Expert’s warning to US Navy on China: Bigger fleet almost always wins

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

First of all, biggest fleet NOT ALWAYS wins. A few battles comes into mind, Trafalgar (When British force out ship with 27 to 33 ship of the line), Battle off Samar (The entire Taffy Task Force weighed less than one battleship in battle, and it's a 9 vs 20 duel), Battle of Lake Erie (5 Schooner vs 2 Ship of the Line) just to name a few on top of my head.

Battle of Trafalgar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle off Samar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Lake Erie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So for that, the "expert" was wrong.

On the other hand, ship number is not the deciding factor of any war, firepower is.

So who will win?

China or Japan?

You just do not like the idea that the US is most likely to prevail in any naval battle against the PLAN.

If the US is sitting out and not participating in the war against a weak Russia, what makes you so confident that it will participate in a war against China?

You can bet US will be a no show.

US is already moving TSMC back to the US.

US no longer has any interest in Taiwan or Japan or South Korea.

 

[beijingwalker]

You just do not like the idea that the US is most likely to prevail in any naval battle against the PLAN.

The article was not written by me, and wars always end up this way, the more powerful industrial powers win, like it or not.

 

[applesauce]

@jhungary
@gambit

they are talking about naval wars. not individual battles.

why are you guys bringing up battles?

yea the us won over japan. but the start of war was meh, with Japan running around in the east pacific however it wished, until us production kicked it and demonstrates exactly what the article is talking about...the larger navy wins. japan could not keep replacing their losses, the us could.

yea, the battle of Trafalgar, it was one battle. the royal navy in total far outweighed and outnumbered their enemies, and the one loss meant napoleon gave up on dreams of invading Britain, while if britain lost, they would have gather another fleet to defend their islands and at the end of the day the napoleonic wars were not really a naval war, the primary action was in europe, on land.

doesn't mean technology don't count. of course. otherwise nations might as well all build cheap sailboats. but like, that front is narrowing too between us and china. i mean its pretty clear, just compare 1980s usn vs plan and current usn vs plan.

but you are right, china has to consider us allies and well as the fact that usn ships are larger and more capable on average

 

[gambit]

If the US is sitting out and not participating in the war against a weak Russia, what makes you so confident that it will participate in a war against China?

We are not 'sitting out' the war. Just because there are no US forces, ground and air, does not mean the US is 'sitting out' the war. We are sending Ukraine the weapons the Ukrainians can use and so far, the war is not going as well as Poutine wanted.

You can bet US will be a no show.

YOU can make that bet.

The article was not written by me, and wars always end up this way, the more powerful industrial powers win, like it or not.

But then again, the US 'lost' in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All countries that are less industrialized and advanced compared to US.

YOU GUYS NEED TO MAKE UP YOUR MINDS

 

[beijingwalker]

But then again, the US 'lost' in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All countries that are less industrialized and advanced compared to US.

YOU GUYS NEED TO MAKE UP YOUR MINDS

Those were limited wars which wouldn't decide the fate of a nation, they were not like the life and death struggle between Germany and Russia or Japan and US in WW2, you did los those limited regional wars but it's because they became unsustainable and you chose to cut the loss and stop. For a life and death struggle war, you don't have the luxury to make it stop, you are at your enemy's mercy on when the war will stop.

 

[gambit]

@jhungary
@gambit

they are talking about naval wars. not individual battles.

why are you guys bringing up battles?

yea the us won over japan. but the start of war was meh, with Japan running around in the east pacific however it wished, until us production kicked it and demonstrates exactly what the article is talking about...the larger navy wins. japan could not keep replacing their losses, the us could.

Every analogy and examples have their breaking points, meaning we must examine them to see where they are applicable and where/when compares to current situations, those analogies and past examples are no longer serviceable.

Individual battles make up a war, right? So it is appropriate to use previous wars/battles as examples.

Where US and JPN navies in WW II as examples breaks down is that current US Navy is nothing like WW II US Navy. So as far as individual naval battles go, the PLAN will most likely be sunk. Dung Fling missiles or not.

As far as China's manufacturing prowess is concerned, how far does China want to take the fight? China does not have the ability and capacity to attack US proper while the US can attack China proper. Once the US was able to outproduce JPN, JPN's manufacturing facilities were no longer safe. China will be in the same situation. The PLAAF do not the equivalent of B-52, B-1, and B-2, not counting the coming B-21. The US do not need ICBM to reach China. The US already have all the major Chinese ports targeted. When I was active duty and on the F-111, NATO had all the Black Sea ports targeted. UK based F-111s can reach all the way to Moscow. So yes, how far does China want to take this fight?

Those were limited wars which wouldn't decide the fate of a nation, they were not like the life and death struggle between Germany and Russia or Japan and US in WW2, you did los those limited regional wars but it's because they became unsustainable and you chose to cut the loss and stop. For a life and death struggle war, you don't have the luxury to make it stop, you are at your enemy's mercy on when the war will stop.

You need to go back to the CPC for new talking points. The US 'lost' in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan despite being more industrialized and technologically advanced.

 

[beijingwalker]

You need to go back to the CPC for new talking points. The US 'lost' in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan despite being more industrialized and technologically advanced.

They were not all out wars, US lost some regional wars and conflicts which US doesn't have to put all their industrial might on them, if it does, it will depend if US can outproduce its enemies, besides, the OP article speaks of naval wars that bigger fleets always win.

In an all out war you throw in everything you have and you want nothing short of total annihilation of your enemy, in a limited regional war you set a limited goal , put in limited resources and decides if it's worth continuing with the changing situations.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary
@gambit

they are talking about naval wars. not individual battles.

why are you guys bringing up battles?

yea the us won over japan. but the start of war was meh, with Japan running around in the east pacific however it wished, until us production kicked it and demonstrates exactly what the article is talking about...the larger navy wins. japan could not keep replacing their losses, the us could.

yea, the battle of Trafalgar, it was one battle. the royal navy in total far outweighed and outnumbered their enemies, and the one loss meant napoleon gave up on dreams of invading Britain, while if britain lost, they would have gather another fleet to defend their islands and at the end of the day the napoleonic wars were not really a naval war, the primary action was in europe, on land.

doesn't mean technology don't count. of course. otherwise nations might as well all build cheap sailboats. but like, that front is narrowing too between us and china. i mean its pretty clear, just compare 1980s usn vs plan and current usn vs plan.

but you are right, china has to consider us allies and well as the fact that usn ships are larger and more capable on average

because Wars are built on battle, and the term you are looking for is "Complacency"

The good ol' tradition or "More" = "Good" is nothing if not a misnomer and even ever a thing to begin with, because I had studied war. And number didn't really put into either tactical level, strategic level and operational level. I can keep on going this road, but I don't feel you are going to understand why or how it didn't fit. So instead, I am going to use a recent example.

Ukrainian Navy have ZERO naval power, and Russian fleet have 5 (or 7 frigates) and also assorted ship including a battlecruiser, yet in the entire "war" in Black Sea, it was Ukrainian who is ahead at this point, and seeing Ukraine have no naval power at all and Turkey had blocked the outside access to Black Sea, this is unlikely going to change.

On the other hand, you can also argue, US Navy back in WW2 is smaller than the entire IJN when it counts, by the time US Navy had built up its strength, they had already won the War in the Pacific, because the turning point in the Pacific is unarguably the Battle of Midway, which by that point, US navy is smaller in number than the Japanese Navy at that point.

Number was never considered an absolute advantage in warfare, that's because it really didn't matter how many units you have, what really do matter in the end is how many units you can support, just because you have said 450 battleships, that does not mean you can put all 450 battleships in a given war. The size of the battle, the sea control, and the supply line all play a role. And that come down to what I said before, how you implement your number in Tactical level, Strategic Level and Operational Level.

 

[jhungary]

So who will win?

China or Japan?

You are assuming two things.

1.) The Japanese will use its entire Navy to fight China in a set piece.
2.) You assume no other factor or nation affect this fight.

If you are talking about a Japan v China situation, Japanese will not be stupid enough to fight a war when they know the Chinese would win. The problem is, ocean is big, it doesn't really matter if you have 1000 ship you would still not going to control the entire Pacific Ocean. What if Japanese steam their fleet somewhere in a more favorable ground? What if Japanese use a run and gun tactics? There are a lot of things to consider.

On the other hand, what if the West cut off Chinese raw material supplies? China depends on the west on 3 of the top 5 metal (Iron, Aluminum and possibly Tin (I don't remember the last one) what if all of the sudden it stopped supply Chinese those? Even if China can switch supplier, there will be a lag time from the supply in the west cut off to you apply those new resource to get back to a production rate before. How about US supplying Japanese with mothballed ships? Or even get involved directly in the war??

 

[beijingwalker]

On the other hand, what if the West cut off Chinese raw material supplies? China depends on the west on 3 of the top 5 metal (Iron, Aluminum and possibly Tin (I don't remember the last one) what if all of the sudden it stopped supply Chinese those? Even if China can switch supplier,

China produces lots of them as well, in a war time scenario, domestic production of them is way more enough to support Chinese military. don't forget, China is bordering many resources rich countries, Russia, Mongolia, Hazakhstan, Afghanistan... and they all have very good relations with China, there are many economic reasons why China still buy resources from the west, but China can always switch when the shit hit the fan.

 

[jhungary]

China produces lots of them as well, in a war time scenario, domestic production of them is way more enough to support Chinese military. don't forget, China is bordering many resources rich countries, Russia, Mongolia, Hazakhstan, Afghanistan... and they all have very good relations with China, there are many economic reasons why China still buy resources from the west, but China can always switch when the shit hit the fan.

Again,

1.) If you switch supplier, YOU WILL HAVE TO SUSPEND production operation until new supplier is found and then can be re-integrated with your original production line. This is very basic like changing a tap in your bathroom, you need to shut off water supply for a while and then. take the old tap out and put a new one in, you still don't have access to water during that period.

2.) How do your new source accommodate your need? You need to know they all produce a certain limit of their product enough to supply their current contract, how do they accommodate you when you open a new account? It's not like they can hold off sending those resource that was contracted to other country and divert them to you, It's not like Russia can say "Let stop supplying Iron to India and Iran and send all those to China" They have a contracted obligation to fulfill and increase production and refining raw material take times. Take Russia for an example, just because China buy more oil and gas does not mean their infrastructure is able to cope with the increased demand, and you can't expand your capability overnight.

3.) You are talking about a war scenario. Which mean this is not going to be normal production output, this is going to be a both intensive demand with time sensitive request. What is the "acceptable" amount of time for your troop to wait for the delay? 4 hours? 1 Day? 3 Days? or a Week? As a person who fought in frontline, I can tell you this, I want those supplies come in yesterday, not today, if you know what I mean.

 

[beijingwalker]

Again,

1.) If you switch supplier, YOU WILL HAVE TO SUSPEND production operation until new supplier is found and then can be re-integrated with your original production line. This is very basic like changing a tap in your bathroom, you need to shut off water supply for a while and then. take the old tap out and put a new one in, you still don't have access to water during that period.

2.) How do your new source accommodate your need? You need to know they all produce a certain limit of their product enough to supply their current contract, how do they accommodate you when you open a new account? It's not like they can hold off sending those resource that was contracted to other country and divert them to you, It's not like Russia can say "Let stop supplying Iron to India and Iran and send all those to China" They have a contracted obligation to fulfill and increase production and refining raw material take times. Take Russia for an example, just because China buy more oil and gas does not mean their infrastructure is able to cope with the increased demand, and you can't expand your capability overnight.

3.) You are talking about a war scenario. Which mean this is not going to be normal production output, this is going to be a both intensive demand with time sensitive request. What is the "acceptable" amount of time for your troop to wait for the delay? 4 hours? 1 Day? 3 Days? or a Week? As a person who fought in frontline, I can tell you this, I want those supplies come in yesterday, not today, if you know what I mean.

Do you know just two decades ago China was still a resources export country? China is big and has lots of resources, the reason why China lacks them is because China became the factory of the world and we have to mass produce everything for the whole world. In a war scenario, these civil and export manufacturing will be stop and at least cut to the level of maintaining just minimum operationn, the country will be mobillized to pivot to just military industries, by then, do you still think China needs 60% of the world total steell as she needs now?
China herself also has lots of resources but mining them now cost more than buying them in the world market cause they are very cheap in the global market, but if it comes to crunch China will definitely tap them.
In short, in a war scenario, China doesn't have to maintain this world factory scale to provide this planet, the resources are enough just for China's millitary and basic civil manufacturing goods production.

And I guess our enemy will have way more problems to support and sustain themselve than us

 

[jhungary]

Do you know just two decades ago China was still a resources export country? China is big and has lots of resources, the reason why China lacks them is because China became the factory of the world and we have to mass produce everything for the whole world. In a war scenario, these civil and export manufacturing will be stop and at least cut to the level of maintaining just minimum operationn, the country will be mobillized to pivot to just military industries, by then, do you still think China needs 60% of the world total steell as she needs now?
China herself also has lots of resources but mining them now cost more than buying them in the world market cause they are very cheap in the global market, but if it comes to crunch China will definitely tap them.
In short, in a war scenario, China doesn't have to maintain this world factory scale to provide this planet, the resources are enough just for China's millitary and basic civil manufacturing goods production.

And I guess our enemy will have way more problems to support and sustain themselve than us

How that's change any of the stuff that I said, all it say is you can wean yourself off by chosing an alternative source, in this case, China, you still have to implement those alternative source to your current production pipeline.

I mean unless you can claim China can build a mine and start refining those "untapped" resources immediately as in a complete steel rod or aluminum bar will appear at an instant, what I said still stands. You will still need to shut down production of whatever you are producing during the switch. And the time of that delay depends on the source availability, quality of the replacement and the quantity of the replacement.

 

[beijingwalker]

How that's change any of the stuff that I said, all it say is you can wean yourself off by chosing an alternative source, in this case, China, you still have to implement those alternative source to your current production pipeline.

I mean unless you can claim China can build a mine and start refining those "untapped" resources immediately as in a complete steel rod or aluminum bar will appear at an instant, what I said still stands. You will still need to shut down production of whatever you are producing during the switch. And the time of that delay depends on the source availability, quality of the replacement and the quantity of the replacement.

When 99% of the manufacturing sector is closed and cut to the bones, the resources they consume will also be cut over 70-80%, so even China doesn't find get any new channels for resources at all, the resources China is mining today will be more than enough to keep China's military industry going. and unlike the unplanned west, China always has backup plans and projects for potential disruptions. never underestimate China's ability when it comes to national mobilisation for a single purpose, something that the west can never match up to.
And don't forget, in a war scenario, our enemy's supply chain will also be disrupted and they suffer worse than us.

 

[jhungary]

When 99% of the manufacturing sector is closed and cut to the bones, the resources they consume will also be cut over 70-80%, so even China doesn't find get any new channels for resources at all, the resources China is mining today will be more than enough to keep China's military industry going. and unlike the unplanned west, China always has backup plans and projects for potential disruptions. never underestimate China's ability when it comes to national mobilisation for a single purpose, something that the west can never match up to.
And don't forget, in a war scenario, our enemy's supply chain will also be disrupted and they suffer worse than us.

Well, first of all, good luck shutting down the ENTIRE country just to wage war. I can tell you this, that had done a few times before, but never any good result.

Second of all, have I been talking to myself?? I already said IF YOU CAN FIND ALTERNATIVE SOURCE. That does not mean changes the source will not need to bring down the production line now. I mean you still need to consider the quality of the resource, oil need to be refined to a certain level, and raw material all have different level of concentration. It's not like you dump an Australia Bauxite and you will yield the same level or even quality of Aluminium as you dumping a Chinese Bauxite in the refineries. Same with Iron Ore, same with pretty much everything.

On the other hand, there is a reason why China don't use their resource in many of those issue and why they are more expensive than they are buying from overseas, care to have a guess??