hard targets and deter even the 2000 strong U.S airforce of which only about 25% are in the pacific.

I agree with Funan concerning the patriotism of the Chinese poulation. Massive support would be the outcome of a US invasion. The US would be under constatn attack from citizen militias. The Chinese would fight.

The Chinese have a large coastal fleet and many subs. However these have no chance of making it to the US. Crossing the pacific under satellite and aerial scrutiny is close to suicidal. Remember that the best (3-4) Chinese subs are ex Soviet Alfas which are comparable to early Los Angeles class boats. With the American SOSUS system these would be overheard and sunk. And purely landing troops from subs would have little effect unless you had heavy armour and mechanised support close behind them.
The PLAN have 2 missile subs neither of which is operarational. The PLAN also have an ex Soviet Kiev class aircraft carrier/aviation cruiser(the Riga). This is being used as the prototype/trainer for 2 new carriers for the PLAN.

Concerning building a fleet: The Chinese currently do not have the ability to mass produce modern and capable naval vessels. In 10-20 years time this may very well be a different situation. The boats (Liberty ships) produced in WWII were very basic,all they did was steam across the Atlantic. The Chinese need quality naval vessels to protect these boats. In theory 1-2 US subs could take out 10 times their numbers of simple transport vessel if not properly protected.

Air warfare: "4000 fighter planes" of dubious quality (copies of Mig21/Mig25/Mig29/Su27) and training with no AWACs system versus 1000 fighters of proven quality (F15/F16/F18),high levels of training,beyond visual sight AA missiles plus well rehearsed airborne control aircraft. The US can also re-activate some of its (recently) mothballed F14 fleet.

phil_w2@hotmail

well we were just talking about invading tiawan first. i honestly do not beliee that they could invade america with what they have.... although something has to be said for ambition and determination playing a part.

a couple of hundred underwater nukes would clear a path through any navy for an invasion fleet... i think about this way too much...

the_syco

phil_w2@hotmail wrote: »

besides they have about 2000 small to medium subs that they could pack with men and run aground... talk about a surprise assault. plus i'm sure the 4000 fighter planes they have would wipe out any hard targets and deter even the 2000 strong U.S airforce of which only about 25% are in the pacific.

The USA subs could launch some tomahawks, wipe out some of the Chinese air bases, and the Stealth bombers could destroy the rest. That's easy, though.

The hard bit is wiping out enough Chinese so they can't attack back, but keep enough of them alive so that they can become "good citizens".

The F22 that the USAF has built could actually be used. The A10 Warthogs could help keep anything bullet-ridden.

Tenger

phil_w2@hotmail wrote: »

well it wouldnt take so long to buils ships if they wanted...................

a massive navy is about 2 years away if they really wanted it............................

besides they have about 2000 small to medium subs that they could pack with men and run aground....

An update on the status of the PLAN sub fleet:

They are currently building nuclear powered attack subs. The plan is for 4 6500t Shang class to be added to the 5 5000t Han class by 2010. The US Los Angeles class attack subs are 6000t displacement and the US have 23 of them baswed in the Pacific. The Han are not a big threat to US fleets as they can be found and traced 'relatively easily'. The Shang class are comparable to Soviet Victor IIs which are more of a threat but are still lagging behind current us capabilities. According to wikipedis they have 2 missile boats. I have read elsewhere that one of these is no longer seaworthy due reactor difficulties.

The PLAN has a number of Soviet Kilo class diesel electric attack subs which are very quiet and would cause probelms for the US in a conflict. In the book Nimitz class bt Patrick Robinson a Kilo stays on the bottom while a carrier group passes overhead and ambushes it with a nuke torpedo.

elvis jaffacake

Bramble wrote: »

An update on the status of the PLAN sub fleet:

They are currently building nuclear powered attack subs. The plan is for 4 6500t Shang class to be added to the 5 5000t Han class by 2010. The US Los Angeles class attack subs are 6000t displacement and the US have 23 of them baswed in the Pacific. The Han are not a big threat to US fleets as they can be found and traced 'relatively easily'. The Shang class are comparable to Soviet Victor IIs which are more of a threat but are still lagging behind current us capabilities. According to wikipedis they have 2 missile boats. I have read elsewhere that one of these is no longer seaworthy due reactor difficulties.

The PLAN has a number of Soviet Kilo class diesel electric attack subs which are very quiet and would cause probelms for the US in a conflict. In the book Nimitz class bt Patrick Robinson a Kilo stays on the bottom while a carrier group passes overhead and ambushes it with a nuke torpedo.

The Xia class, although there was only ever one, apparently it was as close to a disaster as you could get and still sail, noisy, and something of a cursed ship reports say she had numerous mishaps and injured/dead crew, the septics called here the "boom boomer" because she was so noisy and easy to track, they have a project for 3 new SSBN's to replace her, the Russians have helped....which is nice

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type094jin.asp

the Xia replacement the "Jin" class

SHH

The Chinese army is the biggest and one of the best equipped in the world. Even if they did just bomb it to **** out of the cities that would just make occupying it harder. Chinese people would just grow to hate the Yanks and resistance groups would flourish. Plus for an invasion to work they need the support of the regular people, that's the mistake the Americans made with Iraq and Cuba.