JSouthworth wrote:

The Xinjiang (Sinkiang) region of China has historically been targeted for Russian territorial expansion, the Russians have encouraged seperatist movements among the ethnic minority populatioons there.

BOYS, BOYS...

The Sino-Soviet split ended formally with Mao and Gorbachev shaking hands and recently reinforced by Putin showing up in support of China at the Winter Olympics. China not about to attack Russia. But please don't let that stop the entertaining colloquy of a rank amateur and a delusional fantasist.

Note to Tony: how's that mental decline going?

"...and possibly the world would kind of be rejoice hoping they would wreck each other while just sat back and watched."

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Tony From Syracuse wrote:


I dont know...."Mental decline" seems to be a democrat thing as of late. lmao

HA. As you never fail to disappoint. Keep it up.

And we know your mind wanders, but this thread is about China and TAIWAN.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
I know I was responding to Focuspullers "mental decline" comment and it initiated an obvious rebuttal.

try and keep up.

Yes you should try it sometime. Like knowing who you are responding to. 😂😂😂

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Forgive me for doubting your math.  None of that supports your contention.   How much weight is in each deck structure, motors, fuel, superstructure.  If you want to know how thick the armor is, then look it up instead of fantasizing that you have the ability to make such a deduction.   On the New Jersey the main deck was 53,000 square feet of teak, and we all know that will stop a cruise missile!

You show me where you got your data from.  But you don't have time to do your own research, so I doubt anything you claim to be fact is true.

Part of the Graf Spree's defense was speed and what she lacked in speed, she hoped to make up for in guns.  But she was damaged and needed significant repair, which lead to her being scuttled.   She was damaged by cruisers.  She didn't last very long once the fighting started.  How does this bolster your case?  You are talking about ships of their own time fighting other ships similarly outfitted.  Your argument has been about ships of the past being outfitted to fight ships of this time, claiming their superiority in armor outweighs all other factors.  But you can't prove it and you just go further off into fantasy land with each post.

Also, now you are admitting that a smaller ship would be suitable.  But we are talking about defending Taiwan.  Do you have any pocket battleships to resurrect?  No one is going to start building any type of WW2 battleship from scratch nor are they going to resurrect any that happen to be laying about, because everyone but you lives in a real world where these things are thought out by bright people and tested by experienced people.

That would be 53,000 square feet of teak with 38mm of steel armor underneath, teak being a better surface to walk on than wet steel. The main armor deck below that is 6 inches thick, below that is a 16mm thick splinter deck. So there are three armor decks over the critical spaces. 38mm of armor steel would probably be enough to stop a conventional cruise missile.

The story of the Graf Spee is quite well known, that ship didn't have a very long or successful career although severe damage was inflicted on British cruisers during the Battle of the River Plate. The damage to Graf Spee was minor in comparison. Her sister ship Admiral Scheer saw extensive action before and during WW2 before finally being sunk in Kiel harbour by RAF bombers in 1945, the remains are now buried under a quay which was constructed after the war. During the Spanish Civil War, the class name ship Deutschland (later renamed Lutzow) was hit by a 500 lb bomb from a Spanish Republican Air Force bomber which penetrated the unarmoured upper deck and exploded on the armor deck below that, causing non-critical damage.

Wikipedia classifies these ships as cruisers as do most other sources. The Germans referred to them as Panzerschiff, armoured ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cr … ral_Scheer

If you want a ship mainly to provide fire support to amphibious landings and operations on land, high speed is not essential, but armor protection probably is, because the ship will be under fire from enemy artillery, air and missile strikes. A shallow draft would be an advantage in making it possible to get in close to shore and into rivers.

The Iowa class were designed to combat Japanese battleships, but were actually used mainly as escorts for the Essex class fleet carriers, because they had the speed to keep up with them unlike the older, slower battleships.

JSouthworth wrote:
If you want a ship mainly to provide fire support to amphibious landings and operations on land, high speed is not essential, but armor protection probably is, because the ship will be under fire from enemy artillery, air and missile strikes. A shallow draft would be an advantage in making it possible to get in close to shore and into rivers.

The Iowa class were designed to combat Japanese battleships, but were actually used mainly as escorts for the Essex class fleet carriers, because they had the speed to keep up with them unlike the older, slower battleships.

All of which makes resurrected Iowa class battleships in no way appropriate for the defense of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

JSouthworth wrote:

Cool.  You did research.  But there is still one important thing you have not researched and you are battling against.  Until you present evidence of that item and provide sufficient arguments to counter act it, you will not and cannot succeed, even if the rest of us sit here and say nothing.  Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view. 

Good luck.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Cool.  You did research.  But there is still one important thing you have not researched and you are battling against.  Until you present evidence of that item and provide sufficient arguments to counter act it, you will not and cannot succeed, even if the rest of us sit here and say nothing.  Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view. 

Good luck.

The reason given by the US Navy was that the supply of barrel liners for the 16 inch guns had been exhausted, but this turned out not to be true.

JSouthworth wrote:
The reason given by the US Navy was that the supply of barrel liners for the 16 inch guns had been exhausted, but this turned out not to be true.

Just to be clear.  The Navy gave a massively long list of fundamental logistical problems as reasons, only one of which was the barrel liners.

Overall, there were a long list of reasons against (including logistics, manpower, usefulness and being a sheer "moneypit"), versus a very short list of reasons to go forward, none of which were all that critical.   Plus, it really didn't fit in with their view of how future wars would play out.

LightDreams wrote:

Just to be clear.  The Navy gave a massively long list of fundamental logistical problems as reasons, only one of which was the barrel liners.

Overall, there were a long list of reasons against (including logistics, manpower, usefulness and being a sheer "moneypit"), versus a very short list of reasons to go forward, none of which were all that critical.   Plus, it really didn't fit in with their view of how future wars would play out.

And I am sure the Chinese are breathing a giant sigh of relief that the US Navy won't be deploying a WWII museum piece in defense of Taiwan.

JSouthworth wrote:

The reason given by the US Navy was that the supply of barrel liners for the 16 inch guns had been exhausted, but this turned out not to be true.

I said, "Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view."  Notice that the qualifiers of arguments and points of view are both plural. 

If you can't be honest, then stop.

Better yet, stop any way.

LnN Studio wrote:
Being from NJ and living a few miles from where the New Jersey is docked I have had the opportunity to tour the ship, most impressive ship. On one tour someone asked about the gas milage and was a told to get from the dock to the Ben Franklin Bridge, perhaps 1 mile or less would take 1,000 gals.

Considering the crew required, time to make the ships seaworthy and the crew combat ready I  think it unrealistic and we may not have the time to do so.

As I said previously the island cannot be defended, it may not be able to defend itself even if given all the military weapons they want. Should the US go to war with China at best the outcome would be in doubt and according to one Four Star who had participated in war-gameing it none of the exercises were encouraging. Mainland China is less than 100 miles from the shore of Taiwan. From the US Taiwan is over 7,000 miles. Which supply line would you want supporting you?

Several problems with this analysis.

" the island cannot be defended,"

If this were literally true, China would have taken over the island years ago. That it has not is indicative of the reality of an actual invasion:

The example of Putin's miscalculation in Ukraine is salient. Massive Russia literally abuts smaller Ukraine and with a larger military. What is demonstrably more important is the quality of leadership, training and morale of troops. China's military is untested other than war-games, and Taiwan's forces would be fighting for their homeland, as in Ukraine.

"Mainland China is less than 100 miles from the shore of Taiwan. From the US Taiwan is over 7,000 miles. "

Not relevant. There are major US bases in the region - Japan, South Korea, Guam, etc. Supplying directly from US mainland is not a factor. How far was the US mainland from Japan in WWII? From Europe?

That  "100 miles from the shore of Taiwan" may seem like can advantage to China - it is not so simple. That is one hundred miles of unprotected, open sea with no natural protection whatsoever, susceptible to aerial bombardment and other interdictions.

And again, the international repercussions to China economically in an attempted military annexation of Taiwan will likely give leader for life Xi pause, at least for the foreseeable future.

Finally, Xi surely has noted the results of the midterm elections, with Putin's great hope of weakening America and the West by an alliance with trump,  Biden's hand is strengthened  and trump-induced American chaos and weakness attenuated if not reversed, making US resolve on Taiwan more certain.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

I said, "Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view."  Notice that the qualifiers of arguments and points of view are both plural. 

If you can't be honest, then stop.

Better yet, stop any way.

That is the reason they gave for decommissioning the ships, that the supply of barrel liners was exhausted. Then it turned out that there was a field full of them that they'd overlooked.

As to what the real reasons might have been, I'm not sure but I think they'd prefer to spend money on new construction, because that creates jobs and buys political favors.

LnN Studio wrote:
Being from NJ and living a few miles from where the New Jersey is docked I have had the opportunity to tour the ship, most impressive ship. On one tour someone asked about the gas milage and was a told to get from the dock to the Ben Franklin Bridge, perhaps 1 mile or less would take 1,000 gals.

Considering the crew required, time to make the ships seaworthy and the crew combat ready I  think it unrealistic and we may not have the time to do so.

As I said previously the island cannot be defended, it may not be able to defend itself even if given all the military weapons they want. Should the US go to war with China at best the outcome would be in doubt and according to one Four Star who had participated in war-gameing it none of the exercises were encouraging. Mainland China is less than 100 miles from the shore of Taiwan. From the US Taiwan is over 7,000 miles. Which supply line would you want supporting you?

The biggest warship I've personally seen is HMS Belfast in London, a cruiser with 6 inch guns so I imagine the New Jersey would be impressive.
Fuel economy is not a strong point of the design, the steam propulsion system uses boilers operating at relatively low pressure, 600 psi which makes it less efficent than modern steam plant operating at double that pressure or more. Even so this is one of the most powerful ships ever built with 212,000 shp. The unrefuelled range can be up to 17,000 miles at 15 knots, much less at higher speeds. The German Deutschland class with diesel engines had a maximum range of 20,000 miles at 13 knots.

As a general rule, to double the speed of a ship requires eight times the power at the propellers, so fuel economy and range are better at lower speeds.

One of the major aims of US foreign policy has been to avoid a war on the Asian mainland, because of the logistical problem which was apparent in both Korea and Vietnam. The Chinese clearly have an advantage in that respect. I think you're right about the island defending itself, this is the capability the Taiwanese military aim to have.

When it comes to defending the ability of Taiwan to conduct trade with other countries, then the support of the US will continue to be necessary.

JSouthworth wrote:
That is the reason they gave for decommissioning the ships, that the supply of barrel liners was exhausted. Then it turned out that there was a field full of them that they'd overlooked.

As to what the real reasons might have been, I'm not sure but I think they'd prefer to spend money on new construction, because that creates jobs and buys political favors.

I said, "Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view."  Notice that the qualifiers of arguments and points of view are both plural. 

If you can find the deck thicknesses of the ships in question, you can find the reasons the Navy gave in opposition to using them.  The reasons ships were decommissioned are not necessarily the reason the ship should not be recommissioned.  Deflecting is not honest.

BTW, I would like to see your source for your claim that the deck on an Iowa is sufficient to stop a modern cruise missile.  I would also like to know what proof you have for the hull being sufficient to stop an anti-ship missile.  Naval guns were meant to penetrate from above.  They fired those guns at maximum elevation for the range.   Therefore, the sides of the ship were susceptible to torpedoes, but less likely to be struck by a falling projectile.  Cruise missiles can attack the sides of the ship.  ie., USS Stark- which was hit on the port side by two Exocet missiles, the first of which did not detonate and still caused extensive damage due to the fire it caused.

You are also ignoring the counter argument that should the armament on the Iowas be sufficient to prevent catastrophic damage to the ship from current weapons, that the enemy would simply make adjustments to the weapons available, and/or make new weapons capable of inflicting significant damage.

If you can't be honest and debate the concept with facts and reasonable counter arguments based on more than your opinion, then stop. 

Better yet, stop any way.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I said, "Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view."  Notice that the qualifiers of arguments and points of view are both plural. 

If you can find the deck thicknesses of the ships in question, you can find the reasons the Navy gave in opposition to using them.  The reasons ships were decommissioned are not necessarily the reason the ship should not be recommissioned.  Deflecting is not honest.

BTW, I would like to see your source for your claim that the deck on an Iowa is sufficient to stop a modern cruise missile.  I would also like to know what proof you have for the hull being sufficient to stop an anti-ship missile.  Naval guns were meant to penetrate from above.  They fired those guns at maximum elevation for the range.   Therefore, the sides of the ship were susceptible to torpedoes, but less likely to be struck by a falling projectile.  Cruise missiles can attack the sides of the ship.  ie., USS Stark- which was hit on the port side by two Exocet missiles, the first of which did not detonate and still caused extensive damage due to the fire it caused.

You are also ignoring the counter argument that should the armament on the Iowas be sufficient to prevent catastrophic damage to the ship from current weapons, that the enemy would simply make adjustments to the weapons available, and/or make new weapons capable of inflicting significant damage.

If you can't be honest and debate the concept with facts and reasonable counter arguments based on more than your opinion, then stop. 

Better yet, stop any way.

Modern anti-ship missiles have blast/fragmentation warheads which are fused to explode a fraction of a second after impact, when it is assumed that the missile and warhead will have penetrated into the target ship, but the warhead itself is only designed to penetrate the standard thickness of mild steel plating used in ship construction, about one inch of steel plating.

To pentrate thick steel armor the warhead, or shell must be designed to withstand the stresses imposed, so for example the 16 inch AP Mark 8 shell for the 16 inch Mark 7 gun is almost all steel, the explosive charge is 41 lb out of a total weight of 2,700 lbs.

It is possible to design a supersonic anti ship missile with an armor piercing warhead to defeat thick armor, but it would be inefficient against unarmored targets.

In WW2 the USS Arizona, the Italian battleship Roma, and the German battleship Tirpitz were sunk by armor piercing bombs (a German PC1400 guided bomb in the case of the Roma).

Experiments with current missiles including the US Harpoon and French Exocet have shown that they do not penetrate thick armor.

JSouthworth wrote:
Modern anti-ship missiles have blast/fragmentation warheads which are fused to explode a fraction of a second after impact, when it is assumed that the missile and warhead will have penetrated into the target ship, but the warhead itself is only designed to penetrate the standard thickness of mild steel plating used in ship construction, about one inch of steel plating.

To pentrate thick steel armor the warhead, or shell must be designed to withstand the stresses imposed, so for example the 16 inch AP Mark 8 shell for the 16 inch Mark 7 gun is almost all steel, the explosive charge is 41 lb out of a total weight of 2,700 lbs.

It is possible to design a supersonic anti ship missile with an armor piercing warhead to defeat thick armor, but it would be inefficient against unarmored targets.

In WW2 the USS Arizona, the Italian battleship Roma, and the German battleship Tirpitz were sunk by armor piercing bombs (a German PC1400 guided bomb in the case of the Roma).

Experiments with current missiles including the US Harpoon and French Exocet have shown that they do not penetrate thick armor.

(Three minutes to Wapner)

Thanks for the obsessive trivia dump irrelevant to the suitability of Iowa class battleships in defending a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, which remains, despite your WWII and other obsessions, unproven.

TWO MINUTES TO WAPNER.

JSouthworth wrote:
Modern anti-ship missiles have blast/fragmentation warheads which are fused to explode a fraction of a second after impact, when it is assumed that the missile and warhead will have penetrated into the target ship, but the warhead itself is only designed to penetrate the standard thickness of mild steel plating used in ship construction, about one inch of steel plating.

To pentrate thick steel armor the warhead, or shell must be designed to withstand the stresses imposed, so for example the 16 inch AP Mark 8 shell for the 16 inch Mark 7 gun is almost all steel, the explosive charge is 41 lb out of a total weight of 2,700 lbs.

It is possible to design a supersonic anti ship missile with an armor piercing warhead to defeat thick armor, but it would be inefficient against unarmored targets.

In WW2 the USS Arizona, the Italian battleship Roma, and the German battleship Tirpitz were sunk by armor piercing bombs (a German PC1400 guided bomb in the case of the Roma).

Experiments with current missiles including the US Harpoon and French Exocet have shown that they do not penetrate thick armor.

I said, "I would like to see your source for your claim that the deck on an Iowa is sufficient to stop a modern cruise missile. "  You still need to provide your sources.   IF, what you say is true, then that still doesn't defeat the statement that cruise missile can attack the sides of a ship and you have not provided the armor specs for the hull.  Nor does it defeat the statement "that the enemy would simply make adjustments to the weapons available, and/or make new weapons capable of inflicting significant damage."  In fact, you indicated that the last statement is true, but you dismissed it because such a weapon would be inefficient against OTHER targets. "It is possible to design a supersonic anti ship missile with an armor piercing warhead to defeat thick armor, but it would be inefficient against unarmored targets."  They don't have to build very many anti-battleship cruise missiles.  They only need enough to sink four battleships.  If they have extra, and if the. weapon would sink a battleship, then what the hell, use it on the target that presents itself.  God knows why a weapon that can sink a battleship would not be worth using against aircraft carriers or suspension bridges, but you are the expert. 

I also said, "Therefore, you must present the arguments given by the United States Navy as to why the United States Navy does not want to use Iowa class battleships anymore,  Then defeat those points of view."  Notice that the qualifiers of arguments and points of view are both plural."   You have not done that yet.

If you can't be honest, and you are continuing to present arguments that are not honest, then stop.

Really, just stop anyway.

Focuspuller wrote:

Several problems with this analysis.

" the island cannot be defended,"

If this were literally true, China would have taken over the island years ago. That it has not is indicative of the reality of an actual invasion:

Let me clarify my statement. It cannot be defended from afar, only by assets on the island at the time.

Anyplace can be defended the question is for how long and against what force. China could and can take it at any time it chooses if it intends to sacrifice enough lives ( it doest really care) and if it just wants an uninhabitable rock off it shore. If it wants a place worth having it will continue to play games. China has overwhelming air superiority capabilities, sepecialll if it attacks aircraft on the ground with long range missiles . It has the navy that can easily blockade the island and that can keep Us carrier groups beyond their effective operating range even if their "Carrier killer " missile is myth or ineffective.

Simply put the US and allies in the area do not have the air or naval assets in the area to mount an effective defense or IMO be able to survive. Now if we want to use ICBM we could do it but would LA or NYC survive?

Always best not to get into a fight you might not win and China knows that too.

From what I understand the terrain of the island is and important part of it defense.

Think it is lots of saber rattling and no bloodshed but IF China wants it they will either act  before the election or wait a long, long time.

JSouthworth wrote:
In the Battle of the River Plate between the Admiral Graf Spee and the British cruisers Ajax, Exeter and Achilles the Germans didn't use any of their armor-piercing (AP) shells because they knew they wouldn't be efficient, they'd probably go through the lighly armoured British ships without exploding. So at the end of the engagement they had 200 AP shells left, 16 of the semi-armor piercing HE (base fuse), and 0 HE (nose fuse) out of an inventory of 200 shells of each type.

How is any of this relevant?  What are the USN's reason for not redeploying the battleships?

However, you argue against yourself.  Your claim that inefficient is useless when you say the projectiles would PROBABLY go through the ship without exploding.  PROBABLY!  Don't you think it might have something to do with what they hit on the way through?  Also, because a battleship projectile is designed to hit a target from elevation, not line of sight as we would fire a rifle, a hit that went right through the ship would rupture the hull and corrupt all the watertight compartments the projectile passed through.  The results would be negative for the injured party.

""In the span of thirty minutes, Admiral Graf Spee had hit Exeter three times, disabling her two forward turrets, destroying her bridge and her aircraft catapult, and starting major fires."

To put this in perspective of what you have been saying, if a cruise missile failed to detonate because it was designed to penetrate armor and didn't hit anything hard enough, it is still going to make a mess of the ship as it passes through.  If you think this doesn't matter, then remember, the Graf Spee didn't get sunk by enemy fire.  She put into harbor because she was damaged and needed repairs.  "Most of the hits scored by the British cruisers caused only minor structural and superficial damage, but the oil purification plant, which was required to prepare the diesel fuel for the engines, was destroyed. Her desalination plant and galley were also destroyed, which would have increased the difficulty of a return to Germany. A hit in the bow would also have negatively affected her seaworthiness in the heavy seas of the North Atlantic. Admiral Graf Spee had fired much of her ammunition in the engagement with Harwood's cruisers."

I am also going to point out that we are not limited to the 1940s technology regarding detonation.  We now have secondary detonation systems and proximity detonation systems.  Also, as mentioned with the USS Stark, there is fuel on a cruise missile and that fuel can start significant fires if the missile's structural integrity is compromised as it passes through the hull, decks, and compartments of a ship.

Furthermore, though you use the Graf Spree as an example for your points, you fall short because you also do not discuss the tactical blunders that Langsdorff made in the battle.  Ultimately, the Graf Spee was lost because she was scuttled.

You also argue against yourself because you say that the Graf Spee had armor piercing shells on board.  In other words, the enemy had developed weapons to counter the armor.  Once again, the enemy only has to modify existing weapons to penetrate the armor to sink your battleship.  No one is going to let an invincible asset of the enemy, remain invincible, if they have the wherewithal to develop counter measures.  Look at the tactics of the Russians in Ukraine.  You think that a battleship couldn't be overwhelmed and rendered unfit for battle if the enemy launched a hundred cruise missiles at her in a short time period?  It ain't 1944 anymore!

Every single heavily armored ship that was sunk in battle, was sunk regardless of the armor.

Address the reasons the USN doesn't want the Iowas in active service.  Your arguments are failing consistently.

JSouthworth wrote:
You only have to look at a cutaway drawing of the Harpoon missile to see what would happen it it impacted a 2 or 3 inch thick armor plate at high speed. It doesn't have the structural integrity needed to penetrate that thickness of high strength steel, it would disintegrate. If the warhead exploded the effects would be dissipated.

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ha … d515952797

Most naval histories tend to favor the Royal Navy in the Battle of the River Plate. You would think that with the three to one odds they might have done better.
It goes without saying that Hitler was furious with LLangsdorff over the scuttling of the Graf Spee, he'd have preferred the grand finale with the ship going down with all hands.

That is your source?  Your conjecture which supports your opinion, amazingly enough, from an illustration of the missile?  How about some test data on what the missile is capable of?

I don't care what most historians (I assume you meant to use that word) favor.  The battle was what it was and it doesn't support your argument to bring back battleships.

What Hitler was livid about and what he preferred is irrelevant.

What are the reasons the USN doesn't want to bring back battleships?  Defeat those reasons.

LnN Studio wrote:

Let me clarify my statement. It cannot be defended from afar, only by assets on the island at the time.

Anyplace can be defended the question is for how long and against what force. China could and can take it at any time it chooses if it intends to sacrifice enough lives ( it doest really care) and if it just wants an uninhabitable rock off it shore. If it wants a place worth having it will continue to play games. China has overwhelming air superiority capabilities, sepecialll if it attacks aircraft on the ground with long range missiles . It has the navy that can easily blockade the island and that can keep Us carrier groups beyond their effective operating range even if their "Carrier killer " missile is myth or ineffective.

Simply put the US and allies in the area do not have the air or naval assets in the area to mount an effective defense or IMO be able to survive. Now if we want to use ICBM we could do it but would LA or NYC survive?

Always best not to get into a fight you might not win and China knows that too.

From what I understand the terrain of the island is and important part of it defense.

Think it is lots of saber rattling and no bloodshed but IF China wants it they will either act  before the election or wait a long, long time.

" It has the navy that can easily blockade the island and that can keep Us carrier groups beyond their effective operating range even if their "Carrier killer " missile is myth or ineffective."

The Chinese Navy is untested in battle, and has about 10 years experience even operating aircraft carriers, of which they have maybe three, two being Soviet-era relics. The US Navy has 11 nuclear powered carriers and has 100 years experience in carrier warfare tactics and pilot training. Point being there is no guarantee that  China can keep the Taiwan Strait all to itself during an all out invasion of Taiwan, an operation extremely vulnerable in a 100 mile crossing on open sea, and the build-up for which would be observable by satellite and other surveillance, making surprise impossible.

"Always best not to get into a fight you might not win and China knows that too."

Which is why, after the Russian debacle in Ukraine, based on similar assumptions, an invasion of Taiwan is extremely unlikely.

Focuspuller wrote:

" It has the navy that can easily blockade the island and that can keep Us carrier groups beyond their effective operating range even if their "Carrier killer " missile is myth or ineffective."

The Chinese Navy is untested in battle, and has about 10 years experience even operating aircraft carriers, of which they have maybe three, two being Soviet-era relics. The US Navy has 11 nuclear powered carriers and has 100 years experience in carrier warfare tactics and pilot training. Point being there is no guarantee that  China can keep the Taiwan Strait all to itself during an all out invasion of Taiwan, an operation extremely vulnerable in a 100 mile crossing on open sea, and the build-up for which would be observable by satellite and other surveillance, making surprise impossible.

"Always best not to get into a fight you might not win and China knows that too."

Which is why, after the Russian debacle in Ukraine, based on similar assumptions, an invasion of Taiwan is extremely unlikely.

Is the subject the ability to successfully defend Taiwan or the probability of a Chinese invasion? I agree it is not likely, nor is    it the likely tactic. The only way to defend the island id from the island before an attack.

Yes the Navy is untested but untested does not mean ineffective  and yes we have 11 carriers but how many are deployed at full combat readiness in the pacific? How many are e willing to put at risk? Has there ever been a war game where a favorable outcome was the result. From what I hear the answer to that is probably no.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:

Is the subject the ability to successfully defend Taiwan or the probability of a Chinese invasion? I agree it is not likely, nor is    it the likely tactic. The only way to defend the island id from the island before an attack.

Yes the Navy is untested but untested does not mean ineffective  and yes we have 11 carriers but how many are deployed at full combat readiness in the pacific? How many are e willing to put at risk? Has there ever been a war game where a favorable outcome was the result. From what I hear the answer to that is probably no.

Given the uncertainties in any military operation, the best defense against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is eliminating any doubt in Xi's mind what the consequences would be, convincing him not to invade in the first place.

"Has there ever been a war game where a favorable outcome was the result. From what I hear the answer to that is probably no"

As to wargaming a Chinese invasion and US response, for an analysis of recent war-games and discussion of war-games' utility in general, I highly recommend:

"WARGAMING A TAIWAN CRISIS
HOW TO INTERPRET RECENT FINDINGS"

https://uscnpm.org/2022/09/30/wargaming … -findings/

JSouthworth wrote:
You only have to look at a cutaway drawing of the Harpoon missile to see what would happen it it impacted a 2 or 3 inch thick armor plate at high speed. It doesn't have the structural integrity needed to penetrate that thickness of high strength steel, it would disintegrate. If the warhead exploded the effects would be dissipated.

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/ha … d515952797

Most naval histories tend to favor the Royal Navy in the Battle of the River Plate. You would think that with the three to one odds they might have done better.
It goes without saying that Hitler was furious with LLangsdorff over the scuttling of the Graf Spee, he'd have preferred the grand finale with the ship going down with all hands.

If you compare the missile warhead with this diagram of an armor piercing shell, the difference is obvious;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-pi … iagram.jpg

Bob Helm Photography wrote:

Is the subject the ability to successfully defend Taiwan or the probability of a Chinese invasion? I agree it is not likely, nor is    it the likely tactic. The only way to defend the island id from the island before an attack.

Yes the Navy is untested but untested does not mean ineffective  and yes we have 11 carriers but how many are deployed at full combat readiness in the pacific? How many are e willing to put at risk? Has there ever been a war game where a favorable outcome was the result. From what I hear the answer to that is probably no.

The subject is the ability to successfully defend Taiwan. The Chinese Navy has not been involved in a major action, then again when was the last time the US Navy faced serious opposition?

JSouthworth wrote:
The Chinese Navy has not been involved in a major action, then again when was the last time the US Navy faced serious opposition?

The PLA Navy never having been involved in a major action EVER, speaks to the quality and experience of leadership, a MAJOR factor in Putin's fiasco in Ukraine, despite seemingly superior advantage in arms.

And why do you suppose the US Navy has not "faced serious opposition?"

Spoiler........Because there is none.

JSouthworth wrote:
If you compare the missile warhead with this diagram of an armor piercing shell, the difference is obvious;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-pi … iagram.jpg

Obvious?  There are many things that are obvious, but obvious is also a matter of perspective, rather than objective reasoning.  It takes a very cowardly approach to make a pointed statement and not make the argument and depend on the declaration alone of something being obvious. 

As has been pointed out, a ship does not have to be sunk to be rendered unfit for battle.  The fire aboard the Stark and then the destruction of the galley and oil preparation system on Graf Spee is indicative that a ship doesn't have to be sunk. What happens if an enemy fills the warhead of a cruise missile with napalm and engulfs the deck and upper decks with fire.  Would this hinder the ability of the battleship to support the troops on shore?

Check this out
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAO … 6-279R.htm