Military Review

Chinese volunteers in the Korean War

10
Chinese volunteers in the Korean War



This year, at the end of July, exactly 60 years have elapsed since the day the war ended in Korea. We know very well that many volunteers from the Soviet Union participated in it, and we also know that Chinese volunteers also fought there, but what was their total number, how many died there, so it is still not known exactly.

The figures are available in the open press and they say that there were not just a lot of Chinese, but a lot of Chinese in the Korean War. It is also known that during that war in Korea, the Chinese suffered tremendous casualties, and that it was their volunteers who played the most decisive role in the fighting on the side of North Koreans against US and UN troops.

Chinese volunteers on the Korean Peninsula were not tens or even hundreds of thousands of fighters, but several million.
Information about the huge total number of volunteers is confirmed by information from the Chinese sources themselves. For example, Chinese information and news portal China.org.cn in 2010 published excerpts from an article written by Major General of the Chinese Army, Professor at the National University of Defense People’s Liberation Army of China, Xu Yan. This Chinese general claims that the number of Chinese soldiers who fought on the side of North Korea reached almost 3 million.
I quote literally:
"Xnumx, July Xinumx, Chinese Chinese million million million million million million million million
Translation:
“Xu said in the article that from October 1950 to July 1953, a total of 2.97 millions of Chinese soldiers fought in the war, which in China is known as a war against US aggression and helping Korea.”

If these figures are true, then it turns out that the number of Chinese volunteers in Korea was approximately equal to the number of all US forces that they numbered in the 1955 year. But even this number is probably greatly underestimated, since according to some estimates, only one loss of the Chinese in this war amounted to about a million people.

In particular, Andrei Kirilov, head of the ITAR-TASS office in China, writes about this in his article published on the Echo of the Planet website:
“The total losses of the parties in the Korean War amounted to, by some estimates, 2,5 million people. Of this number, roughly 1 million falls on the losses of the Chinese army. The North Korean army has lost half as much - about half a million people. The armed forces of South Korea missed about a quarter of a million people. The losses of the American troops amounted to 33 thousands killed and in 2 – 3 times the number of injured. The troops of other states that fought under the UN flag lost several thousand people. No less than 600 thousand people are killed and wounded civilians in North and South Korea "



All Chinese volunteer units in Korea were consolidated into 25 army corps, into a huge grouping of ground forces, having high morale and willingness to die for the freedom of the fraternal Korean people, however, all this pedestrian Chinese army did not have enough even ordinary military equipment and light weapons.

It is known that the infantry divisions of the national volunteers were only 40-50% manned with artillery and mortars. tanks and artillery of large calibers. Also in the Chinese units there was a shortage of ammunition, communications and vehicles.

Even the North Korean army and that, compared with the Chinese, was equipped with equipment and weapons much better. In this connection, it is interesting to note that if the North Korean army was created and trained mainly on the Soviet model, the Chinese PLA bore the legacy of a civil war and in many respects remained partisan in its tactics precisely because of its lack of heavy weapons.

For example, if the North Korean division had about 200 machines on its armament, then the Chinese had none. If in the North Korean division there were about 40 artillery shells, then in the Chinese there were only 9 light howitzers.
North Koreans had 4 times more machine guns and anti-tank weapons. But then the Chinese had more light machine guns and light mortars, which could easily be carried on their hands.
Shortly after some hesitation (there was such a thing), the PRC leadership finally decided to start sending its troops to Korea, on the night of October 19, 1950, on the very day when American troops occupied Pyongyang, the main forces of Chinese troops began crossing the Yalujiang border river .

The commander of the Chinese people's volunteer troops Peng Dehuai informed Kim Il Sung that under his command there are 12 divisions, which are divided into four armies, as well as three artillery divisions. The total number of Chinese troops numbered - 260 thousand people.
In the second echelon - two armies, 80 number of thousands of people. According to the plans, with the introduction of second and third echelons to Korea, the total number of Chinese troops was to reach 600 thousand people.



Entry of Chinese associations and connections was carried out from three directions. The 40 Army, the main forces of the 39 Army, and the 1 Artillery Division comprised one faction that forced the Amnokgan (Yalu Jiang) River from the Andong area. The 117 Division of the 39 Army, the 2 Division of artillery from the anti-aircraft artillery regiment advanced from the mouth of the Changzingan River.
The third grouping in the 38 and 42 armies, the 8 artillery division, forced Amnokgan and entered the territory of Korea from the Tszyan area.
The Chinese operation to bring troops into Korea and to concentrate in the designated areas as a whole ended in complete success. American intelligence, up to October 25, did not know about the movement of a huge group of Chinese troops deep into North Korea. On that day, in the western sector of the front, the 118-I Chinese division of the 40 Army attacked the 6-South Korean Infantry Division, which suffered heavy losses.
The first military clash between the Chinese and the American forces took place on November 2 1950, when the 8 th regiment of the 1 th Cavalry Division of the US Army engaged the vanguard of the 39 th Chinese army in the Unsana region.

At its core, the Chinese army of volunteers was a lightly armed force capable of infiltrating through the enemy’s battle formations thanks to the skillful use of natural terrain in the area of ​​combat operations.
Interestingly, for the first time, the classical logistic support for such troops was not required, since the volunteer soldiers were unpretentious in everyday life and ate mainly at the expense of provisions carried on themselves, requisitioned from the local population or harvested in the surrounding forests.

So, for example, the Chinese soldier needed just 8 - 10 pounds of equipment a day, while the UN soldier consumed 60 pounds.
In general, the Chinese division also consumed about 10 times less than the American - because of its low motorization, a lower level of personal comfort of soldiers and low equipment with heavy weaponsIn other words, the Chinese did not need a lot of gasoline, shells and other material means.

As a result, the Chinese army was able to organize a network of porters who carried on their shoulders all food and ammunition. And they moved not only along the roads, but also along winding mountain trails, where the American aviation I could not get them. The Chinese often took advantage of the fact that the Americans always bombed the roads at about the same time, so using the template in the actions of enemy aircraft, they moved almost unhindered in the intervals between the bombings.

Yes, the Chinese were much easier to endure the war and could do without a lot, but this situation was rather forced. Many Chinese soldiers had only 80 ammunition and several hand grenades in their ammunition. They did not have winter uniforms, and they were shod in their famous Chinese sneakers.


As a result, because of the constant aerial bombardments, Chinese and North Korean soldiers did not have reliable shelter over their heads and often suffered heavy losses not only from enemy fire, but also from typhoid, frostbite and gangrene.
If the mobilization resources of the DPRK were rather limited, then China, on the contrary, had an almost unlimited supply of "manpower" and therefore the PLA command didn’t spare their fighters in that war, threw dry firewood into the battle. In this case, it should be noted, and a high level of motivation of Chinese troops. If the American policy of avoiding losses and technical superiority often led to the fact that, without being able to achieve an easy victory, the Americans preferred to retreat and take care of their people, then PLA fighters could follow the rupture of mines and shells of their artillery preparation, but here, occupy the occupied territory and dig in on it.

Offensive actions were considered the main and decisive type of hostilities of the Chinese volunteer troops, while the Chinese always paid special attention to the first battle. The first battle, in their opinion, must be won, therefore, as soon as the order was given, the Chinese commanders tried to bring it to life at any cost, even if it was obviously impracticable, and it came down to aimless body throwing.
Soon the Americans and their allies felt for themselves all the delights of partisan tactics of unpretentious Chinese, the essence of which was reduced to the principle of "win at any cost"

During the offensive, the PLA volunteers began to actively use their most favorite method of combat, this trickle down and encirclement, which is why any position of the UN troops had to be strengthened for all 360 °, otherwise Allied soldiers could not live until morning, simply because the Chinese attacked at night or at night, due to which the American soldiers were forced, is in constant tension and rest, without even taking off their shoes.
Usually, the attacks began with a horn signal and continued to “the musical accompaniment of gongs, whistles and other sound means of transmitting commands, all of which were instruments of the Chinese volunteers instead of radio stations.



The nightly attacks exerted quite strong psychological pressure on the enemy and partly neutralized his heavy weapons — the defenders shot at “dark light” with a great risk of wasting ammunition.

The Chinese offensive on the Korean fronts is often associated with the well-known tactics of the so-called “human waves”, which is perceived by the ordinary man in the street as throwing the enemy with corpses and a massive run on his machine guns.
Here is how one of the episodes of this tactic is described:
“Chinese troops attacked in dense chains right along minefields, but their waves broke against American and South Korean fortifications. Therefore, the losses of the “Chinese people's volunteers” were many times greater than the losses of the enemy ”.

Other experts believe that in reality this was somewhat wrong. And that with the right organization of interaction, the advancing enemy bears quite commensurate losses.
In the absence of the best, those military formations that are not able to provide for the actions of their own infantry with heavy weapon fire will resort to it and will probably resort to it.
In Korea, this tactic was aimed at quickly entering the dead zone and being inaccessible to the fire of American artillery.

If the Chinese were able to be detained on wire barriers or otherwise, the UN forces, as a rule, were able to win at the expense of superiority in firepower.
If not, it affected the Chinese advantage in close combat — situations where UN troops won bayonet attacks were rare, and there were not so much the Americans as their allies, mostly the Turks and representatives of the countries of the British Commonwealth.



The last time the Chinese used similar tactics in 1979, in the war against Vietnam, and very poorly, the Vietnamese machine gunners literally hundreds of PLA human waves.

Not immediately, only after a thorough study of the experience of the first year of the war, the Americans finally developed their own special, quite competent countering tactics against the Chinese. In which they took into account, first of all, the lack of heavy weapons among Chinese volunteers and the problems associated with the supply of their parts by air. All this made the Chinese very vulnerable in the war of maneuver that they were trying to impose on the Americans.

The Americans now began to occupy, first of all, fortified heights, and at night they allowed the Chinese to seep and occupy the territory around them, and then destroy them the next day, using their superiority in the air and firepower.
The features of the Sino-American confrontation on the Korean fronts were most accurately expressed by military historian D. Rees, who noted that “the Korean war is an interesting example of a conflict in which one side successfully realized its advantage in firepower, and the other - superiority in manpower. "
It is also interesting to note that the Chinese veterans polled by historian M. Hastings argued that the Americans seemed to them a less serious opponent than the Japanese. According to them, the Americans lacked the will, and templates prevailed in their tactics.


Based on:
http://garry-71.livejournal.com/80297.html
http://www.milresource.ru/War-in-Korea-4-3.html
http://makkawity.livejournal.com/1451156.html
Author:
10 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 30 July 2013 07: 46 New
    10
    It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Chinese army suffered the brunt of the Korean War. It lost approx. 1 million troops. There, Mao's son also died.
  2. Kars
    Kars 30 July 2013 08: 39 New
    +7
    The most voluntary volunteers.
  3. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 30 July 2013 09: 55 New
    0
    UN troops Ha ha ha wassat
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 30 July 2013 11: 04 New
      +5
      Officially, yes.

      Troops participated:
      Belgium
      Greece
      Colombia
      Luxembourg
      Netherlands
      USA
      Thailand
      Turkey
      Philippines
      France
      Ethiopian Empire
      UK
      Flag of Australia.svg Australia
      new Zealand
      Canada
      South African
      1. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil 30 July 2013 11: 15 New
        +2
        Yes, before the Americans had some sense of humor! good
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 30 July 2013 17: 00 New
        -4
        99% were US troops.
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 30 July 2013 17: 14 New
          +2
          Not really. Something around 70-75
    2. valokordin
      valokordin 30 July 2013 22: 16 New
      -2
      Quote: Standard Oil
      UN troops Ha ha ha wassat

      Glory to the Chinese volunteers, death to the imperialists.
  4. Sanyl
    Sanyl 30 July 2013 10: 20 New
    11
    The article is delusional. Why on a patriotic site are used for analysis data provided by the United States, which lie for any reason. Why did the Chinese count 1.5 million losses, although the same Wikipedia says that according to the PRC, the casualties in China were 60 soldiers, not 400, as the Americans say?
    As an example, let's take the data on air losses declared by the tan:
    The American side stated that 792 MiGs and 108 other aircraft were shot down, with the loss of only 78 F-86s [31]. The Soviet side, however, claimed 1106 air victories and 335 MiGs shot down [32].
    I am more inclined to trust Kozhedub rather than Chuck Yager.
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 30 July 2013 10: 23 New
      +3
      Well, trusting the wrong thing is not worth 100%. Take the middle, all exaggerate the losses of the enemy and downplay their
  5. Sanyl
    Sanyl 30 July 2013 10: 30 New
    +7
    taking into account the fact that our pilots flew only over the territory of North Korea, the losses claimed by our pilots could be confirmed much more accurately.
  6. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 30 July 2013 10: 56 New
    +2
    N-yes ... Another set of stamps about unpretentious children of nature filling up the enemy with their corpses.
    If anyone is interested in the war in Korea in 1950-1953, read to start a little book called "The War in Korea 1950 - 1953." It was written in hot pursuit, so to speak, by a team of authors led by S. Lototsky.
  7. apro
    apro 30 July 2013 12: 07 New
    +2
    Article Amer’s propaganda. The PRC’s intervention in this war, the need for the USSR, because of the circumstances, could not directly take part, and the appearance of amers under its very side is extremely undesirable as long as there is a taipei. All these losses in millions are propaganda, how else to explain having an advantage in the air 90% in the sea 100% in artillery are technically overwhelming and suppress the war except by covering up with corpses and there is nothing to say. Participation in the PRC war is an exam and the Chinese people's army passed it, to reduce the war to a draw is like a tyson om hold out all the rounds and walk away with your own feet.
  8. RoTTor
    RoTTor 30 July 2013 16: 07 New
    +1
    The People's Liberation Army of China is our worthy brother and, at that time, a reliable ally of the Red Army. The war in Korea is an example of fraternal international assistance to the fraternal people against international aggression.
    At a later time, only Cubans demonstrated the same fraternity and high morale.
    Marshal Pen De Huai is a great commander.
    If Comrade Stalin lived for several more years, the USSR would be the greatest country in the world.
  9. D9630
    D9630 30 July 2013 17: 48 New
    -2
    Interestingly, if the Americans won that war, seized the whole of Korea and made it a single capitalist state, would the North Koreans die of starvation in the 90s by the thousands?
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 30 July 2013 19: 43 New
      0
      D9630 "I wonder if the Americans won that war, seized all of Korea and made it a single capitalist state, would the North Koreans die of starvation in the 90s by the thousands?"
      Yes, what thousands! Tens, hundreds of thousands ... hehe in the 90s, the North Koreans died out! Just something did not die out.
    2. Alone
      Alone 31 July 2013 20: 09 New
      -1
      It is interesting that if the Germans won the Second World War, we probably would have been the richest and most enlightened nation under their master’s wing ?!
  10. воронов
    воронов 30 July 2013 21: 12 New
    +4
    Another nonsense about how the Chinese “filled up” the corpses of Amers, by analogy, we “filled up” the corpses of the Germans and did not say a word that we, the Chinese, simply knew how to fight well in those days. soldier
  11. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 21: 37 New
    +4
    Well, firstly, in China, only in October 1949 the Civil War ended, and given that it started in 1927 and stopped only for the war with the Japanese, you can take into account how many China had well trained, hardened, fired soldiers. At the same time, the Chinese command was very well aware of its lag behind the Americans in firepower. The Chinese at the initial stage of the hostilities almost completely lacked tanks, self-propelled guns, heavy artillery, MLRS, so the Chinese command chose the right tactics of the so-called. "partisan actions", i.e. blows on the lines of communication of the Americans and South Koreans from which they were extremely sensitive. At the same time, the Chinese tried to strike as hard as possible with a maximum force on small American forces, with the goal of their complete destruction. This tactic was successful, the Americans suffered several severe defeats. The Chinese have actively used the “false retreat” tactics to ambush the Americans and South Koreans, cut them off the supply routes and defeat them. For example, in order to lure the Americans out of their strong defensive position between Hangang and Pyongyang, Peng Dan Huai ordered his units to imitate the panic. On November 24, MacArthur sent South divisions directly into the trap. Bypassing the UN troops from the west, the Chinese surrounded them with a 420th army and inflicted a flank attack on the 8th American army. In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir (November 26 - December 13), a regiment of the 7th US Infantry Division was defeated. The mentioned tactics of "living waves" were used by the Chinese at the first stage of their participation, when during the offensive they defeated the Americans and South Koreans, liberated the territory of the DPRK and captured Seoul.
    At other stages of the war, the Chinese, having exhausted their offensive potential, switched to defensive actions in order to keep the captured. At the same time, with the help of the USSR, they increased their technical potential and actively engaged in training the KPA, which was practically destroyed after the Americans landed in Incheon. In the event of Chinese striking at this stage of the war, they were able to inflict significant losses on the enemy, as in April 1951 One blow was delivered to the western sector of the front and two auxiliary ones to the center and east. They broke through the UN line of forces, divided American forces into isolated groups and rushed to Seoul. In the direction of the main blow was the 29th British brigade, which occupied a position on the Imgin River. Having lost more than a quarter of the personnel in the battle, the brigade was forced to retreat. In total, during the offensive from April 22 to 29, up to 20 thousand soldiers and officers of the American and South Korean troops were wounded and captured. However, this attack was stopped by the significantly superior firepower of the Americans and their complete superiority in air and sea. Nevertheless, the Americans, having such superiority, were not able to break through the defensive positions of the Chinese and North Koreans.
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 21: 38 New
      +3
      Secondly, it is necessary to take into account complete air supremacy over the battlefield of American aviation. This superiority was achieved due to the fact that the few DPRK air forces (79 Yak-9, 93 Il-10) were almost destroyed at the initial stage of the Korean War, and the pilots of the Soviet 64th IAK operating on modern jet MiG-15 were banned approach the front line and fly over the sea, and the created Sino-Korean Joint Air Army (OVA) began to operate only in the late summer of 1951, when the war had already become positional.
      Thirdly, Mao Tse-tung fully achieved his political objectives. He showed the whole world and especially the United States the increased power of the Chinese army and the fact that China is one of the leading players in the Asian region and should be reckoned with. The same has shown China and the USSR. Therefore, after the death of Stalin and the coming to power of Khrushchev, Mao Tse-tung broke off relations with the USSR, which subsequently led to a confrontation on the border and to a conflict on Damansky Island in 1969. Yours faithfully! hi
  12. Beck
    Beck 30 July 2013 21: 46 New
    -12
    What are the VOLUNTEERS, in a stump deck. If you write "volunteers" then in quotation marks. Volunteers are international brigades in Spain in 30 years.

    Collected, by communist orders, the peasants, instead of weapons, provided with communist slogans and drove the herd to slaughter. And not for a fair war, but to help the aggressor Kim Il Sung. He was the first to attack the South from the Kremlin’s submission, if not from the submission, then with permission, before receiving Soviet weapons. And the word is international, the Chinese peasant did not know. He knew his fanza and his rice check.

    In general, the Chinese military doctrine of those times, and even now, is based on the principle of Human Waves. This is when an attack, on any defense, all the more fortified, is attacked chain by chain, regardless of losses. The first waves, for example 10, turn into mountains of corpses, before the enemy’s defense. The calculation is simple, or the enemy will run out of ammunition, or the trunks will overheat. The 15th or 20th wave in some percentage of cases burst into the enemy’s trenches.

    During the civil war between Chai Kang Shi and Mao, both sides used human wave tactics. And often rifles were only in the first, second waves. Subsequent waves went without weapons, they had to pick up the rifles of the destroyed first waves and continue to attack.

    And the Chinese adopted the tactics of Human Waves in the mid-20s from a foreign military adviser. This adviser was the Soviet military leader, Marshal Blucher.

    During the capture of the Crimea, Blucher commanded 51 divisions. This division was supposed to attack Perekop in the forehead. It was then that Blucher first applied his innovation. The soldiers walked on the fortified shaft wave after wave. The losses were huge, unjustified, by Bolshevik cruel. But Commander Blucher earned fame.

    Blucher used, if I may say so, "backwaves", being the commander in Primorye. I don’t remember, but either near Volochaevka, or near Spassky. In winter, Blucher waves attacked the White Guard trenches, in front of which several rows of barbed wire were pulled. The first six waves, it was mainly Koreans, went on the attack without weapons. They had scissors, wire cutters, etc. Their task was to cut the barbed wire. And they cut it off, and almost all remained corpses there from rifle and machine-gun fire. And only the seventh wave, it was the Red Army with rifles.
  13. valokordin
    valokordin 30 July 2013 22: 22 New
    +1
    Becks are a White Guard, then an enemy.
  14. smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 30 July 2013 23: 09 New
    +5
    Well, if you quote "Chinese volunteers", you need to quote UN troops, because when the UN Security Council resolution was adopted, the resolution proposed by the Americans was adopted with nine votes in the absence of "against." The representative of Yugoslavia abstained, and the Soviet ambassador Jacob Malik boycotted the vote. According to other sources, the USSR did not participate in the vote on the Korean problem, since by that moment it had withdrawn its delegation in protest against the fact that China was represented by the government of the Republic of China at the UN. And the basis in these troops (95 percent were Americans and North Koreans), and all the rest were for "furniture".
    Secondly, from these, as you put it, “peasants” elite American marines were draping, so much so that the American commander D. MacArthur asked to use atomic weapons, for which he was dismissed. Or do you seriously think that the aggressor Kim Il Sung attacked a peaceful South Korea, where about 100 people had already died by the time the war began, while South Korean dictator Lee Sung was suppressing riots and armed riots and border clashes on the thirty-eighth Mans brought from the United States in 000 so suppressed dissenters that he was eventually overthrown as part of the revolution, with the tacit approval of the United States. The fact that he was a man is evidenced by the fact that his main electoral candidate, Cho Bon Am, was accused of violating the national security law and executed (though it was after the war).
    Thirdly, where do you get such confidence that the Chinese can only fight with “living waves”, especially now when their army is not much different from the armies of developed Western countries in terms of technical equipment? Or beaten American generals reported. Some battered field marshals and generals also wrote memoirs about the "bloodthirsty hordes of the Red Mongols (Chinese, North Koreans, Reds), necessary to emphasize, with live waves moving on their machine guns, and about the machine gunners who went crazy, as well as evil commissars, security officers and detachments. Some so you still repeat their fables. The truth is the war ended for them with a crushing defeat.
    Fourth, where did you get the idea that Blucher advised the Chinese on this tactic. Since he was a military adviser in China. The tactics of infantry waves were used by the parties in the First World War. Do not forget that Perekop attacked only part of the 51st division under the command of Blucher whose main task was to distract, not letting White withdraw forces to repel the main forces of the division that crossed the shallowed Sivash and attacked the fortifications of Perekop from the rear. So bring facts confirmed by authoritative sources, and not "I think so", please do not refer to the opinions of yellow liberal books and newspapers.
    1. Beck
      Beck 31 July 2013 07: 57 New
      -2
      Quote: valokordin
      Becks are a White Guard, then an enemy.


      This is a Bolshevik slogan. Who thinks otherwise is the enemy. Give you a rifle, you will shoot those who disagree with your opinion without trial or investigation, only on the basis of the Bolshevik slogan - In the name of the revolution, to the wall.

      Quote: smiths xnumx
      it’s necessary to quote UN troops,


      Why you need to quote. In Chad, or where there are now also UN troops and most soldiers from African countries. As much as he can, he allocates as much. On Bl. In the east, most blue helmets are Europeans. And American troops were closest to Korea. And in general, what principle do you follow? By your constructions, modern fascists now justify Hitler's aggression. You are also making excuses for Kim. Who was the first to attack and demand.

      Quote: smiths xnumx
      Secondly, from these, as you put it, "peasants" elite American marines were draping


      In military affairs, there is such a term - Overwhelming numerical superiority, especially when it is applied suddenly.

      Quote: smiths xnumx
      and South Korean dictator Lee Sung Man, brought from the United States in 1945, so suppressed dissenters that he was eventually overthrown as part of the revolution, with the tacit approval of the United States.


      The road to democracy is thorny. South Korea came to her through a series of dictatorships, but she did. And in the post-Soviet space, democracy is undergoing a series of orange revolutions, authoritarian regimes, and riots. Now riots in Egypt so send the Russian troops there and say - As in Korea, bulo.

      Quote: smiths xnumx
      Thirdly, where do you get such confidence that the Chinese can only fight with “living waves”, especially now when their army is not much different from the armies of developed Western countries in terms of technical equipment?


      I first heard about the Chinese waves in 1969, when I served in the SA in Primorye, 60 km from Damansky Island. The officers gave us such information in connection with the events. They also said that in the Chinese army sabotage groups from 3 to 500 people are very developed. They are unpretentious, can sit in a swamp for two days. Act mainly with knives. Even before the Daman events, they were filming our sentries at our posts on our side. And technology is now an application to their tactics. Communists have never considered human lives.

      Quote: smiths xnumx
      Fourth, where did you get the idea that Blucher advised the Chinese on this tactic.


      I read it before the collapse of the USSR. In World War I and then in other armies, chains of soldiers went on the attack. In China, human waves. At Perekop, yes, a distracting maneuver, the main blow was delivered from Sivash. But even a distracting maneuver should not turn into a slaughterhouse.
  15. Beck
    Beck 31 July 2013 07: 59 New
    -1
    Quote: smiths xnumx
    So bring facts confirmed by authoritative sources, and not "I think so", please do not refer to the opinions of yellow liberal books and newspapers.


    You, what I think is all, recently, somewhere I read in one article. What I said is my opinion has been developing for a long time from various sources. And not from the Internet, I own a computer at the "teapot" level. Therefore, I can’t give you links. To name those books, magazines, articles that I once read, now I do not have the opportunity. This must be carried over to the times of the USSR, then my worldview developed.
    1. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 31 July 2013 15: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Beck
      Why you need to quote. In Chad, or where there are now also UN troops and most soldiers from African countries. As much as he can, he allocates as much. On Bl. In the east, most blue helmets are Europeans. And American troops were closest to Korea. And in general, what principle do you follow? By your constructions, modern fascists now justify Hitler's aggression. You are also making excuses for Kim. Who was the first to attack and demand.

      UN troops do not take part in hostilities. They do not flood the country with napalm, do not use chemical and bacteriological weapons, and do not threaten the use of nuclear weapons, as was the case in Korea.
      UN Peacekeeping Forces (UN peacekeeping contingent) —the armed contingents of countries of the UN member states, allocated according to the UN Charter to prevent or eliminate threats to peace and security through joint coercive actions (military demonstration, military blockade, etc.), if economic and political measures character will be or were insufficient.

      The war on the border of North and South Korea by June 26, 1950 was already "de facto" and several tens of thousands of people died in it. It was just that the DPRK had time to prepare faster and struck first, like Israel in 1967 (or do you consider Israel an aggressor?)
      Quote: Beck
      In military affairs, there is such a term - Overwhelming numerical superiority, especially when it is applied suddenly.

      800 thousand people. not a needle in a haystack you can’t hide them. Moreover, the PRC leadership has publicly stated that China will enter the war if any non-Korean military forces cross the 38th parallel. In early October, a warning was transmitted to the UN through the Indian Ambassador to China. However, President Truman did not believe in the possibility of widespread Chinese intervention, claiming that the Chinese warnings were only "attempts to blackmail the UN." That is, a gross miscalculation of American politicians and generals, specifically Truman and MacArthur, who dreamed of "ending the war by Christmas," who believed that China was taking them "in fear," and when the Chinese struck, began to clutch at the nuclear bomb. These are the words of Truman.
      We will destroy all ports or cities in order to achieve our peaceful goals ... This means a universal war. This means that Moscow, St. Petersburg, Mukden, Vladivostok, Beijing, Shanghai, Port Arthur, Dairen, Odessa and Stalingrad and all industrial enterprises in China and the Soviet Union will be wiped off the face of the earth.

      Moreover, the numerical superiority of the Chinese was more than compensated by the complete superiority of the "UN troops" in heavy weapons, in the air and at sea, which the Chinese could not oppose.
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 31 July 2013 16: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Beck
        The road to democracy is thorny. South Korea came to her through a series of dictatorships, but she did. And in the post-Soviet space, democracy is undergoing a series of orange revolutions, authoritarian regimes, and riots. Now riots in Egypt so send the Russian troops there and say - As in Korea, bulo.

        What kind of democracy, the American model, with humanitarian carpet bombing and occupation of the territory of rebellious countries. All these "orange revolutions" and riots are just another banal redistribution of the world according to the scenario. written in Washington. And why should Russia send troops to Egypt? We are not the United States and honor international law.
        Quote: Beck
        I first heard about the Chinese waves in 1969, when I served in the SA in Primorye, 60 km from Damansky Island. The officers gave us such information in connection with the events. They also said that in the Chinese army sabotage groups from 3 to 500 people are very developed. They are unpretentious, can sit in a swamp for two days. Act mainly with knives. Even before the Daman events, they were filming our sentries at our posts on our side. And technology is now an application to their tactics. Communists have never considered human lives.
        Sorry, what kind of human waves these are "sabotage groups of 3-500 people each." Moreover, in those days there were a lot of horror stories, many believed (including my parents) that Damansky Island and the Chinese on it were generally burned with lasers, and he was intact. It’s just that the Chinese used the tactics that they could afford in the conditions of the overwhelming fire superiority of the Soviet troops, and not wanting the further development of the conflict. And this tactic brought them some results, for example, they unfortunately managed to knock out the latest Soviet T-62 tank, which now stands in the PLA Museum, in Beijing. And you have to do with the Communists. Remember how frenzied during World War I the “democratic” command (the English, French, German, including the tsarist Russian) laid down its soldiers with the goal of breaking through the enemy’s defenses. Where are the Chinese.
        Quote: Beck
        I read it before the collapse of the USSR. In World War I and then in other armies, chains of soldiers went on the attack. In China, human waves. At Perekop, yes, a distracting maneuver, the main blow was delivered from Sivash. But even a distracting maneuver should not turn into a slaughterhouse.

        Chains or human waves the difference is only in the name. No one really took into account the losses (Verdun, Somme, "Nivelles attack"). It’s just that the term “human waves” was invented by beaten generals, in order to justify their defeat. The command of the spacecraft (Frunze, including Blucher) was tasked with the speedy end of the Civil War and to prevent whites from gaining a foothold in Crimea and wintering. They completed it. The civil war in the European part of Russia was completed, the White Army was defeated and thrown into the Black Sea. As a result, White lost much more. As for how you put it, “slaughterhouses”, read how the white command threw its soldiers to storm the red fortifications on the Kakhovsky bridgehead, defended by the 51st red division, under the command of the same Blucher. Only unlike the white generals, Blucher fulfilled his task, the bridgehead restrained.
        1. Beck
          Beck 31 July 2013 19: 47 New
          0
          [quote = smiths 1977] And as for how you put it, “slaughterhouse” [/ quote]

          All slaughterhouse revolutions. Communist all the more. At any cost, power, with the help of this power, to build an ephemeral, contrary to the essence of human nature society. No wonder communism did not stand the test of time and collapsed throughout the world. The markings, DPRK and Cuba, as a model and a warning to humanity that one should not live like that.

          [quote = blacksmiths 1977] The war on the border of North and South Korea by June 26, 1950 was already "de facto" [/ quote]

          Border conflicts are border conflicts. This does not mean declaring war. Then it was necessary to move the troops of Japan or the USSR, China or the USSR on Halkin-Gol, on Hassan, on Damansky.

          [quote = blacksmiths 1977] And you have to do with the Communists. [/ quote]

          Communists are always in bad situations - in camps, during dispossession, during forced collectivization, during executions, and so on.

          [quote = blacksmiths 1977] Sorry, what kind of human waves are "sabotage groups of 3-500 people each." Moreover, in those days there were a lot of horror stories, many believed (including my parents) that Damansky Island and the Chinese on it were generally burned with lasers, and he was intact. [/ Quote]

          I'm not telling horror stories. In the first comment I did not stick out, but you did not understand. I am a participant in these Daman events. And it was only in the newspapers that 32 border guards were killed. On the ice of Ussuri, battalions 435 and 199 motorized rifle regiments of 135 divisions went on the attack. And how this tank was knocked out and how it was dragged. and how the “Grad” gave two volleys on Chinese territory, and how Damansky mined I could tell myself. And sabotage groups of 500 people are not a gambus to cross the front line. Seep somewhere unite, commit sabotage.

          [quote = blacksmiths 1977] And you have to do with the Communists. Remember how frenzied during World War I, the "democratic" command (English, French, German, including tsarist Russia) laid down its soldiers in order to break through the enemy’s defenses. [/ Quote

          Do not confuse military necessity and rule.
          1. smiths xnumx
            smiths xnumx 31 July 2013 21: 15 New
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            All slaughterhouse revolutions. Communist all the more. At any cost, power, with the help of this power, to build an ephemeral, contrary to the essence of human nature society. No wonder communism did not stand the test of time and collapsed throughout the world. The markings, DPRK and Cuba, as a model and a warning to humanity that one should not live like that.
            As Otto von Bismarck said, “Geniuses prepare revolutions, make romantics, and take advantage of the fruits of rascals.” But unfortunately, they are the impetus that allows society to develop. You know, they don’t make history with white gloves. You know, I’m not a supporter of communism, nevertheless, China calls itself a communist society, as well as Vietnam.
            Quote: Beck
            Border conflicts are border conflicts. This does not mean declaring war. Then it was necessary to move the troops of Japan or the USSR, China or the USSR on Halkin-Gol, on Hassan, on Damansky.
            Border conflicts do not always turn into wars; it all depends on the will of the leadership of the countries involved in these conflicts. Neither Khalkhin-Gol, nor Hassan, nor Damansky, at the leadership of the USSR and Japan, and accordingly China, had a desire to fan the conflict into a full-scale war. Especially among the Jonians after the defeat at Khalkhin Gol. Moreover, the conflict on the Khalkhin-Gol River was a real war involving tens of thousands of people and the use of hundreds of aircraft and armored vehicles.
            Quote: Beck
            I'm not telling horror stories. In the first comment I did not stick out, but you did not understand. I am a participant in these Daman events. And it was only in the newspapers that 32 border guards were killed. On the ice of Ussuri, battalions 435 and 199 motorized rifle regiments of 135 divisions went on the attack. And how this tank was knocked out and how it was dragged. and how the “Grad” gave two volleys on Chinese territory, and how Damansky mined I could tell myself. And sabotage groups of 500 people are not a gambus to cross the front line. Seep somewhere unite, commit sabotage.
            Fortunately, I am not a participant in the conflict on Damansky Island, I have not come out for years, so I can’t say what it was. I can use only open sources.
            Quote: Beck
            Do not confuse military necessity and rule.

            Well, tell about this to the same Japanese at Khalkhin Gol or in August 1945. And filling up with corpses has never been the rule for Soviet military leaders. She was a necessity for the commanders of the First World War. Best regards! hi I can not share your views, but I can not relate without due respect to the defender of my homeland, a participant in the hostilities on Damansky Island.
            1. Beck
              Beck 1 August 2013 07: 23 New
              +1
              Quote: smiths xnumx
              I can not share your views, but I can not relate without due respect to the defender of my homeland, a participant in the hostilities on Damansky Island.


              So in order for the site to communicate and exchange views. And if opponents hold different opinions, then such communication is much more valuable, since thinking and logic make work. And with a person of the same opinion with me, to the last comma, there’s nothing to talk about. Only a certain moral satisfaction.
              1. Beck
                Beck 1 August 2013 08: 00 New
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Only a certain moral satisfaction.


                As for China. The name is the remaining husk shell. The basic postulate of socialism is that the means of production must be in the hands of the productive forces. According to theory, in the hands of the working class. By propaganda in the hands of the people. According to ideology, in the hands of the state (ruling party). There is none of this in modern China. There, Private Capital rules the economic ball. Now in China, the power of the Junta is the top leadership of the party. But not the power of the people in a socialist society.

                And for that matter. Marx was seriously mistaken in his theory, and his followers, who put the theory into practice, did a lot of trouble. Marx relied on stagnation that the socio-political structure of the middle of the 19th century would remain for a long time. As a theorist, Marx did not take into account the progressive movement of civilization and the scientific and technological revolution. If the hegemon of society, in the developed countries of that time, in quantity, was the working class. Then everything has changed. Look at the plants and factories of our time and where the workers at the machines. They are not here. Everywhere automated and robotic lines. And for the individual engineers and technicians who remained at the conveyors, the conditions of existence are absolutely different from those of the workers of the mid-19th century. Now the "hegemon" of society in developed countries has become R&D workers and service sectors (banks, firms, service industries)