Thanks for posting this summary and analysis, I learned something new about the Taiwanese military today!
In the post you write this about the procurement of new tanks:
These units would be highly vulnerable and are of questionable use in a scenario where the enemy dominates the air. Ukraine has disabled thousands of Russian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles using drones, showing armoured vehicles vulnerability even in a situation where neither side has air superiority.
While it is true that drones, among many other factors, have made armoured vehicles and tanks more vulnerable on the modern battlefield, one would be wise to take note that this has resulted in neither Ukraine nor Russia using less of them. If anything we are seeing heavy reliance on armour for protection on a battlefield shaped by constant surveillance, artillery fire, loitering munitions and combat drones. That being said, we should be careful in drawing lessons from Ukraine and applying them to other contexts. Important factors are vastly different in Taiwan, such as geography, logistics, technology available to both sides in relevant quantities and quality etc.
One interesting thing to note regarding air superiority when looking at the war in Ukraine could be the seeming effectiveness of anti-air systems. On paper the Russian air force vastly outnumbers the Ukrainian, yet they have not been able to establish complete air superiority. On the other hand, we’ve also seen examples of very successful suppression of anti-air capabilities in fairly modern conflicts by a technologically superior attacker, for example during the gulf war or during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
My current take is that specifics and circumstance matter a lot and we should not be too quick to generalise from recent conflicts.
I had a quick peek at your substack and was unable to find anything on your background. I was wondering if you have any expertise or background from military analysis? It’s completely fine if you wish to stay anonymous of course, and I’m not appealing to credentialism either, simply curious :)
I’m also curious if you could point me to what you believe is the strongest case for Taiwan’s current strategy? What are the best arguments and / or proponents for the status quo you know of?
Thanks for your comments. It’s true that both Russian and Ukrainian forces have continued to use armor, but Taiwan has limited funds available to re-equip its forces, and these should be better spent trying to acquire more anti-air capabilities to give its existing tanks and other forces more survivability or more drones to threaten any Chines armor that is able to land.
All militaries struggle to not fight the last war, but to spend $2 billion on American tanks I think it strongly suggests that procurement decisions are being spent on demonstrating a closeness with the US that is not worth the trade-off.
It’s unclear to me why you think the procurement of tanks would demonstrate more of a closeness to the US than any other weapons system purchased from the US? It’s a weird kind of trade-off indeed if they can choose between the US-made patriot launchers (as you suggest) or the US-made Abrams tanks, and they go for the tanks despite a clear military inferiority? I honestly don’t follow the reasoning here.
Hi JKitson!
Thanks for posting this summary and analysis, I learned something new about the Taiwanese military today!
In the post you write this about the procurement of new tanks:
While it is true that drones, among many other factors, have made armoured vehicles and tanks more vulnerable on the modern battlefield, one would be wise to take note that this has resulted in neither Ukraine nor Russia using less of them. If anything we are seeing heavy reliance on armour for protection on a battlefield shaped by constant surveillance, artillery fire, loitering munitions and combat drones. That being said, we should be careful in drawing lessons from Ukraine and applying them to other contexts. Important factors are vastly different in Taiwan, such as geography, logistics, technology available to both sides in relevant quantities and quality etc.
One interesting thing to note regarding air superiority when looking at the war in Ukraine could be the seeming effectiveness of anti-air systems. On paper the Russian air force vastly outnumbers the Ukrainian, yet they have not been able to establish complete air superiority. On the other hand, we’ve also seen examples of very successful suppression of anti-air capabilities in fairly modern conflicts by a technologically superior attacker, for example during the gulf war or during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
My current take is that specifics and circumstance matter a lot and we should not be too quick to generalise from recent conflicts.
I had a quick peek at your substack and was unable to find anything on your background. I was wondering if you have any expertise or background from military analysis? It’s completely fine if you wish to stay anonymous of course, and I’m not appealing to credentialism either, simply curious :)
I’m also curious if you could point me to what you believe is the strongest case for Taiwan’s current strategy? What are the best arguments and / or proponents for the status quo you know of?
Thanks again, I really enjoyed the post!
Hi Hakon,
Thanks for your comments. It’s true that both Russian and Ukrainian forces have continued to use armor, but Taiwan has limited funds available to re-equip its forces, and these should be better spent trying to acquire more anti-air capabilities to give its existing tanks and other forces more survivability or more drones to threaten any Chines armor that is able to land.
All militaries struggle to not fight the last war, but to spend $2 billion on American tanks I think it strongly suggests that procurement decisions are being spent on demonstrating a closeness with the US that is not worth the trade-off.
It’s unclear to me why you think the procurement of tanks would demonstrate more of a closeness to the US than any other weapons system purchased from the US? It’s a weird kind of trade-off indeed if they can choose between the US-made patriot launchers (as you suggest) or the US-made Abrams tanks, and they go for the tanks despite a clear military inferiority? I honestly don’t follow the reasoning here.