1.) I know the losses were exceptionally high during the last weeks. They were meant to resemble the shock and chaos the initial stages of a massive counteroffensive can cause to a suprised defender. However, I would assume that the Chinese offensive is losing some of it's momentun pretty soon. In fact the hilly and mountainious terrain we are fighting in now, is an advantage to the defender and will be helpful for ambushes and to slow down the Chinese advance.
Concerning the Chinese casualties I have no figures, I would assume they are between 1.5x and 2.5x higher than those of Chosen (manpower wise).
That's true - China is going to face the mountain country pretty soon, and that will reduce both their advantage in armour and airpower. Moreover, as it's now the end of October, the malicious Korean winter is going to start to play its part in eliminating aircover.
I can probably see that China's casualties are 1.5x-2x times higher than Chosen's; at first they were sucker-punched (with surprise taking it's toll) and major units on the border overwhelmed and lost. And now they're on the offensive again, taking casualties at a higher rate. I do think that points to an inability by China's field commanders to put their numerically-superior forces into play in a way that eliminates the defenders' advantages.
Though I don't think it's ever been specifically stated, I suppose I have a presumption that the average divisions fielded by Chosen and China are
probably very closely equivalent in skill and general levels of equipment - although I'd probably give a hair of edge to China, as their troops have seen a number of combats within the last twenty years.
2.) I agree with you that the losses sustained at this moment are crippling to some extend. I have not worked out domestic production figures in detail but I would assume the domestic tank production is somewhere between 100 and 130 tanks of all types per month.
Errrm, if you say so. I feel that is an optimistic figure - it's just slightly fewer tanks than Germany built during 1940, and Germany is a pretty hefty industrial power with four times the population. I'd have suspected something more along the lines of twenty to twenty-five tanks per month of all types, myself, rising slowly - perhaps as high as your suggested figure - over the course of two to three years, presuming the factories aren't being bombed into rubble. (For disclosure, in mid 1942, France was in the middle of a massive replacement of the equipment of their armoured forces, and manufactured between 160-180 tanks per month, essentially about the same wartime rate they managed during the course of early 1940. In more recent years, it's been more like sixty tanks a month, including those manufactured for export.) But if that's what you say, okay then.
I think the most critical factor, is the complete air superiority of the Chinese. Then can and will wreck havoc, especially against a disorganized enemy in full retreat.
Yes, absolutely. It would appear Chosen has continued to make some efforts to contest the airspace (witness the aircraft losses), but China's dominance in the air gives them a pretty hefty tool, should they be able to use it. Experience in Wesworld does strongly indicate that when one side has air dominance, the results on the ground are absolutely decisive.
The belief that the injection of under-trained or untrained recruits into a formation that has gained "combat experience" and suffered heavy casualties in the process is chimerical. Such a process requires time - time for the lessons of combat to be absorbed, time for officers and non-commissioned officers to be replaced, time to impart the lessons to the replacements made available. "Experienced" NCOs might be able to replace platoon commanders, but the losses in company and field officers will be much harder to replace. That too takes time; and it is unlikely that the Chinese will allow Chosen the time. It cannot be done in combat without loss of efficiency.
I think I agree with Bruce on this one. Yes, Chosen's survivors will be battle-trained and ready, but the current formations largely seem to be in a state of exhaustion. I've read about the US Army's experience in bringing together new recruits and combat veterans. It struck me that the veterans, particularly those of vicious actions, are very remote to the new recruits: there is a feeling that "I don't want to form friendships with these noobs - they're just going to die horribly like all my previous friends who didn't survive." If I understand it correctly, the US Army tended to disband units which were heavily-hit, simply because the veterans couldn't cope with integrating new recruits very well. (Conversely, the Germans, due to Hitler's maniac orders, never disbanded units even when they were bled to a third or more of their original strength.)
During my occasional articles going back to detail incidents during the Andean War, the Chilean Army did in fact put new soldiers into battle-hardened units to replace casualties. The differences in that case are perhaps rather striking. When a Chilean battalion suffered casualties or stayed "on the front" for a week or two, it was pulled back, brought back up to strength, and rested over the course of weeks (often engaging in field exercises to help integrate the new troops). Hard-hit units were pulled back to guard supply lines and rear-echelon areas, often for months at a time, as they recovered their strength and integrated new soldiers. While this resulted in Chilean Army units being spread thinly through the battlespace, and open to defeat-in-detail, air superiority, logistics, terrain, and a variety of other factors all played into the stratagem's success.