Chinese wars

248
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. Especially important for the Chinese was familiarity with the smoothbore tank gun and all that she 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 weapons, new divisions were deployed, and in such numbers that the road network of eastern Siberia and the Far East would never allow maneuvering even by half of these troops. 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.

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.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

248 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    22 May 2020 05: 28
    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 .... feel Technique, decided everything, planes.
    1. 0
      22 May 2020 07: 24
      Technique, decided everything, planes.

      The planes were on both sides. The whole question is experience, combat training and motivation of both parties.
      1. +19
        22 May 2020 07: 32
        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. +20
          22 May 2020 08: 32
          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. -4
            22 May 2020 10: 44
            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. +21
              22 May 2020 11: 29
              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. +5
                22 May 2020 11: 51
                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. -2
                  27 May 2020 00: 23
                  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. +10
                24 May 2020 07: 07
                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.
                1. 0
                  11 August 2020 11: 08
                  "... It must be admitted that the Chinese way of waging war is much more humane than the Western one ..."
                  -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------

                  hmm!
                  The Chinese should not be underestimated, and about their "humanity" one should recall the fact that after the 1917 revolution, former Chinese guest workers in the Cheka units and their atrocities against the Russian population (skinning living people, cutting off genitals, ripping up pregnant women ... etc.)
              3. 0
                26 June 2020 11: 11
                Quote: Octopus
                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.

                - Ha ha! Armies of different dictatorships fight in different ways, recall WWII: Japanese armies fought well; Wehrmacht fought well; The Red Army in the first two years - fought terribly badly. All three countries are under dictatorial rule.
                The armies of democratic countries: France - fought disgustingly, Great Britain - lousy, the United States - "not very" at the beginning.
                But in the second half of the war, the situation radically changed - and we all know the result - who hanged whom in the end.
                1. 0
                  26 June 2020 19: 01
                  Unfortunately, you did not understand the meaning of this post.

                  The conversation was not about whether these or those armies fought well or badly. And that the price of war and the price of sacrifices for the dictatorship are different. This is a relative advantage over democracies. Advantage in the "geopolitical" sense, of course.
            2. -2
              23 May 2020 17: 03
              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. 0
                23 May 2020 21: 42
                Well this is not so to say the least.
              2. +4
                23 May 2020 23: 29
                Quote: Oo sarcasm
                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. 0
                  24 May 2020 20: 02
                  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. +2
              23 May 2020 18: 38
              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. +2
                23 May 2020 23: 38
                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. +2
                  24 May 2020 01: 09
                  Quote: Octopus
                  having just about no idea of ​​modern warfare.

                  Were the herds of the Chinese with the North Koreans waging a "modern" war?)
                  1. +3
                    24 May 2020 01: 13
                    Quote: Liam
                    Were the herds of the Chinese with the North Koreans waging a "modern" war?)

                    Not really. But it was meant that the elves were again incapable of waging a modern war.
                    1. +2
                      24 May 2020 01: 17
                      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.
                      Willingness for a similar throw and this is not the case. Or "contactless warfare". Guided high-precision long-range weapons. This became available with Desert Storm
                      1. +2
                        24 May 2020 01: 33
                        Quote: Liam
                        Willingness for a similar throw and this is not the case. Or "contactless warfare". Guided high-precision long-range weapons. This became available with 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. -2
                        24 May 2020 01: 43
                        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. +3
                        24 May 2020 02: 14
                        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. -2
                        24 May 2020 13: 27
                        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 have changed the concept of new wars - technological superiority, "contactless" war with a minimum of casualties.
                      5. +2
                        24 May 2020 13: 43
                        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. -1
                        24 May 2020 13: 57
                        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
                      7. 0
                        24 May 2020 21: 17
                        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.
                      8. +1
                        24 May 2020 22: 19
                        Quote: English tarantass
                        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.
                      9. 0
                        25 May 2020 16: 25
                        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?
                      10. +1
                        25 May 2020 16: 29
                        Quote: English tarantass
                        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 tarantass
                        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.
            4. +3
              25 May 2020 09: 39
              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. 0
                25 May 2020 13: 37
                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. 0
                  25 May 2020 20: 55
                  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. 0
                25 May 2020 16: 29
                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.
            5. 0
              11 February 2022 13: 42
              I advise the author to look at the economics of Vatoadmin or FURYDROPS, and the USSR ruined an attempt to build utopian communism with an oil needle in economic terms, and the PRC just rose from its knees on private property and capitalism, and American investments in the PRC economy were inferior to the state in volume! The war was primarily for the disputed mountainous regions, from which all the Chinese were evicted, and as a result of the war, these disputed mountainous regions remained with Vietnam! The PRC was lucky with Damansky if it were not for the collapse of the USSR or if the government of the Russian Federation were smarter, these territories would continue to belong to Russia!
              1. 0
                11 February 2022 15: 37
                The war was primarily for the disputed mountainous regions


                This is something new.

                and as a result of the war, these disputed mountainous regions remained with Vietnam!


                The Chinese did not have a goal to annex something significant, they stopped not very far from Hanoi.
                1. 0
                  11 February 2022 17: 04
                  At the same time, in violation of earlier agreements, Vietnam put forward a demand for Chinese citizens living near the border in mountainous areas to renounce their Chinese citizenship. A campaign was launched to squeeze ethnic Chinese out of Vietnam, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of people were forced to flee North Vietnam to neighboring countries in the region. Many of them, saving their lives, left Vietnam on boats unsuitable for long-term navigation. There was a campaign to "cleanse the border" from traditional Chinese immigrants living there. All these measures led to the fact that by the end of 1978 more than 280 thousand people were expelled from Vietnam. Crap like the USSR and Finland!
          2. +1
            22 May 2020 10: 58
            Quote: Octopus
            And they fought well, the same battle at Chkhosinsky Vdhr is an American Brest fortress

            laughing
            Yeah ... When the Americans, who were preparing to "end the war before Christmas," were notoriously snapped in the teeth and surrounded. After that, thanks to the set weather (frost, snowdrifts), they were able to break through the encirclement and arranged a twelve-day drape. Losing equipment on the way, wounded and frostbitten.
            They were saved only by the Chinese and the North Koreans, even fewer of them were prepared for the "Siberian weather" and almost completely lost their mobility.
            1. +9
              22 May 2020 11: 30
              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. -3
                22 May 2020 11: 34
                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. 0
                  22 May 2020 11: 35
                  Quote: Spade
                  With the same success, the Americans could call the figure 800 thousand. Or 1800 thousand.

                  Do you have your own version?
                  1. -4
                    22 May 2020 11: 37
                    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. +3
                      22 May 2020 11: 38
                      Quote: Spade
                      The Americans, as always, lied.

                      This is no problem.

                      So what were the strengths volunteers? The figure, the source.
                      1. -2
                        22 May 2020 11: 44
                        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. +4
                        22 May 2020 11: 49
                        Everything is not so clear?

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

                        Everything is absolutely clear.
                        Americans are lying.
                      5. +2
                        22 May 2020 16: 15
                        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.
                      6. 0
                        25 May 2020 13: 38
                        I read that 500 thousand Chinese.
                2. +1
                  22 May 2020 13: 11
                  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. 0
                    22 May 2020 16: 06
                    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.
              2. -1
                22 May 2020 11: 53
                Yes, they did. They have 400 thousand people you had to defeat one division?


                What kind of figure is this?
                1. +2
                  22 May 2020 11: 55
                  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. +6
                    22 May 2020 12: 14
                    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. +1
                      22 May 2020 15: 06
                      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.
            2. +5
              22 May 2020 11: 52
              They were saved only by one - the Chinese and the North Koreans, even fewer of them were 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. -1
                22 May 2020 16: 53
                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. -2
                  23 May 2020 15: 40
                  That's just the Americans themselves characterized the CPV as a light infantry army.
              2. 0
                25 May 2020 08: 55
                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
    2. +5
      22 May 2020 08: 27
      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.
    3. 0
      22 May 2020 10: 43
      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.
    4. 0
      25 May 2020 13: 35
      The balance of power was equal. 500 to 500 thousand. So ...
  2. +21
    22 May 2020 05: 32
    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. +16
      22 May 2020 06: 56
      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. -1
        22 May 2020 10: 45
        And what didn’t suit you as a fleet in the Second World War?
        1. +2
          22 May 2020 11: 07
          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. -2
            22 May 2020 11: 43
            I looked. This is from the series "to him about Fom, and he about Erema." Your comments are just some kind of bottom.
            Take a look better that AlexeyRA wrote there.
            This is a very competent opinion.
            1. +2
              22 May 2020 11: 55
              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. 0
                22 May 2020 12: 43
                Well, you have a quick article.
                Reread what you wrote there.
                1. +4
                  22 May 2020 13: 56
                  Why are you reacting so painfully to comments? Are you trying to throw a handkerchief of excuses and accusations on almost every mouth? You need to be calmer. Moreover, pay attention - they hardly react to your comments. We commentators have our own "wedding". We have formed an opinion about the authors a long time ago and are only surprised when they get out of their usual framework.
                  1. 0
                    22 May 2020 14: 05
                    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 lisp, and do not know the words ...
                    - Have you heard them, in general?! ...
                    - No, but Gogi sang to me ...


                    Given that Skomorokhov's article begins with a link to the material under discussion. This is not even "I have not read, but I condemn", but in general the edge.

                    We commentators have our own "wedding". We have formed an opinion about the authors a long time ago and are only surprised when they get out of their 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. +1
                      22 May 2020 14: 06
                      This is where our argument will end.
    2. +8
      22 May 2020 08: 59
      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.
  3. +10
    22 May 2020 05: 41
    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 cannon on the A-10 and the MiG-27 were primarily deployed in the western direction, against NATO troops.
    But the mines "OZM" and "MON", like the mortar "Vasilek", with the "Flame" grenade launcher, these yes, were designed taking into account the defeat of large masses of infantry ...
    1. -3
      22 May 2020 10: 46
      ????? Actually, this was our "response" to the American cannon on the A-10 and the MiG-27 were primarily deployed in the western direction, against NATO troops.


      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. +3
        22 May 2020 12: 50
        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. -3
          22 May 2020 13: 04
          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. +2
            22 May 2020 13: 11
            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. -3
              22 May 2020 13: 25
              The gun was not originally planned 30 mm
              1. +2
                22 May 2020 14: 31
                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
  4. +13
    22 May 2020 05: 45
    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), the withdrawal 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 refutation of the saying "A thin world is better than a good quarrel"
    1. -3
      22 May 2020 07: 34
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Noodles for the people. From the beginning there was the word "perestroika" in 1987 (and reforms began to be prepared under Andropov), the withdrawal 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.
  5. +3
    22 May 2020 05: 55
    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. feel
    1. 0
      22 May 2020 10: 47
      It is very difficult to gain technological superiority over the USA. We managed in a few directions - atom, aerodynamics.
      1. +1
        24 May 2020 06: 21
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We managed in a few directions - atom, aerodynamics.

        What about ballet? belay
  6. -2
    22 May 2020 05: 58
    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.
  7. +9
    22 May 2020 06: 06
    Interestingly, some of the findings are not true. Especially in terms of the self-esteem of the Chinese - "they gave us a shot, but we won." In addition, most conflicts with China were of a border nature, without a declaration of war on its part, which dictated limited military-political measures to curb its aggression.
    In general, everyone who comes into conflict with China 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 snot and a group of comrades", so one can talk about domination until you run into such a "boxer". It is tantamount to maintain a "bad peace" with him, which is more dear to oneself, to be stuffed into comrades, but it is possible and necessary to mutually exist as friends.
  8. 0
    22 May 2020 06: 19
    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.
  9. +14
    22 May 2020 06: 24
    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. -3
      22 May 2020 10: 49
      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. 0
        24 May 2020 06: 35
        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. +1
      22 May 2020 11: 48
      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. It's not a pound of raisins for you to pick!
      4. The author's strange approach: He confuses DB and politics. Yes, war is the continuation of politics by violent means, but this is not the same thing as conducting a database on the battlefield! And the author turns out that the whales were nailed on Damansky and in Vietnam, but they - "won"! So it will be with the Yankees soon: they will say that they won in Vietnam!
      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 100 million mobs in reserve. And China is dangerous for its neighbors, but not for the United States. they are not going to find out "hu is hu!" They are adherents of remote, contactless wars, and even they are going to wage them with the help of cybers and bots ... By doing so, they bracketed the Chinese army. And in terms of technical equipment, the PLA is still far from the US Armi, and especially the fleet and aviation. Realizing this, China is rapidly developing its navy and air force. The question is in time: will the PLA have time to arm itself with new systems before the start of the conflict, or will it turn out like the USSR before the Second World War - that is the main question!
      IMHO.
      1. +1
        22 May 2020 13: 33
        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. It's not a pound of raisins for you to pick!


        780 of which more than 000 never participated in battles.

        4. The author's strange approach: He confuses DB and politics. Yes, war is the continuation of politics by violent means, but this is not the same thing as conducting a database on the battlefield! And the author turns out that the whales were nailed 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. -1
        23 May 2020 05: 11
        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. +1
      23 May 2020 06: 22
      Quote: kyznets
      Rather, it describes what China wants to see in its controversial history.

      It turns out the author from an ancient Chinese profession?
  10. +6
    22 May 2020 06: 25
    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. +2
      22 May 2020 08: 59
      Quote: Ravil_Asnafovich
      So wars are unprofitable for China, except economically? Or am I wrong?


      Yes, China clearly has a different approach and it 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 PRC's policy. And with this approach, the wars of China are not profitable, since the war interferes with trade and scares away investors and buyers ... although 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 definitely 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 here is a mystery to me. I fully admit that the United Kingdom, 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 spit on the agreement altogether, and announce unilateral sanctions that the West will have to observe, say that China is suppressing democracy in these "countries" and he violates the agreement, so there will be no unification. And then it really smells fried ....
    2. -3
      22 May 2020 10: 58
      The question is that China can forcibly adjust the policies of a country. If in the long run it threatens Chinese interests.
      1. 0
        25 May 2020 21: 44
        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
  11. +10
    22 May 2020 06: 37
    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. 0
      22 May 2020 08: 35
      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.
  12. +4
    22 May 2020 07: 03
    China, this is serious.
    The present, well-armed China ... this is very serious.
  13. +11
    22 May 2020 07: 07
    It seems that the article was written by a 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. +4
      22 May 2020 08: 27
      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. -2
      22 May 2020 10: 50
      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 owned elementary logic, you would understand that "filled up with corpses" and "did not reckon with losses" are two different things.
      1. +3
        23 May 2020 06: 29
        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. -1
          23 May 2020 15: 45
          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. +3
            23 May 2020 17: 25
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            trying in vain

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

              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. +2
              23 May 2020 21: 50
              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. 0
      22 May 2020 11: 22
      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. +2
        23 May 2020 05: 13
        Shanghai then why break out? You are not confused with anything?
        1. +1
          23 May 2020 08: 13
          Yes. My mistake. I meant Hong Kong.
    4. +1
      23 May 2020 16: 25
      About a mess of bones and meat nonsense ... In all seriousness ....
    5. 0
      24 May 2020 06: 46
      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.
  14. -3
    22 May 2020 07: 43
    Reading about the "reaction" of the political authorities of the post-Stalinist USSR is ridiculous, because then the course was taken to surrender the country, respectively, to defend the interests of the USSR to the end and was not part of the goals of the then top leadership
    1. +6
      22 May 2020 09: 37
      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.
  15. +2
    22 May 2020 08: 38
    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. 0
      22 May 2020 10: 51
      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. 0
        24 May 2020 06: 51
        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.
  16. +10
    22 May 2020 09: 25
    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 "absolutely". It doesn't matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but that's the point. You just need to know the history - the Chinese have lost 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. +1
      22 May 2020 10: 56
      The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "absolutely". It doesn't matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but that's the point. You just need to know the history - the Chinese have lost all the wars (well, or almost all).


      This is from the series "there are eyes, but not to 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. +10
        22 May 2020 11: 25
        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 out India, because, by altering the proverb, one can say that "The Lord God created the Hindus so that even the Chinese could defeat someone." India is an exception. Those. are the same Papuans as well as 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. -8
          22 May 2020 11: 45
          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. +8
            22 May 2020 13: 45
            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. -5
              22 May 2020 13: 47
              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. +5
                22 May 2020 13: 48
                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. -3
                  22 May 2020 13: 50
                  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. +1
                    22 May 2020 17: 48
                    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. +1
                      23 May 2020 06: 35
                      Quote: Korax71
                      Alexander, I respect you as an author

                      Right. Selling "journalism" doesn't deserve this
                    2. -2
                      23 May 2020 15: 44
                      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 our people do not like to answer the question "why did not it burn out".
                      The psyche breaks for some reason.
                      1. 0
                        23 May 2020 16: 14
                        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. 0
                        23 May 2020 21: 38
                        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. +1
                        23 May 2020 23: 45
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        And our people do not like to answer the question "why did not it burn out".

                        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. 0
                        23 May 2020 23: 48
                        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. +1
                        24 May 2020 00: 05
                        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. +1
                        24 May 2020 00: 39
                        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 no combat experience before? Didn't you beat anyone, didn't you win?
                      7. +1
                        24 May 2020 01: 07
                        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" have not received any combat experience before? Didn't you beat anyone, didn't you win?

                        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.
      2. -1
        23 May 2020 22: 39
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "absolutely". It doesn't matter how their army is equipped. Saudi Arabia is even better equipped, but that's the point. You just need to know the history - the Chinese have lost all the wars (well, or almost all).


        This is from the series "there are eyes, but not to 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. 0
          23 May 2020 22: 49
          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. -1
            23 May 2020 22: 56
            Almost everything. The "victorious" clashes of China with ALL of its neighbors in your presentation have led to a situation that China has practically no allies in the world. But it is surrounded by rings of ill-wishers along the near and far perimeters. And without allies and alliances except for the rank a world factory with a cheap labor force cannot be claimed.
            By the way, after the tricks with the virus, he will lose this honorary title.
            1. 0
              23 May 2020 23: 25
              And what are allies and why are they needed?
      3. 0
        24 May 2020 01: 23
        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.
    2. -1
      22 May 2020 13: 43
      Quote: Junger
      The Chinese do not know how to fight, from the word "absolutely". It doesn't 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. +2
        22 May 2020 13: 52
        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. 0
        24 May 2020 01: 27
        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.
    3. +3
      23 May 2020 06: 31
      Quote: Junger
      now dominated by general admiration for China

      Who pays for that and throats tear. Do not care.
    4. 0
      23 May 2020 20: 52
      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.
    5. 0
      26 May 2020 18: 37
      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.
  17. +5
    22 May 2020 09: 30
    I got the impression that the article was written not by Timokhin, but by syji junshichang (sergeant of the 4th rank) Ti Mo Khin from the PLA))) One could call everything about the victories of the great army of China - nonsense, but on the other hand, our "sergeant of the 4th rank ", most likely he translated a manual for political studies with the PLA l / s and thereby showed how we, those who served in the SA and lived in the USSR, are" smeared "by the Chinese communist comrades in the brains of the Chinese))) Well, each nation has its own" victorious " history...
    1. -4
      22 May 2020 10: 56
      Essentially there is something to object to?
      1. +7
        22 May 2020 13: 26
        YES THERE IS!!! First, unlike you, dear author, I studied tactics, weapons and the political system of the PRC (they gave us a lot under the heading "secret" and "for official use", you have about this, judging by the article, very, very a distant idea, as well as about the role and actions of the PLA on the border of the USSR in the late 60s and early 70s. This is the first thing. The reasons for the PRC attack on Vietnam in 1979, you generally "inflated" with a very dubious "gas". And the clashes in the area a piece of disputed land was given out for the great war In the 80th year, during the Olympics in Moscow, being on an internship in the troops, as part of the SME, was on the Soviet-Chinese border.About Afghan - in general, you are lying, you are lying (although in Russian there is concepts such as a lie, a lie, so this is not an insult - a lie is a deliberate lie that has nothing to do with reality). I was in Afghanistan 82-84, and then on the territory of the USSR I trained sergeants for the OKSV. The fact that Afghan became "a nail in the coffin USSR "- just lies, which were replicated by s evidence, those who plundered the wealth of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation, like the war writes off everything)))) You can write a lot for each of your conclusions, but in time it will take a lot of space and time, because it will tell you from the beginning !!!! And I have neither the time nor the desire. And you tell me a person who not only lived at that time, but also came into contact with the topic you touched upon, trying to offer your vision of something that you have not seen))) Sorry for being straightforward ... You have previously published on VO, I liked some materials, by some could debate, but this article ...
        1. -2
          22 May 2020 13: 36
          So what's the bottom line? Is our Daman or is it the Zhenbaodao Peninsula now?
          1. 0
            22 May 2020 14: 07
            Dear Alexander! As a result, in essence, you need to write reasonably ... It is in the comments you can "speak" with emotions and lie))) I already wrote to you about my understanding of lies, and so here is another difference from lies, lies do not require argumentation ... This is one of the techniques of theater, Fiction literature and political propaganda ... Someone blurted out - and you just throw up your hands: you cannot refute, and it is 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. +1
              22 May 2020 14: 11
              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. +6
                22 May 2020 14: 37
                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. -1
                  22 May 2020 23: 23
                  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. +4
                    23 May 2020 07: 28
                    Good morning! The author touched on only one side - the economy of the USSR. You are right when speaking about public dissatisfaction with the protracted war, and it arose because of the mistake of the CPSU Central Committee in honest coverage of our Afghan war. And public dissatisfaction arose already in the year 87-88 - at the peak of Gorbachev's perestroika. Then discontent arose not so much with the war in Afghanistan (by that time the intensity of hostilities had significantly decreased, as well as the number of losses had decreased), but with the power itself. Dissatisfaction arose then thanks to the "democrats" who destroyed the USSR. Many of them turned out to be (consciously or not) the propaganda anti-Soviet mouthpiece of the West. For example, it would seem such a wonderful artist Lavrov, in a fit of democracy, being a member of the USSR Armed Forces, when the resolution on the Afghan war was adopted in October 1989, simply shouting to add the words “to condemn the entry of troops into Afghanistan” into the resolution, broke more souls of the past Afghan than the war itself. Although in the text of the resolution put to the vote, there was not a word about any condemnation. We are Afghan veterans, we still cannot achieve the cancellation of this decree, which is still a "trump card" in the hands of officials. This decree became a "base" for depriving all veterans of Afghans, Chechens, Syrians, etc. benefits, worthy payments after returning from the war, etc. To conscripts who passed the Afghani are not counted two years in the war in the preferential civil service record. But there is no dissatisfaction with such an attitude of the authorities towards veterans in society. Why?
                    And on the subject, the influence of China and its assistance to those who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet army is very, very insignificant, so when the author tries to pass it off as "China's victory in the war" - well, it's just ridiculous, completely different countries played the main role there !! !
                2. 0
                  23 May 2020 15: 38
                  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. 0
                  23 May 2020 16: 03
                  Vitaly, I support you. The "nail" was not Afghanistan, but the departure from there, which is the political Gorbachev gang, the betrayal of the Afghan allies and the moral betrayal of all the guys who there with a pure soul put their lives so that the war would not come to the Union. And on the example of Damansky, you correctly noticed the distortion. The final "loss" of the island is hysterical emotions, but the cruel losses suffered by the Chinese are a fact and a significant lesson, it is a pity that the response was not immediate, but a bit belated.
        2. 0
          24 May 2020 15: 51
          Something poured incomprehensible.
          Neither taste nor smell.
  18. -3
    22 May 2020 11: 18
    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. +5
      22 May 2020 11: 48
      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.
  19. exo
    +4
    22 May 2020 11: 25
    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.
    It is impossible to underestimate China, but it is also not worth presenting them in the form of "super death 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. -3
      22 May 2020 11: 49
      And who represents the Chinese indescribable death machines? You saw something in your read.
      1. exo
        +4
        22 May 2020 12: 32
        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. -2
          22 May 2020 12: 39
          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
  20. -1
    22 May 2020 11: 51
    Song Tzu is remembered and outlined. "torch relay of generations"
  21. The comment was deleted.
    1. -2
      22 May 2020 12: 41
      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 doesn't matter what their army can do. On Damansky, she was able to lie 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. +1
        22 May 2020 13: 34
        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. -2
          22 May 2020 13: 44
          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. -2
          23 May 2020 05: 22
          In 1991, de jure registration took place. And de facto Damansky was controlled by the Chinese since Brezhnev's time.
        2. -4
          23 May 2020 15: 33
          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. 0
        25 May 2020 01: 34
        "no matter what their army can do. In Damansky, she was able to lie 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. +1
      22 May 2020 14: 38
      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.
  22. 0
    22 May 2020 12: 46
    Quote: Junger
    new Chinese-Vietnamese and Chinese-Indian wars according to old concepts

    We are on the drum.
  23. -1
    22 May 2020 13: 30
    Thanks, thanks.
    Quite an interesting article on a very mythological topic.
  24. +5
    22 May 2020 14: 01
    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 admit the fact that "the PRC army never reached its Berlin" - that is, China has 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 checked ...
    1. -2
      22 May 2020 14: 11
      You do not understand the meaning of what you read
      1. -3
        22 May 2020 14: 19
        The respondents have not read The Art of War. This is normal: you should not demand from the office plankton knowledge of the innermost :)
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +8
        22 May 2020 14: 29
        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. +2
          23 May 2020 06: 44
          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. -3
            23 May 2020 15: 31
            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. 0
              23 May 2020 22: 46
              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. -1
                23 May 2020 22: 49
                Essentially, please.
        2. -2
          23 May 2020 15: 29
          Drink some water.
    2. +1
      23 May 2020 16: 41
      Since the speech in the article is not so much about the military-technical capabilities of China, but about military history and military traditions, I would add the following: China is an ancient, distinctive and unlike anything culture that has been using tactics of small biting and creeping expansion in military terms for centuries ... They do it perfectly, it is in their blood. Only now there is a problem in the Chinese perception of reality - while the sly ones are studying Sun Tzu and weaving the "nets of deception", some Hunnic Shanyu with a small army with a direct blow to the nose takes Peizqing. It remains to be glad that the deep culture of the Taoists (and this is, in fact, the "Chinese race") is by no means a military one.
  25. -1
    22 May 2020 14: 16
    ".. War is a way of deception. Therefore, if you can do anything, show the enemy that you cannot; if you do use something, show him that you do not use it; even if you were close, show that you are far away; even though you are far away, show that you are close; lure him with a profit; make him upset and take him; if he has everything, be ready; if he is strong, dodge him; him anger, bring him into a state of frustration; assuming a humble appearance, arouse conceit in him; if his strength is fresh, tire him out; if his warriors are friendly, separate; attack him when he is not ready; act when he does not expect. .."(from)

    "..If the trees moved, then he is suitable. If there are grass fences, it means he is trying to mislead. If the birds fly up, then there is an ambush. If the animals are scared, then someone is hiding there. If there is dust rising in a pillar, it means that chariots are coming; if it creeps low in a wide space, it means that the infantry is coming; if it rises in different places, it means that fuel is being collected. arrange a camp .. "(c)
    1. +5
      22 May 2020 14: 47
      ..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 cunning man does not end up outwitting himself !!!
      1. -1
        22 May 2020 16: 06
        Ancient wisdom turns into "wisdom" in the era of "quick decisions" :)
        1. 0
          25 May 2020 14: 03
          Again "shkolota nominated" :)
  26. +1
    22 May 2020 14: 34
    It should be understood that after any world massacre for some time behind a number of winners there is a ghost of repetition - 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 this technique. What could the "UN troops" do in this case? To annoy everything there in 0 together with cities, Chinese, etc.? They 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 - no one 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 Great Leader Mao's ChSV. 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 are flesh and blood an equally cunning and stubborn nation. Broken and broken.
    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 not bad warriors, they are moderately unpretentious, sometimes they are too stubborn, there are many of them, they are quite organized and well ideologically processed - they are armed with equipment that is the ideological development of an effective unpretentious "weapon for doomsday" created by the USSR, with all the advantages and the cons of such a weapon. However, China's minus stems from its pluses.
    All this is very cool, to a greater extent than ours is tied to the organized, calm work of the rear - suppliers, logistics, decision-making centers. When you operate with small professional forces - you can "chew" a number of jambs, engage in self-supply, organize tactical defense - but when you have a rushing zerg, you are very dependent on management-supply, I would even say critically. And this is their Achilles heel.
  27. +3
    22 May 2020 14: 34
    That is, China is a medieval state, which absolutely does not care about the losses of the Pisants and the peasants from the infantry, while the peasants from the infantry themselves are not afraid of anything, because outside the army they will die of hunger. 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 guys, now you have a khan." And how does 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 the showdown at Damansky? Nothing. At the same time, there are pure Terra Nullis territories in the world for which no one purposefully claims, hoping to squeeze out something more valuable in a territorial dispute. Because after the conclusion of the agreement, it will be more difficult to revise it than to dispute on the principle "here my grandfather sat under a bush in the morning." The treaty simply nullifies such an argument. In this regard, for example, the territorial disputes between Russia and China have been completely exhausted, since the agreements on the border have been signed, yes, China has been given a bit there. But for this, he completely abandons claims for everything else. An attempt to spin the minced meat backwards will not be comilfo and you will not get off with 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. -1
      22 May 2020 16: 04
      Exactly. And there is. "ripples on the water. The main thing is eternity"
  28. +1
    22 May 2020 15: 15
    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.
  29. +4
    22 May 2020 15: 42
    But what about the Japanese with a scanty army in their tail and mane?
    1. -2
      22 May 2020 16: 03
      They would also have "drowned" in "living waves" and in the "folds of the terrain" ... in 20-25 years. With outside help, the term was reduced by almost 3 times.
      1. +3
        22 May 2020 18: 51
        The Japanese did not breed sentiment, this was their trump card. In principle, such wars are won by gallows rather than tanks.
        1. 0
          25 May 2020 15: 26
          It’s true, but ... The war in Korea in the 16th century was lost by the Japanese
    2. 0
      23 May 2020 22: 06
      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. -1
        23 May 2020 22: 48
        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?)
  30. +1
    22 May 2020 16: 29
    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?
  31. +4
    22 May 2020 17: 45
    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. +1
      23 May 2020 06: 49
      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.
  32. +1
    22 May 2020 18: 48
    Big loose body. Trying to push back is futile, but knocking out with a series of powerful punches is quite possible.
  33. 0
    22 May 2020 19: 15
    The conclusions are not very comforting for us.
  34. +2
    22 May 2020 20: 29
    Funny paid by the Chinese article.
    They become Sinaphils either out of stupidity and ignorance, or for financial or career motivation!
    1. +2
      23 May 2020 06: 49
      Quote: Lontus
      stupidity and ignorance for either financial or career motivation!

      And more often both
  35. -1
    22 May 2020 22: 59
    "... General Peng De-hui is also, it seems, 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:
  36. +4
    22 May 2020 23: 12
    The author did not cite the loss of the Chinese in the Korean War. (From a million and above
  37. +4
    23 May 2020 00: 10
    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 ..
  38. +1
    23 May 2020 04: 33
    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?
  39. 0
    23 May 2020 04: 40
    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 again looks like "crush the mass." But.
  40. +1
    23 May 2020 05: 28
    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.
  41. 0
    23 May 2020 05: 30
    In my opinion, the factor of the CCP, communist ideology should not be forgotten when we talk about the actions of the CCP.
  42. 0
    23 May 2020 08: 38
    The one-sided article looks like Chinese propaganda, where "it is necessary" facts are hushed up, and the emphasis on the other, as the Chinese like to do. The funny thing is, for all the PLA's propaganda, the Chinese themselves do not believe in its power.
  43. +3
    23 May 2020 08: 48
    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. 0
      23 May 2020 09: 02
      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. 0
      24 May 2020 16: 25
      The truth is so true.
      Most Russians think about this to themselves.
  44. +4
    23 May 2020 08: 58
    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.
  45. 0
    23 May 2020 12: 32
    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 ....
  46. 0
    23 May 2020 12: 34
    to the author in addition to the article
  47. 0
    23 May 2020 13: 37
    Chinese wars
    In short. The Chinese came to the war. Won .. lol
  48. +1
    23 May 2020 15: 51
    They exceeded (Damansky) by about 10 (!) Times in losses, and the "type" won! Figuey from this afFtar. We must be able to rearrange everything upside down. And this, with such a presentation, they say, "just did not want", to go further. They certainly didn't need Mongolia, and so on. We got everything they wanted from these clashes. LOL.
    Well, okay, the main thing can be extracted: the ketai snake with wings (the so-called "dragon") does not inspire confidence on a global, far-reaching scale, and it is necessary to bear this in mind and be ready if something happens. And episodic cooperation in a given historical period is a necessary measure. It is necessary to enter the sovereign path of economic development as soon as possible, and to minimize as much as possible the share of the influence of this second hegemon who has gained economic weight too much - on our state. For when walking in the wake of the politics of any of them, the Russian idea is conserved and Ukrainianized. The national idea needs complete independence from major players, as it was during the Republic of Ingushetia.
  49. +1
    23 May 2020 16: 18
    Dissonance in the article. The author expresses concern about the technical equipment and organization of the modern Chinese army, and cites the successes of the CPV infantry in Korea as the main argument. So why should we be afraid? - The mass of the Chinese infantry (the old fashioned way) or the modern Chinese aviation / artillery / tanks? Both? China has long understood. that modern wars are won by technology, no one will drive the masses of soldiers from there. In terms of military technologies, in aggregate, China has not yet surpassed even the current Putin's Russia, and will not surpass. This is not a technology for 5G from the Americans, and not to rebuild the Liaoning. Although there is no dispute, the enemy 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 enthusiasm for the Chinese military "successes" is generally incomprehensible. The Chinese did not achieve anything from military operations, everywhere they rested on the limit of opportunities and retreated to their positions. Who broke / robbed / removed from whom and how much is irrelevant to military affairs. Although I perfectly understand where this enthusiasm comes from, no one knows how to puff out their cheeks as important as the Chinese comrades. But the Chinese know how to count money perfectly, this is true. And also to squeeze accomplices / allies from the cash register - it is better not to have joint "ventures" with them, not to let them into your sandbox.
  50. +3
    24 May 2020 01: 21
    China is not capable of expansion.
    The fact is that China and the Chinese are "a thing in themselves" and it cannot be otherwise, there are always too many of them to lead the expansion. The state is ready for effective aggression when it is able to unite the whole society, otherwise the result will be sad, which was confirmed by the First World War. China has a lot of social problems and interethnic points of tension and, like the icing on the 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.
  51. +2
    24 May 2020 13: 50
    So much pathos.. Honestly, even the editorials of Chinese newspapers are resting.. China is a trading empire, with its own strengths and weaknesses.. These sides need to be known and used. There is nothing supernatural in China’s military machine. Moreover, some kind of indestructible invincibility. I have never been a cheerful patriot, but I can still say: the Russian ground army is the strongest in the world. Even if you minus it ad infinitum, it is so..
    1. +2
      24 May 2020 14: 17
      There, in the far east, there are very few troops. Everything is given to China. The timber is exported in bulk. All power was sold to the Chinese... the Kremlin long ago sold the Far East, as well as all of Russia
  52. +3
    24 May 2020 14: 13
    Here we need to think not about how China is fighting, but about the kagal entrenched in the Kremlin, who has only one thing on his mind: the death of the Russian people...
  53. -1
    24 May 2020 22: 29
    China is our political partner today. Only.
    He is not our ally.
    Also, 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.
  54. +1
    25 May 2020 01: 03
    If China knew how to fight, the “opium wars” would have been fought by shelling Rouen and Portsmouth...
    Hence "Eurocentrism"....

    “The USSR is the losing side in that conflict” is 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....
  55. 0
    25 May 2020 19: 42
    I don’t think that our staff officers are not calculating the Chinese issue. Essentially, the Author showed that numbers solve many issues. This is what the Chinese show. But the joint exercises showed that the Chinese commanders were not entirely prepared. Perhaps this was specifically in the best traditions of China.
  56. 0
    26 May 2020 21: 01
    I’ve been wondering since 1979 - why didn’t the Vietnamese use combat aircraft then? After all, they had good personnel, and the planes - MiG-17, MiG-19 (J-6), MiG-21, F-5E, A-37 - were quite suitable for attacks by numerous, but poorly covered by air defense, aggressor troops.
  57. 0
    26 May 2020 22: 33

    Fans of the theory that the Chinese do not know how to fight should think about how this turned out to be possible

    Yes, it’s very simple: by juggling the facts and putting them in the right direction. Not an article, but a complete ode, not only to the Chinese, but also to the author’s personal feelings.
  58. 0
    27 May 2020 23: 04
    The USSR supported Vietnam in 1979. How we were cadets. During this period, the remains of the MiG-17 were flown en masse at EVVAUL, and were undocked into containers onto wagons. In a week they cleared everything that was there. It is clear that the train did not go to China...
  59. 0
    28 May 2020 20: 13
    What a hot debate here)))
    I think the author just wanted to say that the Chinese, unlike us, have a fundamentally different attitude towards both war and the army.
    This is our “stand to the last”, 90% losses but we hold on, military work is a matter of glory and honor, etc.
    and then how can we withstand the onslaught of the adversary, slowly but surely “crush the reptile in the nest” while simultaneously expanding our borders)))
    And the Chinese were repeatedly conquered - by the Mongols, the Honghuzes and most recently the Japanese (yes, I know that in the end the Japanese lost, but let’s be honest, if it weren’t for our army of 45, the Japanese would have crushed China).
    and there are simply countless defeats from nomads, foreigners and others
    However, let’s imagine that you are so smart, even if you didn’t just win a battle (campaign)
    China conquered from China and what next???
    Well, several million Chinese will die, well, the leader will not be Xiang but Mao or even Kublai Kublai
    well, the GDP will fall a little (and after all, for many centuries until the mid-50s of the 19th century, China’s GDP was approximately 50% of the world’s, 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 into themselves, the Manchus held out longer, but only under the strictest ban on mixing with the Chinese, and when they weakened, they were overthrown during the Chinese revolution.
    So even the complete conquest of China is not a victory, but a “temporary event” in thousands of years of history
    Therefore, when I studied Chinese history, I was surprised to learn that their “military labor” (in pre-communist times, in any case) was not at all an honorable and important thing, but rather a sphere mainly for losers, fools and half-educated people who did not make it to the rich bureaucratic feeders.
    As a result, conquering (defeating) China with such an approach is essentially unrealistic.
    But the question is, is it possible to carry out something offensively with such an approach - imperialist far beyond its borders in which China has been hanging out for some millennium????
    Please note that all the conflicts that the author described (with the exception of the Korean War)
    these are relatively small conflicts on the very borders.
    Moreover, in the same Korean War, after the initial success of the Chinese, the then modern but much less numerous American army began to put pressure, and by the time of Stalin’s death, the Chinese themselves already wanted to finish it
    1. 0
      14 August 2020 12: 42
      The question is different: what is the population of China, not just stated by the CPC leadership, but real?
      Western analysts claim that no more than 400-500 million, and possibly less.
    2. 0
      19 September 2020 00: 08
      None of the smart people are going to conquer China anymore... Why did you write all this down? At most, the port is being squeezed out, the porto-franco regime is being introduced there and opium is being sold to the Chinese.... A profitable business.....
  60. -1
    29 May 2020 11: 31
    Alexander, I don’t agree with the article. At all. Simply because the Koreans told me how it really was. How American machine gunners mowed down the Chinese all day and went crazy. They installed others and did it all over again. How the Chinese dug in with kitchen knives and waited for the Americans. They have tactics like ants. Heinlein also wrote in Starship Troopers: already on the second day we understood what it was like to fight creatures organically adapted to communism. We understand that he wrote about Korea. The Chinese are absolutely devoid of any individualism
  61. 0
    30 May 2020 07: 03
    At first, I also didn’t like the author’s knee-elbow position regarding the PRC. However, upon reflection, I will say this: it will not be possible to challenge what was said with numbers and facts. And is it necessary? Now a Russian-Chinese alliance has actually emerged. And the fact that our ally knows how to fight is wonderful.
  62. 0
    31 May 2020 21: 22
    Did I understand the meaning of the article correctly - China has been pursuing an expansionist policy all these years in the south and in the seas, and will it soon look to the north? And we have nothing to stop him, except Poseidon and a few Daggers.
  63. 0
    12 July 2020 22: 41
    The article is extremely controversial. The Chinese “volunteers” in Korea, under attacks from the United States (UN troops), rolled towards their border and would have been crushed if Soviet aviation had not entered the battle. The withdrawal from the war with Vietnam does not speak of China's strength or its rationalism, but of its weakness in assessing the possible prospects of a serious war. At Damansky there were significantly more Chinese troops than Soviet ones. Moreover, the SA in fact did not participate in the conflict at all, if you don’t remember “Grad”.
    We must not forget that the Chinese army is not homogeneous: there is its modern part (aka a sign), well equipped and trained, and there is the classic PLA - the same peasant army, armed with old, if not antediluvian, weapons and military equipment.
    China is an economically powerful country, but even it cannot rearm its entire army.
    China is not going to attack Russia, at least until Russia is attacked by the United States and NATO, but it is certainly necessary to study the Chinese army.
  64. 0
    8 August 2020 04: 14
    To write articles about the Chinese, you need to at least see them and watch them how they behave, and to understand what kind of Chinese army you need to look at the training of the soldiers and how they cope with it, I think it won’t be difficult for the pros to understand what it is capable of. Your article is your personal opinion and it is far from reality. And the fact that our rulers after Stalin were all made up of soft horseradish is something we know even without you.
  65. +1
    10 August 2020 17: 38
    Man in,,....,,Probably necessary? I wrote, at least started to write good material, but suddenly slipped into, the Chinese army, unexpectedly, captured Seoul, gave a surprise, that is, the author fell in love with the Chinese army, maybe they and they will tear their jaws for the party, I don’t argue that their military material potential exceeds us....and not only us...the poor ones, but in that war, and in all others, I don’t know anyone like that, but I don’t belittle the author, he knows more China has not become famous for anything, and moreover, with its unprecedented budget. They cannot compete with any world power in armament, something like this
  66. +1
    14 August 2020 12: 40
    Pro-Chinese billbird. The Chinese cannot fight for a long time, as the wars with Japan and Vietnam proved. The Chinese are not afraid of a nuclear war only because of their large numbers, or they only say that they are not afraid, since there is no objective evidence that the population of China is really a billion (and pennies) people. On the contrary, Western (unfortunately, not ours, ours are silent) analysts, based on available statistical indicators, expressed the opinion that the real population of China does not exceed 400-500 million people, i.e. more than 2 times less than stated. China's claim of a billion-dollar population is nothing more than an element of psychological warfare. Considering that a significant part of China's active population and significant production are concentrated in a relatively narrow coastal strip, the leadership of this country is unlikely to agree to a serious military conflict that would threaten the existence of real, not showcase China.
  67. The comment was deleted.
  68. The comment was deleted.
  69. 0
    20 August 2020 10: 03
    The Franks threw the Ketais out of Mali, after which they dried themselves off and went to wait for the enemy’s corpse to pass, which is what they are still doing. )))
  70. 0
    27 August 2020 10: 32
    The author is right - the toothless party leadership of the USSR passed the baton to the leadership of the Russian Federation. And 08.08.08. is an example when, contrary to the will of the leaders, they were able to fight back on foreign territory.
  71. 0
    28 August 2020 22: 08
    Entertaining reading! But you, the author, no matter how hard you tried, you still did not refute the prevailing opinion about the Chinese tactics of their battle.
    “We’ll send 100 million from the right flank, 100 million from the left, and tanks in the center.
    How, everything at once?
    No. First one, then the second.
    Will there be aviation?
    No. The pilot is sick."
    Minus for you on Damansky, because the hunchback gave it away. And all their military operations were local in nature, judging by your article, they were crushed by the masses.
    No one is trying to throw hats at us, but we shouldn’t extol them in any way. Even in their distant history, they have no wars, except for civil wars and the suppression of riots. This is the same victorious army as the United States.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"