Chinese wars

Outside of China, many do not understand how this country is fighting. And this is very important.


Eurocentrism, which, alas, is still obsessed with our society, sometimes makes it difficult to see quite entertaining and instructive historical examples, even recent ones. One such example is the approach of our neighbor, China, to the use of military force. In Russia, it is not customary to think about this, and in many cases, stupid clichés that come from nowhere in the heads of our people interfere soberly with the Chinese: “the Chinese do not know how to fight,” “they can crush the masses, and so on.”

In fact, everything is so different that it cannot even reach a significant number of people. The Chinese approaches to the use of military force are totally different in comparison with what the rest of humanity practices, just as different from the rest of the people (this is a very important remark) are the Chinese themselves.

Combat experience


Let's start with the combat experience. After World War II, the Chinese army was regularly used against other countries.

From 1947 to 1950, the Chinese were engaged in a civil war. I must say that by that time several generations of Chinese were born and died in the war. But the civil war is one thing, but soon after it a completely different thing began.

In 1950, China occupied Tibet, eliminating the local ugly regime. And in the same year, the Chinese military contingent, under the guise of “Chinese People’s Volunteers” (CPV), under the command of the Marshal and future Minister of Defense of the People’s Republic of China Peng Dehuai, attacks the United States and its allies (UN troops) in North Korea.


Famous photo - Chinese units cross the Yalu River. The deployment of Chinese troops in the DPRK their opponent "overslept." Noteworthy is the lack of transport and heavy weapons. But this light infantry will soon take Seoul

As you know, the Chinese threw the UN troops back to the 38th parallel. To assess the significance of this fact, it is necessary to understand that they were opposed by troops with the most advanced military equipment for that time, trained and equipped according to the Western model, having powerful artillery, fully mechanized and possessing air supremacy, which at that time there was simply no one to dispute ( Soviet MiG-15s will appear in the areas bordering China only five days after the start of battles with the Chinese, and they will begin to fight in full force even later).

The Chinese themselves were mostly foot troops with a minimum of horse-drawn vehicles, armed mainly with small arms, with a minimum of mortars and outdated light artillery. There was a critical lack of transport, even horse-drawn, radio communication in the company-battalion link was completely absent, in the link of the battalion-regiment - almost completely. Instead of radio and field phones, the Chinese used foot messengers, horns and gongs.

It would seem that nothing shines for the Chinese, but their blow almost led to the complete defeat of the UN forces and led to the biggest retreat in American military history. Soon, the Chinese with a slowly recovering Korean people's army took Seoul. Then they were knocked out of there and further all the battles went in the vicinity of the 38th parallel.

It is difficult for modern man to appreciate this. The Chinese threw the United States and its allies with all their power literally with their bare hands. Moreover, often they, having neither heavy weapons nor any military equipment, dominated the battlefield. The Chinese were able, for example, to guess the moment of deployment from pre-battle formation to battle and the beginning of a foot attack precisely at the moment when the last rays of the sun disappeared and darkness fell. As a result, they managed to accurately reach the enemy’s location with minimal light and start the attack, and during the attack itself, immediately use the darkness to shelter.

The Chinese fought beautifully at night, circumvented the enemy's defensive positions in complete darkness, attacked without losing ground. Often, after engaging in a twilight battle with the defending enemy, they bypassed it with darkness, breaking through to the positions of artillery, destroying the gun’s calculations and reducing the whole battle to hand-to-hand combat. In hand-to-hand and bayonet attacks, the Chinese were completely superior to the Americans and their allies.

The Chinese introduced a huge mass of organizational and tactical techniques, which to some extent compensated for their lack of heavy weapons and military equipment.

The motivation and training of the Chinese, their ability to camouflage and misinform the enemy, the ability of their commanders to plan military operations and control their progress were sufficient to, together with their numerical superiority and moral readiness, endure huge losses and defeat the enemy, which was armed, organized and equipped one historical era ahead.

Military history knows few such episodes. This is a very important point - the Chinese army defeated US troops with allies on the battlefield and put them to flight. Moreover, the main problems with the inability of the Chinese to advance south of Seoul, after it was taken, lay in the plane of logistics - the Chinese simply could not properly supply their troops at such a distance from their territory, they had practically no transport and among the soldiers a mass phenomenon was starvation death. But they continued to fight, and fought with the utmost tenacity and bitterness.

Fans of the theory that the Chinese do not know how to fight should think about how this was possible.


Marshal Peng Dehuai, one of the prominent commanders in recent history

The ceasefire in Korea, on the one hand, froze the conflict and left Korea divided. At the same time, the threat of defeating the DPRK, which at the end of 1950 already seemed a foregone conclusion, was completely removed.

After Korea, a series of small local wars began. In the fifties, the Chinese waged armed provocations against Taiwan, crushed the rebellion in Tibet by force, attacked Burma in the sixties, forcing its authorities to sever relations with Chinese nationalists, and defeated India in the 1962 border conflict. In 1967, the Chinese re-tested India for strength in the then independent protectorate of Sikkim, but the Indians, as they say, “rested”, and the Chinese, realizing that there would be no easy victory, calmly “recorded a defeat on points” and retreated.

In 1969-1970, China attacked the USSR. Unfortunately, the real content of the conflict hid behind our national mythology. But it was Damansky who most vividly demonstrated the Chinese approach to war.

The analysis of this approach needs to start with the result of the battles, but it is extremely unusual and looks like this: the USSR defeated the Chinese troops on the battlefield utterly, but lost the clash. Interesting, huh?

We list what China received.

1. China has shown that it is no longer a junior partner of the USSR, even nominally. Then the consequences of this were still not clear to anyone, but the future American strategy to pump China money and technology to create a counterweight to the USSR was born out of the Soviet-Chinese clashes on Damansky and later at Lake Zhalanoshkol.

2. China has shown that it is not afraid of a war with nuclear powers. This seriously raised its political weight in the world, in fact, the emergence of China as an independent military-political “center of power” in the world began precisely then.

3. China received a high-tech trophy weapon for study and copying - the T-62 tank. Particularly important for the Chinese was familiarity with the smooth-bore tank gun and all that it gives.

4. China subsequently de facto captured the disputed island. After the collapse of the USSR, this territory became de jure Chinese.

Now let's see what the USSR received.

1. The ability to defeat the Chinese on the battlefield has been proven. But in fact, no one doubted her. This was the only positive outcome of the battles for Damansky.

2. The USSR, constrained by the confrontation with NATO in Europe, actually received a second front. Now it was necessary to prepare also for the confrontation with China. The question of what it cost the Soviet economy and how it influenced the collapse of the USSR has not been studied enough yet, but it has been worth it and it has influenced - it’s unique. Moreover, the behavior of the Soviet military-political leadership in the following years had certain signs of panic.

So, in all seriousness, it was discussed how to stop the Chinese hordes when they go across the border. Barrier lines were created, including using nuclear munitions, new divisions were deployed, and in such numbers that the road network of eastern Siberia and the Far East would never have allowed even half of these troops to maneuver. The Chinese threat even influenced the weapon systems being created, for example, the 30-mm six-barreled gun on the MiG-27 appeared precisely as an answer to the Chinese tank a threat.

All this was worth a lot of resources. The Chinese doctrine with respect to the USSR was defensive to the very end, the Chinese were not going to step on Vladivostok and cut the Trans-Siberian Railway. At least independently, without the help of third countries.

3. The USSR showed that military operations against it are politically possible and, in some cases, permissible. If the Soviet Union had arranged a serious punitive operation against the Chinese, this would not have happened, but the Soviet Union didn’t do anything like that.

4. The disputed territory was eventually lost.

It is unpleasant to admit, but the USSR in that conflict is the losing side, despite the fact that, we repeat, the Chinese troops were defeated. The fact that this is not accidental was shown by the following conflict - the 1979 Vietnam-China War.

The First Socialist War


Unfortunately, we also do not understand this war, in addition, it is seriously mythologized, despite the fact that its course is mainly unknown to the layman. In the case of this war, it makes no sense to retell well-known facts, the course of battles is described in open sources, but it is worth focusing on what is usually missed in Russia.

We often like to say that the Chinese troops were qualitatively inferior to the Vietnamese. This is absolutely true - the Vietnamese were much better in battle.

However, for some reason we don’t remember about this, the Chinese plan of operation reduced the importance of the Vietnamese’s superiority to zero. The Chinese have secured an overwhelming numerical superiority, so large that Vietnam in its northern part could not do anything about it.

We are of the opinion that the regular VNA units did not have time for this war, but this is not so, they were there, just the Vietnamese command did not enter into battle everything that might be caused by poor communications. Parts of at least five regular VNA divisions took part in the battles, from auxiliary divisions converted a combat battalion a year earlier to the fully operational 345th and elite 3rd and 316th infantry divisions, which, although they proved to be first-class formations in battles, with Chinese numerical superiority, they could not do anything, they could only inflict losses on the Chinese, but the Chinese were indifferent to the losses.

It is known that Deng Xiaoping, the “father” of this war, wanted to “punish” Vietnam for invading Cambodia (Cambodia) and cooperating with the USSR. But for some reason, the fact that the Chinese did it in the end disappeared from the domestic consciousness - Vietnam received a very painful blow to the economy of the northern provinces, the Chinese destroyed absolutely the entire infrastructure there, blew up all the housing in some areas, stole all livestock, and even in some places the forces of special teams caught all the fish from the lakes. North Vietnam was literally beaten to the skin and then recovered for a long time.

Deng Xiaoping wanted to hit the "tentacles" (as he called it) of the USSR - and hit, the whole world saw that Soviet allies could be attacked, and the USSR would tolerate this, limiting itself to military supplies. This was the beginning of the end for the USSR.

Were the Chinese troops defeated? No.

The Chinese due to numerical superiority won all the main fights. And they left after they faced a choice - to move further to the south of Vietnam, where troops from Cambodia had already been massively transferred and where the units withdrawn from under Chinese attacks were concentrated, or to leave. If the Chinese went further, they would engage in a full-scale war with parts of the VNA, and the further south they advance, the more narrow the front would be and the smaller the Chinese superiority would be.

Vietnam could enter its battle Aviation, and China would have nothing to answer, in those years, Chinese fighters basically did not even have air-to-air missiles, none at all. Attempts to fight with Vietnamese pilots in the sky would be a beating for the Chinese. A partisan movement would inevitably begin in the rear, moreover, it had already begun in fact. The war could take a protracted character, and in the future the USSR could still intervene in it. All this was not necessary for Deng Xiaoping, who had not yet finished his struggle for power, as a result, the Chinese declared themselves winners and retreated, having plundered everything that they could reach. The retreat of the Chinese was their own decision, the result of a risk calculation. They were not forced out of Vietnam by force.

Let's see what China got from this war.

1. A powerful “slap in the face” was given to the USSR, which did not fight for an ally. In truth, in conditions where there are Vietnamese fighters on the spot, and at the airfields of the Far East Tu-95 and 3M refueling tanks, the Chinese in Vietnam should have been bombed at least a little, at least for demonstrative purposes. That did not happen. The cooling between Vietnam and the USSR after this war was inevitable, and in the mid-eighties it happened.

2. All the expansionist plans of the Vietnamese, who tried on the role of a regional power, were buried. Convinced of the reality of the Chinese threat, Vietnam began to curtail its foreign operations in the 80s, and completely completed them by the beginning of the 90s. It must be said that later on the border and in the South China Sea, China constantly reminded Vietnam of its dissatisfaction with Vietnamese politics. The constant Chinese attacks ended only when Vietnam ended all attempts to establish regional dominance, and the USSR collapsed. In 1988, the Chinese again attacked Vietnam, capturing a group of islands in the Spratly archipelago, just as in 1974 they captured the Paracel Islands, which belonged to South Vietnam. Now Hanoi is almost completely reduced to submission, there is simply nothing to show serious resistance to the Chinese colossus of the Vietnamese.

3. China has again confirmed to the world that he is an independent player who is not afraid of absolutely anyone.

4. Deng Xiaoping significantly strengthened his power, which made it easier for him to begin reforms.

5. The Chinese military-political leadership was convinced of the need for speedy military reform.

Based on the results of this war, Vietnam and the USSR received nothing but the opportunity to defeat the Chinese retreat from the propaganda point of view and declare Vietnam the winner.

Now we will understand the specifics of how and at what point the Chinese use military force.

War is the opposite


It is noteworthy that the Chinese in all cases try to avoid unnecessary escalation. With the exception of Korea, where China’s security interests were at stake, all their wars were limited. Faced with the prospect of escalation, the Chinese retreated.

Moreover. Again, with the exception of Korea, the Chinese have always used forces limited in numbers and weapons. Against the USSR, in Damansky, initially, insignificantly, insignificant forces went into battle. And when they were driven back, there was no use of additional military contingents from China. Before that, it was the same with India. In Vietnam, the Chinese were advancing until a sharp increase in the scale of the conflict loomed ahead, and immediately retreated.

For China, there is no problem at all in simply “winding fishing rods” and leaving with their heads held high, the Chinese do not persist and do not wage hopeless wars until they can no longer be waged. Neither the USSR in Afghanistan, nor the United States in Vietnam were able to do so and lost a lot, without gaining anything in the end, for the USSR, Afghanistan became one of the nails in the coffin. The Chinese do not do that.

In addition, nowhere has China used the full range of its weapons. There were no Chinese tanks on Damansky; Chinese aircraft were not used in Vietnam. This also minimizes the risks of escalation.

But in Korea, where it was not political gain that was at stake, but the security of China itself, everything was different - the Chinese fought for a long, hard and huge forces, eventually forcing the enemy (USA) to abandon their offensive plans.

Often, as is often the case with empires, military operations against neighbors are caused not only by foreign policy factors, but also by domestic politics. Thus, some American historians believe that provocations against the USSR were needed most of all to strengthen the sense of internal unity of the Chinese population, and some domestic experts are inclined to believe that the cause of the attack on Vietnam in 1979 was mainly Deng Xiaoping's desire to strengthen his power.

The most important thing in the Chinese wars is that the political results that China achieves by military force, for the most part, do not depend on the outcome of the battles.

This is the fundamental difference between the Chinese approach to war and the European approach.

Soviet troops drove the Chinese from Damansky. But what has this changed? Anyway, China got everything it wanted. Similarly, if the Vietnamese in 1979 retained, for example, Langshon, whose capture was the main victory of the Chinese and the peak of their success, then this would have changed almost nothing. All the political benefits from the war that China received, he would have received without capturing this city by storm. But the USSR and Vietnam would suffer the same political, economic and human losses as in reality.

The Chinese use military force to “educate” governments that they disagree with with dosed attacks of force and exactly until they incline them to the desired line of behavior. An example again is Vietnam, which has not been attacked since 1991. This is very different from the American approach, when unsympathetic countries fall under the pressure of sanctions and constant military pressure forever, and if it comes to war, then the enemy is completely destroyed. Instead of “educational” attacks, the United States and Western countries inflict punitive attacks that cannot persuade the enemy to change their line of behavior, but inflict suffering on him for the steps taken earlier. We saw an example of such a sadistic approach in the form of American missile attacks on Syria.

And it is also very different from the Western approach that the Chinese always leave the enemy the opportunity to get out of the conflict without losing face. Not one of China’s opponents has ever faced a choice between a complete loss of national pride and an end to the war on reasonable terms. Even the defeats of other countries from China were of a non-material nature and did not force them to wage a war with maximum exertion.

The West always seeks the complete destruction of the opponent.

It must be admitted that the Chinese way of waging war is much more humane than the western one. To do this, you can simply compare how many Vietnamese died in battles with China, and how many in battles with the United States. These numbers speak for themselves.

Draw conclusions.

First, China is seeking limited military operations in terms of scale and time.

Secondly, China is giving in to the risk of escalation.

Thirdly, China is trying to leave the enemy a way out of the situation.

Fourth, with the maximum degree of probability, the use of military force by China will be such that the desired political result by the Chinese will not depend on how successfully these troops can operate - China’s political goals will be achieved at the time the hostilities begin, and in the same the moment the opponents of the Chinese lose. As a result of how the troops will manifest themselves on the battlefield, it doesn’t matter anymore, they can simply die, as under Soviet missile attacks in 1969, it will not matter. This is a cardinal difference between the Chinese approach to war and the European one.

Fifth, when China’s security is at stake, all this doesn’t work, and the Chinese are desperately fighting with large forces, and fighting VERY GOOD. At least, the only example of such a war involving the Chinese after the Second World War speaks about this.

Another important feature of the use of military force by China is that it is always used in advance, without waiting for such an increase in conflict in relations with the "opponent", which cannot be resolved without a really big war.

Of course, things change over time. China is one step away from achieving not only numerical, but also technological superiority in the military sphere over all countries in the world except the United States.


China's Sun is changing rapidly

The growth of China’s military power is accompanied by ongoing attempts to instill initiative and independence in Chinese commanders of all levels, usually not characteristic of the Chinese. Judging by some indirect signs, the Chinese have succeeded in this way, too. The growth of China’s military capabilities in the future may partly change this country's approach to the use of force, but it is unlikely that the old methods will be completely abandoned, because they are based on Chinese traditions that were established before Sun Tzu and the mentality, which changes very slowly.

So, we have some opportunities to predict Chinese actions in the future. Most likely, Chinese wars in this century will have much in common with their past wars.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

233 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 05: 28 New
    • 13
    • 8
    +5
    As you know, the Chinese threw the UN troops back to the 38th parallel. To assess the significance of this fact, one must understand that they were opposed by troops with the most advanced military equipment for that time, trained and equipped according to the Western model,
    There were not many UN troops. And the South Koreans are not very trained .... repeat Technique, decided everything, planes.
    1. Catfish 22 May 2020 07: 24 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Technique, decided everything, planes.

      The planes were on both sides. The whole question is experience, combat training and motivation of both parties.
      1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 07: 32 New
        • 21
        • 2
        +19
        Quote: Sea Cat
        The whole question is experience, combat training and motivation of both parties.

        In terms of experience and combat training, the Americans and their allies were not too far behind.

        But for motivation, yes there. I don’t think that some Australians were ready to poke on the armor of the moving Chinese tanks in order to try to open the tower hatch and throw a grenade inside
        1. Octopus 22 May 2020 08: 32 New
          • 22
          • 2
          +20
          Quote: Spade
          In terms of experience and combat training, the Americans and their allies were not too far behind.

          In the article, oddly enough, the situation is described adequately.

          On the part of the Americans, politicians and headquarters lost the war. Receive sudden crushing blow by warring army - This is not given to everyone.

          And they fought well, the same battle at Chkhosinsky airborne forces - this is the American Brest Fortress, in practice. With that important nuance, that the marines made their way to their own.
          1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 44 New
            • 11
            • 15
            -4
            In the article, oddly enough


            Why such a formulation?

            To receive a sudden crushing blow to the army leading the war is not given to everyone.


            Moreover, when the presence of Chinese troops in Korea was already established. The Chinese staffers of the Americans outplayed it, it’s easy in the trash.
            1. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 29 New
              • 34
              • 13
              +21
              Moreover, your article as a whole is Chinese propaganda. You are trying to sell cheaply cheap platitudes that dictatorships do not fight like democracies and even entities like the late USSR.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The Chinese staffers of the Americans outplayed it, it’s easy in the trash.

              You are right, the crisis that the Americans had with the army is greatly underestimated. It was worth the war to end - a lie and politicking, which was already up to the neck, covered the top of the head.
              1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 51 New
                • 14
                • 9
                +5
                You are trying to sell cheaply cheap platitudes that dictatorships do not fight like democracies and even entities like the late USSR.


                Is this something to do with? In general, according to VO commentators, at least write a dissertation, really.
                1. Akuzenka 27 May 2020 00: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  Good article. I haven’t met anyone like this before. Disassembled well (no specialist can not accurately evaluate). And sofa marshals VO .... do not give a damn and forget (I.V. Chapaev). It is they from envy.
              2. snerg7520 24 May 2020 07: 07 New
                • 12
                • 2
                +10
                Quote: Octopus
                full article - Chinese propaganda

                The article as a whole is not just Chinese propaganda, it is also submitted by the author in a knee-elbow position.
                A set of well-known facts and events that, with the help of a drastic file of author masochism, are pushed into the outline of praise of Chinese military-political art, replaced by the author of the logic of the gang of hunhuz actions, albeit a very large one, and the author does not care about the slightest plausibility of his conclusions.
                Particularly striking is the author’s desire to humiliate himself in front of the Chinese, to wallow in their legs and crap, and taking with them the USSR and Russia, not to mention Vietnam, which the author has stuffed into a point of a need.
                The article causes a desire to get it in paper form and read it again - no longer with the eyes.
            2. Oyo Sarkazmi 23 May 2020 17: 03 New
              • 2
              • 4
              -2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The Chinese staffers of the Americans outplayed it, it’s easy in the trash.

              What kind of staffers are there. The Americans, in principle, are not ready for total fights, without a break. Hit, used up resources, stopped, regrouped, ate, went on. A week of continuous fighting is a nightmare of American military logistics. What is with Germany, what is with Japan, what is in Korea. American quartermasters cannot supply resources in the course of battles.
              1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 21: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well this is not so to say the least.
              2. Octopus 23 May 2020 23: 29 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
                A week of continuous fighting is a nightmare of American military logistics. What is with Germany, what is with Japan, what is in Korea.

                What news.

                Okinawa - 3 months, Philippines - almost a year, Guadalcanal - six months.
                1. Oyo Sarkazmi 24 May 2020 20: 02 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Octopus
                  Okinawa - 3 months,

                  Continuous assault? Or a series of operations, divided by breaks for understaffing?
                  Here is the Battle of Stalingrad - an example of continuous battles, for 7 months. But as soon as the Soviet troops went ahead, the supply and replenishment sank. The result is a tactical retreat and a pause before the Battle of Kursk. Also the backlog of the rear from the advanced troops.
            3. Keyser soze 23 May 2020 18: 38 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              The Chinese staffers of the Americans outplayed it, it’s easy in the trash.


              This is of course, because Truman dismissed (thank God) Douglas MacArthur .... otherwise nuclear trash from China would have turned out .... laughing
              1. Octopus 23 May 2020 23: 38 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Keyser Soze
                the announcement of MacArthur .... otherwise, nuclear trash from China would have turned out ...

                Such decisions are not in MacArthur’s competence.

                Claims by Korea to MacArthur relate to command and control in the theater. The author is partly right, the UN forces in Korea were quite enough so that none of the Chinese volunteers could see their native pagoda.

                On strategy, questions are more to Collins, the General Staff of the army, and Bradley, the OKNS (and to Eisenhower, of course, the first post-war General Staff). Through their incredible efforts, military experience was fully explored in record time. The U.S. Army seemed to come back from the 42nd year, Operation Torch. With the same weapons of ten years ago, the same untrained mobilization l / s and the same officers with almost no idea about modern warfare.
                1. Liam 24 May 2020 01: 09 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: Octopus
                  having just about no idea of ​​modern warfare.

                  This herd of Chinese with the North Koreans waged a "modern" war?)
                  1. Octopus 24 May 2020 01: 13 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Quote: Liam
                    This herd of Chinese with the North Koreans waged a "modern" war?)

                    Not really. But it was meant that the elves were again incapable of waging a modern war.
                    1. Liam 24 May 2020 01: 17 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      There is no reception against scrap.
                      There is only one real way to fight (and win) against the throwing of corpses by an enemy ready for this. More precisely two.
                      Readiness for a similar casting and this is not the case. Or a "contactless war." Managed high-precision long-range weapons. It became available from the Desert Storm
                      1. Octopus 24 May 2020 01: 33 New
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        +2
                        Quote: Liam
                        Readiness for a similar casting and this is not the case. Or a "contactless war." Managed high-precision long-range weapons. It became available from the Desert Storm

                        Seriously?

                        In fact, in the 40s and 50s it was not difficult to find people who could fight without high-precision weapons.

                        Find in Germany.

                        Naturally, the appeal of the Americans to the German experience is impossible to imagine. Because it will become noticeable that their army is commanded by people whose level is a division, well, a corps.
                      2. Liam 24 May 2020 01: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Seriously?

                        Germany’s multi-million losses in both worlds are also dead bodies. It’s just that each country has its own pain threshold in this. Someone has 4-5 million ... someone has 27-42 million. Amer in Vietnam had 60.000.
                        38 parallel in a godforsaken corner of the world is not the motive for which the Americans were ready to throw the corpses of the Chinese. And they did the right thing in general, Vietnam is proof of that.
                      3. Octopus 24 May 2020 02: 14 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        Quote: Liam
                        this is also a corpse throwing

                        The first time I see that the actions of Germans in the East are characterized as corpse. Volksturm methods for Americans in Korea I do not recommend.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Amer in Vietnam, 60.000 was enough.

                        Quote: Liam
                        38 parallel in a godforsaken corner of the world is not the motive

                        Few people know this, but the losses of the Americans in Korea + Vietnam are comparable to their land losses in Europe of 44-45 years. That is, the USSR was able to repeat the WWII with the help of its gratuitous fighting hamsters.
                      4. Liam 24 May 2020 13: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        I meant that the very nature of the wars of that time, for any, provided for numerous losses. If you fight well (like the Germans), you get 3-4 million losses. If you fight badly, you get 27-42 million. In any case, you get millions. And the war with China in SK, all the same, hundreds of thousands of American corpses would have come out, whatever the Pentagon’s military geniuses would have been. They would have threshed the first million Chinese at the cost of tens of thousands of their losses and what?. The Chinese have a new million on the way and everything is new. from the United States, in a war-torn country with appropriate communications. Therefore, no Manstein would help there.
                        Quote: Octopus
                        loss of Americans in Korea + Vietnam

                        That is why the Americans changed the concept of new wars — technological superiority, a “non-contact” war with a minimum of casualties.
                      5. Octopus 24 May 2020 13: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Liam
                        Well, they would grind the first million Chinese at the cost of tens of thousands of their losses, so what?

                        And where is this million Chinese? Why didn’t you grind?

                        A few years ago, much worse equipped Japanese drove the same Chinese into the forests and mountains with what forces, recall?
                      6. Liam 24 May 2020 13: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Octopus
                        And where is this million Chinese?

                        And what was the number of limited contingent of Chinese troops in the UK?)
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Why didn’t you grind?

                        Well, the first they more or less grind. Otherwise, the mausoleum of father and son Kim would be in Seoul and not in Pyongyang
                        Quote: Octopus
                        A few years ago, much worse equipped Japanese drove the same Chinese into the forests and mountains with what forces, recall?

                        You manage American lives so easily)
                        Either give you mighty blows to the Red Army in the spring of 45 in order to liberate Eastern Europe, then give a full-scale war with China for the freedom of the North Korean mountains. And all this is at the expense of American lives and budget. special but not to that extent
              2. English tarantas 24 May 2020 21: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Find in Germany

                Well, the French scored such and even from the SS. Of course, the Franks were not so bad, but in the end they also lost their colonies.
              3. Octopus 24 May 2020 22: 19 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: English Tarantas
                Well, the French scored such and even from the SS

                You see, Americans learned to burn villages without the SS, there’s no need for much intelligence.

                But with a purely army component, everything was rather sad.
              4. English tarantas 25 May 2020 16: 25 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                You see, Americans learned to burn villages without the SS, there’s no need for much intelligence.

                But after all, the burning of villages is an idea as old as the world, and the Americans did this long before the appearance of the SS.
                But ideological Nazis did this most likely with great enthusiasm due to more experience and generally creative approach.
                But with a purely army component, everything was rather sad.

                I don’t understand, what are you talking about?
              5. Octopus 25 May 2020 16: 29 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: English Tarantas
                But after all, the burning of villages is an idea as old as the world, and the Americans did this long before the appearance of the SS.

                This is welcome. But one thing is entertainment, another thing is work.
                Quote: English Tarantas
                I don’t understand, what are you talking about?

                Just about work.

                If the Red Army / SA is their new potential adversary, then it is fundamentally important to learn the experience of people who quite successfully fought with it just a couple of years ago. The moral image of people does not play a role, and relatively decent it was quite possible to find.

                The Americans have not made the slightest attempt for this.
  • Eroma 25 May 2020 09: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Why did you decide that the Chinese staffers were doing the Americans? Who controlled the Chinese is a big question! It seems to me that someone like Marshal Konev!
    Simple logic: the Japanese on land in military art were head and shoulders weaker than the Americans, losing to them the whole war, while they smashed the Chinese, as well as the whole war! And suddenly the Chinese infantry, after five years, smashes the American mechanized units, these are miracles! This miracle obviously has a secret explanation
    1. meandr51 25 May 2020 13: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is. For example, an underground war in the hills. When the Chinese artillery hits from the sites, and then hides in the hill. The Americans did not understand how to deal with this.
      1. Eroma 25 May 2020 20: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        One tactical technique does not allow to win the war, we need a strategy for using the army as a whole. Against Japan, China somehow did not shine with strategic talents, and against the USA it suddenly demonstrated the full power of Sun Tzu angry and then again they indistinctly fought (against Taiwan, in Daman and against Vietnam), this is strange what
    2. English tarantas 25 May 2020 16: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      1 rifle per company during the Japanese occupation. I exaggerate (although it probably could have been), but the capital shortage of weapons and ammunition (as well as organization and command staff) among the Chinese explains why the Japanese were so roaming around in China.
  • Lopatov 22 May 2020 10: 58 New
    • 13
    • 12
    +1
    Quote: Octopus
    And they fought well, the same battle at Chkhosinsky Vdhr is an American Brest fortress

    laughing
    Yeah ... When preparing to "end the war before Christmas," the Americans nobly grabbed their teeth and were surrounded. Then, thanks to the established weather (frost, snowdrifts), they were able to break through the environment and staged a twelve-day drape. Losing equipment along the road, injured and frostbite.
    Only one saved them - the Chinese and North Koreans were even less prepared for the "Siberian weather" and almost completely lost their mobility.
    1. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 30 New
      • 15
      • 6
      +9
      Quote: Spade
      were able to break through the environment and staged a twelve-day drape. Losing equipment along the road, injured and frostbite.

      Yes, they did. They have 400 thousand people you had to defeat one division?
      1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 11: 34 New
        • 11
        • 14
        -3
        Quote: Octopus
        They have 400 thousand people you had to defeat one division?

        With the same success, the Americans could call the figure 800 thousand. Or 1800 thousand.
        You have to justify your drap.

        But this does not negate the fact that the Chinese have won.
        And about the number ... Geometry. Surrounding always need a lot more troops than surrounded.
        1. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 35 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          Quote: Spade
          With the same success, the Americans could call the figure 800 thousand. Or 1800 thousand.

          Do you have your own version?
          1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 11: 37 New
            • 13
            • 17
            -4
            Quote: Octopus
            Do you have your own version?

            Ага.
            The Americans, as always, lied.
            laughing laughing laughing
            For them it is as natural as for the Poles to show their ambition, and for the Germans - their discipline.
            1. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 38 New
              • 10
              • 7
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              The Americans, as always, lied.

              This is no problem.

              So what were the strengths volunteers? The figure, the source.
              1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 11: 44 New
                • 12
                • 14
                -2
                Quote: Octopus
                So what were the strengths of the volunteers? The figure, the source.

                I have no idea.
                But I definitely do not believe in forced draping.
              2. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 49 New
                • 16
                • 12
                +4
                Everything is not so clear?

                Are you by chance, not a Korean, daughter of an officer?
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. Lopatov 22 May 2020 16: 00 New
                • 12
                • 13
                -1
                Quote: Octopus
                Everything is not so clear?

                Everything is absolutely clear.
                Americans are lying.
          2. Korax71 22 May 2020 16: 15 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            This is comrade Lopatov. Everything is simple: the numbers are from a flashlight, although here the devil himself will break these Chinese wassat the data are different: from 260 to 600 thousand people, although not so long ago one came across the following figure: Major General of the Chinese Army, Professor of the National University of Defense of the People's Liberation Army of China, Xu Yan - "Xu said in the article that from October 1950 until July 1953, a total of 2.97 million Chinese soldiers fought in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, as it is known in China. ”I do not strongly believe these numbers, but the fact that they were over is a dopig-sure.
          3. meandr51 25 May 2020 13: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I read that 500 thousand Chinese.
    2. AllBiBek 22 May 2020 13: 11 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      It hasn't been working since somewhere like that Hannibal Bark, have you heard of this?
      There, the Punic Wars, the Battle of Cannes ...

      In two-thirds of cases from that time to the present day, smaller armies surrounded the larger ones, and digested them partially or completely.

      This was especially good for Napoleon and his marshals.

      Yes, and WWE consists almost entirely of this, that the initial stage, that the final.
      1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 16: 06 New
        • 6
        • 6
        0
        Quote: AllBiBek
        It hasn't been working since somewhere like that Hannibal Bark, have you heard of this?

        It does not work only on the couch.
  • timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 53 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Yes, they did. They have 400 thousand people you had to defeat one division?


    What kind of figure is this?
    1. Octopus 22 May 2020 11: 55 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      What kind of figure is this?

      This is the claimed by the Americans figure of the Chinese forces providing the environment.
      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 14 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        The figure declared by the Americans is approximately 150 people in 000 divisions, of which, in principle, no more than 15 were entered into battle for the entire operation.

        At the same time, in real life, 120 are not struggling with statistics, the Chinese had no more than 000 fighters in a full-fledged division, and there were a minority of fully equipped divisions.

        In fact, we can talk about the fact that there were always 6-7 thousand fighters in the division in battles. And at the same time they were not introduced into the battle.

        The UN had 5 divisions and three regimental-scale detachments, fully mechanized, with tanks and heavy weapons, with radio communications and air supremacy.

        This, I repeat, is American data. Not the fact that not overpriced. Where did you get your numbers?
        1. Octopus 22 May 2020 15: 06 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          This, I repeat, is American data.

          OK, accept them. 400 thousand. I saw somewhere out of the corner of my eye, which I could confuse.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The UN had 5 divisions and three regimental-scale detachments, fully mechanized, with tanks and heavy weapons, with radio communications and air supremacy.

          And, that is, there was an equal in number battle, then propagated by the ILC, like 28 Panfilov’s? OK, your point is clear.
  • timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 52 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    Only one saved them - the Chinese and North Koreans were even less prepared for the "Siberian weather"


    They were saved by the fact that they were opposed by literally bare-chested infantry with whistles instead of the radio and foot porters instead of vehicles.
    And then they broke it.
    And if you had transport and fuel?
    1. Korax71 22 May 2020 16: 53 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      But Torkunov Anatoly Vasilievich disagrees with you a little. hi
      [/ quote] Initially, the CPV counter-offensive group included 5 rifle corps and 3 artillery divisions. In general, China involved in the Korean War a huge grouping of 25 army corps.

      In his works, you can find the following:
      The CPV and KPA had superiority in manpower, field artillery, and mortars, but US-South Korean forces significantly exceeded the enemy in the number of tanks, anti-aircraft guns, aircraft, and warships. [Quote]

      But, as you and I understand, most of this advantage of the UN troops was leveled by the conduct of hostilities in a wooded mountainous area — not the best theater of operations for armored vehicles from the word at all, which is what the CPV army proved.
      1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 40 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        That's just the Americans themselves characterized the CPV as a light infantry army.
    2. Eroma 25 May 2020 08: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Transport and fuel would be destroyed by US aviation, without serious air defense forces and fighters, the mechanization of the Chinese troops would probably lead to the defeat of the Chinese. Maybe that's why only light infantry was introduced, without equipment
  • Octopus 22 May 2020 08: 27 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Technique, decided everything, planes.

    The planes did not decide anything.

    Just the second stage of the Korean war is an example that air supremacy alone will not win.
  • timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 43 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The Chinese did not have military equipment, and the aircraft appeared much later than the start of the fighting. The UN troops were carried out without aviation mainly, only then our MiGs covered the areas of concentration of reserves and rear of the CPV and KPA and that’s all.
  • meandr51 25 May 2020 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The balance of power was equal. 500 to 500 thousand. So ...
  • Basil50 22 May 2020 05: 32 New
    • 23
    • 2
    +21
    The author is not quite right.
    The Chinese worked out tactics and strategy back in the Middle Ages, when Chinese military theorists justified all military operations with quantitative criteria only. In the Chinese folk tradition, the military is something akin to the robbers whom they are forced to contain during the days of peace and which should not be regretted during the days of war. Today's China is trying to impose respect on its own army to the people, but something is going on tightly. The Chinese today consider the military to be parasites of the state.
    What can not be taken away from the Chinese is the hypocrisy and cruelty that have been brought up since childhood.
    1. The leader of the Redskins 22 May 2020 06: 56 New
      • 20
      • 4
      +16
      Just the author’s article, as well as his manner (to pull the facts by the ears and give his reasoning as the last resort), was analyzed yesterday. True, then there was a conversation about the role of the Soviet fleet in the Second World War ...
      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 45 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        And what didn’t suit you as a fleet in the Second World War?
        1. Do not consider it work, revise yesterday's article by Skomorokhov, or rather comments on it. Well, what would I not repeat for many ...
          1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 43 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            He looked. This is from the series "He is about Thomas, and he is about Yeryomu." Your comments are just some kind of bottom.
            Take a look better that AlexeyRA wrote there.
            This is a very competent opinion.
            1. You know, if you already get personal, then to a good article and comments are good, well, but to ... That and the comments are bottom-up ....
              1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 43 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Well, you have a quick article.
                Reread what you wrote there.
                1. Why are you so painfully reacting to comments? Are you trying to throw a scarf out of excuses and accusations on almost every mouth? You need to be calmer. Moreover, pay attention - they almost do not respond to your comments. We, commentators, have their own "wedding." We have long formed an opinion about the authors and are only surprised when they get out of the usual framework.
                  1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 14: 05 New
                    • 4
                    • 4
                    0
                    Just a quote

                    Sorry, but it seems to me incorrect to discuss an article that most of us have not read.
                    It may turn out like in that joke:
                    “And what did they find in this Beatles?” And they fake, and burr, and do not know the words ...
                    - Have you heard them, in general?! ...
                    - No, but Gogi sang to me ...


                    Despite the fact that Skomorokhov's article begins with a link to the material under discussion. This is not even "did not read, but condemn," but in general the region.

                    We, commentators, have their own "wedding." We have long formed an opinion about the authors and are only surprised when they get out of the usual framework.


                    Do not hesitate, the authors also have their own established opinion about commentators. . Especially about those who cannot poke a link, but have an opinion, and similar characters.
                    1. This is where our argument will end.
    2. saigon 22 May 2020 08: 59 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Judging by the treatise of Sun Tzu, it’s better to win the ray without engaging in battle, something akin to the strategies of not direct actions of the English theoretician Garth.
      In the Chinese version of the strategy of the Middle Ages, a short war is preferable to a protracted war.
      To understand the attitude of the Chinese towards the army, we must remember the times of the fall of the Tang Dynasty when, in principle, its own army fought against its own government.
      In Han time, they really called soldiers - young villains.
      You are right, it is difficult to break such a historical attitude towards the army.
  • svp67 22 May 2020 05: 41 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    The Chinese threat even influenced the weapon systems being created, for example, the 30-mm six-barreled gun on the MiG-27 appeared precisely as a response to the Chinese tank threat.
    ????? Actually, this was our "response" to the American gun on the A-10 and MiG-27 primarily deployed in a westerly direction, against NATO forces.
    But the mines “OZM” and “MON”, like the mortar “Cornflower”, with the “Flame” grenade launcher, these yes, were designed taking into account the defeat of large masses of infantry ...
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 46 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      ????? Actually, this was our "response" to the American gun on the A-10 and MiG-27 primarily deployed in a westerly direction, against NATO forces.


      But NATO did not have 10000+ tanks and such a gun against NATO was not needed. So it goes.
      I am a little aware of why and why this gun got on airplanes.
      1. svp67 22 May 2020 12: 50 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But NATO did not have 10000+ tanks and such a gun against NATO was not needed.

        But only at the time of adopting the MiG-27, the new generation Leopard-2 and M-1 Abrams tanks should have entered the arsenal of NATO countries, and it was precisely to deal with them, since at that time we had problems with guided weapons, it was decided replace the correct GSh-23, with something more powerful. Initially, the conversation was generally about a 45-mm cannon, but it took a lot of time to develop it and develop ammunition for it from scratch. Then we decided to take advantage of what we already have and it was found in the Navy. The gun block was taken from the AK-630 ship’s gun mount and converted into an aircraft gun
        Yes, and your information is not correct by the mid-70s, NATO had about 13,5 thousand tanks on the European theater of operations, and in the early 80s, this figure increased to 17
        But the numbers on the number of tanks for 1988
        1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 04 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          And your information is not correct by the mid-70s of NATO


          The 27th began to paint in the 60s. then I recall that the war in Europe was seen mainly as a nuclear one.
          The gun was first planned 23 mm, with it he flew for the first time in 1970, even as the MiG-23B.
          1. svp67 22 May 2020 13: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The 27th began to paint in the 60s. then I recall that the war in Europe was seen mainly as a nuclear one.
            The gun was first planned 23 mm, with it he flew for the first time in 1970, even as the MiG-23B.

            What was painted in the 60s ... and had the MiG-23 index was very different, compared to what appeared in the early 70s under the name MiG-27
            1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 25 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              The gun was not originally planned 30 mm
              1. svp67 22 May 2020 14: 31 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The gun was not originally planned 30 mm

                For the MiG-23BN - no, as for the MiG-27 the same is not. I already wrote. We wanted a 45-mm, but settled on a 30-mm and it was for work on the new NATO tanks
  • Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 05: 45 New
    • 17
    • 4
    +13
    for the USSR, Afghanistan in general became one of the nails in the coffin.
    Noodles for the people. From the beginning there was the word "perestroika" in 1987 (and reforms began to be prepared under Andropov), a conclusion from Afghanistan in 1989.
    If the Soviet Union had arranged a serious punitive operation against the Chinese, this would not have happened, but the Soviet Union didn’t do anything like that.
    I agree, in vain retirees-senile diapers have not changed. angry Complete rebuttal of the saying "A thin world is better than a good quarrel"
    1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 07: 34 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Noodles for the people. From the beginning there was the word "perestroika" in 1987 (and reforms began to be prepared under Andropov), a conclusion from Afghanistan in 1989.

      It’s more complicated.
      Troops from Afghanistan withdrawn at the request of China
      But the fact that this conclusion had to be justified somehow, and propaganda was going into the matter, yes.
  • Mavrikiy 22 May 2020 05: 55 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    The most important thing in the Chinese wars is that the political results that China achieves by military force, for the most part, do not depend on the outcome of the battles.
    Conclusion on good good good
    They still haven’t gotten into the horns.
    China is one step away from achieving not only numerical, but also technological superiority in the military sphere over all countries in the world except the United States.
    Why only the USA? It's a shame. repeat
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 47 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      It is very difficult to gain technological superiority over the USA. We managed in a few directions - atom, aerodynamics.
      1. Grits 24 May 2020 06: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We managed in a few directions - atom, aerodynamics.

        What about ballet? belay
  • apro 22 May 2020 05: 58 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Having gained solidarity and strength, the Communist People's Republic of China is able to solve its problems by military means. This cannot be taken away. But the threat of military force itself is sometimes much more effective than its actual use.
  • Vladimir61 22 May 2020 06: 06 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Interestingly, some conclusions are not true. Especially regarding the self-esteem of the Chinese, - "they poured us, but we won." In addition, most of the conflicts with China were borderline in nature, without declaring war on his part, which dictated limited military-political measures to curb his aggression.
    But in general, everyone who comes into conflict with him will have to reckon with the Chinese army. Based on the assessment of military experts, the army is strong, motivated, well-armed, plus a huge mobilization resource. But, as they say, a good boxer can "fill the snot and a group of comrades," so that you can talk about dominance until you run into such a "boxer." Maintaining a "bad world" with him, is more expensive for yourself, to fill your comrades is equivalent, but mutually exist, as friends, you can and should.
  • jonht 22 May 2020 06: 19 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    That's it, we start to fight like the Chinese .....
    That's why they did not win because we know how to go to the end, is it right or wrong, but we are SUCH.
  • kyznets 22 May 2020 06: 24 New
    • 15
    • 1
    +14
    Not everything is as the author sees. Yes, an interesting look at the Chinese army and Soviet politics and military strategy. And it looks more like the author put everything upside down and describes what he saw. Rather, it describes what China wants to see now in its controversial history. Description of the Chinese look. I didn’t like this, just as I do not like the description of the Anglo-Saxon view of the Second World War and the roles of participants in it. In short, thanks to the author for Chinese mythology in an accessible form for us.
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 49 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Reality does not depend on whether you like it or not. For example, you are quite entitled to believe that Damansky still exists and that this is the territory of the Russian Federation. But in fact, the outline of the border from this your faith will not change.
      1. Grits 24 May 2020 06: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        For example, you are quite entitled to believe that Damansky still exists and that this is the territory of the Russian Federation. But in fact, the outline of the border from this your faith will not change.

        Daman exists. It’s only in this picture that it’s quite clear who it belongs to now.

    2. Boa kaa 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: kyznets
      Not everything is as the author sees.

      Truly fair remark!
      I would like to insert my 5 kopecks to its justification.
      1. It is a false claim that China was not afraid of a nuclear power. China was even afraid of our airborne forces. After Brezhnev’s call, demanding an end to the war with the DRV, comrade Mao was informed that the USSR had lifted all 6 airborne divisions into the air, and it was not known where they were ... Mao immediately sintered and ordered that this wet business be started.
      2. The whales knew for sure that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons against the PRC, if one did not climb into its territory, because this fundamentally contradicted his postulate of socialist internationalism and that wars between socialist countries are, by definition, impossible. The war of the PRC-DRV was called the war of the revisionist Chinese regime against the small freedom-loving socialist. republics ... but not between the socialist countries. (Ideology!)
      3. Victory on the Korean p-island. Why be surprised? 6 million "Chinese volunteers" even the Yankees could not grind. This is not a pound of raisins you pick!
      4. A strange approach by the author: He confuses the database and politics. Yes, war is a continuation of politics by violent means, but this is not the same as maintaining a database on a battlefield! And the author turns out that the whales were spawned on Damansky and in Vietnam, but they “won”! So the Yankees will soon be: they will say that they won in Vietnam too!
      5. Why didn’t they bomb the Hungarians in Vietnam, because there were Tu-95 tankers too ... The author is either naive or a provocateur! If we did this, then how would we be different from the Yankees? And secondly, China would certainly be in the arms of Uncle Sam. The question is, do we need this?
      A few words about.
      Yes, no country in the world has a 100 million mob reserve. And China is dangerous for its neighbors, but not for the United States, because they’re not going to melee to find out “hu hu!”. They are adherents of remote, non-contact wars, and even they are going to wage them with the help of cybers and bots ... By this, they put out of brackets China NE. And in the technical equipment of the PLA, it is still far from US Armi, and especially the fleet and aviation. Understanding this, China is rapidly developing its Navy and Air Force. The question is in time: whether or not the PLA manages to arm itself with new systems before the conflict begins, or whether the USSR will succeed before the Second World War — that is the main question!
      IMHO.
      1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 33 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        1. It is a false claim that China was not afraid of a nuclear power. China was even afraid of our airborne forces. After Brezhnev’s call, demanding an end to the war with the DRV, comrade Mao was informed that the USSR had lifted all 6 airborne divisions into the air, and it was not known where they were ... Mao immediately sintered and ordered that this wet business be started.


        These are teenage fairy tales, in fact, almost all the troops in the Far East raised the alarm, and began large-scale exercises in Mongolia, everything was much larger than you write, but just in case the Chinese concentrated a group of 1,5 million people against us .

        2. The whales knew for sure that the USSR would not use nuclear weapons against the PRC, if one did not climb into its territory, because this fundamentally contradicted his postulate of socialist internationalism and that wars between socialist countries are, by definition, impossible.


        Well, aren't they great? And they did not expect a strike by a pair of dozens of Tu-95 or two or three regiments of Tu-16 on their territory, with ordinary bombs, not nuclear?
        And they should have, and then they should have received it.
        But the Soviet leadership merged with shaking lips.
        And this fear was inspired by the Chinese.

        3. Victory on the Korean p-island. Why be surprised? 6 million "Chinese volunteers" even the Yankees could not grind. This is not a pound of raisins you pick!


        780 of which more than 000 never participated in battles.

        4. A strange approach by the author: He confuses the database and politics. Yes, war is a continuation of politics by violent means, but this is not the same as maintaining a database on a battlefield! And the author turns out that the whales were spawned on Damansky and in Vietnam, but they “won”!


        What is a victory?

        5. Why didn’t they bomb the Hungarians in Vietnam, because there were Tu-95 tankers too ... The author is either naive or a provocateur! If we did this, then how would we be different from the Yankees?


        Well, in Syria, bombers with Tu-22m are bombed, what prevented the Chinese from working in the same style?

        And secondly, China would certainly be in the arms of Uncle Sam. The question is, do we need this?


        He had been in them for five years by that time. The Yankees even sent an aircraft carrier for the moral support of the Chinese comrades.

        Yes, no country in the world has a 100 million mob reserve.


        The Chinese do not have it either.
      2. Sergej1972 23 May 2020 05: 11 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        On the contrary, the Chinese called us revisionists in the days of Mao. However, after the start of market reforms, Deng Xiaoping practically did not use this charge against us by the Chinese.
    3. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: kyznets
      Rather, it describes what China wants to see in its controversial history.

      It turns out the author from an ancient Chinese profession?
  • Ravil_Asnafovich 22 May 2020 06: 25 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Now the Chinese, and without war, capture entire states, in the same Cuba where we left, half of Africa is already under them, and is it still economically, where does the forest go in Siberia ??? So the wars are unprofitable for China, except economically ? Or am I wrong?
    1. Aleksandr21 22 May 2020 08: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
      So wars are unprofitable for China, except economically? Or am I wrong?


      Yes, China clearly has a different approach and relies on the seizure of the world through trade and diplomacy, if the state is economically tied to China then politically it begins to follow the mainstream of the PRC policy. And with this approach, the Chinese wars are not profitable, since the war hinders trade and scares off investors and buyers ... though there are pitfalls here and this is the Republic of China (Taiwan) and other autonomous territories, which in theory should return to China in 2049 ( Hong Kong, Macau), the United States will certainly not give up these territories peacefully, if such an option is still possible in Macau, then in Hong Kong and Taiwan there is a very strong American influence and how China will act a mystery for me. I fully admit that the UK, under pressure from the United States, will somehow withdraw from the agreement, or find reasons not to comply with the agreement .... or maybe the United States will generally spit on the agreement and announce unilateral sanctions that the West will have to comply with, saying that China suppresses democracy in these "countries" and he violates the agreement, so there will be no association. And then it really smells fried ....
    2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 58 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      The question is that China can forcibly adjust the policies of a country. If in the long run it threatens Chinese interests.
      1. Eroma 25 May 2020 21: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The article states that China is able to form large groups and move them forward, that on a tactical level, Chinese soldiers are capable of competent actions, neither Chinese soldiers nor generals are embarrassed, and the Chinese leadership is ready to use military force at any time, if there is a real benefit! But this was written about the Chinese army back in the 80s, they have problems with command and control of troops starting from a division and above! And whether the Chinese were able to solve these problems today in the article is not disclosed!
        In addition, the world and China itself have changed a lot since the last century, now China has something to lose and no roofs, is the modern leadership ready to use force as bravely, the big question is, they now need allies against the United States!
        Therefore, what the Chinese army is capable of today is not disclosed in the article, more is written about the past!

        We in the past were not at all victorious, but today a different situation
  • Free wind 22 May 2020 06: 37 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    In the picture on the top, apparently, from the short shadows of the figures, we can say that the time is about lunchtime. About 12 to 14 hours, the sun in the south at this time. Damn, China is looking at the North !. The Chinese just leave the enemy an exit ..... Yes, hell with two, leave the exit, exit to the next world! There are no other options. China assimilated all its neighbors - destroyed. Nobody has canceled the creeping expansion, but current leaders are trying to present it as good-neighborly relations. Of the 20 million Uighurs in the year 60, 6 remain !!! Think fans of the Chinese.
    1. Peter is not the first 22 May 2020 08: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Damn, China is looking at the North !.

      It looks to the north, but the fleet and helicopters are directed to the south, so that they are attacking Taiwan in the picture, or again Vietnam, or maybe they flung themselves at Australia.
  • rocket757 22 May 2020 07: 03 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    China, this is serious.
    The present, well-armed China ... this is very serious.
  • Al_lexx 22 May 2020 07: 07 New
    • 15
    • 4
    +11
    It seems that the article was written by the Chinese "leavened" patriot.
    It starts with the fact that it’s not true that the Chinese have filled up with corpses, and then it constantly contradicts itself that the Chinese did not take into account the losses.
    Once upon a time, I spoke with an officer, a Vietnam and PRC war veteran. So he told me in all seriousness that the Chinese stopped the Vietnamese tanks simply by a crowd of soldiers and the tanks were stuck in a mash of bones and meat, like the German, in Russia, in the spring / autumn thaw. What kind of army is it in the ass, if they are in a tank biathlon, which for a year they have not been able to reach third place?
    The strength of China is in its economy and, of course, in human resources. But to write such nonsense that they say the whole world saw that the Chinese are not sick of fighting with a nuclear power .. It's not even funny.
    1. Lopatov 22 May 2020 08: 27 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      Quote: Al_lexx
      So he told me in all seriousness that the Chinese stopped the Vietnamese tanks just by a crowd of soldiers and the tanks were stuck in a mess of bones and meat

      laughing
      Hunting stories are an interesting thing ...

      Quote: Al_lexx
      It starts with the fact that it’s not true that the Chinese have filled up with corpses, and then it constantly contradicts itself that the Chinese did not take into account the losses.

      In fact, the author is talking about creating numerical superiority. That for the leadership of the advancing side has always been one of the main tasks.
    2. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 50 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      It starts with the fact that it’s not true that the Chinese have filled up with corpses, and then it constantly contradicts itself that the Chinese did not take into account the losses.


      If you possessed elementary logic, then you would understand that “heaped with corpses” and “did not take into account losses” are two different things.
      1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 29 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        “filled up with corpses” and “did not reckon with losses” are two different things.

        You are absolutely devoid of elementary logic. It’s not even interesting
        1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 45 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          For the sake of exception, I’ll note once that you still exist with your insignificant comments.
          In general, you are trying in vain.
          1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 17: 25 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            trying in vain

            Your opinion - tell someone who is interested. You absolutely do not understand who the comments are for.
            1. Al_lexx 23 May 2020 20: 36 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3

              Your opinion - tell someone who is interested. You absolutely do not understand who the comments are for.

              The author exists in the dimension, where he is the essence and meaning of everything, in the last resort. A person is not capable of dialogue. But monologues are not interesting and pointless to read.
            2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 21: 50 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              And for whom did you write in response to my comment f

              You are absolutely devoid of elementary logic. It’s not even interesting


              For someone else? laughing
    3. V1er 22 May 2020 11: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Now count. that China has the resources to give each such meat soldier an RPG, a tank, and an ali-express drone. The picture is very scary. The only thing that can undermine the power of China is if during the war it begins to have problems with food and imported resources. The rebellious regions will flare up (Shanghai, Xinjian).
      1. Sergej1972 23 May 2020 05: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Shanghai then why break out? You are not confused with anything?
        1. V1er 23 May 2020 08: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes. My mistake. I meant Hong Kong.
    4. ventich62 23 May 2020 16: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      About a mess of bones and meat nonsense ... In all seriousness ....
    5. Grits 24 May 2020 06: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Al_lexx
      The strength of China is in its economy and, of course, in human resources. But to write such nonsense that they say the whole world saw that the Chinese are not sick of fighting with a nuclear power .. It's not even funny.

      The Chinese, in spite of all their modern power, are still afraid of the Russian armed forces. Although, if desired, without nuclear weapons they can crush us with mass and spread them over Siberia and the Far East. And they will have nothing to oppose here.
      True, it would be more accurate to say that they are not afraid, but rather respect Russian power. Because they know what she is capable of. And it is not for nothing that they call the Russians the fighting people.
  • DimanC 22 May 2020 07: 43 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    It is ridiculous to read about the "reaction" of the political authorities of the post-Stalin USSR, because then the course was taken to surrender the country, respectively, to defend the interests of the USSR to the end and was not the goal of the then top leadership
    1. Hagen 22 May 2020 09: 37 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: DimanC
      to defend the interests of the USSR to the end and was not part of the goals of the then senior leadership

      I do not think that the post-Stalinist leaders were outright traitors to the interests of the country. Rather, on the contrary, they were quite patriots of their country. But in matters of strategic thinking, the ability to respond flexibly to changing circumstances, they did not have the creative abilities and the ability to overcome the ideological dogmatism that prevailed in the Central Committee. Moreover, in the absence of a rigid hand of the first secretary, members of the Central Committee, accustomed to the Stalinist style of leadership, began to get involved in the covert struggle, which took away the already scarce creative energy. It is no secret that the path to the collapse of the Union began from the time of Khrushchev.
  • Glory1974 22 May 2020 08: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    all livestock was stolen, and even in some places all special fish caught from the lakes. North Vietnam was literally pulled to the skin

    Interesting fact. Maybe they fed their army in this way?
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 51 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      They were not there for long. They may have fed, but in general stocks of MTS and products for military operations are prepared in advance. I think they just punished the Vietnamese.
      1. Grits 24 May 2020 06: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They were not there for long. They may have fed, but in general stocks of MTS and products for military operations are prepared in advance. I think they just punished a Vietnamese

        I also remember that at that time it was said on the radio that the Chinese were quietly dragging the border posts deep into Vietnamese territory. True, what was the point - is not clear.
  • Jünger 22 May 2020 09: 25 New
    • 12
    • 2
    +10
    Previously, we had developed worship of the West, but now dominated by China's total admiration smile
    The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "completely." And no matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but the point is. You just need to know the story - the Chinese have purged all the wars (well, or almost all).
    Oh yes, they threw off a handful of millions of soldiers who were not expecting such a alignment of the UN troops in Korea by a million soldiers - that’s a feat.
    They did not completely blow through a little Vietnam and even decided to withdraw troops from it. smile Straightly beautiful - altruists)) And Hitler after the Battle of Kursk decided to stop the offensive and sent some troops to Italy - he just took it and decided it himself, of his own free will.
    When the United States decides to blow China and call on the Japanese to spit on it, then the world will once again see the truth.
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 56 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "completely." And no matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but the point is. You just need to know the story - the Chinese have purged all the wars (well, or almost all).


      This is from the series "there are eyes, but there is no look (read)."

      List of China's military conflicts after the Civil War:

      1. Tibet 1950
      2. Korea 1950-1953.
      3. Provocations against Taiwan 1955, 1958.
      4. Burma 1960.
      6. Border conflict with India 1962
      7. Sikkim 1967
      8. Damansky Zhalanoshkol 1969-1970
      9. Capture of the Paracel Islands - 1974
      10. Vietnam 1979
      11. Vietnam 1984
      12. Spratly Islands - 1988

      How many of them have China lost? This is a very simple question.
      1. Jünger 22 May 2020 11: 25 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        How many of them have China lost? This is a very simple question.

        It is necessary to separate flies from cutlets - no one claims that a country with a billion people cannot suppress the resistance of a handful of undeveloped Papuans.
        Even the Chinese can do this. Therefore, with a firm hand, without hesitation, we discard husks like Tibet and provocations against Taiwan (what kind of a topic is it to give out any provocations for successful wars? laughing ), islands and other Burma.
        The rest we have - Vietnam, Korea, India and the USSR.
        We immediately throw India away, because changing the proverb it can be argued that "the Lord God created the Hindus so that even the Chinese could defeat someone." India is an exception. Those. - these are the same Papuans as the Pakistanis.
        Korea? And what is it that the Chinese successfully and individually ended the war? No. There were major successes. Temporary. And who did not have them? But as a result of the war, the status quo was maintained. And not only the Chinese fought there, as we know. So Korea in the furnace.
        Vietnam? China naturally did not lose this war. But he never won.
        CCCP? China would not win any war against the USSR, even a local one, and even in a dream. And even modern China against the USSR of the 70s. And what happened was the stupidity and stupidity of a higher owl. leadership places.
        I used the wrong term when I said that China blew all the wars. He did not blow them out - he did not win them (those that did not blow them smile ).
        But with such a colossal superiority in people, at least the same war with Vietnam is a clear defeat.
        1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 45 New
          • 2
          • 10
          -8
          Well, you can reset anything. USSR defeated Germany? So they ditkari for the whole war, even tank diesel could not figure out. Anyone would do it.
          Yes?

          In kindergarten with such grades
          1. Jünger 22 May 2020 13: 45 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            I do not understand where the diesel. But war must be understood as a prolonged armed confrontation of two comparable opponents. No one disputes that China can immediately gobble up the army of great Kazakhstan for breakfast, and bite invincible Turkmenbashi for lunch.
            But if you take the army level higher, then Ketay certainly will be able to defeat them, but at the cost of prolonged bloody diarrhea. Own, naturally. And for a long time it will not be enough.
            The only advantages of the Chinese are their outstanding industriousness and outstanding arrogance with show-offs. With the help of the latest qualities, you can win a short border conflict by retaking a weak-willed opponent, even losing in fact.
            But in a serious war, show-offs will not help.
            1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 47 New
              • 2
              • 7
              -5
              Despite the fact that you use one standard argument for all cases - did you win these? Yes it is the Papuans.
              Kindergarten.
              But in a serious war, show-offs will not help.


              But Korea does not count, check and checkmate.
              But I have more important things to do than hit into such dialogs.
              1. Jünger 22 May 2020 13: 48 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But Korea does not count, check and checkmate.

                In Korea, no one defeated anyone.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But I have more important things to do than hit into such dialogs.

                Bye hi
                1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  In Korea, no one defeated anyone.


                  We do not consider a two-week American drape south of Seoul. What am I writing about.

                  Bye


                  Same to you.
                  1. Korax71 22 May 2020 17: 48 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    Alexander, I respect you as an author, even if my opinion diverges from the material of your article. All the applications for victory are too loudly said that the KND had a number of successful operations and for some time owned the initiative - an indisputable fact, for which they were and thrown back to the 38th parallel. Why didn’t the UN troops begin to develop the offensive? Well, you understand very well that there was no desire on both sides to storm the fortified and equipped positions after the previous OKV.
                    [/ quote] By this time, North and South Korea reached the limit of military-political and socio-economic depletion. The diplomatic documents received in those days from Pyongyang quite eloquently testify to the real political situation in the DPRK of that time. So, in the materials for 1951-1952, when the war on the peninsula acquired a largely impasse, positional character, the most acute problem of the KPA was the mass desertion of soldiers and officers mobilized in the south in their time. The lack of necessary interaction between the front and the rear, the total bombing and shelling by the "UN forces", the lack of ammunition and food, and the lack of basic sanitary and hygienic conditions sharply increased the disbelief of the army masses in the promised "victory" over the enemy. [Quote]

                    The army can be heroic as much as you like, but, often, supply nullifies everything.
                    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 35 New
                      • 3
                      • 2
                      +1
                      Quote: Korax71
                      Alexander, I respect you as an author

                      Right. Selling "journalism" does not deserve this
                    2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 44 New
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      -2
                      It is no secret, as well as the fact that the Chinese had all these problems long before they entered Seoul. They carried out their last active battles with UN troops under conditions when mass mortality from starvation was commonplace among troops.
                      Under such conditions, they didn’t have to reach Seoul at all, understand? One successful attack, counting on surprise, and then they should have started to slaughter like a cow carcass in a butcher's shop.
                      But it didn’t burn out.
                      And to the question "why didn’t burn out" our people do not like to answer.
                      The psyche breaks for some reason.
                      1. Korax71 23 May 2020 16: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Alexander, laughing Well, where did you get the idea that it’s breaking down. It’s just that by that time a number of factors were not in favor of continuing the conflict on all sides: the Americans, Truman himself spoke about this, were not ready to foment the war with China, which the chief butcher-macartur had strongly offered which was removed from his post .. Stalin also avoided an open and frontal military clash with the Americans, which, in his estimation, the Soviet Union was not ready for at that time. Surely they heard about the incident on a dry river in October 1950 and how did it end? in China itself, everything was far from so smooth. if Mao drowned because the clash with the USA was a fateful inevitability, then a number of influential figures (Zhou Enlai, Zhen Byishi, Chen Yun, Lin Biao, etc.) proved the exact opposite: that after many years of internal wars, the country is in dire need of a peaceful respite and the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA) is not ready for large-scale combat battles with a modern, modernized army. As a result, not one of the parties to the conflict had political will to go to the end.
                      2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 21: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Wait, what are you talking about now. generally?

                        by that time, a number of factors were not in favor


                        what moment are you talking about?
                    3. Octopus 23 May 2020 23: 45 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And to the question "why didn’t burn out" our people do not like to answer.

                      Because the Americans came to the colonial war and found themselves in a completely incomprehensible situation when they have to fight not at all with savages. Life and the Democratic Party did not prepare them for this. Accordingly, they stagnated until the politicians worked out at least some solution, after which this zero option was implemented.
                    4. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 23: 48 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Because the Americans came to the colonial war and found themselves in a completely incomprehensible situation when they have to fight not at all with savages.


                      After the Second World War, 5 years have passed, and they were preparing to fight the USSR no more, no less.
                      And the bare-chested infantry with whistles tore them.
                      How so?
                    5. Octopus 24 May 2020 00: 05 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      After the Second World War, 5 years have passed, and they were preparing to fight the USSR no more, no less.

                      As I wrote above, you greatly underestimate the post-war crisis of the American army.

                      The Americans were going to fight the USSR on the B-36. The idea that they would have to fight on land was deeply disgusting to them. She was especially disgusting to the main American pacifist Eisenhower, who was also the General Staff of the Army in 45-48, who destroyed this army in a couple of years with no less success than Pershing after the First World War. As a result, the American army fell from heaven to Korea. Most weapons come from the 42nd year. The same conscript soldiers, the same officers without any clue about the war. Hello Tunisia. And the enemy, albeit a tramp, but has been fighting for 15 years without stopping.
                    6. timokhin-aa 24 May 2020 00: 39 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      There is no General Staff in the US Army. In the real crisis there was only the Marines, most of the weapons there weren’t from 1942 in any way, but even if so - in comparison with the Chinese, this was a superiority in technology an infinity of times anyway.

                      The same conscript soldiers, the same officers without any clue about the war.


                      It’s just that those who had no idea about the war before that went with battles from the Busan bridgehead to the border with China, and wound the entire Korean people's army with bayonets.
                      Do you somehow lose sight of such moments, why is it interesting?

                      And the enemy, albeit a tramp, but has been fighting for 15 years without stopping.


                      Yeah, that’s the nuances. It turns out to be fighting.
                      The question is - have the UN troops received any combat experience before this? They didn’t beat anyone, didn’t they win?
                    7. Octopus 24 May 2020 01: 07 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      There are no General Staff in the US Army

                      What are you saying. Chief of Staff of the Army, now it's James C. McConville
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      The real crisis was only the marines

                      She was in a real crisis in the sense that good hands extended from all sides to strangle her, like a useless kind of troops. From the point of view of professionalism, even the stepsons of the fleet, such as the ILCs, are two heads taller than the army.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      most of the weapons there weren’t from 1942 in any way, but even if that were so - in comparison with the Chinese it was an superiority in technology to infinity

                      Why on earth is this all of a sudden? PPSh against self-loading and the Thompson, T-34-85 against the Sherman, MiG-15 against the Corsairs and Mustangs (how sick should you be to put Mustang in the RPE?), The two most shot down aircraft of that war.

                      There is no question of any total superiority in armaments.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      It’s just that those who had no idea about the war before that went with battles from the Busan bridgehead to the border with China, and wound the entire Korean people's army with bayonets.

                      That's just the Koreans are much smaller and, unlike the Communists, they spent the past 15 years much more peacefully.
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      and "UN troops" before that did not receive any combat experience? They didn’t beat anyone, didn’t they defeat?

                      No. Actually, I wrote about this above. If the Soviet side began to replace WWII analysis with fairy tales in the 60s, then the American side did this immediately after the end of the war. Only in this way could Eisenhower or MacArthur escape the tribunal. Therefore, by the 50th year, the army as a whole whole WWII experience was loved.

                      Unfortunately for the United States, Eisenhower again managed to lie that he had won (in fact, lying to a journalist is what he really knew how to do). Therefore, the fact that the king is naked was reliably established 20 years later, in Vietnam. The second time, fortunately, the spill was so certain that it was not possible to lie. They took the army seriously and it turned out by the 80s, quite frankly, impressive.
  • Liam 23 May 2020 22: 39 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "completely." And no matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but the point is. You just need to know the story - the Chinese have purged all the wars (well, or almost all).


    This is from the series "there are eyes, but there is no look (read)."

    List of China's military conflicts after the Civil War:

    1. Tibet 1950
    2. Korea 1950-1953.
    3. Provocations against Taiwan 1955, 1958.
    4. Burma 1960.
    6. Border conflict with India 1962
    7. Sikkim 1967
    8. Damansky Zhalanoshkol 1969-1970
    9. Capture of the Paracel Islands - 1974
    10. Vietnam 1979
    11. Vietnam 1984
    12. Spratly Islands - 1988

    How many of them have China lost? This is a very simple question.

    Well, let's start over.
    1. Tibet 1950

    What is the composition of the armed forces of Tibet and how many Tibetan divisions defeated China)
    1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 22: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No, let's start with what I meant when I asked the other person this question - how many of these conflicts were China lost?
      1. Liam 23 May 2020 22: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Practically everything. The “victorious” in your presentation of the skirmishes between China and ALL of its neighbors led to the situation that China has practically no allies in the world. But it is surrounded on the near and far perimeters by rings of ill-wishers. And without allies and alliances except in rank one cannot claim a world factory with cheap labor.
        By the way, after the tricks with the virus, he will lose this honorary title.
        1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 23: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And what are allies and why are they needed?
  • gsev 24 May 2020 01: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    How many of them have China lost? This is a very simple question.

    In my opinion, China lost in the 1979 conflict. His ally Pol Pot in Cambodia was crushed. In the long run, then pro-Chinese rebels in Thailand and Malaysia faced big problems. Another thing is that the USSR soon abandoned its ally to the mercy of fate, failing to organize economic interaction with Vietnam. The war in 13 did not mark a conflict in Burmese Kokan, where Chinese special forces suffered very tangible losses and where Kokan separatists did not achieve their full goals. I would be interested in continuing this article with an analysis of the last war in Myanmar in 2014 and an analysis of the results of this war. Any of these conflicts continues and is often resolved by economic and political actions. At stake is the whole of the last millennium, the independence of Vietnam, Korea, India, and now Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia.
  • Aleksandr21 22 May 2020 13: 43 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Junger
    The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "completely." And no matter how their army is equipped.


    You know, your opinion reminded me of the events of the recent past, when the Turkish army crossed the border with Syria and started the war with the Syrian armed forces, many here on the forum just mocked the Turks like that, what they can, what drones, and their Syrians, with our help, 0 they will multiply .... but as it turned out, the enemy turned out to be very good and there were times when the defeat of the Syrian army at those lines was not so far, and how many resources the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces needed to reverse this situation, only at the headquarters they know .... I'm what it is, do not need underestimation Niva opponents. Moreover, the Chinese army ... no matter how equipped their army? Seriously ? This is just very important nowadays, I can’t say anything bad about the training of Chinese soldiers, the network has enough information about their training, and the training of their best units is in no way inferior to ours, but regarding strategy and tactics, this is only a real war will show how good someone is ...
    1. Jünger 22 May 2020 13: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Aleksandr21
      , many here on the forum just mocked the Turks like that, what can they do, what drones, and our Syrians will multiply by 0 with our help .... but as it turned out, the enemy was very good and there were times when the Syrian army was defeated

      I did not scoff. It is difficult to mock the army and the people who once stood near Vienna and owned half of Asia. Therefore, I wrote
      You just need to know the story.

      Someone plays the violin well, someone fights, and someone neither one nor the other. I believe that genetics determines a lot, if not all.
    2. gsev 24 May 2020 01: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Aleksandr21
      but as it turned out the enemy was very good

      So it will be if the designer at the aircraft factory, in comparison with the tenant of the trading pavilion, considers himself a failure.
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Junger
    now dominated by general admiration for China

    Who pays for that and throats tear. Do not care.
  • vindigo 23 May 2020 20: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    By the way, South Koreans are not particularly afraid of the Chinese army. They believe that the United States will cope with them. But the soldiers of the northerners are very afraid. And traditionally, the Japanese is the mortal enemy of Asia! The scourge of China.
  • Disant 26 May 2020 18: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But Hitler after the Battle of Kursk decided to end the offensive and sent some troops to Italy - he just took it and decided it himself, of his own free will.

    Hitler, the Battle of Kursk, a part of the troops sent - sorry, I can not understand your equivocation - which way. After the gasp of the offensive impulse and the virtual cessation of the operation, the Citadel on the eastern front was sent to Italy for reformation to one of the repaired German divisions — only their mouths, without weapons.
  • Vitaly Tsymbal 22 May 2020 09: 30 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    I got the impression that the article was written not by Timokhin, but by Siji Junshichan (felbel 4 categories) Ti Mo Hin from the PLA))) One could call everything about the victories of the great army of China - nonsense, but on the other hand, our "felbel 4 categories ", most likely translated the allowance for political studies from the PLA’s l / s and thereby showed how we, those who served in the SA and lived in the USSR, Chinese comrade communists," smear "in the brains of the Chinese))) Well, every nation has its own" victorious " story...
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 10: 56 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Essentially there is something to object to?
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal 22 May 2020 13: 26 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        YES THERE IS!!! The first, unlike you, dear author, I studied tactics, weapons and the political system of the PRC (a lot of things were given to us under the heading “secret” and “for official use”, but you have, judging by the article, very, very a distant idea, as well as the role and actions of the PLA on the USSR border in the late 60s and early 70s. This is the first. You generally "inflated" the very dubious "gas" for the PRC attack on Vietnam in 1979. And the clashes in the region a piece of disputed land was given for the great war In the 80th year, during the Olympics in Moscow, being at Agitation in the troops, as part of SMEs, was on the Soviet-Chinese border. About Afghanistan - in general, you are lying, you are lying (although the Russian language has such concepts as a lie, a lie, so this is not an insult - a lie is a purposeful lie that has nothing to do with reality). I was in Afghanistan 82-84, and then on the territory of the USSR I was preparing sergeants for the OKSV. The fact that Afghanistan became a "nail in the coffin of the USSR" is just a lie that was duplicated without evidence, those who plundered the wealth of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, like war, everything is written off)))) You can write a lot for each th your conclusions, but over time it will take a lot of time and place, because to tell you would be over with the basics !!!! And I have neither time nor desire. And you tell me a person who not only lived at that time, but was also in touch with the topic you touched, trying to offer your vision of what you didn’t see))) Sorry for the directness ... You’ve been published on VO before, I liked some materials, some could debate, but this article ...
        1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 36 New
          • 2
          • 4
          -2
          So what's the bottom line? Is our Daman or is it the Zhenbaodao Peninsula now?
          1. Vitaly Tsymbal 22 May 2020 14: 07 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Dear Alexander! In the end, in essence, you need to write reasonably ... It is possible in the comments to "speak" with emotions and lie))) I already wrote to you about my understanding of lies, so here is another difference from lies, lies do not require argumentation ... This one of the techniques of the theater, fiction and political propaganda ... Someone blurted out - and you only raise your hands: you can’t refute, and it’s useless to prove something)))
            According to Damansky, it’s a pity that now there are almost no witnesses of those events, from their stories you would have heard a lot of interesting things ... and not always coinciding with the description of those events ... By the way, a participant in those events told me that the Grads hit me already after the Chinese departed, leaving only observers. I believe him more ...
            1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 14: 11 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              Well, these observers corrected art.fire from the Chinese side. A blow was inflicted on the Chinese territory.
              And after him, there were shootings.
              This is not a question of the fact that in the end, China gathered all the pros from this fight, which he lost, and we, who rejected the Chinese, were in the cons.
              That's what the material is about and it’s a pity that you didn’t understand this.
              1. Vitaly Tsymbal 22 May 2020 14: 37 New
                • 7
                • 1
                +6
                It is impossible to judge by Damansky who is in the plus, who is in the red. In addition to Damansky, there were other provocations - on the border in Kazakhstan. These provocations showed that the Chinese will receive a powerful response to an attempt to seize our territory. Result? The provocations of this magnitude ceased. As I wrote to you earlier, during the Olympics 80 in Moscow, the Chinese did not dare to provoke, although the situation was very serious both politically and militarily. This is about the plus of the events of that time. Also in Afghanistan, if you were born between the years 79-89, then the quiet childhood (and maybe life) is owed to the boys who fought in Afghanistan. In 89 we left Afghanistan and the war came to us in the USSR !!!!
                1. LastPS 22 May 2020 23: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 2
                  -1
                  Also in Afghanistan, if you were born between the years 79-89, then the quiet childhood (and maybe life) is owed to the boys who fought in Afghanistan. In 89 we left Afghanistan and the war came to us in the USSR !!!!

                  With all due respect, you reason one-sidedly. The author spoke of several other consequences of Afghanistan, namely the discontent of society with the protracted war. The effect of the campaign is obvious to you, but it was hardly obvious to most Soviet people. For them, it was an unnecessary war, it is not clear where and for some reason, where their children go, returning broken, who is morally and who are physically, well, if at all alive. And their position is quite understandable, yours too. They are both true.
                  1. Vitaly Tsymbal 23 May 2020 07: 28 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    Good morning! The author touched on only one side - the economy of the USSR. You are right to say that society is dissatisfied with the protracted war, and it arose because of the mistake of the CPSU Central Committee to honestly cover our Afghan war. And public discontent arose already in the year 87-88 - at the peak of Gorbachev's perestroika. Then the discontent arose not so much in the war in Afghanistan (by that time the intensity of hostilities had significantly decreased, as had the number of casualties) as by the authorities themselves. Dissatisfaction arose then thanks to the "democrats" who were destroying the USSR. Many of them turned out to be (consciously or not consciously) the propaganda anti-Soviet mouthpiece of the West. For example, it would seem that such a wonderful artist Lavrov, in a fit of democracy, being a deputy of the USSR Armed Forces, when the resolution on the Afghan war in October 1989 was adopted, just shouting that the words “condemn the entry of troops into Afghanistan” would be entered in the resolution, broke more souls of those who passed Afghan than war itself. Although in the text of the resolution put to the vote there was no word about any conviction. We, veterans of Afghanistan, still cannot achieve the abolition of this resolution, which is still a "trump card" in the hands of officials. This decree became the "base" for the deprivation of all veterans of Afghans, Chechens, Syrians, etc. benefits worthy of payment after returning from the war, etc. .. Soldiers conscripts who have passed Afghanistan do not count two years in the war as a preferential civilian seniority. But there is no dissatisfaction with this attitude of the authorities towards veterans in society. Why?
                    And on the topic, the influence of China and its help to those who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet army is very, very insignificant, so when the author tries to pass it off as "the victory of China in the war" - well, it's ridiculous, completely different countries played the main role !! !
                2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 38 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  It is impossible to judge by Damansky who is in the plus, who is in the red. In addition to Damansky, there were other provocations - on the border in Kazakhstan. These provocations showed that the Chinese will receive a powerful response to an attempt to seize our territory. Result?


                  The results are fully described in the article. But I'm not lazy, I can repeat it.

                  We list what China received.

                  1. China has shown that it is no longer a junior partner of the USSR, even nominally. Then the consequences of this were still not clear to anyone, but the future American strategy to pump China money and technology to create a counterweight to the USSR was born out of the Soviet-Chinese clashes on Damansky and later at Lake Zhalanoshkol.

                  2. China has shown that it is not afraid of a war with nuclear powers. This seriously raised its political weight in the world, in fact, the emergence of China as an independent military-political “center of power” in the world began precisely then.

                  3. China received a high-tech trophy weapon for study and copying - the T-62 tank. Particularly important for the Chinese was familiarity with the smooth-bore tank gun and all that it gives.

                  4. China subsequently de facto captured the disputed island. After the collapse of the USSR, this territory became de jure Chinese.

                  Now let's see what the USSR received.

                  1. The ability to defeat the Chinese on the battlefield has been proven. But in fact, no one doubted her. This was the only positive outcome of the battles for Damansky.

                  2. The USSR, constrained by the confrontation with NATO in Europe, actually received a second front. Now it was necessary to prepare also for the confrontation with China. The question of what it cost the Soviet economy and how it influenced the collapse of the USSR has not been studied enough yet, but it has been worth it and it has influenced - it’s unique. Moreover, the behavior of the Soviet military-political leadership in the following years had certain signs of panic.

                  So, in all seriousness, it was discussed how to stop the Chinese hordes when they go across the border. Barrier lines were created, including using nuclear munitions, new divisions were deployed, and in such numbers that the road network of eastern Siberia and the Far East would never have allowed even half of these troops to maneuver. ...

                  All this was worth a lot of resources.
                3. andrew42 23 May 2020 16: 03 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Vitaly, I support you. The "nail" was not Afghanistan, but the departure from there that there was a political Gorbachev gang, a betrayal of the Afghan allies and a moral betrayal of all the guys who put their lives there with a pure soul, so that the war would not come to the Union. And on the example of Damansky you correctly noticed the distortion. Just the final “loss” of the island is hysterical emotions, but the brutal losses suffered by the Chinese are a fact and a significant lesson, it’s a pity that the reaction was not immediate, but slightly belated.
        2. Wasiliy kostrow 24 May 2020 15: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Something poured incomprehensible.
          Neither taste nor smell.
  • Operator 22 May 2020 11: 18 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    It doesn’t matter whether the Chinese knew how or didn’t know how to fight in their history - because now they are driving not billions of mobile reserves, but megatons of nuclear potential.

    In other words, we drove through.
    1. Jünger 22 May 2020 11: 48 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      the reason that now they rule not billions of mobile reserves, but megatons of nuclear potential.

      Megatons have been ruling since the 50s of the last century, however, even the nuclear powers still butt with each other in the old fashioned way. Not to mention nuclear with non-nuclear.
      So no one excludes the new Chinese-Vietnamese and Chinese-Indian wars according to old concepts.
      Therefore, they did not pass.
  • exo
    exo 22 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Just a song about the invincible Chinese army.
    The tanks were in service with North Korea: 242 T-34 tanks, 176 self-propelled guns SU-76. Which is equivalent to their presence in China. And as far as I understand, there were supplies throughout the war.
    The United States has broken the back of Japan, which in terms of fighting spirit of warriors, is much stronger than China. At least over the past hundred years.
    And rightly noted in the comments: at the soldier level, the Americans did not really understand what they were fighting for in Korea (by the way, it was also at the initial stage of the war with Germany in WWII). From there, lower motivation.
    China should not be underestimated, but it is not worth presenting them in the form of "death super machines".
    At the same time, the effectiveness of Chinese technology is still a big question. I don’t remember any serious clashes with her participation.
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 11: 49 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      And who represents the Chinese indescribable death machines? You saw something in your read.
      1. exo
        exo 22 May 2020 12: 32 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Such an impression is formed after reading your description of the actions of the Chinese in Korea. It must be remembered that there were North Korean troops with heavy weapons nearby, even if they were not in the quantities that we would like.
        The main quality of the Chinese: to benefit from any position. This is precisely what they did during the WWII years, receiving help from the Anglo-Saxons (which was given in order for the Chinese to divert part of the Japanese forces) and at the same time solving exclusively their internal tasks.
        1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 39 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          It must be remembered that there were North Korean troops with heavy weapons nearby.


          Not anymore. They died mostly by that time and needed time to put themselves in order.
          Closer to Seoul reappeared
  • Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 11: 51 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Song Zi is remembered and outlined. "torch relay of generations"
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 12: 41 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Therefore, as soon as the Americans seriously engaged in Chinese volunteers, nothing shone.


      Well, as if the Americans had knocked them out of Seoul, but then something that did not grow together with the UN troops? Why didn’t the stone flower come out from the master?
      And yes, only the outcome in the long run is important.

      The Chinese are well done, but do not mix soft with warm. It is not known, even to the Chinese brothers themselves, what their army is really capable of.


      The main message is that it does not matter what their army can do. In Damansky, she was able to fly under the "Grad".
      And what is the final result? And this is not an accident, this is their approach in principle.
      That's what I mean.
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal 22 May 2020 13: 34 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        The Chinese were killed in Damansky not near Grad, but from the fire of small arms of the border guards ... well, read about the events in Damansky ,,, PLEASE !!!!
        1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 13: 44 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          And also under the fire of tanks. but the final rout was not organized by border guards or tanks.

          u read about the events in Damansky ,,, PLEASE !!!!


          Aha
          Two hours later, having spent ammunition, the Soviet border guards still had to withdraw from the island. It became clear that the forces introduced into the battle were not enough, and the Chinese significantly outnumbered the border guards. At 17:00 in a critical situation, in violation of the instructions of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU not to bring Soviet troops into conflict, on the orders of Colonel-General Oleg Losik, commander of the troops of the Far Eastern Military District, fire was fired from BM- secret secret multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) BM- 21 “Grad” of the 135th motorized rifle division. The shells destroyed most of the material and technical resources of the Chinese group and the military, including reinforcements, mortars, and stacks of shells. At 17:10, fighters of the 2nd battalion of the 199th motorized rifle Verkhne-Uda regiment of the 135th motorized rifle division and border guards under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Smirnov and Colonel Konstantinov went on the attack in order to finally crush the resistance of the Chinese troops. The Chinese began to withdraw from their positions. Around 19:00 several firing points “came to life”, three new attacks were made to suppress them, but they were also repelled.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Sergej1972 23 May 2020 05: 22 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          In 1991, de jure registration took place. And de facto Damansky was controlled by the Chinese since Brezhnev's time.
        2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 33 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          The result is important. I understand that this is too complicated a thought for the average layman.
          Damansky legally became Chinese in 1991, and in fact a few years after the end of the fighting. And already in the form of a peninsula.
      3. Negruz 25 May 2020 01: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        “it doesn’t matter what their army can do. In Damansky, it was able to fly under the Grad.
        And what is the final result? "

        The final result is such that the Chinese army fell under the hail ....
        There is no other final result ...
    2. EvilLion 22 May 2020 14: 38 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Suvorov and the French laid, and withdrew the army, avoiding defeat in a hopeless situation. And this is no matter how abruptly all the dispersal of the Turks, which contemporaries appreciated.
  • Operator 22 May 2020 12: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Junger
    new Chinese-Vietnamese and Chinese-Indian wars according to old concepts

    We are on the drum.
  • WayKheThuo 22 May 2020 13: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Thanks, thanks.
    Quite an interesting article on a very mythological topic.
  • Selevc 22 May 2020 14: 01 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The author of the article, by hook or by crook, extols the military wisdom and foresight of the Chinese ... But the main postulates of the article can be drawn against the opinion of the author by saying the following:
    1. China also did not defeat the USSR in any border conflict and showed absolutely no advantage in terms of strength and proximity of reserves in the battle of Damansky ... on the contrary, the USSR, having very weak and stretched communications and limited reserves, defeated the enemy .. .
    2. Huge China has never defeated little Vietnam even though it is its neighbor .. And calling distances of tens or hundreds of kilometers with communications or supply lines is too loudly said ... Any major power conducts exercises on such a scale and ensuring the front it should work like a clock ... What the Chinese have with
    these were problems - these are real problems of the PRC army at that time !!!
    3. Despite the huge army and resources, China has achieved very modest successes in cross-border conflicts with India ... That is, China has shown to the whole world that the difficult terrain reduces to zero technical superiority and numerical superiority of the advancing.
    As for the main conclusion from the article - the Chinese are certainly brave warriors, no one doubts this ... But we must also recognize the fact that "the PRC army never reached Berlin" - that is, China always fought well only near its borders or in areas of their historical dominance ... How the Chinese will fight in Africa where every bush is a stranger to them - no one knows and no one has verified ...
    1. timokhin-aa 22 May 2020 14: 11 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      You do not understand the meaning of what you read
      1. Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 14: 19 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Respondents did not read The Art of War. This is normal: do not require secret knowledge from office plankton :)
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Selevc 22 May 2020 14: 29 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        And it seems to me that the author himself with difficulty of the article hardly separates facts from fantasies - yes, China has won conflicts, but all the wars of China over the past 100 years are BORDER WARS and that's it !!!
        The fact that the PLA can and what is not can be taken from the ceiling and from the realm of fiction ...

        The fact that the USSR had some kind of strategic problems because of the conflict at the Daman or Vietnam-China War is generally complete rubbish !!! The leadership of the USSR in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century already consisted of decrepit old people or werewolves, secret admirers of the capitalist paradise !!! This is the main reason for the collapse of the country and the remaining reasons can be called a million, but their influence on the collapse of the country is meager ...
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 44 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Selevc
          the author of the article hardly separates facts from fantasies

          Yes, the second cannot be consistent even in his brief little letter, first calling the casting of corpses a fiction, and then telling how the Chinese threw someone bravely with corpses. Where can he still separate fiction from facts? A thoughtless set of letters for the glory of the customer. It turned out, however, very badly. Probably even the opposite effect has been achieved.
          1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 31 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            The Chinese topic always causes fifth point breaks in people with low intelligence, I don’t know why this is so, but it is.
            So the effect has just been achieved as expected.
            1. Liam 23 May 2020 22: 46 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The Chinese topic always causes fifth point breaks in people with low intelligence, I don’t know why this is so, but it is.
              So the effect has just been achieved as expected.

              This is your weakest article in recent years. Not that the rest would be masterpieces). But this is just a set of words without any logic and argument from the ceiling
              1. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 22: 49 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Essentially, please.
        2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 15: 29 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Drink some water.
    2. andrew42 23 May 2020 16: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Since the article’s talk is not so much about China’s military-technical capabilities, but about military history and military traditions, I would add the following: China is an ancient distinctive culture that doesn’t look like anything, militarily employing tactics of small biting and creeping expansion for centuries . They do it perfectly, it’s in their blood. Only there is a problem in the Chinese perception of reality - while the sly ones study “Sun Tzu” and weave “nets of deception”, some Huns Shanuy with a small army takes Bayzcin with a direct blow to the nose. It remains to rejoice that the deep culture of the Taoists (and this is essentially the "Chinese race") is not a military place.
  • Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 14: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    "..War is a way of deception. Therefore, if you can do anything, show the enemy that you can’t; if you use something, show him that you are not using it; even if you were close, show that you are far away; even if you were far away, show that you are close; lure him with profit; get him upset and take him; if he is full, be prepared; if he is strong, evade him; calling in anger, bring him into a state of frustration; having taken a humble appearance, arouse self-conceit in him; if his strength is fresh, tire him; e Does he have a friendly warriors, disconnect; to attack him when he is not ready and delivers, when he does not expect ... "(c)

    "..If the trees moved, it means it’s suitable. If grass barriers are built, then it tries to mislead. If the birds take off, then there is an ambush hidden there. If the animals are frightened, then someone is hiding there. If the dust it rises by a pillar, then chariots go; if it creeps low over a wide space, then infantry goes; if it rises in different places, it means they collect fuel. If it rises here and there, and moreover in small quantities, that means set up camp .. "(c)
    1. Selevc 22 May 2020 14: 47 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      ..War is a way of deception.

      To date, the military successes of China have clearly lagged far behind their economic achievements ... Despite enormous financial injections ... There is a huge army and navy - but the old problems have not been resolved, even border problems !!!
      Today, China is a giant power (a permanent member of the UN Security Council) can not really figure out the bulk sandy chalk islands off its coast and enter its full sovereignty over them !!! Islands - it’s really not clear whether they are or not !!! - the sea is constantly eroding them, the Chinese are building something there - the rest of the world has not yet recognized this !!!
      I am already silent about the problem of Taiwan - this problem was generally, is and will be too tough for China ...
      By the way, the Chinese could also occupy Hong Kong - this is just a city separated by a jumper from China. but could not ..
      99 years have failed !!! Despite the atomic bomb, mao, den xiao ping and so on ..

      I know very well the quotes from The Art of War ... But in the case of China, the main thing is that the sly one does not outwit himself in the end !!!
      1. Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 16: 06 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Ancient wisdom turns into "wisdom" in the era of "quick fixes" :)
        1. Bersaglieri 25 May 2020 14: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Again "shkolota naminusovat" :)
  • Knell wardenheart 22 May 2020 14: 34 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    You must understand that after any world carnage for some time, the ghost of repetition is behind the winners, and it works. So Chamberlain and Co. were terribly afraid of escalation, and Adolf Aloizovich was not afraid - and played on it. In fact, what the Chinese have done in Korea is a repetition of such a technique. What could the "UN troops" in this case? Degrade everything there to 0 along with cities, Chinese, etc.? Could. But they were afraid (not without our help, of course) that this would be a prelude to larger events. That's why they gave the back one - nobody really wanted to experience the DropShot and the action. We can say that the Chinese fought well - you can. They put a bunch of their people in a foreign land for the sake of the FSS of the great leader Mao. Could the west end this? Yes, one left, to be honest. The West has already dealt with the pacification of Japanese supply lines and industrial centers - the Japanese flesh from the flesh is also a cunning and stubborn nation. Broke and break.
    As for the battle for Damansky, I cannot agree with the author. Objectively, the Amur treaty was not on our side - we had the choice to blood up everything to Beijing because of some kind of lousy haymaking - we acted quite restrained. The disheartened Northern China on our borders with numerous partisans and hungry refugees would probably be the last thing our leadership would like. But we could arrange all this ..

    The Chinese are good warriors, they are moderately unpretentious, sometimes they are not too stubborn, there are a lot of them, they are quite organized and well ideologically crafted - they have equipment that is the ideological development of an effective unpretentious “doomsday weapon” created by the USSR, with all the advantages and the downsides of such weapons. However, the minus of China stems from its advantages.
    All this is very healthy, to a greater extent than we are tied to the organized, quiet work of the rear - suppliers, logistics, decision centers. When you operate with a small professional force - you can "chew" a number of jambs, engage in self-supply, organize tactical defense - but when you have a zerg, you are very dependent on management-supply, I would even say critically. And this is their Achilles heel.
  • EvilLion 22 May 2020 14: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    That is, China is a medieval state, which absolutely does not give a damn about the loss of pisants and peasants from the infantry, while peasants from the infantry themselves are not afraid of anything, because outside the army they will die of starvation. China is much stronger than its neighbors, and in the event of a military defeat, it does not get into a situation like the Germans after the Battle of Kursk, when "all the guys, now you have a khan." And how will this help in the event of a war against Russia or the United States, which are capable of imposing an escalation level? And any war has economic results. What did China get after disassembling Daman? Nothing. At the same time, there are pure Terra Nullis territories in the world that nobody purposely claims to be, hoping to overcome something more valuable in a territorial dispute. Because after the conclusion of the contract, it will be more difficult to revise it than to argue on the principle "here my grandfather sat under the bush in the morning." The contract simply resets the argument. In this regard, for example, the territorial disputes between Russia and China have been completely exhausted, because the border treaties have been signed, yes, China has been given a bit. But for this, he completely abandons claims to everything else. An attempt to spin the minced meat back will be uncomfortable and you won’t get rid of a thousand corpses.

    Moreover, what differences the author says about Europe, I do not really understand. In Europe, back in the 17th century, a pair of neighboring feudal lords could fight for a bump, including because the cadastral register is fig. It’s just that Europe decided all this much earlier, and wars became large and rare. At the same time, in 1812, the same Napoleon was answered to the proposal to reduce the level of escalation that he was nifig, and a month later he fled from Moscow.

    As for Vietnam, the United States bombed it in the Stone Age, did the USSR fight for it with the United States? The USSR is not at all obliged to fight for anyone, unless it is directly agreed upon.
    1. Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 16: 04 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Exactly. And there is. "all is ripples on the water. The main thing is eternity"
  • krvl 22 May 2020 15: 15 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Awesome article! Never read anything like it! Everywhere on this subject, with the mention of English victories in the century before last. Thanks to the author not only for the facts and their reviews, but also for reflection, generalization and summary.
  • Usher 22 May 2020 15: 42 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    But what about the Japanese with a scanty army in their tail and mane?
    1. Bersaglieri 22 May 2020 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      It would also be "drowned" in the "living waves" and in the "folds of the terrain" would ... years for 20-25. With outside help, the period was reduced by almost 3 times.
      1. Shadow 22 May 2020 18: 51 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        The Japanese did not breed sentiment, this was their trump card. In principle, such wars are won by gallows rather than tanks.
        1. Bersaglieri 25 May 2020 15: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          It’s true, but ... The war in Korea in the 16th century was lost by the Japanese
    2. timokhin-aa 23 May 2020 22: 06 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      By that time, they had had a civil war for many decades, China was at the minimum of its historical power, and Japan was on its way to the peak.
      1. Liam 23 May 2020 22: 48 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        By that time, they had had a civil war for many decades, China was at the minimum of its historical power, and Japan was on its way to the peak.

        And when was China at the peak of its historical power?)
  • Ivanchester 22 May 2020 16: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Troops from Afghanistan withdrawn at the request of China

    I always thought that the troops withdrew, because We realized the futility of their further stay in Afghanistan.
    Where can I read about what you wrote?
  • Andrey VOV 22 May 2020 17: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author, as an officer, and you are an officer, your arrogant attitude towards people commenting on your materials absolutely does not color you ... You somehow think about it at your leisure ... you shouldn’t be behaving like that, honestly.
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      Your arrogant attitude towards people commenting on your materials absolutely does not color you ...

      This is the standard defensive response of a very limited person.
  • Shadow 22 May 2020 18: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Big loose body. Trying to push back is futile, but knocking out with a series of powerful punches is quite possible.
  • Pushkar 22 May 2020 19: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The conclusions are not very comforting for us.
  • Lontus 22 May 2020 20: 29 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Funny paid by the Chinese article.
    They become Sinaphils either out of stupidity and ignorance, or for financial or career motivation!
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 06: 49 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Lontus
      stupidity and ignorance for either financial or career motivation!

      And more often both
  • RoTTor 22 May 2020 22: 59 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    "... General Peng Dehui - also seems to be a Jew ..."

    The gallant RED PLA of the Americans did beat seriously even during the Korean War, when it did not have the equipment and power that is now,
    and they forgot about it.
    In vain and dangerous for the USA:
  • Courier 22 May 2020 23: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The author did not cite the loss of the Chinese in the Korean War. (From a million and above
  • In a military conflict with Vietnam, the PRC could not have aviation to support the ground forces. China simply did not have such aviation. Why does the author not analyze the results of the military operations of China against Japan? In World War 2, the Chinese failed to demonstrate their military art. Their losses were greater than even those of the USSR. The article reveals bias. It might be more useful to analyze the combat capabilities of the military districts bordering the Russian Federation and at the same time evaluate the training of troops ..
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 04: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    coupled with numerical superiority and moral readiness to bear huge losses

    So this, as it were, is - a mass crush. Why at the beginning of the article then you called it a silly cliche?
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver 23 May 2020 04: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The USSR in that conflict is the loser
    A political decision based on fears that too many Chinese will have to be killed, in which case. They were not ready for this then.
    Oh, this is again like "crush the mass." However.
  • Sergej1972 23 May 2020 05: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It seems to me that there was still such a limiter in the Soviet leadership. China, whatever one may say, is a socialist state, although pursuing the wrong course.
  • Sergej1972 23 May 2020 05: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In my opinion, the factor of the CCP, communist ideology should not be forgotten when we talk about the actions of the CCP.
  • Amborlakatay 23 May 2020 08: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A one-sided article, looks like Chinese propaganda, where facts are “hushed up,” facts are hushed up, and an emphasis on something else, as the Chinese like to do. The funny thing is, with all the PLA propaganda, the Chinese themselves do not believe in its power.
  • Awaz 23 May 2020 08: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quite dubious successes you are praising here.
    No, I don’t call to throw the Chinese people with hats, but it seems to me that the Chinese army, although equipped with quite modern weapons and trained tactically, has not had any combat experience for many years and how will it work if they encounter a motivated and though would be an equal adversary.
    We don’t need to discuss the Chinese, but ours ... Something tells me, if suddenly a serious conflict, the vast majority of our fellow citizens do not volunteer for the front, but rather try to blame away from the war. And our brave Rosgvardeytsy, instead of fighting with the army for one thing with the enemies, will be engaged in identifying potential cannon fodder ...
    1. Sancho_SP 23 May 2020 09: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      1. Out of 130 million people, volunteers will be enough for absolutely any idiotic adventure.
      2. Also there will always be many people running away from obsessive offers to go die for the current elite.

      And those and others, there will be millions.
    2. Wasiliy kostrow 24 May 2020 16: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The truth is so true.
      Most Russians think about this to themselves.
  • Sancho_SP 23 May 2020 08: 58 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    We start with "the Chinese do not just crush the masses," we give examples of "crushed by the masses without fear of loss."

    Korea was never occupied, even with the help of the USSR.

    Taiwan is still independent.

    There were simply no other contenders for Tibet.

    The USSR itself died, unfortunately.


    So, so far, the Chinese have not yet shown themselves anywhere.
  • Phoenix 23 May 2020 12: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The author is clearly a Chinese agent or sectarian: D So he praises, well, with all his might! The author does not consider the war with Japan, because it does not fit into the winning song. No matter what you discover on the Internet, everywhere someone is imposing something, at least do not read it ....
  • tuts 23 May 2020 12: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    to the author in addition to the article
  • Observer2014 23 May 2020 13: 37 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Chinese wars
    In short. The Chinese came to the war. Won .. lol
  • Eugene P. 23 May 2020 15: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    At 10 (!) Times they surpassed (Damansky) by approximately losses, and they won another “type”! I am figing with this afftara. Well it’s necessary to manage to rearrange everything upside down. And this, with such a presentation, they say "they just didn’t want to", to go further. Of course, they did not need Mongolia, and so on. All that they wanted was received directly - from these clashes. Lol
    Well, all right, you can extract the main thing: the Ketai snake with wings (the so-called "dragon") does not inspire confidence on a global, far-reaching scale, and you need to keep this in mind and be prepared if something happens. And episodic cooperation in this historical period is a necessary measure. It is necessary as soon as possible to embark on the sovereign path of economic development, and to minimize as much as possible the share of the influence of this second hegemoshka who has gained too much economic weight - on our state. For when the politics of any of them goes in the wake, the Russian idea is conserved and Ukrainized. National idea needs complete independence from major players, as was the case with RI.
  • andrew42 23 May 2020 16: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Dissonance in the article. The author expresses concern about the technical equipment and organization of the modern Chinese army, and cites the success of the CPV infantry in Korea as the main argument. So why should we be afraid? - Mass of Chinese infantry (the old fashioned way) or modern Chinese aviation / artillery / tanks? Both one and the other? China has long understood. that modern wars are won by technology, no one from there will drive the mass of soldiers. By military technology in aggregate, China has not yet surpassed even today's Putin's Russia, and will not surpass it. This is not a technology for 5Gi for Americans to rub, and not Liaoning rebuild. Although there is no doubt, the adversary is serious, and most importantly - motivated by the nationalist government, which returned to the Chinese the concept of Zhong Guo - the Middle Empire, the navel of the Earth. All other delights from the Chinese military "successes" are generally incomprehensible. The Chinese did not achieve anything from the hostilities, everywhere rested on the limit of opportunities and retreated to their positions. Who and how many broke / robbed / exported from whom at the same time - this has nothing to do with military affairs. Although I understand where these enthusiasms come from, no one knows how to puff out his cheeks as important as the Chinese comrades. But the Chinese know how to count money perfectly, that's right. And also to squeeze accomplices / allies from the cash register - it is better not to have joint "enterprises" with them, and not to let them into your sandbox.
  • Denis Ck 24 May 2020 01: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    China is not capable of expansion.
    The fact is that China and the Chinese are a "thing in themselves" and there can be no other way, there are always too many of them in order to expand. The state is ready for effective aggression when it is able to unite the whole society, otherwise the result will turn out to be sad, which was confirmed by the First World War. China has a lot of social problems and international tension points, and like a cherry on a cake is the main Achilles heel, lack of universal social health care and pensions, medicine in China is paid, and only state ones have pensions. employees. Those. elderly people live at the expense of young people who have the opportunity to work, as we know, any war is a blow to the economy, which means that the burden on citizens will increase at times, I won’t understand what you will have with all of the above.
    Forced Khanization society in fact has not made a single nation of the Chinese, it requires hundreds of years, the processes of assimilation are generally very capricious. High in China and class social tension.
    The Chinese mentality boasts of wealth, restricted area system they have extreme forms, which does not bring love for power among ordinary Chinese. Travel restrictions for citizens and if the older generation takes it calmly, the young people accumulate negativity, and someday the boiler will explode, we need a catalyst.
    To manage such a number of people in a stressful situation, no state has experience. the system, too social environment becomes unstable, in addition to the troubles already described, a bunch of variables appear that cannot be foreseen.
    Those. in a long conflict, with China it will be the same as it always has been - a civil war, a battle for power and the disintegration of the state.

    If we turn to History, we will see that this has always happened to China, and the point is not in the army, no matter how beautiful it is, the wars do not win on the fronts, but in the rear.
  • Hyperborean 24 May 2020 13: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    How much pathos .. Honestly, even the editorials of Chinese newspapers have a rest .. China is a trading empire, with its strengths and weaknesses .. These aspects need to be known and used. There is nothing supernatural in the war machine of China. Moreover, it’s an invincible invincibility. I have never been a patriot, but I can still say: The Russian army is the strongest in the world. Though infinite, but it’s like that ..
    1. Pavel Fedorov 24 May 2020 14: 17 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      There are very few troops in the far east. Everything is given to China. Forest is taken out in full. All power was sold to the Chinese ... the Kremlin has long sold the Far East as, indeed, the whole of Russia
  • Pavel Fedorov 24 May 2020 14: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Here it is already necessary to think not about how China is fighting, but the kagal who has settled in the Kremlin, who has only one thing in mind: the death of the Russian people ...
  • Diverter 24 May 2020 22: 29 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    China is today our political partner. Only.
    He is not our ally.
    Also, you should never forget that he is our historical enemy!
    The bloody massacre (which is very difficult for us), although it ended with our Victory 7528 years ago, can happen again.
  • Negruz 25 May 2020 01: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If China knew how to fight, "opium wars" were fought by shelling Rouen and Portsmouth ....
    Hence the "Eurocentrism" ....

    "The USSR in that conflict is the loser" - a false statement, the degree of reliability corresponding to the thoughts of the early 90s, where the "proof" was the size of the pensions of Wehrmacht veterans in Germany and Red Army veterans ....
  • Dimmedroll 25 May 2020 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I do not think that our staff members are not calculating the Chinese question. Essentially, the author showed that numbers solve many issues. As the Chinese show. But here joint exercises showed not quite prepared Chinese commanders. Perhaps it was specially in the best traditions of China.
  • Sergey Sfiedu 26 May 2020 21: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’ve been wondering since 1979 - why didn’t the Vietnamese use military aircraft then? After all, they had good shots, and the planes - MiG-17, MiG-19 (J-6), MiG-21, F-5E, A-37 - are quite suitable for attacks by numerous, but poorly covered air defense forces of the aggressor.
  • Sckepsis 26 May 2020 22: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0

    Fans of the theory that the Chinese do not know how to fight should think about how this was possible.

    Yes, it’s very simple: rigging the facts and putting them in the right direction. Not an article but a solid ode, not only to the Chinese, but also to the author's FAQ.
  • chetbor 27 May 2020 23: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The USSR supported Vietnam in 1979. As we were cadets. During this period, the remnants of the MiG-17 were massively circled in EVAUUL, and were also poured into containers on wagons. For a week we cleared everything that was. It’s clear that the train didn’t go to China ...
  • Bismarck84 28 May 2020 20: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What are the hot debates here)))
    I think the author simply wanted to say that the Chinese, unlike us, have a fundamentally different attitude to both the war and the army.
    This is our "stand to the last" loss of 90% but we hold on, military labor is a matter of glory and honor, etc.
    and then how to withstand the onslaught of the adversary slowly but surely "crush the reptile in the nest" simultaneously expanding its borders)))
    And the Chinese were repeatedly conquered - by the Mongols, Hunhuz and, more recently, the Japanese (yes, I know that in the end the Japanese lost, but we would be honest if the Japanese did not finish our army in 45 China).
    but simply do not consider defeats from nomads, foreigners and others
    However, let’s imagine that you are so clever even if you didn’t just win the battle (campaign)
    from China and conquered China, and then what ???
    Well, several million Chinese people will die, well, not Xiang but Mao or even Khubilai will be the leader
    Well, GDP will fall a little (and for many centuries until the mid-50s of the 19th century, China's GDP was approximately 50% of the global and now they are confidently returning to these figures)
    so then everything will quickly recover and it's like a battle with water
    So the Chinese gradually dissolved the Mongols in themselves, the Manchus remained longer but only under the strictest ban to mix with the Chinese, and when they weakened they overthrew during the Chinese revolution.
    So even the complete conquest of China is not a victory, but as a "temporary event" in the history of thousands of years
    Therefore, when I studied Chinese history, I was surprised to find out that they have “military labor” (in the pre-communist era, anyway) this is not an honorable and important thing at all, and this sphere is mainly for losers, fools and half-educated people who did not make their way to satisfying bureaucratic feeders.
    As a result, conquering (defeating) China with such an approach is essentially unrealistic.
    But the question is, is it possible to conduct something offensive with such an approach - imperialist, far beyond the borders of its borders in which China has been hanging for a thousand years ????
    Note that all conflicts the author wrote about (with the exception of the Korean War)
    these are relatively minor conflicts at the very borders.
    Moreover, in the same Korean war, after the initial success of the Chinese, the then modern but much smaller American army began to crush and by the time of Stalin's death the Chinese themselves wanted to end it
  • Demagogue 29 May 2020 11: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Alexander, here I do not agree with the article. Absolutely. Just because the Koreans told me how it really was. How American machine gunners mowed down the Chinese all day and went crazy. They put others and all over again. As the Chinese with kitchen knives buried and waited for the Americans. Like ants they have tactics. Heinlein also wrote in the Starship Troopers: on the second day, we realized what it was like to fight with creatures organically adapted to communism. We understand what he wrote about Korea. The Chinese are absolutely devoid of any individualism
  • Molot1979 30 May 2020 07: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    At first, I also did not like the author’s knee-elbow position relative to China. However, upon reflection, I will say this: it will not work to challenge what has been said with figures and facts. Yes and whether it is necessary? Now the Russian-Chinese union has actually developed. And the fact that our ally knows how to fight is wonderful.
  • serg v zapase 31 May 2020 21: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I correctly understood the meaning of the article. Has China pursued an expansionist policy all these years in the south and in the seas, and will soon look to the north? And we have nothing to stop him, except for Poseidon, and several Daggers.