China Versus Russia

Uchuu's post is funny with the avatar.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

The thing that was back abit about USA supporting China is highly unlikely. Especially is the Euros support Russia, as were pretty close with them. Were kinda used to them following our lead, but we wouldn't want to clash with our best allies.

One thing We should really think about is the country caught right in the middle. Mongolia. Depending on who they support, it could have major effects on the outcome. less in direct military terms and more in knowing the land and helpful locals terms.

got some stats on them now

"Ground forces possess over 650 tanks, 100 mobile artillery pieces, 800 Infantry Fighting Vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 450 mobile anti-aircraft weapons, more than 1,000 artillery and mortar and other military equipment." Theyve also got maybe a dozen fighters, pretty old, and about the same number of attack choppers and some transports. It dosn't ammount to much.

edited 5th Oct '11 7:25:53 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

This is flat out wrong. For one thing, "limiting the advantages" is about as meaningless as a "second winner". It's politically-correct wannabe speech that has nothing to do with reality, and all to do with wishful thinking.

Second, having a lot of people can be a disadvantage, especially strategically. Again, it depends on terrain. As I already mentioned, having a lot of people in a standard (or, indeed, any) formation that you can throw at a fairly static line is great. But we are in the age of modern warfare; medieval strategies and tactics no longer apply. And these people need to be fed, cared for, and supplied. Guess what becomes impossible in Siberian terrain?

Right.

I don't know if I can break this down to make it any simpler, really. Having a large army is going to do the Chinese no good in Siberian terrain, since most of them will be marching single file, suffering from fatigue, starving, and making a big target of themselves. In fact, developing a smaller, more trained force would work much better, but that's not an option for China.

edited 5th Oct '11 9:44:45 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

edited 25th Nov '12 11:21:31 PM by JosefBugman

How do you get the forces in to support it? We're talking about a massive troop transportation effort here, the infrastructure for which China simply doesn't have.

I mean, fomenting a rebellion is an excellent option, but how do you move in to support them? You can't bring vehicles, at least if you want to get there in a decade or two. You don't have the navy to take and occupy places like Vladivostok. You certainly don't have nowhere near the air power to make any sort of a meaningful drop. I feel that a lot of people here just don't have a remote understanding of the region's geography. Y'know how European Russia is big? Really, really big? Yeah. Siberia is bigger. And is a huge forest instead of being a huge plain. Oh, there are hundreds or rivers and quite a few elevations, too. Most of this is populated by people who may not be happy with Russians, but certainly will be less than happy with the Chinese, especially considering how Chinese are really just huge dicks.

And how do you deal with these rebels? Just because they may not like the Russians does not mean they will happy with China coming in to take over — and these are people who grew up in Siberia. Most of them can probably go out into the wild and go all Simo Häyhä on any troops that try to show up. How do you stop that?

I mean, China has been more or less attempting to colonize Siberia for the last four decades now, but this is all backfiring as the children of the "colonists" decide that they like Russia more since whatever the Russians do, they tend to leave them alone.

The Russian military is not designed to deal with guerilla wars, it's designed to conduct them. For example, their primary APC platform is paper-thin, amphibious, fast, rugged independent long-range artillery platform with strong S&D capabilities. Oh, and it can be airdropped. Of course they don't deal well with Chechens — it's not what their entire force organization and technology is designed to do. Plus, they've had some amazingly stupid generals in charge of those operations, who took said platforms and drove them into a city that they could have been shelling from 7km away.

edited 6th Oct '11 12:49:38 AM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

edited 25th Nov '12 11:21:41 PM by JosefBugman

Logistics. I mentioned that specifically. Whoever attacks and drives into the enemy will have to devote increasing amounts of resources and infrastructure to guarding their increasingly exposed flanks, and to maintain a logistical chain to keep the advancing force fed, supplied and equipped.

Considering the terrain they'd likely fight on, logistics will be a Really Big Deal. I'd be devoting some effort to screwing up that logistical chain, to stall their advance and weaken their front. Then I would counterattack when their advanced forces are feeling the effects of that logistical withdrawal, and I have the home-court advantage.

In short, let them walk into a trap, then spring it.

^ The only problem I have with your last bit, true as it is, is that it's not the corrupt bureaucrats that go off to war and get shot at; it's the young kids who are getting the propaganda shoved down their throat. The casualty count of such a conflict will be staggering, even if it's limited to a conventional war. Plus, collateral damage to the populations in that region will be a sad fact of life.

So I vote for a no-holds-barred-slugfest between the leaders of those two countries as opposed to a shooting war. Which means that Putin wins every time, but eh.

edited 6th Oct '11 3:06:28 AM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

edited 25th Nov '12 11:21:49 PM by JosefBugman

Sigh...
Korochun, you were Completely Missing The Point from the very beginning. And still are.

You are saying that a force of X people is the ideal number for a certain terrain? Fine. If I have 5*X soldiers, I'll send X there. If I have X/2 soldiers, I can't send X soldiers there. Is this clear?
If I have 5*X soldiers, I can replace all losses I have at a certain place. If I have X/2 soldiers, I can't. You are arguing that X isn't very high. But that's missing the point.

edited 6th Oct '11 3:58:14 AM by Uchuujinsan

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/

Alien, when your operational doctrine calls for fielding a large number of troops to make up for their poor equipment, training, and supply, it's a matter entirely different from "just having lots of reinforcements".

For one thing, when walking along narrow pathways (all the dense forest, all the time), your column is only as good as the two leading and two closing men. It doesn't matter if you have a thousand people in there. Four people with machineguns in good ambush spots will wipe out a large chunk of that force and disappear before you can fire at them. There is no ideal number for dense, rough terrain like you imply.

Seriously, there is a reason China could never occupy Vietnam. Look up that campaign.

Bottom line is, a force so big will draw much more attention to itself, especially in a terrain that naturally eliminates most of the advantages of having lots of bodies (to throw at whom, exactly? The trees?), and, worse off, will be absolutely incapable of adapting if their supply lines get cut (or supply depots get sabotaged, which the Russians will be easily able to pull off. They do have guided missiles, after all).

With an army of five million? Sure, you could disperse and make some living off the land. Won't be good living, but you can do it. With an army of a hundred million? You are screwed. A big supply depot blows up, and by next week, your soldiers will be eating each other.

edited 6th Oct '11 8:44:51 AM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

You really seem to have a problem thinking at a strategical level instead of a tactical one. It's not that your tactical analysis is completely wrong. It's that it's irrelevant for a strategical analysis. Under that aspect, huge available numbers are always beneficial, contrary to what you claimed. To remind you what you wrote:

The actual problem isn't Chinas manpower advantage, it's their (supposedly) lack of quality - as you mention yourself, but you don't quite seem to realize it:

You are implicitly claiming that fielding a larger amount of troops CAN make up for poor equipment, training and supply, invalidating your original statement. That this is not necessarely sufficient to win a war is something everyone is well aware of. China is trying to use their advantage(!) of huge manpower availability to offset their disadvantage of having equipment/training/etc. with lower quality. On a tactical level you are merely arguing that their advantage in numbers cannot offset their disadvantage in quality. Fine, there are arguments for this, and you mentioned many of them. But none of your arguments actually touch the subject that numerical superiority is an a priori advantage.

edited 6th Oct '11 9:41:50 AM by Uchuujinsan

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/

In Soviet Russia, winter fights for you!

I'm baaaaaaack