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.
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.
It's the only ships they have that could make the trip without sinking or getting the rudder stuck and doing donuts for days.