And the Nazis didn't have guided fucking artillery shells.
A shore assault today is suicide, that's why we didn't actually try it in Desert Storm. It was only ever really feasible for Normandy because the allies spent two years building landing ships.
Listen to people who know TI...
Any attempt to force a landing against Taiwan, would be the naval equivalent of Pickett's Charge. They'll come out of their ports, and immediately be under long range sea skimming missile fire; Hsiung Feng III's and Harpoons. Halfway across the straits, they'll be into artillery range; steerable 203mm and 155 mm shells blowing clean through landing ships from hundreds of guns, as well as MLRS. By the time they get into sight of the shore, they'll be taking short ranged missile fire; javelins on every shoreside building, hellfires on helicopters.
If any of them mange to make it to the shore, they'll immediately be moving from a marine theater to an urban theater, the worst possible environment for an aggressor and the best possible environment for a determined defender. They'll have no remote, defensible beachhead because there is no remote shoreline.
Any attempt to conquer Taiwan will see the straits run red for a week with blood and burning wreckage.
Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.
Anti-ship missiles like Harpoon are extremely effective, though. Taiwan bought a bunch of ground launched Harpoon systems like this and they still have not been delivered, in part because the US started to fucking send them to Ukraine instead (because Ukraine is in such danger of an amphibious invasion, right?).
Naval mines are an almost-impossible threat to defeat even now. You need lots & lots of minesweepers (Allies had hundreds in WW2 for Normandy), and even then, they can't do their work if they're under fire.
So between anti ship missiles & just dumping lot and lots of naval mines in the approaches to the landing beaches, it would be impossible for the CCP to carry out an invasion without very, very heavy losses.
It was only ever really feasible for Normandy because the allies spent two years building landing ships.
It worked in the Korean War because we took them by surprise. We prepared to launch another naval invasion from the eastern coast shortly thereafter and it was completely stopped by the NorKs quickly dumping a bunch of naval mines.
A huge US fleet with overwhelming firepower was rendered completely useless by cheap naval mines. They had to stop and push minesweepers forward, but the NorKs would simply shoot at the minesweepers whenever they got close, so they could never do their jobs.
This state of affairs continues to this day. We STILL - from 1950 to present - have not developed the technology to sweep mines in a defended area. Eventually you might end up with large numbers of underwater suicide drones being able to do the job, but nobody has developed anything like that yet and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Everyone still relies on conventional minesweeping & maybe has a few extremely expensive underwater drones that can't operate at scale.
Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.
You're mistaken.
The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.
If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.
The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.
Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them. Today that can be calculated by computer in microseconds.
Maybe you can put a seeker head on an arty shell but it is not a good match. Better to just make a bigger dedicated missile with better range and a bigger warhead and let arty do what arty is better at.
Copperhead
Copperhead was basically a laser guided missile fired from arty. We don't use or make things like that anymore. We just use actual missiles.
STRIX
is a mortar with only short range meant to hit tanks.
Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery.
lol yes they do when you are talking about long ranges
In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells
WW2 naval gunnery was insanely inaccurate, with only a tiny % of shells actually hitting, even with radar assisted firing solutions.
You're mistaken.
I'm really not. It's good you've done some research but I'm still a few tiers above you in knowledge of this stuff. Everything I wrote was 100% accurate for doctrine & tech being used today. You're having daydreams about possibilities which aren't real, and they aren't real because they don't make sense.
For example: if you think you can defend a beach against landing craft with artillery firing "guided" shells, you know what would be a far superior & cheaper way to kill those landing craft? Just using a TOW missile. They only cost about 100k. An excalibur shell, which can NOT hit moving targets costs a similar amount, $112,800. Guided HIMARS, which are also only GPS guided, cost more.
Harpoons are far more expensive but also have much bigger warheads and reach out to much longer ranges.
By the time the chinks are in arty range, they're already dashing for the beaches. You need to hit them further out.
Once the Ford Mark 1 had a target fix you were basically ****ed
Not as much as you think. The earliest FCS like the Mark 1 effectively only let you shoot in obscured conditions (night, fog, etc) and allowed you to correct for the Coriolis Effect. You even still had to ladder shoot to get the range on the early systems. Even with the advanced systems like the Mk 38 used on the Iowas, that was still a hit rate of like 35-40%. On the other hand, that was indeed a massive step up from "traditional" fire control which would have an accuracy rating of like 5% on a clear day.
That said, the point about guided artillery being no good against ships is true. If they are sitting around or moving slow, sure. But if they are going full bore its out of the question.
Although if you are in the market for cheap anti-ship method (which btw, is compatible with the F-16's the Taiwanese air force is rocking), they recently discovered you can destroy a ship with JDAM's.
Raytheon added semi active laser targeting to the M982 in the Excalibur S, so that 155mm shells could be directed in descent by apaches and reapers. The firing battery only has to get them in the ballpark.
They then added fire and forget capability with an onboard radar in the Excalibur N5, which is intended to be shot from the 5"/54 M45. Again, the firing battery only has to get it in the rough ballpark of where the target will be.
We should have given Taiwan nuclear weapons and reliable delivery systems years ago and just walked away. That's the surest way to ensure their independence, no US military security guarantee required.
A 100% chance that Beijing is reduced to a glass crater regardless of how their invasion goes would be enough to deter them in perpetuity.
I hope the Chinese Communist Party keep pulling stunts like this so that the Taiwanese get their heads out of their ass and start spending real money on defense. They are at 2.4% of GDP with the CCP bearing down on them. They should be at 5%+.
China isn't going to invade with 9 ships, though, lol, on D Day the allies had 6,939 ships.
Oh no, this is the first time since the last time they did that!
Yea, 9 ships are a nothingburger. That's just them saying hello.
And the Nazis didn't have guided fucking artillery shells.
A shore assault today is suicide, that's why we didn't actually try it in Desert Storm. It was only ever really feasible for Normandy because the allies spent two years building landing ships.
Listen to people who know TI...
Any attempt to force a landing against Taiwan, would be the naval equivalent of Pickett's Charge. They'll come out of their ports, and immediately be under long range sea skimming missile fire; Hsiung Feng III's and Harpoons. Halfway across the straits, they'll be into artillery range; steerable 203mm and 155 mm shells blowing clean through landing ships from hundreds of guns, as well as MLRS. By the time they get into sight of the shore, they'll be taking short ranged missile fire; javelins on every shoreside building, hellfires on helicopters.
If any of them mange to make it to the shore, they'll immediately be moving from a marine theater to an urban theater, the worst possible environment for an aggressor and the best possible environment for a determined defender. They'll have no remote, defensible beachhead because there is no remote shoreline.
Any attempt to conquer Taiwan will see the straits run red for a week with blood and burning wreckage.
Guided artillery shells aren't really useful against ships. They're for hitting static targets. Ships move.
Anti-ship missiles like Harpoon are extremely effective, though. Taiwan bought a bunch of ground launched Harpoon systems like this and they still have not been delivered, in part because the US started to fucking send them to Ukraine instead (because Ukraine is in such danger of an amphibious invasion, right?).
Naval mines are an almost-impossible threat to defeat even now. You need lots & lots of minesweepers (Allies had hundreds in WW2 for Normandy), and even then, they can't do their work if they're under fire.
So between anti ship missiles & just dumping lot and lots of naval mines in the approaches to the landing beaches, it would be impossible for the CCP to carry out an invasion without very, very heavy losses.
It worked in the Korean War because we took them by surprise. We prepared to launch another naval invasion from the eastern coast shortly thereafter and it was completely stopped by the NorKs quickly dumping a bunch of naval mines.
A huge US fleet with overwhelming firepower was rendered completely useless by cheap naval mines. They had to stop and push minesweepers forward, but the NorKs would simply shoot at the minesweepers whenever they got close, so they could never do their jobs.
This state of affairs continues to this day. We STILL - from 1950 to present - have not developed the technology to sweep mines in a defended area. Eventually you might end up with large numbers of underwater suicide drones being able to do the job, but nobody has developed anything like that yet and is unlikely to do so any time soon. Everyone still relies on conventional minesweeping & maybe has a few extremely expensive underwater drones that can't operate at scale.
You're mistaken.
The limitations you're envisioning do not exist in a hypothetical battle of the Taiwan Straits. That's because there will be zero possibility of friendly fire.
If you simply want an artillery round to pick a target and kill it, indiscriminately, that's easy. You can do it with 80's technology, and that's basically what the Bofors Strix m/49 does.
The only reason the Copperhead needed target designators was because we didn't want it attacking OUR OWN SHIT.
Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery. In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells, they were evading the firing solution that was putting the shells on them. Today that can be calculated by computer in microseconds.
arty rounds don't have seeker heads like a missile, just GPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
Maybe you can put a seeker head on an arty shell but it is not a good match. Better to just make a bigger dedicated missile with better range and a bigger warhead and let arty do what arty is better at.
Copperhead was basically a laser guided missile fired from arty. We don't use or make things like that anymore. We just use actual missiles.
is a mortar with only short range meant to hit tanks.
lol yes they do when you are talking about long ranges
WW2 naval gunnery was insanely inaccurate, with only a tiny % of shells actually hitting, even with radar assisted firing solutions.
I'm really not. It's good you've done some research but I'm still a few tiers above you in knowledge of this stuff. Everything I wrote was 100% accurate for doctrine & tech being used today. You're having daydreams about possibilities which aren't real, and they aren't real because they don't make sense.
For example: if you think you can defend a beach against landing craft with artillery firing "guided" shells, you know what would be a far superior & cheaper way to kill those landing craft? Just using a TOW missile. They only cost about 100k. An excalibur shell, which can NOT hit moving targets costs a similar amount, $112,800. Guided HIMARS, which are also only GPS guided, cost more.
Harpoons are far more expensive but also have much bigger warheads and reach out to much longer ranges.
By the time the chinks are in arty range, they're already dashing for the beaches. You need to hit them further out.
Taiwan has a solution for that already.
Not as much as you think. The earliest FCS like the Mark 1 effectively only let you shoot in obscured conditions (night, fog, etc) and allowed you to correct for the Coriolis Effect. You even still had to ladder shoot to get the range on the early systems. Even with the advanced systems like the Mk 38 used on the Iowas, that was still a hit rate of like 35-40%. On the other hand, that was indeed a massive step up from "traditional" fire control which would have an accuracy rating of like 5% on a clear day.
That said, the point about guided artillery being no good against ships is true. If they are sitting around or moving slow, sure. But if they are going full bore its out of the question.
Although if you are in the market for cheap anti-ship method (which btw, is compatible with the F-16's the Taiwanese air force is rocking), they recently discovered you can destroy a ship with JDAM's.
Raytheon added semi active laser targeting to the M982 in the Excalibur S, so that 155mm shells could be directed in descent by apaches and reapers. The firing battery only has to get them in the ballpark.
They then added fire and forget capability with an onboard radar in the Excalibur N5, which is intended to be shot from the 5"/54 M45. Again, the firing battery only has to get it in the rough ballpark of where the target will be.
In short... we have the technology.
It's the only ships they have that could make the trip without sinking or getting the rudder stuck and doing donuts for days.
We should have given Taiwan nuclear weapons and reliable delivery systems years ago and just walked away. That's the surest way to ensure their independence, no US military security guarantee required.
A 100% chance that Beijing is reduced to a glass crater regardless of how their invasion goes would be enough to deter them in perpetuity.
Yes, let's give a feminist psychopath who refuses to hold elections because "the Chinese will divide us over it" a big red button. Brilliant idea.
No country with a female leader should have a military, let alone nukes.
Clits together, more like.
I hope the Chinese Communist Party keep pulling stunts like this so that the Taiwanese get their heads out of their ass and start spending real money on defense. They are at 2.4% of GDP with the CCP bearing down on them. They should be at 5%+.
Northrop Grumman/General Dynamics or Raytheon investor?
The greatest mistake we ever made was not voting to draft women.
Draft the stupid fucking tradcuck Republicans like Hawley and Chip Roy to this feminized shithole tumor on the Chinese state.