This is just the baseless and meaningless assertions with no numbers and facts to back it up again.If your typing was read by volume, it would be hysterical shouting ranted out by a child. Where are your numbers and where is your logic, child? 

In my shop: we call that all mouth and no results . We would send you out to calm down after one of us chewed ypu put for incompetence, then the adults (us) would fix the problem you couldn't solve with your tantrum. 

 

Sheesh, talk about unprofessional. When I lose my temper and chew someone out, I tell him exactly how he screwed up.

 

Like here when you try to bring upm rockets about which you know nothing. and machine gins about which I begin to think all you genuinely kno0w is how you pull the trigger and clean. You certainly don't know the forst thing about stabilization issues or BALLISTICS.

 

I think the more you post your rants, and assertions, the more childlike and less credible you become. You really need to sit back and let the aduhylts debate this amateur. This is clearly out of your league.

 

.

 

 

 

 

  .  

 

 

 

 

First, I think your point about Chinese reaction to U.S. forces on Taiwan is interesting.  I don't know enough to judge it, but I suspect it certainly might factor into the overall political limitations that would surely be in effect holding us back from thoroughly trashing China.

 

Second, I concur completely with GF 's observations.

 

Finally, while I will stress that I am very confident that if we are allowed to decide for ourselves when the war is over, and don't quit too soon, then there is no way China can take and hold Taiwan, and I agree that their amphibious assault capability to get AFVs and heavy equipment (arty, etc.) ashore is indeed relatively limited,... but it is potentially more than commonly believed.  For one thing, there are many dozens/couple hundred smallish landing craft capable of taking an AFV or two across the strait that are not typically acknowledged in open source OBs.  Of course, mobilizing them may likely give us some indications and warning of an impending operation, so their use has a potential down-side for them.  Furthermore, while I realize a mass of riflemen without any heavier support, other than what they can carry, are prime candidates for becoming automatic cannon fodder, still, there's no doubt that China could send vast swarms of riflemen ashore if they chose to, and that's not nothing.  If America stayed out of it, I'm not confident at all that Taiwan could stop even an invasion geared to succeed as rapidly as possible--and obviously a theoretical long term war that somehow only involves China and Taiwan and is fought without time limits until one side is vanquished can only end with final Chinese victory.

 

Herald,  I have to admire your bold vision for taking the fight to the enemy.  I'm still not sure it's not too reckless, and I'm quite dubious that such risky forward basing would be allowed politically for fear of suffering politically (or even militarily) unacceptable losses, but it certainly presents the potential for rapidly smashing the PLA.

 

What total rubbish.  To say "do not have to operate" is to just about say nothing.  In any case the library at the Command and General Staff College, Ft Leavenworth, is called the Combined Arms Research Library.  The Command and General Staff College is one of 11 major organizations at Ft Leavenworth under the United States Army Combined Arms Center.  The US Army seems a tad focused upon modern warfare being combined arms warfare. 

 

Combined arms did not go away with the end of the Cold War nor is it relegated to "conventional" warfare.  Combined arms is the gravity that holds warfare together.  An infantry centric tactical or operational level force does not eliminate the central focus of combined arms- to include not just the infantry but any armor, recon, artillery, AT, AA, combat engineers, helicopters, and possible close air support.

 

Combined arms has existed since the dawn of warfare and those who ignore this do so at their peril.  Infantry in the US Army always operate as part of a combined arms force.  This is operational art 101.  While it might not be that apparent at plat or company level this is the basic reality of warfare.

 

You're not the first infantry fanboy, nor hundredth for that matter, I've heard this single arm of service is dominant line from and I've heard it from O6s who never left the branch in their career and general officers; however, you are the first to propose the notion that combined arms is "Cold War" or "conventional" thinking.  One might be forgiven for a bit of hubris or hyperbole regarding the infantry during a counter insurgency but denying the basic parameters of warfare is a bit over the top even for me. 

 

As an aside the most infantry centric force in the history of warfare is the USMC where every marine is considered a rifleman.  The Corp worships the rifleman and is entirely constructed to support the rifle plat, company, and battalion.  There is not a lot of structure in the ground forces that even allows anything but an infantry centric force.  The USMC is infantry heaven as the religion is the worship of the infantry.  Combined arms is drilled into it's commanders and this is reflected in training, doctrine and organization.  To deny the primacy and central importance of combined arms in warfare is to be kind not a supportable position.

 

In any case much of the Combined Arms Research Library is online.  Feel free to cite supporting evidence for your notion.  My world view does not include as factual the idea that combined arms is not relevant at times nor that air superiority is not the primary factor that enables the rest of the US military to wage war.  It might not seem that way when the other guy hasn't an air force but gravity still works even when you are comfortably sitting down.

 

 

 

You are clearly not understanding what I'm telling you. I'm telling you what actual war is like and not these theories from the internet. This is first person infantry experience so if you think it's in anyway "fanboy" then nothing I say is going to change your mind. We will just have to agree to disagree.

-DA 

Missed the POINT again, "rocket expert".. 

No, and you would be well advised to shut up and listen. Of course you wont since you choose to comment on things you have no experience with but just the same. You have no idea whatsoever what I relied on or how we did what we did.

-DA