International Reaction to the Sino-Soviet War, Pt 2

[kato13]

Webstral 01-10-2004, 03:47 AM As the Soviet Army continued to make good progress in Manchuria, Beijing came to realize that the war might not be won in a single campaign season. Modernization was supposed to have given the PLA the ability to win a conventional mechanized war in Manchuria without drawing on the traditional well of Chinese manpower. This had not happened. Even before Operation Red Willow commenced, Beijing had come to accept that the war would last into 1996 at least.


Conventional wisdom held that China would win any extended war on her own soil by dint of her massive manpower reserves and the willingness of the populace to make frightful sacrifices. However, this might no longer be true in 1995. The staggering ability of the Soviets to cause casualties, combined with the Soviet ability to attack Chinese industry virtually anywhere in China, might knock China out of the war in the short term. China's one-child law meant that much less of the nation's manpower was available for military service than the size of the country's population might otherwise indicate. Moreover, as the number of families who had lost their only son rose, support for the war might diminish rapidly. All this easily could translate into a loss of support for the Communist Party in China. It was no use for China to win the war if the current government were overthrown by the people. Therefore, China had to have some means of winning the conflict in the foreseeable future: one to three years.


In the mid-1990's, China was running massive trade surpluses with most of the Western industrialized nations. The Politburo decided to cash in on her economic situation by borrowing massively from the West and by placing massive orders for Western military hardware and industrial machinery. China borrowed money from and ordered materiel from the United States in particular.


The official position of the United States at the start of the Sino-Soviet War was neutrality. However, this position did not last long. Political pressure from Chinese-American groups, combined with lobbying by US defense contractors and the banking industry soon brought Congress and President Clinton into decidedly un-neutral support for China. There simply was too much money to be made in China for American industry to forego the opportunity to turn a handsome profit. The trade deficit would be handily reversed, and China would be paying off her debts for years to come. US manufacturing would receive a useful shot in the arm, and the politicians could tell their constituents--especially their Chinese-American constituents--that they were doing something to support China without bringing the United States into the war.


On that point, Clinton and Congress were adamant. They publicly and repeatedly stated that the United States would not get involved in the Sino-Soviet War so long as the territorial sovereignty of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of China, and Japan were not threatened. The US would sell arms to anyone who could pay for them, but the United States would not actually take part in the fighting. Public opinion polls showed that the President and Congress had taken the right position.


Elsewhere in the West, the reaction to China's initiatives was the same. Western banks were delighted to lend the money, and Western defense contractors were delighted to sell arms to China. A few were concerned about getting their money back in the event that China lost the war. For the most part, however, the West initially was convinced that the war would be limited and of relatively short duration. China could not default on her debts if she wanted to sell her own manufactured goods to the West, and so long as the USSR did not push beyond Manchuria the current Chinese government ought to survive.


The Kremlin was nonplussed by the level of Western involvement in the Sino-Soviet War, but there was little they could do. Western economic interests in the Soviet Union were insignificant next to those in China. The USSR had nothing like the Chinese line of credit; nor did the Soviets have anything like the Chinese expatriate communities throughout the West.


As autumn turned to winter, the slowdown of operations in Manchuria resulted in an upswing of Western public opinion for China. It appeared that the Chinese had stopped the Soviet juggernaut in its tracks. Now all that remained was for the Chinese to marshal their strength and throw the Soviets back across the border. Once the advanced Western equipment began arriving in China, the outcome was practically inevitable.


With the failure of their initial effort to capture Manchuria, the Soviets now contemplated a winter war in northeast Asia. They were aware that Western military hardware was moving into China; and that its presence would make a Spring 1996 offensive much more difficult to bring off. A change of tactics was required if the Winter War were to favor the Soviets.



Webstral

********************

Jason Weiser 01-12-2004, 03:17 AM Well,



In this case, I think we're going to see American weapons, lots of them. But here's a scary thought..Japan as Matt pointed out, can't send weapons constitutionally (though they might overlook this considering the Chinese are better neighbors on the whole), but Japanese money..oh yeah. And I am sure Japan arranged a few "accidents" involving some Soviet subs and a/c. As for the French, hmm, the Chinese probably would get sold EVERYTHING and anything up to nukes (Which may mean Rafales and LeClercs in Chinese colors).


Also, I'll bet there are some mobilizations of US troops, and I'll bet REFORGER 1995 is less than a warm fuzzy. Oh, I know this will sound insane, but what of POWs? I don't think either side is inclined to take any, but I may be wrong.


I also wonder what Turkey and Norway are thinking about this time. I think the words "screaming bloody murder" probably apply. Especially Turkey, it has a well-armed Iraq on one border, and the Soviets on the other.


As for how Iran figures into this: Simple, she's a major transshipment point for weapons into China, think a WWIII "Burma Road" along with Pakistan. Iran gets bribed with weapons, unfrozen monies and Israeli Intel on Iraq. As for Pakistan, the embargoed F-16s are broken out of hock. Naturally, the Soviets take exception and "bandit raids" begin to take their toll on the supply lines (Only the bandits look and act a lot like Soviet Spetsnaz).

********************

Matt Wiser 01-12-2004, 02:08 PM I recall on the Sino-Soviet War posts that in one pocket the Soviets collected 50,000 Chinese POWs. Plenty of shot-down aircrew to go into the bag as well. The Chinese get prisoners in quantity when RED WILLOW goes-although it's a phyrric victory.

Interesting take on what happense with Pakistan's embargoed F-16s. Any friend of Beijing is going to have friends in Islamabad.

********************

Jason Weiser 01-12-2004, 08:21 PM Yeah,

That's true abt the POWs, and I suppose neither side is very kind to them. But here is a thought, perhaps the Chinese, taking a page from what they did to our guys in Korea, begin to brainwash Soviet POWs..to what end, I dunno, but it might be interesting. Also, if they treated the Warpac "volunteers" they captured better than the Sovs? And if they let them talk to the western media, that would go a long way in the propaganda war. It would also create trouble for the Soviets among the Warsaw Pact nations. Perhaps this is what begins the long slide into Twilight and motivates the East Germans to make the deal with their western brethren.


Also, here is another question, What of Vietnam? I know the Chinese have troops watching her, but the Soviets have to be putting all kinds of pressure on her to:


1. Allow them to use Danang and Cam Ranh Bay to interdict the SLOC into Southern China (or at least blast the hell out of the port facilities).


2. Get Vietnam to precipitate some border mayhem and tie down more Chinese troops, especially after the Red Willow debacle.

********************

Webstral 01-12-2004, 08:30 PM Matt's right on about RED WILLOW: The PLA puts pretty much its available reserves into a counteroffensive that fails to accomplish either of its intended goals. The Soviets aren't defeated on the battlefield, and neither are they brought to the negotiating table on terms favorable to China. In fact, in the aftermath of RED WILLOW the Soviets decide that they have to change tactics to damage China even more, not get out.


I see POWs existing in large numbers. In the kind of mobile warfare the Soviets practice until their offensive stalls, whole PLA infantry divisions are enveloped. Some of these guys will fight until they drop; others will slip away and become guerillas. But many, if not most, will surrender. The Soviets will be inclined to take these people prisoner, methinks, because the slaughter of soldiers who have asked for quarter is bad politics. The Soviets are trying to justify their war on the international scene, and butchery won't help. So I foresee many tens of thousands of Chinese POWs in Soviet hands by year's end.


By the same token, RED WILLOW will net the Chinese large numbers of POWs, as Matt has mentioned already. Some Soviets will fight to the death, and others will manage to break out of encirclements in small groups. Nevertheless, I see many, if not most, throwing up their hands when faced with death or capture. By the time RED WILLOW gets going, morale will be a growing issue among the Soviets. Those who fight to the death will be fewer in number than the KGB would like.



Webstral

********************

Matt Wiser 01-13-2004, 01:49 AM If the PRC follows past procedures in Korea and the Sino-Indian border war in '62, they will do this with Soviet POWs: Segregate them on national lines-so in each camp there'll be compounds with Ukranians, Kazakhs, the various other Central Asians, Russians, Balts, etc. Same thing with the WARPAC POWs-and put the WARPAC and non-slavic Soviets in Kitchen jobs, camp dispensary, etc., so they'd have power over the Russians (who, according to the Chinese, dragged them into the war). Media interviews-likely, with Western Media getting first crack. West German TV and Radio would then happily broadcast that stuff into E. Germany and Czechoslovakia; Radio Free Europe and VOA would send the stuff into the rest of the East bloc. Another thing would be in interrogations of Soviet and Pact POWs: U.S. and NATO intelligence providing questions for Chinese interrogators-in a reverse of Korea where the MGB (what the KGB was called in 1949-53) and GRU provided Chinese interrogators questions to ask American and UN POWs in Korea in 1950-53.

U.S. and NATO technical intelligence would also want (and get) access to captured Soviet equipment-want to bet ships that deliver weapons to China sail back with captured tanks, APCs, SAMs, wrecks of shot-down aircraft, etc. in the holds? Some stuff flies back to CONUS on AMC C-141s, C-17s, and C-5s, if it's very high priority.

Webstral, what about the MAAG (Military Assistance and Advisory Group)? I take it when the first American weapons arrive in the PRC the advisors show up as well? And I assume the other suppliers (UK, France, W.Germany, Israel, ROK, etc) provide similar assistance and training. But do the various advisors do more than advising, if you know what I mean? The PRC's pilots and maintainance folks probably train on their new aircraft in the supplier's country? But really realistic training happens here at Nellis AFB or Luke AFB (the Goldwater AF Range is south of Luke) before going across the Pacific to go to war. (PRC pilots at Red Flag, anyone?)

********************

Matt Wiser 01-13-2004, 01:59 AM Jason, regarding Vietnam: The SOVPACFLT when unleashed against the PRC Navy and PRC-flagged merchant shipping no doubt uses Cam Ranh Bay and the SIGINT station at Da Nang for ops in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits (but watch out, Hong Kong, Macao,and Taiwan are off limits, on penalty of death).

ROE against merchants would require a visual ID before shooting, but against warships-ESM or sonar signatures would be enough to put missiles in the air or torpedoes in the water. The two Kiev-class CVHs and the CV Varyag's aircraft would be valuable in ID'ing potential targets and making sure a target is a legitimate one.

Any enemy of Beijing has a friend in Hanoi, so the Viets would be quite happy to increase their forces on the PRC border, have a few cross-border "incidents", etc. Nothing that would prompt the Chinese to attack Vietnam in reprisal, but to tie down two MRs' worth of troops and airpower when they would be better used up north would be highly satisfying to the Vietnamese, and please Moscow greatly. I'm sure the Soviets would ask New Delhi to have a few similar "incidents" on their border as well.

********************

shrike6 01-13-2004, 10:21 AM Actually, the Soviet Navy as a whole would have had the ability to deploy more Carriers than that. The Soviets would have had 3 Kiev-class CVHGs Kiev, Minsk, and Novorossiysk; 1 modified Kiev-class CVHG, the Baku (Admiral Gorshkov); 2 Tbilisi (Admiral Kuznetsov) class CVs the Tbilisi (Admiral Kuznetsov), and the Riga (Varyag); and last but not least at least 1 and possibly 2 Ulyanovsk class CVNs. I know that the Kiev and Tbilisi were assigned to the Northern Fleet and and the Minsk and Novorosiysk were assigned to the Pacific Fleet. The rest of the Carriers are up to speculation as to which fleet they would have been assigned to.

Also of note is the Majestic class ex-HMAS Melborne (ex-HMS Majestic) which was sold to the Chinese for scrapping in 1985 and reportedly still in existance in 1994. Giving the PLAN the potential to actually deploy a carrier. How likely that would be is up to speculation.

********************

Jason Weiser 01-13-2004, 12:53 PM Originally posted by Matt Wiser


Any enemy of Beijing has a friend in Hanoi, so the Viets would be quite happy to increase their forces on the PRC border, have a few cross-border "incidents", etc. Nothing that would prompt the Chinese to attack Vietnam in reprisal, but to tie down two MRs' worth of troops and airpower when they would be better used up north would be highly satisfying to the Vietnamese, and please Moscow greatly. I'm sure the Soviets would ask New Delhi to have a few similar "incidents" on their border as well.


Yeah, I wonder if this has anything to do with the breakout of hostilities between India and Pakistan, where both sides are egged on by their allies to interfere with the other, or assist their ally. Bet the sequence of events goes like this.


1. Pakistan and Iran become major transshipment points for western war material to China, the Soviets object and begin to launch some Spetsnaz raids on the supply lines or to use airstrikes with the jets being in Indian colors (Hell, sometimes, the Indian AF does the deed).


2. Pakistan objects, and under Chinese pressure as well, acts to redirect Indian attention away from the border with China just before Red Willow kicks off (They don't know in Islamabad abt Red Willow, the Chinese aren't that dumb, as the KGB has probably throughly penetrated the Pakistani government).


3. India gets ancy because of this, and increases the tempo of its actions against Pakistan, Pakistan reciprocates. War.

********************

Matt Wiser 01-13-2004, 06:36 PM Here's the known and probable Soviet Carrier disposition,some is speculative, but logical.


Kiev-class CVHG:


Kiev: Northern

Minsk: Pacific

Novorosiysk: Pacific

Baku: Northern


Tilbisi-Class CV:


Tiblisi: Northern

Riga: (Not completed in 1991 and scrapped, in T2K completed in 1992 and assigned Pacific; other two units of class still incomplete in 1997 when Nikolayev City and shipyard nuked)


Ulyvanosk was only 15% complete in 1991 when she was cancelled and scrapped; others cancelled before being laid down.

She would not have been finished before the nuclear exchange in 1997-a Nimitz-class takes six years from keel laying to commissioning, and another year of workups to be combat-ready.

Ivan would have had the same limititations.

********************

shrike6 01-13-2004, 08:39 PM Matt, my info shows the Ulyanovsk was depending on where you look between 20- 40% complete in '91 meaning that if it hadn't have been cancelled in 1992; it probably would have been completed depending on which information you go on, and that the Riga (Varyag) only needed the electronics, engine and rudder to be completed before she was cancelled in 1992. Also the Riga (Varyag)was sold to the Chinese in 1998 to be used as an entertainment complex and not scrapped like you said.

www.varyagworld.com


Also my understanding is that the Tbilisi (Admiral Kuznetsov) class was to have only 2 ships in its class than move on to the much larger Ulyanovsk class supercarrier.

********************

Jason Weiser 01-13-2004, 10:24 PM Originally posted by Matt Wiser



Webstral, what about the MAAG (Military Assistance and Advisory Group)? I take it when the first American weapons arrive in the PRC the advisors show up as well? And I assume the other suppliers (UK, France, W.Germany, Israel, ROK, etc) provide similar assistance and training. But do the various advisors do more than advising, if you know what I mean? The PRC's pilots and maintainance folks probably train on their new aircraft in the supplier's country? But really realistic training happens here at Nellis AFB or Luke AFB (the Goldwater AF Range is south of Luke) before going across the Pacific to go to war. (PRC pilots at Red Flag, anyone?)


Ooh, here is a really fun thought...You could do a twilight campaign in China where you're an SF A-Team sent in to advise a Chinese Militia detachment on how to use the nifty new ATGM and other toys we're sending. I am sure the SF guys would have pretty liberal ROE that would mainly consist of "Don't get caught".

********************

Matt Wiser 01-14-2004, 02:58 AM Shrike, the info on Ulyvanosk came from the 1992 Jane's. They mentioned the ship as only being 15% complete. Thanks for the info on Varyag-I thought she'd been cut up for razor blades.

Jason, good idea on an A-Team. Save that one for once the U.S. gets in the war big time. Pre December of '96, MAAG does all of their training and advisory activites on the Chinese side of the line, though. (It's only common sense) Though I'm sure some PLA officers come to the States (or England, France, W. Germany, etc.) for advanced courses-pilots at Red Flag, for example. Staff officers might go to the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, armor guys (especially those getting M-1s and M-60s) at Fort Knox, etc. Training Chinese militia behind the lines? That's the CIA paramilitary teams' job (among others, like helping defectors get out, grabbing equipment and documents, tapping phone lines, etc). Too risky politically to have military personnel doing such things.

********************

Matt Wiser 01-14-2004, 03:02 AM For shrike: the naval wargame Harpoon4 mentions that the Tiblisi-class CVs were supposed to be four units; International Air Power Review's carrier aviation special issue mentions the same thing: a four-unit class of CVs.

********************

shrike6 01-14-2004, 03:04 PM Here's my sources


http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/russia.htm

http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html

http://www.milparade.com/1996/16/84-88.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/1143_5.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/1143_7.htm

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/fl...ian/frames.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...rus/1143_5.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...rus/1143_7.htm

Harpoon 1990-91 Data Annex


Periscope/US Naval Institute Military Database does reports there was to be four ships in the Tbilisi (Kuznetsov)- class although it reports that the third ship was to be named Ulyanovsk, and it was to be nuclear powered and displace 75,000 tons (compared to 55,000 tons on the Kuznetsov [Tbilisi] and Varyag [Riga]).

http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapo...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

********************

shrike6 01-14-2004, 09:39 PM Matt, I thought Harpoon 4 had been cancelled.

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon4.htm

http://harpoon4.ubi.com/US/

********************

Matt Wiser 01-15-2004, 01:06 AM I'm talking about the counter-based version, not the PC version.

********************

Louie 01-15-2004, 03:26 AM Ahh !! Finally !!! New computer, firewall, etc. Finally figured out how to post again. Well getting to the subject at hand.....Breaking out my trusty "Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Navy 5th Edition" by Norman Polmar published in 1991, The second "Admiral Kuznetsov" class ship, RIGA (VARYAG was in use at the time for a "Kynda" class cruiser depending on your timeline it can be renamed as that ship is renamed or scrapped) was due for completion in 1992-93. These two ships were to be followed by two others a ".....10,000 ton larger..." version of the "Kuznetsov's" with a CONAS propulsion system. The first ship (UL'YANOVSK) was due for completion in 1995-96 while there is no information about the other. Personally I believe the second would not have been laid down until 1993 at the Nikolayev yard after the RIGA is finished so it's up in the air if it gets into combat. As for the Sino-Soviet War I imagine the Soviets sending their new carriers East to test them out. Combat ops would be invaluable to get the Soviets up to speed on carrier ops.

Subject #2, just an idea but IMC I have an International Volunteer Group (mostly American) flying for the Chinese in three Sqd's of F-4D's, F-4E's, and F-4G's. As for narrative anyone read "Future Wars " by Trevor Dupuy ? I have it and it has a great chapter on a Sino- Russian conflict including a scene of a Guards MR Regt. capturing a stretch of the Great Wall in front of the TV cameras. One could imagine the Soviets raising the Hammer & Sickle on the Wall for CNN !!!!

********************

shrike6 01-15-2004, 09:00 AM Didn't know that, you learn something new everyday. I had thought Harpoon had gone all computer. Thanks for the info, Matt.

********************

Matt Wiser 01-15-2004, 06:45 PM I've read Future Wars-it was Dupuy's last book. I could see that MRR raising the Russian flag on the Great Wall. He did change one thing: the Russians in the book were exemplary in their conduct towards Chinese civilians, which in the T2K invasion would not be very likely, and with the usual reprisals against civilians after partisan activities...(think Red Dawn) The KGB and MVD would be most serious in such matters, which would bring back bad memories from the Japanese invasion, as the Japanese had similar policies regarding guerilla activity, regardless if the culprits were caught or not.

********************

Webstral 01-15-2004, 11:51 PM Very interesting stuff about the Soviet Navy's capabilities, gentlemen. I'm going to have to have a serious look at it, because I'm working on the Winter War now. The naval contest off the coast of China will play an important part.


Regarding the introduction of American (and Western) personnel into China, I have to agree that it's unlikely that US Special Forces would get the green light to operate in Manchuria. Though Special Ops no doubt would love the opportunity to put themselves to the test in Manchuira, any president but the most brazen adventurer would recognize that identification of, capture of, or the killing and recovery of American SF personnel in Manchuria would represent a significant provocation of the USSR by the US. The US can sell hardware to the Chinese and show them how to use it without crossing the line. Sending American SF folks into Manchuria would be too much.


American "mercenaries" may be another story. The Flying Tigers are a good precedent. I agree with Louie that we might very well see American pilots flying in the PLAAF. We certainly should expect to see American (and British, French, and German) advisors and technicians who come along with the equipment. Though the Chinese might not feel they need to be taught by the Americans, the senior leadership would see the value of tying the United States to China through personnel.


We might very well see Chinese pilots undergoing training in the US. That's an interesting subject, because it strikes me as being a political question. Chinese pilots who attend American schools are going to be taught American flying and fighting. Inherent in USAF doctrine is the idea that the people in the air should exercise a fair amount of initiative. You can't apply American dogfighting techniques without applying at least some of the principles underlying the tactics. At the start of the war, the PLAAF is rather like the SAF: centralized control, preferably from a ground base where a general can be safe. However, the results of the air war from August to October 1995 are likely to prompt the Chinese to be willing to experiment. The losing side is often the one that innovates. If this happens, we might be able to see the PLAAF learning Western air doctrines and applying them. The question is when. I'm going to have to think about that one.


The PLA, too, probably will undergo some serious changes. The PLA always has been a more professional force than the Soviet Army. Political control should relax once the Chinese realize that the political officers and an emphasis on being politically reliable over competent are draining the force of some of its potential. Perhaps the PLA will start to change during the Winter War. Small unit operations conducted with a high degree of radio silence will force the junior officers in charge to think on their feet and think out of the box.


The issue of how each side handles its POWs for propaganda effects is an interesting one. There's a wealth of possibilities here that I haven't given much attention. I would be glad to see someone take this on.


Webstral

********************

Matt Wiser 01-16-2004, 02:10 AM Webstral, since the PRC is buying American aircraft, artillery, armor, etc; and doing the same thing with the Brits, Israelis, French, W. Germans, etc, they're going to have to send pilots and maintainance folks to those countries to learn how to use and maintain the equipment, and in the case of those using it in combat, how to fight their new mounts at the respective schools in the West. Armor at Fort Knox, Arty at Fort Sill, the PLAAF guys would go to Luke AFB for F-15/16 training, Tuscon for the ANG's A-7 course (which is an F-16 course now, but A-7s in T2K), A-4 pilots would be trained by USMC reserve A-4 squadrons, NAS Lemoore or Cecil Field for F/A-18s, and either Fort Rucker or the USMC at Camp Pendilton for the AH-1 (I'm assuming the PRC would want Cobras instead of Apaches-they're easier to maintain in the field and the Cobra W is Hellfire capable, but the Army AH-1S isn't, and the Cobra is available quicker from AMARC by converting USMC Ts to Ws via Bell Helicopter Textron than new AH-64s from McAir Helicopter in Mesa, AZ) Red Flag would be the final exam before heading back to China and the war-give the pilots and maintainers a chance to try out their new mounts before doing it for real..

Soviet Navy would send at least one carrier group, probably two into the Naval war, with one carrier at Vladivostok at all times for replenishment and crew rest, with a Surface Action Group or two

as well (Kirov-class BCGN or Slava-class CG as flag) The Kirovs had two in Northern and would have had two in Pacific, and two Slavas in Northern and two in Pacific. Sub activity would be Tango and Kilo class SSs inshore, with the Victor, Sierra, and Akula class SSNs further out, and Charlie and Oscar class SSGNs with the attack boats. SNA had a BACKFIRE division in Pacific (three regiments) and a BADGER division that could to the Vladivostok-Cam Ranh shuttle strike profile, along with a independent BADGER regiment at Cam Ranh Bay AB.

The POW situation would likely go for the PRC the way I gave it earlier-it's based on what happened in Korea, and with Indian POWs in the little border war in '62. The Soviets would likely portray Chinese POWs as "stooges of the bandit regime in China" or something to that effect.

Anything on how the war affects Korea? I can see the ROKs selling the K-1 MBT and the KIFV, and artillery, along with F-16s from the Samsung production line,but how do the NKs react now that their two patrons are at each other's throats and that aid and arms that would go to Pyongyang is instead headed to the front? My guess is that Kim-Il Sung and his son would decide to back whoever wins, and not happy that the PRC is buying weapons and equipment from the capitalists in the South.

********************

Louie 01-16-2004, 03:24 AM Matt, I have a question. Do you think that the U.S. is going to be sending top of the line stuff to China ? I mean old prejudices die hard, even though the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' is in affect I think we would be selling them lots of M48's early model M60's and lots of A-7's, A-4's, F-4's, & AH-1's. (IMC I have the National Guard and Reserves in a much better equipment state than in real life, they gave up their old equipment to China and got new stuff off the assembly line) The Pentagon, I believe, would be wary about letting a M-1 or F-15 fall into the Soviets hands in China.

Webstral, again your narratives are great and I guess most of us agree the original GDW 'history' leaves much to be desired. I posted previously (months ago) about how I borrowed ideas from WW2 and had a few incidents happen in the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea instigating the convoying of ships to China by the U.S. Navy and the JMSDF, any thoughts about this ? ( sorry just trying to get a sneak peek at future narratives )

********************

Matt Wiser 01-17-2004, 12:35 AM Valid questions, Louie. However, since the PRC is placing arms orders with the UK, France, Israel, W. Germany, South Korea, etc,. the US defense industries will get a piece of the action, period. Stuff that can be delivered right away from AMARC or the Army and Marine equivalent goes first, then what they order in fall of '95. As Webstral pointed out earlier, stuff being built for Mideast clients is going to go to the PRC in 6-9 months instead of by Jan of '97 (original est. delivery date), because the PRC will pay the supplier (GD, McAir, United Defense, Lockheed-Martin, etc) an extra 15% surcharge to compensate the original client and the contractor for switching the delivery to the PRC instead of the original client(s). A-4s, A-7s, F-4s, and early model F-15s and F-16s from AMARC will go first. But by the time the newly placed orders for additional aircraft and armor are finished, the US is in the war and all that stuff gets requisitioned. As far a security concerns-the stuff the US sells to Mideast customers is tweaked to the individual customer-effective against Soviet and French weapons systems for the EW gear, but not against American equipment. (Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain get full-spectrum as they face a percieved Iranian threat until the Iran Nowin gets in power) An early model F-15 or M-1 is not going to be a security concern, but an F-15E or M-1A2 would. By the time the PRC's orders for F-15Es (assuming they place any) the planes will be requisitioned for the USAF in Dec of '96. Ditto for the armor.

As far as incidents with US and Western shipping-the Soviets are going to ensure that such incidents don't happen-Ivan's trying to keep the war limited to China, and even the hard-liners don't want a confrontation with the United States and NATO when they are busy fighting a war in China. This explains their ROE for SOVPACFLT, SNA, etc: Positive ID of a target before shooting-that means either visual ID or positive electronic ID (sonar, ESM showing PRC radars, Chinese IFF codes,etc.). And Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan are off-limits on pain of death. So one may logically expect weapons shipments in Western-flagged or Western owned ships. And the 7th Fleet in Japan is watching the SOVPACFLT like a hawk. Seeing the Russian Navy launching real combat ops is too good an intel oppertunity to pass up. Freedom of Navigation for ships and commercial aircraft is something the US takes very seriously, and the Soviets would be told that any incidents with US ships or aircraft would not be a good idea from a diplomatic and economic standpoint....

********************

Webstral 01-17-2004, 12:44 AM It's not actually necessary for the Chinese to send people to the US to learn how to use the new equipment. The US tried to train Republic of Vietnam people in the Republic of Vietnam. The PRC might prefer to have the Americans and others come to China. However, you may be right, Matt, in that the United States and/or the PRC might prefer to have the Chinese specialists travel to the US for training.


As for having the Chinese take part in Red Flag, well, that seems like a gray area to me. How much training can the US give the people buying its equipment before the Soviets start to ask whether the PRC is a customer or an ally? I'm not terribly familiar with Red Flag, so you'll have to brief me. It's an exercise in which the NATO allies sometimes take part, isn't it? That alone might get the Soviets thinking that Sino-American partnership is getting close enough for the Soviets to make noise at the UN and in Washington.


I'm still sorting out the details of Soviet naval operations off the coast of China. However, I've concluded that political considerations are going to shape the pattern of operations. The Soviets can't start a blockade. This would give the lie to Soviet claims of limited war. If they did start a blockade, they would have to fire on US Navy escorts sooner or later. This is a big step, and unless the US gives sufficient provocation, I can't see the Soviets going this far. Fighting the PLAN is one thing. Throwing in the US Pacific Fleet, and possibly the naval forces of Japan, Taiwan, the ROK, and other Western Allies, would be another issue entirely.


So I'm thinking that Soviet operations focus on two things: sinking as many PLAN ships as possible, and wrecking China's port facilities. In both cases, Soviet naval and air units are going to have to penetrate China's coastal airspace and coastal sea space at least to stand-off delivery range. It should make for some interesting fights.


We know that Uncle Kim sides with the Soviets in late 1996. Figuring out what gets said between the Kremlin and Pyongyang to make this happen would make for some good reading. Perhaps the whole affair is decided by ideology. Kim Il-Sung prefers the Sauronskiite mode to the Chinese mode that involves China so intimately with the West, one might suppose. I have planned the demise of Dmitri Danilov to coincide with the entry of the United States into the war in Europe. According to the US Army Vehicle Guide, North Korean forces cross the DMZ in December 1996. The current plan is for the Sauronskiites to do away with Danilov, then call in their markers all around the world for a quick bid at victory. The North Koreans invade the ROK, the Iraqis invade Kuwait, and Soviet forces invade Norway. Soon thereafter, India steps up its actions in Kashmir.


Webstral

********************

Matt Wiser 01-17-2004, 03:50 AM Red Flag is a training exercise run several times a year at Nellis AFB, NV. Realistic threats (SAMs, AAA simulated, and aggressor squadrons) simulate combat so that pilots and crews who go through it will have a better likelihood of surviving their first 10 missions (in which half of Vietnam combat losses occured). It's open not just for AF/AFRES/ANG, but Navy and Marine units, some Army with Apache and Blackhawks come for CSAR training, plus allies (Brits come with Tornados, Jaguars, and Harriers, French Mirage 2000s, German Tornados, Turks with F-16s, etc,. from NATO, but such diverse allies as South Korea, Thailand, Venezuela, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and so forth have participated. Last Red Flag in 2002 had the Luftwaffe's MiG-29s.

In T2K a PRC squadron that has finished training on F-16s or the A-4Ms or A-7Es they've gotten from AMARC might go thru the course as part of their training syllabus if anyone should squawk about it. The fact that a Red Flag was being run at the same time they were wrapping up their training is just coincidental....

Red Flag is different from Green Flag where more intensive EW is used, and all ordnance that's air to ground is live, and Green Flag is run I believe only 3 times a year, compared with 8-9 times for Red Flag.

PRC Training in the States: If Webstral is right and the PRC gets the M-1 series and the M-60, the initial crews would have to come to Fort Knox to learn the tank, as well as the maintainers to learn that part of the business. The simulators are expensive, and shipping one over to China might be prohibitive. Train the PRC tankers, and the artillerymen getting MLRS, 155 Paladins, etc, here, as well as the fixed-wing and helo drivers, where the training can be carried out without Soviet distractions (such as air or missile attack on training areas, Spetsnatz raids, etc). The initial cadre would then help the MAAG in China train everyone who's getting the new stuff. But to use the ARVN as an example-even they sent guys to U.S. schools for advanced training (armor, naval, VNAF, etc). The training could be explained by the U.S as part of the normal sales package in any arms deal. Same for the Brits, French, Israelis, West Germans, ROKs, South Africans, Brazil (remember the ASTROS MRLs, EE series of light armor, the AMX fighter coproduced with Italy?), etc. all would use the same excuse. "Chinese military personnel training in our country? Normal practice when selling advanced weapons to another country-that training is included in the sales package. Besides, you Soviets are still selling to the Iraqis and Syrians (among others) and their personnel are training in your country."

"Yes, but what about Chinese aircrews participating in the infamous Red Flag exercises?" (Sec State and Sov Ambassador)

"That is simple enough. The squadron commanders asked to participate as part of their final training before returning home to defend their country. It's their final exam, so to speak. And other

nations with American-built aircraft other than NATO members have participated with newly built aircraft before returning home.

End of discussion, Mr. Ambassador. Unless you have any other matters to discuss, I wish you a good day."

********************

Webstral 01-17-2004, 01:14 PM You may be right about the Amerian reaction to Soviet complaints regarding Red Flag, Matt. I tend to be a non-risk taker, and I project that onto the military and civilian leadership. Not everybody in the 1995-1996 US Administration is going to be adverse to ruffling Soviet feathers. The Secretary of State probably shouldn't mention the NATO allies, though. Venezuela and other non-aligned nations buying American products make a splendid example without bringing the allies into it.


Good point that having PLA personnel come to the US (UK, France, etc.) frees them from potential Soviet attack. Come November, the Soviets are going to step up their strategic air action. Thus the Chinese may well see the advantage of shipping their trainers overseas.


Webstral

********************