"China thinks it can defeat America in battle"

[Dari]

Meh, I don't really think they are winning it. I work with, or talk to, some of the best economists in the world and they pretty much all agree that any economic report coming out of China is at least 50% bullshit, and it's not like they release the data so you can pour through it and analyze whether it is bullshit, it's a complete black box. That tells you volumes about the accuracy of their reports.

All the good data is considered state secret so you'd be risking your freedom/life in sharing it. Even corporate data is considered state secret.

With that said, there is no doubt China is itching for a war. As a nation gets more advanced it'll become more aggressive/war-like. That is just a fact of life and there are plenty of evidence throughout history to back that up. "Peaceful rise" is a myth and simply does not exist in reality, past or present. China will fight one of its neighbors but it'll be a weakling, not one that has powerful friends. That means Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines are out. The only country I can think of would be Vietnam, but they are no slouch either. They were under Chinese occupation for 1000 years and hate the Chinese. Also, they have a good history of fighting and defeating more powerful opponents.

So, China will have to tread carefully. They need a good war to give their soldiers experience. But, whoever it is, it may break them.

 

[Dari]

8 colonial powers combined in their heyday were never able to fully colonize China. The US alone in its current state has no chance of successfully conquering China in a conventional war.

I don't think they even tried to. And if they did that would've meant cooperation, which is highly unlikely because these countries were competing against each other everywhere else.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I think it would be more than a "war on terror".

Makes me wonder about what would happen if Taiwanese terrorists were to attack China.

 

[z1ggy]

The best Diesel subs are in fact quieter than nuclear powered ones by quite a bit. The US sub fleet could probably win by sheer numbers at this point but if China acquires a large enough fleet of silent diesels i don't like the US chances in an underwater duel.

Except for the fact they need to surface to blow at which point they are sitting ducks. It really limits there range and capabilities because I would assume they would only want to come to the surface when they are close to home.

 

[z1ggy]

nuclear attack submarines are silent and can stay submerged for months at a time. Modern day torpedoes nowadays detonate a few feet under the keel of a ship, breaking its spine and causing it to disintegrate/sink. Torpedos dont work like in world war 2 anymore merely striking against the side of a hull. Each modern day anti-shipping torpedo can be expected to sink one ship each, especialyl when you are talking about small vessels; typical destroyers, cruisers, invasion vessels etc... Exception supercarriers, tankers etc, but thats when you use more than one. At the very least, any ship hit with one torpedo is mission killed, even if not sunk

US attack subs also carry Harpoon anti ship missiles and tomahawk missiles including anti shipping varieties. These subs also can carry nuclear tipped torpedoes and tomahawks. Attack subs truly are a well armed silent hunter with phenomenal endurance, also capable of operating in wolfpacks.

Just imagine, once the new Virginia's come out in the coming years.. They will have even more weapons capability.

Not to mention the even quitter SSBN(X) that will be delivered to the Navy around 2030, each having the power to decimate an entire country.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Maybe China can we havnt won a war in like 50 years and against way littler ppl than China. Um like their brothers in Vietnam for example with sticks and AKs and handed us our ass. Taliban...Iraqi terrorists.. list goes on.

If you think it will go nuclear..well then nobody wins so all those SSBNs are useless. Well not entirely. Your buddy on sub might live longer than most people on earth until they have to surface.

Last war we "won" we only half won with Korea in the 1950s. Before that you have to go back to the 1940s.

Come on, let's be honest -- political considerations trumped military considerations, which is why we didn't "win" some of the wars you mention. No one on earth will tell you we didn't win every single battle handily in every one of those wars with the exception of the initial Chinese counteroffensive and subsequent battles in Korea, for which MacArthur should've been canned since he was warned it was coming.

If it comes to all-out war, no one is beating the US and her allies.

 

[Orignal Earl]

. No one on earth will tell you we didn't win every single battle handily in every one of those wars with the exception of the initial Chinese counteroffensive in Korea, for which MacArthur should've been canned since he was warned it was coming.

We lost lots of battles in that war, and it was a United Nations force

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Was that the industry that was cranking out more weapons at the end of the war then the beginning?

You mean like the Russian industry which produced more at the end of the war? Yeah, imagine that, the US was producing even more weapons at the end of the war than the beginning. Go figure!

The Germans invaded the USSR in 1941. Already in 1941, the US was ahead of Russian production in military aircraft and the advantage became even more lopsided as the war progressed:
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ry/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html

In 1942, the year the US actually first saw combat in the war, the aircraft production advantage was almost 2:1.

The US produced 6,000 more tanks over the course of the war than the USSR:

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ry/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html

The US supplied aircraft, tanks, locomotives, clothing, ammo, weapons, jeeps, and many other things to the Russians in the initial stages of the war and kept the Russians afloat (along with the Russian winter). Here are some other numbers (not broken down by year, unfortunately, and I don't have time this morning to search more):

EDIT: Tables didn't come through formatted correctly, so you can see them here.

Aircraft:
Power Total Fighters Attack Bombers Recon Transport Training Other British Empire[7] 174,831 38,604 33,811 36,380 7,014 12,577 46,156 289 France[8] 4,016 1,597[9] 280 712 USA and Ter 324,000 99,000 97,000 23,000 57,000 USSR 136,223 63,087 37,549 21,116 17,332 4,061 Germany and Ter 119,307 53,215 12,539 18,449[10][11] 3,079 11,546 Hungary 1,046 Italian Empire 8,810 4,510 2,063 468 1,769 Japanese Empire 68,999 36,571 15,117 2,110 15,201 Romania 1,000 346


Tanks/SPGs/vehicles/weapons:
Power Tanks and SPGs Armoured vehicles Soft-skinned vehicles Artillery Mortars Machine guns British Empire 47,862 47,420 1,475,521 226,113 239,540 1,090,410 USA and Ter 102,410 2,382,311 257,390 105,055 2,679,840 USSR 106,025 197,100 516,648 200,300 1,477,400 Germany and Ter 67,429 345,914 159,147 73,484 674,280 Hungary 908 447 4,583 Italian Empire 3,368 83,000 7,200 22,000 Japanese Empire 3,724 165,945 13,350 29,000 380,000 Romania

The massive Russian advantage is in artillery and mortars whereas the US has a more massive lead in vehicles and machine guns. The Russians had a slight advantage in tanks/SPGs produced and I'd wager that their advantage in tank production came in the later years of the war. If we assume the numbers above are correct and reconcile with the numbers posted here, we see that the Russians' chief advantage was in SPGs since the US produced more tanks during the war.

(And yes, the Russians had better tanks especially towards the end of the war. THis isn't some great secret. The Shermans were more feared by her crews than the enemy. )

Naval Forces (not entirely relevant in the case of the USSR but it shows the massive capability of the US):

Power Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers Frigates Corvettes Sloops Patrol Boats Submarines De/Mining Landing Craft British Empire 36(24) 6 102 291 209 387 33 4,209 230 1,244 9,538 USA and Ter 163(141) 8 48 349 203 35,000 USSR 2 2 25 52 Germany and Ter 17 1,141 Italian Empire 3 6 6 28 Japanese Empire 16 2 9 63 167 Romania


Source

The bombing campaign was one of the largest wastes of lives and material in the war.

The bombing campaign destroyed Germany's industry and access to oil in Romania. Without that bombing campaign, the war lasts longer. For example, the ME262 likely reaches service in large quantities and changes the nature of the air war.

If the Russians had wanted to keep going after Germany, the US army would have provided a difficult speedbump as the Russians moved onto France. The size of the Red Army was staggering at the end of the war, they had better tanks, they had comparable planes and more importantly, they had the ability to get material to the front.

No disputing the role of the USSR in the war, but to pretend that the US played a minor role is absurd. You're also overlooking US supplies which kept Britain in the war which, had they been knocked out, the Russians would've been in deep, deep trouble.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

We lost lots of battles in that war, and it was a United Nations force

No kidding, thanks Captain Obvious. But you're right, it was a UN force, so the US didn't actually lose any battles in that war -- the UN did. I stand corrected!

I should've been more clear. I used the Chinese counteroffensive as a blanket statement. There were obviously several battles once the Chinese counteroffensive took place, including the see-saw battles taking/losing Seoul. The initial retreat once the NK rolled the SK forces wasn't anything more than a holding action to buy time to establish the Pusan perimeter and get reinforcements. NK forces were quite finished once that happened and the Incheon landings occurred.

And also, once again, the military's hands were tied by political considerations and they were not allowed to bomb across the Yalu. Without Googling, do you even know why we didn't bomb into China?

 

[NetWareHead]

The US Navy has not carried any Torpedoes with a Nuclear Warhead since the mid 1970's when we stopped using the Mark 45 Torpedoes.

If we have replaced them when and with what exactly?

The operative words are "can carry". I was trying to illustrate that a silent attack submarine can be even more lethal when nuclear armed. Besides, we have plenty of miniaturized warheads. Im reasonably sure somethng nuclear could fit onto a Mk 48 modern torpedo if need be. Its a pretty good deep diving fast torpedo with good guidance so the need for a nuke warhead is not absolutely necessary.

 

[Orignal Earl]

And also, once again, the military's hands were tied by political considerations and they were not allowed to bomb across the Yalu. Without Googling, do you even know why we didn't bomb into China?

If the military is run by the politicians, do they get the credit for the battles won?

 

[pcgeek11]

The operative words are "can carry". I was trying to illustrate that a silent attack submarine can be even more lethal when nuclear armed. Besides, we have plenty of miniaturized warheads. Im reasonably sure somethng nuclear could fit onto a Mk 48 modern torpedo if need be. Its a pretty good deep diving fast torpedo with good guidance so the need for a nuke warhead is not absolutely necessary.

My point was we cannot carry them as we do not have any to carry. They could also carry Alien Disintegration Rayguns, but wait we don't have those either.

The Mark 45 Nuclear Torpedo was as nearly as much a danger to the firing submarine as it was to the target. Like a nuclear hand grenade. Destroys everything in a mile radius, but you can only throw it 50 yards. That is the primary reason to get rid of them.

We do not need "minaturized warheads" for a torpedo. Do you know how big a submarine torpedo is? I'll tell you 21 inches in diameter and the Mk 48 for example is 19 feet long. The warhead itself is about 3-4 feet of that length.

I'm sure we have No need of a nuclear torpedo. The 600 pounds of HBX3 explosive in a mark 48 ADCAP torpedo is adequate to sink most targets.

I was a Submarine Torpedoman ( E6 ) for a while during my 20 years.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If the military is run by the politicians, do they get the credit for the battles won?

Don't politicians always take credit when things go well and point fingers when they don't? I think that's the primary function of being a politician.

 

[NetWareHead]

My point was we cannot carry them as we do not have any to carry. The Mark 45 Nuclear Torpedo was as nearly as much a danger to the firing submarine as it was to the target. That is the primary reason to get rid of them.

We do not need "minaturized warheads" for a torpedo. Do you know how big a submarine torpedo is? I'll tell you 21 inches in diameter and the Mk 48 for example is 19 feet long. The warhead itself is about 3-4 feet of that length.

I'm sure we have No need of a nuclear torpedo. The 600 pounds of HBX3 explosive in a mark 48 ADCAP torpedo is adequate to sink most targets.

I was a Submarine Torpedoman ( E6 ) for a while during my 20 years.

My reference to miniaturized warheads meaning that nuclear warheads have been getting smaller and smaller. To the point where Peacekeeper icbm could carry 10 reentry vehicles, can be squeezed into a 6 inch artillery shell, davy crockett, briefcase nuke etc etc etc... I was trying to say that I'm sure we have something that could fit on a 533 mm torpedo, whether or not we need it.

Otherwise I'm agreeing with you about the capabilities of the adcap. Highly capable sonar plus wire guidance backup (!) really makes the nuke warhead kinda unnecessary. Forgot about the astor being dangerous to the firing submarine as well. What was the range of Mk 45?

 

[Genx87]

China's weaponry is nearly as (just as, in some cases) advanced as that possessed by the USA. So I tend to weight that aspect closer to parity, perhaps, than many people would. I could be wrong, but IMHO, the technological advantage we might have in a land war is far outweighed by numbers.

And as far as manpower, it's no contest: We would be fighting at a 3 to 1 disadvantage to start off with. And conventional wisdom says the attackers should have a 4 to one advantage to be reasonably sure of victory. And that disadvantage would only get worse, since a 1.3 Billion population yields far more soldiers than the USA's 300 Million. AND we would have to fight half a world away. AND we have a well documented cultural fear/angst/revulsion against seeing large numbers of our sons coming home in plastic bags.

Hold areas for a while? Sure. But No way would we ultimately win on the ground in China.

Those attack numbers were for small engagements and mostly applied to WWII. But even in WWII in many battles the attackers didnt enjoy much more than a 1.5-2:1 manpower ratio in any given operation. And with technology a lot of that conventional wisdom is tossed on its ear. It is all about attack power instead of manpower. We toppled Saddams regime with roughly 200,000 troops to his 1 million in GW2. Our technological, logistical, and battle doctrine was just so superior his numbers meant little. Our attack power outweighed his armies manpower. And he enjoyed a 3:1 manpower advantage. China is a much more capable foe than Saddams crippled army. But if we can destroy their logistical capability. Then their numbers will mean very little.

I don't expect in a war for Taiwan we would ever think about invading mainland china. Our role would be to stop the Chinese from taking the island.

 

[K1052]

If China wanted to attack the US all they'd need to do is have some nukes end up in the hands of Al Qaida and help smuggle them into the US. By making certain those that know where they came from die they'd have Al Qaida blow up nukes in several major US cities and all they'd have to do is wait for the US economy to fully collapse. Although that would also hit the Chinese economy pretty badly.

Imagine several nukes going off on US soil, hundreds of billions or more worth of damage, millions of lives lost. The US would have no choice but to start another 'war on terrorism' and go hunt down what's left of Al Qaida. Since there's quite a few hiding in places like Sudan too it would require fighting in many diffferent countries, costing lots of money which the US doesn't have and which it also needs to clean up the mess left behind and start rebuilding.

Would the US then even blink an eye if China invaded Taiwan? Even if they'd also take Japan while they're at it?

No nuclear nation would hand over their weapons to a 3rd party. Even if the chance was basically non-existent that it could be traced back to them (it isn't) it would still be far too great a risk. The list becomes pretty damn short when you start looking at the yield profile and where the fissile material came from. Once we found out about it that nation would be getting a visit from a couple SSBNs that would smoke the whole country with little to no warning.

 

[pcgeek11]

My reference to miniaturized warheads meaning that nuclear warheads have been getting smaller and smaller. To the point where Peacekeeper icbm could carry 10 reentry vehicles, can be squeezed into a 6 inch artillery shell, davy crockett, briefcase nuke etc etc etc... I was trying to say that I'm sure we have something that could fit on a 533 mm torpedo, whether or not we need it.

Otherwise I'm agreeing with you about the capabilities of the adcap. Highly capable sonar plus wire guidance backup (!) really makes the nuke warhead kinda unnecessary. Forgot about the astor being dangerous to the firing submarine as well. What was the range of Mk 45?

Who uses a 533 mm torpedo? That is only 1.748 feet. Sounds like those little torpedoes they launch from surface ships. Submarine torpedoes are 21 inches in diameter and 19 feet long.

The wire guidance is not as good as you would think. The wire commonly breaks and is only good for so far. You cannot see to guide it anyway. Just used for course guidance corrections. It is better left to its own.

The Mk 45 torpedo had a range of about 6 - 8 miles depending on variables. Carried an 11 Kiloton nuclear warhead and was a royal pain in the ass to make ready.

 

[NetWareHead]

Who uses a 533 mm torpedo? That is only 1.748 feet. Sounds like those little torpedoes they launch from surface ships. Submarine torpedoes are 21 inches in diameter and 19 feet long.

The wire guidance is not as good as you would think. The wire commonly breaks and is only good for so far. You cannot see to guide it anyway. Just used for course guidance corrections. It is better left to its own.

The Mk 45 torpedo had a range of about 6 - 8 miles depending on variables. Carried an 11 Kiloton nuclear warhead and was a royal pain in the ass to make ready.

21 inch torpedo = 533 mm torpedo. Tube diameter im talking about. I was saying 21 inch torpedo can sure fit one of the stockpiled warheads, if ever desired.

Just read up on the Mk 45. Some sources list the blast radius as greater than the weapon range. Wtf... A suicide weapon for all intents and purposes.

 

[dawheat]

Why wouldn't the Chinese use their nuclear attack subs?
I would be more concerned about these US Intel guys thinking the Chinese are disregarding subs

Last I heard, Chinese nuclear subs were at least an order of magnitude louder than current US attack subs. The problem with nuclear subs is that their engines always have to be running, unlike diesels/battery subs which can temporarily switch to silent battery power.

The US and other nations with a long submarine history have spent decades learning how to make nuclear subs virtually silent. Future Chinese SSNs may pose a threat, but their current fleet would be like putting a 1975-era Mig vs the F22.

 

[maddogchen]

All china needs is to sink one US carrier and it will declare victory. Even if they lose their entire fleets in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

Last I heard, Chinese nuclear subs were at least an order of magnitude louder than current US attack subs. The problem with nuclear subs is that their engines always have to be running, unlike diesels/battery subs which can temporarily switch to silent battery power.

The US and other nations with a long submarine history have spent decades learning how to make nuclear subs virtually silent. Future Chinese SSNs may pose a threat, but their current fleet would be like putting a 1975-era Mig vs the F22.

Chinese nuclear subs are generally greatly inferior to ours, as is most Chinese equipment fielded in other areas. In addition to this their troops are not nearly as well trained as ours are and their logistical system is a total mess. On an even field it would be a slaughter.

That being said, it's not an even field. In this case China is operating very close to its supply bases, which helps mitigate its logistical failures. In the seas directly around China and Taiwan it doesn't solely have to rely on its nuclear submarines but can use the diesels they have as well. While those subs are massively inferior overall, in local waters they have the distinct advantage of being able to run with no engine noise underwater. They would have the advantage of more land based aircraft and land based anti-air defenses, etc, etc.

The main reason why China wouldn't want to attack Taiwan is the economic damage it would cause them. We have China by the balls, economically.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The main reason why China wouldn't want to attack Taiwan is the economic damage it would cause them. We have China by the balls, economically.

/thread

 

[Jaskalas]

The main reason why China wouldn't want to attack Taiwan is the economic damage it would cause them. We have China by the balls, economically.

We have each other by the balls. America wouldn't function without China's manufacturing.

 

[fskimospy]

We have each other by the balls. America wouldn't function without China's manufacturing.

The US would be hurt, china would be crippled and likely suffer a revolution.

 

[alcoholbob]

Those attack numbers were for small engagements and mostly applied to WWII. But even in WWII in many battles the attackers didnt enjoy much more than a 1.5-2:1 manpower ratio in any given operation. And with technology a lot of that conventional wisdom is tossed on its ear. It is all about attack power instead of manpower. We toppled Saddams regime with roughly 200,000 troops to his 1 million in GW2. Our technological, logistical, and battle doctrine was just so superior his numbers meant little. Our attack power outweighed his armies manpower. And he enjoyed a 3:1 manpower advantage. China is a much more capable foe than Saddams crippled army. But if we can destroy their logistical capability. Then their numbers will mean very little.

I don't expect in a war for Taiwan we would ever think about invading mainland china. Our role would be to stop the Chinese from taking the island.

You cant compare iraq to china. Iraq is a country whose borders were drawn by colonial powers, thats why they have an ethnic minority ruling over a majority which is also why they are so easily destabilized, as this was how nations were designed under the colonial system of divide and conquer. A minority group either has to rule with an iron fist or have foreign imperial powers backing it, which is why thats the predominant governmental type in the region.


China on the other hand has thousands of years of continuous rule and borders and a single supermajority ethnic group. Japan during WWII was probably 50 years ahead of China technologically yet never successfully took over much more Manchuria and the northern coast of China. This is also why it was so hard to colonize china.