View attachment 40381
Basically conception of war among some of the members here
BUT ATTRITION WHERE? WHERE IS THE BATTLEFIELD? WHO COMMANDED? WHEN AND HOW LONG?
Do not take statistics purely on numbers, you must take into context the situation there, the geography, the length, the intensity, the GOAL, everything. "40 vehicles per day" are when 1. Both armies are in close proximity to each there, 2. Pitched battle, 3. Conventional warfare. I mean there are MANY factors to put into the equation, not just simply total loss divided by the number of days, but completely disregard the environment we are talking about. When the enemy never ever land, how can we even lose 40 vehicles per day? when they cannot spot us? when they didn't even engage?
No, people don't think about that, they think like the pictures above, 2 armies go straight at each other, and initiate a meat grinder on a sterile space, disregarding any geographical context, simply seeing who can last longer, hence assuming the "attrition rate" is linear.
Then
how are they gonna invade? people here assume PLA the same way people look at Russia today. We know Russia makes mistakes, their invasion didn't go as planned, and they were resisted, so much that it derails their overall effectiveness. That is
if we assume they will invade. In any case of a hypothetical war between China and Indonesia,
CHINA WILL NEVER EVER DEPLOY ALL/ EVERYTHING AT ONCE AT US. It is insane to suggest they will come here with all 2.000.000 troops, all the planes, all the ships, everything. That's not gonna happen because that's simply not how things work! So we are working against a PLA task force, not the entire PLA! and even then amphibious warfare limits the number of troops they can send, heck Russia move along their own land border and could muster at most 200.000, and this and that number of weapons still bogged down. Japanese came here initially with less than 50.000, any hypothetical PLA amphibious invasion will not exceed 100.000. So how can that qualitatively in context still be "
far better"?
PEOPLE SAY WE TAKE ATTRITION, BUT THE ENEMY DON'T TAKE ATTRITION???
If you say there will be attrition, then that would be a bigger problem for the attacker, wtf people see the probability of attrition as only damaging ourselves but not the enemy???????
That is the problem people, you guys only see disadvantages, but always fail to see advantages, that's useless mindset.
